Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes January - FebruaryPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 1990 11:00 a.m. Site Visits 12:30 p.m. Work Session on the Garden of the Gods and Site Visit #4 1:15 p.m. Work Session on the Marriott Mark Resort and Site Visit #2 2:15 p.m. Work Session on Air Quality 3:00 p.m. Public Hearing SITE VISITS 1. Approval of minutes of December 18, 1989 #1 2. A request for rezoning from Residential Cluster to High Density Multiple Family with a Special Development District for Parcel D, Stephens Subdivision. Applicant: Faessler Realty ~~~ 3. A request for a major amendment to the Doubletree Hotel, Special Development District No. 14, 250 South Frontage Road, to change uses: reduce the number of accommodation units and to add a spa facility. Applicant: Jerry Kratzoff ~~3 4. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct an addition to the Vail Village parking structure located on Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail 5. Reminder of Town Council Vail Village Master Plan on January 9th, Tuesday, 2:00 p.m. Council Chambers. 6. Notice of Town Council/PEC work session on Employee Housing, January 16th, Tuesday, 12:00 at Council Chambers. 7. Appointment of PEC member to DRB for January, February, and March. Planning and Environmental Commission January 8, 1990 Minutes Present Jim Viele Diana Donovan Chuck Crist Kathy Warren Jim Shearer Connie Knight Dalton Williams Staff Peter Patten Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Shelly Mello Anne Jansen Betsy Rosolack The Planning and Environmental Commission meeting began at approximately 1:00 p.m. following the Site Visits which began at 11:00 a.m.. The meeting was called to order by Jim Viele, chairperson. First on the agenda were two work sessions which are briefly described below: Garden of the Gods Work Session: Kristan Pritz opened the meeting with a Work Session on the Garden of the Gods. She reviewed the entire proposal and then opened the floor for public comment. First to reply was Pam Hopkins, an architect with Snowdon, Hopkins, gave a brief background on how the current project came about back in 1986, basically saying that since that time, the Lodge needed to update and change their accommodations to fit the needs of the Vail community. In 1987- 88 the Lodge came to the conclusion that simple "Band-Aid" repairs would not be enough and thus this proposal emerged. Overall, the discussion touched an the following topics of most concern to the staff should this project materialize: View Corridor - staff was concerned that this would be significantly interrupted. Parking Problems - the new building would need to allow far adequate parking underground. Also, they would lose two spaces from Vail Valley Drive to Town of Vail right-of-way. Sidewalks and Landscaping - Because Vail Valley Drive is a main thoroughfare to other lodges and lifts, the rebuilding of the Garden of the Gads would have to work around the fact that new sidewalks would be going in on either side of the road and special. landscaping to make the area very attractive would have to be considered. Overall, the staff felt that the proposal was reasonable with special attention given to the GRFA and density, sidewalks and landscaping, and the issue of number of restriced units versus employee units in the construction of the new Lodge. C. Work Session of the Marriott Mark Resort: The second work session was presented by Peter Patten which covered the proposal of construction of 67 vacation ownership condominiums adjacent to the existing Marriott. The general view of this proposal was negative considering the following factors: 1. The new addition would be too close to the bike path 2. The addition is going to be built on the last available greenspace 3. The 5 ft. setback is not good long-term planning • The floor was opened for questions and comments with Peter Jamar, a land planning consultant for Vail, beginning. Overall, Peter stated the advantages the new addition would have such as how it would strengthen the area between the Marriott and the Gondola, the connection to the current West Day Lot for parking purposes, the increase in popularity of time share property of which the new addition would help promote, and finally the extensive landscaping and sidewalks which would take place not only to add to the beauty of the surrounding area but to allow a connection far skiers to other pedestrian walkways up to the Gondola. Mr. John Sweeny of the Marriott basically reiterated Peter's comments concerning the time share advantage and the fact that presently the Marriott has an 85a occupancy level year round. At this point, Tom and Cyndi Jacobson, residents living on Forest Road behind the Marriott expressed their opposition to the proposal with the following points: 1. They feel it is a violation of why zoning was established. 2. A 6+ story building is too large for that lot. 3. Past promises by Marriott were not kept when the first structure was erected, such as berming, landscaping, attention to noise levels. 4. They could not support the purpose of the new addition. overall, the Jacobsons felt that the new addition would interfere too much with the neighborhood on Forest Road, they felt the whole area around their house is becoming too commercialized. She presented photos taken from their backyard showing the affect the Marriott has had to their neighborhood. Alice Parsons, another resident of Forest Raad expressed her opinion that VA should trade the yard for parking structure and move the machinery to the West Day Lot, thus alleviating traffic through Forest Road. • • • The questions were then opened to the PEC members with Diana concerned with the setbacks, walkways around the pool, and overall large number of units being proposed. Connie Knight asked if the number of units could be decreased and the affect this would have and also wondered about the rush for completion. Chuck Crist inquired as to whether the building could be moved to the north. Peter Jamar responded that moving the building could be explored but it was not as easy as it seemed. Kathy Warren felt the project was too big for the site, while Diana added that the architecture of the area should be softened by a different type of building, not a duplicate of what is there now. Jim Shearer stated that he hated to see so much greenspace taken away. Dalton inquired about employee housing and Peter Jamar commented that the only housing they would be concerned with was the increased housekeeping staff. Overall, the atmosphere was one of indecision and there would be additional need for research and discussion of the project in the future. The rest of the meeting covered the Public Hearing and began at 3:35 p.m. Ttem No. 1 Approval of minutes far December 18, 1989 meeting. Motion for approval. of the minutes was made by with correction of Chuck Crist's name. seconded the motion. VOTE: 7 - 0 in favor. Item No. 2 A request far rezoning from Residential Cluster to High Density Multiple Familv with a Special Develo~ament District for Parcel D, Stevens Subdivision. Applicant: Faessler Realty Mike Mollica reviewed the proposal regarding the development of a 48 unit multi-family employee housing project. Mike reiterated the fact that the proposed Day Care Center was now deleted from the project. Mike proceeded through the proposal noting that the most critical part of the proposal was Part III, Zoning Comparisons. Mike then introduced Greg Hall of the Public Works Department to explain the impact this project would have on adjacent roads. The findings were based on a TDA Colorado report sent to Sidney Schultz of Sidney Schultz Architect, Inc..Mike stated the Fire Dept. had approved the proposal with the 10 conditions included in the Fire Dept. memo, which was attached to the staff memorandum. The applicant stated that they could meet these conditions. Basically, Greg responded that no major impact would occur at the 4-way and Chamonix. He also stated that revised geometry was being done subsequent to the TDA report but had nat yet been received. Greg did state that approximately 30 additional cars would go through this intersection as a result of the project. Mike continued through the proposal reviewing the applicant's request for employee housing restricting the units "for the life of the buildings". Mike stated that this was illegal and the property could not go back to RC zoning. Mike completed his review of the proposal by going over the goals from the Land Use Plan that would be used as guidelines for reviewing the proposal. He closed by saying that the Land Use Plan should be used as a guide ONLY in rezoning. He recommended denial, but stated that staff would be willing to discuss the proposal in detail with the applicant especially on the number of units, and GRFA. The floor was then opened to the public for comments and questions. Bid Schultz, representing Faessler Realty was the first to speak. Listed are the main points of Sid's comments on behalf of Faessler Realty: --At the previous work session the neighbors complained that this was not meeting existing zoning. --In reference to the Land Use Plan, this project could not be done without having a significant GRFA increase. --Medium density plus variances is his idea. He wants to proceed like Bighorn Lodge with exception of a variance on parking. Bighorn Lodge has not used all their parking and feels the same waste of asphalt would be made on this project. --Project is funded by private money only, thus no profit. --Agrees to required berming and landscaping necessary as requested by the PEC. --Feels that the Day Care Center would be very suitable for a residential area such as Steven's Subdivision. --Regardless of the types of units, the number of people will remain basically the same. --Feels that sharing accommodations will make for lower quality housing. --Would like to see housing completed by December of next year. Mr. Faessler then responded that employee housing between Intermountain and East Vail was being addressed by this proposal and that he understands all concerns of both the neighbors and staff. However, as a business owner he feels this is a necessary project and that this is the only place where zoning such as this could be allowed. Mr. Faessler also expressed that employee housing is important but should not be provided by government, but rather the private sector. He also stated the following: --There is no money to be made by this project. It is necessary for Veil's future. --Feels that it will benefit the Town and neighborhood. --Doesn't feel it will destroy the beauty of the area. --Feels that the employees are important to the community. The employees make the business go and without them we are nothing! Greg Stutz, representing the Meadow Creek Condominium Association, then stood to comment on Mr. Faessler's remarks. Items he mentioned were: --Feels that "Brady Bunch" houses would be the result without . a compromise. --Ha questioned how the applicant arrived at the number of units (48). --Feels it is a matter of profitability. --Stated the willingness of the residents to compromise with the Sonnenalp's best interests at hand. Mr. Stutz then asked for a show of hands to display how many Intermountain residents were present at the meeting. He also presented a petition containing 136 signatures to the PEC for their review. One of the main items mentioned from the petition was that of the inadequacy of the road for emergency vehicles. Mr. Stutz continued with the following comments: --We must look at existing zoning laws. --Feels there is na reason for this density; the height is an issue of great importance. --He is concerned with the impact on property values. He stated that the residents originally purchased their property based on the zoning that was in place. • --On the issue of parking, he states that it would be unsightly and that the Traffic Study is a joke. Overall, Mr Stutz urged the PEC to deny this proposal and that they should communicate with the residents. He also said that Mr. Faessler has not made adequate steps to do so. Sue Dugan, another resident of the subdivision expressed that based on her realty experience, she feels that many realtors could be sued as a result of this project being approved. Another resident living down the road (did not identify himself) pointed out that the study was done at an intersection over one mile down the road and felt that it was not accurate. dim Anderson, a resident of the area, felt that the PEC was too concerned with expediency. Being a 20 year resident he felt that the housing and parking situation will always be a problem, so why hurry this project along so quickly like Timber Ridge. He noted that all employees presently are living somewhere so why not take a little more time on this project; like 1-2 years. Harry Gray, a new resident to the area, said that he liked the area just the way it is. He felt it is a good place to raise his family the way the subdivision stands. Irwin Bachrach stated that in comparison to complexes such as Bighorn, Timber Ridge, and Pitkin Creek, he feels this project is invalid. And because the letters from the residents, including his, were not reviewed prior to this meeting, that no vote should be taken on the proposal. Sue Dugan again stood to add that she feels there is not adequate parking for the proposed project. Peter Franke, another resident of the subdivision, was concerned with the traffic problem. He feels there is quite an impact and thus the project should be denied. And finally, Chuck Ogilbie stated that we should look at Aspen and consider the increase of density all over the Valley and offer incentives such as a real estate tax incentive or free building permits for employee housing projects. Overall, he feels the development of employee housing should be done all over Town and not in one concentrated area. • Jim Viele then asked the PEC for questions and comments starting with Dalton Williams. Being a new member, Dalton had same general zoning questions which were answered by other PEC members. Chuck Crist asked Mike Mollica where he arrived at the number of parking spaces listed in the memo (75) and Mike replied that this figure was dependent on the number and the size of the units proposed. Diana Donovan listed the fallowing comments: --The lot has many unique features in respect to shape, access, and location, but feels this proposal is not good for this site. ----She feels that employee housing should be spread throughout the community and not concentrated in one area. --She agrees that the Traffic Study is not complete for this project . --The project only meets 1 out of the 9 criteria listed in the memo. --She suggested a Traffic Study to address the impacts on the neighborhood and the 4-way. --She stated that Skip Gordon relayed to hex' that the bus system could not handle the new project even with the shift changes; mare buses would be needed. --She quoted page 60 of the Land Use Plan stating that this Plan should not be overruled. --In reference to the proposal, she felt that parking should be maximized and bermed and that 20 ft. setbacks should be required. --She did not understand why there was no creek access. They should make use of the stream, using it as an amenity. --Diana also does not agree on the number of units proposed. Feels it is "slum" housing; thinks 28 units may be a compromise. • . Kathy Warren then took her turn saying that she agreed with most everything mentioned by Diana. She added that she was concerned with the neighborhood and that a lower height was needed and also recommended more sensitivity in reference to the number of units proposed. She said that attention should be made to GRFA in determining number of units. Jim Shearer then commented that Greg Stutz's recommendation to work out a compromise was good. He also feels a meeting between Mr. Faessler and the residents is needed. Jim felt the main point here is that residents see a need far employee housing and it should not matter who lives there. Parking should be looked at in order to make it attractive to the neighborhood. Connie Knight feels Mr. Faessler has been self-serving and his non-attempt to communicate with the residents is not good. She feels that less than 48 units may be acceptable. Mr. Faessler interjected asking what the purpose of the PEC was and if the Town Council was the place to be heard. Jim Viele explained that the PEC is a technical body only and not a political body. He added that the housing situation is severe and will continue. He is opposed to spot zoning and feels that controls and incentives are needed in employee housing. The 5000 . density increase is not in concert with underlying zoning. Zoning should protect the neighborhood. We need ground rules as a community for employee housing. Carl Dietz commented that this area was zoned by the County years ago at 12 units/acre. Dalton asked how the determination was made between the number of units versus the number of people and Jim Viele responded that there was no set number -- anything can be done, however, density, GRFA, etc.. are all determining factors. Mel Barnes, a resident of Meadow Creek agrees with Mr. Faessler that there should be 1 person/unit with affordable rents, but to scatter the buildings all over town. Carl Dietz interjected saying that employee housing seems to be the issue when zoning should be. He added that employee housing should not be used to change zoning all over Vail. Charles Barnhardt expressed that he did not want to see a dormitory type of situation arise. He feels that he bought his property based on the zoning and it should stay that way. C] At this point sid Schultz took over the comments and added that the manager of the Meadow Creek Association was called to work on this situation and he has yet to receive a reply. The Condominium Association Manager, who was present, answered by saying that the attorney representing the Association instructed him not to respond and that he had been called on the Thursday prior to the meeting. Sid continued by listing verbally his overall feelings to the proposal: --He feels the project will be safe as far as fire problems --Multiple bedrooms will cause problems --Property values would not be affected --Traffic Study was done on an intersection where people would be most affected --Feels that putting housing dawn valley would not solve the housing problem in Vail years from now Mr. Faessler made some closing comments saying: --Incentives are necessary --Many thanks to the PEG --Wants a nice neighborhood --Wants a vote to move to the Town Council • Diana responded that na compromises were being offered by Mr. Faessler at this time and that this proposal could not be decided in one meeting. She requested a table so a compromise could be made with the neighborhood. Mr. Faessler again asked for a vote and did not wish to table the request. Diana motioned for denial on the request for a zone change based on tha three criteria listed in the memo with her responses: 1. Not suitable for high density multiple family 2. Resident use 3. Violation of Land Use Plan under requirements for rezoning The motion was seconded by Kathy Warren. VOTE: 7 - 0 in favor of denial on the rezoning. Diana also motioned for denial based on the Special Development District using the nine criteria of the memo: 1. Bulk{ buffer zone, and GRFA decrease 2. Density increase of 500% 3. Parking ~. Not sure on this one 5. O.K. on this 6. Stronger landscape buffer needed. Parking needs to be screened and better use of stream needs to be addressed 7. Stop sign needed 8. Planting and bermina necessary • In reference to the SDD, Diana motioned as abave and it was seconded by Chuck Crist based on same reasons fisted abave with the exception of the rezoning. VOTE: 7 - 0 in favor of denial of the SDD. Item No.3 A request for a mayor amendment to the Doubletree Hotel, Special Development District No. 1~, 250 South Frontage Road, to change uses: reduce the number of accommodation units and to add a spa facility. Applicant: Jerry Katzoff Peter Patten presented the proposal and gave a history of SDD #14. He covered the major elements of the proposal listed in the memo with the most important being the reduction of 30 accommodation units/transient residential units. Peter also showed drawings of new lower level of parking and progressed thru all levels as well as the relocation of some of the condominium units. Peter noted that under the HDMF zone district, it allows for lodges and within that, accessory use. Thus, a spa has been approved as an accessory use to a lodge. Overall, he recommended approval of the proposal and Jim Viele opened the questioning to the public. Peter Jamar, representing Jerry Katzoff, expressed his appreciation to be able to handle the project since 1984. Connie Knight asked if the reduction in units applied to existing rooms and Peter Jamar indicated that na existing units would be eliminated. The reduction is only on new construction. At this point, packets were passed out to the PKC members which showed drafts of the proposed building to be done on the Hotel and how and where it would fit in. Chuck Crist asked about the comparison of revenue flow between the spa and the 30 accommodation units which would be lost and Peter Jamar answered that the revenue would be more with the spa. Kathy Warren inquired about a satellite dish and its placement before this project takes place and was assured by Peter that this would be done. Chuck also commended the procedures of the applicant as being well done and good for the Vail community. • • with the conditions stated under Section X10 of Ordinance No. 7. Diana motioned for approval and it was seconded by Chuck Grist. VOTE: 7 - Q in favor. Item No. 4 A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct an addition to the Vail Village Parking Structure located on Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Peter Patten reviewed the proposal and displayed drawings showing the proposed structure at completion. PIZZA TIME!!!! YEAH!!!rrrr! The main concern of this proposal was the stairways. Peter noted that much discussion was done on this to improve the ability of the skier/pedestrian to reach stairways. He feels the stairs are important in facilitating this flow. The meeting was then opened to discussion by the PEC with Chuck Grist opening the comments. Chuck questioned the use of the 5,po0sf of unfinished space and the pocket plazas. He also wanted to confirm placement of the crosswalk. At this time, representatives of Barber Architects were there to clarify these questions. They stated the possibility of totems as discussed with the DRB. Barber Architects continued discussion with the PEC over where the crosswalk should be and where the entries would be located on E. Meadow Drive and how it complies to the Building Code Regulations. Dalton Williams suggested the use of the Highway Dept. right-of- way near the 4-way. He suggested the building of a ramp to deter traffic from the 4-way going west. Stan Berryman of the Public Works Dept. was present and commented that 1.5 million dollars would be required and retaining walls would be necessary. There is a need for adequate signage so as not to cause a build-up in the entry of the parking structure if it is full. Stan expressed that he wanted to get new counts on traffic and that none had been taken since 1985. Stan said that the bonds for the project had been sold totaling 8.2 million dollars. A representative of Barber Architects stated that the budget has not been expanded to include the changes that have been made by Council, DRB, etc..(ie. Renovation of Transportation Center and Widening of E. Meadow Drive). C] • Stan noted that the Ski Museum could go elsewhere, however, Diana expressed she would like to see the Ski Museum. The subject of pick-up and drag-off space was discussed and Barber explained that a 5 minute parking (short term) area is allowed. The subject of snow removal and drainage on the main stairs and top level ramp was also addressed by Stan Berryman. The idea of manual snow removal was stated to be cheaper and the use of heated removal was not effective due to the water from melted snow only being displaced somewhere else thus causing further problems and possible damage due to refreezing. He also added that these systems tended to short themselves out after about a two year period of time. Barber added that they accelerate the age of the concrete too, thus becoming quite costly. Other possible problems were also discussed such as the number of cars on average, movement of trees, and the need for adequate sidewalks. At this point, Peter Patten suggested that there should be a prioritization of all of these issues in the motion, labeling them "add ons". Diana recommended that all add-ons be included, that they are all necessary or no ga! Kathy Warren made a motion per the staff memo including the whole package as presented and it was seconded by Jim Shearer. VOTE: 7 - 0 in favor. It was also clarified by Jim Viele and Kristan Pritz that the proposal would be reviewed if any of the alternatives or add-ons were taken out of the project at a later date. The meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. after reminders given about Town Council session an January 9th to cover the WMP and the Town Council/PEC work session on Employee Housing an January 16th. There was also an appointment of Diana Donovan to the DRB for the monthes of January, February, and March with Kathy Warren as the substitute. That is all!! • TD: Planning and environmental Commission • FRDM: Community Development Department DATE: January 8, 1990 SUBJECT: A Work Session on a request to amend Special Development District X18, Vail Village 5th Filing, the Garden of the Gads Lodge. Applicant: Mrs. A. G. Hi11 Family I, DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL This project has received one Special Development District approval in 1987. The approved SDD was then revised in the summer of 1989. However, the revised SDD never received final approval from the Town Council. Under each of the previous SDD requests, the applicant proposed to remodel the existing building. With the present request, the applicant would like to demolish the existing building and construct a new building in the approximate original building's footprint with a few modifications. The request to rebuild the Garden of the Gods includes: • A. 6 dwelling units = 13,160.5 sq.ft. of GRFA. a. 11 accommodation units @ 4,217.5 sq.ft. GRFA 4 accommodation unit lack-offs @ 1,789 sq.ft. GRFA TOTAL: 15 accommodation units @ 6,006.5 sq.ft. GRFA C. 2 employee dwelling units = 1,831.5 sq.ft. of GRFA D. A decrease in common area from the existing amount of 3,575 sq.ft. to 2,841.5 sq.ft. E. Underground parking of 15 spaces. This removes 5 surface spaces on the east side of the project and 2 surface spaces on the south side (Tivoli side}. F. Incorporate a bus pull-off on the southeast corner of the property. G. Increase the height of the building to 48 feet. The existing height of the building is 42 feet. The existing zoning of the property (public accommodation zoning) allows for a 48 ft. height for a sloping roof. H. The applicant proposes to restrict all of the 11 accommodation units (4,217.5 sq.ft.} as well as 4 accommodation unit lock-offs and 3 dwelling units per the use restrictions outlined in the subdivision regulations 17.26.075 that stipulate: . "The condominium units created shall remain in the short term rental market to be used as temporary accommodations available to the general public... An owner's personal use of his or her unit shall be restricted to 28 days during the seasonal period of December 24th to January 1st and February 1st to March 20th." **Please see the attached zoning analysis and unit use analysis charts. II. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN ANALXSIS Although the Vail Village Master Plan is not officially approved, the staff believes that many of the considerations included in the plan relate directly to this proposal. ~'ar this reason the staff has included an overview of haw this proposal relates to the Vail Village Master Plan. A. Illustrative Plans: ~.. Land Use Plan: The Garden of the Gads property is indicated as "medium/high density residential". This section states that a majority of the . Village's lodge rooms and condominium units are located in this land use category. The goal of the plan is to maintain these areas as predominantly "lodging oriented with retail development limited to small amounts of "accessary retail"". 'Ihe proposal generally complies with this description of the land use category. However, staff believes that the applicant can go further to insure that the building will be predominantly lodge oriented. 2. Open Space Plan: This plan calls for planting buffers along the east side of Vail Valley Drive adjacent to the surface parking on the P-2 Parcel. • . At this time, there is not a specific proposal for upgrading the planters on the east side of Vail Valley Drive. Staff would ask that the applicant work with the Planning Department and Town engineer to arrive at a solution that removes the existing planters and private parking from the public right- of-way to allow space for a new sidewalk and planters. 3. Parking and Circulation Plan: This plan calls for sidewalks along both sides of Vail Valley Drive. Sidewalks are not included in the proposal. Staff believe these improvements should be incorporated into the project. 4. Conceptual Building Height Plan: This property falls within the three to four maximum range of building stories. A story is defined as nine feet of height with no roof included. The proposed height of the building is 48 feet. This height does meet the public accommodation zoning maximum for a sloping roof of 48 feet. However, there are possible impacts on a designated view corridor. The applicant is working with a surveyor to determine any impacts on the view corridor. • B . Sub--a~'ea Concepts The Garden of the Gods falls under the east Village Sub- area No.7. This plan states that the most important public improvements in the sub-area relate to pedestrian and bicycle safety. The public right-of-way should be maintained and expanded for public use whenever possible. Sub--area 7-3 and 7-4 relate specifically to this property. The plan states: 1. #7-3 Vail Valley Drive Sidewalk - A sidewalk (separated from the road where possible) through the sub-area linking the Golden Peak base facility with the Vail Transportation Center. Landscape improvements and pedestrian crosswalks to be included as required to meet demands of pedestrian traffic. Special emphasis on 3.1, 3.4. • • 2. #7-4 Parking Lot Infill - Presently utilized as parking for adjacent properties. While zoned far parking (covenant restrictions also limit use of this parcel to parking), this site could accommodate a small lodge. Practical difficulties in developing this site include the covenant restrictions in maintaining on-site parking for existing and future demand. Possible public uses for this site include pedestrian and bus circulation improvements. Special emphasis on 2.1, 2.3, 2.&, 3.1, 5.3, and 5.4. C. Vail Village Master Plan Goals, Objectives, Policies. and Action Steps that apply to Garden of the Gads Proposal. Below is a summary of the goals, objectives, and policies that relate to the Garden of the Gods proposal: GOAL #1: ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY. • 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policy: 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 ROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. • 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available far short term overnight accommodations. 2.3.1 Policy: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading and renovations and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.5.1 Policy: Recreational amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as part of any redevelopment of lodging properties. 2.6 Objective: Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with the appropriate restrictions. 2.6.1 Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over the allowable by existing zoning. GOAL #3: TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCING OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and ether improvements. 3.1.1 Policy 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 greenspace areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. GOAL ~4: TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES. 4.1.1 Palicv: Active recreational facilities shall be preserved (or relocated to accessible locations elsewhere in the Village) in any development or redevelopment of property in Vail Village. GOAL #~: INCREASE THE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY, AND IMPROVE AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. 5.1.5 Policy: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. • 5.4 Objective: zmprove the streetscape of circulation corridors throughout the Village. 5.4.2 Policv~ Medians and rights-of-ways shall be landscaped. III. ISSUES This section summarizes concerns with the project as well as issues that relate to the Goals, Policies, and Objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. A. Density/GRFA: The proposed SDD has 1,573 sq.ft. of GRFA over the total allowable under the public accommodation zone district. If the new proposal is compared to the previous SDD, it is 703 sq.ft. over on total GRFA. With the new proposal there is a decrease in the number of accommodation units {4) and an increase in GRFA (1,162 sq.ft.) devoted to dwelling units when the proposal is compared to the previous SDD. Staff feels that the applicant can arrive at a better balance between accommodation units and dwelling units which will more closely meet the intent of this zone district to be primarily a lodging area. We would prefer to see a proposal that is more in line with the SDD approved in the summer of 1989. B. Employee Housing: It is positive that two employee housing units having a total square footage of 1,831.5 sq.ft. are included in the project. staff's opinion is that the square footage devoted to employee housing could be utilized more efficiently by allowing for three employee units each having a total square footage of approximately 500 sq.ft. per unit. The three employee units should also be restricted as employee housing forever and not be allowed to be converted to condominiums in the future. Given the proposal to incorporate three employee units, the parking required would only increase by .5 spaces. The total requirement for parking does not exceed the existing 33 required spaces. • C. Restricted Units: 47% of the total GRFA will be rental restricted. All of the 15 accommodation units should be used for short term rental throughout the year. Staff is also concerned that the project continue to function as a lodge. Customary lodge services and facilities for guests should be included in the proposal. We recommend that a lounge area and front desk be included in the first floor plan. At this time, all of these amenities have been removed from the proposal. It is our understanding that the owner does intend to condominiumize the project in the future. However, we believe that these services should be provided. D. Views: The height of the building will be increased from 42 ft. to 4$ ft. Even though the 48 ft. is within the public accommodation zoning height limit, the proposal may impact a view corridor. The applicant is working on providing staff with additional information concerning the views, • E. Parking: A11 required parking is provided. Staff believes that it is very positive that the applicant has provided underground parking. Approximately two spaces could be removed on the east surface parking lot (P2 Parcel) given the need to remove parking from Town of Vail public right-of-way. The underground parking could be used mare efficiently to allow space for two additional parking spaces. Footers far the parking ramp retaining wall must ba built on Garden of the Gods property. The bumper blocks for surface parking should be removed from the surface parking lot for more efficient use of the lot. Snow storage should also be addressed for the area. • . F. Landscaping/Sidewalks/Bus Stop: The Vail Village Master Plan strongly recommends that sidewalks be incorporated on either side of Vail Valley Drive. The proposal does not include sidewalks. Staff recommends a sidewalk on the west side of Vail Valley Drive. This sidewalk should extend from the north corner of the property to the south corner. The east side of Vail Valley Drive adjacent to the P2 surface parking lot also requires a sidewalk. Planters and parking should be pulled back off of the public right- of~way. The bus turnoff is an improvement. Staff believes that a bench and sidewalk should be incorporated into the plan. The bus turn-off must have a minimum width pf 10 feet. We recommend additional landscaping on the south side of the project facing the Tivoli. The two parking spaces that are removed should be landscaped so that this area will not be used far loading or parking. Curb and gutter will be required on the north side of the property. Garden of the Gods contributes to the drainage problem along Gore Creek Drive. Public Works . would work with the owner on an arrangement to direct the drainage from the northwest corner of the Garden of the Gods property to the inlet. Staff recommends that the applicant consider narrowing the entry to Hanson Ranch Road and exit for Gore Creek Drive by designing landscape medians. This approach could indicate more clearly that these streets allow only one-way traffic. Visibility for cars exiting Gore Creek Drive onto Vail Valley Drive should be considered with any landscape improvements on the northeast corner of the property. G. Rebuild Vs. Remodel of the Project: The northwest corner of the new building is proposed to be located on a drainage and utility easement. Even though the existing building also encroaches into the easement, the applicant will be required to get approvals from all utility companies and the Town of Vail. A title report must also be submitted. • Staff agrees that the building will function better for the owners and that the underground paxking is very positive. We would like to ask that the applicant emphasize why the encroachments into setbacks, additional GRFA and density, and other deviations from the public accommodation zone district benefit the community. Circumstances have changed now that the building is being campletely demolished. It is important that the applicant substantiate why this proposal is justified. C] A r-~ W -~ °' w wp i ~ z W 0 ~ N i~ H H H w • w ~-, ~ nwaaH a Q ~ a w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ oo pi ~ ~ S ~ r--I b ~ OD E-1 ';~' E-I H ;a n o ~ rl w ~ W m .4s .u ~ ~'' A s auto W -I cV p cv N W O aa1 d ~ro~~ ~ a~a ~ Q~w~ a ~o J c~ a to '~ - ~ ~ N ,~ o o, ~ W M ~ a' ~ ~ u1 ~ c~ a, ~ na m ~ ~+ ~ r M +-I ~ r-I .-I N w 3 z sn° n rh h .., uN.ri~ ~ ~ p ~~ Y~~ Obi v v d~ ~ ~ N ~ rn D ~ Z~nV'.°°' M~a~N ~h Z 000 z 4~~ r r= 0~6 ~ b ~~ z O~ N N ~:! ~ ~ r ~D ~ rm- w N~~~~~~.»o ~r o IL, (/~ lL ~ Li. e~napeao~~~0'Na~ o~ ~0~'~dYda yC~~~~MOpaN N U1 ~ ~ fD ~ © ~ ~ r^- ~ ~' W ~ Z O ~ N N d *' CO r "~ r tG "" z° aaoa~~~ ~ '~°~ ° ~ In p IA r ~ ~ ~ ""_ O H '_ _ ~ ~ ~ W c~D ~ ~ ~ ~ C h V ~ W ~ ~ c~D N N :,. ~ CaJa^: ~ M WIZ°~ r 0 ~ ~ O p a O }~- ~ ua. z z o©°~~~ a°; C ~ a~i~~~NN ~°.° t~ ~, m ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ij v ~ • '> !1J lWll ~' N ~ Y a Z ~ ~ a 4. .~: ~~.: ~~?.ON(~WZxz a ~~Y a a~-+Z~vOaC7 m> Ocn~ c/1~.... a~ ~:: za u +n w, O r1 cd ,.~ d ~ O w u C OG v 7, AA ~ ~ ~ ~ u d d 41 W N y, ,C O 'C ltl H ~ b H 4.+ 6 W r ~ w C a.+ ~ w i C~ d ~ u ~ ~ ~ b 00 C3 ~ fA .1 p A Gf u ., ~ ' O O ~ ~ - + N cd ~ ~ 3 o a ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ r C a.+ . C ~ ~ 'C7 G G d . ~ ~ ~ ~ u 'CS G ur i N o n G 4~ 9, 00 ~*~ C7 w O a wA~ ~:U u i e~f ~ M ~ G~ O A Ir -I ~r- v ~ ~ ° ° ~ ~ sti ~ .G O d, ~ .~ F+ ~~ ~.~~ ~ ~ ~a~oeo~n ~ A LJ ~ ~ d R1 • R 3~! 4a ~ d b b 6F ~ s w + ~~ro ro i a eo a i ~ ~ ~ r-1 .~E .G ~ .~ ~ ~ O A. N 1~ ~ C Vl CT' V ro~ b ~ b ro cow ~ o °~ ~ ~ ~ b ° ~ a ow - + w u ~ ° wouaa a d ~ ~ ~ v ..+ ~ ~ ~ ~tc * * is 0 ~ En Q ~ r~ ~ , ar ~~ ~~ 11 ~ H N ~ ~ ~ oeo t9 N ~ ~ ~ ~ tJ Q~c~ ~ ~+~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ A Q CY1 tS1 ~'`"' ~ ~ ~0} ~ ~~~ O A ~ t° rte- C~ ~~~ ~~QN ~ ~~' ~ U' r N ~ ~ ~ ill ~ U2 ?`+ o ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~' N ~ ~ ~ac~v¢ ~ QpN ~ ~o w~ rn ~~ aZ4, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ © ~ rn ~ ~ z N ~ d' ~ Ct W W G. N ~ t~ J Q fl. ~ 7• }N• d l~- W UJ C3 QZ~ZC~7 c~'Ltr.?c~a,du-t3cv, u.Qu-Ou..F...~Q~~ • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 8, 1990 SUBJECT: Work Session on proposed major amendment to Special Development District #7 - The Marriott Mark Resort I. BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSAL The Marriott Corporation is proposing to construct 67 vacation ownership condominiums adjacent to the existing hotel. The Marriott Corporation believes that this concept will have significant benefits to the existing hotel and to the Tawn of Vail and they intend to complete the project utilizing the same high quality standards that have been established in their other vacation ownership properties. The proposed building is located south and east of the existing Marriott Mark parking structure. Proposed is an additional 101 parking spaces which equals 1 1/2 spaces per dwelling unit. The condominium units would each be 1200 sq.ft. representing 80,400 sq.ft. of additional GRFA. Building height proposed is in the vicinity of 65 feet with building setbacks on the west and south sides of 5 feet. A major element of the proposal is to construct significant interior and exterior improvements to the existing Marriott Hotel. Proposed site improvements include greatly increased landscaping and public walkways throughout the site. Also proposed is to construct sidewalks from the project west to South Frontage Road. Tnformation that has been submitted to the staff includes preliminary floor plans, elevations, vicinity map, existing conditions, pedestrian and vehicular circulation and access, site plan and typical unit plans as well as a visual analysis from six different locations around the project site. II. EXISTING ZONING FOR SDD #7 In researching the development of Special Development District #7 and the Marriott Hotel history, we have found a lack of clear, concise and comprehensive information. This is due in part to the fact that the hotel has been developed in a variety of phases and uses within each development stage. Moreover, there have been a series of ordinances and amendments to SDD #7 which appears have never resulted in a comprehensive set of development plans or zoning ordinances. We do, however, know that the site is built to its maximum density as allowed by SDD #7. To the best of our knowledge, . the site contains 247 accommodation units and 53 dwelling units with a total of about 134,000 of GRFA. With the site area of approximately 5.17 acres, this represents a density of a little more than 34 dwelling units/acre. Of course the • site contains a substantial amount of square footage devoted to conference and meeting facilities, restaurants, night clubs, recreational amenities and hotel ancillary facilities. The hotel began construction in 1973 and applied for SDD status in 1977 under two different ordinances. After construction of the first phase another addition was applied for in 1981 under an amendment to SDD ~7. This phase included the conference center with lodge rooms and condominiums above. Although we do not have all of the accurate information regarding the existing zoning on this property, suffice it to say that the property has no development rights remaining under existing zoning and that the focus of the work session should be on the proposed new project. III. PRELIMINARY ISSUES AND CONCERNS Planning staff has conducted a review of the project as well as the Public Works/Transportation Department. While acknowledging that the Master Land Use Plan encourages additional tourist accommodations to be sited in the central or core areas of Vail, it certainly does not do so if it is to the detriment of sound land use and site planning . principles. The staff's primary concern is that the project is too much for this existing high density mixed-use site. We have no problems with the vacation ownership approach and acknowledge that the Marriott Corporation has developed several very high quality vacation ownership projects throughout the country. Time share projects generally retain a higher year round occupancy than any other tourist accommodation use and this fits well within Vail's policies to level-off seasonalities of guest visits. An attractive element of this proposal is the substantial upgrading of the existing hotel, especially the public pedestrian way through the property from east to west. This pedestrian way would provide a much needed improvement to the connection of the Lionshead Mall to the West Day Lot and Arterial Business District. The building and associated parking structure are proposed on the only remaining open space on the entire site. While areas to the east on the property do not have buildings on them, they are used for the location of recreational amenities such as tennis courts and a swimming pool/deck area. We feel that the scale of development is too large and that the mass and bulk is pushed too far to the south and west sides of the site. If there were to be additional development on this property it would seem to be better located to the north over the existing parking structure and . it should step down from east to west to help alleviate the massive west elevation oP the existing hotel. Development in . this area would maintain the existing "green" open space on the site and preserve the integrity of the public bicycle/pedestrian path adjacent to Gore Creek. As proposed, the building would impose upon the bicycle/pedestrian path and compromise that recreational experience. The Public Works Department has the following comments: --Improvements to the South Frontage Road at the intersection of West Lionshead Circle would be required to facilitate the additional traffic generated by the proposal. --Drainage plans need to be provided. --Storm sewer adequacy? --The hotel would be responsible for the maintenance of the public pedestrian walk through the site, --Drainage improvements on Lionshead Circle would be required. --Emergency access would need to be 20 feet wide. --Snow storage capabilities? --Bike/pedestrian path is not maintained in the winter and V.A.'s snowmobiles use this to access the mountain. A variety of additional submittal materials will be required far this project including a full environmental impact report, an evaluation of the 5DD design criteria, information pertaining to the proposed fractional fee ownership, a title report and other requirements that are necessary to review the proposal. A number of letters opposing the project have been received from neighbors on Forest road. A general letter from the neighborhood has been received but signed only by the Jacobson's and Alice Parsons. Also a letter has been received from Clinton Ames. Theses are enclosed. ' -~ December 29, 1989 . Mr. Peter Patten Town of Vail Planning Director 75.South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado $1657 Dear Mr. Patten, The residents and homco4vners on the west part of Forest Road have become aware of the Mark Marriott's and Kaisar ~fareous's intention to get the approval of the Town of Vail's planning staff to build an enormous SIX STORY TIME-SHARE BUILDING, with 67 units, and to be built right on Gore Creek. This building would violate all zoning codes for the area. The Marriott is already built out to their maximum, and this density was even over the origional allotment for the area. They were able to get it through by getting a special district approval, of which none of the homeowners on Forest Road were given notification. We can not believe they are at the Town's door again asking for more special favors. Their track record from the last addition, furl.her demonstrates their record of poor performence and lack of concern far our neighborhood. We were promised by you and you office that the area below the tennis courts would be landscaped, and so would the huge ugly birm. Not only were they never landscaped but ugly pipes and the like still protrude. In fact lust last summer they dumped mare dirt and refuge over the edge toward the creek and in our view when they dug out their volleyball court. The west Forest Road filing and neighborhood were part of the origional filings of the Town of Vail, These properties were purchased by origional investors for their privacy and seclusion, long before Lionshead had any buildings, Since that time we have been victimized over and over again. We have had sewage plants, snow cats, snow mobiles and excessive construction vehicles shaved up our "back yards". Not to mention the fact that the west end of our road was origionally to be a culdesac. We never asked for the bridge or were consulted when it was put in, causing further downgrading of our once quiet neighborhood. For the past fifteen plus years we have been continuously encroached on by the Lionshead sky scrapers. This addition to the Marriott property will create a "New York City" effect along Gore Creek and in our neighborhood. Our neighborhood dosen't even have peace in the summer. As the Marriott moves outside with their tents, meetings, parties and bands we suffer the amphitheater effect. As one neighbor put it "he knows the words to every Umpah band selection and is a party to every meeting". The height of the existing Marriott buildings reflect every noise into our bedroom windows any additional buildings would worsen the the problem. Even now the sounds broadcast across Gore Creek are of higher volume than those of the F"ord Amphitheater. r The density and zoning laws were put in place for very good reasons. To even consider changing them in any way to allow one enity to line their pockets at the expense of everyone else is a travesty. if this is allowed to happen, every zoning code in the Town of Vail is rendered worthless. You might as 4vell tack a "Me Ton" clause onto every piece of property within sight of the planned Marriott Monstrosity, and then we will roally have New York/Lionshead. Gore Creek, along this stretch, once wa meadow, and even though now basterdized by it is still one of the few places that one the open creekbed, and entoy a little open building to be built along the creek would trashed party zone. s a beautiful pristine the ugly existing berm can entoy the beauty of space. To allow this change the area into a Please know that we the homeowners an Forest Road do not intend to }.et this travesty to be built. Please do your duty as our officials and strike down this cancerous protect and preserve what little dignity of openess and space that is left in Lionshead and Vail on Gore Creek. There is no need for this building ar protect. Sincerely, The Homeowners on West Forest Road ~ 765 Forest Road Vail, Colorado 81657 /N~r. & Mrs. Thomas Jacobson. gr. Dr. & Mrs Roger Cado~ Mr. & Mrs. Clinton Ames Galmar Associates Mr. & Mrs. Fred Rumford Mr. & Mrs Robert Engleman Mrs. Gustine Smith Mr. & Mr s, Robert Working Mr. & Mrs. Emmett Stevenson Mr. & Mrs Brian Deevy Dr. Robert Contiguglia Dr. Melvin Klein Dr. Jeffery Mishell Mr. Charles Ackerman: Mr. Michael Herman Mr. & Mrs. Neil Austrian Mr. & Mrs. P. A. Novelly Mr. & Mr s. Lindley Grubbs Mr. & Mrs. George Cannon Mr. William Sheppard Mr. George Prussian • Mr. peter Patton: January 2,1990 Town of Vail Planning Director 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Co. 81657 Dear Mr. Patton: Mr. & Mrs. Tom Jacobson have sent a letter to you and members of Veil's Planning and Environmental Commission in which they give reasons for objecting to the construction, by the Marriott, of a Six Story Time Share Building which will be directly across Gore Creek from my residence. I certainly endorse and support the Jacobsons and other owners in our neighborhood in objecting to the construction of this high rise building in an already concentrated and crowded core area of Lionshead. In addition to all the objectionable factors such as view blockage, zoning violation, noise, failure to fulfill past commitments, grid lock traffic which strain all the community services and infrastructure, the fundamental question must be asked-- how big and how crowded do you want Vail to be? A short selling skiing, special beauty, and vil distance from the proposed project site property is for multi million dollars. In addition to excellent the reason for this high value is that Vail is and unique in retaining village charm, culture, status, and a controlled balance between expansion loge style living objectives. Evidently Marriott recognizes this value and wants to cash in on the past control, risk taking, and investment of others by jamming a high density type structure into this high value core area. The construction of this high rise project will be a giant step in the direction of too big and too crowded. It will hurt Vail and all property owners by cancelling some of the charm, status, past hard work, and value of Vail. Opinions, judgement, and feelings are formed by different exposures. Unfortunately, my residence in located next to a high density rooming house where Marriott houses a number of men and women employees during the summer. I understand they are part of a management training program. They also raise a lot of hell with frequent very loud parties lasting well into the morning and individuals getting so high on something they scream into the night darkness. Phone calls asking for noise reduction after normal sleeping hours resulted in defiant increases in intensity. I finally had to call the police to get a reduction in a continuous mind numbing sound system. . I don't know what happened to the famed clean cut, consideration for others, work ethic, philosophy of the . Page 2 Marriott Corpa~ration but based on personal exposure, my feeling is Marriott doesn't give a damn about it's neighbors, the neighborhood, or preserving the long term value of Vail. I am a property owner and a taxpayer intensely interested in maintaining Vail as a unique and special place. T ask for your action and support by defeating further consideration of this project. Very truly yours, '~~~ !~ J~ 1'. `~~, I ~ r YV SA„4~~ i .. 1 ~ 6! ~`~ Clinton G. Ames 7255 Forest Road Vail., Co. 81657 ~7 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Communit Develo ment De artment Y p p DATF: January 8, 1990 SUBJ: A request to rezone Parcel D of the Steven's Subdivision, from Residential Cluster to special Development District, with an underlying High Density Multiple Family zone district. Applicant: Faessler Realty I. Description of the Request This rezoning request has been proposed in order to allow for the development of a 48 unit multi-family/employee housing project. A 3,000 square foot day care center which was originally proposed, has been deleted from the project. The 1.99 acre parcel is located immediately north of buildings A, B, C and D, of the Meadow Creek Condominiums, and just south of Gore Creek. Access to the parcel is proposed via an existing 40' access easement, connecting the southeast earner of the property with Kinnickinnick Raad, {between buildings C and D of the Meadow Creek Condominiums). Phase I of the project calls for the construction of the eastern building, which would include 25 one-bedroom units and two two- bedroom units. Phase II would include 18 one-bedroom units and three two-bedroom units, located in the western building. The one-bedroom units are proposed to be approximately 400 square feet in size and the two-bedroom units are proposed to range in size from 660-800 square feet. Tenant storage facilities are proposed at the ground floor level, adjacent to the covered parking, and some additional storage is proposed on the second and third floors. Laundry facilities are proposed in the basement of each building. Section 18.40.010 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code describes the purpose of Special Development Districts, and reads as follows: "The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of new development within the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive -1- Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with a property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district." The Town Code also states that any uses permitted in the ,Special Development District shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the property's underlying zone district. In order to meet these requirements of the Special Development District chapter, the applicant has applied to rezone this property from Residential Cluster to High Density Multiple Family, and has simultaneously applied for a Special nevelopment District overlay. This memorandum will address bath the rezoning to High Density Multiple Family as well as the Special Development District application. II. Zoning Analysis A summary of the proposed development is as follows: A. Lot Area Total: 86,580 Floodplain: 18,828 . 40% Slope: 2,716 Net Buildable Area: 65,036 B. Proposed Floor Area Residential, Phase I: Residential, Phase II: Total: square feet square feet square feet square feet 11,237 square feet 9,363 square feet 20,600 square feet C. Proposed Building Heights Phase I - maximum ridge height: 45' Phase II - maximum ridge height: 37' D. Proposed Site Coverage 12,712 square feet or 14.7 0 E. Proposed Parking 21 Covered Spaces or 35% 39 Surface Spaces or 65% (25o will be compact car spaces) 60 Total Spaces F. Adjacent Land Uses North: Gore Creek and RC zoned property north of the Creek. West: Undeveloped portion of Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums. South/East: Meadow Creek Condominiums, Building A-E, zoned RC. -2- . IZI. Zoning Comparisons RC HDMF 1. PERMITTED USES 2. SETBACKS 3. HEIGHT 4. DENSITY 5. SITE COVERAGE 6. LANDSCAPING 7. PARKING -Single-family -Same as RC residential zone with the dwellings. addition of --Two-family lodges. residential dwellings. -Multiple-family residential dwel lings. (no more than 4 units/bldg.) Front: 20' Front: 20' Sides: 15' Sides: 20' Rear: 15' Rear: 20' SDD - PROPOSED -Multiple--family residential Front: 20' Sides: 15' Rear: 15' Flat Roof: 30' Flat Roof: 45' Flat Raof: N/A Sloping Roof: 33' Sloping Roof: 48' Sloping Root: 45' Allowable Allowable Proposed D.U.'s: 8.9 D.U.'s: 37.3 D.U.'s: 48 GRFA: 16,259 sf 25% = 21,645 sf 60% = 51,948 of -1 Space/D.U. shall be covered. -25% compact car spaces. GRFA: 39,022 sf GRFA: 20,600 sf 55% = 47,619 sf 14.7% _ X2,712 sf 30% = 25,974 sf 55% = 47,619 sf -75% shall be covered. -25% compact car spaces. -35% covered. -25% compact car spaces. -75 total spaces -75 total spaces -60 total spaces required far this required for required for this project. this project. project. IV. Criteria To Be Used in Evaluating This Proposal There are two sets of criteria that must be used when evaluating this proposal. The first set of criteria to be utilized will be the three criteria involved in the evaluation of a request for a zone change. The second set of criteria to be used will be the nine development standards set forth in the Special Development - District chapter of the Zoning Cade. The criteria are as follows: • -3- A. evaluation of Zone Chance Request from Residential Cluster to SDD, with an underlying High Density Multiple Family zone district: 1. Suitability of proposed zoning. The existing RC zoning allows for a maximum of 8 dwelling units on the site. The staff recognizes the environmental constraints imposed upon this site with the presence of Gore Creek, and its associated floodplain, along the north boundary. We do believe that with proper site planning, the 2 acre parcel could accommodate some additional density without compromise to the environment or have a negative impact upon the adjacent neighborhood. However, the staff believes that the request for 48 dwelling units would exceed the carrying capacity of this site. Also, the projected peak hour traffic volume on South Frontage Road, west of the interchange, is estimated to increase by 11.2% as a result of the additional 48 dwelling units. Although at first glance this percentage may appear to indicate a significant increase in traffic, the actual impact of the increase should be reviewed according to the "Highway Capacity Manual" and the level of service. Page 5, Table 1, of TDA's traffic impact assessment shows the level of service at South Frontage Road and Chamonix road. This analysis, however, includes the originally proposed day care facility. It is impossible far the staff to determine impacts upon the levels of service for just the apartment complex with this information. Staff would recommend that the traffic impact assessment be amended to reflect the actual proposal which is before the PEC (ie. 48 dwelling units). 2. Is the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationship within land uses consistent with municipal objectives. Staff believes that with the deletion of the day care facility from this proposal, that the proposed residential use would be in harmony with the existing uses in the area. Intermountain is strictly a residential neighborhood and the proposed uses for this parcel would not be inconsistent with existing development. t -4- 3. Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community. The staff acknowledges that employee housing is in very short supply in Vail and that such housing is a crucial element in Vai1's continuing to be a viable resort community. We believe that the employee housing concept proposed here is a sound concept and that it would generally be a positive contribution to the community as a whole. However, even though we agree with the concept, we still maintain that the proposed density would exceed this site's carrying capacity. B. Design Standards in Evaluating Special Development District Proposals: 1. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, buildinq_ height{ buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The staff generally feels that the proposed architectural style would be in keeping with the character of the immediate area. Zn fact, the architectural style is very similar to that of the adjacent Meadow Creek Condominiums. We are concerned with the proposed ridge height of the Phase r building, which is 45 feet. We feel that 45 ft. is excessive for this site and would be out of character for this area. Surrounding properties have approximate ridge heights of 28 - 32 feet. The staff is mast concerned with the proposed GRFA far the project. We believe that the current GRFA which is allowable under the RC zone district should be maintained. The proposal calls for 4,341 square feet over that amount. We feel that by reducing the overall GRFA, as well as the proposed density, the scale of the building (ie. mass and bulk) could also be reduced. • -5- 2. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. In reviewing this type of housing request, the staff has taken the position that some incentive should be provided for the development of employee housing (see Section C of this memo). The applicant is proposing employee housing and has proposed restricting the units "for the life of the buildings". However, we feel that the restriction placed upon such employee units should be more long term and should be consistent with previous Town approvals (ie. the life of Tiffany Lowenthal + 20 years). Regarding the issue of density, the staff is willing to work with the applicant on this development standard as an incentive to providing employee housing. The applicant has maintained that 48 dwelling units are required to make this project feasible. As stated above in the zone change criteria, the staff cannot support a 500a increase in density over existing zoning on this site. 3. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. s calls for a total of 60 arkin s aces 35% The propo al p g p , of which will be covered. The Town zoning cads requires a total of 75 parking spaces, of which 75% shall be covered. Based upon past experience with parking for employee housing, the staff strongly believes that the parking requirements in the code need to be met. We also feel that the proposed 35% covered parking is inadequate and would present an eyesore to the adjacent residents. See attached "Employee Housing Project" statistics. 4. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Tawn policies and Urban Design Plans. The applicable sections of the Land Use Plan are discussed in Section C of the Zone Change Criteria. • -6- 5. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. There axe no geologic hazards which have been identified on this site. The building has been removed from the 100 year floodplain. 6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The proposed layout of the structures have been modified so that they no longer encroach into the 50 foot creek setback. All of the large evergreen trees an-site will be preserved. The site coverage numbers are well below the allowed maximum, and the landscaping percentage is also acceptable. A stronger landscape buffer is necessary along the south side of the project facing Meadow Creek Condominiums. Design solutions should be proposed to screen more parking. The height of the east building should be decreased to insure the project is compatible with surrounding structures. 7. A circulation system designed for bath vehicles and pedestrians addressing an and off~site traffic circulation. Internal circulation is adequate, and it appears that the proposed access from Kinnickinnick Road can be constructed to Town standards. A copy of the Traffic and Parking Assessment (by TDA Colorado) is attached. 8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Staff believes that the proposed landscape plan should have additional planting and berming along the south property line to screen parked cars. We also feel that pedestrian access along the creek would be an amenity for the project's residents as well as the neighborhood residents. We would propose that an easement, dedicated to the Town, be provided along the length of the property, adjacent and parallel to Gore Creek. This easement could be utilized as a pedestrian walkway to the proposed Steven's Park site to the west. -7- 9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. As discussed in Section I, Description of the Request. C. Land Use Plan: The Land Use Plan should be utilized as a guideline in any request for a zone change. This property has been identified in the Land Use Plan as suitable for "Medium Density Residential" use. This category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with common walls. Densities in this category would range from 3 to l4 dwelling units per buildable acre. The fallowing goals, from the Land Use Plan, should be used as policy guidelines in the review of this proposal: GOAL STATEMENT 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 STATEMENT 5.5: The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. GOAL STATEMENT 5.4: Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. GOAL STATEMENT 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. We ~ee1 that the proposal goes well beyond the "limited incentives" referred to in 5.3 and the Medium Density Residential provisions of 3-14 units/acre. Thus, we find the proposal not in compliance with the Land Use Master Plan. -8- V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation is for denial. While we are generally supportive of the overall concept of employee housing on this site, we believe that the applicant's requests for additional density, additional GRFA, increases in building height, and reductions in required parking spaces would be in conflict with the purpose section of Special Development Districts. More compromise needs to occur on the project particularly in the areas of number of units and GRFA. Reductions in these areas will allow for development that is compatible with surrounding projects. Staff also believes that it is important to use the Land Use Plan as a guide in rezoning. In this case, the Land Use Plan calls for incentives to encourage employee housing. Staff could support limited incentives and would like to continue to work with the owner to develop a compromise solution. • _g_ C t ply - -I ---- - - --- - - ---~ - -- -. ~ ~ ---/ - ~ I I ~ ! / Q I I I ~ t ~ `-- - -- __..~ _.- . ~~ I i I I ~ ~ ' / F~ ! ~ L_.. 'j`~~ I ~ `~ l ' l fI i , ~ I ; ~ I ~.-. I _~ I/ J I I I l I I 1 4 - `' 1 i I I3 i ~ q I I I I j ~ { D, I f f R 1 c I I ~ I I W -~- ~- ! I ~ ~ ~ ' I ~ l n I I H - A' 'zf I ~ ~ ~ I ~~ I !_. ~ I m " ~~ I LL I I f ~ ~ ~ I/ I I I i a` _ cn I 1 I I I I 1~ I ~ I I I I ~ I ~ 1J] I l 1 \ \ ~\ rl ~ ~(. ~\ I I I v \`~~i \ ~ I . ~, . , ~ ~. U ~ \ \ I ~~ \ \ \ M I Ql ,l O {f \ \ \ ,l ~1 \ \ \ '1 ' \ \ \ 1 ~~ ~ ~ \ I ` ~ i i ~ ~ , \ ~ \~ ;. I 1~1 J ~ ~ \l~~ ~ \ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ \ 4 `1 k \ M \ l ~, ~ l \ ^~ i \ ~ \ + ~ , ~ ;~ ~ , \ ~ \ \ \ \ s ' \ ~ _\ + t' ~4 \ ~ ~ (~ ~ \ \- ~`, \ 1 ~ ~ \~ \ t \$. ~ V ,\ ` ~ ~ G ~ \ i~ \ \ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~~ ~ .\ \ ~ ~ ( ~ /~i 1 l / ~ ~ ~ ~! ~ ~ ~~ \~ /~ Vx ~~ U C~ <L -~ CI] 2 F- (/7 LiJ cn c~ z ~: - tJ Y !~J 4 C? 0. 00 cA U} z O 7 n ip S~ C~ w t% F- N d J lsI U l~ Q a. .~ .~ 0 tJ 0 x Q cd 4 .t F~-' ~ ~pn o zN~n Nv]?~ ~a~q ~~U ZZepJ wzui_d ~pr~"--- ii Od OO a~~~ 4~L~0 a~~L-~ ¢N~' w Z r zoo II II i I i r H W O II t` O N I M xulx IJ ~ ~ I- , ~ a~Q II I ~ a w II ~ I r-r J~,~P7 11 11 I I U} II II 1 E ~ II r O I! rn d~ N I c~'r c~ N ~ Q II ~ W II C4 II 11 I Ch \ II II I z~ u M N N I L(1 H w II t` ~ r 1 N xUN fl I fx ~ H II H H ~ I H ~G4Z II acne u II I I ~ u I z~ u I H W II if1 r-I c"1 I O '~. U II d' N d' I l0 a~ uM N ! Pa cn II II E 1 ~ ~ ii CJ Q,' II d• O y' I O W W it ~ o \ I ~ h x n ~ z I O C7 II a1 ~ 1 a h N P i II ~-~I II r-I 1 I C7 \ II II z cn W II o0 0o in I N H H R', II 1 U] H U II ~ 00 N I N '~ `,T ~ IJ ~--I r-i M 1 M O ~ II I x II II I I w n I I I ~ H f rn ~ ~ a0 ° i N ~ a z t ~-I rl t ~ ~ EI f W II r N II I H II I A W II o N [~ 1 ~r ~ ~ I I 1 • r-I U II a co 0 1 r-I •~ FC I I rl I ~ i t I I I I I .~ `-' II Il II ~ I ~ ~ I IR ~ II •~ •r•I ~+ ,~ ~l Ixx ~~ i ~ ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~~ \ U II ~ -~ >~ a s~ I ~ ~ ~ w II a~ ~ •~+ o I ~ ~ ~ h u .~ ~ .x .~ I ~ •,--, ~ ° ~ ~ ~ r ~ ° rx ii • ~ - • ~ , o P~ II E-~ ~- Q+ 04 I fs, ~ BARCLAY TOGJERS VENTURE TEL No.30389G55~ Jan 05r90 11 21 P.02 Tl~i4 Co~or~a~~ INC. Transportation Consuatants • ~d7S Larim9r St. wte bCq pen„P,~, C~ A01d2 (sos~ezs•i~or January 4, 1990 Sidney Schultz Sidney Schultz Ax'Chit+agt Inv. 14I East Meadow D]~i'~e Vail, CO. 81G57 1~e: Faesslez Apartment and Day Caxe Canter Tx`affic Impact Assessment. Dear Sidney,. As agreed. we nave reviewed the proposal. for develapinc~ ~~ apartment units and ,a day care neater off supine Street ~.n the xntermcauntz~in area, As we understand the propasat, the apartment: w~.ll be used primarily }ay emplvyee$ of Sonnenalp Motel. properties in Vaal. Village and the d~-y cares fac~.ility will be used e~cclusa~v~:ly by Sonnenalp employees. i+~e further understand a number of aonnenalp employees currently l~.ve in the ~ntermvuntain area. The ~, ~t30 square foot .day care venter w~.11, have 3 to ~ employees. Ori the basis of this infor~tation we have prepared this as~;essmez~t caf potential traffic imp~-ct associated with 'the Faessl,er Apartment and Day Care Center proposal. Existing Condi'~fans The Faessler Realty project would ~ be developed 3.n a residential. area that i~ essentially at the westerly end of development in the Core Creep Valley. South Frontage Raad~cannegts the Tntermauntain area with Carcdde, L~,onehead and Vail Villages. The West Vail. interchange With T=7R is about 1ja mile west off' the project. NDr~:~° Frontage Rc72td and South Frontage Ytoad gOYirieCt via the West Vail I=7U diamond interchange. The next connection far local frontage road movements agcurs almost three m~,1es farther east ht the Main Vail. Interchange. B+~uth ' Frontage Read is ~ ~- -two lane rural. rand serving as a collector-distributor fox regional gips to and from T -70 and for access tv abutting paxgels. Eetwa~en the West and Main Vail, intersect~,oris, south Frontage Road f,s under the maintenance any; access ~urisdictior~ ©~ th+~ Colorado State Nighway Department. Traff~.c volumes on South ,Frontage Road axe much ha.gher +aast of the West Va~.l. interchange ats much ~of the ~Intexst2~te movements a~- oriented •~o the commercial axeas of Cascade and L3.r~n~;head vi.xl.ages . Vvlumeg an South Frontage Rs~ad ~.n the vicinity of tY~e pr~s~ect i~ estimated to be about ~, X00 veh~,cles per day. Th~.s is based can 1.~8~ evening peak hour scants at th+e South Frontage Road/Chamc~nix Road intersr~ction by Centennial Eng~.ne:erir~g. BRRCLAY TOWERS ~IENTUF;~. TEL Ido.3038936555 Jan 05,90 11:2 P.03 . Nlr. Sidney schultx January 4, 1.990 Page 2 Daily volume fluctuates annuaZ3.x based ors levels of occupancy in Intermounta~.n. ~t is estimated that about 50~ of the dwelling units are owrtar~occupied, 20~ used by second home purchasers and the remaining 30~ are ~.ox3g term or ~ear~onal ranters. There are no oommeraial short term or ~~tarnight lodging uni'~s in Yntermvuntain. tlvcup~;ncy levels wQUld likely be h~.ghe~st during Chri:~tmas Week, spring Break, and summer holiday periods when second home user and se~-sonal em~~~.ayment use add to the year round population. way wt~uld estimate daily traffic volume Qn south Frontage Raad i~ t~~e Intermounta~.il area could reach 3, q00 vehicles per day during a peak tim$ such as spring Break week. The ~nterfit~untain area is served well by ~+uk~lia transit. Town buses on the West veil South Routs run all day from 6:20 A.M. to 1.2:45 A.M. The route connects ~nte.rmountain w~,th the three villages . Transfers to other tcawn mutes are made at the va~.l Transpc~rtatian Center 'in Vail Village. The "Meadow Creek" bus stop is a short ~ral.k from the px`op~aaed pro~eot site, Project Tr~a ,tic TMc~ propas~~c.~ project has two basic ~sourcas of additional. traffic generation: 7.. The 5o apartment units 2. The 3,~OQ equa~`e fgat Day Care Center At full accupaflcy w,s would expect the predominantly cane-bedroom apartments to generate 1ti average of about six vehl.cle tr~.ps per day per unatr ar a total vf,300 additional vehicle trips per day. This generation rate is derived from numerous studies in mountain resort communities and is comparable to the rate publ.~.shsd by the Tnst~itute t~f Transpo±~tatS,d~ ~ng3 nears in the 195' publ.icati~+n "Trip Generation" for "Law Rise Apartments". The same putalicatian suggests Day Care Centers average 67 vehic7.e trips per day per ~., 000 square feet of Grass Flour Area. ~'or the proposed 3,4pc1 square foot cantor this would +aquata to 228 vehicle trips per day generated by the day Cara Center. S~.mpl.y adding the two individual. trip generation numbers would overstate the net additional traffic genarat~.on as~som~a of the residential trips would be oriented to the Day Care Canter. Furthermore, each child dropped and subs$quently picked up from a day Dare center represont9 dour daily vehicles trips -- entering and leaving the . site e2~ch reprer~erit a "vehicle tacip" . BARGL.f~Y TOf~JERS VEfdTl~f2E TEL fdo .3038936553 Jan 05 , 90 11 ~ 22 P . 04 Mr. SidneX Sahu].t~ Jaxauaa~y h , 1990 page ~ Assuming five 8annenalp house~xo3.ds 3.iving in lntex~ountain use the Aay Ca,r$ Center each day we Would expect South Frontage Read tr~.p generation w0u].d be otherwise reduced by 20 tr~.ps peg day (5 hcusehold:~ x ~ daily day pare vehicle trips per hausahold~. The proposed seven two-bedroom units included in the 5th-unit complex could account fCsr another halfTdp~eri children using the day care center. ~1~~hesa on-siite users could reduce the daily volume Y,y a similar 2p vehiaxe tripe par day. Hence, the net affect o~ the day Care Center would be tc~ add 188 vehic~.e trips t+~ 5out1~ Frontage Road as fn7.lows: Vehicle mr~/Dav p ~c~,~rator • 228 Flee-standing Day Care Center (TTD) - 20 Existing intermountain SQnnenal.p Househr,l.d Trips - 20 ~ Dn-Site Proposed Househal.d Trips 7.8 F3 = New Vehicle trips on South Frontage Read Added to this would be the new non-day care trips generated by the apartment dwellers. This would equal 28Q vehicle trips (300 - 20 on-site day care). Total net trip generation would. then be 468 vehirs~.e trips Qn South F]:oMtage Road. Day Care Center x.88 Vehicle tripe per day 50 Apartment units = $ vehicle Trigs par day Total. ~ 468 Vehicle Trips per day Thin addition would be: about a 19~ increase ever the estimated existing average daily volume of 2,5Q0 vehicles on South Frontage Read ~g~,~ of the interchange. Approx~.matel.y lob, or 4? trips, can be expected to occur during the PM peak hour. ~'ypit~al3y, about ~(~~ will be inbound Arid 40~ will be outbound Pram the project during the evening peak. These trips axe then distributed to the surxaundiMg roadways using prevailing traffic distribution patterns. Figure 1 displays PM peak hour intersection volumes w~,th ehd without the Faas8ler Project. • BARCLAY TO~JERS VENTURE TEL No.30393555~ Mai, Sidney Schulte January 4, 190 Qage 4 Chamonix Road ~(I ,D Und~~pass) 1"_~ ?D 39a N(7RIYI S -~ ~'~9 3 ~ ~ ~S Y~ ~~ ~ ~' i ~~ s SAGICGRt~CF?~iI~ .7a.n OS,~C~ 11 ~23 P.srS 'Chama~ix Rgs~d (T 70 `Jnd~'rt~ass) 1~5 Z~ 395 ~y 5. Frgrtt~~e Rci. $S -~ ~"~9 39 "'~ "~„' ~1 ~ ~~ xx~~ p~or~c~ F3~ur~ I P.?~. U~ak Hour Traffic Volumes jYiCh ~ I'~1tI7oU~ ~~~SS~2x` F1"p,~~':t ~.~~~ i . ~~~~ Distri3~uticsxs D~iily vehic~.e trips ,generated by 'the Faessler development w~.~.1 disperse aver the surrounding rs~adWay netwsq.rk. A1,1 veh,ic~.as Wild. pa&s thsvugh the 4--way stop s3,gn e.t the South Frontage Road/Chama~nix Road a.ntersection. ~~ted on 198 traffic counts at the intersection, existing trips Pram the Intermountain area disperse at triia int~arsectian as fall,©ws: Veha.c~,e Trips TalFrom East East North/East West vj~ S. ~`rontage Ro~sd I-70 i7nde~a~ss Underpass ?s a:~otal 25~ 3~1~ 30$ Total I00~ Fasssle~; Apartment and Qay Cane Center dsave~.gpmerit tr~.pa, heav~,~,y o~a.ented to Va3.~, Village, $r~: expected to demonstrate a stacarig Qrientativn to the Qast as dv ourrent ~ntermountairi ihatorists. Impacts A level oP service ~c~mputer an~tlysia of 'the four-way >w;t.+~p sign interse~vtian was performed in ~tcCOrdance witxa procedures described in the 198 Highwsy capa~itp l~~ril3tdkx, Tran~sportat~,~n Research Board special Report #20~. BRRCLAY TQIJERS VENTL1E TEL No . ~Q389~6553 Jan C~~ , 90 1 ~ ~ 2t1 ~ . 06 • Mr. Sidney Schultz January ~, 1990 page 5 Level of aervice is an .~ndicatian of duration of delay with level of service (LOS) "A" being the highest l~:vel. It r+~presents little or no motari.yi: dolay. Level of service ''E" s~.gn~.fys long delays and na reserve capacity for that particu~.ar approach to the interseata.an, At ~.evel of service C average traffic delay can be expected arld the approach could handle aric~ther 200 to BOO vehicles in tk~e peak hour before reaching capacity. Upon reaching level of service D the capacity reeer~cre is reduced tca loo tc x.99 vehicles and Tong da~,ays oars be expected. LOS D is commonly used as "design tsapz~city" fox ~xrbanized areas. Table ~. r~ummarizes the L~75 analysis results far t2~e unsi,gx~a~,i2ed ~-way~stop intersection of S. Frc~r,tage Road and Cham~anix Road during a PM peak hour. rt shows the left turns from S. Frontage Road tv operate at a very high LOS.A exnder the x.990 background traffic conditions. Right and ~.~xft turns from Ok~ams~nix Road are LaS A and C, x~e~peotive3,y. The through movements acrv:~a S, Frontage are birth LOS C. TABLE 1 I~.1'~. Weak Maur Level cif se~ricc~ Operation ~t South Frontage Road & Cliamon.ix Road ('hest Vail lnterchan+~e) for 1990 Estimates Traffic volumes Prod ect r~/ Background w/ Faessler Revised Turn i,no I~ci~rgm~~}~ Traffic. rPraj~ ect C~eometrv ! 'L l Left Turn from S. Frontage to Chamonix Rd, A A A Left Turn Ervin S. Frontage tee Streamside A A p, .~ Left Turn from Chamonix Rd. to S . Frontage C 17 p Loft Turn from Streams~.de t4 S. Frontage C O g Right Turn from Chamon~~t Rd. to S. FraArt~~ge A A A Through from Chamonix Rd. to Stxeamside C a p . SQURCE: TDA, Rased on "Highway Capacity Manual'r, 1985, Analysis for stop sign cnntrol3,ed intersection. 1. Revisions include restripinc~, minor widening. ' BRRrLA'~ TOb.IERS R}ENTURE TEL f~la . 30~~89~~~`f5~ 7~,n 05 a ~0 11 ~ ~~ P . 07 C Mr. Sidney Sc„hu! °y.z January 4, ~,~*~0 Fagg ~ With tine ac~tlitic~atx caf tixe l~aes.;;l.~°~' ~'Xt7~K:~~'. vctiiole trips ~:ixe LCS at the S. Front~.,~;~a/Ghaanana,~a in~:erse~ctis~n remains the same c~c~~xt~ the left turzx ~~xsa through movements from Chamc~n~.x Road whicYa c~rc~p from L(7S C to l~. The small. ~.ncrease ~.n eastb~aund. volumes on S. >~ x`oritage Road. r~_c3.uc+~s the am~auz~'~ o~ time ava,i~.~.hle for cQn~Clict~.xxc~ #:~~a.Cf~.cti flows to cross S, Frontage Read. ~Iowaver, lev~z r~~ sarvic~ fca~x' rntex•zzzounta.a.n trips does net change from the exist~.zxg cancT.:i.~_~,i~7n ~~.~ith t1~e add~.t~.an o~ ~'aessler Frvject. The exist .zxg gecaztc~tx•:~ s;rl: the ;~, Frontage/Chamon~,~c ~,rit,ersection has traffic: lances t, ~:a:.i.~a~:d to .~ncluda orzo co~b~.ne~d left, thru, and right turn lane ni; each of the four approaches. Hc-wever, the expansive intex~ect~.nn ct~rrr~ntly opora~Pes as having ~, separat.e right turn lane' an tide north, sQUtla and east approaches . Restripa.nt~ of the in~cersection to include separate i.eft turn lances on t~he~ nc5r`~:.tY a~1d West approaahe~s, r~-thex• than xi.ght turn, would better fac.ilitz~ta traffic flout. Analysis of this revi~~rl geometry shows .:.mpraved LC7S .for the ~;t?:eamside approach legs w~.~:tz t;Yxx_s mir~~r. ,ixupxst~vc~.orit. Conclus~.an Additicana7. vetz9.cflc trips generated by the Facselar Apartment aid Day Care Px:oject will neat have a sxgnif~:cant impact on traffic operations at the West Vail. ~.rite~change, The ex~aected 47 peak hour veh~.cle tr:i.ps generated by the dov~lapmant will further dis~~ersa bcyanci the fear-way stop intersection add ac:exzt to tile. diaz3~ond interchange.. ~f the Day Care Center were to be elxminat:ed frr~m t.iie: g3ropQSa7. the r~mainir~.g ~s apart~mcrx~ unit could be exiasct.~.:~ tea generate about 20 to 30 weak hour trips --~ trio lower va1_z~~ ~Te~xroseritiAg same Sonnet,alp em~aloyees res~.dizxg j.zx the apartment 1?~wing shuttled to and gram work via a Sannena~.p courtesy van. a~at a],l employees would uae the shuttle due, iaY part, to cafl-~t9.~~.,a clay care travel requirements. The ~0 additional tx, i ~~~~ r~ro~~l.d constitute a 1, 3~ i.ncrease in the ntam~x~r of vehiC~.es Eyn~:~~~.°~.~1c~ the i~raur-stay Gharnotz~.x/;~. Frontage Raced intersection dRxring the PM peak hour. Tha.s change waul.d not lee. readily perc~:i.v~;c~. T trust this ad~equate3.y regax'di~xg trie f'~essler you have any c~ln~stivns. Sincerely TDA COLC~t,211~C3 :L~t~ a ~ "' ~ ~t David D. Leahy, ~p. i:. Principal covers the trafff~c related .issues Development project. Please call me ii L tows of VaiIV 42 west meadow drive vail, Colorado 81657 (303)476-2200 * * ~ * ~ x i ~' 'FI O R A P3 D U ~~ 'r '~ ~ * ~ l 1 !r u TO; P•~ike "~Io1_l.ica, Community Devalonment FROM: '~4ichaei I~•IcCee, Fire I~Iarshal ~/ DATE: January ~, 1990 RE; Fes~;ler' a Fmplo~~4e I3ousiz~g nraject fire department 1 have met ~•ra.th Sid Schultz and the came to the folloc~ring understanding and agreements rec~ardinc~ the taroject. These items constitute conditions of approval 17y the Fire Department. 1. The entire project will he plan checked and constructed under the 1 983 Uni form }3uilding and Fire Codes. 2 _ The entire project t~ril.l be equipped wit'rt fire sprinklers. 3. Tl~e entire project will have an approved fire detectian sv stun. ~, Firn truck access ~•rill be in accordance with 1~rticle 10, Section 10.20 of the Fire Code, ~•rhich requires sufficiMnt space to turn a fire truck, around. These tuna grounds t-aill be required to be maintained, marked, signed and secured. Turn arouzad pnints are required ZErhen the access road is in excess of 150 ferst from the publ~.c street. 5. Fire access roads will lie a m~.nimum of 70 feet ~aride and will be required to be maintained free and clear of snocr, parl~;wd vehiclea, etc.. 6. 71c1ec;uate snow re,~toval and sna~~r storage shall ?~e pr.ovided. 7. 71 t,,rater main shall pass through the proj ect in such a manner ~zs to be looped and connected to the neighborhood distribution system at taro points. Fire hydrants are required to be installed a.t designated locations. . r~rrr~o To ~~1x~r r~oLL~cA Vail Fire Dopartment Page ?. ~. The design, use anc~ operation of tree day care center ~~il_i conform to the National r;ire Protection Association Life Safety Code requirements and meet State licensing requirements, GThether licensed or not. 9 . tIo ~aooc~ 17u rning ~i replaces 4Ti11 be installed in any portion of the project. 10. Trash c~umpsters shall lie located a minimum of 5 feet from zany combustible structure as ner the Fire Coda. • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 8, 1990 SUBJ; Request for a conditional use permit for an addition to the Vail Village Parking Structure. Applicant: Town of Vail The Town of Vail is requesting a conditional use permit for the proposed major expansion and renovation of the Vail Village Parking Structure. The parking structure is located in the Public Use District (PUD) under which public parking structures are a conditional use. The PEC has conducted two productive work sessions on the proposal in which plan revisions have been suggested and discussed. Attached to this memorandum are the meeting minutes of our December 18th work session. The PEC's suggested revisions have now been included in the proposal. I. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed village Parking structure addition and remodel project includes the following: - Addition of 420 parking spaces - Doubling the bus parking and loading capacity of the upper - deck. Repair of existing structural problems. - 1000 square foot visitors center. 5000 square foot (approximately) unfinished space for possible use of Colorado Ski Museum. - Completely revised circulation patterns. - Road improvements including right and left turn lanes and 6 foot wide bike lanes. - Site improvements including the following: a. New side walks on north, south and west sides. b. Additional public restroom an west end. c. Three new and improved stairways with landing plazas on the south side. d. Three new small "pocket plazas" for public seating and possibly public art. e. Increased landscaping including evergreens, deciduous trees and ornamental shrubs. f. Brick paver cross walks on East Meadow Drive and Vail Valley Drive. g. Improved pedestrian walkways connecting to Golden Peak (undesigned). h. New entry design II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: • Upon review of Section 18.60, the community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the fallowing factors: Consideration of Factors: A. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town: The Vail Village Master Plan (which the PEC has recently recommended for adoption} provides a clear statement of the Town's development objectives and policies for Vail Village. We will utilize the VVMP to evaluate the proposed structure addition. 1. Compliance With Illustrative Plans --Land Use Plan - The Land Use Plan calls for this site to be public facility/parking, The proposal is in compliance with the Land Use Plan. --Open Space Plan - The Open Space Plan calls for planted buffers on the northwest and south sides of the proposed addition. These planted buffers are part of the proposal. --Parking and Circulation Plan - This plan calls for bicycle/pedestrian ways on the South Frontage Road as well as sidewalks along East Meadow Drive. The plan also calls for sidewalks on both sides of Vail Valley Drive between the parking structure and Golden Peak. The East Meadow Drive sidewalks as well as the South Frontage Road sidewalks and bike lanes are an element of the proposal. The Vail Valley Drive sidewalks are an element within the Town's capital improvement plan and are also being negotiated as a part of other development proposals along Vail Valley Drive. --Conceptual Building Height Plan - This plan would allow for five stories of building {two above the existing structure). The proposal is for one additional story above the existing structure on a portion of the proposed expansion. --Building Height Profile - The proposal complies with the building height profile. U 2. Sub-area Concepts: The transportation center is sub-area #4 as follows: TRANSPORTATION CENTER l#4) n The only existing facility within Transportation Center (TRC). The hub of the Village and the entire future expansion of the parking s' ancillary development potential. over the expansion of the parking this sub-area is the Vail Village TRC serves as the transportation community. There is potential for tructure eastward along with other Foremost among these is development structure. The primary purpose of this sub-area is to provide parking for the entire Village area. The priority of any expansion to this facility should be to maximize the amount of additional public parking available at this site. An important consideration in future expansion of the TRC is the view corridors as depicted in the Building Height Profile. - .' Q-- ~J In ROOF PARKING 4 ~~~ ~-- :1.11 . r f~ ~A~L ~~ i ~ TRA SPORTA OH ~= y` ~- ~; _I-! ~\~ ~g160f~~~ _ ~- '•a i 1 ROOF PA RKlNG TATiON CENTER t'~~`` ..._. do 4-1 _~ ~ - ~ 8190 -` `~ ~ ter!, ry{::,..: MEAOOw ORtVE .... nn J~ r ~ ~t ~!BO APA .TTlE f EAST' ~(,{~}I~JQ pRfVE ~"; . ' .~" M011NTA1R HAUS •'r yAIL AYHLE TIC CLUB ~~~ „~.' #4-1 TRC Expansion (Complete)--This site has long been considered the logical location for future expansions to the Vail Transportation Structure. Any expansion should maximize the number of additional public parking spaces. There is a potential for a one to two story structure over the parking expansion to accommodate some type of public purpose facility, Special emphasis on 3.1, 3.2, 5.1, 5.3, 5.4. • C7 We find that the proposed expansion is consistent with sub- area #4-1. At this time, there is no proposal for a public building over the parking expansion project. 3. Goals, Objectives, and Policies: We find that the proposal furthers Objective 3.1 (improvement of pedestrian ways with landscaping and other improvements) and Objective 3.2 (minimizing vehicular traffic in the Village). The proposal also specifically complies with Policy 3.1.3: "Flowers, trees, water features, and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town and locations adjacent to, ar visible from, public areas'". And Policy 3.1.2: "Public Art shall be encouraged at appropriate locations throughout the Town". Alsa, the policy with Objective 3.4 (to develop additional sidewalks and pedestrian only walkways) is met. • Under Goal #5, the proposal accomplishes Policy 5.1.2: "The expansion of the Vail Village Parking structure shall maximize the number of additional parking spaces available for public parking". Furthermore, the proposal is in compliance with Policy statement 5.2.1: "The Town shall continue to provide an efficient transit system and increase service levels as needed to meet demand". And Policy 5.2.2: "The Town shall facilitate and encourage the operation of private shuttle vans outside of the pedestrianized core area". The plan is also in compliance with 5.3.1: "The Vail Transportation Center shall be the primary pick-up and drap- off paint for public transit and private shuttle vans and taxis". The project complies with Policy 5.4.2 requiring medians and right-of-ways to be landscaped. The proposal, however, does not reinforce Policy 5.4.1: "The Town along with the Colorado Division of Highways shall work toward the implementation of a landscaped boulevard and parkway along the South Frontage Road". While the inclusion of such a landscaped boulevard is not a part of this proposal, it is an element within the scope of the transportation plan now underway. The staff finds that the proposal to expand and renovate the Vail Village Parking Structure is in full compliance with the three major elements of the Vail Village Master Plan. • B. The effect of the use on light and air, da.stra.buta.on of population, transportation facilities, utilitiesi schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The proposed project will obviously vastly improve the Town's transportation and parking facilities. One of the major objectives of the project has been to maximize and redesign the bus and shuttle operations on the top deck (west side). This has been accomplished by almost doubling the capacity of these operations while providing the structural reinforcment to accommodate the additional loads. The 420 additional parking spaces should serve to reduce safety problems associated with Frontage Road parking under capacity conditions. The Visitor's Center proposal also meets an important resort community facility need. The Visitor's Center project was identified two years ago as a high priority to help orient and inform our guests. Two separate task forces/committees found this site to be the best location for the Visitor's Center in Vail. The Visitor's Center should greatly improve Veil's guest services facilities as well as increase length of visitor stays. • There is a provision in the plans for a 5,000 sq.ft. of unfinished space with entries on both the third and fourth levels. While the use of this space remains undetermined at this time, it is likely that the Colorado Ski Museum or the Vail Resort Association/Chamber of Commerce will be located in this space. We find either of these uses acceptable and compatible with both the Visitor's Center and public parking uses. C. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestions automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access{ maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Major road improvements are proposed to the South Frontage Road for the entire length of the parking structure, Road improvements include right and left turn lanes and six foot wide bike lanes. A new pedestrian walkway detached from the Frontage Road is also proposed on the north and south sides of the structure and a portion of the east side. The Frontage Road improvements should significantly improve traffic flow and controlas well as safety and maneuverability of vehicles in and out of this major public facility. Moreover, the new entry/exit should better define this ingress/egress point and significantly reduce confusion on how to get in and out of the public parking facility. Another major improvement will be the relocation of the queuing of vehicles inside the parking structure to allow for the free flow of cars on the South Frontage Road. The project has also been coordinated with CDOH. All of CDOH's concerns have been addressed. • • 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. The project as now proposed has attained the objectives of both maximum function as well as preserving and enhancing aesthetics of the existing structure. The net result of the site improvements proposed should be an improvement upon the character of the area. The Tyrolean Inn and Cornice building are the most impacted by the expansion project. However, the substantial berming and landscaping proposed around the south and east sides of the project should serve to minimize any impacts upon these properties. The scale and bulk of the proposed expansion project is similar to the existing structure with the possible exception of additional visibility of the fifth level ramp. Berming and landscaping have been pushed to the limit to help reduce the visual impact associated with the fifth level ramp. One change in the character of the east Village will be the increased pedestrian use between the expansion and the Ga1d Peak ski base. It is critical that pedestrian safety be provided for with the addition of well-designed and aesthetically pleasing sidewalks along Vail Valley Drive. We recommend that additional sidewalks be constructed concurrently with the expansion project. . The scale and bulk of the proposed Visitor's Center and third level unfinished space appears to be very much in keeping with it's surroundings. These structures as well as the renovation of the transit center will be reviewed by the Design Review Board. E. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. F. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. The staff has waived of the zoning code. significantly change of surface parking o TIZ. FINDINGS the EIR requirement as per Section 18.56.020 We find that the project does not the environment mainly due to the existence n this property for over 20 years. The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based on the following findings: C~ That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes o~ this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. • IV.STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the proposed expansion to the Vail Village Parking Structure. We find that the plan is not only consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan, Illustrative Plan, sub-area concepts and goals, objectives, and policies, but also complies with the conditional use permit factors as found in this memorandum. The proposed project has met the objectives of being a major functional improvement to Vail's parking and transportation facilities, and at the same time reflects a design that is compatible with the aesthetic quality found in and around the existing parking structure. The expansion project should help serve skiers accessing the Golden Peak portal of Vail Mountain. As Vail Mountain expands its lift capacity and skiing acreage in the Golden Peak and eastern mountain areas, the parking structure expansion shall serve to facilitate skiers desiring access to these areas. • r~ ~~ ~• MICBAEE BARBER ~IRCBI~EC~~R~ VAtI_ TRANSPORTATION CENTER PROJECT NUMBER 22289 MEETING MINUTES OWNER/ARCHITECTIPEC WORK SESSION Date of Meeting; ~ 8 December 1989 Date of Essue: 19 December 1989 Location: Vai! Town Council Chamber Attendees: Town of Vail: S. Berryman P. Patten K. Pritz PEC Board; J. Viefe (chairman) C. Crist D. Donovan S. Schultz K. Warren J. Shearer Civitas: T. Johnson MBA: M. Barber C. Adkisson K. Kuiwiec Prepared by: Ken Kulwiec This meeting is a follow-up work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission. ft is to respond to the issues raised at the joint Planning and Environmental CommissionlDesign Review Board meeting of 8 November 1989, in preparation for the PEC hearing set on 8 January 1990 for a condition use permit. The conditional use permit submission is due 2 January 1990 for review by the staff. Attached to these meeting notes in the written agendas set by the Community Development Department. 1. Michael Barber Architecture and Peter Patten presented an overview of design development for Vail Transportation Center expansion and renovation. The drawings discussed represented the scope of work as approved by the Vail Town Council on 20 November 1989. The following are areas that were identified by PEC members as concerns or areas far review. The format of the meeting was metered by the Community Development Department agenda. The following notes will parallel the CDD agenda format. • MI CIiA E L BARBER ARCHiTECTU RE PRO FE551 ONAL CORPORATION 1290 BRpADWAY SUITE 60D DENVER COLORADO 80203-5606 7ELEPHONE 303 637 0555 FAGS?MILE 303 837 4600 • Vail Transportation Center Meeting Minutes 19 December 1989 Page 2 1.1 Main Stairway Plan From Slifer Square to Level four. PEC comments: Replacement of existing stair is a concern but current structural deterioration of the garage caused by the existing landscape area is of greater concern. Hot water snowmelt system in the new stair was addressed but seen as too costly. Ice and salt was noted as a concern to the local vegetation around these stairs. Width of the stairs, tread size and railings distances were expressed as a concern. It was noted by the Board that the stair from Wall Street to Eaton Plaza was an example of planter railing incorporation. The staff expressed a need for visual breaks in the large stair area. Type and size of paving should be discussed at the next presentation. . Direction: Landscape will study the snow removal issue into the planters. Stair tread width will be studied by MBA. Width of stairs may be broken both visually and physically. A planting device will be studied {at the first flight of stairs up from Slifer Square). Planter/stair railing distances were suggested to be 15'-0" between planter and wall, with a hand rail splitting that distance. This was to be studied. 1,2 Level Four Transit Deck PEC Comments: There was concern over the clear height at level three under the transit decks, The diaphragm structural system was explained to the Board and clearance heights were discussed. 1.3 Southeast-Gold Peak Portal PEC Comments: Concern was expressed over the orientation of the exit stair toward the . east meadow drive crosswalk. This orientation was seen as needing to be emphasized stronger. . Vail Transportation Cen#er Meeting Minutes 19 December 1989 Page 3 Direction: Study the relocation of the service core and stairs west with an additional look at how to indicate a crosswalk in the snow. 1.4 Southwest Stair PEC Comment: The inclusion of a crosswalk across the intersection was discussed, but rejected. The natural pedestrian flow was seen as a random fan due to the dispersed points of interest in that area. Et was also discussed that the exits make better use of the new sidewalk. Direction: Study the connection between the edges of its garage exits and the new sidewalk #o make better use of that connection toward Slifer Square. 1.5 Southeast Corner Landscaping and Retaining Walls. PEC Comments: The height of the exposed wail had been a concern. It was presented to have been reduced to about 12 feet of exposed wall with landscape elements in front of it. i.fi North Elevation East of New Entry PEC Comments: The exposure of the level five overpass in the elevation was addressed as a concern. It was noted that the addition weight of higher beaming would increase a lopsided loading challenge already existing in the structure. The idea of heavy landscaping and decorative concrete was expressed as being a solution. Direction: Explore the idea of decorative texturing exposed concrete over 12' high. • • Vaii Transportation Center Meeting Minutes 19 December 1989 Page 4 1.7 New Sidewalks on 1"ast Side of the Frontage Road and Ford Park P1AC Comments: There was discussion on the safety and necessity of the new sidewalk. It was concluded that the only park of the sidewalk that was to stay, was the one fronting the Tyrolean Inn. Direction: Study an increase the presence of the exit on the northeast corner. Signage to indicate exit to Blue Cow Chute. Keep the sidewalk that acts as a connection to the frontage road and the Tyrolean Inn. 1.8 Landscape Median Along i=rontage Road PEC Comments: • The landscape elements were not allowed by the budget, It was agreed that the new landscape along the north elevation of the VTC was a significant visual improvement to the Frontage Road. 1.9 Public Art in the Project. PEC Comments: Public Arts will arrange a meeting with MBA to discuss the implantation and placement of art in VTC in January. Direction: Arrange a meeting with Public Art Commii#ee in January. i.10 Upper Plaza Landscaping Michael Barber discussed further study of plaza area to be shown at January 8 PEC meeting. This would include a redirection of the pedestrian flow in a stronger north to south direction. PEC Comments: PEC would like a bit more input on types on paver and benches. There is concern over the current condition and maintenance of these existing elements. Removable planters seem to pose no problem in terms of . maintenance and winter storage, but a program should be studied and coordinated with maintenance at VTC. Vail Transportation Center Meeting Minutes 19 December ~ 989 Page 5 Direction: Present new scheme far approval at 8 .lanuary 1990 conditional use permit meeting. Study directions in paving and furnishings. Study a hadscape landscaping program on the plaza area. 1.11 Slifer Square Planter west side PEC Comments: Removal of the existing planter, there seems to be an unacceptable solution to the bus Traffic and road deterioration problem in the square. It was presented to MBA that the development of Slifer square may be included in the scope of the project. Direction: MBA will include an addendum to the scope of work to include development of Slifer Square. MBA will study the relationship of the planter and bus widths to determine an acceptable solution to traffic in the square. 2. landscaping PEC Comments: The implementation of the landscape design on the south side of VTC might be weighted against the cost of the sidewalk alternate in the plan. The development of the landscape plan was a li#tle unclear as to what trees were existing and to be saved. 3. Elements PEC Comments: In the plaza and stair area, a need was expressed to integrate all newspapers and vending type machines into the landscape. ft was discussed that the exterior signage and information elements be incorporated into the landscaping. Vail Transportation Center Meeting Minutes 19 December 1989 Page 6 Direction; Study the integration of graphic and mechanical elements into the landscaping and indicate possible location of these elements. 4. Visitor Center Massing PEC Comments: It r~~as expressed that the gable elements become more like a large dormer. The use of wood Shingles an the raaf structure was seen as questionable due to maintenance problems. MSA justified its selection of roof material with a contextual association to the Terminal building. These meeting minutes reflect our understanding of subjects discussed and decisions reached. Please advise us of any corrections ar additions. LJ /sh (~general~meetmin.4} cc: Ali Attendees Vault 22289 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 8, 1990 SUBJECT: Amendment to SDD #14, Daubletree Hotels I. BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSAL The Daubletree Hotel has been purchased by Gerald Katzaff, owner and developer of several spa resaxts throughout the country. Mr. Katzoff desires to construct the renovation and addition to the Doubletree Hotel as previously approved in 1986 and as amended in early 1989. However, the proposal is to revise the interior uses of the property to accommodate an 18,000 square foot spa while reducing the number of accommodation units. The major elements of the proposal are as follows: --Reduction of 30 accommadation units/transient residential units--92 to 62 --Reduction of 9,126 sq.ft.= of GRFA--42,576 to . 33,450 sq. ft. --Addition of approximately 18,000 sq.ft. = of spa and spa related facilities --Reduction of 9 parking spaces--261 to 252 spaces (including 68 spaces within the proposed vVMC parking structure} --Conversion of an existing spa in the southwest corner of the hotel to new accessory retail of 900 sq. ft. --Elimination of 7 surface parking spaces on the north side of the site and converting the area to landscaping --Minor revisions to proposed elevations --A slight easterly shift of the building addition adjacent to Middle Creek to enlarge the creek setback --A relocation of the 5 approved condominiums retaining the same square footage of 6585 sq. ft. of GRFA; previously approved in the proposed north wing, these are new proposed to be located in the south wing on the east side top floor --No revision to the location or square footage (3,350 sq.ft,) of meeting/conference space • Special Development District X14 was created in 198& with an approval to expand the hotel with respect to numbers of accommodation units, condominiums, meeting/conference space and underground parking. The Special Development District was approved for an extension in 1987 and then revised with Ordinance No.7 in 1989 creating the shared parking facility with the Vail Valley Medical Center. Please find attached a draft of revisions to Ordinance No.7 of 1989 which include provisions far the project now proposed by Mr. Katzoff. II. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA Section 18.40.080 of the zoning code sets forth design criteria to be used in evaluating the merits of a proposed Special Development District. Tt is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one ar more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. Only those criteria which are affected by the proposed revisions will be addressed. A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height{ buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. With the exception of minor changes to the elevations, the proposal has no effect upon these elements. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The spa and spa-related facilities are considered to be accessory recreational uses to a lodge as permitted under high density multi-family zone district (the underlying zone district for the SDD). We do not foresee any negative effects of the spa use of the hotel property. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. The following are the new parking calculations: Existing parking spaces 157 New Parking Requirements 62 accommodation units at 400 sq.ft. 50 Meeting space 14 Condominiums @ 2 spaces/unit 10 New accessory retail @ 900 sq.ft. 3 Parking for spa facilities 12 TOTAL 89 Less 5% mixed use credit (as per previous SDD) -4 TOTAL NEW REQUIRED 85 TOTAL REQUIRED FOR ENTIRE PROJECT 252 VVMC structure spaces -68 TOTAL PARKING SPACES REQUIRED ON SITE 184 Thus, there is a loss of only 9 total parking spaces on site with the reduction of 3o accommodation units. The allocation of 12 spaces for the spa comes from the owner's estimation that the spa facility can handle approximately 40 people at a time. A conservative estimation that 25% of the 40 people (10) are non-hotel guests would result in an excess of parking provided for the spa facilities (12 proposed). D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vaii Comprehensive Plan, Tawn policies and Urban Design Plans. The revisions proposed retain the project's compliance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/ar geologic hazards that affect the property on which this Special Development District is proposed. There are no geologic hazards that affect this site. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The only revision to the site plan is to eliminate 7 surface parking spaces and to replace the asphalt with landscaping. At previous discussions of this project it was requested by the Planning Commission that the applicant attempt to accomplish this revision. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. The circulation system remains unchanged from the previous approval. An additional level of parking is proposed due to a change of use from previously approved parking spaces to spa facilities. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features. recreation, views and function. Again, there will be a net increase in landscape area as a result of the proposal. I. Phasing or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional. and efficient relationship throughout the development of the Special Development District. No phasing plan has been proposed far the addition. L` ZZI. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Please find the proposed development standards in the proposed revisions to Ordinance No.7 Series of 1989. With the exception of the parking revisions there are no changes to the previously approved development standards. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval to the proposed amendments to Special Development District #14 - Doubletree Hertel. We feel that overall, the proposed development should improve the architectural and landscaping quality of the hotel property as well as provide the community with a high quality destination resort facility. The proposal actually changes very little from what has been previously approved. Conditions of approval shall be consistent with the previous conditions adopted as part of Ordinance No.7 Series of 1989 as attached. • PROPOSED REVTSIONS T0: ORDINANCE N0. 7 Series of 1989 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING ORDINANCE 5 SERIES OF 1986, A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT {KNOWN AS SDD NO. 14) AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes special development districts within the Town; and WHEREAS, SDD No. 14 for development of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing was originally approved by Ordinance 5 of 198G; and WHEREAS, The applicants wish to make extensive amendments to SDD 14; and WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD 14 will ensure unified and coordinated development within the Town of Vail in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed SDD; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants and visitors to establish said Special Development District No. 14; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: SECTION 1. REPEAL AND RE-ENACTMENT. ORDINANCE 7, SERIES OF 1989 is hereby repealed and re-enacted with amendments to read as set forth below. Section 2. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planning Commis- sign Report. SectiaB 3. Special Development District 14. Special Development District 14 (SDD 14) and the development plan therefore, are hereby approved for the development of Lat 2, Block 1, Vaal Lionshead Second Filing, within the Town of Vail, consisting of 2.6298 acres of 114,554 square feet, more or less. Section 4. Purpose. Special Development District 14 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail and to promote the upgrading and redevelopment of a key property in the Town. The development is regarded as complimentary to the Town by the Town Council and meets all design standards as set forth in Section 18.40 of the Municipal Cade. There are significant aspects of Special Development District 14 which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the standards in the High Density Multiple Family zone district. SDD 14 is compatible with the upgrading and redevelopment of the community while maintaining its unique character. Section 5. Definitions. A. "Transient residential dwelling unit or restricted dwelling unit" shall be defined as a dwelling unit located in a multi-family dwelling that is managed as a short term rental in which all such units are operated under a single management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities. A short term rental shall be . deemed to be a rental for a period of time not to exceed 31 days. Each unit shall not exceed 645 square feet of GRFA which shall include a kitchen having a maximum of 35 square feet. The kitchen shall be designed so that it may be locked and separated from the rest of the unit in a closet. '' ~ residential dwelling unit. Should such units be developed as condominiums, they shall be restricted as set forth in section 17.26.075 A-G governing condominium conversion. The unit shad not be used as a permanent residence. Fractional fee ownership shall not be allowed to be applied to transient dwelling units. For the purposes of determining allowable density per acre, transient residential dwelling units shall be counted as one half of a dwelling unit. The transient residential dwelling unit parking requirement shall be 0.4 space per unit plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of GRFA with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit. SECTION 6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN. A. The development plan far SDD 14 is approved and shall constitute the plan for development within the special development district. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Pellecchia Olson Architects as dated as follows: 1. Site and landscape plans by Pellecchia Olson Architects dated 2. Floor plans and parking plans by Pellecchia Olson Architects dated December 7, 1989. 3. Elevations and sections by Pellecchia Olson Architects dated . 4. The Environmental Impact Report dated January, 1985 as . prepared by Berridge and Associates, Inc. B. The Development Plan shall adhere to the following: Setbacks Setbacks shall be noted as on the site plan listed Coverage Site coverage shall be as indicated on the site plan listed above. Landscaping The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on the preliminary landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for their approval. PARKING AND LOADING Parking and loading shall be provided as indicated on the site plan and floor plans as listed above. In no case shall the parking provided an site be less than 184 spaces, and there shall be no less than 68 spaces available to the . Doubletree, its designated employees and guests in the Vail Valley Medical Center parking structure. These 68 spaces shall be available to the Doubletree from the hours of 5:30 pm to 6:00 am. SECTION 7. DENSITY. Existing development on the site consists of 128 accommodation units and 19 dwelling units consisting of 73,577 square feet of gross residential floor area. The approval of this development plan shall permit an additional 62 accommodation units or transient residential units and 5 dwelling units, consisting of 33,450 square feet of gross residential floor area. The total density permitted with the approval of this development plan consists of 190 accommodation units (62 of which may be transient residential units) and 24 dwelling units with a total of 107,027 square feet of gross residential floor area. ALSO, a SPA FACILITY OF APPROXIMATELY 18,000 SQUARE FEET SHALL BE ALLOWED. SECTION 8. USES. 'i~ ~ section 10. Conditions of Approvals for Special Development District 14. A. The development contained within SDD 14 shall not be converted to an form of time share ownership. The Y applicant agrees to limit the use of any new dwelling units approved with this development plan to those restrictions outlined in Section 17.26.075.A, Condominium Conversion, of the Vail Municipal Cade. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the restrictions set forth in Section 17.26.075 of the Municipal Cade of the Town of Vail shall not apply to the dwelling units during any period during which they are owned by any individual who is also an owner of the Doubletree Hotel. . B. The 62 additional accommodation units permitted with the approval of SDD 14 shall be developed as lodge rooms under a single ownership. Any proposal to condominiumize the accommodation units would require approval in acordance with the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Vail. C. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the building department all required approvals from the State Highway Department for changes to access off the South Frontage Road. Prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for residential units constructed on site after the effective date of this ordinance all improvements required by the State Highway Department access permit shall be completed. D. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any improvement in SDD 14 the owner, or owners of SDD 14 shall provide to the mown of Vail a copy of an agreement between the Vail Valley Medical Center and Vail Holdings, Ltd. allowing the Doubletree a minimum of 68 parking spaces in the Vail Valley Medical Center structure from the hours of 5:30 pm to 6:0o am. This parking agreement must be in a form that may not be amended ar terminated without the approval of the Town of Vail. Section 11. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause ar 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 ar more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 12. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 13. The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under ar by virtue of the provision repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed ar superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS DAY OF , 1989 at pm in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building in Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this ATTEST Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk day of 1989. Kent R. Rose, Mayor INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED THIS DAY OF 1989. ATTEST Pamela A. arandmeyer, Town Clerk Kent R. Rose, Mayor r1 r PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 1990 1:00 p.m. PEC Orientation -- New Members 1:30 p.ia. Site Visits 3:00 p.m, Public Hearing SITE VISITS 1. Approval of minutes of January 8, 1990. ~~3 2. A request far an exterior alteration in Commercial Core Ix in order to enclose two decks on the Village Center Building on Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing at 122 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Fred Hibberd a #2 3. A request to amend the Arterial Business Zone. District to allow private unstructured off- street vehicle parking as a conditional use. Applicant: Vail Associates ~~~ 4. A Work Session for a minor subdivision and zone change for Lots ~ & 5, Block 2, Bighorn First Addition. Applicant: Sable/Lupine Partners, Ltd. #1 5. A Work Session for an amendment to Special Development District 4, Cascade Village to amend Area D, Glen Lyon Office Building at 1.000 South Frontage Road West, Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Bldg. - A Colorado Partnership 6. A Work Session on Air Quality • • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 22, 1990 Minutes Present Jim Viele Diana Donovan Chuck Crist Kathy Warren Jim Shearer Connie Knight Dalton Williams Staff Peter Patten Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Shelly Mello Anne Jansen ~, r:, ~t,- _ F ~., //~ ~..6 The Planning and Environmental Commission meeting began at approximately 3:10 p.m. following Site Visits which started at 1:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Jim Viele, chairperson. First on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of January 8, 199fl. Item No. 1: Aooroval of minutes far January 8, 1990 meeting. Motion for annroval of minutes was made by Diana Donovan and, seconded by Kathy Warrens VOTE: 7 ~- 0 in favor. Item No. 2: A rea_uest for an exterior alteration in C.~~~.~«ercial, Core II in order to enclose two decks on the, Village Center Building on Block 5E. Vail Village First Filing at 122 East Meadow Drive., Annlicant: Fred Hibberd This proposal was discussed during the site visits by Shelly Mello. The motion for consent approval was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. Diana Donovan asked that the wording of the request be changed from "twa decks" to "a portion of the South facing entry" in order to clarify that the enclosure was not of just a deck. Also, Ann Loutham, the president of the condominium association, asked that something in writing be submitted from the owner of the condo being affected directly by this proposal and that approval be conditional upon receipt of a letter from that owner. This request was agreed to by the commissioners. VOTE: 7 - 0 in favor. Item No. 3: A request to amend the Arterial Business Zone, District to allow vrivate unstructured off-street • vehicle parkina as a conditional use. Anblicant: Vail Associates This proposal was presented by Peter Patten. He reviewed the proposal and reitereated on the fact that this was not a specific site request today but only an amendment to change the current coning to accommodate future parking sites. Joe Macy was present from Vail Associates to explain the need for the amendment just as Peter had stated. He repeated that it was only for conditional use and not to begin any building of parking lots. Comments were then opened to the PEC members with Diana stating that this conditional use needs to be accommodated for future use and it should not be overlooked. Kathy Warren asked for the addition of the ward "screened" since the zoning code requires it and Peter answered that this would be done. Jim Shearer motioned for recommendation of approval to allow for, private off-street "screened" surface parkins as a conditional, use. Dalton Williams seconded the motion.. VOTE: 7 - 0 in favor., Item No. 4: A Work Session far a minor subdivision and zone, chance for Lots 4 & 5, Block 2, Biahorn First Addition. Aonlicant: Sable/Lupine Partners, Ltd., This proposal was presented by Mike Mollica to the PEC members. Mike gave an overview of the memo going over the staff memorandum and the Zoning Comparisons chart. There was one change made to this chart on #4, under the PROPOSAL column. A change from 12,000 sf GRFA to 12,895 sf GRFA. Mike than covered the issues of the proposal which he felt needed to be discussed today with the PEC. At this time, Mike Perkin, the architect representing the applicant, responded by pointing out the option of changing Lot 2 in a way that would eliminate the construction of a hazard mitigation berm and presented a drawing to show what the revised lot would look like. It made an unusual shaped lot but would fulfill the 12,500 sf buildable area requirement. He also stated that by direct mitigation, there would have to be a lot of heavy concrete laid to strengthen the structures. He continued to say that if the safety factor is the issue, then the ability to blend the housing in as single family would be safer than two family in respect to avalanche and other hazards which are currently present on this site. The discussion was then directed towards the issue of driveways • and the number which would be allowed for the homes. It was mentioned that access may present a problem - more cuts, more vehicles, more accident possibilities which brings the safety issue back in to the picture. Staff has suggested two driveway cuts instead of four. Questions concerning the berm were then addressed by Jim Viele. He stated that there is a constant danger of snow slides each year in this area and wished to know how the overall proposal would fit into this. Connie Knight asked about the "creek" and Mike Perkin responded that it was not a creek, but a spring run. He also showed how this spring could be diverted down the property lines on the far side of the lots. Diana Donovan then gave her comments stated that the hazards are very sev~ three lots be created (subdivide the would make for safer lots. She felt is unacceptable and that many of the would have to be sacrificed. to this proposal. She ire and suggested that only eastern lot only} which that the building of a berm 40 - 50 foot aspen trees Kathy Warren stated that she would like to see employee housing implemented in these lots. She agrees with Diana concerning the berming and added that it would create an eyesore from the interstate. She did say, in regard to the safety of the proposal, that employee housing would not be a good idea if the hazards present could not be eliminated. She also said that she would rather see two driveways and if this berm is proposed, then she wants it staked on the site as to the exact height and width of the berm. Chuck Crist said that he was opposed to the berm and would like to see the west lot subdivided for possible employee housing and leave the east lot as is. Dalton Williams said that he personally would like to have his own driveway and asked if three single family lots would eliminate all of the issues being raised (ie. berms, geologic hazards, driveways, etc.). Diana stated that she was against employee housing and that the fewer the cuts for driveways the better. Jim Viele agreed with this. Connie Knight expressed that she felt the proposal was geared to profitability on the applicant's part with not enough emphasis or regard to geologic hazards, division of lots, traffic generation, overall safety, etc... Jim Shearer made the suggestion of retaining walls and inquired if they could save on mitigation costs. Mike Perkin responded that it would be more expensive than the building of the berm but would do less damage to the forest. He said that he could investigate the building of retaining walls for the planning commission's information. Finally, a question was raised by Ed zhmeier in the audience asking if mitigation or berming would be a part of the proposal if this project were submitted tomorrow for a building permit, and Kristan responded that the mitigation/berming would be part of the landscape plan submitted directly to the DRB, Item No. 5: A Work Session for an amendment to Special, Development District #4, Cascade Village to amend. Area D. Glen Lvon Office Buildinct at 1000 South, Frontage Road West. Lot 54~ Glen Lvon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lvon Office Building - A Colorado Partnership Ludwig Kurz removed himself from the board due to a conflict of interest. This proposal was presented by Kristan Pritz. Kristan made it clear to the PEC that no bottling would be taking place at the brewery. She emphasized the change in the parking lot located to the east of the brewery which will allow additional spaces. She said that parking seems to be the biggest issue facing the commission at this point. • Andy Norris, developer for the project, discussed the square footage chart attached to the memo. He proceeded to go aver the conceptual schedule for completion of the project. Andy noted that an emergency exit had been proposed for the south side of the building and stated that it was the only place available under the Town building codes. He also described the loading that was designed for pick-ups, delivery vehicles, etc. and said that it would not interfere in any way with the buses or general vehicular traffic. The loading access was designed specifically for vendor traffic. He also informed the c~~~~.«ission that a trash compactor will be installed to cut down on the frequency of trash pick-up for the brewery. Andy went into how the parking would work. He said that the Brew Hall would be operated like a banquet type facility with one seating. He stated that the Brew Pub will be a local type establishment with a maximum seating capacity of 80 people and will not affect the parking very much at all considering the times that locals will be coming to the pub. He ended his speech by giving facts related to this new project: --The brewery would be approximately 900 feet from both the Marriott and the Westin Hotels. --He is looking into getting the bike path lighted for use by the brewery in both summer and winter: Winter: sleigh rides to and from the brewery (up to 80 people per evening could be transported this way). Item No. &: A Work Session on Air Quality. Susan Scanlan presented the memo to the commission. It is dated December 11th because it had been tabled to later meeting dates. Susan discussed with the commission that the biggest contributors to the Air Quality problem were woodburning fireplaces and road sanding, both occurring mostly in the winter season. It was suggested that the writing of Ordinances be done to correct the problem of enforcement on woodburning versus gas log fireplaces. Jim Viele suggested that before Ordinances were written, more testing was needed to pinpoint more accurately the percentage contribution of woodburning and road sanding to the overall air quality picture. This could possibly be accomplished through the chemical mass balancing technique of analyzing filter samples. The costs of this process need to be further investigated as well as the degree of accuracy and the significance of the results. Other alternatives suggested involved an extensive sweeping/vacuuming program for the Town of Vail and Colorado Department of Highway roads. The parameters of this type of program need to be discussed with CDOH and Stan Berryman. Overall, the PEC members felt that more information was needed before any further recommendations could be made by the commission on changes to existing regulations or new regulations. It was recommended that this issue be investigated further before PEC could give policy recommendation to the Town Council. It was decided that Susan would prepare a report for the PEC outlining rec~.~~«<endations for air quality concerning resuspended particulates and also information on additional air testing (CMB) with specific cast figures. The report will also document what other communities are doing for air quality. Steve Arnold from the health department may also be invited to discuss the question of whether or not the Town has adequate information to implement air quality improvement measures. The meeting was adjourned at 6:Q0 p.m. YAWN!!! T0: planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 22, 1990 SUBJECT: A request f~ II in order Building on East Meadow Applicant: I. THE PROPOSAL ~r an exterior alteration in Commercial Core to enclose two decks on the Village Center Block 5E, Vai1 Village First Filing at 122 Drive. Fred Hibberd The applicant is requesting an exterior alteration in order to build an addition of approximately 385 sq.ft. to the rear (south side) of Village Center an East Meadow Drive. The alteration will involve the enlargement of Charlie's T- Shirt Shop by 107 sq.ft. and the Bag and Pack Shop by 78 sq.ft. (Please see enclosed site plan and elevations). IT. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The fallowing summarizes the zoning statistics far this exterior alteration request: • 1. Zone District: Commercial Core II 2. Lot Area: 37,369.5 sq.ft. 3. Site Coverage: na change ~. Parking: The proposed 385 sq.ft. of additional floor area will require 0.61 parking spaces. The applicant has agreed to contribute to the Town Parking Fund to meet this requirement. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE II 18.26.010 Purpose: The Commercial Core II district is intended to provide sites far a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial 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 building and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate sate development standards. This proposal as in compliance with the purpose section of the Commercial Core II Zone District. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LION5HEAD DR VAIL VILLAGE. There are no sub--area concepts which relate directly to this area of the Village. V. COMPLIANCE WITH THF_ ITRR_AN DESIG_N_ CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIDNSHEAD _ While the existing area, the property requiring it to be Design guidelines, conflicts with the considerations tha• building is located in the Vail Village is zoned Commercial Core II, thus reviewed according to the Lionshead Urban However, the proposal does not pose any Vail Village Design or Lionshead Design are examined below: A. Height and Massing: This is a single story addition to'a two-story building. The proposed addition dill have a positive impact on the scale of the entry and will bring it to a more pedestrian level. ~ B. Roofs: The new roof will be consistent with the existing roof slope and materials. C. Facades - Walls/Structures: The walls will be of the same material as the existing structure which are stucco and wood. D. Facades - Transparency: The existing windows will be relocated in the new south wall of Charlie~s T-Shirt Shop. Since this is a secondary entrance and does not face a heavy pedestrian area, the degree of transparency is acceptable. w~ E. Decks and Patios: The current deck to be partially enclosed is currently used as a secondary entrance and the enclosure will have no significant impact. F. Accent Elements: Nat applicable. G. Landscape Elements: Not applicable. H. Service and Delivery: This addition will not have any significant impact on the existing level of loading and delivery. Vl. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends approval of this request for an exterior alteration. We feel that the proposal complies with all the applicable Design Considerations of the Lionshead and Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plans. The staff recommendation for approval includes the condition that the applicant contribute to the Town of Vail parking fund before a building permit is released for the prod ect . • ' i ,~~ ~e fl i~ .I r~i~ g tf.i `` VL ~~[,~~` ~~')V(~ ';~~i1 ~3 ~Y11 ql~Y jl 1 ,Nn VV v' r, ~ 'S ~~ V1 Yt 1 ~ .~ V~uS ' '4P V ~k i1 ~Y. L 1 ~, F '~ ' ~ ~I. i ,.. s. • ~~ r ~' ~t _~~,f~t ~~ ` ..~ O } ~I~° ~a -\ .__, ._ _ - f~_ _ . . z~ ~~~ , ;'.~~ ,; ~~ , ~N 1 ' ~z ~ 3 3 ~ '~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~---, ~ ~, r "~ ~ _~~--::w~ ~, .~~ ~~~ 6 '~~~ J~~ 'I ~~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~~4~ ~ ~~~ ~_ ~~ . ~. :~_` ~. r -~ V 1~~- ~ - ~ ...._.~.. ~ ll ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ `~ " t- !~ .., . r'= 1 ,~ - . , + ~~ ` -y~~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~~~ ~di ~ O Q ~Yv ~( ?l•-2 ~~~ ~~~ _> -' V Q _~ ~. ~~ .~ x ~ :~ ~, T ~) -~ e, yl i. 1~ • • ~~~ ~q ~~~~ ~~~~ ~. ~-- ~, ~~ ~~ ~r =-~ ~ ~ -=• .,F_-..--.--- :: ~- ~ _. ~_~_~. I a a r L.~ • i ~ TO: Planning and Environment Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 22, 1990 SUBJECT: A request to amend Arterial Business Zone District to allow private off-street surface parking as a conditional use. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. I. BACKGROUND OF THE REQUEST Vail Associates is requesting an amendment to the Arterial Business District {ABD) to allow far private off-street surface parking as a conditional use. The reason for this request is to ultimately allow the continuation of parking on the Holy Cross Electric site located to the west of Vail Associates maintenance yard. Currently, VA has leased the property to provide parking for employees who occupy the Sunbird Lodge employee housing project and the Timber Ridge units under lease by Vail Associates (approx. 48 units). It would be VA's intention to pursue a conditional use permit to allow the parking on that site if the zoning code amendment is approved. II. EVALUATION OF ZONE CHANGE REQUEST 1. Compliance with the purpose of the Arterial Business District The purpose section of the Arterial Business District is as follows: The ABD 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. Multiple-family dwellings for use as employee housing will be appropriate under specific circumstances. ABD is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to permitted and conditional types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient (limited) shopping, business, service, and residential environment. The proposed amendment does not conflict with the Purpose section of the Arterial Business District. • r' .+ 2. Sua.tability of Existing Zoning. . The ABD contains a wide variety of permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. These uses range from office to service stations to light industry to retail. Parking is, of course, an accessory use found on each site within the ABD. Because surface parking lots are prevalent in the ABD and because the conditional use process should assure the necessary site specific controls to ensure compatibility of the specific parking lot proposal, we find that the amendment is within the intent and purpose of the ABD. 3. Ts the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationship within Land Uses consistent with municipal ob~j ectives . It is a struggle in Vail to provide adequate parking for all users. Sites which can accommodate surface parking lots without compromising residential areas and that can maintain safe ingress/egress are valuable and support the Town's general development objectives. The ABD is located in an area that is conducive to convenient and functional parking lots. It lies within walking distance of both Lionshead and Cascade Village and has excellent access off of South Frontage Road. We find that with the more specific review through the conditional use permit process, that surface parking lots for private parking may be appropriate in the ABD. 4. Does the amendment provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community. Again, we believe with adequate and specific review of a conditional use request that this use may provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Surface parking lots not associated with a specific use are generally sites that are eventually developed. This amendment may allow for a temporary and beneficial use of property in the ABD without compromising its long term availability for the development within the scope of the ABD. TIT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the proposed amendment to add private off-street surface parking as a conditional use within the ABD. Far the reasons stated in this memorandum we find that the use should be a conditional use and each proposal would be subject to the scrutiny of the conditional use permit criteria. C] • To: Planning & Environmental Commission From: Community Development Department Date.: January 22, 1990 The applicant has scheduled this work session to discuss a passible rezoning and subdivision of the above named lots, more specifically located at 3916 and 3956 Lupine Drive in East Vail. The requests include the fallowing: • Surrounding zoning includes Two Family Residential to the east and north, Single Family Residential to the northeast, and Agricultural & Open Space zoning to the west. Lands south of these lots are included in the White River National Forest and are not within the Town's municipal limits. Subject: A WORK SESSION to consider a request for a zone change and a minor subdivision far Lots 4 & 5, Block 2, Bighorn 1st Addition. Applicant: Sable/Lupine Partners, Ltd. I. Description of the Proposals 1) A zone change from the existing Two Family Residential zone district (duplex) to the Single Family Residential zone district. 2} A minor subdivision which, if approved, would create four single family lots. Both lots are currently vacant, however, Lat 5 does have the remains of a partially constructed foundation. The applicants also propose to relocate an existing intermittent creek that flows through Lots ~ & 5. In October of 1983, the PEC approved a rezoning and minor subdivision for a duplex lot located at 3967 Lupine Drive. Two single family lots were created (3957 and 3977 Lupine Dr.) from the one duplex lat. The approval required that only one driveway cut be allowed for the two lots. This condition was later removed by the PEC in September of 1987. • II. Zoning Analvsis A. Lot Area (Lots 4 & 5 combined) Gross Area: Areas of 40o slope or greater, and red hazard avalanche: Net buildable area: 115,918 square feet -57,467 square feet 58,451 square feet B. Existing Zoning The current Two Family Residential zoning on Lots 4 & 5 will allow far the construction of one duplex structure on each lot. Current allowable GRFA and site coverage is as follows: Lot 4 GRFA = 6,191 square feet Lot 5 GRFA = 7.104 square feet Total = 13,295 square feet Lot 4 site coverage = 9,766 square feet Lot 5 site coverage = 13.417 square feet Total = 23,183 square feet III. Criteria To Be Hsed in Evaluatina This Prouosal The three criteria to be used in the evaluation of a zone change request are as follows: 1) Suitability of existing zoning. 2) Is the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationship within land uses consistent with Municipal objectives? 3) Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community? • Iv. Issues 1) Geologic Hazards - There are currently large areas of snow and debris-flow, red hazard and blue hazard avalanche zones within the boundaries of the two lots. There are also rockfall hazard zones and large areas of 40% slope on the lots. The applicant is proposing to mitigate these hazards by either the construction of large berms {12' in height} uphill (south) of the proposed residences or through direct mitigation (structural strengthening of the buildings}. However, it is proposed that Lot 2 utilize berming in order to meet the minimum lot size requirement for subdivision. If berming is unacceptable far Lot 2, perhaps a variance from the minimum lot size would be Considered. The proposed berms will be staked on-site for the PEC site visit. Should the method of mitigation be stipulated on the plat {berming vs direct protection within the structure)? Tf berming is acceptable, is the proposed revegetation of the berms adequate? 2) GRFA and Site Coverage - The applicant is proposing to restrict the total GRFA to 12,000 square feet. This amount of GRFA is 1,295 square feet under the Twa Family zoning allowable GRFA and 7,090 square feet under the Single Family zoning allowable GRFA. Is the proposed restriction on the maximum allowable GRFA acceptable? Site Coverage under either Two Family or Single Family zoning is 200. The applicant proposes 10.40. Should site coverage be further restricted? 3) Zonina - Would the proposed rezoning be compatible with the neighborhood, (i.e faur single family homes vs two duplex structures)? 4) Access - Should the number of driveway cuts be restricted? 5) Setbacks - Are the proposed, staggered front setbacks acceptable to the PEC? 6) Emplovee Housing - In light of Vai1's current employee housing shortage does the PEC feel it appropriate to encourage an employee unit in each of the proposed single family homes? In order to obtain the employee units the property would have to remain zoned Two Family Residential and a variance from the minumum lot size, for Lots ~, 2, and 3 would be needed. should the GRFA be limited to what is proposed (12,000 square feet) or should the GRFA cap remain the same as the existing Two Family zoning (13,295 square feet) to allow far the employee housing? • V. ZONING COMPARISONS I• TWO FAMILY' 1. Permitted Single Family Uses: and Two Family Dwellings 2. Setbacks: Front: 20' Sides: 15' Rear: 15' 3. Height: 30'/33' 4. Density: Allowable D.U.'s: 4 GRFA: 13,295 sf 5. Site 20% ~ 23,183 sf Coverage: 6. Buildable 15,000 sf Area: 7. Total Lot Lat 1 = 48,830 sf Size: Lot 2 = 67,088 sf SINGLE FAMILY PROPOSAL Single Family Single Family Dwellings Dwellings Front: 20' Front: 20-50' Staggered Sides: 15' Sides: 15' Rear: 15' Rear: 15' 30'/33' 30'/33' Allowable Proposed D.U.'s: 4 L.~. ~. GRFA : 19 , 0 9 0 s f GRFA : 12 ,~~4~ s f 20% = 23,183 sf 10.40 =~~.2,000 sf 12,500 Sf Lat 1 = 1.2,648 sf Lr~t 2 = 12,580 sf Lot 3 = 14,310 sf Lot 4 = 22,497 sf Lot 1 = 34,458 sf Lot 2 = 25,041 sf Ldt 3 = 21,838 sf Lot 4 = 34,981 sf i• ' `': .~, 4 gas ` . ~ v-`~ ~ ~~• W' ~Ir 1 ~ r,* ' ~ , '~ . r"'G ~3 ~ ~l' /~' . L~ ~ ~` r f r' ~.Z JJ' j ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~'\. ~ ~' i ~ Y~, 7 6 ~~ t* sa D ~ ~ ~ ` ? C ? ~ ~ '~ , , 1 4 -la4o~ ~ si _ ~N 0 r'a~~ ~~ 0 =d `l`~~ A ~~~~~ Cpl LL '~`P j ~yw ~~ %l r1 ~~Zrs~ ~~_,~ ~ ~1' ~ / NQ '~„~1 ~• '~ , 1~ £F ~ ACT '.`~. 111 ~~~' ~ _ ~ ~ ~ '~'~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ^.~..c t> cJ> `~ a.l ~ ~ ` - ~ to qL ~.,~~ W7~ '~ ui -;fly .~~ ~ ~~r mr „ ~ + ~. Y ~ z ' u~ ~ x : ~z °~ ~ ~o ~~ ~a f .~ -~'~ ~ ~~ }~``~ °sz qua ~ i o m~ = ~ ~ 1 z~ m~ as as o ~'~ ~ ~`,. -g.~. ~r.~ .- y , ~ _ r ~" p ~ 9 ~.~_~ ' w ,~^r ~ ~1 a ~ ° - ~ ~ r---~ a ~~~. 0 i ,~,y~ N ~ Z C~ ~ ~ Q s~ r ~J • • z Q V z N W ~_ "• r N w N Na_~ goo e x ~ ~ a ~~} y,~ ~ W ~ r~a r ~~~~r~o~w,~~ x~ O 'q n X y 9 Q ..~~ ~..Qgg~ ~ -~ V V R h~ ~ ~ P N ~~x~a4~°~~~ \~ ~~~~ //~ "~ ;"~ i .: ~. ~~~" ~ j -:~ /; i ~- p ~ ~ ~ w~ ~ _ ~ ~ {1l ~ 7 ~ ~ 4 ~~~ ~ ~ ~." Q z' `` nn V' N y- ~Z d ^ ~zA 4 ~z~ G,! wNo ~c v~~¢-~ ~ Boa ~~lv1l ~~'~ ~NG ~ Win X d aL 0.. Ga1~ ao _ 4 `~ 3 ~~ , ~ %~- ,.: . --, :~....-~.~i%~. .~-: ~ i %/ •z~ a-V - ~~ r~ "xM ~ ~ ~ r yyQ~ r -. . ~~ x ~ -,-~ . r. ~ ate a~ g~ a~ ~~~%=~%:" ji%. ~,-~~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~i /i- . ~-= i- " :~ :/ l ._ _ ; . r~/~ .. i ' ~C,..?-_ ~ ~ - ~~ n~ Y z 1 {~- ~ F. ~ U $a ~ ~~ ' ~ ri N ' ~:~ g ~ a zf~ " ~ ~r}u¢lur ~ ~ ~ ~ M u, m p V ~~pFra p 6 w i' a m 7 p ~' P~ !' N N ~ M U~ 4 N,~a~ x~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fl 7 0 ~~~~¢~~n~r ~ ~ fu ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ a ^ ~~F Na~o ~' N µ EL 4F4 Iii ~ ~ ~ W ~ 5FL ~ ~ ~ U~ y < 4 W 1~ V ~ N ~ ~ r a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 L*`i/y e [~'r~m~ Zrow~'^ ~'^~' 0 vm ~d ~~n~'~a LU QN 1NU~=~`~a x o< .. ~ x~ i w 0 Z M m~ _~~~ w M~ Ql s ~z9r ~~ N "ate.. N <s~ NN~a~, ~m~~w~~ v ~tv' ~u.zao~~,r 1L' Mw ~~ i~, w`sa d !~. ~~~u U' n w~ ~ 2 P~ a ~L~iW~~x vQaac~}4-Ha1~a1 ~,<~-4aa ~i0{s~a~~ ~ a4~ W ~` 4f1 I~il ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ j ul pt ui D ~>? ~ .] "' p j y. 1114~ ~ g ~' M ll!<!~k V ~ ~ lR a 3 0 X 3~ fis'a ~ .4 W N ~ p" w ~ U 2i ~ ~ r g W ~ -~. `w°` ~2 Q ~~ r" a ~ ~9 d ~Ya 4- cvv_ < " 1!1 d'a ~u,F t•r ~~ lU k P ~su~ -y Hai m -{!-tprow -~ YNmm ~ ~ Q ~~ S ~'~ % 1~ w Y ~~ ~ /~ - ~ z '~ ~~ / //% s ~P a J z ~rL I / Zt ~~ ~'.... j ~. N~ x O < N. - y `. ~tG i t7 W xT ~ -~2 * - pp .. ~~ ~, .~ ~I ~ m to / ~_ ~ ~ / -;'~`'. : ~ i% / .- -1 T . r ., ivy '~/ /.'/ 'y _.__ ,_.... ..~ .. w 'r_ .. r y r , ,rte- ~>z. ~ J f.. • __ T~. ~~~ n Ip~R1~~ h;, ~f vi~ D ~~Y~ ~~"F V 4 S W s ~~~q ~ nx4+ Y ~ ~ by ~ --t --~ u ~~ at'i... i• ' "`l-'~ "'" - ~ N 11 ~- o Ip O ti' y I gqw `~/r ~_ oy ~ `n - -r~ ~~ + _r+j- j(+ T -e+ ~sN ~ n: no ~ , Al ! 1 1' f M1n 1((//ff l //tt ~j ~ ' ' ~ ! 7 ~~ ~ .r ~ f,~~ (, ~ ~ 11,~ -~ ~ ~,. .~b ~ _ / ~ ~ Yl~ l f' ~ I ~,d ~ / ~t l ~ f .w ~ ~ ~ ~_~~ ` ~ _ i, + ~ ~ eta air ~l ~ `'~~ti~t:,-..~ / f ~ ~ ~` ,~'~ ~ I '° ~ _ ~_ If,1 ~ a' i 9/ ~ 111 . ~ .~ i / ~ °e r ~. ~ ~ [ ,~ { Y-" ' ``,, f ~ ~~~~, 1. ~ j.: ,'~ e a z "~ .!!~ / I ' ~ '*~ 7 as ~ ~ ~~"7 ~ r o .. q ~ 1 i Z (,-~' r ~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ,- ~' 1 ~~ 1'~ l ~ 1 i ~ r" _ ~_s '', 1'. s ` _ J JI 1 d ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ 1 , -1 ~ + 1 `Y i N I (\\ ,~461Ykr lS n3sy°~? ~ ~ ~ q ~ t y~, Fs~~~.. /, r ~..~ f~ 1 r ... ~ ~. ~ ' . ~ j f. 1,1 iq ~ _, ,~ '~ ~ "1. ~ ej ~ --..' rti~ G1~ J c _- ~ ail Fb~ ~ 4 r ~ i- `~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~~ yy 'b ., V + s~ ', N t6 --- G1 L `1- Jn u~ .. ~ C J r1 L_J SNOW-AVALANCHE AND DEBRIS-FLOW HAZARD ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION CONCEPTS LOTS 4 AND 5, BIGHORN 2nd ADDITION, VAIL li • Prepared For Mr. Al Amaral Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado April, 1989 .~ 1 OBJECTIVE5 AND LIMITATIONS This analysis of snow-avalanche and debris--flow hazard and mitigation concepts on Lots 4 and 5, Bighorn 2nd Addition, was requested by Mr. Amaral and A1r. Tim Boyle, P.E., of Vail. Specifically, the study has the following objectives: a. Analysis of the dynamic characteristics of design- magnitude (100-year) snow avalanches on Lots 4 and 5; b. Estimation of the frequency (return period) of major avalanches that may reach the building areas, c. Discussion of the structural mit~.gation procedures ~; that can be used to protect buildings and living areas; d. Description of debris-flow and debris-avalanche hazard; and e. Discussion of risk from avalanches. This study is site specific and should be applied to only this area. Avalanche and debris-flow characteristics will differ considerably at various locations, therefore the findings of this study cannot be applied to other sites. 1~~~ 2 SNOW-AVALANCRE CfiARACTERISTICS AND FREQUENCIES Two snow--avalanche paths affect Lots 4 and 5 : ( a ) the "Waterfall" avalanche will reach portions of Lot 5, and (b) the "Landslide"-avalanche will reach Lot 4 and 5. The Waterfall avalanche begins on steep, deforested, northeast- facing slopes at 10,500 feet elevation, some 2,100 feet above the lots {Figure 1}. Terrain analysis indicates that the "design-- magnituder" or "100-year" avalanche will result as 10--15 acres of snow breaks away in the upper starting zone, descends the channel, spreads over the alluvial fan and stops in Gore Creek. When this occurs, several lots (and existing buildings } will be reached by avalanche debris, including portions of Lot 5 (Figure 2}. The design avalanche will not be contained by the existing channels on the alluvial fan, but will spread laterally and entrain aspen trees as it advances down the fan. Such a major avalanche will probably occur in the dry winter snowpack, therefore the design-avalanche will_consist of dry-flowing snow.- This conclusion is based on a statistical study of avalanche terrain in Colorado, my familiarity with avalanche behavior in the local area, and a dynamics analysis of the 6aterfall avalanche. Inspection of aerial photographs dated 1939, 1950, 1962, 1974, • and 1984 give some indication of avalanche frequency. Debris from only one large avalanche could be seen on these photos. This avalanche occurred between 1950 and 1962, stopped above the lower waterfall, and did not descend over the cliffs to the alluvial fan. Although this was the largest avalanche to occur during a 45-year period, apparantly only a small part of the potential starting zone and snow mass was involved. This could be deduced from the channel directions that conveyed moving snow in the upper basin. If the enti re 3.0~-15 acres of starting zone had released, the avalanche would have been much larger and probably would have reached Gore Creek. The return period of of avalanches to Gore Creek is probably 50--to-100 years. If the Waterfall path releases as a large wet-snow avalanche it will move slowly and be confined to the channels on the alluvial fan, Portions of the wet snow could turn sharply to the east and west and cause deep snow to be deposited against and structures. The Landslide avalanche is located directly above the Lot 4/Lot 5 boundary. This is a small avalanche path of same 400 vertical feet elevation difference and begins below the thick limestone cliff. This avalanche path became more active since a debris avalanche occurred in May, 1984 and removed the entire forest cover, leaving an open scar approximately 150-200 feet wide through the aspen forest. Because snow will not adhere well to the existing surface, avalanches are frequent and will flow into the upper part of Lot 4 nearly every year. When thick, unstable snow slabs accumulate on these steep slopes, avalanches will. sweep across most of Lot 4 and part of Lot 5 stopping near the • south edge of Lupine Drive (Figure 2}, The boundaries of the design-magnitude avalanches in both the Waterfall and the Landslide paths are shown on Figure 2. 3 SNOW-AVALANCHE MITIGATION 3.1 Protection from Waterfall avalanche Two forms of avalanche protection were considered in the Waterfall path: (a) diversion walls, and (b) direct protection as discussed below. A diversion wall was considered as protection fox the western part of Lot 5. Such a wall., if properly oriented and 15-20 feet high could increase the hazard--free area on the Waterfall alluvial fan such that one or possibly two buildings could be placed in an avalanche-free zone. HocJever, such a diversion wall would deflect avalanches and possibly increase avalanche frequency on the Lots ,north of Lupine Drive. Because a diversion wall may, in this case, increase the hazard to adjacent property, this mitigation option was rejected. Direct-protection structures are the recommended mitigation form within the runout zone of the Waterfall avalanche. Direct- protection~structures are of two types: 7~ 3 \\\ ~~~. ~ r ~ , t ~•,: , , ; ~~ 'L a. Reinforcement of buildings for avalanche loads; and I b. Placing reinforced wedges directly above buildings to ~~,~" ~ ~~ prevent avalanches from reachin u hill buildin walls. g p g ~ Gam' ~ ~~" y`~ This is a common form of avalanche protection in areas of'' ' J ' moderate avalanche hazard ( "Blue Zones" } , and has been used at many Vail sites. Tf buildings are to be placed inside the Waterfall avalanche runout zone (Figure 2}, direction-protection should be used to reduce the avalanche hazard. Direct--protection structures can take many farms, depending on the shapes, S3ZE-:s, and orientations of the buildings that need protection. Requirements for final design of direct-protection structures are discussed in Section 4 of this report. Advantages of direct-protectiion structures are: a. Complete protection is attained for those inside the building; b. Additional earthwork and excavation is usually not required; c. Buildings often do not appear to be designed for avalanche impact. i~ • Disadvantages of direct-protection structures are: a. Special design and construction can increase building costs by loo to 200; b. Complete protection of the site is not achieved (not an important factor with long return--period avalanches. The Landslide avalanche path is small, therefore large velocities and flow depths are not expected, even during the design--~ avalanche conditions. This avalanche can be stopped by building a catching dam at right angles to the avalanche flow direction {Figure 3?. The structure will serve to protect buildings on the ~~ northern part of Lats 4 and 5 such that special design of direct- protection structures will not be required within this area. The dimensions of dam cross sections are shown in Figure 4. ~ DESIGN OF DIRECT-PROTECTION STRUCTURES Design-loading standards far direct-protection structures (in the Waterfall runout zone) incorporated into buildings can only be given when final building characteristics are known. Specification of loading standards requires knowledge about the fallowing architectural and design details: 3.2 Protection From the "Landslide" avalanche . .~ Y a. Building b. Building c. Building location; shape; and orientation. When these architectural details become known, design-avalanche forces can be resolved into normal and shear components, and the heights, strengths, and other details of direct protection structures can be specified. This design requires careful communication between the property owner, architect, structural engineer, and avalanche-engineering specialist in order to ensure a safe design. 5 DEBRTS-FLOW HAZARD 6 DEBRIS-AVALANCHE HAZARD The prominent landslide scar which presently serves as an avalanche path was indicated a s "debris-avalanche hazard" on the 1984 Town of Vail maps. This area has stabilized and no longer presents a danger {from debris avalanche) to Lots 4 or 5. Snaw avalanches do occur in the 1984 debris-avalan che scar, as discussed in Section 2 of this report. 7 SNOW-AVALANCHE RT5K Most of the Waterfall alluvial fan has been built from debris flows, consequently the fan surface must be exposed to debris- flow risk. The extent of the debris-flow areas are indicated on Town of Vail mapping. Only the northwestern corner of Lot 5 is reached by debris flows, therefore they wi 11 not constitute a building constraint at this location. Any building within avalanche areas will tend to increase the overall risk to people because of the increased exposure time of people in the area resulting from the development. The overall risk from snow avalanches to people who are outside of buildings is very small, however. This is true because people generally spend a small percentage of the total time {roughly 10? outside during the avalanche season. Because this very small risk is finite, T recommend that all users of these and other avalanche areas should understand the potential risk and heed all official warnings. Submitted by, Arthur Z. Mears. P.E. Avalanche-Control Engineer ~ , :~ . ! ,/. ~ ~h ~~+ ~~ ~- ~ ~' e~~ ~~_. ~. _ • ~ 1- ~ ,--• ~~ • 1 ~~ r _' •_~^ __~ ~ r~~, ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~_ ~ %/ !~:~•• ~ I - / r` ~ ~ - ~~. ~, ~~. ~~--f ice; ~~_ ~~\ _ ~f040rJ- ~ 4 `11 A u ' ~: ~~ o - ~-p~~`% `r ~' \ ~~ 1 I \ ` ~ \ ~ Ala ~ ''~ I~( -~ ~~\~ ' ~\ 3 \~ !~ BM^ ~s ~~~1~. ~~ '.~ t' ~ ~"•-"ti. +f ~ ~..--tip ~ ~ ~~ \\~ ~~~ ~l~? ~. _ ~~~~'.~~ ~ n `~ :f ~ .gg~ ~i T i . r( .-.~ -, -- -~ . ` \ ~, ~ i / /~ FIGL3RE 1 . Location Map showing Watex~'all ~~` ~~~~p ` , • !n'' 1 and Landslide avalanche paths with potential ~ ''~• ~ 7. ~' ~ ~ `~' ~' ~ ~ ~~ '~ runouts during design (100--year avalanche ~ ' \'4E'k ~ f~~ ' cond~.tions . Other avalanche paths in the East i f ~• ~ \~{ ~~I ;; Vail axea are not shown an this map, `~`~~ r-` ~~~• --'- ~ ~ Map Scale: 1" -- 2000' f -~'~ _ II 1i / ...~ '.~: ~~ 1l ^'"' Il ~~ ~~1/J~i '% 111 l~~ ~~~~ ~g 1~~ ~~.~_'' ~+ ~\ ., .~.f ,.f'. . a \ .\ r ~ r ~..t ::~sl r~ .. -~f' ~~ _.{~• ~. ' y': i g Il ~ IJsJ1 ~ `-.: i ~~ g ~. ~~ ' 8393 `~ ' •~• ~'~` •• '~~~'•~ i s '~~~ ~ ... ~~ X373 ;2 '•.~ \ `~~' ~~. ~~~ 37~ ~ \~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ` .. 4 ~ I '~ ~~ -~ 2 3 rr l ~ ~ '~ ~l y ~ ~ ,. _._~, rs.f ~ ~ r BiG~EO~~N - i 7~LL\ ~qc'S f ~ .8 ~ .,~~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ `f ~ ~ ~ .~ J~ ~~`-~ jam,,. ~.~.~,., ~~~ e ~ ~ ' s ~ `7s as o es~ ~ TlON r' ~ \~~~~ } ~`~~~\. ~ FIGURE 2 . Design ("100-year"~ avalanche ~~\ ~~\ `• _. - ~ boundaries in the "Waterfall" and ' ~. ~\~,`.'~ ~' ~ - "Landslide" paths. _ ~:.~ ~~ : .. ~ _ - Map Scale: 1" = 200' _ ~ 2 - `y ~ ~ ` ~ `~ S ,r ~ ~ ~ 1 ~, `. A A ` :~ ~` ~,~ ~. .' ~~`~ BfG~iORN \~ '. ,~~ 1~Q9 ~ J r ~~ i~ ~ ~ E !~ ~ ,f ~ q` ~ 1 L `.a '~~o~_ ~s \`` DAM ~~\\ ,\`.~\` \' ' ~'" . FIGURE 3. Design-avalanche limits .. a:\~'~ ~\~ ~'~ ~~ \ ~• .. ~ adjusted by catching dam. Area \~;,~ ~ ,... suitable for direct protection is ~_ • also shown. . = ' - , ~ ~ - - .._ •• Map Scale ; 1 " - 200' ~ i ~- ~• C7 Avalanche Direction ~'' o ~ ~ ~ a ~~~ .? ~ p n ~ a o ti d 0 ~ d a~ ,~Qp ~ °°o~o = 3 4 a d Q n ~o" bO ~ v~ ~~' ~ ~ b ~ O ° °0 0 Ground Surface ~2~ ~ ~- FIGURE ~. Dimensions. of dam cross section. Dam crest posztion is shown on Figure~~. Construction dimensions should be correct to within -~ 10j. This catch~.ng dam provides protection from the "Landslide" ava~.anche, as discussed in the text. • ~. "' ~, i~ :• ARTHUR I. MEARS, P.E., INC. Natural Hazards Consultants 222 Fast Gothic Ave. Gtusniaon, Colorado 81230 303 - 64 i •3236 November 20, 1989 Mr. Tim Boyle Boyle Engineering, 2nc. 143 E. Meadow Dr., Suite 39Q Vail, CO $1657 RE: Hazard Mitigation plan, Lots 4 & 5, Lupine Drive. Dear Tim: As you requested, Y reviewed the hazard mitigation plan far lots 4 & 5 dated 11-15-89. The following comments result from my review of the plan. 1. Snow and debris avalanches from the "Landslide" avalanche path will be stopped by the earth dams as shown on the plan. These dams will also stop falling rock. 2. Direct protection of buildings on the northwest side of Lot 5 will be required for avalanche and debris-flow protection. This has been indicated on the plan (November 15, 1989} you sent me for review. 3. Direct protection can also be used to protect against avalanches originating in the "Landslide" path and affecting Lot 4 and part of Lot 5. However, the direct-protection design used for avalanche protection may not eliminate the risk or possible structural damage from rockfall at this location. Additional details about rockfall energy and specific structural design will be necessary to determine the suitability of structures for the rockfall protection. The proposed building areas are in "moderate" avalanche--hazard zones. Furthermore, the mitigation proposed on the plan will not increase the hazard from avalanches, debris flows, or rockfall on any adjacent or downsiope properties ar other private or public facilities. Please contact me if you have any further questions. Sin erely, y~~~~° Arthur z. Mars P E Avalanche-Control engineer Mau Wasfrng • Aaalur:chu • Awlanc~e ConlmlEngrneerirtg .. .~ • r t Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEI7LDG15T 0793 VALLEY ROAD CARBDNDALI=, COLORADD 81623 (303) 963.3600 (24 HOURS) Tim Eac~yle 1~:" East Meadot,r Drive, SLtite h~! 1~, Crvs,rcaads SFrnpping CentLr Vail, CQ. 816? F.E: Lo'ks 4 ~; 5, bighorn D P a r- h1 r- . L-+o r 1 e T have rt,vi ewed the dr--a«z nM w of tine pr-tapo=_ed mi ti g~-~ti on f:rr- t!-re :ab~~ve r-efnrenred property with regard to the nesv let lines a,nd the e;•,ieting rek€::fal1 end debris flew hazard=. As in o~_tr- previc;u_~ com~~~.tniLaticrns, the type of mitigc-~ticsn needs to be in the form of deflection str-'uctures or direct rr~itig~~tien by home design tc~ mini~~i e th4 danger try pr-apc~sed home~-~ from aval~-snc#-~e, as well as r-ocl•~:fall and debris flntis Fra~ar•-ds, The drs<<-sings which yotrt have presented Have adequately addressed thr? cancer-'ns E4ith the design of ts•:o e4~rtl~ berme with sttff i ci ent height, macs and csri ent.~.ti ern tv prrtect the eastern three prepssed lets. The t~ester-nls~ost cane can only be mi ti elated thrr~>_igh the use of direct prntecti on i nccr-posted into the strt.tcture of the dwelling. It is my understanding that I~Ir-, Ar-t Mears has provi dw d you wi tt~ the necessary gt.tidelines to prat. fact against avalanche. "I"Frew shoetld st_tffice far the protection of the other two h,-~aards ae aae3.1 , The ri:asr_ti t cwi 1 .l be that the eastern three 1 ots wi ]. l nos,r be plact~d in the Modes ate Fla: and Zones, beet the ro:_trth site i,rill remain i n the High Ha-r and Zone. If yot_t have+ f t.trther c~uestiorrs please contact me. Si ncerPl y, ~~ ~-Gc./}~~ Ni chnl as 1_arrpi r i s Consulting l~eologist TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 22, 1990 5UBJ: A request to amend Special Development District ~4, Area D, Glen Lyon Office Site to allow for revisions to the Micro-Brewery addition and parking provisions. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Bldg., Inc. W A Colorado Partnership I. BACKGROUND ON THE PROPOSAL In January, 1989 the Town approved a major amendment to Special Development District #4 which includes bath the Glen Lyon Office site as well as all of Cascade Village. The amendments allowed for: A. A brewery addition having approximately 17,540 sa.ft. of gross floor area: The approved building would connect to the west end of the existing Glen Lyon office Building. The addition would be approximately three stories high and include a brewing area, pub, beer hall, retail/museum, and brewery office. Anew deck would extend dawn to the bike path adjacent to the creek. B. Expansion to the existing Glen Lyon Office Building: An additional 2,400 sq,ft, of office space would be added to the existing Glen Lyon Office Building, The new office area would infill above the second floor of the Glen Lyon Office Building. C. Parking Structure: A two level parking structure having loo spaces was proposed to be built directly to the east of the Glen Lyon Office Building. The vehicular access to the property would be moved further to the east according to the Arterial Business Zone District Circulation and Access Plan. Deceleration lanes would be constructed an the south Frontage Road. D. East Building: Two alternative development scenarios were proposed far this building. Scenario One provided for two employee dwelling units having a total GRFA of 1,695 sq.ft. plus a free market dwelling unit having a GRFA of 1,630 sq.ft. In addition, office space was included within this scenario (2,404 sq.ft.). Scenario Two called for only an office having a square footage of 5,725 sq.ft. Surface parking would be provided adjacent to the building. E. Site Improvements: The developer agreed to include the following site improvements into the project: 1. Bike Path - The existing bike path will be moved further to the west in order to decrease the steepness of the path. The relocated path also allows more open space between the bike path and the brewery addition. 2, Bus Shelter - The developer has proposed to build a new bus drop-off in front of the brewery building. The Town of Vail will provide bus service for the drop-off. The developer is responsible for maintaining the drop--off. 3. Undergrounding of Utilities - The developer was required to underground the Holy Cross electrical lines that extend along the north side of the property adjacent to the South Frontage Road. In August of 1989, the developer requested a minor amendment to . the development plan to allow an increase of 400 sq.ft. to the Glen Lyon Office expansion. This results in a total office expansion for the exiting Glen Lyon Office Building of 2,800 sq.ft. TI. THE REQUEST The developer states that: The commitment of a large area to an industrial use such as bottling, etc., severely limited the projects ability to be financed. In addition, the requirement to construct a parking structure to support an innovative project without an operating history became an insolvable financial obligation. As a result, the brewery building on parcel A has been redesigned as a smaller, less specialized project. The new design is a two story building with a small sub-basement which totals 8,505 sq.ft. It is designed to permit the Vail Brewery to expand, if appropriate, into the second float office space. Initially, all of the Vail Brewery's facilities with the exception of its entry reception and • loading areas are on the lower floor. (Andy Norris, Glen Lyon Office Building, Inc.) • Below is a summary of the proposed changes to the approved development plan: A. Approval of revised building plans for the micro- brewery addition. The plan calls for a more mixed-use approach to the building that will include the brewery as well as office space. These changes include: 1. Office increase up to 3,200 sq.ft. over the approved plan. If the brewery requires additional space, some of the office would be converted to the brewery use. 2. Beer hall decrease of 74 sq.ft. (30 seat decrease). 3. Brew pub decrease by 478 sq.ft. (40 seat decrease). 4. Retail increase by 329 sq.ft.. 5. Reception/Museum increased by 65 sq.ft. 6. Brew house decreased by 4,900 sq.ft. 7. Total building gross square footage decreased by 3,188 sq.ft. (please see the attached chart comparing the approved SDD area D to the initial phase and expanded brewery phase). B. Approval of revised parking plan which provides 73 on- site parking spaces. The brewery, beer ha11, brew pub, retail, and museum would be closed during normal weekday business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:3D p.m., This would allow for shared parking between the office uses and the brewery and restaurant operations. The parking structure would not be completed until the brewery is expanded to allow for more restaurant space or the east building is constructed. C. Phasing Plan. Phase I: --Expansion/Renovation of Glen Lyon Office Building --Expansion of parking lot to 73 spaces --Relocation of access into the parking lot --Undergrounding of electric service Phase II: --Addition of Brewery/Office addition to the west end of the Glen Lyon Office Building --Relocation of bike path --Construction of deceleration lanes on S. Frontage Road --Town of Vail bus stop added Phase III: --Addition of east building --Construction of parking structure (100 car) SCHEDULE: April, 1990 - Start construction of Phase I & Phase II. September, 1990 - Completion of Phase I. . December, 1990 - Completion of Phase II. April, 1991 - Start construction of Phase III. December, 1991 - Completion of Phase III. D. Employee Housing The developer is prepared to commit to construction of the required employee housing units (2) on Parcel D as a condition of the Phase III building permit. Tf at that time, employee housing units available on the Westhaven site (10) located in Cascade Village (Area A} have not been started. E. An emergency exit stair will be located on the south side of the Glen Lvon Office Building.. The stair encroaches approximately 7 feet into the 50 foot stream setback. F. All conditions of approval associated with the existing development plan shall be included in the revised plan. III. ISSUES: A. Parking: According to the TDA report, the proposed amendment has a parking demand of 80 spaces. Peak demand would require 84 spaces. 73 parking spaces are provided on- site. This results in a deficit of 7-11 spaces. At a previous work session with the PEC, commissioners recommended that valet parking be utilized to make up the space deficit, The applicant believes that patron cars could be parked in the Porte Cochere (4-5 cars) and in the aisle of the west end of the surface parking lot (4-6 cars}. Employees could also be required to carpool or use public transit, or park off-site on peak demand days. The staff is in the process of resolving the parking deficit. one alternative is that the seating capacity of the brewery be decreased slightly to avoid the deficit of spaces. The office could also be slightly decrease to address the deficit. If the parking is functioning well, the capacity could be increased to the present requested level. B. Environmental Impact Report: Peter Jamar, a letter that Environmental completed for the fact that Project Planning Consultant, has stated in there are no major changes in his Impact Report that was previously the SDD. Staff agrees with this due to the brewery is decreasing in size. C. Employee Housing: Instead of having two scenarios for the east building, staff would like to require that the developer limit the uses in the building to Scenario 1 (two employee units, ane dwelling unit, plus office space). Staff would like to make it a condition of approval that the two employee housing units be constructed at the same time that the brewery or the parking structure is built. We would also like to maintain 10 employee units in the Westhaven Building in Cascade Village. D. Phasing Plan: The staff will require that Phase I and Phase II be built under one permit so that the Tawn is insured that the relocation of access to the parking, undergrounding of electrical service, relocation of the bike path, construction of deceleration lanes, and Town of Vail bus stop will all be completed at the same time. • • PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS, RES6ANCH January 16~ 199Q Ms. Kristan Pritz Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 51657 Dear Kristan: Andy Norris has asked me to review the proposed revisions to the Vail Brewery proposal in relation to the previous plan and to review the impacts of the new project versus the original plan that was approved by the Town of Vail. The impacts related to the previously approved plan for the Brewery are contained in the Environmental Impact Report prepared in August of 1988 and • revised November 22, 1988. As Z understand it the changes proposed relate to a decrease in the number of seats in both the Beer Hall and Brew Pub and a possible slight increase (375 sq. ft.) of the brewery related retail space. The most significant change will be that no bottling or milling of grain will now be done on site. A review of these changes indicates that virtually all aspects of the project such as hydrologic conditions, atmospheric conditions, geologic conditions, biotic conditions, noise impacts, visual conditions, and land use conditions will remain unchanged from those reported in November of 1988. With respect to loading and delivery, the elimination of the bottling operation from the site could be expected to reduce the amount of loading and delivery to the site. The parking conditions at the site will change due to the reduction of seats and the revised operating hours of the Brew Pub. Please refer to the analysis that TDA has prepared far a discussion of anticipated parking demand revisions due to the new plans. • Suite 308, Vad National t3ank I3u~lding IU8 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 {3(13] 476-7151 .~ ~ Ms. Kristan Department January lb, Page 2 Pritz of Community Development 1990 Please lit me know if you require additional information or have any cps ions . Jamar, AICP PJ:ne • • AREA D - SDD 4 Annroved Ply nosed Plans ~niti~l Ph~g Exnans~on A £ k ~ ;.;; ~ M ~ , ' S t~ V C. 1 n ~ ~ . i]se CFA Parking C'FA, Parking CFA Parking Office (Existing) 10,150 sf 40.6 10,150 sf 40.6 10,150 sf 40.6 Phase I Expansion 2$00 sf 9.6 2,800 sf 11.2 2,800 sf 11.2 Phase II Expansion. (Microbrewery) Office 700 sf 2.8 3,900 sf 15.6 2,700 sf 10.8 Reception Museum 415 sf 0 480 sf 0 480 sf 0 Retail 446 sf 1.5 175 sf .7 775 sf 3.1 Fermentation/ Brewhouse b,600 sf 0 970 sf 0 1,570 sf 0 Beer Hall 1,774 (180) 14.7 1,700 (150} 14.2 1,700(150) 14.2 Brewpub 1.858 {120) 15.5 1.380 (80) 11.5 1.380 (80) 11.5 Subtotal 11.793 sf 34.5 8.605 sf 42.Q $_605 sf 39.h Total 24,343 sf 84.7 21,555 sf 93.8 21,555 sf 91.4 Building Area - II 18,800 sf 14,400 sf 14,400 sf Daytime Parking (Spaces) 84.7 67.4 Evening Parking (Spaces) 31.7 26.4 ( )Indicates Seats There are na changes to the East Building Program 1: ~ 62.6 28.8 • ~~ c:vx or~o rr~ wc, it~nsportatio~ Core ItdClfs • ;~ ;~. 3anuary zb, 199U ~~ Q V ~'~ L Mr. Andy Norris Vail Brewery Company 100 S. Frontage Raac1 W. Suite zoo Vail, C4 81657 REs Vail Brewery, Parking Analysis update pear Andy, As requested, we have reviewed the parking implaoatians of youx proposed package of .revisa.ans to .the 'Vail Brewery development program, Similar to our approach used i.n the analysis presented in our August 1Q, 1988 report, w~ have synthesized a case far parking demand by assessing the number of brewery employees and patrons who would present at peak aCaumulation, and, the anta.cipated made of travel of these persons. This analytic approach is described in detail and presented graphically in our August report. We have used your memorandum of 30/7.689 to I~ristan Fritz and our recant conversations for comparing the proposed amended deve3.opment plan to the currently approved plan. Tn botYt the original and the amended cases the design canditian will be a high summer day yr a late - March tSpring break) day. This represents times of year when Vail Valley visitation i.s high and patrons will be mare inclined to have and use automobiles than would Christmas week and mid--winter patrons. parking Analysis cansidsrntions our understanding at the proposed amendment, as it effects persons present at the Brewery dur~.ng peak accumulation (7.00 pm) is; 1. The Baer Hail wall now have 7.50 seats. The A oved Plan called for 180 seats. 2. The Brew Pub seating (bar and table) will. be 80 seats. The Approved~Plari shows 12Q seats. 3. The Brewery related retai], space was gr~ing to be R~00 square feet in the approved pion. Vnder the amended plan it wi1,7. initial~.y ba 175 square feet, possibly gacowing tc~ 775 square feet with expansion. 18751:arime+St. ~~~~, ~pn Convur. C[) 80202 r~2S 7tiU~ 4. Fermentat~.an will, now be an the second fioar in the initial project. Hence, there will be na expansion of the Beer Hall into the fcrinar first floor fermentation area as construed in the Approved Plan. This means Seer Hall seating will ba capped at 150 seats. Mr. Andy Norris sanua~ry ~.~, x99o Page 2 5. There will be n4 bottling ar mi3.lirig of grain on site. 6. During summer months, when at3-ta use by patrons and employees will be highest,. there wi1.1 tae only o~xe dinner seat~.ng for the Beer Ha11. Hence, there will, nvt ba an overlap af' first and seoond dinner Beatings as was the case in the Appr©ved Ptah analys~.s. 7. Brew Pula bar seating will. ba amost active immediately after work (or spree ski) and again latex iri the evening tafter normal. dining hours} if this becomes a local gathering spot. 8. It is desired to open the Brew Pub td the public at A~:30 p.m. to attract the after warp/skf. crowd. Hance, there will be same overlap between office workers and Brewery patrc7ns 9. A future Brewery capacity expansion p7.an would add 6pt3 square feet of fermentation area at the expense of office space. At the same time, Brewery-related retail. space will expand by 600 square feet to 775 square feet. An additional Brevrery employee will be ~cdded for an overnight brewing sh~.ft. So . The existing 54--space parking lot wi.1.1 ba expanded to 73 spaces as part of the in3.tial Brewery development project . 7.1. Parking structure cvnstructibn is riot contemplated until the expanded Brewery seeks tc open far Food and beverage service prior to 4:30 p.m. on normal Work days, i.e. ],unoh business. When this happens day Brewery parking demand will ba totally additive to office Barking needs. Parking Demand ~4ssesr~~nent With the above condit~.ons as baakgraund, we have reassessed Vail. Brewery parking needs. Table 1 shows total persons present at peak ~.CC7.iriluZat~,on for both the init ial. plan and the expanded Srewary plan would be 213 and X15 perBans, respectively. This ~.s 53 fewer than the Approved Plan. • ~~ O N'd~~ ~ ~ ~ w N ~~ ~ ~ °~ .~ ,~ o ~~ ~~ ~~~'+ ~S ~ ~~ ~ N q} ~ +~ ~ N r~ ¢ ~ ~v ~ ~ ~~ ~,c,'~ rc! .~r ~ ~ ~ N~~ N~~N ~ N ~N .ri vs ~ ~~~ ~ - c ~~ ~a N ~~ ~ ~°~ N G 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~~ o'~~' ~ ~~ ~~ ~N ~ f~ a ~~ .~ ~ ,~ '~ ~ ~~ ~~ . ~ '~` .~ ~~~ ~~ t3 t ~ c~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~Q+ i ~ `a ti N ~' a ~~~~ .~~ ~ c~ ~~~ ~ ~G N ~~N r~ "~'~~ ~ ~~N ~~ ~+ H ~ ~- tD .~~,j ~ Q- ~y N q= ~ a ~ ~a ~s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ P+ ~ ~~~ t~ • N ~ ~N ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ y U1 ,~~' N OY U ~', tU r• ~+~ Y" ~~~ U ~''' N Mr. Andy Norris ~7'anuary lei, 1994 Prigs 4 • Table 2 depicts the number of parked vehicles at peak person accumu3.ation utilizing the anticipated traveX modes referenced in our August report. Peak .summer day park~.ng demand wou~.d be 80 spaces, 8 fewer than the Approved "l~~.an, M©st of this change is due to reduced Beer Ha].1 seatiriq and el9.mination of a second dinner seatz.ng . Table 2 Estimated Number of Persons and Vehicles fln Sits @ Peak Accuntulatian (7.00 PM) Bre~werv Deve3.obment Scena~o ~ per'grans ~„ ~ Parked Vah~.Gles ( 2 ~, 1. Approved Plan {1~s9) {2) Employees Patrons Tota3. 2 4 ].2 244 75 ~ErB 88 2. Amended Plan, inita.a~.ly Employees Pc~tXOri~ Total 3. With $rewex'y expan. Employees 24 15 Patrons l~ ~ 65 Total 2I5 $4 Source: Tr]A based an est~.mated hcgr3.y sccumul2~tion o~ brewery visitors and employees, by travel made, August 14, 1988 report. I. See Table ~. 2. See T1]A report dated August to. I988, Table 2 for factors used in arriving at automabiZe usage. -~ ~~ 213 ~ '~'Gj • Mr. Andy I3orrf.s January lfi, 290 Page 5 Applying a 95& uti].i.zativn factor to allow for peaking within the analysis hour, the 80 space demand for the proposed amended plan wou~.d suggest a suaialy of 84 spaces. TI~e proposed amendment shows 73 parking spaces avai~.able on-site. Valet parking of 4 to 5 cars in the Porte Ct~chex'e area during the peak evening hour would make up for this four-space shortfall. Qther Parking cana~.dera~tivr-s Kr~.stan Pritz' letter of November ].¢, T.989 addresses issues that are discussed a.n this section. 1.. peak Parking Demand Frequency. our assessment, suggests peak demand will occur during the summer months when autc~~ °i use is highest. c?ur analysis dep~.cts the need for~..75 Brewery-related parking spaces during peak summer~~ activity times. It should ba Hated, this peaking would occur between ~:QO and 8:00 p.m. during busy weekends and summer holidays (4th of July, L2~bar Day). Review of I- 70 traffic volume variations, and, daily Vail bus ridersha.p figures both dep~.etad in tYie Centennial Engineering EiS report for the Main Vail interchange) suggests high activity-days could occur 8 to ~.o times between the beginning of July and the end of September. Tn each case the data-lion of peak Frowsty demand would ba ~.ess than twv hours aaoh evening. From this we would antic~.pate the onMsite 73-Space park~.ng supply wou~.d be exceeded 15 to 20 hours per year. As a po~.nt of reference, ULX (tne Urban Land Institute) advocates a parking ratio policy fc~r shopping centers that says parking demand w©uld emceed supply for 20 hours per year. Designing for the busiest hour of the year, ULT argues, ~.s an unreali.st~,c design standard the burdens the community with an unnecessarily large area dedicated to paved peaking. W~: believe appropriate parking m~:nagement practises cauJ.d alleviate deficiencies for the 20 or ~o hours per year these surcharge situations could occur. These practices ccauld include: A. Patron cars could be valet parked in the Porte Cochere area (4 to 5 cars) and in the a~.sle of the west end of the surfaces parking lot (4 to 5 cars), and/or: • Mr, Andy Norris January IG, 1.990 k~aga 6 B. When spacial. events ar traditionally high demand days s.re anticipated, r$quire employees who typically park can-site to e~.ther car pac~l, use public transit, or park off-sits an these occasions. If one-half cf the employees complied this would free-up 7 parking spaces during the evening peak and thereby relieve the deficiency. 2, ripening the s0-seat Brew Pub at 4:3o p.m,. C~peninq the Brewery before the end of the office w©rx day wil.I result in same overlap of affice parked vehicles and Brewery park~:d vehicles. The peak situation would probably occur during March when spree ski patrons wil]. be more inclined to have autos than other times of the year. Again, using the travel mode assignments discussed in our August 3.9Q8 report we show the falls~wing parkl.ng demand far a 4:30 to 5:09 p.m. ~averlap s~.tuation. ~ in ~ in ~ Parked Persons Present ~rew+erv Of ice, Vehicles 1. Off-situ patron X55 0 20 2. On~-site office 7.5 ~5 25 3. Brewery empiayee 10 5, _,~, Total 90 a0 5Z Our assessmetlt shows this early evening situation would use 52 of the 73 available parking spaces. Inherent in tha.s analys~.s is: A. At full occupancy the 1.5,320 square feet of affice would represent about 76 people (ZQO square feet per personj. By 4:30 in the afternoon about 52 of these (two-thirds) would still be present. This is supported by the setae]. counts (1) at G7.en Lyan and Vail Professional Building Offices during the TgV's parking analysis and~aurvey last year. S, some of the Hrew Pub patrons will be office workers, we assume 15, who will st2~y for a drink before heading home, Barad an the above, we would n©t sea a parking problem created by op'ening the tsrew ]~u~ ~ ~. ~ : ~ a p . m. , 1. "Vail, Parking field Analysis & Survey", Summary Report RxC/LSC ,Tiny 27, 1989, p.9, Mr. Andy Norris January 16, 1990 page ? 3, Txuck Loading and Delivery. Ws Would antia~.pat+~ two types of delivery and loading: c Brewery suppl~.es and materials delivered and srewery product transported out, and a Office related deliveries (UPS, Federal Express, etc.) These latter deliveries are now occurr~.ng at the west end of the parking lot. Brewery de~.iveries and pick-ups will occur at the new South Frontage Rand access adj$cent to the Porte Cochere. We understand only single unit trucks (no semi.--trailers) will use the loading dock. typically, food and beverage supplies are delivered between 9:00 a.m. and 3:34 p.m.. As Yong as brewery del.~.veries and pink ups do riot occur during the peak even~.ng hours, we would nest anticipate a parking ar traffic prah~.em associated witri youx planned facility. I trust this adequately addresses parking issues regarding your current development gropasal. Sincerely, TDA CL7LpRADO INC. David D, Laahy, F.E. Pri.rici,p~il. r~ i .,{. Ala Aft fumed ~av~i ar~b~~~~ ~~ ~~. FrQpoeed Ve11 11~ ~ ~~. 'V~#1, Cplora~a ~` ~~ ,. ' ,N 1 1.~ blic Cow Y .Auto DriverlDro ~~ mgr ~5~1 1 ~.,a ~ ~ ~ Boa ~ r2~ Emplayecs ~p 3 ~ a. ~~ ~.~~ ~ a io ioa ~, <,.~ - winter - Summer- ~ ~ ~ 20 8 100 `` b, Visitors 47 p ~~,,~ ~+~~ 15 100 I, -:::~ ~~~ vVinter ~ 0 !"` s . • ~; Summer ~S i :. I ., ~, # Personsi ~ '., Ai P `, I . a. employees 1.3 ~~~.~v1S~"~' k - Winter ~,,}~ ~, ~ Y~' ~ •"~Y ~%+~~ ~R ~ '~'~ - Summer ~(C~!' ~.. .~~' fJ f7 ~t~~' „ ~ eta }~, Visitors 3.a ~ ,~ .Winter ' l ~~> _ S,~mmer 2.2 .. TDA based an trie foltcg references: universsty of Colorado 4 .s Source; k. ., _.._~+.i .Aa Stud~L. i ~.~ 1978, tv ~, Pr` - 2. ~tkin1978~.~ Septemb~erSL~• Unive:sfty of idah4. 1978. ,Ntrinte~x Park and counts iln Pas'k City. i 4• Ve~ occupancy Keystone. ', I~~V ~ 3«I `7 ' 3'cl6~ ~p /~G~td s "? a~ ~~~ ~ r~~~~ TDA ? f $ $ f f(4 ~~ . .~ ~, .~ TO: Planning and Environmental. Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 11, 1989 sUl3a: Air Quality Plan I. BACKGROUND At the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting on October 23, 1989 1 presented the research material I had gathered as per your requests. At that time I had written to the Air Pollution Control Division (see letter dated 10/11) for additional information as it specifically relates to our current status with PM 10 and was awaiting a response. I received a response (see letter dated 10/27) from the Air Pollution Control Division in early November. Z also had a telephone conversation with Steve Arnold shortly after our meeting an October 23rd concerning the topic of any extenuating circumstances which might be documented to explain PM-- 10 exceedances. I was speaking specifically to circumstances which are beyond the control of the Town of Vail such as the highway construction which occurred this summer and the dust problem it created. Mr. Arnold related that if exceedances did occur and we had documented circumstances to explain the situation it would be considered in the overall evaluation of the picture. II. CURRENT SITUATION As expressed in the letter from the APCD, the emissions inventory which was conducted by Air Sciences is generally the type of document which is used to develop further control measures. The letter I had written was designed to question the possibility of having the State Health Department participation in a program for chemical mass balancing analysis of our PM-10 filters. As indicated in the letter from Mr. Arnold, the State is currently working with Group I PM-10 areas to do chemical mass balancing. Since Vail is a Group TT area, if chemical mass balancing is to be conducted it will have to be at the Town of Veil's expense. This will involve the purchasing of an additional air sampler to run the Teflon filters. III. FURTHER ACTION At this paint I would like you to consider several different courses of action based on the information contained in our emissions inventory and in the attached letters. • • .r • {A) Pursue the chemical mass balancing approach to Further quantify the specific percentage contributions of each component of our overall picture. This would involve the Town purchasing an additional air sampler, filters and paying far the analysis of those filters. (B) Work with the results contained in the inventory and develop control measures (realistic) based on those results. This could involve: (1} Revision of our current fireplace ordinance to further restrict the installation of fireplaces. {a) This could possibly involve limiting to 1 the number of woodburning devices. (b} Specifically state that no allowance shall be made to permit the construction of a woodburning firebox far the installation of gas logs. (2) Development of a controlled burning program similar to those in Denver. (3) Development of a fee structure/rebate program to encourage individuals to switch from wood to gas. These are some suggestions for direction from this point. r would like to come to PEC on December 18th to discuss these topics and any goals you would like to see accomplished as they relate to the overall air quality picture. Please be prepared to address these questions/issues at that time so we can take the necessary steps to devise a plan to control our overall air quality. .7 • • town ofi nail 75 south frontage road veil, Colorado 81657 (303) 479-2138 (303)479-2139 October 11, 1989 Air Pollution Control. Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Dear Sheila, office of community development Just a quick note will note there is Road. The Safeway criteria and as a of 1587. to accompany the enclosed PM 10 data. You data from two sites; Safeway and 846 Forest location apparently did not meet EPA siting result the monitors were relocated in December At this point I am trying to evaluate our data to determine our current status with regard to the PM 10 standards. We are currently working with our local Planning and Environmental Commission to develop control measures to insure that we are not violating the standards. In order to determine the necessary control measures we must first evaluate the extent of our problem. We recently had an emission inventory completed which I am also enclosing for your information. I realize you are busy and I would appreciate any input you can give me on this and also on chemical mass balancing. Hopefully we can get together to discuss this before too long, but any input you can give me at this point would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerel ', ,, ,~ Su an Scanlan Environmental Health Officer STATE OF COLORADO COiORADO DEPARTMENT OF H~A1TH aF~co~, ~~.~.o,~ 421o East 11th Avenue '~~`~ ~~-gyp * o Denver, Colorado 80220 y Y_ . Phone (303) 320-8333 ~ *~~~* October 27, 1989 Susan Scanlan Office of Community Development Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Load Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Susan, Sheila Burns and I have conferred on the materials you forwarded and Vail's efforts to link PM10 levels to sources. Chemical mass balance (CMS) modeling is one method to attribute particulate levels to sources. A CMB project must be planned well in advance because two types of samples are needed for each sampling day, one on a quartz filter and one on a tefion filter. Samples from the highest pollution periods undergo sophisticated chemical analyses. Tf needed, area specific source samples may also need to be taken and analyzed. The Division is currently pursuing CMB modeling at some of the Group I PM10 areas of the state. Vail has relatively low PM10 levels and has been designated a Group II PM1© area. For Group II areas, an emission inventory is usually acceptable to attribute PM10 to sources. Vail's current inventory is typical of what is expected in mountain communities and should be adequate for decision making purposes. It is good to see the progress Vail is making in source evaluation. Please keep us posted on activities stemming from your current information. Sincerely, ~~~x ~~ C~ 'r(l l t ~ , Steve Arnold Program Manager Technical Services Air Pollution Control Division SA/SB/sac cc: Bob Graves Sheila surns TSP WP 6.1g 1322D/P-28/10-27-89 Roy Romer Governor Thomas M, Vernon, M.U. ExecuYrve Director .• ORDINANCE 24 Series of 1983 AN ORDINANCE REPEALI~lG AND REE~JACTING CHAPTER 28 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SOLID FUEL ' BURNING DEVICES; PROVIDING CERTAIN DEFiNiTIO~JS; REGULATING THE NUP~BER AND CONSTRUCTION OF SOLID FUEL BURNERS; REQUIRING HEAT EFFICIENT UNITS; PROHIBITING COAL USAGE. WHEREAS, the setting of the Town of Vaii in a valley between two mountains restricts air movement through the valley; WHEREAS; the movement of air through the Gore Valley is further restricted in cold times of the year; WHEREAS, the pollutants in the air caused by solid fue] burning devices have become increasingly worse; WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the pollution caused by solid • fuel burning devices is exacerbated by the altitude, topography, climate and meteorology of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Town Council fends that these sources of air pollution may be minimized by presently-existing, practical and economical technologies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The Vail Municipal Code is amended by the addition of a new Chapter 8.28 "Air Pollution Control" which reads as follows: 8.28.010 Purpose and Applicability These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents and visitors in the Town of Vail. These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes: {1} To protect the air quality in the Town of Vail; {2) To reverse the trend towards increased air degradation in the Town of Vail; {3} To provide heat sources that are efficient and have a reduced polluting effect; ,~ --2- • 8.28.020 Definitions (T) Solid Fuel Burner: A fixed apparatus that burns fuel to provide heat, including, but not limited to, a masonry fireplace, prefabricated zero clearance fireplace, freestanding fireplace, Franklin Stove, or air tight stave. {2) Oregon Method 7: Shall mean tests promulgated by the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality in effect on the date of certification as provided herein. (3) Refuse: Means all solid wastes, garbage and rubbish, whether ` combustible or noncombustible, including rubble. (4) Clean Solid Fuel Burning Device: Any solid fuel burning device having particulate emissions of less than 0.33x10-6 gm/joule of useful heat output, averaged over at least six tests, or no more • than O.fiSx10"6 gm/joule of useful heat output for any single test. (5) Any word, term or phrase not hereto defined or specified shall be defined in accordance with Title 18 "Zoning" o~P the Vail Municipal Code or TitJ.e S "HeaJ.th and Safety of the Vail Municipal. Code. Seciton 8.28.030 Solid Fuel Burning Devices It shall be unlawful for any person to construct, install, maintain or operate any solid fuel burning device within the Town of Vail in a manner not in compliance with this section. {A} fro building permit shall be issued for or including the installation of any sa1id fuel burning devices} or component(s) thereof unless the number of such device or devices in each structure is less than ar equal to the following: {1) Each dwelling unit may have one solid fuel burning device per dwelling unit. Reference {C} for exceptions. (2) A hotel, motel, inn or lodge may have one solid fuel burning device per lobby. Solid fuel burning devices in individual r ~~- (B) Gas Fireplaces: The restrictions of this Chapter shall not apply to a fireplace fueled by natural gas, propane, ar any similar liquid fuel so long as said fireplace is designed and constructed so that said fireplace cannot be used or modified to burn solid fuels. Gas fireplaces shall be permitted in any unit. (C} Additional Solid Fuel Burning Devices: Each dwelling unit may have two solid fuel burning devices in the following types of combinations: one fireplace and one clean woodburning stove or two clean woodburning stoves. 1. No building permit shall be issued for installation of any clean burning solid fuel burning device in any building of S the Tawn of Vail unless the Vail Environmental Health Officer has first certified in writing that the device has particulate emissions less than or equal to those specified above. The Environmental Health Officer will sa certify any device found to have the required emissions provided tests on that brand or class of device are conducted by an approved independent testing using the "Oregon Method 7" and operating procedures as determined by the Oregon Department of Environmentai Quality or an equivilant procedure, as determined by the Environmental Health Officer. Tests must be conducted as a low-medium or lower burn rate, as defined by Oregon Method 7". On ar before June 1 or each year, the Environmental Health Officer will publish a list of devices known to be certified, which list sha71 be available for inspection at '~ the Community Development Officer. 2. All solid fuel burning devices shall be constructed, installed, maintained and operated in such a manner that their operation will result in an increase in heating energy, i:e. that the heat supplied r -4- 8.28.040 Coal Usage Prohibited The burning of coal is hereby prohibited within the Town of Vail. 8.28.050 Refuse Burning Prohibited The burning of refuse in any solid fuel burning device is hereby prohibited within the Town of Vail. Section 2. ~f any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decisions shall not affect the vailidity 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 mare parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. • i,~ I RODUCED, PEAD ,,-r,~~D PASSED 011 F?RST READING THIS ~~`_,Ci d4y of 1983, and a pubs is hearing s!;a11 5e he7d on this or~dinursce on theta of ~,~u.~y 1983, at 7:30 p,,n. in the CeJr,cil C~, bail ,~nici~ 1 building, y'ail , Colorado. Ordered p~ab1 fished in fu11 this ATTEST: ,~~ uay or ~_ ~ _ _ / ~~ Rodney E. Sl i of , '~ayor 1 Pan41a A. Erandneyer Tnwn ~'~ ark . •' _~ ' r r C ORDINANCE N0. 28 Series of 1987 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8,28 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL PROVIDING FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SOLID FUEL BURNERS WITH CERTAIN SPECIFIED CONTROLS IN CERTAIN TYPES OF BUILDINGS IN SPECIFIC BONE DISTRICTS WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL, AND ADDING A SECTION SETTING FORTH PENALTIES FORA VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE. WHEREAS,. technology has been developed to allow certain types of gas burning fireplace lags to be utilized in solid fuel burning devices; and WHEREAS, the Tawn Council believes that the public hearth, safety and welfare will best be served by amending this Chapter to allow this new technology to be utilized in certain kinds of buildings and certain zoning designations within the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to ensure that should such devices be installed, they not be utilized far the burning of solid fuels. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, that: 1. Section 8.28.030 Solid Fuel Burning Devices of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail paragraph B. is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as follows: 8.28.030 Sa1id Fuel Burning Devices B. Gas Firepiaces The restrictions of~this Chapter shall not apply to a fireplace fueled by natural gas, so long as said fireplace is designed and constructed so that said fireplace cannot be used ar modified to burn solid fuels. Notwithstanding the foregoing, solid fuel burning devices may be installed in properties classified under the Town of Vail Building Codes as R-1 and which are also accommodation units pursuant to the definition of such contained in the Zoning Code, stay install equipment, flues, fireboxes and other features in accordance with the applicable listings of U.L., A.G.A. or other recognized testing organizations ~'~~ ~ t r Town of Vail Environmental Health Officer. The owner of any property containing such equipment sha11 pay to the Town of Vail the amount of thirty dollars ($3fl} per year on the first day of the year following the year in which said equipment was installed for each such solid fuel burning device, and the first day of each year thereafter during the time said equipment remains installed. The owner of any such device shall allow the Town of Vail Health Inspector access into the area where such device is located for the purposes of doing such an inspection. Such equipment shall have fixed a means to prohibit access to the firebox by casual means and unauthorized persons. There shall be a sign on the fireplace reading: "Caution -Gas Fireplace Only". Access to the firebox shall be for maintenance and repair, testing or inspection only. The device utilized to prohibit access shall be permanently closed by means of tamper resistant screws or other suitable means. 2, Chapter 8.28.030 Air Pollution Control of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail i5 hereby amended by the addition of Section $.28.Ob0 Penalties to read as follows: 8.28.080 Penalties it is unlawful for any person to violate any provision of this Chapter or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter. Any person performing any act prohibited or declared to be unlawful by this Chapter or failing to perform an act required by or otherwise made mandatory by this Chapter shall be punished by a fine of not more than four hundred ninety°nine dollars ($499}. Any •such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which a violation of any provision of this Chapter is committed, continued, ar permitted by such person and shall be punished accordingly. In addition to penalties provided in this Section, any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any provision of this Chapter shall be deemed a public nuisance, and may be by this Town similarly abated as such, and each day that such condition continues shall be regarded as a new and separate offense. 3, In order to enable development pro3ects within the Town to install technologically superior gas lags this current building season, the Town Council C 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, 5. The Tawn Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Qrdinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 6. The repeal ar the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeat of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. TNTROQUCEQ, REAQ AND A€~PROVED AS AN Et~ERGENCY ORdINANCE this 28th day of duly 1987, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this 28th day of July 1987. Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: Pamela A. Srandmeyer, Town Clerk ,T...~, ~ ~ .,., i~ ~; ~ ' t • ' a.:~; ' ~ ~ Moriday,~January 8, 1990 ;~ t No-burn ~,• ~ ~~ ~ • Brown cloud_thlns:~~ , working,. . .. ~~s'G : as to s r~ .,lace e arts say , ., WQQ~, experts say , CLOUD from Page IA ,, ' Boulder; Arvada, .Westminster, ' By Thomas Graf ~ - • ' Glendale, Lakewood, Broomfield, ' Denver Post Envhonmeni Writer ` ~ ~ '. h'ederal Heights, Greeley, Green- `~ Spurred by~increased xestriction~s on woodburn-.; wood Village, Lafayette, Littleton, ing fireplaces, thousands o€ metro-area horneown- Longmont, Sheridan and Thornton. ers are using ti~eir woodburning fireplaces less or As of Jan. 1, no structure can be are replacing woodburning fireplaces with artifi- built with a woodburning fireplace cial, natural gas-fired logs. ~ ar stove in Castle Rock. ' These no-burn moves are producing a positive ef- In early 1988, an estimated 2 feet in the war against Denver's brawn cloud, ex- percent of the roughly 225,000 fire- perts say. ~ ~ " places in the metro area were lit "You don't reduce the contribution of woodburn- by gas. With the increased number ing to the brown cloud by 60 t6 70 percent during of'conversions duringthe past two the past few years years, that percentage is estimat- without reducing the ~~~~~~ ed to now be more than 10 percent brown cloud • itself," and growing. said Brad Beckham, di- ~ Metro area horhe5 '~ And those who still burn wood rector of the air polio- installing gas Inge or are burning much less of it, ac- tion control divisioi, of gas firepl~Ces. cording to state health department the Colorado Depaxt ^:~587 ..'. •••••3~•~a0 at~1988, .., ..,10,QDtl surveys. meet of Health. ~ 15 40U: During a survey following the Although no firm st'a ~ 158,""~" "~~~"~ winter of 1983-1384, 12 percent of Source Plib11o Sczr+ice ~:u , tistics back up observe ~~esttmetes, - the people with woodburning fire- tions that t:he brown , places said they never used them. cloud is getting thinner, Beckham and others say During a similar survey after the the better air quality this winter cannot be credzted + winter ~ of 1987-1988, that percent- to favorable weather ,alone': ' '' ~ age tripled to 3$ percent, And the "We've''had luck Willi` sonie,yof .the fronts we'de, ` ; •. 'number of cords of wood burned had come ing and' clear this stuff ~ out,' but I don't" ~ ~ dropped from 194,278 cords in think it's just the weother alone that has resulted in 'B~-84 to 95,000 -cords four years . us having just two air .pollution ~,v~Vlatiolns ~o. €ar ; ; ; inter, the surveys show. this winter," he, paid. ~ ' ` ~ ` ~ ~ in addition to burning fewer Acco~'ding to the Denver Brown' Cloud Study ~ of ~: •~ ~ ~ logs, a few hundred people around 1987-88, 20 percent to 3fl percent of the brown cloud ~ i Denver are converting their old on its most visible days is the"result,of woodburn- fireplaces and stoves to clean- ing. Woodburning accounts for roughly d percent of burning .pellet stoves, which barn the area's carbon monoxide problenn~ . compressed sawdust pellets and "Everybody you talk to about.lt Seems to be say- ~ ,pollute only slightly more than a ing the santd things. Eithaf,they, are burning less natural gas flame, which emits wood than they did be[nre or they' have switched to - ~ ~, nearly no particulates. _ .. .- ~ ,~__'..~. _.~ .r ..,«.... i~~,.aa va r~S ir~n:~a ', ~it11~i].'i S'Ii l51 P' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 7.990 12:00 p.m. New member orientation, Jim Shearer, Connie Knight, Dalton Williams, Ludwig Kurz 12:5 p.m. Site Visits 3:00 p.m. Public Hearing SITE VISITS 1. Appointment of PEC chairperson and vice- chairperson ~_,_#1 2. A request for an amendment to Special Development District 23 and a parking variance to allow for an office expansion, to the Vail National Bank Building, 108 S. Frontage Road a resubdivisian of part of Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village 2nd. Applicant: Vail National Bank Bldg. Corp. ~2 3. A request for an exterior alteration to the Vailglo Lodge on a portion of Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Third Filing. Applicant: Craig Holzfaster --, ~7 4. A request for a minor subdivision and zone change for Lots 4 & 5, Block 2, Bighorn First Applicant: Sable/Lupine Partners, Ltd. ~6 5. A request to amend a Special Development District for the Garden of the Gods on Lot K, Block 5, Vail Village Fifth Filing at 365 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Garden of the Gads, Mrs. A.G. Hill Family #5 6. A request for an exterior alteration for Condominium Unit #3 in the Gore Creek Plaza Building at 193 East Gore Creek Drive, Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Michael Sanner/Piero Rivolta #3 7. A request for a side setback variance for lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village Sixth Filing. Applicant: Clinton G. Ames, Jr. #~4 8. A request fnr a height variance to construct a new residence on Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch; Alpine Townhomes TV. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach 9. Discussion of revisions to Zoning Code, Sign Code and Design Review Guidelines. d u~ ,~ ~_ .i "' ~' S ~,,.,,~ ~:~ • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 12, 1990 Minutes Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Ludwig Kurz Jim Shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Shelly Mello Tom Braun Betsy Rasolack The Planning and Environmental Commission meeting began at approximately 3:00 p.m. following Site Visits which started at 12:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by the vice- chairperson, Diana Donovan. Item No. 1: Abpointment of PEC chairperson and vice-chairperson. Kathy Warren moved to appoint Diana Donovan as chairperson. Chuck Crist seconded the motion., VOTE: 6 - 0 IN FAVOR. C~ Jim Shearer moved to appoint Chuck Crist as vice-- chairperson. VOTE: 6 - 0 IN FAVOR. • Item no. 2: A reauest for an amendment to Special Development District 23 and a parking variance to allow for an. office expansion. to the Vail National Bank Building, 1(}8 S. Frontage Road a resubdivision af, part of Lot D, Block 2. Vail Village 2nd. Applicant: Vail National Bank Blda. Corp., Jim Shearer excused himself from this item due to conflict of interest. Tom Braun reminded the Board that this was a recommendation to the Town Council. He explained the proposal by stating that there were two parts to it. One was an amendment to the approved plan to allow for the enclosure of two decks on the third floor of the structure and the second part was a request for an amendment to the parking standards to allow parking far the addition within the parking structure at the Vail Valley Medical Center. Tom reviewed the criteria for major amendments to SDD's and then listed several concerns of the staff. He stated that the staff recommended denial of the request. 1 Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, explained the original requests from the hospital and from the Doubletree regarding parking and the proposed hospital parking structure. Jay pointed out that the Doubletree had amended their SDD even though the parking structure was not started and no condition was placed on the Doubletree at that time. Jay stated that the hospital has agreed to add two 1/2 levels, 35 immediately far parking and 35 at the present would be used for other things to maximize the space. He said that the past two approvals were not conditional upon the parking agreement. He suggested to the Planning Commission that they could approve the request with conditions concerning the start of construction of the Hospital parking structure. Jay said the Vail National Bank wanted to start construction May first. They would be done in July or August. The conditions could state that the parking structure must be started by August 1 so the Planning Commission would know whether or not there would indeed be parking available. Jay explained that they da have a temporary timing problem prior to the completion of the parking structure. He explained that if one assumed the Hospital did not build their parking structure the Town could revoke the temporary C.O. and he would sign a letter regarding that. Tam pointed out that the approved parking structure does not have excess parking spaces but only meets the demand of the Doubletree and the hospital. The proposed additional parking spaces have nat yet been approved. Kristan Pritz added that at best, there might be one excess parking spot. She also added that, although the town is supportive of adding the two 1/2 levels, the Highway Department would need to be contacted for approval of the additional parking spaces because they would contribute to additional traffic. She continued to explain that the issue is adjacent property owners wanting additional development without the parking in place. Connie Knight stated that she felt the present Vail National Bank parking was atrocious and would recommend denial. Kathy Warren stated that until something concrete was in place with the hospital parking structure, she felt that the Bank should provide some temporary parking. Also, that the existing parking should be addressed because, at present, it is already a problem. Jay stated that the Bank did meet parking requirements now. 2 Chuck asked if the Bank wanted to purchase additional parking spaces that were going to be constructed but were not yet approved. When he was told that was correct, he wondered what would happen if the structure was not constructed. Jay stated that the Vail National Bank would have to exercise their option for the additional spaces that they were renting before receiving a building permit. Chuck felt that with that restriction, he would vote for the request. Dalton stated that he had wanted to lease a space in the Vail National Bank for his business but he could not get parking along with it. He asked if they could request a parking study to see exactly what the needs really were at the Vail National Bank Building. Dalton wondered if they were too premature in trying to vote on the project. Perhaps the hospital could come in with the proposal for the additional parking first. Kristan felt that they were premature but that it was an issue for the Planning Commission to decide. Ludwig added to Dalton's remarks. He felt that he wauid have to say no to the proposal at the moment. Ludwig asked what the time table was for construction. Jay said that it would be okay to table the issue for 2 weeks. He added that he felt it was unfair of the Planning Commission to make the Bank provide mare parking than is really required. Diana asked that if there were more spaces needed than were originally required, if it were possible to still require more. Kristan said she would discuss it with Larry. Tam explained that Larry's feeling is that if they are complying with the code, he was reluctant to say whether or not they could ask for more parking. Kristan remarked that if the bank was planning to lease parking spaces an a permanent basis it may alleviate concerns for the future, Diana had the same concerns as the other planners and said that the Planning Commission could deny the request, table it or they could approve it with conditions. Jay stated that with conditions the Town would have absolute protection that the spaces will exist by the end of the fall and it would be easily enforced. Tom stated that this was not easily enforced. • 3 . Jay pointed out that the conditions would work, that the Vail National Bank would not be able to take out a building permit until the construction of the parking structure began and they could get a TCO when the parking structure was substantially completed. Kristan stated that the board needed to realize the wishes of, and the number of entities involved. She was concerned about getting a TCO before completion of the parking structure. She added that the Bank is not under constraints that were imposed an the Hospital. Unusual circumstances were put on the Hospital because of the staging and she wanted the board to keep in mind that the action on the bank proposal was a real precedent and needed to be looked at very carefully. Jay said he felt that the Vail National Bank was in the same position as the hospital. Dalton asked if there was a contract between the Bank and the Hospital. Kristan answered that it was not officially approved yet. Diana suggested tabling for two weeks and Jay agreed. Tom asked Jay to put the conditions that he had suggested in writing. The motion was made by Dalton Williams and seconded by Chuck, Grist to table the matter for two weeks with the condition that. Jav would draft and submit conditions to Kristan within one week. VOTE: 6 - 0 - 1 !with Jim Shearer abstaininal Item No. 3: A request for an exterior alteration to the Vailglo Lodge on a portion of Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Third Filing. Anulicant: Craig Holzfaster Tom Braun described the request as a modest one. That the Vailglo wanted to add two entries plus a Porte cochere. They also want to put up a gate and do additional landscaping on the West side. Tom reviewed criteria and said that it would be as outlined in CCII zone district and the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan in addition to standard zoning considerations such as set backs, site coverage, parking etc. However, since the Lionshead Plan focuses primarily on the pedestrianized mall area of Lionshead and the Vailglo Lodge is located outside the main pedestrianized area of Lionshead, most of the review criteria were not directly relevant to the Vailglo proposal. There were no sub areas directly affecting the property. As far as compliance with the Urban Design Considerations for Lionshead, the relevant issues were massing, roofs, facade-walls, structure and accent elements. The proposal seemed to be in compliance with these elements. Tom pointed out that the proposal is also consistent with zoning considerations in the CCII zone district. • 4 The staff recommendation was for approval. However, in evaluating this site the staff felt that landscaping improvements are needed on the berm on the Frontage Road. Landscaping in that area would screen the parking lot and in conjunction with improvements that would be made to L'Ostello, it would greatly improve the streetscape in this area. The staff recommended approval with the condition that the proposed landscape plan be revised to include improvements to the berm between the parking lot and the south Frontage Road. This revision is to be made prior to the Design Review Board Review of the proposal. Kirk Aker, Architect on the project, stated that landscaping on the back berm provided very little advantage for users of Vailglo. Jim Shearer stated that he would like to see the entire Frontage Road landscaped. He also added that he wanted to see the dumpster on the Southwest corner incorporated in the landscaping plan. Kirk said he would like to discuss these landscape issues with his client. Kathy felt that an enclosure or screen for the dumpster should be part of the conditions to the Design Review Board. Chuck Crist agreed with the need for landscaping on the Frontage Road and the screening on the dumpster. He said that he was unhappy about the fact that the tops of the pine trees were sawed off to allow the sign on the wall of the Vailglo to be viewed. Dalton felt that the berm needs to be high and there needs to be better landscaping, because on the Interstate one can see the parked Cars. Diana stated that with all the signs on the Vailglo the berm can be built up a bit. Connie mentioned that the proposal did look nice to her. mhe motion was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist to table the item. , VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR 5 Item No. 4: A reauest far a minor subdivision and zone chanae • for Lots 4 & 5. Black 2. Bighorn First Addition. Aublicant: Sable/Lupine Partners. Ltd. Mike Mollica explained the proposal. He reminded the board that they had had a work session on this item two weeks prior. He explained that there were two parts to the request; a zone change and a minor subdivision, The request far the minor subdivision would create four single family lots from two duplex lots and the zone change was for single family zoning. Mike reviewed existing zoning and the criteria to evaluate a zone change, One item was the suitability of the proposed rezoning. The staff felt that the proposed rezoning would be consistent with the Town's objectives and would not increase overall density. Mike showed a map which indicated large areas of snow and debris flow, red hazard and blue hazard avalanche zones within the boundaries of the two lots. He explained that the applicant was proposing to mitigate the hazards either by constructing large berms or direct mitigation which is structural strengthening of the buildings. He said the applicant wanted to keep open the options of which type of mitigation to use, and would prefer to have the individual lot owners decide the method for themselves. Mike continued to explain that the staff felt the proposed berming method of mitigation was was felt that vehicular access into the woods berm would create additional scaring. Anothe staff was the four driveway cuts proposed and recommended a maximum of two driveway cuts. very strongly that unacceptable. It to construct the r concern of the the staff The second criteria was whether or not the amendment presented a convenient, workable relationship within land uses consistent with the municipal objectives. Mike stated that the staff felt that single family residential zoning was consistent with adjacent land uses and was compatible with the neighborhood. The staff was in favor of the proposed staggered setbacks along Lupine Drive. However, one concern of the staff was the applicants' request for GRFA. The existing allowable GRFA is 13,295 square feet. The applicant is asking for 14,390 square feet. The staff was not in favor of that increase. The third criteria was whether the rezoning provides for the growth of an orderly, viable c~a~~~«unity. The staff believed that the rezoning would provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. • 6 • The staff recommendation was for approval of both the requests with the following conditions of approval: 1. That the Town Council approve the zone change request before the Planning Commission chairperson signs the plat. 2. That the plat include a restriction which prohibits the use of berming as a method of hazard mitigation. 3. That the plat include a restriction which limits the total allowable GRFA to 13,295 square feet. 4. That the plat include a restriction limiting the number of driveway cuts to a maximum of two. Michael Perkins, architect for the project, stated that the applicant would prefer to be allowed some flexibility in the solutions for mitigation of the hazards. He passed out a draft restrictive covenant proposed to be used for hazard mitigation. It stated that the use of berms as the sole or primary method of mitigation of natural hazards be prohibited and that the use of berms, retaining walls or other mitigation devices less than 6 feet in height may be used in conjunction with direct mitigation of the structure. He continued to explain that the reason they were asking far extra GRFA is that it would cost more to do • direct mitigation. This, according to Perkins, would off-set their cost. Marty Abel, property owner, said that his engineer confirmed that each dwelling unit would cast about 24 thousand dollars to do the direct mitigation and that that was how they arrived at the additional square footage for each unit--270 more square feet per unit. In regard to driveway cuts Michael Perkins felt that with four cuts it would be 50% less traffic as opposed to two cuts and he felt that if they were meeting the single family restrictions they should have single family allowance of one driveway per unit. He said sharing a driveway is part of what makes a duplex not as pleasant as a single family house. Marty Abel said he would agree to covenants that restrict large berms. However, he felt the best way for mitigation was site specific, not necessarily direct mitigation. He felt the wording on the restriction should satisfy each requirement for construction and felt that excluding all berming was unfair. He felt that the covenants could say that berming would not be used as the primary mitigation method. n 7 . Kathy asked him that if he did not want to go along with any of the staff recommended conditions. Marty that they would go along with items #2 and #3 but not #~. Kathy was not very comfortable with the statement that said that they could only do a certain type of mitigation and asked Kristen if it would be appropriate for the applicant to come back to the Planning Commission if berming is proposed. Kristen answered that the condition was related to the subdivision request and therefore must be dealt with now. Kathy felt that the correct way to do this was to come back with a design and discuss mitigation. Marty felt that the primary method should be direct mitigation but felt it was unfair to restrict berms completely. Kathy was not comfortable allowing additional GRFA. Regarding the drive cuts, she had no problem having four driveways. Dalton felt that the applicant could be permitted additional GRFA since it would be allowed under single family zoning, which is what they were requesting. Dalton also preferred the sentence that allowed retaining walls or berms less than 6 feet in height to be used in conjunction with direct mitigation. Connie asked if with hazard mitigation was a concern of the • Planning Commission. Kristen answered that the Planning Commission needed to consider any concerns that were part of a proposal. Connie was in favor of two driveway cuts, did not want an increase in GRFA and felt that the mitigation should probably be in the structure itself. She also felt that there should be some warning of the hazard on the plat. Jim had no problem with four driveway cuts. He spoke of the reconfiguration of the lot lines and felt that this type of thing should be discouraged. He wanted the GRFA to stay the same as that which was originally on the lots. With regard to mitigation, he felt that if they need both types of mitigation then both types of mitigation should be permitted. Diana stated that developers' financial concerns cannot be a consideration of the Planning Commission. She felt that four driveways were better than two and that the GRFA should stay the same. She stated that the Planning Commission has not previously given additional GRFA when changing zoning. She suggested possibly adding a condition that said trees over six inch caliper cannot be removed. She wanted the setbacks shown on the plat and covenants for all four lots. 8 . Chuck asked if the total square footage restriction would be placed on all the lots. Mike answered that this would be part of with the covenants. A motion was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Dalton Williams to recommend ancroval of a minor subdivision to the Town Council based on the staff memo with the following conditions: 1. That the Town Council approve the zone change request before the PEC chairperson signs the plat. 2. The the following restrictive covenant be placed on the subdivision: "The primary mitigation of natural hazards on the property shall be through direct mitigation of the structure, and the use of berms as the sole or primary method of mitigation shall be prohibited. Berms, retaining walls or other mitigation devices less than six feet in height may be used in conjunction with such direct mitigation." 3. That the following restrictive covenant be placed on the subdivision: "The total allowable GRFA for the subdivision shall be as follows; Lot 1 = 3,300 square feet, Lot 2 = 3,300 square feet, Lot 3 = 3,300 square feet and Lot 4 = 3,395 square feet. The total GRFA • shall be 13,295 square feet," 4. The front, staggered setbacks shall be indicated on the plat. Lot 1 = ~0 foot front setback Lot 2 = 20 foot front setback Lot 3 = 30 foot front setback Lot 4 = 50 foot front setback VOTE: 5 - 2 with Connie and Chuck voting against A motion was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Ludwig Kurz to aoorove the zone chance based on the staff memo dated Februarv 1z, 199a. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR Item No. 5: A request to amend a special Development District for the Garden of the Gods on Lot K. Block 5. Vail. Village Fifth Filing at 365 Gore Creek Drive. Abolicant: Garden of the Gods. Mrs. A.G. Hill Familv Connie removed herself from the discussion of the Garden of the . Gods stating a conflict of interest. 9 Kristan Prit~ presented the proposal to the Board. She started . out by saying that the applicant had decided to have only a worksession. Mr. Dan Hare, representing Mrs. Hill, discussed the proposal. He concurred with the staff and reasons for the proposal. He said the owner will tear down the building and build a new one. Regarding the concerns of the Vorlaufer residence, he said he met with them and considered rotation of the building but will still need to amend the SDA. Art Carol, a resident of the Vorlaufer, asked when this would be proposed to come back. Kristan answered that this would be on the 26th of February, but that she felt it would be helpful to hear his concerns today. The main concern is the effect on the view of the mountain and he questioned whether there was some way that this could be lessened. There followed a long discussion of views, amount of encroachment and View Corridors. Item No. 6: A reauest for an exterior alteration for, Condominium Unit #3 in the Gore Creek Plaza Building at 193 East Gore Creek Drive, Block SB,, Vail Village First Filing. Mike Mollica presented this proposal. He had a letter of approval from the Condominium Association. The owner of condominium ~1, next to the condominium that was proposing changes objected to the location of a balcony. She had two concerns. The first was sharing the balcony and the second was the fireplace venting. This was discussed and it was decided to eliminate the balcony, and the fireplace would be vented to the east, three feet above unit #1"s operable windows. The motion was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist for approval with conditions. Conditions: 1. The Balcony be removed from the common wall. 2. The fireplace be vented to the East about three feet above the window per. the staff memo. VOTE: 7 w 0 IN FAVOR Item No. 7: A reauest for a side setback variance for Lot 6. Block 2. Vail Village Sixth Fj~~na. Applicant: Clinton G. Ames. Jr. . Shelly Mello explained that the applicant requested to table this item for two weeks. 10 The motion was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer to table this item until Februarv 26. 1990. VOTE: 7 - 0 TN FAVOR Item No. 8: A reauest far a height variance to construct a new residence on Lot 3. Block 2. Vail Potato Patch: Aloine Townhomes 2V. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach The request is for a height variances ranging from two to nine feet. Tom Braun presented this request and showed site plans and surveys. He explained that the project would involve altering existing grades by filling in low points throughout the lot. An existing easement is also referenced as a hardship affecting site planning. Tom pointed gut that the history on the lot was relevant. Sometime in 1976 excavation was begun far a residence. The excavation dramatically altered the grade and then this past summer the applicant began filling the lot without approval from the Town. The factors were relevant in determining what is the existing grade of the lot. Tom also added that considering the grade of the lot after the 1976 excavation would impose an unfair hardship on the applicant because of the hole that had been created on the lot. Two surveys were submitted, one showing essentially existing conditions and one showing the conditions of the lot prior to excavation in 1976. The staff determined that the most reasonable survey to use was the one that was done prior to excavation in 1976. This approach is also consistent with other decisions made by staff concerning lots that have been disturbed. Tom continued to discuss criteria and findings. The staff felt that granting the request would be a grant of special privilege. The staff recommendation was for denial. The staff could see no legitimate physical hardship to allow far the variance. The staff felt that the proposed design showed little consideration to the grade of the property. Mike Lauterbach, the applicant, took exception to the staff memo, He felt that he could conform to the required regulated height if there were not a gas line in the easement. He felt that he could drop the house nine feet into the hole, compensate by allowing a four to six foot height variance or fill the lot completely and start from scratch. He then pointed out that the Liansridge subdivision had filled a whole ravine. He felt that the Potato Patch subdivision would be best served if the house were built to the highest and best use for this site. He stated that without • filling the lot, there would be no views of the ski mountain. 11 Gary Bossow, a property owner who lives two lots away, agreed with both Mike and the staff in that you could fill and build but he said 1Q feet over the height restriction was excessive. Kristan explained that in construction, the existing grade must be used and persons were not given permission to dump dirt and than build on the lot later on. Chuck asked how the Lionsridge subdivision obtained approval and Kristan said that the planning Commission had given approval for a total site plan. Gary Bossow stated that maybe the lot was not designed to have a view of Vail Mountain. Ludwig Kurz then stated that with really creative plans you could improve the situation without requiring a variance. Lauterbach said that he felt that Ludwig was suggesting that he point the house down the valley but that was not what he wanted to do. Connie asked if it was permissable to fill lots and Diana explained that they could fill them but they still must use the original grade in considering height restrictions. Mike added that the ridge was artificially high and that was a hardship and that the easement was as big a problem as the low point on the lot. Diana said she could not find a reason for the variance, and that the lack of a view is not a hardship. Mike asked about the easement. Kathy asked if the easements were on the lot when it was purchased and Mike stated that they were. Diana wondered if the Planning Commission didn't often give variances for easements. Tom pointed out that there was still plenty of land to build on. At this point the board discussed other ways and places that the home could be built. The motion was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Ludwig Kurz for Denial based on the fact that there was no hardship broven and ner the staff memo. Jim stated that he felt that the home needed to be redesigned. Diana said she was not convinced a variance was needed. Bossow asked what kind of hardship Lauterbach could possibly have. Diana expressed a need to look at the lot again. Mike asked how the Lionshead subdivision had gotten an approval and Kristan explained that they went before the Planning commission requesting a fill and grading permit. . Mike Laterbach said he would like to table for two weeks and present a grading plan. 12 Ludwig withdrew his second. Tom reminded Mike that if the lot were regraded, the engineer would need to look at the whole project and the other lots affected. Mike said he thought he could came back with a revised grading plan and asked to table. Diana asked Kristen if you could lank at all the lots that had been filled. Diana stated that the Planning Commission had allowed gullies on lots to determine whether units could be separated. Dalton said if the ridge were artificially raised that that seemed to be a factor. The motion was made by Chuck Crist and seconded by Jim Shearer to table for two weeks. VOTE: 5 - 1 with Kathv voting against tabling. • • Item Nn. 9: Discussion of revisions to Zoning Code, Sian Code and Design Review Guidelines. Tom explained to the board that there was a need to revise existing development regulations, that over time a number of small and relatively isolated issues and problems with the codes had arisen. He asked that the Planning Board take a comprehensive look at the regulations. He stated that he was interested in the big picture perception of existing guidelines, for example do the codes only need refinements or are they in need of a major overhaul? Can the relationship between DRB, PEC, and Council be improved with regard to the development review process? Is the existing review process cumbersome and slow, not thorough enough or adequate. Tom wanted to know what the problems were and wanted input for the RFP. plena felt that it was not a good thing to rewrite the zoning code and that she also felt that it was not a good thing to hire an outsider. She simply felt it needed to be tightened up. Tom explained that it was extremely valuable to bring in fresh eyes to look at the zoning code. Kristen explained that when they did choose a consultant the staff and Board would have input. They wanted to work with the Board and Council but felt that a fresh look was important. Diana felt that there were very few minor problems. Chuck tended to agree with Diana, he was very opposed to hiring an outside consultant. 13 • Jim felt that we did not need major involvement of an attorney to oversee the project. Dalton did not feel that an outside consultant was necessary. He said that the consultant would be paid to study rules that the staff was already familiar with. Diana stated that everyone that works with the code knows the problems already. Kristan explained that the staff wasn't advising a total overhaul of the zoning code, but that she has seen the use of many loop- holes and she felt the need for consultant assistance was important, especially given the existing staff level in planning. Dalton wondered if you could get an outside advisors in certain areas without hiring a consultant. Diana expressed that fact that usually ideas seemed to came from the community during the public hearings. Kristan said that there would need to be some type of consulting team and that the staff was not in the position to work on this because of their work load. Kathy felt that this was not an easy project, that there were broad range issues to consider and that the County regulations and those of the Town should fit together better. Kristan said that it sounded as though the PEC wanted a lead person with consultants as needed. But she reminded them that they would need an Attorney for rewriting the code. Jim stated that he would like to see clearer lines between the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board. Tom agreed that total revision was not necessary. Kathy liked Chuck's idea of having locals' input, but felt there were many locals that were self serving. The discussion ended. 14 i ` • To: Planning & Environmental Commission From: Community Development Department Date: February 12, 1990 Subject: A request for a zone change and a minor subdivision for Lots 4 & 5, Block 2, Bighorn 1st Addition. Applicant: Sable/Lupine Partners, Ltd. I. Description of the Pro~aasals Tha applicant has requested a rezoning and subdivision of the above named lots, more specifically located at 3916 and 3956 Lupine Drive in East Vail. The requests include the following: 1) A zone change from the existing Two Family Residential zone district (duplex} to the Single Family Residential zone district. 2) A minor subdivision which, if approved, would create four single family lots. Bath lots are currently vacant, however, Lot 5 does have the remains of a partially constructed foundation. The applicants also propose to relocate an existing intermittent creek that flows through Lots 4 & 5. Surrounding zoning includes Two Family Residential to the east and north, Single Family Residential to the northeast, and Agricultural & Open Space zoning to the west. Lands south of these lots are included in the White River National Forest and are not within the Tawn's municipal limits. T T . Backc-raund In October of 1983, the PEC approved a rezoning and minor subdivision for an adjacent duplex lot located at 3967 Lupine Drive. Two single family lots were created (3957 and 3977 Lupine Dr.} from the one duplex lot. The approval required that only one driveway cut be allowed for the two lots. This condition was subsequently removed by the PEG in September of 1987. TTT. ~onina Analysis A. Lot Area (Lots 4 & 5 combined} Gross Area: Areas of 40% slope or greater, and red hazard avalanche: Net buildable area: 115,918 square feet -57,467 square feet -------------------- 58,452 square feet B. Existing Zoning The current Two Family Residential zoning on Lots 4 & 5 will allow for the construction of one duplex structure on each lot. Current allowable GRFA and site coverage are as follows: Lot 4 GRFA = 6,191 square feet Lot 5 GRFA ~ 7.104 square feet Total = 13,295 square feet Lot 4 site coverage = 9,766 square feet Lot 5 site coverage = 13.417 square feet Total = 23,183 square feet IV. Criteria To Be Used in Evaluating This Proposal The three criteria to be used in the evaluation of a zone change request are as follows: 1) suitability of the broposed zoning. It is the staff opinion that the proposed rezoning would be consistent with the Town's municipal objectives and that the rezoning would not create an increase in overall density on this site. The current P/S zoning allows far a total of four dwelling units on the lots, and the proposed Single Family zoning would also allow for a total of four dwelling units. Architecturally, the main differences in the zone districts include the layout, or site planning, and general massing of the structures, (i.e two duplex structures vs four single family structures}. The zoning comparisons are as shown in Section V below. There are currently large areas of snow and debris- flow, red hazard and blue hazard avalanche zones within the boundaries of the two lots. There are also rockfall hazard zones and large areas of 40% slope on the lots. The applicant is proposing to mitigate these hazards by either the construction of large berms (12' in height, 40' in width and approximately 265' in length) uphill, or south, of the proposed residences, or through direct mitigation (structural strengthening of the buildings). The applicant would like to keep the options of mitigation open, and would prefer to have each future lot owner decide the method of mitigation for their particular lot. According to Art Mears, Avalanche~Control Engineer, the levels of safety would be approximately the same for either the direct protection or berming methods. The staff feels strongly that the proposed berm~ng method of mitigation is unacceptable. We believe that the berms would create an excessive amount of scarring on the hilldside as well as the loss of numerous aspen trees. Vehicular access onto the wooded, hillside to construct the berms would create additional scarring. The applicant is Lupine Drive, one recommending that the project. The limitation from a that the issue of proposing four driveway cuts onto for each lot. The staff is only two driveway cuts be allowed for Town engineer has recommended this perspective of safety and we believe street aesthetics is also applicable. 2) Ts the amendment ~resentina a convenient. workable relationship within land uses consistent with Municipal objectives? The staff feels that the Single Family Residential zoning designation would be consistent with adjacent land uses and would also be compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. We are in favor of the proposed, staggered front setbacks along Lupine Drive. There are no major impacts to the vegetation on the site as a result of the staggered setbacks. We believe that the setbacks will contribute positively to the overall appearance of the development as viewed from the street. The applicant has agreed to indicate the setbacks on the recorded plat. A concern that the staff has identified with this project lies with the applicant's request for GRFA. The existing P/S zoning allows for a total GRFA of 13,295 square feet. At the PEC worksession the applicant's GRFA request was for 12,000 square feet, (during the worksession the applicant amended the request to 12,895 square feet). The applicant is now proposing 14,390 square feet of GRFA. We believe that the existing, allowable GRFA of 13,295 square feet should be maintained. Increases in GRFA, aver the current allowable, would only contribute to an increase in the bulk and mass of the structures on lots that have many environmental hazards. 3) Does the rezonina provide for the arowth of an orderly. viable community? Staff believes that the rezoning would provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. The proposed use of four single family residences on this site would be compatible with the neighborhood in terms of density, scale, mass and bulk, and general site planning. V. ZONING COMPARISONS :J TWO FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY PROPOSAL 1. Permitted Single Family Single Family Single Famil y Uses: and Two Family Dwellings Dwellings Dwellings 2. Setbacks: Front: 20' Front: 20' Front: 20-50 ' Staggered Sides: 15' Sides: 15' Sides; 15' Rear: 15' Rear: 15' Rear: 15' 3. Height: 30'/33' 30'/33' 30'/33' 4. Density: Allowable Allowable Proposed D.U.'s: 4 D.U.'s: 4 D.U.'s: 4 GRFA: 13,295 sf GRFA: 19,090 sf GRFA: 14,390 s~ 5. Site 20% = 23,183 sf 20% = 23,183 sf 200 = 23,183 sf Coverage: 6. Buildable 15,000 sf 12,500 sf Lot 1 W 12,648 sf Area: Lot 2 = 13,220 sf Lot 3 = 16,385 sf Lot 4 = 16,187 sf 7. Total Lot Lot 1 = 48,830 sf Lot 1 = 34,058 sf Size: Lot 2 = 67,088 sf Lot 2 W 32,577 sf Lot 3 = 23,567 sf Lot 4 = 25,71b sf .7 VT. Staff Recommendation The staff recommendation is for approval of bath the zone change and minor subdivision requests. All of the required zoning/development standards (i.e minimum lot size, minimum frontage, etc.) for a minor subdivision request have been met. We would recommend that the following conditions of approval be placed upon the minor subdivision: Minor Subdivision conditions: 1) That the Town Council approve the zone change request before the PEC chairperson signs the plat. 2) That the plat include a restriction which prohibits the use of berming as a method of hazard mitigation. 3) That the plat include a restriction which limits the total allowable GRFA to 13,295 square feet. 4) That the plat include a restriction limiting the number of driveway cuts to a maximum of two. • fz L~! w ~ ~a _z ~o . ~a = z z a ~Q m F. ~o za ~o O S ~ ~x m~ IN m y 4 /, ~o Y:p O ~ J.a m Q ~;s F.H o; - z ~.o ~~ Z Q Q (~ m ~~ Q m~ = O V] _ W ~.~_ Q,ft] •i N II ~ ~ ! ~ n ~ - _ o .~F ' ~`f1~. ~- ' a ~ m z ~ r - ~: n ~ :~--~ ,-~ 'tsl Q Y' Ul'~ J ~ .. r,c. .I » n l .~~' D ~1 1 ~ 1 ~~ W 0 ~ ~ Q 1 ~ ... T I / ~ L ~ _ ~. ~ ~ ~-+ . C L1 ~ ? ! ~ ~~ i ~• - 0 = ~ ~~\ ! , Iz ~ ~ I w ~' ~ i ~ ~ ~ /r ~- / ~ ~ min; \ V ~ iiJ. • ' r / ~ ~ ~ ~ s~' N ~ q Z F ~., -I ~~~~ ~N mm _ - ~ _ - ~~„^ `_ ~ ~ _ R ~ _ 200 ? ~ Z ~ _ ~ '~~ p 7 ~ 5, _ Cn _ c nF ~ \ C7W m~ t _~ti~ -n~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~° z~ ~ ,~~ z°~o = z , m ~ W ~ _... d ~ _ _ ~ ~~-_~ Qa o~ ~~~1 ~~a ~w m~~o ~~ ~: ~ my mr- C , y.. ~ ~ - m/ _ ~O ~ ~ .; W ~~ q `~ { F ci FY-~ ~ L^ ~ ~ o ~_~- z - ` _o r '~~cc} ~ I e 2 ~ ';~J a,• f QO Cv ;W m~ ,~ `~~~ u Q .~ ~ Q ~~ 6p 2~ Q~ ~^.' (J) w O ~a ~o ~_ Q = Z t9 !~ i~; i 4 ti ~~. AQ `^'o_ 7 C7 • +~ m h ~~ 0. V u~ rV ~ ~ N ~ S- 0. ~ O ¢ N ~ ~'3~0 M 0 3 W N u <a~~` 4 fir` ~ p .. r ca ~ <S9~ ~ ~~'-~ --1 tN3~r .~ ,~ w N P ~ U s~ ti '" °% V. ~, ~ F L ~' N ~ N s a r m 3 N. ~ N N MQ Mug ~ ~ ~ .. ` ;~ a t,I ~~ N ~ ~ ~ < ~ } w g 0 r , ~, ~t~N~~ x H a x a N a M is r F V 0 ~ a 4 S U (` N `, V5 rv~i N N J V { Q .. ^)) fa ~ 0 ~^ o r a tl r~- ~ ~ LL ~Iti~~~ w m- ~pa l0 k ~ h M k ~ ~ V N ~ H W (~ w J J w5 N ~ ~ P N ,y ~ ~¢ v¢, ~~~ a~ ~~~v~s Q F v ~ 4 a~~w ~ h-Nws ,. M~ e~ do q'N Y q d ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ 5 m LL ~ ¢ ~; N ~1pyIL N 4 q ^~ J r 0 p .~~ U \r r N ~ K ~~ s NvZv~~ N; 3 Zero 0 L~ 3 ~ ~ 0 z z Q ul k`~ ll] q~ F' nL V ~a A p~µ ~Q~ N~a i i s p zN~ n ~ N 9 k~- ~ Y D ~oov wpQ, ~ m ~ ._5 ~ d' 0 ~~ _ _ ,~. ~3gg nn Jf Qa. ~ 3 \~\~~\ ~ ~ ~~ /~~~ ~ _ - ~~~~.. ~ ~~ . fe0. W !N ~(1 4 -~i F° ~~ ~ ~- _ Y ' .... Y W r a ~ \ ~ .. ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ _ ?~ ~w 3 ~ p~ u ~ i i~ sq, w ~ i ~' 1 < ~z~-' g ~ m u ~ ~ ~ ow Z0. ? m a v ~ a ~_~~.~~ ......-... ~.~ . :i.. ~ / ~ _ ~ i 1 + ~, % ~ - C r - -- -' - - - -' -~-~ ~' ~ ? -~ - s t- I %~~% j-~ " . - ~.- i - /jj i1 -. -- t ~,yng3z a Q m in ~~ 5 / '_ ~~ v _ 9z~ .s- -~ z - ___~ ~_c ~~ J~~' t-,~... ~ .,6 ~ ~ I~ "u ~. MJ A JgJ ~Yy d ~< &z C E --1 w Q x -~. 0 f" ~ iti W • .s z~ .~ ro _ ~~ P- rM FF~~ is Ns~a u W Nr pQ }~}--S_S (N ~ x~. N~ pizr x~ ~'~ w 3~ ~r ~ I~, 'Gp p x S PAY ~< aiNN~ ~G 3u ~$ ~i 3~3 3~ C % ' '% ~~: ~" ~- Q a ~ u l- LU ~ N ~Du~°~~~~mr'NU r Zh ~~~~r~vodw,~ ~ ~ o '° ~" F• ~~Jw X 39 <°• ~ ~m .8 ~ ~a;~ a.~a~ ~ ~ ~~ ~n 0. ~~~'~pin~a~ ~ ~v3~ ~~a ~ a~~_Al- 4`'u~ " 1-' lJ1'~Q fI 0 v`" ~ t=~l P- n a. ~, p ~- ~ ~ :~"%/j':~"~"'""' X dog as Q~nz ~~ i /j,/ ~ii,~i~ /. ~~ - ~ i~yj jam,: '` ^~ ~•' = j -. % • •' v ~~; ~~~ ~ ~ ~ t3 ~~- ~ ~/i /r~=j r. . ~ ~~ . . .~/ , ,% /; W P W -, 4 ~t ~7 ~• '~ °~ ~ a b}_~~ 1~G. • ~.. ~ E a 4 Jam. ~~~~~. ~, `.~ ti R A 1 o ,1 ~~~ 1~';,~ ~ ~ w 8 ~ ~ ~ 5 T nn z w' ~ ~~a R ~ ~. ~vi s $yr UMS . ~~ Rr..S ~w~ F1- Z ~i~G~ -I~ L '~ 7o i .tla f• I ~~ I 1 ~ .l ,, ~ ~ i f 1 i ~! h ul y 8 ,i r.~ S L ~ F- ut -~_ a ~. ..~~ ~ .~ ~ _, ' ` ~ ~, ,~ ~ . ;~ „ 1 f • ~1 o 4 4~ y 3 n s ~r~ .s. _ ~m Y~ i~ ~ r 9 +"- m ~0 !+ v a N fl i• SNOW-AVALANCHE AND DEBRTS-~FLOW HAZARD ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION CONCEPTS LOTS 4 AND 5, BIGHORN 2nd ADDITION, VAIL ~• Prepared For Mr. Al Amaral Arthur T. Mears, P.E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado April, 1989 . t • i QBJECTIVES AND LIMITATI(7NS This analysis of snow-avalanche and debris-flow hazard and mitigation concepts on Lots 4 and 5, Bighorn 2nd Adda.tion, was requested by Mr. Amazal and l~fr. Tim Boyle, P.E., of Vail. Specifically, the study has the following objectives: a. Analysis of the dynamic characteristics of design- magnitude (100-year} snow avalanches on Lots 4 and 5; ' b. Estimation of the frequency (return period) of major avalanches that may reach the building areas; c. Discussion of the structural mitigation procedures that can be used to protect buildings and living areas; d. Description of debris-flaw and debris-avalanche hazard; and e. Discussion of risk from avalanches. ~~ This study is site specific and should be applied to only this area. Avalanche and debris-flow characteristics will differ considerably at various locations, therefore the findings of this study cannot be applied to other sites. 2 SNOW-AVALANCHE CHARACTERISTICS AND FREQUENCIES Two snow-avalanche paths affect Lots 4 and 5: (a) the "Waterfall" avalanche will reach portions of Lot 5, and (b) the "Landslide"-avalanche will reach Lot 4 and 5. The Waterfall avalanche begins an steep, deforested, northeast- facing slopes at 10,500 feet elevation, some 2,100 feet above the - lots (Figure 1). Terrain analysis indicates that the "design magnitude," or "100-year" avalanche will result as 10-15 acres o£ snow breaks away in the upper starting zone, descends the ._ channel, spreads over the alluvial fan and stags in Gore Creek. When this occurs, several lots (and existing buildings ) wall be ~ reached by avalanche debris, including portions of Lot 5 (Figure ~; 2). The design avalanche will not be contained by the existing -' channels on the alluvial fan, but will spread laterally and entrain aspen trees as it advances down the fan. Such a major avalanche will probably occur in the dry winter snawpack, therefore the design-avalanche will _consist of dry-flowing snow. _ This conclusion is based on a statistical study of avalanche terrain in Colorado, my familiarity with avalanche behavior an ~~ the local area, and a dynamics analysis of the 6aterfall avalanche. ~; znspection of aerial photographs dated 1939, 1950, 1962, 1974, - and 1984 give some indication of avalanche frequency. Debris from only one large avalanche could be seen on these photos. ~. This avalanche occurred between 1950 and 1962, stopped above the locaer waterfall, and dzd not descend aver the cl~.fts to the alluvial fan. Although this was the largest avalanche to occur during a 45-year period, apparantly only a small part of the potential starting zone and snow mass was involved. This could be deduced from the channel directions that conveyed moving snow in the upper basin. If the entire 10-15 acres of starting zone had released, the avalanche would have been much larger and probably would have reached Gore Creek. The return period of of avalanches to Gare Creek is probably 50-to-100 years. If the Waterfall path releases as a large wet-snow avalanche it will move slowly and be confined to the channels on the alluvial fan. Portions of the wet snow could turn sharply to the east and west and cause deep snow to be deposited against and structures. The Landslide avalanche is located directly above the Lot ~/Lot 5 boundary. This is a small avalanche path of some 400 vertical feet elevation difference and begins below the thick limestone cliff. This avalanche path became more active since a debris avalanche occurred in May, 1984 and removed the entire forest cover, leaving an open scar approximately I50-200 feet wide through the aspen forest. Because snow will not adhere well to the existing surface, avalanches are frequent and will flow into the upper part of Lot 4 nearly every year. When thick, unstable snow slabs accumulate on these steep slopes, avalanches will sweep across most of Lot 4 and part of Lot 5 stopping near the south edge of Lupine Drive (Figure 2). • The boundaries of the design-magnitude avalanches in both the Waterfall and the Landslide paths are shown on Figure 2. 3 SNOW-AVALANCHE MITIGATION 3.1 Protection from Waterfall avalanche Two forms of avalanche protection were considered in the Waterfall path: {a) diversion walls, and (b? direct protection as discussed below. A diversion wall was considered as protectien for the western part of Lot 5. Such a wall, if properly oriented and 15-20 feet high could increase the hazard--free area on the Waterfall alluvial fan such that one or possibly two buildings could be placed in an avalanche-free zone. However, such a diversion wall would def sect avalanches and possibly increase avalanche frequency on the Lots north of Lupine Drive. Because a diversion wall may, in this case, increase the hazard to adjacent property, this mitigation option was rejected. Direct-protection structures are the recommended mitigation form within the runout zone of the Waterfall avalanche. Direct- protection~structures are of two types: • a. Reinforcement of buildings for avalanche loads; and b. Placing reinforced wedges directly above buildings to prevent avalanches from reaching uphill building walls. This is a common form of avalanche protection in areas of"•` moderate avalanche hazard ( "glue Zones") , and has been used a~ many Vail sites. If buildings are to be placed inside the Waterfall avalanche runout zone (Figure 2}- direction-protection should be used to reduce the avalanche hazard. Direct-protection structures can take many forms, depending on the shapes, sizes, and orientations of the buildings that need protection. Requirements for final design of direct-protection structures are discussed in Section 4 of this report. Advantages of direct-protectiion structures are: - a. Complete protection is attained for those inside the building; b. Additional earthwork and excavation is usually not required; ~ c. Buildings often do not appear to be designed for - avalanche impact. Disadvantages of direct-protection structures are: . a. Special design and construction can increase building 1 costs by lOb to 20a; J b. Complete protection of the site is not achieved (not an i important factor with long return-period avalanches. ~- 3.2 Protection from the "Landslide" avalanche The Landslide avalanche path is small, therefore large velocities and flow depths are not expected, even during the design- avalanche conditions. This avalanche can be stopped by building a catching dam at right angles to the avalanche flow direction {Figure 3}. The structure will serve to protect buildings on the northern part of Lots ~ and 5 such that special design of direct- protection structures will not be required within this area. The dimensions of dam cross sections are shown in Figure 4. 4 DESIGN OF DIRECT-PROTECTION STRUCTURES Design-loading standards far direct-protection structures (in the Waterfall runout zone} incorporated into buildings can only be given when final building characteristics are known. Specification of loading standards requires knowledge about the following architectural and design details: a. Building location; b, Building shape; and c. Building orientation. when these architectural details become known, design-avalanche forces can be resolved into normal and shear components, and the heights, strengths, and other details of direct protection structures can be specified. This design requires careful communication between the property owner, architect, structural engineer, and avalanche-engineering specialist in order to ensure ' ~~ a safe design. 5 DEBRIS•-FLOW HAZARD " Most of the Waterfall alluvial fan has been built from debris ~~ flows, consequently the fan surface must be exposed to debris- flow risk. The extent of the debris-flow areas are indicated on Town of Vail mapping. Only the northwestern corner of Lot 5 is reached by debris flows, therefore they will not constitute a building constraint at this location. 6 DEBRIS--AVALANCHE HAZARD ' The prominent landslide scar which presently serves as an avalanche path was indicated as "debris-avalanche hazard" on the 1984 Town of Vail maps, This area has stabilized and no longer ~.. presents a danger (from debris avalanche) to Lots 4 or 5. Snow avalanches do occur in the 1984 debris--avalanche scar, as discussed in Section 2 of this report. 7 SNOW-AVALANCHE RISK ~• Any building within avalanche areas will tend to increase the overall risk to people because of the increased exposure time of people in the area resulting from the development. The overall ._ risk from snow avalanches to people who are outside of buildings is very small, however. This is true because people generally spend a small percentage of the total time (roughly lo) outside during the avalanche season. Because this very small risk is users of these and Other avalanche potential risk and heed all official Submitted by, ;~~ . ~~~ Arthur I. Mears. P.E. Avalanche-Control Engineer finite, I recommend that all areas should understand the warnings. . • /// •' 'i ~~==~ ~~ _ t ~~ ~~`~ ~. ~~cr~ a +a a ~ ~~ ~- _ -_ _ _~ ~B ~~ Q ~1 ~1~~ ~ ~ _. `y -~-` _ 9~ - ~ '~~1 i~~ ~ ~' ~~ __ Sri r!!~i if I~ ~ ~ `~-..~~uf.--~ ~-_~ ~ ~\ ~.. ,. . ~.~~ri//r .~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X11 .,: ~~~--~~ . \ ~ -~ '~ V\r ~ -~~,~_ ~ _~ ;' . ~. ..- _ r. , . ' a~ ;I `l ~~ \ \ 105 i:. ~ r f \\. '\ ~ ~` ~~ ~~~~ \\'\ 1 ~r~. ' f' „\~lfl _~\~ \~\~ 1 \\ ~~~~ ~~ ,~ ! ` 786 ~~,, ~-~_~ ~' -~ ~ ~ \ `, ~ (/ FIGITRE 1 . S~ocation Map showing Waterfall ~; r ~" ,' and Landslide avalanche paths with otentia ~ ` ` p 1 #,` `. ~~~ ~ ~;'~ .` runouts during design (100--year} avalanche - ~;' ~~ i ~ r ~~ `~E~~~ j conditions. Other avalanche paths in the East rc tr i - ~ i ,~~~ ,~f ~;; Vail area are not shown on this map. l .// „1 - ~ ._ ~~ Map Scale: 1" - 2000' r . ij;Y} '-L.. a ^4 ~~r~~ r%~%~ /~ l ~ ~ ~ ~~f '~j 1, s.s~v ~~. ~~i •,' .i Illy ~~ ~~ ~~ . ~~ .r, :l.'/lf fill ~.`~I' `'~,.. ~~_~.. ~~ S. _ ~ ~. ~ ,_ ~ , . :•'~'7.'..., -' ~ • ~~l'~ ., .mom \, ~l~ .. \'~.\ i/ ..- ~ ..._1~~~~ 'l ~ ,. ~ .` ;` . ~'•.' ~ ~.., ~.- 8393 i '~' ~ _-., . . ~1, 4 ._ ~` ~' z W \ ~ \ •. s ~- . m ~ 1 `\ ~ ` ,<'~ ~ ``i`ce 5 ~ y, ~ _ - ~\ -_ 1 ~ .. ~ - ~ _ ~ I; 4 ~ e 00 ~ ~} 5~.. 4' - ~--rs ( `a` ~ t B~G~EORN \ ~~~ ~p f . -`~ 5~ ~~s sso ~s2s ~ ~ TIpN -~ ~ ~ ~` ~,~ ~~ ~~~~~~. ~ y , FIGURE Design ~ "1.00 alanc ~, \\\ `~ ~ 2. -year' ~ av he ~.~.~., ~~~~~'"_~ ~ _ ~~ boundaries in the "Waterfall." and . ~~;;,:..`,. .. ~ - - "Landslide" paths. ~~ .. ~. Map Scale: 1" -- 200' { • _ . ~ 3 ~• ~ ~~ _~~1 ~ ~r -.g B E ~,. ~~ p iJ; ~~. `~^ J f :{ _ '\ '~~ ~~ .i ,~ s .~ ,~ , ~` ~' ^` -` - J - r` `y_ W ~ 835 ~ ~ \ \ •~ i .. ~\ ~I ~ e~oo ~ ~ ••~ ' r . `. ~ j \ , ~ \ .` ,~'~ ~ \ ~ ~; •. ` ~ ~ C \ ~ ~` 4 •, \ ~..y 0 a \ \ \~\~\ • ~~ A ` i _ S \\~- _ -~ ~ .. _ ' -~ ! ~\~. ~1~ _ ~ f `_ r ~ ~ ` `~ !2 ~ •l • f ' , ~~ I / / ~6~5' 6 ~~s s~8 • ~ ~,~ rr O~ ~ \ ~ •c;~\~ ~`~.'~~` _ ~ ~ '' ~"' FIGt7RE 3. Design--avalanche limits ,~;~~~~ . \~\'~. ~- ~ _ adjusted by catching dam. Area ~ ~~ " \~~?~,•~~• _ ~ ~ •• ~ : suitable for direct protection is ~. ~" I • ', '_`_ also shown. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ •• Map Scale : i " - 200' = _ , . - , •~ f. Avalanche Direction . ~~ ~ ---~~ o c ~ ~ as !, ~pC7 o ti/~ A p o ~ 2ft Q o r o~ __, y 0 Q~ o v a~4~_ ~o p aCd:o~o ~r-1 ~ ~O ~ ~ o ° °o Ground Surface ~2, ~'1GURE 4~. Dimensions. of dam cross section. Dam crest position is shown on F~.gure~3. Construction dimensions should be correct to within ± i0f. This catching dam provides protection from the "Landslide" avalanche, as discussed in the text, • ARTHUR i. MFAR/~.S,P.E., 1NC. Natura~ Hazards l..ontulfariLi • 222 Ea>t Gothic Ave. C~mniaon, Colorado 8 E 230 303 -641.3236 November 20, 1989 Mr. Tim Boyle Boyle Engineering, Inc. 143 E. Meadow Dr., Suite 390 Vail, C0 81657 RE: Hazard Mitigation plan, Lots 4 & 5, Lupine Drive. Dea r Tim As you requested, z reviewed the hazard-mitigation plan for Tots 4 & 5 dated II-15-89. The following comments result from my review of the plan. 1. Snow and debris avalanches from the "Landslide" avalanche path will be stopped by the earth dams as shown on the plan. These dams will also stop falling rock. 2. Direct protection of buildings on the northwest side of Lot 5 will be required far avalanche and . debris-flow protection. This has been indicated on the plan (November 15, 1989) you sent me for review. 3. Direct protection can also be used to protect against avalanches originating in the "Landslide" path and affecting Lot 4 and part of Lot 5. However, the direct-protection design used for avalanche protection may not eliminate the risk or possible structural damage from rockfall at this location. Additional details about rockfall energy and specific structural design will be necessary to determine the suitability of structures for the rockfall protection. The proposed building areas are in "moderate" avalanche-hazard zones. Furthermore, the mitigation proposed on the plan will not increase the hazard from avalanches, debris flows, or rockfall on any adjacent or downslope properties or other private or public facilities. Please contact me if you have any further questions. • Sin erely, yti~~~ Arthur I. Mars P .E. Avalanche-Control engineer Meu Wastlnq Ataalancl:es Amlanche Control ~n~ineerirtn Nichoias i_amPiris, Ph.D. CONSUI.TlNG GEOa.OG15T 0793 VALLEY RaAD CARSONOALE, CQLQRADQ 81823 • {303)963.3600{24 HOURS) November ~s~, 3.989 Tim L~snyl e 14.? East Meadow Drive, Sa_Eite ~! ir:? Crps,raads Shopping Center Vail, CO. 83.65? F:E: Lots ~} °< 5, Si gharn Ds~ar- Mr. ~a, l e: I have raviewed the drawings of the prc?posed mitigation fer- the ab~:•:~e referenced property :pith regard to the ne~y lot lines ~,nd the e:casting r°ccl~:fall and debris flaw hacar-ds. As in of~r- previaa.:s cammuniLations, the t•y~pe of mitiq~~tion neQds to be in the fgr;n cf deflection struCtLares or direct' miti g"ti~:n by I•~c~me design to miniEr,i~e the danger to proposed . homes from avalanche, as a:ell as r-GCN~fall and dedris flv~:r ha~ard~, The dr`aalings which }you have presented have adega.aately addressed the con c.er-ns with the design of taco eartl~l berms with sufficient height, mass and ^rientKtian to protect the eastern three prap~a,ed rots, The westernmost nee can only be mitigated thr°o~agh the use csf direct prate~-tian incer-parated inter the stra_act~.are of the dwellir:g, It is my !and©rstanding that I~Ir. Rr-t Mears has provided you with the necessar}• guidelines tca protect against a~talanche, These shn~.ald suffice far the pr-crtection of the other two hazards a= well. The result wi 1 1 Eye that tht~ eastern threw I ots a~i I I nor.,r be placed in the Moderate H~.~ard Zones, but the faa.arth sate t~i11 remain a n the High Hacare3 Zone. If ynu have further gueCtaans please contact rne. - .~~ ~~~ Nicholas ~anpiris Consulting Geologist • T4: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: February 12, 1990 RE: A Request for an Amendment to SDD #23 (The Vail National Bank Building). Applicant: Vail National Bank Corporation I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED REQUEST This property was rezoned to a Special Development District in May of 1989. This rezoning permitted an addition to the existing building of approximately 1,800 square feet, which has been completed. In September of 1989, a minor amendment to the SDD was approved to allow far an addition of 213 square feet to the third floor. This space is to be created by converting an existing common corridor into office space. To date, this construction has not been done. The application before the Planning Commission involves two elements: 1. An amendment to the approved development plan to allow for the enclosure of twa decks on the third floor of the structure. This will add 1,276 square feet of office space to the building, resulting in a total amount of 23,205 square feet. 2. An amendment to the parking standards of SDD #23 in order to provde parking for this addition within the parking structure at the Vail Valley Medical Center. If approved, this office expansion would be completed some four to six months prior to the completion of the Hospital's parking structure. During this period, the applicant has proposed an interim solution of leasing spaces from the Holiday Inn. The amount of required parking for the proposed addition is five spaces. See attached letters from the Holiday Inn and the VVMC. II. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAIr This proposal constitutes a major amendment to the existing SDD. In this case, the Planning Commission's action is advisory, and final decisions are made by the Town Council. The criteria to be used in evaluating this proposal are the nine design criteria of the SDD section of the zoning code. These design criteria address a variety of issues, including . design compatibility, uses, parking, compliance with the Vai.1. Comprehensive Plan, site planning, etc. As with all SDD's, the specific development standards on this property are established by the approved development plan and the ordinance approved by the Council. It is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that their proposed development plan complies with each of the nine design criteria, or demonstrate that they are not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the vublic interest has been achieved. III. STAFF RESPONSE TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, This project must be reviewed as a whole, however, it is worthwhile to consider the two major elements separately. The proposed addition of 1,276 square feet of office space is consistent with each of the relevant design criteria. The design is compatible with the existing structure, the scale and bulk of the building is not appreciably increased, uses are consistent with existing uses, and site planning and landscaping are unchanged. This addition constitutes a very minor change to the existing development an the lot. However, the parking solution proposed is not acceptable to the staff. Our difficulty with this proposal is based on Design Criteria C., which states: 18.40.080 C. Compliance with parking and loading . requirement as outlined in Chapter 18.52. This criteria references the parking section of the zoning code as a basis for evaluating development proposals. The parking section of the code states that all required parking should be located on-site. The Town Council can grant exceptions and allow off site parking if certain criteria are met. In addition, it should be understood that the design criteria can be waived if "a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved". There is a specific process outlined in the Cade for leasing parking spaces. This proposal is inconsistent with this process. However, because this property is an SDD, the proponent can establish its own standards for parking. This means that the applicant is within its rights to request approval of the parking solution as proposed. The staff is conceptually amenable to the bank locating five spaces within the Medical Center's parking structure. This appears to be a workable situation considering the proximity of these two sites and the relatively small number of parking spaces involved. However, as proposed, the parking solution is not a practical one, and it is not consistent with the intent of the parking regulations. The fallowing reasons outline the staff's primary concern with this proposal: n J 1. At the present time, the parking structure approved for the Medical Center is designed to meet the • needs of the Center and the Doubletree Hotel. The structure is not designed with excess capacity. Approval would have to be obtained from the Town to modify the development plan add more parking to this site. This approval has not been obtained. 2. The parking is not in place at this time. The staff has serious concerns about approving this proposal dependent upon parking that is not in existence today. 3. The development of the parking structure is totally dependent upon the performance of an adjacent property owner. The Bank has no control over the completion of these spaces. It is irresponsible to grant a development approval to one property owner, who then must rely on the performance of an adjacent property owner in order to satisfy their parking commitments. 4. It has not been established that the Holiday Tnn has an excess number of spaces to lease to the Bank. With the development of the structure out of the Bank's control, the Holiday Inn solution must be considered a permanent one in the event . the completion of the Medical Center parking structure is delayed. While it may be unlikely that problems will develop with completing the structure, it is not the Town's responsibility to speculate, or accept the risk that everything will go smoothly. The worst case situation is such that the Bank must rely on alternative locations for the parking, and the obvious question becomes whether the Holiday Inn has the ability to provide this parking. No documentation of the utilization of the Holiday Inn's lot has been submitted as a part of this application. 5. The approval of this proposal could serve to establish a dangerous precedent for future development proposals. Simply stated, the applicant is asking for approval of a development that is dependent upon the performance of an adjacent owner in order to satisfy the parking requirements. From the standpoint of the Town and the community at large, there is little ar nothing to gain by granting this approval now. While an approval for the applicant will allow them a more convenient construction schedule, the Town will be accepting the risk that the parking structure at the Medical Center may ar may not be completed in a timely manner. 1V. ETAFF RECONIMENDAT70N • The Staff cannot support this application at this time. In concept, it appears reasonable for five of the Bank's parking spaces to be provided in the Center's structure. However, it is fundamentally bad planning to approve this application without the parking in place. The appropriate time to review this proposal is after the Medical Center's parking structure has been completed. The staff position on this application raises the question of how this proposal differs from approvals received by the Hospital over this past year. As the Planning Commission may recall, the Hospital received approval. to construct an addition to its building prior to the construction of the parking structure. There are a number of differences that distinguish this proposal from the hospital project. First and foremost, the construction of the Hospital parking is under the control of the Hospital.. We are dealing with one project and one owner. With this proposal, the Bank has nn authority or control over the completion of the parking. Secondly, to require simultaneous construction of the parking structure and the hospital addition would have caused severe impacts on the Daubletree Hotel during the winter season. Thirdly, the development of both facilities would have compounded difficulties of staging construction and eliminated even more available on-site parking during the construction period. Finally, the Hospital has completed the relocation of utilities to allow for the construction of the structure this spring. While this point could be used to argue that the Hospital is totally committed to the completion of the structure, it must be reiterated that the Hospital is the party responsible for this project. The Bank has no control aver the completion of the parking. Once construction of the parking structure begins, the risk to the Town that the project will not be completed may in fact be quite low. Nonetheless, the staff can see no reason why the Tawn should accept any risk to accommodate this development plan. There is nothing to gain by approving this project now and hoping that everything works out. In addition, this entire proposal assumes the Hospital's proposal to enlarge the approved design is acceptable. The Staff and Planning Commission are not in a position to make this assumption at this time. The Colorado Division of Highways will also have to approve changes to existing designs. The opportunity to provide parking off-site is not a right, but rather should be seen as a privilege. Until the parking is in place, it is irresponsible to consider approval of . this request. Dear Kristen: The owners of the Vail National Bank Building (VNB Building Corporation) have a written option to purchase an exclusive, irrevocable license to use as many as twelve parking spaces in the hospital's proposed parking structure. Shortly after working drawings are completed next month, the hospital will provide the VNB with an estimate of construction costs. The VNB will then have seven (T) business days to exercise its option. The parking structure presently approved by the PEC has only enough spaces to serve the hospital's current needs. Needless to say, the VNB's option is contigent upon the hospital securing the approvals needed to construct an additional level of below-grade structure. . cerely, Dan F eney P~o,~e~ T DF/bh cc: Ray McMahan C, Flay McMahan Administrator ~' ~• tt ~~/' • '~~1c1tC~1~ ill January 31, 1990 ~~ Sidney Schultz--Architect, Inc. 141 East Meadow Drive Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Schultz: By your letter, it appears to me that you need parking spaces on a contract basis so that you can always count them as part of your building, not just a temporary thing. Under those conditions, it would have to be a lease an a year round basis. Xou would be responsible for putting up the signs showing it as Vaal National Bank Building employees' parking. • Also, of we decide to add rooms to our property, we would have to go underground at least two levels. That would give us parking for at least the 102 spaces we now hold. By having two leve~.s, we should be able to get 150 or 160 spaces so that we could'sti1.1 hold the spaces you are requesting. I imagine th t the ice fox tha.s would be $800 a year per space .•//^~~ (/+ / 1 - ! t, ~ I Sanc~rel --y furs, -~ ,, _ - -~ -- - l,har e~Eira, ~ II - General~Manager J ..~/ t3 Vail Road • Vaif, Colorado 81657 + Phone Vai! 3031476-5631 • Qenver 573-9406 Owned and pperaled by OAF3 Investmelns, Inc. Unger License from HOLIDAY INNS, INC. ~, . `, SIDNEY SCHULI L-A~CH~TECT wc. 149 EAST MEADOW DAVE VA[L, COLORAO 89657 303/476-7890 [, i• February 7, 1990 Ms. Kristan Pritz _ Town of Vail Office of Community Development Vail., Colorado 81657 re: Vail Rational Bank Building-temporary parking variance Dear Kristan, This letter is to follow-up my application for a temporary parking variance for the proposed deck enclosures at the Vail National Bank Building. $etween the tl.me our construction is completed and permanent parking is provided at the new hospital structure, we propose to provide parking on the Holiday Inn site. The Holiday Inn is within three-hundred feet of the Vail National. Bank Building property. As the attached letter from Charles Pereira confirms, this parking may be on a long-term basis. If you have any further questions regarding this matter please give me a tali. 5' rely, Sidney chultz cc: Paul Powers Jay Peterson Gail Lowenthal MEMBEE?, THE NNERICAN IiVSTITI.fT'C OF ARCHITECTS TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 12, 1990 SUBJECT: A request far an exterior alteration to the Vailglo Lodge at 701 W. Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Craig Holzfaster I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED REpUEST This request includes the addition of two entry vestibules, a porte cochere, and other site improvements to the property. The additional square footage proposed for the building totals 133 sq.ft. There is no change to the existing residential density on the site. II. REVIEW OF CRITERIA The review process for this application is outlined in the Commercial Care IT Zone District and the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. In addition to standard zoning considerations such as setbacks, site coverage, parking, etc., the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan establishes a number of criteria used in evaluating proposals of this nature. As with the Vail Village Urban Design~Guide Plan, the Lionshead Plan focuses primarily an the pedestrianized mall area of Lionshead. The Vailglo Lodge is located outside of the main pedestrianized area of Lionshead, and as such, most review criteria are not directly relevant to this proposal. The following are the three main review criteria far this application. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD This element of the Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead identifies a number of sub--area concepts, many of which include proposed infills in the mall area. There are no sub-areas that directly affect this property. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIONSHEAD This section of the Urban Design Guide Plan describes specific design criteria to be used in evaluating development proposals. As stated, the location of this proposal is such that many criteria are not applicable. The following are the architectural guidelines that are relevant to this proposal: • A. Height and Massing: Building expansions are to generally be limited to 1-2 stories. The two entry vestibules and Porte cochere fall within this guideline and introduce a pedestrian scale at the two main entry points to the building. B. Roofs: The guidelines encourage flat, shed or dome roofs; but discourage gabled roof forms. The roof form, slope and degree of overhang is consistent with these guidelines. C. Facades - Walls/Structure: The primary materials proposed include a metal roof and dry stack field stone columns. These materials are consistent with those outlined in the Lianshead guidelines, D. Accent Elements: U The guidelines recommend a range of color schemes for buildings and additions in Lionshead. This element has generally been considered the purview of the Design Review Board. Colors have not been submitted as part of this application to the Planning Commission. IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS This proposal is consistent with all zoning considerations outlined in the Commercial Core II Zone District. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff and Flanning Commission have encouraged the upgrading of lodge facilities for many years. This project is consistent with their upgrades and the staff is generally supportive of the improvements proposed to the Vailglo Lodge. The site and landscape improvements are generally positive. However, in evaluating the site, landscape improvements are most needed on the berm along the Frontage Raad. Landscaping in this area would screen the parking lot and, in conjunction with improvements that will be made to L'Ostello, greatly improve the streetscape in this area. Staff recommends • proposed £or the condition: approval of the exterior alteration Vailglo Lodge, with the following 1. The proposed landscape plan be revised to include improvements to the berm between the parking lot and the South Frontage Raad. These revisions are to be made prior to DRB review of this proposal. The Town's Landscape Development Plan, Section C3, should be used as a reference prior to any landscape design along the South Frontage Road. • T0: Planning and environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 12, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from the side setback requirement of the Frimary/Secondary Residential Zone District for Lot 6, Block 2, Parcel B, Vail Village Sixth Filing (725~B Forest Road}. Applicants: Clinton and Doris Ames I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants, owners of Lot &, Block 2, Parcel B, Vail Village Sixth Filing, are requesting a variance from the side setback requirement to allow the construction of a 13'x 12'6" two story addition on the west side of the existing structure. The addition to the secondary unit will encroach 3 feet at the north end and will taper down to the 15 foot setback line on the south. The site is currently occupied by a 2 family structure consisting of 2792.7 sq.ft of GRFA with a total allowable GRFA of 4190 sq. ft. The primary unit consists of 1679.2 sq. ft. of GRFA and the secondary unit has 1113.5 sq. ft. of GRFA. The maximum site coverage allowed is 3879 sq. ft. . for this lot, and the property currently has 2828 sq. ft. The applicant's proposal is to add 288 sq ft of additional GRFA to the unit which will subsequently encroach into the 15' side setback. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial 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 proposed addition should not have any negative impacts on the existing or proposed structures in the vicinity. Adjacent property owners would not be significantly impacted by the proposed addition. 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 amana sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special nrivileae. Staff does not find that there is a physical . hardship regarding this variance request and feels that approval of the request would constitute a grant of special privilege. We also feel that the applicant has not given full consideration to other design solutions for construction of the addition which would not require a variance. 3. The effect of the reauested variance on light and air, distribution of population,, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and, utilities. and public safetv., Staff finds that the requested variance will have no significant effect upon any of the above considerations. III. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems, applicable to the proposed variance. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the. following findings before arantina 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. • V. STAFF RECCMMENDATTON Staff recommendation is for denial of the requested 3 foot encroachment into the side setback. The staff feels that the applicant has not fully investigated all passible alternatives that would not require a variance. The staff feels that the addition could be redesigned or moved from the west elevation so that it will not encroach into the setback. Without being able to identify a true physical hardship which would limit the location of the proposed addition, the staff is unable support the applicant's request. • • ----- m ~• f~ i f~~ _ ~,1~ ~ ~~ .. ~~~ i s_. ~~-s/-~~ . i•~ : ~"= -~ ///I ~ II t ~ ~j~~`~" f K r LAC a e L a ' r' 4-' J ~'~~~ X13 / Y \~~' ~~ e' / ' ~ 4 l ~~~ q ~~ l / ~~_ ~, i --~' R ~ ~ ' J r ~ 2 y r ~~ SSS ? ~ ~, `_ ~ ~ ~_i '~ ~' ~ • oy? ~II f l k~ ~, -'^' ~ , /` 'JI i / ~ ear S 9 ~t a as ? )- ~ ~ ~S~ ''{{ lYJ z~ ~~ ~ ` Iv ~+1_ n a _e ~ ~ ~}3 `~ ~] it it LL LL O~ ~ :} ~- .[~~ ~y~4.~ ~s ~ g .~ ice/ ' i 'n w ,V' 'O _a-' s a 5 £ w i . z f~ I U u • 11 ~ M ~ -.: .. - 1 AI [~ t t In! t Vc ~jf~ ~1 Y - I `Yti f 1'2' "~"2 1 ~ ~ ~ f ~ J ~ r ~ ~ Iy - .. TN~ ` ~ y L.. ~'~ l~3 A i~~y .~.1 3 ~v : r~ -F _ i ~ Yr. ~ C1 'l~F1 ~~=f~-~ 1 7 L +t Y Y ~ t t ` ~ ~ ~ Q1 ~ F~ 1 .! t _. ~ ~ . ~ .F : fi ~~ ' Qo ~ ,'3~! ~~ 0 1 , i1;,i q g ~ . { ; { ~ ' ~ ~~ ~ ? . Ct .F i~ 11 ~j l~ 11111 ~ ~ x . • L~ ~ 1 ' - y 4 ~ ~ ~~~Mii~{L~~4+ () roil V x' s o„ '~. .I a ~~ ~~ #~} V i 1 f F9-171 Y Q ., ;~:~ r 5~;,1 ;,e'.~FS~._~ ~„ f~~ ~ {, ~'.•~ V i ~'; ~:`~ ~ yA ~l~j r.J ~ 1sit' ~Yil ~' ~' ~~ Y ~ d ~- ~~ .~1 ~- ~. . ~~ ~. ~' Z ~ ~o ~~ 0 ~ Q U ~.m -;~ ~ ~~ . { ~' 1 E~'i ~ 4 ~ T ! ,. , { sl E - -. - ~' s1 ? ~ ail ~ ... , ~!~ ~ ' ` ` Vii" ~ ~ . . ~ 1 ~' £~~ a r .. ~: ~ - f .! f l - Y 2~ ~J' 4 I ~ • ~ .. I~1 .. -,. - .. - ~ I i _ ~~ r .. ~ ~ .:, yy h ` ; P j l I , I{I{ i t ~~ i: 1 r i I ~ t i i f f fit, Fib' I ~ ~ ~I' 1:~ 1 ~. .r'~' ,~' ~ l 1 L '' •~Y j „~~ ! ~~ ~I ~-~ I j 3'i 1~ Y i~ ~ i~ ii ~~o ~~ ''~;~ s _~~ r ! V~ ~~ . QJ ..; is cl _ ~ ~ ~~ ;; ~ ;~ i ~I 'I jl ~ ~~ ~ i ~~ 1 - ___, { it TD: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE; February 12, 1990 SUBJECT: A request to amend Special Development District X18, Vail Village 5th Filing, the Garden of the Gods Lodge. Applicant: Mrs. A. G. Hill Family I. DESCRIPTYON OF PROPOSAL This project has received one Special Development District approval in 1987. The approved SDD was then revised in the summer of 1989. However, the applicant never pursued final approval from the Town Council. Under each of the previous SDD requests, the applicant proposed to remodel the existing building. With the present request, the applicant would like to demolish the existing building and construct a new building in the approximate original building's footprint with a few modifications. The request to rebuild the Garden of the Gods includes: A. 6 dwelling units T 12,648 sq.ft. of GRFA. B. 11 accommodation units @ 4,086 sq.ft. GRFA 4 accommodation unit lock-offs @ 1,725 sq.ft. GRFA TOTAL: 15 accommodation units C 5,812 sq.ft. GRFA C. An increase in dwelling units calls for 1 au 730 sq. ft. D. An increase in 3,575 sq.ft. t{ square footage devoted to 2 employee W 1,802 sq.ft. of GRFA. The existing SDD and 1 du having a total square footage of common area from the existing amount of ~ 3,712 sq.ft. E. Construct sidewalks along both sides of Vail Valley Drive. New planters will be built adjacent to the parking lot on the east side of Vail Valley Drive (P--2.:. Parcel). F. Underground parking of 15 spaces. The underground parking allows for the removal of 2 surface spaces on the east side and 2 surface spaces on the south side (Tivoli side) of the project. 2 spaces are removed from the parking lot on the east side of Vail Valley Drive to allow far the sidewalk and planters. Landscaping is proposed for the areas where surface parking is removed. The parking requirement is met. • 1 ~ ~ I ~ G. Build a public bus pull-o £f with b2neh an the sauth~ast corner of the property. H. The existing height of the building is approximately 43 feet (ridge elevation 8219 ft}. The proposed height on the north end of the building will be 43 ft 5 inches (ridge elevation 8219 ft 6 inches). The south half of the building has a height of 47 feet (ridge elevation 8223 ft). The existing zoning of the property (public accommodation zoning) allows for a 48 ft. height for a sloping roof. The designated view corridor #5 is not impacted by this proposal. * All ridge elevations are measured to the final finished roof including any roof cap, etc. z. The applicant proposes to restrict all of the 11 accommodation units (5812 sq.ft.) as well as 4 accommodation unit lock-offs and 3 dwelling units (2882 s.f.) as short term rentals on a permanent basis. All of the restricted accommodation units and a.u. lock--offs shall be made available to the short-term rental program. Definitions: d.u. = dwelling unit or living unit with kitchen a.u. = accommodation unit or lodge room a.u. lock-off = A dwelling unit may include one attached accommodation lock-off or lodge room. **Please see the attached zoning analysis and unit use analysis charts. Tl. REASONS FOR THE SDD REQUEST The Garden of the Gads project is located in the Public Accommodation zone district. The existing SDD zoning that was obtained in 1987 was originally requested because the project did not meet the definition of a lodge, was over the allowable density by .5 dwelling units and had a total common area that exceeded the allowable. In respect to all other zoning standards the project met the requirements of the Public Accommodation zone district. This new Special Development District request differs from the Public Accommodation zoning and existing SDD in the following ways • 2 A. Definition of Ladae: The proposal does not meet the definition of a lodge. According to the zoning code, Section 18.04.210, Definition of a Lodge: "A lodge means a building or group of associated buildings designed for occupancy primarily as the temporary lodging place of individuals or families, either in accommodation units or dwelling units, in which the gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units exceeds the gross residential floor area devoted to dwelling units, and in which all such units are operated under a single management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities." The Public Accommodation zone requires that, at a minimum, 51•°s of the total GRFA be devoted to accommodation units. 53% of the GRFA is in accommodation units in the existing building. The approved Special Development District allocated 270 of total GRFA to accommodation units. Tn other wards, there is a 4~ increase in GRFA devoted to a.u.'s when comparing the old SDD to the proposed SDD. B. GRFA: The new SDD has a total GRFA of 18,450 square feet. The proposed GRFA is 866 square feet over the allowable. The existing SDD is under the allowable GRFA by 857 square feet. The PA zone allows for 17,594 square feet. C. Setbacks: In previous SDD reviews, the existing building was proposed to be remodeled so the setbacks were not changed. Tn this request, the building will be completely rebuilt. For this reason, the setbacks are no longer a given. The existing building encroaches into the west, north and south setbacks. Below is a summary of how the existing building setbacks compare to • ~ 1 l New SDD Existing East 20 ft East 20 ft West 1 ft West .2 ft North 3 ft North 1.4 ft (excluding retaining wall for underground parking) South 8 ft South 9 ft' Tn respect to all of the other zoning standards and parking, the project meets the requirements of the Public Accommodation zone district. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL A. Uses: Please see Section IV.B B. Density/GRFA; Please see Section IV.B C. Setbacks See Section IV.F D. Height The height proposed is within the maximum allowed of 48 feet for a sloping roof. E. Site Coverage The site coverage is below the allowable of 9,677 square feet. The proposed site coverage is 7,787_square feet. F. Parking Parking requirements are met for this proposal. IV. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL USING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA A. Design Compatibility and Sensitivity to the Immediate Environment, Neighborhood, and Adjacent Properties ~1 u 4 ~5 1 Relative to Architectural Design, Stvlc, Bulk, guildina • Height{ Buffer Zones, Identity, Character, Visual Integrity and Orientation. The architecture of the building is significantly upgraded by this proposal. The use of stone and stucco, additional landscaping, removal of six surface parking spaces and underground parking wi11 improve the appearance of the building. The roof has been designed so that there will be no impacts on the designated view corridor. The building location is basically the same. However, areas where the building encroached into the setbacks have been decreased slightly at the closest points (north and west setbacks). The proposal will have a positive impact on the character of the neighborhood. B. Uses. Activity and Density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Density The proposal is one du under the allowable density far the Public Accommodation zone district. For PA zoning, 12.5 dwelling units (d.u.) are allowed. 11.5 dwelling units are proposed. {Please remember 2 accommodation units = 1 dwelling unit). It is positive that the project is actually under the allowable density. Lodae Definition Similar to the approved SDD, the amended SDD falls short of meeting the definition of a lodge which would require that mare than 50$ of the GRFA be devoted to accommodation units (a.u.'s). However, the new SDD actually allocates more GRFA (1,216 sq ft) to accommodation units than the existing SDD. The average size of the accommodation unit is also increased in the new proposal from 287 square feet (existing SDD) to 372 square feet. The number of accommodation units does decrease from 16 (accommodation units plus accommodation unit lock-offs--old SDD) to 15 accommodation units and accommodation unit lock-offs in the new proposal. Also, the number of dwelling units has been decreased from 8 d.u.'s to 6 d.u.'s in the new proposal. However, the GRFA for the dwelling units has increased from 12,141 square feet (old SDD) to 12,648 square feet in the new SDD for d.u.'s. In general, the existing SDD in the size of the project is no 1~ slight increase negative impact properties. new SDD is an improvement over the that the number of d.u.'s is decreased, acc~,~~~~~odation unit is increased, and the anger over the allowable density. The in GRFA (866 s.f.) does not have a major on the project or surrounding Restricted Units As stated in the previous SDD memo, the Ramshorn project was considered to be a similar proposal to the Garden ofi the Gods, Zn analyzing this type of request, the staff has taken the position that maintaining rental restricted units for the bed base is positive for the community. The intent of the requirement that a majority of the project square footage be devoted to accommodation units is to maintain the purpose of the Public Accommodation district as a "site for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors." (Section 18.22.110) Due to the fact that Special Development District zoning is once again requested, there is some flexibility in haw the intent of the Public Accommodation zone district may be maintained without meeting the precise requirement to have a majority of square footage devoted to accommodation units. The staff originally analyzed this project in terms of available rental. units or "keys," i.e., au's or du's that are available for rent. The new proposal has 21 "keys" available for guests. This number of "keys" is based an the fact that 15 accommodation units and 6 dwelling units are available as POTENTIAL short term rental units for guests. Of the 21 potential rentable units, 18 will be restricted as short term rentals including 3 dwelling units. The percent of units available for short term rental increases from 700 or 17 "keys" to 86% or 18 "keys." GRFA The additional GRFA (866 square feet) is due certainly to the fact that units area being expanded, but also because the circulation within the structure has been designed in a more efficient manner. Employee Housing The applicant has also agreed to improve the existing employee unit situation for the building. Two employee • 6 4 ~ units will be added having a total square footage of 1,802 square feet. The total existing square footage devoted to employee units will be increased by 1072 square feet when compared to the existing SDD. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. All parking requirements are met. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Compliance Plan, Town Policies and Urban Desicfn Plans LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Plan also supports this proposal in the following ways: 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever passible. 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 4.2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5,5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community CJ 7 • F. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the Special Development District is proposed. Not applicable. F. Site plan, provisions responsive vegetation, community. building design and location and open space designed to produce a functional development and sensitive to natural features, and overall aesthetic quality of the The applicant has developed a site plan that is functional and has a high level of aesthetic quality. The amount of open space, mass and bulk of the building and pedestrian/vehicular circulation have been planned in a sensitive manner. An important question is why is it appropriate to allow the new building to encroach into the 20 foot setbacks? These encroachments are supportable, as the configuration of the building, access, and parking are made more functional with some flexibility for the 20 foot setbacks. The building could be pushed into the northeast corner of the site which would create problems for traffic circulation, separate the building from pool amenities and possibly impact the Vorlaufer to a greater degree. • Under the new SDD, the building will continue to encroach into a drainage and utility easement. All of the utilities except for the cable TV have vacated the easement. Public Works will agree to vacate the drainage easement as long as the applicant agrees to construct curb, gutter, and other necessary drainage improvements to the east, north and south sides of the property. G. The circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing an and off site traffic circulation. The Ramshorn has built a sidewalk along the south west side of their property that also extends over to Golden Peak. It makes sense for the Garden of the Gods to add the two sidewalks, as pedestrians taming from the transportation center will walk along both sides of Vail Valley Drive. Guests of the Garden of the Gads will also use the sidewalk. The present bus stop is located at the northeast corner of the property. The new southwest location is better U 8 for the owners of the Garden of the Gods in that tho buy stop does not block the visibility of their site. {Four trees will need to be relocated due to the new bus stop.} In addition, safety is increased far vehicles entering and existing off the Garden of the Gods property as well as for the general public. It is very reasonable and appropriate to request that the applicant make these improvements given the request far an SDD. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The project proposal includes the following landscape improvements: * new planters along the west side of the pool * landscape buffer along west side of property * existing spa by pool replaced by landscaping * 4 on-site surface parking spaces replaced by landscaping * 2 parking spaces on P--2 parcel removed and replaced by sidewalk and planters * curb and gutter and any asphalt work necessary to handle the drainage problems will be rebuilt The landscaping proposal is extremely positive and will add to an already well landscaped project. The only area of concern is that 4 trees will need to be relocated or replaced to allow for the bus stop. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional, and efficient relationship throughout the development of the Special Development District. Not applicable. The entire project is to be built the summer of 1991. V. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN ANALYSIS Below is a summary of how the Vail Village Master Plan relates to this proposal. U 9 A. Illustrative Plans 1. Land Use Plan: The Garden of the Gods property is indicated as "medium/high density residential". This section states that a majority of the Village's lodge rooms and condominium units are located in this land use category. The goal of the plan is to maintain these areas as predominantly "lodging oriented with retail development limited to small amounts of "accessory retail'r~r. The proposal generally complies with this description of the land use category. 2. open Space Plan: This plan calls for planting buffers along the east side of Vail Valley Drive adjacent to the surface parking on the P-2 Parcel. The applicant has worked with the Planning Department and Town engineer to arrive at a solution that removes the existing planters and private parking from the public right-of-way to allow space for a new sidewalk and planters. 3. Parking and Circulation Plan: This plan calls for sidewalks along both sides of Vail Valley Drive. Sidewalks are included in the proposal. 4. Conceptual Building Height Plan: This property falls within the three to four maximum range of building stories. A story is defined as nine feet of height with no roof included. The proposed height falls under the public accommodation zoning maximum far a sloping roof of 48 feet, There are no impacts on the designated view corridar #5. Please see the attached letter from Eagle Valley Engineering and photo of the view corridor. B. Sub-area Concepts The Garden of the Gads falls under the east Village Sub- area No.7. This plan states that the most important public improvements in the sub-area relate to pedestrian 10 and bicycle safety. Thy public right-of-way should be maintained and expanded for public use whenever possible. Sub-area 7-3 and 7-4 relate specifically to this property. The plan states: 1. #7-3 Vail Valley Drive Sidewalk - A sidewalk (separated from the road where possible) through the sub-area linking the Golden Peak base facility with the Vail Transportation Center. Landscape improvements and pedestrian crosswalks to be included as required to meet demands of pedestrian traffic. Special emphasis on 3.1, 3.4. 2. #7-4 Parking Lot Infill - Presently utilized as parking for adjacent properties, While zoned for parking {covenant restrictions also limit use of this parcel to parking), this site could accommodate a small lodge. Practical difficulties in developing this site include the covenant restrictions in maintaining on~site parking for existing and future demand. Possible public uses for this site include pedestrian and bus circulation improvements. Special emphasis on 2.1, 2.3, 2.6, 3.1, 5.3, and 5.4. The proposal complies with Sub-Area 7-3 and does not prohibit the eventual implementation of 7-4. C. Vail Village Master Plan Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Action Steps that apply to Garden of the Gods Proposal. Below is a summary of the goals, objectives, and policies that relate to the Garden of the Gods proposal: GOAL #1: ENCDURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN TTS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. • ii 1.3.1 Palicv: • • • Public improvements participation of the Town. GOAL #2: shall be developed with the private sector working with the TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR ROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 2.3.1 Palicv: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. 2.5 Ob'ective: Encourage the continued upgrading and renovations and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.5.1 Policy: Recreational amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as part of any redevelopment of lodging properties. 2.6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.1 Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over the allowable by existing zoning. 12 2.6.2 Polio Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to ensure their availability and affordability to the local work force. 2.6.3 Policy The Town of Vail may facilitate the development of affordable housing by providing limited assistance. GOAL #3: TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCING OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: 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 greenspace areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. GOAL #4; TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES. • I3 4.1.1 Policv: . Active recreational facilities shall be preserved (or relocated to accessible locations elsewhere in the Village) in any development or redevelopment of property in Vail Village. GOAL #5: INCREASE THE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY, AND IMPROVE AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. 5.1.5 Policy: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. 5.4 Objective: Improve the streetscape of circulation corridors throughout the Village. 5.4.2 Policv: Medians and rights-of-ways shall be landscaped. • For the sake of brevity, staff will not address each goal, policy, and objective separately. The project supports the Village Plan in the following ways: 1. The redevelopment is a high quality proposal that maintains architectural scale as well as almost all the zoning standards far the underlying PA zoning. 2. Significant public improvements are incorporated into the redevelopment such as sidewalks, the bus stop, and landscaping. 3. Short-term accommodation units are upgraded. 4. Large and more functional employee housing units are proposed. 5. The pedestrian experience is enhanced by sidewalk and landscape improvements. 14 6. Underground parking is included, while surface spaces are removed. The remaining parking is visually screened. The project meets its required parking. 7. Public transportation is improved and made safer as a result of the new bus stop. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the proposal. Basically, our position is very similar to our recommendation on the Ramshorn project. As stated previously: "Although the inability of the end product to meet the strict definition of a lodge is not what we would ideally like to see, we feel that the property will continue to function as a lodge and meet the intent of providing high quality guest accommodations in the Public Accommodation zone district." The applicant has provided significant improvements through the redevelopment which will benefit both guests and owners of the Garden of the Gads, as well as the general public. The proposal meets the criteria outlined in the Special Development District review, goals of the Land Use Plan, as well as Vail Village Master Plan. • Staff approval is contingent upon the applicant meeting the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a revised employee housing agreement with a floor plan that clearly indicates the location, type of unit, and square footage for each employee housing unit. The two employee housing units shall be restricted permanently. The agreement shall be submitted and approved by the owner and the Town of Vail before a building permit is issued for the project. 2. The applicant shall submit a written statement agreeing to restrict the proposed accommodation units, accommodation unit lock-offs and three dwelling units as short term rental units an a permanent basis. Even if the project is conduminiumized, these units shall not be included in the condominiumization but must remain as short term rentals. This written agreement shall be submitted by the owner and approved by the staff before a building permit is issued for the project. 3. The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall construct a sidewalk and bus stop on the east side of their 15 property as well as a sidewalk and planters adjacent to the P-2 parcel. The final design for the sidewalks, planters, and bus stop shall be submitted by the applicant to the Public Works Department and Community Development Department for approval. The sidewalks, planters and bus stop shall be constructed subsequent to the issuance of the building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the project. The applicant shall submit a written statement agreeing to this condition for the Town attorneys approval before a building permit is released for the project. Tf needed, the Garden of the Gods shall also provide a public easement for the bus stop, sidewalk, and signage. The applicant shall submit the easement agreement to the Town attorney and Town Council for approval before a temporary certificate of occupancy is released for the project. 4. The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall construct curb and gutter as well as any other drainage (asphalt work etc.) improvements necessary along the north, south, and east sides of their property. Final design for the drainage improvements shall be submitted by the applicant to the Public Works Department for final approval. These improvements shall be constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. 5. A revocable right-of-way agreement shall be completed for any encroachments on the public right-of-way. This agreement must be submitted to the Community Development Department and approved before a building permit will be released on the project. 6. The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall submit a utility and drainage easement vacation to the Town Council for approval before a building permit may be released for the project. Recommendations to the Design Review Board 1. The vent on the west side of the pool should be removed. 2. The north elevation of the building should have more transparency. • i6 3. The €our trees that will be either relocated or replaced due to the construction of the bus stop should be addressed. I€ the trees must be removed, landscaping that has substantially the same positive impact should be required. • • i7 i 3 :....:...::.: A <TOTA~':;GR WINTER 1990 GARDEN OF THE GODS ZONING ANALYSIS 51a/a GRFA !N AU'S NA NA 17594 SQ. FT. 12.5 DU 4399 SQ. FT. 45 FT. FLAT ROOF 48 FT. SLOPE ROOF 2dFT. 16 @ 7742 SQ.FT. 2 @ 6745 SQ. FT. 1 AU 610 SQ. FT. 1 DU 515 SQ. FT. 1.5"" @ 1125 SQ. Fl'. 14543 SQ. FT'. 10 DU 3575 SQ. FT. 42 FT. EAST 20.0 FT. WEST .2 FT. NORTH 1.4 FT. SOUTH 9.0 Fi' 6363 SQ. FT, OK 22 READ. 28 EX.. 10 AU 11 AU 6 AU LOCK OFFS*"*" 4 AU LOCK OFFS 16 @ 4596 SQ.FT. 15 @ 5812 SQ. FT. 8 @ 12141 SQ. FT. ~ 6 @ 12648SQ. FT. 1 DU 215 SQ. FT. 1 DU 901 1 DU 515 SQ. FT. 1 DU 901 2 @ 73a SQ. FT'. 2DU @ 1s02 SQ. FT, ~ 16737 SQ. FT. ~ 1846 6 SQ. FC. I 13 DU (AUS + DUS) x.1.5 DU (AUS ~ DU5) ~ ~ 4360 SQ. FT. ~ 37 i 2 5Q. FT. ~ SAME 3FT. 6" NORTH END ~ 47 FT. SOUTH END SAST 20.0 FT. FAST 20,0 FT. WEST .2 FT. W E5T 1 FT. NORTH 1.4 FT. NORTH 3 FT. SOUTH 9A F1' SOUTH 8 Fl' I 6831 SQ. FT. 7214 SQ. FT. ~ ! OK OK ~ 27 READ. ~ 26 REQD. 28 RROPOSED 29 PROPOSED * Restricted employee units are not counted towards density or GRFA ** i DU equals 2 AU *** Standard parking requirements applied **** A DU in amulti-family building may include one attached accom- modation unit (AU lock-off) no larger than one third of the total floor area of the DU. A lock-off is not counted for density. Lock- off GRFA is added to the total DiJ GRFA. Parking for alock-off is calculated by adding the AU lock--off to the DU GRFA. The DU parking requirements are applied to the total GRFA for the DU plus AU lock-off. C] S ~ WINTER 1990 • GARDEN 4F THE GODS UNIT USE ANALYSIS : .. FA ZONE EXISTING .: -::;:OLD SO© .:...... . : :.::NEW SDD ~;. :<`>~faYo.OF TOTAL° '`<s 27 % 3I % `,``GRFA IN AUS ``-~' Si % 53 % AVG. AU 287 S. F. AVG. AU372 S.1=. ': 9!o OF TOTAL !~ GRFR !N Dl7S '. 49 % 47 % 73 % 69 o/a <`41c O FTOTAL .;: 16 AUS @ 4596 15 AUS 5812* , <GRFA RENTAC''I 1 DU @ 1134 3 DUS 2882.5 ?I~~STRlCTED~PER .. <. . NA 0 5730 S.F.OR 34% 8695 S.F.OR 47. o/a , .:::; < ..:. :.:>::.:.. 7.26 075':.....:::'. - >`:TOTAL`KEYS :;::'> NA 1$ 24 2I <`~<:<'<:>°ib DF. KEYS :°'.`. ~F?ESTRICTED PER NA 0 17 KEYS OR 70 % I8 KEYS OR 86% * All AU and AU lock-offs sha11 be used for short--tezm rental through out the year. r1 LJ • t ~ ! i ,~ ~j~~ 1 ~ r~ iy ,.~' ,•i M W ~_ y ~ i. 'E f , // ~ t ^" ~~ ~ %r'~ t a "~ tH ~y g~ ~ V• o I! ~~ '' >~ '~.,d. `~, 3 ~i~~ ' .~~r 4' " ~~ - ,~ 3 ~i -~f~ .~ ~• ,~ 3 ~ ~ • January 29, 1990 Ms. Pam Hopkins Snowden & Hopkins Architects 2fl1 Gore Greek Drive Vail, CO 81657 Re: Garden of the Gods Expansion Dear Pam, Per your request I have reviewed the impact the above mentioned expansion would have on the Town of Vail view corridor from View Paint #5. The elevation of the highest existing north-south ridge line of the structure is 8219.0 feet.If the ridge was moved to the east seven feet the new ridge line could be built to an elevation of 8219.6 feet and it would not encroach into the defined view corridor. Please call if I can be of any further assistance on this project. • Sincerely, Eagle Valley Surveying, Inc. ~, Dan Corcoran, P.L.S. President 41199 Highway 6 & 24, Eagle-Vail Post Office Box 1230 Edwards, CO 81632 303-949-1406 3 1 830 dace ~~treet ~e:~ver, Q0. cs02Q6 ~+•ebruary 5, 190 ~?lanning Commission ~~~ty of ~dai1 Mail, CG. ~.aaias and gentlemen: You should be extremelyproud o= the care and concern you anti your predecessors in office have devoted to ma:•:i~_~g ~,~ai1. uninue in all the ~tirorld. she relatively low buildin;;,s, the protected light and air everyc~:rhere, the flowers - all these make the vilia~e an agrweable ad•~~=lion by mats in a lovely valley. ':~e have been owners at jail .for over 21 years anti nave c'n-~rished not only t:?e vi eS,1 of the Coxes but oi' the Ckiers s~or'_~in•r thleir wav do~trn ':gold Weak. r~1e are across t'ne street .f_rom the warden of tine gods builda~~~~, in the second floor of tY?e V~~rlaufpr T:re have studied the proposed extentiiU:: of the building and feel we mutit protest. I suppose ~.Ye have no ri:;~~t to maintain our view t~~ the extent necetisary new construction is ;•rit~,ir~ t~!e ordinances. but it Tai ~? be such a sad scan backward, a^d one which gill lead to a seri:;us iIIl- nair~ne t or., Veil's i_~ternational repu;,ation ( your priceless aswet:) if you start allowing a fe~a feet greater mass here and t'~ere in the village. It saill always be economically adv3ntage~~us to a lando~:~ner a~~d the °ax°aayin, nuolic to make ful'~e~_.use of land. Our property and tine Christiana and all the rest are no differ ant. ~t~t t~:~e advantage is s~.ort '~er^~. As time goes on, not only the pleasure of tt~e present otrrners tiai~,1 be diminished bud Ireland values as well. Tease don't add to the mass anytiuhere in the ililla~,e: ~~~'hank you ~ or laste_~~n~,, ~o us. Srncerely~, ,~~~- . / ~~ 'T'homas ~. a:~d '~ir~;inia E,~i. ~i'axon ' 1. t (708) 576.5300 ROBERT W. GALVIN 1303 EAST ALGONOLIN ROAD SCHAUMBURG. ILL(NO15 6Di96-1065 February 6, 1990 Planning and Environment Commission Town of Vail. 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO $1657 Ladies and Gentlemen: You are presently deliberating on the issue of the remodel and reconstruction of the Garden of the Gods facilities on Gore Creek Drive and Gore Creek Road. This property happens to be across the street from the Vor-~ laufer Apartment Building in which building I have recently become an apartment owner. I anquired the apartment prior to knowing of any changes in the Garden of the Gods facilities and am pleased to be informed about the plans • that are under consideration. As one that has an apartment that looks to the south and to the east z ask that the most serious considerations be given on the part of those who must make the appropriate judgements, to the least serious effect on the views that we have had from our apartments in the Vorlaufer building. We happen to be the owners of Apartment ~~203. If the footprint of the building were to extend further to the east than presently or its overhanging eaves were to be a blocking to us, the effect could be somewhat significant as far as the present pleasures of the occupancy of our current apartment. Thank you for your consideration. Bes wishes, f ' ~. ~~ obert W. Galvin RWG:ch cc: Art Carroll ~ •~ i • • • SELF & COMPANY PLANTERS&GINNERS Phone AC 601 326-2841 235 East Main, P.O. Box 367 Marks, Mississippi 38646 February 2, 1990 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, Colorado 8I657 Dear Commission Board: I am writing in regards to the plans for the new Garden of The Gods Club building. I have been the owner of a Vorlaufer Condominium (~~303) for eleven years. I have just been in Vail and have seen the proposed building expansion plans. I am highly disturbed over how the plans affect our building. My top floor unit wi11 lose 3/4 of.its view of the mountains. The people on the lower floors will be hurt even more. Not only will. my view be destroyed, but I am afraid the value of my place wi11 be reduced. ~lhy can't the new building be placed so we can all be happy? It is not fair for one party to obstruct the view of so many. Sincerely, ~~-9 ~-a ~ Virginia N. Self VNSInP 1 • ~• t ~ „,_ Samuel A. McCray Alfred L. McCray Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO $1657 January 24, 3.990 • Dear Sir: MCCRAY & MCCRAY Lawyers Strike 390, Claypool Building 4130 Linden Ave. Dayton, Oh9o 45432 Re: Garden of the Gods Lodge Area Code 513 254-6155 Fax 513 254-2171 The undersigned are the original owners of apartment condominium 301 in the Vorlaufer in Vail. We are advised that the owners of the Garden of the Gods Lodge are proposing to demolish their building structure and rebuild that lodge in accordance with new plans, We have been favored by a report from the Community Development Department to the Planning and Environmental Commission of Vail dated January 8, 1990 which contains various comments on the proposal of applicant, "Mrs. A. G. Hill family", concerning the Garden of the Gods Lodge project. As neighboring owners to the Garden of the Gods Lodge remodeling project the undersigned would like to approve the following comments and urge the Planning and Environmental. Commission to implement them as follows: 1. Sidewalks - Valley View Drive badly needs sidewalks leading to the Golden Peak facility. The pedestrian traffic of skiers in the morning is heavy. It is only a question of time until. some pedestrian skiers will be struck by hurrying motorists. 2. Bus turn-out and park bench improvement - Valley View Drive is a high traffic artery in the morning, both bus traffic, motorist traffic and pedestrian traffic. A bus turn- out at the appropriate bus stop will easE traffic circulation. A park bench for waiting bus passengers will afford convenience to Vail tourists. 3. Underground parking - Vail parking is always at a premium. In the event the present building is to be demolished then underground parking for the patrons of the new Lodge should be required. ' ~ w ~ ~ / r Objections tv interference with "view corridor" As original owners of the Vorlaufer apartment wE purchased our apartment in the Vorlaufer building based upon the view corridor which our apartment had as a result of the old Valhalla building permit. We object to any interference with this view corridor through the vehicle of demolishing the existing Garden of the Gods building and thereafter building a new building so as to obstruct or interfere with our view of the mountains. The old Valhalla building permit has already been modified once in order to accommodate the Garden of the Gods building. The application for a new building plan should be required to honor the original view corridor which the Vorlaufer building enjoys. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Yours very truly, c. Arthur Carroll. Connie Knight C] Vorlaufer 301 C dominium Owners ~~-~~ ~ ~ Samuel A. cCray A~.fre L. McCray, Truste Y ~1 ' 4 I t • • C~ A. W. CHANDLER, JR. February 2, 1990 Planning and Enviromental 75 South Frontage Road vail, co 81s~~ Dear Commissioners: Commission Town of Vail f `~U~. i,~~9D I am writing to you to express my disappointment over your treatment of me as an owner of a Vorlaufer condominium. My disappointment lies in the fact that you have scheduled a meeting for 12 February 1990, to which T cannot attend, to. deal with the teardown and subsequent rebuilding of a much larger Garden of the Gods which lies directly in my view path. I have no quarrel with tearing. down the Garden of the Gods and rebuilding it but, it should not be for the benefit of some and the loss for others (i.e.including invading their view corridors.} As of this writing, I have received no information or facts on which to assess its impact on me emotionally or financially. I would like to postpone this meeting at least one month or longer from the proposed date if at this meeting decisions are to be made that will effect my enjoyment of my Vorlaufer condo as well as my financial investment. The delay is to review the information I hope ycu will send me so I can be knowledgeable when I attend the meeting. cc: Art Carroll Betty Penner incerely, ~~f ^~- C~~~ J ~ vv ~T. Ohandler s~T~ $Q~ ~~oo Cor.~ Av~rru~ D ~ T T ~S, 'T'EXAS 75245 4214) 52i-1995 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 12, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration for condominium Unit ~3 in the Gore Creek Plana Building at 193 East Gore Creek Drive, Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Michael Banner/Piero Rivolta I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting an exterior alteration to the third floor condominium of the Gore Creek Plaza Building in Vail Village. This addition would add 125 sq.ft. of GRFA to the building and would utilize the remaining GRFA for this site. This exterior alteration includes the following modifications: -The bedrooms along the north elevation will be expanded by 94.5 sq.ft. of GRFA. -The balcony area, off the bedrooms, will be extended 5 1/2 feet to the north. C. -The living room will be expanded (30.5 sq.ft. of GRFA} by partially enclosing the west deck. A gas fireplace will be added to the unit (no fireplace currently exists in the unit). (Please see attached site plan and elevations) II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this exterior alteration request: 1. Zane District: C~~E~~~~ercial Core I 2. Lot Area: 7,535 sq.ft. 3. Site Coverage: No change proposed 4. Parking: No change. 5. Density: No change proposed. • 6. GRFA: (80°s of ?,535 Allowable: 6,028 Existing: 5.903 Remaining: 125 Proposed: 125 -0- sq.ft.} sf sf sf sf (if addition if approved) III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I 18.24.010 Purt3ose: The Commercial Core I Distrint 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 Commernial Core T District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways . and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. This proposal is in conformance with the intent of the purpose section of the Commercial Core I Zone District as stated above. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE A. Pedestrianization: This exterior alteration wall have no impact upon pedestrian circulation within the Vail Village area. B. Vehicular Penetration: No impact. C. Streetscape Framework: Staff believes that the proposed addition will have no impact to the streetscape framework as this is a third floor addition. D. ~trpet Enclosures • The existing feeling of street enclosure along the Gore Creek Promenade will not be affected by this proposal. E. Street Edae• No impact. F. Building Height: The proposed addition wi11 have a maximum roof height of 41 feet, which is well below the building's overall ridge height of 49 1/2 feet. The Vail Village Design Consideration addresses building height restrictions for CCI as follows: 1) Up to 600 of the building may be built to a height of 33' or less. 2) No more than 40% of the building may be higher than 33', but not higher than 43'. This proposal will have no effect upon the roof height proportions as stated above. The new roof area will cover the existing roof of the floor below, (both roofs fa11 into the 33' to 43' roof category). There will be no impact on this criteria. G. Views and Focal Points: • This proposal will not impact views from any adjacent property nor will the addition encroach into any Town designated view corridor. H. Service and Delivery: No impact. I. Sun/Shade: This proposal will not fall shadow patterns on Gore Creek Promenade. increase the existing spring or adjacent properties or on the V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends approval of this request far an exterior alteration. We feel that the proposal complies with all of the applicable Design Considerations of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. • • C7 C] .~ U_ L~ \(1 Y. '~ Y- ~_._ . a~.. _ . A ~~'-~ ~k ; `: :f .. ~n: • i ~ ~ ' I 3 y ~t l~ ~~ f =m i ~~ i.' ~a ~ t ~~ xyp-,. *F.,z '~ {y« "[ S 1 • ;t^ ,,.: :, ' ~ r ~ ~ q ~ it ~ i I -'-- -___ - - °-- i ~ ~~/ i -~~ ,--.. -fi :. •~, 4 ~' ~~ E , I ~ ~~ j~ { 1 1~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ,~~ ` ~ ;' ? 1i ~ x.'14 ~' {''{k ~ i~ ~`~~ z a'. { f ;~ i r ',~ ,~ - , ~ ~ ~~ ~. 3 :7 ~~ T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 12, 1990 RE: A request for a height variance in order to construct a Primary/Secondary Residence on Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach T. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The height limit far structures in the Primary/Secondary zone district with sloping roofs is 33 feet. Height, as outlined in the zoning code, is defined as follows: Height 1$.04.170 "Height" means the distance measured vertically, from the existing grade or finished grade {whichever is more restrictive), at any given point to the top of a flat roof, or mansard roof or to the highest ridge line of a sloping roof. . In simplest terms, height is determined by superimposing a roof plan over the existing topographic plan of a lot. If one were to drop an imaginary 33 foot line from the top of any point along the a ridge, the line must hit the ground in order to be within the 33 foot limitation. A key point to remember with regard to height limits is that the 33 feet is a maximum as measured from existing grade or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive. The proposed staructure exceeds height limits at a number of locations. In same cases the proposed structure exceeds height limitations when measured to existing grade, and in other cases it exceeds the height limitation when measured to proposed finished grades. The variance request ranges for 2-9 feet of various points on the structure. The applicants statement has been enclosed for your consideration. As proposed, this project would involve altering existing grades by filling in low points throughout the lot. An existing easement is also referenced as a hardship affecting the site planning and height of the proposed structure. A There is a history to this lot that is relevant to this • request. Sometime around 197b, excavation was begun on this lot for the construction of a primary/secondary residence. This excavation has dramatically altered the existing grade of the site. This past summer, the applicant began filling the lot without approval from the Town. These factors are relative in determining what is the existing grade of the lot. To consider the grade of the lnt after the 1976 excavation would impose an unfair hardship on the applicant because of the hole that has been created on the lot . Two surveys have been submitted, one essentially showing existing conditions and one showing conditions of the lot prior to excavation in 1976. The staff has determined that the most reasonable survey to use as the existing topography of the lot is the map that was done prior to excavation in 1976. This approach is also consistent with other decisions made by staff concerning lots that have been disturbed. TI. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. This lot is bound on the west and south by an open space tract, on the east by an undeveloped primary/secondary lot, and an the north by 770 Potato Patch. The subject lot is situated below 770 Potato Patch, and it is unlikely that the proposed structure would impact this property. Lot 4 is unbuilt, and it is difficult to determine how this proposal may affect this adjaa.ning lot. 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. • F The height ordinance is written to allow for a • mass of 33 feet at any given paint on a structure. On a sloping lot such as this one, it is the intent of the ordinance that the height of the structure "follow" the topography of the lot. The topography of a lot should effect the ultimate design of a structure. However, this design is not responsive to the existing grades of the parcel. One could argue that conditions on the lot today present a hardship because of previous excavation. However, using the pre-excavation survey as the topography of the lot effectively eliminates this as a hardship. Even when using the pre-excavation survey as a basis for measuring height, the structure still exceeds height limits in a number of locations. In some locations these ridge lines are within 33 feet, but only after significant fill has been placed on the lat. Yet in other locations, the ridge line would be within 33 feet to existing grade, but proposed excavation around the structure creates heights in excess of 33 feet. Again, height is measured to existing ar finished grade, whichever is more restrictive. Over the past ten years, there have been very few requests for height variances far primary/ secondary and single family development. There have been even fewer variance requests granted. Many homes have been developed on lots with slopes that exceed the topography of this parcel. In this case, it appears the design is being forced on this lot with little consideration given to grades on the parcel. To grant this request would be a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the treatment of other sites within the community. 3. The efifect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. • The only relevant consideration listed above would be utilities. At the present time, the Upper • Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District has a sewer line located within the Potato Patch Drive right-of-way and a ten inch water main that is within a twenty foot utility easement located between this lot and Lot 4 to the east. It would obviously be inappropriate to construct a residence over this water line. However, the fifteen foot side setback would prevent any development over the easement in this area. The twenty foot easement that bisects the property is not being utilized by Upper Eagle Valley, and conversations with the District indicated that they see no need for using this easement in the future. The easements across this lot do not appear to be an issue relative to this development. III. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same • zone. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff can see no legitimate physical hardship to allow for this variance. While there does not appear to be any significant impacts that would result from this request, that alone is not just cause to grant a variance. As has been stated, the proposed design shows little consideration to the grades of the property. While a cause for hardship could be made if the existing conditions of the lnt today were the basis for existing grades, allowing the applicant to rely an the pre-excavation survey effectively mitigates this potential hardship. The staff would encourage the Planning Commission to direct the applicant to redesign the structure within the 33 foot height limitations. • • ,.~ Variance Request Lat 3, Block 2, Filing 1 Vail Potato Patch Supplemental Information January 15, 1990 r 1 ~J I am requesting a variance from the `Poem of Vail Municipal Code, Chapter 18.13.075 as it defines building heights for primary/secondary residential coning. I am seeking approval for construction of a primary/secondary structure which would exceed the maximum roof ridge height pursuant to architectural. plans prepared by John Perkins, Architect. The structure is to be located in a natural ravine which opens to the west. The site is constrained by several utility easements, Potato Patch Drive access from the north and a natural ridge to the south which have been referenced on the enclosed drawings. A heightened structure would not appear to impact any adjacent property owner`s views, impact safety on Potato Patch Drive, nor have any other negative effects. Filling the ravine prior to construction and calculating ridge heights from the new topography will most likely be allowed on the Lionsridge site which was the recipient of the majority of fill dirt from the Post Office site. Similarly, we would fill the site after the foundations are complete. As an alternative, it might have been possible for us to avoid a variance if we were to remove the top of the ridge located to the south. However, a main water line serving Vail is located in that easement and Fred Haslee from the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated ttiTater and Sanitation District has indicated that they would much prefer that we raise our building rather than further undermining their water Iine. Adjacent Property Owners - Lot 4, Block 2, Filing 1 Lot 6, Block 2, Filing 1 Ralph D. Jones 250© Que Street \;6d Washington, D.C. 20007 770 Potato Patch Condo Association c/o Slifer Management Co. 143 East Meadow Drive Suite 391 B Vail, Colo 81657 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: February 12, 1990 SUBJECT: Revisions to the Zoning Code The need to revise existing development regulations has become increasingly evident over the past few years. Over time, a number of small and relatively isolated issues and problems with these codes have arisen. Examples of problems include inconsistencies in the sign code, defining the role of the PEC and DRB when reviewing Village Core and SDD projects, and difficult interpretations in the Design Review Guidelines. With the exception of major revisions to the sDD section (1987} and the Design Review section (1983), the zoning code has only had piecemeal changes since its adoption in 1973. The same can be said far the Sign Code. For these reasons, it is necessary to take a comprehensive look at these regulations to ensure that they are providing the appropriate regulatory guidelines that will result in the type of development that is desired in Vail. Tn general terms, the goal of this project is to identify problems and revise the Town's development guidelines and regulations as necessary. 1t has generally been assumed that this project will be limited to the zoning code, sign code and . design review guidelines. However, it should be recognized that this process may identify areas within the subdivision regulations and urban design guide plans that will need to be amended. The objectives of this effort include the following: --Initiate a comprehensive review of all existing ordinances regulating development in Vail. --Conduct a broad-based public process to insure input from the community during the development of these revisions. --Identify problems, conflicting sections, and other elements of existing regulations that are inconsistent with townwide goals and objectives outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. --Develop recommendations for revisions to existing codes that will address problems, etc. that have been identified. --Draft and obtain approval of ordinances necessary to implement the recommendations of this study. It is anticipated that a consulting team comprised of lawyers and land use planners will be best suited for this project. A two stage process involving Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Request for Proposals (RFP} will be used far selecting consultants. The staff is currently developing a preliminary schedule and drafting the RFQ. • The quality of the RFQ/RFP is critical to the success of this project. To the extent possible, the scope and direction of this project should be defined during the consultant selection process. The responses we receive from consultants will only be as goad as the RFQ and RFP we distribute. For this reason, the staff would like input from the Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Board and members of the community in order to get an understanding of the perceived problems with existing development codes. Worksessions will be held with each of these groups between now and the end of February. The staff will also discuss this project with local architects, property owners and developers. This dialogue will help ensure that the goals of the project outlined in the RFQ and RFP reflect the goals and direction of the community. It should be understood that these discussions are an initial step in the consultant selection process only. A formal public process will be an important element of this project. At this point, we are not interested sa much in specific problems you see with these codes, but rather, your "big" picture perception of our existing guidelines and this planning process. For example; Do you think our codes need only refinements, or are they in need of major overhaul (i.e. abandon current zoning • and change to a growth management or performance zoning system)? Can the relationship between the DRB/PEC/Council be improved with regard to the development review process? Is the existing review process cumbersome and slaw, not thorough enough, or adequate? Do existing regulations provide adequate review of environmental, design and other considerations? Are the PEC and DRB the appropriate boards for this review? Would a Task Farce made up of members from the DRB, PEC, Council and community be the best alternative for coordinating this project? You are encouraged to give this project some thought between now and your meeting on February Z2th. By no means is this your last opportunity to express your feelings on this project. The ramifications of revising development controls will have a long standing affect on Vail, and we feel that initiating this dialogue now will ensure the best possible results from this project . T0: Planning & Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 12, 1990 SUBJECT: Air Quality - Proposed Work Plan In response to our Planning Commission meeting on January 22, 1990 we have devised the following work plan for addressing the issues you raised during the meeting. The plan attempts to address the immediate issues of 1) further air quality testing 2) road sanding and 3) the more long term research on topics of woodburning control measures. This information is being provided for your review prior to the next scheduled PEC worksession on February 26, 1990, so that you can be prepared to offer additional input or revision to the plan. I. Chemical Mass Balancing (CMB) - This option far additional testing will be researched to identify the following parameters to determine its feasibility. A) Cost of additional (1) PM10 sampler to be used for Teflon filters . B) Approval of Upper Eagle valley Water and Sanitation District to locate an additional sampler at the Forest . Road location. C) Cost of Teflon filters. D) Sampling program - establish how often and when these samples need to be run to insure the type of information we are seeking. E) Cost of analysis per filter/sample - does this include the cost of normal filter analysis also? F) Turnaround time for analysis results - how soon will the results of the filter analysis be available. G) Accuracy of results - will this type of analysis give us a mare definitive breakdown as to the percentage contribution of road sand and woodsmoke? What is the of error in this type of analysis? When the results of this stage of research are completed they will be brought to you for review and a recommendation to Council as to the advisability of proceeding with this testing prior to making any ordinance/policy changes. At the time this information is compiled and presented to you we . 1 also hope to bring someone from the Air Quality Control Division of the State Health Department to speak with you on this topic. . We may also have this individual address the best overall approach recommended far the Town. Another area of concern was the current street cleaning program of both the Colorado Department of highways and the Town of Vail. We recommend the fallowing: II. Street Cleaning Program A) Colorado Department of Highways 1. What is the current program for cleaning the sand from T-7p and the Frontage Roads? Frequency of cleaning? 2. What type of cleaning methods are available? Do they create more of a problem than they solve? 3. What would the Town's liability become if we were to assume the responsibility for cleaning the Frontage Roads? B) Town of Vail 1. What is . of Vail 2. Type of the type does it the current program for cleaning the Town roads? Frequency of cleaning? equipment the Town currently has? Is this required to help alleviate the problem or create more of one? 3. Expense of new high-tech road vacuuming equipment? Cost of staff? Other avenues which we will also be investigating and bringing information to you at a later date include: 1) Revision to our current Town of Vail woodburning ordinance. 2} Research existing ordinances/control measures in other communities. - What is currently in place? - Data base used for making the ordinance changes or enacting existing policies? -- Problems associated with control measures? - Any rebate or incentive programs established to encourage 2 changes? - Current air quality status? changes? 3} Possible proposal of woodburning controls far Town of Vail - Investigate possibility of a rebate program to encourage conversion of existing woodburning units; ie, fireplaces, woodstoves, inserts, etc, to a) Catalytic convertors b) Certified woodstoves c) Gas logs d) Certified fireplace inserts - Develop a registration program for woodburning units so we can have an accurate count for number of woodburners. ~) Possible installation of a monitoring system to predict high pollution days for a no-burn program. This would involve: - Type of equipment needed? - Cost of equipment? - How notification would occur? 5) Public Relations - Ideas for how to communicate information? Which are most successful? 6) Consideration for limitation of the number of fireplaces/woodburning units allowed far high density development. Is it possible or desirable to impose such limitations? This is the current plan for dealing with these issues and areas we feel need to be addressed in order to make informed choices and decisions as they relate to the overall air quality picture. Any further additions on your part, questions, or requests for clarification are welcome and encouraged. 3 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FEBRUARY 26, 1990 TIME 12:00 p.m. New Members Orientation 12:45 p.m. Site Visits - discussion of streamlining PEC meetings. 2;15 p.m. A Work Session on Air Quality. 3;00 p.m. Public Hearing SITE TIME VTSTTS 3:00 1. Approval of minutes of February 12, 1990. 3:05 #3 2. A request for variances from the side and rear setbacks to allow for the expansion of an existing home on Lot 5, Block E, Vail das Schone Filing No. 1. Applicant: Tom and Nancy Ricci 3:25 3. A request for a side setback variance for Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village Sixth Filing. Applicant: Clinton G. Ames, Jr. 3:40 #1 4. A request for a side setback variance, for a garage and storage room for a new residence, on Lot 15, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: Bruce Iiasson 4:00 5. An amendment to Special Development District 4, Cascade Village, to amend Area D, Glen Lyon Office Building at 1000 S. Frontage Raad W., Lot 54, Gien Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building - A Colorado Partnership 4:30 6. A request far an amendment to Special Development District 23 and a parking variance to allow for an office expansion, to the Vail National Bank Building at 108 South Frontage Road West, a resubdivision of part of Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village Second Filing. Applicant: Vail National Bank Bldg. Corp. • r • SITE TIME VISITS 5:00 #4 7. A request for a conditional use permit to modify an outdoor dining deck, an amendment to restrictions regarding two employee units, and a request for an exterior alteration, a height variance and a landscape variance in order to construct an addition to the Be11 Tower Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Clark Willingham/Bell Tower Associates, Ltd. 6:00 #6 8. A request to amend a Special Development District for the Garden of the Gods on Lot K, Block 5, Vail Village Fifth Filing at 365 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Garden of the Gods, Mrs. A.G. Hill Family 5:30 #5 9. A request for a Work Session to discuss an exterior alteration, a stream setback variance, a site coverage variance, a conditional use far a deck enclosure and a new outdoor patio and an amendment to the View Corridor for the Red Lion Building. (304 Bridge St.) Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties 7:30 #2 10. A Work Session far Special Development District 22, Lot 1 - 19, Block 2, Lionsridge, Filing No. 3. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais • ~~ a~-n ~ t-~ • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2&, 1990 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Ludwig Kurz Jim Shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Tom Braun Shelly Mello Betsy Rosolack The Planning and Environmental Commission meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. Item No. 1: Approval of minutes for Februarv 12, 1990 meeting. Motion for approval of minutes with corrections was made by Jim Shearer and seconded by Dalton Williams. VOTE: 7 - 0 TN FAVOR. Item No. 2: A reauest for variances from the side and rear setbacks to allow far the expansion of an existinq home on Lot 5. Block E. Vail das Schone Filincr No. 1. Applicant: Tom and Nancv Ricci Mike Mollica explained that this was a request for a variance for the east side setback only. This was discussed on the site. Motion for approval tier the staff memo was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Connie Knight. VOTE : 7 -- 0 IN FAVOR. Item No. 3: A reauest for a side setback variance for Lot 6. Block 2, Vail Village Sixth Filing. Applicant: Clinton G. Ames, Jr. APPLICANT WAS NOT PRESENT TABLED WITHOUT VOTE Ttem No. 4: A reauest for a side setback variance, for a garage and storage room for a new residence, on Lot 15, Block 1. Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: Bruce Kasson Shelly Mello explained that a residence had not yet been constructed on the site and that a hardship could not be found since the storage could be built elsewhere. • ' Tom Briner, architect for the project, stated that the applicant wanted to take advantage of this steep site and make a garage with one space for vehicles that were not used very much. He stated that this was not storage but actually a three car garage and showed a model. He said that the third car would be mostly in storage and the variance that was being requested would be underground. Kathy asked,"Why not just shift the home 7 feet to the left?" and Briner claimed that more trees would be lost this way. Diana said she felt the only way she could sympathize with the request was if the footprint of a home were marked on the plat showing which trees would be lost. Dalton felt that he could not see any hardship on an unbuilt lot. Mr. Briner said that not everything was black and white. He felt they were not doing anything disastrous and that if more trees would be saved, he felt the Planning Commission would support it. Connie said that she didn't have any problem with the property variance as it was underground, but that at a later time the owner may want to add to the top of it. Motion for denial per the staff memo was made by Dalton Williams and seconded by Jim Shearer. VOTE: 7 - 0 TO DENY Item No. 6: A request for an amendment to Special Development District 23 and a parking variance to allow for an office expansion. to the Vail National Bank Building at 1208 south Frontage Road West a resubdivision of part of Lot D. Block 2, Vail Village Second Filinq. Applicant: Vail National Bank Blda. Corp. Jim Shearer removed himself from the Board due to a conflict of interest on this item. Tom Braun explained that at the last meeting the Planning Commission had asked to have more information. One of the things they had wondered about was whether or not the Town could ask the Bank to have more parking than was actually required. Larry Eskwith stated that the parking for the bank was consistent with the parking code and that we could not ask for more. The staff was still uncomfortable with the proposal according to Tom. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that the bank had between March 15 and March 20 to exercise their option. He repeated that he felt the conditions asked for put them in the same position as the hospital. If the hospital parking was not started they can't occupy their new space. He felt the same should be applied to the bank. He added that by the time of a TCO for the bank in July the parking structure would be under way. . Kristan stated that a TCO for the hospital addition would not be released until they have obtained a building permit for their parking structure. Chuck asked whether or not the Highway department had okayed the new proposal. Kristan replied that they had no problem with it. Connie stated that she was uncomfortable with the timing that the parking needs to be in place. Kathy said she felt that the cart was before the horse and that the application should came back after the parking proposal is in place. Motion for denial was made by Connie Knight and seconded by Kathy Warren. Discussion continued before voting. Diana asked if the bank would commit to 12 spaces. Jay felt this was unfair to require parking beyond what was required by the zoning code. Diana asked about the access from the bank to the parking structure and Kristan replied that the access is from the front of the structure down to the bank but there is no bridge. Kathy foresaw great problems. Dalton asked whether there would be a connection between the two underground parking lots between the bank and the hospital. Jay replied that if they were connected, they would lose spaces in the hospital parking lot. VOTE: 2 - 4 - 1 KATHY AND CONNIE IN FAVOR OF DENIAL Motion for aboroval of a recommendation to the Town Council ner the nrooosed modified conditions was made by Chuck Crist and seconded by Ludwig Kurz. Conditions: 1. As orooosed by the Vail National Bank in the memo dated February 22, 1990 from Jav, Peterson to Tam Braun. 2. The Town Attorney shall review the purchase or lease agreement between the Vail_ National Bank and the Vail Valley Medical Center. 3. Five soaces rather than 4 spaces be purchased. VOTE: 4 - 2 - 1 WITH JIM SHEARER ABSTAINING. Item No. 5: An amendment to Special Development District 4~ Cascade Village. to amend Area D. Glen Lvon Office Building at laaa S. Frontage Road W.. Lot 54, Glen Lvon Subdivision. Apulicant: Glen Lvon Office Building - A Colorado Partnership. r~ ~~ Kristan Pritz described the proposal including a request to not build the parking structure during Phases I and II. Phase T wauld ineluda an affica axpansian. mha lat is narrow and existing trees dictate where the parking lot would have to be located. She referred the board to the TDA parking analysis. She showed which trees would be lost or moved. Kathy asked if there would be valet parking during peak times. Kristan replied that there would be. Kristan explained that the staff was recommending approval with the conditions on the previous memo plus the conditions an this memo. Kay Saulsbury from Colorado Mountain College explained that CMC has a parking shortage which seems to increase. She felt that the present parking does meet the Town of Vail standards but that it is still not enough. Diana said that unfortunately it does meet the Town of Vail standards and that there is nothing they can do to increase it. Chuck asked if the parking structure would be constructed with Phase III and Kristan replied that it would. Dalton felt that there should be a condition that if the Brew Pub is opened during the day on weekdays the parking structure would be constructed. Kristan stated that was already part of the phasing plan. . Kathy asked Andy if he would go along with the conditions and Andy replied that he would. Diana wondered how the Pub could be prevented from opening for lunch during the week without a parking structure in place. Andy said he could not open during the day and weekdays because the tenants of the office building had been promised parking and he would be cited by the Town of Vail. Andy Norris agreed that parking per the TOV requirements would be provided on site for the east building no matter what. He agreed he would have to decrease office square footage or add underground parking to meet the requirement. Motion for approval was made by Kathv Warren for recommendation to the Town Council per the staff memos with, two added recommendations to the list of 8 as follows:. 9. The Beer Hall would not be open during the week days. If the Beer Hall is opened for weekday use, the parkinq structure must be constructed. 10. Employee units would be restricted permanently. The motion was seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR • Item No. 7 A reauest for a conditional use Hermit to modifv an outdoor dining deck. an amendment to restrictions regarding two emplovee units, and a reauest for an exterior alteration, a height variance and a landscape variance in order to construct an addition to the Bell Tower Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive. Abblicant: Clark W~~~inaham/Bell Tower Associates. Ltd. Chuck Crist left for a short while. Tom Braun stated that there were four separate requests. An exterior alteration to add enclosed floor area, a height variance, a variance to reduce landscaping and a conditional use permit to establish an outdoor dining patio on the second floor of the building. Tom showed elevations and site plans. Tom first explained the request for an exterior alteration. It was for three things: the addition of a dormer on the fourth floor of the building along Gore Creek Drive, the addition of a fifth floor and expansion of the fourth floor on the north side of the building and a 270 square foot ground floor retail expansion adjacent to the Gore Creek Promenade with the relocation of an existing dining deck to a roof top dining deck above the proposed expansion. The residential addition would add one dwelling unit to the property and a total of 2,278 square feet of GREA. Tom reviewed the Vail Village Design Considerations with respect to the exterior alteration. The pedestrianization and vehicular penetration are not affected by the proposal. With regard to streetscape framework, the proposed retail infill along Gore Creek Promenade will provide an activity generator to give street life and visual interest. Tom stated that the dining deck's location would have little success in providing such activity. With regard to street enclosure, the dormer proposed for the south side of the building would not change the street enclosure along Gore Creek Drive appreciatively. The one store retail expansion along the Promenade would establish a mare desirable "human scale" on this side of the building but any perceived reduction in mass an this side of the building is negated by the introduction of a fourth and fifth floor. Street Edge: Slightly irregular facade lines, building dogs, and landscaped areas create life and visual interest for the pedestrian. The proposed retail expansion is consistent with this criteria. The addition is slightly recessed from improvements of the Gore Creek Plaza building. Any certain rhythm has been established along the entire length of the Promenade. • $uilding height: Height variance is required to allow additions • to the upper floor on the north side of the building. The existing building is non-conforming with respect to allowable building heights. The proposed addition would increase the degree of non-conformity. Tom felt that one must consider the implications of this proposal as it relates to future development applications. If approved, the proposal would introduce a fifth floor element along the Gore Creek side of the building and an addition of this magnitude is inconsistent with the Urban Design Guide Plan as well as the height plan outlined in the recently adapted Vail Village master Plan. Tom then discussed views and focal points and then discussed service and delivery. Sun/Shade issue: Tom stated that the Design Guidelines say "All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the summer and fall shadow pattern on adjacent properties or the public right~of-way". Tam said that the proposal would increase shade along the Promenade, the shadow pattern at 12:00 noon on March 21 and September 23 would be 4 1/2 feet in width. This impact is both unnecessary and unacceptable to the staff. Tom's next concern was the architecture/landscape considerations. He stated that it was important to address this consideration pertaining to roofs. Staff felt that the flat roof was out of character with the Village and the manner in which it was proposed displays little to no relationship to existing roof forms on the building. The staff recommendation is for denial of the requested exterior alteration. The staff feels that while . the proposed additions may benefit the owner and the tenants it will do little to benefit the overall fabric of the Village. The Village is based on a very delicate balance between the built environment, open spaces and space between the buildings and it is felt that this building has reached its optimum level of development. Craig Snowdon, an architect representing the applicant, stated that the dining patio has been reduced to a little hole. The sun on the deck would be increased by raising it to the second floor level. Those on the deck would also have a better view of both Gore Creek Promenade and the Children's Plaza. Craig felt that the first floor retail space was a definite plus. He stated that people do not look up when they are close to a building. He stated that the fifth floor would not be viewed at all. The closest view would be from Bridge Street. Regarding the height along Gore Creek Drive, the height complies with the Urban Design Considerations for the Village. Craig also said that the Gore Creek Plaza building had set a precedence, therefore the Bell Tower building would not be increasing the situation. Regarding Service and Delivery, Craig said that there were 230 feet from delivery point at Willow Bridge loading area which was comparable to the One Vail Place Building and the Hong Kong Cafe Building. With regard to Sun/Shade, the 5th floor does not increase the shade. The 4th floor roof does affect the • Sun/Shade. With regard to the architecture, steeper roofs could have been designed but would have made it much more of a height problem. With regard to restricting the two employee units permanently, Craig asked if this had been done any other place in the Village. He feat that it seemed extreme. Regarding landscape reduction, Craig felt that there was more to . landscaping than dirt. He stated that the owner regularly invests $5,000 per year on landscaping for such things as window boxes, flower baskets, Christmas lights etc.. Craig felt that the section of landscaping being used was not highly visible. He also informed the board that presently the owner of the Bell Tower owns part of the property that the public stairs are on. He also pointed out that eliminating the patio at grade will increase the Promenade area by 100 to 125 feet. He felt that replacing the landscaping with stairway had very little impact on the view. Herman Staufer, who owns the restaurant, felt that the landscaping was a trade-off for stairways that work the same as a patio. Rod Slifer, who owns the unit on the top floor of the building to the west of the Gore Creek Plaza building, said his concern was with the tap floor addition on the north side of the building. His view has already been impacted by a vent on the roof of the Be11 Tower Building, and if the addition was approved, his view of the Gore Range would be totally blocked. He requested that the current design be moved back 10 feet which would allow him enough view to satisfy him. Craig replied that the addition would infringe on Rod Slifer's view but that it would not totally block it. Rod disagreed. Pepi Gramshammer then spoke from the audience. He was concerned • about the height and the number of variances. He said that if the buildings keep on increasing in size, it would destroy the Town. Kristan explained the height limitations to him and pointed out to him that the staff was recommending denial of this project. Kathy wondered whether or not a site coverage variance was required. Tom explained that patios and dining decks count as site coverage in CCY so that the discrepancy was not getting greater. Kristan added that the staff had looked at this very closely. Kathy agreed with the staff on this proposal and did not feel that this was an appropriate expansion in an appropriate place. She said that perhaps the Gore Creek Plaza did set a precedence, but she didn't see why the Town must continue with another similar expansion. Kathy said that from the May Palace the visibility from the 4th and 5th floors was apparent. She did not feel that the roof structure was appropriate and was concerned about the design of the retail deck. Jim had no problem with the retail addition, but he did have a problem with the upper "skyscape". Connie agreed with Pepi that if the Town kept growing it would die. Regarding employee housing she felt that it could be kept at 15 years. • Craig Snowdon said that he was willing to replace the units prior to the issuance of a building permit somewhere else in Vail with a deed restriction. This would have to be reviewed by the staff. Connie asked Herman how the waitresses would get to the deck. Ludwig did not feel that growth would kill Vail, but that Vail did need checks and balances. He stated that if there was a precedence set, one did not have to perpetuate this. Ludwig also felt that the Bell Tower Building was an attractive one at present and that the addition might destroy the quality. Dalton also discussed the Gore Creek Plaza Building roof addition. He felt that it was ill advised and that now that it is constructed he felt that we should not repeat this error. Dalton felt that the angle of the addition could be changed so that it would not affect the view through the stairway. Diana felt that the existing massing was appropriate, that it was the end of a row of buildings and a very pretty building. Her concerns were that one more unit would increase vehicular traffic, that the employee units must be permanent, and that the second floor railing blocked views. She had no problem with the retail infill, and Diana asked for clarification on site coverage. Tam replied that the site coverage was non-conforming at present and wasn't changing. Diana felt that when one asks for this number of variances, the proposal could be improved. . Craig Snowdon asked to table the item. Motion far tablina was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Connie Kniaht. VOTE: & - 0 IN FAVOR. Item No. 8: A reauest to amend a Special Development District for the Garden of the Gods on Lot K. Block 5. Vail_ Village Fifth filing at 365 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Garden of the Gods. Mrs. A.G. Hill Family. Connie Knight removed herself from the board due to a conflict of interest. Kristan explained changes since the last review. She said the applicant had rotated the building slightly to decrease the encroachment to the east. Pam Hopkins, the architect on the project, said that because of the common easement for the swimming pool and the recreation amenities, the building was pushed as far west as possible. She showed this on a site plan. • . Bill Hammon, a resident of the Vorlaufer, was concerned that there would be a decrease in hotel rooms, he felt that hotel rooms were important and disagreed with the wording of keys versus lack-off rooms. He said this is a similar situation to the Ramshorn when it converted from a hotel to condominiums. He was also concerned about the fiat roof. Greg Stutz, representing the Vorlaufer condominium owners and Mr. and Mrs. Chandler and Mr. and Mrs. Carol, said he felt that he wanted more time to analyze the request or else have the roof moved 10 feet lower. He said he had not had sufficient time to sit down and talk with the architect. Since the building is not to go up till 1991, he would like more time to look at it. Mr. Chandler said he bought his Vorlaufer unit 21 years ago and has been able to watch the torchlight parades, Mr. Carol said the same thing. Don Hare, representing the Garden of the Gods, said that he had two or three meetings with Mr. Carol. The plan had been reworked and they had done as much as they felt they could do in staying within the setback restrictions that exist on the building now. Dan said that they would like to go ahead with the plan. They feel that they have stayed back as far as they can. Mr. Stutz asked that if Special Development District had expired, how could this be an amendment to the SDD. Kristan replied that . the same process was used. He explained that he felt it should be advertised as a new Special Development District. Chuck Crist returned at this time. Diana asked if it was legal to proceed. Larry responded he felt that it was legal to proceed. This was strictly advisory and would go to the Town Council. More discussion followed concerning whether this was an amendment or a new Special Development District. Kathy stated that if this was a new Special Development District she would change her approach to the problem. She felt that what was being done to the property was to the neighbors' benefit. She also felt that the setback variance could have been done within the present zoning. Ludwig felt that the developers had worked with restraint and sensitivity in light of what could have been done. He wondered if extra time might be appropriate and that they would have a chance to look at the proposal again. He stated that he had an opportunity to look at the view from the Vorlaufer and that there was no question that the views were impeded. However, he felt that the developers were using sensitivity in moving the building. • Diana felt that the Garden of the Gods was doing a good job with the proposal. She stated that if the Garden of the Gods were constructed up to their setbacks, it would be a wall toward the Vorlaufer. She said according to the guidelines the board would have no reason to say no to the proposal. She added that there were no private views in Vail. She wondered if an SDD was necessary for this project. Kristan replied that the staff looked at it as a brand new project when they were told that the building would be torn down. The first question they asked was why have a Special Development District. Kathy asked if a SDD was leaving options wide open. She also wondered why it was necessary. Larry Eskwith replied that the Town was getting benefits with a SDD. This way the staff has the ability to supervise the architectural design and that a complete development plan had to be reviewed by the staff so that there was more control with the SDD, The applicant asked to table to March 26. The motion for tabling to March 26 was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer VOTE: 5 - 4 - 2 with Chuck Crist and Connie Knight abstaining. Item No. 9: A work session to discuss an exterior alterationL a stream setback variance, a site coverage variance. a conditional use for a deck enclosure and a new outdoor patio and an amendment to the View Corridor for the Red Lion Building. (304 Bridge St.) Applicant: Frankie Tana and Landmark Properties A work session - no minutes taken. Item No. 10: a work session for Special Development District 22. Lot 1 - 19. Block 2. Lionsridae. Filing No. 3. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais A work session - no minutes taken. • ,~ . ~ T0: Planning and Environment Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 26, 7.990 RE: A request to amend Special Development District #18, Vail Village 5th Filing, the Garden of the Gads Lodge. Applicant: Mrs, A. G. Hill Family On February 12, 1990, the PEC reviewed this request. The applicant tabled the item in order to work with the adjacent property owners on the View impact of the project. Since that time, the applicant has amended the request by slightly changing the location of the proposed building. Below is a comparison of the setbacks due to the change in building location: Setbacks REVISED FEBRUARY 12 FEBRUARY 26 SITE PLAN SITE PLAN EXISTING EAST 20 FEET 20 FEET 20 FEET WEST 1 FOOT 2 FEET .2 FEET NORTH 3 FEET 4.5 FEET 1.4~ FEET SOUTH 8 FEET 8 FEET 9 FEET The Vail Valley Drive entry has been moved further south in order to allow access through the parte-cochere. This change necessitates the need to move the bus stop to the south. As with the previous proposal (Feb. 12), four trees will need to be replanted or replaced. There have also been same minor changes to the wording of the conditions of approval. These changes are indicated in bald type print and all capital letters. The staff recommendation is for approval of the project. *A revised letter from Eagle Valley Engineering is enclosed far the roof ridge. • F C7 FROM: Community Development Department TO: Planning and Environmental Commission DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1990 SUBJECT: A request to amend Special. Development District #18, Vail Village 5th Filing, the Garden of the Gods Lodge. Applicant: Mrs. A. G. Hill Family I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL This project has received one Special Development District approval in 1987. The approved SDD was then revised in the summer of 1989. However, the applicant never pursued final approval from the Town Council. Under each of the previous SDD requests, the applicant proposed to remodel the existing building. With the present request, the applicant would like to demolish the existing building and construct a new building in the approximate original building's footprint with a few modifications. The request to rebuild the Garden of the Gods includes: A. 6 dwelling units = 12,648 sq.ft. of GRFA. B. 11 accommodation units @ 4,086 sq.ft. GRFA 4 accommodation unit lock-offs @ 1,725 sq.ft. GRFA TOTAL: 15 accommodation units ~ 5,812 sq.ft. GRFA C. An increase in square footage devoted to 2 employee dwelling units = 1,802 sq.ft. of GRFA. The existing SDD calls for 1 au and 1 du having a total square footage of 730 sq. ft. D. An increase in common area from the existing amount of 3,575 sq.ft. to 3,712 sq.ft. E. Construct sidewalks along both sides of Vail Valley Drive. New planters will be built adjacent to the parking lot on the east side of Vail Valley Drive (P-2 Parcel}. F. Underground parking of 15 spaces. The underground parking allows for the removal of 2 surface spaces on the east side and 2 surface spaces on the south side (Tivoli side) of the project. 2 spaces are removed from the parking lot on the east side of Vail Valley Drive to allow for the sidewalk and planters. Landscaping is proposed for the areas where surface parking is removed, The parking requirement is met. • G. Build a public bus pull-off with bench on the southeast • corner of the property. H. The existing height of the building is approximately 43 feet (ridge elevation 8219 ft}. The proposed height an the north end of the building will be 43 ft 6 inches {ridge elevation 8219 ft 4 inches). The south half of the building has a height of 47 feet (ridge elevation 8223 ft}. The existing zoning of the property (public accommodation zoning) allows for a 48 ft. height for a sloping roof. The designated view corridor ~5 is not impacted by this proposal. * All ridge elevations are measured to the final finished roof including any roof cap, etc. HEIGHTS ASSUME BASE EIEEVATION OF 8176 FEET. Z. The applicant proposes to restrict all of the 11 accommodation units (5812 sq.ft.) as well as 4 accommodation unit lack-offs and 3 dwelling units (2882 s.f.) as short term rentals on a permanent basis. All of the restricted accommodation units and a.u. lock-offs shall be made available to the short-term rental program. Definitions: d.u. = dwelling unit or living unit with kitchen a.u. ~ accommodation unit or lodge room a.u. lock-off = A dwelling unit may include one attached accommodation lock-off or lodge room. **Please see the attached zoning analysis and unit use analysis charts. II. REASONS FOR THE SDD REQUEST The Garden of the Gods project is located in the Public Accommodation zone district. The existing SDD zoning that was obtained in 1987 was originally requested because the project did not meet the definition of a lodge, was aver the allowable density by .5 dwelling units and had a total common area that exceeded the allowable. In respect to all other zoning standards the project met the requirements of the Public Accommodation zone district. This new Special Development District request differs from the Public Accommodation zoning and existing SDD in the following ways 2 • • A. Definition of Lodcre: The proposal does not meet the definition of a lodge. According to the zoning code, Section 18.04.210, Definition of a Lodge: "A lodge means a building or group of associated buildings designed for occupancy primarily as the temporary lodging place of individuals or families, either in accommodation units or dwelling units, in which the gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units exceeds the gross residential floor area devoted to dwelling units, and in which all such units are operated under a single management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities." The Public Accommodation zone requires that, at a minimum, 51% of the total GRFA be devoted to accommodation units. 53% of the GRFA is in accommodation units in the existing building. The approved Special Development District allocated 27% of total GRFA to accommodation units, In other words, there is a 4% increase in GRFA devoted to a.u.'s when comparing the old SDD to the proposed SDD. • B. GRFA: The new SDD has a total GRFA of 18,460 square feet. The proposed GRFA is 866 square feet over the allowable. The existing SDD is under the allowable GRFA by 857 square feet. The PA zone allows for 17,594 square feet. C. Setbacks: In previous SDD reviews, the existing building was proposed to be remodeled so the setbacks were not changed. In this request, the building will be completely rebuilt. Far this reason, the setbacks are no longer a given. The existing building encroaches into the west, north and south setbacks. Below is a summary of haw the existing building setbacks compare to • New SDD Existing East 20 ft East 20 ft West 2 ft West .2 ft North 4.5 FT North 1.4 ft South 8 ft South 9 ft In respect to all of the other zoning standards and parking, the project meets the requirements of the Public Accommodation zone district. III. ZONING CONSTDERATIDNS RELATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL A. Uses: Please see Section IV.B B. Density/GRFA: Please see Section IV.B C. Setbacks See Section IV.F D. Height S The height proposed is within the maximum allowed of 48 feet for a sloping roof. E. Site Coverage The site coverage is below the allowable of 9,677 square feet. The proposed site coverage is 7,787_square feet. F. Parking Parking requirements are met for this proposal. IV. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL USING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA A. Design Compatibility and Sensitivity to the Immediate Environment, Neighborhood, and Adjacent Properties • 4 Relative to Architectural Design; Stvie, Bulk, Building • Height{ Buffer Zones, Identity, Character, Visual Integrity and Orientation. The architecture of the building is significantly upgraded by this proposal. The use of stone and stucco, additional landscaping, removal of six surface parking spaces and underground parking will improve the appearance of the building. The roof has been designed so that there will be no impacts on the designated view corridor. The building location is basically the same. However, areas where the building encroached into the setbacks have been decreased slightly at the closest points (north and west setbacks}. The proposal will have a positive impact on the character of the neighborhood. B. Uses, Activity and Density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Density The proposal is one du under the allowable density for the Public Accommodation zone district. For PA zoning, 12.5 dwelling units (d.u.) are allowed. 11.5 dwelling units are proposed. (Please remember 2 accommodation units = 1 dwelling unit). It is positive that the project is actually under the allowable density. Lodge Definition Similar to the approved SDD, the amended SDD falls short of meeting the definition of a lodge which would require that more than 50°s of the GRFA be devoted to accommodation units {a.u.'s). However, the new SDD actually allocates more GRFA {1,216 sq ft) to accommodation units than the existing SDD. The average size of the accv,~~.~~odation unit is also increased in the new proposal from 287 square feet (existing SDD) to 372 square feet. The number of accommodation units does decrease from 16 (acc~~~~~«odation units plus accommodation unit lock-offs--old SDD) to 15 accommodation units and accommodation unit lock-offs in the new proposal. Also, the number of dwelling units has been decreased from 8 d.u.'s to 6 d.u.'s in the new proposal. However, the GRFA for the dwelling units has increased from 12,141 square feet (old SDD) to 12,648 square feet in the new SDD for d.u.'s. U 5 • 1n general, existing SDD the size of project i s n slight incre negative imp properties. • the new SDD is an improvement over the in that the number of d.u.'s is decreased, the accommodation unit is increased, and the o !anger aver the allowable density. The ase in GRFA (866 s.f.) does not have a major act on the project or surrounding Restricted Units As stated in the previous SDD memo, the Ramshorn project was considered to be a similar proposal to the Garden of the Gods. In analyzing this type of request, the staff has taken the position that maintaining rental restricted units for the bed base is positive for the community. The intent of the requirement that a majority of the project square footage be devoted to accommodation units is to maintain the purpose of the Public Accommodation district as a "site for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors." (Section 18.22.110) Due to the fact that Special Development District zoning is once again requested, there is some flexibility in how the intent of the Public Accommodation zone district may be maintained without meeting the precise requirement to have a majority of square footage devoted to accommodation units. The staff originally analyzed this project in terms of available rental units or "keys," i.e., au's or du's that are available for rent. The new proposal has 21 "keys" available far guests. This number of "keys" is based on the fact that 15 accommodation units and 6 dwelling units are available as POTENTIAL short term rental units for guests. Of the 21 potential rentable units, 18 will be restricted as short term rentals including 3 dwelling units. The percent of units available for short. term rental increases from 70% or 17 '!keys" to 86% or 18 "keys." GRFA The additional GRFA (866 square feet} is due certainly to the fact that units area being expanded, but also because the circulation within the structure has been designed in a more efficient manner. Employee Housing The applicant has also agreed to improve the existing employee unit situation for the building. Two employee • units will be added having a total square footage of 1,802 square feet. The total existing square footage devoted to employee units will be increased by 1072 square feet when compared to the existing SDD. C. Comt~liance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. All parking requirements are met. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Compliance Plan, Town Policies and Urban Design Plans LANb USE FLAN The Land Use Plan also supports this proposal in the following ways: 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 4.2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions, 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community r~ E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or deoloaic hazards that affect the property on which the Special Development District is proposed. Not applicable. F, Site plan, provisions responsive vegetation, community. building design and location and open space designed to produce a functional development and sensitive to natural features, and overall aesthetic duality of the The applicant has developed a site plan that is functional and has a high level of aesthetic quality. The amount of open space, mass and bulk of the building and pedestrian/vehicular circulation have been planned in a sensitive manner. An important question is why is it appropriate to allow the new building to encroach into the 20 foot setbacks? These encroachments are supportable, as the configuration of the building, access, and parking are made mare functional with some flexibility for the 20 foot setbacks. The building could be pushed into the northeast corner of the site which would create problems for traffic circulation, separate the building from pool amenities and possibly impact the Vorlaufer to a greater degree. • Under the new SDD, the building will continue to encroach into a drainage and utility easement. All of the utilities except for the cable TV have vacated the easement. Public Works will agree to vacate ALL OR A PORTION OF THE drainage easement as long as the applicant agrees to construct curb, gutter, and other necessary drainage improvements to the east, north and south sides of the property. G. The circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. The Ramshorn has built a sidewalk along the south west side of their property that also extends over to Golden Peak. It makes sense for the Garden of the Gods to add the two sidewalks, as pedestrians coming from the transportation center will walk along both sides of Vail Valley Drive. Guests of the Garden of the Gods will also use the sidewalk. The present bus stop is located at the northeast corner of the property. The new southwest location is better • S far the owners of the Garden of the Gods a.n that the bus stop does not block the visibility of their site. (Four trees will need to be relocated due to the new bus stop.) In addition, safety is increased for vehicles entering and existing off the Garden of the Gods property as well as for the general public. It is very reasonable and appropriate to request that the applicant make these improvements given the request for an SDD. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The project proposal includes the following landscape improvements: * new planters along the west side of the pool * landscape buffer along west side of property * existing spa by pool replaced by landscaping * 4 on-site surface parking spaces replaced by landscaping * 2 parking spaces on P-2 parcel removed and replaced by sidewalk and planters * curb and gutter and any asphalt work necessary to handle the drainage problems will be rebuilt The landscaping proposal is extremely positive and will add to an already well landscaped project. The only area of concern is that 4 trees will need to be relocated or replaced to allow for the bus stop. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional, and efficient relationship throughout the development of the Special Development District. Not applicable. The entire project is to be built the summer of 1.991. V. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN ANALYSIS Below is a summary of how the Vail Village Master Plan relates to this proposal.. • 9 • A. 2. Illustrative Plans: 1. Land Use Plan: The Garden of the Gods property is indicated as "medium/high density residential". This section states that a majority of the Village's lodge rooms and condominium units are located in this land use category. The goal of the plan is to maintain these areas as predominantly "lodging oriented with retail development limited to small amounts of "accessory retail"". The proposal generally complies with this description of the land use category. Open Space Plan: This plan calls for planting buffers along the east side of Vail Valley Drive adjacent to the surface parking on the P-2 Parcel. The applicant has worked with the Planning Department and Town engineer to arrive at a solution that removes the existing planters and private parking from the public right-of--way to allow space for a new sidewalk and planters. • 3. Parking and Circulation Plan: This plan calls for sidewalks along both sides of Vail Valley Drive. Sidewalks are included in the proposal. 4. Conceptual Building Height Plan: This property falls within the three to four maximum range of building stories. A story is defined as nine feet of height with no roof included. The proposed height falls under the public accommodation zoning maximum for a sloping roof of 48 feet. There are no impacts on the designated view corridor #5, Please see the attached letter from Eagle Valley Engineering and photo of the view corridor. • B. Sub-area Concepts The Garden of the Gods area No.7. This plan public improvements in falls under the east Village Sub- states that the most important the sub-area relate to pedestrian 10 and bicycle safety. The public right-Of-way should be . maintained and expanded for public use whenever possible. Sub-area 7-3 and 7-4 relate specifically to this property. The plan states: 1. #7-3 Vail Valley Drive Sidewalk - A sidewalk (separated from the road where possible) through the sub-area linking the Golden Peak base facility with the Vail Transportation Center. Landscape improvements and pedestrian crosswalks to be included as required to meet demands of pedestrian traffic. Special emphasis on 3.1, 3.4. 2. #7-4 Parking Lot Infi11 - Presently utilized as parking for adjacent properties. While zoned for parking (covenant restrictions also limit use of this parcel to parking), this site could accommodate a small lodge. Practical difficulties in developing this site include the covenant restrictions in maintaining on-site parking for existing and future demand. Possible public uses for this site include pedestrian and bus circulation improvements. Special emphasis on 2.1, 2.3, 2.6, 3.1, 5.3, and 5.4. The proposal complies with Sub-Area 7-3 and does not prohibit the eventual implementation of 7-4. C. Vail Village Master Plan Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Action Steps that apply to Garden of the Gads Proposal. Below is a summary of the goals, objectives, and policies that relate to the Garden of the Gods proposal: 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. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 11 C 1.3.1 Policy: . 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 ROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 2.3.1 Policy: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading and renovations and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.5.1 Policy. Recreational amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as part of any redevelopment of lodging properties. 2.6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.1 Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over the allowable by existing zoning. • 12 2.x.2 Policy . Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to ensure their availability and affordability to the local work farce. 2.6.3 Policy The Town of Vail may facilitate the development of affordable housing by providing limited assistance. GOAL #3: TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCING OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: 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 greenspace areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. GOAL #4: TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND GREENSPACE OPPORTUNTTYES. ~1 13 4.1.1 Policy: . Active recreational facilities shall be preserved (or relocated to accessible locations elsewhere in the Village) in any development or redevelopment of property in Vail Village. GOAL #5: INCREASE THE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY, AND IMPROVE AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. 5.1.5 Policy: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. 5.4 Objective: Improve the streetscape of circulation corridors throughout the Village. 5.4.2 Policy: Medians and rights-of-ways shall be landscaped. For the sake of brevity, staff will not address each goal, policy, and objective separately. The project supports the Village Plan in the following ways: 1. The redevelopment is a high quality proposal that maintains architectural scale as well as almost all the zoning standards for the underlying PA zoning. 2. Significant public improvements are incorporated into the redevelopment such as sidewalks, the bus stop, and landscaping. 3. Short-term accommodation units are upgraded. 4. Large and more functional employee housing units are proposed. 5. The pedestrian experience is enhanced by sidewalk and landscape improvements. . ~4 • 6. Underground parking is included, while surface spaces are removed. The remaining parking is visually screened. The project meets its required parking. 7. Public transportation is improved and made safer as a result of the new bus stop. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the proposal. Basically, our position is very similar to our recommendation on the Ramshorn project. As stated previously: "Although the inability of the end product to meet the strict definition of a lodge is not what we would ideally like to see, we feel that the property will continue to function as a lodge and meet the intent of providing high quality guest accommodations in the Public Accommodation zone district." The applicant has provided significant improvements through the redevelopment which will benefit both guests and owners of the Garden of the Gods, as well as the general public. The proposal meets the criteria outlined in the Special Development District review, goals of the Land Use Plan, as well as Vail Village Master Plan. Staff approval is contingent upon the applicant meeting the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a revised employee housing agreement with a floor plan that clearly indicates the " location, type of unit, and square footage for each employee housing unit. The two employee housing units shall be restricted permanently,. The agreement shall be submitted and approved by the owner and the Town of Vail before a building permit is issued for the praject. SECTION x.8.13.080 SHALL BE USED FOR THE WARDING FOR THE AGREEMENT EXCEPT THAT 'rtxx: UNITS SHALL BE EMPLOYEE HOUSING PERMANENTLY. 2. The applicant shall submit a written statement agreeing to restrict the proposed accommodation units, accommodation unit lock-offs and three dwelling units as short term rental units on a permanent basis. Even if the project is conduminiumized, these units shall remain as short term rentals. This written agreement shall be submitted by the owner and approved by the staff before a building permit is issued for the project. THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED AS A CONVENANT THAT SHALL RUN WITH THE LAND. 3. The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall construct a sidewalk and bus stop on the east side of their . 15 4 4 ~. property as well as a sidewalk and planters adjacent to - the FRONTAGE OF THE P-'-2 PARCEL ALIACATED TO THE GARDEN OF THE GODS. The final design for the sidewalks, planters, and bus stop shall be submitted by the applicant to the Public Works Department and Community Development Department for approval. The sidewalks, planters and bus stop shall be constructed subsequent to the issuance of the building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the project. The applicant shall submit a written statement agreeing to this condition far the Town attorney's approval before a building permit is released for the project. Yf needed, the Garden of the Gods shall also provide a public easement for the bus stop, sidewalk, and signage. The applicant shall submit the easement agreement to the Town attorney and Town Council for approval before a temporary certificate of occupancy is released for the project. 4. The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall construct curb and gutter as well as any other drainage (asphalt work etc.} improvements necessary along the north, south, and east sides of their property. Final design for the drainage improvements shall be submitted by the applicant to the Public Works Department for final approval. These improvements shall be constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. 5. A revocable right-of-way agreement shall be completed for any encroachments on the public right-of-way. This agreement must be submitted to the Community Development Department and approved before a building permit will be released on the project. 6. The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall submit a utility and drainage easement vacation to the Town Council for approval before a building permit may be released for the project. 7. ALL FIREPLACES SHALL BE GAS AND MEET THE TOWN OF VAIL ORDINANCE GOVERNING GAS FIREPLACES. $. RUN-OFF CONTROL & POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE SURFACE PARKING LOTS. THIS ISSUE SHALL BE ADDRESSED AT THE DRB RENEW OF THE PROJECT AND INCLUDED IN THE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS. Recommendations to the Design Review Board 1. The vent an the west side of the pool should be removed OR SCREENED BY LANDSCAPING. . 2. The north elevation of the building should have more transparency. 16 4 3. The four trees that will be either relocated or replaced due to the construction of the bus stop should be addressed. If the trees must be removed, landscaping that has substantially the same positive impact should be required. ~7 r r S ' • WINTER 1990 • ~ ~ ICJ ;PUB:=A000M MOD 519~o GRFA IN AU'S NA NA 17594 $q, FT. 12.5 DU 4399 Sq. FT. 45 FT. FLAT ROOF 48 FT. SLOPE ROOF xDFT. 12096' SQ. F~. 6598; $Q, FT. „** GARDEN OF ~ n~ GODS ZONII~G ANALYSIS 1 fi @7742 SQ. FT. 2 @ 6745 SQ. Ff. 1 AU fi1D SQ. F?. 1 DU 515 SD. FT. i .5 * * @ 1125 Sq. FT. 14543 S0. FT. 10 DU 3575 SQ. FT. 42 FT. EAST 20.0 FT. WEST .2 FT. NORTH 1.4 FT. SOUTH 9.0 FT 6363 SQ. ~?. OK 22 READ. 2$ EX. :: :: `OLQ SDD' .:.:. ::;,;NEW 5DD . ~:>.:: . 10 AU 11 AU AU LOCK OFFS*'"' 4 AU LOCK OFFS 16 @ 4596 SQ. FT. 15 @ 5812 SQ. FT. 8 @ 12741 SQ. FT. 6 @ 1264850. FT. 1 DU 215 S0. FT. 1 DU 901 1 DU 515 SQ. FT. 1 DU 9DI 2 @ 730 SQ. FT. 2DU @ 18D2 SQ. FT. 16 73 7 SQ. FT. 1846 0 SQ. FT. 13 DU (AUS +DUS} 1.5 DU {AUS +DUS} 436D SQ. FT. 3712 SQ. F?'. SAME 3FT. 6" NpRTH END 47 FT. 50UTH END EAST 20.0 FT. EAST 20.0 FT. WEST .2 FT. WEST 2 F7. NORTH i.4 FT. NORTH 4'.•5~', SOUTH 8.D FT SOUTH 8 FT ~~ 6831 SQ. Ff, 7214 SQ. FT. 1 OK OK { 27 READ. ~ 26 READ. 2$ PROPOSED 29 PROPOSED ~ * Restricted employee units are not counted towards density or GRFA ** 1 DU equals 2 AU *** 5tandard parking requ~.rements applied **** A DU in amulti-family building may include one attached accom- modation unit (AU lock-off) no larger than one third of the total floor area of the DU. A lock-off is cot counted for density. Lack- off GRFA is added to the total DU GRFA. Parking for clock-off is calculated by adding the AU lack-off to the DU GRFA. The DU parking requirements are applied to the fatal GRFA for the DU plus AU lock-off. ~ , .., .,. ~ ?A ZONE :`>>~~!~6f ~OF TOTAL: ~ `:<<~: ~''.',':.'~GRFA IN AUS ;?:;;' 51 % tYo OF TOTAL, ':>>4rc. DF; TOTAI::.: '~€'.GRFA~FIENTAL ~": pESTRli.~i tD PER NA 17.26.075 .. '?'sTOTACKEYS ;:>> NA >>>::.:% OF-KEYS :> RESTRIC i to PER NA "! 7.26.075 - . WYNTER 1990 GARDEN OF THE GODS UNIT USE ANALYSIS EXISTING ~>~~'OLD SDD- .:::.;~~ 27 ~/o 53 01o AVG. AU 287 S.F. 47 % 73 % 16 AU5 @ 4596 1 DU @ 1134 0 5730 S.F.OR 34% 18 24 0 17 KEYS OR 70 0!0 .:,:.;NEW SDD :: ~',E 317 AVG. AU 372 S. F. 69% 15 AUS 58i2* 3 DUS 28$2.5 8695 S.F.OR ~+7 % 2I I~ 18 KEYS OR 867 1 * All AU and AU lock-offs shall be used fox short-term rental through out the year. ~1 ~J • [, ~~ ~' ~~ 1ao a~ c: February l2, 1990 Ms. Pam Hopkins Snowden & Hopkins Architects 201 Gore Greek Drive Vail, CO 81657 Re: Garden of the Gods Expansion Dear Pam, Per your request I have reviewed the impact the above mentioned expansion would have on the Town of Vail view corridor from View Paint #5. The elevation of the highest existing north--south ridge line of the structure is 8219.0 feet.Tf the north end of the existing ridge was moved to the east seven feet the new ridge line could be built to an elevation of 8219.6 feet. Tf the approximate mid-point of the existing ridge was moved to the east five feet the new ridge could be built to an elevation of 8219.9 feet. iVeither of the new proposed ridge elevations would encroach into the defined view corridor, Please call if I can be of any further assistance an this project. Sincerely, Eagle Valley Surveying, Inc. ~~'.~~ Dan Corcoran, P.L.S. President 199 Highway 6 & 24, Eagie-Vail Posl Office Bax 1230 Edwards, CO 81632 303-949-1406 Tq: Planning and Environmental Commission `~ FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 26, 1990 RE: Streamlining PEC meetings. Staff recognizes the fact that the Punning C~,~u«ission agendas will continue to be quite lang. In order to move the meetings along without taking away from the information the PEC needs to make a decision, the staff recommends the following changes: 1. The staff will assign time limits to each item on the agenda. 2. Staff presentations will be limited to 5-10 minutes for a variance, conditional use and minor amendment to an SDD. Special Development Districts will have a 20 minute limit. 2n all cases, staff will try to make the presentations as concise as possible. 3. The Planning Commission may want to consider a limit on applicants response time also. 4. At the beginning of the meeting, the chair should explain the ground rules for discussion for agenda items. This will help everybody to keep their responses to the point. 5. The vice-chair should assist the chair in keeping track of time. It is difficult to run the meeting as well as watch the clock. The Community Development Director should also assist the chair in keeping the meeting moving along. 6. Begin site visits on time. These comments are offered as recommendations to the Planning Commission. We value the time that you give to the Planning Commission and feel that your time should be used as efficiently as possible. If you can think of any other suggestions to improve our meetings, please bring your comments to the February 26 Planning Commission Meeting. ~1 ~_J ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ . 6 • Recycling in Review: Year ' lwo for New Jersey At the end of the second year of operation of New Jersey's statewide Mandatory Source Separation and Recycling Act residents are willing and eager to recycle and public awareness of recycling issues is high. By Aletha Spang ~ 1"ew Jersey became the focus of j ~( worldwide attention in 1987 when the state responded to mounting environ- mental problems with passage of the nation's most comprehensive mandatory recycling law. The goal of the New Jersey Statewide Mandatory Source Separation and Recycling Act is to recycle a minimum of 25 percent of municipal solid waste generated in the state within two years of county plan approval. ow, as that deadline approaches, ~lic officials, residents, haulers, business people and the press all ask the same question -- is mandatory recycling a success? The answer is a resounding yes. Final statistics will not be available until next year, but a survey of programs throughout the state indicates that residents are v<•illing and eager to recycle, and that public awareness of recycling issues is high. The success of mandatory recycling in New Jersey is due to a combination of factors. The first was a crisis situation that brought all segments of the population together in an effort to salve the problem. The closing of more than 8D percent of the landfills in the stare forced more than half of New Jersey's municipalities to ship their solid waste out of state, and within one year, tipping fees had increased by an incredible 800 percent. Recycling -the removal and reuse of materials from the waste stream -- has long been viewed as part of the solution to the problem of solid waste management, along with source reduction, incineration and landfilling. Studies show that more than 40 percent of household, business and commercial waste consists of recyclable materials. The Mandatory Source Separation and Recycling Act, which is one element of the state's solid waste management strategy, requires all communities to recycle leaves and at least three of the following materials: paper, metals, glass, plastic containers and food waste. Auto scrap, asphalt, oil and demolition waste also are recycled, and municipalities are given financial incentives for the recycling of these materials. A1121 counties in New Jersey require households to recycle glass, aluminum and newsprint. Two counties have mandated the recycling of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) beverage containers; six have mandated PET and high density polyethy- lene (HDPE) plastic containers, and seven counties mandate the recycling of tin food containers. The recycling of corrugated, office paper and ether materials in the commercial sector also is required in a!I counties. Funding Recycling Programs State support far recycling programs is provided through a $1.50 per ton recycling tax collected at landfills and transfer stations. The recycling an stipulates that the fund must be spent in the following manner; 4D percent to municipalities and counties for tonnage grants; 3S percent for low interest loans to business and for grants for market development and research activities; 10 percent for education; 8 percent for county program grants; and 7 percent for state administrative costs. In 1988, 459 municipalities received 52,756,832 for tonnage recycled in 1987, and one county received almost $3 ] ,000. More than 1.8 million tons of material were recycled by New Jersey municipalities in 1987, and preliminary numbers in 1988 indicate this number may increase by 3S percent. For tonnage grants, 54.6 million wilk be available. To stimulate growth of the recycling industry, the Division's Business Recycling Loan Program has provided mare than $4.9 million in low-interest loans to z2 businesses since it began in ]984. Ranging in size from $50,000 to $500,000, loans can be used for the acquisition of land, buildings and recycling equipment. As of July 1, the maximum loan amount available was increased to $1 million far a manufacturer using recycled plastic or tires and $3 million for a manufacturer of products using recycled paper. In addition, 165 applications for tax credits were filed in the first 6 months of 1989, totalling $4.7 million. During 1988, 89 tax credits valued at $2 million were granted. In the past year, nearly $2 million in grants have been awarded for market research and development activities. Chief among these was a market development study for waste paper, plastics, ferrous automotive strap, tires and batteries. This study, which examined current and future supply and demand for these materials and recommended possible state initiatives to expand these markets, was distributed to each municipality. Other research and development activities include a grass clipping compost research program conducted by Rutgers University; a study of methods for the reuse and recycling of incinerator ash; an assessment of the environmental impact of the manufacture and disposal of consumer packaging; an lr~ u FEBRL3A1lY ZI9O • Ci6YERNMEN7 FINANCE Rrv3eW 11 evaluation of the biodegradability of plastic film; a pilot program for the collection of consumer batteries in Warren County; and a research project designed to examine the use of used newsprint as animal bedding. Municipal Success Stories The outstanding success of recycling programs throughout the state is a tribute to the commitment, creativity and hard work of city council members, municipal employees, residents and businesses working together, public education programs conducted by the state, counties and municipalities have created a climate of understanding and acceptance of the importance of recycling. The following are but a few of the wide range of innovative and successful programs operating in New Jersey. The Township of Mahwah occupies 25 square miles in northwestern Bergen County, and has a population of ]2,]2.7. Mandatory recycling began there in October 1987 with a program which called For twice monthly curbside pickup of glass, aluminum cans, metal cans, magazines, corrugated and newspaper. At the same time, the municipal recycling center was expanded to accept ferrous and nonferrous scrap, white goods, used motor oil, tires, magazines, corrugated and computer gaper. A poster contest in the schools provided kick-off for the program. A 16-page booklet detailing the program was mailed to every home in the township. Residents are given warnings if materials are not properly prepared, or if recyclables are mixed with solid waste. As a last resort, garbage is lek at the curb for noncom- pliance with the recycling mandate. Businesses also are required to recycle, and materials are picked up at curbside twice weekly. Multi-family housing units have depots on the premises far collection of materials. Leaves, brush and Christmas trees are required ro be recycled, and must be placed for pickup in biodegradable paper bags, which are sold by the recycling department. The effectiveness of this comprehensive approach to rerycling is revealed in the results. ]n 1988, Mahwah recycled more than 7,000 tons of materials, up from 3,984 tons in 1987. Of this amount, the mandated recyclables -paper, metal, glass and plastic containers -comprised 5,014 tons. These items alone amount to 45 gercent of the township's municipal waste stream. The Berlin Township recycling program has been a pioneer in New ,jersey since 1980. It was one of the first New Jersey communities to supply residents with household recycling containers funded by a local industry. Berlin Township was also the first community in the state to use the "Eager Beaver" recycling trailer which now is used by many other communities. With a population of 5,400, Berlin Township always had a high recycling rare, and in 1985, recycled 88 pounds of glass per resident. ]ndustry estimates indicate that each person generates approximately 90-100 pounds of glass per year. Therefore, Berlin township can boast an extremely high recovery rate. The amount of trash going to its local landfill dropped from 11,172 cubic yards in 1987 to 7,870 cubic yards in 1988, fora 36 percent decrease. Berlin Township collects commingled glass, cans and plastic, newspaper, metal, collection pilot program. The participation rate in the township during the nine years of the program has been estimated at 75 percent. With the addition of plastic containers, the participation rate jumped to 95 percent and has stayed as chat level. Berlin Township collects commingled glass, cans and plastic, newspaper meta], cardboard, wood waste, used oil, leaves and batteries.The program plans to expand to include concrete far construc- tion of retention and drainage basins. Tires also will be collected to build a retaining wall at the public works yard. Jersey City's recycling program, which was implemented in 1987, is an example of a successful urban program. Operated by the Jersey City Incinerator Authority, the program combines a comprehensive public education program utilizing well- designed, clearly written materials, with a hands-on approach to program develop- ment. The city provides pick-up of recyclables at curbside four times per week. Newspaper must be separated, and bottles and cans are collected commingled. Jersey City strictly enforces its recycling ordinance, and collects from $5,000 to $10,000 a month in penalties from violators. The municipal coordinator works closely with building staff to establish on-site recycling programs and education programs for residents, and three full-time enforcement officers seek out residential and commercial violators. More than half of the multi-family buildings are currently operating successful recycling programs. County Efforts Morris County has a record of strong municipal recycling programs. When the county began requiring quarterly reports from all sectors in 1988, it became apparent that rerycling in the commercial senor was not meeting its potential. The county decided to step in with athree- pronged approach developed to assess the needs of small, medium and large-sized 12 FfBR[fARY t99O • CiOVERNA7ENT FINANCE RevlEm .. ~mpanies, An information kit was developed giving step-by-step instructions on how to institute a commercial recycling program. Successful programs were identified and used as specific examples. One such txample is a small pizza restaurant which recycles all of its aluminum cans. The cans are taken weekly to the fire department, which delivers them to the Alcoa depot. Proceeds from this recycling effort are contributed to the St. Barnabas Hospital Burn Unit. This one small restaurant has raised approximately $4,000 with this recycling program. Using information provided by the county, amid-sized liquor store/ delicatessen was able to effect $300 a month in savings by renegotiating its contract with a private hauler. The store was able to downsize its dumpster and decrease the frequency of pickup. A paper container manufacturing company, with 40 employees in office positions and 190 in the plant, operates an extremely effective recycling program. Employees help determine placement of recycling containers and choose charities [o benefit from the monies raised. Con- tainers For office paper are located on one ~e of the cafeteria and receptacles for ss and aluminum on the other. The company estimates monthly savings of $3,757. The efficient collection of scrap paper generated in the manufacturing process saves an additional $3,000 a month. Bellcore, which employs ] 0,000, developed a simple, effective recycling program in 198$ that saved the company $225,000 this past year. Based on estimates that 60 to 80 percent of all waste removed from the facility consisted of recyclable paper, the company provided a special receptacle for paper at each work station. Paper is collected by the janitorial staff at the end of each day and emptied into dumpsters provided by the firm's hauler. The company is currently recycling 120 tons of paper a month, Although the average disposal cost per container has gone up 200 percent in the past year based on increased ]andfil! fees, out-of-pocket disposal costs have gone down $7 percent. Morris County works closely with the commercial sector to boost compliance. Inspectors at transfer stations identify haulers and companies that are not separating recyclable items from garbage. Noncompliance notices are then sent to firms and municipal coordinators. r~ U The State's Program The state of New Jersey has operated a waste paper recycling program since 1983 under an executive order by Governor Kean. State employees at more than 60 locations separate paper from the waste stream at the source -- their desktops - then transfer the paper to a central location where it is removed to storage areas for collection by a vendor. Nineteen of these sites operate multi-material recycling programs. Seven correctional facilities within the Department of Corrections currently operate office paper recycling programs, and two prisons recycle food waste, oil, tires, cement, aluminum, corrugated and metal. They generate between 220 and 370 pounds of aluminum cans a month, 10,000 pounds of corrugated, 7S pounds of food waste and 2,000 pounds of office waste paper. In one county, prisoners on work-release assist the county with their curbside collection program. In the spring of 1988, New Jersey State Parks began collecting commingled recyclables. Fihy-five-gallon drums were used throughout the system as collection containers. Park superintendents coordinate the collection and storage of recyclables, which are contributed to the municipality in which the park is located and included in that municipality's tonnage report to the state. The Department of Human Services, which operates facilities institutionalizing 26,040 people, benefits both socially and economically by recycling. As parr of the vocation al / h abitationa] /rehabilitation programs, patients separate the grades of paper for recycling. Other programs within the department collect corrugated, leaves, scrap iron, tires, food waste, X-rays, rags, used oil, tin and aluminum. Plastic recycling technology is available for the following post-consumer materials: P£T soh drink containers; HDP£ milk, waxer and detergent containers; and polystryrene (PS} or sryrofoam. Of these, P£T and HDP£ are being collected for recycling in New Jersey, At the present time, the demand for recyclable plastic in New Jersey far exceeds the supply. In response to growing public awareness of the viability of plastic recycling, an increasing number of plastic recycling programs have been established. As of July 25, 1989, 143 municipalities operate plastic recycling programs, compared to only three in 1968. An industr}; group, the Plastic Recycling Corporation of New Jersey, provides both technical and capita] assistance, interim transport and promotional assistance to municipalities interested in establishing plastics recycling programs. To dare, more than 80 municipalities have received technical assistance and 16 have received grants for the purchase of equipment. f.eaf Composting The Mandatory Source Separation and Recycling Aa banned ]eaves From landfills between September 1 and December 31, and required that all leaves be taken to permitted compost facilities. In response to concerns that there were not enough facilities to handle all the leaves, the governor signed an emergency rule in October 1988, enabling the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP} to grant solid waste facility permit exemptions for vegetative waste compost facilities, leaf compost facilities and leaf mulching operations. The rule encourages the development of leaf compost facilities by expediting the D£P review and authorization process. Leaf compost facilities are sites which compost 20,000 cubic yards of leaves or less annually. Leaf mulching operations are allowed on land devoted to agricultural or horticultural use, and must adhere to guidelines outlined in the emergency rule. The DEP, in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture, has stream- lined the composting procedure for fathers. A 19891aw amending the recycling acs allows soil conser<~ation districts to develop site plans for construction, operation and maintenance of leaf compost facilities located on agricultural or horticultural ]and. Soil conservation districts will be required to conduct annual inspections of each leaf compost facility. This new law bans leaves from all solid waste facilities (excluding compost facilities} on a year-round basis and only allows leaves to be transported out-of-state if they will be recycled out-of- state. Six municipalities bring their yard waste to a leaf composting site operated by Rutgers University. Providing manpower and equipment through their combined public works departments, they were able to compost 33,000 cubic yards of yard waste this past fall. The finished product, which is used to increase soil aeration and moisture retention, is realized in just 18 FEaRVARY 1990 GOVERNMENT FINANCt REVIEW 13 r .. 0 ti `months, using slow-tech method developed by two Rutgers scientists. The compost is provided free of charge to residents of the six communities. Looking Forward Btcause New Jersey has been the pioneer in the recycling field, it has had to "feel its way" in many areas, finding solutions to problems as they arise. As recycling became universal in New Jersey, supply of certain paper grades began to impact price and demand. ]n some areas, municipalities must now pay dealers ra take their newspapers. However, chase casts are still far below landfill fees, The recycling act provides Funding to assist in the expansion and creation of markets for newspaper within the state. The Office of Recycling is currently reviewing loan applications from two manufacturers that use post-consumer paper. One is for the expansion of a mill producing consumer paper products, and the other would reopen a mil! in the northern parr of the state. In addition, two major manufacturers of recycled newsprint are presently investigating opportunities to open new newrsprint mills in the Nonh- east. A promising program now in operation at three locations in the state uses shredded newspaper for animal bedding. Used bedding is simply swept into the manure pile, where it quickly decomposes. The Office of Recycling has prepared and distributed two reports on the recycling rates of tires and beverage containers, which make recommendations on ways to increase the recycling of these materials. in the immediate future, the Office of Recycling will be working to implement these recommendations and to develop methods for increasing recycling of other special materials, such as grass clippings, used oil and batteries of all types. Multi-family Housing. More than 30 percent of [he housing stock in New jersey consists of multi-family units. These buildings present specific and unique challenges in developing effective recycling programs. Space for recycling receptacles is limited. ]t is frequently hard to identify residents who do not comply with building regulations because of anonymity in larger buildings, residents are hard to reach, and in some cases, language barriers hinder the education process. In 1988, the Office of Recycling estab- 24 FEeRVArsr )99Q • GgYEANMENT FINANCE REVIEW lisped the Multi-family Housing Task Force to develop a model for recycling in multi-family buildings. The group is composed of municipal recycling coor- dinators, building managers and environ- mental and communications specialists. The task force has developed the model and two guides for owners, superinten- dents and tenants of apartment buildings to aid in the establishtent of recycling programs. Future plans call for the preparation of educational material in foreign languages and the establishment of a demonstration project in an inner city community. Source Reduction. Source reduction is the newest strategy of the four-prong solid waste management strategy developed in the State of New jersey. A variety of activities have been initiated in this area. The Division of Solid Waste Manage- ment, in coordination with the Board of public Utilities has developed a brochure for municipal distribution to consumers in the fall of 1989 an what they can do to reduce their waste stream. Educational efforts in this area will expand to an environmental shopping program which will educate consumers on the environmental impact of various products and packaging materials. This will allow consumers to make an educated choice £or the environment, The New jersey Department of Environ- mental Protect'ion's Division of Science and Research and the Office of Recycling is preparing a study scheduled for cample- tion in 1990, of environmental impacts of packaging materials. Results of this study will help educate residents on the production, use and disposal of packaging materials such as glass, metal, plastic and paper. ]n addition, the Department, working with other Northeast states and businesses, will begin to identify, imcstigare and promote specific businesses and industries located in New Jersey which have volun- tarily instituted waste reduction measures. A waste reduction case study will be compiled in order to educate the commercial sector regarding possible waste reduction measures, and the associated costs and savings for such a program. D ALETHA SPwlJC isacting administrator, Neu' Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Droision of Solid Waste Management Office ojRec}Yling. This article is based an a report in the ?~'ovember 1989 issue of New' Jersey Mutncipalities. The GFOA is grateful to the Neu~]ersey Slate Leagae of Municipalities for permission to publish this material. t~iQ~~ ~~iitiaes for Historic ~ S~ematis>e ~~~~rifat rv~- 3t's>~"tit e~eCCivet~CSs ->.*z~~ ~ bra a ~t~ f~ gi~ti ~bjiecti~+e way no zar~ure k~`.~1e~irs. ~>~ ~% ~ :. =~ tlev~infz a ,t;, admilliSCr81 ~ ~ y~ i.GA~~ t83t`~Set. i `816.. res., ~i.,.,,t ~r' 1. .1, '.. >;.i~ r .~horiC '- ~a t+D -.... ~~;~:. ~• - r . ... ~ar._ :~:. ,. • To: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 26, 1990 SUBJ: A request for variances from side setbacks to allow for the expansion of an existing home on Lot 5, Block E, Vail dos Schone Filing No. 1. Applicant: Tom and Nancy Ricci I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCES REQUESTED The applicants are the owners of the above named property located at 2576 Davos Trail, in West Vail. The lot contains an existing single family residence. The owners are proposing to build a bedroom addition to the rear of the home which, if approved, would encroach 3-1/2 feet into the required 15 foot setback. The existing residence was constructed in 1971 and was placed on an angle to Davos Trail (please see site plan). The original siting of the home on this angle has placed the building 5 feet into the side yard setback. This encroachment is legal and is considered a pre-existing, non- conforming use. The property is heavily landscaped along the west and south elevations. • II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zane District: Primary/Secondary Residential Lot Size: 11,242 square feet Allowable GRFA 2810.5 Site Coverage 2248.4 III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Existing Prooosed Total 1744 589 1631 589 2333 2220 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 relationship of the requested variances to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The original siting of the residence and the locations of the mature aspen and evergreen trees on the property have essentially dictated the location of the proposed addition. Combined with the owners' desire to maintain views of the Gore Range, as well as the existing, interior layout of the home, the proposed location of the new addition seems logical. Although the staff believes that the addition could be slightly redesigned to avoid encroachment into the setback, we believe that such a redesign may result in an oddly shaped addition. We would recommend, however, that the encroachment into the south, side yard setback be removed. This can be accomplished with a minor change in the footprint of the addition. We do believe that a physical hardship does exist on the site. We feel that the encroachments are very minor and that the requested variance, if approved, would not adversely affect the privacy or use of any adjacent properties. 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. Due to the unique siting of the home on the lot and the locations of the existing landscaping, the remaining buildable areas of the property are greatly reduced. The staff is of the opinion that approval of the requested variance would not be a grant of special privilege due to the development restrictions on the lot. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities. public facilities and utilities. and public safety. This variance request, if approved, would not block any views, light or air on adjacent properties and would have no impact on transportation, traffic facilities, public safety, . etc. . 2V. 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: ~. The strict and 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. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation is for approval of the requested variance with the condition that the encroachment into the south, side-yard setback be removed. We believe that this site possesses a unique physical hardship given the existing siting of the home, the location of the existing, mature landscaping on the lot and the interior layout of the residence. We also believe that a hardship would be imposed upon the applicant if the strict interpretation of the zoning code were to be enforced. r1 U . ~ ~ ~~''r: .~'•r•.-~,~ y3~•is~-'~Ib.'''".:.(7`~'r.~i,=Fx-;a..1~1 `Y7'.-... 3'i~~(" f'.~w~js:'!•...- ~ 5 ~!' ~ Y ~ ' _ A t' , t~i".c ~y ._ . ._i _ .. I F Y - -• i ~ 1 ~ NI ~ • .., v. .T. _ _ - t s. ~• _ , - I _ .r i a: I (x. ~ / I ,: x y ~T~ , ~ t , V - I r ~ I ! ~/t1~'" '~ y /J I .~ ~~ v - 4. ~ `! ~ . 7Y ,~ _ -~ ter' ~: /J ~ F ~~ • ! / ~ / r .fin 1 - -'~ /~4h~~ I~~ / r t - ~/1Y // 5Xlyflr(~ 1`i:0 shGR'F }~p{~ / r _ _ (/ / ~/ -. , I / ~~/ i ~ I /1J /:'.. ~ - ~ // ! ~ 'r ~ F ~ - ~ ~ '~ ~ ~~~ ~ lr'~;/~ ~~ Ells/ f >/ ~ \ ~I.' ~ ~~ `~ / ' L.~'~.s _ - -' ~ ' ::~ x, a' - P S:r ~ 5 Vx ~ y.l- - ' ,. - j;~t . ~/ - - y • - . ~ ~ ~ sourHwesr er~ua.'rian~ - y~ `a fi z , ~~~ - - ~~~1 .~ ~ ~ r ~~~ ~ 3~ ~` r e r - ~! - ~, , .~ x - t ~ ~ _ `M.~(, ,.E ) ti 9 ~ xeJ ~:. er i- . r. . NORTHEAST, ELEVATION 4 ~ . . -, ' i ~ ~ I~ ~~ ~ = I_v_ I~ .! ;, ; I ~~ SOUTHEAST ELEVATfOPf r . TO: Planning and Environmental Cu~~u«ission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 26, 1.990 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from the side setback requirement of the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District for Lot 15, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: Bruce Kasson T. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants, owners of Lot 1.5, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, are requesting a variance form the side setback requirement to allow for the construction of a 7 ft x 22 ft (135.5 square foot) storage roam which will be attached to the east side of the garage of the proposed single family residence. Access to the storage area will be through the garage. The storage area will encroach into the side setback by 7 ft., but will not be visible because it is a below grade structure. The site is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential with a total area of 34,730 square feet and an allowed GRFA of 5486.5 square feet. The maximum site coverage allowed is 6945 square feet for this lot. The applicants are not requesting variances to these requirements for the project. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Cade, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the fallowing factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existina or potential uses and structures in. the vicinity. Since the proposed structure is completely below grade it should not have any negative impacts on the existing or proposed structures in the vicinity. Adjacent property owners would not be significantly impacted. • • 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. The staff does not find that there is a physical hardship related to this variance and feels that approval of this request would constitute a grant of special privilege. We feel that the applicant has not given full consideration to other design solutions for construction of the addition that would not require a variance. 3. The effect of the reauested variance on light and air, distribution of copulation, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The staff finds that the requested variance will have no significant effect upon any of the above considerations. • III. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. IV. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL~S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN. 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. 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. V~. STAFF RECOMMENDATYON Staff's recommendation is for denial of the requested 7 foot encroachment into the side setback. We feel that the applicant has not fully investigated all possible alternatives that would not require a variance. The storage area is not serviced by the front garage door and could not be realistically used to store a vehicle, therefore the positioning of the area is not critical to the plan. The current proposed design does have adequate parking without this additional area. The staff feels that the storage could be moved to another location that would not encroach into the setback and would serve the same purpose. Without being able to identify a true physical hardship which would limit the location of the proposed storage area, • the staff is unable to support the applicant's request. • r E~ ..,,. .., _~.~. , ~,~, ;m. E,. ~i . . °: j.; `~ ,~ t~s.~___ _ _. _ :fl ,.. -- !~r r //~ ~` _-- 1~ ~/ _ W~=w~ J~i ~ _. _. ~. + ~ ~ _.;_ . ,.,, ; . , -'k ;. y , i ., 4 U y ~ M1 9 l _ r' 3L~ P y~. YS .. r 5\-t~< ~ ~i ~ fGC . ft fE ~ ~ ~ d ~ 1 a ~ ~F ~~ t ~~v~ 1f~r~f .. rf, s1 r5 si\ H ~: ~e E ~ t d r.i '.o-, ~ E' ~SC ,. F i ~ M ~ h' r f~ ~ ' w eti - ~ ~~ ~~` "fit ~ F r s~ 4~ r-y ~ ~.z."x^*`r~+ > - -.;~' e+~^ 1 - 'etc S ~y*' A S t 7 ~ ~,~ {. EIS f _ 'Y % •- th - rti' a r'srv?~~S~F~ ~~hrTj`.- s ~ ~s ~ E ~ ~ 1[x s ~x r :.~ cY'../ ,: 3 1 rs ~ F E" ~ E~-"'~"t r ~''° F~ 1 ` x ~rT 1~ ~V _ {~rFx~{rK ~ sal ~: ''i r > r ' it N ~4 * y.R ~~T ~ .r - ! ~ ~ . * 1f r fi''i ~~ °r.'i~ ~ ix - .. ~tif. rx Y ~ ~ f',i ~ i 5 - ~ r -. I r r ~1t~ $ ~a~~, ^ r ~ E yrs ~. "r7~ a s- i ' T'.. j 4'* -'i`rk i ti s , ~r~- R~S J k ` 5t r t ''°' ~ i ~'' f+~ r. ~ .~ ixj~; n Y 4 ir~~ ~ s # ~ ra-~ t a j ae 1 ; ~a- n+ ~ Y f ~~ r ~ ' is ~ - ':'V~ n~wy~ r` : 5 - f ? r t px"~~a~ `'''N;~~~ i i ~'' t k~t'tr a'2 r s -r :, C . ~~4<< 'dr~yh:i ~4~hr ifr~~`rN i,J~r. .~.~ ~¢ t~~''~kf-f r' --.~y'4"• c ~ ~4 f~~~ d.E ~ ~~°,+:~E"~' ~5.. 4 1~~~~ylfy~.~y~~`"~'S~y~ r~i~ pY Aor~~{,~~sYF d ~~`I'i ~ r^! ~`s f t r $ ~sy ~ Y rt ~ ;~bs ~TF ry3,"1.1 Si µF'~4'•~s7 ~ '.,, ~K~r~r~F1 ~ ^p ST~~rAI n ~h~-E{r D~ ~.if5'! ~~`~Yti'it SF .7 °- C '"e.-ai°€ ~~~~ r'~"~ ~i~« ~'~~- 4' y ~s r {: • r e 1 ~L V -_ ^r r v ~ ~ y,13 .~. }r e ~; ~ S: a s~ 2l .. lrr r i. ~ ~~ V, .. r, 'E' Y f~+,ary4r jk~x'~,;-~ ~~'1rc'~'S.`^r~'F`44 :t IV9 -? J'~' irk *4x '~ ~~~ 4 f u • • 1 :.. ._~ , . ~i l `, .:.~ z _ ~--- - = o- ~~ C ;~ m~4 _- tiara '~~ ~~_¢- rosay . -- _ ~r J _~- .. ~ .. r _. .~. ... ~ ~ r 1 t.Y YS ~~ _~~ -. ry __ - . ~r~~ _. ~,_ _.. ... _. .~J ~ . ~ ~_ -- ~~~ r~ ___ . _.. ___ , J_ __- l~ ~- __ _ ~r r/ . _ ._._ ___._..__~. .~_-___ _T~ I_ _ f~J f J '. ~ ~ _~~ ~'t v~ __-.-. _.~_.... ~__....__~_ _~vv ~~~ _..~_ - ' -.. ~-_ M1 +~.____ ._.. _____ ~_ . sue; _ 'M1 _ y y - - _____ _._ _. ~ - ~.. -~_ - _~ F ~ ~~. ,~ l r ~: -- 6 ,.,;~;~+ - y.~ fl-211 I _ ~ _ "~ • ` ~ ,~•p`: V _ _ .rte ~. f ~ ~7 ~ iz ~~ =~ r.. i ~: ~, ~ t. I'~~" ~` ~~ -~ , j R T0: Planning and Environmental Cca«uis~ion FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 26, 1990 RE: A request to amend Special Development District #4, Area D, Glen Lyon Office Site to allow for changes in the design of the micro-brewery building and parking plan. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building, Ync. _ A Colorado Partnership I. BACKGROUND ON THE PROPOSAL In January, 1989 the Town approved a major amendment to special Development District #4 which includes bath the Glen Lyon Office site as well as all of Cascade Village. The amendments on Area D - the Glen Lyon Office site allowed for: A. A brewery addition havina_ a~anraximately 17.60A sa. ft. of cross floor area: The approved building would connect to the west end of the existing Glen Lyan Office Building. The addition would be approximately three stories high and include a brewing area, pub, beer hall, retail/museum, and brewery office. Anew deck would extend down to the bike path adjacent to the creek. B. Expansion to the existina Glen Lvon Office Buildinq,_ An additional 2,400 sq. ft. of office space would be added to the existing Glen Lyon Office Building. The new office area would infill above the second floor of the Glen Lyon Office Building. C. Parking Structure: A two level parking structure having 100 spaces was proposed to be built directly to the east of the Glen Lyon Office Building. The vehicular access to the property would be moved further to the east according to the Arterial Business Zone District Circulation and Access Plan. Deceleration lanes would be constructed on the South Frontage Road. • k .' D. East Building: Two alternative development scenarios were proposed for this building. Scenario one provided for two employee dwelling units having a total GRFA of 1.,695 sq.ft. plus a free market dwelling unit having a GRFA of 1,630 sq.ft. In addition, office space was included within this scenario (2,400 sq.ft.). Scenario Two called for only office having a square footage of 5,725 sq. ft. Surface parking would be provided adjacent to the building. E. Site Improvements: The developer agreed to include the following site improvements into the project: 1. Bike Path - The existing bike path will be moved further to the west in order to decrease the steepness of the path. The relocated path also allows more open space between the bike path and the brewery addition. 2. Bus Shelter - The developer has proposed to build a new bus drop-off in front of the brewery building. The Town of Vail will provide bus service for the drop-off. The developer is responsible for maintaining the drop-off. 3. Undergrounding of Utilities - The developer was required to underground the Holy Cross electrical lines that extend along the north side of the property adjacent to the South Frontage Road. In August of 1989, the developer requested a minor amendment to the development plan to allow an increase in office space of 400 sq.ft. to the Glen Lyon Office building. This results in a total office expansion of 2,800 sq.ft. II. THE REQUEST The developer states that: The commitment of a large area to an industrial use such as bottling, etc., severely limited the projects ability to be financed. In addition, the requirement to construct a parking structure to support an innovative project without an operating history became an insolvable financial obligation. As a result, the brewery building has been redesigned as a smaller, less specialized project. • The new design is a two story building with a small sub-basement which totals 8,605 sq.ft. It is designed to permit the Vail Brewery to expand, if appropriate, into the second floor office space. Initially, all of the Vail Brewery's facilities with the exception of its entry reception and loading areas are on the lower floor. (Andy Norris, Glen Lyon Office Building, Inc.) Below is a summary of the proposed changes to the approved development plan: A. Aburoval of revised buildina plans for the micro- brewerv addition. The plan calls for a more mixed-use approach to the building that will include the brewery as well as office space. This two story building will be constructed directly to the west of the existing office building. These changes include: 1. Office at 3.780 s.f.: Increase of up to 3,080 s.f. over the approved plan. In the phase II development plan, if the brewery operations need to be expanded, 436 s.f. of the adjacent office would convert to a fermentation area. 2. Beer Hall at 1700 s.f.: Decrease of 74 sq.ft. (30 seat decrease). 3. Brew Pub at 1380 s.f.: Decrease by 478 sq.ft. (40 seat decrease). 4. Retail at 885 s.f.: Increase by 439 sq.ft. 5. Reception/Museum at 480 s.f.: Increase by 65 sq.ft. 6. Brew House at 1406 s.f.: Decreased by 5,194 sq.ft. 7. Total c~.~~.«ercial and brewery operations gross square footage decreased by 3,308 sq.ft. {Please see the attached chart comparing the approved SDD to the amended plan.) C: B. Approval of revised narking plan which provides on-site narking spaces. The brewery, beer hall, brew pub, retail, and museum would be closed during normal weekday business hours of 8.00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. This would allow for shared parking between the office uses and the brewery, dinner theatre and restaurant operations. The 100 space parking structure would not be completed until the Brew Pub is opened during the day or the east building is constructed. C. Phasina Plan. Phase T: --Expansion/Renovation of Glen Lyon Office Building. --Expansion of parking lot to 79 spaces and 6 valet spaces on the east end of the surface parking lot. --Relocation of access into the parking lot. --Undergrounding of electric service. Phase IT: --Construction of Brewery/Office addition to the west end of the Glen Lyon Office Building --Relocation of bike path --Construction of deceleration lanes on S. Frontage Road --Town of Vail bus stop added Phase ITx: --Addition of east building and/or Brew Pub operates during the day. --Construction of parking structure (100 car) SCHEDULE: April, 1990 - Start construction of Phase T & Phase II, permits taken out simultaneously. September, 1990 - Completion of Phase T. December, 1990 - Completion of Phase IT. April, 1991 - Start construction of Phase ZZI. December, 1991 - Completion of Phase IZT. f n+ D. Emnlovee Housing The developer is prepared to commit to construction of the required employee housing units (2} on Parcel D as a condition of the Phase TTT building permit. Ten employee housing units shall be located in Cascade Village (Area A} in the Westhaven building. This results in a net increase of 2 employee unit for the SDD. E. An enclosed emercrEncv exit stair will be located on the south side of the Glen Lvon Office Building. The stair encroaches approximately 7 feet into the 50 foot stream setback. An unenclosed stair may not encroach more than 5 feet into a setback. F. All conditions of apbroval associated with the existing development plan shall be included in the revised plan. TzI. COMPARISON OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO THE ARTERIAL ZONE, DISTRICT A. Rackarounc~ on Glen Lvon Property • Tn 1976, Special Development District #4 was established. The Arterial Business Zone District was adopted in March of 1982. Arterial Business zoning serves as the underlying zone district for the Glen Lyon Office property. Technically, the property is still within Special Development District #4. However, the Arterial Business Zone District (ABD) is used in respect to determining allowable uses and general site development standards. When the Special Development District was originally established, the development plan called for 10,000 square feet of office space. The office building was constructed in 1979-80 with a gross area of approximately 13,000 square feet. In March of 1982, the PEC and Town Council approved an amendment to the SDD which allowed approximately 3,000 square feet of existing storage within the building to be converted to office space. In 1983, a request was also approved by the Planning Commission and Tawn Council to allow the total gross area of the building to be 25,000 square feet. Of this 25,000 square feet, 18,750 square feet was considered to be net floor area for office. The remainder of the area was devoted to common area such as mechanical, . lobby areas, and corridors. • The 1983 request also included a change to the front setback. The front setback would be adjusted farm 20 feet to 15 feet. The request was approved by the PEC with two conditions. The first was the "the bike path, right turn and left turn lanes shall be provided in accordance with the circulation and access plan for the Arterial Business zone district with the stipulation that the funding be worked out within a period of 60 days after the approval, and that no building permit would be issued until the funding was worked out. " The second condition stated that the applicant "shall agree to sharing in the cost of providing an additional fire hydrant within the vicinity as required by the Vail Fire Department." (PEC Minutes; January 20, 1983) Yn March of 1986 the developer requested to extend the expired approval for Development Area D. This request was also approved. In April of 1986 the Glen Lyon Office Building partnership requested a minor subdivision of the Glen Lyon Office Building property. The concept was to divide the 1.8 acre site into two parcels so that ownership could be divided prior to construction. The development would be limited to the approved development plan for the parcel This request was • also approved by the PEC. However, the minor subdivision plat has not been finalized and recorded with the County by the applicant. B. Arterial Business Zoninc Compared to Proposed SDD The Arterial Business Zoning level of development on the of haw the proposal compares ABD district. ABD District Reauirements 1. SETBACKS: Side: 15 feet if the building is less than 20 feet high; 20 feet if the building is greater than 20 feet high. Rear: 10 feet • provides a guide for the site. Below is a summary to the requirements of the Proposed SDD Side: All of the project meets the 15 foot side setback except. Rear: The dining deck extends up to the property line. Front: 15 ft = 420 1.f. 60~ 20 ft = 280 l.f. 40% Parkino Structure: No setback for underground parking. Centerline of Gore Creek: 50 ft stream setback from centerline of Gore Creek 2, HEIGHT: Front: 4 ft. = 3 l.f. for parteW cochere 15 to 20 ft. = remainder of project. Parkino Structure: The parking structure maintains a 4 ft. front setback and a 10 ft. setback along the south property line. Centerline of Gore Creek: The parking structure encroaches s ft into the stream setback. 700 = roof 32 to 40 ft. 51~ = roof 32 ft to 40 ft 30% = roof under 32 ft. 49% = roof under 32 ft Minimum roof slope 3 ft. in 12 ft. 3. DENSITY: GRFA = 34,578 5.f. Maximum of 33 D,U.s 4. SITE COVERAGE: 60 % of total site area (76,180 s.f.) = 45,658 sq. ft. 5. FLOOR AREA RATIO: Maximum allowed, .75 GRFA = 3325 s.f. 3 units of which 2 are restricted employee units 15,500 sq ft = buildings 12,600 sq ft = structure 28,100 sq ft total or 37a site coverage .50 Proposed Bldg, 14,486 sf Existing Bldg, 16,800 sf East Bldg, 6,000 sf Total, 37,286 sf 37.286 = .50 6. PARKING AND LOADING: No loading or parking is Project has loading and allowed in the front setback drop-off areas in the front setback. The parking structure extends into the front f& strea setback. Phase I & II 79 Surface 6 Valet 85 Total 7. LANDSCAPING: U 25% of the total site or 19,032 sq ft C. Summarv Phase TII 100 Structure 3 Garage 5 Surface 108 Total 60% approx. (excludes buildings, ramps, drives and structure) The proposed development plan departs form the Arterial Business District standards in respect to setbacks. Staff's opinion is that the setback differences are warranted due to the narrow width of the property, the steep slopes and large evergreens on the south side of the lot, and the constraints of the 50 foot stream centerline setback. The applicant has designed a building that is dramatically below the allowable floor area ratio and site coverage for the property. These encroachments are slight, especially when one also considers that structure parking has been located on the property. The Architects have done an admirable jab of fitting the development in a sensitive manner on to the property. IV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGN CRITERIA, It shall be burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material in proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or to demonstrate that one or more of them are not applicable or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. • Rather than go through the review of the entire project, staff wi11 focus comments on the changes requested for the SDD. The primary change relates to the parking proposal and phasing of the project. A. nP_Slgn comuatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment. neighborhood and adiacent properties relative to architectural design. scale. bulk. building height. buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The site planning and architecture of the project do not change through the amendment request. B. iTses. activity and density which aroyide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding, uses and activity. The project wi11 continue to provide a mix of uses which is workable with the surrounding area. The combination of the brewery, bar and restaurants, office and employee residential uses will serve as a transition zone between Lionshead and Cascade Village. Staff believes that it is very positive that the . employee housing wi11 be located in the east building. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. The amendment request calls for an approval of a shared parking plan. 79 spaces will be provided on site along with 6 valet spaces on the east end of the parking lot. Compact car spaces are used to achieve the 79 spaces. TDA Colorado, Tnc. has completed a revised parking analysis for the project. The report concludes that 84 spaces are necessary for peak demand with the condition that the 11 assumptions listed in the beginning of the TDA report dated January 16, 1990 are followed. Tn the event that the brew pub is opened for seating during the day, the report concludes that 95 spaces would be required for the entire project excluding the east building parking requirements. Thus, the 100 space parking structure which would be built at the time the brew pub is opened for day use would be adequate to serve the development. • Staff does have concerns about parking once the east building is constructed. The parking requirement for this part of the proposal is 1& spaces. The east building will need to be decreased in size in order to have adequate parking on site. In order to provide for the parking, the office space would need to reduced by 2000 square feet. Three loading spaces are provided. This amount meets the Town of Vail loading requirements. The loading spaces were not counted in the total parking counts. D. Conformity with anolicable elements of the Vail Com~arehensive Plan. Town policies and Urban Design Plans. The following sections of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan relate to this proposal: CPneral Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between • residential, c~,«,«ercial, and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. Skier/Tourist Concerns 2.5 The community should improve nonskier recreational options to improve year-round tourist. Commercial 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 3.5 Entertainment oriented businesses and cultural activities should be encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More night-time businesses, ongoing events and sanctioned "street happening" should be encouraged. • E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or • geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. No hazards are present on the Glen Lyon property. The site is affected by the flood plain. However, development is not proposed in this area, F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. No major changes are proposed in this area. G. A circulation svstem designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. No major changes are proposed in this area. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in nr~Pr to optimize and preserve natural features,, recreation, views and functions. The applicant has removed surface parking from the public right of way. The parking lot has been pushed to the south to allow for more substantial landscaping along the Frontage Road side of the parking. Two trees are removed to allow for this new configuration. Staff strongly supports the increased landscaping along the Frontage Road. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable. functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Staff supports the phasing plan as long as the office in the east building is decreased by 1000 s.f. to insure that there is adequate parking when all phases of the project are complete. We also believe that the building permits for Phases T & TT must be combined to insure that all of the site improvements are constructed before temporary certificate of occupancies are released for either phase. Tt will be required at the Design Review Board review of this amended plan that a construction staging proposal be submitted to insure that there will be sufficient parking during construction. • • IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT No major changes are proposed. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to Area D. With the following conditions: 1. All previous conditions of approval for SDD #4, Area D, shall be fulfilled by the owner. These conditions are listed in Section 18.46.210 D, I through 9 and Section 18.46.200 Conservation and Pollution Controls of Ordinance 12, 1989. 2. Plans for the Frontage Road improvements shall be submitted by the developer to the Town of Vail engineer for review and approval before a building permit is released for Phase I & Phase II. 3. No valet parking shall be allowed on the west end of the parking lot. 4. The entire office building and brewery building shall be sprinklered and have a fire alarm detection system. Fire Department approval of these two systems shall be • required before a building permit is released for Phase I or Phase II. 5. The three dwelling units in the east building shall only be allowed to have gas fireplaces that meet the Town of Vail ordinances governing fireplaces. 6. The developer shall submit a set of amended plans to the Colorado Division of Highways for their review and approval. The project must receive CDOH approval before the project is presented for final approval to the Design Review Board. Particular issues of concern are the brewery parte-cochere and landscaping along the Frontage Road. 7. Fhase III shall reduce the maximum office square footage from 2400 S-s.f. to 1400 s.f. to insure adequate on site parking when all phases are built. 8. A construction staging plan shall be presented to DRB for approval. r~ L i VI STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO DRB: 1. Landscaping along the Frontage Road side of the project should be reviewed to insure that adequate screening of the surface parking lot is provided. 2. The brewery building and office building should have the same exterior finish. Presently, the office building has wood siding and the brewery building has a stucco finish. • 4 SDD #4, AREA D . DEVELOPMENT SQUARE FOOTAGE AND PARKING PER TOWN OF VAIL REQUIREMENTS FEBRUARY 26, 1990 PHASE I & TI PHASE III APPROVED PLAN DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT Sq.Ft. / Parking Sq.Ft. / Parking Sq.Ft. / Parking Glen Lyon Office Bldg. (Existing) 10,150 40.6 10,150 40.6 10,150 40.6 PHASE I Glen Lyon Bldg. - Office 2,800 11.2 2,800 11.2 2,$00 11.2 PHASE II Micro-Brewery -Office 700 2.8 3,780 15.1 2,634 10.5 --Reception/ • Museum 415 0.0 480 0.0 480 0.0 -Retail 446 1.5 175 .6 885 3.0 --Fermentation/ Brewhouse 6,600 0.0 970 0.0 1,406 0.0 --Beer Hall 1,774 14.7 1,700 18.8* 1,700 18.8* (180 seats) (150 seats} (150 seats) -Brew Pub 1,858 15.5 1,380 10.0* 1,380 10.0* (120 seats) {80 s eats} (80 s eats) SUPTOTAL 24,743 86.3 21,435 96.3 21,435 94.1 PHASE III East Building -2 Employee Units 1,695 4.0 0 0.0 1,695 4.0 -1 Dwelling Unit 1,630 2.0 0 0.0 1,630 2.0 -Office 2,400 9.6 0 0.0 2,400 9.6 SUBTOTAL 3,325 15,6 0 0.0 3,325 15.6 TOTAL COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL • SQUARE FOOTAGE AND PARKING: 41,018 102.0 21,435 96.3 *USED HIGHEST PARKING REQ. POSSIBLE BASED ON SEATING 24,760 110.0 • paytime Parking Spaces Evening harking Spaces PARKING USE CHART 102 b7~ 37.72 29.44 90.OS 37 . $6 1. All required parking. 2. All retail, beer hall, brew pub and residential required parking. 3. All office required parking. 4. all retail, beer hall, brew pub required parking 5. All office, retail, brewpub and east building required parking. b. A11 retail, brewpub, beer hall and residential required parka.ng. .7 . :ff ~••' • PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, 1 NC. PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS. RESEARCH January I6, 1990 Ms. Kristan Pritz Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Raad West Vail, CO 81657 Dear Kristan. Andy Norris has asked me to review the proposed revisions to the Vail Brewery proposal in relation to the previous plan and to review the impacts of~the new project versus the original plan that was approved by the Town of Vail. The impacts related to the previously approved plan for the Brewery are contained in the Environmental Impact Report prepared in August of 1988 and revised November 22, 1988. As z understand it the changes proposed relate to a decrease in the number of seats in both the Beer Hall and Brew Pub and a possible slight increase (375 sq, ft.) of the brewery related retail space. The most significant change will be that no bottling or milling of grain will now be done on site. A review of these changes indicates that virtually all aspects of the project such as hydrologic conditions, atmospheric conditions, geologic conditions, biotic conditions, noise impacts, visual conditions, and land use conditions will remain unchanged from those reported in November of ].988. With respect to loading and delivery, the elimination of the bottling operation from the site could be expected to reduce the amount of loading and delivery to the site. The parking conditions at the site will change due to the reduction of seats and the revised operating hours of the Brew - Fub. Flease refer to the analysis that TDA has prepared for a discussion of anticipated parking demand revisions due to the new plans. • Swte 308, Vail National Bank i3uliding 10$ South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado $1657 (3031 a76-7154 i _. .. •Ms. Kristan Pritz ~~ Department of Community Development January 16, 1990 Page 2 • me know if you require additional information or have ons. c: PJ:ne DA ~o~~o ~~~. Transpor#ation Consultants January 15, 1990 Mr. Andy Norris Vail Brewery Company 1.000 S. Frontage Road W. Suite 200 Vail, CO 81657 RE: Vail Brewery, Parking Analysis Update Dear Andy, As requested, we have reviewed the parking implications of your proposed package of revisions to the Vail Brewery development program. Similar to our approach used in the analysis presented in our August 10, 1988~report, we have synthesized a case for parking demand by assessing the number of brewery employees and patrons who would present at peak accumulation, and, the anticipated mode of travel of these persons. This analytic approach is described in detail and presented graphically in our August report. We have used your memorandum of 10/16/89 to Kristen Pritz and our recent conversations for comparing the proposed amended development plan to the currently approved plan. Tn both the original and the amended cases the design condition will be a high summer day ar a late - March (Spring break} day. This represents times of year when Vail Valley visitation is high and patrons will be more inclined to have and use automobiles than would Christmas week and mid-winter patrons. Paxki.ng Analysis Cansideratians Our understanding of the proposed amendment, as it effects persans present at the Brewery during peak accumulation (7:00 pm) is: 1. The Beer Hall will now have 1.50 seats. The Approved P~.an called for 180 seats. 2, The Brew Pub seating (bar and table) will be 80 seats. The Approved Plan shows 120 seats. 4615 larimer St. Suit@ 600 Denver, CO 80202 (303)825-7107 3. The Brewery related retail space was going to be 400 square feet in the approved plan. Under the amended plan it will initially be 1.75 square feet, possibly growing to 775 square feet with expansion. 4. Fermentation will now be on the second float in the initial project. Hence, there will be no expansion of the Beer Hall into the former first float fermentation area as construed in the Approved Plan. This means Beer Hall seating will be capped at 150 seats, Mr. Andy Norris January 16, 1990 Page 2 5. There will be no bottling or milling of grain on site. 6. During summer months, when auto use by patrons and employees will be highest, there will be only one dinner seating for the Beer HaII. Hance, there will not be an overlap of first and second dinner Beatings as was the case in the Approved Plan analysis. 7. Brew Pub bar seating will be most active immediately after work (or apres ski) and again later in the evening (after normal dining hours} if this becomes a local gathering spot.. 8. St is desired to open the Brew Pub to the public at 4:30 p.m. to attract the after work/ski crowd. Hence, there will be some overlap between office workers and Brewery patrons 9. A future Brewery capacity expansion plan would add 600 square feet of fermentation area at the expense of office space. At the same time, Brewery-related retail space will expand by 600 square feet to 775 square feet. An additional Brewery employee will be added for an overnight brewing shift. 10. The existing 54-space parking Iot will be expanded to 73 spaces as part of the initial Brewery development project . ~.1.. Parking structure construction is not contemplated until the expanded Brewery seeks to open for food and beverage service prior to 4:30 p.m. on normal work days, i.e. lunch business. When this happens day Brewery parking demand will be totally additive to office parking needs. Parking Demand Assessment With the above conditions as background, we have reassessed Vail Brewery parking needs. Table 1 shows total persons present at peak accumulation for bath the initial plan and the expanded Brewery plan would be 213 and 215 persons, respectively. This is 53 fewer than the Approved Plan. r 1 LJ id ~1-~ V' 'ci' CO N r-1 C'1 ~' +--I ~ G'i N N I N ~ ~ E:-+ Nl N r-I N ~ N G Q (!} •ri ~ ~ d (d U} ~J 1•-i •t-I ~ ~ ~ a a ~I `" ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >; ~ ~ ~ »~ ~ ~ o 0 o m Q} i N i 00 I 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ }~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ > ~ '~ '~ Ili ~ Ln o LC1 -I "I O C1 O t") -I lf) 1D M O C7 i l!1 l0 x rl -i e : c r ~ f-, .~-. r--I 4} N N r-I r-I rl ri ~ +~ ~ ~, x w a ~ .° A ~ 0 '~ N ~ ~ U ~ O 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 O I l C1 I u 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E-s x '~ ~W~' N ~' a ~ ~' . ~ ~ ~ O ~ O N IIN N IlN i N I!N " O . ~ ~ o ua x J I vJ ,,~ ~ A t• ~ U ... 'L3 ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Qi Vi ~ Q e-! d' LCi r-I ~i N Cf ri d' ~ ~ ~ I ~ l " a+ I ~ U U] ~ ~ w H O \ ~ '~ !~ rtf ~. ~ o ~ ro ~ ~ a i ~ ~ N 01 ~ R3 Ul S~ lh ?~ U] o ! i •rl Ol C] ri U] ~I (d Ui 1•F 1•I Tn ~ U (U ~~ ui a ai m ~+ ai m o o as 3 >`, m u,w a a~ viw 3 +~ uiw ~ ~ z~ s~ ai o o~ ~ o o~ ~ o o~ Nw ~ m y ~ l~ ~ a~ ~ s'a .d nn ~ -~ ro ~, ~ o a+3 +s ~ a;+y +~ w.~ +~ b~ lal~~uo s~ ~~o ,~~~o :~ fir, o s~waN ai waE-+ .uwaF+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ •:~:~ ~ ~ ,~' f7 LL La c-I N M CI] Mr. Andy Norr~.s January 16, 1990 Page 4 Table 2 depicts the number of parked vehicles at peak person accumulation utilizing the anticipated travel modes referenced in our August report. Peak summer day parking demand would be 80 spaces, 8 fewer than the Approved Plan. Most of this change is due to reduced Beer Hall seating and elimination of a second dinner seating. Table 2 Estimated Number of Persons and Vehicles on Site @ Peak Accumulation (7:00 PM) Brewerv Development Scenario # Persons f1) # Parked vehicles f2) 1. Approved Plan {1/89) (2) Employees 24 12 Patrons 244 76 Total 268 88 2. Amended Plan, initially Employees 22 14 Patrons 191 65 Total 213 79 3. With Brewery expan. Employees 24 15 Patrons 191 65 Total 215 80 Source: TDA based on estimated hourly accumulation of brewery visitors and employees, by travel mode, August 10, 1988 report. 1. See Table 1 2. See TDA report dated August 10. 1988, Table 2 for factors used in arriving at automobile usage. • Mr. Andy Norris January 15, 1990 Page 5 Applying a 95% utilization factor to allow for peaking within the analysis hour, the 80 space demand for the proposed amended plan would suggest a subnlv_' of 84 spaces. The proposed amendment shows 73 parking spaces available on-site. Methods of rectifying this apparent eleven-space deficiency are discussed below. Other Parking Considerations Kristan Fritz' letter of November 14, 1989 addresses issues that are discussed in this section. 1. Peak Parking Demand Frequency. our assessment, suggests peak demand will occur during the summer months when auto use is highest. Our analysis depicts the need for 84 Brewery-related parking spaces during peak summer activity times. It should be noted, this peaking would occur between 7:00 and 5:00 p.m. during busy weekends and summer holidays (4th of July, Labar Day). Review of I- 70 traffic volume variations, and, daily Vail bus ridership figures (both depicted in .the Centennial Engineering EIS report for the Main Vail interchange) suggests high activity-days could occur 8 to 10 times between the beginning of July and the end of September. In each case the duration of peak Brewery demand would be less than two hours each evening. From this we would anticipate the on-site 73-Space parking supply would be exceeded 15 to 20 hours per year. As a point of reference, ULI (the Urban Land Institute} advocates a parking ratio policy for shopping centers that says parking demand would exceed supply for 20 hours per year. Designing for the busiest hour of the year, ULI argues, is an unrealistic design standard the burdens the community with an unnecessarily large area dedicated to paved parking. We believe appropriate parking management practices could alleviate deficiencies for the 20 or 30 hours per year these surcharge situations could occur. These practices could include: A. Patron cars could be valet parked in the Porte Gochere area (4 to 5 cars) and in the aisle of the west end of the surface parking -lot (4 to 6 cars), and/or: • Mr. Andy Norris January 16, 1990 Page 6 B. When special events or traditionally high demand days are anticipated, require employees who typically park on-site to either car pool, use public transit, or park off-site on these occasions. If one-half of the employees complied this would free-up 7 parking spaces during the evening peak and thereby relieve the deficiency. 2. Opening the 80--seat Brew Pub at 4:30 p.m.. Opening the Brewery before the end of the office work day will result in some overlap of office parked vehicles and Brewery parked vehicles. The peak situation would probably occur during March when apres ski, patrons will be more inclined to have autos than other times.of the year. Again, using the travel mode assignments discussed in our August 1988 report we show the fallowing parking demand for a 4:30 to 5:00 p.m. overlap situation. # in # in # Parked Persons Present Brewerv Office Vehicles 1, Off-site patron 65 0 20 2. On-site office 15 45 25 3. Brewery employee 10 5 7 Total 90 50 52 Our assessment shows this early evening situation would use 52 of the 73 available parking spaces. Inherent in this analysis is: A. At full occupancy the 15,320 square feet of office would represent about 76 people (200 square feet per person) . By 4:30 in the afternoon about 52 of these (two-thirds) would still be present. This is supported by the actual counts (1} at Glen Lyon and Vail Professional Building Offices during the TOV's parking analysis and survey last year. B. Some of the Brew Pub patrons will be office workers, we assume 15, who wi11 stay far a drink before heading home. Based on the above, we would not see~a parking problem created by opening the Brew Pub at 4:30 p.m.. 1. "Vail Parking field Analysis & Survey", Summary Report RRC/LSC July 27, 1989, p.9. f ~ ~ i Mr. Andy Norris January 16, 1990 Page 7 3. Truck Loading and Delivery. We would anticipate two types of delivery and loading: o Brewery supplies and materials delivered and Brewery product transported out, and o Office related deliveries (UPS, Federal Express, etc.) These latter deliveries are now occurring at the west end of the parking lot. Brewery deliveries and pick-ups will occur at the new South Frontage Road access adjacent to the Porte Cochere. We understand only single unit trucks (no semi-trailers) will use the loading dock. typically, food and beverage supplies are delivered between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.. As long as brewery deliveries and pick ups do not occur during the peak evening hours, we would not anticipate a parking or traffic problem associated with your planned facility. • I trust this adequately addresses parking issues regarding your current development proposal. Sincerely, TDA COLORADO INC. David D. Leahy, P.E. Principal Addendum 2/20/90 As requested, we have reviewed the parking condition that will exist when a proposed 100-space parking structure is constructed on the site and the 80-seat Brew Pub is opened for lunch patrons. At full development there will be 15, 320 s. f. of office space which will share the use of the parking structure. Assuming 11 Brewery employees on--site over the lunch hour (8 Brew Pub, 2 Brew House, 1 Retail), and using the same travel modes as used in the evening analysis, we estimate a lunch time need for 95 spaces as follows: ZZ employees @ O.fi25 space/employee = 7 spaces 80 patrons @ 0.34 space/patron = 27 spaces 15.3 ksf office @ 4/1000 s.f. - 61. spaces . Total need = 95 spaces Mr. Andy Norris January 16, 1990 Page 8 Since the need (95 spaces) is less than the subbly (100 spaces), we believe the 100-space structure wi11 adequate~.y accommodate the typical combined daytime need of the office tenants and opening the Brew Pub for lunch business. .l~Q Q~ D . D . L. ~jt~' U ~~ - '+ r~. *-. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department Applicant: Vail National Bank Bldg. Gorp. The following information is in response to Planning Commission questions following the February 13 review of proposed amendments to the Vail National Bank Bldg. SDD: DATD: February 26, 299a RE: A request for an amendment to Special Development District 23 to allow for an office expansion, to the Vail National Bank Building at 108 South Frontage Road West. 1. Proposed conditions of approval. The attached memorandum to Tom Braun from Jay Peterson outlines the applicants suggested conditions of approval far this application. • 2. The Vail Va11ev Medial Center narkina structure. Application was made for a conditional use permit to increase the size of the Medical Centers's approved parking structure. This application will be reviewed by the Planning Commission of March 26, 1990. 3. The Bank Buildingr/VVMC aareement. Attached you will Lind a copy of the agreement between the hospital and the bank building pertaining to the purchase and use parking spaces within the hospital's new parking structure. 4. Parkina requirements. After consultation with Larry Eskwith, it is his opinion that the parking requirements imposed on the bank building must be based on the parking standards outlines in the zoning code. The SDD criteria pertaining to parking specifically references the parking standards. This implies that the standards establish the maximum parking to be required with a development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff's position regarding this proposal has remained unchanged. While in concept, the staff agrees that parking in the hospital structure can provide a workable solution to meet the bank's parking demand. However, it is inappropriate to authorize additional development approvals to adjacent property owners without the hospital's parking structure being in place. • r • • FREDERfCK S. OTTO JAY K. PETERSON WfLLfAM J. PO57 WEND ELL B. PO RT ER FIELD~JR. QTTO, PETERSON ~C POST ATTOBN'EYS AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 3149 VAIL, COIAHA~O 81G~8-3148 MEMORANDUM VAIL NATIp NAL BANK BUILDING {303) 476-0092 FAX L1NE f303) a79-Da67 TO: TOM BRAUN FROM: JAY K. PETERSON DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1990 RE: VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUTLDING Approval to be subject to the following conditions: 1. That Vail Valley Medical Center (WMC} submit an application for modification to its Conditional Use Permit allowing an additional two half levels of parking. 2. That VVMC submit plans showing such two half levels of parking. i 3. That Vail National Bank Building exercise its option to purchase or use in perpetuity the number of spaces from VVMC necessary to conform to zoning for its addition. 4. That VVMC receive all approvals from the Tawn of Vail necessary to receive a building permit to construct such additional levels of parking and that VVMC apply for and receive such building permit. 5. That Vail National Bank Building shall not occupy the expanded premises unless VVMC has commenced construction and has continued construction on its parking structure. 6. That Vail National Bank Building agrees to move out of the expanded premises if they cannot occupy the parking spaces at VVMC on or before December 1, 1990. 7. That Vail National Bank Building provide a letter from Holiday Inn or a suitable substitute allowing the use of four parking spaces from the date of occupancy of the expanded premises to December 1, 1990. 8. That the above conditions be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit to Vail National Bank Building. • :. ~~ ;AGR~' c: ~."f[IS AGREEMTNT is dated as of May 22 , 19139 by and between VNB Building Corp., a Nevada corporation (VNB) and Vail Clinic, Znc. d/b/a Vail Valley Medical Center (Hospital). ' RECrTAZs • a. Hospital is engaged, in a tax--exempt borrowing to finance, in part, the cost of cosjstructian of a parking structure (hereinafter "Parking Structure") to be located generally at the east end of Hospital's existing property and an an easement to be granted to the Hospital by Vail Holdings, a South Carolina general partnership. The legal description of the real property w~iich is subject to the easement and is owned by Vail 3oldings is referred to as the "Vail Holdings Property" and is described in Exraibit A. Tt~e property awned by Hospital (the "Hospital Property") is described in Exhibit B. b. VNB wishes to purchase an exclusive, irrevocable license to use parking spaces in the Parking Structure, subject to the terms and conditions herein. c. The parties wish to cooperate regarding the provision of access to the Parking Structure and the reconfiguration of the access to the VNB site from South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado. NOW, rt~tEFoRE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the parties agree: 1. Construction of Parkins Structure.. Except as provided below, Hospital will construct, at its expense, the Parking Structure, in substantial accordance with the plans and specifications which have keen previatisly delivered to VNB. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to provide VNB a right to oversee, approve, or veto any aspect o.C the construction of the Parking Structure, and VVMC may alter the plans and specifications as it deems necessary or proper, 2. ~telocatinn of Access, a. VNB will relocate, design and build the westernmost access to its present site (the "VNI3 Property"} from South Frontage Road as shown an Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, but will only be obligated to pay fay: any such design and construction within the cross- hatched lines nn Exhibit C. The parties agree that a purpose of the design arY~1 reconfiguration of VNB's westernmost access is to facilitate access to the Parking Structure and the Hospital property from South Frontage Road. b. VNB will move its existing eastern access to a point generally opposite ttie easternmost public past office entrance. c. VNH will construct and pay for all work or other costs required to have the improvements shown within the cross- hatched Lines on Exhibit C conform to Exhibit C. ' 3. Ontiar~. Hospital. hereby grants to VNB an option to purchase an exclusive, irrAVOCable license to use twelve (l2) parking spaces ("the Additional. Parking Spaces") to be located in the Parking Struct~ire on the terms specified herein. 4. Exercise a~ Ont.. a. VNB may exercise its option as follows: during the bidding or negotiation stage of Hospital's construction of the Parking Structure, Hospital, through its general contractor, will provide to VNB in writing its statement of the Cost of the Additional Parking Spaces. Within seven (7) business days after such notice, VNB shall notify Hospital if it wishes to exercise its option. b. The "Cost of the Additional Parking Spaces", for purpose, of this Agreement, shall be based upon the cost of "adding on" twelve parking spaces to i.he cast of construction of Hospital's Parking Structure. The Cost of the Additional Forking Spaces shall be the difference between the contractor's estimate to build the Parking Structure and the same contractor's estimate~to build the Parking Structure enlarged to include twelve spaces for VNB. Such estimates shall include the actual hard construction costs, plug the proportion of building permit fees due to the additional construction, the proportion of tYie architect's fee attributable to additional construction {7,5~ of hard construction costs) and the proportion of the contractor's performance and payment bond premium attributable to the additional construction of the optioned parking spaces, but shall not include any costs for ventilation ox sprinklers for the Parking Structure. c. VNB will exercise its option by (i) delivering to Hospital written notice thereof within seven {7) business days following the presentation of the statement of the Cost of the Additional Parking Spaces by Hospital as provided above, and {ii) delivering to Hospital. an irrevocable letter of credit drawn upon a national bank, in favor of the Hospital, in an amount equal to the Cost of the Additional Parking Spaces. The letter of credit shall be payable upon VNB's failure or refusal. to pay the Cost of the additional, spaces within three {3} business days following the "Pay Bate", as defined in paragraph 5, below. VNB's exercise of its option shall constitute a binding and irrevocable commitment to pay the Cast of the Additional Parking Spaces as provided in this Agreement. After receiving notice of the exercise of V1dB's • option, Hospital will construct the l~dditivnal Parking Spaces b«~.. . will not charge VNB more than the Cyst of the Additional Parking spaces as defined above and presente~.l to VNB prior to its exercise of its option. Failure to exercise the option in strict accordance with the provisions of the paragraph 4 shall result in a lapse of VNB's option under this Agreement. 5. P~vment. VNB shall pay to Hospital the Cost of the Additional Parking Spaces upon demand far payment by the Hospital after completion of the Parking Structure {the "Pay Date"). Hospital may demand payment under this paragraph upon the completion of the following: a) completion of the Parking structure; b) delivery to VNB of a valid certificate of insurance coverage pursuant to paragraph 7; and c) delivery to VNII of a final Certificate of Occupancy far the Parking Structure. 6. Grant of License. Upon completion of the Parking Structure and full payment by VNB of the Cost of the Additional Parking Spaces, Hospital shall be deemed to have granted to VNS aia exclusive, irrevocable l~.cense to use the twelve additional Gpace7 described herein which license shall be a permitted encumbrance to the lien created by the Mortgage and Loan Agreement of June 1, 199 by and between the Hospital and Colorado Health Facilities Authority. Such license shall be perpetual, subject, however, to all conditions set forth herein. 7. Use and Location of Parkincr Spaces. a. The parking spaces subject to VNII's license shall be located in such part of the Parking StY~ucture as Hospital and VNB mutually agree. Hospital and VNB shall jointly determine the location of the spaces at or prior to the time of VNS's exercise of its option in paragraph 4. Zf the parties are unable to agreA on the precise location of the parking spaces, and VN~3 has exercised its option, VNB shall be assigned and it shall be licensed to use twelve spaces which are closASt to the existix:{~ VNI3 parking spaces an th+? VNB property at the southeast corner of thc~ Parking Structure and located on parking deck half level 4. -The parking spaces so located and subject to VNB's license shall be identified by signs. VNB shall place and pay all casts of striping and parking identification signage for its twelve spaces. The quantity, size, color, design and placement of such signage shall be subject to the prior approval of the Hospital. b. The parking spaces shall be used only far the parking of automobiles, motorcycles, light trucks or vans, and shall not be used for storage or far the parking of large trucks, buses, limousines, boats, trailers, recreational vehicles, or any other oversized vehicle. c. VNB shall be solely responsible for the designative or authorization of all persons including employees, • ' tenants and customers of VNB who may ~xse the parking spaces . Under • r1o circumstances shall such persons 1•Y considered invitees, express or implied, of the Hospital. d. VNB shall pay to Hospital, upon presentation of a statement therefore, its era rata share of Hospital:~s costs of cleaning and snow removal for the Parking Structure. Such pro rata share shall be based upon the proportion of twelve parking spaces to the total number of spaces in the Parking Structure from tianh to time. Hospital shall pay all other costs of operation, maintenance, snow removal and utilities for the Parking Struatux-e. Hospital shall maintain appropriate property casualty and genera:L liability insurance coverage on the Parking Structure. VNB shall kae named as an additional insured an such policy or policies as its ~.nterest may appear. VNB shall maintain appropriate property, casualty and genera]. liability insurance coverage with respect to its property and operations. e. Ii: the parking Structure is destroyed for any reason ~_a such ara eartent as to riot allow the use ox the specific parking spaces licensed by VPlI3 as provided in this Agreement, IioFpital shall elect one of i:he following three options: (i) hospital may commence rebui.iding oar restoration of the use of the Forking Structure and VN~?'s spaces within a reasonable time after the loss of use; or (ii) Ilo::pital may relocate vNB's licensed parking spaces to another lr.~ation withial the Parking stri3cture; or to another loeatinn an any other hospital property located at 181 West Meadow Drive, Vail, Colorado wha.ch is not subject to a right of reverter, as described in paragraph 1U; or ( iii. } Hospital may pa,f to VNf,3 an amount equal to the pro rata unused portion of ttre Recapture Feriad of the license (as defined below i.n ~~arac~rapki 1D} tirues the Co t of the Additional Parking Spaces paid by VNB. Upon paynkent of such amount, VNI3 ~ s license shall terminate and be extinguished. f. Hospital may voluntarily demolish or raze the Parking Structure. rn the event Hospital chooses to do so, ~.t shall elect either the option described in subparagraph 7(e}{i%} or subparagraph 7{e){iii), ak~ove with respect to VNB's licensed spaces. 8. Yea's Rezor~cr an~ccess gePermit. a. VNI3 shall pursue with all deliberate speed the approval of its present proposed rezoning with the Town of Vail. Upon signature of this Agreement by VNB, VNB shall promptly apply for an access repermit: and/or execute all other documents necessary to secure the approval of the State Highway Department, the Town • . of Vail, or any other jurisdiction having authority over the redeGign, relocation or construct~.an of the access to South Frontage Road by the Hospital fa ~m the Parking Structure as contemplated in Exhibit C. b. This Agreement shall be null and void it the Calnrado State Highway Department or any other body with jurisdiction over the access repermit, fails to approve and to issue an access repermit by August I, I989, without further liability to either party. 9. Vail~oldinas. a. If required by Vail Holdings, VFdB's license shall not extend to parking spaces located on the Vail holdings Property. This Agreement and any license granted purs~.~ant to this Agreement, are sul:rject to and expressly conditioned upon the existence of a valid easement to be granted by Vail Holdings to the Hospital to enable the Hospital to construct the Parking Structure and access ramps, and Hospital makes no representatiG~ns or warranties with respect to the such easement. Hospital shall have no obligation to perform any provision of this Agreement if the easement from Vail Holdings is not granted by September 1, 1389. b. Upon executiorx of this Agreement by the parties, VNB will xelease the access repermit application described in paragraph a(a). If Vail Holdings has not executed an agreement . with Hospital by June 10, 1989, which agreement requires Vail Holdings to grant to Hospital an easement on the Vail Holdings Property, VNB may withdraw its access repermit application, 10. Acknowledgement nF Reverter. a. VNI~ acknowledges that the real. property upon which Hospital is located and upon which a portion of the Parking Structure is to be located is subject to a forfeiture or reverter clause contained in a deed from Vail Associates, Inc. to Vail Clinic, Inc., recorded December 2, 1977 in Baok 263, Page 243 in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado. VNB's license to parking spares i.s subject to such right of reverter. b. If the real propprt~y upon which the Parl~ing Struck.tire is located reverts bask to Vail Assaci.ates, Tnc. or its assigns during the Recapture Period a ~ defined bylaw, then Hospital. shall pay to VNB an amount equal. to the pro rata unused portion of the Recapture Period of the license times the Cost of the Additional Parking Spaces paid by VNB. c. For purposes of this paragraph a, the Recapture Period" shall be a pex'aad of thirty (30) years from the date of first occupancy of the Parking structure. After the • ` expiration of the Recapture Period, ato amount shall be payable lay Hospital in the event of a loss or extinguzshment of VNB's lic~ns~.a by reverter or otherwise as providf~' above. As an example, assume (1) Cost of Additional Parking Spaces equals $120,OOp; (2) Recapture Period is 30 ypa.rs; and (3} due to relocation of Hospital, Iospital's property reverts to Vail Associates 20 years after occupancy of Parking Structure. Hospital would pay to VNB $40,000, (10/30 x $120,OD0 = $40,000.} 11. Pedestrian Access. Tf a pedestrian bridge or walkway connecting the Hospital's parking structure with VNS's site is required or imposed as a condition of any necessary approval of Hospital's parking structure or VNB's proposed rezoning by the 'T'own of Vail, Hospital agrees to pay the Cost of such bridge or walkGray. 12. Vail Associates. Tnc. Waiver ar Release. Hospital will obtain from Vail Associates, Inc. a document, in recordable form, reasonably satisfactory to VNB, which waives, or releases, its right of reverter only as to the easement conveyed by Vail. Clinic, Inc. to Vail Professional Building Group, Ltd., dated 2/19/81; and described on Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 13. Miscellaneous. a. This Agreement is binding upon the heirs, successara and assigns of the parties. b. Time is of the essence of th~.s Agreement. c. Thia Agreement sha11 be governed by the Laws of the State of Colorado. d. Any provision of this Agreement prohibited by the laws of the State of Colorado or the United States of America ar held to be invalid by a court of competent aurisdiction shall be ineffective only to the extent of such provision without invalidating the remaining provisions of this Agreement. e. This Agreement constitutes the complete agreement of the parties hereto, and may not be changed or modified except by another agreement in writing executed by both parties. f. This Agreement ar document signed by the parties reflecting certain covenants herein or the license contemplated hereby may be recorded in ttie office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. g. VN~ agrees not to appose any future expansion of Hospital. Iiaspital agrees not to oppose any future expansion of VNB. • h. Aray notice require{.1 to be given hereunder shah be deemed to have been given when ma i.?..ed by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, d,dressed as follow, or if hand delivered to the parscsn(s) and addxr~:.;ses below: If Hospital: Vail Valley Medical Center 1111 West Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81557 Attn: Administrator If to VNB: Vtl~3 Building Corporation c/a Hans~ver Realty Corporatzoi~ 650 South Cherry Street Suite 1025 Denver, Colorado 8(1222 or to wuch other address or person (s) as the parties may d~,~r~ignate in writing. vN~3.T'~.~zldirig Co co~•noration t r BX.=. STATE OF COLORADO ) ss, COUNTY OF Denver ) a Nevada. _1 ~~- ~~ ~ : ~/ Attest: ~~ut. Secretary The foregoing woo subscribes and sworn to before me by.. ,Paul W. Powers, Vice President, VNt3 Building Corp. on this 24th day of ~"laY , 1989. My commission expires: T... ~._ .;~ .a e::ri~~s 1u~ u~ry 3,. I3~0 Notary Public (SEAL) • VALL CLINIC, INC. d/b/~ VATL V,A~LLEY M)3UTCAL CENTER 7 i• 1 •~ Harold W. Koonce President Board of Directors Attests Secrr~tary ~ STATE OF C~IARADO ) Sn. COUNTY OF ~ ~ ~ n t The lor~oing was subscribed tend G~~~....a.. 1. h-~-~.. ~..r.--,..i ~..., sworn to before me by on this .~ ~'" daY ~o~ U n~ , 1.989 . my commission expires: ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~,~.. C -... ~ C ~ ~ . ....,, , .,,.,, ., ,~-~.., Notary Pub~.ic _ . ~~ (SEAL) ~~, 8 ~.~~~~~ ~~ ...~.- .--r---~_. •, N µ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ , aytatttltll r,rrfr ~ w ~ ~ ~ y ~ t~+~ ~ ~ m+ ~ ~ 10 N ~ • ~ y7 ~ *; ~ ~, V1 rd ~ ^~ Q N- a ~ ~ (~' r' t*'- rd r ~ U ~ ~N^~ ~~i~l~ t tU O '~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ y.1 ~ yd ~ y ~ 11~ i7 S ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ,. R~ ~ ~ •O as A .C W QI N +~ t0 U W y C ~ G~ A G O °~ e~p C ~ ~ O ~ eN+- ~ ~ 8r ~ ..a ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ 1x ~gn ~.~~ N F U y~ x M~ u N o ~. ~ ~ ~, ..,` V r [" • r N w, w, ~ ~ q wI~ ~ M C~' „~,tNi ~ ~ +~ ~ A ~'aq ~ y ~~~~~~ ~' q~µ18iT A ~a ~ ~ A U `~+ t''4 l~ ~ a ~, .~ !~? ~~ 'M _ "u'i iC'> p. q ~~~8~ r ~t ,i i~ 4 ~ ~'~? :i t~ v '`.r i~ s ..a fit 11` 1 . .~ i r~ ~- ~~ ~'-./ q ~. `~ ~~~ ~W~ ,..t • All of Lot E and Lot F, Amended tiap of Sheet ~. er 2 of VAIL VILLAGE, SFrDN© FILING, according to the ma~g therAo:C recorded in the office of Eagle Cqunty, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder n U `~°"~~~~ f1 ..,,,,, ^r.. ~~ .. ~ r ~ _..- r '~. ... -.... r.... •~-- .~. -~ .._.... _._,. .~, .,_ __. __ w_ ~ W ~ .,~ .~. ._...-- ~ ,, '~,. . ~ ~ _., ~„ iwwr, ~,.._.... ~ ..,. ~.. ..... _~ -~ ~ ,iii ..- TO: Planning and Environmental Commission ,~ FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: February 12, 1990 RE: A Request far an Amendment to SDD #23 (The Vail National Bank Building). Applicant: Vail National Bank Corporation I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED REnUEST This property was rezoned to a Special Development District in May of 1.989. This rezoning permitted an addition to the existing building of approximately 1,800 square feet, which has been completed. In September of 1989, a minor amendment to the SDD was approved to allow for an addition of 213 square feet to the third floor. This space is to be created by converting an existing common corridor into office space. To date, this construction has not been done. The application before the Planning Commission involves two elements: 1. An amendment to the approved development plan to allow for the enclosure of two decks on the third . floor of the structure. This will add 1,27f> square feet of office space to the building, resulting in a total amount of 23,205 square feet. 2. An amendment to the parking standards of SDD #23 in order to provde parking for this addition within the parking structure at the Vail. Valley Medical Center. If approved, this office expansion would be completed some four to six months prior to the completion of the Hospital's parking structure. During this period, the applicant has proposed an interim solution of leasing spaces from the Holiday Inn. The amount of required parking for the proposed addition is five spaces. See attached letters from the Holiday Inn and the VVMC. II. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL This proposal constitutes a major amendment to the existing SDD. In this case, the Planning Commission's action is advisory, and final decisions are made by the Town Council. The criteria to be used in evaluating this proposal are the nine design criteria of the SDD section of the zoning code. These design criteria address a variety of issues, including design compatibility, uses, parking, compliance with the ', f Vail Comprehensive Plan, site planning, etc. As with all SDD's, the specific development standards on this property are established by the approved development plan and the ordinance approved by the Council. Tt is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that their proposed development plan complies with each of the nine design criteria, or demonstrate that they are not applicable, or that a practical solutinn consistent with the public interes'~, has been achieved. ITI. STAFF RESPONSE TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMEN'T', This project must be reviewed as a whole, however, it is worthwhile to consider the two major elements separately. The proposed addition of 1,276 square feet of office space is consistent with each of the relevant design criteria. The design is compatible with the existing structure, the scale and bulk of the building is not appreciably increased, uses are consistent with existing uses, and site planning and landscaping are unchanged. This addition constitutes a very minor change to the existing development on the lot. However, the parking solution proposed is not acceptable to the staff. Our difficulty with this proposal is based an Design Criteria C., which states: 18.4^.^80 C. Compliance with parking and loading requirement as outlined in Chapter 18.52. This criteria references the parking section of the zoning code as a basis for evaluating development proposals. The parking section of the code states that all required parking should be located on-site. The Town Council can grant exceptions and allow off site parking if certain criteria are met. Tn addition, it should be understood that the design criteria can be waived if "a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved". There is a specific process outlined in the code for leasing parking spaces. This proposal is inconsistent with this process. Hnwever, because this property is an SDD, the proponent can establish its own standards for parking. This means that the applicant is within its rights to request approval of the parking solution as proposed. The staff is conceptually amenable to the bank locating five spaces within the Medical Center's parking structure. This appears to be a workable situation considering the proximity of these two sites and the relatively small number of parking spaces involved. However, as proposed, the parking solution is not a practical one, and it is not consistent with the intent of the parking regulations. The following reasons outline the staff's primary concern with this proposal: • 1. At the present time, the parking structure approved for the Medical Center is designed to meet the needs of the Center and the Doubletree Hotel. The structure is not designed with excess capacity. Approval would have to be obtained from the Town to modify the development plan add more parking to this site. This approval has not been obtained. 2. The parking is not in place at this time. The staff has serious concerns about approving this proposal dependent upon parking that is not in existence today. 3. The development of the parking structure is totally dependent upon the performance of an adjacent property owner. The Bank has no control over the completion of these spaces. It is irresponsible to grant a development approval to one property owner, whd then must rely on the performance of an adjacent property owner in order to satisfy their parking commitments. 4. It has not been established that the Holiday Inn has an excess number of spaces to lease to the Bank. With the development of the structure out of the Bank's control, the Holiday Inn solution must be considered a permanent one~in the event the completion of the Medical Center parking structure is delayed. While it may be unlikely that problems will develop with completing the structure, it is not the Town's responsibility to speculate, or accept the risk that everything will go smoothly. The worst case situation is such that the Bank must rely on alternative locations for the parking, and the obvious question becomes whether the Holiday Inn has the ability to provide this parking. No documentation of the utilization of the Holiday Inn's lot has been submitted as a part of this application. 5. The approval of this proposal could serve to establish a dangerous precedent for future development proposals. Simply stated, the applicant is asking for approval of a development that is dependent upon the performance of an adjacent owner in order to satisfy the parking requirements. From the standpoint of the Town and the community at large, there is little or nothing to gain by granting this approval now. While an approval for the applicant will allow them a more convenient construction schedule, the Town will be • accepting the risk that the parking structure at the Medical Center may or may not be completed in a timely manner. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Staff cannot support this application at this tame. In concept, it appears reasonable for five of the Bank's parking spaces to be provided in the Center's structure. However, it is fundamentally bad planning to approve this application without the parking in place. The appropriate time to review this proposal is after the Medical Center's parking structure has been completed. The staff position on this application raises the question of how this proposal differs from approvals received by the Hospital aver this past year. As the Planning Commission may recall, the Hospital received approval to construct an addition to its building prior to the construction of the parking structure. There are a number of differences that distinguish this proposal from the hospital praject. First and foremost, the construction of the Hospital parking is under the control of the Hospital. We are dealing with one praject and one owner. With this proposal, the Bank has no authority or control over the completion of the parking. Secondly, to require simultaneous construction of the parking structure and the hospital addition would have caused severe impacts on the Doubletree Hotel during the winter seascn. Thirdly, the development of both facilities would have compounded difficulties of staging construction and eliminated even more available on-site parking during the construction period. Finally, the Hospital has completed the relocation of utilities to allow for the construction of the structure this spring. While this paint could be used to argue that the Hospital is totally committed to the completion of the structure, it must be reiterated that the Hospital is the party responsible for this project. The Bank has no control over the completion of the parking. Once construction of the parking structure begins, the risk to the Town that the project will not be completed may in fact be quite low. Nonetheless, the staff can see no reason why the Town should accept any risk to accommodate this development plan. There is nothing to gain by approving this project now and hoping that everything wanks out. In addition, this entire proposal assumes the Hospital's proposal to enlarge the approved design is acceptable. The Staff and Planning Commission are not in a position to make this assumption at this time. The Colorado Division of Highways will also have to approve changes to existing designs. _ __ The opportunity to provide parking off-site is not a right, but rather should be seen as a privilege. Until the parking is in place, it is irresponsible to consider approval of . this request. .:{ Y~~ .b • 12 January 1990 ~ r tom;. ,, ;:: ' Kristen-Prat ~ Senior Planner,;. ~.:~~ Town of Vail ='Gommu 75 S. Frontage~Road Yail, Colorado 81657 Dear Kristen: ~,}~} NY.y 4 r_'--~r - l`a~/ ,may ,' ` 1 ~ i~ity Development ~-~ ~f ~ 4 ~ ~ * _ ~ .ly. The owners of the Vail National Bank Building (VNB Building Corporation) have a written option to purchase an exclusive, irrevocable license to use as many as twelve parking spaces in the hospital's proposed parking structure. 5hartT,~ after working drawings are competed next month, the hospital wTT7 provide the VNB with an estimate of construction costs. The UNB will then have seven (7} business days to exercise its option, The parking structure presently approved by the P£C has only enough spaces to serve the hospital's current needs. Needless to say, the VNB's option is contigent upon the hospital securing the approvals needed to construct an additional level of below-grade structure. cerely, Dan F eney P DF/bh cc: Ray McMahan Ray McMahars Administrator ~>r~ rOr ^,` r ~~~ ~ V~ ** ` • ~~ I 3anuary 31, 1990 ~~ Sidney Schultz-Architect, Inc. X41 East Meadow Drive Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Schultz: By your Letter, it appears to me that you need parking spaces on a contract basis so that you can always count them as part a£ your building, not just a temporary thing. Under those conditions, it would have to be a lease on a year round basis. You would be responsible £or putting up the signs showing it as Vail National Bank Building~~employees! parking. Alsa, if we decide to add rooms to our property, we would have to ga underground at least twa Levels. 'That would give us parking £or at least the 102 spaces we npw hold. By having two Leve~.s, we should be able to get 150 or I60 spaces sa that we could 'still hold the spaces you are requesting. I imagine mat the y ce for tYeis would be $$Oa a year per space.' 5incerel yours,; ~~ i~ \ /. ~ ' Char ex.ei>ra; ~ IT ' Genera~.•'Manager .as .. -- 13 Vail Road • VaiE, Colorado 61657 • ~hpne Vall 303!478.5631 • Cenver 573-9oC6 4wnOd and Operaletl dyr DAD Irtves~rtselns, !rte. Unoar Licroso Iran HOtIDAT 1NN5, INC. SIDNEY SCHULI L-Ai~CH1TECT ,Nc. ~ ~~ . 141 EAST MEADOWD,2IVE ..- :':~`.~~-"'" VA[L COLOE?AO 81657 303/476-7$90 . February 7, I99O~ ~ ~ ' ' .. ~ ~~ - . ~- c.. .. "' '-. -4. a .. ,.,r ).i\~ ... ,.. . Ms . Kristen •Pritz ` - -- ~ ._ . ~ ~. - _ - . Town of Vail ~ ~.~ - ~.. - ` -.. . Office of Community 'Bevelopment --~ Vail, ,Colorado .8_I657 -; N _ - -- ' re: Vail Rational Bank Building_temporary parking variance ~ ." Dear Rristan, This letter is to follow-up my application for a temporary parking variance for the•proposed deck enclosures at the Vail National $ank Building. Between the time our construction is completed and permanent parking is provided at the new hospital structure, we propose to provide parking on the Holiday Inn site. The Holiday Inn is within three-hundred feet of the Vail National Bank Building property. As the attached letter from Charles Pereira confirms, this parking may be on a long-term basis. ,• Tf you have any further questions regarding this matter please give me a call. . S' rely, Sidney chintz cc: Paul Powers ~ • , , Jay Peterson ~ ~• Gail Lowenthal ~ - . MEMBER.IHE ANIERIGW INSTIiU1E OF ~CHITEC?g To: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 26, 1990 RE: Proposed Additions to the Bell Tower Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Clark Willingham/Bell Tower Associates, Ltd. Proposed additions to the Bell Tower building include a ground level retail expansion along the Gore Creek Promenade and additions to existing residential development on the upper floors of the structure. While this proposal involves one property and is being reviewed as one application, the nature of the proposal requires the review of four separate requests. These requests include: ~. An exterior alteration to add enclosed floor area to the existing structure. • 2. A height variance in order to add additional floor area to the building. 3. A variance request to reduce landscaping on the site. 4. A conditional use permit in order to establish an outdoor dining patio on the second floor of the building. From a procedural standpoint, each of these requests must be addressed with its own memorandum. There is obviously a great deal of overlap between each of these four requests. While each application is addressed individually, the Planning Commission is encouraged to consider the collective impacts of the proposal when evaluated as a whole. T4: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 26, 1990 RE: A request for an exterior alteration in order to construct additions to the Bell Tower Building located at 201 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Clark Willingham/Bell Tower Associates, Ztd. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED REQUEST Approval of an exterior alteration request is required far any addition of enclosed floor area to structures in Vail Village. The major elements of this proposal include: 1. The addition of a dormer on the fourth floor on the building along Gore Creek Drive. • 2. The addition of a fifth floor and expansion of the fourth floor on the north side of the building adjacent to the Gore Creek Promenade. 3. A 270 square foot ground floor retail expansion adjacent to the Gore Creek Promenade with the relocation of the existing dining deck to a roof top dining deck above the proposed expansion. The residential addition will add one dwelling unit to the property and a total of 2278 square ft. of GRFA. The proposal is within the allowable GRFA and unit limitations. As prapasaed, the property would have a total floor area of 16,025 sq. ft., of which 46~ sq. ft. is GRFA. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST The Vail Village Urban Design 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 desired in the Village. Finally, architectural/landscape considerations establish the criteria for evaluating detailed design considerations of a proposal. Tn addition to the Guide Plan, traditional zoning considerations are also a factor in this proposal. Please refer to the accompanying memorandums that address these zoning issues. • THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN • There are no specific sub-area concepts relevant to this prapasal. VAIL VILLAGE DESIGN CONSYDERATIONS 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: This proposal does not directly affect or change the existing pedestrianization system in the Village. B. Vehicle Penetration: Vehicular penetration, or circulation, will remain unchanged as a result of this proposal. C. Streetscape Framework: Streetscape framework identifies two alternatives for improving the pedestrian experience in the Village. These include the development of open space and landscaping along pedestrian routes, and the development of infill commercial storefronts along pedestrian corridors. While the landscape improvements can provide a softening of buildings and a colorful framework, the commercial infills can provide activity generators to give streetlife and visual interest to the pedestrian. The proposed retail infill along the Gore Creek Promenade will provide such an activity generator. While the existing dining deck could provide such activity, its poor location (relative to sun exposure), has resulted in the deck having little success in providing such activity. 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 dormer proposed for the south side of the building will not appreciatively change the street enclosure along Gore Creek Drive. The one story retail expansion along the Promenade will establish a more desirable "human scale" on this side of the building. However, any perceived reduction in mass an this side of the building is negated by the introduction of a fourth and fifth floor. • E. STREET EDGE There are na standard setback requirements for buildings in Vail Village. Rather, proposals are looked at with relationship to the site and surrounding development to ensure a strong street edge. A strong street edge does not imply perfectly aligned facades along entire street widths. Rather, slightly irregular facade lines, building jogs, and landscape areas create life and visual interest for the pedestrian. The proposed retail expansion is consistent with this criteria. The addition is slightly recessed from improvements on the Gore Creek Plaza building, and a certain rhythm has been established along the entire length of the Promenade. The new ding deck, while located on the second level, will also contribute to strengthening the street edge with activity along the Promenade. F. Buildina Heioht As outlined in the accompanying memo, a height variance is required to a11ow additions to the upper floors on the North side of this building. The existing building is non-conforming with respect to allowable building heights. The proposed addition would increase the degree of non-conformity. Please refer to the accompanying height variance memo for additional information on this request. Many of the older buildings in the Vail Village exceed permitted building heights. One must consider the implications of this proposal as it relates to future development applications. Zf approved, this proposal would introduce a fifth floor element along the Gore Creek Side of the building. An addition of this magnitude is inconsistent with the Urban Design Guide Plan, as well as the height plan outlined in the recently adopted Vail Village Master Plan. G. Views and Focal Points The proposed expansions do not impact any of the formerly adopted view corridors. Another view consideration was that of the staircase between the Children's Fountain and the Gore Creek Promenade. The view of these stairs is important to provide pedestrians with a point of orientation as the meander through the Village. Not only will this be unaffected by the proposed retail expansion, dining activity on the roof top of this expansion may serve to draw the pedestrian from the Children's Fountain down the stair to the Promenade. H. Service and Delivery The introduction of one or two new retail shops along the Promenade will require additional delivery and service. The nearest loading zones are located along Gore Creek Drive adjacent to the Lodge and on Willow Bridge Road adjacent to the Sitzmark Hotel. The distance to these loading zones is among the greatest found in the Village. Providing a delivery point through the building was evaluated, but was found to be unfeasible. I. SUN/SHADE Design Guidelines state that "a11 new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the summer and fall shadow pattern on adjacent properties or the public right-of-way". Development proposed for the upper floors of the Bell Tower building will cast increased shade along the Promenade. At 12:00 noon on March 21 and September 23, the shadow pattern would be 4.5 feet in width. This impact is both unnecessary and unacceptable. As stated in the Guidelines, it is not the intent of Sun/Shade consideration to restrict building height allowances. Rather, they suggest ways to design a building without increasing shadow patterns. The design of this proposed addition has not responded to this criteria in an acceptable manner. J. Architecture/Landscabe Considerations These design considerations of the Design Review Board. is important to address the roofs. are typically the purview However, in this case it consideration pertaining to As stated in the guidelines, roofs within the Village are typically gable in form and of moderate to low pitch. Freestanding shed roofs, butterfly roofs and flat roofs can be found but are generally considered to be out of character and inappropriate. Not only is the flat roof form proposed with this building out of character with the Village, the manner in which it is proposed displays little to no relationship to existing roof forms on the building. • OTHER CONSIDERATIONS In December of 1988, the Bell Tower building received approval to convert the building to condominium ownership. there are two small studio units in the building that have historically been used as employee housing. As a part of this condo conversion approval, the applicant has agreed to restrict the use of these two units to employee housing for a period of 15 years. The proposed remodel would eliminate these two employee units. As such, the applicant needs an amendment to the previous condition applied to the condo conversion approval. The applicant has agreed to acquire a new unit(s), prior to the issuance of a building permit, and record the same restrictions limiting their use to employee housing. The staff feels that this is an acceptable solution, provided that the unit(s) are located within the Village or Lionshead Core areas and are restricted permanently as employee housing units. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is far denial of the requested exterior alteration. A review of the relevant Urban Design Criteria (and the requested variances), indicates a number of shortcomings relative to building height, sun/shade impact, off-site improvements reducing landscaped area, and overall design. Zn evaluating this request, it is important to take a look at the existing level of development on this site. The property is essentially built out to property lines on all four sides and is built to a height in excess of what is permitted under existing zoning. The additions proposed would exasperate these conditions. It is not the staff's intent to be overly critical of the existing structure. In many ways, it typifies the desired character of the buildings in the Village. However, the proposed additions go beyond what is appropriate an this site. At some point, the Planning Commission must ask itself the question of when to draw the line with this type of infill development. Vail Village is based on a very delicate balance between the built environment, open spaces, and space between buildings. Simply stated, this building has reached its optimum level of development. While the proposed additions may benefit the owners and tenants, they will do little to benefit the overall fabric of the Village. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 26, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a height variance in order to construct an addition to the Bell Tower Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Clark Willingham/Bell Tower Associates, Ltd. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED Additions to the upper floors of the Bell Tower building include a fourth floor dormer on the south side of the building (along Gore Creek Drive), and a larger addition to the north side of the building. This larger addition introduces a fifth floor element from the Gore Creek Promenade side of the building. By definition, the dormer along Gore Creek Drive does not necessitate a variance. The variance request before the Commission is for the addition proposed to the North side of the building. Building heights in the Village are regulated in a manner that is intended to encourage height and massing variety and to discourage uniform building heights along the street. The building height restrictions are as follows: 1. Up to 60 of the building {building coverage area) may be built to a height of 33 feet or less. 2. No more than 400 of the building (building coverage area) may be higher than 33 feet but not higher than 43 feet. The 60/40 split is designed to encourage varied roof heights among buildings. The absolute highest point of a building permitted by zoning is 43 feet to existing grade. This property is unique in that existing grades along Gore Creek drive and the Children's Fountain area are 8 feet higher than the grade along the Gore Creek Promenade. With respect to this application, improvements proposed to the south side of the building are measured relative to Gore Creek Drive and impravements on the north side of the building are measured to the Gore Creek Promenade. • The existing structure is legal/non-conforming because existing heights exceed that permitted by the Urban Design Guide Plan and the zoning code. As submitted by the applicant, 58.5 of the existing roof is over 33 feet and less than 43 feet, and 41.5 of the roof is below 33 feet. The proposed expansion would increase this discrepancy to 64% of the building being above 33 feet and below 43 feet, and 36% of the roof being below 33 feet. These calculations are accurate with one exception. The existing roof, when measured from the Gore Creek Promenade, is 44.3 feet in height. The flat roof element proposed nn the North side of the building measures 51.7 feet to the Gore Creek Promenade. This is 8.7 feet over the maximum threshold of 43 feet. In summary, this request is to increase the percentage of roof height beyond the 64/44 split, and to also approve a building that is over 51 feet in height at various locations. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: • A. Consideration of Factors:. 1, The relationship of the requested variance to other existina or botential uses and structures in, the vicinity. The height variance is resulting in a direct impact to pedestrian activity in the Village by casting increased shade on the Gore Creek Promenade. However, of greater concern is the long range impact this decision may have on other development proposals in the Village. The Village core is perceived as a mix of two to three story facades, and the Vail Village Master Plan has proposed general building heights of three to four stories. This proposal would introduce a five story element along the Gore Creek Promenade elevation. Similar proposals on other buildings in the Village could establish a dangerous trend that would potentially change the character of the built environment of the Village. The design controls outlined in the zoning code and the Urban Design Guide Plan are intended to establish a maximum building volume. This proposal is not responsive to those parameters, and presents a legitimate threat to the existing character of the Village. 2. The dearee to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a sbecified reaulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without arant of special privilege. One justification far the proposed addition is that the property is within its GRFA allowances. None the less, it should be understood that simply having allowable GRFA to build does not assure the applicant the riaht to develop this square footage as proposed. The applicant has chosen to utilize the space within the existing building with three full floors of restaurant, retail, and office space. This square footage does not count as GRFA. As such, the building has excess GRFA that may be utilized. As stated, the proposed addition does not comply with the general parameters established for building volume. The obvious alternative for the applicant is to reallocate existing uses and develop additional GRFA in space that is now used far commercial purposes. There is clearly no physical hardship to substantiate this variance request. • 3. The effect of the requested variance on lir~ht and air, distribution of population. transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities. and public safety. The requested height variance would increase shadow patterns on the Gore Creek Promenade. This impact is addressed in greater detail in the exterior alteration memorandum. III RFT~ATED POLICIES IN VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN. The illustrative height plan of the Vail Village Master Plan recommends three to four story buildings. The proposed addition would add a fifth floor element to the structure. This proposal is inconsistent with the designed building heights as outlined VVMP. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the. follawina findinas before arantina 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: ~. The strict literal interpretation ar 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. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff can is clearly no and there are from this pro; the requested find no bases to support this request. There hardship evident to allow this development, legitimate impacts that would directly result Posal. Staff recommendation is for denial of height variance. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 26, 1990 RE: A variance request in order to reduce landscape area at the Bell Tower Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Clark Willingham/Bell Tower Associates, Ltd. I. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN CCI ARE AS FOLLOWS 18.24.170 Landscapina and Site Development. No reduction in landscape area shall be permitted without sufficient cause shown by the applicant or as specified in the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations. By definition, landscaped areas include walks, decks, patios, terraces and similar features. A retail expansion proposed along the Gore Creek Promenade would eliminate 240 square feet of patio area. A stair case and walkway to access the deck are proposed on . Town of Vail lane planted area and landscaped area. applicants land, because they are plan. 1. These improvements would eliminate also constitute a net reduction in While this is technically not the these improvements must be considered an element of this overall development II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial 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. While architecturally a fine building, the Bell Tower property is lacking in landscape features. It should be noted, however, that this situation is not unique to the Bell Tower Building. The Wall Street Building, the Gorsuch Building and the A & D Building are other examples of properties . that do not have a great deal of on site landscape improvements. In many cases, landscape ~.mprovements are located on Town land or right-of- ways. The intent of the Urban Design Guide Plan is to consider buildings and landscape improvements with respect to how they relate to each other, and not dwell on arbitrary property lines. The removal of the "handscape" patio feature is not a major issue with the staff due to the northern exposure, replacement of the deck an the 2nd floor retail infill. However, reducing the size of the planted area for circulation to the proposed dining deck is of great concern. While on Town of Vail land, this small pocket of greenery provides one of the few landscape features far this property. The removal of this landscaped area is inappropriate. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve combatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special orivileae. The loss of landscaping is no greater than is what is necessary to provide access to the new dining . deck. However, it must be understood that circulation to the new dining deck could be provided in a number of different ways. one obvious alternative is to design circulation within the existing building. This alternative would reduce the amount of dining deck area as well as the amount of new retail space that could be leased. Hence, the circulation is proposed on the exterior of the building in order to maximize leasable and usable square footage within the building. There is no physical hardship to justify this request other than the applicants desire to maximize the efficiency of their proposed development plan. 3. The effect of the reauested variance on light and air. distribution of taobulation. transportation and traffic faci? i±'iP~~„ public fac:i.~_i;tfes and iati ] i ti Ps . and ~aublic safety. The proposal would not affect any of the above criteria n LJ • III RELATED POLICIES TN VATL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN_ Goal # 3 of the Vail Village Master Plan states, "To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village". Related objectives and policies include: Ob-iective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian walkway with landscaping and other improvements. Policv: Flowers, trees, water features, and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public area. One may argue that the walkway and stairs could in fact be considered decorative streetscape elements. However, in this case their purpose is not to serve the public interest, but rather the developers interest. Trees, plantings and flowers are a preferred alternative for treatment in this area as opposed to additional paving surfaces. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findinas before arantina 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. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends denial of the proposed landscape variance. While generally supportive of the infill over the existing patio, the staff cannot accept the introduction of hard surfaces on an existing planter. n • • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 26, 1990 RE: A conditional use permit in order to construct a second floor dining patio to the Bell Tower Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Clark Willingham/Bell Tower Associates, Ltd. The Lancelot restaurant currently operates a dining deck at ground level located along the Gore Creek Promenade. As proposed, a retail expansion would be built over this dining patio and a new dining deck would be located on the roof of the proposed retail expansion. The proposed roof top deck would be approximately 470 square feet. The existing ground level deck is approximately the same size. Proposed access to the new deck would be from a new walk-way leading off of the Children's Fountain area and a circular staircase that would lead from the Gore Creek Promenade level up to the new deck. The circular staircase is located entirely on Town land, and the walk-way from the Children's Fountain is predominantly on Town land. The Town Council has not approved this proposal, however, they have granted the applicant permission to proceed through the process for review of this development plan. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL There are seven specific criteria to be used when evaluating conditional use permits in CCI. These are as follows: A. The effects of vehicular traffic on CCI District. The proposed dining deck would have no effect on vehicular traffic in the Gore area. B. Reduction of vehicular traffic on CCI District. The proposed dining deck will have no reduction on vehicular traffic in the Core area. C. Reduction of nonessential off-street oarkino. This proposal does not affect any existing parking on the property. • • D. Control of delivery, hick-ub. and service vehicles. The proposed dining deck is equal in size to the existing dining deck. As such, there should be no increase in demand for delivery or service to this location. E. Development of public suaces use by pedestrians. The proposal does not effect public spaces, nor does it include the development of public spaces for use by pedestrians. F. Continuance of the various, c~rE~~E~ercial, residential, and x~ublic uses in CCI District so as to maintain the existing character of the area. Outdoor dining patios are a vital element to the character of the Vail Village. This raises the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to relocate this to a roof-top location. The existing deck lacks direct exposure to sunlight, and as such, has historically been used only during the evening hours in the summer months. When compared to other decks in the Village, this dining patio is not in an ideal location, The relocation of the deck is not considered to be a detrimental change to the Village. • G. Control quality of construction, architectural design. and landscape design in CCI District so as to maintain the, existing character of the area. As outlined in CCI zoning, dining patios and decorative pavers are considered landscape features. From a technical standpoint, the retail expansion at ground level is resulting in a net reduction of landscaped area on the site. In addition, the proposed steps and walk-way on Town land will reduce the planted area adjacent to the site. The loss of planter area necessitated by the location of the stairs is significant and is addressed in greater detail in the exterior alteration memo and the landscape variance request memo. STAFF RECOMMENDAT20N In concept, the staff is supportive of the deck being relocated top a roof top location. However, the circulation improvements proposed for Town land have negative effect on the overall appearance of this project. For this reason, the staff recommends denial of this conditional use permit. • To: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 26, 1990 RE: A request for a Work Session to discuss proposed additions to the Red Lion Building located at 304 Bridge St. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties Application has been made for major revisions to the Red Lion Building. The major elements of this proposal include: -Two new dwelling units on the upper floors of the building and modifications to the existing dwelling unit on the property. -The introduction of a new dining deck and pedestrian walkway along the Millcreek side of the building. -The enclosure of a portion of an existing outdoor dining deck along Bridge Street. -Landscaping and site improvements to the building edge along Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road. The proposed development has triggered a number of formal review processes. As is the case with the Bell Tower Building application, the various requests are addressed individually in memorandums. However, it is important to consider the project as a whole when reviewing this proposal. The formal request by the applicant includes the following: 1, An Exterior Alteration in order to add enclosed floor area to the building. 2. A stream setback variance in order to construct patio improvements and building expansions within the 30 foot stream setback. 3. A variance to the permitted site coverage. 4. A conditional use permit for the deck enclosure along Bridge street and the new dining patio along Millcreek. 5. A modification to adopted view corridors. • The purpose of this discussion is to provide the Planning Commission with an introduction to this proposal. The staff has not developed formal positions on the main issues relative to this proposal. The following is a preliminary list of issues that the Planning Commission may want to keep in mind as they consider this proposal: -Trash and delivery service to the property -Impacts associated with modifications to approved view corridors. -Urban Design Considerations such as sun/shade, street enclosure and street edge, etc... -Zoning considerations particularly the site coverage variance request. -Evaluation of the existing deck enclosure along Bridge street and the appropriateness of an additional enclosure. L~ ^ T0: Planning and Environmental CuituEilsSlon FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 26, 1990 SUBJ: Request for a worksession on Amendments to the Final Plat and Special Development District #22, Resubdivision of Lots 1 - 19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3. Applicant: Dauphinais-Moseley Construction r. Backaround Special Development District #22 was approved by the Planning and Enviranmental Commission in August, 1988, and was adopted as Ordinance #23, Series of 1988 by the Vail Town Council. Special Development District #22 currently consists of 24 single family lots, an open space tract, and a new public road. Total size of the existing Special Development District is 10.69 acres. The original zoning was primary/secondary. Nineteen lots were approved. The SDD request reduced the total number of dwelling units by 14. Total GRFA allowed upon this site under Primary/Secondary zoning was 84,905 square feet. The fatal GRFA approved is 68,204 square feet resulting in a . reduction of 16,701 square feet. In April of 1989, the PEC approved an amendment to the grading plan for the subdivision. The applicant felt that by regrading portions of the property, the open space became more usable and that the lots became more buildable by eliminating steep road cuts and other access problems. A drainage plan was also submitted in conjunction with the new grading plan. At this time, the Special Development District has received final approval. The plat has also received final approval. However, the final plat will not be recorded at the County until the following conditions are met: 1. The Design Review Board has approved specific design guidelines for the project, a landscape plan for common area, and a specific landscape plan indicating the entry and lighting area for the subdivision are approved. 2. A subdivision agreement will need to be submitted to staff for approval. C7 r 3. A topographic survey will need to be submitted to staff in order to compare the new topography to the grading plan permit. soil reports on compaction of the fill shall also be submitted to staff for approval. This site shall also be completely revegetated no later than the fall of 1990. A letter of credit has been submitted to the Community Development Department and expires on November 7, 1990 for the revegetation work, II. The Request The following changes to the Special Development District and major subdivision are requested: A. Lot sizes and maximum GRFA: The existing Special Development District assigned specific amounts of GRFA to each lot. The applicant is requesting to receive approval for two models which would be used throughout the subdivision. Model A has a GRFA of 3171 square feet and model B has a GRFA of 2293 square feet. 15 lots would use model A and 9 lots would use model B. 1. Model A 15 lots X 3,171 GRFA = 47,565 GRFA Model B 9 lots x 2,293 GRFA = 20,638 GRFA Total = 68,202 GRFA B. Setbacks: The setbacks are requested to be amended as follows: 1. Lots 15-19 Lionsridge Loop from a 20 foot front setback to a five foot front setback. 2. Lots 20-24 Lionsridge Loop from a 20 foot minimum setback to five foot front setback. 3. Lots 1-14 Lionsridge Lane from a 20 foot minimum front set back to a 10 foot front setback. 4. Lots 15 and 16 Lionsridge Loop from a 15 foot minimum rear setback to 10 foot rear setback. • • C. The applicant would like to have an additional four curb cuts off of Lionsridge Loop. Presently, only six curb cuts are approved off of Lionsridge Loop. D. Amendment to the phasing plan: Below is a description of the construction phasing for the project: Phase I -Lots 2 and 3 (Model A) -Lots 1, ~ and 24 (Model B) -Project entry plan execution -Final grading of common open revegetation of native grasses portions of the project. -Paving of Lionsridge Lane (5" -All underground utilities in individual lots. space and and all undeveloped asphalt). place and stubbed to Phase II - Phase V (1991 - 199&1. The development district shall include construction of 4 to 5 units per year until the project is built out. E. Major Subdivision: The applicant is requesting to realign lot lines for almost all of the 19 lots. In addition, an easement will need to be replated far utilities. III. STAFF COMMENTS A. At this time the staff does not have a list of lot sizes and the corresponding GRFA for each lot. Staff would be concerned that the GRFA is in proportion to the new lot size. B. Staff is requesting an updated environmental impact report from Peter Jamar in respect to the view impacts and additional driveway cuts. We would also like to see the drainage for the project addressed. It is our understanding that a large detention pond is proposed on the west end of the subdivision. We are concerned about the appearance of this drainage solution. r C. Staff feels strongly that specific design guidelines for the project should be developed. The guidelines should be incorporated into the Special Development District Ordinance. We would like to see the design standards and model type listed per lot. We also suggest that more than two models be incorporated into the subdivision. We are concerned about the project appearing to be tract housing. This issue was raised during the original review when each lot was proposed to be developed by a separate owner using specific design guidelines. D. At this time staff can not support the additional curb cuts off Lionsridge Loop. We believe that many of the driveway cuts could be combined to decrease the amount of asphalt. E. Staff is concerned about the view impacts of the residences along the South ridge of the subdivision and along Lionsridge Loop. When the approved site plan is overlayed on the revised site plan, it appears that the units are located further to the edge of the ridge. The units should also be staggered along Lionsridge Loop so that the development does not appear as a wall when looking from Lionsridge Loop to the south. F. Staff would like to see a more specific landscape plan that calls out the numbers of materials, sizes, types and lighting. Detention pond landscaping should also be addressed. The landscape architect should identify which portions of the landscape plan are to be constructed by the developer and which portions of the landscaping will be planted by private lot owners. More specifics on landscaping are needed in the right- of-way area along Lionsridge Loop. Public works will also need to look at the landscaping closely. G. Staff is asking the developer to discuss with Solar Crest possible solutions for parking and access. Presently, Solar Crest owners cross the Lionsridge subdivision in order to access and park. H. This Special Development District needs to be tied to the final plat so that staff is assured that the project will be developed per the Special Development District.