Loading...
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