Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes August - Septemberf~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 13, 1990 SITE VISITS - 11:30 A work session on Air Quality--Susan Scanlan - 1:OQ Site V151tS - 2:00 Public Hearing 3. Approval of minutes from the July 23, 1990 meeting. - 2, A request for a setback variance in order to enlarge a second story housekeeping service room at Montaneros Condominiums located at 641 W. Lionshead Circle, Lot 8, Block ]., Vail-Lionshead 3rd Filing, Applicant: Montaneros Condominium Association • 2 3. A request for a conditional use permit, a landscape variance, and a setback variance for a remediation system equipment building at the Alpine Standard Station, part of Lot A, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 285 S. Frontage Road West. Applicant: Amoco Corp. 4 4. A request for a wall height variance and an amendment to the approved access plan for both lots at 146 and 126 Forest Road, Lots 5 and 6, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Ron Byrne 1 5. A request for a height variance at 2855 Snowberry Drive, Lot 6, Block 9, Vail intermountain. Applicant: Doug and Michelle Cahill 3 6. A request for a conditional use to expand hospital space at the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing (181 West Meadow Drive). Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center • C7 TABLED UNTIL 7. A request for an exterior alteration on Lot C AUGUST 27TH and Lot D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, ail in Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing, 227 Bridge Street (Covered Bridge Building). Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc, and Bruce Amm & Associates. TABLED UNTIL 8. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. AUGUST 27TH 16, part of parcel A, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing 2. (The Valley Phase III} Applicant: Brad & Susan Tjossem TABLED UNTIL 9. A request for a major subdivision, to approve AUGUST 27TH the preliminary plan, a request for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls, and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, an a parcel. commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Applicant: George Gillett, Jr. TABLED 10. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4, INDEFINITELY Coldstream Condominiums in order to amend Sections 18.46.094 (B) density, 18.46.100 (B) floor area, 18.46.220 employee housing and 18.46.230 time requirements to convert an existing racquetball facility into an employee housing unit, management office, laundry and owner storage area at Lot 53 Glen Lyon Subdivision, 1476 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association. WITHDRAWN 11. A request for a side setback variance at Lot 3, Block 5 Vail Village 1st Filing, Unit 3B--- Vail Rowhouses, 303 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Stewart Colton WITHDRAWN 12. A request for a variance to Section 18.58.020 (C) in order to construct a 5' high wood screen fence in the 20' front setback at 9 Vail Road--Holiday House, Lot B, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Holiday House/Pinnacle Resorts • C7 r ~~~~~~~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 13, 1990 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Ludwig Kurz Jim Shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Ji11 Kammerer Shelly Mello Andy Knudtsen Betsy Rosolack Penny Perry The Planning and Environmental Commission meeting was called to order at 2:35 p.m. Chuck Crist was present for the site visits, and was absent at the beginning of the meeting. He was expected to return. Due to the late start, Item No. 1 was postponed to the end of the meeting. Ttem No. 2: A request for a setback variance in order to Pnl~rae a second story housekeeoina service room at Montaneros Condominiums located at 641 W. Lionshead Circle, Lot 8. Block 1. Vail-Lionshead 3rd Filina. Antolicant: Montaneros Condominium Association Andy Knudtsen explained that the board had seen this item at the previous PEC meeting for an exterior alteration request. The reason it was before the board again was that staff had not published for the variance. The request met the criteria and findings for variances per the staff memo. Diana Donovan asked for public comment and there was none. A motion to anurove the setback variance per the staff memo was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer VOTE: 6-0 TN FAVOR Ttem No. 3 was postponed until later in the meeting to allow Jill Kammerer to confer with the applicant's representatives. 1 Ttem No. 4: A request for a wall height variance and an amendment tp the an~roved access blare for both lots at 146 and 126 Forest Road, Lots 5 and 6, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Aoblicant: Ron Bvrne Mike Mollica presented the proposal for staff explaining that the applicant was requesting a wall height variance and an amendment to an approved access plan. Mike reviewed a brief history of the project and the criteria and findings for a variance. The staff recommendation was for approval of the proposed wall height variance request, per the drawings submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, AIA, dated July 23, 1990 as amended July 26, 1990. Staff felt that the current proposal was a substantial decrease from the original PEC approved variance and was now in conformance with the Town's zoning code. The staff's rec~.~~.~~endation was contingent upon the applicant maintaining a common shared driveway for both Lots 5 and 6. The staff recommended denial of the applicant's request to amend the approved access plan. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, presented three scaled models for the PEC's review. One depicted the PEC approval, one the DRB appraval and the other depicted the proposed walls. He stated that the applicant wished to table the request to amend the access plan. Jay explained that he felt that the current • proposal was a better solution than the original approval. The total sq. ft. of wall area had been decreased substantially. A large evergreen tree was being saved. He apologized that the applicant had not sought PEC approval before beginning construction on the wall. Bill Post, representing Mr. and Mrs. Mossman property owners to the west, explained that the Mossmans were concerned that their view would be obstructed and that a maximum height of 3 ft. an the upper wall would be acceptable. Discussion then centered around what grade would be used to determine the interpretation of 3 ft. by Mr. Mossman, and Mr. Mossman pointed out the area of concern on the model. Gordon Pierce felt that he could work with 4 ft. but 3 ft. might not be feasible to design. Bill Post felt that 3 1/2 feet would be acceptable and the applicant's representatives agreed. Diana Donovan wanted it clarified, for the record, that the 3-1/2 feet would be above original grade, not present grade. . 2 Jay emphasized that the applicant washed to table the requested . amendment to the access plan and Diana felt the PEC could proceed with the variance as long as the applicant and Jay understood that the access plan would be tabled with the understanding that only 1 curb cut was approved. Ludwig Kurz questioned why the two amendments came in together and Mike explained the staff felt the one curb cut was one consideration for allowing the wall height variance from the start. Jim Shearer felt that the reduction in height did improve the area. He wanted to see the landscape plan tied into the approval. Connie Knight stated that if the applicant wanted to propose 2 curb cuts, she did want the applicant to be required to come back to the PEC. She alsa wanted to see the topo map attached as part of the motion. Diana commented that she voted against the wall height variance the first time it was before the Board. She felt that boulder walls, as originally proposed, were different from veneer walls, as currently proposed. She stated that steep hillside lots were not supposed to be maximized. Buildings on this type of lot should be constructed without destroying the site. Kristan asked Jay what he expected to gain by tabling the amendment to the access plan and Jay explained that he simply wanted time to look at the possibilities. He felt he might redesign the house an the other lot to eliminate retaining walls altogether. He simply did not want to have to reapply due to the publishing time delay. Jay wished to clarify to Kathy Warren that if she voted against the proposal, the applicant could build the walls as previously approved. He felt the current proposal was better. Kristan commented that the staff supported the variance request because the they felt that the current proposal was better than the prior approval as it decreased the amount of the variance. Mike explained that~if the current proposal was denied, the applicant would have the right to construct the previously approved plan as Jay had explained. A motion to table the amendment to the access plan to the Set~tember 10. 1990 meeting was made by Jim Shearer and seconded by Ludwig Kurz. VOTE: 5-1 IN FAVOR OF TABLING WITH CONNIE KNIGHT OPPOSED • Connie felt that tabling the access item would give the applicant . a chance to juggle the issue and felt they should have voted an both items as proposed. A motion to approve a wall heiaht variance per the staff memo with the followina conditions was made by Ludwia Kurz and seconded by Jim Shearer Conditions: 1. The heiaht of the upper wall could be no more than 3- 1/2 feet above the topo man of 8/7/90 2. The landscape plan be no less than that which was presented. Kristan felt that the motion could be per the staff memo with the exception that the access plan was tabled. Ludwia amended his motion to state per the staff memo. with the exception that the access plan portion was tabled with the conditions as listed above. Jim Shearer seconded the amended motion. VOTE: 4-2 IN FAVOR WITH CONNIE KNIGHT AND KATHY WARREN OPPOSED i The board wished to have final comments on the project stated for the record as follows: Ludwig Kurz: He was not happy that the developer had not come in an appropriate manner or timing with the project. He did feel that the current proposal was better than the previously approved proposal. Dalton Williams: Commented that as he looked up the hill, he did not like to see all of the walls. He felt there might have been other ways. He encouraged the applicant to look at other options for the other lot to the east. Diana Donovan: Voted in favor strictly on the basis that the current plan was better than the previous plan. She did not believe in height variances in general and did not feel that the house was designed to fit this lot. Kathv Warren: Voted against the proposal for the same reasons as Diana stated above. She had voted no from the beginning of the previous proposal. • 4 Jim Shearer: Voted in favor because the current proposal was better than the previous approval. He did not want to see the applicant before the Board regarding the adjacent lot and did not want to see the same large amount of drive in the future. He agreed with Dalton regarding the walls. He would rather give a site coverage variance than a retaining wail height variance. Connie Knight: Connie stated that she had already mentioned her reasons. Item No. 3: A request for a conditional use oermit. a landscape variance. and a setback variance for a remediation svstem equipment building at the Alpine Standard Station. wart o£ Lot A. Vail Village 2nd Filing,,. 285 S. Frontage Road West. Applicant: Amoco Oil Comoanv. Jill Kammerer presented the proposal for staff explaining that Amoco Oil Company had not committed to the landscape requirements presented in the memo as rec~.~~.~~ended conditions of approval. Jill stated that the request was for a conditional use permit, a landscape variance, and a setback variance to allow the construction of a remediation system equipment building. She reviewed the history behind the request and reviewed the criteria and finding for each request. The staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit and each of the variance requests with the landscape variance contingent upon conditions. Jill introduced the Amoco representatives; Mr. Bill Black and Debbie Phenicie of Law Environmental, Tom Briner, the project architect, and Doug and Cuny Sterkle, operators of the Alpine Standard Station. Diana Donovan felt that the work session gave the board a good understanding of the aesthetics of the building. She felt that the present discussion should address the landscaping and whether the building would be permanent or temporary. Ludwig Kurz asked if there was any indication of the length of time the building would be needed, and Bill Black responded that he thought 2 years would probably be sufficient time for the remediation system to clean up the ground water and subsoil contamination to acceptable levels. Kristan emphasized that the two year period was an estimate, there were no guarantees as to how long the system would have to remain in operation and subsequently how long the building would have to remain. Jim Shearer asked if the structure would be removable, and Jill stated that the building was being built as a permanent structure with a foundation. Bi11 Black commented that the applicant wanted to erect a temporary structure, but that staff felt a temporary structure would not meet design standards. Diana asked if the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District had agreed to water discharge volumes and Bill Black responded that they had. He had a letter acknowledging the agreement. Diana asked if it was possible to shut down operations during peak periods such as Christmas and New Years week, and Bill Black explained that it was possible but that Upper Eagle valley Water and Sanitation District had given no indication that this would be necessary given the volume of the water to be discharged. Further, maximum benefits were realized with continuous operation. Joe Macy, representing Vail Associates, stated that they would like to see the system underway soon. Bill Black explained that Amoco was proceeding without state approval at their own risk. He wanted to emphasize the urgency. Kristan wanted the Board to realize that the staff was in no way indicating to the Board that staff wished to hold up the proposal. Cuny Sterkle, operator of Alpine Standard since 1973, explained that the Community Development Director in 1973, Jim Lamont, had addressed closing the eastern access issue in 1973 and Cuny had resisted the closing at that time. Cuny stated that he was not consulted by Amoco, the Tawn ar Law Environmental about the landscape issue until today. The proposed access closing concerned him. Cuny stated he had a conversation with Jim Rogers of Amoco Marketing Department and Jim was also concerned about the curb cut closing. Cuny stated he needed the Frontage Road access for gasoline tanker transport truck deliveries. He was also concerned that Narrowing the Vail Road curb cut, would create a hazard when the transport truck was unloading. He stated he barely had room presently for patrons to egress the site when the tanker was there unloading. He wanted access to remain as it was currently laid out. In the summer a tanker could barely fit under the canopy over the pumps but in the winter with ice buildup on the pavement, a tanker could not fit under the canopy. • 6 Jill asked Cuny to describe the unloading procedure and Cuny described the procedure in detail. The tankers currently enter the site from the Vail Road curb cut and leave the site from the eastern most S. Frontage Road curb cut. Kathy Warren asked how long it took to unload, and Cuny replied that if they were quick, 20 minutes, but it could take 1-Z/2 to 2 hours depending on products being unloaded. Jim Shearer asked how many cars that were parked at the station were employee cars and Cuny responded 4. The rest of the cars were cars waiting for work. Cuny stated that he no longer allowed customers to park overnight at the station. Cars had to be picked up on the day servicing was completed. Further, it was deducted on Amoco's quality inspection standards. Parking in front of the easterly S. Frontage Road Curb Cut was not preferred. In response to a question from Jim, Cuny stated Amoco Oil Co was responsible for any improvements to the building. A dumpster enclosure which was previously located on site was destroyed by trash service. Kathy Warren asked if it would serve the station to leave the building in place when Amoco was done with it, and Cuny said they could use it for storage. Tom Briner, the architect, explained that the building was being constructed so that it could be taken dawn. As far as the conditions the staff rec~~~~~~~ended on the landscape variance, he felt that for the loss of 250 sq. ft. of landscaped area, the staff was asking them to replace it with 4 to 5 time the amount. The landscape cost would be more than 2 times the cost of the building. Regarding the proposed sidewalk installation, he thought it would be more advantageous to build a sidewalk across the street on the Gateway site. Kristan explained that in reality, people walk along Vail Road on the service station side of the road. They actually cut through the station. Jill explained to the board that the building could be built on the property within the setbacks. The proposed location was chosen to avoid the loss of already limited high demand parking. Kathy Warren commented that the proposed building would not completely abut the property. There was a 2'-3' buffer between the remediation building and the alley to the south. She was comfortable with the sidewalk request and understood the access concern. She wanted to see the 246 sq. ft. of landscape being removed be replaced in the southeast area of the site. She could support this kind of a proposal. Jim Shearer supported the proposal. He was not sure how the motion should be structured. He wanted landscaping but also wanted to see the operation up and running and was therefore concerned with the South Frontage Road access closure and Vail Road access narrowing. Kathy Warren added to her previous comments that she wanted to see the building be temporary and thought it was appropriate to review the permanence issue when the conditional use permit was no longer required. Jim Shearer commented that he felt that the service station was one of the best looking he had ever seen, However, he did want to see some areas landscaped. He understood the opposition to curb cuts and would like to see landscaping per Kathy's suggestion at the southeast corner of the site with a sidewalk and with the possible use of trees. He also wanted to see the area between the station and the Holiday Tnn landscaped, and a garbage enclosure constructed. He agreed with Kathy that the building should be temporary. Jim asked Mr. Black what the chances were of having to do more remediation at a later date. Mr. Black explained they would shut down the operation when the water tested clean and that he could think of only 2 instances where system operation might be required again: 1) New leak--he felt it was unlikely that a zone of contamination as extensive as the current situation would occur in the further. The laws were . stiffer now and to help prevent future contamination alarm systems would notify the operator that a leak had occurred. 2) If the criteria changed to be more rigid standards, future remediation could be possible. Connie Knight agreed with Joe Macy that the project needed to be started as soon as possible. She didn't feel that the board needed to take unfair advantage of the situation in a search to gain landscaping against an environmental issue. She felt an annual review was imperative. She also felt the structure should be removed when the remediation system was no longer in operation and that a sprinkler system in the existing and southeast proposed landscape area should be installed by the applicant. Connie questioned the siting of trees so close to an intersection. She Felt the planting could be a safety (line of sight} concern. Dalton Williams wanted to see a temporary building and a garbage enclosure. He was not in favor of closing the South Frontage Road access or narrowing the Vail road curb cut. He was in favor of a sidewalk along Vail Road as well as additional landscaping on the southeast corner of the property. He wanted to see "mature" trees planted to screen the cars and did not think siting trees in the southeast corner of the site would be dangerous. He was in favor of proceeding as expeditiously as possible but not as a sacrifice to landscaping. • e Ludwig Kurz c~,~~r..ented that the other board members had stated his feelings. He wanted the project to proceed as expeditiously as possible, however, he also felt landscaping needed to be addressed. Cuny stated he felt that Amoco would cu~~ut~it to the landscaping and garbage enclosure as discussed by the board. Diana asked what would happen if the noise was excessive? Kristen responded that staff didn't feel it would be a problem to add a condition of review regarding the noise and that the applicant had indicated they would be willing to add additional insulation if the staff felt the operation of the system created excessive noise. Diana wanted to see the existing landscaped areas "spiffed up" and additional landscaped area as proposed by Kathy with trees as high as possible without creating a hazard to automobile traffic. She also wanted the building to be temporary and removed when the remediation system was no longer in operation. Diana also indicated she felt the construction of a dumpster screen was necessary and that if noise is a problem, staff should negotiate with Amoco to add additional sound insulation. A motion to auurove a request for a conditional use vermit . ner the staff memo with the following conditions was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Connie Knight. Conditions: 1. Annual review and auuroval of the Conditional Use Permit bar the PEC. The Conditional use permit for the remediation system shall terminate when the unit is no. longer necessary. Annual review to address sound level emissions. 2. Anuroval of a landscabe variance. 3. Annroval of a rear setback variance. 4. The building be temporary. If the applicant desires the building to remain, the ap~alicant must obtain PEC aooroval. VOTE: 6-0-1 IN FAVOR WITH CHUCK GRIST ABSTAINING SINCE HE WAS ABSENT FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE PRESENTATION 9 s A motion to approve a recruest for a, r_par spi-.t~a~ek Vari anne . per the staff memo was made by Kathy Warren and seconded bv, Connie Knight VOTE: 6-0-1 IN FAVOR WITH CHUCK GRIST ABSTAINING A motion to approve a request for a landscape variance per the staff memo with the following conditions was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Connie Knight. Conditions: 1. Applicant commitment to cleanup and upgrade all existing landscaped areas per Town Landscape Architect, Community Development Director and Town Engineer approval. 2. Applicant commitment to provide a curb. gutter and sidewalk off-site along the west side of Vail Road per Town Landscape Architect. Communitv Development Director and Town Engineer approval. 3. Approval of dumpster location and screening proposal by the Design Review Board. 4. Landscape area of 250 sq, ft. be provided on site in the southeast area of the site and along west edge of Vail Road in conjunction with a &' wide sidewalk with curb and cutter per condition ~2. 5. To upgrade all existing landscape areas between the Halidav Inn and the Station per Landscape Architect and Department of Communitv Development. 5. A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy shall not be released for the remediation building until all of the improvements. outlined in conditions 1. 2. 3. 4 and 5 have been completed or a letter of credit is provided to the Town of Vail to cover the costs of these improvements. VOTE: 6-0-1 IN FAVOR WxTH CHUCK GRIST ABSTAINING ,Item No. 5: A rern~.est for a height variance at 2855 Snowberrv Drive. Lot 6. Block 9. Vail Intermountain. Applicant; Doua and Michelle Cahill Andy Knudtsen presented the proposal for staff explaining that the applicant was requesting a height variance for a new single family home. A building permit had been issued and construction 10 was underway. When the applicant had the height checked to mast M the requirements for a framing inspection, the height exceeded 33 feet by 4.67 feet, as measured from existing grade. Two aspects of the project were important background information. There was a Swale running down the site, over which the house had been built which made a 4 foot difference between height measured from finished grade compared to height measured from existing grade. A second important fact was that the owner shifted the house approximately 11 feet after the building permit was issued without first getting approval from the C~.~LL«unity Development Department. The owners' goal was to save a 40 foot tall evergreen tree. By moving the house, the owner located the highest roof ridge over the Swale. Andy reviewed the zoning considerations and related criteria and findings. The staff recommendation was for denial. Given that there were other possible locations for the house that would not likely have required a variance, staff concluded that there was not a hardship on the site. Ludwig Kurz asked Doug Cahill why he did not contact the Community Development Department for approval and Doug responded that, upon excavation, he was disturbing the root system for the tree. He did not know he needed to return for approval. Dalton Williams and Chuck Crist had no comments. . Kathy Warren felt the owner was caught in a technicality. She didn't see how the problem had not occurred prior. She felt the Swale should be counted. Normally she was not in favor of height variances but felt it was a technicality. Jim Shearer asked the staff, had they been consulted, what would have been the recommendation and was told that staff probably would have recommended moving the house down hill as well as west off of the Swale so that it would have conformed to the height limit. Jim shearer asked how the Swale came about. It seemed to be unique to the lot. Doug Cahill explained that he was not sure. Connie Knight stated that she had no problems with the variance. She commented that if she felt the move or increase in height had been done on purpose she would not support the variance. Diana Donovan agreed with Kathy Warren. A motion to aonrove a request for a height variance as the height is in conformance from finished grade oar findings A. B. C1 and C2 as listed in the memo was made by Connie Knight. . 11 Kathy Warren wished to clarify the motion stating that them was an exceptional circumstance in that the building covered the swale, and that the swale was particular to the property, and the perimeter of the building did not violate height requirements. Connie Knight amended her motion per Kathv's statement and the motion was seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 7-0 IN FAVOR Item No. 6: A request for a conditional use to expand hospital space at the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F. Vail Village 2nd Filing (181 West Meadow Drivel. Aoolicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Kristan Pritz explained the proposal and added that the chart on page 3 explained how parking was allocated on the site. She said that the staff recommended approval. Jay Peterson was present along with Ray McMahon, the Manager of the hospital, Dan Feeney, John Reece, the architect, and Greta Schultz. • Jay said that Kristan had done a good job explaining the request and that Kristan had also asked for future plans. He said they had prepared a wish list for her, however, there was no further expansion authorized by the hospital at the moment. He spoke in favor of the proposal. Kristan said that the hospital had stated that they were decreasing their staff and the parking was decreased to adjust to 6 fewer employees. Chuck asked how they could have six fewer people, and Ray explained that there had been some staff changes. Dan Feeney explained that the department heads had been asked to project their needs, and therefore, they had more current information. Chuck then asked about a hospital policy called "redirect" where the hospital sent patients to other hospitals and he was wondering why the hospital had been put on redirect and Dan Feeney explained that it had not actually happened yet. Dalton then asked about the parking situation regarding the bank purchase of 8 spaces but Council approval for only the use ns six. Jay explained that the bank had a right to buy 12 spaces and had the exclusive option on 8, the 8 were out of control of the hospital. He said that the purchase of 12 by the bank was a worst case scenario. 12 r The use of the additional space was then discussed. Diana Donavan said that the last time the hospital was in for a request, the Planning Commission had made it clear that the hospital needed to build a new ambulance building. Diana said that for consistency, the parking spaces had to come out without a deficit if Lot 10 was removed. She wanted to see this worked out on paper. Jay said that under the lease agreement, they had a right to count the spaces on lot 10 until the lease was terminated. Diana answered that if Lot 10 was no longer used, the deficit would be made up with the valet parking. Regarding future plans of additions to the hospital, she did not feel that the C~~~~a,~ission could support an additional floor on top of the structure and suggested they find another place to add mare space. Diana repeated that the ambulance building relocation needed to be a top priority of the hospital. Connie Knight asked if there was a time schedule for the list of hospital construction proposals and Ray McMahon said that there was no schedule at that time. Connie said that she did not like having a learning lab converted to parking and Jay said that the concept was to move the learning lab center and use the area as parking. Connie asked where this plan was on the Hospital Master Plan. Jay replied that there was great flexibility as to where the Learning Lab could be located. Connie asked if there was some other area that the MR1 could be placed and Jay responded that other areas had been fully utilized and that many uses had already been relocated. Connie felt that the north elevation was not aesthetically pleasing. She wanted to know if the MRI could be placed inside the existing building. Kathy Warren was concerned about the brick detail next to the concrete. Jim Shearer spoke in favor of the improvement. Kathy Warren was concerned that continuous infills added to the building would have an impact on the design of the building. She stated that although they were minor, she was not in favor of many infills, that these design features had been important to the Design Review Board as they added relief to the building. Kathy agreed with Diana regarding the Hospital Master Plan and felt that the relocation of the ambulance garage should be the number 1 priority. She did not support the addition of a 4th floor onto the new wing. Kathy felt that the Lot 10 parking needed to be addressed and she questioned if she could support this type of addition again. 13 . Diana Donovan felt that Kathy Warren's point regarding the architecture was well taken. Dalton asked if the addition extended 3 feet beyond the building or was just an infill and Mr. Reece responded that it did extend 3 feet beyond the wall. Kathy said that the elevation did not show this clearly. Mr. Reece pointed out the 3~ extension of the elevation. This part of the expansion was discussed, concerning the possibility of pulling the extension back and putting in a sidewalk. Diana wanted to know if approving this proposal would weaken the requirement of relocating the ambulance bay and Mr. Reece felt that this expansion would not effect the hospitals ability to relocate the ambulance facility. He said that this MRT need came on line much quicker than they had anticipated. He did not feel a 1200 sq. ft. expansion should force the ambulance building to be moved. Jay Peterson said that the ambulance building was owned by the Ambulance District. It was very costly and the District did not want to move it presently. More discussion of the site plan followed and it was decided to not place a walkway near the expansion but to continue with the bollards and to continue with emergency parking only. A motion to auprove the reauest for a conditional use permit oer the staff memo was made by Connie Kniaht and seconded by kathv Warren Diana felt that the conditions should be that: 1, When the Lot 10 lease ended, the hospital be required to come up with additional parking on site to meet all parking requirements. 2. That the next addition of any size to the hospital would require the relocation of the ambulance garage. Connie Kniaht amended her motion to include those conditions as reauested by Diana and Kathv Warren amended her second. Vote: 7-0 IN FAVOR i 14 Item No. 1: Approval of minutes from the Julv 23. 199 meetina. Dalton had corrections on Page 10 that he would discuss with Penny regarding his statement referencing the Rekord doors. A motion to approve the minutes with corrections was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE. 7-0 IN FAVOR Ttem No. 7: A request for an exterior alteration on Lot C and Lot D. and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B. all in Block 5-B. Vail Village 1st Filina. 227 Bridae Street (Covered Bridge Building]. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. Item No. 8: A request for a mayor amendment to SDD No. 16. part of parcel A. Lionsridae Subdivision. Filina 2. [The Valley Phase III) Applicant: Brad & Susan Tiossem Item NO. 9: A request for a mayor subdivision. to approve the preliminary plan, a request for a variance to the maximum heiaht for retainina walls, and a request for a variance to the maximum percent arade for a road, on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an auoroximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchanae and east of the Soraddle Creek livery. Applicant: Georae Gillett. Jr. Item NO. l0: A request for a maior amendment to SDD No. 4. Coldstream Condominiums in order to amend Sections 18.46.090 fBl density. 18.46.100 !Bl floor area. 18.46.220 emnlovee housina and 18.4&.230 time requirements to convert an existing racquetball facility into an emnlovee housina unit. manaaement office, laundru and owner storage area at Lot 53 Glen Lyon Subdivision. 1476 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association. A motion to table Stem Nos 7, 8, and 9 until the Auaust 27. 1990 meetina and Item No. 10 indefinitely was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Ludwia Kurz. VOTE: 7-0 TN FAVOR . 15 Ztem No. 11: A request for a side setback variance at Lot 3. Block 5 Vail Village 1st F~~~na. Unit 3B--Vail Rowhouses. 303 Gore Creek Drive. AnnliCant; Stewart Colton Item No. 12: A request far a variance to Section 18.58.020 !C) in order to construct a 5' high wood screen fence in the 20' front setback at 9 Vail Road--Holidav House. Lot B. Vail Village 2nd Filing. A~~licant: Holidav House/Pinnacle Resorts. Item No.s 11 and 12 were withdrawn, na action was needed. • . 15 . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 13, 1990 RE: A request for a setback variance in order to enlarge a second story housekeeping service room at Montaneros Condominiums located at 641 W. Lionshead Circle, Lot 8, Block 1, Vail-Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Montaneros Condominium Association I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a sideyard setback variance in order to construct an expansion to a second story housekeeping service room. The addition will encroach 10' into the north sideyard setback creating a 0' setback from the property line. The standard for sideyard setbacks in this zone district (CCII) is 10'. The addition will be located on the second story of the building above the lobby. There will be no expansion of the building footprint. II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved a request on July 9, 1990 for an exterior alteration to the Montaneros Building for this same construction project. At that time, staff reviewed the proposal with the exterior alteration criteria. Staff had identified the fact that the expansion would encroach into a sideyard setback but had not published for a variance request. As a result, the PEC reviewed and approved the exterior alteration request with the condition that the applicant obtain a setback variance before proceeding with the project. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS, The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this variance request: 1. Zone District: CCII 2. Lot Area: 44,847.5 sq. ft. 3. Site Coverage: No Change • 1 . 4. Setbacks: Proposed Reauired front (west} 66' 10' rear (east) 94' 10' north side o' l0' south side 147' 10' 5. Parking: The parking requirement does not increase since common area does not require parking. 6 . C~,~u~~on Area Calculations sauare feet • Site area Allowable GRFA Allowable common floor area {20~ of allowable GRFA) Existing common floor area Remaining common area for development Area of proposed housekeeping service room Area for future common area expansion IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 44,847 35,875 7,175 - 6.469 706 706 -207 499 Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Coda, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the reauested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The only neighboring property with views to this addition is the Concert Hall Plaza property to the north. The Concert Hall Plaza building, however, has no south facing windows that look out onto the Montaneros site. As a result, this project has very low visibility. Staff believes that the relationship of this variance request to other properties would have no negative impacts. • 2 2. The decree to which relief from the strict and_ . literal interpretation and enforcement of a, specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege, Relief from a strict interpretation of the zoning code is appropriate in this case because the existing building is built in the setback. Locating the addition on the second floor in such a way as to match the existing exterior walls of the first floor is a reasonable request in staff's opinion. There is no grant of special privilege because the existing building is located in the setback and because the applicant will not be increasing the amount of encroachment. 3. The effect of the recfuested variance on light and air. distribution of population. transportation and traffic facilities,, public facilities and utilities. and public safety. The proposal will not impact the above referenced Town services. . V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the, following findings before granting a variance:. A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for ape or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that dv not apply generally • to other properties in the same zone. 3 3. 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. VT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance request. specifically, staff believes finding C1 has been met since a strict interpretation of the setback requirement would result in a practical difficulty for the applicant. Given that so much of the building is already located in the setback, requiring conformance to setbacks for this addition seems unreasonable. Regarding finding C2, staff believes that the building location, in relation to the property line, is an extraordinary circumstance because the platted property line runs at the same location as the foundation line. This request is not a grant of special privilege as previous variances have been approved when the request is located above an existing building and the proposal has no negative impacts on adjacent properties. Lastly, finding B is met since approving the request will not be detrimental to the public health or safety in any way. • LJ 4 • • v 1 rti v b Q d c O .` 'V t ._ .1 ~~` pgoP~R'-Y 'L.11~f ~ 1 ~ v i I~ O.ai' i r5i. '..•'i AS~• •3y..r`'1~...w~ 't i d A' : ;i:' ~s, x •' Z•~~• '', f e.~ i'--•~ u 'i _~S. ~ f m ~ . . ~A 1a.as' ` .. .r ~ n r ~~, e+c' .~ , a ~~~ 49 ~~ Mjo ^f •...~ ".~. -D.55•r N Iw s ~s° 3s~ oc•w z;o.o~ e r r i I I I f I c I 1 i I 1 I t I i-, , I ' i I 1 i I t 1 I t I f • H p j~ pp ~. } ,,,.~•c ~S p~~ ~ a.._ .,gip 'L' , ~ 'N 1. ~~v. '~ ~~ ~ t ~' • " ~ ~ _ :-,rY~-~.. __ ,~ '° ~c { ` s ~ w .-,.,~.~.r-.: ~ x ~; Hw ~~~' ^ r . ;,_ , , y , ~ --~ -' ~~ t - ~`"iY~3 .'G~ Vii`' ~^.~`..'~~:' - s y • ti? r -~ 1' f . ~,~~ ` I ~~j„ :' ~:~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~1 w ,w F ~~ . l~ ,] ;•. ^ ~ ; r'~ r- . ~ ~ r ' ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ! i • llr ` ' ^~ ~ •• ... .~ s: i i ~ .}•ti6 r Il ` \~ ~~ J Q To: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 13, 1990 RE: A request for a conditional use permit, a landscape variance, and a setback variance for a remediation system equipment building at the Alpine Standard Station, part of Lot A, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 28 S. Frontage Road West. Applicant: Amoco Oil Corp. I. BACKGROUND The Gateway Building, currently under construction at the southeast corner of South Frontage Road and Vail Road was previously the site of an Amoco Oil Company owned gasoline service station. When excavation for the construction of the Gateway Building took place, it was discovered that subsurface petroleum hydrocarbon soil contamination had occurred. Because the contamination had occurred while the property was under Amoco ownership, Amoco is responsible for site clean-up (remediation). In November of 1989, Amoco submitted a corrective action plan calling for the installation of a remediation system to the Colorado Department of Health for review and approval. The Gateway corrective action plan was not formally approved by the Department of Health at the time of its submission because the source and full extent of soil contamination was not known. However, the Department of Health informally endorsed the Gateway corrective action plan and encouraged Amoco to proceed with interim corrective action in lieu of having a complete action plan in place. Subsequently, a remediation system was installed on the Gateway building site and put into operation in December of 1989 until March of 1990 when construction no longer permitted operation on- site. Prior to installing the temporary Gateway remediation system, Amoco oil Company obtained the proper water discharge permits from the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District (see attached correspondence) and air emission approvals from the state Air Pollution Control Division (see attached correspondence}. 1 During the ceurse of investigating the Gateway property subsurface and groundwater soil contamination, it was discovered that the adjacent Alpine Standard Station property also showed levels of contamination. In order to determine the extent of subsoil and groundwater contamination, a site assessment report was prepared by Law Environmental, Inc. of Englewood, Colorado for Amoco Oil Company. To date 22 monitoring wells (see attached Figure 1) have been drilled, installed, sampled and tested. Based upon Law Environmental Inc. findings, a comprehensive action plan will be prepared within the next 30 to 60 days and submitted to the State Department of Health for formal approval. Following receipt of the Plan the Department of Health is required to approve or deny the corrective action plan within 30 days. If any deficiencies in the plan are found, the state will notify Amoco of these deficiencies within 10 days of receipt of the plan. On July 25, 1990, Community Development staff met with Leonard Slosky whose firm has been retained by the town to oversee remediation of the old Town Shop site, to discuss the Alpine Standard site remediation. Mr. Slosky concurred with the State Health Department staff's opinion that in lieu of a comprehensive corrective action plan interim corrective action should be taken. The longer a site remains untreated the greater the likelihood that the zone of contamination will expand and the more difficult, costly and invasive remediation efforts can be, IT. DESCRIPTION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REnUEST The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit in order to place a subsoil and groundwater contamination remediation system on the Alpine Standard gas station site. The system will be located south of the existing gasoline station building and north of the Holiday House. The system which will be housed in an 11' x 20'-6" structure is comprised of an oil/water separator, an air stripper, recovered product storage tank, vapor extraction system, air compressors (which operate pumps located in recovery wells), and a control and electrical panel which operates the entire unit. The system will remove ground water with a series of pneumatic pumps, separate the majority of the gasoline from the water with the oil/water separator, strip the remaining dissolved gasoline constituents with the air stripper and discharge the treated water into the sanitary sewer which serves the site. • 2 The remediation system has been designed to remove free- phased hydrocarbon and dissolve contaminants from the groundwater. The groundwater treatment module is outfitted with an oil/water separator, air stripper, and all required instruments and controls for pumping and treating groundwater. Contaminated groundwater is pumped from the recovery wells to the system. The flow of water to the system will be determined in part by the capacity of the wells. • Once the groundwater is pumped to the system, it is deposited into the oil/water separator. The separator will remove oil from the groundwater. As the groundwater flows through the separator, free-phased hydrocarbons float to the surface of the water where they are then skimmed off the surface and deposited into the product storage barrel. The oil-free groundwater is then treated through an air stripper. The stripper is designed to remove non--aqueous phase liquid hydrocarbons from water. To do this the system directs the groundwater over horizontally aligned trays, and forces air through the water via aerator tubes. The air being forced through the water creates a sort of cold boiling effect which "strips" the hydrocarbons from the water. The hydrocarbons are released from the water as a gas and are vented to the atmosphere. The system will be in constant operation - 24 hours/day. Once hydrocarbon contamination in the groundwater has been reduced to levels acceptable by the State Health Department, the module will be removed from the site and all conduits will be permanently capped, Groundwater monitoring and sampling of the effluent will be ongoing throughout the clean-up effort as required by the State Health Department, Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation, and Amoco Oil Company Engineers. As proposed, all discharged water will meet Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District standards (see attached correspondence) and all air emissions will meet State Air Pollution Control Division standards (see attached correspondence). The structure which will house the remediation system will have stucco walls and cedar shakes. The architecture, colors and materials of the proposed building will blend with the architecture of the existing station building. 3 . The Alpine Standard site is in the Heavy Service zone district. Because of the nature of the uses associated with this zone district, all uses are subject to the Conditional Use permit procedure. In granting a conditional use permit for this area, the PEC may prescribe more restrictive standards than those prescribed in the zone district in order to protect adjoining uses from adverse influences. Amoco Oil Company anticipates the remediation unit will be in operation on this site for 1 to 2 years. However, the system could remain on site for a longer period of time. When the unit as no longer in operation the need for this conditional use permit will terminate. A. CRITERIA AND FXNDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditianal use permit based upon the following factors: 1. Consideration of Factors: a. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Purpose Section of the Heavy Service zone district states in part: . "The heavy service district is intended to provide sites for automotive oriented uses and for commercial service uses which are not appropriate in other commercial districts." The need to install the proposed petroleum hydrocarbon remediation system is a direct result of the operations of the 2 gasoline service stations. Further, the logistics of the operation of the system require it be in close proximity to the area of contamination. These factors in addition to discussions with the Town's remediation consultant contribute to the Planning staff's opinion that the installation of this proposed remediation system on the Alpine Standard's site, would meet the intent of the purpose section of the Heavy Service zone distract and is in the best interest of the community. 4 b. The effect of the use en lieht and air_ distribution of population. transportation f~r_ilities, utilities. schools, narks and recreation facilities. and other public facilities needs. The state Air Pollution Control Division will review the comprehensive correction plan when submitted. Until the comprehensive correction plan has been formally approved by the State, the remediation unit will continue to operate within the parameters of the Gateway corrective plan. As previously stated, Amoca Oil Company has obtained the proper water discharge permits and State air emission approvals to operate the system at certain discharge levels. The proposed remediation system will have no significant effect on the other above mentioned considerations. c. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion. automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access. maneuverability, and removal . of snow from the street and parkins areas. Pedestrians use the alley to access the Village Core from the Holiday Inn property and points west. The proposed structure will not interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic except at limited times where it will be necessary for trucks to access the structure to remove/replace product storage tanks. With the exception of this minimal impact on traffic, staff finds that the requested variances will have no significant effect on any of the other above mentioned considerations. d. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located,, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. If is the staff's opinion that the 12'-0" tall structure which will house the remediation system will blend with the 5 architecture of the existing Alpine Standard Station. The cedar shake roof, stucco finish, trim and windows will match the existing gasoline station building design elements. The remediation system will be in continuous operation 24 hours/day. The building which will house the remediation system incorporates sound insulation into its design. There will be no significant noise emitted. The applicant stated in a PEC work session there will be more noise generated from the Interstate Highway then from remediation system operation. The non-aqueous phase liquid hydrocarbons which will be vented from the structure will not emit odor. In fact, the threshold of odor detectible by the human nose is much higher than the health hazard threshold per staff research. As a result of constructing the remediation system housing structure on the proposed site, 246 sq. ft. of landscaped area will be removed {sea landscape variance section of this memo). B. FINDINGS The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantina a conditional use oermit: 1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. 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. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. 6 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATYONS The Community Development Department staff finds that this request meets the Conditional Use Permit criteria as stated above and recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit request subject to: 1. Annual review and approval of the Conditional Use Permit by the PEC. The Conditional use permit for the remediation equipment shall terminate when the unit is no longer necessary. 2. Approval of a landscape variance (see landscape variance section of memo). 3. Approval of a rear setback variance (see rear setback variance section of memo). Staff is supportive of Amoco Oil Company's efforts to mitigate the subsoil and groundwater contamination problems and recommends approval of this conditional use permit to allow the placement of a remediation system on the Alpine Standard Service Station site. III. DESCRIPTION OF THE REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUESTED, • The applicant is proposing to construct a building to house a remediation system on the Alpine Standard Station property. The 11'x 20'--6" building will project out from the south wall of the existing station building up to the southern property line of the site creating a 0' setback. The required setback for the Heavy Service district is 20 feet, therefore the applicant must obtain a setback variance to encroach 20 feet into the rear setback. The existing structure currently encroaches 15' into the rear setback. A. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The remediation system is proposed to be located on the existing Alpine Standard Station site within the Heavy Service (HS) Zone District. The addition of the remediation system impacts the HS district development standards in the following manner: LOT AREA: 17,624 sq. ft. BUILDING HEIGHT: Maximum Allowed: 38 feet Proposed Addition: 12 feet 7 SITE COVERAGE: Maximum Allowed: Existing: Proposed: 75.0 or 13,218.3 sq. ft. 15.1 or 2,661.0 sq. ft. 16.6 or 2,927.5 sq. ft. LANDSCAPED AREA: Minimum Allowed: 10.0 or 1,762.0 sq. ft. Existing: 10.0 or 1,765.0 sq. ft. Proposed:* 8.5~ or 1,498.5 sq. ft. SETBACKS; Minimum Allowed Existing Front 2D ft. 66.5 ft. East 20 ft. 34.5 ft. West 20 ft. 29.3 ft. Rear** 20 ft. 5.0 ft. * See attached landscape variance request. **Area of setback request. • B. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance based upon the following factors: 1. Consideration of Factors: a. The relationship of the reo~uested variance to other existina or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. • The proposed remediation system is located in close proximity to the area which requires clean--up. The location of the unit behind the existing station wi11 not impact the high demand on-site parking and will allow the day to day operations of the station to continue uninterrupted. The proposed structure wi11 require truck access to remove/replace product storage tanks. Proximity to the alley will allow this to occur without disrupting service station operations. The "alley" is owned by Holiday Inn and appears on the Alpine Standard Station survey and title report as an ingress/egress easement. This alley is not a designated fire lane. 8 In order to acc~.EEtE~odate the structure, 246 sq. ft of landscaped area will have to be removed. There are 3 evergreens located in this area which will be relocated to the east of the proposed structure. Following construction, the disturbed landscape area (approx. 300 sq. ft.) will be reseeded with native grasses and S" x 8" woad ties will be set into the grade as required. The proposed remediation system housing structure will blend with the architecture of the existing station building and following construction the area will be revegetated. After a 1 to 2 year period the revegetated area will be well established. Far these reasons, following the removal of the remediation system, staff believes the system housing structure should be allowed to remain. Tf the Cv1E11El1sSlon concurs, the structure would be permanent. The Holiday House Condominiums are located to the south and across the alley from the proposed remediation system location. • Although the system will be 5 feet closer to the side (north} entrance of the Holiday House, it will remain on Alpine Standard property which is separated from the Holiday House by a 25' paved alley. This alley, which provides service access to the Holiday House Condominiums and is a second means of access to the Holiday House parking lot and provides access to the Holiday Tnn will continue to serve as a buffer similar to a 20 foot rear setback between adjacent properties and the proposed structure. The location, size and height of the remediation system building will not effect views from adjacent properties. The architecture, colors and materials of the proposed building will blend with the architecture of the existing station in such a way that the temporary nature of the remediation system will not be apparent. 9 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 sbecial urivileae. The purpose of the construction of the structure is to remediate an existing underground water and subsoil contamination situation. If left untreated, the contamination will spread, thereby increasing the area of contamination and increasing the difficulty of remediating contaminated areas. The impact on the Town, both aesthetically and environmentally, of this system compared to other more drastic clean-up measures such as excavation and soil removal is minimal. The degree of relief from the strict interpretation of the rear yard setback requirement, in order to achieve a clean site, is appropriate and in the best interest of the community. c. The effect of the requested variance on light • and air. distribution of nouulation. transuortation and traffic facilities. public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Pedestrians use the alley to access the Village Core from the Holiday Inn property and points west. The proposed structure will not interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic except at limited times where it will be necessary for trucks to access the structure to remove/replace product storage tanks. The remediation structure construction will cause no displacement of parking. With the exception of this minimal impact on traffic, staff finds that the requested variances will have no significant effect on any of the other above mentioned considerations. 1Q C. FTNDTNGS The Plannincr and Environmental C~~~„~~ission shall make fih,p fgJ_7_pwi.n~f.indinas before arantina a variance: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. 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. 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. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this rear setback variance request. Staff believes the extraordinary circumstances of hydrocarbon petroleum product subsoil and groundwater contamination justify a setback variance in order to place the remediation system in an area with the lowest possible visual impact. There are no major negative impacts on adjacent properties or safety problems related to the request. • 11 IV. DF..SCRIPTION OF THE LANDSCAPE VARIANCE REQUESTED The Heavy Service Zone District requires 10~ of the site area to be landscaped. Currently, the Alpine Standard service station meets this landscape area requirement. The majority of the landscaped area (1,563 sq. ft.) is located south of the station building and north of an existing alley. It is in this area that the remediation system is proposed to be placed. The construction of the remediation system building at this location, will result in a loss of 246 sq. ft. of landscaped area. The variance is to reduce the landscaped area by 1.5~ of what is required by the zone district. A. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: 1. Consideration of Factors; a. The relationship of the reauested variance to other existing ar potential uses and structures in the vicinity. i As previously noted, the majority of the Alpine Standard Station site landscaping is located south and west of the service station structure. This landscaped area is seen by pedestrians from points west who use the alley to access the Village and vehicles which use the alley to access private parking areas (primarily Holiday House and Holiday Inn guests). Although the installation of the remediation system will decrease this landscaped area, Amoco will clean-up and upgrade the balance of this landscaped area. Included in this effort will be the relocation of 3 evergreens to the east of the proposed structure. The compatible design of the structure in conjunction with landscape area upgrading will result in a more positive visual experience for those pedestrians and vehicles utilizing the alley. b. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a snecifie~ 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. 12 Staff believes the request is positive to the degree that it will clean-~up contaminated subsoil and groundwater, and will result in a better appearing landscaped area. In addition to these positive impacts, the Town staff is working with the applicant to create landscaped areas off-site, on Town of Vail property. These landscaped areas which are immediately adjacent to the station property will be more highly visible and will improve the appearance of the station. This is an important factor because of the stations location at the major gateway to the Town, the "four-way stop." 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. The C~,~~.~~unity Development Department staff believes the provision of additional landscaped areas is necessary in order to compensate for the loss of landscaped area caused by the remediation system structure's Construction (Please see attached drawings of . landscape improvements}. The station site currently has three ingress/egress points. There are 2 curb cuts off of South Frontage Road and one curb cut off of Vail Road. The current proposal calls for a joint effort between the Town and the applicant to close the most easterly South Frontage Road curb cut. South Frontage Road is under the purview of the State Highway Department. In preliminary discussions between Town staff and Highway Department staff, the state has been very supportive of the proposed curb cut closure. Closure of this easterly cut is an aesthetic as well as a safety issue. The remaining Frontage Road curb cut will be located approximately 120' from the "4-way stop" intersection. Under the curb cut closure proposal, Amoco Oil Company will remove the existing concrete apron and construct a planter to match the existing planter. The Town will in turn fill the planter with soil, extend an existing irrigation system to the new area and install and maintain all plant material. • 13 Additionally, the Town staff has requested . the Vail Road curb cut be narrowed from 50 feet to 36 feet. This narrowing will be accomplished through the removal of existing paved areas, construction of a new curb, back filling the area with soil and installing sod. Amoco would be responsible for removing the concrete and constructing the curb and the Town will back fill the area, extend the irrigation system and install sod. At the time of the writing of this memo the Public Works Department is obtaining cost estimates far the construction of the planter for presentation to Amoco Oil Company. The third and final off-site landscape area proposed is located on the west side of Vail Road South of the curb cut. The Town staff has requested Amoco to construct a curb, gutter and 6' sidewalk in the Town right-of- way. Again, Amoco would be responsible for installing the infrastructure (including extending an existing irrigation system) and the Town would be responsible for back filling the area with soil and installing all plant material. The South Frontage Road planter will add approximately 330 sq. ft. of landscaped area off-site. The Vail Road curb-cut narrowing will add approximately 180 sq. ft. of landscaped area off-site. Under the Heavy Service zone district definition, an area does not qualify as a landscaped area unless the area in a minimum of 10' wide. Under this definition, the Vail Road Sidewalk improvement may not add "landscaped area", however, the installation of curb, gutters, sidewalk, sod and street trees will improve the visual appearance of the site. The provision of a sidewalk along Vail Road adjacent to the Alpine Standard site is intended to occur in conjunction with the provision of a sidewalk along Vail Road adjacent to the Holiday House property. These sidewalks will improve pedestrian safety and eliminate the parking which occurs along Vail Road in the Right-Of-Way. • 14 In addition to the provision of additional . landscaped areas off-site, the upgrading and cleaning up of existing southerly and westerly landscaped areas, staff recommends the applicant be required to present a proposal to the Design Review Board which addresses dumpster location and screening. Staff believes the effect on the above mentioned criteria is positive as it increases pedestrian safety and improves public transportation and traffic facilities. B. FINDINGS The Planninu and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantina a variance: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. 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. 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. • 15 C. STAFF RECONIMENDATION • Staff recommends approval of the landscape variance request subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant commitment to cleanup and upgrade of existing landscaped areas per the Town Landscape Architect, Community Development Director and Town Engineer approval. 2. Applicant commitment to curb-cut closure/planter improvement adjacent to South Frontage Road per Colorado Division of Highways, Town Landscape Architect, Community Development Director and Town Engineer approval. 3. Applicant commitment to narrowing the northern Vail Road curb-cut per Town Landscape Architect, Community Development Director and Town Engineer approval. 4. Applicant c~.~u~~itment to provide a curb gutter and sidewalk off-site along the west side of Vail Road per Town Landscape Architect, Community Development Director and Town Engineer approval. • 5. Applicant presentation of dumpster location and screening proposal to the Design Review Board. 6. A Temporary Certificate of occupancy shall not be released for the remediation building until all of the improvements, outlined in conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, have been completed or a letter of credit is provided to the Town of Vail to cover the costs of these improvements. Although on-site landscape requirements will not be met the landscaped areas to be created on Town of Vail right-of-way will positively impact the appearance of the "4-way stop" intersection, improve pedestrian safety and improve transportation and traffic facilities. 16 .~ ~ -.• - ~` .. ~ ~ • ~, :.~.~..~s ^l ' .. ~ r ~` by ~ /I 1 q' f V ~' .~~ ' ~ ~ -~ ~ '`'~ -__ y • I :~ ~ ~ ! . ' ~ ~ 1 Yi ~ ' ~ 4 4p 75 ~~ -~ r ~ / ~•~ 4 ~ • c ~'' ~ _' ~ . ~ ! '' C ~-! ~- -~v -~~ _~- ~~r ~~ ./~ ;- i~% ~ M~eL~oaN i' ,~I $ / ~~ ~.~ ,' ~ ~/i 5 ~ ~. ~ ~ ~;1~ ~ ~ ~~ J ,' 1 t ly l /I r f• M ~~ / ~' ~ 4 ~~ / ~`~:j ~f i ~' ~~ ~~ ~ N ` ~• / ~~~~ -~ -' ;• ,~ ~ a•~ . i s ~ t ,q ~~ 1: i ~ '~} '~ ~ ~. { i 4a I •( / T4 / ' ~ ~ .(N~ 1 ~' ~ '•~i ~ ~~ I ~~ ~f 3 ~! ~ ~.` ~' ~ ` ,~~~~. ~~ ~ ~, ~ i ,,1 8~ • • 0 z .~ Q; 'y y ,~, .s w e~ • • n u •.~ ~~ ~> 5 ~ ~, U .S• M1 .. • 43 ~..=. fiy .. i f! i ' ~~ ~ ~ .~. ~~~ ,~ 1~ ~ ; ~ i ~ .> ! ~ i i u" L -._.___.__~,~_,_. _ _..~~ J f ~~ ~i W ti l .'i . .~ a: ~~ ~t ~ .. w g ~~ ~ ~ . ~ 111~~ :.... .~ ~~ ~ 4~ ,~~ 1C{'` ~~ ~~ : ~ '~ ~ 4 ~• i ~~ ~~ ~ w ~. ~ • ~~ ~.9 ~~ E ~# ~~ t~ ~n cn ~3 ~ ~~ v `~. N .~~ ~~ ~Q s~ s{ r9 ,~, o .} ;~ C~ ., "~ QG [] .il• ,w .~ .v.-• .~ oe~ iG:l3b ENECOTECH DENVER ~v~o~a~o ~~~~~r~c~tT ~F H~ALrH AtR P(]LLLi7L~P! CDNTRQL ©~VtSi~N ~ ' TF.LE!'HL?N~s ~'~~3~ ~37.85I'1 - ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ PE~MZ~' N0; ~39~98~ INITIAL. APPROVAL, ~ . BATE ISSilF~1: DecemD~r 1~, L9$g ~1NA.L APPROYAt+ Q . . , ~ ' ~ISSULD~ TO ~ ~IT~, 1NC. THL S~uRCB Ta WHICH 'I'HFS pE1$A{i"~' A1~PLIES ~~ TlEStBEO AID i.OCATE~7 As P~~.LOw~; C+~so,L~ne station, L~,~t N, Mock ~y Va~1 Y,~3J.x~e 1~'t, 1,2 SQt Frcrnt.~'a ltd, Yai3a ~a t~talty~ Cn~ua~do.. IH8 SP~~IFIC EQUIPMENT CIR AC'I'iVT~'Y 5~18~'HCT 'T~ TLiIS PERMIT iNCi.tl1~HS THt~ FQhLQWII~6; X53 Cascade S`,pstam Air 5~'xr, 1 5".13~0~~l3~ for ..:.;.~ ~..f ~aF p~etarol ~pdreac~ar~ns foam cari~a.#nata~d gxe~d rm-ter. THrS PERMIT IS GRA2..~s, ~UB.~~OT TO ALL R~3LE5 ADiD AE~tJLATI~NS nP ?HI COLOi~fl AIR QLiAL1'I'X CONTR(3L CC)~SSIDN AND TILE CDI.(1RAD0 AI3t QL]ALITY Ct7P1'I'RpL ADT ~,R»~. ~2~•-?~1~1 et set}, TO THt?~E G~l'LzRAl. TERMS ANL1 C~NDiTi~NS SEA' ~#7RTH ~1N "~ 1~V~RS~ ' SIUg 4F 'i'~i.IS DClCLtM~+1T ANI} THE FOI.L41VI~1G ~g$CIFiC 'TERMr.S ANLI C~JNDiTIt3NS: X. filre ap~~ ~.~~ shaeld ,~-in#.a,~.u r~cv~cia a~' ~,yd..,...~Ixan ~_.. ,,.~,..~...~ made dttr.~ t,as ,sect a~rxL ata~,i~ calcz~,tate tha e~t~te~d ex~iarer3~s ~ s tlx,iy 6~ia duri~ tha ~-o,~e~t. • die „.:..~.;..:;y ar~d as~IcrsY~~tnas tcha.LL . lie made sva~E.I+s to t,1xe D~trfs.ior~ for ,~x~~icrn s~Quest ~d ah~e11 ~ . ba at~bm.~tta+d to the ~Div3sican c~ctr~ ~..~,~2et~taa of the .pi~o~eot. ~. V.~si,~t~ ~issai~ s~aa i~ not, exceed ' op~t~ ty'• ...raont,Lnra~e~d 90oi281a3 ~ ~~ b00 ' 3~Jdd N2~ 3Ht?~ON ht3N~ WO~~ t Tr ; 0 t ~~ , 8 i ~d~ ILLYNL'i"~S!Yda rrTUG . r~~ L'~71f--fir .TNL'. ~f ~'s~ca~I ,Fbra~i ~ No. 88E438D Ins tie~.I Ap~rava.I Pie ~. ~~ ?die perm~t# nramr z~11 be clesrs'~Y mar3sed an the sub, ~~I~ ~`'aC' ease of ~derjt-~t.~a8tiarr. . ~. Thn s~r~a.I ncsr of the si:tv~at egtzt~~~ t s~i~r,Il laa psc~ide~d to the Dfviszvn priGkt` to Feet Rppt+o~r3. a"". ~aisaic~c of a~,r pcrl.iutarats sh~e.l,l noE e~~ the fal.~cw~.ta~` ,I.f~aitstiana (~ c~.,Iculated irr -tea I?,ivis~oxa'sr pre,Z~,raaex~ u~.Iy~t~~r~: , ' ~ Volatile +twi,ia ~wid~: S.O~,C~eat-~ 6. Th~s~ saus~ce shal.I ta~- Ii.arif.~d to a Amurimtmr c~trlstatrpticvr meta r~ I~s~d l~o~ Barad at.I ot,herr ~+t~ui tea, ap~xet~cn~ a~ts.+r axed awmbera of ~:~~ ~~ ~a.t air stst~at .tn th~z aepP,iicaeti+ua• Arrtau~ racards of then ao#sal tsn;r rate ~1 ba ntra~ci b~ tke eppl~cant and m ave~tlalrle to t 1~#visr~on .a°or in.~r~~ttcua ~a.~:r request. , Con ticui of ec~n~rminatsd z~ter shall not ~ XB ~.lanalhour cai 8 ,~~ ~allvrusl,Y~arr. ~..~, _. __ ~ Xydz,o~c~erlavn vcrst a~ tfie oohtram.I,tasted r+st~ar she1.1 nvt a~:c+iad~D ra ~''~'7T~~~'~~ • T. At a.I.l tatnea, ,ir~aiudirr~ pert aQ1~r of ~tart~, a~ittt.dcx~aa, Brad ma~i.f its c~nr tyre Pa~.I~l~.tp arad cvntm~ ecclr~3,~rant 3, to ~e eacterat p~t3Ce, ~ r~~1 maitrta.Frta~d grad a,r~ted in ~ manner caAS~starnt wa t& j"ix~ $~tr poSlu~c~ , ~. ~ ~~ ccrt~l prsctfces far mzn.sm3~'~rt~' e~9sicna. 17etermirlat~ara o~° ~~-tb~-r at- ,.~ /r' net ~^''*pfi,~~Ie aperst}~g arrd ~int6ca ,~oaedt~raffi az~ t,~i~c t~rdd Fall be F~s~d an ~ifonr~tson $vaila$~Ie to the D~vis~rxrr, s~h.~~rh ~ :ixic3zade, b~rt .is taot .~~.~# tad to, ,ma».i tarzr~g z'eSt~L~, apffcz ty olaae+rvat.#ons, ~rev~eaw a~' opyrratxr.~t eux! maeinte~r~ce ,~aceduz~s, and .ins,tfnva of the soa~roe. ~. A RevaEar Alex- I~cr,I,Iut.zon .~nfsslan ~Ydtice sha.~t1 Ise ~.~led trpan aaa~al~~ears,c~P th.~s prc,~scxt, res ..,~ai,r+~ by 1te.~rslattcar: Nv.3.II.B. ' .~ 9~ 7"a.fs eour~e ss ~rubject to ~e cdor rsq~xz.rf,~~.. of R~'t.to,u No:~. ~; ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ,&t Raevir ..aver Jews 9', Ge-ier~ P.E. i ref ' [,~tby R1ta~Ieae ~ Nesv 9ocr ~.. fi~etr~~r Seo~rar: StataEauaaz~,s~ Sot.. ~....#r Proms mfr kial.It~an C~ntrul Dl~v~~~cn 9/de ann • ~s~r.e,d id~3Fil~10h1 N3~1~ l~lCa2;ld a^~ :0 1 0B , ~ # ~tc(d L ! -- IT~,i X11 .YMY 1 ,r AUTf:QRIZATXCN TC nISCHARCE JIv7,7ER T~ R[7LES a~ FtE~[3I~A~ICiI~FS QF THL 'JpP~ FAC~L~ VALLs~Y C~N~OLy~}p1T~1 SAN`YlATTON S?~.5~'R~~' Iri ccu~m~ianCe with the previsions of the Federal wlater Pol].~tior~ Control act, as amerjded (33 U.S.C. Section 151 Et Seq., hereinaftei' the "Ceara Water Aet" car "A.~ct") , and attendant regulati.c~r~s ir~x~parated Icy tie U.S, EnVaxRn~rstal Frotectian Age;u.-y' under Title 40 of the Cade of Federal Regu.latiarss a~i a1J. ax~alicahle Rules and ~egulatians of Upper Eagle Valley Car~olic'tated Sanitation District (hereinafter the "District") ~4 OID CC~RF'OFATIpN {hereYrrafter "peru~ttc-~" } is a~xthcrized to d scharge ~~ a gxcater remedzatYOrt site located at 72 Sou},h E'xontage Road, Vail. Cnlor tc the dcutic newer system Cf t~ D~.strict in aCCez`C~aY'iCe with effluent limitata.ans, mani.toring sequirem~ants. and other cazxditions set foxti~ • in parts 2. Il, and ZII herea,az. The permit consists of this corer s3~et. Pay^t 1 -~ 1 page, Fart TY _ 18 pages, and Part III - 3 pages. Al,l r~eferenaes tca Title 40 of tk~ Ccx~.e at Federal Regulations are to regulatias~ t3~t az~e in effect on the effective rate of this pexzna.t. Unless t~therwise specified herein, aYl terms are deaEit~,ed as pxavided in the apgli.cab~p z~egulati~ms in Title 40 of the Cade of Federal Fequlatiaa:~s, 'i"~11`s pertav.t Shall, became effeGt~.ve C~Il December 35, 1989. '],'7.18 pexm~.t and the atttharizata.nr~ to disclx~~ge snail expXre at mic~7.ight December 15, 199x. ~~~,~ 9r~ Aire~tar • t or ether Auti~rized bffici,al ) ~ i rd u +~ ..! YJ 1 L 1 1 ~ iy r ~ 1J ~ ~ 4r h ~ ~ 1V V C rci • r F'1 L7 C 1 /J STATE OF COLORADO CQLDRADO ^EPAR3MEN7 OF HEALTH 4114 East ltth AvOnue ?elefax; L~~nvQr, Colorado 80YT0-3716 {343) 323-9476 {1~1a1n 6ullding/Denverl Phone (3031 X20-8333 (3031 324.7529 (Ftarmig~n Alace/0enverl (3431 zaa-7148 (Grand functlan Regional OfFiceM May 23, 199Q Mr. Gary McFaddin Asenciata Chemical Engineer ENECOTECH Trinity place, Suite 700 1&07. Sx'at-dway Denver, CO 80~4~ ~ r~ ~~ ~ ~~.fr _ '' ~ ?.~ Re; Cheri Rorthern Permit 89EA38R I~e~tr Gary: ~~ r ~~~ ~.. r t' * s ~l87~+* Rpy Rnmer COVP. mor 1'hamas M. Verr+Qn, ~1 Executive Director 'his letter serves td allow aperatit3n of tha regerenced permitted source as described in your May 9, ].990 letter, until k`inal Approv:x3. i~l issued. At that time, tihe permit will be revised to reflect actual Qperaticn. In tihe interim, the source Wray operate a,s fellcwss 1. The snit vapor recovery system will process a maximum £low o£ 200 scfrn with A ataxialttm HC aonterlt of ].000 pptsa. 2. The air stripper will treat corit:amirtated water at a maximum of ~5 glatn and 150 ppm HC. 3. The retard keeping requirements of permit: condition No. 1 atpply to the $03.1 vent system as well as the. air stripper. 4. ]Etniseioris of air pollutants shall trot exaead 21.9 t~1n per year. A REVI3En AIR POI~LUTTON EMISSION NOTICE MifST SE PILED PRYL~R fin FINAL AI'PAOVAL, indicating the changes. Public Haalth Engineer Stationary ~aurce$ Program Air Pal.lution Carztro~. Division 5 ncerely, Cathy R des CR/Pp 40011/p.T2 cc: scan Miller Harry Collier ' AUG 8 '9a 12:1E ENEC03ECH DENVER TNIR~'Y-DAY ARi[1R iV10TICE REQE~IRED {3F ALA. 54URCE5 PAGE.11 even with a permit you cannot ie~ally cammenGe operations or conduct an activity • u~ltii 30 days after you hc~Ve notified the Diuision bf the start-up date (sactian z~-3-1i4~4y~,]) of the Colorado Air duality Act}. In mast ci}~es, a permit is applied far and approved long before the anticipated commencement date, as the 30 day prior notice causes nv problems. If, however, you piart t4 Gvmmence yo+~r operation or activity as soars as you receive the permit, you should estimate the date you expect tv commence (assuming the permit is appr4vedJ and fi]l out and return this form at least thirty days prior to that date. This will avoid a 30-day delay between receipt of the perniit and Commencement. ~Idtificatian can be aceomplished by completfng the form below and returning it ` to the Colorado pepartment of Health, Atr Pollution Control Qivisic~n, 4210 E. 11th Avenue, Oenver, Co1vr•ado 8022Q. ?lease contact the Oivisian immediately (3a3~32D-180} if yve~ have any questions ar problems concerning this requirement. PERlMiI' f~UMB~R 8980 PRO~~L'T D~SCRIFTION AIR STRYPPER AND VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM ~`C3R • • REMOVAL OP PETROLEUM HYnROCA.R8t7NS F~tQM CpNTAMYNATED GRC)ti1'ND WA~'FR A,ND SOSL Oper`atian of the emission squrce~s) to whfich the above permit number has been assigned is expected tc~ begin vn .7_trLY 30, ~.~90 and will 6e in fv11 aperdtian on ~,~fi ~ ,~ . Company MR: JERK STRrCi{~ANT) P.ersan to Contact for Verification of 5tart~Up Time 293-2703 ~eiephone No. of l:ontact 4~erson C~g~tY NfC~ADD~~J ApptlGant`s Name (please Fr~nt1 '~ lrr~ ~. Ap llcarti s igrsa ~rre p~SSOCSATE CFIEMZCA~ ENCSNEER ~vsztzvr~'or i~tte ,l~ `~ ~ ~. Date ~ AFCQ~99 (REV. 7I7/'0) .;. August 8r ~,~94 UPPER EAGLE VALL.~~ Wq'fGRA1uC~SAiVITA7~pN~157R1~~S wdh Fd>:!'.,r uq,rn = VRII . Cbl hS1Ai7i1 N1b11 ( 1ii,4y 47p lAHp Mr. Torn McCurdy - Law ~nv~,xorimentsl 5305 tvarthwe6~fi Fre~zc~~Y _ - 3uit~ 800 Hoaston, TQxas 7704D fax Number: '713-4fs2W~'J35 t~s pex ciur tel~phcsne convex8t~t~,4n today, it ~.s my be3.ief that. your grs~~osed i::cre~~ne in €1Cw from t.h~ AM4CQ s~aticY- gix~e will r:Ct pOSa a aeYiovlB p>w'ob~~„l tc the hydraulic a~p~city of cur waste;~at~>:' treatment :~ctcii ~.ty. We will :ye~d to xe-atlaly~~a thm GhemiC~,i conr3ti^truerits o£ the Cli,acharg~+ and pq~~ b1y modify the exi>iting permit (i~p7.-C400D213f+9) cvnditioc~~. ~ acn $~.Sd ittc].ud~.r:g a copy bf earreepcnd~n~e with Ghen Narthernr dated I:anuary ~r 1990, ~3pB~~,ing out re~+.tired pxavisiar.8 for segvx'ity band, lit~~t>~~.ity znsuras:ca and a deposit. Ybu will need to insu~ce that. these provisions sre met. F~9~1 free tc aantaCt me if you have a:~y ;Eurttter qu~stians. sinoerel;~r tJF~~~t EAGLE VALS~~Y CONa!]LZAAT~I~ ~J~1Vx'~AT~.ON '~STRIC'S Mike ~'geckes ~tas~tewater Aixe~tol= oc. Fred S. Yidelee MP/ x'~v Pl41}Yldkf+AYINIY 1!~ISTRI~TS r1HH{SW NI N I MI I I{{1 WA ~ I W ~ Av.IN N11 I Id i Wf\ I I It * S+1 /5VI I{ + Iry t Y! vtl l Ir1'. ~J1lA rf H f I II I{iC0 { 1/f I i{ S51 r11tI N!ft I r I{ t ~, _°~ 4 ALlf VAIN MIlitfl WAPyHtl;ii/V lik1+'+My 11717 V'1111f }1~;+1 i11 Ilt:{r. lyh rti l', +1M', kVAI!I{i lilH'11+1 A~dl VAIIIYslllhj'+H'+II~AII I: '+A(JII/(4117h ~-~ Vl+IS Vnl i ~ 'r I +'i K'~(~{ tl !~ I 1 13 4v1+! 1 If +Y Vtill N'h 17 t{ AN; ~'In~" A I I+lk / 'ASPEN o T.O.C 8166.0' T.o. P. 81 fi 5.3' ~ ~~ WATER ~~ VALVE • ' ~.+~i~oN/r/1~C ~ F y_ s, icy ~~~ 8165 o as' ASPENS ~ ~ ~ o ~~ l o ~w Q ~s ~QkG /~~~,I ~ u~~ ~ Lod Nbs~~ s~R~"".4 ~ 1~ ~ ~ 8 T,a,C. 8164.6; O T.O.P. gi64.2 i• E 64.8 ' $164.6 Evarrorv UNpQTION 2 .3 O ~~ ~l --.. ~~ a~ r.a.c. a1s3.7' O T,O.P 8163.2 ENTRANCE/ EX 1T C D OIL W STrw r ® TA N t O c D T.o.c. si s3.~ ~ T.a.p s1s2.9' I .-. I N CONC. ~ \ ~ CURB • O O ~ ~ ~ O r f • ~ r.O.C, 8163.2 T.C.P. 8r62.9 i ~ ~~ ~~1 _~_~ ~'~; 4 C!! ~~` ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ., ~~~~ -~ .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ h ~Q . ~~~~a ~~ Z ~~Q ~q ~,_ ~~ z z ~ a a u: in Q~ f ~~ ~~ a ~ N/~ t J ~ ~ z z ~ w a N a~ Z ~~ oa ~~ ~ ~~ X ~ w ~ ~~~ v z ~ ~~ ` Q ~~ Z w ~~ a ~ ~°~ U U a -C ~~~ r, ~~~~ n. -o-,~, ~~ ~~ ~m ova OQ r ~- ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ q ~ ~ ~~ ~~- ~~ o ~~ I ~ r i ~-r ~' Aa { 1 _ fj' ~ . ~ ~.. j i 1 r 4 O ~ ~ i I ~ i o it, 1 l~ ~ y W ~~ ~~~ cn ~~, • a ~ +*- ~ cn ~ b f; i ~ a *•, • ~~ w N j o ~ a " :~ r y ~j ? f ~fJ ;' j !~ a ~ r a 4 v' z a~ a ~ `j~' ! a U1 ~~j U ~ ~ ~ a l -~ +- _ } 0 ~ ~~' ~ 1r J f J ,^~ ~:.=/ /.' 1 • - G -m N ~ t D ~ m ao V d OD ~„ }' m a o c~ o a w } O U a 'r d ~' - f 1 1 i d a a. O u N a a J v c ~ O ~ ~ o ~ --~ _ ~ ~ a '1 ~ ~J if I 1 ~ ~~ a ~ aA i N 1 ~~ ~ ~i • ' fkaq~s+Ela° shy ~/~~~E~/~.~ ~ e Ni~r~~ T.O.C. 8164.5', T. O, p, 816 4.2 --~. C ~ PEO. ~r ~ o +~i ~~ T.O.C. 8159.2 ~ T.O. P. 8158.6' ~,~ O O1L WASTE . ® TAN K T.o.c. a 1 s3.3 ~ T.O.P. 8ts2.9' coluc. ~ ~.,s CURB , O ~~~~~ ~ -`~. . ~ 40. i' STORM SEWER GRATE STORM ~ SEWER ' GRATE I ~~ ~i1~'~r~ v~~' ~~~s~s ~.vc~ ENTRANCE/EXIT n r 4 D a N~/ LiQiU,~S~~4,~ 'Q,p~ ~ /~ 1~° . cn .' ~. k O ~ •• Y.O.C. - 163.2 T.C.P 162.9 a ~ ~P~~~ . ~~~ ~~~~ r ~ ~b • ~ ~ } L r , y r ~ ff ee ~i~i~~~~~f~v~ i ~:. ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ I ! - ~ ~ ~ ( ! =I I ~ ~~ T.O.p °8i~ 1.2 ~ I~ .~ a Y i l 1 / , ~ SEWER M.H. ~~ I .C. 8!64.8' / i.p. elsa.s' , . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 13, 1990 RE: A request for a wail height variance and an amendment to the approved access plan far both lots at 146 and 126 Forest Road, Lots 5 and 6, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Ron Byrne Z. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REAUESTED The applicant is the owner of the above named lots, which are located at 126 and 146 Forest Road and is requesting the following: A. A request for a wall height variance for Lot 6, Block 7 Vail Village 1st Filing. The applicant is requesting this variance to allow for the construction of retaining walls along the north property line of this lot, (adjacent to Forest Road) which would be Constructed to a maximum height of 8'-0". The proposed retaining walls would be located within the Town of Vail right-of-way for Forest Road and would also be located within the front setback area of the property. B. A request for an amendment to an approved access plan for both of the above named lots, located at 126 and 146 Forest Road. Said access plan was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission on September 26, 1989. This access plan provided for one shared driveway off of Forest Road. The intent of the shared access was to minimize the grades on both driveways, thereby keeping the retaining wall heights down to a minimum. The Town of Vail Zoning Code allows for a maximum height of 3' for all fences, hedges, walls, and landscaping screens which are located within any required front setback area (Town of Vail Municipal Cade, Section 18.58.020, C). II. BACKGROUND OF THE REQUEST September 26. 1989 - The Planning and Environmental Commission approved a wall height variance request for both Lots 5 and 6. The vote for approval was 5-2. • 1 September 26. I989 - The Town Council reviewed and approved the Revocable Right-Of-Way Permit per the PEC approved variance. The vote was 4-1-1. November 1. 1989 - The Design Review Board approved modifications tv the retaining walls as previously approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The request at this time involved changes to the famish of the walls. Specifically, the finish on the walls was changed from a boulder wa3.l to a stone veneer finish. The amount o£ wall area was also reduced at this time by 648 sq. ft. June 28. 1.990 -- The Town issued a Stop Work Order on the retaining walls when it was discovered that the walls were not being constructed according to the approved building permit plans. The following table outlines the original Planning and Environmental Commission approval, the subsequent DRB modification to the walls and the current proposal: n<:';c U PEC Approval 1453 sf + 943 sf = 2396 sf (Sept. 26, 1989) Proposal 130 sf + 1267 sf =1397 sf III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS FOR LOT 6 ~~' 486'.::x: <;>>::;:'. 17. Tvta1 site area: 3.5,730 sq. ft. Allowable Site Coverage: 2,360.0 sq. ft., or 15~ Existing Site Coverage: x,309.5 sq. ft., or 14,7 Allowable GRFA: 3,823.0 sq, ft. Existing GRFA: 3,823.0 sq. ft. Allowable Building Height: 33.00 ft. Existing Building Height: 30.35 ft. (Lot 5 currently is vacant and has no improvements at this time} • 2 39. 18. • IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1, The relationshib of the reauested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. a. Wall Height Variance: Though not a positive contribution to the neighborhood, we believe that this request {which is a reduction in wall height and area} is an improvement from the previously approved retaining wall plans. We believe the proposal to be significantly less of a variance than either the originally approved PEC variance request or the DRB approved modification to that request. Under the original PEC approval, 60.5 of the entire retaining wall area would be below 6' in height. The new request calls for 81.2 of the wall area to be below 6' in height. When comparing the new proposal with the DRB approval, it should be noted that the current proposal actually increases the percent of wall area aver 6' by 3.4~, and the total lineal feet of wall is increased by 14'. Even though there is an increase in the amount of wall over 6 ft. in height, an additional 20.7 of wall area will be below 6 ft. It is the staff's opinion that the requested variance, if approved, would not adversely affect the use or enjoyment of adjacent properties nor would block or impede views of any surrounding properties. The western portions of the walls have been redesigned to accommodate Mr. Emmet Mossman's {the owner of Lot No. 8, immediately to the west) views toward the Gare Range. The applicants have proposed an extensive landscaping plan throughout the retaining wall area. Flease see the attached plan, dated August 2, 1990 by Gordon R. Pierce, • AIA. 3 b. Access Plan: The staff does not support the applicant's request to eliminate the shared driveway proposal as originally approved. We believe that a common access point for Lots 5 and 5 would allow for more reasonable driveway grades and lower wall heights for both lots. A shared access point also increases the level of safety along Forest Road. No submittal information has been given to staff to indicate that the retaining walls are lower or safety increased with two curb cuts. 2. The decree to which relief from the strict and, literal interpretation and enforcement of a, specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. a. Wall Height Variance: Because the average slope on this lot exceeds 57~, access onto this site is extremely difficult. We believe the proposed retaining walls are necessary to support grades both above the driveway and • below the driveway. Also, many other property owners along Forest and Beaver nom Roads have had to construct large retaining walls adjacent to their front property lines in order to allow for access onto their sites. It is for these reasons that the staff believes that approval of this variance request would not be a grant of special privilege. Staff acknowledges that the siting of the residence and garage could have possibly been accomplished in a more sensitive manner by locating the garage in the front setback. This design approach may have resulted in less site disturbance and decreased the need far as many retaining walls. However, the fact that a previous variance was granted with the existing site plan should be recognized. The steep slopes on the site warrant relief from the strict wall height requirements in order to allow access to the site. • 4 b. Access Plan: Due to the steep slopes on both Lots 5 and 6, access onto these sites may very well be the mast difficult of ail the lots in the immediate area. This was one of the reasons why the staff originally supported the applicant's wall height variance request, The original request indicated a shared, c~~,u,.on driveway. The staff continues to maintain that a common driveway is the most appropriate method of access for the two properties. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of bonulation. transportation and traffic facilities. public facilities and ~~ti.].ities, and public safety, u a, Wall Height Variance: The staff finds that the requested variance will have no significant effect upon any of the above considerations. We believe that the existing Revocable Right-Of-Way Permit, approved by the Town on October 9, 1989, to still be in effect. The locations of the walls within the Right-Of-Way have not changed. The Town engineer has reviewed the wall changes and does not believe any traffic problems will result from the wall redesign. b. Access Plan: The staff believes that the requested amendment to the approved access plan far Lats 5 and 6 will have a negative effect upon transportation and traffic facilities in the immediate vicinity. Because of the steep driveway slopes which enter onto Forest Road, we feel it would be prudent to consolidate the driveway cuts which would thereby increase the level of safety for passing pedestrians and motorists. The Town engineer also believes that only one curb cut should be allowed because of safety concerns. V. FINDINGS C7 The Planning and Environmental C~,~~,«ission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 5 B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the fallowing reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VT. STAFF RECOMMENDATTON . The staff recommendation is for approval of the proposed wall height variance request, per the drawings submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, ATA, dated July 23, 1990 as amended July 26, 1990. Although the staff is extremely frustrated by the manner in which this variance request has come about, we do believe that the topographic conditions of this site have created some very unique development constraints. We believe that a hardship would be imposed upon the applicant if the strict and literal interpretation of the zoning code were to be enforced. This strict interpretation of the wall height limits would make it virtually impossible to access the site. Findings supporting the variance are Sections V A, B, and G-2. We feel that the current proposal is a substantial decrease from the original PEC approved variance, and is now more in conformance with the Town's zoning code. The lineal feet of retaining walls is reduced by 56', the percentage of wail area above 6' in height is reduced by 20.7, and the total wall area is reduced by 999 sq. ft. The staff's recommendation for approval is contingent upon the applicant maintaining a c~~~~,«on shared driveway for both • Lots 5 and 6. The staff recommends denial of the applicant's request to amend their approved access plan. 6 Staff believes that one curb cut with one set of retaining walls is the best solution for Lots 5 and 6 on Forest road. Even though there are two lots, limiting access to one curb cut is reasonable given the severity of walls needed for the access. Note: The current house design for Lot 5 calls for a separate driveway cut. Because these plans do not have final DRB approval, the Town is not obligated to allow separate access. Although the architect may have to redesign, staff recommends denial because the benefits of a single cut outweigh the negative impacts of two curb cuts. C~ J 7 AUG 1~ '9~ 1~~02 Y~3DER ENGINEERS VAIL 3~3-949199 n u onr~e ~ngEneering~~onsult~nts A~xgust 10, 1990 Fierce Segerberg Spaeh Axchitects 1.00 S. Frontage Rd .. West Vail., CQ $],657 1~ttn: Mr. Tom Frye P.~i~ RE: Retaa.ning Walls at Residence, dot. 6, Black 7, Vail Vi3lage, k'a.rst ~'iJ.i.nq. MEC~~397. Gentlemen • Manroe Engineering Consultants, inc. has reviewed oux~ structural. design aalcu].atians far the retaining walls at the subject property. The lower retaining walrl, situated garal.I,el, tv. ~"orest Road below the residence eras desa.gned in connection Frith the second wall. above zt. A network of horizontal. rock anchors e;nbed~ ded in bedrock and a combination of spil deadl.aad and friction between the bedrock and tootinc~s work together a.n stabilizing the retaining walls . R~:duaa.ng the height o~f the in-place wall. more than what we dis- cussed in our .last meeting ~rould reduce the dead load in the plantex area between the walls below our design assurnptit~ns. ~t watzld al.s4 reduce the frost saver of the upper footings. The anchor axes of the horizontal tie. backs would also get close to the tap of the wall. and they cQUld.l~reak out. 'ram a structural engineexzng standpoint, we sonnet recammex~d reducing the wal.l~ he~.ght of the existing l.awer wall, more than discussed previously because of the reasons mentioned above. If you have any questa.ans regarding this subject p3.ease call us. S~.nceYelX, ~* .. Hennes Spaeh HS : l.m . P. O. 8px X597 48 E. BeZtver C~esk Blvd„ X347 AY4A, Colorado 61629 343-949-7768 i• • i ';,_-. L.' ! ~ b ~ ~ d O ~ ( III ~ Y ~ ~~1~ ~ ~ r Q': _ a ~ ~ W I I tf ' ~ ..y .' P ~ _ GO i '_ } ! ~ M f r r~'"~. SS .z J F~a: f'" ~(-r~ a ~ ~ ' r }r ~ - ~ . ~~ i ~.F j '{ 1 } !1C i ~ ftil.~ ~ ~ ' -F F ~ ~ ; j~ I ~ I r~ j . ~ - II i~,: i z ass-ii, I rl { _~. y 1`' "`~" ti~ f Y - ~r ' 11lIF 111 ii ~ _s;, ~.•~y. .,>~a`~na, fir- .~~ ? 4 ~ih t i.'1. , f ~ ~ . ~. ;fi s ~`i ~ ~ t ~ ,, S ~iIF'. I f 1 ~ I ... ~'.~. ~„ 'I l ~j Ff ~r y, , F,,I. ~~ .. ~,~a `l t It 3 ~ k -`i ~^~ I~1; `:~ ,S 4 k I x ~ } ~~s ~ ~, may! ~sd ~. r 3 I~ ~ ~ °~ ~.'~'' i~ ~ ~'~~''°°"' "' j F ~ 7R I'd - i '~~~ 1 Xy~~ ,y f 7 1 ~_ ,, r ~ ~ ~ ~ f; ti~~~ r- A r . ^ i ~ ~y ~_MCyY~ ~`~ ~ ~~Y~~t" ~~ ~ - -_ r t ' ,~ r ~~ ~ .. "rs S rd ~ ~E a'4x ~'y fir . , t ~ ~'f5 h ~~``~[ .~}~ ~ 9(~ 4 ' ,~Y3 it ~, ~p '~ ~ ~'"r~+i• ' ` ~ ~~ r~. J~AY"S'.d ".tit='~ .~,,t~~ ~ Y!f"~h..Jt ,~ ~ ~'',' •~ ~;~-"t .r ~~tiv~ y"l.~.I ,. ~• • ..,i r .y[ f.k'~ r~y~8 ..~ .. t~ ~yF: ~~ . - ~ 1 1^I, ~, .. ~„~. ~f.r.~y;. ~Y,. • ~ •ii ,1 I 1 ~•1 ~F 1, s ~t ~. ~, d ~. ~~ w ~ 3 ~ ~ ..1 Cp ~ [N+~3 j~ ~ ( (~ ~ ~ O LC ~ t~ ,~. ~ M fib, ~ ¢, N ~Ir W ~ d iL Q .o 4 ~~~ I~~~ ~1 ~, '' _~ ~1, 1, ~y '~,`,~ ~I '1 1 ~ p 1 ~j 1 !'•111 ,1~` ~ Il 1, ~''~ t,_J~ 11 ~ ~~~$ .;111th` 11`1'•1 ~ , .:;11`1 I'i' ,,1~ I ~_ __ Q ~;I l~ t,•, • 1 Q "~ W RT • ~-~--~ x ~, , 1 1 ~ 1 ~~ 1 ~ OG ear ~ ~i ~., 'i,1~ ~ t}; ' ~~ ~ 1 it ..~ ~`~ 1 ~, ,i`;; ~lil ~' ~' ~~~ ~ ~it~_li~ ~ 1: ~.i~ ~ 9 ~ ; 1 ~ i_ ~ Np~3S t 1 i ~U '~ ~,i ,~~•.1~; ~1 ~ . ~~•l~wl, ~~ ~ N a '•i ~ ~~ ~ ~, }r~~yy 5 r ~~+ ~ N W m ~ ~ _ ~ a ~~~ C7 The applicant is requesting a height variance for a new single family home. The building permit for the house was issued August 11, 1989 and construction has proceeded since then. When the applicant had the height checked to meet the requirements for a framing inspection, he found the building height exceeded 33 feet by 4.67 feet, as measured from existing grade. C7 To: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Devel~~~«ent Department DATE: August 13, 1990 RE: A request for a height variance at 2855 Snowberry Drive, Lot 6, Block 9, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Doug and Michelle Cahill I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARxANCE REQUESTED Two other aspects of the project are important pieces of background information. There is a Swale, running down the site, over which the house has been built. This Swale is approximately 15' wide and makes a 4 font difference between height measured from finished grade compared to height measured from existing grade. A second fact is that the owner shifted the house approximately 11 feet after the building permit was issued without first getting approval from the C~,~~.~~unity Development Department. His goal was to save a 40 foot tall evergreen tree. He moved his house down the slope and located his highest roof ridge over the Swale. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS 1. Zoning: Primary/Secondary • 2. Lot Area: 20,965 sq. ft. 3. Setbacks: Required front 20' east side 15' west side 15' rear 15' 4. GRFA: Allowed 4,347 sq. ft. Proposed 55' 41' 53' 55' Proposed 2,590 5q. ft. 1 . 5. Parking: Reauired Proposed 2.5 spaces 4 spaces TTI. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Devel..r..,ent rec~..,...ends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the rerna,p~tpe~, va,rianc:P i:~ other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The impact of this variance request on surrounding structures is minimal in staff's opinion because the distances between structures range from 80' on the east, to 147' on the west. The hillside on which the lot is located is forested with aspen trees and coniferous trees. The trees act to screen the house from the adjacent properties, I- 70 and the South Frontage Road. The average slope of the site is 40%. The height of the house will not stick out compared to neighboring structures because it is 32'-5" measured from finished grade. The code clearly states that measurements are to be taken from existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive. As a result, finished grade has no significance in this analysis except to indicate that the appearance of the house will be compatible with its neighbors and will appear to meet code. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified reaulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment amana sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without arant of special privilecre. The swale running through the site drops to a point where the base elevation is measured from approximately four feet below the foundation. Though the height has to be measured from original grade, the height from finished grade conforms to the zoning code. The swale could be viewed as a hardship that may justify a variance. However, staff does not support that position in this circumstance. The swale is a site constraint, but 2 does not cover the entire site. There are other . potential building sites which are out of the Swale where the owner could have located the house and conformed to the code. The owner also shifted the house without first receiving approval form the Community development Department which creates a self-imposed hardship. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air. distribution of nobulation. transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities. and public safety. The height variance will have no impact on the above referenced criteria. TV. FTNDTNGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same • district. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. r1 U 3 VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • Staff recommends denial of the request because it does not meet all the criteria and findings. Because of the unique site characteristics related to the Swale, one could conclude that Finding A has been met since the variance would be tied to a hardship. However, the site provides other options for the building location; therefore staff Cannot recommend approval. Finding B is met as this proposal would certainly not be a threat to public safety. Finding C2 is partially met in staff's analysis, because the site does have extraordinary circumstances not found on other properties in the same zone. The Swale shown on the topographic survey creates an extra four feet below the structure which must be counted in the height measurement (see elevation). If the Swale is not taken into account, the height from existing grade is 33.67'. This is still over the limit by 8" but the applicant should be able to trim the ridge and bring it into compliance. Given that there are other possible locations for the house that would not likely require a variance, staff concludes that there is not a hardship on the site. In addition, the . without thecC~thunitylDevelopmentwDepartmentns approval) puts the Town of Vail in a position where we cannot support a variance to the zoning code which could have been avoided and which we were not consulted about. • 4 L~?T 4 ' N 175.25'34° ly ELE4. tBBDIC ~ ~ _-~'-_- ~_~ ~. ELEV. TO.S S -•.~~ ply0 _- AR4W4C.E- '~ I ^ . ~; ~ : ~«+~~ a ~ _ -- . ~ ~ --- --= ~ - ~f _d-a`_ ~~ 7930 '"~ ', --- ``rte ~-~` __ ---`" - -----~----~----_--_-__- 1 .. _ -~'`"-_J-~ ~_^ _ - - _--- _4 -J --_a-__'-_--~-___---------__-___ _~g~d ~~-~ J~ -- ~~~'• .'~Y ~20,963:6( SaGARE FEJ<Y ~~' ----,------`--~-_- 1-~'` - .95~ . 7950 ~ _'--_ -- r - ,~~"; ~r4---- - p J d 7980' _ - ~-yq~_. ~ -~ -_-_ __ _ -o._ _ Y~y ~: `.. - ~~~. --~'~` -~,---y---- ---- -._----- -^ mac .P.a Y~~=`d 20` ~ `.~-~' T9T0' - - 1---- ~ ~ J C~ '~INrFR - T9T0' - _ ~ -- - q - - w~ ---- ~. ~ ~t ---- ~ ~ ~ ~ r~~o'- - ~ _~ ` _ e+~~-max` ,- ~-'~~`_- `.,.- ___ --- r • ~Tgso' scnGE•r""ro' i __ _ _`~ RaarrNC °i~-~D•~~ --- \~,/ - ^_ __ -f~'--- Jr - _- r9B'S2'.1Z_R:300' __~-_- _-_-'-- -°-..-bTIGrTY ~ '--~~..~--"_~ '~ ~rB p4/"E- -_- -- ..__-_-__E4SfMFNT-a~.-_.. _~--__- ...5,. S3 ~ r ~~ ~~---TRY ~i ~ -...._.---.---R~147.00'~~___ r ~SPNAIT ~~. ~o~s I 1 f f I r I ~ 't I _;~ I I ~ I EL t I I -~ ~~~~ • .... ~ -.Q~`~ :._h~ ~ +C-797.61 hS0 YGia~ lP•Iw~{.ar`~ ..4, ~y'.~~r+r.. i l - 4 ti~ ~ `r ~ ~ Ys ~4~ S, H. ~~~~L• ~y~iyr,1 •Y ~! ~'. ~- G rvJ~1. r!C~':. -L ~S[ LFS a; ! f . ~ - :. ~~ y Sit ~+ •~i .~a,:.'_ ~' ~~y--.., ~.-it~~ - `,. i '. e i,~,~ y~~~ iti.~~ r x, ... ~.~~.~.~.+. s S kA " nr LIFPEF+. ~1L~) Fug ttr+ r t+k ++'~"f 5 •wj - ~ . ~ '~ ~ e~ • - ~ ~ s '~ ~ tir .• E5. '~11~~NE'D C~~~ lj DG(TH ~~.~Vi~ ~d7J LJ • ~..~ -. •..;~ .~~. ~- ' - ;. . , a jtE b GCG~~~';: 1x~"zew~ rk~ Z1C.~2 GCLi!k . ~: ~! ~i _ .~, i f"_ r 1~} c F L i \ r r . - .'>~~ Ek.'r41. 787, 6~ ~ ~o,~ ate. ': f'ii. .'BzY~':.~i6si~ 'r i r } :~4;~ •. s'r_ _ J~Y - 4 CMS ` _ ~ ry ~ /• .. .. ~ 3: - ~` ~~ f{~I{{ w ~' L'. .~ r '. r~. _ ~OAINA66 ~ ~ .i I~~j,~Vnl0.U ~ ~. 114' 4,Riv uuo~,iL r ~ I . \ _~ ft. O ~i •l}{E R~4(t E~Evanw ~ ~ '~ ~ ' L0~3?~ ~, - OH RiOGc ~ ~ ~ e i~ ~~ I. , ~LEVi4~l o~ • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 13, 1990 SU&TECT: A request for a conditional use to expand hospital space at the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing (181 West Meadow Drive). Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The Vail Valley Medical Center is located in the Public Use zone district and any expansion in this district requires a conditional use review. The hospital is requesting a conditional use permit to install a magnetic resonance imaging (MRT) system later this year. A MRT is a computerized system that uses a magnetic field and ordinary radio waves to produce images (or scans) of soft tissues that assist physicians in diagnosing soft tissue injuries. The request includes: - Construction of 1260 sq. ft. on the north side of the first floor contiguous with the emergency room. - Construction of 375 sq. ft. on the west side of the first floor immediately north of the main hospital entry doors. - Infill of 144 sq. ft. of interior courtyard for a hallway. - Renovation of 1200 sq. ft. of existing administrative space to acc~,~„~~odate business office personnel being displaced by the MRI unit. - The proposed MRI unit will require two parking spaces to acc~~~~,~~odate two new daytime employees. These employees will include a receptionist and a technician for the MRI. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section ].8.60, the Community Development Department rec~~~~~~~ends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development, objectives of the Town. The addition of the MRI unit is positive as it complements existing medical services on the site. It makes sense to consolidate medical services in this site as long as parking and other development standards can be met. 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. This expansion should have no significant impacts on these factors. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to, congestion. automotive and pedestrian safet~~ and convenience. traffic flow and control. access. maneuverabilitvT and removal of snow from the street and parkins areas. The following chart summarizes the parking allocation on the hospital site given this expansion. . 2 Future Conversion of Available by Learning Lab November 1990 ~ Elev. 8135 into Parkinq Parking Structure 2(l~4 spaces 250 spaces Surface Parking 105 spaces 105 spaces LOt 1 Q 18 spaces 18 spaces Total 327 spaces 373 spaces Available Parking 327 spaces 373 spaces Doubletree Parking -2o spaces -2o spaces Learning Center Lab -17 spaces -17 Spaces M R 1 -- 2 spaces -2 spaces Vail National Bank* * -12 spaces -12 spaces Existing Hospital and EXpanSlOn* -272 spaces -272 spaces SurpIUS 4 spaces 50 spaces Excluding Lot 10 Parking -14 spaces 32 spaces deficit surplus * These calculations recognize the six fewer daytime employees as explained in Dan Feeney's attached letter dated June 25, 1990. The hospital "resurveyed staff projections and found that the actual number of employees anticipated is slightly lower than initially projected in 1988." ** Six spaces have been approved by the hospital and Town Council to meet the parking requirements for the Vail National Bank. A potential total of 12 spaces may be used by the Bank in the future. The Bank's use of any additional parking in the VVMC structure for future expansions will require Town of Vail PEC and/or Council approval. At this time, the Council has stated that all future expansions of the Vail National Bank Building will require parking to be located on Bank property. For planning purposes, staff felt it was appropriate to consider the 12 spaces in the VVMC structure to avoid a potential parking deficit. This consideration of the 12 spaces is not meant to indicate any type of approval to actually use all 12 spaces. • • The chart expansion parking in of figures available structure above indicates that after this there will be a 4 space surplus of the VVMC structure. The second column indicates that 50 spaces would be if the learning lab in the parking is converted into parking in the future. Issue of Lot 10 Parking In April of 1990, the Vail Valley Medical Center requested a conditional use permit to expand the parking structure by two 1/2 levels. The request also included a learning center lab which would be located in the lowest level of the parking structure. Two break-out panels are included in the structure to connect to the adjacent Doubletree parking. During this review, the Planning Commission expressed some concern about the hospital's reliance on the 18 parking spaces located on Lot 10. This lot is owned by the Town of Vail and is located on the southwest corner of the VVMC parking lot adjacent to West Meadow Drive. The hospital, through a lease agreement with the Town, has the right to use 18 parking spaces. According to the agreement, "this lease shall be automatically renewed for subsequent 1 year terms unless either party gives written notice to the other of its intent not to renew no later than 60 days prior to the end of the lease term." The end of the lease term is April 30th of each year. The Planning staff is also in the early stages of developing a design for West Meadow Drive to allow for better pedestrian access and safety as well as improved emergency and auto traffic flow. Tt may be necessary to utilize a portion of Lot 10 to accommodate these design improvements. Staff believes it is reasonable to support this expansion of the hospital which requires an additional two parking spaces. However, for future expansions, as outlined in Dan Feeney's letter dated August 3, 1990, staff recommends that the hospital incorporate the 18 spaces on Lot 10 into parking on the hospital property. From Dan Feeney's letter dated August 3, 1990, it appears that the future phases of expansion for the hospital will be significant and will require additional parking. • 4 . The WMC master plan includes, per Dan Feeney's letter; - "Addition of one half level of parking on top of the east side of the structure currently under construction. This will provide dedicated access and parking for a new emergency room that we will eventually build at the east end of our property, with access directly off South Frontage Raad. - Construction of a detached building at the west end of our property. This facility will consolidate physician's offices enabling us to expand hospital departments into space currently occupied by these functions. - Construction of a fourth floor on top of the west wing just completed. This floor will accommodate additional patient beds, as well as our pharmacy, laboratory and building service departments. - Demolition of the original hospital at the east end of our property, and construction of • a new building adjoining the south side of the parking structure currently underway. This east wing will include additional parking, a relocated main lobby and admissions area, a new emergency room with vehicular access off South Frontage Road, and relocated ambulance bays." Staff supports the addition of the MRI facility and believes that the two space parking requirement should not trigger the removal of the Lot 10 parking. However, it is important to emphasize that future expansions appear to be much more extensive and will have a larger parking demand. It is reasonable to ask the hospital, in considering future expansions, to also include parking to compensate for the 18 spaces on Lot 10. Staff also believes it is positive that the hospital has started an overall master planning process for the facility. • _ 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the • bronosed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the t~rooosed use in relation to surrounding uses. The two areas for expansion are actually located under the existing second floor of the hospital on the north and south elevations. The additions will infill space beneath the second floor. The expansions also do not extend beyond the existing line of the building on the north and west elevations. This expansion should not have a major impact on the scale and bulk of the proposed building. III. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use uermit: A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. 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. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the The proposed use is in compliance public use zone district. There impacts on public health, safety complies with the conditional use conditional use request. with the purpose of the would be no negative or welfare and the proposal review criteria. 6 i ~` vail valley ~' medical center 25 June 1990 Kristan Pritz Director of Community Development Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Kristan: 181 West Meadow Rnve, Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 (303)476-2459 The hospital is requesting a Conditional ~1se Permit to install a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system later this year. An MRI is a computerized system that uses a magnetic field and ordinary radio waves to produce images (or scans) that are particularly effective in diagnosing soft-tissue inJuries, complementing conventional radiology ("J(-Rays"). As recently as a year ago the hospital administration had programmed an MRI for 1992-1993. However, the rapid development of MRI technology, as well as the overwhelming acceptance of MRI scans as a necessary component of the type of excellent health care we wish to provide, have convinced us that an MRI is needed now. Pending TOV approvals, we wish to begin construction in September 1990. Essential features of our application are as follows: /060 w Construction of approximately ~ square feet on the north side of the first floor, contiguous with our emergency Room. • Construction of approximately 375 square feet on the west side of the first floor, immediately north of the main entry doors. ~~nw'I~ ~ Renovation of approximately 1200 square feet of existing administrative space, to accommodate business office personnel being displaced by the MRI. ~ Installation of a satellite 'sh the third-floor roof, to transmit some of the MRI scans to an off-site ility for interpretation. The dish will be 8 feet in diameter, and scree d rom view. See attached catalog cut sheet. The proposed MRI unit will requir two parking spaces to accommodate two new day-time employees, one a receptions the other a technician. n U Ray McMahan Chief Executive Officer KRISTAN PRITZ TOWN OF VAIL 25 June 1990 Page 2 • Parking requirements for the expansion presently nearing completion were computed based on staffing projections made in September 1988. Now that occupancy is imminent, we have re-surveyed staffing projections with our respective departmental managers and found the the actual figures anticipated are actually slightly lower than initially thought: DEPARTMENT STAFF PROJECTIONS STAFF PROJECTTONS NET REVISTON SEPTEMBER 1988 JUNE 1990 Surgery 24 19 - 5 Patient Care Unit 6 6 0 Dr. 5teadman's Office 10 13 -~ 3 Business Office 5 2 - 3 Radiology 1 1 0 Building Services 3 2 - 1 TOTAL 49 43 - 6 Thus, referring to Page 3 of your 7 March 1990 memorandum to the P.E.C., actual parking required to support the third floor expansion is 272 spaces, by virture of the six fewer daytime employees. A comparison of the actual figures for the existing hospital, as well as expansions currently in progress or proposed, is as follows: USE INITIAL PROJECTIONS 19$8 CURRENT PROJECTIONS Base figure 85-87 expansion 203 Spaces 203 Spaces New patient beds 20 20 New exam rooms 6 6 New day-shift employees: 49 43 New Steadman Learning Center 0 17 Proposed MRI 0 2 TOTAL 278 Spaces 291 Spaces • - KRISTAN PRITZ TOWN OF VAIL 25 June 1990 Page 3 The owners of the Vail National Bank Building have exercised their option to purchase the use of eight spaces in our parking structure. Thus, with completion of our parking structure later this year, available parking on-site will be as follows: Parking Structure Surface Parking Lot 10 TOTAL Available Parking Doubletree Uail National Bank Required existing and proposed expansion SURPLUS 204 Spaces 105 18 327 Spaces 327 - 20 g 299 W ~R~ ~~~ ~ ~~' 8 Spaces Attached are two sets of architectural plans and elevations. Please Tet me know if you require further information. S' c rel Dan Project Mana r DF/bh cc: Ray McMahan Doris Allen Jay Peterson ~+ N A r n O N p e O I i I i E ~ I ti ~ ~ i E I a a i j c Etl I ~I °~ ~ ~, d Q lil G:W N W C. d w V Q I ~ i ~ V I Q I I Ikk ~, ~ I p ~ I.]I.I I ~ ti~ r-Fi E:]C v ~ d ~ } ~ ~ L.tJ Z ~ ~ IW N R Y g d ~+ I 9 q VS I I m Q N l I I I I i ~~ ~~ ~ j ~ } f 1 I II OI OI .~. I t ~ ! ~ i ~ ~ I I ~ i0 in C'1 i ~ . ! 4 1 CS .~ I « r~iiu~a (~ ± ~ .+ 1 ~ I a I ~ ~ I t" ~ ~ N I 'fl E ~ [ q E (S] I I i! ~ I ~+ 1 Z I Z ~ I `+ i ~ I u I i 0 E I G k [V I E ~ 1 O I O I ar I ~ I ~ I C I ~ E ~ t ° e a I ~ ! d a i cv !~ i i tom'! I tt m a~° ~I: I ' i { ~ I_ H v N H IN N N N N ~ V N N N E ~ I ~~ O k ~ ~ I OI NI O~ ~ I I E O i 1 4 I I ~t) I I ~, I I I 1 E"1 ~ E I 1 ~ I I 1 I i O I k ~ I { r I i I i ~ I u j ~ II I r, I ~ f pa I i ~+ I O I 2 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 I f ~ I i i i _ I I ~t 4 ~ I ar E ~ v Q E E d' f ~ f C] o }'~ II E 4 ~. 4f i I Im n w ~.n h n in m I$ a i iv v ~ I~ #4 { O ~f 4 I Q n i I n n °n n n~ . ` ~~ vail valley ~' medical center Kristen Pritz Director of Community Development Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 1$1 West Meadow Dr€ve, Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 3 August 1990 (3p3)476-24b1 Dear Kristen: Following is a synopsis of the hospital's master plan, presented in the sequence we fee] is most probable. Like all master plans, it wi71 be subject to frequent review and possible revisions to scope and sequence. The synopsis dovetails with drawings prepared by Page Souther7and Page, previously submitted to you. • Construction of approximately 1600 square feet of new space at ground level on the north and west side of the west wing, for housing a magnetic resonance imager (MRi). The application for a conditional use permit has been submitted. • Addition of one half level of parking on top of the east side of the • structure currently under construction, This will provide dedicated access and parking for a new emergency room that we wi71 eventually build at the east end of our property, with access directly off South Frontage Road. • Construction of a detached building at the west end of our property. This facility will consolidate physician's offices enabling us to expand hospital departments into space currently occupied by these functions. • Construction of a fourth floor on top of the west wing just completed. This floor will accommodate additional patient beds, as well as our pharmacy, laboratory and building service departments. • Demolition of the original hospital at the east end of our property, and construction of a new building adjoining the south side of the parking structure currently underway. This east wing will include additional parking, a relocated main lobby and admissions area, a new emergency room with vehicular access off South Frontage Road, and relocated ambulance bays. Other than the MRT unit, the scheduling for these various phases has not been determined. n e r~l D / _ o~P>~`jecet~ Mar~je~ • DJF/bh cc: Ray McMahan 12ay McMahan Jay Peterson Chief Executive Officer v ~ ' " TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Vail Town council Community Development Department August 7, 1990 Town Board Compensation Town Council asked the staff to investigate how other Town Boards are compensated in similar communities to Vail. Attached to this memo is a chart which lists compensation for the Mayor, Council Members and Planning Board, and Soard of Adjustment for lZ towns and 2 counties. Given this information, the staff makes the following recommendations. PROPOSED COUNCIL Mayor: Council: I• LIQUOR BOARD ~1L ' '<Tenns Pas >~<`tcE: Skatin 4~'r: ,. :.: .:.. Goif P~ # Oa same b~asrs as Couacil passes. I• 1000 per month 400 per month Gq .` Staff feels it is appropriate to increase the compensation in the form of various passes for these boards due to the significant amount of time and effort they give to community service. t DURANGO: GREELEY: COUNTIES COUNTY,.CCIMM[SSiONERS;;~~~~~<~':~000NTY PLANNING B .:. r V Iuntee 0 ASPEN: '~' ~tHCaLC.isi,'i2~'+[;i'>~~,;`;:;:~<'._E.:;'i~,:;:.:;':<:.p.3G~uvv:v~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 27, 1990 11:00 Site Visits 3:00 Public Hearing SITE VTSTTS 1. Approval of the minutes form the August 13, 1990 meeting. 1 2. A request far a work session for a major subdivision, to approve the preliminary plan, a request for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls, and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a parcel c~„~=~~only referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Applicant: George Gillett, Jr. 4 3. A request for an exterior alteration on Lot C and Lot D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing, 227 Bridge Street (Covered Bridge Building}. Applicant: Hillis of Snawmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. - 4. A request to apply an underlying zone district of Public Accommodation all of Lot 4 and Lot 7, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead Third Filing, a subdivision recorded in Baok 221 at Page 992 of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder's records, part of Lot C, Morcus Subdivision, a subdivision recorded in Book 255 at Page 70 of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder's records and a request to apply an underlying zone district of High Density Multiple Family to all of Lot D and a part of Lot C, Morcus Subdivision, a subdivision recorded in Book 255, at Page 70 of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder's retards. Both properties know as 715 West Lionshead Circle (The Marriott Mark Resort). Applicant: M-K Corporation • 3 5. A request for a work session on the Sonnenalp remodel and proposed Special Development District at 20 Vail Road, Part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. 5 6. Eagle County referral--645' tall transmission tower located 2.3 miles N.W. of the West Vail I-70 interchange. Applicant: Global American sites 2 7. An appeal of a staff decision concerning GRFA for Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch (754 Potata Patch Drive). Applicant: Mike Lauterbach TABLED 8. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. INDEFINITELY Z6, part of parcel A, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing 2. {The Valley Phase III) Applicant: Brad & Susan Tjossem • ~~ Minutes PEC 8/27/90 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 27, 1990 • • Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Ludwig Kurz Jim Shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Jill Kammerer Shelly Mello Andy Knudtsen Betsy Rosolack Larry Eskwith The Planning and Environmental Commission meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. by Diana Donovan,. Chairperson. Chuck Crist was absent for the site visits but arrived for the meeting. Item No. 1: Anrnrc~ea~ of the minutes form the August 13. 1990 meeting. In the interest of time, Item No. 1 was postponed to the end of the meeting. Item No. 2: A request for a work session for a maior subdivision, to at~orove the nre:~iminarv plan. a rerluest for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls. and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road. on a parcel c~.«.~~on1v referred to as S~araddle Creek. an approximate ~0 acre oarcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange and east of the Snraddle Creek livery. Abnlicant: George Gillett, Jr. Spraddle Creek had been visited on the site visits. Kristan explained the site planning on Lot ~ and 6 and more discussion followed concerning the location of the building envelope on Lot 5. Kathy did not like the long driveway for the house in that location. The building envelopes for both Lots 5 and 6 planed Lot 6 directly below Lot 5. Diana felt that whatever was the Least visible must work on the site and she felt that moving the building envelope to improve the plan should be done. The walls of the project were discussed. Kristan felt there should be a visual analysis of the switchback ghat is on Forest Service Land. 1 . Minutes PEC 8/27/90 Jim Shearer suggested pushing back the upside cuts to make room for taller trees. He also supported banking with dirt where possible and planting trees as opposed to high walls. Greg suggested bowing out the curve which would break up the lineal length of the wall. Jay felt that two tiers might work. Kristan said the trade-off might be a higher wall, Kathy agreed saying that when you have a higher wall, there is less length but felt it was easier to break up the long walls than short walls by putting planting in front of them. Kathy felt that the walls should not go beyond 8' in height. Greg suggested ways to build the walls with a grid which would allow plantings. Jim reminded the group that from below you wouldn't see the lower part of the upper walls. Kent showed profiles of the roads. Ludwig suggested plantings to offset the visual impact. He asked if there would be any guard rails and Kent said there would be, it was felt guard rails were needed. Dalton suggested having a building envelope near the bottom of the subdivision below the road. He felt the visual impact would be less than having the homes close together higher up on the hill. Jay responded that he felt the lower property was "sacred" and he would Like to keep all of that lower area as open space. Regarding the road grades, Greg felt that Kent had done a good job. But there were three places he would change and Greg described where the cuts and fill would change. He recommended that the roads be between 8 and 8.6~ grade. Greg also was concerned with some driveway grades and felt that the access to Lot 6 would have to be changed. Kristan mentioned that construction guidelines were going to be needed for the project and much supervision needed on the part of the staff during the actual road construction. Kathy was comfortable with the slope as it was now but she felt that if it could be reduced without creating more cuts and fill, • _ Minutes PEC S/27/90 and without creating more visual impacts, she would be pleased with that as well. She suggested using boulder walls where possible. A section through the switchback on Forest Service property and the other major switchback above Lots 5 and 6 would be helpful. Kathy suggested a separate drawing showing building envelopes, driveways, lots, retaining walls, and roadway would be helpful. Heights of the walls could be indicated by different colors. This approach would make it easier to understand the project. Kathy also requested a view analysis for the entire subdivision. Greg said that he would meet once more with Kent and Kristan to refine the roads for the preliminary plat review. Connie Knight said that she was still concerned about encroaching onto Forest Service Land. She realized the trade-offs involved but was concerned with the relationship to the Tennenbaum trade- off. Joe Macy stated that this property was an "in holding" which meant that it was surrounded on three sides by Forest Service Land and the Forest Service had to provide access by law. Jay added that this did not relate to the Tennenbaum case and the stable would have to build a new road anyway. This was strictly for access. Diana wanted to stress that she did not want landscaping just along the roads and the buildings. She suggested creating groves with plantings in other areas to create a natural appearance. Item No. 3: A reauest for an exterior alteration on Lat C and Lot D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Block 5-B. Vail Villaae 1st Filina. 227 Bridae Street (Covered Bridae Buildinal. Abolicant: Hillis of Snowmass. Tnc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. Mike Mollica showed how the applicant had modi~ied the building since the last work session. Mike explained that the request was for an exterior alteration. He reviewed the zoning considerations and compliance with the Purpose Section of CCI, the Vail Village Master Plan, the Urban Design Guide Plan, and the Design Considerations and stated that the staff recommended approval with one condition: that prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant post a letter of credit to cover the replacement of evergreens which are to be relocated. Mike explained how the staff had interpreted the height on the • . Minutes PEC 8/27/90 building by using a diagonal line which allowed one half of the building to be based on the Bridge Street grade and the other half of the building to be based on the pocket park elevation. Ned Gwathmey, who was the architect for the project, showed the model and colored renderings of the elevations. Diana was concerned how the condo residents would get to their condo with their groceries and was told there were two parking spaces leased from Pepi's. Kathy Warren was concerned about the belvedere and she preferred a natural rock garden. Ned said that the area now was used as a snow storage area, but he also felt the need for a safety fence and was asked by staff to have the handrail removed in the winter for snow storage. Mike added that there was an alpine garden in the remainder of the area. Kathy did not care for the design of the northeast corner of the building and stated it appeared to be "added on" to the existing structure. She suggested that the area be revised. Chuck liked the building as it was. Dalton also liked the building. Dalton commended Ned for working with the staff. Ludwig felt that this project was a good example of cooperation between the applicant and the PEC and he liked the building as proposed. He was concerned with the belvedere but he did not know how to work out a better solution, given the steep grade change between Bridge Street and the pocket park. Diana asked about the fencing along the west side of the belvedere and that was discussed at length. Diana felt the need for a fence from the Covered Bridge to the South wall of the Covered Bridge Building. Ned said he had hoped to keep it more transparent than that. Kathy did not agree with Diana. She felt she would rather see the area between the belvedere and the covered bridge be open and not closed off and suggested perhaps reworking the slope to lower the grade. • . Minutes PEC 8/27/90 Diana recce„~„ended that the DRB carefully review the locations of the trees, lights and benches in this area and Mike responded that this was part of the streetscape plan. Diana also thanked Ned for working with the Board. A motion to approve the reauest for an exterior alteration ~.?Px t.h;p staff memo with the following conditions was made by Dalton and seconded by Jim Shearer Conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building hermit for the redevelopment. the applicant shall post a bond or letter of credit. in a sufficient amount to cover the replacement of the two evergreen trees which are proposed to be relocated. The relocated trees shall be guaranteed tg live for a period ~f not less than two. years from the original date of relocation. or thev will be replaced with two 25-foot tall evergreens. 2. The applicant not remonstrate against the stream walk • if and when one was constructed in the area. VOTE: 7-0 1N FAVOR Item No. 4: A reauest to apply an underlvina zone district of Public Accommodation all of Lot 4 and Lot 7, Block 1. Vail/Lionshead Third Filing, a subdivision recorded in Book 221 at Paae 992 of the Eagle Countv. Colorado. Clerk and Recorder's records. Hart of Lot C, Morcus Subdivision, a subdivision recorded in Book 255 at Paae 70 of the Eagle County. Colorado. Clerk and Recorder's records and a request to az~ply an underlvina zone district of High Density Multiple Family to all of Lot D and a part of Lot C. Morcus Subdivision. a subdivision recorded in Book 255. at Paae 70 of the Eagle Countv. Colorado. Clerk and Recorder's records. Both tironerties know as 715 West Lionshead Circle lThe Marriott Mark Resort). Applicant: M-K Corporation Chuck Crist abstained from this discussion. Kristan gave a brief presentation and reminded the board that they had voted for the underlying zone district previously and recommended this to the Town Council. The Town Council reviewed the original request to apply the underlying zoning and at their July 17, 1990 meeting • _ Minutes PEC 8/27/90 2 because he felt it was best for that area an~3 he would also vote for HDMF on the rest of the area. Kathy Warren agreed with Jim and repeated that HDMF on Tract 1 was down zoning and was also the direction given by the Council. Dalton wondered if this action was really necessary and Kristan explained that it would be very helpful to the staff and the Planning C~.~u~tission. The original application did not have underlying zoning in the request and it was made in the new request to clarify the underlying zoning per PEC request. Ludwig agreed with Jim. Diana said at first she questioned the zoning, then when the staff did the research on the original zoning, she was 100° for it. Jay reminded the board that the existing SDD allows for a request for timeshare. A motion to ax~orove the request to apply underlvinq zoning per the staff memo was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Dalton Williams VOTE 5-1-1 WITH CONNIE KNIGHT AGAINST AND CHUCK CRIST ABSTAINING Item No. 5: A request for a work session on the Sonnenaln remodel and nrotiosed Soecial Development District at 20 Vail Roadx Part of Lot L. Block 5-E. Vail Village lst Filing. AbAlicant: 5onnenalr> Prouerties. Inc. Kristan Pritz reminded the board that they had a work session on June 25, 1990 and since that time, the applicant had made many changes. The most significant was that they had pulled most of the building out of the 20 ft. setback along Meadow Drive and that the height of the tower along Vail Road had been decreased. The King Ludwig deck had also been built into the hillside facing Gore Creek. Kristan felt that the applicant had worked in the direction that the staff had asked them, though staff still felt more work needed to be done. Particularly, the height needed to be decreased. The memo listed the various concerns of the staff. Besides the height, coordination between the existing Sonnenalp and the Talisman was necessary. Jay Peterson, Johannes Faessler, Gordon Pierce, and Ray Story 7 Minutes PEC $/27/90 they denied the proposal to apply HDMF underlying zoning to the entire SDD. Now the applicant was proposing to apply HDMF to Tract 1, the western portion where the parking structure was located, and Public Accommodation to Tract 2, the remainder of the SDD. Staff recommended approval for three reasons. 1. To clarify the underlying zoning 2. To apply HDMF to allow for a timeshare use. The HDMF zone district is the only zone district that allows timeshare as a conditional use. 3. Staff research had shown that HDMF had been the original zoning an the western portion, Tract 1. Jim referred to page 4 in the memo and wandered how the Marriott could already be over the allowable square footage and Jay explained that those numbers were the result from requests done in 1977 through 1982. A neighbor who lived on Forest Road, Sally Cadol, expressed her concern about the rezoning paving the way for timeshare. Kristan said the zoning allowed for the applicant to apply for timeshare . and Sa11y Cadol asked why the staff wanted this zoning. Kristan explained that the staff recommended the HDMF zoning in this area to clear up the underlying zoning. Mrs. Cadol was concerned about the fact that the Marriott had not landscaped the areas along the creek where they had previously stated that they would. Dalton said that this time they were requiring a bond sufficient to landscape if the applicant did not do it. He also reminded the neighbor that they were down zoning the tract and added that the rest of the property would be Public Acc~~~~~~~odation which could not be timeshare. Kristan said that it appeared that many of Mrs. Cadol's concerns related more to the SDD approval than the underlying zoning request. Connie Knight quoted from the June 11, 1990 meeting when they voted to change the zoning and read that the second reason to zone HDMF was to allow for timeshare. Kristan repeated that the file showed that the far east portion was Public Accommodation and that it had been Public Accommodation in the past and the rest had been HDMF. Connie said she would vote against the HDMF and wanted to keep Public Accommodation. Diana asked Connie if she realized that Public Accommodation would allow more density, Jim Shearer said he would vote for Public Acc~~~~,~~odation on Tract • b Minutes PEC 8/27/90 were present representing the applicant. Jay explained that the accommodation units now totaled 3.24 and that the dwelling unit had been removed. Jay added that there would be a fireplace in the lobby and not in any other rooms. Jay stated the reason they were asking for a greater percentage of common area than is allowed under PA zoning was that the allowable common area for the PA zone for hotels was simply not enough. He reminded the board that they were putting in no condominium units and no dwelling units and almost 100% of the parking was underground. He also added that the motel rooms were 500-600 sq. ft. compared to a typical hotel room of 300 sq. ft. Regarding setbacks, Jay said that they had adhered very closely, encroaching only in minor areas. Jay then discussed the heights. He said the height along Meadow Drive was significantly lower than allowed in the PA zone and that the Master Plan envisioned an infill project with the existing building remaining, rather than removing some of the existing building as they were presently proposing to do. He also stated that they were below the allowable site coverage area. Jay compared the Vail Village Inn building on West Meadow Drive across the street from the Talisman. He said that the lower side of the Vail Village Inn buildings were on West Meadow Drive and the rest of the buildings . of the Vail Village Inn were higher. Regarding the stream tract, he felt this area was not conducive to a pedestrian way. It was a very private area. Discussion followed on how the height on the proposed building related to the Vail Village Inn building. Ray Story and Gordon Pierce showed elevations and sections. Jay then spoke about a future greenbelt where the ski museum used to he. Gordon explained the screening of the loading area with walls and added that they were well within the 20 ft. setback on two sides and they would be further back from the Talisman than they were presently. Dalton stated that to him, a 20 ft. setback means 20 ft. back. With overhangs, the building was actually closer. Kristan said that 4 ft. overhangs into the setback are allowed for roofs. Gordon stated that the neighbor across the street was well into their setbacks, actually up to their property line, and he felt that the Sonnenalp project was reinforcing the pedestrian walk. Gordon added that he had designed many hotels and never had seen a hotel as complicated or difficult to build because of the shape of the lot and Zoning constraints. Diana asked for a rationale behind the request far setback • a . Minutes PEC 8/27/90 variances and a discussion followed of the plans. Kathy Warren stated the applicant was asking for 23% more GRFA than allowed by the Public Accommodation zoning. She felt that the building could be brought back to meet setbacks and still build the amount of GRFA that they were requesting. She felt the building could be brought back toward the inner court instead of toward Meadow Drive. Kathy also felt it would be nice if the building had more ins and outs on the facade. Gordon replied that there were so many things going on already that a couple of feet in one area didn't make much difference. Johannes Faessler asked why they could not be on the property line when the buildings across the street were. Diana replied that the building across the street would not have been passed if it came before the board today. Gordon said that the shape of the property made it difficult to deal with the building on the northeast side. Dalton asked about the auto court and Jay explained and went on to floor plans regarding roams and halls. • Gordon said that they were told to reduce the :ieight of the tower and cut back and so they had lost the dwelling unit for the Faessler's plus some rooms. Dalton questioned the setbacks near the Talisman and Jim Wear, representing the Talisman, responded, He said that there were 16 owners at the Talisman. They were concerned about some issues and they had retained Craig Snowdon to respond to these. Craig Snowdon was present and he discussed the setbacks. Craig said they were not as cancerned about the setback as much as the massing. They were concerned about parking and access to Meadow Drive. Craig explained that the Sonnenalp and Talisman had some strange legal agreements. One of them was that there should be 2a ft. between the buildings and Jay responded that they were simply treating the property line next the Talisman as another side setback. Diana said that they would like to have the two properties resolve the issue of access and parking. Johannes said that they would have an agreement with the Talisman and the issues would be addressed. Craig stated that they were open to discussion and that there was • . Minutes PEC 8/27/90 no final agreement as yet. They were concerned regarding the landscaping being traded for their parking spaces at the top of the ramp, the legal ramifications regarding the access, and the construction process. Craig said that they would rather see the building farther back but did not have any objections because it was based on the no-setback requirement. Jim Tear stated that there may be some individual property owners with concerns. Jim Shearer was in favor of pulling the loading/delivery area forward and enclosing the trucks. He thought it was a good building, He favored a walkpath along the stream and pointed out that if the building did come forward it would hide the open spaces behind it with the exception of some of the doorways through the building. He felt that there should be formal documents between the Talisman and the Sonnenalp. There should be planting in front of the Swiss Chalet without losing parking on the east side of the property. n LJ Johannes spoke about employee housing. He believed that employee housing was a very important issue because you could not run a business without employees. He felt that if the Town needs to interfere with the employee housing requirements, they should come up with a clear idea and make rules for everyone. He didn't feel that it should start without some guidelines, that it was not fair or the right way to address the issue. He was not in favor of having employee housing on-site because it is the most expensive type of housing. Johannes said that at the present he could house 187 employees. Jim Shearer continued his comments, stating that he was content with the amount of retail and c~.,~.,,ercial space and felt that the c~.,u„on areas were a plus. He was glad that the land led up to the Ludwig deck. He felt that the glass walkway should be left open to the courtyard. He agreed with Craig regarding the parking spaces. He would like to see the parking spaces at the tap of the ramp removed and have that area landscaped. He was concerned with four areas; the height, setbacks, number of units, and the amount of GRFA. Kathy Warren stated that her concerns were the same as last time. . 10 Minutes PEC 8/27/90 She was not comfortable with what was going on. The building was encroaching on all four setbacks. She wanted to see a sun/shade analysis. Since it was under on site coverage, it didn't make since to her to encroach on the setbacks. She felt it would be better if they had more varied setbacks on Meadow Road. Regarding the height, there were two significant areas over on height, particularly the northwest corner. She would rather have seen the corner be lower than the rest of the building rather than higher. Kathy felt that a 23% overall increase in square footage was a significant overage even though some of it was underground. She felt that the 11 parking spaces on the ramp should be placed underground. She was comfortable with the number of units per acre but she was sorry to see one dwelling unit being removed. She was concerned with the parking spaces being slightly under what was required. Kathy felt that the employee housing needed to be addressed on this project and preferred to see units on site. The delivery situation needed to be addressed. She felt that the Town of Vail is not receiving anything in exchange except for a sidewalk. Kathy felt that an SDD should give something in exchange. Chuck Crist liked the project. He felt that the area needed development and was glad to see that it was stepped back an . Meadow Drive. He would like to see more indentations on the building, but felt that the design was good. Fie had some concern about mass and bulk. He liked the concept of the tower. Chuck felt that this part of Town needed architectural interest and wanted the staff to present a comparison with other towers in Town. He felt the elevator tower needed work. Regarding the stream walk, he was not in favor of having it in this location but suggested a pocket parks near the Swiss Chalet and on the west end with benches. Chuck did not have concerns about the commercial space, GRFA, or the number of acc~=~,.~~odation units. Regarding employee housing, he agreed with Johannes. Dalton liked the project and agreed with Jim. Regarding the loading area, he suggested moving it back and the doors forward so that there would be more room for a loading dock. He liked the stream walk and proposed an alternative on the west side extending the sidewalk to the bridge and building a pedestrian bridge next to the auto bridge. He was still concerned with the canyon effect on Meadow Drive with two high buildings and buses, crowds, and noise. He felt that perhaps there could be some design that would help absorb the noise. Dalton felt that the tower looked like a "Darth Vader" design and added to the mass. He stated that the elevator tower should not try to make an architectural statement and perhaps there could be an unobtrusive cap on it. He agreed with the comments Johannes had stated on employee housing. Dalton had problems with the heights, density, 11 . Minutes PEC 8/27/90 and GRFA. Regarding setbacks, he felt that some of his concerns had been explained away. Ludwig discussed setbacks. He said that he could understand some of the reasons for an infringement. He felt that they could change the structure above ground from underground and he was concerned that there was encroachment on all sides. He had no problem with the GRFA or the Commercial area. He felt that the tower could be lower. He stated the tower ready read more as a building than a tower. Ludwig felt that it was too bad that the building could not be designed within the allowable GRFA, heights, and without setback variances. The courtyard space may need to be expended to reduce setback encroachments. He felt that they were going in the right direction with the loading docks. He could understand wanting the privacy. Ludwig wanted to see cooperation between the Talisman and the Sonnenalp. Connie Knight spoke next. She stated that she had been an advocate of the stream walk but now she had changed her mind. She was not happy with a setback encroachment or the height of the building. Concerning employee housing, she felt that Johannes had made a great point and he did provide a lot of employee housing. She asked about the kitchen and wondered if it couldn't be put on a north/south direction in order to maintain the Bully Restaurant and deck. She asked if the delivery area was adequate. Diana was concerned about loading for the commercial part of the building. She felt that the figures needed to be justified to determine adequate loading would be available. The Common Space and Commercial Space can not be double. The Master Plan, along Meadow Drive, called to separate people from the buses and the extended landscaped berm should be kept. She felt that there were too many towers on the building. Some architectural statement may be warranted. Regarding the stream walk she said "you know how 2 feel about stream walks. By not putting in the stream walk, you are using public land for private benefit by pushing your building out to the property line." She asked the applicant to find some way to mitigate this impact. She felt that the concept of Johannes's employee housing was alright but she felt that he must come up with more employee housing. She felt that the ramp parking spaces should be taken out and landscaping added in that area. She also agreed with the possible idea of a pedestrian bridge. She agreed with the concerns of the staff found within the memo. Gordon Pierce felt that there was a conflict between the idea of having a separate pedestrian area and also having pocket parks. X2 . Minutes PEC $/27/90 Jim Shearer was concerned about the columns on the corner. He felt they were very close to the building and Gordon discussed opening that area up more. Dalton discussed the parking requirements and wondered if with larger rooms, they would not necessarily need to have more cars. Kristan said that they could try to get mare parking numbers from studies on parking mitigation completed last year. Jim Shearer said that he would like to know, excluding the Austria House, the number of employees now and the number that there would be later. Johannes said that he had 250 employees now and did not anticipate needing more employees, because 35 of them were used at the golf course in the summer only. Chuck Crist said he would also like to see parking calculations. Gordon said that when the parking ordinance was written, there were no "Vans to Vail and that was how many people traveled to Vail which has reduced on site parking demand by guests. Item No. h: Eagle County referral---645' tall transmission tower located 2.3 miles N.W. of the West Vail I-70 interchange. Aonlicant: Global American sites Item No. 6 was postponed until after Item No. 7 Item No. 7: An appeal of a staff decision concerning GRFA for Lot 3. Block 2. Vail Potato Patch (754 Potato Patch Drivel. Anolicant: Mike Lauterbach Kristan gave the history regarding this item. Dalton asked Mike Lauterbach why he made changes without Town approval, and Mike responded that every step of the way he was told he had additional GRFA remaining. He was told he had 200 sq. ft. on the east side so he could transfer this to the west or larger side. Kristan replied that when the project was approved there was no 60/40 zoning split. So the 60/40 split was not an issue. Dalton said that the Board talked a few weeks ago regarding changes and needing to come back with changes, and Mike Mollica responded that minor changes can usually come back just to the staff. 13 Minutes PEC 8/27/90 Kristan stated that when plans come in for the building permit review, the architect should tell the staff that additional sq. footage had been added and the change should be carefully checked. Connie asked if Mike had ever had this sort of problem before, and Mike Lauterbach responded that he had to fill a crawl space last year in the Glen Lyon Subdivision, but to fill the crawl space was impossible on this site because it would crack the concrete wall. Diana said that she was sympathetic that the staff made an error but that the Board had to follow Section 303 (C) of the Uniform Building Code. Larry Eskwith, the Town Attorney, asked Mike that when he got the building permit with GRFA numbers on it, why hadn't he responded when he saw that the number on the permit was different from the one found on the DRB plans. Mike replied that he didn't focus on it. The permit number doesn't match any other numbers, He also spoke of many planners working on his project, Kristan stated that one planner had worked on his project. The Board excused themselves and went into executive session. When they came out, Dalton asked Mike Lauterbach how long he had been building and Mike replied 15 years. Dalton asked how many buildings he had done and Mike replied 4 or 5 duplexes in Vail and 15 structures County wide. A motion to uphold the staff decision and d~ per the staff memo was made by Kathv Warren Ludwig Kurz stating that the staff position building was 881 sa. ft. over the allowable were based on Uniform Building Code Section Validity of the Permit. env the anneal and seconded by was that the and the findings 303 fC1. VOTE: 6-1 WITH CHUCK CRIST AGAINST THE DENIAL OF THE APPEAL Mike Lauterbach asked if they had voted to bring the crawl space into conformance and Diana stated that they voted to uphold the staff decision. Ludwig said he felt that the staff decision was correct. Dalton felt that the staff memo was correct and that he felt also that Mike Lauterbach was knowledgeable and a competent builder. 14 Minutes PEC 8/27/90 Chuck Crist agreed with the staff concerns and voted against the appeal. He felt modifications had been made. Diana felt that Mike Lauterbach should have been given GRFA equal to the original corrections and the staff errors but not the other overage, Kathy felt that the staff decision was correct. She felt it was unfortunate that there were discrepancies early on in the permit process but felt that the Section 303 (C} of the Building Code covered that. Jim Shearer felt that the letter of the law was being followed. He said they were not, being asked to rule on a variance so they could not grant one. They were only asked to decide whether or not the staff had acted appropriately. Kathy felt that a modification was a form of a variance and a variance required a hardship. Connie said that she was swaying back and forth. If this had been Mike's first house she would have been more favorable but it was not his first house. • Mike Lauterbach replied that it boils down to the fact that, "If I'm experienced, I can't make mistakes." Diana said. "According to Section 303 (C) of tae Uniform Building Code, the Board had to vote on whether or not the staff's Stop Work Order was correct." Item No. 6:~ Eaale County referral--649' tall transmission tower located 2.3 miles N.W. of the West Vail/T-70 interchange. Aonlicant: Global American Sites Andy described the tower and reviewed the issues. Diana felt that the tower that existed was extremely visible and didn't feel there was any need to add to the one tower. Jim Shearer asked how many dishes would be on the tower and would the other antenna be taken down. He felt that he could not support the strobe lights and that there should be maximum of four lights on it. Kathy Warren agreed with Jim Shearer and wondered what impact there would be from guide wires. • 15 . Minutes PEC 8/27/90 Chuck Crist felt that strobe lights were very distracting. It was nice to have a high antenna for rescue purposes. He suggested that perhaps a shorter antenna with less capability could be approved. Dalton said that he did not want tower. He questioned the height possible danger to pilots. He w+ distribution pattern to evaluate other tower should come down and number of dishes on the antenna. to see strobe lights on the of the tower and pointed out the anted to see the signal the height need. He felt the there should be a limit to the Ludwig Kurz agreed with Diana and also asked for alternatives. Diana summarized the Commission's discussion and stated that the Commission was opposed to the tower at this time. Item No. 1: Anoroval of the minutes form the Auu_ust 13. 1990 meeting. A motion to aonrove the minutes as written was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer._ i VOTE: 7-0 IN FAVOR Item No. 8: A reauest for a mayor amendment to SDD No. 16. Dart of uarcel A. Lionsridae Subdivision. Filing 2. fThe Valley Phase III1 Applicant: Brad & Susan Tiossem A motion to table the Tiossem apblication indefinitely was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Jim shearer. VOTE: 7-0 IN FAVOR . 16 T0: Planning and Environmental C~.~,.~,ission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 27, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration on Lot C and Lot D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing, 227 Bridge Street. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. I. DESCRIPTION DF THE REQUEST The applicants are proposing a major redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building located at 227 Bridge Street. The proposal calls for modifications to the front entrance of the existing commercial spaces, the creation of lower level commercial spaces which would be accessible from a new stair directly on Bridge Street, infill of the north and northwest sections of the existing structure, the addition of an elevator and stair tower at the northwest corner of the building, and the addition of two upper floors, predominantly located along the south and west sections of the structure. The existing covered stairs located along both the west and north elevations would be removed. A sprinkler system for fire protection will be added to the entire building and all exits will be improved and brought into compliance with today's Building Code. The applicants have also proposed to upgrade the Town's adjacent pocket park to the north of the Covered Bridge Building. The Town Council, on July 17, 1990, granted the applicant approval to move forward with designs for the park and to proceed through the planning process. The applicant is proposing to construct a new entry stair to the park from Bridge Street and a viewing platform, or belvedere, over the existing retaining wall adjacent to the Covered Bridge. The viewing platform would be cantilevered over the existing retaining wall which would provide far a seating area and photo point and would also be available (with a detachable railing) for snow storage during the winter months. A small alpine garden will also be added in this area, (please see attached site plan). • The owner of the Covered Bridge Building had previously made the following applications with regards to the redevelopment: 1. An exterior alteration request; 2. A height variance request; 3. A site coverage variance request; 4. A landscape variance request; and 5. A floodplain modification request. The project has been further modified since the last PEC work session and the request is now as follows: 1. An exterior alteration request. The project has been redesigned to comply with all of the Town's development standards for Commercial Core I and the height variance, site coverage variance, landscape variance and floodplain modification requests have been withdrawn. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following is a summary of the development standards for the proposed redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building. 1. Lat Size: = 4,675 square feet Buildable Area: = 4,510 square feet 2. Site Coverage: Existing = 3,602 square feet, or 77% Allowable = 3,740 square feet, or 80% Proposed = 3,740 square feet, or 80% 3. Building Heights: Existing = 36 ft. to ridge. Proposed = 43 ft. to ridge. Allowable = 60~ of the build ing may be up to 33' and up to 40~ of the building may be higher than 33', but no higher than 4 3'. 4. Roof Area Percentages: a) Allowable below 33' = 2,708 sq. ft. or 60% Proposed below 33' = 3,037 sq. ft. or 73% b) Allowable between 33'-43 ' = 1,806 sq. ft. ar 400 Proposed between 33'-43' = 1,126 sq. ft. or 27% • 2 • 5. Density: Existing Dwelling Units Allowable Dwelling Units Proposed Dwelling Units 6. GRFA: Existing Allowable Proposed 7. Commercial Square Footage: Existing Proposed = 0 = 2 = 1 = 0 sq. ft. = 3,608 sq. ft. - 2,921 sq. ft. = 9,334 sq. ft. - 9,520 sq. ft. 8. Floodplain: The existing 100-year floodplain, as indicated by FEMA is currently 7.2 inches, vertically, above the existing grade along the north elevation of the existing building wall. No further encroachments into the floodplain are proposed, in fact, a portion of the existing encroachment (covered stair on north elevation) will be removed from the floodplain. 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 Care 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. The staff believes that the proposed redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building is in compliance with the purpose section of the CCI zone district. • 3 III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I 18.24.010 Purpose: • IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VATT, vTT,T.AGE MASTER PLAN Although not specifically categorized as a Sub-Area, the Covered Bridge Building is specifically identified in the Vail Village Master Plan as follows; "Although it is a goal to maintain design continuity in the Village core, there will be change in the core areas built environment. This is mostly due to the number of properties that have not exercised their full development rights. The most notable among these properties are the Red Lion Building, the Cyrano's Building, the Lodge at Vail, and the Covered Bridge Building. If each of these and other properties develop to their full potential, there will undoubtedly be a significant increase in the level of development in the Village core." There are many goals, objective, and policies which are identified in the Vail Village Master Plan that are applicable to the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building. We feel that the following specifically address this project: GOAL # 1- ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN TTS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and c~,~„~~ercial facilities. 1. 3 Obi ective Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policv: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. GOAL #2- TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR-AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. • 4 2.4.1 Policv: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. GOAL # 3- TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policv: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.1 Policv: Physical improvements to property adjacent to stream tracts shall not further restrict public access. GOAL ~4- TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND GREENSPACE OPPORTUNTTTES. 4.1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with greenspace and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. It is the staff opinion that the Covered Bridge Building redevelopment, specifically the proposed commercial infill modification and the proposed improvements to the Town's pocket park, would be in compliance with the above named Master Plan goals and Objectives. • 5 IV. COMPLIANCE WITH muE t1RRAN f}FSIGN (;UIDE PLAN FAR V.Arr, ~~rr.r,AGE The Urban Design Guide Plan Sub-Area concepts identified for the Covered Bridge Building include a pocket park with benches and planters; snow storage in winter. A feature area with pavement treatment is also identified for a small area immediately south of the Covered Bridge. In addition, the Gore Creek Pedestrian Path, or Streamwalk, is also proposed, in the Guide Plan, to go through this pocket park area. The staff believes that the applicant's proposed modifications to the Town's packet park, including the viewing platform adjacent to the Covered Bridge and a new entry stair into the park, would be in conformance with the Sub-Area concepts. The applicant had suggested constructing the portion of the Streamwalk as it crosses the pocket park. However, because the Streamwalk would dead-end at the parking lot west of the pocket park, staff and PEC recommended that this section of the Streamwalk be delayed until a more complete path could be constructed. V. COMPL~CA.NCF WITH THE TTRRAN DESICN_ ~'~NSIDERATTONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE A. Pedestrianization: . The redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building should not have any effect on the existing pedestrianization along Bridge Street. We do believe that the applicant's proposal to provide pavers along Bridge Street and the addition of the viewing platform will be a positive step in promoting the Village's pedestrian system. These pavers will be designed in conjunction with the Town's currently on-going Streetscape Master Plan. B. Vehicular Penetration: The redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building will not change the current vehicular penetration patterns in the Village. • s r1 LJ • C. Streetscane Framework: We believe the proposal to be positive with regard to streetscape framework. By increasing the visibility of the lower level commercial spaces from Bridge Street, the staff believes that these new activity generators will give added street life and visual interest along Bridge Street. The proposed improvements to the adjacent pocket park, with the addition of a viewing platform, will also improve the quality of the walking experience in this area of the Village. D. Street Enclosure: The design considerations stress that building facade heights should not be uniform from building to building, and that they should provide a "comfortable" enclosure for the street. We believe that the proposed modifications to the Covered Bridge Building will relate very well to the pedestrian activity and experiences along Bridge Street. The building does step back from Bridge Street and also steps back from the adjacent pocket park to the north. The building's variety of height and massing creates a street enclosure where the building walls are approximately one-half as high as the street width, which supports this design concept. One major consideration for the placement of the building's mass and bulk is the Town's requirements for maximum building height. It is this development standard that has driven the placement of the mass as indicated on the attached elevations. E. street Edge: This redevelopment should have little impact upon street edge as the proposed modifications to the building do not significantly alter the configuration or location of the existing structure. The applicants have agreed to work with the staff and the Town's streetscape consultant, as this project evolves, in order to design improvements to Bridge Street, specifically paver treatment along the eastern elevation of the structure. F. Building Height: The Vail Village Master as having an acceptable the 3-4 story category. 9' of height and no roof Plan has identified this area range of building heights in A building story is defined as is included. • Because there is a 6' difference in height between Bridge Street and the pocket park area the applicant has requested the staff to reanalyze and interpret where building height base elevations will be calculated from. Regarding the measurement of heights on this site, the staff has made the following interpretations: 1. That the Covered Bridge Building site be divided equally beginning at the northeast corner of the property with a line running diagonal to the southwest corner of the property. We believe that this will provide for a fair and equitable analysis of building height because it allows for the Bridge Street elevation of the structure to be based upon the grades on Bridge Street. It also allows for the elevations of the building which front north to the pocket park and west to Pepi's parking lot to be based upon the existing grades in the park area. 2. That the base elevation of Bridge Street (8,161 ft.j will be used to determine heights for areas of the building which fall into the southeastern 50~ of the divided property. 3. That the base elevation at the northwest corner of the Covered Bridge property (8,153 ft.) will be used to determine building heights for the northwest 50~ of the structure. Given the above analysis, the staff is of the opinion that the proposed redevelopment is in conformance with the zoning considerations, specifically as listed in Section I1 (3) Building Height, and (4) Roof Area Percentages, of this staff memorandum. G. Views and Focal Points: The proposed ridge line of the Covered Bridge Building will not encroach into any of the Town's adopted view corridors. View Corridor No. 1, is a view corridor from the steps of the Vail Village Parking Structure extending over Vail Village towards Vail Mountain. It was intended to provide unobstructed views of Vail Mountain and key architectural features such as the Clock Tower and the Rucksack Tower. The applicant has certified, with the assistance of Eagle Valley Surveying's Dan Corcoran, that the proposed redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building will not encroach into View Corridor No. 1. It is the staff a opinion that this project will have an insignificant impact upon any other views or focal points from adjacent properties. H. Service and Delivery: The only modification with regard to service and delivery far this project would be the addition of a trash holding area at the southwest corner of the property. The applicants propose to construct a 6-font high wood screen fence completely around the trash facility. The parking requirement for this project will be met by the applicants paying into the Town's parking fund. These calculations are as follows: Residential = 2.50 spaces required x $5,000 = $12,500.00 Commercial = 0.62 spaces required x $3,000 = $ 1,860.00 Total = $14,360.00 I. Sun/Shade: The proposed expansion will cast increased shade patterns on the adjacent pocket park site to the north and northwest. The staff believes this additional shade will have minimal impacts in that the area of the additional shading is mainly to the northwest of the pocket park and this area is heavily landscaped with large evergreen trees. There will be no additional shade cast along Bridge Street, nor on the Covered Bridge. J. Architectural/Landscape Considerations: 1) Architectural Considerations: The staff believes the project to be in compliance with the architectural considerations as outlined in the Guide Plan, specifically with regard to roof farm and pitch, overhangs, building materials, and color. The Design Review Board has completed a conceptual review of this project (on August 15, 1990) and although a formal vote was not taken at this preliminary hearing, the Board reacted very favorably toward the proposal and had no major design concerns. • s 2} Landscape Considerations: The applicant is proposing to relocate the two large evergreen trees located at the northeast corner of the site. These trees are proposed to be relocated into the Town's adjacent pocket park (please see attached site plan}. The staff is obviously concerned about the relacation of these large evergreens. A letter on file from Glen Ellison, of Land Designs by Ellison, specifically indicates that "the advantages of moving these large spruce does appear to be beneficial and outweighs the initial investment and risk." Because the existing evergreens have grown so close to the Covered Bridge Building, the staff believes that the trees, when placed out into the open pocket park area, will appear very one-sided. We would recommend that these trees be placed close together and be encouraged to grow as ane cluster. If relocation of the trees proves to be infeasible, due to the root system being toa close to the building, the applicant has c~,~~.«itted to fund the replacement of the trees, with two evergreens having a minimum height of 25-feet. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff rec....,...endation on the exterior alteration for the Covered Bridge Building is for approval. We applaud the efforts of the applicant to modify and redesign the proposal and to eliminate the need for any variances. We believe that the project will be a positive benefit to the community as the Covered Bridge Building has been in need of upgrading for some time. We feel strongly that the project is now in compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan, as well as the Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. A staff condition of approval is as follows: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit far the redevelopment, the applicant shall post a band or letter of credit, in a sufficient amount to cover the replacement of the two evergreen trees which are proposed to be relocated. The relocated trees shall be guaranteed to live for a period of not less than two years from the original date of relocation, ar they will be replaced with two 25-foot tall evergreens. • 10 ~ :~ ~~ ~ .~, ~ -~~~ ~` ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ .- -~ ~~~ ~~' ~- • • i• ~~ N FIC&>F ~. 820 ~~ II III -~ ~I ~~ ~ ' ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ Nllllfulll~ ---- q• I lr ~ ~ 31 ~1 i, __. - . ~--~ r - --~- _ _. : ~t7_ ~aSr ~L~Va.rlol~ Imo' laN~ of PP~hou~ :,ubMryrtv_. 1 R ~ [ZRHB ~ X195 _ .. .., . - ~. ~rcc. 4 '_ - ~'. i• 0 Xl#~ H~161-E" r 92c~4 I.~4- L~+13 i a ~ti~ awi 'i ~~~., . ~~ ~~ ~ ~ r ~`- _ - ~ - --_ L . s~ - _ ~i~w ~ ~ r _ ~ i~ H~Ic~r~ I ,~ + ~ , 8196 {---~ r r ~ ~ „ ~. L-~ r J~.~1~ _~ - ----- ~ -.r~~ 's~ ~; _ ~ i u~ ~i -?~'r~ ~' ~-----_--u. I 1 ~; . ~~ -J -~ . ~i5~ • -- ~~~~ ~L~v~fl~~ i5u E`-~' i• • w~ _ I ~ ~ ~~ t~ ~[~ ~r1~Y - _ ~ ~ ~` 1 fw6 ~. Ir ' 1~ ~~ . ~ _ 1 ~~l ~ s ~ , ~ ~~'• ~ II ~ ~ A ~ Il l ~~~.1.V.I~I~U~ K ~ i~ li 'f r,~ jl « { i i, ~ ~ -Y#, ~ I I;~ ~ .. ~E i ~ i~ I B~'1T _. F / ~I i w>x~r ~ ~. ~vAriaf-t Q D m 5 0 ~_ L G? °'~~ C901~~ ~~. x~p 7 0 ~ A' ~ }}}~... d 6 z ;} ~ LI r1 _ Q S ~ [7 ~U i. ': s ~aSat0~ ~ramshammer, inc. Pep+ Gramshammer Sheika Gramshammer July 23, 1990 Hillis Akin & Bruce Amm 1.70 East Gore Creek Drive Vail, CO 81b57 Dear Hillis & Bruce, Teiepho ne: 303/478-5628 231 ~as# Gore Creek brine Vail, Colorado 87657 As a neighbor to the Covered Bridge Store, I am in favor of the proposed remodel and expansion of your building. I believe that this will approve the appearance of the building and the entrance to Bridge Street. As you know the north wall of Gasthof Gramshammer is not very appealing and this expansion will approve the overall looks. I hope that this letter will help in the decision to approve this improvement. Sincerely, ~~ ~ `~ Pepi Gramshammer PG/ J g a~1, Mc~uru~e~l`Lel l~ .~ 011 i~l~l~ li J 241 Gore Creek Drive Vail Colorado 8657 Bell Tower Building (343) 476-4262 July 21, 1990 Town of Vail Planning Department 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Sirs: This letter comes to express my support for the re- development of the Covered Bridge Building as proposed by Mr. Bruce Amm and Mr. Hillis Aiken. As the owner of Vail Management Company and the Property Manager of the Creekside Condominium Association (the property adjacent to the subject site), I have reviewed the Preliminary Plans and . find them to be a significant improvement over the existing building. Thank you for your consideration of my opinion. Since ~~ Thomas R. Castee r Vail Management Co pony TC:sI • ~o..sU~h~ LTI1 ~~ July 23, 1990 Tan Backhus Slifer & Company 230 Bridge St. Vaal, Co. 81657 Dear Tom, We have reviewed plans for the proposed addition to the Hillis Building. Renae anal T feel this would be a positive improvement that will enhance the appearance of Bridge Street. We wish Mr. Attm and you good luck in your venture. Sincerely, David Gorsuch 263 E. Gore Creek Drive, Vail, Colorado 81657 3034?6-2294 • SLIFER, SMITH & FRAMPTQN, INC. ~~ `) V N ~ ~ ~~~~ REAL ESTATE BROKERS AI~FD CONSl3LTANTS 230 BRIDGE STREET VA1L, COLORADO 81657 TELEPHONE (303) 476-2421 TELEFA?C (303)476.2658 June 7, 1990 Mr. Ron Phillips Tawn of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Ron: I wanted to write as an interested neighbor regarding the proposed Covered Bridge Store remodel. I support the proposal that is sub- mitted to the Town of Vail. I also feel that the sooner the pro- ject can get underway, the better. This summer is already dis- rupted and it would be a good time to get started. They have goad access to the back of the building which will help mitigate the impact of construction. T feel strongly that many of the older buildings in Vail need to be upgraded to current design standards. T also am concerned if something is too big or not designed to fit into the neighborhood. In this case, I feel the design in very appropriate and would be a great improvement over the current structure. Bridge Street is probably the most visible and important street- scape in Vail. I feel that the proposal for the Covered Bridge building is long overdue and will be a definite improvement. ~i Yours very truly, e S e RFS/jt OFFICES iN VAILANI~ [fEAVERCREE3: 3• T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: C~~~~~~unity Development Department DATE: August 27, 1990 RE: A request to apply an underlying zone district of Public Accommodation all of Lot ~ and Lot 7, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead Third Filing, a subdivision recorded in Book 221 at Page 992 of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder's records, part o£ Lot C, Morcus Subdivision, a subdivision recorded in Book 255 at Page 70 of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder's records and a request to apply an underlying zone district of High Density Multiple Family to all of Lot D and a part of Lot C, Morcus Subdivision, a subdivision recorded in Book 255, at Page 70 of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder's records. Both properties know as 715 West Lionshead Circle (The Marriott Mark Resort). Applicant: M-K Corporation I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST At the April 23, 1990 Planning and Environmental Commission work session on proposed amendments to SDD No. 7, the PEC recommended that an underlying zone district be clearly identified for this Special Development District. The Planning and Environmental Commission made this request of the applicant in order to clarify the underlying zone district. The Council has also reviewed the original request to apply underlying zoning. At the July 17, 1990 Council meeting. Council denied the proposal to apply HDMF underlying zoning to the entire SDD. The motion to approve Ordinance 21 was made by Merv Lapin and Seconded by Kent Rose. The motion failed 2-5. Rob Levine and Kent Rose voted in favor of the motion and the remaining five members voted against the motion (please see attached minutes). The applicant is now proposing to apply HDMF underlying zoning to Tract 1 (the western portion of the SDD where the parking structure is located) and Public Accommodation (PA) underlying zoning to Tract 2, the remainder of the SDD. Please see Jay Peterson's attached letter stating the rationale for the request. An underlying zone district is defined in Section 18.40.020, Definitions D as: ~~Underlying Zone District' shall mean the zone district existing on the property, or imposed on the property at the time that the Special Development District is approved. As stated in previous memos, there is some question as to what the underlying zoning was when this Special Development District was approved in 1977. (Please see Section II for background and staff research on the underlying zone). A second reason for applying HDMF zoning to Tract 1 is to allow for the timeshare use. The HDMF zone district is the only zone district within the Town of Vail that allows timeshare as a conditional use. In Sectian 18.40.070 Uses of the Special Development District it states: Determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council as a part of the formal review of the proposed development plan. Unless further restricted by the review of the proposed Special Development District, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in a properties • underlying zone district... In summary, the purpose of applying HDMF and PA zoning to the property is to clarify the underlying zone district for the entire SDD, allow for the timeshare use, specifically for the 56 unit timeshare expansion on Tract 1, and to also provide a guide for any future proposals that may be submitted to the Town. TI. BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON THE UNDERLYING ZONE DISTRICT FOR SDD NO. 7 The staff has pieced together a sequence of events relating to the Marriott Mark Resort property. We must emphasize that this information was taken from the Community Development Department files and is not conclusive. Below is a summary of this research. 1973 The Mark Resort constructed 74 hotel rooms and 14 condominium apartments. This original development (east building) is referenced as having HDMF zoning in an Environmental Impact Report prepared by John Ryan dated January, 1977 (pg 36}. A building permit dated May 31, 1973 also references HDMF zoning. • 2 1977 Ordinance 3 of 1977 rezones Lots 4 and 7 and a portion of Lots 5 and 6, Block 2 Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing from Public Accommodation and HDMF to Special Development District to allow the development of the site "in a more innovative manner". However, in reviewing planner staff zone checks in the file, Lot 4 is referenced as having HDMF, Lot 5 - HDMF, and Lot 7 - Public Accommodation zoning. Lots 4 and 5 relate to the western portion of the Mark property while Lot 7 appears to be the original lot for the very first building on the eastern portion of the site. 1977 A resubdivision of Lot 4, 5, 5, 7 and 8, Block 1, Lionshead 3rd Filing was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Please note that the block references are different for the SDD Ordinance and for the resubdivision 3.978 A building permit was released far the Mark Resort and Tennis club which has been referred to as Phase I (second building to the west). 1981 Ordinance No. 25 of 1981 approved a specific development plan for Phase II which allowed for the construction of the convention center, parking structure, two additional tennis courts and allowed 8 fireplaces in 8 dwelling units. 1981 The building permit for the development approved Ordinance No. 25, commonly called Phase II was released. 1985 The request for timesharing for Phase II was denied by the Planning Staff. This request proceeded to Planning Commission and the applicant tabled indefinitely. From this research, it appears that the Special Development District actually had two underlying zone districts. The eastern Lot 7 had been Public Accommodation Zoning. However, this conflicts with John Ryan's reference to Lot 7 as being zoned HDMF in his EIR. Lots 4 and 5 which are to the west of Lot 7 appear to have been zoned HDMF. Staff also contacted John Ryan, who prepared the original EIR in 1977, Jim Lamont who was on the Planning Staff when the Marriott Mark was reviewed in 1977, Danny Corcoran, surveyor of Eagle Valley Engineering and Tom Griner, Architect for the Marriott Resort and Tennis Club in order to find out any additional zoning information. . 3 In discussing the issue with Jim Lamont, he stated that all . lots in the Town before 1974 had zoning. He also agreed that the site probably had either Public Accommodation or HDMF zoning originally or a combination thereof. John Ryan had no recollection of the previous zoning. The other parties contacted were unable to provide the staff with any definitive underlying zoning information. Suffice it to say, that the western property appears to have been zoned HDMF. In the zoning analysis section of the memo, staff has compared the proposed SDD to HDMF and. Public Accommodation zoning as well as the combined HDMF/PA zoning. The major difference is that Public Accommodation zoning allows for more GRFA per site area (.80) while HDMF allows for a .50 GRFA per site area. In respect to parking, HDMF states that 755 of the parking must be in a building or screened while PA zoning states that 75% of the required parking shall be located within the main building and hidden from public view. HDMF also allows for the timeshare use. In all other respects, the two zone districts have basically the same requirements. III. ZONING COMPARISON The existing and proposed Special Development Districts have been compared to the development allowed with underlying zoning on Tract 1 of HDMF and Public Accommodation underlying zoning on Tract 2 on the attached chart. (Please note all calculations include the 10 employee housing units). The existing Special Development District and the proposed SDD both exceed the HDMF and PA maximum allowance of 25 units per acre. The existing SDD has 34 units and the proposed SDD would have 47 units per acre. In respect to GRFA, HDMF allows 41,317 sq. ft. for Tract 1. With Tract 2, PA zoning allows 122,133 sq. ft. for a total of 163,450 sq. ft. The existing SDD has 134,000 sq. ft. of GRFA and the proposed SDD has 196,800 sq. ft. of GRFA. The HDMF/PA zone district allows 127 dwelling units for the site. The existing SDD has 177 dwelling units and the proposed SDD would have 243 dwelling units. The height maximum for HDMF or PA is 48 feet. The existing SDD has a height of approximately 85 feet at the highest paint while the new SDD expansion area will not exceed 48 feet. • In respect to site coverage and landscaping, both the existing SDD and the proposed SDD exceed the requirements for HDMF/PA. The site coverage maximum is 55~ for HDMF or PA. The proposed SDD has 45~ site coverage. The landscaping minimum is 30~ of the site. With the proposed SDD 56~, remains as landscaping. In respect to setbacks, 20 feet is required on all sides of the property. The built SDD encroaches into the setbacks in many areas. The new proposal on the west side of the property encroaches into the 20 foot setback on the western property line where the existing parking structure (setback of 5') is extended to the south. All parking requirements are met per the Town of Vail parking code with the allowance of 5 valet parking spaces. Each timeshare unit has 2 spaces and each employee unit has Z.5 spaces. IV. EVALUATION OF UNDERLYING HDMF ZONE DISTRICT FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 7 A. Suitability of the orooosed zoning. The existing zoning is Special Development District for this site. A specific underlying zone district is not identified in the SDD ordinance. For the purpose of clarity, it is appropriate to apply underlying HDMF/PA zoning to the entire SDD. The intent is to not tamper in any way with the existing development on the site but to provide an underlying zone district that can be used as a guide far the review of any future proposals. In addition, it is appropriate to apply HDMF due to the request for timesharing for Tract 1. Timesharing would not be approved for any other portion of the SDD unless the applicant requested to amend the SDD in the future. B. Is the amendment bresentina a convenient. workable relationshib within land uses consistent with municipal objectives. Staff prepared a chart titled "Development Analysis" in order to compare the proposed SDD with surrounding properties. As indicated by this chart, there are a number of properties developed beyond what is proposed on the Marriott site such as the Antlers, Landmark, Vantage Point, Montaneros, Lionsquare Lodge and the Doubletree Hotel. Staff believes that the proposal is in concert with many of the policies outlined in the Land Use Plan, The site is identified as being in the Resnrt Accommodation and Service Cateaorv defined below: . 5 "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 c~..~~«ercial and business services included. Also allowed in this category, would be institutional uses and various municipal uses." (Please see Special Development District Memo concerning this project and its relation to the Land Use Plan and surrounding neighborhood). In the Land Use Plan analysis, a development scenario was selected based on market demands and the desires of the citizenry. The Plan states (page 30): "The public input had shown a general satisfaction with the location of existing land uses, which was used as the foundation foe the preferred development alternative..." The most important goals culled from the public meetings were used to formulate the Trends Alternative. These key goals are as follows: A. Commercial Uses 2) Commercial growth should be concentrated primarily in existing commercial areas to acc..~.....odate both local and visitor needs. 3) New hotels should continue to be located primarily in the Village and Lionshead areas. C. Village/Lionshead Core Areas. 1} Increased density for commercial, residential and lodging uses in the Core areas would be acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is being preserved. This proposal supports the Land Use Plan "key goals" in that the expansion occurs in an already developed area of Lionshead, the uses proposed support the desire far timeshare, and the design of the proposal is respectful of surrounding properties and the character of the West Lionshead Circle area. • 6 • C. Does the rezoning r~rovide for the arowth of an orderly, viable community? The staff believes that the Special Development District expansion does provide for the orderly development of the community. We believe that the project enhances many of the community's goals outlined in the Land Use Plan. The time share use is also specifically given support in the Land Use Plan. The suitability for this property for infill development is discussed in detail in the SDD memo in respect to traffic, density, design etc. which all relate to "orderly development." IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the application of the High Density Multi Family zone district to Tract 1 and Public Accommodation to Tract 2 as underlying zone districts to the Special Development District No. 7. We believe the request meets all of the three criteria for a zoning review. It is our opinion from staff research that the underlying zoning on Tract 1 appears to have been HDMF and Tract 2 appears to have been zoned PA and possibly HDMF. By approving the request, the underlying zoning is clarified for the existing SDD and any possible future SDD amendments. • • , i• i• i• Z ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_E ~~VV ~V ~ ~ O ~ ~ p ~ T 11~ T ~ O $ ~ ~ ~ ~ oD ~ A ~ ~ Q~0_ Y _~ L3" 9 ^ L a a s M ~ N ~ ~ Q ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o M o ~ ~ N Q W ~iUQ Z C'J N ... H Z W a U H 2 W 2 z U Z Y Q m ~• C! W ~ ~ ~ h a .~~r:~ i'r:#YI~' 'FI . W ~ . 1 L `gay R_ ~_ .':: . O h , N .. N ~ ; ~. ~ O N ~ ~ ~ Q h ~ (~ ~ U ~ 0 ~ 0 ::: ::' ~ '~> v < :;L: ~: - ;: ;.w.r ~:` L ~ ~: ~ U i ~ ~ C ~ ~ N ~ (~ ~C ,~ a w Lr ~ ~ ~ JAY K. F~x~RS~N nxroxnnEx ~ t~~ S Ul7E 907 VAIL NATEONAL BANrc eUILOINU 108 SOUTH fiRONTAGE ROAl7 WEST ,~~+~<' M1+:Y .IAY K. PETERSON VAII., CALORt1A0 816b7 MEMORANDUM TO: KRISTAN PRTTZ, TOWN OF VATL, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: JAY K. PETERSON DATE: AUGUST 2~, 1990 RE: REZONING DF THE MARRTOTT MARK HOTEL Dear Kristan: TELEPHONE +9091 476-0092 FAX LINE ! 3031 479-0467 The following is a quick synopsis of why we are currently asking for a rezoning of SDD#7 to Public Accommodation, and High Density Multi--Family. During the course of working with the Town Staff and the Planning Commission it became evident that the underlying zone district for SDD~7 was somewhat confused due to past documentation of SDD#7. Fairly late in the process and during presentation to the Planning Commission it was suggested by the Planning Commission that in order to clear up any past confusion regarding underlying zoning and in order to have a base line from which to compare the proposed changes in the Special Development District we should request a rezoning of the property to an underlying zone district. We therefore complied with that request. We then submitted an application to zone the property "HDMF" as that would allow the use for time-sharing. Obviously the standards set forth in the original SDD Ordinance, as amended from time to time, would control the entire project. After being passed on first reading by the Town of Council, the Town Council decided not to rezone the property and turned down the Ordinance on second reading. The reasons were somewhat confusing, however, based upon review of the video tapes of the meetings, it would appear that the major concern was that time-sharing could then be used in the existing hotel. We therefore revised our request for rezoning to place a portion of the property upon which the existing hotel is situated in the Public Accommodation zone which would not allow time-sharing and which best conforms the existing uses and density on the site. At the same time the portion upon which the time-sharing project would be situated would be placed into the High Density Multi-Family zone which would allow the time-share use and which would also best conform to the uses and density which we propose. ~1 Memorandum August 24, 1990 Page 2 • While there is no legal requirements for the rezoning of the property we felt it was important to address the concerns of the Town Staff and the Planning Commission to not only clarify past zoning on the property, but also to have an underlying zone district for comparison purposes only. During the past Town Council meetings the rezoning issue was completely blown out of shape by Jim Lamont, given the fact that the Special Devel~~~«ent District Ordinance controls all facets of the project and the underlying zoning forms no basis for control except as stated in the Special Development District Ordinance. If you have any questions please contact me at my office. MIN'llTES VAIL TOWN CODNCIL MEETING . JEJLY 17, 1990 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Gauncil was held on Tuesday, July 17, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Jim Gibson Merv Lapin Robert Levine Peggy Osterfoss MEMBERS ABSENT: None TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ran Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first item was a ten year employment anniversary award to Linda Barca. Ron Phillips gave brief background information an Linda who is a Bus Driver with the Public Works/Transportation Department. Skip Gordon made same additional comments, and Mayor Rose thanked Linda far her hard work and her years of service. The next order of business was Citizen Participation. There being none, Council moved on to the third item of business, Item three on the agenda was a Consent Agenda. Based on Council request, Mayor Rose stated all items would be handled separately. Item A was Ordinance No. 20, Series of 199fl, second reading, an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1990, Special Development District No. 4, Section 18.46.100 C, Density Floor Area, Area C Glen Lyon duplex lots to provide for gross residential floor area to be calculated per the requirement of the primary/secondary zone district Section 18.13.fl80 Density Control; and setting forth details in regard thereto (Applicant: 756 of Glen Lyon subdivision property owners}. The title was read in full by Mayor Rose. Kristan Pritz and Shelly Mello made a brief presentation. Jim Gibson stated concerns regarding additional GRFA requests, with Shelly responding that this change was in total conformity with current zoning and lot size. Shelly Mello stated there had been no specific reason for the 4,200 square foot restriction on GRFA in regards to negotiation issue, and that the developer had voluntarily agreed to this provision in order to ensure the quality of the subdivision. Tom Steinberg moved to approve this ordinance on second reading, with a second taming from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Item B under the Consent Agenda was Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 18.26.040 of the Municipal Code to include as a conditional use "Television Stations" in the Commercial Core II zone district (Applicant: Vail/Beaver Creek Television Network). The full title was read by Mayor Rose. Mike Mollica stated there had been one change on]y, and that was to "Section I. Definition of TV Stations." Bill Perkins, representing the applicant, stated he did have a question in regard to the term "satellite dish," and further questions on the two foot diameter requirement and exemptions. Further discussion prompted deleting the verbiage for satellite dishes from the end of Section I. Peggy Osterfoss also requested clarification of th~a production studio and whai views wog i d ae av~.i 1 ~~bl a to the pool i c . Bi 1 ; Perk: i ns stated the puitl i c ~vou'F d be abl E~ to .,,oW ,,,~,~a t.hp nrnduction eauiament with seating provided within the studio, and . ~, Item C under the Consent Agenda was Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance amending SDD No. 23, Vail National Bank, Part of Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village 2nd Filing, I08 South Frontage Road West (Applicant: Vail National Bank Building Carp.}. Mayor Rose read the title of the ordinance in full. dike Mollica indicated numerous changes to the "Whereas" section at the beginning of the ordinance had been included based on a request by Merv Lapin. These changes were to acknowledge the singular and unique situation in which the Bank finds itself. Jim Gibson had questions in regard to future use of this parking facility and the right-of-reverter clause, Specifically, he asked whether the reverter clause had been lifted, stating the reverter clause was of some issue because if in the future the medical facility were not located on this site or if the structure were destroyed and not to be rebuilt, Vail Associates could once again obtain exclusive use of this portion of land which would then negate any parking arrangement the Vail National Bank Building had with the Medical Center, Larry Lichliter with Vail Associates acknowledged the reverter clause situation and stated the clause had not been lifted. However, the situation was one with which they had dealt. Following discussion, Rob Levine moved to approve Ordinance No. 25, with a second coming from Kent Rose. At this point, Jay Peterson asked to table this ordinance in order to clarify the reverter clause question. Rob Levine withdrew his motion, and Kent Rose his second. Peggy Osterfoss then moved to table this Ordinance No. 25~p the August 7 meeting, with a second coming from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken a motion passed 5-2, with Tam Steinberg and Merv Lapin opposing. The fourth item of business was Qrdinance No. 21, Series of 1990 second re n ordinance deli natin an underl in g g y g zone district of high .density multi.-fam Special Development District No. 7,~c6n~rionly`referred to as the Marriott Mark Resort; and setting forth details in regard thereto (714 West Lionshead Circle,, Lots 4, 7, C, D, Block 2, Vail-Lionshead 3rd Filing) (Applicant: M-K Corporation, Mark Lodge Condominiums, and Mark Resort & Tennis Club). Mayor Rose read the full title. Kristan Pritz presented a brief history relating to the application of HDMF zoning to the Special Development District. Because this item had been presented in its entirety at the June 19 evening meeting, Kristan focused on changes that had occurred since that meeting. The GRFA had been reduced to 58,800 square feet, which was a reflection of 56 timesharing units at approximately 1,050 square feet per unit. Ned Gwathmey, architect far the project, explained that a computer analysis presented a refinement of the plan and had altered the original figures and reduced the total GRFA by approximately 8,400 square feet. Kristan explained the consideration of both the Ordinance No. 21, as previously stated, as well as . Ordinance No. 22, relating to amending the 5DD No. 7 to allow timeshare, could be discussed in the same arena, but she asked specifically that individual votes be taken on each of those ordinances. From research staff had put together, it appeared the SDD actually had two underlying zone districts. The eastern Lot 7 had public accommodation zoning. However, that was in conflict with John Ryan, who had prepared the original EIR in 1977 and referenced Lot 7 as being zoned HDMF in his EIR. Lots 4 and 5, which are to the west of Lot 7, appeared to have been zoned HDMF. Staff recommendation for using the HDMF zone district as an underlying zone district to the SDD No. 7 was then presented. Kristan noted several areas regarding HDMF zoning that made this zoning appear appropriate and applicable to the Marriott site. Merv Lapin then raised the issue about the appropriateness of the HDMF underlying zoning for all three lots at the Marriott site. A discussion ensued and it was pointed out by the Town Attorney that the underlying zoning would affect the uses specifically for the SDD and that the Council should consider the criteria from the Vail Land Use Plan and whether this was a furtherance of that Land Use Plan. At this point, Peter Jamar, Jay Peterson, Kaiser Morcus, Ned Gwathmey, Jeff Jacquard, and John Sweeney were introduced, all as representatives of the Marriott Mark application. Peter Jamar responded to suggestions made by members of the Council at the June 19 meeting and indicated that four revisions, commitments, and clarifications were being proposed in a memo from the applicant dated July iO, 1990. 1. GRFA The previous GRFA t~i;;xl prdposad was 7s,2u0 square feet, excluding 4,nt30 fir the ten emnlovee units. After further study and analysis of the floor plan, the -~ 3. Time sharing „ Due to several questions regarding the timeshare nature of the expansion, the applicant had prepared an informational memorandum addressing specific questions and this was included in the Council packet. 4. Left turn lane Asa paint of clarification, the applicant fully understood that if for some reason the overall funding strategy for Frontage Road improvements is not established prior to issuance of the applicant's certificate of occupancy, the applicant may be responsible for 100' of the cost of the left turn lane off the Frontage Road to West Lionshead Circle with a right of reimbursement for costs exceeding their fair share at some future date should an overall funding mechanism be put into place. Kaiser Morcus stated that a $4.5 million upgrade had been planned far the Marriott facility, and this would include a total refurbishment of the interior as well as the exterior. As far as maintenance of the new building, Kaiser explained there was a reserve fund that had been established which represented ten percent of the total operating fund to upgrade and maintain the new facility. At this point, Jay Peterson reminded Council that the applicant was establishing underlying zoning and not changing it; that the original zoning had been placed bark in 1913. Cindy Jacobson presented comments negative to the granting to the approval of this ordinance. Jim Lamont also spoke about the SDD special laws and whether this was being handled in a procedurally correct manner, he noted that with the two zoning districts involved in this property and the most restrictive use should apply. He stated his concern about fractionalization of accommodation units and protecting the bed base and convention business for the Lionshead area, as well as the Town of Vail. Kaiser Morcus reiterated his desire to cater to convention business. Eric Affeldt spoke in regard to clarification of the underlying zoning being HDMF, and restated the actual locations of the parcels in question. Jim Gibson expressed his concern with Ordinance No. 22, the ordinance allowing timeshare development at the Marriott, and stated the report received from the applicant seemed very subjective. He felt that maintenance of privately owned properties was certainly more desirable than the timeshare scenario. Merv Lapin then made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 21, based an his scrutiny of the surrounding neighborhood and noting that the Vail Spa across the street currently is zoned HDMF, Antlers CCII, and the Enzian CCII. Tom Steinberg seconded this motion. Tom Steinberg then withdrew his second explaining he believed the eastern lot, i.e., the actual Marriott physical facility, was to remain public accommodation, and when he understood this was not so, withdrew his second of that motion. Kent Rose then seconded Merv Lapin's motion to approve Ordinance Na. 21. Rob Levine stated that even if the Council approved both Ordinance Nas. 21 and 22 on this evening, if the applicant wanted to do something outside the current SDD, he would have to came in again for a major amendment to the SDD. Merv Lapin called the motion. A vote was taken and the motion failed 2-5, with Rob Levine and Kent Rose voting for approval of Ordinance No. 21, and the remaining five members of Council voting against. Based on this vote, Jay Peterson requested Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1990, be tabled to the next regular meeting of the Vail Town Council, August 7, 1990. Peggy Osterfoss moved to table Ordinance No. 22 to the August 7 meeting, with a second coming from Rob Levine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Eric Affeldt then requested a synopsis of the vote, with reasons from each of the Cauncilmembers to explain their votes. Rob Levine stated. in order to protect the Town of Vail zoning, the entire parcel, i.e., all lots, HDMF seemed to make the most sense and was a cleaner SDD. There was a process already set up for further review and change and he felt that the Town had explicit protection. Lynn Fritzlen felt it was important to establish underlying zoning, but felt that any increase in bulk and mass should not be addressed on a singular basis. Tom Steinberg felt that having split zoning an the property was inappropriate. Kent Rose felt much the same as Rob Levine, stating that rho HDMF ~lr~ady~~_xistEd Q~~ i.-~is parcel, and he felt that HDMF far the western parcel was more appropriate and so should be acknowledged as the - - - - .. ----_.. ~_.___~_~, -~aL......1. h., .~I~.~ The next item of business was Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance modifying Section 18.13.080(A} of the Municipal Code of the TOV regarding density control for the primary/secondary zone district (Applicant: Town of Vail ), Mayor Rose read the full title of the ordinance. Andy Knudtsen stated this amending ordinance was to correct a typographical error. Mike Caciappo asked questions in regard to the affect this ordinance would have on his personal property and was satisfied with the input from staff. Tom Steinberg made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 19 on first reading. Lynn Fritzlen seconded that motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Next was Drdinance No. 24, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vail general fund, capital projects fund, Communities for Drug-Free Eagle Valley fund, special parking assessment fund, Vail marketing fund and the real estate transfer tax fund, of the 1990 budget and the financial plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado;~and authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations as set forth herein. Mayor Rose read the full title. Merv Lapin suggested he ordinarily was not in favor of supplemental appropriation ordinances, but in this case, the majority of items were rollovers from 1989 and passage was appropriate. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 24, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. The next item of business was Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance amending the plan document of the Town of Vail employees' pension plan; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The full title was read by Mayor Rose. Charlie Wick stated that the next three items, Ordinance No. 28, Ordinance No. 29, and Ordinance No. 30 were nearly identical documents, that state law requires separate documents for police and fire as opposed to Town of Vail employees' pension plan, and they must be reviewed independently of each. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 28 on first reading. Lynn Fritzlen seconded that motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance amending the Town's Police and Fire pension plan document subject to approval by sixty-five percent (55~) of the Town's Police and Firemen; and setting forth details in regard thereto, was next on the agenda. Mayor Rase read the title in full. Charlie Wick stated that an election had been held on July 2 and 3, 1990 at the Vail Municipal Building for the Town of Vail and the results were as follows. The Town of Vail has 15 sworn fire personnel with 13 votes cast for amendment six; one vote against amendment six; and one fire personnel not voting; therefore, 93 percent voted for amendment six. In regard to the police election, the Town of Vail has 27 sworn police personnel; 22 votes cast were for amendment six; none voted against amendment six; and five police personnel did not vote; therefore, 82 percent of the sworn police personnel voted for amendment six. in order to pass, 65 percent sworn personnel must vote on an issue. Merv lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 29 on first reading, and Lynn Fritzlen seconded that motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Item ten on the agenda was Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance amending the trust agreement pursuant to the Town of Vail employees' pension plan; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The full title was read by Mayor Rose. This amendment allowed VMRD to have a voting member on the Board of Trustees for the Town of Vail Employees' Pension plan. Merv Lapin moved to approve • this ordinance, and Lynn Fritzlen seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Item eleven was an appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission decision regarding the PEC's denial of a request for a height variance for an addition to Condominium Unit f-6, Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing (1~1 East Meadow Dri~~± - Crescrcads Corodcmi~~iums) (Aapi~ieant: Sid Schultz for H. William Smith). Mike Mollica requested that Council-uphold or overturn the decision of the PEC. The . t~ y ~1 a and two voting against. Rod Slifer spoke on behalf of the applicant, stating it was r important to encourage upgrading of older facilities within the Town of Vail. Lynn ~ritzlen voiced her discontent with the procedures stating that she would prefer having a policy statement rather than treati-lg this as a singular iter~. Mike Mollica stated no additional parking requirement would be necessary since the total square feet of the unit, including the addition, would now come to 1,695 square feet_ A~ggy Osterfoss noted that this was not like other in-fill in the Village, and was more an extension of an existing architectural element. Peggy Osterfoss moved to uphold the Planning Commission's decision for denial of this .request, with a second coming from Kent Rose. Her findings included that this would be a grant of special privilege because the building itself is not a physical hardship. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-C. At this point, Susie Bruce, who was not represented by counsel, requested an audience with the Town Council to discuss the lease for space currently held by the Town of Uail in the Village Inn projett. Her questions related to the term of the lease as well as .the CPI or adjustment over time. Steve Warwick's recommendation was to compromise, with the market value adjustment after five years. He suggested that an appraiser should evaluate the property. This would guarantee after a five year period of time, the Town of Vail would be getting its equitable leasehold space amount. The Council unanimously agreed and gave direction to staff to proceed with signing of the lease with Ms. Bruce. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ATTEST; Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Pam Brandmeyer a ~ ~~ Kent R. Rose, Mayor ` • PTO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM; C~.~,.,,unity Development Department DATE: August 27, 1990 RE: A request fora work session on the Sonnenalp remodel and proposed Special Development District at 20 Vail Road, Part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST On June 25, 1990, a work session was scheduled with the Planning Commission on this project. Attached to this memo are comments from the C~...,..issioners. The applicant has made several changes to the project. The most significant is that the building for the mast part has been pulled out of the 20 ft. setback along Meadow Drive. The height of the tower along Vail Road has also been decreased. Presently, the tower has a proposed height of 78 to 80 ft. The King Ludwig Deck has also been built into the hillside facing Gore Creek. Details on other changes will be explained by the applicant at .the work session. Staff has revised the previous work session memo, However, many of our previous comments still pertain to the proposal. Below is a summary of the request: " Establish SDD with underlying Public Accommodation .Zoning. Please see attached zoning analysis far comparison of SDD to PA requirements. " Increase accommodation units from 72 to 128 units. " Decrease 10 dwelling units to 1 dwelling unit. " Increase commercial space from 5,396 sq. ft. to 14,287 sq. ft. " Maintain all units as lodge units except for 1 dwelling unit. " Underground all parking. Access to structure will be from Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. Existing control gate on east end of Meadow Drive will be moved to the west to allow access. Surface loading will remain on southwest corner of property. " Addition of spa, conservatory and pool amenities inside courtyard. " Construct sidewalk along east side of Vail Road. . No wood-burning fireplaces are requested except for one lobby fireplace. 1 ~II. 70NING ANALYSIS The project departs from the PA standards highlighted in . bald type. 50NNENALP PRELIMINARY ZONING ANALYSIS. UNDERLYING ZONING PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION EXISTING PROJECT* PROPOSED SDD* Site Area: 2.024 acres or 88,265.44 sq. ft. Setbacks: 20 feet all sides Height: 45 ft. mansard roof 48 ft. sloping roof GRFA: 70,532 sq. ft. Units: 25 units per acre, or 50 units for the site. Site Coverage: 55~ of site or ' ~ 48,491 sq. ft. Landscaping: 30~ of site or 26,450 sq. ft. Parking and Per Town of Vail i,oading: parking standards Accessory: 10~s of total GRFA Retail, or 7,053 sq. ft. Eatinq,Drinking, Rec., sq. ft. Common Area: 20~ of Allowed GRFA or 14,106 sq. ft. Same N=Meadow Dr: 20 ft. W=Nail Road: 13 ft. S=Gore Creek: 4.2 ft. E=Talisman: 0 ft. **** 30,122 sq. ft. 46 units (72 a.u. & 10 d.u.} 17,984 sq. ft. or 20 ~ **** Required: 105 Provided: 101 5,396 Same N = 12 ft. W = 3 ft. S = 4 ft. E = 5 ft. 77'-80 ft. Max approx. 72,716 sq. ft. 65 unit s (128 a.u. & 1 d.u.} 45,685 sq. ft. Or 52 **** Req.: 211** or 207*** Prop.:159 spaces 37 valet 196 Total 14,287 20% or 37% or 13,862 sq. ft. 26,153 sq. ft. * All existing and proposed calculations will need to be verified by staff. ** Required parking includes 5~ credit for mixed use development per Town of Vail parking Cade Section 18.52.120. ~* Allows far non-conforming parking credit. **** Information unavailable at this time. 2 YII. PRELIMINARY STAFF COMMENTS, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Heiaht: Tt is positive that the height of the tower along Vail Road has been reduced from approximately 102 ft. to 7~'-80 ft. However, staff strongly encourages the applicant to reduce the height even more. We understand that a certain number of rooms must be obtained in order to construct a project of this magnitude. However, the Vail Village Master Plan calls out for a maximum height of 36 ft. on the southern portion of the site (Please see building height plan). The PA zoning allows for a maximum height of 40 ft. for sloping roofs. The proposal needs to comply with these heights as much as possible. As mentioned in the previous memo, height should terrace down to Vail Road and East Meadow Drive to respect pedestrian areas as well as views from public areas. Talisman/Sonnenalb Coordination--Control Gate: Coordination between the proposed Sonnenalp SDD and Talisman is necessary. Staff encourages the two owners to work together on access, Landscaping, and parking for the two projects in a comprehensive manner. The issue of access to the Sonnenalp property and the question of whether or not the control gate will be removed is also very critical. CRFA Density/Uses: The project still contains 99~ of the units as lodging. This is very positive. In addition, the mix of lodging and commercial is very appropriate and supports the Vail Village Master Plan. Landscapina/Pedestrian Areas: Accessible greenspace areas including pocket parks and stream access per objectives 3.4 and 4.1 of the Vail Village Master Plan should be included in the project. Staff also believes that the pool area and Ludwig Deck could be pulled back away from the creek area to open up the Town of Vail stream tract for public access. n U S~thacks~ Staff believes it is very positive that the applicant has tried to pull the building back from Meadow Drive. We believe the building could actually meet the 20 ft. setback on the north side of the property. Staff would like to see the dining deck preserved on the west side of the property. From the drawings, it appears that a portion of the deck will be removed for a building infill. Emx>lovee Housing: The owner is asked to address the employee housing issue by describing employee demand and including employee units within the project. Parking: All parking should be provided on site. It is very positive that underground parking is proposed. Traffic: A traffic study is absolutely critical. The Town Engineer has indicated his concern that this information be submitted as soon as possible. The plan should also address loading • and delivery. Vail Village Master Plan: In general, the project should respond more to the Vail Village Master Plan. The last memo listed many areas where the project could comply more with the plan. In most cases, the previous staff cu,~u~~ents apply to the revised proposal. A Planning Commissioner at the first work session did mention that Sub-Area Concept 1.5 Willow Bridge Road Walkway should be addressed through the proposal. This section states: "A decorative paver pedestrian walkway, separated from the street and accented by a strong landscaped area to encourage pedestrian circulation along Meadow Drive. Lots of parking will be need to be relocated on site." Staff also agrees that this was a good suggestion and should be considered in other future work on the project. • III.~OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS • 1. Fire Department: " The building must be equipped with fire sprinklers throughout. " Access to the Talisman must be assured as per UFC 10-207 and UFC 10.207 " The existing building must have access per UFC 10,207 or sprinklers " Fire flows must be provided in agreement with Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District via a letter completed. ' 2. Public Works: " Traffic analysis will be required for access points, Vail Road, and the Four Way Stop must be submitted as soon as possib~.e. " The Talisman parking area does not function as designed. " Sidewalk width of 6 ft. minimum on Vail Road will be required for the full length of the project. " The modifications to Vail Road are a concern at this time. However, the Town Engineer is willing to sit down with the applicant to understand exactly what is being proposed. " Drainage improvements along Vail Road and East Meadow Drive will be needed. " Stream walk could be easily accommodated with appropriate screening form the pool and deck area on the Sonnenalp property. 3. Landscape Architect: " The stream walk should be shown on the site plan. " The applicant will need to submit a revised landscaping plan if proposed changes to Vail Road are approved. " Maintenance of landscaped areas and sidewalks should be the owner's responsibility. • The conceptual landscape plan appears to be acceptable. A detailed planting and irrigation plan should be submitted for review. IV. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN A. Sub-Area #1-3. Sub-Area #1-3 states: "Commercial infill development with second floor residential/lodging to enclose Meadow Drive and improve the quality of the pedestrian experience. Designated walkways and plazas with green space should interface with those of the Vail Village Inn. A pedestrian walkway (possibly arcade) should be provided to encourage pedestrian circulation physically removed from West Meadow Drive. Mass of building should not create a shadow pattern on Meadow Drive. Development will require coordination and/or involvement with adjacent property owners. Existing and new parking demand to be provided an site." B. Sub-Area #1-5. Sub-Area #1-5 states: "A decorative paver pedestrian walkway, separated form the street and accented by a strong landscaped area to encourage pedestrian circulation along Meadow Drive. Loss of parking will need to be relocated on site." C. Emphasized Goals & Policies. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. s 2.6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 3.1. Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 4.1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 5.1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. 6.1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities far existing and new development. D. Illustrative Plans. 1. Land Use Plan: a. North side of site, "Mixed Use." This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail and a limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270,000 square feet of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. b. Sr~~ath side of site. "Medium/High Density Residential." The overwhelming majority of the Village's lodge rooms and condominium units are located in this land use category. Approximately 1,100 units have been developed on the 27 • acres of private land in this category. In addition, another 110 units are approved but unbuilt. It is a goal of this Plan to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging oriented with retail development limited to small amounts of "accessory retail." 2. Open Space Plan: a. "Planted Buffer" is designated on north and west side of site. b. "Plaza with green soace" is designated on north side of property connecting to the Vail Village Tnn and on eastern property adjacent to WI sculpture plaza. c. "Oben Soace" is designated along stream corridor. 3. Parking and Circulation Plan: a. East Meadow Drive is designated as a bus route, and Gore Creek Corridor is designated as a study area for a walking path. • 4. Building Height Plan: a. The area along East Meadow Drive is recommended to be a maximum of two to three stories or 18 to 27 ft. high. Three to four stories {27 ft to 36 ft.) is designated on the southern three quarters of the property. (A11 heights exclude roof forms.) Please note PA zoning also allows a maximum height of 48 ft. far sloping roofs. V. LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Plan refers to the Vail Village Master Plan for reviewing any requests for redevelopment. VI. ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Sun/Shade Analysis on East Meadow Drive and Vail Road. 2. Traffic Analysis. 3. Employee Housing Demand Analysis and Proposed Employee Housing. • 8 4. Written statement listing reasons why SDD is necessary . and depart from PA zone district requirements. Zoning analysis for SDD compared to PA standards. 5. Written statement comparing proposal to Vail Village Master Plan Goals and Policies, Sub-Areas, and Illustrative Plans. 6. Written statement addressing phasing for the project and construction management. 7. Revised plans excluding Talisman improvements unless proposal from Talisman is to be reviewed simultaneously, 8. A vicinity plan showing all adjacent properties and buildings particularly WI, Vail National Bank, Ski Museum Site and Intersection, Talisman, Gore Creek, and Chapel at a minimum scale of 1"= 50'. 9. Additional view analyses from: a. Ski Museum pocket park looking toward project (SE) b. Meadow Drive looking East from fire station/bank area to project. c. Bank entry looking east to project. • 10. Amore detailed landscape plan indicating trees removed, added landscaping, any landscaping on Town of Vail property, water features, artwork, paths, plazas etc. per Section 18.40.050 - 11. 11. EIR should address 18.56.040 requirements below: a. Drainage and any improvements along Creek. b. Air Quality c. Visual Conditions (per request in # 9 of staff list) d. Land Use Plan e. Circulation Pedestrian and Vehicular f. Population densities (per request in # 3 of staff list). 12. Survey should indicate 50 ft. creek setback and creek centerline. 13. Height Analysis using roof plan on survey indicating roof elevations and existing and finished grades. Base elevations must be verified by a surveyor. Existing and finished grades must be indicated on elevation drawings. • 9 14. Site Coverage Analysis for existing and proposed development completed by red-lining survey and proposed site plan. 15. Indicate 20 ft, setbacks on all sides of property on site plan. 16. Square footage-redlined drawings for GRFA, retail, accessory and back of house uses. 17, South elevation drawing and interior courtyard elevations. 18. Identify public benefits resulting from Project. 19. 8-1/2"X11" drawings are required for PEC and Town Council. 20. Title report showing ownership and easements. 21. Application fee of $500.00 22. Outside consultant shall be required per Section 18.40.130, fees for this project. Jeff Winston will work with the staff on the SDD. The specific amount for the consultant fee will be determined by staff. C~ • 10 r~~~ 11 . r~ • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JUNE 25, 1990 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Ludwig Kurz Jim shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams Members Absent Connie Knight Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Shelly Mello Andy Knudtsen Penny Perry In the interest of time, work sessions were held prior to the public hearing beginning at 12:44 p.m. A request for a work session on the Sonnenalp redevelopment and, proposed Special Development District at 20 Vail road, Part of Lot L. Block 5-E. Vail Villaae 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. Kristan Pritz explained that the request was for the redevelopment of the Sonnenalp property and a proposed Special _._~ Development District. She gave a brief summary of the request and reviewed the zoning analysis. She reviewed those items • related to the project found within the Vail Village Master Plan including Sub-Area #1-3, emphasizing Goals & Policies, and Illustrative Plans. She also provided corresponding preliminary staff comments. Kristan then relayed comments made by the Fire Department and Public Works. This was a work session, so no recommendation was made. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, explained that they , were before the board on a preliminary basis and simply wanted comments and suggestions so they could move ahead with the design process. Irene Westby, manager of the Talisman, explained that the owners had discussed the proposal, though not in depth, regarding coordination with the Sonnenalp on landscape and parking. As the manager, she would encourage the board to move faster. They do have concerns with parking, landscape and fire access. Jay explained that he had met with the president of the association and the Sonnenalp had offered access through the Sonnenalp structure. Marilyn Fletcher, a Talisman condominium owner, felt the proposal was very nice looking. She was concerned about the setbacks and ingress/egress. 1 Dent Rose, speaking for himself as a Council Member, felt that the zoning analysis found within the memo was well prepared. In the future, he would like to see a comparison of the SDD with the Village Master Plan as well. He suggested to Xristan to adc~ this comparison to the present chart. He stated that the additional comparison could help him lean more favorable toward the project. As it was currently depicted, the project looked too large. Larry Eskwith explained that he would prefer that the Council members not participate in the PEC meeting. The Council is a quasi-judicial board and he felt their participation could cause legal problems. Diana asked if they could speak in a general sense or at a minimum ask questions, and Larry said "yes." Merv Lapin felt that page 2 of the memo was the key. When an SDD is proposed, there should be trade-offs. He wanted to know what these trade-offs were. He felt that staff presented the trade- offs in respect to the Marriott project well. Regarding the Marriott project, he felt that too much time was spent comparing the original application to the current proposal. Merv agreed with Larry Eskwith, that the Council's comments should be limited at this point. The Council was in a quasi-judicial role. Kristan explained that the Planning Commission simply wanted general comments and issues that the Council felt needed to be addressed. Lynn Fritzlen asked if staff could restate the purpose of applying underlying zoning and Kristan explained that there were basically two reasons. The first was to identify the uses possible on the site and the second was used to compare the proposal with the underlying zoning requirements which PEC and Council always request staff to do. Jay Peterson addressed the trade-off issue. He stated that the Sonnenalp building could meet the PA criteria, however, the building design would became a terrible bulky mass in the middle of the lot. He also felt that the proposed use of 99~ hotel rooms was a trade-off. Also, the proposal was not far over GRFA. The current proposal was at 32 units per acre compared to the 25 units per acre called for under PA zoning. Peggy Osterfoss stated that it would be helpful if all parties concerned had a copy of the Vail Village Master Plan. Jim Shearer felt it was extremely important for the Sonnenalp to work with the Talisman regarding parking and landscaping, He was concerned about the Ludwig deck and its impact on the creek area. He also wanted to see the employee housing issue addressed. He was very concerned about the height creating a crowded feeling on 2 Meadow Drive. He understood Jay's comments regarding the bulk in the middle of the lot, but felt that the mass could be pulled off of Meadow Drive and a mare attractive walk created. He felt the approach would create more interest for the retail area. Jim also felt a phasing plan was needed. Jim liked the increase in lodging units, underground parking, and felt that the Faesslers were good managers. He had same concern about the amount of retail space and density. He prefered the tower as an architectural feature as opposed to a "building" providing living area in the tower. Kathy Warren asked if the staff could total all the sq. footage calculations (GRFA, Accessary etc..) on the charts in the future, From what she could quickly calculate, the proposal was aver PA zoning by 25~. Kathy felt she could not support setback variances far Vail Road, Meadow Drive or the Stream and she felt that the heights called for by the Master Plan should be adhered to. Though slightly under on site coverage and over on landscaping, the landscaped area is private and should be opened up and more inviting to the public. Creek access is important. Kathy felt employee housing was necessary and would like to see it on site. The Talisman parking should also be addressed. Na variances an parking should be given. Lodge use is very goad. She is looking for the public good in respect to the project. Kathy felt that, because it was a hotel, she was not as concerned with units per acre as she was with GRFA, She did not see much in the way of benefits for the Town. Jay, in response to the employee housing issue, stated that the Faesslers own 24 units in Solar Vail as well as some units in Bighorn. Chuck Crist stated that he had always wanted to see the site developed. He had concerns about the tower. He stated that he was not as concerned with setbacks with the exception of Meadow drive. The mass on Meadow Drive needs to be broken up. The loss of landscaping is a problem. He also would like to see employee housing incorporated into the project on site, He felt that the Town would be losing green space and the stream would be blocked from the public and he liked the amount of retail space proposed. He liked the underground parking. Dalton was very concerned with the setbacks as they related to the transfer of open space from public areas to private areas. The 20 foot setback must be maintained. The berm, per the Vail Village Master Plan, should be kept. He felt that the building, along Meadow Drive, should be stepped back in order to avoid a "canyon" affect. He did not feel he could approve the requested setback variances. The parking for the entire project including Talisman and Swiss House must be addressed. 3 lton continued by quoting the Vail Village Master Plan Sub-Area -5 Willow Bridge Road Walkway as stating: "A decorative paver pedestrian walkway, separated from the street and accented by a strong landscaped area to encourage pedestrian circulation along Meadow Drive. Loss of parking will need to be relocated on site." Dalton felt that the ingress/egress should be on the east side of the Sonnenalp by Village Center {Swiss House) and the planter along Meadow Drive must stay. Dalton also felt that the building should be pulled back to buffer noise from bus traffic. He felt that the gate should be moved east and felt that the mass and bulk was not compatible with East Meadow Drive. Dalton felt that the 48 foot height requirement should be strictly adhered to, a 101' tower was out of the question and the King Ludwig deck should be stepped down towards the creek. The deck creates too much of a wall. Dalton felt that the employee housing should be on-site and that the proposal was taking open space and landscaping away from the public. The applicant should put in public spaces, like a stream walk. He commended the Faesslers for being excellent hoteliers. Ludwig complimented the Faesslers for running a "class operation." Ludwig Kurz felt the proposal needed a comprehensive parking plan as well as an access study. He felt he could give some leeway with the height and mass, however, the building still needed work. Ludwig felt that the walkway and loading area were in conflict and need a better interface. Jay stated that the loading area was located by default. Ludwig also felt that the internal open space was maximized at the sacrifice of areas along Meadow Dr. and Vail Road. Diana stated that the proposal disregazded the Vail Village Master Plan. She questioned whether parking for commercial would be accessible and reserved for cu,~u~~ercial. Jay said space would be made available to customers. She felt that the building was beautiful but would be more appropriate on large acreage. Diana felt that a streamwalk should be proposed and the parking situation concerned her. Jay explained that he felt the parking regulations pertained to smaller hotel rooms. The proposed parking would work similar to Crossroads and the gate would be relocated. Diana felt that the loading needed to be either moved away from the creek or improved. Parking for Swiss House and Talisman needs to be figured out. The role of the Talisman also needs to be defined, Employee housing must be addressed - perhaps permanently restrict what Sonnenalp already has for employee units. She felt it was important to know what the Talisman's intentions were soon and what would be done. Diana also had concerns regarding the setbacks along Meadow Drive and Vail Road. She didn't have a problem with a variance for an architectural statement, however, the height in general must be reduced. Diana was concerned whether an SDD was realy necessary. She questioned the benefit of the project to the public and stated more general public improvements were needed. Kathy Warren felt that and that the applicant pedestrian level. She needed to be addressed felt the commercial scx housing demand. the trash situation needed to be addressed needed to soften the approach at the also felt that new employee housing units in addition to those already owned. She pare footage also contributed to employee Say felt that an additional employes unit requirement would be penalizing the applicant for having the foresight to purchase the units. The applicant purchased the Solar Crest units with the intention of completing the redevelopment currently proposed. Tom Steinberg commented that he felt the proposal was going in the correct direction. He also agreed with Diana that he was not sure an SDD would be needed. A rernzest f_or a work session for an exterior alteration, a site coverage variance. a height variance. a landscape variance and a. fJ_ood.n7_~in mod;i,fi,c~,ti;on, fir t-he Cpverecl. Br. i_e~.~xe Building. located on Lot C and Lot D. and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in 131gck 5-B. Tail Vi_1,1.aae 1st Filing. 227 Bridge S~kreet. Anolicant: Hillis of Snowmass. 2nc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. Mike Mollica explained that the applicants were proposing a major redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building. The proposal called for major modifications to the front entrance of the existing commercial spaces, the creation of lower level commercial spaces, infill on the north and northwest sections of the existing structure, the addition of an elevator, and the addition of two upper floors. The request involved 5 separate applications, an exterior alteration request, a site coverage variance, request, a height variance request, a landscape variance request, and a floodplain modification request, Mike reviewed the applicable zoning considerations and gave preliminary staff comments. Since this was a work session, no staff recce„~„~endations were made. Kathy Warren asked what the allowed GRFA was and Mike explained . that the survey was not finished and therefore calculations were not made with regard to GRFA. Ned Gwathmey, project architect, felt that they would be within what was allowed. Ned explained the changes that were made since the staff memo was written. The only issue he felt that the PEC might be concerned about was the height of the new roof line. The new proposal did, however, eliminate the flat roof design. He explained that the ~~ 5 TO: Town Council/Planning and Environmental C~,~~~~~ission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 28, 1990/August 27, 1990 RE: Eagle County referral of a proposed 649' tall tower to be located 2.3 miles northwest of the West Vail/I-70 interchange. Applicant: Global American Sites I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Currently, Eagle County is reviewing a proposal to construct a 649 ft. tall tower approximately 2.3 miles northwest of the West Vail/I-70 interchange. It will be located next to the existing 280 ft. tower. The proposed tower will be 5 ft. in diameter. It will have three sets of guide wires which will be grounded up to 405 ft. from the tower. The most noticeable aspect of the tower will be three sets of white strobe lights located at the base, middle, and top of the tower. These lights will operate 24 hours a day. A building may be built at the base of the tower to house transmitting equipment. The building, if built, will be approximately 30' x 50' and will be two stories tall. The applicant, Global American Sites, claims that the tower is • needed because the existing tower cannot handle additional antennas. The proposed tower will have 850% of the current tower's capacity. In addition to two radio stations using the tower for transmission, the tower would be able to accommodate many other uses including microwave antennas, cellular antennas, 50,000 pagers, medical alert signals for individual people, T.V. antennas, T.V. translators, etc. II. ISSUES: 1. Visibility Of the issues identified in the Environmental Impact Report {EIR} submitted by the applicant, the primary concern is the visual impact. The EIR states that the visibility of the tower will be relatively law because people focus their attention on other points up and down the valley and not on the ridge where the tower will be built. The EIR further states that people do not notice the existing tower without looking for it specifically. However, since the new tower will be approximately 2-1/2 times the height of the existing tower, it will be very evident against the skyline. More importantly, the white strobe lights will make it . highly visible during bath day and night. The impacts of the tower during the night were not analyzed in the EIR, even though this is the time which the tower will be most visible. The strobe lights are the most significant impact of the proposal because they draw attention to the tower at all times of the day. Staff discussed the Federal Aviation Administration {FAA) lighting requirements for towers such as this with an FAA representative. Strobe lighting is not a requirement. The minimum number of lights are four. A11 four would be red and the top and middle lights would have to flash. 2. Height Staff would like to know if a shorter tower could provide an adequate level of service. The EIR states that the higher the tower, the better the angle into the Valley and the better the transmission. However, it does not provide specific details showing the various heights needed to reach the different areas within the Valley. Without these details at this time, staff is not convinced that a 649 ft. tower is justified. Other options may exist. Far example there may be less visual impact with two towers, each half . the height located on different ridges. In summary, staff would like to see a tower that provides as much service as possible with the least amount of height. 3. Location Town of Vail staff would like to have information on why this ridge was chosen and if there are any other sites that are suited which have less impact visually on existing communities. 4. Tower Color The applicants have described an acid treatment for the steel that could be done which would bring it into compliance with the Forest Service standards for reflection. It is unclear how the tower would look and what color it would be, but the EIR infers that the treatment would soften the appearance. More details on this treatment in the EIR should be provided before decisions are made. A potential conflict exists, however, because the acid treatment may not meet the . 2 FAA standards, which may require orange and white • stripes (stripe widths must be one seventh of the tower height). Staff recommends the acid treatment, if possible. However, if it must be painted orange and white, then the EIR should be revised to address the visibility of the paint before the County Commissioners make a decision on the proposal. 5. Additional Towers A last issue is the precedent. How many other towers will be built on this ridge in the future? Staff understands that the owner of the existing tower has only nine years left on his lease. Will the owner of the 649 ft. tower (the potential owner of the land} renew the lease so that the 280 ft. tower will continue to operate? If the lease is nat renewed and the tower is no longer uses, the 280 ft. tower should be removed. If both towers do continue to operate, is 850$ of additional space needed for the Valley? Staff would recommend that the County condition their approval (if approved} to ensure that the ridge will be limited to two towers to avoid having more several towers proposed on this prominent point. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:, . Staff recommends that the PEC/Town Council recommend that the County require a more thorough analysis in the EIR to address the concerns listed above. At a minimum, the strobe lights should be eliminated in exchange for red lights. In general, staff acknowledges that the tower has the potential to benefit the Eagle Valley by providing better emergency services, improved radio and T.V. reception, and unique services that are not currently available. However, staff support of the tower, with these services, is limited to a proposal that has the least amount of impact on surrounding communities. At this time, we still have questions that we believe should be addressed before any final approval is given. Lastly, staff would appreciate the opportunity to review a revised EIR before the County takes final action. • i1 Proposed b49' Tower Exlstin~ M ~St3' Tower Avan 6 EaglelVail Beater C-;,~k 24 • Proposed Site ~Wi#hfn s~(!tiOn 14, TownsE~ip 5 youth, R~n~e 8I West ~~ r~ Vail Mit~turn ' ~~ 0 1 2 4 miles 70 Laca~ian Map Flgure 1 ~~obai American Vail Side ~ag1e County, Colorado EDAW July 1490 • .:-? ,, • ~ ~ 1 i ~rn ~ N ~ ~ z~ XQ m a 'a ~ ~ C U} U ~ vs ~ O W u ~ ~ rr ~H k. c~ 3 3 y ca c~ ~ ~ `.~ . c .~ ~ ~ .r c ..: ~. •~QU > ~~ i ~ ~3 U ° ~~ O_ 3 yo„ a~ ~ O a.a ~ _ ~ ~ ~~ c 3 Oar 3"'y'a~a3~~'~oa .~~ ~ cz a,o S o ,, ~.~ yU~ ~ o ~ .a ~ ~ ~~' w>~ X L CQ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ti ~cq~ ~.~i ~ G3t+.4+ p~sr.rGi a~ ~iii~~ _ Y N ~ C E d~~ S y ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '+ m .•v C 0 ~ cs4 R ~ ¢ p .ts ~ v 'C ~a •• cU~ °jo O 3'~ ~r 3 ~ ~ ~~~ y ~ 3 ~ ~^' ~ a`gy~p ~~. a~w ~ ~ ~~ ~ o cea~Ac~s no ~ ~ o ~ NN a .a '~ ai •c .. ~ - O ti~~y 3~.~ ~.U" ~ ~ ~ ~ R. ~ ~ . ~ `~ O rJ' •~ G `~ ice, ..~'r O O~~ C~ C e ti •O y~ 3 ~b4'C ~ ~ °,..j' ~ sa °..3 G~ ~ r C. n 'vF ~ ,~ ., c ,~ ,3 ~ eo ~ ~ ai °~ ~ 'd *V ~~ ~ a, ~ 3 ~3 '3 y o ~ ~ 3 ~ a O ~ya,c ~~ ~r~•' •c ~ o aai w ~~ o~.o~~ 3~ a,aa'i ~C~U~ a ~ a+ 3 s`~ ~ v ~ ~' ~ U ~ ~'c,~ o~ ~- 3,x.3 ° o o ~ c ~ ~ ,c~ ~ .r o ~ . ~ rte. ~ ,c o ~ ~ o v a 3 w a~^c 3~ ~ ^" v, ~ coo U y U +•+ ~ ~ 't7 O ~ 'q '+,~ N ~ O ~~ C0o ~ C ~ C,p•p ~ ~ c. y _~ .~ ~ ~ C U y~,• a k+~h~~yc-~~ y•rc ~° ~aa~~~ °°' ~ ~ ~~ O '~ cC ~ R. ?~~+ y '.7 V} y 'd y Q~ ~ d ~ G.N ~ OW y ~ iJ ~~~ob.3.~ w33cci~ `~ o ~ c~ o,~ ~ o o -: ;:T ~S ~. ~ ° a, o, ~ ~ 3 3 ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~~•~ ~ ~~ ~vi'rs ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~~ ~ w o c ~C ~~o~ p~p C ^ v '~ cd~p ~ti ~^' '~ A ..+ a td ~ r' Cy~ ~ 5 VI Cti o en y a c3v F a~w~y?~ ~ s'f '.r3 ~ ~ ., '~ '" O w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 F 3 0 `~ ~ rq ~ ,~ '' O ., .,. U w „q O ~ ¢ ~ ¢I a Cp v o c~tx,~ r,,~ c3 rn O ,, e,_, yr •• ~, o a ~•~~~~~~,~ O y p ~ v ~'p '~ ~ p .~ ~ R E N O .~ C •~ ~~ " V o ~:~y~~~9~~ c t~ ~~ off' ~ ~s~ ~3 • TO: Planning and Environmental C~l~u~~ission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 27, 1990 RE: An appeal of a staff decision concerning GRFA for Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch (754 Potato Patch Drive) Applicant: Mike Lauterbach I, DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Mike Lauterbach, the owner of Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch, has appealed a decision of the planning staff concerning the determination of Gross Residential Floor Area {GRFA}for this lot. The staff position is that the Primary/Secondary structure, which is currently under construction, is presently 881 sq. ft. over the allowable GRFA for the site. C7 II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY A. On March 7, 1990 the Design Review Board granted final approval for the applicant's Primary/Secondary residence. Drawings submitted for the DRB review indicated that 294 sq. ft, of GRFA was remaining at this time. Tn other words, the applicant had not utilized the full GRFA available for the site. B. On March 14, 1990 a building permit was issued to the applicant for the construction of the Primary/Secondary residence. Modifications were made to the approved DRB drawings, however, a building permit was issued. Said modifications included the addition of 499 sq. ft. of GRFA. This additional floor area put the structure 205 sq. ft. over the allowable GRFA for the site. C. On August 3, 1990 a Stop Work Order was issued by the Community Development Department for this lot. The reason for this Stop Work Order was that the project violated the allowed GRFA for the property. In addition, discrepancies with regard to approved retaining walls versus constructed retaining walls was also noted. The walls currently on site are not built per the approved building permit plans. • D. On or about August 15, 1990, the applicant submitted a revised set of drawings for the property. At this time the applicant indicated that there were certain modifications made to the structure not in conformance with the approved DRB plans. Upon analysis by the staff, these "as-built" plans indicate that the project is now 319 sq. ft, over the allowed GRFA for the site. In addition to this, an over-excavated area of approximately 562 sq. ft., which is located beneath the existing garage on the east half of the duplex, would also need to be counted as GRFA. In total, the project is 881 sq. ft. over the allowable GRFA. E. On August 17, 1990 determination that power to negotiate beyond what is ai1+ The staff position the allowable GRFA not give the staff overage. the Town staff made the it is not within our administrative a solution to the GRFA problem, awed by the zoning on the property. is that the project must conform to on the lot. The Zoning Code does any discretion to approve a GRFA III. BUILDING CODE CONSIDERATIONS Section 303 (C) of the Uniform Building Code--Validity of the Permit also relates to the GRFA issue. It states: "The issuance or granting of a permit or approval of plans, specifications and computations shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval af, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. No permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code shall be valid. The issuance of a permit based upon plans, specifications and other data shall not prevent the building official from thereafter requiring the correction of errors in said plans, specifications and other data, or from preventing building operations being carried on thereunder when in violation of this code or of any other ordinances of this jurisdiction." IV. DECISION REQUESTED OF THE PEC The PEC is asked to review the applicant's appeal and, pursuant to Section 18.66.030 of the Town's Zoning Code, either confirm, reverse or modify the action of the Zoning Administrator. DESIGN REVIEW BGARD ZONE CHECK FOR SFR, R, RP/S ZONE DISTRICTS • DATE: LEGAL: LOT BLOCK FILING ADDRESS: OWNER: PHONE # ARCHITECT: PHONE # LOT SIZE: 20,904.0 PROPOSED USE: ZONE DISTRICT: SFR RES R P/S Y N N GRFA ALLOWED ON SITE 4,341.0 ALLOWED SITE COVERAGE 4,181.8 SITE COVERAGE USED 2,838.0 SITE COVERAGE REMAINING 1,343.8 ' LANDSCAPE COVERAGE 12,545.4 TOTAL GRFA USED ON SITE 4,Q47.0 MAX. SQ.FT. FOR SECONDARY UN R 1,736.4 STATUS OF SECONDARY UNIT 8 40?: (74.6) FLOOR TOTAL GARAGE STORAGE MECH. STAIR AIRLOCK VOID BASEMENT SQ.FT. 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S 1ST. FLOOR SQ.FT. 1,075.0 584.0 44.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E 2ND. FLOOR SQ.FT. 1,035.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 103.0 28.0 18.0 C 3RD. FLOOR SQ.FT. 662.0 0.0 69.0 O.D 97.0 0.0 0.0 0 LOFT FLOOR SQ.FT. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 N TOTALS 2,772.0 584.0 134.0 0.0 200.0 28.0 18.0 D TOTAL GR055 SQ.FT. 2,772.0 A CREDIT TOTALS #GAR.speces 2.0 584.0 134.0 0.0 200.0 25.0 18.0 R GRFA ALLOWED 4,341.0 Y TOTAL CREDITS 961.0 ' GRFA USED 1,811.0 GRFA REMAINING 2,530.0 CREDITS REMAKING 16.D 56.0 50.0 0.0 (3.0) 0.0 FLOOR BASEMENT SQ.FT. P 1ST. FL40R SQ.FT. R 2ND. FIODR SQ.FT. 1 3RD. FLOOR SQ.FT. M LOFT FLOOR SQ.FT. A TOTALS R Y CREDIT TOTALS GRFA ALLOWED U TOTAL CREDITS N GRFA USED I =GRFA REMAINING T CREDITS REMAKING TOTAL a51. o 1,325.0 1,oa1.D 0.0 0.0 3,257.0 YGAR.spsces 2.0 2.530.0 1,021.0 2,236.0 294.0 GARAGE STORAGE MECH. STAIR AIRLOCK VOID 0.0 80.0 40.D 0.0 0.0 0.0 555.0 55.0 0.0 107.0 0.0 D.0 o.D , 31.o D.o 1DD.o 2s.o 2a.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 555.0 166.0 40.0 207.0 28.0 28.0 TOTAL GROSS 50.FT. 3,257.0 555.0 156.0 40.0 207.0 25.0 28.0 45.0 34.0 10.0 0.0 (3.0) 0.0 bi.0 100.0 bO.O 0.0 (b.0) D.0 TOTAL UNUSED CREDITS 215.0 BUILDING PERMIT ZONE CHECK FOR SFR~ R, RP/5 ZONE DISTRI075 GATE: LEGAL: LOT BLOCK FILING ADDRESS: OWNER: PHONE # ARCHITECT: PHONE # LOT SIZE: 20,909.0 PROPOSED USE: FLOOR BASEMENT SQ.FT. S 1ST. FLOOR SC1.FT. E 2ND. FLOOR SOFT. C 3RD. FLOOR SQ.FT. 0 LOFT FLOOR SG.FT. N TOTALS D A CREDIT TOTALS R GRFA ALLOWED Y T07AL CREDITS GRFA USED GRFA REMAINING CREDITS REMANING FLOOR P BASEMENT SC.FT. 157. FLOOR SA.FT. R 2ND. FLOOR 50.FT. I 3RD. FLOOR 5t1.FT. M TRANSFER OF CREDIT A TOTALS R Y CREDIT TOTALS GRFA ALLOWED U TOTAL CREDITS N GRFA USED I GRFA REMAINING T CREDITS RENAMING ZONE DISTRICT: SFR RE5 R P/5 Y N # GRFA ALLOWED ON S1TE 4,341.0 ALLOWED SITE COVERAGE 4,181.8 SITE COVERAGE USED 2,838.0 SITE COVERAGE REMAINING 1,343.8 LANDSCAPE COVERAGE 12,545.4 TOTAL GRFA USED ON 51TE 4,546.0 MAX. SQ.FT. FOR SECONDARY UNIT 1,736.4 STATUS OF SECONDARY UNIT 8 4DX (270.6) TOTAL GARAGE STORAGE MECH. STAIR AIRLOCK VOID 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.o 1,16o.D 618.0 52.0 0.o D.o D.o a.D 1,118.D 0.0 26.0 0.0 114.0 2b.0 13.0 717.0 0.0 b2.0 0.0 96.0 0.0 D.D D.a o.o 0.0 0.0 0.o D.O D.o 2,995.0 618.0 140.0 D.0 210.0 26.0 43.0 #GAR.spaces 2.0 4,341.0 988.0 2,007.0 2.334.0 TOTAL 958.0 1,485A 1,168.0 0.0 0.0 3,611.0 #GAR.spaces 2.0 2,334.0 1,072.0 x,539.D (205.0) TOTAL UNUSED CREDITS TOTAL GROSS SOFT. 2,995.D 600.0 14D.0 0.0 210.D 25.0 13,0 (18.0) b0.0 50.0 0.0 {1.0) 0.0 GARAGE STORAGE MECH. STAIR AIRLOCK VOID D.0 89.D O.D 0.0 0.0 0.0 585.0 53.0 40.0 111.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.0 O.D 104.0 29.0 f8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 603.0 f74.0 40.0 215.0 29.0 18.0 TOTAL GR055 Sa.FT. 3,611.0 600.0 174.0 40.0 215.0 25.0 18.0 (3.0) 1zo.o (z1.D) z6.o 10.0 o.a t4.o) D.o 8b.0 6D.0 0.0 (5.0) 0.0 • A5-BUILT ZONE CHECK FOR SFR, R. RP/5 ZONE DISTRICTS DATE: LEGAL: LOT BLOCK FILING ADDRESS: OWNER: PHONE # ARCHITECT: PHONE # LOT SIZE: 20,909 PROPOSED USE: 20NE DISTRICT: SFR RE5 R P/S Y N N GRFA ALLOWED ON SITE 4341 ALLOWED SITE COVERAGE 4181.8 SITE COVERAGE USED 2838 SITE COVERAGE REMAINING 1343.8 LANDSCAP COVERAGE 12545 FLOOR TOTAL GARAGE 5TORAGE MECH. STAIR AIRLOCK VOID BASEMENT SOFT. 1,170 558 35 53 O 0 0 1ST. FLOOR SQ.FT. 1,174 0 27 0 11i 25 15 2ND. FLOOR SQ.FT. 718 0 65 0 97 0 0 3RD. FLOOR SQ.FT. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 12 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 3,Ob2 558 139 53 208 25 15 TOTAL GROSS SO FT. 3,052 CREDIT TOTALS #GAR.spaces 2 558 139 SO 208 25 15 GRFA ALLOWED 4,341 TOTAL CREDITS 99S GRFA USED 2,067 GRFA REMATNING 2,274 CREDITS RfMAH[NG 42 61 (3) 0 0 0 FLOOR TOTAL GARAGE STORAGE MECH. STAIR AIRLOCK VOID BASEMENT SQ.FT. 940 0 124 0 0 0 0 1ST, FLOOR SQ.FT. 1,500 587 S5 40 109 0 0 2ND, FLOOR 5Q.FT, 1,238 0 33 0 105 32 16 3RD. FLOOR SQ.FT. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TRANSFER OF CREDIT 0 O 0 3 o G O TOTALS 3,67$ 587 212 43 214 32 1b TOTAL GR0S5 SQ.FT. 3,678 CREDIT TOTALS #GAR.spaces 2 587 200 43 214 2S ib GRFA ALLOWED 2,274 TOTAL CREDITS 1,085 GRFA USED 2,593 3 GRFA REMAINING ' (319) CREDITS REMAKING 13 {12) 7 0 (7} 0 TOTAL UNUSED CRED ITS 101 55 49 4 0 (7) 0 1 L_.J • town of nail 75 south trontage road vakf, Colorado 81657 (33)479-2#38 (303) 479-2139 August 21, 1990 Mr. Mike Lauterbach P.O. Box 3451 Vail, CO 81658 office of cammunily development RE: Lot 3, Block 2 Vail Potato Patch/Duplex GRFA Dear Mike: On August 3, 1990 your primary/secondary development on the above lot was issued a stop work order by the Community Development Department. The reason for the stop work order was that the project violated the allowed GRFA for the property. In addition, there is also a problem with the retaining wall. The walls are not built per the approved building permit plan. On August 15, 1990, a meeting was held to review the GRFA problem with you. Gary Murrain, Mike Mollica and T attended the meeting with you. on August I'1, 1990, Ron Phillips, Larry Eskwith, Gary Murrain, Mike Mollica, and I met to review the Town's position to come to a resolution for the GRFA problem. We can approve the structure at a square footage of 4341 sq. ft. This amount is what the current zoning allows even though this is larger than what the DRB approved plans indicate. The Town staff has determined that it is not within our administrative power to negotiate a GRFA solution beyond what is allowed by the zoning on the property. Staff must maintain the position that the project conform to the allowed GRFA for the lot. The zoning code does not give the staff any discretion to approve a GRFA overage. Section 303 (c) of the Uniform Building Code--Validity of Permit also relates to the GRFA issue. Yt states: C] MIKE LAUTERBACH . LE'~TER, PAGE 2 "The issuance or granting of a permit or approval of plans, specifications and computations shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. No permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code shall be valid. The issuance of a permit and other data shall not thereafter requiring the specifications and other operations being carried this code or of any other based upon plans, specifications prevent the building official from correction of errors in said plans, data, or from preventing building on thereunder when in violation of r ordinances of this jurisdiction." In order to resolve the GRFA issue, you have two options using the municipal review processes. The first is to appeal the staff decision to the Planning Commission. Tf the appeal is received by August 22 by 5:00 p.m., the staff will schedule your request for the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission will review the issue and make a decision. This decision will be final unless an adjacent property owner appeals the Planning Commission decision or the Town Council calls it up. The PEC decision of August 27th will be reported at the August 28th Council work session. If the PEC decision is appealed or called up by the Town Council it will be reviewed at the September 4th evening Council meeting. The staff has also agreed to schedule the GRFA issue as a work session item for the August 28th Council work session. This will give you the opportunity to address the Council personally on the issue before waiting until the September 4th meeting. Secondly, you may submit an application for a GRFA or density variance. The next submittal deadline is August 27th for a September 24th PEC meeting. The Council may also call up a PEC decision on a density variance. If the Council chose to call up the September 24th PEC decision, it would be heard at the October 2 Town Council evening meeting. Attached to this letter are the GRFA calculations for the DRB, Building Permit, and As Built plans. •At this time, the staff is relying on your as-built plans to be accurate. If for any reason you know of any inaccuracies in these plans, I ask that you notify the staff, in writing, immediately. • MIKE LAUTERBACH LETTER, PAGE 3 In addition, the retaining walls have been extended beyond what was originally approved on the building permit. The walls also appear to exceed the height limits. A retaining wall may be a maximum of three feet in the front setback and a maximum of six feet on other areas of the site. I ask that you address this issue by submitting a set of revised plans to our department by August 24, 1990 which meet the zoning code and building code requirements for retaining walls. If you have any further questions about the process, please feel free to call me. Thank you far your assistance on this matter. Sincerely, ~~~-~n ~~~`L Kristan Pritz Community Development Director KP/PP cc: Ron Phillips Gary Murrain . Larry Eskwith Mike Mollica • .~ .~ RF.~'~ A~;~ ~ .~`'~90 ~: MEMO T0: Kristan Pritz Town of Vail Community Development FROM: Mike Lauterbach DATE: August 22, 1990 RE: Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch/Duplex GRFA I am in receipt of your letter dated August 21, 1990. Pursuant to the . contents of that letter, please allow me to confirm that I am appealing the staffs ruling regarding GRFA to the August 27, 1990 meeting of the Planning Commission. Additionally, please include my name and this issue as an agenda item for the Council work session of August 28, 1990 as we discussed. Also, to my knowledge, the as-built plans are totally accurate as submitted. ~ ., ~~ MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION AND TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: MICHAEL LAUTERBACH DATE: AUGUST 27, 1990 RE: LOT 3, BLOCK 2, VAIL/POTATO PATCH I am here to request relief from the zoning guidelines far portions of the east and west residences of a primary/secondary structure located on the above referenced site. The structure has been legally subdivided and the east residence deeded to the Owner. The building is framed with plumbing and electrical installations complete. A stop work order was issued August 3, 1990 pursuant to a crawl space issue. In hindsight and pursuant to the enclosed calculations, the east residence has never been in compliance with allowable GRFA. It . exceeds zoning allowances by 330 square feet and building permit approvals by 60 square feet. The west residence is in compliance with GRFA requirements subject to a crawl space solution. In summary, the DRB process far this building was lengthy starting November 20, 1989 with approval not obtained until March 7, 1990. The project entailed two adapted topographical drawings, three sets of potential building plans, and a PEC variance request which was ultimately withdrawn. As the process was so lengthy, the purchaser requested various changes during this period and I complied. Then, I obviously made an error in calculating GRFA prior to building permit submittals. Even so, the permit submittal plans with noticeable changes were again rechecked far GRFA compliance by the Town prior to issuance of a building permit. The building permit calculation by the Town staff showed approximately 200 square feet of unused GRFA available to the east residence which at the time seemed plausible. I relied an that information and made minor adjustments which added 60 square feet of GRFA to the east residence to satisfy the Owner. I submitted the revisions to the staff upon request. When the crawl space issue surfaced, the staff not~.fied me that 459 square feet was available to satisfy that issue and required that I submit a letter stating that I would forfeit 53 square feet to solve that issue. At that point, I knew that the staff had made a calculation error. The staff also recognized that a mistake had been made and proceeded to recalculate the project GRFA using my as-built plans. The staff's '. Memorandum August 28, 1990 Page 2 U conclusion was that T had added over 500 square feet to the project, the sum of 200 square feet of unused GRFA identified in the permit plans and 330 square feet of calculated excess. It was in excess of a week before they would acknowledge that an error had been made with the issuance of the building permit. Meanwhile, T have been penalized for a month with a stop work order. I believe I have complied fully with the staff's requests, have pursued this project in an honest and diligent manner, and would assume that you would not penalize me for a staff mistake and personal error. I therefore feel justified in requesting that the Town endorse the calculations and credits for GRFA as determined from the original building permit plans as recalculated in August 1990 for the east residence and accept the west residence as conforming. This endorsement would require a 60 square foot reduction in existing GRFA to the east residence. Additionally, the west residence is designated as having a crawl space beneath the garage which currently is enclosed. It is my intention to create a 2 1/2 foot wide and 8 foot high corridor along the north wall to the west side of the building which exposes the crawl space to the outside elements with lattice work arranged to provide numerous one square foot openings. I believe this will negate the current "enclosed" condition of the space and thereby provide conformance with zoning guidelines. In conclusion, the work stoppage is having a substantial physical and emotional affect on me and especially my family. Combining these considerations and the facts, I believe you can be justified in granting me this relief. Thank you for your consideration and fairness. Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch GRFA Analgsis August, 1990 East West Residence Residen ce Lesign Review Board Calculations, March 7, 1990 1,925.4 sf 2,436.1 sf DRB Puns Recalculated, August 1990 1,811 sf 2,236 sf Plans Modified Building Permit Calculations, April 4, 1990 2,154 sf 2,780 sf Per~-it Plans Recalculated August 1990 2,007 sf 2,539 sf As-Built Plans August 1990 2,067 sf 2,593 sf Allowable GRFA 1,737 sf 2,605 sf ~~ 4\ ~~ ~~ --~~ ~ a 1 ~' ~~ S q1 ~l1~ +.. G1. '~ i `~y ..3 ..1 (~\y V ~i a ~~ 4 ~ Q k- a 2 ~ ~ ~' ~ O,. ~- 4 ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ 7 3~ C`1~ l ~, r' . ~ 4~ 4.1 1 I ~` Y- 1` 1 ~ ~ ~ Q I ~~ A f i i V Ii I~1 4 .~ . -,. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 10, 1990 SITE VTSZTS 12;00 Site Visits 1 1:30 A request for a work session for a major change to existing development approval for the Valley, Phase VI. Applicant: Edward Zneimer 2:00 Public Hearing 1. Discussion of Ted Kindel Park Site. 2. Approval of minutes from the August 27, 1990 meeting. 3 3. A request for an exterior alteration in order to construct a 30 sq. ft. expansion on Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lianshead 3rd Filing, 610 W. Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Landmark-Vail Condominium Association 4 4. A request for an exterior alteration on Block SC, Vail Village 1st Filing, 225 Wall Street. Applicant: American Angler/American Ski Exchange 2 5. A request for a work session for a conditional use permit, a stream setback variance and a side setback variance in order to construct a remediation system at the Vail Amoco Service Station, 934 S. Frontage Road. Legal Description as follows: A PRAT OF TriE NE 1 /4 H£ f /4 OF ScCZ0~1 i Z. TOWNSI~IIP 3 501JTF1, RANCE 131 WE57 OF ThE SLXTFI, P1tINGPAI. 1~IE.RIOLW. OE5CR16EO AS FOLLOWS: BEINNINC AT TliE P01NT OF II'iTE.~SECTiON OF THE EAST LINE CF SAID SECTION 12.WITH THE S{3UTI~iERLY RtGI:tT-OF-~XAY LINE OF US. HiC>~twAY N0. ~' 5A10 POINT !?3»''NC Q34.15 F'cEr SOtIT}tEr~RY. FRQM Thli~ NORTHEAST CORNER. OF 5A10 ScCTiGN 12, THENClr WF.~•ctLY ALONG THE SOUTi~ERL'.* RiCHT-OF-WAY LINE.OF SAID HICiiWAY. A QiSTANCc OF 7aQ rcc~. uCR~ OR LESS, TO A POINT ON TF+E.EAST HlCfl WAt~~3 2ANtC OF REq SANDSTONE CR>;DC; TNEriCE SOtl1'~tEr~LY. ALONC TkE 51NUOUSiTIES OF SAID EAST HIGH WATc~i BANK, 200 ~Ef. s-~ORE OR LE55. TQ !TS INTF.r~S$C1.10N wITF1 ~IiE NORTH FEICe! WATER BANK OF COR£ Cf+iEE!(; TFfENC£ EA:~«w~Y. ALONC TIME 51NUOU5TIE5 OF THE NORTH FIICi~ +WAT~cR BANK OF CORE CRgE~ 243 FEET. ~iCRE OR LE55. TG IT5 WT~SE+TIQN WITH THE EAST L1NE OF SAiC St;CT10N 12; THENC>; NOitT~LY. ALONG SAID EAST UNE. 160 FEB. MORE CR LESS. TO THE POINT OF 8ECINNINC. Applicant: Chevron U.S.A., Tnc. • ~'~. t • TABLED UNTIL 6. A request for a height variance in order to SEPT. 24 construct a retaining wall along Phase TT of the East Vail Bike Path on the North side of Bighorn Road, in the Colorado Department of Highways Right-of-way. Applicant: Town of Vail TABLED UNTIL 7. A request for a major subdivision, to approve SEPT. 24 the preliminary plan, a request for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls, and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Applicant: George Gillett, Jr. TABLED UNTIL 8. A request for an amendment to the approved SEPT. 24 access plan for Lots 5 and 6, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing, 146 and 126 Forest Road. Applicant: Ron Byrne TABLED UNTIL 9. A request to amend section 18.04.130-- OCTOBER 8 definition of Floor area, gross residential {GRFA); 18.09.080 Hillside Residential District density control; 18.10.090 Single Family District density control; 18.12.090 Two Family Residential District density control and; 18.13.080 Primary/Secondary District density control, of the Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail TABLED UNTIL 10. A request to amend sections 18.04.360-- OCTOBER 8 definition of site coverage; 18.09.090-- Hillside Residential District site coverage; 18.10.110--Single Family District site coverage; 18.12.110--Two Family District site coverage; 18.13.090--Primary Secondary District site coverage; 18.14.110-- Residential Cluster District site coverage; 18.16.110--Low Density Residential District site coverage; 18.18.110--Medium Density Residential site coverage; 18.20.110--High Density Residential District site coverage; 18.22.110--Public Acc~.,~,~,odation District site coverage; 18.24.150--Commercial Core I District site coverage; 18.26.120--Commercial Core II District site coverage; 18.27.090-- C~.«~~~ercial Core III site coverage; 18.28.120--Commercial Service Center District site coverage; 18.29.090--Arterial Business District site coverage; 18.30.110--Heavy Service District site coverage; 18,32.110-- Agricultural and Open Space District site coverage and; 18.39.190--Ski Base/Recreation District site coverage, of the Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail TABLED UNTIL 11. A request to amend section 18.52.160--Off OCTOBER 8 Street Parking and Loading Exemptions, of the Municipal Code. Applicant; Town of Vail WITHDRAWN 12. A request for a minor subdivision on portions of Lots 7 and 8, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing, 1107 E. Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Thomas Rader • • Y 3 ~ ~ ~~ P ~:; :~ ~} R': IF~-'f . ~a*'i.: ~f PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 10, 1990 Present Staff Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Mike Mollica Connie Knight Jill Kammerer Ludwig Kurz Shelly Mello Jim Shearer Andy Knudtsen Kathy Warren Betsy Rosolack Members Absent Dalton Williams A work session on the Valley, Phase VI was held prior to the public hearing. A request for a work session for a ma-ior chanae to existing development abbroval for the Vallev. Phase VI.• Applicant: Edward Zneimer This work session followed a site visit to the Valley, Phase VT. Peter Jamar representing the applicant and Edward Zneimer, the applicant were present. Diana Donovan asked about building envelopes and Peter Jamar said that he felt it was wise to keep same flexibility on the building envelopes at this time. He was comfortable with some kind of Town review if there were going to be changes to the envelopes. At present the envelopes were approximately 50 ft. x 80 ft. and the GRFA was between 3500 sq. ft. and 4500 sq. ft. Chuck asked about encroaching into the trees and Ed Zneimer replied that in many cases trees came up to the edge of the building envelope. Chuck then asked about the width of the road and the meadow. Peter Jamar said that a private road could be 18 ft. wide. Andy commented that the Fire Department had a 20 ft. minimum width for roads and the Public Works Department a 22 ft. minimum width. Ludwig was concerned about the engineering that would be done on the retaining wall heights and the road cuts. Kent Rose, engineer for the project, said that he looked at 6 ft. maximum heights for less than 100 ft. in length far a retaining wall. He said that also there would be wing walls for individual driveways. 1 . PEC Minutes 9/10/90 Meeting Kathy Warren expressed concern about the access to the upper road. She wanted a more accurate study to show the road cuts and the access to Lot No. 4. She felt that the project needed architectural guidelines regarding overhangs, decks, patios etc. in respect to building envelopes. Peter Jamar replied that they may pursue a single family subdivision as they could sell off one unit at a time. Kathy Warren asked if they wanted to have an entrance statement and Ed Zneimer replied that they must first solve many complicated issues involving the Forest Service. Peter reminded the group that there used to be a sign for the Valley at the entrance. Peter added that with down zoning the area had become a more quality living area. Kathy wanted to know if the subdivision should be identified with a name and an entry statement. She also felt that the landscaping should be discussed at the Design Review Board level with each building owner. In dealing with envelopes, she wanted to make it clear who was responsible for maintenance. She also said that the staff had talked about rock hazard, and she wanted to see which lots this impacted and how this would be handled. Jim Shearer asked if the term, "open space" was synonymous with the term, "common area" and Peter Jamar replied that it wasn't really. Someone could not come back to build on open space. Jim then said that with regard to the access cut on the upper lots, he felt that they would be getting into the hazard area. He also was concerned about not being able to see up and down the S curve from the intersections and wondered if they considered moving the intersection more to the center of the property, Connie wanted to see less length of road, but she was encouraged with the down zoning. Diana was also concerned about the roads. She wandered how the open space could be maintained as open space when people use part of the open space as their individual lots. Kristan said that she thought the intent was to keep the area as natural as possible. Perhaps it would be good to create smaller envelopes or designate the open areas. Kathy Warren said she would Like to see open space labeled as open space. 2 . PEC Minutes 9/10/90 Meeting Peter Jamar replied that there was a little bit of inconsistency of the zoning code. A single family home could be built on a 40% slope, but to subdivide lots for a single family subdivision they could not count the 40% slope as part of the 12,500 sq. ft. that is required for a single family lot. Kristan said that the single family subdivision was to allow for ownership. Peter pointed out that the smallest lot in this subdivision was a 1/2 acre. Kristan said that they do not necessarily have to create lots of 12,500 without a 40% slope in a single family subdivision process. Diana was pleased to see that they were working on moving the Forest Service Trail and Peter Jamar responded that it was really the Forest Service's responsibility to move the trail. The Forest Service was currently trespassing. Andy painted out that the Forest Service said that a realignment . would be made. They are looking to do it with possible volunteer help next spring. He added that depending on the amount of time the trial has been used, it may not be a trespassing situation. He would do additional research. Diana wanted to make sure that the roads and walls could be done within the rules. She said the hazard mitigation must be shown as well. Some of the meadow may disappear. Andy asked how the Board felt about the temporary access through the meadow. Diana felt that only through the narrowest paint could they access the meadow and then it must be revegetated, or she would rather not see the access used at all. Diana did not see the value of putting the houses into the tree line. She wanted to see them nearer the road as they were situated in Elk Meadows. Kristan explained why they felt it was better to put the houses into the hillside in the Elk Meadows subdivision. One reason was that at Elk Meadows the meadow was narrower and more of the meadow could be preserved if the houses were built into the hillside. The second reason was that the rockfall was more severe and large berms or walls could be avoided by using the hillside as a barrier to protect against rockfall. The lot line was also closer to the road than on Phase VI which allowed the • • PEC Minutes 9/10/90 Meeting houses to be built into the north hillside while still preserving the meadow. On Phase VI, both the property line being further to the south and the utility easement tend to push possible housing sites into the center of the meadow or into the southern hillside. Staff prefers the houses being situated into the hillside which will preserve more of the meadow. Diana felt she needed to be convinced. She wanted to make sure there would be some meadow left when they were done. Peter Jamar compared the new project to the originally approved plan and impressed upon the board that they were reducing the density. He said that they were trying to preserve the meadow. Diana asked that they do whatever they could to preserve the meadow such as pulling the road back farther. Peter replied that the impact on this new proposal was less than the one that was previously approved, but said that perhaps they could shorten the driveways to the homes. Peter replied that they would continue to look at the project's site planning. • Jim Shearer wondered if units 7, 8, and 9 could be pushed further back and Ed replied that the houses were cut back as far as they could move them. Ludwig agreed with Kathy in the siting of the whole project and asked for sensitivity with regard to the meadow. The board had no further comments and the public meeting was called to order by Diana Donovan, Chairperson at 2:45 p.m. Item No.1: Discussion of Ted Kindel Park Site. Ted Kindel was a former Mayor of the Town of Vail and a plaque had been made for him by Joe Staufer and Gordon Brittan. The Public Works Department, represented by Todd Oppenheimer wanted to discuss possible sites with the Planning Commission. Todd listed various sites, so far, that Public Works had considered. The first was the Intermountain pool site which had been made into a small neighborhood park. The second was the Willow Circle area. The third was the existing ski museum. The ski museum would be moving into the parking structure next year • • PEC Minutes 9/10/90 Meeting and the building would be taken dawn leaving a pocket park. The fourth area was the Mi11 Creek area. The Town was planning to relandscape this area. This area extended from Gore Creek Drive alang Mill Creek up to the Pirate Ship Park. Kristan suggested one other area, and that was the south side of the Covered Bridge near the Covered Bridge Building. Diana Donovan wandered about using the area between the Pirate Ship Park and Golden Peak and Kristan replied that Vail Associates owned that property. Diana wondered if they could talk Vail Associates into donating this area to the Town. Joseph Staufer stated that V.A. had committed to giving various areas to the Town but they would not commit to this area. Chuck asked where the plaque would be placed on Mill Creek, and Todd replied it would be placed somewhere between Gore Creek Drive and Hanson Ranch Road. Chuck suggested a fountain in Willow Circle and Kristan felt that it would be a very pretty site. Chuck said if there were a fountain there, it would be more appealing to the pedestrian. . Diana felt it should be somewhere in the middle of Town, not out in Intermountain because when Ted was Mayor, most of his work was done in the core of the Town. Chuck said that the Mill Creek area was his first choice and then Willow Circle was his second. Todd replied that you could place a plaque on Mill Creek somewhere now and then relocate it more appropriately into the design of the whole Mill Creek area later. Diana said that would be nice if it were not turned into a snow dump. Jim Shearer suggested, if Willow Circle were used, the fountain be called the Ted Kindel fountain. Jim preferred the Pirate Ship Park/Mill Creek Area, his second choice would be the Ski Museum site and the third was the Willow Circle Fountain. Diana said perhaps they could find a pretty rock to put on the edge of Mill Creek and Todd said he could look around for a good rock. Jim wondered about the golf course. He said that was one of Ted's contributions to the Town, but Todd said that the plaque was already made and it said Kindel Park. • • PEC Minutes 9/10/90 Meeting Kathy Warren favored Mill Creek and Kristan felt that if there were a plaque at Mill Creek it may give the Town an incentive to finish landscaping the area. Diana felt that the Mill Creek area was nice. She added that this part of the Town did exist when Ted was Mayor. Ludwig preferred either Mill Creek or somewhere near the center of Town. He felt it would be an injustice to Ted to have a plaque on the golf course or in West Vail. Item No. 2: Approval of minutes from the August 27. 1990 meeting. Diana asked if this could be postponed until the next meeting because she felt these were important minutes and the Board should have time to study them. Item No. 3: A reauest for an exterior alteration in order to construct a 30 sa. ft, expansion on Lot T. Block 1. Vail Lionshead 3rd Filina. 610 W. Lionshead • Circle. Applicant: Landmark-Vail Condominium Association Jill showed photos of the project. The addition will project out from the existing office onto an existing pool deck area 30 sq. ft. and will provide an additional 25 sq. ft. of office area. All materials will match existing materials. Diana asked if there were any questions from the Board or the public. Since the project was clear to the Board, there was no further discussion. A motion to a~rpvp the rpq~l,P~t ~nr ~n wxterior alteration per the staff memo was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer. VOTE: 6-0 TN FAVOR Item No. 4 : A reauest far ~.n aX't'a7; j_nr ~l i-pration on Block 5C . Vail Villaae 1st Filina. 225 Wall Street. Applicant: American Analer/American Ski Exchanae Shelly Mello presented the proposal explaining that approval of an exterior alteration request is required for any addition of enclosed floor area to structures in the Commercial Core I zone district. This proposal included 95 sq. ft. ground floor expansion of the Lazier Building on Wall street. It included the • 6 PEC Minutes 9/10/90 Meeting relocation of the store entry and the addition of 2 bay windows to the store. Anew entry would also be added for access to the basement area of the building. The expansion is proposed exclusively on private property. Shelly listed the zoning considerations, the compliance with the purpose section of CCI. It was felt that the addition would be an activity generator and that the addition would not negatively affect the scale of the building and would improve the overall quality of the space. The review criteria for the proposal included the Vaal Village Urban Design Guide Plan, the Vail Village Master Plan and traditional zoning considerations. Regarding the zoning considerations, the first was pedestrianizataon. The addition would be removing 94 sq. ft. of brick pavers which considered landscaping by definition. 2n order to remove landscaping in the CCI zone distract, sufficient cause must be shown by the applicant or be specified in the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations. Shelly explained that in other instances, requests of this nature have been required to obtain a landscape variance in order to decrease the amount of "softscape" and "hardscape" landscaping on site. This type of change requires a variance because according to the definition of landscaping, only 20~ of the overall amount of landscaping can be hardscape type. • In this application, the amount of hardscape is decreasing and actually making the situation less nonconforming with regard to the landscape definition, and therefore the staff was not requiring the approval of a landscape variance for this application. The staff found that the application was consistent with the Vail Village Design Considerations and was consistent with the goals and policies of the Master Plan. The staff felt that the benefits of the project outweighed the impacts of removing the paved area. The applicant had agreed to contribute $500.00 for the repair of the paved stairway located adjacent to the building. Erich Hill, Architect on the project, discussed the proposed improvement on the pavers. He said they were asked first to replace a dead tree in the planter and Todd Oppenheimer, the Town's Landscape Architect, had suggested that the planter was too small and that was why the one evergreen in the planter was dying. Todd said that his suggestion was not to plant another tree in the planter. He felt that the Wall Street space worked best as it was and that trees growing up in the center added to the confusion. • . PEC Minutes 9/].0/90 Meeting Diana felt that this area looked sterile now and very dead in the winter time. Todd repeated that there was not enough space for trees. Kathy Warren asked if there could be aspen trees planted rather than evergreen trees and they could be lighted in the winter and Todd replied that putting any tree in there was against his better judgement. Diana stated that most of the board preferred evergreen trees. Todd also pointed out that there was a lighting fixture in the planting bed that the trees would impact. Chuck Crist said that he did not want to settle for two skinny aspen trees. He felt that the steps needed to be repaired also. He asked if both items could be done and how much it would cost. Todd said that aspen trees were about ~0-60 dollars each. Erich felt that the money could be split between the pavers and the trees. Todd said no more than two trees could be planted there. Ludwig recommended finding double or triple trunk trees. Todd felt that the money should be spent on the pavers. Diana felt that the paver aspect was a repair job and Todd said that the paving project was not funded by the Public Works Department. Kathy asked if ground cover could be used and Todd replied that he would study that proposal. Jim Shearer asked how the Town felt about potted plants. Shelly explained that the staff had discussed either potted plants or hanging baskets and felt that something more permanent than either of thase would be more appropriate mitigation. Jim asked about putting pats at the foot of each of the columns or between the columns. Todd said that it would impede snow removal in that area. He felt that the architectural space as it was, was a lovely area. Jim also recommended window boxes although he felt that was a Design Review Board item. He didn't feel that the repairing of the pavers would make that much of a difference in the area. Kathy felt that the proposal of aspen with double trunks might be good and perhaps they could contribute $&00.00 to the Town for the pavers and the aspen and find someway to light the aspen. ~ a PEC Minutes 9/10/90 Meeting Kathy brought up another point which was the overhang that was shingled that was next to the stairway and wondered if that could be removed and Erich replied that was not part of the lease. Kathy said that it would not look like such a dark corner and there would still be facia across to the corner. She would like to make this a condition of approval of the exterior alteration. She felt that they should try to get as good an exterior alteration as possible. Connie pointed out that they were not working with Lazier, but Kathy felt that not much more money would be involved. Erich said that he would like to have this done but that Lazier was not his client. Ludwig felt that this would be an overall improvement for a rather dark hole. He did feel that the roof overhang should be looked at but he didn't want the project stopped on this point. Regarding the trees, he would like to give the trees another chance and added that he would rather see more done with the planter and less done with the steps. He felt that repairing the steps would be a patch work and felt that the stairs would probably need to be totally redone within a year. Diana felt that trees should be required and in the winter, visibility of the trees needed to be considered. She agreed with Kathy regarding the removal of the overhang. Shelly said that if $600.00 is available, the staff would develop a plan which would include landscaping and repair to the stairs and Diana felt that at least 1/2 of the amount should be for landscaping. Todd felt that all of the project should be for landscaping and agreed that all of the pavers would need to be replaced in the near future. Diana repeated that she felt that the landscaping should be visible in the winter time. A motion to apbrove the exterior alteration with conditions as follows was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Ludwia Kurz. 1. 5960.00 would be oaid to the Town of Vail Parkins Fund. • 9 PEC Minutes 9/10/90 Meeting 2. 5600.00 to the Town of Vail for landscaoina and a minimum of landscaping to be two ashen or one double trunk tree in the planter. No funds were allocated towards the installation or repair of Havers. 3. The section of the roof overhang to the south of the_ proposed addition to the next shoo be removed. VOTE: 5-0 IN FAVOR. CHUCK CRIST HAD LEFT THE MEETING AT THIS TIME Ttem No. 5: A request for a work session for a conditional use permit, a stream setback variance and a side setback variance in order to construct a remediatian svstem at the Vail Amoco Service Station. 934 S. Frontaae Road. Applicant: Chevron U.S.A.. Inc. The applicant was requesting a conditional use permit and a side setback variance in order to place a temporary ground water contamination remediatian system on the Vail Amoco Service Station site which is located on the South Frontage Road (formerly the Chevron Service station). A stream setback variance wi11 not be required. The remediation system would be located on the south side of the station. The Board saw the proposed system location before the meeting while on site visits. Jill asked if there were questions for the Community Development staff prior to Kent Perks presentation. There were no questions. Kent Perks from RMX, representing Chevron, explained water discharge and air emission levels resulting from system operation. Chevron is not proposing to obtain a NDPS (National Discharge Pollution System) permit but would discharge water into the sanitary sewer. Unit operation wi11 increase hydrocarbon air emissions approximately 16% over existing station operation air emissions for the first 3 months or so. After 3 months, air emissions will decrease to approximately 4~ over existing station operations. Put in another way, initial unit operation emissions will be equivalent to 1/2 of gallon of gasoline evaporating into the atmosphere per day. Within 3 months, more like 1 pint of gasoline will evaporate per day. Approximately 7 gallons/minute of water will be discharged into the sanitary sewer (vs. 35 gpm at Alpine Standard). Diana asked if the same Colorado State air emission and water discharge standards would apply to this remediation system that applied to the Alpine Standard Station approved a few weeks earlier and Kent replied that they did. 10 • PEC Minutes 9/1Q/90 Meeting Ludwig asked who did periodic testing of water being discharged and how often was testing done? Kent replied that RMX had one person on the staff who will do water discharge monitoring once a week. Once the system had been up and running for approximately 3 months, tests could be curtailed a little and at that time a decision would be made as to who will do testing. Tt is likely testing would be done by Upper Eagle Valley (for a fee). Ludwig then inquired as to the timing of the project. kent responded they were trying to build the project before snow season. Ludwig asked weather or not the building sat on pads and Kent responded the building would be supported by two foot square steel pads which would be located under six legs. The unit is all steel construction. Diana asked what happened if there were any spills/overflow and Kent replied that there ware safeguards built into the system to prevent overflow. If a spill was detected, the motors would automatically turn off and a red light would go on. He also added that the system itself had safeguards built in. The floor of the system housing is 6" deep and acts as a tub. All the equipment was on grates so that any liquid from spills/overflow would pass through the grate and be collected in the "tub." Access to existing meters would be from the south side of the remediation unit. Ludwig asked if the redwood fence was independent of the building? He was told that it was, and that it would remain after the building was removed. Kent informed the Commission that all of the conduits would be capped once the state determined the site was clean and the building was removed. Jim Shearer wanted to know haw often there was a need to test the wells, and Kent replied that testing would be an ongoing process, The wells would be tested at least every 3 months once the system had been up and operating a while and that the building would remain in place until all of the wells tested okay. He also offered the fact that the old steel tanks, which had been on the site had been replaced with fiberglass tanks. Kathy Warren asked if the theory was that you can get the contaminated water pumped form the wells clean and that there would not be any contamination problems in the future. 11 . PEC Minutes 9/10/90 Meeting Kent said that there was really no way to guarantee that there would be no spills in the future, but they can get pretty close to a very safe operation. Diana wanted to stress that the fence should be made of redwood and not painted with a redwood color. She asked about the upkeep of the metal building and Kent replied that the building was temporary and would be freshly painted before it was put in place. Diana asked the board if anyone else wanted something improved on the property. Planting the trees on the side of the hill as close as possible to the fence was mentioned. Also mentioned was the Town's need to fix their fence along on the east property line. Diana also suggested that the property between the planter and the Town's chain link fence be cleaned up and perhaps more wood chips or wildflowers be put in that area. Jill reminded Diana that Chevron no longer owned the building; that they were only doing the remediation. Diana replied that Amoco could still clean up the area between the planters and the fence. Kent observed that the fence was far removed from the ground water. Diana informed Kent that cleaning up this area was • a "mitigating" measure and the Commission could ask Chevron to do this. JiII wanted to stress that the water discharge would be going to a sanitary sewer rather than directly into the stream. This was the end of that work session. Item No. 6: A reauest for a height variance in order to construct a retaining wall along Phase II of the Bast Vail Bike Path on the North side of Bighorn Road, in the Colorado Department of Highways Right-of-way. Applicant: Town of Vail Item No. 7: A reauest for a ma-ior subdivision, to approve the preliminary plan. a reauest for a variance to the maximum h,P:i_aht. fir retains nc~walls , and a reauest for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road. on a oarcel commonly referred to as Snraddle Greek. an atinroximate 40 acre oarcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange ~.nd P~sfi of ~-hP Spraddle Creek livery. Applicant: George Gillett. Jr. 12 • ,~ PEC Minutes 9/10/90 Meeting Item No. 8: A reauest fir ~,n a.mancim?nt. t~ the approved access plan for Lots S ~,n;c]; h ,_ _Block 7 , Vail Villaae 1st Filing. 146 and 126 Forest Road. Applicant: Ron Byrne Item No. 9: A reauest to amend section 18.04.130--definition of Floor area. cross residential (GRFA1: 18.09.080 Hillside Residential District density control: 18.10.090 Single Family District density control: 18.12.090 Two Family Residential District density control and: 18.13.080 Primary/Secondary District density control. of the Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Item No. 10: A reauest to amend sections 18.04.360-- definition of site coveraae: 18.09.090--Hillside Residential District site coveraae: 18.10.110-- Sinale Family District site coveraae; 18.12.110-- Two Family District site coveraae: 18.13.090-- Primarv Secondary District site coveraae: 18.14.110--Residential Cluster District site coveraae: 18.16.110--Low Density Residential District site coveraae: 18.18.110--Medium Density Residential site coveraae: 18.20.110---Hiah Density Residential District site coveraae: 18.22.110-- Public Accommodation District site coveraae: 18.24.150--C~..~~~~~ercial Core I District site coveraae: 18.26.120--Commercial Core II District site coveraae: 18.27.090--C~.,~.,,ercial Core III site coveraae: 18.28.120--Commercial Service Center District site coveraae: 18.29.090--Arterial Business District site coveraae: 18.30.110--Heavy Service District site coveraae: 18.32.110-- Aaricultural and Open Space District site coveraae and: 18.39.190--Ski Base/Recreation District site coveraae. of the Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Item No. 11: A reauest to amend section 18.52.160--Off Street Parkina and Loadina Exemptions, of the Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail A motion to table Ttems 6. 7. and 8 Items 9. 10. and 11 until October 8. Warren and seconded by Ludwig Kurz. VOTE: 5-0 IN FAVOR OF TABLING • until September 24 and 1990 was made by Kathy 13 . PEC Minutes 9/10/90 Meeting Item No. 12: A request for a minor subdivision on portions of Lots 7 and 8. Block 6. Vail V~>>.aae 7th Filina. 1107 E. Vail Vallev Drive. Aoblicant: Thomas Rader Item No. 12 was withdrawn, no action was needed. Kristan reminded the board that on October 8, 1990, the Planning Commission would be reviewing the GRFA, Site Coverage, and Parking Amendments. • 14 . To: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Devel~,~.~„ent DATE: September l0, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a work session for a major change to existing development approval for the Valley, Phase VI. Applicant: Edward Zneimer I. BACKGROUND This application is a request to modify the development plan for Phase VI of The Valley. The original plan was approved as a PUD by Eagle County in the fall of 1980. That plan included 42 townhouses with a total GRFA of 77150 sq. ft. The plan called for three clusters of units with a group of recreation amenities {tennis courts, swimming pool, trails, etc.}. Later, when the property was annexed by the Town of Vail, a provision of the annexation ordinance required that any major modification to the County approved plan would require Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approval. In that same ordinance (which is attached to this memo), Residential Cluster (RC) zoning was applied to this property. Under the annexation ordinance, all standards not addressed by the Eagle County approved plan must meet RC zoning requirements. In 1981, a developer proposed a reconfigured site plan which the PEC approved. The amended plan maintained all 42 dwelling units as well as the GRFA approved by the County and the scheme of attached, clustered townhouses. Though that plan was never built, it is still valid and could be built today after the applicant received updated DRB approvals. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION At this time, the applicant is proposing a completely different type of development: 13 detached. sinnlp ~a~-ily homes. nine of which will have caretaker units,. ~This~creates a total of 22 units of these, 9 are caretaker units. The caretaker units will be deed restricted so that cannot be sold separately from the primary residences (the restriction will not limit the use of the units to employees of the Upper Eagle Valley). Of the 13 buildings, six will be located north of Buffehr Creek Road on the south facing slope; and seven will be located across Buffehr Creek Road in the meadow at the base of the forested slope (see attached sate plan). • 1 The development has been divided into three phases. The first . twa phases are the east and west clusters (respectively) on the south side of Buffehr Creek Road. The third and last will the be the six homes on the north side of the road. The structures in phase one (Lots 11-13) will each have approximately 3500 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA). Each house in phase two (Lots 7--10) and phase three (Lots 1-5) will have approximately 4500 square feet of GRFA. This results in a total GRFA of 55,500 square feet. This total includes the GRFA in the caretaker units. The developer is proposing a Tyrolean style of architecture. No subdivision plat is proposed at this time as the PEC approval is only for the revisions in the development plan--a requirement of annexation. The owner would most likely proceed with a major subdivision following development plan approval. III. ZONING ANALYSIS The analysis compares the proposal to the most recent PEC approval and the RC Zane District. The RC standards apply for other development standards per the annexation ordinance. 1981 PEC Aoproval Current Probosal ~e Area: Height: GRFA: DUs Density: 21.45 acres 21.45 acres typical unit 32 ft. 33 ft. maximum 77,150 sq. ft. 42 2 DUs/acre 55,500 sq. ft. 22* 1.02 DUs/acre *Includes 9 caretaker units IV. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS A. Site Plan: RC Zoninq 21.45 acres 33 ft. maximum 59,895 sq. ft. 29.9 6 DUs/acre maximum The proposed site plan is an improvement to the previously approved plan as the impacts have been significantly reduced. Overall, the plan is similar to earlier submittals as the development will be located along the road, leaving the steeper slopes undeveloped. The distribution of dwelling units is also similar as . there are about one third of the units on the north side of Buffehr Creek Road and two thirds o£ the units on the south side. The last aspect that both site plans share in common is the access plan. The general road configuration and the length of roads are similar. • The biggest difference is the change in the number of dwelling units. This plan has 20 fewer units than the previous plan. The development will appear less dense and will have fewer impacts since the design has been changed from attached dwelling units to single family homes. Additionally, the land previously devoted for guest parking, tennis courts, and a swimming pool for the condominium complex will now be left in its natural state. The current proposal has 21650 sq, ft. less GRFA than the previous plan. 1. Buildina envelopes: The proposal uses building envelopes to identify the location of each house. The envelopes are not proposed to be platted. There will be approximately 80 feet between each building envelope. The building envelopes are larger than the actual building footprints. A discussion item for PEC is the level of specificity needed at this time for the location of the buildings. Are the proposed building envelopes specific enough? Should any construction outside of the envelope be allowed? 2. Open space: The Town's understanding is that the portions of the site on the steep slopes on either side of the development will be designated as open space and will be unbuildable without PEC approval. Daes the PEC want other spaces designated as open space? An example is the space between the access road and Buffehr Creek Road on the southeastern part of the site. 3. Trails: A hiking/mountain bike trail, located on the northwest portion of the site, runs through building envelopes 1 and 5. It goes from Buffehr Creek Road north to Red and White Mountain. The applicant has pointed out that a better location for the trail would be along Buffehr Creek. This appears to be reasonable and the Forest Service concurs; however, Forest Service comments on all • the details are needed prior to a final decision. . Staff needs PEC comment on the responsibility of the applicant for constructing the relocated trail. B. Roads and drainaae One improvement from the previous approval to the access plan is that the number of curb cuts on Buffehr Creek Road has been reduced from 3 to 2. The Town Engineer has expressed concern that the sight distance around the lower intersection may be inadequate given the curves and slope of Buffehr Creek Road. The applicant has proposed eight percent maximum grades for the roads. Engineering has not been done for this work session, but it is clear that retaining walls will be needed on the upper portion of the development. Engineering drawings will be prepared for the September 24, 1990 PEC meeting, including plans showing the road grades, road sections, retaining wall heights, and the proposed driveway grades to the building envelopes. Tn addition to the information pertaining to roads, a drainage study must be completed far historic and developed flows for both the 25 and 100 year storms. C. Hazards . The only hazard shown on the Town maps is high severity rock fall. A report by Arthur Mears states that the houses below Buffehr Creek Road can be adequately protected with a three foot high berm located in the open space between the access road and Buffehr Creek Road. Houses above Buffehr Creek Road needing mitigation can be protected with a six foot high rock fall fence ar by specific reinforcement for the lower six feet of the north walls of each building. Before final PEC review, an updated rock fall study must be submitted. The revised study must address the specific standards stated in the Zoning Code. D. Densitv The proposed density is approximately one half of the previous approval and three fourths of what RC zoning would allow. The GRFA will be approximately two thirds of the previous approval {a change from 77,150 sq. ft. to 55,500 sq. ft.}. Staff's opinion is that the proposal is clearly a reduction in impacts from the previous approval. . 4 E. Architectural guidelines • Low density residential projects like The Valley, Phase III (Elk Meadows SDD} and Spraddle Creek (as proposed) have architectural guidelines. In this case, the applicant intends to have a tyrolean style development yet would like to have the option to use other styles if so desired. As a result, the applicant would like to leave the architectural considerations for each unit to the Design Review Board (DRB}. The PEC should determine if guidelines for this subdivision are necessary. Staff opinion is that some general guidelines may be appropriate, but because it is not an SDD, specific details in an architectural program are not appropriate. F. Phasing/Subdivision plans At this time, the development plan is the only document that will be approved. Phasing is an issue which PEC c~,.~,~~,ent is needed because it pertains to the development plan. Subdivision, in relation to this review, is merely a legal process which will be carried out one way or another in the future. Below, staff has outlined the options for subdividing as an informational item to the Commission; however, it is the phasing issue which is the one which the PEC should consider and give comment on. 1. Phasing Staff believes that the longer portions of this site remain as meadow, the better. Along those lines, we recommend that one phase be completed before another is begun. If the PEC agrees and considers this to be appropriate, then the applicant will show the phasing plan as part of the final approval. The requirements triggered by the phasing will be drainage, roads, utilities, and possibly site landscaping. These improvements must be completed in each phase prior to construction starting in another phase. The improvements must be built from Buffehr Creek Road to any unit under construction prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy or Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. If occupancy is requested prior to the installation of any improvements, the applicant must escrow 125 of the construction costs prior to the Town issuing a T.C.O. 2. Maiar Subdivision: One of the options the applicant has is a major subdivision. This would probably require a rezoning to a zone district that bases lot sizes on total area. The existing Residential Cluster (RC) zone district has a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet, 8000 of which must be made up of buildable area. As much of this site is 40 percent slope or greater, that area cannot be considered buildable. As a result, the RC zoning will probably not allow a standard subdivision for this development plan without a lot size variance or special development district, similar to Elk Meadows. 3. Sinale Familv Subdivision: This is an option which the applicant may choose to do because it does not require a rezoning. G. Fire De~aartment concerns Fire department concerns are limited to the length of the driveway for Lot 4 and possibly the length of the dead end drive through the meadow. The applicant will satisfy the Fire Department standards prior to the final hearing on this project. Comments from the Public Works Department have been incorporated into the paragraphs above. VI. CONCLUSION Staff supports the development plan because the plan results in less density and better site planning. We believe that the remaining issues can be resolved. We need PEC comments on the specific points raised in the memo to give direction to the applicant prior to the final hearing. The project is scheduled to be heard at the September 24, 1990 PEC meeting for final approval. • I~ t . , k' `. ~'~ ' N A~ `q~ \ y},1. ~~ a W 7 .~ Y r ~` ~ I _ ~ ~~ •'~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~' .per ~~~ _ ~. 1151 • ; 3 ` ~ s' . ,_.. 3 ~ ' , ~~ ~ ~`*,',,`~ ~ 1 ~ ~ '~ `~ '' " `~k •~~'~ ~ ~, y,.. . ~ ~. ~ ~` ~ ~ ,A y "• ''" rf ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ + r ~ ~~ • `\ r ~ ~` ~` o} ~ Z • `* ~ ~. ~~ p , a. N . V # ' } .; a • , . ~ ,* ~~, • • • ~ .. ,+ o z . . .-,. ! 9: '. - ~ ~: ~ ~ ., .' .:sN ~,~~,. : ~ i~g~9e • t ,.,~ ~ r < f * ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ` .._~~ ... ' 'Jn ORDINANCE NO. 13 v'r~u~' ` {Series of 7.981) 75 s. trnr~#ar.,e road vail, ccfora~.:o 81657 office c~ tav,~n ciurk AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING ZONING DISTRICTS ON CERTAIN DEVELOP4tENTS AND PARCELS OF PROPERTY IN THE RECENTLY ANNEXED WEST VAIL AREA; ACCEPTING PRIOR APPROVALS OF T11E EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RELATING THERETO; SPECII'YING AMENDh1ENT PROCEDURES; SETTING FORTH CONDITIONS RELATING THERETO; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAF FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS iN RELATION THERETO. LYHEREAS, the town of Vail, Colorado, recently annexed the West Vail area, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, effective on December 31, 1980-; and L4HEREAS, Chapter 18.B8 of the hunicipal Code of tho Town of Vail sets forth procedures for the imposition of zoning districts on recently annexed areas; and WHEREAS, Section 31-12-115 {s) C.R.S, 1.973, as amended, requires the flown to bring the newly annexed West Vail area under its zoning ordinance within ninoty (90) days after the effective . date of said annexation; and WHEREAS, because of certain actions taken by and approvals of the Eagle County Comm~.ssioners relating to the within specified properties the Town Council is of the opinion that the zoning designation for these areas should recognize said approvals and conditions; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has considered the zoning to be imposed on the newly annexed West Vail area at a public hearing and has made a recommendation :; :; relating thereto, to the Town Council; and ~.~- ';._~ WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is in the interest _,~ `..~ 'g~'•. of the public health, safety and welfare to so zone said property; °~°`'j~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN 'f',r . w ~ .~.v '}'' ..;,~ OF VAIL THAT: ,i >,;:. ~ . , Section 1. Procedures Fulfilled. ' ~ The procedures for the determination of the zoning districts to he imposed on the newly annexed West Vail area as set forth in Chapter 18.$8 of the Vail Municipal Cade have been fulfilled. 1 ~ c f Section 2. Imposition of Zoning District on Certain Parcels and Portions of the newly annexed ~Yest Vail area. Pursuant to Chapter 18.68 of the Vail Afunicipal Cade, the properties described in subsections e, f, g, h ~ i below are a portion of the West Vail area annexed to the Town through the enactment of Ordinance No. 43, Series of 1980, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, effective on the thirty-first day of Aecember, 198p, and hereby zoned as follows: a. The develapments and parcels of property specified below in Subsections e, f, g, h & i shall be developed in accordance with tho prior agreement approvals and actions of the Eagle County Commissioners as the agreements, approvals and actions relate to each development or parcel of property. b. The documents and instruments relating to the prior county approvals, actions and agreements are presently on file in the Department of Community Development of the Town of Vail and said approvals, actions and agreements are hereby accepted and approved by the Town of Vail. c. All buildings for which a building permit has not been issued, on the effective date of the annexation of tYest Vail shall comply with Design Review Criteria of the Vail 6iunicipal Code prior to the issuance of a building permit. d. The Community Development Department may issue staff approvals for minox changes in site design or other minor aspects of the plan for any of the specified developments or parcels. These proposed changes may be approved as presented, approved with conditions or denied by the Staff with an appeal within 10 days of the Staff decision to the Planning and Environmental. Commission, l'or mayor changes, such as a re-design of a mayor part of the site, changes as use, density ~~~~~ control, height ax other development standards, a Planning and ~~~~~'~' Environmental Commission review should be required. The procedure u~,,~$ 1 for changes shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.BEi of the Vail J~unicipal Code. ' e. The following develapments and parcels of property shall be sub3ect to the terms of this ordinance: • (1} The Valley, Phases 1 through G. (2) Spruce Creek Townhouses. (3) Meadow Creek Condominiums. -2- ~~ . .. ~ ~ ~ ~ {4) Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club. {5) Briar Patch, Lots G-2, G-5 and G-6 Lionsridge Subdivision 1'i ling No. 2. (6) Casa Del Sal condominiums. For any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' approvals, agreements or actions, the developments and parcels of property specified in this subsection {e) shall be zoned Residential Cluster (RC). f. Lionsridge Subdivision, 1'i ling No. 4, shall be subject to the terms o~ this ordinance. For any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' approval, agreement or action, this parcel of property shall be zoned Single Family Zone District {SFR) with a spocial pro- vision that an employee unit {as defined and restricted in Section 18.13.08 of the Vail b7unicipal Code) will be subject to approvals as per Section 18.].3.080. The secondary unit may not exceed one third of the total Gross Residential Floor Area {GRFA) allowed on the lot as per the Single Family Zane District Density Control (Section 18.10.090 of the Vail hdunicipal Code) and Greenbelt & Natural Open Space (GNOS). g. Lat G-4, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2, has been the and a Co t f Ea l Count i t C t i i i th Di t g y, ur r c our o e gat on n e s subject of lit order has been issued regarding the development of this property. The Town has Further approved Resolution #5 of 19$1 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 guide the future development of the parcel, working within the bounds set by the Court Order and Resolution No. 5, Series of 1981. h. Block 10, Vail Intermountain Subdivision and the Elliott Ranch Subdivision, shall be subject to the terms of this ordinance. For any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' approval, agree- ment or action, Block 10 and the Elliott Ranch, shall be zoned Pramaryf Secondary District. hots 8, 15 & 16 of Bloclz 10, Vaal Intermountain, shall be zoned Greenbelt & Natural Open Space (GNOS). i. Vail Commons, Vail Das Shone Filing No. 4, shall be subject to~the terms of this ordinance. For any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' agreement, approval on action, Vaal Commons shall be zoned Commercial Core III (CCITT). 3.. ~ 4 _ Section 3. • As provided in Sectio 18 08 030 f th V l n . . o e aa Municipal Code, the zoning administrator is hereby directed to promptly modify and amend the Offic a al _ . ' Zoning blap to indicate the zoning specified herein. 4. Section 4. If any paxt, section subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, , and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, .~ sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5. The Council hereby states that this ordinance is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 3rd day of March, 1981, and a public hearing on this • ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vaii, Colorado, on the 17th day of March, 1981., at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Building of the Town of Vail. / ~~ ~'"" fir' /~ /J // // t. Nfayor ~ ~ i ATTEST: '~ Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, APFROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY March 17, 1981. lfayor ( `- ~ ' ~ ~ ATTEST: Town Clerk -~- T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 10, 1990 RE: A request for an exterior alteration in order to construct a 25 sq. ft. expansion on Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing, 610 W. Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Landmark-Vail Condominium Association T. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of an exterior alteration to the Landmark Condominiums Building. The applicant proposes to expand the building's management office by 25 sq. ft. The expansion, which would not be visible from the mall, would be located on the third floor adjacent to the pool area on the south side of the building. The proposal would enclose a portion of the pool deck thereby eliminating 30 sq. ft. of the deck. There will be no expansion of the building footprint (site coverage) because retail, restaurant, office and parking uses are located on the two floors below the deck level. The proposed building office area expansion will not impact allowable GRFA because the building office is considered a common area and common areas are not included in GRFA calculations. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this exterior alteration request: 1. Zone District: Commercial Core T2 2. Lot Area; 1.495 acres or 65,122.2 sq. ft. 3. Site Coverage: No Change. 4. Setbacks for proposed addition: No Change 5. Parking: The parking requirement does not increase since common area does not require parking. • 6. Common Area calculations: Site Area Sauare Feet 55,122 Allowable common floor area (20~ of allowable GRFA) Existing c~=.u..on floor area - Remaining common area for development 10,416 7.779 2,&37 Area of proposed office expansion - 25 Area far future c~=«=«on area expansion 2,612 III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMFRCIA.L CORE II The purpose of CCII is defined in the Vail Municipal Code as follows: 18.26,010 Purpose: The C..=..=,.ercial Core II District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and • commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. C~=~LL~~ercial Core II District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. This request complies with the purpose of CCTT as it is an expansion to a mixed-use building which includes multiple dwellings and commercial establishment. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD OR VAIL VILLAGE. There are no Vail/Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan sub--area concepts that relate directly to this proposal. V, COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIONSHEAD, A. Height and Massing: The proposed addition does not impact the height or massing of the existing structure. • B. Roofs: • This consideration is not applicable as the proposed addition would fill in a portion of an existing recessed area which has an overhang. C. Facades - Transparency/Walls/Structures: Existing window and doors will be salvaged when demolition occurs and reused in expansion construction. All materials, colors, and opening sizes will match existing building materials, colors, and opening sizes. D. Decks and Patios: There will be 30 sq. ft. of deck area removed from the pool area by this addition. It is not a deck area that is frequently used by pool patrons as it is recessed and located under an existing overhang. Removing the deck will not impact the use of the outdoer spaces by residents and guests. E. Accent Elements; The existing colors, which will be used on the new addition are compatible with the Lionshead area and . will match existing building materials. F. Landscape Elements: No new landscaping is proposed and no landscaping will be removed by this addition. G. Service and Delivery: The proposal will not affect the current service and delivery patterns fvr the building. VT. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of this exterior alteration far a 25 sq. ft. office addition. Tn staff's analysis, we believe that the expansion meets the review criteria. It complies with the Vail-Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and also complies with the Vail-Lionshead Design Considerations. I~~I.._..~~1 ICI ICI I .IW~-Y-Y- I I~ ~.~ 1 ~~ _. is _ _ ~ , ~- _ ~ __ -~ -_ - _ ~ ' ~ I Y- ,. t _ .. ~~ ~. i ~ ~ ~, . I ~ J ~ :~ I ~~ ~ k ~ __. ~: ~i ~ ,n ~ , ; ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ,, . II ~f l i~ ~ _~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~j~' y is 1 ~ ~ ~, i ~ "lll ~ .: ~ i s ~ ~ ~ i ~- ,. ~ - • ~~ ~ ~~~__ :~ ~~ ~ - ~~ ~~ .art -- ~. ~.. ~ ti ~....._. tl'J - ~ ~ ..~ ~.. _T.. _.~_ _~ ~- - 1~~ ~~~ 1.~1 j~f _.. ~. j.~..~ .;~ N' - ~: ~"'~' ~~ 1I S ~. I i ~~ ~ f i -~ ~~® .~ ~~~ ii i ~ - s~ ~' ,' C i _.-~ a _~ , ~ ,~ ~ ~ ' ~ ;, ~' ~ 3 f ~ ~ti I' { ~~ .~ ~. ~' r ~~ ' i ; ~ i~s i. ~ y ~~ ~;~ i ~~ ~~ ., _._.. y ;i~ i ~ ~ ~.. h, r ~ ~~ .~ ~~ ., ~ ~,~ ~ D I QQ il~ i > -_ > . f J ~ i --I. - -~ ~ ~ ---r ~~. ~a ,- ,, _:,4 _.. ~ ~i ~ x3 __ ~ -- ~' . b:. __~t._ ~ I _~ ~w ~~, .... ~ .~ +;_' .r *--~ _' ~! --_ __ ~' - • ~~ ~`~ ~~ . _~~ :~ e .: a ~~~ .~ i` ~. ~.,s ...} _ ~z ~~ -- - ~ r N __ _ - --: ~ ~_ ~ 1 r ~ it ''I ~ ~ i 1 ~.~ ,.._ ~~~ a e d ~I ~f ~- ol~ ~~ 3 ., i : ' ~_ - . ~, .. .. ~~~ ~~ UI i r- ,~„ i'' ~rrn4N.~WU~ suawN ~ ~. !~. Iry~iUL. r ~F N~ z: 4 /. +hEvr r +s ..~ w~.."«z.~.~ I ~ ~L.GL• 41 is .` ~~'_ .1GmIR•1bwE-x ~C~ EWi.1~fa'EL~ ~ ~ f~1:a~aA swr%~,..~. I ~ ` _ ~~ _. . , . ... `'~I1 _ ~ ` ~ ~ . ' pa~Nr' ~ ~~.at~r- .. - F ~~ i - I • __.~ ~ . ' ' I _~~ ' ' tf __~ ~ ~~ ~• I I - :; _'~ ~ i •~tl , ~~~ __ ~iRS'r A•i~r. I ~' ~ II [~ ~` t. I ~ ~` 4 H ~ ~ ~I'x`LI. Y~ \ ~ 4 at,' % ~ 'i I: Efe6: nr,Gy~ ~ ~~ :I :. r • L \ ~ ~: .~ fi'r' GY AnLa',..~.~ ~ IE I L _ i1,i U ,JOUf~ ~GZ' [yj ~~ a~'r.'x.t+ arric~v~x~ ~ arfl-f. sTV4~~Rpry'r . ~ 1 ~,•,.~ ~~fry+uars ~ ~ ~ . WB S't ' ~[.. _ 1, '~ - - ~~_ ~•~~ EttE'o.nswc~ ~~~~ow ~ YA~tHT~,tfs;7~ FACE j ~ 1 1~ b x . '~..~..- • I~ i• d~.~1.9 mw/l ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ t~,~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ .g ,~ ,; t ~` • ,. ,. ,, ~.~ . C.. ~_.., .~w ~t ~~~~ c ~ ~'~ ~ ~..l. ~ 'f _~ ~~ ~` 4~~.;~~ ~" ,~. ~~i.~:~_ ~ti ~~ . ~•, .,\ '. ~ /- i. y ~, ~. PH ~ ~ \ ~ ~~ ~~ A~ ~~ Y.! ~- , ~~f - ,. ~ - -~--f ~. ~ ~ -~ •~~~ ~ ~ - ~~~~ ~ ~~_ ~ ~ ~~.• ~ ~ ~. ~~ - '.i.' P .. ~ 3 T0: Planning and Environmontal Commission • FROM: Cgmmunity Development Department DATE: September 10, 1990 RE: A request for an exterior alteration on Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing, 225 Wall Street. Applicant: American Angler/American ski Exchange T. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Approval of an exterior alteration request is required for any addition of enclosed floor area to structures in the CCT zone district. The proposal includes a 96 sq. ft. ground floor expansion of the American Angler/American Ski Exchange retail space, located at the south end of the arcade, of the Lazier Building on Wa11 Street. The expansion includes the relocation of the store entry and the addition of two bay windows to the store. Anew entry will also be added for access to the basement area of the building. The proposed infill area is currently an open exterior space and provides access to other areas of the building. The expansion is proposed exclusively on private property. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this exterior alteration request: 1, Zone District: CCI 2. Lot Area: 7,318 sq. ft. 3. Site Coverage: Existing: 4,640 Proposed: 4,640* Na change in site coverage wall occur because the space to be infilled is already covered by the second floor of the building. 4. Parking: The applicant will be required to contribute $960.00 to the T.O.V. parking fund. The addition will constitute 32~ of a parking space. The parking fee for 1 commercial space is $3000.00. (96 sq. ft./300 =.32 x $3000 = $960.00) III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE T 18.24.010 Purpose: The C~~~,,,~ercial 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. The infill project is in compliance with the purpose of the CCI zone district. The addition will be an activity generator in an area which is currently void of c~.~u«ercial activity. The addition will not negatively affect the scale of the building and will improve the overall quality of the space. IV. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan includes three elements that establish the review criteria for this application. The first of these is referred to as the Guide Plan which includes a number of sub-area concepts, many of which identify potential areas for future development and other improvements. Secondly, the Urban Design Considerations express the large scale, land use planning and design considerations, and finally architectural/landscape considerations which will be reviewed by the Design Review Board, establish the criteria far evaluating detailed design considerations of a proposal. The Vail Village Master Plan also addresses specific goals pertaining to the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village that must be considered in this application. In addition to the Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan, traditional zoning considerations are also a factor in this proposal. • 2 r 1 ~J V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESTGN rTTTDF. AT,AN F[lR VAIL VILLAGE There are no specific sub-areas relevant to this proposal. VI. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The following design considerations are a critical element of the Urban Design Plan. They identify the key physical characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to assure that new development be consistent with this established character. These considerations include the following: A. Pedestrianization: The proposed addition will have limited impacts on the pedestrian traffic flow because of its proposed location. The addition will add interest to this pedestrian area with the increase in window area and increased visibility of the entry of the store. B. Vehicular Penetration: Vehicular penetration or circulation will remain unchanged as a result of this proposal. • C. Streetscane Framework: Streetscape framework identifies two alternatives for improving the pedestrian experience in the Village. These include the development of open space including landscaping along pedestrian routes and the development of infill commercial storefronts along pedestrian corridors. While landscaping can provide a softening of buildings and a colorful framework, commercial infill can provide activity generators and visual interest to the pedestrian, according to this consideration. The proposed addition will relocate the store entrance to the front of the shop and add two bay windows. All of the items will improve the pedestrian experience by converting an otherwise unused space into viable commercial area. In addition, the increased transparency of the shop frontage will add visual interest to the area. D. Street Enclosure: The purpose of this consideration is to maintain a comfortable relationship between the width of streets and the height of buildings. The one story addition along the arcade will have no effect on the street enclosure of Wall Street because it does not increase the overall height of the building and although it does encroach into the pedestrian corridor, the impact does 3 not increase because addition will improve increasing the amount the arcade. .7 • E. F. G. H. I. J. Street Edae: of the proj2eting mass abev~_ the existing condition by of retail business frontage The along There are no standard setback requirements in the Vail Village. Rather, proposals are looked at with relationship to the site and the surrounding development of the site to insure a strong street edge. The addition will partially fill an area void of commercial activity along Wall Street. The street edge of Wall Street will be improved with the continuation of the existing building line. Building Heiaht: Building height will be unaffected. Views and Focal Points: The proposed expansion does corridors. In addition, the impacts on the line of sight bottom of Wall Street. Service and Deliverv: not affect any adopted view infill will have no from either the top or The proposed expansion will not affect the current service and delivery patterns. Sun/Shade: There will be no increase in the shadow pattern as a result of this addition because it is within the existing shade pattern of the building. Architecture/Landscape Considerations: These design considerations are typically the purview of the Design Review Board. The staff feels that the detailing and increased transparency of this corner of the building will have positive impacts on the arcade area of the building. Also, the infill of this space will improve the appearance of this area by adding visual interest to the space. The addition will be removing 94 sq. ft. of brick pavers which are considered landscaping by definition. In order to remove landscaping in the CCI zone district, sufficient cause must be shown by the applicant or as specified in the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations. In other instances requests of this nature have been required to obtain a landscape variance in order to decrease the amount of softscape/hardscape landscaping on site. This was necessary because they were decreasing both types of landscaping and thus changing the ratio of hardscape to softscape. This type of change requires a variance because according to the definition of landscaping only 20~ of the overall amount can be in hardscape type landscaping. In this application the amount of hardscape is decreasing and actually making the situation less nonconforming in regard to the landscape definition requirement. Therefore, we are not requiring the approval of a landscape variance for this application. The staff finds that the application is consistent with the Vail Village Design Considerations. In addition, the application is consistent with the goals and policies of the Vail Village Master Plan. We also feel that the benefits of the project outweigh the impacts of removing the paved area. The applicant has agreed to contribute up to $500 far the repair of the paved stairway located adjacent to the building. The staff feels the repair and . installation of new pavers in this area is an appropriate requirement to mitigate the removal of the pavers in the infill area. The Town of Vail landscape architect reviewed the project and rec~,~„~~end the paver treatment as an improvement needed in the area. Below is a summary of the existing and proposed landscaping as they relate to the total area of the site*: Lot Size; 7,318 sq. ft. Existing Landscape 1715 sq. 115 sa. 1830 sq. Proposed Landscape 1621 sq. 115 sa. 1736 sq. *Al1ey ways and areas between accessible to pedestrians and qualities have not been consi+ • ft. or 23.4 of hardscape ft. or 1.6~ of softscape ft. or 25.0 of the site ft. or 22.1 of hardscape ft. or 1.&~ of softscape ft. or 23.7 of the site buildings which are not do not have any landscaped ~ered landscaping. 5 . VII. RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN GOAL #2: TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR-AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.1 Policv: C...,N~.ercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encourage to provide activity generators, accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and street scape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. The proposed infill is consistent with established zoning and the existing uses of the area. The addition will provide interest and activity to an area which currently experiences limited activity. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation is for approval of the requested exterior alteration. The review of the relevant Urban Design Criteria and the Vail Village Master Plan goals show that the proposal is in conformance with the applicable sections of these documents. The applicant will also be required to contribute $960.00 to the Town of Vail parking fund. The staff feels that the conversion of this area to commercial space will be an additional activity generator for the Wall Street area and will improve the general appearance of the area. r1 U 6 taCvK~ G.IZ-~~K I~t=-tvG ~ Ip 1..~ f ~ t (~, ~ ~~ ~ ~ ' ! "~ • • r I 1 i f rn ~[ v_ z c -~ Y, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 i ~' ~~ L '~ I F i _~~ ,4,~f • '1 .,,,~ a; *~- ___.1~ v ~~ . gam iN 'r i ys ~~ ~,. ~ ~', ~'rt 4 w.. ~': ~ ~ I + +f '.y" ~' y i ~ $p it l ~ a~' eu~~s~. , R ~ ,~ N I , a i ~ . W ` ~' ~4 ~ ~ l ' ~ A•i, fJq ro , ~~;d~ .., i'~~~n :~ i.r ,`~~ a~~ .,vi~y j E LL _f C a D Y • • N O C CD rp a o~ r-r CD a o~ 8 ~ ~~~ ~:I~ ~ ~~ ~o ; ~~ ~~= ~ - ~ ~~ is :~~: .~ .F,.z ~~: . ~~, ~:.~:. s-. .~. • ry TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Devel~~~«ent Department DATE: September 10, 1990 RE: A request for a work session for a conditional use permit, a side setback variance and a possible creek setback variance far a ground water remediation system building at the Vail Amoco Service Station, 934 South Frontage Road (former Chevron Service Station). Applicant: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit, a side setback variance, and possibly a creek setback variance in order to place a temporary ground water contamination remediation system on the Vail Amoco Service Station site. The system will be located on the south side of the station. The system operates in virtually the same manner as the previously approved Alpine Standard remediation system and will be housed in a prefabricated metal building approximately 8 ft. wide by 16 ft. long and 10 ft. high. The roof peak will be approximately 12 ft. above grade. Roof material will also be prefabricated metal. As was the case with Alpine Standard, the system is comprised of an oil/water separator, an air stripper, recovered product storage tank, vapor extraction system, air compressors (which operate the pumps located in recovery wells), and a control and electrical panel which operates the entire unit. The system will remove ground water with a series of pneumatic pumps, separate the majority of the gasoline from the water with the oil/water separator, strip the remaining dissolved gasoline constituents with the air stripper and discharge the treated water to the sanitary sewer which serves the site. All discharged water and air emissions will meet the appropriate standards (see attached letter from Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District to RMX, Inc. dated 7/20/90). Attached to this memo is information regarding the systems operation provided by Chevron's representative, RMX of Sacramento, CA. It is estimated the proposed RMX manufactured remediation system will remain in place far 2 years. The Vail Amoco site is in the Arterial Business zone district. Under this zone district service stations are permitted subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Groundwater hydrocarbon contamination has resulted in the need to install the remediation system at this location. It is likely this contamination has occurred as a result of service station operation. Because the use is related to service station operation, it is also required to . obtain conditional use permit approval. Conditional use review and evaluation should address whether the proposed use is properly located to ensure compatibility and harmonious development between the proposed use and surrounding properties. A variance from the required Z5 ft. side setback is required in order to place the system behind the existing service station. As proposed the unit location is 1'-6" from the south wall of the service station between a waste oil tank inlet and wall mounted meters. At this location, the unit will encroach 6 ft. into the east side setback which will result in a 9 ft. setback. This location will reduce the slope disruption which will occur in placing the unit on- site and better screen the unit from the Frontage Road. Staff's suggestion to shift the proposed unit closer to the back wall of the existing station structure resulted in the need for a setback variance. The need to obtain a variance from the 50' stream setback requirement has not been determined at the time of the writing of this memo. More information regarding the stream setback variance will be available at the September 10th work session. The existing site exceeds landscape area requirements. No . landscape variance will be required in order to install the remediation system. II. BACKGROUND The purpose of this work session is to establish the issues concerning the remediation plan at the Vail Amoco Service Station. Under a property transfer agreement between Chevron and Amoco, Chevron is responsible for site clean up. III. DISCUSSION The staff opinion is that the proposed location is the least intrusive to on-going service station operations and on-site parking. However, a portion of the Town's recreation path system runs along the south side of Gore Creek at a lower elevation then the proposed unit location. Because of the unit's proximity to the recreation path, staff felt it was important to properly screen the unit. The applicant proposes to construct a 6 ft. redwood fence and plant up to seven 8 ft. tall evergreens on-site along the north creek bank in order to screen the unit from adjacent properties and the recreation path. The unit itself will be painted light grey to blend with the color of the existing service station structure. • Xn respense to staff concerns regarding site drainage and dumpster screening the applicant has extended the length of the proposed fence and modified the drainage proposal to remove the rip-rap drain area so that site drainage will remain unchanged. A representative of Chevron, U.S.A. and RMX will be present at the September 10, 1990 meeting to address any questions or concerns the Board may have regarding the proposed remediation system installation. • ~ 1 U ~ g~Y~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ u ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ { ~~ Y 1G ~ ~ ~ 6~a ~~~ ~ ~ 4 ~~ 1 .:, ~ ~ ~g ~:~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ µ~~ ,....;., vim"-_.________ -----...~ ~ - ~` ~ ~I~ ~ ~~ ~ t ~~ ~ a~ ~ ~~~sLt ~~.- s} 1 ~ „ "s ~ e pia W '.~-~ W 7 p+.M1S ~ 1 ~~ ~ r ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ w1 ~ ~ ~~ 6 ~ sqj 4 '+ 1' , l J 1, ~ ~`$ ~ " ~ ~. a~w_ ' { S Y ~ ~ ti` 1h t1. ~ y, ~~ GA ~ ~ ~ 7R ~ hl s a ` ,h~ ~S+ h 4~ ~}: hht hh y~ hth ~ ~X*~j~~y ~ ~~ Y~ ~ hhhy~gy,W ,h~ , ~O,y 1h1 h\p 1 ~ i~~ ~~ h ~~ 1 ~~/ h ~ \ ~ h ,'~ ~ 4h 1 ~~ ~ b 1 I ~ ~ ~ ~j ~, ~ _ ti, ~ z~{ ~ , 1 ~~ ~ r ~ 3j t ~ ~~°n ~ Ie ...................................~.......... o ~ ................................. ~ ~ ~p.p3'p8"w pQ"N 73,fiB rl 91y ,o~ sz ~_~ M,4i,Lr..P ~ a ~. E S Q x ~ S Q .L x (7 i• ~j ~ } ~~~ x~ a~~r ~~ .~ ~ ~~s ~• iS ~ ~! e x ~3~~ ~~~,n 33 ~"~ ~~ ~~~ h~S ~,~r~ ap~7t~iE~~~ a~~~~ a~+g~y'r ~~~~ a ~ ~ ~~~ ~6I`tC~~r ~~Cg~~ ~~t ~ = R _w,_ ~~ :~ i y s -. .. - a l _~~_ -f ~ .y~ S - ~. .1. I ti ~. Z ~ ~ r i~ ~' ~ ~ n a m ~ ~~ ~~~ >h ,~ ~ i U 1~ ~ ~'"~y~~J` ~~ H1 '~~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ' ~ .C 7 I I, ~ 7 ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~.~ '° p '~••- ~ ~~ ~ ~~_~ k ~ I ~ , i.7 ~~ ~ ,F ~ ~ . c ~ ,1 ~.. ' ~ a ~.. ~ r ~~~ ~~ w L`~r X ~' ~A ~ ~o r a x ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ r ~,Y y~ S a~ b k x: a S! x~ fE ~ i +a ~~ ~~ px = -~ 8~ ~ j~ ~~` ~ ~ - a ~~ ~ ~R :r ~'~~ m ~~: ~e~ ~~~ ~$ ~~~ SAS ~~ ~~[ ~; Y <~ ~~a tip, .` J ~\ \ ~~ ~ ~11 `\ \\~ Y • • ~i ~~ w, ~~ 4 ~ ~:~ • • ff7l.QCNyi~/~ri TI> ~'l~MO • GROUNDWATER t 1cEATMENT MODULE INSTALLATION PROPOSAL AND OPERATION DESCRIPTION for FORMER CHEVRON SERVICE STATION #7-0499 934 SOUTH FRONTAGE RDAD VAIL, COLORADO •, Respectfully Submitted By =RMX= ENGINEERING AND CONSTIti~~.. i ivN MANAGEMENT 9261 Folsom Blvd., Suite 203 Sacramento, California 9582E On behalf of CHEVRON, U.S.A. .] Chevron, U.S.A. proposes to install one RMX Groundwater Treatment Module {GTM} at the former Chevron service station located at 934 South Frontage Road in Vail, CO, for the purpose of removing hydrocarbon contamination from groundwater. The RMX GTM is a prefabricated, portable 8'W X 16'L X 12'H steel building that houses groundwater treatment equipment. The RMX groundwater treatment module has been designed to effectively treat contaminated groundwater while maintaining code compliance and aesthetic qualities as they apply to service stations. A subsurface investigation was initiated by Chevron in 1989 due to a property transfer agreement between Amoco Oil Company and Chevron, U.S.A.. Groundwater contaminatilon by petroleum products was discovered and additional site investigations have been ongoing. Enclosed is the most recent groundwater sampling report compiled by Western Geological Resources, dated May 17, 1990. In October 1989, an oil recovery system was installed at the site. This system was effective in removing free-phased hydrocarbon from the groundwater, but there still remains dissolved contaminants in the groundwater. The site investigations performed on soil and groundwater contamination remain inconclusive as to the source of the contamination. It is possible that the existing service station is not the only source of the contamination. The groundwater gradient appears to flow north to south but more contamination is found to the east of the storage tanks than to the south. In any event, site invesrigations are continuing to more accurately define the source and extent of contamination. Meanwhile, Chevron, U.S.A. is proceeding to mitigate the contamination by the installation of the groundwater treatment system. The RMX-GTM-16 groundwater treatment module is outfitted with an oillwater separator, air stripper, and all required instruments and controls for pumping and treating groundwater. Contaminated groundwater is pumped from the recovery wells to the GTM by submersible total fluids pneumatic pumps. The flow of water to the GTM will be determined in part by the capacity of the well s. The estimated average flow is 7 GPM {10,000 GPD), continuously. • Once the groundwater is pumped to the GTM, it is deposited into the oil/water separator. The separator being used is rated to effectively remove oil fi„~ the groundwater at flows of up to 15 GPM. As the groundwater flows through the separator, free-phased hydrocarbons float to the surface of the water where they are then skimmed off the surface and deposited into the 55 gallon product storage barrel. The oil-free groundwater is then treated through an Ejector Systems STRP-A4 - 4 tray cascade air stripper. The stripper is designed to remove non-aqueous phase liquid hydrocarbons (NAPE} from water. To do this the system directs the groundwater over horizontally aligned trays, 3.5'W X 5.5'L X 0.5'H, and forces air through the water via aerator tubes, The air being forced through the water creates a sort of cold boiling effect which "strips" the hydrocarbons from the water. The hydrocarbons are released from the water as a gas and are vented to the atmosphere. _-` 3t An Air Discharge Permit application was submitted to the Colorado State Health . Department on May 29, 1990. The permit should be ready by the end of August. The release of volatile gases to the atmosphere will be far less than the 1 ton per year deemed acceptable by the Health Department. The "worst case" hydrocazbon concentrations in the groundwater entering the treatment system are listed ixt Table 1 under the "influent" column. Water released from the GTM into the sewer system are listed in the "effluent" column. The hydrocarbon concentrations shown in the influent column are taken from the groundwater testing performed by Western Geological Resources during the most recent site investigation. The hydrocarbon concentrations shown for the effluent have been calculated by Larry Kaufman of Effector Systems, Inc., based on the influent concentrations shown and 7 GPM average flow. Table 1 -Pollutant Loading Hydrocarbon Concentrations Levels (parts per billion) Contaminant influent effluent Benzene 10,39(} 5 Toluene 1f,2S9 5 Ethvlbenzene 2,13Q 1 Xvlene 15,125 10 The Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District has approved a discharge • permit far this installation pending the deposit and proof of insurance formwork to be completed by Chevron. The GTM will be in constant operation - 24 hours/day, 36S days/year. Once hydrocarbon contamination in the groundwater has been reduced to levels acceptable by the State Health Department, the module will be removed from the site and all conduits will be permanently capped Crroundwater monitoring and effluent sampling of the effluent will be ongoing throughout the clean-up effort as required by the State Health Department, Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District, and Chevron's Environmental Engineers. Because the treatment module is portable, temporary installations such as this are simplified. Relatively little site work is required to accommodate the module which is brought to the site and set in place with a custom made trailer. Installation operations have little effect on traffic and service station operations. When the GTM is removed from the site, the only noticeable remnants will be the slope modification and landscaping. Chevron is proposing to install the GTM behind the service station. This will eliminate any visual impact from the street; traffic will not be impaired an any roadway, path, ingress or egress; and no parking spaces will be displaced or eliminated In order to install the GTM behind the station, minor grade changes must be made to the slope behind the service building above Gore Creek. These changes aze well defined in the plans submitted with the conditional use • permit application. Although the GTM will be nearly impossible to see from the . street side of the service station, the GTM will be visible from the bicycle path which runs along the south bank of Gore Creek (please see the enclosed photographs). Landscaping proposed for the slope - jute mesh, wildflower seed, and blue spruce - will soften the visual impact of the GTM as seen from the bicycle path. Since the GTM will be painted the same colors as the service station, it will blend easily with the existing facility. In addition, clutter behind the service building will be reduced significantly when the GTM is installed. The service station and adjacent properties are zoned Arterial Business District. Immediately east and adjacent to the service station is the Town of Vail Old Town Shops. Across Red Sandstone Creek to the west is the Glen Lyon Office Building. Across South Frontage Road to the north is a Holy Cross Electric maintenance yard. To the south, across Gore Creek, is the Town of Vail bicycle path. Since the GTM has been designed to comply with similar code and zoning requirements as service stations, it is generally considered an acceptable addition to an existing service station facility. Installation of an RMX groundwater treatment module at 934 South Frontage Road in Vail, Colorado, as shown in the plans and described in this proposal, will have relatively little effect on the surrounding area. It will not take anything away from the character of the area, nor will it create additional traffic or congestion, or any adverse or unsafe condition. It will not negatively effect any public or private interests. Installation of the GTM will however impact the groundwater quality of the area in a significant and positive way. n U ,4fTAC~/~E~T ~ ~1~~ 1r • July 20, 1990 UPPER EAGLE VALLEY WATER ANp SANITATION pISTRICTS 846 FDRE57 ROAD •VAIL, GDLpRApO 81657 {303) a76~7480 Mr. Kent Perkes RMX, Inc. 5555 Erindale Drive Colorado Springs, Colorado 80918 Dear Mr . Perk~es ~~'~°~.mY~t, ~J.,Y~ ~. ~ A~ G 7 X990 :u ~ "_zt, ~~,1~~~~ We have received youx Permit Application farm and it appears to be in order. Preliminary information, indicates that your discharge will meet the limitations set forth in the sample permit that you have received. The fallowing items need to be a~~ressed prior to issuing a signed permit. 1. Compliance with Section 5.a.(1) & (2) of the permit in regard to a • security bond and comprehensive general liability insurance, Please send the District evidence of the above-referenced bond, and a certificate of insurance naming the District as additional named insured, as the District's interest may appear. 2. The District will requa.re a $5,000 deposit which will be refunded at the end of the term of the permit, providing that ail service charges have been paid; ar~d there are na outstanding damages or fines which have occurred as a result of the Permittee's negligent actions. S. k~arther clarification as to whether you will have an operator on duty full time so that compliance samples (e.g. flow readings and pH) will be collected. Arrangements can be made with us to provide that service if necessary. 4. According to the conditions of the permit, toxicity testing will be required (Section 3). We can provide that service if desired or you can use a laboratory of your choice that can provide that service. We will need advance notice if you wish us to do so. • PARTICIPATING DISTRICTS - ARROWHEAp METRO WAT£R ~ AVDN METRO WATER ~ BEAVER CREEK METRQ WATER ~ 9ERRY CREEK METRO WATER CLBAH EAGLE VAIL METRO WATER ~ EpWARDS METRO WATER ~ LAKE CREEK MEADOWS WATER ~ UPPER EAGLE VALLEY CDN5O41DATEp 5ANIT ATION VAIL VALL£V CONSOLIUATEU WATER •VAIL WATER ANp $A NITATION Mr. Kent Parkes . July 20, 1990 Page 'Itao 5. Scheduling of an on site inspection of the facility by District personnel prior to start tm . If you have any further questions, please contact me at (303) 476-7480. Sincerely, UPPER EAGLE VPr.r.~'Y CONSQLTDATED SANITAT N DISTRICT / Y~.(C~ Mike Paeckes Wastewater Director MP:sk cc: Fxed HasJ.ee • TO: Town Council/Planning and Environmental C~uuulS510n FROM: Community Development Department Tam Braun DATE: August 28, 1990 RE: Joint Session to discuss amendments to SDDs, GRFA, Site Coverage and the pay-in-lieu parking program. The accompanying memos on the SDD Density Bonus System and GRFA outline specific rec~~,u«endations for these amendments. As directed by the Council and PEC at the last joint session, the proposed amendments to SDDs will establish a maximum density increase based on performance criteria. New information on the implications of changing the GRFA definition, and different development scenarios for increasing the GRFA, are presented in the GRFA memos. The primary purpose of this joint session is to discuss SDD's and the issue of density. Information on GRFA will also be presented. It is our goal to reach some consensus on both of these issues in anticipation of drafting final amendment proposals. Final amendment proposals for site coverage an parking program are under way. Both of these been discussed at previous joint sessions and in these amendments are much less complex than SDDs. For this reason, it is our intention to with the PEC Task Force and proceed an to the with formal amendment proposals. d the pay-in-lieu amendments have the issues involved with GRFA and continue dialogue Planning Commission • . TO; Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department Tom Braun DATE: August 21, 1990 RE; Amendments to the GRFA system This memo outlines the next step in refining amendments to the GRFA system. Based on input during the July 31 work session, the following assumptions have been made: 1) The new definition for GRFA is conceptually acceptable to the Council and PEC. Further work will be done to specific terminology used to define how GRFA is to be calculated. 2} The garage credit will be maintained, and garages will not be made a requirement. Language will be added to clarify precisely what spaces constitute a garage. 3) There is support for maintaining some type of credit, or allowance for mechanical areas and airlocks. 4} There is a lack of consensus on how the GRFA ratio should be increased to compensate for square footage "lost" as a result of the new definition. REVISED GRFA PROPOSAL The goals of this effort are to simplify the GRFA system and to establish an ordinance that is both understandable and enforceable. The new definition for how GRFA is calculated will significantly improve the staff's administration and enforcement of this ordinance. To simplify the system, it was our objective to eliminate as many of the existing credits as possible and incorporate appropriate allowances for these "credits" into the GRFA ratio. Far good reason (energy conservation and health/ safety), credits for airlock and mechanical spaces were a part of the July 31 GRFA proposal. However, these credits were in conflict with our overall goal of eliminating credits in order to simplify the system for calculating and checking GRFA. After meeting with the PEC Task Force, a new proposal has been developed. This proposal has only one credit (garages}, is based on one ratio and involves one calculation. Everything inside the exterior walls of a structure (excluding. attics and crawl spaces) wi11 count as GRFA. All other credits and allowances have been eliminated. • The revised definition for GRFA is the following: Gross residential floor area (GRFA) means the total square footage of all levels of a building, as measured from the inside face of exterior structural walls (excluding furring, sheetrock, plaster and other similar wall finishes), to include all covered or roofed spaces enclosed on three of more sides. GRFA shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, mechanical chases, vents, storage areas and attic and crawl spaces. A. Single family, two-family and primary/secondary devel~~..,.ent may exclude the following areas from calculation as GRFA: 1. Enclosed garage of up to three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle space, not exceeding a maximum of two spaces per constructed dwelling unit. 2. Attic space with ceiling height of five feet or less, as measured between the top side of the structural members of the floor and the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above, shall be exempt from GRFA calculations (an attic area which is created by construction of a roof by truss-type members will be exempt from calculation provided that the trusses are spaced no further than thirty inches apart). 3. Crawl space accessible by an opening not to exceed nine square feet in area and with five feet or less ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the ground or structural floor to the underside of structural members of the floor/ceiling assembly above, shall be exempt from GRFA calculations. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square faatage of a building as defined above. Deductions from the total square footage shall then be made for garages, attics and crawl spaces as defined in paragraphs 1 through 3. Any square footage in excess of the maximum credits allowed shall be included in the calculation of GRFA. Other factors relevant to this chance * Adequate mechanical spaces shall be assured through the enforcement of the Uniform Building Code and the Mechanical Code. * Submittal requirements will be amended to require dimensions on drawing and cross-sections as may be required. * A written "Interpretive/Policy Statement" shall be • drafted to provide further clarification on how GRFA will be measured. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE GRFA RATIO The purpose of amending the GRFA ratio is to compensate for a reasonable amount of the square footage that would be lost by virtue of the new definition. The obvious question is how much square footage should be compensated for in the new GRFA ratio, and what mechanism should be used to "build this square footage into the new ratio". A variety of scenarios were presented to the PEC Task Force on August 22. The issue of compensation came down to: 1) Maintaining the status quo by increasing the GRFA ratio equal to the amount of square footage that can be built under the existing definition, 2) Eliminating all credits {with the exception of garages) and leaving the GRFA ratio at .25, or 3) Doing something in between. After a great deal of discussion, the Task Force reached a consensus to add 450 square feet into the GRFA ratio as compensation for the elimination of credits and other allowances. The justification for this number is that the mechanical credit (50/unit}, airlock credit {25/unit), and stairwell allowance (150/unit) should be maintained. The storage credit (200/unit} was considered unnecessary, primarily because the garage credit provides ample room for storage. There are three alternatives for adding 450 square feet to the GRFA ratio. With each of these alternatives, it is important to remember that there are no more credits, no allowances for stairwells, etc. The amount of development permitted is established solely by the GRFA ratio. The alternatives are: Increase GRFA Ratio Simply increasing the existing .25 ratio will allow more square footage to be built on a lot. However, there is a fundamental problem with this approach because increasing the ratio will not treat ail lots equally. For example, an increase to .295 will allow 2,950 sq. ft. on a 10,000 square foot lot, a 450 sq. ft. increase from what is allowed by the existing .25 ratio. On a 30,000 sq. ft. lot, .295 will allow 5,925 sq.ft., an increase of 675 sq. ft, from what is allowed by the .25 ratio. The accompanying spreadsheet (Ratio Increase Alternative} provides an analysis of how various changes will affect development on lots ranging in size from 10,000 to 30,000 square feet. Add 450 Square Feet to Existing Ratio The existing ratio could be maintained at .25, and simply amended to add 450 square feet to each lot. The amount of development on a lot would be {lot size X .25) + 450. Graduated Scale Svstem This alternative would ~.nvolve a GRFA Table, with different GRFA ratios for different lot sizes. The table would be similar in form to a tax table. The advantage of this alternative is that it is more equitable in how changes to the ratio would affect various lot sizes. The problem is that in certain cases, a larger lot may be permitted less GRFA than a smaller lot. Refer to the accompanying spreadsheet (Graduated Scale Alternative) for an example of how this could be structured. RECOMMENDATIONS ON A REVISED GRFA SYSTEM At this point, the mechanics of how the GRFA ratio is structured are not as important as the degree to which they are changed. Based on previous wank sessions, it is apparent that people have many different perspectives on how, if at a11, the ratio should be changed. In proposing the 450 square foot figure, the Task Force and staff agreed that for the change to be fair, certain credits and allowances must be maintained. However, the storage credit and other "miscellaneous" spaces (spaces not currently counted as GRFA such as vents and flues, bay windows, void spaces and substantially enclosed spaces) do not need to be compensated. • The loopholes in the existing system are well documented. The impact of closing these loopholes will vary depending on how the existing system has been utilized. If a designer or developer takes these loopholes to an extreme, these changes to the GRFA system will have a dramatic, if not devastating impact on their development potential. If a designer or developer utilizes the existing credits and allowances in a manner consistent with their intent, the change is relatively insignificant. The major change in the proposed system is the elimination of the storage credit. With very few exceptions, this credit has simply been used to increase the size of homes, with little relationship to its intent - storage. Another justification for eliminating this credit is that storage can be provided within the 600 square foot garage credit, wp:GRFAAMD2 8/23/9Q C] • I o\° ~°. ~ ~ \ \ ~ \ o ~ ~ ~ v\° °\° o\°\° °\° a ° o\° \ °\° °\° I ~-,-Im~mrl ao~t~Nriooo03tbLCa~~t7) I d~ I .-IC7CI'en~N ~~t*~N.--IOrINNmC'cAtQLN F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • W W SSG 9 ~ F~ 6 O aaQ w r~ E-~ ~~ H C? W E-~ rn vazrn ~, W rl r-I W A ~ p4 ~ ~ UCl1~ F-I pG N U E-~ ~ O U] CA •rl !~ Cf~ ~ !d E O L'3 ~1 a~n~ an N Q H ai Q7 Z W L3 Cf] O H ~e z W "~ 4 H a~ z W A4 0 A W {!] O a d a I oaacoo ooaoooooonoooao ,no~nc,.no u~cst~c~~n ~nc~~nolnornou~ .-a ,--i N N r'~ N N *-~ .--I I ~ +--1 N N crJ t+3 d' C' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i • I OC~o©C? O C7000C~C~OCO000dC7o A I OooOL7G ~no>na>_nou~o~nc,F.nauzo~ GW I Gp1COL31NU7 ti~cDtpLL~NOSW Q3oo+-i.--INN trJ CG F Gr7 [*~ th Cr? 'd' d' ~' cM cN d' ~' 'ri' ~!' d' ~f' ~ t(3 ~ti ~ ~ i1] • I e\° 1 @J to I \ I ~ I i I c-~,-IC+~~m~ Door-u~~rc+a,~owo~c~co~n~rc+~ I .--I t+a d~ LC} tO F`- C tD tD CD CO CD CD [p ~ cry ~ ~ cs3 ~ ~ I OOdi=SdCJ GPGOC3CS~:.+i~OQOOGCIO tS]olnCStC~Cr C+~7t7~'iGGC3od40C7ooG ,••I ,--I N N c~7 Crr C7 C'7 r7 c*'] m [~ C+7 r~3 [*~ c+o tT) m t*~ t+7 o I C7otaodo r_~ooocooooococoo crr I oaocoo oooocooooocaocaoo • I o[~CO~N~ COL DU07o.-iNm'a'u~cpLmtAo I mmcoc+~~•cr ~+v~rrd'~u~+ta~u7rt>~ncfl~~co Ua I I I ocaooao ooaoaoaooGdoc~oo ,.~ I ~nrrnoFnr ooooooaocscc7oooo ~ H I Cfa N 'eM l~ G1 N C~'~ d' ~tJ tb L tq CIS G *i tV S*7 d~ u~ tO L F-+C=a 3 Nmt"~mmd+ ~~cM~N~~st+rn~u~u~u3+.p~~ ~H C~' I C!] I I [!2 I W I ooooC~o ooooocooaooooa._. A [.~ I ~ ~ ~.c s u7 In uo cn u~ ~n xn era crs ~~ ~n u~ u~ ~n ~n rr~ ~n u~ X61 p~.+ O ~ ~ E awl W .-, I a~n I C7C7oooo oooaocoocooo©oo G~1N ! [,~~OtClC7~~ u7i1]~to~~~L7c[1~~Ft7~rncfdF.t~ C. f tt7 N v N LC} C^ tYJ CA G rE N tr? 'H' ~C1 CO L 00 ~ O r-I N ~ ~ I N N m c~ m t*~ m e+i •3~ d' c{~ 'cM d' v~ ~ eM C' C U~ ~n u7 v ~ l ~ Z fsa I a lz t ~ ~ I f W I oooaoo C~ooc~ooCSgoooooao N l C7 OO t7 d C7 GGOO GC?G oG c Gv G C7 C7 I--I I aoaooo G~oocoaoocoooaoc C!] 1 o ri N c~7 ~ to Cb L CO CS7 t7 r-i N CrJ 'tl~ to CO N CO U7 0 I ~r-i:-Irlrlrl rirlrir-iNNNNNNNNNNt~ OI al 47 •~l O ~ o c>i d r-I lf] ~ +"I Q7 t>f l10 S~'i ~i ~'e O ttf O -rl „C •r•I +' U +' !(f U ~ ~ ~ ~~ ro v ~ ~ ;~ V ~ >~ -~ O 'Cf ~ U S; G~ Q7 -rI ~i i~ ~ 0 0 4•I m +~ o w •ZS ~ ro ,--t c~ ~ n ,~ ~~~~~~ «-1 1 3 ~ Dl 'Lf '~ \ O b Sy N G -I- r-I ••i S.~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ U ~ !~L) m t~m'U ~w ~ O too N O S.r fs+ O O 'Cs ~ ~~~~ 'op ~ O +~ N to Cl ty •,.I d' h-I Ey Rf ~ ~ t~ all .~ ^ •rl [fIW U•~~ko~° W ~ ~ i.c~ o -r-I O o Sti ro +~ to N Q) ~ ~ •r-I a•+'rtv +~utC7-~UN N ~ fA ~ +~ tQ r-+w~m~ 4-I N U Pa ~} ~ St S." r-I ~; ~ e-I ~ 4-I !xa ~' $ 4? GG to +~ O O S•I C`3 •~ O ~ r-s O .•^1 r-I i-~I N 4•I O ~~ ~f#. '~ +~ N "CS Q O O I•+ m +D -~ -F' •~I ftS N 0o is Sy ~ v~s~oc~o~uv' W ~ Lea f~ •W ~ tk C-~ Yap O Q3 N O •~ ~•+ U V Z fsa p-i {l] CJ] wW ~ P.i I•-I Q~' E-1 Q,' f-t~ z0 Ix Q wa a ~" 6~ w l-l o a E rn ~~rn UW~+-1 ~ A .~ i-•i ~ 3 A a] ~n W Gcl N '» ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ . / [f] tf] Fop A V] "~ ttS d'vC3G-1 r~G~~ ~ ~ C!S ~ Up w a w o pC, H I C'3 H I OO?01ODODOp L~tD~c!'`tt+~*JNN ~--i.--ipO©d07 ~ I e+~NNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNN+-1 .-1 A f~ I w 100000© OOOOOpppppppOOG7 E ~ I d' Lta I ~ ~ I A C'3 I Q', I a 1 ~ I I Op p p a O p C7 O ad C] b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 !~ W I OOC7aC? C7QaC700~J00000CSp0 Q hl I pOaaa G7ab0000000 OOCSpQ N I .~NC+7•cFU7 iDL 00010*-iNC+'~eN~CONOpEAp Exl Ci] l a +-I .--I .--I .--I .--I ,-i ,--I +-i +-i N N N N N N N N N N [Yj ~-7 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~•1 E [ ~ +--i .--I ri ri .-i ~--! .-1 .-i +^•1 v-1 e~ r-I rl rl rl rl r-i +--I .-~ .--I ~ O I OaOC3C?C~ 00000ooooopppaO Q,' ~ I ,--100 C7 a G 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 O O p p p C7 r'`C I I 0 r{ N S~7 d' iS] LO L 03 W +--i ,-^! N C~'3 d" lf] [p ~ 0 O W 1 0.1 .-I .-1 ,-i ,--F ,--i ,--i ,-i ,--I .-i N N N N N N N N N N I i G, I GG Q I O O? ~i7 CO +-1 Cs 00 00 O +--~ O tp L`- '~ iL7 O 00 O cN w-I 0 TsaH 111?O L~d'Nd OJ OQO NLi]Oa NL Ntl4 L+7 C7 iD L~"}0 {.~ E I O) G+~ O oQ o0 00 CO LCS tt7 ~H Cr3 N N ,--I ,--I © O p ~ C1} C~ tit$ I NNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNN+-Iri+--I Q'i I [~ 1000000 00000000C:7pp0000 W I ~ 3 f • 1000000 OOOOpppppOQC7Opp aE-s I ~noinp~rio 000oooooap0ac~0o d'[=.r I l~Nd'L~C~N C7~N~t7COt~-ppOrlNc'7'~t'lt7COh- E-~ I N t+7 E+'? C~'~ t+7 W ~M ~N ~N 'd' ~ ~ ~ to ~ LC? t[) ~C7 IY3 ~3 ~C] O C~ I E-~ [!3 1 I I C1.3 I AW I OOOOOp OOOOOCSG}0o0 o00C5E7 WU I u'~1c~~r}~~cyu~ u~~nu'su'~tnirs~es~esc[]u~~esers~~tlcc] Cf] 2 I 'd' ~' d' d+ d' ~' ~' 'c7' tl' 'd' d' ~ d1 d+ ~?+ d1 '~ ~ ct' c1' e!' O ~ I p4 ~ I Q Q ! I~ ~ k ~ ~ I ~ I I [r7 +-+ I ~u~ I OOOppO OOa00G70ooooor.~ocs Pa N I 0 in O I!] O u7 u? ~ tt~ i[~ u7 u7 u] 6[7 t[~ u7 liJ tts IC5 tt7 ACS C, i ~~ON~L]l~ D7~O,--tN c7 'cH tl7 CDN90 Q?4+--IN 3... ! NN~C*~C*3['7 tgt~d''di~N'cN~~d~d'd'd'~lf3ILJ d a' [ a w 1 a sz I ~ i~ I I I aooopp oC~cscsoooooooonoa [xi I Opoopc~ 00©0+~ooooCSaooda c.~ I or~0oap oc5opoaoaooaooro I--i I d r-! N [~ d' tL7 CO C OL3 O~ O +--I N C''3 d' In CD l CQ Q7 O CR I .--I rt rl e-1 r-! r-I .-I .-I .--i r-i N N N N N N N N N N Lh I pi al CHRONOLOQY OF CHANGF$ TO GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA • The following is a brief summary of the changes that have been made to the GFRA system as it pertains to single family, p/s and duplex development. 1969 First zoning ordinance is adopted Residential zone district allowed .33 FAR Definition of "floor area": The sum of the gross horizontal areas of all floors of a building, including habitable penthouses and habitable attic space, but not including vent shafts, courts or uninhabited areas below ground or in attics. Site coverage was 25~ 1973 Major revision to zoning ordinance Floor area ratio was reduced to .25 Definition of "Floor area, gross residential": The total floor area within the enclosing walls of dwelling units or accommodation units, including closets, service areas, and interior walls within the units, but excluding balconies, hallways, corridors, stairwells, garages, and service areas outside the dwelling unit or accommodation unit enclosures, and uninhabitable heating or mechanical equipment areas. Site coverage was 25% 1976 Adopted decreasing GRFA formula: .25 of lot area up to 15,040 sq. ft. .10 of lot area between 15,000 and 30,000 sq. ft. .05 of lot area over 30,000 sq. ft. Aggregate total of GRFA far two-family residences was limited to 4,000 sq. ft. Site coverage was reduced to 20~ 1977 Primary/Secondary district was created No maximum limit on GRFA (i.e., 4,000 limit on two-family) 1978 4,000 sq,ft. maximum on two-family was repealed 1980 Limitations placed on areas that do not count as GRFA mechanical 50 per unit airlock 25 per unit garage 600 per unit Other areas with less than 6'6" floor to ceiling clearance did not count as GRFA - no limit to this space. The basic GRFA definition currently on the books was adopted in 1980 • 1982 Storage credit of 200 square feet per unit is adopted Other areas with less than 5 feet floor to ceiling clearance did not count as GRFA - no limit to this space. 198b 250 Ordinance is adopted, basically adding 250 sq. ft. of development to every single family or duplex unit in town (500 square feet per lot). There have basically been twa types of changes to GRFA, how much is allowed and how it is defined. In practical application, how GRFA is defined has far more bearing on what can be built than the permitted GRFA ratio. For example, when the GRFA ratio was reduced from .33 to .25, it may not have resulted in smaller homes because there were still no limitations on the types of spaces that did not count as GRFA. Changes in '80 and '82 established some of these limitations, but the addition of the word "habitable" created a whale new realm of the "void space". The accompanying spreadsheet demonstrates the approximate amount of GRFA that could have been built under various definitions. However, because each definition allowed for a certain amount of intangible space, these numbers are only a relative indication of how permitted development has changed over the years. wp:grfahist 8/22/0 ~..~0 I I G d pGOO W SC ~n ~ cn p era o ors o E ~ 0 I c~ cD oo .•i m co ~U I mmmv~.rv+ ao+ i w ac u~ I h p-I N I ~•] 3 ~ I I 0~O I 1ooOOpo rn roan I ~nou~ou~o O W d' I W N V'[~ O] N rl O ! N f+? Crj L+7 C*? d~ a+ I o I ~ ~ 1 C4 N I z O H [J) N w 0 [~za ~ O.i' r-I C3 E-~ G W E F O orn cn a< rn W r'I w ~~ x z¢'Wcn ~ ~ ~ N +•~ U P.i m O E •.a . ix~ ~~ w ~ r6 r] ~ C7 4i ~ W ~ i.~ ~A~ bD I k ~D ~ b I O O o G G G G0 ~ Ql I ifS p ~!? O ~i G ~ CG 'b I ~ OJ p [+7 ~[} 0~ +•'ICJb I mm~'~'v~~ tG I ~ I N O I • rn ! N I N ~ 'b ~ fx+ Q1 m tz 'v r-i C3 'L3 m N . ~ O Cl~ orb d0 ira ~ ~ C7 '~G N ,~ Sa U GGOOOOOpG GG7 C3OdO ooooocooocooooo L OOWpr•INmcP tl7 CpL OOrnQrI ~~r~~nrnln,n~~Y,~nu~u~u~co oooocoooaoOapoo oGOOOOOOaOOaooG m•C~fSCOt o7U]O.-~N P7d'u~cDC ~ ~' ~' d' V' ~ ~ ti7 ~ l1~ i1'J Lt7 Lid LCS ifj OdOL] OOOOp O C] OC.+OO O p O 0 0 0 0 a 4 0 0 G O O p O?dwNmtraPMmmOwNm d' i[5 I.f7 ICJ t1] iCi IS') Ifs ~ ii1 ~f] CD t0 f0 tD ooOOOa oOOOOOOOpOOOCOo Ino~np~ip GooooOOppoocooo O 1~7 uj COOm V~LC~[b L~Op~O,-INC7 d'~CO I`O cgmmm~~ ~~rtr~v~~~]~nu~rnu~ln~.n~taln OOpOpO C.+OpOGGOpOGGC.JOC7C7 ~O~Cyp~tlp OOp OdOOppp oGOOo CpO?rlV'[fJBi dr-~Nm~~CpM00 C3'iOwNP?tl' NNmr~7me') V~C~eNer~~'~'V'V'st'uau~i.f?u'su'a cow I oooaoo Mw~cs r orno~no~n ~ Ri N I tnMONIfJi rl [) f~ I NNmmmm I ~L7 I N 'l7 I • tp I xe f C7 I I I m6 rn I o0000O C fsa •I~ I o In o In o in 61~i•ri I ~t?NC7N~N +--~ ZS' 'LS 1 N N m m m m N I iil 1y I N U I I z rn ~ rn ~ ~ •+~~ .-I L7 '~ N m s~ m U O Cx7 N H U] E O pOOGCiOtlOCi~7OpOOG ors ~n Ln u~ ~n ,n ~, ,n :n ~a ~n ~n '.n u, ~n o~ d7 G w N m~ r.[) cA i~ o~ 07 p w N c+~m~rrrcrd+Cr~~rv~v~~~nu~~.n O O G O O O C, x 0 0 0 0© d 0 pu~GCnOlnou~OU~sp~nGlnO ON~L C7 N~!]L~ON~L+O NtI? V' d' ~ d' u] K? lI3 lC? CD CO CO CO [~ N L P p O G o 0 6 0 O 0 0 0 p O O G O 0 O C7 O O l+'~tD sAN u7 OP+-I d' L~OCrj CD tnN3.CJ 03,-~~'! 6 mCpO~NIO W NCOO) NcOq?N~O~N u~O~NiI70.1 mmm<r~v~ ~n~nu~cOCOCOC~C-r•aaaao~ornrn oooaoo ocoOOOOOOGGCOao 000000 00OOOOOOpoocOOo 0OOOOO GooooooaoGOOOOo OwNm•V~~ CDL oJ07vwNmsM~CDtim WO wwwww,-I .-+r-IwwNNNNNNNNNNm ~ ~ o ~ .^•I m •rn .c ~ N V V ~ •~ ~ ~ a~ rt ~ ~ o +°~ ~ ~ .-+ •~I o ri •F~ f{1 U f0 ~ 4a \ +~ •~ a ~ o o as z~ m rl t~ a 2s +~~+ p ~ m m m r~1 m tU U N ~C ~ 4a y-+ A~ ~ rV-I v 0 N u3 V a Fa Sa ~ ~ r~ p = '~ ~ ~ ~ +~ cD \ •rt v~ .~ ri ~ V1 +~ CO V ~tl •rl v ~ ~ (~ O ~ \ N O m o .••i O 4••1 'L3 ~i ~ +~ •.~-i R3 P w fw itl ~ ~ W [Q ^ [q Q7 F-I •~-I ri Q a G? ,~ O G O pa T3 +' ~ •rl O +~ O ~ R3 •N Q7 r-I •F3 ~ ~.' ~ •~ 'C3 •~s a~ w •~ v ~-I ~ o a~ w m tti O ~ •ri ~ U ~ UI •.•I fsl ~ ~ +~ p U fQ +~ J.Y •rl ~ Rf Q1 'L3 a 3 ~ ~ ~ N rts ~ r•i 00 'C3 0] ~ ~ N O `d -ri i•r •.-I ~ C} Sr U V b 'C3 ~ '[y ~ ~0 +~ N O 93 c6 ~ c[) ~ crs A U K sM w N v O! A rtf ~ O f4 •~ •13 ,l' r-I 'LS O 3 ttl +~ G ~ •~-€ ~ U +~ •ri G [t1 ~ ~ S-I O N U Ul GA •F' h0 ~ N O U ~ D tq •ri r--I Rf •ri 4Oi ~ O O O ~ •ri tll 'l7 O -r-I .-I U +~ t6 rt ~t r-I ~ ~ w ~rl ~= +~ m+~w O' RI U Gl O 4-I -rl N w U .-I U +~ r-t ~ •~I +~ ~U a+~ m arl a CVi~~G ~•~G•~ O rOn W NO.,ri~c,~ ~ N ~ C7 A u~ V ^ ~a ~ O T-I N +~ b ~ OQ •,-3 •ri •i-~ •i3 +' a ~ A ^ro ^a~ a ~ 2~ @~~w ~ u'~ O U b # q0 sl# 'C1 Sa ~ •rl Rf Ul •~,rl~oosi~c= S.I rti U ~ ~W ~ (G N 10 +~ ~ = t1p 't7 U 'S. ~ •~ ~ N dl Sa 'V Rf q0 +~ O V V O 'O ~' ,~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 4-I 21 •rl U •ri ~ +~ "~J 'Ci b roa •rlQl Vo]VSa a~aa~ss~u+~ano ~s €~ •,~ •~I ro ~.•-r vw~6~ s~o •,1 3n ~ ~u Gw N O ~ a~ o ac rz z~ •~ N m o ~ ~C7[~UV~: Q7 t1(I I I f I I I .Q f4 4~ m cfJ C? N cA E,' N S1 CDC MOJ~ W cn ~ ~ rornrnrnmrnrn W~ -.•I U` w w w w ,-s ,1 p r. r-..-. r-..-..-..~ .~ ~w NchCNU7 catiop ti TO: Town Council., Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of C.,~,..,.unity Development Tom Braun DATE: August 24, 1990 RE: Special Development District Amendments The key issue in amending the SDD section of the zoning code is density - - should density increases be allowed through the process and if so, under what circumstances? There are many other issues to be covered during this amendment process (specific wording of design criteria, administrative fees, non-- residential square footage, review procedures and overlay/underlying), However, density is the most significant issue because how density is handled will dictate the structure and organization of ordinance. There was general agreement at the July 31 work session that a maximum cap be placed on density increases approved through a SDD. This memo outlines five SDD ordinances that include some form of density bonus, a "bonus system checklist" that covers some of the key issues relative to density bonus systems and preliminary recommendations for a density bonus system. EXAMPLE OF DENSxTY BONUS SYSTEMS The majority of all SDD ordinances permit some type of increase in density. The premise is quite simple, in exchange for increased density, the developer gives something back to the community. However, ordinances vary a great deal with regard to how much density can be increased, what is given back to the community and how the amount of density increase is determined. The following five examples demonstrate different ways of implementing a density bonus system. Breckenridge Breckenridge's Development Code essentially reviews every development in the town as a SDD. There are few pre- determined development standards, rather, all proposals are reviewed for compliance with over thirty "devel~~,~«ent policies". Same of these policies are "absolute" (they must be satisfied) and others are "relative" (if the impact of a project on a relative criteria is positive, points are awarded, if the impact is negative, points are taken away}. After considering all policies, a project with a net positive point total is approved and a project with a net negative point total is denied (regardless of degree, a -1 means the same as -8, +1 means the same as +9}. This award winning system is quite complex and is a radical departure from the development review process in Vail. While it is not directly comparable, there are some interesting parallels with regard to density. A property's "base density" is determined by the Town's land use plan. However, because Breckenridge considers overnight accommodations to be a "needed and desired general benefit to the town", a multiplier of 1.Z5 is applied to hotel, inn, motel and b+b devel~N.~~ent. Further, a 2:1 lodge room to condo calculation is also used. Any further increase in density is determined by the project's overall performance relative to the development policies. The better a project complies with development policies, the greater the density that is permitted. When this land use system was first adopted, density increases of up to 40~ were possible. After modifications to the point system were made in 1985, the highest increase for a hotel project has been 9~. Lonamont "Planned Unit Development" Four different types of PUD's are permitted - residential, industrial, business and mixed use. PUD review criteria address "big picture" issues such as land use and compliance with cU~~~~«unity plans. Density, circulation, open space, lot sizes and other site specific design issues are addressed under "design standards". Density bonuses are awarded for satisfying any one on 25 different categories (bonuses range from 1~ to 5~). The Commission or Council may prohibit or limit an increase in density to avoid unsafe access, traffic congestion or excessive burdens on parks, schools, fire protection, etc. The maximum increase for any project is 50~. With the exception of an abnormally long list of public amenities/improvements, Longmont's system represents a very traditional bonus system. The community identified an extensive list of design characteristics and improvements that are considered public benefits. These improvements are traded off for density increases. While there is some element of discretion in the criteria, they are generally objective in nature. Park City "Master Plan Development" Park City's Land Management Code assigns "credit multipliers" to each lot. These credits are essentially "spent" on various types of development. A "unit equivalent" system is used to determine ultimate development potential. The system is structured to encourage hotel development, but only in specific locations. The incentive for hotel development is so great that there are essentially no quantified limits on density. However, development must . conform with design standards and policies, which, in effect, establish a site's maximum development potential. The MPD section states that density cannot be increased through the process, but the reality is that if you propose the type of development that is encouraged, your design and site characteristics are what determine your development potential - not quantitative limits. The MPD process is essentially required for any development over 4 units and uses are limited to the uses permitted in the zone district the MPD is located in. Steamboat "Planned Unit Development" Uses and density shall not vary from what is permitted by the zone district the PUD is located in, However, a density bonus system is provided in another section of the code. Units per acre have been assigned to each area of town (13.485 units/ac. at base of mountain is highest), Thirteen different credits may be used to increase project density. These credits are based on both objective and subjective considerations. An "adjustment factor" is then applied to determine ultimate development potential. This factor encourages small units, i.e. hotel roams, with an adjustment of 1.37 for average room size of 500-700 sq. ft. Maximum density increase is limited to 80-125. HILTON HEAD "Planned Unit Development" There is a five acre minimum for PUD's and density and uses must conform to the zone district in which the property is located. A bonus system is in place for four types of public improvements: bike paths and easements, dune restoration, neighborhood drainage and land for public beach access and parking. Bonuses for these improvements are only possible in certain zone districts. Specific minimum standards are established for each of the improvements, and the amount of density bonus varies by zone district. For example, a medium intensity motel zone district allows 7 rooms per acre for public beach access, 4 units per acre for drainage improvements and 4 units per acre for bike paths. The bonuses are half as much for dwelling units. There are no limits on square footage, this control is left to height and site coverage regulations. What do these examples tell us? Point systems, percentage systems, virtually no quantified limits to density - - a variety of mechanism are in place to provide density banuses in exchange for project amenities and off-site improvements. In many cases PUD's are encouraged, and in some cases they are required. The PUD process is considered to be every bit a benefit to the public as it is to the applicant. In each of these examples, it is clear that the community has identified: * What they want in terms of public improvements and project amenities, . * What types of development will be eligible for density bonuses, and * What locations in the community are most appropriate for accommodating density bonuses. Each of the five ordinances address these issues in different ways. Regardless of how it is structured, these bonus systems are designed to ensure that the any "bonus" devel~ra~tent is consistent with the c~r.LL..unities development goals. ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ESTABLISHING A BONUS SYSTEM There are a number of fundamental issues to be addressed during the development of a density bonus system. These eight questions highlight some of the most critical issues inherent in any bonus system. 1) What type of development does the town what to encourage with the bonus system? The development of overnight accommodations is an adopted policy of the Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. C~«u«ercial development is encouraged in Vail's pedestrian areas, but this type of development is addressed by the urban design plans and has not been a significant issue with regard to SDD's. Vail's plans and policies suggest that if density bonuses are to be granted, they should be limited to residential development that increases the Town's overnight bed base. 2) Where are the appropriate locations for density bonuses? The issue of where additional density may be appropriate is also addressed by the Land Use Plan and the Village Plan. The Village and Lionshead areas are the most appropriate, and probably the only appropriate locations far additional residential density. However, these land use policies should not be considered a carte Blanc approval for greater densities. As stated in land use policy 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". As a result, the potential for significant amounts of additional density within the two core areas is limited. 3) What types of public improvements, project amenities and/or design characteristics should be required in exchange for density bonuses? A good indication would be to consider the type of improvements and amenities provided by previously approved . SDD's. Walkways, recreation trails, street lights, bus stops, structured parking, employee housing, quality design, convention and recreation facilities, and increased . landscaping and open space are examples of some of these improvements. In other communities, density bonuses are "offered" for elderly housing, lodge rooms, solar energy design, handicap accessibility, joint use parking, fire protection improvements, new job creation, view protection and shadow impact. There are few parameters for what these improvements can be. The most important consideration, however, is that density bonuses should not be awarded for design standards or amenities that would normally be expected in the first place. This is probably the most difficult aspect relative to designing a bonus system for Vail, in large part because previously approved SDD's have generally provided the amenities and design characteristics typically associated with density bonus systems. 4) Should the design standards for density bonuses be purely objective (quantified standards), have an element of subjectivity ar a combination of both? The advantage of strictly quantified standards is that subjectivity and discretion is minimized. For example, Longmont allows a 3~ density increase for a 5~ increase in natural open space. However, there are no standards for where the open space should be and how it should be incorporated into the development or surrounding open space tracts. On the other hand, Steamboat allows a 1~ density increase for each 1~ of "effective" open space in excess of zone district requirements. "Effective Open Space" is a defined term and provides clear direction for how the open space should be incorporated into the project. What's the answer? ? It really depends on what the improvement is and what the community goals are. In most cases, a combination of qualified and quantified standards are probably best. Without some qualified standards, the town runs the risk of getting inferior improvements. As with the examples above, you don't just want to encourage more open space, you want functional open space with public access that is integrated with existing open space parcels. 5} Should density bonuses be based on the project as a whole, or should they be "awarded" based on specific bonus criteria? The most commonly used approach for awarding density bonuses is to base the bonus on specific performance criteria (i.e., the public improvement or project amenity}. Regardless of how many bonus criteria are offered, an overall maximum density bonus is typically established. It is not unheard of to award a density bonus based on the overall project. Dade County, Florida may increase project density by 10~, based on very broad criteria re~.ative to the entire project and not tied to specific design features. Breckenridge's system allows bonus density, but only after a comprehensive evaluation of the project. Again, the answer depends upon what the town wants out of a project. If there are specific public improvements and project amenities that are desired (that the town is not getting with the existing SDD process), the bonus system should be designed around those specific improvements or amenities. If the goal of this amendment process is to simply apply an overall density cap, a bonus system that permits a maximum density increase based on the overall project should be established. &) Should the percentage bonus be based on allowable development or existing development? The majority of the development in the care areas occurred prior to the 1977 Growth Management Plan and subsequent dawn zoning. As a result, most development in these areas exceeds what is permitted by today's zoning regulations. If a bonus system is going to create the potential far additional development, the system must be based on the level of development permitted by the zone district in which . the property is located - regardless of any existing non- conforming situations, With this alternative, any density bonus would ultimately be relative to the size of the site, and not the existing level of development. If existing non- conforming situations are not disregarded, the bonus system will create little or no development potential on most sites. 7) Should exceptions to site development standards (setbacks, height, site coverage, etc.) be permitted in conjunction with a density bonus? This question raises the issue of how SDD criteria will relate to density bonus criteria. Without getting into the detail of how the review process would be structured, the answer is yes, development standards should be flexible regardless of the density bonus. The potential problem with allowing flexibility in site development standards is that an applicant may satisfy criteria for a density bonus and then ask for an exception to height limits in order to build the "bonus units". In response to this, the proposed review process is structured so that the SDD design criteria are used in conjunction with the density bonus criteria. SDD criteria will provide tools to review the site specific impacts (i.e. any deviations from the development standards of the property's zone district) of such a request. . 8) How would the criteria for density bonuses be structured with respect to SDD criteria, the Urban Design Guide Plans, etc.? As alluded to above, any density bonus would involve a two step review process. Standards and criteria for a density bonus would be used to establish the maximum density bonus on a site. The project would then be reviewed with respect to SDD design criteria to evaluate detailed site specific issues and the proposed project's relationship to c~,~u«unity plans. These questions are intended to prompt discussion of the many issues involved in a density bonus system. There are many specific issues, such as how the ordinance would deal with c~~.~~..ercial and other non-residential square footage and whether a percentage bonus would deal with units and GRFA equally, that will need to be resolved. However, at this paint in the process it is important to deal with these basic issues first and refine specific questions later. PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL FOR A DENSITY BONUS SYSTEM The following are preliminary recommendations for the major elements of a density bonus system for Vail: * Amend the SDD section of the code to state that density shall not exceed the zone district in which the SDD is located. The only exception to this would be for density approved through the Density Bonus Section. Previously discussed changes to the procedures section, design criteria and the underlying zoning issue would be made. * Adopt a Density Bonus Section as a part of the SDD chapter and a Density Bonus Overlay District (to include the area from Golden Peak to the West Day Lot - possibly to Cascade Village, excluding the Forest Road P/S area and possibly CCI) . * Density Bonus Section will establish the following: * Density bonuses are limited to lodge rooms and/or other types of overnight accommodations. * Only those property's located in the Density Bonus Overlay District are eligible for density bonuses. * The number of units permitted under the Density Bonus System would be a percentage increase of a parcel's permitted level of development - regardless of any non- conformity. A limited amount of GRFA (440-50A square feet) would be permitted with every bonus unit. * The Density Bonus would be awarded based on performance. Public Improvements and project amenities required for density bonus may include: 1) 2) Sy 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Employee Housing Extension of the Town's Recreation Trail stem, Energy/Resource Conservation The development of public recreation or transit facilities Dedication of land for public access and use Open space in excess of that required by underlying zone district Implementation of Urban Design Plan sub-area concepts and/or Vail Village Plan sub-area concepts Public art Structured/underground parking facilities * After the amount of density bonus has been determined (based on performance as established by Improvements/ Amenities listed above), project review moves on to SDD Design Criteria. Any Density Bonus would not be considered approved until the propased development complies with the SDD design criteria. Applying SDD criteria to a proposed development is done to ensure that the all impacts of a project are evaluated. With this process, a project that meets density bonus requirements may still be denied based on SDD design criteria. * Two step review process could be done concurrently. This proposal is at a very conceptual level and, if it is acceptable to the Council and Commission, will need a great deal of refinement. Specifically, the question of what percentage of density increase is appropriate and what improvements and amenities should be required to obtain a density bonus will need further study. Density Bonus Tt is important that there be a balance between the amount of bonus allowed and the public improvements/amenities required. If the maximum density bonus is too low, or the required improvements too great, there is no incentive for the developer to participate in the bonus process. Theoretically this is a losing proposition for both the developer and the town. Mast of the bonus systems reviewed allow a maximum density bonus that realistically cannot be obtained. This is done one of two ways, either by the manner in which bonus percentages and required improvements are structured, or by incorporating site specific design criteria into the review process. The later of these alternatives is recommended far . Vail's proposed system. Under this scenario, bonus density is not approved until the project complies with SDD criteria. Proposals may provide every amenity in the book and qualify for maximum density increase, but if the impacts of the proposal are not compatible with SDD design criteria (massing, open space, views, neighborhood compatibility, etc.), the project is not approved. Based in large part on this review process which includes site specific SDD criteria, and with consideration given to previous SDD requests, a maximum density bonus of 30-40~ is a realistic number. Performance Criteria The most important aspect in determining these criteria is to ensure that the bonus is awarded for project amenities that would not have been provided (or required) by the standard development review process. Defining these improvements/ amenities will be difficult. A good guide may be to look at the improvements provided by SDD's that have also received density increases. However, the ultimate determination should be made based on community goals and needs. wp:sddamd2 8/24/90 • ." SDD AMENDMENTS/DENSITY BUNiIS ANALYSIS _ August 17, 1990 sddanal.wkl NEW ACCOMMC)DATIC)N CINITS Parcel 5 % lh % 2(1 % 30% 40 % 50 Project Size Bonus Bonus Bonus Bonus Bonus Bonus COMMERCIAL CC}RE I Christiania/Chateau 0.66 1.7 3.3 6.6 9.9 13.2 16.5 ~"irst Bank 0.36 0.9 1.8 3.6 5.4 7.2 9.0 Garden of Gads 0.51 1.3 2.6 5.1 7.7 f0.2 12.8 Holiday Inn 2.20 5.5 11.0 22.0 33.0 44.0 55.0 Sonnenalp/Talisman 3.20 8.0 16.0 32.0 48.0 64.0 50.0 Mountain Haul 0.49 1.2 2.5 4.9 7.4 9.8 12.3 Ratnshorn~ 0.53 1.3 2.7 5.3 8.0 ~ 10.6 13.3 Tivoli 0.41 1.0 2,1 4.1 6.2 8.2 10.3 Vail Athletic Club 0.81 1.5 3.1 6.1 9.2 12.2 15.3 Villa Valhalla 0.50 1.3 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 Sonnenalp 0.55 1.4 2.$ 5.5 8.3 11.0 13.8 Vail Village Inn* 3.46 8.7 17.3 34.6 51.9 69.2 86.5 HDM~' All Seasons 1.18 2.9 5.9 11.8 17.7 23.6 29.5 Apollo Park 2.85 7.1 14.2 28.5 42.7 57.0 71.2 Edelweiss 0.36 0.9 1.8 3.6 5.4 7.3 9.1 Daubletree* 2.62 6.6 13.1 26.2 39.3 52.4 65.5 Holiday House 0.65 1.6 3.3 6.5 9.8 13.0 16.3 Ipanema 0.56 1.4 2.8 5.6 8.4 11.1 13.9 Lodge at Lionshead 0.0 0:0 0.0 0.[h 0.0 0.0 Manor Vail 5.44 13.6 27.2 54.4 81.6 108.8 136.0 Marriott Mark** 5.17 12.9 25.9 51.7 77.6 103.4 129.3 Riva Ridge North 0.27 0.7 1.4 2.7 4.1 5.5 6.9 Riva Ridge South (-.35 U.9 1.8 3.5 5.3 7.0 8.8 Riverhouse 0.3$ 0.9 1.9 3.8 5.7 7.5 9.4 Tyrolean 0.37 0.9 1.8 3.7 5.5 7.4 9.2 Vail International 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 [1.0 Vail Spa 3.20 8.0 16.0 32.0 4$.0 64.0 80.0 Vail Trails Chalet [1.44 1.1 2.2 4.4 6.6 8.8 11.11 Vail Trails East 0.46 1.1 2.3 4.6 6.9 9.2 11.5 Villa Cortina 0.76 1.9 3.8 7.6 11.4 15.3 19.1 Vorlau~er 0.28 0.7 1.4 2.8 4.2 5.6 7.0 Willows 0.32 0.8 1.6 3.2 4.7 6.3 7.9 Wren 1.37 3.4 6.9 13.7 20.6 27.4 34.3 COMMERCIAL CCIRE II Antlers 1.19 3.0 6.0 11.9 17.9 23.8 29.8 • Enzian 1.2U 3.0 6.0 12.0 18.0 24.0 30.0 Cxandala Building 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 U.0 Landmark 1.49 3.7 7.5 14.9 22.4 29.8 37.3 Lazier Arcade 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C1.0 0.0 Lionshead Center 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lionsquare Lodge 1.79 4.5 9.0 17.9 26.9 35.8 44.8 Mantaneros 1.02 2.6 5.1 10.2 15.3 20.4 25.5 Treetops 0.0 0.0 0.0 a.a 0.0 0.0 Vail {alo 0. 0 0. [1 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 Vantage Point 0.91 2.3 4.6 9.1 13.7 18.2 22.$ OTHER PRCIPERTIES North Day Lot o.o O.o 0.0 Cr.a 0.0 0.0 V.A. Shops 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 West Day Lot 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 totals 120.3 240.5 4$1.1 721.6 962.1 1202.7 • TOWN OF VAIL . SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS SDD No. 2 NORTHWOODS YEAR ADOPTED: Ord. 6, 1974 ZONING: ? PARCEL SIZE: 7.64 acres PURPOSE FOR SDD/DEVIATIONS FROM ZONING: Project was tied into the redesign and redevelopment of the Vail Golf Club. SDD was referred to as an overall density decrease in the ordinance. PUBLIC BENEFITS: ~ ~ ~ SDD No. 3 PITKIN CREEK PARR YEAR ADOPTED: Ord. 25, 1974, amd. by #32 of '78, ZONING: MDMF PARCEL SIZE: 8.29 acres PURPOSE FOR SDD/DEVIATIONS FROM ZONING: Density increases over the property's zoning were approved in exchange for affordable housing restrictions. PUBLIC BENEFITS: 15b condominiums were sold at below market rates to "locals". Use and resale restrictions designed to assure "affordability" expired seven years after project completion. SDD No. 4 CASCADE VILLAGE YEAR ADOPTED: Ord. 5, 1976, amd. by #31 of '78 (Coldstream), #2 of '79 (Glen Lyon), #20 of 1984, #40 of '88, #12 of '89, #10 of '90, ZONING: unknown, property was PUD under Eagle County PARCEL SIZE: 17.9 acres PURPOSE FOR SDD/DEVIATIONS FROM ZONING: SDD #4 provides for mixed uses with concentration of very high density development around hotel/convention center/health club. Average density for entire project is 15.8 units per acre. PUBLIC BENEFITS: Creation of a "third village" and development of significant bed base has improved Vail's summer marketing potential, bike path and stream tract opened to public, employee housing, CMC facility. SDD. No 5 STMBA RUN YEAR ADOPTED: Ord. 6, 1976, amd. by #29 of '77, #32 of '78 (Vail Run), #16, 1987 ZONING: Approved under county, development plan was accepted by TOV as part of annexation agreement. PARCEL SIZE: 6.3 acres • PURPOSE FOR SDD/DEVIATIONS FROM ZONING: • TOV accepted county approved development plan during annexation. SDD was the most appropriate zone district given the approved development plan. PUBLIC BENEFITS: • SDD No. 6 VAIL VILLAGE INN YEAR ADOPTED: Ord. 7, 1976, amd. by #28 OF '87, #24 of '89, ZONING: Public Accommodation PARCEL SIZE: 3.45 acres PURPOSE FOR SDD/DEVIATIONS FROM ZONING: Mixed use, substantial density increase PUBLIC BENEFITS: Increased bed base SDD NO. 7 MARRIOTT MARK RESORT YEAR ADOPTED: Ord. 3, 1977, amd. by #20 of '77, ZONING: Public Accommodation/HDMF ? ? PARCEL SIZE: 5.8 acres PURPOSE FOR SDD/DEVIATIONS FROM ZONING: Density increase from underlying zone district. PUBLIC BENEFITS: Subsequent amendments were done in part to develop facility, this addition has done a great deal for visitation and the marketing of this project. SDD No. 8 FALLRIDGE YEAR ADOPTED: Ord. 17 OF 1977 ? ZONING: Low Density Multi-Family PARCEL SIZE: 1.3 acres PURPOSE FOR SDD/DEVIATIONS FROM ZONING; Fall Ridge and the Galf Course Town Homes were at zoned SDD #1. Tn 1977, the Golf Course Town Homes LDMF and Fall Ridge designated SDD No. 8. PUBLIC BENEFITS: ~ ~ of '77, # 1 of '85, #14 the convention summer r~ U SDD No. 9 There is no record of a #9 some point were zoned SDD No. 10 VALLI BI YEAR ADOPTED: Ord. 7 of 1979 ZONING: Residential Cluster PARCEL SIZE: 10.05 acres PURPOSE OF SDD/DEVIATIONS FROM ZONING: Project received a considerable density increase and relief from design review guidelines in exchange for employee rental use restrictions. PUBLIC BENEFITS: The community gained 199 apartments at a time of a severe employee housing shortage. SDD No. 11 HIGHLAND MEADOWS YEAR ADOPTED: Ord. 26 of 1981, amd. by #27 of '84, ZONING: Primary/Secondary ? ? PARCEL SIZE: 13 acres PURPOSE OF SDD/DEVIATIONS FROM ZONE DISTRICT: The SDD allowed flexibility in development standards in order to design around geologic hazards. PUBLIC BENEFITS: The approved development plan minimized the disruption of land that would have been necessary to mitigate geologic hazards. SDD No. 12 Originally assigned to Svnnenalp redevelopment, approval lapsed. SDD NO. 13 WIRTH/WHEELER YEAR ADOPTED: Ord, 18 of 1984 ZONING: Primary/Secondary PARCEL SIZE: 1.02 acres PURPOSE OF SDD/DEVIATIONS FROM ZONE DISTRICT: One of the SDD's three lots was inaccessible due to excessive grades. The SDD was done in order to abandon lot lines, thereby allowing the third duplex to be located in an area that was accessible. PUBLIC BENEFITS: The SDD allowed for a reasonable development solution on the lot without severe retaining walls or road cuts. SDD No. 14 DOUBLETREE HOTEL YEAR ADOPTED; Ord. 5 of 1986, amd. by #7 of '89, #1 of '90, ZONING: High Density Multi_Family PARCEL SIZE: 2.63 acres PURPOSE OF SDD/DEVIATIONS FROM ZONE DISTRICT: The redevelopment plan entailed a substantial density increase, building height over HDMF height limits, slight setback encroachments and pay-in-lieu parking provisions. PUBLIC BENEFITS: Increase in bed base, considerable improvements to site SDD No. 15 BISHOP PARK YEAR ADOPTED: Ord. 13 of 1986 ZONING: High Density Multi-Family PARCEL SIZE: .71 acres • PURPOSE OF SDD/DEVIATIONS FROM ZONE DISTRICT: Relatively minor increases to building height, setbacks, GRFA. SDD process has been credited with allowing for creativity and flexibility in design of project. PUBLIC BENEFITS: Developer provided cash contribution for development of stream walk. • • SDD NO. 16 ELK MEADONS YEAR ADOPTED: Ord, 19, 1987, amd. by Ord. 32 of "87, ZONING: Residential Cluster ? PARCEL SIZE: 3.6 acres PURPOSE OF SDD/DEVIATIONS FROM ZONE DISTRICT: SDD allowed for small lot size, thereby maintaining a large portion of the site as undisturbed open space. Density was actually reduced during SDD process. PUBLIC BENEFITS: Reduction of density may be considered a benefit, preservation of open space certainly is. Developers funded and constructed sidewalk along Vail Valley Drive. SDD No. 17 RAMSHORN YEAR ADOPTED: Ord. 27, 1987 ZONING: Public Accommodation PARCEL SIZE: .464 acres PURPOSE OF SDD/DEVIATIONS FROM ZONE DISTRICT: Redevelopment of lodge allowed for increase in GRFA, but no increase in existing number of units. PUBLIC BENEFITS: SDD No. 18 VICTORIAN AT VAiL YEAR ADOPTED: Ord. 30 of 1987 ZONING: Residential Cluster PARCEL SIZE: .9 acres PURPOSE OF SDD/DEVIATIONS FROM ZONE DISTRICT; The sole reason for the SDD was to allow for the subdivision of the five units as single family homes. There was no increase in density. PUBLIC BENEFITS: None SDD NO. 19 GARDEN OF THE GODS YEAR ADOPTED: Ord. 40, 1987, amd. by #14 of 1990 ZONING: Public Accommodation PARCEL SIZE: .5 acres PURPOSE OF SDD/DEVIATIONS FROM ZONE DISTRICT: SDD approved variations in setbacks and a slight increase in GRFA. PUBLIC BENEFITS: Surface parking on the site will be relocated to an underground structure, the develapers will construct a sidewalk and a bus stop as a part of the redevelopment of the property, employee housing. SDD No. 20 There is no record of #20 SDD No. 2i VAIL GATEWAY YEAR ADOPTED: Ord. 9 of 1988 ZONING: Initially Heavy Service, rezoned to CCI as part of SDD PARCEL SIZE: .5 acres PURPOSE OF SDD/DEVIATIONS FROM ZONE DISTRICT: CCI zoning was adopted to allow for mixed uses on the property, development exceeded CCI height limits. PUBLIC BENEFITS: Pedestrian walkway is to be constructed on north and west sides of property, SDD NO. 22 LIONS RIDGE #3 YEAR ADOPTED: Ord. 23 of 1988, amd. by X13 of 1.990 ZONING: Primary/Secondary PARCEL SIZE: 10.69 acres PURPOSE OF BDD/DEVIATION FROM ZONE DISTRICT: SDD allowed greater flexibility in the design of the 24 single family lots. Density is actually reduced by this approval. PUBLIC BENEFITS: Density reduction and commitment that if secondary units are built, they are restricted to employee rentals. SDD No. 23 VAIL NATIONAL BANK YEAR ADOPTED: Ord. 9 of 1989 ZONING: Initially HDMF, rezoned to Commercial Service Center as part of SDD. PARCEL SIZE: ? PURP08E OF SDD/DEVIATION FROM ZONE DISTRICT: SDD was necessary to allow for continuance of office use, and small expansion. PUBLIC BENEFITS: Developer dedicated a small portion of property to facilitate access to WMC. SDD No. 24 Faeasler Employee Housing Project - denied SDD NO. 25 WARNER DEVELOPMENT YEAR ADOPTED: Ord. 14 of 1990 ZONING: Primary/Secondary FARCEL SIZE: appx. 1 acre PURPOSE OF 8DD/DEVIATIONS FROM ZONE DISTRICT: To allow exceptions to site coverage and GRFA limitations. PUBLIC BENEFITS: Secondary units in each of the three lots will be restricted to long term employee rentals. wp;tovsdds 8/19/90 r_ 1 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 24, 1990 2:00 Site Visits 3:00 Public Hearing SITE VISITS 1. Approval of minutes from the August 27, 1990 meeting. 1 2. A request for an exterior alteration for Vail Mountaineering in the Bell Tower Building, 201 Gore Creek Drive, Part of Tract A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Axel Wilhelmson - 3. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4, Coldstream Condominiums in order to amend Sections 18.46.090 (B} density and 18.46.100 (B} floor area, at Lot 53 Glen Lyon Subdivision, 1476 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association. - 4. A request for a conditional use permit and a side setback variance in order to construct a remediation system at the Vail Amoco Service Station, 934 S. Frontage Road. Legal Description"as follows: A FAttT OF Trjl: AIESl4 iVEE/4 CF ScGi~GN IZ. T05YNS;-t1P 5 SCUir~. RANG£ 8i WE~~ GF T~i~ SDGiFi PRINCIPAL 1.IE?IOIAN. QESCRI$Z:Q ;LS F9I.~4w5. Bc,C.1NNING ,~T TF+c F.tNT OF INT£,45cGTlQN OF Tli£ E45T E,€NE CF S,~{0 S~CiICN 12 'yV1T'~ ir{E SCUTHE.~LY SttG~1T-QF-'SAY UNE OF V.S. HIGHWAY NQ. 6. SAtQ PGtNT "c~+aG 6.:x.15 Fc~~ SCUTFs~t.Y F~G'Ivt T~f£ NORTi-EE~4.~'i CGRNE~ 0~ S.~tE] 5cC3igN 12: TH£NC£ wt::~c.:LY A(.CNG Tt,£ 5~7U31~E=LY RtG`[T-GF-WAY E.EN£ qF ~:[© >•rrG~waY. A DIS.~NC~ ql: ,240 Fcc~. I~CRE Oft f_.~.55, TG A P4tNr 4N 1'I#£ r~ST HtG~ Wdic.? :.4NrC GF REG SANQSTGNE C~~{; Tt~ENC~ SCUTei£.?LY. ALQNG TFiE SiNUOUSi~1£5 G~ SMtt7 F~.ST >Z[Gri 4'IA~ c~ EAI'1K, 1Q0 FcEf', I~GR£ QK LASS. TQ IT5 INTL.?ScCitON WtT'rE fHE NaFcT1-! FIIG~i 'NAi~ BANK QF GGt~I: C:?£~:~C: T1~£NC£ E~u~C,x~Y. A1.ONC THir SrNUt3US7Til:5 CF THE NCRT'ri HiG~f wA~c,? QAN1C qF CGR£ CREW?(. . xa5 F`E*~. I~CA£ OR IFS. TO I7S rNT-GiScCTtCN wrTf-t 'E'Hi~ >r~ C!N£ OF S.uO SSL~ECN tZ: TFt£NCE NCFsieit;.?LY. A~,ONG S.11Q EAS; UN£, I6q Fri. T.iOR£ CR L~j, FO T3~Et~ PCIMT QF BEC[fINING. . Applicant: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. 2 5. A request to ame: Avalanche hazard of Vail Meadows, Section 18.69 of Code. Applicant: Town . ,f ad the Town of Vail's Snow map in the general vicinity Filing #1, pursuant to the Town of Vail Zoning of Vail - 6. A request for a major subdivision, to approve the preliminary plan, a request for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls, and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Applicant: George Gillett, Jr. 3, 7. A request for a height variance in order to construct a retaining wall along Phase II of the East Vail Bike Path on the North side of Bighorn Road, in the Colorado Department of Highways Right-of-way. Applicant: Town of Vail 8. Appointment of PEC member and alternate to DRB for the months of October, November, and December 1990. - TABLED UNTIL 9. A request for a height variance for Unit E-6, ~~~ OCTOBER 8TH Crossroads, 141 East Meadow Drive, Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: H. William Smith, Jr. TABLED UNTIL 10. A request for a major change to existing OCTOBER 8TH development approval for the Valley, Phase VI. ' Applicant: Edward Zneimer TABLED UNTIL 11. A request for an amendment to the approved OCTOBER 8TH access plan for Lots 5 and 6, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing, 146 and 126 Forest Road. Applicant: Ron Byrne TABLED UNTIL 12. A request for a variance to allow a satellite OCTOBER 8TH dish in the Gore Creek 50' setback and a . request for a floodplain modification on Lot 3, Block 1, Bighorn 1st addition, 3907 Lupine Drive. Applicant: Ron Oelbaum .. ~, _ ;~ _ • ~~.. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 24, 7.990 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Ludwig Kurz Jim Shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Jill Kammerer Shelly Mello Andy Knudtsen Penny Perry Members Absent Connie Knight The meeting was called to order at 3:25 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. Item No. 1: Annroval of minutes from the August 24, 1990 and September 10. 1990 meetings. Chuck Crist and Dalton Williams asked Penny to make changes on pages 10, 11, and 14 and Penny agreed. A motion to approve the minutes from the Auaust 24, 1990 meeting with corrections was made by Chuck Crist and seconded by Dalton Williams. l~ I~ VOTE: 6-0 ZN FAVOR ztem No. 2: A request for an exterior alteration for Vail Mountaineering in the Bell Tower Building, 201 Gore Creek Drive, Part of Tract A. Block 5B. Vail Village 1st Filing. Aoolicant: Axel Wilhelmson Jill Kammerer explained that this item had been discussed on the site visits. The board felt they were comfortable with the request per the staff memo. Diana asked if there were any comments from the public or the applicant and Ned Gwathmey, representing the applicant stated that the applicant agreed with the staff memo. There were no public comments. Jim Shearer stated that he liked the proposal with the most planting and Kathy Warren, Chuck Crist, and Diana Donovan all agreed with him. 1 "~ ti PEC Minutes . 9/24/90 Meeting Dalton liked the proposal with the most symmetry and Ludwig agreed with Dalton but felt he could be easily swayed to support the proposal with the most landscaping. A motion to approve the exterior alteration submittal B. which included planter landscapina. with the details of the column base to be worked out with staff per the staff memo was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 6-0 Ttem No. 3: A reauest for a major amendment to SDD No. 4. Coldstream Condominiums in order to amend Sections 18.46.094 lB) density and 18.46.100 (Bl floor area. at Lot 53 Glen Lvon Subdivision. 147& Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association. Shelly Mello presented the proposal for staff. She explained that the applicant was requesting a major amendment to SDD No. 4- -Cascade Village, Area B -- Coldstream Condominiums. The applicant was proposing to amend Section 18.46.100 (B) Floor Area from 65,000 sq. ft. GRF'A to 67,930. Shelly reviewed the • background of the project and rationale behind the request. Shelly reviewed the zoning considerations, criteria, and development standards used in evaluating SDD amendment requests. Staff recommendation was for approval with the conditions found within the memo. Erich Hill, architect representing the applicant, explained that Kevin McTavish, manager of Coldstream, wished to explain the reasons for not going forth with the employee unit. Kevin McTavish stated that the Council would require a recreation fee in an exorbitant amount to be paid at the time an employee unit would be completed. The fee made the cost of completing an employee unit completely unreasonable. Kathy Warren asked Kevin if he would agree to the site coverage limitation called out in the staff memo. Kathy felt that enclosing of garages would be an asset and wanted to give flexibility to the applicant that allowed such an enclosure. Shelly Me11o felt that it would be possible to word the condition in order to exclude the enclosure of carports as counting toward site coverage. • :• PEC Minutes . 9/24/90 Meeting Kathy repeated her question to Kevin regarding the site coverage limitation and Kevin asked for clarification. Shelly clarified the limitation and Kevin agreed. Diana commented that if the applicant wished to convert the racquet ball courts to employee housing, they would not have the GRFA available and Shelly explained that they would have to come back before the board. Diana asked if the difference in square footage was due to the building not being built according to plans and Shelly explained that staff felt the discrepancy was due to different methods of calculation, and possibly staff error in the past. Staff felt that the current methods were more accurate. Diana asked if the 250 ordinance could be used on the project and Shelly responded that it could be used, but only internally. Chuck Crist asked about the five parking spaces that were required but not existing. Shelly explained that originally, there were 84 spaces required. Due to the evolution of the project, there were now only 79 spaces. The 79 spaces seemed to be adequate. Diana asked, if the shortage became a problem, could the board require the remaining 5 spaces be added, and Mike answered they could, however, staff did not see a problem presently. Erich Hi11 responded that he had no idea as to where the spaces were originally proposed and Kevin McTavish guessed that it could have been due to the enclosure of the trash facilities. Diana felt that it might be to the Town's advantage to mention the shortage in the conditions that would be listed on the present proposal. Dalton Williams felt strongly about the employee unit. He felt that it was critical with the employee housing shortage far the project to supply housing. He felt that if the Board were to approve additional square footage, employee housing should be included in the proposal. Erich Hi11 commented that the applicant would need more GRFA and Dalton responded that he would be willing to approve additional GRFA. • PEC Minutes 9/24/90 Meeting Kevin c~~~„~~ented that $300,000 was a rather expensive 1032 sq. ft. unit. Ludwig Kurz and Jim Shearer had no further comments. Diana asked Kevin if they had a manager's unit, and Kevin explained that there was no manager's office in the racquet club building. The Condominium Association rented a unit far the manager. Diana commented that in some ways, she agreed with Dalton regarding the employee unit. she would like to see a condition that, if the racquet ball court building was converted in the future, that the conversion include employee housing. Kathy Warren suggested simply adding the wording "within the existing racquet ball building" to the condition found in the staff memo. Erich explained that problematically, three units were almost impossible and Kevin added that the original proposal called for one employee unit and offices. Kathy remembered that she was uncomfortable with the amount of office space in the original proposal. She recalled that she felt two employee units could be included at that time. A motion to recommend to the Town Council apuroval of a mayor amendment to SDD No. 4. Coldstream Condominiums ber the staff memo with the following conditions was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Dalton Williams: 1. The density of the oro-iect shall be reduced from 65 units to 45 free market units fthe number of free market units existinal. and three permanently restricted "emulovee" units, for a total of 48 units allowed. 2. If any chance is made to the racauet ball facility in the future. 2 emblovee units shall be included in the facility. . 4 PEC Minutes • 9/24/90 Meeting 3. The allowable site coveraae shall be reduced to 36.500 sa. ft. from 64,216 sa. ft. Currently, 34.878 sa. ft. of site coveraae exists. The enclosure of the existing carports not to count as site coveraae. 4. Should the Office of Community Develovment deem that the existing parking be insufficient, the applicant will be reauired to install additional spaces. Discussion after the motion centered around the feasibility of building two employee units and an office in the racquet ball building. Kevin, speaking for himself, stated that he felt the government was limiting options rather than creating them. Diana commented to Kevin that the Board was trying to get the message to the public that the need far employee housing is important. VOTE: 6-0 IN FAVOR Item No. 4: A request for a conditional use permit and a side setback variance in order to construct a remediation system at the Vail Amoco Service Station. 934 S. Frontage Road. Applicant: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Since the proposal had been seen at a previous work session, Jill Kammerer, representing the staff, reviewed only those areas in which changes had been made. Jill explained that the applicant had agreed to move the trees south of the remediation building uphill, install additional landscaping along the station's eastern property line in an area between the back wall of an existing planter and the Town of Vail shop chain link fence, to remove the chain link fence, and to install an irrigation system to water the trees south of the remediation building. The staff rec~,~„~~endation was far approval of the conditional use permit and a side setback variance. Staff believed the extraordinary circumstances of hydrocarbon petroleum product subsoil and groundwater contamination justified a setback variance. The recommendation for approval was conditional upon those items agreed to by the applicant (as mentioned at the beginning of the presentation) being completed. There was no applicant's presentation. • _ PEC Minutes 9/24/90 Meeting Jim Shearer asked if the Design Review Board would review the redwood fence and Jill answered "yes." A motion to approve a conditional use permit and a side setback variance per the staff memo with the following conditions was made by Chuck Crist and seconded by Jim Shearer 1. Applicant to install additional landscaping along the station's eastern property line in an area between the back wall of an existing planter and the Town of Vail shop chain link fence. 2. The applicant shall install 5 to 7 spruce trees in the arassv area south of the unit close to the proposed redwood fence. 3. The applicant shall install a drip irrigation svstem to insure survival of the spruce trees. • 4. Annual review and approval of the Conditional Use Permit by the PEC. The Conditional use permit for the remediation svstem shall terminate when the unit is no longer necessarv. VOTE: 5-1 WITH DALTON WILLIAMS ABSTAINED BECAUSE HE WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE WORK SESSION PRESENTATION OF THE ITEM. L_J Item No. 5: A request to amend the Town of Vail's Snow Avalanche hazard map in the general vicinity of Vail Meadows. Filing #l. pursuant to Section 18.69 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Shelly Mello explained that the Town of Vail was requesting to amend the Snow Avalanche Hazard Map for the Vail Meadows avalanche path. The amendment was a result of the reevaluation of the runout distances and the hazard zonation of the area completed by Art Mears. Shelly explained which lots would be affected by the amendment and the result the amendment would have on the lots. 6 PEC Minutes 9/24/90 Meeting Shelly reviewed the background behind the amendment. The staff recommendation was for approval of the proposed amendment. As per Section 18.69.030, the master hazard plans may be altered to conform with new information or existing conditions. Staff rec~,~,~„ends approval as per "Quantitative Analysis of Runout Distance, Energy and Avalanche Zoning Implications, Vail Meadows Avalanche, Vail, Colorado" by Art Mears {September 1990). Diana Donovan asked for clarification as to what type of development may be done and Shelly responded that in a red avalanche area no development can be constructed and in the blue avalanche zone construction can be completed with mitigation. Kristan elaborated that anyone who builds on a hazard area would have to have a site specific study done. Chuck Crist asked if the blue zone merely touched a corner, would the owner have to mitigate and Kristan responded that the owner would be required to have a site specific study done. Shelly commented that the area studies are general. Frank McKibben, Lot 28 owner, felt his lot was affected by the study. He wanted to commend the Town of Vail for having the study completed. He commented that he had concerns regarding the Borne house at the DRB meeting mare specifically as it related to the water tower. He felt that the study did not address the tower. To his understanding, the Water District had done a study and plan to design and implement a diversionary structure. He was concerned about the houses that had been added that he felt had already expanded the flow to the left or right as well as the possible construction on Lot 22. Also, if the Water District did a major diversionary structure as proposed, the study in question could be a "moot point". Shelly explained to Frank that the Water District would be required to have a site specific study completed as well. The study would have to show that there would be no impacts upon other properties. Kristan explained that the decision before the Board was to approve or deny the boundaries found on the map. Whether or not the owner of Lot 22 could mitigate in a manner in which no impacts would occur on other properties was a separate issue. • PEC Ma.nutes 9/24/90 Meeting Frank stated that he strongly felt that no further approvals should be given until the Water District diversion was addressed and Kristan responded that the water tower mitigation would be addressed at the time it is proposed. Diana reiterated what the planners had stated regarding the fact that any mitigation, including the water tower mitigation, would not be allowed to impact other properties. No diversion to other properties would be allowed. Jay Peterson, representing Bob Borne--owner of Lot 22, stated that RBD engineering is looking at the water problem. He reiterated that Mr. Borne and the Water District could not mitigate in any manner that would impact adjacent properties. Tom Leroy, owner of Lot 21, commented that he was one of the many owners in the area that mitigated. He mitigated by the siting of his home. The adoption of the new study would mean he spent unnecessary money moving his home out of the red hazard area. The new study moved the red zone uphill and his property would be all blue. He did not feel the study should be approved until the Water District mitigated the water tower. He felt that no matter what the Water District did, the mitigation would impact the properties below. He asked that the study not be adopted until the water tower and Lot 22 construction was completed and a new study performed. Byron Hoyle, Lot 26 owner, asked if staff had asked HydroTriad their opinion of the second Art Mears study. Shelly responded that staff decided to have the study under question completed because of a new method of calculations. The first Art Mears study and the HydroTriad study were done with old avalanche calulation methods. Byron asked who paid for the 3rd study, the Town or Bob Borne. He also wanted to know how the forces were defined and Shelly explained that the Town paid for the study and Art Mears would have to explain the forces. Byron asked how the Blue zone could be greater than the original study and the red zone smaller. He felt there should be a third opinion, not a third study. Shelly explained to the group of concerned members of the public that the development of Lot 22 was never taken into consideration on the report. • a PEC Minutes 9/24/90 Meeting Byron stated that as a property owner, he would like to see a third opinion separate from Hydrotriad and Art Mears. Shelly explained that the amendment would go before the Council on Tuesday night and staff would see if Art Mears would be available to answer the technical questions. She explained that Art Mears was an expert in the area of hazards. Kristan asked Byron what he expected a third study to show and Byron responded that he simply felt there was too much of a discrepancy. Diana Donovan felt inclined to agree with the new technology. Especially since it did not adversely affect any persons. Diana commented that the lines are general. That is why site specific studies were required. Kristan commented that the bottom line was that no owner was going to have to mitigate any differently than in the past. All owners that had avalanche zone designations on their lots would still have to have a site specific study. She asked the concerned public what specific questions they had far Art Mears. . Byron responded that he would like to know what the forces were that determined red and blue zones. Were they mass, weight, ar speed and have they changed ar stayed the same? Byron wanted to know why the red avalanche area was shorter and the blue avalanche area longer? Frank McKibben wanted to know what risks were involved with the Avalanche hazard in it present condition? Byron stated that he also would like to know what impacts would be present with mud from problems with the water tank? Kristan commented that the staff would see if Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation would come to the Council meeting on Tuesday as well, She did feel though, that it was a separate issue. Joyce Walker, Lot 28 owner, reiterated Byron's comments. She also wanted to know what the different forces were that created blue and red zones. Shelly commented that Bab Borne's, owner of Lot 22, site study was extensive and site specific, The new study which was done by Art Mears for the Town, dated September 2990 was for a larger area and would not be as site specifc. • s PEC Minutes . 9/24/90 Meeting Tom, an owner in the area, asked what amount of diversion was considered acceptable, 1 inch or moving the line? Diana stated that in the Board's opinion, mitigation cannot divert impact onto adjacent property. Kristan felt that it would be best to direct the question to Art Mears. She felt the intent of mitigation was not to shift the hazard to an adjacent lot. Kristan stated the avalanch ordinance did not have the same requirements as the debris and rockfall ordinances regarding impacts on adjacent properties. Frank McKibben commented that it was one thing to have an avalanche hit your home. It was another to have a house hit your house. Kathy Warren stated that, unfortunately, avalanche is not an exact study. She felt that having a study updated to be more accurate was for the benefit to the whole neighborhood. Diana commented that regardless of where the blue line now fell, the red line is further away. Frank McKibben commented that he had trouble understanding how the red zone could decrease and the blue zone increase. Dalton stated that he understood Frank's comments on a mathematical point of view. He did feel that the first study was inexact as shown by the rounded boundary line. The study completed with new technology seemed more accurate as depicted by the jagged edges on the boundary lines. A motion to recommend to the Town Council to approve an amendment the Town of Vail's Snow Avalanche hazard map in the aeneral vicinity of the Vail Meadows. Filina #1 to Town Council ner the staff memo was made by Dalton Williams and seconded by Jim Shearer Discussion after the motion: Jim Shearer rec~,~t.«ended to the public to attend the Council meeting on Tuesday. • 10 PEC Minutes . 9/24/9Q Meeting Shelly stated that staff will try to have Art Mears and a representative from Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation in attendance. VOTE: 6-0 IN FAVOR Item No. b: A request for a mayor subdivision. to approve the tireliminary plan, a request for a variance to the maximum heiaht for retainina walls, and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a parcel commonly referred tc as Snraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre raarcel located north and east of the Main Vail T-70 interchanae and east of the Straddle Creek livery. Applicant: Georae Gillett, Jr. Diana Donavan explained Board had seen the item Therefore, staff was as been changed. If there public, they were asked refer to the memo. to in ked we; to the public in attendance that the a minimum of 3 previous work sessions. to only review those items which had re additional questions from the either speak up and ask questions or • Kristan Pritz reviewed those items which had changed since the last work session. Kristan explained that the staff had asked the applicant to exclude haaard areas on Lots 4, 4, 14 so that the areas did not contribute to GRFA. Also, greenbelt areas on Lots 1 and 7 were not to contribute to site coverage and GRFA. Kristan explained that the pink area on the site plan displayed on the tack board was where staff would like to see the envelopes reduced to save the tree lines. In looking at the GRFA and site coverage, she felt the refinements would work. Lot 14 was the biggest issue. The applicant had agreed to provide 3 employee housing units which was 21~. All caretaker units were to be attached with the exception of Lot One. She requested comments regarding the detached unit on Lot 1 to be located by the guard gate. Regarding road grade easements, the applicant had allowed for a possible Frontage Road extension if needed in the future. Staff recommendation was for approval of the variances with conditions. The conditions found within the memo were not due to problems but rather to allow far refinements in the future. 11 PEC Minutes . 9/24/90 Meeting Kristan wanted the applicant to know that staff appreciated their willingness to refine the plans. Joe Macy stated that the applicant had no formal presentation. He explained that Mark Wentworth, from the livery, and Bill Woods, of the U.S. Forest Service were present and available for questions. Jim Shearer asked Kristan to explain the 80-100 of allowable GRFA found in condition No. 6 and Kristan responded that the 80- 100~ was reasonable for site coverage. The garage was not GRFA but was still site coverage. The Ordinance allowed 15~ site coverage of lot area. Jim then asked who would own the greenbelt areas, and Jay Peterson answered that Mr. Gillett would keep ownership but agreed to rezone the property. Jim asked what would happen with the detached caretaker unit on Lot 1 since the area was to be zoned greenbelt, and Jay explained that it was an area to be refined and worked out. Jim asked how the applicant felt about the required 3 employee units, and Joe Macy explained that they anticipated most of the property owners would want employee units. They had, however, committed to three. Jim then asked Bill Woods of the U.S.F.S. how the service felt about the development, and Bill Wonds explained that the U.S.F.S. had basically used the same concurrent planning processes as the Board and felt comfortable at this time. Kathy Warren asked Bill Woods if he had any concerns regarding the proposed grade to the proposed new livery site and Bill explained that he had not looked at that portion of the proposal in detail, that it would be looked at. Jae Macy explained that the applicant had met with Mark Wentworth. He was present and available for c~~~u~~ents. Bill Wood explained that the U.S.F.S. approval was contingent upon the agreement between the applicant and the livery, Mark Wentworth. Kent Rose, engineer representing the applicant, explained that basically the proposed grade to the livery was the same as what was there now. The proposal was for 16~ and the existing road was 11~. • 12 PEC Minutes 9/24/90 Meeting Joe Macy interjected that the present road was not maintained and the proposed road would be. Therefore, access should actually be easier. Dalton asked Mark Wentworth operation in the winter and problem at that time. Mark answered that the road He had no intentions to run transportation would be by envision any problems. if he planned to run a snowmobile if the road grade would cause a was not perceived to be a problem. a snowmobile operation. If they did, 3 4 wheel truck or van and he did not Jim Shearer asked if the restriction of no on-site livery was acceptable to the applicant and Jay explained that he and Kristan had debated the subject many times. Jay felt that it should be allowed as it would be a nice amenity. Kathy Warren agreed with Kristan that since there would be a livery so close, there should not be a stable within the subdivision. Kathy then asked about the guidelines for detached garages and Kristan explained that the same guidelines found within the 30~ slope allowances were to be used. Kathy explained that the reason she asked was that the architectural guidelines provided by the applicant seemed to need some more detail. Kathy also felt that what could and could not encroach beyond the building envelopes should be better defined. She felt that the 2 ft. offset called out for in the retaining walls should be increased to 3 ft. in order to allow for more extensive planting. Kathy asked what would determine where the guardrails would be placed and Kent Rose, engineer for the project, explained that they would be placed where safety concerns were evident. It was likely, they would be placed in the areas that had double height walls, intersections for cul de sacs and other places that had steep areas and changes of direction. Kathy asked who would determine these needs, and Kent responded that they would work with Greg Hall of Public Works. Kathy commented that she was livery being 16~ grade. She walls were changed from 8 ft that by increasing the walls eliminate a 4th wall section concerned about the approach to the wanted to know why the proposed to 8'-8" and Kent Rase explained by 8 inches, they were able to 13 PEC Minutes 9/24/90 Meeting Kathy asked if staff had required the applicant to filter drainage water before it entered the creek. Joe Macy explained that the requirement existed during construction. Sedimentation basins were to be used. He was not sure what would be required after construction. Kent Rose interjected that the applicant would not be required to filter the drainage water. However, they had discussed using one permanent basin to slow down the sedimentation. They would be utilizing 3 or 4 during construction. Kathy asked who the owner was of the pedestrian easement along the creek. Joe Macy responded that it was public access. Kathy asked about the comment in the memo regarding the use of a soil nailing system. She asked if the applicant would then use a different system than stacked block. Kent Rose explained that if the soil nailing system was used, they could still make the walls look similar to the original proposed stacked black. They needed flexibility to design and wanted to reduce the width of all areas because of the lack of landscaping. Kathy asked if the fill walls would be screened by aspen and spruce, and Kristan explained that the design and structural • characteristics of the walls would only allow for the use of trees at the base. Kathy commented that she felt the site coverage available for Lots 12 and 14 was high, and Jay stated that she would have to understand that the site coverage had already been reduced by the use of building envelopes. Kathy asked if crabapples and other colorful types of trees would be used and Joe Macy explained that they would have to ask the Division of Wildlife. They had been asked not to plant or introduce species highly palatable to wildlife. Kathy commented that the applicant had only listed one type of rose and wanted to know why. The applicant's landscape architect responded that there was only one rose found on the property and they were trying to keep to the natural surroundings found on the property presently. Kathy wished the applicant luck in the fine tuning process to be done in the future. Jay wanted to comment on a few of the conditions. Regarding condition No. 8, the removal of the chain link fence, the applicant would be more than happy to remove the fence as long as it was acceptable to the Colorado Division of Highways. Joe asked to have the condition amendmended to reference the CDOH approval. 14 PEC Minutes 9/24/90 Meeting Regarding condition No. 10, compliance with the Fire Department standards, Joe asked the condition be amended to state "or as otherwise modified by the Fire Department". Joe felt that, regarding the sanding material required in condition No. 15, the applicant should be allowed to use the same material as the Town. Kent Rose said the Town switched materials and the Village Care received different treatment with the use of granite chips. Everywhere else cinder was used. Kristan commented that granite chips chipped windshields and that was why the Town did not use this material in heavy vehicular traffic areas. Also, she felt that to ask the applicant to use the least polluting was reasonable. Jay felt the standard should be reasonable. Iji the future, other people may require something different. Kristan asked if the applicant would accept the condition to say '"material acceptable to the Environmental Health Department" of . the Town of Vail and Joe agreed. It was also suggested that condition No. 13 be amended to allow staff and the applicant to determine what would and would not be allowed outside the building envelopes. Kathy Warren suggested that Item No. 7 be reworded so that it did not seem to imply gas appliances or gas logs were required to be used in all caretaker units. She suggested adding the wording "If a fireplace is desired by the owner, " at the beginning of the condition. Jay commented that regarding condition No. 24 (e}, chain link dog runs, they were trying to work out a solution. Jay had an example of a chain link that could be screened well with vines etc. and was acceptable to the Division of Wildlife. Jim Shearer agreed that there should be some flexibility. Kristan felt there were alternatives. Chain link dog runs were not allowed in the Town. Staff was not asking the applicant to do anything above and beyond what was required of the rest of the Town. LJ 15 PEC Minutes 9/24/90 Meeting Continuing with the applicant's response to the conditions of approval, Jay reiterated that the applicant did not agree with Condition No. 2, prohibiting on--site liveries. Regarding the building envelopes, Jay wanted to make sure that the board was aware that they still needed to work with staff to refine the plans. They made be changed a little, especially Gillett's lot. The greenbelt area on Lot 6 would need to be cut back and they felt that Lot 5 should be up a little more. Jay explained that Dan Corcoran and Kent Rose had spent a lot of time on the site on the visual analysis aspect and felt comfortable with the visibility of the site. Dan Corcoran, surveyor, cu,~u~~ented that at project completion, a person should only be able to see 5 ft. of house. He looked at what would block views of the homes. He personally stood inside the lots and on the most part, the trees would not be removed. He stated that he was very comfortable with the view analysis. Kent Rose commented that the same guy with the same rods marked all parts on the photo he laid out. Kent felt the picture was a true representation. . Regarding the walls, Jay stated that Singletree had some vines overhanging the reatinaing walls and the walls were practically invisible. Ludwig stated that he was comfortable with the roads and the caretaker unit at the gate, as it would add to the project. He felt the Design Guidelines needed work. Tn general, he felt the project will be a landmark in the future. Diana stated that she was against having a livery inside the project. Regarding the sanding, she felt the applicant should be just as concerned as the Town for the build up over the years would not be desirable. Diana asked that the Community Development Department be included on the staff visits to the jab site for the on site custruction review. Regarding the timing of the Town's responsibility of maintaining the landscaping, Diana felt the Town should not be responsible for the maintenance for 1 to 2 years after the watering stopped. She also felt that the walls should have a longer guarantee. 2 to 3 years was not long enough for the settling of the walls to occur. • 16 PEC Minutes 9/24/90 Meeting Jim Shearer commented that he was not totally opposed to an in- project livery if the corral was limited to two stalls and not built out of fence. Jim felt comfortable with the site coverage at 100 of GRFA and felt the landscape irrigation should be addressed in the Design Guidelines. Jim also asked about parking for the livery. Jay stated that additional parking would be provided at the livery rather than at the turnaround. Dalton commented that he was in the area recently and felt the parking presently was a problem. Jim Shearer agreed that there should be more parking made available. Kent Rase responded that he felt the 17 spaces planned would be adequate. Many of the hikers would continue to drive further up the hillside to a meadow that was also available for parking. Jim Shearer, continuing his comments, stated that he was in favor of the detached caretaker unit by the gate. Dalton commented that he liked the idea of limiting site coverage to 100 of the GRFA. He liked the livery in the project as well as the detached caretaker unit by the gate. • Diana Donovan wanted to see Vail Associates or Gillett facilitate a snow dump to be worked out with Stan Berryman of Public Works. Kristan clarified that the 80-100$ GRFA to site coverage would be pinned down by final plat. A motion to approve a request for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek per the staff memo with the variance contingent upon final plat approval was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer VOTE: 5-0 WITH CHUCK CRTST ABSTAINING AND CONNTE KNIGHT ABSENT A motion to approve a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road found an the preliminary plan dated 9/7/90 on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek per the staff memo with the variance contingent upon final plat approval was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Dalton Williams VOTE: 5-0 WITH CHUCK GRIST ABSTAINING AND CONNIE KNIGHT ABSENT • 17 PEC Minutes 9/24/90 Meeting A motion to approve a request for a preliminary elan for a maior subdivision as it meets the Hillside Residential Zone District and Mayor subdivision requirements and tier the conditions found within the memo as modified in bold and listed below on a parcel c~~~~~~only referred to as Snraddle Creek was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Ludwig Kurz. 1. The proposed road grades and retaining wall heights are maximums for the subdivision. If it is determined by staff through the final plat review and/or building permit, or construction phase that road grades and retaining wall heights may be further reduced, the applicant will agree to do so. The final plat submittal will provide a thorough analysis of the sail nailing and tie rod system for cut walls in order to minimize site disturbance. 2. Construction guidelines will be used during the actual building phase for the wall and road improvements. See Section on ETR Wall Analysis of this memo. 3. A grading easement on the southwest corner of the property will allow the Town of Vail the right to grade onto this portion of the property if and when the North Frontage Road is extended to the east below the subdivision to create a new underpass connecting to Blue Cow Chute. 4. An agreement finalizing the stable relocation and reclamation of the existing livery site will be submitted with the final plat information. 5. The conditions for lots having slopes over 300 will be applied to the subdivision. This section of the code is 18.69.050 A-D, F-I, K and L. 6. Site coverage shall be limited to 80 to 100 of the allowable GRFA for each lot. This condition will be finalized at final plat. 7. If a fireplace is desired by the owner, gas appliances or gas logs shall be used in all caretaker units. 18 PEC Minutes . 9/24/9p Meeting 8. A chain link fence around the culvert at the subdivision entry will be removed and a more aesthetic barrier provided with appropriate landscaping. If allowed by the Colorado Division of Highways. 9. The six spruce trees by the subdivision entrance on the south side of Gillett Road shall be relocated. 10. All Fire Department standards and requirements per the letter from Mike McGee dated August 2, 1990 shall be complied with by the owner or as otherwise modified by the Fire Department. 11. Before any building permits are released for the subdivision and once the subdivision receives final plat approval, the appropriate easements allowing for public access shall be recorded per the Forest Service requirements. 12. Six foot paved shoulders on either side of the Frontage Road for a public bike path shall be provided by the developer. 13. All construction on each lot shall occur within building envelopes. The building envelopes shall be adjusted per the revised staff plan dated September 7, 1990 before final plat. The staff and applicant are to determine what will be allowed outside the building envelopes. 14. All construction for the subdivision shall comply with requirements found within the Environmental Impact Report for the project. 15. The owner shall use the least polluting sanding material far sanding the private road within the subdivision per the approval of the Town of Vail Environmental Health Department. 16. The open space tracts within the subdivision shall be rezoned to Green Belt Open Space at the same time the final plat is reviewed. Additional greenbelt open space areas will be added adjacent to the Forest Service switchback, Lot 5/6 switchback, and secondary road per the staff amendments to the September 7, 1990 preliminary plan. ~i 19 PEC Minutes 9/24/90 Meeting 17. The owner of the subdivision shall maintain the road through the subdivision from the entry gate up to the top of the subdivision. This maintenance also includes all common areas, retaining walls, and landscaping. The owner also agrees to be responsible for establishing the landscaping along the public road for a two to three year period from planting of the materials. Once the landscaping is established and accepted by the Town of Vail Landscape Architect, the Town will take over the responsibility of the retaining walls and landscaping. 18. Pedestrian and public access shall be allowed on the lower portion of Gillett Road extending from the Frontage Road up to the subdivision gate. 19. Three caretaker units each having a maximum square footage of 1200 sq. ft. shall be provided within the subdivision on Lots 14, 15, and possibly Lot 1. The separation of the Lot 1 caretaker unit is under staff consideration. The units will be . permanently restricted per section 18.13.080 (10} a-d of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Conditions on the 3 employee units will be resolved at final plat. 20. The architectural guidelines shall be amended as follows: a. Retaining walls shall be minimized as well as extremely steep slopes. b. Sod shall be allowed around the perimeter of residences but large lawn areas are not encouraged. c. Driveways shall have a maximum grade of 80 unless approved by the Town of Vail Engineer. d. Irrigation by retaining walls for the subdivision shall be prohibited. e. No chain link fence is allowed within the subdivision even for dog runs. If dog runs are proposed, another type of open fencing should be used. • 20 PEC Minutes 9/24/90 Meeting 21. A11 construction within the subdivision shall comply with the Town of Vail hazard ordinances found in Section 18.69 22. No on-site livery shall be allowed within the subdivision. 23. Aspens and large shrubs shall be used on all retaining walls. 24. All hazard areas shall be excluded from contributing site area to Lots 14, 5, and 4 for GRFA or site coverage. xt was also noted that discussions not covered will be worked on until final plat, such as livery road grade and Design Guidelines and reversed envelopes per Kristen's pink areas on the plat. VOTE: 5-0 WITH CHUCK GRIST ABSTAINING AND CONNIE KNIGHT ABSENT Item No. 8: Appointment of PEC member and alternate to DRB for the months of October. November. and December 1990. The appointment was given to Connie Knight and Jim Shearer as alternate. Item No. 7: A reauest for a height variance in order to construct a retaining wall along Phase II of the East Vail Bike Path on the North side of Bighorn Road. in the Colorado Department of Highwavs Right-of-wav. Applicant: Town of Vail Item No. 9: A reauest for a height variance for Unit E-6. Crossroads, 141 East Meadow Drive, Lot P. Block 5D. Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: H. William Smith, Jr. Item No. 10: A reauest for a maior chance to existing development approval for the Vallev. Phase VI. Applicant: Edward Zneimer • 21 PEC Minutes . 9/24/90 Meeting Item No. 11: A reauest far an amendment to the approved access plan far Lots 5 and 6, Black 7. Vail Vil.laae 1st Filina. 146 and 12~ Forest Road. Applicant: Ron Byrne Ttem No. 12 :_ A reauest for a variance to allow a satellite dish in the Gore Creek 50' setback and a reauest far a floodplain modification on Lot 3, Block 1, Biahorn 1st addition. 3907 Lupine Drive. Applicant: Ron Oelbaum A motion to table Item No. 7 indefinitely and Item No.s 9. 10. 11, and 12 to October 8th was made by Ludwig Kurz and seconded by Dalton Williams VOTE: 5-0, CONNIE KNIGHT AND CHUCK CRIST WERE ABSENT • • 22 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE; September 24, 1990 RE: A request for an exterior alteration far Vail Mountaineering in the Bell Tower Building, 201 Gore Creek Drive, Part of Tract A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Axel Wilhelmson I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Vail Mountaineering (formerly the Timberhaus} is located at the southern end of the Bell Tower Building just west of the Children's Fountain. • PEC approval of an exterior alteration request is required for the addition or removal of any enclosed floor area to structures located within the CCI zone district. This proposal calls far angling of the north wall of the southern ground level display window, changing out existing windows, and the addition of another entry column to match an existing entry column. Approximately 11 sq. ft. of window display area is removed to allow for the remodeled entry» Additionally, the removal of the portion of the window will necessitate a modification to the existing roof line. No landscaping will be removed as a result of this proposal. It is the applicants hope that the removal of the northern wall of the southern window and the addition of another entry column will increase the visibility of the store's entrance to pedestrians arriving from the south. II. BACKGROUND On August 29, 1990 the Design Review Board approved new signage and changing out the existing windows. ITT. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I 18.24.010 Puroose: 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 1 ^ 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. The proposed Vail Mountaineering entryway/remodeling project is in compliance with the purpose of the CCI zone district. The addition will not negatively affect the scale of the building and will improve the overall quality of the space. IV. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan includes three elements that establish the review criteria for this application. The first of these is referred to as the Guide Plan which includes a number of sub-area concepts, many of which identify potential areas for future development and other improvements. Secondly, the Urban Design Considerations express the large scale, land use planning and design considerations, and finally architectural/landscape considerations which will be reviewed by the Design Review Baard, establish the criteria • for evaluating detailed design considerations of a proposal. The Vail Village Master Plan also addresses specific goals pertaining to the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village that must be considered in this application. V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE There are no specific sub-areas relevant to this proposal. VI. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The following design considerations are a critical element of the Urban Design Plan. They identify the key physical characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to assure that new development be consistent with this established character. These considerations include the following: A. Pedestrianization: The proposed facade alteration will have na impact on pedestrian traffic flow, • 2 . B. Vehicular Penetration: Vehicular penetration or circulation will remain unchanged as a result of this proposal. C. Streetscaue Framework: Streetscape framework identifies two alternatives for improving the pedestrian experience in the Village. These include the development of open space including landscaping along pedestrian routes and the development of infill commercial storefronts along pedestrian corridors. Although the proposed alteration does not propose commercial infill but rather the removal of commercial area, staff believes the alteration will have no negative impact on existing pedestrian activity generation. The window change will not alter shop frontage transparency, Window openings and light size will remain unchanged. The applicant simply proposes to flip the three smaller panes from the bottom of the window opening under the larger pane to the top of the opening above the larger window pane. This proposed window modification will match the window treatment of the adjacent (north) commercial space. D. Street Enclosure: • Street enclosure will remain unchanged as a result of this proposal. E. Street Edge: The facade alteration will have no effect an street edge. All existing edge of building and edge of planter lines adjacent to the street and the pedestrian corridor will remain unchanged. F. Buildina Heiaht: Building height will be unaffected. G. Views and Focal Paints: The proposed expansion does not affect any adopted view corridors. H. Service and Deliverv: The proposed expansion will not affect the current service and delivery patterns, • 3 1. Sun/Shade: There will be no increase in the shadow pattern as a result of this addition because it is within the existing shade pattern of the building. J, Architecture/Landscape Considerations: These design considerations are typically the purview of the Design Review Board. The realignment of a portion of the existing box window will necessitate a minor modification to existing roof lines. Covered entrance ways and landscaping areas are encouraged under the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. This design element will be integrated into the Vail Mountaineering exterior alteration. Although the covered entrance way currently exists, staff believes the addition of a column to match the existing supporting column will improve the symmetry and balance of the entry way, more clearly define the commercial space entrance and improve the visual appearance of the facade. The proposed alteration will not impact existing landscaping. VII. RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE VAYL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN GOAL #2: TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR-AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. • 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.5.2 Policv: The Town will use the maximum flexibility possible in the interpretation of building and fire codes in order to facilitate building renovations without compromising life, health and safety considerations. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed facade alteration with the condition that if and when a special improvement district is established for Vail Village, the applicant shall not remonstrate against the formation of said district. The project meets the design considerations as described above. 4 >_ ~ ~ ~ .. x ,.~._ _ ~ ~ " f ~ { ~ ~ r i ~ ~ ~~ ~~ X11 ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~~ `~~~ mod" i .I ,\ E l . \ .. ~ ~I ' _ + ~ : . .' L ~ I .~ i ~' __~} { { ~, + •_~. ~ , ~ „'~ ~~~~ •. . , ~: ~„ ~ a• • ~ _ tai ~ •:4r ~ .~+ .'fie F' ~: ~4 ~~ x .~ '~~ . )~ .. .~~ '. ~~ li\• ~ ~e" kl 11 ~~ _~ •~~ i- 4 ;1 'r' ~ t ...~ : ~I `~ :.~~ .~ ~. .w !~' ~ i ~ ~~:' ~- :~. , r' ~ y , ~.. .. ~t ,~ ~r~ ,. i ~,-•A ~;j~ ,~• } a ,~' ..~ . -; ~.= :. ~;A r~.~ V~ ~~ _~~ r- t ~- , .~ •'. f W . ;i +~~I~'~`f" :..~ .fit ..{•R^' . ~ ~ •' 4' .W ~ t ,~ ~~ ~`{' ~.' ~ ~~~~'~' :'4.,, .~,~ ~ ~: it ~ ~ .~.,,-..~.' ~. - ~'~ ~IS~ {"'~~; '~.-_~ a, t k ~R •~ ' ~ '{ ' ~ ~ Ik - yI I h 2 k r a moo. ~~ i? ~ d ~ ~1 ~ ~~~ ~ ~ _~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ -~' . ~ ~~ ., _, ,~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .; ~~ <~ ~~ ~-~ -• ~.~.~ ~ ~ ~~ • i N.~ 1 R ~ '~" V .-I , ~ i ' ll i v ~ V N ~ K • .. ~~ .. _~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ •~ Q ~ e rr 1 i • .. \ _ i 1 - .. ~;, .~ ~ :~~' .~ ,R ` ~, • •. ~ ,~ 4~ ~. .~;?.. ~ Q .,.. • ,_ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ '" a t. .. _. /\ ~.. ~. ..w~..~- `~ ~- •~. ~. ~ , , ~ ~+° E~ i ~~ ' 7. ~ _a...,..._ __ ~y ' ~`' .. ~. 'a .... . ~7!!!~ _ ~~ _. :r ` .i. ' } 1•~r . . y ~• ,~ \ ~ ~~ j ~ ~~~ 2z o S~ ~' c--~ ~ ~~ ~i .~ :: .' ; Q: ~Q ` ~- ~~ ~ ~ I ~~ --, t1 i ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ . _, ~~ ~, ~~~ ~~ ~~~- '; N I A ~ N ~4 a a .~ ~~ ~ ~ .~ K j nl ~ 7 m D. V N ... i r~ .~ U Q 1 I :; t ,r' .L r~ 1 ~. ~~:~~ ,,,r ,y, ~~~ ~~~ ~~'' ~~~~I ~ ., ~. ~~, +• ~a~ ~'`; ~ `~ X11 ~I~Q ~~ w~+ ~ - i i ~^ _ r.+N'~~ ..'- .+ y I war ~.. ~~~±_. 1 .y •'~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .: I "~ ~~~ ~~1 ~ ~ ~ `~~ / ~ 4 { ~ ~ .~ ~a ~i .~ ~ I ~..~. ~' .. ~.~ Mai ' - + - s ~r~• ~ +~ 1"` ill . ~ •~ • ~ f r,~ ~ 'J r _L 3a' •• ! •'~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ c - ~' ``'' •. '~ •A . .li.. ~ ~~ Yr ! .s~~ -4 s. %ti ' .... - s, ti. '~~a y.. ~~r 1 ~ ~s* S r . ~~~~' •. ~~, ~, .':-..{+~ ~ •,.t' r4. ~J •~ .~, -~i .n ~ ~ ~~ rr- ~rf- r ,i F Xr 1 ~'~•N ~. ?~~ C y a 0 y a a 5 . T0: Planning and Environmental CujE~m1S510n FROM: Department of C~.,.~..unity Development DATE: September 24, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4, Coldstream Condominiums in order to amend Section 18.46.100 (B) floor area, at Lot 53 Glen Lyon Subdivision, 1476 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association. I. DESCRXPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a major amendment to SDD No. 4-- Cascade Village, Area B - Coldstream Condominiums. The following is the Section to be amended and the applicant's proposal: 18.46.100 (B~ Floor Area - 65.000 sa. ft, GRFA: PROPOSED -The applicant is requesting 1.032 sq. ft. of additional GRFA in order to allow for future additions. Presently, the GRFA for the project is • 66,898 sq. ft. The request would increase total GRFA to 67,930. The maximum GRFA originally approved for the SDD is 65,000 sq. ft. (Please see background section on GRFA calculations). There is no request to amend the allowable site coverage or density. The existing site coverage is 34,878 sq. ft. The maximum site coverage allowed for the project is 64,216 sq. ft. Currently there are 45 units in the project. According to the SDD, up to 65 units are allowed. II. BACKGROUND Upon application, the staff researched the available GRFA for Area B--Coldstream Condominiums. According to all available existing information from building permits, the project appeared to have a total GRFA of 63,968 sq. ft. which includes the existing 45 units and subsequent additions to 2 units which were approved based on the building permit numbers for GRFA. With a new staff GRFA check as of June 28, 1990, it was determined that the existing GRFA on site is 66.898 sa. ft. Because the staff calculations from the original GRFA check are not available, we can only speculate the reason for the differences. One reason may be the measuring policies. • 1 ^ . GRFA Aecardinc to Town of Vail Files Pricer to June 28, 1990 GRFA on Building Permit 63,847 sq. ft. Additions to units {previousl.v approved} 121 sa. ft. Total 63,968 sq. ft. GRFA Allowed 65.000 sct. ft. GRFA Available 1,032 gq. ft. GRFA Check June 28. 1990 Unit tune # of units Sa. ft of unit Total UNIT A 6@ 2153.5 12,921 sq. ft. UNIT B 11@ 1768.5 19,453.5 UNIT C 8@ 1409.5 11,276 UNIT C1 3@ 1377.5 4,132.5 UNIT C+ 5@ 1427.5 8,565 UNIT D 5@ 1161 5,805 UNIT E 5@ 726 3,630 Special 1@ 994 994 Total 45 units &6,777 GRFA Additions to units previously approved 121 EXTBTTNG GRFA FOR PROJECT 66,898 GRFA Additional GRFA Proposed 1,032 • Total 67,930 GRFA III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS There is no underlying zoning for this property because at the time of annexation the property was zoned SD^ No, 4. At this time, the staff feels that there is no reason to establish underlying zoning on this property. The staff believes that Medium Density Multiple Family (MDMF) would be the most appropriate zoning for this project, if an underlying zone district were to be imposed. The fallowing shows what is currently allowed by the SDD and what would be allowed on the property with MDMF zoning. Lot Area: 4.2121 acres (183.479 sa. ft.} Allowed by SDD Density (D.U.'s) 65 units GRFA 65,000 sq. ft. Site Coverage 64,216 sq. ft. or 35% • 2 Existina MDMF 45 units 76 units* 66,$98 sq. ft. 64,216 sq. ft. or 35% 34,878 sq. ft. 82,566 sq. ft. or 45% i Landscaping/Site Development Parking Allowed by SDD 91,740 sq. ft. or 50~ 84 spaces required Existing 98,40& sq. ft. or 53~ 79 spaces MDMF 55,044 sq. ft. or 30% 93 spaces Height 48 ft. 48 ft. 38 ft. sloping 35 ft. flat Setbacks 20 ft. (all) 20 ft. (all) 20 ft. (all) *In the MDMF zone district, density (D.U.) and GRFA are based on buildable area. Buildable area would exclude any areas of floodplain on the property. Buildable area was not available, therefore the numbers used are based on total area of the site. IV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA Section 18.40,084 of the Zoning Code sets forth the following design criteria to be used in evaluating the merits of a Special Development District. it is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed development plan complies with each of the following • standards or demonstrate that one or more 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 nroverties .relative to architectural design. scale, bulk. building height. buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. With this amendment, the property would have 1,032 sq. ft. of GRFA available for small additions to individual units. The overall mass and bulk of the buildings will be increased as a result of the additions. However, due to the amount of additional square footage requested, the impact will be limited. The staff feels that the proposal will have no significant impacts on any of the other above criteria. • B. Uses. activity and density which provide a compatible. efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The staff finds that due to the amount of GRFA being requested, relative to the overall size of the project, there will no impact on the surrounding uses or activities. C. Compliance with narking and loading reauirements as outlined in Chanter 18.52. No additional parking is required at the time of this amendment, however the installation of additional parking may be required at the time of the individual requests to use the GRFA. The applicants will be required to comply with the Town of Vail parking standards. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Town policies and Urban Design Plans. There are no specific Comprehensive Pian goals related to the proposal. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan proposes High Density Residential (HDR} for the Coldstream property. Housing in HDR would typically consist of multi-floored structures with densities exceeding 15 units per buildable acre. 10.6 units per acre exist on the property at this time (based on the total area of the property). E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. There are no natural or geologic hazards affecting this property except for the floodplain, F. Site plan, building design and location and oven space provisions designed to produce a functional develot~ment responsive and sensitive to natural features. vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. There are no proposed changes to the existing site plan. Changes will be made to the site plan when the GRFA is used for additions. Each addition will be reviewed by staff or the DRB to insure the expansion is sensitive to the above factors. G. A circulation system desicrned for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. There are no proposed changes to the existing circulation plan. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and oven space in order to optimize and preserve natural features., recreation. views and functions. The increase in GRFA should not affect the above criteria in a negative way. The project exceeds the required amount of site coverage and landscaping even if the entire 1032 sq. ft. were to be constructed at ground level. I. Phasing Ulan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable. functianal and efficient rP7_~t.ionship throughout the development of the special development district. No phasing plan will be required. Requests far additions to individual units will be handled on a case by case basis at the Design Review Board level. . V. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS All development standards for Area B---Coldstream Condominiums have been set forth in SDD No. 4. The applicant is not requesting to change any other standards except GRFA. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the request for additional GRFA with the following conditions, that we believe will bring the project more in line with what exists on site: 1. The density of the project shall be reduced from 65 units to 45 free market units (the number of free market units currently in the project), and three permanently restricted "employee" units, for a total of 48 units allowed. 2. The allowable site coverage shall be reduced to 36,500 sq. ft. from 54,216 sq. ft. Currently, 34,878 sq. ft. of site coverage exists. The staff feels that 36,500 sq. ft. will allow for the use of the proposed GRFA and also allow for other types of improvements which do not constitute GRFA, but would be considered site coverage. • 5 The staff has concluded that because of the differences in the previous staff GRFA analysis and the recent staff GRFA check, it is reasonable to a11ow for a change in the allowable GRFA in this project. The staff finds that by increasing the allowable GRFA to 67,930 sq. ft. The applicant would still have 1032 sq. ft. of GRFA remaining for future additions. The 1032 sq. ft. of GRFA is the difference between the previous building permit GRFA and the approved GRFA. (63,968 sq. ft. building permit GRFA 65,000 sq. ft. = 1,032 sq. ft.). • ' TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Devel~r.«ent Department . DATE: September 24, 1994 RE: A request far a conditional use permit and a side setback variance for a ground water remediation system.,..:.--~'~ building at the Vail Amoco Service Station, 934 SJout~~ Frontage Road (former Chevron Service Station)...' Applicant: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. I. BACKGROUND This application was previously discussed as a work session item at the September 10, 1994 PEC meeting. At the work session commission member's recommended the applicant install additional landscaping along the station's eastern property line in an area between the back wall of an existing planter and the Town of Vail Shop chain link fence. The commission also instructed the applicant to install 5 to '1 spruce trees in the grassy area south of the unit close to the proposed redwood fence. Additionally, the applicant must install a drip irrigation system to insure survival of the spruce trees. Under a 1989 property transfer agreement between Amoco Oil Company and Chevron, U.S.A., Chevron is required to remediate any subsurface contamination by petroleum products at this site. Attached to this memo is detailed information regarding the remediation system's operation which has been provided by Chevron's representative, RMX of Sacramento, CA. It is estimated the proposed RMX manufactured remediation system will remain in place for 2 years. The system operates in virtually the same manner as the recently approved Alpine Standard remediation system and will be housed in a prefabricated metal building approximately 8 ft. wide by 15 ft. long and 10 ft. high. The roof peak will be approximately 12 ft. above grade. Roof material will also be prefabricated metal. As was the case with Alpine Standard, the system is comprised of an oil/water separator, an air stripper, recovered product storage tank, vapor extraction system, air compressors (which operate the pumps located in recovery wells}, and a control and electrical panel which operates the entire unit. The system will remove ground water with a series of pneumatic pumps, separate the majority of the gasoline from the water with the oil/water separator, strip the remaining dissolved gasoline constituents with the air stripper and discharge the treated water to the sanitary sewer which serves the site. All discharged water and air emissions will meet the appropriate standards (see attached letter from Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District to RMX, Inc. dated 7/20/90). 1 In order to determine the extent of subsoil and groundwater contamination, a site assessment report was prepared by Western Geological Resources, Inc. of San Rafael California for Chevron, U.S.A. To date, 6 monitoring wells have been • drilled, installed, sampled and tested. Based upon Western Geological Resources Inc. sampling findings, a comprehensive action plan will be prepared within the next 30 to 60 days and submitted to the State Department of Health for formal approval. Following receipt of the Plan the Department of Health is required to approve or deny the corrective action plan within 30 days. As a result of on-site investigations of the Vail Amoco Station, Amoco Oil Company has indicated a willingness to properly screen the station's dumpster and to install a sand filter to purify storm run-off from the station prior to it reaching Gore or Red Sandstone Creek. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMiT REOUEST The Vail Amoco site is in the Arterial Business zone district. Under this zone district service stations are permitted subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Groundwater hydrocarbon contamination has resulted in the need to install the remediation system at this location. It is likely this contamination has occurred as a result of service station operation. Because the use is related to service station operation, the remediation system • is also required to obtain conditional use permit approval. Conditional use review and evaluation should address whether the proposed use is properly located to ensure compatibility and harmonious development between the proposed use and surrounding properties. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit in order to place a subsoil and groundwater contamination remediation system on the Vail Amoco Service Station site. The system will be located south of the existing gasoline station building and north of Gore Creek. The remediation system has been designed to remove free- phased hydrocarbon and dissolve contaminants from the groundwater. Contaminated groundwater is pumped from the recovery wells to the system. Once the groundwater is pumped to the system, it is deposited into the oil/water separator. The separator will remove oil from the groundwater. As the groundwater flows through the separator, free-phased hydrocarbons float to the surface of the water where they are then skimmed off the surface and deposited into the product storage barrel. The oil-free groundwater is then treated through an air stripper. The stripper is designed to remove non-aqueous • phase liquid hydrocarbons from water. The hydrocarbons are released from the water as a gas and are vented to the atmosphere. 2 The system will be in constant operation - 24 hours/day. Once hydrocarbon contamination in the groundwater has been reduced to levels acceptable by the State Health Department, the module will be removed from the site and all conduits will be permanently capped. Groundwater monitoring and sampling of the effluent will be ongoing throughout the clean-up effort as required by the State Health Department, Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District, and Chevron, U.S.A. Engineers. As proposed, all discharged water will meet Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District standards (see attached correspondence) and all air emissions will meet State Air Pollution Control Division standards. The Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District sewer plant and Town of Vail "Old Town Shops" is located east of and adjacent to the Vail Amoco station. To the north across South Frontage Road is Vail Associates maintenance shop, to the west across Red Sandstone Creek is the Glen Lyon Office Building and to the south across Gore Creek is the Tawn of Vail recreational path. Since the recreation path is at a lower elevation than the unit location, the unit will be well screened from the path by a 6'-0" redwood fence and 5 to 7 eight foot tall spruce. Chevron, U.S.A. anticipates the remediation unit will be in operation on this site for 1 to 2 years. However, the system may remain on site for a longer period of time if more time is required to clean-up the site. When the unit is no longer in operation the need for this conditional use permit will terminate. A. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.&0, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors; 1. Consideration of Factors: a. Relationshiti and imbact of the use on development obiectives of the Town. The Purpose Section of the Arterial Business zone district states in part; "The arterial business district is intended to provide sites for office space, public utilities, service stations, limited light industry having no adverse environmental impacts that provides significant on-site tourist amenities and limited shopping and • commercial facilities serving the town and Upper Eagle valley residents and guests" 3 The need to install the proposed petroleum hydrocarbon remediation system is likely a result of service station operations. Further, the logistics of the operation of the system require it be in close proximity to the area of contamination. These factors contribute to the Planning staff's opinion that the installation of this proposed remediation system on the Vail Amoco site, would meet the intent of the purpose section of the Arterial Business zone district and is in the best interest of the c~~~~~~~unity. b. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population. trans~aartation facilities. utilities. schools, narks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The State Air Pollution Control Division will review the comprehensive correction plan when submitted. once the comprehensive corrective action plan has been formally approved by the State, the remediation unit can begin operation within the parameters of the state approved plan. When Chevron, U.S.A. addresses the items outlined in Upper Eagle Valley Water and sanitation District's letter to RMX of 7/20/90 (attached), Upper Eagle Valley will release the water discharge permit. Application has been made for state air emission approvals to operate the system at certain discharge levels. The proposed remediation system will have na significant effect an the other above mentioned considerations. c. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion. automotive and pedestrian, safety and convenience, traffic flow and control. access. maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas., The proposed structure will not interfere with on-site pedestrian or vehicular traffic except at limited times where it will be necessary far trucks to access the structure to remove/replace product storage tanks. With the exception of this minimal impact on traffic, staff finds that the requested variances will have no significant effect on any of the other above mentioned considerations. 4 ' d. Effect uoon the character of the area in which the brooosed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the taronosed use in relation to surrounding uses. If is the staff's opinion that the 6'-Q" tall red wood fence and 8'-0" tall spruce trees will adequately screen the remediation unit from the recreation path. The unit itself will be painted light grey to blend with the color of the existing service station structure. The non-aqueous phase liquid hydrocarbons which will be vented from the structure will not emit odor. In fact, the threshold of odor detectible by the human nose is much higher than the health hazard threshold per staff research. As a result of constructing the remediation system housing structure on the praposed site, a side yard setback variance must be obtained (see attached side yard setback variance section of memo). B. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make. the following findings before granting a conditional use Hermit. 1. That the praposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. 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. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development Department staff finds that this request meets the Conditional Use Permit criteria as stated above and recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit request subject to: 1. Annual review and approval of the Conditional Use Permit by the PEC. The Conditional Use Permit for the remediation equipment shall terminate when the unit is no longer necessary. 5 2. Approval of a side setback variance (see side setback variance section of memo). . Staff is supportive of Chevron U.S.A.'s efforts to mitigate the subsoil and groundwater contamination problems and recommends approval of this conditional use permit to allow the placement of a remediation system on the Vail Amoco Service Station site. III, 1~ESCRIPT7nN OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is proposing to install the remediation system in a 8' x 16' prefabricated metal building. A variance from the required 15 ft. side setback is required in order to place the system behind the existing service station. As proposed the unit location is 1'-6" from the south wall of the service station between a waste oil tank inlet and wall mounted meters. At this location, the unit will encroach 3 ft. into the east side yard setback, which will result in a 12 ft. setback. South of the existing structure the land falls off steeply down to Gore Creek. Locating the unit closer to the existing structure will reduce the slope disruption which will occur in placing the unit on-site. Staff's suggestion to shift the proposed unit closer to the back wall of the existing station structure resulted in the need for a setback variance. • A. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The addition of the remediation system impacts the Arterial Business Zone District (ABD) development standards in the following manner; LOT AREA: 39,696 sq. ft. BUILDING HEIGHT: Maximum Allowed: Max. of 70% at 32 and no portion of may exceed 40 fee 12 feet 60.0 ar 23,818.3 3.7~ or 1,463.0 4.0~ or 1,591.0 feet roof t. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. Proposed Addition: SITE COVERAGE: Maximum Allowed: Existing: Proposed: LANDSCAPED AREA: Minimum Allowed: Existing: Proposed: 25.0 or 9,924.0 sq. ft. 59.5 or 23,616.0 sq. ft. 59.Oo or 23,434.0 sq. ft. 6 SETBACKS: Minimum Allowed Existing Front 60~ of frontage @ 15 69.5 ft. ft., 40~ of frontage must be setback 20 ft. or more from property line. East** 15 ft. 12..0 ft. West 15 ft. 166.0 ft. Rear 10 ft. 40.0 ft. **Area of setback request. B. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development rec~~~u«ends approval of the requested rear setback variance based upon the following factors: 1. Consideration of Factors: a. The relationship of the requested variance to, other existing or botential uses and, structures in the vicinity. The proposed remediation system is located in close proximity to the area which requires clean-up. The location of the unit behind the existing station will not impact the high demand on-site parking and will allow the day to day operations of the station to continue uninterrupted. The proposed structure will require truck access to remove/replace product storage tanks. In order to accommodate the structure, 182 sq. ft of landscaped area will have to be removed. Following construction, the disturbed landscape area will be covered with a jute mesh, reseeded with native grasses, and 5 to 7 eight foot tall spruce will be installed. The existing site exceeds landscape area requirements. No landscape variance will be required in order to install the remediation system. With the construction of a 6'-0" fence adjacent to the remediation unit, and spruce tree installation, the unit should be screened from the recreation path. The location, size and height of the remediation system building will not effect views from adjacent properties. 7 • b. The decree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a stiecified reauZation 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 purpose of the construction of the structure is to remediate an existing underground water and subsoil contamination situation. Tf left untreated, the contamination will spread, thereby increasing the area of contamination and increasing the difficulty of remediating contaminated areas. The impact on the Town, both aesthetically and environmentally, of this system compared to other more drastic clean-up measures such as excavation and soil removal is minimal. The degree of relief from the strict interpretation of the rear yard setback requirement, in order to achieve a clean site, is appropriate and in the best interest of the community. • 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. The proposed structure will not interfere with vehicular traffic except at limited times where it will be necessary for trucks to access the structure to remove/replace product storage tanks. The remediation structure construction will cause no displacement of parking. With the exception of this minimal impact on traffic, staff finds that the requested variances will have no significant effect on any of the other above mentioned considerations. C. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: • 1. That the granting of constitute a grant of inconsistent with the properties classified the variance will not special privilege limitations on other in the same district. 8 2. 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. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. 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. 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. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION i Staff recommends approval of this side setback variance request. Staff believes the extraordinary circumstances of hydrocarbon petroleum product subsoil and groundwater contamination justify a setback variance in order to place the remediation system in an area with the lowest possible visual impact. There are no major negative impacts on adjacent properties ar safety problems related to the request. • 9 • • y FZ n~N ~~ D~ ~g ~~ wWty N . w~ ~~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ any ~~s~ ~~ ~~ w w / 44 W 4 ~ ~ V3T~• rS '~ '~e'L~ ~, ~~ ~ '~ ~ ~ Y] y ~l c+~ 30 1~3~ Tj~ 4 ~ 1 ~_ F~ ~p~-. ..~ .~ . Y~ ... _- ~..-. 'S ,sr~s~r °°~ u { .~ .~30Q -.,. $ v~., ~o4 # ,; ~ .... ..~... .... Z ~.A r~jf o~ 1 ~~. ,a ~ ~ "~~ gYYYWWy 1~. .~ d ~ ~ ~ v'ni~c? G m c~ ~,, w a ~G ~ J~ .. z ~'. 1 lI ~ ~a O ~j q } '~ ~ ~ M 7 J s~ ~ i ~~y~i H ~~ tG~~ bYU ~ ti N !~ 1 S~ ~\ N ry? 4+ . m 2 3 AoW ~ W 1 ~ d ~ ~$ ~ Wl~v pW-n T Z ~ ~ ~~~~ (, ~t `y r+l ~ ~aj0 R r'' ,t '1 ~ ~ 1'14 ~ p ~Y rn~M ~ 'S".L ` ~ ~. t 1 ~ ~ ~ ,~ : 't 'l'°z 1t. qty°°~ 5t ' ~t°d.,+ ~t~ ~0. 88~~~11~2 ~ r~~ 'y\\\ °j 7 t 1 ~~°a t '` p2 5TZ °t Y o- `v ~ f f/ ~ ~ SNI+. ~ ~ y. V ~ Y } U a ~ ~Y 1 r ~, .~ S 1 U , ~ M y ~ ~ N « ~~ (, ., W~ ~U ~ fn` . 11 N u ih\ N1N ~~~ y ' ? v ~` ~ ,~ ' F 1 ~ ~ ~ ., ~N it P '. .~... ~1, ~ ~ ...... ...... .................................... ..... .... ~asQ ays \~ ~ 1~ Y ~ 1 _ -, a'Sg3 }229 25 y~ ~~ ,~ s~ 27 9~ M, 6h,Zt .[C+ N ,,, ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ `~ ~..~ a • -_ ~ ~ ~ ' V 4 W W} - .... --. v ~ WW N v~ z ' O ~. • ~ W - . CJ w t~ u'i H a W Z o x° V ~ .W.. H ~ 1 ~o a ~y~ • 0'~ i O~ W ~.. S°o l.~INWM: - q I ~X:; ~~~~~~ •I , \\ ~. u • z o I W 1 ~~ N~ r I v ~~ x ~W 0 J ~~ ~f 0 - , . "~~ x~ .. NZ . N N J 0 .. • W to Y W N W ~ - ~ I.. \ U i, a Z ~ N ~ \ J } W ` ~~ ~~ J ,5-,£L ? I; :: ~ _ p~S ono mr 4 (Zwt~ x ~ a^ Z~ e t W a . ., d u ~ ~ d N OW g ar0~ ° y.K`[Fl~ 4= o wnw 6 a ~qi i. ~a7 r~ = UtiW ~~ ~94w aWC i ~W^ N ~~e _ni 0.mo4 z o ~VH0.'V7 0 0 NF~3G K~II VI 0 _ 0.~m0. Z K W = i z I a N RI 3~~W j ~ NN ~IW/I z~'JI /~ / ~ '~~ . ~ • '_1 .~~'. . ~ • •• W ~,~ `' yr• ~~, I I ~ ~~f y.G\. ~ ~`. . ~• ~ l ~., ~ j ` 1 ~~Wyy - ti . I ~ . y ~ ~ ~ f 4 ~ . f 'i ~ I S ~ ~! D f ~ ` . c - I f 1, k - ~ `.~® I ~ Ui ~` ! i fl` - ~ 1 I l :I, ,. CiW'~' I 4 I S' ;•f zw' I l I l y ;f ; s ,; ~\; 'YNv + I1 r ~ ' \\ P~ O ~ C Q ~\ ,~ f'I ~ •t Q W T p~ w ~ r, ~ ~ 1 'v m - \ ~ \ S ' II ~ •. 7J { , f f I '. ~ I, y ` ! I ~ ~ d 4 I IIII ~ S7 ~ I .:-. ~ N ~ I 1 I - t a W I f• n;'>, ~ i I ,>,; my I 1'f\~`. aN i~ij i \-: pQ 3 }.t` I:~\~ ~ ~~ , W0. ..i ~~ {~ G ~Z N'f "~~ry ~z ~ i~ o _ ~ Yl 1 N . ~ '~~ J~y~r M ' ~\~. T W W is P~\1 y !6 il.Wi I~:~ 3 air III, 1~\ ~ft\ ~Q=N 4>KZ o~ ~naWCUw s I ~ d ~ 1S r s~. :. f ~ ~ f ... 1 ~ ! .•. 1 S • ! d ~ I l ~ o ~ ~ r I f , ~ ~ ~ r ~ f N f I f ~ w 3 i ' r ~ ~ I l ~ f I ~ ,I t 1 ~ r I r ~ I r 1 ! II H Z W 3 W a i. u u 0 ~~l~gG°ur~icix~ /u rpcrvrv • GROUNDWA~t~r:R TREATMENT MODULE INSTALLATION PROPOSAL AND OPERATION DESCRIPTION for FORMER CHEVRON SERVICE STATION #7-0499 934 SOUTH FRONTAGE RDAD VAIN, CDLORADO Respectfully Submitted By RMX= ENGINI;~RiNG AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGBMLNT 9261 Folsom Blvd., Suite 203 Sacramento, California 95826 Ora behalf of CHEVRON, U.S.A. Chevron, U.S.A. ~,~.,~-~ses to install one RMX Groundwater Treatment Module (GTM) A subsurface investigation was initiated by Chevron in 1989 due to a property transfer agreement between Amoco Oil Company and Chevron, U.S.A.. Groundwater contamination by petroleum products was discovered and additional site investigations have been ongoing. Enclosed is the most recent groundwater sampling report compiled by Western Geological Resources, dated May 17, 1990. at the former Chevron service station located at 934 South Frontage Road in Vail, CO, for the purpose of removing hydrocarbon contamination from groundwater. The RMX GTM is a prefabricated, portable 8'W X 16'L X 12'H steel building that houses groundwater treatment equipment. The RMX groundwater treatment module has been designed to effectively treat contaminated groundwater while maintaining code compliance and aesthetic qualities as they apply to service stations. In October 1989, an oil recovery system was installed at the site. This system was effective in removing free-phased hydrocarbon from the groundwater, but there still remains dissolved contaminants in the groundwater. The site invesrigatians performed on soil and groundwater contamination remain inconclusive as to the source of the contamination. It is possible that the existing service station is not the only source of the cantaminarion. The groundwater gradient appears to flow north to south but more contamination is found to the east of the storage tanks than to the south. In any event, site investigations are continuing to more accurately define the source and extent of contamination. Meanwhile, Chevron, U.S.A. is proceeding to mitigate the contamination by the installation of the groundwater treatment system. The RMX-GTM-16 groundwater treatment module is outfitted with an oil/water separator, air stripper, and all required instruments and controls for pumping and treating groundwater. Contaminated groundwater is pumped from the recovery wells to the GTM by submersible total fluids pneumatic pumps. The flow of water to the GTM will be determined in part by the capacity of the well s. The estimated average flow is 7 GPM (10,000 GPD), continuously. Once the groundwater is pumped to the GTM, it is deposited into the oil/water separator. The separator being used is rated to effectively remove oil fram the groundwater at flows of up to 15 GPM. As the groundwater flaws through the separator, free-phased hydrocarbons float to the surface of the water where they are then skimmed off the surface and deposited into the 55 gallon product storage barrel. The oil-free groundwater is then treated through an Ejector Systems STRP-A4 - 4 tray cascade air stripper. The stripper is designed to remove non-aqueous phase liquid hydrocarbons (NAPE) from water. To do this the system directs the groundwater over horizontally aligned trays, 3.5'W X S.S'L X 0.5'H, and forces air through the water via aerator tubes. The air being forced through the water creates a sort of cold boiling effect which "strips" the hydrocarbons from the water. The hydrocarbons are released from the water as a gas and are vented to the atmosphere. • • An Air Discharge Permit application was submitted Department on May 29, 1990. The permit should be The release of volatile gases to the atmosphere will per year deemed acceptable by the Health Department. to the Colorado State Health ready by the end of August. be far less than the 1 ton The "worst case" hydrocarbon concentrations in the groundwater entering the treatment system are listed in Table 1 under the "influent" column. Water released from the GTM into the sewer system are listed in the "effluent" column. The hydrocarbon concentrations shown in the influent column are taken from the groundwater testing performed by Western Geological Resources during the most recent site investigation. The hydrocarbon concentrations shown for the effluent have been calculated by Larry Kaufman of Ejector Systems, Inc., based on the influent concentrations shown and 7 GPM average flow. Table 1 -Pollutant Loading Hydrocarbon Concentrations Levels (parts per billion) Contaminant influent effluent Benzene 1Q.~90 5 Toluene 15.259 5 Ethvlbenzene 2.130 1 Xvlene 15.125 10 The Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District has approved a discharge . permit for this installation pending the deposit and proof of insurance formwork to be completed by Chevron. The GTM will be in constant operation - 24 hours/day, 365 days/year. Once hydrocarbon contamination in the groundwater has been reduced to levels acceptable by the State Health Department, the module will be removed from the site and all conduits will be permanently capped. Groundwater monitoring and effluent sampling of the effluent will be ongoing throughout the clean-up effort as required by the State Health Department, Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District, and Chevron's Environmental Engineers. Because the treatment module is portable, temporary installations such as this are simplified. Relatively little site work is required to accommodate the module which is brought to the site and set in place with a custom made trailer. Installation operations have little effect on traffic and service station operations. When the GTM is removed from the site, the only noticeable remnants will be the slope modification and landscaping. Chevron is proposing to install the GTM behind the service station. This will eliminate any visual impact from the street; traffic will not be impaired on any roadway, path, ingress or egress; and no parking spaces will be displaced or eliminated. In order to install the GTM behind the station, minor grade changes must be made to the slope behind the service building above Gore Creek. These changes are well defined in the plans submitted with the conditional use •~ ~ • permit application. Although the GTM will be nearly impossible to see fram the street side of the service station, the GTM will be visible fram the bicycle path which runs along the south bank of Gore Creek (please see the enclosed photographs). Landscaping proposed for the slope - jute mesh, wildflower seed, and blue spruce - will soften the visual impact of the GTM as seen from the bicycle path. Since the GTM will be painted the same colors as the service station, it will blend easily with the existing facility. In addition, clutter behind the service building will be reduced significantly when the GTM is installed. • The service station and adjacent properties are zoned Arterial Business District. Immediately east and adjacent to the service station is the Town of Vail Old Town Shops. Across Red Sandstone Creek to the west is the Glen Lyon Office Building. Across South Frantage Road to the north is a Holy Cross Electric maintenance yard. To the south, across Gore Creek, is the Tawn of Vail bicycle path. Since the GTM has been designed to comply with similar code and zoning requirements as service stations, it is generally considered an acceptable addition to an existing service station facility. Installation of an RMX groundwater treatment module at 934 South Frontage Road in Vail, Colorado, as shown in the plans and described in this proposal, will have relatively little effect on the surrounding area. It will not take anything away from the character of the area, nor will it create additional traffic ar congestion, or any adverse or unsafe condition. It will not negatively effect any public or private interests. Installation of the GTM will however impact the groundwater quality of the area in a significant and positive way. . /T1.9C6/~YIENi ~~ ~/E~/U . . _-~~ _ ; ~ UPPER EAGLE VALLEY ~' WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS r~pu~ I~~, ~wm ~ ~, I ea6 FQREST ROAp • PAIL. COLORApp 81657 ~ I^'~'@ •I, . f, ~.y ~ yt ~ "'~ ' `~ (303) a76~7480 ~. C. a.. "'.,.., l? '.` ~: ~-- ; • AU G 7 1990 July 20, 1990 Mr. Kent Perkes RMX, Inc. 5555 Erindale Drive Colorado Springs, Colorado 80918 Dear Mr. Perkes: We have received your Permit Application form and it appears to be in order. Preliminary information indicates that your discharge will meet the limitations set forth in the sample permit that you have received. The following items need to be addressed prior to issuing a signed permit• 1. Compliance with Section 5.a.(1) & {2) of the permit in regard to a security bond and comprehensive general liability insurance. Please send the District evidence of the above-referenced bond, and a certificate of insurance naming the District as additional named insured, as the District's interest may appear. 2. The District will require a $5,000 deposit which will be refunded at the end of the term of the permit, providing that all service charges have been paid; and there are no outstanding damages or fines which have occurred as a result of the Permittee's negligent actions. 3. Further clarification as to whether you will have an operator on duty full time so that compliance samples {e.g. flow readings and pH) will be collected. Arrangements can be made with us to provide that service if necessary. 4. According to the conditions of the permit, toxicity testing wi11 be required {Section 3). We can provide that service if desired or you can use a laboratory of your choice that can provide that service. We will need advance notice if you wish us to da so. • PARTICIPATING DISTRICTS -ARROWHEAD METRO WATER ~ AVON METRO WATER ~ SEAVER CREEK METRO WATER ~ BERRY CREEK METRO WATER CLEAN EAGLE~VAIL METRO WATER ~ EDWARDS METRO WATER ~ LAKE CREEK MEADOWS WATER ~ DPPER EAGLE VALLEY CONSpLIDATEp SANITATION VgIL VgLL>=Y CONSOLIUATEU WATER ~ VAIL WATER AN^ SANITATIpN ~ • •, Mr. Kent Perkes July 20, 1990 Page Two 5. Scheduling of an on site inspection of the facility by District ~,~.~jonnel prior to start up. If you have any farther questions, please contact me at (303} 476-7480. Sincerely, UPPER Enrr.E VALLEY CONSOLIDATID SANITAT N DISTRICT / -`~> Mike Poeckes Wastewater Director MP:sk cc: Fred Haslee • c: l } ~' T0: FROM: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department DATE: September 24, 1990 RE: A request to amend the Town of Vai1's Snow Avalanche hazard map in the general vicinity of Vail Meadows, Filing #1, pursuant to Section 18.69 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Applicant: Town of Vail A. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUFST The Town of Vail is requesting to amend the Snow Avalanche Hazard Map for the Vail Meadows avalanche path. The amendment is a result of the reevaluation of the runout distances and the hazard zonation of the area completed by Art Mears. The proposed changes will affect the following lots in Vail Meadows, Filing Nv. 1 as specified: Lot Existina Desianation Probosed 21 Blue Blue (decreased area} . 22 23 Red Red/Blue Blue Blue (increased area) 24 Blue Blue (increased area) 25 Blue Blue 26 Blue Blue (decreased area) 28 Blue Blue 29 Blue Blue gp Blue Blue (increased area} B. BACKGROUND The existing hazard zonation map by Art Mears and McDowell, Scott and Cox for this area was adopted in 1976 (See Exhibit A}. This study used Swiss procedures and equations derived in the 1950 and 1960's. The results produced by these procedures are somewhat subjective, particularly within the 8 to 10 degree slopes of the Vail Meadows runout zone, because they depend upon friction coefficients which are not known, but must be assumed. • Recently, an application for development was submitted far Lot 22, Vail Meadows Filing No. 1. Because the entire lot is currently designated red hazard, it was necessary for the applicant to provide a site specific study which satisfactorily showed that the designatian of the area of the tat to be built should be amended to a blue hazard zone. The change of designation is required because the Town of Vail Hazard Regulations do not allow development to occur in red hazard avalanche zones. The applicant submitted a site specific study completed by Hydro-Triad, which again used the Swiss method discussed above. This study changed the zones for both the red and blue hazard areas (Exhibit B). The zones moved approximately 150 ft. uphill to the east. This change would enable the owner of Lot 22 to develop an area of the property with proper mitigation. Because of the differences between the two studies, both of which used the Swiss methodology, the Town elected to have a third study completed which utilized the current "state-of- the-art" methods now in use throughout North America and Europe. This study, by Art Mears, changes both the red hazard zone and blue zone for this avalanche path. The red zone boundary moves further up the slope to the east while area of the blue zone will increase as shown an Exhibit C. . G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation is for approval of the proposed amendment. As per Section 18.69.030, the master hazard plans may be altered to conform with new information or existing conditions. Staff feels that the change should be made as per "Quantitative Analysis of Runout Distance, Energy and Avalanche zoning Implications Vail Meadows Avalanche, Vail, Colorado" by Art Mears (September 1990). • . `r`' _ .~ +- ~ ~~ _ 1 / _ 'fir \r!S r _ 1 ~-.' • i 'iI 4 r v~\ ~_r:r~ \ ~ 3 i ~~ a~ " , ~~.~._ _ ~~: ~ . = .,ice ~ ~. .. t~ , , ~~ '~ ~ ~ ~~~~ I . ~ •1 • • '~ ~ ~• ,~~~ .• • ~ ~ ~, • f " ' ~ ~ f ~ rpr ~ •~ •• .:~~~~~. ~•'~ • ~ ~ ~ r ~ • ~ • • t ~ ~ • t ~~• F ~~ • • ~ • ~ s • ~ • ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ * ~ ~ - ~ ~ 1 ~ • • ~ • • , `~ ~ED N~4Zp ~ ::::RECREATION , .. ~ - = ~:; w • ~ ~ .. • ,. ~ .. _ ~~ ' ` ~' AREA - „• *~~ ~ • • • • r', 'jY ,. ~ ~ ..- - - :'iF. ilI ~ 1 ~ *y ~;I,x ti ~ r 1 a' ~"uY~~y.' .fib ~.~'y~~~yy:.yi"., X1~~ q.- ~.r;. .. .. ~ - ~ t r: ~~~~~ 1.k~`~t/ } 1,T~~f( 4• M~1 4 Tyr ~'~ ~~ i ~~ s b S ~ /~ l 1 t~ •7 ~4~ °`t 1 r .~ WATER TAN K ~ _~ ~x -,~ ~ ~. r ~-,~~~ t x. ~, ^ ,~ ~~ - r ~1 1. F! GURE IIL 1 =J u ~~ ~ / \i o /~ ~ / \~ _ ~ E1TE LAND , h ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ f t i i i \~ p-pY, I >~ 4t~ Z ~15~` ~~~ ~o '~ SCALE= 1~~= l50~ ~ / _: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ VAIL MEADOWS AVALANCHE ~~ ~ ~ ~ RUNOUT ZONE. SHOWING HIGH & '' MODERATE HAZARD ZONES, ~ IMb~~i- ~ a _-~-,~ d~ ~~ ; 19~a r b ~ Y4 `~ ~ ,~. f 1 i ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ - ,~ ~ ;}~ 4 ~ ,. ~ n V D ~ B ~,U~ ~G'_~ E 30U'_~° DARY I1:=.~ ~ ~1D'' `r ~l ~_ I l~ RED i,~NE HOUNDARY 'II~XS ~'UDY f r j t~ '',~ ~-~! s--7 ~ w~aTER -. 1j ~ TkN K ' C ~ "„` ~ ,rt.w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ -~ ~~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~, k• t ~ ~, ~' ~` ~. Y .~ ~~ - ~. _ ~. M l ~. ~~- 1- r` ~~ v 4~~~ ~. ~~ ~° SCALE= I"=150' / .~ I~ ~' ' ~ 4` ~ C HE ~/l V~aIL MEADOWS AVALAN `` ~ ~~ RUNOUT ZONE. SHOWING HfGH & ` ~ ES l MOCERATE HAZARD ZON , 1 ~Ch.i' kart- L, bu~ 1~. ~~99'~ ~~ ~~_ • Ms. Shelly Mello. Planner Town of Vail 75 South Fi ~.=toga Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Septer~r 17, 1990 Re: Lot 22, Vail Meadows Filing No, 1 POa~ M$. Mello: ••t.S `,Y L The District has recently L...:,. inf~~...~.1 by Mr. Robert Borne that the water tank located abalve Lot 22, Vail Meadows Filing No. 1 is +.~.~aired to have a protective structure above it to protest the tank from avalanche dangers and ":ace the lx~zard to su~~ Wandirx3 ~,,..,r,::rty. Mr. Borne Presented to the District a report r~,:.~.red by Hydro-Triac~- dated June, 1990, which referenced a px~vious report prepared by Hydro-Triad in April, 1977. The District has aequired the 1977 report, and based ~.~.- the earlier rec. .. ~ ~.,dations to car~stru,ct a splitting structure as a defense mechanism. has retained an engineering firm to evaluate bath reports and design a ~,L~lective structure that would be adequate to sustain the severe avalanches that could be expected in the high hazard zone. The 1990 report ~~~ Hyd~'o-Triad references t~ 1977 ~:.~.~rt that concluded "If the tank were maintained at 80AS fu11 during the avalanche hazard ~,~~iod and ~irr~3 with a sheer ring tie to the fan~r»lation- the tank would not fail or be a significant additive el~..,:...t to the avalanche. as it would effect the residential lots along Snowshoe Lane." The tank is maintained at 809K full or greater during normal operation of the water system tthout the winter months. The sheer ring tie to the foundata.on, however, has not been installed. Based ir,~.. initial evaluation by the District's engineers. they have cor>tcluded that the sheer ring tie would not be adequate and are therefore pra.,~.~..iing with further evaluation and design of the splitting structure. if you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 476-7480. Sin..~~.41y- ~~~ Jerry Berner Director of Water Operations JB;sk cc; Edtm~nd H. Dxager, Jr. Kent Rlose Project File PARTICIPATING OfSTRICTS - AR ROWI-IEAD METRO WATER ~ AVOT] M1=TR0 WATER ~ BEAVER CREEK METRO WATER• EdERRV CREEK METRO WATER CLEAN EAGLE VAIL METRO WATER• EDWARDS METRO WATER ~ L.AKE CREEK MEA OOWS WATER ~ UPPER EAGLE VALLEY CONSOLIDATED SANITATION VAIL VALLEY CONSOLIDATED WATER ~ VAIL WATER AND SANITATION UPPER EAGLE VALLEY ~~ WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS 846 FOREST ROAD • PAIL. COLORADO 81fi57 {303) A76~748D ~• ~+ ' .~ • QUAr[TITATIYE ANALYSIS.OF RIfNOUT DISTANCE, ENERGY A1~D AVALANCHE-xONING IMPLICATIONS YAIL MEADOWS AVALANCHE, PAIL, COLORADO RF~C'D SEr ;~ ~ i:.~~ • • . ~' y -• ti ~. • QIIANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF RtTNOIIT DIBTANCB~ ENERQY AND AVALANCHE-BONING IMPLICATTONB~ VAII, MEAUOIPB AVALANCHE, VAIL, COLORADO • Prepared Sor The Tows o~ Vail Prepared By Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado September, 190 • '/ • ~. xntraduction and Puznase This re-evaluation of runout distances and hazard zonation in the Vail Meadows avalanche path, East Vail was requested by the Town of Vail. The re-evaluation was requested because a site specific study recently completed by Hydro-Triad (1990) fvr the owner of Lot 22, at the west end of Snowshoe Lane, changed the hazard zonation which was previously defined in 1978. However, the Hydro--Triad study apparently used methods which have been superseded by recent research (McClung and Lied, 1984; McClung and Lied, 1987; Mears, 1988; McClung, Mears, and Schaerer, 1988; Mears, 1989a; Mears, 1989b; Mears [in prep.]). In particular, the avalanche-dynamics equations used in the Hydro-Triad study to define avalanche runout limits apparently follow Swiss procedures and equations derived in the 1950's and 1950's (e.g., Voellmy, iQ55), as discussed in Mears (1976}, The results produced by application of these equations are somewhat subjective, particularly within the 8°-to-10° slopes of the Vail Meadows _runout zone, because they depend heavily upon friction coefficients which are not known but must be assumed. Limitations to the use of avalanche--dyna~tics equations are discussed in in appendices "A," "B," and "C." This study has quantified the dynamics and runout of the Vail Meadows avalanche in accordance with current "state-of-the-art" methods in regular use throughout North America and Europe. ~ Methods used in analysis a. The Vail Meadows avalanche profile was subdivided into 18 slope segments short enough such that each segment could be assumed to have constant slope {Table 1}. The profile was constructed from the 1:24,000 scale "Redcliff" quadrangle (above 9,200 feet elevation} and the 1:1,800 (~." = 150'} scale topographic map prepared by Hydro Triad (below 9,200 feet). b. The runout zone was defined as beginning at the l0°-profile point, at 8,800 feet elevation, as is consistent with current statistical methods, appendices "A," "B," and "C." c. Because the avalanche impacts a 75-foot high limestone knoll at the beginning of the runout zone, a "synthetic" profile was extended through the knoll toward the northeast at an angle of 5 degrees (Begs 16', 17', 18'). This is the direction the avalanche would advance in if it were not deflected. The 5 degree slope is the mean runout zone slope of a data base consisting of 112 design-magnitude avalanches sampled throughout Colorado. d. The "Beta" angle and and C, for definitions}, These two angle and slop statistically significan database. the length "XB" (see Appendicitis A, B, were then measured from the profile, e parameters were found to be t in regression analysis of the Colorado ,. ~_ e. The "Alpha" angle (McClung and Lied, 1984), the point at which the design avalanche stops, was then computed from the Colorado database regression equation. The computed Alpha angle, down to the 95~ confidence limit was 22.0°. f. The PCM avalanche--dynamics equation (Perla, Cheng, and McClung, 198D} was then fit to the synthetic profile, and forced, by successive iterations to stop at Alpha 22.0°. The PCM avalanche-dynamics coefficients thus determined by iteration were: M/D 755m; mu 0.2 (assumed 3n iterations). g. A second slope profile was then constructed of the actual avalanche path which is deflected to the north past the water tank, and over Lot 22 and Snowshoe Lane (Table 2}. h. The PCM-model was then applied to the actual slope profile, using mu and M/D as discussed in step "f," above. Because this avalanche is deflected to the north through a mean angle of ap roximately 40°., a momentum-correction factor (equal to cos 2D~]2 = 0.88) was applied to reduce velocity below 8,8D0 feet elevation. The runout distance and velocity decay in the runout was then computed using the coefficients determined by the statistical/iteration method. Segment velocities on the actual profile are given in Table 3. i. The Red/Blue hazard zone boundary was defined by determining the paint on the profile at which the velocity decreased to 24.2 m/s, the point at which the kinetic-energy density (stagnation pressure] decreased to 3,000 kg/m2 (515 psf}, assuming a dispersed mean flow density of 10D kg/m~. The relationship used for this determination was simply V (2Pg/100]0.5, where P = 3,000 kg/m3, and g = 9.8 m/s2. This point, which marks the bottom of the Red Zone, occurred at the bottom of segment 16, about 200 feet above Lot 22. j. The terminal position of the design-avalanche runout zone (lower end of the Blue Zone), was computed to be at 8,630 feet elevation, where the avalanche will just touch two buildings but will not possess energy sufficient to produce any damage. Two other buildings on the north side of Snowshoe Lane lie within the Blue Zone, but these buildings have previously been designed for avalanche loads. The results of the avalanche-zoning analysis, including the work discussed i'n Section 3, is summarized on Figure 1, which was copied from the study by Hydro-Triad, Ltd. This figure shows the revised Red/Blue boundary (uphill from the Hydro-Triad boundary) and the downhill avalanche limits (downhill from that shown in the Hydro-Triad study}. U L~ ~ ~ r ,3 Fie~,d; work- and a~,r-~hnt~ ~nterDretatior~ During the summer of 1973 and 1976, at least 10 man-days field time was spent within the Vail Meadows avalanche path to familiarize myself and researchers with the University of Colorado, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research {INSTAAR) with the path terrain. Starting zones and lateral boundaries of the track were determined, and 'destructive effects of past events were studied, In particular, the return periods of major avalanches were estimated by extracting and studying cores from numerous trees that had suffered avalanche impact. The forest within the boundaries of Lot 22 showed no obvious evidence of avalanche impact, but most trees were less than 100 years old in this area. As discussed in Appendix "A," however, lack of an avalanche for a even a 100-year period does not provide convincing evidence that the site is beyond the limits of the "100-year" avalanche. In addition to the field work described above, the direct history of avalanches in the Vail Meadows path was extended by stereo- photo inspection of U.S. Forest Service photos taken in 1939, 1950, 1962, 1974, and 1984. The 1939 photos indicate that a large avalanche reached into the runout zone early this century (perhaps before 1920), and may have extended to the general vicinity of what was to become Snowshoe Lane. There also is clear evidence that a large avalanche ran at least to the 8,800 foot level, probably impacting the limestone knoll/water tank area between 1950 and 1962. This avalanche extended the avalanche track laterally. Scars in the forest are quite fresh in the 1.962 photos, indicating this last event may have occurred shortly before the Forest Service aerial photos were taken in August, 1962. This seems likely, because January, 1962 produced major avalanches at other Colorado locations. The aerial-photo analysis and the tree--cores studied both suggest that Lot 22, Snowshoe Lane, and possibly terrain north of Snowshoe Lane are within range of the "140-year" avalanche. This conclusion is substantiated by the statistical/dynamics analysis described in Section 2. 4 Q~scussion and limitations of analysis The avalanche which was determined as discussed in this report is the design-magnitude avalanche, which has an "order-of-magnitude" return period of 1o0-years. Because this is an order-of- magnitude estimate, the actual return may lie between 30 and 300 years {a constant annual probability lying between D.3 and 3~). The design event is assumed to consist of dry-flawing snow at this location. This avalanche, in accordance with numerous observations obtained by the author throughout North America, will be dispersed upward to a height of at least 3m (10 feet), as it crosses Lot 22. The design velocity at Lot 22, which is the most severely exposed residential lot, will be approximately 19 r m/s {43 mph)at the top of the lot and 17 m/a (38 mph) at the bottom. This will produce an energy-density range of 380 Ibs/ftz to 300 lbs/ft~ across the lot. This should not be used in design, however, because the energy-density figures do not consider structure shape, size and orientation. Because the avalanche must pass through trees, the flow will contain tree trunks and other vegetative debris which will produce point loads on exposed surfaces, The required design height of surfaces reinforced for avalanche impact will usually be considerably more than the flow height in fast-moving dry-snow events. This additional height requirement H, will be the sum of three components H = hs + ha + k(V2J2g), where h~ snowpack depth, ha = avalanche flow height, k = orientation/energy dissipation factor, V is avalanche velocity and g is gravitational acceleration. wet-s~},ow avalanches have not been specifically considered in the analytical portion of this study because such avalanches did not produce the longest-running avalanches in the Colorado database used in the regression analysis. However, the terrain, because it slopes toward Snowshoe Lane at 8° - 10°,•can convey deep, wet- snow avalanches to Snowshoe Lane, where flow will stop at the lesser gradients of the street. Such events have been observed at numerous similar locations throughout Colorado and other parts of North America. There is no reason to believe they would not also occur here even though they will probably will not travel as far as the design-magnitude dry snow avalanches. However, it will be possible for wet slides to produce static loads on exposed structures on Lot 22 which are in excess of those produced by dry-flowing avalanches. Depositional loads may be particularly large on horizontal surfaces. This means that wet- snow avalanches could constitute the design case for certain exposed structure orientations. An additional complicating effect of wet-snow avalanches is often associated with the impact of abundant solid and vegetative debris typically entrained by these dense, wet events. Therefore, substantial point loads may be produced against exposed vertical surfaces, possibly up to a flow height of 15 feet. The Va31 Meadows avalanche would definitely entrain debris before Lot 22 is reached because the flow would pass through the forest on the way to the lot. Wet-snow avalanches will probably not extend below Snowshoe Lane because the reduced gradient would stop the•low-velocity advance of wet-snow avalanches. • '., TABLE 1: PROFILE FOR DETERMINATION OF PCM COEFFICIENTS Sea ~,f ton }~ ~f both, 1~Y c~X L f m~ Ana Y f co-ord ~ ~ f co-ord } 0 -- -- -- .~... -- _- 3415m Om 1 11,200' 11080' 120' 170' 63 35.2 3378 52 2 11080 10960 120 100 48 50.2 3341. 82 3 10960 10720 240 400 142 31.0 3268 204 4 10720 10400 320 570 199 29.3 3171 378 5 10400 9920 480 1200 394 21.8 3024 744 6 9920 9640 280 520 180 28.3 2939 902 7 9640 9200 440 1020 339 23.3 2805 1213 8 9200 9175 25 150 46 9.5 2797 1259 9 9175 9130 45 90 31 26.6 2784 1287 10 9130 9040 90 340 107 14.8 2756 1390 11 9040 8950 90 200 67 24.2 2729 1453. 12 8950 8875 75 90 36 39.8 2706 1479 13 $875 8850 25 60 20 22.6 2698 1497 14 8850 8825 25 80 26 17.4 2691 1521 15 8825 8800 25 110 34 12.8 2683 1555* (Bottom of Track) 16' 8800 8730 70 800 245 5.0 2662 1799 17' 8730 8710 20 229 70 5.0 2656 1869 18' 8710 8706 4 46 14 5.0 2655 1883** * Beta 25.2 °; XB 1555m. Reg ression Eq. : Alpha = -3.0 + 0.79 Bat a + 0 .0036 XB. . ** Alpha = 22. 0° (95~ C.I. = 22.0° to 22.9°) TABLE 2: TERRAIN PROFILE USED IN PCM APPLICATION Sea ~fton~ ~[fbot~ ~y cX ink Ana ~fco-ord~ ~,lco-ord~ 0 {Starting point of avalanche profile) 3415m Om 1 11,200' 11080' 120' 170' 63 35.2 3378 52 2 11080 10960 120 3.00 48 50.2 3341 82 3 10960 10720 240 400 142 31.0 3268 204 4 10720 10400 320 570 199 29.3 3171 378 5 10400 9920 480 1200 394 21.8 30.24 744 6 9920 9640 280 520 180 28.3 2939 902 7 9640 9200 440 1020 339 23.3 2805 1213 8 9200 9175 25 150 46 9.5 2797 1259 9 9175 9130 45 90 31 26.6 2784 1287 10 9130 9040 90 340 107 14.8 2756 1390 11 9040 8950 90 200 67 24.2 2729 1451 12 8950 8875 75 90 36 39.8 2706 1479 13 8875 8850 25 60 20 22.6 2698 1497 14 8850 8825 25 80 26 17.4 2691 1521 15 8825 8800 25 110 34 12.8 2683 1555 (Correction for 40° deflection between 15 & 16) 16 8804 8735 65 400 124 9.2 2663 1677 17 8735 8700 35 260 $0 7.7 2653 1756 18 8700 8670 30 180 56 9.5 2643 1811 19 8670 8665 5 60 18 4.8 2642 1829 20 8665 8635 30 205 63 8.3 2633 1892 ~-. TABLE 3: RESULTS OF PCM ACCELERATION ANALYSIS BY SEGMENT Ste. ~ftan~ Yfbot~ ]. O.Om/s 21.7m/s 2 21.7 31.3 3 29.6 37.4 4 37.4 42.2 5 41.8 38.8 6 38.8 42.1 7 41,9 40.6 8 39.4 36.7 9 36.7 37.4 10 36.6 33.5 11 33.5 34.8 12 34.8 37.8 13 36.1 36.2 14 36.1 35.6 15 35.5 34.2 (Lateral deflection correction) 16 30.1 24.2 (Bottom of Red Zone) 17 24.0 19.3 18 19.3 17.0 19 17.0 15.3 20 15.3 11.7 (Stops [End of Blue Zoned at 8630 ft) • REFERENCES McClung, D.M., and Lied, K., 1984, Statistical Avalanche Zoning. Proceedings, Snternatianal Snow Science Workshop, pp. 95-98. McClung, D.M., and Lied, K., 1987. Statistical and geometrical definition of snow avalanche runout. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 7.3:107-119. (Appendix C, attached). Mears, A., 1989. Regional comparisons of avalanche-profile and runout data. Arctic and Alpine Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 283-287. (Appendix B, attached). Mears, A., 1989. Avalanche runout distances and dynamics, current methods and limitation. Workbook material for the National Avalanche School, Lakewood, Colorado. {Appendix A} Mears, A. (in prep.). snow-avalanche analysis for engineering and land-use planning. Colorado Geological Survey. Perla, R., Chenq, T.T., and McClung, D.M., 1980. A two-parameter model of snow-avalanche motion. Jour. or Glac, 26(94}, 197-207. Voel3my, A., 1955. Uber die Zerstorungskraft von Lawinen. 5chweizerische Bauzeitung, 73(12}: 159-162, (15}: 212-217, (17}: 246-249, (19}: 280--285. '` r ~ '. ArrridDIX A i~ AVALANCHE RUNQUT DISTANCES AND DYNAMICS CURRENT METHODS AND LIMITATIONS by ART MEARS Reprinted with permission of the American Association of Avalanche Professionals 1• THE "DESIGN AVALANCHE" The two before-and-after photographs (figures 1 and l), illustrate the effect of a "100-year-avalanche" in the Deadman Gulch path, Colorado Front Range. Figure 1, taken in 1975, shows the results of repeated small avalanches over a period of decades. Most slides had been channclized down the gully on the left side of the Fan, whereas an occasional larger slide had overtopped the gully and run out on the steep alluvial fan. Figure l was tai:en in May, 19$4 after a major dry-snow/powder avalanche. This event far exceeded previous path boundaries and destroyed many acres of ladgepole pint forest that had colonized the runout zone since the last major avalanche occurred at least 100 years earlier. This Deadman Gulch sequence provides valuable before-and- after documentation of the "design avalanche," in this case, an avalanche with a return period of approximately 100 years. Similar to the traditions already established in hydrology and floodplain planning, extent of the design avalanche is often information required in planning mountain areas. This is particularly true when fixed facilities of "high risk" (buildings, parking areas, public facilities, etc.), are planned near potential runout zones. T i~ i i Fromm National Avalanche Snhool worltbook,.~989. Research on the characteristics and effects of the design avalanchc has been an important topic for the past three decades in parts of Europe. Many European areas hive had dense mountain populations for decades or centuries with numerous activities and structures exposed to avalanches. However, similar research efforts have not taken place in the Un:tcJ States which has only recently seen significant expansion of year-round population into avalanchc terrain. Avalanches, in contrast to floods, for example, affect only a very small part of the U.S. population. Therefore avalanches, unlike floods, arc not considered to be "national problems" and very little tradition exists within tha United States with respect to planning for unusual avaIanchcs. Geologists and engineers cannot receive training in the methods available for "design-avalanche" delineation and planning, The U.S. Government no longer sponsors research on avalanchc-engineering problems. Consequently, the community of avalanche professionals in the U.S. must rely primarily on research conducted in other countries and on analogies with other similar geophysical processes in order to define the design event, This article discusses the problems and methods used to estimate design avalanche size and discusses in general terms same of the approaches used in engineering analysis. Methods available include (a) diroct observations and avalanchc history, (b) statistical runout-distance models, and (c}physical (ma thematica I) models of avalanche motidn.~ Each method has important advantages and limitations, as briefly. discussed. ~ U ~~ o~ 4-i 4 O ~'' .~ ~~ ~, p Q ~a o. ~,0 .8 .6 .4~ .Z C7 20 40 60 80 100 Observation Period Figure 3 {Xears)~ The Probability of Observing the "1,q0-year" Avalanche s` • U • .. In my opinion, the most promising methods far determining avalanche runout use statistical models. The data sets used in statistical models consist entirely . of rare events with approximately 100-year return periods obtained in the mountain range of interest. Although the 100-year event is by definition a rare event in any particular path, many such events occur throughout an entire mountain range. My personal observations in many mountain areas indicate that 100-year avalanches occur somewhere in each mountain range every few years because unique snowpack and snow-loading conditions develop at least in some isolated areas in all but very dry winters. Nature is always in the process of running a great experiment an all natural phenomena, including avalanches. The statistica! method simply .uses the existing data already provided by nature's big experiment. Research on statistical runout-distance models conducted during the past 10-15 years has observed examples of extreme avalanche runout distances, and has related these measured distances to other features of the avalanche path that could also be measured. Only rare wants were included in data collection, in order to be included in the data set, avalanches had to have reached populated areas previously untouched by slides for a century or more or had to destroy portions of forests at least a century old. Avalanches of all sizes, shapes and orientations were used in the data sets collected in Norway and North America. • The statistical models have been applied most successf ally within the Wcstcrn Fiords of Norway by the Norwegian Geotechnical institute (the "NGI Method"), where a long history of many avalanche paths is availabletn populated area. This method is diagrammed in~Figure 4 where an avalanche proE'ile is shown and three observations are recorded: 1) The alpha angle (~) is measured from the crown location to the tip of tf~e runout; 2) the point whoa the local profile slope becomes ]0°is identified; and 3) the beta angle (~) is measured from the 10'point to the crown Iocation. Statistical analysis of more than 200 extreme avalanche events in Western Norway has shown that the alpha angle can be predicted simply by measuring the beta angle and applying a simple statistical relationship which has been derived from the data: where values for Xt and X2 result from analysis of the data. • of the areas. Although the statistical methods do provide a rational and objective basis for prcdictingdcsign-avalanche supping position, they do not predict avalanche lateral extent or ~~elocity. Lateral extent must be determined subjectively, based a:~ knowledge of avalanche behavior in the arcs or the locations of topographic barriers. Velocity, hawevcr, should be calculated rather than estimated because it is very important in engineered design of avalanche defense structures. For such calculations, we must turn to phySlCal models, &5 discussed nCXt. PHYSICAL (MATHEMATICAL) AVALANCHE MpDELS Physical models have been used to predict avalanche velocity and runout distance since the 1950's particularly in Central Europe and to a lesser extent in North America and Japan, in some areas they are used in development of avalanche-zoning plans and in • design of structural defenses. l3ecausc estimates of potential velocities and forces are critical in engineered design of structural defenses they must be determined by some objective criteria as is traditional in all geophysical analyses. Early models treated avaiariclic motion as a modified fluid or as a center-of-mass moving a'loag the path prafiie. More recent models araless restrictive, allowing predicted avalanche stopping positions to be specified in 2 or 3 dimensions, thereby adding height and width to the length dimension of earlier models. These physics! or mathematical models tend to be must more complicated than the simple statistical models discussed in the previous section because they must carefully represent avalanche terrain and internal material properties and consider the interaction of all these Factors in calculations of velocity and runuut distance. AlI physical models work essentially as diagrammtd in Figure S. a. The physical model is written so that velocities and runout distances are computed given information about path terrain and avalanche material properties; b. The terrain (steepness, roughness, curvature, length, channelization,ctc.) arc measured and used by the physical model; c. Avalanche material properties (turbulence, viscosity, particle sizes, densities, etc.) are assumed, based on the experience of the user, and arc also stored in the model; d. The mode] is run, uses the values of terrain and material properties, and computes velocity, stopping position, and possibly vertical and lateral extent. • i~ ' -x the use oC physical models may be somewhat subjective because the stopping position (and velocities) depend upon selection of friction terms even though we may have no ~at,~: knowledge of whether we arc using the proper terms, thG proper values for these terms, or even the proper model! Although use of a physical model may be very appealing to some, (terrain, friction, and material properties are plugged in and the computer spits out velocity and runout extent!), the assumptions used in the models arc. largely unsupported at the prc5ent time. Therefore, because of the problems discussed above in obtaining ground truth in major avalanches, the physical models should not, in my opinion, be used as the only method to predict avalanche runout distance. However, because the physical models arc essential in predicting velocity, they must often be used in practice in spite of their limitations. • COMBINATIONS OF TECHNIQUES TO CALCULATE RUNOUT AND VELOCITY As mentioned in the beginning of this article, avalanches, although they arc special to us, are also analogous to many other geophysical processes. Floods arc a particularly useful analogy and as mentioned, delineation of the "100-year" flood has received the attention of many scientists and engineers worldwide for most of this century. Avalanche-engineering specialists should look closely at procedures used in analysis of similar geophysical processes because sa little research is being conducted in our field. Drawing a flood boundary is similar to drawing an avalanche runout-zone boundary and often proceeds as follows: a. The flood discharge, or volume of water flowing past a point per second, is calculated by stu~iving the flood history of the region, a statistical mcthoa. b. The flood boundaries are calculated by using the discharge (calculated in step "a"), in a physical model that considers the stream bed roughness, slope, and cross- scctional shape. Although avalanches only resemble floods superficially, the runout-distance and velocity calculation procedures can be quite similar to those used in flood studies. A recomrncndcd two-step procedure could be as follows: a. The runout distance is determined from the historical record when the record is )nng ,end rnntinuou~, by vegetation damage or the geological record when this is unmistakable, and from statistical models derived from the mountain region of interest. The stopping position ~ not calculated f rom a physical modal. ~. 1 b. Avalanche velocity is calculated by using a physical model, however that model is forced to stop at the posztaon APPENDIX B Arctic acrd Alpine Research, Vol. 2], No. 3, 1989, pp. 283-287 REGIONAL COMPARISONS OF AVALANCHE-PROFILE AND RUNOUT DATA ARTxvR I. M~AxS 222 E. Gothic Avenue Gunnison, Colorado 81230, U.S.A. ABSTRACT Statistical comparison of avalanche-path-profile data from four widely separated mountain ranges (coastal Alaska, California Sierra Nevada, Colorado Rocky Mountains, and western Norway} are compared and presented in tabular form. Only unusual (approx. 100-yr return period) avalanches were compared. Inspection of the data leads to the following conclusions: {]) The avalanche paths in Norway and Alaska are larger and steeper than those sampled in Colorado and California; {2) The best regression equation for predicting the a angle developed from Norway data predicts.a which is too large in Colorado, the Sierra Nevada, and coastal Alaska; (3) The extreme avalanche runout distances, as defined by the dimensionless "Runout Ratio," a measure of runout distance with respect to path size, are significantly larger in California and Colorado; (4) Larger runout ratios are associated with shorter path lengths in the Colorado and Sierra Nevada data; (S) The observed differences between runout distances suggests that statistical runout equations developed in one mountain area should not be applied to other arras. INTRODUCTION The maximum runout distance expected in an avalanche path during exceptional conditions (the "design avalanche") is an important parameter in planning, land- use, engineering, and structural design in avalanche-prone areas. At first, the prediction of runout distance involved a physically based modeling approach (Voellmy, 1955; Perla et al., 1980). Mare recently, the emphasis has shifted to models based on analysis of terrain variables {Bouts and Mears, 1976; Lied and Bakkehoi et al., 1983; McClung and Lied, 1987; Lied and Toppe, in press}. The i ~ ~ statistical models have used observed extreme-avalanche ` runout data from a given mountain area to predict, through selection and analysis of terrain variables, what might occur where runout data are not available. Data from oniy one mountain area (western Norway) have been used in previous statistical models, but no attempt has been made to compare data from widely separated mountain regions. This study compares avalanche profiles from western Norway, the Colorado Rocky Mountains, the California Sierra Nevada, and coastal areas of south-central Alaska to determine if terrain and runout distances differ sig- nificantly. In addition, avalanche-path length is analyzed to determine if it has an important influence on runout distance. VARIABLES CONTROLLING RUNOUT DISTANCEr The variables that control maximum runout distance conditions, (2) return period (probability}, and (3) terrain. fall into three broad categories; {1) weather and snowpack Although the weather and snowpack conditions during e'1989, Regents of the University of Colorado A. I. Ms~xs / 283 C] L J - ~i I• much stronger in Norway than in the U.S. data. How- ever, the difference between ,8 and a differs significantly among the four regions. This difference between ~ and a can also be represented by the runout ratio (RR) (Table 2). The measures of avalanche runout given in Table 2 sug- gest that although a can be predicted from ~ in all four regions, unique statistical relationships must be developed for each area, as discussed in the following sections. ~~ APPLICATION OF NORWAY RUNOUT EQUATION Regression equations developed from western Norway data tend to systematically underestimate the runaut dis- tances in Colorado, the Sierra Nevada, and coastal Alaska, The alpha angles in these three mountain areas were calculated by the equation a ~ 0.963 - 1.7° (1} which was shown to be the mast reliable relationship far Taste 1 Profile and runout distance comparisons, coastal Alaska, Sierra Nevada, Colorado, western Norway° Coastal Sierra Western Alaska Nevada Colorado Norway Parameter (N=52) (N=90) (N=130) (N=113) a min 1$.9 14.4 15.5 18.0 med 25,3 19.8 22.2 27.3 avg 25.4 20.] 22.1 28.2 std 3.2 3.6 3.2 5.8 max 34.2 35.9 30.7 44.0 ~ min 23.0 Ib,S 18.8 21.7 med 29.5 25.9 27.3 30.1 avg 29.6 26,3 27.5 31.3 std 3.3 4.1 3.6 5.8 max 38.2 40.7 37.7 52.3 S` min 0.0 0.0 -2.9 rned S.8 5.2 5.4 avg 5.2 4.8 5.1 N/A std 3,1 2.7 3.4 max 9.5 9.0 10.2 H min 320 104 128 med 725 3S7 Sag avg 765 429 543 8606 std 245 237 226 2606 max 1400 1145 1134 dX min 80 107 76 med 280 295 290 avg 302 354 334 2306 std 165 222 184 ]506 max 796 1433 1200 XA min 520 160 183 med 1390 724 934 avg 1318 822 999 14346 std 453 461 504 5406 max 2380 2240 2730 RR min 0.07 0.15 OA7 med 0.20 0.42 0.33 avg 0.25 6.49 0.41 0.176 s[d O.I4 0.2b 0.26 0.116 max 0.66 1.35 1.57 "Data are given in degrees and meters. sCalculated from Lied and Toppe {in press). western Norway avalanche paths (Lied and Toppe, in press). Predicted a angles (from equation 1} were then compared with the measured a angles in the three North American mountain ranges, and the "residual" was com- puked for each path by subtracting the value obtained from equation (1) from the measured value. Therefore, a value of zero would be a perfect fit for a given path, a negative value indicates the predicted alpha is too large, and a positive value indicates the predicted alpha is too NORWAY ALASKA 12 ` 1 A 6 ~ ~ Z 7 1 ~ -8° ~ -4 0 2~ COLORADO sf 16 ~ 1B~ ,z 4 S ~ -12~ -8 -4 0 2° SIERRA ,B 15 ~~ 9 B .~ 6 1 1 1 ~ 4 , -t2° -a -a o i° i FYrstrxn 2. k~equency distributions of the residuals resulting from application of the Norway regression equation a = 0.96 -1.7° (Lied and Toppe, in press} to observed avalanche runouts in four mountain regions. "fypical numbers of data points are shown. A, I. Ml:axs / 285 i. relations were obtained for both Colorado (r, = -0.93, Z = -2.78) and the Sierra (r, _ -0.93, Z = -2.64). Such a grouping of data is required because it minimizes the effect of random errors in return period (e.g., "SO-yr" and ``200-yr" avalanches are averaged within each group). On the basis of the correlation analysis discussed above, path length (as represented by XA or H} does appear to affect the runout ratio, which, therefore, cannot be assumed independent of terrain in Colorado or the Sierra. Although path length effects on RR have not appeared in Norway or Alaska data, the Colorado and Sierra data represent an "order-of-magnitude" range in Xs (or I~. Norway and Alaska data both vary less in size, therefore length effects on runout are expected to be less. • CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions may be drawn from the data and analysis presented here. (l}Terrain steepness and lengths, as represented in the data sets collected in this analysis, are greater in western Norway and coastal Alaska than in Colorado or the Sierra Nevada. (2) Regression equations derived from western Norway data tend to over predict a-angles (under predict runout distances) in Colorado, the Sierra Nevada, and coastal Alaska. {3) Extreme avalanche runout distances, as expressed by the runout ratio (RR), are significantly greater in Colorado and the Sierra Nevada than in Norway or coastal Alaska. (4) The shorter avalanche paths in Colorado and the Sierra Nevada are correlated with the longer runout ratios. (5} The observed differences in avalanche runout strongly suggests that statistical runout-distance equations developed in mountain areas do not necessarily apply to other areas. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to thank Norman Wilson, Daniel Whitmore, and Larry Heywood (Alpine Meadows Ski Area) for assistance in the col- lection of data from the Sierra. David Hamre and Douglas Feller {AIaska Mountain Safety Center) both guided me to ex- treme avalanche runouts in Alaska. Many of the ideas discussed here were stimulated through discussipns with David McClung of the National Research Council of Canada and Karstein Lied of the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway. REFERENCES CITED Sakkeh~i, 5., Domaas, U., and Lied, K., 1983: Calculation of snow avalanche runout. Annals of Glaciology, 4: 24-29. Hovis, M. and Mears, A., 197b: Statistical prediction of snow avalanche runout from terrain variables in Colorado. Arc- 1l~ and Alpine Research, 8: lib-120. Lied, K. and 13akkehetii, S., 1980: Empirical calculations of snow-avalanche run-out distance. Journal of Glaciology, 26(94): 165-177. Lied, K. and Toppe, R., in press: Calculation of maximum snow avalanche runout distance by use of digital terrain models. Journal of Glaciology. McClung, D. M. and Lied, K., 1984: Statistical avalanche zon- ing. Proceedings of the International Snow Science Work- shop. Aspen, 95-98. 1987: Statistical and geometrical definition of snow ava- lanche runout. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 13: 107-119, Perla, R., Cheng, T. T., and McClung, D. M., 1980: Atwo- parameter model ofsnow-avalanche motion. Journal of Gla- ciology, 2G(94): 197-207. voellmy, A., 1955: 1~ber die Terstorungskraft von Lawmen. SchweizerlscheBauzeltung, 73(12): 159-162, (1S): 212-217, (17): 246-249, (19): 280-285. Ms submitted August 1988 • • A. I. M~~s / 287 ., ~ , . '~ , ~ APPE~iDIIC C 1. ~' ~ ~ STATISTICAL AVALAfiiCHE ZONING ~~ U.M. McGlung1and K. Lied2 Abstract.--Runaut for the extreme event on an avalanche path is calculated from confidence limits on a regression analysis of path topographic parameters, This results in redefinition of the traditional zoning problem by dividing it into an estimation of runout distance by an engineering decision on the choice of confidence limit to the estimate, and a dynamic problem with boundary conditions defined by the chosen limit. 1 N'1'1tUUUC'P lUN The traditional method of avalanche zoning involves the point solution of the avalanche runout and dynamics problems by selecting k appropriate friction coefflcients for an ~ avalanche dynamics modes. The physlcal problem involves a complex transition of states with many awns including: friction coefficients, ' stituttve laws and properties of Flowing snow. Pt,ese gaps in knowledge are significant; clearly the problem is far from a solution. The avalanche zoning problem may be redefined by separation into Cwo parts: (1) eatimntlu+r ~>f Clse rc,+i out distanc4 for the extreme event on a path based on s regression equation involving topographic parameters and a selected confidence limit and (2) estimation of speeds along the incline between the start position and r+,nuut position. The latter position is defined by choice of a confidence limit based upon an engineering decision. In this paper pRrt 1 aE the problem is introduced in the simplest manner to illustrate the method; further details will be provided in a forthcoming paper. lenKt ll)1) yer,rH was me+i:i+,recl lu tlso fie td n~+d a number of other parameters For the paths were determined. The papers by Lied and Bakkehbi (1486} and Bakkehoi, Domaas and Lied (1983} have provided detailed descriptions of the data set, including methods and accuracy. The parameters used in the present analysis Consist of angles pictured in figure 1 and defined by the fallowing equations: tans a X~ j~0 (~ ~dx +~ ~ (1} H tans ~ fAX (a ~dx ~ XS (2) 8 B rand I JAB (~~dx • QH (3) OX 0 dx DX A fourth parameter is the starting zone angle, which is defined by tan6, the average slope in the first 100 m of the avalanche starting zone. For simplicity the origin of geometry is chosen at the extreme tip of the runout (a point) and the B point (QH, dX) is chosen as that for which the slope angle first equals 10° proceeding downalope from the avalanche start position. ANALYSI3 OF TOPOGRAPHIC PARAMETERS The data set used in the present annlyais consists of estimates for 212 avalanche paths from the maritime climate regime of Western Horxay. Extreme runout for time scales of at ~ 1Paper presented at the International Snow Science Workshop, Aspen, Colorado, October 24-27, 1984. 2D.Ml. McClung, Research Officer, National search Council Canada, Vancouver, B.C. SK. Lied, Group I,cader, Avalanche Section, sweglan Geotechnical Instltute, Oslo, Norway. The ~ point is chosen as a reference position from which runout is marked so that rand is the average slope in the runouC zone. Using the B paint as a zero reference means that runout can be regarding as taking ppaitive, zero or negative values if the avalanche stop position is below, aC or above the ~ point, respectively. For a regression analysis approach, extreme runout is based on a predictdon of the minimum value of a, given values of the potential predictor variables (B, B, and d). Use of 3 as a predictor variable is limited to cases where the runout zone is known to be at a constant angle, such as a flat valley floor. For the present data set, I31 paths have known d angles, 96 Correlation coefficients (R) were calculated for a with respect to s, 8 (212 paths) and d (131 paths). The results gave: 0.919, 0.388 and -O.lll, respectively. This suggests that the best one parameter model is a ~ f{a) and Chia was confirmed by regression analysis. 14e examl~tatiat uE residua! plots for linear regresairnt of a with 0 ahoKed that the predictive equation provides biased estimates. This euggeatet a transformation on rite ceaponse variable a. Power low regression Rave n good unbiased relationship for Z12 avalanche paths: a = 0.730a1.Ob {4) AYAIANCHE PATH ~~~~/~ I B y•fixl ~ •~ I ~i'// I ~ ~ I iacni sioPE ~' // I Hp Ho Y . ANGIC f0" ~/' I ~ i/ I ~i // I ~ ~ p I --{ x~ nx ~ r xa -~ xo with RZ - 0.8b1 and S = 0.0754', the Latter quantity being the standard error. For comparison the linear regression gave R2 = 0.845 and S = 2.52°. Another transformation explored was T. For this case the regression equation is: = 0.0874a + 2.57 (5) with R2 ~ 0,653 and S 0.218. This equation removes some of the bias in estimates over A linear regression model but it is not as good in tisaC respect AR equation (4 ). Equation (5) is introduced because it appears more useful in zoning applications, as will be discussed below. A number of mulkiple regression equations were derived in an attempt to improve the predictive schemes by addition of 8 as a second variable, however, it was not found possible to improve the predictive scheme enough to warrant inclusion of 8. Addition of d as a predictor variable does .,,,improve the predictive equations but this has very limited application and therefore d is not introduced here, in favor of simplicity. Another possibility for estimating runout when distances associated with the angles are known for the avalanche paths, is the calculation of horizontal reach (AX) from the f3 point. Using equations (1) to (3) (fig. 1) it is easily shown that: dX = tan$ •- tans {b) X8 tans - tend t 1 tana~ and ~% = tan8 {7) H., (tans - tend) Figure l.~^--Definitions of angles and length scales for an avalanche path. Regression analyses shaved that AX and G% are etatietically independenC of g, BXand d to a good approximation {R2 ~ 0). STATISTICAL AVALANCHE RUNOUT Given the ~ point as a reference, calculation of extreme runout depends on a prediction of the minimum value of a expected for a given model. The criterion used in this paper corresponds to the best fitting upper envelope the distribution of $ (ordinate) versus a (abcissa, fig. 2). Elpper envelopes were determined by calculating confidence limits for a = f(S) fox linear regression, power law regression [equation (4)j and the square root transformation of equation (5). 'Pt-e hest fit to the upper limit on the g - a distribution thrau$houC the ranges of 8 and a was Found from confidence limits of equation (5). ay standard methods and using some approximations for the large number of data points, an estimate of the confidence limit for minimum value of a is given by: a = D.D879a ~ [2,57 - (0,218 )t P ] (8) (1 i00) where t(1- P ) is a value of the C distribution for 210 deg~eea of freedom. Equation (8} states that PX of avalanches have a values greater than al, far SO i P < 100. Far example, for a 99X upper confidence limit, t~ nt is 2.326 (taken a ~~ r ~5 ° I I ~ 50° 45° 46° /~ Q 35° .G' 30° / e ° / o ~ ° o° 25° ~~ o 0 0~6 d ~°°~B 20° ° 15° ~ i5° i /~ /~ i ~ o ~ ~° o ° r~ a °~ o I I I ~ I I 2D° 25° 30° 35° 40° a5° c 5D° Figure 2.--Plot of $ versus a for 212 avalanche paths from Western Norway. ~• Regression line for square root transformation on Equation (5). Prediction for extreme runout (ayy) for the regression line shown. Multiple plotted points at the same location on the graph are denoted with extra bars attached to the circle, e,g. ~ represents 3 data points. margin of safety desired, coupled to knowledge of Iocal climate records and avalanche return periods. In many instances a 90X confidence limit may be adequate far eaeimating the extreme runout distance. Another possibility for estimation of extreme runout diatancee~onei~~s of extrapolation to the upper limits of - or - given mean values and standard deviationsXa Since these quantities are statistically independenC of the predictor aalues, the assumption that they are Gaussian aariables suggests the model: (H-")P .~ n.z~6 + 0.19 It(1- ~ )~ (~) S 100 sad a similar expression far (XX~p may be ' ~ved. B 97 For the present data set, there are two disadvantages to equation {9) as a predictive equation: (1) calculations with actual examples show that the accuracy is not as good throughout the ranges of 8 and a as compared to equation (8 ); (2) values of H8 and Xgg were not measured for the present data set ana iC is unknown whether AX is proportional to Hgg or X8 as a model, as equation {9) would imply, In spite of these disadvantages, a rough estimate of runout can be given once a value of t p' is {1-lUU) determined by an engineering decision. flISCUS5I0N Prediction of extreme avalanche runout distance has been presented for two types of models expressed by equations (8) and {9), Either of these may be Used to prepare a statistical map of confidence limits for calculation of runout. Choice of a limit depends upon an engineering decision, and this places the zoning problem in the same language that other problems concerned with risk and safety are phrased in modern practice, Two advantages of the approach presented are: (1) it eliminates the necessity fox solving avalanche dynamics equations to determine runout using an arbitrary choice of friction coefficients, as is usually done; (2) the dynamics problem is reduced to prediction of speeds along the incline between the start position and stop position, once a given confidence limit is chosen (i.e. a set of boundary conditions for the dynamics problem is defined by choice of a confidence limit). Many unanswered questions need to be investigated with regard to the present approach to runout. For example, field experience strongly indicates that starting sons size should have an influence. Also, the effect of climate regime needs Co be quantified. The one parameter model is useful because extreme avalanches reach slope angles near 10°. A solution of the dynamics problem requires an understanding of its dependence on the relevant length scales and the effect of parameters such as avalanche mans; this may emerge from a solution of the runout problem. Until these questions are answered and until a good physical model for flowing snow is developed, solution of the runout and dynamics problems together, as is common in practice, amounts to nothing more than a curve fitting exercise'by adjustment of friction coefficients. )' I~ R RSFF.ItSNCES Sakkehdi, 5., U. Domaas and K, Lied, 1983. Calculation of snow avalanche runout. Annals of Glaciology (4): 24-29. Lied. K. and S. Sakkehdi. 1980. Empirical calculations of snow-avalanche runout based on topographic parameters, Journal of Glaciology 26{94): 197207. 'j ACKNOWf.£DG6MENT The pioneering work and ideas of { S. 8akkehdi are gratefully acknowledged in relation to this ptablem. This paper is a contribution of the Division of Building Research, National Research Council Canada, and ~ is pu6iiahed xith the approval of the Director of the Division. 98 , ~" y . i ,f ~-._ TO: Planning and Environmental. C~~~u«ission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 24, 1990 RE: A request to approve the preliminary plan for a major subdivision, a request for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls, and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Applicant: George Gillett, Jr. T. THE REQUEST Spraddle Creek is a forty acre parcel located northeast of the Main Vail Interchange. Mr. George Gillett Jr. is the owner of the property. The property is surrounded by White River National Forest land on the north, east, west, and south. I-70 right-of-way is located adjacent to Spraddle Creeks southwestern boundary. The applicant is requesting approval for a major subdivision, a variance to the percent grade for the roadway, and a variance to retaining wall heights. The property was annexed into the Town of Vail in January of 1985 and Hillside Residential zoning was applied in November of 1987 by Ordinance No. 38, Series of 1987. Below is a summary of the subdivision proposal, some of which has been taken from the applicant's project notebook. This section of the memo provides an overview of the key components of the project and also explains the two variance requests, A. 14 Hillside Residential Lots: The proposed subdivision is comprised of 14 residential lots. Each lot will be allowed a main dwelling unit plus one caretaker unit which is required to be attached to the main unit, or may be integrated within the garage structure serving the main unit, but shall not be a separate freestanding structure. The caretaker unit shall not exceed 1200 sq. ft. of GRFA. This zone district requires that the caretaker unit not be subdivided or sold separately from the main unit. The caretaker unit will be limited to one gas fireplace or gas appliance. The owner has agreed to provide a minimum of three caretaker units within the subdivision and said units will be located on Lots 14 and 15. A caretaker unit/gate house is also being considered for • _ Lot 1. The gate house unit would be located to the south of Gillett Road on Lot 1. This unit would be used by an on-site manager for the entire subdivision. The issues of separation of units and ownership need to be resolved (please see the attached zoning summary sheet for a breakdown of lot size, building envelope, GRFA, and site coverage}. B. Building Envelat~es: Envelopes have been established for each lot indicating the limits of construction and building. No development is proposed to be located beyond the boundary of any building envelope. C. Site Coverage: Site coverage is to be reduced from the allowed 15~ of total site area under Hillside Residential to an amount equivalent to the allowable GRFA. This issue will be resolved at final plat to insure that a reasonable amount of site coverage is available. D. Access: The subdivision will be accessed by a road beginning at the North Frontage Road and extending through the existing livery site and to the east side of the subdivision. The connecting road passes through U.S. Forest Service property. The Forest Service has agreed to allow access to the subject property upon the final platting of the project and upon compliance with the terms of the letter dated November 12, 1987 to Jay Peterson. Agate will be located on the owner's property at the entrance to the subdivision. Upon completion and acceptance the road will become a public road maintained by the Town of Vail. From this point on, the road will be a private road extending up to the top of the subdivision, The public will have access from the North Frontage Road up to the gate. A cul de sac is located on the lower most eastern switch back. The applicant proposes that the Town of Vail maintain the public section of the road and the owners of the subdivision shall maintain the private section. The private part of the road is 2300 l.f. and has grades from 7.0~ to 8.0~. The secondary spur road (access to Lots 1-6}, 670 l.f. at 8.8~ will also be maintained by the owner. The Town of Vail will maintain the 3900 l.f, of road from the Frontage Road to the gate. This portion of the road has grades from 8.0 to 8.6~. • The Zineal footage Road up to the top +/- 6,200 l.f. xn roadway of 670 ft. of the roadway from the Frontage of the subdivision is approximately addition there is a secondary The road right-of-way is 50 ft. The asphalt width is 22 ft. and has a minimum 2 ft. of shoulder on the downhill side of the road with curb and gutter proposed for the uphill side (2 ft. standard section}. Pavement and roadbed widths will be widened in switchback areas and shoulder widths will be widened to acc~..,...odate guard rails as required. A variance is requested to allow the road to be designed to a grade which exceeds the maximum allowable grade of 8~ per the Subdivision Regulations, Section 17.28.300. The overall average grade of the road is 7,88 if the secondary roadway is also included. The steepest grade is 8.80;. Below is a chart showing the length of road which meets various percent grades. Lineal Feet Percent Grade 250 l.f. @ 3.85 200 l.f. @ 4.27 400 l.f. @ 6.00 500 l.f. @ 7.00% 2300 l.f. @ 8.00 2600 l.f. @ 8.595 650 l.f. @ 8.80 6900 l.f. Total A road grade variance is required for 3250 l.f. of roadway that exceeds the 8~ maximum and falls within the range above 8~S to 8.80. 47~ of the roadway requires a variance. Approximately 200 lineal feet (l.f.) beyond the cul de sac, a gravel access road leading up to the new livery site and Forest Service trail head is proposed. This road has a maximum grade of approximately 16~. E. Retaining Walls: Retaining walls are proposed to accommodate the subdivision road. A variance is required for walls which exceed the maximum height allowed of 6 ft. The section of the code which relates to retaining wall heights is found in Section 18.58.020. • The maximum wall height proposed is 8~-8". Total .~ lineal wall length is 6179 feet. Below is a chart showing the break down of wall height to length of wall. These figures are as accurate as possible given the level of design work required at preliminary plan. Please keep in mind that these numbers may vary slightly at final plat. Heiaht Lenath of Wall $'-1"' to 8'-8" 291 l.f. 6' to 8' 2663 l.f. lower than 6' 3225 l.f. Total 6179 l.f. In some areas, the 8 ft. to 8'-8" high walls will be terraced with a 10 ft. bench between each wall. The maximum number of terraces proposed is three. These 3 terraced walls have a maximum combined height of 30 ft. This situation is found at the eastern most switchback on U.S, Forest Service property at the lower end of the subdivision, the switchback adjacent to Lots 5 and 6, and the intersection of the secondary road accessing Lots 1-6. The applicant proposes to build the retaining walls with a colored, split-face, concrete block veneer using a geogrid support system. . Type Length Height of Number Location of Wall of Wall Tiered wall of Tiers Forest Service Fill 116 l.f. 19 ft. 2 Switchback Forest Service Cut 236 1.f. 30 ft. 3 Switchback Lots 5 & 6 Fill 130 l.f. 30 ft. 3 Switchback Lots 5 & 6 Cut 79 l.f. 30 ft. 3 Switchback Secondary Road Fill 135 l.f. 30 ft. 3 to Lots 1-6 In summary, a wall height variance is necessary for 2954 l.f. of wall above 6 ft., not to exceed 8'-8" or 47.8 of the wall length. . 4 F. Landscape and Irrigation for Retaining Wa11 Areas: The applicant proposes to revegetate with approximately the same number of trees and shrubs per acre as currently exist on all disturbed areas within the subdivision. The applicant states that the concentration of plants will be heavier along the walls and lighter in less visible areas. Most plant materials to be used will be native to the site. Native vines will also be introduced some of which were not seen on the site. Test plots have been established this summer in the Potato Patch area to determine the most appropriate vines for the final planting plan. Grasses to be reseeded will be native to the site as much as possible. Blue Spruce and Aspen will be the types of trees included in the revegetation plan. All disturbed areas will be seeded with a mix of grasses, forbes (herbaceous plants other than grasses), and shrubs as indicated in the plan list in the project notebook. The terraces between the walls will be seeded with grasses, forbes, and shrubs and planted with vines and possibly small one to ten gallon size shrubs and small trees such as aspens. It is expected that cut walls built above the road will average only 2 feet for planting between the road and the bottom of . wall. Wider planting pockets will be made wherever possible to allow planting of trees and shrubs. Spruce trees may be used on the top of the cut walls only if there is room to place them a sufficient distance away from the wall (approximately 12 ft.). The top of the fill walls will get various treatments, depending on slope and if there is a guard rail. Areas with guardrail will be planted with aspens and fill slopes without the guardrail will be planted with smaller shrubs, forbes, and grasses. The base of the fill slopes will be planted with aspen, spruce, and native shrubs. With respect to irrigation, a permanent system will not be installed due to the potential for accidental water seepage into the wall if the system failed. One of two temporary irrigation methods for watering the wall plantings are proposed. The first method would be to . 5 water the plant materials by hand from a portable water tank. The second method would be to place several small tanks at the top of the walls with drip tubing and emitters going to each plant. The tanks would then be filled by a water truck at periodic intervals so that if there was a malfunction,~there would not be any significant water seepage. This system would then be removed after the plants were established. The subdivision owners would maintain the walls and landscaping on the private section of the road. The Town of Vail would be responsible for maintaining the walls and landscaping on the lower/public road up to the subdivision gate once the plant materials are established and accepted by the Town of Vail Landscape Architect, in approximately 2 to 3 years. Staff would also like to see a landscape plan for the entry to the subdivision at the North Frontage Road. The design should consider the planting concept in the Town of Vail Landscape Improvement Plan for this area. G. Frontage Road Design: A jug handle intersection is proposed for the Frontage Road and entry to the subdivision. The Colorado Division of Highways (CDOH) access permit has been approved for the project, It is included in the project notebook. A 6 ft. shoulder for a bike path will also be provided on either side of the Frontage Road beginning at the entrance to the subdivision and extending west approximately 300 to 500 ft. H. Drainage: The drainage system will consist of both surface and storm sewer routing. Surface drainage along the roads will be contained by curb and gutter or in limited areas by ditches. Where the run-off velocities in the ditches exceed acceptable velocities rack check structures are proposed for erosion control. The proposed storm sewers along with the drop inlets will control the drainage along the curb and gutter sections. Storm sewer outlets will discharge frequently using energy dissipaters to slow down the outlet velocities to minimize the erosive effects. The majority of the runoff will lead to Spraddle Creek. Portions of the storm runoff will be discharged into the natural drainage Swale to the east of the property. Prior to release into Spraddle Creek, a sedimentation basin will be utilized to control both sedimentation and water velocity. During construction of the project, storm runoff will be routed through temporary sedimentation basins. I. Water: The water system will connect to the existing Upper Eagle Valley Water system at the location of the T-70 Frontage Road and Spraddle Creek entrance. Because of the elevation variation on the project site, a booster pump station will be necessary on the low end of the project. The pump station will pump into a storage tank located near the northwest corner of Lot 12. A water storage tank of 150,000 to 180,000 gallons is proposed for the project. The tank would be located underground at the west corner of Lot 12 adjacent to the property line. Placement of fire hydrants and siting of the storage tank will be per the Town of Vail Fire Department requirements. The water system including valves, piping, and construction will comply with the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District requirements. The water system will be placed in road right-of-way and utility easements (see the attached subdivision preliminary plan for location of easements). J. Sewer System: A sanitary sewer system will connect to an existing manhole located southwest of the Town of Vail Transportation Center. The crossing of I-70 will be accomplished by utilizing a bore under the Interstate Highway. Anew bore will have to be provided along side the two existing 10 in. ductile iron pipes under Y-70 to acc...w...odate the sewer. The system will be gravity flow and will be located within road right-of- way and utility easements. All materials, design, and construction procedures will comply with the Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District requirements. K. Electric and Other Utilities: Holy Cross Electric has an existing overhead high- voltage line crossing the project site. This line will be placed underground. However, the subdivision will not be served by this line (please see the preliminary plan far the route of the subdivision service line). All other utilities {gas, telephone, and cable T,V.} will be placed underground within the road right-of-way and within specified utility easements. • ~ L. Livery: The owners intent is to relocate the existing livery to a bench to the east of the subdivision an Forest Service property. The parking and trail head access for Forest Service land will also be provided in the area of the livery. This site will be accessed by a gravel road extending to the east in the approximate location of the gate far the subdivision. The existing livery site will be reclaimed and revegetated by the owner. Several cabins, tents, a stable, and corrals will be relocated at the new livery location. At this time, the agreement between the owner of the stable, Mr. Mark Wentworth, and the owner of the subdivision has not been finalized. An agreement was approved in 1985, however, this agreement has expired. The applicant and owner of the livery are in the process of working an the agreement. Anew Forest Service special use permit is also necessary. The applicant will submit the livery agreement at final plat. M. Hazards: Rockfall Hazard, Debris Flow and Debris Avalanche Hazard zones from the Town of Vail 1984 studies were extended into the subdivision area. The hazard zones . include and are located as follows: 1. Rockfall, to the west of Spraddle Creek; and 2. Rockfall, along the southern edge of property; and 3. Debris flow, along the Spraddle Creek drainage. The rockfall hazard zones are located away from any proposed development. No lots are included in the Rockfall Hazard Zones. The debris flow has a potential to restrict traffic along the access road. The owner has also agreed to comply with Section 18.69.050 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code which outlines special restrictions for development on lots where the average slope of the site beneath the proposed structure and parking area is in excess of 30~. The Sections that would apply to this subdivision include 18.69.050 A-D, F-I, K and L. N. Pedestrian/Vehicular Access: The utility easement through Lot 12 and a portion of the old road bed at the top of the subdivision, which provides access to the domestic water storage tank, a have also been designated as a pedestrian easement for use by the residents of the Spraddle Creek Subdivision. The owner has also agreed to provide a pedestrian easement along Spraddle Creek within the subdivision. Public access to Forest Service Land is provided at the lower switchback on the east boundary of the site. The Forest Service access easement on the northern portion of the proposed subdivision will be relocated to match the lower public access road as a condition of final plat approval. O. Oben Space: The owner has agreed to rezone the open space tracts to "Greenbelt Open Space" at the same time the final plat is submitted. However, the applicant wishes to maintain ownership of the property as opposed to deeding the land to the Town of Vail. Greenbelt areas are designated for land in between road switchbacks and the hillside area below the lower subdivision road leading up to the entry gate. P. Architectural Guidelines: Architectural Guidelines are proposed with the subdivision. The guidelines would be administered by the Spraddle Creek Design Review Board. Approval of the Spraddle Creek Design Review Board would be required before a proposed residence could be submitted to the Town of Vail Design Review Berard. The Spraddle Creek Design Review Board would be responsible for enforcing their guidelines. The Town of Vail would be a party to the covenants and would have to review and approve any changes to the covenants. The guidelines also address site planning and landscape concerns. Q. Construction Phasina: The applicant has submitted a phasing plan but has decided to submit a revised phasing plan at final plat when the scheduling of the construction can be more accurately planned. Phasing is effected by the timing of requested approvals for the project. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY Below is a summary of the staff comments on the environmental impact report (EIR). • A. Retaining Wails/Slope StabilitvlDrainaae: 1. Walls: Because of concern regarding ground water and also the desire to minimize disturbed areas, the proposed soil nailing system is particularly relevant for the large cut walls. The applicant is asked to address the possible use of either a soil nailing or grouted tie rod/panel retaining system in the extreme cut sections as soon as possible. The locations for this system to be considered are STA 34+00-39+00 and STA 50+00- 52+00. In addition, preliminary designs of the worst case retaining walls must be computed. (Worst case being, 8'-8" fill wall with traffic loading, 8'-8" cut wall, triple tier full wall with traffic Load, triple tier cut wall). Preliminary design should be approved by bath the Geotechnical Engineer and the wall design Engineer. The latest Geotechnical report only states the accepted bearing capacity of the soils is 5000 lbs/sq. ft. This report should also address maximum slopes above the wall, the phi angle of the soil (older reports give 2 • different ones), the unit weight of the soil, and the soil parameters which the wall designers need in evaluating the walls. Based on agreed upon soil parameters, the wall technology needs to be looked at for the four worst case scenarios. The walls overall stability regarding failure to overturning, sliding and bearing pressure in addition to fabric strength needs to be determined. From this information, the areas of disturbance can truly be determined and the need to look at other wall technologies can be evaluated. The project's cross-sections as submitted show no cut or fill slopes greater than 2:1. There will be specific areas during final design and construction where slopes greater than 2:1 could be beneficial to the overall project. Approval to exceed slopes greater than 2:1 must be received first from the project's design/geotechnical engineers and landscape architect. Secondly, the Town of Vail project planner, Town Engineer and Landscape Architect must review and approve any slopes exceeding 2:1. 10 Construction guidelines should be used during the actual construction of the project. These guidelines should include: a. Encourage the elimination of walls; and b. Vary slope grades and undulate the slope lines; and c. Provide planting pockets where possible; and d. Save significant vegetation or rock outcroppings through use of steeper grades, small boulder walls, or minor road realignment; and e. Maintain maximum 2:1 slopes on fill walls with plantings in front of wall. f. The project will be slope staked prior to the beginning of the clearing, grubbing and topsoil removal operations. Town staff will walk the project and approve the limits of construction. During construction, if significant geological features appear which enhance the final project, the Town staff • should be notified to possibly incorporate these into the design. 2. Slope Stability/Hazards: Staff concurs with the Koechlein Consulting Engineers' recommendations on Page 11 of the December 17, 1985 report concerning slope stability. The report states: "The stability of slopes are greatly influenced by surface and groundwater conditions. We recommend that all surface and subsurface drainage on this site be carefully designed and constructed so that the existing stability of slopes can be maintained. All areas should be carefully sloped to reduce the possibility of infiltration of surface water into cut and fill slopes, In addition, all water should be directed away from the face of cut and fill slopes to reduce the risk of significant erosion. Some drainage areas may need stabilizing with rip rap or other erosion control materials." 11 The site does have geologic hazards. No housing is proposed in any hazard area. From the hazard reports, it is evident that hazards will need to be addressed during the construction of the road to insure safety. 3. Surface Drainage: Koechlein recommends in their December 1985 report that surface water be directed away from the top of all slopes so that significant erosion or possible infiltration of water into the slopes will not occur. They also state that a fabric for reducing surface erosion be considered for the faces of all disturbed slopes. Vegetation should be grown on these slopes as soon as possible to reduce any erosion. Staff agrees with this approach to the surface drainage and believes that the existing plans incorporate these design considerations. These concerns will be fully addressed in the final construction plans. The report from Koechlein concludes that excavations for the road and water tank should be inspected to verify that subsurface conditions are as anticipated by the exploratory boring. Placement and compaction of fill as well as the installation of retaining wall systems or soil retaining systems will be inspected during construction and the developer shall have a soils testing technician on site to ensure compliance with the strict construction specifications. B. Reveaetation: Overall, the proposed revegetation plan submitted far roadways and walls is acceptable. The applicant has stated that all disturbed areas will be revegetated to the same approximate density which exists today on the site. Indigenous species of plant materials will be used as much as possible. The concentration of plantings will be heavier at the walls. Much of the wall planting is dependent upon the results obtained from the test plots in Potato Patch, These results will not be available until next year. Staff will look at this more closely when the final landscape plans and specifications are submitted at final plat. • 12 In respect to irrigation of the landscape materials, a drip system, gravity fed from tanks, is probably a workable system. Proper maintenance to fill the tanks and inspect the lines and emitters is critical to the system's success. The owner should commit to ensure the continuation of maintenance of the system, until all plants have been well established. The Town of Vail Landscape Architect requests that the final landscape plan address what will happen to the six spruce trees east of the main entrance along the I- 70 off ramp. All six trees are within the construction limit line. If they are to be moved it should be done this fall or next spring while the sap is not flowing. C. Wildlife: The wildlife section of the Environmental Impact Report states that "there will not be a significant impact on wildlife in the area as a result of the proposed project." Staff agrees with this statement as long as the option for Lot 14 to have a livery is not used. The applicant has proposed several methods to minimize impacts on any wildlife in the area. These measures include: . 1. Any owner with a dog will be required to have a dog run or kennel which is fenced to a sufficient height to prevent the dog from jumping out. This is a direct recommendation from the Division of Wildlife which should be incorporated into the covenants for the subdivision. 2. The applicant has agreed to require that all trash containers for units must be bear proof. This also complies with the Division of Wildlife's (D.~.W.) concern on this issue. The D.O.W. has identified this area as being bear habitat. With the ongoing problem with garbage bears in the County, the Division is recommending all development in bear habitat have bear proof containers. They also recommended that one central garbage point would reduce cost and lessen the problem with garbage bears. This approach should be used by the applicant. . 13 3. The developer has also maintained the • requested buffer zone between the Forest Service property line and development in the subdivision. The required distance is 60 ft. This distance will allow for an adequate buffer between the residential development and surrounding U.S. Forest land. 4. The owner has agreed to use landscape materials which are unpalatable to wildlife. The Division of Wildlife states that by using unpalatable landscaping items, the developer will reduce damage to landscaping caused by wildlife (letter dated December i9, 1989 from Bill Andre, District Wildlife Manager}. D. Atmospheric Conditions: The Town of Vail's Environmental Health Officer reviewed the original Air Quality Report and recommended that the analysis use the Vail Valley emission factors from the Town of Vail Air Quality, May 1989, report. It was also required that total build- out numbers be used for evaluating the air impacts. The report has been changed to incorporate these concerns. The report states: . "PM 10 emission for the peak day (assume to Christmas Holidays, 1990) will be approximately 24 lbs or 6/10 of 1~ of the PM 10 emissions expected for the Vail Village area," These numbers reflect that 1/2 of the units will have a woodburning fireplace and the caretaker units would have gas appliances or gas logs. The impact is also due to road sanding. Because the subdivision will at times require heavy sanding during the winter the staff believes it is appropriate to require the owner to use the least polluting sanding material available. This material would be submitted to the Town of Vail Environmental Health Officer far review and approval. The Town of Vail is also investigating materials which are less polluting than the existing sanding materials. • 14 E. Visual Impact: • The view analysis clearly indicates that there will be visual impacts resulting from the subdivision's walls, new road, housing, and livery relocation. These structures will impact the view of the present site which is now predominantly a natural mountain setting. The applicant has proposed the following mitigation measures to address the view impacts. 1. The final plat submittal will include a detailed landscape plan that will address common open space areas as well as the retaining walls for the subdivision. Fill walls will be screened by aspen and spruce plantings. The applicant has agreed to use the "grove planting arrangement" to try and create a natural appearance for the plantings. This approach is especially important on the lower portion of Gillett Road from the Frontage Road up to the Forest Service switchback. These walls are particularly visible from Vail Village and Vail Mountain and must be screened adequately. 2. The major switchbacks shall also include aspen and shrub plantings in the terraces between retaining walls. This is a critical design element of the . landscape plan and will help to mitigate the impact of the terraced walls. 3. At final plat review, building permit, and actual construction of the project, the staff will continue to try to reduce the retaining wall heights and eliminate walls when possible. This design approach should minimize visual impact as much as possible through each refinement of the retaining wall/road design. 4. Because much of the site will be disturbed during construction, an erosion control plan will be submitted by the applicant to minimize erosion during the construction process. 5. The building envelopes have been decreased in size from what was originally proposed. This will limit the disturbed areas and also concentrate development, thereby decreasing visual impacts. This approach will allow for more of the natural landscaping to remain and will reduce the overall disturbed area within the project. 15 b. Site coverage has also been reduced to 100 of the allowable GRFA to encourage development that is more compact and less spread out on the site. 7. Architectural guidelines are submitted with the proposal. Many of the guidelines will help to make the project as compatible as possible with the surrounding site. Sod around the perimeter of the house is allowed. Staff recommends discouraging large lawn areas. Retaining walls are also recommended to be minimized and extremely steep slopes are discouraged, A color board will be submitted at final plat to ensure that the range of colors for the houses will be attractive, yet subdued. Owners should also be required to site their houses using the natural terrain. These concepts as well as others within the architectural guidelines will encourage the project to be as compatible as possible with the site. 8. The owner has agreed to create open space areas in the major switchbacks and to also maintain open space in the lower portion of the site. The owner will rezone these portions of the project to Greenbelt Open Space at the final plat review of the subdivision. This site planning approach will help a great deal to minimize the visual impacts of the project on the Vail c~~~u«unity. In summary, the staff concludes that although there will be visual impacts because of the man made development on the site, the applicant has proposed measures to off-set the visual impacts as much as possible. The proposed mitigation measures are acceptable to staff. F. Circulation and Transportation: 1. Frontage Road Intersection The applicant has obtained a CDOH access permit for the project. A left turn lane for east bound traffic will be provided at the project entrance. The intersection for the development, once constructed, will be further to the east to allow greater separation between the project intersection and the west bound off ramp of I-70. In addition, fi ft. shoulders will be provided on each side of the widened Frontage Road to accommodate future bike lanes as proposed in the Town of Vail Recreation Trails Master Plan. . 16 2. Emergency Accessibility The major portion of the road grade exceeding Town standards will be maintained by the Town of Vail. The addition of the first turnaround will give the Fire Department the ability to travel 3700 ft. and turn around or go an additional 3200 ft. before reaching the top. Some houses cannot be accessed within 150 ft. on all sides and these houses will need to be internally sprinklered. 3. Road Grade The road grades have been refined numerous times to achieve a balance between a low road grade and low retaining walls. At this time, 47$ of the road exceeds the 8~ maximum grade, but does not exceed 8.8~. In other words, a variance is required for a 0.8~ increase in road grade. The Town engineer believes further refinement of the road grade will be required at final plat in order to fine tune the relationship of grades to retaining walls. However, staff believes that the road grade has been designed to an acceptable grade at this time given site constraints. 4. Driveway Grade The driveways for each lot shall meet Town of Vail standards for 8~ and if grades exceed 8~, the Town Engineer's approval shall be required. Driveway grades must be refined at final plat to insure safe access to each lot. 5. Public Access Public access to the Forest Service trailhead and livery has been improved, with the exception that the gravel roadway to the livery which will be a 16.5 maximum grade versus the current 11~. It should be pointed out that the livery road varies from 16.5 to 10.67 grade. The applicant should try to decrease the road grade to the livery as much as possible. This concern should be addressed at final plat. A turnaround far the general public has been placed within 200 ft. of the proposed security gate. This may cause minor traffic problems, however with proper signage it should not cause great concern. 17 G. Hvdroloaic Conditions: Increased runoff from the site will have an insignificant impact on the overall drainage basin. The development of the site will have a noticeable impact on the minor events and specific drainage channels, especially the eastern basins. Care should be taken in the final design to address the handling of the increased flows and the need to provide adequate protection against erosion. H. Noise and Odor The noise and odors associated with this project will occur primarily during the construction phases for the subdivision. When the final phasing plan is submitted at final plat, staff will review the plan to try to minimize impacts from construction equipment, blasting, and any odors that may occur during construction. I. Social and Economic Report Staff concurs with the social and economic section of the EIR which states that there is no requirement within the Town of Vail that requires a subdivision to pay its own way as does exist in some communities. The biggest concern with the project is related to possible increased casts for road and retaining wall maintenance. Because the grades are steeper on the proposed road than allowed under the subdivision regulations, the additional 0.6~ increase in road grade does contribute to an increase in maintenance cost for the Town on the portion of the road that the Town of Vail will be maintaining. However, Public Works is of the opinion that the cost increase will be minimal now that the road grades have been lowered significantly from the original road grade proposal. The Town also believes it is positive that road access to Forest Service land has been improved through this project. The public access road will now be paved and allow for somewhat easier access to Forest Service land. The Police and Fire Departments concur that they will be able to provide adequate protection to the subdivision. . 18 At this time, no public bus stop for Town of Vail Bus Service is proposed. Public Works' opinion is that it would not be appropriate to provide a service through this subdivision due to the limited population and road grade. It may be reasonable to ask the applicant to look at a possible school bus turn off at final plat. This turn-off would be located at the base of the subdivision adjacent to the Frontage Road. In summary, the primary concern of the staff with the social and economic section of the EIR concerns road maintenance cost. At this time, it appears that the road grades will not significantly increase maintenance costs for the public portion of the road for the Town of Vail. The steepest portion of the road, 8.8% will be maintained by the owner. In respect to the retaining walls, the applicant has agreed to be responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping and retaining walls for the first two to three years after construction. Once the vegetation has been established, the Town of Vail would be responsible for landscape and retaining wall maintenance on the public section of the road. Public Works finds this maintenance arrangement acceptable. J. Land Use: . This section of the staff's review will relate the Town of Vail Land Use Plan to elements of the Spraddle Creek proposal. Below is a list of goals and comments from the staff summarizing the projects relationship to the Land Use Plan. The property is designated HR or Hillside Residential. This designation states: "This category would allow for single family dwelling units at densities no more than two dwelling units per buildable acre. Also permitted would be typical single family accessory uses such as private recreational amenities, attached caretaker units, or employe units and garages. Institutional/public uses would also be permitted. These areas would require sensitive development due to slopes, access, visibility, tree coverage and geologic hazards. Minimum buildable area of 20,000 square feet would be required per dwelling unit." 19 Staff did not ask the applicant to provide a total • ~~buildable" acreage as the zone district requires that each lot have a minimum of 21,780 sq. ft. of contiauous buildable area. A11 lots met this requirement and intent of the HR designation. Please see the attached PEC memo on the adoption of HR zoning for Spraddle Creek. Goal 5.4: Residential growth should keep place with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. This is the first subdivision to utilize the Hillside Residential Zoning. When the Hillside Residential Zone District was applied to this parcel in 1987, the staff opinion was that this site was well suited to the zoning standards for Hillside Residential. The developer is abiding by most standards of the zone district. The Hillside Residential Zone District will provide a luxury home housing type for the Town of Vail. In addition, the developer has committed to provide three employee dwelling units and each of the remaining eleven units will be allowed to have a caretaker unit if the owner so desires. Goal 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. Goal 5.5: The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at various sites throughout the site. The applicant is meeting these goals by providing a minimum of three employee units. Units will be provided on Lot 14, 15, and 1. Staff would like to require that these employee units be constructed within three years of subdivision approval. The Lot 1 unit is proposed to be separated from the main unit. This caretaker unit would be located at the gate for the subdivision and would serve as an employee unit far a person who would be responsible for maintaining the entire subdivision. The unit would not exceed a total GRFA of 1200 sq. ft. and would be integrated into the site as much as possible. Lot 1 would not be allowed to have an additional caretaker unit at the main house and would be required to reduce GRFA for the main unit by 1200 s.f. Staff believes this idea has merit and needs further study to resolve the unit separation issue and ownership arrangement. 20 The potential number of employee housing units that could be provided within the subdivision is 14. The project complies with the employee housing goals by providing a minimum of 21~ or 3 units of the total allowable units as permanently restricted employee housing. The restrictions are per Section 18.13.080 (B) and a, b, c, and d. Goal 1.2: The quality of the environment including air, water, and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. Goal 1.6: Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. Goal 1.7: New subdivision should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. Goal 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. All of these goals relate to the general site planning for the subdivision. At staff's request, the applicant has agreed to incorporate more restrictive standards into the subdivision than normally required under the Hillside Residential Zone District. Building envelopes are provided for each lot which locate development in areas that do not have hazards, and reduce disturbance of the existing tree line as much as possible. By the use of building envelopes, devel~N~«ent will be limited to the most appropriate locations on each lot. GRFA has been reduced on Lots 14, 5, and 4, by excluding any hazard areas from site area that would contribute to GRFA. This reduces the GRFA for Lot 14 by approximately 3,190 sq. ft., Lot 5, by 325 sq. ft., and Lot 4, by 1,050 sq. ft. Lot 7's GRFA has also been reduced to allow for a greenbelt tract on the western end of the lot. Lot 1 has also had its GRFA reduced by approximately 2,520 sq. ft. to allow for another greenbelt open space segment on the southeastern corner of the subdivision. . 21 Staff felt that it was appropriate to require Lot 1 to reduce GRFA as the developer was able to utilize the adjacent Forest Service land for the switchback. It is an equitable solution to take the land that is within the subdivision that is no longer being used for the switchback and devote that area to greenspace for the project's and general public's benefit. Site coverage has also been reduced to 100 of the allowable GRFA instead of taking 155 of the total site area. Due to the large size of the lots, the site coverage was in excess of the allowable GRFA. Certainly, a low profile building is desirable, however, staff feels that the development also needs to be as sensitively located on the site as possible. In order to accomplish this, given the slopes and high GRFA allotments for each lot, staff felt it was appropriate to reduce the site coverage for each lot. Staff is considering a site coverage percentage of 80 to 90~ which is similar to the site coverages normally allowed in Primary/Secondary and Single Family zone districts on 30% slope sites. We feel this approach is more in keeping with the intent of site coverage and will result in better site planning for the subdivision. We believe it is positive the applicant is willing to reduce site coverage to 100°6 of the . allowable GRFA. However, an 80 or 90~ ratio may be more appropriate. Staff would like to finalize the percentage at final plat when final iot sizes are determined. The developer has also proposed to maintain open space on the lower portion of the subdivision. Instead of providing lots in this area as originally proposed several years ago, this area will be designated as open space. The owner agrees to submit a rezoning of the property at the same time final plat submittal is made to the department. An important question related to the subdivision is how many lots could realistically be located within the subdivision given the road alignment. This is a very difficult question to answer as it is obvious if the owner only wished to build one house on the lower portion of the subdivision, the upper access road would be completely unnecessary and impacts from the subdivision would be greatly minimized. . 22 Staff believes it is appropriate to recognize that the parcel was annexed by the Town of Vail and received Hillside Residential zoning with the intent to allow for development per the standards of this zone district. Given the fact that the developer is not requesting any variance to the Hillside Residential devel~N.«ent standards, it is estimated that approximately four to five additional lots could be located within the subdivision, if so desired. Staff believes a balance has been found between a reasonable number of lots for the subdivision and good site planning principles. Given the above comments on how this project relates to the land use plan, the staff believes that it is in conformance with the Land Use Plan. Even though the project does have some hazard areas, no devel~~.~~ent is proposed in these areas and hazard areas are not contributing to any additional GRFA or site coverage. K. Utilities: All utilities will be placed underground. Revegetation of disturbed areas will be required and will be addressed in the landscape plan submitted at final plat. TV. CRITERIA FOR MANOR SUBDiV2SION The PEC review criteria for major subdivisions are found in Section 17,16.110 of the Town Subdivision Regulations and are as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purpose of this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies, and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions, and other applicable documents, environmental integrity, and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses. " • 23 Public Aaencv and Utility Cmm~anv Reviews: Notification has been mailed to the following agencies and as of this date, the following comments have been received by the Town: 1. Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District: Please see the letter dated September 19, 1989 from Fred Haslee in the project notebook. The District does not have any problems with the project as long as all rules and regulations and payments of appropriate tap fees are agreed to by the developer. 2. Public Service Co. of Colorado: Please see the letters dated October 5, 1989 and May 22, 1990 from Gary Hall in the project notebook. These letters indicate that service will be provided per the rules and regulations for gas service extensions on file with the Public Service Commission of Colorado. 3. Holy Cross Electric Association: . Please see the letter dated September 21, 1989 from Ted Husky in the project notebook. The utility is able to provide service to the project. 4. Mountain Bell/U.S. West Communications: Please see the letter from Bonnie Herod dated September 22, 1989 in the project notebook. The phone company has indicated that they cannot commit to providing service until all studies are completed. U.S. West will request that the developer provide an analysis for the services required by the developer or owner. Tt is their understanding is that the developer accepts the responsibility for completing this work. 5. Heritage Cablevision: Please see the February 28, 1990 letter from Steve Hiatt in the project notebook. Service will be provided to the project. 24 b. United States Forest Service: Please see the April 30, 1990 letter from Bill Wood in the project notebook. If, the Forest Service parcel to the west is deeded to the Town, it will be necessary to determine the exact location of the public easement to be retained by the Forest Service. It also states that: "As with all subdivisions bordering National Forest System Lands, it is desirable to allow permanent public access across the private land to the forest, The proposed subdivision plan does allow for this." "The main access road to the proposed subdivision crosses National Forest System Lands on the Spraddle Creek Parcel an an existing road. I understand the grade of this road exceeds Town of Vail standards. I feel it is appropriate to grant a variance at this location to keep the access road on this alignment. Keeping the road on the present alignments seems to be the environmentally preferred location to keep from disturbing additional ground and to minimize the visual • impact from Interstate 70, the Town of Vail and the ski area. This alignment would also become the Forest Service Easement when the parcel is deeded to the Town of Vail." "Tn summary, the Spraddle Creek Subdivision meets the needs of the National Forest System. I feel the access road across the national Forest is in the best possible location and urge you to approve this alignment for access to the subdivision." Staff will require an updated letter at final plat from the U.S. Forest Service stating their approval of the switchback on their land. This letter should be included in the final plat submittal. 7. Town of Vail Public Works, Fire and Police Departments: Comments form the Town of Vail Public, Fire, and Police Departments have been incorporated in to this memo. i 25 8. Colorado Division of Highways: An access permit has been approved by the Colorado Division of Highways for the Frontage Road improvements. The approved CDOH Access permit requires that final roadway construction plans be submitted to CDOH 45 days prior to c~~~u~~encing construction. V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of C~a~~«unity Development recommends approval of the requested variances based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Z. The relationship of the reauested variance to other existina or botential uses and structures in the vicinity, a) Road Grade: There will be no major negative impacts because of the road grade variance to allow 0.8~ increase in road grade from the allowable 8%. Public Warks believes that the increase will be difficult to discern and that safety concerns have been addressed. Public Works would prefer to have the roads meet the 8~ grade throughout the entire subdivision, however, the applicant has reduced as much as possible the road grade without dramatically increasing wall heights, b) Retaining Wa11 Height: The request for an addition 2'-8" in wall height above the 6 ft. allowable wall height will increase the visual impacts of the project. However, it is the staff's opinion that the visual impacts could be even worse if 6 ft. high walls were maintained with additional terracing. Staff believes that a balance has been found between actual wall height, heights of the terraced walls, and view impacts. The three tiered retaining walls have a combined maximum height of 30 ft. Tt is staff's opinion that the height of these walls would increase if 6 ft. high walls were maintained as more terracing would be necessary. i 26 Staff does believe that it is very important for the applicant to analyze soil nailing and the tie rod systems to minimize disturbed areas. This analysis should occur during the final plat review. The landscaping plan will also be reviewed carefully and the use of on~site construction guidelines will help to minimize the visual impact of the project from points within the valley. The specific color for the concrete block veneer facing for the retaining walls should be chosen before final plat approval. 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.. Road Grade and Retaining Wall Height: Because of the topography and soil found on this site, difficult development constraints are created. Staff believes it would be a hardship if the strict and literal interpretation of the code requirements far road grades and retaining wall . heights were required for this project. In many instances, the road is proposed through areas where the slope is at 40~ or greater. The variances allow the developer to minimize the impact on the site as much as possible while maintaining appropriate road grades and reasonable wall heights. The variances result in better site planning by decreasing disturbed areas. The Town Engineer has examined other alignments for the road and it is his opinion that this alignment is the best given the road grade and wall height requirements of the Town of Vail regulations. Each variance request should be reviewed for its own merits. However, other owners of property within the Town of Vail have also received variances for retaining wall heights because of topography and soil conditions on their property. Recent approvals included the Cerisola wall in Potato Patch and the Byrne wall in Vail Village 1st Filing. 3. The effect of the reauested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. • 27 a) Road Grade: The increase in road grade above the 8~ standard to 8.80 will have some negative impact on the ability of vehicles to negotiate the roadway, however, it will be very hard to measure any empirical amount of reduction in public safety. b) Retaining Wall Height: Staff believes it is appropriate to require a grading easement on the southwest corner of the property to allow the Town of Vail to grade onto this portion of the site if and when the Frontage Road is extended to the east to create a new underpass connecting to the Blue Cow Chute area. This proposal is part of the preliminary rec~a~.«endations in the Master Transportation Plan for the Town of Vail. However, this option is believed to be something that would not be accomplished in the immediate future. Staff believes that it is appropriate to allow for this option as it results in the decrease of retaining walls far the possible future road extension. V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally • to other properties in the same zone. 28 3. 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 A. Variance Request: Staff recommends approval of the variance requests to allow road grades to be at a maximum of 8.8~ as well as the retaining wall heights at a maximum height of 8.8" per the preliminary plan dated September 7, 1990 and associated cross-sections and road profiles submitted by RBD Engineering. We believe that the request would not be a grant of special privilege and that the variances would not be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare. The topographic and sail conditions on the site have created development constraints which warrant relief from the strict and literal interpretation of the zoning code. Tt is felt that if the strict and literal interpretation of the wall height and road grade maximums were required, the project would have more visible impact on the c~.«~«unity. Findings supporting the variance are IV A, B, and C 1, 2, and 3. This approval is contingent upon the preliminary plan and final plat receiving final approval. Staff would also like to emphasize that additional fine tuning of the road and wall heights may result in slight modifications to the grades and wall heights. B. Major Subdivision: The staff recommends approval of the major subdivision preliminary plan. It is felt that the project meets the Hillside Residential Zone District standards and subdivision regulations except in the areas of road grade and wall height which were discussed in the criteria and findings section of the memo concerning variances. The rec~..u~.endation for approval includes the following conditions: 1, The proposed road grades and retaining wall heights are maximums for the subdivision. Tf it is determined by staff through the final plat review and/or building permit, or construction phase that road grades and retaining wall heights may be further reduced, the applicant will agree to do so. The final plat submittal will provide a thorough analysis of the soil nailing and tie rod system for cut walls in order to minimize site disturbance. 29 2. Construction guidelines will be used during the actual building phase for the wall and road improvements. See Section on EIR Wall Analysis of this memo. 3. A grading easement on the southwest corner of the property will allow the Town of Vail the right to grade onto this portion of the property if and when the North Frontage Road is extended to the east below the subdivision to create a new underpass connecting to Blue Cow Chute. 4. An agreement finalizing the stable relocation and reclamation of the existing livery site will be submitted with the final plat information. 5. The conditions for lots having slopes over 30~ will be applied to the subdivision. This section of the code is 18.69.050 A-D, F-I, K and L. 6. Site coverage shall be limited to 80 to 100 of the allowable GRFA for each lot. This condition will be finalized at final plat. 7. Gas appliances or gas logs shall be used in all caretaker units. 8. A chain link fence around the culvert at the subdivision entry will be removed and a more aesthetic barrier provided with appropriate landscaping. 9. The six spruce trees by the subdivision entrance on the south side of Gillett Road shall be relocated. 10. All Fire Department standards and requirements per the letter from Mike McGee dated August 2,.1990 shall be complied with by the owner. 11. Before any building permits are released far the subdivision and once the subdivision receives final plat approval, the appropriate easements allowing for public access shall be recorded per the Forest Service requirements. 12. Six foot paved shoulders on either side of the Frontage Road for a public bike path shall be provided by the developer. 13. All construction on each lot shall occur within building envelopes. The building envelopes shall • be adjusted per the revised staff plan dated September 7, 1990 before final plat. 30 14. All construction for the subdivision shall comply with requirements found within the Environmental Impact Report for the project. 15. The owner shall use the least polluting sanding material for sanding the private road within the subdivision. 16. The open space tracts within the subdivision shall be rezoned to Green Belt Open Space at the same time the final plat is reviewed. Additional greenbelt open space areas will be added adjacent to the Forest Service switchback, Lot 5/6 switchback, and secondary road per the staff amendments to the September 7, 1990 preliminary plan. 17. The owner of the subdivision shall maintain the road through the subdivision from the entry gate up to the tap of the subdivision. This maintenance also includes all common areas, retaining walls, and landscaping. The owner also agrees to be responsible far establishing the landscaping along the public road for a two to three year period from planting of the materials. Once the landscaping is established and accepted the Town the Town of Vail Landscape Architect b , y will take over the responsibility of the retaining walls and landscaping. 18. Pedestrian and public access shall be allowed on the lower portion of Gillett Road extending from the Frontage Road up to the subdivision gate. 19. Three caretaker units each having a maximum square footage of 1200 sq. ft. shall be provided within the subdivision on Lots 14, 15, and possibly Lot 1. The separation of the Lot 1 caretaker unit is under staff consideration. The units will be permanently restricted per section 18.13.080 (10) a-d of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Conditions on the 3 employee units will be resolved at final plat. 20. The architectural guidelines shall be amended as follows: a. Retaining walls shall be minimized as well as extremely steep slopes. b. Sod shall be allowed around the perimeter of • residences but large lawn areas are nat encouraged. 31 c. Driveways shall have a maximum grade of 8~ unless approved by the Town of Vail Engineer. d. Irrigation by retaining walls for the subdivision shall be prohibited. e. No chain Zink fence is allowed within the subdivision even for dog runs. If dog runs are proposed, another type of open fencing should be used. 21. All construction within the subdivision shall comply with the Town of Vail hazard ordinances found in Section 18.69 22. No on-site livery shall be allowed within the subdivision. 23. Aspens and large shrubs shall be used on all retaining walls. 24. All hazard areas shall be excluded from contributing site area to Lots 14, 5, and 4 for GRFA or site coverage. VII. FINAL PLAT SUBMITTAL MATERIAL Below is a list of final plat submittal material which is necessary to resolve issues raised at preliminary plan review: 1. A complete landscape plan which addresses the entire subdivision and the Frontage Road entry and gate design. 2. Building envelopes which reflect the staff changes. 3. Wall heights will be reduced as much as possible particularly in the areas of Lot 14 and 15 at STA 53+00 and 57+00 and also at the intersection of the secondary road by STA 5+00 to 2+00. 4. The subdivision improvement agreement. 5. Erosion Control Plan 6. Final Driveway locations with approximate grades. 7. Final agreement on the livery. 8. Revised final EIR in one submittal package that • includes all the updated reports. 32 9. Final Plat drawing should indicate the following information for each lot: lot size, building envelope, site coverage and allowable GRFA. 10. Revised architectural guidelines. 11. Realigned access road to the water storage tank utilizing the old road bed. 12. Revised phasing plan. 13. Reduce the livery road grade as much as possible. 14. New letter from the Forest Service addressing the switchback on their property. 15. Greenbelt areas designated per staff recommendations on the final plat and a rezoning submittal. • • 33 • a~ s U a Z • i~f~~' `i'~11l{ +1 II~,~ H 1 ~ I t\ 1 7, 1~ 4 1 ~ 1 ~ r~ 1 A f1 err' a~ 1~J h 1 r ~ ,F '~ ~ 1 f ij~ rl :~,' 7. d lu Ir., , ~ %' j~''~1'r7 ~ r~ s ~ r ~ s. 1 ~ rr ,/~ r ~,~ ' a`l'e;` '' , , ~ ~ ~ ~ J U hot „ I.I ~ ~ f 1 ~ ~- 1 71 ~1. ? ~ 1 ~ ~ ! 1 • ~ Ir }41 1 • rn. f ~ 1~. ~`l11 1~ I ' y ~1 ~ly ~ ~ ~. 1 111 ' ~' ~ ~ ~ k %I r7 I ;/~ ~,~ ~. ~~ ;~ J ; ~/ ~ ~a~-~ i 4 ~ x\~ ,. ~ _~~~ I ~ ro ~~ I ~ %~ .! ~ • 4 .; / •~ i ,/ 1 ~ ~. , ~ ~~ . b z~ z ,~~ ~ 1 ~ i~ -z ., ., ,,~ r, •, : •. . • • . • ~ • . a • ~ ' • r ~ r • ~ ~ r .^ I • . ~ ~ •~ • e • r O ~' ~ ~ ~ . ' ', . x .I11.', n Q~ ~~ V ~~ v J ~t~ w !~ ~%~; ~ /; /Y / ~ / / ~ ~~ / ~/ /. I / 1 I ~ 1 I 11 Y'~ i :' . ~a, IAA, /~. 7 W \ 4 ,, \\ ~ /: • f ~/ .:~ .... •. - , ... -r ~ •~_. . ~ ~ o ; ~, ~ ~ ., ~ i b ~_ _ LL ~ E i... i ._..._ _ Q ~.~ . .~ _._~ i ~ ._.j..i-~ -- ~ . --i 1 ,..i.l_, ~ . L.i , ;, I ~: : ~ ~_ ..,>,. } -a - --~ .~ ~--, . , 0 h. ro oo,~~ ~~'~ ~~~ . ;:~ ~Of v~~~ 0~,~ ~'~ :~. . ~; ~j 4 a s' . s ~~ ~~ ~ ` \\ oo~~ • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 26, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to apply Hillside Residential zoning to a 27 acre parcel of land commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek Applicant: George W. Gillett, Jr. I. THE REQUEST On November 18, 1986, the Town of Vail adopted a comprehensive Land Use Plan. In the plan, parcels of land in and adjacent to the Town of Vail were designated for certain potential uses if they could meet certain criteria, standards and policies of the Land Use Plan and other planning documents previously adopted by the Town of Vail. The Spraddle Creek parcel is a 27 acre parcel of land that was annexed by the Town of Vail some time ago. It has never received any Town of Vail zoning designation. Through the Land Use Plan, the Spraddle Creek parcel was given a land use designation of Hillside Residential. Upon completion of the Land Use Plan, a zone district entitled Hillside Residential was written to correspond with the criteria outlined in the Land Use Plan. The maximum allowable density for the Hillside Residential zone district is 2 dwelling units per buildable acre. The Land Use Plan also states that any development proposal will require an in-depth analysis to assure sensitivity to constraints, provision of adequate access, minimization of visibility from the valley floor, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. The proposal for the Spraddle Creek parcel is for zoning only and does not deal with a development proposal or subdivision plan. A review of the zoning request is limited to whether the request is compatible with surrounding land uses, meets the development objectives of the Town, and the more tangible issue of provision of legal and physical access. II. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Criteria ~1. Suitability of Existing Zoning This parcel of land has never previously had a Town of Vail zone district designation. Under the jurisdiction of Eagle County, this land was zoned Resource. The Eagle County Resource zone district allows one dwelling unit per 35 acres and is generally intended as the agriculture zone district and to preserve natural open space featuxes. During the Land Use Plan work sessions, much discussion was centered on the land use designation that should be given to the Spraddle Creek area. It was generally agreed at that time by the Land Use committee and the participa- __ ting public that as a property adjacent to the Town of Vail, some level of development was warranted. At the same time, this parcel was recognized as being very en- vironmentally sensitive and valuable to the Tawn of Vail as open space. The land use designation was proposed as a use that should give development potential to the property, yet maintain and understand the environ-mental sensitivity of the parcel. Criteria ~2. Is the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives? As an implementation of the Land Use Plan, this applica- tion is consistent with municipal objectives. However, it is recognized that this parcel of land is highly visible and environmentally sensitive. While the zoning of the property meets and is consistent with municipal objectives, any development plan and subdivision proposal will need to be reviewed very carefully to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the development objectives of the Hillside Residential land use designation and of the Town of Vail. While we currently have indication that there is legal and physical access and there will continue to be legal and physical access in the future,. this issue will need to be discussed and clarified at the subdivision stage. Criteria #3. Does the rezoning proposal provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community The Community Development Department feels that the rezoning itself does allow for the growth for an orderly and viable community. We feel that the Hillside Residential designation while allowing the developer development potential far his property, will assure envi- ronmentally sensitive development of the property. At this point, there is not enough information to comment on any development of the site at all. Avery thorough review will be necessary to ensure that all proposed development does meet this criteria for orderly and viable growth. Izz. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for the proposed zoning of Hillside Residential for this parcel is for approval. The Community Development Department feels that this meets the intent of the Land Use Plan and the development objectives of the Town of Vail.