Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes July- December Planning and Environmental Commission July 11, 1988 2:15 PM Site Visits 3:b0 PM Public Hearing 1. A request far exterior alteration at the Hill Building located on Lot L, Block 5C, Vail Village lst Filing. Applicant: Blanche Hill 2. A request for an exterior alteration and far side and To BE stream setback variances in order to expand the TABLED existing dining room and add an exterior deck at the Up the Creek Restaurant located in the Creekside Building. Applicant: Up the Creek Restaurant 3. A request to amend Section 18.52 of the Municipal Code regarding parking requirements. Applicant: Town of Vail 4. Update on planning efforts for the 1989 World Alpine Championships: Bob Krohn ' Planning and Environmental Commission .' July 11, 1988 PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Grant Riva Sid Schultz Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. ~.. A rectuest for exterior alteration at the Hill Building located on Lot L, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Blanche C. Hill Rick Pylman explained that the request was for a bay window of 225 square feet. The staff recommendation was for approval with 4 conditions, including the fact that the parking space that is partly on Town property be removed, that the awnings not be in place during the ski season, the ski racks should not be allowed the length of the display window, along with the usual stipulation that the applicant agrees not to remonstrate against any special improvement district that may be formed. Jay Peterson, representing Mrs. Hill, agreed with the staff with the exception of the removal of the parking space. He . felt this was improper. Jay stated that in 1979 the staff felt that this was the best place far parking space. He felt that the requested exterior alteration was minor and did not justify eliminating the parking space. Jack Curtin stated that there was room on the other side of the easement to park a car, as well as other places on the property. Mike Stoughton stated that sometimes he has seen the car parked in front of some gardens, and added that sometimes in the winter time there was a problem getting around the car. Grant stated that he was not overly concerned about the parking, but he was concerned about what was going to happen at the Golden Peak House and the space between the Golden Peak House and the Hill Building. Peggy felt that the addition would make the retail and wondered if there would be soma landscape to avoid the appearance o inch of space on the property. Jac tree on the property, it would bloc and would be in a position to incur asking the Town to hand shovel snow way to have f maxing out k stated that k the view to more visible some winter every possible if he put a the mountain damage. Peggy suggested in that area. She stated C. that she had heard from others that the Town is allowing every . property to be maxed out, and just wanted to think of ways to make the property look mare attractive. Jay replied that a bay window was a little different from a rack of clothes where people walk and added that Mrs. Hi11 continually upgraded the building. Peggy stated that the building looked very nice in the summer but she wanted to pass on her concerns. Bryan Hobbs stated that he would like to see the ski racks gone and felt that the store would look stark in the winter, especially with 1-~/2 stories. He felt that the parking space was in an inappropriate place. He asked if the space was on private property and was told it was about half on private property and half on public. Diana Donovan said she had mixed emotions. She liked the summer facade, but not the winter. She admitted that the building was well kept up and appreciated the fact that Mrs. Hill would keep greens in the flower boxes in the winter, but wondered what would happen when Mrs. Hill was gone. She suggested the window be reduced by half and the other half be a planter. Diana felt the windows pushed too much into the narrow area, and felt the improvement could be done just as effectively if the wall. did not protrude sa far. Jack replied that the passage between the Hill Building and the Golden Peak Building looked block off anyway. • Peter stated that the staff had looked at other options and felt it would be a good idea if about 3 feet of garden could be saved as a compromise. Diana felt that this was almost like the Lionshead Center, where the PEC did not allow the applicant to build out to the property line. She felt the design needed more work and that the car looked "tacky." Jay stated that in trying to open up the whole area, keeping a 2-1/2 foot planter in the summer did not make much sense. Diana asked that one candition of approval be that the flower boxes be filled with flowers in the summer. Jack stated that they could put greens in the flawer boxes in the winter with Christmas lights. Peter said that a condition of this type was nearly unenforceable. Diana asked the staff whether or not the DRS should vote on this specific exterior alteration, and Peter stated that the PEC would be approving the specific changes as presented. Sid felt the real problem has been the parking space. The' parking problem was discussed further. Peter explained that in 1979 when the garage was moved, the Hill Building was given a conditional use permit with the condition that two existing parking spaces on the east side of the building would be eliminated. Jack stated that there had been 3 spaces, and that 2 were eliminated. Peter asked far a written agreement • permitting the parking space outside of the garage, and Jay Peterson stated that they were looking for one. Pam agreed with the idea of the planters. She added that the drawings did not reveal the extent the awnings protruded into the corridor, and this was of concern to her, because the corridor was 6 feet wide, but the awnings extended 4 feet. Peggy added that she also felt the awnings were a significant encroachment into the view corridor. Pam felt there should be something done with landscaping in the winter time, perhaps with barrels. Jim Viele agreed with the staff that the proposal did comply with the Urban Design Guide Plan intent. Jim felt that there was enough history regarding the parking space that the staff could work with the applicant on a better solution. Peter pointed out that without a written agreement, it was the staff's position to enforce the "no parking" on Town of Vail land in the core. Peter felt that this was a very important issue related to the streetscape in this proposal, and the parking is_nat appropriate in this area. Without a written agreement, the Town would enforce the parking laws. Pam moved to approve the requested exterior. alteration per the staff memo dated July 11 with all conditions except the one pertaining to parking. Bryan Hobbs seconded the motion and the vote was 5-2 in favor. 2. A rectuest for an exterior alteration and for side and • stream setback variances in order to expand the existing dining room and add an exterior deck at the Up the Creek Restaurant in the Creekside Building. Applicant: Up the Creek Restaurant The applicant asked to table this item until July 15. Hobbs moved and Donavan seconded to table and the vote was 7-0. 3. A.rectuest to amend Section. 18.52 of the Municipal Code regarding parking requirements. Applicant: Town of Vail Tom Braun explained that the Council had directed the staff to research the cost of parking spaces and parking fees, and initiate-the process for fees to be changed from $3,000 per space for commercial square footage and $5,000 per space for dwelling and accommodation square footage to $10,000 per space for both. Tom asked for a recommendation from the PEC far the Council's July 17th meeting. Peter added that in looking at the whole code on parking, a number of revisions are needed and they would be addressed as part of the upcoming parking study and code revisions. Jay Peterson felt that costs had gone up somewhat, but that he felt it was not the intention far the parking fees to pay the total cost of parking spaces. Jay stated that in the past, the payment was only a portion of what a space actually cost, not payment for the total cost, and the Town knew they were subsidizing parking. He reminded the Board that the purchasers did not have any priority because they did not receive designated spaces. Jay felt that a fee of $7.0,000 would discourage many developers from improving their property. He felt that providing parking was one function that the Town should do. Peter Jamar felt that $20,000 was a little high and suggested that there be more research. His big concern was that a parking study get underway. Pam Hopkins said that she did see developers who had a problem with the cost of development. Sid was not in favor of a flat $10,000, because it was as though the private sector had to take the full responsibility for providing parking for the Town. Diana felt the fee should be raised. She felt that those adding square footage should "tote their load." Jay felt that adding 300-400 square feet did not add a need far more parking. He felt that this would discourage upgrading of property. Bryan Hobbs wondered why the difference in the two original fees, and was told it was to encourage commercial activity. He did not feel that $10,000 should be charged, but felt he could support an increase. Peggy ~sterfoss felt that there should be research done to find out many things, including which people were actually using the parking structures, which people are profiting most from the fact that certain people use the structures, etc. She wondered if the developers who added to their buildings were the primary beneficiaries of the parking spaces. Peggy supported a stop- gap measure of an increase. until_the research could be done. - - ._ She felt that the~~funding source for parking should be equitable. _ ._ Grant Riva agreed with. most of the. comments and felt more extensive research should be done on the cost of construction, and whether or not the developer should bear the cost. Grant felt that to increase the fees without the research was slowing "strangling the goose that laid the golden egg." Jim Viele agreed with Grant and Peggy. increase and wanted additional research patterns. Diana stated that parking studies could studies were done, she was not sure the answers. She felt the fees should be i He supported some on parking user be done, and when the studies would give any ncreased. • Pam felt the day skier had put a burden on the guest staying for a week. Tom summarized the comments of the Commission and stated that if the PEC did decide not to vote in favor of the $10,000 fee, they would want to know the reasons why. Ron Phillips felt the $10,000 number was easily justifiable in light of the studies and of the cost estimates of the Doubletree. Sid pointed out that the case of the Doubletree was a good example of a large developer who could not afford to build parking spaces at an estimate of $10,000 per space and wondered how a small developer could afford it. Jim pointed out that $10,000 represented fee with an absence of parking studies. of interest to have a list of businesses fund, what they have constructed, etc. a 330% increase in the Diana felt it would be who have paid into the Motion by Grant Riva to recommend to the Town Council that the amendment not be passed as presented. Reasons cited for the recommendation were: 1) lack of documentation on parking space costs; 2) need to analyze parking user patterns; and, 3) a change in philosophy on who pays for parking in Vail. Second by Bryan Hobbs. Vote was 5 in favor of motion (of denial) and 2 (Diana and Peggy) against. The Commission's discussion continued and an additional motion was made by Peggy and seconded by Pam that PEC recommend raising the parking fee to $6,000/per space now, that a study be made to ascertain present use of parking spaces, what percentage of the cost of parking should be borne by the Town, and then decide if $6,000 should continue to be charged, or whether it should be changed. Added to the motion was a .. suggestion from Pam that in conjunction with a fee increase, consideration should be given to assuring the purchaser the right to use the space. The vote was 5 in favor, 1 (Diana) against, with Hobbs abstaining to add these comments to the PEC's formal recommendation. Kristan introduced Bob Krohn who updated the Board on the planning efforts for the 1989 World Alpine Championships. • _._ R. .. t TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 11, 1988 RE: Proposed Amendments to Section 18.52 of the Municipal Code pertaining to fees charged for parking requirements in C~,~uE~ercial Core I and TI. In a recent work session, the Town Council directed the staff to initiate an amendment to the parking section of the Zoning Code. Specifically, this amendment involves increasing the rates charged for new parking demand created by development in the Village and Lionshead areas. At the present time, the fees for development in these areas are $3,000 per commercial space and $5,000 per residential space. These fees are established in the Zoning Code within Chapter 18.52. 18.52.10 B.5. r~ LJ The parking fee for uses listed in Section 18.52.100, with the exception of dwelling units or accommodation units, shall be $3,000 per space. The fee for dwelling units and accommodation units shall be $5,000 per space. The Town Council will establish fee rates for uses not listed in Section 18.52.100. These fees are established as an element of the zoning code, and as such, require Planning Commission recommendation to the Council before action on any ordinance to amend these rates. Your recommendations will be passed along to the Council when they consider this ordinance on first reading at their July 19th meeting. BACKGROUND ON THIS FEE Provisions for paying in lieu of providing parking on site were first adopted in 1973. This step was taken to reduce vehicular traffic in the Core, while at the same time assuring that private development shoulder some of the responsibility of providing parking for these two areas. Money paid into the parking fund is used for the sole purpose of conducting parking studies or evaluations, construction of parking facilities, the maintenance of parking facilities, the payment of bonds or other indebtedness for parking facilities, and administrative services relating to parking. At the present time, the parking fund has a balance of $261,000 {as of 12/31/87). Following the payment of all current accounts, an additional $113,000 will be paid into this fund. While exhaustive research was not conducted as a part of this _ ~._._. ,• ,r . zoning amendment, the only substantial funds removed from the parking fund was approximately $56,000 for the purchase of landing mats at Ford Park. Assuming no additional withdraws or payments into this fund, the balance of this account will be approximately $375,000 in 1991. The majority of projects that have paid into this fund has been small remodels and additions to existing properties in the Village. While individually the number of spaces "sold" are small, cumulatively the numbers are considerable. While the staff has not kept a cumulative total of the spaces, it is estimated that between 100 to 140 spaces have been provided by payment into this fund over the years. PROPOSED FEE INCREASE The Town Council has requested an increase to $10,000 per space regardless of whether the use is commercial or residential. This increase is based on the following assumptions: o Over time, the incremental increases in development results in an incremental increase in parking demand. o The private sector is responsible for bearing the responsibility of this increase of demand. o The premise of not encouraging additional vehicle trips into the Core areas should be encouraged to maintain the pedestrian experience. o At the present rates, the Town is essentially subsidizing development and the fees charged for parking spaces should be adjusted to more accurately reflect the costs of constructing structured parking spaces. o The proposed fee of $10,000 per space was essentially established by the Town Council. Their rationale for this fee is based on a number of considerations. Foremost among these are the general assumption that structured parking spaces cost in the area of $10,000 per space, that the estimated cost of the Vail Village Structure addition is expected to be approximately $8,000 per space (excluding landscaping, entry gates, and~a few other features}, and the estimates of constructing spaces in a new structure in downtown Aspen range from $12,000 - 15,000 (it should be noted that Aspen's new Pay In Lieu Program charges $15,000 per space}. _ ~ ___. ,- STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend approval of the proposed amendments. While the actual dollar figures could be debated, there is little doubt that the current charges are significantly less than cost involved in actually constructing parking. Staff agrees with the premise that the Town is no longer in a position to be subsidizing parking demand created by private sector development, and would support the rate increases that are proposed. • • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 11, 1988 RE: A request for an exterior alteration at the Hill Building located on Lot L, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing in order to construct a bay window on the southeast corner of the building, Applicant: Blanche C. Hill I. THE PROPOSAL The applicant, Blanche C. Hi11, is requesting approval of an exterior alteration in order to construct a bay window on the southeast corner of the Hill Building. The total size of the newly enclosed space is 225 square feet. Because of floor and ceiling height considerations, as well as bearing walls which must remain in place, the window effectively functions as a bay window that will be utilized for retail display. The addition does not include space that is really accessible to the public as a • retail addition. At present, the area of expansion is delineated by a wrought iron railing that encloses.a small landscape garden. The facade of the building, while it is on ane of the most heavily traveled pedestrian routes in the Village, does not present a strong commercial streetscape element. The applicant feels that the addition of the bay window will strengthen the streetscape of the Hill building at the southeast corner. This proposal also includes the continuation of the implementation of the Urban Design Guideplan Concept l0A involving the pedestrian walkway/plaza located to the south of the Hill building. II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CCI CODE 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, and an 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 Guideplan and Design Considerations prescribe site devel~~~ent standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish Vail Village. This proposal is substantially in compliance with the intent of the Commercial Core I zone district. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDEPLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE This proposal relates to Sub-Area Concept 10A. This concept refers to mountain gateway improvements and describes elements such as landscape screens, minor plaza, and a pedestrian loop to Wall Street. The area specified far Sub-Area l0A is on land currently under control of the U.S. Forest Service. The Forest Service has indicated through previous approvals that they will allow construction of this sub-area concept. The further implementation of this concept through this proposal consists of continuation of the brick paver surface treatment from the staircase south of the Hiil building, wrapping around the building on the same radius as the bay window, at a width of 10 feet. i IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and the considerations is to show how the new designs strengthens or detracts from the overall intent of the design considerations. A. Pedestrianization: The proposed bay window at the southeast corner of the Hill building is located in the most heavily utilized pedestrian pathway in Vail Village. This narrow opening between the Hill building and the Golden Peak House is the main gateway to the Vail Village chairlifts. While all of the property between the Hill building and the Golden Peak House is privately owned, there is a dedicated pedestrian easement that allows transit between these two buildings to Vail Mountain. The proposed window expansion does extend to the very edge of this easement. However, due to the existing wrought iron railing, no further narrowing of the area will occur. Rather, the windows will serve to strengthen the pedestrian environment by adding transparency to the c.,..,...ercial streetscape of the southeast• corner of the Hill building. The area currently consists of a small landscape garden backed by blank building walls. The addition of the bay window enhances the commercial aspect of this building, and we feel adds a commercial vitality to the streetscape in this portion of the Hill building. Staff does have minor concern with the proposed awning treatment that encroaches into the platted easement. We feel that the awnings should be displayed only in the summer, as they may present a psychological feeling of narrowing this small corridor from the Village to Vail Mountain. B. Vehicular Penetration: While the addition of the display window does not in and of itself create additional parking or loading demands on the Hi11 building, it does raise a related concern with the Community Development Department staff. The Hill building contains a small garage used as parking for the Hill building residence. There is often a vehicle parked behind this garage door, extending onto the public right-of-way and, in certain vantage points, into the view corridor. We feel that with the amount of pedestrian traffic that goes by the east elevation of the Hill building, this exterior parking space is no Longer appropriate in the center of Vail Village, This expansion should serve notice that the exterior parking space on Town of Vail property will no longer be allowed. C. streetscape Framework: The Community Development staff feels that the streetscape framework will be enhanced by the addition of this bay/display window. The current southeast elevations of the building do not lend themselves to the commercial streetscape that is prevalent along the rest of Bridge Street. The southeast corner of this building has more of a residential feel to it than is found as one travels along Bridge Street toward Vail Mountain. We feel that the removal of the parking space in front of the garage and the addition of the bay window will greatly enhance the streetscape framework in this area of the Village. D. Street Enclosure: The general area of the bay window expansion is actually an in-fill below existing decks. There is little application of the street enclosure criteria to this proposal. E. Street Edge: The bay window element ties in architecturally with the treatment of the southwest corner of the building. As the window sweeps along this pedestrian way, we feel it provides a positive street edge to the walkway. F. 'Building Height: This proposal does not affect the criteria related to building height. G. VleWS and Focal Points: The pedestrian corridor between the Hill building and the Golden Peak House is an adopted major view corridor within the Town of Vail. This proposal is an in-fill below the existing decks and does not encroach any further beyond the building edge than the existing wrought iron fencing surrounding the planter. While the addition does encroach up to the very edge of the view corridor, it does not encroach into the view corridor and, therefore, presents no negative impact. The existing parking space behind the garage does intrude into the view corridor. Elimination of this use will improve the view. H. Service and Delivery: No Impact. I. Sun/Shade: No Impact. V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS This project consists of a commercial addition of 225 square feet. As mast of it is a bay/display window, the precedent in the community has: been that this type of addition does not create a parking demand. The staff will need to review the detailed plans and make a final judgement on parking implications at issuance of building permit. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the exterior alteration for the bay window expansion. We feel that in general, although the bay window samew~iat narrows the walkway between the Golden Peak House and the Hill Building, that the improvements in the building facade and the streetscape framework make up for this encroachment and are a positive addition to the Hill building. We would reiterate as conditions of approval the following concerns: 1. The exterior vehicular parking space behind the existing garage doors no longer be utilized. Endorsement of this shall be handled by the Vail Police due to the space occurring on Town of Vail property. 2. The awnings be utilized during the summer only and should not be in place during the ski season. 3, The ski racks that have been placed along the facade of the Hill building in the past shall not be allowed the length of the display window due to the narrowing of the pedestrian corridor. 4. That the applicant agree not to remonstrate against any special improvement district that may be formed within this area. r~ u APPLICANT'S STATEMENT • ADDENDUM FOR APPLICATION FOR EXTERIOR MODIFICATION, 1. The Proposal The Applicant, Blanche C. Hill, is requesting to construct a bay window on the Southeast corner of the Hill Building. 2. Conformance with purposes of the CC1 District. It is stated in Section 18.24.010, Commercial Core One District, is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial area with this mixture of lodges, residential dwellings and commercial establishments in a predominately pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core One District is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guideplan and Design Considerations prescribe the site development standards that are intended to insure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangement of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways to insure continuation of the building scale and architectural quality that distinguish the Village. The proposed alteration centers around a manor addition to the existing building which would allow increased visibility at the pedestrian level along the southeast corner of the building. This proposal is in compliance with the intent of the Zoning for CC1 District. 3. Compliance with the Urban Design Guideplan for Vail Village. This proposal relates to the Sub Area Concept 10A. This Sub Area Concept refers to the Mountain Gateway improvements and describes elements such a landscape screen, minor plaza and a pedestrian loop to Wall Street. The area specified for Sub Area 10A is on land currently under control of the United States Forest Service. The current Forest Service position on this property is unknown, however, in the past it would not allow improvements with regard to this Sub Area Concept. If Forest Service approval can be obtained, however, the applicant will connect the existing east entrance to the Hill Building to the current pedestrian way flanking Wall Street. This connection will be constructed r1 lJ • in brick pavers and will be completed upon final determination of the Golden Peak House Building renovation. It would either be completed in conjunction with that project or would be completed on its own. The brick pavers would form a line as shown on the site plan, however, such brick pavers will be carried out approximately ten feet from the building and will connect up to the partially completed pedestrian loop along the south side of the Hill Building. 4. Compliance with the Urban Design Considerations for Vail Village. A. Pedestrianization. The proposed alterations will further facilitate and enhance pedestrianization between the Hill Building, Siebert Circle and One Vail Place by providing the completion of a pedestrian loop from Seibert Circle to Wall Street pursuant to Sub Area Concept 10A. B. Vehicle Penetration. The proposed alterations .provide for no additional points of vehicle penetration nor will the addition create more vehicular trips to CC1. C. Streetscane Framework. To improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the .. pedestrian ways as a continuous system, the proposed alteration will provide an infill commercial store front on an existing building to create new commercial activity along an area which has no street life or visual interest. This is certainly a key location given the proposed renovations to the Golden Peak House. Currently there is a blank brick wall and a stairway leading down to the basement which provides no visual interest from a pedestrian standpoint. Tn addition, it provides a completion of the pedestrian loop to Wall Street. D. Street Enclosure. The proposed new addition is one story in height with the balcony on top connecting to the existing balconies on the east side of the building and also on the south side of the building. Given the proximity and the relationship of the Golden Peak House to the Hi11 Building an external enclosure has never really formed as the distance between the buildings will be much greater than the recommended one-half to one ratio. • 2 • E. Street Edae. The addition will provide a strong but irregular edge to the street as it will forma path around the Fii11 Building to Wa11 Street. The existing building along with the proposed alterations will provide the irregular facade lines, canopies, building jogs, brick pavers and landscaped areas (both at street level and by flower boxes on the upper levels) which give life to the street and visual interest for pedestrian travel. F. Building Fieiaht. The maximum proposed height for the addition is the existing balcony level on the east end of the building and approximately, two feet above a second floor balcony on the south side of the building. Ali proposed heights are well below the requirements specified in the Vail Village Urban Design Guideplan and Design Considerations. G. Views. The most significant and obvious view corridors have been designated by the View Corridor Restriction ordinance which was adopted sometime ago by the Town Council. A view from Seibert Circle is a protected view and the proposed addition will not encroach into . that view corridor. The existing planter box forms the edge of the view corridor and our expansion folloti~s the outline of the existing planter box. Whale the addition does fill in the area which contain the planter boxes this view is basically under an existing balcony and the minor intrusion into this area is warranted because the proposed addition enhances and satisfies the other categories of the Design Considerations in the best possible manner for the Town. The real objective of Seibert Circle and CC1.in general is to present desirable and inviting commercial activities and residential facilities in a charming and effective building frame. Canopies, awnings, landscaping and building extensions provided by the existing Hill Building and the proposed alteration help creates a pedestrian focus which mitigates the manor intrusion into a nonprotected existing view under an existing balcony. H. Service and Delivery. The expansion has no impact on service and delivery. 3 r1 L. J r. Sun/Shade Consideration. A sun/shade study shaves no effect on adjacent pieces of property. In summary as Vail Village Design Considerations state: "The design considerations are intended to serve as guideline design parameters. They are not seen as ridged rules or cookbook design elements to bring about a homogenizes appearance in Vail." The intention o£ the proposed alteration is to address the spirit of Vail as it exists an to enhance and extend that spirit by improving the commercial activities and pedestrianization of Commercial Core One. ~1 l~J • 4 /D\ r ~ ~` y CHRIS PAULSON MAJORITY LEApER COLORADO HOUSE OF RERRESENTATIVES STATE CAPITOL DENVER sozos 868-2348 July 1, 1988 To Members of the General Assembly and Interested Members of the Public: In view of the disastrous drought that many sections of our country are currently experiencing and in view of the current Colorado review of the need for water projects such as the Homestake II Project, the Thornton Water Purchase Agreement, and the Two Forks Water Project, there needs to be additional public debate about whether our present water policy provides enough protection for this state from potential draught and mismanagment. There is not only a national debate about water planning and drought management, there is also a statewide debate about how best to allocate our own resources. Current state water policy is a complex body of law. That policy addresses such topics as environmental mitigation, stream flows, nontributary ground water, water compacts, and water conservation. Because that body of law is so complex, some people, overwhelmed by it's complexity, prefer to say that there is no water policy at all. Colorado is very fortunate. We have had a normal year of precipitation instead of a devastating drought so that our water supply for this year is adequate. We gave a]sa had a temporary lull in our booming rate of growth so that we still have adequate time now to plan for the provision of adequate irrigation and domestic water supplies for the future renewed growth that wi71 surely occur as a result of the new airport and the attractiveness of the Colorado environment. We have a chance yet this summer to have public review of the state`s current water policy to ask whether it adecluateiy protects us from drought, provides enough flexibility for meeting increased demands and provides adequate protection far the environment. Please join me, Senator Tillie Bishop and Representative Scott McInnis, the two chairmen of the Senate and House Agriculture Committees, for a public forum on whether ar not the current state water policy protects the future needs of the state. The forum will be held in the state capital in the Old Supreme Court Chambers commencing at 9:00 a.m. on July 14th and will conclude by 4:00 p.m. We will attempt to allow for the maximum amount of public participation within the constraints of a one day meeting. I hope you can join us. Very trul ours, Chris Paulson ~. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 11, 1988 RE: Proposed Amendments to Section 18.52 of the Municipal Code pertaining to fees charged for parking requirements in Commercial Core I and II. In a recent work session, the Town Council directed the staff to initiate an amendment to the parking section of the Zoning Code. Specifically, this amendment involves increasing the rates charged for new parking demand created by development in the Village and Lionshead areas. At the present time, the fees for development in these areas are $3,000 per commercial space and $5,000 per residential space. These fees are established in the Zoning Code within Chapter 18.52. 18.52.1&0 B.S. • The parking fee for uses listed in Section 18.52.100, with the exception of dwelling units or accommodation units, shall be $3,000 per space. The fee for dwelling units and accommodation units shall be $5,000 per space. The Town Council will establish fee rates for uses not listed in Section 18.52.100. These fees are established as an element of the zoning code, and as such, require Planning Commission recommendation to the Council before action on any ordinance to amend these rates. Your recommendations will be passed along to the Council when they consider this ordinance on first reading at their July 19th meeting. BACKGROUND ON THIS FEE Provisions for paying in lieu of providing parking on site were first adapted in 1973. This step was taken to reduce vehicular traffic in the Core, while at the same time assuring that private development shoulder some of the responsibility of providing parking for these two areas. Money paid into the parking fund is used for the sole purpose of conducting parking studies or evaluations, construction of parking facilities, the maintenance of parking facilities, the payment of bonds or other indebtedness for parking facilities, and administrative services relating to parking. At the present time, the parking fund has a balance of $261,000 (as of 12/31/87}. Following the payment of all current • accounts, an additional $113,000 will be paid into this fund. While exhaustive research was not conducted as a part of this zoning amendment, the only substantial • parking fund was approximately $56,000 landing mats at Ford Park. Assuming no payments into this fund, the balance of approximately $375,000 in 1991. funds removed from the for the purchase of additional withdraws or this account will be The majority of projects that have paid into this fund has been small remodels and additions to existing properties in the Village. While individually the number of spaces "sold" are sma11, cumulatively the numbers are considerable. While the staff has nat kept a cumulative total of the spaces, it is estimated that between 100 to 140 spaces have been provided by payment into this fund aver the years. PROPOSED FEE INCREASE The Town Council has requested an increase to $10,000 per space regardless of whether the use is cu~~u«ercial or residential. This increase is based on the following assumptions: o Over time, the incremental increases in development results in an incremental increase in parking demand. o The private sector is responsible for bearing the responsibility of this increase of demand. o The premise of not encouraging additional vehicle trips into the Core areas should be encouraged to maintain the pedestrian experience. o At the present rates, the Town is essentially subsidizing development and the fees charged for parking spaces should be adjusted to more accurately reflect the costs of constructing structured parking spaces. o The proposed fee of $10,000 per space was essentially established by the Town Council. Theis rationale for this fee is based on a number of considerations. Foremost among these are the general assumption that structured parking spaces cost in the area of $10,040 per space, that the estimated cost of the Vail Village Structure addition is expected to be approximately $8,000 per space (excluding landscaping, entry gates, and a few other features), and the estimates of constructing spaces in a new structure in downtown Aspen range from $12,000 - 15,000 {it should be noted that Aspen's new Pay In Lieu Program charges $15,000 per space}. • STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend approval of the proposed amendments. While the actual dollar figures could be debated, there is little doubt that the current charges are significantly less than cast involved in actually constructing parking. Staff agrees with the premise that the Town is no longer in a position to be subsidizing parking demand created by private sector development, and would support the rate increases that are proposed. • • r 1 LJ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Devel~N~«ent Department DATE: July 7.1, 1988 RE: A request for an exterior alteration at the Hill Building located on Lot L, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing in order to construct a bay window on the southeast corner of the building. Applicant: Blanche C. Hill T. THE PROPOSAL The applicant, Blanche C. Hi11, is requesting approval of an exterior alteration in order to construct a bay window on the southeast corner of the Hill Building. The total size of the newly enclosed space is 225 square feet. Because of floor and ceiling height considerations, as well as bearing walls which must remain in place, the window effectively functions as a bay window that will be utilized for retail display. The addition does not include space that is really accessible to the public as a retail addition. At present, the area of expansion is delineated by a wrought iron railing that encloses a small landscape garden. The facade of the building, while it is on one of the most heavily traveled pedestrian routes in the Village, does not present a strong c~~~~.~~ercial streetscape element. The applicant feels that the addition of the bay window will strengthen the streetscape of the Hill building at the southeast corner, This proposal also includes the continuation of the implementation of the Urban Design Guideplan Concept 10A involving the pedestrian walkway/plaza located to the south of the Hill building. • II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CCI CODE The Commercial Core T 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, and an 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 Guideplan 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 pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish Vail Village. This proposal is substantially in compliance with the intent of the Commercial Core I zone district. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDEPLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE This proposal relates to Sub-Area Concept 10A. This concept refers to mountain gateway improvements and describes elements such as landscape screens, minor plaza, and a pedestrian loop to Wall Street. The area specified for Sub-Area l0A is on land currently under control of the U.S. Forest Service. The Forest Service has indicated through previous approvals that they will allow construction of this sub-area concept. The further implementation of this concept through this proposal consists of continuation of the brick paver surface treatment from the staircase south of the Hill building, wrapping around the building on the same radius as the bay window, at a width of 10 feet. TV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and the considerations is to show how the new designs strengthens or detracts from the overall intent of the design considerations. n U A. Pedestrianization: The proposed bay window at the southeast corner of the Hill building is located in the most heavily utilized pedestrian pathway in Vail Village. This narrow opening between the Hill building and the Golden Peak House is the main gateway to the Vail Village chairlifts. While all of the property between the Hi11 building and the Golden Peak House is privately owned, there is a dedicated pedestrian easement that allows transit between these two buildings to Vail Mountain. The proposed window expansion does extend to the very edge of this easement. However, due to the existing wrought iron railing, no further narrowing of the area will occur. Rather, the windows will serve to strengthen the pedestrian environment by adding transparency to the commercial streetscape of the southeast corner of the Hill building, The area currently consists of a small landscape garden backed by blank building walls. The addition of the bay window enhances the • commercial aspect of this building, and we feel adds a commercial vitality to the streetscape in this portion of the Hill building. Staff does have minor concern with the proposed awning treatment that encroaches into the platted easement. We feel that the awnings should be displayed only in the summer, as they may present a psychological feeling of narrowing this small corridor from the Village to Vail Mountain. B. Vehicular Penetration: While the addition of the display window does not in and of itself create additional parking or loading demands on the Hill building, it does raise a related concern with the Community Development Department staff. The Hill building contains a small garage used as parking far the Hi11 building residence. There is often a vehicle parked behind this garage door, extending onto the public right-of-way and, in certain vantage points, into the view corridor. We feel that with the amount of pedestrian traffic that goes by the east elevation of the Hill building, this exterior parking space is no longer appropriate in the center of Vail Village. This expansion should serve notice that the exterior parking space on Town of Vail property will no longer be allowed. C. Streetscape Framework: The Community Development staff feels that the streetscape framework will be enhanced by the addition of this bay/display window. The current southeast elevations of the building do not lend themselves to the c~~~„«ercial streetscape that is prevalent along the rest of Bridge Street. The southeast corner of this building has more of a residential feel to it than is found as one travels along Bridge Street toward Vail Mountain. We feel that the removal of the parking space in front of the garage and the addition of the bay window will greatly enhance the streetscape framework in this area of the Village. D. Street Enclosure: The general area of the bay window expansion is actually an in-fill below existing decks. There is little application of the street enclosure criteria to this proposal. E. Street Edge: The bay window element ties in architecturally with the treatment of the southwest corner of the building. As the window sweeps along this pedestrian way, we feel it provides a positive • street edge to the walkway. F. Building Height: This proposal does not affect the . criteria related to building height. G. Views and Focal Points: The pedestrian corridor between the Hill building and the Golden Peak House is an adopted major view corridor within the Town of Vail. This proposal is an in-fill below the existing decks and does not encroach any further beyond the building edge than the existing wrought iron fencing surrounding the planter. While the addition does encroach up to the very edge of the view corridor, it does not encroach into the view corridor and, therefore, presents no negative impact. The existing parking space behind the garage does intrude into the view corridor. Elimination of this use will improve the view. H. Service and Deliverv: No Impact. I. Sun/Shade: No Impact. V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS This project consists of a c~,~u~~ercial addition of 225 square feet. As most of it is a bay/display window, the precedent in the c~~~u«unity has been that this type of addition does not create a parking demand. The staff will need to review the detailed plans and make a final judgement on parking implications at issuance of building permit. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the exterior alteration for the bay window expansion. We feel that in general, although the bay window somewhat narrows the walkway between the Golden Peak House and the Hill Building, that the improvements in the building facade and the streetscape framework make up for this encroachment and are a positive addition to the Hill building. We would reiterate as conditions of approval the following concerns: 1. The exterior vehicular parking space behind the existing garage doors no longer be utilized. Endorsement of this shall be handled by the Vail Police due to the space occurring an Town of Vail property. 2. The awnings be utilized during the summer only and should not be in place during the ski season. • 3. The ski racks that have been placed along the facade of the Hill building in the past shall not be allowed the length of the display window due to the narrowing of the pedestrian corridor. • 4. That the applicant agree not to remonstrate against any special improvement district that may be formed within this area. • APPLICANT'S STATEMENT r~ LJ ADDENDUM FOR APPLICATION FOR EXTERIOR MODIFICATION 1. The Proposal The Applicant, Blanche C. Hill, is requesting to construct a bay window on the Southeast corner of the Hill Building. 2. Conformance with purposes of the CC1 District. It is stated in Section 15.24.010, Commercial Core One District, is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial area with this mixture of lodges, residential dwellings and commercial establishments in a predominately pedestrian environment. • The Commercial Core One District is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guideplan and Design Considerations prescribe the site development standards that are intended to insure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangement of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways to insure continuation of the building scale and architectural quality that distinguish the Village. The proposed alteration centers around a minor addition to the existing building which would allow increased visibility at the pedestrian level along the southeast corner of the building. This proposal is in compliance with the intent of the Zoning for CCi District. 3. Compliance with the Urban Design Guideplan for Vail Village. This proposal relates to the Sub Area Concept 10A. This Sub Area Concept refers to the Mountain Gateway improvements and describes elements Such a landscape screen, minor plaza and a pedestrian loop to Wa11 Street. The area specified for sub Area loA is on land currently under control of the United States Forest Service. The current Forest Service position on this property is unknown, however, in the past it would not allow improvements with regard to this Sub Area Concept. Tf Forest Service approval can be obtained, however, the applicant will connect the existing east entrance to the Hill Building to the current pedestrian way flanking Wa11 Street. This connection will be constructed • in brick pavers and will be completed upon final determination of the Golden Peak House Building renovation. It would either be completed in conjunction with that project or would be completed on its own. The brick pavers would form a line as shown on the site plan, however, such brick pavers will be carried out approximately ten feet from the building and will connect up to the partially completed pedestrian loop along the south side of the Hill Building. 4. Compliance with the Urban Design Considerations far Vail Village. A. Pedestrianization. The proposed alterations will further facilitate and enhance pedestrianization between the Hill Building, Siebert Circle and One Vail Place by providing the completion of a pedestrian loop from Seibert Circle to Wall Street pursuant to Sub Area Concept 10A. B. Vehicle Penetration,. The proposed alterations provide for no additional points of vehicle penetration nor will the addition create more vehicular trips to CC1. n LJ C. Streetscape Framework. To improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways as a continuous system, the proposed alteration will provide an infill commercial store front on an existing building to create new commercial activity along an area which has no street life or visual interest. This is certainly a key location given the proposed renovations to the Golden Peak House. Currently there is a blank brick wall and a stairway leading down to the basement which provides no visual interest from a pedestrian standpoint. In addition, it provides a completion of the pedestrian loop to Wall Street. D. Street Enclosure. The proposed new addition is one story in height with the balcony an top connecting to the existing balconies on the east side of the building and also on the south side of the building. Given the proximity and the relationship of the Golden Peak House to the Hill Building an external enclosure has never really formed as the distance between the buildings will be much greater than the recommended one-half to one ratio. LJ 2 • r~ U E. Street Edae. The addition will provide a strong but irregular edge to the street as it will forma path around the Hill Building to Wall Street. The existing building along with the proposed alterations will provide the irregular facade lines, canopies, building jogs, brick pavers and landscaped areas (both at street level and by flower boxes an the upper levels) which give life to the street and visual interest far pedestrian travel. k'. Building Height. The maximum proposed height for the addition is the existing balcony level on the east end of the building and approximately two feet above a second floor balcony on the south side of the building. All proposed heights are well below the requirements specified in the Vail Village Urban Design Guideplan and Design Considerations. G. Views. The most significant and obvious view corridors have been designated by the View Corridor Restriction ordinance which was adopted sometime ago by the Town Council. A view from Seibert Circle is a protected view and the proposed addition will not encroach into that view corridor. The existing planter box forms the edge of the view corridor and our expansion follac~~s the outline of the existing planter box. While the addition does fill in the area which contain the planter boxes this view is basically under an existing balcony and the minor intrusion into this area is warranted because the proposed addition enhances and satisfies the other categories of the Design Considerations in the best possible manner for the Town. The real objective of Seibert Circle and CC1 in general is to present desirable and inviting commercial activities and residential facilities in a charming and effective building frame. Canopies, awnings, landscaping and building extensions provided by the existing Hill Building and the proposed alteration help creates a pedestrian focus which mitigates the minor intrusion into a nonprotected existing view under an existing balcony. LJ H. Service and Deliver. The expansion has no impact on service and delivery. 3 • Z. Sun/Shade Consideration. A sun/shade study shows no effect on adjacent pieces of property. rn summary as Vail Village Design Considerations state: "The design considerations are intended to serve as guideline design parameters. They are not seen as ridged rules or cookbook design elements to bring about a homogenizes appearance in Vail.'" The intention of the proposed alteration is to address the spirit of Vail as it exists an to enhance and extend that spirit by improving the commercial activities and pedestrianization of Commercial Core One. r 1 4 Planning and Environmenal Commission July 25, 1988 ~~ To Be Tabbed 1:00 PM Work session with representatives from the Town Council regarding environmental issues 2:00 PM Site Visits 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of July 11. 2. A request for an exterior alteration and for side and stream setback variances in order to expand the existing dining room and add an exterior deck at the Up the Creek Restaurant located in the Creekside Building. Applicant: Up the Creek Restaurant 3. A request for a front setback variance and common area variance in order to add lobby space to the Willows Condominiums. Applicant: Willows Condominium Association 4. Work session on Lionsridge Filing 3, Block 2, Special Development District/Major Subdivision 5. Work session on Gore Creek Campground expansion • Planning and Environmental Commission July 25~ 19$8 PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Napkins Peggy Osterfoss Grant Riva Sid Schultz STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Rick Pylman Kristan Pritz ABSENT Jim Viele The meeting was called to order by Diana Donovan. 1. Approval of minutes of July 11. Grant Riva moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 2. Up the Creek Restaurant Exterior Alteration. Bryan Hobbs moved to table this item to August 8. Second was made by Pam Hopkins. Vote was 6-0 to table. 3. A request far a front setback variance and common areas variance in order to add lobby space to the Willows Condominiums. Applicant: Willows Condominium Association Rick Pylman gave the staff presentation and gave the background on the request. Due to similar variances in the neighborhood and no negative impacts, the staff recommended approval. The Willows manager, Marija Brofos, asked the PEC to approve the request. Peggy felt the addition would be an improvement and had no objections. Bill Bishop, representing Bishop Park and Riva Ridge, stated that he had no objections to the project and felt it would be an improvement. After a discussion concerning the location of the newspaper racks and not diminishing the landscaping, Rick stated that if there was a decrease in the landscaping, the project would have to go back to DRB. Grant moved and Peggy seconded to approve the request with the condition that the staff review the landscaping to see that there not be any reduction. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 4. Work session on Lionsridge Filing 3t Block 2, Special • Development District/Mayor subdivision After discussion, a site visit was scheduled for August 1 at . 1:30 PM. 5. Work session on Gare Creek Campground expansion. Grant stated that the concern over environmental damage be kept to a minimum. Diana wondered if the Forest Service accounted for the burgeoning bear population and questioned the location of the campground in relation to the Wilderness designation boundary. The meeting adjourned at 4:20 PM. • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: C~.~~~«unity Development Department DATE: July 25, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance and a variance to the allowed common area in order to construct an addition to the entry of the Willow Condominiums located on Lot 8, Block 6, Vail Village First Filing Applicant: The Willows Condominium Association I. DESCRTPTTON OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Willow Condominium Association is proposing to construct additional lobby space and a covered entry. This construction requires a front setback variance and a variance to the allowable common area. The Willows are located in a High Density Multiple Family zone district which requires 20 foot setbacks. The proposal is for an encroachment into the front setback area of 11 feet (9 foot setback). The present encroachment at the northwest corner is 3 feet (17 foot setback), although existing planters are placed on the property line. The High Density Multiple Family zone district allows for common area to be an amount equal to 20~ of the allowable GRFA. The Willows Condominiums were constructed prior to being zoned HDMF. As a result, the building contains an amount of GRFA that exceeds what would be allowed under HDMF zoning. Under HDMF zoning, the Willows would be allowed grass residential floor area of 60~ of the lot size {21,081) or 12,648 square feet. In actuality, the building contains 16,236 square feet of GRFA or 3588 sf over that allowed under present zoning. This overage also affects the common area. Allowed would be 20% of 12,648 or 2529 sf. Existing is 4859 sf of common area, or 2330 sf over the allowable. The proposed addition would add 82 square feet of common area to the existing 4859 square feet. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Cu,~„~~unity Development recommends approval of the requested variances 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. 1. Setback Variance The surrounding properties are zoned HDMF and, except for the property to the west which is underdeveloped, are utilized as high density residential. The distance from the buildings to the property lines vary greatly. At Bishop Park to the west, the maximum setback is 5 feet along Willow Road and Willow Place. The setbacks for Rive Ridge South along Willow Road range from 0' to 9', while setbacks for Riva Ridge South range from 0' to 25'. At the Willows, there are existing planters which abut the property line. The staff feels the requested setback variance is consistent with other structures in the vicinity. 2. Common Area Variance The enlarged lobby and improvements aver the addition will enhance in excess of what is a uses. remodeled entry are desired existing structure. The the lodge functins and is not reasonable amount for these 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. 1. Front Setback Variance The existing setback is feet due to the encroachment of the northwest corner. The staff feels that a setback of 9 feet would be compatible with the sites in the vicinity of the Willows. 2. Common Area Variance The common area requested is not inconsistent when compared with the amount of existing GRFA. The effect of the reciuested variance on light and air. distribution of population{ transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The staff sees no additional effect upon the above factors. There are planters to be constructed which will abut the property line, but they will be no closer to the property line than the existing planters. III. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VAIL'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Vail Master Plan refers to this sub-area as Wi11ow Circle. Goal 1 of the Willow Circle sub-area is, "Maintain and enhance the urban design characteristics presently found in the sub-area with future development and redevelopment in this sub-area." The Community Action Plan, Goal No. 2 states under "C~,~„~~unity Design": "Upgrading and remodeling of structures and site improvements should be encouraged." 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 variances 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 variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variances are 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. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION or enforcement of the deprive the applicant of owners of other properties in The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the requested variances. The requested setback variance is in conformance with neighboring buildings. The immediate neighborhood contains many setbacks of less than 20 feet, in fact, up to 4' setbacks. Although new planters on the property line are being proposed, they simply replace existing planters. Improved c~,ru~~on area and upgrading of facilities are consistent with the Town goals. The amount of common area requested is not inconsistent with the amount of GRFA which the common area will serve. • ~~I g~ 5~9 ~i m • ~~ G ~- .~ ~_ ~ ~" ~ l~" - l~ ~ i,. !/~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ --~ ~~-.' ~~ ~~ f -~~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .~~.. ~~ ~~~ ~--. ~ ~. ~~ ,.a..- ~ wi,~- ~ ~~ f ~~a x~~ ~~~ ~, ~- ~ ~ ~~ ~ _- - ~- ~ ~-' ~- ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ -~ ~~ ~,~ ~,. G ~ ~~ ¢°~ ~ ~% ~~~ v ,-~ ~ w~ ~~ ~r Q °~~ ~ ~~ ~"~ ~z - ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~-~.~ ~~ ~~.~~ •_Gr ~~ 4 ~ ~ ..~ ~- `~ , c. ,,,,ct„ i~ ~, Ste` ~- ^~ ~~ ~ ~~-~ ~ =- J,~~S ~~ a ~i ,. ,. ~. ~~ , ~~: i 2-- 3. ~~~-~/ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~-~ ~('~ u cl~ ~~~~ ~k ~~ ~~~ ~V y i~e~s 5~~~~~ i~~~.. s - ~_, ~ ~"s a ~~ 1~ ,~ r~~ ~" ~~G~ ~ ~ -s- c,~ -- . ~ -ti ~, 6 j o., e 6 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 25, 1988 SUEJECT: A request for a front setback variance and a variance to the allowed common area in order to construct an addition to the entry of the Willow Condominiums located on Lot 8, Block 6, Vail Village First Filing Applicant: The Willows Condominium Association I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Willow Condominium Association is proposing to construct additional lobby space and a covered entry. This construction requires a front setback variance and a variance to the allowable common area. The Willows are located in a High Density Multiple Family zone district which requires 20 foot setbacks. The proposal is for an encroachment into the front setback area of 11 feet (9 foot setback}. The present encroachment at the northwest corner is 12 feet, ( 8 foot setback) due to existing columns. The lobby would infill the columns. There are also planters located on the property line. The High Density Multiple Family zone district allows for common area to be an amount equal to 20% of the allowable GRFA. The Willows Condominiums were constructed prior to being zoned HDMF. As a result, the building contains an amount of GRFA that exceeds what would be allowed under HDMF zoning. Under HDMF zoning, the Willows would be allowed gross residential floor area of 60% of the lot size (21,081) or 12,64$ square feet. xn actuality, the building contains 16,236 square feet of GRFA or 3588 sf over that allowed under present zoning. This overage also affects the common area. Allowed would be 20% of 12,648, or 2529 sf. Existing is 4859 sf of common area, or 2330 sf over the allowable. The proposed addition would add 82 square feet of common area to the existing 4859 square feet. IZ. CRITERIA AND FINDYNGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variances 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. 1. Setback Variance The surrounding properties are zoned HDMF and, except for the property to the west, have been developed as high density residential. The distance from the buildings to the property lines varies greatly. At Bishop Park to the west, the maximum setback is 5 feet along Willow Road and Willow Place. The setbacks for Riva Ridge South along Willow Road range from 0' to 9', while setbacks for Riva Ridge South range from o' to 25'. At the Willows, there are existing planters which abut the property line. The staff feels the requested setback variance is consistent with other structures in the vicinity and the proposed expansion will not have negative impacts on the neighborhood. 2. Common Area Variance The enlarged lobby will have no appreciable effects on the properties adjacent to the Willows. This modest increase to the lobby is seen as a positive improvement to guest services. 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. 1. Front Setback Variance The existing setback is 8 feet due to the existing columns. The expansion does not actually increase any existing encroachments because it is within the location of existing columns. The staff feels that a setback of 9 feet would be compatible with the sites in the vicinity of the Willows. 2. Common Area Variance The common area requested is not inconsistent when compared with the amount of existing GRFA. • 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 staff sees no signifa.cant effect upon the above factors. There are planters to be constructed which will abut the property line, but they will be no closer to the property line than the existing planters. III. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VAIL~S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Vail Village Master Plan refers to this sub-area as Willow Circle. Goal 1 of the Willow Circle sub-area is, "Maintain and enhance the urban design characteristics presently found in the sub-area with future development and redevelopment in this sub-area." The C~.~~.~~unity Action Plan, Goal No. 2 states under "Community Design": "Upgrading and remodeling of structures and site improvements should be encouraged." IV. 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 variances 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 variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variances are warranted for one or mare 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. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION or enforcement of the deprive the applicant of owners of other properties in The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the requested variances. The requested setback variance is in conformance with neighboring buildings. The immediate neighborhood contains many setbacks of less than 2Q feet, in fact, up to 0' setbacks. Although new planters on the property line are being proposed, they simply replace existing planters. Improved common area and upgrading of facilities are consistent with the Town goals. The amount of common area requested is not inconsistent with the amount of GRFA which the common area will serve. Overall, this proposal is seen as a very positive upgrading of the facility and the staff encourages the Commission to approve the variances requested. • 1' I y~~ . 1 ~- d~ 1 -`"~~ l ~~ l ?~ ~~, ~ 7 ~~ ~~ / d ~~ ~? ~~~ f ~~~~ ~ ~/ ~ ~ ~ ~i~ ~ ~ f ~ 1 I ~~ j d~ ~ h ~~_~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~---~ ~ ~? {~~ { c~J J ~d~~ ~~q~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - In f ` ~t ~. 1 3` ;gl ~1 k~ ~1 ~~~ 41~ ,~~~ •5~~~\ ,~~_• , ~ ~ ~`~ I f f ~, ~~ a CJ ~ ~ f ,1 f t 1 ~~ r ~~ _~ 1"' ~1 U e ' ~ Planning and Environmental Commission August 8, 1988 2:00 PM Site Visits 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of July 25. 2. A request for variances in order to construct an addition to the Tivoli Lodge. Applicant: Robert Lazier 3. A request for a special development district and major subdivision for Lionsridge Filing 3, Block 2, Lots 1 through 26. Applicant: Commercial Federal Mortgage Company ~. A request for an exterior alteration in order to remodel an entry to the John Galt shop in the Gore Creek Plaza Building. Applicant: Charles Rosenquist 5. A request for a parking variance in order to increase the retail area of the Vail Athletic Club. Applicant: J.W.T. 1987 Vail Colorado LTD Partnership 6. Work session on bed and breakfasts. 7. Update on approval of room addition and entry for the Christiana Lodge. 8. Discussion of underlying zone districts for special development districts. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1.988 PRESENT: All Present STAFF PRESENT: Peter Patten Kristan Pritz Larry Eskwith Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by Jim Viele, Chairman, at 3:00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of July 25 Diana Donavan moved and Brian Hobb seconded to approve the minutes as presented. The vote was 7 to 0. 2. A request for variances in order to construct an addition, to the Tivoli Lodge. Applicant: Robert Lazier Peter Patten presented a revised proposal of an eight (formerly 11) unit addition to the Tivoli Lodge. He showed site plans. He explained that by reducing the number of units, the parking requirement is now 35 spaces. The setbacks are now 16' and 17' (formerly 4' to 6'). Peter also pointed out that there would be landscaping on the west side near the public way. He explained that there was at present a 4' encroachment on the Town of Vail property, This would be removed and landscaped. Peter then reviewed the criteria and findings. The first one was the relationship of the requested variances to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. It was felt that with the scaling back of the mass and bulk of the proposal with increased side setbacks the staff's concerns regarding the impacts were relieved. The re-design also resulted in a reduced view impact to the units north of the Tivoli. With regard to the parking design variance, he felt that there should be no negative impacts upon existing or potential uses, because there was not an increase in asphalted parking area, but, in fact, there was a decrease. Pater mentioned that the intent of the ordinance regarding parking design was an aesthetic one regarding the covered parking. • The next criteria concerned grants of special privilege. The staff felt that the re-design of the addition brought the proposal much more in line with the mass and bulk envisioned for the addition in the Vail Village Master Plan. Neither the Ramshorn nor the Christiana, both located in the PA zone, were required to structure their additional parking in conjunction with their small additions. When one considers that this scale addition was identified in the Action Plan, it indicates that approval of the project would not be a grant of special privilege. Finally, considering the Ramshorn and the Garden of the Gods, special development districts which increased the allowable density as well as the density variance granted for the Christiana, this proposal, if approved, would not represent dissimilar treatment from other sites in the vicinity. The next criteria was the effect on light and air, population, transportation, traffic, etc. Peter said that the proposal now meets its 35 space parking requirement for the entire project. This does include the introduction of eight to nine valet spaces as well as the recognition of four existing legal non- conforming spaces along Hanson Ranch Road in front of the hotel. Also, it is possible to accommodate a small number of valet spaces on Lot P-2 without the necessity of backing an to Vail Valley Drive. Peter stated that the proposal actually reduces surface parking area and increases landscaped area, while more efficiently utilizing the existing parking spaces. . The next subject Peter touched Plan. The Vail Village Master in the specific area proposed. staff recommended approval of the applicant had responded in the concerns of the staff. upon was Veil's Comprehensive Plan calls for a small addition Finally, Peter stated that the the variances. They felt that a strong and positive manner to Next, Jay Peterson spoke who was representing the applicant, Bob Lazier. He discussed the parking issue and pointed out that 32 spaces were not valet parking, and also that the Tivoli had done parking studies the previous winter and had found no parking problems. Jay reminded the Board that the pedestrian path had been a concern to them and it was "opened up" again. Also, there was more landscaping being added. Jay felt the addition now met the requirement of the Town of Vail Code and the Vail Village Master Plan. Dr. Lier of Unit 5 in Villa Valhalla, the condominiums to the north of the Tivoli, reviewed the previous memo at which the problems of density had been discussed. He was also concerned about parking spaces and getting in and out without backing up into the street. Dr. Lier wondered where the dumpster was going to be placed for the Tivoli. Frankie Tuff, president of the Vi11a Valhalla Association representing the owners, • _,_ wondered how one could check in and check out if four parking spaces in front of the Tivoli were going to be used for parking. Jay responded that spaces to check in and check out were not required by the Town of Vail. He said that these were always counted as parking requirements. Frankie was not convinced that the parking problem was solved. He felt that the decor was being made more and more dense. And regarding the views, she felt that at some point, one needed to stop filling in the spaces and encourage a walkway. Rosalie Lier discussed the fact that for twenty-two years she had lived across from the Tivoli and watched cars and garbage trucks go in and out of the lot have trouble backing out and backing into the fence in front of the Valhalla. She added that many people do not know where they are going in that area and that there is a lot of traffic. Mrs. Lier was cognizant of the need for lodge rooms in Vail, but she wanted the Board to pay close attention to variances and asked them to deny this request. Jay then mentioned that the number of rooms that were approved when the Tivoli was constructed was twice as many of that which are now allowed on the site. Rosalie Lier then read the paragraph about views being somewhat impacted for two units. She stated that this was not true. She said there were seven units that were impacted with decreased views in the Tivoli. She added that taking off the west end of the addition did not decrease their view impact. Reid Lichtenfels, attorney for Mr. Davidson, spoke against the proposal. Reid mentioned that he did appreciate the limited concessions that had been made. Then he read from the memo of June 27 that mentioned that the large number of variances requested should serve as a warning that this is not a good proposal. Reid mentioned that the large number of requested variances hadn't changed. There were still five requested variances. He spoke about density. Reid mentioned that Jay Peterson had stated that they were well within the existing zoning. Reid felt that the 2,500 square feet being asked was not an insignificant amount. Reed then discussed the parking. He felt that the parking variance was very significant. He quoted from the Code of 18.52.060 which specified that the Town Council may permit off-site parking located within 300 feet, but that even the Town Council cannot grant an exception to the requirement that parking be on-site and covered. Reid then discussed the fact that the June 27 memo stated that backing out onto Vail Valley Drive from the parking lot was intolerable. He felt that physically one still could not valet park without backing onto the street. The next thing Reid was concerned about was the dumpster placement and felt that the only place for the dumpster was on the parking lot adjacent to the Tivoli. • -3- Reed pointed out that the Town was only receiving one benefit: six feet of landscape and eight more units in parking for the elimination of six feet of asphalt. He did not feel that this was a fair bargain. He discussed view, traffic and safety concerns. Reid did not agree with any of the criteria. He felt that the physical hardship had not been addressed. He said, "you must find a situation unique. Not simply what was given to other people. You are really perpetuating what you have given to the other lodges in the same area." The next person to speak was a man named Corona who worked for Mr. Whitehead to the west of the project. He stated that Mr. Whitehead wanted him to explain that he was strongly opposed to the addition. Although his view of the mountain was not being impacted, he felt the sense of open space was being impaired. Larry Eskwith, the Town Attorney, discussed the variance section 18.62.010 B: "Variances may be granted with respect to the parking and loading section of the Code." He told the Board that there was nothing in the parking section that would limit them. He pointed out to them that they must find the findings - the first two and one of the third ones. Also that the Board must feel that what they find supports their findings. Galen from John Perkins office, the architect on the project, discussed different locations where the dumpster could be placed. Jim Viele then asked the Board to make c~..,~.,~ents starting with Grant Riva. Grant commended the applicant on the changes that they had made since the project was originally brought before them. Grant was concerned with the parties who are in opposition and admitted that the views would be obstructed to a degree of the part if the project went through. But he added that regarding a master plan, this specific location was referred to as adding additional density. Grant agreed that there are still five variances being asked for, but felt that the impact and the scope of the proposal had been lessened. Peggy was the next one to speak from the Board. She felt that, as usual there were trade-offs. Regarding the view, she felt that the building would be high, would decrease same of the open space, but on the other hand, she felt that the pedestrian area would be enhanced. Peggy then asked Peter whether a car would in fact have to back out of the parking area on to Vail Valley Drive. Peter felt that the cars would not have to, that they could pull behind other cars. He stated that the Tivoli Lodge must instruct the workers who would be backing the cars out not to go out on the street. . -4- Jay reminded the Board that the original proposal included eight valet spaces which would have required backing out. Jay stated that now the only reason a car would have to back out is if the lot were completely full. With regard to backing out into Hanson Ranch Road, Jay pointed out that cars back out onto Hansen Ranch Road at present and this would not change. Jay stated that 32 of the 35 spaces were true spaces for the entire project. Reid asked if it was true that there would be three valet parking spaces at the lodge and five on P2 lot. And Peter said there would be. Peggy asked Jay about the parking study that Tivoli had done and whether the lot had been full. Jay stated that the studies had been done at noon. And there were only two days from last season when the lots were full, and both of those were Saturdays which were check-in and check-out days. Bob Lazier added that the most cars that they ever had were 17. Peggy finished with a statement that she was not sure whether she had heard enough about the dumpster situation. Bryan Hobbs was next. Bryan sympathized with the people in opposition regarding the views and was happy to see the reduction in the amount of the request. He wanted to see more clarification of the trash pick-up. Diana Donovan liked the fact that they were using more efficiently what parking spaces they had and not adding more asphalt. She asked that there be some landscaping by the newspaper racks on the P2 lot. Diana felt that if a person was here first, they should have same right to the views. But she did feel that Bob had addressed this. Diana wished that the Town and the Council would address the problems with views. Sid Schultz reminded the Board that the Master Plan called for encouraging additional hotel rooms and with the addition of mare hotel rooms, there would be added bulk and it would impact views. Sid also wanted to have the trash problem solved. Pam Hopkins agreed with the rest of the Board and was pleased that the Master Plan called far in-fill in this area. Pam felt the trash removal problem needed to be thought out. She could not see haw it would work. She asked also about how the parking would work. Bob Lazier answered that by saying that personnel could park in the Valet spaces and leave their keys at the front desk. Pam then added that she would like to see lightposts to identify the parkway. . -5- Then Jim Viele mentioned his concerns. He agreed with the rest • of the Board's concerns. He stated that any time that there is a proposal that affects views or other impacts, the Board hesitates to act an it. Views are really not protected by ordinance. Jim pointed out that the Master Plan did call for in-fill in this area, but that the initial proposal that was brought in was much more than what the Master Plan had called for. And Jim felt that he could support the proposal as it had been changed. Reid asked if location of the dumpster to the east of the building would require a variance also. Peter said that would have to be studied. Bab Lazier felt that the landscape area in the middle of the parking lot would be a better place. Mrs. Lier mentioned that the new children's center would even add more traffic. She was concerned about the pedestrian traffic on Hansen Ranch Road with the huge center being built for the children. Mrs. Lier said, "Each of you have concerns, yet each of you are going to support this." Jim Viele answered that if every proposal were cut and dried, there would be no need for a Board like this. Peter Patten felt addressing the safety was a good issue and that they are going to put in a new sidewalk connecting the Manor Vail Ynn. Peter then mentioned that this was called for in the Master Plan. Although the Master Plan had not yet been approved, considerable public review had been held at this point, and there would be more public review before the Master Plan was adopted. However, at this paint, it was fairly well agreed as to the general direction between the public, the Planning C..~~„«ission, the Town COLlncll . Diana Donovan moved for approval of the proposal per staff memo with additional direction to the Design Review Board regarding landscaping on the P2 lot and locating lights on the bike path and possibly on the P2 lat. She based her approval on Findings ~. & 2 and the third one was that of a strict and literal interpretation. Peggy seconded the motion and the vote was 7 to 0 in favor of the approval. Peter reminded the audience that the decision could be appealed within 10 days to the Town Council. 3. A request for a special development district and mayor subdivision far Lionridae Filing 3, Block 2a Lots 1 through 19. Applicant: Commercial Federal Mortc~acie Coml3anY Peter Patten explained the proposal and showed site plans with open space and public roads. He stated that currently the site is zoned primary/secondary and is subdivided into 19 lots which allows for a total of 38 dwelling units. The request results • _s- in the reduction of 14 dwelling units upon a site and a total density reduction from 3.5 units per acre to 2.2 units per acre. Furthermore, the total GRFA allowed currently is 84,905 square feet and the proposal is for 68,204 square feet. From the original 38 units allowed, 24 units are being proposed. Peter then reviewed the special development district review criteria. He stated that although the development district will have an underlying primary/secondary residential zone, with only single family residential dwellings allowed, the designation is proposed in order to allow for slightly varied lot sizes and setbacks. Peter stated that the staff recommended approval with two conditions. One, that a workable solution be found to the ingress/egress points of the project with the adjacent Solar Crest Condo project. And the second one, the design guidelines, including architectural and landscape elements, be submitted to the staff with the final plat application. The applicant's representative, Peter Jamar, discussed part of the plan. He stated he had no problem with the conditions. That the guidelines would be part of the covenance. As to the ingress/egress problem, he stated that one criteria was to hide the Solar Crest as much as possible and landscape heavily between the two driveways. He had no problem of extending the easement. One adjacent property owner, across the street, . Patty Rickman, was very happy with the proposal. Jim asked the Board to comment on the proposal. Pam agreed with the staff and felt that it was a good plan. She did have concern about the property at the cul-de--sac, and she said that she would like to see the fronts of the lots in the cul-de-sacs be at least 30' wide. Peter said they were at least 40'. Sid agreed with the staff memo and the two conditions. Diana had two questions. One, how to make it as safe as possible where the two driveways exist, and two, whether or not the utilities were underground. Peter Jamar said the utilities were on the north side of Lionsridge Loop, but they would be underground. Bryan was in favor of the plan. Peggy felt that Peter Jamar did an outstanding job with the site plan. She felt that the design guidelines were very important. Peggy also felt landscaping between the units needed to be specified as far as numbers and where the trees would be, also, that as part of the entry landscaping, she felt there should be landscaping along Lionsridge Loop and maybe a berm to set the lots in so that the drivers were somewhat apart from the road. Peter Jamar felt this was a great idea, but he felt that they could be more specific. Peter felt that each homeowner could complete the landscaping on his own property. r -,- More discussion followed concerning the ingress/egress next to Solar Crest. Diana felt that Peter Jamar could move now to help make a more workable solution in the future. Peter stated that if he could find a solution, it would be great. But at the moment, they are asking for that particular access. After more discussion, Pam moved to approve, and Diana seconded, the proposal for the staff memo with conditions one, two and the third condition, being a minimum 30' front width of the lots in the cul-de--sacs, and number four, she added that more specific plans of landscaping and entry with lights be submitted. Peggy asked that the Design Review Board have more specific information regarding the landscape plan. Peter said they would be sure to get a copy of the minutes to the Design Review Board. The vote was 7 to 0 in favor. 4. A rectuest for an exterior alteration in order to remodel, an entry to the Jahn Galt shop in the Gore Creek Plaza Building. Applicant: Charles Rosenquist Betsy Rosolack presented the staff memo. Bill Pierce, representing the applicant, was available for questions. Diana Donovan passed on the following recommendations to the Design Review Board. The roof line should mirror Blu's and Sweet Basil's and be compatible. Number two, landscaping should be included on the north side. And number three, the planter should be coordinated with Blu's. Number four, the roof should not drain on to the walkway. Pam Hopkins made the motion, seconded by to approve the staff memo. Bill Pierce felt that Mr. Rosenquist would not object to the parking fee. The vote was 7 to 0. Bill Pierce then stated that having a planter in front of the addition did not work well with the design for the addition. Jim Viele felt the project was fine without the planter in front of the addition. All of these concerns would be presented to the Design Review Board. 5. A request for a parkins variance in order to increase the retail area of the Vail Athletic Club. Applicant: J.W.T. 1987 Vail Colorado LTD Partnership. Kristan Pritz presented this memo and explained the request. The owners are requesting that they be allowed to pay into the Town of Vail parking fund in lieu of the one space they would need in increasing their retail area. She then gave a history of the parking request at the Vail Athletic Club. Tn view of the criteria, the staff recommended approval of the one parking space variance with the condition that the Vail Athletic Club owners pay in to the parking fund. • _a- Due to the fact that the variance is for one parking space, the new retail space is located completely within the building, the retail is a secondary use and previous parking variances were approved, the staff felt that it was appropriate to approve this request. After discussion from the Board, Peggy moved and Diana seconded to approve the request. And the vote was 5 to 0 with one abstention of Jim Vie1e. The meeting was adjourned for informal work sessions. • • -s- TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 8, 1988 SUBJECT: A request far variances for side and rear setbacks, parking design, and density control in order to construct an 8 unit addition to the Tivoli Lodge located on Lot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5th Filing and Lot P-2, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing. Applicant: Robert Lazier I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED The applicant has modified his proposal since the June 27th PEC meeting at which it was first considered. The following is the applicant's statement describing the modifications: "1} Density: The current modified proposal calls for S rooms (formerly 11) as follows: a. Two rooms at 378 sq ft b. One room at 336 sq ft c. Three rooms at 295 sq ft d. One room at 280 sq ft e. One suite (a.u.) at 590 sq ft Total GRFA is 2,847 sq.ft. (formerly 4,345 sq ft) The basement space will be used as storage or a physical fitness type of room. 2) Parking The new parking demand is 6 spaces. The current parking requirement is 28.9 spaces plus 6 spaces for a total of 35 spaces. The current parking plan shows 18 spaces in P-2; 4 spaces in front and 11 spaces in the west lot. We can conform to the parking requirement by valet parking 2 cars in P-2, neither of which need to be moved off site for access. No parking structure is proposed and no P-2 modifications will be necessary. 3. Setbacks • The west setback is now from 16'-2" on the northwest corner to 17'-10" on the southwest corner. The south setback is slightly greater than 6 feet. 4. Views While views are somewhat impacted for the 2 units to the north of the Tivoli, a substantial decrease in massing has greatly reduced their view impact. 5. Sun/Shade: The development has no impact on public property. 6. Landscaping: The development calls for a substantial increase in landscaping bordering the Town pedestrian path, versus the existing pavement. 7. Safety Aspects: The Town Fire Department has been increasingly concerned about the lack of a second exit from the second and third floors for the existing building. The new development provides such exit. If the new proposal is not built, a second exit at some point will need to be constructed which would in all likelihood eliminate 2 existing parking spaces and also increase the existing massing of the building without the benefit of increasing the number of rooms." It should be noted that there is a variance required to allow 75% of the additional 6 parking spaces required to not be located within the main building and hidden from public view. This is a requirement of the Public Accommodation zone district in which the Tivoli lies. UNITS Existing: 38 A.U.'s 1 D.U. Proposed: 8 A.U.'s GRFA Existing: 14,171 sf Proposed: Total: 46 A.U.'s 1 D.U, Total: 2,847 sf 17,018 sf Allowable: 20 A.U.'s Allowable: 14,165 sf 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 variances based upon the following factors: 2 A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variances to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The substantial scaling back of the mass and bulk of the proposal in conjunction with substantially increased side setbacks has relieved the staff's concerns regarding the impacts upon the public recreation trail adjacent to the west. The combination of pulling the building back from the property line over 16 - 17 feet, plus the proposed heavy landscaping between the pathway and the building, will result in an improvement in this area. Furthermore, the 6 foot encroachment of the existing parking lot will be eliminated, gaining an additional 468 square feet of landscaping which is now asphalt. The redesign has also resulted in a reduced view impact to the units to the north. While acknowledging that these private views will be affected with the proposal, it is important to understand that our duty is to primarily protect views to and from public spaces. With regard to the parking design variance, there should be no negative impacts upon existing or potential uses and structures in that there is not an increase in asphalted parking area, but in fact a decrease. 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 substantial redesign of the addition has brought the proposal much more in line with the mass and bulk envisioned for the addition in the Vail Village Master Plan. While a minor variance is required for the unstructured four parking spaces, it should be noted that neither the Ramshorn nor the Christiania (both located in the PA zone) were required to structure their additional parking in conjunction with their small additions. Regarding the setback variances, the redesign has resulted in near compliance with the 20 foot required side setback (16-1'7 feet from property line proposed). • 3 When one considers that this scale addition was identified in the Action Plan, it indicates that approval of the project would not be a grant of special privilege. The proposal actually improves upon an existing nonconforming rear setback situation wherein the garage is three feet from the property line. The new building is now proposed to be to 8 feet from the property line. Finally, considering the Ramsharn and Garden of the Gods special development districts which increased the allowable density as well as the density variance granted for the Christiania Lodge, this proposal, if approved, would not represent incompatible nor dissimilar treatment from other sites in the vicinity. The effect of the requested variances on light and air, distribution of papulation~ transportation and traffic facilities. public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposal now meets its 35 space parking requirement for the entire project. This includes the introduction of 8 to 9 valet spaces (25~ of the total which is the maximum number generally used by the staff) as well as the recognition of four existing legal nonconforming spaces along Hanson Ranch Road in front of the hotel. Also, it is now possible to accommodate a small number of valet spaces on Lot P-2 without the necessity of backing onto Vail Valley Drive. This was of major concern to the staff in the previous proposal. The intention of the 75~ structured parking requirement in the PA zone is an aesthetic consideration. The intent is to minimize surface parking and maximize landscaped areas. The proposal actually reduces surface parking area and increases landscaped area, while more efficiently utilizing the existing parking spaces. III. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VATL~S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Again, the Vail Village Master Plan calls for a small addition in the specific area in which it is now proposed. A substantial redesign of the addition now is in general conformity with what was envisioned in that plan. The redesign of pulling back from the property line along the public walkway will allow for a substantial landscaping buffer to be introduced in this area. This will enhance the walkway and achieve another important policy contained within the Vail Village Master Plan. Another goal statement in the plan is to satisfy the parking demands with the private sector development proposals, and this has now been . achieved. Finally, the addition of lodge roams is an 4 important goal of the plan which is being satisfied by the nature of this proposal. IV. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS, APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCES. V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental C~x~,~..ission 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 specified regulation would privileges enjoyed by the the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION or enforcement of the deprive the applicant of owners o£ other properties in The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variances far the addition to the Tivoli Lodge. The applicant has obviously responded in a strong and positive manner to the concerns of the staff and PEC. We feel that as described above, these revisions result in an acceptable proposal and one which will be an enhancement to the property and to the neighborhood in general. Benefits to the Town include achieving 8 additional lodge rooms in an important location as well as the removal of an encroachment in an area adjacent to a public walkway and a subsequent enhancement of the walkway itself with the provision of a 5 • • substantial amount of new landscaping. Moreover, through either the granting of density approvals adding lodge r units in the immediate a far granting these varia nature. the special developme variances, there have ooms or short term ren rea. We feel there is nces for this addition nt procedure or been similar tal dwelling justification in a similar • • ~d~~~d~a~ ~, ~a~~°~ca ~~. ~' . ~, ~~ z~z August 2, 19$8 Planning and Environmental Commissian Tawn of 'fail 75 South Frontage Road Vaal, CO 81657 Re, Tivoli Lodge expansion Dear Commissioners; My wife and 1 have awned Unit No. 9 in the Valhalla Condominiums for the past 18 years. As we cannot attend the hearing scheduled for August 8, Y988, T am writing to inform you that we are strongly opposed to the variances that have been requested for the expansion of the Tivoli Lodge. Tn addition to the potentially adverse effect of the loss of mountain view and openness on our enjoyment of and the value of our property, our opposition as based on all of the factors presented by the Community Developement Department in their report to the Commission dated June 27, .1988. We feel their evaluation of the effects of this develop- ment on the neighborhood is realistic and that their analysis and recommendations are entirely logical and deserve the mast serious consideration by the Commission. Respectfully, 1 .~:~~ Foxhall A. Parker Copy: Dr. Phillip Lier • HARRY P. DAVI501D7, JR. #3 VILLA VALHALLA VAIL, CO 81657 August 3, 1988 The Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board: Although we are unable to attend your hearing on August 8, 1988, to consider, among other items, requests for variances in order to construct an addition to the Tivoli Lodge, we wish you to know that we strongly oppose such requests. _ We understand that the Developer has, to some extent, modified his original proposal, but in our view his request still involves too many variances impinging on density, setback, parking and restrictiveness of the pedestrian walkway connecting Hanson Ranch Road with the Golden Peak area. r Very truly yours/], ~~ Harry and Margareta Davison ~1~~~ FEDERAL EXPRESS August 4, 1988 The Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Gentlemen: J~i~err,~,~1ic~ ~aruzectoG830 ~.nrze .203-62~g_~6~3c3 I understand that you are holding a hearing on August 8, 1958 on the addition to the Tivoli Lodge. T am the adjacent land owner to the west of the Tivoli Lodge, at 36b Hanson Ranch Road. I believe it would be very much against the interests of the town, as well as my own interest, were you to allow the variances requested. One of the assets of the Town of Vail is the zoning, which allows open space between buildings. The variances requested will certainly have a negative effect on this open area. I want to register my strong opposition to the variances requested. Very truly yours ~~C~i/~ Edwin C. Whitehead eu } TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 8, 1988 SUBJ: Request for major approval and for Number 22. subdivision preliminary plan Special Development District Applicant: Commercial Federal Mortgage Corporation • The following is a written description of the proposal as submitted by the applicant, as well as a brief environmental impact report: A. THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of a request for Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing Number 3 for preliminary plat and SDD approval to subdivide the parcel into 24 single family lots and common open space. The total size of the parcel is 10.69 acres or 465,656.4 square feet. Currently, the site is zoned primary/secondary (this underlying zone is to remain as single family and is a permitted use} and is subdivided into 19 lots which allows a total of 38 dwelling units to be constructed upon the site. Therefore the request results in a total reduction of 14 dwelling units upon the site and a total density reduction from 3.55 units per acre to 2.24 units per acre. Total GRFA allowed upon the site is currently 84,905 square feet. The total GRFA proposed is 68,204 resulting in a reduction of 16,701 square feet. B. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 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 economical provision of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas." A special development district is being proposed upon the site to accomplish these objectives. By re-subdividing the land the following goals are met: ].. Provide a flexible approach to land development which creates the ability to provide a development type in short supply and great demand within Vail: 2. Reduce the residential density upon the parcel; • 3. Provide the ability to preserve portions of the site as open space; 4. Provide for an improved character and quality devel~,~„«ent; and 5. To facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities. The special development district is proposed to have an "underlying" Primary/Seconary Residential Zone with only single family residential dwellings allowed as permitted uses. The Special Development District designation is proposed in order to allow for a slightly varied lot size and setbacks than provided for currently within the Single Family District, C. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Development Plan prepared for the site depicts a typical building layout and configuration which would be constructed under the development standards of the SDD. Lot sizes range from .17 acre to .35 acre. The development plan consists of 24 single family dwelling units with 19 of the units having access off of Lionsridge Lane and the remaining units accessing off of Lionsridge Loop. Lots 1-14 and 20-24 would have typical setbacks of 20' in front (off of Lionsridge Lane), 10' on the . sides, and a 15' setback in the rear yard. Building height would be not more than 30' for a flat or mansard roof and 33' for a sloping roof. Lot sizes vary and are listed along with the maximum GRFA allowed upon each lot. In cases where lots are less than 11,200 feet in site area, a minimum of 2,800 square feet of GRFA is allowed. LOT SIZE MAXIMUM GRFA 1 14,375 3,312 2 14,375 2,950 3 11,761 2,940 4 11,326 2,831 5 10,454 2,800 6 10,454 2,800 7 11,326 2,831 8 10,890 2,800 9 11,326 2,831 10 11,761 2,940 11 10,890 2,800 12 13,06$ 2,950 I3 15,246 2,950 14 11,326 2,831 15 8,712 2,804 16 7,405 2,$00 17 9,147 2,800 18 10,019 2,soo 19 9,148 2,800 2 LOT SIZE MAXIMUM GRFA 20 10,019 2,800 21 10,019 2,$00 22 9,583 2,800 23 10,454 2,800 24 9,583 2,800 68,204 D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Due to the fact that the proposal is a reduction in the number of and square footage of dwelling units, the environmental impacts of the proposal will be less than anticipated when the site was originally subdivided. Very briefly, the following discusses the impacts associated with the proposed revision: 1. Hydrologic Conditions: The proposal will not alter or affect any natural water course. Surface drainage will be coordinated with the overall storm drainage system of the Town of Vail. 2. Atmospheric Conditions: • 14 fewer dwelling units upon the site will result in a reduction in potential air pollution from wood burning fireplaces and automobiles. 3. Geologic Conditions: The site is not located within any geological hazard area and development is not anticipated to result in any geologic hazards or negative changes. 4. Biotic Conditions: The site does not contain any unique vegetative characteristics or wildlife habitat. The increased amount of open space upon the parcel could potentially better serve certain forms of wildlife that the previous subdivision lay out. 5. Noise and Odor Conditions: 14 fewer residences should have a positive impact upon these factors. 6. Visual Conditions: The site is not located within any designated view corridor of the Tawn of Vail. The scenic value of the site should be enhanced through the provision of common space areas. 3 7. Land Use Conditions: The proposed single family use will be compatible with the existing multiple family and duplex residences within the immediate area. 8. Circulation and Transportation: The reduction in the number of dwelling units will have a positive impact upon the local street system. 9. Population Characteristics: The reduction in the number of dwelling units will decrease the residential density of the site. 10. Utilities: All utilities are currently connected to the site and can be relocated and new easements established as necessary. E. EVALUATION OF CRITERIA 1. Preliminary Plan and Major Subdivision Criteria It is important to realize that the proposal is a re- subdivision of 19 existing duplex lots. Thus, many of the typical subdivision issues relating to creating small lots from a larger parcel do not apply here. The 19 primary/secondary lots involved in this proposal are part of a 26-lot subdivision approved approximately 14 years ago. All of the lots have remained vacant and no improvements have been constructed on any part of this subdivision. The following is an excerpt from 17.16.110 of the Subdivision Regulations stipulating the review criteria for this project: "The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinance and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity, compatibility with surrounding land uses." The staff finds that due to the proposal representing a re-subdivision of an existing approved subdivision, a reduction in allowable density, the lack of negative environmental impacts and the obvious compatibility of the use proposed with the 4 surrounding low to medium density residential uses that the preliminary plan meets the review criteria as proposed. Furthermore, the SDD criteria will be used to more specifically evaluate the changes proposed from primary/secondary lots to smaller single family lots. F. SPECIAL DISTRICT DESIGN CRITERIA 1. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zonest identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Development standards, with the exception of lots size and GRFA allowable, will generally follow the single family zone district. Setbacks will be consistent with SFR, with the exception of the site setbacks proposed to be 10' rather than 15'. Architectural design has been discussed in a PEC work session, and it has been agreed by all parties that design guidelines encouraging consistent materials, roof forms and minimum landscaping requirements will be beneficial to the project as well as the adjacent property owners. Design guidelines have not been submitted to the staff at this point but will be required to be reviewed by the Design Review Board and adopted as part of the SDD approval at the final subdivision plat approval. With regard to scale and bulk, the proposal represents a deviation from the standards allowed in the SFR district. However, the staff feels that this is acceptable due to the overall density reduction, the provision of a large common open space (that could serve as a small neighborhood park if future residents so wish}, and the improvement in visual integrity by disallowing development near the southerly ridge of the project. Also, design guidelines encouraging well planted and screened side yard areas will serve to mitigate the increased scale and bulk of the houses on the small lots and the smaller side yard setback. 2. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable realtionship with surrounding uses and activity. Single family residences are a permitted use in the primary/secondary zone district and are compatible with the surrounding uses and activities. • 5 3. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Section 18.52. Parking requirements will be addressed on a lot by lot basis through the DRB process. 4. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town Policies and Urban Design Plans. The Master Land Use Plan identifies this parcel as one which is suitable for medium density residential uses. The reasons behind this were the site's good access, compatibility with the neighborhood's other residential uses, the suitable topography for medium density, as well as the overall long-term need for more medium density residential sites in the Town. The following are applicable land use policies to the proposal: 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed (in- fi11) areas. 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted • areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demand for a full range of housing types. We find that the proposal is in compliance with these policies and, in general, with the Land Use Plan in that the smaller single family residential market does appear to be strong and, thus, this proposal would be meeting an existing market demand. Also, the proposal does occur in an existing platted, low density residential. 5. identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. As per the applicant's statement, the site is not located within any geologic hazard area. 6. Site plan, building design and location, and open space provisions designed to provide a functional developmentn responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. 6 Although the site does not possess any outstanding natural features or vegetation, the provision of a common open space, especially along the southerly ridge line is important to the development of this parcel. We strongly support the provision of the common open space as a positive element of this re- subdivision. 7. A circulation svstem for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. The public road has been re-designed as part of this proposal to acc~.~~..~odate 19 of the 24 proposed lots. We find that this proposed public road meets Town of Vail standards and has been approved by both Public Works and Fire Departments. Although the 5 lots on the northwest portion of the site, accessing off of Lionsridge Loop, may result in some steep driveways, we feel that with the proper amount of fill material there will be workable and acceptable solutions to access each of these lots from Lionsridge Loop. The staff remains concerned that a safe and workable solution to the area where the proposed new road intersects with Lionsridge Loop and the Solar Crest Condominiums' access be resolved. This situation needs to be resolved so that there are not two road cuts directly adjacent to each other on the same side of the road. A workable solution should be found between the owners of this property, Solar Crest Condominiums, and the owner of the primary/secondary lot to the south of Solar Crest. 8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping in open saace in order to optimize and preserve natural features,, recreation, views and functions. A general and preliminary landscape plan has been submitted and shows that substantial buffering between houses will be important as well as a heavily landscaped entryway into the subdivision. Amore specific review of the landscaping can occur at final plat as part of the design guidelines. 9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. it is uncertain at this point, whether the project will be developed by a single developer or if lots will be sold off individually and developed over a longer period of time. In either case, the design 7 M guidelines will be an important document in ensuring a workable and efficient relationship of the dwelling units to each other and to the overall aesthetics of the subdivision. G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the preliminary plan of the major subdivision and the application of Special Development District Number 22 for this property. Overall, we feel this is a sound proposal benefitting the community as we11 as the site itself. The proposal meets the criteria for a major subdivision and an SDD as outlined above. We find that two conditions of approval are important: 1. A workable solution be found to the ingress/egress points of this project and the adjacent Solar Crest Condominium project. 2. Design guidelines, including architectural and landscape, elements be submitted to the staff with the final plat application. • ;~ 8 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission i FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 8, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a parking variance in order to increase the retail area of the Vail Athletic Club Applicant: J.W.T. 1987 Vail Colorado LTD Partnership I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The owners of the Vail Athletic Club are remodeling the club area. The proposal calls for increasing the amount of retail space from approximately 220 square feet to 520 square feet. The additional 300 square feet of retail space will require one parking space. The owners are requesting that they be allowed to pay into the Town of Vail parking fund in lieu of providing the parking space on their property. II. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE VARIANCE The applicant cites the following reasons for the variance; A. "The retail area is within the Athletic Club and . has restricted access and the function of the retail area is oriented to members and hotel guests, not to the general public. The retail area is the secondary, supportive use to the club, and in itself should not generate additional parking requirements. Therefore, the impact on adjacent property owners will be almost nonexistent." B. "Waiving the required additional parking space will not cause a violation of parking in the immediate area, as there is parking available in the parking structure across the street from the Vail Hotel and Athletic Club." III. PARKING HISTORY OF THE VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB According to a memo dated July 13, 1983 to the Town Council from the Community Development Department, the property has the fallowing parking history: -1- r~ u -2W USE Accommodation units Condominiums Employee Housing Restaurant/Bar Athletic Club APPROX SQ FT PARKING SPACES REQ'D 10,047 19 9,564 15 1,172 6 4,000 (56 seats) 7 25 - 30? 72 - 77 PARKING HISTORY 12/76 16 car parking variance granted so more landscaping could be installed. Staff recommended approval, Planning Commission voted to approve the request. 1/78 Parking for employee housing (3 spaces) given variance with conditions that these units remain in that use "so long as the Vail Athletic Club continues in operation." Also that such employee parking "should be provided" on what is now the site of the Potato Patch Club with the developer running a shuttle bus back and forth; and that "any parking that is now or may be provided on the Vail Athletic Club site in excess of the required parking may not be used in the future to obtain any additional parking variances." • Staff recommended approval of the request. Planning Commission approved variance. 10/78 Vail Club receives a one space parking variance to expand laundry room into underground parking area. Staff recommended approval of the request. Planning Commission approved the request, IV. 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: -3- . A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff's opinion is that the request to pay into the parking structure fund in lieu of providing an on-site parking space is reasonable, given the way the parking is presently handled for this project. There would be greater negative impacts if the Vail Athletic Club was required to remove landscaping in front of the project to create one additional parking space. 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 parking history for the Vail Athletic Club indicates that three parking variances have been granted for the project. It is apparent from past approvals that previous staffs have considered that it is preferable to handle the property's parking through the variance procedure in order to minimize traffic in this area and to allow for more landscaping. Staff believes that it is not a grant of special privilege to allow this one space variance, due to the approval of past variances. We do feel that it is reasonable to require the parking space, even though the retail area is a secondary use associated with the club and hotel operation. The Cascade Club was required to provide parking for their bar/restaurant area and retail space. The staff feels that the owners of the Vail Athletic Club are being treated fairly in the sense that one parking space is clearly required for the additional retail space. The request to pay into the parking fund is an appropriate means to provide for the additional parking space requirement. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population{ transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Presently, the Vail Athletic Club provides approximately 15 spaces on site with the remainder of the parking U -4 -- • being provided by the Village parking structure. The additional one space requirement that will be met through the use of the parking structure will have a very minimal effect on any traffic or the parking structure. V. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VAIL'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN VI. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS, APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. VII. 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 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 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. • _5_ VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the one space parking variance request with the condition that the Vail Athletic Club owners pay into the parking fund for the space. The previous parking history for the project indicates that parking variances have been approved to allow for changes of use within the building. A precedent has been set back in 1976 to use this approach to meet small parking requirements for the Vail Athletic Club. The staff must emphasize that if this parking variance was for a greater number of spaces we may have a different opinion of the request. However, due to the fact that 1) the variance is for one parking space, 2) the new retail space is located completely within the existing club area, 3) the retail is a secondary use associated with the club facility, and 4) previous parking variances have been approved for this project, we feel it is appropriate to approve this request. z.. July 15, 1988 Kristin Fritz Town of Vail Community Development Department 7 5 S . Fz~antage Raad Vail, CO 81657 Re: Vail Hotel and Athletic Club Renovation -- Parking Requirement Rear Kristin, Tt is our understanding that the Community Development Department has reviewed our plans for the renovation of the Vail Hotel and Athletic Club and has determined that, based on an increase of the retail area, one additional parking space will be required for the project. Since there is no available space on the site for additional parking, we are hereby requesting a parking variance and that we be allowed to pay the appropriate fee into the Tow~~ of Vail parking fund in lieu of providing the physical parking space. We are requesting a variance for the following reasons: 1) The retail area is within the Athletic Club and has restricted access and the function of the retail area is oriented to members and hotel guests, not 'to the general public, The retail area is a secondary, supportive use to the club and in itself should not generate additional parking requirements. Therefore the impact on adjacent property owners will be almost non-existent. 2) Waiving the required additional parking space will not cause violation parking in the immediate area as there is parking available in the parking structure across the street from the Vail Hotel and Athletic Club. Citing the reasons stated, we request that a parking variance be allowed far this project and that we agree to pay the appropriate fee into the town parking fund in accordance to the variance guidelines. Sincerely, tZehren & Associates, Tnc. v~ Sack Bailey ZBiREN grid ASSOCIATiS, INC. ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS BOX 1976 AUON, COLD 81620 (303) 949-0257 • TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 8, 1988 RE: Bed & Breakfast Amendment In mid-May, the Council discussed whether or not it would be appropriate to allow Bed & Breakfast operations in single family, duplex and primary/secondary zone districts. In general, the Council concurred that it was appropriate to allow far the Bed & Breakfast use. The Council comments included: 1. The conditional use approach seems like a reasonable way to handle this type of use. 2. The residence for the Bed & Breakfast operation must be used as a primary residence for the proprietor of the B&B. 3. The approval of an adjacent duplex owner should be required. 4. Council members were concerned about parking. • 5. It was felt that the covenants should be checked so that there was not a conflict with the use and restrictions within the subdivision. The staff is recommending a review process that would allow for B&B operations while maintaining the residential character of single family, duplex, and primary/secondary zone districts. The following outline identifies how the staff would like to review Bed & Breakfast operations (B&Bs}. I. B&B QUALIFICATIONS A. The proprietor of the B&B operation must live on the premises. B. The proprietor of the B&B operation may short term rent separately up to three bedrooms or a maximum square footage of 900 square feet per dwelling unit. C. The proprietor of the B&B operation shall ensure that the operation of the B&B meets the occupancy standards identified in Section 18.04.110 Family of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. • • 18.04.1].0 Family - Family shall be deemed to be either A or B: A. An individual, or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, excluding domestic servants, living together in a dwelling unit used as a single housekeeping unit. B. A group of unrelated persons not to exceed two persons per bedroom plus an additional two persons per dwelling unit used as a single housekeeping unit. • D. The parking requirement for a B&B operation shall be one space for the proprietor plus one space per short term bedroom. All parking must be located on site. The removal of landscaping to provide additional parking for a B&B is strongly discouraged. E. The adjacent duplex or primary/secondary owner must also approve the B&B operation if the property is a primary/secondary or duplex lot. F. The dwelling unit housing the B&B operation shall be allowed two square feet for a wall sign to identify the use. Subtle spot lighting is allowed for the signage. G. The proprietor of the B&B shall provide adequate enclosed trash facilities and regular trash pick up service. TT. REVIEW PROCESS The staff recommends that the conditional use review process be used to allow for a Bed & Breakfast. The conditional use criteria are: Section 1.8.60.06(} Criteria-Findings A. Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the planning commission shall consider the following factors with respect to proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town; 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs; 3. 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 streets and parking areas; 4. 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; 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use (i.e., Vail Comprehensive Plan); staff believes that the conditional use process is appropriate as it 1) allows for the notification of adjacent property owners 2) addresses the potential impact of B&Bs in respect to parking and 3) addresses the effect of this type of use on the residential character of the area. The conditional use process is probably the most streamlined way to handle the review of a B&B. The proprietor would also be required to get a business license. Staff considered reviewing this use under the Home Occupation Permit process or creating a special Bed & Breakfast review process. The problem with the Home Occupation Review is that there is no notification procedure and the criteria are not very specific to a Bed & Breakfast operation. A special Bed & Breakfast review process could allow for a specific criteria related to B&Bs. However, even if adjacent property owners were informed of the use, it would be difficult for the staff to weigh adjacent property owners' concerns and determine if it really is appropriate to approve or deny a Bed & Breakfast request. III. ZONING CODE CHANGES The following sections of the Town of Vail Zoning Code would need to be amended to allow for Bed & Breakfast operations: A. 18.58.310 Short Term Rental "Short Term Acc~.,~~~~odation Unit. No rooms in any structure or building located in any single family, two family, or primary/secondary zone district within the Town shall be short term rented, separately as accommodation units." This section of the Cade would need to be removed. B. 18.04 Definitions A Bed & Breakfast would need to be defined. C. 18.10 The single family zone district will need to be amended to allow for Bed & Breakfast operations as a conditional use. D. 18.12 The primary/secondary zone district will need to be amended to allow for Bed & Breakfast operations as a conditional use. E. 18.13 The duplex zone district will need to be amended to allow for Bed & Breakfast operations as a conditional use. • • . BED & BREAKFAST REVIEW PROCESSES IN OTHER COMMUNITIES 1. DURANGO: Conditional Use for Bed & Breakfast proposed but Council decided to not go forward with the ordinance in 1983. Tourist homes: Homes for transient use for up to 5 people in R-3 a multi-family zone district. Proprietor must have a business license. No major complaints. 2. ASPEN: Bed & Breakfast defined as having 12 or fewer guest rooms Bed & Breakfast allowed in historic buildings only in residential areas. Must get conditional use approval. Parking 1 space/bedroom. Parking gets a special review to insure integrity of the historical building is not decreased due to trying to provide on site parking. 3. SUMMIT CO: Permitted Use up to 5 rooms in R districts of 1 unit/20 acres. Conditional use in residential zones allowing ~2 units/acre to 1 unit/19 acres, max. 3 Bed & Breakfast rooms. 3 to 6 units/ acre, allows max. 2 Bed & Breakfast units. 4. BRECKENRIDGE: In process of Revising Code. Bed & Breakfast: A facility of a residential character which provides sleeping accommodations for hire, for 30 days or less, on a day to day basis, with 1 or more meals per day included, and a manager who is either an owner or leasee of the property residing on the premises. Such use shall not include residential dwelling units with more than 5 such rental rooms or rooms with an aggregate square footage of rental rooms greater than 750 s.f. or facilities which include retail or commercial activities of any kind. C. a Bed & Breakfast allowed as conditional uses in mixed use & higher density residential areas. Bed & Breakfast prohibited in single family large lot subdivisions. Requires 2 parking spaces/D.U. + 1 space/room. intent is to concentrate Bed & Breakfast in mixed use areas. 5. TELLURIDE: No short term rentals are allowed in single family and duplex buildings. 6. STEAMBOAT: In process of amending zoning code to allow Bed & Breakfast's as conditional uses in certain zone districts. Parking: ~. space/Bed & Breakfast room + 2 spaces/D.U. maximum # of rooms: 4 Approval is far 2 years, Bed & Breakfast may be revoked if Bed & Breakfast fails to meet conditions of the C.U. approval. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: August 8, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core T in order to enclose approximately 70 square feet to the northwest corner of the Gore Creek Building. Applicant: Charles Rosenquist I. THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting to add approximately 70 square feet of retail space and to change the configuration of the entry to the John Galt retail shop located west of Blu's restaurant on the north side of the Gore Creek Building. At present, there exist two stone pillars which extend 3.5 feet beyond the property line. These would be removed and replaced by a glass entry. The proposed entry would abut the property line, but not extend beyond it. The result would be an infill of retail space, but with less apparent intrusion into the pedestrian area. . II. REVIEW CRITERIA This proposal must be reviewed with respect to the Urban Design Guide Plan and zoning considerations. There are no relevant sub-area concepts, but the design considerations are as follows: 1. Pedestrianization. This area is a pedestrian-only area which will be enlarged slightly. The retail will be made more visible by the proposed change. 2, Vehicle Penetration. Not applicable. 3. Streetscape Framework. The alteration will infill a store front, and make retail more visible. 4. Street Enclosure. The open space to the north of the pedestrian way makes this consideration irrelevant. However, the proposed addition is one story high, reducing the apparent height of the four story building. 5. Street Edge. The proposed alteration extends the irregular street edge that currently exists along the north edge of the building. The addition is at an . angle, following the property line. 6. Building Height. The proposed extension is one story which will reduce the apparent height of the north facade and better relate to pedestrians. 7. Views. There are no negative impacts on views. 8. Sun/Shade. The shade will not be increased by the proposal. 9. Service and Delivery. Service and delivery will not be changed by the proposal. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Compatibility The exterior alteration is felt to be in harmony and compatible with the neighborhood. ParkincL The addition of 70 square feet of retail space will result in a fee of $700 to be paid to the parking fund at the time of building permit. (1 space per 300 square feet, 300 sq ft divided by 70 sq ft = .23. • .23 x $3,000 = $700) IV. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A. Land Use Plan The Land Use Plan goal statements that relate to this project include: Goal 1,1: "Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and permanent resident." Goal 1.3: "The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible." Goal 3.4: "Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs." Goal 4.1: "Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing cU~«x~rercial areas . " r1 U Goal 4.3 "The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved." The proposal is in conformance with the goals of the Land Use Plan B. veil Village Master Plan The Vail Master Plan statements related to this proposal include the following: Goal #1: Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain Veil's sense of community and identity. Goal #2, Objective #5: Encourage the continued upgrading and renovation of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. V. OTHER FACTORS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST. . VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the requested proposal. We find the impacts of this exterior alteration to be positive. The visibility of the retail area related to pedestrians will be enhanced, as will activity in this area. The addition at a one story level, although small, will help to reduce the apparent height of the building. A condition of approval is that the parking fee be paid at the time of building permit. • ~l -~~-_ 1 - _ . . ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ # ~ ; z ~ ~ ~ ~ t~ ~._ s__ +- -~- • • ~_ ; ~~-rt. ~, o ~r.~ ~ss ,,~a,,~, ~:: _ ._ ~_. LF ~s. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ;, ~ ~ ~~ i,= ~, ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~~ ~._---~ t ;. ,, ,, 'fl ~, _ ' ' ~. S ~,! 1 ~~ ~~. ~ ~ ~~' ~ ~ ~! ~~ 1 ~~ ~ :N o ~~ ~ ~~ n ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ w~~ ~. s ~_._._-----~3 ~; ~~~ ~;~ ~~~ wi~ ~~~ ~#~ Q~~ } Q ~L ~ a ~. STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF FIIGFiWAYS ~.E` Ns"'oF H ~~ 222 South Sixth Street, P.O. box 2107 a ~~ 8cy_ Grand Junction, Colorado 81502-2107 JULY 22 3.988 ~~° {303 248-7208 ~ `~'; y~p8 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS ~k `0`04 PUBLIC NOTICE AVAILABILITY OF FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT PROJECT CC 44-0070-20 I-70/MAIN VAIL INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA} in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH} and the Town of Vail, have prepared and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Project CC 44-0070-20, I-70/Main Vail Interchange Improvements, that documents the decision that this project wall not result in any significant environmental impacts. Therefore, Environmental Impact Statements will not be prepared for this project. The Environmental Assessment (EA) far this project was made available for public review on October C, 19$7 and a formal Location/Design Public Hearing was held in Vail on November 18, 1987. This project will modify the eastbound off ramp at the Main Vail Interchange to improve traffic flow and will also establish on and off ramps from eastbound I-70 to the south frontage road to improve local access. These modifications are necessary to improve safety and accommodate the high volumes of traffic within the Town of Vail. Construction of this project has been delayed indefinitely to allow the Town of Vail to explore alternate traffic control. methods. However, the FONSI has been completed in order to allow for future right-of-way acquisition or future construction of the I-70 access ramps approved by these environmental studies, should the Tawas of Vail or the Colorado Department of Highways so desire. At present, neither have budgeted funds for right-of-way acquisition or constructl.on of this project. A copy of the FONSI, as well as the EA, are available for review at the following locations: Federal Highway Admiz~.istration 555 Zang Street, Room 250 Lakewood, Colorado $0228 CDOH Headquarters Office Office of Environmental Review and Analysis x+201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver, CO $0222 CDOH District 3 Office 222 South Sixth Street, Suite 317 Grand Junction, CO 80201 Vail Town Hall 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 R. P. MOSTON DISTRICT ENGINEER Planning and Environmental Commission August 22, 1988 N 2:00 PM Site Visits 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of August 8th. 2. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a deck on Lot 13, Block 1, Potato Patch First Filing. Applicant: John S. Bakalar 3. Wark session on Cascade Village 4. Work sessian on hospital addition 5. 4-way stop discussion i~ • Planning and Environmental C~~~~~«ission August 22, 1988 PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Peggy Osterfoss Grant Riva Sid Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT Pam Hopkins STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of August 8, 1988. Diana Donovan moved and Peggy Osterfoss seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 2. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a deck on Lot 13. Block 1, Potato Patch First Filing. Applicant: John S. Bakalar Betsy Rosolack presented the staff memo. She explained that the request was for a side setback variance of 4 feet for a deck that would be constructed on the west side of the residence. The deck would impact only the neighbor to the west who had written a letter of approval with the condition that three evergreens be planted on the northwest side of the deck. The staff recommendation was for approval, as little impact was seen, and many other similar requests had been approved. The staff asked that the three trees be planted and that a site specific study be made by an engineer before building permit is issued. Duane Piper painted out that the structure would have low impact, He said the requested landscaping would be done. Bryan Hobbs moved for approval of the proposal per staff memo . He cited factor ~3 concerning "strict interpretation .... would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same district." Sid Schultz seconded the motion and the vote was 6 to O in favor of the approval. There followed work sessions on the hospital, Cascade Village and the 4-way stop. C 3 ,~ ~ ~~~ ,- 6 ~ • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission ~ ~ FROM: Community Development Department ~~2~~~ DATE: August 22, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a deck on Lot 13, Block 1, Potato Patch Applicant: John Bakalar I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Mr. Bakalar is requesting a side setback variance in order to extend a deck 4 feet beyond the allowed setback of 7-1/2'. The deck will contain 50 square feet and will be constructed behind an existing stone wall on the west side of the residence. The neighbor adjacent to the proposed deck and hot tub addition has written a letter of approval with the condition that three blue spruce trees be located on the northeast corner to provide screening. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS • Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section x.8.62.060 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. ,This residence is on Potato Patch Drive, between two _`_ot~YAr residences, bordering Forest Service land to the fa_r (uphill). The deck is not visible from any point except from the residence to the west. As was mentioned above, the owner of the residence on the west has submitted a letter of approval (attached}. We see no other impacts to existing or potential 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 ob`~ectives of this title without grant of special • privilege. !~ . As the applicant has stated in his application, there is a site behind the home which is steep with difficult access; the adjacent property owner on the east side objects to the placement of a deck near his property, and the deck to the south has little privacy and also would be exposed to the living and dining roams. We see na grant of special privilege with the placement of the deck an the west. The effect of the_ requested variance on light and aix. distribution of population{ transportation and traffic facilities, _t~ublic fa_ r.ilities _and_ utilities, and public safety. There are no negative impacts regarding these considerations. III. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VAIL'S CONfPREHENSTVE PLAN Not applicable. IV. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLrCABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. • V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following find.i.ngs before granting a variance: A. 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. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, ar materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for ane or more of the following reasons: 1. 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. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary or conditions applicable to the same variance that do not apply generally properties in the same zone. circumstances site of the to other r; _,. t r ~~ , f `3~ The str~.ct 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 RECOMMENDATTOu The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested side setback variance. We see little impact from the proposed location to the west. Also, there is no special privilege in allowing the deck expansion, as many other similar requests have been approved. • The property is in a high hazard entail a site s ecific stud b a p Y Y a building permit is issued. rockfall area, and this will registered engineer before i~ ~~< «- ~ • ~~ s TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 22, 19$8 RE: Work session on the Vail Valley Medical Center Addition The Vail Valley Medical Center has requested this work session to update the Planning and Environmental C~.~~µ~~ission on their proposal to build an addition of approximately 25,400 square feet as well as an on-site parking structure. Please see the attached letter from Mr. Dan Feeney, project manager. The Vail valley Medical Center is also investigating the possibility of a new access road to the hospital off of the South Frontage Road. The Medical Center intends to submit a formal application for a conditional use review in 2-4 weeks. • • t~~ vailvalley rte' medical center August 15, 1988 181 West Meadow DriUe, Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 61657 (303) 476-2451 Ms. Kristan Pritz Senior Planner Tnwn of Vail Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road Uail, CO 81557 Dear Kristan: .] When the new wing of the hospital was opened in August, ].987, our Governing Board felt that the present facility would be adequate to meet the community's health care needs until at least the early or mid 1990's. However, higher than anticipated utilization this past winter, as well as more rapid-than-expected growth projections for the future, especially in the area of orthopedic medicine, have convinced the Board that the next expansion of the hospital is needed by 1990. Our proposed expansion would entail construction of approximately 25,000 square feet of space far patient care, as well as an on-site parking structure. The expansion of the building would include the completion of the second floor on the north side (7,000 square feet), as well as construction of a full third floor on top of the existing west wing (1$,000 square feet). Completion of the second floor would allow expansion of the existing Patient Care Unit (PCU) by as many as 20 beds. The new third floor would house a surgical suite comprised of at least four operating rooms, doctors' offices, a fourth radiology room, as well as ancillary services. Construction of the parking structure, augmented by remaining surface parking, would enable the hospital to park 250 vehicles on site. The Conditional llse Permit issued for the last expansion requires the hospital to maintain 220 spaces, although as many as 30 of these can be leased off-site. The Permit also stipulates that any further expansion more extensive than merely completing the second floor will trigger a requirement that all parking be provided on-site. When our formal application is submitted, we intend to provide documentation that 250 parking spaces are adequate for the proposed expansion, using the formula adopted during the last approval process. Experience has, we believe, confirmed that this formula, based on numbers of day-shift employees, patient beds and exam rooms, provides an accurate measure of parking requirements. lay McMahan !-ldministrator • n Page two our formal application. Rs requested, we are also studying the subject of a new access road to the hospital off South Frontage Road. There are a number of significant problems that we must solve if a safe access and egress is to be provided for emergency vehicles and hospital patrons, in addition to the quite obvious severity of vertical and horizontal alignments. Preliminary drawings should be complete in about two weeks, and will be included with We anticipate submitting our application for a Conditional Use Permit i n 2-4 weeks . I n the meantime, we wou 1 d 1 i ke to attend the work session next Monday, August 22, to include the Planning Commission in the preliminary dialogue we have started with you and Peter. Attached are three sets of preliminary site plans, floor plans and elevations. Sincerel~ .~,~n Dan ~eeta~ey~ P . Prodec~`l~n'r /lrp enclosure cc: Ray McMahan Doris A11en • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Devei~~~«ent Department DATE: August 22, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a deck on Lot 13, Block 1, Potato Patch Applicant: John Bakalar I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Mr. Bakalar is requesting a side setback variance in order to extend a deck 4 feet beyond the allowed setback of 7-1/2'. The deck will contain 50 square feet and will be constructed behind an existing stone wall on the west side of the residence. The neighbor adjacent to the proposed deck and hot tub addition has written a letter of approval with the condition that three blue spruce trees be located on the northeast Corner to provide screening, II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS • Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 28.62.060 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. This residence is on Potato Patch Drive, between two other residences, bordering Forest Service land to the rear (uphill). The deck is not visible from any point except from the residence to the west. As was mentioned above, the owner of the residence on the west has submitted a letter of approval (attached). We see no other impacts to existing or potential uses or structures. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interuretation 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. As the applicant has stated in his application, there is a site behind the home which is steep with difficult access; the adjacent property owner on the east side objects to the placement of a deck near his property; and the deck to the south has little privacy and also would be exposed to the living and dining rooms. We see no grant of special privilege with the placement of the deck on the west. The effect of the rectuested variance on light and air, distribution of popu].ationt transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. There are no negative impacts regarding these considerations. TTI. 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: A. 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. B. 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. C. That the variance is warranted for one ar more of the following reasons: 1. 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. 2. 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. • 3. The strict specified privileges properties interpretation or enforcement of the regulation would deprive the applicant of enjoyed by the owners of other in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested side setback variance. We see little impact from the proposed location to the west. Also, there is no special privilege in allowing the deck expansion, as many other similar xequests have been approved. The property is in a high hazard rockfall area, and this wi11 entail a site specific study by a registered engineer before a building permit is issued. • • • Date• Mr. John S. Bakalar 290 Woodland Road Highland Park, Illinois 60035 Dear John: I have had a chance to review the sketch for your deck and hot tub attached to Ken Wilson`s letter of June 16, 1988. Assuming that the construction wi11 in no way encroach on my property and that it is in design substantially similar to that so presented, I have no prob1eni with your pursuing the construction and plantings. Si r y yours, ~' Larry Hester LH:kh cc: Ken Wilson • f^, ~ c.:~ rrrr3 ~ v tt N f28.00~ ~~~' - . i o_ 4 i°o PA RCEL~~ ' 'c K ~yA~-` 393.0 SQUARE FEET zz.9' 0,Opg ACRES ~ ~ ' y iL I I ~ 9 I _ Rp.TE _ at, z e 3 t 1NG Y~ .~ ti G~"" INING ~ ~ ~~~ I .Rt G~ RE78 ~ 9 ~ raj., I,.. ~ F..A~~~ _ -~ % REwA, L. M y a R ,'i " y 1 :. -f., ~~ ,~~f$'~`a~ ~. r:sh ~~~J, ,F'~"Sk~r~~ ~sn_i~.7, IS " . 1 ~ ~ t' ~'' ~ - N I ti 20 I ~ ~" Ht b.. i ~ ti I ~ ~ y _ < 1 N- ;~ ~ lr ` ~YA ri F 5 t R E~ CK -. k'~, ~ ~~G G IjH~lNirar' ` ,. ! 1,6~ _ ~ °~" ~ ~~ CD TpININ R{.TA ` 1+ OR No R ~ypL4 - X1}1 A~ I FAD ' ~ ~ ~ I 2nd ~ ~ ~ W l2.0 .. m - i R ~ ,0 c' 2nd FKpO I I ,3 ~ ~pKC a ri a ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ i '' nd F r"`' 32 ~~ ~ ~.. 2 5 ~ '- 's .z y + ~~` ~~ ° N + 1 ~ t N 88°34tl1 r' ~ COMMON PARCEL C 2~, s6s.g ~(JARE ~~Er o.5s6 AckE~ LOT 13 .~DUNv F' ~. s r~ W /''~J 4 ! Planning and Environmental Commission September 12, 1988 2:30 PM Site Visits 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of 6/2'7 and 8/22. 2. A request for conditional use permit in order to construct a gondola on Lot 1, Black 1, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: John Wittemyer 3. A request for a condominium conversion of the Plaza Lodge, 211 Bridge Street. Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd. 4. A request to review a proposal for the 1989 World Alpine Championships and for a special review process to allow staff approvals for temporary signage, structures, street decor and other temporary improvements for the event. Applicant: Vail Valley Foundation 5. An appeal of a staff decision with regard to a denial of the 250 square foot allowance far the Chester home located on Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Village 1st Filing. Appellant: Jay K. Peterson 5. Invitation to the Planners and Planning Commissioners Annual Fall Conference ~~~ . Planning and Environmental C~~~~.«ission September 12, 1988 PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Grant Riva Sid Schultz Jim Vie1e STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of June 27 and August 27. Diana Donovan moved and Sid Schultz seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 7-o in favor. 2. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a gondola on Lot 1, Block 1. Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: Jahn Wittemyer Betsy Rosolack made the staff presentation. She explained that this was a gondola that would serve one residence from the • garage near the road up to the residence, a distance of about 80 feet. Bill Pierce, architect on the project, explained more about the project. Bi11 said the gondola would have to be approved and inspected by the State Tramway Board. Bill felt that gondola was more like a dumbwaiter in mechanism. The height from the ground would be 55 feet. The gondola is designed so that it could be put into a building at the foot of the hill and locked up when not in use. Diana Donovan moved and Pam Hopkins seconded to approve the request per the staff memo. The vote in favor was 7-0. 3. A request for a condominium conversion of the Plaza Lodge at 211 Bridge Street. At~t~licant: Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd. Rick Pylman explained the request and Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, answered questions. Diana was concerned about the parking for the project. She felt that when there are condos, they are used more by the owners, and therefore, need more auto usage than that of a transient. The transient is more apt to leave his car in the TRC. Diana asked that the staff consider charging an additional fee when apartments that are rentable are condominiumized. Rick agreed, and said that from a practical standpoint, it was something to think about. • 4. A request to review a proposal for the 1989 World Alpine Championships and for a review process to allow staff approvals for temporary sianaae, structures, street decor and other temporary improvements far the event. Applicant: Vail Valley Foundation Kristan explained the proposal and stated that there were two parts of the proposal. Once was approval of the general planning document for the championships which included temporary improvements; flags, banners, structures, lighting, snow and ice sculpture, entertainment and hospitality, parades, opening and awards ceremonies, race finish stadium, food and trade festival center, the media, signage, and transportation. All of these things were presented in a document that the Foundation was asking the PEC and Town Council to approve. The second request was for a special review process in order to facilitate the construction of temporary improvements necessary. This would be a special review process for the 2-week event. The process would allow the staff to approve temporary signage, structures, street decor and other temporary improvements. Zf the Vail Valley Foundation disagreed on an issue, the Town Manager would be asked to make a decision. Sob Krohn, representing the Foundation, explained many of the items. He showed maps and explained flags and banner locations and major venues. He reminded the board that all of these things would be temporary. Diana asked why ice sculptures were at bus stops. She felt that this could cause traffic congestion if not sited properly. Bob replied that the ice sculptures would be kept away from bus stops. More discussion followed, and Peggy moved to approve the planning document per the staff memo. She also moved to approve the approval process per the staff memo with a change: If there is a difference of opinion between the staff and Vail Valley Foundation, perhaps there could be one PEC member and one DRB member to make the decision with the Town Manager. She also suggested that the three could also consider issues related to the plan. Grant seconded the motion, and the vote was 7-4 in favor. Peggy volunteered to be the PEC member on that committee. Rick invited the board to the 5th annual Planners and Planning Commissioners Conference. • • Peggy stated that another part of this question was that the Town continue to do whatever possible to keep cars from Bridge Street. Diana asked if it would be practical to have valet parking. Jay felt that that would encourage more traffic in the core. Peggy moved and Sid seconded to approve the request for the condo conversion per the staff memo. The vote was 7~0 in approval. Because there were many people in the audience who were interested in item No. 5, it was dealt with next and item 4 tabled until No. 5 had been discussed. 5. An appeal of a staff decision with regard to a denial of the 250 square foot allowance for the proposed Chester home to be located on Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Village lst Filing. Appellant: Jay K. Peterson Peter Patten explained the request and read the purpose section of Ordinance 4, the ordinance which dealt with 250 square foot additions. Peter explained that to date we have enforced a rule of retaining at least a foundation if a person wanted to apply to add 250 square feet to their home. Peter asked far direction from the board with regard to whether or not the language did . allow the tearing down completely of a home including the foundation, and said that the staff would rewrite the ordinance if the board felt that it should be rewritten. Peter said that he had talked to Dan Corcoran who had been on the Town Council at the time Ordinance 4 was passed. Dan interpreted the ordinance the same way the staff did. Peter felt that there would be some inequities if there were 2 duplex lots of equal size next to one another, one vacant and one having an existing structure. The lot with the existing structure would be allowed to build 250 square feet more, because the house would be demolished. Jay Peterson, representing Mr. Chester, said that he had also talked to other Town Council people who agreed with the applicant's position. Regarding the ordinance, Jay felt when he attended many of the work sessions on the ordinance, the intent was to upgrade the facilities and conform to a landscape plan that might have been originally submitted. Jay said he felt that to upgrade meant a stimulant to do. He felt that tearing down a home completely was upgrading to the very highest standard. Jay stated that when Mr. Chester bought the home, the architect looked at what could be done with the foundation in place, and felt that the foundation would not carry the loads that the applicant wanted to place on it. Jay once again said that he felt the purpose of Ordinance 4 was the ultimate upgrade . which would include taking the foundation out completely. He felt that the ordinance said one could go to the highest standard, not just to a higher standard. Peter Jamar spoke from the audience, agreeing with Jay, stating that he felt that if someone wanted to upgrade the entire structure, it seemed as though the Town ought to allow him to da that. He said that the 2nd paragraph in the ordinance discussing the upgrade would include a new building which is also an upgrade. Peter felt that to allow 250 square feet was a small price to pay to get someone to upgrade an entire building. Jim Viele made reference to the two lots adjacent to each other and if one had nothing on it, it could not receive an extra 250 square feet, but if the other lot did have a structure on it, it could be granted an additional 250 square feet. Grant Riva seemed to feel that the gist of the issue was the intent of the ordinance. Grant felt it was a legitimate intent to encourage the upgrading of existing structures. Grant did not feel that leaving only the foundation was not an existing structure in his mind. Peggy Osterfoss stated that she felt that Jay did a good job in presenting a persuasive argument and perhaps in 1985 the ultimate upgrade was not considered. Perhaps it did not occur to the people involved that someone would tear out an entire structure. She felt that it was worth reconsidering the ordinance to see what the intent was. Peggy's concern in opposing the request would be letting the fact that each building in Vail could become larger. Peter asked the PEC to consider two things. 1) Whether or not to approve the appeal of the administrative decision, and 2) whether or not the ordinance should or should not be changed. Jim Viele said that he had sat through many discussions of the issue. His recollection was that the intent of the ordinance centered around small additions. There were many community-wide discussions to allow for an ordinance that would allow for older homes to have small additions. He did not recollect discussing total demolition, and in his mind, the ordinance addressed existing structure. Diana Donovan said she was also on the board during this writing and felt that the additions were meant to add to existing buildings as an inducement to acc~~~,.«odate upgrading, and to accommodate a person whose use of his dwelling had changed since they had constructed their home. She felt that the intent was clear, and she supported the staff's recommendation of disapproval of the appeal, Sid Schultz stated that he looked at the ordinance two ways, 1) the original intent and 2) what would make most sense from the building point of view. He felt that if someone wanted to upgrade, it did not make much sense to tear dawn more than was being rebuilt. Pam agreed with Peggy, who stated that the argument had been persuasive, and Pam also felt that the intent was fair and clear. Bill Post felt that the staff had acted • arbitrarily in stating that foundations could remain. Diana reminded Bill Post that the ordinance also said that the 250 additions were not a right. Jay said that was true, but that criteria were also listed. Diana was disappointed that the issue was being brought up and that until this time there had been many small requests and that this request was an abuse of the ordinance. Diana moved to uphold the staff decision and Grant Riva seconded the motion. The vote was 7-0 to uphold the staff decision. Peter reminded the applicant that the decision could be appealed to the Town Council. The board then discussed the language of the ordinance and whether ar not the ordinance should be rewritten. Sid suggested allowing 250 for all structures. Diana said that the basic intent had been to accommodate needs that could not be accommodated any other way, not to upgrade. She felt that she would like to see the ordinance tightened up so that the structure would be a building with walls. Jim Viele disagreed. He felt that the purpose of the ordinance was to induce upgrading and get better compliance with codes and add landscaping. He felt that this had occurred and that there were many positive values resulting from the upgrade of the buildings and corrections of building violations. He did feel that the ordinance should be cleared up. Bryan suggested maybe adding a percentage to existing structures and opening it up to other structures. Pam felt that perhaps it didn't make too much • difference if adding on or adding 250 starting from scratch. She felt that perhaps if one had the additional 250 when beginning the building, there would be fewer variance requests, particularly with regard to setbacks. Grant felt this was a very tough issue to decide effectively. He agreed with Diana and did not see why someone should be allowed 250 up front. Grant said he would rather have the 250 withheld from new buildings. Peggy Osterfoss agreed and said she was also not in favor of giving people 250 from the beginning. She felt that the reason for the ordinance was improvement. Grant pointed out that if anyone could take their home all the way down to the foundation, it was really no different than if they started out with a vacant lot. Peter said the board could get together with the Council to discuss whether or not the ordinance should be changed or the board could propose an ordinance change and bring it through the process. Jim felt it was appropriate to have a joint meeting. Peter asked that as many PEC members as possible attend the next Council meeting. Diana felt that 1) the ordinance needed to be tightened up and 2) perhaps address separately additional square footage for new buildings. :] TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: CVAIAIEAU.n~.ty Development Department DATE: September 12, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a personal gondola on Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: John Wittemyer I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The applicant wishes to construct a personal gondola on the above property. The gondola would transport people to and from the prking area at the foot of the lot to the residence at the top of the property. The gondola would be stored much of the time in an enclosure located adjacent to the parking area. The application states: "The applicant desires to construct a personal mechanical conveyance, primarily intended to transport relatives who are physically incapable of ascending to the residence. The installation will convey people from the parking area to the rear (south) deck of the existing residence (adjacent to the main living level), an ascent of approximately fifty feet." Ski lifts and tows are conditional uses in the Primary/ Secondary zone district. Staff feels this proposal is similar in nature to a ski lift (physically) and have determined the Conditional Use Permit process to be appropriate. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 1.8.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the fallowing factor: A. Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Thee is no relationship to the Town's development objectives. • The effect of the use of light and air, distribution of . population, transportation facilities utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. No impact is foreseen on these factors. 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. 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 surraundina uses. The applicant states: "Most of the time, the vehicle will be stored in an • enclosure.... located adjacent to the parking area, hidden from view. Other than the enclosure structure, only the cable (approximately fifteen feet above existing grade) and a single support post (near the rear deck) will be visible, The conveyance will not be available to the public and will be stored in the locked enclosure." The staff feels that the effect of the enclosure and garage as proposed will be minimal. The structure is compatible with the existing residence and is not large (14' x 14'}. The cable should be nearly invisible, and there will only be a support post at the top of the cable. III. APPLICABLE RELATED POLICIES OF ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IV. 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 The staff of the Community Development Department recommends approval of this request. We see little negative impact upon the neighborhood. The lot is extremely steep, and the existing structure is difficult to access. • In reviewing this request, the Public works Department requests that the construction of the lift be supervised and approved by a competent engineer who has expertise in this field. .~ ,. ,. f j. i i .f T'Inl,.f zL- -_ . to ~ i * ~, SY~ Iii ~'~~ti i~,.Nr~~< - M ~T.~ w.~ _ T- ~ ~'- ^4ti,,'7"it - .-~~~~ ~ T _ ~ ~..• -_~ l 1~ `~! L ti~ _ + _ _ _ G -.: F1~ ~ ~ 4r V~ 1, f ~ ~ t -~~" L .. ~/+. a- f ff a^ i 1 - ~ ~f ~~ f `;'.':e^.*v.•S . ~ h...a4,J• ~ ~` swrAt, ~ i;fy ~ a~~ ~.t ~ ~ ~ ~a >~ ~"#.- '^wr.t,4, ~"' y ~` ~- ~ i ~ ~ y~~' _, (~ 3 ~: fL.jr"'~~,,~t t t ~- ~-..r ""ti x L SF f j ~ •"_"r-'r 1 ~ - e t' Y~` ~ "~ ~ ~ ~Y ~F~~,~ ~Y~ e ~ ~ '`'~J ,~w,,, _ ~ .,,, ( i ~~~, ~~ ,~ ~ \ ~~. ~... \ ~ i'~~ Irk _ ~,, f ~ - Y. /:' ~ ? F~- ~ i w. ~ -4 Jf1 ~^ ,.,F e s ~~~ °t L s ~ _ ~~{~- .L~w -,`4.. ~ G- -'1. ay +~ i~ - "~ - /~~....w f~~/ i ..~ P L 1 ~-4 Y ~~\ Y ~.V- ~Z f _ ~ } y,~ yam{,, )~ ~A r ~ 1{ + •' ~ - '°~.. ~.'^' i ~ -! - `. ~~+: ~ mow` w ~ ~ _ M ~ ~-" - -. .. ti,yi - ~. -- _, • s ~ Y. jf1 _ t` C ~~ ~~ rt~ wry ~- J ~~~ ice' {"`~ ~--~• +o...~ -~~..."~ - 4•' _ y ~ ~' f s ` ., 6tt ~, 1 -' Y 4 -, ,F - ~ '~~.'h 1 SY - - 1-. .~.z.,._., }lmr,~--': ",~i~4.r'_f-.a.,~:, • ~r. ~ ,..:,t,;1 , t-......;..~~-;.7+ .. ~ t+a~~ iKr _ ~'t - ~ '~" ~ - - S-w- i l ~` ~ , /t ros. ~~' --_.~.._....._ _ /` EDGE of ~ --` . _ .,~. _ -- ------ f _ _ --- - - ---- ---- _. ~ i ~ _-~ '' ~ 2.2~ GMp~ j '! .. _ _. ~ -,_, 41 I _ PARKING ~~ 1 _._~.l -~- ~ -x,-~ ~ / ~ ~ _ ,,I_____L_______ ~l j I pS~>LN _._. _ ` . .__- . __ 1~ ` - I ~` _ '~~ GABION WAIL ~~ i + ~ ``. _. o _. 4 ~,~- ° i ~` f~ ".'--~/ GAS LANK ,~ "--.--_. 0.3 i J..j_}4 ~ . .----,~ .... ~` /J __ ~.._ _ - -.. X _. .~- ~' __ _ ~` ~"\ "'--- ...__ -= `.. C~ i 0 ASPEN ,: _ - --- _ .,. _ _. -. - 1 _. - l~ 1 f _.~ -_ _._._ ____.. __ - -- -~- --~.~ _._--'~ 6.2 PINE u - n ~ ~ _ _' ~ ~ __ I a L ~ ~ - ©"~ ~ ~W04D TIE STAIRS __ -~ ~_. _ --- ---- __- 1 -- J .. - ~~ t.5~ PINE - _ - - _ - _"`` _ . ti 'ti _ __ t _. ~ . - _ _ -~ r -- -' _ -- - _ -- -_. -- p. -- -- -~ - _. - LIGHT ~ ~ _ --_°_..---_ - ---- ~. 83 Q 0 ~ '~---- g0 2 1 ]0 ''~~~ . - `1 METER 1 ELEG. t -_ _. _. _ _ N __._.._. .... .. .- O- i0G~ ~ 3 S70RY woao FRAME ~ - ~. _ .o HOUSE _ _ ___- z a' - ..~ - O t 4' ASPEN 3 _ - - 8310 --" I-4 -~..~.~, ~ 2B_o ~ 3 `- ,~,- ., t _ -.. ~ ~-1 - ---.. ~__ ~`_ _- _ ~ DECK I .. _.. - _.. ,~ .. -~ I __"__._ _ _ - --- _~_. _ - __ _- -_1,-.,- v,. ~. __ -. _- -. _~ ~~__- ,--r _..Y_...~ ~---, - -- - ~ - - ~~ r _.--.-._" -' .a _~ _~ _ - __ ~ EST uTILIT`'t EAS~M T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 12, 1988 SUBJ; A request far a condominium conversion of the Plaza Lodge APPLICANT: Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd. I. THE REQUEST The owner of the Plaza Lodge has recently completed a major interior renovation and exterior alteration of the building, as approved by the PEC on March 9, 1987. The owner of the property now wishes to amend the form of ownership to condominium status and has applied through the Town of Vail subdivision regulations, Chapter 17.25, Condominium Conversion, with the specific section relating to accommodation unit conversions applicable. The applicants are proposing to restrict 7 acc~.~«~«odation units according to the Town of Vail rental restrictions as stated in the Condominium Conversion chapter of the Subdivision regulations. n LJ In August of 1987, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a conditional use permit which allowed a modification of the Plaza Lodge. In this modification, the existing conditions of the Plaza Lodge, 6 du's and 14 au's, were amended to the current configuration which consists of 6 du's and 7 au's. As a portion of the application and as a condition of approval, the applicant agreed to restrict the 7 accommodation units according to the Town of Vail condominium conversion chapter. These restrictions are reinforced in an agreement notarized and recorded in Book 487, Page 801, Eagle County, Colorado. II. CRITERIA TO EVALUATE THE PROPOSAL The criteria to evaluate the condominiumization of the Plaza Lodge is found in Sections 17.26.060 and 17.26.080, relating to all condominium conversions, whether accommodation units are involved or not, as well as 17.26.075, the specific section addressing requirements for converting accommodation units to condominiums. • The Town Building Department has completed the required inspection for conversion as an ongoing process during the recent renovation, and all required criteria is in the process of being met. Criteria relating to tenants' occupancy, employee housing, and current rental rates are not applicable to a lodge conversion. III. COMPLIANCE WITH STIPULATIONS OF SECTION 17.26.075 The request is in compliance with the section regulating accommodation unit conversions, as well as in compliance with previous agreements made by the applicant during previous Town of Vail approval processes. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this request is for approval. Ail use restrictions as applicable in the condominium conversion section and in previous agreements by the applicant have been met and stated in the condominium declarations. All required articles and submittal information has been reviewed and is in order. n TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development • DATE: September 12, 1988 SUBJ: Appeal of an Administrative Decision Regarding an Application for Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 square foot provision). APPELLANT: E,B, Chester T. BACKGROUND Mr. Chester wishes to demolish an existing residence located on Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Village lst in the Mill Creek Circle neighborhood. The proposal is to rebuild a new structure utilizing the additional GRFA provision in the zoning code under Chapter 18.71. The staff has denied the application for additional GRFA because we feel it does not meet the provisions of the 250 square foot addition ordinance. The issue of the extent to which a residence may be remodeled/reconstructed and still qualify far additional GRFA has arisen several times. The staff has determined and applied an interpretation that allows the maximum remodel to retain the existing foundation. In other words, in our opinion the retention of the existing foundation while demolishing the remaining structure still qualifies for additional GRFA under Chapter 18.71. We feel that this level of remodeling/ reconstruction still qualifies as an "addition" under the ordinance. The staff's interpretation is that a complete demolition of all structure on a property actually represents "starting from scratch" an a vacant lot. For example, if there were two duplex lots of equal size next to one another and one was vacant and one had an existing structure, it would be inequitable to allow 250 square feet mare an the lot with the existing structure because it would be demolished and a new house built as opposed to the vacant lot which would be required to follow the allowable GRFA according to zoning. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department feels strongly that the additional GRFA provision was adopted with the intent of allowing additions to existing structures. We feel this is clearly understood by the use of the word addition in the purpose section of the ordinance. We do not feel that the intention of this provision was to simply add 250 square feet to each and every residential lot in the community, Rather, the intent was to allow structures mare than five years old to add small additions to accommodate growing floor area needs. We recommend the PEC uphold the staff's decision and deny the Chester application far additional GRFA under Chapter 18.71. ~~ m accordance with Section 18.66.030. Also, nothing in this chapter'~hall be deemed to deny any interested person his rights to seek a va~`i~nce from the requirements of this cha~yef, except in the case where,a proposed structure or fill will,rati"se the base (food elevation or increase the quantity or veloities of flood waters during a 100-year~lo,Qd. Variances•'shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter ! $:62. {ofd: f 6(1983) § 1 (part).) i"" ~~ • . ' 18.69.070 Re9~fement of bond. Any app~i~nt under this chapter may be required to post bond, a ~ti'er of credit, or other guarantee• to insure that the impro~ments, reports, or other requirements of this chapter ~- are completed and complied with. {Ord. 12(19$3) § 1 (part}.) -- Chapter 18.71 ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA Sections: 18.71.010 Purpose. 18.71.020 Single family, primary/secondary and two family residential dwellings. 18.71.030 Multi-family dwellings. 18.71.040 Procedure. 1$.71.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of individual dwelling units in certain structures which have been in existence within the Town of Vail for a period of at least five years by permitting the addition of up to two hundred fifty square feet of gross residential floor area to dwelling units in said structures, provided the criteria set forth in this chapter are met. This chapter does not assure each dwelling unit located within • the Town of Vail an additional two hundred fifty square 498-i5 (Valk 4.3-85) ~:.- ~~ . C \ ~ ~ ZONING C feet, and proposals for any additions hereunder shall be reviewed closely with respect to site planning, impact on adjacent properties, and applicable Town of Vail development standards. Additional GRFA allowed under this provision shall be granted to any dwelling unit only once. {Ord. 4(1985) § 1.) . 18.71.020 Single family, primary/secondary and two family residential dwellings. Any dwelling unit not restricted by the Town of Vail to housing for full time employees of the Upper Eagle Valley, in single family primar / secondar or t f il • , y y, wo am y residential dwelling units shall be eligible for additional GRFA not to exceed a maximum of two hundred fifty square feet of GRFA per dwelling unit in addition to the existing GRFA or the allowable GRFA for the site. Before such additional GRFA can be granted, the dwelling unit shall meet the following criteria: A. At least five years must have passed from the date the dwelling unit was issued a temporary certificate of occupancy or a minimum of six years must have passed from the date the original building permit was issued for the construction of the dwelling unit. B. The dwelling unit shall have received its final certificate of occupancy. C. Proposals for the utilization of the additional GRFA under this provision shall eamply with all Town of Vail zoning requirements and applicable development standards. if a variance is required for a proposal it , shall be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to Chapter 18.62 before an application is made in accordance with this chapter. D. Adjacent property owners and owners of dwelling units on the same lot as the applicant snail be notified of any ' ~ application under this chapter that involves any external alterations to an existing structure. Notification procedures shall be as outlined in Section 18.66.080 of ~- the zoning code. 498-16 (Vail 9-3-$S} fi ".~,~i v ~= C~ \ ~, ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA E. If any proposal provides for the conversion of a garage or enclosed parking area to GRFA, such conversion will not be allowed unless a new garage or enclosed parking area is also proposed. PIans for a new garage or enclosed parking area shall accompany the application under this chapter, and shall be constructed concurrently with the conversion. F. Any increase in parking requirements as set forth in Chapter 18.52 due to any GRFA addition pursuant to this chapter shall be met by the applicant. G. All proposals under this section shall be required to conform to the design review guidelines set forth in ~ + Chapter 1$.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Any ~ dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall be ~' required to meet the minimum Town of Vail Iandscaping standards as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Before any additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with this chapter, the staff shall review the maintenance and upkeep of the existing dwelling unit and site, including Iandscaping to determine whether they comply with the design review guidelines. No temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any expansion of GRFA pursuant to this chapter until all required improvements to the site and structure have been completed as required. H. The provisions of this section are applicable only to GRFA additions to single dwelling units. No pooling of gross residential floor area shall be allowed in single family, primaryJsecondary, or two family residential dwelling units. No application for additional GRFA shall request more than two hundred fifty square feet of gross residential floor area per dwelling unit. (Or d. 4(1585) § i.) 2$.71.030 Multi-family dwellings. Any dwelling unit in amulti-family dwelling, as that term is defined by Section 18.04.090 of the Vail Municipal • Code, shall be eligible for additional GRFA not to exceed a maximum of two hundred fifty square feet of GRFA in 498-17 (Vail 9-3-$5) ~ ~ ~ ZONING addition to the existing GRFA or the allowable GRFA for the site. Any application for such additional GRFA must meet the following criteria: A. At least five years must have passed from the date the structure was issued a temporary certificate of occupancy or a minimum of six years must have passed from the date the original building permit was issued for the construction of the structure. B. Proposals for the utilization of the additional GRFA shall comply with all Town of Vail zoning requirements and applicable development standards. If a variance is required far the additional GRFA, it shall be approved ..,. by the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to Chapter 18,62 before an application is made ~ in accordance with this chapter. C. The structure has received its final certificate of occupancy. D. Portions of existing ~ enclosed parking areas may be converted to GRFA Under this chapter if there is no loss of existing enclosed parking spaces in said enclosed parking area. E. Any increase in parking requirements due to any GRFA addition pursuant to this chapter shall be met by the applicant. F, All proposals under this section shall be reviewed for compliance with the design review guidelines as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Existing properties for which additional GRFA is proposed shall be required to meet minimum Town of Vail landscaping standards as set forth in Section 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. General maintenance and upkeep of existing structures and sites, including the multi-family dwellings, landscaping or site improvements (i.e, trash facilities, berm-in to screen surface parking, etc,) shall be reviewed by the staff after the application is made for conformance to said design review guidelines. This ~ /~ review shall only take place for the first application for additional GRFA in any multi-family dwelling unit, tVo temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for ,.. 498-18 (Vail 9-3-SS) '~: ,~,:K:~~': ;c. C~ \ ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA any expansion of GRFA pursuant to this chapter until all required improvements to the multi-family dwelling site and structure have been completed as required. G. If the proposed addition of GRFA is for a dwelling unit located in a condominium project, a letter approving such addition froze, the condominium association sha11 be required at the time the application is submitted. H. No deck or balcony enclosures, or any exterior additions or alterations to multi-family dwellings with the exception of windows, skylights, or other similar modifications shall be allowed under this chapter. - I. The provisions of this section are applicable only to • GRFA additions to individual dwelling units. No "pooling" of GRFA shall be allowed in multi-family dwellings. No application for additional GRFA shall request more than two hundred fifty square feet of gross residential floor area per dwelling unit. f (Ord. 4(1985) § 1.) - 18.71.040 Pr©cedure. The following procedure shall be followed by anyone wishing to obtain additional GRFA pursuant to this chapter: A. Application shall be made to the community development department on forms provided by the community development department and shall include: I. A fee of one hundred dollars shall be required with the application. 2. Information and plans as set forth anal required by Section 18.54.440, paragraph C. 3. Names and addresses of adjacent property owners and owners of dwelling units on the same lot as the applicant. 4. Any other applicable information required by the community development department to satisfy the criteria outlined in this chapter. B. Upon receipt of a completed application form, fee and other required information, a member of the staff of the community development department will make a site 498-19 (Vail 9-3-85) a:y j,. ry c r .;~~;_ ,~ \ • ZONING visit to assess the existing condition of the site with regard to the Town of Vail landscaping and site improvement standards set forth in Chapter 18.54. 1n applicable cases, the staff of the community development department shall submit its recommendations regarding the site and structure improvements and landscaping to the design review board. C. If the community development department staff determines that the site for which the application was submitted is in compliance with Town of Vail landscaping and site improvement standards, the applicant shall proceed as follows: 1. Application for GRFA additions which involve no change to the exterior of a structure shall be reviewed by the community development department staff. 2. Applications for GRFA additions involving exterior changes to a structure shall be reviewed by the staff and the design review board in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.54. D. It the community development department staff determines that the site far which additional GRFA is applied for pursuant to this chapter does not comply with minimum Town of Vail landscaping or site standards as provided herein, the applicant will be required to bring the site into compliance with such standards before any such temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy will be issued for the additional GRFA added to the site. Before any building permit is issued, the applicant shall submit appropriate plans and materials indicating how the site will be brought into compliance with said Town of Vail minimum standards, which plans and materials shall be reviewed by and approved by the community development department. E. Upon receiving the necessary approvals pursuant to this chapter, the applicant shall proceed with the securing of a building permit prior to beginning the construction of additional GRFA. 498-20 (vats g-3-ash •' i s _ .r- 3 TITLE 18 FOOTNOTES F. Any decision of the community development department staff pursuant to this chapter may be appealed by any applicant in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.030 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. (Ord. 4(1985) § 1.) TITLE 18 FOOTNOTES =• _. 1. For statutory provisions authorizing local authorities to adopt zoning regulations, see CRS 1973 § 31-23-201; for provisions regarding purposes to be served by zoning, see CRS 1973 § 31-23-203; for provisions regarding zoning of cities and towns generally, see CRS 1973 Art. 31-23. c 498-21 (Vail 9-7-85) . ~ its. ~, a~ T0: Planning and Environmental. Commission FROM. Department of C~.«.~~unity Development DATE: September 12, 1988 SUBJ: A request to review a proposal for the 1989 World Alpine Ski Championships and for a special review process to allow staff approvals for temporary signage, structures, street decor and other temporary improvements for the event. APPLICANT: Vail Valley Foundation, Mr. Bob Krohn I. RE4UEST The Vail Valley Foundation request includes two components. A. Approval of the general planning document far the World Alpine Ski Championships: The Vail Valley Foundation has prepared a document {please see attached report} which outlines the current plans for the World Ski Championships. The . document addresses all the temporary improvements necessary for the event. These temporary improvements include: 1) flags and banners 2) structures 3) lighting ~) snow and ice sculptures 5) entertainment and hospitality 6) parades 7) opening and awards ceremonies 8) race finish stadium 9) food, trade, and festival centers 10} media 11) signage 12) transportation The Foundation is requesting that the Planning Commission and Town Council approve the planning document. B. Special review process: In order to facilitate the construction of the temporary improvements which are necessary for the World Alpine Ski Championships, the Foundation is . requesting that a special review process be adopted for this two-week event. The special process would > allow staff to approve temporary signage, structures, street decor and other temporary improvements for the . Championships. The review process would require that the Vail Valley Foundation work closely on an ongoing basis with the Town of Vail staff to implement the general planning document. The detailed planning for each aspect of the championships such as flags and banners or transportation would be coordinated at the staff level. This means that the standard review processes that the Town has for zoning, design review and sign review would be suspended. However, codes related to life, health, and safety issues would be in effect. The Foundation would be required to get regular inspections and permits for any construction. If the Vail Valley Foundation and staff disagree on how to solve an issue, the Town Manager would be asked to make a decision nn the issue. Tf the Town Manager deems necessary, the issue may be presented to the Council for their review. The Vail Valley Foundation has also agreed to update the Town Council on the planning process for the World Alpine Ski Championships on a monthly basis. This update would be handled at a regularly scheduled Town Council work session. II. APPROVAL PROCESS A. This request is being handled through the emergency ordinance review process due to the short time left for building construction. First, the proposal is presented to the Planning Commission. Once the Planning Commission has made a decision on the proposal, the request is presented to the Council for their review. The emergency ordinance review process does not require a second reading of the ordinance. The emergency ordinance must be approved unanimously or by a minimum of five Council members. No publishing is required for this type of ordinance. The ordinance is effective immediately after the Town Council approval is granted. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the two requests. We feel that the Championships' report provides a good overview of how different elements of the World Championships will be handled. We do feel that it is critical that direct communication occur between the Vail Valley foundation and the Town staff concerning the detailed implementation of the proposal. Tt is reasonable to relax our standard zoning, design review board, and sign code requirements in order to handle the special needs for the World Alpine Ski Championships. The ^esign Review board has also stated their support of the concept of handling design review and signage approvals at the staff level. We feel comfortable handling the event at the staff level due to the fact that all of the improvements will be temporary and monthly updates on the development of the Championships will be presented to the Council at a regularly scheduled work session. • Planning and Environmental Commission September 26, 1988 1:00 PM Site Visits 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to a residence on Lot 3, Block 4, Bighorn Subdivision, 5th Addition. Applicant: Hugh Ferdows 2. A request for a conditional use permit in Commercial Core 2 in order to remave 2 dwelling units by combining 3 dwelling units into 1 in the Mill Creek Court Building. Applicant: Rodney Slifer 3. information Update on the proposed Mail Vail Past Office on Lot 1, Block 1, Lionsridge No. 3. Applicant: U.S. Post Office ~. A request for setback variances and a stream setback variance in order to construct a residence on Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village. Applicant: Robert Gunn 5. A request for a variance from the design standards requiring all parking lots to be paved and a request for a conditional use permit in order to allow the construction of a parking lot on the area between the Ford Park tennis courts and the snow dump along the South Frontage Road at Ford Park. Applicant: Town of Vail 6. A request to amend Agricultural and Open Space to allow cemeteries as a conditional use in Section 18.32.030 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail 7. Work session on Glen Lyon Office Site: Proposed Amendments to SDD4, Cascade Village amount request for a conditional use for a micro-brewery. 8. Appointment of one PEC member to DRB far October, November and December. • • Planning and Environmental Commission September 26, 1988 PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Grant Riva Sid Schultz Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by Jim Viele, the Chairman, at 3:00 p.m. 1. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to a residence on Lot 3, Block 4, Bighorn Subdivision. 5th Addition. Applicant: Hugh Ferdows Rick Pylman presented the request. Rick showed site plans and elevations and he reviewed the criteria and findings. The additions were proposed in the most logical locations. The staff recommendation was for approval. Rick felt that the additions were fairly minor and did feel that there was a legitimate hardship. Duane Piper, representing the applicant, pointed out reasons to expand on this side of the property, rather than on one of the other sides. After discussion, Diana Donovan moved for approval citing that there are exceptions applicable to that site that did not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The motion was seconded by Peggy Osterfoss and the vote was 7 to 0 in favor. 2. A request for a conditional use permit in Commercial Core I in order to remove 2 dwelling units by combining 3 dwelling units into 1 in the Mill Creek Court Building., Applicant: Rodney Slifer Rick Pylman presented the request. He reviewed the conditional use criteria for Commercial Core I districts. He said that the removal of dwelling units or acc~~~u«odation units on the second floor is a conditional use in the Commercial Core I district. The staff recommendation was for approval. Ned Gwathmey, the architect for the applicant, answered questions. Sid Schultz moved for approval of the request per the staff memo which mentioned that the request meant C~,«,~~ercial Core I conditional use permit criteria created no physical reduction in bed base and brought the building more into conformance with the current zoning. Diana Donovan seconded the motion and the vote was 7 to 0 in favor. 3. information Update on the proposed Mail Vail Post Office on Lot 1r Block 1r Lionsridae No. 3. Applicant: U.S. Post Office Kristan Pritz explained that the intent of the information update was to give the Planning Commission the opportunity to become familiar with the project and to list any additional concerns that they felt the Postal Service should consider. Tom Briner and Danny Swertfeger, of Briner Scott Architects, showed a model and described the project. Kristan explained that this project would be reviewed by the Town Council on Tuesday. Jim Vie1e stated that it seemed to him to be a given that the Post Office was not bound by the Tawn of Vail regulations. Kristan then reviewed zoning statistics with the Post Office responses that were in the memo. 1n listing concerns that the staff had, Kristan mentioned that they felt a bus stop ought to be provided by the Postal Service. Kristan then added that the . Post Office response was that they had no money in the budget for a bus stop. Another concern of the staff was bike path signage, pavement marking, and/or signage should be added in the area of the bike crossings to identify oncoming bikers to motorists entering and exiting the site. The Post Office response was that they would provide pavement markings and signage. The next concern was that the retaining walls were very high and at their highest point appeared to be 23 feet high. The staff recommended that the walls be terraced. And the postal response was that the budget did not allow for terracing. Staff was also concerned about berming and building mass. They asked the Post Office that they not decrease the berm on the side adjacent to the Frontage Road as it would help to screen the building. The postal response was that they would be grading the areas as they already indicated they would be graded. The next concern was parking and asphalt and landscaping. The staff felt that the amount of asphalt and parking seemed excessive and it was their opinion that some of the asphalt could be replaced with landscaping without creating a parking space or circulation problem. The staff would also like to see additional evergreens added to the landscaping plan especially . in the main berm north of the entrance. The Postal Service response was that the number of parking places shown are the . required number with the amount of driveway, servicing, etc. required. The staff had asked the Past Office for a discharge and an erosion control plan. They also asked that the chain link fence be vinyl clad. The Postal Service said that they would clad the fence. Kristan's next point was that the proposed building was going to be in a high severity rockfall area. And Kristan explained mitigation proposed. She also read from a letter from KKBNA Engineers. Kristan then listed the staff's most important primary concerns. One was that there be adequate rockfall mitigation, that there be a retail facility in the care areas, that a bus stop be adjacent to the facility and that there be additional landscaping and berming. Kristan stated that the staff would not make a formal rec~,~u«endation. Peter Patten asked the Planning Commission to review staff concerns and add to the report any of their concerns so that they could report these to the Town Council on the following Tuesday. Pam felt that the need for additional retail Post Office somewhere in the Village of Lianshead was very important. Pam also mentioned landscaping. She felt that perhaps bushes might • be better than evergreens because that side of the valley did not have evergreens. Dan Swertfeger reported that there was no irrigation plan to water the trees. Tom Briner said that water was available, but there would be a hose bib near the trees, but that to maintain grass and lawn was against Postal Service policy. Tom Briner added that the Postmaster has a maintenance budget that could probably be used to water the trees. Sid Schultz was next. His main concern was how people got to the site. Tf one did come by bus, he said there is no ideal place for the bus shelter. He wondered if it was possible for the bus to loop through the main parking lot because it was such a long way from the road to the Post Office building. Peter answered that it had been suggested but that he would investigate to see if the bus could do that. Sid's other main concern was that there be a satellite at the postal facility in one of the Village or Lionshead. Diana felt that the bus stop and the satellite postal facility were very important. She did suggest that lodgepole pine be used instead of evergreens because they required less water. With reference to the fence, Diana felt that if the fence was not vinyl clad, it would be less visible. Jim Viele felt that the staff did a great job in pointing out concerns. He felt it was unfortunate that the site couldn't be more central to the pedestrian paths. Bryan felt that he couldn't add anything that had been said to this point. Peggy said that she felt that the remote facility was her number one concern. She suggested that the Town perhaps help the Postal Service find a location on Town property. Peggy felt that it was important to add at least limited irrigation. Grant Riva felt that since the Postal Service had sovereign immunity, it didn't matter a whole lot what the Planning Commission said about it. Grant felt that the Postal Service facility should be very accessible. 4. A request for setback variances and a stream setback variance in order to construct a residence on Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village. Applicant: Robert Gunn This was listed as a variance item on the agenda, but it was really just a discussion item. And it was discussed with Jim Morter, the architect. Staff recommended denial, They felt they were unable to support any of the requests from Mr. Morter because of their not having any specific design to look at. Jim Morter told of talking with the neighbors and getting their input. They did • not want any construction on the east side of Mill creek. Peter mentioned receiving many letters from neighbors that were mostly negative. Jim Viele said that it appeared to him that almost all the letters were negative, but maybe some of them referred to the older proposal. Grant Riva said that he had a hard time looking at a variance on a lot without a specific proposal, though he could understand the owner's intent. But he suggested possibly putting in an easement on the lot when it sold. He felt that there was no reason the Commission would listen to an appeal at whatever time there was a specific proposal. Peggy Osterfass felt that variances were always considered on a case-by~case basis and could not be decided ahead of time. Diana stated that she was willing to consider a variance along ..the front of the property, but she did not feel that she would be in favor of a variance along the creek side. Sid Schultz agreed with Diana, but felt that there should be a specific proposal. Pam Hopkins agreed that there should be a specific proposal and also pointed out that the pool building was going to have to be considered in setbacks and GRFA as well. Jim Viele said that they really should look at a specific request. Jim felt that there were a couple good arguments in favor of the proposal. One was that there were other front setback encroachments along the subdivision. Jim also felt • that since the creek went right through the lot, it made it a • physical hardship and that should be considered. Jim Morten thanked the Planning Commission for their time and they went on to item #5 about the parking lot in Ford Park. 5. A request for a variance from the desian recfuirinq all parkina lots to be paved a: conditional use permit in order to allow of a parking lot on the area between the courts and the snow dump along the South Ford Park. Applicant: Town of Vail standards nd a request for a the construction Ford Park tennis Frontage Road at Kristan Pritz explained the request for conditional use and variance from design standards. She explained the design of the parking lot. She said the request was for one year of not asphalting and showed a site plan for future tennis courts. In the future, there would be tennis courts on part of the proposed parking and it was felt that it would be inefficient to asphalt and then have to tear the asphalting out to put in tennis courts. She reviewed criteria and findings and stated that the parking task force had suggested placing a parking area here. The staff felt that there were no major negative impacts. Diana Donovan asked about the entry and about debris from the . parking lot going into the stream. Mike Rose represented the Public Works Dept. He said that the debris or gravel from the parking lot would not be pushed into the stream. Diana responded that if the gravel and the snow was pushed off to one side, it would eventually enter the stream. She suggested not using gravel. Mike Rose felt that gravel was needed in early spring when the ground was very soft. Jim Viele had environmental concerns. He wondered if it made since to scrub up mud and oil and then dump next to a gold metal stream. He said that he would not want to be in favor of any variance in order to do this. Peggy agreed with Jim and wondered if there was another location for a snow dump. Peter stated that the snow dump was centrally located and was a very valuable facility. Peggy Osterfoss said that for both environmental and parking reasons a snow dump in another area should be looked at. She wondered about the location of the bus stop. And Kristan said that they would remain in the same locations, going east if it was on the south side of the road and going west if it was on the north side. Peggy felt that having a bus stop on the north side of the road, forced pedestrians to cross the Frontage Road. She wondered if the bus could pull into the parking area. Mike Rose said that he could look at the bus stop location. He said that a lot of people now traveled from the parking lot through the Manor Vail area to get to the ski area. • Kristan said the staff could look at trying to have the buses go into the parking lot when they were going west. Bryan Hobbs moved to approve the conditional use for the staff memo and Pam seconded it. Peggy asked to add a request to examine other sites for snow dumps and Jim Viele asked that erosion control plan for the parking and the snow dump and also to see if buses could pull into the parking area. The vote was 7 to 0 in favor of the conditional use. Pam then moved to approve the variance to the design standards by allowing the lot to be graveled instead of paved for one year. She approved it with conditions as stated for the conditional use permit. Her finding was one of strict and literal interpretation. Bryan Hobbs seconded the motion and the vote was 7 to 0 in favor. 6. A request to amend Agricultural and Open Space to allow cemeteries as a conditional use in Section 18.32.030 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Rick Pylman reminded the board of studies in public meetings that had been held for locations for cemeteries, public or private. He said that three zone districts had been considered and that the staff felt that the Agricultural and Open Space • Zone was an appropriate one for cemeteries. Rick said that a cemetery was of the top priorities in gold setting sessions held in Manor Vail two years previously, so it had become a municipal objective to have a cemetery. Staff felt that having the public request a cemetery showed that Vail was becoming a maturing community. Diana felt that this was an appropriate zone for cemeteries. Jim Viele agreed with Rick's comments that a cemetery should be a community goal and felt that this was an appropriate zone for cemeteries. Ella Knox, a neighbor of the Donovan Park area, stated that she did not want to see a cemetery in Donovan Park, and had bought her property with the feeling that the area would continue to be a park. Jim reminded Ella that this was merely a recommendation to the Town Council to amend the zone district and was not recommending a specific area. Bryan Hobbs moved to recommend to Town Council to amend the zoning code to allow cemeteries in the AOS zone district per the staff memo. The motion was seconded by Peggy and the vote was 7-0 in favor. Item 7, a work session on the Glen Lyon office site, was tabled. • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 26, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for setback variances and a stream setback variance in order to construct a residence on Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Robert Gunn I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED This proposal is similar to the one presented to the PEC on June 27, 2988. At that time, a brief presentation was made because there were interested neighbors attending and the item was tabled at that meeting. Since that time, the application has been revised requesting encroachments for a future structure into 19' of the front setback and 20' into the 30' stream setback from Mill Creek. The intent of the proposal is to establish a view corridor for Mr. Gunn's adjacent residence. Please refer to the July 5, 1988 letter from Jim Morten to Tom Braun and the attached revised site proposal to understand the specific request. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.0&0 of the Municipal Cade, the Department of Community Development recommends denial 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. It is difficult to gauge the relationship of this request to other existing or potential uses without a specific design for structures to be built. While the proposed building areas do respect side setback lines, the encroachment into the 30' stream and front setbacks are maximized to the greatest extent possible. This proposal is driven by the applicant's goals of maintaining the view corridor from Lot 11. As a result, the substantial portions of the lot that are presently buildable are proposed to be left undeveloped. 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 key factor with this criteria concerns the "degree to which relief" is needed in order to achieve the proposed development. Again, the request does not involve a specific proposal, but rather a general intent with regard to encroachments into the stream and front setbacks. Given the ample area to construct a home on the areas of Lot 10 that would interrupt the adjacent properties view corridor, staff feels that this hardship is self imposed by the owner of the property. {Lot 11 & Lot 10 are owned by the same properties.) 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 applicant has minimized effects of these considerations on adjacent properties by maintaining perimeter line setbacks. However, if development were to maximize the proposed encroachments, structures could be developed well within the required 30~ stream setback. It should be noted that there is no public ownership of Land along Miil Creek over this portion of . the stream and that the proposal respects the 100 year floodplain. TII. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE IV. 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 net 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. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is unable to support this request for two reasons. The first of these is that the request does not involve a specific design. Tt is difficult to gauge the impact of a variance without any knowledge of the massing and design proposed. Granting this variance could open the door for applications of this nature in the future. Secondly, the hardships presented by the applicant have been self created by the desire to impose a view corridor over Lot 10. This view corridor effectively eliminates substantial portions of the lot that could be developed without setback variances. In order to accommodate some level of development, the applicant has requested these variances into the stream and front setbacks. While Mill Creek certainly future development of this . been greatly increased by easement. presents some hardship in any lot, the degree of hardship has the self imposed view corridor There are a number of both old and new letters from neighbors commenting on this proposal. They will be given to the PEC Chairman on Monday. • MoR~rER : ~ ~ ~ ~ p ,~ • July 5, 1988 Tom Braun Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Tom: As we discussed, we are submitting a new site development plan for Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing. While the Planning and Environmental Commission likely will not grant any variances without a complete development plan, we would ask for the commission's comments and opinion that development in the illustrated area (see enclosed drawing dated July 5, 1988} is reasonable, far the following reasons: . 1. The lot is divided by Mill Creek into two relatively small building areas. 2. Adjacent property owners agree that it is important that certain portions of the site remain open w namely, that portion east of Mill Creek, and that portion west of Mill Creek immediately north of the existing home. Adjacent property owners agree that it is in the best interest of the neighborhood to develop the southwest portion of the site, in the area of the existing home. 3, Development in the illustrated area: A. permits development no closer to the road than the existing home. B, honors the 100 year flood plane at Mill Creek. C. honors all other setbacks. D. honors the desires of the neighbors, as discussed in item 2, above. We look forward to discussing this with you and the Planning and Environ- mental Commission at their meeting on July 11. Best r rds, ~• • Ja ~ ~ Morter, AIA FR ARCHITECTS • i ;-~- ,' I '~~ ~ ~ ' i ~ ~ ~~ r ~~ .~-~f ! 5' 1 ~ ~ 1 _ __ ~ ~ I 1 _~~ ~~ f-- rem ~°a'- ~..-~ ` ! } _ ~ "~ ~~ ^1 \ f I _ I ~• i - j ~ r~ .•f ` r ~. ~ _~~~ t ~I~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~. ~ ~ ~~ -= ~ 1 4~ , rj E JI ~~~ f \ff}! .\ ~ ~ ~ ~. . r Q ~I 1 1 ~/ ~~ .fig, . I . . ,~ , ~ . ~~ . ~; ,~ ,~ ~. '~, ~ ~ ~ `~ `~';. I e~ ,, 1, ,~ 1 O 1 ., ~ 1 ~ . ~ _ 1 1 ~ I l W I 1 l l ~~ J U` J 0o j a, ~~ •~; ~~ -. ~~ i~ • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 26, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from the design requiring all parking lots to be paved i the construction of a parking lot on the the Ford Park tennis courts and the snow Applicant: Town of Vail I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED standards n order to allow area between dump. The Town of Vail is requesting a conditional use permit and a variance to parking standards which require that all parking lots be paved. The conditional use permit memo is separate from this one. A 180 space parking lot is proposed for the east end of Ford Park, which would also incorporate the snow dump. The Town would like to gravel the lot instead of pave the parking area for one year. The reasoning behind this variance request is that the eastern portion of the upper bench of Ford Park is undergoing an amendment process to the Master Plan. The Town of Vail would request that the parking lot not be required to be paved for the winter , as this area is included in the new planning effort. We request that the variance be granted only for a year. If, at that time, a decision on the tennis court expansion infill project has not been made, the Town would asphalt the parking area. The lot is proposed to have a berm along the Frontage Road with shrubs and trees. We received ward from the Colorado Division of Highways, however, that the trees will not be allowed. This proposal originated with the Parking/ Transportation Task Force and was approved officially by Town Council in August with the condition that it be graveled at this time due to the existing park planning process. 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 upon the following factors: • ' III. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VAIL~S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A. The existing Ford Park Master Plan calls for parking in this area (not specifically in this configuration, however). B. Policy 2.8 of the Land Use Plan: "Day skier needs for parking and access should be accommodated through creative solutions such as: a} Increase busing from out of town. b) Expanded points of access to the mountain by adding additional base portals. * c) Continuing to provide temporary surface parking. d) Addition of structural parking." 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. 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. A. Consideration of Factors: • The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. This factor is the area in question. The parking lot poses no negative impacts on existing surrounding uses (a landscape screen is proposed on a berm along the Frontage Road). However, the potential uses are in question due too the Master Plan amendment process now underway for this area of Ford Park. A combination aquatic/tennis center is planned for this area and is now under community discussion. The parking area proposed is in this area and should be part of the new adopted amendment. Paving the lot {putting a permanent improvement in} at this point would negatively affect that planning process with unnecessary restrictions. 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 parking is badly needed for additional skier parking . as well as far the '89 Championships. The existing snow dump lot (which this will adjoin) is unpaved. The variance requested is only temporary (1 year) and the end result will be an improvement to existing areas by paving the snow dump and whatever other parking areas are ultimately adopted. We feel there is a hardship in paving the area now, when major changes to the area are being seriously considered. 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 parking lot will improve the Town's parking and transportation facilities by increasing spaces by 180 as well as the continuing provision of bus service to this area of the park. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATYON i The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the temporary variance requiring this parking lot to be paved. Graveling this lot for this winter will allow the much needed additional spaces to be constructed while not impeding the adoption and implementation of the best plan for Ford park's upper bench. • • _.~ . .~ ;: n ~J To: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 26, 1988 SUBJ: Conditional Use Permit Request in C....u..ercial Core T to remove 2 dwelling units by combining 3 dwelling units into 1 in the Mill Creek Court Building. Applicant: Rod Slifer I. THE PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to combine Apartments 306, 307 and 308 in the Mill Creek Court Building into 1 unit, The current configuration of these units is two studios and one two-bedroom. The applicant is proposing to convert these three units into a 1,600 square foot three-bedroom dwelling unit. The Commercial. Core I zone district contains its own conditional use factors, which can be found in Section 18.24.070 of the Municipal Code. These factors are as follows; A. Effects on vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I District. r1 L.J B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I District. C. Reduction of non-essential off-street parking. D. Control of delivery and pick-up and service vehicle. E. Development of public places for use by pedestrians. F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential and public uses in Commercial Core I District so as to maintain the existing character of the area. G. Control quality of construction, architectural design and landscape design in Commercial Core T District so as to maintain the existing character of the area. The removal of dwelling units or accommodation units is a conditional use on the second floor of the CCI Zone District. • II. CRITERIA EVALUATION The conditional use factors found in the CCT Zone District relate to the approval of conditional use permits. The only factor applicable to this request is factor "F" - :., r R r1 J "Continuance of the various commercial, residential and • public uses in CCT District so as to maintain the existing character of the area." The Commercial Core I District is intended to be a mixed use, commercial, residential and iodging district. The horizontal zoning is set up to maintain these uses. The Community Development Department feels that combining 3 units into 1, creating a net reduction of 2 units, is not detrimental to this mix of uses. We feel that there is no actual physical reduction of bed base taking place as the combining of the units results in one larger condominium unit. Tn 1984, the Community Development Department reviewed a similar request during the remodel of the A & D Building. In reviewing the additional factors in regard to conditional use permits, we find the displacement of the 2 dwelling units do not upset the balance and mix of land use, does not increase additional vehicular traffic, and, in general, find no negative impact in regard to the above criteria. By combining the units, there is a slight increase (30 to 33 square feet) in actual GRFA through the conversion of a common staircase serving two units to a private staircase now serving the combined single unit. This increase in GRFA is being culminated through the use of Ordinance 4, 1984, that allows 250 square feet of additional GRFA per . dwelling unit if applicable conditions may be met. The Mill Creek Court Building currently consists of 13 dwelling units and exceeds the allowable 5 dwelling units and associated GRFA according to the current zoning. By combining the 3 units to 1, the project is actually becoming more conforming with the existing zoning. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The C~.~~.~~unity Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit to remove 2 existing dwelling units on the second floor of the Mi11 Creek Court Building by combining Units 306, 307 and 308 into one unit. We feel that this request meets the CCI conditional use permit criteria, creates no physical reduction in bed base, and brings the building more into conformance with the current zoning. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 26, 1988 SUBJECT: A request to amend Section 18.32.030 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code (Agricultural and Open Space District) to add cemeteries as a conditional use. Applicant: Town of Vail T. THE REQUEST Town of Vail is requesting to amend the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District in order to add cemeteries as a conditional use. This would be added as Section 18.32.030 I. Presently, the Agricultural and Open Space District conditional uses reads as follows: Section 18.32.030 Conditional Uses "The following conditional uses shall permitted subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of 18.60: A. Any use within public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces which involves assembly of more than two hundred persons together in one building or group of buildings, or in one recreation area or other public recreational facility; B. Public and private schools and colleges; C. Churches, rectories, and related structures; D. Private golf, tennis, swimming and riding clubs, and hunting and fishing lodges; E. Semi-public and institutional uses, such as convents and religious retreats; F. Ski lifts and tows; G. Keeping of poultry or livestock, but specifically excluding keeping of hogs and commercial feedlots; H. Low power subscription radio facilities. • II. EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST • A. Suitability of Existing Zoning The Agricultural and Open Space District is primarily intended to preserve agricultural and undeveloped or open space lands from intensive development or permitting agricultural pursuits, low density uses, recreational facilities, and certain institutional uses provided that sites of these uses remain predominantly open. The Community Development Department feels that the addition of a cemetery as a conditional use in this zone district is compatible with this intent. We feel that through the review process of a conditional use permit, review of a cemetery will ensure that development maintains a site of a predominantly open space area, We feel that the existing conditional uses in the Agricultural and Open Space District are in keeping with that goal and we feel that the cemetery use is suitable as a conditional use in this zone district. B. Amendment Presenting a Convenient Workable Relationship Among Land Uses Consistent with Municipal Objectives The Agricultural and Open Space District's primary objective is to provide open space characteristics in land, while allowing some level of development. We feel that it is a function of this zone district to provide for certain uses within the community. Those uses include public parks, recreation areas, open spaces and other community and public facilities. We feel that a cemetery is very consistent with these objectives and these uses and that a conditional use in the AOS District is the proper location within the Town of Vail Zoning Code for a cemetery use. The demand for a cemetery from the citizens of the community has been evidenced by the support generated during Town of Vail public goal setting sessions. In reviewing the Zoning Code, the Community Development Department feels that with the cemetery as a municipal objective, the proper zoning far a cemetery is within the Agricultural and Open Space District. C. Does the Zoning Proposal Provide For the Growth of An Orderly and Viable Community? Staff feels that this proposal is a sign of a maturing community. The fact that the citizens of Vail want a cemetery in Town shows that the community is maturing • into a well-rounded community. We feel that the cemetery use is compatible with the uses and intent of the Agricultural and Open Space District. We feel that this is a positive addition for the Town of Vail. i IIZ. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • Staff recommends approval of the request. Staff feels that the addition of the cemetery use as a conditional use in the Agricultural and Open Space District is in harmony with the intent and purposes of the Ag Open Space District and meets the municipal objectives of providing for the eventual development of a community cemetery. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department . DATE: September 26, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to a residence on Lot 3, Block 4, Bighorn Subdivision, 5th Addition. Applicant: Hugh Ferdows I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a setback variance for two separate additions to the residence. The existing residence is sited partially within the required 15' side setback, The first request is to enclose a deck that is located above the garage adjacent to the master bedroom. This deck currently encroaches approximately 14' into the required setback and the applicant is requesting a partial enclosure of this deck. The enclosure consists of approximately 70 square feet of GRFA. The second request is to add an extension to the spa equipment housing room in order to relocate and upgrade the existing mechanical equipment for the unit. This 54 square foot addition will encroach approximately 4' into the required 15' setback. • II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.52.060 of the municipal code, the Department of C~~~~«<unity Development rec~.~„~~ends 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 existing structure is located within a 15' setback. The two additions that are requested - bedroom extension and mechanical room extension - make the most sense located as they are proposed. Although the enclosure extends within several feet of the property line, there is a large drainage easement and gully that separate this structure from the adjacent development on Lot 4. The design of the addition, the siting of the existing house, and the existing topography minimize the impact on the adjacent property. • The dearee 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 believes that some variance is warranted in this case in consideration of the fact that portions of the existing structure are currently located within the required 15'setback. The increased encroachment of the additions are minimal. The master bedroom expansion is a partial deck enclosure over the existing garage; the mechanical room extension encroaches only a few feet into the setback. The effect of the recnzested variance on light and air. distribution of population{ transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. No impact. 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 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 nat 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 fact that the existing structure required 15' setback and the`-€a~ encroachment is minimal, we feel setback request would not be a g: n U ~~ requested variance, The currently lies within the ~ that the increased that approval of this rant of special privilege. .-• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 26, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance construct an addition to a residence Bighorn Subdivision, 5th Addition. Applicant; Hugh Ferdows I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED in order to on Lot 3, Block 4, The applicant is requesting a setback variance for two separate additions to the residence. The existing residence is sited partially within the required 15' side setback. The first request is to enclose a deck that is located above the garage adjacent to the master bedroom. This deck currently encroaches approximately 14' into the required setback and the applicant is requesting a partial enclosure of this deck. The enclosure consists of approximately 70 square feet of GRFA. The additional GRFA is within the allowable on the lot. • The second request is to add an extension to the spa equipment housing room in order to relocate and upgrade the existing mechanical equipment far the unit. This 54 square foot addition will encroach approximately 4' into the required 15' setback. TT. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.52.060 of the municipal code, the Department of C~~~~,E~unity 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 existing structure is located within a 15' setback. The two additions that are requested - bedroom extension and mechanical room extension - make the most sense located as they are proposed. Although the enclosure extends within several feet of the property line, there is a large drainage easement and gully that separate this structure from the adjacent development an Lot 4. The design of the addition, the siting of the existing house, and the existing topography minimize the impact on the adjacent property. • The decree to which relief from the strict and literal . interpretation and enforcement of a st~ecified reaulation 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 believes that same variance is warranted in this case in consideration of the fact that portions of the existing structure are currently located within the required 15'setback. The increased encroachment of the additions are minimal. The master bedroom expansion is a partial deck enclosure over the existing garage; the mechanical room extension encroaches only a few feet into the setback. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of populations transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities. and public safet rte. No impact. 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 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. ~H 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 praperties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION' ~;~" Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. The fact that the existing structure currently lies within the required 15' setback and the--f-act that the increased encroachment is minimal, we feel that approval of this setback request would not be a grant of special privilege. • • r TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 26, 1988 SUBJECT: A request to amend Section 18.32.030 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code (Agricultural and Open Space District) to add cemeteries as a conditional use. Applicant: Town of Vail Y. THE REQUEST Town of Vail is requesting to amend the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District in order to add cemeteries as a conditional use. This would be added as Section 18.32.030 T. Presently, the Agricultural and Open Space District conditional uses reads as follows: Section 18.32.030 Conditional Uses "The fallowing conditional uses shall permitted subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of 18.60: A. Any use within public parks, recreation areas, and open • spaces which involves assembly of more than two hundred persons together in one building or group of buildings, or in one recreation area ar other public recreational facility; B. Public and private schools and colleges; C. Churches, rectories, and related structures; D. Private golf, tennis, swimming and riding clubs, and hunting and fishing lodges; E. Semi-public and institutional uses, such as convents and religious retreats; F. Ski lifts and taws; G. Keeping of poultry or livestock, but specifically excluding keeping of hogs and commercial feedlots; H. Low power subscription radio facilities. • i II. EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST . A. Suitability of Existing Zoning The Agricultural and Open Space District is primarily intended to preserve agricultural and undeveloped or open space lands from intensive development or permitting agricultural pursuits, law density uses, recreational facilities, and certain institutional uses provided that sites of these uses remain predominantly open. The Community Development Department feels that the addition of a cemetery as a conditional use in this zone district is compatible with this intent. We feel that through the review process of a conditional use permit, review of a cemetery will ensure that development maintains a site of a predominantly open space area. We feel that the existing conditional uses in the Agricultural and Open Space District are in keeping with that goal and we feel that the cemetery use is suitable as a conditional use in this zone district. B. Amendment Presenting a Convenient Workable Relationship Among Land Uses Consistent with Municipal Objectives The Agricultural and Open Space District's primary . objective is to provide open space characteristics in land, while allowing some level of development. We feel that it is a function of this zone district to provide for certain uses within the community. Those uses include public parks, recreation areas, open spaces and other community and public facilities. We feel that a cemetery is very consistent with these objectives and these uses and that a conditional use in the AOS District is the proper location within the Town of Vail Zoning Code for a cemetery use. The demand for a cemetery from the citizens of the community has been evidenced by the support generated during Town of Vail public goal setting sessions. In reviewing the Zoning Code, the Community Development Department feels that with the cemetery as a municipal objective, the proper zoning for a cemetery is within the Agricultural and Open Space District. C. Does the Zoning Proposal Provide Far the Growth of An ~' Orderly and Viable Community? Staff feels that this proposal is a sign of a maturing community. The fact that the citizens of Vail want a cemetery in Town shows that the community is maturing . into a well-rounded community. We feel that the cemetery use is compatible with the uses and intent of the Agricultural and Open Space District. We feel that this is a positive addition for the Town of Vail. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION i Staff recommends approval of the request. Staff feels that the addition of the cemetery use as a conditional use in the Agricultural and Open Space District is in harmony with the intent and purposes of the Ag Open Space District and meets the municipal objectives of providing for the eventual development of a community cemetery. • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: C~,~„~~unity Development Department • DATE: September 26, 1988 SUBJECT: A request far a conditional use permit in order to construct parking at Ford Park. Applicant: Town of Vail T. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The Town of Vail is requesting a conditional use permit to construct 180 new parking spaces at Ford Park. The site is zoned Public Use and a conditional use review is required for new public parking lots. The location for the spaces would be directly to the east of the existing tennis courts. The parking lot would extend to the east end of the snow dump. A landscaped berm would be created along the north side of the parking area. Total on-site parking after construction would be: 180 new spaces 50 existing asphalt spaces 150 spaces on mats 380 total spaces Town of Vail Public Works crew will excavate the mound of earth which currently exists between the Town's snow dump and • tennis court paved parking lot. A gas line and phone line which were located in the mound have been relocated so the grade at the snow dump and paved parking can be maintained over the entire area. Ten inches of gravel will be placed over the lot to provide a relatively stable parking surface for summer and winter. During winter, portions of the lot will be barricaded off and will be utilized by the Town as a snow dump. The gravel lot will be paved with asphalt if within one year from the date of the conditional use approval the final decisions on the tennis and pool construction have not been made. A berm similar to the existing snow dump berm, will be constructed on the excavated area next to the Frontage Road and around the tennis courts. These berms will be landscaped and a drip irrigation system installed. • II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS • Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Devel~~,«ent Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the foliowa.ng factor: A. Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The idea to increase parking in this area originally came from the Parking Task Force. This committee has been working on an on-going basis to address the community's parking needs. They cited the following reasons for building the parking area: 1. Provides permanent winter parking lot for overflow parking. Snow dump area would continue to be used in winter and separated from the parking area. 2. Provides badly needed summer parking for Ford Park and Ford Amphitheater events. 3. Does not conflict with the Ford Park Master Plan. • The implementation of the Parking Task Force recommendation is in compliance with the development objectives of the Town. 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 parking lot will have no major impacts on any of the factors above. 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. The proposal will have no major impacts on traffic. The Colorado Division of Highways has approved the proposal and feels comfortable with the access points to the parking lot as well as traffic flow which will be generated in and out of the lot. a Effect upon • proposed use bulk of the uses. the character of the area in which the is to be located including the scale and proposed use in relation to surrounding The parking lot should have no major impacts upon the character of the area. The landscaped berm will improve the appearance of this area of the park. Although normally, it is required that parking lots be paved, staff believes that it is reasonable to keep the lot in its existing state, which presently has a gravel surface. The gravel surfacing is requested for only one year in order to allow for decisions to be made on the tennis expansion and pool project for Ford Park. If a decision has not been made within one year from the date of approval, the Town agrees to asphalt the lot. • ITT. APPLICABLE RELATED POLICIES OF ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN IV. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED USE. V. FINDINGS IVE 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 parking lot. The proposed location of the parking lot complies with the intent of this zone district and the operation of the parking lot will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or other properties in the vicinity. The proposal also complies with the criteria of the conditional use review. r TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: C~.~~E~unity Development Department • DATE: September 26, 1988 SUBJECT: Information update on the proposed Main Vail Post Office located on Lot 1, Block 1, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing ~3 Applicant: United States Postal Service, Mr. Dennis Grooms I. THE PROPOSAL The United States Postal Service (USPS) plans to construct a postal facility (main Vail Past Office) on Lot 1, Block 1, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing ~3. This property is currently zoned Medium Density Multi-Family. When the new building is completed, the USPS will cease all service at its present location and will operate only at the new facility. The new postal facility will operate in the same fashion as the existing facility in terms of hours and services. The new facility will be approximately 4 times the size of the existing facility {25,700 square feet). The facility will be on two levels and includes covered parking for 11 postal carrier vehicles. The public box lobby will remain open 24 hours a day, while the service lobby will operate under the new schedule now in place. Most of the employees work shifts from 7:00 AM to 4:30 AM daily, although at least one employee will be in the building throughout a 24 hour period 7 days per week. Sixty-three parking spaces will be provided for customers, with an additional 32 spaces assigned to employees. Tn Section 18.18.030 of the Town of Vail zoning ordinance under Conditional Uses, "Public buildings, grounds and facilities" are permitted in the MDMF zone district, subject to a conditional use permit. The USPS plans the fallowing measures to make the property compatible with other properties in this area: A. The USPS daily hours will mean that most traffic (noise) on-site will be limited to that time period. Evening and weekend traffic will be minimal compared to the traffic generated if it were MDMF (as zoned). (At current zoning, 18 units per acre are permitted which means 68 units - i8 X 3.789 a. - could be constructed on this site).* * An annexation agreement limits the property to 45 du's. • B. Site lighting will be kept to a residential scale • with low light standards and maximum cut-off on the fixtures. USPS standards require a minimum of 1 foot candle for parking and traffic lanes which is comparable to residential parking areas. C, The building will be of materials and colors which will help it tit into the site. An exterior the will be used which is in the Red Sandstone range of hues to have the building blend into the background. D. The USPS does not want high maintenance landscaping and therefore intends to return the majority of the site back to the natural grasses and vegetation existing on the site and neighboring sites. Same formal landscaping will be developed at the entry to the site. E. Finally, acceleration and deceleration lanes will be added to the north frontage road at the road cut to minimize congestion during peak periods. II. REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE REQUEST The Postal Service provided the staff with a memo on . applicability of state and local laws to the United States Postal Service. This memo has been attached to the staff memo for your information. Basically, the courts have determined that the Postal Service is not required to comply with local zoning ordinances. xn respect to building codes, the memo states that it is not the intent "of the Postal Service to ignore basic requirements of local building codes. Postal Service architects are instructed to prepare specifications as goad as or better than local standards unless there is an overriding Postal Service policy against the use of particular methods or materials for whatever reason. Courtesy copies of plans and specifications are furnished to local authorities far their review." The USPS has expressed a commitment to explain the project at two public hearings for the benefit of the c~~«~~~unity. The proposal will also be presented at the October 4th evening Town Council meeting. Although a representative from the Postal Service was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Dennis Grooms will be at the Town Council meeting to represent the Postal Service. • 2 III. ZONING STATISTICS • Site Area: 165,048.84 s.f. MDMF Zone Proposed Height 35' flat roof 34' Floor Area Nat Applicable 25,700 s.f. Site Coverage 74,272 15,220 (.45) Setbacks 20' all sides Front: park into Side: Rear: 20' with ing encroaching setback 20' 20' Parking 50~ of parking to 63 public spaces be in a structure 32 employee spaces or hidden from public view with a landscaped berm. No parking allowed in front setback. No specific Parking Reg. listed in T.O.V. Cade 18.52 for Post Office Use Landscaping 49,5155 s.f. O.K. (.30) The only section of the MDMF district that is not complied with is the parking section. All other MDMF site development standards are under what is allowed. IV. STAFF COMMENTS The Town of Vail Community Development Department appreciates the United States Postal Services effort to cooperate with the Town in the informal review of the proposed main Vail Post Office. Below are our comments on the project: A. Given the Postal Service requirements for this facility, we feel that a goad effort has been made to integrate the building into a difficult site. The building materials also relate well to the . surrounding landscape. 3 B. Tt is very positive that the Postal Service is • proposing intersection improvements to the North Frontage Road. The channelization of traffic on and off the site appears to work well. This is particularly important, as Gary Swetish has informed us that the facility will service 1,500 customers per day, as well as 11 carriers and 6 tractor trailers for mail delivery and service. The official Colorado Department of Highways access permit has not been signed. However, the permit was forwarded to KKBNA and to Grand Junction for the Highway Departments signature. It is our understanding that the permit merely needs to be signed by the appropriate parties. C. BUS STOP: A bus stop adjacent to the facility along the North Frontage Road will be necessary. We would request that the Postal Service provide the bus pull-off and shelter. The Town of Vail Public Works Department would provide the bus service and maintain the bus shelter. Post Office Response: There is no money in the budget for a bus stop. • D. BIKE PATH SIGNAGE: Pavement marking and/or signage should be added in the area of the bike crossings to identify on-coming bikers to motorists entering and exiting the site. Post Office Response: Pavement marking and signage for the bike path will be provided. E . RETAINING WPT•T~~ The building design and site plan require a large number of retaining walls. The walls at their highest point appear to be around 23 feet high. It is our understanding that you propose to use colored concrete for the walls which will allow them to blend into the site. The Town Engineer would also like to review the engineering for the retaining walls before a building permit is issued. We would recommend that you look at terracing the retaining walls. If the walls are terraced, landscaping could also be added on the terraced levels. • 4 Postal Service Response: . The budget does not allow for terracing of retaining walls. If you would like, I will have our structural engineer send a copy of his calculations. F. BERMS/BUILDING MASS: The visual impact of the building mass from the Frontage Road could be minimized if a berm was created to the west side of the site adjacent to the Frontage Road. We would also ask that you not decrease the berm to a great degree on the east side of the site, as it also helps to screen the building and parking. We understand that the building needs some degree of visibility from the Frontage Road. However, the berms on the front portion of the site will soften the appearance of the 25,700 square foot building and parking lot. Postal Service Response: From an architectural and engineering standpoint with the budget in mind, the grading for these areas will be as indicated on Sheets C-1 and C-2. G. PARKING/ASPHALT/LANDSCAPING: The amount of parking and asphalt seems excessive. Zt is our opinion that some of the asphalt could be replaced by landscaping without creating a parking space or circulation problem. We would also like to see additional spruce added to the landscaping plan, especially in the main berm north of the entrance. Spruce provide color and screening throughout the year. It also appears that there are certain areas that already have enough space for additional landscaping which do not affect any parking ar loading areas. As an example, on the northwest corner of the loading dock where the 22 foot retaining wall is located, planting could easily be added in front of the wall to minimize the visual impact of the retainage. Postal Service Response: The number of parking spaces shown are the required number, with the amounts of driveway, servicing, parking and loading dock being necessary. We have provided the amount of landscaping that the budget would allow. • 5 H. CONSTRUCTION POLLUTION/PARKING LOT RUNOFF: . The pollution from the construction of the project and runnoff from the parking lot once the facility has been completed, will require that you submit a discharge and erosion control plan. Please see the attached section of the Town of Vail zoning code, 18.54.440 Z & J which outlines the type of information that should be included in the plan. Postal Service Response: Sheet C-~ of plan 1 show how we will handle on site water. If any further information is required I will do my best to provide it. Z. FENCE: A chain link fence is proposed to provide safety for the building. To minimize the appearance of the fence, we would ask that you use a vinyl clad fence and landscape in high visibility areas along the fence. The fence should be designed to include angles or curves in its layout so that it is compatible with the terrain of the site. The fence is particularly close to the Valley High Apartment Project. Staff encourages you to pull back the fence • as far as possible from the eastern property line and landscape in this area to decrease the impacts on the Valley High Project. We understand your concern for protection against vandalism and safety. However we do feel strongly that there are many ways to decrease the visibility of the fence while still allowing for the concerns of safety and vandalism protection. Postal Service Response: Chain link fence has been indicated in specification to be vinyl clad. The amount of landscaping indicated is all that the budget would allow. J. ROCKFALL: The proposed site for the main Vail Post Office is in a high severity rock fall area. The rock fall report from KKBNA appears to be very inconclusive. The last three paragraphs of the report are of concern to the town engineer and planning staff: "Our approach to the problem is to provide a barrier that will dissipate the given amount of energy from a `design boulder.' • Using practical approaches and common sense 6 we have made recommendations for a practical • solution to this problem, but not an all encompassing solution that will stop every rock under all circumstances. We believe our approach to be valid and consistent with the level of knowledge and design infarmation currently available. In short, all of our assumptions and solutions can be wrong, and a failure of the barrier system can occur. We have not attempted in our recommendations to eliminate all risk to people and property associated with this problem. 1f it is the owners' intent to achieve a level of little or no risks from rockfall hazard, then our recommendations herein are not valid." Due to the fact that this building will be used heavily by the public, it is our opinion that the Past Office should endeavor to achieve a "level of little or no risk" for workers or users of this facility. We are pleased that the Postal Service is willing to construct the proposed mitigation design by KKBNA. However, the conclusion of the report leaves a great deal of uncertainty as to whether or not the protection will be adequate far a facility heavily used by the public. Postal Service Response: Based on the available information, the structural engineer designed a system to eliminate most of the risk to people on property. Because the size and direction which a falling rack might take is impossible to predict 100% accurately, it would be nearly impossible to make a 100% safe system. We feel we have done our best to protect people and property. (Please see the attached letter to Gary Swetish from KKBNA concerning the staff c~~~~«ents.} K. REGRADING: A11 regrading of the berms, particularly in the front portion of the site should be completed on Postal Service property. If grading occurs on Colorado Division of Highway right-of-way property or Valli Hi property, their approval will be required. From the site plan, it appears that some grading will occur in the area of the Highway right-of-way and perhaps even • on the property owned by Valli Hi. The Town Engineer 7 • has requested that the 2 under drains be installed as per page 12 of Chen report, November 3, 1987. Postal Service Response: Our grading on highway right-of-way has been approved. Should we have to grade on Valli Hi property, we will get approval from them. L. PAVING: The paving sections on page 14 of the Chen report for vehicle traffic should be followed per the report. Postal service Response: Our paving is based on their recommendations. M. RETAIL POSTAL FACILITY: • Attached is a letter dated October 25, 1985 from the Town of Vail to the U.S. Postal Service. In the last paragraph on the first page, we encourage the retention of a retail postal service facility in the Village or Lionshead. The satellite facility would be in a location that could provide service for guests and locals. We continue to feel this is valid for Vail's resort orientation and look forward to working with you on these arrangements. (Please see the attached October 25, 1985 letter to Mr. William C. McEnery.) Postal Service Response; There was no money in the budget to provide a remote facility. V. CONCLUSION The staff will not make a formal recommendation on the project. We have made an effort to list areas of concern which we feel should be addressed. Staff's primary concerns are the need for: 1. Adequate rockfall mitigation: Issue J 2. A retail facility in the Core Areas}: Issue M 3. A bus stop adjacent to the facility: Issue C 4. Additional landscaping and berming: Issue G • 8 The intent of the information update is to give the Planning Commission the opportunity to become familiar with the project and to list any additional concerns which the Planning Commission feels that the Postal Service should consider. Again, the staff would like to state our appreciation for the Postal Service's effort to work with the Town staff, Planning G„.~~~,~,ission and Town Council on the project. C7 -. ~ ~~ 9 APPLICABILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL SAWS RELATING TO ZONING AND BUILDING CODES, 70 THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE The United States Postal Service was created as an independent establishment; in the executive branch of the government of the United States. Title 39, U.S. Code, Section 201. The effective date of the establishment of the Postal Service was duly 1, 1971. As such, it is an integral part of the federal government and is afforded all of the priveleges and immunities granted by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. In construing the supremacy clause, courts have consistently followed the rule announced in the early case of McColloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, that the function of the federal government and Sts instrumentalities should be free from interference by state and local agencies, See also: Mayo vs. U.s., 319 U.S. 436; Johnson vs. Paryland, 254 U.S. 51; Arizona vs, California, 283 U.S. 423. ZONING ORDINANCES s The rule of sovereign immunity has been applied with respect to zoning ordinances. In the case of Crinello vs. Board of Adjustment, i83 F. Supp. 826, the court said: "... if the Postmaster General contemplates the erection of a Post Office on the proposed site, his authority may not be restricted by local ordinance...'° In Stewart vs. United States Postal Service, 508 F. Supp. 112, an action was brought to en~o7n construction of a post'ottice in a California city. The injunction was denied with the court stating at page 116: "Finally, to the extent that plaintiffs claim entitlement to injunctive relief by virtue of the Postal Service's failure to comply with the City's zoning ordinances, the court is of the opinion that the Supremacy Clause obviates the need for such compliance where the ordinances conflict with federal law. Since the functions of the Postal Service are hampered by compliance with such local zoning requirements, the Postal Service need not comply with Sarataga's local ordinances." The issue of the applicability of local zoning regulations to post offic e construction was addressed even more recently in Middletown TP vs. N/E Reg. Off., U.S. Postal Service, 607 F. Supp. 125, wherein the court, quoting from an earlier case, stated: "LI~f the Postmaster General, pursuant to and in the exercise of the authority vested in him by congressional enactment, contemplates the erection of a post office on the proposed site, his authority may not be restricted by local ordinance." • a _ .'~ --• . In the cash of Thanet Corporation vs. Board of Princeton Township, 249 A 2d, 31, the court said: " ..the United States Government whether as owner or lessee, is immune from local zoning ordinances." See al 5o: Metzenbaum, Law of Zoning, Vol. II, page 1280; Anderson, American Laws of Zoning, Vol. II, Section 9.07, page 119. BUi~.DIEdG GOD1=S/PERMITS There is a consensus of judicial opinion that a state ar municipal action evincing an effort or intent to regulate or control a federal construction project would not be sanctioned by a federal court. Johnson vs. .Maryland, supra; Leslie Miller, Inc. vs. Arkansas, 352 U.S. 787; U.S. vs..Clty of Chester, !44 J;. 2d. 41b; U.S. vs. Phi ladelphia, 56 F. 5upp. ~i6`L. it is, of course, not the intent o~r tie k~ostal Service to ignore basic requirer~ents of local building codes. Postal Service architects are instructed to prepare specifications as good as or better than local standards unless there is an overriding Postal Service policy against the use of particular methods or materials for whatever reason. Courtesy copies of plans and specifications are furnished to local authorities for their review if requested. s • ~ . ti ... ~~~~~ +nooroontea rrpnwMl+y Ynplr~e.re rpo~cu Iioaaqudrs~• 425+ k~~i,np Wn..~ ,pgc, CO7oraGO 60033 309 oat d+pb • • Lnpln..ri nq ~e~eu.r+e. Oinq lb46 Ballinghem 90110 Chlcepo Cderada 6prYnq. Renner April 28, 1988 Mr. Gary Swetish 8riner/Scott Architects 143 E. Meadovd Qri ve ~~40 Vail, CO 81S5fi fie: Val 1 Past ~'fi ce Rockfall dear Gary; Nay Yprk S1 l.0ui! $al1 Lekn clly V,ltGpU+~! As you requested I am responding to comments made in item 9 of a letter dated April 4, 1988 to Bennis Grooms f ram A, Peter Patten, ,1r., Community Revelopment director far the Town of Vail. In this letter item 9 refers to the KKg~6A rackfall report, and states that the report appears to be inconclusive, and the tonel usi on of the report leaves a great deal of uncertainty as i;o whether the protection will be adequate for a facility heavily used by the public. We da not disagree with these statements as they relate to risk associated with this type of structure, and the way the structure will perform under all possible rack fall events during its existence. The main problem with desigriir~g ra~kfall barriers is to define the design problem that a partieular barrier will hopefully mitigate. Parameters that contribute to the "design boulder" properties include size, shape, r~eight, speed. height above grade at impact, boulder material, ground slope, surface roughness, path of travel, etc. 51n~e all of these parameters can vary greatly far every rock that canes dawn the slope, we believe that it is difficult if not impossible to determine how accurately a "design boulder" will represent actual racks that fall and impact the barrier. This leads us to believe that it is also next to impossible to assign a quantitative level of risk to our particular problem and our solution. We have attempted to use current information available to us in developing our report and our final barrier design. We believe our solution will provide safety to the site, building and its occupants for many rackfall events that could occur, However, we realize that there are rackfall events that can occur, (such as if a ~4 tan boulder rolls down on the site as one already has). that will penetrate our barrier if the energy in the boulder s greater than the energy from our design boulder. We believe that providing for rockfall mitigation 15 much more of an art than a science at this point in time. ,,,r L • Mr, Gary Swetish Sriner/5catt Architects April 28, Y988 Page ~ The cost to provide a barrier of little or no risk is probably well over a million dollars and probably not asthetica1ly pleasing. It would probably be a massive reinforced earth ar concrete wall structure extending entirely across the site Werth of the building and extending shove the building roof line. This type of solution is nat within tyre budget oap~bilities at this pra,~ect, and Would probably hive a mayor negative esthetic impact on the past office site and surrounding sites. We believe that our design provides superior protection compared to either of the occupied sites east and west of the past aftice w?~ich appear to haue little in the way of protection barriers. Although it is not all encompassing, we believe our solution to providing rackfall protection to the sate is a goad one. We c~nnat state or claim mare in our report more than we believe based on our professional knowledge and opinions. I hope this helps to clarify some of the questions in item 9. Sincerely, veil F, Dunbar, P.E. Principal NFD: kk ,,.~ r' w •~ ~..~ ;i': ;' ~~ n ~ ~ti; ,~ 1 ~1 tq la~~~ of uai 75 south frontage road • pail, Colorado 81657 - (303) 476-7000 office of the mayor October 25, 1.985 Mr. William C. McEnery Regions] Director Real estate and Buildings Department United States Postal Service Western Regional Office San Bruno, California 94099--0001 Dear Mr. Mc~nery: . Since our meeting with Mr. Chapman in late September and our previous letter of October 1, 1985, the Vail Town Council has been discussing further the various proposals for locating new postal facilities in Vail. After further thought and discussion concerning the type of facilities being proposed and the various impacts on the Town and .traffic patterns, it is felt by the Council that so long as a retail site is located near the main commercial areas, a major operational facility such as proposed for Vai] would be better located at a remote location than at the present Post~Office and Municipal Building site. We fee] the kind of truck traffic the operational facility will be generating would be better removed to a remote location than at the busiest intersection in Vail. In light of this, we encourage the Postal Service to build the opera- tions tac~~ity a~ a remote site ana nialn~:a~n the retail racai3ty or a~proxima.tel,y S,UUU square. feet near the main comniercna E arias ~~ Va i 1 . As we stated i n our October 1 l ette r, the Town of Vai l wi 11 be amenable to continuing the lease an the existing facility until the new remote facility is in place. Upon completion of your new opera- . tions facility, a new lease would be negotiated far up to 5,000 square feet of mutually agreed upon space at a fair market lease value until long term arrangements far space could be made by the Postal Service. • .~" a c ~. ` " Mr. 4di 11 i am C. N~cEnery October 25, 1985 Page 2 ''~~'~4 i ~~`~~ The Town Council is withdrawing its offer to sell 65,OOD square feet of land far fi2,500,000.00 including the present Post Office Building and the present Municipal Building. We very much appreciate the willingness of the Postal Service to maintain a retail facility near the center of to~an and look forward to ti~orking with you and your staff on the details of that arrangement. S~ ncere~ r ~ - ,- Paul R. ~oY~nston Mayor ,~ PRJ/bsc • ~ Planning and Environmental Commission ~ October 10, 1988 1:45 PM 3:00 PM Site Visits Public Hearing 1 1. A request for a rear setback variance in order to construct an addition on Lot 4, Block D, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Mike Baskins 2. A request for special development district approval and a major subdivision final plat for Lots 1 through 19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing 3. Applicant: Commercial Federal Mortgage Company 2 3. A request to amend Special Development District ~~, Area A, Cascade Village. Applicant: Vail Ventures, Ltd. 3 4. A work session on the request for a conditional use for an addition to the hospital. (Formal review of hospital will take place at 10/24 meeting.) 5. Work session on Glen Lyon Office Building, including the micro-brewery. • Planning and Environmental Commission October 1b, 1988 MEMBERS PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Sidney Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT Grant Riva STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Kristan Pritz Rick Plyman The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. A request for a rear setback variance in order to construct an addition on Lot 4, Block D, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Mike Baskins Rick Pylman presented the proposal. The setback on the north elevation is equivalent to the existing encroachment, plus an additional 18" into the setback for a portion of the bedroom. The existing structure already extends into the setback. The staff recommendation is for approval. Diana Donovan made a motion staff memo. The motion was vote was 6~0 in favor. Mr. encroachment for the second to the west. The PEC agree variance request. to approve the variance per the seconded by Pam Hopkins and the Baskins requested to extend the floor overhang an additional 4 feet ~ to allow far this change in the 2. A request for special development approval and a mayor subdivision final plat for Lots 1 through 19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing 3. Applicant: Commercial Federal Mortgage Company Rick Pylman presented the staff memo. Peter Jamar, representing the developer, recommended that the DRB be responsible for reviewing the design review guidelines. Diana asked if the road was always to be dedicated to the Town. Rick clarified that the project would have a public road. Peter Jamar stated that he project did not have a specific name at that time. He wanted to make sure that the developer had the leeway to name the project. Rick said that the Town would wait to sign the plat until deciding on the name. Diana moved and Peggy seconded to approve the plat per the staff memo. The vote was 6-0 in favor. PEC mTnu~es 10/30/88 • 3. Rectuest to amend Special Development District 4, Area A. Cascade Village. Applicant: Vail Ventures, Ltd. Kristan Pritz presented the staff memo on the request, She described the background on the Cascade Village Development. The presentation followed the format of the memo. The staff recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the Special Development District 4, Area A with conditions as outlined in the memo. During the meeting, staff added the following notations to the list of conditions: 1. In respect to condition 8: The difference in GRFA for the total project (existing) 291,121 s.f. and the (proposed) 8 d.u. Millrace plan scenario of 290,945 s.f. is 176 s.f. The 176 s.f, may be applied to Westhaven so that the developer does not lose development rights. 2. In respect to Condition 15: The Waterford structure when built will trigger the development plan for Millrace IV. This means that the accommodation unit or dwelling unit plan must be selected before the Waterford structure could be built. This is due to the fact that parking for Millrace IV is located in the Waterford structure. 3. In respect to Condition 15: The parking structure will have pollution control mechanisms. ~. New Condition X16: Erasion control methods will be used during construction of the Waterford and Cornerstone buildings to avoid impacts on the stream. Andy Norris, representing Vail Ventures, Ltd., responded to the conditions of the staff approval. 1. Andy felt he was entitled to the 96 fireplaces and stated that it was important to provide the fireplaces in transient residential units and dwelling units up to his maximum amount, 2. He wanted to have the office space, He agreed that Commercial Core I zoning was appropriate for first . floor space as long as he could have the one office space in the Plaza Conference Building. 2 3. Okay! 4. He felt that this was a site planning issue and that the Design Review Board could work out the site plan for the dwelling unit scenario for Millrace IV. 5. & 5. & 7. Okay! 8. He wanted 293,745 square feet of GRFA far the completed project. 9. & 10. & 11. Okay! 12. Andy said that he had a fundamental disagreement with this requirement as he felt that the developer of Eagle Pointe should be responsible for the bollard. The bollard was an original requirement of the Eagle Pointe project which was not followed through with by the developer. 13. Okay! 14. Andy agreed to provide floodplain and stream centerline information for Waterford. He felt that if the staff wanted the 100-year floodplain information updated far this stretch of stream that it was the Town's responsibility to contact the Flood Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to request that this work be completed. 15. & 16. Okay! Yn respect to the Design Review Board recommendations, Andy agreed with points 1, 2 & 4, but did not agree that point 3 should be passed on to the Design Review Board. His opinion is that the bridge connection between the two buildings in the Cornerstone project is very appropriate. Peggy Osterfoss asked if the Commercial for Cascade Village would be similar to Lionshead and/or the Village. Andy responded that yes, it would be similar. He said that basically the amount of retail is limited by the amount of parking he could provide. Peggy stated that she felt parking was a big issue due to the impacts of the Colorado Mountain College, and lift. She felt that the lift will impact parking in a way that would be difficult to ascertain. Andy responded that valet parking is used on extremely busy days and will be necessary in the future. Peggy stated that • • she felt that it was unfair that the developer lose his maximum amount of fireplaces for the project. Bryan Hobbs felt that the number of fireplaces should be based on a dwelling unit count. He supported all the other staff conditions. He stated that he was unsure about the emergency bollard issue. He felt that the mass and bulk of the bridge connection on the Cornerstone building was fine. Diana Donovan did not see how the project would work for circulation. Andy Norris explained how the general circulation for pedestrians and vehicles worked. He stated that the covered bridge to the club is important and should be used. The Cascade Club covered entry by the bridge is also a space that can be used for drop-offs. Andy agreed that better management of the drop-off and pick-up areas in the project is necessary. He explained to Diana that drop-off by the CMC building is allowed and that the Westin plaza area had been specifically designed to allow for cars to flow in and out of this area. Diana asked how trash would be handled. He stated that all projects will have interior trash compactors. Diana suggested that benches and bike racks be added to the Westin, CMC and Cascade Club areas. Diana said that the office may be nice but that Andy could not have it both ways. In respect to the Millrace IV plan, Diana said that she supported the 32-accommodation plan and that she agreed that additional square footage could be allowed due to the area being devoted to lodge rooms. She stated that she did not have any problem with the bridge connection on the Cornerstone building. Sidney Schultz questioned why it would not be more appropriate to change the definition of an accommodation unit to allow for a kitchen as opposed to putting restrictions on a dwelling unit to create the transient residential unit. Kristan Pritz responded that the staff had discussed this issue with the Town Attorney, Larry Eskwith. She stated that he and the staff felt that it was a more logical approach to restrict dwelling units instead of creating a new definition for an accommodation unit. The definition of a dwelling unit and an acc~.~„«odation unit is based primarily on whether or not the unit has a kitchen. To change this approach could have unknown ramifications on how density is calculated for projects throughout the community. Sidney stated that he felt fireplaces should be limited to dwelling units only and perhaps allocate fireplaces on a building by building basis. . Pam Hopkins was concerned about the Frontage Road landscaping and fireplace number. She was concerned that the north facade . along the Waterford building would be more like a wall. Andy stated that they were trying to get away from the Interstate due to the negative impacts I-70 has on the project. Pam liked the requirement far the bollard. She also felt comfortable with the office space in the plaza conference wing. She was concerned about snow/shedding problems and felt that the architects needed to look at this issue closely. She suggested using snow guards. Andy stated that they are using a combination of snow guards and protection for pedestrians to avoid the snow/shedding problem. Jim Viele stated that there were excellent points made on both sides of the issue concerning the fireplaces. He felt that it was a difficult issue to decide. He was open to allowing some fireplaces for certain transient residential units and was willing to look at some kind of compromise on the issue. He agreed that the first floor office space should be allowed. The use exists in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core IT. He felt that a small amount of office space on first floor was justifiable. In respect to the Millrace IV 8-dwelling unit plan, he agreed with staff that additional work needed to be done on the site planning for this proposal. • In respect to the GRFA for the project, he agreed with the staffs condition in number 8. This would require that the GRFA for the project, if Millrace IV (8-dwelling unit plan) is used, would be 290,945 square feet. If the Millrace IV 32- accommodation plan is utilized, then the total project GRFA would 293,745 square feet. He agreed with the staff amendment to this condition which stated that the difference in GRFA of 176 square feet could be applied to the Westhaven property. Jim felt that the bollard was a reasonable off-site improvement given the magnitude of the project. Jim felt the bridge connection on the Cornerstone project was not a big concern. He felt that the bridge connection was important to the architecture for the building. He stated that the view up to the mountain is already very nice. Kristan Pritz pointed out that the office could go on the second floor of the Cornerstone building and still be very accessible to walk-in traffic. The location is adjacent to the stairway down to the lift. She also pointed out that fireplaces in Denver had been cited as a major contributor to the air pollution problem. She also stated that it would be a special privilege to allow Andy to have fireplaces in units other than dwelling units. She also reiterated the need far the bollard due to the size of the project and concern for adequate emergency access. 5 Peggy Osterfoss stated that she felt that support Of the office was a good trade-off for requiring Andy to add the bollard. Diana Donovan made a motion to approve the project per the staff memo with the following amendments: 1. Condition #2 - The office space would be allowed to be located in the Plaza Conference building. 2. Condition #4 - The 32-accommodation unit plan is acceptable. The 8-dwelling unit plan is denied. Square footage for the 8 dwelling unit is only approved to be 11,2x0 square feet, the original approved GRFA. She stated that Andy may submit a plan before the project is presented to the Town Council for staff approval. The plan is to allow for adequate open space between Millrace IV and the Westin. She felt that it was also acceptable to allow the additional GRFA of 176 square feet to be applied to the Westhaven property. 3. She moved that the concern over the bridge connection in the Cornerstone building be removed from the comments passed on to the Design Review Board. The motion was seconded by Pam Hopkins. The motion passed . unanimously. 4. A work session on the request far a conditional use far an addition to the hospital. 5. A work session on the Glen Lyon Office Building, including the micro-brewery. • 6 L J TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: C~,~u«unity Development Department DATE: October 10, 1988 SUBJECT: Request to amend Special Development District ~4, Area A, Cascade Village. Applicant: Vail Ventures, Ltd. I. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION TO THE CASCADE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT Cascade Village was annexed into the Town of Vail in December of 1975 by Ordinance No. 26. Before being annexed to Vail, the area was zoned for 6 units per acre with the option to propose a comprehensive development plan. (PEC minutes 2/5/1976}. In March of 1976, the SDD4 zoning was imposed. In respect to the underlying zone district, Cascade Villge is unique in that the Town initially approved SDD 4 zoning. There was no other Tawn of Vail underlying zone district before the SDD. Special Development District No. 4 is divided into the following areas: Development Area Area Known As A Cascade Village B Coldstream Condominiums C Glen Lyon Duplex Lots D Glen Lyon Office Building The density allotment for Cascade Village, Area A in this original ordinance was 252 dwelling units located on 16.82 acres for a density of 15 dwelling units per acre. Ordinance Na. 28 of 1977 revised the original ordinance in a number of ways. This ordinance changed the development areas B,C and D and required dedication of over 40 acres of open space to the Town. Cascade Village continued to be responsible for maintaining all c~,~„~~on areas, interior roads and plazas for the project. This ordinance also revised some of the submittal requirements as well as refined permitted and conditional uses allowed in Development Area A (Cascade Village}. Some other minor changes such as numerical changes to section numbers in the zoning code were also provided for in Ordinance 28. • In January of 1979 there was an amendment to SDD4 with regard to submittal requirements. The applicant requested that a determination be made as to exactly what type of submittal requirements would be necessary to review the project. This amendment was approved in preparation for the April and May review of the development plan. . On May 22, 1979, the PEC reviewed several amendment requests. The first amendment called for enlarging Development Area A to include the 1.25 acre Robbins tract. The new acreage for Area A would then total 18.078 acres. Additional commercial square footage was also requested. The single major issue in the approval process of the development plan of 1979 was the creation of a third village for Vail with respect to the amount of commercial proposed and the proposed educational/learning center. Employee housing was an integral part of the development plan in the discussion in May of 1979. The proposal at that time was for 32 rental units of approximately 850 square feet each. The possibility of using industrial revenue bands to construct the housing was discussed. The timing for the employee housing project was represented as the second year of construction, but earlier if possible. The Planning Commission approved the request for a total commercial square footage of 21,700 square feet. The developer agreed to easements for bicycle paths and agreed to work with the Highway Department to provide a left-hand turning lane and acceleration and deceleration lanes off of the South Frontage Road to Westhaven Drive. The developer also agreed to provide a bus shelter and turn- . around in the project. The proposed employee housing units {20) became part of the development plan. In June of 1984, a major amendment was again requested for Development Area A {Cascade Village). The amendment requested that the original density of 15 dwelling units per acre be applied to both the 1.25 acre Robbins parcel which had been annexed to the SDD in 1979, and for the 1.045 acre Cosgrif parcel proposed to be annexed with this current request. 37,000 square feet of commercial was requested with the rationale that it was a necessity to the development program to provide support retail, considering the clientele the development was hoping to attract. A revision to the employee housing requirement and changes to the height calculation method were also addressed. The staff supported the additional density and commercial square footage. The employee housing issue was resolved by requiring that "on a yearly basis, a contractual agreement between the employer and the developer showing evidence of employee housing that is satisfactory to the Town of Vail be made available." The present SDD had stated that the developer provide 20 dwelling units for long term rentals to employees of the project on an ongoing basis. The staff felt that 20 units was the • minimum acceptable requirement. The proposal for 18 fireplaces within accommodation units was not approved by the staff or the PEC. The developer was required to 2 . participate in the study to develop a reasonable plan for a left-hand turn lane off of the South Frontage Raad into the Cascade Village devel~~~«ent. Parking requirements were also amended to require 40 spaces for the Plaza conference facility. 3 r~ U II. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT REQUESTS Vail Ventures, Ltd. proposes to amend SDD4 to allow for changes in requirements as well as adjustments to development of the remaining 5 undeveloped sites within Area A. These sites include: Cornerstone, Waterford, Westhaven Condominiums, Millrace III and Millrace IV. The applicant has stated that "the amendments are necessary due to changes resulting from the construction of the Cascade chair lift, the completion of the Westin Hotel and the changing markets for real estate and guests services; all of which have affected the overall master plan for Cascade Village." The following amendments are requested for Cascade Village Development Area A: A. Approval of alternative development scenarios for Waterford, Cornerstone, and Millrace IV sites. The developer is requesting the flexibility to have options as to whether Waterford or Millrace TV should be developed using the transient residential, accommodation unit, or the dwelling unit plan. In addition, there would be differences in commercial • development depending on whether the Cornerstone site was developed using the commercial plan "a" or special attraction/commercial plan "b". B. Approval of "restricted dwelling unit or transient residential dwelling unit" for Cornerstone and Waterford sites. For the purposes of this memo, the restricted dwelling units shall be referred to as a transient residential dwelling unit or TR in this memo. Transient Residential Dwelling Unit: A dwelling unit located in a multi-family dwelling that is managed as a short term rental in which all such units are operated under a single-management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities. For the purposes of this SDD 4, a short term rental shall be deemed to be a rental for a period of time not to exceed 31 days. Each unit shall not exceed 645 square feet of GRFA which shall include a kitchen having a maximum of 35 square feet. The kitchen shall be designed so that it may be locked and separated from the rest of the unit in a closet. A transient dwelling unit shall be accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing 4 • through another accommodation unit, dwelling unit, or transient residential dwelling unit. Should such units be developed as condominiums, they shall be restricted as set forth in Sections 17.26.075 - 17.26.120 governing condominium conversion. The unit shall not be used as a permanent residence. Fractional fee ownership shall not be allowed to be applied to transient residential units. For the purposes of determining allowable density per acre, transient residential units shall be counted as one- half of a dwelling unit. Transient residential dwelling unit parking requirements shall be 0.4 space per unit plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of GRFA with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit. C. Special Attraction: Conditional Use for the Cornerstone Building, 8080 5.f. A special attraction is defined as a museum, seminar or research center, or performing arts theatre or other similar cultural center. D. Approval of "Fractional Fee Ownership" as defined in the Town of Vail Municipal Code Section 18.04.135. Fractional fee means a tenancy in c~.~u~.on interest in . improved real property, including condominiums, created or held by persons, partnerships, corporations, or joint ventures or similar entities, wherein the tenants in c~,~„~~on 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 mare 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 effecive upon any co-tenant far the sale of any interest in the property. Fractional Fee Ownership shall be a conditional use for dwelling units in Westhaven's multi-family dwelling and shall not be applied to restricted employee dwelling units or transient residential dwellings. Approval for ownership intervals of no lass than 5 weeks is requested. E. Approval of maximum height for Waterford of 48 feet, as measured from the finished grade to the roof ridge along the South Frontage Road and Westhaven Drive. A . building elevation height of 61 feet from the lowest floor of the parking structure up to the building's 5 roof ridge and 40 feet from the lowest floor of the parking structure to the eave is requested for the creek side or southeast building elevation. F. Approval of maximum height for Cornerstone of 71 feet as previously approved for the Plaza building. Height is measured from the roof ridge down to finished or existing grade, whichever is most restrictive. G. Approval of addition to east end of the Cascade Club for either a lap pool, wellness center, or small gymnasium at 4,500 s.f. The wellness center would be a conditional use with required parking provided. The 20 foot setback is maintained along the South Frontge Road. The maximum height is 25 feet. H. Approval of first floor office space in the new Plaza Conference Center having a maximum square footage of 925 square feet. Presently space is approved to be retail. T. Approval of second floor, Room 2J in the CMC building to be converted from conference space to retail and/or theatre with required parking provided, 1387 s.f. J. Approval for the mixed use credit of 17.5 to be applicable to the Cascade Village and Waterford parking structures. K. Approval of request to eliminate requirement for common carrier parking. L. Approval of request to eliminate the existing SDD4 employee housing requirement that a "Contractual agreement between the employer and developer showing evidence of employee housing that is satisfactory to the Town be made available to the Department of Community Development." The developer proposes to provide a minimum of 10 employee dwelling units having a minimum square footage of 640 square feet per unit within Development Area A and/or D. The GRFA and number of employee units shall not be counted toward allowable density or GRFA. The units shall be restricted as employee housing units far 15 years from the date of the final certificate of occupancy for said units. The employee dwelling unit shall not be leased or rented for any period of less than thirty consecutive • days, and that if it shall be rented, it shall be rented only to tenants who are full-time employees in 6 the Upper Eagle Valley. The Upper Eagle Valley shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle-Vail, and Avon and their surrounding areas. A full-time employee is a person who works an average of thirty hours per week. If the unit is sold, it shall be sold to a qualified purchaser. A qualified purchaser shall be defined as a full-time employee in the Upper Eagle Valley as defined in the previous paragraph. The employee dwelling unit shall not be divided into any form of time-shares, interval ownership or fractional fee. A declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be filed of record in the office of the Eagle County clerk and recorder in a form approved by the town attorney for the benefit of the town to ensure that the restrictions herein shall run with the land before a building permit is released for the construction of the employee units. M. Approval for 55 foot height for Westhaven building as measured from the finished or existing grade whichever is mast restrictive. N. Approval for 96 wood burning fireplaces which is equivalent to the number of dwelling units approved yet unbuilt for the SDD. This means that transient residential, acc~,~t~«odation units, and dwelling units would be allowed to have wood-burning fireplaces up to the 96 maximum amount. O. Approval for an entry tower located at the northeast corner of the Cascade Club. The height requested is 36 feet. The 20 foot setback is maintained. p. Approval for a total c~.~LL«ercial square footage of 53,513 s.f. or 56,538 s.f. Q. Approval for 293,71.5 s.f. of total GRFA. r1 U 7 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS FOR THE FIVE REMAINING SITES TN AREA A: A. CORNERSTONE BUILDING Location: Site is to the south of Westhaven Drive and north of the Terrace Wing. Proposal: Fifty transient residential units are proposed. The request also consists of two alternatives for commercial development. Alternative A has 26,044 square feet of retail, while Alternative B has 29,065 square feet which includes the "Special Attraction" use. Ski accessory uses for the Cascade lift are also provided for in this building. Parking is provided in the structures. Please see Chart at the end of this section for a breakdown of square footage/use. 2oninq: CORNERSTONE BONING ANALYSIS • Existing SDD Remaining Proposed SDD Development Potential Develop. Potential Height 71` 71' AU 20 au DU 15 du 0 50 transient resid. Total Units 25 du 50 TR or 25 du GRFA 30,628 sf 28,110 sf Commercial 19,214 26,040 (A) 29,065 (B) GRFA: Under allowable by 2,518 square feet. Commercial: Over allowable by 6,826 square feet (Plan A) or 9,851 square feet (P1an B.) The increase in commercial square footage for this site is the most outstanding difference between the • proposed plan and the original plan. All retail, office, and restaurant space has been included in the total commercial square footage. Tn Plan A, hotel related retail and restaurant contributes 2,750 square feet. Accessory ski retail adds 2,1.90 square feet. The remaining c~.,....ercial of 21, 000 square feet is general retail and office. Plan B shows an increase in commercial square footage due to the Special Attraction use which equals 8,080 square feet. The building foot print has been extended to the east to incorporate the ski accessory uses, such as a ticket office, ski lockers, public restrooms and skier retail. For this reason, site coverage has increased for this parcel but is still under the allowable coverage of 455. The 71' foot height also matches what was originally approved for the building. B. WATERFORD BUILDING • Location: Adjacent to the South Frontage Road. East of the Cascade Club across Westhaven Drive. Presently, fill is stockpiled on the site. Proposal: The Waterford Building consists of approximately 3,800 square feet of retail space and either 30 residential units or 75 transient residential units. The GRFA for either scenario totals 47,500 square feet. A two-level underground parking structure would be built below the residential and commercial development. A 20 foot setback shall be maintained along the north property line adjacent to the South Frontage Road. A minimum 20 foot buffer shall be maintained between the edge of the bike path along Gore Creek and the Waterford Building. U Zoning: WATERFORD ZONING ANALYSIS Existing SDD Remaining Proposed SDD Development Potential Develop. Potential Height 48' 48' to 61' D.U. 45 D.U. Alt. 1: 30 D.U. Alt. 2&3: 75 T.R. GRFA 49,227 47,500 Retail 0 3,800 Number of Units: Plan 1 is under the allowable by 15 dwelling units. Plan 2 is under the allowable by 7.5 dwelling units. GRFA: Under allowable by 1,727 square feet. U Commercial: Over by 3,800 square feet, the original proposal did not call for retail on this site. Height: Over height limit by 13 feet on th southeast {Gore Creek) side of the building. C. WESTHAVEN CONDOS Location: The site is located north of Westhaven Drive, immediately west of the Cascade Club. Presently, foundations exist on this site. The proposal was originally called Club Condominiums. • Proposal: The Westhaven Condominiums include 24 dwelling units that have 24,000 square feet of GRFA. Tn addition, 7 employee dwelling units would be located on this site. The developer is requesting fractional fee ownership as a conditional use for the 24 dwelling units. Fractional ownership would not be applied to the required employee housing units. A11 parking is provided on site. The 20 foot setback is maintained on the north, east, and west sides of the property. Westhaven will be connected to the Cascade Club by a sky bridge. ~Q Zoning: WESTHAVEN Existing SDD Development Height 48' D.U. 25 D.U. GRFA 22,500 s.f. ZONING ANALYSIS Remaining Proposed SDD Potential Development Potential 55' 24 D.U. 24,000 s.f. Number of Units: Under allowable by 1 dwelling unit. GRFA: Over allowable by 1,500 square feet for dwelling units. 6400 square feet is requested for the employee housing units. Height: Over allowable by 7 feet to allow for employee housing. D. MILLRACE III Location: The site is just north of the bridge connecting Cascade Village to the Glen Lyon Subdivision. The site is located on the west side of Westhaven Drive. Proposal: Millrace III is proposed to consist of 3 residential dwelling units having 6,000 square feet of GRFA. Parking would be provided on site. Zoning: MILLRACE TII ZONING ANALYSTS Existing SDD Remaining Proposed SDD Development Potential Development Potential Height 48' 48' D.U. 3 3 GRFA &,500 6,000 GRFA: Under allowable by 500 square feet. 1 ~. E. MILLRACE IV Location: Adjacent to the west side of the Westin Hotel along Gore Creek. Millrace Phase T is directly to the west. Proposal: Two alternatives are contemplated for this site. Plan A would include $ residential dwelling units having 24,000 square feet of GRFA. Plan B would be comprised of 32 acc..,~u~Eodation units attached to the west side of the Westin Hotel. GRFA for the acc~a~.~,~odation units would equal 14, 000 square feet. Parking for the 8 dwelling unit plan would be provided on site. The accommodation unit plan would rely on structured parking. Zoning: MILLRACE IV ZONING ANALYSIS Existing SDD Remaining Proposed SDD Development Potential Development Potential Height 48' 4$' D.U. 8 Alt, l: 8 A.U. 0 Alt. 2: 32 A.U. Total D.U. 8 Alt. 1: 8 D.U. Alt. 2: 16 D.U. GRFA: 11,200 s.f. 14,000 s.f. Number of Units: Alt. 2 is over allowable by 8 D.U.s GRFA: Both plans over allowable by 2,800 s.f. • 1z C a~ _ d' O ~, . QI • ~ ~ - ;ym 'Q ~d s W ... 13 ,r, o ~ d ~ ~ ~ N all ~" r~ d m ~ ~ ~ Jy u- ~ ~ N ~`; ~ rn ~ .,~, N d' cY ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~~ c'- ~., ~ ~ 4 ~ q • ~ a t9 z ~ H 4 ~ ~ N ~ t/~ 4 W r u. Q J N N P- ~ d' r - O ~ G cA ~ r" =a N ~"' . ~~ a. n ~~ a ~ o~ oa N N ~ ~ O 0 ~ ~ ~ ,'~ M ~ N ~ ~ N C ~/ ~ N ~ ~ Q N N ~O ~ O ,~+ F,J d1 N N O ~„~ Q ~~ N ~ . rt3 i .. ~ 4 ~ d r Q "- A ti. O .r ~ m ~ r x ~ ~~ E In C N ~ ~ r~ • ~ ~ ~ C ~ N QJ ~ p Y Oi .~ CY ~ CL 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z w a ~ ~ 4 ~1' • IV. EXPLANATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS The two primary reasons the developer i s requesting alternative development scenarios is 1) to "allow flexibility in terms of the number and types of RESIDENTIAL units within the Waterford and Millrace Phase IV buildings" and 2) to allow flexibili ty in the amount of commercial square footage allocated to the Cornerstone building. The exterior building design would remain the same regardless of which combination of units and commercial is used. The alternatives a re as follows: A. RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVES Alternative PARKING AU or TR DU STRUC. ON-SITE Cornerstone 50 TR 48.1 Waterford 30 60 Westhaven 24 48 Millrace III 3 6 Millrace TV 32 AU _ 26.8 Total 82 57 134.9 54 Alternative 2 . Cornerstone 50 TR 48.1 Waterford 75 TR 75 Westhaven 24 48 Millrace III 3 6 Millrace IV 32 _ 26.8 Total 125 TR 27 149.9 54 Alternative 3 Cornerstone 50 TR 48.1 Waterford 30 60 Westhaven 24 48 Millrace III 3 6 Millrace IV 8 16 Total 50 65 108.1 70 Alternative 4 Cornerstone 50 48.1 Waterford 75 75 Westhaven 24 48 Millrace IIZ 3 6 Millrace IV 8 _ 16 _ Total 125 35 123.1 70 • 15 Special Development District 4 allows a total maximum density of 288 dwelling units with a minimum of 308 accommodation units and a maximum of 134 dwelling units within Area A. Currently, 38 dwelling units exist and 288 accommodation units exist, which is the equivalent of 182 dwelling units (2 au = 1 du}. Under each alternative, the total dwelling unit equivalent is less than the remaining equivalent of 106 dwelling units. Alternative l: 8.0 units less than total allowed Alternative 2: .5 units less than total allowed Alternative 3: 16.0 units less than total allowed Alternative 4: 8.5 units less than total allowed All three alternatives meet the minimum requirement of 308 accommodation units as long as transient residential units are counted as accommodation units. All of the three proposals are 2624 square feet over the allowable GRFA excluding the GRFA for employee housing. NUMBER OF AU'S OR TR PROPOSED PLUS EX. AU Alternative 1 370 over required minimum by 62 AU/TRS • Alternative : 2: 445 over required minimum by 137 AU/TRS Alternative 3. 338 aver required minimum by 30 AU/TRS Alternative 4: 413 over required minimum by 105 AU/TRS In summary, the proposal does not exceed the allowable density and actually provides more AU's than are required in the existing SDD. All of the alternatives are 2,624 sf over the allowable GRFA. Employee units have not been included in these calculations. B. COMMERCIAL SCENARIOS The Cornerstone Building has two scenarios for commercial development. Plan A plus the existing c~.~~.,~ercial development equals 53,513 s.f. Plan B plus the existing c~,~„«ercial development equals 56,538 s.f. The existing SqD allows far 37,000 s.f. of commercial. The proposal calls for an increase in total c~.~„~~ercial of 15,513 s.f. to 19,538 s.f. • 15 V. TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COMPARISON BETWEEN THE REMAINING APPROVED SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES This section compares the total existing approved development potential remaining in Area A to the proposed development requested through the amendment process. The first chart at the end of this section shows the completed projects for Development Area A. Below, the chart shows the approved total square footages for SDD4 and deducts the completed projects to indicate the remaining development potential under the approved SDD. EXISTING SDD4 DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY APPROVED EXISTING REMAINING DEVEL. SDD DEVELOPMENT UNDER EXIST SDD TOTAL DU 288 182 106 AU OR TR 308 min* 288 20 DU 134 max* 38 9b GRFA 291,121 174,135 116,986 . COMMON 37,000 3.7,786 19,214 *Currently, SDD4 allows a total maximum of 288 dwelling units. The maximum and minimum numbers of au's and du's were established to ensure that the project would have a greater emphasis on lodge rooms than dwelling units. The next chart compares the three proposed development alternatives to the remaining development potential allowed under the existing SDD. EXISTING REMAINING DEVELOPMENT COMPARED TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DEVELOP REMAINING ALT #1 ALT #2 ALT #3 ALT #4 TOTAL DU 106 98 105.5 90 97.5 AU OR TR 20 82 157 50 125 DU 96 57 27 65 35 GRFA 116,986 119,610 119,610 119,610 13.9,610 COMMER 17,786 35,727 {A) 35,727 {A) 35,727 (A) 32,727(A) or or or or 38, 752 (B) 38, 752 {B) 38, 752 (B) 38, 752 (B) The following summaries highlight haw the remaining development under the existing SDD compares to the proposed developments for • Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. 17 To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Community Development Department Date: October 10, 1988 Reference: Worksession on the Vail Valley Medical Addition Attached to this memo is a package of information submitted by the hopital addressing parking and the access road. In addition, the Town has analyzed passible options for parking and access which are summarized in the report from RG Consulting Engineers. The purpose of the worksession is to discuss the access road and • parking issues related to the expansion. The staff has also recommended that the applicant look at ways to lessen the impact of the mass and bulk of the hospital addition. y Y f ~~! u FEASIBILITY STUDY PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD n LJ ,. r t~~ • I. INTRODUCTION In exploratory discussions regarding a further expansion of the hospital, the Town planning staff advised us that the issue of a new access from South Frontage Road should be addressed. ~lhile all parties understood that there were a number of rather severe constraints on any possible design, the hospital administration concurred that it should hire a consultant to study the problem, and actually establish the vertical and horizontal alignments of the "best possible road" that could achieved, working within the various constraints of topography and existing construction, both on and off hospital property. Assuming the proposed road would meet all standard safety criteria, the hospital saw two potential advantages for improving its operation: o Ambulances could gain quicker access to South Frontage Road, not only for actual emergency calls, but for transporting critical pa- tients from the hospital to the he7ipad west of the Past Office, for medical evacuation to Denver. o Patients needing medical services could gain quicker and more-direct access off South Frontage Road. Phis might be particularly helpful for the tourists who use the hospital, and are generally unfamiliar with the Town's layout. II. DESIGN ASSUf~'PTIONS . As in any engineering problem, but especially one involving an existing facility, the owner and consultants must identify certain goals that should not be compromised and certain design variations that will not be pursued, because they clearly fall outside the range of practicalities. In the case of a new access to the hospital off South Frontage Road, the major assumptions we made are as follows: o Above all else, safety is of paramount importance. At the risk of stating the obvious, a hospital is a unique facility. Access must be good not only for ambulances, but also for private vehicles. o Any road must be minimum of 25 feet wide, to allow for 2-way traf- fic. In addition, a separate pedestrian walk should run adjacent to the road. o A separate on-ramp allowing ambulances to safely merge with general hospital traffic is desirable. o A possible access at the northeast corner of hospital property must be aligned in such a way that it would minimize the loss of parking spaces at both the Doubletree Wotel and the Vail National Bank building. o The existing east Tot, used primarily by patients visiting the pharmacy and doctor's offices, would remain intact. We feel that this lot is needed for the convenience of those patients using those facilities . In addition, l osi ng those 26 park? ~_~space~~.~l.d__r._e- qu~,re co,~,~txuc.t-i.ng.another-ha~f~-`~_eveE,~o.~ri~~thew..pa,r._.l~,n.g~structure~,,,_riat- an incremental cost of $350,000. o Demolition of any existing buildings, including the Ambulance Garage • is not financially practical. In the case of the Ambulance Garage, it is already in an optimum location, immediately adjacent to the Emergency Room. . ~:t ~`~~ ' ~1~4:~ • } .:'3. Page tvro o An access off South Frontage Road between Vail International and the Doubletree Hotel is possible only by enclosing ~%iiddTe Creek in a culvert, and building the road over it. The enviremental impact of the culvert, and the necessity of cutting dotrn all the trees and other vegetation lining the banks of the creek, seemed so severe as tv preclude further consideration. o An access generally following the alignment of the existing bike path between, the Ice Arena and Vail International, and in some manner merging with East Lionshead Circle, appeared to have most of the features which the Town wishes to eliminate in our present access, and was not studied further. III. DISCUSSION Mountain States Engineering Associates, P.C., working in conjunction with Fisher, Reece and Johnson, P.C., our building architects, was directed to study the problem, and furnish a design which would address the above goals and assumptions as well as possible. The resultant design is shown on the attached plans (3 sheets). We have a number of rather serious concerns with the proposed road: o The grade, in one area as steep as 8.33%, is excessive for a hospital access. We feel that 4% is the maximum grade acceptable far a hospital access, even under dry-pavement conditions. (As a point of reference, the west approach to the Eisenhower Tunnel is approximately 7%) o The 30-foot radius of the curve at the east end is, at best, very marginal. Coupled with the steep grade, this curve is even more troublesome, even though we could bank the curve. v The proposed hospital access is slightly offset from the existing drive into the lot shared by the Municipal Building and Post Office. Ideally, of course, we would have liked the two access drives to he directly opposite each other. Barring this, the next best option would have been to separate the two drives laterally by at least 100 yards. Because of the constraints imposed by existing construction, neither goal can be achieved. There would be an extreme hazard created when vehicles negotiating left-hand turns tram the hospital attempted to merge with vehicles making right-hand turns from the municipal/post Office lot. The existing access road into the Daubletree, only 60 feet crest of the proposed hospital access, is another factor jeopardizing safety. Lastly, the large number of pedestrians attempting to cross in the middle of this vehicular confluence concerns us greatly. At the very best, the State would have to install two traffic lights, as shown an the plans, to mitigate -- although never completely solve --those hazards. n Although the vertical and horizontal alignments are severe even in warm-weather months, in winter much of the road would have to be mechanically heated, either by electric mats or glycol circulated under the pavement through pipes. We feel that a hospital access { r f,~` Page three road that must rely on mechanical snow melting to be negotiable in adverse weather is clearly outside the normal range of design parameters. o Ambulances must be able to egress from both the east and west sides of the Rmbulance Garage. Those leaving the east--facing bays must continue to use West Meadow Drive, because our consultants concluded -- and the hospital concurs -- that a separate on-ramp, merging with the proposed access road somewhere near the east property line, was not feasible. An ambulance leaving the west-facing bay could only access the new road by negotiating a 180-degree turn with a very short radius. In order to use the proposed access road, a west- facing ambulance would have to stop at least once, back up, and resume turning, This is clearly unacceptable for an emergency vehicle. Thus, this ambulance would also be required to continue using blest Meadow Drive. One of the two hoped-for advantages to the hospital in constructing a new access road (that is, more direct egress for ambulances to South Frontage Road) is not attainable. o Even without incut~ring on the small parking lot at the east end, the hospital would loose thirteen existing surface parking spaces. These spaces could be recovered only by constructing a larger parking structure. At X10,000 per space, this would add X130,000 to the effective cost of the road. ~~ o The 26 vehic]es using the east lot must continue to use West Meadow Drive. o The prepased cost of this project is at least ;550,000 - $fi00,000. Even this estimate does not include the cost of land acquisition from the Doubletree or Vail national Bank building, or with developing a structural solution to the danger of our undermining the southeast corner of the Daubletree`s foundation. It also assumes that the 12-inch water main that_.rurts_,~ust_north._of._our.. proposed access road would not have to he~e_loc.ated_, either because of inadequate groan cover to prevent horizontal migration of frost from reaching the main, or to a17ow construction of some type of structure to stabilize the southeast corner of the Doubletree. IV. CONCLQSION The design of this proposed road is fundamentally flawed. While it might be marginal for a hotel or condominium complex, it is clearly unacceptable for a facility with the unique function of a hospital. Furthermore, the proposed access is measurably inferior to our present access off West Meadow Drive. Because this hospital serves the health needs of the entire community, we thank that the safest possible access, given the current state of development in Vail, must be a high-priority goal embraced by the entire community. • ~ ~ vail valley ~' medical center n U October 3, 1988 Ms. Kristan Pritz Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. W. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Kristan: 181 West Meadow Qrive, Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-2451 Attached are summary sheets of two traffic surveys we conducted on West Meadow Drive. The first survey, conducted on 21 Sep 88, includes vehicles arriving and departing the hospital, between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Arrivals and departures, as well as hourly counts of vehicles parked an-site, were tabulated far both the west and east lots. We conducted a second survey on 29 Sep $8 in the same manner, except that we also counted the total number of vehicles passing our checkpoint at the First Bank of Vail. On this day, 46~ of the vehicles traveling West Meadow Drive between 7 a.m. and 5 p,m. were on hospital-related business. Lyn Morgan, manager of the Eagle County Ambulance District, has provided the following information on numbers of emergency calls for a 12-month period: SEP 87 47 calls OCT 87 42 NOV 87 45 DEC 87 140 JAN $$ 153 FEB 88 122 MAR 88 178 APR 88 89 MAY 88 36 JUN 88 54 JUL 88 104 AUG 88 84 • Please call if you need any further information. Sincerely D awe y f Project 'f~n~er / 1 rp ``~~ enC1QSUre Ray McMahan Administrator • • s~ ~--~ v cn C a~ d ca _ Q.' W r wa O C Z ~ qp W .~c ~ '--1 •3c ~ ~ V W rl ~--~ C ~ _ CC W ~ Ori ~C V'1 N V Cc' C U L W ~ ~--~ QJ R] LL ~ ~ ~ ~ ~F-~ C #- ~ J ~ Q C In O F . F`- •]~ fY N W a 03 H ~ ~ ~ F--• z W J J d V F- r-, O 2 r- W a D O M CC W CL W 1--~ H ~anno~~wr~orn H r-i rl rl •--1 r--1 r-i ri 3~8~l~Ildd'd 10I~ N~'QM I~T~Q1C711~ Ol~lfl f~ I~ !~ f• lD lp c1' 1~ 00 CQ N !• n~iNno~ .~oN C O E E E ~ O rcs rt3 r6 rr3 C ~ E ~ ~ E ¢ ~.. Q Q Cl Or~ N 00 Ol H ~--~ H e-•i N M ~# LL") 1 1 1! 1 1 1 1 1 1 I~ OO C7l 0 rI N .^I N M CJ' w +~ `O ~ ~ .~ +~ ~ ~ _ •r ~ O E O Y O •~- U y.. ¢ ~ ~ L U ~ ~ Q ~ -N ~ ~ C ~F •'•- L o In o In -v to +~ c ~ ~ ~ r 4J t6 ~ ~ +~ ro ~ •r •r ~ s- a cn '~ L vl •!~ L r6 O O O ~ e--• d •N C31 r S` ~ O Q.f •r }-~ ~ ~ VI •r ~ •r 7 Q 4} L ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ •r O L .C ~ G •~ ~ O ~ .Q ~ d ~ •O f* O ~ ~ •r ~ ~ ~ 41 N C X N 'r' ~ L r ~ ~ V ~ Sr ~- O ~ ~ N Qy a, to N ~ r 4J r U ~ V •~ U ~ •rs ~ ~ ~ ~ O 7 Q7 7 4- IF ~ r- p O O ~ •r^ ~i-~ i-~ o ~ c a ~ U ~ 7 Q) O O b O 4- U •i~ U O S^ r r Ol r ~G 1C tp U r6 +~ C •1- ` L •1-~ O r6 O q} O '~ m •k •K ~k 'k •K C7 • ~^ Ol L11 r-I 5 F \~'I N N ~~-+ N LA. E a -°~ ~ ~ s~ N ~~ I--~ V F Vf C OC d U LLr ~ LtJ r ~ ~ ~c J .jc U _ t-r c W r OC C Ltl ~ C] x~ r do F- F O 0. V7 leJ GL C] 1--+ ~~ ~ F- IaJ ¢~ ~~ o~ ~~ f~ Lt7 n Ca ~G T~ ~ .-r O ~ l0 ~--~ ~ N d" r-~ N 'd' d' Op ri r-~ r-i ~ r-~1 ~-i H r-i 3~a~~z7ddd ~.o~ NCY'C7M lOnCl~ na,~co r~ n n l~ ~ w er n co as ~31Nf10a lON t~ ~ ~ 4 Iai_I ~ ro~~~ E E E E~ a p- sZ ~ a. C]. Q N N W GO ~ ,--I ~ ~ e-i N m d' l1') ~ I l i l l l f l l i a-~ f~ OQ Ol C] ~-^+ N ri N M d' F-- ~ ~--~ .--I ~ ~ fp ~ .~... a. {.~ O C ~ .,.. 'O O O U y" •b. v *, r U ~ ~ n. ~~ a +-+ rn -a ~ ~ •~- ~ o o ~. r 4! fO ~--} ~ }~ tt5 ~ ~r, '~ ~ i. ~ N ~~ ~ Vi +> ~ rt1 O O .~ r O a--~ 0~1 r ~ C RS Ci Q,1 •r d-~ ~ ~r ~ •r O d aJ L v1 ~ L~ OJ O ? ',~ ~ •r 3 ~a ~ O • ni 3.c ~ o ~ ~ c O . ~ •r ~ E ~ ~ C.~ ~ •~ ~ SY.. r ~ ~ U ~ O ~ •,-~ O ,~ I/} N ~ Q! VI UJ 7 r" O r- V r U •~ V •r ~ ~ r t o ~ a ~ 4- ~ 4- ~,, o ~ O ~ •-- o O •r- ~ +-+ a~t~vs= V ~ ~ C71 :J O ~6 O 4-• U ~I-~ U O G r ~-- Q7 r^ t6 Y ~ U fq +~ C i-~ L ~1-i O fSi O Q1 O * ~ ~ ~ * ~ * ~ • • 4~ ~ ® rig ~o~~aQ~~c~g c~r~g~~c~c~~~ fl~~ Clctai=-er ~, iy88 Kristan Writ: , Senior planner Tcewn of Vai l E]f f i ce of Community Devel apment 7a Gauth Frontage ~icead Vai 1 , CC7. 8167 Fce: Vail Valley Medical Genter Access keview Dear Ms. F'rit~: ~;G Consulting Engineers, Inc. (FtGCE) has conducted a review of _ the access road feasibility study presented by the Medical Center and the plan prepared by Mountain States Engineering Associates. The additional access rand as proposed is probably the best solution as a private secondary access to the Medical Ceelter; however', it does present s©me marginal grade and turning radius cnnditians and would require extensive retaining wall cr~nstructian. In general, we agree with mast of the asumptians stated in the feasibility study. We do not agree that access to East Lianshead Circle is oat worth further study. 1Vc-r da we agree that 4"/, is the maximum slope allowable for an access road i n ~~- mi~untai n l ocati an l i k;e Vai 1. The plan proposed by Mountain States Engineering, Alt:ernativ~~ Na. ~., addresses only secondary access to the Medical Center aced would r-eat provide secondary access frr~m West Meadow Drive ~Fc~r other vehicular traffic. The design as stated in the feasibility study has undesirable grades and hari:ontal curves. In our opinion, the estimated cost -Far ccrnstructireg this access, which is included in the feasibility study, is reasonable. We have conducted a brief analysis of tree situation and believe that there are some alternatives which should be considered. `Che present access to the facility, without any expansion, has same deficiencies. The present access via West Meadnv~ Drive, which is a cui-de--sac street, provides nc~ secondary access far patients, emergency vehicles, ar staff personnel; and the propaserJ Medical Center e:;pansinn will only compound this existing problem. The additional traffic wi1T affect the adjacent residential and carremercial development and further conr~eat the traffic at the i ntersecti an of West i"ieadow Drive and Vai 1 !"Soad and thence Vai 1 load erred the highway frontage rcead. It is our opinir~n that oat only is a secondary access to the i`'!edical facility needed, but a secondary access should be constructed to relieve the cul-de-sac situation on West Meadow Drive This efforts because it . ~, 1860 Blake street suite 51 O denier, Colorado 80202 (303) 293-8107 :~~ E% _c ;C .* Ms. F;ristan F'rit~ P~~ge 2 October ,:,, 199E3 benefits the entire community, she~uld be a joint effort between the Town and the Medical facility. The fc~l hawing discussion of alternatives is offered far your CpCl~i derati Qn: Al. ~kern~~ti ve fVa. 1 Construct an access as proposed by the Mountain Staten Engineering Associates` plan« This access would provide secondary access t4 hcaspital patients,, staff, and emergency vehicles: however, the grades and hari~antal aligncnent are marginal. Al~t.ernr~tive I~ao, ?a Provide an access -From the frontage road directly tta West Meadow Drive. Phis approach would provide access not only to Medical Center traffic, taut alsp secondary access far vehicular and pedestrian traffic presently utilising Meadow Drive. A discussion with the Colcsrada State Highway L7epartment indicates that they would be willing to allow the 1_~i~ frontage road to be regraded to eliminate the preserzt super-elevated condition on the frontage rand. A visual observation suggests that the south side of the frontage road could be lowered approximately Four feet. This grw~ding would impr~tve winter driving on the frontage read and a11c~w an acceptable grade Pram the frontage rand tp Westt Meadow Drive ~ An access opening tc~ thi s street wciul d Ira prcrvi ded far emergency vehicles and Medical facility p~~rt~~i.ng, which presently has ingress, and egress only tp West Meadow Drive, l;emgving the super-elevation on the frontage road should provide a grade differential between Meadow Drive and the frontage road which would allow an acceptable street grade, as well as a, relatively flat approach area t^ bpth intersections. R1 ~:f°irnGati ve f~~a. "' Construct an access through the Double Tree parF;ing lqt, cransolidating 'the present Double Tree access into one point on the access road. This alternative is a modification of Alternative loci. 1 which would allow a greater hori~.antal distance between the frontage rgad and West Meadow Drive. The increased distance, combined with elimination of the s~.~per-elevation, would provide a superior grade tq Alternative ~ This would require regrading and reconfiguring the dpctars' parking lot. Eliminating one of Ms. I~'.ristan F'rit~ F'ag e ~ Clctober ,~, 19BC the Double Tree access paints would also improve existing access congestion an the frontage road. This access, as in the case crf Alternative No. 2, would provide additional access to West Meadow Drive. Al ternt~ti ve Nc~. ~}: Construct an access from Lions bikepath between the Ice Arena alignment would impact the bike properties severely, but would all ^f thte existing and future Drive. The pedestrian/bi~epath to this alignment. ~~~.F.?Y'!'lft'~SV~' ~Ow ~~ Head Ci rcI e aI tang the and Vail International, This trail and adjacent provide secondary access for traf f i c ut i l l ~. i ng West Meadow wot.,tld be retained adjacent Relocate the proposed parE.ing structure to the east side of the ambulance garage and construct an act=toss from the frontage road to an upper level of the structure. A separate special ramp within the structure could be constructed to provide access fcr ambulance traffic from the e;•:isting garage facility. Al teri~ai: i ve Flo. 6. Improve West Meadow Drive and provide emergency lights at the intersection of West Meadow Drive and Vail Faad. "1"his solution does not prcavide a secondary access, but woulc4 improve existing traffic flow. ~_~ rn m ~ r.y: Construction of a secondary access tc~ the Medical Center should be a part of a program tq provide secondary access to the entire area presently served by West Meadow Drive. West Meadow Drive should be improved along with construction of the secondary access. ~A pedestrian/bikepath clang the squth side of West Meadow Drive should be a part of those improvements. An attempt to adjust and consolidate the access points an Goth sides of the I"-7[7 f resntage road shcsul d be included with any new access road construction. • ,~ . Ms. F~ristan F'rit~ Page ~ Dctaber 3, 1988 We have not attempted in this review to place construction cast estimates on the various alternatives discussed as we have insufficient informatiar~ tp ma~;e reasonable estimates at this time. We do ntat agree that Alternative No. 1 is ~.tnacceptable, but it certainly is marginal. We da not believe, however, that adequate study has been given tp alI df the possible alternatives, incl~.tding these we have proposed, to make any Final decisions at this time. A detailed analysis utilising complete topographic infarmatinn, property ht~undaries, impact an euisting facilities, and possible land acquisition ccssts should tie made before a final plan -Far a secondary access is prepared. Tf you desire -Further information or clarification, please let us Ecn4w. Sincerely, RG C 13L7ING ~NGIN8ER5, INC. ~~~ .~ F;i cards J. F= . Gancal ves, F, ~. Wresident RG:at • r1 L_J I ~ c~o~~a~~o~g ~~g~r~c~c~~~ ~~c~ October ~, 191_la }`Tristan Frit.~, Senior F`lartner Tawas of Vail Office of Community Development 75 South Frontage F;r~ad Vail, GS. 51657 Re: Vail Valley Medical Center Access C~;eview Dear hl~,. F'rit~; Wry wool d ~. i ke to offer this ~Fal 1 aw~--up to our 1 after o-F October ~.~ to pr©vide additicanal in~Formation and clarification for your use ire ennsidering the access to the Vaal Valley Medical Center. In our f i rst 1 after , we prr~pased alternatives that were i ndepertder-st of cast and Town of Vai 1 i nvcal vement. Thi s 1 attar wi 1 1 reiterate and e;:pand upon the advantages, disadvantages and costs that we presented at ^ur meeting on Qctaiaer ~, 1988. !~1 ~:.Earn~~t i ve hlca. 1 'The access prnpased by Mountain States Engineering has the t~dvantage of being a private access, bust the impact of the ,~dditianal traffic an this already congested intersection wi'L• Ih the Frontage rand wrac.tl d foe very detrimental to tr'af f i c f 1 ow on the frontage road. Some relief cool d fi-e obtaz ned by Town of Vail znvolvernent, ar Tawas of Vail requirement of the Medical Center to redesign and reconstruct the access far the `fawn Hall, and reconstruct the entire intersectior- tcs el i mi note the s~.cper-elevation c-n the f rantage road . Thi s wc~ul d greatl y reduce the effects of the i ncreased tr-af f i c , lout would also increase the costs of the project. -i-he major advantages cif this alternative are little or no Town involvement, and the reducti an of traf f a c at the fcsur-~way stop. The ma.ior disadvantages are cast, traffic congesticsn, additirznal private drive, and overly steep grades. • ., 1860 Blake street suite 510 . denver, Colorado 80202 + (303} 293-8107 e(~r F` ~_Y~. . I"Es. f~;ristan F'rit~ Wage f~ctober ~#, 1988 Al ternr:~t i ve M©. ~: The advantages of this alternative are increased traffic c i rcul at i can far the Tawn , rr~ducec# traf f i c l oad i ng on the West Meadow111ai1 Road and the four-way stop intersections, greater f l ex i b i l i ty for al 1 traf f i c users of West Meadow Drive, better traffic safety, and a much lower cast than Alternative No. i. The disadvantages are lass of same-~ parking far the bank, passible loss of parking far the Daubletree Hotel, required negotiations with three private pert i es and the Town, passi bl a cor-~demnati an of property i f a public access, and difficult property acquisition if a private access. The cast of this alternative could be as much as half the cost of Alternative IVa. i. As with Alternative Iota. i, it waind be recommended to eliminate the super--ei evati can and rel vacate access to the Tawn Hall » Al ter'r7~a•t=i vr_~ IJa. :" This alternative has the same advantages as Alternative Na. ~, with the additional advantages of elimination of thc= need to relocate the Town Hai l access, the alai l i ty to put .^"/. landings at ei-kher end of the street without exceeding m~~~cims~m allowable grades, better parking -For the bank tt•~an Alternative IVri. ~, and a renr•gani~ed, more efficient parking access for the Dnubletree. The disadvantages would be increased cost aver Alternative tVo. 2, rnore impact on Dnubletree parF-ing and therefore mare passible resistance from DauE-ietree, and the requirement of the Medical facility having to renrgaai~e its Doctors' parking area. While the cost of this alternative is greater than Alternative Irlo. 2, it is Substantially less than Alternative Na. 1. Al.te~rnsiti.ve t`~o. 4~. Thi s al ter-nati ve has the advantages rsf being 1 ess cas-tl y than the previ©us alternatives, and it would eliminate the cuI -de-sac and i is assaci ated traf f i c pratrrl ems. Thi s alternative wr~uld connect Lionshead Circle and Meadow Drive into a continuous seccandary access, which would provide better traffic flow, Tt could reduce the amount of traffic an the f rar~tage raced four-way strap di recd y attri butabl e to the increased Medical Center era#fic, but it could actually increase the amount of traffic an West Meadow Drive by • Ids, Kri stare ~'ri t~ F"age ?~ October 4, 1988 encouraging traffic use not related t© lousiness and residential use can Meadcaw Drive i tsel f . Adc1 i t i canal disadvantages are the detrimental effects of traffic directly adjacent to the Tce Arena and Vail International (such as noise, where there has been none befpre3, a generally less aesthetic approach to the problem, and a less direct solution tsa the impact problems being caused by increased traffic to the Medical Center. Al t~.zrn~~t i ve Nc~. »~a This alternative has the advantages of least net c©st, has a~, little impact nn ad.~acent properties as Alternative ~Icr. 1 (which would require less c+~nrdinatinn with ether property owners than same orf the other alternatives], rer~uires little ar nor Tawn i nvol verrtent ether than from a reviewing agency standpoint, and would relieve some traffic congestion at the f our-way stop by a7.1 awi ng westt~ound traf f i c -From the 1 at to have direct access to the frontage road. The disadvantages are that it still creates additional traffic impact on a very congested part of the frontage road, creates traffic conflicts with Doubletree access and the bank access, does n~athing to solve the existing pedestrian/vehicle conflicts ran West Meadow Drive, does northing to help the traffic circulation an West Meadt~w Drive rather than reducing the amount of traffic, and does not provide good public secondary access, although the ambulances would have twc~ accesses. Al L-~:rn~a{~i ve No. 6; This alternative has the advantages of eliminating the pedestrian/vehicle conflicts on West Meadow Drive and being the least costly to the Medical Center; but it has the disadvantages of requiring significant Tnwn involvement and cast, does eat provide secondary access, and does nothing tq solve the traffic impact at the West Meadow Drive/Nail 8crad and the four-way stop intersections, We believe, hcawever, that this alternative is one that they Tocan should implement reg4~rdless of which ether alternative is selected. Ms. I~ri stern F'-~i t F'age 4 October 4, 1988 Cost/~en~yf i t fat z o; We have analy~ed the fdregcaing alternatives and have ranEied them accnrdinc~ to cast (i = least e::pensive}, best overall benefit tn~ the Town ( i = test D , and best rlveral l benef i t to the Mc~di cal Center t1 = best). This rani<ing shows Alternative Ncs. b as the best benefit to the Medical Center, basically because there is na direct Medical Cent~:r cast or invalvementq Alternative No. 3 as the best overall benefit to the Tawas: and Alternative No. ~ as the best benefit overall tp all parties. Alternatives ~ and 5 rank a close second to Alternative No. '~ as overall best benefit. Attached are two tables showing very rough, "ballpark," casts, and the ran~~:ings of the alternatives. Al 1 oc~at i ran cif Cr~Sts. One note should be made an statements we have made regarding "cast to the Tawas,." With Alternatives 2, s, 4 and b, where Town . involvement in a public access would result in "costs to the lawn" nr "nn direct cast to the Medical Center," these costs can be recovered -Pram adJacent benefittinc~ properties, ^r impacting prnperties, including the Medical Center, through special assr~ssment districts, thereby reducing or eliminating the net cast to the Tnwn. I~f you have any questions, please der not hesitate to call. Sincerely, FAG C~`" JLT Y h!G E~lG I NEERG ~ ~ i~C . L~~ ~~/~ /~"` r Ficarda J. F. Gonsalves, F'. E. President RG: at • R©L]GH CgSTS -- VA T L k~ED I CAL CENTER iDaes not i nel ude super--elevation reducti can ) 6 Alternative No. 1 ~6c~c~, UUU 3 Alternative Nn. ~ ~.`~..5c"_-~(lUc~ ~ Alternative No. "' ~3c~t~ , c~c:~t~ 2 Al tern~~t i ve N©. ~ ~ :~~.~~, o~au 1 Al terrfati ve IVo. r ~1~U,Ouc7 S Al tern,:~t i ve Na. 6 ~ SU, £.-UU RAhIk:I NC - VAI L t`7ED T CAL CENTER overall overall Total Fienef i t ~enE~f i t Ct_-mbi ned Cc~~t Tc~ -fawn To k~ed.Ctr. Der-etit Alt. ~, b b b 18 Alt. ~ ~ ~ ~ Alt. ~ ~ ~ Alt. 4 ~ 4 ,. 6 Alt. J 1 v b Alt. b 5 ~ 1 8 • • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October Z0, 1988 SU&7ECT: A request for a rear setback variance in order to construct an addition to a residence on Lot 4, Block D, Vail Ridge subdivision. Applicant: Mike Baskins I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a setback variance in order to add a second floor addition to an existing single floor residence. The north side of the existing residence currently encroaches from 2 to 5 feet into the rear setback along a distance of 27 feet. The second floor addition will match the existing building line and existing setback encroachment with the exception of a 14 foot long portion of the second floor that will be cantilevered out and will encroach an additional 18 inches into the required 15 foot rear setback. The maximum encroachment, including cantilever is 5 feet. • 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 existing structure is located within the required 15 foot setback. The addition matches the existing encroachment along a portion of the north wall and increases the encroachment into the setback by 18 inches along 14 feet of the wall. This additional 18 inch encroachment is requested in order to create a master bedroom. Due to the location of the existing structure, the existing floor plan and the desire for a bedroom addition by the applicant, the most logical location an the structure for the addition is as proposed. The property is surrounded on three sides by the curve of • Arose Drive, which, along the north elevation is substantially above the first floor grade of the existing residence. • 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 has previously recognized the legitimate hardship with existing structures that are located within the required 15 foot setback. In order to add a second story addition to this house, a setback variance is required. We feel that the request is reasonable in its design, although it does contain an increased encroachment of 18 inches. The applicant has requested this encroachment in order to be able to develop a master bedroom of appropriate size while recognizing the constraints of the existing floor plan. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population,, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. No impact. • III. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VATL'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 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 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. r • 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 staff recommends approval of the requested variance. The fact that the existing structure currently lies within the required 15 foot setback, and due to the fact that the increased encroachment is minimal, we feel that approval of this setback request would not be a grant of special privilege. • • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: October 10, 1988 SUBJ: A request for a major subdivision final plat for a Resubdivision of Lots 1 through 19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing 3. Applicant; Commercial Federal Mortgage Company I. PROPOSAL In August of 1988, the Planning and Environmental Commission, and subsequently the Town Council, approved a request from Commercial Federal Mortgage Company for a special development district and preliminary subdivision plan for Lots 1 through 19, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing 3. The plan consists of 24 single family lots, six are accessed by the existing Lionsridge Loop and 18 by a newly created public road within the subdivision. The lots sizes, allowable GRFA, building height and other zoning considerations have been outlined in the ordinance approving the special development district. The applicant is submitting final plat information for Planning and Environmental Commission review and approval. Technical information has been submitted and reviewed including road plan and profile, water and sewer line and other utility installations. A Declaration of Protective Covenents has been submitted and reviewed and will be filed with the approved copy of the final plat. The Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council approved the preliminary plan and the special development district with conditions. The first condition was: "design guidelines, including architectual and landscape elements, be submitted to the staff with the final plat application". The applicant has submitted a general set of design guidelines to the Town as a portion of the Declaration of Protective Covenents. The applicant, Commercial Federal Mortgage Corporation, intends to transfer the entire property to a single developer. The staff has been in contact with this developer, his plan for the subdivision is to develop 4 to 5 architectual plans for model homes through the winter season and begin construction in the spring. Staff feels that the developers' architect should make a comprehensive presentation to the Design Review Board and receive approval for a more specific set of design guidelines that relates to the desired model home architectual program. Staff proposes that the final plat may be approved and signed by the Planning Commission, but the plat should not be filed with Eagle County until the specific design guidelines have been reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. The applicant, at final plat, is also required, through the subdivision regulations, to submit an irrevocable letter of credit, a performance completion bond or a cash escrow to guarantee completion of the required subdivision improvements. These improvements include, but are not limited to, road construction, installation of sanitary sewer and water lines, electrical lines, gas lines, telephone and cable television. The applicant has submitted detailed cost estimates on these improvements, but due to the possibility that the applicant may transfer the entire property to a single developer, has not submitted a form of guarantee of improvements. The staff once again recommends the Planning Commission approval the final plat, but with the condition that the plat not be filed until the applicant has submitted to the staff acceptable form of guarantee for the required subdivision improvements. The other conditions of approval of the preliminary plan read as follows: "Each lot, front and cul de sac have a minimum of frontage of 30~ on the cul de sac," This condition has been met by final plat. "More specific plans for landscaping and entry with lighting must be submitted." Again the staff feels that this should be a part of the specific design guideline review to be completed by the Design Review Soard." "A workable solution be found to the ingress/egress in the adjacent Solarcrest Condominium project." The Lionsridge project is proposing to construct and dedicate to the Town a public street. The applicant has maintained the existing platted access easement to the Solarcrest property and has dedicated Tract C on his property as an open space tract that may be continued to be utilized as access onto the Solarcrest property, IT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff rec~~««endation for final plat request for the resubdivision of Lots 1 through 7.9, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing 3, is for approval with the following condition: The final plat be held by the Town of Vail and not officially recorded with Eagle County until the applicant or current owner of the property has submitted to the staff: 1) A letter of credit, perfarmance guarantee bond or cash escrow sufficient to guarantee the completion of the required subdivision improvements; 2) that Design Review Board has reviewed and approved a specific set of design guidelines, landscape plan and entry landscaping and lighting for the subdivision. ~I PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 24, 1988 3:00 P.M. Site Visits 2:45 p.m. ~ 1. A request for a side setback variance and a common area variance in order to construct a fire escape on the Tivoli Lodge. Applicant: Robert Lazier 2. A request to amend the Ski Base Recreation Zone District in order to include previously,aliowed outdoor uses. Applicant: Town of Vail 1 3. Work Session to discuss a proposal to create and enhance wetlands along Gore Creek specifically in the Katsos Ranch area. Applicant: Vail Valley Consolidated Water District 4. A request to amend Arterial Business zone District to allow micro-breweries as a conditional use. Applicant: Vail Ventures, Ltd., and Glen Lyon Office Building, Inc., a Colorado Partnership. 5. A work session on the request to construct an addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center. Applicant: Vail Valley ~fedipal Center 6. A request for a special development district and major subdivision for 9 dwelling units an Lots 6 and 7, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision, 3rd Addition. Applicant: Duane Piper {TABLED TO NOV. 14TH) Planning and Environmental Commission • October 24, 1988 PRESENT Ali present STAFF PRESENT Kristan Pritz Susan Scanlan Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. A request for a side setback variance and a common area variance in order to construct a fire escape on the Tivoli Lodge. Applicant: Robert Lazier Betsy Rosolack explained the staff memo and said that the staff rec~,«.~~ended approval. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant needed to build the stairway for safety purposes. When Bob Lazier built the six units to the west, the Building Department requested that he build a fire stairway on the east side of the building. Galen Aasland of John Perkins Architects showed a model of the stairway which included balconies. Jim Viele asked if the large evergreen to the north of the stairway could be saved, and Galen answered that if the balconies are part of the construction, they would have to move the tree. Diana Donovan stated that she would rather see the tree remain and eliminate the balconies. Diana moved to approve the request for setback and common area variances, stating the condition of strict or literal interpretation of the law but with the condition that the tree be left intact and the balconies be removed. Sid Schultz seconded the motion and the vote was 7 to 0 in favor of the request. 2, A request to amend the Ski Base Recreation Zone District. in order to include previously allowed outdoor uses., Applicant: Town of Vail Rick Pylman explained that in March the Planning Commission amended the Ski Base Recreation District to allow the Children's Center. During the process, the Town inadvertently left out section B which included the outdoor uses. Joe Macy, representing Vail Associates, stated that he approved of the amendment. Diana Donovan asked if Manor Vail's concerns had been taken care of. And Peter stated they had been and that when they realized there were no changes being made to the original ordinance, they were content. Diana recommended approval to the Town Council to amend the Ski Base Recreation Zone District as presented in the staff memo. Bryan Hobbs seconded the motion and the vote was 7 to 4. PEC MINUTES 10/2/88 • 3. Work session to discuss a proposal to create and enhance wetlands along Gore Creek specifically Katsos Ranch area. Applicant: Vail Valley Consolidated Water District Because the Board had been out to the site and had an explanation made at that time, Jim Viele suggested rather than repeating this that there just be a summary of the talk and Peter suggested that comments and questians would be good. Pam Hopkins said that she felt that the improvements were excited. She wished, on a yearly basis, the Town could continue do improvements along the creek. She was also concerned about deer crossing from across I-70. Diana Donovan said that she would like to see the stream look more natural, rather than have an artificial pond as was suggested during the site visit. Jim Viele felt that the ideas that had been given them were good. Bryan said that he would not like to see a square pond that had been drawn by the consultant. Grant Riva was definitely in favor of reparians, especially in the area of the East Vail exit. He felt that the wetlands across the county were being diminished and anything would be a help. Jae Macy, representing Vail Associates, felt that the plan was a very positive one and an improvement to the stream bank. Dave Mott representing the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District stated that he would like to have two things as an option: 1) to start with re-vegetation on the banks and, then, 2} to finish a pond later if he needed it. Diana Donovan felt that a lot of work . could be done on the stream in lieu of building a pond. The consultant, Oliver stated that there were many drop structures placed in the stream within the past two weeks. He felt that there were three more things that they could do: 1) they could plant vegetation along the banks, 2) they could build more drop structures, and 3} they would eventually like to build a pond. Oliver said this was more a menu of items rather than a hard proposal. Jim Viele said that it was safe to say that they were all for vegetation on the stream bank. Diana asked whether or not these people had been told about the plan to put a pond in Ford Park. Peter said that he would show them the plan. Jim Viele thanked Dave and Oliver for coming and presenting the item. 4. A request to amend the Arterial Business Zone District to allow micro-breweries as a conditional use. Applicant: Vail Ventures, Ltd. and Glen Lyon Office Bu~ldinq, Tnc., a Colorado Partnership. Kristan Pritz presented the request to amend the Arterial Business Zone District. She stated there were 3 items. The first was to add to the purpose section, tourist-related light industry; to the conditional uses, a micro-brewery; and to definitions, the definition of a micro-brewery. She gave a • background of the Arterial Business District and then a background on micro-breweries she had studied. Kristan then summarized the Environmental Impact Report submitted by Jamar Associates and RBD. The report addressed water consumption, waste water, spent grains, air emissions and odor, loading and delivery, and noise. She then evaluated this request regarding suitability of existing zoning, whether the amendment was presenting a workable relationship and whether the amendment provided for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Kristan listed applicable Vail development policies. She ended with the staff recommendation of approval. Andy Norris, representing the applicants, spoke about the odor. He said it was created by malt and not yeast. Grant Riva asked Kristan whether or not she had notice an odor when she had visited the micro-brewery in Boulder. Kristan sand that she did not notice any odor on the outside, but the beer was not being brewed at that time. She did notice an odor inside the brewery. Andy Norris said that the micro-brewery proposed would be limited in size. zt would use a brewing batch process six times a week maximum. There would be one batch at noon and possibly a second one in the early evening. RBD, represented by Kent Rose, indicated that there would be no significant envirionmental impacts due to the micro-brewery. Peggy Osterfoss felt that it was important that the focus o£ the brewery be an activity for tourists, rather than for the production of beer and ale. Peggy suggested changing the wording of tourist related light industry to emphasize that the use must be directly related to tourist activities. Peggy then asked how one could identify temperature inversions. Kent Rose, engineer for RBD, said one couldn't; Aspen had tried and they couldn't do it. He estimated that there were six to ten days out of the year when Vail had a temperature inversion. This question was raised due to the fact that the Environmental Impact Report referred to brewing during an identified temperature inversion. Diana shared Peggy's concern of the definition tourist-related. She thought perhaps the definition should be expanded. Diana was also concerned about the waste water at the maximum discharge. Kent explained that this would not affect the Vail sanitation plant because the waste water entered the sanitation system below the Vail plant. He also explained that the brewery contributed a very minimum amount of waste water to the system. Sid Schultz wondered if public storage yards were an appropriate conditional use. He recognized that storage yards existed when the zone district was established, but suggested that the use be changed to non-conforming. Peter felt that Sid's idea had merit, and this probably could be discussed at a later date. • After mo: seconded Arterial specific was 6 in re discussion, Diana Donovan moved and Parn Hopkins to recommend approval to the Town Council to amend the Business District to allow micro-breweries with a mare tourism-related light industry definition, The vote favor, one against, and one, Jim Viele, abstaining. 5. A work session on the request to construct an addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Dan Feeney explained a little more about what the hospital was thinking about with regard to their addition. There will be another work session on the second Monday in November. Peter asked about the traffic counts with two additional days. And Dan Feeney said they did two additional days and they have done a total traffic counts for four additional days, one of which was a Saturday. He said on that Saturday, 1000 vehicle trips passed the Fire Station and this counted every type of vehicle. He said this was X400 less than the Monday through Friday period. Dan Feeney mentioned that he had submitted a three to four page letter regarding parking and traffic. Peter said that on Friday he had taken a six-hour time lapse movie with a camera on the top of the hospital pointing east. The results of this would be available in two weeks. Discussion followed concerning the Doubletree and the hospital working together on a master plan. Mr. Feeney said that the consultants were meeting now about this. There would be some conclusions at the next Planning Commission meeting. Jim Viele wondered if one could extrapolate the numbers from the four-day study to a peak season. And Feeney felt that they probably could, but he didn't think that they could extrapolate the total number of trips on Meadow Drive. Peter Jamar, representing the Doubletree, said that he had met with Dan Feeney, Kristan, Rick, and Peter and that the Doubletree was 100 behind the hospital expansion, although they did have concerns with current or future proposals. Peter Jamar felt that for the parking structure it did not make sense or was not in anyone's best interest to build a 100; peak park demand for the hospital day parking and that of the Doubletree night parking and possibly there could be a combination of the totals. Diana Donovan felt that the next addition must require getting traffic off of West Meadow Drive. Peggy also felt that the Vail National Bank and the Town of Vail should be brought in as part of the master plan. Dan Feeney stated that the Vail National Bank was aware of the planning that the hospital was doing with the Doubletree and they did indicate an interest. Jim Viele thanked Dan Feeney for the update. • 6. A rectuest far a special development district and major, subdivision for 9 dwelling units on Lots 6 and 7, Block 1. Bighorn Subdivisions 3rd Addition Applicant: Duane Piper This was tabled to November 14th. Peter Patten, however, did discuss air quality project inventory. Peter explained that Susan Scanlan is a staff member directly in charge of the Air Quality Commission. Her background is especially suited to this. They reviewed three consultants. The contract was for $8,000 and Air Science, Xnc. was selected. Susan then explained the project saying that they hoped to inventory all emission sources and their percentage of contribution to pollution, Prime contributions to the pollution appeared to be wood smoke, sanding of the streets, restaurant grills, and vehicle emissions. She said the next step was then to try to develop control measures. Pam asked if the inventory would be done over time. And Susan said it would be done December through January. She wanted to get the results back and get public input while it was still fresh in the public's mind. The next discussion was about highway access in front of the micro-brewery at Glen Lvon. Andy Norris showed a site plan and said that the Highway Department wanted suggestions from the . Town. He felt that they did not necessarily need a left or right turn lane. The Highway Department was now going toward using three lanes with the center lane being a turning lane. The meeting adjourned at 5:15 PM. • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 24, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to the Arterial Business zone district to allow micro-breweries as a conditional use. Applicant: Vail Ventures, Ltd. & Glen Lyon Office Building, Inc., a Colorado Partnership. I. REQUEST Vail Ventures, Ltd., and Glen Lyon Office Building, Tnc. are requesting to amend the Arterial Business zone district, Section 18.29 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow micro-breweries as a conditional use. Two sections of the Arterial Business zone district are proposed to be amended. The definition of a micro-brewery shall be added to the Town of Vail Municipal Code's Definition Section as 18.04.253. (The proposed amendments are typed in all capitals}: Arterial Business Zone District Section 18.29.010 Purpose The Arterial Business District is intended to provide sites for office space, public utilities, service stations, TOURIST RELATED LTGHT INDUSTRY, and limited shopping and commercial facilities serving the Town and Upper Eagle Valley residents and guests. Multiple family dwelling for use as employee housing will be appropriate under specific circumstances, Arterial Business District is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to permitted and conditional types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient (limited) shopping, business, service, and residential environment. Arterial Business Zone District Section 18.29.034 Conditional Uses A, A. The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the arterial business district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.50: . - 1 - . Public buildings, grounds and facilities Public park and recreation facilities Any use permitted by Section 18.29.020 which not conducted entirely within a building Service yards Public utility and public service uses, including screened outside storage Multi-family dwellings for the employees of Upper Eagle Valley as further restricted by Section 18.27.130 of this zone district. MICRO-BREWERY Definitions Section 18.04.253 MICRO-BREWERY r~ ~J is the A MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL OPERATION THAT PROCESSES WATER, MALT, HOPS, AND YEAST INTO BEER OR ALE BY MASHING, COOKING, AND FERMENTING THAT SHALL ALSO INCLUDE AN ON-SITE PUBLIC RESTAURANT AND/OR BAR WHICH SELLS THE BEER PRODUCTS. THE MAXIMUM BREWING CAPACITY FOR THE MICRO-BREWERY SHALL BE 7,500 BARRELS PER YEAR. A BARREL IS EQUIVALENT TO 31 GALLONS. THE MICRO-BREWERY USE SHALL NOT EXCEED 8,000 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA, EXCLUDING ENCLOSED AREAS FOR LOADING, TRASH, AND DELIVERY. THE PUBLIC RESTAURANT AND/OR BAR SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SEATING AREA OF 2,000 SQUARE FEET AND SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL MICRO- BREWERY MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE LIMIT. II. BACKGROUND ON THE PURPOSE OF THE ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT The Arterial Business district was created in June of 1982. The Arterial Business district zoning was applied to the seven properties listed below: Property Vail Associates Holy Cross Texaco Valiter ~J - 2 - Approximate Site Area 139,392 square feet 50,934 square feet 39,204 square feet 43,560 square feet Glen Lyon Chevron 74,052 square feet 39,204 square feet Town of Vail 43,560 square feet All of the properties that were rezoned to the Arterial Business district in 1982 had had heavy service zoning except for the Glen Lyon Office property. The Heavy Service zone district is intended to provided sites for: "automotive-oriented uses which are not appropriate Because of the nature of t operating characteristics, generating automotive and heavy service district arE permit procedure." (Town and for c..~E„~~ercial service uses in other commercial districts. he uses permitted and their appearance, and potential for truck traffic, all uses in the subject to the conditional use of Vail Code Section 18.30.010} As an example, some of the conditional uses that are allowed in the Heavy Service district include automotive service stations, machine shops, trucking terminals and truck service stations, warehouses, woodworking and cabinets shops, building materials supply stores, and commercial laundry and cleaning services. • After reviewing previous staff memos and the ordinance for the new Arterial Business district, it is evident that the ABD zoning was created to provide an incentive to upgrade that portion of Vail from the Vail Associates service yard to the Glen Lyon Office Building, This area was considered to be a major entry way for both Lionshead and Cascade Village. The new ABD zoning was proposed in order to allow for a transition zone between Lionshead and Cascade Village. Ordinance No. 5, establishing the ABD zone, states "because the character of the general area has changed to make it more appropriate for business and office uses rather than heavy service uses, the Town Council is of the opinion that it would benefit the general welfare and public interest to establish a new arterial business district." Traffic congestion was a primary concern during the discussion of the new zone district. A circulation and access plan for the ABD area was required in order to alleviate traffic congestion. Also, many of the heavy service uses which generated high traffic counts were eliminated. • -~ • TII. BACKGROUND ON MICRO-BREWERIES The staff has completed research on micro-breweries to gain a better understanding of haw the use functions and the impacts associated with such a use. The staff looked at the Boulder Brewery, a brewpub ordinance in Denver, and also talked with planners in Seattle. The following summary outlines the information gained from this research. A. Boulder Brewery The staff visited the Boulder Brewery. In general, micro- breweries are considered to be breweries that have a maximum capacity of 20,000 barrels per year. A barrel is equivalent to 31. gallons. The Boulder Brewery is considered to be a micro- brewery as its capacity is 10,000 barrels per year. The building is approximately 16,000 square feet with the ability to expand. 46 parking spaces are provided. The micro-brewery also includes a small restaurant of approximately 1,000 square feet. The brewery requires 30 full-time employees. The beer is distributed throughout the country. Most of the beer is bottled as opposed to kegged. This information was given to us by Mr. Joe Sanchez, who was the developer, and who is now the Chief Executive Officer for the Boulder Brewery. In respect to zoning, the staff talked with Mr. John Fernandez from the City of Boulder Planning Office. The brewery was developed by right as the site is located in an industrial zone district. The surrounding uses are primarily office and light manufacturing. The project was considered to be a use that could draw tourists to Boulder. The only Planning Commission review that was required concerned a height variance for the structure. Covenants were used to address parking. The site had planned unit development (PUD) requirements for landscaping, access, etc. The PUD requirements are similar to our special development district requirements. John Fernandez stated that the primary issue with the project was the restaurant associated with the brewery. In the industrial zone district, restaurants are limited to serve the immediate area. Their was a concern that the restaurant might draw too many people outside the immediate business area. Jahn Fernandez considered the project positive. Not only has the brewery became a tourist attraction, it has also provided a high number of manufacturing/processing jobs in Boulder. He stated that so far there have been no complaints about the brewery. Staff also contacted Mr. Frank Gray, who was the Planning Director, at the time the brewery was approved. He considered • the use to be "fairly innocuous". He stated that the two biggest concerns he would have in reviewing a micro-brewery would be the amount of truck traffic and loading associated with the use as well as the tasting room capacity. He felt that the tasting rooms can become a big draw for visitors and that parking should be looked at closely given the numbers of potential visitors. The Health Department was also contacted in Boulder. They stated that they had not received any complaints about the micro-brewery that they could recall. B. Denver Brewpub Denver has recently written a new ordinance allowing brewpubs. There is no limit an brewing capacity. However, no more than 30~ of the product may be sold off the premises. Twenty percent of the gross flour area of the operation can be devoted to the brewing area. The intent of the wording was to insure that the use operated primarily as a "an eating place." The brewpubs are allowed as a permitted use in the districts below: (Denver Ordinance No. 542 Series of 1988) 1. Central Business District. "Permits business/office and light industrial uses, along with residential and educational uses. ." 2. Business Restoration Zone. "This district is intended to preserve and improve older structures that are architectually and/or historically significant; allows light industrial, general retail, wholesale services, offices and height density residential uses. ." 3. intensive General Business. "Very high density residential district. This district primarily, for activity centers, provides a concentration of retailing, personal and business services, as well as residential and cultural uses at a necessary intensity to efficiently be used by mass transit facilities. ." 4. General Industrial District. "Allows many manufacturing, warehousing, and wholesaling activities, along with limited retail and service uses for the benefit of area employees. ." 5. Heavy Industrial District. "Allows all manufacturing, warehousing, wholesaling, and mineral • - 5 - • extraction activities. Limited retail and•service uses for the benefit of area employees. " The ordinance was written specifically to address a request to locate a brewpub in the lower downtown area by Union Station. The name of the brewpub is the Wyncoop Brewery. The restaurant is in place and the brewery is in the process of being added to the restaurant. The staff talked with Mr. Merlin Logan at the Department of Zoning Administration for the City of Denver. He stated that the staff decided that limiting capacity was not their biggest concern. The impact of trucking was the primary concern related to the proposal. For this reason, they limited the sale of beer off-premises to 30~. The size of the brewery's operation area has also been limited to 20~ of the total brewpub's square footage, which also limits capacity to a great extent. This approach is different from the Boulder Brewery in that the emphasis is really on the restaurant operation. The brewing is considered to be an accessary use to the restaurant. C. Seattle Under Seattle zoning, a micro-brewery is considered a light manufacturing use or processing use which has "little or no potential for environmental impacts." (Mr. John Skelton from the Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use.) 20,000 barrels per year is the capacity limit for a micro-brewery. Micro-breweries are permitted uses in Neighborhood Commercial II, Neighborhood Commercial III, and Commercial I & II Zone Districts. Micro-breweries are not allowed in Neighborhood Commercial I Zone Districts, which are the least intensive of the commercial zones. The size of the use is limited to 5,000 square feet in the Neighborhood Commercial II Zone District and 10,000 square feet in Neighborhood Commercial III. In Commercial I and Commercial IT zone districts, there are no size limits. In the commercial zones listed above, the other types of uses that are allowed as permitted or conditional uses include retail sales and services, restaurants, lodging (in the higher intensity commercial zone districts), offices, entertainment, warehouse, food processing, research and development laboratories, institutions, and residential single- family and multi-family. John Skelton from the Construction and Land Use Department, stated that they had not received any complaints about micro- breweries and their compatibility with office and residential uses. The Central Environmental Health Department was also contacted. Their opinion was that they had not received any complaints, to the best of their knowledge. - 6 - • The two departments expressed the general opinion that the micro-brewery use is compatible with office and other retail uses, and residential. It should be pointed out that the Seattle Zoning Code also has very strict requirements for haw these uses are developed on a property. Landscaping, location of parking, environmental impacts, separation of uses, and traffic are carefully studied for each project. (Please see attached research on micro-breweries from the Seattle Zoning Department.) 4. Portland Portland regulates a brewpub as though it were basically a brewery with an accessory use of a restaurant. The brewpubs are allowed in general commercial and light industrial zones and are limited to 1.0,000 square feet of gross floor area. The restaurant area is not considered part of the 10,000 square feet. The regulations do not allow objectionable odors to be generated. Portland has seven brewpubs. (This information was obtained from the Denver Planning Office. The contact person was Peggy Skulnack in Portland.) Summarv The research indicates that there are various ways to define micro breweries. The Boulder Brewery emphasizes off-site . distribution and the brewing process. The restaurant associated with the Boulder Brewery is really only an accessary use to the primary micro-brewery operation. In respect to Denver, the restaurant use is the primary function of the brew pub. Off-site sales are restricted. Tn Portland, the City has taken the opposite tact, and considers a brewpub to really be a brewery with an accessory restaurant. In all cases, it appears that the environmental impacts of micro-breweries or brewpubs, such as air and water pollution, can be considered to be minimal or non-existent. However, in discussing micro- breweries with many people, the biggest concern was the amount of truck traffic generated by the use. The issue of providing adequate enclosed storage, trash, and delivery areas is also very important. This was particularly evident when the staff visited the Boulder Brewery. The owner agreed that more loading and delivery area was necessary for their brewery operation. Staff believes that the conditional use approach for the micro- brewery use is appropriate as traffic generation loading and delivery, trash, storage, and environmental impacts can be studied thoroughly with this review process. • - 7 -- • IV. EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The applicant has submitted an environmental impact report for the micro-brewery use. The report was completed by RBD Engineering Consultants. RSD has analyzed the potential impacts from the micro-brewery having a capacity of 7,500 barrels of beer per year. The following paragraphs summarize the types of potential impacts that were studied in the EIR: (Please see pages 30,31,35,36, and 44 of the EIR.) A. Water Total water required for maximum production per year would be 1,395,000 gallons or approximately 4.298 acre feet. Of the 1,395,000 gallons, 232,500 gallons would be consumed as product and the remaining 1,162,000 would be returned to the stream through the sanitary sewer system or, in very small quantities, be discharged into the atmosphere in the form of water vapor. Actual consumptive use at maximum production per year will be 232,500 gallons of product. In a phone conversation with Fred Haslee from the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District on October 21st, he stated that the increased demand far water for the 5,000 versus 7,500 barrel capacity was insignificant and the UEVWSD was fully capable of handling these 7,500 barrel capacity brewery. The district is writing a letter to confirm their approval. The Colorado Department of Health requires that chlorine be added to public water supplies for disinfection and that a residual amount be measurable at the tap of an end user. This chlorine residual must be removed prior to the water entering into the brewing process. Removal of chlorine is a very simple process and can be accomplished by filtering through charcoal. Ozonation may be desirable after filtration ]ust to add a little bit more "sparkle" to the water and further reduce the taste and color. B. Waste Water It is proposed that the 1.,162,500 gallons per year or 9b,875 gallons per month will be required to be treated by the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District. • _8- The EIR states that the biggest concern is that large volumes of waste water not be discharged during short periods of time, especially during peak periods. 3,875 gallons of waste water will be released during and after each brewing process. The release is not immediate. 80~ of that water is used for clean-up and is released throughout the brewing process and takes approximately four hours. The remaining 20~ comes from the draining of the brewing equipment itself in approximately 90 minutes. Clean-up water would then enter the sewage system at the rate of 12.92 gallons per minute and waste water would enter at 8.61 gallons per minute. Even bath discharges occurring simultaneously would amount to 13.8 gallons per minute, a rate that could be easily absorbed by the district at any time of day. The EIR also identifies biological oxygen demand as a second concern related to waste water. BOD is a measurement of the strength of the waste water and, therefore, a measurement of the magnitude of the treatment prior to releasing back into the stream. Zn the Vail area, 250 milligrams of BOD is considered average strength. Effluent from a micro-brewery is normally less than 250 milligrams per liter and needs no pre-treatment or additional treatment by the district. Even though micro-breweries discharge less than 250 per liter of BOD, they are normally classified as an industrial discharger by most districts and are subject to a monitoring program. The Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District may want to require a manhole on the brewery sewer service line so that they can sample BOD. C. Spent Grains At the end of the brewing process, a solid product consisting primarily of spent grain results. These solids are strained or filtered off and de-watered by equipment contained within the brewery. They are collected in a hopper and routinely checked in a vehicle the size of a pick-up and sold for a beneficial use such as cattle feed. D, Air Emissions/Odor In discussions with various agencies in Boulder where a micro-brewery exists, there have never been complaints registered regarding stack emissions. Odors are similar to those of baking bread because of • the yeast and are very weak. With the brewery stack designed as an architectural element of the building at a height of surrounding ridge lines and care not to begin a brewing process during an identified temperature inversion, emissions should go undetected. E. Loading and Delivery A micro-brewery has a high demand for loading and delivery. This issue has been discussed under the staff research section of the memo. F. Noise The major sources of noise are anticipated to be the bottling phase of the operations and the process of loading and delivery. The bottling will be totally enclosed and will not produce external noise. All loading docks are also enclosed. G. EIR Summary The report states that all information available on micro-breweries "indicates that the process used is totally different than that of a large-scale industrial brewery. The sounds and smells associated with an industrial brewery do not exist. Because of this, the fact that the water and sanitation districts can provide service and the minimal emissions into the atmosphere, the proposed Vail Brewery is totally compatible with the Cascade Village neighborhood." V. EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST A. Suitability of Existing Zoning Staff believes that the Arterial Business district is appropriate for the micro-brewery use. The mixed-use nature of the Arterial Business zone district will be compatible with a micro-brewery. The fact that the micro-brewery is a tourist related, light industrial use generating no significant environmental impacts makes the use acceptable in this zone district. A tourist-related use is also appropriate as this area is considered to be a transition zone between Lionshead and Cascade Village - two guest-oriented areas of the community. From staff research, it is - 1fl - apparent that a micro-brewery use with certain limitations is compatible with office, retail, and residential uses. B. Is the Amendment Proposal Presenting a Convenient. Workable Relationship Among Land Uses Consistent with Municipal Objectives? The Arterial Business district has very strict standards for landscaping, parking, and access which will insure that the micro-brewery use is compatible with the other land uses in the zone district. It is felt by staff' that the conditional use criteria are adequate to address the impacts associated with the micro-brewery use. Conditional use criteria include: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town, 2. Effect of use on the light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks, and recreation facilities, and other public facilities. 3. 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 streets. 4. 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. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use if an environmental impact report is required. These criteria will address the primary concerns related to the micro-brewery use which really come down to parking, and adequate enclosed loading, trash, and storage areas for the use. Staff also believes that each micro-brewery proposal must be required to submit an environmental impact report - 11 - which will specifically address the environmental impacts from that particular micro-brewery. C. Does the Amendment Proposal Provide for the Growth of an Orderly and Viable Community? The micro-brewery is considered to be a positive use which will benefit the orderly growth and viability of the Vail community. The micro-brewery has a great potential. to become a guest attraction which the staff feels is very positive for Vail as we are a resort c..,~u~~unity. The environmental impact report has determined that there are no major environmental impacts from this request which would make it incompatible with the development quality in Vail. VT. APPLICABLE TOWN OF VAIL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES General Growth/Development 1.~. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial, and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. • 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water, and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. Skier/Tourist Concerns 2.4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism. 2.5 The community should improve non-skier recreational options to improve year-round tourism. Cu~~~~«ercial 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate bath local and visitor needs. 3.5 Entertainment oriented businesses and cultural activities should be encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More night time businesses, on- going events and sanctioned "street happenings" should be encouraged. - 12 - • VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Devel~~,.«ent Department recommends approval of the request. We believe that the Environmental Impact Report and additional staff research indicate that there are no major environmental impacts due to the proposed micro-brewery use. The research does indicate that adequate enclosed loading and delivery as well as trash areas must be reviewed closely on a project by project basis. We believe that the conditional use review will allow for this type of specific analysis. We also support changing the Purpose Section of the Arterial Business District to allow for tourist related light industrial uses. We feel that it is important to make sure that the Purpose Section of the Arterial Business Zone District is consistent with the permitted uses and conditional uses allowed under the district. The staff considers light industrial uses to have absolutely no noticeable environmental impacts and the fact that the light industrial use must be tourist related will be positive for the community. .7 • To: Community Development Department From: peter Jamar Date: October 21, 1988 Re: Cascade village/ Micro-Brewery The major changes resulting from a 7,500 barrel/year versus a 5,000 barrel/year micro-brewery at Cascade are the quantities related to waste and sewer impacts. CHANGES TO EIR: PAGE 30, Water and Sewer: 1. Total water required for maximum production per year increases . from 930,000 gallons to 1,395,000 which is 4.298 acre feet. 2. The 155,000 gallons consumed as product increases to 232,500. 3. Therefore, 1,162,500 is returned to the stream. 4, Consumptive use is then equal to 232,500 gallons rather than 155,000 gallons-which is still very small and incidental compared to Vail's total water supply and demand. PAGE 31, Sewer Discharge 1. 1,162,500 gallons per year of wastewater will be discharged or 9&,875 gallons per month. This equates to 3875 gallons per brew and would enter the sewage system at 12.92 gallons per minute ("clean-up" water) and 8.61 gallons per minute for wastewater. The total would be 21,.5 gallons per minute during the brewing process. 2. The BoD does not change. PAGE h4, Loading and Delivery 1. The amount of hops, yeast, and barley needed does not change significantly and the major change here is that Andy Norris has determined that no tractor-trailers will deliver directly to the • site and that these raw materials will be located off-site (probably Minturn) and only the smaller 22 foot vehicles will visit the Glen Lyon site. Y hope these new numbers help you. For our conditional use permit application we can provide an updated letter from upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation if needed. • • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 24, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance and for a common area variance in order to construct a fire stairway on the east side of the Tivoli Lodge. Applicant: Robert Lazier I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is adding 6 units to the west side of the Tivoli Lodge (previously approved by the Planning Commission) with the resulting request from the Building Department to add a fire stairway on the east end of the building, The proposal is to enclose the stairway, lengthening the hallways and would include the addition of a total of 150 square feet of common area. Fire escapes are allowed to extend into the setback area 4 feet. The proposed stairway will extend approximately 7 feet, necessitating the request for a side setback variance of 3 feet (beyond the 4 feet allowed). .] The common area variance requested is for 150 square feet. Common area statistics follow: Existing (w/new addition) = 5684 sq ft Allowed common area = 3404 Amount over allowed = 2280 Additional common area request = 150 Proposed total over allowed = 2430 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 fallowing factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. A fire stairway is a necessary part of buildings that are used for guest housing, This part of Vail is mainly for guest housing. Although not enclosing the stairway may reduce the setback slightly, staff feels that the enclosed stairway would be more in keeping with the design of the buildings in the vicinity. 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 ab~ectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The fire stairway is a requirement of the Fire Department. This is a safety issue, and is an essential part of the building, and as such, does not constitute a grant of special privilege. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population{ transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Although the stairway will add 7 feet to the east side of the Tivoli, this is felt to have minimum effect on light and air. There would be no effect on the other considerations. III. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VAIL'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. 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 staff recommendation is far approval of the setback variance and for the common area variance. With safety requirements in mind, staff feels that the stairway proposed is little more than the minimum required, and that by enclosing the stairway, the building remains more in keeping with the neighborhood architecurally. The additional common area requested is minimal and can be supported by the staff. • C7 LOT e 0.40 6 5 AC . ~cor~c. wA>~K ULT1-LEVEL BUILDING ,{ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ g8.O ~` ~ 1~ '~ ~ WOOD DECK B~ WALKWAY f ~ ao.s SEMEN uT1LlTY EA ~- ~~ENCE } 1 ~, WOOD DECK N C 1 r ..' TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: October 24, 1988 SUBJ: Ski Base/Recreation Zone Distract Amendment Applicant: Town of Vail I. BACKGROUND ON REQUEST In March of 3.988, the Town of Vail approved Ordinance 6 of 1988 which amended the Ski Base/Recreation Zone District to allow the construction of the Children's Ski Center. The Children's Ski Center use was inserted as Section B - "Permitted Uses Within the Secondary Building" of the Ski Base/Recreation Zone District. This required a recodification of the following sections of the ordinance. As the result of a word processing error, several sections of the previously existing ordinance were deleted from the revised Ordinance No. 6. The Town of Vail, in recognizing this error, is requesting to replace these uses which were unintentionally deleted. These sections, which were deleted, read as follows in the Ski Base/Recreation District previous to March of 1988: Section 18.39.030 C. 2. Before acting on multi-family dwelling units, the Planning Commission shall consider the following factors in regard thereto: a. Relationship and impacts of the use on development objectives of the Town. b. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. c. 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 streets and parking area. d. 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 surround uses. . 3. The Planning CviuuElSSlon shall make the findings set forth in 18.60.060 B. before permitting multi-family units within the main building. l D. The following uses shall be permitted outside the main building as shown on the approved development plan: 1. Ski trails, slopes and lifts 2. Snowmaking facilities 3. Bus and skier dropwoff 4. Surface parking lots 5. Ski racing facilities 6. Public park, tennis and volleyball courts and playing fields 7. Water treatment and storage facilities 8. Mountain storage buildings 9. Ski school activities 10. Special community events 11. Food and beverage service • In Ordinance No. 6 of 1988, these sections should have been included and should have been recodified to read Section 18.39.030 D.2 a.b.c.d., 3, and then followed by E., which describes the uses permitted outside the main building. The request is to amend Ordinance No. 6 of 1988 to reflect these inclusions. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is for approval of the request. These sections of the ordinance were omitted by mistake. Their omission was not discussed or approved by the Planning Commission or the Town Council, nor was it the intention of the staff or the Planning Commission or the Town Council to omit these sections. This request is a correction to that error and our recommendation is for approval. U c~ ~:.U;r 1 NG ~~ ~ ~jAS~ ~~'~C ~~lc9Js ~ URSj ~ CQ a7~ ~~ 18.38.060 ParE;ing and laading. riot applicably in the ('rNOS district. (Qrd. 19(1976} § I7 (part): Ord. 8t 1973) § '6.6D0.1 Chapter 13.39 3T{I 13ASE/i~EC1~E;'~TI[):;~.. DIST~tIC.'~,..:-....,_._.- Sections: :3.39.010 Purpose. ;.3.39.030 Permitted uses, 13.39.454 Conditions! uses. ~~ ~ 1.39.070 Accessory uses. 13.39.075 Proitioited uses. 13.39.080 i.ocation of business actin itv. 13.39.490 development nian required. ' 13.39.114 Develoornent plan-Contents. 18.39.120 Design standards/criteria for evaluation. 15.39.130 '~ Lot area. I 15,39.150 5etbaclcs. 13.39.170 'rIeit;itt. 18.39.1$0 Density control. ]8.39.190 Site coverage. 18.39.210 Landscaping and site development. 18.39.230 Parking. i <~ 15.39.010 1'urpvse. I~lre ski base recreation distrtct is intended [n pru~~idc fur [he hale facilities necessary 40 operatr the sl:i mountain and to a}luw mutt[-family residcnti~[l d~~~ellins's as a secondanr use if certain criteria arc met. fn addition, tiummcr recnatinnat uses and facilities are cncoural;ed tc~ achicti'e mul[i-sesson:il use of sonic cat the t;tcilities and prr7~~ide fur cffiricn[ use of the facilities. (Urd. ?~i _` 18.3'3.034 i'erntittccl uses. , A. fhc Sullcnvin~ uscs shall t~~ prrrnitteci ~~ithin the rnarn huiidin}; [n the ski hasc: rccreatio[y tlistric't: rv,~~i rt-is-hai 'h' '.-• . J ~~ c ~t S~~I BA5~r'REC:i`E.~~TIQN DISTRICT 1. Ski lockers/employee locker rooms, 2, Ski school and ski patrol facilities. 3. Lift ticket sales. 4. Tennis ^ro shon. S, Ski repair, rental, sales and accessories. 6. Restaurants bare snack barn candy sales. ' 7. Winter seasonal ski school related child care and child- ren's ski school and appurtenant recreational iacilities ,r-- ~rt~"uro<rrarri"s:°.:... _.- ~ ` ~ 3. Summer seasonal Town of Vail recreation offices. 9. iYleettn~ rooms for otivner use anti community-oriented organizations. ' ~ 10. injury prevention and rchabilitat€on iacilities for owner's ~ use, i 11. Basket rental. - 13, Special community events. B. Retail and meeting room space limitation. 1. Retail sales space, whether it be a permitted ar conditional use, in the first rivo floors shall be Limited to a maximum of fifteen percent of the nonresidential gross square footage of the main building. Under Section 13.39.030, retail shall be defined as tennis pro shop, candy sales, ski repairjrentalJsa€es and accessories, and basket rental. 2. iVieeting rooms shall be limited to a maximum of five percent of the nonresidential gross square footage of the main building. - C. Multi-family dwelling units within the main building ii the fallowing requirements are met: I. The dwelling units shall be et secondary use tivithin t}~e main building; if they meet the following criteria: a. i`Io residential use on ground tenet. h. Visual impacts such as surface parking for thy: ' citveliinr: units shal€ >7e minintized by providing at least tarty percent of the required parkinb within the mein htiifdins~. ~. "l'he rrtaximum s;russ residcnti.tl Haar ,uea (GRFr11 c1Lt•cxrci to ~ltvellins~ units sttall not crrced thirty percent of the ti-tat gross scluarc tc~cr[a>;e c7f main ,tructurc. ~? tv:~~t (1-IS•KJ? .7~i2-1 'v y .~ c~ ZONIi\G ~~ r ~~i 2. Before acting onmulti-family dwelling units, the planning commission shal€ consider the following factors in regard thereto: a. Relationship and impacts of the use an development objectives of the town. b. Effect of the use on tight and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, achat)ls, .... ..... -, _._._.,_ ~_...,---_--=-_r_x_Parlts__apd_.te~r~.zti.on....facLttiles=:~nd::.azl~s~,_{~u-al~~:.- ::_: ~:~~-.,_.,_-..._. _ _.:. _: ~.-..: ~::.:.. - . ,.°. --fatrikiti~s~and~~pu'b~tic iacilities~needs. ~ - c. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneu- :erabitity, and removal of snow tram the streets and parking area. d. Effect upon the character of Ehe Brea in which the proposed use is to he located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation [o surroundin<~ uses. 3. The planning commission shall rtealce the 1'indin~s set forth in Section 1 x.60.060 B. before permitting, multi- family units within the main building. - D. The following uses shall be permitted outside the main building as shown on the :approved development plan. I. Ski trails, sl~~pes and lifts. 2. Snowmaking foci€ities. :i. (3us and skier drop-off. 4. Sttrfacc p::rkin~~ Lots. ~. SI~i racing facilities. 6. Public park, tennis and vt~ll~vhall court, ,trtd pia~in~~ l~iclds. 7. Water treatment ,tnd titoragc facilities. ;i, tilt~untatrt storat_e buil~iinti_s. y. tiki schc~nt activities. lfl. Shccial cnmmuruty events. i I . ~-'ctctd and beverage ,rrvirc. I}i.3`).(]~t} ('4inditi9tnai 4t~1'1. -~,. I he to!14T~~ tn~~ ron~lttional utic, ,h:-Il hr ,tiertntttrtl in th~~ ~.ki h.t~e: recre,ttlz~n iliti[r:ct. at:hj~e_t [o thr atist]ance 4)t .t 4:4sntlt- ~'~..~d 11.=;..41 i~;~-? ~. •, ~~ _~~-. e • ~- -. U~~~~~~ ~~rti-F- ORDINANCE N0. 6 ~~~~,._,~ ~~G`~-.``~. Series of 1988 AN aRDINANCE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 18.39.030, PERMITTED USES OF CHAPTER 18.39, SKI BA5E/RECREATION DISTRICT OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, Section 18.39.030 of Chapter 18.39 of the Uail Municipal Code describes the permitted uses of the Ski Base,IRecreation zone district; and WHEREAS, Vail Associates, Inc. has submitted an application to amend Section 18.39.030 of the Vail Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town has recommended approval of the amendment to Section 18.39.030 of the Vail Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the public interest to amend said section of the Municipal. Code. NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 18.39.030 of the Uail Municipal Cade is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.39.030 Permitted Uses A. The following uses shall be permitted within the main building in the Ski Base/Recreation District: 1. Ski LockersJEmployee 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. Summer Seasonal Town of Vail Recreation Offices 8. Meeting Rooms for Owner Use and Community-Oriented Organizations 9. Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation Facilities for Owners' Use 10. Basket Rental '4' r v ~ ~ i. C. Retail and Meeting Roam Space Limitation 1, Reta41 sales space, whether it be a permitted or conditional use, in the first two floors shall be limited to a maximum of 15% of the non- residential gross square footage of the main building. Under Section 18.39.030, retail shall be defined as tennis pro shop, candy sales, ski repair/rental/sales and accessories, and basket rental. 2. Meeting rooms shall be limited to a maximum of 5% of the non-residential gross square footage of the main building. D. Multi-family dwelling units within the main building if the following requirements are met: 1. The dwelling units shall be a secondary use within the main building if they meet the following criteria: a. No residential use on ground level. b. Visual impacts such as surface parking for the dwelling units shall be minimized by providing at least 40% of the required parking within the main building. c. The maximum gross residential floor area (GRFA) devoted to dwelling units shall not exceed thirty percent of the total gross square footage of the main structure. Section 2. In accordance with Section 18.39.J.10 of the Ski Base/Recreation zone district, the development plan submitted by the deve]oper, Vail Associates, Inc., is hereby amended by the Town Council and incorporated into this ordinance. The approved development plan shall be amended by the inclusion of Snowdon & Hopkins, Sheets 1,2,4,5, dated 2/1/88 and Sheet 3 dated 2/4/88 as well as Vail Associates revised . Master Rlan dated 12/14/87'. pith regard to the recreational path relocation south of tennis courts 3-6, Sheet 3 shall be amended by Matthews Associates Sheet L-1 dated February 8, 1988. The approved and amended development plan shall incorporate by reference in this ordinance the following conditions: nail Associates shall contribute 5u perceni; or the cyst of a walkway to be J--,~~,~ Proposal To CREATE AND ENHANCE WETLANDS ALONG GORE CREEK WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL Prepared by Oliver ~'ohn Grah Wetlands Specialist BIO/WEST, Tnc. 1063 West 1400 Narth Logan, Utah 84321 October 14, 1988 • INTRODUCTxON AND BACKGROUNB • 'The Vail Valley Consolidated Water District (VVCWD) progoses to expand the storage capacity of Black Lake Reservoir No. 1. Tn doing so, the surface area of the reservoir would increase from 17.8 acres to 25.1 acres. The increase in surface area would include inundation of approximately 4.5 acres of wetlands which are protected under the federal Clean Water Act as administered by the Department of Army Carps of Engineers (COE). Since expansion of the reservoir would entail the construction of a new dam and subsequent discharge of fill material into the waters of the United States, an approved Section 404 permit pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act would be required to receive approval from the Forest Service and other cooperating federal agencies prior to project construction. VVCWD applied for a Section 404 permit and received approval in the Spring of 1988. Attached to the permit were conditions and requirements entailing the mitigation of the 4.5 acre loss of wetlands due to inundation at two separate sites with sufficient opportunities for the required mitigation. During hearings conducted by the Eagle County Board of Conunissioners (Board} in April 1988 on the proposed project, the Board determined that the mitigation plan approved by the COE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would not meet the requirements of Section 6.04 and 6.05 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The Board did not approve the necessary county permit application for construction of the proposed project since they concluded that a "significant deterioration of wetlands" would occur even with the implementation of the mitigation plan prepared pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. Therefore, the Board requires additional wetlands mitigation above and beyond the mitigation approved by the EPA and COE. • It was determined during the Board`s hearings that the primary functional value of wetlands that would be inundated entailed wildlife habitat value. The approved mitigation plan attached to the 404 permit included creation and enhancement of 4.9 acres of wetlands in the upper Eagle River watershed (including Slack Gore Creek) which would result in a 50 percent increase in wildlife habitat value over the value provided by the 4.5 acres of wetlands that would be inundated. VVCWD recently cooperated with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW} in improving fishery habitat along 1.5 miles of Gore Creek within the Town of Vail. The project was implemented in October, 1988, along a highly channelized portion of the creek that is located in and/ar adjacent to the golf course. This section of stream offered minimal fishery habitat and fishing success, and the riparian zone was very sparse along the banks of the stream. The "fishing is fun project" (groject) entailed construction of 12 drop structures along this stretch of the stream as well as planting over 400 containerized riparian stock along the banks of this section of the stream. In successfully implementing the project, VVGWD will be credited approximately 1.0 acre of wetland mitigation. Therefore,. VVCWD needs to continue their efforts in creating and enhancing wetlands so an additional 3.5 acres of mitigation can be credited or accumulated. • PROPOSAI, • VVCWD proposes to implement a plan jointly with the Town of Vail to enhance and create wetlands and riparian areas along Gore Creek within the Town of Vail. Implementation of such a plan would mutually benefit bath parties concerned. VVCWD would receive mitigation credit toward meeting the expectations defined by the Board during the hearings. The TOWn of Vail would benefit from the plan by increasing the effectiveness of wetlands and the riparian zone along Gore Creek in curtailing non-point pollution loading of Gore Creek due to urbanization. It is well established that wetlands and riparian zones are very effective "filters' or "traps" of both non-point suspended solids as well as dissolved solid pollutants. In addition, fishery habitat and terrestrial wildlife habitat would be improved by providing greater cumulative area and diversity of wetland and riparian zone vegetation along Gore Creek. Therefore, in conjunction with the Town of Vail, WGWD proposes to create, enhance, and improve 3.5 acres of wetlands/riparian zone along Gore Creek within the Tnwn of Vail. Reconnaissance of Gore Creek within the Town revealed substantial opportunity to meet the goal of 3.5 acres. The following presents a general conceptual plan of potential menu items for increasing the "filtering" or "trapping" effectiveness as well as increasing fishery and wildlife habitat wetlands and the riparian zone along Gore Creek. Conceptual Plan Item ~~1: Create a 0.75 acre pond and 0.75 acre wet meadow wetland complex on the Katsos Ranch property near the East Vail I-70 interchange. Goal: The objective of this proposed item is to create a pond suitable for a "put and take" fishery in combination with a wet meadow/willow scrub wetland complex. The location of the pond would allow relatively easy access from bath the frontage road and/or the bike path. The pond would increase the quantity and diversity of fishing opportunities for residents and visitors. Creation of the wetland complex would add to wildlife habitat quantity and diversity within the Town of Vail. Conceptual Plan: A 1.5 acre depression would be excavated to an average depth of approximately 5 feet in an upland area adjacent to Gore Creek on the Katsos property. This depth roughly corresponds with the likely depth of the water table at this location as well as the surface of Gore Creek. Of the total 1.5 acres, 0.75 acres would be further excavated to a depth of 7 feet to provide for an adequate depth far a "put and take" fishery pond. The balance of 0.75 acres would be excavated to a depth of 3 feet and wet subirrigated meadow sod from 81ack Fake Reservoir No. 1 would be planted in a mosaic with willow sprig plantings to create horizontally and vertically diverse vegetation structure important to wildlife. Approximately 0.5 cfs would be diverted from Gore Creek utilizing water rights held by VVCWD and discharged into the fishing pond portion of the project. A meandering outlet stream would be constructed across the wetland complex and outflow water would be discharged bac~C into Gore Creek within 1000 feet of the point of discharge. An outlet control structure would be constructed to control the level of water contained within the pond. Throughflow of water would maintain suitable levels of dissolved oxygen. A drop structure similar to those placed for the "fishing is fun" project would be 2 • . placed across Gore Creek at the point of diversion to maintain effectiveness of " the diversion during low flows and channel migration in time. The drop structure would further improve fishery habitat in Gare Creek. The pond would be stocked at strategic times during the spring, summer, and fall to maintain a prescribed level of fishing success. The pond complex area would further function to educate the interested public in regard to the importance of wetlands and demonstrate the concept of wetlands creation for mitigation purposes in conjunction with and through the efforts of the Mature Center. Exhibit ~ shows the location of the proposed pond site. Conceptual Plan Item ~~2; Plant riparian vegetation along the banks of Gore Creek within the Town of Vail. Goal: Improve the effectiveness of the riparian zone of Gore Creek in "filtering" and "trapping" pan-point sources of pollution. Conceptual Plan: Field reconnaissance along a 10 mile section of Gore Creek thrnugh the Tawn of Vail revealed that approximately 15 to 25 percent of the banks of the creek are devoid of riparian vegetation. These voids represent portions of the creek where non-paint pollutants can be effectively discharged into the creek thereby reducing water quality. VVCWD, in conjunction with the Town of Vail, proposes to plant riparian vegetation in these gaps ar voids to increase the effectiveness of the riparian zone in minimizing non-paint pollution loading of the creek. Species such as cottnnwnod, alder, birch, gooseberry, aspen, dogwood, and chokecherry, to name a few, would be planted in combination with willow sprigs. • Conceptual Plan Item ~~3: Rehabilitate several disturbed areas adjacent to perennial tributaries to Gore Creek within the Town of Vail.. Goal: Increase wildlife habitat value associated with riparian areas along tributaries to Gore Creek by planting similar species as listed above under 4~2. Conceptual Plan: Field reconnaissance in and about the Town of Vail revealed several sites o~ disturbances within or adjacent to wetland or riparian areas. These sites range in size from 4.2 to 0.5 acres. VVCWD proposes to prepare these sites for creation of wetlands by planting willow and other riparian species. These actions would further enhance and increase the effectiveness of wetlands/riparian zones in filtering non--paint pollution and increasing/improving wildlife habitat. • ' Expected Results and Benefits Implementation of any or all of these items would: 7) increase the diversity and opportunity far fishing within the Tawn of Vail. 2) increase the effectiveness of wetlands and riparian zones in filtering non-point pollution from urbanization thereby maintaining high water quality in Gore Creek. 3} increase the amount and quality of bath fishery and terrestrial wildlife habitat within the Town of Vail. 4} provide VVCWD with an additional 3.5 acres of wetlands mitigation credit thereby providing the basis for the Board to approve the Black make Reservoir No. 1 Expansion project. • 4 • • ~. C ~d U sr Ql r-i o ~ ~ •,~ ~ 4 .. 4 G O ~~ cam ~ r :;; I ~ ~I .c ;; 1 ~. 1 _ ~_- ~ cD ~ h a _# ~ ~ x !I II 1C M 1\ /~ ~ 1 l ~drap structure ! Pand Complex {Approximately 220 ft by 300 ft) diversion pain/t ' `L~ r inlet l} l .r 'k I W X X~ 1~c fishing pond k . ~~~ ~ ~ Ir 5..~ outlet n ~ discharge point ', ~.~ f ,,r-bridge I ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Ad~~ f ~ ~ W I ~ '. ', II .. _ ~. l C 0 11,1 ~a°~1~~~~ ~~ 1 ~~ c~ 4~ ' wetland/willow scrubmplex r a=7 ~~ X x ~. ~_-meanderifn~l strewn cn 1 1 ~ ~ CJ I I~ ~! ~~ iii r ._ ,.. ~ ~ SCALE 1" 100' / ~n~l~~~ ~~ ~/1j+~~~~ Planning and Environmental Commission November 14, 1988 3:00 PM SITE VTSTTS 2:00 PM 1. Approval. of minutes of 9/12, 9/26, 10/1.0, and 10/2. 1 2. A request for exterior alteration in Commercial Core I for the Hong Kong Cafe. Applicant: Phil Hoversten 2 3. A request for side and front setback variances and for a site coverage variance in order to construct an addition to a residence on Lot 3, Bighorn Estates. Applicant: Robert and Harriet McCue 4. A request for an amendment to the Vail Municipal Code to allow bed and breakfast short term lodging in Single Family, Primary/Secondary and Duplex zone districts and setting forth applicable regulations. Applicant: Town of Vail 3 5. A work session on the conditional use request for the Vail Valley Medical Center. 6. A work session on alternative dump sites, snow melt machines and erosion control for Ford Park parking lot. Stan Berryman 7. Consideration to cancel December 26th PEC meeting. Planning and Environmental C~,~u«ission November 14, 1988 • PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Grant Riva Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Mike Mollica Betsy Rosolack • ABSENT Sid Schultz The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of 9/12, 9/2b, 10/10 and 10/24. Diana requested a change on page 3 of the minutes of 9/12 and maved that all of the above minutes be approved as corrected. Bryan seconded the motion and the vote was 6-0. 2. Request for exterior alteration in Commercial Care I for the Honq Konq Cafe. Applicant: Phil Hoversten Rick Pylman stated that the applicants wish to table the item. Diana moved and seconded to table. Vote was 6-0 in favor. 3. A request for side and front setback variances and for a site coverage variance in order to construct an addition to a residence on Lot 3, Bighorn Estates Applicant: Robert and Harriet McCue Betsy Rosolack presented the proposal. She stated that the staff recommendation was for approval of the side setback and site coverage variances, but denial for the front setback variance since the front setback included a request for additional GRFA through the 250 Ordinance. Bill Pierce, architect for the applicants, stated that the McCues had originally planned to ask for more GRFA, but had reduced the request at the advice of the staff. Bill stated that the Town had imposed duplex zoning on the property even though it did not comply with the zoning regulations. He pointed out that anything constructed on Lot 3 would be in the setbacks. Bi11 then added that the kitchen addition would be constructed totally under the existing roof. He read a letter from the neighbor to the west, John V. Seaman, giving his approval of the request and of further contemplated additions. Bill stated that there were physical hardships which included the small size of the Iot and the fact that construction anywhere on the lot would entail a required variance. ,.. Grant Riva stated that he had no objections to the variance requests. Peggy felt that although the request was a minor one, it was difficult to know where to draw the line. She said • that her understanding was that with the 250 ordinance, there were to be na variances. She did feel that redesigning the kitchen would be the thing to do. Diana supported Peggy's concern. Pam felt that since the roof already existing, she did not have any problem with the request. Jim did not have any problems with the request. Grant moved and Bryan seconded to approve the side, front and site coverage variances. The vote was 4-2 with Peggy and Diana voting against the requests. ~4. A request for an amendment to the Vail Municipal Code too allow Bed and Breakfast operations in Single Family, Primary/Secondary and Duplex zone districts. Applicant: Town of Vail Peter Patten presented the proposal. He described the definition of Bed and Breakfast (18.0.035), regulations far Bed and Breakfast operations (18.58,310) and additions to Single Family, Primary/Secondary and Duplex lists of conditional uses. Peter then reviewed the criteria for amending the zoning code and the Land Use Plan policies related to the request. He pointed out that since each Bed and Breakfast application would have to go through the conditional . use process, the PEC would be able to add conditions of approval, if they so desired. He also pointed out that the staff felt the adjoining duplex owner should be notified. Peter stated that the staff recommended approval of the amendment. Pam felt that each B&B should be reviewed annually. Peter responded that the PEC could place that stipulation upon the cu approval. He added that the PEC could also place a stipulation on the approval that stated "If more than one complaint, the approval will be called up for review." Diana suggested placing a time frame or limiting the number of complaints that would necessitate an automatic review. She wondered if the process could be moved up so that those already in business could rent when the ski season started. Peter explained that they hadn't planned on having those already in business, but that those businesses would be grandfathered. Peggy felt that at least initially, the applicant should come through the PEC, and that those who needed review because of complaints, etc, could reviewed by the staff. Grant felt it was a good idea that at least initially, the applicants come before the PEC, and Jim agreed. Diana moved and Grant seconded to recommend approval to the Town Council per the staff memo, with clarification of . "adjacent property owner" and with the stipulation that the existing B&B owners must apply so that the Town will know where they are. Peter suggested starting a file that Kathy Fagan could give him on the existing owners. It was suggested that the complaints be written only. Diana wanted it understood that if the business did not apply to be grandfathered, it would not be grandfathered. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 5. A work session on the conditional use request for the Vail Valley Medical Center. Paul Johnston, director of the Hospital Board, stated that a window of opportunity had come in, in that Dr. Steadman, an orthopedic surgeon, would like to relocate in Vail and will bring "his whole team." Paul added that Dr. Steadman did 700 to 80o surgeries per year for people from all over the country. He said the principle issue was that of entering into negotiations with Steadman, and wanting to be able to move Dr. Steadman into the Medical Center by July, 1990. Paul discussed meetings with the Doubletree to solve the parking problem. He stated that one problem they had was that they did not feel they had the luxury of time to resolve the parking issue and asked the PEC for permission to move the parking solution to the end of the project. Paul proposed that the west parking structure be built at the end of the construction of the addition. This approach allows a one year time frame to address parking and access before the structure . is built. Paul stated that the Board was willing to build the west parking structure with a fair share participation on improvements to West Meadow Drive. Peter Patten stated that discussions on a solution involving the Doubletree had been initiated with Paul, Dan Feeney, etc., but that no conclusions had been reached. He could not think of any instance when the Town of Vail had allowed approval of a project with a parking solution scheduled at a later date. He felt that this would make it difficult to set a date for a solution. Paul stated that the Board would agree to put money in escrow for a parking solution. Wendell Haley, a property owner across the street, spoke in protest of the proposed expansion. He also read a letter of protest from Jim and Joan Horrigan, adjacent property owners. Susie Bruce, who also lives on West Meadow Drive, stated that she had seen a great increase in traffic along West Meadow Drive and many "close calls" between vehicles and pedestrians. She felt West Meadow Drive needed to be a pedestrian way. Joan Norris, another nearby resident, agreed. Suzanne Dauphanis said that she had heard that the hospital was to become a research center and was concerned that it was to become more than just a community hospital. Peter Jamar, representing Vail Holdings, owners of the " Doubletree Hotel, stated that Vail Holdings was not interested in fighting hospital expansion, and in fact were supportive of the expansion. Vail Holdings was only interested in what impact the parking structure would have upon the Doubletree. He suggested moving the parking structure toward West Meadow Drive, and added that with the current design, the top level of the structure was level with the second floor rooms of the Doubletree, and that in the future it could go up even further. Jamar also stated that if the structure were to go on the east end of the Doubletree property, the Doubletree could share the parking and reduce by 10-20~ the amount needed by both the hospital and the Doubletree. The Doubletree would then locate lodge rooms to the southwest using a portion of hospital property. Peter Jamar felt the solution must work for both the hospital and the Doubletree. If the current location of the parking structure is proposed (west location), he stated the Doubletree would have concerns with the property. Paul Johnston stated that the hospital board was optimistic about working something out with the Doubletree. He pointed out the economic advantage to Vail if the hospital were to become a national medical facility. Grant Riva felt accessing from the North Frontage Road made sense. He pointed out that in March there were 3 ambulance calls per day and 1600 trips during the month of March which were not ambulances. Grant felt that there would be trouble in the future if the traffic .were not diverted from West Meadow Drive. Pam Hopkins agreed with Grant and stated that she felt the Planning Commission's primary charge was to put planning concerns first. She felt there were two main issues: 1) the access and 2) the master plan for the ultimate build-out of the hospital. Pam pointed out that there was much traffic even during the slower months. She wandered what kind of improvements could be made to West Meadow Drive. Peter responded that at most, West Meadow Drive would have a 50 foot right-of-way. Pam stressed that the scenario presented was the current one, but the PEC should look at the long term. She felt that now was the time to resolve the issues and suggested that many breakthroughs in negotiations are made in a "time bind" such as the hospital said they were in. Paul Johnston pointed out that the Doubletree did not have a time bind. Peggy said the Doubletree was very concerned about the parking structure, which could be a strong motivator. • Bryan agreed with Grant and Pam. He felt the parking structure should be on the east end. Paul responded that there was not • enough room on the northeast corner. Jim Viele stated that a better solution could be found. His biggest concern was parking and access. In general,. he felt the expansion was very positive. He stated that the hospital had a responsibility to plan their additions and parking "right." He said strong incentives were necessary to be certain the best solution is found for parking and access and that the parties involved must work diligently toward a solution. Diana agreed with everyone else an the board. Diana stressed the need for a master plan and a plan for the intersection on the North Frontage Road. She felt that moving the parking structure toward West Meadow Drive as suggested by the Doubletree would impact the major pedestrian connection between Lionshead and the Village, but placed where currently proposed would impact the Doubletree. Diana's feeling was that the only solution was a parking structure in conjunction with the Doubletree on the northeast. corner of the hospital property. Pam said the hospital most do some planning. She suggested that they look at parking useage. Far example, the wellness clinic used 90 spaces per day. The doctors could be located elsewhere and she suggested making sure that the ambulance entrance was connected with the parking structure. Pam felt it was appropriate for the Town to ask for a master plan. Paul • responded that if they had submitted a master plan the last time, they would probably have had to come in with a change to the master plan. Pam pointed out that the access being asked for was still the same. Paul volunteered that if the Town were to improve Meadow Drive, the hospital would be willing to participate in an improvement district. Pam repeated her observation that if the doctors were moved to a different location, 90 parking spaces would become available, Ray McMahon responded that the doctors liked to be next to the hospital. He mentioned that there had been a meeting with George Gillett, Dr. Steadman, the hospital board, Town Council and the doctors. He stated that the next expansion would involve tearing down the old east side and begin building there, He felt that there could be underground parking from West Meadow Drive and into the Doubletree property. Ray felt the real issue was the complex process to negotiate with the Doubletree (the time it would entail) and the necessity to start construction in April. He felt he knew the hospital could solve the parking problem, and pointed out that the last time, the parking was the subject, not the access. Diana said she did not mind the scenario, but felt there should be some type of guarantee that the hospital would not come back and say that the Doubletree would not cooperate, etc. She felt the proposal as it was presently presented was not acceptable as a planning solution. Diana felt the PEC was being put under undue pressure. 6. A work session on alternative dump sites, snow melt machines and erosion control for fiord Park parking lot. Stan Berryman, Director of Public Works. Stan said that the Town removed 80,000 cubic yards of snow in an average year. The Town had looked at alternative sites, such as Donovan Park and the Stevens parcel, but they were too small. He added that if the Town must travel further with snow, the cost would rise dramatically, Stan showed literature about snow melting machines for a possible future use and discussed the gravel, etc. which were used to alleviate the runoff into Gore Creek. - 7. Consideration to cancel December 26th PEC meeting. Diana moved and Grant seconded to cancel this meeting. The vote was 6-0 in favor. C] • ~. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department . PATE: November 14, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for front and side setback variances and a site coverage variance in order to construct additions to a residence located on Lot 3, Bighorn Estates Applicants: Robert and Harriet McCue I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants are requesting a front setback variance of one foot (into the 20 foot setback) in order to enlarge a kitchen, and a side setback of 3.2 feet (into the 15 foot setback) in order to add an outdoor trash enclosure and storage shed. The request also requires a site coverage variance of 84 square feet. Site coverage allowed on this lot is 20% of the size of the lot (4,415 sq ft) or 883 square feet. The property was constructed with 1,003 square feet of site coverage. The additions will increase the site coverage by 8& square feet for a total of 1,089 square feet. Additional GRFA of 48 square feet is being requested under the 250 ordinance. (Allowed GRFA is 1103, existing GRFA is 1253 or 15o square feet over the allowable.) The zoning for this property is duplex. Bighorn Estates, Lots 10 and 11 were subdivided several years ago into townhomes which were later divided into small lots numbered 1 through 7. This subdivision created legal non-conforming lots smaller than that which would be allowed in present day zoning. The minimum size of a duplex lot today is 15,000 square feet, Lot 3 contains only 4415 square feet. 1Z. 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 side setback and site coverage variances and denial of the front setback variance based upon the following factors: • A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existinu or notpnfii~l_uses a,nd structures in the vicinity. ~ ~ ~ ~ ' 1. Side Setback Variance The side setback variance of 3.2 feet would result in a setback of z~..8 feet at one point. At this point, the structure on the adjacent lot is 8 feet from the property line. The staff feels the requested side setback is consistent with neighboring side setbacks. 2. Site Coverage Variance Due to the unusual subdivision of this lot, staff believes it is reasonable to allow some flexibility concerning site coverage. 3. Front Setback Variance Even though the adjacent unit extends into the front setback from 1 foot to 4 feet, staff believes that the proposed kitchen can be designed so that it does not encroach into the front setback. 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 Brant of special privilege. 1. Side Setback Variance The staff has consistently encouraged trash enclosures. The setback of 3.2 feet to achieve the enclosure is minimal and no GRFA is being added. 2. Site Coverage Variance Because of the small lots, existing site coverage on all lots in the vicinity is aver the allowed. The staff feels that adding 36 square feet of site coverage for the trash enclosure does not increase to any great extent the existing site coverage. Staff would also support additional site coverage for a kitchen addition, but one that did not require a front setback variance. • . 3. Front Setback Variance The staff feels that the addition could be constructed within the front setback line. 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 would be no impact on these considerations. III. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VAIL'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN There are no related polices in the Comprehensive Plan. 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 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 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. Vx. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff rec~~~~~~fends approval of the and the site coverage variance. We requests involve no additional GRFA, the side setbacks and site coverages requests are not requests of special warranted. side setback variance feel that the since the and are consistent with in the vicinity, the privilege and are As for the front setback variance, the staff does feel that since this request involves the 250 GRFA ordinance, a front setback variance should not be approved. The kitchen can be designed so that a setback variance is not necessary. The 250 ordinance was a discussion item at a recent joint meeting with the Planning Commission and Town Council at which time the Council directed the staff to look very carefully at 250 Ordinance proposals that required variances. The opinion was that variances should only be approved for 250 Ordinance proposals if they were absolutely justifiable given the variance criteria. • • U • mow.:,°l~'O!'E 25.~G`. ~~ ~ C~ ~~ ..r... ~- -~ i • ~~ ~ . !. ry a~! 1 ~' 3 0 ~ g J I ~ ~ S ~ ': ' :4 Sul r-•=~/ ~~~ ~ ~i: L~V~'1,. _ .-- ___-~ __ ;''~ ~ ~' ~ r ..`~"<" - l~ITC?-1F~'~•1 !~.~a'.'S1~~J~? ~~! ~~ ~Q~.l~IZ ~VE~-. • ~ ~"~ ~sclcr~uc ~cK I' ~ :1 LSD f T~-I . ~I f2 t `~ ~ ,a ~'~~~ ~ III 3 ~ _ , 1~---~--_ ~rt~a~ C~rN~~re~3 _ ~r~,.•.~ ~IE~ - ~.~c~sr. _~rrx. v. ``'' ~' C.vW~tY ~ 8445.9' ~ '~; is ~^'~NC~ C~~CK G+ ^LJ~'Z ~ ~' f . ~`-~~"~~ --~ k ~ . F ~ -. / ~ ! I S 4 [ ~. _ I ~ , - ~~. ~ a-- ; 7 ~' - ~~ r' . !~ . - N.17 TO: Planning and Environmental C~,~„~~ission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 14, 1988 SUBJ: Amendments to the zoning code to allow Bed and Breakfasts as a conditional use in certain zone districts. Applicant: Town of Vail I. BACKGROUND There have been work sessions with both the Council and the Planning Commission in recent months regarding the Bed and Breakfast issue. Currently a provision of the supplemental regulations prohibits Bed and Breakfasts in Single Family, Two Family or Primary/Secondary zone districts. The PEC and Council agree with the staff that Bed and Breakfasts should be allowed in the Single Family and Duplex zone districts. Incorporating the input from these previous work sessions, the staff proposes the fallowing zoning code revisions. . II. REVISIONS TO THE ZONYNG CODE 18.04.035 Bed and Breakfast (Definition) Bed and Breakfast means an operation to accommodate guests in a residence located in a Single Family, Two Family, or Primary/Secondary zone district in which the Bed and Breakfast proprietor lives on the premises and is in residence during the Bed and Breakfast use. A Bed and Breakfast operation may short term rent separately up to 3 bedrooms or a maximum square footage of 900 square feet of the dwelling unit. Bed and Breakfast operations shall meet the provisions of the definition of "Family" in Section 18.04.110 of the zoning code. Additional criteria for Bed and Breakfast operations are found in Section 18.58.310 - Supplemental Regulations of the zoning code. 18.58.310 Short term rental accommodation unit Delete existing language: "No roams in any structure or building located in any single family, two family or primary/secondary zone district within the town shall be short term rented, separately as . accommodation units." • Add the following language: 18.58.310 Bed and Breakfast Operations Bed and breakfast operations shall be allowed as a conditional use in single family, two family, and primary/secondary zone districts and as defined in Section 18.04.035 of the zoning code. Parking requirements for Bed and Breakfast operations shall be one space for the proprietor plus one space per short-term rented bedroom. All required parking must be located on the site of the Bed and Breakfast operation. The removal of landscaping to provide additional parking for a Bed and Breakfast operation is strongly discouraged. One residential name plate sign shall be allowed according to Section 16.20.130 of the sign code far each Bed and Breakfast operation. Bed and Breakfast operations shall provide enclosed trash facilities and shall provide for regular trash removal service. 18.10.030 Single Family (SFR) District Conditional Uses. G. Bed and Breakfast as further regulated by . 18.58.310 18.12.030 Two Family Residential (R) District Conditional Uses. G. Bed and Breakfast as further regulated by 18.58.310 18.13.030 Primary/Secondary (P/S) District Conditional Uses F. Bed and breakfast as further regulated by 18.58.310 TTI. REVIEW OF CRITERIA FDR AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE A. Suitability of Existing Zoning The provision in the Supplemental Regulations which prohibits Bed and Breakfasts should be deleted in favor of allowing B&B's to occur under the conditions we have recommended. B&B's have become an extremely popular trend throughout the United States. Generally, B&B's provide good quality lodging at a reasonable rate with a high level of service. In a • resort town such as Vail, it makes good sense to allow Bed and Breakfasts, but to regulate them so that the residential character of the neighborhoods in which they occur is maintained. The PEC and Council have concurred with this direction in our previous work sessions. B. Is the amendment proposal presenting a convenient. workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives? The key to Bed and Breakfast regulation is the preservation of the low density residential character of the neighborhoods. We feel that the suggested amendments address the important factors in preserving the low density neighborhoods in which B&B's will occur (parking, on-site proprietor, square footage limitations, prohibiting over-crowding, signage and trash removal considerations). If the lot is zoned P/S or Duplex, the adjacent property owner as well as the proprietor of the B&B would be required to sign off on the application. Furthermore, the requirement of B&B's to go through a conditional use review for each site will allow us to look at each proposal on a case-by-case basis as well as to condition the approval as necessary. The conditional use criteria include: 1. The relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities' needs. 3. 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. 4. The 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 the surrounding uses. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan goals and policies relate to this amendment in two different policy statements: 2.I The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day visitors. 2.2 The skier area owner, the business community, and the Town leaders should work closely together to make existing facilities and the Town function more efficiently. C. Does the amendment proposal provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community? We feel that with the criteria for parking, square footage, on-site proprietor, signage, etc. as proposed, that the Bed and Breakfast operations will not disrupt the neighborhoods in which they are located. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the amendments to the zoning code to allow for Bed and Breakfast operations in the Town of Vail. We have studied other communities' regulations for B&B's and are comfortable that all our amendments have addressed the key problem areas. With a conditional use review for each B&B proposal, we will be able to ensure the neighborhood compatibility of each B&B. If complaints occur, we could call the conditional use • permit up for review if the CUP was so conditioned at the time of approval. The Planning Commission's decision on this amendment is a recommendation to the Town Council for their final consideration. • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 14, 1988 SUBJECT: Request for a minor exterior alteration on part of Lot C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing in order to construct a small addition to the existing Hong Kong Bar and Restaurant Applicant: Phil Hoversten I. THE PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing a 40 square foot addition to the southeast corner of the upper level of the Hong Kong building. The southeast corner of the building is currently cut back at a 45 degree angle and was designed in this manner to allow some open space and landscaping and to reduce site coverage of the building. The applicant wishes to square off this corner in order to add another entrance to the building. By adding an entrance in this location, the owner would then be able to remove one of the interior staircases and still meet building code egress requirements. The open area that currently exists at that corner contains a skylight that allows light into the lower restaurant level and also several mature aspen trees which provide a buffer to that corner of the building from the Founder's Plaza area. The requested building addition also amends the patio area and entrance stairway to the bar level of the Hong Kong Cafe building. II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE CCI ZONE 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 CCI 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 Pian 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 pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. • This proposal, as a minor addition, is in compliance with the intent of the purpose of the Commercial Core I zone district. ITI. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE There are no sub-area concepts which relate directly to this area of the proposal. IV. COMPLIANCE OF THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The purposes of the comparison between the proposal and the Considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or detracts from the overall intent of the Design Considerations. A. Pedestrianization The Hong Kong Cafe is located adjacent to two major pedestrian areas: Wall Street, which is a main pedestrian walkway, and Founder's Plaza, which is a main pedestrian plaza area. The staff felt that the original Hong Kong Cafe project had positive impacts on the pedestrianization of both Wall Street and the • Founder's Plaza. We did feel strongly that the development should maintain some buffering landscape from the plaza and from Wali Street. We feel that this area is an important pedestrian focus which needs and benefits from the existing landscape buffer. B. Vehicular Penetration This minor addition will have no impact upon vehicular penetration within the Vail Village area. C. Streetscape Framework The Streetscape framework criteria talks about positive contributions of the infill of c~.~u«ercial store fronts and expansion of existing buildings in order to generate street life and visual interest along pedestrian routes. Streetscape framework criteria, however, also refers to the importance of landscaping, grass, flowers, and tree planting, as a soft framework linkage along pedestrian routes. Staff feels that the southeast corner of the Hong Kong Cafe benefits the pedestrian experience through the existence of the landscaping on this corner. The angle of the building and the existing • . landscaping contribute to the pedestrian experience as one is approaching the building from Wall Street. This area begins the dramatic opening into Founder's Plaza, and we feel serves its purpose well. The landscaping also serves as a buffer between the Hong Kong Cafe and the stairway on Wall Street as it is viewed from the Founder's Plaza area. D. Street Enclosure This proposal has little impact on street enclosure with the exception of the previously mentioned concept of gradually opening Wa11 Street into Founder's Plaza. This effect is assisted by the landscaping and building form at the southeast corner of the Hong Kong Cafe. E. Street Edge The street edge criteria encourages building design to form a strong but irregular edge to the street. Again, we feel that from an urban design aspect the existing southeast corner of the Hong Kong Cafe is a far mare desirable situation than the proposed addition. F. Building Height This proposal has no impact on building height. G. Views There is very little impact from this proposal on long-range views. There is some further encroachment into the short-range view of Founder's Plaza from lower Wall Street by extending this building out to the property lines. H. Service and delivery There is no impact from this proposal to the service and delivery functions of the Hong Kong Cafe. Z. Sun/Shade There is very little impact to the sun/shade considerations of the existing Hong Kong Cafe. • V. ZONING CONSIDERA,TTONS Landscaping Section 18.24.170 of the CCI Zone District states that "no reduction in landscaped area shall be permitted without sufficient cause shown by the applicant or as specified in the Vail Village Design Considerations." Pra~ect Statistics Lot size far the Hong Kong Cafe building is 1,608 square feet. Existing site coverage is 90 percent, which is over the allowable maximum of 80 percent site coverage within Commercial Core I. This proposal does slightly increase the site coverage. Parking Parking reimbursement will be determined at building permit. Parking fees will be assessed and paid into the parking fund for all square footage that is added. Building square footage existing is approximately 3,080 square feet. The addition consists of approximately 40 • square feet. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Although this is a small addition to the existing building, staff recommendation is for denial. The Hang Kong Cafe while, granted, is situated on a small lot, does have a very high percentage of site coverage and very little meaningful landscaping on site. There is some landscaping that exists along the east side of the building that is partially hidden by the second floor cantilever, The only other area of significant landscaping is the southeast corner of the building. We feel that it is important to maintain landscaping on this site, and we also feel that this particular corner of the building is very critical from an urban design standpoint. We feel that to amend this corner of the building would be a mistake and a detriment to Wall Street and Founder's Plaza. The lass of the landscaping and the buffer as well as the encroachment of the building is detrimental to several aspects of the urban design considerations. • 3 NEW MEN'S ROOM i `i ~G~ ~ ~ ur •G 4 _.~ \\ • • Stair --r~ { VIII ~-J ~ - L/ . _`` \, /''~ ` ' ~~~~~ NEW ENTRY r~1 _~~...- --~` W.G. `- ~_ r~\\\~ ~v ~~. , _ ~ o . _~ ` ~ / ~ i / ~ i l ~~ ~e~~rco ~~-r~r ~o~~ \ ~/ ~. Existing Bar i NEW WOMENS' ,, !\ i~ ~~ ., ' ~~ I ~~ - _ r r OIL" I I ~~~CJ , - ~~, I ~- ~~,JCI~l1r1~o ~~1~"' i ~ I ~`~ NEW LANDING ,~ ~~. '' -~ ~~a~-s' - Existing Patio ~ ~? - ~ ~ ` '~,~r` ,,~ ~~ ~~~ -~ _ ~` ; ~` . i ~ ~-~ _. ~' ~ _ _ ,J r vpilvaliey ~. medical center November 11, 1988 his. Kristan Pritz Senior Planner Town of Vai 1 75 S. Frontage Rd. W. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Kristan: 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 {303) 476-2451 Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Planning Commission on 14 November. By discussing and resolving the issues at this work session, • we hope the Commission will approve our application for hospital expansion on 28 November. We request that the Commission consider our application as submitted, including a 3-level parking structure at the west end of our property large enough to enable us to meet our commitment to park all patient and staff vehicles on-site. Access to the hospital would continue to be via West Meadow Drive, improved by construction of a pedestrian mall parallel but separate from the vehicle-carrying roadway. Our Governing Board is willing to participate in such an improvement, although the extent of this partici- pation must await further definition of the scope of the project. Our original schedule called for construction of the west parking structure next spring and early summer. We intended to use one level of the completed structure for staging the construction of the second and third floor addition, while the remaining two levels would enable us to park as many vehicles as we can now. Although we hope to secure a Conditional Ilse Permit for this project as currently submitted, we wish to continue efforts with the Doubletree Notel to identify possibilities for a parking structure at the east end of our two facilities, with access directly off South Frontage Road. Because of the complexities of such an investigation, resolution will undoubtedly take several months, and possibly as much as a year. As long as such a study is in progress, we should defer the construction of a west parking structure because we may came to a better solution. We also feel that it is not feasible to construct both the building addition and Ray McMahan Administrator Ms. Kristan Pritz November 11, 1988 Page two parking structure simultaneously--there would be virtually no parking Teft for either patients or staff. Thus, if we are to construct a west parking structure, we would defer it until April 1.990, when the 6ui]ding expansion would be substantially complete. Quite obviously, lack of a multi-lever parking structure during the 1989-1990 ski season would create a severe parking shortage, even with the 30 spaces we currently Tease at Manor Vail Lodge. The solution appears to be Town approval to allow 120 members of our staff to park in the Lianshead structure during the 89-90 ski season. This would enable us to thoraugh1y pursue joint development options with the Doubletree, and still realize our goal of completing the building addition by Ju]y 1990. In summary, we are committed to provide hospital parking by building an on-site parking structure. We can begin the structure in either April 1989 or April 1990. However, we feel that the April 1990 date is the best solution, if we are allowed to park in Lionshead during the construction period. The hospital's Governing Board appreciates that the Town is generally supportive of the improvements that this expansion wi11 bring to medical care in the Vail Valley, We believe the approach outlined above enables us to reconcile several conflicting objectives in a reasonable manner. Sincerely, a~ a .E. ProJect~• a ger /Trp • 11 . T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 14, 1988 SUBJ; Amendments to the zoning code to allow Bed and Breakfasts as a conditional use in certain zone districts. Applicant: Town of Vail I. BACKGROUND There have been work sessions with both the Council and the Planning Commission in recent months regarding the Bed and Breakfast issue. Currently a provision of the supplemental regulations prohibits Bed and Breakfasts in Single Family, Two Family or Primary/Secondary zone districts. The PEC and Council agree with the staff that Bed and Breakfasts should be allowed in the Single Family and Duplex zone districts. Incorporating the input from these previous work sessions, the staff proposes the following zoning code revisions. II. REVISIONS TO THE ZONING CODE 18.04.035 Bed and Breakfast (Definition) Bed and Breakfast means an operation to accommodate guests in a residence located in a Single Family, Two Family, or Primary/Secondary zone district in which the Bad and Breakfast proprietor lives on the premises and is in residence during the Bed and Breakfast use. A Bed and Breakfast operation may short term rent separately up to 3 bedrooms or a maximum square footage of 900 square feet of the dwelling unit. Bed and Breakfast operations shall meet the provisions of the definitian of "Family" in section 18.04.110 of the zoning code. Additional criteria for Bed and Breakfast operations are found in Section 18.58.314 - Supplemental Regulations of the zoning code. 18.58.310 Short term rental accommodation unit Delete existing Language: "No rooms in any structure or building Located in any single family, two family or primary/secondary zone district within the town shall be short term rented, separately as accommodation units." . Add the following language: 18.58.310 Bed and Breakfast Operations Bed and breakfast operations shall be allowed as a conditional use in single family, two family, and primary/secondary zone districts and as defined in Section 18.04.035 of the zoning code. Parking requirements for Bed and Breakfast operations shall be one space for the proprietor plus one space per short-term rented bedroom. All required parking must be located on the site of the Bed and Breakfast operation. The removal of Landscaping to provide additional parking for a Bed and Breakfast operation is strongly discouraged. one residential name plate sign shall be allowed according to Section 16.20.130 of the sign code for each Bed and Breakfast operation. Bed and Breakfast operations shall provide enclosed trash facilities and shall provide for regular trash removal service. 18.10.030 Single Family (SFR) District Conditional Uses. G. Bed and Breakfast as further regulated by 18.58.310 18.12.030 Two Family Residential (R) District Conditional Uses. G. Bed and Breakfast as further regulated by 18.58.310 18.13.030 Primary/Secondary (P/S) District Conditional Uses F. Bed and breakfast as further regulated by 18.58.310 III. REVIEW OF CRITERIA FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE A. Suitability of Existing Zoning The provision in the Supplemental Regulations which prohibits Bed and Breakfasts should be deleted in favor of allowing B&B's to occur under the conditions we have recommended. B&B's have become an extremely popular trend throughout the United States. Generally, B&B's provide good quality lodging at a reasonable rate with a high level of service. Tn a resort town such as Vail, it makes good sense to allow Bed and Breakfasts, but to regulate them so that the residential character of the neighborhoods . in which they occur is maintained. The PEC and Council have concurred with this direction in our previous work sessions. B. Is the amendment proposal presenting a convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives? The key to Bed and Breakfast regulation is the preservation of the low density residential character of the neighborhoods, We feel that the suggested amendments address the important factors in preserving the low density neighborhoods in which B&B's will Occur {parking, on-site proprietor, square footage limitations, prohibiting over-crowding, signage and trash removal considerations). If the lot is zoned P/S or Duplex, the adjacent property owner as well as the proprietor of the B&B would be required to sign off on the application. Furthermore, the requirement of B&B's to go through a conditional use review for each site will allow us to look at each proposal on a case-by-case basis as well as to condition the approval as necessary. The conditional use criteria include: 1. The relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities' needs. 3. 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. 4. The 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 the surrounding uses. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan goals and policies relate to this amendment in two different policy statements: 2,1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day visitors. 2.2 The skier area owner, the business community, i and the Tawn leaders should work closely together to make existing facilities and the Town function more efficiently. C. Does the amendment proposal provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community? We feel that with the criteria for parking, square footage, on-site proprietor, signage, etc. as proposed, that the Bed and Breakfast operations will not disrupt the neighborhoods in which they are located. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff rec...~,.~~ends approval of the amendments to the zoning code to allow for Bed and Breakfast operations in the Town of Vail. We have studied other communities' regulations for B&B's and are comfortable that all our amendments have addressed the key problem areas. With a conditional use review far each B&B proposal, we will be able to ensure the neighborhood compatibility of each B&B. If complaints occur, we could call the conditional use permit up for review if the CUP was so conditioned at the time of approval. The Planning Commission's decision on this amendment is a recommendation to the Town Council for their final consideration. s TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: C~,~u~~unity Development Department DATE: November 28, 1988 SUBJECT: Amendment to the Ford Park Master Plan APPLICANT: Vail Metropolitan Recreation District Board and Vail Town Council I. REQUEST The Vail Metropolitan Recreation District Board and Vail Town Council are jointly proposing an amendment to the Ford Park Master Plan. The amendment concerns the northeast area of Ford Park. Presently, the Master Plan indicates that this area should be developed for the aquatic facility with associated parking. All three softball fields would remain on the park. The existing 6 tennis courts on site would be removed to allow for the pool. When the plan was originally developed in 1984-85, the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District intended to establish Golden Peak as the tennis center for the community. For this reason, the • Board had informally agreed to the removal of 6 tennis courts at Ford Park. Due to changes at Golden Peak, the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District Board would like to relocate as many of their courts on public land as possible to ensure that they will be available to the public in the future. The applicants have developed a two-phase proposal for the northeast corner of the park. Phase One would allow for the 6 existing courts to remain on site. Two new tennis courts would be added to the east of the existing courts in the area of the snow dump. Two more courts would be located to the south of the existing western courts. These courts would be sunken and would serve as exhibition courts. A small tennis pro shop would also be located to the south of the existing courts. Parking would remain as is, with the east lot having approximately 145 spaces plus the existing west parking lot. The Vail Metropolitan Recreation District would like to locate the additional four courts on Ford Park this upcoming summer. Phase Twn of the amendment calls for locating the indoor amusement pool and the outdoor recreational paol on the eastern softball field. Two softball fields would remain • in the Master Plan given this design. Anew parking lot (117 cars) is proposed to the west of the pool area. Total . parking would equal 262 spaces. The bus turn-around would be located an the northeast corner of the pool building. A landscaped buffer would be located on the south side of the pool area to avoid conflicts with the Gerald R. Ford Amphi- theatre. II. BACKGROUND OF THE REQUEST The Vail Metropolitan Recreation District and Vail Town Council believe that this approach to the master planning for Ford Park makes better use of the existing amenities on site. Tt was felt that it was inappropriate to remove six existing courts from the park with the hope of rebuilding them somewhere else in the community. The Phase One plan allows for the existing courts to remain on site. The two boards also feel it is appropriate to locate public facilities on public land in order to avoid the pressures of private development. The VMRD also feels that 30 courts will be functional for tournaments and tennis camps. The aquatic facility has been scaled back to include the amusement pool, outdoor 50 meter recreational pool and support services. The deep pool has been removed from the proposal. The amusement pool requires an enclosure of approximately 24,000 square feet. Support space is • equivalent to 9,000 square feet. The outdoor recreation pool is 50 meters by 70 feet wide and varies from 4 to 7 feet in depth. Hot tubs and a tot pool are also proposed. The two boards believe that the pool facility and tennis are very compatible activities. The dining areas and locker rooms have the potential to be jointly used by softball players, tennis players, and swimmers. III. PUBLIC INPUT In February 1986, the Vail Town Council appointed a Swimming Task Force to study the issue of building a municipal swimming pool in Vail. A first-phase report was forthcoming in August of 1986. The Task Force concluded that a swimming pool was a valuable and desirable community asset. In particular, the Task Force recommended a multi- pool concept that would provide indoor and outdoor aquatic experience for training, competition and recreation uses. Emphasis was placed on designing a facility that could serve local residents and visitors. A second phase of research was commissioned which investigated the financial feasibility of the aquatic center, the level of community support for such a center, . and the experience of other communities in developing recreational pools. The Task Force completed this report in June of 1987. This planning process involved approximately four public meetings as well as many Task Force meetings. The Eagle County Recreation Action Plan also provided data from the Upper Eagle Valley survey and public meetings that indicated a swimming pool complex was a desired public improvement. The plan states, "A large indoor swimming pool appears to be the mast sought-after public facility in Eagle County." (Eagle County Recreation Action Plan, p. 2~.) Tn addition, the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District sponsored a meeting on September 21, 1988 to specifically discuss the aquatic facility and the amendment to the Master Plan. There were over 40 members of the community at the meeting. General support was expressed for the aquatic facility. Several softball players who attended the meeting expressed their concern that before the eastern softball field is lost, the Town should ensure that new fields are provided down valley. On November 17, 1988, representatives from the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District and Town Council had an informal meeting with people involved with sports and activities who may be affected by the amendment plan. Representatives from the softball, tennis, swimming, the alpine garden, and amphitheatre/Nail Valley Foundation were invited to attend this meeting. There was general support for the amendment and stronq support for the idea of working diligently on a down-valley softball field complex. TV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the Ford Park Master Plan. We believe that it is wise to utilize the existing 6 tennis courts at Ford Park and augment them in the future by adding an additional 4 courts. It is also a positive idea to combine tennis and swimming on the northeast portion of the park. The utilization of bath facilities will increase due to the close proximity of the two uses. The Vail Metropolitan Recreation District and Vail Town Council have expressed a strong commitment to work on the proposal to locate a softball field complex dawn valley. The Eagle County Recreation Task Force has determined that the softball complex is their primary issue. A Recreation Task Force meeting was held on November 18th. At this . meeting, it was decided that 3 sites would be studied in detail for their potential to serve as a softball complex for the upper Eagle Valley. Yn addition, the Task Force hopes to schedule a public meeting in January 1989 in Avon. The meeting would serve as a public forum for Eagle County Commissioners to hear public comment on the issue of the softball field complex. Staff believes that the Ford Park Master Plan amendment provides a workable relationship among the various recreational and cultural activities at Ford Park. Although the Master Plan drawings are only conceptual, staff believes that both swimming and tennis can be located on the northeast portion of the park in a way that will still allow for much needed parking and adequate buffer space among the various uses. Staff believes that a substantial buffer between the amphitheatre is very important. We believe this design consideration can be fully addressed when the final design drawings are completed for the poal if it is approved by the public. We feel strongly that it is good planning to locate as many of the tennis courts as possible on public land to ensure that they will be available for the community in the long term. A 10 court complex also solves the existing problem of running tennis camps and tournaments at a variety of valley locations. For these reasons, we recommend approval of the request to amend the Plan. Once the Planning Commission has reviewed this request, the proposal will be presented to the Town Council in the farm of a resolution. • Planning and Environmental Commission November 28, 1988 1:30 PM . Site Visits 3:00 Public Hearing ~. 1. A request for a rear setback variance for a residence on Lot 3, Casolar Vail Subdivision Applicant: Donald and Edward Gruidel 2. An appeal of a staff decision concerning a request to locate ski storage in a photo lab in Commercial Core I. Appellant: Bridge Street Photo Lab, Inc. • 2 3. A request to amend Special Development District 4 Area D to allow a micro-- brewery, office expansion, parking structure and residential units and a request for a conditional use permit to allow a micro-brewery on the Glen Lyon Office property. Applicants: Glen Lyon Office Building, Inc, 4. A request for two special meetings with the PEC for the discussion and review of the Vail Valley Medical Center Expansion Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center 3 5. A request to amend the Ford Park Master Plan to add an aquatic/tennis complex Applicant: Town of Vail and the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District 6. A request to amend Chapter 18,71 with regard to provisions under which additional GRFA (250 sf rule) is permitted. Applicant: Town of Vail • • Planning and Environmental Commission November 28, 1988 PRESENT Bryan Hobbs Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Vie1e STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Kristan Pritz Mike Monica Betsy Rosolack ABSENT Diana Donovan Pam Hopkins Grant Riva The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. ~.. A request for a rear setback variance for a residence on Lat 3, Casolar Vail Subdivision. Applicant: Donald and Edward Gruidel Betsy Rosolack explained the situation. She stated that this home was presently under construction and that the improvement survey showed that the building was 1.3 feet into the rear setback. Don Gruidel revealed that they were quite far along in construction and did not feel that their error had negative impacts. He added that he understood that if the home had been one foot into the setback, the staff could have approved the change. Jim Viele stated that the tolerance of one foot was a very generous one and that it was not the intention to encourage one faat errors. Peter reminded Mr. Gruidel that the required setback was 15 feat, not 14 feet. He added that the maximum amount of slack was one foot, so the violation was 1.3 feet. Sid agreed with Jim that 1.3 feet was a lot to give, but he felt that since it impacted only one property, he felt the board could give approval. J'im Viele then read a letter from the affected neighbor, Toger Anderson, who asked for "extensive" landscaping between his property and the Gruidels. Mr. Gruidel stated that he and his brather had met with Mr. Anderson and felt that his request was excessive. They felt that their error. was not affecting safety or view corridors. Bryan asked Mr. Gruidel if he would be willing to add some landscaping to the back of his hame, and Mr. Gruidel felt that they would be willing to do some landscaping. Bryan felt that the PEC needed some type of agreement that additional landscaping would be done. Peggy stated that she did not feel the Gruidels were in much of a bargaining position and that they needed to make some amends in the area of the invasion. Viele could not see an enormous impact on the neighbor, but felt that the Gruidels should be willing to make some effort with regard to landscaping. Jim suggested 4 or 5 trees. r Peter felt the staff could deal with the landscape plan, and Bryan suggested 3 aspen and 3 evergreens. Gruidel agreed. Bryan moved to approve the request subject to the approval by the staff of a landscape plan that included 3 aspen of 2" diameter and 3 evergreens 6' high or higher. Peggy seconded the motion and the vote was ~-0 in favor. 2. An appeal of a staff decision concerning a request to locate ski storage in a photo lab in Commercial Core T. Appellant: Bridge Street Photo Lab 20H Peter Patten explained that the staff had denied a request by the Bridge Street Photo Lab to have ski locker rentals as an accessory use to their photo lab business. The reason given by the staff to deny this request was that in their opinion the permitted and conditional uses for first floor or street level of the Commercial Core Z zone district did not allow this specific type of use. The staff felt that it was important to recognize the balance of the horizontal zoning controls in Vail Village in order to maintain a mix o£ use, and also to continue the retail dynamics of the first floor stare fronts. Scott Simons, owner of the store, agreed with Peter. He stated that he had decided to drop the request, but felt that customers of their store and others could leave their skis. He asked if it would be a problem to allow this type of short term storage. Peter asked Simons if it was his intention to withdraw any request for ski storage for people who were not Simons' customers, and Simons said that was correct. Peggy asked if Simons would charge his customers to leave their skis, and Simons replied that he would charge. Peggy stated that she was not in favor of a paid concession, and felt that charging a fee would then constitute a business. Peter emphasized that if Simons were to charge for ski storage, this then became a commercial ski storage and was not permitted on the first floor according to the zoning code. Simons stated that he would not volunteer free storage, and would charge those people who were not using his photo lab services, but not as long term. Viele said that this would not be practical to administer. Peter stated that he did not feel that the ski storage could be classified as an accessory use per the zoning code. Vieie was not comfortable with spot changes to the zoning without changing ali of Bridge Street, which would then become very controversial. Sid moved and Peggy seconded to uphold the staff decision, stating that this use would not be an accessory to the photo III ' PEC MINNT~S 11/28/88 ~• lab. The vote was ~-d to uphold the staff decision. • 3. A request to amend Special Development District 4, Area D to allow a micro-brewery, office expansion, parking structure and residential units and A request for a conditional use permit to allow a micro- brewery an the Glen Lvon Office property Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building, Tnc. Kristan Pritz summarized the requests per the very complete staff memos concerning the project. Beginning with the request for the amendment, she compared the proposed development to the Arterial Business zone District, stating that only in the areas of height, setbacks and landscaping were there any deviations. Kristan then reviewed the design criteria for Special Development Districts, stating that the proposal provided for significant upgrading of the existing development on the site, it provided for a mix of uses, and served as a transition zone between Lionshead and Cascade Village. Parking and loading was explained and a report by TDA Colorado concerning "Parking Demand Analysis and Parking Management Plan" was discussed. Kristan then explained how the. project conformed to applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and the Urban Design Plans and went an to discuss the applicable geological hazards. The memo also dealt with the site planning, circulation system, landscaping, and phasing of the work on the project. The staff recommendation was for approval of the amendment to Area D with the stipulation that the owner agree in writing to the following conditions which shall be recorded by the Town of Vail Clerk at the Eagle County Assessor's Office within 34 days after the Town Council's final approval of the SDD ordinance: 1. The owner shall agree to construct the bus shelter per Town of Vail standards. The bus shelter will be constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy far either the brewery addition, office expansion, east office building, or parking structure. 2. The owner shall relocate the bike path and provide a bike path easement across the Glen Lyon property and CDOH property. The bike path shall be constructed per Town of Vail standards. The bike path shall be constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for either ;;the brewery addition, office expansion, east office building, or parking structure. Such temporary . certificate of occupancy shall be conditional upon construction of the bike path provided for herein. < ~ • i 3. The owner shall provide an employee housing agreement for the two employee housing units in the east office building. This agreement shall be provided to the Town of Vail before a temporary certificate of occupancy is released for the two employee housing units or tha free market dwelling unit. The agreement shall include the same provisions as outlined in the employee housing agreement for Area A. 4. The parking and access to the property shall be managed per the TnA Parking Report, p. 6-7, August ~.0, 1988 by the owner of the property. 5. The owner shall underground the electrical utilities along the north side of the Glen Lyon property from the northwest corner of the property to the northeast corner of the property. This utility work shall be constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the brewery addition, office expansion, east office building or parking structure. The undergrounding of the utilities is contingent upon Holy Crass approving the work. 6. The 20 foot utility easement on the western portion of the property shall be relocated as well as approved by the Town of Vail before a building permit is released for the macro-brewery addition. 7.. The owner of the Glen Lyon Office property shall not file any remonstrance or protest against the formation of a local improvement district or other financing mechanism approved by the Vail Town Council which may be established far the purpose of building road improvements to the South Frontage Road. 8. The owner shall provide a fire hydrant per Town of Vail Fire Department requirements on the northwest portion of the property. The fire hydrant shall be provided subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for either the brewery addition, office expansion, east office building, or parking structure. The staff also recommended that the Design Review Board look at the following issues related to this project: 1. Pedestrian access from the east side of the structure to the east office building should be required. 2. The pedestrian path from the parking structure to the brewery entry should be located on Glen Lyon property. 3. One additional loading space should be provided for the • main office building in the parking structure. 4. Substantial landscaping should be planted adjacent to the north and south sides of th.e parking structure. Kristan then explained the request for the conditional use permit for the micro-brewery. Statements were read from the applicant's proposal describing the micro-brewery operations, including the fact that there would not be any tractor/trailers permitted at the brewery. Kristan then reviewed criteria and findings for a conditional use permit as wall as the environmental impact report. She also presented a letter to the board from CDOH concerning the South Frontage Road and traffic impacts. The staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. The owner shall provide a man-hole on the brewery service line to that the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District may monitor BOD strength. 2. The brewery management shall not operate the brewing process during temperature inversions. It shall be the brewmaster's responsibility to monitor inversions. 3. The trash compactar and trash storage area shall be . completely enclosed. The management of the brewery shall not allow any trash to be stored in an unenclosed area. 4. The owner of the property and brewery management shall agree in writing that semi-truck traffic to the Glen Lyon office site shall be prohibited. The only truck loading that shall be allowed to the site for the brewery or any other uses on the site will be vans having a maximum size of 22'. 5. The owner of the Glen Lyon Office property shall not file any remonstrance or protest against the formation of a local. improvement district or other financing mechanism which may be established for the purpose of building road improvements to the South Frontage Road. 6. The owner shall utilize protective measures during construction to prevent soil erosion into Gore Creek. Andy Norris, representing the applicant, stated that he felt an improvement to the South Frontage Road should be a joint effort including the applicant, CDOH, the Town of Vail and the other adjacent property owners. Peter Jamar, author of the EIR was also present. Peter Patten stated Andy that to not remonstrate as written in condition number 5 meant basically to agree to pay his share. C] Peggy asked where people would walk from the bus stop and Andy said the applicant would construct a path to connect the bus shelter to the brewery along the South Frontage Road. Peggy wondered who would know when there would be an inversion, and was told that it was the respsonsibility of the brewmaster to not brew during an inversion. Andy stated that this was water vapor, not pollution, and that the reason for not brewing during inversions was merely because of the odor created. Kristan stated that the brewmaster should set up a meeting with the Environmental Health Officer to discuss the inversion issue. She emphasized that it is ultimately the brewery's responsibility to not brew during inversions. Andy stated that the brewery could remove the odor by using device on the water vapor stack. Peggy felt that it was important to have as much landscaping as possible along the parking structure, Bryan felt that Peggy had covered all the important paints. Jim Viele refrained from commenting due to a conflict of interest. Peggy moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the requested amendment per the staff approval and with an added item for the DRB that there must be substantial landscaping along the parking structure. Bryan seconded the motion and the vote was 3 in favor, none against, with Jim abstaining. Peggy then moved to approve the conditional use request to allow the micro-brewery per the staff memo with an added condition #6 that states: The owner shall utilize protective measures during construction to prevent soil erosion into Gore Creek. Bryan seconded the motion and the vote was 3 in favor, none against, with Jim abstaining. Item 4, Vail Valley Medical Center was withdrawn. 5. A request to amend the Ford Park Master Plan to add an aquatic/tennis complex. - Applicants: Town of Vail and Vail Metropolitan, Recreation District. Kristan Pritz described the proposed change to the Ford Park Master Plan. It concerned the northeast area of Ford Park which presently was to be developed for an aquatic facility with associated parking. A11 three softball fields would remain on the park. The tennis courts would be removed to allow for the pool and be relocated at Golden Peak. With the changes at Golden Peak, the VMRD board wished to relocate as many of their courts on public land as passible to ensure that they would be available far the public in the future. Two phases were proposed. Phase One would allow far the existing 6 tennis courts to remain on site, and two new . courts added to the east of the existing 6 courts, and 2 more added to the south. The 2 south courts would be sunken and would serve as exhibition courts. Phase Two would locate the indoor amusement pool and outdoor recreational pool on the easternmost softball field, with 2 fields remaining. Anew parking lot would be constructed west of the pool area. The two boards felt that the dining areas and locker rooms had the potential to be jointly used by softball players, tennis players and swimmers. Kristan described the public input which had gone into the planning of a swimming pool and the work of the Swimming Task Force. Kristan explained that the project would be presented to Council as a resolution. Peter suggested looking at the swimming pool project as a separate phase, and that maybe in the future indoor courts, running track, weight lifting stations, etc. could be added. Peggy felt it was important to look ahead to potential expansion, and possible structured parking as well. Jim felt the plan responded to changes in Golden Peak and also provided some flexibility. Bryan Hobbs moved and Sid seconded approval of the amendment to the Ford Park Master Plan. The vote was 4-0 in favor. . 6. A request to amend Chapter 18.71 with regard to provisions under which additional GRFA (250 sf rule) is permitted. Applicant: Town of Vail Peter reminded the board of the joint session that they had attended with the Council to discuss this issue. The plan was to allow demolition/rebuild to qualify for the additional 250 square feet. Jay Peterson felt the ordinance did reflect what had been discussed at the joint session. Peggy moved and Sid seconded to recommend approval to the Town Council. The vote was 4-0 in favor. • T0; Planning and Environmental C~.~..,~ission . FROM: C~~«~~~unity Development Department DATE: November 28, 1988 SUBJECT: A request to amend Chapter 18.71 of the Vail Municipal Zoning Code regarding additional 250 square feet of GRFA. Applicant: Town of Vail 1. BACKGROUND Due to a recent appeal of a staff decision xelating to the additional 250 square foot ordinance, the Planning Commission and Town Council have directed the staff to prepare revisions to this chapter of the zoning code. The recent controversy related to whether or not complete demolition and the subsequent building of a new house qualified for an additional 250 square feet of GRFA. The staff decision to deny the application was upheld by both the Planning and Environmental Cammission and the Town Council, but there was sentiment expressed toward revising the ordinance to allow such proposals to qualify for an additional 250 square feet. • On October 25, 1.988, a joint meeting of the PEC/TC was held to discuss this ordinance change. The majority of PEC/TC members agreed that revisions to the ordinance should be made to allow demolition/rebuild projects to qualify for an additional 250 square feet under Chapter 18.71. That change (as found in revised 18.71.010 Purpose) is proposed as well as several other minor changes suggested by the Town Attorney and other members of the PEC/TC. Larry Eskwith felt that changes to the wording regarding individual dwelling units were necessary to be consistent with the definition section of the zoning code and has proposed rewording to refer to single family dwellings and dwelling units. Larry also felt that using the word, "building" rather than "structure" was more accurate in relation to the definition of "building" as found in the zoning code. The ordinance also would allow Mr. Chester to receive an additional 250 square feet due to proposed Section 18.71.050 allowing such proposals to now be approved under the revised ordinance. Finally, it was suggested that a multi-family project should be subject to additional landscaping and site reviews after a five year time period, and language to that effect has been proposed for 18.71.030 F. (p.4), II. EVALUATION OF CRITERIA FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE A. Suitability of Existing Ordinance. The 250 square foot ordinance has worked well for both the Town of Vail and the developers who have utilized it. The ordinance has certainly succeeded in addressing the very difficult issue of small GRFA additions which have no adverse impacts and provide significant building and site improvements in return. However, the issue of demolition/rebuild was never addressed in the ordinance and we feel that the issue now has received adequate discussion. We feel comfortable that demolition/rebuild should be allowed under the ordinance if, in return, the Town of Vail receives elimination of existing nonconformities relating to uses and/or development standards as proposed in 18.71.020 C. The staff does not feel that it is a necessity to offer the 250 square feet of additional GRFA in order to obtain the demolition/ rebuilds. We feel that this trend is only beginning in Vail and will continue in the higher-end neighborhoods without the offering of an extra 250 square feet. However, in our opinion, the 250 square feet is a reasonable trade-off to receive conformities in other important zoning standards such as setbacks, height, site coverage, parking, landscaping, etc. B. Is the amendment proposal presenting a convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives? Indeed, the original 250 square foot ordinance was conceived to accomplish the objective of allowing small additions to existing houses. While allowing an additional 250 square feet for a demo/rebuild project may confuse owners of vacant, unbuilt properties as to why they don't benefit, the Town will achieve the benefits of conformance to other development standards in the single family and duplex zone districts, The proposed amendments are consistent with Land Use Plan Policy 1.3 which states, "The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible." Also, Policy 5.1 appears to support allowing demo/ rebuilds: C: "Additional residential growth should continue . to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist." C. Does the amendment proposal provide for the growth of an orderly and viable cL~~~...unity? We feel that there revisions proposed viable community. is no conflict between the and the growth of an orderly and TTT. STAFF RECOMMENDATTON The staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the 250 square foot ordinance (Chapter 18.71} of the zoning code. We feel comfortable with allowing demo/ rebuilds to qualify for additional 250 square feet as long as the Town receives the trade-off of the elimination of any nonconforming uses and/or development standards in the process. The staff also feels that the other minor changes to the ordinance serve to clarify and strengthen the ordinance in general. One area for discussion is to require a limited time period after demolition to construct the new structure or lose the privilege of the additional square footage. Tn other words, is it reasonable to require the new building to be constructed within a year of when the building permit is issued or forfeit the additional 250 square feet (and the lot would revert back to regular zoning}? The Planning Commission decision will be a rec~,~LL~~endation to the Town Council on this zoning amendment. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 28, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a rear setback variance for a residence on Lot 3, Casolar Vail Subdivision Applicant: Donald and Edward Gruidel I. DESGRTPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Donald and Edward Gruidel are in the process of building a home on Lot 3, Casolar Vail Subdivision. The home has received building inspections up to, but not including, the framing inspection. Before a framing inspection is completed, the Community Development Department requires the owner to submit a site improvement survey to ensure that the building is constructed in the location that was designated in the building permit application. Upon inspection of the improvement survey, the staff determined that the home was 1.3 feet into the rear setback of 15 feet, making the rear setback 13,7 feet instead of 15 feet. The Gruidels are requesting a variance of 1.3 feet for the rear setback. This variance will allow them to keep the • house in its present location. The Casolar Homeowners Association has written a letter approving the change. This change would also require replatting the building envelope which can be handled at the staff level. Casolar Vail is zoned Residential Cluster. In 1978 the developers requested building envelopes with a variance from the minimum lot size. Included in their request was a letter which stated "... the plan is to create a concept that would not encroach on Residential Cluster approval received from the Town." That is, the developers were to honor development standards of Residential Cluster zoning. 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 requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. • Casolar Vail Subdivision consists of a series of building envelopes. Homes must be constructed within their respective building envelopes. In May of this • year, the applicants asked to change their building envelope, vacating a portion toward the rear of the lot and adding a portion toward the front of the lot. The adjustment to the envelope maintained the 15 foot rear setback. A revised plat was submitted with a letter of approval from the Casolar Homeowners' Association, and the change was approved by the staff. Other lots (building envelopes) in the vicinity also respect the 15 foot setback. Adjacent to the rear property line is a single family lot of approximately 15,60A square feet. The staff feels that the applicants were made aware of the importance of the 15 foot setback during the plat change and a second request to change the building envelope is not warranted, The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified requiation 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 of the process of changing the building envelope, the applicants were aware of the importance of • maintaining the minimum setbacks of the RC zone district. We realize this is most likely a construction error, but nevertheless is a self-created one. With this in mind, we cannot recognize a hardship here. 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 is a potential impact on the vacant property to the rear of this structure. The owner of that property has stated that he will agree to an approval of the request, but asked that if the PEC does give approval, that they condition it with a required landscape plan for the area between the home and the lot to the rear that would contain many large evergreens as well as several aspen trees. ZZZ. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VAIL'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Not applicable. IV. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. . V. FxN©xNGS 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 recommends denial of the requested rear setback variance. Staff is unable to determine that there is a physical hardship which warrants the approval of the variance due to the violation being self-created. We feel that to grant this request would be a grant of special privilege. • • P.O. Box 1534 Vail, CO 81658 November 8, 1988 Kristin Pritz - Town of Vail - - - 75 So. frontage Rd. W. Vail, CO $1658 Dear Kristin, Ft is my understanding that you have requested a letter from the Casolar Homeowners Assn. re.g.arding the fact that Don and Ed Gruidels house is about lz feet closer to the street than it was originally planned to be. The board of directors of Casolar has no objection to phis, and we will work Wirth the Gruidels to resolve this matter to give them a satisfactory legal description and clear title to their. property. • Tf you need anything else please feel. free to call meat 476- 0480. Sincerely, Casolar_ Homeowners Assn. ~~ f .~-~-~ Chris Neuswanger Secretary-Treasurer • _i Jp ~i~yvnrr~, ~hrM 1 SSrorl ,> r [,~~-1 C_. ~~-!l3 d~f UiS1 0•~~ f ~f~. ~~~t-5~~~ ~a~~ /`tee.. ~~ciu~-.s7' IS ~f/fr~'i ~/ 1~~. f~ilt~..~r~~ cvhS 5 ~.~r ~ ~~ ~"n~sTluc~roki, / f-F~ ~.~~~~~,b.r~~ `s Ca~r~'~~7`ct~ _ _< U ~/ T1~ ~ 1` ~ ~Gf L,4 % r ant ~1 ~~C~„ ~i L- / ~ Gf~~9B~E..~r,~J ~~-f7KJ'~J 1?J~4- r T~ ~L~ 1 ~~ ~~.' c j ~ ~,~5, ~u l ~k~~ ~ .~. ~~ • • • G , v °~ v mIn vc a V a C L ~ qr C b L +/ tl1 _'9 ~ O ~~O N Q UI ~ o a~icl c~ ~E ~ me ~ k' N~ m 7 Uf c ~. •~• o ~ h n n .° o .° o c as w L +~ o a 4 ~` L• kl eD Oo 00 o a. L c~. a m as a c ~ } I;~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ t x ~, ~ +•+ •« • 6 OIU Irt •r i.1 a Y N Gi G O ~ 4F ~l ~ ~ E ~ G W ~ +G Y~ q 1 G1 C 1; Q 4l lyl -J 1- F ar ~++y.CE aO O a4- C +~ ++ r ~ o +I t cn C +~ ~ . `c ~ ~ ~p - ~ w n a ro v- .a •r v •~ c c • w T•r L O N •r q r C t} ~ ~~ ~ ~ TL LN y,r } d W G a a N Z _ RSY.CL V n Y d g 0 ii (a RS +~ i+ a C L n ~ °~ ~ m . L EL O L a b~0 a .c L 1 W G~ 'I 97 O +~ C •r !ti V V O L U U L O+~O•ra X Llzd ' II ~ n ° O V b ^4~ as Oa N rC-i~ ~•K • C D1 C a L 'rJ ~ r- ~ al LrG V•r a a L o "^ ~ ro ~v E q q>~ o'c+~ uaro~a m aL i~ t1L aL c.c qc a C as E c L•r- p + > > y s. a V q o. rn s E + rn o a ~r } V a a x N n } Y » ., l ~" ~ a N +i w Y O G O ° %+ ~ ++ a n.c c a~ ~ t ~ c +s w m •.- ° r ~~ F, +~' ~ c'. 3 E++ aw q L C Vl a.l ~ q O N O L ? O~ ^ , .4 4-' ~ \ E i N 1n C Y as Y ~ to L •rv n V a LO r-• rv~ ^ C~.'~ : e : ' ; a~ L 0.E •r +~ b •.- a q c ro tl 6~ .' ti• L a L .- V d tll Y ••- O N O V l+r O.O d U vl q C ~ S. I C 1111 ~ IIIIIIIIIi11lUl" \ ~ ii ~ x a l ~ ~ i a i v i ro aai w~' a+ ~ ~ ~ axi a I \ . C ~~ Y Iv a~~v- ~a~m ~ v IJ L ~ ~ W \ ~ ~' E .J Y N r N ~ b W d 'tl G N a ° 'c o m a c° . m • c w a c o m g 4 \ ~l o o 'I \ ~ ~~ O \ W ~ w w $ \~~~ ~ \ ~ ~ p \ ~^ 2 Q ~ \ Wpm ~ q ~ _ 0 ~ I ti g6 \ ~ O ~+ •sr 3p,2' - = ' CAS od N ~s I ~ ~ w y ~~Rr~s m >$~ 'r '. ~. W ~ \ ~ ~ 1 ~~'~t ~.. m r.~ ~`° ' a a ? ~ O ~ o v 2 r \ ~ ~ N ~ K"'~ ` ~~\ ~ 1 'm ~ 5 p~pN7ER j \ ~ ~ .:E `°"'~~ ~~ ' ~ 3 L 9 •' 4 ~ h ,n 4 ~ ~ ~ ,N ~ d \ , w 4 ~ 1 `k7;a ~ ; 1 ~ •o~ \ w ' M1 , -~' 9C I N ~ t i C • CSC \ ` • ~ . ~~ L~ ,~~ ~` ~(Q /~~ D1 ~~ /rr ~~ ~ 'l V ~~ ~~r~~ 4~ N N~ YF~+ Lb L Wooooo0000000 ~•rO~~ , U O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ ya N G G C ~~moryQ~m~M~v~ a°~~rv ~a~+d ~ ^V~ bt ~ O C4-~V V N ~ d ° Caw Of +. R~~, Qi ~. 01 ~. a1 .~q .°-° ° c aN^ nf~Nn~V n~V ~~V~ ~ aa+Ai°1i T+ +~wros,aT ~I'] 0 M~ M 10 ~]lC nJ ~n]a] q cEE ln21n222222~n1nH voa'"r~'°~F x+,nl~almm~mmoF~ °utYtm~~u !-~ Cvro t~.cvc L d WaO1rcwaa~i~ ny+rL CN~I O C •r C L Z z a 3 ••• as ., y O ` ~ n O ~I ~Y a F+ ti L U ~`O QQQ~ ~ a ~ `4 J UO~ ZZ Z M~OV W ~ O ~ w +~qa ~~~~ •~ ~ •~ !~!. I~1 , M ~g 8n s" '$ ~~~~ Dw~ pain t ' E n ~~ C I E F i 1 A ~Z ~I N ,~, I .•o~ .i~ ~'d~ r ° +Y ! ~~7 ~~ ~ ! ~i /~N_/ 1 ~ 0 7 v- ~ { ~ ~ I\q} ., E F t`/\ o f .~.• r~ d b 1 ~ 4 O ~E;Q o j? W r ilx! ~y l',r. U 4 O~ ~_ 0 J ~ ~.: a ~ .s~~ as ~rs~ ~ ~~g4cv.ri e.r ti~ " }~~ ~s ~ ~ °~so w ° ~y ~x ~ .~~.. ~ ~,~~"z~8o u ~ ...,~ ,~a ~~~sWxa o~c^ ~ ~~ ' o ° ~ o o " o ~ "~ ° ry H ~ m ~ ~ c..a°w o- uo~ ° ~ sN~~g~ffi ~'s sou: ~~~ ~s~ra ~~ ~~~~~~ •~ ~ d ~s ~~_ ~ e Y \ ~"'o~ ~ ~ ~ ~8 53zE3a ~ ~\ ' d \ ~O ~\~\ ~N \ \ ~, '~ ~° •o ~ / \\ ¢\ \~ i ~ ,~ t i ~ 5 ~~ ~~\ ~~ ~ s'1` G ~ ~ \ p` ~ I` ~ ~ ~0 ~ .~ ~. °a / ~ ~\ ~\ ~rl / 9 ~Qw n0 U T ~ ii\'1" o ~ ~o ',: ' ~ ~~ ~ ~i " t - r ~ ,.: n *e ~yi x 1 n mN~ ~' S~ ~' Y' r D/ T •I0~ ql ~~ ~~ ~~ `~` 3 3~i~v ~~S~NtrS I'~ ads ~~M \ ~ n °\\ ~'s a ~ 00 ~ \ ~ ~ ~ i e~ m M~-pct N -"' -" - "be~ae ni4rv:na:oo rT 1 un°o °n od°o°a °no~ea K TT mmNTNn 0o0 FN N N-~ w O :7 _ ~ %% ~ ;s Mb`s ~u~ ~"°~~ ow ~d~~n .~vti~o w~~~so sdd~ ~ ~~ ~°~dW~` ss~ga 3.~ ~ owes c ~ ~~ as ~~~ ~~.~ ~~a awl ~w~~p oR ° r~ q &~~~~~~~a ~b~Wm "`~ti3 LP° ~ s"sa~,~:. x~~a ssswxmsrexw zn ~~~e ~a.~.i~ H. ... morvn NnNn Nn NN mm414wmN mNm NN zzmmmmmzmrm H+~NNYla0 hm m0~ J m N a ~~e~^ a ~ a ~° s `~i ~ ~ ~dt s ~3 g~~ ~Ya~r ~~:~_ ~445~ ~.:~ °E a ~~~. iCv yc ~'~ ~ ~ `~' 2 ~~ >`mv ~u Qi A tl ~ ~~ Y a ~ B F `a o`~, `og"' o~io r~r~ q~w "°`~8~ ~~ w ~iC LNa u ~- ~ aR~S~ ,` _:. --f t I 4 To: Planning and Environmental Commission FRoM: Community Development Department DATE: November 28, 1988 SUBJ: Appeal of an administrative decision regarding Bridge Street Photo Lab Appellant: Bridge Street Photo Lab, Inc. Section 1.8.6&.030 of the Vail Municipal Code details the appeal process regarding administrative actions. Any decision made by the zoning administrator may be appealed to the Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance with this chapter. The Bridge Street Photo Lab is a new business that is located between the Rucksack and the A & D Building, The shop is a 1200 square foot space and the proposed principal use of the space is for a retail film developing lab. As an accessory use to the photo lab, the applicant wishes to utilize a portion of the space for commercial ski and boot locker rental. The Community Development Department has denied the applicant this use. It is our opinion that the permitted and conditional uses for first floor or street level of the C~.,~.~~ercial Core I zone district do not allow this specific type of use. A camera store and photographic studio is an allowed use in CCI. A ski • shop is also allowed, but there is no specific allowance for commercial ski and boot storage and lockers. There are several ski and boot locker rental facilities within the CCI zone district, one in the basement of the Golden Peak House, in the basement of the Hill Building, and in the basement of the Wall Street Building. These uses have been approved and are allowed as an accessory to a ski shop and as a personal service business on the basement or garden level. The Community Development Department feels that the use of street level retail space for commercial ski and boot lockers is not consistent or similar to the other conditional or permitted uses allowed on street level. Maintaining ski and boot storage for employees of the business or even temporary ski and boot storage for customers of the business would be interpreted as an accessory use to the photo lab. The staff does not feel, however, that seasonal. locker rentals or weekly or monthly locker rentals is an accessory use to a photo lab and should not be a permitted use on street level. Commercial ski storage is certainly a guest service and a use that we want to encourage within the care areas. At the same time, we feel that it is important to recognize the balance of the horizontal, zoning controls in Vail Village. Office space and personal service uses do not provide the dynamic retail store fronts that we feel is important to the character of the r1 ti Village and Lianshead areas. These uses are allowed on the basement level and second floor. In order to maintain these uses in the core areas and at the same time maintain the retail dynamics of the first floor store fronts, we would encourage this type of use, if it is truly an accessory use for employees and Photo Lab customers, not as a long term commercial rental facility, We feel that long term c~......ercial ski and boot storage facilities are not appropriate for first floor and encourage the Planning C~„E„~~„~ission to uphold our decision. C. BRIDGE. STREET PHOTO LAB, INC. 288 Bridge Street • Vail, Colorado 81657 (303 ) 4'76--7366 November 18, 1988 Town of Vail, Department of Community Development Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Kristen et al: Bridge Street Photo Lab, Inc. is a new business, primarily fcacused on providing quick, high quality photo finishing and service to residents and guests of the Vail Valley. In order to Provide bettor service and convenience for our customers, we have decided to install a small facility-for storage of skis and boots in our retail space. After' nearly completing construc- tion on this project, we discovered that Vail has zoning restric- tions prohibiting ski storage in shops an Bridge Street. We feel. that ski storage would be an important Factor in our success as a business and would also benefit the guests of Vail, as well as all other shops and restaurants in the Vail Village. Our experience and market research indicates that the primary attraction of a "mini--lab" such as ours is convenience. Con- venience is the single most important factor influencing a Gusto-- mer's decision to utili2e a 1-hour photo lab. We hour; therefore . attempted to make Bridge Street Photo Lah as convenient and accesible as possible. The location on Bridge Street was a mayor consideration in this respect, steps from the Vista-Rahn and convenient to many restaurants and shops. The only ma.~or i_nc;nnvanience to visiting Bridge street Photo Lab, ar indeed to shopping Bridge Street in general, is the difficulty of finding a secure place to leave -awkward ski equipment. We seek to alleviate this problem by creating a very small storage facility in our shop. We have built an eight-.foot square rack far hanging skis and poles and a small one--by-eight foot set of shelves for boots in the very back of our store. In all, this construction represents only 6`0 of our total floor area (120Q square feet). Much thought went into this design to make it efficient. and unobtrusive. We intend to offer ski storage for our customers, either free or at minimal cost while their film is being processed. In addition we would like to offer ski storage during the day and aver•night at reasonable cast far anyone, whether a photo-finishing custo- mer or not. We feel the chance to ski down, drop off ~ uipment and film with us, then .peruse the other fine shops and restau- rants of the Vail Village unencumbered by gear while waiting for photos to be processed, would be welcomed by many visitors to Vail. Without this convenience we feel we will lose many potential clients. Proprietors of other shops nearby agree that . our ski storage should benefit them as well by increasingtraffic. Other research and events further sugclest a need fUr ski equip- -~-pa9e two--- ment storage nn Br:i.dge Street. First, there are ether shops currently offering •sim filar service (i.eJ.Vaii Ski Rentals). Employees have told us they are often filled t~ capacity and have waiting lists .for lcang-term,"season-pass" storage. Before we learned of zoning restrictions, we received a number of eager ca115 responding to nur own small classified ad i,n the "Vail Daily." Past experiE~nce also su~xgests that the few coin-operated ski lockers scattered around the Village are often filled tc~ capacity. Even if a space can be found in these lockers, they offer little security For expensive ski wear, and offer no op- ticn for boat storage. Without a dcaubt there is a great demand fnr good, convenient, secure ~ storage far ski equipment on Bridge Street. In summary, we feel there are many reasons our small storage area would benefit not only us in cur unique business, but also other businesses nearby, as well as the guests and residents who frequent the Vail Village. Frankly, we can think of no reason wt~y ski storage should be restricted on Bridge Street. Because of the vital importance of the convenience factor for our busi- ness, we recxuest special cr>n.siderati,an in this matter, or, better yet, removal of the ski storage restrictions From the zoning codes altogether. We thank yc~u in advance for your time in considering our re- quest. • Sincerely, ' / ~.~ =a -. ~, ~,~~~yrt1~.(+Vc~ r~ L~~ f f Board of Directors, Bridge S t reef Photo i.ab , I nc . . . T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 28, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow a micro- brewery on the Glen Lyon Office property in Special Development District 4, Area D. Applicants: Glen Lyon Office Building, Inc., A Colorado Partnership T. DESCRTPTTON OF PROPOSED USE The applicants are requesting to Glen Lyon Office property within 4 Area D. The underlying zoning Business. Recently, the Arteria amended to allow micro-breweries micro-brewery is defined as: build a micro-brewery on the Special Development District for Area D is Arterial ~ Business District was as a conditional use. A Section 18.04.253 Micro-Brewery A mixed use commercial operation that processes water, malt, hops, and yeast into beer or ale by mashing, cooking, and fermenting that shall also include an on- site public restaurant and/or bar which sells the beer and ale produced on site. The maximum brewing capacity shall be 7,500 barrels per year. A barrel is equivalent to 31. gallons. The micro-brewery use shall not exceed 8,000 square feet of floor area, excluding enclosed areas for loading, trash and delivery. The public restaurant and/or bar shall have a minimum seating area of 2,000 square feet and shall be excluded from the total micro-brewery maximum square footage limit. The actual micro-brewery expansion has a total gross square footage of 17,600 square feet with a production capacity of 7,500 barrels per year. Specific uses within the brewery expansion include: Brewhouse: Beer hall: Brew Pub: Retail: Museum: Admin. Offices: Employee lockers: • Loading: Additional house for 6,600 5q ft 1,774 sq ft 1,858 sq ft 44 6 sq ft 415 sq ft 700 sq ft 296 sq ft 685 sq ft sq ft for common areas, storage, and back of restaurant uses The brewery expansion will be built onto the west end of existing Glen Lyon Office building. An enclosed loading area is located on the northeast corner of the building. ports cochere drop-off area is also provided on the north side of the building. A dining deck extends off of the southwest corner of the building. The developer is also the A proposing to build a new bus stop and re-align the bike path. The following statements have been taken from the applicants' proposal describing the micro-brewery operations. "The brewery will operate its warehousing and storage facilities off-site. Raw materials and finished goods will be transported to and from the brewery in smaller trucks (maximum length of 22 feet). Tractor trailer operations will be located at the off site warehouse. The distributor for the brewery will pick up finished goods in a tractor/trailer at the warehouse. No tractor/trailers will be permitted at the brewery. The Vail brewery has a completely different program than the Boulder brewing company. Boulder is producing in excess of 9,000 barrels per year, 90% of which is being bottled (112,000 cases). Boulder distributes into 34 states, thereby creating a large commitment to small quantity trucking. Less than 2% of Boulder's production is consumed on premise. Boulder requires its malt in bulk loads of 40,000 pounds requiring a silo for storage. The Vail brewery will produce about 7,500 barrels per year. Approximately 35o will be consumed on premises. 10,000 to 15,000 cases of beer will be bottled per year. The remaining will be kegged for distribution to Eagle County, Summit County and the Front Range. Vail expects to have only one distributor, Murray Distributing of Denver, who will pick up the finished product from the Minturn warehouse. Vail Ale will sell only in Colorado. For a brewery, bottling requires the greatest storage for bath packaging material and finished product. Vail will minimize its bottling activity to approximately 15% of production. Lastly, Vail will acquire its malt in 50 and 100 lb bags. Tractor/trailer loads will be stored in Minturn and delivered in brew-size quantities to the brewery in van-size trucks." (Memo Andy Norris Sept. 14, 1988) II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the CL.~u~~unity Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factor: 2 Consideration of Factors: A. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town, The purpose section of the Arterial Business zone district reads as follows: Section 1.8.29.010 "The Arterial Business District is intended to provide sites for office space, public utilities, service stations, limited light industry, having no adverse environmental impacts that provide significant on-site tourist amenities, and limited shopping and c~,~„~~ercial facilities serving the Town and Upper Eagle Valley residents and guests. Multiple family dwellings far use as employee housing will be appropriate under certain circumstances. Arterial Business District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to permitted and conditional types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient {limited) shopping, business, service, and residential environment." The Environmental Impact Report has established that the micro-brewery use does not have any significant negative environmental impacts. It is also considered to be a compatible limited light industrial use that provides tourist amenities on site such as the restaurant/bar, museum, retail shop, and brewery tours. Staff believes that the use is compatible with the business and office uses presently allowed in the Arterial Business zone district. Due to the fact that the micro--brewery use has such a great potential to become a major guest attraction, staff feels that the use is very supportive of development objectives of the Town. B. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The Environmental Impact Report has provided information for staff to determine that the use does not have any significant impacts on these factors. • C. 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. The Environmental Impact Report has indicated that the additional traffic due to the micro-brewery use will not necessitate any improvements to the South Frontage Road, given Colorado Division of Highway requirements for safe ingress and egress. The proposal has positive impacts on traffic and safety. The applicant will provide a bus shelter on the western side of the property. A relocated bike path with less slope will be more easily accessible for pedestrians and cyclists. D. 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. As was described in the memo concerning the amendment to Special Development District #4 for Area D, the expansion for the micro-brewery will up-grade the appearance of the existing Glen Lyon Office site. The new architecture and revised site plan will be a great improvement to this property which should in turn have • positive effects upon surrounding properties. III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The applicant has submitted an Environmental Impact Report for the micro-brewery use. The report was completed by RBD Engineering Consultants and Jamar Associates. RBD has analyzed the potential impacts from the micro-brewery having a capacity of 7,500 barrels per year. The following paragraphs are taken from the Environmental Impact Report and summarize the types of potential impacts that were studied for the proposal: "A. Natural Features Drainage of the parking garages will be designed in a manner which will collect all silt and oil discharges that might occur. Due to the proximity of Development Area D to Gore Creek, extra precaution should be taken during construction in order to prevent soil erosion into the creek. B. Water The increased water demand is a result of the increased increment of commercial square footage and, most 4 significantly, the micro brewery. Total water required for maximum production per year would be 1,395,000 gallons, or approximately 4.298 acre feet. Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District has provided the Town staff with a letter stating that they have no problem with the production of 7,500 barrels annually. C. Waste Water It is proposed that the 1,162,500 gallons per year or 96, 875 gallons per month will be required to be treated by the Upper Eagle Valley Water Sanitation District. The EIR also identifies biological oxygen demand as a second concern related to waste water. BOD is a measurement of the strength of the waste water and therefore a measurement of the magnitude of the treatment prior to releasing back into the stream. The Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District may want to require a manhole on the brewery sewer service line so that they can sample BOD. At the end of the brewing process, a solid product consisting primarily of spent grain results. These solids are strained or filtered off in deep water by equipment contained within the brewery. They are • collected in a hopper and routinely picked up in a vehicle the size of a pickup and sold for beneficial use such as cattle feed. D. Air Omissions and Odor During the winter months, temperature inversions may occur in the Vail Valley. The best information indicates that a strong inversion that sets up well and continues through the night could occur from 6 to 12 times per year... To be more specific, an inversion, if it is going to occur, would begin to develop around 3:30 in the afternoon and be fully developed in approximately 2 hours. Tt will continue through the night, start to clear out around 8:00 in the morning and will be totally dissipated in approximately 1-1/2 hours. In discussions with various agencies in Boulder where a micro-brewery exists, there have never been complaints registered regarding stack emissions. Odors are similar to those of baking bread because of the malt and are very weak. With the brewery stack designed as an architectural element of the building at a height of the surrounding ridge lines and care not to begin a brewing process during an identified temperation inversion, emissions should go undetected. • E. Loading and Delivery The brewery includes a fully enclosed loading dock. It has been sized to accommodate two 22-foot unit trucks, which is the maximum size in Vail for vendor deliveries. The loading area also includes the spent grain trailer. A trash compactor is included in a fully enclosed outdoor area. The distributor for the brewery will pick up finished goods in a tractor/trailer at the warehouse in Minturn. No tractor/trailers will be permitted at the brewery. F. Noise The major sources of noise are anticipated to be the bottling phase of operations and the process of loading and delivery of kegs, bottles, and other brewery supplies as well as the pick up of the solid waste which results as a by-product of the brewing process. The bottling operation is proposed to be totally enclosed and therefore will not produce noise external to the building. The loading dock is within the envelope of the building . and has large operable sound proof doors which will be closed before, during, and after loading operations to eliminate any potential noise problems resulting from either delivery of supplies or pick up of product and solid waste. G. Visual Conditions. The redevelopment of the Glen Lyon office Building will significantly upgrade the architectural character of the site and will integrate the overall theme and character of the entire Cascade Village to include Area D. SDD4 is not located within any designated view corridor of the Town of Vail. H. Land Use Conditions stated in Section ITI of the SDD memo, the proposal supports Land Use objectives of the Town of Vail. The proposed micro-brewery meets the Town's objectives of improving and enhancing year-round tourism. As was X. Circulation and Transportation U "Per the State Highway Department access code, left turn storage lanes at either access drive would not be warranted for highway peak hours volumes and posted 25 . MPH speeds. Aright-turn deceleration lane at the parking deck access would be marginally warranted. An acceleration lane far right or left turns out of the parking structure would not be warranted. Site topography and Town landscaping requirements appear to preclude right turn deceleration Sane construction in the space available. Most intersections along South Frontage Road in the 25 MPH speed zone do not have deceleration lanes. Hence, the absence of a deceleration lane at the parking structure entrance would be compatible with driver expectancy. The new porte cochere front door drop-off lane would operate as a one-way drive entering from the west and exiting to the east. The left turn DVH, six vehicles would not warrant a left turn deceleration lane. Right turn speed change lanes into or out of the porte cochere drive are not warranted because of the low design hour volume. Any widening should be done as a complete project for the entire business district and not as a series of separate, independent projects to avoid serpentine alignment of through travel lanes." (TDA Report, Nov. 16, 1988) Staff Comment: It is our understanding from CDOH that they also believe the proposal does not generate enough additional traffic to warrant specific changes to the Frontage Road. Staff believes that it will be mare effective to address South Frontage Road improvements through a comprehensive improvement district. The Town of vail Public Works Department and CDOH also concur that a comprehensive improvement district approach will be mare effective. J. Parking This issue has been fully addressed in the amendment memo concerning Area D. K. Population Characteristics The micro-brewery will require the following full-time equivalent employees. Full-Time Equivalent Function Employees Brewery Administration 6 Brewery Operation 3 - 5 Brew Pub, Banquet Facility 40 TOTAL 49 - 51 L. Staff Summary of the Environmental Impact Report The Environmental Impact Report indicates that there are no substantial negative environmental impacts due to the brewery. The staff does feel that the following points should become conditions of approval. The ETR has indicated that although minor, these points should be addressed. 1. The owner shall provide a man-hole on the brewery service line so that the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Water and Sanitation District may monitor BOD strength. 2. The brewery management shall not operate the brewing process during temperature inversions. It shall be the responsibility of the Brewmaster to monitor inversions. 3. The trash compactor and trash storage area shall be completely enclosed. The management of the brewery shall not allow any trash to be stored in an unenclosed area. 4. The owner of the property and brewery management agree that semi-truck traffic to the Glen Lyon office site shall be prohibited. The only truck loading that shall be allowed to the site for the brewery ar any other uses on the site will be vans having a maximum size of 22'. 5. The owner of the Glen Lyon office property shall agree in writing to participate in a special improvement district or other type of financing mechanism approved by the Town Council if formed for the purpose of building road improvements to the South Frontage Road. IV. 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 The staff recommends approval of the micro-brewery request, The micro-brewery meets the square footage limits described in the definition. The brew house area is approximately 6,600 square feet. The brewery area capacity is limited to 8,000 square feet. The Environmental Impact Report has indicated that there are no significant environmental impacts due to the project. in addition, the use meets all of the conditional use criteria. Staff recommends approval of this request with the following conditions: The owner shall agree in writing to the following conditions which shall be recorded by the Town of Vail Clerk at the Eagle County Assessor's office within 30 days after Town Council's final approval of the SDD ordinance. The time period may be extended if approved by Town of Vail staff. 1. The owner shall provide a man-hole on the brewery service line so that the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District may monitor BOD strength. 2. The brewery management shall not operate the brewing process during temperature inversions. It shall be the brewmaster's responsibility to monitor inversions. 3. The trash compactor and trash storage area shall be completely enclosed. The management of the brewery shall not allow any trash to be stored in an unenclosed area. 4. The owner of the property and brewery management shall agree in writing that semi-truck traffic to the Glen Lyon office site shall be prohibited. The only truck loading that shall be allowed to the site for the brewery or any other uses on the site will be vans having a maximum size of 22'. 5. The owner of the Glen Lyon Office property shall not file any remonstrance or protest against the formation of a local improvement district or other financing mechanism which may be established for the purpose of building road improvements to the South Frontage Road. • 9 6. The owner shall utilize protective measures during ,_ construction to prevent soil erosion into Gore Creek. • • n 10 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 28, 1988 SUBJ: Request to Amend Special Development District No. 4, Area D, Glen Lyon office site to allow a micro- brewery, office expansion, parking structure, and residential units. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building, Inc., a Colorado Partnership I. SUMMARY OF REQUESTS FOR AREA D, GLEN LYON OFFICE SITE The applicants are requesting approval to amend the Special Development District 4, Area D, development plan. The amendments include: 1. Brewery Addition: The brewery addition is approximately 17,600 square feet of gross floor area. The building connects to the west end of the existing Glen Lyon office building. The addition is 3 stories high and includes the following uses: Brewing Area: 6600 sq. ft. Pub: 1,858 sq. ft. Beer Hall: 1,774 sq. ft. Retail: 446 sq. ft. Museum; 415 sq. ft. Brewery office: 700 sq. ft. The building also has a new deck area which extends down to the bike path adjacent to the creek. A drop off is proposed at the entry to the brewery and is located on Highway right-of-way. 2. Expansion to Existing Office Building: An additional 2,400 square feet of office space would be added to the Glen Lyon Office Building. The new office area is located on the west end of the existing building. ~J 3. Parking Structure: A two-level parking structure (140 spaces) is proposed to be built directly to the east of the Glen Lyon Office Building. The vehicular access to the property would be moved further to the east according to the Arterial Business District Circulation and Access Plan. The Frontage Road view of the parking structure would be screened by a berm along the entire length of the north elevation. The south side (or creek side) of the structure would remain open. The east building has 3 garage spaces and 5 surface spaces. Total parking provided on site is 108. 4. East Building: Two alternative development scenarios are proposed for this area. Alternative A provides for a 5,725 square foot office building. Alternative B includes 2,400 square feet of office space plus one free market dwelling unit having 1,530 square feet as well as two employee housing units, at 795 and 900 square feet. The exterior of the building remains the same under either alternative. 5. Bike Path: The developer i5 proposing to relocate the bike path further to the west in order to decrease the steepness of the path. The relocated path also allows more open space between the bike path and dining patio. 6. Bus Shelter: The developer has proposed to build a new bus shelter along the Frontage Road to the west of the Glen Lyon property. The structure is actually on Colorado Division of Highways right-of-way. The Town of Vail would be responsible for maintaining the structure and for providing bus service. 7. Undergroundinq of Utilities: The developer is proposing to underground the Holy Cross electrical lines that extend along the north side of the property adjacent to the South Frontage Road. • 2 II. COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO THE ARTERIAL BUSINESS ZONE DISTRICT A. BACKGROUND ON GLEN LYON PROPERTY . In 1976, Special Development District #4 was established. The Arterial Business Zone District was adopted in March of 1982. Arterial Business zoning serves as the underlying zone district for the Glen Lyon Office property. Technically, the property is still within Special Development District #4. However, the Arterial Business Zone District (ABD) is used in respect to determining allowable uses and general site development standards. When the Special Development District was originally established, the development plan called for 10,000 square feet of office space. The nffice building was constructed in 1979-84 with a gross area of approximately 13,000 square feet. In March of 1982, the PEC and Town Council approved an amendment to the SDD which allowed approximately 3,000 square feet of existing storage within the building to be converted to office space. In 1983, a request was also approved by the Planning C~,~~x~~ission and Town Council to allow the total gross area of the building to be 25,000 square feet. Of this 25,000 square feet, 1.8,750 square feet was considered to be net floor area for office. The remainder of the area was devoted to common area such as mechanical, lobby areas and corridors. The 1983 request also included a change to the front setback. The front setback would be adjusted from 20 feet to 15 feet. This request was approved by the PEC with two conditions. The first was that "the bike path, right turn and left turn lanes shall be provided in accordance with the Circulation and Access Plan for the Arterial Business zone district with the stipulation that the funding be worked out within a period of 60 days after the approval, and that no building permit would be issued until the funding was worked out." The second condition stated that the applicant "shall agree to sharing in the cost of providing an additional fire hydrant within the vicinity as required by the Vail Fire Department." (PEC Minutes; January 20, 1983) In March of 1986 the developer requested to extend the expired approval for Development Area D. This request was also approved. Tn April of 1986 the Glen Lyon Office Building partnership requested a minor subdivision of the Glen Lyon Office • • • Building property. The concept was to divide the 1.8 acre site into two parcels so that ownership could be divided prior to construction. The development would be limited to the approved development plan for the parcel. This request was also approved by the PEC. However, the minor subdivision plat has not been finalized and recorded with the County by the applicant. B. ARTERIAL BUSINESS ZONING COMPARED TO PROPOSED SDD The ABD zoning provides a guide for the level of development on the site. Below is a summary of how the proposal compares to the requirements of the ABD district. ABD District Requirements Proposed SDD 1. SETBACKS Side: 15 feet if the building is less than 20 feet high; 20 feet if the building is greater than 20 feet high. Side: All of the project meets the 20 foot side setback except far the northwest corner of the building which is 15 feet from the property line. Rear: 10 feet Front: 15 ft = 420 l.f. 60% 20 ft = 284 l.f. 40% Parking Structure: No setback for underground parking Centerline of Gore Creek: 50 ft stream setback from centerline of Gore Creek Rear: The dining deck extends up to the property line. Front: 2 ft ~ 20 l.f. 35 % (entry) 4 ft = 210 l.f. 30% (struct) 10 ft = 87 l.f. 12% 15-18 ft = 40 l.f. 6% 20 ft + = 343 if 49% Parking Structure: The parking structure maintains a 4 ft front setback and a a 10 ft setback along the south property line. Centerline of Gore Creek: The parking structure encroaches 8 ft into the stream setback. 2. HEIGHT 700 = roof 32 to 40 ft. 30% = roof under 32 ft Minimum roof slope aft in 12 ft. 3. DENSITY GRFA - 34,578 s.f. Maximum of 33 D.U.s 4. SITE COVERAGE: 60% of total site area = 45,678 sq ft 5, FLOOR AREA RATIO: Maximum allowed, .75 • 6. PARKING AND LOADING: No loading or parking is allowed in the front setback 5 54~ = roof 32 ft to 40 ft 46% = roof under 32 ft * a very small portion of the roof (approx. 20 sq ft} is 41 feet high. GRFA = 3325 s.f. 3 units of which 2 are restricted employee units 16,100 sq ft = buildings 12,600 sq ft - structure 28,700 sq ft total or 38% site coverage .52 Proposed Bldg, 16,644 sf Existing bldg, 16,800 sf East Bldg, 6,000 sf Total, 39,444 sf 39,444 = .52 76,130 Project has loading and drop-off areas in the front setback. The parking structure extends into the stream and front setbacks 100 structured spaces 3 garage spaces 5 surface spaces • 7. LANDSCAPING: 25~ of the total site or 60~ approx. {excludes 19,032 sq ft buildings, ramps, drives and structure) C. SUMMARY The proposed development plan departs from the Arterial Business District standards in the areas of setbacks, stream centerline setback, height, and parking and loading. Staff's opinion is that the setback differences are warranted due to the narrow width of the property, the steep slopes and large evergreens on the south side of the lot, and the constraints of the 50 foot stream centerline setback. The applicant has designed a building that is dramatically below the allowable FAR and site coverage for the property. These encroachments are slight, especially when one also considers that structured parking has been located on the property. The small area of the roof which is at a height of 41 feet is insignificant. The project has been designed to work with the existing slope of the lot. Staff believes that the architects have done an admirable job of fitting the development in a sensitive manner onto the property. It should be emphasized that the roof actually has a greater • area under 32 feet than is required by the Arterial Business zone district. The ABD zoning does not allow loading or parking in the front setback unless the parking is in an underground structure. Staff believes that it is reasonable to allow loading in the front setback for this project, as the loading area is completely enclosed. The drop-off area on Colorado Division of Highways property appears to be acceptable to the Colorado Division of Highways engineers. Tt is felt that these differences from the ABD zoning are acceptable and will not create any negative impacts on the Frontage Road. Structured parking is positive. Allowances must be given for parking in the front setback due to the narrow width of the lat. Staff's opinion is that the differences between the SDD and ABD zoning standards are minimal and acceptable. III. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGN CRITERIA 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 to demonstrate that one or more of them are not applicable or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. A. DESIGN COMPATIBILITY AND SENSITxVITY TO THE IMMEDIATE ENVIRONMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES RELATIVE TO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, SCALE, BULK, BUILDING HEIGHT, BUFFER zONES, IDENTITY, CHARACTER, VISUAL INTEGRITY AND ORIENTATION. The proposal provides for a significant upgrade of the existing development on this site. The new style of architecture which utilizes stucco, metal roofs, patios and balconies similar in style to Cascade Village will establish a visual connection with the Glen Lyon property. The ABD floor area ratio (FAR) allows for 57,097 s.f. The proposal calls for a FAR of 39,444 s.f. Site coverage is also below the maximum of 60~. The plan has a 38~ coverage which includes the parking structure. The density on the site is drastically below what is allowed under the Arterial Business District. Standard zoning would allow for a 34,578 square feet of GRFA with a maximum of 33 dwelling units. The proposal includes 3,325 square feet of GRFA and three units. Two of the units will be restricted as employee housing units. The building has been designed so that it is built into the site. This design approach dramatically decreases the scale and bulk of the building. This site has very steep slopes on the southern portion of the property. In addition, the property has a very narrow width which presents a difficult design problem. Even given these constraints, the project in most areas meets all of the ABD requirements. Staff's opinion is that the proposal greatly improves this property in respect to quality of architecture and sensitive site planning. The project should have a positive impact on adjacent properties. B. USES, ACTIVITY AND DENSITY WHICH PROVIDE A COMPATIBLE, EFFICIENT AND WORKABLE RELATIONSHIP WITH SURROUNDING USES AND ACTIVITY. The project provides a mix of uses which is efficient and workable with the surrounding area. The combination of the brewery, bar and restaurants, office, and residential uses will serve as a transition zone between Lionshead and Cascade Village--two guest oriented areas of the community. The micro-brewery with its ability to become a guest attraction will be a unique and compatible use for this area. 7 It is also positive that the employee housing use will be located on the site. Under ABD zoning, only employee housing units are allowed to be built. However, a special development district must work with the types of uses listed in the underlying zone district. The SDD allows for flexibility as to whether these units are employee housing units or free market units. If this project was not utilizing the SDD process, the 3 dwelling units would all be required to be employee housing unit. C. COMPLIANCE WITH PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED IN SECTION 18.52. The Town of Vail parking and loading standards do not address a micro-brewery use. In order to address the specific parking demand of the proposed development for Area D, the applicant submitted a report entitled, "Parking Demand Analysis & Parking Management Plan," prepared by TDA Colorado, Znc. (August 10, 1988), Below is a brief summary of the points made in the study by TDA: 1. Parking Demand Parameters "For parking demand analysis, we are interested in the number of vehicles expected during "peak accumulation," i.e., that time of day when the combination of employee and visitors on site will be highest. Of principal interest is the portion of visitors and employees who will arrive as either a driver or passenger of a parked vehicle. Employees will heavily rely on private autos, followed by public transit as their preferred arrival mode. Summer visitors typically exhibit much higher use of private autos than do winter visitors. Summer visitors often will take day trips to and from distant locations. Fewer winter visitors will use a private or rental car as a way of reaching Vail than in the summer, Even those winter destination visitors who arrive via auto, will often leave their car parked for in-town trips, preferring to use,the transit system or walk instead. The Vail free-shuttle transit system provides year-round service far residents and visitors. The micro-brewery site is served by the West Vail south route which travels along South Frontage connecting Cascade Village, Lionshead Village and the Vail Transportation Center in ~J S Vail Village. Site redevelopment will incorporate a bus pull-in for an east-bound bus stop. This will augment the existing west-bound stop across the road at the Vail Professional Building. The current bus schedule provides hourly service during summer morning and afternoon peak periods. Throughout winter, the service increases to every 45 minutes from 7:00 AM to midnight. A number of lodgings in Vail provide courtesy vans for transporting their guests to and from local attractions. We anticipate almost half, 45%, of winter visitors will use either public transport or courtesy vans to visit the micro-brewery. Summer visitor use of these modes will be considerably less, 17%, due to reduced transit service and greater availability and reliance on private autos during the summer. The site is served by two bikeways - a bike lane alongside east bound Frontage Road and a bike path along the south side of Gore Creek. An estimated 15% of summer visitors will use the bikeways to either walk or bike to the micro- brewery. In winter, an estimated 8% of the visitors will be other, as pedestrian or ski-in/ ski-out replaces bicycle as the non-vehicular mode of arrival at the micro-brewery. 2. Parking Layout and Management ...a portion of the parking structure can be cordoned off to serve the daytime needs of the office space. Thirty to forty of the 60 spaces needed for office use could be accessed through a gate controlled on the lower level of the structure. The remaining office space could be signed for "tenants of Glen Lyon Office only." During evening hours when the spaces are expected to be needed for micro-brewery guests, the gate would be lifted for visitor self parking and assigned areas could be used by car hops as valet spaces. Except for spaces marked as "Two-hour visitor spaces," all of the parking stalls would be unsigned except for a blanket restriction against day skier or other unauthorized use. 3. Summary Our analysis of the proposed Vail brewery and remodeled Glen Lyon Office space concludes that a 92 parking space supply will be sufficient • • • for typical peak parking needs. As there are no parking standards for a guest-oriented micro- brewery, our analysis has considered anticipated employment, visitor capacity and the seasonal variation in visitation and travel by auto in this destination resort community. Design conditions will likely be given by summer holiday periods when employment and visitation will be at capacity and 68~ of the visitors are estimated to arrive via a parked car. Public transit, courtesy vans and walks/bikes would account for the remaining visitor modes of arrival. Peak micro-brewery parking demand will occur between 7:00 and 8:00 PM. Daytime office use peaks at about 2:00 PM and about 6:00 PM virtually all office spaces would be vacant. A parking management plan for the required structure should be adopted to help ensure adequate parking supply is available to daytime and evening employees and visitors to the Vail Brewery/Glen Lyon office development and Cascade Village. With one access drive, parking management would propose two levels structure should be virtually self monitored, using conventional gate controls, coded cards and signing." (TDA Report Aug. 10, 1988) 4. Staff Summary: Parking Below is a comparison of how the Town of Vail parking standards could be applied to this project: USE Brewery Office SQUARE FOOTAGE REQRD PARKING 2.8 spaces 9.6 40.6 14,7 15,5 1.5 700 sq ft Office addition to existing Glen Lyon Office 2,400 sq ft Existing Office Beer Hall Pub Retail 10,150 sq ft 1,774 sq ft 1,858 sq ft 446 sq ft . 10 . SCENARIO A: East Bldg. Residential Office or SCENARIO B: East Bldg. . Office Total 3,325 sq ft 2,400 sq ft 5,725 sq ft Scenario A -- Scenario B = 6.0 9.6 22.9 101.0 spaces 108.0 spaces According to Town of Vail standards, the project would have an approximate parking calculation of 101 or 108 required parking spaces. The applicant is providing 108 spaces on site. The staff agrees with the TDA parking study on their assumptions about the parking patterns of the users of this project. TDA states: "Spaces used by daytime office workers will be used by brewery visitors during the peak evening hours." In essence, "we believe the nature of this attraction in its location with easy access to I-70 will generate higher visitor parking demand than the Town's respective standard provides. Conversely, the compatibility of office and micro-brewery uses affords an opportunity to manage the proposed structure parking supply effectively for each use. " (TDA Parking Report, August 10, 1988, p. 7) Staff concurs with TpA that the brewery operation is a use that . cannot be addressed accurately by the present Town of Vail parking standards. We believe the TDA parking study provides a more accurate parking requirement than the Town of Vail parking standards even though the project meets the Town of Vail requirements. We also agree that it is imperative that a parking management plan be implemented by the owner of the project, The management plan is critical to the effective functioning of parking for the project. We cannot support the idea of the potential surplus of 10 to 15 parking spaces in the winter season being used for skier parking. We believe that the brewery would need to be in operation for several years before any proposal to allow skier parking on site would be reasonable. 5. Staff Summary Loading Once again, the apply directly t that the brewery dock. The dock The loading area Town of Vail loading standards do not o this proposal. The developer has stated will include a fully enclosed loading will accommodate two 22-foot unit trucks. also includes the spent grain trailer. A . 11 trash compactor is included in a fully enclosed outdoor area. The distributor for the brewery will pick up finished goods in a tractor/trailer at the warehouse. No tractor/trailers will be permitted at the brewery. Staff believes that this is a very important condition of approval far the brewery. The Glen Lyon property is totally unable to handle semi deliveries due to the lack of off-site loading and conflicts with the South Frontage Road traffic. Staff would also like to see one additional loading space in the parking structure to allow for deliveries to the office, We believe that this additional loading area can be easily accommodated on the top of the parking structure without severely impacting the parking. D. CONFORMITY WITH APPLICABLE ELEMENTS OF THE VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, TOWN POLICIES AND URBAN DESIGN PLANS. The following sections of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan relate to this proposal: General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial, and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. . Skier/Tourist Concerns 2.5 The community should improve nonskier recreational options to improve year-round tourism. Commercial 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 3.5 Entertainment oriented businesses and cultural activities should be encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More night-time businesses, ongoing events and sanctioned "street happenings" should be encouraged. E. IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION OF NATURAL AND/OR GEOLOGIC HAZARDS THAT AFFECT THE PROPERTY UPON WHICH THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IS PROPOSED. i Iz No hazards are present on the Glen Lyon property. . The site is affected by the flood plain. However, development is not proposed in this area. The parking structure does encroach by 8 feet into the 50 foot stream setback. The south side of the lot has several physical constraints which make it difficu~t to locate the parking structure on the property without encroaching into the 50 foot stream setback. The physical hardships include the narrow shape of the lot, the steep slopes on the south bank of the property, and the mature trees which are located in the general area of the parking structure. in addition, the staff believes that it is important to provide a minimum of 4 feet along the northern side of the parking structure to allow for landscaping in front of the structure. Given these constraints, staff believes that it is very reasonable to allow the parking structure to encroach 8 feet into the stream setback. F. SITE PLAN, BUILDING, DESIGN AND LOCATION, AND OPEN SPACE PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO PRODUCE A FUNCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESPONSIBLE AND SENSITIVE TO NATURAL FEATURES, VEGETATION, AND OVERALL AESTHETIC QUALITY OF THE COMMUNITY. • Staff's opinion is that the site planning as well as building design and location for the project have been designed to meet this criteria. G. A CIRCULATION SYSTEM DESIGNED FOR BOTH VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS ADDRESSING ON- AND OFF-SITE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION. The relocated access point per the ABD circulation plan will improve the traffic circulation in this area. The drop--off area on the northwest corner of the building should have no significant negative impacts on the traffic along the South Frontage Road. The Highway Department has indicated to the staff that they see no problems with the drop-off area as long as the developer obtains an access permit. CDOH also stated that it is passible that the drop-off would be impacted by the expansion of the South Frontage Road. As mentioned before, staff feels that the improvements to the South Frontage Road should be completed as an over-all improvement district for the area as opposed to each property owner making their awn improvements. We da feel that it is important • 13 that the property owner be willing to participate in the project financially according to what financing plan is developed for the project. In respect to pedestrian access to this site, the relocated bike path will have less slope than the previous bike path. This improvement should make it much easier for cyclists and pedestrians to access through this area. Tn addition, a new bus stop is proposed on Colorado Division of Highways property to the west of the Glen Lyon site. The Town of Vail ' Public Works Department has indicated that they will be able to provide bus service to the stop and maintenance for the structure. The developer will be required to obtain an access permit from the Highway Department before the structure is built. Staff believes that the applicant should look at the possibility of relocating the pedestrian path from the parking structure to the brewery on their own property. Presently, the path is located on the public right-of-way. It is preferable to locate the path on the Glen Lyon property to avoid two parallel paths. We would also recommend that the applicant include a pedestrian connection from the east end of the parking structure to the office building. H. FUNCTIONAL AND AESTHETIC LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE IN ORDER TO OPTIMZ2E AND IMPROVE NATURAL FEATURES, RECREATION, VIEWS AND FUNCTIONS. The landscape plan indicates significant landscaping for the property. Of primary concern is that substantial landscaping be planted along the north and south sides of the parking structure. The orientation of the dining patio toward the creek provides for wonderful views and optimizes the natural features adjacent to the site. I. PHASING PLAN OR SUBDIVISION PLAN THAT WILL MAINTAIN A WORKABLE, FUNCTIONAL AND EFFICIENT RELATIONSHIP THROUGHOUT THE gEVELOPMENT OF THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. The applicant has submitted the following phasing plan for the Glen Lyon property: Phase I: Expansion And Remodel Of Existing Office Building Parking Structure, Brewery Construction Start: April 1989 Construction Completion; December x.989 • 14 Phase ii Addition of East Building Construction Start: April 2990 Construction Completion: December 1990 The staff has no problem with this phasing plan. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Please see the conditional use memo for a review of the environmental impact report. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to Area D. The project meets all of the design criteria for amendments to Special Development Districts. The project will be a significant benefit to the community due to the unique mix of uses and high quality design. Our approval is contingent upon the following conditions being met by the applicant. The owner shall agree in writing to the following conditions which shall be recorded by the Tawn of Vail Clerk at the Eagle County Assessor's Office within 30 days after the Town Council's final approval of the SDD ordinance. The time period may be extended if approved by Town staff, . 1. The owner shall agree to construct the bus shelter per Town of Vail standards. The bus shelter will be constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for either the brewery addition, office expansion, east office building, or parking structure. 2. The owner shall relocate the bike path and provide a bike path easement across the Glen Lyon property and CDOH property. The bike path shall be constructed per Town of Vail standards. The bike path shall be constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for either the brewery addition, office expansion, east office building, or parking structure. Such temporary certificate of occupancy shall be conditional upon construction of the bike path provided for herein. 3. The owner shall provide an employee housing agreement for the two employee housing units in the east office 15 building. This agreement shall be provided to the Town of Vail before a temporary certificate of occupancy is released for the two employee housing units or the free market dwelling unit. The agreement shall include the same provisions as • outlined in the employee housing agreement for Area A. 4. The parking and access to the property shall be managed per the TDA Parking Report, p. 6-7, August 10, 1988 by the owner of the property. 5. The owner shall underground the electrical utilities along the north side of the Glen Lyon property from the northwest corner of the property to the northeast corner of the property. This utility work shall be constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the brewery addition, office expansion, east office building or parking structure. The undergrounding of the utilities is contingent upon Holy Cross approving the work. 6. The 20 foot utility easement on the western portion of the property shall be relocated as well as approved by the Town of Vail before a building permit is released for the micro-brewery addition. 7. The owner of the Glen Lyon Office property shall not file any remonstrance or protest against the formation of a local improvement district or other financing mechanism approved by the Vail Town Council which may be established for the purpose of building road improvements to the South Frontage Road. 8. The owner shall provide a fire hydrant per Town of Vail Fire Department requirements on the northwest portion of the property. The fire hydrant shall be provided subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for either the brewery addition, office expansion, east office building, or parking structure. Staff would recv~~~«end that the Design Review Board look at the following issues related to this project: 1. Pedestrian access from the east side of the structure to the east office building should be required. 2. The pedestrian path from the parking structure to the brewery entry should be located on Glen Lyon property. 3. One additional loading space should be provided for the main office building in the parking structure. • ~6 To: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 28, 2988 SUBJECT: Amendment to the Ford Park Master Plan APPLICANT: Vail Metropolitan Recreation District Board and Vail Town Council I. REQUEST The Vail Metropolitan Recreation District Board and Vail Town Council are jointly proposing an amendment to the Ford Park Master Plan. The amendment concerns the northeast area of Ford Park. Presently, the Master Plan indicates that this area should be developed for the aquatic facility with associated parking. A11 three softball fields would remain on the park. The existing b tennis courts on site would be removed to allow for the pool. When the plan was originally developed in 1984-85, the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District intended to establish Golden Peak as the tennis center for the community. For this reason, the Board had informally agreed to the removal of 6 tennis courts at Ford Park. Due to changes at Golden Peak, the Vail Metropolitan • Recreation District Board would like to relocate as many of their courts on public land as passible to ensure that they will be available to the public in the future. The applicants have developed a two-phase proposal for the northeast corner of the park. Phase One would allow for the 6 existing courts to remain an site. Two new tennis courts would be added to the east of the existing courts in the area of the snow dump. Two more courts would be located to the south of the existing western courts. These courts would be sunken and would serve as exhibition courts. A small tennis pro shop would also be located to the south of the existing courts. Parking would remain as is, with the east lot having approximately 145 spaces plus the existing west parking lot. The Vail Metropolitan Recreation District would like to locate the additional four courts on Ford Park this upcoming summer. Phase Two of the amendment calls for locating the indoor amusement pool and the outdoor recreational pool on the eastern softball field. Two softball fields would remain in the Master Plan given this design. Anew parking lot (117 cars) is proposed to the west of the pool area. Total parking would equal 262 spaces. The bus turn-around would . be located on the northeast corner of the pool building. A landscaped buffer would be located on the south side of the pool area to avoid conflicts with the Gerald R. Ford Amphi- theatre. II. BACKGROUND OF THE REQUEST The Vail Metropolitan Recreation District and Vail Town Council believe that this approach to the master planning for Ford Park makes better use of the existing amenities on site. It was felt that it was inappropriate to remove six existing courts from the park with the hope of rebuilding them somewhere else in the community. The Phase One plan allows for the existing courts to remain on site, The two boards also feel it is appropriate to locate public facilities on public land in order to avoid the pressures of private development. The VMRD also feels that 10 courts will be functional for tournaments and tennis camps. The aquatic facility has been scaled back to include the amusement pool, outdoor 50 meter recreational pool and support services. The deep pool has been removed from the proposal. The amusement pool requires an enclosure of approximately 24,000 square feet. Support space is equivalent to 9,000 square feet. The outdoor recreation • pool is 50 meters by 70 feet wide and varies from 4 to 7 feet in depth. Hat tubs and a tot pool are also proposed. The two boards believe that the pool facility and tennis are very compatible activities. The dining areas and locker rooms have the potential to be jointly used by softball players, tennis players, and swimmers. IIT. PUBLIC INPUT In February 1986, the Vail Town Council appointed a Swimming Task Farce to study the issue of building a municipal swimming pool in Vail. A first-phase report was forthcoming in August of 1986. The Task Force concluded that a swimming pool was a valuable and desirable community asset. In particular, the Task Force recommended a molt i pool concept that would provide indoor and outdoor aquatic experience for training, competition and recreation uses. Emphasis was placed on designing a facility that could serve local residents and visitors. A second phase of research was commissioned which investigated the financial feasibility of the aquatic center, the level of community support for such a center, and the experience of other communities in developing . recreational pools. The Task Force completed this report in June of 1987. This planning process involved approximately four public meetings as well as many Task Force meetings. The Eagle County Recreation Action Plan also provided data from the Upper Eagle Valley survey and public meetings that indicated a swimming pool complex was a desired public improvement. The plan states, "A large indoor swimming pool appears to be the most sought-after public facility in Eagle County." (Eagle County Recreation Action Plan, p. 21) In addition, the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District sponsored a meeting on September 21, 1988 to specifically discuss the aquatic facility and the amendment to the Master Plan. There were over 40 members of the community at the meeting. General support was expressed for the aquatic facility, Several softball players wha attended the meeting expressed their concern that before the eastern softball field is lost, the Town should ensure that new fields are provided down valley. On November 17, 1988, representatives from the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District and Town Council had an informal meeting with people involved with sports and activities who may be affected by the amendment plan. Representatives from the softball, tennis, swimming, the . alpine garden, and amphitheatre/Nail Valley Foundation were invited to attend this meeting. There was general support for the amendment and strong support for the idea of working diligently on a down-valley softball field complex. TV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the Ford Park Master Plan. We believe that it is wise to utilize the existing 6 tennis courts at Ford Park and augment them in the future by adding an additional 4 courts. Tt is also a positive idea to combine tennis and swimming on the northeast portion of the park. The utilization of both facilities will increase due to the close proximity of the two uses. The Vail Metropolitan Recreation District and Vail Town Council have expressed a strong c~f~„~~itment to work on the proposal to locate a softball field complex down valley, The Eagle County Recreation Task Force has determined that the softball complex is their primary issue. A Recreation Task Farce meeting was held on November 18th. At this meeting, it was decided that 3 sites would be studied in detail for their potential to serve as a softball complex • far the upper Eagle Valley. Yn addition, the Task Force hopes to schedule a public meeting in January 1989 in Avon. The meeting would serve as a public forum for Eagle County Commissioners to hear public comment on the issue of the softball field complex. Staff believes that the Ford Park Master Pian amendment provides a workable relationship among the various recreational and cultural activities at Ford Park. Although the Master Plan drawings are only conceptual, staff believes that both swimming and tennis can be located an the northeast portion of the park in a way that will still allow for much needed parking and adequate buffer space among the various uses. Staff believes that a substantial buffer between the amphitheatre is very important. We believe this design consideration can be fully addressed when the final design drawings are completed for the pool if it is approved by the public. We feel strongly that it is good planning to locate as many of the tennis courts as possible on public land to ensure that they will be available for the community in the long term. A 10 court complex also solves the existing problem of running tennis camps and tournaments at a variety of valley locations. For these reasons, we recommend approval of the request to amend the Plan. Once the Planning Commission has reviewed this request, the proposal will be presented to the Town Council in the form of a resolution. • Planning and Environmental Commission December 12, 1988 3:00 PM 12:00 PM Site Visits: Hong Kong, Ulbrich Property 1:15 PM Work Session 1. Work session on proposed addition to Vail Valley Medical Center. 2. A presentation of Congress Hall studies by architectural students. 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of 11/14 and 11/28. 2. A request to zone a recently annexed parcel commonly known as the Ulbrich property, Lots 16 and 19, to Hillside Residential Applicant: John Ulbrich 3. A request for an exterior alteration in C~,«~«ercial Care 1 for the Hong Kong Cafe. Applicant: Phil Hoversten 4. A request for a condominium conversion for the Bell Tower Building. Applicant: Sell Tower Associates, Ltd. 5. Preliminary hearing to determine review period for exterior alterations in Commercial core Y. • t Planning and Environmental Commission December 12, 1988 PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Grant Riva Sid Schultz Jim Viele • STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Rick Pylman Mike Mollica The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of 11/14 and 11/28. Bryan Hobbs moved and Jim Viele seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 7-0 in favor. 2. A request to zone a recently annexed parcel commonly known as the Ulbrich property, Lots 16 and 1.9, to Hillside Residential. Applicant: John Ulbrich Rick Pylman presented the request. He stressed that this was nat a subdivision request at this time. Furthermore, the staff recommendation of approval was not a guarantee of a specific density or level of development, nor guarantees that the proposed access to the property will remain unchanged. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, had nothing to add to the presentation. Diana Donovan moved and Peggy seconded to approve the zoning. The vote was 7-0 in favor. 3. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I for the Honq Konq Cafe. Applicant: Phil Hoversten Rick presented the request. He explained that the area that the applicant wished to enclose currently existed as a sky light at grade level which allowed light into the lower restaurant level. He stated that the existing landscaping would be saved. Rick also added that the staff requested that the existing landscaping be preserved as a condition of approval. He reviewed the memo, listing the criteria of approval. Mike Hazard, representing the owner, agreed to guarantee the maintenance of the landscaping. Diana moved for approval with two conditions. 1} A 2-year guarantee of the trees and 2) that the DRB review the landscaping. Peggy seconded the motion. The vote was unanimously in favor, • ti ~ ' • ~ 4. A request for a condominium conversion for the Bell Tower Building. Applicant: Bell Tower Associates. Inc. Rick Pylman presented the request. He stated that the applicant had agreed to restrict the housing units far employee housing for 15 years for R3 and R4. Rick reviewed the criteria and stated that all building code requirements must be met. Jay Peterson stated that the building was not "entirely" up to code. Peter Patten clarified the employee housing question. Diana moved and Grant seconded to approve the request per the staff memo with two conditions: 1) final condominium declarations to be recorded must contain appropriate language restricting Units R-2 and R-3. This language wall be reviewed by Town staff prior to recording. 2) The applicant must satisfy the building inspection report requirements. The vote was 7-0 in favor. 5. Preliminary hearing to determine review period for exterior alterations in Commercial Core I. Mike Mollica presented the Sitzmark Lodge application and recommended a 60-day study period. Diana moved and Grant seconded to approve a 60-day process for the Sitzmark. The vote was 7-0 in favor. Discussion followed concerning exterior alteration review periods. Sid questioned whether there should be a restricted time period in which CCI exterior alterations can be considered. Diana felt applicants should plan ahead. Peter felt that if the change is significant, the November and May deadlines usually worked. He felt it might be a hardship for smaller projects, however. Jim felt there may be room to "liberalize the window" far submittals, possibly keeping construction out of the busy periods. Peter stated that the present method worked well for regulating the construction when there were many projects. Diana suggested putting a notice in the newspaper as a reminder to those who may be contemplating construction. Hospital Expansion Discussion Pam asked about height limitations. Peter responded that there were no development standards, but that the PEC reviews a site master plan and can develop standards for the long run on this Site. Diana felt only one parking structure was needed, not two. • W TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE; December 12, 1988 SUBJECT: A request to apply Hillside Residential zoning to a 33.5 acre parcel of land recently annexed to the Town of Vail Applicant: John Ulbrich X. THE REQUEST On November 18, 1985 the Town of Vail adopted a comprehensive Land Use Plan. In the Land Use Plan, parcels of land in and adjacent to the Town of Vail were designated far certain potential uses if they could be proven to meet certain criteria, standards and policies of the Land Use Plan and other planning documents previously adopted by the Town of Vail. One such piece of land adjacent to the Town of Vail designated for potential development is the parcel known as the Ulbrich property. This land is designated through the Land Use Plan as having development potential at a density level entitled, "Hillside Residential." Hillside Residential is a new zone district officially adopted by the Town Council subsequent to the adoption of the Land Use Plan. The purpose of this zone district is to reflect the development criteria of the Hillside Residential land use designation as found in the Land Use Plan. The applicant, John Ulbrich, owns lots 16, 19, and 21 which are located just west of the western terminus of Cortina Lane and Davos Trail. Lot 21 was previously annexed and was zoned Hillside Residential in an action by the Planning Commission in October 1987. Lots 16 and 19 were recently annexed and Mr. Ulbrich is now requesting that the Tawn of Vail designate these two lots with the Hillside Residential zone district. The Hillside Residential land use designation, as written in the Land Use Plan states that any development proposal will receive an in depth analysis to assure sensitivity to restraints, provision of adequate access, minimization of visibility from the valley floor, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. The Land Use Plan goes on to state that any such development would be required to meet all other applicable Town ordinances and regulations, At this time, the applicant is applying only for the zoning n£ Hillside Residential. There is no subdivision • ~, ' or development plan proposed, therefore information submitted for our review has been limited to the assurance of legal and physical access as well as the discussion of compatibility of surrounding land uses. At the time of development or subdivision proposal, an in-depth review of this criteria will be necessary to prove that the proposed development can meet the objectives of the Hillside Residential land use designation. II. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Criteria No. I. Suitability of Existing Zoning This parcel of land has recently been annexed into the Town of Vail and currently has no Town of Vail zoning designation. Under the jurisdiction of Eagle County, the land was zoned Resource. The definition of the Resource zone as found in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations is, "to protect and enhance the appropriate use of natural resources including water, minerals, fibre, and open space. The Resource zone serves to maintain the rural open character of Eagle County." Through the Town of Vail Land Use Plan, much discussion took place about the appropriate designation of this piece of property. Xt was decided that a limited amount o~ • development would be appropriate, as the parcel is adjacent to a higher density residential area than is commonly found in properties designated Resource within Eagle County. Criteria ~2. Does the amendment present a convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives? As a zoning proposal only, with no development plan or subdivision proposed, it is difficult to fully analyze the workable relationship among land uses. The proposal, however, is consistent with municipal objectives in that it does meet and implement a portion of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan. During subdivision review, further studies will be necessary to prove that development on this parcel can meet the criteria of the Hillside Residential designation. Criteria #3. Does the rezonina proposal provide for growth of an orderly and viable community? The Community Development Department feels that the rezoning proposal does provide far the growth of an orderly and viable community. This land use category and zone district was developed specifically to deal with low density development on environmentally sensitive properties. •r r ~ III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • Staff recommendation for the zoning of this parcel as Hillside Residential is for approval. We feel that this application is an implementation of the Land Use Plan and that the application has met the limited criteria which we can request at this time. This recommendation in no way approves or supports any specific density or level of development on this property at this time, nor guarantees the proposed access to the property will remain unchanged. A thorough review of any development proposal through the subdivision process will be necessary. • • ~ ° vail valley ~" medical center December 9, X988 Ms. Kristan Pritz Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. W. Vail, CO 8657 Dear Kristan: 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-2451 In cooperation with the Doubletree Hotel, we have developed an expansion plan which we believe satisfies the objectives of the planning staff and the PEC. Major features of this plan are as follows: • The hospital proposes to construct a 22 level parking structure at the east end of its property. The structure would provide parking for 180-185 vehicles, with access directly off South Frontage Road. . The elevation of the top level would be slightly lower than that of the existing South Frontage Road. • The north end of the structure would be constructed on land current- ly owned by the Doubletree, and would be situated such that it would not interfere with previously-approved expansion plans for that fa- cility. The hospital's proposed structure could be connected to the Doubletree's underground parking at a lower level, to allow sharing of parking. r The structure would eliminate 10-12 existing surface parking spaces on Doubletree property. These spaces would be replaced in full with spaces in the proposed structure. The present west lot, providing parking for I18 vehicles, will re- main in its present configuration, with access off West Meadow Drive for the near term. However, because 85 fewer parking spaces will have access off West Meadow Drive, we estimate that this plan will achieve an immediate reduction of 500 trips per day during peak per- iods. This is based an our observation that each parking space gen- erates 5-6 trips on West Meadow Drive between 7 am and 5 pm. • The proposed structure, together with the existing west lot, will provide on-site parking for 298-303 vehicles on a year-round basis, with no valet parking contemplated. Based on the formula agreed-to during the approval process for the last expansion, we ca]culate • that the proposed expansion will increase our parking requirement to Ray McMahan Administrator Ms. Kristan Pritz • Town of Vail December 9, 1988 Page two 285 vehicles. Pease note that the hospital intends to provide suf- ficient parking to meet its current needs, without the need for shared parking with the Doubletree. Both properties, however, wish to arrive at a reasonable formula for shared parking during subse- quent expansions. • The hospital is developing a master plan which will dovetail with the Doubletree's master plan. Our master plan envisions redevelop- ment of the east end of our property, including demolition of the original clinic, built during the Tate sixties. The emergency room and the ambulance garage would be relocated to the east end, with direct access to South Frontage Road. Demolition of the ambulance garage would allow construction of a short, level road connecting the east structure with parking at the west end. Thus, future expan- sion of the hospital will enable us to remove virtually all hospital traffic from West Meadow Drive. • We recognize that existing problems with traffic flow on South Front- age Road could be aggravated by our proposed east parking structure. We have hired a consultant to advise us and you on possible solu- tions, and to assist us in any discussions with the State Highway Department. • We have developed some architectural revisions to address the PEC's concerns with the mass of the building. The extent of the expansion to the hospital building itself, however, remains as described in our Application of September, 1988. Sincerel , an Feeney, P ~~C~~Mana er / 1 rp cc: Peter Jamar ~" U u~'I L ~ Y~~~, ~~ ` 1 ©~ ~+ ~~~ ,~~ ~ ~~ ~zi2 ~~ ~ ~ ~. }~~ I [ t • ~~ ~g~~ r r "% 1 ~~ r ~ ~ ., 1'/~ t l~? 1`7~..~ ,• ~~cz~2~ `~ r~ /f S F ~3 ~`' T3o c c t~M _. a ~~ ig ~ .~ ~9~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ' ~„„-° i~ 1Z ~~ ~~ ~~R~~'I C7 .i„,~ ~, ~, ~tii ~~'• ~s s•. qy a= n ~.J • MIAMI UNIVERSITY November 21, 1988 Mr. Peter Patten, Director Community Development Town of Vail Vail, CO $1&57 Dear Peter, ®epartment of Architecture School of Fine Aris 125 Alumni Nall Oxford, Ohio 45055 533 529-6426 Sorry not to have gotten back to you regarding my students' presentation to the Planning Commission December 12, but that is still our schedule. Each of my ten students has come up with a building concept for the Congress Hall! Four students have been working with the Vail Village site--east end of Transportation Center, and four have worked on the Lianshead site-east end of the parking structure. A site model of each location has been made, and each project will be set into its respective site and photographed. The models look interesting and, ideally, these should be available fora presentation; however, the logis- tics of getting two site models, each 5' x 3', p1 us ten models, each about 1` x 2', to Vail is too great a problem (expense}. Consequently, there will be ten boards, one per project, 30" x 42", on which two model photos will be mounted along with plans, a cross-section, and one elevation. Two students, Jennifer Hus and John Fabelo, have been elected by their classmates to carry the boards to Vail and then describe the projects to yourself, the Planning Commission, and any other interested parties. I hope all involved will keep in mind that this was a student exercise, done in six weeks, and in a studio situation calling only for twelve hours per week, I think it will be obvious that a goad deal mare time than that was involved. Nevertheless, many important issues, including cost and even, in most cases, total area calculations, have not been figured. The program, however, for each project is the same and, for all intensive pur- poses, is that as described in the ERA report. The students each had copies of most of that analysis and, although perhaps not guided b~f it, have at least been influenced by it, as well as discussions and perceptions arising out of a field trip to Vail in September. I'm attaching for your interest a short "introduction" to the project, as well as the schedule. As I write this, we have 'in hand the airplane tickets for Jennifer and John and a verbal commitment from Jo e1 Fritz for same meals at the Uptown Grill. I am awaiting confirmation for a lodging donation of rooms Saturday the tenth, Sunday, and Monday evening. If you knew of any lodge wishing to support this effort, I'd appreciate your having them give me a call at (513} 529-7242. Or, if you hear of any food "specials," you might let me know about that, as well. I`ve collected X525.00, mostly from Lionshead merchants which, with the price of air fare fining up, has left little far food or lodging, so any further subsidies will be greatly appreciated. Excellence is Our Tradition • • Mr. Peter Patten, Director Town of Vail Page Two of Two I`11 not be making this trip but look hope, however impractical or unpolitic be useful to expanding the dialogue ov for your help. Wit bes regards, Tom Briner Associate Professor Enclosures cc: Joel Fritz Joe Staufer Gordon Pierce Mike Phi 11 i ps Tom Briner, Assoc. Prof. Miami University November 21, 1988 forward to hearing all about it. 7 the ideas may be, they still might er the Congress Hall idea. Thanks • Fa1i 1988 Studio 61#1f7O1 • 4'ail. ColorastU, a. destination resort relying principally ulaon €i~=e months of winter sports for its alapeal to tourists, has considered far several years ways {7}- which the resort. could attract tourists tfirottgh i~ntlt spring arisl fall shoulder seasons and the summer. 4Vit.h the a.vailahility of hotels. restaetrants and a greater choice of recreation during the summa, the Tcawn sees itst'lf rapabie of competing fnr a unique portion sa€ th conventiort and mee.titig market. Vaii advertises itself as a "fartaily° oriented resort, ansl it is stttite trite that young faltiifies, including c{ii{dren, Make tip a gt'eat portion tat the winter ~~isitors. Should Vail compete successfully for cortaorate and asssaeiatiarr rtieeting5, it. can !ae presumed that the attendance at. these meetings would tae further increases! fay spouses and children- creating greater slerrtanst for hsatel i°oams, restaurant tnessls and T-shirts, also creating revt?ritte for the Town by virtue taf a four-cent saps tail A mare exar.t discussion of casts and benefits is available in the attaches! material. One year ago a referendum was turned d4~*n b}~ ttie cornmtEnit}= Inr tfte eonst.rttctian sat a Gangress Half. 'the idea for th¢ Cnlygress Ball ftad beeta put. Iorth by several lodge owners anti others with businesses in the vi{loge core, and whta togathel~ tae{ieved that such a far.ilit.y cnttEd be reasnnata{y locates{ adjacent to the et-isting parkins; strueturP anchosint; the viilage care. aside from the cost arad c1u+'stiura of tzertefit of such a facility`, these arose great detaate ever the proposed location €ur the building. Several sites were brotjglat to the attention of eonsttltants reta,inetl i}}= the Town. anti two were analyzed ita sonic. detail. This ataalysis is aisu included with tlie. attached snat.erial. Altl~ottgh turned down b}= the Tawn. there remains interest on the Bart of many that a rt:eating farifit} fse Fs.si:[ tlz~:t it is itE the interest of the Town to promote it.setf as more than a ~=inter resort.. intact, it is widely felt that summer guests ~°oulsf taa so atts`acted to Vai] that. they would carafe hack during the ~Viliter! Often occurrint; with prthfic issues ~+~tts~n "arc{~itect,ure" is invU{ved is a laar'r°ier tsr urtderstartd.itrg atasl reasunaf~le a{,s:e~~t.arrce r denials, bemuse talks haven't a defined idea as to the size, mass, cantextttal relatiottsl~ip, "excitement.,.` pts~.. af' proposal. A!t ubjecti~e u€ [his studio projes~t is to produce a scheme tUr a Coatg!•ess tall that addresses what you Fie{ie~~e tsa lie tliN. functional resluirert-ents of such a facility white, at the same time, illustrating the appropriate respsartse to the preconceptizar~s, biases, arasi concerns of G'ai{'s public. IC is e~:pected in i{iis regard that yAU mill bi;=g special attention to they civic nature of this facility, aril e~sisting design guidelines, and the conflict, if any, that mar occur beta7een what rsau taelieve is being askesi lot' and that attitude t©ward architecture you, ysaurselt, pr~eselitl}= enjoy. The goal of the project is tsa gain an appreciation far the forces at. work on public arclaitectur`e which r.att affect ottr strrstQgy tn~vars4 rr•a9izing fife ideal design. 'Iwo eYCerpts Irnrtt your rerent readinn of Frampton, Toward a Critical Ite~iona{istai..., may be worthy of thought in the eont.ext of this project.: Bret it is necc~ssa~z; Ers I frer•P alrcarl,-•~ sup?~estr3"•, rra rfistrn~Frxr'sh .b~[~<een ~ritri~al ~'e~Yic~nrrlrsr~ ar?ef sxxrrt,~fe~- minded attempts to x i°[•ivr the fit p~tfi?tiraf Fc~rrns of ~~ lest z~err~arrefar. anti Tfiat is -z=fit° oar' arP in a kind of full or intr'rxp,~nutrt rn ahirfr ~=e carp n,~ fnn~~r f~raetr'ce flee c~n~matt'strr a sin~~lP rrrerfi and in zrJrrcfl tz-~* are crrai ,t ~t c°apabfe vI cr~n~rer?rire~ xfre s.{-epticism irztrr rt=feicfr ~~ r3~ saepperf (Frampt.on quoting I'avl Iticoeur) Valae t.o the 'Vail Co~mani~v Rattier than waste what, expectantly. wi{! he~ a professionally ereditahte a€fort toward the ttltitrtate locatfan and design stf this Cllrty, various townspeople have cnritributed toward having the results of this t?~ercise taken hacl; to Fail and pOSSital}' ~plainesi !n a forum yet to bP established, To that encl. two members of the studio are invited baCl: to Fail falter Thanksgiving and at the very beginning of the ski season. ~lI expenses at the two- to three-day trip will be csavered ). These studio representatives woutsl be excused #rotn the final studio project lout likefu would be t°equired to organi2e rtraterials to be taken to Vail for display or presentation. !~al1 i~88 st„d~~ ~~~r~~~ Saturday-Fe'iday September 23-30 Reconnaissance trip to t~'ail, Re~at~ire,tte,its: k,lzatas, sl*etrltes, ~:allec~tic,t~ of a~t;~• ;t~~ailahie attat~s and guides, ~t~3tes 1rQ~t~ discussions ~~ith r~tetnlaers of camtnunitw<. Monday October 3 GeterttE~t~a.tian of situ. Friday Uctaber 7 11:i Camt~il.atia~t oI stte pl7atas, sketci~es and Hates to taw hound in !nose leaf Minder, i;u,l ~ Car~toan concept site plan tanci project cross-section t.a he hotc~~d in iaose leaf Mintier faMaE~ej. Mondacy October aii ~ l t Crr~ttr~ effect roe=tptetes site(si 14ase mcdellSj: ~'r~`v ~'l~i;~ l~izt?a`tt n~it.Yt no tiifterentiatian iser~~ecyn bare coc~tours and buildi~tgs- s~.tit~~i•~#e lac it~s¢tting indi~rtcl~zak stutt~° trtactPls and photo~~raphy°. t'?i Complete and print ila5~ maps t,probaMt~• 1' _ .~,d. i. Monday October Y 7 i,roup ttresentatian of generic design data try inckude: !!) E~amalesol Can~~etttian Facilities • resort or other $I?,e • C11fIl&t.iG reSpnnSe y degree of f le ibilit\~ • program s~=steitts descri.ptiott • ur~itltice issues t'?) Fail Data v profile at users • master plait uritan design guidelines • transpc~rtatiott . climate sitespecific considerations Criday October ~ 1 Rent plain wst.lt adjacent a~`cl~ite€~tt~a~e ac~cl itattara.l leaturc:s: • All rands. dries. walks. courts. ete„ det'itted: t'se color/1_:se shade as7d shaclou: a>~ Studv ~lociel "1 atz baat~: • Roads, drivQS, walks, etc,. autlinett in pencil or atl~ert~=ise defined, Monday October 2~ mina.lize puhkic presentation teehntques and reclttiretnents. Friday October 3 ! Stt-ci}~ MocSe! ~ L ar #? with floor piar~s (freehand, pattclte ant! designation at ail ~actic~i.ies neatly° iettereit) Friday lYov~cc~bea- ~ Elcvati©3ts anti cross-sec:t.io~ts. ~~laterials and relief represented My cplor. shades i~alt~es) artd si~aciow. ~iday November 18 t'!tl materials dECe. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 22, 2988 SUBJECT: Request for a minor exterior alteration on part of Lot C, Black 5C, Vail Village First Filing in order to construct a small addition to the existing Hong Kong Bar and Restaurant. Applicant: Phil Hoversten I. THE PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing an 28 square foot addition to the southeast corner of the upper level of the Hong Kong Cafe building. The southeast corner of the building is currently cut back at a 45 degree angle and was designed in this manner to allow some open space and landscaping and to reduce site coverage of the building. The applicant wishes to square off a portion of this corner in order to add another entrance to the building. The actual entrance would be in the existing angled wall that currently contains window openings just to the west of the corner of the building. By adding an entrance in this location, the owner would then be able to remove ane of the interior staircases and still meet building code egress requirements. The area that the applicant desires to enclose currently exists at that corner as a sky light at grade level which allows light into the lower restaurant level. There are also several mature aspen trees which provide a buffer to that corner of the building from the Founders' Plaza area. The applicant feels that these aspen trees may be saved during the construction. IT. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE CCI ZONE The Commercial Core I zone 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 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 pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that • distinguish the Village. This proposal, as a minor addition, is in compliance with the intent of the purpose of the CCI zone district. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE There are no sub-area concepts which relate directly to this area of the proposal. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The purposes of the comparison between the proposal and the considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or detracts from the overall intent of the Design Considerations. A. Pedestrianization The Hang Kong Cafe is located adjacent to two major pedestrian areas: Wall Street, which is a major pedestrian walkway, and Founders' Plaza, which is a main pedestrian plaza area. The staff felt that the original Hong Kong Cafe project had positive impacts on pedestrianization on bath Wall Street and the Founders' Plaza. We did feel strongly that the development should maintain some buffering from the Plaza and from Wall Street on the southeast corner. The staff feels that this is an important pedestrian area which needs and benefits from the existing landscape buffer. We feel that the proposed minor addition in and of itself is not detrimental to this concept, but would request a guarantee that the existing landscaping remain in place during and after construction. B. Vehicular Penetration This minor addition wi11 have no impact upon vehicular penetration within the Vail Village area. C. Streetscape Framework The streetscape framework criteria speaks to the positive contributions of the infill of commercial store fronts and expansion of existing buildings in order to generate street life and visual interest along pedestrian routes. The criteria, however, also refers to the importance of landscaping, grass, flowers, and tree planting as a soft framework linkage along pedestrian routes. The staff feels that the southeast corner of the Hong Kong Cafe as . existing, benefits the pedestrian experience through the existing landscaping. The angle of the building and the existing landscaping contribute to the pedestrian experience as one is approaching the building from Wall Street. The stepping effect of the building presents a dramatic opening into Founders Plaza and we feel serves its purpose well. Although the addition does encroach somewhat into this open area, it does not substantially impact the existing design. D. Street Enclosure This proposal has little impact on street enclosure. E. Street Edge The street edge criteria encourages building design to form a strong but irregular edge to the street. The staff feels that from an urban design aspect, the existing corner of the Hong Kong Cafe does a fine job of meeting this criteria. The proposed addition has little impact on the existing design with regard to street edge. F. Building Height • This proposal has no impact on building height. G. Views There is no impact from this proposal on views. H. Service and Delivery No impact. I. Sun/Shade No impact. V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. Landscaping Section 18.24.170 of the CCI zone district states that "no reduction in landscaped area shall be permitted without sufficient cause as shown by the applicant or as specified in the Vail Village Design Considerations. • The applicant has stated that this addition may be accomplished without removing any of the existing landscaping. The construction of the proposed addition is extremely close to the existing landscaping, and the staff feels that, if approved, the applicant should be required to guarantee the existing landscaping. S. Project Statistics Lat size fax the Hong Kong Cafe Building is 1,608 sf. Existing site coverage is 90$ which is over the allowable maximum of 84% site coverage within CCI. This proposal does not actually increase site coverage, as it is a second story addition over the existing dining room. C. Parking Parking reimbursement will be determined at building permit. Parking fees will be assessed and paid into the parking fund for all square footage that is added. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Although we feel this small addition provides no positive impacts for the building, the staff recommendation for this request is for approval. Although we feel that the existing design of the southeast corner of the Hong Kong Cafe is superiox to the proposal from an urban design standpoint, we feel that the impacts are too minimal to warrant a recommendation of denial. We would request that the Planning and Environmental Commission place a condition on the approval that guarantees that the existing landscaping will be either maintained or replaced during construction of the addition. • •~ - - -, ~ w i `~~<~ti~ ~~ Y 1 __ _ - '4 Ifr4 ,~ r ~ I ~\ ,. ~ , i ~ ,~E- __. ~ _ --- ~~ _.i _i ~ ,1 -` ~. ~. ~ ~Md..~ s~~ ~ r ~ .-,~,~. ~ I ! ,f', Staif ~~ i i/' / "._ ,~ I t E~ I i - ' ;i Existing bar RE.uo.,~s 5Ki sY. ~v4xraws cnr. -,~~L; rf c'w r~oarl 7d n,~6+ ;hl xxiST. , ~~ :, ~. ~~~ /`. i /-~ '~ ~ ) {{ .\ - --- - ~ ------ ----- ,~ s3, ~ .~ ~X tS~. 115~EU i .: ~ , • i ~, .r. ~~ 1 ~~ , i ~ S - i~ f1G~~/ ~1 i r•~. - 25`1..1' 24 G ~~ ./ /..'{'J 1 i .. NON DCao2 - 3-o'~r.4~"x13/4--- ~ i, +~h i{OLLONN A/p~/r lr - ~~`~ ..J ~` ~~"' f1E.v ~11c G XIS T~ 'J'T64Q --~-~- - \~~` ., y 1 C' '~'. L leL,S I N ~\ Existing Pat~d~ • •~: - 4 r :3~ . ~~ ~ ~ ,fix i ~." '•~ '~-- / • . ~ R a, nr. n _ \ 4\ ~\ \\ ....~. 1.~4~ : 1r'~r .1 ~' TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 12, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for condominium conversion of the Bell Tower Building. Applicant: Bell Tower Associates, Ltd. I. THE REQUEST Bell Tower Associates, Ltd. desires to complete a condominium conversion of the Bell Tower Building in order to allow transfer of a portion of the building to one of the existing commercial tenants. The owner has applied through the Town of Vail subdivision regulations, Chapter 17.26 Condominium Conversion. There are nn existing accommodation units within the Bell Tower Building, so the specific section relating to accommodation unit conversions is not applicable to this request. There are currently existing within the Bell Tower Building two employee housing units. These units, historically subject to long term lease, will be restricted through condominium declarations to remain as employee housing units, long term lease only, for a period of 15 years. This has been agreed to by the applicant and the staff and will be a ~~ condition of approval of this request. II. CRITERIA TO EVALUATE THE PROPOSAL Criteria to evaluate the condominiumizatian of the Bell Tower Building is found in Section 17.26.060 of the subdivision regulations which relate to all condominium conversions, whether accommodation units are involved or not. These criteria are set out for the condo conversion application to ensure the performance of maintenance responsibilities, to promote public health, safety and welfare, to ensure that converted units meet reasonable physical standards and to protect from unnecessary eviction the residents of rental units being converted to condominiums. A. Section 17.26.080 of the subdivision regulations requires the PEC to consider whether the proposed conversion is consistent with the following housing goals of the Town: 1. To encourage continuation of social and economic diversity in the Town through a variety of housing types. Staff Response: The agreement by the applicant to restrict units R-3 and R-4 to long term employee housing for a 15 year period meets this criteria. 2. To expand the supply of decent housing for low and moderate income families. Staff Response: This proposal does not change the supply of housing in the c~.~~~«unity. 3. To achieve a greater economic balance for the Town by increasing the number of jobs and the supply of housing for people who will hold them. Staff Response: This proposal does not impact this criteria, other than allowing commercial operators the security of owning their own space. B. The Commission may require that a reasonable percentage of the converted units be reserved for sale or rental to persons of moderate income. Staff Response: The applicant has agreed to restrict the two existing rental units for a 15 year period. C. The Planning Commission may deny the tentative or preliminary map upon finding that: 1. Based on the information required by 17.25.0'10 and on the vacancy rate far rental housing, tenants will have substantial difficulty in obtaining comparably priced rental housing. a rental vacancy rate below five percent based on the most recent Town survey constitutes a housing emergency situation. 2. The ratio of multiple-family rental units would be reduced to less than twenty-five percent of the total number of dwelling units in the Gore Valley, from Dowd Junction east to the base of Vail Pass, with no replacement rental housing being provided. • Staff Response: This proposal presents no impact to this criteria. The Town of Vail Building Department has completed the required inspection for conversion and all required criteria have been met by the applicant. III. COMPLIANCE WITH STIPULATIONS OF SECTION 17.16.Q75 The Bell Tower building contains no accommodation units and is therefore in compliance with the section regarding accommodation unit conversions. The applicant has agreed to a 15 year long term rental restriction to condo units R3 and R4 which currently serve as employee housing units. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As a condition of approval, the final condominium declarations to be recorded with the plat must contain appropriate language restricting units R-3 and R-4. This language will be reviewed by Town of Vail staff prior to recording of the condominium map and documents. C