The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1988 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes January- JunePLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 11, 1988 1.2:45 PM Site Visits 2:00 PM Work Session on Golden Peak House 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of December 14, 1987 2. A request for an amendment to a development plan in the Ski Base/Recreation zone district in order to construct a Children's Center at the Golden Peak Ski Base. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. 3. Work session on Gastof Gramshammar • Planning and Environmental Commission January 11, 1988 PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Vie1e STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack J.J. Collins resigned from the Baard due to moving away from Vail. 12:45 PM Site visits to Golden Peak House, Golden Peak Ski Base, and Gasthof Grammshammer 2:00 PM Work session on Golden Peak House 3:00 PM Wnrk session on Golden Peak Ski Base amendment Work session on deck enclosure at Gasthof Gramshammer • Diana Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the minutes of 12/14. The vote was 5-0 in favor. ~~ J T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department . DATE: January 11, 1988 SUBJECT: Golden Peak House building renovation and Vail Associates' ski base facility Town staff and representatives of the Golden Peak House and Vail Associates have been working on the proposed renovation and expansion of this facility for some time. A formal application was submitted in late December for review by the Planning Commission on January 25th. Because of the complex nature of this proposal, the staff and applicants felt it would be prudent to hold a work session with the Planning Commission prior to the public hearing an this application. The primary purpose of this meeting is to familiarize the Planning Commission with the various elements of this proposal. Staff presentation will not address the specific criteria to be used in evaluating this request. Rather, the staff's role at this meeting will be limited to outlining the review process and briefly covering some of the pertinent issues relative to this proposal. Time will then be allowed for the applicants to make their presentation to the Commission. Following these presentations, the Planning Commission will be encouraged to offer any comments or reactions to this proposal. Tt is our intention to avoid debate concerning the merits of the proposal. Rather, this work session is an opportunity to inform both parties of their interests concerning this project. The request involves three formal actions that the Planning Commission will respond to. These include: 1. A minor subdivision of the property 2. A request for zoning from Commercial Core Z to Special Development District. In addition, a portion of the proposal involves a zone change request from Agriculture and Open Space to Special Development District. 3. A request for an exterior alteration (Urban Design Guide Plan review of the project) The Planning Commission will act on all three of these requests. The Town Council will also review these requests because the proposal involves a change in the property zone district. As with other projects, the Design Review Board is the final review entity in the Town's review process. Attached you will find an informational packet that has been assembled by the applicant. This document outlines the elements of the proposal as well as the design solutions that have been proposed. Any questions concerning this application can be directed to Tom Braun at 4757000. r n U I Design Review Board Discussion of Primary Secondary Connection December 17, 1986 Agenda I. EXISTING WORDING CONCERNING THE PRIM/SEC. CONNECTION: 18.54.050 G13. Duplex and Primary/Secondary Residential dwelling units shall be designed in a manner that contains the two dwelling units and garages within one single structure. However, in the event that the presence of significant site characteristics necessitate a site design which includes a physical separation of the two dwelling units and/or garages into separate structures, the DRB may approve the design. Such a design may be approved only when the separate structures are visually attached by means of the use of similar and compatible architectural design, colors, and materials and/or physically connected with fences, walls, decks or other similar architectural features. • A. Leave the wording as is B. Exclude the connection requirement C. Define clearly. physical connection & design criteria and require compliance with all the criteria. 1. Unified landscape plan 2. Malls where appropriate 3. Materials: siding, roofing, trim, stone, ete. 4. Roof forms 5. Architectural style 6. Grading 7. Balcony style 8. Railings on decks, patios, and balconies 9. Window treatments II. DISCUSS OPTIONS FOR AMENDING SECTION 18.54.050 C13: D. 10% perimeter of Existing Unit Connection. . III. DISCUSS CRITERIA FOR CONNECTION BET~~EEN AN EXISTING UNIT AND PROPOSED UNIT. ,~ `~ ' t TO: Planning az~sd Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 22, 1987 SUBJECT: Amendment to Section 18.54.050 C.13, Section 18.12.090 and Section 18.13.080 of the Municipal Code (Primary/Secondary Connection) Earlier this year, the Town Council, the Design Review Board and the Town staff met in a work session to discuss the existing wording of Section 18.54.050 C. 13 of the Vail Municipal Code, which concerns the requirement for physical connection in the design of primary/secondary and duplex units. That existing wording concerning the primary/secondary and duplex connection in the Design Review Guidelines currently reads as follows: Section 1$.54.050 C. 13. Duplex and Primary/Secondary Residential dwelling units shall be designed in a manner that contains the two dwelling units and garages within one single structure. However, in the event that the presence of significant site characteristics necessitate a site design which includes a physical separation of the two dwelling units andjor garages into separate structures, the DRB may approve the design. Such a design may be approved only when the separate structures are visually attached by means of the use of similar and compatible architectural design, colors, and materials and/or physically connected with fences, walls, decks or other similar architectural features. At the first work session in December, the staff presented several passible options for rewriting and amending this section of the Design Review Guidelines. After much discussion of the pros and cons of both options and discussion relating to what specifically the guidelines were trying to accomplish, the Council gave direction to the staff to refine and re-present the basic concept that was presented under the Option A. That Option A as presented at the work session read as follows: Option A. Rewrite Section 18.54.054 C.1 to eliminate the requirement for a physical connection of the units, and at the same time strengthen and clarify the design criteria which would be required in order to create a visual connection. This ~ criteria could include a unified landscape plan for the entire lot, utilization of one road cut, compatible - . t .. w ti C materials such as siding, roofing, trim, stonework, roof forms, color schemes, balcony styles, window treatments, etc. This option would have completely eliminated requirements for a physical connection, thus allowing maximum flexibility in siting the units, in creating the scale of the units, and in creating spaces between the units. The design criteria would serve to unify the development on the site. There is concern on the part of the staff that this option could allow for development that would create the appearance of two separate single family dwellings on separate pieces of property, especially on less vegetated sites. This creates the visual appearance of density over and above that of the low density zoning. The staff rewrote this section of the Design Review regulations in the spirit and concept of the above option. This wording was reviewed with the Council at a work session in April and basically agreed upon. This wording would read as follows; 18.54.050. C. 13 (New draft) Duplex and primary/secondary residential dwelling units shall be designed an such a manner to create a unified site development. Unified site development shall require the use of similar and compatible architectural design. This includes materials (siding, roofing, tram, stone), roof forms, architectural style, balcony and window treatments, railings and other design elements. The unified site development shall include a coordinated landscape and grading plan that creates a visual appearance of a single development project. Common areas such as courtyards are encouraged to unify site development. The intent of this section is to avoid the appearance of two unrelated dwellings on one duplex or primary/secondary lot. The design of units as a single structure, and the utilization of a single road cut is encouraged. The amendment to Section 7.8.54.050 C 13 of the Municipal Code will require an amendment to two other related sections of the code. The Density Control sections of both the Two Family Residential and Residential Primary/Secondary Zone Districts state that: "Not more than a total of two dwelling units in a single structure shall be permitted on each site..." Section 18.12.090 and Section 18.13.080 of the Municipal Code should be amended by deleting the phrase 'Fin a single structure." .>.,. .~ r r~. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ~ The intent of the Council, Design Review Board and the staff is to create this guideline in such a manner that it will enable more freedom of design and siting of structures in development of primary/secondary and duplex residences. The concern of the parties involved is to maintain the ability to ensure that development is occuring in the spirit of the primary/secondary and duplex nature and is not an abuse of the zoning and subdivision regulations by creating separate and unrelated single family structures on duplex lots. The staff feels that this proposed amendment satisfies our intent while recognizing the concerns.- We recommend approval of this request as written. The Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed wording and is in substantial agreement. They did request the staff to investigate the possibility of addressing the issue of adding a unit to existing development. Our attempts at addressing this issue have created awkward wording. The staff feels this issue is best addressed by applying the design criteria proposed in the amendment. r lows of nail 75 south frontage road pail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 office of community development TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE June 24, 1987 SUBJECT: Primary/Secondary Connection The following paragraph is a transcript of the final legisla- five wording as devised during our 6/22 meeting. This wording will replace the existing Section 18.54.050.0.13 of the Municipal Code. Duplex and primary/secondary structures are encouraged to be in one structure. However, if the relationship of mass of the building to the size of the site is within appro- priate scale and a unified site plan for the entire lot is proposed, the DRB may consider the separation of structures. The intent of this section is to avoid the appearance of two unrelated dwellings on one duplex or primary/secondary lot. Unified site development shall require the use of similar and compatible architectural design. This includes materials (siding, roofing, trim, stone}, roof forms, architectural style, balcony and window treatments, railings and other design elements. The unified site development shall include a coordinated landscape and grading plan that creates a visual appearance of a single development project. Common elements of linkage such as courtyards, common entries and walkways are encouraged to unify site development. The design of units as a single structure and the utilization off' a single road cut is encouraged. If there are concerns regarding this language, please contact Rick Pylman at your earliest convenience. u E2 ~. i~ ORDINANCE NO. 22 Series of 1987 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.54.050 C.13, SECTION 18.12.090, AND SECTION 18.13.180 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT THAT DUPLEX AND PRIMARY/SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS BE ATTACHED; PROVIDING FOR UNIFIED SITE DEVELOPMENT OF DUPLEX AND PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that requiring duplex and primary/secondary residential units to be attached does not always result in the best use of a given site, and WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that duplex and primary/secondary residential units may be developed on a given site in a more imaginative and more attractive fashion as separate units so long as there is unified site development with similar . and compatible architectural design and coordinated landscaping and grading, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recommended such amendment to the Uail Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 18.54.050 C.13 is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as follows: 18.54.050 C.13 Duplex and primary/secondary residential dwelling units shall be designed in such a manner as to create a unified site development. The intent of this section is to avoid the appearance of two unrelated dwellings on one duplex or primary/secondary lot: Unified site development shall require the use of similar and compatible architectural design. This includes materials (siding, roofing, trim, stone), roof forms, architectural style, balcony and window treatments, railings and other design elements. The unified site development shall include a coordinated landscape and grading plan that creates a visual appearance of a singe development . 3 Sectlon 18.12.090 A. 1S hereb re Billed and reenacted with amendments t0 read d5 y p follows: 18.1.2.890 A. A. Not more than a total of two dwelling units shall be permitted on Bach site with only one dwelling unit permitted on lots of less than fifteen thousand square feet, and not more than twenty-five square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet for the first fifteen thousand square feet of site area, plus not more than ten square feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of site area aver fifteen thousand square feet, not to exceed thirty thousand square feet of site area, plus not more than five square feet of gross residential floor area for each one hundred square feet of site area . in excess of thirty thousand square feet. No two_family residential lot except those totally in the red hazard avalanche zone, or the floodplain, or those of less than fifteen thousand square feet shall be so restricted that it cannot be occupied by a two-family dwelling. Section 3. Section 18.13.080 A. is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as follows: 78.23.080 A Not more than a total of two dwelling units shall be permitted on each site, with only one dwelling unit permitted on lots of less than fifteen thousand square feet, and not more than twenty--five square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted far each one hundred square feet for the first fifteen thousand square feet of site area, plus not more than ten square r feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of site area over fifteen thousand square feet, not to exceed thirty thouand square feet of site area, plus not more than five square feet of gross residential floor area for each one hundred square feet of site area ~_ ,~ . .~ • units, one of the units shall not exceed rorty percent of the total allowable gross residential floor area {&RFA). No two-family residential lot except those totally in the red hazard avalanche zone, or the floodplain, yr those of less than fifteen thousand square feet steal] be so restricted that it cannot be occupied by a two-family primary/secondary residential dwelling. Section 4. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed acid reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any pravisien or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING ii-!iS day of , 1987, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of 1987 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Cnumbers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this ATTEST: Pamela A. 8randmeyer, Town Clerk day of 1987. Paul ~. Johnston, Mayor INTRODUCEC, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READIiJG AND ORDERED PUBEISHED this day of 1987. TO: Planning and Environmental Commissipn FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January l1, 1988 SUBJECT: Work session on a request for an exterior alteration to enclose an existing dining deck and add a spa room and a request for a variance to add additional common area above the allowed at the Gasthof Gramshammer. Applicant: Mr. Pepi Gramshammer The applicant is proposing the following additions to the Gasthof Gramshammer: 1. The existing southwest portion of the outside dining deck which is presently covered by a canvas awning would be enclosed. The enclosure is created by the addition of retractable glass windows along the south elevation of the dining deck. The existing wood wall along Gore Creek Drive would remain except that the material would be changed to stucco. Square Footage = 920 Square Feet. 2. A restaurant addition would be built on the north side of the existing deck area that is covered by the awning. Square Footage = 320 Square Feet. 3. A spa area would be built on the north side of the new . dining area. The spa area would be below the existing grade of the Children's Fountain Plaza. Square Footage = 300 Square Feet. Please see the attached site plan and elevations. The staff felt that a work session was warranted fnr this proposal, as the Gasthof Gramshammer property is located in a very important area of the Village, and the enclosure of any dining deck in the Village should always be looked at very closely. We recognize the applicant's position that not much is really changing with the appearance of the patio except that windows are being added to allow winter use. Staff appreciates the owner's interest in making this dining area more useable in the winter. Presently, the dining area is not used frequently in the winter time. However, staff's opinion is that the design could be improved and still meet the owner's intent to increase useage of this space for diners during the winter. With previous deck enclosure proposals, the issues of concern have been: n U 1. Are the windows floor to ceiling and operable? 2. Is the exposure of the deck to the south or north? South facing decks are particularly important to maintain. 3. Is the visibility of diners maintained in order to add to the street ambiance? 4. How much of the deck remains unenclosed after the enclosure is built? 5. Is the deck a street level or second floor deck? Street level decks axe particularly important to maintain due to their positive impacts on pedestrian areas. n The staff has two principal concerns with the proposal which are related to the design of the project. First, the visibility of diners in this area should be maintained to add to the street ambiance which is strongly encouraged in Vail Village. Secondly, the proposed enclosure should maintain a very high degree of transparency. In order to meet these two objectives, the staff would like to see the following improvements made to the proposal: 1. The existing wall along Gore Creek Drive would be removed and floor to ceiling operable windows would be used along the entire south elevation. A baseboard of 6 to 8 inches could be used at the base of the windows to keep trash and dirt from blowing into the dining space which was cited as a concern of the owner. During the winter time, the windows could be closed allowing the owner the use of this space. Diners would still be visible and add to the street ambiance even more than the existing unused patio presently does during the winter. 2. The southeast corner of the building should be redesigned to allow for a jog in the building which softens the corner of the new enclosed patio. (Please see the attached site plan.) 3. The transparent quality of the roof should be maintained. Staff believes this is very important, as one of the design problems with the Red Lion enclosure is that once inside the structure, it is very dark and has essentially lost any semblance of a patio atmosphere. Staff believes that the enclosure should maintain a greenhouse type ambiance. In order to maintain this transparent quality, the staff proposes some alternate solutions for the applicant: • a. The existing canopy could be used. b. Thermopane glass could be used far a roof structure with a canopy over the glass. c. Thermopane glass could be used by itself, creating a greenhouse appearance. d. A shake shingle roof could be used with large skylights similar to what was used at the Sweet Basil deck enclosure. 4. Staff believes that the side door off of the western elevation should be made as inconspicuous as possible due to its impact on the children's fountain plaza. There is also concern about the impact of the entrance on the large spruce trees in the same area. The staff would propose that perhaps a side door could come off the north elevation of the restaurant addition with a stairway down to the spa level. Even though the door is necessary far emergency ingress and egress, the impact of the door could be minimized if it were located an the north elevation. Because of the importance of this project, staff felt it would be helpful to both the Planning Commission and applicant if the PEC discussed this proposal informally before the formal review which is scheduled for January 25th. LJ ~~ t I i i II ' w ~, •~ ,• t ~ j ~ (~ } t Crt '-i f + - __x t in .. ~ a ~ --; _ Y ~ t ~ ~ `fri.. 4 c1 ~ ~S. } t ~ ~ i x+.., kY :. ri,q d ~L ~vprs~ 1 ~u. -, yh t•- q -.-•'~L 3"`' F ~~~~~i{ ? .~' - .y~ 9wFr '~, r 4' ~ .~n~ i~ a~ '`+1~ z i ~, ~; S :~+SSa t t ti ~ - •.~ yn/'1 s' r ~ Fr t ;R•S i~ r ~#`3~dr"k~~~~ i, _ _ ~ _ ~'{~j w ;M r ~ X pr. ~ Fi k ~. t~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ p ~. T ', f ~ ~ .~ - i ~ -- -ciZ 7s nk s ~ $y`_ '! ,~ ~%r ,.'r -. ;'I~~r~ ~ 'a 1 -~ _ r A d ~}1t -~ >. cs a 1 n ~` t~ `C .r 5'' ~.~ ~r ~t.-~ ~ ~~ ~ +S ~ ~f, 1 fj.~i-~'~f"'~AF~~+" ~~ y' ~j~[ i~i~ .~~ "~~'.. ~ #-. 'its ttb~x ,d'~;~,* ~ ~ 1 - S, of ; r. 1 M y `_ ~ 7 ~ - f ~ 's'Y - }, 4 • ~- ` t L _ _• _~ P.~ h 1• G r~ v ~ y g j, t f. i.- ~~} _ d tie ns _ ? : ~ ° ~ f `' r •~ `s ' ~ .;e ~r r ^wYl~ i `~ .+ ~'~ T Yes- ~ ~ !~. - - •K,t,.." 'tt + ~~ +~" F ~ ' ~-` 7 N ~ ~. i Y .•:~ .7 .rte ~*"a ~y, iff `o- ~:' 4- F y't~ ~ + r ~,a~Y it§~cF~ o s ~.. _ , i,Y F• ~ li r ~M1 ~~ ~ ~~~: v ~ ~ ~~ y9, ~. _ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~. 'tis ~'; +' C ~ 4' .. .S ;, r t r! }V ~ { ~ ~'t -' ~1° i1p ~ ~ f 1 I yl. is?~ ~ ~ t ,r,.v ~ -sic a7.^ - hy. 3~~ .~ . '+.~ R f ~ ~~ 1 ~ ~ 3 ''S ~ r f'J~r. - '~,'~• J a, n ''1 _ ~» N ~ r~i.LLVV~ ~ ~.i ~~~r ~ I ~ tis~ ~~- ~ h ~ y 3 ~ a i ~, ~ ~,`¢y ~i ~ iw,w.n. .' - -.' r °. ""r..~ - - ~ t ~el~ ''r..lp~ Y~ta~ _ _,?~ 1 . E + ~ ~ 'ri. - r ~. ~ - - .. ~ '.•; ,j~- Y 5' -ay'~ ~i~-~„r~_ ~ 4n -0t~?"`~S~„~i7~ ~ °~'~ r'~. r at" ~tA4 <,~ ~ ~ k- 4 r ~' ~, r Y H kg r ~ ~ a_ ' ~ 4r _ ~h a. ' ~ i~ Jr~ ~ v t,~,~ y t j E `4~~ ~,y~a `,~ C ~S s~dl-Y ``4.'~ t„ ~ ;C~'~ ~'~' F~" `2i,r -. _ _ ~'~~`: t 5 ~ _~ `~ sz - ~ ~ 4 ~ cCr~ Er Y ~sx ~ S . ` ~ # ~y ~ t ~_ #xg H ~ r - t sk - Ir, s ~; i ~' S i` ,,~ '~ s I( h _ .> ~ F ~ h ~ - ~ --R „ta ei.: h,1'% jj~~' -- F ~ ~.. ~d'~ ~Sra, r y as~ -i °y,~,. ~,f'~' `w3^ ~~~ - C .3' if. F -5. ,- - 3,~ ~~ t - ~- i ~ s_ Y ., ~ - l _-u y ~~ . 1'' 1}( y}~~~ _ - k-ram-. A ~r .T ~ ~x ~ ~ f -~ ~- "kf;lC ~ •.f.. T .F 'y t ~~.-' ~A,vJ{ '14 r j `s' 2 4~ yp k L ~ .~ ~ 'f~ - ;ah - - r ' - ~ s ''~ ti - - - _ Fr• -' ' . _ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ e, ~ ~ ~ ~ s sir _ '' -}• ~Y ~ F~'~ F k .':'_~~- r !tea 'r ~S~. _ h ~.. ~, _I,: ~ '.ti'l _ t Ms'q`'~" ~,k r} .sk f Y ~i.~a(~~~ Sri If _ ~' a A ~ _ ~ ~e ~.~~ }~ l ? §i t 1~~ i T, l ~ ~'~~1 ? - . -c . . I y ~ -l,y ; S - 6 - ~ e~ ~ Fr.c k " hk ~Ft ~'w!...,'~Ik '.My ~ - --rr F~ ir.rfi " ~ ~-. -'tl ,• ~~ 1,• a -,-w ~' ~ .'.i f - 1' r - 1 ~ d 1h - l 4~ - tin FF - ~ y rr8 Z 4 i ~ ~ ~: ~('- '` ' »rw, -;~- r a ~ ssl~'~' s~- ~l,,l Fy y, N'+ -~+- a; r.{.yo.'tr~r. s '`L- . ~kFy t ~'Y =~ -Stay ih ~~=''r5 ~ -~ y~~,~n ~i~"s%^~ 'f .' -at r his-~:'r»~.-.~ r - ~• ti,~ `" > 9,^.:'-,~. "=° f ^"tip s~ ~r,~ a~ ,sy ' 0 i- r ear :, l~ , ~ + •r„ "~~~ ~~ y~,~5~.~5 ~~`S~~ i _ ., _ t+ ~ 'lei! ,~ ~, ~ ~ - ~• r ,t~•y~y#7~.~ y''kj ~ ~ , } fa' /~ tt - r w• -E- rvjl Kr 1' 4C~s a ' ] i f ' 'a ~ .j~ ~ ~~ f f k -hS " ~ # ~ ~ ~~ ~i ~ ~~ i~{ ~ r~~ •- .. 1 'irx ~~~~ b r ~ C i~ .T ~^ s ~ hp O j ' b ', Y ,fin f F~ ~ Y ~'-~4 ~~~'wi~Te~' r.r' .? .. P-~ ~~R99 ~.~¢J,' ~•~. r9 r~.!'h Fl ., , ~ •~a r r ~F: ~ r• A ~~` ~ ~ - S ~~~•." ~ ! - i ~ ueY•, ~-~.. ; ~~ ti ~ ` - T t~ ~, :Fi, fi E....,,.~.,,..,y k 1.' _: w ~ 6 E w-~ ~~ ~ IE C, . .~A } ~G 4,f" - -_ jb ~}~ ~.'~ '~^ `A-'~fi L :{° S r'7. yf ?.L'iRi .i i~~' r !' !Y` j S ~ ~~. 11'4'.~L ~ j 1~.~ S; 9 ~1•~~Y1 ~i ~"+y f A" l - *; -'.lu' ~~.~ K! ~3 r. r °' l 'rlfw 3?~ ` t t- -- ~ ~' .. `ti .r S 5~.~~ ~ Y~1 itNk.,~~ Y I ~ s Y ; '+ '.l ^ rr ~",do- ~3 "~~~1~ 3 a ~ ~ J~ ~' _ ~''~ Y r ti 2 ys ~yY ~fi j ~ ~ Sy. h ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ' t dr ~' .t.fr,~,.kg ' ~+ ~ t i,. ~A - `a'+ _; 1 `~ d 4} 1 .! ~~ ; ' • r - i* ] '`~ ~ ~ i ~ 3= { ~, ..vl., . + :~> } ~ -~ I ' ~ a ., ' .~ Isr t y`~~ d+Y~PC _ ir` j ~ ~ - 't~s E!1 ~ ~t _ i ^_~j. ~~ ... ; ,., ' ~~~t. ~+F ~t }'4!4 j. .1~rr ~ y'~ s~'.iF~4/ .~5~^{l~r Fr~ ~~~ ~ 1 3 1~ ~ lr- e . I !$y$~l 1 ; iJ7J~' +~t~']{. T i ; t.(j if ' FE k _~ -_~, _~ _ ~ }~ s ~, ~: ,r ~ _ .. ~ ~ .. , ; ~ ~ - ~ 11 ~.~ -~..y,. S.:- ~ ~ ~ ii, ,yd .1, .a it ~ ~ ~ k 3'~ ' ' :.~ s - iT ~,' ~ 9` ~, ~i - - r ~~ • k .. 3~ S ~~ .. ; ;. ~ ~ _ ~' 1r41~,, ~ it ~f~ ,~ : ~ - ' ~, a .!' ¢, i- w_ z k s.. "~ ~ ~ r '. i F. .,~ r `Rai a -~-a'~"~,~w 1TM^r~ ~ie`~ „Tfsr. . a t ~.l Y ~ik~p7 ~ ~ .5 C ~ x r~ r _ .y ~ zw.4 ~'t ~~ r Ss ~wS .ry r~. ~, ° S ~ s : 'S yr! ~ p+.. ~ k .,,'~ i ._ ~ }7 k~;:-~ ..~1 ~ ~~ L ._': ;. '~~ ~N~yl~ S3ti~A'73 ~'. 1-it 1 {. ~. z ~ { t 4r i f i° ~` ~, ~' F ~ 1+: i ~ - y~ ~ ,~ ~ ~r ~ e~i, ~ ~° i.; r' w ~ z i y F t ,~- 9 .c, 'tU I`l. ~ 1 t„~~:- j i ~,w~„~ ~ ~F ~~_ 1~ ~~ •~ x ~- ~ Ht9 i~ .~ r: i Sa r y t w i t_ y~ ., . r - ,~_ ;_ .. .- .. .. _ _. .~ . . .. .'s ` '~r` - - ,. ~_ ., - .. : _. _ _ _ ~. ~i f i ~ .!€.. p • • ~~e .. €~ .-- ~~ _ ~f ~.~ ~ law ~~~ i ~'t -.. ' hyt • ,~ ~~. ,. :„ ~ -~ ~. ~ ~,~ 4+. .'~~ C ~Y"'' ''z .st~ * "1'f ~...J'~.' 't'Ky^~~ ~4r~ ti~ ' . ~ `~`~';- ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~`1 ~ h „• 3 ~~ _ ~{'~^ S `~., r S ~µ~' -IV ~ { ~~ ~ ~. ~4j ~ z - A' ~i' i f~ ~~ ;, ~~: . Viz: `: • ,.,. u~ ~ ~ ~ 'may d` v , ' ~ `~ Jtip~ ,,. ! 5 s - f Y t€ t _I is~~'~~ I.F. ~ p~ ~' ~-. _ . ~. ~"k~ `, ~~~ ~ ; { .:W._ w__ ._.-.. ._. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: January 11, 1988 SUBJECT: Work session on Golden Peak Nursery, Ski Base/Recreation District BACKGROUND OF REQUEST Several years ago, Vail Associates received approval for a master plan and development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base/ Recreation District. The concept of that development plan was to retain all the uses in one main building. The existing building was to be removed and a new building was to be constructed in the same general location as the existing building. The proposed amendments to that development plan involve breaking out the use of the child care and children ski school program and placing those uses in a separate building. The master plan construction would then proceed in two phases. Phase I is the new child care center and children's ski school area. Phase II would essentially remain the same as the original development plan. The building footprint would not change, the building bulk and mass would not change, the children's ski school use would simply be deleted from the building. The official zone district, Chapter 18.39, would be amended by deleting the children's use from the main building, and allowing a separate building with that use. All other aspects of the zone district would remain the same. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL Impacts of this proposal include parking considerations, revisions and improvements to the bus stop/skier drop-off area, view Considerations, and impacts upon tennis courts 7, 8 and 9, located in the southeast portion of the Golden Peak site. Parking requirements for the Ski Base/Recreation District as described in Chapter 18.39 are to be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission. For this proposed Phase I development, Vail Associates is proposing to provide 11 spaces that would be used exclusively for child drop-off at the Children's Center. The existing parking and proposed parking plan for the Phase TT area are not proposed to be amended through this process. . A part of the original Golden Peak development plan entails substantial improvements to the bus stop skier drop-off area. A good portion of these improvements are being proposed during this Phase T construction. Vail Associates will amend and construct the skier drop-off and bus stop area. They will provide rough-in conduit for installation of control gates at each end of the bus stop. They have also agreed to provide $10,000 for the installation of those control gates at the time of construction of Phase IZ. Tf the Town of Vail wishes to install the gates prior to construction of Phase II, Vail Associates will reimburse the Town of Vail up to $10,000 upon commencement of Phase II construction. The view impacts have been demonstrated through photographic displays and also through an on-site ridge line demonstration. The proposed building style, being partially earth sheltered, somewhat mitigates the view impacts to the neighborhood. The recreation plan and the impacts upon the tennis courts and bike path are by far the biggest issues the staff sees with this proposal. The Vail Metropolitan Recreation District has 75 years remaining on their ground lease for the tennis courts at the Golden Peak site. The proposed Children's Center physically impacts one of the three southeastern courts and creates negative impacts on the two remaining southeastern courts. The Vail Metropolitan Recreation District has requested at this time that Vail Associates replace at least two of the three courts on site. Vail Associates does have a conceptual plan to relocate these tennis courts to the southwest of the four courts that are west of the Golden Peak building. This site planning, although functional, is somewhat forced on the site. Neither the tennis nor the bike path will be of the same quality that currently exists on the site. At this time, Vail Associates is working with the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District to try to come up with other alternatives to the tennis situation. One alternative that Vail Associates is proposing that the staff feels has some merit, is to provide the VMRD with a letter of credit to cover the cost of the on-site tennis court relocation, but not to commence construction on that for a period of one year. This may allow other planning work to continue with the possibility of a comprehensive tennis and swimming facility eventually being located in Ford Park. STAFF POS1TlON Staff is supportive of the general concept of the two-phased development at Golden Peak. We feel that it makes sense to separate the Children's Center from the main building and feel that it is a positive step toward the development of Golden Peak in a quality manner. Vail Associates will provide an improved bus stop area. They have also agreed to participate as a 50o partner with the Town of Vail in construction of a sidewalk on the north side of Vail Valley Drive from Manor Vail to the Ramshorn. Concerns of the staff regarding this project relate to the issue of the tennis Court relocation. We support VMRD's position of maintaining tennis as an important summer recreation, yet have concerns with the current proposal to relocate those courts on site. We feel that relocation creates problems with the bike path as well as some minor impacts to the beginner skier area at the base of Chair 12. Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1988 1:30 PM Site Inspections 2:30 PM Work session on Vail Mountain School addition 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of January 11, 1988. 2. A request for an exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, and a rezoning to a Special Development District for the Golden Peak House. Applicants: Catacombs, Ltd, Golden Peak House Association, Vail Associates, Inc. 3. A request for an exterior alteration and a common area variance in order to construct a spa and to enclose a portion of the existing dining deck at the Gasthof Gramshammer. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer 4• A request for a minor subdivision to create twa Primary/Secondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing, 443 Beaver Dam Road. Applicants: Ben and Martha Rose 5. explanation of upcoming faint meeting on February 9. x Planning and environmental Commission January 25, 1988 PRESENT Diana Donovan Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Kristen Pritz Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack ABSENT Bryan Hobbs A work session was held prior to the formal meeting on the Vail Mountain School addition and the Golden Peak Children's Center. The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of 1/11/88. Diana moved and Peggy seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 5--0. 2. A request for an exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, and a rezoning to a Special Development District for the Golden Peak House. Applicants: Catacombs, Ltd; Golden Peak House Association; Vail Associates, Tnc. Tom Braun presented the request, explaining that it consisted of three parts. He then described the rezoning request and the criteria used to evaluate the request, including design standards for SDD proposals such as a buffer zone, circulation, housing types, etc. Ron Riley, one of the applicants, described two years of working with the planning staff on the proposal. Peter Jamar, planner for the applicants, described the renovation, preservation of the views, sun/shade impacts, etc. John Perkins, architect on the project, explained how the design of the building had improved by following the Urban Design Guide Plan guidelines. He also showed site plans, floor plans, roof plans, elevations and view planes. Larry Litchliter, Vail Associates representative, spoke of the underground facility and the need far more guest services at the base of the mountain. Tom Braun then described uses to be permitted were - would operate as a pubic the Special Development District. The limited to assure the facility ski base facility. Tom then explained __~ the exterior alteration criteria which included the Urban Design Guide Plan, zoning considerations and design considerations. He showed photo overlays to explain the view impact and added that the sun/shade element had been improved. Peter Patten stated that the staff had been working with the applicant for two years. He stated that the staff felt the mass and bulk were appropriate and~were not a significant increase, that the use of the additional units would be restricted regarding use so that they would be available to the guest. Peter felt strongly that the proposal was consistent with short and long term goals. He felt that this was not precedent setting and listed many building which had received increased density. Peter pointed out that the Mountain Plan increased the number of skiers and there was a need for increased skier facilities. With regard to the Land Use Plan, the proposal on the mountain side of the building was entirely consistent with the Land Use Plan and also with the proposed Vail Village Master Plan. This was to be a ski portal to the mountain. The staff recommendation was for approval with the 7 conditions listed on page 9 of the exterior alteration memo dated 1/25/88. Jack Curtin asked why the Hill Building was not shown on the model. John Perkins, architect for the applicants, replied that the owner would not release the drawings so that his office could make a model from the drawings. He added that an alternate plan was to have the Hill Building architect build the model. Curtin read a letter from Beardsley, the architect for the Hi11 Building written on January 14 confirming that in September he had received a phone call from Perkins and Beardsley offered to build the model. Curtin read the duties of the PEC from the Town of Vail zoning code, and added that nowhere was the PEC required to look at "beauty." He also mentioned that there was not unanimous support for the project from the Golden Peak condo owners. Curtin discussed the design standards to be used in evaluating an 5DD. Curtin felt the staff was extending the boundaries of the CCI zone district. With regard to the exterior alteration, he discussed the sub-area concepts. Paul Johnston spoke on behalf of the proposal and felt it would be a major improvement. Dan Corcoran felt the development was needed, and that the gain was greater than the loss. Teke Simonnett, manager of Vail Ski Rentals, was opposed to the project, stating that Vail Associates could use the space behind one Vail Place, rather than using public land. Bill Wi1to and Bob Kendall were in favor of the proposal. Bill Post, representing Greta Parks, owner of Cyrano~s stated that his client was in the "middle ground" regarding the proposal. He warned, however, that Cyrano's could also go up to 43 feet 2 in height. Post felt that the deck was very large and cut off the flow of traffic from the west to Cyrano's. He added that he had not known that part of the deck was to be enclosed and was opposed to that. Bill Point, owner of condo X203 in the Golden Peak House, was in favor of the exterior improvements. Authur Cox, owner of unit #13, was against enclosing part of the deck.• Todd McDonald felt that the action was precedent setting and wondered if the Town would regret the action. Gary Valentine, owner of unit X402, was in favor of the improvements, but stated that there would be many owners who would not be in favor of the proposal. Dick Georgie was in favor of remodeling the building, but not in favor of destroying the open space. He added that the owners of condos in the Golden Peak House would not realize any financial gain from the commercial expansion. He suggested that if the PEC were to recommend approval, that one condition be that the Golden Peak House be remodeled prior to or simultaneously with the development on the mountain side of the building. Bill Pierce felt that the Town was giving and not receiving much in return. George Knox encouraged the PEC to approve the project, pointing out that many non-skiers would be able to use the deck and that public restrooms were badly needed. Pepi Gramshammer was concerned about the loading problem, stating that it would take 10 minutes to check into the hotel. He wondered if more ski shops were needed, and felt that what was needed was another night club. Gordon Brittan felt that the people's land was being taken away and was against the proposal. John Kemmer felt that Vail residents overlook what nonskiers look for, such as the deck on the back and was in favor of the propasal. The PEC was asked for their feelings about the project. Pam Hopkins liked the project, but had questions concerning where snow would be placed during the 89 World Championships and how the finish area would work. Peter Jamar showed the finish area plan. Larry Litchliter of VA stated that they would continue to hold races an International. Pam felt that the finish area was a serious problem and should be addressed. She also asked how far the deck was from the nearest lot, and was told it was 120 feet. She asked about summer uses for the VA property and was told they hadn't been decided as yet. She felt that many uses seemed unrelated to skiing and felt that there should be more control over uses so that it did not just become a commercial venture. Pam was concerned about the number of stories and about service and delivery. She felt the deck should be cut back and the underground building be design 3 so that the bike path could go over it. xn requesting these things, Pam pointed out that the applicant had many incentives: To enclose the deck, go up a story, and use open space. Sid Schultz had three major concerns: He should not contain 5 stories, that a lot north side depended upon what happened at felt that there should not be retail uses formerly Agricultural and Open Space. He having a deck on AOS zoning. felt the building ~f the design on the Seibert Circle, and on an area that was was also against Diana felt the deck was too large and should have softer lines. She felt the bike path should be closer to the building. Diana asked where the snow removal storage would be and wondered if the gateway could be wider. She felt it was steep and treacherous last year. Diana was also concerned about deliveries and service and felt that trucks would block the gateway. Riley answered that they did not allow trucks to park in front, but insisted they,use the loading zone. John Perkins said that if an opening between the Golden Peak House and Catacombs could be negotiated it might solve the problem. Diana felt that completing both the Golden Peak House and the underground facility at the same time was a good idea. She added that there should be a construction schedule that stated that the outside of the building should be completed by a certain date. Diana would not support the underground facility unless VA dedicated the remainder of Tract E to the Town. She felt that there were too many uses, and that they should be more defined than "skier related" and "summer uses." Peggy felt in general that the proposal was positive. Her major concerns were with the spaces around the building. She felt the gateway area and Seibert Circle were crucial areas. She did nat feel comfortable going ahead without knowing what was to happen in Seibert Circle. Concerning the deck, she hoped the public would be encouraged to use the deck rather than just for bar service. Peggy was not sure how much of the deck should be enclosed. She asked Larry Litchliter how many years the base facility would be adequate and whether or not VA was planning to add mare floors in the future. Litchliter replied that surface structures could not be constructed on Tract E, and that he did not know how long the facilities would be adequate. Jim Viele thanked all of the public who participated in the discussion. He felt that the project was consistent with the goals of the Land Use Plan. Also, the Land Use Plan encouraged improvements in the care with incentives. He felt the Town of Vail was "a little light" in what the Town was getting out of it. He felt the uses should be public. Jim felt that this was a good time for the balance of Tract E to be dedicated to the Town. Jim agreed that delivery and loading needed study and agreed that a condition that stipulated construction on the two 4 . phases must be done simultaneously and a construction schedule must be presented. Jim continued to be concerned about parking problems and felt it was time the community began to work on a solution. Peter Jamar, planner for the project, stated that in light of the issues raised, the applicant requested to table the proposal until February 8. Diana moved and seconded to table the proposal until February 8. The vote was 5x0 in favor. 3. A request for an exterior alteration and a common area variance in order to construct a sua and to enclose a portion of the existing dining deck at the Gasthof Gramshammer. Applicant: Gasthof Gramshammer Sid Schultz, architect on the project, abstained from voting on this proposal. Kristan Pritz presented the request and explained that the staff was in favor of the common area variance with conditions. She then reviewed Urban Design Guide Plan criteria with regard to the deck enclosure and dining addition. The staff recommendation was for denial of the deck enclosure and addition. Kristan explained that this was the premier deck in Vail. She went through the 6 criteria for outdoor decks (on page 5 of the memo) which have been used in reviewing previous deck enclosures and showed how the proposal did or did not meet each. Then she recommended 5 changes to the design of the deck which would make it similar to other dining deck approvals. Sid Schultz gave his presentation. He stated that the applicant did lower the wall 1 foot from the original and would agree to lower it further to 18". He felt it was better to have diners in the winter than to have nothing happening. Sid added that Pepi had the right to do away with his patio entirely like the A & D Building.- Sid stated that the north and west windows were not operable now, due to the wind and spray from the Children's Fountain. He felt that placing the emergency exit on the north elevation would encroach on the large evergreen tree as well as the spa and would necessitate too much stairway. Sid felt that Pepi should only be charged 1/2 of the parking fee, as the deck is used in the winter part of the time now. Jack Curtin felt the applicant had mitigated his concerns and had shown that it will relate to the street and will create night activity. Pam felt that stone in the wall was a good material to use, she did not mind the exit on the west if it is landscaped nicely. Pam felt the exit might lend more activity to the plaza. Pam felt sad that the deck would be enclosed. . Jim Viele shared Pam~s concerns about the deck being enclosed. He felt an 18" wall would be OK and had no problem with the exit on.the west. He stated that Pepi would want operable windows on the west for ventilation. He asked if Pepi must pay for the additional parking impact, and was told Pepi must pay the fee or ask for a variance. Peggy asked if the east side was totally operable and floor to ceiling and Sid said it was not. Peggy felt it was important to have the windows totally retractable on the east and operable windows on the west. Pepi replied that there would be too much wind and water to open the windows. Concerning the south elevation, Peggy pointed out that 18" would be more visible than the wall is today. Assuming the 18" is of stone, she felt it would~be alright. Diana dial not like having an emergency fire exit into the Children's Fountain plaza. She felt that there must be a structure to hold up roof, and this would make the enclosure look like the Red Lion. Diana stated that she has never supported deck enclosures of successful decks, and felt that any good deck in Vail should not be enclosed. The parking fee was discussed and Sid asked when did a porch become enclosed space and Kristan pointed out that with this enclosure, the deck was enclosed on all four sides. Peggy moved and Pam seconded to approve the exterior alteration per the staff memo with the provision that the wall be stone and no more than 18" above floor level, that 50~ of the windows on the north and west be operable, and that the applicant agree to participate in and not remonstrate against a special development district if an when one is formed for Vail Village. The vote was 3 in favor, 1 against (Donovan) and 1 abstention. Peggy moved and Jim Viele seconded to approve the request for the c~,~„~~on area variance. The vote was 4 in favor with one abstention. 4. A request for a minor subdivision to create two Primary/Secondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicants: Ben and Martha Rose Tom Braun explained the request. Bill Pierce, architect for the applicants felt the impacts had been reduced and the applicants were willing to restrict the size of the proposed units to 2667 square feet plus an additional 500 square feet of GRFA for a secondary unit. He reminded the board that there were at present, 4 legal non-conforming units on the property. He felt the smaller structures limited the negative impacts. 6 Carol Schmidt, a neighboring property owner, asked questions concerning allowable sizes. Lawrence Levin, an attorney representing Dr. Ehlein who lives across from the Rose property, stated that Dr. Ehlein was against the proposal. He asked if each of the existing 4 units could be sold separately. Tom replied that there could not be 4 owners, but there could be 2 owners. Robert Irwin opposed the project and referred to the Tennenbaum project as being similar to that proposed in that it complies with the zoning code, but is "overbuilt." Ken Wilson, representing Burton Glasov of 454 Forest Road, opposed the project. Mr. Levin mentioned that there were probably 25 letters in opposition. He referred to Section 17.16.110 which includes the statement that the burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that he is in compliance with the technical requirements. Levin presented an engineer who showed a survey which differed from the one the staff presented at the meeting. He then stated that he felt Rose was "torturing the lot line" and violating the intent of protecting the environment and open space. Levin referred to Subdivision Regulations 17.04.010 Purpose, paragraph C which lists 7 criteria for subdivisions. He added that not all of the 80 square feet on each parcel was buildable and felt there would be an increase in amount of traffic. Levin said that protective covenants for Vail Village 3rd Filing did not allow more than 2 dwelling units (private) per lot. Terrill Knight, planner for the opponents, discussed the covenants. He said they were adopted by Vail Associates with little review in 1963. Tn 1966 the Town of Vail was incorporated. In 1971 this property was annexed and in 1977 it was zoned Primary/Secondary. He added that the covenants met a lot of existing conditions. Terrill said that no engineer planned the roads in the subdivision and the roads would not meet today's standards. Levin asked what percentage of owners must agree to change the covenants, and Terrill answered that it would take 75% of the owners. Bill Pierce asked Terrill if there could possibly be a reduction in traffic with the new subdivision, and Terrill replied that there would be a reduction in traffic. Steve Scott, an engineer with Johnson Kunkel showed which areas were 40% or more and stated that he found more area of 40% or greater slope than Eagle Valley Engineering had found. Scott's survey showed that parcel A contained only 14,630 square feet of buildable area and parcel B only 14,795 square feet. Tom Braun stated that it was difficult to be precise, because three areas were the result of man made improvements. Levin replied that the code says "natural or existing." Larry Eskwith stated that existing or natural topo referred to the topo before construction, so the staff interpretation was valid. Jim Schmidt of 401 Beaver Dam Road showed photos from his deck and stated that if construction were to occur on Parcel A, it would directly infringe on his property. Mary Ann Mullin spoke in favor of the project. Lyn Gross"of 486 Forest Road spoke against the project as did Shirley Dews. Carol Schmidt spoke against the project and referred to 17.04.010 B. Ran Byrne spoke against the project. Art Abplanaip, representing the Ramsbergs who owned the property to the west of Roses', said that the .80 square feet ought to be buildable space. Ben Rose read a letter he had written to the neighbors. He also submitted two letters in favor of his project. Levin showed a map that was marked to show which neighbors were opposed to the project . . The Commissioners were asked their opinions. Pam Hopkins said she had trouble with the appropriateness and added that the experience with the Tennenbaum projects had made her '"gun shy." Sid~Schultz was concerned with the purpose section of the. subdivision regulations and with the project's compatibility with surrounding land uses. He felt a lot on Beaver Dam Road could not be compared to one in east Vail or elsewhere in the valley. He was concerned that this would set a precedent for many lots in Potato Patch and in Glen Lyon. Diana Donovan had the same concerns and felt this proposal violated the basic guidelines "not to overburden land with structures." She added that the lower part of the lot was fragile and contained wetlands and that open spaces were important. Diana said that with this many objections, something was wrong with the proposal. Jim Viele felt that there had been a precedent established, but that this proposal did not meet the standards concerning conflict with adjacent land, protecting the value of surrounding land, and achieving harmonious, convenient workable relationship among land uses. Peggy moved and Sid seconded to deny the request because it did not meet the criteria of 17.04.010, specifically, sections 2,3, and 4 of 17.04.010 C. The vote was 5-0 to deny the request. S TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM. Community Development Department DATE: January 25, 2988 SUBJECT: Proposed redevelopment and additions to the Golden Peak House building. The redevelopment and additions to the Golden Peak Hause building involve three separate requests. 1. Minor Subdivision The existing Golden Peak House building is situated on Lots A and B of Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. The redevelopment of this building will take place on these two parcels. The proposed addition of the ski base facility on the south side of the Golden Peak House is to be located on proposed Tract E-1. Presently, Tract E is a largely undeveloped parcel of land located between Mi11 Creek Circle and Vail Village. Tract E-1 is proposed to create a parcel of land that will accommodate the ski base facility. The owner of this property, as well as the applicant of this request is Vail Associates, inc. 2. Rezoning The Golden Peak House is presently zoned Commercial Core I and proposed lot E-1 is zoned Agriculture/Open Space. The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone these two parcels to a Special Development District (SDD). Planning Commission on this request is advisory, as any rezoning requires approval by the Town Council. The SDD is being requested to allow for flexibility in development standards that would not be available with standard zoning. Two distinct development areas are proposed as a part of this Special Development District. This is similar to the Cascade Village SDD where a different set of development standards apply to the Westin Hotel area as opposed to the Glen Lyon subdivision. In this case, Development Area A would cover the Golden Peak House building. Commercial Core I zoning would apply as the primary guide for development in this area. Development Area B would accommodate the Ski Base/Recreation facility. In this case, a set of zoning regulations somewhat similar to the Ski Base/Recreation zone district would establish development parameters of this parcel. 3. Exterior Alteration Consideration of the Urban Design Guide Plan is involved in any alteration to buildings in Commercial Core I. This review will focus primarily on the existing Golden Peak House building with consideration given to design, views, building height and massing, sun/shade analysis, etc. The benefits of this project are found in the two primary elements of the proposal, The first of these is a major upgrading in what is undoubtedly the most inconsistent building in Vail Village. Since the adoption of the Urban Design Guide Plan in 1980, the numerous redevelopments in Vail Village have strengthened the design character of this area. During this time the Golden Peak House has grown increasingly out of step with surrounding buildings. Given the condition of the existing structure, coupled with its prominent location at the top of Bridge Street, the benefit of this redevelopment to the Village cannot be overstated. While the Golden Peak House does increase considerably in terms of square footage and units, the bottom line is that the end result is a far better product than what is existing today. The Vail Associates component of this project is designed to be primarily a ski base/recreation facility serving the needs of the guest. A facility of this type is nonexistent in the Village today. Given existing conditions and approvals for expansion to both skier capacity and terrain, there is an indisputable need for a facility of this type at the base of North America's largest ski mountain. Dialogue and project review with the applicants has been taking place for almost two years. The review before the Planning Commission and Town Council is a culmination of these efforts. The following memorandums will demonstrate why the staff feels these proposals are not only appropriate, but also highly desirable. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 25, 1988 SUBJECT: A request to rezone Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, and proposed Tract E-1 to Special Development District No. 20. Applicant: Catacombs, Ltd./Golden Peak House Association I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST This rezoning request has been proposed in order to facilitate the redevelopment and expansion of the Golden Peak House building. At the present time lots A and B of Block 2, Vail Village lst and a portion of Lot C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st are zoned Commercial Core T. Proposed Tract E-1 (this proposed subdivision is addressed under a separate memorandum} is zoned Agricultural and Open Space. This tract would also be rezoned as a part of sDD #20. This proposal is best understood by considering its two main elements. The first of these involve a complete renovation to the Golden Peak House building. This renovation includes a dramatic change in the appearance of the building as well as an increased number of units, GRFA and commercial square footage. The major expansion to the structure will take place on the south side of the building. This features a two level underground structure that is designed to serve as a ski base/recreational facility. The main focus of this facility is to provide guest and skier services such as changing rooms, ski storage areas, ticket sales, ski school sales, and a limited amount of recreational related retail activity. Approximately nne-half of the roof of this structure would be an expanded dining deck far Los Amigos restaurant. The other half would be earth covered and landscaped in a manner not unlike what is existing today. xn recognition of these two components of this proposal, SDD X20 is structured into two distinct development areas. Development Area A establishes parameters for the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House building. Commercial Care I zoning would apply to this portion of the SDD. Development Area B covers the proposed ski base /recreation facility. Of particular importance in Development Area B are the specific set of uses that are permitted within this area. It is the intent of these uses to ensure that the facility serves as a ski base/ recreation facility, primarily providing services and facilities for the skiing guest (allowing some summer uses as well}. The following table summarizes the zoning/development statistics of the existing building and the proposal before the Planning Commission: Development Statistics Lot size: 6,912 square feet, .1587 ac. (A and B only) Permitted Development Existing Proposed Total Units 3.9 du's 20 du's 6 du's 26 du's (25/ac) GRFA 5,529 sf 9,861 5f 6,114 sf 15,975 sf (.80} Commercial 7,455 sf 1,863 sf 9,318 sf (Limited only by UDGP) Common Area 1,105 sf 6,686 sf 1,357 sf 8,043 sf 20% of GRFA Ski Base 12,322 sf 12,322 sf Facility II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of special development districts is to: 18.40.010 Purpose The purpose of the special development districts is to encourage flexibility in the development of land in order to promote its appropriate use; to improve the design, character and quality of new development; to facilitate the adequate and economic provisions of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas. Historically, SDD's have been proposed in Vail to allow for the development of sites that would be unable to do sa under conventional zoning. Simply 'stated, SDD zoning allows for the creation of development standards that are 2 . particular to a given site. Frequently this zone district has been requested in order to allow for development with densities greater than what underlying zoning allows. While that is true with this application, the variety of uses and complexities of this development is sound justification for considering SDD zoning. SDD zoning will also provide specific safeguards to define the intent of this development proposal. There are a number of criteria to be evaluated when reviewing a request of this nature. Foremost among these are the nine design standards that are listed in the SDD section of the zoning code. As stated in the code: "The development plan for the special development districts shall meet each of the following standards or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved." The following is the staff response to each of these nine criteria. In a number of cases, staff comment will refer to the exterior alteration memorandum that accompanies this packet of information. Because many of the issues relative to this proposal relate to design considerations, it was felt most efficient to include those comments within the exterior alteration memorandum. III. DESIGN STANDARDS IN EVALUATING SDD PROPOSALS The following are staff c~~~u«ents concerning how this proposal relates to the design standards as outlined in the zoning code. A. A buffer zone shall be provided in a special development district that is adjacent to a low density residential use district. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures, and must be landscaped, screened or protected by natural features so that adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. This may require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, adequate light and air, air pollution, signage, and other comparable potentially incompatible factors. The location of this SDD in the Village core precludes buffer zones on three sides. There is, however, a low density residential zone directly south of this proposal. At the present time, Tract E provides a natural buffer between this residential area and the Village core. Any 3 potential impacts on this existing buffer are mitigated by the nature of the building proposed for Development Area B. Designed as an underground structure, it is felt that the presence of this facility will not affect the existing buffer zone in this area. B. A circulation system designed for the tXpe of traffic generated, taking into consideration safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if they can be used by Police and Fire Department vehicles for emergency purposes. Bicycle traffic should be considered and provided when the site is to be used for residential purposes. As with many of these criteria, this consideration is intended primarily for large scale development, As a part of this proposal, significant improvements are proposed between the Hill Building and the Golden Peak House building that will serve as a gateway entry to Vail Mountain. This feature of the proposal is discussed in greater detail in the exterior alteration memorandum. The ski base/recreation facility will necessitate the relocation of an existing bike path. The applicant has proposed to relocate this bike path and this will be made a condition of approval with this redevelopment. Another factor relative to this consideration are the elements of the building cantilevered over the property line on the Bridge Street side. An existing overhang easement allows the opportunity for this to occur. However, this overhang easement does not override any necessary approvals from the Town of Vail. The impacts of these overhangs are addressed in detail in the exterior alteration memorandum. Relative to emergency vehicle access, ali Town of Vail departments have OK'd these elements as proposed. C. Functional open space in terms of: optimum preservation of natural features (including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience, and function. As a result of the existing footprint of the Golden Peak House building and the proposed redevelopment, there is little in the way of functional open space within Development Area A. However, Development Area B contains significant portions of ground that will remain open space. Two existing mature pine trees will be impacted through this proposal. One pine tree lies in the path of the underground building, while another is located 4 ,, in line with the relocated bike path. As a condition of approval, both of these trees will be relocated to the Pirate Ship Park area. Architects far this project have met with the Town's Public Works Department to discuss drainage issues relative to this project. While a basic understanding of expectations have been reached, a detailed drainage plan will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. D. Variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and open space. Without question, densities proposed with this project raise some of the more significant issues relative to this proposal. As demonstrated by the statistical zoning analysis in this memorandum, existing development on the Golden Peak House far exceeds what is allowed by existing zoning. This proposal would add considerably to existing development on this site. In evaluating the appropriateness of this increase in density, the staff has relied on the criteria established in the Urban Design Guide Plan. While this is addressed in greater detail in the exterior alteration memo, it is the conclusion of the staff that, while the building is being enlarged through this redevelopment, the end result is a building with drastically improved design characteristics consistent with the goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan. Another important consideration relative to residential density is with respect to Development Area B. As proposed in this SDD, there is no density which will be located on Development Area B, nor are residential units a permitted use in this development area. A proposal involving the rezoning of Agricultural and Open Space land raises issues in and of itself. Staff is supportive of this proposal because of a number of important considerations. Foremost among these include the underground design of the building and the purpose of the building being to provide a ski base/recreational facility for Vail Mountain and the community. In order to assure this facility remain a ski base related facility, uses permitted within Development Area B have been established through negotiation with the staff and applicant. It is the goal of the staff to prevent this facility from becoming an extension of C~s~~«ercial Core I. As a result,~retail uses are restricted to those deemed related to recreational and ski base facilities. This issue is discussed in greater detail later in this memorandum. 5 E. Privacy in terms of the needs of: individuals, families and neighbors. As with other criteria, these considerations are felt to be more relevant to large scale SDD's. F. Pedestrian traffic in terms o€: safety, separation, convenience, access to paints of destination, and attractiveness. The gateway to the mountain is discussed in greater detail in the exterior alteration memorandum. Other pedestrian improvements include a heated paver sidewalk on the Bridge Street side of the Golden Peak House. G. Building type in terms of: appropriateness to density, site relationship, and bulk. These issues are also covered in the exterior alteration memorandum. H. Building design in terms of orientation, spacing, materials, color and texture, storage, signs, lighting, and solar blockage. . A majority of these issues relate to the Design Review level of review. T. Landscaping of the total site in terms of: purposes, types, maintenance, suitability, and effect on the neighborhood. A preliminary landscape plan has been prepared far this proposal. Impacts on existing vegetation on the south side of this proposal have been previously addressed. Other landscape aspects of this proposal are covered in the exterior alteration memorandum and are generally the purview of the Design Review Board. IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS USES Types of uses permitted in both development areas A and B are instrumental to ensuring the intent of this development proposal. The following is a synopsis of what will appear in the ordinance before the Council regulating uses within this SDD. 6 • SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 20 USES Development Area A. Permitted, conditional, and accessory uses within Development Area A of SDD the Commercial Core X zon Code. No. 20 shall be as outlined in e district of the Vail Municipal Development Area B Development Area B of SDD No.20 is primarily intended to provide for the recreational base facilities necessary to operate the ski mountain. zn addition, year-around community events and activities, along with summer recreational uses, are encouraged to achieve multi- seasonal use of this facility. Retail related activities are permissible, provided they are limited in type and amount, in order to maintain the skier-related and recreational intent of this development area. Permitted Uses - Lower Level The following uses shall be permitted within the main structure at the lower level within Development Area B: 1. Lift ticket sales 2. Ski school lesson sales 3. Ski and boot locker rentals 4. Employee lockers 5. Ski storage facilities b. Basket storage facilities 7. Ski repair 8. Ski and sport equipment rental 9. Recreational related accessary sales 10. Candy, snack, and sundry sales 11. Meeting roam facilities 12. Injury prevention and rehabilitation facilities 13. Ski training center 14. Guest business and communication center 15. Children's center 16. Host reception/reservation center 17. public restrooms and changing areas 18. Special/community event center 19. Company offices ~- accessary to permitted and conditional uses, not to exceed 25o of the gross square footage of the facility. Permitted Uses, Upper Level A. The following uses shall be permitted within the main structure at the upper level of Development Area B: 1. Lift ticket sales 2. Ski school lesson sales 3. Ski and boot locker rentals 4. Employee lockers 5. Ski storage facilities 6. Basket storage facilities 7. Ski 'repair 8. Meeting room facilities 9. Ski training center 10. Guest business and communication center 11. Children's center i2. Host reception/reservation center 13. Public restroams and changing areas 14. Special/community event center 15. Company offices - accessory to permitted and conditional uses, not to exceed 25~ of the gross square footage of the facility. B, The following uses shall be permitted within the main structure at the upper level of Development Area B provided the total floor area of these uses does not exceed 25% of the total gross square footage of street level of Development Area B: 1. Ski and sport equipment rental 2. Recreational related accessory sales 3. Candy, snack and sundry sales 4. Injury prevention and rehabilitation facilities 5. Kitchen/food preparation facilities Permitted Uses, Deck Level The following uses shall be permitted on the deck level of Development Area B: 1. Restaurants in a seasonally enclosed facility as per approved development plan 2. Cocktail lounges and bars in a seasonally enclosed facility as per approved development plan 3. Outdoor dining decks DENSITY A number of considerations come into play when evaluating the appropriateness of the density requested with this proposal. With other SDD 8 • requests, the staff has typically responded to density requests by evaluating whether or not a given level of development "fit" on a site. On the other hand, the staff has historicalJ,y taken a very hard line on development projects in CCI with regard to their complying with underlying zoning standards. A number of factors have distinguished this request from others. These factors have contributed to the staff supporting the requested density. Foremost among these is the dire need for the upgrading and redesign of this building. More importantly, the proposed redevelopment of this building results in a property that will become consistent with the Urban Design Plan, whereas the existing building is totally inconsistent. While over 6,000 square feet of new GRFA is proposed, the majority of this floor area is created through the conversion of existing space and through floor area created by adding a gable roof to the building. Other considerations include an improved sun/shade pattern in the Seibert Circle area. The staff's position on this issue cannot be construed as a carte blanche approval to density increases in the Village core. To the contrary, our position is premised on the fact that the proposal before the Planning Commission will result in a far improved final product than what is existing today. In fact, we find no other situation in the care area that would be of a similar nature. PARKING As with any redevelopment project in the core area, parking demand created is met through payment into the Town's parking fund. Because minor variations always take place concerning specific floor areas, a detailed analysis has not been done to determine the precise number of spaces that will be purchased. Payment for parking will be required for all new retail space, new residential units, retail related activities in the ski base/recreation facility, as well as for the multi-purpose room within the ski base facility. Final determination of this dollar figure will be made during the building permit review. Other development standards setbacks and site coverage) approved development plan. (precise building height, shall be as indicated on the 9 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this request is approval. The SDD request is the only appropriate method far accommodating the type of development proposed. As proposed, it will allow for two dramatic improvements to Vail Village and to the entry to Vail Mountain. The first of these being the upgrading of the Golden Peak House building. Secondly, the ski base/recreation facility will provide a needed community and guest facility. While there are a host of conditions of approval related to this development, the majority of these will be presented in the exterior alteration memorandum. The two conditions of approval relative to the rezoning request include: 1. The request for the minor subdivision be approved. 2. The exterior alteration be approved. 10 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 25, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in order to remodel the Golden Peak House building. Applicants: Golden Peak House Association and Catacombs, Limited I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST As has been discussed in the rezoning memorandum, there are a variety of elements in the redevelopment proposal of the Golden Peak House. Relying primarily on the Urban Design Guide Plan criteria, this memorandum will focus on the renovations to the existing building and the ticket window area created by the ski base/recreation facility. Simply stated, the exterior alteration involves a total face lift of the Golden Peak House Building. Specific elements of this proposal will be addressed throughout the course of this memo. A statistical analysis of the additions proposed are found in the request for rezoning memo. II, CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL ~ The Urban Design Guide Plan and zoning considerations are used in reviewing development proposals in Commercial Care I. The Design Considerations in the Guide Plan were adopted to augment standard zoning regulations. They are intended to allow for greater flexibility and creativity in designing projects in the Village, while recognizing and maintaining its unique character. The Guide Plan identifies desired physical improvements for strengthening the overall fabric of Vaii Village. These improvements are generally designed to reinforce the overall character of the Village, with particular emphasis placed on improving the pedestrian experience. These improvements are referred to as sub-area concepts. Design Considerations address the primary form giving physical features of the Village. They provide a description of these elements without which the image of the Village would be noticeably different. It is the goal of the Design Considerations that through their applications, future changes will be consistent with the established character of the Village and make positive contributions to its experience. III. SUB-AREA CONCEPTS The following sub-area concepts are relevant to this development: Sub-Area Concept # 9. Commercial expansion (ground floor) not to exceed 1A feet in depth, possible arcade. To improve pedestrian scale at base of tall building, and for greater transparency as an activity generator on Seibert Circle. The intent of this concept is to improve the overall appearance of the storefronts as well as to provide relief and a more pleasing pedestrian scale to this building. The potential for this expansion, however, is complicated by the fact that the Golden Peak House building is essentially built to its property line and the area far this potential expansion is located on Town of Vail right of way. The developers did approach the Town Council with a request to purchase a ten foot strip of land in this area, but were unsuccessful in their efforts. In order to address this sub-area concept, the design of this redevelopment includes a 6 foot roof overhang, bay windows and cantilevered portions of the building. These have been done in order to provide relief and establish a pedestrian scale on the Bridge Street side of this building. It is felt by the staff that this design accomplishes the intent of what is proposed in Sub-Area Concept No. 9. A variety of overhang easements were granted to the Golden Peak House by Vail Associates in 1966. This was done to accommodate roof and balcony overhangs. Following the incorporation of the Town of Vail, the Town became the heir to this agreement. Larry Eskwith has reviewed this easement agreement and feels it does allow for the alteration and reconstruction of impravements within the easement. While this easement would not override any decision by the Town Council, Planning C~~«~«ission or Design Review Board, it does allow the applicants to proceed with these improvements as proposed. Sub-Area Concept #10. Seibert Circle. Future area paving treatment. Relocate focal point (potential fountain) to north for better sun exposure (fall/spring), create increased plaza area and/or the backdrop for activities. Separated paths on the north sides for unimpeded pedestrian route during delivery periods. The relocation of Seibert Circle has been discussed for many years. While not an element of this redevelopment proposal, the applicants have indicated a willingness to participate in this project if and when it occurs. A related concern that is addressed in other portions of this memorandum deal with sun/shade effects from this building. As demonstrated by sun/shade studies, additions to the Golden Peak House will not increase shadow patterns on Seibert Circle or the potential relocation of Seibert Circle. sub-Area Concept #10A Mountain gateway improvements. Landscaping screen, minor plaza, pedestrian connection loop to Wall Street (Vail Village ticket window area). This sub-area concept is specifically addressed through this redevelopment proposal. The ticket windows proposed in the ski base facility will anchor a mini-plaza to be developed between the Hill Building and Golden Peak House, {Completion of this plaza will require approval from the U.S. Forest Service and owners of the Hi11 Building.) The connection between this plaza and Seibert Circle will be strengthened with increased transparency an the west elevation of the Golden Peak House. While the improvements in this area are considerable, staff is not completely satisfied with the transition proposed between the plaza area and the ski mountain. Specifically, staff would prefer a ramp system as opposed to the stairs shown. Overall, it seems this area is in need of further attention in order to establish a prominent gateway between the Village and Vail Mountain. The need for further study of this area, however, is not significant enough to delay the review and approval of this project. Staff will recommend as a condition of approval that developers return to the Planning Commission at a later date with a more refined plan for this area. IV. DESIGN CONSTDERATIONS The Urban Design Guide Plan outlines nine different design considerations to be used in the evaluation of any exterior alteration. A. PEDESTRIANIZATION Because of the location of the existing building, there are no significant factors involved in pedestrianization. The development of the ticket window plaza will certainly improve pedestrianization around the building between the Village and Vail Mountain. In addition, a heated system of pavers is proposed on the Bridge Street side of the building (similar to the Gorsuch and A & D Buildings). These are all considered positive improvements relative to this redevelopment. B. VEHICULAR PENETRATION It is an underlying goal for the Village to keep all vehicular traffic into the Village at a minimum. The six additional residential units proposed in this redevelopment will undoubtedly generate trips into the Village core. This traffic is obviously necessary in order for guests to arrive to these units. Because parking is not provided on site, these trips will be primarily for arrival and departure of guests. The underground building will also generate some additional vehicle trips - mostly service and delivery (see item H}. C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK A high quality streetscape framework can be established through landscape features and active, visually interesting storefronts. As proposed, this redevelopment is a substantial improvement to existing conditions. Improvements to transparency, relief, materials, and variety all are marked improvements over the present building on bath the north and west sides. An additional element of this proposal that has been discussed centers around the introduction of street trees on the Bridge Street side of the building. While there is no question that street trees would add to the color and life of this building, staff is uncomfortable with requiring them at this time. This is due to the unknown future of the Seibert Circle area. Based on preliminary studies of this relocation, it is apparent that space in this area is at a premium (space between the Hill Building, Plaza Lodge, Red Lion and Golden Peak House buildings). Money has been budgeted far a comprehensive analysis of streetscape improvements in Vail Village. This study will address the Seibert Circle relocation and result in a conceptual plan for its relocation. Staff is reluctant to commit the 3 to 4 feet of depth that would be required for street trees before this analysis is undertaken. As a result, we would prefer tv deal with the street trees as a condition of approval subject to the findings of this study. If it is determined that ample space is available for these trees, they would become an element of this approval. On the other hand, if the findings of this analysis indicate there is not room for street trees, they would obviously not be required. 4 D. STREET ENCLOSURE The sense of enclosure between this building and surrounding structures remains unchanged, if not improved. Tt is important to understand that as the peak of the roof lines increase over what is existing, the eave lines are in many places lower than the existing mansard roof line. Yn addition, the upper floats of the building step back away from the street. E. STREET EDGE The location of this building at the top of Bridge Street results in less importance on this criteria than if it were located along Bridge Street. In addition, the existing footprint of the building remains substantially the same. As a result, the building does continue to "wrap around" the circle created at the top of Bridge Street. F. BUILDING HEIGHT Because of the existing roof form and roof height (which exceeds what is permitted}, a variety of considerations arise in evaluating this proposal. The inverted mansard roof form is without question the most irregular in the Village. Existing roof forms throughout the Village are almost exclusively gable. Clearly, the proposed gabled roof forms proposed will have a positive impact with regard to this building's consistency with the rest of the Village. On the easterly portion of the building, the proposed ridge elevation exceeds the height of the mansard roof line by 4 - 5 feet, while the eave line is lower than the existing mansard roof line by 4 - 5 feet. More importantly, the majority of the upper floor is stepped back to provide relief to the building. This helps the building "read" as less massive than presently exists. The westerly portion is different in that the valley of the inverted roof is being infilled by the introduction of the gable. The ridge line is approximately 9 feet lower than the ridge line an the easterly side of the building. This provides a nice mixture of roof heights that is also encouraged by the Guide Plan. Overall, the staff is very positive about the improvements to this element of the building. One must consider the improved sun/shade conditions, the roof form and materials that are proposed and the manner in which upper floors are stepped back from the front plane of the building. Collectively, these improvements result in the transformation of a building that is at the present totally inconsistent with the goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan into a building that is very compatible with other buildings in the Village. 5 G. VIEWS A variety of overlays have been prepared to demonstrate the mass of the new building and how it may impact views from various paints in the Village. Overall, the proposed building is not a detriment to these views. The proposed building does encroach into two major view corridors in an insignificant manner. The first of these is a vantage point from the steps of the parking structure overlooking Vail Village. Avery minor portion of the roof peak encroaches into this plane. The second encroachment is on the view corridor from Seibert Circle between the Hill Building and Golden Peak House toward Vail Mountain. The specific direction in the Guide Plan states that '"Any proposed building changes which would encroach into, or substantially alter the designated view planes will be discouraged."' The applicants have submitted documentation that clearly demonstrates that the encroachments into these view corridors will not substantially alter these view corridors. The degree of encroachment of the building roof plane was so slight that it was difficult to determine where the encroachment actually was. With regard to the view from Seibert Circle, it is felt that this encroachment is also negligible. As stated in the original ordinance, this view plane was preserved to provide an orientation point for the visitor toward Vail Mountain as well as chair lifts and lift ticket sales. Improvements to the streetscape and the introduction of ticket windows in this area will serve to mitigate any potential impacts of this encroachment. H. SERVICE AND DELIVERY Delivery functions will remain unchanged from the way the building presently operates. Delivery for the new underground building will be performed by existing loading zones on Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road and brought through the Golden Peak House. A substantial improvement will be made to the westerly side of the building where garbage is presently stored. A trash compactor will be located in the basement of the building with service being provided on the easterly end of the building. There are inherent difficulties in servicing a building that has no "'back door."' It is felt that the relocation of the trash facilities is an overall improvement to existing conditions. 6 I. SUN/SHADE The proposed building responds very well to the intent of this consideration. The result is an overall improvement on the impact of shade along the street in the area of upper Bridge Street. The combination of the gabled roof farm and stepping back the upper floor of the structure actually allows for more sun to reach Bridge Street over a greater period of time. This consideration was very influential in the staff's position on the building height. V. ARCHITECTURAL/LANDSCAPE CONSIDERATxONS While these detailed considerations are typically the purview of the Design Review Board, the staff felt they were worthy of some mention with regard to the overall improvements to this building. These are important because it is the collective result of all of these improvements that will provide a far superior product far the c~.~~.~~unity and Vail Village. Some of these considerations include improved transparency, revisions to existing decks and patios, shadow lines that will highlight the building, and most importantly the roof farm and materials. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for this proposal is approval. In considering this project's compliance with the various criteria, it is very evident that the proposal is consistent with the goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan. The most significant issue relative to this proposal has not been specifically addressed. That being the density increase requested in conjunction with this exterior alteration. In the past, the staff has maintained that density controls established with zoning must work hand in hand with the Design Considerations of the Guide Plan. This was demonstrated by our position on preliminary proposals for an additional floor at the Plaza Lodge building. The obvious question raised is, what is different in this proposal for the staff to support 6 additional units and 6,000 square feet of additional GRFA on property that already exceeds its allowable density? It is not the intent of the staff to establish an open ended policy that unlimited amounts of GRFA are appropriate far Vail Village. In the Golden Peak House, we are dealing with a building that is unique among all other properties in the Village. This uniqueness is a 7 result of the building's total incompatibility with the existing design character of the core area. Our support of the additional GRFA is predicated on the fact that the end result of the design proposed is a far improved product over what is existing today without improvements. The following summarizes the staff's considerations that have contributed to our recommendation: * The present design of the Golden Peak House is outdated and in need of remodeling to bring it into step with the character of the Village. * The prominent location of this structure, located at the gateway to Vail Mountain and at the top of Bridge Street, serve to accent the need for its redevelopment. * The vast majority of additional GRFA is a result of converting existing spaces and square footage created under the gable roof. * The "inverted" gable roof farm is not only inconsistent, but also awkward. The introduction of the gable roof is the single most important element in bringing this building into harmony with the Village. * Other considerations such as the massing and improvements to sun/shade serve to improve the existing condition. * While the building is increasing in size, it will not read as such. This is primarily due to maintaining and lowering eave lines, cantilevers, and stepping the upper floors back off of Bridge Street. * There is not a single property in Vail Village that is in need of attention as badly as the Golden Peak House. The bottom line is the Village will be a better place with this remodel than it is now. Staff's decision to support increasing the size of this building was not made without much deliberation. We have been working with the applicants for nearly two years on this project. While the additional square footage is a sensitive issue, we feel it is supportable and our position is defendable when considering the overall impacts and improvements that this proposal will have on the Village area. The staff would recommend the following conditions be applied to this approval: 8 1. A comprehensive drainage plan shall be submitted (and approved by the Town Engineer} and approvals for the relocation of utilities and easements shall be provided by affected utility companies prior to final DRB approval. 2. The developer is responsible for relocating the bike path (as generally shown on the site plan}, and the two mature pine trees on the south side of the project be relocated in the area of Pirate Ship Park. In the event these trees die within 12 months of relocation, the applicant is responsible for placement of spruce trees of 20 feet high or more. 3. The Town of Vail presently maintains the lawn behind the Golden Peak House building. The Public Works Department will require indemnification from the owners against any damages to the underground structure prior to resuming maintenance in this area. This area must remain useable to the general public - no roping or fencing off will be allowed. 4. Owners' use restriction as outlined in Section 17.26.060 of the Municipal Code shall apply to these 6 new units proposed in the Golden Peak House (or an equivalent number of units}. 5. The applicant shall return to the Planning Commission for final review of the gateway entry to Vail Mountain prior to any review by the Design Review Board. 6. The inclusion of street trees on the Bridge Street side of the Golden Peak House may be incorporated into the approved development plan. Final determination as to the appropriateness of these street trees shall be made subject to the outcome of the Vail Village Streetscape Conceptual Design study (to be completed in the summer of 1988). 7. The applicants' participation in public improvements shall be accomplished by participation in a "mini- special" improvement district to redesign and relocate Seibert Circle if and when one is formed. An equitable manner of crediting the applicants' contri- bution for Seibert Circle toward an overall improvement district for Vail Village will be established, if and when a Village-wide district is formed. (This same condition was applied to a previous approval at the Plaza Lodge Building.) 9 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 25, 1988 Re: Work session on a request permit in order to build barrier on the northwest School on Lot 12, Block 2 Applicant: Vail Mountain for a conditional use an addition and a rockfall corner of the Vail Mountain Vail Village 12th Filing School I. THE REQUEST The Vail Mountain School is requesting a work session to discuss the issues related to their proposal to build a campus center northwest of the existing school building. Below is the applicant's description of the proposal: "The Campus Center will be a 14,444 - 13,400 square foot (approximately) multi-purpose addition to the west side of the existing school building where the outside basketball court is presently located. The residential scale of the school will be preserved with rough-sawn cedar and stucco on the exterior, and the playing fields will be bermed up against the west side of the Center. A skylight running the length of the building will provide daylighting to the interior spaces. Inside the Center will be a regulation basketball court and volleyball court. The flooring will be a multi- purpose material so that this main hall can be used also for dances, assemblies, and theatrical productions. On the ground level of the north and south ends of the hall will be public restrooms, locker rooms, the coach's office, and storage rooms. On the upper level will be several rooms that can be used as team rooms, for weight lifting, as a small dance studio, and for extracurricular activities. The entire Center can be closed off from the main school building so that it can be used after hours with minimal concern for security." In addition, the applicant is proposing to add 20 new parking spaces to the west of the existing parking area and to build an exit/access to the Frontage Road off of the parking lot addition. (Please see the enclosed site plan.} The Vail Mountain School is also proposing to void a deed restriction on the property which limited the location of school buildings and activities. The deed restriction was between Vail Associates and the Vail Mountain School. Its purpose was to limit the amount of land to be used far buildings and thereby maintain a majority of the property as greenbelt. (Please see enclosed deed restriction.) A portion of the school property is in a high rockfall area according to the Town of Vail Geological Sensitivity Maps, however, specific rockfall reports indicate the school is in a low to moderate rockfall area. Rockfall mitigation will be . required and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the formal meeting. At this time, the applicant has not selected a specific type of mitigation. (Please see the attached preliminary rockfall report from Woodward Clyde Consultants.} II. BACKGROUND ON THE VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL A. The Vail Mountain School received approval to construct a new school in Booth Creek in 1978. The school property is zoned Agricultural/Open Space which allows for schools through the conditional use review. The conditional use request was for a private school of approximately 9,OOq square feet for a maximum of 110 students. Conditions of approval were as follows: 1. The maximum floor area for the Vail Mountain School building was not to exceed 10,000 square feet. 2. The Vail Mountain School building was to be used only by the Vail Mountain School for school functions. 3. Additional parking was to be provided by the Vail Mountain School if the proposed parking was found by • the PEC to be inadequate. 4. The location of the school building and its activities were restricted to the area designated on the plans approved by the PEC at the October 24, 2878 meeting. The deed restriction from Vail Associates limited the amount of land to be used by the school on this designated area. The balance of the 7 acre parcel was to be restricted as greenbelt. 5. The cabin currently on the property was to be preserved and restored either in its existing location or in another location restricted to the eastern part of the site. B. zn November 1979 the Vail Mountain School received approval for a lunch room, indoor recreational area and dark room. C. Conditional use approval was given in October 1981 to remove the restriction limiting the number of students at Vail Mountain School. D. In August, 1983, the school received conditional use approval to accommodate a sodded soccer field. E. In 1954, the school received conditional use approval to build a 3,096 square foot addition, rockfall barrier, and parking/hard-surface play area. ITT. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION A. Deed Restriction Before the applicant voids the deed restriction with Vail Associates, it was decided that it would be best to discuss the vacation of the deed restriction with the Planning Commission. The deed restriction was originally agreed to as several property owners in the Booth Creek area were concerned about the impacts of the school on their neighborhood. Since that time, the Vail Mountain School has received approvals for additional construction on the property. There have not been any major concerns raised by surrounding property owners at subsequent meetings. • B. Parking Twenty additional parking spaces are proposed for the 10,000-13,000 square foot addition. The zoning code does not provide any specific parking requirements for a school. The code states that it is up to the Planning Commission to determine a reasonable amount of parking per building area. C. Exit A new exit connecting the west end of the parking lot to the Frontage Raad is proposed. The Tawn engineer has no problem with the request. The proposal has also been approved by the Colorado State Division of Highways. The Mountain School feels that the exit provides for better traffic flow through the property, especially when parents are dropping off or picking up children. D. Rockfall . The rockfall report is very preliminary and does not specifically state the type of mitigation that will be constructed for the addition. Staff will be concerned that the rockfall mitigation is located completely on Vail Mountain School property and that it does not affect the 20 foot utility easement along the northern property line. The appearance of the rockfall structure and its impact on properties to the north will also be addressed. E. Town of Vail Department Issues The Fire Department will require that a new fire hydrant be added and that the existing propane tank be removed from the property. Public Works will need more detailed information on the rockfall barrier before they will be able to give their comments. xt~ ,; ~~ ~ ~ 1~ .~ ~~ i ~~;a i '! ~. ~f ~ .; :,:..~ 1 mil`, _~l _' .: ~ .. I , '~ ~,~r .~ ri}r, ~ ,~ •~ r J + _._ `~ _ ~~ .~~IL ~ ~rt r ~ ~~ ti~ ~,;-~ / rte:'/ ~, 1 ~~ ~ ~ _ ~'~ ~ ~ _- ° ~ ! E' j ~ t .. . . /!~ / wJ~~ C~ f i~ o I ~._~ .. - - . -_ ~ ^, y f I~~ { ,~ ~~ ,~ ,, ~t ~ ... .. .. ~ V ~. ~ f ~ ~ ~ ' ' ` k~ ~ r ! } 1L "~ ~ I : ~ ~ ~ x ~ i ~ ! , . AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into this day of October, 1987 by and between Vail Associates, Inc., a Colorado corporation ("VAI"), and Vail Mountain School, a Colorado non-profit corporation {"VMS"). WHEREAS, by warranty deed recorded October 14, 1.980 in Book 311 at Page 24 in the records of the Eagle County, Colorado clerk and recorder {the "Warranty Deed°), VAI conveyed to VMS that certain real property situated in Eagle County, Colorado as more particularly described therein and on Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof (the "Premises"); WHEREAS, the Warranty Deed contained a conditional, use restriction as more particularly set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof {the "Restriction"); WHEREAS; VMS now desires VAI to release, and VAT is willing to release the Restriction, upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. . NOW premises 1. relinqui~ interest hereto. J°~~ THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: Release of Restriction. VAI hereby releases, vacates, sties, sells and quit claims all of its right, title and to the Restriction as set forth in Exhibit B attached 2. Indemnity. In consideration of the above release, sale and quit claim, VMS agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless VAI , its successors and assigns, and its officers, directors, employees and agents, from, against and with respect to any claim, liability, obligation, loss, damage, assessment, judgment, cast or expense (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses reasonably incurred in investigating, preparing or defending against any litigation or claim, action, suit, proceeding or demand, of any kind or character) arising out of or in any manner relating or attributable to the use of the Premises by VMS, its successors and assigns, directors, officers, employees, agents and invitees, sole and quit claim, in violation of the Restriction, notwithstanding the release of the Restriction by VAT. This indemnity shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of VAI and VMS and their respective successors and assigns. • 3. No Other Restriction Affected. Except as set forth above, na restriction or provision in the Warranty Deed shall be af~'ected, modified or released in any manner whatsoever and all such provisions and restrictions shall remain in full farce and effect. 4. Recordincx. The parties hereto agree that this document shall be recorded promptly foliow~.ng its execution and delivery in the records of the clerk and recorder of Eagle County, Colorado. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. VAT: Attest VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. ..~ h By President p~N~AINs VMS c aQ~~ `~ '~~ ~ • - VAI OUNTA O v r President .,.,y~N ~ ~Q~,,~; ~oi~~~ao 5 1 • STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 1987 by as Vice President and Nola S. Dyal as Secretary of VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC., a Colorado corporation, on behalf of such corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: • STATE OF COLORADO ) } ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE } Notary Peblic Address: Subsc~~tabed and sworn .to~r~-~~~me..~s `-.. .- :day.-- ~-- .. _... .. .. President and l~.[~s.~Secretaz`y o~ VATL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL, a Colorado non-profit corporation, on behalf of such corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. c......~ission expires: ~~~ P~ Y ~~~~i ~~ r~t1 z Otary Publlc My Cammissien expires Aa F4, I9$8 Address : ~~a,.., ~~R~ ~~R -3- i EXHIBIT A (Attached to and forming a part the Agreement between Vail Associates, Inc. and Vail Mountain School, dated the day of October, 1987.) All of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village Twelfth Filing, a subdivision recorded August 16, 1972 in Book 225 at Page 90 of the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado, EXCEPT for the following described parcel: Beginning at a point which is the most northerly corner of said Lot 12, and the southwesterly corner of Lot 10, Block 2 of said Vail Village Twelfth Filing, and said point also being on the easterly Right-of--Way line of Booth 'Falls Road, a dedicated street, and said point also being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along said Right-of-Way line the following two courses: (1) S 25.24'54" W a distance of 175.96 feet to a point of curvature; (2) 85.40 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 325.17 feet, a central angle of 14.55'52", and a chord bearing S 32.52'50" W a distance of 84.76 feet; thence leaving said Right-of-Way line S 79'51'31" E a distance of 363.24 feet to a point on the southwesterly boundary line of Lot 5, Block 2, of said Vail Village Twelfth Filing; ~~ thence along the southwesterly boundary line of hots 5, S, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 2 of said Vail Village Twelfth Filing the following five courses: (1) N 27'17'30" W a distance of 50.00 feet; (2) N 27'17'31" W a distance of 109.55 feet; {3) N 14'26'39" W a distance of 68.1.5 feet; (4) N 43'34'03" W a distance of 39.56 feet; (5) N 64'05'23" W a distance of 131.87 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ~ -~- ExxrszT ~ {,Attached to and forming a part _.. of the Agreement between Vail ' Associates, Inc. and Vail Mountain ,. School, dated the of October, 1987.) •.,. The Restriction is as follows: "Upon the express condition that the location of any school building and related activities thereto be restricted to the area designated on the plans approved~by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission on October 24, 1.978, and the remaining property shall be used solely as greenbelt; but if the property shall ever be used for other than as designated herein, then the party of the first part and its successors and assigns may reenter and repossess the progeny as of their former estate." • ~1 ~ -~ ,'t ~ I Woodward~Clyde Consultants PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE VAIL MOEJNTAIN SCHOOL Susan Bean, of our office traveled to the school on December 11, 1987. The purpose of the visit was to observe the berm in relation to the proposed addition and to refresh our familiarity with the site. We understand from your layout sketch that the proposed Campus Center will be a structure approximately 124 ft by 84 ft, connected on the west of the existing school building by a covered walkway. In addition, we have reviewed the informa- tion in our files and also new information concerning rockfalls in the Booth Creek area, Since our original study performed in mid-1984, a rockfall study has been j completed far the Tnwn of Vaii. This report was submitted to the Town by Schmueser and Associates in late 1984. Also, additional studies have been conducted by the Colorado Geological Survey in the Booth Creek area, but have not yet been published. We understand, from contact with the staff, that the Colorado Geological Survey is currently mapping the rockfall paths, and the locations of rocks in the area that may have originated as • rockfalls. The Schmueser and Associates report is a map showing the distribution of potential rockfall hazards. Hazard zones in the area of concern are divided into high and medium severity zones based on a number of factors. The Vail Mountain School is located outside, but immediately downslope of a high severity rockfall zone north of the school. This should not be interpreted to mean that the school is not in a rockfall hazard zone, but rather that the potential damage might not be as severe as in the area upslope of the school. The conclusion of these other studies and our field reconnaissance is that the school is in a zone where the potential for rockfalls exists. The rocks that damaged several houses this fail are recent examples of the 1 22081-21357/mw {r2208t) (PRO) .~ `y . ~ Woodward-Ci~de Consultants I~ continuing hazard. In a letter of June 19, 1984 to the school, we described the risk to the school, and that discussion is applicable to conditions expected far the proposed addition. For convenience, a copy of that letter is attached. Rocks falling from the cliffs above Booth Creek and the school travel down- slope by a combination of bouncing, rolling and sliding. The direction of movement of the rock is generally the shortest path downslope, therefore, the topography of the site is important, The existing berm provides some level of protection primarily against rolling or sliding rocks, for the areas immediately downslope of the berm, including the existing school. Under certain circumstances, it is possible that a rock block could continue in a bouncing trajectory as far downhill as the existing school. ' Under such circumstances it is passible that any economically feasible barrier could be overcome. The small hill immediately west of the existing school may supply same protection because it is a topographic high. Rocks reaching the hill would tend to be deflected around it rather than over it. The proposed Campus Center addition to the school is planned for an area that is not directly downslope of the existing. berm. Therefore, the existing berm will not provide any direct protection to the proposed struc- ture. The existing hill adjacent to the berm may provide some degree of protection. The hill will not provide any level of protection if it is removed during construction of the addition, as the plans indicate. The plans appear to show that the new building would be immediately adjacent to the existing berm. In response to the request of the Town of Vail, the following conclusions can be made. • There exists a potential for rockfalls or runout of rocks in the area of the Vail Mountain School as well as in the area of the proposed addition. 22081-21357/mw (r22081) {PRO) 1~. .f: ,_ ~~ Woodward-Clyde Consultan#s • The existing berm upslope of the existing school will not provide the same degree of protection to the proposed Campus Center, as it does far the existing building. • Some type of additional protection will be required. r1 lJ Your suggestions concerning potential additional protection measures included a westerly extension of the berm, or construction of a reinforced concrete wall upslope of the proposed extension. These are certainly worth early consideration. The plans for the proposed Campus Center show the structure adjacent to the existing berm. Extension of the berm must remain upslope of the proposed structure. The location of the Campus Center and any restrictions in the utility easement north of the school may limit the room available for an extension of the berm. This should be considered during further design phases. A reinforced concrete wall on the upslope side of the building may be acceptable. The wall would need to be engi- neered to absorb the impact and force that a rock at whatever size and velocity expected, might impart on the wall. These calculations are beyond the scope of this report. Since the size of rock blocks released from the cliffs above the school could weigh from perhaps a few tens of pounds to over ten tons, the kinetic energy involved could be very considerable. if a reinforced concrete wall were incorporated into the building, the remainder of the building and fittings would need to be designed to resist shaking induced by impact. Another passible option that could 6e considered would be to relocate the proposed extension so that it remains behind the existing berm, and put, for example, the parking lot where there is no berm. The geometry and other considerations could, however, preclude this as a viable option. 3 2208 1-21 35T/mw (r22o81) (F'Ft0) J' ~Y r. Woodward•C~yde Cansu!#an#s We would be happy to help you explore these and possibly other options and assist you in selecting the one mast appropriate to the needs of the school. Woodward-Clyde Consultants represents that our services are performed within the limits prescribed by the Client, in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other professional consultants under similar circumstances. No other representation to Client, expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included ar intended. 22081-21357/mw (r22O81) (PRO) a .....~ .._wv_ .............. ..._,_. ..e..,~,_,,..._.,.,- _.., .~;x,,,,, ;, __~ _._._..._ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 25, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a common area variance in order to create a spa at the Gasthof Gramshammer. Applicants: Pepi and Sheika Gramshammer I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is proposing to construct a spa area which would be built on the north side of the proposed dining area expansion. (Please see attached site plan.} The spa area would be below the existing grade of the Children's Fountain Plaza. The spa is approximately 300 square feet. The proposal requires a common area variance for the spa area. The allowed common area for the project is 3,208 square feet. The existing common area is 7,601 square feet. The proposed spa (300 sf} increases the amount aver the allowable c~,«,«on area to 4,693 square feet. J II. ZONING STATISTICS Zone: C~~~Er~,ercial Core I Site Area: 16,042 sf A. DENSITY GRFA Allowed: 12,834 sf Existing: 13,365 sf Amt over allowed: 531 Number of Units Allowed: 9 DU's Existing: 6 DU's, 21 AU's. Total, 16.5 units Amount aver allowed: 7.5 DU's Common Area C~ Allowed: 3,208 sf Existing: 7,601 sf Proposed: 300 sf spa Amt over allowed with addition: 4,693 B. SITE COVERAGE • Allowed: 12,834 sf Existing: 11,940 sf Proposed: 320 sf restaurant addition 180 sf spa addition 500 sf total Proposed Total with Additions: 12,440 sf Amount under allowed: 394 sf C. PARKING 1240 total restaurant space 10.3 parking spaces required 10.3 x $3,000 = $30,900 * * This amount will be verified at building permit review. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development rec~,~„~~ends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: • A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the recuested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The new spa room does not have any negative impacts on adjacent uses or structures. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff's opinion is that some relief from the strict interpretation of the zoning code governing common area is warranted. The new spa room will be a guest service which is very positive and encouraged. Common area variances have been given in the past to several properties in the Village, as common space allows for needed guest services such as lobby space and lounge areas. • The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population{ transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposal will have no negative impacts on these factors. The request does not increase the site coverage beyond what is allowed under the zoning code. IV. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VAZL'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. V. FTNDTNGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a giant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on • other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strut or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. r 1 LJ . VT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the common area variance with a condition that the exterior alteration request must also be approved by the PEC. Tf the PEC only approves the spa exterior alateration and not the dining deck enclosure and restaurant expansion, staff must require that revised drawings for only the spa be submitted for PEc approval. Presently, the staff has no plans that show how the spa would be designed without the dining expansion above. As was stated in the previous memo, reasonable amounts of common area have been approved through the variance process. The additional 300 square feet for the spa area is a reasonable amount of common area above what is allowed and will be used for a legitimate guest service. Staff finds that the request will not constitute a grant of special privilege and that there will be no detrimental impacts on the public. The variance is warranted, as the strict interpretation of the amount of common area allowed under this zone district would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other owners of properties in the Village area. LJ w . w c~ m ~~ ~~ ~~_._- Za ~t 0, W F-- N . Al 0 tV a ~-. ~~~ r a„ t ~ r i ~~ s l 311~~ia }i33~1~ 3a0~ • ~J -. ~- --~ i ~~ .. ~`1'~ ~1 +-- ~; i ~ l t l`~ . / r' f~ -~/,/ ~- y ~~ ~ 1 i i ~ `~~ ' i ~~ I t~ t I -_~ I ti ...t~+ ~~ ; ; ,,~ ~, ,: ~ '~ € ,~ 3 ,; ~ ~ ~~~~_ _ _ .-_-=_-- f ~~ I .~ , ~ s _~,~ ___ ~ ~ ~-. ~~~~-~ ~ ~, f~:' t Y ! 1 _ f1 f ~ K~ ~ 3 ~' -~ ,~} ' } ~~ I - hf '~ ~ I -0.I-- t~'a ~ G # ~ / ~ ~~~~ 11f f~f~~ - 1~ a/S 8 ~~19~8~ ~~I~~~~~ ~~ I ~:.~.r-- _ . __ ~ J ~ ,T~- ,-~..~, r ~~~ .. Ada E `,~' _~ T i i ~~ I ~~ .~~` xb t f~ ~, ~t ~ 3 -- .. ~~ _- . ~ "a- ' , I ~ . i . ._ 1 ~1 ,t ~~ }~," ,y x -. ~~ r '~ .~1 ~~ z ~_.xa ~e ,;~sR , j,i 1 l ~' 1 Y i~ - r ~. -~... ~jr f ` ;.: ~ .r ~ ~ I 'Y'-' l L. ~r.~_,~' -y ~4 S~~ ~' f fit:', ~' _ -~~~ _. __ -- ._ ~ ~~Fr~ vr~ --~-.,.. ~ ~ f ~ ..~ ~~ • - i. ~ - f ti_ - r ..,. - _ :.k- • .~,- ~. ~~,.,. '. 3 , ,a + ._ .~ V : q+'r - bh.S ~~ t~~ - 'rK' . F , V } `~~. - t _. iw,.. '.:a ~ t~ •m.' _. ,+..f -+`~~` ~„M ~ :Viii 1 S i. n - +y''.+ ~ ~~ Y F +i 1~J i r ~ i ~. r ~ .~,e}: - 7. .... T.. .._~ '. _a' :.'' ~ ~ t ~ ~. .~,~ w~ r' ~uu~ree ~n ~. ~ ~. ~ ~. ~+„!°, ~~ J~ s i y .. UI~~AC ~:~M ~nk~?~~'1' _ uo~~ t~ ~r. t. - ~ ~i~ ~~ It C ~~ r- ~ v 111 ~ i ~ w l ' elt f ~ t i f I f ~_~ F ~. rV~ V~~~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ t --. _ .,~ !~ f ~ _ f ~-: _ f 1 _ ~ } ~ ~` ~ ~_. _ _. .....~.~ i f f f i5. 4 ~v e. ' ~ J ~ ~; ~ ..111. ._,k dr ~ . F ~ 11-x°" i`7 f ~ir-f ~( '_ i.y ~~ ~ .l ~~ ? ~ ~ ~~ .a ~ ' d ~~;, rX .. ..L - 1 h I f ~ ` ~ ~ ! f ti .~ ., { r . i ry~ I I ~ nj ~~ f ~f' ~IF ~ ~ ra,~ ,y.' x~'- f t ~ Y.~ ~ ~~ J j ` f 3. ~ ~ ~ I k k 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ f 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~~~~ ~ , '~~ . t I ~ 'i4 5 ~ ~ ' I S I F k ~~~ J t I ~ ~ j 3 I 1 r r L ~ I ~ f i y ~ J > i i } ` ' ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~. ~ i ~ ~ _i ~ ~--~ ~.. 1 3 F '~ ~ ~ ~ ` !yy~ F _ _,T - i ~y r ~~ ~~ ..~ ~. ..~_ ~~ ~ ~ ~' ~A r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~}~ t l ' ! 1 f ~~ o. QY+ y f~: .: -ti: ~f4~ ~ ~.T -~ ,.S iY J ~l k. ;S ~~l . ;~~ ~.~. ,• ~ i~ .`, ' . ,1 i. t T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 25, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to create two Primary/Secondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing, 443 Beaver Dam Road Applicants: Ben and Martha Rase I. INTRODUCTION TO THE REQUEST This proposal involves the subdivision of an existing Primary/Secondary lot into two Primary/Secondary parcels. In September of 1987, a work session was held with the Planning Commission and applicants to discuss this proposal. The application was scheduled for formal review later that month, but was tabled to allow the applicants time to reconsider•-their request. Since that time• the staff has worked with the applicant in trying to resolve a number of issues staff had identified relative to last fall's proposal. This memorandum will outline the issues relative to the request before the Planning Commission. It is important that the Planning Commission understand that this request involves a subdivision, and not a request for zoning. --As established by numerous examples of case law, the basic premise of subdivision regulations is that if minimum standards are met, the requested subdivision is essentially to be approved. Minimum standards typically deal with zoning considerations such as minimum lot size, frontage, etc. As a result, these standards establish the first set of review criteria to be considered with this request. Relative to this request, prapased Parcel A includes 15,020 square feet of site area and Parcel B contains 15,010 square feet of site area. Both lots satisfy the minimum 15,000 square feet of buildable area, as well as providing lots capable of enclosing an 80 foot by 80 foot box and a minimum of 30 feet of frontage along a Tawn right~of-way. Clearly, the lots meet the minimum standards established in the Primary/Secondary zone district. The other set of criteria to be considered in a request of this type involve the general purpose section of the subdivision regulations. This section includes seven factors that are intended to ensure that a subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community. It was with these criteria that the planning staff had difficulty with the previous proposal. While more subjective than the quantifiable standards expressed in the zoning requirements, these considerations address other issues relative to the appropriateness of a requested subdivision. The staff's previous recommendation of denial was based an these seven considerations. However, through redesign and negotiation, staff feels that the proposal is now in compliance with the basic purpose and intent of the Town's subdivision regulations. Tx. BACKGROUND ON PROPOSALS OF THIS TYPE There have been questions raised concerning similar proposals that have been made in the past, as well as the potential for additional requests of this type. There have been three comparable proposals submitted to the Planning Commission aver the past four or five years. These include the following: 1. Resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Bighorn Filing. This subdivision approval divided one Primary/ Secondary lot into two Single Family lots. The net result was na increase in the total number of units an the site. Because GRFA was restricted on each Single Family parcel, there was only a nominal increase in floor area permitted on each new lot. Because of the size and nature of this parcel, it was fairly . unemcumbered in terms of accessibility and other site planning considerations. 2. Resubdivisian of Pitkin Creek Meadows. This parcel had a long history in terms of previous attempts to subdivide the property. About the time East Vail was annexed to Vail, applications were made to create three Primary/Secondary lots on this property. At the time, minimum lot standards required 17,500 square feet of buildable area per lat. Because of this requirement, only two lots were approved on the parcel. Following the reduction of the minzmum lot size to 15,000 square feet, a new application was submitted to the Planning Commission last year. Approval by the Planning Commission at that time resulted in the creation of three Primary/Secondary lots. While the parcel contains significant amounts of area over 40o slope, it was the finding of the Planning Commission that the lots were both accessible and buildable. Tn addition, the newly created lot was bordered by residential development on only one side with Forest Service property an two sides of the parcel and 1-70 bordering on the other. 3. Resubdivision of Lats 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing. Referred to as the Tennen-- baum subdivision, this approval created two Single Family .lots and one Primary/Secondary lots on what were two Primary/Secondary parcels. This subdivision resulted in no increases in total number of units nor in GRFA, as restrictions were placed on-these parcels so as to not increase either type`s of density through the subdivision. The staff has been asked to research the lot sizes within the neighbarhood.af this proposal./ We have researched lot sizes in Black 7 of Vail Village 1st and Blocks 1,2,3 and ~ of Vail Village 3rd. This encompasses shat is commonly known as the Village side of the Forest Road area. The results of this research found that the average lot size ~~~-in~-•th~is-.-neighb.QZ~ood is 22, 723 square _•fe_et, with a mean ~-------lot---s~ize_.o~_24_,_,0~5_square~ feet.~r-Tn addita.an-~~,^~hei~ a~ a --~-total,~of five Lots in~he neighborhood greater than 30, 000 square feet (this inc7:'udes'"the 'applcari~s ~°`parc~l} . These lots range in size from 30,945 square feet to 37,769 square feet, All of these lots are zoned Primary/Secondary. By way of comparison, 14 of the ~2 Primary/secondary lots in Potato Patch are aver ,30,000 square feet. Nine of the 52 Primary/Secondary lots in the Glen Lyon subdivision exceed 30,000 square feet. Because of the various Factors involved in~determining buildable area of a'site, staff is unable to specify exactly how many of these lots could meet the quantitative standards for potential subdivision. ITT. STAFF RESPQNSE TO THE PROPOSAL Planning Commission review criteria are outlined in Section 1.7.16.110 of the Subdivision Regulations. This reads as follows: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under 1.7.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town of Vail policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environ- mental integrity and compatibility with surrounding sand uses. 3 One of the key aspects of this statement refers to • "compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter." Seven specific purposes are outlined in 17.04.01.0 (purpose section) of the subdivision regulations. T9ithin these seven specific purposes, reference is made to other criteria that may be applicable to subdivision requests. The issues and concerns of the staff, many of which ~, involve other policies and planning related tools the Town L ~.~ ~^" has ado ted will be identified within the -~_,~. { p , parameters v~^` ~ established by the seven specific purposes of the c!_~,fs ,,;~/ subdivision regulations. These purposes are the ~~~_. f{''" J •?~~ following: ~.. To inform each subdivider of the standards and •. criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated, and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. One of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations, as well as any development controls, are to establish basic ground rules with which the staff, the Planning Commission, applicants, and the community know will be followed in public review processes. Q 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the V future without conflict of development on adjacent land. • While the required 8o foot square within a newly created lot is intended to provide far an adequate building envelope, the previous proposal raised questions relative to the lot's ability to accommodate development within this building area. This proposal provides for building areas in excess of the required 80 foot square. This should minimize the need for subsequent setback variances when this property is developed. While originally subdivided prior to tha incorporation of the Tawn of Vail, Town zoning has guided development in this area for over 1.5 years. This proposal's compliance with minimum - standards implies consistency with the Town's overall. development objectives. While previous subdivision proposals for this site created ,(~~ potential. impacts on adjoining parcels Sc.~~~'"' (partscularly Lot 2 to the east) , the proposed lot line creates buffers which will limit impacts on views, privacy, and the changing character of this area. 4 3. To protect and conserve the value of sand throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements an the land. The value oP a lot, and to a greater extent the value of a neighborhood, is in large part dependent on the level and type of development within it. Staff opposition to previous proposals were, to a degree, based on this consideration. Tt is the staff's position that this proposal's compliance with lot standards, along xaith efforts to address other issues raised by the -~/ staff, demonstrate that this proposal is not ~ detrimental to the value o;E land throught the Town. 4. To ensure that subdivision of property is•in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinance, to achieve an harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. Tn oxder to remain consistent with similar requests (the Summers and Tannenbaum appl~.cations), the staff initiated dialogue with the applicants on what types of restrictions would be amenably to both parties. By virtue of this subdivision, the property stands to gain approximately 2,x.50 square Peet of additional GRFA than would be permitted under existing conditions. Tn addition, the property wa~u.ld ba permitted four units (as opposed to two under existing zoning). The Planning Commission should keep,.in~mind~that there are recently fpu.~_.~.egaZ;'nonconforma.ng~units an the property at this ~ m~ TYi~ s~aff~'suggesteci•~ tci~ the appli.carits that the GRFA on both parcels A and B be limited to a total of approximately 5,335 square feet of GRFA. Prior to this time, the applicant had offered to restrict the secondary units on both parcels to restricted employee housing units. As a result, discussion took place concerning restrictions on both the amount of square footage and the nature of the residential units that could be built on these lots. Staff considers these types.af "decentralized" employee units to be very benef~.cial to the community. 'This feeling is substantiated by the results of the Eagle County housing survey which 5 identified stand--alone employee housing units as the most desirable. As an incentive for these units to be built, the staff and applicant have agreed to what is essentially a 504 square foot ~~ "credit" to allow for the construction o~ the ~-~~ ~ employee housing units. Simply stated, bath ~'~ Parcel A and Parcel B would be permitted .~ 3 ~ approximately 2,667 square feet of GR~'A if single family residences are developed on each parcel. If the right to build the secondary unit is exercised, an additional 540 square feet of GRFA will be allocated to that parcel for the secondary unit. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient . transportation, water, sewage, schaals, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities wall have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. This purpose of the subdivision. regulations is intended to address large scale subdivisions as opposed to this proposal under consideration. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable canstrliction design standards and procedures. This is another inherent goal of subdivision regulations that has little specific reference to this application. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure: adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of the. land. There is the potential that the development of proposed Parcel B may impact the natural features of the lot that may otherwise not be impacted if this lot were developed as existing. Specifically, staff concerns center around the mature stand of pine trees at the northerly end of the lot and the transition this lot makes in leading to the Gore Creek stream tract. As is the case with other issues previously cited by the staff, the proposed lot line serves to 6 mitigate staff concerzz. zt is the feeling of the staff that the building envelope proposed for Parcel B will allow for the siting of a home whi3.e remaining sensitive to the natural features found at the northerly portion of this lot. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is no secret that the staff has looked very critically at this proposal. While at one time opposing this application, the applicant and staff have worked together to resolve issues previously identified by the staff. As a result, the staff is recommending approval of this subdivision a.s requested. Conditiozls of approval include the fallowing: ~.. The existing structure on Lot 4 be demolished, removed from the site, and the site revegetated prior to the signing of the minor subdivision plat by the Community Development pepartment. The staff would allow the opportunity for the cost of revegetation to be bonded in the event that the lots were to be developed shortly after the existing structure is demolished. The details of this could be worked out between the owners and the staff. The staff's intent is to ensure that the lo't is either redeveloped or restored to previous natural conditions when the existing structure is removed. 2. The second condition of approval involves restrictions imposed upon the level and type of development for proposed parcels A and B. The following table shall be the development regulations relating to density and employee units: d ~~ ~,~I s~=~~ G/~ Development Summaries Proposed Parcel "A+~ Proposed Parcel. "B„ 2667~sq ft of GRFA permitted ~ 6 7 q ft of GRFA permitted -.if only a single family i~` only a single family residence is constructed residence is constructed `3167~'sq ft of GRFA permitted ~ 3167;.:sq ft of GRFA permitted zf-'~"a _secondary..unit is ~'"'~i:~f~~~`a secondary unit is constructed. This unit constructed. This unit will be restricted to will be restricted to employee housing as employees housing as outlined in 18.1.3.080 B.10. outlined in 18.13.080 B.10. 7 Staff recce nines that this is somewhat cumbersome, but 5 feels the value of the employee housing units outweighs any difficulties in establishing this condition of approval. To ensure these conditions are met, staff would recommend that the fallowing language be recorded with the land records of Eagle County: ].. Gross Residential Floor Area {as defined by Section 7.8.04.130 of the Vail Municipal Code} of Parcel A shall be limited to a maximum of 2,667 square feet and Parcel. B shall be limited to a maximum of 2,657 square feet. 2. A Gross Residential Floor Area credit of 500 square feet is permitted on both Parcel A and Parcel B far the exclusive purpose of constructing a secondary unit. 3. Secondary units constructed on either Parcel A or Parcel B shall be restricted to use as long term employee housing units as permitted under Section 18.23.080 B.~,O of the Vail Municipal. Code. These restrictions prohibit the secondary unit Exam being sold, transferred, or conveyed separately from the primary unit, require rental only to tenants that are employees in the Upper Eagle Valley far periods not less than thirty days, and prohibit any form of time share, interval~~ownership or fractional fee. 4. These covenant restrictions cannot be repealed or amended without approval of the Town Council of the Town of Vail. 9 TO: Planning and Environmental C~+~uiu1SSiaTI FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 25, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration to enclose a portion of an existing outdoor dining deck, to build a restaurant addition, and to construct a spa. Applicants: Pepi and Sheika Gramshammer I. THE PROPOSAL The applicants are proposing the following additions to the Gasthaf Gramshammer: A. The existing southwest portion of the outside dining deck which is presently covered by a canvas awning would be enclosed. The enclosure is created by the addition of retractable glass windows (5' in height) along the south elevation and floor to ceiling windows on the east elevation of the dining deck. Fixed glass windows to match the style of the operable windows would be used on the west and north elevations. The existing wood wall along Gore Creek Drive would be rebuilt and lowered by 1 foot to • create a stone wall (24" high) to match the existing planter wall. The existing canvas awning would serve as the roof. Emergency access is off of the west elevation. The total existing deck square footage is x.788. The proposal encloses 51•°s of the existing deck. Square Footage = 920 sf B. A restaurant addition would be built on the north side of the existing deck area and is covered by a canvas awning. Square Footage = 320 sf C. A spa area would be built below the north side of the new dining area. The spa area is below the existing grade of the Children's Fountain Plaza. Square Footage = 300 sf. (Please see the attached site plan and elevations.) * A common area variance is required for the spa room and is reviewed in the attached memo. II. REVIEW OF THE REQUEST Staff's opinion is that the primary focus of this memo should be on the deck enclosure and restaurant addition. . Our opinion is that the spa addition is in compliance with all of the criteria of the exterior alteration review. . Far this reason, staff will review the deck enclasure in comparison to the exterior alteration criteria and not dwell on haw the spa relates positively to the exterior alteration criteria. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I 18.2.010 Purpose. The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail. Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting an pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish . the Village. This proposal does not comply with the purpose section of Commercial. Care I. The deck enclosure as proposed will have a negative impact on the "unique character of the Vail. Village area." The "predominantly pedestrian environment" is reinforced by open air dining decks which add to the interest and vitality of the pedestrian experience. Staff's concern is that the proposal does not go far enough to enhance the area as a seasonal dining deck. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN k'OR VAIL VILLAGE The following guide plan sub-area concept relates to the west side of the Gasthof Gramshammer and states: "Commercial expansion potential. One story from plaza level would improve enclosure proportions and complete third side of plaza. Same pocket terrace potential at first ar second level. Large existing evergreen to be preserved." . This proposal does not directly relate to the sub-area concept, however, it does not prevent this type of expansion from occurring in the future. 2 V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VYLLAGE A. Pedestrianization. This criteria's emphasis is to "reinforce and expand the quality of pedestrian walkways throughout the Village." The deck enclosure as proposed wi11 decrease the visibility of diners from the street. As was mentioned at the work session on this propasal, the high visibility of dining activity adds greatly to the pedestrian experience. This deck enclosure will not have floor to ceiling operable windows along the highly visible south elevation, but instead wi11 have a two foot rock wall with operable five foot windows enclosing the south elevation. Staff feels very strongly that this type of design solution will have an end result similar to the Red Lion deck enclosure. The end result is the feeling of diners and pedestrians being very separated and removed from one another. This type of design solution does not meet the intent of the pedestrianization criteria. B. Vehicle Penetration No impact. C. Streetscape Framework The Streetscape framework criteria focuses on ways "to improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrianways. Two types of improvements are encouraged along walkways: one is additional open space and landscaping and secondly, the infill of commercial storefronts to add c~,~„«ercial activity and street life and attractions at key locations along pedestrian routes." Clearly, the Gasthof Gramshammer is a key location in Vail Village. This proposal lacks the degree of transparency that has been required of all other deck enclosures in order to maintain "street life and visual interest." D. Street Enclosure The intent of this consideration is to create facade heights that create a "comfortable enclosure for the street." The proposal has no major impact on this concern. 3 E. Street Edge This criteria encourages buildings in the Village care to "create a strong but irregular edge to the street." Staff would prefer to see the southeast corner of the deck enclosure step back to the existing building to soften the very square corner of the new enclosed patio area. By softening the southeast corner of the addition, the new structure will be more compatible with the existing building and create additional visual interest. We believe that the proposal could comply more fully with the intent of this criteria which states: "A strong street edge is important for continuity, but perfectly aligned facades over too long a distance tend to be monotonous. With only a few exceptions in the Village, slightly irregular facade lines, building logs, and landscape areas give life to the street and visual interest for pedestrian travel." F. Building Height The only change to the height of the building is that the ridge of the awning will increase from approximately 14 feet to 15 feet. G. Views and Focal Points Not applicable. H. Service and Delivery Staff's opinion is that the restaurant addition will not increase significantly the number of service and delivery trips into the Village. I. Sun/Shade Although this criteria is related more to the sun/shade patterns created by a building expansion, staff feels that it is appropriate to discuss the sun/shade of the proposed enclosure. Zt is very positive that the applicant responded to the staff recommendation by using the canvas awning for the roof which will provide ambient lighting. However, due to the decrease in transparency of the south elevation, the open, sunny atmosphere of the deck will be decreased. Windows that are not floor to ceiling as well as operable will turn a sunny dining space into a dark, enclosed area. Staff believes that the proposal can be improved by using operable floor to ceiling windows on the south elevation and operable windows on the west and north elevations. These changes will create a design that meets the intent of this criteria more fully. 4 IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the deck enclosure and dining addition and approval for the spa with the conditions that: 1. Revised drawings for the spa be submitted for PEC review. Presently the staff has no plans that show how the spa would be designed without the dining expansion above. 2. The applicant will agree to participate in and not remonstrate against a Village improvement district if and when one is formed. In respect to the deck enclosure, the proposal does not comply with the exterior alteration criteria. When reviewing deck enclosures, in addition to the exterior alteration criteria, the staff, Planning Commission, and Town Council have compared the issues below: 1. Are the windows floor to ceiling and operable? 2. Is the exposure of the deck to the south or north? South facing decks are particularly important to maintain. 3. Ts the visibility of diners maintained in order to add to the street ambiance? 4. How much of the deck remains unenclosed after the enclosure is built? 5. Is the deck a street level or second floor deck? Street level decks are particularly important to maintain due to their positive impacts on pedestrian areas. 6. How does the deck proposal affect vehicular and pedestrian traffic? This deck is at street level and faces south and west. This is probably the premier dining deck in Vail and certainly the most visible. The enclosure is about halfi of what exists. Our problems focus on factor No. 1. First, the visibility of diners in this area should be maintained to add to the street ambiance which is strongly encouraged in Vail Village. Secondly, the proposed enclosure should maintain a very high degree of transparency. In order to meet these two objectives, the staff rec~,~~r~~ends the following improvements to the proposal: 5 i 1. Floor to ceiling operable windows would be used along the entire south elevation. A baseboard of 6 - 8 inches could be used at the base of the windows to keep trash and dirt from blowing into the dining space which has been cited as a concern of the owner. 2. Operable windows should be used along the west and north elevations of the enclosed dining space. Staff agrees that it is inappropriate to use floor to ceiling operable windows due to the existing utilities in these areas. The north elevation is not visible from any major pedestrian areas and therefore full floor to ceiling operable windows are not necessary in this area. However, having operable windows for the east and north elevations will maintain the open air dining experience. 3. The southeast corner of the building should be redesigned to allow for a jog in the building which softens the corner of the new enclosed patio. 4. Although more of a minor concern, staff would propose that perhaps the emergency exit door could came off the north elevation of the restaurant • addition instead of onto the Children's Fountain plaza. Even though the door is necessary for emergency ingress and egress, the impact of the door could be minimized if it is located on the north elevation. 5. The application has stated that the 24" wall along the south elevation is a necessity due to the impacts of the sprinklers in the adjacent planting area and dirt from the planters that blows into the dining area. Staff believes that the sprinkling could be timed to avoid impacting diners. In addition, the windows could easily be closed for the brief period of time during which the sprinkling occurs. The Gramshammer deck is one of the most valuable attractions in the Village and contributes greatly to the ambiance of the pedestrian experience. As stated previously, staff appreciates the owner's interest in making this dining area more usable. However, our opinion is that the design could be improved and still meet the owners' intent to increase useage of this space far diners during the winter. 6 L 0 W N W CR ~~ j 1 1 3I112~C] ?i33~1~ 32~QJ ~r~~. _. Za ~I w i-- '- \~ 1 1 1 1 ~~ 1 i =..,~ %/~.. , ~ • ~~ ~ r~ F ' ~ -. E :~ ... f ~ ~` 1~ ,I + r ; ~~~' y !~ ~I i v ~ r i / ~ ~~ ~ ! ~\ e ` . \ ~'~. ' Y f ~ `~ ~. ~. JEI ~. ~' r ~ ' ~~ Q ~~~. I i n~ 'ti. - ._.._ .. _ ,_ - 4 ~• ~ ~. - #-----i~-----~ } ~ S 1_` ~ ~-mot l` ~ _ ... '~ ~'. _ ., ' ~~ ~- _., ~ ., x $ ~ ~~-\'~~ J~~~.~~. t`~~~~ ~ , ~.: ~, ~f ~" 1 .E f"y~;: `~' ~.. ~° ~: ~- ~ ~~~ ° ~~` ~,,y:. ~ S ~'~ --~- ~ 1 ~; f t ,~ rti . ,, ~ ~ 4 ~ ' + ~ Il + , .. ~ ... .. . 6oeE ~,~ :;~ _ ~ -, ~ ~~ ~ - X s '-- r~t~fi~~: ~` ~ ~ _ . ._t:,~L...,~. . Y" ~ r ' ,. ~ -C}y~ = d .,_. .. ^.n,.,. }~~Y ;~ c ~" ~ ,~ ' r~~qN .. Y, t. ~~.. • • ,I ~~ [4 ~~ ~ ' ! ;, Cj i ~ l li.) i F 'Z" ..t_. t I~ -w~, .. .:.~ .........fit t!t 1 I{ ~_ __ ._.`y 1 ~ ' i ~.~•_ ~_~_~~ ~ J _._...._.._ - --- _ ,. _ -1` .~ 1 ~ S lf+"" c ~ ~ .. f __...~. . {I 1 ,~ f r 1~ Y f! :~ f/ ~ ~_J' ~ ~ ! .. { - ~ 3 K• •* t y~!'1 t .,_~_ ! ._._.._._ . ' 1 I C~ d i 1 i ,~~ t ~ r~ ~ t~~~ -~ ..~ .~ ~~ ` I t~44 ~1 ~, €E 'k ~~ H i 1 1~ f' ~ _1 ~ S 1 I I ~' ]~ r i ;; ~, J • 1~ • • '. - !may r..,_.. y.Ai~ t , F ~ ' ~ ~ - i`I!I ,~ ;~ ~~ L ' f 1 1 f; EE ~ i ~ E ~ 1~~ j1y. ~.~ r1.~ F:--~-~ ~f ~, i.. { 4 ~ ~ C ~' ._. ~ _ _ 1......-.t. #_ } ._...t r. F ' J . ~ ' , . ~~: ~ ~ ~ ~.- ~_,~ _ ~' ~ ~ i S ` ., . *r' . ~ , c ~_ r w:~ k. ~ ~~ ~ - i .- ti4~ ~ - ---tl i ~...._. .,. ~ I ~ 1 5. .~ ~. 11. l~ .~~r- - - 4_~..- _- ~... ~ ~I11 .... .~. _._ .: I l > ..f, ~ ~ . 1 F ~7 ir"F q~ ~ ~1~_ ' ~ 7 i ^ y ~ ~~ij.tix ~, _ 4 __ ~ h {-.'c _ ' L i r I `~~e !_~~s J_ 1 + ~~YY~Y` 4" ~ ~ ~ tr .._... tf y~~ 4 l ~f ,r 1~_ 1Eµ- _ ^~ ' _ ~ ~. s~r ~ i " ~~:s~ ~ t t E~ ~~-~--_ _.. _~. ----~ - `-fi 11_ _t' .. _i t ~S~r~ v .J • ,. . _, _..~._~ ~..,r ... F °- ' ' . - - - --~~ ~ . . . } } S S S S S ` 1 _. ..- -----_ __ ~ ,1 r ,J ~ r ~ ~ ~' ~. ? ~:. 4 :: c _. `" 7I~ ~ :. ._~ i ,~ ~r ~' ,I f/ 1 ~~ 1 ~ f 1--~r ~~ 5~ y~ .~ i 1I i 7 ^ y.: .; :. .. ~ .. :. .a r t . lr ,.. r. .:R~ L ~ ~ 2a ~'~ ¢4 ~. r"' 1. ~, t ~~*X~~ "L i 4: k iF j '~-'~'' `~....~ ~4 ~~ i~ ~~~ f ,~ ;`~ '•. ,.~ti~,. `.tip Y_.. Y .: -~ y~~t~ fi 1, bL ~Yw1 ~i. .~~~ X ~ .r y J ~ ti~:~A~ .~ ~i~ a ~ ~~ •~ \ 1 ~~. 3,. .. ~. .~; • ~ T~ i '.~ ~__._....~._._ _,. ~ f ~ _ y .. ~ i I i r ~ 4 .~' ~ ! q.. ~ k y 1F ~; I} .~ ,.Fr . ~ 7 -*-: ~~ t Y .. ., 3 ~ ;f~f ~ ~j.:l Yet +~~ .•! .i.'~ F C ~ ~VL. ~. i ~' r I ~ ~` i ~ ~ ~•, ~ r i ~ i rF ~~ ! ~` i 3 ~. t~~` ~, a}~ 1 } 1 ~ F i j ~. F i 1~ ! F ~ ~, ~~~ ~, i ~- ~, E E i i h.l '~`~._ .f ti -~ F (~. ~~ ..;~ '~1 ~r :~~ ~~ ~ ~ w.. ~.. .,, b ~.r, ~ , ,,;=~ ~~ ~ _, ~~; -} l . ~Ah.. ~ `Kr3~""` . Yn .~' ~~~ 'mow..-~J. t' . 6'~~ V ~ j , _ °y .~. S~ f 1 ~ ~r w~ .1'. Vii:. . _.. _ i -.~sa?._ . ~~.xR •' ~• _.r .~'~ _~'ry ~ ~y '~ .K ? 1. ~ . ~_ ~~ ,.:~ . _ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ .~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATEt January 25, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to resubdivide Tract E, Vail Village 5th Filing, and a part of Lot C, Block 5-C, Vail Village 1st Filing. App~.icant: Vail Associates, Inc. A variety of players are involved in the redevelopment proposed for the Golden Peak House building. Vail Associates is the present Land owner of Tract E. This tract is located behind the Golden Peak House and runs as far east as the Christiania and north to Mill Creek Circle. This subdivision would create Tract E-~ and Tract E-2. (See attachment.} Tract E-1 would provide land far the ski base/recreation facility. The remaining portion of Tract E would then be referred to as Tract E~-2, Apart of Lot G, Block 5WC of 'Nail Village First Filing would also be incorporated into Tract E-l. Tract E-1 would became a part of SDD~20. Lots A and B of Vail Village First Filing would comprise the remaining portions of the SDD. Because this development is a Special Development District, there are no prescribed standards for minimum lot sizes and dimensions. As a result, the merits of this subdivision are best established by evaluating the proposed development plan for this project. Two other memorandums related to this project address the issues relative to this subdivision. It is felt redundant to repeat these considerations as a part of this memorandum. It is important that this subdivision be approved if the SDD and exterior alterations are approved. As a result, staff recommendation for this request is approval. This approval should be conditional upon approval of the proposed SDD. • y • f~ i i ii i t i~ i ~ $ ~~ r~s ~t ~ 3 'is'F!t Fret'=' ~ s i jj - ~' 8 :~ xifg.'t~i;j fits. ii:3=i r d ! s r e3~ 3~ ~ ! - i t : TeFl#~rit ~ f s ~If Fib _r~~ `3 s :!'_i. 3i; ~~'FiiZtisti3 f .i j x t ~;s - s:~ r~ "s: Ss3il-.=c c :~~r j;~= ~# I -~'- i1,3 3 '~ ~ -~ 4 ~!! ~ ! a ';3 c-: il: ciz~s'~xea"< _::F~ityil~ii : ~ _I_. {riC ~. i trf .z_ ;,x~ i~_lle.s3!ii x;.i:"! st I i it; t ~ a 'i? ;?' FAY 33"~3ajii'~: t}ss~''~i: i~ ~~ r!f' ii Z f3s >s3 i~= v s ;Ails?;; ; sY ~E 3 ; .i .! ~i! 3 1 rS!~ ~i7i i3 :_^iF=st;Z;~ i~ a e ~uj St r _ s - ~: Q C'? ~ "1 t F~~ .is Ei3 i~t1~i !• s~73iEs1i 'I r i3 s Z n S!"s= •!3 I e?~ is:t{A! "s#.. i:~a!i:!i!s: !I • ~ ?iti ti C~ ~ Z r. J ~- 1 r I ~ ~ s: i! Ii t !~ ~~~ r I ~ ki ~ i ~~~ # ~ 3'~ ! ~ ~ ~ as ~ ~ 1 i f " • ? ~ ~ ~~ e ~ ! ~ s ? I ? (~~ 3 i' ~~ ~ I~ ~ li ~ i b 6i 3 ~ 1! t i ~ : 1 1 ; ~i s !' ~ ~ ~ i = i s ji~ g ~eY , ~~» Vii. ! 1 2 ~ s s dd ~ ~ :~i~ ~ _ !i' s i 3 i :~ s r: s ~ii :' dig s t t b :i'.il e Ff; '1~ ~ «~ i iti ~ »3:a ~ e3 i i cn :t Ilji~i ! ~ ~ w~ g a ;ij!=~~1~; ~ 9 i ;~ ;xg~, } :i J ~ v J ~ r ~~ ! \ ~:'i ~ J ~ 1 ~ i~~ ~? i~~ _ ~ Q Z w ^t :::~ a T~"~' ii Q a ~B ~ 'r U O G ~~ r `!• ! 3Ea'S J' • m I"' 0 ~ 'e r7 ' o ~: ~" ~ _ ' _ ~ _ s ~ to l.t,_ ~ ~ I : ~ V " 9 " , I i s ~ 'Z 8 ~ ~ O ~W LL C S F .• i ~ ~ ^ "C ~ 1~ ,' ~ J J ~ ? 3 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ 4 4 W i ~xt~s~F I ~~,;•-_ #'i"fir; I = ~ ~~~tit= _ :sf i~!i ~ `~! :-;3i:~ ~i'•~~33 eg ~s f~i". ;_ is ~ Zi:y r; ~5 ~~ b ~ 41'ii~it ~~~ ~ i `~~ w 0 Y r ~ ~ G ! i ~~, SS ~ • ~II F i l`""'~: s ~~; 1 7 ri z~ -s. r ~~ ~ ~~ ~ r ~a _~=' :: ~{8 g~ °~ :~ '~Y ~:, ~.• :: r F ~ a N ~.+;~~ uK' "Yx~Si~ F _ » ., d~ N i ~ Q .,a*/ ~ S O tl IE ~ ! S ~ ' ~ ! w n i i L ; ~~ ~ E ~ iE, • ~~ `, u ~ `s ' n'4. ~ ~ A ~ .,}, ~ ate. .,~ ~ \ 'A a ~ ~ '~ o '.4 •8 O •Y \ Gii: :i~:b ~/ `~ .. ! `,r ~~ yea use. " Y , r . d .. ,. ~*-~ ~ J~~ N ~ s X~ * - . ~ •Y W g o x%• W o 7 J 7 ~ w ~ .J 1'arn~,reiw ~ 8 8 laef` ~ sx T ~/ t ••x•a,~e.t~.ro• 3~i~a3S A53a0~ Sn ~„ ;~ ~ ~/ a %/. . > j/ /~ r ~~ i- Y#t~ fir' ~ki~ rr=1f[ ~ I.ii `-3~ ~ ~'~! s~: ~3:j x % r~~i~ ~iiFi: §'•j! >, i y Finurp 19 I~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department . DATE: January 25, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in order to remodel the Golden Peak House building. Applicants: Golden Peak House Association and Catacombs, Limited I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST As has been discussed in the rezoning memorandum, there are a variety of elements in the redevelopment proposal of the Golden Peak House. Relying primarily on the Urban Design Guide Plan criteria, this memorandum will focus on the renovations to the existing building and the ticket window area created by the ski base/recreation facility. Simply stated, the exterior alteration involves a total face lift of the Golden Peak House Building. Specific elements of this proposal will be addressed throughout the course of this memo. A statistical analysis of the additions proposed are found in the request for rezoning memo. zI. CRTTERTA TO BE USED ZN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL • The Urban Design Guide Plan and zoning considerations are used in reviewing development proposals in Commercial Core I. The Design Considerations in the Guide Plan were adopted to augment standard zoning regulations. They are intended to allow for greater flexibility and creativity in designing projects in the Village, while recognizing and maintaining its unique character. The Guide Plan identifies desired physical improvements for strengthening the overall fabric of Vail Village. These improvements are generally designed to reinforce the overall character of the Village, with particular emphasis placed on improving the pedestrian experience. These improvements are referred to as sub-area concepts. Design Considerations address the primary form-giving physical features of the Village. They provide a description of these elements without which the image of the Village would be noticeably different. Tt is the goal of the Design Considerations that through their applications, future changes will be consistent with the established character of the Village and make positive contributions to its experience. IZZ. 5UB-AREA CONCEPTS The fallowing sub-area concepts are relevant to this development: Sub-Area Concept # 9. Commercial expansion (ground floor) not to exceed 10 feet in depth, passible arcade. To improve pedestrian scale at base of tall building, and for greater transparency as an activity generator on Seibert Circle. The intent of this concept is to improve the overall appearance of the storefronts as well as to provide relief and a more pleasing pedestrian scale to this building. The potential for this expansion, however, is complicated by the fact that the Golden Peak House building is essentially built to its property line and the area far this potential expansion is located on Town of Vail right of way. The developers did approach the Town Council with a request to purchase a ten foot strip of land in this area, but were unsuccessful in their efforts. In order to address this sub-area concept, the design of this redevelopment includes a 6 foot roof overhang, bay windows and cantilevered portions of the building. These have been done in order to provide relief and establish a pedestrian scale on the Bridge Street side of this building. Tt is felt by the staff that this design accomplishes the intent of what is proposed in Sub-Area Concept No. 9. A variety of overhang easements were granted to the Golden Peak House by Vail Associates in 1966. This was done to accommodate roof and balcony overhangs. Following the incorporation of the Town of Vail, the Town became the heir to this agreement. Larry Eskwith has reviewed this easement agreement and feels it does allow for the alteration and reconstruction of improvements within the easement. While this easement would not override any decision by the Town Council, Planning Commission or Design Review Board, it does allow the applicants to proceed with these improvements as proposed. Sub-Area Concept #10. Seibert Circle. Future area paving treatment. Relocate focal point {potential fountain} to north for better sun exposure (fall/spring), create increased plaza area and/or the backdrop for activities. Separated paths on the north sides for unimpeded pedestrian route during delivery periods. 2 . The relocation of Seibert Circle has been discussed for many years. While not an element of this redevelopment proposal, the applicants have indicated a willingness to participate in this project if and when it occurs. A related concern that is addressed in other portions of this memorandum deal with sun/shade effects from this building. As demonstrated by sun/shade studies, additions to the Golden Peak House will not increase shadow patterns on Seibert Circle or the potential relocation of Seibert Circle. Sub-Area Concept ~10A Mountain gateway improvements. Landscaping screen, minor plaza, pedestrian connection loop to Wall Street (Vail Village ticket window area). This sub-area concept is specifically addressed through this redevelopment proposal. The ticket windows proposed in the ski base facility will anchor a mini-plaza to be developed between the Hill Building and Golden Peak House. (Completion of this plaza will require approval from the U.S. Forest Service and owners of the Hill Building.) The connection between this plaza and Seibert Circle will be strengthened with increased transparency on the west elevation of the Golden Peak House. While the improvements in this area are considerable, staff is not completely satisfied with the transition proposed between the plaza area and the ski mountain. Specifically, staff would prefer a ramp system as opposed to the stairs shown. Overall, it seems this area is in need of further attention in order to establish a prominent gateway between the Village and Vail Mountain. The need for further study of this area, however, is nat significant enough to delay the review and approval of this project. Staff will recommend as a condition of approval that developers return to the Planning Commission at a later date with a more refined plan for this area. IV. DE5IGN CONSIDERATIONS The Urban Design Guide Plan outlines nine different design considerations to be used in the evaluation of any exterior alteration. A. PEDESTRIANIZATION Because of the location of the existing building, there are no significant factors involved in pedestrianization. The development of the ticket window plaza will certainly improve pedestrianization around the building between the 3 • Village and Vail Mountain. zn addition, a heated system of pavers is proposed on the Bridge street side of the building (similar to the Gorsuch and A & D Buildings). These are all considered positive improvements relative to this redevelopment. B. VEHICULAR PENETRATION It is an underlying goal for the Village to keep all vehicular traffic into the Village at a minimum. The six additional residential units proposed in this redevelopment will undoubtedly generate trips into the Village core. This traffic is obviously necessary in arder for guests to arrive to these units. Because parking is not provided on site, these trips will be primarily far arrival and departure of guests. The underground building will also generate some additional vehicle trips - mostly service and delivery (see item H}. C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK A high quality streetscape framework can be established through landscape features and active, visually interesting starefrants. As proposed, this redevelopment is a substantial improvement to existing conditions. Improvements to transparency, relief, materials, and variety all are marked improvements aver the present building on both the north and west sides. An additional element of this proposal that has been discussed centers around the introduction of street trees on the Bridge Street side of the building. While there is no question that street trees would add to the color and life of this building, staff is uncomfortable with requiring them at this time. This is due to the unknown future of the Seibert Circle area. Based on preliminary studies of this relocation, it is apparent that space in this area is at a premium (space between the Hill Building, Plaza Lodge, Red Lion and Golden Peak House buildings). Money has been budgeted for a comprehensive analysis of streetscape improvements in Vail Village. This study wi11 address the Seibert Circle relocation and result in a conceptual plan for its relocation. Staff is reluctant to commit the 3 to 4 feet of depth that would be required for street trees before this analysis is undertaken. As a result, we would prefer to deal with the street trees as a condition of approval subject to the findings of this study. If it is determined that ample space is available for these trees, they would became an element of this approval. On the other hand, if the findings of this analysis indicate there is not room for street trees, they would obviously not. be required. 4 D. STREET ENCLOSURE ~ The sense of enclosure between this building and surrounding structures remains unchanged, if not improved. It is important to understand that as the peak of the roof lines incr8ase over what is existing, the eave lines are in many places lower than the existing mansard roof line. xn addition, the upper floors of the building step back away from the street. E. STREET EDGE The location of this building at the top of Bridge Street results in less importance on this criteria than if it were located along Bridge Street. In addition, the existing footprint of the building remains substantially the same. As a result, the building does continue to "wrap around" the circle created at the top of Bridge Street. F. BUILDING HEIGHT Because of the existing roof form and roof height (which exceeds what is permitted), a variety of considerations arise in evaluating this proposal. The inverted mansard roof form is without question the most irregular in the Village. Existing roof farms throughout the Village are almost exclusively gable. Clearly, the prapased gabled roof forms proposed will have a positive impact with regard to this building's consistency with the rest of the Village. On the easterly portion of the building, the proposed ridge elevation exceeds the height of the mansard roof line by 4 - 5 feet, while the eave line is lower than the existing mansard roof line by 4 - 5 feet. More importantly, the majority of the upper floor is stepped back to provide relief to the building. This helps the building "read" as less massive than presently exists. The westerly portion is different in that the valley of the inverted roof is being infilled by the introduction of the gable. The ridge line is approximately 9 feet lower than the ridge line on the easterly side of the building. This provides a nice mixture of roof heights that is also encouraged by the Guide Plan. Overall, the staff is very positive about the improvements to this element of the building. One must consider the improved sun/shade conditions, the roof farm and materials that are proposed and the manner in which upper floors are stepped back from the front plane of the building. Collectively, these improvements result in the transformation of a building that is at the present totally inconsistent with the goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan into a building that is very compatible with other buildings in the Village. 5 . G. VIEWS A variety of overlays have been prepared to demonstrate the mass of the new building and how it may impact views from various points in the Village. Overall, the proposed building is not a detriment to these views. The proposed building does encroach into two major view corridors in an insignificant manner. The first of these is a vantage point from the steps of the parking structure overlooking Vail Village. Avery minor portion of the roof peak encroaches into this plane. The second encroachment is on the view corridor from Seibert Circle between the Hiil Building and Golden Peak House toward Vail Mountain. The specific direction in the Guide Plan states that "Any proposed building changes which would encroach into, or substantially alter the designated view planes will be discouraged." The applicants have submitted documentation that clearly demonstrates that the encroachments into these view corridors will not substantially alter these view corridors. The degree of encroachment of the building roof plane was so slight that it was difficult to determine where the encroachment actually was. With regard to the view from Seibert Circle, it is felt that this encroachment is also negligible. As stated in the original ordinance, this view plane was preserved to provide an orientation paint for the visitor toward Vail Mountain as well as chair lifts and lift ticket sales. Improvements to the streetscape and the introduction of ticket windows in this area will serve to mitigate any potential impacts of this encroachment. H. SERVICE AND DELIVERY Delivery functions will remain unchanged from the way the building presently operates. Delivery for the new underground building will be performed by existing loading zones on Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road and brought through the Golden Peak House. A substantial improvement will be made to the westerly side of the building where garbage is presently stored. A trash compactor will be located in the basement of the building with service being provided on the easterly end of the building. There are inherent difficulties in servicing a building that has no "back door." It is felt that the relocation of the trash facilities is an overall improvement to existing conditions. • 6 I. SUN/SHADE ~ The proposed building responds very well to the intent of this consideration. The result is an overall improvement on the impact of shade along the street in the area of upper Bridge Street. The combination of the gabled roof form and stepping back the upper floor of the structure actually allows for more sun to reach Bridge Street over a greater period of time. This consideration was very influential in the staff's position an the building height. V. ARCHITECTURAL/LANDSCAPE CONSIDERATIONS While these detailed considerations are typically the purview of the Design Review Board, the staff felt they were worthy of some mention with regard to the overall improvements to this building. These are important because it is the collective result of all of these improvements that will provide a far superior product for the community and Vail Village. Same of these considerations include improved transparency, revisions to existing decks and patios, shadow lines that will highlight the building, and most importantly the roof form and materials. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for this proposal is approval. In considering this project's compliance with the various criteria, it is very evident that the proposal is consistent with the goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan. The most significant issue relative to this proposal has not been specifically addressed. That being the density increase requested in conjunction with this exterior alteration. In the past, the staff has maintained that density controls established with zoning must work hand in hand with the Design Considerations of the Guide Plan. This was demonstrated by our position on preliminary proposals for an additional floor at the Plaza Lodge building. The obvious question raised is, what is different in this proposal for the staff to support & additional units and 6,000 square feet of additional GRFA an property that already exceeds its allowable density? It is not the intent of the staff to establish an open ended policy that unlimited amounts of GRFA are appropriate for Vail Village. In the Golden Peak House, we are dealing with a building that is unique among all other properties in the Village. This uniqueness is a 7 result of the building's total incompatibility with the existing design character of the core area. Our support of the additional GRFA is predicated on the fact that the end result of the design proposed is a far improved product over what is existing today without improvements. The following summarizes the staff's considerations that have contributed to our recommendation: * The present design of the Golden Peak House is outdated and in need of remodeling to bring it into step with the character of the Village. * The prominent location of this structure, located at the gateway to Vail Mountain and at the top of Bridge Street, serve to accent the need far its redevelopment. * The vast majority of additional GRFA is a result of converting existing spaces and square footage created under the gable roof. * The "inverted" gable roof form is not only inconsistent, but also awkward. The introduction of the gable roof is the single most important element in bringing this building into harmony with the Village. * Other considerations such as the massing and improvements to sun/shade serve to improve the existing condition. * While the building is increasing in size, it will not read as such. This is primarily due to maintaining and lowering eave lines, cantilevers, and stepping the upper floors back off of Bridge Street. * There is not a single property in Vail Village that is in need of attention as badly as the Golden Peak House. The bottom line is the Village will be a better place with this remodel than it is now. Staff's decision to support increasing the size of this building was not made without much deliberation. We have been working with the applicants for nearly two years on this project. While the additional square footage is a sensitive issue, we feel it is supportable and our position is defendable when considering the overall impacts and improvements that this proposal. will have on the Village area. The staff would recommend the fallowing conditions be applied to this approval: 8 1, A comprehensive drainage plan shall be submitted (and approved by the Town Engineer) and approvals for the relocation of utilities and easements shall be provided by affected utility companies prior to final DRB approval. 2. The developer is responsible for relocating the bike path (as generally shown on the site plan), and the two mature pine trees on the south side of the project be relocated in the area of Pirate Ship Park. 1n the event these trees die within 12 months of relocation, the applicant is responsible far placement of spruce trees of 20 feet high or more. 3. The Tawn of Vail presently maintains the lawn behind the Golden Peak House building. The Public Works Department will require indemnification from the owners against any damages to the underground structure prior to resuming maintenance in this area. This area must remain useable to the general public ~- no roping or fencing off will be allowed. 4. Owners' use restriction as outlined in Section 17.25.060 of the Municipal Code shall apply to these 6 new units proposed in the Galden Peak House (or an equivalent number of units). 5. The applicant shall return to the Planning Commission for final review of the gateway entry to Vail Mountain prior to any review by the Design Review Board. 6. The inclusion of street trees on the Bridge Street side of the Golden Peak House may be incorporated into the approved development plan. Final determination as to the appropriateness of these street trees shall be made subject to the outcome of the Vail Village Streetscape Conceptual Design study (to be completed in the summer of 1988). 7. The applicants' participation in public improvements shall be accomplished by participation in a "mini- special" improvement district to redesign and relocate Seibert Circle if and when one is farmed. An equitable manner of crediting the applicants' contri- bution for Seibert Circle toward an overall improvement district for Vail Village will be established, if and when a Village-wide district is formed. (This same condition was applied to a previous approval at the Plaza Lodge Building.) ti' 9 Planning and Environmental Commission February 8, 1988 2:30 PM Work Session on Gateway Building (Amoco) 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. A request for an exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, and a rezoning to a Special Development District for the Golden Peak House. Applicants: Catacombs, Ltd.; Golden Peak House Association; Vail Associates, Ync. 2. Appeal of a staff decision concerning a home occupation permit for Bowling Alley Pizza at 2754 South Frontage Road. Appellants: Darlene and Steve Schweinsberg 3. A request for an amendment to a development plan in the Ski Base/Recreation zone district in order to construct a children's center in the area of the temporary children's center at Golden Peak ski base. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. 4. Presentation of the final plat for the Victorians at 4415 Bighorn Road. Applicant: WSN Partnership a a a as a ~f S Planning and Environmental Commission February 8, 1988 PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Grant Riv'a Sid Schultz Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Tam Braun Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. Diana, Pam, Peggy, Jim and Grant were sworn in for new two year terms. Grant is a new member of the PEC. Diana moved and Bryan seconded to have Jim Viele continue as chairman. The vote was 6-D-1 in favor. A work session eras held on the Vail Gateway (Amoco) project, led by Rick Pylman. 1. A request for an exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, and a rezanina to Special Development District for the Golden Peak House. Applicants: Catacombs, Ltd.; Golden Peak House Association; Vail Associates, Tnc. Tom Braun reviewed the last meeting, when the project was first discussed. He stated that the staff position had remained unchanged (in favor of the project}. Tom reviewed nine paints that the Commission members had raised at the last meeting: 1. Concern about the size of the dining deck. The applicants have reduced the deck slightly and relocated the bike path to nearly its original alignment. 2. Concern for the need to restrict permitted uses within the ski base recreational facility. The applicants have not proposed any changes. 3. Concern about constructing five stories. Given the existing building mass with the mansard roof; the fact that building is candominiumized and a reality of redeveloping the building is the unlikelihood of altering the space within the 4th floor condos; the introduction of the desirable gabled roof and the improved sun/shade conditions, the staff supports the fifth floor element. 4. Concern with potential difficulties providing delivery nd loading service, especially to the ski base/recreation facility. The staff feels existing loading zones on Hanson Ranch Road and Bridge Street could service the project, or loading could be accmmodated through the Golden Peak House. K 5. Concern over the seasonal enclosure for a portion of the dining deck. The applicants have not changed this element of the proposal, staff saw little concern given the enclosure's ability to retract both the roof and wall systems. 6. Desire to see both aspects of the project developed simultaneously. Staff suggested the PEC make this a condition of approval if they desire. 7. The dedication to the Town of the remaining portions of Tract E. 8. Questions were raised concerning the ski race finish area and the proposed gateway improvements to Vail Mountain. The revised site and landscape plan show improvements to this area including a ramp as opposed to a staircase. i• 9. Concern about the relationship of the building to the possible relocation of Seibert Circle. Staff feels that the design of the building can stand on its own merits regardless of whether or not the circle is relocated or stays in its present location. Peter Jamar, planner for the applicants, stated that he felt there would not be additional need for service and delivery, that the size of the deck was comparable to those in other ski towns, that the design of the temporary enclosure allowed the windows and roof to be retracted, that both parts of the project could be developed simultaneously, but that Tract E must remain in VA's control. He discussed uses, and stated that a certain amount of flexibility was needed to make the project work. He added that the Agriculture and Open Space zone was different from the Green Belt and Natural Open Space zone district in that a certain amount of development was allowed. John Perkins, architect for the applicants, showed a model of the deck enclosure and described the changes. Dave Yoder, a mechanical engineer, explained where the ventilation exhaust system would be placed and stated that the vent would not be larger than 6 square feet in size. Jim Viele acknowledged the receipt of many letters, some in favor of the project, and many opposed. He then asked for input from the public. Dick Georgie, representing a group of owners in the Golden peak House, stated that they did not agree with parts of the proposal, though they were in favor of remodeling the building without any financial gain to themselves. He referred to a letter from Keith Brown and stated that his group agreed wholeheartedly with Keith's letter. They were not in favor of 2- the commercial area between themselves and the ski slopes. He mentioned that there were restrictive covenants pertaining to Tract E. He added that they were not against the underground development, but were against the deck enclosure, and the deck itself. Mr. Georgie stated that they also wanted to make sure the building was improved simultaneously with the commercial expansion. Elli Caulkins, a resident of Mill Creek Circle, protested the deck and the underground expansion. Laurel ?, manager of the Sport Stalker, spoke in favor of the expansion. Steve Berkowitz, a resident of Mill Creek Circle, spoke against the project, stating that the original covenants established Tract E as open space, and he felt the action would be precedent setting. Arnold Bensinger, an owner in the Golden Peak House, did not want to see commercial space in common green space. Teke Simmonett, manager of Vail Ski Rentals, spoke against the underground uses. Jack Curtin, representing Mrs. Hill, stated that he was hearing for the first time that Tract E was a developable piece of property. Pepi Gramshammer felt the building would crowd the area, would impact parking, it was too high, and the open space must remain. Bob Lazier from the Tivoli spoke against any development of Tract F which is next to the Tivoli. Ron Riley, one of the applicants, explained his viewpoints on the project. Mark Donaldson spoke in favor of the proposal. The Commmission then gave their comments: Peggy Osterfoss stated that she would like to see some significant landscaping on the front (Seibert Circle) side of the building. She felt the gateway had been improved. She felt the deck was positive in that it did give people a place to watch skiers. Peggy asked what percentage of the deck would be enclosed and Perkins told her it would be about 1/3. She stated that she would be happier if the deck were pulled back a little and made smaller. She felt the base facilities were positive. Bryan Hobbs abstained from comment. 3 Jim Viele stated that at Land Use Plan meetings he had attended, there was strong support against upzoning. He felt the uses should be limited to those truly public, i.e., restrooms, ticket sales, etc. He felt the remainder of Tract E should be dedicated to the Town ''as had been represented for years." Jim felt that Tract E should be restricted to the current underlying zone district and felt that this was the essence of the issue. Diana Donovan felt the problem to focus on was changing the underlying zone district. She added that if 47~ of the Golden Peak owners were against the proposal and could prevent it from happening, perhaps the PEC was wasting their time. Diana was concerned that the deliveries would increase with the increase density. She felt the two phases should either be done simultaneously or that the additions to the Golden Peak House should be done first. Diana was extremely concerned about the use of Tract E. Sid Schultz said his two main concerns were how to deal with the rest of the Golden Peak owners and the covenants on Tract E. He agreed there must be a master plan. Sid felt that this was the No. 1 portal to Vail Mountain. He felt some type of landscaping of the front of the building was needed. He still had a problem with the 5 foot increase in height of the building and felt it was inconsistent with the two and three story buildings around it. He pointed out that the Golden Peak House had always been taller than the buildings around it--it was in need of a face lift, but Sid felt the face lift could be accomplished without an increase in height. Pam Hopkins agreed that planning is compromise, and was disappointed that there could not have been more compromise. She felt 5 stories was too high. She felt the uses of the underground space should be pure public uses. She wandered if the Golden Peak House could add fewer units and maintain four stories. Grant Riva agreed that the Golden Peak House was in need of upgrading. He read the purpose of the Special Development District from the Town zoning code. He was in favor of the suggested improvements to the building and pointed out that the increase in overall height was only 5 feet. Grant felt the gateway was a definite improvement for access to the mountain. He felt that if the deck were entirely enclosed, he would be against the enclosure, but felt that having the open deck outweighed having part of it enclosed. Tom Braun read the conditional uses for the Agricultural and Open Space zone district and Peter Jamar pointed out that private clubs were allowed. Peggy asked Ron Riley if he were interested in reducing the size of the deck, and Riley replied that it would not be large enough as it was proposed. Peggy 4 ~' felt the issue must relate to the available space for the deck, not whether it was adequate to serve Vail Mountain. Peter Jamar pointed out other places where the applicants had compromised, such as restricting the use of the units, the uses underground, improving the land beyond their property. The following is the motion and conditions of approval as recorded by the staff of the Community Development Department. The precise language of these conditions is subject to formal review and approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Jim Viele moved to recommend approval of the rezoning of Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing and Proposed Tract E- 1 to Special Development District Na. 20. with the following conditions: 1. The size of the proposed dining deck and the seasonal enclosure of the deck be reduced by 1/2. 2. The uses permitted on Tract E will be limited to those allowed in the Agricultural and Open Space zone district. 3. Delivery and loading to Tract E will be provided through the Golden Peak House Building internally. 4. The construction of the Golden Peak Building and the ski base facility shall be done simultaneously, or the construction of the Golden Peak House Building shall precede the ski base facility. 5. Vail Associates shall dedicate the remainder of Tract E to the Town of Vail. 5. A comprehensive drainage plan shall be submitted (and approved by the Town Engineer) and approvals for the relocation of utilities and easements shall be provided by affected utility companies prior to final DRB approval. 7. The developer is responsible for relocating the bike path (as generally shown on the site plan), and the two mature pine trees an the south side of the project shall be relocated in the area of Pirate Ship Park. In the event these trees die within 12 months of relocation, the applicant is responsible for placement of spruce trees of 20 feet high or more. 8. The Town of Vail presently maintains the lawn behind the Golden Peak House Building. The Public Works Department will require indemnification from the owners against any damages to the underground structure prior to resuming maintenance in this area. This area must remain useable to the general public - no roping or fencing off will be allowed. 5 9. Owners' use restriction as outlined in Section 17.26.060 of the Municipal Code shall apply to these 6 new units proposed in the Golden Peak House (or an equivalent number of units}. 10. The inclusion of street trees on the Bridge Street side of the Golden Peak House may be incorporated into the approved development plan. Final determination as to the appropriateness of these trees shall be made subject to the outcome of the Vail Village Streetscape Conceptual Design study (to be completed in the summer of 1988). 11. The applicants' participation in public improvements shall be accomplished by participation in a "mini-special" improvement district to redesign and relocate Seibert Circle toward an overall improvement district to redesign and relocate Seibert Circle if and when one is formed. An equitable manner of crediting the applicants' contribution for Seibert Circle toward an overall improvement district for Vail Village will be established, if and when a Village-wide district is formed. 12. A construction schedule shall be submitted and approved by the Town of Vail prior to the issuance of a building permit. The intent of this schedule is to minimize impacts on the Village during construction. Diana Donovan seconded the motion. The vote was 6 in favor, none against, with Hobbs abstaining. Pam Hopkins moved and Grant Riva seconded to approve the minor subdivision. This approval was conditional upon Council approval of the SDD request. The vote was 6-0-1. Pam moved and Grant seconded to approve the exterior alteration. This approval was conditional upon Council approval of the SDD request. The vote was 6-0-1. 6 • ' ~. ~ 6 ~. 2. Appeal of a staff decision concerning a home occupation permit for Bowling Allev Pizza at 2754 South Frontage Road. Appellants: Darlene and Steve Schweinsbera Tom Braun stated that the applicant asked to table this item until the next meeting. Diana moved and Bryan seconded to table this appeal, and the vote was 7-0 to table. 3. A request for an amendment to a development plan in the Ski Base/Recreation zone district in order to construct a children's center in the area of the temporary children's center at Golden Peak ski base. Applicant: Vail Associates, Znc. Pam Hopkins and Bryan Hobbs abstained from commenting on this project or on voting on it. Rick Pylman explained the request and said the staff recv,~u«ended approval with two conditions and a note regarding Design Review Board approval. Jack Hunn, representing the applicant, discussed the proposal. He explained that the VMRD required that Vail Associates relocate two tennis courts and the volleyball courts. There was a possibility of locating the volleyball courts east of the soccer field. He showed site plans, floor plans, elevations and perspectives. Hunn stated that VA would provide $10,Ogo . for control gates or will rough-in the electrical elements for the control gates to be constructed at a later date by the Town. VA will also landscape from the corner to the bus stop. As far as contributing the the sidewalk on the north side of Vail Valley Drive, this could be dealt with in the same way as the control gates {with a cash contribution}. Hunn pointed out that the contributions and improvements constituted 17% of the budget for the children's center. Regarding using colored concrete for the sidewalk, Hunn stated that this was difficult to get the color to match when patching the concrete, so VA was not in favor of colored concrete. Sid stated that another alternative would be pavers. Jack felt that pavers were too expensive, and pointed out that there was no precedent for pavers in the area. Sid replied that the pavers could be extended with Phase TX. Diana asked how VA would keep skiers from skiing into the newly relocated tennis courts. Jack stated that a rope maze would be used and also perhaps use race fencing. Rick Pylman stated that the staff supported having the tennis court construction delayed far one year and putting money for the relocation into an escrow account. Bob Lazier, owner of 7 • ~' + . the Tivoli, was in favor of this approach, also. Diana asked about trees that were affected. Hunn replied that the major trees by the new building would be protected. He added that if the tennis courts were relocated, some trees would have to be moved. Diana wanted to see VA control the parking on Chalet Road. She wondered what would happen to the space in Phase IT that was originally to be the children's center. Hunn said it had not been decided, but that there were many possibilities. This change would be looked at when approval for Phase ZI was brought in. Diana felt the berm between the two phases needed to be landscaped. She suggested that the bus stop at Manor Vail needed to be moved as well as Manor Vail's entrance and expressed the desire that the traffic in the area from the Ramshorn to the Vail Ski. Club building be looked at more carefully and addressed before approval of Phase I by the Design Review Board. She wished to see sidewalks and lights in the area. Jim Viele had the same concerns the staff expressed in their memo. He recommended something other than cribbing if the tennis courts were constructed south of the existing courts west of the existing base building. Viele felt interlocking pavers of high strength could be used at the pedestrian drop- off area in Phase I and this concern should be passed to the Design Review Board. Peggy was not in favor of the proposed relocation of the tennis courts. She felt the sidewalk on the north side of Vail Valley Drive should be done now, rather than wait to construct it. She felt VA should consider Jim's suggestion of interlocking pavers. Hunn replied that he wanted to have the pavers as an option. Peggy felt the bus stop was unacceptable as proposed, and VA must make it aesthetically acceptable. Hunn replied that he understood. Grant Riva agreed with the comments. He wondered about the view impact and Hunn felt the view would be improved by removing the modulars and building an attractive building. Grant also seconded Peggy's feelings about the tennis courts. Jim Viele discussed the parking situation, He said that 48 spaces would be required for parking and that the Town was falling behind in required parking spaces. Vie1e asked for direction from the Town Council regarding the ski base facilities and the need for parking. Hunn replied that the facility was somewhat unique in that it was a drop-off only. The building would hold 500 children, averaging perhaps 250 children, 40~ of whom would come by bus, leaving 150 cars, with 19 spaces be provided. VA felt that this was an adequate number. r 1~ ~ .~ Viele stated that the total Golden Peak area was deficient in parking and pointed out that the children's center would be using 45 employees. Diana asked if the children's center would be used in a similar way in the summer, and Hunn replied that it would. Diana moved and Peggy seconded to recommend approval to amend the ski Base/Recreation district with the following conditions: 1. That VA contribute 50~ of the cost of construction of a colored concrete walkway from the Ramshorn property to the existing Manor Vail walkway. Town of Vail will also be a 50~ partner. 2. That the Design Review Board review the concerns of the staff regarding the pedestrian circulation and walkway areas of the bus stop regarding colored concrete or pavers. 3. That the Town of Vail and Vail Associates study the total traffic situation between the Ramshorn and Ski Club Vail prior to construction of the children's center. The vote was 5 in favor, none against, with 2 abstaining, (Hopkins and Hobbs). • 4. Presentation of the final plat for the Victorians at 4415 Bighorn Road. Applicant: WSN Partnership Rick Pylman explained that this application, Special Development District #18, received final approval from the Town Council in August of 1987. Grant asked about the overhead wires possibly being buried in the near future. Rick replied that they had talked about getting together with other property owners concerning burying the lines, but could not accomplish this and this was not a requirement for final approval. He added that the electric lines on this property were underground. John Nilsson, applicant, added that they tried to bury the power lines, but couldn't get Holy Cross to participate. Rick added that they had hoped to have the line buried all the way to Pitkin Creek Park Condos. Diana wondered if it would be appropriate for the Town Council to write a letter to Holy Cross. Rick said that it would be, and that this was not the only area that was of concern to the Town. Peggy asked about the bike path and Rick said they were not required to build one. Bryan moved and Diana seconded to approve the final plat. The vote was 7-0 in favor. 9 TO: Planning and Envi.~'oximental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February S, 1988 SUBJECT: Vail Gateway Work Session I. INTRODUCTION The proposed Vail Gateway project is a mixed use development containing retail, office, cu~EU«ercial and residential uses located at the site of the existing Amoco station on the southeast corner of the four-way stop. The proposal is made by the Palmer Development Company of Boulder, represented by the architectural firm of Buff Arnold/Ned Gwathmey and the planning consulting firm of Peter Jamar Associates, Inc. The existing Amoco station sits on a 24,154 square foot parcel of ground that is currently zoned Heavy Service District. The proposal being made at this time proposes a Special Development District with an underlying zone district of Commercial Core I. A summary of the proposed development is as follows: Floor Area: Retail: Retail/Commercial Office: Residential: Building Heights: 12,000 sf 4,000 sf 4,000 sf 12,000 sf, 13 dwelling units The building heights are as indicated on the development plan. The project steps up away from the 4-way stop intersection. The peak ridge heights are 52 and 57 feet above the elevation of the intersection. The vehicular access to the underground parking would take place off of Vail Road in the southwest corner of the site. A comprehensive traffic analysis is included within the development plan. Site Coverage: 14,350 sf 60% Parking: 75 covered spaces with 5 surface spaces proposed Proposed Uses: Uses are proposed to be those uses specified within the Commercial Core I zone district. II. ISSUES AND CONCERNS The development proposed represents a major change in use as well as in the scale of existing development on the site. It has been recognized for quite some time that redevelopment of this site will allow the opportunity to present a much more pleasant and appropriate entrance statement to the Town of Vail than the existing gas stations that flank Vail Road currently provide. The difficulty in developing this site is the constraint on vehicular movement due to the traffic generation currently existing an bath the Frontage and Vail Roads, yet at the same time, the site is somewhat removed from the pedestrianized areas of Vail Village. Access to the site is less than perfect for both vehicles and pedestrians. The developer has recognized these constraints and has attempted to provide design solutions that will overcome these problems. Staff has identified several issues and areas of concern and is working with the applicant on those issues. The issues include view impacts that are a result of the bulk, mass, and height of the building. The architect has designed the building to relate architecturally, as well as to the mass of the approved Vail Village Inn project. A view analysis including the approved VVI project is included in the application. The initial reaction of the staff is that height and massing revisions may be appropriate. A related concern to building mass is the setbacks from Vail Road and the Frontage Road. The building design presents the greatest setback from the intersection. The staff and PEC must determine if the proposed setbacks are adequate. The applicant has submitted a detailed traffic analysis and circulation plan which is currently being reviewed by the Public Works Department. The proposed parking plan is approximately 20-23 spaces short of Town of Vail standards. The staff will want to see greater design detail of the plaza area and related landscaping at an appropriate time. With regard to the uses proposed, the applicant has requested CCI as the underlying zone district. The staff and Planning Commission must determine whether the uses allowed in the CCZ zone district are appropriate to this site. The purpose of this work session is to identify issues and areas of concern of the staff and the Planning and environmental Commission and give direction to the applicant as to how to address those issues prior to the formal hearing process. • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 8, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision, rezoning, and exterior alteration far the proposed redevelopment and additions to the Golden Peak House building. Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium Association Catacombs, Ltd., and Vail Associates, Inc. Following presentations and c~~~~~«ents by the Planning Commission at their January 25th meeting, these three requests were tabled at the request of the applicant. Modifications to the previous proposal will be discussed in this memorandum. The staff's position of supporting this project has remained unchanged. For your information, staff memorandums from the January 25th meeting have been included for your consideration. It is the primary goal of this memorandum to summarize the issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Staff comment regarding each of these issues will also be provided. T. ISSUES RAISED BY PEC The staff has reviewed all the comments made by the Planning Commission during the initial review of this application. The following nine issues were those mentioned by mare than one commissioner. This list is not intended to be all inclusive. Rather, these issues are presented in an attempt to focus the discussion of this item. Where applicable, a staff response has been provided. 1. A number of Planning Commission members expressed concern over the size of the proposed dining deck on the south side of the building. An issue related to this concern was how this design was contributing to the relocation of the existing bicycle path. The redesign of the dining deck has resulted in a slight reduction in size of approximately 250 square feet. In addition, the bicycle path has been relocated to what is essentially its existing alignment. This has been made possible by cutting back the southeast corner of the proposed patio and by discussions with contractors and engineers that indicate the underground structure can bear the load of the bike path. 2. A general concern for the need to further restrict permitted uses within Development Area B (the ski base/ recreational facility). The staff is sensitive to the issue of what uses occur within this facility. It was felt that restricting the types of uses and percentages of floor areas far these uses were appropriate safeguards. A number of alternatives are available to strengthen these restrictions, Examples could include making some uses conditional, further restricting the percentage of space that could be occupied by particular uses or simply deleting certain uses entirely. The applicants have proposed no changes from that presented at last month's PEC hearing. 3. Concern over the five story element proposed for the easterly end of the building. The staff support of this fifth floor element is based on a number of considerations. Among these is that the building is condominiumized and a reality of redeveloping this building is the unlikelihood of substantially altering the space within the existing fourth floor condominiums. Secondly, the vast majority of the building mass is existing by virtue of the mansard roof. Finally, the introduction of a gabled roof form is without question, a very desirable design element for this building. As stated at the last hearing, the overall result is a building that is far more consistent with the goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan than what is existing today. There is no question that the staff would oppose a five story building if this development were proposed for undeveloped land. The fifth floor is justified by its overall positive improvement to the building, given the existing condition of this structure. 4. Concern with potential difficulties providing delivery and loading service, particularly to the ski base/recreation facility. Staff previously maintained that existing loading zones on Hanson Ranch Road and Bridge Street could be used to service the delivery needs of this project. There is little question that the delivery needs created by the increased size of the existing building can be met by existing loading areas. Given the limitations on retail types of uses within the ski base facility, it was felt that these loading zones could also serve the ski base facility. One step that could be taken in improving loading service to the ski base facility is to establish circulation through the lower level of the existing building to the proposed levels of the ski base facility. This issue warrants further discussion during Monday's meeting. 5. Concern over the seasonal enclosure proposed for a portion of the dining deck. Staff saw little concern with this enclosure given its ability to retract both the roof and wall systems. Tn addition, large amounts of the proposed dining deck would remain permanently outdoors. The applicants have not changed this element of the proposal. 6. A desire to see both aspects of this project developed simultaneously was expressed by members of the commission. There is certainly merit to seeing both aspects of this project developed simultaneously. There has been no definitive response to this comment by the applicant. This consideration could be adopted as a condition of approval by the Planning Commission in their recommendation to the Council. 7. The dedication to the Town of remaining portions of Tract E was expressed as desirable by a number of Planning Commission members. References were made to previous statements by Vail Associates concerning the dedication of Tract E to the Town of Vail. Vail Associates has indicated that they are not interested in transferring the remaining portions of this parcel as a condition of approval for this development. Given VA's responsibility of operating the mountain, the staff certainly sees merit in their desire to retain ownership of this parcel. As with the previous item, this issue could be dealt with directly by the Commission as a part of their recommendation to Council. 8. A number of questions were raised concerning the ski race finish area and the proposed gateway improvements to Vail Mountain. The revised site plan and landscape plan show substantial improvement to this area. Most significantly, this redesign show a ramp as apposed to a staircase leading from the ticket window plaza to Vail Mountain, It should be z'~oted that the Public Works Department has signed off on this redesign. This should effectively eliminate any questions concerning their snow removal operations in this area. The revised race course layout also demonstrates an improved circulation system during World Cup events. 9. Concern was expressed regarding the relationship of this building to the possible relocation of Seibert Circle. Tt is difficult to answer questions concerning the design and timing for the possible relocation of Seibert Circle. The staff feels strongly that the design of this building can stand on its own merits regardless of whether the circle is relocated or remains in its present location. The one outstanding issue relates to the possible introduction of street trees along the Golden Peak House Building. As previously stated, the staff is concerned about committing space for these trees until the conceptual design of Seibert Circle is established. This design should be completed some time this summer as an element of an overall streetscape plan for Vail Village. As a result, the Planning C~~~,~«ission is faced with evaluating this proposal on its merits given conditions existing at this time. II. OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO THIS PROJECT The staff has had a number of conversations with the Town Attorney concerning uses proposed for special development districts. As outlined in the zoning code, all development standards within an SDD are established by the development plan. Uses are dealt with somewhat differently in that uses in an SDD are limited to those allowed by the property's underlying zone district. In this case, the underlying zone district would be Agricultural and open Space. This zone district does not allow for the range of uses proposed with SDD #20. As a result, a part of the bureaucratic process in approving this project would be to designate the Ski Base/ Recreational zone district as SDD #20's underlying zone district. It is recognized that this situation may appear somewhat confusing. This is essentially a bookkeeping item necessary in adhering to the letter of the law outlining in the zoning code. Far example, if this project were to be approved as proposed, a simple reference to the Ski Base/Recreational establishing it as the underlying zoning with respect to uses would be included in the ordinance that creates this zone district. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recv,f~.~~endation remains approval for the reasons cited in this memo and those memos presented on January 25th. We have previously stated our position concerning the redevelopment and addition to the Golden Peak House building. As a result, it would be redundant to repeat at this time. The same can be said for our position on the ski base recreational facility. Tt is important for the Planning Commission to keep in mind that Tract E, while zoned Agricultural and Open Space, is privately owned property. This request does not involve development on public lands and should not be regarded as such. In addition, consideration should be given to the fact that the Agricultural and Open Space zone district does allow for a variety of different types of development (as conditional uses). The staff certainly understands the importance of maintaining and preserving open space throughout the Town of Vail. This is not to say, however, that certain levels and types of development in certain areas may be appropriate. Tt should also be emphasized that the Land Use Plan has designated this area as a ski base land use. Tn addition, the Vail Village Plan has proposed a similar land use desination. Consideration of these facts are important in evaluating the merits of this proposal. ,,, • • TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: February 8, 1988 RE: Appeal of an administrative decision to deny a request for a home occupation permit. Appellants: Steven and Darlene Schweinsberg Applications for both a business license and a home occupation permit were made to the Town on January 11, 1988. The nature of the business proposed was a pizza "for delivery only" service to be operated out of a residence at 2754 South Frontage Road. As stated, the pizzas would be prepared in the applicants' home and delivered by automobile to customers. There would be no personal carry-out or eat-in available. The staff reviewed this application and determined the proposed use was not consistent with the objectives of home occupation permits. The denial of this application was based primarily on two of the eight criteria that establish limitations on home occupations. One of these states: 18.58.160 H. A home occupation shall not generate significant vehicular traffic in excess of that typically generated by residential dwellings. No parking or storage of commercial vehicles shall be permitted on the site. As stated by the applicant, this business was anticipated to generate up to 35 customers/day. This equates to 70 vehicular trips in and out of the residence to deliver pizzas. While recognizing that the location of this home is on the Frontage Road, the staff still maintains that this increased volume of traffic greatly exceeds that typical of residential dwellings. The home occupation section of the zoning code also outlines examples that may be considered home occupations. Included is a list of uses that shall not be considered home occupations. Among these listed include clinics, funeral homes, nursing homes, tea rooms, restaurants, antique shops, veterinarian's offices or any similar use. While sit-down seating will not be provided, this use is deemed similar to a restaurant and provided the second reason for the staff's denial of this permit. STAFF RECOMMENnATION The staff certainly supports the concept of home occupations under certain conditions. It is felt that this application goes beyond the intent of activities to be permitted under home occupations_ The staff would encourage the Planning Commission to uphold our decision to deny this application. • r 1 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 8, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to Ski Base/Recreation zone district for Golden Peak Nursery. Applicant: Vail Associates I. BACKGROUND Vail Associates, Inc, has submitted an application to amend Chapter 18.39 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Ski Base/Recreation zone district. Vail Associates has submitted a revised development and master plan as required by the zoning code of the Golden Peak Ski Base/ Recreation district. The purpose of this requested amendment is to allow Vail Associates to replace the existing modular units with a permanent facility that will serve as the Children's Center. The Town of Vail approval for use of the modular structures as a Children's Center is expiring and Vail Associates would like to move forward toward a permanent solution for the Children's Center. The proposal consists of a partially earth sheltered building of approximately 12,000 square feet located at the site of the existing modular buildings. The Children's Center would have its own access and parent drop-off parking area off of Vail Valley Drive just east of the existing bus stop, Construction of the Children's Center and parent drop-off area will also entail a redevelopment of the bus stop and skier drop-off area. The land on which the building is sited is currently controlled by the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District (VMRD) through a 99 year lease from Vail Associates. The site contains three tennis courts that are managed by the VMRD in the summer season. The proposed development will eliminate these three tennis courts. The VMRD has agreed to relinquish their lease on this property on condition that Vail Associates replace two tennis courts within the Golden Peak Ski Base/Recreation district. Vail Associates' proposal is to relocate the two tennis courts to the south of the four existing courts that are west of the existing Golden Peak base facility. Chapter 18.39 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Ski Base/ Recreation zone district, is a zone district that was tailored to the proposed and approved Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment plan. This plan, of course, has not been carried out to date. Vail Associates' proposal to amend this district represents the first phase of the total development of the Golden Peak Ski Base district as it is written. This application does not propose any changes to the approved Golden Peak Base facility. Tt is a request to separate one of the allowable uses in the main building as an allowable use in a secondary building on site. Existing zoning of the Ski Base/Recreation district allows the following uses to be permitted within the main building of the Ski Base/Recreation district as Section A, permitted uses. 1. Ski lockers/employee locker rooms 2. Ski school and ski patrol facilities 3, Lift ticket sales 4. Tennis pro shop 5. Ski repair, rental, sales and accessories 6. Restaurant/bar/snack bar/candy sales 7. Winter seasonal ski school related child care and children's ski school and appurtenant recreational facilities and programs 8. Summer seasonal Town of Vail recreation offices 9. Meeting rooms for owner use and community oriented organizations 10. Injury prevention and rehabilitation facilities for owner's use • 11. Basket rental 12. Special c~.~~l~~unity events. Section B and C of the permitted uses discuss retail and dwelling unit allowances. Section D of the permitted uses addresses uses which shall be permitted outside of the main building as shown on the approved development plan. Without listing those uses specifically, they consist of circulation, recreation, and other basic ski area services. The Vail Associates' proposal is to take permitted use #7 in category A -- winter seasonal ski school related child care -- and create a new category under permitted uses. This would be titled, "Permitted Uses Within the Secondary Building." Those uses would list as follows: 1. Year-round child care and children's ski school and appurtenant recreational facilities and programs. 2, Ski school services and programs 3. Community events and programs 4. Summer recreational programs This amendment is the only proposed change to the existing Ski Base/Recreation District. The permitted uses under headings A, B, C, and D do not change. The conditional . uses do not change. The accessory uses, prohibited uses and all the other categories will remain as they are currently approved. An example of the amended .Chapter 18.39 Ski Base/Recrea- tion District with the proposed amendment is included with this memorandum for your review. II. ISSUES AND IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL The staff agrees with Vail Associates in the concept of separating the Children's Center use. We feel that the size, functional requirements and importance of the Children's Center promote a free standing facility for this use. We are concerned with the impacts of the development of an additional building on this site, but we do feel that they can be adequately addressed. The staff is positive about the development of a Children's Center. We feel that phasing the project is a first step toward completion of the entire Golden Peak package. Included in the original approval of the Golden Peak Ski Sase/Recreation district were several site improvements that were shown on the development plan. Staff feels strongly that if construction of this development plan is to be phased, construction of the site improvements should also be phased, and that some of those improvements should be included within this Phase I construction. The construction of the proposed Children's Center and . related parent drop-off area will require reconfiguration and reconstruction of the existing bus stop area. Vail Associates has submitted a design proposal for the bus stop/skier drop-off area that has been approved by the Public Works Department. In the original Golden Peak development plan, Vail Associates was required to reconstruct the bus stop/skier drop-off area Including reconfigured vehicular lanes and pedestrian walkways. The proposal also included a contribution of $10,000 for installation of control gates at either end of the bus stop. For the Phase I construction being proposed, Vail Associates has agreed to amend and construct the skier drop-off and bus stop area. They will provide roughed-in conduit for the installation of control gates at each end of the bus stop. If the Town of Vail wishes to install control gates at this point in time, Vail Associates will reimburse the Town up to the $10,000 agreed upon at the commencement of Phase II construction. Otherwise, Vail Associates will provide the $10,000 for the bus control gates at commencement of Phase II construction. The proposed design for Phase I construction of the bus stop area shows an all-asphalt surface. The skier drop- off, the bus lane, parent drop-off parking, as well as all pedestrian circulation and sidewalk areas are all proposed as asphalt paving. Staff feels that for aesthetic and safety reasons, the pedestrian circulation and walkway areas should be a different material--either a colored concrete or a paver type of treatment. As a part of the original development plan, Vail Associates was committed to participate in a one-third share in the construction of a walkway from Hanson Ranch Road to Manor Vail. Subsequent redevelopment of the Ramshorn has taken place, and the Ramshorn has assumed responsibility for the construction of the walkway along their property. This leaves a stretch from the Ramshorn property to Manor Vaii, Staff feels that as part of Phase I requirements, Vail Associates should participate with the Town of Vail as an equal partner in developing the rest of that walkway. The separation of the Children's Center into a separate secondary building has obvious impacts upon the site. There are additional view considerations from the neighborhood to the north, additional traffic impacts because of a new access and drop-off paint, as well as the recreational impacts upon the tennis and volleyball facilities. Vail Associates has responded to view concerns through . building design. The proposal is for a partially earth- sheltered building. Through photo analysis and ridge line demonstrations, Vail Associates has indicated that the view impacts upon the neighbors appear to be sufficiently mitigated. The additional road cut has been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The existing zone district parking standards are to be determined by the Planning Commission. Vail Associates is providing 18 parent drop- off spaces. This parking lot will be controlled manually to assure that these parking spaces function as they are proposed, and not as long term skier parking. Staff has no criteria on which to base required parking for this drop-off, pick-up type of use. We feel that 18 spaces should be adequate and the parking represents an increase from the original development plan. The location of the Children's Center forces the relocation of two tennis courts and three volleyball courts on site with a net loss of one tennis court. The volleyball courts will be relocated from just east of the proposed building to the existing tennis court location just west of the proposed building. The tennis courts are being relocated south of the four existing courts located west of the existing base facility. There is a • significant grade difference in the location of the existing courts and the location of the proposed courts. There is also an existing bicycle path that must be relocated. Construction of the tennis courts and relocation of the bike path will require fairly extensive retaining wall construction. The applicant has submitted a development plan for this and staff feels that the relocation of the tennis courts and bike path are an acceptable solution. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this proposal is approval. We support the concept of the Children's Center as a free standing structure. We believe that replacement of the existing modulars with a permanent structure is a positive move toward completion of the Golden Peak redevelopment. The staff believes that the proposal meets the stated purpose of the zone district; to provide the base facilities necessary to operate the ski mountain, to encourage multi-seasonal use, and to provide for efficient use of the facilities. The staff believes Vail Associates has adequately mitigated the identified impacts and is very happy to see the beginning of redevelopment of the Golden Peak base area. We do, however, feel that there are certain site improvements which should be included in Phase I construction and would include those as requested conditions of approval. Those conditions are: 1. That Vail Associates contribute 50~ of the cost of construction of a colored concrete walkway from the Ramshorn property to the existing Manor Vail walkway. Town of Vail will also be a 50~ partner. 2. That the pedestrian circulation and walkway areas of the bus stop be constructed of a colored concrete nr paver material that creates an aesthetic and safety improvement compared to an all-asphalt surface. The staff would also like to add as a note on this recommendation, that PEC approval of the proposed development plan and zone district change should in no way restrict the ability of the resign Review Board to review this project. .7 TO: Planning and Environmental CviEEllllSSlon FROM: Community Development Department . DATE: February 8, 1988 SUBJECT: Presentation of final plat, Victorians at Vail The Victorians at Vail development, zoned as Special Development District #18, received final approval from the Town Council on August 1987. The Victorian development met every aspect of the underlying Residential Cluster zone district, the reason it was taken through the Special Development District procedure was to facilitate the subdivision of the units. However, the type of development, utilizing single family houses, negated the ability to utilize a townhouse or condominium type of subdivision procedure. The resultant parcels of ground under the single family houses would not have met the lot size requirements far the Residential Cluster zone district. The utilization of the Special Development District zone allows us to proceed through a major subdivision without creating nonconforming lot sizes. The applicant has submitted the final plat, which has been reviewed by the Public Works and C~.AEEAllunity Development Departments. Tt is technically correct and complete. The applicant has submitted proof of installation and completion of . the majority of the required subdivision improvements, including water, sewer, gas, electric and other utilities. The applicant has also submitted a letter of credit to cover the remaining required improvements including landscaping and paving. The Public Works Department will review this letter of credit for its adequacy and upon approval of this letter, we will present a plat to the chairman of the Planning Commission for his signature. Chapter 17.16.110 outlines PEC review criteria far this subdivision. The paragraph reads as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under 17.15.09. PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness with regard to Town of Vail policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, resolutions and other applicable integrity, and compatibility with uses . ~r STAFF RECOMMENDATION ordinances and documents, environmental the surrounding land Staff recommendation is for approval of the major subdivision for the Victorians at Vail Special Development District. Although formal approval will take place at this meeting, the staff will not present the plat to the chairman of the Planning Commission for his signature until the final technical documents are approved by the Public Works Department. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 22, 1988 12:00 PM Work Session: 1. Eagle County Recreation and Parks Plan 2. Amendments to Cascade Village 2:30 PM Site Visit 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of 1/25 and 2/8/88. 2. Appeal of a staff decision regarding a home occupation license for Bowling Alley Pizza at 2754 South Frontage Road. . Appellants: Darlene and Steve Schweinsberg 3. Request for a Special Development District for Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing, (the Amoco site). Applicant: Palmer Development Company 4. Discussion of Golden Peak House conditions. r • C, u Planning and Environmental Commission February 22, 1988 PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack The meeting began with a work session on the Eagle County Recreation Plan followed by the Cascade Village amendments. The public hearing was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of 1/25 and 2/8/88. Pam Hopkins moved and seconded by Sid to approve both minutes. The vote was 6-0. 2. Appeal of a staff decision regarding a home occupation license for Bowling Alley Pizza at 2754 South Frontage Road. Appellants: Darlene and Steve Schweinsberq The applicant asked to table this item until March 14. It was moved, seconded and voted 6-0 to table. 3. Request for a Special Development District far Lot~N, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing (the Amoco site). Applicant: Palmer Development Company Rick Pylman reminded the board that a work session was held two weeks ago on this item. He described the proposed building and added that the applicant had submitted a new proposal which showed that the east ridge had been lowered 8' and the west ridge lowered 3' since the staff wrote the memo, Rick reviewed the nine development standards far SDD's and three criteria for the zone change. The staff felt the development of a gateway project should include revisions to the plan, such as the inclusion of a left turn lane and elimination of parking along Vail Road. Rick also stated that the staff felt the 10' setback from the Frontage Road was inadequate, and that there should not be any encroachment into the view corridor as designated with the approval of the Vail Village Inn proposal. Another suggestion from the staff was a pedestrian walkway from Vail Road to the building entrance on the south side of the building. • Rick then reviewed zoning considerations and stated that the staff felt the 75 parking spaces were inadequate, since from 89 to 104 spaces were required, depending upon whether or not a bank is involved and what the size of the facility would be. Peter Jamar, representing Palmer Development, showed photographs with overlaid lines indicating the relationship of the proposed WI building heights to the proposed Vail Gateway and the effect on the view corridor. In addressing the parking issue, Jamar stated that currently, the WT has empty parking spaces most of the year, and felt that mixed uses would vary the parking demand during the day. He said the study used a "worst case" scenario, with a bank and felt the proposal was an improvement over the gas station. He agreed with the staff that the roof should be stepped down and showed a changed roof pitch. He felt the building should not be lowered another story. Concerning the surface parking, he suggested making it mare defined and signing it for short term parking. Jamar felt that if surface parking were not provided, people would be dropped off anyway. Concerning the setback on the north side, Jamar claimed that the edge of the pavement was 25 feet from the property line and he felt there was enough of a pedestrian lane provided. • Buff Arnold, architect on the project, discussed the lowering of the building one story and changing the roof pitch. Arnold said he spoke to Centennial Engineer, who had done a study of the 4-way and they said they did not see a need for an additional turning lane. Richard Foy of Vacation Arts, design consultant, gave the background of the project. He stated that the aim was to try to get people to remember the building and to come back to it later. He felt the building had a small footprint and that the flat roof portions helped to "push the building down" and would allow the glass corridor. He added that the developer would use the flat roofs for many planters. Peter Jamar admitted that with the present state of the WI buildings, the primary pedestrian access would be on the south side of the building. He repeated that three surface parking spaces were needed. Joe Staufer, owner of the VVI project, felt the project was better than the gas station. He pointed out that the view corridor was established by ordinance when the the VVI project was approved. Mr. Staufer wanted to be certain that the board was aware of the fact that there was no pedestrian easement across the WT property. Joe insisted that potential buyers of condominiums in the Gateway project on the east and south to be made aware through disclosure, of the potential construction of the approved VVI property. Peter Patten asked Mr. Staufer how he felt about the concept of a pedestrian access between the two buildings, and Joe answered that he did not know, but that it would depend on what was proposed. . Peggy Osterfoss felt it was important not to replace the view with buildings, but was aware of the economic restraints involved. She felt the building was still higher than desirable and pointed out that the staff recommended 2 or 3 stories. Buff answered that the building was 3 stories plus a loft on the north and 4 stories on the west at the most extreme southwest corner. Peggy added that she would like to see a greater setback on the Frontage Road as well as on Vail Road. Bryan Hobbs felt the design was fine. Diana Donovan had several concerns. She felt the design was for pedestrians on a vehicular corner and that pedestrians were not encouraged to be in that area. Richard Foy answered that this was a site that had habitation and commercial on one side, and heavy traffic on the other. He felt that this situation gave the opportunity to change and to have some people-oriented on the corner. He did not feel it would change Vail's character in that it would not remove people from Bridge Street but it would put the entry on a human scale and "hint of things to come." Diana felt the underlying zone should not be changed, and Peter Jamar stated that this proposal was in line with the long range plans. Sid wondered if the proposed uses would be allowed if the underlying zoning was Public Accommodation and was told PA was quite different in that is was predominantly hotel with . accessory uses, with most of the emphasis on lodging with a limited percentage of other uses. Sid was concerned about the surface parking being so close to the 4-way stop. He felt that if it was needed, it would be better to have it on the south side of the building. He agreed that some type of disclosure to prospective condo purchasers was important. Pam Hopkins felt the alley was too narrow and stated it would be difficult to maneuver even with small vehicles. She stated that if Jae Staufer had empty parking spaces, it was a well kept secret, and that this was not a valid reason to have less parking than required in the Gateway Building, Pam felt people should be told of available parking. The size of the alley was discussed. Jim Viele felt the basic issue was zoning. He reminded the board that the original VVI plan eliminated the gas station. Jim's biggest concern was the amount of parking as he had mentioned at previous meetings, Jim felt the setbacks were adequate and that it was unlikely the highway would be 6-laved. He stated that the view corridor was not included from the final view corridor decision. With regard to the access between the Gateway and VVI, Jim felt the VVI and the Gateway projects should be respected as separate pieces of land with separate ownerships. Peter Jamar and Buff Arnold responded that perhaps they could do without the parking on Vail Road, and perhaps widening the driveway as Pam had suggested. They would look at perhaps picking up more parking underground and perhaps having a 6' covered arcade on the south. Buff said he could see perhaps opening up the south side of the building and perhaps providing some short term parking on that side where they could be easily visible. Diana felt a door needed to be left open to work with WI and also that attention needed to be placed on the type of landscaping being proposed. She felt there were a lot of "ifs" and that usually an SDD works with what is presented. Peter Jamar said they would be providing more detail. Peggy said it would be helpful to have more detail. Diana mentioned a concern that pedestrians would be right next to a 4 lane highway without any barrier. Peter Jamar replied that perhaps a low barrier wall could be constructed to contain children from the highway. Peter Patten listed concerns which included: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. an arcade on the south side landscaping amount of parking width of the driveway approval of the underlying zoning surface parking change 7. unit restrictions 8. He stated that the staff would prefer to work further and produce a better product. Jamar replied that they would be willing to work on the concerns with the exception of the restrictions on the units. He stated that they were willing to go along with all of the conditions. Pam wondered if a special meeting could be held before the Town Council meeting. Diana moved and Bryan seconded to continue the meeting until Wednesday, March 9th at 2:00 PM. The vote was 6-0 in favor of continuing the meeting. Discussion followed concerning parking. David Leahy, a parking consultant, stated that the Urban Land Institute did not consider banking when determining parking needs, and so the bank was included in retail for study purposes. He added that in using a demand study, 72 spaces would be needed if the residential units were accommodation units, and 79 if they were dwelling units. Diana was concerned about parking for the bank, and felt the bank should not be there because of the added traffic it would cause. 4. Peter clarified the board's intent on their conditions for the Golden Peak House at the previous meeting. TO: Planning Commission n LJ • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 23, 1988 SUBJECT: Planning Commission review of the Action Plan for Eagle County Recreation The purpose of this review is to allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to ask questions about the project and to make any final corrections to the draft. Attached to this memo is a list of the actions that the Task Force would like to complete for 1988. The work program has developed directly from the recommendations made in the Recreation Plan. made by the various boards and make the necessary changes to the draft. Once these changes have been made to the draft, the Task Force will begin the approval process for the adoption of the plan by the various boards and special districts that have been involved with the project. The Eagle County Recreation Task Force members are in the process of completing the public review sessions on the project. Our goal is to finish up with the public comment by March 10th. The Task Force will collect all the corrections i• RECREATION ACTION X88 I. PROJECT ACTION: . A. Complete recreational path connection between Eagle- Vail and Arrowhead, Summer 1988. Lead Agency: Eagle County Community Development Department B. Complete site and acquisition study far a softball complex in the Edwards area. Acquire the park land for the softball complex. Complete a master plan for the park which would address the design of the softball fields as well as associated park amenities. Lead Agency: Eagle County Community Development Department with strong involvement of Eagle County Recreation Task Force C. Support Vail Metropolitan Recreation District and the Vail. community in efforts to accomplish the construction of the Aquatic Center. Lead Agency: Vail Metropolitan Recreation District with assistance from VMRD staff and Town of Vail staff as well as Eagle County Recreation Task Force II. POLICY ACTION: A. Establish a recreation fee or land dedication policy, or real estate transfer tax far Eagle County. The County staff is undertaking this effort in the spring of 1.988. Lead Agency: Eagle County Community Development Department B. Work with the Eagle County School Board to develop a policy that will state that new and expanded school facilities should be designed to meet the recreation needs of the entire community, not just students. The policy should recognize the important and ongoing role that the school district plays in providing recreation services and facilities. This relationship should be strengthened between the school district, the County, and the communities. Lead Agency: Eagle County Recreation Task Force with assistance from Eagle County School Board i~~_ •r ", c. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Depaztment DATE: February 22, 1988 SUBJECT: Request to rezone a part of Lot N, and a portion of Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing from Heavy Service District to Special Development District with underlying Commercial Core I zone district. Applicant: Palmer Development Company T. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST This rezoning request has been proposed in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the existing Amoco Service Station on the southeast corner of the 4-way intersection in Vail Village. At the present time the Amoco Station is zoned Heavy Service District. The Heavy Service District uses consist of industrial and service businesses. The existing Amoco station consists of 8 gasoline pumps and a small one-story building containing 4 service repair bays and a car wash. The size of this site is approximately 24,154 square feet. The proposed Vail Gateway project is a mixed use . development containing retail, office, commercial and residential uses, with a majority of the parking being provided in an underground structure. Section 18.40.010 of the Vail Municipal Code describes the purpose of Special Development Districts. Tt reads as follows: "The purpose of special development districts is to encourage flexibility in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design, character and quality of new development; to facilitate the adequate and economic provision of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas." The Special Development District chapter in the Municipal Code goes on to state that: "The uses in a Special Development District must be uses `permitted by right' conditional uses, or accessary uses in the zone district in which the Special Development District is located." Yn order to meet these requirements of the Special Development District chapter, the applicant has applied to rezone this property from Heavy Service District to Commercial Gore I and simultaneously apply for Special i. • Development District No. 21. This memorandum will address the rezoning of the property from Heavy Service to Commercial Core I, as well as the application of Special Development District to this parcel with Commercial Core I as the underlying zone district. A summary of the proposed development is as follows: A. Floor Area: Retail: Retail/Commercial: Office: Residential: 11,200 sf 3,900 sf 4,900 sf 12,000 sf, 13 du B. Building Heights: Building heights of the east and west ridges as calculated by the standard Town of Vail method are approximately 62 and 57 feet respectively. The peak ridge heights are 57 and 52 feet above the elevation of the 4--way intersection. C. Site Coverage: 14,357 sf, 60% D. Parking 75 covered spaces 3 surface spaces E. Proposed Uses Uses as proposed are to be those uses specified within the Commercial Core T zone district. F. Access: Vehicular access to the underground parking would take place off of Vail Road on the southwest corner of the site. A comprehensive traffic analysis is included within the development plan. In order to evaluate this proposal, we must first evaluate the request to amend the zoning from Heavy Service to Commercial Core I. The Heavy Service District as it is defined in its purpose section in the zoning code is intended to provide sites for automotive oriented uses and for commercial service uses which are not appropriate in other commercial districts. Because of the nature of the z uses permitted and their operating characteristics, . appearance and potential for generating traffic, all of the uses in this district are subject to conditional use permit procedure. Same of the uses allowed as conditional uses within the Heavy Service zone district include animal hospitals and kennels, automotive service stations, building material supply stores, business offices, corporation yards, machine shops, repair garages, tine sales and service, and trucking terminals. The Heavy Service District does require 20 foot setbacks from all property lines, allows a 38 foot building height, 75% site coverage, and requires a minimum of 10% landscape coverage. Density standards are not applicable to the Heavy Service District, as no residential type use is listed as a permitted or conditional use in the Heavy Service District. The Commercial Core I zone district allows a variety of retail, commercial and residential uses, all of which are controlled as permitted or conditional uses on a horizontal zoning basis. The proposed change from HS to CCI entails a major change in the allowable uses for this parcel of land. A complete analysis of the merits of this zone amendment is addressed in another section of this memorandum. 3I. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL There are a number of criteria to be evaluated when reviewing a request of this nature. The first set of criteria to be utilized will be the three criteria involved in an evaluation of a request for zone change. The second set of criteria to be used in review of this proposal will be the 9 development standards as set forth in the Special Development District chapter of the honing Code. The third set of criteria will be a general comparison of the proposed project to the Urban Design Guide Plan, as stipulated in the CCI zone district. Also, the Land Use Plan should be utilized as a guideline in any request to change zoning. However, because this site is part of the area covered by the Vail Village Master Plan/Urban Design Guide Plan, the Land Use Plan made no recommendations for this site. The Vail Village Master Plan, as yet unapproved, recommends no changes in the land use of this site. Staff comments include those of Jeff Winston, our urban design/landscape consultant. III. EVALUATION OF ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM HEAVY SERVICE TO COMMERCIAL CORE T A. Suitability of existing zoning The staff feels that the existing gas station is an acceptable use as existing on the corner of the ~-way stop. We do recognize, however, that it is one of the few uses allowed in the Heavy Service District that would be an acceptable use in this highly sensitive location. The conditional use review process would require Town of Vail approval for any change in use on this site. We have also recognized for quite some time that redevelopment of this site could allow the opportunity to present a more pleasant and appropriate entrance statement to the Town of Vail. We generally support the uses proposed at this location. B. Is the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationship within land uses consistent with Municipal objectives. The Amoco site has been called out an the Urban Design Guide Plan as a special study area and has been reviewed previously as a potential portion of the Vail Village Inn development project. With concern over the potential congestion a bank could cause at this location, we feel that the uses proposed for this piece of ground are generally consistent with the surroundings uses. C. Does the rezoning provide for the Growth of an orderly. viable community. We feel that development of a gateway project into Vail is a sound concept. This concept can provide for orderly and viable growth within the community if revisions to the plan, such as inclusion of a left turn lane and elimination of parking along Vail Road are incorporated. IV. DESIGN STANDARDS IN EVALUATING SDD PROPOSALS The following are staff comments concerning how this proposal relates to the design standards as outlined in the zoning code: • 4 A. A buffer zone shall be provided in a Special Development District that is adjacent to a low density residential zone district. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures and must landscaped, screened or protected by natural features so that adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. This may require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual orivacv, noise, adequate light and air, air pollution, signage, and other comparable potentially incompatible factors. The proposed development is surrounded by commercial development on the south and east sides, by Vail Road on the west side and by the Frontage Road on the north side. There is no residential area that this project should provide a buffer from. The staff does feel strongly, however, that the north side of the building should maintain a 20 foot setback from the property line. We feel that the proposed 10 foot setback is inadequate from the Frontage Road. There is an existing landscape buffer between the service station and the roadway. This planter, however, is entirely located on State Highway right-of-way and . neither the applicant nor the Town of Vail control future development on that property. We feel that this building should have the ability to provide a sufficient buffer from the roadway should this planter be eliminated. B. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, taking into consideration safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if they can be used by Police and Fire Department vehicles for emergency purposes. Bicycle traffic should be considered and provided when the site is to be used for residential purposes. As is many of these criteria, this consideration is intended primarily for large scale development. As it relates to this proposal, the vehicular access to the underground parking occurs in the southwestern corner of the site. There is a comprehensive traffic analysis that has been submitted as part of the development plan. This traffic analysis states that there is a 40 foot stacking distance for cars waiting to turn left into the Gateway project from Vail Road. The Community Development staff and Public Works feel that circulation related to this project would benefit greatly by the design and implementation of a 5 i left turn lane on Vail Road to serve the Vail Gateway project. This improvement makes sense due to the predicted daily traffic flow of 810 cars/day into and out of this driveway. The approved Vail Village Inn project left turn lane for their access point distance down Vail Road from this pro it is important to circulation at the intersection that this left turn lane of the project. does contain a a short ject. We feel 4-way be made a part The applicant has also designed into the project approximately three surface parking spaces that fall partially on the applicant's property and partially on the road right-of-way on Vail Road. The staff feels that these surface parking spaces are not appropriate as they are designed and that surface parking may not be appropriate at ali on this site. The spaces are too close to the intersection and would impede future road improvements if needed. We feel that if the applicant wishes to pursue surface parking, it should be redesigned to be completely on the applicant's property and in an area where it does not conflict with circulation patterns. • C. Functional open space in terms of: optimum preservation of natural features (including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience, and function. The Community Development Department feels strongly that this building should present no encroachment into the view corridor that is established by the approved Vail Village Inn development. During the Vail Village Inn Phase TV approval process, much time and effort was put into maintaining a view corridor from the 4-way stop. The eventual and approved building design of the Vail Village Inn Phase ZV reflects this effort and presents a wide view from the 4-way stop. Although the applicant has not submitted to the staff a complete view analysis, it is apparent from the information that we do have that the existing building will require substantial revision to maintain the view parameters that are established by the WI. i• D. Variety in terms of housing type, densities, facilities and open space. This Special Development District proposal includes 13 dwelling units with GRFA of approximately 12,000 square feet. With CCI as the underlying zoning, the allowable density on this parcel would be 13 units 6 and approximately 19,300 square feet of GRFA. The use of the units (i.e. rental. or condominium} has not been determined. It is difficult, on a site of 24,000 square feet that contains only 13 dwelling units to apply the criteria of variety of housing type and quality and amount of open space. These two criteria are not really applicable to a development of this scale. The applicant has attempted to provide same open space by creating a large setback from the 4-way intersection in the form of a landscape or sculpture plaza. Staff feels that this design farm is very appropriate to this development. E. Privacy in terms of the needs of individuals, families and neighbors. As with other criteria, these considerations are felt to be more relevant to large scale SDD's. F. Pedestrian traffic in terms of safety separation, convenience, access to points of destination, and attractiveness. The applicant has provided pedestrian entrance to this building on the northwest corner as well as a pedestrian entrance centrally located on the south elevation. The pedestrian entrance on the south elevation is located in the center of the building to a11ow pedestrian traffic to arrive at the building by coming through both the existing and approved Vail Village Inn developments. The approved Vail Village Inn Phase IV development was designed in a manner to screen view and pedestrian access from the existing gas station. We feel that it will be important the eventual developer of the Vail Village Phase IV project amend certain circulation and design aspects of his project to better relate to the Vail Gateway project. The staff does feel that pedestrian safety would be greatly benefited by providing a pedestrian walkway from Vail Road to the building entrance on the south side of the building. The pedestrian access as designed conflicts with the vehicular access to the parking structure. G. Building type in terms of: Appropriateness to density, site relationship, and bulk. The Community Development Department staff has serious concerns with the site relationship of the proposed development, with the height, and with the massing of the building. There was much discussion during the approval process of Phase IV of the Vaii Village Inn project regarding stepping those buildings down toward the 4-way stop. That concept was reinforced in the original SDD documents and in planning studies completed by Eldon Beck that show proposed building height allowances for the Vail Village Inn area. The architects have recognized this concept and, to a certain extent, responded. We do, however, have serious concern with the height of both the east and west ridges. We feel that the height of these ridges presents an unacceptable encroachment by narrowing the wide view corridor to a smaller "tunnel." Lowering of the ridge heights will accomplish two objectives in the development of this site. It would reduce or remove any impact of this building on the view corridor and it would further reinforce the concept of stepping down toward the corner. In the present proposal, there is approximately 5 feet difference from the ridge heights of the Vail Village Inn and the Gateway projects. We feel there should be a substantial step down from the Vail Village Inn ridge height to the Vail Gateway ridges. This would reinforce previous design considerations as well as the applicant's own architectural concept. The staff also has a concern, as has been previously stated in this memo, with the relationship of this building to the Frontage Road. This development plan proposes a Io foot setback from the front property line. While there is an existing planter that buffers this site from the Frontage Road, that planter is located entirely on State Highway right- of-way. There are no assurances that can be made by the Town of Vail or the applicant that further Frontage Road improvements will not impact this planter. We feel that a 20 foot setback from the main road in Vail is the minimum buffer that should be allowed. H. Building design in terms of orientation, spacing, materials, color and texture, storage, signs. lighting, and solar blockage. With regard to this proposal, a majority of these issues relate to the Design Review level of approval. i. Landscaping of the total site in terms of purposes, types, maintenance, suitability and effect on the neighborhood. 8 Staff feels that the design of the plaza entrance on the northwest corner of this development is appropriate and presents a great opportunity for development of a landscaped plaza, possibly with some sculpture, This plaza area can contribute much toward the positive image of Vail. The plaza as it is designed is very conceptual and further work will need to take place at the Design Review Level. VT. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. Uses The applicant is proposing this Special Development District with the underlying zone district of CCI. As required in the Special Development District section of the Vail Municipal Code, the uses in an SDD must match that of the underlying zone district. Tn the CCI zone district, permitted and conditional uses are defined horizontally by building level. We feel that utilizing CCI as an underlying zone district requires the applicant to structure his uses in accordance to the horizontal zoning of CCI. This will require submittal and approval of a conditional use permit for the office uses. For the purpose of review of this project, the staff has assumed that office will be an eventual use on the 3rd and 4th levels, and see no negative impact to these uses. The total size of this parcel is 24,154 square feet. Under CCI zoning, this would allow a 19,323 square feet of GRFA and 13 dwelling units. The applicant has proposed approximately 12,000 square feet of GRFA and 13 dwelling units. The density proposed is within allowable density of the zone district. The staff does feel, however, that the overall bulk and mass of this building results in several major concerns of this development proposal. The level of density being requested by the applicant contributes to the massing of the building, and is therefore related to those concerns. B. Parking According to standards outlined in the Off-Street Parking section of the zoning code, the uses involved in this proposal will require from 89 to 104 parking spaces, depending upon whether or not a bank is involved and what the size of that facility would be. The applicant has proposed 75 structures spaces and 3 surface spaces. Staff feels that the surface parking as located and designed is inappropriate. That leaves 75 parking spaces to serve this development. Staff feels that this is inadequate and sees no reason on this site to entertain a parking variance to any degree. The applicants have submitted a parking management plan they feel addresses the ability of their development to serve their parking needs. The parking management plan has been included as a part of your packet on this project. VIT. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN The Urban Design Guide Plan addresses this parcel of land as a special study area and does identify two sub-area concepts that relate to this proposal. Sub-area concepts 1 and 2 on East Meadow Drive involve bath short and long term suggested improvements as an entry into the community and to Vail Road. Improvements include planting bed expansions, an island to narrow Vail Road, and tree planting to further restrict views down Vail Road. These sub-area concepts also reinforce the fact that this parcel should be a future study area, Other than some initial work done by Eldon Beck, that suggest building heights far this parcel as well as the Village Inn parcel and some study done to incorporate this . site into the WI, no special study of this parcel of land has been conducted to date. The Eldon Beck study does show that building heights for development of this parcel of land should reach one to two stories. The Beck plan also shows that the Vail Village Inn development behind this parcel should be a maximum of 3 to 4 stories. The staff supports the Beck concept of stepping down to the intersection, but given the heights of the approved Vail Village Inn project, we certainly feel that 2 to 3 stories of development on this site are appropriate. While this proposed development is within the general area of the Urban Design Guide Plan, we feel that many of the Urban Design Considerations may not be appropriate criteria with which to review this project. We do, however, have concerns of several aspects of this proposal in a general relation to the Urban Design Considerations. The building height and views, in particular, are concerns of this proposal and issues that do not adequately correspond to the Urban Design Considerations. The Urban Design Guide Plan building height consideration provides far a maximum height in the CCI zone district. This building height requirement is a mixed height of 33 ~ and 43 feet, with 40% of the building allowed up to 43 feet in height. We feel that these height guidelines, coupled with the concept of stepping this building down toward the intersection, suggest appropriate design ~ guidelines for this development proposal. 10 The Design Consideration regarding views and focal points states that: "Vail~s mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, geologic features, etc. are constant reminders of the mountain environment, and by repeated visibility, orientation reference points." U While the view corridor through the approved Vail Village Inn project from the 4-way stop is not a designated view corridor by ordinance, we feel it is a very important view upon entering the community. The Vail Village Inn project responded to staff concerns and attempted to maintain an acceptable view corridor from the 4-way stop. We feel strongly that the Vail Gateway project must respect the view corridor as defined by the Vail Village Inn Building. The applicant has responded well with his building design to several of the other design considerations including streetscape framework, street edge, vehicle penetration and service and delivery. However, we have major concerns with the amount of flat roof proposed. Flat roofs are discouraged in the Urban Design Guide Plan. VIII STAFF RECOMMENDATION i• Staff generally supports the mixed use concept proposed in this redevelopment plan and the concept of the rezoning to CCI. Although it may be considered spot zoning, we feel that the uses are compatible with the adjacent Vail Village Inn Special Development District and are appropriate for this location within the community. However, we are not supportive of the uses proposed without the left turn lane and elimination of the surface parking as well as adequate parking provisions. We feel that the general concept of development proposed by the applicant is appropriate and believe that there is an opportunity here to provide an exciting and aesthetically pleasing entrance into Vail. The Community Development Department staff has, however, major concerns with the project as proposed. We feel the issues of bulk and mass, height, setbacks, view corridor encroachment and parking are aI1 important issues that must be addressed. The staff recommendation for this project would be for the Planning Commission to table this and allow the staff and the applicant to work together to try to resolve some of these issues. We feel that with adequate resolution of the aforementioned issues, we could support this project, However, as presented, we feel 11 there are major issues that need to be addressed and cannot support this project as presented. Although many of the uses of the Heavy Service District would certainly not be acceptable in this location, we feel that the existing service station is appropriate to this location. We believe that SDD X21 as proposed, presents impacts that are not acceptable, if the applicant wishes to move forward with this project as proposed, staff recommendation is for denial. • • ~z • PARKIIVG ANALYSIS of the PROPOSED VAIL GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT Vail, Colorado • Prepared for Palmer Development Company Boulder, Colorado Prepared by TDA Colorado Inc. 1155 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 8D2D3 February 15, 1988 • ~~~ • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary of Findings 1 Proposed Development 1 Parking Code Requirements 2 AAixed Use Effect 3 Seasonal Variations 4 Design and Operational Considerations ~ 5 Conclusion 5 APPENDIX Page • Vail Daily Bus Ridership A--i ULT/Nail Adjusted Parking Demand A-2 ~~ PARKING ASSESSMEI`1T VAIL GATEWAY Pail, Colorado This parking assessment report is a corr~pendium to the earlier traffic impact assessment report by TDA Colorado Inc, for redevelopment of the existing Vail Village P~moco station parcel into acommercial/residential land use consisting of specialty retail shops, a bank, office space, and 13 residence units. SurtZrnary of Findings R par]<ing supply of between 72 and 79 spaces, if properly compartmentalized and managed, should satisfy ail but peak demand needs of this proposed mixed use development. During five to six months of the year, this supply will be more than adequate. Measures restricting certain zones of the parking structure can be relaxed if needed to optimize use. During the Christmas and spring break seasons, when retail demand typically peaks, some measures may be needed to help ensure customer parking needs are reasonably met. The variation between 72 and 79 spaces is directly related to whether "resident" spaces will be for permanent residents or lodging/condominium use--the higher requirement being for permanent resident designation. The single-entry, multi-level arrangement of the proposed on-site parking supply facilitates compliance with suggested parking management policies. Proposed Development The Vail Gateway development will be in the southeast corner of the main intersection of Vail Village--South Frontage Road and Vail Road. The pro}ect is proposed to include~l~ 11,200 square feet of specialty retail shops, 3,900 square feet of banking space, 4,900 square feet of office space, and on the upper levels, 12 two-bedroom apartment/condominium units at S00 square feet each and one 3- bedroom penthouse unit at 1,500 square feet. There will be two scenarios analyzed for this assessment: one where the 12 smaller units are considered to be full-time residential units, and a second where they would be short-term lodging facilities for destination visitor use. -1 - ~ ~~ S Parking Code Requirements The Town of Vail has established parking requirements for new developments. These apply to individual land uses and include parking for employees. Parking ratios which apply to land uses included in the project are shown in Table 1. The number of parking spaces is the required amount if each land use were separate and individual. Table 1 PARKING REQUIREMENTS PER ZONING FOR VAIL GATE`,yAY DEV1vLOP141ENT Land Use Amount Parking Ratio Spaces Bank 3,900 sf 1:200 sf 20 Office 4,900 sf 1:250 sf 20 Retail 11,200 sf 1:300 sf 38 Residential 12--2 bdrm 2:1 unit(2} 24 I-3 bdrm 2:1 unit 2 Lodging 12-2 bdrm l:l unit(3) 12 1-3 bdrm 2:1 unit ? Total with Residential use 104 Total with Lodging use 92 SOURCE: Town of Vail, zoning Regulations. (1) Due to refinements in the proposal, the allocation of space has changed from that shown in the 2/2/88 traffic impact analysis. (2) 1.5:1 unit or if greater than 500 sf then Z:l unit. (3) (.4:! unit } .1:100 sf) (maximum of I:1 unit) Mixed Use Effect A report recently published by the Urban Land Institute addesses the issue of shared parking in mixed use developments. Findings show that individual Land use parking requirements are not additive for a mixed development. Nationwide data collected from free standing use and mixed use developments offers a summary of hourly parking accumulation for various Iand uses. This shows the times in overlap of demand for parking by land use. No specific parking accumulation data for banks is Included in the ULI findings. For this analysis, it is assumed that the bank parking needs will be similar to those for retail use during weekdays and office use during the weekends. Retail operations characteristic to Vail Village di#fer somewhat from national averages because of the resort nature of the village. In Z ~ ~~ I Vail Village, the peak retail hours of operation are from 2 to 5 p.m. with few s}lops typically open past 7 or $ p.m. Relating these estimates and the ULI findings to the Vail Gateway development project, we can estimate the peak parking demand. (See Appendix ~•- 1 for tabulation of peak parking demand.) Using the Town of Vail parking requirements for each use, and overlapping the uses, two peak parking times are found as shown in Table 2. Table 2 PARKING ESTIMATE PER MIXED USE ANALYSIS ESTIMATED PEAK PEAK TIME PERIOD MIXED C.fSE DEMAND (as residential) (as lodging) Weekdays (2 to 6 p.m.) 79 72 Saturdays {1 to 5 p.m.) 61 53 SOURCE: Town of Vail parking requirements, Urban Land Institute Parking Accumulation Curves, and specific retail characteristics of Vail Village. These estimates of peak parking demand represent a reduction from code require- ments of 24~% and 22% for residential and lodging uses, respectively, for the peak use period of 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. weekdays during typical ~~inter season days. Seasonal Variations Characteristic of a resort area, there are high seasons and !ow seasons. For Vail, there are two high seasons: winter and summer. Data from 1986 Vail daily bus ridership (Appendix) confirms the winter peak visitation season occurs from Late November (Thanksgiving) through Late March (spring break). Within that period, two extreme peaks occur: the week between Christmas and New Year's and the two-week spring break in Tate Nsarch. Daily bus ridership is considerably Lower during the peak summer season (early Juiy to late August). This reflects lower occupancy levels through the summer and increased availability of private autos for summer visitors. To summarize, there are approximately seven months of moderate to high parking demand and five months of Low demand for visitor parking. This directly relates to the number of residents and visitors in Vail at different times of the year and the availability and use of private autos. 3 ~~~ .• The peak demand for parking shown in Table 2 is expected to rcc:sr en t;'piCai winter season days. Providing a parking supply to meet the extreme peak demand for three weeks in December and ~~farch would be questionable given the cost of below--grade structured parking. For the few times each year that demand may be greater than supply, auser-based parking control plan would be appropriate.. One element of the plan would be to require office and/or retail employees to park off- site, carpool, or use transit during the Christmas and spring break weeks. Design and Operational Considerations For a mixed use parking arrangement to work, parking spaces must be pooled for use. Effective signing, marking and other communication systems should be incorporated in parking area design to inform infrequent users of the most appropriate routing and parking locations. The available parking for this project has only one entry and exit. Unless otherwise directed, parking patrons will utilize the first parking space available that is close to a door or elevator. To encourage appropriate use of the parking space in this project, signing within the s*_ructure can inform both infrequent and regular users of where to park. The upper level should be reserved for retail and bank customers from approximately l0 a.m. to $ p.m., the intermediate level reserved for office patrons from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., and a portion of the lower level reserved for or assigned to on--site residents 24 hours a day. Non--resident visitors could then use ~I any available parking spaces after 8 p.m. and before S a.m. on the first level and after 6 p.m. and before $ a.m. on the intermediate eve! of parking. I ~ p'or management of the office and housing patrons parking on site, a monthly or seasonal parking sticker mounted in the car would identify the user and allow a parking manager to determine if vehicles are parked in appropriate spaces. Conclusion This analysis includes two scenarios for intended use of the Vail Gateway development. The first, utilizing the housing units as full-time residential units, would suggest a need far 79 parking spaces to meet typical peak demand. The second scenario, utilizing the housing as vacation type lodging facilities, would -~- ~~ ti~ 4 suggest a need for 72 parlcing spaces. if properly man3~;t~d, this supply should satisfy alI but a handful of high activity occasions throughout the year. In these instances, special steps can be taken in advance with employee par€cing to help ensure residents and customers will be provided with adequate on-site parking surriy. • i• -5- 1 ~~ ~~ J ~ r• • • A A=1 PPENDIX ~~. itiI ~J~aC_r,C Ya1L !iO:~3 i _ L~?cr'r=tc.+is~ ~ ~:.1''C."i"y ~'~rVe'ri~ wy' ~~ YiC ~~.e E ^,0'.fY' ii' ~dl/ .i~ ~~ l: ~i~ ~u~~ 1 r~~ ~~'. Y~i ~ ~ ~ r ~ 4~ ~, r:; 7 F''! ?i r~ ~ ~~: ~;3~~AY5 - 7( Jsa~e ~If1C° inn i~~t'~% X70% ~ix •~(% 95% 7c% Jti~% ~~% t~k ~~ ~~ ~etai:, ,;gib 5t•z u2% 55:: 5:r% 75% 75% 75% T% 6~% ~;~% - esicen; is 5~~ a~ 5t.. r~:~ 3L'r a~ 5Vn tin ~~ ~'C~ [, 50r T f~~ ~'il~ ~.ix ~u~i{ itii~ ~' : '~~ 1Ce pia t Gi.' {] '. i4 i~ :2f i4 d «. ~ i .. ~ f[c%aii ~ ~'d:"1.{ C~ 3v .~,~ ~~+ 4L Ll~ k~ ~ << ~ ''p ~ - c5 .'25iucfiLia, ._..._-ii - -o ~~~ = ~~ - ~~ _i '`' r'' ~*; ~W Tn. TG i r ~ ;,5 7: _ - 55 -- - -- 7,: -- - 74 .. i9 ~ - ~ 7;, --_ - 75 ~-. ...` ~ ~ ~ --- - 5~ --- -- J~ _- 27 as Lad~i~n _~ l~ _- - ~ _ -_-~ _ ____~ 9 9 10 11 1"c 14 14 14 TGifk',~ 59 c4 5? 5£ 57 72 bd 65 ~ 51 - 40 - - 51 ii_i Irr` S:;CCIr'.C Vatl ht~'.ali C~aracter:st ~~srK? Ali: i1t~i[2T~~ ~_J '_d~~ U5~ b i'Otjj^ {iT ila~I -- ~i~M~aer o? 5~aces Tor Vai: Sat~av -- 1a G:r ':1 Rai ~~G~ 1 Pik ~ H;~ 3 ~?± 4 p~ 5 Ra 5 ~ 7 Ail 8 Ft~S 9 ~~ • S~TIIRDAY - >< ik_a~e Office 15% 17% S8% 157c 10Y 8>< S>; 4% 3a; - - - Retail 58S 69x 72x 8~ 9~x 98>; i~?,1: 957( 70S 6~X 40S -' Residential J3% 70% 7071 70x 70X 73% 75>: Slx 907: 941: 95z Six 5ATl1Ri,'pY ~ ~ Spares Gffice ~ Banff 6 7 9 5 4 4 2 ~ 2 - .~ Aetaii i5 c.i 2n 3i 35 3n s8 s'7 27 23 16 - as Residential 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 23 24 ~'S 25 ~5 TOTf~. 44 49 54 56 5$ 61 60 b1 53 48 41 ~6 as ~-~9in4 11 19 12 10 10 11 11 12 13 14 14 14 TGTAL 36 40 45 47 49 53 51 51 42 - 37 30 ~ 14 ~~~ r-- -~.. o- r-+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ k13 ~ ,_1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...~ ~ d ls. O ~ i`,' ~ ~ BT a R~~ dS~ ~r TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 22, x.9$8 SUBJECT: Work session on Cascade Village Special Development District Amendments I. THE REQUEST Andy Norris is requesting a series of amendments for the Cascade Village Special Development District #4. The amendments are requested due to the following factors: 1. The impact of the chairiift operations was not anticipated in the original plan and therefore changes must be made to the existing SDD. 2. The program for the Westin Hotel is now complete. 3. The changing markets for real estate and resort services have affected the plan for the project. The proposal recommends adjustments to the five undeveloped parcels within the project. These areas include: 1. Cornerstone Building (previously called Plaza or Bldg. C) 2. Waterford Village (previously called Mansfield Village) 3. Westhaven Condominiums 4. Millrace III 5. Millrace IV Please see the attached site plan for parcel locations. The developer is requesting approval for several alternative uses within each of the project areas. The alternatives are indicated as Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3. THE T'OLLOWTNG IS THE APPLICANTS PROPOSAL: CORNERSTONE BUILDING Alternative 1. Micro-Brewery: 15,250 sq ft (Please see attached information on micro--breweries Alternative 2. Special Attraction: 10,570 sq ft Alternative 3. Retail: 8,770 sq ft WATERFORD VILLAGE Alternative 1; 30 du, 47,500 sq ft Alternative 2: 75 transient residential units, 47,500 sq ft Alternative 3: 75 transient residential units, 47,500 sq ft (See definition of transient residential on page 3) WESTHAVEN CONDOMINIUMS Alternative 1 through 3: 24 du, 24,000 sq ft MILLRACE III Alternatives 1 through 3: 3 du, 6,000 sq ft MILLRACE IV Alternatives 1 and 2: 8 du for a corporate retreat, 14,000 sf Alternative 3: 32 au, 14,000 sf ADDITION TO THE EAST END OF THE CASCADE CLUB Alternatives 1 through 3: An indoor lap pool, mini gym or wellness fitness facility would be added to the existing Cascade Club. ROOM 2J C-201 CMC Building This space may be converted to office, retail, or theatre upon completion of Plaza Conference Center. Parking 1. Dwelling units which are restricted to owner occupancy and/or short term rentals of no more than 30 days per year shall be subject to calculation of parking requirements in accordance with the method used far accommodation units. (.4 space per unit plus .1 space per 1.00 sf of GRFA). 2. The Waterford parking structure shall be entitled to a 10% credit far mixed use. ,~ 3. Westin Conference Center shall require 35 parking spaces. 4. No on-site parking for common carriers providing charter service will be required. 2 Conditional Uses: 1. The proposed micro brewery and brew pub shall be a conditional use in Development Area A. In the absence of the brewery, a "special attraction" as defined and approved by the Town of Vail shall be a conditional use in Development Area A. 2. Room 2J (C--201) may be converted to office, retail or theater upon completion of Westin Conference Center. 1395 sq ft. 3. Addition to east end of Cascade Club may be added to include indoor lap pool, mini-gymnasium or wellness/fitness facility. Accessory Uses: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in Development Area A: - Restaurant/lounge included and made a part of a transient residential project (Cornerstone). - Meeting facilities and spa facilities included within a transient residential project (Cornerstone). - Retail shop facilities included within a transient residential project. - Skier support facilities including ticket offices, private and commercial locker rooms, public restrooms, and other facilities customarily necessary and permitted for the operation of a base ski facility. Definitions: 1. Micro-Brewery. A a micro-brewery processes water, malt, hops and yeast into beer or ale by mashing, cooking and fermenting. It is limited to a maximum capacity of 10,000 barrels per year. In addition to a brew house, a brewery requires loading dock facilities, administrative office space, refrigerated storage, silo storage, and a bottling line. 2. Brew Pub. A restaurant which is selling the beer products produced by an attached brewery. Also included is a retail shop for the sale of brewery products and related memorabilia. 3. Transient residential. A multi-unit residential project, . which is managed and operated as short term ownership (fractional) and/or rental (hotel). Features would typically include front desk, lobby, housekeeping facilities nd laundry. Units have kitchens. 3 • 1....1 4. Special attraction. An educational or research center or museum Office Use: Professional or business offices may be located on the street level of the Westin Conference Center building. Height: Maximum height of 71 feet shall be permitted for the Cornerstone Building, Westhaven Building and Waterford Building. All other buildings shall be limited to 48 feet. Ownership: Fractional ownership (as defined by Town of Vail) shall be permitted for the following residential projects: Cornerstone, Waterford, Westhaven and Millrace IV. Coverage: Forty-five (~5~) of the total area for Area A may be covered by buildings. Landscaping: At least o of Area A shall be retained as natural landscape (including the Gore Creek stream tract) or landscaped. Employee Housing: Developer is relieved of any further obligations regarding employee housing. . II. WORK SESSION ISSUES A. Alternative development scenarios within one Special Development District. The developer is proposing several use alternatives within each remaining element or building of the Cascade village project. Various uses are proposed for similar spaces. As an example, in the Cornerstone Building square footage will be devoted to the micro-brewery, a special attraction, or retail space. Staff's primary concern in reviewing the various uses per proposed building is that we do not think it is appropriate to review three entirely different development plans. The Special Development District clearly requires a single development plan (section 18.40.04D and section 18.46.030). It is reasonable that several uses be requested for a building as long as the uses have similar impacts, use similar space, and do not change the overall design of the building if one use is used instead of another. This is typical of any zone district. It is also important that one set of maximum development square footages be agreed to so that the ultimate build out and ultimate impacts of the project can be reviewed. Work Session Questions: Does the PEG feel it is appropriate to review three use scenarios within one SDD? B. Density: The present SDD allows for a maximum GRFA of 291,121 square feet and 288 dwelling units. The proposed changes keep the GRFA under the allowable. Alternative ~#1 is actually below the allowable number of dwelling units by 22 du's. Alternative #2 exceeds the total number of allowable du's by 23 dwelling units. Alternative #3 exceeds the allowable number of dwelling units by 31 du's. Please see attached "Summary of Amendments," "Mass and Bulk Analysis" and "Developer's Statistics." The developer is requesting a new category of residential unit called transient residential (TR). A TR is defined as a multi-unit residential project which is managed and operated as short term rental use (fractional ownership and/or rental hotel). Features would typically include front desk, lobby, housekeeping facilities and laundry. The unit would also have a kitchen, etc. For this reason, the TR's are considered to be dwelling units. The developer is also proposing that no owner or tenant will occupy the TR in excess of 30 consecutive days. At this time, the staff feels that there should be a restriction on a TR unit to ensure that it is used as a lodge room. Haw the fractional ownership and the 30 day use restriction interrelate requires further definition before staff will have a clear position on this request. In general, staff's preliminary opinion is that the GRFA and total number of units should not exceed the agreed upon development cap for the project established in 1984. There have been no arguments presented which would convince us that additional units are justified. 5 Work Session Questions: What restrictions on a unit with a kitchen (a TR) would be necessary so that it could be considered as an accommodation unit for parking requirements? Can those restrictions be easily enforced? Are there reasons that would justify allowing the project to exceed the total number of dwelling units allowed by the existing SDD? C. Mass and Bulk of the Proposed SDD in Comparison to the Existing SDD: The Waterford Village height should be 48' instead of the proposed 71' due to its proximity to the Frontage Road and high visibility. This is the existing height limit for this building. The mass of the Cornerstone Building is extending further to the east than originally planned. Until elevations and a model are presented for the amendments, staff believes that the approved heights and cap on the total gross square footage for the project must be maintained to ensure that the project's mass and bulk do not become excesive. Our figures show that, mainly due to the brewery, the proposal includes approximately 20,000 additional square feet over the allowable. Moreover, this square footage has increaed (actually produced) building mass and bulk in the area south and east of the traffic circle/stairway area. Work Session Questions: Is it reasonable too allow any floor area increase above the existing square footage cap for the project? Should the Waterford Village have a height of 71'? D. Proposed Uses and Compatibility with the Existing Project: The micro-brewery, special attraction, office on the first floor of the Plaza Conference Building, and transient residential units, amount of skier support square footage and expansion of the Cascade Club, are ali uses that should be allowed only if they are compatible with the existing development. 6 Further information needs to be provided by the ' developer to clearly show that a micro-brewery is compatible with residential development in the same structure. Please note that above the m~.cro-brewery are proposed 5Q transient residential una.ts, The micro-brewery may be very compatible with residential units. However, at this time, the staff questions how the micro-brewery would relate to the residential units. The proposed office on the first floor of the Plaza Conference building should not be allowed in the staff's opinion. Cascade Village is modeled off of the mixed use type of development that is seen in Commercial Core I and TI. In these areas and in this SDD, commercial office space is not allowed on the first floor, Staff believes that at would be much more positive for the project to have offices on the second floor as opposed to the first floor. The skier support square footage and pool square footage far the Cascade Club are uses that are very compatible with the existing development. However, staff questions the large amount of square footage devoted to ski accessary uses (9,395 sf} at this location. Commercial ski lockers do add people and cars to the sate. Staff's primary question is, is the treatment of the . brewery square footage in the overall project context? Tt is agreed that a micro-brewery is not a straight commercial use such as retail or office. However, the staff does not feel that at is appropriate to exclude this square footage from the total square footage figures for the project. This type of "special c~.«s~~ercial" should be counted toward the total project square footage. Our recommendation would be that the square footages far these uses be taken out of other square footages for the project. Whether it is residential or commercial would be up to the developer. We also feel that it is very important far the developer to document that these additional uses are not increasing the mass and bulk of the project. Work Session Questions: Does the Planning Commission feel that the "special commercial" uses such as the micro-brewery, special attraction, skier support, etc, should come out of the total project square footage? Does the Planning Commission feel that the micro- brewery is compatible with the existing and proposed development? 7 i Is office appropriate on the street level of the Plaza Conference Center? Is it necessary to have 9,395 square feet of skier accessory uses? (The existing SDD allows far 4,000 sf of skier accessory. E. Parkinq• The developer is requesting a 10~ reduction in the parking requirement, as he is constructing a 144 space parking structure under the Waterford building. The proposed project generates a structured parking demand of 199 to 231 spaces depending on the development alternative. Under the present regulations, this would allow for a 2.5~ reduction or a 5.0 ~ reduction in parking spaces due to the multiple use of the structure. Staff does not feel that there should be exceptions made to the required parking. The amendment also calls for treating transient residential dwelling units as lodge rooms as far as parking is concerned. Once again, until the staff understands exactly how the short-term use restrictions relate to the fractional ownership, it will be difficult to determine if the accommodation unit requirement for parking is appropriate for TR's. The Cornerstone Building has an accessory restaurant far the hotel. The developer is proposing that accessory restaurant not have a parking requirement, as guests from the hotel will be using this restaurant. Staff feels accessory restaurant should have some type of parking requirement. Restaurants located in hotels have been required to provide parking in the Sonnenalp, Doubletree, Vail Village Ynn and Christiania proposals. However, in the original development of the Westin, the restaurants were not required to provide parking. The developer is proposing that no on-site parking for commercial carriers be provided. Staff'sopinion is that it is appropriate for the developer to provide one bus parking space somewhere in SDD4. This is particularly necessary if the micro-brewery proposal is pursued. The intent is to have tours of the brewery which will most likely encourage buses to stop at the micro-brewery on their way through Vail. 8 F. Fractional Ownershit~: Fractional ownership is being proposed as a passible ownership for the Cornerstone, Waterford, Millrace TV and Westhaven Buildings. The zoning code defines fractional fee as: Section 18.04.135 Fractional Fee. "Fractional fee" means a tenancy in common interest in improved real property, including condominiums, created or held by parson, partnerships, corporations, or joint ventures or similar entities, wherein the tenants in common have formerly arranged by oral or written agreement or understanding, either recorded or unrecorded allowing for the use and occupancy of the property by one or more co-tenants to the exclusion of one or more co-tenants during any period, whether annually reoccurring or not which is binding upon any assignee or future owner of a fractional fee interest or if such agreement continues to be in any way binding or effective upon any co-tenant for the sale of any interest in the property, • The staff needs more detailed information an this aspect of the proposal to make any judgements. Tt is unclear how many owners would be allowed and what use pattern is proposed. G. Employee Housing The developer is requesting to be released from any responsibility for employee housing. Presently, the SDD states that "on a yearly basis, a contractual agreement between the employer and developer showing evidence of employee housing that is satisfactory to the Tawn of Vail shall be made available to the Department of Community Development" (Section 18.46.220). Some type of arrangement for employee housing should be agreed to by either the developer or employers within the project. Perhaps it is more appropriate to have the actual employers be responsible for providing this employee housing as opposed to the developer. However, to totally remove the requirement to provide any employee housing is not acceptable. The best solution is on-site apartments similar to the Vail Racquet Club. The staff would, however, accept some other arrangement assuring a certain amount of employee housing for a portion of the Large number of employees this development will generate. 9 H. Frontage Road Improvements: At this time, Frontage Road Staff believes consideration amendments and Frontage Road there is no final decision on when the improvements will be constructed. that it is important to take into the magnitude of the proposed how they might affect traffic on the and traffic through this project. I. Fireplaces. The developer is proposing to build gas fireplaces that actually are designed to accommodate wood burning. Staff has no problem with this request as long as the design of the fireplace areas meet the standards in the wood burning ordinance for the Town of Vail. • 10 ~_++. i~ h ~ ~ ~. C t"~ ~ ro '~ cn i~ m a rn ,D .g' ~] ^1 t ~ ~06 ~ m '~5 S a ~-~ i 5 .kt P Y-~ ' ~ D _ -,~ t., ~ s x o a ~ g, _ t~ ~ ~ m y ~ ~... ~,a-~4y ~Zm 0 7 _'"~' ~ ~i~t'~il"' ~ ~r F ~ ~n/~ Y/ b 5~ 5 s a .A -~ 44 9 5 A - ~~~~~ ~ A _ , Sy 6 iI \I~ e .~As° a ~ o m D O ; r - , ~, ~, ~ `~ ~ ~C~ ~ ..,. 'n o r ~ ~ ~~ o r ~'>>{ ~ 3t ~ x ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7.. -~.., .'V -. f ~~~" ~~ ~.;~ c ~ IF p ~ ~m ~`~~ v_~ W I -o ~a ;a. 1! ~ () <: t R1 I "ae ~ er. a ~ II je9 r ~yl I ++! 1 ~ ~ ` ~O. ~~~ ,. ~9~ . 5 e r. s . °°s ~ ~ *¢ i :~ ,q r s „4 s " s N_ 'j '~ M m ~ a f G ._ ~ -. .._..~-- r-1 ~ "" ~ ~~ ~ ~~ m ~ ~ ro ~' n ~ cn A `v n ~ -, ~ ., r p rn r r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ r ~ ~ r" °~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w w 0 ° ° ~ m x ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ w w o ~ m ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ``~-, ~ r~ ~~~ "'. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ w w ...~ ~ cs` c~.n N G ay N w '? ~~9 ~„~ ~ ~ ~ c~si ~O ~ -a -t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -1 -rt w oa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a`' ~ r~ ~ ca w ~ ~ '`` ~ ~ m ~~ c~ n Q ~ ~ ~ Q ° ° ~ N -I ~l ~ ~ () J ,., ;a ° ro ~ ~ ~ w ~s a ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ r-~ rev CA "~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .Q cS~ m ~ i n w ~ ~ c~u ~ cr-r "~ ~ ~ MASS AND BULK ANALYSIS Cornerstone Building (Previously Plaza Buildina~ Existing SDD Remaining Proposed SDD Development Potential Develop. Potential Height 71' 71'~ AU 2 0 au . 0 DU 15 du 50 du Total Units 25 du 50 du GRFA 30,628 sf 24,250 5f ** Commercial, Special C~.,,«.~~. 18, 704 43, 800 *** & Conference 49,332 sf 68,050 **** Proposed SDD is: * over 25 du's allowed under existing SDD ** under 5,676 sf GRFA allowed under existing SDD *** over 25,096 sf commercial allowed under exist. SDD **** over 18,718 total sf allowed under existing SDD n LJ Waterford Village (Previously Manafield Viilaae} Existing SDD Proposed SDD Remaining Devel. Poten. Dev. Potential Height 48° 71' D.U. 45' Alt 1 30 Alt 2&3 75 ** 47,500 4,000 GRFA 49,227 Retail 0 Proposed SDD is: * over 23' height allowed under existing SDD ** over 15-30 D.U. allowed under existing SDD *** under 1,727 GRFA under existing SDD Westhaven Condos Existing SDD Remaining Development Potential Height As approved DU 25 GRFA 22,500 sf Proposed SDD Deve1. Potential As approved 24* 24,000 sf ** Proposed SDD is: * Under 1 DU allowed under existing SDD. ** Over 1500 sf GRFA allowed under existing SDD Millrace TTT Existing SDD Proposed SDD Develop. Potential Deval. Potential Height 48' 48' DU 3 3 GRFA 6,500 6,000 * Proposed SDD is: under 500 sf GRFA allowed under existing SDD. Millrace TV Existing 5DD Proposed SDD Remaining Dev. Poten. Devel. Potential Height 48' 48' DU 8 Alt 1 & 2 8 AU 0 Alt 3 32 Total DU 8 Alt 1&2 ~ 8, Alt 3 = 16 GRFA 11,200 sf 14,000 sf Proposed SDD is: over 8 DU.(Alt #3) allowed under existing SDD over 2,800 sf GRFA allowed under existing SDD TOTALS Existing SDD Proposed SDD Remaining Development Development Total DU 106 Alt. 1: 115 du Alt. 2: 160 du Alt. 3: 168 du GRFA 116,986 215,750 Total Gross Commercial 28,704 47,800 & Other Uses PRQIDCT Completed Projects Millrace I Millrace ]_ Westin Hotel Alfredos Cafe Little Shop Pepi Sports Plaza Level Basement Level Colorado Peddler Q~ Building Cascade Wing (2 per unit) Clancys ~fice acrar~e Theatre College-cla.~~..~ts College~ffice Meeting Roam 2J Cascade Club Retail Wellness Center Terrace Wing Gust Roams (2 per unit) ~t~ai 1 Plaza B~.ldi.ng Guest Roans Retail/Office Conference Facility-net Subtotals C!lSCAIJE Y3I.L~1GE ~NIlJG 5'[AT~ARY 2/19/88 Olt, PARt~1G R]3~II' AU UU SF GRFA SF SF1~TS Project Structure 16 20,000 20,000 l4 17,534 3.7,534 146 55,457 860 1,363 1,073 900 900 8 15,870 15,870 1,400 1,400 800 800 4,220 4,792 879 1,387 1,387 330 330 1,483 1,483 i04 74 8 28 25 113 4 93 275 92 120 58,069 5,856 5,856 ~~~ :~,,, 22 :~""' 1,099 8,300 553 288 38 88,146 174,837 12,156 1,200 16 9 28 40 4 9 1 6 103 20 l4 37 53 412 .7 ql.T. ' O C~T~TAL PARKING RD~fI' Pm~,.,~1 Projects AU DCi SF GRFA SF SF.A~S Project Structure Westin+~. Condos 24 24,000 48 C.....~~ stone B,ri 7 ~; n$ ~ Brewery 15,250 25 Acc~s,9ory-Siding 9,395 Trar~~~t Residential 25 25 24,250 45 Acce~.,~ ~r~Zestaurant 5,875 Office 4,850 4,850 19 Retail 8,430 8,430 ~ 34 Millrace III 3 6,000 6 Millrace IV 8 14,000 16 Waterford Village Residential Condoffini.un 30 47,500 b0 Retail 4,000 4,000 16 Subtotals 25 90 47,800 115,750 17,2.80 0 70 199 Grand Totals 3I3 128 137,236 290,587 29,636 1,213 123 611 Use Credit 1(~°! {61) Parking Requir~.t 550 Panting Structures Cascade Village 421 Waterford 144 565 Parking Surplus(Ueficzt) ~ FJe~el~~„~ Controls Area Units GRFA Original Parcel i6 252 238905 Robbins Parcel 1 20 18753 Cosgriff parcel 1 17 15932 18 289 273589 n CAI. PAKK1ivi; Pr.,~,x.1 Projects AU UU SF GRFA SF SEATS Project Structure Westhaven Condos 24 24,000 4$ Cornerstone &dlding S~•-; a7 Attraction 10, 570 25 Acc~~..~ ~r~iding 9,395 Transient Residential 25 25 24,250 45 Office 4,850 4,850 19 Retail. 9,990 9,990 40 Millrace ILC 3 6,000 6 Millrace IV 8 14,000 16 Waterford Village Transient Residential 75 47,500 75 ~~ 4,000 4,000 16 Subtotals 25 135 38,805 115,750 18,840 0 7O 220 ~}~ Totals 313 i73 128,241 290,587 31,196 1,213 i23 b34 Mixed Use Credit 1~ (b3) ~c~an' g Req~re~nt 571. Parld.ng Structures Gaa'ade V;llaq~e 421 Waterford 144 565 Parking Surplus(Ueficit) (6) )je~rel~.~.,~,C Controls . Arm Units GRFA . Origi~r~l pg~l 16 252 238905 Robbins Parcel 1 20 18753 ~~g p~~ 1 17 15932 18 289 273589 • ~1~~ad Projects Westhaven Condos C"~~~Lstone Building Restaurant gory-Std~ng Transient Residential.. Offirs Retail {~llrace III Millrace N-~lesin Addition Wa;~~ford Village Transient Residential ~2s~hai 1 ^•ibtotals G~nd Totals Mixed Use Credit Parking Requir~.C Parkd.ng Structures Cascade Village ~terford Parking Surplus(Tleficit) I7evelv~..l. Controls Original. Parcel Robbins Parcel Cosgrifif Parcel ~41.Y 3 CAI . PAl2I~dG R1~lI' AU Lit SF GRFA SF SF1YI5 Project Structure 24 24,000 48 ' 3,040 2,200 i47 15 9,395 25 2S 24,250 45 4,850 4,850 19 8,770 $,770 35 3 6,000 6 32 14,000 O 26 75 47,500 7S 4,000 ~,OOO 16 S7 127 30,055 115,750 19,820 147 54 231 345 165 118,201 290,5$7 31,97b 1,347 107 643 10~ (~+) 579 421 144 565 _ -(14) Area Units GRFA lb 252 23ux~ 1 20 18753 1 17 15932 18 289 273589 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 22, 19$$ SUBJECT: Request to rezone a part of Lot N, and a portion of Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village lst Filing from Heavy Service District to Special Development District with underlying Commercial Core I zone district. Applicant: Palmer Development Company I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST This rezoning request has been proposed in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the existing Amoco Service Station on the southeast corner of the 4-way intersection in Vail Village. At the present time the Amoco Station is zoned Heavy Service District. The Heavy Service District uses consist of industrial and service businesses. The existing Amoco station consists of 8 gasoline pumps and a small one-story building containing 4 service repair bays and a car wash. The size of this site is approximately 24,154 square feet. The proposed Vail Gateway project is a mixed use ,~ development containing retail, office, commercial and residential uses, with a majority of the parking being provided in an underground structure. Section 18.40.010 of the Vail Municipal Code describes the purpose of Special Development Districts. It reads as follows: "The purpose of special development districts is to encourage flexibility in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design, character and quality of new development; to facilitate the adequate and economic provision of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas." The special Development District chapter in the Municipal Code goes on to state that: "The uses in a Special Development District must be uses `permitted by right' conditional uses, or accessory uses in the zone district in which the Special Development District is located." In order to meet these requirements of the Special Development District chapter, the applicant has applied to rezone this property from Heavy Service District to Commercial Core I and simultaneously apply for Special • Development District No. 21. This memorandum will address the rezoning of the property from Heavy Service to Commercial Core T, as well as the application of Special Development District to this parcel with Commercial Core I as the underlying zone district. A summary of the proposed development is as follows: A. Floor Area: Retail: 11,200 sf Retail/Commercial: 3,900 sf Office: 4,944 sf Residential: 12,b00 sf, 13 .du B. Building Heights: Building heights of the east and west ridges as calculated by the standard Town of Vail method are approximately 62 and 57 feet respectively. The peak ridge heights are 57 and 52 feet above the elevation of the 4-way intersection. C. Site Coverage: 14,357 sf, 60~ D. Parking 75 covered spaces 3 surface spaces E. Proposed Uses Uses as proposed are to be those uses specified within the Commercial Core I zone district. F. Access: Vehicular access to the underground parking would take place off of Vail Road on the southwest corner of the site. A comprehensive traffic analysis is included within the development plan. In order to evaluate this proposal, we must first evaluate the request to amend the zoning from Heavy Service to Commercial Core I, The Heavy Service District as it is defined in its purpose section in the zoning code is intended to provide sites for automotive oriented uses and for commercial service uses which are not appropriate in other commercial districts. Because of the nature of the 2 . uses permitted and their operating characteristics, appearance and potential for generating traffic, all of the uses in this district are subject to conditional use permit procedure. Some of the uses allowed as conditional U5e5 within the Heavy Service zone district include animal hospitals and kennels, automotive service stations, building material supply stores, business offices, corporation yards, machine shops, repair garages, tire sales and service, and trucking terminals. The Heavy Service District does require 20 foot setbacks from all property lines, allows a 38 foot building height, 75; site coverage, and requires a minimum of 10~ landscape coverage. Density standards are not applicable to the Heavy Service District, as no residential type use is listed as a permitted or conditional use in the Heavy Service District. The Commercial Core I zone district allows a variety of retail, commercial and residential uses, all of which are controlled as permitted or conditional uses on a horizontal zoning basis. The proposed change from HS to CCI entails a major change in the allowable uses for this parcel of land. A complete analysis of the merits of this zone amendment is addressed in another section of this memorandum. II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL There are a number of criteria to be evaluated when reviewing a request of this nature. The first set of criteria to be utilized will be the three criteria involved in an evaluation of a request for zone change. The second set of criteria to be used in review of this proposal will be the 9 development standards as set forth in the special Development District chapter of the Zoning Code. The third set of criteria will be a general comparison of the proposed project to the Urban Design Guide Plan, as stipulated in the CCI zone district. Also, the Land Use Plan should be utilized as a guideline in any request to change zoning. However, because this site is part of the area covered by the Vail Village Master Plan/Urban Design Guide Plan, the Land Use Plan made no recommendations far this site. The Vail Village Master Plan, as yet unapproved, recommends no changes in the land use of this site. Staff comments include those of Jeff Winston, our urban design/landscape consultant. . III. EVALUATION OF ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM HEAVY SERVICE TO COMMERCIAL CORE T A. Suitability of existing zoning The staff feels that the existing gas station is an acceptable use as existing on the corner of the 4-way stop. We do recognize, however, that it is one of the few uses allowed in the Heavy Service District that would be an acceptable use in this highly sensitive location. The conditional use review process would require Town of Vail approval for any change in use on this site. We have also recognized for quite some time that redevelopment of this site could allow the opportunity to present a more pleasant and appropriate entrance statement to the Town of Vail. We generally support the uses proposed at this location. B. Is the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationship within land uses consistent with Municipal objectives. The Amoco site has been called out on the Urban Design Guide Plan as a special study area and has been reviewed previously as a potential portion of the Vail Village Tnn development project. With concern over the potential congestion a bank could cause at this location, we feel that the uses proposed for this piece of ground are generally consistent with the surroundings uses. C. Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community. We feel that development of a gateway project into Vail is a sound concept. This concept can provide far orderly and viable growth within the community if revisions to the plan, such as inclusion of a left turn lane and elimination of parking along Vail Road are incorporated. IV. DESIGN STANDARDS IN EVALUATING SDD PROPOSALS The following are staff comments concerning how this proposal relates to the design standards as outlined in the zoning code: 4 A. A buffer zone shall be provided in a Special Development District that is adjacent to a low density residential zone district. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures and must landscaped, screened or protected by natural features so that adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. This may rectuire a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, adequate light and air, air pollution, signage, and other comparable potentially incompatible factors. The proposed development is surrounded by c~~E„«ercial development on the south and east sides, by Vail Road on the west side and by the Frontage Road on the north side. There is no residential area that this protect should provide a buffer from. The staff does feel strongly, however, that the north side of the building should maintain a 20 foot setback from the property line. We feel that the proposed 10 foot setback is inadequate from the Frontage Road. There is an existing landscape buffer between the service station and the roadway. This planter, however, is entirely located on State Highway right~of~way and neither the applicant nor the Town of Vail control future development on that property. We feel that this building should have the ability to provide a sufficient buffer from the roadway should this planter be eliminated. B. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, taking into consideration safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if they can be used by Police and Fire Department vehicles for emergency purposes. Bicycle traffic should be considered and provided when the site is to be used for residential purposes. As is many of these criteria, this consideration is intended primarily for large scale development. As it relates to this proposal, the vehicular access to the underground parking occurs in the southwestern corner of the site. There is a comprehensive traffic analysis that has been submitted as part of the development plan. This traffic analysts states that there is a 40 foot stacking distance for cars waiting to turn left into the Gateway project from Vail Road. The Community Development staff and Public Works feel that circulation related to this project would benefit greatly by the design and implementation of a 5 left turn lane on Vail Road to serve the Vail Gateway . project. This improvement makes sense due tv the predicted daily traffic flow of 810 cars/day into and out of this driveway. The approved Vail Village Inn project left turn lane for their access point distance down Vail Road from this pro it is important to circulation at the intersection that this left turn lane of the project. does contain a a short - ject. We feel 4-way be made a part The applicant has also designed into the project approximately three surface parking spaces that fall partially on the applicant's property and partially on the road right-of-way on Vail Road. The staff feels that these surface parking spaces are not appropriate as they are designed and that surface parking may not be appropriate at all on this site. The spaces are tao close to the intersection and would impede future road improvements if needed. We feel that if the applicant wishes to pursue surface parking, it should be redesigned to be completely on the applicant's property and in an area where it does not conflict with circulation patterns. C. Functional open space in terms of: optimum preservation of natural features (including trees and drainage areas, recreation, views, convenience. and function. The Community Development Department feels strongly that this building should present no encroachment into the view corridor that is established by the approved Vail Village Inn development. During the Vail Village Inn Phase IV approval process, much time and effort was put into maintaining a view corridor from the 4-way stop. The eventual and approved building design of the Vail Village Inn Phase IV reflects this effort and presents a wide view from the 4-way stop. Although the applicant has not submitted to the staff a complete view analysis, it is apparent from the information that we do have that the existing building will require substantial revision to maintain the view parameters that are established by the VVI. D. Variety in terms of housing type, densities, facilities and open space. This Special Development District proposal includes 13 dwelling units with GRFA of approximately 12,000 . square feet. With CCT as the underlying zoning, the allowable density on this parcel would be 13 units 6 and approximately 19,300 square feet of GRFA_ The use of the units (i.e. rental or condominium) has not been determined. It is difficult, on a site of 24,000 square feet that contains only 13 dwelling units to apply the criteria of variety of housing type and quality and amount of open space. These two criteria are not really applicable to a development of this scale. The applicant has attempted to provide some open space by creating a large setback from the 4-way intersection in the form of a landscape or sculpture plaza. Staff feels that this design form is very appropriate to this development. E. Privacy in terms of the needs of individuals, families and neighbors. As with other criteria, these considerations are felt to be more relevant to large scale SDD~s. F. Pedestrian traffic in terms of safet~K separation convenience, access to points of destination, and attractiveness. The applicant has provided pedestrian entrance to this building on the northwest corner as well as a pedestrian entrance centrally located on the south elevation. The pedestrian entrance on the south elevation is located in the center of the building to allow pedestrian traffic to arrive at the building by coming through both the existing and approved Vail Village Inn developments. The approved Vail Village Tnn Phase IV development was designed in a manner to screen view and pedestrian access from the existing gas station. We feel that it will be important the eventual developer of the Vail Village Phase TV project amend certain circulation and design aspects of his project to better relate to the Vail Gateway project. The staff does feel that pedestrian safety would be greatly benefited by providing a pedestrian walkway from Vail Road to the building entrance on the south side of the building. The pedestrian access as designed conflicts with the vehicular access to the parking structure. G. Building type in terms of: Appropriateness to density, site relationship, and bulk. The Community Development Department staff has serious concerns with the site relationship of the proposed development, with the height, and with the 7 massing of the building. There was much discussion during the approval process of Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn project regarding stepping those buildings down toward the 4-way stop. That concept was reinforced in the original SDD documents and in planning studies completed by Eldon Beck that show proposed building height allowances for the Vaii Village Inn area. The architects have recognized this concept and, to a certain extent, responded. We do, however, have serious concern with the height of both the east and west ridges. We feel that the height of these ridges presents an unacceptable encroachment by narrowing the wide view corridor to a smaller "tunnel." Lowering of the ridge heights will accomplish two objectives in the devel~r~«ent of this site. Yt would reduce or remove any impact of this building on the view corridor and it would further reinforce the concept of stepping down toward the corner. In the present praposal, there is approximately 5 feet difference from the ridge heights of the Vail Village Inn and the Gateway projects. We feel there should be a substantial step down from the Vail Village Inn ridge height to the Vail Gateway ridges. This would reinforce previous design considerations as well as . the applicant's own architectural concept. The staff also has a concern, as has been previously stated in this memo, with the relationship of this building to the Frontage Road. This development plan proposes a 10 foot setback from the front property line. While there is an existing planter that buffers this site from the Frontage Road, that planter is located entirely on State Highway right- of-way. There are no assurances that can be made by the Town of Vail or the applicant that further Frontage Road improvements will not impact this planter. We feel that a 20 foot setback from the main road in Vail is the minimum buffer that should be allowed. H. Building design in terms of orientation, spacing, materials, color and texture, storage, signs, lighting, and solar blockage. With regard to this proposal, a majority of these issues relate to the Design Review level of approval. I. Landscaping of the total site in terms of purposes, types, maintenance, suitability and effect on the neighborhood. 8 Staff feels that the design of the plaza entrance on the northwest corner of this development is appropriate and presents a great opportunity for development of a landscaped plaza, possibly with some sculpture. This plaza area can contribute much toward the positive image of Vail. The plaza as it is designed is very conceptual and further work will need to take place at the Design Review level. VI. zONING CONSIDERATIONS A. Uses The applicant is proposing this Special Development District with the underlying zone district of CCI. As required in the Special Development District section of the Vail Municipal Code, the uses in an SDD must match that of the underlying zone district. In the CCI zone district, permitted and conditional uses are defined horizontally by building level. We feel that utilizing CCI as an underlying zone district requires the applicant to structure his uses in accordance to the horizontal zoning of CCI. This will require submittal and approval of a conditional use permit for the office uses. For the purpose of review of this project, the staff has assumed that office will be an eventual use on the 3rd and 4th levels, and see no negative impact to these uses. The total size of this parcel is 24,154 square feet, Under CCI zoning, this would allow a 19,323 square feet of GRFA and i3 dwelling units. The' applicant has proposed approximately 12,000 square feet of GRFA and 13 dwelling units. The density proposed is within allowable density of the zone district. The staff ,does feel, however, that the overall bulk and mass of this building results in several major concerns of this development proposal. The level of density being requested by the applicant contributes to the massing of the building, and is therefore related to those concerns. B. Parking According to standards outlined in the Off-Street Parking section of the zoning code, the uses involved in this proposal will require from 89 to 104 parking spaces, depending upon whether or not a bank is involved and what the size of that facility would be. The applicant has proposed 75 structures spaces and 3 surface spaces. Staff feels that the surface parking as located and designed is inappropriate. That leaves 75 parking spaces to serve this development. Staff feels that this is inadequate and sees no reason an this site to entertain a parking variance to any degree. The applicants have submitted a parking management plan they feel addresses the ability of their development to serve their parking needs. The parking management plan has been included as a part of your packet on this project. VII. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN The Urban Design Guide Plan addresses this parcel of land as a special study area and does identify two sub-area concepts that relate to this proposal. Sub-area concepts 1 and 2 on East Meadow Drive involve both short and long term suggested improvements as an entry into the community and to Vail Road. Improvements include planting bed expansions, an island to narrow Vail Road, and tree planting to further restrict views down Vail Road. These sub-area concepts also reinforce the fact that this parcel should be a future study area. Other than some initial work done by Eldon Beck, that suggest building heights for this parcel as well as the Village Inn parcel and some study done to incorporate this site into the VVI, no special study of this parcel of land has been conducted to date. The Eldan Beck study does show that building heights for development of this parcel of land should reach one to two stories. The Beck plan also shows that the Vail Village Inn development behind this parcel should be a maximum of 3 to 4 stories. The staff supports the Beck concept of stepping down to the intersection, but given the heights of the approved Vail Village Inn project, we certainly feel that 2 to 3 stories of development on this site are appropriate. While this proposed development is within the general area of the Urban Design Guide Plan, we feel that many of the Urban Design Considerations may not be appropriate criteria with which to review this project. We do, however, have concerns of several aspects of this proposal in a general relation to the Urban Design Considerations. The building height and views, in particular, are concerns of this praposal and issues that do nat adequately correspond to the Urban Design Considerations. The Urban Design Guide Plan building height consideration provides for a maximum height in the CCI zone district. This building height requirement is a mixed height of 33 and 43 feet, with 40% of the building allowed up to 43 feet in height. We feel that these height guidelines, . coupled with the concept of stepping this building down toward the intersection, suggest appropriate design guidelines for this development proposal. i0 The Design Consideration regarding views and focal points states that: "Nail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, geologic features, etc. are constant reminders of the mountain environment, and by repeated visibility, orientation reference points." While the view corridor through the approved Vail Village Inn project from the 4-way stop is not a designated view corridor by ordinance, we feel it is a very important view upon entering the community. The Vail Village Tnn project responded to staff concerns and attempted to maintain an acceptable view corridor from the 4-way stop. We feel strongly that the Vail Gateway project must respect the view corridor as defined by the Vail Village Inn Building. The applicant has responded well with his building design to several of the other design considerations including streetscape framework, street edge, vehicle penetration and service and delivery. However, we have major concerns with the amount of flat roof proposed. Flat roofs are discouraged in the Urban Design Guide Plan. VTTT STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff generally supports the mixed use concept proposed in this redevelopment plan and the concept of the rezoning to CCI. Although it may be considered spot zoning, we feel that the uses are compatible with the adjacent Vail Village Inn Special Development District and are appropriate for this location within the community. However, we are not supportive of the uses proposed without the left turn lane and elimination of the surface parking as well as adequate parking provisions. We feel that the general concept of development proposed by the applicant is appropriate and believe that there is an opportunity here to provide an exciting and aesthetically pleasing entrance into Vail. The Community Development Department staff has, however, major concerns with the project as proposed. We feel the issues of bulk and mass, height, setbacks, view corridor encroachment and parking are all important issues that must be addressed. The staff recommendation for this project would be for the Planning Commission to table this and allow the staff and the applicant to work together to try to resolve some of these issues. We feel that with adequate resolution of the aforementioned issues, we could support this project. However, as presented, we feel 11 there are major issues that need to be addressed and cannot support this project as presented. Although many of the uses of the Heavy Service District would certainly not be acceptable in this location, we feel that the existing service station is appropriate to this location. We believe that SDD X21 as proposed, presents impacts that are not acceptable. zf the applicant wishes to move forward with this project as proposed, staff recommendation is for denial. I2 PARKING ANALYSIS of the PROPOSED VAR, GATEWAY DEYQ.OPMENT Vail, Colorado Prepared for Palmer Dedelopmer~Y Company Boulder, Colorado Prepared by TDA Colorado Inc« 1155 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado $0203 February 15, 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary of Findings Proposed Development Parking Code Requirements Mixed Use effect Seasonal Variations Design and Operational Considerations COP.ClUSion APPENDIX Vail Daily Bus Ridership ULI/Nail Adjusted Parking Demand Page l ! 2 3 5 5 Page A-! A-2 PARKING ASSESSIUIEI~FT VAIL GATEWAY YaiI, Colorado This parking assessment report is a compendium to the earner traffic impact assessment report by TDA Colorado Ine. far redevelopment of the existing Vail Village Amoco station parcel into acommercial/residential land use consisting of specialty retail shops, a bank, office space, and 13 residence units. Summary of Findings A parking supply of between 72 and 79 spaces, if properly compartmentalized and managed, should satisfy all but peak demand needs of this praposed mixed use development. During five to six months of the year, this supply will be more than adequate. Measures restricting certain zones of the parking structure can be relaxed if needed to optimize use. During the Christmas and spring break seasons, when retail demand typically peaks, some measures may be needed to help ensure customer parking needs are reasonably met. The variation between 72 and 79 spaces is directly related to whether "resident" spaces will be far permanent residents or lodging/condominium use--the higher requirement being for permanent resident designation. The single-entry, multi-level arrangement of the proposed on-site parking supply facilitates compliance with suggested parking management policies. Proposed Development The Vail Gateway development will be in the southeast corner of the main intersection of Vail Village--South Frontage Road and Vail Road. The project is proposed to included} 11,200 square feet of specialty retail shops, 3,900 square feet of banking space, x,900 square feet of office space, and on the upper levels, l2 two-bedroom apartment/condominium units at 800 square feet each and one 3- bedroom penthouse unit at 1,500 square feet. . There will be two scenarios analyzed for this assessment: one where the 12 smaller units are considered to be full--time residential units, and a second where they would be short-term lodging facilities for destination visitor use. -z- Tl . Parking Cade RetNirements The Town of Vail has established parking requirements for new developments. These apply to individual land uses and include parking xor employees. Parking ratios which apply to land uses included in the project are shown in Table 1. The number of parking spaces is the required amount if each land use were separate and individual. Table f PARKING REQUIREMENTS PER ZONING FOR VAIL GATEWAY DE.VELOPMEIVT Land Use Amount Parking Ratio Spaces Bank 3,900 sf 1:200 sf ZO Office 4,900 s# 1:250 sf 20 Retail 11,200 sf 1:300 sf 3g Residential 12-2 bdrm 2:1 unit(2} 24 1-3 bdrm 2:I unit 2 Lodging 12-2 bdrm 1:1 unit(3) I2 I-3 bdrm 2:1 unit 2 Total with Residential use 104 Tota! with Lodging use 92 SOURCE: Town of Vail, Zoning Regulations. (1) Due to refinements in the proposal, the allocation of space has changed from that shown in the 2/2/88 traffic impact analysis. (2} 1.5:1 unit or if greater than 500 sf then 2:1 unit. (3} (.4:1 unit + .1:100 sf) {maximum of I:1 unit) Mixed Use Ef#ect A report recently published by the Urban Land Institute addesses the issue of shared parking in mixed use developments. Findings show that individual land use parking requirements are not additive for a mixed development. Nationwide data collected from free standing use and mixed use developments offers a summary of hourly parking accumulation for various Land uses. This shows the times in overlap of demand for parking by land use. No specific parking accumulation data for banks is included in the ULI findings. For this analysis, it is assumed that the bank parking needs will be similar to those for retail use during weekdays and office use during the weekends. Retai! operations characteristic to Vail Village di#fer somewhat from national averages because of the resort nature of the village. In -2- Vail Village, the peak retail hours of operation are from 2 to ~ p.rn. with few- sho s P typically open past 7 ar 8 p.m. Relating these estimates and the ULI findings to the Vail Gateway development project, we can estimate the peak parking demand. (See Appendix A-1 for tabulation of peak parking demand.) Using the Town of Vail parking requirements for each use, and overlapping the uses, two peak parking times are found as shown in Table 2. Table 2 PARKING ESTIA~fATE PER MIXED USE ANALYSIS ESTIMATED PEAK PEAK TIME PERIOD MIXED USE DEMAND (as residential) (as lodging) Weekdays (2 to 6 p.m.) 79 72 Saturdays {l to 5 p.m.) 61 53 SOURCE: Town of Vail parking requirements, Urban Land Institute Parking Accumulation Curves, and specific retail characteristics of Vail Village. These estimates of peak parking demand represent a reduction from code require- ments of 24% and 22% far residential and lodging uses, respectively, far the peak use period of 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. weekdays during typical winter season days. Seasonal Variations Characteristic of a resort area, there are high seasons and low seasons. Far Vail, there are two high seasons: winter and summer. Data from 19$6 Vail daily bus ridership (Appendix) confirms the winter peak visitation season occurs from late November (Thanksgiving) through late March (spring break). Within that period, two extreme peaks occur: the week between Christmas and New Year's and the two-week spring break in Late March. Daily bus ridership is considerably lower during the peak summer season (early Juiy to late August). This reflects lower occupancy levels through the summer and increased availability of private autos for summer visitors. To summarize, there are approximately seven months of moderate to high parking demand and five months of low demand for visitor • parking. This directly relates to the number of residents and visitors in Vail at different times of the year and the availability and use of private autos. -3- • The peak demand #or parkin shown in Table 2 is ex ecfed to n~c~rr g p ~ cn ~; pical winter season days. providing a parking supply to meet the extreme peak demand for three weeks in December and tilarch would be questionable given the cost of below-grade structured parking. For the few times each year that demand may be greater than supply, auser-based parking control plan would be appropriate.. One element of the plan would be to require office and/or retail employees to park off- site, carpool, or use transit during the Christmas and spring break weeks. Design and Operational Considerations For a mixed use parking arrangement to work, parking spaces must be pooled for use. Effective signing, marksng and other communication systems should be incorporated in parking area design to inform infrequent users of the most appropriate routing and parking locations. The available parking for this project has only one entry and exit. Unless otherwise directed, parking patrons will utilize the first parking space available that is close to a door or elevator. To encourage appropriate use of the parking space in this project, signing within the structure can inform both infrequent and regular users of where to park. The upper 1Qve1 should be reserved for retail and bank customers from approximately 10 a.m. to 8 p.m., the intermediate level reserved for office patrons from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., and a portion of the lower level reserved for or assigned to on-site residents 24 hours a day. Non-resident visitors ~ouId then use any available parking spaces after 8 p.m. and before 8 a,m. on the first level and after 6 p.m, and before $ a.m. on the intermediate level of parking. For management of the office and housing patrons parking an site, a monthly or seasonal parking sticker mounted in the car would identi#y the user and allow a parking manager to determine if vehicles are parked in appropriate spaces. Conclusion This analysis includes two scenarios for intended use of the Vail Gateway development. The first, utilizing the housing units as full-time residential units, would suggest a need for 79 parking spaces to meet typical peak demand. The second scenario, utilizing the housing as vacation type lodging facilities, would -4- suggest a need #or 72 earl<ing spaces. I# properly managt~d, this supply should satisfy all bcEt a handful of high activity occasions throughout the year. In these instances, special steps can be taken in advance with employee parking to help ensure residents and customers will be provided with adequate on-site parking supply. ~, LJ -5- APP~~DIX A=1 ._: 'nii ~7?C:~riL 1'a:? !~PC31 i ,+~c~"'r._:~;":SL ``3T'~:'"i~ ~°i'fa~i~ :Y ~aYl~ l~~P ~ z~~'ir lii ~2y -- h'c;.^,~er n= ~aa~s ~ or 'Ja. i aaCEy+ay .-- r -1 L~ ~SG~?AY5 - % llsace '9ffice n@tdii ~asicerit is '~~~Y5 - ~ 53aces ~ffite ~Sc% a j i ~ lityiii( 05 ~25iu'~Ti`aia: TaT~ as Lodgir~o T{lTl~~. iii h~ .: R+Y ~~;7V i Rw ~ Pik 3 P~' 4 r~ ~ !~~ t PY 7 Nm 6 P,~ 9 P ii~un 1~+w~ ~}~~ ~;,~ 97X 7JX 7~x ~~x L"~X G~% ~J% ~r ~~:X S+~X ~'X e5;: 65z 75x 75X 75X 7SX b0X 4~% -- ~~° ~r o'~~r 5tiX tth b~X 58X 79]: SAX 3:,X 9~;~ i''~x ~'~ Cis b ~ . ~:l~ i ~ :!F ii b ,,. C c7 JJ .7i..' ~ 3jS qu L4 4, } 4L 3.~i C~ _+ ___-- _ ___-~ 9 9 10 I1 `~ 14 I4 14 59 5~ G? _ bb -- 67 72 ~ bB - 55 - b` _ S1 - _ ~+;~ _ 51 v~l w,` S:~e~cific Vail rtetail L`~aracterist ~v phi rid i1e~i.ar~G 3'J ,d'di ~-isE d F'Oi~?^ pf ~ay -- ~i~!r,,,~ar of Saaces for Vail .5at~ay -. 5A~lRDAY - % LfsaGe Bffire Retail Residential SR7iiRDAY - # Sams 9ffire d Bank Retail as Residential ror~. as dodging TOTAL i ~ Rr ':1 ~ ~'~~1 1 P~ 2 P~# 3 P?! 4 P~ 5 P~1 b P~ 7 P~4 8 P~ 9 P~ i5x 17% IBX 15X 10x 8% 5x 4% sX - -~ 50% 60x 7~X 80% 92% 98x 108x 95% 70% b0X 41ax 73% 70% 70% 70% 70% 737 75% 81f 90% 94% 95Z 97x 6 7 6 b 4 4 ~ ~ ~ -~ i9 ca 2c 3I 35 ;scw .ib 37 27 ~3 lb 19 19 19 19 19 19 28 22 24 25 25 ~6 44 49 5h 56 SB 61 60 61 53 4$ 4I 26 I1 10 le 10 1a 11 ~ 11 12 13 14 14 14 3b 48 4S 47 49 53 51 51 42 37 38 I4 t~ 3 a ~' I ~_ ---.. ra-- ~ ~ -_., ~ c~ . C f-+ ~ ~ I T ~ ~ u~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~] , t~17 `~ x Q "~ /,~ ~ N f fer" J W J `~` Z. ~. J ~ ~- 5 ~ ~ d ~ u.1 ~ ~ ~~ d Q 1-- ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ r ~ ~ o~ ~,- U.. --~ ~ o =~ H- ~ ~ ~ ~ C1- U ~ ~ ~ a cn o ~ ~' `~' gU~ RIpE~s ~ ~-~ha,~sands~ ~. . ~. '' ~ ' t r ~y./^f ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ C s~ i . ~ . ~ ..'~. iF . 4` ~ ~ ! ' , , ~' ~ R 7 t 2~ ; : ~ T, . y` ~~' M: 5 / ,~' , ~ I.s ~ ~~.s ~{ ~ :., 1. t + h / ~ ~.. ~,. `•~~ t P • ~v ~ 5' ~ c ' ~~1 ~. ~. °k-? - ~~'ri~. ;~, }~ ~`, ~~ _ ~ ' -~ F ~ ~ I ~ ~. J c' ? ~ r ~ 1 ~' T Ar ( ~ ~~ 8 t ~ f - ~ !j ~ ~ . . _ ~' , t r=~ ~'y; , T' -n a.' 1 _ ~ ~a ~~2~' a4 ~.~ .y ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ s ~ ` •'~ ~' ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~5 - ~µ ' ` ^~~ r .. ~ y ~.Y ~ ~. ~y ~ . ~ ~'_C.! O ~ I- : F~ ~ - Ki~ r ~ ' ~t ... , , ~ s , . ~ . » ~~ ~; ~ . ~ ~+ a ~, . ' ,,. ~', ~ { ~ ~ r.~ ' ^ .. ._ -~' ' r s~4.~ ~} 1 ~ f ~ ~~ < ~ < r yi `~ 1 ,i Tr ~ `t ` . ~i ~ ~ 2 `' , .~ X~ e 1 ' • ~~_ /': 1 1 "I.' 1' f. S @ i. T ti n ~M1t `; k . I '. ~A Y~j.: . _ . i ~~.t ; , j. ? .... .. .inrj, t fir yi ~,. •A~ • ~ !~ 1i 1 Vii. . i. '{ phi .~I 1 . i~ • l F, ` , ` •br..1 ~~' ~ ft'I~ ap. ',~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ', y~„~ : . ~~, . .. ~,~f % ~ ~~ ~ y . . S' ~ r ~.: ('. 1 r $~ •' 1I j ~~ ~' ~.T •~Jlr`~ ~p~l ~~ M~ i~:~' le ~~ r t. ~~~ ~.~ ~' s'~3 ~,j.- - H ~,N~ .~. .:~'-.'Z:~4:~ ~'. ,., .r rV 55 .~1~ / if •'I/i'1 ~n ~~. .. l~~F X7!`,1 '. . ; ~ ' x ~ f~ ~ s .a~-:, 1{;11 ~~, .1;i~ si 1 r'.: y~ ! H u i~' .V ~. i ~ ~. .•.~~. l' .z t ~. I' !'~ -..:~ ~,~~ . 9;~ '-~~: ...'~~. . . ._~ . y,- ;£ 1 1 C ~~ V 4 `Y,,. '~i•Q•. ~ ~: i~ `~ ~` 1 ~" ~' ' t~ !\., '+ ;r rt.. • Y~L.r n ~~. \~~: Y f•h1 .ks~ :'~' . r'r~~.,~ '..~e .. _. . . ~ ~w i y ~ ~ t : ~a ~ "~ ~ {'l A f rt~r I ~ ~ R .1 ~ S. 1 ,~w, ~ ( ,~ s~, l s1yk ,f~~~'r ~ f 1P f~ ~ j, S ~~ ~~ •~~ IS ~~ ~1;~' ~ ' ~ 1l ', r~ 1 1 ~+~ 1 ~ ~f ti.i ~,t' 'r ij;~~~lr j ~~ r. { L ,~ 1 { ~ ~r a~i ,. .' jr ~ ~ i $ , .: - r _ ~' `~ ~ ~~ } ~~~ ~~~~ ~.:: • ~ .:~. ~~ ", j' .,y YY {l!~ }r, +. ?~ ;i ~` , ~I a - ~ . • # a*~s .. . ~~ ~. rd;i HTI k ~ `~- t 1 o ~ r r r~ y. 4`~ ~ ~" tii i ti .} C ~5 ~~:~ x,: h ~ h f-t t ' I• ~~ , k `'- ri. . ~ S ' r K~ t ~ ~ 5 ~ t £. r , ,f 1 r~e~ S 4 4' . ~x~i; s - ~ ~ ~, _ ~' Y q {'-~, b' I '-i ~ +6- 4 ;. 5 ,j1 ~+ 5 ~ T - ,;' ni , _ -` -- ,;. _ , ~` ' -f. . . ~' `~ ,, rd ' .... ~ .P ...., ~ ...,Y...w €; ~-.~3'i'~9-~.~F1 w~11 "Anil "11, ~~,^~ ,' a .1 ~.~ J " ~y 1r~~ it , ~~~, :.~ •4. ;.. t '~ - 1 wi t, ~' { i~ ` ' ~ ~,"ES =. yyr " ' ~'S i 1 sr, ~ l~' r s ~~r,>t ~ ~ ~.•' A { `, it, ,. ~ :: ~ ;.l ',w_ (. :~ .. ~' u~.. ~ ~ b PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING March 9, 1988 2:QQPM I. Request for a Special Development District for Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing, {the Amoco site). Applicant: Palmer Development Company Planning and Environmental Commission March 9, 1988 PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Grant Riva Sid Schultz Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman This is a special meeting for the Gateway project. The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. A request to rezone a part of Lot N, and a portion of Lot Os Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing, from Heavy Service District to Special Development District with underlying Commercial Core 1 zone district. Applicant: Palmer Development Company The staff presentation was made by Rick Pylman. He explained the changes that the applicant had made to the proposal since the last review of the project on February 22nd. The significant changes to the project included: 1. Elimination of surface parking along Vail Road. 2. Provision of a 6 foot wide pedestrian loggia along the south side of the building. 3. Addition of one tier of structured parking. 4. Change of third level office space to residential. 5. Provision of a planter extending around the northwest corner of the site. Rick explained that the proposal requires a zone change and an SDD approval. The relevant criteria that this project must be reviewed by included the three rezoning criteria, the SDD design guidelines, the Urban Design Guide Plan, and the Vail Land Use Plan. Rick explained that the staff had four areas of concern as listed below: 1. The building encroaches significantly into the view corridor as established by the Vail Village lnn project, particularly on the western portion of the project. 2. The massing of the building needs to be decreased. 3. The 20-font setback from the North Frontage Road should be maintained. 4. The urban design aspects of the building relating to its orientation and use of flat roofs are concerns. Rick emphasized that the staff feels the project has great potential, but that the above four issues are significant and need to be addressed. Rick passed out the Land Use policies and goals to the board members. Peter Patten explained that the Land Use policies are particularly relevant when reviewing a rezoning request. Peter Patten continued the presentation by explaining the staff's view analysis and the assistance that was provided by the Eagle Valley Engineering staff. As stated in the memo, Peter explained that the view analysis as submitted by the applicant with respect to the east ridge of the Gateway project and its relation to the Vail Village Inn and to the mountain view is accurate. The analysis conducted by the staff indicated that the west ridge of the Gateway project would have a substantial impact above what is described in the applicant's view impact analysis. He stated that any encroachment of the Gateway project into this view corridor is unacceptable. • Jeff Winston explained his role in reviewing the Urban Design of this project. He stated that he and the staff were supportive of the uses within the project and that they would like to work with the applicant to complete the project. He felt that his role was to reconcile the building with the Urban Design Guidelines and surrounding land uses. Jeff offered a brief history on the development of the view corridor for the Vail Village Inn area. Originally, a master plan for the entire VVI area was developed by Eldon Beck & Associates. The gas station site (Amoco site or Gateway site) was not a part of the original concept. He emphasized that the "view corridor concept" was an important part of the WI Special Development District concept. The view from the 4-way stop was considered to be important, as it was a visitor's first view of the ski runs, lifts, and mountain, and created a sense of arrival as well as a reference point. He explained that the Vail Village Inn plan was used as a guide during the many revisions to the Vail Village Inn Special Development District. Jeff showed slides of the previous Vail Village Inn model which had been imposed on the site. The slides were used to illustrate another means to address this prime corner site by using an attractive and inviting architecture as well as landscaping. 2 Jeff stated that the Gateway building was attractive and an eye catcher and generally created a nice statement for Vail. However, he felt that the building could be made better by diminishing the streng pedestrian focus to the 4-way stop. Ke • was concerned that the major entrance for pedestrians is off the alley on the south side of the building. He stated that this area is in shade most of the time and will also have car traffic due to the driveway to the parking structure. He suggested some alternative design solutions which could help to improve the building: 1. A more inviting pedestrian entrance should be created along the west side or southwest corner of the building to encourage pedestrians coming from Meadow Drive to enter the building at this point. 2. The possibility of pushing the building to the east should be examined. This would allow for greater landscaping on the north side of the property and create a more inviting space for pedestrians. 3. The possibility of using pitched roofs instead of the flat roofs should be studied. Pitched roofs are a major part of Vai1's design vocabulary. He acknowledged that the Vail Village Inn has a flat roof at the very peak, however, a majority of the roof farm is sloped. Peter Jamar, representing Palmer Development Company, summarized what the applicant had done to respond to the PEC's concerns. He added that the applicant felt it was too late to bring Jeff Winston into these discussions. Jamar reviewed the changes that had been made in terms of view, height, setbacks, etc. He felt the building was responsive to the views from the ~-way stop up to the mountain, and that the orientatian of the building was appropriate. He felt the building was consistent with the Vail Village Design Considerations and Master Plan. Buff Arnold, architect for the project, stated that he felt they had received clear direction from the Planning Commission and planning staff at the last meeting. He felt that this meeting was created to address the specific concerns related at the previous meeting. Buff outlined in detail the architectural changes to the project. These changes included a new loggia, elimination of parking spaces on Vail Road, and increased landscaping on the northwest corner of the site. He also emphasized that the owner had added an additional tier of parking to increase the total parking spaces to 90. The original parking provided 79 spaces. Buff was frustrated that the staff did not address the owner's addition of another tier of parking to the project. He stated that this was a mixed use project and warranted some overlap in uses and parking 3 requirements. He also mentioned that the o££ice use had been deleted on the third floor of the project. Buff stated that he thought the view analysis was an issue that was laid to rest. He felt that their view analysis was adequate. He also felt that the staff lacked the ability to view the site in three dimensions. Buff did not understand what this great brouhaha was all about with respect to the view. His opinion was that the Master Plan for the view corridor for WI was never actually approved by the Town of Vail and that the Vail Village Inn project does not respect the view corridor. Buff stated that the proposed Gateway project respects the spirit of the view analysis, and the relationship of the buildings is correct in his view analysis. Buff addressed the planter and 20 foot setback and explained that the buildings to the east did not respect the 20 foot setback. He stated that he understood why setbacks are important, but felt that Cascade Village was a fine example of a project that really needs the 20 foot setback, however, this project received a variance which has now created a problem. Buff felt that urban design issues were being brought up which really were not appropriate at this time. He said that he had met with the staff and agreed upon time lines and submittals. • With respect to the flat roof, Buff felt that Commercial Core I Design Considerations were being applied to this site, and that this was not appropriate. The Special Development District was only using the uses of C~.~u«ercial Core I and not the Design Guidelines. He felt strongly that the flat roof would not be apparent and that it was appropriate. In summary, Buff stated that the building is a positive improvement. He said that he found the staff position difficult to understand and he felt that he had addressed all the PEC's concerns which had been brought up at the last meeting. A short break was allowed before the commissioners began their questions and comments on the project. Pam Hopkins began her comments by stating that at work sessions generalities are addressed. As the Commissioners become more familiar with a project, they have greater preciseness in their concerns. Pam was concerned about the view corridor. she asked Buff how the cars were directed to the 90 parking spaces in the project. Buff stated that most likely signage would be used to direct motorists into the parking areas. Pam stated that vehicular and pedestrian access is a problem. The project needs to be tied into the pedestrian and vehicular • patterns as they exist. 4 Pam was also concerned about the setback from the Frontage Road. She felt that pedestrianization also needed to be increased. She would have liked to have seen the 6 foot loggia made into a main pedestrian access way. Pam wished to see the driveway and loggia as an entry of sorts for the project. Buff responded that most users will know where to park. Pam still felt it was a problem, and that the loggia would help, but that perhaps the southwest corner of the building should be cut back at a 45 degree angle. She also mentioned that she would like to see lighting addressed. She liked the landscaping on the northwest corner of the project. Sid Schultz stated that he appreciated what the applicant has to do to get through the process. He felt that the PEC and DRB should be involved in the review of a project, but that we need to look at streamlining the process. Sid's main concern was that the underlying zoning for the SDD of CCI zoning was inappropriate for a site surrounded by Public Accommodation zoning. He stated that the view encroachment above the VVI was not a significant problem, and he would not mind seeing a 20 foot setback, but that the north side of the building could be addressed at DRB. In respect to the architecture, the building is not the norm for Vail Village. However, he felt the building was designed well and did fit into the surrounding architecture of the area. • Sid asked the applicant if the bank was a definite tenant. Buff said that discussions had occurred with the bank, but nothing had been formally agreed to in writing at this paint. Sid stated that if the bank goes in, that quick loading zone parking is insufficient. He cited Vail National Bank and its parking problems. Buff responded by saying that visually a motorist would be able to see spaces in the parking structure. Also, the project would have a parking management plan to get people to the right spaces. He also cited the fact that bank users are repeat users. Buff said that in an informal discussion with representatives of Vail National Bank, they mentioned that the new location would have a better parking situation than their existing site. However, he once again emphasized that the bank is not a "done deal." Diana Donovan also felt that Commercial Care I zoning was inappropriate. She felt that the bank was a very inappropriate use for the project. The parking needs to be at grade for a bank. Diana felt that pedestrian access from the southwest corner of the building would be helpful. Buff stated that he felt people do not use Vail Road. Diana mentioned that most of the traffic would likely come up from Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. Peter Patten stated that a sidewalk does exist around the corner of the recently constructed WI building and that money had been escrowed far the last segment of the sidewalk. Diana felt that the front entry (northwest corner) of the project should be pulled back, although the form of the entry could stay the same. She felt that the 15 foot setback should be honored on the North Frontage Road side of the project. Diana wanted to see landscaping (year-round} and the berm along the Frontage Raad increased in size. She questioned how the right turn lane off of the northwest corner of the site would affect the new landscaping. Buff responded that the island would have to be in the existing right turn lane. Diana had no comment on the flat roof. She felt it was difficult to read what it would actually look like. Jim Viele stated that the applicant had done a good job of responding to the Planning C~.~u«ission concerns discussed at the last meeting. He asked Peter Jamar if short term use restrictions would be applied to the residential units. Peter responded that the units are going to be dwelling units and that for parking purposes, they have allocated the appropriate number of spaces as required by the code. At this time, the developer was uncertain as to how the units would be used. Jim stated that he felt that the uses in the project were appropriate for this area. Jim felt that perhaps the two new surface parking spaces on the south side of the site could become an attractive nuisance. He felt the covered walkway on the south side of the building was a definite improvement and felt that extending the sidewalk to the south of the building through WI will be positive if WI comes back to the Planning C~,~„~~ission. Jim felt that the additional tier of parking, increase of residential space at the third level, and planter on the northwest corner of the site were all very positive changes. He agreed that the building's architecture was a departure from the norm, however, there are many buildings with flat roofs in Vail. He also felt that the building would not read as a flat roof. Jim asked if the sidewalks would be heated and if there was adequate snow storage in the planting areas. Buff responded that snow could be stored in the planter areas and that he did not see a major problem for snow storage. He did look at the possibility of heating the south side of the building for safety reasons. The north side has plenty of roam to store snow. Buff also stated that snow could be stored within the property lines. Jim asked Buff what would happen if the 15 foot setback on the north side of the highway was respected. Buff responded by saying that if the building is pushed back to the 15 foot setback line, that they will probably lose 8 parking spaces. 6 • He felt it was a trade-off to pull back the building. It was difficult to push and pull the building without losing some parking due to the geometry of the building. Jim mentioned that he had concerns about pushing the building to the east. The VVT building to the east of the Gateway site will most likely not be built per the plan. He felt we could get into trouble if we build up to the east side of the property line. Jim was willing to pass on the north setback as long as the DRB addressed landscaping and snow storage. With respect to the view corridor, Jim stated that when the views were established and discussed, this 4-way stop view corridor was excluded from the approvals. Buff added that the roof height on the model was actually 1/8" lower on the western ridge. Peter Patten explained that the view corridor for the 4-way stop was to be studied when the corridors were approved. The Town Council directed staff and PEC to address the 4-way stop corridor, and then the Vail Village Inn project Dame through the planning process, and at that point it was decided to use the view corridors established by the VVI SDD instead of doing a second 4-way stop view corridor study. Jim summarized his comments by saying that overall, the applicant had done a good job in responding to the PEC concerns. He felt that the benefits of the project outweighed any negative impacts. He generally supported the project as submitted. Bryan Hobbs said that in general he did support the project and that he had no problem with the flat roof. Peggy Osterfoss stated that she felt the applicant had made genuine efforts to compromise. She stated that the existing gas station building was not necessarily negative, as it is at such a small scale and did not have impacts on the views. She realized that the building size of the gas station was unrealistic and uneconomical for a developer to propose far any new construction. However, she felt that the VVI view corridor was appropriate to maintain and she was not in favor of any additional intrusion into the corridor. Peggy felt that the 15 foot setback was a compromise that was viable. Other buildings to the east were not a precedent to follow. Peggy stated that the building should work economically. By this she meant that shoppers see retail but cannot access directly to the shoppping with the present design. She suggested reevaluating access to the retail so that it is very functional and easily accessed by pedestrians. She felt that the entry on Vail Road on the southwest corner of the building is an entrance that should be looked at. 7 Grant Riva thanked the applicants for addressing the PEC concerns. He stated that views from the 4-way stop were certainly important, but hopefully people would not spend too much time at the 4-way stop. Grant had no problem with the flat roofs. He felt that the applicant might actually be in a catch-22 in that if pitched roofs were proposed, there would probably be more of an impact on the view corridor. Grant felt the applicant had done a good job of studying what the project will look like with the existing surrounding situation. He felt that the building's location on the east side of the site was appropriate given the uncertainty of the WI SDD. Tn general, Grant felt the proposal looked very good. Grant also stated that the Land Use Plan goals and policies were supported by this project. Diana mentioned that the berm along the North Frontage Road needed evergreens to add greenery during the winter time when the other trees and flowers would not provide any landscaping. Diana asked if the Colorado Division of Highways had approved the planter on their rightrot-way. Peter Patten explained that the applicants had not asked for approval from the Highway Department at this point. Diana again reiterated that she did not approve of the bank use. She also stated that she wanted to keep the option for the right turn lane. She asked how the traffic signals in the 4-way stop would affect this project. Peter Patten mentioned that since January the applicant had been made aware of the staff's concerns with the project either verbally or in memos. He also emphasized that the staff had no intent to delay this project, Bryan Hobbs moved to rec~.~u«end approval of the rezoning of the project from Heavy Service to Special Development District with an underlying Commercial Core T zone district. The motion was seconded by Grant Riva. Bryan cited the findings that the project met the Land Use Plan, zone change, Special Development District and Urban Design Guide Plan criteria. Pam Hopkins raised the question of whether or not several issues of concern should be added as conditions of the motion or just as areas of concern related to the project. These issues included the 15 foot setback on the north side of the site, the creation of a strong entryway on the southwest corner of the building, lighting, and landscaping. Kristan Pritz asked if the concern over the entryway on the southwest corner of the building meant that the architect should address this by exterior improvements to the area, or if 8 . .' the possibility of actually cutting back the building should be a viable possibility. Buff said that he had no problem with cutting back the building on the southwest corner for the entry. He said he would address this area and that it was do-able. The Commissioners voted 3-4. Sid, Pam, Diana, and Peggy voted against the motion. Peter Jamar asked those wha had voted against the motion to list their primary concerns with the project. The Commissioners listed the following concerns: Pam stated that the 15 foot setback on the north side of the project, lighting, and the southwest entry were her primary concerns. Sid stated that the CG2 zoning was inappropriate due to the lack of any CCI zoning in close proximity to this project. He also felt that parking and pedestrian access needed to be addressed more clearly. Diana felt pedestrian access, lighting, the Frontage Road setback, and uses were her primary concerns. Peggy stated that the view corridor, north setback, and pedestrian entryway on the southwest corner of the building were her primary concerns. Rick Pylman informed the PEC of the change of the bike path on the Golden Peak Nursery Center project. Instead of going between the tennis courts, it will go to the south of the courts near the Chair 12 lift maze. Kristan Pritz passed out a letter from neighbors in east Vail requesting that the PEC zone the "Getty Oil Site" as open space. The meeting adjourned. •` \_. ~~~t town ofi Vaii ~ 75 south frontage road vail, colarado 81657 (303)476-7000 MEMORANDUM • TD: Planning and Environmental Commission FRDM: Community Development Department DATE: March 9, 1988 SUBJECT: Vail Gateway The applicant for the project has made several revisions to the Gateway plans in response to concerns voiced at the Planning Commissian meeting of February 22, 1988. These significant changes include: Elimination of surface parking along Vail Road. Provision of a six foot wide pedestrian loggia along the south side of the Building. Addition of one tier of structured parking. Change of third level office space to residential. Provision of a planter extending around the north west corner of the site. REVISED FLOOR AREAS & PARKING CALCULATIONS RETAIL: 10800 s.f. 3b parking spaces required. BANK: 3800 s.f. 19 parking spaces required. OFFICE: 3750 s.f. 15 parking spaces required. 13 DWELLING UNITS: 13000 s.f. 26 parking spaces required. TOTAL: 95 parking spaces required 9Q parking spaces provided ..; The Community Development Department still has several serious concerns with the Vail Gateway project. Please refer to the PEC memorandum dated 2/22/88 for our complete analysis of this project. The proposal requires a zone change, and an SDD approval. The relevant criteria that this project must be reviewed by include the 3 rezoning criteria, the SDD design guidelines, the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Land Use Plan. The following issues that we still are concerned with relate to these criteria. VIEW SDD DESIGN CRITERIA C The Staff still feels strongly that this building should present no encroachment into the view that is established by the approved Vail Village Inn development. During the Vail Village Inn Phase IV approval process, much time and effort was put into maintaining a broad view of Vail Mountain from the four-way- stop. The eventual and approved building design of the Vail Village Inn Phase IV, reflects this effort and presents a wide view of the Mountain from the four-way-stop. The Community Development Department Staff conducted an independent view analysis study of the Vail Gateway project. We feel that the view analysis as submitted by the applicant with respect to the east ridge of the Gateway project and it's . relation to the Vail Village Inn and to the mountain views is accurate. We still feel that the encroachment (any encroach- ment} of the Gateway project into this view is unacceptable. With the regard to the west ridge of the Vail Gateway project, we feel that the view corridor analysis submitted by the applicant is quite inaccurate. The analysis conducted by the Staff shows that the west ridge of the Gateway project would have a substantial impact above what is described in the applicants view impact analysis. We feel that this level of encroachment into the view of Vail Mountain from the four-way-stop is not acceptable, and that further revisions need to be made to this building to respect the view that is presented by the Vail Village Inn project. MASSING SDD DESIGN CRITERIA G The staff's on-site massing demonstration also revealed a major concern with the impact of the height/mass of the tallest portion's of the building as it relates to the Frontage Road and Vail Raad. This had not been evident before until demonstrated on-site. The peak of the roof ridges near the roads (30 feet. away from property lines) present an unacceptable impact upon pedestrians and motorists in the area. SETBACK SDD DESIGN CRITERIA A The Community Development Department still feels strongly about the request for a 20 foot setback from property line along the Frontage Road. We believe that this project should always have the ability to provide an adequate buffer to the Frontage Road. We feel that a 20 foot setback is a minimum setback that we can accept in this location. The applicant has argued that the existing landscaped planter that is located along the Frontage Road, serves as an adequate buffer from this elevation of the building. That landscape buffer is located on State Highway right-of-way and is not under control of the applicant or the Town of Vail. (See attached letter from Richard Perske) The State Highway Department has not provided us the reassurance that that planter will remain unaffected by further road and intersection improvements. The Vail Gateway building will be in place for quite some time, and there is no guarantee that this landscape buffer will remain. We feel that it is important that the applicant be able to provide an acceptable buffer on his own property. We have discussed the potential for the applicant to build to his property line on the east. This would allow a fairly even trade of square footage by providing the 20 foot setback on the north, and would also eliminate the alley between the Gateway and the proposed Vail Village Inn. • URBAN DESIGN SDD DESIGN STANDARD G, URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN With regard to the Urban Design aspects of the proposed Vail Gateway project. The Community Development Department Staff has some concerns with the fundamental design and orientation of the building. The building is designed with a pedestrian plaza at a high traffic carnet that is difficult to reach on foot. We understand that the desire of the applicant that the building make a statement to people entering the community. We feel however, that main entrance of the building should be oriented more toward the direction of pedestrian approach the southwest. The praposed design may encourage unwanted traffic down Vail Road and into the Village Core. Another concern that the Staff has with the Urban Design aspect of the building is the architectual issue of the flat roof areas, although this is essentially a Design Review Board issue it is an issue that should be addressed at this crucial stage of this project. We are concerned with the introduction of the flat roof element in the vicinity of the Vail Village area, where through the Urban Design Guide Lines, flat roofs are not allowed and gable roofs are highly encouraged. • .. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department still feels that there are significant issues with this project that must be addressed. We feel that these issues are very significant with the regards to views, bulk & mass impacts and Urban Design principals and as proposed cannot support this project as it is currently presented. The applicant has responded positively to some of our concerns, however we feel there are outstanding issues which need to be further addressed. The staff recommendation is, as can be found in the memo dated February 2, 1988 for denial. ~3 r r' ~ AC T0; PZanning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 22, 1.988 SUBJECT: Request to rezone a part of Lot N, and a portion of Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing from Heavy Service District to Special Development District with underlying Commercial Core I zone district. Applicant: Palmer Development Company I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST This rezoning request has been proposed in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the existing Amoco Service Station on the southeast corner of the 4-way intersection in Vail Village. At the present time the Amoco Station is zoned Heavy Service District. The Heavy Service District uses consist of industrial and service businesses. The existing Amoco station consists of 8 gasoline pumps and a small one-story building containing 4 service repair bays and a car wash. The size of this site is approximately 24,3.54 square feet. The proposed Vail Gateway project is a mixed use development containing retail, office, commercial and . residential uses, with a majority of the parking being provided in an underground structure. Section 18.40.010 of the Vail Municipal Code describes the purpose of Special Development Districts. Tt reads as follows: "The purpose of special development districts is to encourage flexibility in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design, character and quality of new development; to facilitate the adequate and economic provision of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas." The Spacial Development District chapter in the Municipal Code goes on to state that: "The uses in a special Development District must be uses `permitted by right' conditional uses, or accessory uses in the zone district in which the Special Development District is located." In order to meet these requirements of the Special Development District chapter, the applicant has applied to rezone this property from Heavy Service District to Commercial Care T and simultaneously apply for Special y~ `~ , ~, Development D1StY1Ct No. 21. This memorandum will address the rezoning of the property from Heavy Service to Commercial Core I, as well as the application of Special Development District to this parcel with Commercial Core I as the underlying zone district. A summary of the proposed development is as follows: A. Floor Area: Retail: Retail/Commercial: Office: Residential: B. Building Heiahts: 11,200 sf 3,900 sf 4,900 sf 7.2,000 sf, 13 .du Building heights of the east and west ridges as calculated by the standard Town of Vail method are approximately 62 and 57 feet respectively. The peak ridge heights are 57 and 52 feet above the elevation of the 4-way intersection. C. Site Coverage. 14,357 sf, 60% D. Parking 75 covered spaces 3 surface spaces E. Proposed Uses Uses•as proposed are to be those uses specified within the Commercial Care I zone district. F. Access: Vehicular access to the underground parking would take place off of Vail Road on the southwest corner of the site. A comprehensive traffic analysis is included within the development plan. In order to evaluate this proposal, we must first evaluate the request to amend the zoning from Heavy Service to Commercial Core I. The Heavy Service District as it is defined in its purpose section in the zoning code is intended to provide sites for automotive oriented uses and for commercial service uses which are not appropriate in other commercial districts. Because of the nature of the 2 .~ uses permitted and their operating characteristics, appearance and potential for generating traffic, all of the uses in this district are subject to conditional use permit procedure. Some of the uses allowed as conditional uses within the Heavy Service zone district include animal hospitals and kennels, automotive service stations, building material supply stores, business offices, corporation yards, machine shops, repair garages, fire sales and service, and trucking terminals. The Heavy Service District does require 20 foot setbacks from all property lines, allows a 38 foot building height, 75o site coverage, and requires a minimum of 10°s landscape coverage. Density standards are not applicable to the Heavy Service District, as no residential type use is listed as a permitted or conditional use in the Heavy Service District. The Commercial Core I zone district allows a variety of retail, commercial and residential uses, all of which are controlled as permitted or conditional uses on a horizontal zoning basis. The proposed change from HS to CCI entails a major change in the allowable uses far this parcel of land. A complete analysis of the merits of this zone amendment is addressed in another section of this memorandum. II. CRITERIA TO SE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL There are a number of criteria to be evaluated when reviewing a request of this nature. The first set of criteria to be utilized will be the three criteria involved in an evaluation of a request for zone change. The second set of criteria to be used in review of this proposal will be the 9 development standards as set forth in the Special Development District chapter of the Zoning Code. The third set of criteria will be a general comparison of the proposed project to the Urban Design Guide Plan, as stipulated in the CCI zone district. Also, the Land Use Plan should be utilized as a guideline in any request to change zoning. However, because this site is part of the area covered by the Vail Village Master Plan/Urban Design Guide Plan, the Land Use Plan made no recommendations far this site. The Vail Village Master Plan, as yet unapproved, recommends no changes in the land use of this site. Staff comments include those of Jeff Winston, our urban design/landscape consultant. 3 ~l III. EVALUATION OF 20NE CHANGE REQUEST FROM HEAVX SERVICE TO COMMERCIAL CORE I A. Suitability of existing zoning The staff feels that the existing gas station is an acceptable use as existing on the corner of the 4--way stop. We do recognize, however, that it is one of the few uses allowed in the Heavy Service District that would be an acceptable use in this highly sensitive location. The conditional use review process would require Town of Vail approval for any change in use on this site. We have also recognized for quite some time that redevelopment of this site could allow the opportunity to present a more pleasant and appropriate entrance statement to the Town of Vail. We generally support the uses proposed at this location. B. Is the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationship within land uses consistent with Municipal objectives. The Amoco site has been called out on the Urban Design Guide Plan as a special study area and has been reviewed previously as a potential portion of the Vail Village Inn development project. With concern aver the potential congestion a bank could cause at this location, we feel that the uses proposed for this piece of ground are generally consistent with the surroundings uses. C. Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community. We feel that development of a gateway project into Vail•is a sound concept. This concept can provide for orderly and viable growth within the community if revisions to the plan, such as inclusion of a left turn lane and elimination of parking along Vail Road are incorporated. TV. DESIGN STANDARDS IN EVALUATING SDD PROPOSALS The following are staff comments concerning how this proposal relates to the design standards as outlined in the zoning code: • w ~' A. A buffer zone shall be provided in a Special Development District that is adiacent to a low density residential zone district. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures and must landscaped, screened or protected by natural features so that adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. This may require a buffer zone of Y sufficient size to adequately separate the proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy. noise, adequate light and air, air pollution, signage, and other comparable potentially incompatible factors. The proposed development is surrounded by commercial development on the south and east sides, by Vail Road on the west side and by the Frontage Road on the north side. There is na residential area that this project should provide a buffer from. The staff does feel strongly, however, that the north side of the building should maintain a 20 foot setback from the property line. We feel that the proposed 10 foot setback is inadequate from the Frontage Road. There is an existing landscape buffer between the service station and the roadway. This planter, however, is entirely located an State Highway right-of-way and neither the applicant nor the Town of Vail control future development an that property. We feel that this building should have the ability to provide a sufficient buffer from the roadway should this plantar be eliminated. B. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, taking into consideration safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if they can be used by Police and Fire•Department vehicles for emergency purposes. Bicycle traffic should be considered and provided when the site is to be used for residential purposes. As is many of these criteria, this consideration is intended primarily for large scale development. As it relates to this proposal, the vehicular access to the underground parking occurs in the southwestern corner of the site. There is a comprehensive traffic analysis that has been submitted as part of the development plan. This traffic analysis states that there is a ~0 foot stacking distance for cars waiting to turn left into the Gateway project from Vail Road. The Community Development staff and Public Works feel that circulation related to this project would benefit greatly by the design and implementation of a 5 +' left turn Lane on Vail Road to servo the Vail Gateway project. This improvement makes sense due to the predicted daily traffic flow of 810 cars/day into and out of this driveway. The approved Vail Village Inn project left turn lane for their access point distance down Vail Road from this pro it is important to circulation at the intersection that this left turn lane of the project. does contain a a short ject. We feel 4-way be made a part The applicant has also designed into the project approximately three surface parking spaces that fall partially on the applicant's property and partially on the road right-of-way on Vail Road. The staff feels that these surface parking spaces are not appropriate as they are designed and that surface parking may not be appropriate at all on this site. The spaces are too close to the intersection and would impede future road improvements if needed. We feel that if the applicant wishes to pursue surface parking, it should be redesigned to be completely on the applicant's property and in an area where it does not conflict with circulation patterns. C. Functional open space in terms of: optimum preservation of natural features (including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience, and function. The Community Development Department feels strongly that this building should present no encroachment into the view corridor that is established by the approved Vail Village Inn development. During the Vail Village Tnn Phase TV approval process, much time and effort was put into maintaining a view corridor from•the 4-way stop. The eventual and approved building design of the Vail Village Inn Phase TV reflects this effort and presents a wide view from the 4-way stop. Although the applicant has not submitted to the staff a complete view analysis, it is apparent from the information that we do have that the existing building will require substantial revision to maintain the view parameters that are established by the VVT. D. Variety in terms of housing type, ,,densities, facilities and~open space. •~~ This Special Development District proposal includes 13 dwelling units with GRFA of approximately 12,000 square feet, With CCI as the underlying zoning, the allowable density on this parcel would be 13 units 6 °x and approximately 1s,30o square feet of GRFA. The use of the units (i.e. rental or condominium) has not been determined. It is difficult, on a site of 24,000 square feet that contains only Z3 dwelling units to apply the criteria of variety of housing type and quality and amount of open space. These two criteria are not really applicable to a development of this scale. The applicant has attempted to provide some open space by creating a large setback from the 4-way intersection in the form of a landscape or sculpture plaza. Staff feels that this design form is very appropriate to this development. E. Privacy in terms of the needs of individuals. families and neighbors. As with other criteria, these considerations are felt to be more relevant to large scale SDD's. F. Pedestrian traffic in terms of safetyr separation, convenience, access to points of destination, and attractiveness. The applicant has provided pedestrian entrance to this building on the northwest corner as well as a pedestrian entrance centrally located on the south elevation. The pedestrian entrance on the south elevation is located in the center of the building to allow pedestrian traffic to arrive at the building by coming through both the existing and approved Vail Village xnn developments. The approved Vail Village Inn Phase IV development was designed in a manner to screen view and pedestrian access from the existing gas station. We feel that it will be important the eventual developer of the Vail. Village Phase IV project amend certain circulation and design aspects of his project to better relate to the Vail Gateway project. The staff does feel that pedestrian safety would be greatly benefited by providing a pedestrian walkway from Vail Road to the building entrance on the south side of the building. The pedestrian access as designed conflicts with the vehicular access to the parking structure. G. Building type in terms of: Appropriateness to density, site relationship, and bulk. The Community Development Department staff has serious concerns with the site relationship of the proposed development, with the height, and with the r massing of the building. 't'here was much discussion during the approval process of Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn project regarding stepping those buildings dawn toward the 4-way stop. That concept was reinforced in the original SDD documents and in planning studies completed by Eldon Beck that show proposed building height allowances for the Vail Village Inn area. The architects have recognized this concept and, to a certain extent, responded. We do, however, have serious concern with the height of both the east and west ridges. We feel that the height of these ridges presents an unacceptable encroachment by narrowing the wide view corridor to a smaller "tunnel." Lowering of the ridge heights wi~.l accomplish two objectives in the development of this site. Tt would reduce or remove any impact of this building on the view corridor and it would further reinforce the concept of stepping dawn toward the corner. In the present proposal, there is approximately 5 feet difference from the ridge heights of the Vail Village znn and the Gateway projects. We feel there should be a substantial step down from the Vail Village Inn ridge height to the Vail Gateway ridges. This would reinforce previous design considerations as well as the applicant's own architectural concept. The staff also has a concern, as has been previously stated in this memo, with the relationship of this building to the Frontage Road. This development plan proposes a 1o foot setback from the front property line. While there is an existing planter that buffers this site from the Frontage Road, that planter is located entirely on State Highway right- of-way. There are na assurances that can be made by the Town of Vail or the applicant that further Frontage Road improvements will not impact this planter. We feel that a 20 foot setback from the maze road in Vail is the minimum buffer that should be allowed. H. Building design in terms of orientation, spacing, materials, color and texture, storage, signs, lighting, and solar blockage. With regard to this proposal, a majority of these issues relate to the Design Review level of approval, I. Landscaping of tha total site zn terms of purposes, types, maintenance, suitability and effect on the neighborhood. 8 -~ Staff feels that the design of the plaza entrance on the northwest corner of this development is appropriate and presents a great opportunity for ' development of a landscaped plaza, possibly with some sculpture. This plaza area can contribute much toward the positive image of Vail. The plaza as it is designed is very conceptual and further work will need to take place at the Design Review level. VI. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. Uses The applicant is proposing this Special Development District with the underlying zone district of CCI. As required in the Special Development District section of the Vail Municipal Code, the uses in an SDD must match that of the underlying zone district. In the CCI zone district, permitted and conditional uses are defined horizontally by building level. We feel that utilizing CCI as an underlying zone district requires the applicant to structure his uses in accordance to the horizontal zoning of CCI. This will require submittal and approval of a conditional use permit for the office uses. For the purpose of review of this project, the staff has assumed that office will be an eventual use on the 3rd and 4th Levels, and see no negative impact to these uses. The total size of this parcel is 24,154 square feet. Under CCI zoning, this would allow a 19,323 square feet of GRFA and 13 dwelling units. The applicant has proposed approximately 12,000 square feet of GRFA and 13 dwelling units. The density proposed is within allowable density of the zone district. The staff .does feel, however, that the overall bulk and mass•of th15 building results in several major concerns of this development proposal. The level of density being requested by the applicant contributes to the massing of the building, and is therefore related to those concerns. B. Parking According to standards outlined in the Off-Street Parking section of the zoning code, the uses involved in this proposal will require from 89 to 104 parking spaces, depending upon whether ar not a bank is involved and what the size of that facility would be. The applicant has proposed 75 structures spaces and 3 surface spaces. Staff feels that the surface parking as located and designed is inappropriate. That leaves 75 parking spaces to serve this development. 9 fi Staff feels that this reason on this site to to any degree. I.S iriAdequatie and seas no entertain a parking variance The applicants have submitted a parking management plan they feel addresses the ability of their development to serve their parking needs. The parking management plan has been included as a part of your packet on this project. VII. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN The Urban Design Guide Plan addresses this parcel of land as a special study area and does identify two sub-area concepts that relate to this proposal. Sub-area concepts 1 and 2 on East Meadow Drive involve both short and long term suggested improvements as an entry into the community and to Vail Raad. Improvements include planting bed expansions, an island to narrow Vail Road, and tree planting to further restrict views down Vail Road. These sub-area concepts also reinforce the fact that this parcel should be a future study area. Other than some initial work done by Eldon Beck, that suggest building heights for this parcel as well as the Village Inn parcel and some study done to incorporate this site into the VVx, no special study of this parcel of land has been conducted to date. The Eldon Beck study does show that building heights for development of this parcel of land should reach one to two stories. The Beck plan also shows that the Vail Village Inn development behind this parcel should be a maximum of 3 to 4 stories. The staff supports the Beck concept of stepping down to the intersection, but given the heights of the approved Vail Village Inn project, we certainly feel that 2 to 3 stories of development on this site are appropriate. While this proposed development is within the general area of the Urban Design Guide Plan, we feel that many of the Urban Design Considerations may not be appropriate criteria with which to review this project. We do, however, have concerns of several aspects of this proposal in a general relation to the Urban Design Considerations. The building height and views, in particular, are concerns of this proposal and issues that do not adequately correspond to the Urban Design Considerations. The Urban Design Guide Plan building height consideration provides for a maximum height in the CCT zone district. This building height requirement is a mixed height of 33 and 43 feet, with 400 of the building allowed up to 43 feet in height. We feel that these height guidelines, coupled with the concept of stepping this building down toward the intersection, suggest appropriate design guidelines far this development proposal. IO The Design Consideration regarding views and focal points states that: "Nail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental. part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, geologic features, etc. are constant reminders of the mountain environment, and by repeated visibility, orientation reference points.~- While the view corridor through the approved Vail Village Inn project from the 4-way stop is not a designated view corridor by ordinance, we feel it is a very important view upon entering the community. The Vail Village Inn project responded to staff concerns and attempted to maintain an acceptable view corridor from the 4-way stop. We feel strongly that the Vail Gateway project must respect the view corridor as defined by the Vail Village Inn Building. The applicant has responded well with his building design to several of the other design considerations including streetscape framework, street edge, vehicle penetration and service and delivery. However, we have major concerns with the amount of flat roof proposed. Flat roofs are discouraged in the Urban Design Guide Plan. U VIII STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff generally supports the mixed use concept proposed in this redevelopment plan and the concept of the rezoning to CCI. Although it may be considered spot zoning, we feel that the uses are compatible with the adjacent Vail Village Inn Special Development District and are appropriate far this location within the community. However, we are not supportive of the uses proposed without the left turn lane and elimination of the surface parking as well as adequate parking provisions. We feel that the general concept of development proposed by the applicant is appropriate and believe that there is an opportunity here to provide an exciting and aesthetically pleasing entrance into Vail. The Community Development Department staff-has, however, major concerns with the project as proposed. We feel the issues of bulk and mass, height, setbacks, view corridor encroachment and parking are all important issues that must be addressed. The staff recommendation for this project would be for the Planning Commission to table this and allow the staff and the applicant to work together to try to resolve some of these issues. We feel that with adequate resolution of the aforementioned issues, we could support this project. However, as presented, we feel 11 there dre major issues that rieed to be addressed and cannot support this project as presented. Although many of the uses of the Heavy Service District would certainly not be acceptable in this location, we feel that the existing service station is appropriate to this location. We believe that SDD X21 as proposed, presents impacts that are not acceptable. If the applicant wishes to move forward with this project as proposed, staff recommendation is for denial. ~J ~2 ~~ PARKIlVG ANALYSES of the PROPOSED YA.II. GATEWAY DEYELOPMEIVT Vail, Colorado ~~ Prepared for Pairner De~elopmen# CoFnpany Holder, Colorado Prepared by TDA Colorado Inc. 1155 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 8Q2Q3 February l5, 1988 • ~~~ r x TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary of Findings 1 Proposed DevelopmEnt ! Parking Code Requirements 2 Mixed Use Effect ~ Seasonal Variations ~ Design and Operational Considerations ~ 5 Conclusion ~ APPENDIX Page Vail Daily B~:s Ridership A"t UL!/Nail Adjusted Parking Demand A-2 • ~~ .r PARKING ASSES5~4Eir,T YAiL GATEWAY Vail, Colorado This parking assessment report is a compendium to the earlier traffic impact assessment report by TEA Colorado Inc. for redevelopment of the existing Vail Village Amoco station parcel into acommercial/residential land use consisting of specialty retail shops, a bank, office space, and I3 residence units. Summary of Findzngs A parking supply of between 72 and 79 spaces, if properly compartmentalized and managed, should satisfy all but peak demand needs of this proposed mixed use development. During five to six months of the year, this supply will be more than adequate. lrteasures restricting certain zones of the parking structure can be relaxed if needed to optimize use. During the Christmas and spring break seasons, when retail demand typically peaks, some measures may be needed to help ensure customer parking needs are reasonably met. The variation between 72 and 79 spaces is directly related to whether "resident" spaces will be far permanent residents ar lodging/condominium use--the higher requirement being for permanent resident designation. The single-entry, multi-level arrangement of the proposed on-site parking supply facilitates compliance with suggested parking management policies. Proposed Development The Vail Gateway development will be in the southeast corner of the main intersection of Vail Village---South Frontage Road and Vail Road. The project is proposed to include~I~ II,200 square feet of specialty retail shops, 3,900 square feEt of banking space, 4,900 square feet of office space, and on the upper levels, I2 two-bedroom apartment/condominium units at 800 square feet each and one 3- bedroom penthouse unit at 1,500 square feet. There wiiI be two scenarios analyzed for this assessment: one where the I2 smaller units are considered to be full-time residential units, and a second where they would be short-term lodging #acilities for destination visitor use. -I- ~~~ . - .~ Parking Code Requirements The Town of Vail has established parking requirements for new developments. These apply to individual land uses and include parking for employees. Parking ratios which apply to land uses included in the project are shown In Table 1. The number of parking spaces is the required amount if each land use were separate and individual. Table F PARKING REQUIREMENTS PER ZONING FOR VAIL GATE',YAY DEVELOPMEi1T Land Use Amount Parking Ratio Spaces Bank 3,900 sf 1:200 sf ZO Office 4,900 sf 1:250 sf 20 Retail 11,200 sf 1:300 sf 3$ Residential I2-2 bdrm 2:I unit(2) 24 1-3 bdrm 2:1 unit 2 Lodging I2-2 bdrm I:I unit(3} I2 1-3 bdrm 2:I unit 2 Total with Residential use 104 Total with Lodging use 92 SOURCE: Town of Vail, Zcning Regulations. (1) Due to refinements in the proposal, the allocation of space has changed from that shown in the 2/2/$8 traffic impact analysis. (2) 1.5:1 unit or if greater than 500 sf then 2:1 unit. {3) (.4:1 unit +~ .1:100 sf) (maximum of 1:I unit) Mixed Use Effect A report recently published by the Urban Land Institute addesses the issue of shared parking in mixed use developments. Findings show that individual land use parking requirements are not additive for a mixed development. Nationwide data collected from free standing use and mixed use developments offers a summary of hourly parking accumulation for various Land uses. This snows the times in overlap of demand for parking by land use. No specific parking accumulation data for banks is included in the ULI findings. For this analysis, it is assumed that the bank parking needs will be similar to those for retail use during weekdays and office use during the weekends. Retail operations characteristic to Vail Village differ somewhat from national averages because of the resort nature of the village, In w Z ~ ~~ ,~ ,~ Vail Village, the peak retail hours of operation are from 2 tc ~ p.rn. with few shops typically open past 7 or 8 p.m. Relating these estimates and the ULI findings to the Vail Gateway development project, we can estimate the peak parking demand. (See Appendix A- Z far tabulation of peak parking demand.} Using the Tawn of Vail parking requirements for each use, and overlapping the uses, two peak parking times are found as shown in Table 2. Table 2 PARKING ESTIMATE PER MIXED USE ANALYSIS ESTIMATED PEAK PEAK TI?~SE E~1=RIOD :~4I;CEJ USE DE:~fiaND (as residential) (as cadging) Weekdays (2 to 6 p.m.} 79 72 Saturdays (1 to 5 p.m.) 6l 53 SOURCE: Town of Vail parking requirements, Urban Land Institute Parking Accurnuiatian Curves, and specific retail characteristics of Vail Village. These estimates of peak parking demand represent a reduction from code require- ments of 24'o and 22°b for residential and lodging uses, respectively, far the peak use period of 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. weekdays during typical winter season days. Seastx~al Variations Characteristic of a resort area, there are high seasons and !ow seasons. For Vai.i, there are two high seasons: winter and summer. Data from 198b Vail daily bus ridership {Appendix) confirms the winter peak visitation season occurs from late November (Thanksgiving) through late March {spring break). within that period, two extreme peaks occur: the week between Christmas and New Year's and the two-week spring break in late March. Daily bus ridership is considerably lower during the peak summer season {Early July to late August). This reflects lower occupancy levels through the summer and increased availability of private autos far summer visitors. To summarize, there are approximately seven months of rreoderate to high parking demand and five months of low demand far visitor parking. This directly relates to the number of residents and visitors in Vail at different times of the year and the availability and use of private autos. _3- ~~, 'i ;~ ~~ .i The peak demand for parking shown in Table 2 is expected to cCC_:r cn t;•pic31 winter season days. Providing a parking supply to meet the extreme peak demand for three weeks in December and March would be questionable given the cost of below-grade structured parking. For the few tirnes each year that demand may be greater than supply, auser-based parking control plan would be appropriate. One element of the plan would be to require office and/or retail employees to park off-- site, carpool, or use transit during the Christmas and spring break weeks. Design and Operational Considerations For a mixed use parking arrangement to work, parking spaces must be pooled for use. Effective signing, marking and other communication systems should be incorporated in parking area design to inform infrequent users of the most appropriate routing and parking locations. The available parking for this project has only one entry and exit. Unless otherwise directed, parking patrons will utiliLe the first parking space available that is close to a door or elevator. To encourage appropriate use of the parking space in this project, signing within the structure can inform both infrequent and regular users of where to park. The upper Ia~.rel should be reserved for retail and bank customers from approximately 10 a.m. to $ p.m., the intermediate level reserved for office patrons from $ a.m. to 6 p.m., and a portion of the lower Level reserved for or assigned to on-site residents 2~ hours a day. Non-resident visitors could then use any available parking spaces after $ p.m, and before $ a.m. on the first Level and after 6 p.m. and before $ a.m. on the intermediate Level of parking. For management of the office and housing patrons parking on site, a monthly or seasonal parking sticker mounted in the car would identi#y the user and allow a parking manager to determine if vehicles are parked in appropriate spaces. Conclusion This analysis includes two scenarios for intended use of the Vail Gateway development. The first, utilizing the housing units as full-time residential units, would suggest a need for 79 parking spaces to meet typical peak demand. The second scenario, utilizing the housing as vacation type lodging facilities, would -4 Y ~i + ' . ~ - A A I PPEf~DIX - :r, ti. ~_. %i~ _~_{;.~ li Yo.. ".?'37 i i,~lcrr•,tcrj~r sr~'~:-.- Via:<n. v ~y ..,CY . I~cG ~ .`. Jser ~' '.~r~~/ F f • ~~~:~.nY5 - X Jsaee O;fiC? - Setn?: '~SiCen.iii .~~ I LLC rr itC fail C ~tl~n c~ ~25iu2ri%in;, 'OT ~~3 Lod4:n~ TOT4~~ :~' nu .: A~ h;OV "" ~ P~ 3 G~! 4 r'i 5 ~~ t r.~ 7 ~~ n r~S 4 Px „~7• b~r Fin Vic., [[a~ r; d ..... 7C. pon ~L~ Lip :{} ~ ~ LL i i :~ ? ~ .~ ~~ C7 ^~ 3~ ~ ~' .,., ±...ij „~.~". 114 ~:k L ¢~ a! c ~ __ .v ~,. !K .4 7 y, U IJ ~ - 59 fi~ G? fi/ fi7 7z 68 65 ~in 5~. 1Jln :/~ 6v~ Ctn ~% 7~% g~t% ~~% fix 5% 5r ~X 75X 75% 7v% 5z% ~xS b ~ C i -C ;.1 ;;4 ~_ ~- ~ti ~w 73 T ~~3 ~ 5~ 27 '"-~ i4 14H -14 Ec 51 4~ 51 ~~I w~ 5~~e~~itic Vai: „_,ai: ~aracLerist r raT'u.:?q~ U@:~2TiG ~V ;d;'.''i ~iSE ~rn~jr rat il3y - ~9l!!:~3°."' G' .~',GZGeS'G!^ i~a1i ~aicMaV -- • SATURIIAY - x ik-a~e Office Retail Residential SATil~c~Y - ~ 5oaces t-iffire b BanSc Retail as Residential TOTAL as Lodging TOTAL l Z A:Y 11 A!! s~ O \ 1 ~ ~ ~ i>"4 3 ~ 4 ~'~ 5 P. 4 fi ~ 7 ~ ~! 8 P ~ 9 15% 17% 1$X ? 5% 10X 8S 5S 41G sly - •- - 50X fiOX 7~% B~ 9~'S 58x IBS 95S 7~X 6~X 4Ox -- 7s"% 7~% 7~at 7¢% 7~X 73x 15% 81X 9~ 94S 45S Six 6 7 8 6 4 4 2 ~ 2 - - - i9 c3 20 s'i 35 3n ~ s'7 27 23 I5 --. 19 19 19 19 19 19 ~0 ~ 24 25 ~5 25 44 49 54 56 58 61 60 54 `3 49 41 26 i1 19 1~ 10 la ll ~ 11 i2 13 14 14 14 3b 4+D 45 47 49 53 51 S1 42 37 38 14 ~ ~~~ `r~ 1+ ~ ~. suggest a need for 72 parking spaces. II properly managr~d, this s~:pply sho!~.°d satisfy ali but a handful of high activity occasions throughout the year. In these instances, special steps can be taken in advance with employee parking to help ettsure residents and customers will be provided with adequate on-site parking • -~- -- .~ • N Q X Q w a. a. ~, 3 5 Cr Z i = tI) ~s ,~ ^/ f.~ a r. ~L. 11.. - - - .a -~ ~;_ ;r- ~ N ~ ...- ~~~.--- ~ -- N _,., T U - ~ -~ ~ ~~~ Q '~ Q `~ 'n M o ~ ~ ~ tC7 II') ~ {7 r' ~ r- guS R~DER~ ~T~~usands~ tJ c~ ~~ ~`" i ~ r--+ ~ N 1 ~ ~ ~ `~ of 1 'y i+ 41d. `~ ~' `~ }-- ~' ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ `~' a 1 d ~ ~ i d ~ ti] `~ Fr ~''- ~ C ~ s-.. cn ~ ~~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ .-~ r- ~ ~ Q U W '~ ll.- ~ ~ i C] ~ ~~ d ~ ._.! w ~ ~ a. ~ 4 ~ lL1 V Q cn [7 Planning and Environmental. Commission March 14, 1988 1:00 PM Site Visit 1:30 PM Work Session on Cascade Village 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of 2/22/88. 2. Appeal of a staff decision regarding a home occupation license for Bawling Alley Pizza at 2754 South Frontage Road. Appellants: Darlene and Steve Schweinsberg 3. Request for an exterior alteration and a variance to permitted c~,t~.«on area in order to build an air lock at the Gasthof Gramshammer. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer is To be withdrawn: 4. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a postal facility on Lot 1, Block 1 Lionsridge Subdivision,Filing 3. Applicant: United States Postal Service 5. Discussion of new ordinance concerning vested property rights. Planning and Environmental Commission • March 14, 1988 PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Grant Riva Sid Schultz Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman The meeting began with a work session on Cascade Village SDD amendments. The public hearing was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of 2/22/88. Diana moved to approve the minutes, and Peggy Osterfoss seconded the motion. Ttie vote was 7-0 in favor. 2. Appeal of a staff decision regarding a home occupation license for Bowling Allev Pizza at 2754 South Frontage Road. Appellants: Darlene and Steve Schweinsberq • Tom Braun explained the request for a pizza "for delivery only" service to be operated out of a residence. There would be no personal carry-out or eat-in available. The staff felt that the proposed use was not consistent with the objectives of home occupation permits. The denial was based primarily on one of the eight criteria that determine limitations on home occupations. The criteria states that the home occupation not generate significant vehicular traffic in excess of that typically generated by residential dwellings. The applicants stated that they anticipated to generate up to 35 vehicular trips in and out of their residence. The zoning code also lists examples of businesses that may not be considered far home occupations, and these included restaurants or any similar use. Steve Schweinsberg, one of the applicants, one part of his proposal, in that he would uncooked. This, he felt, would enable him his deliveries, since he would not be cone the pizzas hot. Thus, he could reduce the trips per day. said he had changed deliver the pizza to combine some of ~rned about keeping number of vehicle Tom did not know if this would reduce the number of trips or not. Diana stated that this would assume that time is not important to the customer. Peggy agreed with the staff • originally, but stated that she would look for some kind of guarantee concerning the number of trips. Tom replied that ' restrictions can be placed upon hams occupations. If the restrictions are not followed, the license can be revoked. {Jim Viele left the meeting temporarily.) Steve suggested he be limited to 5 trips per day. Tom replied that if the trips were limited to 5, the staff could approve the application. Pam stated she would like to limit the trips to 3 per day and Steve replied that 3 were OK with him, Sid saw no problem, especially since Steve would be using his own vehicle. Bryan saw no problem. Peggy asked about trash pick-up, and Steve felt there would not be much trash. Peggy then asked how many customers per day was anticipated, Steve did not know, but 35 were listed on the application. Peggy felt it was great to give Steve an entrepreneur opportunity, but felt there should be definite limits, otherwise it would not be fair to other pizza delivery services who paid rent, etc. She stated that the neighborhood deserved to be residential. Peggy was also concerned that Steve did not "have a better grip" on the amount of business anticipated. She felt that 3 trips per day was unrealistic. She felt she did not have adequate details to approve the proposal. Grant was a little skeptical about the proposal. He asked how supplies would be delivered, and Steve replied that he would purchase supplies at Safeway himself and not have supply trucks delivering to his home. Grant stated that because of the location, he was not overly concerned. Diana felt that with the limit of 3 deliveries per day, there would be no problem, but she did not thank the business could work with only 3 deliveries per day. She pointed out that pizza was a spontaneous meal and that half of the ovens in Vail were not large enough to bake pizza. Diana added that #1p cans produce a lot of garbage. Pam moved and Sid seconded to approve the home occupation if the trips were limited to 3 per day. The vote was 5-1 with Peggy voting against the proposal. 3. Request for an exterior alteration and a variance to permitted common area in order to build an air lock at the Gasthof Gramshammer. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer Sid Schultz removed himself from the table and abstained from voting on this project. Kristan Pritz circulated a photo of the portion of the building to be enclosed. She explained that because this is in CCI, the exterior alteration must be considered as well as the variance to permitted common area. Sid Schultz was the architect for the project. He answered questions from the board. Pazn moved and Peggy seconded to approve both the exterior alteration and the variance. The vote was 5-0-1 with Sid abstaining. 4, A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a postal facility on Lot 1, Block 1, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing 3. Applicant: United States Postal Service Kristan Pritz explained that ali Postal Service construction projects at the Federal Government level had been put on hold due to lack of funding. Therefore, this request has been withdrawn. 5. Discussion of new ordinance concerning vested property rights. Larry Eskwith lead a discussion on the new Colorado law concerning vested property rights, • • M E M O TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: March 14, 1988 SUBJECT: Continuation of work session on the Cascade Village Special Development District's Amendments. I. PURPOSE OF THE WORKSESSION On February 22, 1988, the Planning and Environmental Commission discussed the proposed amendments to Special Development District 4. Due to the complexity of the project, the commission, staff, and applicant were able to address only a few of the issues raised in the staff memo. For this reason, a second work session has been arranged to continue the discussion of this project. . Andy Norris has submitted a more detailed landscape plan an explanation of "fractional" ownership {please see attached memo fron Andy Norris). Additional information may be submitted in time for the work session, however, at this time the staff has no new information. The developer is planning to have a model and elevations for the Planning Commission meeting. The staff feels that it is important to reiterate that work sessions are opportunities to informall~r discuss a project. We feel comfortable allowing some flexibility as to when information is submitted as we are not providing a formal review of the issues. For this reason, it is important to remember that new issues may arise when the final submittal is made. Also, Planning Commissioners may feel it is necessary to adjust their opinions on certain issues if new information is presented during a formal review. II. SUMMARY OF FEBRUARY 22ND WORK SESSION PEC COMMENTS A. Alternative uses for special development district: In general the Planning Commission felt comfortable . with the three alternative use scenarios. However, several commissioners felt that more study was needed on the third alternative of adding additional retail to the project. B. Density Several. members mentioned that they were concerned about kitchens being allowed in the transient residential units. Diana suggested that perhaps the size of the kitchen should be restricted. This approach insures that the unit would not become a long term unit. Sid Schultz suggested that perhaps there should also be a limit on the square footage foz a a TR. Generally, the Planning C._.~~uE.15Slon felt that it may be reasonable to count TR's as accommodation units as long as certain restrictions are applied to these units. They also felt that the approved caps for density in respect to the number of units and GRFA should be respected. C. Promotional Square Footage: In general, members felt that the ski related uses were necessary to the project due to the fact that the Westin lift has been constructed. There was not agreement as to whether or not the square footage for the brewery should be considered in the total commercial square footage for the project. Several members had no problem with the brewery being considered as special commercial as long as it did not add to the bulk of the building. The commissioners felt they could review the bulk and mass of the Cornerstone Building when a model and elevations were presented in the future. D. Other Comments: Most Planning Cvi~EiuiSSlon members felt that the Waterford Building Heights should be decreased to the originally approved height of 48 feet instead of the proposed 71 feet. Diana was also concerned that parking and particularly landscaping be addressed fully during the amendment process. It should be noted that the staff may not necessarily agree with the commissioners on how these issues should be addressed. The staff will consider the PEC comments but reserves the right to develop our own position on the project. • III. DISCUSSION ISSUES ON MARCH 14TH Staff has attached the previous memo dated February 22, 1988. We would like to continue discussing the issues outlined in the memo. Tf a model is available for our discussion on the 14th we can address mass and bulk, and then continue on with the remaining issues which include parking, fractional ownership, employee housing, frontage road improvements, and fireplaces. Also, we will schedule a site visit before our discussion. An issue not listed in the February 22nd memo relates to ownership approval for the SDD application. It is the staff opinion that all property owners within SDD4 must sign off on the application to amend SDD4. This would include all condominium owners as well as individual property owners in Glen Lyon. • . M E M O R A N U II M T0: Kristd.n Pritz FROM: Andy Norris SUBJECT: Fractional Ownership - SDD4 DATE: Purpose To secure approval. for the "fractional" form of ownership on the remaining undeveloped parcels in SDD4: Cornerstone, Waterford, Westhaven, Millrace III and Millrace IV. Definition Fractional Ownership shall be defined as an interest in a unit subject to a condominium regime of no Tess than five {5} weeks or 10% of the unit's total ownership. Ownership map be held by partnerships, corporations, trusts or tenants in common. Intervals of ownership that are less than five {5) weeks shall be subject to review and approval by the Town of Vail pursuant to its timesharing regulations. ~rkin~ Parking regulations shall be applied in accordance with the' permitted use for the project. Residential dwelling units sha11 be subject to parking in accordance with the size of the unit. Transient Residential, which restricts owner usage and long term leasing {30 days or less) shall be subject to parking requirements in accordance with the formula for accommodation units. General Comments Fractional Ownership is an expanding ownership form for resort properties. It permits the owner with flexibility in usage in contrast to the timeshare concept of owning a fixed period. An approach that maybe appropriate to Vail is one week ownership during the ski season (which is 20 weeks in length) which advances one week each year, one ski week by reservation (the priority is established by lottery) and three weeks during the remainder of the year by reservation. The typical total sales value of a tenth share fractional will be about 175% of the whole unit price. For example, a 2 bedroom, 2 bath at 1250 sf might sell for $300,000. The sales value as a tenth share would be about $525,000 which produces for each owner a rchase price of $52,500. The much higher average purchase price ~n timeshare makes the product attractive to real estate sales persons enabling a much lower commission structure than timeshare. Perhaps most importantly, the owner has a substantial investment in the real estate so the probability of default is greatly diminished. Fractional projects are generally operated in a manner similar to hotels. Service levels are high. Reservations systems are required to accommodate the floating week program. Owners who do not use their units may exchange for other time periods or make them available for rent. The manager of a fractional project is encouraged to aggressively market the available tame. Projects therefore typically operate at relatively high occupancies. The only fractional project the Vail area is the Park Plaza at Beaver Creels. r1 U C • TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: February 8, 1988 RE: Appeal of an administrative decision to deny a request for a home occupation permit. Appellants: Steven and Darlene Schweinsberg Applications for both a business license and a home occupation permit were made to the Tawn on January 11, 1988. The nature of the business proposed was a pizza "for delivery only" service to be operated out of a residence at 2754 South Frontage Road. As stated, the pizzas would be prepared in the applicants' home and delivered by automobile to customers. There would be no personal carry-out or eat-in available. The staff reviewed this application and determined the proposed use was not consistent with the objectives of home occupation permits. The denial of this application was based primarily on two of the eight criteria that establish limitations on home occupations. One of these states: 18.58.160 H. A home occupation shall not generate significant vehicular traffic in excess of that typically generated by residential dwellings. No parking or storage of commercial vehicles shall be permitted on the site. As stated by the applicant, this business was anticipated to generate up to 35 customers/day. This equates to 70 vehicular trips in and out of the residence to deliver pizzas. While recognizing that the location of this home is on the Frontage Road, the staff still maintains that this increased volume of traffic greatly exceeds that typical of residential dwellings. The home occupation section of the zoning code also outlines examples that may be considered home occupations. Included is a list of uses that shall not be considered home occupations. Among these listed include clinics, funeral homes, nursing homes, tea rooms, restaurants, antique shops, veterinarian's offices or any similar use. While sit-down seating will not be provided, this use is deemed similar to a restaurant and provided the second reason for the staff's denial of this permit. • STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff certainly supports the concept of home occupations under certain conditions. It is felt that this application goes beyond the intent of activities to be permitted under home occupations. The staff would encourage the Planning Commission to uphold our decision to deny this application. • • ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~, ~, ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ry ~ q ~ ,{its`/~ t~a~~~ ~ ~,~1 ~ ~~ ~ ~~ .~~ ~'~ ~' ~ . .~~ ~` ,~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~-. C 1~ ~ cif' ~ `~~~4 r ., ~~~~ ~. ~ ~ ~~ Q . ` ~ ~ ~. c~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ r c.~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~~~,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ • ~. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Cu~~-,«unity Development Department DATE: March 14, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration to build an entry vestibule into Pepi's Bar at the Gasthof Gramshammer. Applicants: Pepi and Sheika Gramshammer I. THE PROPOSAL The applicants are proposing to construct a 28 sq. ft entry vestibule into Pepi's Bar. The materials are glass and wood to match the existing buildings. II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I 18.24.Oi0 Purpose. C7 The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail. Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. This proposal does comply with the purpose section of Commercial Core I. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE No impact. No related policies. C~ IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The staff's opinion is that the addition is of such a small size that it is not reasonable to review the proposal in detail against all of the urban design considerations. We do feel that the addition will be a positive improvement to the entry way into Pepi's Bar. The proposal supports the pedestrianization, streetscape framework, and street edge considerations. The remaining urban design considerations although important are not affected by this proposal. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Stan recommends approval of the entry vestibule. • • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 14, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a common area variance in order to create an entry vestibule at the Gasthof Gramshammer. Applicants: Pepi and Sheika Gramshammer I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is proposing to construct a vestibule at the entry to Pepi's Bar on the east side of the Gasthof Gramshammer. (Please see attached site plan.) The entry is approximately 28 sq. ft. The proposal requires a common area variance for the entry. The allowed common area for the project is 3,208 square feet. The existing common area is 7,601 square feet. On January 25th, 1988, the PEC approved a spa having a common area of 300 sq. ft. For this reason, the existing and approved common area square footage is 7,901 sq. ft. The existing building is 4,993 sq. ft. over the allowable square footage for common area. II ZONING STATISTICS CVllllllon Are a Allowed: Existing: Proposed: B. SITE COVE Allowed: Existing: 3,208 sf 7,901 sf 28 sf for entry RAGE 12,834 sf 12,440 sf (includes previous approved projects not yet built) Proposed: 28 sf III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: n U . A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the recuested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The new entry does not have any negative impacts on adjacent uses or structures. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff's opinion is that some relief from the strict interpretation of the zoning code governing common area is warranted. The new entry will be a guest service which is very positive and encouraged. CU,~„~~on area variances have been given in the past to several properties in the Village, as common space allows for needed guest services such as lobby space,lounge areas, and improved entries. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population{ transportation and traffic facilities. public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposal will have no negative impacts on these factors. The request does not increase the site coverage beyond what is allowed under the zoning code. IV. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VAIL'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Such other factors and criteria as the c~.~„~~ission deems applicable to the proposed variance. V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. • That the granting of the variance Will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the common area variance with a condition that the exterior alteration request must also be approved by the PEC. Reasonable amounts of common area have been approved through the variance process. The additional 28 square feet for the entry is a minimal amount of common area to request. Staff finds that the request will not constitute a grant of special privilege and that there will be no detrimental impacts on the public. The variance is warranted, as the strict interpretation of the amount of common area allowed under this zone district would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other owners of properties in the Village area. LJ /' L •~ N O GORE CREEK DRIVE ~--t 1'1 ~~ k i~ ~~ i 0 m n '~ ---1 W i ~ k ~-~--~ . s,~1 ~ ~ ~~ I~y N t~ m -- O - 1 ~:. ~ 1_.L-_ -' I~', ~ i~~ ~i~,, 1 T~ _~ '~ ~ ~ ~- i 4.- --- _..._ [ r---~~' ~---s t , 3 ~_- ..._.J, ,Ly ~ ; ~ ', I j I ~ L I ~~ i• r~ ~~ i ~._-_ . j ~~ .~ ~ I _.ti ~ ~_y ' ff ~_~~ ...--.-~.-.i i ~'..~ _~ I ~- --+ "--- -- i L"_ -"~` ~--~~ ~___ "i I Q W 0 ~ u~ ~~ ~~ ~. ~ -T--r-----, ~ _~ ~. ~., t -, .`'sy,.,.~~.. ~ } ~ '.~' .. <<;; Q v-+ ~ ~ , ~' .-» ~-- Q W J ~' i• Planning and Environmental Commission March 28, 1988 2:20 PM Site Inspections 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of 3/9 and 3/14. 2. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to a residence on Lot 9, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Charles Crowley 3. A request to amend Section 18.54.0506.13 of the Municipal Code concerning Design Review guidelines for duplex and primary/secondary structures. Applicant; Town of Vail 4. Appointment of PEC member to DRB for April, May and June i• end residential areas may be hurt by the proliferation of two large units on 1/2 acre lots. Peter asked the board if they agreed with the listed physical site constraints and the general answer was affirmative. Pam felt the amendment would allow the architects to design well. Peggy felt there was a need to clarify the initial review process and suggested other language modifications. She felt "unified site development" should be defined ar removed from the guidelines. Much discussion on semantics followed. Sid felt the whole amendment seemed too long and drawn out. He suggested another order that would give a better emphasis of goals of the amendment. Duane Piper spoke from the audience to say that he felt the site constraint aspect of the guidelines was too restrictive, and that not allowing separation was restrictive to design. Jim Viele did not necessarily disagree with Duane, but pointed out the the majority of the Council, PEC and DRB had concerns of possible abuses to that type of allowance. They felt that the number and type of lots left in Town could present a major impact to the community if it Was abused. Peggy felt that perhaps the bottom line was that too much GRFA was allowed on Primary/Secondary Lots. Peter said that square feet versus volume was the issue. He felt that volume control was very difficult to enforce. Peter also pointed out the pros and cons of the staff making the site constraint determinations. Diana felt the DRB could make the determinations, but with a staff recommendation. Diana moved to recommend approval to Council with the changes and concerns of the PEC incorporated into the proposal. Grant Riva seconded the motion and the vote was 5 - 1 in favor. Peggy Osterfass voted against the motion. Rick gave a brief presentation on the trails plan and handed out a trails report. Bryan Hobbs was appointed to DRB with Peggy Osterfoss as backup. • • • r~ L ~L Planning and Environmental Commission March 28, 19$8 PRESENT Diana Donovan Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Grant Riva Sid Schultz STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Kristan Pritz Betsy Rosolack ABSENT Bryan Hobbs The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of 3/9 and 3/14/88. Pam Hopkins moved to approve both minutes and Peggy Osterfoss seconded the motion. The vote was 6--0 in favor. 2. A reciuest for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to a residence on Lot 9, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Charles Crowley Betsy Rosolack explained the variance request and stated that the GRFA with the proposed addition remained under the allowable GRFA. The staff recommendation was to approve the request with the condition that the rockfall study with the specific wording as stated in the memo be included in the request for a building permit, PEC had no questions. The motion to approve the request was made by Sid Schultz per the staff memo. It was seconded by Peggy Osterfoss. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 3. A request to amend Section 18.54.050 C.13 of the Municipal Code concerning Design Review Guidelines for duplex and primary/secondary structures. Applicant: Town of Vail Kristan Pritz explained the proposed amendments to Section 18.54 and the comments the staff had received from the DRB, Council and PEC. Jim Viele felt comfortable with the staff deciding on the site constraints. Diana mentioned that she disagreed with the Design Review Board regarding site constraints. Peggy felt the amendment was too restrictive and the design should not be restricted that much. Jim stated that the high i „ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 28, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition at Lot 9, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Charles Crowley I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a side setback variance in order to build an addition an a residence at 3090 Booth Falls Court. The addition would contain 117 square feet and would extend into the side setback area approximately 6 feet. The required setback is 15 feet. The allowable GRFA on this unit is 1622 square feet. Existing GRFA totals 1148 square feet. With the addition of 117 square feet, the unit will contain 1265 square feet and will still be 357 square feet under the allowable GRFA. The applicant states: i• "We propose to build a family room/den to be located over an existing deck, which involves the granting of a variance to use the deck easement for a permanent structure. The variance is necessary to avoid removing an existing 15 foot flowering crab-apple tree and rack berm which stabilizes the driveway and street in front of the house (Booth Falls Court). Since the structure is additional living space in a residential area, the relationship of the proposed addition is in keeping with the use of other existing or potential structures in the vicinity. The square footage allowance an the site has not been reached, and the addition of the new room could be built within the site setback allowances: however, the removal of the tree and rock berm would be detrimental to the site and the neighborhood in general and would constitute a physical hardship in constructing this addition. In addition, this room would be covering an existing deck, and would not require any destruction of landscaping or exterior elements, and would not constitute granting of a special privilege. • The granting of this variance would have no detrimental effect on the environment, as there would be na increase in the number of people living in the house, no increase in traffic, utility, or transportation requirements, no change in the quality of light, air, and public safety." II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS ~ Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development • recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The staff sees no negative impacts on existing and potential residences in this neighborhood. The neighbor closest to the addition (east of the project) as well as the other adjacent property owners have written letters in support the project. The decree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special, privilege. i~ The PEC has traditionally looked favorably upon small additions to residences which do not impact the neighbors, especially when within GRFA limitations. With this proposal, practical difficulties are apparent given the existing location of the residence as it relates to required setback lines. Other locations for the addition would require destroying or moving a flowering crab-apple tree or adding onto a garage on the north. Staff feels that both of these locations are unfeasible. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of populations transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. There are no negative impacts upon these criteria. III. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VATL'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Not applicable. IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems, applicable to the proposed variance. V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the, following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. i• The strict interpretation specified regulation would privileges enjoyed by the the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION or enforcement of the deprive the applicant of owners of other properties in The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this variance request. We find no negative impacts as a result of this proposed addition. There exists a practical difficulty with respect to possible locations for the addition, because of site and floor plan constraints. This residence is located within a high severity rockfall area. Therefore, one condition must be placed upon this approval: 1. Before a building permit is issued, a site specific rockfall study must be submitted, demonstrating that this addition will not "increase the hazard to other properties or structures or to public buildings, rights- of-way, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities or other properties of any kind." • TO: Planning and Environmental C~~~ut~ission • • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 28, 1988 RE: Proposed amendments to Section 18.54 of the Municipal Code, Design Guidelines, relating to primary/secondary and duplex connections. Attached you will find two memorandums concerning proposed amendments to the Design Guidelines as they relate to primary/ secondary connections. The first of these memos, dated February 17, 1988 to the Planning staff outlines our impressions of the joint session that was held with the DRB, PEC and Town Council. The second memo, dated March 21, to the Planning Commission, includes the proposed amendments to the Design Review Guidelines. The March 21 memo is a result Review Board. At their March their input into the staff's ordinance. While the Design re-wording of this amendment, into the draft that is being Commission today. of work by the staff and Design 16th meeting, the DRB offered proposed amendments to this Review Board has not reviewed the their comments were incorporated reviewed by the Planning STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is the hope of the staff to present an amendment to the Council that has the backing of the DRB, Planning Commission and staff. In that regard, we encourage Planning Commission comments and suggestions on this proposal. While anticipating further changes will result from Flanning Commission input, the staff would recv~~u«end the Planning Commission approve these amendments and they be passed along to the Town Council. • • To: Planning Commission From: Community Development Department Date: March 21, 1988 Subject: Primary/Secondary Connections The accompanying memo to the Planning Staff dated February 17 outlines our impressions of the c~.~LL«ents made at the joint session held on February 9, 1988. Simply stated, it was our understanding that the Council, PEC and DRB wanted to keep the basic review process intact, but provide mare clear definitions for site constraint, single structure and visual connection. The February 9th memo outlines our conceptual approach to this issue. This memo will address the new wording for the Guidelines that we recommend be adopted, The DRB has reviewed this proposal and their comments have been integrated into this draft. The specific wording that is proposed, however, should not be considered a final solution. The staff is very interested in incorporating the suggestions of the PEC into the ordinance before • the final amendments are presented to the Town Council. EXISTING DESIGN GUIDELINES As presently written, the design guidelines are structured into eight sections. These include: A. General B. Site planning C. Building materials and design D. Landscaping/drainage/erosion E. Fencing/walls F. Accessory structures/utilities/service areas G. Circulation/access H. Satellite dishes The issue of primary/secondary and duplex connections are dealt with in section C. Building materials and design. This reference reads: • ' 18.54.050 C. 13 Duplex and primary/secondary residential dwelling units shall be designed in a manner that contains the two dwelling units and garages within one structure. . However, in the event that the presence of significant site characteristics necessitate a site design which includes a physical separation of the two dwelling units and/ar garages into separate structures, the DRB may approve the design. Such a design may ,be approved only when the separate structures are visually attached by means of the use of similar and compatible architectural design, colors, and materials and/or physically connected with fences, walls, decks or other similar architectural features. This paragraph of the Guidelines would be deleted, A new section titled Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development would be adopted in its place. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DESIGN GUIDELINES Duplex and Primary/Secondary Developments 18.54.050 D.1. It is the purpose of these guidelines to ensure that duplex and primary/secondary development be designed in a manner that creates a unified site development. Unified site development shall mean • the dwelling units and garages are designed within a single structure with the use of similar and compatible architectural and landscape design. Similar architectural and landscape design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of similar and compatible material, architectural style, scale, roof forms, architectural details, site grading and landscape features. Under certain circumstances, the presence of physical site constraints will permit the physical separation of units and garages on a site. Physical site constraints shall be defined as natural features of a lot, such as stands of mature trees, natural drainages, stream courses, other water features, rock outcroppings and other natural features that affect the site planning and development of a lot. Determination of whether or not a lot has significant site constraints shall be made by the Design Review Board. This determination should be made prior to an initial review of the proposed duplex or primary/secondary design. Development proposals on lots that are determined to have significant site constraints shall be reviewed in accordance with Section 18.54.050 D.2 of these guidelines. Development proposals on lots that are determined to not have significant site constraints shall be reviewed in accordance with Section 18.54.050 D.3 of these guidelines. • The presence physical site location and difficulties • of an existing dwelling unit on a lot may be deemed a constraint by the Design Review Board if the design of the existing unit presents practical in designing the secondary unit on the site. 18.54.050 D.2 Tf it is determined that the physical separation of structures will preserve and/or enhance the existing natural features of the lot, duplex and primary/secondary development may be designed in a manner that accommodates the development of dwelling units and garages in more than one structure. Tn order to unify the development of the lot, common design elements such as fences, walls, patios, decks, retaining walls, landscape elements, or other architectural features may be required. Duplex and primary/secondary developments with mare than one structure shall also require compliance with section 18,54.050 D.1 of these guidelines. 18.54.050 D.3 Duplex and primary/secondary development of sites without physical site constraints shall be designed in a manner that accommodates the dwelling units and garages within a single structure. For the purposes of these guidelines, a single structure shall require common roofs and building walls that create enclosed space at points substantially above grade between the dwelling units and garages. Duplex and primary/secondary developments designed as a single structure shall also require compliance with section 18.54.050 D.1 of these guidelines. With this amendment, the nine sections of the design guidelines would include the following: A. General B. site planning C. Building materials and design D. Duplex and primarv/secondary development E. Landscaping/drainage/erosion F. Fencing/Walls G. Accessory structures/utilities/service areas H. Circulation/access I. Satellite dishes n U To: Planning Staff From: Tam Date: February 17, 1988 Re: Primary secondary connections While not specifically defined, the direction we received at the joint-session was fairly clear. It is my understanding that the boards are interested in keeping the basic review process intact. By this I mean the only way to physically separate structures is to first demonstrate the presence of a physical site characteristic. Tn this case, the structures would still have to be "visually connected" in some way, shape or farm. Our job is to provide mare clear definitions for: * physical site characteristic * what is a single structure * visual correction The following is a basic framework that we can use to develop into a formal proposal. One cannot overlook the power of our collective wisdom - - please spend some time with this between now and Tuesday's staff meeting so we can refine the proposal. Tt would serve us well to get this process rolling. Tf we can get off center, the first DRB review could take place as early as March 2. A few statements were made at the joint-session that seemed to suggest the directian these definitions should take. f'or example, there seemed to be a basic agreement that site characteristics should be natural, not man-made features (it seems to make sense that we refer to these as constraints, rather than characteristics). Secondly, the type of connection originally proposed for the Byrne duplex was considered acceptable. This design would not require a site constraint in order to be approved. Given these rather broad parameters, consider the following: PROPOSED PROCESS (two-tiered level of review) 1. TF site constraints are demonstrated, THEN the connection need only be "visual". 2. TF site constraints are not present, THEN development must be . designed as one structure (with physical connection). • PURPOSE STATEMENT It was suggested at the joint meeting that a purpose, or intent statement be incorporated directly into the section of the Design Review Guidelines that address p/s development. This could be very beneficial for everyone who uses the. Guidelines. For example: It is the goal of these guidelines to allow for creativity and flexibility in the design of p/s or duplex development, while assuring that this development be designed in a manner to create a unified site development. Site characteristics of a lot will determine the specific parameters to be used in the evaluation of a development proposal. In order to assure a unified site development, the use of similar and compatible architectural and landscape design shall be required for all p/s and duplex development. Similar and compatible design features may include the use of materials, architectural style, scale, roof forms, detailing, site grading and landscape features. r: DEFINITIONS Site Constraint The initial review by the DRB of a p/s or duplex development proposal shall be to determine the presence of significant site constraints that affect the development of the lot. Significant site constraints shall be limited to natural features on the lot. Examples of site constraints shall include, but not be limited to, stands of mature trees; natural drainages, stream courses or other water features; rock outcroppings; and slope characteristics in excess of 30%. -~ - do we want to add presence of an existing unit as a site constraint?? A determination that site constraint(s) do exist on a lot will allow far the design of two separated units (separated units would still have to comply with the guidelines established by the definition of "visual connection"). It shall be the intent of these guidelines to permit separated units only if the result of this separation allows for the preservation of the natural features of the lot. Single Structure The development of two units on a p/s or duplex lot that is not impacted by significant site constraints shall be designed in a manner that accommodates the units and garages within a single structure. For the purpose of these guidelines, a single structure shall require common roofs and/or building walls that physically connect the two units and garages above grade. The development of two units as a single structure shall also require compliance with the general purpose/intent statement of these guidelines. Visual Connection The development of two units on a p/s or duplex lot that is impacted by significant site constraints may be developed in a manner that accommodates the units and garages in mare than one structure. In order to unify the development of the lot, a visual connection between structures shall be required for developments with more than one structure. A visual connection may be achieved through the use of fences, walls, retaining wa11s, landscape elements or other architectural features. The development of two separated units with a visual connection • shall also require compliance with the general purpose/intent statement of these guidelines. This concept is obviously in need of further refinement. We will also have to consider how this will be incorporated into the Guidelines. Planning and Environmental Commission • April 11, 1988 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of 4/28/88. 2. Forest Service presentation of alternatives for Red and White Mountain area and expansion of the but and trail system. The PEC should make a recommendation on the pretered alternatives. • • ~~~? ~ • ~~.; lows of nail 75 south frontage road nail, coiorado 81fi57 (303)476-7000 office of the mayor April 22, 1988 Ms. Laurie Healy U.S. Forest Service Holy Cross Ranger District P.O. Box 190 Minturn, Colorado 81645 Re: Red and White Mountain Plan „v VAIL 1989 Dear Ms. Healy: I would like to thank you for attending our Town Council meeting on April 19th, regarding the Forest Service's planning process for the Red and White Mountain area. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input .in the preparation of the environmental assessment. The following are the Town Council's comments and concerns: * The major emphasis for this area should be on maximizing recreational opportunities for tourists and residents. Both summer and winter recreational uses should be expanded and enhanced. * The Forest Service should recognize the potential conflicts between timber harvesting and recreation. We urge the minimizing of these conflicts and the creative solutions for recreational use of the harvested areas {i.e. road utilization for both purposes, etc.). * Roads for mountain biking should be emphasized due to the increasing popularity of this sport. * The Forest Service should institute a comprehensive signage program for recreational use of the Red and White Mountain area. Also, mapping of the area is important, as well as the wide distribution of the maps to potential recreational users throughout the Vail valley. • * ATV/snowmobile use is appropriate for the specific area of Red and White Mountain. * We recommend the loth Mountain Trail Association expansion to include both alternatives so that a loop system is created. The construction of both trail systems could result in an extremely popular year-round trail/hut system. This loop would serve not only cross country skiers, but mountain bikers and hikers in the summer time. Again, we appreciate your attendance at both the Town Council and Planning Commission meetings and your willingness to incorporate our comments into your planning process. Sincerely, Kent R. Rose Mayor KRR:bpr cc: Ron Phillips Peter Patten PEC Members • 7 ,r'~ ~. ~ United States Forest ~ Department of Service • A riculture ._________ g_~______~__._-- R~C'~ MAR 1 `7 X988 White River Holy Crass Ranger District National P.O. Box 190 Fare~t_..______----._M~nturD,_Colora~io 816G5 Reply ta: I950 Date: March Ib, 1988 Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Gentlemen: The Haiy Cross Ranger District is in the process of preparing an Environmental Assessment for the Red and White Mountain Area. The objective of this document is to analyze the effects of alternative vegetative treatments for implementing direction outlined in the White River Land and Resource Management Plan {the Plan) . The preliminary management goals for the lied and White Mountain area are: • 1. To optimize vegetation diversity. 2. To provide wood fiber. 3. To provide a transportation facility that facilitates timber harvesting and semi-primitive motorized recreation. 4. To pxovide a high quality semi-primitive motorized recreation experience. 5. To maintain ar improve the wafer quality and quantity in the azea. Thus far we have identified the following major issues and concerns: 1. The cumulative effects of harvesting timber on wildlife/fisheries, soils, hydrology, and recreation values. 2. The Fresent road system is not managed adequately. 3. The vegetation diversity is not commensuxate with area goals. 4. The benefits vs. cost associated with timber harvesting. • S ~~ FS•82DO.28(7-82) C~C G Town of Vail • 5. The susceptibility of lodgepole pine stands to mountain pine beetle outbreaks. 6. The proximity of the area to the Eagles Nest Wilderness and access to the wilderness. To achieve the management goals developed for the area, four preliminary alternatives have been identified to date. They are, but are not limited to: 1. No action. ~~ 2. Emphasize dispersed recreation and visuals. 1,t,d~ ~~ ~ ~~ 3. Emphasize wood fiber production with minimal transportation system. 4. Emphasize water production and maintain watex quality. 5. Provide a balance of wood fiber production, vegetation diversity, and water yield production using a transportation facility that enhances dispersed recreation opportunities. We would like to include your ideas and concerns in our analysis for management of this area. A map is enclosed showing present activities. Please feel free to stop by our office and visit about this project. In ordex to continue on schedule we request that all comments be received by April 4, 19$8. However, if you need additional time call the office at $27--5715 by April 4, 1988, and let us know your comments are forthcoming. We are looking forward to this groject and receiving your input. Sincerely, ~ ~~ ~'~- ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ WILLIAM A.R. OTT District Ranger Enclosures ~~~5 : ~.~.~ ~~~ 1~ .] US FS•8244.28(7.82) _ I..r o~ I n I I 3 m ~ mss- " I m I ~~; .•: r t- I I I i I I I I ~ - - - '"- - i I I -- _ .{).. . ~-' I ~'z== " ~ ° = E ' __ _.-~~--I-___I---- -I-----I---'--I--~'-i-- N~ I `~-I-_~ ~Wr =~_ ~s ::J ~~~_` i ,vy ~m i ~' "< ~ i I I r I ~--' I rv Q ~ ' ~ ,.~ I ~ i ~3'a'JJI Y7~ff ,~`r ::. ,~. » I ~'' ^ I " ~ I I; a clt ^ !L 1 v I I I I .y ~ 1~ i E. ~y. ~ ~ I I I W_. ~I - ---- - - ---- _^ ----..w ~ y I -': --'L " y---- -- - - vim- "aaE..-. 1~.1\ I \ as v °' +•St`'(t I ~r~ r ... .}. ..,.,'~...';:..:_ .,+t` ctrl I I -~ I ., I \.7(.++1 Z.rc I " _ 3 m I .i a^ ! I .. J ~ ~... -- " - .r -- 1' I ~~ , ~~ ° I ~~ ct~ c~y~' fir'/ I :~r ~ "~ it _ I - -Hi I I- 4 I 1 ~I ~ I ~' 1 l-'~ I..'~j l cr' ,~ ---I - - -I~ ui~ I `' ~I -i.~,ly_!Y al ri I ~~~ I -~'.' i ~i, m I- w 11M1 ~ II'Z ,, ti I 3 ~~ I ~ I _ " " I ~~ i 11 '=JI~I I it ~ ~~M " I I l+ I ~ ! » i I. u ~:~ ._ ~?~ -- 111----I1`_~I C4 Mom s~ I 4 i f II I I :~.C- - ~ I ~ - o~,'f~s - ~ I \~ I ~f~~ I---.I -I---'c~,--rf C--I-i~n.~rt ~N~ '•?n}v~Ma / 1 .)',mm~+, I ~ / h ~y ~a W 2 GiO } t I I 15 ~1Yo ~~+-- a~J ^\1_S `' l' ~ ~- r ~ I j' ,3 'a ` I SP I _ I I ~ ~ a ~,1 j S~~II /;' ' tr a; I " YI ~ ~ arm '_ ~ ~~ { I ~ I _ _ Yi :^r -'' 3^ i Il `.J ~ ~ ~--- _ _^.-.Y I^ '~~ i ~ ~, ~i a ~ ~ •'4~1sA4~~-~ ~~~~~SpeJ~ ~ ~~ - ~ ~~`~J~: ii • ~ • d 1 ~ ~, ~ -''- ~ - - ~- `~:: ~ `I rv i e: ' I -'r e Ili S3~` y ~ $ode7rr " ., ~~~ ~a I ~ ll ` ~ 051,- .... 4k o ~ ~ I t p . ~i l~rl 41 1 ~ ca O __ f~_J~^ ~ ^ m~c ~v ~~~ ~ 3 t.'r l` ...~l,~ i•1~~. :.•.S-~ul _ ~.-w.- ~~~--,-` - 3 ~~ ~~V\C"~~ ~ ~' w- ,s ~°Sa ~~-t- ~~~ ~ f ~t T 1 ,fir 4 t \~ ~ I' p C ~.%l , s \.:•:~ INS ~ J ~ ~r am..~ ,~-\s~ ;; ...;,,~-r ~l_ 1`~~ I ~ `` ~ o ~'r- ~ f p.~}/ ry `, ~o "'~> ~ ~ ~ c y ~ :. •r' {{ Creek Il`- m ry ~' ~ " ~ I ~ ~ '~ ~~ -A~O~ ~I ~~_~ ~ Freeman ~ }}~ y'yY =~ `~rJ ~ 2 I ~ I- W ~ ~--`..__ ~..-.~ Is !' ^ I ~:JJr ~ . ~ ~ ,'~rrr # •, ' ~1 `~ ~- ~ ~ a ~- ~i( - - - ~ _ ~ l w i N '~ ~ f~ 4 '~ eL -'~' ~ ttt ~o~tl -,~.,o~a"' - _~Ya Iv ~" ry~,~, r I„~ "' r'JJO~ 6 ^,:~ J ~ ~ ~ . ~., ... ~ I o _ >_ i r ~ i L ^- --J4 ... ., .-~ i i. e3 ~ ~t. ~t~ '. - - - CSC - I ,4.` ~ ~ {- ~Y---•--b ~'. - .1 I' ~ r? aFO! ~~ I, 4'3 d ' /~ I mrm m i ^4~ ~~~ '~.~~: :~i.~ M - , ~ r~ .. q r e <J ~.~ `i `~ 1 LLw q i d A st I ~ flln¢4\ (1 ~.']s'r~•er ~ ~ r~~i ~ ~ I Ada' ''~ ~'~~ it U 4`°~4 ~ r I ~ .'~ Fork i r~ I _ ~ ' ---- -- J S ~ / ~ ~..-.~`C_ - `- rr ! r ' iT S°'~~h+ ~_ ~ J I `% ,-„ ~ ~ ~._n I ~.~ J~ ~ ,''r y a1~~»a D2H} I c a a ts`; » J r t~ ~~m 1- ,~~ ~,/% ~ //iris ' ~ ~'a~ I ~' " ~ ~ sic L~^~a 1 I I I~.ql~ l __ .. s~ ddd ~y ~ k'~ ~ 111"'~ rv! Q l; - (/. -~~[ ~.7 ,la" ff ~, ~ .. Jn., rv d ~ / t g ~ r, r M i n ,~ ,. Jest- !.yJ +-_ .- ~. Cree1 }~v}y_.Y ~- "~- - ~~-1+-aunr-- '..= ~ ~- - o ~ 'll- ~ tl ik `~~,~r ~ y1 ~G. Ik! o ~ I~ ry /~~~~~•~-~~~~fi ~ l ~'~~b• .~ II I W 1 0 ~ a 1 't ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ y ;i• 3 ^~ ,I ~ k `:., u~ if ~ rl'- ! 11 - NraJ~ - ?{ ~\ilJ ' e ~, .. " - }fL s. ~ G 'r ~ ~ ! n ., ~~ ~ Y~ Is'h ~~~ ~~''rJ7 aci 4~lp~ q l •. E ~ ~® 'i-¢' ~ i~ - ~ I - tiff--' ---- N}r' /~ - -a ~ ~'a-~I*- - -• J. _ JoyAvaU ;i,`I i~ ~ M ~ ~!-~~. II ~, `` ~ J o ~ - ~ ~ ~``^a I na N W 1 , ~ - m °_ ~ a. ~ ^ '° J 4 ''ai s ! .. -)•a ~ jrl ~ .. til i; ~ ~J i •~ yn ' •• I ~ ~~ ~ I I y" q~ : I,, ~ 6u~adS le ! ~ Baal I~w11 ~Il~~~# ~`T _ All ~~~ °.~ r ~~+ - + _. n ll `` ` ~4~--- --`- '-~~ q /.~ _ IIJ~p I~~ ~ ry t l ~ - ~'.~,,-~--~s,l ~J~ ~'~~~ I ~ y ~ ~ 11 ~ ~ .(J p ,~ " .I ,~`,. ~: .,,~1 y r-rte,., .li ~ ,I~L r , i ,~`' r -- f nr)" ` I~" ~u I rti„ r ~~ ••`,,rl I .ly// b I M1 i! ~ 11~ r `.~ I FFFFF "+ n ~ / R ~ ~ I ~4 I to ~ I ~ ^ ~ ~ . I ~ '~ II T 1 l - -_- T' i~ l.._r I -... I . a`-J.- .- I r/~ -. _.~ r ~ S __ ~. ~ i i ~ a it ~J 11 ~ I / 1i ~ :~` : t. - i~ ~ ~ ~~ +/r - J'.1'/!.. ,~~ ~-i 5 - -~~ '>. ~ _ ,v~~ it It d - _r~ :: /• - -c7 E- ~ - .. ~ a~n f ~ ~'~I N ~ I~• ~ ~ ~ . .~ -~•` ~ 3 ... ~ : ~' ~ fi .a ~+3y,, ~ 6~ ~- - 11 q ~ ~~ •~ T " ^ • ~- 6~ ~ ~ ® ~ ,~t~ I r~.l .__ ~~~ " IS ! ~ ,r 'S I , ( ~JI • ~, f_. ' i.~'1 ~,..~ ~~ 6Y ! f 1 5 4 ~i (~ ~ ~ t'? 1Xlj/. ~ a (~~~~~~~-'~ 75,._'i. x ~'\ l l S " ~'- r.~' ' ' 1 ~[` ~~, fib' ; ~J({ ,'~,•f - °frY"'....' ;'~ I ~~_ r ?~1~1~' r/ / / 11`~i~ ~;a. V +,I,I.I I ~`\ ~(l;. ,4: :`~\.}`,, • ? ~.;:'', ? ~.~:,~~':,1'~' ifs.... 1, f'.• ~,~'~~ ,~i'i ~.~~~:~ \ '~~' ~ 1f ~.. ~. ~q 1 I' may,' ~'~ I , 5 i - E 'yl }yy {j I'~r ^ ~~ ~/I~!' I 1'~J'I~ ~•} 'Il l5r l.f I `I ~' •1 i ~ ' } +`4.1 .~ f `~ ;`"~f-.l~li r~~ ~ '1/ ~,' Iii.. l i f ~ /.. 'I '{I ICI \ ' ~ ti 111 , r ~°~` ~~`11 ~• .` 1 5~ 1•', ~. ~i .f is •f , 'i ~ , _rt~ y x1 ~ ~ ',' ~```' ~'' ~~ 11 f,} I ~. V - ( V (~...:• ~ k ' .. "`1 ~ is +• { ~ ~ E 1 t •'i j,~ ~ ' f ~1wli•I'• V ~~ ". r y I r1 .! ,.P ~~ ~,~ ~'41 '~ 'u~ ~- ."~ .` ,! ', '~~ ~ ' S' ''' 4. ~ ~• _ lira S ~ _ r ~ j! •~~~;? ' ' ~ i. ~ ~ ~. l ~ ~/.- r..,, ' i ~ I ~ I ~ I f ~'ti' ~1, ~. ~ ~ ~ '~,~~ 17.1 ~i'~~ • _'~ 1 ~- E1 . ~ I ~ ~ f 3 a~,l ~i ~' I1•;10 fti' -.\ J ~ i . ,i~~.11• ' ~ C~ E ~ )' ` "• .. Ill. rrl ~r~'.~~ ..,_ -'~~ , '~ f,; 1 i i fs~ ..1i~ ~ ` j I 'i' .1 tl Ell ~ ~ . ~ ~ ..i4 ~ 1 ~ ` ~ -m . . ~• '~{ ~~,~ , ~, ~, {tip,.,;,;;, ~•' ,, `,, .. ; ._ ~,, ~ °~~: } ~ N ,• - i S u .•-I~E ' ~ i;~ I' i Z.A - 5 a EfJi(~ ' U~ 1 _ C i 4 ,li I ~• I Vii` ~ ~~ f' 1~1//I ,l'i, y'!`. , r r r " r 1. ~ C .,.. ~"L 1 , .~~~. ~ ~~ ~. ~: ~A~P United States Forest Department of Service Agri~ulture_.____________.~___ °~~~'~ F"E~ 2 4 19~~ White River Holy Cross Ranger District National P.O. Box 190 Forest.~___.__~~_l~iinturn,_Color_ado SIb4S Reply to: 2720 Date; February 23, 198$ Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd. Vail, CO $1657 Dear Interested Public: The Tenth Mountain Trail Association (TMTA} has submitted a Draft Master Plan Amendment to the U.S. Forest Service. This letter outlines TMTA's proposal for expanding the but and trail system beyond West Lake Creek to the Vail area and Tennessee Pass. As part of the Environmental Assessment of this proposal, the Forest Service is soliciting your input to identify issues and concerns regarding the proposed trail routes and but sites. i2QUT~_.NARR.ATI VES There are two alternative routes being analyzed. Both routes begin at West Lake Creek and end at Tennessee Pass. A map is attached which shows the alternative routes, access points, and proposed but sites. RED AND WHITE MOUNTAIN ALTERNATIVE From West Lake Creek, the proposed trail would use the public road system through the Tenderwild Subdivision to the East Lake Creek trailhead. The trail would fallow the summer hiking trail to East Lake Creek then climb Lime Creek to the top of McCoy Park and the Beaver Creek ski area. Hut sites are proposed for private property in West Lake Creek and National Forest land in McCoy Park. From the Beaver Creek ski area, the trail would descend into Avon and up Buck Creek to a but site near Red and White Mountain. An alternative access to Red and White Mountain is hoped for higher in the Wildridge Subdivision. From Red and White Mountain, the proposed trail would continue east to the South Fork Red Sandstone Creek and a but site on the ridge above Middle Creek. The route would then descend Middle Creek, traverse into Spraddle Creek and then into Vail. The proposed trail would climb out of Vail via Mill Creek to a but site at the tap of Mushroom Bowl, then across Two Ells Pass to Shrine Fass and the privately operated Shrine Mountain Inn. Vail Pass would serve as an additional trailhead for this section of the trail. At this paint the trail would contour into u~is FS-8200.28(7.82) ~~'~,• ~ ~ Tenth Mountain Trail Association Proposal 2 Wilder Gulch, climb to Ptarmigan Bill and follow the ridge west past Resolution Mountain to a but site near Hornsilver Mountain. The route would descend via Resolution Creek and climb.up Pearl Creek to a but site on the ridge between Fearl Greek and Cataract Creek. Camp Hale would be used as a trailhead for this but as well as the but near Hornsilver Mountain. The trail would join the Colorado Trail in Cataract Creek, cross the East Fork of the Eagle River, and climb up Jones Gulch to a but site on Taylor Hi11, From Taylor Hill, the trail would descend via Piney Gulch to Tennessee Pass. The Shrine Mountain Inn and the two huts south toward Tennessee Pass will be connected with the proposed Summit County Hut and Trail Association system. MINTURN / TWO ELK CREEK ALTERNATIVE This alternative is identical to the Red and White Mountain alternative from West Lake Creek to the Beaver Creek ski area, and from Shrine Pass to Tennessee Pass. From the Beaver Creek ski area, this proposed route would continue east through the ski area and Stone Creek to a but site near Meadow Mountain. The trail ' ~ would descend and cross the Eagle Rivex at Minturn and climb up Two Elk Creek. `~ ~`~,-~~ The route would climb out of Two Elk Creek to Battle Mountain where the but ~~~ site is proposed near the head of Lime Creek. From Lime Creek the trail would ~~ traverse east to Shrine Pass and the Shrine Mountain Inn, Alternative access to both the Lime Creek but site and kIornsilver Mountain but site would be possible from Red Cliff via Turkey Creek. ~SSUES.„AiV17_ CONCERNS Your input at this time is very important to analyzing the alternatives. If you would like more information or have any questions about TMTA's proposal, please contact: Rick Jewell U.S. Forest Service Holy Gross Ranger Aistrict Po Box 190 Minturn, CO $1b45 (303)827-5715 OR Rob Burnett Tenth Mountain Trail Association 12$0 Ute Avenue' Aspen, CO $1611 {303)925-4554 • S ~~ FS-8200.2$(7-82) ~,~: ~' ~ Tenth Mountain Trail Association Proposal Please submit your issues and/or concern by March 18, 1988 to: District Ranger Holy Cross Ranger District PO T3ox 194 Minturn, CO 81645 Your timely consideration of this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, ~~~~~_P, ILLIAM A.R. 0~ District Ranger • • S 3 FS•82oo•28(7.82) ~V k lll r.. A~ i_I ._~ ~... 1 .. f rs ~ 41; ~- ~ k r. re fa 4.. ~_I.s .!^~ .~~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~~~.~... ~ /r 1+--- _~~ I J Y~;~ ~ ^-. re q~v ~ ]r i ~ ~ .~yq'n ar>, +r_il I~~ S~ I ~1 ^f ' I_ " Lrlhr _ .I `^j` ' rv\':;!! stook :` I ~b'o9 ' ~ r ,' ~~[ / ` ) ' I 6.. 1 t~' ~ ' 7' 1 ; E - - I Z,I.r i I 4 A \J ~ ~ ~ R , ~. ! ~ +a e9'b r , r ll a tst' rte` f ~ f 1'- f .. s .I 1~'.tirnlr ( I -- -- I1..n. f'~a~ ~1' isd : I ~ `+ ~. ~* I ~ I ~ ~a ~ '' ' -' I ~ /''-'I''I e }r ~~J~ ) I- I • I Ya La' a_ I a I ] ~~{:.v 4,Rack Creek [?n°: 1~'a kl `r-~}':~+..J.~~ {~~-'r -La_na- G,x.-J_c¢; "I~.'f'T"`I__~L~.:'.'' Ca0 _I_...--I "°~~ I 1' I Cnrkl s I arW°}ilv s~~n k•~_y'~~r'-^~'~a S,m`l I.ri l~v~ I~~.iF (`-:hfeedr ~~..:•. r:.-... Vr~~1, ~~I, .. '.''~h. ±II rG I~' I f:-- I-- -I-'__i- =r~ r `. I 1 ~ 4 ~ ,i ° . +` r ~-7 ~ .:r... I t :: .L.+. ~ , 10 I ~ ~ 1,1 -1 J I ~" i f T lrny_~ -_ ts~^ r,~l! s mt, `~ ~ s~ 1 ~ -:~ t/~~l >Pr eUl ', v~ 1 ~. I 1 g of " ! 1 I • la ~~ ~~f~~~ =e~z~w'o ~ ~ + !'~ I+ ~', ~ /d ! ~ + lshr~ _ I {' ';I~_~N _ __ a .i" . :e I l r ~ ° +~r le / ~, `a, J/ ~, R} ~p9s ~ 1~'t-•~~~ rlo ~ ( I .+ ~ rndsvder.•c `''~`, I r IJ I-- ) ___I--• ' `t) ~•si• +~°41 ~`:::, ~• ,4'^•• _ III y~IJ IA ^~~ !2644 i.: f 1 . ~4:Fri•-`['i~leey~_ " ~~`e I ~` I^` ~ae [~-.:,'~~~}~1~:.ti41`i ' a1~'l.uke srr,r s~-`1a .'•,~•. ~: 1'i: -I 1 ', I; ', 1 _~:.. IQ JI I is ^ -~ J-.nl~ ~ _~~.. I °.,r Ire % ..Ir~ vi'i:J' '' r• I, e wwyy 1' / I ~ h .' .3. L I ISf115t_ ~ I [1 ~. I ^ 1• I ! 41 ~ ~ J ~ I ~. 6` ` y 0 11l I I I I ~-.. ~ ~ Gt I yr ~ ~'-~'^~ ^~. (+a 1~f ~I ?PV` ~ - ~f ~. -!•. I ~r 11/1'7w1~.~ ,i - r I - - I _ _ 4r j sr 1•A ~ r" sa /ll9il ~ ~•c _ ~dn~ 1, I n y lll` ~ - I I r ~ I ~ I ~ - 1. / ~l 4. I!/ I ~F I { dL ~ ~,. Rr Whel~tS I I' I ®~. ..'._I• ~~ / *°~i ',: I ra C ti I-- "~ I 1 ,A •i I ~I~ISr 1119 C~ ~, `tr I~~y t ~+Y°: ra o°,~~'9.It+a ~~~ II ~,yi~;,sr - I.,tie 'jr'4~nZ, i^ I ril `'l+lo~nr y- ' ~. 71 r~ti~ ~'p ~:.,' ~ 4 + •. !li 4 / W ~:~~~ I "~1 _ 1- ' ,' 7 , tr ra ~ :a ra I r~ :, ~ ''~a ~ I ~ra ~ ; ~2J ~'volx a ~I^.•'i>_u, •~ r~ •.Iti'~~I_:.~Tw~~ .:_I~.. -•~I___ `I~;r----1,:.~-,.~ i __I- - -I -- + ss~ .+ t r I ~ t 3~ -~- , a /ar yl' ! l - I' -. , r`~ I_'wti,~~ - s ~ I ,rl,~'"~ ` ~p I n wQ y3 ~,~ ~.~ n ' ~ I r• `[' 7e I :r }~~firrd ~ `- ~ I _ t:: ".;.I' ~_,. y ~ n~ _~~~h` U-~-s-~:sA~" 4~~ 1{ ~ l v~\,re I ~`.rr ~rr;Qt l} r•; 1 ~y ao. 111 I ;:;lb c,}ntn il~I ~ - 1 rrfo ~ I ~ rs 1 a. I n-~- Fa~` c# Cry ~ '/~°~' Ir,4'a I ~aG 1f "~`v ~ ~\,~ry'~1 -~nl _ 1 .r~til -_ I •-Cl .~-~-- 1: I ~ ~;{ E ra i G ~Gs ~ I~-'• ~..~A-~-'-~_.~ '~ -J I rl- ~~I~I I~ ; x.~t - 1 /•t• -~~I I 'I /i '' ~ 3a Ir 1 I~ ae~,?:.. ee~ • f'`av -••" -'•_." vUr I a ~~ _ o_ ~i s~ r ~~ +._ +--~ ~ . ~ ~ I ``! 11 ~ ... I VI ~ ' ~ j nom. '-I ~ q. I I ~r ~ "' t3e]a ~( y--4` ;W4-, u ~ n II ]a " ~4 `' ~ I' 1' cA ~I ~:'I ]f <f I exrl~,I .. n``~'/1.~] ~; o` {'b ~ "s, 5 o I rl r.•c rr Oo it I ~ ;s I'. t I / ~r I .9 -....- ~- Prlno ~ ar r1, 1 ~l Y II`a x i } ea +' rt a` - ..s a {. ^ •'- -b-~".~,11.e - .._ .. y~ ~~ ~ I._ {... r, : I Lnkr`- ~{ 3 A ~ '7,~n, lf-. ~ : V 14 ~?s i w' rsl f I.raa' I - c 'r'1[ a ~ 11 J I ~ ~, J'~ t I. ~~~ •vo ~ .}. ~ ; ,1 / ~I 14~ I ~ I 4;~.: ~ S 1.•w -I-GF`--I•--- f 3+ a ~~.~~~1 I C I.i ~ ~ I ^• ' _ +I ' r 1 ~ ~ rfi~ ~'i a + 1 ~ 76 ,i 7R,/ ~h I . - : ~~yy~S ~ , ~- /~,,, . t' : r 6 a.'L 1 r !fl I '. ,v°] r ?!•r.,, ~ Ir _ •.s n.pl ~1 et;,~ eaeo _:,.i ,~ I ha 11 ~ ~ _ ~,..a ±r_ ~' ~I IAI ~ ~,j 4 ' ~ ~ a/ I ago- 1--_.. ~ ! o L f; F.rCwa nla ~,~y.1-~"" _~~ `_--.. ~d. ~ f ~ K ~I1 ° 7 1 Vn~Ih_•~ ~ w s[' ~~ r ~nqE I ~ I _ I ~ to ~''`.+ - Vf'~~.` t6~~ a¢[ so0 .rr' `C[ea •I~,I 1 ja I'•... I ~, 1 ~ ~~c '. [~,,[ftECK ~ 1 ~;. •. q[ r ,~ I I L. 'k ~ ~+ca'eenr '" r__?o~s ~~a i~° ~ ~~ ~ ~"•• _ o 'ti3 ~-1var~ lln I ,'4"' .;•~ C,»rcr ~•rrR_- _' .fl` ss Avnn 70 _ _...-.. 92ex rr ) _~u I _.r- ;~ - r° u1n •I l I ~S I~ ~~`~=+ ~e .il"a ~-4r~• .. f . _.~-r~._I ,nalu~=~,b I f lsnr, ~`- ^,1 ~Is_-_ ~_^-ti~-i_i~ +- _~ ~P`~ie'1}N'y~i Losia 1 fa ~Y ie~,)''u 1 ~e '1. a° I.~~T ka f1 I 1 ~.- 1~ faI. .~. ~~-~ ~I r ~ I1,~~' ,Y~ (C,ti~-~ ~ ill! __,_ I 1. - tc l~~i.' t `._... ?....~ JJ j ~_ } ~ ,e ~771riF~; "y,1' { :., Y .. C~\ I .I 1 u_ i.~ l `,:`,1 .+t.-)~+~~~ ;l, I 1 ,. 1 ~' 1 ~ ,._I i 1 ` /.{~;';S E'' , -- gg-w[tn ^J ,' aa~ 5 V~rllLr I~~~ ).. r r 1 . •' i I ~' t ~ \;1'.;-- ~, ~ . 'Q(Y f-e }}ll'';; 1 1 ~ ,~rk +' *I.~-- ' .lunctl.n ,/,C \ 1 !- Y''.;,•:•:'~~r. I (~ ~~ ~- r ~ r~,~ 4 - / v . If 'rt / i r mldr Z rl tt7 a) \ ~?,:•r ~:.,.:. l' f_`I rialf t I [ 1 ~' V _. 4 1 G~. 7C _ ~.-'• I f 1. 11BI I. Ir ?P ? 2:~:. ~_.- r s ~~% r0 ~-., ~4 rr ~~, arm ~ Yf'y'. + 1e d .~-4e//~~ 1 -~~~~_ !-~A -,~~~ ~~ ~_~ I~ I_ 1-~_--.0 _. _. ~I ea _l~ •4~'•- -.. ~` ~i.l:[! 11rrCru . 1 / :\.UJ ..'i•t a< .'{(7T ~ `~_- _,,I -I I ,L_ ~aa t l ~i144 -1 ~ ~r tiY~~ C- 1 7"- --~` rd ~ p~l ~' ~k' - ;. _ r~..° 70 .~;:. '~ -' ~~ o-t I IBC! r CR fRE6K p•au .~ ; ae .,' '4e .1 r ' t' ~ t - I r a l _ p tier + +~ 7a ~ ~~,~~~,,~~ ~ ®4 ~y ~ av !a1 y `'!Tint rn 1 I I '- 1 I tN'~,~,,,f.~ Ry ~ _ -- -/ ~~'[r^ P. J ~~ ~• FI - A S•,~vr~'~ra a~v~. S S= o~ ,,.i '~`+I 4 1 -) ',d'~~''.*'''~r•K"_..-I_ i' I •.,: _!_ i_ .- .~, !r @~ n II US 1 I - ;.~ H _~ --~i -- J I•-' ~1- ,[ ~1 t 1... A r a 1R°ek ~ ! ~ h -~~ •„ ~ !I ~' .1 I I ~ ~ , ' . ~ I ~ ~ \rr. :- -Y i p- --/l s_~~ :! / ~~Erti ~",~.v' I~ I 1 ss 1 e '~1 'a: p" ]r -• 1,'•: +. ~' t.,l (~_-Y-.•. / 1/ -/r t#)I'r 7966 1, s7 l the I 1 ~. 1 +~.~~::. ~~'4~'~~~:]1 fe ~I~tl r• !a •. ~ /]1 ]~ MINT URNR I I: ~ I t'T1 .. y~riti 1 _~ ~ ff ~/ C, 1 I 1 .i tkP ~F.' ~ 1 1 ~.~I.r. ,~ '._ _ kpr••. ~:` 'S tl •1~:;:~~ ~ ~~ ~ I .. ,n1 [~ [~. a„r.arbes,r'+ ~\i _ a r, . l ~;: l I~:~ ~" 11 1 ~~-~ - y a . a~ ry1 1~~ ~o I ~' ~ I ~~' + '9 G~~'~~i ! \ Luke '' ~ ~ s /::;;~ ~; ..:., ~, 71?~'. ~L.i:~yl~ t---T' I~ na~~rr ~! ~ I '7 C[ n/ ~ 044 ~ !! , /o~l,n}~i' ~lr;~ ASS J'~~ I~ 6 ~a ~+ ) ate` ~'\ aJ I I 1 5 I II .. I / si ! . - ~1. ( ~ 1 1 • I 1 . I II ~.s.:.: I ~ IVar ~d^k4 /G`°aI r: `1/ p ~ =. I~ / i:!) r/ ..! }. ., L,•e r I o~~ ; \_~ ~ ~ 1 ~~1- u e/-iJ ,fJ' + .' I Ma'n I / I' o I r~l - i 4 frl ul ~ ~' ~ ~; - / L,I.rs ---I-_. G~! _,.`!~I _ Ii~ I_ 11I .-'~f~:~r' .(- i I..`-i~a~':~(~11 ~ L~,~ 4~°°v •r 'V' ro ~~~t r]~' ] ~„, ,.s` ',i ~ + Is.] r I- •\~1 r t .t t I • I .1'.°rmrrse;{ j ~/Gsw ;(~..F ~-w to ss lul,xq. 'C L1`I+\ e. .~ ~ .,1 .~ ~ g,,rlne I Y I •~,.° Vnil ~~ ° ' I I ' Y I 'I :;a / ~~,. 1ii:'Is,1, ~Y ,,` ~ s 1.4numnln -tl _ ~ ~- I ~ I Ill _^.J,lata -r=, -_- - t9~7 ~ fSil n,xrr -~( V {qjI ~~ 1. ~~,7.- - --'7 " -'T'-- / '~---I-'~ .1 ~~ , I ::.1,:+r/," ' I :} ] '- 1 ~ G rs re Q Q Ilen ,r.w f~ ,I a ~~lu C~.v l~ a +`II ,a II }ts.. Ir .uL I±7,• ~ sl//.I 1 eF ~ '~}Il~" j'~7•~I ,°'s 1~= `' ~nlx<Ii~~')-~ -~.s~~ .,~ - 4 '~' 1j -~) s• 1 Rnal fake 1 ! I 1' s: ii 1 t k- +t k~ tlP_- - - _~...-~ -~1 - _r r. nr,rerr~ I Ramhnr^ I la/9°gC'rnnae a I r I / I _•...~~,~1615YON~G ~ ICI -.. (t Or. .D ~~ ""T'"'" ~ tar • '.'" ~ ~` / ~.~~ ~.u[r I-l.uhr_ -~,_I~_ _rdln.'»~t-_ ~Y'•- •:~ I 1 =\\ s• p~p.~..x.~_=y,r y .lUr f-__ ~_~1 `,x T.7 I_.. 1 ~/ r I ....n ~ _ ~ s '+~ a ~ ~ ~\ :r Lt enrumon .a 'Cf* .g~i/4' I Ile .I /a~. I LV^ /. _ -- y I f - I . a. .: ~: ~ n ar„• ~, `a 9 e i tie =' 1 ~ 1 I a. I , 0° .I al' ~ I ~~'!~'rr Cr f e] Iswo ~ _ ~ (r ReJe[i ff \ 'A. b ` + ra rf I a`'ul/ T:cumer "/I .~-,' I-• 'I .?`f 1 ~: - I/ G ~ F._f~ ~1.: t .• r ++ New Ynrk1° 1 I J I Lok ] I I / ~ .'. ~ . I G! \~_ I ' ~`~[-`~<¢ ~ I `•~'~ 1 to lei ^_ d~'t'-e r* I ~ 1 I I I I ~ ' I ~ 1 ~' tOna'~ 't (]~-'"-. -~,. 1 L I -... ___ _...--- ., 'O )-~NniFMOON CG~S~ -I~ .7 -f;•: ;•.: L.. - ~~ ~__._~ F`tnrmlvan(,' ze I---- - -~i- - Tl I T + ~ r;; n e U , ra f..rk. _ -1 - ~ ,Hdll Maon // '`R 1~ - ~ Hornslluorrwa 199 : l~- I I 'a r r I / 1 [I 1 'I , ]e Se la ~. _. r° rntrt:':r .~. , QaVY71 l~~' ."I + Thurnue 1 U+re I H ~ 1 aar 1 rs W/'I. te,' .e Fas~re! q~-~ h '~&' ~ } U ~::.~ -Le. !a~ NoM KE CG llhlt ' h- r tEesolutla_ ~ a _ -h - 4r I ' 1~ I r~o7ddu]f I ~ ~ I 1 1 " i I I °,c ~ ~ ! x _ _ ~ ~+~.•~ - O-~Y` `r:'l __ N I 1 /. 1 n y~/r. N ! CiVi, I-- •7foRNS1LV-~$-C~. -: ` , ]~,:, Mln , ra ,I. 1 yank t 1. Lakra I I r_-I~_---I -.., _, ,I~•/ _ _-~!~ --- !-'Y..~ "'•~ r~ ~ :;;~', J -~YG 1 11905 - ~, ~. ~4~I .a re i-' !.eke 1 - -~ I .~ ~ I ! ~ ~.., I ~ ~~I ~~ I <.'.I+G I ~ T.1- /r. •I ~ ~:.:: ° b +; J fr las Cs 4 - ~i/\ 16 4 {; Mt , ; . I I n I I f .. ~'ea {:+'."•:7e 'ti 1 ,. le. /` j ' 1 n I •': a I rr t.. l sa Jackson 1e~ n ar 1 ]~ ` •• ~,.. ,.:•. ^,Sf ex, ' a . /i'r 1 7> Y.-T~ -I_ •^ - g 1 fake I Natc Y .• I "::•{.;...' 4 :,• a ti .:..1 11 Oa.A 4° • ~ 1 I ~ boar I f '. I Patncla` ,. Mtn ~ `a + .. F ~ {., ~ ~ ~ I Ir - --f .-. Fald Dust 1 11 1 I 1 .~_. _1- ~ °. 'r,~:e ~4 4• I _ ~1.~:~r~nLOOC.FTT C ~ ,1 oT ,/ s _ e e 1 r N~I,~a I . IN•O;I!Yr GROSSP I `-W ff LDS R'NESS~ ~ C~ ~ , ~ , ,- . •~' ° :~,~ __ 1 --- Bash 1 I ~ l~ I ~ I I 1, yr Mounl f r' ~ ~ r s ~ F'. _ -. a r e t I a ' I 7 ~ ra f Irla howl ` ) /~ ~ ~ 1 O}j "J>/ ix a' \ `'~. 4: n gar ~ Sent )' ` I ° I I ru Y r I -1 ci - l -- Holy. ~ rf ~~ { I::;`...I a'_ } a J• : S[, mas.: E1 I t ~. 1 f t _ I I " r ~ _ ,I ~ _ w ~ , , r~~_ ~,+ 1~ ~}~ ' ` Pk ~ h . F°as (~ _-_I- .. I r-- Crors 'Tear ~_ _~....... »- -r~~' u,P ~~• F''a h,rrr r/-` Ile:.; ~J \, laY~`\- _- -_ -r- ranoi w . •. ~ t'nmin 8te/~ ~ ~• I :n r1 ~. I ~/ ! I ro 11 C I r ,a _~^s I r ~ 17ry~ I) sn~~,. ~-- ~1r - ~ ii~! ~ a ry ~' '7i< r r l'r ,.isr t,. ' a 6?r ,ff,~ r:" ~I ~ ` 7:j:' n { ~ l MurNa I 1' u 1 4. )+., 114""' - - _ [::' 1 r hfenJ 'r1 ° l I G('. I I .7 f.t.T°hLuke 11 lok° I ,. .! I "','~ •I. 1. 2 °I ~1, ., ~. ~ 11 ~TIe fo P4 _ fLuhr --I L P ' `- }_' 1!'Cunslrtnrlne 1 'I e ,~ ~-.. ~+~` -~ L~~ {(:nrbe 1' _ _ I ~ I 1 U --^'~- ,,,_ - lydF.%-^~ '- Z ~~ ~ fn14tP HAIF ~ was •" '`y' ~~ - _ _.E~gl~ /1__ _, _.... 5~-. , I 6°Bl jlf \\ ~t 'REA710N AA~11 10 ) : [(~ ~'0) t''-. 1- 1 ''Pk J I 4°. I • I V r re / `1 F I _~I`....,-- f:.. a,a ~ la, to I 1~ -- !~~_ -F •A '\:~:;.. Ie I f I IJOI6 I AAlaale 1. 1 1 _I Sl,~rn S.~^l s,J r• 4s r' - ,e •[^ I 1 1 I t 1 M,n' pone f valrn I - ~ ,:<'%~L ~a ~ I ~ `~~~ ~ .- `.N~-;ry;c _ ,~ °,t `, ~ 1 i! .e•rrr l ~}.okra ~ I ~ Whitney J j .:.•.r l-~_ G...~ ~...a-- -- `°-^-- ~ + L7ii^ Kaknmo f~'al 1 1 -~'::_ I _ _I I--"'- -- _ - lake' -- "_~ -',.'13iv0 r !Ih/~ `9rro~:.y'' - 4 D' `j ~, ~ 1 ~iu 1 ro Pas~S15M. I _ T7uT/nnv.n 1 r -I ~- - - '/ }} - U / ~` ~I '~.I // ' - l`C- 7!•~ ~ . x. I E.atllr !/,,,e Lu kr / I l -l s.• 1.,.•' SVAI7nrY: 1 f" n ~~~ }- r/ a ~•. t° 7s ~ ~ ~'~~ ~ I Cul 1 b17n ~r `!a.uke~ rn .. I Fulrrlrw I- ~..'r I rr / u v1 rn . ra r i +.~ 1 "~= "' 1 ret] f21_ ] , :•.:.~:.:;,.•.. Lake":r--•-r rr .. x e ~-~1, + _ r + if ~~ 1 C?f Ae I .I v 1 L'IrelluAd ', ::.1' '.`.k.•• It ~ I ~~~ ka I_~_Fw-~. ~..~ Gu~4\G0 ll~:._1>,., ~~~1E~r.r ~~~~ S She ~T ~/1 '~ ~ ~° 1 I f ) ~ F 4 -..-~f ts~°--- J -``, lad .'~~~:v. rf~-:-•--- _.~-_. Frrlh ~-'-__I--'-_I_"'~~-[[f ~l Ar dh 17'°~~.~ °I o ~r~ J ~~.i° - RF ra~.'w .°~/~ ^1 f12 t^ L k,Vdlnn{he .i J. .'GN 4,r Luke! ~. ' 'T ~r`I "~ I tit' \ a° I `ors ('l. l' I' 11 f ie. '~, . y.0~,' I"~~• 1 1 vk ~. J .. .I I I y, 4 ~e . ~ N ]e +lr+?~ ffi>• _. -___ f--;-- rs , ar / :;.:~.~s FL~Ir Cmre p p eM tabr9 r ~ . I ~ ~ r _ %I; ;::;~ ~ t r S,rnu~: y•r ., r I '/~ r-V "~o7rCV [: [ (title] I'f -ak Orl~ ~ 1 ..:- ~ ~; R ~ ~ 1~]4 w ~ t r1 ~0 Lu Ara ' =Y i1 I-. •. ..__L.' II {4`=s" _~ '~a ~,~, r.~ ~ . I .. 1 lFlhrJgr,! 1 . 'I :[~.ti• , . i fir: (! . ~ ~ -; ~~5:;:.".',,"..~''?'''.::`. :•r`__'-. ~-.- °r,--` No, I - n eA II o ~ - +' -7.a6r___~ -- -..i~~-I ~ n' 9 ~~ 'N •+9c ~:at•~~ I1I '~\.• ~1r - /'allr x :;~ca I ! i c I A CiuAirla~..r- o `b,. ,.... ~ I j,+ d~ a ` ,.s I Ne kt [.-~ r Trll,.rlur -'"t____I 17W t ..C~ e~~- ~i~ C,OL AA br[CG Ie .. :I tsr (tall I ~ ,v ~ 4 S~y - Iwr1e 1 I f..rkr I. I •I/'r ~! ~ 1 ~~ 1r ~^( U. ~..:~: ~r.. r° ae tRet ~I s~- b k+r,` ~ 'I~v nuns r n I n'ar v 1 ri ; I Y II r re ~ I e1 ~ ~•r ~''.~. I - or' (~`t;e[I G- I ~~ ° ,t• V ..-V_ `? r I kua:n„rr l.rtr : r ~a 9rtr ~ .J 1 -~ ---"'•I...~-1_~'^~-_= Mr ] ~~-•--•1 _.--.I I "i i' 1 k .yd t Ca ,' ~ ro-s' ii~ilor ~e ' I ' ^1 1 I lr' ~ s,n T P ~I ^• I'r -I ~ I , ~ (` ~ISrrn ` o I/aa 1 I lnsrPhfnr I s (~ Snvage Pk I ....r/~ ~ ~- Uif';i•. f a G 4 t ~• +,~r [ ~' ~. ~?rJ ~ a ~„ Lake ' I •suune ' . I '':r:?.~:yr.../};•~:F~' ~ h~~~7 • i 4 l.n.l k~ .1 aA~ e ! ~~. ~ ~~ ~ _7 ,Y~o _ I ~_ ..d I` - 171 M1O U.::'~.: •• ~• I 5 / F ~ - Hrnrlrrsan_--•- - -V--_ .~ .~:. t' I-'~.' f: 1 s/'~ ~'(sr1 I -41- I P.,rk .. 'n Ffn Il~akr~~YS ~s I l.akt `~~rr~~A i k lomPSl[nNe `~~2~ I ~~e ~. ~~ ° I l~Ia sr wl n ~ u I -.I I {.. <~'~ a I+ r ls,lhrr::x!'~II .J~~t I to i37a5 IIk R } \ ,i`„'.a ° I u i . ~'.? s> 1 G:~1 a `\r I ''1 Yennr s ~, _ , q~i 1 ~Sru`nrrea '.R-. ~... Sonnpe I !!„nxalukr' Y:o sl . ~ ~ v ti gyp, ~ -- ._ s ~: ICT.F. ICf3°'^`r ~~ ~ ~..` !.okra lrr,rrl,,,lr `•.#:~'I +~ I ti_ _ _ _ 4: i3YwrA- -... ~ r.w- ~ 01 `}~f sea E'KIN Ian ~ r I } I I I;•.~I t•, ~~ ! 1 I • !~ t 4 I ~~'~ 't(ENN-SSEEu14 ~[~ iR ,• ss ~ r• ~(', rve ~ v r ~ i 0 `~ I t fe I sa I ASS CG if f r ! s a I B ,a 1 to z !ro L' ! u Parn~l]r le f:•:r ::•1 ; I ~ I ~ sa/ ~~ Z~~~+'- ~ ~~~ 4 ~_ rnnnrr J 1 1 = 1 ' • I . ~ ' I 1 ~ ly n' ~1'- ; Trnnr.efr C.rvk}\ a t!_/ ~ NI Ir...-. ,s•a r., PucheY•_ j._ [tK !r. isAr_-1--- nsbi;.r -1 '~ I 'I ~''~ ~'! s Iti -7 I sv:.a ~~'I • Planning and Environmental Commision -April 25, 1988 LIBRARY COMMUNITY ROOM 2:30 PM Site Visit 3:00 PM Publi'~c Hearing 1. A request for a setback variance in order to construct a garage at Lot 10A, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing, 1b7 Rockledge Road. Applicant: JoAnn Fitzpatrick • • Planning and Environmental Commission April 25, 1988 Vail Library PRESENT Diana Donovan Pam Hopkins Peggy ~sterfoss Grant Riva Sid Schultz Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Betsy Rosolack ABSENT Bryan Hobbs The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. A request for a setback variance in order to construct a Qarage at Lot 10A, Block 7s Vail Village First Filinq. Ap~iicant: JoAnn Fitzpatrick Tom Braun explained that the request involved setback variances of 4 feet on the side property line and 10 feet on the front property line. The garage would be located so as to utilize the existing driveway access. Ray Story, architect for the project, answered questions. Diana Donovan moved to approve the request with the finding tht there were exceptions or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the site that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone and added that trees be located to buffer as much as possible the nearest neighbor to the east. Pam Hopkins seconded the motion and the vote was 6-0 in favor. Peter Patten discussed a letter written to the Forest Service from the Town Council which included many of the PEC's concerns voiced at the last meeting. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 PM. ~~ U . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 25, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a garage for a residence on Lot 10, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing, 157 Rockledge Road. Applicant: JoAnn Fitzpatrick I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant's request involves setback variances of 4 feet on the side property line and 10 feet on the front property Line. The garage would be located so as to utilize the existing driveway access. The location of the existing residence is in large part responsible for the proposed garage location. Please see the applicant's statement for further justification of this variance request. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of • the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Clearly, the proposed location in the most sensitive with respect to the two units on this property. The only other affected property is the lot to the east. The encroachment of 4 feet into the side setback does not present any detrimental impacts on this neighboring lot. The proposed garage does not create negative impacts on Rockledge Road. Tt should be noted, however, that Rockledge Road was not constructed in the public right- of-way. In fact, the road was constructed in part on Forest Service property. The Forest Service has received notice of this application and has raised no concerns at this time. n U • The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The degree of the setback variances could be minimized by positioning the garage closer to the existing residence. However, this would significantly impact the existing unit by cutting off light to a bedroom. Given the location of the residence, the location of the garage is felt to be appropriate. There are numerous examples of setbacks that have been granted in the Forest Road/Rockledge Road area. These have been due to the topography and oftentimes affected by the existing improvements in the area. In this instance, the proposed location is the most workable alternative. The effect of the requested variance on light and air. distribution of populations transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety • There are na negative effects on any of the above considerations. III. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VAIL'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The addition of a garage is consistent with a general policy statement in this plan for upgrading residential properties. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental CViumiSSion shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations an other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious • to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted far one or more of the fallowing reasons: The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation specified regulation would privileges enjoyed by the the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION or enforcement of the deprive the applicant of owners of other properties in Staff would recommend approval of this variance, There are legitimate hardships as a result of the position of the existing unit. The introduction of the garage will be a positive improvement for the neighborhood and the staff encourages the Planning Commission to approve this request. C • Gordon R. Pierce Architect A.[.A. Lot I.OA, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing The owner of this property hereby requests a variance of the setback requirements for the purpose of constructing a garage for private residential automobile parking. Also, the owner wishes to add 250 square feet to the G.R.F.A. of the existing structure. The garage addition is proposed for the southeast street side of the existing residence. The site plan shows the addition at the southeast corner of the property and attached to the existing residence. A residential garage is consistent with the neighboring residences that have been constructed in the past five years. By covering some of the automobile parking at this residence the neighbor- hood will be improved. The existing residence was constructed at a time when most people felt that a garage wa's unnecessary for a "Vail mountain second home". The quality and upgraded amenities for this neighborhood and Vail have changed significantly so that a garage is now considered not only desirable but • appropriate. Because of the time frame for the existing structure, the space available within the setback, adjacent to the street, is insufficient for a garage. If the owner were to propose a garage addition to the southwest corner of the property, then the property owner to the west would be negatively impacted. The landscaped space between this structure and the neighbor to the west would be essentially covered - i.e. removed. If the owner were to propose a garage to the northeast corner of the property/building, the long driveway necessary to reach this location would cover part or all of the utility easement, adversely affect the drainage for the neighbor to the east and create a large visually disruptive asphalt or paved driveway. Also, the garage structure at the northeast location would intrude into the landscape area and views of the cluster of neighbors to the north and east. The proposed location has the least impact on adjacent properties. If the grade adjacent to the street was thirty percent or greater, then the encroachment into the setback would be allowed. The existing grade at the street varies between ten and thirty-two percent (average of twenty-two percent • i00t) South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 303 j 476-4433 r :7 • Page Twa slope). The owner's site constraints, as built, do not meet the strict or literal interpretation of the regulation; however, considering the time frame of the original construction and the general neighborhood upgrade, the request is very similar to other approved situations and well within the intent of the regulations, The proposed garage structure is connected to the existing structure with a matching roof pitch and an offset that allows clearance for the existing bedroom windows. Also, the new roof provides cover for the existing entry walkway. The garage structure shall be less than 600 square feet. This request, if granted, would not pose any negative impact on air, light, di:~tribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities or public safety. The proposal would, in fact, remove one car from the existing off-street parking arrangement. The addition on the north side of the existing structure is Limited to 250 square feet G.R.F.A. per regulations. • Planning and Environmental Commission . May 23, 1988 1:45 PM Site Visits 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of April 25, 1988. 2. A request for a conditional use permit in order to modify an existing outdoor dining deck at the Concert Hall Plaza Building. Applicant: Lionshead Bar and Grill 3. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a chairlift on Tract A, Vail Village 6th Filing, Tract B, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing, and an unplatted parcel, all zoned Agriculture/Open Space. Applicant: Vail Associates 4. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to unit ~6, Cottonwood Townhomes. Applicant: Gail Molloy i 5. A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 21, Vail Gateway. Applicant: Palmer Development 6. A request for a side setback variance in order to add a garage and addition to a residence at Lot 5, Block 1, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: Peter Gombrich Planning and Environmental Commission May 23, 1988 PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Peggy 4sterfoss Grant Riva Sid Schultz Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack ABSENT Pam Hopkins The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of April 25. 1988. An addition was made to the minutes and Diana Donovan moved and Sid Schultz seconded to approve the minutes as amended. The vote for approval was 5-0-1 with Bryan abstaining. 2. A request for a conditional use permit in order to modify_ an existing outdoor dining deck at the Concert Hall Plaza Building. Applicant: Lionshead Bar and Grill Rick Pylman explained that the Lionshead Bar and Gri11 had always had tables on the deck adjacent to their restaurant, but . that the area where the tables would be placed had to be modified in order to satisfy the liquor code requirements. Rick reviewed the conditional use criteria and stated that the staff recommended approval. Diana stated that one concern that should be passed along to DRS was that the pedestrian path from the bus stop should not have the appearance of being locked off to pedestrians. Peggy added another concern to give to DRB, and that was that the surface of the deck needs repair and it would be nice to see an improved material used. Dave Tyrrell, representing the owner, stated that they have experimented with several surfaces, and that there was a severe wear problem. Jim Viele asked if the restaurant owned the deck, and was told the restaurant owner also owned the deck, but that the easement was a public easement. Diana Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the conditional use permit to change the easement per the staff memo with two concerns to be made to the DRB: 1) the surface material should be looked at and 2) the pedestrian path must appear to be open from the vantage of the bus stop to the west. . The vote was &-d in favor of the request. 3. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a chairlift on Tract D, Vail Lionshead lst Filing, zoned Commercial Core 12; on Tract B, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing; on Tract Ar Vail Village 6th Filing; and on an unplatted parcel of land, all zoned Agricultural and Open Space. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Rick Pylman explained that the new quad lift would replace the existing chair lift No. 8 and the terminal for the new lift would be placed in the same location as the existing chair 8 terminal. The lift shack, colors and lift graphics will be similar to those currently in place at the Vista Bahn in Vail Village. Rick reviewed the criteria for a conditional use permit. Joe Macy from Vail Associates stated that the Tramway Board dictated the distance from trees that the lift must be, with the result that some trees would have to removed. He added that the long range plan would be to replace the skier bridge and widen it. Macy added that during construction of the terminal, a crane and large trailers may have to came through the Lionshead Mall. Joe also added that one adjacent property • owner, David Ransburg, had some questions on the lift, and Joe would meet with Ransburg in a few days. George Hudspeth, project manager on the new lift, was in the audience to answer questions. Ross Davis spoke in favor of the project, as did the owner of the Lionshead Bar and Grill. Art Albplanalp, representing the Ramsbergs, stated that they were more interested than concerned. They did not oppose the project, but wanted to be kept informed. Grant Riva had concerns regarding trees that needed to be removed, and Macy explained that he did not yet know which trees would have to be removed. He did say that those trees to the west of the old lift would remain. Peggy regretted that the skiers' bridge was not being improved. Joe replied that improving the bridge was part of the mountain master plan, but that it would not be done at this time. More discussion followed concerning crowding on the bridge and the fact that many beginner and intermediate skiers may feel apprehensive about using the bridge with the increase in skiers due to the new lift. George Hudspeth stated that the width of the passage for the . chairlift would be 11'-24'. Diana felt it was a shame to cut more trees than necessary. Joe assured her that they would review the removal of the trees with the staff. . that they get approval from Gary Murrain before through the Lionshead Mall. He added that the terminal would be brought before the DRB. Peter asked bring equipment design o~ the Diana moved and Grant seconded to approve the conditional use request with the understanding that the Design Review look at the trees to be removed to minimize the loss and that only those vehicles which must be brought through the mall be allowed on the mall and any damage to the mall shall be paid for by the contractor. The vote was 5-0-1 with Hobbs abstaining. 4. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to unit #6, Cottanwood Townhomes. Applicant: Gail Malloy Betsy Rosolack gave the presentation, discussed the variance criteria and staff recommendation of approval. Betsy mentioned concerns raised today regarding the accuracy of the drawings and notification to the owner of the adjacent unit at Sandstone 70. Ross Davis, representative of Sandstone 70 mentioned that the end unit owner may not be available for comment. Michael Sanner, architect on the project, described the method of determining the accuracy of the location of the Sandstone 70 building on the drawing. Ross was concerned about the accuracy of the drawing. Michael stated that he did not feel that the applicant should be penalized because of Sandstone 70's encroachment onto their side setback. Ross discussed problems Sandstone 70 had had in discussing mutual concerns with the Cottonwood Townhomes regarding snow removal, landscaping, etc. Ross asked that any approval of an addition be conditional upon requiring resolving these concerns. Viele asked Sanner if this would be acceptable to Ms. Malloy. Michael answered that he thought an improved landscape plan was already in the works. Diana Donovan, who awns one of the Sandstone 70 units, removed herself from behind the table, and discussed the fact that the Cottonwood Townhomes Association did not seem to want to communicate with the Sandstone 70 owners. She added that the Cottanwood Townhomes had an access easement across Sandstone 70 property. Sid felt that it was not unusual with setback variances to ask for landscaping between two properties. He asked Michael if the entire project could be constructed without going onto Sandstone 70 property and Michael answered that he felt this could be done, because stem walls were being used. Sid felt that all efforts should be made to contact the adjacent . property owner. Hobbs did not like the PEC being a police agent to require c~~„,„unicatian between the 2 associations. He felt Sandstone 70 had other courses of action they could follow. He agreed with Sid concerning requiring landscaping between the properties. Peggy felt it would be difficult to build at the front corner without moving the retaining wall. Michael stated that the rocks would not be affected. Grant felt that the duties of the Planning Commission were too narrow to permit the PEC to arbitrate between the two property owners. He also felt that it was important to know the exact location of the property line. On the other hand, he felt that dealing only with a 4 foot setback variance, he was not opposed to the request as presented. Jim Viele felt the most important issues included the neighbors' consideration and an accurate survey was needed. He felt the PEC could look at snow removal that is impacted by granting the variance. Michael asked to table the request until June 13. Peggy moved to table the request and Sid seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0-1 with Diana abstaining. i 5. A request for a minor amendment to Special Deve1~N.,,ent District No. 21, Vail Gateway. Applicant: Palmer Development Rick Pylman presented the request which .included increasing the setback areas in some places, and decreasing the setbacks an others as well as a slight change to the landscaping on the west. Buff Arnold brought a model and drawings to describe the changes. After discussion and questions, Grant moved to approve the amendment and Hobbs seconded. The vote was 6~0 in favor. 6. A request far a side setback variance in order to add a garage and addition to a residence at Lot 5, Block 1. Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: Peter Gombrich Kristan Pritz described the request for a side setback variance. The staff recommended approval with the condition that landscaping be added to the east side. The contractor will try to save all of the trees. Sid moved away from the back of the table, as he was the architect for the project. Sid stated that the garage may be reduced by one foot if it • appeared that this would be necessary in order to save the trees. Diana moved and Hobbs seconded to approve the request. The vote was 5-0-1 in favor with Sid abstaining. Kristan gave everyone copies of revised Primary/Secondary and Duplex wording and asked the members to call her if they had questions or concerns. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 PM. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department . DATE: May 23, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance in order to add a garage and addition to a residence on Lot 5, Block 1, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: Mr. Peter Gombrich I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a six foot encroachment into the 15 foot side setback in order to construct a garage and storage/laundry room area. Please see attached drawings. Applicant's statement: "The existing residence has a one-car garage at the rear of the house with no driveway access. In order to provide access to this garage, the driveway would need to wrap around the house and snake through a number of large evergreen trees. The applicant is proposing to build a new two-car garage to the east of the house that would encroach approximately 6 feet into the side setback. This location of the garage, as apposed to other possible locations, will not interfere with any of the existing trees. The adjacent house is currently set back approximately 35 feet from the property line and is separated from the proposal by mature trees on both properties. This variance is warranted because of the unique situation with the orientation of the existing house, its proximity to the numerous large trees and because of the separation that is preserved between the proposal and the neighboring property. There will be no effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities or public safety." II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.52.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. • The garage has been located in a way that minimizes impact on the adjacent neighbor's house as well as the surrounding evergreen trees. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff believes that some variance is warranted in this case in order to maintain the large evergreens on the site. This is also the most logical location for the garage given the layout of the house. The effect of the requested variance on light and airy distribution of population{ transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. No impacts. ITT. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VAIL'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • They are not applicable. TV. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties nr improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical LJ difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation specified regulation would privileges enjoyed by the the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION or enforcement of the deprive the applicant of owners of other properties in Staff recommends approval of the variance with the condition that additional landscaping (4 to 5 spruce) be added along the east side of the garage. We agree with the applicant that the garage has been located in a sensitive way considering the existing location of the house and surrounding evergreen trees. We feel this approval is not a grant of special privilege, as there are special circumstances on the site which warrants some relief from the 15 foot side setback. • • ,r.. ._ i i q' t Y:: j f tj.5~ e f ~ ~V~V~~~ 1. , / ~. j7!'. ~ h: ~' . tJ,'1 ~/'~~-----~ ~, ,_-~~ ._ ~~ l e ~ ! '` i k^'~1 f l l r ~~~ r 1 __ j5' ~ 5~t~c ~ _ 1 ,~ 3O~ ~ ~~ A '~~~:1 ~ }l~ ~~ ~ { O O ~~ r . l `.~`_~ o , . ~ti~ ~, "l.~ ~ ~ ~ ~J r Lai fo ~ t r ~-~3 ' ~ . i 1 1 1 1 ~ -- -_ ~5~ -- --- 1 ~'~~ P4~~ 1~ . ~a ~~~~~ 1 ~.~ ~ ~ ~pQ 1~ 0~ ~~a~-r~ ~ ---- 1 i r ~. • T0: Planning and Enviranmenta7. Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 23, 1.988 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional. use permit in order to modify an existing outdoor dining deck at the Concert Hall Plaza Building Applicant: Lionshead Bar and Grill I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE This proposal involves the modification of deck, proposed primarily to satisfy liquor Currently, the deck is bisected by pedestr As proposed, a pedestrian easement will be route pedestrian traffic around the dining rack and public seating are also in a part (see attached sketch). • II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS an existing dining code requirements. ian circulation. recorded that will deck. A bicycle of this proposal Upon review of Section 1.8.60, the Community Development Department rec~~,~.~~ends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the fallowing factor: A. Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development ob~iectives of the Town. Outdoor dining decks contribute to pleasing pedestrianization and are key elements of the Vail experience. By strengthening the viability of this deck and providing public seating adjacent to the deck, this proposal is consistent with the objectives of the community. The effect of the use of light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schoolst parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. There are no effects on any of the above considerations. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience{ traffic flow and control., access, • maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The key issue relative to this proposal centers around pedestrian circulation. Presently, a 15 foot easement runs through the proposed dining deck. As proposed, a new easement would be recorded (8~ in width) around the new deck. While this represents a reduction in width, staff feels it is adequate given the level of traffic through this area. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Given that a dining deck does exist on the site currently, there are no appreciable changes in the character of the area. III. APPLICABLE RELATED POLICIES OF ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN None apply. TV. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED USE. . V. FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the new deck as proposed. Given the planters, design of the deck, and width of the pedestrian easement, it is felt that the proposal is an improvement to this area of Lionshead. One condition of approval is: The Town Council shall formally accept the revised easement with the dimensions and locations as determine 1) ! by the PEC approval. • • ~ ~ ~dWl }l~~Q Hsn~an s: ni o: U O v W W ml ] a ~... ~ _ _. 4~ 4! \ -~- :_::-:: L- 4 d i ,,,4 y "Y I ahoed sTlva sara ~N;ri~a ayIM n0'I58 h3;.NV7d Ma .~ ~ ~ \\ / `\ \ ~/,. \ ~ ` / \ \ ~, ~~, ~ I ~~\ i 4 2 F' .~ -. C ~. ~ ~ ]. .1 4• P] ~ U ~ p; F F a ~ x 0 0 0. ~ 4 u~ z " a u .. 4i ;G N 4 3 F y' i, N 4I W 7 ._,..~~ ,.a J,> w.~.~., aanaasaa sys~u to R7V a.oaaI31'Jav 'HOS O'iVNOQ aYtlW aoSalh LaG[ YH9INx~pO OOLS-5F6 {EOEj OL9[B OOVyO70~ 'NOAY 00yq X08 QNVhHTfi68 J1a aL0 8~hV88 15Va 89~V2V'Ja :iaVWHONa9 BOL aiIllH , • 51.~']~1~H~1*Ib' NO501`dNC)~ >-I~IbW ~lO1~i/~ x err r; r x ~ u x ~L ~_ F ~ W o ~ ~ ` F' U F W ~ ~~ ~ T w ~ fE F o H F. 1 ~ P. ~n L ~y M z q °' d Pi ~' C W Z T N U ~ i N, a F. i ae ~ x ~' ~ W z e°+ 1 J~ -- --- - ~, / ~ T ~-- ~ ~ `- '`~ ,,1 - _. ~ 41 `~ I I ~ ~ ~ 3 W ~~ O lul ~ l ~ ~ ~ w. Si ~ C ~a fA P1 W } w a F' ~ a ~ ~ J z FW, °' ~ F / ` ..- ~. z°z ~ m h~i t ~ Y ~~~\ ~ E ~~~ x Y. ~ m ]. 4S ri r' .1 V a F' p~ ~1 `~ U 3 F ~ ~ e o ~ F ^~ N 1 R1 C 4 ~ z „ F ~ N x x X 41 ~~ ~~/` `- ~/` ~ \ /~ \~J 5 Pi 7 ` F~ Y ~I U ~ 7: ~\` o ii `7 7 4; } 0. 0. a o [] Y' F $ 2 z c a a 3 P~+ N z w a b< -i ~_!~~ F nra t3~r+s ~~ 4 }""' W ~' W Y' U W z C E ~~ 0 a a w iY Z F w w 2 A N ro z F N T0: Planning and Environmental Cu.~~«ission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 23, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a chairlift on Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing, zoned Commercial Core II; on Tract B, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing; on Tract A, Vail Village 6th Filing; and an unplatted parcel of land, all zoned Agriculture/Open Space. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE Vail Associates is applying for a conditional use permit to replace the existing chair lift No. 8 with a detachable quad chair lift. The proposed lift, named the "Born Free Express" will have an hourly capacity of 2,800 persons per hour. The lower terminal will be situated on the north side of Gore Creek in a similar location to the existing Chair No. 8 terminal. The lift shack, colors and lift graphics will be similar to those currently in place at the Vista Bahn in Vail Village. The lift maze will be on the west side of the proposed lift terminal. No modifications to the existing skier bridge are contemplated at this time. The proposed chair lift terminal is located on Tract D, currently zoned Commercial Care II. While within the Town of Vail limits, the lift passes through three tracts of land that are all zoned Agriculture/open Space. Ski lifts and tows are allowable by a conditional use permit in both the Commercial Core zY and Agriculture/Open Space zone district. While the new terminal building is slightly bigger than the existing Chair 8 terminal, the basic footprint of the lift area is similar, and the terminal will be placed in the same location as the existing Chair 8 base facility. There will be some fill that is extended toward Gore Creek. There will, however, be no impact to any area of floodplain. No trees around the terminal area will be lost; however, several trees near Gore Creek may have to be removed to comply with Tramway Board regulations. Construction staging for the new chair lift will be located on Vail Mountain, just west of "Snow Central." Helicopter operations will be based in this area. Access to the terminal site for concrete trucks and a crane will be via Lionshead Mail and the access between Lionsquare Lodge and the Gondola Building. All access through these areas will be closely coordinated with Town of Vail personnel. • II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factor: A. Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Town of Vail is a tourism based recreational community. The main form of recreation in the Town is provided by Vail Associates in the form of downhill skiing. The upgrading of an existing chairlift certainly reflects positively on the development objectives of this community. The addition of a high speed quad in the Lionshead area helps to balance the uphill capacity of the two core areas and assists the Town's efforts to ensure a balance and positive relationship between the Vail Village and Lionshead core areas. The proposed chairlift is an element of Vail Associates' master plan for Vail Mountain. The Town of Vail has • been involved in the review process for the Vail Associates' master plan and through the Land Use Plan has encouraged upgrading of existing recreational infrastructure. The effect of the use of light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilitiest utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs, The proposed replacement of the existing Chair No. 8 with the Born Free Express has very little impact upon these criteria. The effect upon transportation facilities will be discussed elsewhere in this memorandum. The effect upon recreation facilities is obviously a positive impact. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, autamotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access. maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The Born Free Express more than doubles the out of valley capacity of the existing Chair 8. By increasing the out-of-valley capacity of the Lionshead area, the • morning wait time will be significantly reduced. This should make the Lionshead portal more attractive to skiers and help to balance the out-of-valley skier numbers between the Village and Lionshead. An increase in skier numbers out of Lionshead should alleviate same of the parking pressure on the Village structure. The following chart shows the number of days the respective parking structures were filled to capacity for the last two ski seasons: N0. OF DAYS FULL '86-'87 '87--`8$ structures Village 77 76 Lionshead 9 8 Effect upon the character of the area in which the prot~osed use is to be Located including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. • The proposed Born Free Express replaces the existing Chair 8 which was built in 1972. There are no previous conflicts with the neighborhood that are known which resulted from the existing installation, and we feel that the proposal will have no additional impact on the character of the area. III, SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED USE. IV. FINDINGS The C~~~,.~~unity Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation of the requested conditional use permit is approval. We feel that the proposed Born Free Express will have a positive effect on Lionshead as well as the whole community. The lift will help to balance out-of-Valley capacity among the existing portals and will help to reaffirm Vail's position as the premier ski resort in the United States. n U • /////r///~/~i/ `svc'ioOr, ', O'C O'.:O )O QQ" OOD 000 l5 O~V) } OC O SOU ///, •/•,.////// OC` CC.~O~ c~;1c 04c)r i.>!U 191' (]~ (blp d27 O~U ~ ~O 0000 /•/s/•/r////••/ Ot<C ~:},);±.Uc7 gU0U0! OC) O UO OOC QU 00 OJD- 0000 //•////•r/•/I/r Op' O,'C 'a ;7' r)C O') O, np r70''10' J 70000 JO 0000 O ///r//••/////•//// ~ ~ ~ 1 „ i V OODU ////,/, C`, C.'('J9)' '): OU. :' Cfh''; ~'7 Oy)i..'.n O(~UU ID ////•,/,// CG 0®~' - ).^,0 ;.r ..: JO "'J ~: '70Lj t7 ~.] C; ,/ OU~~Jn ~,/ //// t'C // ' C[7GO .i%lii!/i;.r J•70c tlc4 LL! i•/l/// ~G~ ~" ~C~C~'[1~C~V ,//i )J ').:5 r70 c70 ri. /~/., 00 _ +'!,/fi///i/l~ C~`f-+}, 'J ;-Vi~.t'/•l/r ~ i/~i/ ''//~YHI///,',)f~:} V1 ~/ //•///, C"'C` - ./r/ '/, 1. /l .r ,~, ,oo'. ~ •//./,..//~/ //.. / I I`L'L.../~.. '~';'.c~}~') /ill i~iri~, S3 ~" ~1 ~'T'~ ,-,-''-T~ ;;;'~ /;'~1'1;, ~ > ~,". I -~-.-. l I ~~ • ~;; , 5 '-.;~~ia RESIJBDIVISION 01= ,//„/' ,//;„/„"„`" . ..1. )' `} 'F="1~~}"~~ LOT 7 BLOCK 2 VAIL POTATO P r///ri/„ / /'~•/'//////r//l /, ~ .-1 7 1'R)14~15]~1~~IiJ~ 7 7 ' / / / / f / : f / / / / J / / / , , odRCELA '/r//r/,,, //l/ // // ~-~ Jr r/~ ,~////i/J/l/l///r/~// J1.1!-C/-111_/11 ////J/l! / ///r /'il ' ScE SHE'e75 ~L -ii ~ /iiiia'' / , _ , , -~;; s~G - ,,, //,r/,l„r//„ „ VAIL POTATO F)4TCH I .' - `tb .~ ~~~„ ,' ,:;;a:'._, ', 1 ,/. ,r„ SECOND FILING .~~ .. yG ,. ~ /r/ r/ ..U /////// //' li 17or,~TO PATCH , y + /!~ -, , . , , :: , l ' / / / I / 1 _ / / / / / . , , // r ,~.// '~ 1.1A1 y{4.~(}1. ~ / u7~1/l.-,f-kFii/ !1[ffl Yl.c / ~ ' r / / ' / r r i / LL l/l/-//, /f///////// '~~W ' ~N1~ ~ ~J/'. J// /''}~~/~~jQ // r!r///'l rF/ /// /!//,/rl/,///////// / ~~ /r, ~KHYI(/~V'Jl,//...//Ill,/.//~//r/ {n ~ ///////,!r//////l 1, I, ~-~ ' "UNPiAF7EA ///// ~ //,/: //l,/// .. ~, r / / / r s / f / / ; / / I , / , 1 1 / / / I / - / / / I INTERSTATE 70 - t *i _ .~-. II +- '// TIC' ``:~F:a: :~:~.o:. •; SUN VAIL ~e~ ~~ .....::::~::;'-~<;_;.~ . CONDOS • • • • •' • '. g::::q:...g ... r . 7R~7UA• ~... . 4 ~ : / ~ F 7 LIONSFIE '~ ''' JAIL V ?nd. Fl TRAfTF ?11 C CIF IF, ~ ~ ..': lr F2 ~ ~ ti VAIL VILLAGE ~ ~- ~ %r~%~~' ~/ 9th. FILING , `~ ~ ~ ; ; , .1 ~ ;~1.+• WFS.r Ilk^.O v ///~~"~%'/°Yrr/////i/rl a ;:'. y`^',•`.';~• • f:~!_-.-/_`. .-~, rte' // /!, ///F///l/!///f///// /l/, .~- • • ~ i//////// / / cC / / / /// //. //. ,/, .. O.,y /, i • • ~~~{y /~/+~~ // 1// / li rr/. ///.. r//l//, ! ~ ~ ~ • •--`..f/1N/illG.'tGWf11 ///:~., '//rr/ ,/// /i//r.:r/ Q=~ y OG., • / //r //// ./l •r/r ,//////i G~ ~~~ //, // :r/ i,/ -.. -, J6 -.$ G3 J~~C' r/ ///// //., r/ /, OTC: i.`Cr_ ~~ pP ~C~ ` /:~: '7.~rB':, G,G '~.-.. .C9 /r /rf/, f,/ .i, ~w"O, - PVfS~ ,. ~®~ ~@~ '~C - rr/rr..~r - - .v... .~,, ""~^;;vG:.G E3T/ r/r//F/i// 1 / V ~G(~" C"^C^ YC,O"G 'J 'i,i. '/ ~-~.~ ~GJ ~~-_ ~V PLC C~GG ,. RO - ~~ ~C r`yl ~, G~C OXG- ~~G '~ ~y-~Ur'/ I G. ~G".. O" `,1'iC =~' ., .. C} D O~ /i f ;/ `5 JG C v C .9~71> ~ - ~ C., ^~ .., y`GO,.C .:COGG~ OC vG~~G;; i r;,, "C„ ,-~ : / JI S J4" i`5 i- ~ fF " 1{7L ~ ~ `~ C ~ ~ ~:~ OM1y ~ ~ G C7~~ i / / G " G ...~ G ;=. ~ O G . '///r -~J r, ~.. r G~ ,-, :~~/// r :r ..OG G O"O O ~ OG~~O RJ ~r. i/, ~' -, `- ~ .. C C--,.,//TRA~'X /'~ :: ~C .-"@..'` O~;G i.~'O CRGC „OG C7 ~ G~ O G JG~ / ////'%~ COCGC C C ~0. ,r/r.//:;// '~ ..,C ~. ,. ,. ~._ i- ,;~`C~O JLf O~Q:~iJ/ /r,00 „CO^~~O OG. U,OJ~ .+0~.,. . . . . I m ` 1 MORCUS SUBDIVISION ~ VAiL LIONS SAD '~ 1st. FILING , 1st. ADD. , WH~T:E R ~. :. ~, ~J T0: Planning and Environmental CvuuulSSlOn FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 23, 1988 SU&7ECT: A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 21, commonly referred to as the Vail Gateway Applicant: Palmer Development I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Ordinance No. 9 of 1988 approves a rezoning and Special Development District No. 21, the Vail Gateway. As this project has proceeded through the zoning stages and into refined design concepts, minor changes to the setbacks on the first and second levels have been requested by the applicant. The lower level retail store on the southwest corner of the project has been amended by increasing the setback from the property line in certain areas. The main retail level of the project has been amended slightly. It involves an increase of setback in some areas and a decrease in the approved setback on the northwest corner and in a small area to the southwest corner. • The proposed changes to the project also include an increase in landscape and planter area along the west elevation of the project. Street trees have been removed and two large landscape planters have been added and extend along the west elevation of the project. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for the minor amendment to Special Development District No, 21 is for approval. One drawback to the SDD process is the specificity of the final approval granted at the zoning level. As a project progresses through design changes, minor amendments are often proposed that may, in fact, enhance the project. We feel that this proposal is such a case, and that these minor amendments present no impact to the setback issue and are positive design changes to the building. U T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 23, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to Unit No. 6, Cottonwood Townhouses, 933 Red Sandstone Road. Applicant: Gail Molloy I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Cottonwood Townhouses are zoned Low Density Multiple Family. In this zone, all setbacks are 20 feet. The applicant is requesting a side setback variance of 4 feet in order to construct an addition containing approximately 200 square feet. There are 494 square feet of GRFA remaining on the Cottonwood Townhomes. The applicant states: • "We are requesting a variance from the minimum side setback (20 feet) as required for the Low Density Multiple Family district, 18,16.060, Setbacks. Due to the existing location of the Cottonwood Townhouses and the irregular nature of the side property line, an addition to the south side of Unit #6, without a variance, is only possible as a peculiar wedge shape. An addition to the creek side is inhibited by a large existing cottonwood tree which limits an addition to about 4 feet. The proposed addition to the living areas of Unit #6 would extend about 4 feet into the side setback at the worst point. The adjacent building to the south, Sandstone 70, would still be approximately 25 feet away at its closest point {see site plan). This building is about 8 feet Lower than Unit ~6 and is oriented such that their views to the creek are not affected by this addition. This addition would not adversely affect adjacent property owners' views or uses of their property. Nor does this addition adversely affect parking, traffic, public safety, utilities, light, air, nor the distribution of the population." II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Directly to the south of the Cottonwood Townhouses are the Sandstone 70 Condominiums. The Sandstone 70 Condominiums are at various places, 5 feet, 10 feet and 10.5 feet from the side property line shared by the Cottonwood Townhouses. As the applicant states, even with the four foot variance, there still remains 25+ feet between the Cottonwood Tawnhomes and the Sandstone 70 Condominiums. Because of the placement of the Sandstone 70 Condominiums and because of existing trees between the two buildings, impacts to Sandstone 70 are minimal. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Because side setbacks of the Sandstone 70 Condominiums are much smaller than that being requested by the Cottonwood Townhouses, we see no grant of special privilege by allowing the variance of 4 feet. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of populations transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. No impacts. ITT. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VATL~S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Because of the small scale of this project, the Comprehensive Plan is not applicable. IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before aranting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to . the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. r .7 That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons; The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. :7 The strict interpretation specified regulation would privileges enjoyed by the the same district. VT. STAFF RECOMMENDATYON or enforcement of the deprive the applicant of owners of other properties in The staff of the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested side setback variance. We find that the adjacent property owners will not be adversely affected. Because of the wedge shape of the required setback, we feel that to grant this variance would not be a grant of special privilege. • ,,. 7 • Y~ h • Y 'a O ~~ _~, `~~ ~~' ~ ~ r ''` r ~p ~ s ' ~~~` / ~ 1v ~C,I ~ - ~ 0 ~ (/ \ l ~ 2 ~ d X _ ~ ~II ~ ~ ~ }r ~ ~ ~ U ~~ ^ ~ 1 ,... ~ ~ t~°' sT M = ~y _ ~ o ~ ~4 s- ~'~ ~ ~ `~ ~~ I ~ ~ ~-_ ~~ { ,~ ~, -; ~' ~ ~ ~i ~ d ~ ~ N ; . -~v ~.q ,~ ~ r r _ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ .~~ -- a~ ~ } o ` ~ a ~.~ ~ ~•` _.~,.. ~ - -~ ~ ~ + ~ ~'~ o~~ ~~3 ~~~~ ~~~~, -`l~ ,i~\ ~.: y i ~ .~ a / v -~ ~n _a ~~-#- ..a -~ -' .j`'s~`.. J :..,_.A,..~~,..r.,....~..,~,~.r~..~~M.,,.~. fir ~Q , S ~._: Planning and Environmental Commission June 13, 1988 REVISED AGENDA 2:00 PM Site Visits 3:44 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of May 23, 1988 2. Preliminary review of exterior alterations: a. Extension of application for Vail 21 Building b. Up the Creek Restaurant, Creekside Building c. Gorsuch Building d. Hill Building 3. A request for an exterior alteration and a setback variance in order to construct an addition to the Lionshead Center Building. Applicant: Lionshead Center Condominium Association 4. A request for an exterior alteration in order to enclose a deck at the Gorsuch Building, 263 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Dave Gorsuch ~. A request for a conditional use permit for an addition to the information booth at the Village parking structure. Applicant: Town of Vail 6. A request for a side setback variance to construct an addition to Unit 6, Cottonwood Townhomes. Applicant: Gail Molloy To be tabled 7. A request for setback variances and a stream setback variance in order to construct a residence on Lot l0, Block 1, Vail Village lst Filing. Applicant: Robert Gunn Withdrawn by 8 • A request for a conditional use permit in order to applicant construct a ski race/timer building an Parcel C, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates To be tabled 9. A request to amend Section 18.44 of the Municipal Code (Special Development District}. Applicant: Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission June 13, 1988 • PRESENT Diana Donovan Pam Hopkins Grant Riva Sid Schultz Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tam Braun Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack ABSENT Bryan Hobbs Peggy osterfoss The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of May 23. A correction was made to the minutes, and they were approved 4-0~1 with Pam abstaining. 2. This item was delayed until the end. 3. A request for an exterior alteration and a setback variance in order to construct an addition to the Lionshead Center Building . Applicant: Lionshead Center Condo Assoc. Rick Pylman first explained the exterior alteration request and showed site plans. He stated that the proposal was in compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan design considerations on the south and north elevations. However, the staff had reservations concerning the encroachment and development on the west end of the building. He discussed zoning considerations and stated that the staff recommended denial of the application, although they had strong support for the additions to the north and south. As far as the setback variance was concerned, the staff recommended denial of that also, and felt that just a desire for more retail on the west corner was not proof of physical hardship. Tom Briner, architect on the project, showed a model and explained that it was necessary for all the parties involved to come to an agreement, and that some concessions had to be made to some retailers. He pointed out that the last time this was presented, two issues were raised: 1) unvaried eave line and building edge. Now there is 30~ glass, which could be changed to 100 glass for more visual attraction for pedestrians. 2} A canopy which extended over the property line and was a problem to the Fire Department. Briner stated that the staff was concerned with trees. He said that each time he did C7 . something to appease the staff, he was told he had to go back to the persons involved. He felt that he had satisfied the requirements. Tom stated that Larry Benway, a local landscaper, had told Tom that the large trees would not grow further, so in lieu of trees, Tom suggested putting "something aesthetic" in the corner. The stair would be broadened to help feature the children~s center. A representative from the Younger Generation stated that she liked the trees, but did not feel it was necessary to have grass on that corner. She added that for years the area with the grass has not been taken care of and became a place people threw trash in the summer and snow was plowed into the area in the winter. Grant stated that he was in general agreement with the staff regarding improvements on the north and south sides. His concern was on the west side. He felt that this was a corridor to the mountain and was also concerned about the views from the north being affected. Briner answered that he did not feel there would be an effect on the view from Bart 'n Yeti's. VA was not opposed to the construction on the west end. Grant stated that if the addition did appear to keep an opening between the Lionshead Center Building and the ticket booths at this time, there could still be a problem when Vail Associates added onto their building. Briner stated that if he could not do the west corner, he could not do the building. Grant felt it would be nice to have some sort of landscaping on the west end. He added that it had been mentioned that this area was also used for snow storage, and wondered if this meant there could be a problem with snow storage. Rick replied that with continued development, the Town must truck more snow. Diana stated that each time the Lionshead Center Building was brought before the Board, they were closer to a solution. She still felt the need far large trees on the end of the building to buffer the building. She added that if the i0 foot setback was respected, large trees could remain. Briner answered that this was not as simple as it seemed. He felt that perhaps trees could be planted toward the north. Diana said that there would still be a large building, and Briner answered that it would be stepped down to change the scale. • Diana liked what was to be done with the sculpture of the skiers, and felt the area near the popcorn wagon should be left . open because of congestion. She felt there should be some landscaping near the building. Oscar Tang, officer of the condo association and owner of the commercial part of the building, stated that he was only a part time resident and not a professional, but felt he might be able to give a different perspective. He stated that the building was sound economically, so there was no economic drive on his part to remodel. Tang stated that something must be done with Lionshead, especially the Lionshead Center Building. He felt that what was really key was the west end of the building. He pointed out that in Europe and in Vail Village, pavement went all the way to the buildings, and it worked well. He said the object of the sub-area concept X12 was the ability of people to relate to the buildings. The west end was a real challenge because there were no shops or windows to relate to. He felt the proposal was the correct solution. Tang stated that he was willing to replace the trees 2 to 1 anywhere the staff desired, but felt these particular trees did not belong on the west end. He had found he could bring in mature trees and would place them anywhere on the mall. Tang stated that if the west end could not be done, the project "was dead." He added that the ski school really needed to expand and this was a major part of the expansion. Diana looked for a place to put "significant green space" . somewhere near the building. Estacio Cortina, president of the condo association, said he felt the proposal was a win/win situation. It would benefit Lionshead, Oscar Tang, and the condo owners. He stated that the association had given him a deadline (June 1, 1988) to get approval. He felt the entrance to Lionshead was more important than a few trees. Diana stated that she was not saying that the trees as they now stand must remain, but felt another tree in another location could work. Tom Briner showed where other tree grates could be located with heights of 22' - 25'. Sid Schultz stated that he liked Tang's comparison of Vail Village and Lionshead and added that that in itself says things must be done differently in Lionshead. He did not see a real hardship to grant a setback variance, and felt it would set a precedent. He felt there was still room for compromise. Pam said the situation reminded her of the Golden Peak House and stated that for the good of the community, there must be compromise. She felt that if rules were followed completely all of the time, nothing would get done. She felt the existing planter looked "anemic" and did not like the split rail fence. She felt the plaza still needed a lot more done to it. . Briner said that possibly one problem with Lionshead was that there were setbacks which made a sort of wasteland. Jim Viele asked Rick what input had been gathered from the Town Council and Rick responded that the Council was asked for permission for the Lionshead Center to proceed with their application since it included Town land. The Council did give permission, but was concerned about the west end. Jim stated that since the Board looked at the proposal about a year ago, it had, in general, improved. He stated that this building was as visible as any building in Lionshead. He felt the public spaces were not planned nor controlled in Lionshead, and pointed out that Vail Village did have vast expanses of hardness. Jim felt the proposal came very close to something he would support. He felt it was most important to add large trees near the stairs on the west end and felt this would do a lot to offset the removal of the trees to the east of the stairs. Also, with the addition of other landscaping, he could support the proposal. Diana asked if the underground expansion could be proposed without the expansion above ground, and Briner reminded her that she wanted the tree roots to go all the way down. Nancy Nottingham, VA employee in charge of the Children's Center, pointed out that one thing to be considered was that they had a need for mall frontage. Another item to be considered was a change in the entrance to Alfie Packer's. She said the underground space was not as important to her. She was hoping the building would go further south, and possibly put the adult ski school downstairs and put the children upstairs. Pam moved to approve the request for the exterior alteration, Grant seconded. The discussion continued. Viele felt there should be some fairly detailed discussion involving the landscaping, and stated that he would like to hear a more specific proposal that responds to the concerns of the PEC. Peter recommended that the PEC see a revised landscape plan and Jim agreed. Peter added that when we attempt to redesign a project, it is always beneficial to take bring back the revisions to ensure that everyone understood the changes to be made. Sid stated that he would like to table the issue in order to see the revised landscape plan. Pam stated that she would withdraw the motion, but wanted the applicant to know that there was no problem with the building. Sid moved and Diana seconded to table this issue to June 27 or July 11 upon timely receipt of revisions. The vote was 5-D in . favor of tabling. Peter summarized that the only problem left to deal with was the landscaping of the west end, and the PEC would like to see a revised landscape plan. 4. A request for an exterior alteration in order to enclose a deck at the Gorsuch Building, 263 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Dave Gorsuch Tom Braun reviewed the request and the Urban Design Considerations, stating that the staff recommended approval. Part of the deck remained open. Diana felt that to enclose the deck was contrary to everything the PEC and Town normally did. She felt it would take away most of the relief and leave only a token relief, it seemed wrong. Tom replied that the staff discussed the issue of what happened at that elevation and also the fact that they could not find any reason to deny the request. Beth Levine, representing the architect, explained that the plane surface from the deck was not attractive and felt that with articulation the elevation would improve. Grant moved and Pam seconded to approve the request. The vote was 4-1 with Diana voting against the motion. 5. A request for a conditional use permit far an addition to the information booth at the Village parking structure. Applicant: Town of Vail Peter explained the request and showed elevations and plans for the booth. He added that the Marketing Committee had recommended this be done immediately to help with marketing. The staff recommendation was far approval. Jim Viele abstained from comment on this issue. Diana felt the need for flowers or shrubs of same kind. Jim Morter, the architect, showed a model and said potted plants had been proposed to help cut down the glare. There would be no west facing glass. A construction fence would be placed around the area. Diana suggested waiting until after the summer tourist season to begin construction. Ron Phillips felt the impact on the site would not be that great if the construction were started immediately. Diana felt it would be confusing to tourists and wondered if anything would be gained by starting the project during the summer tourist season. Grant stated that this had been dragging on for so long, it would be good to get it constructed. Pam agreed with Diana in that not a whale lot would be gained by completing the expansion in mid-August. Grant moved and Pam seconded to approve the structure. The vote was 4-0-1 with Jim Viele abstaining. • • 6. A recruest for a side setback variance to construct an addition to Unit 6, Cottonwood Townhomes. Applicant: Gail Malloy Betsy reminded the Board that this project had first been considered at the previous meeting, and that a revised improvement survey had been done. Further, the request had been changed so that the request was still for a 4 foot setback, but the addition toward the street had been eliminated. Gaii Malloy stated that she had talked with Ross and had worked out the details concerning the Sandstone 70 Condo concerns. Grant moved and Sid seconded to approve the request per the staff memo. The vote was 4-0-Z with Diana abstaining. 7. A request for setback variances and a stream setback variance in order to construct a residence on Lot 10, Block 1. Vail Village lst Filing. Applicant: Robert Gunn The applicant asked to table until 6/27. Diana moved and Pam seconded to table until 6/27. The vote was 5-0 8. This item was withdrawn. 9. Special Development Code Chances Tom Braun asked to table until 6/27. Pam moved and Sid seconded to table until 6/27. The vote was 5-0. 2. Preliminary review of exterior alteration applications: a. 90 days - Vail 21 Building b. 60 days - Up the Creek Restaurant c. 60 days - Gorsuch Building d. 60 days - Hill Building • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 13, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core T in order to partially enclose an existing deck at the Gorsuch Building, 281 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: David Gorsuch I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED REQUEST This request involves a fairly modest addition to the Gorsuch Building. As proposed, an existing deck at the east end of the building along Gore Creek Drive would be partially enclosed. The enclosure would encompass approximately 130 square feet of new retail floor area. The space would be enclosed through the introduction of a very transparent wall between the existing deck and the roof overhang. Materials and detailing are all consistent with the existing Structure. II. REVIEW CRITERIA i Any proposal that adds enclosed floor area to a building in the Village core is reviewed with respect to the Urban Design Guide Plan. This review entails both the Guide Plan (relationship to any sub-area concepts) and the Design Considerations. Because there are no relevant sub- area concepts, this review is limited to those applicable Design Considerations. In addition, standard zoning considerations will be addressed in this memo. TTI. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Because of the second floor location and relatively innocuous nature of this praposai, few of the nine design considerations are directly relevant to this proposal. These considerations are the following: 1. Pedestrianization. Pedestrianization is not affected by this proposal. 2. Vehicular penetration. Vehicular penetration into the core area should not be increased as a result of this request. 3. Streetscape framework. Given the second floor location for this proposal, there is no effect on streetscape framework. 4. Street enclosure. The relationship between the Gorsuch Building and the A & D Building is slightly affected by this infill. However, the change is not considered a negative one given the width of Gaye Creek Drive and the two story height of both buildings. 5. Street edge. Street edge remains unchanged as a result of this proposal. 6. Building height. The infill does not change the building height because it occurs within the existing roof line. 7. Views. Views are unaffected by this proposal. 8. Service and Delivery. The 130 additional square feet of retail space will have a negligible effect upon service and delivery functions to this building. 9. Sun/Shade. There is na effect on sun/shade resulting from this proposal. IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The only relevant zoning matter concerns the additional parking demands generated by this expansion. The 130 square feet equates to .43 spaces. This demand will be met by payment into the Town parking fund prior to the issuance of a building permit. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend approval of this infill proposal. While the second floor deck does provide some relief to the north elevation of this building, the transparent nature of the infill will be a positive improvement to the streetscape in this area. Toy Planning and Environmental Commission FROM. Community Development Department DATE: June~3, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance in order to construct an addition to the Lionshead Center Building. Applicant: Lionshead Center Condominium Association I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Lionshead Center Condominium Association, in conjunction with an exterior alteration request, is requesting a setback variance of five feet at the west end of the building. The exterior alteration program consists of retail expansion to the north and to the west. The expansion on the north and south is detailed in the Urban Design Guideplan, and, therefore, is allowed a waiver of the setback requirement on the north elevation. The proposed expansion on the west elevation, however, is not shown on the Lionshead Urban Design Guideplan. Therefore, the 10-foot setback is a requirement for this west property line. The proposal consists of a five-foot encroachment into the required 10- foot setback over a span of approximately 20 feet. The area . of the building expansion currently contains a large landscaped area of mature trees. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the reguested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The existing landscaping at the west end of Lionshead Center Building provides not only a buffer to the end of the building, but also provides a transition area from the formal planting of the Lionshead Mall into the natural environment of Vail Mountain. We feel that this landscaping is important and provides a very vital function to the Lionshead Mall and its transition into the ski lift operations area of Vail Mountain. We feel that the encroachment of the building begins to narrow this transition and the view corridor between the Lionshead Center Building and the Gondola • Building. The decree to which relief from the strict and Literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this tide without grant of special privilege. The Community Development Department feels that the desire of the applicant to provide and present a retail element on this corner is not an adequate reason to grant a variance. Granting this request would be a special privilege without adequate proof of physical hardship. The Lionshead Urban Design Guideplan clearly shows the opportunity to expand the Lionshead Center Building to the north and to the south, but, specifically, shows the landscaping that currently exists at the west end of the Lionshead Center Building to remain. We feel that the Urban Design Plan designates this for a good reason, and that the desire for retail expansion does not provide significant argument to prevent this to be a grant of special privilege. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of populations transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The main pedestrian corridor from the Lionshead parking structure to the gondola and to Chair 8 carries pedestrians across the northside of the Lionshead Center Building, around the west and down to Vail Mountain. We feel that it is important to provide a view as soon as possible as the pedestrian approaches this area. Although the building has been stepped back several times to allow some opening around this corner, we feel that if the building respected the setback on the west end, and if some of the existing landscaping was retained, the building would provide a much better opening and a much more pleasant experience for the pedestrian coming from the Mall to the chairlifts. III. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VAIL'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IV. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. • .~ V. FINDINGS The Plannina and Environmental C~~~u«ission shall make the following findings before arantina a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the • same zone. The strict interpretation specified regulation would privileges enjoyed by the the same district. or enforcement of the deprive the applicant of owners of other properties in IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for the five-foot setback variance is for denial. We feel there is no legitimate hardship for pursuing this variance. We believe that the Lionshead Urban Design Guideplan shows this area as a landscape pocket for good reason, and we believe that this building should respect the 10-foot setback and retain some of this landscape planting as proposed in the Urban Design Guideplan. U TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 13, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in order to construct an addition to the Lionshead Center Building. Applicant: Lionshead Center Condominium Association T. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED REQUEST The Lionshead Center Condominium Association is proposing exterior alterations to the Lionshead Center Building located at the east entrance to the Lionshead Ma11, The request entails a one-story retail expansion along the north elevation of the Lionshead Center Building that then wraps around the northwest corner of the building and includes a portion of the west elevation. Above the retail expansion on the west elevation is a one-and-a-half story residential expansion of approximately nine-hundred square feet. This expansion in conjunction with a small enlargement of the manager's unit on the Mall level creates a total residential GRFA increase of 1,152 square . feet but no additional units. On the south elevation of the building, the application proposes a partial enclosure of the existing deck for restaurant and retail expansion. The amount of deck to be enclosed far restaurant expansion is approximately 2,000 square feet, leaving approximately 1,700 square feet of deck still open on the south elevation of the project. Below the deck on the south elevation will be a fourteen- foot building expansion that will house the Vail Associates Lionshead Children's Center operations. This fourteen-foot building expansion runs approximately 90 feet along the southern elevation of the building starting at the southwestern corner. The commercial Core IT zone district requires 10-foot setbacks from property lines. This required setback may be waived if there are improvements that are shown in the Urban Design Guideplan. The Urban Design Guideplan for the Lionshead Center Building does recognize the retail expansion on the north elevation. This proposal will require a setback variance because of the five-foot encroachment of the western elevation into this required 10-foot setback. The setback variance will be addressed in a separate accompanying memorandum. • The proposed building expansion to the west elevation of the building will require removal of a large area of mature landscaping. The applicant has proposed several planter additions to the public areas of Lionshead Mall, as well as a significant improvement to the sculpture at the east mall entry, as mitigation for the removal of the existing landscape. II. COMPLIANCE FOR THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDEPLAN FOR LIONSHEAD This proposal relates directly to Sub-Area Concepts No. 11 and No. 12 of the Vail/Lionshead Urban Design Guideplan. The plan refers to the first-floor retail expansion on the south elevation and also presents the opportunity for a personal deck enclosure and expansion on the north elevation of the building. The following two paragraphs are the description of Sub- Area No. 11 and No. 12 taken directly from the Urban Design Guideplan. No. 11: "Commercial expansion (one-story) to increase pedestrian emphasis, scale of Mall, and improve shades on facades and accessibility." • No. 12: "Opportunity exists for expansion of buildings, arcades, awnings, etc. to improve scale, shelter, and appearance of commercial facades." The proposal on the southern and northern elevations relates very well to the Vail/Lionshead Urban Design Guideplan. We feel that these expansion will be positive contributions to the Mall and from an urban design viewpoint will contribute to the vitality and pedestrianization of Lionshead. The improvements proposed to the western elevation of the Lionshead Center Building are not detailed in the Urban Design Guideplan. These improvements will necessitate the removal of a large area of mature landscaping, which is of considerable concern to the staff. III. COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN gESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VATL/LIONSHEAD The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and the considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or distracts from the overall intent of the Design Considerations. . Height and Massing The Urban Design Guideplan's architectural guidelines recommends that building expansions be limited to one- story unless a two-story addition is specifically called out in the Guideplan. With respect to the praposed areas of expansion, the south and north elevations certainly address the concepts discussed in the guidelines. The west elevation, two-and-a-half story addition, does create massing concerns. The current building lacatian, in concert with the existing landscaping, provide a buffered yet open view and transition area from the Mall to the Mountain. The loss of the buffering landscape area and the addition of the massing on the western end of the building narrow this area considerably, particularly as approached from the east mall entry. Urban Design Considerations A great deal of this proposed expansion has nothing but positive impacts with regard to urban design considerations to the Lionshead Mall. Treatment of the west elevation has raised some serious urban design issues with the staff. Expansion of the western end of the Lionshead Center Building eliminates a large, mature • landscape area that serves to reinforce the transition from the hardscape of the Mail's plaza to the Vail Mountain environment. We feel that this existing landscaping is an important feature in this area of the Mall and we are very uncomfortable with its proposed treatment. The design of the building in this area, stepping back several times around the corner, reflects the concept of this area between the building and the Gondola as a major gateway into, and out of, the Ma11. While we encourage the stepping concept, the staff feels that the degree of encroachment of the current proposal is still too great. Roofs Roof elements proposed in the one-story element expansion, as well as the deck enclosure in back, consist of a 3.5 to 12 pitch. We feel that the roof pitch and the roof connection to the existing building are well-designed architecturally and are in compliance with the guideline as outlined. Facades-Walls/Structures The guidelines for facades and walls includes concrete, glass, metal, stucco and woad as the primary materials to be utilized in Lianshead. The applicant is proposing to utilize concrete, glass, metal and the as predominant materials. We feel that these materials meet the guidelines, yet should be reviewed by the Design Review Board as a final determination for the architectural compliance. The retail displays highlighted by a large expanse of window is again encouraged through the design guidelines. Decks and Patios This proposal involves Sub-Area Concept No. 12, which encourages a partial enclosure of the existing deck on the north elevation of the Lionshead Center Building. It also encourages continuation of utilization of a part of that deck because of its ideal exposure to the mountain. The staff is comfortable with this proposal and the ratio of enclosure of the outdoor deck. We feel that the outdoor deck on the corner provides vitality in its exposure to passing pedestrians on the west, as well as tremendous exposure to the mountain on the south. The staff is comfortable with the amount of enclosure on the eastern end of the deck. Accent Elements These elements are best addressed at the Design Review Board level. Landscape Elements There are a number of landscape elements proposed for this application. The first and foremost consideration in the mind of the staff is the elimination of the mature landscaping at the west end of the Lionshead Center Building. We feel that this landscaping provides an important buffer to the building, it helps indicate the transition area from the Mall to the mountain, and, as the largest and most mature landscaping within the Mall, is an important feature to maintain. The proposal, while indicating the removal of this landscaping, does include several landscape elements that will be added to the Lionshead Mall area. At the west end of the Lionshead Center Building, just west of the staircase, the existing landscaping will be recontured into three planters that step down. Current landscape plans shows approximately thirty trees located within these three planters. The proposal also includes an expansion of the planter just north of the VA ticket office. Two new planters between the Lionshead Center Building and the existing planter north of the ticket office, additional landscaping to be added to the existing planters just north of the north elevation of the Lionshead Center Building, and major . upgrading of the landscape and plaza area immediately surrounding the skier sculpture at the east entrance of the Lionshead Mall. While staff is supportive of these improvements, with minor amendments as suggested by the Public Works Dept., with exception to the sculpture landscape improvements, they are fairly minor amendments to the Mall. IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS There are two zoning considerations relative to this application. Number one is the encroachment to the 10- foot required setback at the west end of the building. This encroachment is addressed in a separate memorandum and is accompanying this proposal. The second zoning consideration which is relative to this proposal is with respect to parking. Additional parking demand created by the retail and residential expansions will be assessed and levied based on square footage added as outlined in the zoning code. Total figures for the level of expansion will be determined and resolved by the applicant prior to issuance of any building permit for new construction. IV STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is generally supportive of the proposed redevelopment. We recognize that the existing Lionshead Center Building leaves much to be desired in an architectural and urban design context. The retail expansions in both the north and south elevations are positive contributions to the Lionshead area. The landscape improvements proposed by the applicant are also positive improvements to the Lionshead area. The landscape improvements do not, however, resolve our concerns with the treatment of the west elevation. We feel that the existing landscaping provides a better urban design solution to that portion of the Lionshead Ma11 than the proposed architectural features of the two-and-a-half story addition. While the improvements made to the existing landscaping in the Mall are positive, we feel they do not mitigate the loss of the landscaping at the west end of the Lionshead Center Building. The Community Development Department must rec~l~~~end denial of this project as it is proposed. We feel that a better solution must be reached for the west elevation of this building before we can support this redevelopment. • C: To: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 13, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow an addition to the information booth at the Village parking structure. Applicant: Town of Vail I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE For several reasons, it is proposed that the existing in- formation booth at the Town of Vail Transportation Center be expanded and improved. Those reasons include; 1. The need to refurbish a run-down facility. 2 . The need to acc~,~u~~odate the increased traffic and services at this facility. n 3. The need to provide basic services which were never provided from the outset. 4. The need to provide a temporary solution, until a new Visitor Information Center is constructed. The expansion will add 338 sq. ft. for a total of 507 sq. ft. and will provide: 1. An adequate counter/storage space for two people. 2. Adequate display space. 3. A sitting area, where visitors can comfortably review materials, and discuss with the staff all of Vail's offerings. 4. A shaded terrace, with views down Bridge Street to the ski mountain. 5. A refurbishing of the existing facility. The new construction is designed to be built in modules, remote from the site. The modules can be brought to the site and placed, reducing the amount of construction time at the site. The new construction will replicate the existing structure in • detail and components, and hopefully will be an exciting, attractive element in Vail's marketing efforts. Pedestrian access will be maintained on all four sides of the booth. • IT. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the C~,~u~~unity Development Department rec~a~u«ends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factor: A. Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Expanded and more effective marketing for the non-skiing months has been in the fore-front of community issues during the past year. Anew visitors center remains in under the council's consideration with regaard to marketing and increasing visitors. The purpose of choosing a site for the visitors center is in progress and the proposal to expand the existing information booth represents a temporary improvement until the permanent center can be constructed. The effect of the use of light and air. distribution of population, transportation facilitiess utilities, schools. parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. . The expanded information booth will have minimal impact upon the Village Transportation Center. There is an adequate site to accommodate the expanded information booth while maintaining pedestrian access around the structure. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to, congestion. automotive and pedestrian safety and conveniences traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Traffic patterns will not be changed due to the proposal. The existing pull off from the frontage road will accommodate the short term parking required for this facility. Snow removal may become more difficult and may require hand removal. U Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. There will be no change in the character of the area all materials will match those existing. III. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLXCABLE TO THE PROPOSED USE. TV. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. No EIR required. V. FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approval based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with . the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance, VT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the conditional use permit to expand the visitors information booth in the Village Transportation Center. This small expansion should allow for increased services to our guests, especially with regard to making immediate reservations for activities. We continue to feel that a new permanent visitors center will be a large benefit to the community in the long term. U ~4 ~_ 5 ~_ o~ ~~~ Planning and Environmental Commission June 27, 1988 1:15 PM Site Visits . 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of June 13. 2. A request for an exterior alteration and a setback variance in order to construct an addition to the Lionshead Center Building. Applicant: Lionshead Center Condo Association 3. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to a duplex located at Lot 2, Gore Creek Meadows, Filing 1. Applicant: Firooz E. Zadeh 4. A request for a side setback variance, a parking variance and for a density variance in order to construct an addition to the Tivoli Lodge located on Lot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5th Filing. Applicant: Robert Lazier 5. A request for a s' a setback variance in order to construct an ition to a home at 87 Rockledge Road, Lo 2, Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing. Applicant:a Mary Noel Lamont 6. A request for a front setback variance to allow the construction of an addition to a residence at 153 Beaver Dam Road, Lot 37, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: John Wisenbaker and Lynn Hamilton 7. A request for setback variances and a stream setback variance in order to construct a residence on Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village lst. Applicant: Robert Gunn 8. A request to amend Section 18.40 of the Municipal Code (Special Development Districts}. Applicant: Town of Vail 9. Review of Gore Creek Improvements Applicant: Town of Vail l0. Note: At the Town Council work session tomorrow, June 28, at 2:30 PM, there will be a discussion of the creation of a Town of Vail Environmental Commission. • Planning and Environmental Commission June 27, 1988 PRESENT Diana Donovan Pam Hopkins Sid Schultz Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Tom Braun Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Larry Eskwith Betsy Rosolack MEMBERS ABSENT Bryan Hobbs Peggy Osterfoss Grant Riva The meeting was called to order by Jim viele, chairman. 1. Approval of minutes of June 13. Diana moved and Pam seconded to approve the minutes. Vote was 4-0 in favor. 2. A request for an exterior alteration and a setback variance in order to construct an addition to the Lionshead Center Building. Applicant: Lionshead Center Condo Association • Rick Pylman explained the proposal. ~He explained that the building had been pulled back, and that now there was no need for a setback variance, merely an exterior alteration. Rick showed the revised site plans and landscape plans. He added that the applicant had also changed the design at the Skiers Sculpture, but that the staff preferred the original design. The new proposal showed only the addition of trees in this area. Tom Briner, representing the applicant, showed a sketch of the west end of the building with changes. Pam Hopkins expressed appreciation for the changes made to the building. Sid felt that the applicant had addressed all of his concerns. Diana Donovan wanted to pass along to the DRB her feeling that most of the trees should be evergreens, or else if not, that Christmas lights be placed in the trees in the winter, Jim Viele agreed with Diana. He also added that he felt the plan represented a significant improvement. Rick asked the board how they felt about the design at the Skiers Sculpture. They seemed to feel that just the addition of the trees was O.K. Diana suggested encouraging the DRB to soften the area with the addition of grass. Diana moved to approve the request for an exterior alteration per the staff memo with the direction to DRB to request • evergreens or lights and to soften the area around the Skiers Sculpture. The motion was seconded by Pam and the vote was 4-0 in favor. 3. A rectuest for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to a duplex located at Lot 2, Gore Creek Meadows Filing 1. Applicant: Firooz E. Zadeh Kristan Pritz presented the request. The staff recommendation was for approval, as it was felt it was not a grant of special privilege. A similar type of variance was granted the owner of the other side of the duplex. Diana moved and Pam seconded to approve the setback variance per the staff memo and the finding concerning strict interpretation. The vote was 4-0 in favor. 4. A request for a side setback variance, a parking variance and for a density variance in order to construct an addition to the Tivoli Lodge located on Lot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5th Filing. Applicant: Robert Lazier Tom Braun explained the requests and showed site plans and elevations. He reviewed the criteria, explaining the inter- relatedness of the requests. Tom then discussed the criteria and findings, the related policies to the Comprehensive Plan, and the concern about valet parking.` He explained that the staff was concerned about the proposal for many reasons. They felt that the mass could be reduced, thereby minimizing impacts on adjacent properties and the public walk way. Another concern was the interim and permanent parking solution. Tom stated that the Action Plan recommended a "small infill" in this area. It was felt that the level of development proposed and the number of variances involved outweighed the benefits, and the staff recommended denial of the requests. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that the plan envisioned by the Master Plan proposed parking on the P-2 Lot and Jay felt that these spaces were actually on site, as they were owned by the Tivoli. He mentioned that the applicant could have requested an SDD, but without the SDD, many variances were needed. Jay stated that the purpose of the proposal was to up-grade the family-owned lodge. He stated that one purpose of the Action Plan was to increase the number of accommodation units. He felt that the Town needed to encourage proposals that added more hotel rooms. He disagreed with the staff. Jay added that the parking demand was simply not there. He also added that the view impacted was not sacred. Jay felt that the proposal modified views, but did not eliminated them. Jay discussed the pedestrian way, stating that he felt the • resulting enclosure of the path was pleasing. He pointed out that the Master Plan indicated 2-1/2 stories along Hanson Ranch Road. Jahn Perkins, the architect, showed a "view board" and a model. Tom Braun responded that the Master Plan did not mandate 2 stories along Hanson Ranch Road and further that it did not imply development rights. Tom also stated that if the SDD process had been employed, it would not have eliminated the other issues. He added that the meeting room was referred to as a "meeting room" by the proponents. Rosalie and Phillip Lier, who lived in Unit 5 of Villa Valhalla, felt that no matter what was constructed in the proposed area, it would affect their property adversely. Frank Tutt, president of Villa Valhalla, stated that he represented 14 owners and also the Garden of the Gods Club and these people were opposed to the expansion. They were also opposed to the parking structure and felt that a four-story structure wauld cast a shadow on a very popular walkway. Mr. Davison, also of the Valhalla, felt that there were an excessive number of , variances involved in the request. David Broshonsky, a land planner, listed several points in opposition to the proposal. He felt that the applicant was using the Master Plan which stated "a small infill" to place a building that was too high. He suggested one story. He stated that upgrading the family lodge had nothing to do with the . expansion. David questioned the safety of the valet parking. He added that there was no agreement between the five property owners of Tract P-2 to build a parking structure. David pointed out that the Tivoli at present already had twice as many units as they were permitted. Rosalie Lier spoke again, stating that one reason they had purchased their unit was because of the view. Joe Fowler, of #10 Vail Trails East, stated that he had not been informed of the parking structure on tract P-2. He would not be in favor of the structure, and felt the project should be denied until the parking problem was solved. Diana was concerned about the proposed parking solution. She felt the valet parking was dangerous and a major problem. Diana also was concerned about the pedestrian scale along the pedestrian way. She felt the number of units should be reduced, and the project scaled down. Diana felt the whole project must be done at once, and that it was important to see the whole proposal. Bob Lazier stated that he would not sell the units, because it was intended to remain a family lodge. Sid pointed out that this many variances had been granted when SDD's are proposed, and wandered why the project was not brought in as an SDD. He mentioned that the Golden Peak House requested many variances, • but was supported by the staff. Sid felt the big problem was parking and wanted to see the ownership of P-2 resolved before . voting on the issue. He also wanted to see drawings of the parking structure. Regarding the west elevation of the addition, he felt some compromise could be reached. Pam agreed with Diana with regard to the need for the whole proposal to be built at once. Pam felt rooms in the existing structure could have been combined to upgrade the lodge, rather than adding some new rooms. Jim Viele felt the prime issue was parking and felt he could not support the requests as proposed. He felt that he could support some density increase, but did not feel that the Action Plan and Comprehensive Plan mandated to units or 2-1/2 stories. Jay Peterson asked to table the proposal 30 days. Diana moved and Pam seconded to table for 30 days. The vote was 4-0. 5. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to a home at 84 Rockledge Road on Lot 2, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Marv Noel Lamont Betsy Rosolack explained the request and showed site plans. Bill Post represented the applicant and answered questions. Pam moved and Diana seconded to approve the request per the staff memo. The vote was 4-0. LJ 6. A request for a front setback variance to allow the construction of an addition to a residence at 153 Beaver Dam Road, Lot 37, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicants; John Wisenbaker and Lvnn Hamilton Betsy Rosolack explained the request, stating the staff recommended approval. Diana wondered why the garage was not part of the proposal, and Mike Tennant, representing the applicant, replied that the owners' plans had simply changed. Sid moved and Pam seconded to approve the request per the staff memo. The vote was 4--0. 7. A request for setback variances and a stream setback variance in order to construct a residence on Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Robert Gunn Jim Morter asked to table this item, but there were people in the audience who had come to hear this, and it was felt an explanation would be good. Tom explained the request. Elli Caulkins, a neighbor, said she seriously questioned the appropriateness of the requests and felt it would place a serious strain on the lot, it would invade the stream setback and wondered at what point the change could be made to single • family structures in duplex zoning. Tom explained the process. Jim Morter, architect, showed a site plan and explained that he was not asking for additional density, but in fact was reducing the density with the proposal by 400 square feet. Diana moved and Pam seconded to table, not to any specific date. The vote was 4-0. 8. A rectuest to amend Section 18.40 of the Municipal Code (Special Development Districts). Applicant: Town of Vail Tom and Larry Eskwith explained the draft ordinance amending the SDD section of the code. A discussion followed concerning underlying zone districts, and Diana stated that her main concerns were underlying zone districts and the question of who should represent condo associations. Jim moved and Sid seconded to recommend approval to the Town Council. The vote was 3-1 for approval with Diana against. 9. A review of Gore Creek stream improvements was presented by Pat Dodson. • Grant was appointed to be the PEC representative on the DRB for July, August and September. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 27, 19$8 RE: A request for an exterior alteration in order to construct an addition to the Lionshead Center Building Applicant: Lionshead Center Condominium Association At the PEC meeting of June 13, 19$$, the Lionshead Center Building proposal was tabled in order to allow the applicant to resolve the issue of appropriate landscaping at the west end of the building. The applicant has submitted to the staff a revised landscaping plan far our review and comment. The building has been pulled back five feet at the west end, no longer encroaching into the required setback. In summary, the plan involves adding four 20' - 25' cottonwood trees, two of which would be in the public area of the mall, two of which would directly buffer the west end of the building. In addition to these two cottonwood trees, there would be a planter stepped down along the staircase of the western end of the building that would contain aspen and juniper ground cover. On the other side of the staircase, toward the Gondola Building, the planter has been redesigned in a less formal manner and includes a mix of aspen and spruce trees. The landscape proposal for the sculpture area at the east mall entry has been amended to the point where the only change proposed in that area is the addition of spruce trees to the existing landscaping behind the wall area. In the initial staff review of this proposal, staff made comments and suggestions. We believe that the original proposal for redevelopment of the sculpture area at the east entry was a good design, and a positive contribution to that area. We feel that we should maintain the original proposal that included a slight relocation of the sculpture and the adding of a grassy area. At the west elevation of the building, we feel that the fact that the building has been pulled back five feet, no longer requiring a setback variance, and the addition of the landscape elements do present an appropriate buffer. We feel the design is more compatible with the Urban Design Guide Plan suggestions for the west end of this building. We do have minor location and species suggestions: We feel that some evergreen could be introduced along the face of the building, but agree that that level of detail is more of,a Design Review Board issue than a Planning Commission issue. Therefore, we support the changes proposed by the applicant. • TO: The Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 27, 1988 SUBJECT: Gore Creek Stream Tract Improvements Enclosed please find the Environmental Assessment far the proposed Gore Creek Stream improvements and a memo from Pat Dodson to Ron Phillips. The project involves a number of different organizations and is scheduled for 1988 construction. You may have been familiar with the boulder placement proposal (alternative B) which is not the preferred alternative for reasons explained in the EA. The project is presented for your review and comments. Although there is no technical requirement for your approval of this project, the PEC's support would certainly be valuable as part of the inter-governmental process. U • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 27, 1988 SUBJECT: Environmental Commission The Town Council will discuss the possible creation of an Environmental Commission or the utilization of the PEC to address environmental issues at their work session on June 28th. The discussion should take place at approximately 2:30 PM. Tt would be very helpful to both groups if we could have as many PEC members as possible attend. Thank you. • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 27, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to a the Zadeh residence located at Lot 2, Gore Creek Meadows, Filing 1. Applicant: Firooz Zadeh I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting to encroach 13 feet into the side setback in order to construct a two-story addition to the residence. The encroachment would maintain a two foot side setback. Presently, the existing structure encroaches ten feet three inches into the side setback at the south corner of the building. The addition will allow for the expansion of an existing bedroom on the lower level and the expansion of the kitchen on the main level of the unit. Approximately 360 square feet of new GRFA will be added. No variances are necessary for GRFA, site coverage or height. The applicant has stated the following reasons for the . request: Due to the location of the existing residence on the adjacent Lot 3 and the existing stand of mature trees that will not be effected, the applicant does not feel that the proposed addition will have a negative impact on adjacent structures or properties. On the contrary, the addition would enhance the aesthetics of the building and serve to clean up the rear elevation. All materials and detailing would be compatible with the existing building. The lower level is approximately three felt below existing grade, further reducing the visual impact. The applicant does not feel that the proposed variance will constitute a grant of special privilege, due to the extraordinary circumstances of the site such as the existing configuration of the building, the adjacent unit expansion being located in the setback and similar setback variances in the East Vail area. The proposed addition does not have any great impacts on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities and public safety. The small residential addition does not have any appreciable impact on Vai1's comprehensive plan. . TI. CRITERIA AND FTNDTNGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the V1clnitV. The addition is located on the southeast corner of the property. The adjacent fourplex to the south is approximately 65 feet away from the encroachment. The existing residence also encroaches from one to almost 11 feet into the side setback along a length of approximately 38 feet. The existing structure has already created impacts on the adjacent property. This small addition will not increase the impact on the adjacent property to any substantial degree. The two foot encroachment beyond the existing encroachment will have no substantial negative impacts on the surrounding structures or properties. • The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. In 1978, the Planning Commission approved a six foot rear setback for the other side of the duplex, owned by the Tilkemeiers. At that time, a 13-foot setback was required. Staff believes that the applicant should be treated the same in respect to this variance request. Some relief from the strict 15-foot side setback is certainly warranted, given the fact that the existing structure already encroaches ten feet, three inches into the side setback. There will be no impact on these factors except that an unsightly rear elevation will be dressed up due to the redesign of the building in this area. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of populations transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. No impact. • III, APPLICABLE POLICIES FRaM VAIL~S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TV. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff rec~~~„~~ends approval of the side setback variance to encroach 13 feet into the setback area. It is felt that the variance approval is not a grant of special privilege as a similar type of variance was granted for the owner of the other side of the duplex. There are no detrimental impacts to adjacent properties. Due to the unusual location of the existing residence, there are special circumstances, that create a physical hardship which warrants approval of this variance. • '. ca a ,es o z ~~ . ~ ~~ ~ O ~ G~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ u, GO~~ ~ G ~ h ~ f., ~ 0 '~• ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ n ~~ s ~ ~ ~~? O hk~ti f y~, tr ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~~ ~ r- } ~ w w I ~ ~- N 4 / i N ... .~ c[~ ~ ~ } _ ~. ~ m Z °- z ~ ~-s ~ 3 ~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ,} ~' ,~ ~ ~v ~ C~ ~~~~W~~~~~ I Y\ -._~ .~ ~ ~ s - .-- ~ ~~ o ~ ~ ~ _ _--- `,. i s- ~~ ~~~ / ~ \ 4 ~/ '/ v ~ /~ a /~ / ! o !~~ ~ o y ~ ~, ~i - d /, ~~~ o ~f /~Q o ;~~ ~%~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ W LLI OC V W OC Q P F- 0 .~ Z Q • TD: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 27, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance construct an addition to a residence Vail Village lst Filing. Applicant: Mary Noel Lamont I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED • in order to on Lot 2, Block 7, The applicant wishes to construct a second floor addition to the caretaker's apartment located on the above property. The caretaker's apartment is presently located from 11 feet to 12 feet from the property line over a distance of approximately 12 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance from the required 15 foot side setback in order to build an addition over the existing building. The addition would be constructed on the west end of the residence, above the existing caretaker's quarters and would contain approximately 300 square feet. The lot size is 25,216 square feet with allowable GRFA at 4,771 square feet. With the addition of 300 square feet, this home will contain approximately 4,436 square feet. The overall height of the home would not change, as the addition would result in an infill and be no higher than the ridge of the garage. IT. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upan the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Existing below the addition is the present caretaker's residence. The encroachment into the setback is not increasing, rather a second floor is being added to a structure that is already in the setback. • The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The residence is an unusual one in that it constructed around a cliff. The main house is on one side of the cliff, while the caretaker's unit and garage are to the west of the cliff. To attempt to construct this addition closer to the cliff would be a hardship to the applicant. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of populations transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety There are no adverse effects on these factors. III. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VAIL'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Not applicable. • TV. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraardinaary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The C~~~u«unity Development staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance. In light of the fact that this addition is directly over a portion of the residence that is already encroaching into the setback, and the fact that it would be a hardship to ask the applicant to construct the addition in a different location because of the way in which the main residence is located, the staff sees no grant of special privilege. C7 • • • ~5t Q J fl m Ri ~ Y Y F- y~j O O I . ~ •z•a ~~ Qr r ~ ~ ~ _ O ~ ~ W ~ ~ a W r r J_ Y ~A .+$ ~ 1{ ~~ ~ vi ~ 1 A3 ~~~¢ 'Fa r.s l a , s ~sr ;~;' y ,oi ~,I ~ v •,~. d a'c,Z ~ ~N M \\ ` Y ~ ~ h O \ ~ \ r ul L U'j _ I ' g' 4. ~~ ~ ~ ~ `~.~~ ~ N 4,, J~`~ ~^ D `+~ °' ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ l ~ y ~ / e~tr w ~ ~ I ' ' ' I 9~Lx f 1 C ~ .@6 ~ ~`~ ~ ," +~ '` {i' Q 1 £ S ,4~ . 1 _ .~ f c cj ~ i ~ 'i ('~ { ~ ~ 1 i l c'"~T_~ , B;B£ t ~,r~, 1' _ ~ ~ (r. ~~ ~ ,.~,'L1 ob0 ~ J q 3 y, ~ 1 1 1 ~ Z w _1 w r., • Y ~~ ~4' ~i ~~:~ ~,'. i;,`';, 1 ~. ~~~, ~,<<.1 ~~'~.y ~ ~:. ,:, • 1't { tii~ f ~' ~ •. 7 i' r F Z• _-.......__..._,__.,__ _ _-- ~ _~-~-----_. _.. _.. . .. h. ~~`- t: _. .. ~~ ` ;,. ~~ ' 4 C' 4 •. -_ .. . . _ - ......_. ..... .. .. S ,..... _.. .5 .. ... 1 ~= ........ .... .. .. ..... •c ~. ~~~Y _..... ~~~ , ._. .. ..... ,...... .....__~__._.. S ~ '~ ~. 4 ~ ...... ...,... . . 1'. 1 ~ ~_ ..... ...... .... .... . .... .. . ._. _.__._.. _... ~....,. y~..._. __,._. ... .. ..,. .. .. . - A\ • ~ ~ .. ~ ... .. _,.. ..4. i ~ 2 •.-- ~ ~. +~ r ~ ~T ' , ~ ~ 1 1#' :1 ~ ... .. }~: i1~~ ' ` ~ ~"'e :~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ {{{{Y ~ ~~ ~ ~ s., ty"~ 1,4~1 ~ ~,~ ~ 1 t,,, '\. ~ r ~ l { 111 ~ \ ~ , 1l1l ~k+ •. ~ ~4i.~ `~~ f~~. ~. ~ ~ ~ X ~'°` ' ' 11 + .. ..... ... ~ , `~I I ~ II ~11 11 ~ i ~ . _ ...~.~...... .. ..1. ~'''~ 1 ~ ~Y ~~ ~ ~ ~~ . , ~ ,~ r ~ ~ . ~~ , „ ,,. _ ,. f y r ~ ..._ ~, _ . q v ~r ~1j4 3 ,~4ti .~'^~.'1 ]~~- ~,~1 ' !Y. i 4µ '~~ ~~~ ~,,~,* !~ `~ 1 _ _. ._..... _. . _1. -. -~ ~~ ~ i - - .._.... ....._ ~ , ti , ,`~ ,,. ~ ~~ , ,s ,;,.~, ~~~ ~1 ' ~a ~, ~~ TD: P~.anning and Environmental Commission • FROM: community Development Department DATE: June 2T, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance to allow the construction of an addition to a residence on Lot 37, Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing. Applicant: Jahn Wisenbaker and Lynn Hamilton I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The residence on Lot 37 contains two dwelling units. The secondary unit is on the ground floor. The second and third floors contain the primary unit. The applicants are requesting a front setback variance of approximately 11 feet at one point and 16 feet at another in order to construct an addition to the primary unit's second floor, while maintaining part of the existing deck above the addition. The addition would be placed in an area that now contains a deck and storage under the deck which encroach 18 feet into the front setback. By removing part of the deck, the setback encroachment is reduced by 126 square feet. (See attached site plan.} Tn 1981, a front setback variance was granted to build the existing deck, entry and stone wall. In 1984 the PEC granted a front setback variance to construct a garage and additional GRFA, though construction did not follow. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Existing on the site is a deck (with outdoor storage below it) which encroaches into the setback 18 feet. The proposed encroachment into the setback is not increasing, but decreasing slightly to 11 and 16 feet. • The decree to which relief from the strict and literal • interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Although there are other areas on the an addition could be placed, it would difficult to tie an addition into the and third floors in any other locatio: above, the degree of nonconformity is decreasing. property on which be somewhat existing second n. As mentioned actually The effect of the requested variance on light and air. distribution of populations transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. There will not be any forseeable change in these factors. The addition will decrease the size of the existing deck, actually reducing the encroachment in some places. The parking demand of 4 spaces will remain the same, although there are only 3 parking spaces at present. (This is a legal nonconforming situation. The depth of the parking area from the edge of the pavement is 21 feet. Although the staff would have liked to have seen a garage constructed as approved in 1984, the applicant does not propose a garage, and there are no Town ordinances requiring a garage to be built. ITT. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VAIL'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN None are applicable. TV. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSE^ VARIANCE. V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious • to properties or improvements in the vicinity. . That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VZ, STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development staff rec~~~µ~,ends approval of the requested front setback variance. Given the location of the existing deck and storage area in the front setback (that was granted by the PEC in 1981), there are no appreciable impacts resulting from this proposed modification. While it is unfortunate that a garage is not included in the proposal, there are no guidelines to require such an addition. The parking is presently located an Town right-of-way (as is much of the parking in this area}, and would remain in this same location with this proposal. While this situation is not ideal, the Public Works Department has worked with it for some time and will continue to do so. • 1 ~ r~ ~ n ~ ~y J t/ ~ -o ~ ~ a a /~ tl ~ ~ ~ 1 a ~ N ~ • ~ .,yt ~ i a ~ t w t ~ ~ ° ~ ,~.,..._ _,Q ~,~' ~ ., / ~ j++ ~ p ~ 1 A `L {? ~ ~ ~ 1( 1 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ to a0 ~ I y J i0 q~ d G 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. r C ~ t p ,{ a 4 1 ~ ~ ~.. b' ..... ~ v i o ~ ~ 4 ., ~ Wa ~ 0 r ~ ~ f f ~ ao e ` N ~+ /// ~ H a; ~ ~ ~. ! O ' O N ~ '1~ W / ~ ~ ~ ~ { ¢ ". ~ t ~ ~,a ,J .. t! a ~~ ~ . ~2 ,~ ~ ~ a a ~?~ ~ 1 ~ a, ~` ~ j`~., ~ I `~.1 ~' . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: C~,,,,,.unity Development Department DATE: June 27, 1.988 RE: Request for side and rear setback, parking, and density control variances in order to construct an 11-Unit addition to the Tivoli Lodge located on Lot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5th Filing. Applicant: Robert Lazier I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Located in the Public Acc.,~~LL«odation Zone District, the Tivoli Lodge is comprised of 38 accommodation units and one dwelling unit. A variety of variances have been requested to allow for the addition of 11 accommodation units and a basement meeting room space of approximately 1.000 square feet. The variances requested are as follows: 1. A density control variance to allow for 11 additional accommodation units. The current level of development (number of units) on this site is over • twice that permitted under existing zoning. This variance would allow for the development of 11 additional accommodation units. 2. A density control variance to allow for additional residential floor area. Existing GRFA (14,177.) only slightly exceeds that permitted by zoning {14,1&5). This variance would allow for the development of 4,345 additional square feet of GRFA. 3. Side and rear setbacks. Setbacks of 20 feet are required for properties within this zone district. As proposed, this addition would be located as close as six feet from the property's southerly line and up to four feet from the westerly line. 4. Variance to the required number of off-street parking spaces. As previously stated, the property presently meets its parking requirements. Additional parking demand generated by the lodge rooms (8.7 spaces} and the meeting room facility (3.9 spaces) is proposed to be partially met by initiating valet service on the Track P-2 Lot. As proposed by the applicant, this would result in a net deficit of two parking spaces. L~ 5. Variance to the design and location of parking provided. In this zone district, 75~ of all required parking is to be located within the main building and hidden from public view. Parking provided for the demand created from this addition does not satisfy the standard. In addition, parking demand is to be provided on the site from which the demand is generated. While the Town Council may grant an exception to this provision, this is not permitted for spaces that are required to be located within the main building of a site. Consequently, variances to these provisions are required as well. This addition to the Tivoli Lodge is proposed as the first of a two-phase redevelopment plan. The second phase would include a lobby addition located to the west of the existing building and to the north of the proposed addition, and a parking structure on Tract P-2. While the parking structure would potentially meet the parking demands of this facility, the applicant has stated that it would not be constructed until 1990 or 1991. It should also be noted that the proposed lobby will also require setback variances. Neither of the elements proposed in Phase II are a part of the formal review by the Planning Commission with this application. • XI. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Department recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. A key factor with regard to this criteria is not just the relationship of this request to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, but rather the relationships between the variance request themselves. While comprised of a greater number of units than permitted by zoning, this property is generally consistent with other development standards. The large number of variances requested with this proposal should serve as a direct indication that the development proposed is beyond what the property is reasonably capable of accommodating. This interrelationship should be kept in mind when considering the specific variances reviewed in this memorandum. i It is not unc~,~u«on to find discrepancies with existing development and development standards as they relate to density, parking, and setbacks. With the majority of these cases, however, these discrepancies were the result of construction prior to the current zoning regulations. In addition, few, if any, properties are developed to twice their allowable units (plus the additional 11 requested here). While setback variances {and to a lesser degreee, density variances) have been granted in the recent past, staff concerns center around the specific impacts created by the variances requested by this application. Staff finds the proximity of the proposed addition to the existing sidewalk to the west of this parcel simply unacceptable. This heavily used pedestrian walkway connects Hanson Ranch Road with the Golden Peak area. At the present time, a walk down this pedestrianway offers a spectacular view of Golden Peak and Vail Mountain. These views would be seriously impacted by this construction, as would the sense of space one feels in walking this path. The building proposed four foot from the property line is an intrusion on this public space that would result in adverse impacts on the pedestrian`s experience. The density variances also create impacts to adjacent properties by virtue of the additional building mass they would permit. Properties to the north of the Tivoli presently have pleasing views of Vail Mountain that would be impacted by this construction. Whale private view corridors are not a formal criteria of the Planning Commission, staff feels they are relevant in this application because the request involves density over what existing zoning would permit. Generally speaking, the proposed design as insensitive to both the adjacent walkway and neighboring development to the north of this site. The decree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. To approve the variances required to allow for this development would undoubtedly be a grant of special privilege, While justification and precedent may exist for one or two of the requested variances, the staff's objection to this proposal becomes most acute when considering these variances collectively. 3 i The variance process has been used recently to allow for additional units at the Sitzmark (3) and the Christiana (1), zn both of these cases, however, the properties had sufficient GRFA under existing zoning guidelines to allow for these units. The variances were needed only for the units themselves, and were deemed to be appropriate by the staff and C...,....ission given the cL~~u~.unity's desire lodge room facilities. With this application, variances are required for not only the units but also the additional GRFA. Tn addition, the expansion has been sited as close as four feet from the property's westerly property line and the parking solution is unacceptable from many standpoints (see next criteria). Variance requests are undoubtedly the most common application presented to the staff and Planning Commission. In many cases, there are just reasons to grant variances and the Planning Commission has not been reluctant to do so. However, with this request, one need only to consider the magnitude of all the variances requested to conclude that the proposal would be a grant of special privilege well beyond the degree of relief which may be necessary to allow for a development. The effect of the requested variance an lictht and air, distribution of populations transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Reference has already been made to the proposed structure's impact on the public walkway adjacent to this site. To introduce a building in this location would affect views, morning sun and the sense of space one feels when walking this corridor. Of greater concern to the staff is bath the interim parking solution and the permanent solution proposed to meet the demands created by this additional development. The parking proposed with this development involves a reduction of two spaces in the west lot, with that deficit and a portion of the new demand being met by operating a valet service out of the P-2 Lot (it should be noted that the configuration of spaces proposed for the west lot also necessitates a valet operation to be 100 functional). The staff has a number of concerns with the valet operation of the P-2 Track. These include: :J 4 1. Safety is the foremast concern when considering the operation of a valet service on this lot. The proposal would require 100 of the area to be used for parking cars resulting in a total elimination of access ways or aisles. This would require all users of the lot to be valet served. This service would result in cars continually backing out of the lot onto Vail Valley Drive in order to allow another car to leave or enter the lot. Being a heavily traveled road, a bus route and a highly pedestrianized street, this situation is intolerable from a safety standpoint. In addition, it is in violation of the municipal code for a lot of this size to be designed in a way for cars to be back out onto a public right- of-way. 2. While off-street parking may be provided off- site if approved by Council, this approval cannot be granted for spaces required to be enclosed or within a structure. In the public accommodation zone district, 75~ of all parking is required to be within a building and out of view. As a result, 75~ of the new demand (or approximately eight spaces) must be enclosed to . meet this requirement. Providing this parking off-site and not enclosed is in conflict with this provision of the municipal code. 3. While secondary to the safety issues, the aesthetics of parking approximately 25 cars on a lot designed for 15 to 17 is also unacceptable. Tt should be noted that the staff, Planning Commission, and Council has approved valet operations in the past (Vail Village Inn, Doubletree Hotel, Vail Valley Medical Center). In these cases, however, the valet operation took place and functioned entirely within the property's boundaries. This distinction should not be overlooked in responding to this interim parking solution. The applicant has submitted a parking survey that was done during the 1987-88 ski season. The survey was done to gauge the utilization of the two parking lots used by the Tivoli Lodge. While the numbers presented are interesting, they do not provide just cause to waive or modify the Town's parking requirements, nor do they include the summer months when we typically find a higher percentage of guests bring automobiles to Vail. 5 The staff has focused this review on the interim parking solution because of the lack of assurances for when the structured parking would be built. Staff feels strongly that parking demands need to be met at the time the development that creates such demand is constructed. In addition, it should be noted that the P-2 Track is not owned outright by the Tivoli Lodge, but rather controlled by an association of five different entities. There is no confirmation that the Tivoli Lodge would even have the right to build structured parking on a portion of P-2 without approval of this association. Without this documentation, a detailed design solution, and definitive assurances to construct the parking at the same time as the new units, staff has no alternative but to consider only the interim solution that is proposed. III. RELATED POLICIES TO VAIL'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The master plan element most relevant to this proposal is the Vail Village Master Plan {it should be noted that this plan has not formally been adopted by the Council and is considered a draft document). The Village Plan does in fact reference the west parking lot as having potential to accommodate a small infill. The intention of this infill was in response to an overall goal of minimizing surface parking along the Village's pedestrian ways. It was predicated on the feeling that a small addition would be more visually pleasing in this area in conjunction with the elimination of this surface parking. The development of additional lodge rooms is also identified as a goal of this plan. However, this proposal falls short when considering a number of other objectives of this master plan document. These would include enhancing open spaces and walkways, satisfying the parking demands of private sector development, and in general, permitting development that is responsive to the development objectives of the community as well as surrounding uses. TV. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. • 6 V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantinq a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION While developing additional lodge rooms and maintaining this facility as a family-owned lodge are admirable intentions, one must consider the complete picture when evaluating this development proposal. It is here where the staff feels this application falls well short of what is good for this community. Staff can find little in the way of physical hardship to justify these variance requests. It 15 also very apparent that to grant these requests would establish dangerous precedence and be a grant of special privilege. There would appear to be design alternatives available that could respect setback lines and reduce the mass of the proposed addition, thereby minimizing impacts on adjacent properties (both the walkway and adjacent lodging facilities). It has been represented that these alternatives are undesirable to the applicant because of their economic feasibility. If these design alternatives are infeasible and if parking cannot be provided in conjunction with the development, staff concludes that the community would be better off without this redevelopment proposal. Simply stated, there are no adverse ramifications if this addition is not built and the negatives far outweigh the positive if it is built. While it is the goal of this Department and the Council to see additional lodge rooms in Vail, they should not be developed at the expense of granting these requested variances. The staff would rec~~«,~~end the Planning Commission deny this proposal as presented, When evaluating this proposal, the staff encourages the Commission to closely consider the findings that must be made before granting a variance. When considering physical hardship, extraordinary circumstances, special privilege, and impacts to other properties or improvements, there is little alternative but to deny this proposal as presented. • r. 8 .,~` s ,, ~ f t TIVQLI LODGE PARKING SURVEY 1987/88 SKI SEASON . LOT ONE(12 SPACES) LOT TWO(17 SPACES} NOV 26 1. x 27 3 1 28 6 1 29 5 ~ - 30 6 - DEC 1 5 1 2 10 -- 3 10 2 4 9 2 5 10 1. 6 10 1 7 3 - 8 3 1 9 3 2 10 4 - 11 8 1 12 11 2 13 6 2 14 7 - 15 7 - 16 7 - 17 7 - . 18 10 19 12 20 10 2 21 8 2 22 8 2 23 8 2 24 4 2 25 5 1 2 6 8 1. 27 $ - 28 8 - 29 10 1 30 10 1 31 10 2 JAN 1 10 4 2 8 4 3 8 2 ~ x0 x 5 10 2 6 8 2 7 F 3 8 5 3 9 7 3 10 8 4 • 11 12 6 4 - 2 13 4 2 14 5 2 15 8 1 ~ r JAN 16 7 3 17 4 3 . 18 x9 4 ~ 2 x 20 4 1. 21 4 1 22 8 1 23 14 3 24 ~0 4 25 7 3 26 8 2 27 10 3 28 8 1 29 8 1 30 8 1 31 7 2 FEB 1 5 ~ 2 4 z 3 ~ ~ 4 4 2 5 $ 2 6 3 ~ 7 3 ~ 8 5 Z 9 5 ~. 10 5 1 11 4 ~. 12 5 1 . 13 5 Z 14 9 5 15 9 2 1.6 7 3 17 7 3 18 5 g 19 3 6 20 8 4 21 5 - 22 7 - 23 6 - 24 6 25 7 - 26 8 1 27 6 1 28 6 1 2 9 5 -- MAR 1 4 1 2 5 1 3 5 1 4 6 1 5 7 1. 6 5 3 7 7 3 8 7 3 9 7 1 10 7 ~ 11 6 3 U ,~ MAR 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 7 6 6 7 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 ~~ ~ ~~. ~~ ADDENDUM TO APPLXCATION I. Purpose: The purpose of this Application is to allow an expansion and upgrading of the existi Tivoli,% Lodge. The expansion wi1~. occur in two phases as follows: - ~ 1) Addition of '~ hotel rooms with each room being 295 square feet, to be constructed in 1988, 2) Addition of new lobby, elevator and structured parking facility. (Parking structure will be located on P-2), to be constructed in 1990 or 1991. II. Existing Buildi.na: The existing building (see attached survey} is comprised of 39 accommodation units and 1 dwelling unit as follows: A. 21 accommodation units 13' 6" X 22'5" = 303 sq. ft, B. 18 accommodation units 17'19" X 1.3'6" = 240 sq. ft. C, 1 dwelling unit - 3500 sq.ft. TOTAL GRFA: 14,171 sq.ft. TOTAL UNITS: 39 divided by 2 = 19.5 + 1 = 20.5 Units TOTAL SITE: .4065 acres X 43,560 = 17,707.14 sq.ft. EXISTING PARKING: 29 spaces (17 in P-2 and 12 in West Lot) ALLOWABLE GRFA: 14,165.71 sq. ft. ALLOWABLE UNITS: 18 accommodation units plus 1 dwelling unit REQUIRED PARKING: (.4 + .307} X 21 = 14.85 (.4 + .246) X 18 = 11.62 1 dwelling unit = 2.5 28.97 The Tivoli was originally constructed in A first . major renovation occurred in when the common area were R I`~ u totally renovated to give a lighter and more up-to-date look. The cast of this renovation was several hundred thousand dollars. Subsequent to such date in 1987, all of the rooms were totally renovated and redecorated with a like type of investment. To bring the building up to current Vail Standards, major exterior work needs to be completed along with the installation of an elevator. Contrary to what has happened to two adjacent family owned lodges (Garden of the Gods and Ramshorn), the applicant does not desire to condominiumize the Tivoli to finance further renovations. To keep the Tivoli a family owned Lodge in Vail, however, it is necessary to increase the number of roams to create a viable lodge. Summary: Currently the building is non--conforming for GRFA and number of units allowed. Existing parking is sufficient. IIT. Request for Variances: Pursuant to Section 18.52.010B. the following variances are requested: A. 18.22.050 - Setbacks (side and rear) B. 18.22.090 - Density Control (GRFA and unit count) C. 18.22.140 - Parking IV. Compliance wi=th Vail Village Master Plan: The Vail Village Master Plan recognizes the need to continue growth and redevelopment in the Vail Village area. The redevelopment and expansion of the Tivoli meets that goal. (See East Village Sub-Area #24) V. Setbacks Variance: The required setback is 20 feet in the rear and 20 feet on the side.- The proposal calls for a 4.5 foot side set-back and a 6 foot rear setback. The criteria to consider are as follows: A. To the south of the Tivoli (rear setback) lies Tract E and to the west lies the Town of Vail Bike Path (side setback). (See Vicinity Map page 6). The main purpose of the setback requirement is to insure adequate distance between buildings. In this case no above grade structures can be built on Tract E and the Whitehead residence to the West . cannot be expanded on the Eastside. (See Site View Board). 2 ~~ .~ , r • B. In the vicinity the Whitehead residence, the Christiana, the Garden of the Gods building, Villa Valhalla, the Vail Athletic Club, and the Ramshorn are all built to various degrees within their setbacks. This would not be a grant of special privilege and to achieve compatibility with the neighborhood the variance should be granted. C. There is no effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. (See Vicinity Map and View Board). VT. Density Control Variance: A variance is required for 3540 square feet of GRFA and for 6 units (12 accommodation units). The criteria to consider is as follows: A. The other uses in the area are high density dwelling units and lodges containing accommodation units or both. The uses here are the same. • B. The Vail Village Master Plan in Goal ~$1, Objective #2 provides for increased levels of development as identified by the Action Plan or the Vail Village Master Plan. (see #24, East Village Sub-Area, Vail Village Master Plan). This will not be a grant of special privileges as all sites in the vicinity can take advantage of the Master Plan if they so desire. C. The Vail Village Master densities in certain areas redevelopment. This sate VII. Parking Variance: Plan calls for an increase in to allow for orderly growth and is called out as such an area. The parking requirement for the new addition is 8.3 spaces [(.4 + 295) X 12 = 8.3] and pursuant to Section 8.22.140 750 of such spaces need to be covered and in the main building, The temporary solution is to provide 35 total spaces (10 in the West Lot, 17 in P--2 and 8 spaces by valet parking in P-2). This leaves us with a deficiency of 2 spaces temporarily. When the parking structure is completed a total of 42 spaces will be provided, (17 spaces on upper level of P-2, 17 spaces on the lower level of P-2, and 8 spaces by valet parking in the lower level of P-2 when needed) (See Parking Plan page 6 of drawings). Na parking will be provided in the main building. The criteria to consider are as follows: 3 ., '. ~„ • A. Of all the Lodge or Condominium buildings, surrounding the Tivoli, no site provides parking in the main building except far the Vail Athletic Club. All other sites provide surface parking to various degrees, B. While the Ramshorn and Garden of the Gods Club provide the number of parking spaces required by the ordinance, the Athletic Club, Mountain House, Christiana, Sonnenalp and all other Lodges in the Core Area do not. A temporary deficiency of 2 spaces will not be a grant of special privilege. The use of the valet parking to satisfy a portion of the parking requirement also works on P-2 considering the usage of P-2 as shown lay the attached Parking Survey. Tn addition, valet parking is allowed by ordinance and has been used at the Doubletree and VVT redevelopments. The high level. days shown in Lot One were on turnover days when there was an overlap of leaving and arriving guests. • C. The removal of parking off of Hanson Ranch Road will have a positive impact on traffic, distribution or population and public safety as at completion all parking will be located on P-2 and away from Hanson Ranch Road. As China Bowl and Golden Peak are developed Hanson Ranch Road will be used more and more by pedestrian circulation between Golden Peak and the Core Area. This will become more pronounced as the Ramshorn sidewalk is completed. VTTT. Enclosures: 1} Two sets of Plans -- John M. Perkins/Architects 2) View Board 3) Model 4} Title Work 5 } Survey 6) Adjacent Property Owners' names 7) Rendering 4 . TO: Planning and Environmental Cu.~~.~~ission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 27, 1988 RE: Proposed Amendments to the SDD Section of the Zoning Code I . Isr ixODUCTION There has been a great deal of discussion concerning the need to amend the SDD Section of the Zoning Code for quite some time. The need to amend this ordinance has become mare critical in light of a number of pending applications for new and amended special development districts. The intent of these revisions is not to change the SDD process in concept, but rather to clean up and clarify irregularities in the present ordinance. As proposed, the enure Section 18.40 {SDDs} of the Zoning Code would be repealed, and reenacted with a completely rewritten section. For your information, we have included both the proposed amendments, as well as a copy of the existing ordinance. The following memo will summarize the changes made . to each of the sections of this chapter of the Zoning Code. ZI. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 18.40.010 PURPOSE The proposed purpose section simply paraphrases what is presently existing. Additional statements have been added clarifying what the intent of a special development district should be, however, the overall intent of the district has remained unchanged. 18.40.420 DEFINITIONS Five different definitions are proposed in order to clarify various sections of this ordinance. Agent or authorized representative is defined in order to specify who may submit an application to initiate the review of a special development district. Minor and major amendments are established in dealing with requested changes to previously adopted SDDs. Underline zone district is defined to minimize confusion concerning the role of an existing zone designation when an SDD is applied as an overlay zone district. Finally, affected property is defined with respect to determining notification procedures as they relate to amending SDDs. 18.40.030 APPLICATION This section has remained quite similar to the existing wording, however, specific requirements have been added relating to who may sign or consent to an application for a special development district. This amendment has been designed to address problems created with request for SDDs on properties with multiple ownership. 18.40.040 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES This section outlines the review process to be used in evaluating SDD proposals. While the process we presently use is not proposed to be changed, the language proposed is an attempt to more clearly express the process an applicant would go through. 18.40.050 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS While the existing ordinance does outline some requirements, experience over the past four or shown that material in addition to the present required. This revised section is our attempt applicable material that might be relevant to SDD. • 18.40.060 DEVELOPMENT PLAN submittal five years has list is often at listing all the review of an As the commission is probably aware, the final approval of an SDD results in the adoption of a development plan. This plan includes all written and graphic material that establish the parameters with which the SDD is to be developed. While much of the material that makes up the development plan will be a part of the submittal requirements, not all material submitted is incorporated into the development plan. This section recognizes this distinction and attempts to list the material mast commonly used to establish an approved development plan. 18.40.070 USES This section is generally the same as presently written. Uses within an SDD, unless further restricted by the Planning Commission and Council, shall be limited to those uses permitted in a property underline zone district. 18.40.080 DESIGN CRITERIA These criteria, referred ordinance, establish the evaluating the merits of existing standards to be • commonly proposed in Vai to as design standards in the existing formal review criteria to be used in an SDD. The staff has often found the irrelevant to the nature of SDDs L. For this reason, and in an attempt to expand this list o£ criteria, these criteria have been changed substantially. Because of the importance of these criteria, staff would encourage the commission to give this section of the amendments a great deal of thought when considering these amendments. 18.40.090 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS This section is quite similar to the existing language in that it still references the fact that all development standards for the SDD are established by the approved development plan. One significant addition to this section is a statement that requires the Council and Planning Commission to consider any deviations from underline zoning with respect to whether these deviations provide benefits to the community that outweigh the potential effects of such deviations. Simply stated, if the proposed SDD deviates from underline zoning standards, is the project better, and is the end result for the community better than upholding the development standards of the underline zoning? This issue would also be a part of the review criteria when evaluating an SDD. 18.40.100 AMENDMENT PROCEDURES Of all the amendments to the existing ordinance, this section is probably the most significant. Two degrees of amendments, minor and major, are proposed for this ordinance. Minor amendments could be approved by the planning staff if consistent with the intent and objectives of the established SDD. An attempt has been made to quantify what is a minor amendment. Tn addition, notification procedures and appeal processes are included concerning these staff actions. Major amendments would involve those changes beyond the scope of what is defined as a minor amendment. Major amendments ~as~uld require: review by the Planning Commission and Town Council before being formally approved. A significant issue relative to the review of major amendments involves notification and consent of owners requesting the amendments. 18.40.110 RECREATION AMENITIES TAX This section has remained unchanged from the existing ordinance. 18.40.120 TIME REQUIREMENTS Time requirements for initiating the development of an SDD has been changed from 18 months to three years. This change is in response to the vested rights legislation adopted by the Colorado Legislature this past year. LJ 18.40.130 FEES The council has discussed raising the fee that is now required to submit an application for an SDD. In addition, the staff is suggesting that we incorporate language to allow the Town to require compensation from applicants for expenses incurred by the staff in using outside consultants in reviewing special development districts. This is similar to the language that was incorporated into the WI special development district back in 1976, The opportunity to assess applicants for these expenses is considered very important in light of the sensitive nature of many of the SDDs proposed in Vail. 1$.40.340 EXTSTTNG SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DTSTRTCTS This section simply recognizes existing special development districts and states that their approvals are not affected by these amendments. IIT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff feels that these amendments will facilitate a smoother review process for future SDD proposals. We have attempted to address the issues that have arisen during the review of SDDs over the past few years. We would welcome input from the Commission concerning your experiences and comments you may have in order to make this process work as efficiently as possible. • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 27, 1988 RE: Proposed Amendments to the SDD Section of the Zoning Code I. INTRODUCTION There has been a great deal of discussion concerning the need to amend the SDD Section of the Zoning Code far quite some time. The need to amend this ordinance has become more critical in light of a number of pending applications for new and amended special development districts. The intent of these revisions is not to change the SDD process in concept, but rather to clean up and clarify irregularities in the present ordinance. As proposed, the entire Section 1.8.40 (SDDs} of the Zoning Code would be repealed, and reenacted with a completely rewritten section. For your information, we have included both the proposed amendments, as well as a copy of the existing ordinance. The following memo will summarize the changes made • to each of the sections of this chapter of the Zoning Code. II. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 18.40.010 PURPOSE The proposed purpose section simply paraphrases what is presently existing. Additional statements have been added clarifying what the intent of a special development district should be, however, the overall intent of the district has remained unchanged. 18.40.D20 DEFTNTTTONS Five different definitions are proposed in order to clarify various sections of this ordinance. Agent or authorized representative is defined in order to specify who may submit an application to initiate the review of a special development district. Minor and major amendments are established in dealing with requested changes to previously adopted SDDs. Underline zone district is defined to minimize confusion concerning the role of an existing zone designation when an SDD is applied as an overlay zone district. Finally, affected property is defined with respect to determining notification procedures as they relate to amending SDDs. 18.40.030 APPLICATION This section has remained quite similar to the existing wording, however, specific requirements have been added relating to who may sign or consent to an application for a special development district. This amendment has been designed to address problems created with request for SDDs on properties with multiple ownership. 18.40.040 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES This section outlines the review process to be used in evaluating SDD proposals. While the process we presently use is not proposed to be changed, the language proposed is an attempt to more clearly express the process an applicant would go through. 18.40.050 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS While the existing ordinance does outline some requirements, experience over the past four or shown that material in addition to the present required. This revised section is our attempt applicable material that might be relevant to SDD. submittal five years has list is often at listing all the review of an 18.40.060 DEVELOPMENT PLAN As the c~~~u«ission is probably aware, the final approval of an SDD results in the adoption of a development plan. This plan includes all written and graphic material that establish the parameters with which the SDD is to be developed. While much of the material that makes up the development plan will be a part of the submittal requirements, not all material submitted is incorporated into the development plan. This section recognizes this distinction and attempts to list the material most c~,~LL«only used to establish an approved development plan. 18.40.070 USES This section is generally the same as presently written, Uses within an SDD, unless further restricted by the Planning Commission and Council, shall be limited to those uses permitted in a property underline zone district. 18.40.080 DESIGN CRITERIA These criteria, referred to as design standards in the existing ordinance, establish the formal review criteria to be used in evaluating the merits of an SDD. The staff has often found the existing standards to be irrelevant to the nature of SDDs commonly proposed in Vail. For this reason, and in an attempt to expand this list of criteria, these criteria have bean changed substantially. Because of the importance of these criteria, staff would encourage the commission to give this section of the amendments a great deal of thought when considering these amendments. 18.40.090 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS This section is quite similar to the existing language in that it still references the fact that all development standards fox the SDD are established by the approved development plan. One significant addition to this section is a statement that requires the Council and Planning Commission to consider any deviations from underline zoning with respect to whether these deviations provide benefits to the community that outweigh the potential effects of such deviations. Simply stated, if the proposed SDD deviates from underline zoning standards, is the project better, and is the end result for the community better than upholding the development standards of the underline zoning? This issue would also be a part of the review criteria when evaluating an SDD. 18.40.100 AMENDMENT PROCEDURES Of all the amendments to the existing ordinance, this section is probably the most significant. Two degrees of amendments, minor and major, are proposed for this ordinance. Minor amendments could be approved by the planning staff if consistent with the intent and objectives of the established SDD. An attempt has been made to quantify what is a minor amendment. In addition, notification procedures and appeal processes are included concerning these staff actions. Major amendments would involve those changes beyond the scope of what is defined as a minor amendment. Major amendments would require review by the Planning Commission and Town Council before being formally approved. A significant issue relative to the review of major amendments involves notification and consent of owners requesting the amendments. 18.40.110 RECREATION AMENITIES TAX This section has remained unchanged from the existing ordinance. 18.40.120 TIME REQUIREMENTS Time requirements for initiating the development of an SDD has been changed from 18 months to three years. This change is in response to the vested rights legislation adopted by the Colorado Legislature this past year. • 18.40.130 FEES The council has discussed raising the fee that is now required to submit an application for an SDD. In addition, the staff is suggesting that we incorporate language to allow the Town to require compensation from applicants for expenses incurred by the staff in using outside consultants in reviewing special development districts. This is similar to the language that was incorporated into the VVI special development district back in 1976. The opportunity to assess applicants for these expenses is considered very important in light of the sensitive nature of many of the SDDs proposed in Vail. 18,4Q.14Q EXISTING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS This section simply recognizes existing special development districts and states that their approvals are not affected by these amendments. ITT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff feels that these amendments will facilitate a smoother review process far future SDD proposals. We have attempted to address the issues that have arisen during the review of SDDs over the past few years. We would welcome input from the C~,~u~~ission concerning your experiences and comments you may have in order to make this process work as efficiently as possible. • r1 LJ 18.40 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS (draft) Sections: 18.40.010 Purpose ' 18.40.020 Definitions 18.40.030 Application 1.8.40.040 Development Review Procedures 18.40.050 Submittal Requirements 18.40.060 Development Plan 18.40,070 Uses 18.40.080 Design Criteria 18.40.090 Development Standards 18.40.100 Amendment Procedures 1.8.40.110 Recreation Amenities Tax 18.40,120 Time Requirements 18.40.130 Fees 18.40.140 Existing Special Development Districts • 18.40.010 PURPOSE The purpose of the Special Development District is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its mast appropriate use; to improve the design, character and quality of new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with a property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district. The elements of the development plan shall be as outlined in 18.40.060. • 18.40.020 DEFINITIONS • A. Agent or Authorized Representative Any individual or association authorized or empowered in writing by the property owner to act on his(her} stead. Tf any of the property to be included in the special development district is a condominiumized development, the pertinent condominium association may be considered the agent ar authorized representative for any individual unit owners if authorized by the individual unit owners in conformity with the requirements of the condominium declarations. B. Minor Amendment (Staff review) Modificatians to building plans, site or landscape plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved special development district, and are consistent with the design criteria of this chapter. Minor amendments may include, but not be limited to, variations of not more than 5 feet to approved setbacks and/or building footprints; changes to landscape or site plans that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the special development district; or changes to gross floor area (excluding residential uses), of not more than 5 percent for each of the approved uses within the special development district. C. Major Amendment (PEC and/or Council review} Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any approved special development district (other than minor amendments as defined in Section 18.40.020.B.) D. Underlying Zone District The zone district existing on the property, or imposed on the property at the time the special development district is approved. E. Affected Property Property within a special development district that, by virtue of its proximity or relationship to property involved in amendment requests to an approved development plan, may be affected by a proposed re-design, density increase, changes in uses, ar other modifications changing the impacts, intent or character of the approved special development district. 18.40.030 APPLICATION An application for approval of a special development district may be filed by any owner of the property to be included in the special development district on his(her) agent or authorized representative. The application shall be made on a form provided by the ~C~,«,«unity Development Department and shall includes a. A legal description of the property, a list of names and mailing addresses of all adjacent property owners and written consent of owners of all property to be included in the special development district , or their agents or authorized representatives. The application shall be accompanied by submittal requirements outlined in Section 18.40.050 and a development plan as outlined in Section 18.40.060. 18.40.040 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES A. Prior to site preparation, building construction, or other improvements to land within a special development district, there shall be an approved development plan for said district. The approved development plan shall establish requirements regulating development, uses and . activity within a special development district. B. Prior to submittal of a formal application for a special development district, the applicant shall hold a pre-- application conference with the Community Development Department. The purpose of shall be to discuss the goals and direction of the proposed special development district, the relationship of the proposal to applicable elements of the Town's master plan, and the review procedure that will be followed for the application. C. The initial review of a proposed special development district shall be held by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. Prior to this meeting, and at the discretion of the director of the Department of Community Development, a wark session may be held with the applicant, staff and the Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss the proposed special development district. A report of the Community Development Department staff's findings and recommendations shall be made at the initial formal hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commissian. A report of the Planning and Environmental Commission stating its findings and recommendations, and the staff report shall then be transmitted to the Town Council in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code. The Town Council shall consider the special development district in accordance with the provision of Sections 18,66.130 through 18.66.160. 18.40.050 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS The following information and materials shall be submitted with the initial application for a special development district. Certain submittal requirements may be waived or modified by the Department of Community Development if it is demonstrated that the material to be waived or modified is not applicable to the Design Criteria {section 18.40.080), or other practical solutions have been reached. 1. Application form and filing fee 2. A written statement describing the nature of the project to include information on proposed uses, densities, nature of the development proposed, contemplated ownership patterns and phasing plans, and a statement outlining how and where the proposed development deviates from the development standards prescribed in the property's underlying zone district. 3. A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing conditions of the property to be included in . the special development district, to include the location of improvements, existing contour Lines, natural features, existing vegetation, water courses, and perimeter property lines of the parcel. 4. A complete set of plans depicting existing conditions of the parcel {site plan, floor plans, elevations), if applicable. 5. A complete zoning analysis of existing and proposed development to include a square footage breakdown of all proposed uses, parking provided, and proposed densities. 6. Proposed site plan at a scale not smaller than 1" _ 20', showing the approximate locations and dimensions of all buildings and structures and all principal site development features. 7. Preliminary building elevations, sections and floor plans at a scale not smaller than 1/8" = 1' in sufficient detail to determine floor area, circulation, location of uses, and general scale and appearance of the proposed development. 8. A vicinity plan showing the proposed improvements in relation to all adjacent properties at a scale not smaller than 1" - 50'. 9. Photo overlays of the proposed development in • relationship to existing conditions and/or other acceptable techniques for demonstrating a view analysis. 10. Amassing model depicting the proposed development in relationship to development an adjacent parcels. 11. A preliminary landscape plan at a scale not smaller than 1" = 20', showing existing landscape features to be retained and removed, proposed landscaping and landscaped site development features such as recreation facilities, bike paths and trails, pedestrian plazas and walkways, water features and other elements. 12. Environmental impact report in accordance with Chapter 18.5b, hereof unless waived by Section 18.55.030. 13. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the director of Community Development Department. With the exception of the massing model, 4 complete copies of the above information shall be submitted with an • application for a special development district. At the discretion of the director of the Community Development Department, reduced copies in 8-1/2'x 11" format of all of the above information may be required. 18.40.060 DEVELOPMENT PLAN An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses and activities of a special development district. A development plan shall be approved by ordinance by the Town Council in conjunction with the review and approval of any special development district. The development shall be comprised of materials submitted in accordance with Section 18.40.050. The development plan shall approve all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the special development district shall develop. In no cases shall the development plan consist of less than the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and elevations, vicinity plan, parking plan, preliminary open space/landscape plan, densities and permitted, conditional and accessory uses, densities and parking. 18.44.070 USES • Determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council as a part of the formal review of the • proposed development plan. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed special development district, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in a property's underlying zone district. Under certain conditions, commercial uses may be permitted in residential special development districts if, in the opinion of the Town Council, such uses are primarily for the service and convenience of the residents of the development and the immediate neighborhood. Such uses, if any, shall not change or destroy the predominantly residential character of the special development district. The amount of area and type of such uses, if any, to be allowed in a residential special development district shall be established by the Town Council as a part of the approved development plan. 18.40.0$p DESIGN CRITERIA The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed special development district. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with • each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. 1. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. 2. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. 3. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Section 18.52. 4. Conformity with the Vail Master Plan, town policies and urban design plans. 5. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the development. 6. Site plan, building design and location, and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. 7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. 8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the project. 18.40.090 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverages, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the Town Council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. 18.40.100 AMENDMENT PROCEDURES A. Minor Amendments: Minor modifications consistent with the guidelines outlined in section 18.40.020 B. may be approved by the Department of Community Development. All minor modifications shall be indicated an a completely revised development plan. Approved changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by the Department of C...«.«unity Development. Notification to all property owners within the special development district that may be affected by the proposed modifications, as determined by the Department of Community Development, shall be provided prior to the approval of any minor modification. The owners of all property requesting the minor amendment, or their agent or authorized representatives, shall sign the application. Appeal of decisions may be filed as outlined in section 1.8.66.030 A. of the Municipal Code. • • B. Major Amendments Requests for major amendments to an approved special development district shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures described in section 18.40.040. Owners of all property requesting the amendment, or their agents or authorized representatives, shall sign the application. Notification of the proposed amendment shall be made to owners of all property adjacent to the proposed amendment, owners of all property adjacent to the special development district, and owners of all property within the special development district that may be affected by the proposed amendment (as determined by the Department of Community Development. • 18.40.120 RECREATION AMENITIES TAX A recreation amenities tax shall be assessed on all special development districts in accordance with Chapter 3.36 of the Vail Municipal Code at a rate to be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission. This rate shall be based on the rate of the previous zone district and/or the rate which most closely resemble the density plan far the district. 18.40.120 TIME REQUIREMENTS A. The applicant must begin construction of the special development district within three years from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward the completion of the project. If the special development district is to be developed in stages, the applicant must begin construction of each stage within three years of the completion of the previous stage. B. If the applicant does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the special development district or any stage of the special development district within the time limits imposed by the preceding subsection, the approval of said special development district shall be void. The Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall review the special development district upon submittal of an application to re-establish the special development district following the procedures outlined in section 18.40.040 of this chapter. • 18.40.130 FEES The Town Council shall establish a fee schedule for special development district applications to cover the cost of filing the application. Projects deemed by the Department of Community Development (and affirmed by the Town Council) to have significant design ar land use implications on the community may require review by professionals outside of Town staff. rn this event, the applicant shall reimburse the Tawn for expenses incurred by this review. Any outside consultant selected to review an application far a special development district shall be selected and utilized by the Town staff. The Department of Community Development shall determine the amount of money estimated to cover the cost of outside consulting services, and this amount shall be provided to the Town by the applicant at the time of application. Any unused portions of these funds shall be returned to the applicant following the review of the proposed special development district. 18.40.140 EXISTING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit, replace or diminish the requirements, responsibilities, • and specifications of special development districts 2 through 21. The Town Council specifically finds that said special development districts 2 through 21 shall remain in full force and effect, and the terms, conditions, and agreements contained therein shall continue to be binding upon the applicants thereof and the Town of Vail. These districts, if not commenced at the present time, shall comply with Section 18.40.110, time requirements. .7