HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes January - JunePlanning and Environmental Commission
January 9, 198$q,
2:00 Site Visits 3:00 PM Public Hearing
I. Approval of minutes of 12/12/88.
2 2. A request for a side setback variance
in order to construct additions to a
residence on Lot 3, Bighorn Estates.
Applicant: Harriet and Robert McCue
3. A request for variances to Chapter
18.52 regarding off -site parking and
allowing the leasing of parking at the
Sunbird Lodge.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
1 4. A request for a minor amendment to
Special Development District 15, Bishop
Park to extend a deck.
Applicant: Frank Krasovec
5. Appointment of member to DRB.
•
is
•
•
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
January 9, 1989
PRESENT
Diana Donovan
Bryan Hobbs
Pam Hopkins
Peggy Osterfoss
Grant Riva
Sid Schultz
Grant Riva
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Rick Pylman
Mike Mollica
Betsy Rosolack
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele.
I. Approval of minutes of meeting of 12/12.
Diana Donovan moved to approve the minutes and Bryan Hobbs
seconded the motion. The vote was 7 -0.
2. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct
additions to a residence on Lot 3, Bighorn Estates.
Applicant: Harriet and Robert McCue
Betsy Rosolack stated that the applicant had had a death in the
family, and asked to table this item until 1/23. Diana moved
and Pam Hopkins seconded to table. The vote was 7 -0.
3. A request for variances to Cha ter 18.52 regarding off -site
parking and allowing the leasing of parking at the Sunbird
Lodge.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
Peter presented the request, explaining that the variances
requested were from the requirements that off -site parking
facilities must be located within 300 feet of the use served.
(The west day lot is approximately 800 feet from the Sunbird
Lodge.) Also, a variance is needed from the provision which
limits the number of parking spaces leased to a certain
percentage of the total spaces on the property. (VA wished to
lease 1000 of the spaces on the Sunbird Lodge property.) Peter
presented the Criteria and Findings. He stated that although
there will be a slight reductign of spaces available to the
public in the west day lot, the staff felt that this was merely
a relocation of vehicles which would have required parking
somewhere in the area anyway.
With regard to spec
variances for other
and so did not feel
Peter listed Policy
and stated that the
conditions: 1) that
ial privilege, the staff has granted
proposals which included employee housing,
that was a grant of special privilege.
5.3 and policy 5.5 of the Vail Master Plan
staff recommended approval with three
the tenants in the Sunbird Lodge shall
continue to be provided with free parking spaces in Vail
Associates' west day lot; 2) the remaining provisions of Section
18.52.170 Leasing of Parking Spaces, shall be applicable and 3)
the variance approval shall cease to exist after April 30,
1990.
Jack Hunn, representing Vail Associates, Inc. answered
questions. Pam Hopkins felt that the Town benefited from the
arrangement. Peggy asked what arrangements had been made for
loading and unloading for the retail tenants. Jack replied that
short term spaces had been increased from 4 to S. He added that
the tenants could also enter the garage and use the freight
elevator.
Diana moved and Pam seconded to approve the variance requests
per the staff memo. Diana cited extraordinary circumstances and
the fact that the variances were related to employee housing.
She added two conditions: 1) that 8 parking spaces must remain
short term and 2) if unforseeable problems arise before the
review time of two seasons, the variance would be reviewed
for possible rescindment. The vote was 7 -0 in favor.
4. A request for an amendment to S ecial Development District
15 Bishop Park to extend a deck.
Applicant: Frank Krasovec
Rick presented the request. He explained that since the request
entailed a variation of more than 5 feet from the approved
setback, this request falls under the mayor amendment criteria
and must go through that process. He listed SDD criteria
applicable to the request. Rick pointed out that the stream
tract provided sufficient buffer from Bishop Park. The staff
recommendation was for approval.
Diana moved and Peggy seconded to approve the request per the
staff memo. The vote was 6 in favor, with Jim Viele abstaining.
5. Appointment of member to DRB for January, FebruarV and
March.
Pam Hopkins volunteered with Jim Viele backing her up.
r
40
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 9, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for variances from the off -site parking
facilities and leased parking provisions of the Parking
Chapter of the zoning code to allow parking spaces in
the Sunbird Lodge to be leased on the open market.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
The following letter from Jack Hunn represents the proposal
from Vail Associates:
" As you are aware, Vail Associates, Inc. has purchased
the Sunbird Lodge and has recently completed a
renovation of the property. It is our intention to use
the building as employee housing and for miscellaneous
retail and a ski school locker room on a temporary basis
until redevelopment plans can be evaluated.
Vail Associates, Inc. proposes to lease available on-
site parking spaces at the Sunbird Lodge to residential
tenants, commercial tenants and other interested parties
on a seasonal or annual basis at market rates. In the
interest of providing an affordable alternative to on-
site parking to our employees, we propose to make
parking available to them in the West Day lot at no
cost. This letter shall serve as our formal request to
the Town of Vail for approval of the parking plan as
stated above. In evaluating our proposal, please
consider the following information:
1. There are 50 residential units at the Sunbird
Lodge, accommodating 106 occupants. Of the 106
occupants, only 49 have a car. It was not
equitable to force all tenants to pay for parking
in the form of higher rents, as less than 50%
brought cars. Therefore, on -site parking was
offered as an option to each tenant, allowing us
to keep the rental rates as low as possible.
2. The enclosed parking plans indicate the layout for
the 50 indoor spaces, 12 carport spaces and 8
outside spaces. Please note that 4 outdoor spaces
are designated as come and go parking. The 4
spaces are intended for the short term use of
building occupants.
•
. 3. In the course of leasing an apartment at the
Sunbird Lodge, each tenant had the opportunity to
lease an on -site parking space at an additional
cost of approximately $60 /month for a garage space,
$50 /month for a carport space, or $40 /month for an
outdoor space. The alternative, available to each
tenant with a car, was a parking permit in the west
day lot at no additional cost. A similar situation
exists at the Tarnes Apartments, our employee
housing facility in Beaver Creek, where an optional
carport space is available for $75 /month. None of
the 49 tenants with cars elected to pay the
additional cost for an on -site parking space.
C
4. The west day lot has historically been an employee
parking lot for Vail Associates, Inc. employees,
with any unused spaces being made available to the
public. The west day lot accommodates
approximately 235 vehicles.
5. There are currently seven retail tenant spaces on
the mall level of the Sunbird building,
compromising 8,713 square feet. Each space has
been leased, exclusive of parking and on -site
storage. Each commercial tenant has an opportunity
to lease parking spaces on site and /or additional
space for on -site storage. Several have elected to
do this, while others prefer not to incur the
additional expense. Again, this allowed us to keep
the rental rates lower.
6. After considering the use of the north lot (which
accommodates approximately 130 vehicles), in lieu
of the west lot for the 49 employee housing
vehicles, we have determined that this would be
detrimental to the majority of Vail Associates,
Inc. employees. The north lot is intensely used by
Vail Associates, Inc. employees on a first come,
first served basis and is usually full by 8:00 A.M.
Because the employee housing tenant cars are
relatively inactive and require overnight storage,
it is preferable to park these cars in the west
lot.
We believe that Vail Associates, Inc.'s decision to
purchase the Sunbird Lodge and make it available as
employee housing is in the best interest of both the
Town and Vail Associates, Inc. The timing of that
decision, the subsequent renovation work and other
related decisions had to be made very quickly, and we
appreciate the cooperation of the Town of Vail in
allowing us to expedite this process.
N
. The Sunbird site is certainly an unusual location for
employee housing, which presents a variety of benefits t
our employees in terms of its location, relative to
available services, and its proximity to their place of
work. Employee housing in the core also presents some
unique challenges in terms of access, parking, privacy
and image. In pursuing this project, it was our belief
that, with a degree of flexibility on the part of all
parties concerned, these challenges could be overcome.
We believe that the building functions well as employee
housing and that our proposed parking plan is an
equitable, practical solution.
It is essential that Vail Associates, Inc. be permitted
to make commitments to parties interested in leasing the
underground parking as coon as possible. Therefore, we
urge you to promptly consider our parking proposal and
respectfully request that you approve it in an
expeditious fashion."
Specifically, Vail Associates, Inc. requires variances from
Section 18.52.060 Parking - -Off Site and Joint Facilities,
with regard to the requirement that off -site parking
facilities must be located within 300 feet of the use served.
The west day lot is approximately 800 feet from the Sunbird
Lodge. Also, a variance is required to Section 18.52.170
• Leasing of Parking Spaces. The specific provision of this
section which requires the variance is B.5. which limits the
number of parking spaces to a certain percentage of those on
the property. Vail Associates, Inc. wishes to lease 100% of
the parking spaces on the Sunbird Lodge property.
Attached are the two relevant sections of the code with the
specific provisions requiring a variance underlined.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the requested based upon the following
factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other
existing or potential uses and structures in the
vicinity.
Leasing of these existing parking spaces should not
cause any problems to existing or potential uses
and structures in the area. With regard to the
49 additional 49 cars in the west day lot, there may
be a slight reduction in parking spaces available
to the public. However, it is likely that what we
3
are dealing with in this case is simply a
relocation of vehicles which would have required
parking somewhere in the area anyway. In other
words, the cars that will be leasing the Sunbird
Lodge spaces probably would have been parked in the
west day lot or Lionshead parking structure
(utilizing public parking spaces) if they had not
found the arrangement with the Sunbird. Thus, what
we are likely to experience as a result of the
proposal is an insignificant loss in the number of
available public parking spaces.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and
literal interpretation and enforcement of a
specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among
sites in the vicinity or_to_ attain the objectives
of this title without grant of special privilege._
Because variances have been granted in the past
when they are specifically related to the provision
of employee housing, likewise the granting of these
variances would not be considered a special
privilege. That this proposal is an important
factor in Vail Associates, Inc.'s ability to
provide 50 new employee housing units in the heart
of the community is the distinguishing
characteristic which allows the PEC to provide
relief from the strict or literal interpretation
. enforcement of the specified regulations.
Moreover, the Land Use Plan specifically provides
for the Town to give incentives to the private
sector to provide affordable employee housing.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and
air, distribution of population, transportation and
traffic facilities ublic facilities and
utilities and public safety.
The parking facilities involved are existing and
have adequate and safe ingress and egress. There
are sidewalks between the west day lot and the
Sunbird Lodge that will provide for a sate
pedestrian environment for the tenants.
B. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S MASTER PLAN
Policy 5.3. Affordable employee housing should be made
available through private efforts, assisted by limited
incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with
appropriate restrictions.
Policy 5.5. The
be preserved and
needs should be
. the community.
existing employee housing base should
upgraded. Additional employee housing
accommodated at varied sites throughout
4
• C. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
The staff feels the PEC should strongly consider the
Master Land Use Policies promoting employee housing and
giving the Town the ability to provide incentives to the
private sector for the provision of employee housing.
III. 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.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval
of the variances proposed. We feel that the degree of the
variances requested are minor in relationship to the benefit
to the community of 50 new employee housing units which we
are in dire need of this winter season. We understand that
the request is for the remainder of this winter season as
well as the 189190 winter season. We feel comfortable with
recommending approval of the variances for these time
• periods. The arrangement of free parking for the tenants at
the Sunbird Lodge should not be an undue hardship due to the
5
superior location of their housing units. The public
49 transportation and large number of services provided within
walking distance mitigate the need for an on -site automobile.
Recommended conditions of approval:
•
•
1. Tenants in the Sunbird Lodge shall continue to be
provided with free parking spaces in Vail Associates'
west day lot.
2. The remaining provisions of Section 18.52.170 Leasing of
Parking spaces, shall be applicable.
3. The variance approval shall cease to exist after April
30, 1990.
C
0
•
0
�a
ZONING
other materials preventing full use and occupancy of the
facilities in accordance with the intent of this chapter, except
for temporary periods of short duration in event of heavy or
unusual snowfall. (Ord. 8(1973) § 14.300.)
18.52.06,0. Parking—Off-site and joint facilities.
��All parking and loading facilities required by this chapter
shall be located on the same site as the use for which they are
required, provided that the town council may permit off -site or
jointly used oarking facilities if located within three hundred
feet of the use served. Authority to permit off -site or joint
par Hng acuities shall not extend to parking spaces required by
this title to be located within the main building on a site, but
may extend to parking spaces permitted to be unenclosed. Prior
to permitting off -site or joint parking facilities, the council shall
determine that the proposed location of the parking facilities
and the prospective operation and maintenance of the facilities
will fulfil the purposes of this chapter, will be as useable and
convenient as parking facilities �oeated on the site of the use,
and will not cause traffic congestion or an unsightly
concentration of parked cars. The council may require such
legal instruments as it deems necessary to ensure unified
operation and control of joint parking facilities or to ensure the
continuation of such facilities, including evidence of ownership,
long -term lease, or easement, (Ord. 8(1973) § 14.400.)
18.52.070 Standards.
The standards set out in Sections 18.52.080 through
18.52.100 shall govern the design and construction of all
off - street parking and loading facilities, whether required by
this chapter or provided in audition to the requirements of this
chapter. Mirror adjustments of the dimensions prescribed in this
chapter may be authorized by the ronirlg administrator if
consistent with generally recognized design standards for
offkstreet parking and loading facilities. (Ord. 8(1973) §
14.500.)
0
ce
6•
C""I_
ZONING
the exception of dwelling units or accommodation a ts,
shall be three thousand dollars per space. The e for
dwelling units and accommodation units steal e five
thousand dollars per space. The town ca ncil will
establish fee rates for uses not listed in Secti 18.52.100.
b. r additions or enlargements of any exis i g building or
cha e of use that would increase the otal number of
parki spaces required, an additiona arking fee will be
require my for such addition, e rgement or change
and not fo he entire building or se. No refunds will be
paid by the t n to the applic• it or owner.
7. The owner or a licant has t e option of paying the total
parking fee at the t' e of b ildine permit or paying oN er a
five -year period. If e atter course is taken, the first
payment shall be paid or before the date the building
permit is issued. Fo r mo e annual payments will be due
to the Town of V it on th anniversary of the building
permit. Interes f ten percent crannum shall be paid by
the applican on the unpaid bal cc.
If the weer or applicant doe choose to pav the fee
over a p iod of time, he or she shall e required to sign a
peomi. ory note which describes the tal fee due, the
sche le of payments, and the interest e. Promissory
no forms are available at the offices o . community_
d elopment.
8. hen a fractional number o1 spaces results ' om the
application of the requirements schedule (, tion
18.52.I00), the parking fee will be calculated using iat
fraction. This applies only to the calculation of t
parking fee and not for on -site requirements.
A. 30(1982) § 1: Ord. 47(1979) § 1: Orel. S( 1973) ti 14.800.)
18.52.170 . Leasing of parking spaces.
A. No owner, occupant or huilditfi! manager. or their respeetiNe
agent car representative, shall lease, ret7t, convcv or restrict
the u�c of an%, harking sllac•e.:,paces or area to -lily, person
ether titan a tenant, occupant or user ot' the huildiva f'or
which the spac•r, spaces or area .urc rcquirccl to he provided
444
OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING
by the zoning ordinances or regulations of the town except as may be
specifically provided in this section.
B. Parking space, spaces or areas may be leased by the owner, occupant or
building manager thereof in accordance with the following:
1. Any owners, occupant or building manager who owns, occupies or
manages ten or more private parking spaces located in Commercial
Core I, Commercial Core II, High Density Multiple- family, Public
Accommodations or Special Development zone districts and provides
sufficient parking for use by employees may apply to the zoning
administrator of the town for a permit to lease private parking
spaces.
2. Application shall be made on a form provided by the zoning
administrator and upon approval of the application by the zoning
administrator a leasing permit shall be issued with or without
condition as determined by the zoning administrator. If said
private parking spaces are located on the common area or grounds
of any condominium project, written approval of the condominium
association (if any) will be required on the application. (Ord 31,
1985)
3. The zoning administrator may request that an applicant conduct a
N �T parking utilization study to determine the difference between the
average capacity of the lot and the peak day utilization, and such
��p�JcA other information as may be necessary for the proper consideration
of the application.
4. The proposed lease agreement shall be for the period of not less
than one month nor greater than ten months from the effective date
of the lease.
5. No applicant shall be permitted to lease more than sixt ercent
(60 °0 o t he ar in s aces w ich are e differP a between t o
�avera a ca acity of the lot and the Deak d ' ay utilization as
determined by the zgning_administrator. (Ordinance 3 , 98 )
6. No applicant who is operating a private parking area charging an
hourly fee therefor on the effective date of the ordinance
codified to this section shall be eligible for approval of his
application:
7. Parking required for any use in accordance with this title may not be
satisfied by the leasing of space from another person under the provisions
of this section.
8. It shall be the responsibility of the owner, occupant, or building manager
who has leased spaces to others to provide adequate and proper signs therefor
and to see that the leased spaces are used and occupied in accordance with
• the lease agreement. Ord 34, 1977
9. Leasing shall be permitted for short term parking only, and shall be prohibited
for long term storage of vehicles by individuals or companies including,
by way of example but not by way of limitation, rental car agencies.
Ord 31, 1985
•
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 9, 1989
SUBJECT: A request to amend
in order to allow a
Park Condominiums.
Special Development District No.15
deck expansion on Unit #8, Bishop
Applicant: Frank Krasovec
I. THE REQUEST
The owner of Unit #8, Bishop Park Condominiums, Frank
Krasovec, has applied to amend Special Development District
No. 15 in order to allow a deck expansion for his unit
within Bishop Park Condominiums. Because the request
entails a variation of more than five feet from the
approved setback, this request falls under the major
amendment criteria as outlined in Section 18.40.020 C of
the Municipal Code.
The applicant wishes to add a second story deck that is 10
feet deep and approximately 18 feet long which encroaches
to within 5 feet of the rear property line of the Bishop
Park Condominium project. In a special development
district the building outlines and setbacks are designated
by the approved development plan adopted in the enabling
ordinance for the special development district. Thus, in
the special development district, any expansion or change
in the physical site requires an amendment to the
development plan.
In the Bishop Park Special Development District, the
setbacks vary in accordance with the building design. The
minimum setback of building and /or deck in this project is
5 feet from the property line. The applicant is conforming
to the precedent set out in the development plan of the
Bishop Park Special Development District. In order to
amend a special development district, we must evaluate the
request according to the special development district
design criteria that is applicable to the specific
request.
II. 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 SENSITIVITY TO THE IMMEDIATE
ENVIRONMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES
RELATIVE TO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, SCALE, BULK,
BUILDING HEIGHT, BUFFER ZONES, IDENTITY, CHARACTER,
VISUAL INTEGRITY AND ORIENTATION.
The proposed deck is consistent with the architectural
design and materials of the existing Bishop Park
development. Though the scale of the deck is larger
than what is existing on other buildings within the
property, it does conform to the minimum 5 foot
setback that has been adhered to in the development
plan for Bishop Park. The deck is located on the rear
property line along Gore Creek and does meet the
required 50 foot setback from the center line of Gore
Creek. There is quite a distance from this deck and
the adjacent property development at the Sonnenalp
Hotel site. Staff's opinion is that the stream tract
does provide sufficient buffer from this property. In
fact, there are several other instances along this
rear property line where the development encroaches to
within 5 feet of the property line.
B. USES, ACTIVITY AND DENSITY WHICH PROVIDE A COMPATIBLE,
EFFICIENT AND WORKABLE RELATIONSHIP WITH SURROUNDING
USES AND ACTIVITY.
• There is no impact.
C. COMPLIANCE WITH PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS AS
OUTLINED IN SECTION 18.52.
No impact.
D. CONFORMITY WITH APPLICABLE ELEMENTS OF THE VAIL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, TOWN POLICIES AND URBAN DESIGN
PLANS.
No impact.
E. IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION OF NATURAL AND /OR
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS THAT AFFECT THE PROPERTY UPON WHICH
THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IS PROPOSED.
The proposed deck does meet the required 50 foot Gore
Creek stream setback and is located entirely out of
the stream floodplain.
F. SITE PLAN, BUILDING DESIGN AND ALLOCATION, AND OPEN
SPACE PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO PRODUCE A FUNCTIONAL
DEVELOPMENT RESPONSIVE AND SENSITIVE TO NATURAL
FEATURES, VEGETATION AND OVERALL AESTHETIC QUALITY OF
. THE COMMUNITY.
•
•
•
Staff does not feel that the addition of this deck to
Unit #8 of the Bishop Park Condominiums has any
negative impact upon the aesthetic qualities or
sensitivity of this development to the natural
environment.
G. A CIRCULATION SYSTEM DESIGNED FOR BOTH VEHICLES AND
PEDESTRIANS ADDRESSING ON AND OFF -SITE TRAFFIC
CIRCULATION.
No impact.
H. FUNCTIONAL AND AESTHETIC LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE IN
ORDER TO OPTIMIZE AND IMPROVE NATURAL FEATURES,
RECREATION, VIEWS AND FUNCTIONS.
As a second story deck, this deck is located above an
existing patio and does not reduce any landscaping or
open space features on the site.
I. PHASING PLAN OR SUBDIVISION PLAN THAT WILL MAINTAIN A
WORKABLE, FUNCTIONAL AND EFFICIENT RELATIONSHIP
THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT.
No impact.
Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation for this proposal is for approval.
The applicant has maintained the 5 foot setback precedent
which is indicated in the approved development plan for
Special Development District #15. There is no impact on
the stream setback or the floodplain, and the design and
materials are compatible with the existing development.
Staff sees no negative impact associated with the amendment
of this special development district to allow the addition
of this deck on Unit #8.
i
3
"S
�J
6.01
�a
0
J
rt..
w
C', L
/ "C,
CO
7
s10
V�?
� � 1
P', ra I
13. D 2 Z`
C)
0
z
Z
n s 6ct, o L
n —
c�
nm
�m
�r
OD
� N
0
0
co
i
3
"S
�J
6.01
�a
0
J
rt..
w
C', L
/ "C,
CO
7
s10
V�?
� � 1
P', ra I
13. D 2 Z`
C)
0
z
Z
n s 6ct, o L
PLANNTNG AND ENVTRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 13, 1989
SITE VISITS PUBLIC HEARING
1:30 PM 3:40 PM
1. Approval of minutes of January 9, 1989.
6 2. A request for a conditional use permit in
order to construct an addition and a parking
structure to the Vail Valley Medical Center.
Lot F, Vail Village 2nd Filling, 181 West
Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
4 3. A request for a zone change from Residential
Cluster to Primary /Secondary and a request
for a variance from minimum lot size in
order to construct a second dwelling unit on
Lot 2, Block 5, Intermountain Subdivision.
Applicant: William Pierce and Lynn Fritzlen
1 4. A request for side setback variances in
order to construct additions to a residence
located on Lot 3, Bighorn Estates.
Applicants: Harriet and Robert McCue
3 5. A request for an exterior alteration in
Commercial Core I in order to remodel the
Sitzmark.Lodge. 183 Gore Creek Drive, Lot
A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Sitzmark Lodge
2 6. A request for a conditional use permit, a
variance for parking in the front setback
and a site coverage variance in order to
construct an addition to the Vail Mountain
School. Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12
Filing, 3160 Frontage Road East.
I
Applicant: Vail Mountain School
5 7. A request for a variance to the number of
satellite dishes allowed on one lot in order
to locate an additional dish on the Vail
Run property. 1000 North Frontage Road
West, Portion of Lot 10 & Lot 11, Block C,
Lionsridge Filling 1.
Applicant: Ciscorp
4Y`
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES
0 Meeting: 2/13/89
PEC Members in attendance: Pam Hopkins
Sidney Schultz
Diana Donovan
Jim Viele
Peggy Osterfoss
Grant Riva
Community Development representatives in
attendance: Peter Patten
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Rick Pylman
1) Approval of minutes of January 9, 1989 -
Motion: Sydney Schultz
Second: Grant Riva
Vote: 6 - 0
2) Conditional Use - Vail Valley Medical Center:
Staff presentation by Kristan Pritz, with Frontage Road
traffic analysis and access plan discussion by David Leahy,
Is Highway TDA Inc. TDA will request an access permit of the State
Highway Department with changes to the access plan, as
presented today. Kristan continued with the staff
presentation; zoning analysis, criteria and findings.
Staff recommendation is for approval with conditions, as
stated in the memo. Kristan introduced Resolution No. 3,
series of 1989, an action by the Town Council to
demonstrate support of the concept of shared access to the
State Highway Department. Staff comments on the Vail
Valley Medical Center master plan followed the points
outlined in the staff memorandum.
Dan _Feeney - No applicant presentation
John Dunn -- Represents Doubletree condominium owners and
is not opposed nor in favor of hospital
expansion at this time.
Ron Anderson, Pres. of Skaal Hus Owner's Association -
Concerns are vehicular /pedestrian conflict
on West Meadow Drive. Mr. Anderson feels
that all hospital related traffic should be
restricted from West Meadow Drive. He
agrees with restriction on use of structure
access at southeast corner of hospital
property.
0
P.E.C. Questions:
Grant Riva - Asked for explanation on ingress /egress of
emergency vehicles.
Dan Feeney - Explained that during this expansion emergency
vehicle traffic will be on West Meadow Drive. He also
explained that eventual master plan goals are to relocate
the emergency room, allowing direct access to the Frontage
Road.
Grant Riva - Asked Mr. Feeney about the councils position
on the cost sharing of Frontage Road improvements.
Mr. Feeney - Replied that any improvement greater than 3
lanes is a solution to a larger problem and should be
shared by a larger group of participants than the Hospital
and Doubletree.
Paul Johnston - Stated that he felt an equitable weighting
of the improvement costs should be developed.
Grant Riva - Asked for clarification on Vail National Bank
parking amendments.
David Leah (TDA Inc.) - Explained the proposals impact
upon the bank.
Peter Patten - Explained that there is no current •
application from the Bank.
Peggy Osterfoss - Impressed by incredible scope of
information. Parking solution makes sense (shared
parking). Master Plan and South Frontage Road improvements
are the areas of concern. Does "equitable" mean an even
share of the costs.
Paul Johnston - No, not equal shares but weighted, based
upon frontage, number of vehicles, etc.
Peggy Osterfoss - We need more information (i.e. where will
the landscaping go, which will buffer the parking structure
and the bank's new parking?). We need specific answers to
all the questions.
Dan Feeney - Flowers and low lying shrubs only, due to the
line -of -sight problem (3611 maximum height). Landscaping is
a trade -off for the reduction of traffic on West Meadow
Drive. The CDOH does not want much landscaping out there.
Peggy Osterfoss - Need more time to focus on the overall
Master Plan details. The access questions which remain
will hold this up for some time anyway.
•
Diana Donovan - Vail National Bank needs to be a bigger
. player in this. Shared parking makes sense. Four stories
are to high for this part of Vail. Architecture needs to
be compatible with the neighborhood. She asked if
deliveries could be removed from West Meadow Drive.
Dan Feeney - The parking structure is off of the Frontage
Road, effectively precluding this. He said that deliveries
constitute 6 - 8 trips per day.
Diana Donovan - She feels that although a tremendous amount
has been accomplished that more work and review will result
in even better solutions to West Meadow Drive traffic.
Landscaping is critical to break up front (north) of
structure. Agrees that Frontage Road from Lionshead to 4-
way needs to be addressed. Not against the expansion,
although feels that there are eventual limits to this.
Questioned whether Lot 10, Town of Vail property was still
available. She felt that hospital should agree, as a
condition, to participation in a special improvement
district for Frontage Road improvements. Feels that
integrating the east and west structures should be studied
in the future.
Sidney Schultz - Abstained from comment due to involvement
with an adjacent property.
is the Hopkins - Asked why the Doubletree wanted to restrict
the height of the east structure.
Jeff Olsen - (Architect for the Doubletree) Replied that
view considerations directed the height restrictions.
Pam Hopkins - How many rooms will have views impacted? How
will the public know the west lot is full?
Dan Feeney - An attendant will be on duty to control
parking (even without valet service).
Pam Hopkins - Concerns:
1) Bank must address its parking problem.
2) Disappointed in the architecture, use different
materials /window groupings, keep it friendly.
3) Problem with 4 stories, relocate doctor's offices and
pharmacy.
4) Where is "the other out" for the ambulance?
Dan Feeney - Will be studied further.
Jim Viele - Acknowledged letters from the public which are
in commissioner's packets. Some are for and some against.
0
Peter Patten - Pointed out a few clarifications regarding
the site plan.
Diana Donovan - Entered into a general discussion regarding
parking improvements, and felt that although she was not
opposed to this expansion, that more work was necessary
prior to an approval. Peggy agreed that more information
on short range access issues was needed regarding
interrelationship of today's players (Doubletree, Hospital,
Bank, T.q.V.).
Paul Johnston - Felt that the staff recommendations covered
these issues.
Dan Feeney - Stated that an approval now would benefit long
range studies on the Frontage Road by putting the burden
upon the Hospital to receive State Highway Department
approval.
Ray-McMahon - (Hospital Administrator) Encouraged the PEC
to approve the proposal and allow the hospital to proceed.
Pam Hopkins - Summarized, saying that although the
solutions were good, they could be better, but wondered if
the motion could be broken down into more specific areas.
Jim Viele - Stated that any motion made should give the
applicant very specific direction.
Diana Donovan - Again stated her support for the project
and her request for more information prior to a vote on the
project.
Dave Leahy (TDA) -- Explained the Frontage Road access
situation with the Highway Department.
Dave Tyrell (Representing Vail. National Bank) - Spoke to
the parking issue. He felt bank issues should not hold up
the hospital project.
Pam Hopkins - Motion to approve Conditional Use Permit with
the conditions of staff memorandum and condition that the
access for the Vail National Bank, Doubletree, and Hospital
remain as shown. Any change would require re- hearing by
PEC. Also, that in next expansion proposed ambulance
traffic be routed to the Frontage Road.
No Second - Motion Dies.
Diana Donovan - Move that application be tabled until a
Frontage Road access solution is agreed upon by the
applicants and State Highway Dept.
1
C]
40
f Peggy Osterfoss - Seconded the motion. Discussion of the
motion followed.
Clarification of Motion: Until we (PEC) find out what the State
Highway Department wants and will approve and other concerns of
• the PEC.
Vote: 3 for, 1 against, 2 abstain
_Ray McMahan - Asked for a clarification of the PEC motion.
He would like clear direction as to what information the
hospital should present.
Discussion of this issue followed.
A decision was made to have a work session on this issue on
3/27/s9.
3. McCue Variance:
Staff presentation by Kristan Pritz. Staff recommends
denial per staff memo regarding criteria and findings.
Robert McCue - Applicant and owner gave his presentation
requesting approval. All neighbors agree that the variance
will improve property values in the area. None are
opposed. This is not a special privilege, many adjacent
homes already have many additions.
Bill Pierce - Property was zoned while in Eagle County,
annexed to Town, and may not be properly zoned. Deck
40 encroachment is not visible except to adjacent owners who
have no problem.
Sidney Schultz - Apparently I was not present at PEC during
the previous McCue variance request, however, do feel that
addition could be handled without this degree of
encroachment.
Diana Donovan - Feels direction from council was that 250
square foot addition should not allow variances to this
degree. Distance between buildings is too close.
Peggy Osterfoss - Agree with Diana's comments regarding the
250 square foot ordinance.
Grant Riva - Agrees with direction given from Council and
staff, however, given attitude of neighbors and low impact,
I would vote in favor of this.
Jim Viele - Agree with Grant for a little different reason.
Persuaded that variance criteria are being met so could
vote for it.
•
" Motion: Grant Riva - Move that request be approved as submitted
with findings of no grant of special privilege, no detriment to
public health or welfare.
. Second: Pam Hopkins
Vote: 3 3 (Note: A tie vote is deemed a denial)
4. Pierce Fritzlen - Rezoning:
Presentation by Mike Mollica. Recommendation for approval
based upon Land Use Plan, surrounding zoning and allowance
for an employee housing unit.
Motion: Diana Donovan - Move recommendation of approval per
staff memo.
Second: Sidney Schultz
Vote: 6 - 0
5. Pierce Fritzlen Variance to Minimum Lot Size:
Staff presentation by Mike Mollica. Recommend approval,
feels there is a benefit to adding an employee unit, with
a condition that the Town Council approve the above
referenced re- zoning.
Motion: Donovan - Approve per staff memo, noting the
conditions of approval.
. Second: Peggy Osterfoss
Vote: 6 - 0
6. Sitzmark Lodge Exterior Alteration:
Staff presentation by Mike Mollica. Recommendation for
approval with condition that the existing large spruce tree
be relocated on site.
Duane Pipe - Representing the applicant, made a brief
presentation regarding maintenance and space needs. The
existing tree does need to be removed to accommodate the
addition. The applicant wishes to expand the alpine garden
landscape concept and feels smaller trees would compliment
that type of landscaping better. With regard to parking
Duane feels that the creation of a new parking space by
removing the boiler should cover the required parking of
the addition. Bob Fritch, the Sitzmark owner spoke to the
landscaping issue.
Diana Donovan - Feels the building needs some tall vertical
landscape elements. DRB should examine this.
•
Sidney Schultz - Was staff aware of the creation of a new
• parking space through this application?
Peter Patten - Responded to Sidney's question with a
discussion of the intention of the CCI zone district with
regard to parking.
Motion: Donovan - Approve per the staff memo, tree must be
relocated near pedestrian bridge. DRB to look at
landscaping closely.
Second: Grant Riva
Vote: 6 -0
7. Vail Mountain School:
Staff presentation of Conditional Use Permit by Kristan
Pritz. Recommendation is for approval with conditions:
1. CDOH approval of relocated bike path.
2. Rockfall mitigation prior to building permit.
3. Irrigation of landscaping on CDOH property will
require CDOH approval.
Vail Mountain School - Variance requests for site coverage
and front setback (parking). Kristan Pritz gave the staff
presentation. Staff recommendation is for approval, the
requests are reasonable and the site can handle the
variances.
John Milan (Architect for the project) - Presented a
section drawing through the parking /bike path /berm area.
The CDOH has verbally approved the bike path on the state
property and will follow -up with a letter shortly. He
discussed the possible rockfall hazard at the site and also
presented the landscape plan for the project.
Grant Riva - Overall scheme is good. Traffic circulation
is also good. Pleased with project and is in favor.
Peqqy Osterfoss - Questioned rockfall mitigation. Will gym
wall be able to handle the blow from a falling boulder?
John Milan - Woodward -Clyde is the geologic consultant and
will do further study, however, the rear wall of the gym
will be designed to mitigate any rockfall.
Peggy Osterfoss - Overall plan is a positive improvement.
Are all those parking spaces needed?
John Milan - Not really, but it will be buffered by
. landscaping.
Diana Donovan - Have bike path curve around the existing •
trees, instead of just a straight shot. Cars may be parked
too close to the soccer field. DRB should look at
landscaping.
Sidney Schultz - Questioned the vertical separation between
the Frontage Road and the bike path?
John Milan - About 6' or 71.
Jim Viele - Mountain School has been a good neighbor. Run
bike path as originally planned and do not relocate
existing trees.
Motion: Grant Riva - Conditional Use Permit, approve as
submitted with conditions 1 - 3 listed in staff memo.
Second: Diana Donovan
Vote: 5 - 0 (Pam Hopkins abstained)
Motion: Diana Donovan - Approve variances per staff memo
Second: Peggy Osterfoss
Vote: 5 - 0 (Pam Hopkins abstained)
8. Vail Run Satellite Dish - Variance Request: •
Rick Pylman - Presented the staff memo. Staff
recommendation is for approval. Hardship has been shown
and it would not be a grant of special privilege. Color is
white.
Motion: Peggy Osterfoss - Approval of variance. DRB should
require additional landscape screening if tennis
bubble is ever removed.
Second: Grant Riva
Vote: 5 - 0
9. Bed and Breakfast Ordinance:
Peter Patten - Updated the PEC on the progress of the Bed
and Breakfast ordinance.
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 13, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to construct
an addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center, including
a new parking structure.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
A. Hospital Expansion
The proposed expansion entails construction of
approximately 31,209 square feet for patient care, as
well as an on -site parking structure. The project would
include the completion of the second floor on the north
side of the recently built west wing. Completion of the
second floor will allow immediate expansion of the
patient care unit (PCU) by 20 beds. The second floor is
8,150 square feet. A small entry addition adjacent to
the parking structure is proposed for the first floor
(1,242 s.f.) .
Construction of a full third floor on top of the
10 existing west wing adds 21,817 square feet. The new
third floor will house a surgical suite comprised of
four operating rooms, doctors' offices, a fourth
radiology room, as well as ancillary services.
B. Parking
The hospital proposes to construct a 2 -1/2 level parking
structure at the east end of its property. The
structure will provide parking for 177 vehicles, with
access directly off South Frontage Road. The elevation
of the top level of the parking structure would be
slightly lower than that of the existing South Frontage
Road. The north end of the structure would be
constructed on land currently owned by the Doubletree
Hotel. The Vail Valley Medical Center and the Doubletree
Hotel have entered into an agreement to allow the
structure to be built on Doubletree land in return for
shared parking arrangements and other considerations.
The hospital's proposed structure will be built in such
a way that it can be connected to the Doubletree's
underground parking at a later date to allow sharing of
parking. The structure would eliminate 20 existing
surface parking spaces on Doubletree property. These 20
spaces will be replaced in the proposed structure.
Surface Parking will occur on the present west lot,
providing for 104 vehicles with an additional 18 surface
spaces on town owned Lot 10. The lot is leased from the
town and will remain in its present configuration with
access off West Meadow Drive for the near term.
The Vail Valley Medical Center is required to provide a
total of 220 parking spaces on site. The 1986
conditional use permit calculated the requirement for
220 spaces by adding the number of day shift employees,
hospital beds, and exam rooms. The overall total
included an obstetrics (OB) wing on the north side of
the second floor, although this was never built. Thus,
the number of parking spaces calculated for the unbuilt
OB wing should be credited against the overall parking
requirement. The following table outlines how the 220
number was derived:
unenrmnT.
USE SPACES REQR
1
space
per
bed
30
1
space
per
emergency exam bed
9
1
space
per
employee (maximum on day shift)
55
94 94
DOCTORS
OFFICES
1
space
per
doctor
32
1
space
per
employee
38
1
space
per
exam room
44
•
114 114
AMBULANCE GARAGE
1 space per transport vehicle 4
1 space per employee (on duty) 2
meeting room space 6
12 12
Total spaces required for entire facility 220
If the parking spaces for the obstetrics wing are deducted
from the total requirement of 220, 203 spaces are needed to
service the building actually constructed in 1986 -87, based
upon the formula agreed to by the Town and Hospital. The
obstetrics wing called for the following parking:
USE
PARKING SPACES
Patient beds -OB 10
Exam room - OB 1
Day shift employees- OB 6
Total
17 spaces
•
C�
•
The incremental parking requirements that the proposed
expansion will generate are computed as follows:
USE
Patient beds - General
Exam rooms - General
Day shift employees- general
Total
PARKING SPACES
20
6
49
75 spaces
Therefore, new parking requirements are computed as follows:
USE
PARKING SPACES
Base figure 86 -87 expansion 203
Incremental increase, 89 -90 expansion 75
Total Required
278
Parking will be located on the property in the following
areas:
Parking structure
Surface parking
Lot 10
Total
Available parking
Doubletree parking in
northeast structure
Total
Required
177 spaces
104 spaces
_1.8 spaces
299 spaces
299 spaces
- 20 spaces
279 spaces
278
1 space above required
* It should be noted that no valet parking is proposed with
this expansion.
Due to thefact that the hospital is proposing to construct a
portion of the parking structure on Doubletree property, 20
parking spaces for the Doubletree will be lost. The Hospital
has agreed to provide 20 spaces within the northeast parking
structure for full time use by the Doubletree. If and when
the Doubletree expands, the Hospital will permit the hotel to
use up to 48 additional spaces between the hours of 5;30 PM
and 2:30 AM. The 20 spaces previously assigned to the
Doubletree on a full time basis would revert to Hospital use
between 2:30 AM and 5:30 PM. The following chart indicates
how the parking will be utilized by the Hospital and
Doubletree when the Doubletree expansion occurs.
3
•
PHASE I PHASE II
VVMC EXPANSION) [DOUBLETREE EXPANSION
2:30AM- 5:30PM 5 :30PM- 2:30AM 2:30AM- 5:30PM 5:30PM- 2:30AM
REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED
DBLTREE 167 167 167 167 261 193 261 261
HOSPITAL 278 279 278 279 278 299 278 231
It should be noted that the Hospital plans to provide all of
its parking on site for the current expansion. The Hospital
will gain an additional 20 parking spaces during the day once
the Doubletree expands. The Hospital will have a deficit of
48 spaces in the evening hours between 5:30 PM and 2:30 AM
after the Doubletree expansion.
* The Hospital has provided parking counts indicating a
drastic reduction in the number of cars on site after 5:30 pm
(Please see parking counts memo, attached).
C. South Frontage Road Improvements
The Hospital, Doubletree Hotel, and Vail National Bank have
joined together to develop an Access Control Plan for a
section of the South Frontage Road directly adjacent to their
properties. The Access Control Plan was prepared by TDA,
Colorado, Inc. (Please see attached TDA report, January
3, 1989). The plan has not been approved by CDOH to date.
CDOH's position is contained in the attached letter from
Charles Dunn to Peter Patten.
The improvements proposed in the Access Control Plan are
divided into two phases:
Phase I (Vail Valley Medical Center Expansion):
1. The Doubletree will re -align its existing east entry.
2. The Vail National Bank will re -align its east entry so
that it is opposite the Town of Vail Post Office parking
lot entrance. This access point will only be used as an
entrance. Cars will enter at this point and drive
through the parking lot and out the west side of the
property. This will allow for one way flow of traffic.
The Vail National Bank is also considering additional
parking and loading spaces in front of the Bank. The
Vail National Bank must submit for a variance for
parking in the front setback and final Design Review
Board approval before their proposal will be finalized.
Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) approval will be
• required, as well.
4
3. The Hospital will construct their access into the
northeast parking structure. They will also be
responsible for the widening of the south shoulder of
the South Frontage Road which will allow for the
extension of the left turn lane on the South Frontage
Road that presently extends from the 4 -way stop west to
the Town of Vail post office access drive. The left -
turn lane will be a continuous two -way turn lane for 500
feet. This will provide left turn storage for each
future access drive and extend westerly through the
Doubletree's frontage.
Phase II (Doubletree Hotel Expansion):
1. The Doubletree Hotel will construct a right turn de-
celeration lane along the east bound South Frontage Road
in conjunction with the future expansion. The lane will
be approximately 150 feet long with a 90 foot tapered
section. At the time of the future expansion, the
Doubletree will relocate its eastern entrance further to
the west and allow for ingress and an access drive
egress. The existing extreme west and east access
points will be closed. A restricted use delivery truck
only access drive is anticipated at the very west end of
the Doubletree to serve as a loading dock location.
TDA also states that traffic through the four -way stop
shall be decreased by the access plan:
"Based on observed turning movements at the bank
and Doubletree Inn, between 1/3 and 1/4 of the
Hospital's peak hour trips will be oriented to the
west. Hence, the proposed access plan will lessen
the percentage of Hospital trips passing through
the 4 -way stop intersection by 25 to 33 %. This
reduction of 25 to 30 p.m. peak hour trips using
Vail Road should be noticeable in peak hour traffic
operations. Specifically, the single -lane
northbound Vail Road approach at the 4 -way stop
will experience reduced length of vehicle queue by
virture of the proposed access plan." (TDA Report,
p.9, January 3, 1989)
Please note that the plan assumes that the
configuration of the four -way stop remains the same.
D. Hospital Master Plan
The Hospital has developed a long range master plan which
envisions future expansions and also coincides with the
Doubletree's master plan. The plan calls for redevelopment
of the east end of the Hospital property including demolition
of the original clinic built during the late 601s. The
• emergency room and the ambulance garage would be relocated to
01
the east end (South side of the parking structure) with
direct access to the South Frontage Road. Demolition of the
ambulance garage would allow construction of an access
connecting the east structure with a parking structure at the
west end. Thus, the master plan provides for moving
virtually all Hospital traffic from West Meadow Drive.
The Hospital submitted a plan which shows maximum build -out
heights of 4 stories on the west wing, 2 stories on the
center wing, and 4 stories on the east wing. This massing is
restricted through agreements with the Doubletree. A future
northwest parking structure is also proposed. The west
parking structure would be limited to 2 -1/2 stories with one
floor being underground. The total build -out square footage
for the Hospital is estimated to be 231,940 square feet.
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
The
site is located in the Public Use
Zone District. There
are
no specific development standards
for this district.
Instead the zoning code states:
"The public use district is intended
to provide sites
for public and quasi - public uses
which, because of their
special characteristics cannot be
appropriately
regulated by the development standards
prescribed for
other zoning districts, and for
which development
standards especially prescribed
for each particular
development proposal or project
are necessary to achieve
the purposes prescribed in Section
18.02.020 and to
provide for the public welfare."
A.
Site Area: 3.811 acres or 166,007
square feet
B.
Floor Area:
Existing
New Total
Basement 12,490
0 12,490
First Floor 48,752
1,242 49,994
Second Floor 35,239
8,150 43,389
Third Floor 0
21,817 21,817
96,481
31,209 127,690
C.
Site Coverage:
Square Feet
Building 49,994
30.2
Ambulance Storage 2,320
1
Parking Structure 13,850
8.3
Paving 51,000
30.7
Open Space 481845
29.4
Landscaping
Site Area 166,009
+100%
6
D. Sctbacks!
Front /South: 25 ft. (no change)
. Side /East: 0 ft. (no change)
Rear /North: 0 ft.
Side /West: (no change)
E. Height:
46 ft. The proposed expansion will have a total of
three stories.
III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department
recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the
following factors:
Consideration of Factors.
A. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives
of the Town.
Staff believes that the Hospital is in an acceptable location
provided that proper site and land use planning is
coordinated with surrounding properties. We are comfortable
that if the master plan is followed the hospital can continue
to expand in an orderly manner that will be positive for the
community. However, we do feel that the site could benefit
in the long -term by relocating the doctors' offices and
pharmacy to another site. This would free up additional
square footage for necessary hospital uses and also decrease
traffic.
The Vail Valley Medical Center provides vital services for
both permanent residents of Vail as well as our guests. The
medical center is an important facility which will meet the
present and future medical needs of the Town of Vail. The
purpose section of the Public Use District states that public
and quasi - public uses must provide for the public welfare and
also meet the general purposes as prescribed in Section
18.02.020 of the zoning code.
Section 18.02.020:
1. To provide for adequate light, air,
sanitation, drainage, and public facilities;
2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood,
avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other
dangerous conditions;
3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and
• vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen
congestion in the streets;
4.
To promote adequate and appropriately located
•
off street parking and loading facilities;
5.
To conserve and maintain established
community qualities and economic values;
6.
To encourage a harmonious, convenient, and
workable relationship among land uses,
consistent with municipal development
objectives;
7.
To prevent excessive population densities and
over crowding of the land with structures;
8.
To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the
Town;
9.
To conserve and protect wildlife, streams,
woods, hillsides and other desirable natural
features;
10. To assure adequate open space, recreation
opportunities, and other amenities and
facilities conducive to desired living
quarters;
11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an
. orderly and viable community.
The staff feels that the proposed hospital expansion
reinforces these objectives of the zoning code.
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 height of 46 ft. proposed with this expansion should not
have major impacts on light and air. Height limitations as
outlined in the master plan have been designed by considering
impacts on adjacent properties, particularly West Meadow
Drive.
In respect to utilities, major utilities are located in the
area of the proposed parking structure. The applicant is in
the process of determining how the relocation could be
accomplished.
The hospital is a significant public facility which meets
community health needs. The project definitely satisfies a
major public facility need.
• 8
C. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to
congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,
traffic osnowdfrom the st0 reet maneuverability, and
removal of
and parking areas.
1. Frontage Road Access Control Plan:
The proposed northeast parking structure was designed
with the intent of removing traffic from the West Meadow
Drive area. The approach to parking and vehicular
access supports the goals listed in the Land Use Plan
for this area. In the preliminary stages of review,
both the Planning Commission and Staff indicated to the
hospital that it was important to remove traffic from
the West Meadow Drive area. The Land Use Plan has
designated the West Meadow Drive area as a transition
area between the Lionshead and Vail Village Commercial
Cores. Section 4.4 the Land Use Plan states:
The connection between the Village Core and Lionshead
should be enhanced through:
A. Installation of a new type of people mover.
B. Improving the pedestrian system with a creatively
designed connection, oriented toward a nature walk,
alpine garden, and /or sculpture plaza.
9 C. New development should be controlled to limit
commercial uses.
A high percentage of the vehicular trips on West Meadow
Drive are due to the hospital. The applicants submitted
information for total trips on West Meadow Drive for
October 15th and October 18th. They state that:
"Total trips on West Meadow Drive between 7:00 am
and 5:00 pm range from a low of 1,018 trips on
Saturday, 15th of October to a high of 1,618 on
Thursday, September 29th. The percentage of
vehicles on West Meadow Drive using the hospital
varies from approximately 34% on October 15th to
530 on October 18th." (Letter from Dan Feeney to
Kristan Pritz October 21, 1988.)
The peak number of all vehicles using West Meadow Drive
during a 60- minute interval on each date is as follows:
DATE TIME INTERVAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES
29 Sept. 11 am - noon 185
15 Oct. 11 am - noon 158
18 Oct. 1 - 2 pm 156
9
By providing the structure and new access on the
Northeast corner of the property, these trip numbers
. should be substantially decreased. The decrease in
hospital traffic using West Meadow Drive supports the
long term community goal to develop West Meadow Drive as
a pedestrian link between the two villages.
In respect to the road improvements proposed in the Access
Control Plan prepared by TDA Colorado Inc., the staff
believes that the plan provides for much needed improvements
to the South Frontage Road. The key issue related to the
Access Control Plan is whether or not the Colorado Division
of Highways will find the plan acceptable. In a preliminary
review session on January 31, 1989 in Grand Junction, the
hospital, Vail National Bank, Doubletree Hotel, and
representatives from the Town of Vail met with the Highway
Department Access Control Committee to review the plan. The
Highway Department wrote a letter summarizing their concerns
with the Access Control Plan.
Instead of denying the proposal by strict application of the
State Access Code, the Colorado Division of Highways agreed
that access to the parking structure would be possible
provided that "continuous acceleration, deceleration, and
left turn lanes are provided ". They stated that they felt
that it was possible to provide a positive access design that
will meet the requirements of the property owners without
compromising public safety. The highway department
M recommended that the property owners consider the following
design options:
1. Provide one access to the parking structure which
in turn provides access to the Doubletree and Vail
National Bank.
2. Close the two westerly approaches to the old Post
Office and provide a road to the easterly approach
along the Interstate right of way and connect
parking lots around the Post office. This would
allow for movement to the Frontage Road more to the
North.
3. Removal of the super elevation (bank of the road)
and center line spirals to gain more room. (Please
see letter from Mr. Chuck Dunn, District Right of
Way Engineer, February 1, 1989.)
The Highway Department also indicated that it would be
helpful if the Town of Vail would determine what uses
would be located in the Post Office building once it is
vacated. The effects of a fourth lane in the northern
area of the highway right -of -way should also be studied
by the Town of Vail to determine how a potential for
Is of fourth lane might effect access onto the Town
of Vail property.
10
In light of these comments, the hospital requested to
meet with the council on February 7, to discuss how the
proposed Frontage Road improvements affect the Town of
Vail and to ask for Town of Vail support in resolving
the conflict. At that meeting the council passed a
resolution addressing the hospital request. (Copies of
the resolution will be available on Monday.)
The staff also agrees with the resolution in the respect
that we are supportive of the property owners efforts to
work out an acceptable Frontage Road improvement plan
with the Colorado Department of Highways. Instead of
prohibiting the project from proceeding through the
planning process, the staff believes that it is
acceptable to proceed with planning commission review of
the proposal with the condition that an access permit be
approved by the Colorado Division of Highways before a
building permit is released for the hospital expansion.
The proposal is extremely complex and involves three
private property owners plus the Town of Vail. To their
credit, the three property owners have reached agreement
on a myriad of issues which allow for the completion of
the Frontage Road improvements.
2. Shared Parking.
The hospital has submitted information which indicates that
the required parking drastically decreases after 5:00 pm. The
parking information provided by the hospital below indicates
this pattern:
% OF
0
TOTAL NUMBER OF EXCESS SPACES
DATE TIME CAPACITY VEHICLES PARKED CAPACITY UNUSED
Dec 30 3:30pm 205 158 47 23%
Dec 30 8:OOpm 205 39 166 81%
Jan 4 3:30pm 205 165 40 19.5%
Jan 4 8:OOpm 205 36 169 82%
Jan 11 5:30pm 205 113 92 45%
Jan 12 5 :30pm 205 101 104 51%
When the parking structure is complete, our total
capacity will be increased to 279 spaces. Because the
mix of hospital services is not expected to change with
our proposed expansion, it seems a reasonable assumption
that the percentage of total spaces unused at 5:30 pm
will remain approximately 45 -51 %, as it was on January
11 and 12. Thus, the number of unused parking spaces at
5 :50 pm will increase to the range of 126 -142 when the
parking structure is constructed. This is almost three
times the number of spaces we have made available to the
Doubletree Hotel during evening hours.
0 11
Employees who fill day -time only jobs, such as business
office personnel, normally leave the hospital between
• 4:30 pm and 5:00 pm. Shift changes for positions that
are staffed round - the - clock, such as nursing and EMT
jobs, occur variously between 3:00 pm and 4:00 pm.
Thus, the overlap that occurs while one shift is
finishing and another is coming on duty is finished long
before the spaces would have to be available to the
Doubletree. In addition, most evening shifts have 25-
30% fewer personnel than the day shifts they replace.
(Letter from Dan Feeney January 13, 1989)
The Doubletree has submitted the following information
concerning their parking utilization:
The results of the survey show that daytime parking
demand for the Hotel employees, condominium owners, and
guests ranged from approximately 15% to 38% of supply.
During this period Hotel occupancy ranged from 32% to
100 %. 38% of the parking supply is equal to 63 parked
cars.
During the evening hours the survey indicates that a
number of "unauthorized" cars utilize the parking
supplied by the Doubletree. These are patrons of the
bar and restaurant and when factored into the survey
indicate a higher utilization of the parking supply. At
9:00 p.m. the 167 spaces were never full but our
. observation is that later in the evening the parking
fills close to capacity.
The survey supports very strongly that the jointly
shared parking arrangement proposed by the Vail valley
Medical Center and the Doubletree is a workable and
desirable solution. Even though our survey indicates
peak usage during the day is roughly 38% maximum we are
proposing to provide 73% of our required spaces during
the day and 100% in the evening hours. The difference
will more than provide a "cushion" for any seasonal
fluctuations or special events that may occur. (Memo
from Peter Jamar dated January 10, 1989.)
The Staff approves of the shared parking concept for these
two projects. We believe that the shared parking will
provide for a more efficient use of parking between both
projects.
3. Delivery Service:
The existing driveway at the east end of the hospital will be
maintained as a fire lane to facilitate snow removal from the
upper deck of the parking structure and as an access to the
service door at the southeast corner of the parking
structures lower level. The service door at the south will
12
•
be used only by maintenance vehicles and not by the public.
Deliveries will continue to be received at the materials
management department in the southeast corner of the building
via West Meadow Drive. At this time, the hospital does not
feel that it is practical to have truck deliveries drive
through the proposed parking structure at the east side.
4. Snow Removal:
Snow on the top level of the parking structure will be pushed
off the southeast corner into the service corridor. Because
of extremely limited space the hospital anticipates trucking
snow off the site after every major snow storm and after
second or third moderately sized snow storm. Staff concern
on this issue is that the hospital agrees that all snow
removal and drainage must be handled on their site. Drainage
and snow may not be pushed onto the Frontage Road or to other
adjacent properties.
5. Pedestrian Connection With The Bank:
The hospital is providing a sidewalk connection from the Vail
National Bank property to the top level of the parking
structure. Although the design and location of the sidewalk
may need to be refined at the request of CDOH and at the
Design Review Board level, the staff believes that the
sidewalk connection between the Vail National Bank and
hospital parking structure is important.
Staff Summary:
The Staff feels that the proposal is a vast improvement over
existing conditions on the Frontage Road and will provide a
sound solution for parking and access to the site. _The most
significant benefit of the plan is obviously for West Meadow
Drive.
It is estimated by the hospital that because 85 fewer parking
spaces will have access off West Meadow Drive, they
anticipate that an immediate reduction of 500 trips per day
during peak periods will be achieved. This is based on the
hospital's observation that each parking space generates 5 -6
trips on West Meadow Drive between lam and 5pm. (See letter
from Dan Feeney). Vehicular traffic will be drastically
reduced, safety will be improved and the door will be opened
to make the necessary improvements to make this an attractive
and safe pedestrian connection between the Village and
Lionshead.
D. Effect up
)n the character of the area
which the
use is to be located includinq the scale and bulk of the
proposed use in relation to surrounding uses.
• 13
The hospital expansion does effect the character of the area
due to the increased bulk and mass of the proposed expansion.
• However, even though the hospital has somewhat of an
institutional appearance, the third floor expansion on West
Meadow Drive has been designed to break up the bulk and mass
of the expansion as much as possible. The third floor is not
one solid building wall extending above the second floor.
Instead, the architects have broken up the mass by the use of
two deck areas and one recessed area.
The hospital has also used as much glass as possible along
the west and south elevations. The glass also helps to
decrease the perception of the bulk of the building.
The parking structure has minimal impacts on West Meadow
Drive. Most of the structure is hidden from view by the
existing eastern wing of the hospital. From the South
Frontage Road, the parking structure will actually be
slightly below the grade of the road so visual impacts of the
structure on the Frontage Road should be minimal. It will be
important that as much landscaping as is possible (given CDOH
requirements) be located in the planting areas along the
South Frontage Road. Even though the structure itself will
not be visible it will be positive to screen the view of cars
parked on the top of the structure.
The hospital is proposing to decrease the amount of asphalt
on the east side of the Medical Center. Access will still
need to be provided for fire and maintenance vehicles along
the east side of the hospital. However, the hospital has
proposed to landscape between the access road and the
adjacent Skall Hus property. Staff believes that this will
be a positive improvement for both projects. Access to the
trash facility will still be maintained for the Skall Hus.
IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed use.
Vail Valley Medical Center Master Plan:
The Staff is looking at the Master Plan as a conceptual guide
for future development on the site. Below is a summary of
our comments on the proposal:
1. The parking structures should be connected by a ramp
that will allow for direct access between the two
structures. We realize that the connection is not
feasible until the ambulance building is relocated to
the eastern portion of the site. However, we do not
feel that it would be acceptable to build the western
parking structure without this connection. Even if a
west parking structure is not built, we continue to
. recommend that access from the northeast parking
structure to the west surface parking lot be provided
once the ambulance building is relocated.
14
2. Staff would prefer to see future parking located under
40 the east wing of the hospital when it is rebuilt. It
would benefit the site if the western parking structure
could be avoided.
3. We feel strongly that the fourth floor for the east and
west wing should be pulled back from the West Meadow
Drive side of the expansion. Terracing back will reduce
the mass of the building to the users of the street and
to the adjacent residences.
4. The Staff does not feel that the hospital should rely on
Lot 10 to meet parking needs in the future. Eventually,
once the West Meadow Drive pedestrian mall is created,
Lot 10 will most likely be used for landscaping and a
pocket park.
5. Staff could not support an expanded service delivery
area off of Meadow Drive on the southeast corner of the
property. Instead, we would strongly encourage loading
and delivery to be relocated to an area that could
access off of the South Frontage Road.
Master Land Use Plan:
The Vail Valley Medical Center lies in the Transition Area.
This land use designation is described as follows:
The transition designation applies to the area between
Lionshead and the Vail Village. The activities and site
design of this area are aimed at encouraging pedestrian
flow through the area and strengthening the connection
between the two commercial cores. Appropriate
activities include hotels, lodging and other tourist
oriented residential units, ancillary retail and
restaurant uses, museums, areas of public art, nature
exhibits, gardens, pedestrian plazas, and other types of
civic and culturally oriented uses, and the adjacent
properties to the north. This designation would include
the right -of -way of West Meadow Drive and the adjacent
properties to the north. (Land Use Plan, page 33)
Also, as previously noted, policy 4.4 refers to possible
future improvements to the West Meadow Drive area.
The staff finds that the proposal is in concert with the Land
Use Plan. The key element is reducing traffic on West Meadow
Drive to facilitate implementation of policy 4.4. We feel
the Vail Valley Medical Center, Doubletree and Bank deserve
credit for working out an agreement to allow access for the
Vail Valley Medical Center from the Frontage Road.
• 15
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 conditional use request
and
adoption of the development standards per the proposed
plans with the following conditions:
1.
An access permit for the South Frontage Road improvement
plan shall be obtained by the Vail Valley Medical Center
as well as Vail National Bank and Doubletree owners
before a building permit will be released for the
proposed hospital expansion.
2.
The Frontage Road improvement plan will include a
minimum of three lanes as proposed in the Access Control
Plan.
3.
The proposed Special Development District 14 for the
Doubletree Hotel is approved by the Planning Commission
and Town Council.
4. Snow removal and drainage from the proposed expansion
and parking structure shall not be handled on the
South Frontage Road right of way.
5. Access through the southeast corner of the parking
structure shall be limited to fire and maintenance
vehicles. The general public and hospital employees
shall not utilize this access.
0 16
•
NOTE: The Town Council has asked that the PEC diseuss with the
applicants how an assessment district could be
structured which would commit the Vail Valley Medical
Center, Bank and Doubletree Hotel owners to helping fund
necessary future road widening improvements in the area
directly in front of these properties. The Council
feels that the proposed improvements would push future
widening to the north side of the right of way and
they do not feel that the town should be responsible for
the total cost of these improvements.
0 17
JAMES E. H®RIGAN
5236 LaLeshare Drive
Uldeton, C.olora& 80123
(303) 795 -5718
November 14, 1988
Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
Vail ,00. 81658
RE: Proposal to Further
Enlarge the Vail
Medical, Facility
Dear Members of the Planning Commission: -
The undersigned are owners of property interests
at 252 W. Meadow Drive, As such, we strongly object to
the current proposal to further expand the Vail hospital.
Indeed, the recently completed expansion was of itself
a serious mistake and there should be no effort to only
aggravate the situation.
West Meadow Drive is already a bottlenecked dead -
end from a traffic and. congestion standpoint with an
almost endless parade of ped6strians, cyclists, and
automobiles, It is, in fact, a place where many accidents
may be expected to happen, particularly if the situation
is allowed to worsen. The hospital expansion proposal
would certainly be most detrimental to the health,
safety, and wel%q f Vail Village am a mountain ski
a �
and resort rea /conOti.ons of thus nature are not to
be expectedt much less tolerated.
Even if Vail were a Boston or Manhattan, it is
unlikely that a proposal of this nature would be
acceptable to zoning and traffic planners. City planners
would no doubt be horrified with the thought that ,
within a small one or two block radius, there would be
an expanding hospital in such close proximity to a.
public library, a fire station, a sports/ entertainment
public arena, twor major hotels, office and other
buildings, private residences, etc....all accessed by
a street that serves a combination of footpath, cyclg
trail, and roadway for all kinds of vehicular traffic.
It would seem to be the responsibilty of town
planners to create and maintain a safer and more
pleasant environment in keening with the concepts of the
original town planners.
cc: Vail Town Council
Very Truly YYoours,
Do you care that the orthopedic surgeons at Vail Sports
Medicine may be forced to leave Vail as a result of the hospital bringin'.
in Dick Steadman, the U.S. Ski Team physician? Do you care that
Steadman is not coming alone but is bringing a partner and that
together they will be assisted by three resident orthopedic surgeons
at all times? There are three orthopedic surgeons now in Vail.
When Steadman comes that number will be increased to eight.
Bye --bye Gottlieb, Chipman, and Janes.
But that's the free enterprise system, right? Competition
and all that?
Wrong!
Our hospital is non - profit, partially supported by fundraisers
and contributions from locals. Physicians pay rent and receive no
salaries from the hospital.
The hospital has offered a contract to Dick Steadman stating
that they will pay him an annual salary of $300.,000.00. He will be
paid $150,000.00 out right and $1,500.00 for each surgery case he does
over 500 cases. He says he does 600 each year which will add the
additioxial $150,000.00. If you question this, ask the hospital
administration for a copy of his contract.
Chipman and Gottlieb have been caring, responsible surgeons
in Vail for many years. Their new partner, Janes, seems to be of
the same calliber. They stay at the forefront of every new break-
through in Sports Medicine and arthroscopic surgery.
Do we really need Dick Steadman at the expense of the current
orthopedic surgeons who have provided wonderful care to so many of
us (including me) for many years? Please reconsider your support
for this situation.
A Loyal Patient,
Marty Swenson
P.O. Box 4566
Vail, CO 81658
•
•
•
C�
Mr. Peter Patten
Planning Director
Town of Vail
Vail, CO 81658
Dear Mr. Patten:
This letter is to protest the proposed expansion of the Vail
Hospital on West Meadow Drive and the construction of a 55,000
square foot parking garage.
1. Traffic on West Meadow Drive where we live is already
creating a major hazard to pedestrians who naturally like to
stroll on the board roadway. All we need is more ambulances and
sirens to add to the excitement.
2. Recent newspapers and periodicals are filled with
stories about the glut of empty hospital beds, and the closing of
medical facilities in small rural towns. Has the need for more
hospital beds in Vail really been proven? Why should everyone
from the region need to drive all the way to Vaal. Why not a
branch facility in another town in Eagle or Summit County?
3. At a recent meeting it was suggested that Vail hospital
could become the Mayo Clinic of the Rockies. I suggest that
expansion of the hospital could further erode our swiss village
atmosphere by becoming the Denver General Hospital of Vail. The
original clinic was designed to assist the full -time residents of
Vail and treat the injuries of our visiting skiers. It does the
job admirably. Do we really need a research center or is this
just item #1 on someone's "medical wish list "?
Let's stop this project before it gets out of control.
CC: Vail Town Council
Vail Trail
Vail Daily
Yours truly,
Charles and Jane Martz
252 West Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81658
HARRISON F. KEPNER
8167. JUNIPER ROAD • LITTLETON, COLORADO 80123
October 1, 1988
Town of Vail
Town Planning Director
Vail Colorado, 81558
Attention: Mr. Peter Patten
Dear Mr. Patten,
This is to protest any further hospital expansion
or increased traffic along West Meadow Drive.
I have lived on this street for twenty -five years
(Skaal Hus Condominiums and private home on 252
W. Meadow drive), which means starting there before
there were any other buildings on the street.
As you know, the hospital land was originally zoned
residential, and we helped re -zone it to allow a
Small hospital /clinic for the good of the Town of
• Vail, Additions since have gone way beyond the
original scope and "promises" to the then property
owners nearby.
Traffic is now such that tourists walking between
main Vail and Lionshead are severely bothered. This
is the only stretch between these Town centers that
is open for general traffic, and is certainly a
negative tourist attraction for our beautiful Town.
A seperate entrance for current hospital traffic
would be in our best interest to promote Vail as a
"walking" village.
Your kindness is considering these concerns will be
most appreciated.
' Sincerely,
Hal Kep r
CC: Vail Town Council
•
•
September 23, 1988
Town of Vail
Town Planning Director
Vail, Colorado, 81658
Attention: Mr. Peter Patten:
Dear tr. Patten:
This letter is in regard to an article in the Vail
Trail concerning a proposal by Dan Feeney to increase
the size of the Vail Hospital on West Meadow Drive.
We live at 252 West Meadow Drive which is directly
across from the hospital and we oppose any expansion
of the present building.
When the original Vail Clinic (as it was once known.)
was proposed, the home owners on West Meadow Drive were
asked to approve a zoning change in order to construct a
small clinic and everyone cooperated when told that it
was going to remain small and local.
• We opposed the recently completed expansion which
was bad enough, but this new proposal is ridiculous!
The building is becoming a monster without giving any
consideration to the neighbors on west Meadow Drive.
The street has historically been a walking, jogging, &
bicycle environment and we have already witnessed a great
deal more traffic since the recent addition and we think it
is time to stop any further expansion of the hospital.
Vail is not the oniv location available in Summit
and Eagle counties to construct a hospital and we protest
any plan to expand the present facility in Vail,
1 suggest that the Planning Commission spend more time
on beautification and establishing more green belts than
trying to make a Denver out of Vail.
cc: Vail Trail
Diana Donovan
Vail Town Council
is Mery Lapin
Yours very truly,
Wendell & Arlene aley
252 West Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81658
: L
WE THE UNDERSIGNED, REPRESENTING THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ON WEST +1
MEADOW DRIVE FROM THE FIRE STATION TO THE LIBRARY REQUEST THE FOLLOWING FROM
THE TOWN COUNCIL: TO HAVE THE HOSPITAL CHANCE IT'S ENTRANCE FROM WEST MEADOW •
HE SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD. THERE PRESENTLY EXIST A DANGEROUS SITUATION
i H WILL ONLY WORSEN WITH THE HOSPITAL EXPANSION. AS THE DEMAND FOR THE
HOSPITAL HAS AND WILL INCREASE THERE IS A GREATER CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
PEDESTRIAN AND CAR TRAFFIC. THIS IS PARTICULARY DANCERIOUS BECAUSE OF THE
INCREASFtUTILIZATION OF THE LIBRARY AND ICE ARENA BY CHILDREN.
NAME
ADDRESS
Liu?, L
�4e
r.
vo� tic
.� _. :. ,' a.- ::.•...w�n-r r_. �.,- ..e - -x c��ss �,n.� �>, 16z-
:........-- ....... a. . -n. .. -.r__, , .,.......-.-....,. r-.. rr:. nn. r, v. sr.. a. exs_ ivr�rn, 2MtxnY ...,�a�rtr•.:rma <ssoau.,.,.. ,-... ....r <.. ..aa.:. .. -.r .....__ s ..r.ar...•rnca:��aa...�rrrr.�.. _l cirrc.���.aFixcr:.r�-
r
. �. �, �o. �l...,,,,.......,_._.><... y.......,_..,..:,. ..._...H....w......,..._.r.�,.. - — - .. �...><._.:...._... s_. e�..,,.. a._ �.».., �.. �. �..,. ��d.., m... o.,...... v...... r... xn ,..w..�.,......��.,�u�..,r.,._.
t!
n
U
RECD SEP 2 6 1988
-7*zi. 4ozyan 12). 2�ouyLal, Olt.
B-x 476
cVad, eolowdo 81658
September 23, 1988
Mr. Ron Phillips
Town Manager
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Ron:
As long time residents of Vail, residing at 142 West
Meadow Drive, we are aware that the Town of Vail is
concerned with the amount of traffic that uses this
street. May we please bring two matters to your
attention.
1. The Dead End sign is not visible until the
driver has committed himself to making the
turn on West Meadow Drive, so he continues
on and turns around 4tither in our circular
driveway, or at the cul -de -sac.
2. A driver may be trying to get to the Lions -
head parking structure.
Two signs are needed at the stop signs, pointing to
West Meadow Drive: NO OUTLET and NO PUBLIC PARKING,
or HOSPITAL PARKING ONLY.
Another suggestion is to put a traffic counter on the
south side of the cul-de-sac and one going into the
hospital to determine how many people are lost, sight-
Very truely yours,
Catherine and Morgan Douglas
,j
u
TM
IUWH of V-8--I'
75 south frontage road
vaif, coiorado 81657
(303) 476 -7000
office of the town manager
VAIL 1989
October 3, 1988
Mr. and Mrs. Morgan D. Douglas, Jr.
P. 0. Box 476
Vail, Colorado 81658
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Douglas:
Thank you for your letter concerning traffic on West Meadow Drive. We
appreciate your observations and suggestions and will be studying those
to see how we can best implement change.
is You may be aware that the Town has been undergoing extensive study and
recommendations for a new signage program, both vehicular and
pedestrian, and we will take your suggestions into consideration as this
program is being implemented.
Your interest in the community is much appreciated, and we would be glad
to hear from you at any time concerning problems or suggestions you may
have.
Sincerely,
ilt �f ' ,� -
Rondall V. Phillips
Town Manager
RVp /bsc j
cc: Peter Patten
Stan Berryman
•
0
•
L�
10
10
-1 :E: r.
? W LV� --�NF �O tDOD V
H
IE �F 7F
l l!! 1 1 1 1 1 1
01 -P W N H F1 r- 1-+ tD 00
M
fD to
N O
O CD O w O
O r3 O
ri. -S c+ cl.
O w w cu 1w
m
aunryxa,
3
;a
W
J
��
(D
r rri
O
O
C]
o a+ o
(D
❑ d
Ccn c Cn
CD 3 w O
V
e + c+
C-5
NODW V�CrlM V -J -4 V
�
w
M1 ,DV CD t0 V MWC) 4�-N
0 ho
rn
fi
C
z al,
< m
H
�n
LCD
C.
r-
N C
NOT COUNTED
"
_
fD
CL
CD
(D (/! fb CD
i
3
1/1
H 07
O J
rq
a rri
= !~
'
V)
co r/1
r^
-1 :E: r.
LD
C7
NOT APPLICABLE
fD to
uz
CL
w -E
p
�.
3
IT -1
W
J
��
(D
r rri
n
D 70
v (D
(D
❑ d
Q �
C+ [7 L3
V
�^5 Q
C-5
NODW V�CrlM V -J -4 V
�
w
M1 ,DV CD t0 V MWC) 4�-N
SC
fi
M Q
�
s
C.
O•
N C
ff
_
fD
CL
i
v ai
+
0
rq
O
'
F1 �- F✓ r-� r r-+ H
r^
OD � - N) r • -P to .{a I- + M
r- n
tv r+ �
rti
c+ 0) rD
cu
�
p,
rte+
a
CD Ln
Iz
En
ty
H
Fq
0
z
a
r
x
0
Ln
Fd
F•-S
H
a
C7
NOT APPLICABLE
CL
uz
rl
3
IT -1
W
J
��
(D
r rri
n
D 70
(D
❑ d
F� C
H
p... m
C-5
to
w
co
ty
H
Fq
0
z
a
r
x
0
Ln
Fd
F•-S
H
a
NOT APPLICABLE
CL
uz
(D
-s
LD
fi
n
�c-
s
CD
O•
ff
V) 2c
CL
v ai
+
rq
O
'
F1 �- F✓ r-� r r-+ H
r^
OD � - N) r • -P to .{a I- + M
r- n
to CD 1--, 0% -1 01 CD V Ln -.I
:v-
cu
r- Z7
p,
C+
CD Ln
J
N H
.-n
.,5
71
N
r'+
ty
H
Fq
0
z
a
r
x
0
Ln
Fd
F•-S
H
a
•
I*
I *
X
PW NOtD00 V
H
�i• �F M•
I I i I I 1 I I I I
�
Cal -A W N r" r+ N CO co
m
- 1 -0 -1 OD--4
N) I-A CO
O rD o QP O
C+ -1 Ct' = CI.
= Ct/ r3! CU aJ
m
IW A W 7C' Iy
O:a EI El a
;u
O
CD
A C-F
oo•o o
O CD A) =5
a J
¢
o -no o
m�
-h -b -
T Q
C
W
H -{
C CD
C-) b
rD =r m CD
�1mcnoo14 m(nCD
rr
O•-'•=' =r
CO M V MN)ul Vi OONW
m
J (D s J
rD cn rD m
oa
N w (n
-0 m
•a :3 c C)
7C • O X:
rD to
CL 3
rD ZE:
-�
�. rL . m
Ca
O C3. Qa
-! --A
(A
(D
O
Q)
O
NC
TDO C
kO�O MM01 V M-4MC -n
F1 m
ppp�00000���1��l0 W WCOLnNM M
f :
t -n
o rD v a
= m
.
(A -z O
•a
CD X7
C
N Cn
-. L7 C
rt, tD
-r to C-[•
co
00 a, to
m
co
r}
0-0 A
ar c+ C• rD
r+ A) rD 0
rD O L7
a r+ Q
.A
O. �•
Chul#.w47Ww[n -P.w
O
33 M V CJI W lJl l0 F� .{� CJs
O
V+ (D c�
" -v
Fl iU z I
(D Z -�•
rfi
-1
C) C
0
o•
a
�-+ m
x
•-i z
o
�-A
en
cp ,-• N � ,--• � ev w �--• v
r n
L1
VrvCJsM W W M 4:�- '.0►-�
C+
C) N
-
CJs H
0
•
0
M 4
�F X 7F
Cn 45 W N W- r- h- w Un Co
m
--I.�
O fD Q rL O
't3 -0 'O R7 -
r+Yr+art
0) wa0)
m
ss, n au x w
o E3 Ei B
7a
rD
a o
a
O
O w 0
cca c Cn
rD iU p
�:3
O i O
rri --I
C fD
fD a'fD
x+000 NOw Cti co Q1Cn cn
Cr -r
00 W Co Co CDO O CO W V to N
m
z
c
rD
3
(D vi lD
Co
Go M
p
Go Am
n
SL V5
tD cn
:C
J. W
Q
.-4 d
Cr � (D
I'
O
Q
0 C7 Q. �
/ w
Cl -%C>
-5
W
NC
C>
a O
ANN WSW cnCnNNN
O --n
QlONO0WNC37V C."co(n
I :K
CC
0mC3
w
CD V=
cn
cn cn
nom,
QD m
Q
K r
00
op � z
*m
Al rh C CD
r+ 0) (D
J
rD 0)
rx Ul
O
W�IV IV CO 40 N LO -P CO -P 40
7f
��OOOto utGJ V V N
CL tb•
J.
_
C
CD
0• o
[n 3
CL
x a
m
O C+
(A
W W .A Cn Q1 Cn Ch (.n 4�:- W
r Cn
'5
N 00 -p N W Cn M i- 00 Ql
A
�. su
r nm
of c+
o cn
a
---I
z
-n
�
0
•
*
N
4�-WN Ni— +QlppoV
3}
O
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
n - !
U1 4�- W N i-- FJ LO CO
-4 "ti •--1
W --i
N 1—+
O fD O
w O
-0-0-0-0-0
rF Z c'1'
= c-t
a E a s
n
C) z
,�
-'(D
-'
o
-
O
0
tD m
O w O
c�
1` cn C
--0
m 3
sb O
(t
O
—�
Q
C m C
rD
}y
1 Ul A LaCTi AN W U1��
SO'M
= ul O cn m CD CO (.n W 00
M to fD
Q
J.
1D
m m
m M
Q
Q
cr :E: m
t'i• Q Cl
V
J O
-;h0000LOVuiUlO100Vm
-P-1 N w I'D N W c Y' 1 c n to N V
S C•$
O fD v
w J
o
fu
C3-
�
c+ .N
O
w Z:3
to C1
0
00 r
C'!• V1 �
J
In 7z) -S
C
J. J.
!y r+ C
m
c* w fD
y'.
1L
(A
O
Ul Ln to
W i ui 1 -+ 01 Ol w W Lo 00
Q
tL]
rr ro
J.
1D
C+
rL
O
C+
�� f--
to
00NWN0 WNWN00
i7
V1.A Mcr, m r— m O m w
w
r+
!v
m
J.
N
C1-
2c
rri
m
0
Q
m --I
zo
C-1) a
CR
z
� rA
a m
V) m
--4
1✓ ^^
3}
O
n - !
c+ 70
v1�
o-p
�ro �
z m
n
C) z
,�
M
-
{
tD m
c�
�1 m
d
fN
rrl
m
A
r c-)
A
r- 70
C) cn
�r z
%1'
•
•
vail valley
w. medical center
October 3, 1988
Ms. Kristan Pritz +
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. W.
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
181 West Meadow Drive, Suite loo
Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 478 -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 on -site,
were tabulated for both the west and east lots.
We conducted a-second survey on 29 Sep 88 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
88
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.
Sincerel3
Da�
Project 'M
/I rp
enclosure
na4er
Ray McMahan
Administrator
4f
a
U
PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING. DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS. RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: RICK PYLMAN, OWN OF VAIL
FROM: PETER J
DATE: JANUARY 10, 1989
RE: DOUBLETREE HOTEL EXPANSION - PARKING DEMAND
ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED PARKING PROGRAM
In support of the re- approval of Special Development District No.
14 1 am providing you with the following additional information
regarding the provision of parking for the proposed expansion of
the Doubletree.
As previously outlined and documented within the Environmental
Impact Report completed for our initial application the
statistics regarding parking are as follows:
Current Existing Parking Supply: 167 Spaces
Total Parking Supply required per Town of
Vail for Hotel Expansion: 261 Spaces
Previously it was anticipated that a total of 211 spaces would be
provided on -site to meet the Doubletree projected parking demand.
This meant that there was a 50 parking space difference between
the amount of parking that Doubletree felt was needed and the
amount required by the Town of Vail parking requirements in the
Zoning Code. The provision of 211 spaces was based upon
Doubletree's past experience with the operation of various resort
hotels and the observation of the parking characteristics of the
typical Vail guest and the characteristics of the Vail visitor in
general.
At the time of the approval o e SDD 14 a condition was attached
which in effect granted a "variance" to the parking requirements
and required the property owners to contribute to the Town of
Vail parking funds.
Suite 308, Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road West • Vail, Colorado 81657 • (303) 476 -7154
kil
The construction of a joint parking structure on Doubletree and
Vail Valley Medical Center property has now opened up new
opportunities to provide for meeting the Doubletree parking
demand. The fact that the VVMC needs to increase its parking
supply to accommodate its expansion provides the opportunity for
joint use of the parking between the VVMC and Doubletree.
Whereas VVMC's peak parking demand is during daytime hours, the
Doubletree peak demand is in the evening hours when restaurant
and bar patrons utilize the facilities of the Hotel.
The VVMC will be constructing a 185 space parking structure as
indicated upon the plans that have been submitted to the Town.
This parking structure will remove approximately 20 existing
surface spaces at the Doubletree which will be replaced within
the middle level of the structure and will be directly accessible
from the Doubletree's surface lot. These 20 spaces will
initially be designated for use exclusively by the Doubletree.
Therefore, the Doubletree's current parking supply will remain at
167 spaces.
Upon expansion of the Hotel the VVMC has agreed that from the
hours of 5:30 p.m. - 2:30 a.m. an additional 48 spaces will be
made available within the structure to accommodate our total
parking requirement (per Town of Vail) during our peak demand
period. The parking provided on site at the Doubletree will be
increased to 193 spaces when the expansion is constructed.
Therefore our total supply.during peak hours will equal the
required 261 spaces.
It is also anticipated upon full Hotel expansion that, during the
daytime hours, when the Doubletree's parking demand is low and
the VVMC's at peak, 20 spaces can be allocated for the Hospital's
use. The hours that this parking will be available to the
Hospital will be from 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
We feel very confident that the arrangement.described above can
more than accommodate the Hotel's parking needs. Continual
observation of our parking characteristics over the past several
years supports our request. A recent survey of parking taken
during the peak holiday period is indicative of the real parking
needs of the Hotel. Copies of the survey are attached.
The parking survey was conducted starting December 20 and was
ended on January 3, 1989. The purpose was to analyze parking
demand of hotel employees, hotel guests, other visitors to the
Hotel, and unauthorized parking. Parking passes were distributed
to both Hotel employees and Hotel guests in order to enable
identification of each by category. Parking counts were taken
three times a day: 7:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m., and 9:00 p.m.
•
r y
•
•
0
The results of the survey show that daytime parking demand for
the Hotel employees, condominium owners, and guests ranged from
approximately 15% to 38% of supply. During this period Hotel
occupancy ranged from 32% to 100 %. 38% of the parking supply is
equal to 63 parked cars.
During the evening hours the survey indicates that a number of
"unauthorized" cars utilize the parking supplied by the
Doubletree. These are patrons of the bar and restaurant and when
factored into the survey indicate a higher utilization of the
parking supply. At 9:00 p.m. the 167 spaces were never full but
our observation is that later in the evening the parking fills
close to capacity.
The survey supports very strongly that the jointly shared parking
arrangement proposed by the Vail Valley Medical Center and the
Doubletree is a workable and desirable solution. Even though
our survey indicates peak usage during the day is roughly 38%
maximum we are proposing to provide 73% of our required spaces
during the day and 100% in the evening hours. The difference
will more than provide a "cushion" for any seasonal fluctuations
or special events that may occur.
F
•
0
PROPOSED
ACCESS CONTROL PLAN
for a Portion of
SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD
Vail, Colorado
Prepared for
Town of Vail
and
Doubletree Inn
Vail Valley Medical Center
Vail National Bank
Prepared by
TDA Colorado, Inc.
1675 Larimer Street, #600
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 825 -7107
January 3, 1989
CONTENTS
Introduction . ............................... .................:,
ExistingConditions .............. ..............................3
PlannedDevelopment .............. ..............................6
DoubletreeInn .............. ..............................6
Vail Valley Medical Center .. ..............................6
Vail National Bank .......... ..............................7
AccessControl Plan .............. ..............................7
Area -wide Impacts ........... ..............................9
Figures
• 1. Location Plan, Project Limits .............................2
2. Existing Access & Circulation .............................4
3. P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................5
4. Proposed Access Control Plan ..............................8
r
11
0
CJ
PROPOSED
ACCESS CONTROL PLAN
FOR A PORTION OF
SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD
Vail, Colorado
Introduction
This report discusses the traffic operation elements of a
proposed access control plan for a one eighth -mile section of S.
Frontage Road in Vail, Colorado. S. Frontage Road is essentially
a two -lane paved road with graded shoulders serving property
frontages and public roadway intersections along the south side
of Interstate 70 through the Town of Vail. The posted speed
limit is 25 mph. The road widens to five lanes (two through lanes
in each direction, plus left turn lane) beginning 600 feet east
of the 4 -way stop intersection at Vail Road, see Figure 1. The
need for an access management plan is dictated by several
development plans:
1. Planned expansion and on -site circulation changes
for the existing Doubletree Inn at the west
portion of the project.
2. Construction of a 185 -space multilevel parking
structure at the center of the project to serve
Vail valley Medical Center's planned expansion.
This structure will be used primarily by
physicians, employees and outpatients to hospital
and medical offices.
3. Planned reconstruction along the frontage of Vail
National Bank to gain additional short -term
parking spaces and to relieve current safety and
capacity deficiencies.
The resulting access changes along S. Frontage Road to
accommodate each of these projects are being evaluated
collectively in the interest of providing the maximum compliance
possible with the State Department of Highways Access Code. S.
Frontage Road is under the administrative jurisdiction of the
State Highway Department and any changes to existing access
provisions require concurrence,by the Highway Department.
This report describes existing and anticipated future
traffic conditions and depicts the suggested access control plan
for the effected section of S. Frontage Road.
-1-
•
•
Zs
k.
CF
lam 10,L 77
"L
5w
D
qq
LL,
LL-
D
qq
n
--
— — —
— — — — —
Iii
:1
D
qq
Existing Conditions
Within the project area there are currently four full-
movement access drives along the south side of the road and two
full- movement access drives along the north side of the road, see
Figure 2. Following the natural topography, access drives on the
north side ramp down to join S. Frontage Road. Driveways along
the south side ramp up to join the roadway elevation. Through
the curve opposite the Post Office, the Frontage Road is super
elevated (banked) opposite to the natural slope of the land.
Driveways leading up to the Post office /Town Hall and down to the
Doubletree Hotel are quite steep -- approximately 10 percent
grades. Both drives are skewed from a normal radial alignment to
favor movements to and from the east. About 80 feet east of the
Doubletree Main access drive is located the first of two access
drives for the Vail National Bank Building. The second access
drive is about 60 feet to the east. Six short term parking
spaces are provided along a portion of the bank frontage for bank
patrons. Visitor parking is along the west side of the building.
Long term parking for tenant use is accessed from the rear via
the driveway along the west side of the building. During
afternoon peak traffic periods motorists often park illegally
along the eastbound frontage road shoulder if parking spaces are
not available along the front of the building.
Traffic counts taken on the afternoon of Thursday, December
22, 1988 from 4 to 6:00 p.m. indicate bank traffic is oriented
65% to the east and 35% to the west. As shown in Figure 3, total
volume in the peak 4 -5:00 p.m. hour was 109 vehicles of which 40%
were inbound and 600 outbound. The shortage of parking and close
access drive spacing results in noticeable internal congestion
and delay within the Bank's parking and circulation area during
peak periods.
Traffic counts taken in January 1986 at the Doubletree main
access drive show a total of 36 outbound and 33 inbound vehicles
during the p.m. peak hour. Trips were oriented 70% to the east,
30% to the west. Volume on the frontage road was 567 vehicles
eastbound, 382 westbound.
Vehicles entering and exiting the Post Office /Town Hall
access drive were not counted in either count since the Post
Office is relocating to a North Frontage Road location in 1989.
Future reuse of the Post Officq building is anticipated to be a
town or joint town /county public use. in any event, the future
use will likely be accompanied by noticeable reduction in site
generated traffic as compared to the short -term, high turnover
demand exhibited by the Post Office.
The principal deficiencies with current S. Frontage Road
operation in the project area are:
• -3-
•
•
:7
s
Ae� °''JT
qY�
567 fl X382
121 1
9 2f*
DOUBLETREE
HOTEL
(1/13/86)
EXISTING
14
11 18 20 i+
0 6 22
BANK BUILDING
(12/22/88)
f
1. 2 48
15
17 48
DOUBLETREE
HOTEL
31
14�
36 41 n►
72 •-► 104
HOSPITAL
PARKING
STRUCTURE
FUTURE BUILDOUT
BANK BUILDING
(D
No ScaZe P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(4:00 to 5:00 p.m.)
5
W` 3 0
FIGURE 3
_Tnw_
. ■wa-z
1. The rather abrupt transition from a five -lane
cross section to a two -lane section leaves left
• turning motorists uncertain about their proper
deceleration and storage position relative to thru
travel lanes.
2. Closely spaced, full - movement access drives at
Vail National Bank result in noticeable on -site
maneuvering and circulation delays as well as
hesitation by motorists turning off S. Frontage
Road to enter either of the Bank's access drives.
3. The skewed
Post Office
high entry
using these
approaches and steep drives for the
and Doubletree result in hazardously
and exit speeds for some motorists
drives.
These current deficiencies are considered in the development
of the preferred access control plan.
Planned Development
This section of the report describes planned land use
changes in the project area and the access implications
associated with these changes.
Doubletree Inn has prepared plans for extending the north and
east wings. Underground parking would be expanded as part of
this project. A new single access entryway is planned and
access to underground parking will be revised. A traffic study
prepared in 1986 projects a future Doubletree p.m. peak hour
volume of 72 outbound and 67 inbound vehicles using the future
access drive.
Vail Valley Medical Center is planning a 185 -space parking
structure in conjunction with vertical expansion of the existing
hospital footprint. Hospital physicians, employees and staff,
many of whom now park in valet stalls 3 and 4 -cars deep in a
surface lot, will instead use the parking structure. All access
to VVMC parking is currently via Vail Road to West Meadow Drive.
Hence, virtually all hospital traffic passes through the 4 -way
stop sign at the Vail Road /S. Frontage Road intersection. Town
of Vail staff have indicated that consistent with the Town's
adopted Land Use Plan (1), any traffic growth associated with
hospital expansion will not be permitted on West Meadow Drive.
West Meadow Drive is identified as predominately a pedestrian
link between the Village Core and Lionshead Village in the Land
Use Plan and local traffic use is discouraged. Hence, parking
I. Adopted November 18, 1986
•
Q.
structure access will be exclusively to S. Frontage Road. Based
on the size of the facility, intended use, and the hospital's
• demonstrated work day and shift patterns, we estimate 108 p.m.
peak hour trips (72 outbound 36 inbound) will access S. Frontage
Road to and from the planned parking structure. VVMC is
requesting a setback variance from the Town of Vail to allow the
structure to be built up to the north property line. This is to
allow normal ramp gradients within the structure.
Vail National Bank is undergoing a change of ownership. The new
owners wish to remedy the current short term parking deficiencies
and on -site circulation problems by expanding the parking row in
front of the building and gaining greater separation between
access drives. We estimate the improved parking and circulation
plan will result in a 15% increase in access drive volume for
site generated trips. Accordingly, we anticipate the future p.m.
peak hour volume for bank building trips will be 125 vehicles (76
outbound, 49 inbound).
Access Control Plan
With encouragement from Town of Vail staff and in accordance
with guidelines contained in the State Highway Access Code
(Section 2.12), representatives of each effected abutting land
use have met jointly to develop a mutually acceptable access plan
for the project area. On December 22, 1988 representatives from
the Town of Vail, Vail National Bank, Vail Valley Medical Center
and, the Doubletree Hotel met in Vail to review three conceptual
access control alternatives prepared by TDA Colorado Inc. A
basic plan was agreed upon in concept for subsequent refinement
and review. Figure 4 depicts the access control plan that has
been agreed upon by the effected abutting property owner
representatives for buildout of each property. Features of the
plan are:
1. The existing six, full- movement access drives in
the study area will be consolidated into four
full - movement and one partial- movement (inbound
only) access drives. A restricted use (delivery
truck only access drive) is anticipated at the
west end of the project for the future Doubletree
Inn loading dock location.
2. The existing center left turn lane on S. Frontage
Road that extends from the 4 -way stop sign to the
Town Hall /Post Office access drive will be
extended west as a continuous 2 -way left turn
lane for 500 feet. This will provide left -turn
storage for each future access drive. Center -to-
center spacing for competing access drive left
0 -7-
N
turns will be approximately 150 feet. This
spacing falls between the limiting 100 -foot
. spacing and the preferable minimum 185 -foot
spacing for successive right turns as published by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2)
3. Subject to final engineering plan and profile
investigations, a right turn deceleration lane
will be constructed along eastbound S. Frontage
Road in conjunction with Doubletree Inn expansion.
Per the Access Code, the lane will be 150 feet
long plus a 90 foot taper section.
4. The Medical Center will share its full - movement
access drive with the adjacent bank property. All
parking structure entering and exiting movements
will use this access drive. Vehicles exiting the
bank will also use this drive. Vehicles
approaching the bank from the west may also use
this as an entrance to the bank property.
5. The bank will have an entrance -only drive located
opposite the existing Post Office /Town Hall access
drive for patrons approaching from the east. The
geometry of the entrance and the orientation of
parking stalls will force one -way clockwise
circulation in front of the bank. This
• improvement will eliminate the overlapping
opposing left turn storage problem that now exists
at this intersection.
Area -wide Impacts - The proposed access control plan shifts some
Hospital turning movement volumes from West Meadow Drive to S.
Frontage Road. This is done in compliance with the Town's Land
Use Plan, as previously discussed. Based on observed turning
movements at the bank and Doubletree Inn, between 1/3 and 1/4 of
the Hospital's peak hour trips will be oriented to the west.
Hence, the proposed access plan will lessen the percentage of
Hospital trips passing through the 4 -way stop intersection by 25
to 33 %. This reduction of 25 to 30 p.m. peak hour trips using
Vail Road should be noticeable in peak hour traffic operations.
Specifically, the single --lane northbound Vail Road approach at
the 4 -way stop will experience reduced length of vehicle queue
by virtue of the proposed accesis plan.
2. Transportation and Land Development, Table 4 -6
30 mph, ITE, 1988.
0 -9-
I
-. ,
cq
1 � ";� i `fa � - r � � Y, Y'� A-Sh -' � '�' � 1 ~'7Eif�fY �`• , .vR��`
/ , � y1 1- '�+. ell � �� f � �•
#
�%r A
y
i IN �
n
di
Loodt
V
ti
is ' �•�
yM ��
'b
F/ 6d J.l . I I
uLs 4 _
-� i4 yrf� bra lo,lu
r u. w
. �. i I a. 1. � ;� .J" �•� •:"•an��4 'Eef'r.'�.�� L:: �.s•k j?i s � W
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 0�py
222 South Sixth Street, P.O. lox 2107
• Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 -2107
(303) 248 - 7208 +8
February 1, 1989
Mr. Peter Patten
Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mr. Patten:
The Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) has completed our
analysis of the information provided to us during our meeting on
January 31, 1989 regarding the Vail Valley Medical Center. We
have the following comments:
The south frontage road is a category five roadway. The State
Highway Access Code 2 CCR 601--1. Par 3.8.2 states, "One direct
access will be provided to each individual parcel or to
contiguous parcels under the same ownership or control." Par
3.8.3 continues, "Additional access may be permitted to a parcel
when (a) there will not be any significant safety or operational
problems and (b) the spacing meets the access spacing
requirements of the code, subsection 4.9.2 and (c) additional
access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent
property." Par 1,3.2 of The State Highway Access Code states in
part, "In no event shall an access be allowed or permitted if it
is detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety.
Section 43- 2- 147(b) Colorado Revised Statutes states in part,
"After June 21, 1979, no person may submit an application for
subdivision approval to a local authority unless the subdivision
plan or plat provides that all lots and parcels created by the
subdivision will have access to the state highway system in
conformance with the state highway access code."
In light of the above, CDOH could deny any access from the
frontage road to the parking structure for the following reasons:
The Vail Valley Medical Center is not currently an abutting
property owner to the frontage road.
Subdivision after June 21,`1979 would require internal
circulation with one approach providing access to the
subdivision.
The owners on either side of the proposed access indicated
and the Vaal Valley Medical Center design engineer agreed
that some hardships (driveway approach grades) would result
from the access.
•
3
i
0
The increased traffic volume would create operational
problems on the frontage road which has been identified in
the I -70 /Main Vail interchange improvements Environmental
Assessment as already having operation problems.
The addition of the access without all of the necessary
channelization would be detrimental to the public health,
welfare, and safety.
Recognizing the needs of the Town of Vail, CDOH will agree to an
access to the parking structure provided that continuous
acceleration, deceleration and left turn lanes are provided. We
believe that it is possible to provide a positive access design
that will meet the requirements of the property owners without
compromising public safety.
In reviewing the plans provided it was noted that when both
proposals were drawn on one sheet that the continuous
acceleration /deceleration design utilized a more restrictive
turning radius near the bank parcel. In addition the three -lane
proposal indicated that some channelization was being provided.
However, the area shown was actually the through lane and not
channelization.
We suggest consideration of the following possible design
. options: (1) Provide one access to the parking structure which
in turn provides access to the Double Tree and Bank of Vail. (2)
Close the two westerly approaches to the old Post Office and
provide a road from the easterly approach along the interstate
right of way and connect the parking lots around the post office.
This would allow for movement of the frontage road more to the
north. (3) Removal of the superelevation and centerline spirals
to gain more room.
We recognize that this access proposal presents some difficult
design problems; however, we must assure that highway safety is
not compromised. Our design engineers are available to discuss
design details and will work with the project designers to
discuss design solutions.
R. P. MOSTON
DISTRICT ENGINEER
ri
C. I. I. Dunn, J .
District ROW Engineer
CID:rb
cc: Demosthenes
Moston
Sanburg
Perske
file
•
0
•
PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS. RESEARCH
February 9, 1989
A. Peter Patten Jr.
Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Peter:
On behalf of Vail Holdings, Inc. I am requesting that the public
hearing on February 13th regarding the proposed expansion of the
Doubletree Hotel be tabled until the February 27th hearing date
due to a scheduling conflict that I have.
As you are aware we have been working for the past several months
with the Vail Valley Medical Center in order to provide them with
the opportunity to utilize a portion of Vail Holdings, Inc.
property for both access from the South Frontage Road and shared
parking. This solution to removing a large amount of vehicular
traffic generated by the Hospital from West Meadow Drive has been
designed and agreed upon by both parties and will take the form a
a perpetual easement which will run with the land. The granting
of the easement is conditioned upon both the Hospital and the
Doubletree expansion plans being approved by the Town of Vail.
One outstanding issue regarding this solution, as you are well
aware, is the State Highway Departments' approval of the access
point and the extent of improvements that will be required in
conjunction with that approval. I, along with the Hospital Board
and the owners of the Vail National Bank, am confident that this
situation will be worked out to the satisfaction of all parties
involved, including the Town.
Vail Holdings, Inc. fully supports the proposed expansion of the
Vail Valley Medical Center as it is now proposed and we are
pleased to have been a part of this cooperative planning effort
which I believe has recognized the importance of long range
planning and has resulted in a design solution which benefits the
Town of Vail.
Suite 308, Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road West • Vail, Colorado 81657 • (303) 476 -7154
i
r
•
0
A. Peter Patten Jr.
Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
February 9, 1989
Page 2
Jeff Olson of Anthony Pellecchia Architects will be in attendance
at Monday's meeting to represent Vail Holdings, Inc. and to
answer any questions that may arise. I look forward to
presenting the expansion plans for the Doubletree at the February
27th P.E.C. meeting.
Since ely,
Peter Jamar, AICP
PJ:ne
i -
•
•
0
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 23, 1989
SUBJECT: A request to rezone a 0.32 acre parcel of land from
the current Residential Cluster zone district to the
Primary /Secondary Residential zone district.
Applicant: William Pierce /Lynn Fritzlen
I. THE REQUEST
The applicants are the owners of Lot 2, Block 5 of the Vail
Intermountain subdivision, which is situated immediately
east of the Flussheim Townhouses and west of the
Interlochen Condominiums. A single family dwelling of
2,534 square feet is located on the lot.
The intent of this rezoning request is to allow the
applicants to construct a small secondary, rental unit over
the existing garage. The secondary unit would consist of a
studio apartment of approximately 350 square feet, and the
applicants have agreed not to sell, transfer, or convey the
secondary unit separately from the primary unit. Also,
the secondary unit shall be rented only to full -time
employees in the Upper Eagle Valley for periods of 30 days
or more.
The current RC zoning on the property allows for a maximum
of only one dwelling unit. The proposed P/S zone district
allows for only one unit by right. However, lots of less
than 15,000 square feet in the Primary /Secondary zone
district are allowed a secondary rental unit when the
criteria in Section 18.13.080 (B) of the zoning code
(criteria for lots under 15,000 square feet to allow a
secondary unit) are met.
The following table compares the requirements and standards
of the current R/C zoning with the proposed P/S zoning:
Current Zoning
Zone District
Allowable Dwelling Units
Minimum Lot Size
Maximum GRFA
Setbacks
Front
Sides /Rear
Maximum Height
RC
1
15,000 sf
3,520 sf
20 '
15'
33'
Proposed Zonin
P/S
1 +1 employee
unit
15,000 sf
3,520 sf
20'
15'
33'
II. EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST
A. Criteria #1. Suitability of Proposed Zoning
The "buildable area" of this lot is severely
restricted by existing easements and floodplain.
Approximately 5,700 square feet of this 14,080 square
foot lot is located within the Gore Creek floodplain,
thereby reducing the "buildable area" of the lot to
8,380 square feet.
The existing single - family residence maintains a 25
foot minimum setback from the 100 -year floodplain.
Construction of a secondary unit over the garage area
would ensure protection of the floodplain while
limiting new construction within the existing building
footprint.
The rezoning, as proposed, would meet all of the
Town's development standards of the Primary /Secondary
zone district with the exception of the minimum lot
area requirement. A variance from this requirement
has been applied for and will be reviewed as a
companion application to this zone change request.
B. Criteria #2. Is the amendment proposal presenting a
convenient, workable relationship among land uses__
consistent with municipal objectives?
The Primary /Secondary designation is consistent with
adjacent Primary /Secondary zoned properties
immediately south of Gore Creek and would also be
compatible with the existing character of the
neighborhood. The requested rezoning is consistent
with the following development goals in the Town's
Land Use Plan:
Policy 5.3
Affordable employee housing should be
made available through private efforts,
assisted by limited incentives,
provided by the Town of Vail, with
appropriate restrictions.
Policy 5.5
The existing employee housing base
should be preserved and upgraded.
Additional employee housing needs
should be accommodated at varied sites
throughout the community.
Policy 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.
C. Criteria #3. Does the rezoning proposal provide for
growth of an orderl and viable community?
. The staff feels that this rezoning proposal does
provide for the growth of an orderly and viable
community. Employee housing is in short supply in
Vail and is a crucial element in Vail's continuing to
be a viable resort community.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation for the rezoning of this lot to
Primary /Secondary is for approval. We feel that the P/S
designation is the most appropriate zone district for the
uses proposed and that the addition of an employee housing
unit would be a positive contribution to the community.
Moreover, the Land Use Plan specifically allows for these
types of incentives or minor concessions to encourage the
provision of additional employee housing units.
•
is
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 23, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a variance from the minimum lot area
requirement of the Primary /Secondary Residential zone
district for Lot 2, Block 5, Intermountain Subdivision.
Applicants: William Pierce /Lynn Fritzlen
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
The applicants are the owners of Lot 2, Block 5 of the Vail
Intermountain Subdivision, which is situated immediately east
of the Flussheim Townhouses and west of the Interlochen
Condominiums. A single family dwelling of 2,534 square feet
is located on the lot.
The applicants are requesting a variance from the minimum lot
area of the P/S Residential zone district. This zone
district requires the minimum lot area to be 15,000 square
feet of "buildable area." Lot 2 has an overall size of
14,080 square feet; however, when the area of the lot which
is included within the 100 -year floodplain (5,700 square
feet) is deducted from the overall size, the "buildable area"
of the lot is reduced to 8,380 square feet. Hence, the
applicants are requesting a variance of 6,620 square feet
from the minimum buildable lot size.
Calculations:
14,080 sf = lot size
- 5,700 sf = floodplain
8,380 sf = buildable area
15,000 sf = minimum lot area
-8,380 sf = buildable area
6,620 sf = variance request
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the
following factors:
C,
• Consideration of Factors:
A. The relationship of the requested variance to other
existing or potential uses and structures in the
vicinity.
•
The requested variance, if approved, would enable the
applicants to add a secondary, rental unit to an
existing single family dwelling. All development
standards of the P/S Residential zone district would be
met (i.e. setbacks, height, GRFA, parking, landscaping,
etc.) with the one exception of minimum lot area, for
which this variance is requested. An existing storage
area over the garage would be remodeled into a studio
apartment, thereby negating the need to expand the
current building footprint.
The Department of Community Development believes that
the requested variance would not adversely affect the
privacy or use of any adjacent properties with the
addition of a secondary unit on this lot. it should be
noted that the applicant could build an addition to the
existing unit, excluding a kitchen, which would have the
same bulk and mass impacts as the proposed employee
housing unit.
B. 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 extensive areas of this lot which are included
within the 100 -year floodplain have created a hardship
on the owners by restricting the allowable number of
dwelling units to one. The character of the
neighborhood is decidedly multi - family on the north side
of Gore Creek, and P/S Residential is the exclusive zone
district south of Gore Creek. Also, policies in the
Land Use Plan (see attached rezoning memo dated January
23, 1989) encourage the Town to give limited incentives
in trade for the construction of employee housing.
Staff feels that it would not be a grant of special
privilege in the granting of this variance request.
C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air,
distribution of population, transportation_ and traffic
_facilities, public facilities and utilities_, and public
safety.
49
This variance request, if approved, would not block any
light or air on adjacent properties, as the proposed
addition would be confined within the existing
structure.
The addition of a secondary unit on this lot would have
a negligible effect upon the distribution of population,
transportation, and traffic facilities in the area.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
III. 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.
•
0
•
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation is fo
shown that Lot 2 possesses
extensive floodplain area
would be imposed upon the
interpretation of the code
r approval. The applicants
unusual conditions (i.e.
and easements) and that a
applicants if the strict
were to be enforced.
one condition of approval is:
have
hardship
That the Town Council approve the applicants' rezoning
request from Residential Cluster to primary /Secondary
Residential.
c
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 13, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for side setback variances in order to
construct additions to a residence located on Lot 3,
Bighorn Estates.
Applicants: Harriet and Robert McCue
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
The applicants are requesting a side setback variance of 5
feet in order to add a deck beyond the 7 1/2 ft. setback
allowed for decks. This encroachment maintains 2'6" from the
deck to the property line.
The second request is for a 1416" side setback variance in
order to construct a second floor addition. The existing
structure already encroaches 916" into the side setback. The
expansion will encroach an additional 5 feet. The proposal
will maintain 6" from the property line. The applicants are
utilizing the 250 Ordinance for the 178 square feet.
The board may recall that the applicants came before you on
November 14 with a request for front and side setbacks and
IP site coverage variances in order to construct a trash
enclosure, deck, and to enlarge the kitchen. That request
included asking for 48 square feet of GRFA under the 250
square foot rule. The request was approved.
is
The proposed 178 square feet added to the previous 48 square
will result in a total request of 226 square feet under the
250 square foot rule. Allowed GRFA is 1103, existing GRFA is
1252 or 150 square feet over allowable.
Zoning for this property
Bighorn Estates, Lots 10
ago into townhome sites
This subdivision created
than that which would be
minimum size of a duplex
Lot 3 contains only 4415
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
is Two Family Residential (duplex).
and 11 were subdivided several years
(small lots numbered 1 through 7).
legal non - conforming lots smaller
allowed in present day zoning. The
lot today is 15,000 square feet.
square feet.
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends denial of the side setback variances based upon
the following factors:
1
i
Consideration of Factors:
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The side setback variance request of 5 feet added to the
existing encroachment of 9' 6" makes the resulting setback
6" from the property line. Although the existing structures
in the vicinity do encroach into required setbacks, none
encroach to this extent. The adjacent residence is 4 feet
from the property line at its closest point. The staff feels
that a one foot setback for the second floor addition is not
acceptable and reduces to a great degree the already small
amount of open space that presently exists between this
dwelling and the adjacent 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 sites in this development are generally small and
nonconforming. Since the subdivision was completed after the
structures were built, the sites are all overdeveloped. The
staff feels that to add to the nonconformance to the degree
proposed does not follow the intention of the 250 ordinance.
As far as the deck encroachment is concerned, it would seem
. that the deck addition could be modified so that it followed
the setback line and no variance would be needed.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public
safety._
The encroachment does affect the light and air with respect
to the distance between buildings. There is no effect on any
of the other factors.
r 1
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
a22licable to the proposed variance.
III. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environm
following findings before
. Commission shall make the
ting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will
of special privilege inconsistent with
other properties classified in the same
0
not constitute a grant
the limitations on
district.
0
F- -I
LJ
F- -I
L-j
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 woul d
privileges enjoyed by the
the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
or enforcement of the
deprive the applicant of
owners of other properties in
The staff recommends denial of the side setback variances.
In approving the 250 Ordinance, the Town Council directed the
staff to look very carefully at variances requested in
connection with requests under this ordinance to prevent
overdevelopment. The staff feels that the first side setback
request in November was warranted, as it allowed for a trash
enclosure (which is encouraged). The variance was also only
encroaching 3.2 feet into the side setback. However, a
request to encroach within 6" from the neighboring property
is pushing the intent of the ordinance. It appears that
additions could be made to the rear of the home without
encroaching into the side setback. It would also seem that
the deck could be constructed within the deck setback
allowance without hardship to the applicant.
3
r_
0
I
•
Medallion
�$ PARTNERS
r�
•
•
November 11, 1988
John V. Saeman
Partner A' `
Mr. William Pierce
Intratect
Vail, CO 81658
RE: McCue Residence Expansion
,Lot 3, Bighorn Estates
4269 Nugget Lane (West Half)
Vail, CO 81658
Dear William:
This letter is written to give my approval to the McCue residence
a,, -pa don as outlined in the drawings dated 11/3/88 for their
residence located at Lot 3, Bighorn Estates, 4269 Nugget Lane,
Vail, Colorado. I have spoken with Bob McCue and based upon the
plans as submitted to me I see nothing that causes a problem for
me or that would cause me to protest the construction.
Sincerel -
hn V. Saeman --
JVS /jo
3200 Chor•v r. -., 36ulh ,'..:'de 570 Lanver, COOra i:; 80209 (303) 7221 .10
i
L
•
•
•
z
December 8, 198$
Mr. William Pierce
intratect
-Z
A,
P.O. Box 57
Vail, Colorado 81659'
Dear Bill, IRK
M1111. -1: 11:�" I
MS.
We feel that the planned second sto ry
addition to the west side of our duplex,
as explained to us, will be a benefit to
the neighborhood.
We are confident that the city will
approve this addition .as directed.
Sincerely
Brenda and Alan Himelfarb
4269 Nugget Lane
'Vail, Colorado 81657
z"n
11-.7 T-1
Yy
T.
-ot
ELN
FA
•
r 1
LJ
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 13, 1989
SUBJECT: Request for an exterior alteration on the
southwest portion of Lot A, Block 5 -B, Vail
Village First Filing (Sitzmark Lodge), to expand
two accommodation units and expand lodge
operations and reservations space.
Applicant:
T. The Proposal
Mr. Bob Fritch /Duane Piper
The applicant is requesting an exterior alteration and
addition at the Sitzmark Lodge, which would include the
following improvements incorporated into a four -level
vertical expansion at the southwest corner of the lodge:
1. Addition of a new mechanical /boiler room, at the
garage (lowest) level. This expansion would be 1416"
X 1710" in size, for a proposed footprint size of
246.5 square feet.
2. Expansion of the main level lodge operations/reserva-
tions area; addition of 246.5 square feet.
3. Expansion of a second level accommodation unit by 153
square feet.
4. Expansion of a third level accommodation unit by 153
square feet.
5. The addition does require removal of a 15' spruce
tree. The applicant has proposed to relocate the tree
to the Alpine Garden in Ford Park.
TT. Zoning Considerations
The following summarizes the zoning statistics regarding
this exterior alteration request:
1. Zone District: Commercial Core Y
• 2. Lot Area: 0.4077 acres /17,759 square feet
E!6
3. Density: Allowable dwelling units = 1o; or 20 A.U.
Existing dwelling units = 18.5 (1 D.U. + 35
A.U.) A
Proposed dwelling units = No change
4. GRFA: (.80 of lot area)
Allowable = 14,207 square feet
Existing = _13,197 square feet
Current Remaining = 1,010 square feet
Proposed = 306 square feet
704 s.f. remainder;
if new addition
is approved
5. Site Coverage: (.80 of lot area)
Allowable = 14,207 square feet
Existing = 12,535 square feet
Current Remaining = 1,672 square feet
Proposed = 245.5 square feet
1,425.5 s.f. remainder;
after proposed
expansion
6. _Height: The Design Considerations for Vail Village
require that up to 60% of the building have a maximum
roof height of 33' or less, and that no more than 400
of the building have a maximum roof height of 431.
The height of this proposed addition is 32' at its
highest point and the roof tapers down to 301. 0
7. Parking: Parking for this proposed expansion will be
addressed by the applicant paying into the Town
parking fund for CCI.
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.
i
L-1
• III. Compliance With The Urban Design Guide Plan For Vail
Village
The following Guide Plan concept relates to this proposal:
No. 28B Building Expansion. Building mass should be
stepped back to the south to preserve and frame
down - valley views, as designated in the view
corridor map. Tnfill of parcel will help
enclosure of Checkpoint Charlie Circle.
IV. Compliance With The Urban Design Considerations For Vail
Village
1. Pedestrianization
This addition will have no impact upon pedestrian
circulation within the Vail Village area.
2. Vehicular Penetration
This addition will have no impact upon vehicular
penetration within the Vail Village area.
3. Streetscape Framework
. The Design Considerations strive to improve the
quality of the walking /pedestrian environment by
promoting the use of landscaping, berms, grass and
flowers as a linkage along pedestrian routes.
As Willow Bridge Road is one of the main pedestrian
routes into the Village, the staff feels that mature
landscaping in this area is a necessity for the
enhancement of the pedestrian experience. In
addition, the Commercial Core I Zoning states that "no
reduction in landscape area shall be permitted without
sufficient cause shown by the applicant or as
specified in the Vail. Village design considerations ".
(18.24.170)
An existing 15' spruce tree will have to be relocated
as a result of the proposed addition. Staff feels
that the tree should either be relocated immediately
to the west of the addition, or into the planter area
just south of the parking garage access, and should
not be relocated off -site.
•
4. Street Enclosure
The guidelines emphasize that building facade heights 40
not be uniform from building to building and that they
should provide a comfortable enclosure for the street.
This proposed expansion will provide a stepped back
appearance to the southwest corner of the lodge as
well as contribute to the street enclosure in the
Checkpoint Charlie area.
5. Street Edge
This criteria encourages buildings in the Village Core
to form a strong but irregular edge to the street.
The proposed addition will meet this criteria,
however limited in scale, due to the scope of the
project.
6. Building Height
This proposal has no impact on building height.
7. Views
This proposal will have no impact on views.
S. Service and Deliver
No impact. Is
9. Sun /Shade
This proposal will not substantially increase the
spring and fall shadow patterns on adjacent properties
or on the public ROW.
V. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this request for an exterior
alteration. We feel that the proposal complies with all of
the applicable design considerations of the Vail Village
Urban Design Plan.
Staff recommendation for :approval includes the following
condition:
That the applicant agrees to relocate the spruce tree as
stated above (Streetscape Framework), and that the
applicant submit a letter of credit in an appropriate
amount, which would ensure the safe relocation of the tree,
including a 1 -year warranty period beginning on the date of
relocation.
•
•
•
con
ti
LU
2'd
Cl}
LU
13
•
73
•
Ar' d
t
(0
. Ok
s
Tr �
VF
(t 1
CI
roI
CI
a
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
40 FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 8, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit in order to
build a gymnasium and classroom addition.
Applicant: The Vail Mountain School
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
The Vail Mountain School is located in the agricultural open
space zone. Under this zone district, any expansion to the
school must be reviewed as a conditional use. The Vail
Mountain School is proposing the following additions to their
facility:
A. Multi- purpose gymnasium, 13,330 square feet, 200 person
capacity:
The proposed structure will be located west of the
existing school building, approximately where the
present outside basketball court is located. The
expansion will provide additional recreation and
educational facilities. Activities in the gymnasium
will include basketball, volleyball, indoor soccer,
weight lifting, and locker room facilities. Flooring
for the gymnasium space is to be a multi - purpose
material to accommodate basketball, dances, assemblies,
and theatrical productions held in the gym.
B. Third floor expansion for new classrooms, 2,985 square
feet:
Additional classrooms, teachers offices and a student
lounge will be constructed on the third floor of the
existing main school building. Provisions to lock off
the gymnasium from the main building will be
incorporated into the design to allow activities after
school hours with minimal concern for security in the
balance of the facility. The new facilities are not
planned to serve an increased enrollment, but rather to
provide a better physical plan that will accommodate the
needs of the present school population.
C. A new parking lot and bike path connection:
Entry into the site will be from Katsos Ranch Road to a
new drop off /pick up circle drive. Exiting to the
Frontage Road can occur at Katsos Ranch Road to the east
and Booth Falls Road to the west via an exit only drive.
53 new parking spaces are provided with the current
•
plan, along with accommodation for one bus parking
space. The parking plan totals will provide a total of
80 spaces.
The bike path which extends from Booth Falls Road into
the Vail Mountain School parking lot will be re- routed
to run to the south of the parking area. The path will
extend to the east to Katsos Ranch Road.
D. Rockfall Mitigation.
The Vail Mountain School has proposed that rockfall
mitigation be accomplished by increasing the structural
capacity of the gymnasiums north wall to withstand the
impact of falling rocks. This approach is based upon a
recommendation by Woodward Clyde Engineers who designed
the present Gabian retaining wall at the site.
It appears that the neighborhood -wide rockfall barrier
will be built this summer. This will be a far superior
solution in our opinion in that it will protect the
entire school site from rocks, not just the building.
We feel that this is particularly important in that
children will be using potentially all parts of the site
and shouldn't be subjected to any danger from rockfall.
II. BACKGROUND OF THE VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL:
• The Vail Mountain School received approval to construct a new
school in Booth Creek in 1978. The request was for a
conditional use permit to allow a private school of
approximately 9,000 square feet for a maximum of 110
students. Conditions of approval were as follows:
1. The maximum floor area for the Vail Mountain School
building is not to exceed 10,000 square feet.
2. The Vail Mountain School is to be used only by the Vail
Mountain School for school functions.
3. Additional parking shall be provided by the Vail
Mountain School if the proposed parking is found by the
planning and environmental commission to be inadequate.
4. The location of the school building and its activities
are restricted to the area designated on the plans
approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at
the October 24, 1978 meeting, which are on file in the
Community Development department. A deed restriction
from Vail Associates will limit the amount of land to be
used by the school on this designated area. The balance
of the seven acre parcel is to be restricted as green
belt.
•
5. The cabin currently on the property is to be preserved
and restored either in its existing location or in
. another location restricted to the eastern part of the
site as shown as shown on the submitted plans.
In November 1979, the Vail Mountain School received
approval for a lunch room, indoor recreational, and dark
room. Conditional use approval was given in October
1981 to remove the restriction limiting the number of
students at Vail Mountain School. In August 1983, the
school received conditional use approval to accommodate
a sodded soccer field.
In 1984, the school received approval to add
approximately 3,096 square feet. The proposal provided
space for a print room, computer room, language lab, two
classrooms, one meeting room, and one kindergarten room.
A parking /hard space /play area of approximately 4,000
square feet was located on the existing parking area.
During this conditional use review, a rock fall barrier
was also proposed on the north hillside above the
school. At this time, the Vail Mountain School has a
total gross square footage of 18,571 square feet.
(Please see the attached square footage breakdown for
the school at the end of the memo.)
On January 25, 1988 a work session was held on the Vail
Mountain School to discuss the gymnasium and classroom
• expansion as well as the vacation of the deed
restriction. The Planning and Environmental Commission
determined that it would be appropriate for the deed
restriction to be voided. Representatives from the Vail
Mountain School, Marsha Sage, President of the Board of
Directors and Mr. Peter Abuissi, Headmaster indicated
that there would not be a major increase in development
after this expansion. Since that PEC meeting, the deed
restriction has been voided.
III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department
recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the
following factors:
Consideration of Factors.
A. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives
of the Town.
The agricultural open space zone district states that
"..Schools and certain types of private recreation facilities
and institutions are suitable uses in the agriculture and
open space district, provided that the sites of these uses
remain predominantly open. Site development standards are
intended to preclude intensive urban development and to
maintain the agricultural and open space characteristics of
• the district." (Town of Vail zoning code 18.32.010) The
Vail Mountain School has developed in a manner which
maintains the open space character of the area.
(.48 acres of the 6 acre site is covered by buildings.)
B. The effect of the use of light and air. distribution of
population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools
parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilit
needs.
The project will provide additional recreation and
educational facilities. The expansion is not intended to
provide new space for more students. Instead, the school
proposes to provide more space for the existing 163 Vail
Mountain School Students.
C. 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.
Staff believes that the new traffic circle adjacent to the
gymnasium will provide a much safer drop off point for users
of the site.
Originally, the school proposed to provide a new egress
point south of the traffic circle. The highway department
approved an access permit for this proposal. However, one of
the conditions of the access permit approval was that the
school widen the Frontage Road by building a right turn
acceleration lane 12 feet wide and 550 feet long, including
180 foot taper. The school proposed instead to create a new
egress drive extending from the new parking lot west to Booth
Falls Road. The staff believes that this egress drive will
also function for the school, although access onto the
Frontage Road as originally proposed decreased the amount of
asphalt and provided a more direct exit. The bike path has
been separated from the parking area. The relocation of the
bike path is an important safety improvement.
The number of parking of spaces for the project was arrived
at by reviewing requirements from other communities. Most
municipalities do not have a specific requirement for a
gymnasium. The architect contacted Lakewood, Jefferson
County, Aurora, Thornton and Adams County. The requirement
for a church called for 1 space every 3 to 4 seats. Parking
requirements varied from 50 to 70 spaces for a 200 person
capacity facility. 53 new spaces are proposed plus one bus
parking space. Staff believes that the proposed parking is
adequate for the project. The classroom addition should
create only a slight demand for additional parking due to the
increased number of teachers. The number of students is not
anticipated to increase.
D. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed
is to be located including the scale and bulk of the
)osed use in relation to surrounding uses.
Building bulk is definitely increased by the expansion. The
mass and bulk of the gymnasium addition has been minimized by
siting the gymnasium at an angle to the existing school
building. The structure has also been built into the
hillside on the north elevation of the school. The height of
the gymnasium on the north elevation is approximately 26 feet
from finished grade to roof ridge. The gymnasium does not
exceed the 33 foot height maximum for the agricultural open
space zone district. The new windows and dormers proposed
for the third floor classroom expansion should also help to
break up the mass of the existing building on the north and
south elevations.
IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed use.
V. 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. RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department finds that the request
meets the findings for conditional use approval and
recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. The Vail Mountain School must receive approval to
construct the relocated bike path from the Colorado
Division of Highways before a building permit will be
released for the project. The bike path shall be built
before a final certificate of occupancy is released.
2. The Vail Mountain School shall submit engineered
drawings for the rockfall mitigation before a building
permit will be released for the project. The mitigation
solution must meet the requirements of the Town of Vail
Geological Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
U
3. The proposed landscape plan shall include irrigation for
the berm along the Frontage Road. If it appears it is
necessary to locate irrigation on highway right of way,
the Vail Mountain School shall request approval from
CDOH.
If this expansion is built, the staff believes that the Vail
Mountain School has reached its development capacity on the
site. We would recommend that any further requests to expand
the school be looked at very closely in order to maintain the
intent of the agricultural open space zone district.
40
•
s
•
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 13, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance in order to build
a gymnasium and a front setback variance in order to
locate parking within the front setback for the Vail
Mountain School.
Applicant: Vail Mountain School
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
The Vail Mountain School is requesting two variances in order
to allow for their gymnasium expansion. The first variance
is for site coverage. Under the agricultural open space
district, not more than 5% of the total site area shall be
covered by buildings. The school property has a total site
area of 6.122 acres or 266,674 square feet. The allowable
site coverage would be 13,334 square feet. The school is
requesting a site coverage of 7.93% or 21,164 square feet.
The site coverage is broken down into the following areas:
Existing school - 7,546 square feet
Existing historic cabin - 780 square feet
New addition - 12,838 square feet
Total - 21,164 square feet
This is a difference of approximately 7,830 square feet
between the allowable and proposed site coverage.
In addition, the
portion of their
Approximately 29
setback. The ag
required parking
area.
Vail Mountain School would like to locate a
new parking area in the front setback.
spaces would encroach 6 ft. into the 20 ft.
ricultural open space district states that no
shall be located in any required setback
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the requested variances based upon the
following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
0 A. The relationship of the requested_ variance to other_ existing
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Site coverage_ variance: The staff believes that the 2.930
increase in site coverage will have minimal impacts on uses
and structures in the surrounding areas. The gymnasium
addition has been designed to allow for a basketball court
and stage area. Adequate storage and lobby areas are
proposed. However, these spaces are not excessive given the
needs for this type of use.
Front set back variance: Staff believes that it is
preferable to locate the cars in the front setback and avoid
locating parking closer to residential uses along Katsos
Ranch Road or Booth Falls Road. The visibility of the
parking from the Frontage Road can be minimized by
landscaping.
B. The decree to which relief from the strict or literal
interpretation and enforcement or a specified regulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility of uniformit of treatment
among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of
this title without grant of special privilege.
Site coverage variance:
• * Standards for the agricultural open space district are
intended to preclude intensive urban development. The degree
of the site coverage variance is quite small. A gymnasium
needs to be a certain size in order to accommodate recreation
activities. Staff believes that the site remains
predominantly open (± 92 %) even with the variance. We feel
that the request meets the objectives of the district and
zoning code without a grant of special privilege.
Front setback variance: The parking in the front setback has
already been established as the existing parking lot
encroaches into the front setback. The Mountain School has
developed in a manner which concentrates the buildings on the
eastern portion of the site. This requires that the parking
be located adjacent to the buildings. In order to provide
parking while minimizing asphalt, it is necessary that the
spaces be located in the front setback.
C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air,
distribution of population, transportation_ and traffic
facilities public facilities and utilities and public
safety.
There should be no significant impacts due to either
variance. In fact, the variance to locate parking in the
front setback should decrease the visibility of parked cars
from many of the residential areas surrounding the school.
•
•
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
III. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental commission shall make the
following findinqs 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.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
or enforcement of the
deprive the applicant of
owners of other properties in
Staff recommends approval of both variances. The difference
between the allowable site coverage and proposed site
coverage is approximately 7,827 square feet. If you deduct
the historic cabin, which was required to be preserved, the
difference is actually 7,047 square feet. Staff believes
that given the fact that the site is 266,674 square feet, the
7,047 square foot increase in site coverage is not
significant for a site of this size.
We support the front setback variance for the parking lot due
to the fact that to locate the parking in other areas on the
site would decrease the open space character of the property.
It is felt that parking can be buffered by landscaping from
the North Frontage Road.
i f y Woodward-Clyde Consultants
PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL
/.Susan Bean, of our office traveled to the school on December 11, 1987. The
purpose of the visit was to observe the berm in relation to the proposed
addition and to refresh our familiarity with the site. We understand from
your layout sketch that the proposed Campus Center will be a structure
approximately 120 ft by 80 ft, connected on the west of the existing school
building by a covered walkway. In addition, we have reviewed the informa-
tion in our files and also new information concerning rockfalls in the
Booth Creek area.
•
Since our original study performed in mid -1984, a rockfall study has been
completed for the Town of Vail. This report was submitted to the Town by
Schmueser and Associates in late 1984. Also, additional studies have been
conducted by the Colorado Geological Survey in the Booth Creek area, but
have not yet been published. We understand, from contact with the staff,
that the Colorado Geological Survey is currently mapping the rockfall
paths, and the locations of rocks in the area that may have originated as
rockfalls.
The Schmueser and Associates report is a map showing the distribution of
potential rockfall hazards. Hazard zones in the area of concern are
divided into high and medium severity zones based on a number of factors.
The Vail Mountain School is located outside, but immediately downslope of
a high severity rockfall zone north of the school. This should not be
interpreted to mean that the school is not in a rockfall hazard zone, but
rather that the potential damage might not be as severe as in the area
upslope of the school.
The conclusion of these other studies and our field reconnaissance is that
the school is in a zone where the potential for rockfalls exists. The
rocks that damaged several houses this fall are recent examples of the
1
. 22081- 21357/mw (x22081) (PRO)
Woodward-Clyde Consuitns'Ats
continuing hazard. In a letter of June 19, 1984 to the school, we
described the risk to the school, and that discussion is applicable to
conditions expected for the proposed addition. For convenience, a copy of
that letter is attached.
Rocks falling from the cliffs above Booth Creek and the school travel down-
slope by a combination of bouncing, rolling and sliding. The direction of
movement of the rock is generally the shortest path downslope, therefore,
the topography of the site is important. The existing berm provides some
level of protection primarily against rolling or sliding rocks, for the
areas immediately downslope of the berm, including the existing school.
Under certain circumstances, it is possible that a rock block could
continue in a bouncing trajectory as far downhill as the existing school.
Under such circumstances it is possible that any economically feasible
barrier could be overcome. The small hill immediately west of the existing
school may supply some protection because it is a topographic high. Rocks
reaching the hill would tend to be deflected around it rather than over it.
The proposed Campus Center addition to the school is planned for an area •
that is not directly downslope of the existing berm. Therefore, the
existing berm will not provide any direct protection to the proposed struc-
ture. The existing hill adjacent to the berm may provide some degree of
protection. The hill will not provide any level of protection if it is
removed during construction of the addition, as the plans indicate. The
plans appear to show that the new building would be immediately adjacent to
the existing berm. '
In response to the request of the Town of Vail, the following conclusions
can be made.
• There exists a potential for rockfalls or runout of rocks in the
area of the Vail Mountain School as well as in the area of the
proposed addition.
2
22081- 21357/mw (r22081) (PRO)
i
Woodward -Clyde Consultants
• The existing berm upslope of the existing school will not provide
the same degree of protection to the proposed Campus Center, as it
does for the existing building.
• Some type of additional protection will be required.
Your suggestions concerning potential additional protection measures
included a westerly extension of the berm, or construction of a reinforced
concrete wall upslope of the proposed extension. These are certainly worth
early consideration. The plans for the proposed Campus Center show the
structure adjacent to the existing berm. Extension of the berm must remain
upslope of the proposed structure. The location of the Campus Center and
any restrictions in the utility easement north of the school may limit the
room available for an extension of the berm. This should be considered
during further design phases. A reinforced concrete wall on the upslope
side of the building may be acceptable. The wall would need to be engi-
neered to absorb the impact and force that a rock at whatever size and
velocity expected, might impart on the wall. These calculations are beyond
the scope of this report. Since the size of rock blocks released from the
cliffs above the school could weigh from perhaps a few tens of pounds to
over ten tons, the kinetic energy involved could be very considerable. If
a reinforced concrete wall were incorporated into the building, the
remainder of the building and fittings would need to be designed to resist
shaking induced by impact.
Another possible option that could be considered would be to relocate the
proposed extension so that it remains behind the existing berm, and put,
for example, the parking lot where there is no berm. The geometry and
other considerations could, howeve-e, preclude this as a viable option.
3
22081- 21357/mw (r22081) (PRO)
Woodward -Clyde Consulhi is
We would be happy to help you explore these and possibly other options and
assist you in selecting the one most appropriate to the needs of the Is
school.
Woodward -Clyde Consultants represents that our services are performed
within the limits prescribed by the Client, in a manner consistent with the
level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other professional
consultants under similar circumstances. No other representation to
Client, expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or
intended.
22081- 21357/mw (r22081) (PRO)
i
4
•
is
is
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 13, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a variance to allow for installation of a
second Satellite Dish at the Vail Run Building.
Applicant: Ciscorp Corporation
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
Ciscorp is an information systems company that is a
commercial tenant in the Vail Run Building. Their business
requires a constant feed of information which must be
received via Satellite Dish. The Vail Run Building already
has an existing Satellite Dish on site. This dish belongs to
the K- -LITE Radio Station, which is also a commercial tenant
within the building. Section 18.58.320D1 of the Vail Zoning
Code states:
"No more than one satellite dish antenna shall be
allowed on any lot as delineated on the official Town of
Vail zoning map.
The applicant is requesting a variance to this provision of
the zoning code in order to allow placement of the second
satellite dish. The proposed 7' diameter dish will be
located immediately adjacent, although at a different
exposure, to the existing K -LITE Radio Station dish. Because
these businesses require different information streams from
different satellites the applicant has stated that it is not
possible for these two businesses to share a dish.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings,
the municipal code, the Department of
recommends approval of the requested
following factors:
Consideration of Factors: "
Section 18.61.060 of
Community Development
variance based upon the
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Limitations on the permitted number of satellite dishes per
lot or property were established because of the potential
aesthetic impact of several dishes located on one property.
In evaluating potential impacts from this request, one must
consider the proposed location of this dish. Located within
the interior of the Vail. Run project, this dish will be
. screened from most vantage points. As a result, it is felt
that granting this variance will result in no negative impact
to existing or potential uses and structures in the
vicinity.
The de ree to which relief from the strict and literal
inter retortion 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 applicant has demonstrated that in order to run this type
of business a satellite dish is necessary and that due to the
location of the information satellite it is not possible for
the two existing commercial tenants in the Vail Run property
to share the same satellite dish. The applicant feels that
being forced to relocate his business to another approved
commercial site without an existing satellite dish is a
legitimate hardship on his business. Approval of this
variance would therefore not be a grant or special
privilege.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air,
distribution of population, trans ortation and traffic
facilities public facilities and utilities and public
• safety_
Staff can find no significant effect on any of the above
considerations.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
III. 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 classifiecr 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.
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.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. The
parameters established by the Satellite Dish Ordinance were
intended to provide a general limitation in the size, number,
location and screening of dishes proposed. It is apparent
that certain types of businesses have unique needs in regards
to their transmission facilities.
The applicant has satisfactorily proven that a sharing of the
existing satellite dish is not feasible. The Staff agrees
that a forced relocation of the business is a legitimate
hardship.
Specific measures required to further screen this dish are
technically the purview of the Design Review Board. It
should be noted that DRB approval of this dish will be
required and that further screening requirements may be
placed upon this application by the DRB.
A
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
AGENDA
February 27, 1989
11:15 -- 12:30 Site Visits
12:30 - 2:15 Worksession of the Vail Valley Medical Center
2:15 - 3:00 Worksession on the Town of Vail Air Emissions
Inventory
SITE VISITS PUBLIC HEARING
11:15 - 12:30 3:00 PM
1. Approval of Minutes for PEC meeting:
February 13, 1989.
2. A request for a conditional use permit in
order to construct an addition and a parking
structure to the Vail Valley Medical Center.
Lot F, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 181 West
Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
1. 3. A request to amend Special Development
District #14, Doubletree Hotel. Lot 2,
Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing. 250
South Frontage Road West.
Applicant: Vail Holdings, Inc.
2. 4. A request for a conditional use permit and
parking variance for an office space for the
Vail Valley Arts Council in the Lionshead
Parking Structure.
Applicant: Vail Valley Arts Council and
the Town of Vail
3. 5. A request for a side setback variance in
order to construct a garage on Lot 20, Block
7, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Peter Tufo and Gary Bossow
4. 6. A request for a stream setback and front
setback variances for Lot 10, Block 1, Vail
Village First Filing.
Applicant: Robert and Francis Gunn
0
•
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
February 27, 1989
PRESENT
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Pam Hopkins
Peggy Osterfoss
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
Kathy Warren
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Kristan Pritz
Rick Pylman
Mike Mollica
Betsy Rosolack
A work session was held on the Medical Center and on air
emission inventory.
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele.
The new members, Sid Schultz, Chuck Crist and Kathy Warren were
sworn in by the Town Clerk, Pam Brandmeyer.
1. Approval of minutes of the meetingof 2/13. Diana Donovan
suggested corrections and moved that the minutes be
approved as corrected. The second was made by Sid and the
vote was 7 -0 in favor.
2. A request for a conditional use Rermit in order to
construct an addition and a parking structure to the Vail
Valley Medical Center on Lot F Vail Village 2nd Filing at
181 West Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
Kristan Pritz explained changes that had been made since the
last meeting regarding the Frontage Road and the ambulance
egress and ingress. She mentioned a letter from John Dunn of
the Doubletree condos regarding the height of the project. She
also reviewed the DRB comments on the project. A conceptual
DRB review of the project occurred on February 15th.
Jim Viele had discussed a possible conflict of interest he may
have had with the town attorney, and found he did not have a
conflict of interest. Sid Schultz removed himself from the
discussion and voting.
Kathy Warren wondered about the height of the hospital
addition, and Skip Spence of the Reece Johnson Architects,
stated the height was approximately 54 feet to the top of the
parapet. Kathy asked more detail questions which Skip
answered. She felt concern with the site planning and was not
comfortable with the open space between the bank and the
parking structure, the height on West Meadow Drive and the
entry on West Meadow Drive.
Chuck Crist suggested perhaps a porte,cochere at the entry
would soften the elevation, and Dan Feeney replied that he
would suggest this idea to the board. Kathy then mentioned
the loss of part of the view when approaching the hospital from
the library, and Skip replied that the architects did cut back
some, but could not determine the exact size of each floor
until it was determined exactly what would be in each space.
Peggy Osterfoss felt that there were concerns in four areas:
access and the helipad, landscaping, relocation of the
ambulance garage and the bulk and mass of the building. With
regard to access, Peggy felt the Town of Vail must determine if
they are willing to accept the impact on their property due to
the future lane. She had concerns about the helipad
relocation, if this were deemed necessary. She questioned
where the helipad could be located. Peggy felt there was a
dearth of landscaping, and the proposal as presented was
unacceptable without more landscaping. She asked that the
hopital provide a landscape plan for the area in front of the
parking structure along the South Frontage Road. Peggy felt
that the relocation of the ambulance garage was needed before
any future additions were made to the hospital. Concerning the
bulk and mass, she felt that a stepping back would help, and
perhaps the areas that appear to be greenhouse could be
eliminated. Peggy felt that to step back on only the 4th
floor would look ridiculous and that the stepping back should
begin now. She wanted to see both the south and west
elevations terraced.
Diana felt that not enough time had been spent on the solution
and that an approval given at this time would eliminate
options. Diana stated that the parking structure should be
constructed a floor and a half lower now, because it would be
impossible to do in the future. She felt that since the
hospital fronted on a residential street, the architecture
should be more in sympathy with the neighborhood. The
additional floor would destroy the down - valley view. She felt
the hospital should accommodate deliveries away off of the
South Frontage Road. Diana also felt that Lot 10 should not be
used to meet parking needs. She felt the use of.Lot 10 made
the library'less accessible. Diana said it was essential that
the hospital state exactly when all traffic would be removed
from West Meadow Drive and there be a time limit on the the
construction of a parking link from the structure to the
parking lot with the next expansion.
2
Diana pointed out that some landscaping was being removed and
• this was a big concern. She also expressed concern about the
helipad per the staff memo. Diana believed the project was
close to being acceptable, but the project definitely needed
additional work before she could support it.
Pam Hopkins agreed about the need for more landscaping and the
need for reducing the height of the hospital expansion. She
pointed out that the next floor would make the hospital 70 feet
high. She felt the 3rd floor height of 53 -54 feet was barely
acceptabale. Pam approved the Frontage Road plan. She said
that Vail was pedestrian oriented, and this must be taken into
consideration when designing the hospital "from the inside
out."
Chuck Crist agreed with Kathy regarding the site planning. He
could foresee the Vail National Bank Building as an "off shoot"
of doctors' offices and would have liked to have seen the
parking structure tied into the bank. He pointed out that tall
trees were shown on the model, and felt that tall trees would
mitigate the height of the addition. He also agreed that
additional landscaping was critical.
Jim Viele felt the access proposal was a substantial
improvement and that the hospital had done a good job in
addressing parking. He expressed concern that the Town was not
further along in their planning on the South Frontage Road. He
. stated that he would like to see a master plan which would
locate the ambulance garage in further stages. Jim felt that
the building should be softened at the front entry but felt
this and the issue of substantial landscaping could be dealt
with at the Design Review Board meetings. Jim would also like
to see a "decent" pedestrian connection along West Meadow
Drive. He pointed out the he did not feel the window of
opportunity in working with the CDOH on the South Frontage Road
would exist forever. Therefore, he was prepared to support the
project per the staff memo and pass it along to the Design
Review Board for "fine tuning."
Peter Patten said that the Town Council had asked the PEC to
discuss with the hospital the possibility of an assessment
district.
Dan Feeney said he and Ray McMahon would take this request to
the hospital board which met the following week. Dan believed
the hospital would be opposed to a vicinity improvement
district. He said he would recommend favorable consideration
of support for an area -wide Frontage Road improvement district
to the board. Viele felt that the town must look at a larger
area with regard to an improvement district on the South
Frontage Road.
• Peter Jamar, representing the Doubletree Hotel, stated that he
did not support an improvement district concept on the South
3
Frontage Road because the improvements being made by the
Doubletree, hospital and bank were mitigating impacts from
their proposal. With regard to mentioned deficiencies in the
overall plan of the sites, he reminded the board that the
properties were not under one ownership. Peter mentioned the
difficulty in getting the different parties together over the
many months of working on the proposal and felt that
commendation was in order on the results regarding the access
plan and moving of the parking structure. Peter felt that the
remaining issues were not entirely up to the PEC. With regard
to landscaping, he stated that there was now an increase, he
felt that the parking structure was well designed, he felt it
was unfair to bring up views at this point. The adopted view
corridors did not include views in the area of the hospital.
With regard to the style of the architecture, Peter stated that
public buildings such as churches, schools, and other
facilities have the scale and proportion of "public" buildings.
The uniqueness of public buildings should be a consideration.
Given design constraints, there is plenty of time to work on
the design details at DRB.
Jay Peterson, also representing the Doubletree, mentioned that
the Town had put pressure on the hospital to build a parking
structure on the northeast corner of the site. If the PEC
disapproved this proposal, the parking would go back on West
Meadow Drive. Perhaps this was not the optimum solution, but
it was better than putting the parking on West Meadow Drive. •
Peggy agreed with many of the points made, and did not feel
that these properties should be made to participate in a
vicinity improvement district, but did feel that some specific
conditions should be part of the approval to address the PEC
concerns. Diana felt the project had come far, but issues
still needed to be addressed. Jay suggested adding a list of
conditions related to the PEC concerns that would pass the PEC
concerns on in a clear manner to the Council.
Kathy felt day trips would be increased on West Meadow Drive
with the hospital expansion due to more use by Sports Medicine
and visitors. She pointed out that employees make only one
trip per day. She also felt the ambulance trips would be
increased. Ray MacMahon pointed out that the doctors' office
generated many trips (they would park in the structure). Pam
and Kathy also asked why the structure would not be constructed
deeper, and Dan Feeney replied that the ramps would be too
steep and it was also unaffordable at this time.
Peggy moved for approval and Jim Viele seconded with the
conditions of the staff memo which were:
1. An access permit for the South Frontage Road improvement
plan shall be obtained by the Vail Valley Medical Center 40 as well as Vail National Bank before a building permit
will be released for the proposed hospital expansion.
4
. 2. The Frontage Road improvement plan will include a minimum
of three lanes as proposed in the Access Permit Request
outlined in this memo.
3. The proposed Special Development District 14 for
the Doubletree Hotel shall be amended to allow for the
construction of a portion of the parking structure to be
built on Doubletree property.
4. Snow removal and drainage from the proposed expansion and
parking structure shall not be handled on the South
Frontage Road right -of -way.
5. Access through the southeast corner of the parking
structure shall be limited to fire and maintenance
vehicles. The general public and Hospital employees shall
not utilize this access.
6. The Hospital concurs that the relocated access drive to
the helipad:
* Shall not exceed a 7% grade (this assumes that the
existing access drive grade does not exceed 7 %)
* Shall allow for safe semi -truck access and loading
for the Post Office
* shall not compromise the existing CDOH permit for the
helipad
* Any trees or shrubs affected by the access shall be
relocated in the same general area.
The motion included the following conditions as well:
7. In the event the CDOH deems the helipad must be moved, the
Hospital must bear the expenses of the relocation of the
helipad.
8. The mature evergreens to be transplanted due to the new
access drive shall be guaranteed to live for a period of 3
years or be replaced with trees of comparable size.
9. The PEC puts the Hospital on notice that as a part of any
future building plans, the ambulance garage must be
relocated to allow for, A. Direct access from the
ambulance garage to the South Frontage Road and, b. for
direct access from the South Frontage Road via the parking
structure to the west parking lot.
10. Directions shall be given to DRB that they make certain
. that maximum substantial landscaping be placed on either
side of the entrance to the parking structure, even if
this will require regrading, filling and retention.
5
11. Suggestion to the Town Council that the Town of Vail .
assume responsibility for the cost of a 4th lane along the
Town of Vail site on the Frontage Road and associated
modifications to the Town site if a 4th lane addition is
required by the CDOH.
Peggy recommended that the Town look at changes to access and
parking due to the fourth lane. The vote was 4--2 -1 with
Schultz abstaining and Diana and Kathy voting against the
motion.
3. A request to amen
Doubletree Hotel Lot 2 Block 1
Filing.
Applicant: Vail Holdings, Inc.
Devel
nent District 14
Tail Lionshead 2nd
Rick Pylman gave the staff presentation, reviewing the history
of the original SDD 14 which was adopted in 1986. This SDD
expired on September 18, 1988. The present request included
two changes: a shared parking arrangement with the Hospital
and utilizing the transient residential unit concept as
originally defined and approved in the Cascade Village SDD.
This would apply to 92 lodge rooms. Rick stated that in the
original SDD proposal, the staff was not comfortable with the
increased density, but this has now been dealt with in the Land
Use Plan. He said the other concern had been the parking. He
felt that this had been taken care of with the parking
structure, and would not be dependent upon the public parking
structures. Rick then reviewed the zoning analysis and
criteria that must be evaluated for SDD's.
Peter Jamar, representing the applicant, gave further
explanation and told of utilizing only 35% of the existing
parking during the day on busy ski days. He stated that the
Doubletree could now meet the parking requirements. He stated
that his client would like to landscape 7 parking spaces later
when the Town did a study of Frontage Road improvements. They
had no problem with the conditions in the memo. With regard to
the setback encroachment, this was not adjacent to another
property and they were not within the 30 foot stream setback.
John Dunn, a condo owner in the Doubletree, supported the third
condition related to the construction costs of the deceleration
lane improvements. But he added that the condo owners did not
feel responsible toward paying toward these costs. He added
that the last condition could not be amended or rescinded
without the approval of the Town of Vail, but that a certain
number of parking spaces had been guaranteed to the condo
owners.
Chuck asked for an explanation of the condo useage
restrictions, and Peggy wished to see the 7 parking spaces
N
•
Ift
landscaped. Kathy agreed. Jim Viele abstained from comment on
this proposal. Diana felt that if the applicant took into
account that this was a tourist town, there could possibly be
more landscaping. Peter Jamar replied that he felt they could
work with the CDOH on the increase landscaping.
Pam moved and Sid seconded to recommend approval of the
requested SDD to the Town Council per the staff memo with the
suggestion that if possible, the 7 parking spaces be allowed to
be landscaped. The conditions from the staff memo were:
1. The development contained within SDD 14 shall not be
converted to any form of time share ownership for a period
of 20 years from the date of building permit issuance.
The applicant agrees to limit the use of any new dwelling
units approved to this development plan to those
restrictions outlined in Section 17.26.075A Condominium
Conversion of the Vail Municipal Code.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the restrictions set forth
in Section 17.26.075 of the Municipal Code at the Town of
Vail shall not apply to the dwelling units during any
period during which they area owned by any individual who
is also a owner of the Doubletree Hotel.
2. The 92 additional accommodation units approved with the
• approval of SDD14 shall be developed as lodge rooms or
transient residential units under a single ownership. Any
proposal to condominiumi2e the accommodation units or
transient residential units would require approval as per
the subdivision regulations of the Town of Vail.
3. The applicant shall bear all costs related to the design
and construction of the deceleration lane improvements
required for the Doubletree access permit as submitted to
the State Highway Department. These improvements shall be
completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate
of Occupancy for any new residential units developed on
this site.
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shall demonstrate that all required approvals from the
State Highway Department for changes to access off of the
South Frontage Road have been obtained.
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
construction of any improvement in SDD14, the owner, or
owners of SDD 14 shall provide to the Town of Vail
documentation of the agreement between the Vail Valley
Medical Center and Vail Holdings, Ltd. that allows the
Doubletree Hotel its designated employees or guests the
. right to use a minimum of 48 parking spaces in the Vail
Valley Medical Center structure from the hours of 5:30 PM
7
.
to 6:00 AM. This parking agreement must be in a form that
may not be amended or rescinded without the approval of .
the Town of Vail.
The vote was 6 in favor with Jim Viele abstaining.
4.
A request for a conditional use permit and parking
variance for an office space for the Vail Valley Arts
Council in the Lionshnad Parkin" Rfriri-iirn
Mike Mollica presented the staff memos on the conditional use
and parking variance requests. A motion was made by Peggy and
seconded by Kathy to approve the parking variance. The vote
was 7 -0 in favor. A motion was made by Kathy and seconded by
Peggy to approve the conditional use permit. The vote was 7 -0.
5.
st for a side
nstruct a
ck variance in order to
20, Block 7, Vail Villa
First
Filing. -
A licants: Peter Tufo and Gary Bossow
Rick Pylman explained the request and stated that the staff
recommended approval. Pam moved and Chuck seconded to approve
the request. The vote was 7-0 in favor.
6. A request for a stream setback and front setback var
for Lot 10 Block I Vail Village First Filing__,_
Applicant_. Robert and Francis Gunn ( Hoversten)
Mike Mollica gave the staff presentation recommending approval
of the front and side setback variances. He cited compliance
with the variance criteria and noted that the applicant had
reduced the amount of variance requested on the stream side.
Mike added that there was some public input from the neighbors
and specified what that was. Jim Morter, representing the
applicant, stated that the applicant was Phil Hoversten and not
the Gunns. He pointed out how the proposal was maintaining
important open space and landscaped areas on the site and that
the buildable area was very small. He added that the Higbies
had not yet seen the most recent plans.
Mrs. Olson, an adjacent property owner, spoke in favor of the
proposal.
Kathy had no problem with the setbacks, but did have a problem
with using the 250 ordinance. Peggy agreed with Kathy and
Sid. Diana also had a problem with using the 250 ordinance.
She inquired about snow removal (was told there was adequate
area), and preserving the six aspens (was told 33 trees were do
being preserved).
Pam felt that with so many constraints on the site, the 250
ordinance did not take that into consideration. She had no
problem with the setback requests. Chuck asked about the
zoning and if the deck could go further into the setback. He
was told it was primary /secondary and the deck could go further
into the setback area.
Jim asked Peter about the 250 square foot ordinance, and Peter
stated that it was a matter of interpretation. Jim agreed with
Peter. Diana asked about floodplain information. Peter
stated that they would have to go through a process to modify
the floodplain. Chuck asked if aspens that large could be
moved, and was told probably not.
Pam moved and Sid seconded to approve the request, citing
exceptional and extra circumstances, with the condition that
a deed restriction be placed on the property stating that no
structures be built east of the creek. The vote was 4 in
favor, 3 against (Kathy, Peggy and Diana).
•
• 9
•
•
0
Planning and Environmental Commission
February 27, 1989
PRESENT
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Pam Hopkins
Peggy Osterfoss
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
Kathy Warren
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Kristan Pritz
Rick Pylman
Mike Mollica
Betsy Rosoiack
A work session was held on the Medical Center and on air
emission inventory.
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele.
The new members, Sid Schultz, Chuck Crist and Kathy Warren were
sworn in by the Town Clerk, Pam Brandmeyer.
1. A22roval of minutes of the meeting of 2Z13. Diana Donovan
suggested corrections and moved that the minutes be
approved as corrected. The second was made by Sid and the
vote was 7 -0 in favor.
2. A request for a conditional use pernitin order to
construct an addition and a parking structure to the Vail
Valley Medical Center on Lot F, Vail Village 2nd Filing at
181 West Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
Kristan Pritz explained changes that had been made since the
last meeting regarding the Frontage Road and the ambulance
egress and ingress. She mentioned a letter from John Dunn of
the Doubletree condos regarding the height of the project. She
also reviewed the DRB comments on the project. A conceptual
DRB review of the project occurred on February 15th.
Jim Viele had discussed a possible conflict of interest he may
have had with the town attorney, and found he did not have a
conflict of interest. Sid Schultz removed himself from the
discussion and voting.
Kathy Warren wondered about the height of the hospital
addition, and Skip Spence of the Reece Johnson Architects, •
stated the height was approximately 54 feet to the top of the
parapet. Kathy asked more detail questions which Skip
answered. She felt concern with the site planning and was not
comfortable with the open space between the bank and the
parking structure, the height on West Meadow Drive and the
entry on West Meadow Drive.
Chuck Crist suggested perhaps a porte,cochere at the entry
would soften the elevation, and Dan Feeney replied that he
would suggest this idea to the board. Kathy then mentioned
the loss of part of the view when approaching the hospital from
the library, and Skip replied that the architects did cut back
some, but could not determine the exact size of each floor
until it was determined exactly what would be in each space.
Peggy Osterfoss felt that there were concerns in four areas:
access and the helipad, landscaping, relocation of the
ambulance garage and the bulk and mass of the building. With
regard to access, Peggy felt the Town of Vail must determine if
they are willing to accept the impact on their property due to
the future lane. She had concerns about the helipad
relocation, if this were deemed necessary. She questioned
where the helipad could be located. Peggy felt there was a
dearth of landscaping, and the proposal as presented was
unacceptable without more landscaping. She asked that the
hopital provide a landscape plan for the area in front of the
parking structure along the South Frontage Road. Peggy felt
that the relocation of the ambulance garage was needed before
any future additions were made to the hospital. Concerning the
bulk and mass, she felt that a stepping back would help, and
perhaps the areas that appear to be greenhouse could be
eliminated. Peggy felt that to step back on only the 4th
floor would look ridiculous and that the stepping back should
begin now. She wanted to see both the south and west
elevations terraced.
Diana felt that not enough time had been spent on the solution
and that an approval given at this time would eliminate
options. Diana stated that the parking structure should be
constructed a floor and a half lower now, because it would be
impossible to do in the future. She felt that since the
hospital fronted on a residential street, the architecture
should be more in sympathy with the neighborhood. The
additional floor would destroy the down - valley view. She felt
the hospital should accommodate deliveries away off of the
South Frontage Road. Diana also felt that Lot 10 should not be
used to meet parking needs. She felt the use of Lot 10 made
the library less accessible. Diana said it was essential that
the hospital state exactly when all traffic would be removed
from West Meadow Drive and there be a time limit on the the
construction of a parking link from the structure to the •
parking lot with the next expansion.
Diana pointed out that some landscaping was being removed and
• this was a big concern. She also expressed concern about the
helipad per the staff memo. Diana believed the project was
close to being acceptable, but the project definitely needed
additional work before she could support it.
Pam Hopkins agreed about the need for more landscaping and the
need for reducing the height of the hospital expansion. She
pointed out that the next floor would make the hospital 70 feet
high. She felt the 3rd floor height of 53 -54 feet was barely
acceptabale. Pam approved the Frontage Road plan. She said
that Vail was pedestrian oriented, and this must be taken into
consideration when designing the hospital "from the inside
out."
Chuck Crist agreed with Kathy regarding the site planning. He
could foresee the Vail National Bank Building as an "off shoot"
of doctors' offices and would have liked to have seen the
parking structure tied into the bank. He pointed out that tall
trees were shown on the model, and felt that tall trees would
mitigate the height of the addition. He also agreed that
additional landscaping was critical.
Jim Viele felt the access proposal was a substantial
improvement and that the hospital had done a good job in
addressing parking. He expressed concern that the Town was not
further along in their planning on the South Frontage Road. He
• stated that he would like to see a master plan which would
locate the ambulance garage in further stages. Jim felt that
the building should be softened at the front entry but felt
this and the issue of substantial landscaping could be dealt
with at the Design Review Board meetings. Jim would also like
to see a "decent" pedestrian connection along West Meadow
Drive. He pointed out the he did not feel the window of
opportunity in working with the CDOH on the South Frontage Road
would exist forever. Therefore, he was prepared to support the
project per the staff memo and pass it along to the Design
Review Board for "fine tuning."
Peter Patten said that the Town Council had asked the PEC to
discuss with the hospital the possibility of an assessment
district.
Dan Feeney said he and Ray McMahon would take this request to
the hospital board which met the following week. Dan believed
the hospital would be opposed to a vicinity improvement
district. He said he would recommend favorable consideration
of support for an area -wide Frontage Road improvement district
to the board. Viele felt that the town must look at a larger
area with regard to an improvement district on the South
Frontage Road.
Peter Jamar, representing the Doubletree Hotel, stated that he
did not support an improvement district concept on the South
3
Frontage Road because the improvements being made by the
Doubletree, hospital and bank were mitigating impacts from
their proposal. With regard to mentioned deficiencies in the
overall plan of the sites, he reminded the board that the
properties were not under one ownership. Peter mentioned the
difficulty in getting the different parties together over the
many months of working on the proposal and felt that
commendation was in order on the results regarding the access
plan and moving of the parking structure. Peter felt that the
remaining issues were not entirely up to the PEC. With regard
to landscaping, he stated that there was now an increase, he
felt that the parking structure was well designed, he felt it
was unfair to bring up views at this point. The adopted view
corridors did not include views in the area of the hospital.
With regard to the style of the architecture, Peter stated that
public buildings such as churches, schools, and other
facilities have the scale and proportion of "public" buildings.
The uniqueness of public buildings should be a consideration.
Given design constraints, there is plenty of time to work on
the design details at DRB.
•
Jay Peterson, also representing the Doubletree, mentioned that
the Town had put pressure on the hospital to build a parking
structure on the northeast corner of the site. If the PEC
disapproved this proposal, the parking would go back on West
Meadow Drive. Perhaps this was not the optimum solution, but •
it was better than putting the parking on West Meadow Drive.
Peggy agreed with many of the points made, and did not feel
that these properties should be made to participate in a
vicinity improvement district, but did feel that some specific
conditions should be part of the approval to address the PEC
concerns. Diana felt the project had come far, but issues
still needed to be addressed. Jay suggested adding a list of
conditions related to the PEC concerns that would pass the PEC
concerns on in a clear manner to the Council.
Kathy felt day trips would be increased on West Meadow Drive
with the hospital expansion due to more use by Sports Medicine
and visitors. She pointed out that employees make only one
trip per day. She also felt the ambulance trips would be
increased. Ray MacMahon pointed out that the doctors' office
generated many trips (they would park in the structure). Pam
and Kathy also asked why the structure would not be constructed
deeper, and Dan Feeney replied that the ramps would be too
steep and it was also unaffordable at this time.
Peggy moved for approval and Jim Viele seconded with the
conditions of the staff memo which were:
1. An access permit for the South Frontage Road improvement
plan shall be obtained by the Vail Valley Medical Center •
as well as Vail National Bank before a building permit
will be released for the proposed hospital expansion.
4
• 2. The Frontage Road improvement plan will include a minimum
of three lanes as proposed in the Access Permit Request
outlined in this memo.
3. The proposed Special Development District 14 for
the Doubletree Hotel shall be amended to allow for the
construction of a portion of the parking structure to be
built on Doubletree property.
4. Snow removal and drainage from the proposed expansion and
parking structure shall not be handled on the South
Frontage Road right -of -way.
5. Access through the southeast corner of the parking
structure shall be limited to fire and maintenance
vehicles. The general public and Hospital employees shall
not utilize this access.
6. The Hospital concurs that the relocated access drive to
the helipad:
* Shall not exceed a 7% grade (this assumes that the
existing access drive grade does not exceed 7 %)
* Shall allow for safe semi -truck access and loading
for the Post Office
• * Shall not compromise the existing CDOH permit for the
helipad
* Any trees or shrubs affected by the access shall be
relocated in the same general area.
The motion included the following conditions as well:
7. In the event the CDOH deems the helipad must be moved, the
Hospital must bear the expenses of the relocation of the
helipad.
8. The mature evergreens to be transplanted due to the new
access drive shall be guaranteed to live for a period of 3
years or be replaced with trees of comparable size.
9. The PEC puts the Hospital on notice that as a part of any
future building plans, the ambulance garage must be
relocated to allow for, A. Direct access from the
ambulance garage to the South Frontage Road and, b. for
direct access from the South Frontage Road via the parking
structure to the west parking lot.
10. Directions shall be given to DRB that they make certain
• that maximum substantial landscaping be placed on either
side of the entrance to the parking structure, even if
this will require regrading, filling and retention.
5
11. Suggestion to the Town Council that the Town of Vail .
assume responsibility for the cost of a 4th lane along the
Town of Vail site on the Frontage Road and associated
modifications to the Town site if a 4th lane addition is
required by the CDOH.
Peggy recommended that the Town look at changes to access and
parking due to the fourth lane. The vote was 4 -2 -1 with
Schultz abstaining and Diana and Kathy voting against the
motion.
3. A request to amend Special Development District 14
Doubletree Hotel Lot 2 Block 1 Vail Lionshead 2nd
Filing.
Applicant: Vail Holdings. Inc.
Rick Pylman gave the staff presentation, reviewing the history
of the original SDD 14 which was adopted in 1986. This SDD
expired on September 18, 1988. The present request included
two changes: a shared parking arrangement with the Hospital
and utilizing the transient residential unit concept as
originally defined and approved in the Cascade Village SDD.
This would apply to 92 lodge rooms. Rick stated that in the
original SDD proposal, the staff was not comfortable with the
increased density, but this has now been dealt with in the Land
Use Plan. He said the other concern had been the parking. He •
felt that this had been taken care of with the parking
structure, and would not be dependent upon the public parking
structures. Rick then reviewed the zoning analysis and
criteria that must be evaluated for SDD's.
Peter Jamar, representing the applicant, gave further
explanation and told of utilizing only 35% of the existing
parking during the day on busy ski days. He stated that the
Doubletree could now meet the parking requirements. He stated
that his client would like to landscape 7 parking spaces later
when the Town did a study of Frontage Road improvements. They
had no problem with the conditions in the memo. With regard to
the setback encroachment, this was not adjacent to another
property and they were not within the 30 foot stream setback.
John Dunn, a condo owner in the Doubletree, supported the third
condition related to the construction costs of the deceleration
lane improvements. But he added that the condo owners did not
feel responsible toward paying toward these costs. He added
that the last condition could not be amended or rescinded
without the approval of the Town of Vail, but that a certain
number of parking spaces had been guaranteed to the condo
owners.
Chuck asked for an explanation of the condo useage •
restrictions, and Peggy wished to see the 7 parking spaces
landscaped. Kathy agreed. Jim Viele abstained from comment on
this proposal. Diana felt that if the applicant took into
account that this was a tourist town, there could possibly be
more landscaping. Peter Jamar replied that he felt they could
work with the CDOH on the increase landscaping.
Pam moved and Sid seconded to recommend approval of the
requested SDD to the Town Council per the staff memo with the
suggestion that if possible, the 7 parking spaces be allowed to
be landscaped. The conditions from the staff memo were:
1. The development contained within SDD 14 shall not be
converted to any form of time share ownership for a period
of 20 years from the date of building permit issuance.
The applicant agrees to limit the use of any new dwelling
units approved to this development plan to those
restrictions outlined in Section 17.26.075A Condominium
Conversion of the Vail Municipal Code.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the restrictions set forth
in Section 17.26.075 of the Municipal Code at the Town of
Vail shall not apply to the dwelling units during any
period during which they area owned by any individual who
is also a owner of the Doubletree Hotel.
2. The 92 additional accommodation units approved with the
approval of SDD14 shall be developed as lodge rooms or
transient residential units under a single ownership. Any
proposal to condominiumize the accommodation units or
transient residential units would require approval as per
the subdivision regulations of the Town of Vail.
3. The applicant shall bear all costs related to the design
and construction of the deceleration lane improvements
required for the Doubletree access permit as submitted to
the State Highway Department. These improvements shall be
completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate
of Occupancy for any new residential units developed on
this site.
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shall demonstrate that all required approvals from the
State Highway Department for changes to access off of the
South Frontage Road have been obtained.
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
construction of any improvement in SDD14, the owner, or
owners of SDD 14 shall provide to the Town of Vail
documentation of the agreement between the Vail Valley
Medical Center and Vail Holdings, Ltd. that allows the
Doubletree Hotel its designated employees or guests the
right to use a minimum of 48 parking spaces in the Vail
Valley Medical Center structure from the hours of 5:30 PM
7
to 6:00 AM. This parking agreement must be in a form that
may not be amended or rescinded without the approval of
the Town of Vail. 0
The vote was 6 in favor with Jim Viele abstaining.
4. A request for a conditional use Permit and parking
variance for an office s ace for the Vail Valley Arts
Council in the Lionshead Parking Structure.
Applicant: Vail Valley Arts Council and Town of Vail
Mike Mollica presented the staff memos on the conditional use
and parking variance requests. A motion was made by Peggy and
seconded by Kathy to approve the parking variance. The vote
was 7 -0 in favor. A motion was made by Kathy and seconded by
Peggy to approve the conditional use permit. The vote was 7 -0.
5. A request for a side setback variance in order to
construct a garage on Lot 20 Block 7 Vail Villa e First
Filing.
Applicants: Peter Tufo and Gary Bossow
Rick Pylman explained the request and stated that the staff
recommended approval. Pam moved and Chuck seconded to approve
the request. The vote was 7 -0 in favor.
6. A request for a stream setback and front setback variances
for Lot 10 Block 1 Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Robert and Francis Gunn Hoversten
Mike Mollica gave the staff presentation recommending approval
of the front and side setback variances. He cited compliance
with the variance criteria and noted that the applicant had
reduced the amount of variance requested on the stream side.
Mike added that there was some public input from the neighbors
and specified what that was. Jim Morter, representing the
applicant, stated that the applicant was Phil Hoversten and not
the Gunns. He pointed out how the proposal was maintaining
important open space and landscaped areas on the site and that
the buildable area was very small. He added that the Higbies
had not yet seen the most recent plans.
Mrs. Olson, an adjacent property owner, spoke in favor of the
proposal.
•
Kathy had no problem with the setbacks, but did have a problem
with using the 250 ordinance. Peggy agreed with Kathy and
Sid. Diana also had a problem with using the 250 ordinance.
She inquired about snow removal (was told there was adequate
area), and preserving the six aspens (was told 33 trees were I* being preserved).
Pam felt that with so many constraints on the site, the 250
ordinance did not take that into consideration. She had no
problem with the setback requests. Chuck asked about the
zoning and if the deck could go further into the setback. He
was told it was primary /secondary and the deck could go further
into the setback area.
Jim asked Peter about the 250 square foot ordinance, and Peter
stated that it was a matter of interpretation. Jim agreed with
Peter. Diana asked about floodplai.n information. Peter
stated that they would have to go through a process to modify
the floodplain. Chuck asked if aspens that large could be
moved, and was told probably not.
Pam moved and Sid seconded to approve the request, citing
exceptional and extra circumstances, with the condition that
a deed restriction be placed on the property stating that no
structures be built east of the creek. The vote was 4 in
favor, 3 against (Kathy, Peggy and Diana).
n
U
• 9
r1
u
HOSPITAL WORK SESSION
AGENDA
February 27, 1989
12:30 PM
1. Summary of February 13th PEC decision to table the Vail
Valley Medical Center conditional use application: Planning
Staff
2. Explanation of changes to the conditional use application:
Planning Staff
3. Explanation of the revised Hospital access permit for the
South Frontage Road: Dan Feeney and Dave Leahy
a. Comments from the Doubletree Hotel: Peter Jamar
. b. Comments from the Vail National Bank: Paul Powers,
owner and Sidney Schultz
4. Summary of Vail Valley Medical Center responses to the
issues raised by the PEC at their meeting on 2/13: Dan
Feeney
C
s
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 27, 1989
SUBJECT: A request to re -zone Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead
Second Filing to Special Development District #14, in
order to allow an additional 92 lodge rooms, 5
condominiums and 3,350 square feet of meeting rooms
and conference space at the Doubletree Hotel.
Applicant: Vail Holdings, a limited partnership
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
In April of 1986 following a full Planning and
Environmental Commission review and two hearings in front
of the Town Council, Ordinance 5, Series of 1986, an
ordinance approving Special Development District Number 14
was adopted by the Vail Town Council.
Special Development District Number 14 was a proposal from
Vail Holdings, Ltd. to allow expansion of the existing
Doubletree Hotel. That expansion consisted of an
additional 92 lodge rooms, 5 condominiums, 3,350 square
feet of meeting room and conference space and a total of
200 structured parking spaces and 11 surface spaces. The
required parking according to Town of Vail standards for
the proposed development was a total of 261 spaces. The
developer felt that 211 parking spaces was adequate to meet
their needs. The Town Council required that the Doubletree
pay into the Town of Vail parking fund the amount of
$235,000.00 which was equivalent, according to the Town of
Vail parking fund formula to the 50 parking space short
fall that the Doubletree had proposed.
Ordinance Number 5 of 1986 also contained an expiration
clause that stated if no building permit was issue or
construction commenced within an 18 month period that the
Special Development District approval would expire. The
Town Council, on the 16th of June, 1987 approved a 12 month
extension to Special Development District Number 14. That
approval expired on September 18th, 1988.
Vail Holdings Inc., with some proposed amendments, is now
requesting a re- approval for Special Development District
Number 14. The requested density in the current proposal
is identical to the original 1986 proposal. There are,
however, two major changes in the current proposal:
0 1
1. The Doubletree Hotel and the Vail Valley Medical
Center wish to conduct a shared parking arrangement in
0 a parking structure that will be built by the Vail
Valley Medical Center on property owned by the
Doubletree Hotel. This parking arrangement allows the
Doubletree exclusive use of 213 on site parking spaces
and shared use of 48 parking spaces in the Vail Valley
Medical Center structure. The Doubletree would be
allowed to use the parking spaces from 5:30 pm until
6:00 am. Vail Valley Medical Center would use those
48 spaces plus another 20 provided by the Doubletree
from the hours of 6:00 am to 5:30 pm.
2. The Doubletree would like to utilize the transient
residential unit concept that was originally defined
and approved in the Cascade Village Special
Development District. The Doubletree Hotel would like
to construct the 92 additional lodge rooms as
transient residential units. The same definition as
was used in the Cascade Village Special Development
District would apply. The owners agree to maintain
the units under single ownership, and agree to keep
the units in the short term rental pool. They have
also agreed to the restriction that no fireplaces will
be allowed in those units.
The definition of a transient residential dwelling unit as
• found in the Cascade Development District reads as
follows:
"Transient residential dwelling unit or restricted
dwelling unit" shall be defined as 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. A short term rental shalla be deemed to
be rental for a period of time not to exceed 31 days.
Each unit shallnot exceed 645 square feet of GRFA
which shall include a kitchen having a maximum of 35
square feet. Thekitchen 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 through anaother accommodation unit,
dwelliing unit, or transient residential dwelling
unit. Should such units be developed as condomiums,
they shall be restricted as set forth in section
17.26.075 -- 17.26.120 governing condominium conversion.
The unit shall not be used as a permanent residence.
Fractionaal fee ownership shall not be allowed to be
applied to transiet dwelling units. For the purposes
of determining allowable density per acre, transient
•
2
. residential dwelling units shall be counted as one
half of a dwelling unit. The transient residential
dwelling unit parking requirement 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.
II. BACKGROUND
In the original 1986 Doubletree expansion proposal there
were two major issues that the town staff felt were of
great concern and which resulted in the staff
recommendation of denial for the Doubletree expansion.
Those two issues were the increase in density above the
allowance of the HDMF Zone District and the short fail of
on -site parking spaces to be provided by the Doubletree.
The adoption of the Land Use Plan in November of 1986 eased
the staff concerns regarding the increase in density. This
position is reflected in the memo to the Planning and
Environmental Commission dated June 1987 regarding the
approval of the extension of Special Development District
Number 14. The Land Use Plan showed the need for continued
growth in guest accommodation services and identified the
potential areas for that large scale hotel growth. The
Doubletree site was within that area identified in the Land
Use Plan as showing potential for increased densities in
• guest related services.
The staff was never comfortable with the parking provisions
that were a part of the approval of the original Special
Development District Number 14. The staff has been
consistent with the position that private development
should meet their own parking demands on site, with the
exception of course of development within the Commercial
Core I and II. We felt that the provision allowing the
Doubletree to pay into the Town of Vail parking fund in
lieu of meeting the on -site parking requirements was
inconsistent with our planning objectives. We believe it
is better to provide parking spaces on site then to provide
private purpose parking in the Town of Vail structures.
The parking arrangements in the current Doubletree /Vail
Valley Medical Center proposals relieve a great deal of
that staff concern.
The Doubletree, according to studies provided by their
staff, will meet their parking requirements during their
peak parking demand hours. We have confirmed this
conclusion with our own studies. These studies have all
shown that the Doubletree parking demand is greatest when
the bar and restaurant are in full operation. At these
times, from 5:30 pm to 6:00 am, the Doubletree is able to
provide all 261 of their required parking spaces within
• their parking structure and the shared parking structure
that will be constructed by the Vail Valley Medical Center.
3
During the daytime hours of 6:00 am to 5:30 pm the hospital
when it is at its peak staffing level and parking demand
will have the use of those 48 spaces plus another 20 spaces
provided by the Doubletree. This shared parking
arrangement leaves both the Doubletree and the Vail Valley
Medical Center 48 parking spaces short of their requirement
during their non peak hours.
The following chart represents the parking requirements and
provisions of the Doubletree and the Vail Valley Medical
Center during existing, interim and build out phases.
PHASE I
(VVMC EXPANSION
PHASE II
DOUBLETREE EXPANSION
6:OOAM- 5:30PM 5:30PM- 6:OOAM 6:00AM- 5:30PM 5:30PM- -6:00AM
REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED
DBLTREE 167 167 167 167 261 193 261 261
HOSP 278 279 278 279 278 299 278 231
The following table illustrates how this proposal relates
the existing development on site as well as that allowed
under the previously existing high density multi - family
zoning.
ZONING ANALYSIS OF DOUBLETREE HOTEL
Site area 2.6298 acres or 114,554
square feet
ALLOWED DEV. EXISTING
PROPOSED
TOTAL
UNDER EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT
HDMF ZONING
Units:
65 du's 83 du's
51 du's
134 du's
(19 condos
5 condos
(24 condos
128 lodge rooms)
92 lodge
220 lodge
rooms)
rooms)
25 units /ac 31.5 units /ac
19 units /ac
50.95/ac
GRFA:
681732 sq ft 73,577 sq ft
42,576 sq ft
116,153 sq ft
Meeting room
space: 4,040 sq ft
3350 sq ft.
7350 sq ft
While this table illustrates
some of the more
significant
elements related to this proposal there are other
zoning
considerations to be made in
evaluating a new Special
Development District application. These and
other aspects
• of this development plan will
be highlighted
throughout
this memorandum.
4
• III. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL:
As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of Special
Development Districts is to:
18.40.010
PURPOSE - The purpose of the Special Development
District is to encourage flexibility and
creativity in the development of land in order to
promote its most appropriate use; to improve the
design, character and quality of new development
within the town; to facilitate the adequate and
economical provision of streets and utilities;
and to further the overall goals of the community
as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An
approved development plan for a special
development district, in conjunction with a
properties underlying zone district, shall
establish the requirements for guiding
development in uses of property included in the
Special Development District. The elements of
the development plan shall be outlined as in
Section 18.40.060 of the Vail Municipal Code.
Section 18.40.080 of the Vail Municipal Code addresses the
. design criteria for special Development Districts.This
chapter states that "The following design criteria shall be
used as the principal criteria in evaluating the marriage
that the proposed Special Development District. It shall
be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that
submittal material in the proposed development plan comply
with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that
one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical
solution consistent with the public interest has been
achieved.
1. Design Compatibility and Sensitivity to the Immediate
Environment, Neighborhood and Adjacent Properties
Relative to Architectural Design, Scale, Bulk,
Building Height, Buffer Zones Identity, Character
Visual Integrity and Orientation.
Staff Response: Staff feels that the design of the
addition has been completed in such a manner as to
relate very well to the existing structure. The
additions are done in a way that helps reduce the mass
of the existing tower and with the help of the grade
change from the Frontage Road to the site present a
design that does not appear to add considerable bulk
to the site. The design also serves to enhance the
overall visual quality of the existing development.
5
The siting of the proposed additions work well with
• the existing tower the extension of the building helps
step the building off the Frontage Road and reduces
the effect of the bulk and mass. The specific
considerations of materials, color, texture, signs and
lighting will all be addressed at the Design Review
Board level if this project is approved.
2 Uses, Activity and Density Which Provide a Compatibles
Efficient and Workable Relationship With Surrounding
Uses and Activity.
This proposal, although presenting a significant
increase in density above the allowances of the HDMF
zone District is in harmony with the concept of the
Land Use Plan and its suggestions for providing and
recognizing the need for additional accommodation
units within the Town of Vail. The Land Use Plan does
suggest locations for these proposed expansions and
this site is within that proposed area.
3. Compliance With Parking and Loading Requirements As
Outlined In Section 18.52:
This new proposal, which includes the shared parking
arrangements with the Vail Valley Medical Center
represents a great leap forward from the original
Special Development District approved in 1986. The
shared parking arrangement allows an expansion of both
the Doubletree and the Hospital while providing the
required parking for both developments at their peak
parking demand periods.
4. Conformity With Applicable Elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan, Town Policies and Urban Design
Guide Plans:
As previously stated, this application is in harmony
with the land use plan, specifically the Town policies
regarding expansion of guest services and
accommodation units. The proposal relates
specifically to the goals number 2.1, 3.2, 4.2 and 4.4
of the Vail Land Use Plan, These goals refer to the
community role as a destination resort and the fact
that the Vail Village and Lionshead areas are the best
locations for hotels to serve the future needs of
destination skiers.
There is no application of this project to the Vail
Urban Design Guide Plans.
5. Identification and Mitigation of Natural and or
Geologic Hazards That Effect The Property on Which the
.Special Development District is Proposed.
6
Although this property does border Middle Creek on the
west side there are no flood plain encroachments or
implications, nor are there any other applicable
natural or geologic hazards that effect the property.
6. Site Plan, Building Design Location and Open Space
Provisions Designed To Produce a Functional
Development Responsive and Sensitive to Natural
Features, Vegetation and The Overall Aesthetic Quality
of The Community.
In general the
the Doubletree
requirements of
7. Circulation S,
staff feels that the proposed design of
expansion is in harmony with the
this criteria.
Pedestrians Address
Circulation.
Design for
On
Both Vehicles and
Off Site Traffic
Due to the consolidation of the existing Doubletree
accessways into a new entrance, along with the Vail
Valley Medical Center parking structure access, new
State Highway Department access permits will be
required. The extent of the improvements proposed by
the Doubletree consist of a deceleration lane for the
Doubletree main access.
. The approval of this request will be conditional upon
receipt of the access permit.
8. Functional and Aesthetic Landscaping and Open Space in
Order to Optimize and Preserve Natural Features
Recreation, Views and Function:
We feel that with one minor exception the design of
the Doubletree is in compliance with this criteria.
We would take exception to the encroachment of the new
construction on the northwest portion of the site.
The construction of a new pre - function area for the
meeting rooms is proposed to be built right up to the
property line. The staff had in the previous approval
of the Special Development District requested this
area to be re- evaluated to reduce this encroachment on
Middle Creek. We still feel it is important to
maintain some amount of setback of buildings from the
property line in this area and encourage the owners of
the Doubletree to review this situation during the
final design phase.
9. Phasing Plan or Subdivision Plan That Will Maintain a_
Workable, Functional and Efficient Relationship
Throughout The Development of The Special Development
i)i strict:
The relationship of the Doubletree and Vail Valley
Medical Center expansions and their phasing does have
is an impact on the proposed parking. The Doubletree and
the Hospital have submitted existing, interim and
final build out parking scenarios which have been
presented earlier in this memo nd which the staff
finds acceptable.
IV. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL:
1. Fire Department Issues:
This concern is a carry over from the 1986 approval
and as the site plan has not significantly changed,
neither has this issue. The Fire Department has not
signed off on this design because of inadequate access
and operational widths to the additional development
proposed on site. Final determinations regarding code
requirements will be made at the building permit
review if this project is approved. Any significant
changes to the site plan that may result from this
review would require Planning Commission approval if
made.
2. Easements.
As proposed, underground parking structures and
do portions of the lodge addition will encroach on
existing utility easements. If approved, the design
of this parking structure will allow access to these
utility lines. Construction on these easements will
require approvals of all utility companies prior to
the issuance of any building permit for the project.
3. Restrictions On Lodge Rooms and Condominiums:
The staff has requested and the applicant has agreed
that the accomodation units proposed in this plan
would be developed as lodge rooms or as transient
residential units. This would mean that if a proposal
to convert these units to condominiums were to be
made, they would be reviewed with respect to the
criteria outlined in the condominium conversion
ordinance. In addition, the applicant has agareed to
restrict the conversion of these units to a time share
form of ownership for 20 years. The staff has also
requested that the use of the 5 condominiums be
limited by those restrictions outlined in the
condominium conversion ordinance. This would assure
the Town that these units would be in the rental pool
for 48 weeks of the year.
• 8
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendation for the proposed Special Development
District Number 14 is for approval. This proposal is
essentially the same in density and design as the proposal
that was previously approved by the PEC and Town Council as
1986 Special Development District Number 14. The issues at
that time that concerned the staff and resulted in a staff
recommendation of denial have been resolved. The staff is
comfortable with both the density issue and the parking
solution that is proposed by the joint agreement between
the Vail Valley Medical Center and Vail Holdings, Ltd. We
feel that the proposal to provide parking spaces on site is
a superior solution to the 1986 proposal and are pleased
with the work that has been done to date between the Vail
Valley Medical Center and the Doubletree. We would like to
add to our recommendation of approval some requested
conditions. Those conditions read as follows:
A. The development contained within SDD14 shall not
be converted to any form of time share ownership
for a period of 20 years from the date of
building permit issuance.
The applicant agrees to limit the use of any new
dwelling units approved to this development plan
to those restrictions outlined in Section
. 17.26.075A Condominium Conversion of the Vail
Municipal Code.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the restrictions
set forth in Section 17.26.075 of the Municipal
Code at the Town of Vail shall not apply to the
dwelling units during any period during which
they are owned by any individual who is also a
owner of the Doubletree Hotel.
B. The 92 additional accommodation units approved
with the approval of SDD14 shall be developed as
lodge rooms or transient residential units under
a single ownership. Any proposal to
condominiumize the accommodation units or
transient residential units would require
approval as per the subdivision regulations of
the Town of Vail.
C. The applicant shall bear all cost related to the
design and construction of the deceleration lane
improvements required for the Doubletree access
permit as submitted to the State Highway
Department. These improvements shall be
completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary
Certificate of occupancy for any new residential
• units developed on this site.
9
D. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the
• applicant shall demonstrate that all required
approvals from the State Highway Department for
changes to access off of the south Frontage Road
have been obtained.
Ej
E. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for
the construction of any improvement in SDD14 the
owner, or owners of SDD14 shall provide to the
Town of Vail documentation of the agreement
between the Vail Valley Medical Center and Vail
Holdings, Ltd. that allows the Doubletree Hotel
its designated employees or guests the right to
use a minimum of 48 parking spaces in the Vail
Valley Medical Center structure from the hours of
5:30 pm to 6:00 am. This parking agreement must
be in a form that may not be amended or rescinded
without the approval of the Town of Vail.
10
0
C
do
•
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 27, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a parking variance for an office space for
the Vail Valley Arts Council in the Lionshead parking
structure.
Applicant: Vail Valley Arts Council and the Town of
Vail.
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
The Vail Valley Arts Council is requesting a parking variance
of one space in order to locate their office in the Lionshead
parking structure.
Presently, the Executive Director of the Arts Council parks
in the Lionshead Structure. Twice a week her assistant parks
in the structure. Beyond these requirements the organization
does not generate a large amount of vehicular traffic for
their office use.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the
following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
The relationship of the
or potential uses and _s
ures
riance to other existi
the vicinitv.
The other uses in the Lionshead parking structure such as
Sopris Mental Health and the Teen Center were not required to
pay into the parking fund or to locate parking off site.
Staff believes that to grant the parking variance would be
treating the applicant in the same way that other non - profit
community service organizations have been treated in the
past.
The degree to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
Staff believes that it is reasonable to relax the strict
requirement for one parking space for the office area as this
would be similar to the way previous organizations have been
treated in respect to parking.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air,
distribution of population, and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public
safety.
There should be no significant impact on these factors. The
Vail Valley Arts Council will function as they did when they
were located in the Vail Public Library. The office space is
also so small that it does not even require one full parking
space so parking demand impacts should be insignificant.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance._
In 1981, the PEC approved a conditional use permit for a
restaurant /snack bar, transportation and tourist related
office space, Town offices, rental car office and ticket
sales in the Lionshead Transportation Center. The memo
states:
The uses of these spaces within the auxiliary building
and grand floor of the parking structure should be pre-
. dominately non - vehicle related. They should be used by
people who will be parking in the structure of by people
who will be riding the in -town shuttle bus. (PEC memo
10/26/81).
By being located at an exit of the structure, on a bus route,
and pedestrian link between the village and Lionshead, the
Arts Council should be more visible without generating a
demand for parking.
III. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
following findings before granting 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.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
or enforcement of the
deprive the applicant of
owners of other properties in
Staff recommends approval of the parking variance. We feel
that it will not be a grant of special privilege as other
uses in the Lionshead parking structure have received the
same treatment. We do not see any detriment to the public
due to the variance as the Vail Valley Arts Council does not
generate a high number of vehicle trips. We feel the
variance is warranted as the strict interpretation of the
parking requirement would deprive the applicants of
privileges enjoyed by other non - profit tenants in the
Lionshead parking structure.
•
n
U
. PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS, RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: RICK PYLMAN, OWN OF VAIL
FROM: PETER JAMA
DATE: JANUARY 10, 1989
RE: DOUBLETREE HOTEL EXPANSION - PARKING DEMAND
ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED PARKING PROGRAM
In support of the re- approval of Special Development District No.
14 1 am providing you with the following additional information
regarding the provision of parking for the proposed expansion of
the Doubletree.
As previously outlined and documented within the Environmental
Impact Report completed for our initial application the
statistics regarding parking are as follows:
. Current Existing Parking Supply: 167 Spaces
Total Parking Supply required per Town of
Vail for Hotel Expansion: 261 Spaces
Previously it was anticipated that a total of 211 spaces would be
provided on -site to meet the Doubletree projected parking demand.
This meant that there was a 50 parking space difference between
the amount of parking that Doubletree felt was needed and the
amount required by the Town of Vail parking requirements in the
Zoning Code. The provision of 211 spaces was based upon
Doubletree's past experience with the operation of various resort
hotels and the observation of the parking characteristics of the
typical Vail guest and the characteristics of the Vail visitor in
general.
At the time of the approval of SDD 14 a condition was attached
which in effect granted a "variance" to the parking requirements
and required the property owners to contribute to the Town of
Vail parking funds.
Suite 3011, Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road West . Vail, Colorado 81657 • (303) 476 -7154
• The construction of a joint parking structure on Doubletree and
Vail Valley Medical Center property has now opened up new
opportunities to provide for meeting the Doubletree parking
demand. The fact that the VVMC needs to increase its parking
supply to accommodate its expansion provides the opportunity for
joint use of the parking between the VVMC and Doubletree.
Whereas VVMC's peak parking demand is during daytime hours, the
Doubletree peak demand is in the evening hours when restaurant
and bar patrons utilize the facilities of the Hotel.
The VVMC will be constructing a 185 space parking structure as
indicated upon the plans that have been submitted to the Town.
This parking structure will remove approximately 20 existing
surface spaces at the Doubletree which will be replaced within
the middle level of the structure and will be directly accessible
from the Doubletree's surface lot. These 20 spaces will
initially be designated for use exclusively by the Doubletree.
Therefore, the Doubletree's current parking supply will remain at
167 spaces.
Upon expansion of the Hotel the VVMC has agreed that from the
hours of 5:30 p.m. - 2:30 a.m. an additional 48 spaces will be
made available within the structure to accommodate our total
parking requirement (per Town of Vail) during our peak demand
• period. The parking provided on site at the Doubletree will be
increased to 193 spaces when the expansion is constructed.
Therefore our total supply during peak hours will equal the
required 261 spaces.
It is also anticipated upon full Hotel expansion that, during the
daytime hours, when the Doubletree's parking demand is low and
the VVMC's at peak, 20 spaces can be allocated for the Hospital's
use. The hours that this parking will be available to the
Hospital will be from 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
We feel very confident that the arrangement described above can
more than accommodate the Hotel's parking needs. Continual
observation of our parking characteristics over the past several
years supports our request. A recent survey of parking taken
during the peak holiday period is indicative of the real parking
needs of the Hotel. Copies of the survey are attached.
The parking survey was conducted starting December 20 and was
ended on January 3, 1989. The purpose was to analyze parking
demand of hotel employees, hotel guests, other visitors to the
Hotel, and unauthorized parking. Parking passes were distributed
to both Hotel employees and Hotel guests in order to enable
identification of each by category. Parking counts were taken
three times a day: 7:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m., and 9:00 p.m.
•
0
•
The results of the survey show that daytime parking demand for
the Hotel employees, condominium owners, and guests ranged from
approximately 15% to 38% of supply. During this period Hotel
occupancy ranged from 32% to 100 %. 38% of the parking supply is
equal to 63 parked cars.
During the evening hours the survey indicates that a number of
"unauthorized" cars utilize the parking supplied by the
Doubletree. These are patrons of the bar and restaurant and when
factored into the survey indicate a higher utilization of the
parking supply. At 9:00 p.m. the 167 spaces were never full but
our observation is that later in the evening the parking fills
close to capacity.
The survey supports very strongly that the jointly shared parking
arrangement proposed by the Vail Valley Medical Center and the
Doubletree is a workable and desirable solution. Even though
our survey indicates peak usage during the day is roughly 38%
maximum we are proposing to provide 730 of our required spaces
during the day and 100% in the evening hours. The difference
will more than provide a "cushion" for any seasonal fluctuations
or special events that may occur.
0
Al�
ROSALL RFMMEN CARES
PLANNIN(;. (I(t(tAN IN!il('N AND Iit`ilAt((;M
DOUBLETREE
1/6 2 :15 PM
52
cars and 4 trucks -
surface
36
cars --
garage
1/6 7:05 AM
28
cars and 2 trucks -
surface
15
cars -
underground
12/30 1:00 PM
41
cars -
surface
36
cars -
underground
12/29 10:30 PM
67
cars -
surface
41
cars -
underground
12/29 6:30 PM
39
cars -
surface
31
cars -
Indoors
12/29 12:30 PM
57
cars -
surface
29
cars -
underground
12/29 1:15 PM
64
Gars -
surface
30
cars -
underground
LICENSE BREAKDOWN
AT THE DOUBLETREE:
D(Sc 29
:1 1S PM
rid pH
Out--of-stats
1T
(1gx)
16
(15X)
Local
14
(15%)
17
(16X)
Other Colorado
31
(33X)
29
(27x)
Temporary /rental
16/14
(32x)
21/19 (37x)
Truck
2
(2X)
6
(6.5x)
Total:
94
(100x)
108 (100.5x)
U
1
� 0
f 1
� r
x �
3
~3
r
S
1
r
d
H
u�
i=
s
W
J
..J
A..
1
i
I m
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 24, 1986
SUBJECT: A request to rezone Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing from
High Density Multiple Family to Special Development District in
order to develop an additional 92 lodge rooms, 5 condominiums, and
3,350 square feet of meeting rooms /conference space at the
Doubletree Hotel.
Applicant: Vail Moldings, a Limited Partnership
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
A request has been made to the Town of Vail to rezone the Doubletree
Hotel site from High Density Multiple Family zoning to a Special
Development District. This proposal is requested in order to allow for
additional development on the site. The rezoning is required because the
Present level of development is over that allowed under existing zoning.
The development proposed with this application includes 92 lodge rooms, 5
condominiums, and 3,350 square feet of additional meeting room space.
The following table illustrates how this proposal relates to the existing
• development on the site as well as that allowed under the existing
zoning:
ZONING ArrALYSIS OF DOUBLETREE HOTEL
Site area 2.6298 acres or 114,554 square feet
ALLOWED DEV. EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL
UNDER EXISTING DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT
HDMF ZONING
Units:
65 du's
83 du's
51 du's
134 du's
(19 condos
(5 condos
(24 condos
128 lodge rooms)
92 lodge rooms)
220 lodge
rooms)
25 units /ac
31.5 units /ac
19 units /ac
50.95/ac
GRFA:
68,732 sq ft
73,577 sq ft
42,576 sq ft
116,153 sq ft
Parking Req'd
52 enclosed
200 enclosed
200 enclosed
198 spaces
115 surface
11 surface
11 surface
Req'd 261 spaces
f-leeting room space:
4040 sq ft
3350 sq ft
7350 sq ft
Y J
lv,hile this table illustrates st,rnp of the more significant elements
related to this proposal, therf% are other zoning considerations to be
made when evaluating this application. These and other aspects of this
development plan will be highlighted throughout this memorandum.
II. BACKGROUND ON REVIEW PROCESS TO DATE
III
Following the acquisition of this property by Vail Holdings, Inc., a
major renovation of the existing facility was completed during the summer
and fall of 1985. It was at this tine that the staff first began a
dialogue with the developers and their designers concerning the
feasibility of additional development of this site. To date, the staff
has spent a considerable amount of time with the designers of this
project resulting in a number of additions and modi it cati ons to the
originally proposed development plans. To assist in this process, the
developers agreed to pay the bill to bring Jeff 1%,inston in as a design
consultant for the Town. This is similar to the role Jeff played in the
review of.Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn proposal last year. In
addition to this review, a work session was held for the Town Council and
Planning and Environmental Commission in November to brief them on the
concepts being proposed in this plan.
As is the case with any rezoning request, final decisions concerning this
application are made by the Town Council. The Planning Commission review
is advisory to the Council and any approval of this plan would involve
the adoption of a new ordinance granting the rezoning request.
CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of special development
districts is to:
18.40.010 Purpose
The purpose of the special development districts is to encourage
flexibility in the development of land in order to promote its
appropriate use; to improve ti.e design, character and quality of
new development; to facilitate the adequate and economic
provisions of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural
and scenic features of open areas.
Historically, SDD`s have been proposed in !pail to allow for the
development of sites that would be unable to do so under conventional
zoning. Examples of these projects would include Valli Hi vihere density
increases were allowed in exchange for restrictions on the property to
ersure their use as ;E-:L)loyee housing, or the Vaii Viiia e Inn whcse mixed
use character r eq'u ; r'd the SDD zon, ^.g . more often ti,an not, however, SDD
zone districts have been requested to allow for increases in densities
over what existing zoning on the site would allow. This is the case with
this application.
There are a ni.1T52r of criteria to be evaluated when reviewing a request
• of this nature. Foremost among these are thte nine design standards that
are 1'sied in the zoning cede. As stated in the code, "The de•r= lop;;;;ent
plan for the Special Development Districts shall meet each of the
following standards or demonstrate that either one or more of them is not
applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public
interest has been achieved." In addition to these criteria, it is
important to consider the underlying zoning as a point of reference in
evaluating this request. These zoning considerations as well as other
issues that have been raised during the course of this review will be
addressed in this memo.
IV. DESIGN STANDARDS IN EVALUATING SDD PROPOSALS
The following are staff comments concerning how this proposal relates to
the design standards as outlined in the zoning code.
A. A buffer zone shall be provided in any special development district
that is adjacent to low density residential uses. The buffer zone
must be kept free of buildings or structures, and must be
landscaped, screened or protected by natural features so that
adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. This may
require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the
proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual
privacy, noise, adequate light and air, air pollution, and other
comparable potentially incompatible factors.
The buffer zone referred to in this design standard is specifically for
SDD's proposed adjacent to low density residential uses. Zone districts
. adjacent to this property include high density multi- family and the
public use districts. Consequently, this standard is not directly
applicable. However, with a few exceptions, the proposal is within the
existing zone district's required 20 toot setback.
B. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated,
taking into consideration safety, separation from living areas,
convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control. Private internal
streets may be permitted if they can be used by Police and Fire -
Department vehicles for emergency purposes. Bicycle traffic may be
considered and provided when the site is to be used for residential
purposes.
The proposed site plan involves a nu,,ber of changes to the existing
VehicU ar access to the property. Among these are the addition of a new
access point to service the loading and trash facilities, the removal of
an existing road cut to the hotel entrance, and the development of a
newly aligned entry to the hotel. As a part of the environmental imoact
report for this project, a traffic report was done that evaluated trip
gen_ration anticipated from both the existing and proposed development on
the site. One conclusion of this study is that both left and right turn
lanes be provided as an element of this development proposal. In
addition to satisfying the reco wmendations of the traffic report, if
aprro�;ed, slight grading chan ^,es would be necessary to he main entry to
t
the focii14, as per Tcyn of Vail cngir2er's request. It should be noted
• shat any chances to the road cuts requiring State Highway approval would
have to be obtained prior to the issuance of any building permit for this
3
C. Functional open apace in terms of: Optimum preservation of natural
features (including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views,
convenience, and function.
One change proposed in this plan relative to functional open space is
with respect to the Middle Creek area. At the present time this area is
overgrown with vegetation with no real relationship to the existing
facility. Landscape improvements are proposed in this area of the site,
as well as on the Town of Vail stream tract, in order to'open the access
to this stream. While a limited amount of landscape materials would be
removed to allow for this development, a preliminary landscape plan has
been submitted indicating a substantial increase in plant materials on
the site. The views /spacial analysis provided in the environmental
impact report, indicates that there are no real significant view impacts
with respect to 'vantage points along the Frontage Road and Interstate.
The scale of the buildings, coupled with the grade change from the
Frontaae road to the site, has mitigated the potential view blockage from
this addition. Short range views from some units in the Vail
International Condominiums would be affected by the expansion proposed to
the north of the existing building.
D. Variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and open
space.
With the exception of the five condominium units, the residential
40 development proposed with this SDD is short term lodging. Other
facilities on site in addition to the meeting room space include indoor
Jacuzzis, an outdoor pool, a restaurant, a nightclub, and limited
commercial. Also, see Section VI on Lodge Rooms and Condominium
Restrictions.
E. privacy in terms of the needs of: Individuals, families and
neighbors.
Given the nature of the uses on this site, as well as the uses on
adjacent sites, staff can see no factors with respect to privacy.
F. Pedestrian traffic in terms of: Safety, separation, convenience,
access to points of destination, and attractiveress.
At the present time, guests of the Doubletree are provided with a
Pedestrian linkage to Meadow Drive in order to utilize the Town of Vail
bus system. Sr:i th this proposed addition, an extension of this 'wal 4 ay is
inclur'ed linking the existing wal.:way with the Post 0== ice /iiunicipaI
Duildina area. This walkway runs along the south side of the property.
4
G BuiId- ' .tee in terms of: r,wPi' ^Gli "iat. -2 rie -;j LC1 dArSity, site
rel a . nslhi p and duck.
It is felt teat the designers of this project have done a commendable job
in relating this addition to the existing structure. Specifically, the
additions are done in a way that helps reduce the mass of the existing
tower. As was referred to earlier, the grade change from the Frontage
Road to the site has allowed for a design that does not appear to add
considerable bulk to the site and works to enhance the overall visual
quality as cc-npared to the existing building.
H. Buildirg design in terms of: Orientation, spacing, materials,
color and texture, storage, signs, lighting, and solar blockage.
As is the case with the massing of this proposal, the siting of the
proposed additions work well with the existing taker. The extensions of
the existing building help "step" the building off the Frontage Road.
Considerations such as materials, color /texture, signs, and lighting
would all be addressed at the Design Review Board level if this project
were approved. A sun /shade analysis in the environmental impact report
demonstrates that the proposed expansions would have a negligible effect
on the Frontage Road.
I. Landscaping of the total site in terms of: Purposes, types,
maintenance, suitability, and effect on the neighborhood.
is The proposed landscape plan shows 37°' of the site being landscaped. This
does not include portions of adjacent property between the Doubletree
site and the State Highway Department right -of -way that would also be
landscaped. It should be noted, however, that this area is required to
be landscaped. Particular attention has been paid to the loading /trash
area as well as the surface parking that is on the site. A considerable
amount of material is proposed in this area in order to screen this
portion of the site.
r�
u
V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL
With the approval of an SDD, the development plan submitted establishes
the development standards for the property. These would address the
standard zoning considerations that are outlived in other zone districts.
In evaluatinc this development plan, it is mportant to consider the
standards established in the underlying, or existing zoning. The
following is an analysis of these considerations:
Uses
There are no changes to existing uses that would not be allowed
under ,lF zoning.
5
�1
Density
Aside from the important site planning issues which must be
discussed, the overriding issue is how to deal with the request for
significant additional density. While the Town deals with requests
for additional density quite frequently, seldom are requests made
of this magnitude. Historically, the staff has not supported
requests for densities above that allo4,ed under existing zoning.
While there have been notable exceptions, the Planning Commission
and Town Council have also been quite critical of reouests for
density increases. The growth r^ana0 -e,ent report of 1 977 and a
general co -cern of allowing additional development in what is
perceived by many to be an overdeveloped Valley, are often cited as
reasons for denying additional density requests.
Prompted in large part by the Sonnenalp request in 1984, the Town
has been working on the Vail Village Study for over a year. One of
the goals of the study is to evaluate the potential for additional
density in the Village area. This potential is evaluated based
more on design considerations than on ;-.,hat is necessarily allowed
under existing zoning regulations. in conjunction with this
evaluation, goals and objectives are being established to outline
improvements that should be done to the Villace in conjunction with
this deVel rpment. A trade off, or Lu-cn us system, i s to be developed
that would allow for additional densities in exchance for
substantial return to the community in the form of public
improvements or other exactions. It is important to note that this
• system is being proposed after a comprehensive evaluation of the
entire study area that has identified both the improvements to be
made as well as where additional density could be accommodated in a
sensitive manner. It is also important that during the public
process that has taken place for the Village Study, there was not a
uniform response in favor of considering additional density in the
Village. However, there has been support for a system that would
allow density increases in conjunction with the comprehensive study
�,
of this type combined with a subsantlal return by tine developer in
the form of public improvements.
•
Given the submittal before us, it is unfortunate that the
Doubletree Inn is not located within the Vail Village Study Area.
It is equally unfortunate that a Toi•Tn -aide land use clan is only in
its early stages of development and not near completion as is the
case with t?-'e VVillage Study. The land use plan would provide tha
staff a better understanding of the implications that this project
may have relative to other development potentials in the Valley.
R
Nile specific analysi% of the Doubletree site would indicate that
some degree of additional density could be accommodated, the
concern of the staff is how this request relates to Town -wide
development issues. For example, the traffic report for the
Doubletree suggests that trip generations to the site can be
accommodated off of the Frontage Road. But what would a cumulative
impact have on the Frontage Road if similar requests for density
increases were to be granted in this area? Likewise, it has been
stated that the design impacts on the Doubletree site are positive
from a standpoint of reducing the mass of the existing tower.
However, without a comprehensive analysis, the staff is
uncomfortable of what implications this proposal may have on other
properties located along the frontage road. Another important
consideration is a system of trade -offs that would be established
for increased density in the Village. While there has been a
formal discussion with the developers on what public improvements
could be provided in conjunction with this development, without a
Town -wide analysis, the staff is unable to provide recommendations
as to appropriate trade -offs for this grant of additional density.
Setbacks
The proposed addition encroaches into the required 20 foot setback
in four areas. Uhile three of these areas are along the Frontage
Road and involve only a few feet, there is a considerable
encroachment along the west end of the property adjacent to Middle
Creek. A portion of this encroachment involves the infill of an
40 area underneath an existing deck. However, new construction to
accommodate a pre - function area for the meeting rooms is proposed
to be constructed up to the property line. The staff had requested
this area to be re- evaluated in an effort to reduce this
encroachment on Middle Creek. It is important to maintain some
amount of setback of buildings from the property line in this area.
Height
The proposed additions do not exceed the 48 foot height limitation
in the HDMF Lone district. The existing tower is 72 feet in
height.
Site Coveraae
Site coverage allowed under the HDMF zone district is 55%. This
plan includes 47,0 of the site being covered by buildings.
Landscaping
As has been mentioned. 37% of the site is landscaped. This exceeds
a 30% requirement for the HDMF zone district. -
parking
• There are a number of approaches that can be taken in evaluating
what the required parking is for this development. Regardless of
how the numbers are calculated, the proposed development does not
meet the parking that would be required for this level of
development. There are 167 parking spaces on the site that can be
considered a grardfathered situation (current requirements for the
existing development on the site would be 198 spaces). The new
development proposed for the site would require 94 spaces (this
includes a 5°. multi -use reduction as well as a 50% reduction for
the required parking for the :meeting room space). Considering the
167 grandfathered spaces, an additional 44 spaces are being added
LO the site to acccm-ilodate the new development proposed. This
results in a net deficit of 50 parking spaces on the site. In
evaluating the parking required, the stair is comfortable with a
total of 261 spaces to be provided on site. It should be noted
that this figure of 261 spaces gives the applicant consideration
for a 500 reduction of spaces for a meeting room facility as well
as an interpretation that acknowledges a 25 space shortfall that is
present at this time. Without these considerations, the required
parking on the site could be as high as 316 spaces. It is felt
that the 261 figure is both realistic from a planning standpoint as
well as reasonable in terms of the interpretations that have been
made.
U
n
LJ
VI. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
Fire Department Issues
At the present time, the Fire Depar
design bec_use of inadequate access
additional development proposed for
regarding code requirements will be
review if this project is approved.
site plan that may result from this
Commission approval if made.
Easements
tment has not signed off on this
and operational widths for the
the site. Final determinations
made at the building permit
Any significant changes to the
review would require Planning
As proposed, the underground parking structure and portions of the
lodge addi..'on would encroach on exist Ma utility easements. If
approved, the design of the underground parking structure would
allow access to these utility lines. Construction on these
easements would require approvals of all utility companies prior to
the issuance of any building permit for this project.
9
N
Pss:rlctions on ! jne Puoms and C
-_ � undoc-ai n i ums
The staff has requested and the applicant has agreed that the
acco7mod,ation units proposed in this plan would-be developed as
lodge rooms. This would mean that if a proposal to convert these
units to condominiums were to be made, they would be reviewed with
respect to the criteria outlined in the condominium conversion
ordinance (i.e. if approved for conversion to condos, they would be
restricted to short —term rentals). In addition, the applicant has
agreed to restrict the conversion of these units to a time share
form of ownership for 20 years. The staff has also requested that
the v L the .]
use o << condominiums be limited by these restrictions
outlined in the condominium conversion ordinance. This would
assure the Town that these units would he in the rental pool 48
weeks of the year.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As demonstrated in this M2MO, the proposed deve 1 0; ment plan
satisfactorily addresses a number of design standards outlined in the SDD
zone district. The plan presented provides a number of significant
improvements to the existing site conditions on the property. However,
the plan is significantly snort of what the staff feels to be the
required parking for this level of development. In addition to the
shortfall of 50 parking spaces, staff also questions the high percentage
of valet spaces within the structured parking area. As proposed, 76 of
41 the 200 spaces would require valet service for utilization. Staff is
also disappointed to see the proposed surface parking on the site. While
the location of these surface spaces is not highly visible, it would be
much preferred to have the parking entirely enclosed.
It is the feeling of the staff that this project's inability to meet the
parking requirements is an indication that the development proposed is in
excess of what the site is capable of handling. The development proposed
includes 134 dwelling units. This number is over twice that allowed
under existing zoning. To even consider supporting a project that is'
requesting this dramatic increase in density while not meeting its
parking requirement is inconceivable to the staff. It is the feeling of
the staff that it is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate how it is
satisfying the development standards of the Town. With an SDD rezoning
request to allow for this increase in density, it is the feeling of the
staff that this application should meet and exceed the rssPective minimum
or maximum development standards of the Town to show the highest quality
development possible. This project has not demonstrated that it is
meeting this ob,,;ective.
The staff feels the parking requirements as descri ed in the zoning code
for ;.hose types of uses on this site are valid. Here again it should be
e.m,phasized that the required parking acknowledges a 5o% reduction in
meeting room space, the multi -use credits, as well as acceptance of the
grandfathering of the existing situation. The Town simply cannot afford
to Make concessions with regard to Narking. we cannot risk the creation
. of a parking procl;m with respect to private 0 v el0men`s as this will
apgra.'ate the problem of providing skier parking. ThisLbecomes
particularly true when considering a request for such a 5j;n1ficant .
increase in density. -
9
•
=G
Without the i 0crmation
afforded
us through the ccmpletion of a land use
plan and policies
applicable
to these types of density increase
proposals, the
staff is not
in a position to support density increases of
this magnitude.
Approval of
this proposal would establish a significant
precedent with
respect to a
Town policy on density increases within the
Town. A land use
plan is an
important tool in evaluating proposals of
this nature or
other issues
such as the potential land trade at the Lodge
and Spraddle Creek
sites. The
Planning Commission is strongly urged to
consider these
implications
when evaluating this request.
•
=G
4
ORDINANCE NO.5
Series of 1986
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT (KNOWN AS SDD NO. 14) AND THE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL
MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD
THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes special development
districts within the Town; and
WHEREAS, Vail Holdings, a Colorado Limited Partnership, has submitted an
application for special development approval for a certain parcel of property
within the Town known as Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing, to be known
as Special Development District 14, and commonly referred to as the Doubletree
Hotel; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD 14 will insure unified and
coordinated development within the Town of Vail in a manner suitable for the
area in which it is situated; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed SDD;
and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate and
beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants and visitors to establish
said Special Development District No. 14;
NOW., THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE `!'OWN C0UNC7IL' OF THE TOWN OF VAIL,
COLORADO, THAT:
Section I. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled Planning Commission Report.
The approval procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code
have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the report of the
• Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval of the proposed
development plan for SDD 14.
Section 3. Purpose
Special Development District 14 is established to ensure comprehensive
• development and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general
character of the Town of Vail and to promote the upgrading and redevelopment of
a key property in the Town. The development is regarded as complementary to the
Town by the Town Council and meets all design standards as set forth in Section
18.40 of the Municipal Code. There are significant aspects of Special
Development District 14 which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the
standards in the High Density Multiple Family zone district. SDD 14 is
compatible with the upgrading and redevelopment of the community while
maintaining its unique character.
Section 4. Development Plan
A. The development plan for SDD 14 is approved and shall constitute the plan
• for development within the special development district. The development
plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Anthony Pellechia,
Architects as dated December 27, 1985, and consists of the following
documents:
1. Site plan
2. Preliminary landscape plan by Berridge and Associates, Inc.
3. Typical floor plans
4. Elevations and sections
5. The Environmental Impact Report dated January, 1986 as prepared by
Berridge and Associates, Inc.
B. The Development Plan shall adhere to the following:
Setbacks
Setbacks shall be noted as on the site plan listed above.
•
Height
Heights of structures shall be as indicated on the elevations listed
above.
Coverage
Parking and loading
Parking and loading shall be provided as indicated on the site plan and
floor plans as listed above. In no case shall the parking provided on
site be less than 211 spaces with 200 of those spaces underground and a
maximum of 11 located on the surface. Parking access shall be controlled
by a gate (or similar structure) or by an attendant or by other
acceptable methods.
Section 5. Density
Existing development on the site consists of 128 accommodation units and 19
dwelling units consisting of 73,577 square feet of gross residential floor area.
The approval of this development plan shall permit an additional 92
accommodation units and 5 dwelling units, consisting of 42,576 square feet of
• gross residential floor area. The total density permitted with the approval of
this development plan consists of 220 accommodation units and 24 dwelling units
with a total of 116,153 square feet of gross residential floor area.
Section 6. uses
Permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be as set forth in the High
Density Multiple Family zone district.
Section 7, Amendments
Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance
may be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly
scheduled public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060.
Amendments which do change the substance of the development plan shall be
required to be approved by Town Council after the above procedure has been
followed. The Community Development Department shall determine what constitutes
a change in the substance of the development plan.
Section 8. Expiration
The applicant must begin construction of the special development district within
18 months from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward
the completion of the project. If the applicant does not begin and diligently
work toward the completion of the special development district or any stage of
the special development district within the time limits imposed by the preceding
subsection, the planning and Environmental Commission shall review the special
development district. They shall recommend to the Town Council that either the
approval of the special development district be extended, that the approval of
the special development district be revolted, or that the special development
district be amended.
Section 9. Conditions of Approvals for Special Development District 14
A. The development contained within SDD 14 shall not be converted to any
form of time share ownership for a period of 20 years from the date of
the approval'of this ordinance. The applicant agrees to limit the use of
any new dwelling units approved with this development plan to those
restrictions outlined in Section 17.26.075.A, Condominium Conversion, of
the Vail Municipal Code.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the restrictions set forth in Section
17.26.075 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail shall not apply to
the dwelling units during any period during which they are owned by any
individual who is also an owner of the Doubletree Hotel.
B. The 92 additional accommodation units permitted with the approval of SDD
14 shall be developed as lodge rooms under a single ownership. Any
proposal to condominiumize the accommodation units would require approval
as per the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Vail.
C. The applicant shall bear all costs related to the design and construction
of the right turn deceleration lane and left turn lane as recommended in
D. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
demonstrate that all required approvals from the State Highway Department
• for changes to access off the South Frontage Road have been obtained.
E. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any
improvement in SOD 14, the owner or owners of SDD 14 shall grant an
easement to the Town of Vail for the use of the public for access across
SOD 14 to the Vail Valley Medical Center located on lots E and F, Vail
Village Second Filing; County of Eagle and State of Colorado.
F. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any
improvement in SDD 14, the owner or owners thereof shall pay into the
Town of Vail parking fund the sum of $235,000.00. The amount of
$235,000.00 shall be firm for six months. After a six month period, the
• Town shall have the right to increase said'sum to reflect the increased
costs of building parking spaces within the Town.
The owner or owners of SDD 14 shall have the option of paying the parking
fee in its entirety at or before the issuance of any building permit, or
in the alternative may pay the fee in five equal installments of 20% of
the entire fee. Should the owner or owners choose to pay the parking fee
in installments, they shall pay the first installment to the Town of Vail
at or before the issuance of the building permit and at said time shall
issue a promissory note to the Town requiring the issuer to pay the rest
of the parking fee in four equal annual installments of principal and
interest payable on the anniversary date of the first payment and each
year thereafter at a yearly interest rate of 10% until paid in full. The
• promissory note shall be secured by a deed of trust on the property
included within SDD 14 and the form of both the promissory note and the
deed of trust shall be as determined by the Town Attorney.
h
Section 10,
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council
hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any
one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be
declared invalid.
Section 11.
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is
necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and
the inhabitants thereof.
Section 12.
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail
Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which
has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the
effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or
proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed and
reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision
or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated
herein.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 18th _DAY OF _ March
1986, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance. o.n the _18th day
of March 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the
Vail Municipal Building in Vail, Colorado.
Ordered published in full this 18th day of arc ! 1986.
r
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
AST T
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
A,
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
. FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 27, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance in order to
construct a garage on Lot 20, Block 7, Vail Village
First Filing at 285 Forest Road.
Applicants: Peter Tufo and Gary and Mara Bossow
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
There is an existing single family structure with surface
parking on Lot 20, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. The
applicants desire to add a second unit to this lot and
construct a garage for the unit. In order to work around the
existing mature trees on the property, the applicants have
designed the remodel and addition of the second unit in such
a manner that it will require a side setback variance for the
garage.
Because the proposed garage is not attached to the proposed
dwelling unit, this site plan was presented to the Design
Review Board for conceptual review with regard to compliance
with the Design Guidelines. The Design Review Board agreed
do with the applicant that the existing trees presented a
significant site constraint and that the garage could be
separated from the proposed structure and not be in violation
of the Design Review Guidelines. With this conceptual
approval in hand from the Design Review Board, the applicant
is proceeding to the Planning and Environmental Commission
and requesting relief of 7 feet from the requested 15 foot
setback.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the
following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The requested 7 foot encroachment into the side setback
allows for a buffer zone of 8 feet between the garage and the
property line. This garage is further buffered by several
large existing evergreen trees that are located between the
•
proposed garage and the improvements on the property next
. door. The lot next door received approval for a side setback
variance for a garage approximately one year ago. While
these two garages are inrelative proximity to one another,
the impact upon the residential development of the adjacent
lot is minimal.
The dearee to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformityof
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain_ the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
Staff feels that relief from the strict setback requirement
is reasonable in order to sensitively place development on
the site. The site contains many mature trees, and the
development of the new unit and garage has been placed in
such a location as to save as many of these trees as
possible. We feel that it is better to maintain the trees
and utilize them as a buffer than to enforce the strict
setback requirements and remove the trees which screen the
development from adjacent private and public properties. The
staff has always been supportive of garages in conjunction
with the development of primary /secondary property. we feel
that this relieves on- street parking problems and associated
aesthetic impacts of surface parking.
•
The effect of the requested variance on light and air,
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public
safety.
The staff finds no significant impacts with regard to these
criteria.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
TTY. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN
Under the Community Design section of the Community Action
Plan, Policy #2 states that, "Upgrading and remodeling of
structures and site improvements should be encouraged." This
proposal upgrades the existing unit and will provide for an
additional unit, and will add paved access and covered
parking to the site. Staff feels that this project supports
the upgrading policy.
40
• 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 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.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
C]
or enforcement of the
deprive the applicant of
owners of other properties in
Staff recommendation of the requested encroachment of 7 feet
into the side setback for the construction of a garage on Lot
20, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing, is for approval. We
feel that the siting of the additional unit and the garage
is well thought out and has been done to conserve as many of
the mature trees on site as possible. We feel that there are
no severe impacts on adjacent properties and that due to site
constraints, this is no grant of special privilege.
-� -1 2.0' PINS
Vr PIN ra ^r fS+1�:J;•{� -i'r _ty! �� 't�'�! r
10 tv
- - - ; . � �.� J �4rla!•'r` '0�'Y Rt, _ - _ -1 a w t Rx �., ' •[�, zl
� �� � ��'���� � !, v;'^r �._ .,u.- - .- ,fit. t 44y�a•
�' .. - -: •. .. -' ; , _ :. - `^, ' 41"`* F, t'r �'r'r..'►+a+�+�'�'�` �� k'� - ±k � � F d5:� hn � 7' x t ; y �- j, s,' •` t r ��. 'M`�e •_
-�Ati�.
+[Nat.. � y w }� ��„ T � *,�•"`�r x 4�"�.ri 7 `� �'�'�` �r�it �'��i� �+.P' �� �� `� ��--f il.....'�ry�it3��+�
�A
t }j -'s4t li'« �' J`�!E �, kti 2i PyY�,�yn3.�, r � y S 4 +,::. � `f „�' -� t ✓� -� ate` ��,i T �'
V N I Jl' -_ + {k. • ftk t�', ',�I+Lry `'.etsi 4 ,. •! - -F” - . "r -'h' +.-..
f- :,•:roti�+�, S` �'
I Rv
15'0 " {' S` 'a4�'r "E 1$T 1+E
W - Q.5' PINS', a �"" � ^•.� v �� X� \;
o OPOSE2b DRIVE
' o r s .
z �ixMi.NC EX'S`. 'D
_l. or vS,
`,�
a� a s
r I q rJr _PiiV
WA
r ;' ELEC:.s PHONE P R A $A C
a :x! METER r .,
mill
Box
ElWA
L A FHA } J
7 71
�,5,to
i r - ' t 4 �, - � N ati ,s�(4 "e.S, •%-` tr a' „ 1 - { x �
},d".J ; r rp� rte.. `,• __ .j,. ?a },tF i. - V
k '� t?'' n r ir.. w , �' .a � v{ Y y '� t• a fr 3 ♦ ��•
'< P i !A' 4 ti -, iM sue' n r�rr ri. € � k5rs �� i .b;� �6 �,� $;;� � _ t4• ��r �� -'r� w > �'
�k A
_ 't .� v 5 }. kt � r 5�� �, M il� Q A.j c f:�� -sKk '?`Y>•",R w"S ����'� r '� v "' y ':rw � �. y . ik -'' ,•-,;
��' °�hy2 Y ���,3 e l >`; ""ry -"� w �a1` Oct C'�r' •ss { s s {f ? i s6+r f'
r {3 '�; fJ- i ?f •hit. a' .t` hr iA,, r "4r,•ia ttiiC 'y. 'fir t W - -µ_ girt -S
T ��:'. �a4' r -x"' sri':'- •Xi;Tarr"#� - yrr '� w r "ter !� -�� -.6 r} � �� �r r�r%e�_
:z7� cam„ v �, ra :� - .c!„6�'^ 1__ )hr -.c•.w 4 `-•,L i� Ee s t' rF7 - s �1 �.N
fr. •+ay�,��` ''� � } i i � xr ri s t z � . '� � e � �' $ -a�'>.t � x � � ' t .e �' v + � r >. '�� P
��� C+r 1 .f * i r+. t r., f f f 4;- �aI�J'e � F �L4 �� r � .r � .t 5 .sir• i. �. r e - :_� �Y�
0
•
•
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 27, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for variances from the 20' front setback
requirement and from the 30' stream setback requirement,
to allow for the construction of a primary /secondary
residence.
Applicant: Robert and Francis Gunn
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
The applicants are the owners of Lot 10, Block 1, Vail
Village First Filing, which is located at 342 Mill Creek
Circle. The property has an existing single family residence
located upon it, with a building footprint of 1040 square
feet. The owner is proposing to demolish and remove the
existing structure, and to construct a new primary /secondary
residence with a footprint size of 2,111 square feet.
The proposed building would require the following variances:
1) Front Setback - The request is to allow an encroachment
of 14 feet into the required 20 foot setback.
2) Stream Setback - The request is to allow an encroachment
of 8 feet into the required 30 foot setback (measured
from the center of the stream).
It should be noted that the existing residence on this lot
currently encroaches 10' -6" into the front setback.
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Zone District: Primary /Secondary Residential
Lot Size: 0.4052 acres /17,651 square feet
Maximum GRFA: 4015 sq ft ( +250 sf; Ord #36/1988 = 4265 sf)
Proposed GRFA: 4188 sq ft
III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the
following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
. A. The relationship of the requested variance to other
existing or potential uses and structures in the
vicinity._
Front Setback Variance
Residences along the interior of Mill Creek Circle have
historically been located in close proximity to their
front property lines which are nearest the road. Many
of the existing homes in this area encroach into their
respective front setbacks and a few structures are even
located across property lines. The effect of
maintaining these structures on the outer edge of the
Circle is the creation of a large "open space" area on
the interior of the Circle. This "open space" area is
utilized as a view corridor toward the Gore Range by
some of the property owners.
The Department of Community Development believes that
the requested front setback variance would not adversely
affect the privacy of use of any adjacent properties.
The majority of the existing trees along Mill Creek
Circle will be maintained in their present location and
a few will be slightly relocated, thereby preserving the
strong landscape buffer along the south property line.
• Allowance of a front setback encroachment on this site
would also ensure the preservation of the mature
evergreen and aspen trees located immediately north of
the existing residence.
Stream Setback Variance
The Department of Community Development agrees that this
site exhibits some very difficult development
restrictions, given the location of Mill Creek as it
bisects the lot. The encroachment into the 30 foot
stream setback has been reviewed closely by the staff,
and it is our opinion that the proposed encroachment,
which will maintain a distance of 12 feet from the 100
- year floodplain, would still allow for the development
of a healthy stream tract. The applicant has agreed to
complete extensive landscape improvements along both
stream banks throughout the length of this lot.
•
19
B. 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 30 foot stream setback has reduced the buildable
area of this lot by approximately 52%, and has certainly
created a physical hardship upon redevelopment of the
site. Staff believes that approval of the requested
variances would not be a grant of special privilege due
to the unique development restrictions on this lot and
the historical building sitings on the circle.
C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air,
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities public facilities and utilities and publi
safety.
This variance request, if approved, would not block any
light or air on adjacent properties and its overall
effect would be to preserve the "open space" view
corridor area, immediately north of the residence.
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 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.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation
requests. The applicant
unique physical hardship
corridor on the lot and
that a hardship would be
strict interpretation of
0
0
is for approval of both variance
has shown that this site possesses a
with the location of the stream
the mature trees. Staff believes
imposed upon the applicant if the
the zoning code were to be enforced.
TO: Planning and Environmental. Commission
! FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 27, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to construct
an addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center, including
a new parking structure AND FRONTAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENT
PLAN. (Revisions are indicated by capital letters.)
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
ON FEBRUARY 13, 1989, THE PEC REVIEWED THE VAIL VALLEY
MEDICAL CENTER CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST. THE PEC VOTED TO
TABLE THE PROPOSAL TO THE FEBRUARY 27TH PEC MEETING. THE
MOTION WAS MADE BY DIANA DONOVAN AND SECONDED BY PEGGY
OSTERFOSS. THE VOTE WAS 3 -1 IN FAVOR OF TABLING. PAM
HOPKINS VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION TO TABLE. JIM VIELE AND
SIDNEY SCHULTZ ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. BRYAN HOBBS WAS
UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING. THE PEC ASKED THAT THE MEDICAL
CENTER OBTAIN COLORADO DIVISION OF HIGHWAY'S COMMENTS ON THE
REVISED FRONTAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
A. Hospital Expansion
• The proposed expansion entails construction of
approximately 31,209 square feet for patient care, as
well as an on -site parking structure. The project would
include the completion of the second floor on the north
side of the recently built west wing. Completion of the
second floor will allow immediate expansion of the
patient care unit (PCU) by 20 beds. The second floor is
8,150 square feet. A small entry addition adjacent to
the parking structure is proposed for the first floor
(1,242 s.f.).
Construction of a full third floor on top of the
existing west wing adds 21,817 square feet. The new
third floor will house a surgical suite comprised of
four operating rooms, doctors' offices, a fourth
radiology room, as well as ancillary services.
B. Parking
The hospital proposes to construct a 2 -1/2 level parking
structure at the east end of its property. The
structure will provide parking for 177 vehicles, with
access directly off South Frontage Road. AMBULANCE
ACCESS IS PROVIDED THROUGH THE LOWEST LEVEL OF THE
STRUCTURE AND OUT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE STRUCTURE
TO WEST MEADOW DRIVE. A SECOND ACCESS IS PROVIDED
THROUGH THE HOSPITAL'S EXISTING MAIN ENTRY. THIS ALLOWS
FOR TWO ACCESSES FOR AMBULANCES. The elevation of the
1
top level of the parking structure would be slightly
lower than that of the existing South Frontage Road.
The north end of the structure would be constructed on
land currently owned by the Doubletree Hotel. The Vail
Valley Medical Center and the Doubletree Hotel have
entered into an agreement to allow the structure to be
built on Doubletree land in return for shared parking
arrangements and other considerations.
The hospital's proposed structure will be built in such
a way that it can be connected to the Doubletree's
underground parking at a later date to allow sharing of
parking. The structure would eliminate 20 existing
surface parking spaces on Doubletree property. These 20
spaces will be replaced in the proposed structure.
Surface Parking will occur on the present west lot,
providing for 104 vehicles with an additional 18 surface
spaces on town owned Lot 10. The lot is leased from the
town and will remain in its present configuration with
access off West Meadow Drive for the near term.
The Vail Valley Medical Center is required to provide a
total of 220 parking spaces on site. The 1986
conditional use permit calculated the requirement for
220 spaces by adding the number of day shift employees,
hospital beds, and exam rooms. The overall total
• included an obstetrics (OB) wing on the north side of
the second floor, although this was never built. Thus,
the number of parking spaces calculated for the unbuilt
OB wing should be credited against the overall parking
requirement. The following table outlines how the 220
number was derived:
USE SPACES
HOSPTTAL
1 space
per
bed
30
1 space
per
emergency exam bed
9
1 space
per
employee (maximum on day shift)
55
DOCTORS OFFICES
1 space per doctor
1 space per employee
1 space per exam room
94 94
32
38
44
114 114
AMBULANCE GARAGE
1 space per transport vehicle 4
1 space per employee (on duty) 2
meeting room space 6
12 12
• Total spaces required for entire facility 220
2
40
•
If the parking spaces for the
from the total requirement of
service the building actually
upon the formula agreed to by
obstetrics wing called for th,
USE
Patient beds -OB
Exam room - OB
Day shift employees- OB
Total
obstetrics wing are deducted
220, 203 spaces are needed to
constructed in 1986 -87, based
the Town and Hospital. The
a following parking:
PARKING SPACES
10
1
6
17 spaces
The incremental parking requirements that the proposed
expansion will generate are computed as follows:
USE
PARKING SPACES
Patient beds - General 20
Exam rooms - General 6
Day shift employees - general 49
Total 75 spaces
Therefore, new parking requirements are computed as follows:
USE PARKING SPACES
Base figure 86 -87 expansion 203
Incremental increase, 89-90 expansion 75
Total Required
278
Parking will be located on the property in the following
areas:
Parking structure 177 spaces
Surface parking 104 spaces
Lot 10 18 spaces
Total 299 spaces
Available parking 299 spaces
Doubletree parking in
northeast structure - 20 spaces
Total 279 spaces
Required 278
1 space above required
3
* It should be noted that no valet parking is proposed with
• this expansion.
Due to the fact that the hospital is proposing to construct a
portion of the parking structure on Doubletree property, 20
parking spaces for the Doubletree will be lost. The Hospital
has agreed to provide 20 spaces within the northeast parking
structure for full time use by the Doubletree. If and when
the Doubletree expands, the Hospital will permit the hotel to
use up to 48 additional spaces between the hours of 5:30 PM
and 6:00 AM. The 20 spaces previously assigned to the
Doubletree on a full time basis would revert to Hospital use
between 6:00 AM and 5:30 PM. The following chart indicates
how the parking will be utilized by the Hospital and
Doubletree when the Doubletree expansion occurs.
PHASE I PHASE II
VVMC EXPANSION) DOUBLETREE EXPANSION
6:OOAM- 5:30PM 5:30PM- 6:OOAM 6:OOAM- 5:30PM 5:30PM- 6:OOAM
REQ PROVIDED REg PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED
DBLTREE 167 167 167 167 261 193 261 261
HOSPITAL 278 279 278 279 278 299 278 231
It should be noted that the Hospital plans to provide all of
is its parking on site for the current expansion. The Hospital
will gain an additional 20 parking spaces during the day once
the Doubletree expands. The Hospital will have a deficit of
48 spaces in the evening hours between 5:30_ PM. _and 6:00 AM
after the Doubletree expansion.
* The Hospital has provided parking counts indicating a
drastic reduction in the number of cars on site after 5:30 pm
(Please see parking counts memo, attached).
C. South Frontage Road Improvements
THE STAFF HAS SUMMARIZED BELOW THE SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD
IMPROVEMENT REQUEST AS OUTLINED IN DAN FEENEY'S LETTER DATED
FEBRUARY 24TH, 1989:
OUR PREPARED PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SOUTH FRONTAGE
ROAD WILL BE PRESENTED TO MR. ROBERT MOSTEN, DISTRICT
ENGINEER FOR THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, AT 11
AM ON TUESDAY, 28 FEBRUARY, WHEN HE VISITS THE SITE.
THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THE PLAN ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. WE WILL WIDEN THE ROAD TO PROVIDE THREE FULL
LANES FROM THE POST OFFICE /MUNICIPAL DRIVE TO
A POINT WEST OF THE DOUBLETREE'S WESTERN
ACCESS. THIS WILL INCLUDE A WEST -BOUND THRU
4
LANE, CENTER LEFT -TURN LANE, AND AN EAST -BOUND
THRU LANE. IN ADDITION, THE DOUBLETREE IS
PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT ITS ACCELERATION/DE-
CELERATION LANE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
HOSPITAL'S IMPROVEMENTS, RATHER THAN DEFERRING
IT UNTIL THE HOTEL EXPANDS.
2. THE BANK BUILDING WILL RELOCATE EACH OF ITS
TWO ACCESS DRIVES IN A WAY THAT PROVIDES MORE
HORIZONTAL SEPARATION, BETTER ALIGNMENT WITH
THE EXISTING POST OFFICE /MUNICIPAL DRIVE, AND
JOINT USE OF THE WESTERN -MOST ACCESS FOR THE
BANK BUILDING AND THE HOSPITAL'S PARKING
STRUCTURE.
3. THE DOUBLETREE WILL REALIGN ITS EXISTING EAST
ACCESS SO THAT IT MEETS SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD AT
A RIGHT ANGLE, RATHER THAN ITS PRESENT SKEWED
ORIENTATION.
4. OUR ENGINEERS ARE ALIGNING THE ROAD
IMPROVEMENTS SO THAT THEY WILL HAVE
VIRTUALLY NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE GRADES OF
EXISTING ACCESS DRIVES ON EITHER THE NORTH OR
SOUTH SHOULDER, WITH ONE EXCEPTION. WIDENING
ON THE NORTH SHOULDER WILL MAKE THE GRADE FOR
THE WESTERN ACCESS TO THE POST OFFICE
. UNACCEPTABLY STEEP (14 %, IN LIEU OF THE
EXISTING 6 -7%). THE HOSPITAL WILL AGREE TO
RELOCATE THIS DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET TO
THE WEST. BY EXPLOITING THE EXISTING RISE IN
SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD TO THE WEST, THIS WILL
ALLOW THE GRADE OF THE NEW DRIVE TO BE KEPT TO
A GRADE NO STEEPER THAN THAT OF THE EXISTING
ACCESS.
5. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM TURNING RADIUS
INTO THE HOSPITAL'S PROPOSED PARKING
STRUCTURE, ALL FUTURE WIDENING OF THE ROAD
WILL HAVE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED ON THE NORTH
SHOULDER. THE ELONGATED PLANTER PROPOSED BY
THE BANK BUILDING TO SEPARATE ITS SHORT -TERM
PARKING FROM SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD TRAFFIC
WILL ALSO PRECLUDE FURTHER WIDENING ON THE
SOUTH SHOULDER. AS EXHIBIT A TO HIS LETTER
(COPY ATTACHED), DAVID LEAHY HAS INDICTED
CONCEPTUALLY HOW A FOURTH LANE MIGHT BE ADDED
AT THE NORTH SHOULDER. WHETHER OR NOT THE
SUPERELEVATION (BANKED CURVES) IS REMOVED WILL
DEPEND IN LARGE MEASURE ON FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
MADE TO THE EAST AND WEST OF THE ONE- EIGHTH
MILE OF ROAD OUR PROPOSED PLAN AFFECTS.
5
6. FOR AN EXCELLENT SUMMARY OF THE SCOPE,
RATIONALE AND ADVANTAGES OF OUR PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENT PLAN, PLEASE SEE DAVID LEAHY'S
LETTER OF 24 FEBRUARY 1989, COPY ATTACHED.
TDA also states that traffic through the four -way stop shall
be decreased by the access plan:
"Based on observed turning movements at the bank and
Doubletree Inn, between 1/3 and 1/4 of the Hospital's
peak hour trips will be oriented to the west. Hence,
the proposed access plan will lessen the percentage of
Hospital trips passing through the 4 -way stop
intersection by 25 to 33 %. This reduction of 25 to 30
p.m. peak hour trips using Vail Road should be
noticeable in peak hour traffic operations.
Specifically, the single -lane northbound Vail Road
approach at the 4 -way stop will experience reduced
length of vehicle queue by virture of the proposed
access plan." (TDA Report, p.9, January 3, 1989)
* Please note that the plan assumes that the
configuration of the four -way stop remains the same.
D. Hospital Master Plan
The Hospital has developed a long range master plan which
• envisions future expansions and also coincides with the
Doubletree's master plan. The plan calls for redevelopment
of the east end of the Hospital property including demolition
of the original clinic built during the late 601s. The
emergency room and the ambulance garage would be relocated to
the east end (South side of the parking structure) with
direct access to the South Frontage Road. Demolition of the
ambulance garage would allow construction of an access
connecting the east structure with a parking structure at the
west end. Thus, the master plan provides for moving
virtually all Hospital traffic from West Meadow Drive.
The Hospital submitted a plan which shows maximum build -out
heights of 4 stories on the west wing, 2 stories on the
center wing, and 4 stories on the east wing. This massing is
restricted through agreements with the Doubletree. A future
northwest parking structure is also proposed. The west
parking structure would be limited to 2 -1/2 stories with one
floor being underground. The total build -out square footage
for the Hospital is estimated to be 231,940 square feet.
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
The site is located in the Public Use Zone District. There
are no specific development standards for this district.
. Instead the zoning code states:
6
0
A.
B.
C.
Q
E.
"The public use district is intended to provide sites
for public and quasi- public uses which, because of their
special characteristics cannot be appropriately
regulated by the development standards prescribed for
other zoning districts, and for which development
standards especially prescribed for each particular
development proposal or project are necessary to achieve
the purposes prescribed in Section 18.02.020 and to
provide for the public welfare."
Site Area: 3.811 acres or 166,007 square feet
Floor Area:
Site Coverage:
Existing
New
Total
Basement
120,490
0
12,490
First Floor
48,752
1,242
49,994
Second Floor
35,239
8,150
43,389
Third Floor
0
21 817
21,817
96,481
31,209
127,690
Site Coverage:
Setbacks:
Front /South:
Side /East:
Rear /North:
Side /West:
Height:
25 ft. (no change)
0 ft. (no change)
0 ft.
(no change)
46 ft. The proposed expansion will have a total of
three stories.
III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department
recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the
following factors:
0 7
Square Feet
_%
Building
49,994
30.2
Ambulance Storage
2,320
1
Parking Structure
13,850
8.3
Paving
51,000
30.7
Open Space
48,845
29.4
Landscaping
Site Area
166,009
+100%
Setbacks:
Front /South:
Side /East:
Rear /North:
Side /West:
Height:
25 ft. (no change)
0 ft. (no change)
0 ft.
(no change)
46 ft. The proposed expansion will have a total of
three stories.
III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department
recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the
following factors:
0 7
Consideration of Factors.
A. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives
of the Town. ^
Staff believes that the Hospital is in an acceptable location
provided that proper site and land use planning is
coordinated with surrounding properties. We are comfortable
that if the master plan is followed the hospital can continue
to expand in an orderly manner that will be positive for the
community. However, we do feel that the site could benefit
in the long -term by relocating the doctors' offices and
pharmacy to another site. This would free up additional
square footage for necessary hospital uses and also decrease
traffic.
The Vail Valley Medical Center provides vital services for
both permanent residents of Vail as well as our guests. The
medical center is an important facility which will meet the
present and future medical needs of the Town of Vail. The
purpose section of the Public Use District states that public
and quasi - public uses must provide for the public welfare and
also meet the general purposes as prescribed in Section
18.02.020 of the zoning code.
Section 18.02.020:
1. To provide for adequate light, air,
sanitation, drainage, and public facilities;
2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood,
avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other
dangerous conditions;
3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and
vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen
congestion in the streets;
4. To promote adequate and appropriately located
off street parking and loading facilities;
5. To conserve and maintain established
community qualities and economic values;
6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, and
workable relationship among land uses,
consistent with municipal development
objectives;
7. To prevent excessive population densities and
over crowding of the land with structures;
8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the
Town;
g
9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams,
• woods, hillsides and other desirable natural
features;
10. To assure adequate open space, recreation
opportunities, and other amenities and
facilities conducive to desired living
quarters;
11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an
orderly and viable community.
The staff feels that the proposed hospital expansion
reinforces these objectives of the zoning code.
B. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools,
arks and recreation facilities and other public facilities
needs.
The height of 46 ft. proposed with this expansion should not
have major impacts on light and air. Height limitations as
outlined in the master plan have been designed by considering
impacts on adjacent properties, particularly West Meadow
Drive.
In respect to utilities, major utilities are located in the
area of the proposed parking structure. The applicant is in
the process of determining how the relocation could be
accomplished.
The hospital is a significant public facility which meets
community health needs. The project definitely satisfies a
major public facility need.
C. The effect u on 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.
1. Frontage Road Access PERMIT REQUEST:
The proposed northeast parking structure was designed
with the intent of removing traffic from the West Meadow
Drive area. The approach to parking and vehicular
access supports the goals listed in the Land Use Plan
for this area. In the preliminary stages of review,
both the Planning Commission and Staff indicated to the
hospital that it was important to remove traffic from
the West Meadow Drive area. The Land Use Plan has
designated the West Meadow Drive area as a transition
area between the Lionshead and Vail Village Commercial
Cores. Section 4.4 the Land Use Plan states:
• 9
The connection between the Village Core and Lionshead
should be enhanced through:
A. Installation of a new type of people mover.
B. Improving the pedestrian system with a creatively
designed connection, oriented toward a nature walk,
alpine garden, and /or sculpture plaza.
C. New development should be controlled to limit
commercial uses.
A high percentage of the vehicular trips on West Meadow
Drive are due to the hospital. The applicants submitted
information for total trips on West Meadow Drive for
October 15th and October 18th. They state that:
"Total trips on West Meadow Drive between 7:00 am
and 5:00 pm range from a low of 1,018 trips on
Saturday, 15th of October to a high of 1,618 on
Thursday, September 29th. The percentage of
vehicles on West Meadow Drive using the hospital
varies from approximately 34% on October 15th to
53% on October 18th," (Letter from Dan Feeney to
Kristan Pritz October 211 1988.)
. The peak number of all vehicles using West Meadow Drive
during a 60- minute interval on each date is as follows:
DATE TIME INTERVAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES
29 Sept. 11 am - noon 185
15 Oct. 11 am - noon 158
18 Oct. 1 - 2 pm 156
By providing the structure and new access on the
Northeast corner of the property, these trip numbers
should be substantially decreased. The decrease in
hospital traffic using West Meadow Drive supports the
long term community goal to develop West Meadow Drive as
a pedestrian link between the two villages.
In respect to the road improvements proposed in the Access
PERMIT REQUEST prepared by TDA Colorado Inc., the staff
believes that the plan provides for much needed improvements
to the South Frontage Road. The key issue related to the
Access Control Plan is whether or not the Colorado Division
of Highways will find the plan acceptable. In a preliminary
review session on January 31, 1989 in Grand Junction, the
hospital, Vail National Bank, Doubletree Hotel, and
representatives from the Town of Vail met with the Highway
Department Access Control Committee to review the plan. The
Highway Department wrote a letter summarizing their concerns
with the Access Control Plan.
10
• Instead of denying the proposal by strict application of the
State Access Code, the Colorado Division of Highways agreed
that access to the parking structure would be possible
provided that "continuous acceleration, deceleration, and
left turn lanes are provided ". They stated that they felt
that it was possible to provide a positive access design that
will meet the requirements of the property owners without
compromising public safety. The highway department
recommended that the property owners consider the following
design options:
1. Provide one access to the parking structure which
in turn provides access to the Doubletree and Vail
National Bank.
2. Close the two westerly approaches to the old Post
Office and provide a road to the easterly approach
along the Interstate right of way and connect
parking lots around the Post Office. This would
allow for movement to the Frontage Road more to the
North.
3. Removal of the super elevation (bank of the road)
and center line spirals to gain more room. (Please
see letter from Mr. Chuck Dunn, District Right of
Way Engineer, February 1, 1989.)
The Highway Department also indicated that it would be
helpful if the Town of Vail would determine what uses
would be located in the Post Office building once it is
vacated. The effects of a fourth lane in the northern
area of the highway right -of -way should also be studied
by the Town of Vail to determine how a potential for
future fourth lane might effect access onto the Town
of Vail property.
In light of these comments, the hospital requested to
meet with the council on February 7, to discuss how the
proposed Frontage Road improvements affect the Town of
Vail and to ask for Town of Vail support in resolving
the conflict. At that meeting the council passed a
resolution addressing the hospital request. (Copies of
the resolution will be available on Monday.)
The staff also agrees with the resolution in the respect
that we are supportive of the property owners efforts to
work out an acceptable Frontage Road improvement plan
with the Colorado Department of Highways. Instead of
prohibiting the project from proceeding through the
planning process, the staff believes that it is
acceptable to proceed with planning commission review of
the proposal with the condition that an access permit be
0 11
approved by the Colorado Division of Highways before a
building permit is released for the hospital expansion.
The proposal is extremely complex and involves three
private property owners plus the Town of Vail. To their
credit, the three property owners have reached agreement
on a myriad of issues which allow for the completion of
the Frontage Road improvements.
2. Shared Parking.
The hospital has submitted information which indicates that
the required parking drastically decreases after 5:00 pm. The
parking information provided by the hospital below indicates
this pattern:
% OF
TOTAL NUMBER OF EXCESS SPACES
DATE TIME CAPACITY VEHICLES PARKED CAPACITY UNUSED
Dec 30 3:30pm 205 158 47 23%
Dec 30 8 :00pm 205 39 166 81%
Jan 4 3:30pm 205 165 40 19.5%
Jan 4 8:OOpm 205 36 169 82%
Jan 11 5:30pm 205 113 92 45%
Jan 12 5:30pm 205 101 104 51%
When the parking structure is complete, our total
. capacity will be increased to 279 spaces. Because the
mix of hospital services is not expected to change with
our proposed expansion, it seems a reasonable assumption
that the percentage of total spaces unused at 5:30 pm
will remain approximately 45 -51 %, as it was on January
11 and 12. Thus, the number of unused parking spaces at
5:50 pm will increase to the range of 126 -142 when the
parking structure is constructed. This is almost three
times the number of spaces we have made available to the
Doubletree Hotel during evening hours.
Employees who fill day -time only jobs, such as business
office personnel, normally leave the hospital between
4:30 pm and 5 :00 pm. Shift changes for positions that
are staffed round -the- clock, such as nursing and EMT
jobs, occur variously between 3:00 pm and 4:00 pm.
Thus, the overlap that occurs while one shift is
finishing and another is coming on duty is finished long
before the spaces would have to be available to the
Doubletree. In addition, most evening shifts have 25-
30% fewer personnel than the day shifts they replace.
(Letter from Dan Feeney January 13, 1989)
The Doubletree has submitted the following information
concerning their parking utilization:
• 12
The re
demand
guests
During
100 %.
cars.
gults of the survey show that daytime parking
for the Hotel employees, condominium owners, and
ranged from approximately 15% to 38% of supply.
this period Hotel occupancy ranged from 32% to
38% of the parking supply is equal to 63 parked
During the evening hours the survey indicates that a
number of "unauthorized" cars utilize the parking
supplied by the Doubletree. These are patrons of the
bar and restaurant and when factored into the survey
indicate a higher utilization of the parking supply. At
9:00 p.m. the 167 spaces were never full but our
observation is that later in the evening the parking
fills close to capacity.
The survey supports very strongly that the jointly
shared parking arrangement proposed by the Vail Valley
Medical. Center and the Doubletree is a workable and
desirable solution. Even though our survey indicates
peak usage during the day is roughly 38% maximum we are
proposing to provide 730 of our required spaces during
the day and 100% in the evening hours. The difference
will more than provide a "cushion" for any seasonal
fluctuations or special events that may occur. (Memo
from Peter Jamar dated January 10, 1989.)
The Staff approves of the shared parking concept for these
two projects. We believe that the shared parking will
provide for a more efficient use of parking between both
projects.
3. Delivery Service:
The existing driveway at the east end of the hospital will be
maintained as a fire lane to facilitate snow removal from the
upper deck of the parking structure and as an access to the
service door at the southeast corner of the parking
structures lower level. The service door at the south will
be used only by maintenance vehicles and not by the public.
Deliveries will continue to be received at the materials
management department in the southeast corner of the building
via West Meadow Drive. At this time, the hospital does not
feel that it is practical to have truck deliveries drive
through the proposed parking structure at the east side.
4. Snow Removal:
Snow on the top level of the parking structure will be pushed
off the southeast corner into the service corridor. Because
of extremely limited space the hospital anticipates trucking
snow off the site after every major snow storm and after
second or third moderately sized snow storm. Staff concern
• 13
on this issue is that the hospital agrees that all snow
. removal and drainage must be handled on their site. Drainage
and snow may not be pushed onto the Frontage Road or to other
adjacent properties.
5. Pedestrian Connection With The Bank:
The hospital is providing a sidewalk connection from the Vail
National Bank property to the top level of the parking
structure. Although the design and location of the sidewalk
may need to be refined at the request of CDOH and at the
Design Review Board level, the staff believes that the
sidewalk connection between the Vail National Bank and
hospital parking structure is important.
Staff Summary:
The Staff feels that the proposal is a vast improvement over
existing conditions on the Frontage Road and will provide a
sound solution for parking and access to the site. The most
significant benefit of the plan is obviously for West Meadow
Drive.
It is estimated by the hospital that because 85 fewer parking
spaces will have access off West Meadow Drive, they
anticipate that an immediate reduction of 500 trips per day
during peak periods will be achieved. This is based on the
41 hospital's observation that each parking space generates 5 -6
trips on West Meadow Drive between lam and 5pm. (See letter
from Dan Feeney). Vehicular traffic will be drastically
reduced, safety will be improved and the door will be opened
to make the necessary improvements to make this an attractive
and safe pedestrian connection between the Village and
Lionshead.
D. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed
use is to be located including the scale and bulk of the
nrouosed use in relation to surroundina uses.
The hospital expansion does effect the character of the area
due to the increased bulk and mass of the proposed expansion.
However, even though the hospital has somewhat of an
institutional appearance, the third floor expansion on West
Meadow Drive has been designed to break up the bulk and mass
of the expansion as much as possible. The third floor is not
one solid building wall extending above the second floor.
Instead, the architects have broken up the mass by the use of
two deck areas and one recessed area.
The hospital has also used as much glass as possible along
the west and south elevations. The glass also helps to
decrease the perception of the bulk of the building.
• 14
The parking structure has minimal impacts on West Meadow
. Drive. Most of the structure is hidden from view by the
existing eastern wing of the hospital. From the South
Frontage Road, the parking structure will actually be
slightly below the grade of the road so visual impacts of the
structure on the Frontage Road should be minimal. It will be
important that as much landscaping as is possible (given CDOH
requirements) be located in the planting areas along the
South Frontage Road. Even though the structure itself will
not be visible it will be positive to screen the view of cars
parked on the top of the structure.
The hospital is proposing to decrease the amount of asphalt
on the east side of the Medical Center. Access will still
need to be provided for fire, AMBULANCE and maintenance
vehicles along the east side of the hospital. However, the
hospital has proposed to landscape between the access road
and the adjacent Skall Hus property. Staff believes that
this will be a positive improvement for both projects.
Access to the trash facility will still be maintained for the
Skall Hus.
IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the__proposed use.
Vail Vallev Medical Center Master Plan:
The Staff is looking at the Master Plan as a conceptual guide
for future development on the site. Below is a summary of
our comments on the proposal:
1. The parking structures should be connected by a ramp
that will allow for direct access between the two
structures. We realize that the connection is not
feasible until the ambulance building is relocated to
the eastern portion of the site. However, we do not
feel that it would be acceptable to build the western
parking structure without this connection. Even if a
west parking structure is not built, we continue to
recommend that access from the northeast parking
structure to the west surface parking lot be provided
once the ambulance building is relocated.
2. Staff would prefer to see future parking located under
the east wing of the hospital when it is rebuilt. It
would benefit the site if the western parking structure
could be avoided.
3. We feel strongly that the fourth floor for the east and
west wing should be pulled back from the West Meadow
Drive side _o_f_th_e_ expansion. Terracing back will reduce
the mass of the building to the users of the street and
0 to the adjacent residences.
15
• 4. The Staff does not feel that the hospital should rely on
Lot 10 to meet parking needs in the future. Eventually,
once the West Meadow Drive pedestrian mall is created,
Lot 10 will most likely be used for landscaping and a
pocket park.
5. Staff could not support an expanded service delivery
area off of Meadow Drive on the southeast corner of the
property. Instead, we would strongly encourage loading
and delivery to be relocated to an area that could
access off of the South Frontage Road.
Master Land Use Plan:
•
The Vail Valley Medical Center lies in the Transition Area.
This land use designation is described as follows:
The transition designation applies to the area between
Lionshead and the Vail Village. The activities and site
design of this area are aimed at encouraging pedestrian
flow through the area and strengthening the connection
between the two commercial cores. Appropriate
activities include hotels, lodging and other tourist
oriented residential units, ancillary retail and
restaurant uses, museums, areas of public art, nature
exhibits, gardens, pedestrian plazas, and other types of
civic and culturally oriented uses, and the adjacent
properties to the north. This designation would include
the right -of -way of West Meadow Drive and the adjacent
properties to the north. (Land Use Plan, page 33)
Also, as previously noted, policy 4.4 refers to possible
future improvements to the West Meadow Drive area.
The staff finds that the proposal is in concert with the Land
Use Plan. The key element is reducing traffic on West Meadow
Drive to facilitate implementation of policy 4.4. We feel
the Vail Valley Medical Center, Doubletree and Bank deserve
credit for working out an agreement to allow access for the
Vail Valley Medical Center from the Frontage Road.
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.
• 16
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 conditional use request
and adoption of the development standards per the proposed
plans with the following conditions:
1. An access permit for the South Frontage Road improvement
plan shall be obtained by the Vail Valley Medical Center
as well as Vail National Bank before a building permit
will be released for the proposed hospital expansion.
2. The Frontage Road improvement plan will include a
minimum of three lanes as proposed in the Access PERMIT
REQUEST OUTLINED IN THIS MEMO.
3. The proposed Special Development District 14 for the
Doubletree Hotel is AMENDED TO ALLOW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF THE PARKING STRUCTURE TO BE
BUILT ON DOUBLETREE PROPERTY.
is 4. Snow removal and drainage from the proposed expansion
and parking structure shall not be handled on the
South Frontage Road right of way.
5. Access through the southeast corner of the parking
structure shall be limited to fire and maintenance
vehicles. The general public and hospital employees
shall not utilize this access.
NOTE: The Town Council has asked that the PEC discuss with the
applicants how an assessment district could be
structured which would commit the Vail Valley Medical
Center, Bank and Doubletree Hotel owners to helping fund
necessary future road widening improvements in the area
directly in front of these properties. The Council
feels that the proposed improvements would push future
widening to the north side of the right of way and
they do not feel that the town should be responsible for
the total cost of these improvements.
17
'r
•
•
2'
lows
75 south frontage road
vall, colorado 81657
(303) 476 -7000
February 17, 1989
Mr. Dan Feeney, P.E.
Project Manager
Vail Valley Medical Center
181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
Vail, Colorado 81657
office of community development
Reference: Hospital work session, PEC meeting February 27,
1989
Dear Dan,-
You requested that the staff summarize the issues that the
hospital should address at the PEG work session on February
27th. The following list of issues should be covered at the
meeting:
1. Frontage Road improvement plan:
* What is the final plan?
* Who will construct the improvements and at what time?
* What is the Colorado Division of Highways position on
the preliminary plan?
* How is the Vail National Bank Building involved?
* How is the Doubletree Hotel involved?
2. What are the effects of the plan on adjacent properties,
including the Town of Vail site? (General impacts - from
the Frontage Road improvement plan on adjacent
properties ?)
3. Will the hospital agree to not remonstrate against a
Special Improvement District, if improvements beyond the
three lane preliminary design are necessary in the future?
* Area wide Special Improvement District?
* Vicinity Special Improvement District?
Mr. Dan Feeney
• 2/17/89 - Page 2
4. Vail National Bank:
* How are they involved in the project?
* A plan showing the requested improvements to their
property should be submitted by the bank. This will
require coordination with Sydney Schultz, Architect
for Vail National Bank. Peter Patten has already
discussed with Sid the possibility of preparing a plan
in time for the February 27th meeting.
5. Is it possible to connect the Vail National Bank parking
structure to the hospital parking structure?
6. Master Plan:
* When will the emergency room and ambulance building be
moved to the east building? Will this occur in the
next phase?
* How will service and delivery be handled in the
future? Our understanding is that deliveries will
continue to occur on West Meadow Drive with this
expansion. You should explain why this is necessary
and what type of screening from the delivery area
• could be provided.
* What is the timeline for the construction of a
connection between the northeast parking structure and
the west surface parking lot? Will this connection
occur even if the hospital does not expand in the near
future?
* Will it be acceptable to the hospital to terrace the
fourth floor so that the fourth floor is not visible
from the pedestrian areas on West Meadow Drive?
* How will the Frontage Road expansion effect the heli-
copter landing pad. Where will the long -term location
of the hell pad be?
7. Architecture:
The Planning and Environmental Commission as well as Design
Review Board requested that the hospital make an effort to
soften the institutional appearance of the structure. They
stated that window groupings could be more residential.
The DRB suggested that the hospital provide a massing model
for the PEC meeting.
8. Ambulance Ingress /Egress:
• * Is the proposed plan acceptable to the Ambulance
District?
* Is the proposed plan safe?
9. Landscaping;
• * What is the landscape plan in front of the structure?
* Is the landscaping possible given CDOH concerns?
Please submit a landscape plan showing materials that are
possible.
This is the staff's best effort at listing issues raised by the
Planning Commission at the meeting on February 13th. You may
wish to call several of the planning commissioners to go over
this list just to make sure that all the issues are addressed.
We have scheduled the hospital for a work session with the PEC
at 12:30 - 2:15 on February 27th. Our understanding is that you
would also like to have a public hearing on the project. We
have scheduled the hospital as the first item for the public
hearing. The hearing will begin at 3:00 p.m. in the Town
Council Chambers. If you have any further questions please feel
free to call me at 479 -2138.
Sincerely,
. Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
KP:sm
NA, Inv vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
S PI medical center Vail, Colorado 8165
(303) 476 -2451 1
February 24, 1989
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. W.
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
Reference your letter of 17 February 1989:
1. Our prepared plan for improvements to South Frontage Road will be
presented to Mr. Robert Mosten, District Engineer for the Colorado
Department of Highways, at 11 AM on Tuesday, 28 February, when he
visits the site. The essential features of the plan are as follows:
A. We will widen the road to provide three full lanes from the Post
Office /Municipal drive to a point west of the Doubletree's western
access. This will include a west -bound thru lane, center left -
turn lane, and an east -bound thru lane. In addition, the Double-
tree is proposing to construct its acceleration /deceleration lane
in conjunction with the hospital's improvements, rather than de-
ferring it until the hotel expands.
B. The Bank Building will relocate each of its two access drives in a
way that provides more horizontal separation, better alignment
with the existing Post Office /Municipal drive, and joint use of
the western -most access for the Bank Building and the hospital's
parking structure.
C'. The Doubletree will realign its existing east access so that it
meets South Frontage Road at a right angle, rather than its pre-
sent skewed orientation.
D. Our engineers are aligning the road improvements so that they will
have virtually no negative impact on the grades of existing access
drives on either the north or south shoulder, with one exception.
Widening on the north shoulder will make the grade for the western
access to the Post Office unacceptably steep (14 %, in lieu of the
existing 6 -7 %). The hospital will agree to relocate this drive
approximately 30 feet to the west. By exploiting the existing
rise in South Frontage Road to the west, this will allow the grade
• of the new drive to be kept to a grade no steeper than that of the
existing access.
Ray McMahan
Administrator
Ms. Kristan Pritz
February 24, 1989
• Page two
E. In order to maintain a minimum turning radius into the hospital's
proposed parking structure, all future widening of the road will
have to be accomplished on the north shoulder. The elongated
planter proposed by the Bank Building to separate its short -term
parking from South Frontage road traffic will also preclude fur-
ther widening on the south shoulder. As Exhibit A to his letter
(copy attached), David Leahy has indicated conceptually how a
fourth lane might be added at the north shoulder. Whether or not
the superelevation (banked curves) is removed will depend in large
measure on future improvements made to the east and west of the
one - eighth mile of road our proposed plan affects.
F. For an excellent summary of the scope, rationale and advantages of
our proposed improvement plan, please see David Leahy's letter of
24 February 1989, copy attached.
2. Our proposed improvements will have either positive or neutral impacts
on adjacent properties, with the exception of the west drive into the
Post Office. Please see Paragraph 1D above.
3. The Administration feels that an engineering study of South Frontage
Road from Cascade Village to Ford Park is indeed warranted, regardless
. of whether the hospital expands. We are prepared to recommend hospi-
tal support for an Area -wide Special Improvement District at our next
Governing Board meeting, scheduled for b March. We cannot, however,
recommend support for a Vicinity Special Improvement District, which
would presumably entail improvements only to the one - eighth mile of
road which fronts property belonging to the Doubletree Hotel and Vail
National Bank Building. A limited approach to this extensive problem
will not result in the sound and cost - effective engineering solution
needed to correct the many long- standing deficiencies on South
Frontage Road.
4. We understand that Sydney Schultz, architect for the Vail National
Bank Building, will present preliminary plans for realignment of the
two existing access drives at the 27 February work session. Please
see Paragraph 1B above, as well as David Leahy's letter, for
additional information.
5. The parking structure we have proposed could be constructed another
one and one -half levels down, without encountering ground water. We
have had preliminary discussions with the new owners of the Bank
Building, regarding constructing a larger (deeper) parking structure,
in increments of one -half level, in return for payment of incremental
construction costs. An underground pedestrian tunnel linking this
lower level with the Bank Building's existing structured parking is
feasible.
0
•
•
is
Ms. Kristan Pritz
February 24, 1989
Page three
6. Master Plan
A. The Master Plan envisions that the Emergency Room and Ambulance
Garage will be relocated to the east end of our property whenever
the original building is demolished and re- constructed. It is not
possible to forecast if this will occur during the next expansion.
Whether the next expansion entails a new fourth floor at the west
end or a re- development of the east end depends on the types of
additional services our Governing Board feels are needed to meet
the community's health care needs.
B. Delivery will continue to be handled at the present service loca-
tion at the southeast corner, with access off West Meadow Drive.
Accepting truck deliveries through our proposed parking structure,
with its 24 -toot wide aisles and sharp turning radii, is not prac-
tical. That would result in a situation where neither deliveries
nor patient circulation through the parking structure is effi-
ciently served. Presently, we accept an average of only ten truck
deliveries each day during the week (Monday thru Friday), and even
fewer on the weekends. Future growth of the hospital is more
likely to result in larger deliveries (of slightly longer dura-
tion), rather than more frequent use of West Meadow Drive.
C. A connection between the proposed parking structure and the west
lot is predicated on relocation of the Ambulance Garage, which in
turn is predicated on re- development of the east wing. While re-
development of the east end seems likely, we are unable to predict
a date.
D. We understand the general need for some terracing of a future
fourth floor. However, until we determine which specific func-
tions will occupy this space, we cannot intelligently discuss the
specific form a fourth floor might assume.
E. Our proposed widening of South Frontage Road will not affect the
present manner of helicopter take -offs and landings at the heli-
pad. The hospital has no definite plans to re- locate the existing
helipad.
7. We understand the concerns of the PEC and DRB regarding the mass of
our building, and are actively investigating alternatives. In the
meantime, we plan to bring a scale model of the proposed expansion to
the work session on 27 February.
w
Ms. Kristan Pritz
is February 24, 1989
Page four
8. The Ambulance District will have a secondary egress through the lower
level of the parking structure. The western drive will once again
become the primary egress, as it was several years ago. The Ambulance
District Board understands that our proposed parking structure will
decrease trips by private passenger vehicles on West Meadow Drive by
as many as 500 a day. This is an advantage ambulance drivers will
realize every time they make a call during daylight hours. In
addition, the Ambulance Board understands that the Master Plan
envisions relocation of the Ambulance Garage to the east end of a
re- developed hospital, with dedicated access to South Frontage Road.
In short, the plan is currently safe, and will be further improved by
continued growth of the Medical Center,
9. The CDOH is aware that the northeast side of our proposed structure
must essentially coincide with the highway right -of -way line.
Personnel from the District Engineer's office have advised us that
only minimal landscaping, involving native grasses and low -lying
shrubs, will be permitted. Larger plantings would obviously interfere
with line -of -sight viewing of traffic, as well as windrows created
during snowplowing of the road. Please bear in mind, however, that
the Bank Building is proposing an enlarged planter /island as a
component of its portions of our coordinated access plan for South
• Frontage Road.
10. In response to your verbal inquiry, we will continue to incinerate
pathological wastes, as well as combustible materials contaminated
with body fluids, on site. We are currently breaking in a new
incinerator which has a larger burning chamber than the old model, and
will utilize improved technology for cleaner burning. We have
scheduled a stack test next month to ensure that this model meets all
Colorado emission standards. The unit is adequate to service the pro-
posed expansion, as well as some subsequent growth of demand.
cerel
D ZE6F�9'
Project Man er
/lrp
enclosure
BAKL.AY
TEL No .3038936553 Feb 24 , 89 14:49 P.01
ti•
r
ja
February 24, 1989
G LORADC
MME INC.
Mr. C.Y. Dunn, Jr.
District ROW Hngineer
Colorado Department of Highways
Transportation
Consultontg
222 S. 6th Street, P.O. Box 2107
Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 -2107
Re: Vail-Valley Hospital, Vail National Bank, Doubletree inn,
SH 70 S. Frontage Road
Dear Mr. Dunn,
As discussed with you and Rich Perske recently, we are herewith
transmitting four applications for re- permitting four existing
access drives along the south side of South Frontage Road in
Vail. These permit requests were originally to be part of an
Access Control Plan for a.1/8 -mile stretch of South Frontage
Road. Preliminary plans for the access control, plan were sent to
Rich Perske on January 6, 1989 by the Town of Vail and were
subsequently discussed with the District's access committee on
January 31st in Grand Function. In consideration of your letter
of February 1st and the Town's subsequent position that the
applicants should proceed independently with the State Highway
Department, we are submitting two these
of permit requests at
this time. This action reflects a cooperative agreement between
Vail Valley Hospital and the two existing adjacent accesses
The Doubletree Inn and the Vail National Bank.
To restate the current situation regarding this access request:
1. Vail Valley Hospital's proposed parking structure is to
access South Frontage Road rather than West Meadow
Drive in conformances with the Town's Land Use Plan,
2. The new owners of Vail National Bank have agreed to
share one of their two access drives with the Hospital
in the interest of gaining greater separation between
existing access drives and, in so doing, create an
opportunity to add several short -term parking spaces
along the Bankfs frontage.
3. The Doubletree Inn will agree to slightly reorient
their existing east access to be radial to the South
Frontage Road curve rather than the unsafe skew
intersection that now exists. The Doubletree Inn will
continue to use this reshaped access drive until a
'�a6Lx7 "�`'`
future expansion program relocates access to under-
Dar- VPAXO&0 ?OZ
""j)R'S"`"
ground parking and the existing parking ramp can be
.
rebuilt in the interior ,of their site. With this
future expansion their
two existing full movement
A
. wti 1,1V j 1.11 .��. r t z4 � 14 ::jU N . 02
k
Mr. C.2. Dunn, Jr.
February 24, 1989
Page 2
access drives will be consolidated into a single full,
movement access drive. A new service drive for truck
deliveries will be constructed at the west end of their
property at the time of expansion. The Doubletree is,
herewith requesting re- permitting of their existing
access drives to these now locations to accommodate
thoir expansion.
4. The Town of Vail is not in a position at this time to
respond to the suggestion in your letter that they
Close the central and westerly access drives serving
the Town Hall /US Post office leaving only the easterly
(Police Department) access drive to be shared for both
uses. The Town has not determined what the reuse of
the Post Office building will be when the Post office
relocates to the North Frontage Road site this summer.
Lgsi n tra
Per your letter we have investigated Possibilities of widening
South Frontage ]toad within the available right -of -way while
maintaining safe access to the abutting land uses. As we
discussed in the January 31st meeting, the natural topography and
proximity of buildings to the roadway present specific design
controls;
1• Access drives into the Doubletree, Vail National Bank
and Post Office /Town Hall are currently At maximum
safe grades for high country conditions (9% to 10%
grades)
2• in plan view, the entrance to the parking structure
needs to be a minimum of 30 feet from the nearest edge
of travel. of South Frontage Road. This allows a normal
passenger car turning template for right turns into the
Parking structure. This separation is also needed to
allow stacking distance for left and right turns from
the Hospital /Bank onto South Frontage Road.
Given this phased participation of abutting owners and the design
controls described above, we propose achieving the multilane
widening of South Frontage Road described in your February 1st
letter in two discrete phases.
Phas one - os 1 413k-Access PeMit
As shown in the attached 50- scale plan, the applicants
(Hospital /Bank /Doubletree) propose a widening on the north and
•
•
•
- Al
BAFCLi; TEL NO - 3,G3'89376553
Mr. C.I. Dunn, Jr.
. February 24, 1989
Page 3
Feb 21,89 14 :51 F.03
south sides of South Frontage Road to the maximum extent passible
without prematurely affecting existing Doubletree or Town of Vail
access drives. This translates to holding the existing south
edge of paving at the easterly Doubletree access drive and in
front of the Bank, and, not starting widening on the north side
until after passing west of the existing access drive to the Post
Office /Town Hall. This project achieves the following safety and
operational improvements as compared to existing conditions:
1. introduces 500 feet of new, two -way center left turn
Lane for use by A, abutting properties. All four of
the two -car accidents recorded in the last two years
could be attributed to substandard left turn
provisions.
2. Introduces at the west end of the project 350 feet of
widening of what eventually can become a future
continuous eastbound accel /decel lane for all three
abutters (Doubletree, Hospital, Bank).
3. Removes the current unfavorable offset between the
. Town /Post Office drive and the Bank's east access
drive. The current offset results in overlapping left
turns. The Bank's proposed one -way flow along their
frontage reduces the dumber of turning Conflicts at
this driveway intersection.
Vail Valley Hospital and Doubletree Inn have agreed to fund the
Phase One widening of South Frontage Road as part of the permit
approvals. Vail National Bank would be responsible for
relocating their east access drive and for coordinating
landscaping and parking modification agreements along their
frontage with you. Doubletree Inn will fund the cost of the
realignment of their existing east driveway and will participate
in the improvements shown on the south side of the road.
Future Construction
Depending on the future disposition of the Town's central access
drive, some future widening could occur on the north side of
the road to effect the full four -lane crossection (two eastbound,
two -way left turn, one westbound) west of the Town's central
access drive. If the Town's central access remains open, the
right hand westbound lane would become a "Must Turn Lane" into
the Town's parking lot. These matters would be negotiated
between the Town and the Highway Department as part of the Town's
permitting process in the future.
OHK� -LN r I LL No-Z,03 79 7)655 3 Feb 24 ,X39 14:51 P . 04
Mr. C.I. Dunn, Jr.
February 24, 1989
Page 4
Variance Request
Our proposed Phase One design does not include provision of a
right turn deceleration lane into either the parking structure or
the Bank's access drive. As previously stated this can be
accomplished in the future when widening along the north side of
the road is possible. With future-widening we will have a
continuous acce.l /decal lane along the south side. For a 25 mph
Category 5 frontage road this additional lane will benefit
eastbound capacity when and if through capacity at the 4 -way stop
sign is improved. Hence; our request for variance from
constructing a deceleration lane is of a tenrorary nature --
Future improvements along the north side of the road will achieve
this.
Summary
We believe our proposed Phase One improvements will result in a
vastly improved safety condition on South Frontage Road as
compared to existing conditions and will go a long way in
bringing this section of roadway into compliance with the safety
and capacity intent of the Access Code. Virtual full compliance
is assured in the future once the Town of Vail's access plan is
agreed upon.
Although'our Phase one improvements do no initially satisfy your
request for right turn speed change laneage, I trust you can
appreciate that the additional widening required for these
movements would adversely affect others (Town of Vail) but c._an 12M
achieved when the Towns's access plan is determined.
We appreciate your assistance in dealing with the unique and
quite complex nature of the applicants aooess permit requests.
Should you have any questions on this request please do not
hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
TDA COLORADO ZNC.
David D. Leahy, P.E.
Principal.
cc. Patten /Prita, TOV
Feeney, Hospital
Powers, Bank
jamar /Olson, Doubletree
is
•
• ` ''
.r.. • ;�? t'iv' ` x � _ _ ti. 'l�fti'�.\�jr + r✓ 1 ,: +, �,r . ?1��; �y Fr .�
l / r o 1�1' '1 � � I• '+ � {i'�i � � : i' , t ��1��`{rt:l �.��s .�''.
'' cl +7 ` tip 1 ' i 1 .1 - � �., r � � 3 •1 � ' 1 �/� r �•#
FU
IA
U F I 1
,n °�{ , X11 I -`.F1y I // j ,t
Co
fn
Lj
1,-e v► elf r .. 'i, /I � .,, ,,,� a % , i .1 { r t -,
r 1 ' ,.'`u 1 1+ 1 1+ �I . q� 4 �� N �' � rP�1 ; . t. :,t► x ;, �' _� i 'r
1 f, • ,� � � � .d � Q � F/1 , ,} i� s t1' '�� � I } � � ' fit.; ,t' .
r' .� � •1,� ~` / ti lam ,i �.- .Y. }ii
/ 1 .r � yr• / (f! t�" .I �!3
r }f 1 q M
rp
'�/:����F �p ` ��rJr ' '•�' �f /�y �� � � �1 j r" '�I a I�r �S �S
.fYN.tr� 4 N r' 1i� ', _'r `<11 i' O
�
i �1 .1 . '.L. � • ;' {+ f, � 1 _ I ,•r 'ii F •• {� •�. � � '' r F �+.�St " {,
CD
+
it +Njj
• � • N * . � f 1 i. l � • . � F • � t 1,•' � rT' r .. ? l l { 1 � ! � " I � ' . i e +,'. � , ` y • 0 � ,
* " ;'_: - ,
4.11
•
0
STATE, OF COLORADO f .
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
�T CW
222 South Sixth Street, P.O. flax 2107
Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 -2107
(303) 248 -7208' ;.
February 1, 1989 sOF CO4�
Mr_ Peter Patten
Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mr. Patten:
The Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) has completed our
analysis of the information provided to us during our meeting on
January 31, 1989 regarding the Vail Valley Medical Center. We
have the following comments:
The south frontage road is a category five roadway. The State
Highway Access Code 2 CCR 601 -1. Par 3.8.2 states, "One direct
access will be provided to each individual parcel or to
contiguous parcels under the same ownership or control." Par
3.8.3 continues, "Additional access may be permitted to a parcel
when (a) there will not be any significant safety or operational
problems and (b) the spacing meets the access spacing
requirements of the code, subsection 4.9.2 and (c) additional
access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent
property." Par 1.3.2 of The State Highway Access Code states in
part, "In no event shall an access be allowed or permitted if it
is detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety.
Section 43- 2- 147(b) Colorado Revised Statutes states in part,
"After June 21, 1979, no person may submit an application for
subdivision approval to a local authority unless the subdivision
plan or plat provides that all lots and parcels created by the
subdivision will have access to the state highway system in
conformance with the state highway access code."
In light of the above, CDOH could deny any access from the
frontage road to the parking structure for the following reasons:
The Vail Valley Medical Center is not currently an abutting
property owner to the frontage road.
Subdivision after June 21, 1979 would require internal
circulation with one approach providing access to the
subdivision.
The owners on either side of the proposed access indicated
and the Vail Valley Medical Center design engineer agreed
that some hardships (driveway approach grades) would result
from the access.
aL
V
•
The increased traffic volume would create operational
problems on the frontage road which has been identified in
the I -70 /Main Vail interchange improvements Environmental
Assessment as already having operation problems.
The addition of the access without all of the necessary
channelization would be detrimental to the public health,
welfare, and safety.
Recognizing the needs of the Town of Vail, CDOH will agree to an
access to the parking structure provided that continuous
acceleration, deceleration and left turn lanes are provided. We
believe that it is possible to provide a positive access design
that will meet the requirements of the property owners without
compromising public safety.
In reviewing the plans provided it was noted that when both
proposals were drawn on one sheet that the continuous
acceleration /deceleration design utilized a more restrictive
turning radius near the bank parcel. In addition the three -lane
proposal indicated that some channelization was being provided.
However, the area shown was actually the through lane and not
channelization.
• We suggest consideration of the following possible design
options: (1) Provide one access to the parking structure which
in turn provides access to the Double Tree and Bank of Vail. (2)
Close the two westerly approaches to the old Post Office and
provide a road from the easterly approach along the interstate
right of way and connect the parking lots around the post office.
This would allow for movement of the frontage road more to the
north. (3) Removal of the superelevation and centerline spirals
to gain more room.
We recognize that this access proposal presents some difficult
design problems; however, we must assure that highway safety is
not compromised. Our design engineers are available to discuss
design details and will work with the project designers to
discuss design solutions.
R. P. MOSTON
DISTRICT ENGINEER
C. I. Dunn, J .
CID: rb District ROW Engineer
cc: Demosthenes
Moston
Sanburg
. Perske
file
LAW OFFICES
COSGRIFF, DUNN & ABPLANALP
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFE551ONAL CORPORATION
February 17, 1989
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Kristan:
IN LEADVILLEI
COSGRIFF, DUNN & BERRY
P. O. BOX ! I
LEADVILLE, COLORADO 80461
(719) 486 -1685
As you are aware, I represent Vail Inn, Inc., the
association of owners of the nineteen condominiums located
on the fifth and sixth floors of the Doubletree Inn.
This letter is written on behalf of Vail Inn,
Inc. to object to the master plan presented to the Planning
and Environmental Commission by the Vail Valley Medical
. Center. It is the view of Vail Inn that addition of a
fourth floor to the Medical Center would create a building
having a scale and bulk entirely inconsistent with the
character of the area. We note that recommendations have
been made by staff to mitigate the impact of the building on
its southern aspect by terracing or setting back the fourth
floor. It seems to us that the concerns of Vail Inn owners,
who look at the building from the north, have not been
similarly considered.
While a master plan is probably not binding on
future development, approval of it certainly suggests a
disposition on the part of the Commission to allow future
use of the property in accordance with its guidelines. We
therefore urge its disapproval by the Commission.
Yours very truly,
COSGRIFF, DUNN & ABPLANALP
Jo n W. Dunn
JWD:kem
cc: Mr. Petracca
. Mr. Jamar
Mr. Peterson
THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION IS DUNN & ABPLANALP, P.C.IN VAIL.
VAlL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
PETER COSGRIFF
JOHN W. DUNN
SUITE 300
ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR.
P. 0. BOX 2299
TIMOTHY H. BERRY
VAIL,COLORADO 81658
ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN
TERRI S. DIEM
TELEPHONE: (303) 476 -7552
TELECOPIER: (303) 476 -4765
February 17, 1989
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Kristan:
IN LEADVILLEI
COSGRIFF, DUNN & BERRY
P. O. BOX ! I
LEADVILLE, COLORADO 80461
(719) 486 -1685
As you are aware, I represent Vail Inn, Inc., the
association of owners of the nineteen condominiums located
on the fifth and sixth floors of the Doubletree Inn.
This letter is written on behalf of Vail Inn,
Inc. to object to the master plan presented to the Planning
and Environmental Commission by the Vail Valley Medical
. Center. It is the view of Vail Inn that addition of a
fourth floor to the Medical Center would create a building
having a scale and bulk entirely inconsistent with the
character of the area. We note that recommendations have
been made by staff to mitigate the impact of the building on
its southern aspect by terracing or setting back the fourth
floor. It seems to us that the concerns of Vail Inn owners,
who look at the building from the north, have not been
similarly considered.
While a master plan is probably not binding on
future development, approval of it certainly suggests a
disposition on the part of the Commission to allow future
use of the property in accordance with its guidelines. We
therefore urge its disapproval by the Commission.
Yours very truly,
COSGRIFF, DUNN & ABPLANALP
Jo n W. Dunn
JWD:kem
cc: Mr. Petracca
. Mr. Jamar
Mr. Peterson
THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION IS DUNN & ABPLANALP, P.C.IN VAIL.
0
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Susan Scanla
DATE: February 24, 1989
SUBJECT: Emissions Inventory
Attached you will find a draft report entitled PM10 Particulate
Emission Inventory. This report is being prepared for the Town
of Vail by Air Sciences, Inc. The report is the initial step
which will enable us to evaluate our sources of particulate
pollution here in Vail. The various contributing sources of
particulates are evaluated in this report and we are better able
to understand factors which produce our overall air quality
picture.
This report will be used as a basis for the development of
control measures designed to improve the overall air quality in
the Vail Valley. Vail has been designated as a Group II area by
the EPA with regard to PM10 standards. This means it is
believed the Vail area will exceed the PM10 standards at some
time in the future. If Vail does in fact exceed these standards
we will be required to develop a local implementation plan (LIP)
to decrease PM10 concentrations in the Valley.
We would like to take a proactive stance on this issue and
develop control measures as a means to prevent PM10 violations
from occurring.
•
q:�-
V
•
PM10 PARTICULATE EMISSION INVENTORY
GORE VALLEY, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
Prepared for
Town of Vail
Vail, CO
Prepared by y/
Air Sciences Inc.
Lakewood, CO
Project 61 -01
February 1989
a.
•
•
I I
Il OUI 1
The Gore Valley has been designated a Group II area with regard to PM10 particulates. This
means that the area has a reasonable probability of exceeding the PM10 particulate ambient
standards. As an initial step to identifying the relative importance of the PM 10 sources in the valley,
an emission's inventory of the current sources is developed. Once the relative PM 10 contributions of
the sources are known, decisions can be made on which sources should be controlled to most
effectively decrease the PM 10 concentrations.
The year of 1990 is selected for an estimation of emissions and the entire valley from east of
the Bighorn area to west of West Vail is inventoried. The inventory includes emissions from wood
burning equipment, dirt resuspension from roads, engine exhaust and exhaust from restaurants.
Breakdown among the sources is estimated as follows:
Source Percent
Wood burning
57
Resuspension from
roads
39
Vehicle exhaust
2
Restaurants
2
Total 100
Wood burning exhaust contributes about three -fifths of the total emissions and street dirt and
sand resuspension about two - fifths. Neither diesel exhaust nor restaurants are significant
contributors. Because these sources are spread throughout the valley and are operated in unknown
ways the emissions cannot be estimated accurately. The estimation of quantities of emissions
involves an estimation of activity levels for each source category and an application of a generic
emission factor to the activity levels- Neither the activity levels nor the emission factors are well
defined. One of the largest sources of PM10.emissions, road dust resuspension, is the least well
defined.
The sanding emission imprecision is assumed to be plus or minus a factor of about three. So, it
could be considerably less than wood burning or greater. The wood burning factor is somewhat
more precise, to about plus or minus a factor of two. Given these imprecisions for the apparent
largest sources, the results should be used only as screening information to separate the important
sources from the unimportant sources. Chemical fingerprint analysis should be performed if more
precise results are needed.
0 Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................ ...............................
1-
2.0 ACTIVITY LEVELS ......... • ............ ...............................
4
2.1 Fireplaces ........................ ...................... .........
4
2.2 Wood Stoves ..................... ...............................
4
2.3 Road Dirt Resuspension, Local and Interstate ........................
5
2.4 Road Sanding Resuspension, Local and Interstate ....................
7
2.5 Vehicle Tail Pipe Exhaust - Local and Interstate ......................
7
2.6 Restaurant Grills and Charbroilers ... ...............................
7
2.7 Activity Summary ................. ...............................
8
3.0 EMISSION FACTORS .................... ...............................
9
3 -1 Fireplaces ........................ ...............................
9
3.2 Wood Stoves ..................... ...............................
9
3.3 Road Dirt Resuspension, Local and Interstate .......................
10
3.4 Road Sanding Resuspension, Local and Interstate ...................
10
3.5 Vehicle Tail Pipes, Local and Interstate .............................
11
40
4.0
3.6 Restaurant Grills ................. ...............................
EMISSIONS ........................... ....... ...................... ..
11
12
5.0
RECOMMENDATIONS ................. ...............................
15
40
List of Tables
•
1
DWELLING BY ARI=A -1986 AND 1990 . ...............................
2
2
WOOD CONSUMPTION BY FIREPLACES ON PEAK DAY -1990 ............
4
3
BURN TIMES FOR WOOD STOVES ON PEAK DAY -1990 .................
5
4
HISTORIC DAILY AVERAGE INTERSTATE TRAFFIC VOLUME .......... . ..
6
5
ESTIMATED DAILY INTERSTATE TRAFFIC VOLUME -1990 ...............
6
6
INTERSTATE LENGTHS AND TRAFFIC -MILES ON PEAK DAY -1990 ........
6
7
LOCAL TRAFFIC -MILES ON PEAK DAY -1990 ...........................
7
8
RESTAURANT GRILL AND CHARBROILER PEAK DAY HOURS OF USE .....
8
9
ACTIVITY LEVEL SUMMARY FOR PEAK DAY -1990 .....................
8
10
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS ON PEAK DAY -1990 (lb) ..................
12
11
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS ON PEAK DAY -1990 (percent) .............
12
•
•
0 1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Gore Valley has been categorized by the U.S. EPA as a PM 10 Group 11 area. PM 10
represents particulates with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns. These small -sized
particulates are considered to be a health concern if in concentrations higher than the national
standards. Group 11 categorization indicates a high probability of exceeding the standards at some
time in the Gore Valley. A Local Implementation Plan (LIP) is to be developed to decrease ambient
concentrations in the valley. Technical aspects for the development of this plan include:
• estimation of emissions in the year 1990,
• evaluation of the relative effect of these sources on ambient
concentrations,
• evaluation of possible emission control strategies,
• evaluation of the relative costs of each control strategy versus its effect on
the ambient concentrations, and
• formalization of an emission control strategy to decrease these emissions.
This report addresses the first of the required steps to the LIP development. Estimates of
emissions are based on a hypothetical day when PM 10 emissions are highest and this day is assumed
to be over Christmas week, when occupancy rates are maximum and following within a few days of
49 sanding of the roads in the valley. The estimates are developed from emission rate information in
the technical literature and past studies on activity levels in the Gore Valley.
•
Activity levels are the rates of usage of the sources, such as total number of restaurants grill -
hours per day over Christmas week. Another example is the tons of wood burned per day in wood
stoves. Source categories considered responsible for the majority of the particulate emissions and
understudy herein are:
• Fireplaces
• Wood stoves
• dirt resuspension from roads
• Sanding material resuspension
• Local traffic tail pipes
• Interstate traffic tail pipes
• Restaurant grills & charbroilers
This study proceeds by estimating the activity levels for each of the source categories from
measurements made either in the valley or elsewhere. Then the data is extrapolated from the year
1
of data measurement to the 1990. Next, the emissions per unit of activity are taken from the
literature. These are called the emission factors and represent average results from tests conducted
elsewhere. The final section of this report contains the result of coupling the activity data and
emission factors into emission's estimates.
The Gore Valley is a nine mile east -west oriented valley, from where 1 -70 turns south on the
east end of the valley to the topographical restriction one and one -half miles east of Dowd's
Junction at the west end. Over the nine miles the valley rises only 700 feet in elevation from 7,900
feet on the west end to 8,600 feet on the east end. For this study the average elevation of 8,200 feet
is used. On the north and south sides of the valley the mountains rise abruptly. The developed
areas, with particulate emissions are in the narrow valley bottom. These areas are broken into four,
somewhat ill defined developments along the valley which are Bighorn at the east end, East Vail,
Vail Village and West Vail on the west end of the valley. These are shown on Figure 1. Emissions are
grouped by these four areas. From Vail Associates, Inc. statistics, for expansion of Vail Mountain (Air
Sciences 1985), the number of dwelling units in 1990 is developed. The division of dwelling units in
1986, excluding hotel units, among the four areas is provided in Table 1.
•
The same split is assumed to continue through 1990. The worst -case hypothetical day in 1990
is assumed to be a winter day during the Christmas holidays when residency rates are highest. The
change in residency rates from 1986 through 1990 is assumed to be equal to the change in peak -day
skier population which is expected by Vail Associates to increase 2.2 percent per year.
2
TABLE 1
DWELLING UNITS BYAREA- 1986AND 1990
Accommodations
Area
(19861 U22-01
Percent
Bighorn
1,277 1,393
21
East Vail
876 956
14
Vail Village
2,585 2,820
43
West Vail
1,319 1,439
22
Total
6,057 6,608
100
•
The same split is assumed to continue through 1990. The worst -case hypothetical day in 1990
is assumed to be a winter day during the Christmas holidays when residency rates are highest. The
change in residency rates from 1986 through 1990 is assumed to be equal to the change in peak -day
skier population which is expected by Vail Associates to increase 2.2 percent per year.
2
� •
� 0
I
•
MUN M IM"NO",
Y-I'c 'y
a.
0 2.0 ACTIVITY LEVELS
The sources described above have emissions that are linear with the amount of activity of the
source. For fireplaces, the emissions will change in direct ratio with the quantity of wood burned.
For road dirt resuspension, the amount of airborne dust is a function of the number of vehicles
driving over the roads. The activity levels are developed in this section and applied to the emission
factors of Section 3.0 to produce the emission estimates of Section 4.0.
2.1 Fireplaces
The Gore Valley fireplace activity level is presented in terms of quantity of wood burned on
the 1990 peak day. From a wood burning survey performed in Vail by Cogan in 1984, annual
statistics are available. The statistics represent burning habits and equipment types for a portion of
the permanent residents. These statistics are assumed to apply to all residences and condominiums
in the valley. The Cogan statistics indicate a distribution of wood consumption between fireplaces
and stoves of 75 percent and 25 percent, respectively. Annual wood consumption by 6,130 dwelling
units was estimated at 12,462 tons. Peak day consumption of wood was calculated from the ratio of
peak day skiers in 1985 to total skiers and the ratio is 1.2 percent. Thus, peak day wood consumption
was 48.8 lbs. per dwelling unit. Three - quarters of this consumption was in fireplaces, or 36.6 lbs.
Total wood consumption by fireplaces is calculated by applying this consumption rate to the number
of dwelling units estimated for 1990 in Table 1 and the results are listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2
WOOD CONSUMPTION BY FIREPLACES ON PEAK DAY - 1990
Area Quantity (tons)
Bighorn
25.5
Fast Vail
17.5
Vail Village
51.6
West Vail
26.3
Total 120.9
2.2 Wood Stoves
Activity levels for wood stoves are derived differently from fireplaces because the most
appropriate emission factors are in terms of total time of burning rather than wood consumed.
Total burning time is derived from the Cogan statistics in the following way. it is determined from
4
• Section 2.1 that a total of 48.8 ibs of wood is burned per dwelling unit on the peak day. One - quarter
of this is burned in stoves, or 12.2 lbs. This quantity is converted into burn time by a study from the
Colorado Department of Health (icing, 1985). In King's work, Colorado residences require a heat
rate of 522 BTU /degree -hour. Assuming a temperature of 20 °F (average for Vail in December) and
an inside temperature of 65 °F, operating stove heat rates wil[ be an average of 23,490 BTU /hour.
Wood heat content is approximately 6,500 BTU1lbs (AP -42, Table A -10). Wood stoves in 1990 will
have a thermal efficiency of approximately 60 percent so fuel heat consumption will be 39,150
BTU /hour or 6.02 lbs/hour. At a rate of 6.02 lbs/hour, the average consumption per dwelling of 12.2
lbs. will occur over 2.03 hours. Total burn time is calculated by applying this burn time to the
number of dwelling units to calculate the activity levels in Table 3.
TABLE 3
BURN TIMES FOR WOOD STOVES ON PEAK DAY - 1990
Area Time (hours)
Bighorn
2,822
East Vail
1,936
Vail Village
5,712
West Vail
2,915
0 Total 13,384
P_ -I
L J
2.3 Road Dirt Resuspension, Local and Interstate
Road dust resuspension is a result of dirt carry out from road berms and unpaved roads. The
dirt is carried onto high - volume paved roadways, ground to fine size and resuspended into the air.
For purposes of estimating the resuspension emissions, road - surface loadings for local and
expressways are applied to traffic volumes on the roads.
Traffic is divided into the categories of local and interstate traffic. The two differ in that local
traffic travels at slower speeds, and local roads are under the jurisdiction of the Town of Vail and
Eagle County. The Interstate is under State control. The dirt loadings and control measures for the
two differ.
Traffic volume for the interstate is estimated from historical Colorado Department of
Highways (1988) data. The data from 1974 through 1987 is shown on Table 4, categorized by
sampling location east and west of the Vail Village Interchange. The 1990 traffic projection is
• derived from a least squares fit to the historic data and is presented in Table 5. Next, the daily
average figures are transformed to peak day figures from a ratio of peak day to average on
Interstate 70 at Dillon, in Summit County. The ratio is 1.54. Traffic volume is defined in terms of
vehicle miles traveled, and the travel distance for each vehicle in each valley area is defined in Table
6. Total miles traveled on the peak day by area in 1990 are also listed in Table 6.
•
TABLE 4
HISTORIC DAILY AVERAGE INTERSTATE TRAFFIC VOLUME
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1985
1986
1987
East 6,750
7,750
9,400
10,700
12,500
12,200
14,000
13,200
13,200
West 6,500
7,750
9,300
10,000
14,900
14,700
14,700
17,300
15,700
TABLE 5
ESTIMATED DAILY INTERSTATE TRAFFIC VOLUME - 1990
Average Maximum
East 15,777 24,297
West 19,423 29,911
TABLE 6
INTERSTATE LENGTHS AND TRAfFIC -MILES ON PEAK DAY- 1990
Total Vehicle
Area
Length (mi)
Miles
Bighorn
2.27
55,154
East Vail
2.46
59,771
Vail Village
2.28
61,797
West Vail
1.89
56,532
Total
233,254
Local traffic volumes are taken from the previous analysis of emissions in the Gore Valley (Air
Sciences, 1985) and linear interpolation for 1990 from the predicted 1986 and 1993 local traffic
estimates. The 1990 local traffic estimates are provided in Table 7.
6
0
•
C]
TABLE 7
LOCAL TRAFFIC -MILES ON PEAK DAY - 1990
Total Vehicle
Area Miles
Bighorn
5,150
East Vail
15,152
Vail Village
4,442
West Vai 1
6,236
Total 30,980
2.4 Road Sanding Resuspension. Local and Interstate
Road sanding emissions are a result of sand used for providing traction on the highways,
which is fractured and mechanically suspended in the air by vehicle tires when the road becomes dry.
These emissions are estimated from the volume of traffic on the road and these volumes have been
estimated in the above Tables 6 and 7.
2.5 Vehicle Tail Pipe Exhaust- Local and Interstate
Particulate emissions are of interest from diesel engines. These emissions are estimated from
vehicle miles traveled as is for resuspension emissions. The activity levels for the peak day in 1990 are
given in Tables 6 and 7.
2.6 Restaurant Grills and Charbroilers
Restaurant grill and charbroiler emissions are a function of the hours of operation and type of
grill. The Town of Vail conducted a survey in conjunction with the preparation of this report of the
approximate number of units of grills and charbroilers and hours of operation. This data defines the
activity level for the restaurant source of particulates. The 1989 hours of operation have been
increased by 2.2 percent to estimate 1,990 hours and the values are provided in Table 8.
7
A
10
•
2.7 Activity Summary
The emissions are estimated by multiplying the activity levels for the various particulate
sources by emission factors. The activity levels are summarized in Table 9.
TABLE 9
ACTIVITY LEVEL SUMMARY FOR PEAK DAY - 1990
Source
Units
TABLE 8
East Vail
Vail Village
RESTAURANT GRILL AND CHARBROILER
PEAK DAY HOURS OF USE
Fireplaces
(tons -wood)
1989
18
1990
Area
Grill
Charbroiler
Grill
Charbroiler
Bighorn
0
0
0
0
East Vail
0
4
0
4
Vail Village
68
215
70
220
West Vail
19
12
19
12
Total
87
231
89
236
10
•
2.7 Activity Summary
The emissions are estimated by multiplying the activity levels for the various particulate
sources by emission factors. The activity levels are summarized in Table 9.
TABLE 9
ACTIVITY LEVEL SUMMARY FOR PEAK DAY - 1990
Source
Units
Bighorn
East Vail
Vail Village
West Vail
Total
Fireplaces
(tons -wood)
26
18
52
26
121
Wood Stoves
(hours)
2,822
1,936
5,712
2,915
13,384
Dirt Respn-lcl
(vmt)
5,150
15,152
4,442
6,236
30,980
Dirt Respn-Int
(vmt)
55,154
59,771
61,797
56,532
233,254
Sanding Respn -Icl
(vmt)
5,150
15,152
4,442.
6,236
30,980
Sanding Respn -Ent
(vmt)
55,154
59,771
61,797
56,532
233,254
Tail pipes Lcl
(vmt)
5,150
15,152
4,442
6,236
30,980
Tail pipes Int
(vmt)
55,154
59,771
61,797
56,532
233,254
Grills
(hours)
0
0
70
19
89
Charbroilers
(hours)
0
4
220
12
236
C•7
0 3.0 EMISSION FACTORS
•
In all cases, except for restaurant grills, the emissions are derived from emission factors
measured at other locations, but for the same type of source. There are always unique features
about an air basin which make emission factors measured at other locations only approximate and
this is true for the Gore Valley. Most combustion source emissions are measured at low altitudes and
these emissions generally increase with altitudes because the devices are designed for efficient
operation with near- sea -level density air. This applied to wood burning, restaurants and vehicle
exhaust. The resuspension emissions are difficult to measure regardless of altitude. They depend on
many factors not defined during the tests such as friability of the dirt and sanding material, mix of
tire tread patterns on the roads, road surface and speed of the vehicles. The factors used herein are
limited by not accounting for these differences.
3.1 Fireplaces
Fireplace emissions have been measured recently by Shelton Research, Inc. (1987) in Santa Fe,
New Mexico, under contract to the Colorado Department of Health. These results are appropriate
for fireplace operation at the elevation of Vail because elevation of the laboratory is 6,900 feet,
which is much nearer that of Vail than other emission studies. There are no available altitude
correction factors. The data are variable from fireplace to fireplace but give an average PM10
particulate emission of 28.8 lbs. per ton of wood burned.
3.2 Wood Stoves
Wood stove emissions have been tested by Shelton (1985) at an elevation of 6,900 feet_ The
testing was on contract with the Colorado Department of Health and was for the purpose of
assisting the department in developing emission regulations for stoves. The study measured
emissions from pre -1987 stove designs and the average particulate emission rate for the Denver
elevation was 63 grams per hour. The Colorado Regulation 4, for wood stoves, limits new stove
designs to 30 grams per hour. With an estimated 25 percent new stove designs in Vail for 1990, the
combined emission rate will be 54.8 grams per hour. There is a measured difference in emissions as a
function of elevation and this emission change is an increase of approximately 60 percent from
Denver to Vail_ This is based on the measured emission difference of a factor of 2.2 over an elevation
E
. of 6,600 feet (Shelton 1985, Table 4). A 60 percent increase of the 54.8 grams per hour value yields
an emission rate for Vail of 87.7 grams per hour (0.193 Ibs/hour).
•
3.3 Road Dirt Resuspension, Local and Interstate
Road dirt resuspension is the process of mechanically suspending the materials on a road
surface through the action of vehicle tires_ The material is generally dirt carried onto the road
surface from dirt roads and parking areas. Other sources are the worn materials from vehicle brake
linings and tires. The amount of dirt on the surface is a complex function of climate and degree of
vehicle movement from paved to nonpaved surfaces, plus the frequency of street sweeping and
other factors. No measurements of surface dirt loadings on the streets and interstate in the Gore
Valley are available, so estimates are taken from the literature and measurements at other cities.
From AP -42 Table 11.2.5-4, an average PM 10 emission due to resuspension of particulates from local
paved roads is 0.018 Ib/VMT, and emission from the interstate is 0.00067 IbNMT_
3.4 Road Sanding Resuspension, Local and Interstate
Sanding of the local roads and Interstate 70 occurs during or after a storm. After the snow
and ice are melted from the road surface, the remaining sanding material is ground up and thrown
from the road by the tire movement over the road. The length of time particles remain airborne
depends upon the size of the particle. Estimates of air emissions from tire motion over sanded roads
are dependent upon factors such as friability of the sanding material, rate of application, speed of
vehicles, features of the paved surface and others. No tests have been made on the material used for
sanding the Vail area roadways, nor of the emissions from the interstate surface so information
gathered in Denver under different conditions is used. From a 1980 study of Lakewood and Denver
streets, total suspended particulate (TSP) emissions from travel on sanded streets is estimated at 77
grams per vehicle-mile-traveled (Air Pollution Control Division, 1985).
The 77 gNMT emission factor stated above is for TSP emissions. From AP -42 Table 11.2.5 -1 the
ratio of PM10 particulates to TSP is 0.39. When this ratio is applied, the PM10 emission factor
becomes 30 gNMT (0.066 IbNMT). For application to the entire Gore Valley it is assumed that the
particulate emissions occur over several days. In particular, it is assumed that different parts of the
highway system become dry over a five -day period and the average factor is six g /VMT (0.013
• IbNMT) applied to all vehicle miles traveled.
10
• 3.5 Vehicle Tail Pipes, Local and Interstate
•
•
Vehicle particulate exhaust is broken into two categories, local and interstate. Particulate
emissions are produced only from the diesel -fired vehicles and these consist of light -duty vehicles
such as cars and pickups, and heavy -duty vehicles such as buses and highway tractors. From AP -42,
Volume It, Table N -1, bus emissions are estimated at five grams per VMT (0.011 Ib/VMT) and from
Table A.1.1, light -duty vehicle particulate emissions are 0.6 gram/VMT (0.0013 IbNMT). There is no
documented correction of emissions for altitude, so these unadjusted factors are assumed to be
applicable to all diesels operating in the Gore Valley_
The average vehicle mix is estimated from Colorado Department of Highway studies (1985)
and is approximately 59 percent passenger cars, 30 percent light -duty pickups, 4.6 percent light -duty
diesel trucks and 6.4 percent heavy -duty diesel trucks.
A fleet average was calculated assuming 15 percent of the vehicles are light -duty diesels and
six percent are heavy -duty diesels. The emission factor for the fleet average is then 0.39 g/VMT
(0.000861 b/VMT).
3.6 Restaurant Grills
Restaurant emission rates are divided between grills and charbroilers because grills drain off
grease while charbroilers allow the grease to drip into the hot coals. The grease forms the
particulates that are exhausted from these restaurant devices. Emissions from the two types of
devices are different because of the way grease is handled. The particulate emissions are from a
combustion process and are assumed to be entirely in the PM 10 size range. Emission rates taken
from a PEDCo (1977) study, performed in Vail, were estimated to be 0.54 Ib /hr for grills and from
Francis and Lipinski (1977) were estimated to be 0.64 lb /hr for charbroilers.
11
•
10
r1
4.0 EMISSIONS
The emissions are calculated by multiplying the Section 3.0 emission factors for the various
emission categories with the Section 2.0 activity levels. A summary of the PM 10 particulate emissions
for each source expected on the peak day in 1990 is presented in Table 10 by area. Table 11 presents
the percent contribution of particulate for all sources in each area. Figure 2 displays the partitioning
of emissions among the various emission sources.
Source
Fireplaces
Wood Stoves
Dirt Respn
Sanding Respn
Tail pipes Lcl
Tail pipes Int
Grills & Charb
Total
Source
Fireplaces
Wood Stoves
Dirt Respn
Sanding Respn
Tail pipes Lcl
Tail pipes Int
Grills & Charb
Total
TABLE 10
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS ON PEAK DAY - 1990
(I b)
Bighorn E
East Vail V
Vail Village W
West Vail T
Total
734 5
504 1
1,486 7
757 3
3,481
545 3
374 1
1,103 5
563 2
2,585
130 3
313 1
121 1
150 7
714
797 9
990 8
875 8
830 3
3,492
4 1
13 4
4 5
5 2
26
47 5
51 5
53 4
49 2
200
TABLE 11
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS ON PEAK DAY - 1990
(percent)
Bighorn East Vail Vail Village We
6.9 4.7 13.9
5.1 3.5 10.3
1.2 2.9 1.1
7.4 9.3 8.2
0.0 0.1 0.0
0.5 0.5 0.5
r 0.0 0.0 1.7
21.1 21.0 35.7
7.1
5.3
1.4
7.8
0.0
0.4
0.2
22.2
Total
33
24
7
33
0
2
2
011,
It is apparent from Table 11 that the emissions are relatively equally spread among the four
areas with Vail Village having slightly higher emissions than the others. The sources with highest
and nearly equal contribution are sanding resuspension, fireplaces and wood stoves. Dirt carry -on
12
7.1
5.3
1.4
7.8
0.0
0.4
0.2
22.2
Total
33
24
7
33
0
2
2
011,
It is apparent from Table 11 that the emissions are relatively equally spread among the four
areas with Vail Village having slightly higher emissions than the others. The sources with highest
and nearly equal contribution are sanding resuspension, fireplaces and wood stoves. Dirt carry -on
12
. resuspension is a moderate source and vehicles and restaurant emissions are small. If stoves and
fireplaces are considered the same category, wood burning emissions, they appear to contribute
three -fifths of the total PM10 emissions and the combination of dirt and sand resuspension about
two -fifths of the total.
The relative contributions listed in Tables 10, 11 and Figure 2 are imprecise and should not be
interpreted to any greater degree. The resuspension values are most imprecise. The variability for
which no account has been taken includes:
• imprecision in the initial measurement in Denver and other cities,
• drying rate of Vail roadways,
• type of dirt and quantity applied, and
• type of tire treads on the roadways.
The imprecision in the resuspension emission factors are estimated to be a factor of three.
Thus, the estimated tons of PM10 dust listed as resuspended in Table 10 could be greater by three
times or less by two- thirds.
Wood burning emissions are also imprecise, by a smaller amount. This is because of
• imprecision in:
• emission measurements,
• altitude adjustments,
• statistics on wood burning habits, and
• estimate of peak -day wood consumption.
•
These combined imprecisions are estimated to result in a combined factor of about two.
13
•
•
•
FIGURE 2
Contribution of Sources to Total PM 10
Emissions
Gore Valley -Peak Day 1990
Air Sciences Inc.
0
0 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
There are several types of sources that can contribute to an air basin emissions. The broad
difference is between process sources and fugitive sources. A process source is a well defined activity
with well defined emissions, such as a power plant or chemical factory. The quantity of materials
processed is easily measured, the conversion efficiencies are well understood and the emission rate
can be estimated and measured from the emission stacks.
Fugitive sources are those sources with emissions that are not easily capturable_ The emission
rates are variable and are poorly quantified. Generally, they are the result of a leak or an unplanned
emission. Examples of fugitive emissions include the fumes that leak from the gasoline hose or an
auto gas tank during the filling process, and the dust that is emitted from vehicle activity while
traveling on a dirt or paved road.
An emission inventory is a valuable tool for estimating the relative importance of various
sources of pollution when the source strengths are readily definable. For the Gore Valley, all the
significant sources are fugitive and poorly quantifiable. Therefore, the relative strengths of the
various source categories cannot be well defined. The emission inventory provided in this report is
. imprecise and sufficiently so that any prediction of decrease in particulate concentrations in the
valley based on a control strategy would be very imprecise.
•
There is another style of study that is effective in defining the relative contributions of sources
and this is called a chemical fingerprint analysis_ in these studies, the composition of particulate on
the ambient sampling filters is analyzed and the mix of constituents is used to estimate the relative
contribution of the various major source categories. This analysis is more expensive than the
emission's inventory because it requires considerable laboratory chemical analysis. However, it can
be optimized from the results of the inventory_
The results of this inventory should be studied and if precision in the results is insufficient to
make further control strategy, the next level of precision can be attained through a chemical
fingerprint analysis. The analysis should be carefully planned and should be carried out over the
Christmas and winter season when particulate concentrations are highest. it will likely include the
testing of some of the sources also.
15
F
•
•
•
REFERENCES
Air Sciences Inc., October 1985, Air Quality Analysis, Expansion of Vail Mountain and Development of
the Valley, unpublished report to Vail Associates, Inc., Lakewood, CO
Colorado Department of Highways, 1988, personal communication between Air Sciences and Priscilla
Andrews
Colorado Air Pollution Control Division, 1985, personal communication between Air Sciences and
Steve Arnold, Data Programs Section
Cogan, Ruth L., 1984, Town of Vail Residential Wood Burning Practices, unpublished report by Town
of Vail, Environmental Health Department
Francis, G_ Z. and R. E. Lipinski, 1977, Control of Air Pollution from Restaurant Charbroilers,
Journal of Air Pollution Control Association 27:643 -647
King, James, 1985, Wood Stove Emissions Weighting, Technical paper from Stationary Sources
Section, Colorado Air Quality Control Division
PEDCo- Environmental, Inc., 1977, Source Testing for Fireplaces, Stoves, and Restaurant Grills in Vail,
Colorado, U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-01 -1999, Mod No. 1, Kansas City, MO
Shelton Research, Inc., 1985, Wood Stove Particulate Matter Test Methods and Emission Factors,
Shelton Energy Research Report No. 1185, Santa Fe, NM
Shelton Research, Inc., 1987, Colorado Fireplace Report U.S. EPA Contract No. C375322, Santa Fe, NM
U.S.EPA, 1985, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Report Number AP -42, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC
Planning and Environmental Commission
March 27, 1989
3:00 PM
site Visits
1:45 PM
1. Approval of minutes of 2/27/89.
1 Mike 2. A request for a variance to maximum height
of wall on Lot 5, Block 1, Potato Patch.
Applicants: Georges and Jocelyn Boyer
2 Mike 3. A request for a side setback variance in
order to construct an addition to a
residence on Lot 2, Block 5, Intermountain.
Applicants: William Pierce and Lynn Fritzlen
3 Mike 4. A request for a side setback variance in
order to construct an addition on Lot 10,
Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing.
Applicant: Charles Ackerman
5. Appointment of PEC board member and backup
• to DRB for April, May and June.
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
March 27, 1989
PRESENT
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Pam Hopkins
Peggy Osterfoss
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
Kathy Warren
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Betsy Rosolack
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele.
1. Approval of minutes of 2/27/89 Diana Donovan moved to
approve the minutes with a second by Kathy Warren. The vote
was 7 -0.
2. A request for a variance to maximum height of a wall on Lot
5, Block 1, Potato Patch.
Applicants: Georges and Jocelyn Boyer
Mike Mollica explained the request. He said that the wall would
do be 9f-101 high and about 20 feet long. The staff recommendation
was for approval because there is a physical hardship because of
the steepness of the site. Mike reviewed the criteria and
findings.
Pam Hopkins felt the wall appeared to be part of the residence,
and she was not opposed to it. Diana felt that since there were
no setback variances involved, she had no problem with the wall.
Jim said that there was a lot of precedence for other privacy
walls. Chuck wondered about the use of bushes as landscaping
and Pam told him that the DRB saw the site as a site with so
little landscaping, that it would be appropriate to use only
bushes in front of the wall.
Peggy wondered how the height of the wall was determined, and
Bill Pierce, the architect, stated that since the street was
higher than the residence, 9' -10' was considered necessary for
privacy from the street. Kathy wondered if it would be possible
to place a berm in front of the wall. Bill said it was and
wondered how large a berm should be used. Kathy felt it would
be good to keep the height of the wall to 8 feet. Bill said it
could be done, but it would depend upon what the owners wanted
to do.
Diana moved and Chuck seconded to approve the variance per the
staff memo with the finding of extraordinary circumstances and
. with the condition that the wall be broken up with plantings.
The vote was 7 -0 in favor.
. 3. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct
an addition to a residence on Lot 2 Block 5,
Intermountain. Applicants: William Pierce /Lynn Fritzlen
Mike Mollica presented the request to construct a stair tower
stating that the staff recommendation was for denial. The staff
did not feel there was a hardship issue and felt that other
designs were possible, i.e. interior, narrower covered stairs
or uncovered stairs.
Bill Pierce, the architect, stated that he did not disagree with
the staff's suggestions for other solutions. He said that he
did study interior stairs, but the interior stairs used up
nearly as much space as was gained. He stated that there was
less room on the west side for stairs. As for building an
uncovered stairway, he pointed out that moisture would drip from
the roof onto the stairway, making the stairs impractical. Bill
added that the Town of Vail encouraged employee housing, and had
granted many variances to accomplish employee housing.
Chuck asked about the size of the lot and whether or not the
employee unit could be sold, and was told that because the lot
was under 15,000 square feet, the second unit could not be
sold.
• One person in the audience representing the Interlochen
Condominiums asked questions of Bill Pierce. Peggy felt that
there were other solutions that could be used even if they were
not the most desirable. A variance was given to put in an
employee unit, and now you are asking for another variance to
put in a stair to the new unit. She felt the hardship was self
imposed. Diana agreed with Peggy. Pam asked why a three foot
stairway was not being used, and was told a three foot stairway
would also require a variance of 1 -1/2 feet. Kathy felt this
would be a grant of special privilege. Sid agreed with with the
comments of the other board members.
Chuck Crist moved to deny the request for a variance per the
staff memo. Kathy Warren seconded the motion. The vote was 7 -0
for denial.
4.
A request for a side setback
an addition on Lot 10 Block
Applicant: Charles_ Ackerman
variance in order to c
1 Vail Village 6th Filinc
Mike Mollica explained the request and stressed the steepness of
the lot. The staff supported the expansion of the deck, feeling
that there was a physical hardship, and the variance would be a
positive trade -off to any development south of the existing
structure.
John Perkins, architect, stated that he felt this would be an
improvement to facades and streetscapes. Discussion followed
concerning notification of the adjacent property owner. Kathy
was concerned about the fact that if everyone on the street
asked for a variance, the buildings would be close together.
John replied that since there is already a roof over the deck,
the building would not read differently than at present. Kathy
felt that a precedent was being set for the property to the
west. Chuck asked if the first person to ask for additional
GRFA in a duplex was given the square footage and was told that
that was correct.
Diana felt the application did not qualify for a variance. She
felt that too often the board looked at only the parcel in
question, without considering the neighbor.
John felt that the building as it was was very unattractive, and
the proposal would break up the massing. He felt that the
steepness of the lot did present a hardship. Diana felt that
the appearance of bulk would be increased. Pam felt an alley
way was being created and would have liked to know the distance
of the adjacent deck to the property line. Mike replied that
this distance was 8 feet, with 20 feet between decks. John
pointed out that the proposal was not extending the existing
deck.
Peggy felt it was hard to believe that the enclosure would not
contribute to a more dense appearance and felt it would be
. impossible to tell others on the street that they could not have
a variance. Chuck was in favor of the request because the home
was already massive and the proposal improved the appearance.
Jim supported the request, feeling that there was a physical
hardship.
Sid moved and Chuck seconded to approve the requested variance
per the staff memo citing extraordinary circumstances due to the
topo and existing structure. The vote was 4 - 3 in favor, with
Pam, Peggy and Diana voting against the proposal.
5. Appointment of PEC board member to DRB for April, May and
June.
Peggy osterfoss volunteered with Chuck volunteering to be her
backup.
0
E
•
U
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 27, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance
construct an addition to a residence
Vail Village 11th Filing.
Applicant: Russ Pitto
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
in order to
on Lot 3, Block 1,
The applicant is requesting a side setback variance in order
to expand their single- family residence. A two -story
expansion is proposed. On the first floor, a breakfast nook
and family room will be added. The second floor will be for
a master bedroom. The proposed addition will encroach 10
feet 6 inches into the required 15' setback.
The property is in the two family residential zone district.
No variances for GRFA or the 250 ordinance are necessary for
the expansion. Below is a summary of the zoning statistics:
Zone: Duplex
Lot Size: 171315 s.f.
Allowable GRFA: 3,981 s.f.
Existing GRFA: 2,355 s.f.
Remaining GRFA Before Addition: 1,626 s.f.
First Floor Expansion, Breakfast Nook /Family Room: 722 s.f.
Second Floor, Master Bedroom: 716 s.f.
Total Expansion: 1,438 s.f.
Existing Square Footage: 2,355 s.f.
Expansion: 1,438 s.f.
Total: 3,793 s.f.
Remaining GRFA After Expansion: 188 s.f.
* (The following credits have been included in the existing
GRFA calculations: storage, 36 s.f.; mechanical, 38 s.f.;
and, garage, 538 s.f.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the
following factors:
G
I 1
L J
r1
U
A. Consideration of Factors:
Staff's opinion is that the addition will have a
negative impact on the stream tract parcel to the south
of Lot 3. Even though this parcel is not owned by the
Town of Vail (it is owned by Vail Associates), we
believe that the open space character of the area should
be maintained as much as possible for the general
public.
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
Rrivilege.
It will be a grant of special privilege to allow this
setback variance. It is apparent that the addition
could be added on the eastern side of the residence
without requiring any setback variances. We believe
that the applicant could work within the setback
requirements to provide for the additional square
footage.
The effect of the regEested variance on light and air
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
€ acilities ublic facilities and utilities and public
safety.
There are no major impacts on this criteria.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
III. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL LAND USE PLAN
The Land Use Plan states in Section 1.13:
Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable
land feature as well as its potential for public use.
This policy relates to staff's concern that setbacks be
maintained adjacent to the Gore Creek corridor.
IV. FINDINGS
The Planninq 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.
• V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends denial of the side setback variance. To
approve the variance would be a grant of special privilege.
.It is evident that the addition could be added to the east of
the existing house and would not require any setback
variances. We also believe that there are negative impacts
on the adjacent stream tract which are not justified.
Maintaining approximately 4 feet from the property line does
not allow for the separation of the residential use from the
stream tract. There is also to physical hardship. For these
reasons, the staff recommends denial of the request.
n
U
SNOWDON AND HOPKINS
ARCHITECTS
201 Gore Creek Drive
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
(303) 476 -2201
OB�a ..
SHEET NO. - -- OF
CALCULATED DATE j
CHECKED BY
SCALE
DATE
HIOOU MI I MW- aVtwk Wa 0101 .
TO:
• FROM:
•
DATE:
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
March 27, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a variance from section 18.58.020 (C)
regarding the maximum allowable wall /fence height in the
Primary /Secondary Residential zone district.
Applicant: Georges & Jocelyn Boyer
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicants are the owners of Lot 5, Block 1, Potato Patch
(804 Potato Patch Drive) and are requesting a variance to
allow for the construction of a 9 -10' high privacy wall
immediately north of their proposed home.
The Town of Vail zoning code allows for a maximum height of
6' for fences, hedges, walls and landscaping screens, when
not in a front setback area.
The wall treatment will match the finish of the proposed
residence to provide a unified appearance, and the applicant
proposes to break up the mass of the wall with the planting
of 10 Service Berry shrubs along the exterior of the wall.
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:
12
The relationship of the
existing or potential u
vicinity.
nested variance to other
and structures in the
The requested variance, if approved, would not adversely
affect the use of adjacent properties and would not
block or impede views from any surrounding properties.
The proposed landscaping would mitigate the impact upon
other structures or views to the home.
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 topographic conditions of this lot are such that the
buildable area of the site is well defined. The site
drops steeply to the south and therefore limits
development to the northern two thirds of the property.
Staff believes that a wall height of 9 -10' would be
necessary to ensure privacy in the patio area north of
the home and that the proposed landscaping will provide
a visual buffer of the fence.
C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air,
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public
safety.
Staff finds that the requested variance will have no
significant effect upon any of the above
considerations.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
III. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shah 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.
C.J
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation is for approval of the 3 -4' exceedence
in wall height. Topographic conditions of the site have
created some unique development considerations and staff
believes that a hardship would be imposed upon the applicant
if the strict interpretation of the zoning code were to be
enforced.
The Design Review Board has reviewed this request, at their
March 1, 1989 meeting, and by a unanimous vote of 5 -0 has
recommended approval of the proposal if the variance is
granted by the PEC.
•
C]
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
. FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 27, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance to the Primary/
Secondary Residential zone district in order to
construct an addition to a residence on Lot 2, Block 5,
Intermountain Subdivision.
Applicants: William Pierce and Lynn Fritzlen
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicants are owners of Lot 2, Block 5 of the Vail
Intermountain Subdivision, which is situated immediately east
of the Flussheim Townhouses and west of the Interlochen
Condominiums. A single family dwelling of 2,534 square feet
is located on the lot.
The applicants are requesting a variance from the side
setback requirement to allow for the construction of a stair
tower on the east side of the existing structure. The
purpose of the stair is to provide access to a secondary,
rental unit which is proposed over the garage area. The
variance request is for a 4 foot encroachment into the
• required 15 foot side yard setback.
11. CHRONOLOGY
A. A variance request was approved by the PEC on January
23, 1989, to allow this property to be considered for
rezoning by the Town Council. The approved variance was
for a 6,620 square foot shortage in the minimum lot size
of the Primary /Secondary Residential zone district.
B. The Town Council approved a rezoning request, from RC
to P/S on March 7, 1989. This rezoning has allowed for
the addition of a secondary, rental unit on the lot.
III. 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 relationshi2 of the re guested variance to other
existing or potential uses and structures in the
vicinity.
The addition of a stair tower in the proposed location
• should not create any problems to existing or potential
uses or structures in the vicinity. The property most
likely to be affected would be the Interlochen
Condominiums to the east, on which a parking lot and a
distance of 100 feet exists between the applicants'
structure and the nearest Interlochen residential
building.
•
•
The
l 2 Y --- -1
Staff has been unable to determine a physical hardship
regarding this variance request and feels that approval
of the request would constitute a grant of special
privilege. We also feel that the applicant has not
given full consideration to other design solutions for
access into the secondary unit which would not require
a variance.
C. The effect of the requested variance on light and airy
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public
safety.
staff finds that the requested variance will have no
significant effect upon any of the above considerations.
Such other factor
applicable to the
IV. FINDINGS
and criteria as the commission deems
sed variance.
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.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation is for denial of the requested 4 foot
encroachment into the side setback. Without being able to
identify a physical hardship, staff cannot support the
applicants' request.
•
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
is FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 27, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a variance from the side setback
requirement of the Primary /Secondary Residential zone
district, for Lot 10, Block 1 of the Vail Village Sixth
Filing (716 Forest Road).
Applicant: Charles Ackerman
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
This request is for an addition to an existing residence
which would add habitable space to the western side of the
primary unit by enclosing an area now utilized as exterior
decking. This addition would encroach 6' into the required
15' side setback.
With the exception of this variance request, all other
development standards will be met.
This site is currently
3,850 s.f. The primary
secondary unit is 1,883
request is to add 1,250
unit.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
occupied by a two - family structure of
unit consists of 1,967 s.f. and the
s.f. in size. The applicant's
s.f. of additional GRFA to the
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.
Lot 10 is located on the uphill side of Forest Road.
The existing structure is sited on the northern end of
the lot, adjacent to the road. The remainder, and the
majority, of the property is heavily wooded (predomin-
antly aspens). Elevations on this site increase rapidly
from the rear of the structure to the south property
line. Existing retainage is in place to protect the
structure along the south elevation.
40
C
r]
n
B. 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.
Topographic constraints have severely limited the
developable areas of this lot to that portion
immediately adjacent to Forest Road. Due to this
topographic hardship, and the fact that this lot has
considerable excess GRFA remaining (1,683 square feet),
the planning staff believes that additional development
on this lot should be allowed to expand away from the
steep hillside and the existing aspen grove.
Policies in the Land Use Plan encourage development
proposals on hillsides to be evaluated on a case by case
basis and suggest that new projects be constructed with
sensitivity to the environment.
C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities ublic facilities and utilities and public
safety.
This variance request, if approved, would not block any
light or air on adjacent properties, as the proposed
expansion would be confined to the limits of the
existing exterior deck.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance._
III. FINDINGS
The Plannin
following f
and Environmental Commissio
dinas before granting a yar
shall make the
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.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation is for approval. We feel that the
requested variance would be a positive trade -off to any
development south of the existing structure, and that a
physical hardship has been shown (topographic constraints).
We also feel that the granting of this request would not be a
grant of special privilege and that preservation of the
hillside and vegetation behind the structure would have a
positive benefit to the neighborhood as a whole.
0
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
April 10, 1989
3:00 PM
SITE VISITS: 2:00 P.M.
2:30 PM Worksession on a minor Amendment to SDD 4 Cascade
Village to allow for a deceleration lane on the
South Frontage Road adjacent to the Glen Lyon
office parcel.
Site Visits Public Hearing
1 1. A request for an exterior alteration in
Commercial Core I zone district in order to
add 100 square feet to the Sitzmark Lodge,
183 East Gore Creek Dr.
Applicant: Sitzmark Lodge
2 3. A request for a front setback variance in
order to construct a garage on Lot 1, Block
6, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicants: Ann Repetti Roy, Susan Repetti
Robinson and Elizabeth Martens Repetti
0 REQUEST TO TABLE TO MAY 8TH PEC
A request for a side setback variance on the
east and northeast in order to construct an
addition to a residence on Lot 4, Vail
Village 9th Addition.
REQUEST TO TABLE TO APRIL 24TH PEC
A request for a rezoning from High Density
Multiple Family zone district to Commercial
Service District and a request for'variances
to allow parking and loading in the front
setback, and a front setback variance and
side setback variance to allow for an
expansion of the Vail National Bank Building
on Lot 2, a Resubdivision of Lot D, Vail
Village 2nd Filing and Tract D,
Vail /Lionshead 2nd Filing, 108 South
Frontage Road.
Applicant: Vail National Bank Building
C7
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
April 10, 1989
PRESENT:
Chuck Crist
Sid Schultz
Diana Donovan
Peggy Osterfoss
Kathy Warren
STAFF:
Kristan Pritz
Rick Pylman
Mike Mollica
The meeting was called to order by Diana Donovan.
I. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I
zone district in order to add 100 square feet to the
Sitzmark Lode 183 East Gore Creek Drive.
Applicant: The Sitzmark Lodge
Staff presentation by Mike Mollica outlining criteria and
recommending approval of the request.
Duane Piper, architect for the project and applicant's
representative, spoke about the requested addition.
Chuck Crist asked about architectural flow of the
building.
Peggy Osterfoss commented that this was last retail space
to be remodeled and that this was a positive step.
Diana Donovan asked Duane about landscaping details. Duane
replied that the bench was to allow for some seating.
Peggy moved to approve the request as per staff memo.
Chuck Crist seconded. Vote was 5 to 0.
II. A request for a front setback in order to construct a
•garage on Lot 1 Block 6 Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicants: Ann Re etti Roy, Susan Re etti Robinson, and
Elizabeth Martens Re etti.
Rick made the presentation. Kathy Warren questioned what
the physical hardship was. Peggy Osterfoss felt that
garages are encouraged. She flet that the existing windows
on the north elevation also made it reasonable to locate
the garage as proposed. However, Peggy felt it was
appropriate to require that the gravel driveway be removed
and landscaped.
Guy Parker, representing the applicant, stated that some
access was necessary on the west elevation due to the fact
that the front door was on this side of the building.
There was discussion about other solutions.
Kathy Warren made a motion to approve the request with the
conditions that the front of the garage be decreased by 4
ft. and the circular driveway be pulled back to the south
edge of the entry pavers. The impacted spruce tree shall
be relocated on site. Chuck Crist made a second to the
motion. Findings are based on the staff memo. Vote was 5
to 0 for approval.
•
Meeting was adjourned.
I*
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 10, 1989
SUBJECT: Worksession: Minor Amendment to Special Development
District #4 Cascade Village: Glen Lyon /Vail Brewery
Property Area D
This issue is presented to the PEC as a worksession /information
item and does not require a formal vote by the commissioners.
Recently, Andy Norris received his access permit from the
Colorado Division of Highways for improvements to the Frontage
Road and access to Glen Lyon property, Area D. The Colorado
Division of Highways is requiring that the developer add a 150'
deceleration lane on the South Frontage Road. Originally when
this proposal was being reviewed by the Planning and
Environmental Commission, CDOH indicated that a deceleration
lane Ely be necessary. Once the proposal entered the formal
review process at CDOH, their staff required the deceleration
lane. (Please see the attached CDOH permit.)
The Community Development Department considers this change to
be a minor amendment that may be staff approved. In Section
40 18.40.020 B, a minor amendment is defined as:
"Modifications to building plans, site or landscape plans
that do not alter the basic intent and character of the
approved special development district, and are consistent
with the design criteria of this chapter. Minor amendments
may include, but not be limited to, variations of not more
than 5 feet to approved setbacks and /or building
footprints; changes to landscape or site plans that do not
adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation
throughout the special development district; or changes to
gross floor areas (excluding residential uses), of not more
than 5 percent of the approved square footage of retail,
office, common areas and other non - residential floor
area."
The staff approves the minor amendment. The developer is still
able to place adequate landscaping in front of the parking
structure which was a primary concern to the staff and Planning
Commission. The bike path will also be provided. However, the
path decreases in width to 81. Properties on the north side of
the South Frontage Road are not affected by the deceleration
lane. Our opinion is that the basic intent and character of the
approved Special Development District is not changed in any
major way due to the deceleration lane.
•
•
GLEN LYON OFFICE BUILDING
1000 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD, WEST
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
April 6, 1989
Ms. Kristin Pritz
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Kristin:
. Glen Lyon Office Building, owners of Lot 54, authorized TDA to prepare a Parking
and Access Study for the proposed Vail Brewery project. The study indicated the demand
for approximately 90 parking spaces during peak periods of operation by the brewery (5:30
p.m. - 9:30 p.m.). The demand is to be satisfied by construction of a 100 space parking
structure.
Based upon projected traffic volumes, turning activity and the 25 mph speed limit,
TDA determined that left turn lanes were not warranted by the State Highway Department
Access Code. On the other hand, the volumes were sufficient to consider a right turn
deceleration lane into the parking structure.
The deceleration lane would require moving the South Frontage Road recreational
path at least 12 feet to the south for a length of 150 feet including tapers. This re- alignment
would further reduce the area available for landscaping a CDOH right of way.
Accordingly, both the owner and Town of Vail opposed the deceleration lane.
The CDOH has approved the application for the relocated access to the parking
structure subject to the condition that the deceleration lane be constructed. At this point, it
does not appear to be a negotiable issue.
•
• PRITZ, K.
TOWN OF VAIL
PAGE 2
A revised site plan has been prepared by Geodesign and submitted to the Town
which includes the deceleration lane. Because the CDOH is not permitting the planting of
any trees or shrubs within 30 feet of the edge of driving surface, the loss of area for
planting does not appear significant. The parking structure itself had been moved four feet
off the right -of -way and "notches" added to facilitate planting larger material. Also, the
grading plan includes berming earth up the sides of the structure to further hide it.
The owners believe the deceleration lane can be accommodated and that the
landscaping will achieve the desired results. We believe that this change should be
accepted by the Planning and Environmental Commission.
S incerely,
General Partner
•
SI I No/MP /Side: 110F / 174 . -1.01 R
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS Local Jurisdiction: Town of Vail
STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT DOH Potion /Patrol: 38909
DOH Permit No.: 38901.5
Permit Fee: $75.90
Date of Transmittal: 3 -23 -89
THE PERMITTEE;
Glen Lyon Office Building
1000 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
is hereby granted permission to construct and use an access to the state highway at the location noted below.
The access shall be constructed, maintained and used in accordance with the terms and conditions of this permit,
including the State Highway Access Code and listed attachments. This permit may be revoked by the issuing
authority if at any time the permitted access and its use violate any of the terms and conditions of this permit. The use
of advance warning and construction signs, flashers, barricades and flaggers are required at all times during access
construction within State right -of -way in conformance with the MANUAL_ ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
DEVICES, Part VI. The issuing authority, the Department and their duly appointed agents and employees shall be held
harmless against any action for personal injury or property damage sustained by reason of the exercise of the permit.
LOCATION:
On the south side of State Highway 1 70 Frontage Road, a distance of 550
feet east from Mile Post 174.
ACCESS TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO:
Parking for 16,000 sq.ft. microbrewery, 16,500 sq.ft. office space,
and 2,000 sq.ft. private residence.
OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
See Attached Sheet.
MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY APPROVAL
Required only when the appropriate local authority retains issuing authority.
By (X) Not Required Date Title, -
Upon the signing of this permit the permittee agrees to the terms and conditions and referenced attachments contained
herein. All construction shall be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from
initiation. The permitted access shall be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit prior to
being used. The permittee shat) notify Don Herman
.Tfte following paragraphs are peril nent hlgtillghts of 1l}e Stale tiIghway Access Code. These aPP piovlded for your convenience but
do not alleviate compliance with all sections of the Access Code. A copy of the Stale Highway Access code is available from your
local Issuing authority (local government) or the State Department of Highways (Department). When this permit was issued, the
issuing authority made Its decision based in part on Information submitted by the applicant, on the access category which Is
assigned to the Changes In use or design � n what alternative access to other ot approved by the permit or the pi issuing authority may cause thearevocation ofrsuspension o,f the peermft.
f
1 Appeals
1. Should the permittee or applicant chose to object to any of the terms or conditions of the permit placed therein by the
Department, an appeal must be filed with the Colorado Highway Commission within 60 days of transmittai of the permit for
permittee signature. The request for the hearing shall be filed in writing and submitted to the Colorado Highway
Commission, 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80222. The request shall include reasons for the appeal and
may include recommendations by the permittee or applicant that would be acceptable to him. -
2. The Department may consider any objections and requested revisions at the request of the applicant or permittee. If
agreement is reached, the Department, with the approval of the local issuing authority (if applicable), may revise the permit
accordingly, or issue a new permit, or require the applicant to submit a new application for reconsideration. Changes in the
original application, proposed design or access use will normally require submittal of a new application.
3. Regardless of any communications, meetings, or negotiations with the Department regarding revisions and objections to
the permit, if the permittee or applicant wishes to appeal the Department's decision to the Commission, the appeal must be
brought to the Commission within 60 days of transmittal of the permit.
4 appeal by the applicant or permittee of action by the local issuing authority when it is the appropriate local authority
(under subsect on 2.4), shall be filed with the local authority and and be consistent nt with the appeal procedures procedures of th
local
authority.
5. if the final action is not further appealed, the Department or local authority may record the decision with the County Clerk
and Recorder.
II Construction standards and requirements
1. The access must be under construction within one year of the permit date. However, under certain conditions a one year
time extension may be granted if requested in writing prior to permit expiration.
2. The applicant shall notify the office specified on the permit at least 48 hours prior to construction. A copy of the permit shall
be available for review at the construction site. Inspections will be made during construction.
• 3. The access construction within highway right -of -way must be completed within 45 days.
4. it is the responsibility of the permittee to complete the construction of the access according to the terms and conditions of
the permit. It the permittee wishes to use the access prior to completion, arrangements must be approved by the issuing
authority and Department and included on the permit. The Department or issuing authority may order a halt to any
unauthorized use of the access. Reconstruction or improvements to the access may be required when the permittee has
failed to meet required specifications of design or materials. if any construction element fails within two years due to
improper construction or material specifications, the permittee is responsible for all repairs.
5. in the event it becomes necessary to remove any right -of -way fence, the posts on either side of the access shall be securely
braced with an approved end post before the fence is cut to prevent any slacking of the remaining fence. All posts and wire
removed are Department property and shall be turned over to a representative of the Department.
6. A copy of the permit shall be available for review at the construction site. It necessary, minor changes and additions shall be
ordered by the Department or local authority field inspector to meet unanticipated site conditions.
i. The access shall be constructed and maintained in a manner that shall not cause water to enter onto the roadway, and shall
not Interfere with the drainage system in the right -of -way.
S. Where necessary to remove, relocate, or repair a traffic control device or public or private utilities for the construction of a
permitted access, the work shall be accomplished by the permittee without cost to the Department or issuing authority, and
at the direction of the Department or utility company. Any damage to the state highway or other public right -of -way beyond
that which is allowed in the permit shall be repaired immediately.
9. Adequate advance warning is required at all times during access construction, in conformance with the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. This may include the use of signs, flashers, barricades and flaggers, This
is also required by section 42- 4- 501,C.R.S. as amended. The issuing authority. the Department and their duly appointed
agents and employees shall be held harmless against any action for personal injury or property damage sustained by
reason of the exercise of the permit.
III Changes in use and violations
1. If there are changes 1n the use of the access, the access permit - issuing authority must be notified of the change, a change in
property use which makes the existing access design or use in non - conformance with the Access Code or the terms and
• conditions of the permit, may require the reconstruction or relocation of the access. Examples of changes in access use are;
an increase in vehicular volume by 20 percent, or an increase by 20 percent of a directional characteristic such as a left turn.
The issuing authority will review the original permit; it may decide it is adequate or request that you apply for a new permit.
2. All terms and conditions of the permit are binding upon all assigns, successors -in- interest and heirs.
3. When a permitted driveway is constructed or used in violation of the Access Code, the local government or Department may
obtain a court order to halt the violation. Such access permits may be revoked by the issuing authority.
Iv Further Information
1. When the permit holder wishes to make improvements to an existing legal access, he shall make his request by filing a
. _, _ __.. ___,: ,; .., ..,u,, rr,o;aci inn authority. The issuing authority may take action only on the request for
. PERMIT NO. 389015
1
Local ordinance requires a construction permit from Town of
2
Vail.
Driveway shall be constructed 30 feet wide with 50 foot
radii. Surfacing for driveway approach is required as
6" lifts; 6" of class 6
follows: 12" of class 6 gravel in 2,
3
gravel in 1, 6" liftS.
Also 3" of HBP in 2, 1.50" lifts of grade E, EX,
e AC 10.
equivalent. The asphalt cement in the HBP shall b be
the roadway and
4
Fill /cut slopes shall be at a 6: 1 slope on
5
at 6:1 on the access approach.
No landscaping other than grass shall be planted within 30
feet of the shoulder of the road. Approach shall be
construced per plan dated Oct. 18, 1988-
for the right turn deceleration lane shall
6
Highway widening
be 12 feet wide and 150 feet long, including a 90 foot
7
taper.
No drainage from this site shall enter onto the surface of
the highway. All existing drainage structures shall be
extended to accommodate all new construction and safety
8
standards.
Contractor shall follow the applicable construction
in the
specifications set for by the Department of Highways
for Road and Bridge
latest manual Standard S ecifications
Construction. The property owner is responsible for any
utilities disrupted by the construction of this driveway and
all expenses incurred for repair. Any damage to any
existing Highway facilities shall be repaired prior to
9
continuing other work.
Compaction of sub - grade, embankments and backfill shall
comply with Section 203.11 of the Division of Highways
10
Standard Specifications.
Compaction of Hot Bituminous Pavement (HBP) shall comply
with Section 401.17 of the division of Highways Standard
11
Specifications.
If frost is present in the sub -- grade, no surfacing material
shall be placed until all frost is gone or removed.
a straight edge for patching.
12
Saw or score asphalt to assure
The first 20 feet beyond the closest highway lane, including
13
speed change lanes, shall slope down and away from the
drainage control.
highway at a 20 grade to ensure proper
All excavations on Utility lines, culverts, other trenches
14
or tunnels shall meet the requirements of Colorado
Department of Highways, OSHA, Colorado Industrial Commission
and the Colorado Division of Mines whichever applies.
be well graded to drain,
15
The area around the new work shall
top soiled, fertilized, mulched and reseeded.
16
Work shall BEGIN AFTER 8:30 A.M. and all' equipment shall be
off the roadway BEFORE 3:30 P.M. each day.
•
n
U
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 10, 1989
SUBJ: Request for a minor exterior alteration on the
southwest portion of Lot A, Block 5 -B, Vail Village
First Filing (Sitzmark Lodge), to expand the Noel
Christmas shop by 100 square feet.
Applicant: Bob Fritch /Duane Piper
I. The Proposal
The applicant is requesting an exterior alteration and
addition at the Sitzmark Lodge, which would include a shop
front revision and an addition of 100 square feet of floor
area to the southwest corner of the lodge. This addition
would be utilized by the Noel Christmas shop as expanded
retail space and will include a revised entry to the shop.
II. Zoning Considerations
The following summarizes the zoning statistics regarding
this exterior alteration request:
I. zone District: Commercial Core I
2. Lot Area: 0.4077 acres /17,759 square feet
3. Density Allowable dwelling units = 10; or 20 A.U.
Existing dwelling units = 18.5 (1 D.U. + 35
A.U.) Proposed dwelling units = No change
4. GRFA: (.80 of lot area)
Allowable = 14,207
Existing = 13,197
Previous Approvals = 306
Remaining = 704
Current Proposal - 100
604
5. Site Coverage:
(.80 of lot area)
Allowable =
Existing =
Previous Approvals =
Remaining =
Current Proposal -
square feet
square feet
square feet
square feet
square feet
s.f. remainder; if new
addition is approved
14,207 square feet
12,535 square feet
246 square feet
1,426 square feet
100 square feet
1,326 s.f. remainder; after
proposed expansion
• 6. Height: The Design Considerations for Vail Village
require that up to 600 of the building have a maximum
roof height of 33' of less, and that no more than 40%
of the building have a maximum roof height of 431.
The height of this proposed addition is 14' at its
highest point and the roof tapers down to 111.
7. Parking: Parking for this proposed expansion will be
addressed by the applicant paying into the Town
parking fund for CCI.
II. 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
The following Guide Plan concept relates to this proposal:
No. 28B Building Expansion. Building mass should be
stepped back to the south to preserve and frame
down - valley views, as designated in the view
corridor map. Infill of parcel will help
enclosure of Checkpoint Charlie Circle.
IV. Compliance with the Urban Design-Considerations for Vail
Villa
1. Pedestrianization
This addition will have no significant impact upon
• pedestrian circulation within the Vail Village area.
The addition of a new concrete walkway across the
corner of the lodge property will enhance pedestrian
circulation through the Checkpoint Charlie area.
2. Vehicular Penetration
This addition will have no impact upon vehicular
penetration within the Vail Village area.
3. Streetscape Framework
The Design Considerations strive to improve the
quality of the walking /pedestrian environment by
promoting the use of landscaping, berms, grass and
flowers as a linkage along pedestrian routes.
As Willow Bridge Road is one of the main pedestrian
routes into the Village, the staff feels that mature
landscaping in this area is a necessity for the
enhancement of the pedestrian experience. In
addition, the Commercial Core I Zoning states that "no
reduction in landscape area shall be permitted without
sufficient cause shown by the applicant or as
specified in the Vail Village design considerations."
(18.24.170)
The applicant's proposal will maintain all existing
• landscaping at this corner of the lodge and the
expansion of the "alpine garden" theme into this area
will enhance the visual interest within the pedestrian
environment.
4. Street Enclosure
The guidelines
not be uniform
should provide
This proposed
degree, to the
Charlie Area.
5. Street_ Edge
emphasize that building facade heights
from building to building and that they
a comfortable enclosure for the street.
expansion will contribute, to a minimal
street enclosure in the Checkpoint
This criteria encourages buildings in the Village Core
to form a strong but irregular edge to the street.
The proposed addition will meet this criteria, however
limited in scale, due to the scope of the project.
6. Building Height
This proposal has no impact on building height.
7. Views
. This proposal will have no impact on views.
. 8., Service and Delivery
No impact.
9. Sun /Shade
This proposal will not increase the spring or fall
shadow patterns on adjacent properties or on the
public Row.
V. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this request for an exterior
alteration. We feel that the proposal complies with all of
the applicable design considerations of the Vail Village
Urban Design Plan.
•
•
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 10, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for front setback variance in order to
construct a garage on Lot 1, Block 6, Vail Village 7th
Filing.
Applicant: Ann Repetti
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant is requesting a front setback variance of 5' in
order to add a single car garage to the residence. A portion
of the existing residence falls within the required 20'
setback, and there is a circular driveway on the property
which is located almost entirely within Town of Vail road
right -of -way. The proposal will keep this driveway, and
while utilizing the existing road cut, add a small extension
of driveway and a single car garage. The garage encroaches
approximately 5' into the required 20' setback. The reason
for the requested encroachment is that the applicant desires
to maintain light, air and ventilation to an existing room in
. the house. The only exterior exposure of this room would be
blocked by the garage were it to completely meet the Town of
Vail setback requirements. The staff has received letters
encouraging approval of this request from the owner of the
other half of the duplex and from some of the adjacent
property owners.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 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 residence currently encroaches to within 6'
of the property line. The garage has been located in
• portion of the site that minimizes the degree to which
• variance is required. Although there is physically
room on the site to pull the garage back another 5', it
• would create a substantial hardship to the existing unit
by blocking all light, air and ventilation to a portion
of the interior of the residence.
• B. 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 rant of s ecial
orivileae.
The existing development on site currently encroaches
within the required setback and the residence does not
currently have adequate on -site parking. The garage has
been sited in such a way as to minimize the degree to
which a variance is required and yet maintain the
functionality of the interior of the existing residence.
Without requesting a separation of the garage from the
residence, which is desirable to neither the Design
Review Board or the staff, we do not see any other way
that this garage may be sited without requiring a
variance. The Town of Vail has traditionally encouraged
garages to be built, particularly when they are solving
an existing on site parking problem.
D. The effect of the regLiested variance on light and air
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities public facilities and utilities and public
safety.
• The requested encroachment does not affect light and air
with respect to any of the above mentioned criteria.
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 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.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the requested front setback
variance of 51. The staff feels that the garage has been
sited in such a way as to minimize the requested the degree
of variance required. The applicant has demonstrated a
legitimate hardship due to the siting of the existing
residence and the layout of the floor plan.
n
U
U
•
•
IL M®
xig
x
F
c�
w
a
o�
o-.
d
C.
CR ATE NEW WINDOW
ON VT WALL
16
i
PROPOSED GARAGE LOCATIO
-----------------•---
---- 41.
1
CHANGE EXISTING
WINDOW INTO NEW ENTRY
1
L-
1,11 ---------
f i ;
1
1
1
I
1
� �f�r•f •f�r�r•r�f�f �1�
1
1
1 1 :a • • :l:
1
•----- - - - - --
r•i�
OOMIYFR • .
fY.•.
�'. r�lr'. r• - - - - - - — - - - - - -
is
1 .,. . ..
1 i •: 1
l 1 1
1 1
I
1/
1�
1
VAIL VALLEY DRIVE
ACTUAL
PROPERTY
,4r EAGLES NEST CIRCLE sir► LINE
REUISEO GARAGE PROPOSAL FOR ANN REPETTI COHEN CONSTRUCTION
1001 UAIL UALLEY ORIUE, URILp CO. PO BOH 301 5, UAILICO.
SCRLEI" =20'
I-]
I*
Ile"
0 �P/
p- uG�n
C+
DRIVEWAY
\ (GRAVEL )
1"
I
G �
L
tq
nn nr+ci
n
o $�
L
c)-
cs
'O
LOT 1
0
0
o�
V
0 Z
C
�L}
c
29.20
N 68 °55'22 E
DECK
1$
15d
g6
9 0 55
{
NE5
�5
�P�LE o0
g0•
NO
•
r 1
LJ
•
To: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 10, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for front setback variance in order to
construct a garage on Lot 1, Block 6, Vail Village 7th
Filing.
Applicant: Ann Repetti
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant is requesting a front setback variance of 5' in
order to add a single car garage to the residence. A portion
of the existing residence falls within the required 20'
setback, and there is a circular driveway on the property
which is located almost entirely within Town of Vail road
right -of -way. The proposal will keep this driveway, and
while utilizing the existing road cut, add a small extension
of driveway and a single car garage. The garage encroaches
approximately 5' into the required 20' setback. The reason
for the requested encroachment is that the applicant desires
to maintain light, air and ventilation to an existing room in
the house. The only exterior exposure of this room would be
blocked by the garage were it to completely meet the Town of
Vail setback requirements. The staff has received letters
encouraging approval of this request from the owner of the
other half of the duplex and from some of the adjacent
property owners.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 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
existing or potential u_
v
sted variance to other
d structures in the
The existing residence currently encroaches to within 6'
of the property line. The garage has been located in
a portion of the site that minimizes the degree to which
a variance is required. Although there is physically
room on the site to pull the garage back another 51, it
would create a substantial hardship to the existing unit
by blocking all light, air and ventilation to a portion
of the interior of the residence.
B. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a s ecified re ulatio:
is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain
objectives of this title without grant of special
privilege.
The existing development on site currently encroaches
within the required setback and the residence does not
currently have adequate on -site parking. The garage has
been sited in such a way as to minimize the degree to
which a variance is required and yet maintain the
functionality of the interior of the existing residence.
Without requesting a separation of the garage from the
residence, which is desirable to neither the Design
Review Board or the staff, we do not see any other way
that this garage may be sited without requiring a
variance. The Town of Vail has traditionally encouraged
garages to be built, particularly when they are solving
an existing on site parking problem.
D. The effect of the requested variance on light and _air,
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities , and public
safety.
The requested encroachment does not affect light and air
with respect to any of the above mentioned criteria.
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 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
0 with the objectives of this title.
P
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.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the requested front setback
variance of 51. The staff feels that the garage has been
sited in such a way as to minimize the requested the degree
of variance required. The applicant has demonstrated a
legitimate hardship due to the siting of the existing
residence and the layout of the floor plan.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMISSION
April 24, 1989
3 :00 PM
Site Visits
2:00 PM
3 1. A request for a rezoning from High Density
Multiple Family zone district to Commercial
Service District with a request for a Special
Development District to allow for additional
parking and loading and an expansion of the
N tional Bank Bs well as a Minor
Subdivision request to vacate a lot line for the
Vail National Bank Building property on Lot 2, a
Resubdivision of Lot D, Vail Village 2nd Filing
and Tract D, Vail /Lionshead 2nd Filing, 108 South
Frontage Road.
Applicant: Vail National Bank Building Corp.
2 2. A request for a front setback variance, which
includes the relocation of that portion of Mill
. Creek as it bisects the property, for Lot 10,
Block 1, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Robert Gunn
1 3. A request for an amendment and final plat
revisions to SDD #22, Resubdivision of Lots 1
through 19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing 3 in order
to incorporate and rezone a portion of Parcel D,
Lionsridge #2, from Residential and
Primary /Secondary to SDD #22, replat lot lines
and amend the grading plan.
Applicant: Dauphinais - Moseley Construction
REQUEST TO TABLE
4. A request for exterior alteration in order to
construct an addition at the Up The Creek
Restaruant, Gore Creek Building, Vail Village.
Applicant: Up The Creek Bar & Grill Inc.
•
TO: Planning and Environmental commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: April 24, 1989
SUBJECT: Request for amendment and final plat revisions to
Special Development District No. 22, Resubdivision of
Lots 1 through 19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing 3, in
order to incorporate and rezone a portion of Parcel D,
Lionsridge No. 2 from Residential and
Primary /Secondary to SDD No. 22, replat lot lines and
amend the grading plan.
Applicant: Dauphinais- Moseley Construction
Z. THE PROPOSAL
Special Development District No. 22 was approved by the
Planning and Environmental Commission in August 1988, and
was adopted as Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1988 by the Vail
Town Council. Special Development District #22 currently
consists of 24 single family lots, an open space tract, and
a new public road. Total size of the existing Special
Development District is 10.69 acres. The underline zone
district is primary /secondary.
The applicant is applying for several amendments to Special
Development District No. 22 and to the final plat of
Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 5. Those amendments
consists of:
1. Incorporation and rezoning of a parcel of land
described as a portion of Parcel D, Lionsridge No. 2.
2. Minor adjustment and replatting of the lot lines to
incorporate the above mentioned lot in order to
provide access to that lot.
3. Amendment to the grading plan.
The applicant has recently purchased a primary /secondary
lot immediately adjacent to the east of existing Special
Development District No. 22. The applicant wishes to
incorporate this lot into this special development
district. The request is to maintain the primary /secondary
zoning on this lot, but to bring it into the special
development district by amending the development plan and
the final plat. The final plat must be amended to allow a
slight modification to the property lines of Lots 1 and 2
and the new Lot 25 in order to provide adequate access to
. this new lot from within the special development district.
. The third proposed amendment to the special development
district is a new grading plan. The applicant feels that
by regrading portions of the property the open space
becomes more useable and that the lots become more
buildable by eliminating steep road cuts and other access
problems.
II. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL
By incorporating the property immediately adjacent to the
east of this special development district, the applicant is
creating very little adverse impact upon the existing
development. Minor amendment of the lot lines for Lots 1,
2 and the adjacent property which is proposed as Lot 25
will allow adequate access to the property without
increasing any adverse impacts upon this property or the
adjacent property.
A drainage plan has been submitted in conjunction with the
new grading plan and has been reviewed by the Town of Vail
Engineer. The Town Engineer is in the process of
coordinating minor amendments of that drainage plan with
the applicant's engineer, but does feel that the drainage
plan is adequate and will provide a positive solution for
the drainage from this property.
iIII. EVALUATION OF CRITERIA
The special development district enabling legislation
details nine design criteria that must be met by the
proposed special development district. Those criteria are
as follows:
1. Desian Compatibility and Sensitivity to the Immediate
Environment Nei hborhood and Adjacent Properties
Relative to Architectural Design, Scale, Bulk,
Building Height, Buffer Zones Identity, Character
Visual Intearitv and Orientation.
The development standards of the existing Special
Development District No. 22, with the exception of lot
size and allowable GRFA based on lot size, follow the
single family zone district. Setbacks are consistent
with the single family residential zone district, with
the exception of the side setbacks, are proposed to be
10 feet rather than 15 feet. The proposed amendment
provides for the inclusion of the adjacent parcel of
land. That land is currently zoned primary /secondary.
This inclusion is compatible with the underlying zone
district as well as the development intention of the
existing special development district. We feel that
40 development of this property within the special
development district is positive in that it allows
coordination of access to this piece of property
through the existing special development district.
The applicant is proposing that the use for this new
Lot 25 remain as primary /secondary and that the GRFA
allowed for this lot remain as is currently allowed
under the primary /secondary zone district.
2. Uses, Activity, and Density which Provide a
Compatible, Workable and Efficient and Workable
Relationship with Surrounding Uses and Activity.
As a piece of property with a compatible, in fact
identical, underlying zone district, the uses of this
property do provide a workable relationship with the
surrounding uses. In fact by incorporating this
parcel of land into the special development district,
it will fall under the specific design guidelines that
will be developed for the special development district
and thus ensure compatibility of the development of
this piece of property.
3. Compliance of Parkinq and Loading Requirements as
outlined in Section 18.25
Parking requirements will be met as a required
criteria of the development of this lot.
. 4. Conformity with Applicable Elements of Vail
Comprehensive Plan Town Policies and Urban Plans
Incorporation of this property into the special
development district is in conformance with the
applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
5. Identification and Mitigation of Natural and /or
Geologic Hazards that Affect the Property in which the
Special Development District is Proposed.
This site is not located within any identified
geologic hazard area.
6. Site Plan, Building Design and Location, and Open
S ace Provisions Designed to Provide a Functional
Development Responsive and Sensitive to Natural
Features, Vegetation and Overall Aesthetic Quality of
the Community.
Although this site does not possess any outstanding
natural features or vegetation, the proposed revision
to the property lines does place a portion of this
parcel in common open space. The portion which is
proposed as common open space is the lower portion of
• the lot which is highly visible from 1 -70 and the
southside of the valley. Staff supports this concept
of the amendment of the existing property line.
The amended grading plan will allow for a more
functional open space parcel by reducing the steep
grade. This open space should be relandscaped in a
more intensive manner than the developed portions of
the site. The entire disturbed area will be
revegetated with a native seed mix to reduce dust and
erosion. As individual parcels are developed,
appropriate landscape treatments will be required.
7. Circulation S stem for Both Vehicles and Pedestrians
Addressinct On and Off -Site Traffic Circulation.
The new lot will access the new proposed public road,
named Lionsridge Lane, that will be built as Special
Development District No. 22. The incorporation of
this parcel of land into the Special Development
District does not adversely impact the parking or
access situation at the Solarcrest Condominiums.
8. Functional and Aesthetic Landscaping in Open Space in
Order to Optimize and Preserve Natural Features
Recreation. Views and Functions.
The general and preliminary landscape plan was
. submitted with the original Special Development
District No. 22 proposal and shows substantial
buffering between houses will be important as well as
a heavily landscaped entry way into the subdivision.
This lot as incorporated into Special Development
District No. 22 will fall under those landscape design
requirements.
With regards to the proposed regrading for Special
Development District No. 22, the existing natural
vegetation on a portion of the common open space will
be destroyed. The applicant is proposing revegetating
these areas with a native grass mix. As previously
stated, the staff feels a more intensive landscape
plan for the area should be developed.
9. Phasing Plan or Subdivision Plan that will Maintain a
Workable, Function and Efficient Relationship
Throughout the Development of the Special Development
T) i str i r_t _
It is our understanding that it is the applicant's
intention to develop these lots himself and phasing
will be done on a market demand basis. The Design
Guidelines that were a condition of the original
Special Development District No. 22 and will remain a
• condition for Special Development District No. 22 will
be an important document in ensuring a workable and
efficient relationship of the houses to each other and
to the overall aesthetics of the subdivision.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval
of the requested amendments to the final plat of Lionsridge
Subdivision Filing No. 5 and to Special Development
District No. 22. We feel the incorporation of the parcel
located to the east of the special development district is
positive and solves several access and design problems.
The replatting of the lot lines that goes along with this
incorporation of property provides for access to this site
and an addition to the amount of common open space.
Staff also recommends approval of the requested grading
plan. Although it is unusual in the Town of Vail for a
developer to completely recontour a site, we feel that it
in this case, given control over the large parcel of land
and the 25 lots, a recontouring will provide for better
development of the site resulting in less scarring of the
terrain through individual road cuts. Staff also feels
that a more significant revegetation plan for the disturbed
open space areas should be submitted. We feel that merely
revegetatiog this site with grasses is not adequate, that a
plan for more significant landscaping on the disturbed open
space should be submitted as a part of the design review
package. The staff also requests as a second condition
. that a bond sufficient to cover revegetation of all
disturbed areas be held by the T.O.V. until revegetation is
completed.
•
0 IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval
of the requested amendments to the final plat of Lionsridge
Subdivision Filing No. 5 and to Special Development
District No. 22. We feel the incorporation of the parcel
located to the east of the special development district is
positive and solves several access and design problems.
The replatting of the lot lines that goes along with this
incorporation of property provides for access to this site
and an addition to the amount of common open space.
Staff also recommends approval of the requested grading
plan. Although it is unusual in the Town of Vail for a
developer to completely recontour a site, we feel that it
in this case, given control over the large parcel of land
and the 25 lots, a recontouring will provide for better
development of the site, resulting in less scarring of the
terrain through individual road cuts. Staff also feels
that a more significant revegetation plan for the disturbed
open space areas should be submitted. We feel that merely
revegetatiog this site with grasses is not adequate, that a
plan for more significant landscaping on the disturbed open
space should be submitted as a part of the design review
package. The staff also requests as a second condition
that a bond sufficient to cover revegetation of all
•
disturbed areas be held by the T.O.V. until revegetation is
completed.
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 24, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a variance from the 20' front setback
requirement and a request to modify the West Mill Creek
100 -year floodplain, to allow for the construction of a
primary /secondary residence.
Applicant: Robert and Francis Gunn
I . DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTS
The applicants are the owners of Lot 10, Block 1, Vail
Village First Filing, which is located at 342 Mill Creek
Circle. The property has an existing single family residence
located upon it, with a building footprint of 1040 square
feet. The owner is proposing to demolish and remove the
existing structure, and to construct a new primary /secondary
residence with a footprint size of 2,111 square feet. The
applicant has requested the use of Ordinance #36/1988 for an
additional 250 square feet of GRFA.
A. The proposed building would require the following
. variance:
Front Setback:
1) To allow a building encroachment of 12 feet into
the required 20 foot setback.
2) To allow a patio and exterior steps to encroach 6
feet into the required 10 foot setback.
It should be noted that the existing residence on this lot
currently encroaches 11 feet into the front setback.
B. The second request is to modify the 100 -year West Mill
Creek floodplain by relocating the creek channel to the
east (30 foot relocation at the furthest point). This
relocation would enable the proposed structure to be
constructed entirely out of the 30 foot creek setback
and the 100 -year floodplain.
II. CHRONOLOGY
The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the above
named variance requests on February 27, 1989, and by a vote
of 4 -3 approved of the requests with the following condition:
That the northeast section of the lot be deed restricted to
. prohibit any future development. The three dissenting votes
were cast primarily due to the applicant's request for an
additional 250 square feet of GRFA.
On March 7, 1989, the Town Council requested a review of the
PEC decision, however, subsequent to the Council review, the
applicants formally withdrew their variance application and
have submitted a revised request as stated above.
III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Zone District: Primary /Secondary Residential
Lot Size: 0.4052 acres /17,651 square feet
Maximum GRFA: 4015 sq ft ( +250 sf; Ord #36/1988 = 4265 sf)
Proposed GRFA: 4188 sq ft
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the
following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
A. The relationship of the requestedvariance to other
existing or potential uses and structures in the
vicinity.
Front Setback Variance
• Residences along the interior of Mill Creek Circle have
historically been located in close proximity to their
front property lines which are nearest the road. Many
of the existing homes in this area encroach into their
respective front setbacks and a few structures are even
located across property lines. The effect of
maintaining these structures on the outer edge of the
Circle is the creation of a large "open space" area on
the interior of the Circle. This "open space" area is
utilized as a view corridor toward the Gore Range by
some of the property owners.
The Department of Community Development believes that
the requested front setback variance would not adversely
affect the privacy of use of any adjacent properties.
The majority of the existing trees along Mill Creek
Circle will be maintained in their present location and
a few will be slightly relocated, thereby preserving the
strong landscape buffer along the south property line.
Allowance of a front setback encroachment on this site
would also ensure the preservation of the mature
evergreen and aspen trees located immediately north of
the existing residence.
B. 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 amo
objectives of
privilege.
sites in the vicinity or to attai
is title without grant of special
The 30 foot stream setback has reduced the buildable
area of this lot by approximately 52 %, and has certainly
created a physical hardship upon redevelopment of the
site. Staff believes that approval of the requested
variance would not be a grant of special privilege due
to the unique development restrictions on this lot and
the historical building sitings on the circle.
C. The effect of the
distribution of p
facilities publi
safety.
equested variance on light and _air,
ulation transportation and traffic
facilities and utilities and publi
This variance request, if approved, would not block any
light or air on adjacent properties and its overall
effect would be to preserve the "open space" view
corridor area, immediately north of the residence.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
V. FINDINGS
• The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
followina 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. FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION
The TOV hazard regulations specify the criteria for
modification to the floodplain:
Section 18.69.040 (E) Development Restricted
"The zoning administrator may require any applicant or
person desiring to modify the floodplain by fill,
construction, channelization, grading or other similar
changes, to submit for review an environmental impact
statement in accordance with 18.56 to establish that the
work will not adversely affect adjacent properties, or
increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters."
An environmental impact report has been submitted by Wright
Water Engineers, Inc. (dated March 31, 1989) and the
pertinent sections of the report are as follows:
"Storm Runoff Greater Than Design
The proposed creek alignment and cross section are
designed to carry the storm runoff from the 500 -year
storm event. In the case of a more severe storm with
greater discharges or due to blockage of the existing
60" RCP, there is the possibility of damage occurring
from the discharge exceeding the capacity of the channel
or from overtopping of the Mill Creek Circle. Due to
the local terrain, the flows would spread out as shallow
flow and meander throughout the property. Because the
proposed structure is closer to the original creek
location and in more direct line with the upstream
creek, flooding of the structure is possible.
Construction Related Sediment
Construction of a new channel may provide a source of
additional sediment. Sediment sources will be from the
actual construction of the new channel and from the
channel itself, until a stable condition is reached over
time. This process will be reduced by the use of rock
lining in erosive areas of the channel. In addition,
the small pools created by the rock drops will help to
collect the sediment until the channel has a chance to
stabilize."
An addendum to the environmental impact report, dated April
61 1989 concludes:
"Based on our assessment of the West Mill Creek, the
proposed relocation will not adversely affect adjacent
properties, or increase the discharge or velocity of the
. 100 -year floodwater in the Creek."
VIZ. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation is for approval of both the variance
request and the floodplain modification.
Variance Request:
The applicant has shown that this site possesses a unique
physical hardship with the location of the stream corridor on
the lot and the mature trees. Staff believes that a hardship
would be imposed upon the applicant if the strict
interpretation of the zoning code were to be enforced.
Flood lain Modification:
The Department of Community Development agrees that this site
presently exhibits some very difficult development
restrictions, given the location of Mill Creek as it bisects
the lot. The relocation of Mill Creek to the east would
allow for construction of a new primary /secondary residence
completely out of the 30 foot creek setback and the
conclusion of the EIR is that adjacent properties would not
be negatively impacted. The applicants have also agreed to
complete extensive landscape improvements along both stream
banks throughout the length of their lot and to never develop
their property on the east side of Mill Creek.
•
The
staff recommendation for approval of the floodplain
modification includes the following conditions:
1)
That a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, either
an Individual or a Nationwide Permit, be obtained prior
to the issuance of any building permit for the
property.
2)
That approval from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency be secured prior to the issuance of any building
permit for the property.
3)
That a groundwater analysis be completed, as an addendum
to the EIR, prior to the issuance of any building permit
for the property. Said analysis shall conclude that
there will be no adverse affect on adjacent properties
regarding the issue of groundwater.
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 24, 1989
SUBJECT: Request for a Minor Subdivision to Vacate a Lot Line
between Lot 2, a Resubdivision of Lot D, Vail Village
2nd Filing and Tract D, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Vail National Bank Building Corporation
I. THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting to vacate a lot line in order
to combine Lot 2 with Tract D on the Vail National Bank
Building property. Lot 2 is 22,840 s.f. Tract D is 1,430
s.f. The purpose of the lot vacation is to combine the two
lots so that the parking in front of the bank will not
straddle two properties.
II. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
The criteria to evaluate a minor subdivision is outlined in
the purpose section of the Subdivision Regulations in
Sections 17.40.010 B:
"To these ends, these regulations are intended to
protect the environment, to ensure efficient
circulation, adequate improvements, sufficient open
space and, in general, to assist the orderly,
efficient and integrated development of the Town of
Vail. These regulations also provide for the proper
arrangement of streets and ensure proper distribution
of population. The regulations also coordinate the
need for public services with governmental improvement
programs. Standards for design and construction of
improvements are hereby set forth to ensure adequate
and convenient traffic circulation, utilities,
emergency access, drainage, recreation and light and
air. Also intended is the improvement of land records
and surveys, plans and plats and to safeguard the
interests of the public and subdivider and provide
consumer protection for the purchaser; and to regulate
other matters as the Town of Vail Planning and
Environmental Commission and Town Council may deem
necessary in order to protect the best interests of
the public."
The application complies with the purpose of the
Subdivision Regulations.
0 III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval of
the request of the lot line vacation. By consolidating Lot
2 and Tract D, the parking is provided on one property
which is clearly necessary.
•
•
.
TO:
Planning
and Environmental Commission
FROM:
Community
Development Department
r�
�J
•
DATE: April 24, 1989
SUBJECT: Request to Rezone Lot 2, A Resubdivision of Lot D,
Vail Village 2nd Filing and Tract D, Vail /Lionshead
2nd Filing from High Density Multiple Family to
Special Development District with Underlying
Commercial Service Center Zone District to Allow for
Additional Parking and Loading and an Expansion of the
Vail National Bank Building, 108 South Frontage Road.
Applicant: Vail National Bank Building Corporation
I. REASON FOR THE REZONING REgUEST
The existing Vail National Bank Building consists of a
three -story office building with two levels of underground
parking. The first floor of the building is occupied by
the Vail National Bank with the two upper floors leased to
various professional offices. The site upon which the
building sits is in the High - Density Multiple Family zone
district. At the time when the project was built in 1976,
the office space was approved as a conditional use. Later,
office use was removed entirely from the High - Density
Multiple Family Zone District.
As a result, any addition of office space to the building
would not be allowed today. For this reason, the owners of
the building wish to rezone the property to special
development district with limited underlying uses listed in
the Commercial Service Center Zone District. The applicant
is requesting to restrict the permitted uses to:
1. Professional offices, business offices, and studios.
2. Banks and financial institutions.
3. Business and office services.
4. Travel and ticket agencies.
5. Additional offices, businesses, or services determined
to be similar to permitted uses.
The combination of the special development district zoning
with the underlying zoning in Commercial Service Center
allows the applicant the opportunity to expand the bank and
redesign parking /loading and landscaping for the project.
This zoning approach is proposed due to the fact that the
Vail National Bank property does not easily comply with any
existing zone district within the Town of Vail. Presently,
. the Town of Vail Zoning Code does not have a zone district
that is primarily office. This limit on the type of uses
plus the special development district will allow for a
zoning designation that is compatible with the existing
development on the property.
II. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
A. Bank Expansion
The Vail National Bank proposes the following changes
to the building. All of the expansions occur on the
first floor of the building.
1. Interior expansion of the bank: 658 s.f.
2. Exterior expansion of the bank,
northside of the building: 462 s.f.
3. Conference space, southeast
corner of the building: 382 s.f.
4. New entry vestibule: 238 s.f.
5. Total square footage: 1,740 s.f.
* The existing building has a total office square
footage of 19,976 s.f. Of this total amount,
approximately 6,544 s.f. is for the bank. These
numbers do not include common corridors,
restrooms, stairs and the elevator.
The additions do not encroach any further into the
existing setbacks. The existing parking structure
already encroaches into the north /front and east /side
setbacks. In respect to height, the additions do not
increase the existing maximum building height.
B. Parking /Loading /Circulation
The Bank expansion requires additional parking. Five
existing short -term bank parking spaces to the north
of the building are currently entirely within the
front setback. In order to add parking in a way that
coincides with the traffic circulation plan, the
existing ninety degree spaces will be restriped to
sixty degree one -way parking. Two new parking spaces
will be added to the north of the building. Because
of the location of the existing building on the site,
any additional parking off of the Frontage Road must
also be within the front setback. The Colorado
Division of Highways will not allow the applicants to
locate either loading or parking on public right -of-
way.
. In addition, a new short -term loading zone will be
located adjacent to the northwest corner of the bank
property. The land for the loading area is actually
•
owned by the hospital. They have agreed to allow for
loading in this area. Please see the attached letter
from the Vail Valley Medical Center documenting their
approval of this plan.
Circulation through this site will be changed so that
vehicles must enter from a new east entry and exit the
property on the west side. Traffic flow will be
limited to one way movements heading east to west.
The eastern access into the site has been relocated sc
that it is aligned with the Town of Vail Post
Office /Municipal Building entrance. The redesign of
the traffic circulation in front of the bank is per
the Frontage Road Improvement Plan that is also
connected to the Vail Valley Medical Center and
Doubletree proposals. The Colorado Division of
Highways also requested that an acceleration lane be
provided in front of the bank property. This new
acceleration lane is to be used by vehicles exiting
the hospital parking structure and bank property so
that vehicles will have room to merge with South
Frontage Road traffic moving east.
0 C. Landsca in
Due to the relocation of the east entry access to the
bank and two new parking spaces, a large portion of
the existing landscaping on the northeast corner of
the Vail National Bank property and Colorado Division
of Highways right -of -way will be removed. In
actuality, a majority of the current landscaping in
front of the bank is on highway right -of -way.
Approximately 1,800 s.f. of planting is on Vail
National Bank Building property.
To mitigate this loss of landscaping, the applicant
proposes to transplant all of the existing trees and
shrubs affected by the access and parking. Most of
the landscaping (except three spruce trees) will be
replanted onto bank property. A new landscape median
is also proposed between the Frontage Road and the
short -term parking area on the north side of the bank.
The median is approximately eight times the size of
the existing median. The median is also necessary to
reinforce the new circulation pattern and meet the
CDOH requirements for separation between access points
along the Frontage Road. (Please see attached
Landscape Summary).
•
III. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
Several criteria are to be used to evaluate this request.
First, the three criteria for a request for zone change
will be used. The second set of criteria will be the nine
development standards as set forth in the Special
Development District chapter of the Zoning Code.
IV. EVALUATION OF ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM HIGH - DENSITY MULTI-
FAMILY ZONE DISTRICT TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH
UNDERLYING COMMERCIAL SERVICE CENTER ZONING
A. Suitability of Existing Zoning
The purpose of the High - Density Multi - Family Zone
District states:
Section 18.20.010
"The High- Density Multiple Family District is
intended to provide sites for multiple family
dwellings. . .together with such public and semi-
public facilities and lodges, private recreation
facilities and related visitor oriented uses as
may appropriately be located in the same
district. . .The High - Density Multiple Family
District is intended to ensure adequate light,
air, open space, and other amenities commensurate
with high density apartment, condominium, and
lodge uses and to maintain the desirable
residential and resort qualities of the district
by establishing appropriate site development
standards. Certain non- residential uses are
permitted as conditional uses which relate to the
nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation
and vacation community and where permitted are
intended to blend harmoniously with the
residential character of the district."
Due to the fact that the Vail National Bank Building
is exclusively an office use, it is evident that the
existing zoning is inadequate.
The Commercial Service Center zoning purpose states in
Section 18.28.010 of the Zoning Code.
"The Commercial Service Center District is
intended to provide sites for general shopping
and commercial facilities serving the town,
together with limited multiple - family dwelling
and lodge uses as may be appropriate without
interfering with the basic commercial functions
of the district. The commercial service center
•
•
district is intended to ensure adequate light,
air, open space, and other amenities appropriate
to permitted types of buildings and uses, and to
maintain a convenient shopping center environment
for permitted commercial uses."
Commercial Service Center Zoning with a limit on the
permitted uses to include only professional offices,
business offices, banks, and business and office
services in combination with the Special Development
District zoning allow for a zoning designation that is
compatible with the existing project as well as the
proposed expansion. The proposal meets the purpose of
Special Development District which states:
Section 18.40.020 Purpose
"The purpose of the Special Development District
is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the
development of land in order to promote its most
appropriate use; to improve the design, character
and quality of the new development within the
town; to facilitate the adequate and economical
provision of streets and utilities; to preserve
the natural and scenic features of open space
areas; and to further the overall goals as stated
in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An improved
development plan for a Special Development
District in conjunction with the properties
underlying zone district, shall establish the
requirements for guiding development and uses of
property included in the Special Development
District."
The differences
to the fact that
developed. The
development are:
Density
Site Coverage
Parking
Landscaping
between HMDF and CSC are marginal due
the bank property is already
differences that would affect future
CSC
.40
18 units /acre
17,130
75%
50% covered
parking
20%
HDMF
.60
25 units /acre
12,526
55%
75% covered
parking
30%
Please see the attached zoning summary which compares
HDMF and CSC Zoning to the existing development.
• Staff supports the rezoning request as it is clear
that the existing zone district is inappropriate due
to the lack of any office use being listed in High -
Density Multi- Family. We also believe that, although
CSC is not an exact zoning match for this project, the
CSC /SDD zoning provides for the best means to review
development on this property.
B.
el—r—" i o"*
Workable
ith
Staff believes that the office use for this site is
appropriate. The surrounding parcels have the
following zoning:
Location Project Zoning
North: Town of Vail Public Use District
Municipal Bldg.
West: Vail Valley Public Use District
Medical Center
West: Doubletree Hotel SDD
• East: Scorpio Condos HDMF
South: Skaal Haus HDMF
The office building is compatible with surrounding
uses, particularly the adjacent public use parcels.
Impacts on the Scorpio and Skaal Haus projects due to
the bank addition should be minimal. Traffic that
exits by the Skaal Haus may actually decrease to some
degree due to the new loading and circulation plan on
the Frontage Road side of the project.
The applicant has also recognized that the present
project does has problems with loading, parking and
circulation of traffic on and off the site. The
proposal addresses these concerns by redesigning the
circulation pattern, adding two additional parking
spaces as well as one loading space. Staff believes
that an office use for this site is appropriate and
should be recognized within the zoning for the
property.
C. Does the Rezoning Provide for the Growth of an
6rderly, Viable Community..
. The Crossroadst project is the only other parcel
within the Town that is zoned CSC. Although the many
retail uses at Crossroads makes sense for that
property, staff believes it is necessary to exclude
•
0
retail uses from the bank project. Traffic that could
be generated by certain retail uses such as
bars /restaurants, clothing stores, ski shops, etc.
could have dramatic negative impacts on parking and
traffic. The owners wish to maintain the office uses
in the building. However, in the future, if specific
retail uses are desired, the request could be reviewed
by amending the SDD. If a future request to change
the development plan occurs, the major and minor
amendment to the Special Development District
processes will allow for a reasonable means to review
such a request on the site.
D. Land Use Plan
The Land Use Plan designates this area as Resort,
Accommodations and Services. This area is described
as follows:
"This area includes activities aimed at
accommodating the overnight and short -term
visitor to the area. Primary uses include
hotels, lodges, service stations, and parking
structures (with densities up to 25 dwelling
units or 50 accommodation units per buildable
acre). These areas are oriented toward vehicular
access from I -70, with other support commercial
and business services included. Also allowed in
this category, would be institutional uses and
various municipal uses."
The Land Use Plan does not specifically designate this
site as an office area. However, the designation does
state that support commercial is desirable. Staff
believes that the office use does make sense due to 1)
the property's proximity to the South Frontage Road
and I -70; 2) other adjacent offices and public uses
such as the hospital and municipal building; and 3)
the fact that the office use already exists.
V. DESIGN STANDARDS IN EVALUATING SDD PROPOSALS
The following design criteria shall be used as the
principal criteria in evaluating the merits of a proposed
Special Development District.
A. Des
mpatibility and
nt, Neighborhood
Sensitivity to
and Adjacent
Immediate
rties
The Bank expansion is compatible with the existing
design of the Vail National Bank Building. The
• proposed north facade should have no significant
impacts on the mass and bulk of the building.
B. Uses Activity and Density that Provide a Compatible
Efficient and Workable Relationship with Surroundin
Uses and Activitv.
The existing office use has proved to be generally
compatible with the surrounding uses which are
condominiums and the Vail Valley Medical Center. The
primary impacts of this project on adjacent properties
have been on parking, traffic circulation, and
loading. The proposed plan should mitigate some of
these existing problems.
C. Compliance with Parking and Loading Requirements as
Outlined in Section 18.52.
Below is a summary of existing and proposed parking
for the project:
PARKING SUMMARY
1. Existing Parking
• North side: 5
West side: 13
South side: 5
Structure: 70
93 spaces
2. Parking Required for Existing Building 87 spaces
(6 spaces over required amount)
3. Parking Required for Proposed Expansion
SQ. FT. SPACES
Interior expansion of bank 658 3.3
Exterior expansion of bank 462 2.3
Conference space 382 1.6
Total 1,502 7.2
or 8 spaces
4. Parking Proposed 95 spaces
* 2 new spaces are added in
front of the bank; parking is
angled to direct traffic flow
east to west.
The project meets all of its parking requirements.
• A new loading space is proposed on hospital property
adjacent to the northwest corner of the bank property.
Presently, there is no loading space in front of the
Vail National Bank Building. Instead, vehicles park
along the South Frontage Road to service the building.
The applicant's new loading space will allow for off -
site loading for the project.
Originally, the applicant had proposed a loading space
on the northeast corner of the property. This loading
space required extensive retainage as well as the
removal of several large trees. Although the proposed
loading space is not a perfect solution, staff
believes that it does provide for a safe and
functional loading area. The loading will also be
screened by landscaping. The staff has tried to
balance the need to retain existing landscaping and
the loading needs of the project. We believe that the
proposed loading space provides a reasonable
solution.
D. Conformity with the Ap2licable Elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan Town Policies and Urban Design
Plans.
This site is addressed in the Land Use Plan and is
discussed in the rezoning section of the memo.
E. Identification and Mitigation of Natural and/or
40 Geolo is Hazards that Affect the Property on which the
S ecial Development District is Proposed.
Not Applicable.
F. Site Plan Building design and location and open
space provisions designed to produce a functional
development responsive and sensitive to natural
features vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of
the community.
The proposed building expansion does not encroach any
further than the existing parking structure does into
required setbacks. It is clear that there are impacts
on the landscaped areas on the northwest corner of the
property. However, it should be emphasized that the
majority of the existing landscaping in this area is
on CDOH right -of -way. The applicant has committed to
transplanting the existing vegetation onto the Vail
National Bank property. We believe that the proposal
will result in a project having a high aesthetic
quality.
G. A Circulation System Designed for Both Vehicles and
Pedestrians On and Off -Site Traffic Circulation.
. The improvements in front of the Vail National Bank
(excluding the two additional parking spaces) are part
of a larger Frontage Road Improvement Plan that
0
M
LJ
involves the Doubletree and hospital properties.
Regardless of whether or not two additional parking
spaces are added in front of the bank, the CDOH
requirements call for the bank property to redesign
their traffic circulation in order to have a traffic
circulation plan for the bank, hospital, and
Doubletree properties that functions well.
Landscaping would need to be removed in front of the
Vail National Bank property to allow for the new
access drive and median. CDOH has specific
requirements as to the amount of separation that is
required between access points on the south Frontage
Road. The circulation plan calls for vehicles to
enter on the site only on the east end of the property
and exit out the west end. This traffic flow was
deemed to be the most compatible circulation pattern.
This traffic flow pattern also has its problem.
However, it was decided that it was better to enter on
the east end of the site as opposed to having Vail
National Bank visitors also enter on the west with
visitors to the hospital.
Staff does not have a letter from CDOH on the bank
project. However, Dave Leahy - TDA, Inc., traffic
engineer, has submitted the plan to Rich Perske to
keep him up to date on the project. Our understanding
is that CDOH does not have any major concerns with the
proposal.
It is evident that circulation for the Vail National
Bank property as well as hospital and Doubletree
properties is not perfect. However, the engineers for
this circulation plan were forced to deal with the
existing circumstances on these sites. In general,
the staff believes that the circulation plan is a vast
improvement over the existing circulation at the Vail
National Bank property.
c Landscaping in Open Space in
Order to Optimize and Preserve Natural Features,
Recreation, Views and Function.
A balance between landscaping as well as the need for
parking and the new access drive is not easy to
achieve on this site. The owners are willing to
transplant every tree and shrub that will be affected
by the new access drive and parking into a planting
area on the Vail National Bank property and Hospital
property adjacent to the loading area. The proposed
plan allows for the retention of the landscaping while
still meeting the requirements for circulation,
loading and parking. The staff believes that the
owners have done everything possible to create this
balance by:
1. Increasing the size of the median planter from
210 square feet to 1,684 square feet.
2. Transplanting all of the affected trees and
shrubs onto Vail National Bank property in
locations which will enhance the north elevation
of the building.
3. Committing to transplant the three 35 to 40'
cottonwood trees into a planter approximately 20'
to the east of their existing location. It is
difficult to transplant trees of this size.
However, the owners have also agreed to replace
the three cottonwood trees with three large
cottonwood trees having similar diameters of 8"
to 1 ft. if the original trees die. (Please see
letter from Dennis Anderson on transplanting
trees.)
Staff supports strongly the owners efforts to address
our original concerns about removing so much
landscaping. The landscape plan is very positive and
will be a benefit to the project and surrounding
properties.
I. Phasinq Plan or Subdivision Plan that will Maintain _a_
Workable, Functional and Efficient Relationship
Throughout the development of this Special Develo ment
n ctri rrt
Construction will be phased as follows:
1. Bank interior and exterior construction
Spring /Summer 1989.
2. Landscaping and Parking /Circulation Improvements
Fall 1989.
This scheduling makes sense as it will be better to
transplant the trees this fail as opposed to this
summer.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning and Special
Development District with the following conditions:
1. The owners receive a CDOH approval for their access
permit request before a building permit is released
for the proposed bank expansion.
2: The uses allowed under the Special Development
District with the underlying Commercial Service Center
zoning shall be limited to:
a. Professional offices, business offices, and
studios.
b. Banks and financial institutions.
C. Business and office services.
d. Travel and ticket agencies.
e. Additional offices, businesses, or services
determined to be similar to permitted uses.
3. Any landscaping that dies within one year of the
transplanting shall be replaced with a similar size
and type material by the owners of the bank. In
respect to the cottonwoods, if they die, three new
trees having each a diameter of 8" to 12" shall
replace the the existing trees. The height of the new
trees shall be a minimum of 25 ft.
4. If the loading zone is relocated in the future, the
new location shall be approved by the PEC using the
major amendment to an SDD review process.
We feel that it is appropriate to rezone the property to a
district that allows for office use. We also believe that
• the Special Development District zoning allows for the
flexibility and the thorough review of any future
development on this site. We would like to commend the
owner's of the Bank and Hospital for working together to
address the staff and PEC concerns.
•
•
•
p
_0
r
n
r
Ai
Al
O
(D
(n
O
;a
V1
J.
CL
{�
in
J'
(n
-5 (D Cr �
9--
ZI
n
(
(a
su
( p
( D
n
-0
m
n
z1
J.
cn
(D 4:1, N A)
n 77 n
(D
o
J
m
(a
S (D ,Zr
O
pi
C7
Ct
X U�'
�1
:.
(D Ct may, 0•
(6 N
(D
CC+
i(
C
W
A)
F--•
Ct V-
C-)
w
U) — CL
a_
Ct
O
O
n
n
(n (n --i ;o m
O a)
O 00
X
A7 CL CL
<-t in a .o
w
o0
V1
cr "O Q
N LO
w CD
Sv Al (D • l0
a) Co
a) N
n
n n= w
N
o
O
7; (D n CO
(n
cn
�
y
o -moo
-h
fi
J• (n (n w
fi fi -h -h
.
N
(D -s n
Ct
_
CL W (D
---i
--E
3
-h n U)
c-t
ca
-5 (n (D
O -O cn
z
r
:3 pi
rn
. O
rt n
ct
U)
N
(I
N
N
.p
CD
+
O .P
O co
4�b (D
-1
—I
cn � � p
(n
00
-h "a R
t C)
(A) C)
A)
-s IW (D
Qo CD
0) N
n
O n 3
0°
C•t
:3 ro n Lo to
(n
(n
Ct (n — Cn Ul
Q
O
�1
y
(n + (n (n (n
II
(D (D "O 'O
C+ s✓ sz 0) a
I�
O- n n
•
p
(D (D cn (D
<n
3
r
-a
(D
(D
(D
(n
O
;a
A = =rte
J.
Ct
:5
Ct
o
-h 7-' Z (D
-5 (D Cr �
0
N
(D cG
O (E) w O
m
�
v
n
ct
ct
n
z1
C?
cn
(D 4:1, N A)
n 77 n
(D
o
m
I--• X
S (D ,Zr
cn
pi
C7
X U�'
(D Ct may, 0•
(6 N
(D
CC+
i(
W
F--•
Ct V-
U) — CL
a_
(D
X
A7 CL CL
(D (D ct
Z
() I
N NI-- F'
I---'
N
m
oo�0
0)
�
x
y
Ln
-h
fi fi -h -h
N
V)
Ct
Ct Ct Ct Ct
'^h
---i
--E
c-t
CD
z
rn
J.
z n cr (D cn
(D (D cn (D
n 0
-a
O w = w
= X (D =
O Ar
(n
;a
A = =rte
nnrto
=-3
cn
o
-h 7-' Z (D
-5 (D Cr �
-h (D
N
(D cG
O (E) w O
m
�
v
n
5 1 •
Ar a n m
-5 )F
ct
C?
cn
(D 4:1, N A)
n 77 n
(D
m
I--• X
S (D ,Zr
=
(n
C7
X U�'
(D Ct may, 0•
(6 N
(D
�+
F--•
Ct V-
U) — CL
a_
A
r
Z
n
0
z
a
t�
b
Z
A�
F V
C)
Z
M�
•
0
U
LANDSCAPE SUMMARY
A. LANDSCAPING ON VNB PROPERTY ONLY:
% of Site
S.F. % Landscape Type Landscaped
Planting 3,100 48%
Deck Sidewalk 3,299 52%
Total 6,399 26%
PROPOSED
% of Site
S.F. Landscape Type Landscaped
Planting 2,948
DeckLSidewalk 1,612
Total 4,560
65%
35%
19%
6,399 (Existing) - 4,560 (Proposed) = 2,341 s.f. (net decrease)
B. LANDSCAPING ON VNB PROPERTY PLUS CDOH RIGHT -OF -WAY
EXISTING
S.F. % Landscape Type
Planting 5,286 62%
Deck /Sidewalk 3,299 38%
Total 8,585
nn nnnn r.+r�
S.F. % Landscape Type
Planting 4,632 74%
Deck Sidewalk 1,612 26%
Total 6,244
8,585 (Existing) - 6,244 (Proposed) = 2,341 s.f. (net decrease)
•
DENNIS ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Landscape Archileclure • Planning • Visual Communication
April 1, 1989
Sidney Schultz
SIDNEY SCHULTZ - ARCHITECT
141 East Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
re: Vail National Bank Building / Landscaping
Dear Sid:
This letter is in response to the feasibility of transplanting plant materials existing in
front of the Vail National Bank Building.
• It is my opinion that all of the existing plant materials could and should be transplanted
to the locations shown on the Landscape Plan dated April 4, 1989. The exception to
this would be the three 12" caliper Cottenwoods which would have a questionable rate
of surviveability because of their size.
L'
I usually recommended to transplant materials such as X to 8" Aspen and 6' to 20'
Spruce whenever possible because it is generally 1/2 the cost to transplant the tree as
planting a new tree of the same size. The surviveability is greatly increased if the tree
is transplanted once from its existing location to its new location and not heeled in a
holding location.
I would recommend contacting a company experienced with transplanting large plant
materials such as Rocky Mountain Tree Experts of Denver. They will provide their
recommendations and a cost estimate for the services.
Please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Dennis Anderson A.S.L.A.
Suite 310, Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Read West • Vail. Colorado 81657 . (303) 476 -6405
0
•
•
4 vail valley
medical center
April 14, 1989
Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476 -2451
We have reviewed the Vail National Bank's proposed loading zone at the north-
east corner of our proposed parking structure, as detailed by Sidney
Schultz' drawing dated 7 April 1989. We have no objection to this plan,
provided the Bank pays for the construction costs, and that the Planning
staff helps convince the PEC and DRB that this is a justifiable trade -off of
asphalt pavement for the landscaping we previously proposed for this loca-
tion.
As a point of clarification, the proposed loading zone is actually situated
on Doubletree property, although it is within the parcel to be designated as
an easement for the parking structure. I have talked with Peter Jamar, and
he says he has no objections to Sidney's plan.
Incerely,
Dan Fe ne y
Pr
/Is
cc: Ray McMahan
Sidney Schultz
Peter Jamar
Ray McMahan
Administrator
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 9, 1987
SUBJECT: A request to extend the approval of Special
Development District No. 14 (Doubletree Hotel)
Applicant: Vail Holdings, Ltd. Partnership
The attached memorandums and ordinance provide background
pertaining to this request. A number of issues relevant to
this application were discussed at the Planning Commission's
review. Among these include a strong concern that the interim
landscape plan for the Doubletree be completed as soon as
possible. It was also suggested that the developers of the
Doubletree establish contact with the Vail Valley Medical
Center relative to the possibility of constructing a joint use
parking structure. Additional information will be provided to
the Council concerning these issues at Tuesday's meeting.
The Planning Commission action was to recommend the approval of
this SDD be extended for a period of 12 months. If approved as
per this recommendation, the approval of the SDD would then be
extended to September 18, 1988. The Planning Commission also
requested the staff to pass along to the Council their concern
. over the existing parking requirements. It was their hope that
an independent study could be done of existing parking
requirements to evaluate whether Town regulations are
appropriate. This issue was raised relative to the
Doubletree's proposal and the present shortfall of parking as
required by Town codes.
LJ
' To: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1987
SUBJECT: A request to extend the approval of Special
Development District No. 14 ( Doubletree Hotel).
Applicant: Vail Holdings, Ltd. Partnership
The approval of a special development district expires after 18
months if construction of -the project is not-initiated.
Approval of SDD No. 14, which allows for a major expansion of
the existing Doubletree Hotel, expires in July of 1987. The
applicant has requested an extension of this approval for
another 18 month period.-'--The Planning Commission's action on
this- app3cati,`an--is advisory. Any final approval of extending
this mooning requires the review and approval of a resolution by
the Town Council, v
ISSUES RELATED TO THIS PROPOSAL
.The two ma- in- -•Xssues - relative to-this redevelopment centered
` around parking and additional density (see enclosed memo to
- Planning Commission dated February 24, 1986.) Specifically,
the staff -was uncomfortable with the significant,-amount of
= additional density with the absence of an overall land use
plan, and the proposed parking that was 50 spaces short of what
,is required. The applicant has requested approval for the
identical project as was approved in 1986.
The recently adopted Land Use Plan has enabled some re-
evaluation of our previous position relative to
density. Given the outcome of the Land Use Plan, the staff
would not present such strong concerns for the additional
density as was stated in 1986. This is due to the fact that
there was a preference in the community for concentrating
density in the existing core areas, and more specifically, near
the Frontage Road.
Goals from the Land Use Plan include:
2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a
destination resort while accommodating day visitors.
3.2• The Village and Lionshead areas are the best
location for hotels to serve the future needs of the
destination skiers.
4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so
long as the existing character of each area is
preserved through implementation of the Urban Design
Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan.
r �
LJ
I i
L
5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market
place demands for a full range of housing types.
The shortfall of parking spaces proposed with this development
is still a major concern to the staff. We continue to hold the
position that private developments should build the required
parking to avoid the significant problems in the longer term.
As Vail Mountain becomes more and more developed and skier
numbers increase, there will not be available overflow parking
in public structures to make up the short fall. For this
reason, we cannot-support the extension of this special
development district.
F
t r'
•
41
f
I kj-
Series of 1987
A RESOLUTION EXTENDING APPROVAL OF SPECIAL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 14 (DOUBLETREE HOTEL)
FOR A PERIOD OF TWELVE; MONTHS
e Doublet:ree Hotel has re es ed I 1 ��
WHEREAS, the owner of the �
that the approvals granted by Ordinance #5 of 1986 be extended;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has
unanimously recommended that the Town Council extend this
approval.; and
WHEREAS, the development of this property as prescribed by
Ordinance #5 of 1986 will be a benefit to the health, safety
and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail.
. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
The approvals granted by Ordinance #5 of 1986 are herein
extended for a period of twelve (12) months.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of
June, 1987°
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
40 Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
r
0
•
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 24, 1989
SUBJECT: Request to Rezone Lot 2, A Resubdivision of Lot D,
Vail Village 2nd Filing and Tract D, Vail /Lionshead
2nd Filing from High Density Multiple Family to
Special Development District with Underlying
Commercial Service Center Zone District to Allow for
Additional Parking and Loading and an Expansion of the
Vail National Bank Building, 208 South Frontage Road.
Applicant: Vail National Bank Building Corporation
I. REASON FOR THE REZONING REgUEST
The existing Vail National Bank Building consists of a
three -story office building with two levels of underground
parking. The first floor of the building is occupied by
the Vail National Bank with the two upper floors leased to
various professional offices. The site upon which the
building sits is in the High - Density Multiple Family zone
district. At the time when the project was built in 1976,
the office space was approved as a conditional use. Later,
office use was removed entirely from the High - Density
Multiple Family Zone District.
As a result, any addition of office space to the building
would not be allowed today. For this reason, the owners of
the building wish to rezone the property to special
development district with limited underlying uses listed in
the Commercial Service Center Zone District. The applicant
is requesting to restrict the permitted uses to:
1. Professional offices, business offices, and studios.
2. Banks and financial institutions.
3. Business and office services.
4. Travel and ticket agencies.
5. Additional offices, businesses, or services determined
to be similar to permitted uses.
The combination of the special development district zoning
with the underlying zoning in Commercial Service Center
allows the applicant the opportunity to expand the bank and
redesign parking /loading and landscaping for the project.
This zoning approach is proposed due to the fact that the
Vail National Bank property does not easily comply with
existing zone district within the Town of Vail. Presently,
the Town of Vail Zoning Code does not
40 that is primarily office. This limit
plus the special development district
zoning designation that is compatible
development on the property.
II. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
A. Bank Expansion
have a zone district
on the type of uses
will allow for a
with the existing
The Vail National Bank proposes the following changes
to the building. All of the expansions occur on the
first floor of the building.
1. Interior expansion of the bank: 658 s.f.
2. Exterior expansion of the bank,
northside of the building: 462 s.f.
3. Conference space, southeast
corner of the building: 382 s.f.
4. New entry vestibule: 238 s.f.
5. Total square footage: 1,740 s.f.
* The existing building has a total office square
footage of 19,976 s.f. Of this total amount,
approximately 6,544 s.f. is for the bank. These
numbers do not include common corridors,
restrooms, stairs and the elevator.
The additions do not encroach any further into the
existing setbacks. The existing parking structure
already encroaches into the north /front and east /side
setbacks. In respect to height, the additions do not
increase the existing maximum building height.
B. Parking/Loading/Circulation
The Bank expansion requires additional parking. Five
existing short -term bank parking spaces to the north
of the building are currently entirely within the
front setback. In order to add parking in a way that
coincides with the traffic circulation plan, the
existing ninety degree spaces will be restriped to
sixty degree one -way parking. Two new parking spaces
will be added to the north of the building. Because
of the location of the existing building on the site,
any additional parking off of the Frontage Road must
also be within the front setback. The Colorado
Division of Highways will not allow the applicants to
locate either loading or parking on public right -of-
way.
In addition, a new short -term loading zone will be
located adjacent to the northwest corner of the bank
property. The land for the loading area is actually
owned by the hospital. They have agreed to allow for
loading in this area. Please see the attached letter
from the Vail Valley Medical Center documenting their
approval of this plan.
Circulation through this site will be changed so that
vehicles must enter from a new east entry and exit the
property on the west side. Traffic flow will be
limited to one way movements heading east to west.
The eastern access into the site has been relocated so
that it is aligned with the Town of Vail Post
Office /Municipal Building entrance. The redesign of
the traffic circulation in front of the bank is per
the Frontage Road Improvement Plan that is also
connected to the Vail Valley Medical Center and
Doubletree proposals. The Colorado Division of
Highways also requested that an acceleration lane be
provided in front of the bank property. This new
acceleration lane is to be used by vehicles exiting
the hospital parking structure and bank property so
that vehicles will have room to merge with South
Frontage Road traffic moving east.
C. Landscaping
Due to the relocation of the east entry access to the
bank and two new parking spaces, a large portion of
the existing landscaping on the northeast corner of
the Vail National Bank property and Colorado Division
of Highways right -of -way will be removed. In
actuality, a majority of the current landscaping in
front of the bank is on highway right -of -way.
Approximately 1,800 s.f. of planting is on Vail
National Bank Building property.
To mitigate this loss of landscaping, the applicant
proposes to transplant all of the existing trees and
shrubs affected by the access and parking. Most of
the landscaping (except three spruce trees) will be
replanted onto bank property. A new landscape median
is also proposed between the Frontage Road and the
short -term parking area on the north side of the bank.
The median is approximately eight times the size of
the existing median. The median is also necessary to
reinforce the new circulation pattern and meet the
CDOH requirements for separation between access points
along the Frontage Road. (Please see attached
Landscape Summary).
•
III. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
i
Several criteria are to be used to evaluate this request.
First, the three criteria for a request for zone change
will be used. The second set of criteria will be the nine
development standards as set forth in the Special
Development District chapter of the Zoning Code.
IV. _EVALUATION OF ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM HIGH- DENSITY MULTI-
FAMILY ZONE DISTRICT TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH
UNDERLYING COMMERCIAL SERVICE CENTER ZONING
A. Suitability of Existing_ Zoning
The purpose of the High - Density Multi- Family Zone
District states:
Section 18.20.010
"The High - Density Multiple Family District is
intended to provide sites for multiple family
dwellings. . .together with such public and semi-
public facilities and lodges, private recreation
facilities and related visitor oriented uses as
may appropriately be located in the same
district. . .The High- Density Multiple Family
District is intended to ensure adequate light,
air, open space, and other amenities commensurate
with high density apartment, condominium, and
lodge uses and to maintain the desirable
residential and resort qualities of the district
by establishing appropriate site development
standards. Certain non - residential uses are
permitted as conditional uses which relate to the
nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation
and vacation community and where permitted are
intended to blend harmoniously with the
residential character of the district."
Due to the fact that the Vail National Bank Building
is exclusively an office use, it is evident that the
existing zoning is inadequate.
The Commercial Service Center zoning purpose states in
Section 18.28.010 of the Zoning Code:
"The Commercial Service Center District is
intended to provide sites for general shopping
and commercial facilities serving the town,
together with limited multiple - family dwelling
and lodge uses as may be appropriate without
interfering with the basic commercial functions
of the district. The commercial service center
:7
district is intended to ensure adequate light,
air, open space, and other amenities appropriate
to permitted types of buildings and uses, and to
maintain a convenient shopping center environment
for permitted commercial uses."
Commercial Service Center Zoning with a limit on the
permitted uses to include only professional offices,
business offices, banks, and business and office
services in combination with the Special Development
District Zoning allow for a zoning designation that is
compatible with the existing project as well as the
proposed expansion. The proposal meets the purpose of
Special Development District which states:
Section 18.40.020 Purpose
"The purpose of the Special Development District
is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the
development of land in order to promote its most
appropriate use; to improve the design, character
and quality of the new development within the
town; to facilitate the adequate and economical
provision of streets and utilities; to preserve
the natural and scenic features of open space
areas; and to further the overall goals as stated
in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An improved
development plan for a Special Development
District in conjunction with the properties
underlying zone district, shall establish the
requirements for guiding development and uses of
property included in the Special Development
District."
The differences
to the fact that
developed. The
development are:
Density
Site Coverage
Parking
Landscaping
between HMDF and CSC are marginal due
the bank property is already
differences that would affect future
CSC
.40
18 units /acre
17,130
75%
50% covered
parking
20%
HDMF
.60
25 units /acre
12,526
55%
75% covered
parking
30%
Please see the attached zoning summary which compares
HDMF and CSC Zoning to the existing development.
NO
staff supports the rezoning request as it is clear
that the existing zone district is inappropriate due
to the lack of any office use being listed in High -
Density Multi- Family. We also believe that, although
CSC is not an exact zoning match for this project, the
CSC /SDD zoning provides for the best means to review
development on this property.
r�^"Tre r" i e„t
Workable
ith
Staff believes that the office use for this site is
appropriate. The surrounding parcels have the
following zoning:
Location Project
North: Town of Vail
Municipal Bldg.
West: Vail Valley
Medical Center
West: Doubletree Hotel
East: Scorpio Condos
South: Skaal Haus
Zoning
Public Use District
Public Use District
SDD
HDMF
HDMF
The office building is compatible with surrounding
uses, particularly the adjacent public use parcels.
Impacts on the Scorpio and Skaal Haus projects due to
the bank addition should be minimal. Traffic that
exits by the Skaal Haus may actually decrease to some
degree due to the new loading and circulation plan on
the Frontage Road side of the project.
The applicant has also recognized that the present
project does has problems with loading, parking and
circulation of traffic on and off the site. The
proposal addresses these concerns by redesigning the
circulation pattern, adding two additional parking
spaces as well as one loading space. Staff believes
that an office use for this site is appropriate and
should be recognized within the zoning for the
property.
C. Does the Rezoning Provide for the Growth of an
orderly, Viable Community.
The Crossroads' project is the only other parcel
within the Town that is zoned CSC. Although the many
retail uses at Crossroads makes sense for that
property, staff believes it is necessary to exclude
retail uses from the bank project. Traffic that could
be generated by certain retail uses such as
bars /restaurants, clothing stores, ski shops, etc.
could have dramatic negative impacts on parking and
traffic. The owners wish to maintain the office uses
in the building. However, in the future, if specific
retail uses are desired, the request could be reviewed
by amending the SDD. If a future request to change
the development plan occurs, the major and minor
amendment to the Special Development District
processes will allow for a reasonable means to review
such a request on the site.
D. Land Use Plan
The Land Use Plan designates this area as Resort,
Accommodations and Services. This area is described
as follows:
"This area includes activities aimed at
accommodating the overnight and short -term
visitor to the area. Primary uses include
hotels, lodges, service stations, and parking
structures (with densities up to 25 dwelling
units or 50 accommodation units per buildable
acre). These areas are oriented toward vehicular
access from I -70, with other support commercial
46 and business services included. Also allowed in
this category, would be institutional uses and
various municipal uses."
The Land Use Plan does not specifically designate this
site as an office area. However, the designation does
state that support commercial is desirable. Staff
believes that the office use does make sense due to 1)
the property's proximity to the South Frontage Road
and I -70; 2) other adjacent offices and public uses
such as the hospital and municipal building; and 3)
the fact that the office use already exists.
V. DESIGN STANDARDS IN EVALUATING SDD PROPOSALS
The following design criteria shall be used as the
principal criteria in evaluating the merits of a proposed
Special Development District.
A. Design Compatibility_ and Sensitivity to the Immediate
Environment, Neighborhood and Adjacent Properties_
Relative to Architectural Design, Scale Bulk
Building Height, Buffer Zones, Identity, Character,
Visual Integrity and Orientation_.
The Bank expansion is compatible with the existing
design of the Vail National Bank Building. The
10
C.
proposed north facade should have no significant
impacts on the mass and bulk of the building.
Uses Activity and Density that Provide a Compatible,
Efficient and Workable Relationship with Surrounding
Uses and Activity.
The existing office use has proved to be generally
compatible with the surrounding uses which are
condominiums and the Vail Valley Medical Center. The
primary impacts of this project on adjacent properties
have been on parking, traffic circulation, and
loading. The proposed plan should mitigate some of
these existing problems.
Outl
with Parking and
n Section 18.52.
uirements as
Below is a summary of existing and proposed parking
for the project:
PARKING SUMMARY
1. Existing Parking
North side: 5
West side: 13
South side: 5
Structure: 70
93 spaces
2. Parking Required for Existing Building 87 spaces
(6 spaces over required amount)
3. Parking Required for Proposed Expansion
SQ. FT. SPACES
Interior expansion of bank 658 3.3
Exterior expansion of bank 462 2.3
Conference space 382 1.6
Total 1,502 7.2
or 8 spaces
4. Parking Proposed_ 95 spaces
* 2 new spaces are added in
front of the bank; parking is
angled to direct traffic flow
east to west.
The project meets all of its parking requirements.
A new loading space is proposed on hospital property
adjacent to the northwest corner of the bank property.
Presently, there is no loading space in front of the
Vail National Bank Building. Instead, vehicles park
along the South Frontage Road to service the building.
The applicant's new loading space will allow for off -
site loading for the project.
Originally, the applicant had proposed a loading space
on the northeast corner of the property. This loading
space required extensive retainage as well as the
removal of several large trees. Although the proposed
loading space is not a perfect solution, staff
believes that it does provide for a safe and
functional loading area. The loading will also be
screened by landscaping. The staff has tried to
balance the need to retain existing landscaping and
the loading needs of the project. We believe that the
proposed loading space provides a reasonable
solution.
D. Conformity with the Applicable Elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan, Town Policies and Urban Design
Plans.
This site is addressed in the Land Use Plan and is
discussed in the rezoning section of the memo.
E. Identification and Mitigation of Natural and/or
Geologic Hazards that Affect the Property on which the
special Development District is Proposed.
Not Applicable.
F. Site Plan, Building design and location, and open
space provisions designed to produce a functional
development responsive and sensitive to natural
features vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of
the community.
The proposed building expansion does not encroach any
further than the existing parking structure does into
required setbacks. It is clear that there are impacts
on the landscaped areas on the northwest corner of the
property. However, it should be emphasized that the
majority of the existing landscaping in this area is
on CDOH right -of -way. The applicant has committed to
transplanting the existing vegetation onto the Vail
National Bank property. We believe that the proposal
will result in a project having a high aesthetic
quality.
G. A Circulation System Designed for Both Vehicles and
Pedestrians On and Off -Site Traffic Circulation.
The improvements in front of the Vail National Bank
(excluding the two additional parking spaces) are part
of a larger Frontage Road Improvement Plan that
. involves the Doubletree and hospital properties.
Regardless of whether or not two additional parking
spaces are added in front of the bank, the CDOH
requirements call for the bank property to redesign
their traffic circulation in order to have a traffic
circulation plan for the bank, hospital, and
Doubletree properties that functions well.
Landscaping would need to be removed in front of the
Vail National Bank property to allow for the new
access drive and median. CDOH has specific
requirements as to the amount of separation that is
required between access points on the South Frontage
Road. The circulation plan calls for vehicles to
enter on the site only on the east end of the property
and exit out the west end. This traffic flow was
deemed to be the most compatible circulation pattern.
This traffic flow pattern also has its problem.
However, it was decided that it was better to enter on
the east end of the site as opposed to having Vail
National Bank visitors also enter on the west with
visitors to the hospital.
Staff does not have a letter from CDOH on the bank
project. However, Dave Leahy - TDA, Inc., traffic
engineer, has submitted the plan to Rich Perske to
keep him up to date on the project. Our understanding
Is is that CDOH does not have any major concerns with the
proposal.
It is evident that circulation for the Vail National
Bank property as well as hospital and Doubletree
properties is not perfect. However, the engineers for
this circulation plan were forced to deal with the
existing circumstances on these sites. In general,
the staff believes that the circulation plan is a vast
improvement over the existing circulation at the Vail
National Bank property.
H. Functional and Aesthetic Landscaping in_Open Space in
Order to optimize and Preserve Natural Features
Recreation, Views and Function.
A balance between landscaping as well as the need for
parking and the new access drive is not easy to
achieve on this site. The owners are willing to
transplant every tree and shrub that will be affected
by the new access drive and parking into a planting
area on the Vail National Bank property and Hospital
property adjacent to the loading area. The proposed
plan allows for the retention of the landscaping while
still meeting the requirements for circulation,
loading and parking. The staff believes that the
owners have done everything possible to create this
is balance by:
1. Increasing the size of the median planter from
210 square feet to 1,684 square feet.
2. Transplanting all of the affected trees and
shrubs onto Vail National Bank property in
locations which will enhance the north elevation
of the building.
3. Committing to transplant the three 35 to 40'
cottonwood trees into a planter approximately 20'
to the east of their existing location. It is
difficult to transplant trees of this size.
However, the owners have also agreed to replace
the three cottonwood trees with three large
cottonwood trees having similar diameters of 8"
to 1 ft. if the original trees die. (Please see
letter from Dennis Anderson on transplanting
trees.)
Staff supports strongly the owners efforts to address
our original concerns about removing so much
landscaping. The landscape plan is very positive and
will be a benefit to the project and surrounding
properties.
I. Phasing Plan or Subdivision Plan that will Maintain a
Workable Functional and Efficient Relationship
Throughout the development of this Special Development
District.
Construction will be phased as follows:
1. Bank interior and exterior construction
Spring /Summer 1989.
2. Landscaping and Parking /Circulation improvements
Fall 1989.
This scheduling makes sense as it will be better to
transplant the trees this fall as opposed to this
summer.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning and Special
Development District with the following conditions:
1. The owners receive a CDOH approval for their access
permit request before a building permit is released
for the proposed bank expansion.
2. The uses allowed under the Special Development
. District with the underlying Commercial Service Center
zoning shall be limited to:
a. Professional offices, business offices, and
studios.
b. Banks and financial institutions.
C. Business and office services.
d. Travel and ticket agencies.
e. Additional offices, businesses, or services
determined to be similar to permitted uses.
3. Any landscaping that dies within one year of the
transplanting shall be replaced with a similar size
and type material by the owners of the bank. In
respect to the cottonwoods, if they die, three new
trees having each a diameter of 8" to 12" shall
replace the the existing trees. The height of the new
trees shall be a minimum of 25 ft.
4. If the loading zone is relocated in the future, the
new location shall be approved by the PEC using the
major amendment to an SDD review process.
We feel that it is appropriate to rezone the property to a
district that allows for office use. We also believe that
the Special Development District zoning allows for the
flexibility and the thorough review of any future
development on this site. We would like to commend the
owner's of the Bank and Hospital for working together to
address the staff and PEC concerns.
•
4--
O
C
+3
V)
0
a)
(1)
� ,
r
VI
O
4-)
t
O
4-
4 UI
(7
4-
4-
Ul ^
o
r
V) O
O
O r
U N
ri
N rd
4--
O
C
+3
U!
N
a)
N
� ,
r
VI
CD
lfl
, .,-
r o S-
m 4-3
Qr �
li O
4-
4-
Q ^
c -0 O
r
O
O
O r
S *^-I
M
N fd
4-
LO
M 4•-
-0 co
i M
ld
4-) s` O
rd td O
r r= r
4- U)
4-
LO 4
Rd� 4-
-0 00
i
rd
UI
rd rd O
4- (n
4-
O
C
+3
oru
f�
a)
r
� ,
r
VI
Q
lfl
S_ O
r o S-
m 4-3
Qr �
�
rd �•
rd C) Rf (1)
O
c -0 O
O
C3 4-
= Lf) S`
a) O fn
•
S-
W V) V) + V)
(n U
N
(1)
O s=
-0 0) tv
4-
Lf)
7
r-
< a) -0 \
4
4-
O
al
LL. a) r UI
(n
1
U
LO Z
Of V -0 4-)
1-1 O
V)
•
a)-c-14
L7 x
•S=
O \
d°
4--
rd U
N —
Cr) Lf7
00 C)
0
•r O fd
CC =5
.4 r-
LD N
S V) V) S-
-NG r- -0
O4'-P
a) Ln v
Lf)
8R
i 4-)
CY O O OD
r, S-
^ i
O
ro L. a)
4-) +-I
e--1 O
�lt O
Lo
O O V)
a)
S-
V
fd
V)
4J
• r'
G
3
Lf)
N
O
LO
C)
M
I!
L�
u
i
H
fzr
O
DO
N
N
If
N
O
J
S_-
•r
C
E
O
U
V)
s-
u
U
O
C
O
•r
4-)
rd
L)
r�
a)
O
C
f�
a)
r
C'3
VI
Q
lfl
f(% O fd
Z
m 4-3
Qr �
g
Vf CL o
1-i
O
c -0 O
•4-4-44N
�
a) O fn
•
O •r S=
W V) V) + V)
Q
N
4-- 4-
N
H
N
Lf)
O i O
Q
+-) ut
4
L.0
o o fo
al
W
•r O a) M
4-
U
LO Z
Lf) O
1-1 O
-0 4-J 0-0
•
Z
-t O
a- fx r- r - •r
Ql
is C -0 r
In Lf)
H
al N
0.-.- a)
rd •r-' A
4--) E
CT-o, W +)
S V) V) S-
E
x
a) Ln v
C)
4-
4-
[Y n Lf) In
(1) (n 3 •
a) E 4- 4- a)
N
U a) -0 x
E r 4- U
fa
fn
c= a) r
x r r s=
�L
W
(1) u �c
U rd N et a)
Z
L/)
O
4--f
-if S" m u 'd
rd E r-I L
4
O
r-
4-
(1) o fd a)
O a d)
m
a
N
() 4- S- -0 a)
i (1) s -Ne 4-
Q
^
LO
E s= u -P u
u E +) C s`
L0
m O c a) X
C fd S= rd O
Q
L1
N
•--I
V) U (1) V) (1)
(1) V) a) -0 U Z
Z
O
Q
Z
J
d
C)
M
I!
L�
u
i
H
fzr
O
DO
N
N
If
N
O
J
S_-
•r
C
E
O
U
V)
s-
u
U
O
C
O
•r
4-)
rd
L)
r�
a)
O
C
4-
a)
r
C'3
VI
lfl
f(% O fd
Z
Qr �
Vf CL o
1-i
O
a--)
•4-4-44N
4-
a) O fn
•
W V) V) + V)
VI
N
4-- 4-
-
H
Lf)
O i O
Q
x
�;
L.0
o o fo
al
W
N
--I
.--I -i N N
LO Z
Lf) O
1-1 O
LO O
4-) a! (1) S-
00 O
-t O
a- fx r- r - •r
Ql
S` -0 rd
X
Q M
al N
0.-.- a)
rd
m
CT-o, W +)
S V) V) S-
E
x
a) Ln v
00 O
4-
L.L.I
[Y n Lf) In
C)
M
I!
L�
u
i
H
fzr
O
DO
N
N
If
N
O
J
S_-
•r
C
E
O
U
V)
s-
u
U
O
C
O
•r
4-)
rd
L)
r�
a)
O
a)
•r
S- M V
f(% O fd
rd s=
Qr �
Vf CL o
-W
(d rd "6 r-1 4-)
4-
a) O fn
•
W V) V) + V)
VI
4-
a) • +)
u)
7 Y S=
V)
VI
O i O
L¢ Lf1
N O
U fd i
LO Lfl
LO M
0.4-
O M
CK
0
N S-
s
Lf) O
1-1 O
LO O
r- O •r
C)
M
I!
L�
u
i
H
fzr
O
DO
N
N
If
N
O
J
S_-
•r
C
E
O
U
V)
s-
u
U
O
C
O
•r
4-)
rd
L)
r�
a)
V)
a)
V "O
u +)
u! V) L1 O V
rd s=
(1) O w r rff
Vf CL o
u u -0
(d rd "6 r-1 4-)
CL fz a 0)
•
W V) V) + V)
4 -
4-
O
U
Lf) Lf) r- (n d•)
V)
VI
C71 O) V (1) C
V) V) •r
$°
C U O
N (0
O rn
(1) fd S-
O M
t-0 .--1
O. 'C a 4-
OD
Lf)
O 0' aE 0
00 U a) �[
00 O
-t O
a- fx r- r - •r
C)
M
I!
L�
u
i
H
fzr
O
DO
N
N
If
N
O
J
S_-
•r
C
E
O
U
V)
s-
u
U
O
C
O
•r
4-)
rd
L)
r�
a)
a)
u +)
rd s=
Vf CL o
a) (n S-
0
u 4-
a)
rd -0
U
Q (1) C:
(d
V) V) •r
4-
4-
OL
O
(n
n r (A
U)
U1
00 U a) �[
c U U
N l0
Ql
O1
() M fd
Q M
al N
-0 OL-0
00
m
CT-o, W +)
^ S`
^ S_
x
a) Ln v
00 O
LQ O
L.L.I
[Y n Lf) In
C)
M
I!
L�
u
i
H
fzr
O
DO
N
N
If
N
O
J
S_-
•r
C
E
O
U
V)
s-
u
U
O
C
O
•r
4-)
rd
L)
r�
a)
LANDSCAPE SUMMARY
A. LANDSCAPING ON VNB PROPERTY ONLY:
EXISTING
% of Site
S.F. Landscape Type Landscaped
Planting 3,100 48%
Deck /Sidewalk 3,299 52%
Total 6,399 26%
PROPOSED
% of Site
S.F. % Landscape Type Landscaped
Planting 2,948 65%
Deck /Sidewalk 1,612 35%
Total 4,560 19%
6,399 (Existing) - 4,560 (Proposed) = 2,341 s.f. (net decrease)
•
B. LANDSCAPING ON VNB PROPERTY PLUS CDOH RIGHT -OF-WAY
VVTQTTAT('_
S.F. % Landscape Type
Planting 5,286 62%
Deck /Sidewalk 3,299 38%
Total 8,585
PROPOSED
S.F. % Landscape Type
Planting 4,632 74%
Deck /Sidewalk 1,612 26%
Total 6,244
8,585 (Existing) - 6,244 (Proposed) = 2,341 s.f. (net decrease)
•
DENNIS ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Landscape Architecture • Planning • Visual Communication
April 1, 1989
Sidney Schultz
SIDNEY SCHULTZ - ARCHITECT
141 East Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
re: Vail National Bank Building / Landscaping
Dear Sid:
This letter is in response to the feasibility of transplanting plant materials existing in
front of the Vail National Bank Building.
It is my opinion that all of the existing plant materials could and should be transplanted
to the locations shown on the Landscape Plan dated April 4, 1989. The exception to
this would be the three 12" caliper Cottenwoods which would have a questionable rate
of surviveability because of their size.
I usually recommended to transplant materials such as 3" to 8" Aspen and 6' to 20'
Spruce whenever possible because it is generally 112 the cost to transplant the tree as
planting a new tree of the same size. The surviveabiliti is greatly increased if the tree
is transplanted once from its existing location to its new location and not heeled in a
holding location.
I would recommend contacting a company experienced with transplanting large plant
materials such as Rocky Mountain Tree Experts of Denver. They will provide their
recommendations and a cost estimate for the services.
Please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Dennis Anderson A.S.L.A.
Suite 310, Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road West • Vah, Colorado 81657 . (303) 476 -6405
t � vailvalley
medical center
April 14, 1989
Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476 -2451
We have reviewed the Vail National Bank's proposed loading zone at the north-
east corner of our proposed parking structure, as detailed by Sidney
Schultz' drawing dated 7 April 1989. We have no objection to this plan,
provided the Bank pays for the construction costs, and that the Planning
staff helps convince the PEC and DRB that this is a justifiable trade -off of
asphalt pavement for the landscaping we previously proposed for this loca-
tion.
As a point of clarification, the proposed loading zone is actually situated
on Doubletree property, although it is within the parcel to be designated as
an easement for the parking structure. I have talked with Peter Jamar, and
he says he has no objections to Sidney's plan.
ncerely,
Dan Fe ney
Pr
/Is
cc: Ray McMahan
Sidney Schultz
Peter Jamar
•
Ray McMahan
Administrator
Planning and Environmental Commission
.
May 8, 1989
•
2:30 Site Visits 3:00 Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of March 27, 1989, and
of April 24, 1989.
#1 2. A request for a conditional use
permit to allow two additonal tennis courts
and a pro shop at Ford Park.
Applicant: Vail Metropolitan Recreation
District
3. A request to amend SDD #4, Area D in order
to relocate a bus stop, add a deceleration
lane, enclose a stairwell and amend previous
conditions of approval.
Applicant: Vail Brewery Company.
To be tabled.
4. A request for minor subdivision for Area D,
SDD #4, Glen Lyon Office Building.
Applicant: Vail Brewery Company.
To be tabled.
5. A request for an exterior alteration in
order to construct an addition at the Up The
Creek Restaurant, Gore Creek Building, Vail
Village.
Applicant: Up The Creek Bar & Grill, Inc.
To be tabled.
r
Planning and Environmental Commission
• May 8, 1989
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Diana Donovan Peter Patten
Peggy Osterfoss Mike Moll.ica
Sid Schultz Betsy Rosolack
Kathy Warren
Pam Hopkins
Chuck Crist
ABSENT
Jim Viele
i
At 3:18 p.m., the meeting was called to order by Diana Donovan,
acting as chairperson in Jim Viele's absence.
1. Approval of minutes of March 27 1989 and of April 24 1989.
The following changes were requested to be made in the minutes of
April 24, 1989, regarding the Gunn variance request.
A. Peggy Osterfoss pointed out that the staff had recommended
that separate motions be made on each proposed
application.
. B. Diana Donovan had voted against tabling the 250 square foot
proposal, thus changing the vote to 4--1.
Motion for approval of minutes was made by Diana Donovan and seconded
by Peggy Osterfoss.
The Vote was 4 -0 -1; Pam Hopkins abstaining.
2. A request for a Conditional Use permit to allow two additional
tennis courts and a pro shop at Ford Park.
Applicant: Vail Metropolitan Recreation District.
The staff presentation was given by Mike Mollica. He explained the
proposal and also mentioned future phasing of additional courts.
Mike instructed the Commission to disregard the plans they had
received previously and explained the proposals on the revised site
plan. The proposals included a new walkway with landscaping
beginning at the parking lot continuing south, between the two
existing tennis courts, and also the realignment of the pedestrian
pathway. He further explained that the elevation of the site for the
pro shop was intended to provide visibility of the tennis courts from
the proposed building. Mike also explained the Ford Park Master Plan
and referred to sketches of Phase I and Phase II of the plan.
Chuck Crist arrived to the meeting at 3:25.
Pat Dodson represented the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District.
Kathy Warren questioned the absence of the pro shop on the sketch of
Ford Park Master Plan Phase II. Peter Patten explained that the
plans had been rethought since the time they were drawn and Pat
assured Kathy that the pro shop would be permanent.
Kathy said she was not comfortable with the amount of grade change
at the pro shop site. Bill Pierce, the architect for VMRD explained
that the elevation was set by functional factors, and that the height
of the building would allow for visual control of the courts.
Diana Donovan asked if it should be required that the path on the
north side of the tennis courts be constructed. Peter replied that a
path would not be required at this time and that it would be the
Town's responsibility.
Peggy Osterfoss suggested a sidewalk be constructed along the parking
lot leading to the path. Bill recognized the fact that it would be
nice to have the sidewalk and path, but that funds were not available
at present. Peggy stated that the construction of the sidewalk was
necessary and should not be ignored.
Bill claimed that installing a sidewalk would be the Town's
responsibility and asked Peter's opinion. Peter explained that the
Public Works Department would be putting in a bus stop this Fall and
a sidewalk would be necessary sometime at that point for pedestrian
safety. Peter stated it was the PBC's prerogative to request a
sidewalk at this time, and Peggy stated that it was the VMRD's
responsibility to participate.
Sid pointed out that during big events, at the amphitheatre for
example, there was heavy traffic along the pedestrian path. He
stated a safety concern due to cyclists riding on the steep grade of
the path and suggested putting in some type of barriers, (i.e. steps,
divided paths), to discourage fast cycling.
Pat disapproved of the idea of steps due to poor lighting and thought
that to be a hazard in itself. He suggested the Town be responsible
for lighting.
Pam discussed lighting and requested that the Town make an
improvement. Peter replied that it would not be likely at this time.
Pam stated lighting would have to implemented for her approval and
suggested installing temporary flood lights on the eaves of the
proposed pro shop building until the Town installs something
permanent. Pat agreed to the installation, and discussed some
possibilities with Pam.
Chuck Crist asked if there was any possibility of use during the
winter months. Pam suggested a hockey rink. Pat said that was a
possibility, but it was not in the immediate plans.
Diana suggested upgrading the existing pathway and agreed that the
District has an obligation to put in sidewalks. She also agreed with
the lighting suggested.
Kathy still had questions about lighting which she directed towards
Peter. Peter discussed budgets regarding lighting and said he would
check into the possibilities.
I
Diana suggested figuring out what exactly should be done regarding
pathways and also questioned who's responsibility it would be. Pat
said maybe they could work it out so that the path would accommodate
tennis players as well as the general public.
Kathy Warren motioned for approval, with the following conditions:
A. that spotlights be installed on the eaves of the proposed
building.
B. that the existing path south of the tennis courts be
extended to the parking lot and be paved.
C. that conduit necessary for permanent lighting be installed
at the time of construction.
D. that the parking lot be paved per previous approval.
D. that a sidewalk be provided on the north side of the tennis
courts.
Pam Hopkins seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 -0 (Sid Schultz left before vote).
3. A request to amend SDD #4, Area D in order to relocate a bus
stop, add a deceleration lane, enclose a stairwell and amend_
previous conditions of approval.
Applicant: Vail Brewery Company.
Peggy motioned for tabling. Chuck seconded.
Vote: 5 -0
4. A request for minor subdivision for Area D, SDD #4 ,f Glen Lyon
Office Building.
Applicant: Vail Brewery Company
Peggy motioned for tabling. Chuck seconded.
Vote: 5-0
5. A request for an exterior alteration in order to construct an
_addition at the Up The Creek Restaurant, Gore Creek Building
Vail Village.
Applicant: Up The Creek Bar and Grill Inc.
Peggy motioned for tabling. Kathy seconded.
is vote: 5 -0
Meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
•
•
C]
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 8, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use permit to allow two
additional tennis courts and a pro shop at Ford Park.
APPLICANT: Vail Metropolitan Recreation District
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
The Vail Metropolitan Recreation District is requesting
approval of a conditional use permit which would allow for
the development of two exhibition tennis courts and a pro
shop. The new tennis courts and associated pro shop would be
located immediately south of the existing tennis courts. The
new courts would be sunken and would serve as exhibition
courts. Berming around the perimeter of the courts will
serve as seating for tennis exhibitions. A tennis pro shop
of 1549 square feet is proposed to the east of the exhibition
courts and will be utilized as the VMRD tennis headquarters.
Included in the proposed building will be the pro shop, a
lounge area, restroom facilities and some office space.
The Ford Park Master Plan was amended earlier this year to
allow for the potential addition of four tennis courts as
well as the the addition of an aquatic center. There are
site problems with the originally proposed tennis courts to
the east of the existing courts. Fill and retainage costs
prohibit VMRD from proceeding with construction of these
courts in 1989. Further discussion as to these courts'
eventual siting is required.
II. ZONING
The entire
This zone
paths and
request is
other than
district,
permit.
Ford Park area is currently zoned Public Use.
district allows public parks, playgrounds, bicycle
open space as uses by right. The applicant's
categorized as "public recreation facilities"
those stated above, and is permitted in the zone
subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use
III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development
Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit
based upon the following factors:
•
0
•
1. Consideration of Factors.
A. Relati
ob! ect
and impact of the use on development
Town.
The Public Use zone district states that "the
district is intended to ensure that public
buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi -
public uses permitted in the district are
appropriately located and designed to meet the
needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to
harmonize with surrounding uses, and .... to ensure
adequate light, air, open spaces, and other
amenities appropriate to the permitted types of
uses." (TOV zoning code 18.36.010)
The intent of this proposal is to provide a high
quality tennis facility in one concentrated area of
the Town. The two proposed courts are also needed
to replace the courts lost at Golden Peak due to
the Children's Center Construction.
B. The effect of the use of light and air
distribution of population, transportation
facilities utilities schools arks and
recreation facilities, and other public facil
needs.
This proposal will have a positive effect upon the
existing recreational uses and facilities at Ford
Park. Supplementing the existing six tennis courts
with the proposed two court expansion will
alleviate the existing problem of coordinating
tournaments and tennis camps at a variety of
locations throughout the Town.
C. 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.
Traffic flow and circulation will remain as is.
The existing parking area will also be unchanged,
with the east lot being able to accommodate
approximately 190 vehicles., plus an additional 40
vehicles in the west lot. Overall, parking is more
than adequate to accommodate the proposed
expansion.
D. Effect upon the character of the area in which th
_proposed use is to be located including the scale
and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
The character of the Ford Park upper bench is
clearly recreational. Staff believes that this
proposal will enhance the recreational experiences
of those using the facility. The pedestrian
connection from the parking area to the lower
bench (amphitheatre) will remain in essentially the
same location, however some realignment will be
necessary to accommodate the new facilities. A
landscape plan which utilizes similar plant
materials as the existing landscaping in the lower
bench area is also included in this project, (see
copy attached) .
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 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 Conditional Use permit
request. We feel strongly that it is good planning to locate
as many of the tennis courts as possible on public lands to
ensure availability to the community in the long term. An
eight -court complex also resolves the current problem of
holding tournaments and tennis camps at a variety of
locations throughout the Town.
•
376
3y 3.
-
a
r
376
3y 3.
� I110W 1 i
t'
y
Aims
+ + 1 091 1
r a�
rI'
•
1
I •
jl
1
t
1 �
3�
;no_� I--
�1 ►
b
11
7
T
• .{ � � 4 - � � y - Wit. s ;�� -. �.:
i I k
I ' 4 rp
:! r n 0
-
a
� I110W 1 i
t'
y
Aims
+ + 1 091 1
r a�
rI'
•
1
I •
jl
1
t
1 �
3�
;no_� I--
�1 ►
b
11
7
T
• .{ � � 4 - � � y - Wit. s ;�� -. �.:
i I k
I ' 4 rp
:! r n 0
Planning and Environmental Commission
.
May 22, 1989
1:30 Site Visits 3:00 Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of May 8, 1989.
#2 2. A request to amend SDD #4, Area D in order
to relocate a bus stop and to void an SDD
condition of approval requiring the
undergrounding of utilities.
Applicant: Vail Brewery Company.
3. A request for minor subdivision for Area D,
SDD #4, Glen Lyon Office Building.
Applicant: Vail Brewery Company.
#3 4. A request for an exterior alteration in
order to construct an addition at the Up The
Creek Restaurant, Gore Creek Building, Vail
Village.
Applicant: Up The Creek Bar & Grill, Inc.
#4 5. A request for a side setback variance to
expand a single family residence on Lot 3,
• Block 1, Vail Village Eleventh Filing.
Applicant: Russ Pitto
#1 6. A request for a setback variance and site
coverage variance to construct an addition
to a residence on Lot 4, Block D, Vail Ridge
Subdivision.
Applicant: Ms. Boatman
7. Preliminary review: Red Lion major exterior
alteration CCI.
•
40
n
U
PRESENT
Jim Viele
Diana Donovan
Peggy Osterfoss
Sid Schultz
Kathy Warren
Pam Hopkins
Chuck Crist
Planning and Environmental Commission
May 22, 1989
Minutes
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Kristan Pritz
Betsy Rosolack
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jim Viele at 3:00 p.m.
Item No. 1. A2proval of minutes of May 8 1989.
Diana Donovan motioned for approval of the minutes. The motion was
seconded by Kathy Warren.
Vote: 7 -0
Item No. 2. A_ request to amend SDD #4, Area D in order to relocate
a bus stop and to void an SDD condition of approva. l
requiring the undergrounding of utilities.
Applicant: Vail Brewery company.
The staff presentation was made by Kristan Pritz. She explained that
the applicant was requesting several amendments to Ordinance No. 40
which was approved in 1988. The amendments would allow the applicant
to void a requirement that utilities be undergrounded, relocate a bus
stop, add a deceleration lane on South Frontage Road, achieve a minor
subdivision, and add a stairwell. The staff recommendation was for
approval of all the amendments except the request to void the
requirement of undergrounded utilities.
The staff felt that the condition of the undergrounding of utilities
was an important trade -off in the original negotiations between the
developer, staff and PEC and did not feel this condition should be
voided. The staff recommended that if the PEC did decide to remove
this requirement, the Commission should require the developer to
escrow money for the undergrounding of utilities when an overall
improvement project is initiated by Holy Cross. In respect to the
other amendment requests, the staff recommended the following
condition:
The developer shall agree to construct the bus lane per Town of
Vail standards in the area of the porte cochere. The specific
design for the bus shelter shall be mutually agreed to by the
Area D owner and /or the developer, Colorado Division of
Highways, and the Town of Vail. The bus lane shall be
constructed subsequent to the issuance of the 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 applicant was represented by Andy Norris. He said that Holy
Cross refused to underground the utilities in front of the building.
He suggested that the applicant could pay 1/3 of the.cost of
undergrounding and hoped that the Town would fund a portion. The
remaining cost could be paid by property owners. Andy discussed the
high cost of undergrounding utilities.
Kathy agreed with the staff memo despite the financial situation.
Peggy asked what the procedure would be to fund part of the
undergrounding. Peter said the PEC could suggest to Council what the
contributions would be. Peggy felt it was fair to have the cost
shared. Sid agreed. Diana pointed out that the Town should be
encouraged to underground utilities all the way from Matterhorn. Pam
agreed that as much undergrounding should be done as possible. Chuck
agreed with Diana about undergrounding from Matterhorn.
Peggy motioned to recommend to Council that the Town in conjunction
with Holy Cross and Glen Lyon Office work out an agreement that
utilities be undergrounded as far as possible from Matterhorn to
Forest Road. Diana seconded the motion.
0 Vote: 6 -0 -1 Jim abstaini
Item No. 3. A request for minor subdivision for Area D, SDD #4,
Glen Lyon Office Building.
Applicant: Vail Brewery Company
Kristan Pritz gave the staff presentation. She explained that the
applicant was requesting a minor subdivision which would allow the
project to be divided into separate ownerships prior to completion of
the project. The applicant felt that the minor subdivision was
necessary due to the financing requirements demanded by the
"uniqueness of the Vail Ale Brewery."
The staff recommended approval with the requirement that agreement
outlined in the following be recorded with the County on the land
records of this parcel prior to the formal approval of this minor
subdivision:
1. The development of parcels A, B, C, and D shall be limited to
the SDD 4 Development Plan and governed by the SDD 4 Ordinance
as approved by the Town of Vail and on file with the Department
of Community Development or as amended and approved by the
Community Development Department, Planning and Environmental
Commission, and /or the Vail Town Council.
2. The minor subdivision plat shall include a statement that
development of the four parcels shall be governed by the
approved SDD 4 Development Plan for Area D and Ordinance 40.
3. The Community Development Department and Town of Vail Attorney
0 shall have the right to review and require changes in any
"Agreements of tenants in common," "Conveyance of Easement and
Party Wall Agreements," and any other easement or ownership
agreements related to the development of parcels are developed
per the approved development plan and SDD 4 Ordinance.
4. Any modifications or amendments to the minor subdivision
conditions of approval agreement shall be reviewed as a major
amendment under the procedures outlined in Section 18.40 of the
Town of Vail zoning code.
5. The applicant shall be responsible for preparing the wording of
these agreements for review by the Planning staff and Town
Attorney. The specific legal wording must be submitted before
the minor subdivision is recorded with the County. The Town of
Vail shall record the minor subdivision plat. However it will
be the responsibility of the developer to cover any fees for
recording the plat.
Andy Norris representing the applicant, agreed with the conditions.
Kathy motioned for approval of the request as per the staff memo.
Chuck seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 -0 -1 Jim abstaining.
Item No. 4. A request for an exterior alteration in order to
construct an addition at the Up The Creek Restaurant,
Gore Creek Building, Vail Village.
Applicant: Up The Creek Bar and Grill, Inc.
Because of an oversight that a Conditional Use Permit was necessary
for this request, the item was tabled to the next meeting.
Peggy motioned for tabling. Kathy seconded the motion.
Vote: 7 -0
Item No. 5 A request for a side setback variance to expand a
single family residence on Lot 3 Block 1, Vail
Village Eleventh Filing.
Applicant: Russ Pitto
The staff presentation was made by Kristan Pritz. She explained the
applicant's request for a side setback variance in order to expand
their single family residence. A two -story expansion was proposed
which would include the addition of a breakfast nook and family room
on the first floor, and a master bedroom on the second floor. The
proposed addition would encroach 10 feet 6 inches into the required
• 15 foot setback.
•
•
•
,The staff recommended denial of this request. The staff felt it was
evident that the addition could be added to the east of the existing
house without requiring a setback variance. Approving this request
would be a grant of special privilege. The staff also believed that
the addition would have a negative impact on the stream tract parcel
to the south of Lot 3. The staff added that if the proposal was
approved, the PEC should make a condition that the applicant submit a
title report Schedule B to verify that there are no utility easements
in the area of the encroachment.
Jay Peterson was present to represent applicants. Craig Snowdon,
architect for the project, was also present. He gave background on
the project, explaining that the family had outgrown their house and
wished to add on with the least impact on neighbors. He stated that
an expansion in a different location than proposed would be
inappropriate. He claimed there were physical hardships due to the
location of the house and felt that the proposal would be consistent
with adjacent properties. Regarding the staff recommendation that
the addition be built onto the east of the house, Craig said the
applicant would have to rebuild the eastern part of the house in
order to build there. He conceded that other expansions were
possible but that the design would be awkward, impacts on neighbors
would be created, and that there would be a structural and physical
hardship in trying to tie the design into the existing design. He
presented 5 letters from adjacent property owners with no objections.
Sid said he could see where it would be difficult to put the addition
on the east and felt that adding on to any of the other sides didn't
make sense. He could find a hardship with the existing location of
the house. Peggy felt the the issue of compatibility was important.
She also felt it was important to be sensitive to the neighbors'
views and opinions. She asked what else the applicant would be
willing to do to make additional improvements. Craig said the Pittos
would have no problem with adding landscaping. Peggy said she would
support the variance since the applicant was willing to landscape,
the neighbors had no objections, and because other properties were
close to the stream.
Kathy had a problem with finding a hardship. She could see the
practical sense, but did not see that anything excluded other
possibilities. She felt supporting the proposal would be a grant of
special privilege.
Jay Peterson felt that the ordinance was being read too strictly and
that it was more important to consider the neighbors' concerns.
Jim stated that variances are created for the protection of neighbors
and noted that since the neighbors are satisfied, he could support
the request.
Craig pointed out that all affected property owners were notified and
that all points of view were discussed.
r.
Russ Pitto, the applicant, said his main concern was not impacting
the neighbors. He felt that it would be more logical to deal with a
variance than with disturbing the neighbors.
Diana motioned for approval of the request because it was felt that
tha addition as ro osed would have less im act on the stream and on
neighbors. A condition was added that no art of the addition could
be higher than the existing ridge. Chuck seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 -0 -1 Pam abstaining.
Item No. 6 A request for a setback variance and site coves e
variance to construct an addition to a residence on
Lot 4 Block D Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: Cindy Boatman
Betsy Rosolack made the staff presentation. She explained that the
applicant was requesting rear setback and site coverage variances in
order to add a second floor addition to an existing residence and to
change the configuration of the existing garage. The staff
recommended approval and felt that approving the request would not be
a grant of special privilege.
Kathy motioned for a
seconded the motion.
• vote, 7 -0
•
Item No. 7
roval of the re nest
Preliminary review:
alteration CCI.
the staff memo.
PRd Lion major exterior
It was decided that the Red Lion major exterior alteration would be
reviewed on June 12, 1989.
r
•
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 22, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for major amendments to Special Development
District No. 4, Cascade Village, Area D in order to
void a requirement that utilities be undergrounded, to
allow for the relocation of a bus stop, to add a
deceleration lane on the South Frontage Road, a minor
subdivision, and addition of a stairwell.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building
1. THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting several amendments to Ordinance
No. 40 which was approved in 1988. The amendments concern
only Area D, the Glen Lyon office property. Below is the
summary of the request:
A. Under grounding of utilities:
The developer is requesting to void the condition
which requires that the developer shall underground
utilities along the South Frontage Road. Section
18.46.210 D--3 states:
The developer 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.
B. Bus stop:
The bus stop which was to the west of the Glen Lyon
property along the south side of the South Frontage
Road is proposed to be relocated to the porte cochere
area (main entrance into the Vail Brewery). This
requires amending Section 18.46.210 D--1 which states:
The developer shall agree to construct
a bus shelter per Town of Vail
standards adjacent to Development Area
D. The specific location for the bus
Y
F
shelter shall be mutually agreed to by
the Area D owner and /or the developer, .
Colorado Division of Highways, and Town
of Vail. The bus shelter 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.
C. Deceleration lane:
The Colorado Division of Highways is requiring that
the developer add a 150 foot deceleration lane on the
South Frontage Road. The drivers moving east on the
South Frontage Road would use this lane to make right
hand turns into the parking structure. Originally
when this proposal was being reviewed by the Planning
and Environmental Commission, CDOH indicated that a
decelertion lane m� be necessary. Once the proposal
entered the formal review process at CDOH, their staff
required the deceleration lane. (Please see the
attached CDOH permit). On April 10, 1989, the PEC
reviewed this change in a work session. Although
staff believes this change is a minor amendment, it
was felt that it would be helpful to include all of •
the changes to the SDD 4 in one memo so the Planning
Commission clearly understands the final development
plan for Area D.
D. Minor Subdivision:
The owner is also requesting a minor subdivision. The
developer states that:
The minor subdivision of the Glen Lyon
Office Building site will accommodate
three separate owners prior to
completion of the project. Once
completed, the entire project could be
condominiumized. However, because of
separate financing requirements
demanded by the uniqueness of the Vail
Ale Brewery, a subdivided parcel for
their specific use and ownership is
necessary at this point in time. The
subdivision plat would become part of
the development plan and each parcel
would be restricted by the approved
development plan.
E. Stairwell:
This request would allow for a 115 square foot
addition for an enclosed stairwell on the east end of
the Glen Lyon Office Building.
N
•
IT. REVIEW CRITERIA
A. DESIGN COMPATIBILITY AND SENSITIVITY TO THE IMMEDIATE
ENVIRONMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES
RELATIVE TO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, SCALE, BULK,
BUILDING HEIGHT, BUFFER ZONES, IDENTITY, CHARACTER,
VISUAL INTEGRITY AND ORIENTATION.
1. Under roundin of utilities:
The undergrounding of the utilities has a major
impact on upgrading the appearance of this site.
Staff believes that it is very important that
this condition of approval not be waived. We
believe that it is reasonable to require that the
developer underground utilities directly in front
of the Glen Lyon property as other developers
have been required to do the same work.
2. Relocation of bus sto
The bus stop design has been approved by Public
Works. Staff believes that this is actually a
better proposal than the original location as
• excessive retainage will no longer be necessary.
The bus stop has been incorporated into the porte
cochere. A 10 foot lane would be maintained for
the general public and a 10 foot lane will be
separated by breakaway bollards for the use of
Town of Vail buses. Public Works does not feel
that it is necessary to add gates. Signage will
be used to indicate that buses enter on the west
side of the porte cochere and exit through the
east end. Bus service will continue to be
provided at the Vail Professional Building for
users traveling west. Only bus service going
east will be provided from the porte cochere
area. Staff supports the design for the bus
stop.
3. Addition of the deceleration lane:
The 12 foot wide, 150 foot long, including a 90
foot taper, deceleration lane has been required
by CDOH. Staff was hoping that this deceleration
lane would not be necessary, however, CDOH has
the right to require this improvement from the
developer. In general, the staff believes that
the deceleration lane will maintain the basic
intent and character of the SDD and will not have
• any major impacts on properties on the north side
of the South Frontage Road.
1
w
4. Addition of the stairwell:
This minor expansion will have no significant
impact on the overall appearance of the building.
B. USES, ACTIVITY AND DENSITY WHICH PROVIDE A COMPATIBLE,
- EFFICIENT AND WORKABLE RELATIONSHIP WITH SURROUNDING
USES AND ACTIVITY.
Not applicable.
C. COMPLIANCE WITH PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS AS
OUTLINED IN SECTION 18.52.
Not applicable.
D. CONFORMITY WITH APPLICABLE ELEMENTS OF THE VAIL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, TOWN POLICIES AND URBAN DESIGN
PLANS.
Not applicable.
E. IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION OF NATURAL AND /OR
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS THAT AFFECT THE PROPERTY UPON WHICH
THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IS PROPOSED.
Not applicable.
F. SITE PLAN, BUILDING DESIGN AND LOCATION, AND OPEN
SPACE PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO PRODUCE A FUNCTIONAL
DEVELOPMENT RESPONSIVE AND SENSITIVE TO NATURAL
FEATURES, VEGETATION AND OVERALL AESTHETIC QUALITY OF
THE COMMUNITY.
Not applicable.
G. A CIRCULATION SYSTEM DESIGNED FOR BOTH VEHICLES AND
PEDESTRIANS ADDRESSING ON AND OFF SITE TRAFFIC
CIRCULATION.
1. Relocation of bus stop:
The new design for the bus stop actually provides
a better solution than the previously approved
location. The porte cochere site is much more
accessible for pedestrians.
2. Addition of the deceleration lane:
The new deceleration lane will still allow for
the a foot bike path along the south side of the
Frontage Road. Staff believes that on and off
site traffic circulation will still be functional
and in the case of the bus stop, is definitely
improved.
H. FUNCTIONAL AND AESTHETIC LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE IN
ORDER TO OPTIMIZE AND IMPROVE NATURAL FEATURES,
RECREATION, VIEWS AND FUNCTIONS.
1. Undergrrounding of utilities:
By undergrounding the utilities, the landscaping
and open space on the north side of the project
will be enhanced.
2. Relocation of bus stop:
The planter to the north of the porte cochere
will be decreased in size in order to allow for
adequate width for the bus lane. The planter
will be reduced in width from 10 feet to 5 feet.
This change is not positive, however, most of the
landscaping should still be able to be located in
this area. Three aspens and 14 alpine current
will be in the planter.
3. Addition of the deceleration lane:
The developer is still able to place adequate
landscaping in front of the parking structure
which was a primary concern to the staff and
Is Planning Commission.
I. PHASING PLAN OR SUBDIVISION PLAN THAT WILL MAINTAIN A
WORKABLE, FUNCTIONAL AND EFFICIENT RELATIONSHIP
THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT.
1. Minor subdivision:
The development of the project will still be
subject to all the conditions of approval and
phasing as outlined in Ordinance 40.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of all of the amendments
except the request to void the requirement that utilities
be undergrounded. We believe that the developer has
received substantial increases in development potential
through the recent amendments to SDD 4 in 1988 -1989.
Increases for commercial square footage ranging from 16,593
square feet to 19,538 square feet were approved in 1988.
This is a 45 percent to 53 percent increase in commercial
square footage. The GRFA was increased by 2,624 square
feet over the allowable. These increases were arrived at
through a process of negotiation, with the developer and
staff as well as the PEC. The undergounding of the
utilities was an important trade -off during these
negotiations and should not be voided.
r
At this time, the staff does not have a letter from Holy
Cross outlining their position on the undergrounding of the i
utilities. We had requested this letter as it would help
us to understand the rationale for the high cost of
undergrounding the utilities. If the Planning Commission
decides to remove this requirement, staff would suggest
that the developer be required to escrow money for the
undergrounding of the utilities when an overall improvement
project is initiated by Holy Cross.
In respect to the other amendment requests, staff believes
that they meet the review criteria and should be approved
with the following conditions:
1. The developer shall agree to construct the bus
lane per Town of Vail standards in the area of
the porte cochere. The specific design for the
bus shelter shall be mutually agreed to by the
Area D owner and /or the developer, Colorado
Division of Highways, and Town of Vail. The bus
lane shall be constructed subsequent to the
issuance of the 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.
L
r
QOLORAOO U- PARTMEN i t � _i
_STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT
THE PERMITTEE;
Glen Lyon Office Building
1000 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
Dist /Section /Patrol: 30219
DQH Permit No.; 389015
Permit Fee: $$75.00
Date of Transmittal: 3 -23-89
is hereby granted permission to construct and use an access to the state highway at the location noted below.
The access shall be constructed, maintained and used in accordance with the terms and conditions of this permit,
including the State Highway Access Code and listed attachments. This permit may be revoked by the issuing
authority if at anytime the permitted access and its use violate any of the terms and conditions of this permit. The use
of advance warning and construction signs, flashers, barricades and flaggers are required at all times during access
construction within State right -of -way in conformance with the MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
DEVICES, Part VI. The issuing authority, the Department and their duly appointed agents and employees shall be held
harmless against any action for personal injury or property damage sustained by reason of the exercise of the permit.
LOCATION:
On the south side of State highway I 70 Frontage Road, a distance of 550
feet east from Idle Post 174.
ACCESS TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO:
Parking for 16,000 sq.ft. microbrewery, 16,500 sq.ft. office space,
and 2,000 sq.ft. private residence.
OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
See Attached Sheet.
MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY APPROVAL
Required only when the appropriate local authority retains issuing authority.
By (X) Not Required _ Date
Title
Upon the signing of this permit the permittee agrees to the terms and conditions and referenced attachments contained
herein. All construction shall be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from
initiation. The permitted access shall be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit prior to
hpinn tvcPr1_ The nermlttee shall notlfv Don Herman
do not alieYlaiB L'UITl(71 +tinCte *oi:l all 3 ctiJ ui W. hCC2311 1.4:.10. A i:Utly Oi (tie :Mate Highway Access tiotle is avattilole if wil your
local l9suing authority (local government) or the State Department of Highways (Department), When this permit was issued, tqe'
Issuing authority made Its decision based in part on Information submitted by the applicant, on the access category which Is
assigned to the highway, what alternative access to other public roads and street$ is available, and anlety and design standards.
Changes In use or design not approved by the permit or the Issuing authority may cause the revocation or suspension of the permit.
I Appeals
1. Should the permittee or applicant chose to object to any of the terms or conditions of the permit placed therein by the
Department, an appeal must be filed with the Colorado Highway Commission within 60 days of transmittal of the permit for
permittee signature. The request for the hearing shalt be filed in writing and submitted to the Colorado Highway
Commission, 4201 East.Aricansas Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80222. The request shall Include reasons for the appeal and
may include recommendations by the permittee or applicant that would be acceptable to him. -
2, The Department may consider any objections and requested revisions at the request of the applicant or permittee. If
agreement is reached, the Department, with the approval of the local Issuing authority (if applicable), may revise the permit
accordingly, or issue a new permit, or require the applicant to submit a new application for reconsideration. Changes in the
original application, proposed design or access use will normally require submittal of a new application.
3. Regardless of any communications, meetings, or negotiations with the Department regarding revisions and objections to
the permit, if the permittee or applicant wishes to appeal the Department's decision to the Commission, the appeal mast be
brought to the Commission within 60 days of transmittal of the permit.
4. Any appeal by the applicant or permittee of action by the local issuing authority when it Is the appropriate local authority
(under subsection 2.4), shall be filed with the local authority and be consistent with the appeal procedures of the local
authority.
5. If the final action is not further appealed, the Department or local authority may record the decision with the County Clerk
and Recorder.
!I Construction standards and requirements
1. The access must be under construction within one year of the permit date. However, under certain conditions a one year
time extension may be granted if requested in writing prior to permit expiration.
2. The applicant shall notify the office specified on the permit at least 48 hours prior to construction. A copy of the permit shall
be available for review at the construction site. Inspections will be made during construction.
3. The access construction within highway right -of -way must be completed within 45 days,
4. It Is the responsibility of the permittee to complete the construction of the access according to the terms and conditions of
the permit. If the permittee wishes to use the access prior to completion, arrangements must be approved by the issuing
authority and Department and included on the permit. The Department or issuing authority may order a halt to any
unauthorized use of the access. Reconstruction or improvements to the access may be required when the permittee has
failed to meet required specifications of design or materials. If any construction element fails within two years due to
Improper construction or material specifications, the permittee is responsible for all repairs.
5. In the event it becomes necessary to remove any right -of -way fence, the posts on either side of the access shall be securely
braced with an approved end post before the fence is cut to prevent any slacking of the remaining fence. All posts and wire
removed are Department property and shall be turned over to a representative of the Department.
8. A copy of the permit shall be available for review at the construction site. If necessary, minor changes and additions shall be
ordered by the Department or local authority field inspector to meet unanticipated site conditions.
7. The access shall be constructed and maintained in a manner that shall not cause water to enter onto the roadway, and shall
not interfere with the drainage system in the right -of -way,
B. Where necessary to remove, relocate, or repair a traffic control device or public or private utilities for the construction of a
permitted access, the work shall be accomplished by the permitlee without cost to the Department or issuing authority, and
at the direction of the Department or utility company. Any damage to the state highway or other public right -of -way beyond
that which Is allowed In the permit shall be repaired immediately,
9. Adequate advance warning is required at all times during access construction, in conformance with the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. This may include the use of signs, flashers, barricades and flaggers. This
Is also requiredby section 42- 4- 501,C.R.S, as amended. The issuing authority, the Department and their duly appointed
agents and employees shall be held harmless against any action for personal Injury or property damage sustained by
reason of the exercise of the permit.
III Changes in use and violations
1. If there are changes in the use of the access, the access permit - issuing authority must be notified of the change. A change in
property use which makes the existing access design or use in non - conformance with the Access Code or the terms an
conditions of the permit, may require the reconstruction or relocation of the access. Examples of changes In access use art
an increase in vehicular volume by 20 percent, or an increase by 20 percent of a directional characteristic such as a left turn.
The issuing authority will review the original permit; it may decide it is adequate or request that you apply for a new permit.
2. All terms and conditions of the permit are binding upon all assigns, successors -in- interest and heirs.
3. When a permitted driveway is constructed or used In violation of the Access Code, the local government or Department may
obtain a court order to halt the violation. Such access permits may be revoked by the issuing auUlority.
IV Further information
1. When the permit holder wishes to make improvements to an existing legal access, he shalt make his request by filing a
PERMIT NO. 389015
1
Local ordinance requires a construction permit from Town of
Vail.
2
Driveway shall be constructed 30 feet wide with 50 foot
radii. Surfacing for driveway approach is required as
follows: 12" of class 6 gravel in 2, 6" lifts; 6" of class 6
gravel in 1, 6" liftS.
3
Also 3" of HBP in 2, 1.50" lifts of grade E, EX, or
equivalent. The asphalt cement in the HBP shall be AC 10.
4
Fill /cut slopes shall-be at a 6: 1 slope on the roadway and
at 6:1 on the access approach.
5
No landscaping other than grass shall be planted within 30
feet of the shoulder of the road. Approach shall be
construced per plan dated Oct. 18, 1988.
6
Highway widening for the right turn deceleration lane shall
be 12 feet wide and 150 feet long, including a 90 foot
taper.
7
No drainage from this site shall enter onto the surface of
the highway. All existing drainage structures shall be
extended to accommodate all new construction and safety
standards.
8
Contractor shall follow the applicable construction
specifications set for by the Department of Highways in the
latest manual Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
Construction. The property owner is responsible for any
utilities disrupted by the construction of this driveway and
all expenses incurred for repair. Any damage to any
existing Highway facilities shall be repaired prior to
continuing other work.
9
Compaction of sub -- grade, embankments and backfill shall
comply with Section 203.11 of the Division of Highways
Standard Specifications.
10
Compaction of Hot Bituminous Pavement (HBP) shall comply
with Section 401.17 of the division of Highways Standard
Specifications.
11
If frost is present in the sub - grade, no surfacing material
shall be placed until all frost is gone or removed.
12
Saw or score asphalt to assure a straight edge for patching.
13
The first 20 feet beyond the closest highway lane, including
speed change lanes, shall slope down and away from the
highway at a 2% grade to ensure proper drainage control.
14
All excavations on Utility lines, culverts, other trenches
or tunnels shall meet the requirements of Colorado
Department of Highways, OSHA, Colorado Industrial Commission
and the Colorado Division of Mines whichever applies.
15
The area around the new work shall be well graded to drain,
top soiled, fertilized, mulched and reseeded.
16
Work shall BEGIN AFTER 8 :30 A.M. and all equipment shall be
off the roadway BEFORE 3:30 P.M. each day.
•
.r
TO: The Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 22, 1989
SUBJECT: Request for a minor subdivision of Development Area D of
SDD 4 at 1000 South Frontage Road.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building
I. BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST
In April of 1986, the applicant requested a minor subdivision
for Lot 54. Lot 54 was divided into two parcels. Parcel B
(1.268 acres) included the existing office building and all of
the surface parking on the site, while Parcel A (.479 acres)
included the westerly portion of the site where a previously
approved office expansion would be located. The minor
subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission with four
members in favor of the request, with Jim Viele abstaining. The
developer decided to not proceed with the final recording of the
minor subdivision plat.
II. THE REQUEST
The proposal would allow Lot 54 to be divided into four parcels
having the following square footages:
Parcel A: .4797 acres or 20,896 sq. ft. - Brewery site
Parcel B: .3734 acres or 16,265 sq. ft. - Glen Lyon office
Parcel C: .5970 acres or 26,005 sq. ft. - Parking structure
Parcel D: .2975 acres or 12,959 sq. ft. - East office.building
* Note: These square footages do not indicate buildable area.
The minor subdivision will allow the project to be divided into
separate ownerships prior to completion of the project. The
applicant has stated that the minor subdivision is necessary due
to the financing requirements demanded by the "uniqueness of the
Vail Ale Brewery." The minor subdivision would be incorporated
into the development plan for the SDD.
III. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST
The approval of a minor subdivision creates a new parcel for
IV.
V.
1:
development within the Town of Vail. The purpose of reviewing •
the minor subdivision request is to ensure that the subdivided
parcels are suitable for development and meet the applicable
development standards the Town has established. The following
review criteria are from Section 17. 16.110 of the Subdivision
Regulations:
The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant
to show that the application is in compliance
with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the
zoning ordinance , and other pertinent
regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due
consideration shall be given to the
recommendations by public agencies, utility
companies, and other agencies consulted under
17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application
and consider its appropriateness in regard to
Town of Vail policies relating to subdivision
control, densities proposed, regulations,
ordinances and resolutions and other applicable
documents, environmental integrity and
compatibility with the surrounding land uses.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The Arterial Business District zoning provides the guide for
development on Area D. The minimum lot size required under the
AB District is 25,000 square feet of buildable area which would
exclude the 100 year flood plain and areas in excess of 40
percent slope. This minimum lot size was established to ensure
that parcels in the zone district were able to accommodate the
type of development allowed under the zone district. Given the
steps taken to ensure that all the parcels will be developed as
a whole per SDD 4 as outlined in Ordinance 40, staff believes
that the minimum lot site is not a significant issue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff's main concern with this request is that the property
be developed as one parcel. In no way is the intent of this
subdivision to allow the developer to sell off each of the
parcels and develop them under a different development plan.
The SDD process allows for amending the development plan,
however, this would require staff, Planning Commission, and Town
Council approval. We also believe that by recording the
conditions of approval and references on the subdivision plat as
well as recording these conditions as covenants with Eagle
County, the parcels shall be developed per the approved SDD 4
Development Plan. Given these conditions of approval, the staff
is comfortable with this request and supports the proposal.
The followi,ng'agreements outline the conditions and stipulations
set forth with the minor subdivision proposed for Lot 54, Area D
SDD 4. It is required that this agreement be recorded with the
+ f,
County on the land records of this parcel prior to the formal
approval of this minor subdivision. it is the intent of this
agreement to ensure that the development of Lot 54 proceed in a
timely and efficient manner consistent with the previously
approved development plans for Area D, SDD 4 on file with the
Department of Community Development. The agreements to be filed
include the following:
1. The development of parcels A, B, C, and D shall be
limited to the SDD 4 Development Plan and governed by
the SDD 4 Ordinance as approved by the Town of Vail
and on file with the Department of Community
Development or as amended and approved by the
Community Development Department, Planning and
Environmental Commission, and /or the Vail Town
Council.
2. The minor subdivision plat shall include a statement
that development,of the four parcels shall be governed
by the approved SDD 4 Development Plan for Area D and
Ordinance 40.
3. The Community Development Department and Town of Vail
Attorney shall have the right to review and require
changes in any "Agreements of tenants in common ",
"Conveyance of Easement and Party Wall Agreements ",
• and any other easement or ownership agreements related
to the development of parcels A, B, C, and D to ensure
that the four parcels are developed per the approved
development plan and SDD 4, Ordinance.
4. Any modifications or amendments to the minor
subdivision conditions of approval agreement shall be
reviewed as a major amendment under the procedures
outlined in Section 18.40 of the Town of Vail zoning
code.
5. The applicant shall be responsible for preparing the
wording of these agreements for review by the Planning
staff and Town Attorney. The specific legal wording
must be submitted before the minor subdivision. is
recorded with the County. The Town of Vail shall
record the minor subdivision plat, however it will be
the responsibility of the developer to cover any fees
for recording the plat.
•
F; r
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning and-Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
May 22, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance
construct an addition to a residence
Vail Village 11th Filing.
Applicant: Russ Pitto
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
in order to
on Lot 3, Block 1,
The applicant is requesting a side setback variance in order
to expand their single - family residence. A two -story
expansion is proposed. On the first floor, a breakfast nook
and family room will be added. The second floor will be for
a master bedroom. The proposed addition will encroach 10
feet 6 inches into the required 15' setback.
The property is in the two family residential zone district.
No variances for GRFA or the 250 ordinance are necessary for
the expansion. Below is a summary of the zoning statistics:
Zone: Duplex
Lot Size: 17,315 s.f.
Allowable GRFA: 3,981 s.f.
Existing GRFA: 2,355 s.f.
Remaining GRFA Before Addition: 1,626 s.f.
First Floor Expansion, Breakfast Nook /Family Room: 722 s.f.
Second Floor, Master Bedroom: 716 s.f.
Total Expansion: 1,438 s.f.
Existing Square Footage: 2,355 s.f.
Expansion: 1,438 s.f.
Total: - -' - - -_ 3,793 s.f.
Remaining GRFA After Expansion: 188 s.f.
* (The following credits have been included in the existing
GRFA calculations: storage, 36 s.f.; mechanical, 38 s.f.;
and, garage, 538 s.f.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria
the municipal code, the
recommends denial of the
following factors:
•
and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
Department of Community Development
requested variance based upon the
T
A. Considerations of Factors:
The relationshi of the re ested variance to
existing or Rotential uses and structures in
vicinity.
Staff's opinion is that the addition will have a
negative impact on the stream tract parcel to the south
of Lot 3. Even though this parcel is not owned by the
Town of Vail (it is owned by Vail Associates), we
believe that the open space character of the area should
be maintained as much as possible for the general
public.
We acknowledge that Upper Eagle Valley Water and
Sanitation has constructed utility facilities adjacent
to the creek which detract from the natural character of
the creek corridor. However, staff believes that
additional development adjacent to the stream tract is
not justified.
The degree to which relief from the strict and Literal
inter retation and enforcement of a specified-regulation
is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformitv of
treatment amonq sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special
privile e,
It will be a grant of special privilege to allow this
setback variance. It is apparent that the addition
could be added on the eastern side of the residence
without requiring any setback variances. We believe
that the applicant could work within the setback
requirements to provide for the additional square
footage.
The effect of the regnested variance on light and air,
distribution of pol2ulation, transportation and traffic
facilities Public facilities and utilities and public
safety.
There are no major impacts on this criteria.
Such other
to
rs and c
e Dronos
ria as the commissi
a variance.
ITT. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL LAND USE PLAN
The Land Use Plan states in Section 1.13:
Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable
land feature as well as its potential for public use.
This policy relates to staff's concern that setbacks be
maintained adjacent to the Gore Creek corridor.
J
r S r
•
IV. FINDINGS "
The Planning and_Environmental Commission_ shall make the
following findings before grantinq 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.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends denial of the side setback variance. To
approve the variance would be a grant of special privilege.
It is evident that the addition could be added to the east of
the existing house and would not require any setback
variances. We also believe that there are negative impacts
on the adjacent stream tract which are not justified.
Maintaining approximately 4 feet 6 inches from the property
line does not allow for the separation of the residential, use
from the stream tract. There is also no physical hardship.
For these reasons, the staff recommends denial of the
request.
If the proposal is approved, staff would request that the PEC
make a condition of approval that the applicant.submit a
title report Schedule B to verify that there are no utility
easements in the area of the encroachment.
SNOWDON AND HOPKINS
I
ARCHITECTS
201 Gore Creek Drive
SHEET NO. OF
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
CALCULATED BV
(303) 476.2201
--- DATA E
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .... ........
I'll 1 11 - omm a- 01m.
a1v r � A�
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 22, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a rear setback variance and a site
coverage variance in order to construct an addition to a
residence on Lot 4, Block D, Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: Cindy Boatman
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant is requesting a setback variance and a site
coverage variance in order to add a second floor addition to
an existing residence and to change the configuration of the
garage. The north side of the residence currently encroaches
from 1 to 2 feet into the rear setback along a distance of 26
feet. The second floor addition will match the existing
building line and existing setback encroachment.
The site coverage variance is minimal. The garage is being
shortened 1.2 feet and widened 1.5 feet. The total site
coverage increase is 19.5 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 relatio
existing or
vicinity.
tial uses
ce to of
s in the
You may recall that in October of 1988, a rear setback
variance was granted for a second floor addition to the
other half of this duplex. This variance was for an
encroachment of 2 to 5 feet along a distance of 27
feet.
The existing structure is located from 1 to 2 feet into
the 15 foot setback along a distance of 26 feet. The
addition matches the existing encroachment . along a
portion of the north wall, and does not increase it.
This encroachment is requested in order to add a second
floor addition.
On the east side of the house is a garage which will be
torn down and a different garage constructed which will
be shorter and slightly wider than the existing garage.
4
The property is surrounded on three sides by the curve
of Arosa Drive which along the north elevation is
substantially above the first floor grade of the
existing residence.
B. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a s ecified re ulation
is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformitv of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special
privileae.
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. As far as the increase of the garage, the
staff feels that this is a minimal increase.
C. The effect of the reqLiested variance on light and air
distribution of population „, transportation and traffi
facilities, Public facilities and utilities, and publ
safety.
No impact.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
III. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VAIL'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Not applicable.
IV. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND.CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION
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
Al
•
•
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 approval of the requested variances.
The fact that the existing structure currently lies within
the required 15 foot setback and due to the fact that the
increased encroachments are minimal, we feel that approval of
these requests would not be a grant of special privilege.
V)
LLJ
m
41
OI
P
fi
1
fl
if
IL
1 4
P�O,w �-Of FA4L
Its I
JI
1�
rr 1
e5r
jJ
j j ! f
it
��1�'1�j1�
I
lir'1'`j� ± +�J1��1f1ljf If11I��j��•I1i��1ii,�+Ifli�'' �if +ililf I j� ri
+t r, illir ��ii1 1111 , j�lllr'�1,11,f� rf I
.��rl� jj�lijl�lll �1 +.r;j�����f �fl� �r�, '�
1 >j II �� r . j�j ,
A,
if
11
'1�r�j�+,1 f
'I 1rT I.,
I It
11ji
ti
I
I .7k1,
I
•
TO: The Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 22, 1989
SUBJECT: Request for a minor subdivision of Development Area D of
SDD 4 at 1000 South Frontage Road.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building
I. BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST
In April of 1986, the applicant requested a minor subdivision
for Lot 54. Lot 54 was divided into two parcels. Parcel B
(1.268 acres) included the existing office building and all of
the surface parking on the site, while Parcel A (.479 acres)
included the westerly portion of the site where a previously
approved office expansion would be located. The minor
subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission with four
members in favor of the request, with Jim Viele abstaining. The
• developer decided to not proceed with the final recording of the
minor subdivision plat.
r]
II. THE REQUEST
The proposal would allow Lot 54 to be divided into four parcels
having the following square footages:
Parcel
A:
.4797
acres
or 20,896
sq.
ft.
- Brewery site
Parcel
B:
.3734
acres
or 16,265
sq.
ft.
- Glen Lyon office
Parcel
C:
.5970
acres
or 26,005
sq.
ft.
- Parking structure
Parcel
D:
.2975
acres
or 12,959
sq.
ft.
- East office building
* Note:
These
square
footages do not indicate buildable area.
The minor subdivision will allow the project to be divided into
separate ownerships prior to completion of the project. The
applicant has stated that the minor subdivision is necessary due
to the financing requirements demanded by the "uniqueness of the
Vail Ale Brewery." The minor subdivision would be incorporated
into the development plan for the SDD.
III. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST
The approval of a minor subdivision creates a new parcel for
• development within the Town of Vail. The purpose of reviewing
the minor subdivision request is to ensure that the subdivided
parcels are suitable for development and meet the applicable
development standards the Town has established. The following
review criteria are from Section 17.16.110 of the Subdivision
Regulations:
The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant
to show that the application is in compliance
with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the
zoning ordinance , and other pertinent
regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due
consideration shall be given to the
recommendations by public agencies, utility
companies, and other agencies consulted under
17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application
and consider its appropriateness in regard to
Town of Vail policies relating to subdivision
control, densities proposed, regulations,
ordinances and resolutions and other applicable
documents, environmental integrity and
compatibility with the surrounding land uses.
• IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The Arterial Business District zoning provides the guide for
development on Area D. The minimum lot size required under the
AB District is 25,000 square feet of buildable area which would
exclude the 100 year flood plain and areas in excess of 40
percent slope. This minimum lot size was established to ensure
that parcels in the zone district were able to accommodate the
type of development allowed under the zone district. Given the
steps taken to ensure that all the parcels will be developed as
a whole per SDD 4 as outlined in Ordinance 40, staff believes
that the minimum lot site is not a significant issue.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff's main concern with this request is that the property
be developed as one parcel. In no way is the intent of this
subdivision to allow the developer to sell off each of the
parcels and develop them under a different development plan.
The SDD process allows for amending the development plan,
however, this would require staff, Planning Commission, and Town
Council approval. We also believe that by recording the
conditions of approval and references on the subdivision plat as
well as recording these conditions as covenants with Eagle
County, the parcels shall be developed per the approved SDD 4
• Development Plan. Given these conditions of approval, the staff
is comfortable with this request and supports the proposal.
The following agreements outline the conditions and stipulations
set forth with the minor subdivision proposed for Lot 54, Area D
SDD 4. It is required that this agreement be recorded with the
• County on the land records of this parcel prior to the formal
approval of this minor subdivision. It is the intent of this
agreement to ensure that the development of Lot 54 proceed in a
timely and efficient manner consistent with the previously
approved development plans for Area D, SDD 4 on file with the
Department of Community Development. The agreements to be filed
include the following:
1. The development of parcels A, B, C, and D shall be
limited to the SDD 4 Development Plan and governed by
the SDD 4 Ordinance as approved by the Town of Vail
and on file with the Department of Community
Development or as amended and approved by the
Community Development Department, Planning and
Environmental Commission, and /or the Vail Town
Council.
2, The minor subdivision plat shall include a statement
that development,of the four parcels shall be governed
by the approved SDD 4 Development Plan for Area D and
Ordinance 40.
3. The Community Development Department and Town of Vail
Attorney shall have the right to review and require
changes in any "Agreements of tenants in common ",
"Conveyance of Easement and Party Wall Agreements ",
and any other easement or ownership agreements related
to the development of parcels A, B, C, and D to ensure
that the four parcels are developed per the approved
development plan and SDD 4, Ordinance.
4. Any modifications or amendments to the minor
subdivision conditions of approval agreement shall be
reviewed as a major amendment under the procedures
outlined in Section 18.40 of the Town of Vail zoning
code.
5. The applicant shall be responsible for preparing the
wording of these agreements for review by the Planning
staff and Town Attorney. The specific legal wording
must be submitted before the minor subdivision is
recorded with the County. The Town of Vail shall
record the minor subdivision plat, however it will be
the responsibility of the developer to cover any fees
for recording the plat.
HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC
ASSOCIATION, INC.
3799 HIGHWAY 82
AREA CODE
P. O. DRAWER 2150
303
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
945 -5491
May 17, 1969
Mr. Frank Freyer
Vail Ventures, Ltd.
1000 South Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: Vail Ale Building
Overhead to Underground Conversion of
Primary Electric Facilities
Dear Mr. Freyer:
Holy Cross Electric has completed a preliminary cost estimate for
the above mentioned conversion. This project would involve
replacement of the existing overhead primary electric facilities
which are adjacent to your northerly lot line with an underground
system. Such replacement also would necessarily involve Holy
Cross facilities located between the easterly end of the Cascade
Village area to a point near the westerly property line of the
Vail Sanitation Plant near Forest Road.
Holy Cross Electric estimates that.the cost of this conversion
will be as follows:
Total estimated cost of conversion (preliminary) $240 ■000.00
Holy Cross Electric investment based upon annual
revenues now being received from consumers
within the affected area (177,000.00')
Contribution in aid of construction
(nonrefundable) required before starting
work on the project $ 63,000.00
The estimated cost of this project could change once the final
design has been completed.
The above figures do not reflect the individual consumer's cost
to convert their secondary service or alter an existing
underground secondary service to receive service from the
Association's nearest pad - mounted transformer. This conversion
must be done during the same construction season that the primary
power lines are placed underground.
Holy Cross Electric's overhead primary facilities presently provide
. electrical service to the immediate area as well as.being a main
feeder to the downtown area. With an overhead facility these
services can be combined in one system, whereas an underground
facility must be divided into separate systems. In this case a
three -phase underground feeder, a three -phase distribution and a
single -phase distribution must be installed. Each individual system
shall be supplied by its own separate cables.
Should all the affected consumers as well as Vail Ale
representatives wish to pursue this project any further, please
iAt „Q lennw anA wP GhalI nranare the annronriate agreements for
00 Planning and Environmental Commission
June 12, 1989
2:30 p.m.
Information update on Eagles Nest Bob Luge Course:
Vail Associates: Joe Macy
U.S. Forest Service: Bruce Ungari
1:15 Site Visits 3:00 Public Hearing
#2 1. Red Lion Inn major exterior alteration in
CCI, 304 Bridge Street.
Applicant: T.E.A., Inc.
#3 2. A request to amend SDD No. 19, Garden of the
Gods Club Lodge, 365 Gore Creek Drive.
Applicant: Mrs. A. G. Hill
#1 3. A request for an exterior alteration for CCI
and a Conditional Use for relocation of
exterior dining deck at the Up The Creek Bar
& Grill.
Applicant: Up The Creek Bar & Grill
' 4. A preliminary review of exterior alterations
in CCI and CCII:
Staff recommends:
Betsy
a.
Gore Creek Plaza
90
days
Rick
b.
Chart House
60
days
Mike
C.
Lodge at Vail
60
days
Peter
d.
Siglu in Lionshead Mall
60
days
Kristan
e.
Enzian
90
days
Betsy
f.
Lionshead Center
60
days
5.
Set
a date for the joint work session
with
the
Town Council and DRB on GRFA
related
issues:
June 27 or July 11.
6.
Review
of Town Council appeal of
the
PEC
decision
to approve the VMRD Tennis Courts
at
Ford Park.
•
LJ
ri
PRESENT
Jim Viele
Diana Donovan
Peggy Osterfoss
Sid Schultz
Kathy Warren
Pam Hopkins
Chuck Crist
Planning and Environmental Commission
June 12, 1989
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Kristan Pritz
Rick Pylman
Betsy Rosolack
Mike Mollica
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by chairman, Jim Viele.
Item No. 1. A request for a major exterior alteration for the Red
Lion Inn, 304 Bridge Street, Lot H, Block 5a, Vail
Village First Filing.
Applicant: T.E.A. Inc. Red Lion Inn
The staff presentation was given by Kristan Pritz. She reviewed a
previous approval for an exterior alteration for the Red Lion given
in 1982, explaining the proposal and the conditions for approval.
Kristan then explained the present proposal which would include
replacing the existing removable windows with operable windows and
lowering the existing brick sill along Bridge Street. The new
proposal would also include a new pocket garden and seating area, as
well as new pavers to replace the existing asphalt. She further
explained the applicant's request to extend the deadline placed on
the removal of the existing windows as a condition of the 1982
approval. This request is intended to allow time for reviewing the
remodel and to allow the applicant to secure the bar area.
In presenting the staff's opinion, Kristan stated the general concern
that the proposal does not fully comply with the Purpose Section of
Commercial Core I, and that the design of the enclosure does not
substantially enhance the "unique character of the Vail Village area"
and the "predominantly pedestrian environment." The staff felt
that both landscaping the south side of the outside dining deck and
also adding a bench and paver treatment for the street would be an
improvement. They also felt that lowering the brick sill would be
positive. However, staff would not find it acceptable for the
existing sliding glass windows to remain on the north and south side
of the deck area and felt those windows should have the same
treatment as proposed for the Bridge Street side of the deck.
The staff recommendation was for denial due to the staff's belief
that the proposal did not comply with the applicable exterior
alteration criteria of pedestrianization, street framework, and
street edge. The staff also recommended two changes in the proposal.
The first being that floor to ceiling operable windows designed to
match the proposed west window treatment be used along the north and
south elevations. The second change recommended was to add greater
61(l,
. transparency to the roof. These suggested changes were intended to
increase light in the bar. Furthermore, Kristan said the staff could
not support the owner's request to postpone the removal of the
existing windows throughout the review process, and recommended the
windows be removed by June 15th, as per the 1982 condition of
approval. Kristan asked for the following conditions to be applied
if the proposal was approved:
1. A formal letter be submitted from the condominium owners
authorizing the Red Lion to proceed with the enclosure.
2. The final design for the pocket garden be submitted to the
Design Review Board, Community Development, and the Fire
Department for their approval.
3. The pocket garden proposal be approved subsequent to the
issuance of a building permit.
Following the staff's presentation, Kathy Warren began speaking as
representative of the applicant. She clarified the window system,
explaining that the windows would remain open between 11:00 and 1:00
a.m., and would only be closed when the business was closed.
Regarding the existing north and south windows, Kathy said these
windows would be painted to match the proposed windows. Even though
the materials and style would differ, the colors would be the same.
In response to the staff's suggestion of a greenhouse treatment for
Ah the roof, Kathy stated that a glass structure would be much too hot
and furthermore, the owners of the building are opposed to making
those kind of changes. Because of a problem with timing, the
applicant requested that they be allowed an extension on the
requirement to remove the windows per the 1982 approval.
Peggy osterfoss began the comments and questions from the PEC. She
admitted that lowering the windows was a step in the right direction,
but felt that not being able to change the roof was an obstacle in
achieving an "open" look. She thought it desirable for the
north and south windows to match the proposed windows, but did not
feel it was the priority. The priority, Peggy stated, was the roof.
She also suggested that the planter in front of the west elevation
could be improved upon by adding low shrubs and flowers.
Sid Schultz asked when the windows would be completed if the request
was approved. Kathy said a realistic time of completion would be six
weeks from the meeting date. Sid said the windows would be an
improvement. He did not necessarily support the extension of the
windows. He hated to see the windows remain through July.
Diana Donovan asked who owned the building. Kathy answered that
there was a separate condominium owner, building owner, and
restaurant owner. Diana said she was sorry to hear that the owner
doesn't want the red canvas changed because she felt that the canvas
was the main problem. Because of the main concern about "opening up"
. the deck, Kathy reminded the staff and PEC members that the 1982
request had been for a "deck enclosure", and since it was approved,
has been an enclosure since that time. Diana finished her comments
by saying the deck should be made transparent either by using glass
or by having skylights installed. She also agreed that the existing
windows need to be open for July.
Pam Hopkins said she perceived the problem differently. She
suggested changing the window glazing from the currently dark shade
to clear. She went on to recommend installing velux skylights, using
the same windows on the north and south sides as proposed for the
west side, and changing the dark glazed sliding doors on the south to
the same accordion doors as proposed for the west. She also
recommended pulling the table heights down so you did not see the
back sides of diners from the street. She also thought a roll back
awning would be nice. Pam felt these changes would make the
restaurant more inviting.
Chuck Crist asked Kristan to explain the meaning of the phrase,
"reinforce and expand the quality of pedestrian walkways throughout
the Village." Kristan explained by referring to Commercial Core I
Purpose Section. Chuck agreed with Pam about the window glazing and
asked about the possibility of skylights being installed. Kathy
replied that adding skylights would not be in the applicant's best
interest because of expenses. Chuck also asked about windows being
installed on the south side. He commented that requiring the windows
. to be open between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. was unrealistic due to
the cold in the late hours. He also mentioned that landscaping needs
to be added to the west. Chuck was generally in favor of the
proposal.
Jim Viele basically agreed with Diana and Peggy and said that the Red
Lion design was certainly one of the most criticized and was
generally considered a bad example of a deck remodel. He pointed out
that certain elements, namely the existing roof and grade, did not
comply with the outdoor dining elements suggested in the Urban Design
Guide Plan. Jim felt that the proposed improvements did not offer
enough correction to the present situation and agreed with staff.
Peter Patten offered some background information on the issue. He
had been on the staff during the time of the original request in
1982. He said that the red and white awning was quite important to
the applicants as was the permanent roof. The board allowed for the
roof enclosure but only with the condition that the windows would be
open. Concerning the present proposal, Peter has concerns about the
location of the landscaping in regards to Seibert Circle. He asked
that if the proposal was approved, that landscaping be delayed until
the Seibert Circle plans become definite.
After the board's comments, Kathy asked for a prioritization of the
PEC recommendations for improving the proposal. The board restated
their opinions.
•
IS Peggy stated again that further compromise was appropriate. She
suggested changing the windows on the north and south elevation,
using clear glazing, raising the roof, or perhaps lowering the floor
of the deck area.
Sid felt the modification was better than what existed on site. He
would like to see the south wall match the Bridge Street side of the
deck enclosure.
Jim generally agreed with staff comments on design changes. He felt
the roof was the biggest problem. The minimum floor to ceiling
height /low roof is an issue that should be addressed.
Diana strongly encouraged Kathy to talk to the owner about how the
design suggestions will improve the Red Lion Restaurant's business.
This will definitely make the Red Lion a much more attractive
restaurant. She felt the glazing should be changed, especially on
the south side.
Pam felt that all three sides of the enclosure should have operable
windows. Skylights would be a good compromise for the roof problem.
She also added that the tables should be lowered.
Chuck stated that the west and south elevations should have clear
glazing. He also like the idea of lowering the floor of the deck.
Kathy requested tabling the issue on the applicant's behalf, to allow
time for the owners to get together. She also requested that the
deadline for the removal of the glass be extended until June 30th.
Peggy motioned for tabling.
Vote: 7 -0
Chuck motioned for approval
removing the windows per the
the 1989 summer season. The
applicable for future years.
Vote: 7 -0
Pam seconded the motion.
of an extension on the deadline for
1982 PEC approval, until June 28th, for
extension of the deadline is not
Pam seconded the motion.
Item No. 2 A_ request to amend SDD No. 19, Garden of the Gods Club
Lodge, 365 Gore Creek Drive.
Applicant: Mrs. A.G. Hill
The staff presentation was made by Kristan Pritz. She explained that
in December 1987, Special Development District No. 18 was approved by
the Town Council. After going over the changes included in that
proposal, Kristan gave a summary of the new proposal referring to the
memo on this issue. She then explained the reasons for the request
and also the evaluation of the proposal referring to SDD criteria.
Kristan gave the staff's recommendation of approval for the proposal.
. She said the approval was contingent upon conditions concerning a
revised employee housing agreement, restrictions on the two dwelling
. units as per the Subdivision Rental Restriction Section 17.26.075,
the construction of a sidewalk and bus lane, the removal of the vent
on the west side of the pool, and a written, legal documentation of
the right to use the parking spaces on the east side of Vail valley
Drive. (The complete conditions are listed in the staff memo).
In respect to Condition #2, Kristan added that if the lodge is
condominiumized, the AU's shall meet the subdivision restrictions in
Section 17.26.075. For condition #3 she added, if necessary, the
Garden of the Gods shall provide a public easement for the bus stop
and sidewalk. The applicant shall submit the easement agreement to
the Town Attorney and Council for approval before a temporary
certificate of occupancy is released for the remodel. New planters
on the west side of the Garden of the Gods parking on P -2 were also
included in condition #3.
The applicant presentation was made by Don Hare, representing the
owner, and Pam Hopkins, architect for the project. Don explained
that the proposal was designed to create a proper environment inside
and outside of the building and that the proposed changes were
designed with regards to the ventilation of rooms and corridors, and
in the efficient use of space.
Kathy Warren was curious as to exactly what was being modified. Pam
explained that the main differences involved the balconies and
internal changes.
is Peggy Osterfoss felt that the proposal appeared to be a nice upgrade,
and asked questions in regards to the sidewalk.
Sid Schultz had no problems with the proposal.
Jim Viele felt the improvements fell within the spirit of the Land
Use Plan and was supportive of the proposal.
Diana Donovan said it was a nice project, but suggested the applicant
should accept an agreement with Public Works regarding the
responsibility of maintaining the sidewalks, especially during the
snowy season. Whatever agreement may be made, Diana felt that either
the owner or the applicant should be responsible for the sidewalk
maintenance. She also said the applicant should be responsible for
the upkeep of the planter. Diana pointed out safety concerns and
suggested that the Town be careful in the construction of the
sidewalk on such a narrow road.
Chuck Crist asked questions concerning the number of dwelling units
and also about the existing sidewalk and landscaping. Don answered
about the dwelling units and Kristan gave an explanation of the
sidewalk proposal.
Don commented on the staff's recommendation on removing the vent. He
said the applicant would check into it and do the best they could.
He doubted they could eliminate it, but felt they could upgrade it
40 and screen it with landscaping.
The motion to a
condition that
on the sidewal k
landscaping if
Sid.
Vote: 7 -0
Item No. 3
pprove the change of SDD was made by Diana, with tho
the applicant accept whatever the Town Council decides
maintenance and that the pool vent be screened by
not hidden completely. The motion was seconded by
A request for an exterior alteration for CCI and a
Conditional Use for relocation of exterior dining deck
at the Up The Creek Bar & Grill.
Applicant: Up The Creek Bar & Grill
Rick Pylman gave the staff presentation. He began by explaining that
the proposal involved the request for an exterior alteration as well
the requirement for a Conditional Use permit if approved, and
informed the board that the request required two separate votes.
Rick describ,
involved are
expansion of
also entails
paver design
Rick pointed
ad the proposa
the enclosure
the remainder
replacing the
which matches
out that even
1 explaining that the two main elements
of the existing dining patio and the
of the outdoor dining area. The proposal
existing concrete walkway with a brick
the existing promenade.
though the expansion would encroach into
the east end of a public park, it would not negatively impact
pedestrianization. He also said that the replacement of the existing
concrete with brick paver to match the existing promenade would
positively impact the pedestrian experience. Furthermore, Rick
stated the staff's belief that the construction of the proposed
addition and patio would reinforce the streetscape framework of the
promenade and park, and that the proposal offered positive
improvements.
Concerning zoning considerations, Rick explained that the additional
parking demands created would be met by payment into the Town's
parking fund.
The staff recommendation for this proposal was approval with the
following conditions:
1. The walls on the west elevation be totally operable.
2. Sidewalk improvements be constructed in conjunction with this
proposal.
The applicant was represented by Michael Hazard.
Kathy Warren asked the PEC and staff about using public property for
public enterprise. Peter Patten explained that the Council's policy
was to allow public land to be used in unenclosed, non - structural
uses. Kathy said she was not comfortable with expanding interior
dining while lessening outside dining and using Town property
besides.
•
•
2
pedestrian area along Gore Creek. In addition, it can
provide a link to the future pedestrian path along the
south side of Gore Creek if the Town of Vail desires to
complete its pedestrian system along Gore Creek.
B.
Vehicle Penetration. The proposed addition provides
for no additional points of vehicle penetration nor
will the addition create more vehicular trips into CC1.
The existing vehicle penetration remains to the east
side of the Creekside Building.
C.
Streetsca e Framework. The proposed new addition will
have a positive effect on the streetscape framework in
that it will complete the pedestrian walkways along
Gore Creek which was started with the Sitzmark
renovation. In addition, a transparency of the new
greenhouse addition will provide a strong framework for
the pedestrian walks as well as visual interest and
activity on a year round type basis.
D.
Street Enclosure. There is no external enclosure being
created by this addition.
. E.
Street Ede. The proposed addition will have a
positive effect on street edge as it will provide an
irregular facade, a building jog, in otherwise flat
plain, brick pavers along with a greenhouse which
should open up to the outside weather permitting. All
of these items will give life to the street and visual
interest for pedestrian traffic.
F.
Building Heigh Section 18.24.120 defines the height
requirements for CC1 and all proposed heights are well
below the requirements as specified in the Vail Village
Urban Design Guideplan and Design Considerations.
G.
Views. No views will be blocked by the addition of the
Greenhouse.
H.
Service and Delivery. There is no impact on service
and delivery.
I.
Sun Shade Consideration. There is no impact on any
adjacent property to the new Greenhouse addition.
In summary as Vail Village Design Considerations state:
•
2
40 Peggy Osterfoss stated, in regards to other existing deck enclosures,
that it would be inconsistent to deny the request due to the
transparency and overall look. She also said that if the deck
encroached onto a walkway, she wouldn't be concerned, but since the
expansion would be onto a public park, she felt additional mitigation
would be due. She suggested landscaping, benches, drainage, etc.
Regarding the streamwalk, Peggy asked if there would be room for a
walkway if certain plans should occur in that area.
Sid Schultz said he was uncomfortable with the proposal due to the
use of public land.
Diana Donovan felt that it was bad planning on the Town's behalf to
allow decks on public land, especially on a park. She said she had a
hard time supporting the proposal even though the plan is attractive.
She voiced concern about taking away public space and suggested
putting in benches or something attractive such as flowers or trees,
to invite people and let them know that the area is still public.
one of the owners, Jim Slevin, said he would be more than willing to
put flowers, trees or something else attractive in the space.
Pam Hopkins strongly felt that the proposal would enhance the
Promenade area and suggested constructing some sort of soft buffer to
divide the private and public land. She suggested tiered effect of
flowers, shrubs, and trees. She also suggested adding lighting for
the evening hours.
Both Chuck Crist and Jim Viele agreed with Pam's opinion.
Peggy motioned for approval of the exterior alteration as per the
staff memo with the additional conditions that the applicant will
participate in additional improvements or landscaping as determined
appropriate by the DRB and Town Council, and also will remove the
concrete planter in front of the restaurant. The motion was seconded
by Pam.
Vote: 5 -2, Kathy and Diana opposed.
Approval for a Conditional Use permit motioned by Peggy. Motion
seconded by Pam.
Vote: 5 -2, Kathy and Diana opposed.
Item No. 4 Preliminary review of exterior alterations in CCI and
SCI:
a.
Gore Creek Plaza
Motion: Kathy Second: Chuck
Chart House
Motion: Pam Second: Kathy
60 days
Vote: 7 -0
60 days
Vote: 7 -0
•
�7
.7
C. Lodge at Vail
Motion: Pam Second:
d. Siglu in Lionshead Mall
Motion: Kathy Second:
e. Enzian
Motion: Pam Second:
f. Lionshead Center
Motion: Kathy Second:
Item No. 5 Joint work session date set at
60 days
Chuck Vote: 7 -0
60 days
Pam Vote: 7 -0
60 days
Kathy Vote: 7 -0
60 days
Chuck Vote: 7 -0
June 27, 19891 12:00.
Item No. 6 Review of Town Council appeal of the PEC decision to
approve the VMRD Tennis Courts at Ford Park.
• TO: The Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 12, 1989
SUBJ: A request for an amendment to Special Development District
No. 19, Garden of the Gods Lodge, 365 Gore Creek Drive, Lot
K, Block 5A, Vail Village Fifth Filing and Parcel P -2.
Applicant: Mrs. A. G. Hill and family
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
In December 1987, Special Development District No. 18 was
approved by the Town Council. The owners requested to change
the zoning from public accommodation to a special development
district in order to remodel sixteen accommodation units and to
add six dwelling units. The remodel also included expanding
common area and mechanical spaces as well as the remodeling of
two employee dwelling units.
The
applicant has re- evaluated the existing building and the
approved plan. Below is a summary of the new proposal:
A.
Remodel existing sixteen accommodation units and add three
.
accommodation units having a total GRFA of 6,466 square
feet.
B.
Remodel two existing dwelling units and add four dwelling
units having a total GRFA of 11,998 square feet.
C.
Expand common area from 3,575 square feet to 4,013 square
feet for an increase of 443 square feet. This expansion
includes a new entry vestibule on the west elevation.
D.
Remodel two employee housing units: this changes one
accommodation unit at 610 square feet and one dwelling unit
at 515 square feet into one dwelling unit having at 904
square feet and one dwelling unit at 470 square feet.
E.
Restrict nineteen accommodation units (fifteen AU's plus
four AU lockoffs) as short term rentals.
F.
Restrict two dwelling units per Section 17.26.075 of the
Subdivision Regulations. This section of the Zoning Code
states that:
The condominium units created shall remain
in the short term rental market to be used
as temporary accommodations available to the
.
general public....
An owner's personal use of his or her unit
1
shall be restricted to 28 days during the
seasonal period of December 24 to January 1
and February 1 to March 20.
G. Upgrade of existing landscaping and new planters built
along P -2 parking area.
The project will continue to be run as a lodge in order to
provide customary lodge services and facilities to guests.
II. REASONS FOR THE SDD REQUEST
The Garden of the Gods project is located in the Public
Accommodation zone district. The existing SDD zoning that was
obtained in 1987 was originally requested because the project
did not meet the definition of a lodge, was under the allowable
density by .5 dwelling units and had a total common area that
exceeded that allowable. In respect to all other zoning
standards the project met the requirements of the Public
Accommodation zone district.
The new SDD request differs from the Public Accommodation zoning
and existing SDD in the following ways (Please see the attached
Zoning Analysis Chart):
. A. Definition of Lome:
The proposal does not meet the definition of a lodge.
According to the Zoning Code, Section 18.04.210, definition
of a lodge:
"A lodge means a building or group of
associated buildings designed for occupancy
primarily as the temporary lodging place of
individuals or families, either in
accommodation units or dwelling units, in
which the gross residential floor area
devoted to accommodation units exceeds the
gross residential floor area devoted to
dwelling units and in which all such units
are operated under a single management
providing the occupants thereof customary
hotel services and facilities."
The Public Accommodation zone requires that 51% of the
total GRFA be devoted to accommodation units. Presently,
53% of the GRFA is in accommodation units. The existing
Special Development District allocated 27% of total GRFA to
accommodation units. The proposed Special Development
district would devote 35% of the total GRFA to
• accommodation units. In other words, there is an 8%
increase in GRFA devoted to AU's when comparing the old SDD
to the proposed SDD. (Please see Garden of the Gods unit
use analysis chart).
2
0 B. Density:
The proposed SDD is one dwelling unit over the allowable
density. The Public Accommodation zoning allows for a
total density of 12.5 dwelling units. The applicants are
proposing a total density of 13.5 dwelling units. The
existing SDD is .5 dwelling units under the allowable.
Instead of sixteen accommodation units and eight dwelling
units, the new proposal will allow for nineteen
accommodation units and six dwelling units. (Please note
that two accommodation units equal one dwelling unit. An
accommodation unit lock -off is defined as an accommodation
unit that is attached to a dwelling unit in a multi - family
building. For zoning purposes, an accommodation unit
lock -off is not counted towards density, however the square
footage is added to the attached dwelling unit for
determining total GRFA and parking requirements).
Technically, the lock -off may not exceed one third of the
size of the attached DU. These lock -offs are approximately
25 square feet larger than allowed. Staff supports this
increase as the AU's will be more attractive for guests and
the increase is negligible.
C. GRFA:
is The proposed GRFA is 870 square feet over the allowable.
The new SDD has a total GRFA of 18,464 square feet. The PA
zone allows for 17,584 square feet. The existing SDD is
under the allowable GRFA by 16 square feet.
D. Common Area:
The proposed common area (4,018 square feet) is over the
allowable common area of 3,519. The project's existing
common area already exceeds the allowable by 56 square
feet. The existing SDD also exceeds the common area by 131
square feet.
In respect to all of the other zoning standards and
parking, the project meets the requirements of the Public
Accommodation zone district.
III. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL USING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
CRITERIA
A. Design Compatibility and Sensitivity to the Immediate
Environment, Neighborhood, and Adjacent Properties Relative
to Architectural Design, Style, Bulk, Building Height,_
Buffer Zones, Identity, Character, Visual Integrity and
Orientation
. The architecture of the building is significantly upgraded
by this proposal. The somewhat bulky appearance of the
•
•
existing building is improved by breaking up the facade by
the use of balconies and large dormers. The balcony square
footage is actually increased above the existing SDD from
1,128 square feet to 2,287 square feet. The proposal will
have a positive impact on the character of the neighborhood
as the design is within the allowable height and site
coverage for the project.
B. Uses, Act
efficient
and activ
Density
and workable relationshi
e
es
The proposal is one DU over the allowable density. This
increase is supportable due to the analysis below:
Lodge definition
Similar to the existing SDD, the proposal falls short of
meeting the definition of a lodge which would require that
more than 50% of the GRFA be devoted to accommodation
units. However, the new SDD actually allocates more GRFA
to accommodation units than the existing SDD. The average
size of the accommodation unit is also increased in the new
proposal from 287 square feet (existing SDD) to 340 square
feet. In addition, the number of accommodation units is
increased from ten accommodation units plus six
accommodation unit lock -offs (old SDD) to fifteen
accommodation units and four accommodation unit lock-- ffs
in the new proposal. The percentage of GRFA allocated to
accommodation units has been increased by 80 over the old
SDD. Also, the number of dwelling units has been decreased
from eight DU's to six DU's in the new proposal.
Restricted units
As stated in the previous SDD memo, the Ramshorn project
was considered to be a similar proposal to the Garden of
the Gods. In analyzing this type of request, the staff has
taken the position that maintaining rental restricted units
for the bed base is positive for the community. The intent
of the requirement that a majority of the project square
footage be devoted to accommodation units is to maintain
the purpose of the Public Accommodation district as a "site
for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors."
(Section 18.22.110)
Due to the fact that Special Development District zoning is
once again requested, there is some flexibility in how the
intent of the Public Accommodation Zone District may be
maintained without meeting the precise requirement to have
a majority of square footage devoted to accommodation
units. The staff originally analyzed this project in terms
of available rental units or "keys," i.e. AU's or DU's
that are available for rent. The new proposal has twenty -
five "keys" available for guests. This number of "keys" is
based on the fact that nineteen accommodation units and six
dwelling units are available as potential short term rental
units for guests. Of the twenty -five rentable units,
nineteen will be restricted as short term rentals with two
dwelling units restricted per the Subdivision Regulations
in Section 17.26.075.
This is an improvement over the existing Special
Development District. In the existing SDD, seventeen
"keys" or 70% of the units would be restricted. In the new
proposal, twenty -one "keys" or 84% of the units will be
restricted of which nineteen accommodation units are
restricted as short term rental units year - round.
Number of units
The number of "keys" available for guests is also
important in maintaining the intent of the PA zone district
for lodging. This is not to say that having the majority
of the GRFA devoted to AU's is not an important criteria
for insuring the short term use of the property. However,
it should be pointed out that technically the owner could
reduce the number of accommodation units within the project
and increase the GRFA of each of these units. This
approach would technically meet the definition of a lodge,
but would mean that the number of rentable units available
to guests would actually be decreased.
Staff believes that the proposal is positive in that the
AU's are upgraded and will be
maintained as accommodation units with the short term
rental restriction. In addition, the applicant has agreed
to restrict two dwelling units. This is not required under
the lodge conversion regulations. It is important to note
that when a lodge is condominiumized, the rental
restriction only applies to accommodation units.
GRFA
The additional GRFA (870 square feet) over the allowable is
located almost completely within the walls of the building
as proposed under the existing SDD. There are no
significant negative impacts to the mass and bulk of the
building. The reasoning for the density increase described
above also supports the approval of the additional GRFA.
Employee housing
The applicant has also agreed to improve the existing
employee restricted accommodation unit and employee
5
restricted dwelling unit. The accommodation unit will be
remodeled into a dwelling unit with a full kitchen and bath
and bedroom area. The other existing employee dwelling
unit will be expanded. The total existing square footage
devoted to employee units will be increased by 249 square
feet over the existing unit square footage. The present
SDD allowed for 730 square feet of employee housing which
is 644 square feet under what is being proposed with the
new SDD. In summary, the employee units are becoming much
more usable in that both units will be dwelling units and
the square footage is increasing.
Common area
The increase in common area is for lobby and ski storage
which provide guest services that are necessary to any
first class lodge. The increase in square footage is not
excessive.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as
outlined in Chapter 18.52
All parking requirements are met.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Compliance
Plan, Town policies, and Urban Design_Plans
The proposal complies with the intent of the Vail Village
Master Plan even though no specific recommendation is
called out for this site. Goal 2, Objective 3, of the Vail
Village Master Plan reads:
"To increase the number of residential units
throughout the Village area, available for
short term overnight accommodations.
The development of accommodation units is
strongly encouraged. Any residential units
that are developed above existing density
levels shall be designed or managed in a
manner that makes them available for short -
term rental."
(Please note the Vail Village Master Plan is not officially
approved). The Garden of the Gods project supports this
goal by restricting the nineteen accommodation units to
short term rentals throughout the year and by restricting
two dwelling units each having a square footage of 864
square feet per Section 17.26.075 of the Subdivision
Regulations. This in fact is an improved proposal over the
existing Special Development District in that the
accommodation units are used as short term rentals
throughout the year plus one more DU is restricted.
2
•
The Land Use Plan also supports this proposal in the
following ways:
1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and
upgraded whenever possible
3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more
efficiently.
3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location
for hotels to serve the future needs of the
destination skiers.
3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the
Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums
should be discouraged.
4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so
long as the existing character of each area is
preserved through implementation of the Urban Design
Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan.
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
isexist.
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available
through private efforts, assisted by limited
incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with
appropriate restrictions.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved
and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs
should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the
community.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and /or geologic
hazards that effect the property on which the Special
Development District is proposed.
Not applicable.
F. Site plan. buildina desian and location and ouen s
responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation,
and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
The remodel basically occurs almost completely within the
shell of the existing building. There are no major changes
in site planning or open space due to the remodel. The
building design is improved by the proposal.
7
G.
strians addressing on and off site traffic
circulation.
Traffic circulation on and off the property has not changed
due to the proposal. However, staff believes that the
Garden of the Gods should comply with a goal within the
Vail Village Master Plan which states that:
Goal #3: "To recognize as a top priority
the importance of maintaining and enhancing
the walking experience throughout the
Village."
objective #1: "To physically improve the
existing pedestrian ways throughout the
Village by landscaping and other
improvements."
Concept #25: "Gore Creek Road Sidewalk. A
separated walkway through the sub -area
linking Golden Peak with the Vail
Transportation Center. Landscape
improvements and pedestrian crosswalks to be
• included as required to meet demands of
pedestrian traffic."
As with the Ramshorn proposal, staff believes that the
Garden of the Gods must be required to construct a sidewalk
along the east side of the property. It is important
to have adequate pedestrian links between the Village area
and Golden Peak. In the future, it is the Town's intent to
have sidewalks on both sides of Vail Valley Drive.
The Ramshorn has built a sidewalk along the west side of
their property that also extends over to Golden Peak. It
makes sense for the Garden of the Gods to add their
sidewalk on the east side of their property as pedestrians
coming from the Transportation Center will most likely walk
along the west side of Vail Valley Drive. The sidewalk
improvement would also include a bus turn out area on the
southeast corner of the Garden of the God's property.
The present bus stop is located at the northeast corner of
the property. The new location is better for the owners of
the Garden of the Gods in that the bus stop does not block
the visibility of their site. In addition, safety is
increased for vehicles entering and exiting off the Garden
of the God's property as well as the general public. The
sidewalk will benefit the Garden of the God's guests and
the general public. Due to the fact that the proposal is
one dwelling unit over the allowable for density and 870
square feet over the allowable GRFA, it is very reasonable
W
and appropriate to request that the applicant make this
improvement.
The proposal has been reviewed by
department and would include a fi,
beginning at the northeast corner
extending to the southeast corner
landscaping would be disturbed on
the property.
the Public Works
Je foot sidewalk with curb
of the property and
of the site. No
the northeast corner of
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open_spacein
order to optimize and reserve natural features
recreation, views and functions.
The proposal also adds several planters on the west side of
the property in the area of the pool. The existing spa is
removed and replaced by landscaping. The railroad tie
planters along the parking area on the east side of Vail
Valley Drive will be rebuilt out of stone and additional
plantings will be added. The landscape proposal is
extremely positive and will add to an already well
landscaped project.
I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a
workable, functional, and efficient relationship throughout
the development of the Special Development District.
Not applicable.
IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL
A. Uses:
Please see Section III B.
B. Density /GRFA:_
Please see Section III B.
C. Setbacks:
No change requested.
D. Height:
The height proposed is within the maximum allowed of 48
feet for a sloping roof.
E. Site coverage:
The site coverage is dramatically below the allowable of
9,677 square feet. The proposed site coverage is 6,821
E
• square feet. This is actually ten square feet under the
existing Special Development District.
F. Parking:
Parking requirements are met for the proposal.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the proposal. Basically, our
position is very similar to our recommendation on the Ramshorn
project. As stated previously: "Although the inability of the
end product to meet the strict definition of a lodge is not what
we would ideally like to see, we feel that the property will
continue to function as a lodge and meet the intent of providing
high quality guest accommodations in the PA Zone District." The
staff believes that it is critical that the property remain as a
functioning lodge and that the nineteen accommodation units and
two dwelling units remain available to guests according to the
agreed upon use restrictions. Staff approval is contingent upon
the applicant meeting the following conditions:
1. The applicant must submit a revised employee housing
agreement with a floor plan that clearly indicates the
• location, type of unit, and square footage for each
employee housing unit. This information must be submitted
and approved by the owner and Town of Vail before a
building permit is issued for the project.
2. The applicant shall submit a written statement agreeing to
restrict per the Subdivision Rental Restriction, Section
17.26.075, the two dwelling units as indicated on the PEC
plans as well as the short -term rental restriction on the
nineteen accommodation units. This written agreement shall
be submitted and approved by staff before a building permit
is issued for the project.
3. The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall construct a
sidewalk and a bus lane on the east side of the property.
The final design of the sidewalk and bus lane shall be
submitted by the applicant to the Public Works Department
and Community Development Department for approval. The
sidewalk and bus lane shall be constructed subsequent to
the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance
of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the project.
The applicant shall submit a written statement agreeing ito
this condition for the Town Attorney's approval before a
building permit is released for the remodel.
4. The vent on the west side of the pool shall be removed
40 before a temporary certificate of occupancy is issued for
the building.
10
•
PA
5. The applicant shall provide written, legal, documentation
of the Garden of the Gods' right to use the parking spaces
on the east side of Vail Valley Drive on a parcel called
P-2. The applicant has submitted documentation of the
Garden of the Gods' participation as a member of the P -2
Condominium Association. However, staff must have written
documentation as well as an attached map to scale showing
the area of the P -2 parcel which is allocated to the Garden
of the Gods. This agreement must also be approved by the
other members jof the P -2 Condominium Association. This
document must be submitted and approved by the staff before
the project proceeds to second reading of the ordinance.
11
•
•
LJ
51% GRFA IN AU'S
NA
NA
17594 SQ. FT.
12.5 DU
3519 SQ. FT.
45 FT. FLAT ROOF
48 FT. SLOPE ROOF
20FT.
9677 SQ. FT.
5278 SQ. FT.
JUNE 1989
GARDEN OF THE GODS
ZONING ANALYSIS
16 CN 7742 SQ. FT
2 @ 6745 SQ. FT.
1 AU 610 SQ, FT.
1 DU 515 SO. FT.
1.5* * @ 1125 SQ. FT
14543 SQ. FT.
10 DU
3575 SQ. FT.
42 FT.
EAST 20.0 FT.
WEST .2 FT.
NORTH 1.4 FT,
SOUTH 9.0 FT
6363 SQ. FT.
OK
22 READ.
28 EX.
10 AU
6 AU LOCK OFFS*
16 @ 4596 SQ. FT.
8 @ 12141 SQ. FT.
1 DU 215 SQ. FT.
1 DU 515 SQ. FT.
2 @ 730 SQ. FT.
17578 SQ. FT.
13 DU (AUS + DUS)
4360 SQ. FT.
SAME
EAST 20.0 FT.
WEST .2 FT.
NORTH 1.4 FT.
SOUTH 9.0 FT
6831 SQ. FT.
OK
27 READ.
28 PROPOSED
15 AU
4 AU LOCK OFFS
19 @ 6466 SQ. FT.
6 @ 11998 SQ. FT.
1 DU 904
1 DU 470
2DU @ 1374 SQ. FT.
18464 SO. FT.
13.5DU (AUS + DUS)
4018 SQ. FT.
42 FT.
EAST 20.0 FT.
WEST .2 FT.
NORTH 1.4 FT.
SOUTH 9.0 FT
6821 SQ. FT.
OK
28 READ.
28 PROPOSED
* Restricted employee units are not counted towards density or GRFA
** 1 DU equals 2 AU
* ** Standard parking requirements applied
* * ** A DU in a multi - family building may include one attached accom-
modation unit (AU lock -off) no larger than one third of the total
floor area of the DU. A lock -off is not counted for density. Lock -
off GRFA is added to the total DU GRFA.. Parking for lock -off is
calculated by adding the AU lock -off to the DU GRFA. The DU
parking requirements are applied to the total GRFA for the DU
plus AU lock -off.
•
JUNE 19$9
GARDEN OF THE GODS
UNIT USE ANALYSTS
* All AU and AU lock —offs shall be used for short --term rental
through out the year.
0
•
PA:ZONE
EXISTING
OLD SDD a
NEW SDD
9/o:OF TOTAL
27%
35
GRFA IN AUS .'
51 %
53%
AVG. AU 287 S.F.
AVG. AU 340 S.F.
9/o OF TOTAL
GRI✓A>1N DUS
490/a
47%
73%
65
o OF;TOTAI:
16 AUS @ 4596
19 AUS 6466"
GRFAAENTAL .
1 DU @ 1134
2 DUS 1728
RESTRICTED PER:
NA
0
5730 S.F.OR 34%
8194 S.F.OR 44 %
17:2fi 075 `'
TOTAL KEYS . ::
NA
18
24
25
:% OF KEYS'
RESTRICTED PER.
NA
0
17 KEYS OR 70 %
621 KEYS OR 84 o/a
17.26 075
* All AU and AU lock —offs shall be used for short --term rental
through out the year.
0
•
•
•
GOAL #3 TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP
PRIORITY THE IMPORTANCE OF
MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING THE
WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT
THt VILLAGE.
Objective #1 To physically
improve the existing
pedestrianways throughout the
Village by landscaping and other
improvements.
ALL UAS04&
'27 i
28
#27. Ramshorn Lodge
One story residential addition to
existing structure. Varied roof
heights should be maintained.
Also see Goal 1, Objective 2
#28. All Seasons
Residential infill over existing
surface parking area. Development
requires substantial landscaped buffer
between structure and existing and
proposed pedestrianization.
Also see Goal 1, Objective 2
t A
..Ak -uy EASF1iiLLA�tE,
23 #25 Gore Creek Road Sidewalk
A separated walkway through the
sub -area linking Golden Peak with the
Vail Transportation Center. Landscape
improvements and pedestrian crosswalks
to be included as required to meet
demands of pedestrian traffic,
-40-
. TO: The Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: June 12, 1989
SUBJ: A request for a major exterior alteration for the Red Lion
Inn, 304 Bridge Street, Lot H, Block 5A, Vail Village First
Filing.
Applicant: T.E.A., Incorporated /Red Lion Inn
I. THE PROPOSAL
In 1982, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved an
exterior alteration for the Red Lion. The proposal was to
enclose 992 square feet of existing patio on the west side of
the Red Lion. In the summer, the applicants proposed to remove
a portion of the windows in order to maintain an open deck.
This request was approved with the condition that the enclosure
be allowed from September 15 to June 15 and that during the
remainder of the year, the glass along Bridge Street must be
completely removed and the patio opened up to the street.
The present proposal would provide a permanent enclosure of the
deck. The existing removeable windows along Bridge Street would
. be replaced by operable windows similar to the "accordian wood
windows" in place at Sweet Basils, Blu's, and Vendetta's. The
existing brick sill along Bridge Street would be lowered
approximately twelve inches to sixteen inches to allow for the
new windows. When open, the proposed window system panels stack
next to the structural columns.
The applicant proposes that between June 15 and September 15,
the windows will remain fully open during the hours of operation
which are from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. daily. The windows will
be closed during this period to provide security when the
restaurant is not open. The applicant is requesting that the
windows be allowed to be closed completely during the winter.
The design includes a new pocket garden and seating area to the
south of the existing outdoor patio. Pavers will replace the
existing asphalt.
The applicant is also requesting an extension on the deadline to
remove the windows to allow time for the review of the remodel
request.
The Planning Commission has been asked to review this request
again due to the fact that the existing removable glass windows
will be replaced by permanently installed operable windows. In
addition, the owners are asking to amend the condition of
. approval of the original exterior alteration which required that
the windows be completely removed along the Bridge Street •
elevation during the summer.
TI. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I
A. 18.24.010 Purpose:
The Commercial Core I district is intended
to provide sites and to maintain the unique
character of the Vail Village Commercial
Area, with its mixture of lodges and
commercial establishments in a predominantly
pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core
I District is intended to ensure adequate
light, air, open space, and other amenities
appropriate to the permitted types of
buildings and uses. The district
regulations in accordance with the Vail
Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design
Considerations prescribe site development
standards that are intended to ensure the
maintenance and preservation of the tightly
clustered arrangements of buildings fronting
on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and
to ensure continuation of the building scale
and architectural qualities that distinguish
the Village. •
This proposal does not comply fully with the purpose
section of Commercial Core I. The staff's concern is that
the design of the enclosure does not go far enough to
enhance the "unique character of the Vail Village area" and
the "predominantly pedestrian environment."
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The following guide plan sub -area concept relates to the south
side of the Red Lion adjacent to the outside dining patio:
10. Seibert Circle. Feature area paving
treatment. Relocate focal point (potential
fountain) to north for better sun exposure
(fall /spring), creates increased plaza area
and could be the back -drop for activities.
Separated path on north side for unimpeded
pedestrian route during delivery periods.
This proposal relates very positively to the sub -area concept.
The applicant proposes to landscape the south side of the
outside dining deck. A bench and paver treatment for the street
will be added. This is a vast improvement over the existing
situation which consists of asphalt directly abutting the
building. When Seibert Circle is relocated, the proposed
2
landscaping will integrate into the design which calls for a
"separated path on the north side for an unimpeded pedestrian
route."
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE
A. Pedestrianization:
This criteria's emphasis is to "reinforce and expand the
quality of pedestrian walkways throughout the Village."
The applicant has explained that the existing brick sill
will be lowered to approximately one foot above the
finished floor. According to the applicant, it is
necessary to maintain a low interior wall for the hot water
base board heating system and to comply with code
requirements for height of glass above the floor. The
staff understands these design requirements and also
believes that it is very positive that the brick sill is
being lowered by one foot.
However, it is not acceptable to the staff that the
existing sliding glass windows will remain on the north and
south sides of the deck area. We feel strongly that it is
appropriate to improve upon the original exterior
alteration request which allowed these windows to be
• closed. It is important that the north and south
elevations also have the same type of window treatment as
proposed for the Bridge Street side of the deck.
Given hindsight, the staff believes that the Red Lion Inn
approval of 1982 has had negative impacts on Bridge Street
which were unanticipated by the staff as well as the
Planning Commission. We look at this request as an
opportunity to utilize the Vail Village Design
Considerations to improve this situation. It is our
opinion that throughout most of the year, this semi-
permanent deck enclosure has the appearance of an enclosed
structure that offers very little to reinforce
pedestrianization.
In order to improve upon the situation and more fully meet
the intent of the design considerations, staff strongly
recommends that the window treatment on the Bridge Street
side of the deck also be added to the north and south
elevations. This will allow for a greater openness and
will meet the original intent of the 1982 approval.
We also believe that it would be positive to increase the
transparency of the roof. We suggest using a glass ceiling
for a portion of the roof. This approach will make the
enclosure more like a greenhouse. The increased light in
. the bar area will improve the appearance of the structure
from the street as well as enhance pedestrianizaiton.
3
IV.
B. Vehicular penetration: is
No impact.
C. Steetsca a Framework:
The streetscape /framework criteria focuses on ways "to
improve the quality of the walking experience and give
continuity to the pedestrian ways. Two types of
improvements are encouraged along walkways: one is
additional open space and landscaping and secondly, the
infill of commercial storefronts to add commercial activity
and street life and attraction of key locations along
pedestrian routes."
This proposal positively effects the walking experience
with the addition of the landscaping on the south side of
the outdoor dining deck. The bench and landscaping creates
a very pleasant space for pedestrian use which is now very
unattractive.
As stated under the pedestrianization criteria, staff
believes that the north and south elevations need to match
the design of the west elevation. The greenhouse approach
to the roof system will also add to the streetscape
framework by making the dining area more visible to
pedestrians. .
D. Street enclosure:
No impact.
E. Street edge:
This criteria encourages buildings in the Village Core to
"create a strong but irregular edge to the street."
The street edge is not changed due to the remodel. We do
believe that the greenhouse approach to the roof will
improve the overall appearance of the Bridge Street
elevation.
F. Building height:
No change.
G. Views and focal points:
Not applicable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the request.
2
The proposal does not
r1
U
comply with the applicable exterior alteration criteria of
pedestrianization, street framework, and street edge. We
recommend the following changes to the proposal.
1. Floor to ceiling operable windows should be used along the
north and south elevations. At a minimum, the design
details of these windows should match the proposed west
elevation window treatment.
2. A portion of the roof should be glass in order to add
greater transparency. We would suggest an approach similar
to the design used by Vendetta's, Up The Creek, or the
Uptown Grill.
The Red Lion deck has the potential to be a deck that greatly
enhances the pedestrian experience. Staff appreciates the
owner's interest in making this dining area more useable and
permanently enclosed. We also think the pocket garden and bench
are very positive streetscape improvements. However, in order
to agree with those changes, staff believes that the design
recommendations involved must be included in the proposal.
In respect to the owner's request that they be allowed to
maintain the enclosure of the deck during the review process, we
recommend that the owner remove the existing windows by June
15th per the 1982 approval. It was made clear to the current
• owner that this condition would still be applicable for this
summer season. (Please see attached letter). Even if this
request is approved by the PEC, the DRB and building permit
processes will take several weeks. Also, the windows will need
to be removed for construction. We believe that arrangements
can be made to secure the bar area.
r�
U
5
APPLICATION FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS
IN COMMERCIAL CORE I, VAIL VILLAGE
APPLICANT; RED LION INN
T.E.A., Inc., the owners of the Red Lion Inn,are applying for an exterior
modification in Commercial Core I of Vail Village. They wish to replace
the existing fixed glass windows along Bridge Street with permanently installed
operable windows and to create a landscaped area south of the patio. The pro-
posed accordian windows are-similar to those in place at Sweet Basil, Blu's
and Vendetta's.
The existing brick sill will be lowered approximately one foot to sixteen
inches above the finish floor. It is necessary to maintain a low interior
wall for the hot water baseboard heating system and to comply with code
requirements for height of glass above the floor. When open, the proposed
window system panels stack next to the structural columns and will provide
unobstructed openings twenty percent (20 %) greater than the existing system.
Between June 15 and September 15, the windows will remain fully open during
the hours of operation which are from 11;00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., daily. The
windows will be closed to provide security when the restaurant is not open.
As per the 1982 staff memo regarding the enclosure of the Red Lion Patio,
the proposal is in conformance with the purpose of the CCI District as specified
in 18.24.010.
C7
The proposed window system will enhance the streetscape framework of Vail •
by allowing the Red Lion Inn to be open to Bridge Street on nice days throughout
the year rather than only between June 15 and September 15. Because of the
larger window area, the Red Lion will also be better integrated with the
pedestrian way when the windows are closed as well as open. This additional
visual interest and activity will heighten the pedestrian's experience of
street life as outlined in the Urban Design Guide Plan's Design Considerations.
The Seibert Circle area will be enhanced by replacing the existing asphalt
paving on the south side of the patio with a pocket garden and seating area.
This will soften the existing harshness of the area and will define a pedes-
trian way along the Red Lion Inn toward Hughes Precious Metal Design.
As per the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, a separated pedestrian route
is planned in this area. This proposal will certainly improve the pathway
of the pedestrian, the streetscape framework, the street edge, and appearance
of Seibert Circle.
This proposal does not alter the existing conditions is regard to vehicle
penetration, street encloseure, building height, views and sun /shade.
The proposal is compatible with the character of the neighborhood, and will
improve the appearance of the Red Lion frontage along Bridge Street.
Since the Planning and Environmental Commission approval for the window
replacement cannot be obtained.before May 22, 1989 and the lead time of the
system if six weeks, the owner requests that the Town of Vail work with them
to create a satisfactory time schedule for this project.
•
•
10WH o Vag
75 south frontage road
vall, colorado 81657
(303) 476 -7000
October 31, 1988
Mr. Terry, Ray
1203 Laramie Street
Manhattan, Kansas 66302
Re: Red Lion
Dear Mr. Ray:
office of community development
I have received your letter dated 10/27/88 and the revised
Donaldson drawings -dated 11//27/88. The Town of Vail will
issue the requested building permit based upon this
information. Our previous concern was related to the viability
of the design with regard to existing requirements of the Red
Lion Inn as mandated by the Vail Town Council. The requirement
to remove the windows from the deck from June 15 through
September 15 is still valid and remains in effect. This
requirement will remain in effect until otherwise amended or
released by the Town Council.
I appreciate the revisions that have been made and your
comments assuring the Town that there will be no conflict with
existing regulations.
I wish you the best of luck in your opening season.
Sincerely,
I % �3_
Rick Pylman
Town Planner
■
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 12, 1989
RE: A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I
in order to enclose an existing dining deck and create a
new dining deck at the Up The Creek Bar & Grill, located in
the Creekside Plaza Building, Vail Village.
Applicant: Jim Slevin and Peter Stadler
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
The two main elements involved in this proposal are the
enclosure of the existing dining patio adjacent to the Up The
Creek Restaurant and the expansion of the remainder of the
outdoor dining area. The deck enclosure consists of a 250
square foot greenhouse addition to the existing restaurant.
This addition will incorporate an airlock entry and will be
constructed with a skylight roof system, an operable window /wall
system similar to what has been used in Blu's Beanery,
Vendetta's, Hong Kong Cafe, etc. The dining patio expansion is
located predominantly on Town property. Earlier in the year,
• the Town Council granted Up The Creek Restaurant the opportunity
to proceed through the review process with this basic design.
This proposal also entails completing the interlocking paver
design of the Gore Creek promenade. Presently the only store
front area along Gore Creek that has not benefited from the
promenade improvements is the area from the eastern promenade
staircase to the Up The Creek Restaurant. The owners of the
restaurant will complete this section of the promenade as a part
of their construction.
II. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST
As outlined in the Zoning Code, review criteria for requests of
this nature are established by the Vail Village Urban Design
Guide Plan. The emphasis of this review is on the project's
compatibility with both the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail
Village Design considerations. Detailed architectural and
landscape considerations become the purview of the Design Review
Board if this project is approved. Planning Commission is also
charged with addressing standard zoning issues not covered in
the Urban Design Guide Plan.
III. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
Expressed as Sub Area Concepts, the elements of the Guide Plan
identify physical improvements to improve the overall fabric of
. Vail Village. There are no specific proposals identified in
this element of the plan relative to this particular project.
• IV. VAIL VILLAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
These Urban Design considerations address large scale land
planning issues, as well as form giving considerations that go
beyond the property lines of the project proposal. These
considerations contain the following:
A. Pedestrianization:
This consideration is intended to reinforce and expand the
pedestrian walking experience throughout Vail Village.
The proposed patio expansion, while encroaching into the
east end of a public park, does not negatively impact
pedestrianization of the walkways of the promenade or of
the park. The owner's proposal to remove the existing
concrete walkways and replace this with a brick paver
design that matches the existing promenade positively
impacts the pedestrian experience of this portion of the
community.
B. Vehicular Penetration:
There are no impacts related to vehicular penetration from
this proposal.
• C. Street_scape Framework:
While there may be slight modifications to the landscaping
of the patio area, several planters have been incorporated
into the railing which may contain decorative plantings to
alleviate the loss of some of the landscaped area of the
park. It is the staff's belief that the construction of
this addition and patio, while encroaching into the park
will actually reinforce the streetscape framework of the
promenade and the park. The present patio configuration
for the Up The Creek Restaurant is a rather weak urban
design statement. Improvements to this area of the
promenade will reinforce positive urban design improvements
that have been made in this retail and park area.
D. Street Enclosure:
Because of the open space directly adjacent to this
property, the street enclosure considerations are not
directly applicable.
E. Street Edge:
The current configuration of the Creekside Plaza Building
is rather linear. The addition of the greenhouse at the
. northern end of that building creates a positive stepping
effect and presents a positive conclusion to the northeast
corner of this retail area.
•
is
n
U
V.
F. Building Height:
There are no considerations applicable to building height
as a result of this proposal.
G. Views:
Views are not impacted by this proposal.
H. Service and Delivery
Though the seating capacity for the restaurant will be
increased, it is not anticipated that an increase number of
delivery trucks will be needed to service this expansion.
I. Sun /Shade:
This enclosure is designed in complete compliance with
recommendations made in the Guide Plan regarding sun /shade
impacts.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Additional parking demands created by the enclosed space will be
met by payment into the Town's parking fund. The exact amount
will be calculated at the time of building permit.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation for this request is for approval.
Expansion of the Up The Creek Restaurant and the addition of the
patio area completes what the staff, local property owners, and
business owners started with the promenade construction. The
addition and newly designed patio present a positive anchor to
the east side of the public park and to the northeast corner of
the retail promenade. The staff has historically been
supportive of maintaining outdoor dining decks and although this
addition eliminates a deck, we feel that the proposed patio,
although located on public ground, is a definite improvement to
the existing situation and presents a community benefit. The
staff would encourage the Planning Commission to adopt the
following conditions of approval:
1. The walls on the west elevation as shown in the
drawing by Michael A. Hazard, AIA, dated 5/15/88, be
totally operable.
2. Sidewalk improvements consistent with the Gore Creek
promenade design be constructed in conjunction with
this proposal. Consistent improvements shall meet
identical materials and design. The upgrading of the
walkway shall be made the entire length of the
Creekside Building.
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 12, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use permit in order to
expand an outdoor dining deck at Up The Creek Bar &
Grill located at the Creekside Building, Vail Village.
Applicant: Jim Slevin and Peter Stadler
I. CRITERIA TO BE ADDRESSED
While all significant issues relative to this project have
been addressed in the accompanying exterior alteration
memorandum, the Zoning Code requires a separate Conditional
Use approval for the expansion of the dining patio. The
following criteria are to be used in this review.
A. Effects of vehicular traffic and Commercial Core I
T1i c-+-ri e-i-
There are no impacts upon vehicular traffic relative to
this proposal.
0 B. Reduction of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I
T 4 .-. 4- - 4 -4-
This proposal will not reduce nor increase vehicular
traffic into the Core.
C. Reduction of non - essential off street parking
There is no effect on this consideration.
D. Control of delivery, pick up, and service vehicles
There is no anticipated increase in the frequency of
deliveries to this establishment.
E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians
As indicated in the exterior alteration memorandum, a
significant improvement to the existing walkway will be
constructed in conjunction with this proposal. If
approved and constructed, the applicant is to be
commended for his participation in this public
improvement. The level of improvement is of high
quality and consistent with the improvements on adjacent
properties.
iF. Continuance of the various commercial residential and
public uses in Commercial Core I District so as to
maintain the existing character of the area
•
As expressed in the exterior alteration memorandum,
staff feels strongly that this proposal will increase
and reinforce the activity along the Gore Creek
promenade.
G. Control, quality of construction, architectural desi
and landscape design in Commercial Core Z_so as to
maintain the existing character of the area
The walkway improvements are of the highest quality,
design and construction that may be found in the
Village. The patio design improves the existing
landscaping of the public park and the design of the
addition is an improvement over existing conditions on
the property. The greenhouse addition will consist of
operable doors that will allow the entire restaurant to
be opened onto the public park. The staff sees this as
a significant contribution to the promenade area.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation for this request if for approval as per
the conditions outlined in the exterior alteration
somemorandum.
•
TO: The Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 12, 1989
SUBJ: A request for an amendment to Special Development District
No. 19, Garden of the Gods Lodge, 365 Gore Creek Drive, Lot
K, Block 5A, Vail Village Fifth Filing and Parcel P -2.
Applicant: Mrs. A. G. Hill and family
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
In December 1987, Special Development District No. 18 was
approved by the Town Council. The owners requested to change
the zoning from public accommodation to a special development
district in order to remodel sixteen accommodation units and to
add six dwelling units. The remodel also included expanding
common area and mechanical spaces as well as the remodeling of
two employee dwelling units.
The
applicant has re- evaluated the existing building and the
approved plan. Below is a summary of the new proposal:
A.
Remodel existing sixteen accommodation units and add three
accommodation units having a total GRFA of 6,466 square
feet.
B.
Remodel two existing dwelling units and add four dwelling
units having a total GRFA of 11,998 square feet.
C.
Expand common area from 3,575 square feet to 4,013 square
feet for an increase of 443 square feet. This expansion
includes a new entry vestibule on the west elevation.
D.
Remodel two employee housing units: this changes one
accommodation unit at 610 square feet and one dwelling unit
at 515 square feet into one dwelling unit having at 904
square feet and one dwelling unit at 470 square feet.
E.
Restrict nineteen accommodation units (fifteen AU's plus
four AU lockoffs) as short term rentals.
F.
Restrict two dwelling units per Section 17.26.075 of the
Subdivision Regulations. This section of the Zoning Code
states that:
The condominium units created shall remain
in the short term rental market to be used
as temporary accommodations available to the
general public....
• An owner's personal use of his or her unit
i
II.
shall be restricted to 28 days during the
seasonal period of December 24 to January 1
and February 1 to March 20.
G, Upgrade of existing landscaping and new planters built
along P -2 parking area.
The project will continue to be run as a lodge in order to
provide customary lodge services and facilities to guests.
REASONS FOR THE SDD REQUEST
The Garden of the Gods project is located in the Public
Accommodation zone district. The existing SDD zoning that was
obtained in 1987 was originally requested because the project
did not meet the definition of a lodge, was under the allowable
density by .5 dwelling units and had a total common area that
exceeded that allowable. In respect to all other zoning
standards the project met the requirements of the Public
Accommodation zone district.
The new SDD request differs from the Public Accommodation zoning
and existing SDD in the following ways (Please see the attached
Zoning Analysis Chart):
A. Definition of Lodge:
The proposal does not meet the definition of a lodge. 40
According to the Zoning Code, Section 18.04,210, definition
of a lodge:
"A lodge means a building or group of
associated buildings designed for occupancy
primarily as the temporary lodging place of
individuals or families, either in
accommodation units or dwelling units, in
which the gross residential floor area
devoted to accommodation units exceeds the
toss residential floor area devoted to
dwelling units and in which all such units
are operated under a single management
providing the occupants thereof customary
hotel services and facilities."
The Public Accommodation zone requires that 51% of the
total GRFA be devoted to accommodation units. Presently,
53% of the GRFA is in accommodation units. The existing
Special Development District allocated 27% of total GRFA to
accommodation units. The proposed Special Development
district would devote 35% of the total GRFA to
accommodation units. In other words, there is an 8%
increase in GRFA devoted to AU's when comparing the old SDD
to the proposed SDD. (Please see Garden of the Gods unit .
use analysis chart).
. B. Density
The proposed SDD is one dwelling unit over the allowable
density. The Public Accommodation zoning allows for a
total density of 12.5 dwelling units. The applicants are
proposing a total density of 13.5 dwelling units. The
existing SDD is .5 dwelling units under the allowable.
Instead of sixteen accommodation units and eight dwelling
units, the new proposal will allow for nineteen
accommodation units and six dwelling units. (Please note
that two accommodation units equal one dwelling unit. An
accommodation unit lock -off is defined as an accommodation
unit that is attached to a dwelling unit in a multi - family
building. For zoning purposes, an accommodation unit
lock -off is not counted towards density, however the square
footage is added to the attached dwelling unit for
determining total GRFA and parking requirements).
Technically, the lock -off may not exceed one third of the
size of the attached DU. These lock -offs are approximately
25 square feet larger than allowed. Staff supports this
increase as the AU's will be more attractive for guests and
the increase is negligible.
C. GRFA:
The proposed GRFA is 870 square feet over the allowable.
is The new SDD has a total GRFA of 18,464 square feet. The PA
zone allows for 17,584 square feet. The existing SDD is
under the allowable GRFA by 16 square feet.
D. Common Area:
The proposed common area (4,018 square feet) is over the
allowable common area of 3,519. The project's existing
common area already exceeds the allowable by 56 square
feet. The existing SDD also exceeds the common area by 131
square feet.
in respect to all of the other zoning standards and
parking, the project meets the requirements of the Public
Accommodation zone district.
III. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL USING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
CRTTERTA
A. Design Compatibility and Sensitivity to the Immediate
Environment, Neighborhood, and Adjacent Properties Relativ
to Architectural Design, Style, Bulk Building Height,
Buffer Zones, Identity, Character, Visual Integrity and
orientation
The architecture of the building is significantly upgraded
by this proposal. The somewhat bulky appearance of the
3
M
0.
existing building is improved by breaking up the facade by •
the use of balconies and large dormers. The balcony square
footage is actually increased above the existing SDD from
1,128 square feet to 2,287 square feet. The proposal will
have a positive impact on the character of the neighborhood
as the design is within the allowable height and site
coverage for the project.
Uses, Activity and Density which provide a compatible,
efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses
and activity '
Density
The proposal is one DU over the allowable density. This
increase is supportable due to the analysis below:
Lodge definition
Similar to the existing SDD, the proposal falls short of
meeting the definition of a lodge which would require that
more than 50% of the GRFA be devoted to accommodation
units. However, the new SDD actually allocates more GRFA
to accommodation units than the existing SDD. The average
size of the accommodation unit is also increased in the new
proposal from 287 square feet (existing SDD) to 340 square
feet. In addition, the number of accommodation units is .
increased from ten accommodation units plus six
accommodation unit lock -offs (old SDD) to fifteen
accommodation units and four accommodation unit lock- ffs
in the new proposal. The percentage of GRFA allocated to
accommodation units has been increased by 8% over the old
SDD. Also, the number of dwelling units has been decreased
from eight DU's to six DU's in the new proposal.
Restricted units
As stated in the previous SDD memo, the Ramshorn project
was considered to be a similar proposal to the Garden of
the Gods. In analyzing this type of request, the staff has
taken the position that maintaining rental restricted units
for the bed base is positive for the community. The intent
of the requirement that a majority of the project square
footage be devoted to accommodation units is to maintain
the purpose of the Public Accommodation district as a "site
for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors."
(Section 18.22.110)
Due to the fact that Special Development District zoning is
once again requested, there is some flexibility in how the
intent of the Public Accommodation Zone District may be
maintained without meeting the precise requirement to have
a majority of square footage devoted to accommodation •
units. The staff originally analyzed this project in terms
4
. of available rental units or "keys," i.e. AU's or DU's
that are available for rent. The new proposal has twenty -
five "keys" available for guests. This number of "keys" is
based on the fact that nineteen accommodation units and six
dwelling units are available as potential short term rental
units for guests. Of the twenty -five rentable units,
nineteen will be restricted as short term rentals with two
dwelling units restricted per the Subdivision Regulations
in Section 17.26.075.
This is an improvement over the existing Special
Development District. In the existing SDD, seventeen
"keys" or 70% of the units would be restricted. In the new
proposal, twenty -one "keys" or 840 of the units will be
restricted of which nineteen accommodation units are
restricted as short term rental units year - round.
Number of units
The number of "keys" available for guests is also
important in maintaining the intent of the PA zone district
for lodging. This is not to say that having the majority
of the GRFA devoted to AU's is not an important criteria
for insuring the short term use of the property. However,
it should be pointed out that technically the owner could
reduce the number of accommodation units within the project
• and increase the GRFA of each of these units. This
approach would technically meet the definition of a lodge,
but would mean that the number of rentable units available
to guests would actually be decreased.
Staff believes that the proposal is positive in that the
AV's are upgraded and will be
maintained as accommodation units with the short term
rental restriction. In addition, the applicant has agreed
to restrict two dwelling units. This is not required under
the lodge conversion regulations. It is important to note
that when a lodge is condominiumized, the rental
restriction only applies to accommodation units.
GRFA
The additional GRFA (870 square feet) over the allowable is
located almost completely within the walls of the building
as proposed under the existing SDD. There are no
significant negative impacts to the mass and bulk of the
building. The reasoning for the density increase described
above also supports the approval of the additional GRFA.
Employee housing
The applicant has also agreed to improve the existing
• employee restricted accommodation unit and employee
5
restricted dwelling unit. The accommodation unit will be .
remodeled into a dwelling unit with a full kitchen and bath
and bedroom area. The other existing employee dwelling
unit will be expanded. The total existing square footage
devoted to employee units will be increased by 249 square
feet over the existing unit square footage. The present
SDD allowed for 730 square feet of employee housing which
is 644 square feet under what is being proposed with the
new SDD. In summary, the employee units are becoming much
more usable in that both units will be dwelling units and
the square footage is increasing.
Common area
The increase in common area is for lobby and ski storage
which provide guest services that are necessary to any
first class lodge. The increase in square footage is not
excessive.
C. Compliance with parking and loading re uirements as
outlined in Chapter 18.52
All parking requirements are met.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Compliance
Plan Town Policies, and Urban Design Plans
The proposal complies with the intent of the Vail Village
Master Plan even though no specific recommendation is
called out for this site. Goal 2, Objective 3, of the Vail
Village Master Plan reads:
"To increase the number of residential units
throughout the Village area, available for
short term overnight accommodations.
The development of accommodation units is
strongly encouraged. Any residential units
that are developed above existing density
levels shall be designed or managed in a
manner that makes them available for short -
term rental."
(Please note the Vail Village Master Plan is not officially
approved). The Garden of the Gods project supports this
goal by restricting the nineteen accommodation units to
short term rentals throughout the year and by restricting
two dwelling units each having a square footage of 864
square feet per Section 17.26.075 of the Subdivision
Regulations. This in fact is an improved proposal over the
existing Special Development District in that the
accommodation units are used as short term rentals
throughout the year plus one more DU is restricted. •
31
. The Land Use Plan also supports this proposal in the
following ways:
1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and
upgraded whenever possible
3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more
efficiently.
3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location
for hotels to serve the future needs of the
destination skiers.
3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the
Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums
should be discouraged.
4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so
long as the existing character of each area is
preserved through implementation of the Urban Design
Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan.
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.
• 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available
through private efforts, assisted by limited
incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with
appropriate restrictions.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved
and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs
should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the
community.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and /or_geologic
hazards that effect the property on which the S ecial
Development District is proposed.
Not applicable.
F. Site plan, building design and location and open s ace
provisions designed to produce a functional development
responsive and sensitive to natural features vegetation-,-
and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
The remodel basically occurs almost completely within the
shell of the existing building. There are no major changes
in site planning or open space due to the remodel. The
building design is improved by the proposal.
1
7
G.
The circulation sys
pedestrians address
circulation.
d for both v
off site tra
Traffic circulation on and off the property has not changed
due to the proposal. However, staff believes that the
Garden of the Gods should comply with a goal within the
Vail Village Master Plan which states that:
Goal #3: "To recognize as a top priority
the importance of maintaining and enhancing
the walking experience throughout the
Village."
Objective #1: "To physically improve the
existing pedestrian ways throughout the
Village by landscaping and other
improvements."
Concept #25: "Gore Creek Road Sidewalk. A
separated walkway through the sub -area
linking Golden Peak with the Vail
Transportation Center. Landscape
improvements and pedestrian crosswalks to be
included as required to meet demands of
pedestrian traffic."
•
As with the Ramshorn proposal, staff believes that the •
Garden of the Gods must be required to construct a sidewalk
along the east side of the property. It is important
to have adequate pedestrian links between the Village area
and Golden Peak. In the future, it is the Town's intent to
have sidewalks on both sides of Vail Valley Drive.
The Ramshorn has built a sidewalk along the west side of
their property that also extends over to Golden Peak. It
makes sense for the Garden of the Gods to add their
sidewalk on the east side of their property as pedestrians
coming from the Transportation Center will most likely walk
along the west side of Vail Valley Drive. The sidewalk
improvement would also include a bus turn out area on the
southeast corner of the Garden of the God's property.
The present bus stop is located at the northeast corner of
the property. The new location is better for the owners of
the Garden of the Gods in that the bus stop does not block
the visibility of their site. In addition, safety is
increased for vehicles entering and exiting off the Garden
of the God's property as well as the general public. The
sidewalk will benefit the Garden of the God's guests and
the general public. Due to the fact that the proposal is
one dwelling unit over the allowable for density and 870
square feet over the allowable GRFA, it is very reasonable •
•
•
0
and appropriate to request that the applicant make this
improvement.
The proposal has been reviewed by
department and would include a fi•
beginning at the northeast corner
extending to the southeast corner
landscaping would be disturbed on
the property.
the Public Works
Je foot sidewalk with curb
of the property and
of the site. No
the northeast corner of
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in
order to optimize and preserve natural features_,
recreation, views and functions.
The proposal also adds several planters on the west side of
the property in the area of the pool. The existing spa is
removed and replaced by landscaping. The railroad tie
planters along the parking area on the east side of Vail
Valley Drive will be rebuilt out of stone and additional
plantings will be added. The landscape proposal is
extremely positive and will add to an already well
landscaped project.
I. Phasing
workable,
the deve]
an or subdivision plan that will maintain a
functional, and efficient relationship throughout
nment of the Special Development District._
Not applicable.
IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL
A. Uses:
Please see Section III B.
B. Density /GRFA:
Please see Section III B.
C. Setbacks:
No change requested.
D. Height:
The height proposed is within the maximum allowed of 48
feet for a sloping roof.
E. Site coverage:
The site coverage is dramatically below the allowable of
9,677 square feet. The proposed site coverage is 6,821
9
square feet. This is actually ten square feet under the •
existing Special Development District.
F. Parking
Parking requirements are met for the proposal.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the proposal. Basically, our
position is very similar to our recommendation on the Ramshorn
project. As stated previously: "Although the inability of the
end product to meet the strict definition of a lodge is not what
we would ideally like to see, we feel that the property will
continue to function as a lodge and meet the intent of providing
high quality guest accommodations in the PA Zone District." The
staff believes that it is critical that the property remain as a
functioning lodge and that the nineteen accommodation units and
two dwelling units remain available to guests according to the
agreed upon use restrictions. Staff approval is contingent upon
the applicant meeting the following conditions:
1. The applicant must submit a revised employee housing
agreement with a floor plan that clearly indicates the
location, type of unit, and square footage for each
employee housing unit. This information must be submitted
and approved by the owner and Town of Vail before a •
.building permit is issued for the project.
2. The applicant shall submit a written statement agreeing to
restrict per the Subdivision Rental Restriction, Section
17.26.075, the two dwelling units as indicated on the PEC
plans as well as the short -term rental restriction on the
nineteen accommodation units. This written agreement shall
be. submitted and approved by staff before a building permit
is issued for the project.
3. The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall construct a
sidewalk and a bus lane on the east side of the property.
The final design of the sidewalk and bus lane shall be
submitted by the applicant to the Public Works Department
and Community Development Department for approval. The
sidewalk and bus lane shall be constructed subsequent to
the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance
of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the project.
The applicant shall submit a written statement agreeing ito
this condition for the Town Attorney's approval before a
building permit is released for the remodel.
4. The vent on the west side of the pool shall be removed
before a temporary certificate of occupancy is issued for
the building.
•
10
. 5. The applicant shall provide written, legal, documentation
of the Garden of the Gods' right to use the parking spaces
on the east side of Vail Valley Drive on a parcel called
P -2. The applicant has submitted documentation of the
Garden of the Gods' participation as a member of the P -2
Condominium Association. However, staff must have written
documentation as well as an attached map to scale showing
the area of the P -2 parcel which is allocated to the Garden
of the Gods. This agreement must also be approved by the
other members jof the P -2 Condominium Association. This
document must be submitted and approved by the staff before
the project proceeds to second reading of the ordinance.
•
11
* Restricted employee units are not counted towards density or GRFA
** 1 DU equals 2 AU
* ** Standard parking requirements applied
* * ** A DU in a multi - family building may include one attached accom-
modation unit (AU lock -off) no larger than one third of the total
floor area of the DU. A lock -off is not counted for density. Lock -
off GRFA is added to the total DU GRFA. Parking for a lock -off is
calculated by adding the AU lock -off to the DU GRFA. The DU
parking requirements are applied to the total GRFA for the DU
plus AU lock -off.
r1
U
JUNE 1989
GARDEN OF THE GODS
ZONING ANALYSIS
PUB. 'ACCOMMOD
;EXISTING
LD SQD:
NE1N' SDD
AU
16 @ 7742 SQ.FT.
10 AU
15 AU
51 Q/o GRFA IN AU'S
6 AU LOCK OFFS*
4 AU LOCK OFFS
16 @ 4596 SQ.FT.
19 @ 6466 SO. FT.
DU.
NA
2 @ 6745 SQ. FT.
8 @ 12141 SQ. FT.
6 @ 11998 SQ. FT.
RESTRICTED
1 AU 610 SQ, FT.
1 DU 215 SQ. FT.
1 DU 904
EMPLOYEE= .'
NA
1 DU 515 SQ. FT.
1 DU 515 SQ. FT.
1 DU 470
UNITS
1.5 ** @ 1125 SQ. FT.
2 @ 730 SO. FT.
2DU @ 1374 SO. FT.
TOTAL,GRFA :'
17594 SQ. FT.
14543 SQ. FT.
17578 SQ. FT.
18464 SQ. FT.
TOTAL DENSITY
12.5 DU
10 DU
13 DU (AUS + DUS)
13.5DU (AUS + DUS)
COMMON; AREA`
3519 SQ. FT.
3575 SQ. FT.
4360 SQ. FT,
4018 SQ. FT.
MAX
45 FT. FLAT ROOF
42 FT.
SAME
42 FT.
HIGHT
48 FT, SLOPE ROOF
20FT.
EAST 20.0 FT.
EAST 20.0 FT.
EAST 20.0 FT.
WEST .2 FT.
WEST .2 FT.
WEST .2 FT.
SETBACKS
NORTH 1.4 FT.
NORTH 1.4 FT.
NORTH 1,4 FT.
SOUTH 9.0 FT
SOUTH 9.0 FT
SOUTH 9.0 FT
SITE COVERAGE:
9677 SO. FT.
6363 SQ. FT.
6831 SQ. FT.
6821 SQ. FT.
LANDSCAPING;';;
5278 SQ. FT.
OK
OK
OK
:::::PARK fNG
* * *
22 REQD.
27 REQD.
28 REQD.
28 EX.
28 PROPOSED
28 PROPOSED
•
* Restricted employee units are not counted towards density or GRFA
** 1 DU equals 2 AU
* ** Standard parking requirements applied
* * ** A DU in a multi - family building may include one attached accom-
modation unit (AU lock -off) no larger than one third of the total
floor area of the DU. A lock -off is not counted for density. Lock -
off GRFA is added to the total DU GRFA. Parking for a lock -off is
calculated by adding the AU lock -off to the DU GRFA. The DU
parking requirements are applied to the total GRFA for the DU
plus AU lock -off.
r1
U
•
0
•
JUNE 1989
GARDEN OF THE GODS
UNIT USE ANALYSIS
OLD SDD
27
AVG. AU 287 S.F.
73%
16 AUS @ 4596
1 DU @ 1134
5730 S.F.OR 34%
24
NEW SDD
35%
AVG. AU 340 S.F.
650/0
19 AUS 6466"
2 DUS 1728
8194 S.F.OR 44
25
17 KEYS OR 70 % 1 621 KEYS OR 84 %
* All AU and AU lock -offs shall be used for short -term rental
through out the year.
PA ZONE
. EXISTING
4,/o OF TOTAL.
GRFA IN AUS '.
51 %
53%
a,9/o OF TOTAL_.
_. GRFA IN DUS ' >'
49%
47
OF TOTAL
GRFA RENTAL::
RESTRICTED PER
NA
0
7.26.075
.....:TOTAL KEYS :
NA
18
!% OF KEYS
RESTRICTED PER
NA
0
17.26.075 `
OLD SDD
27
AVG. AU 287 S.F.
73%
16 AUS @ 4596
1 DU @ 1134
5730 S.F.OR 34%
24
NEW SDD
35%
AVG. AU 340 S.F.
650/0
19 AUS 6466"
2 DUS 1728
8194 S.F.OR 44
25
17 KEYS OR 70 % 1 621 KEYS OR 84 %
* All AU and AU lock -offs shall be used for short -term rental
through out the year.
GOAL #3 TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP
PRIORITY THE IMPORTANCE OF
MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING THE
WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT
THE VILLAGE.
Objective #1 To physically
improve the existing
pedestrianways throughout the
Village by landscaping and other
improvements.
5`: 1
GEAS04&
28
....,.,..gin. ,.
.:w
1
#27. Ramshorn Lodge
One story residential addition to
existing structure. Varied roof
heights should be maintained.
Also see Goal 1, Objective 2
#28. All Seasons
Residential infill over existing
surface parking area. Development
requires substantial landscaped buffer
between structure and existing and
proposed pedestrianization.
Also see Goal 1, Objective 2
#25 Gore Creek Road Sidewalk
A separated walkway through the
sub -area linking Golden Peak with the
Vail Transportation Center. Landscape
improvements and pedestrian crosswalks
to be included as required to meet
demands of pedestrian traffic.
-40-
•
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 12, 1989
RE: A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I
in order to enclose an existing dining deck and create a
new dining deck at the Up The Creek Bar & Grill, located in
the Creekside Plaza Building, Vail Village.
Applicant: Jim slevin and Peter Stadler
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
The two main elements involved in this proposal are the
enclosure of the existing dining patio adjacent to the Up The
Creek Restaurant and the expansion of the remainder of the
outdoor dining area. The deck enclosure consists of a 250
square foot greenhouse addition to the existing restaurant.
This addition will incorporate an airlock entry and will be
constructed with a skylight roof system, an operable window /wall
system similar to what has been used in Blu's Beanery,
Vendetta's, Hong Kong Cafe, etc. The dining patio expansion is
located predominantly on Town property. Earlier in the year,
the Town Council granted Up The Creek Restaurant the opportunity
to proceed through the review process with this basic design.
• This proposal also entails completing the interlocking paver
design of the Gore Creek promenade. Presently the only store
front area along Gore Creek that has not benefited from the
promenade improvements is the area from the eastern promenade
staircase to the Up The Creek Restaurant. The owners of the
restaurant will complete this section of the promenade as a part
of their construction.
•
II. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST
As outlined in the Zoning Code, review criteria for requests of
this nature are established by the Vail Village Urban Design
Guide Plan. The emphasis of this review is on the project's
compatibility with both the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail
Village Design considerations. Detailed architectural and
landscape considerations become the purview of the Design Review
Board if this project is approved. Planning Commission is also
charged with addressing standard zoning issues not covered in
the Urban Design Guide Plan.
III. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
Expressed as Sub Area Concepts, the elements of the Guide Plan
identify physical improvements to improve the overall fabric of
Vail Village. There are no specific proposals identified in
this element of the plan relative to this particular project.
IV.
VAIL VILLAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS is
These Urban Design considerations address large scale land -
planning issues, as well as form giving considerations that go
beyond the property lines of the project proposal. These
considerations contain the following:
A. Pedestrianization:
This consideration is intended to reinforce and expand the
pedestrian walking experience throughout Vail Village.
The proposed patio expansion, while encroaching into the
east end of a public park, does not negatively impact
pedestrianization of the walkways of the promenade or of
the park. The owner's proposal to remove the existing
concrete walkways and replace this with a brick paver
design that matches the existing promenade positively
impacts the pedestrian experience of this portion of the
community.
B. Vehicular Penetration:
There are no impacts related to vehicular penetration from
this proposal.
C. Streetsca a Framework:
While there may be slight modifications to the landscaping •
of the patio area, several planters have been incorporated
into the railing which may contain decorative plantings to
alleviate the loss of some of the landscaped area of the
park. It is the staff's belief that the construction of
this addition and patio, while encroaching into the park
will actually reinforce the streetscape framework of the
promenade and the park. The present patio configuration
for the Up The Creek Restaurant is a rather weak urban
design statement. Improvements to this area of the
promenade will reinforce positive urban design improvements
that have been made in this retail and park area.
D. Street Enclosure:
Because of the open space directly adjacent to this
property, the street enclosure considerations are not
directly applicable.
E. Street Edge:
The current configuration of the Creekside Plaza Building
is rather linear. The addition of the greenhouse at the
northern end of that building creates a positive stepping
effect and presents a positive conclusion to the northeast
corner of this retail area. 0
• F. Building Height:
There are no considerations applicable to building height
as a result of this proposal.
G. Views:
Views are not impacted by this proposal.
H. Service and Delivery:
Though the seating capacity for the restaurant will be
increased, it is not anticipated that an increase number of
delivery trucks will be needed to service this expansion.
I. Sun /Shade:
This enclosure is designed in complete compliance with
recommendations made in the Guide Plan regarding sun /shade
impacts.
V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Additional parking demands created by the enclosed space will be
met by payment into the Town's parking fund. The exact amount
• will be calculated at the time of building permit.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation for this request is for approval.
Expansion of the Up The Creek Restaurant and the addition of the
patio area completes what the staff, local property owners, and
business owners started with the promenade construction. The
addition and newly designed patio present a positive anchor to
the east side of the public park and to the northeast corner of
the retail promenade. The staff has historically been
supportive of maintaining outdoor dining decks and although this
addition eliminates a deck, we feel that the proposed patio,
although located on public ground, is a definite improvement to
the existing situation and presents a community benefit. The
staff would encourage the Planning Commission to adopt the
following conditions of approval:
1. The walls on the west elevation as shown in the
drawing by Michael A. Hazard, AIA, dated 5/16/88, be
totally operable.
2. Sidewalk improvements consistent with the Gore Creek
promenade design be constructed in conjunction with
this proposal. Consistent improvements shall meet
identical materials and design. The upgrading of the
. walkway shall be made the entire length of the
Creekside Building.
•
r1
LJ
•
•
41
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 12, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use permit in order to
expand an outdoor dining deck at Up The Creek Bar &
Grill located at the Creekside Building, Vail Village.
Applicant: Jim Slevin and Peter Stadler
I. CRITERIA TO BE ADDRESSED
While all significant issues relative to this project have
been addressed in the accompanying exterior alteration
memorandum, the Zoning Code requires a separate Conditional
Use approval for the expansion of the dining patio. The
following criteria are to be used in this review.
A. Effe
Dist
of
ar traffic and Commercial Core I
There are no impacts upon vehicular traffic relative to
this proposal.
B. Reduction of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I
District
This proposal will not reduce nor increase vehicular
traffic into the Core.
C. Reduction of non - -essential off street parkiEg
There is no effect on this consideration.
D. Control of delivery, pick up, and service vehicles
There is no anticipated increase in the frequency of
deliveries to this establishment.
E. Development-of public spaces for use by edestrians
As indicated in the exterior alteration memorandum, a
significant improvement to the existing walkway will be
constructed in conjunction with this proposal. If
approved and constructed, the applicant is to be
commended for his participation in this public
improvement. The level of improvement is of high
quality and consistent with the improvements on adjacent
properties.
F. Continuance of the various commercial residential and
ublic uses in Commercial core I District so as to
maintain the existing character of the area
II.
As expressed in the exterior alteration memorandum, .
staff feels strongly that this proposal will increase
and reinforce the activity along the Gore Creek
promenade.
G. Control , qgality of construction architectural desi
and landsca a deli n in Commercial Core I so as to
maintain the existing character of the area
The walkway improvements are of the highest quality,
design and construction that may be found in the
Village. The patio design improves the existing
landscaping of the public park and the design of the
addition is an improvement over existing conditions on
the property. The greenhouse addition will consist of
operable doors that will allow the entire restaurant to
be opened onto the public park. The staff sees this as
a significant contribution to the promenade area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation for this request if for approval as per
the conditions outlined in the exterior alteration
memorandum.
n
LJ
U
•
C�
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
June 26, 1989
2:00 Site Visits 3:00 Public Hearing
1. An amendment to the Municipal Code
correcting Ordinance No. 26 of 1987 to allow
employee units in Lionsridge Fourth Filing.
Applicant: Town of Vail
#1 2. A request for a Conditional Use permit to
allow a dining deck at Rocky Rococo
Restaurant in the Lionshead Gondola Building
Applicant: Rocky Rococo
#2 3. A request for a Conditional Use permit to
allow commercial storage at the Concert Hall
Plaza Building.
Applicant: Vail Investment Company
4. Work session on Bed and Breakfasts.
5. Appointment of PEC board member to DRB for
July, August, and September.
* Red Lion tabled to July 10th.
•
0
Planning and Environmental Commission
June 26, 1989
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Pam Hopkins
Peggy Osterfoss
Jim Viele
Absent
Sid Schultz
Kathy Warren
Staff Present
Peter Patten
Kristan Pritz
Rick Pylman
Mike Mollica
Betsy Rosolack
G r-
{ ?_ q
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by the chairman, Jim
Viele.
1. An amendment to the Municipal Code correcting Ordinance No.
26 of 1987 to allow employee units in Lionsrid e 4th Filing.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Peter Patten presented the proposal. Inadvertently, Ordinance #26
left out the employee units. Ordinance 15 corrects this error.
Peggy Osterfoss moved to approve this amendment, with Diana Donovan
seconding. The vote for approval was 5 -0.
2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a dining deck
at Rocky Rococo restaurant in the Lionshead Gondola Building.
Applicant: Rocky Rococo
Betsy Rosolack presented the proposal. Sandra Friedel,
representing the applicant, asked to change the request to extend
the deck further into the planter area. Jim Viele said he had no
objection to the board considering the change in the request.
Peggy felt it was very important to keep the existing landscaping
because it was a stark area. She added that this was a dark spot
and the area to the east would be sunnier and more pleasant for a
dining area. Sandra replied that in the winter plowed snow was
stored in the planter area.
Peter felt the need for a final revised plan. Sandra asked if the
original proposal could be approved, and she could come back with
the revisions. Peter replied that the staff would not recommend
approval of the revisions. Peggy felt the original proposal was
a nice one, but the revised plan was extending dining into a cold
and sunless area. She also questioned the advisability of enlarg-
ing the dining area into more of the planter. She felt that if
the enlarged area was improved, that landscaping be transplanted
rather than destroyed, and that there should be flower boxes
outside of the deck as well. She felt the original proposal was
better.
Jim agreed with Peggy and the staff and felt that landscaping was
needed in Lionshead. He did not object to extending the deck
northward along the paved area. Diana also agreed, adding that she
did not feel the new proposal would be successful. Pam also agreed
with the other board members. Chuck asked about the number of
tables that could be placed in the area, and was told there would
be 6 -7 tables. He also asked if the deck would be open in the
winter, and Sandra said only the tabled in the planter area could
be used in the winter. Chuck pointed out that the only decks that
were successful in Vail were those that received a great deal of
sun. Sandra stated that she felt that in the summer it was
imperative to have a deck to draw traffic into the area. Chuck
felt that it was important to have planters in the area of the
pavers and agreed that the deck could be extended onto the pavers
in the summer.
Diana moved and Crist seconded to approve the original proposal per
the staff memo with the condition recommended by the staff that the
deck area that is on pavers shall be temporary and will not be
allowed during the ski season due to ski lockers placed in this
area and due to heavy skier traffic, with an additional condition
that flower boxes be substantial on the outside of the deck. The
vote was 5 -0 in favor.
3. A request for a conditional use permit to allow commercial
storage at the Concert Hall Plaza Building.
Applicant: Vail Investment Company
Rick Pylman presented the proposal and reviewed the memo with
approval recommended by the staff, but with a review in two years.
Peter Jamar, representing the applicant, explained further. He
felt that it was unlikely that all available areas would be used
as storage. He felt loading would not be a problem. He also felt
that users would be in close proximity to the storage areas.
Diana asked if it would make sense to confine the storage to Lions
Head retail, and Jamar replied that this would be hard for the
staff to enforce. Rick stated that one condition of approval was
that the conditional use permit would be reviewed in two years
because of concerns about loading and delivery demands. Peter
Jamar felt that additional conditions were unnecessary.
Peggy wondered if this precluded the possibility of individual ski
storage, because individual ski storage would create a great
traffic problem. She felt the potential traffic problem made
individual ski storage inappropriate for the site. Peter Jamar
stated that was a use by right. He added that he was requesting
a cu permit for a maximum of 10 tenants for the remaining 4,732
square feet. This would result in a total of 7,281 square feet
available fore commercial storage with the maximum of 15 tenants.
Peggy moved and Chuck seconded to approve the request per the staff
memo with the following conditions:
1. The conditional use permit must be reviewed in two years
regarding loading and delivery demands.
2. The commercial space must not be divided into more than 13
spaces and no subdividing would be permitted.
Discussion followed regarding restricting food storage because of
daily deliveries. Diana felt this might result in large trucks in
large numbers. No further restrictions were made and the vote was
5 -0 in favor.
4. A work session on bed and breakfasts.
Peter led the discussion and directed the Planning commission to
consider the issues and Ordinance 2 of 1989. Peter said he would
pass along concerns to the Town Council.
•
•
El
•
C7
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: June 26, 1989
SUBJ: A request to amend Ordinance No. 26 of 1987 to allow
employee units in single family houses in Lionsridge Fourth
Filing.
Applicant: Town of Vail
I. THE REQUEST
Ordinance 26 of 1987 was written to impose zoning districts on
newly re- annexed portions of West Vail. It was the purpose of
the ordinance to apply the same zoning to the re- annexed
property that had been applied in Ordinance No. 13 of 1981 when
the property was first annexed. Ordinance No. 13 of 1981
specifically permitted employee units on each single family lot.
Employee units were inadvertently left out of the wording in
Ordinance No. 26 of 1987.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the amendment to Ordinance
No. 26, Series of 1987 to rectify this unintentional omission.
. ORDINANCE NO_ 15
Series of 1989
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 26, SERIES OF 1987,
TO ALLOW EMPLOYEE UNITS IN LIONSRIDGE SUBDIVISION FILING NO. 4.
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail re- annexed a portion of the West Vail
area effective May 1, 1987; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1981, specifically permitted
an employee unit on each single family lot in Lionsridge Subdivision
Filing No. 4; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1987 upon the re- annexation
of West Vail, imposed the Single Family (SFR) District on the
Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 4 without reference to an additional
employee unit; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the interest of the
. public health, safety and welfare, to amend Ordinance 26 to allow for
employee units in Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 4.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedures Fulfilled
The procedures for the determination of the zoning district for
Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 4 have been fulfilled.
section 2.
An employee unit (as defined and restricted in Section 18.13 of the
Municipal Code) shall be permitted on each lot in Lionsridge
Subdivision Filing No. 4. The employee unit shall not exceed one third
of the total gross residential floor area allowed on the lot per the
Single Family zone district density control (Section 18.10.090).
Section 3.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and
Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any
right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred
prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any
other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the
provision repealed or repealed and re- enacted. The repeal of any
provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance
previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of
, 1989, and a public hearing shall be held on this
ordinance on the day of , 1989 at 7:30 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Ordered published in full this day of , 1989.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
•
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Cler
•
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
. 1989.
.� 1a� ll,. LIP+ j :• t.
• - y ' O1tDTN1lNC]: NU. 13 -75 s. ir�ar,tar;c mad
Merids -of 1981} !c).61657
Vail.�
ofi:c� o.t ,tok:c� c :Ecric
hXsn��T ri JrT, OJJ IIIPOSII4G- '.ZDNING DISTIZICTS'ON 1 ,- -•
E , XCL i't'1'IN 'ITLVELUI�Iil':i�'TS ANI)= PARCEI;S OF PROPERTY YI�i r "
I1L' lilGl �N'1'LY ANN1?rD lY] ST ' VAI L AREA ; ACCEPTI.�G
'I'I E EAGLE COUNTY C0�, M I SS I O' E
.PI3,x.0It
' n2 PItOV�'1L
S OF I
r ,7-- .'RKLA'iTING - TIII,RETO ; SPECIFYING_.. AMENDMENT PROCEDURIaS
SL'I�'i'ING FOR'r1I CON DITIONS RELATUG 'THERETO; AMENDING
:TIME 'OF_�Ii IAL ZONING MAP FOR THE TOWN OI VAIL: AND
S];TTING., FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO.
11YHEREAS, the ,town of Vail, Colorado, recently annexed the West
Vail. area`, County' of- eagle, 'Stat.e: of Colorado, effective on December
WHEREAS, Chapter 1.8.68 of the Municipal Code-of the Town of
Vail sets forth procedures for the imposition of zoning districts --
on recently annexed areas; and
.WHEREAS, Section 31-12- -115 (s) C . II. S , 1973, as amended,
requires the .Town to bring the newly annexed West Vail- area under - ,-
its zoning ordinance within ninety (90} days after the effectavc
date of said annexation; and - -
WHE MAS, because-of certain actions taken''by and approvals of
= he � b
le -County Coixunissioners relating to. the within specified
__ pxop.er. ies the Town Council is of the opinion that the zoi:a Yig
JdEsi z�atzon for these areas should recognize said approvals and
- -:
coil d-t_zis: and
1tiTI7]�73E'1S, the Planning and Environmental commission of the Town
of Fail has considered the zoning to be i1japosed on the newly anncsed
West Vail area at a public hearing and 11,LS made a recommendation
relating thereto, to the Town Council;
}FII1?REAS, the Town Council. eonsicic:rs th�Lt it i., in the interest
of the pu1.)1_i.c health, safety ;iiici weer a.rc to so Tone said proPei•tY;
N011', TIiERLrUliL, BE IT 4i13)��T';II) Iix TIII� 'r0'�ti:< CODICIL G% Tl;a:
OF VAIL, THAT.
"Sc:rt�c�tt '3 I t:lon of Zotti llf, Di:;Lri c;C c�ti C:c rl:aitl I'rtt•ecls .ttici
vorLiotiw or Lltc: tc:xc:(i Wc�iL V,01- Mi'c'a.
• Pursuant to C11apter 18.Ei8 of the Vail Municipal Code, the. properticS
described in subsections e, f, g, h Fi i. below are a portion of.-tile
West Vail areati''1annexe '• =to th'e -Town t `roo L;h the 'ena-etment of. Ordinance
No. 43, Series!1110f �A80`.'0*f tYi'e•'T6wn of-Vail, Colorado, effective on
the thirty - first- -day of December, 1080, and hereby zoned as follows:
S ,..
a. The deVelopmenis' and parcels of property specified below in
Subsections e, f, g, h & i shall be developed in accordance Nvith the
pri�ement- approvals and actions of the Eagle County Commissioners
a.s- tfie'abreetnents, approvals and actions relate'to each development or
rparcel of property.
•fi- : =The documents and instrument's relating to the prior county
approvals,'Actions and agreements are presently on file in the
• Department of 'Community Development of the Town of Vail and said
approvals, actions and agreements are hereby accepted and approved
by the Town of Vail.
c: All buildings for which a budding permit- has not been issued,
on the effect"i:ve date of the annexation of West Vail shall comply with
Design "Revie�,. Criteria of the Vail s,lun:i.ciPal Code prior to the issuance
of a - building permit.
d. The Community Development Dep .rtment may isstte staff approvals
for minor changes in site design or other minor aspects of the plan for
any of the specified developments or parcels. These proposed changes
may be approved as presented, approved -%!ith conditions or denied by the
Staff with an appo-Ll within 10 clays of the Staff decision to the
Plnnnin- and Environmental Comr;li ssion. For major changes, such as
-a re-= design of a major part of the site, changes as use, density
contr- ol- ;=height' or other develol)mcnt. stnndards, a Planning. and
Envir oninclita J. Cot;uni ssion review s110111d be rc:iuired. The procodure
for c1l;iligos 'shall be in' accordance wiLh Ch,a.Pt.cr 1S.66 of the Vail
_ -
Z. iii .c.xmUUili= ain.=Stiviin- _��nci Club.
(5) Briar pitch, Lots G -2, G -5 and G -G i
Lionsridge Subdivision Filing
C.
(6) Casa Del Sol Condominiums.
z ovals ,
r'' an zoning purpose beyond the 3s'a1;le County Commissioners ` al'P
F
Y
a
d parcels of property specified
g reenlents^ or actions, the developments an
in this subsection (e) shall be zoned Residential Cluster (RC).
. -
k '.r
�'�,ionsridge Subdivision, riling No. 4, shall be subject to the
purpose beyond.
the Eagle Co�inty
terms of this ordinance. For any zoning t1r p p
Commissioners' approval, agreement or action, this parcel of property
shall be zoned Single Fami Zone District (SFR) with a special pro-
vasion that an employee unit (as defined and restricted in Section 35.13.1
of the Vail. Dlunicipal Code) will be subject to approvals as per Section
unit may not exceed on third of the total
38.13.080. The secondary
Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) allowed on the lot as per the
Single Family Zone District Density Control (Section 18.10.09 � f the
and Greenbelt & Natural Open Space {GNOS) .
N
_ T
Vail r,iunicipal Code
-L No. 2, has been the
Filing l i n g
g. Lot G -�, Lionsridge Subdivision,
tion in the District Court of Eagle County,
subject of and � Court
litiba
The
order has been issued regarding the development of this property.
Town has further approved Resolution T 5 of 19SI in regard to a subse-
quent agreement with the owner. The Residential Cluster (RC)
Zone
District will be the applicable zone on this property to guWe the
future development of the parcel, �vorLing within the bounds set by
the Court Order .find Resolution_ No. 5, Series of 1981.
h. Block. 10, Vail Tiitcrinounta.izl Subdivision and the Elliott Ranch
s orclin�.:r.e. For any
Subdivision, shat -1 he subject to the terms of thi
%on in , purpose beyond the E.1.gle County Coulnlissi.oners' approval, ag'1 ee-
`Illent or action, Bloch 10 and the El].ioti: 1;Z�1ch, shall be /,0110(1 Primary/
Secc ?nct.Er�= District. Lots s, 15 F. 1G of Block 10, %Iuil intermoun a-L�1,
shall be zoucd Grcc`1111e1E: E:. Natural Open 5��,1cc (G:dOS) .
41 T0: Planning and Environmental. Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
0
•
DATE: June 26, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit
outdoor dining deck at the Rocky Rococo
the Lionshead Gondola Building.
Applicant: Rocky Rococo
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
to allow an
Restaurant in
The applicant is requesting to construct an outdoor dining
deck at the Rocky Rococo Restaurant located in the ground
level of the Lionshead Gondola Building. The deck is on the
east side of the restaurant. The area where the deck would
be located is presently a planter surrounded by a low
concrete base, abutting a concrete pillar, plus an additional
area which extends 8 feet onto the paved area. The size of
the deck would be approximately 16 feet by 9 feet on the
planter area and 16 feet by 8 feet on the area of the pavers
for a total of approximately 16 feet by 17 feet. The entire
proposed deck would be on private property (owned by Vail
Associates).
The Lionshead Gondola Building is in the Commercial Core II
district which requires a conditional use permit to add an
outdoor dining deck.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development
Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors.
1. Relationship and
objectives of th
pact of the use c
t
The Commercial Core II zone district is intended
"to ensure adequate light, air, open space and
other amenities appropriate to the permitted types
of building and uses and to maintain the desirable
qualities of the distract by establishing
appropriate site development standards." The staff
feels this deck is an appropriate site
development.
I
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. --
The factor to be considered here is the effect on
light and air. The staff feels there will be no
negative effects on light and air in changing the
planter to a dining deck, and extending the deck
onto the pavers.
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.
During the ski season, pedestrian traffic is heavy
in this area. The area is also more restricted
during the ski season because portable ski lockers
are placed on the pavers.
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.
t It is felt the dining deck will have a positive
effect on the area. It will enable restaurant
patrons to be outside which, in turn, will help to
enliven an otherwise quiet area.
III. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN
Community Design, No. 2:
"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 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 request for a
conditional use permit and feels the request meets the
findings for a conditional use approval. The activity of
people on an outside deck would give a feeling of something
happening in this otherwise quiet area.
one condition of approval is:
I. The deck area that is on pavers shall be temporary and
will not be allowed during the ski season due to ski
lockers placed in this area and heavy skier traffic.
The staff recommends that planters be incorporated in the
deck design, either attached to the railings or free
standing.
n
�J
F
\ _ 77tYNYi
i
if
its
Vs
h
UN
1
.{-.)
O
O
r--
U
.J
Q
d
d
U
w
c�
Z_
Z
'J
U
U
c�
r�
u
ROCKY ROCOCO DINING DECK PROPOSAL
restaurant'
entry
proposed dec % planter .1, nxzre
i n l a n to r' f
bla,al�
/ bo:.bas
proposed' deck i //f 9>+ eoe,alw eotif °atbel: ���
/ soT,eoA
-on pavers
1.01.60
RAMP ABOVE
GRATE
proposed dining dock
f Y - -lb" N` T1S,i6i
OL
y,
J� BRICK °
. >� b o
WATER
VdLT
LIU)IT.Oftlr
CLOCK TICKET
,ap BOTH
4 n
n 't� Aar
Go
7is• �
.704
L a x J � Jw yMr; C i—y
fgd 1
ct-
ct
i r
77T
TO: The Planning and Environmental Commission
• FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 26, 1989
SUBJ: A request for a Conditional Use permit in order to expand
commercial storage use in the Concert Hall Plaza on Lot 1
Lionshead Fourth Addition.
Applicant: Vail Investment Company
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
In 1987, the Vail Investment Company, owners of the Concert Hall
Plaza Building, remodeled the space that was previously occupied
by The Studio. By installing a new floor in this space, the
applicants were able to create two floors of leasable space.
Following these modifications, the owners applied for a
Conditional Use permit to allow 2539 square feet of commercial
storage, restricted to a maximum of three tenants in September
of 1987. Commercial storage is defined as space leased to an
off site tenant for storage of various goods and materials. The
2549 square feet of approved commercial storage area is at the
present not being used by off site tenants, but is in fact
rented to and used as on site tenant storage, a use which does
not require a Conditional Use permit.
. In 1987, the applicant provided the Community Development
Department with a square footage breakdown of uses in the
Concert Hall Plaza. There has been very little change to these
uses since that time. The following chart illustrates those
uses in the Concert Hall Plaza.
Square Footage Breakdown of uses in the Concert Hall Plaza
4,900 retail restaurants
1,273 office public access
3,552 on site tenant storage
2,549 approved commercial storage (currently
utilized as on site tenant storage)
4,732 currently uncommitted space proposed for
commercial storage
The owners are now requesting a Conditional Use permit to allow
commercial storage, with a maximum of 10 tenants for the remaining
4,732 square feet of space in the building. Approval of this request
will result in a total of 7,281 square feet available for commercial
storage with the maximum of 15 tenants.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
. Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development
• Department recommends approval of the Conditional Use permit
based upon the following factor:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. Relationship and impact of__the use _on_development
objectives of the Town.
The proposed use of this space has little direct
impact on the development objectives of the Town of
Vail. Storage of materials is certainly a necessary
use to facilitate the functions of commercial
operations. On the other hand, Commercial Core II is
not considered an ideal location for this type of use.
Nonetheless, one must consider that the proposed use
is located in a basement level of the building, the
floor is entirely below street level and clearly
removed from any public pedestrian way.
2. The effect of the use of liaht and air. distribution
of population, transportation facilities, utilities,
schools, parks and recreation facilities and other
ublic facilities needs.
The proposed use has no effect on any of the above
criteria.
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.
Of particular concern to the staff is the potential
impact related to traffic generated by the pick up and
delivery of goods to this location. This concern is
compounded by the fact that the specific number of
vehicle trips by users are not known at this time.
It should be noted that in an attempt to mitigate
these staff concerns, the applicant has quantified
the amount of area requested for commercial storage
and has established a maximum of 10 additional tenants
who may use this space.
The main issue relevant to the request lies in the
adequacy of existing loading facilities. There is
difficulty in determining a precise number of loading
docks required as the parking section of the zoning
code does not specify loading requirements for
commercial storage. The staff feels that it is
entirely possible that this additional commercial
storage use may create enough loading and delivery
. demand upon this building to require two loading bays.
The existing loading facilities for the building are
sufficient for one large truck or perhaps two small to
medium size vans. In addition to this available
loading space, there is a public loading zone
immediately adjacent to this building. We feel that
due to the proximity of the public loading zone, and
the fact that this loading zone is in place to service
this building as well as other buildings in the
Lionshead Mall, the loading requirements for this use
have been technically satisfied.
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 surrounding
uses.
This proposal does not effect any of the above
considerations.
III. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN
Not applicable.
IV. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS
APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED USED
V. FINDINGS
The Community Development 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 request that the uncommitted
4732 square feet in the Concert Hall Plaza may be converted to
commercial storage. This commercial storage is limited to 10
tenants which will create a total of 7,281 square feet of
commercial storage with a maximum of 13 tenants. Because of our
concerns about the potential for loading and delivery problems,
we would request that this Conditional Use permit be reviewed
within two years from the date of its approval for any potential,
problems created by the loading and delivery demands of this
additional commercial storage space.
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
ROM: Community Development
DATE: June 26, 1989
SUBJ: Bed and breakfast regulations
On March 21, 1989, the Town Council sent the proposed Bed and Breakfast
Ordinance (attached) back to the PEC. Opposition from the public
centered around issues such as:
1. Should there by any regulation at all?
2. Why should Bed and Breakfasts have any more regulation than short
term rentals?
3. Condominium associations and neighbors shouldn't have any approval
rights because they'll "hold the applicant hostage."
4. What is the correct parking requirement?
5. Bed and breakfasts should be allowed in all multi - family zone
districts.
The ordinance the Council considered had revisions to the
•recommendations for parking (no more than required for residential
use), allowed zone districts (all multi - family districts would be
allowed Bed and Breakfasts) and signs (none allowed).
The PEC and staff should address these issues and determine a process
to work with the Bed and Breakfast proprietors and the public on
resolving the problems.
r�
u
•
F_ 1
LJ
MEMORANDUM
TO: TOWN COUNCIL AND RON PHILLIPS
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: MARCH 16, 1989
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO BED AND BREAKFAST
ORDINANCE.
Due to some misunderstandings of the intent of the Bed and
Breakfast ordinance by some members of the public attending the
Council's hearing on first reading, we felt a need to supply you
with some additional information. Attached please find a
Conditional Use Permit application form which we have amended to
reflect the specific requirements for a Bed and Breakfast.
Please note that besides the written description of the proposed
use that the only plans required for submittal will be a site
plan to determine the adequacy of proposed parking arrangements
and building floor plans to determine compliance with the three
bedroom and 900 square foot maximum requirements. If an
applicant is unable to locate these plans from the owner or the
architect we would be more than happy to supply copies of these
from the Town of Vail plan archives.
Furthermore, the staff and Planning and Environmental Commission
have discussed and agreed upon a streamlined process wherein
existing Bed and Breakfasts would submit applications all at
once within the next several months. The staff would then
review each of these proposals.for compliance with the criteria
and forward them to the Planning and Environmental Commission on
a consent agenda type of process. The staff would work closely
with those applicants whose proposals were not in compliance
with the adopted ordinance so that'the problems could be worked
out and approval could be quickly obtained.
Finally, the ordinance has been revised according to the council
direction at the February 21st meeting. Multi - family zone
districts have been added and parking has been revised th t
a
so
there are no special requirements for parking at a bed and
breakfast location. Also, the ordinance has been revised so
that signs are prohibited and that it is clear that PEC's
decisions on Conditional Use Permits may be appealed to the Town
Council. Larry Eskwith has also amended the ordinance so that
adjacent onwers on duplex lots are required to give their
approval only if there is a proposal to utilize common or
jointly owned property or facilities. .
•
r1
LJ
Although the staff does not support the revisions relating to
multi - family, parking or signs, we feel the ordinance should be
approved so that Bed and Breakfasts can be legalized as a
positive influence on Vail's lodging base.
APP:kmc
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.
i3. 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.
i Y
•
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: 1 space /Bed & Breakfast room + 2 spaces /D.U.
maximum # of rooms: 4
Approval is for 2 years, Bed & Breakfast may be revoked if
Bed & Breakfast fails to meet conditions of the C.U.
approval.
-_;
T'
J
ORDINANCE NO. 2
Series of 1989
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 18 OF
THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AND REPEALING AND RE- ENACTING
SECTION 18.58.310, SHORT TERM RENTAL ACCOMMODATION UNIT
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR BED AND BREAKFAST
OPERATIONS UNDER CERTAIN PROVISIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
AND TO DEFINE BED AND BREAKFAST AND SETTING FORTH
DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Town.Council wishes_to.allow bed-and breakfast
operations under certain conditions and in certain locations within
the Town of Vail; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that bed and breakfast
operations operated under certain conditions provide high quality and
desirable lodging appropriate for a resort community; and
WHEREAS, policies within the Town of Vail Land Use Plan support
• the provision of high quality lodging utilizing existing facilities;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has
unanimously recommended approval of the zoning code changes contained
herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Section 18.10.030 Single Family (SFR) District -- Conditional Uses
shall be amended to add the following:
G. BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION
18.58.310.
Section 2.
iSection 18.12.030 Two Family Residential (R) District -- Conditional
Uses shall be amended to add the following:
G. BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION
18.58.310.
Section 3.
. t
Section 4. •
Section 18.14.030 Residential Cluster (R /C) District -- Conditional
Uses shall be amended to add the following:
H. BED AND BREAFKAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION 18.58.310
18.58.310.
Section 5.
Section 18.16.030 Low- Density Multiple Fami.ly.(LDMF) District --
Conditional Uses shall be amended to-add the following:
H. BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION
18.58.310.
Section 6.
Section 18.18.030 Medium Density Multi- Family (MDMS) District --
Conditional Uses) shall be amended to add the following:
H. BED AND BREAFKAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION .
18.58.310.
Section 7.
Section 18.20.030 High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) District --
Conditional Uses shall be amened to add the following:
L. BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION
18.58.310.
Section S.
Section 18.22.030 Public Accomodation (PA) District -- Conditional
Uses shall be amended to add the following:
O. BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION
18.58.310.
Section 9. Section 18.24.060 Commercial Core I (CC1) District --
Conditional Uses - Generally shall be amended to add the following:
E. BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION
18.58.310.
Section 10.
Section 18.26.040 Commercial Core II (CCII) District -- Conditional
• r .
_l
section 11.
Section 18.27.030 Commercial Core III (CCIII) District -- Conditional
Uses shall be amended to add the following:
P. BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION
18.58.310.
Section 12•
Section 18.28.040 Commercial Service Center (CSC) District --
Conditional Uses shall be amended to add the following:
K. BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION
18.58.310.
Section 13•
Section 18.29.030 (A) Arterial Business District (ABD) -- Conditional
Uses shall be amended to add the following:
BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION 18.58.310.
Section 14:
Section 18.39.050 (A) Ski Base /Recreation District -- Conditional
Uses shall be amended to add the following:
12 BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION
18.58.310.
Section 15: Chapter 18.40 Special Development District of the Vail
Municipal Code shall be amended to add Section
18.40.160 as follows:
Section 18.40.160 Bed and Breakfast -- Conditional Use Permit
ANY SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CONTAINING MULTI- FAMILY
DWELLINGS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR A BED AND BREAKFAST
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 18.60 AND AS FURTHER
• REGULATED BY SECTION 18.58.310.
Section 16:
Section 18.09.030 Hillside Residential (HR) District -- Conditional
Uses shall be amended to add the following:
E. BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION
be shsrtterm renter' i s..�,.ate „ ,..,..eda l mats .
Section 18.58.310 BED AND BREAKFAST OPERATIONS
kv.
B.
DEFINITION
BED AND BREAKFAST MEANS A BUSINESS WHICH ACCOMMODATES
GUESTS IN A DWELLING UNIT IN WHICH THE BELT 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 ONLY BE PERMITTED
TO ACCOMMODATE A FAMILY AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18.04.110.
LOCATION AND CRITERIA
BED AND BREAKFAST OPERATIONS MAY BE ALLOWED AS A
CONDITIONAL USE IN THOSE ZONE DISTRICTS AS SPECIFIED IN
CONDITIONAL USE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 18.60 OF THIS CODE, BED
AND BREAKFAST OPERATIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
REQUIREMENTS:
1. OFF STREET PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH CHAPTER 18.52.
2. ENCLOSED TRASH FACILITIES AND REGULAR GARBAGE REMOVAL
SERVICE SHALL BE PROVIDED.
3. REMOVAL OF LANDSCAPING FOR THE PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL
PARKING IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED.
4. SIGNS SHALL BE PROHIBITED.
r✓ v1
5. IF A BED AND BREAKFAST OPERATION SHALL USE -PRROPF�i R-°
FACILITIES OWNED IN COMMON OR JOINTLY WITH OTHER
PROPERTY OWNERS
4'
Ll
C. VIOLATION
IF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DETERMINES THAT
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION 18.58.310 OR ANY CONDITION
OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ARE BEING VIOLATED, HE SHALL
GIVE NOTICE OF REVOCATION TO THE BED AND BREAKFAST PERMITEE
IN WRITING DESCRIBING IN REASONABLE DETAIL THE VIOLATION
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED OR TO EXIST AND SHALL SERVE
THE NOTICE ON THE PERMITTEE IN PERSON OR BY FIRST CLASS
MAIL AT THE ADDRESS LISTED IN THE APPLICATION FOR THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
IF THE PERMITTEE DISAGREES WITH THE DETERMINATION OF THE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THAT A VIOLATION EXISTS,
HE MAY APPEAL SUCH DETERMINATION BY FILING A WRITTEN NOTICE
10 OF APPEAL WITH.THE TOWN OF VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION NO
LATER THAN 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE NOTICE OF
REVOCATION. AT SAID HEARING THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHALL BE
WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO PROVE THE NOTICE
OF REVOCATION BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. AFTER
THE HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHALL CONFIRM OR
REVERSE THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. IF ANY PERMITTEE FAILS TO EXERCISE
THE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE NOTICE
OF APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SHALL BE
CONSIDERED A FINAL ORDER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REVOKING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT....,
Section 18.
It shall be unlawful for a bed and breakfast operation to do business
without a conditional use permit from the Planning and Environmental
Commission or in violation of any of the provisions of the Vail
Municipal. Code. .
Section 19. Discontinuance
Any bed and breakfast operation which is discontinued for a period of
twelve months, regardless of any intent to resume operation of use,,
shall not be resumed thereafter, and any future use of the site or
structures thereon shall conform with the provisions of this title.
Section 20.�� -r
The Town Councilhmay call up for review any decision made by the
Planning and Environmental Commission-regarding a Conditional Use
Permit for a Bed and Breakfast as per Section 18.60.070.
Section 21.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid,.such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance;
and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this
ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence,
clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more
parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be
declared invalid.
Section 22.
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare
of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Section-23.
The repeal or the repeal and re- enactment of any provisions of the
Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect
any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that
occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or
by virtue.of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The
repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any