HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes November - DecemberIa
?LANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
> November 26, 1990
AGENDA
`J
11:00
2:00
site Visits
Public Hearing
SITE VISITS
1. Approval of minutes from the October 22, 1990
and October 29, 1990 meetings.
1 2. A request for a conditional use permit in
order to establish a bed and breakfast
operation on Lot 7B, Vail Village 10th
Filing, 930 B Fairway Drive.
Applicant: Nancy and Paul Rondeau
7 3. A request for front and side yard setback
variances to allow for a garage on Lot 10,
Block 4, Lions Ridge Filing No. 4; 1464 Aspen
Grove Lane.
Applicant: Carrol P. Orrison
- 4. A request for setback variances, a landscape
variance, and an exterior alteration for the
Village Center Condominiums, located at 124
Willow Bridge Road, A part of Tract C and Lot
K, Block 5 -E, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Village Center Condominium
Association
4 5. A request for a height variance and a
variance to the number of satellite dishes
permitted in order to allow for the
installation of two satellite dish antennas
on the roof of the Marriott Mark Resort, Lots
4 and 7, Block 1 Vail /Lionshead Third Filing,
Lots C and D Morcus Subdivision, located at
715 Lionshead Circle.
Applicant: Marriott Mark Resort /Tri- County
Cablevision
3 6. A request to establish a Special Development
District for the Sonnenalp redevelopment,
located at 20 Vail Road; A part of Lot L,
Block 5 -E, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc.
5 7. A request for a conditonal use permit and a
variance to the parking standards Section
18.52 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to
allow off - street surface parking at the "Holy
Cross parcel" described as follows:
} W Conrrertiig "at the NE caraer of is:d Sec:zon '12; dente South $8'19'29"
West, along the north line of said NE 21431 a discaazt of 43.1 feet co the
incersecc;on of the prolongation of the east Iine of sa?d portal; chance
South 0'01'33 " East, along said prolongation, 319.2 feet to the northeast
. earner of said parcel which is the point of be,?as Wit; thence
South 0'01'33" East, along said east line, 2:3.33 .sec to the southeast
eor»er of said parcel; thence northwesterly across sa?d parcel through the
following four crurses: 1) North 28'36'I9" Wes., 5:.06 fret, 2) North ..
3$'12'3,• West, 81.46 fee :, 3) North 50'4$'25" Les:, 63.63 feet, and 4)
Soucy 79`49'04 " Vase, 121.45 feet to the northwas: caraer of said parcel;
thence no=heasterly along the aorta Iine of said parcel vh;ch is a
tsar. — :intent (a radial to sa?d nartavast corner bea.s North 22'39`28" West),
2713 fact radius curve concave southerly, 264.3° fee: (central angle equals
5'34':E ") to the point of beginning.
This tract, as described, contains 13,940 square fret, or 0.366 acres, mars
or less.
Applicant: Vail Associates
2 8. A request for a work session on setback,
density, common area, and a parking variances
in order to construct additions to the
Christiania Lodge, 356 Hansen Ranch Road, Lot
D, Block 2 Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Paul R. Johnston
6 9. A work session for a major amendment to SDD
No. 4, commonly refered to as Cascade
Village, Sections 18.46 Area D, in order to
. add office floor area to the Glen Lyon Office
Building; 1000 S. Frontage Road West.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Partners
TABLED UNTIL 10. A work session on a request to rezone Lots 2
DECEMBER 10 and 3, Vail Village West Filing No. 2.
Applicant: Elmore, Vail Village West
Corporation
TABLED UNTIL 11. A request for a conditional use permit in
DECEMBER 10 order to establish a bed and breakfast
operation on Lot P, Vail Village 2nd Filing,
141 West Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Joan M. Norris
TABLED UNTIL 12. A request for a minor subdivision in order to
DECEMBER 10 vacate a lot line between Lots 46 and 47,
Vail Village West Filing No. 2.
Applicant: ANJA Corporation
TABLED 13. A request to rezone the following property
INDEFINITELY commonly known as the Mountain Bell Site
located to the north of the main Vail I -70
Interchange from Agricultural Open Space to
Medium Density Multiple Family.
Applicant: Town of Vail and Professional
Development Corp.
i
•
•
TABLED
14. A request to rezone the following property
INDEFINITELY
commonly known as the Pedotto property
located to the south of Kinnickinnick Road in
the Intermountain Subdivision from
Primary /Secondary to Medium Density Multiple
Family.
Applicant: Juanita I. Pedotto, and
Professional Development Corp.
TABLED
15. A request to rezone the following property
INDEFINITELY
located to the north of Safeway and Chamonix
Lane in the Vail Heights Subdivision, Lots 5-
13 from Primary /Secondary to Medium Density
Multiple Family.
Applicant: Konrad Oberlohr, John W. and
Patricia A. Rickman for John Witt, Reuben B.
Knight, and Professional Development Corp.
TABLED
16. A request to amend Chapter 18.40 of the
INDEFINITELY
Municipal Code, Special Development
Districts.
Applicant: Town of Vail
TABLED
17. A request to amend Chapter 18.24 of the
INDEFINITELY
Municipal Code, Commercial Core I (Vail
Village).
Applicant: Town of Vail
TABLED
18. A request to amend Chapter 18.66 of the
INDEFINITELY
Municipal Code, Administration.
Applicant: Town of Vail
TABLED
19. A request to amend Chapter 18.60 of the
INDEFINITELY
Municipal Code, Conditional Use Permits.
Applicant: Town of Vail
TABLED
20. A request to amend Chapter 18.62 of the
INDEFINITELY
Municipal Code, Variances.
Applicant: Town of Vail
<<
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
November 26, 1990
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Jim Shearer
Kathy Warren
Dalton Williams
Absent
Ludwig Kurz
Staff
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Jill Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Betsy Rosolack
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Diana Donovan,
Chairperson.
1. Approval of minutes from the October 22, 1990 meeting.
Chuck Crist moved and Jim Shearer seconded to approve the minutes
as presented. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
2. A request for a conditional use permit - in_order to establish
A licant: Paul and Nancy Rondeau
Betsy Rosolack explained the request and stated that the Rondeaus
met all the required conditions for a bed and breakfast. Connie
Knight moved and Dalton Williams seconded to approve the request.
The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
3. A request for front and side yard setback variances to allow
fora garage on Lot 10 Block 4 Lionsrid e Filing No. 4-
1464 Aspen Grove Lane_
Applicant: Carrol P. Orrison
The applicant asked to table this item until 12/10. Kathy Warren
moved and Chuck Crist seconded to table to 12/10. Vote was 6 -0.
4.
Tract C and Lot K, Block 5 -E, Vail Village lst_ Filing,
Applicant: Village Center Condominium Association
Kristan Pritz explained that at the previous PEC meeting, the
motion had been to approve the setback variance requests subject
to staff recommended condition. Prior to the vote Kirk Akers,
the applicant's architect, asked that the request be tabled to
allow him an opportunity to confer with his client regarding the
staff recommended condition of approval. Since that time staff
1
4
discussed the appropriateness of the condition of approval with
Larry Eskwith, the town attorney. Larry felt the staff's
condition of approval was inappropriate, therefore staff was
recommending approval of the setback variances without
conditions. After discussion, Kathy Warren moved and Chuck Crist
seconded to approve the setback variance per the staff memo with
findings A, B, and C.1, C.2 and C.3 excluding.the condition of
approval related to the streamwalk and pocket park. The vote was
6 -0 in favor.
5.
order tg allo for-the installation-of two satellite dish
Amlica t:_Marriott Mark ResortfTri- County Cablevision
Betsy Rosolack explained that the Marriott wished to place two 6-
foot in diameter on their roof in the southwestern corner of the
Marriott building. Lynn Johnson of Tri- County Cablevision then
stated that since the dishes were painted to match the building,
he hoped a screening fence would not be necessary, but was
willing to place a fence later if the Town felt it was necessary.
He also explained that a mesh fence was not being proposed
because it caught snow and because the quality of the mesh dishes
was not as good as the solid dishes.
Connie Knight moved and Kathy Warren seconded to approve the
variances per the findings in the staff memo with the decision of
whether or not a fence was needed to be made by the Design Review
Board. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
6. A request to establish a special Development District for
the Sonnena edevelo ment located at 20 Vail Road• a part
of Lot-L, Block 5-E. Vail ,Village. st Filing.
Applicant: onnenalp Properties. Inc.
Mike Mollica and Andy Knudtsen explained the requested SDD. Mike
outlined 6 variations to the Public Accommodation zone district
that would be part of the proposed SDD. The six were:
1. A 24 percent density increase
2. A height variance allowing 81 feet where 48 feet is the
maximum height
3. Setbacks (on all four sides)
4. A reduction in the number of loading berths required;
(1 is proposed, 3 are required)
j
•
•
2 •
5. An increase in the amount of accessory hotel floor area
(23% of the'GRFA where 10% is allowed)
• 6. An increase in the amount of common area (85% of the
GRFA where 20% is allowed)
Mike then reviewed the memo, stating that the SDD would use the
existing Public Accommodation Zone as the underlying zoning. The
number of accommodation units would be increased from 72 to 124,
and 10 existing dwelling units would be eliminated. All units
would be maintained as lodge units, and all fireplaces would be
gas burning with the exception of the existing 4 wood - burning
fireplaces. Also added would be 4,000 square feet of conference
space for a total of 7,930 square feet of conference space.
The building heights would be 51 -81 feet on the west side, 49 -57
feet on the north side, 52 feet on the east side and 24 feet on
the south.
The proposed site amenities would include a pedestrian walkway
over Gore Creek. This would be attached to the existing Vail
Road bridge. A pocket park would be constructed south of the
Swiss Chalet, adjacent to Willow Bridge Road. (This property is
owned by Vail Associates who had not agreed to have a pocket park
at this location at this time.) A sidewalk would be constructed
along the east side of Vail Road and planters and sidewalks would
be constructed along East Meadow Drive. Landscaping would also
• be included along the north and west elevations. Mike showed
these improvements on a site plan.
An underground parking garage would be constructed with 185
spaces and the existing surface parking lot would be removed.
The restaurant and lounge areas would be expanded to 6657 square
feet, and new retail would consist of 5,760 square feet.
Mike then reviewed the zoning analysis on page 3 of the staff
memo and referred also to Exhibit B.
Andy Knudtsen summarized the SDD criteria. He stated that the
staff was concerned about the excessive heights. They also felt
that the formal, unbroken facade along Meadow Drive was a
significant deviation from the character of the Village, and that
the overall building mass was too large in relation to the site.
Concerns were also expressed about the west setback
encroachments, shade impacts, lack of loading, Talisman access,
lack of Fire Dept. approval, Vail road alignment, lack of
streamwalk, location of the swimming pool and construction road
along the creek.
Mike then discussed the Vail Village Master Plan with relation to
the proposal. He stated that of the 5 applicable sub -area goals,
0 3
only 1 was being met, that of the pedestrian connection along
Vail Road. Mike felt that the sun /shade analysis was not .
accurate. He added that the mass and unbroken roof line
contributed to excess shading on East Meadow Drive. Among other
concerns was the fact that the Fire Department had not approved
the access to the Talisman. Mike added that the streamwalk was
an extremely important issue and felt that the applicant should
incorporate it into the site plan.
Andy reviewed the EIR analysis concerning hydrologic conditions,
atmospheric conditions, visual conditions, land use conditions,
circulation and transportation conditions, population
characteristics, and phasing.
Andy recommended that this be a work session, so that additional
time could be provided for the board to study the proposal.
Kristan stated that Rev. Don Simonton from the Vail Interfaith
Chapel had mentioned their concern about construction impacts on
their activities particularly on the weekend when they have many
weddings and worship services.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that it was
implied that the applicant had not worked with the staff, but in
fact, the applicant had worked long and hard with the staff
before coming back with the present proposal. Jay admitted that
the proposed building was large and that major issues, such as .
height and bulk needed resolution. He stated that the Urban
Design Guide Plan called for an infill in this area, but that the
proposal was not just an infill.
Jay pointed out that the design of a hotel had less flexibility
because rooms must be the same size to have unified interiors.
The parking structure also drove the design. Regarding employee
housing, Jay felt the requirement was not correct, for many of
the employees worked at other Sonnenalp properties. He did not
feel additional housing should have to be purchased. Kristan
Pritz felt the requirement was a fair one and pointed out that
the staff would be willing to look at employee demand generated
solely by the Bavarian Haus, however, that requested information
had not been given to the staff at present.
Gordon Pierce, architect for the property, explained his reasons
for the design of the project. He stated that Jeff Winston
supported the height on the corner, but did want an indentation
along Meadow Drive. He felt that the building on East Meadow
Drive had a definite relation to the eave lines of the VVI.
Regarding the sun /shade study,'he felt that if it was inaccurate,
it was not very inaccurate. He stated that noon on December 21st
was the worst possible time. Gordon felt that any building would
cast a shadow on East Meadow Drive. He added that the Sonnenalp
4 0
r
building would -have heated sidewalks. Gordon pointed out that
the Mountain Haus was much higher and had sheets of ice Many
days. He then showed slides of other buildings in Vail to show
the simplicity of hotel design.
Jay then stated that 40% of the common area was underground. He
pointed out that the VVI had 100,000 square feet of GRFA and
50,000 square feet of retail, while the Sonnenalp has less than
5,000 square feet of retail. He felt that the required maximum
of 20% common space was very outdated.
Kristan replied that retail was not included in common space.
She also stated that when all the various uses were added
together, it was strongly felt by staff that the building was too
large for the site.
Amos Kaminsky, president of the Talisman Condominiums, stated
that he had been working with the Faesslers for several months
and Johannes had offered to allow the Talisman residents to enter
the underground parking from Vail Road. He felt comfortable with
what was proposed by the Sonnenalp.
Kristan asked about the access easement at E. Meadow Drive along
the pedestrian mall and Amos replied that the Talisman would give
up their access easement under the new proposal, and would enter
through the fire access gate east of the bus control gate. Amos
added that the ramp was being narrowed and made less obvious. He
stated that if the Talisman did not build a garage, they would
• move the access easement to the fire exit. Dalton asked where
the Talisman garage would be, and Amos replied that it would be
partially under the ramp. The plan was to build the Talisman
garage at the same time that the Sonnenalp garage was being
constructed. Amos added that at present there was no written
agreement, only a verbal one.
Paul Rondeau, from the audience was concerned about the height of
the tower at the west elevation.
Rick Rosen, legal counsel for the condominium owners in the First
Bank building to the west, stated that these owners had concerns
about the traffic and the height of the Bully part of the
building, but were not against the project.
Rick Rosen then spoke as legal counsel for the Villa Cortina
condo owners, and said they were opposed to the project. They
were concerned about the height of the tower blocking the view of
the Gore Range from the condos (the ground floor condos do not
have a view at present). They were very concerned about the fact
that Meadow Drive would seem to be like a tunnel. They felt that
they would feel closed in. They were concerned about traffic,
shading, and the fact that the construction of the project would
impact businesses for 18 to 24 months. They did feel that the
hotel appeared to be a good project.
0 5
Eric Affeldt, a retail tenant at the VVI across Meadow Drive, i
thanked the PEC and the staff for their work and stated that it
was easy for them to lose the broad picture. He said that when
he was on the Council, the Council spent a lot of time
establishing the Goals and study areas for the Vail Village
Master Plan. Affeldt felt that the SDD did not depart far from
the PA zone district. He felt that over the years the Town had
emphasized the need for quality and for additional hotel rooms in
the core. He felt this would be a benefit in the long run. He
supported the project.
Hermann Staufer, another former Council member, also felt that
the project would be a good one, and was one of quality.
Dalton Williams felt that he would like to have more time to
study the information about the project before being asked to
vote on it. He felt the swimming pool should be moved back
within the setbacks to allow for the future streamwalk and was
concerned about servicing the shops along Meadow Drive. He felt
that there would probably be 4 UPS trucks per day serving the
retail shops. Jay replied that the auto court was designed for
trucks of UPS size. Dalton was concerned that on busy days the
guests and trucks would conflict. Gordon Pierce answered that
perhaps they would have to plan a pick -up point.
Dalton was in.favor of the pocket park near the Swiss Chalet •
where cars are now parked. Regarding the shadow pattern on
Meadow Drive, he suggested that the entire street be heated.
Dalton was also concerned about the potential traffic, especially
on Saturday when there was a lot of traffic at the bank across
the street. He felt the narrow lanes would be a concern.
Regarding phasing of the project, Dalton stated that he was
unimpressed with the construction of the Gateway project, but was
impressed with the way the Red Lion construction had been
handled. He repeated that he was not ready to make a decision
today.
Gordon answered Dalton's concerns about the construction phasing,
stating that he had hired a contractor who had a great deal of
experience with difficult construction projects and was, in his
view, very conscientious.
Rick Rosen wondered if there was any testing done of the soil
because of the former gas station on the site to the north, and
Gordon replied that tests had been made and the soil was ok.
Chuck Crist asked about the number of rooms in the top floor of
the tower, and Gordon replied that there were 7 plus some
mechanical area and the elevator tower. Chuck wondered if one
story could be removed. Gordon replied that rooms would be lost,
6 Is
and the tower's architectural statement would also be lost.
Chuck was concerned with the shadow on Meadow Drive and the
Sheight of the building. He added that he did not feel the
pedestrian entry at. WI adjacent to the Liquor Store was a valid
one at this time, but with future development, there would be
reason to walk to the back of the WI. He would like to see
more relief on the Meadow Drive side of the building. Gordon
asked Chuck if he felt a focal point like a fountain would be a
valid feature to have across from the WI entry. Chuck was in
favor of that idea, saying that he did actually prefer a narrower
street, but felt the need for more pedestrian interest.
Jay Peterson said the street was 60 feet wide, as opposed to
Bridge Street, which is 25 to 30 feet wide..
Kathy Warren was concerned about the Fire Department access
issue. Andy stated that the staff had passed the Fire Department
concerns along to the applicant. Gordon replied that they had
talked to the Fire Department and the Fire Department stated that
the proposal was fine. Mike pointed out that the problem had not
been resolved, because a fire truck could not get to the Talisman
and turn around. Kathy felt an OK from the Fire Department was
needed before the board could give final approval on the project.
Jay stated that there was no need to resolve minor issues before
getting approval.
Some of Kathy's concerns were the height, lack of public open
space, shadow on Meadow Drive, and that some breaks in the facade
would help the appearance of the height. Regarding loading, she
was uncomfortable with a project of this scale not having
appropriate loading. She felt that there was not one good
loading dock that would take a semi - trailer. Gordon replied that
the back of the existing loading dock was being removed so most
trucks could be handled. Faessler added that most trucks were
merely food trucks, with the biggest 24 feet long. He said that
there were 2 spaces for trucks of that size. Kathy was still
uncomfortable about the loading. With regard to the employee
housing situation, she wondered how many units Johanness would be
willing to deed restrict. Jay replied that they were willing to
abide by the guidelines in the Employee Housing Study. Rosen
added that he felt deed restrictions on private property were
unfair. Kristan pointed out that the Town could ask for
employee housing on site, and many SDD proposals had been
required to have employee housing on site.
Jay stated that employee housing on site was not appropriate for
this hotel, for the owners did not want the employees to mingle
with the guests in their off hours, and it was better for the
employees not to live where they work. Kathy stated that she
would like to see more restricted units. She was not comfortable
with the streetscape interface, loading, employee housing, and
felt a need to have the Fire Department approval.
Jim Shearer felt the added hotel rooms and parking were
beneficial and that the quality and beauty of the project were
positive. Regarding the employee housing, he wondered if the
applicant would be willing to do a retroactive housing
requirement and was told the applicant would be. Jim was pleased
with the pedestrian bridge, and supported the commercial aspect,
and getting the parking off of Vail Road. His concerns were with
the intersection of Meadow Drive and Vail Drive and mentioned
that he had spoken with Terry Minger who felt that the Town was
getting further and further away from landscaping at the Village
entrys. Jim felt that it would be nice if each corner could be
more park -like. Regarding Meadow Drive, he felt it would be
better if the pillars were not so close to the building so that
one could walk more freely. He felt that the commercial spaces
were too far from the street, and would prefer to have the column
distance varied so that one could meander.
Jim also wished to have more building undulation, more interest.
He preferred more sun on Meadow Drive.
Jay replied that the shade was not from the upper stories. Kathy
was still not comfortable with the shade and shadow pattern.
Gordon said the sidewalks would be heated. Jim was pleased that
the walks would be heated, but stated that he had heard that one
problem with heated walks was that after the snow is melted, icy
spots were created. Jay reminded them that the heated walks at •
the VVI worked well.
Jim encouraged the study of a stream walkway. He would like to
see 3 lanes on Vail Road, but did not feel this must be a
condition of approval. In this regard, Jay said that a study had
been done. He felt the biggest problem was the bank traffic
because everyone want to park in front of the bank.
Mr. Rosen stated that the First Bank Condo owners would not want
part of the land in front of First Bank to be taken for roads.
Greg Hall, Town engineer, stated that 3 lanes could be
constructed without using land in front of the bank. Kristan
pointed out that this area must be pinned down, studied,
designed, etc. to insure adequate distance for the road in
addtion to landscaping and the sidewalk.
Jim Shearer said he would
i.e. more public landscap,
front of the Swiss Chalet
area on one end. He felt
the setback and that fire
studied.
like to see more public accommodations,
Bd areas. He supported the park in
and suggested putting a loading dock
the pool should be pulled back within
access to the Talisman should be
Connie Knight stated the whole corner should be considered, not
8 0
just this building. She felt a building this size needed more
space and added that'the` developer was not considering the
• public. Connie pointed out that only 40 rooms were being gained
with great mass. She felt that the building was looking even
bigger by being so close to the property line and losing green
space. Connie stated that the height was nearly double that
allowed. She saw no need to encroach upon the setbacks. Mike
had mentioned that much public land was being used for
landscaping.
Connie did feel that the Faesslers would take care of employee
housing. She suggested that the Vail Road walk be coordinated
with the walk on Vail Road from the Gateway project. She
questioned the need for the pedestrian bridge. Regarding the
shade, Connie pointed out that not everyone would be walking near
the Sonnenalp shops. She felt that 10 setback encroachments were
a substantial number and felt the there was not enough room on
the lot to construct a building of this size. Gordon felt the
pedestrian experience would be improved.
Diana Donovan was concerned with snow sliding off of the roof,
the traffic lanes and the need to protect the creek. She said
the pool should be pulled back and that the temporary
construction road should not be on the south side of the lot
because of the impact on the creek. She felt the construction
should be quieted on Saturdays and Sundays because of the
weddings and services at the Chapel. Regarding Master Plan
objective 6.1, she was concerned about loading berths. She felt
• the East Meadow side of the building needed more attention to
landscaping because it was even closer to the road than the VVI.
Jay pointed out that there was minimal landscaping on the VVI
side.
Diana felt there should be housing restricted to employees, that
the hotel units should be restricted so that they remain hotel
units, and that more attention should be paid to the sub -area
concepts. Diana's main concern was that there were not enough
public spaces and green spaces, especially along Meadow Drive and
especially since the developer was not doing the streamwalk. She
felt the pedestrian bridge was essential and that more public
space was needed in front of the building. Diana felt the
project had come a long way.
Johannes Faessler admitted that the property was not perfect for
a hotel. He stated that if he were in the Board's chair, he
would weigh the same concerns, but that he could never take care
of their concerns to everyone's satisfaction. He wanted to leave
with some guidance, but stated that this was the best job he
could do and that the project was close to not making sense
economically. He wanted to have a vote with a list of concerns
agreed upon. Perhaps the Board felt the concerns were more
important than having a hotel there.
• 9
Diana pointed out that she would like to have the project come
back in two weeks. Johannes stated that he would come back with
almost the same thing. He could not come back in two weeks with
significant changes. Jay stated that over two weeks he could not
satisfy the staff and do the hotel. Gordon offered to discuss
the concerns and try to make the project work. Johannes stated
that they could wait 2 weeks, but there would not be major
changes. Dalton felt the need to study the proposal.
Kristan replied that a project of this size deserved a thorough
study and that there were significant issues. The proposal would
have incredible impact on the character of the area. She added
that the staff had been complimentary on many issues. Regarding
the height and setbacks, there were strong concerns, but the
staff did not advocate throwing in the towel and forgetting the
project. She felt the issues did warrant review and was happy
that Johannes was willing to reconsider some issues.
Jim moved and Chuck seconded to table the proposal until December
10th and the vote was 6 -0 to table.
7.
Qu I Ut,=41U l.0 K(-,u nastio a Greek.
Applicant: Vail Associates Inc.
Jill Kammerer explained the request, summarizing that the
applicant wanted a conditional use permit and a variance to the
parking standards which required that all parking lots be paved
and landscaped.
Diana asked that a`fence be constructed to screen the lot. She
thought the snow berms to be used in screening the lot would be
dirty and ugly. Joe Macy, of Vail Associates, stated that this
lot had been used for parking and storage for 20 years. Kathy
asked that the unsightly fence posts be removed from the site.
Joe responded that to do the fences right would require sinking
the fence post in a concrete base and he was reluctant to commit
to this.
Jim stated that if the applicant grades and gravels the lot and
then plows the snow to create snow berms the plows will just
scrape up the gravel which would contribute to the dirty, ugly
appearance of the berm.
C]
10 0
Kristan stated that if the lot is not graveled it will be a muddy
mess in the spring. Tey Ryzcak indicated the lot had been
graveled 10 years ago and that there was "road base" down now.
Joe stated the lot had been in use since 1970. Dalton saw no
point in graveling the lot now. Jim would rather see a trade off
from graveling the lot. He would rather see a tree planted than
the lot graveled.
Dalton inquired as to the Town's liability if people were injured
while crossing 1--70 to get to the lot. He also wanted to know if
the police ticketed individuals crossing 1 -70.
Discussion followed concerning the habit of the Timber Ridge
residents walking across the Interstate and Dalton asked if the
Town of Vail could enforce the violation. Kristan stated that
Mike Mollica had checked with the Vail Police Department and
found that they do ticket pedestrians who cross I -70 and will
continue to do so.
Ted Ryzcak of Vail Associates stated that there are other
residents at Timber Ridge who were not V.A. employees and
therefore were not under Vail Associates' control.
Kristan asked if Vail Associates would agree to reseed at the lot
at the end of the ski season if it was determined that the lot
would not continue to be used by V.A. or the Town for parking,
and Joe stated that he did not feel they should be asked to .
reseed, because in this case, the lot had been used for parking
• and storage for many years, and much gravel had been brought into
the lot. Kristan then asked if he would agree to the other 5
conditions. Joe answered that he was not supportive of reseeding
or regraveling the lot and that he did not believe granting the
conditional use or variance would effect use of the lot.
Kathy Warren moved and Connie Knight seconded to approve the
conditional use permit and the variance to the parking standards
per the staff memo based on Findings A, B, C(1) and C(2) with the
following conditions:
I. The applicant will grade and gravel the parking lot.
2. The conditional use permit will be effective until May
15, 1991 or until the Town of Vail purchases the Holy
Cross site and provides Vail Associates 30 day advance
written notice to vacate the parcel.
3. All of the mature evergreen trees will be protected by
snow fences.
4. Pollution control as proposed by the applicant will be
provided.
11
•
5. Timber Ridge residents will be allowed to store cars
only on a long term basis on the Holy Cross parcel.
The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
S.
va11. V 11ya;4 I= 1L. .r- i -Lin9_
Applicant: Paul R Johnston
Jill Kammerer explained that the applicant was requesting a work
session on the Christiania Lodge in order to get some direction
from the PEC on the following issues:
1. Density variance
2. Impact of development on view proposed corridors
3. Layout of Parking in northern parking lot
Jill indicated the Community Development Department staff thought
it was appropriate for Vail Associates and the Christiania to
formalize any agreements relating to the use of Parcel P3 and
Parcel J in the northern parking lot prior to Town issuance of
any building permits with the understanding that Vail Associates
supported the proposal, proceeding through the planning process.
The staff would obtain approval from Council to proceed through
the planning process tomorrow (11/27/90) during the PEC report. i
She further indicated the changes to the plans since they were
last reviewed by the Planning Commission included:
1. In response to Commission comments two weeks ago, two
parking spaces had been removed from the northern
parking lot. One of the spaces has been replaced in
the western parking lot. This space would be a valet
space given its location in front of the dumpster. The
second space has been replaced in the drop -off area by
the Porte cochere on Chateau Townhome Association owned
property.
2. Dumpster had been pulled back to the south,out of the
existing planter area.
3. The northwest corner roof line has been lowered in
response to discussions regarding the impact of the
redevelopment on the proposed view corridor.
4. There have been some modifications to the landscaping.
The applicant will commit to landscaping the northern
and southern periphery of Parcel J.
12 •
5. Paul Johnston had committed to providing one employee
unit in his home.
6. The applicant had agreed to grade and gravel Parcel J
which is the VA owned and used western half of the
northern parking lot.
7. The dropoff area under the porte cochere has been
widened to better accommodate passage of an auto while
another auto is parked curbside.
8. The roofline of the porte cochere has been pulled back
so as not to encroach into the Hanson Ranch Road right -
of -way. However, a zero setback variance is still
needed at this location.
Jill stated staff would like the PEC to hear discussions
regarding the effect condominiumization of the structure would
have on short term rental unit availability.
Specifically, staff is concerned the Christiania will continue to
operate as a lodge under single management.
In addition to site plan changes, Jill stated there was an error
in the last staff report ". Under Public Accommodation (PA) zoning
the Christiania realty office should be calculated as GRFA and
not as an accessory use. Therefore, no accessory use variance
will be required. With this correction, there will be 13,105
. square feet of GRFA on the site, leaving 127 square feet of GRFA
remaining following redevelopment. Following redevelopment there
would also be 145 square feet of accessory use remaining.
Jill stated that the applicant had indicated that under the
existing lodge operation, 27 keys were available, following
redevelopment there would still be 27 keys available. The
proposed redevelopment would not impact the number of keys
available.
The Board had the following comments regarding the redesign of
the northern parking lot:
Chuck Crist and Dalton thought that the redesign of the northern
parking lot as proposed was acceptable; Diana, Jim and Connie
indicated they didn't care whether the two spaces were removed
from the northern parking lot and relocated Kathy Warren
indicated that she did not want to see a parking space provided
on the western lot in front of the dumpster or in the dropoff
area in front of the Porte cochere.
Discussion by the Board regarding selection of trees to withstand
on the periphery of the lot followed. The selected trees should
have the ability to withstand snow impacts on them as when the
13
parking lot is cleared, snow will be pushed onto the property
where these trees would be located.
The next item to be discussed by the Commissioners was the
granting of the density variance. Jill stated the applicant had
the ability to redevelop the project without a density variance
simply by combining lodge rooms. staff felt it was in the best
interest of the community to allow the applicant to redevelop the
project by maintaining the 25 existing accommodation units and
adding two additional dwelling units. Through the combination of
accommodation units, the applicant would still meet the
definition of a "Lodge ". Given this situation, the applicant
wanted direction from the PEC regarding their feelings towards
avoiding the density variance and having fewer but larger
accommodation units or pursuing the density variance and having
smaller but more accommodation units. When polled, Commissioners
Dalton, Connie and Kathy indicated that they didn't have strong
feelings one way or another as to whether or not the density
variance should be pursued. Kathy further indicated that she
wanted to see another lockoff unit provided in association with
the third floor dwelling units.
Discussion then turned towards Commission members' reaction to
the impact and encroachment of the redevelopment on the proposed
view corridor. Diane Donovan felt that since the view corridor
had not been adopted, the development could occur without
Planning Commission approval of the encroachment. Kathy Warren
stated she was in favor of the proposed lower northwest corner
profile. She further stated she felt the photographs provided by
the applicant fairly and accurately represented the existing
situation. She further observed there were existing treesin
front of the Christiania which were higher than the Gore Range
ridge which would obscure the view of the ridge from the view
Point regardless of whether or not the redevelopment as proposed
occurred. Because of these facts, Kathy did not feel the
proposed redevelopment would negatively impact the proposed view
corridor. Connie Knight indicated she was surprised and
concerned to find out the view corridor had not been officially
adopted by Town Council. Kristan Pritz stated that adoption of
the view corridor would occur when the Red Lion construction was
finished.
Jay Peterson, attorney for the applicant, stated that although
the view corridor was proposed, no one knew exactly where the
view point would be located or where the lines indicating points
above which encroachment could not occur would be drawn. Dalton
Williams stated he thought the developer had responded
sensitively to Planning Commission members earlier concerns
regarding encroachment into the proposed view corridor through
the lowering of the roof at the northwest corner of the building.
Jay stated the redevelopment as proposed was well below the
maximum height allowed under the PA zone district and further
14 .
that the Christiania redevelopment as proposed would not impact
any adopted view corridors. He felt Paul had worked in good
faith responding to concerns raised by the Commissioners in
previous work sessions and that under the PA zone district, his
client had certain rights to construct the development as
proposed. Jay felt the project posed very little impact on
adjacent properties. Jack Curtin, concerned citizen and property
owner, indicated he felt good direction had been given by Council
with regard to the adoption of the view corridor and that it was
appropriate to use the proposed view corridor as a criteria in
reviewing the Christiania redevelopment proposal. Diane Donovan
stated that the proposed view corridor was not a legal view
corridor and because the view corridor had not been adopted.by
Council could not be used as a basis for denying the proposed
redevelopment. She did not feel comfortable with how defensable
the PEC,s position would be if the issue were to go to court.
In addition, Diana felt
the redevelopment would
responded positively by
Kathy Warren stated the
had included the additi,
why the construction of
the developer had considered the impact
have on the proposed corridor and had
lowering the northwest corner roof level.
1987 Christiania redevelopment proposal
on of a third floor. She inquired as to
a third floor was an issue this time.
9. A work session for a major amendment to SDD No. 4,-commonly
referred to as Cascade Village, Sections 18.4 _Area D in
order to add office floor area to the Glen L on Office
Buildin • 1000 South Frontage Road West.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Partners
This item was discussed on site visits. The PEC had no
concerns and felt that a worksession was not necessary at
this time. The item will be heard on December 10, 1990.
Kathy moved and Chuck seconded to table until 12/10 items 10,11,
and 12. The vote was 6-0 in favor.
Kathy moved and Jim seconded to table indefinitely items 13
through 20. The vote was 5 -0 in favor.
15
U
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
• FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 26, 1990
RE: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the
operation of a Bed and Breakfast on Lot 7B, Vail
Village 10th Filing, 930B Fairway Drive
Applicant: Nancy and Paul Rondeau
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
In December of 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance
No. 31, Series of 1989 to allow Bed and Breakfasts in the
Town of Vail. The definition given in that ordinance
states:
"A Bed and Breakfast means a business which
accommodates guests in a dwelling unit in which the Bed
and Breakfast proprietor lives on the premises and is
in residence during the Bed and Breakfast use."
The Rondeaus have applied for a conditional use permit to
allow them to use two bedrooms and a common room in their
home in a Two Family Residential zone district for a Bed and
iBreakfast rental. The area to be used for bed and breakfast
contain a total of 365 square feet. Two guests could stay
in each bedroom for a total of 4 guests.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development
Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1.
Relationship and impact of the use on the
development objectives of the Town_
The Town Council encourages Bed and Breakfasts in
the Town of Vail as a favorable type of lodging
for tourists.
2. The effect of the use on light and air,
distribution of population, transportation
facilities utilities schools arks and
recreation facilities, and other public facilities
needs.
• Four guests can be accommodated at one time, and
it is unlikely that there would be more than two
guest vehicles. There is a bus stop 2 blocks
away. it is felt that the impact on the use of
parks and recreation facilities and on
transportation facilities would be minimal.
3.
4.
convenience, traffic flow and control access
maneuverability-, and removal of snow from the
street and parking areas.
It is likely that there
vehicles driving to the
feels that this would b
upon traffic.
would be two additional
Rondeau residence. Staff
e an insignificant impact
surrounding uses.
The staff feels that the character of the area
will not be negatively impacted by the addition of
a Bed and Breakfast in this area. No exterior
. changes to the residence are proposed to
accommodate the Bed and Breakfast.
•
5. Bed and Breakfast operations may be allowed as a
conditional use in those zone districts as
specified in Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code-
for Ordinance No. 31 Series of 1989. Bed and
a. Offstreet designated Parking shall be
re uired as follows:
One space for the owner /proprietor_ plus one
space for the first bedroom rented plus 1 2
space for each additional bedroom rented.
The Rondeau property contains 4 parking
spaces.
b. Enclosed trash facilities and,recfular arba e
removal service shall be rovided.
The trash containers will be housed in the
garage with regular trash pick up.
• C. Removal of landsca nq for the rovision of
additional parking is strongly discoura ed.
There will be no removal of landscaping.
d. Each Bed and Breakfast shall be allowed one
residential name—plate sign as defined and
regulated b the Town of Vail Sign Code.
A name plate has not been applied for at this
time.
e. If a Bed and Breakfast operation shall use
ro erty or facilities owned in common or
�.,,.-�Y, A c
- LIM11.a4.LVa, ,..a.•
ro ert owner owners or a licable owners'
-- - ----- 2 4-.. 1•.e ciii�m i't�'.P.C�
permit.
Not applicable.
IV. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall m ke the
fol,owina findings before granting a conditional use ermit
for a Bed and Breakfast o eration:
A. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with
the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the
district in which the site is located.
B. That the proposed location of the use and the
conditions under which it would be operated or
maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the
applicable provisions of this ordinance.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends
approval of this application for a Bed and Breakfast
operation. Staff finds that all applicable review criteria
. and findings have been satisfactorily met.
•
r1
U
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL.COMMISSION
November 26, 1990
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Jim Shearer
Kathy Warren
Dalton Williams
Absent
Ludwig Kurz
Staff
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Jill Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Betsy Rosolack
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Diana Donovan,
Chairperson.
1. Approval of minutes from the October 22 1990 meeting-,t-
Chuck Crist moved and Jim Shearer seconded to approve the minutes
as presented. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
a bed and breakfast operation on Lot 7B Vail Villa e 10
ilin 930 B. Fairway Drive.
Applicant: Paul and Nallicy Rondeau
Betsy Rosolack explained the request and stated that the Rondeaus
met all the required conditions for a bed and breakfast. Connie
Knight moved and Dalton Williams seconded to approve the request.
The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
3. A re est for front and side and setback variances to allow
or a ara a on Lot 10 Block 4 Lionsrid e Filin No. 4•
1464 As en a ne.
A licant: WWI
The applicant asked to table this item until212 /10•Votethy Warren
moved and Chuck Crist seconded t o
4. recruest for two setback varT a, ces Rorc�tthe .Villaae_g tof
Kristan Pritz explained that at the previous PEC meeting, the
motion had been to approve the setback variance requests subject
to staff recommended condition. Prior to the vote Kirk Akers,
the applicant's architect, asked that the request be tabled to
allow him an opportunity to confer with his client regarding the
staff recommended condition of approval. Since that time staff
1
•
•
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 26, 1990
SUBJECT: A request for a front yard and side yard setback
variance to allow for a detached garage on Lot 10,
Block 4, Lions Ridge Filing No. 4; 1464 Aspen Grove
Lane.
Applicant: Carrol P. Orrison
I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST-ED
On November 12, 1990 Carrol Orrison requested a front yard
setback variance form the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) to allow construction of a detached garage
southwest of the existing single - family house at 1464 Aspen
Grove Lane. Staff recommended denial, finding that there
were several problems with the proposal. Planning and
Environmental Commission expressed concern, tabled the item,
and requested the applicant look at alternatives. The
primary concern of the Commission was the visibility of the
driveway to the valley and the amount of fill necessary to
build the driveway. In addition, staff concerns included
the slope of the driveway, the slope of the fill around the
driveway, and the amount of asphalt required for paving.
The attached plans show that the applicant has revised the
proposal and has now located the garage behind the house.
it is the same size as the previous proposal and it is still
detached. The applicant is requesting a variance to the
side and front yard setback standards to allow a one foot
front yard and a one foot side yard setback.
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Zoning:
Lot Area:
Site Coverage:
Single Family Residential
17,075.5 sq. ft.
Allowed:
Existing
Proposed:
Height (garage only):
Allowed:
Proposed:
1
3415.1 sq. ft.
1786.1 sq. ft.
2362.6 sq. ft.
30.0 ft.
10.0 ft.
(20 percent)
(10.5 percent)
(13.8 percent)
I
•
Setbacks (garage only):
* Front
- Required:
20
ft.
Proposed:
1
ft.
Rear -
Required:
15
ft.
Proposed:
Side (south) -
Required:
15
ft.
Proposed:
98
ft.
*Side (north) -
Required:
15
ft.
Proposed:
1
ft.
*Area of setback variance request.
II2. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community
Development recommends approval of the requested variance
based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other
.vicinity. or otential uses and structures in the
vicinity•
Staff was primarily concerned about the visibility of
the previous proposal from the valley. The new
location guarantees that the garage will not be visible
below. Staff believes that the revised proposal is a
better site plan. The slope of the driveway is
reasonable; there will be no cut or fill, and there is
a significant reduction in the amount of asphalt.
One drawback to this proposal, regarding the
relationship to other structures in the vicinity, is
that it will be built with a one foot setback from Lot
9. Staff believes this is reasonable because this part
of Lot 9 is only a "flag pole" of the lot. In the
future, the most development at this location will be a
driveway. The proposed garage will not impact more
important areas of the lot, like a neighbor's privacy,
views, or yard area. In addition, the current owner of
Lot 9 is the owner of Lot 10 and is the applicant
the variance. As a result, the one negative aspect
will only impact the applicant.
There are a dozen aspens located north of the house
which will be removed with this proposal. Staff
2
believes that what is gained by moving the garage to a
• less visible location is better than what is lost by
removing the trees. Staff does recommend that the
applicant replace one -half of the trees to buffer the
construction from the neighborhood.
2.
uniformity of treatment among s1LP5 111 41iG �y�+1•1i�
to attain the ob`ectives of this title without rant of
s ecial Priyi1eme.
Staff believes that the revised proposal deserves
relief from the strict interpretation of the setback
regulation. The reason a variance is justifiable in
this instance is because of the location of the
existing house and the slope of the lot. These
constraints require that a garage be located in the
front yard setback to the north or to the west of the
home. From the previous proposal., it is evident that
the impacts from construction on the slope are much
greater than the impacts from building at the location
of the current proposal. Because of the reduction in
impacts, staff believes that this proposal provides the
best compatibility among structures in the vicinity.
N3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air
distribution of Population, trans ortation and traffic
facilities ublic facilities and utilities and public
safety.
The applicant has located the current proposal within
one foot of the side property line. As a result, the
building code stipulates that no openings are allowed
for the northeast walls of the garage. In addition,
these walls must be constructed to a 1 hour fire wall
standard for any portion of the structure within 3 feet
of the side property line. This requirement should not
create any design problems for the applicant.
IV. FINDINGS
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
3
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.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this request as it meets the
criteria and findings for a variance. Regarding A, this
• request would not be a grant of special privilege given the
hardships that the existing building location creates and
the slope of the site. Regarding B, there are no life
safety problems, considering the standards of the Uniform
Building Code that apply to structures built within three
feet of the property line. Lastly, C1 and C2 are met as the
hardships of the slope and house location result in a
practical difficulty as well as an extraordinary
circumstance which justify a variance approval.
Staff believes that the public comment given during the
initial review and the applicant's effort to consider
alternatives have resulted in a significantly improved site
plan. We appreciate the applicant's efforts to work with
the PEC, DRB and Staff. We recommend approval of this
proposal as the impacts from it are much less than the
proposal the Commission previously reviewed with two
conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the garage, the
applicant shall replace half of the twelve existing
aspen trees with new aspen trees or transplant them in
locations around the new construction.
2. The Planning and Environmental Commission recommends
• that the Design Review Board, after evaluating the
proposal, require that the applicant put a sloped roof
on the top of the garage.
4
. • ,
•
wiNi� �M TD
P"ss
WCOP - amwd:1'm
"AYcO STYE 0
GawR of SAM
}400e -t
1 it.s3�.5
ErAxA+SE�'ocoR (L11'ES o�ncwlAL1
SOtJTHW�S•7 �LEVA7btJ
L To
NM'tiG }r KIST lNL7 �'i011�c
�x.RS
NvRTI+WEST AOP N0V114C -ASr '6I.eVA-rlvta
su4s: �'• E' o
SvUTWSASr ELEVI�T101�1
"L8• �p•
. ORRISON RE3IC�ENCE GARAGE
LOT 10, BLOCK 21 LIONS RIDGE FILING 4
TOWN OF VAIL 11/15/90
SULLIVAN .ANa WC?OM CONSTRUCTION• INC.
r1
U
L dr a
i
r .t�
• K�
K^
� y
�4\N ♦ Z1T
v
of
. uNE�rrouR
d
J /
AS �VAII.
sit roaN O� i
Lo-r kl No s
NoKTFk � %i.
•
SF rE51
L o-T q
45,K^VIr%l r %0 rte ,�
5c AL.S � I *- 101
t4o•mv: EXIS-TtNE,`ToT-v6r-A"te-
vA°TA pRoH C-A6?LG `/A'i£Y
SuRVvi1Lh, =►+c. y -,9 -e4 C6uRJ�YS�+.t�p } 7 -S•ao)
•
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
November 26, 1990
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Jim Shearer
Kathy Warren
Dalton Williams
Absent
Ludwig Kurz
Staff
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Jill Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Betsy Rosolack
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Diana Donovan,
Chairperson.
1. Approval of minutes from the October 22 1990 meeting,
Chuck Crist moved and Jim Shearer seconded to approve the minutes
as presented. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
2. A request for a conditional use permit in order to establish
a bed and breakfast operation on Lot 7B Vail Village 10th
Filing, 930 B. Fairway Drive.
Applicant:- Paul and Nancy Rondeau
Betsy Rosolack explained the request and stated that the Rondeaus
met all the required conditions for a bed and breakfast. Connie
Knight moved and Dalton Williams seconded to approve the request.
The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
3. A reggest for front and side Yard setback variances to allow
for a garage on Lot 10 Block 4 Lionsrid a Filing No. 4•
1464 As en Grove Lane.
Applicant: Carrol P. Orrison
The applicant asked to table this item until 12/10. Kathy Warren
moved and Chuck Crist seconded to table to 12/10. Vote was 6 -0.
4. A reMlest for two setback variances for the Village Center
Condominiums, located at 124 Willow Bridge Road, ._a part of
.. t 7 n _ — , 1 —1 r.% * 7 . — —
Kristan Pritz explained that at the previous PEC meeting, the
motion had been to approve the setback variance requests subject
to staff recommended condition. Prior to the vote Kirk Akers,
the applicant's architect, asked that the request be tabled to
allow him an opportunity to confer with his client regarding the
staff recommended condition of approval. Since that time staff
1
discussed the appropriateness of the condition of approval with
Larry Eskwith, the town attorney. Larry felt the staff's
condition of approval was inappropriate, therefore staff was
recommending approval of the setback variances without
conditions. After discussion, Kathy Warren moved and Chuck Crist
seconded to approve the setback variance per the staff memo with
findings A, B, and C.1, C.2 and C.3 excluding the condition of
approval related to the streamwalk and pocket park. The vote was
6 -0 in favor.
5.
Betsy Rosolack explained that the Marriott wished to place two 6-
foot in diameter on their roof in the southwestern corner of the
Marriott building. Lynn Johnson of Tri- County Cablevision then
stated that since the dishes were painted to match the building,
he hoped a screening fence would not be necessary, but was
willing to place a fence later if the Town felt it was necessary.
He also explained that a mesh fence was not being proposed
because it caught snow and because the quality of the mesh dishes
was not as good as the solid dishes.
Connie Knight moved and Kat
variances per the findings
whether or not a fence was
Board. The vote was 6 -0 in
6.
by Warren seconded to approve the
in the staff memo with the decision of
needed to be made by the Design Review
favor.
Mike Mollica and Andy Knudtsen explained the requested SDD. Mike
outlined 6 variations to the Public Accommodation zone district
that would be part of the proposed SDD. The six were:
1. A 24 percent density increase
•
•
2. A height variance allowing 81 feet where 48 feet is the F
maximum height r
3. Setbacks (on all four aides)
4. A reduction in the number of loading berths required;
(1 is proposed, 3 are required)
2
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
• FROM: Community Development Department
•
DATE: November 12, 1990
RE: A request for an exterior alteration and two side
setback variances in order to construct a new exterior
stair and install an elevator on Building C and to
upgrade an existing open stair on Build D for Village
Center Condominiums, 124 Willow Bridge Road, A part of
Tract C and Lot K, Block 5 -E, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Village Center Condominium Assoc. and
Village Center Commercial Assoc.
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicants are requesting approval of an exterior
alteration and two side setback variances for the Village
Center Condominiums. These approvals are necessary in order
to allow the construction of a new exterior stair and the
installation of an elevator for Building C and to upgrade an
existing open stair on Building D. In addition to these
improvements the applicant will be upgrading the site's
landscaping.
Building C-- Building C is the western most condominium
building and is located adjacent to the east side of Willow
Bridge Road. Currently this 5 -story structure does not
contain an elevator. The applicant proposes to change an
existing interior stairway core to an elevator core with a
ground floor entrance vestibule. The interior staircase
would be replaced with an exterior staircase which would be
located adjacent to and east of the elevator core. The new
exterior staircase will be 7' -9" wide. In addition to these
stair /elevator alterations, the applicant will be modifying
the walk to the vestibule and the landscaped area adjacent
to the walk. In order to accomplish this construction, two
large aspen trees will need to be removed. The applicant's
representative has indicated he will commit to relocating
these trees within the same general vicinity.
Under CCII zoning, the required front side and rear setbacks
are 10 feet. At this location the structure is 3 ft. from
the property line. The new stairway /elevator will encroach
no further into the side setback then the 7 feet the
existing structure encroaches. There will be no expansion
of the building footprint (site coverage). The additional
encroachment resulting from the installation of an awning to
mark the elevator vestibule entrance will be 2' -0" which is
the same as the roof overhang encroachment. A 9 foot side
setback variance is required at this location. The
resulting side setback will be 1' -0 11.
1
• The proposed alteration will not impact allowable GRFA
because the interior space to be modified is already in a
common area use and will remain in a common area use.
Building B--Building B is located immediately east of and
adjacent to Building C. The applicant proposes to modify
the entrance to this structure through the removal and
replacement of an existing exterior stair and the complete
removal of a second exterior stair. The existing exterior
stair to be replaced is currently constructed in part on
Village Center Commercial Association owned property. UCCA
has agreed to allow the stair demolition /rebuild to occur as
proposed on the property. The existing situation, where the
stair case is built on an adjacent property owners parcel,
results in a zero side setback.
Building A -- Improvements to the entrance of building A are
also proposed at this time, however, no variances are
required for these changes.
As a part of improving the visibility, accessibility and
appearance of the building entrances, the applicant proposes
to apply a stone veneer around the doorways and to add
awnings. The stone will match the stone used in planter
construction on the site.
• The applicant will also be undertaking a major relandscaping
of the area between the north side of these buildings and
the commercial structure to the north.
•
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this
exterior alteration request:
1. Zone District: Commercial Core II
2. Lot Area: 0.698 acres or 30,413 sq. ft.
3. Site Coverage: No Change.
4. Parking: The parking requirement does not increase
since no new GRFA is being added.
2
III. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL
First, the Urban Design Considerations express large scale,
land use planning and design considerations. SEcondly,
architectural /landscape considerations establish the
criteria for evaluating detailed design considerations. The
Design Review Board will review architectural /landscape
considerations. The Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan does
not address the Village Center area. Third, the variance
criteria are also part of the review criteria because of the
setback encroachments. Finally, the Vail Village Master
Plan addresses specific goals pertaining to the enhancement
of the walking experience throughout the Village that must
be considered in this application.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE II
The purpose of CCII is defined in the Vail Municipal Code as
follows:
18.26.010 Purpose:
"The Commercial Core 11 District is intended to provide
sites for 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 buildings and uses and to
maintain the desirable qualities of the district by
establishing appropriate site development standards."
This request complies with the purpose of CCII as it is an
expansion to a mixed --use building complex which includes
multiple dwellings and a commercial establishment.
V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR
LIONSHEAD CCII ZONING.
The following design considerations for Lionshead relate to
the proposal. Lionshead considerations are cited as the
project is zoned CCII. These considerations include the
following:
Accent Elements:
All materials to be used in construction will match existing
building materials.
0 3
Landscalpe Elements:
. The upgrading of the existing landscaping will greatly
enhance the pedestrian experience and the visual appearance
of this area.
The proposed exterior alteration will have no impact on
pedestrian traffic flow, building height and massing, roofs,
facades - transparency, walls /structures, decks and patios, or
service and delivery.
VI. VARIANCE CRITERIA
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 side
setback variances based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationshig of the requested variance to
other existing or potential uses and structures in
the vicinity.
As the requested variances will cause no further
encroachment into setbacks, the relationship to
other existing or potential uses and structures in
the vicinity remain the same. The requested
variances and new exterior finishes and awnings
will improve the visual appearance of the
buildings. To this end, existing structures and
uses in the vicinity benefit from the requests.
Other than the physical appearance benefit, the
variance requests will have no impact on
structures and uses in the vicinity.
2.
•
specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among
sites in the vicinity or to attain the ob'ectives
of this title without grant of special Rrivilege.
As a result of previous subdivisions of this
property, the applicant is faced with a hardship
in that the building is within 181" of the property
line. The requested setback variances will cause
no further encroachment into these setbacks then
currently exists. There will be no special
privilege as the condition currently exists.
4
3. The-effect of the reauested variance on light and
. air, distribution of population, transportation
and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety_
There will be no effect on light and air
distribution of population, transportation,
traffic facilities, public safety or utilities.
•
VII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN SUB - AREAS.
Sub -area No. 1 -9 Study Area: Villacre Stream Walk states:
"Study of a walking only path along Gore Creek between
the Covered Bridge and Vail Road, connecting to
existing stream walk, further enhancing the pedestrian
network throughout the Village and providing public
access to the creek. Specific design and location of
walkway shall be sensitive to adjacent uses and the
creek environment. (Reference the Vail Recreational
Trails Plan for additional information on this trail)."
Sub -area No. 1 -12 Village Pocket Parks states:
"Located on Gore Creek, these small parks provide
public access to the creek, passive recreational
opportunities, and locations for public art."
Staff recommends that as a condition of approval of the
setback variance and the proposed exterior alteration, the
applicants commit to not object to the Town of Vail
installing the stream walk adjacent to the condominium
buildings, on Town of Vail owned land, nor to the creation
of a pocket park adjacent to the site at the intersection of
Gore Creek and Willow Bridge Road.
With the possibility of redevelopment of the Sonnenalp, an
opportunity exists to make a significant positive impact on
the pedestrian experience in the Village through the
installation of the Village Stream Walk. Installation of
the walk adjacent to these two properties would create a
linkage between Vail Road and Bridge Street.
Although the Vail Village Master Plan clearly states in
Policy 3.4.2: "Private development projecrs 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 ", because of the minor
scale of the exterior alteration proposal, staff felt it was
inappropriate to ask the applicants to install the stream
walk (1 -9) or a pocket park (1 -12).
5
VIII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN GOALS
49 The following goals, objectives and policies which are
identified in the Vail Village Master Plan are applicable to
the Village Center Condominium alterations:
GOAL #2 TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE
YEAR - AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE
VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
2.1 Objective:
Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10
sub -areas throughout the Village and allow for
development that is compatible with these
established land use patterns.
2.5
Objective:_
Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and
maintenance of existing lodging and commercial
facilities to better serve the needs of our
guests.
2.5.1
Policy:
Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting
facilities and other amenities shall be
preserved and enhances as a part of any
redevelopment of lodging properties.
2.5.2
Policir:
The Town will use the maximum flexibility
possible in the interpretation of building
and fire codes in order to facilitate
building renovations without compromising
life, health and safety considerations.
GOAL #3:
TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCEMENT OF
T
THE WALING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE.
•
3.1 Objective:
Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other improvements.
3.4 Objective:
Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian --only
walkways and accessible green space areas,
including pocket parks and stream access.
3.4.1 Policy
Physical improvements to property adjacent to
stream tracts shall not further restrict
public access.
n
IX. VARIANCE 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.
•
X. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of this exterior alteration and
these setback variance requests subject to the following
condition:
1. Village Center Condominium Association and the Village
Center Commercial Association shall not remonstrate
against the construction of a stream walk or the
construction of a pocket park at the northeast
intersection of Willow Bridge Road and Gore Creek by
the Town of Vail, on Town of Vail property.
7
•
0
•
In staff's analysis, we believe that the alteration meets
the review criteria. It complies with the Goals,
objectives, Policies and Action Steps of the Vail Village
Master Plan and would also comply with the Master Plan's
Vail Village Sub -Area concept if the condition of approval
is adopted. Further approval of the side setback variances
is not a grant of special privilege and is warranted due to
the fact that strict and literal interpretation or
enforcement of the setback requirements would result in an
unnecessary physical hardship. The findings supporting this
proposal include findings A, B, and C(1).
8
•• _ .' p W
",�"1 .G- fnLLy�.� ✓� r.- �-a4'. � 4 i _� , i`?, jtt� i )ii!
`� A ,, , ✓ w A tars
,ia9 T - _w 4y .r: "`a' �`r?'' s ti" r i 3. i rf" 1 �•J
'�,x.
4J J 1
eo
s r tit f aj
•� .sY. r 1L -� �T- s�F�.i� ' �" �;• q'r+p,a.�li n�i ��J Nt 1` � � ; � ``
r iK
till
.^[;,A� k yC -}:' i ' 'Yi �' S • - ``! - y'"a ?mss u�.:t•�'i''' rear"` -� _ i q�yg
� : �' „ y'• t � ir' i
•�; � ��L�, 1 � � f ;� , � - � ��� � � �a � X01 °li �
s�iiAS
Aar 1
KiroTV0 • q�3 a
_ WILLOW BRIDGE ROAD (50'� NUN.
� T- __- ��-- r- r -�- - -- rt
l <
1
_,
� T- __- ��-- r- r -�- - -- rt
I*
or
-P,
I*
4
1�
9
9
au f►
I
� t
o
u
At
0
REMODEL
iniums
0
•
C,
10
I*
J
discussed the appropriateness of the condition of approval with
is Larry Eskwith, the town attorney. Larry felt the staff's
condition of approval was inappropriate, therefore staff was
recommending approval of the setback variances without
conditions. After discussion, Kathy Warren moved and Chuck Crist
seconded to approve the setback variance per the staff memo with
findings A, B, and C.1, C.2 and C.3 excluding the condition of
approval related to the streamwalk and pocket park. The vote was
6 -0 in favor.
0
•
5.
order allow for the installation of two satellite dish
. _ -__1 _-i - -l- V3 ----4- T.n +- c d
Betsy Rosolack explained that the Marriott wished to place two 6-
foot in diameter on their roof in the southwestern corner of the
Marriott building. Lynn Johnson of Tri- County Cablevision then
stated that since the dishes were painted to match the building,
he hoped a screening fence would not be necessary, but was
willing to place a fence later if the Town felt it was necessary.
He also explained that a mesh fence was not being proposed
because it caught snow and because the quality of the mesh dishes
was not as good as the solid dishes.
Connie Knight
variances per
whether or no
moved and Kat
the findings
t a fence was
Board. The vote was 6 -0 in
6.
by warren seconded to approve the
in the staff memo with the decision of
needed to be made by the Design Review
favor.
Mike Mollica and Andy Knudtsen explained the requested SDD. Mike
outlined 6 variations to the Public Accommodation zone district
that would be part of the proposed SDD. The six were:
1. A 24 percent density increase
2. A height variance allowing 81 feet where 48 feet is the
maximum height
3. Setbacks (on all four sides)
4. A reduction in the number of loading berths required;
(1 is proposed, 3 are required)
F
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
November 26, 1990
present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Jim Shearer
Kathy Warren
Dalton Williams
Absent
Ludwig Kurz
S a
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Jill Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Betsy Rosoiack
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Diana Donovan,
Chairperson.
1. rov 1 of Minutes from the October 22, 1990 meeting.
Chuck Crist moved and Jim Shearer seconded to approve the minutes
as presented. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
2. A reguest or a co t'o al use perMit in grder tg estgblish
w Lw 7 ---2 -- • - _
Applicant: Paul and Nancy Rondeau
Betsy Rosolack explained the request and stated that the Rondeaus
met all the required conditions for a bed and breakfast. Connie
Knight moved and Dalton Williams seconded to approve the request.
The vote was 6--0 in favor.
3.
.1464 As en Grove Lane.
Applicant: CarrolP. Orrison
The applicant asked to table this item until 12/10. Kathy Warren
moved and Chuck Crist seconded to table to 12/10. Vote was 6--0,
4. reqUest for two setback variances for the Yillage Center
Kristan Pritz explained that at the previous PEC meeting, the
motion had been to approve the setback variance requests subject
to staff recommended condition. Prior to the vote Kirk Akers,
the applicant's architect, asked that the request be tabled to
allow him an opportunity to confer with his client regarding the
staff recommended condition of approval. Since that time staff
is
1 0
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 26, 1990
RE: A request for a height variance and a variance to the
number of satellite dishes permitted in order to allow
for the installation of two satellite dish antennas on
the roof of the Marriott Mark Resort, Lots 4 and 7,
Block 1 Vail /Lionshead Third Filing, Lots C and D
Morcus Subdivision, located at 715 Lionshead Circle.
Applicant: Marriott Mark Resort /Tri- County Cablevision
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant is requesting to place two satellite dishes on
the southwest corner of the Marriott Mark roof. Each dish
measures 6 feet in diameter and with supporting structures,
will be 8 feet above the roof. The purpose of these
satellite dishes is to provide an alternate cable service to
the Marriott.
The total height of each dish would be approximately 8 feet
• with support members. Mesh dishes are not proposed. The
roof is approximately 65 feet above grade at the dish
location, with the top of the dishes having a height of
approximately 73 feet above grade. The Marriott roof
extends to 85 feet at the highest point. The dishes are
proposed to be painted brown to match the color of the
building. A fence painted the same color will be placed on
the south and west sides. The fencing will be at least 6
feet high, and possible 8 feet high. Some relief from the
6 foot regulation for fences should be given if needed to
allow for adequate screening. Section 18.58.020, Fences,
Hedges, Walls and Screenings states
"Fences... shall not exceed six feet in height on any
other portion of a site, provided that higher fences,
hedges, walls, or landscaping screens may be authorized
by the zoning administrator where necessary to screen
public utility equipment..."
The requested variance for height is from Section 18.58.320
(D,3) which states:
"The maximum
antenna, whe
dish antenna
whichever is
•feet."
height allowed for any satellite dish
a measured from the top of the satellite
down to existing or finished grade,
more restrictive, shall not exceed fifteen
1
0
•
0
The applicant is also requesting a variance from the number
of satellite dishes allowed. Section 18.58.320 (D,1)
states:
"No more than one satellite dish antenna shall be
allowed on any lot as delineated on the official Town
of Vail zoning map."
Although the applicant is requesting to place two 6 -foot
satellite antennas, he states that one 12 -foot antenna would
also work.
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 approval of the requested variances
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.
Height Variance
The dishes will be 8 feet higher than a portion of
the Marriott roof, but will not exceed the highest
point (85 feet) of the Marriott. These dishes
will extend above the roof parapet 6 feet. The
dishes will be completely screened from view on
the east and the north and will be screened with
fencing painted to match the brown of the building
on the south and east. Each dish will also be
painted to match the building.
The staff looked at placing the dishes at ground
level. It was felt the dishes would be more
visible at grade and, in addition, the dishes
would impact the landscaped area.
Variance to Number of Dishes Allowed
Lynn.Johnson, engineer for Tri- County Cablevision,
states that the Marriott is attempting to reach
two satellites. One satellite transmits the
Denver TV stations, and one transmits stations
only available on cable. Mr. Johnson states that
one 12 foot dish would accomplish what is achieved
with two 6 -foot dishes. However, a 12 foot dish
would extend 6 feet higher than the 6 --foot dishes
IDand would be more visible.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among
sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives
of this title without grant of s ecial privilege,
Height Variance
If these dishes were ground mounted, they could
meet the Town's criteria for satellite dish
height. However, the proposed rooftop
installation minimizes impacts on neighbors by
allowing for screening on the south and east and
because of the height and area of the proposed
location. Each dish would be placed approximately
20 feet back from the edge of the roof. Though
rooftop installations are not always desirable for
satellite dishes, occasionally this approach
provides the optimum method for screening of the
dishes. This option has been approved in the past
if impacts on adjacent properties are decreased.
. Relief from the strict height requirements is
warranted to minimize the visual impacts on
adjacent properties.
Variance to Number of Dishes
The staff feels that in this rooftop location, two
6 foot dishes are preferable to one 12 foot dish
because they will be less visible. Adding 6 more
feet of dish would require higher fencing and make
the dishes more visible, especially to the
neighbors living on Forest Road. For this reason,
relief from the limit of number of dishes is
warranted.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and
air, distribution of population transportation
and traffic facilities ublic facilities and
utilities and public safet .
III. FINDINGS
•
There is no impact on this criteria.
3
A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a
ID 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.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
•
The staff recommends approval of the two requests. Staff
feels that using two dishes instead of one, thereby reducing
the overall height of the dish, is desirable. Staff has
examined the property and feels this is aesthetically the
best location for the site.
We feel that the granting of the variances will not
constitute a grant of special privilege, because the
Planning and Environmental commission has granted height
variances for satellites to others, including the Lodge at
Vail, the Sonnenalp, and the Gasthof Gramshammer when
impacts on adjacent properties can be decreased.
The granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity. Staff feels
that the variances are warranted because the strict and
literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the
same district.
4
•
r-I
Tri- County Cabtevision Inc.
Pi� Eagle Summit
Dear Planner,
This letter is to clarify the attached application for a
satellite dish antenna installation. I think you will find that
the installation will be very simple and that it will have almost
no impact on the property or adjacent properties. This
application is to install two very small (6') satellite antennas
on the roof of the Mariott Mark Resort. These dishes are to
provide an altern,7.te cable service for the Mariott. As you know,
competition in Cable TV is greatly needed in the Vail Valley. The
location of the dishes will be in the extreme Southwest corner of
the building facing the parking garage and mountain. This
location is ideal in that it is sheltered from view on the East
and North by the building itself. The dishes are smaller than
normal and will be painted to match the building. (See the color
sample.) The dishes will blend in with the building and be almost
unoticeable. After reviewing the Satellite Ordinance fully I feel
that we need variances for the height (more than 15' because of
the roof installation although the dishes will only be 8' above
the roof) and a variance for more than one antenna because we
need two. The installation could be done with one 15' antenna but
we feel that two 6' antennas will not only be superior in
aesthetics but also for engineering considerations. Please review
this application and let me know if further information is
needed.
I
lot Yours Sincerely,
• 1�'� y oh on, President.
� +
240 So. Pecos Denver CO 80223 (3031-698-9283
1
T OR, \ \\
MIN*=
.s MR w �• �y i' --
�• ; e� L+O
f
- ...�^ ��' _ ICI'_.. � • � � �� -.A ��.�� .i
i ' - -' /'r4 tiY4 � �'M �qrk' •w"r i t �. 4 r ✓%' ''
� _ ., .. rlf}4 .!. _G, y,�x.w.�.. �{i'�yy�„'3YFf •�` -,.
,r
db
+t}
Xth
Nei
i
will
a► -
0
discussed the appropriateness of the condition of approval with
, Larry Eskwith, the town attorney. Larry felt the staff's
condition of approval was inappropriate, therefore staff was
recommending approval of the setback variances without
conditions. After discussion, Kathy Warren moved and Chuck Crist
seconded to approve the setback variance per the staff memo with
findings A, B, and C.1, C.2 and C.3 excluding the condition of
approval related to the streamwalk and pocket park. The vote was
6 -0 in favor.
5, A reolest. for a height variance and a variance and a
Betsy Rosolack explained that the Marriott wished to place two 6-
foot in diameter on their roof in the southwestern corner of the
Marriott building. Lynn Johnson of Tri- County Cablevision then
stated that since the dishes were painted to match the building,
he hoped a screening fence would not be necessary, but was
willing to place a fence later if the Town felt it was necessary.
He also explained that a mesh fence was not being proposed
because it caught snow and because the quality of the mesh dishes
. was not as good as the solid dishes.
Connie Knight moved and Kathy Warren seconded to approve the
variances per the findings in the staff memo with the decision of
whether or not a fence was needed to be made by the Design Review
Board. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
6. A re guest to establish a Special Development District for
the aonnenaly redevelopment located at 20 Vail Road• a art
Mike Mollica and Andy Knudtsen explained the requested SDD. Mike
outlined 6 variations to the Public Accommodation zone district
that would be part of the proposed SDD. The six were:
1. A 24 percent density increase
2. A height variance allowing 81 feet where 48 feet is the
maximum height
3. Setbacks (on all four sides)
4. A reduction in the number of loading berths required;
(1 is proposed, 3 are required)
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
November 26, 1990
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Jim Shearer
Kathy Warren
Dalton Williams
Absel2t
Ludwig Kurz
Staf
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Jill Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Betsy Rosolack
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Diana Donovan,
Chairperson.
1. Approval of minutes from _t October 22, 1990 meeting.
Chuck Crist moved and Jim Shearer seconded to approve the minutes
as presented. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
2. Arequest for a coDditional.., use p_erm,it in order to establish
Applicant: Paul. and Nancy Rond,eau
Betsy Rosolack explained the request and stated that the Rondeaus
met all the required conditions for a bed and breakfast. Connie
Knight moved and Dalton Williams seconded to approve the request.
The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
3.
1464 s en Grove -Lan p,.
Agpl_ipant: Carrol P. orrison
The applicant asked to table this item until 12/10. Kathy Warren
moved and Chuck Crist seconded to table to 12/10. Vote was 6 -0.
4.
Kristan Pritz explained that at the previous PEC meeting, the
motion had been to approve the setback variance requests subject
to staff recommended condition. Prior to the vote Kirk Akers,
the applicant's architect, asked that the request be tabled to
allow him an opportunity to confer with his client regarding the
staff recommended condition of approval. Since that time staff
•
:7
1 0
5. An increase in the amount of accessory hotel floor area
(23% of the GRFA where 10% is allowed)
. 6. An increase in the amount of common area (85% of the
GRFA where 20% is allowed)
Mike then reviewed the memo, stating that the SDD would use the
existing Public Accommodation Zone as the underlying zoning. The
number of accommodation units would be increased from 72 to 124,
and 10 existing dwelling units would be eliminated. All units
would be maintained as lodge units, and all fireplaces would be
gas burning with the exception of the existing 4 wood - burning
fireplaces. Also added would be 4,000 square feet of conference
space for a total of 7,930 square feet of conference space.
The building heights would be 51 -81 feet on the west side, 49 -57
feet on the north side, 52 feet on the east side and 24 feet on
the south.
The proposed site amenities would include a pedestrian walkway
over Gore Creek. This would be attached to the existing Vail
Road bridge. A pocket park would be constructed south of the
Swiss Chalet, adjacent to Willow Bridge Road. (This property is
owned by Vail Associates who had not agreed to have a pocket park
at this location at this time.) A sidewalk would be constructed
along the east side of Vail Road and planters and sidewalks would
be constructed along East Meadow Drive. Landscaping would also
be included along the north and west elevations. Mike showed
these improvements on a site plan.
An underground parking garage would be constructed with 185
spaces and the existing surface parking lot would be removed.
The restaurant and lounge areas would be expanded to 6657 square
feet, and new retail would consist of 5,760 square feet.
Mike then reviewed the zoning analysis on page 3 of the staff
memo and referred also to Exhibit B.
Andy Knudtsen summarized the SDD criteria. He stated that the
staff was concerned about the excessive heights. They also felt
that the formal, unbroken facade along Meadow Drive was a
significant deviation from the character of the Village, and that
the overall building mass was too large in relation to the site.
Concerns were also expressed about the west setback
encroachments, shade impacts, lack of loading, Talisman access,
lack of Fire Dept. approval, Vail road alignment, lack of
streamwalk, location of the swimming pool and construction road
along the creek.
Mike then discussed the Vail Village Master Plan with relation.to
the proposal. He stated that of the 5 applicable sub -area goals,
3
•
1K
only 1 was being met, that of the pedestrian connection along
Vail Road. Mike felt that the sun /shade analysis was not .
accurate. He added that the mass and unbroken roof line
contributed to excess shading on East Meadow Drive. Among other
concerns was the fact that the Fire Department had not approved
the access to the Talisman. Mike added that the streamwalk was
an extremely important issue and felt that the applicant should
incorporate it into the site plan.
Andy reviewed the EIR analysis concerning hydrologic conditions,
atmospheric conditions, visual conditions, land use conditions,
circulation and transportation conditions, population
characteristics, and phasing.
Andy recommended that this be a work session, so that additional
time could be provided for the board to study the proposal.
Kristan stated that Rev. Don Simonton from the Vail Interfaith
Chapel had mentioned their concern about construction impacts on
their activities particularly on the weekend when they have many
weddings and worship services.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that it was
implied that the applicant had not worked with the staff, but in
fact, the applicant had worked long and hard with the staff
before coming back with the present proposal. Jay admitted that
the proposed building was large and that major issues, such as
height and bulk needed resolution. He stated that the Urban
Design Guide Plan called for an infill in this area, but that the
proposal was not just an infill.
Jay pointed out that the design of a hotel had less flexibility
because rooms must be the same size to have unified interiors.
The parking structure also drove the design. Regarding employee
housing, Jay felt the requirement was not correct, for many of
the employees worked at other Sonnenalp properties. He did not
feel additional housing should have to be purchased. Kristan
Pritz felt the requirement was a fair one and pointed out that
the staff would be willing to look at employee demand generated
solely by the Bavarian Haus, however, that requested information
had not been given to the staff at present.
Gordon Pierce, architect for the property, explained his reasons
for the design of the project. He stated that Jeff Winston
supported the height on the corner, but did want an indentation
along Meadow Drive. He felt that the building on East Meadow
Drive had a definite relation to the eave lines of the VVI.
Regarding the sun /shade study, he felt that if it was inaccurate,
it was not very inaccurate. He stated that noon on December 21st
was the worst possible time. Gordon felt that any building would
cast a shadow on East Meadow Drive. He added that the Sonnenalp
4 0
•
•
building would have heated sidewalks. Gordon pointed out that
the Mountain Haus was much higher and had sheets of ice many
days. He then showed slides of other buildings in Vail to show
the simplicity of hotel design.
Jay then stated that 40% of the common area was underground. He
pointed out that the Vvi had 100,000 square feet of GRFA and
50,000 square feet of retail, while the Sonnenalp has less than
5,000 square feet of retail. He felt that the required maximum
of 20% common space was very outdated.
Kristan replied that retail was not included in common space.
She also stated that when all the various uses were added
together, it was strongly felt by staff that the building was too
large for the site.
Amos Kaminsky, president of the Talisman Condominiums, stated
that he had been working with the Faesslers for several months
and Johannes had offered to allow the Talisman residents to enter
the underground parking from Vail Road. He felt comfortable with
what was proposed by the Sonnenalp.
Kristan asked about the access easement at E. Meadow Drive along
the pedestrian mall and Amos replied that the Talisman would give
up their access easement under the new proposal, and would enter
through the fire access gate east of the bus control gate. Amos
added that the ramp was being narrowed and made less obvious. He
stated that if the Talisman did not build a garage, they would
move the access easement to the fire exit. Dalton asked where
the Talisman garage would be, and Amos replied that it would be
partially under the ramp. The plan was to build the Talisman
garage at the same time that the Sonnenalp garage was being
constructed. Amos added that at present there was no written
agreement, only a verbal one.
Paul Rondeau, from the audience was concerned about the height of
the tower at the west elevation.
Rick Rosen, legal counsel for the condominium owners in the First
Bank building to the west, stated that these owners had concerns
about the traffic and the height of the Bully part of the
building, but were not against the project.
Rick Rosen then spoke as legal counsel for the Villa Cortina
condo owners, and said they were opposed to the project. They
were concerned about the height of the tower blocking the view of
the Gore Range from the condos (the ground floor condos do not
have a view at present). They were very concerned about the fact
that Meadow Drive would seem to be like a tunnel. They felt that
they would feel closed in. They were concerned about traffic,
shading, and the fact that the construction of the project would
impact businesses for 18 to 24 months. They did feel that the
hotel appeared to be a good project.
5
IL.
Eric Affeldt, a retail tenant at the VVI across Meadow Drive, •
thanked the -PEC and the staff for their work and stated that it
was easy for them to lose the broad picture. He said that when
he was on the Council, the Council spent a lot of time
establishing the Goals and study areas for the Vail Village
Master Plan. Affeldt felt that the SDD did not depart far from
the PA zone district. He felt that over the years the Town had
emphasized the need for quality and for additional hotel rooms in
the core. He felt this would be a benefit in the long run. He
supported the project.
Hermann Staufer, another former Council member, also felt that
the project would be a good one, and was one of quality.
Dalton Williams felt that he would like to have more time to
study the information about the project before being asked to
vote on it. He felt the swimming pool should be moved back
within the setbacks to allow for the future streamwalk and was
concerned about servicing the shops along Meadow Drive. He felt
that there would probably be 4 UPS trucks per day serving the
retail shops. Jay replied that the auto court was designed for
trucks of UPS size. Dalton was concerned that on busy days the
guests and trucks would conflict. Gordon Pierce answered that
perhaps they would have to plan a pick -up point.
Dalton was in favor of the pocket park near the Swiss Chalet •
where cars are now parked. Regarding the shadow pattern on
Meadow Drive, he suggested that the entire street be heated.
Dalton was also concerned about the potential traffic, especially
on Saturday when there was a lot of traffic at the bank across
the street. He felt the narrow lanes would be a concern.
Regarding phasing of the project, Dalton stated that he was
unimpressed with the construction of the Gateway project, but was
impressed with the way the Red Lion construction had been
handled. He repeated that he was not ready to make a decision
today.
Gordon answered Dalton's concerns about the construction phasing,
stating that he had hired a contractor who had a great deal of
experience with difficult construction projects and was, in his
view, very conscientious.
Rick Rosen wondered if there was any testing done of the soil
because of the former gas station on the site to the north, and
Gordon replied that tests had been made and the soil was ok. .
Chuck Crist asked about the number of rooms in the top floor of
the tower, and Gordon replied that there were 7 plus some
mechanical area and the elevator tower. Chuck wondered if one
story could be removed. Gordon replied that rooms would be lost,
6 •
and the tower's architectural statement would also be lost.
Chuck was concerned'with the shadow on Meadow Drive and the
height of the building. He added that he did not feel the
pedestrian entry at WI adjacent to the Liquor Store was a valid
one at this time, but with future development, there would be
reason to walk to the back of the WI. He would like to see
more relief on the Meadow Drive side of the building. Gordon
asked Chuck if he felt a focal point like a fountain would be a
valid feature to have across from the WI entry. Chuck was in
favor of that idea, saying that he did actually prefer a narrower
street, but felt the need for more pedestrian interest.
Jay Peterson said the street was 60 feet wide, as opposed to
Bridge Street, which is 25 to 30 feet wide.
Kathy Warren was concerned about the Fire Department access
issue. Andy stated that the staff had passed the Fire Department
concerns along to the applicant. Gordon replied that they had
talked to the Fire Department and the Fire Department stated that
the proposal was fine. Mike pointed out that the problem had not
been resolved, because a fire truck could not get to the Talisman
and turn around. Kathy felt an OK from the Fire Department was
needed before the board could give final approval on the project.
Jay stated that there was no need to- resolve minor issues before
getting approval.
Some of Kathy's concerns were the height, lack of public open
space, shadow on Meadow Drive, and that some breaks in the facade
. would help the appearance of the height. Regarding loading, she
was uncomfortable with a project of this scale not having
appropriate loading. She felt that there was not one good
loading dock that would take a semi - trailer. Gordon replied that
the back of the existing loading dock was being removed so most
trucks could be handled. Faessler added that most trucks were
merely food trucks, with the biggest 24 feet long. He said that
there were 2 spaces for trucks of that size. Kathy was still
uncomfortable about the loading. With regard to the employee
housing situation, she wondered how many units Johanness would be
willing to deed restrict. Jay replied that they were willing to
abide by the guidelines in the Employee Housing Study. Rosen
added that he felt deed restrictions on private property were
unfair. Kristan pointed out that the Town could ask for
employee housing on site, and many SDD proposals had been
required to have employee housing on site.
Jay stated that employee housing on site was not appropriate for
this hotel, for the owners did not want the employees to mingle
with the guests in their off hours, and it was better for the
employees not to live where they work. Kathy stated that she
would like to see more restricted units. She was not comfortable
with the streetscape interface, loading, employee housing, and
7
0
felt a need to have the Fire Department approval.
Jim Shearer felt the added hotel rooms and parking were
beneficial and that the quality and beauty of the project were
Positive. Regarding the employee housing, he wondered if the
applicant would be willing to do a retroactive housing
requirement and was told the applicant would be. Jim was pleased
with the pedestrian bridge, and supported the commercial aspect,
and getting the parking off of Vail Road. His concerns were with
the intersection of Meadow Drive and Vail Drive and mentioned
that he had spoken with Terry Minger who felt that the Town was
getting further and further away from landscaping at the Village
entrys. Jim felt that it would be nice if each corner could be
more park -like. Regarding Meadow Drive, he felt it would be
better if the pillars were not so close to the building so that
one could walk more freely. He felt that the commercial spaces
were too far from the street, and would prefer to have the column
distance varied so that one could meander.
Jim also wished to have more building undulation, more interest.
He preferred more sun on Meadow Drive.
Jay replied that the shade was not from the upper stories. Kathy
was still, not comfortable with the shade and shadow pattern.
Gordon said the sidewalks would be heated. Jim was pleased that
the walks would be heated, but stated that he had heard that one
problem with heated walks was that after the snow is melted, icy
spots were created. Jay reminded them that the heated walks at
the VVI worked well.
Jim encouraged the study of a stream walkway. He would like to
see 3 lanes on Vail Road, but did not feel this must be a
condition of approval. In this regard, Jay said that a study had
been done. He felt the biggest problem was the bank traffic
because everyone want to park in front of the bank.
Mr. Rosen stated that the First Bank Condo owners would not want
part of the land in front of First Bank to be taken for roads.
Greg Hall, Town engineer, stated that 3 lanes could be
constructed without using land in front of the bank. Kristan
pointed out that this area must be pinned down, studied,
designed, etc. to insure adequate distance for the road in
addtion to landscaping and the sidewalk.
Jim Shearer said he would
i.e. more public landscap,
front of the Swiss Chalet
area on one end. He felt
the setback and that fire
studied.
like to see more public accommodations,
ad areas. He supported the park in
and suggested putting a loading dock
the pool should be pulled back within
access to the Talisman should be
Connie Knight stated the whole corner should be considered, not
8 0
Al
just this building..,She felt a building this size needed more
space and added that tfie developer was not considering the
. public. Connie pointed out that only 40 rooms were being gained
with great %ass. She felt that the building was looking even
bigger by being so close to the property line and losing green
space. Connie stated that the height was nearly double that
allowed. She need to Mike
had mentioned saw
hat much public land was being used for
landscaping.
Connie did feel that the Faesslers would take care of employee
housing. She suggested that the Vail Road walk be coordinated
with the walk on Vail Road from the Gateway project. She
questioned the need for the pedestrian bridge. Regarding the
shade, Connie pointed out that not everyone would be walking near
the Sonnenalp shops. She felt that 10 setback encroachments were
a substantial number and felt the there was not enough room on
the lot to construct Gordon felt the
pedestrian exp erience
Diana Donovan was concerned with snow sliding off of the roof,
the traffic lanes and the need to protect the creek. She said
the pool should be pulled back and that the temporary
construction road should not be on the south side of the lot
because of the impact on the creek. She felt the construction
should be quieted on Saturdays and Sundays because of the
weddings and services at the Chapel. Regarding Master Plan
Objective 6.1, she was concerned about loading berths. She felt
the East Meadow side of the building needed more attention to
• landscaping because it was even closer to the road than the VVI.
Jay pointed out that there was minimal landscaping on the VVI
side.
Diana felt there should be housing restricted to employees, that
the hotel units should be restricted so that they remain hotel
units, and that more attention should be paid to the sub -area
concepts. Diana's main concern was that there were not enough
public spaces and green spaces, especially along Meadow Drive and
especially since the developer was not doing the streamwalk. She
felt the pedestrian bridge was essential and that more public
space was needed in front of the building. Diana felt the
project had come a long way.
Johannes Faessler admitted that the property was not perfect for
a hotel. He stated that if he were in the Board's chair, he
would weigh the same concerns, but that he could never take care
of their concerns to everyone's satisfaction. He wanted to leave
with some guidance, but stated that this was the best job he
could do and that the project was close to not making sense
economically. anted erns
were more
agreed upon.
important than having a hotel there.
9
,N
Diana pointed out that she would like to have the project come
back in two weeks. Johannes stated that he would come back with
almost the same thing. He could not come back in two weeks with 40
significant changes. Jay stated that over two weeks he could not
satisfy the staff and do the hotel. Gordon offered to discuss
the concerns and try to make the project work. Johannes stated
that they could wait 2 weeks, but there would not be major
changes. Dalton felt the need to study the proposal.
Kristan replied that a project of this size deserved a thorough
study and that there were significant issues. The proposal would
have incredible impact on the character of the area. She -added
that the staff had been complimentary on many issues. Regarding
the height and setbacks, there were strong concerns, but the
staff did not advocate throwing in the towel and forgetting the
project. She felt the issues did warrant review and was happy
that Johannes was willing to reconsider some issues.
Jim moved and Chuck seconded to table the proposal until December
10th and the vote was 6 -0 to table.
7.
"Holy Crncc narnellt
•. u J1 1C iiu "C.i1
side of the South Frontage an ediate
adiacent to Red- gandstone Creek.
&Rplicant: Vdil Associates Inc.
Jill Kammerer explained the request, summarizing that the
applicant wanted a conditional use permit and a variance to the
parking standards which required that all parking lots be paved
and landscaped.
Diana asked that a'fence be constructed to screen the lot. She
thought the snow berms to be used in screening the lot would be
dirty and ugly. Joe Macy, of Vail Associates, stated that this
lot had been used for parking and storage for 20 years. Kathy
asked that the unsightly fence posts be removed from the site.
Joe responded that to do the fences right would require sinking
the fence post in a concrete base and he was reluctant to commit
to this.
W1
Jim stated that if the applicant grades and gravels the lot and
then plows the snow to create snow berms the plows will just
scrape up the gravel which would contribute to the dirty, ugly
appearance of the berm.
10 0
i�
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 26, 1990
RE: A request for a Special Development District for the
Sonnenalp redevelopment, located at 20 Vail Road; A
part of Lot L, Block 5--E, Vail Village lst Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc.
I. INTRODUCTION
Johannes Faessler, of Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. has filed a
request to apply a Special Development District to his
property located at 20 Vail Road. The applicant proposes a
mixed use hotel complex. The reason the applicant is
applying for an SDD is that variations from the Public
Accommodation (PA) underlying zoning are needed for:
a 24 percent density increase,
" a height variance allowing 81 feet where 48 feet is the
maximum height,
setbacks (on all four sides),
" a reduction in the number of loading berths required (1
" is proposed, 3 are required),
an increase in the amount of accessory hotel floor
area (23% of the GRFA where 10% is allowed), and
an increase in the amount of common area (84% of the
GRFA where 20% is allowed).
Section II of this memo (Zoning Analysis) has a detailed
comparison of the proposed SDD to the Public Accommodation zone
district requirements.
II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Listed below is a summary outline of the proposed
redevelopment request:
A. Bavaria Haus Hotel (immediately east of First Bank)
" Establish SDD with existing, underlying Public
Accommodation zoning for the hotel redevelopment.
Increase accommodation units from 72 to 124 units.
Eliminate 10 existing dwelling units.
" Maintain all units as lodge units.
" Install gas burning fireplaces. No additional wood -
burning fireplaces are requested. There are currently
four wood -- burning fireplaces in the building, one in
the lobby and three in hotel rooms at the mezzanine
level of the existing structure.
4
Add 4000 square feet of conference space for a total of
7930 square feet.
" Construct
the redevelopment to the following heights:
West
side:
51
- 81 ft.
North
side:
49
-- 57 ft.
East
side:
52
ft.
South
side:
24
ft.
•
B. Landscaping
Construct a pedestrian walkway, attached to the east
side of the existing Vail Road bridge, over Gore Creek.
Construct a pocket park south of the Swiss Chalet and
adjacent to Willow Bridge Road. However, this property
appears to be owned by Vail Associates and as far as
the Town is aware, VA has not formally, or conceptually
agreed to have a pocket park developed at that
location.
" Construct a sidewalk along the east side of Vail Road,
and construct improvements such as planters and
sidewalks along E. Meadow Drive.
" Install landscaping along the north and west
elevations.
C. Parking and Loading
" Construct a parking garage with 185 spaces
regular spaces: 127
compact spaces: 25
valet spaces: 33
" Remove the existing exterior parking lot
Locate all parking underground. The primary access to
the parking structure will be from Vail Road, adjacent
to the First Bank Building.
" Surface loading /delivery will remain at the southwest
corner of the property.
D. Other
" Construct retail commercial space of 5,760 square feet.
" Expand restaurant and lounge area for a total of 6657
square feet.
2
Loading: Per Town of Vail
loading standards
Accessory Uses: 10% of the 18 % or
Commercial, constructed GRFA 5,396 sq. ft.
Restaurant, or 7,011 sq. ft.
Lounge:
Common Area• 20%
Proposed: 127 spaces
25 compact
33 valet
185 Total
Required: 3 berths
Proposed: 1 berth
23 % or
15,866 sq ft.
of Allowed GRFA 205� or 84% or
or 14,106 sq. ft. 13,862 sq. ft. 59,497 sq. ft.
Gross Floor Area: N/A 49,380 sq. ft. 145,476 sq. ft.
(does not include
structured parking)
** *Required parking includes a 5% credit for multiple use parking
facilities per Town of Vail parking code, Section 18.52.120.
Also allows for non - conforming parking credit (see attachments
for breakdown).
3
III.
ZONING ANALYSIS - The
project's departures from
the PA zone
district standards are
highlighted in bold type.
SONNENALP
ZONING ANALYSIS
UNDERLYING ZONING:
EXISTING
PROPOSED
PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
PROJECT
SDD
Site Area:
2.024 acres or
Same
Same
88,165 sq. ft.
Setbacks:
20 feet all sides
N= Meadow Dr:
20 ft.
N = 10 ft.
W =Vail Road:
13 ft.
W = 0 ft.
S =Gore Creek:
4 ft.
S = 1 ft.
E= Talisman:
0 ft.
E = 7 ft.
Height:
45 ft. flat roof
42.0' - ridge
81.01 - ridge
48 ft. sloping roof
23.51 - eave
(maximum)
GRFA:
70,532 sq. ft.
30,122 sq. ft.
70,113 sq. ft.
Units:
25 units per acre, or
46 units
62 units
50 units for the site.
(72 a.u. & 10
d.u.)
(124 a.u.)
Site Coverage:
48,491 sq. ft.
17,984 sq. ft.
44,378 sq. ft.
or 55 %
or 20 %
or 50.3 %
Landscaping:
300 of site or
29,926 sq. ft.
40,363 sq. ft.
49
26,450 sq. ft.
or 33.9 %
or 45.8 %
Parking:
Per Town of Vail
Required: 105
Required: 169 * **
parking standards
Provided: 101
Loading: Per Town of Vail
loading standards
Accessory Uses: 10% of the 18 % or
Commercial, constructed GRFA 5,396 sq. ft.
Restaurant, or 7,011 sq. ft.
Lounge:
Common Area• 20%
Proposed: 127 spaces
25 compact
33 valet
185 Total
Required: 3 berths
Proposed: 1 berth
23 % or
15,866 sq ft.
of Allowed GRFA 205� or 84% or
or 14,106 sq. ft. 13,862 sq. ft. 59,497 sq. ft.
Gross Floor Area: N/A 49,380 sq. ft. 145,476 sq. ft.
(does not include
structured parking)
** *Required parking includes a 5% credit for multiple use parking
facilities per Town of Vail parking code, Section 18.52.120.
Also allows for non - conforming parking credit (see attachments
for breakdown).
3
IV. SDD CRITERIA
In order to avoid too much repetition of Staff comments, we have
tried to list our comments under the most appropriate criteria
heading. This is not to imply that many of the comments do not
relate to several headings or planning documents.
Upon completion of the submittal requirements, the following
review criteria will be used to assess the merits of the
Sonnenalp redevelopment:
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate
environment,_ neighborhood and adjacent properties relative
to architectural design, scale bulk buildin height,
buffer zones identity, character visual integrity and
orientation.
Height:
Staff strongly objects to the maximum height of 77 feet for
the Vail Road building elevation and 81 feet for the
elevator tower given the Vail Village context. The heights
of the surrounding buildings are 47.5 for the Vail Village
Inn (VVI) ridge, 70 for the VVI tower, and 20 for the ridge
of the chapel. Though the VVI tower is tall, it is an
architectural accent to the rest of the building. Its
slender proportions are such that it is a tower. The
"tower" above the auto court is designed with proportions
which make it appear quite massive (i.e. "a building ") and
should not be labeled as a tower.
Staff acknowledges that a certain number of rooms must be
obtained in order to construct a project of this magnitude.
However, the Vail Village Master Plan calls out for a range
of heights between 27' and 361, plus a roof, on the southern
portion of the site. The mass above the auto court and the
elevator tower are proposed in this same area, at 45 to 50
feet above the limit recommended in the Master Plan.
Along East Meadow Drive, the Village Plan recommends heights
of 18 -27 feet plus a roof. Proposed heights in this area
range from 49.5' to 57.51. The PA zone district allows for
a maximum height of 48 ft. for sloping roofs.
Staff believes that the Sonnenalp proposal needs to come
more into compliance with these recommended heights. It is
positive that the height of the building along Vail Road has
been reduced from the originally proposed height of 102
feet, down to 77 feet. As mentioned in the two previous
work session memos, height should terrace down to Vail Road
and East Meadow Drive to respect pedestrian areas as well as
views from public areas.
Character
In staff's analysis, a significant deviation from the
character of the Village is the formal, unbroken facade
4
t . , r i
along East Meadow Drive. The arcade extends 165 feet
without any relief, though there are a variety of dormer
treatments in the roof. The master plan calls for two
"plazas with green space" along this section of Meadow
Drive, which would break up this facade. Tying both sides
of the street together has not been accomplished in this
proposal. This is not to say that the overall architectural
style is not of high quality. However, the mass of the
building is too large in relation to the site and
surrounding properties; the building does not fit the scale
of the Village; and more relief from the formal
architectural style is needed on Meadow Drive.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible
efficient and workable relationshin with surrounding-uses
and activity.
Density, GRFA and _Uses:
The proposal, though all lodge rooms, will have a density
24% greater than the allowable. Staff supports the plan to
have lodge rooms only, but is concerned that the density, in
conjunction with the height, is too much for the site. The
applicant does comply with the GRFA limitation for the site;
however, the GRFA calculation only counts the residential
areas. The accessory uses exceed the allowable by 13% and
the common area exceeds the allowable by 64 %. As a result,
the mass of the project is much larger than what the zoning
code allows. (The specific breakdown of the accessory area
and common area can be found in Section III. Briefly, what
PA zoning allows is 10% of GRFA for accessory and 20% for
common. What is proposed is 23% and 84 %, respectively.) it
is common for the staff to support increases in common area
above the allowable. In this case, the common area, in
conjunction with the accessory use increase, is causing the
building mass to become excessive. Concerning uses, the mix
of lodging, commercial and conference space is appropriate
and supports the goals of the Vail Village Master Plan.
C. Compliance with parking and loading re uirements as outlined
in _Chapter 18.52.
Parking:
All parking will be provided on site. 33 spaces (17.8
percent) will be valet. 25 spaces (13.5 %) will be compact.
A positive aspect of this proposal is that the existing
surface parking will be placed underground. There will be
no surface parking except for six spaces in the auto court.
The Town's parking analysis indicates that the redevelopment
would provide a surplus of 16 parking spaces. The staff
would strongly recommend that the 13 existing surface
parking spaces for the Swiss Chalet (adjacent to Willow
Bridge Road) be incorporated into the new underground
parking and that the surface spaces be removed. This will
allow the applicant to convert this space from a parking lot
to a pedestrian area. As this is a specific aim of the Vail
Village Master Plan, staff provides more details on this
• r t
issue in that section.
Loading:
The Zoning Code requires three berths. The applicant is
proposing one. In discussions with the applicant, it is
evident that he believes the hotel programming requires only
one. However, since all commercial tenants located along
Meadow Drive will service their shops via the auto court,
staff believes that two of the spaces in the auto court
should be reserved for loading. This would bring the
development up to the Town standards for loading. staff is
also concerned that if two spaces within the auto court are
not specifically designated for loading, the delivery trucks
may try to use Meadow Drive or the area adjacent to the
southwest corner of Crossroads.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan. Town policies. and Urban Design Plans
Because of the many different goals, policies, and
illustrative plans that pertain to this proposal, a separate
section of the memo discusses the compliance of the project
with the Vail Village Master Plan. The intention to
maintain all of the units as accommodation units fits well
with the Town policies. Any conversions of these to
condominium units in the future should be prohibited.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural ,and /or geologic
hazards that affect the property on which the special
development district is proposed.
The floodplain is the only hazard which could affect the
site. The applicant is not proposing any construction in
the 50 foot Gore Creek stream setback or the floodplain.
F. Site plan, building design and location and open space
rovisions designed to 'Produce a functional development
responsive and sensitive to natural features. vegetation and
overall aesthetic quality of the community.
Site plan /Setbacks
The building will encroach into all setbacks. PA zoning
requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides of the property. The
applicant has relocated the building to meet the setback
line in many cases, which is an improvement over previous
proposals but still has ten areas of encroachment. The
specific points of encroachment in each setback, starting
with the loading dock area on the southwest corner of the
site are;
• West
1. The loading dock encroaches 81--9' into the Vail
Road setback;
0
4
2. The new kitchen and Bully encroach 151 -011 into the
Vail Road setback;
3. The rooms above auto court entry encroach 3' -9"
into the Vail Road setback;
4. The tower on the corner of Meadow Drive and Vail
Road encroaches 71611 into the Vail Road setback
and 710f1 into the East Meadow Drive setback;
North
5. The roof over the arcade encroaches into the
Meadow Drive setback 319 ";
6. The tower on the east end of the project
encroaches 1010" into the east side setback;
East
7. A stair encroaches 151511 into a setback abutting
the Talisman site;
South
8. The swimming pool encroaches 810" into the rear
setback;
9. The King Ludwig deck (above) and the conference
room area (below) encroach 51011 into the rear
setback; and
10. The loading area encroaches 2010" into the rear
setback creating a zero rear setback situation.
•
The encroachment which concerns staff the most is the one
required for the kitchen and loading dock area on the
southwest corner of the property. Staff has worked with the
applicant in reducing the mass and bulk of the building on
this corner as much as possible, but believes that it still
has the most impact of all the encroachments.
Another encroachment of concern is the swimming pool. The
Zoning Code allows recreational amenities to encroach into
the setback if the Design Review Board determines that the
location is not detrimental environmentally or
aesthetically. Staff believes that in this case, the Gore
Creek corridor should be maintained as natural as possible
to preserve its aesthetic appeal. Staff does not support
the pool in this location and would recommend that the pool
be pulled back out of the setback.
The two tower encroachments on either end of the building
along Meadow Drive are not problems in staff's opinion, if
the heights were reasonable. Staff believes that undulating
the building along Meadow Drive and allowing the towers to
come out closer to the street gives more definition to the
public space and is a benefit. The master plan calls for
plazas in two locations on either side of the tower
locations. The concept shown in the open space plan is
accompanied by a related concept in the height plan which
limits the height to 2 -3 stories. The two must go together
to make the Meadow Drive corridor work. Therefore, if the
heights were reduced to 2 -3 stories, the setback
encroachments would actually be a contribution to the
streetscape.
7
Natural Features
The site is generally flat with Gore Creek running along the
• south side of the property. Significant landscaping also
exists along East Meadow Drive, in the center of the parking
area, and adjacent to the Bully III deck. The applicant has
taken advantage of the beauty of Gore Creek and has located
the spa and garden along the creek. Staff believes that
adding a streamwalk along the creek would allow more guests
in Vail to enjoy this natural feature.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and
edestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation.
TalismanfSonnenalp Coordination:
Coordination between the proposed Sonnenalp SDD and the
existing Talisman Condominiums is necessary. Staff
encourages the two owners to work together on access,
landscaping, and parking for the two projects in a
comprehensive manner. The Town Fire Department continues to
have major concerns over emergency access to both
properties.
Traffic•
This will be discussed in the section of the memo dealing
with the Environmental Impact Report.
.Pedestrians:
The design of the project has provided some improvements for
pedestrians. The applicants will provide a sidewalk along
Vail road from the corner of Meadow Drive to Gore Creek. At
that point, they will construct a pedestrian bridge over the
creek so that pedestrians can continue to walk south of the
creek. Staff supports the idea of the pedestrian bridge;
however, at this time, we do not have specific design
drawings of the proposal. Along East Meadow Drive, the
design could be improved for pedestrians by providing a
stronger interface between the pedestrian street and the
store fronts. What is also missing from the project is the
streamwalk and permission for the pocket park allowing
public access to Gore Creek.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order
to optimize and preserve natural features.,_ recreation, views
and functions.
The proposal has provided an optimal garden area in the
center and south side of the site. Though this is good
preservation of open space, it is limited to the hotel
guests. The hotel has been designed so that the building is
. located close to Vail Road and Meadow Drive. By not
providing open space west or north of the building, the
public does not benefit from the open space on -site.
1:3
Staff recommends that the applicant create a plaza /planting
area across from VVI, to provide some public open space.
This has been discussed during the review process since it
is called out for in the open space plan of the Vail Village
Master Plan. Not only would it provide some open space on
the site which the public would benefit from, it would break
up the hard line of the Meadow Drive facade. It would also
allow for a concentration of landscaping, and would create a
space where the VVI, the Sonnenalp, and the pedestrian way
are brought together.
There are also other ways to provide publicly accessible
open space, such as including the pocket park on VA land or
the streamwalk. (The applicant has not received permission
from the owner to develop a pocket park in this area. Staff
did the research which, at this point, shows that VA is the
owner. The applicant has not yet shown that a pocket park
in this location is feasible.)
I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a
workable functional and efficient relationship throughout
the development of the special development district.
See discussion under the EIR analysis.
J.
Outstanding concerns from other departments
• 1. Fire Department:
" The proposed building must be equipped with fire
sprinklers throughout;
" Access to the Talisman must be assured as per UFC
10 -207;
The existing building must be equipped with fire
sprinklers throughout and must have access per UFC
10 -207;
" Fire flows must be provided in agreement with
Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District;
Conference room exiting is inadequate.
2. Public Works:
An amended traffic analysis is required;
The Talisman parking area does not function
properly, as currently designed.
" A minimum sidewalk width of 6 feet, on Vail Road,
will be required for the full length of the
project.
" Drainage improvements along Vail Road and East
Meadow Drive will be needed.
3. Landscape Architect:
` The stream walk should be shown on the site plan.
The applicant will need to submit a revised
9
•
t
` landscaping plan if proposed changes to Vail Road
are approved.
Maintenance of landscaped areas and sidewalks
shall be the owner's responsibility.
The conceptual landscape plan appears to be
acceptable. A detailed planting and irrigation
plan should be submitted for review.
V. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
In general, the staff believes that the Sonnenalp project should
be much more responsive to the Vail Village Master Plan. The
previous two work session memos listed many areas where the
project could comply more closely with the Village Plan. In most
cases, the previous staff comments apply to the revised proposal
since the applicant has failed to address the concepts of the
plan.
Staff believes that one of the most important parts of the Master
Plan is the conceptual building height diagram. The portion of
that plan which includes the Sonnenalp project is shown below.
The corner treatment for Vail Road and Meadow Drive should be 2 -3
stories. The rest of the site is called out at 3 -4 stories. The
project severely deviates from the Master Plan as it is 4 stories
on the corner and rises up to 6 stories above the auto court.
During the review, it has been mentioned
not applicable to a demo /rebuild such as
by definition, cannot address the aspects
project. But the policies and objectives
. 10
CONCEPTUAL
BUILDING
HEIGHT PLAN
that the master plan is
this. The master plan,
of every construction
of the plan do apply to
f
•
all projects. When the plan developed, the appropriate scale for
redevelopoment was established with consideration of surrounding
properties and the overall streetscape. The principle design
concepts are relevant and applicable even if a demo - rebuild is
proposed.
The specific goals, objectives, and sub -area plans which pertain
to this project are listed below. In the following analysis of
the Master plan information, the staff comments are in bold, the
important points of the plan are underlined, and the regular type
is the rest of the Master Plan text.
A. Sub-Area - Vail Road Intersection
Sub -Area #1 -2 states:
1 -2 Vail Road Intersection
Possible realignment of
intersection in conjunction with
relocation of the Ski Museum.
rocus of redesign should be to
establish a small park and
pedestrian entry for the west end
of the Village and to provide a
visual barrier to discourage
vehicular traffic from heading
south on Vail Road from the 4 -way
stop. specific design of Ski
Museum site to be included in West
Meadow Drive pedestrian
improvement project. The
pedestrian connection both north
and south along Vail Road should
also be improved. Special
emphasis on 3.2, 3.4, 4.1, 5.3,
5.4.
"Possible realignment of intersection in conjunction with
relocation of the Ski Museum. Focus of redesign should be
to establish a small park and pedestrian entry for the west
end of the Village and to provide a visual barrier to
discourage vehicular traffic from heading south on Vail Road
from the 4 -way stop. Specific design of Ski Museum site to
be included in West Meadow Drive pedestrian improvement
project. The pedestrian connection both north and south
along Vail Road should also be improved."
The project does provide a six foot wide sidewalk
along the full length of ,the west side of the
property. The sidewalk will be made out of
pavers and will extend from the northwest corner
plaza area to the pedestrian bridge that the
applicant will install over Gore Creek. These
improvements serve to implement this concept.
11
•
•
B. Sub -Area 1 -3 - Sonnena (Bavaria Haus Infill
Sub -Area #1--3 states:
Commercial infill development with
second floor residential /lodging
to enclose Meadow Drive and
improve the quality of the pedes-
trian experience. Designated
walkways and plazas with
greenspace should interface with
those of the Vail Village Inn. A
pedestrian walkway (possibly
arcade) should be provided to
encourage pedestrian circulation
physically removed from Kest
Meadow Drive. Mass of building
should not create a shadow pattern
on Meadow Drive. Development will
require coordination and /or
involvement with adjacent property
owners. Existing and new parking
demand to be provided on site.
Special emphasis on 1.2, 1.3, 2.3,
2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.4, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1.
"Commercial infill development with second floor
residential /lodging to enclose Meadow Drive and improve the
quality of the pedestrian experience. Designated walkways
and plazas with green space should interface with those of
the Vail Village Inn. A pedestrian walkway (possibly
arcade) should be provided to encourage pedestrian
circulation physically removed from Meadow Drive. Mass of
building should not create a shadow pattern on Meadow Drive.
Development will require coordination and /or involvement
with adjacent property owners. Existing and new parking
demand to be provided on site."
Meadow Drive will be completely shaded in the
winter. The ridge along Meadow Drive will cast a
shadow 98 feet long at noon on December 21st.
This will completely cover Meadow Drive. Even on
the equinox dates (March 21 and September 21), the
shadow cast will be 43 feet long. Staff
understands that some shadow will be cast by any
redevelopment that occurs along Meadow Drive;
however, the mass of this proposal and the way the
roof line is unvaried makes the shadow impact
worse than alternative designs that were discussed
in the review process. In the EIR, the applicant
claims that the building will shade the street for
only a short period of time without specifying the
length. Staff believes that this statement is
misleading and more information is needed on this
impact. staff is also very concerned about the
possible icing of East Meadow Drive, given the
location and height of the new building. Please
see comments on project design, parking,
circulation, and landscaping under SDD criteria.
12
•
r:
C. Sub -Area 1 -5 - Willow Bridge Road Wal wa
C_—
,,o«.E 1
{ 41
Sub -Area #1 -5 states:
1 -5 Willow Bridge Road Walkway
A decorative paver pedestrian
walkway, separated from the street
and accented by a strong
landscaped area to encourage
pedestrian circulation along
Meadow Drive. Loss of parking
will need to be relocated on site.
Special emphasis on 3.4, 5.1.
"A decorative aver edestrian walkway. se crated form the
street and accented by a strong landsca ed area to encourage
Pedestrian circulation along-Meadow Drive. Loss of parking
will need to be relocated on site."
The diagrams in the Master Plan show the area discussed
in the paragraph above and the area along Willow Bridge
Road blending into one another. The applicant has
expressed an interest in removing the parking that
exists there now and converting the space into a
pedestrian area. The parking garage that will be built
in this proposal has 15 extra spaces. There are 13
spaces in front of the Swiss Chalet.
Because the applicant is proposing to consolidate the
front desks for these two buildings, the parking can be
located in the garage of the main building. Staff
recommends that the applicant redesign the space and
convert it into a pedestrian area according to the
Master Plan.
It was mentioned by a Planning Commissioner at the
first work session that this Sub -Area Concept be
addressed through the Sonnenalp proposal. Staff also
agrees with this suggestion that it be incorporated
into the project.
13
D. Sub-Area 1 -4 - Sonnenal East Swiss Chalet Infill
�, 1 -4 Sonnenal East Swiss Chalet
�� r Infill
' Commercial infill of north facing
�5a_'
wl POD" ; F
alcove of existing structure to
provide shops and pedestrian
activity. A plaza with greenspace
shall be developed in conjunction
with the adjacent plaza at the
`L i� Vail Village Inn. Fire access and
rt is on -site parking are two issues to
�) be addressed in the design and
development of this project.
• 00 Special emphasis on 2.4, 2.5, 2.6,
.� f.......� ar , 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2.
"Commercial infill of north facing alcove of existing
structure to provide shops and pedestrian activity. A_plaza
with greengpAce shall be developed in conjunction with the
adjacent plaza at the Vail Villa a Inn. Fire access and on-
site parking are two issues to be addressed in the design
and develo ment of this ro'gct."
Two issues in this sub -area recommendation pertain to
the proposal. One is to develop a plaza for pedestrian
activity outside the Swiss Chalet. This area is
intended to relate to the WI as well as Willow Bridge
Road. This improvement relates directly to the
recommendation for the willow Bridge Road walkway,
which is discussed in the paragraph above. The second
issue involves fire access. The Town's Fire Department
has determined that access to the Talisman is not
adequate as proposed.
14
E. Sub -Area #1 -9 - Study Area: Village „Streamwalk
Sub -Area #1 -9 states:
1 -9 Stud Area: village
Streamwalk
f
!PI "Poll Study of a walking only path along
� �1 ,
Gore Creek between the Covered
/" .�,eK j • �,:�- /�- S 3- Bridge and Vail Road, connecting
r
• 1 /' i o��° to existing streamwalk, further
g
FPM -cum h �,
• enhancin the
g pedestrian network
J throughout the Village and
• WiLLO�7 IL4 < • providing public access to the
9 ; • ( creek.
s
• J t y _1 pecific design and
location of walkway shall be
^�� sensitive to adjacent uses and the
�'� '"': _ creek environment. (Reference to
,- • ' �� YM ? Vail Recreational Trails Plan for additional information on this
trail). Special emphasis on 3.4,
4.2.
"Study of awalking only ath along Gore Creek between the
Covered Bridge and Vail Road connecting to existing
streamwalk further enhancing the Dedestrian network
throe bout the VillacLeand providing public access to the
creek. Specific design and location of walkway shall be
sensitive to adjacent uses and the creek environment..”
Staff believes that a stream walk is in the best
interests of the Town. Expanding the existing popular
recreational amenity is worthwhile, especially since
staff believes it can be designed in a way that is
sensitive to the hotel proposal. Benching a walkway
down near the stream appears to be feasible.
Additional landscaping is another way to buffer the
walk from the hotel's garden area. Developing
pedestrian -only walkways and stream access fulfills
Objective 3.4 of the Master Plan, which reinforces the
goal of this sub -area. Because a streamwalk is an
effective way to provide a natural experience within
the Village, and because it could be built sensitively
to the hotel, staff believes the applicant should
incorporate it into the site plan.
F. Emphasized Goals & Policies
Below is a list of the specific objectives of the Master
Plan. With the exceptions of the objectives dealing with
employee housing and the streamwalk, the proposal generally
meets the list below. Staff believes that the project's
primary positive aspects include its provision of
accommodation units, the parking plan, the pedestrian bridge
and the fact that this is a good site for a mixed use
redevelopment.
15
1.2 Objective:
Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of
residential and commercial facilities.
1.3 Objective:
Enhance new development and redevelopment through
public .improvements done by private developers
working in cooperation with the Town.
2.3 Objective:
Increase the number of residential units available
for short term overnight accommodations.
2.4 Objective:
Encourage the development of a variety of new
commercial activity where compatible with existing
land uses.
2.5 Objective:
Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and
maintenance of existing lodging and commercial
facilities to better serve the needs of our
guests.
2.6 _Objective:
Encourage the development of affordable housing
units through the efforts of the private sector.
3.1 Objective:
Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other improvements.
3.4 Objective:
Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian -only
walkways and accessible green space areas,
including pocket parks and stream access.
4.1 Ob-i ect ive :
Improve existing open space areas and create new
plazas with green space and pocket parks.
Recognize the different roles of each type of open
space in forming the overall fabric of the
Village.
5.1 Objective:
Meet parking demands with public and private
parking facilities.
6.1 Objective:
Provide service and delivery facilities for
existing and new development.
40 16
H. Illustrative Plans.
1. Land Use Plan:
a. North side of Sonnenal site "Mixed Use."
This category includes the "historic" Village core
and properties near the pedestrianized streets of
the Village. Lodging, retail and a limited amount
of office use are found in this category. With
nearly 270,000 square feet of retail space and
approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use
character of these areas is a major factor in the
appeal of Vail Village.
Since the proposal is mixed use, it fits well
with this Master Plan illustration.
b. South side of Sonnenalp site, "Medium /High Density
Residential and Mixed Use."
Medium /High Density
The overwhelming majority of the Village's lodge
. rooms and condominium units are located in this
land use category. Approximately 1,100 units have
been developed on the 27 acres of private land in
this category. In addition, another 110 units are
approved but unbuilt. It is a goal of this Plan
to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging
oriented with retail development limited to small
amounts of "accessory retail."
Mixed Use (along Meadow Drive and Willow Road)
This category includes the "historic" Village core
and properties near the pedestrianized streets of
the Village. Lodging, retail and limited amount
of office use are found in this category. With
nearly 270,000 square feet of retail space and
approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use
character of these areas is a major factor in the
appeal of Vail Village.
The project complies with the types of
uses called for in the Illustrative Land
Use Plan.
2. Open Space Plan:
17
a. "Planted Buffer" is designated on north and west
side of site.
b. "Plaza with green space" is designated on north
side of property connecting to the Vail Village
Inn and on eastern property adjacent to Swiss
Chalet and VVI sculpture plaza.
C. "Open Space" is designated along entire stream
corridor.
The proposal does not provide a +,Plaza
with green space ". Though a plaza at
this location would benefit the area by:
" Tying in with the VVI buildings,
reducing the shadow cast by the
structure, and
" providing some public open space.
At this time, these goals are
not addressed in a
comprehensive way.
3. Parking and Circulation Plan:
a. East Meadow Drive is designated as a pedestrian
street with plazas, limited or no autos and a bus
route. The Gore Creek corridor is designated as a
study area for a walking path.
East Meadow will continue to be a
pedestrian corridor; however, the
proposal does not include a stream walk.
4. Building Height Plan:
a. The area along East Meadow Drive is recommended to
be a maximum of two to three stories or 18 to 27
ft. high. Three to four stories (27 ft to 36 ft.)
is designated on the southern three quarters of
the property. All heights exclude roof forms.
As this is one of the most important
components of the Master Plan, staff
discussed this item in the first section of
the memo on page four.
0 18
VI. EIR ANALYSIS
A. Hydrologic Conditions
The applicant will be altering the existing
drainage along Vail Road significantly. Currently
there is a rock lined ditch that conveys the water
to Gore Creek. Curb and gutter will be installed.
All drainage improvements must meet Town of Vail
standards and will be reviewed for compliance at
time of building permit. Drainage from the
parking structure will be drained to the sanitary
sewer. Details for the parking structure drainage
have not been put together at this time. Staff
recommends that the best possible pollution
control devices, including grease traps and
sediment traps, should be installed in the
drainage system.
The one area of concern that the Town has
regarding drainage is how it will be handled
during construction of the project. Dewatering
any excavation pits into Gore Creek could
negatively impact the creek unless the sediment is
removed. The Environmental Impact Report
completed by the applicant commits the applicant
to undertake erosion and dewatering control
measures according to the best available practices
to ensure that the creek impacts are minimized.
B. Atmospheric Conditions
The three ways this project will impact air
quality are through fireplaces, dust control, and
automobile trips to the site.
Concerning fireplaces, all units in the hotel are
proposed to have gas burning fireplaces. The air
emissions from these gas burning appliances will
be negligible. There are four existing wood
burning fireplaces in the hotel which will remain.
Dust is an impact that is generated from the
construction process and through the sanding of
the existing parking lot. During construction,
the applicant in the EIR commits to undertake
efforts to control the dust. By locating the
parking underground and eliminating the need for
sanding, air quality will be improved.
The last possible impact is from automobile trips.
19
With 40 additional rooms, there will be additional
trips to the site. Staff believes that this is a
reasonable increase and that further documentation
is not needed. The hotel's mini -van service
combines trips that some guests might otherwise
make individually in their own cars.
Given the benefit of gas appliance fireplaces,
eliminating the sanding in the winter from the
parking lot, the negative impact of the additional
trips is offset.
C. Geologic and Biotic Conditions
The proposal does not change the impacts relating
to geologic and biotic conditions.
D. Visual Conditions
The applicant has used seven photographs taken of
the Village to show how the proposal will relate
to surrounding structures. The building outline
has been shown in tape.
Concerning the view looking east on West Meadow
. Drive ( #1), the EIR consultant claims that few
people will view the Sonnenalp from this point
since foot traffic is minimal in the area. Staff
strongly disagrees with this analysis. Since
Meadow Drive is a bus and pedestrian route linking
the Village to Lionshead, staff believes this view
will be highly noticeable.
All of the views of the building from points in
the Village show that the ski slopes, the
mountain, and the sky will be blocked. (3,5,6 and
7) The view east from the First Bank and chapel
area will be completely blocked. ( #5)
The views from the four way stop ( #2 and 4) show
that the building will not exceed the highest
ridge of Vail Mountain, as it will from the
vantage points in the Village. This is because
the elevation of the four way stop is higher than
the site of the project. Staff realizes that some
view impacts are inevitable if the project is
redeveloped. However, we believe the building as
proposed has severe view impacts which are not
supportable given the scale of the surrounding
areas.
0 20
E. Land Use Conditions
The uses proposed are compatible with those around
the site. This issue has been analyzed in the SDD
and Vail Village Master Plan sections of the memo.
F. Circulation and Transportation conditions
The traffic study, done by Leigh, Scott and
Cleary, Inc., concluded that the capacity of the
surrounding road network can generally handle the
traffic generated by the project. The only street
improvement recommended was to provide three lanes
in Vail Road's existing alignment. The new lane
is for a left turn lane. The original study
recommended that the three lanes be provided with
substandard lane widths so that the street would
not have to be widened. Other significant
findings from the study include:
" At full occupancy, the proposed project can
be expected to add approximately 175 entering
and 175 exiting weekday vehicle trips to the
surrounding roadway system. Of these, 14
will enter and 12 will exit during the
evening peak -hour.
The greatest concentration of project -
generated traffic is expected along Vail Road
to and from the north. Ninety -three percent
of the additional traffic will pass though
the four way stop.
" The traffic impact of the proposed project on
existing and future peak season traffic will
be minimal.
The first traffic study, dated October 4, 1990,
was completed based on national averages of trip
generation and does not accurately reflect Vail
traffic patterns. (See attached report.) The
applicant and the Town did independent studies of
the parking demand for the existing hotel which
showed that the supply exceeds the demand.
Because of this information and the general
agreement on this issue between the staff and the
applicant, a revised traffic study was submitted.
The issue which needed clarification was the
requirement for a center lane to allow left turns
into the autocourt. The first study, based on
0 21
national standards, determined that it was needed,
but that substandard lanes would suffice. Since
it is not reasonable for the Town to accept
substandard lanes on one of the busiest roads in
the Town, the second study dated November 15,
1990, based on local standards, was supposed to
clarify the issue and determine what the new
project would require.
A major flaw of the second study is found in the
conclusion. The consultants state that "if
roadway widening is required in order to [provide
three lanes], the resultant expenditures are not
justified, and we would recommend that the
operation of Vail Road remain as a two -lane
design." Staff discussed the study with the
engineer who prepared it and found that he had no
documentation of the cost which "is not
justified." Staff does not concur that the
cost /benefit analysis referred to in the
conclusion is an appropriate means to determine
what improvements the applicant is responsible
for. This is especially true when the cost, at
the time the report was written, was unknown to
the consultants.
more importantly is the fact that a requirement to
build the middle lane must be determined by amount
of demand made by the new project. If the
Sonnenalp generates the demand, they must mitigate
the impact. Cost should not be a factor in this
decision. At this time, the need for the third
lane is not known. What is known is that the
applicant has committed to placing curb and gutter
at the edge of the street for the full length of
Vail Road, and that the new edge will make the
roadway either wider or narrower. Because the
traffic report should determine that two or three
lanes is needed, placing the curb and gutter at
the existing edge of pavement would not be
appropriate for either solution as it does not
provide proper alignment for a two lane or three
lane road design.
A related issue to this is the need for accurate
survey information. Setting the edge of pavement
(whether it is two or three lanes) must be based
on accurate information. The architectural
drawings used up to November 8th showed the
proposed curb eight feet from where it should have
been. The applicant's solution was to shift all of
Vail Road approximately eight feet to the west.
0 22
This shift must be verified with survey
information showing both sides of Vail Road prior
to any improvements being approved so that staff
can verify that there are no impacts to First
Bank.
G. Population Characteristics
The Sonnenalp currently employs approximately 270
employees during the winter season. The proposed
redevelopment would add approximately 26 new
employees per the EIR. Ten of these employees
will be needed for housekeeping, a houseman,
laundry service, and general hotel staffing. The
consultants preparing the EIR assumed that 16
employees are enough to staff the additional
commercial area. The applicant is assuming that
no additional employees will be needed for the
4000 square feet of new conference area or for the
4700 square feet of new restaurant area. The
applicant claims that the conference area requires
the same staffing, regardless of size. Concerning
the restaurant, the applicant has stated that he
will use the existing Sonnenalp Austria House
restaurant staff to serve the expanded Bavaria
House area. (The Austria House is by the Covered
Bridge, the Bavaria House is the one under
consideration.) The Austria House restaurant will
shut down when the Bavaria House restaurants are
open.
The additional 26 employees will increase the
total number to 296. The Sonnenalp currently
provides housing for approximately 145 employees.
33 units are owned by the Sonnenalp, housing 67
employees and 20 units are rented by the
Sonnenalp, housing 78 employees. This assumes
that each bedroom houses two Sonnenalp employees.
No additional employee housing is proposed by the
Sonnenalp for the redevelopment, though statements
in the EIR acknowledge that the housing goals of
the Sonnenalp are not being met. However, staff
believes that a redevelopment of this magnitude
should have some permanent employee housing. The
material in the EIR states that "housing is of
potential concern to both the Sonnenalp and the
Town." Staff needs to clarify this point and
state that significant resources have already been
invested by the Town to address this issue. With
41 23
the adoption of the Town of Vail Affordable
Housing Study on November 20, 1990, it is no
longer a potential concern but is an issue that
must be addressed formally. At this time, the
report has been adopted and provides guideline for
new development. At a later date, the report's
recommendations will be incorporated into the
Zoning Code.
Using the recommendations from the study, staff
determined the amount of housing which should be
deed restricted using two calculations. For "by-
right" projects, housing for 15% of the employees
should be provided. For those projects with
density increases, 16% - 30% of the employees
should have housing provided by the employer.
For example, the redevelopment will require an
additional 26 employees. Since a density increase
is needed for the expansion, the 30% multiplier is
used:
26 employees x .30 = 7.8
Assuming that two employees will share a
dwelling unit, the 7.8 is divided by 2,
resulting a requirement for 4 dwelling units.
• Or, 26 employees x .16 = 4.16 or 2 dwelling
units.
Staff believes that it is also appropriate to
review the over all demand on housing that the
project will generate. Given that the existing
operation requires 270 employees, and meets
density limits, staff believes that housing should
be provided for these employees by using the 150
multiplier.
270 employees x .15 = 40.5
40.5 divided by 2 equals 20
By combining the "by- right" demand with that
generated by the density increase, a minimum of 20
of the Sonnenalp's existing employee units should
be permanently deed restricted and at least four
new employee units should be required for the
density and retail above the allowable.
Staff's calculations are based on the entire
Sonnenalp employee demand as presented.in the EIR.
If a breakdown is done, showing the number of
employees working at the Swiss and Austria
0 24
locations, the number of units to be restricted
can be reduced accordingly. Staff's calculations
also do not include any additional employees for
the 4700 square feet of new restaurant area.
Because this does not seem plausible, staff needs
more information about this area before an
accurate housing demand can be done.
H. Phasing
The construction will take place in three phases.
Phase I includes the parking structure and
elevator core. Mass excavation and shoring is
planned to begin May 1, 1991. The parking garage
is planned to be completed by September 13, 1991.
The kitchen addition will be completed October 15,
1991.
Phase II activity includes the new hotel tower and
the north wing with planned occupancy for December
10, 1992. Phase III work includes the spa
building, meeting rooms and the remodel to the
existing hotel which will begin May 1, 1992. The
existing east wing of the hotel will be demolished
between May 1, 1992 and June 5, 1992.
• At this time, the applicant plans to build a paved
road around the existing loading dock (southwest
corner of site) for trucks to use during the
demolition of the existing east wing. Staff is
concerned about the impacts to the creek, and
believes that another route can be found to haul
the debris away from the site.
The second concern of staff is the parking for the
construction workers. As the Town has seen with
the construction of the parking structure and
Gateway, major projects require many employees and
vehicles. we would like to see a plan explaining
where the construction workers will park.
The applicant, in the EIR, has said that partial
closures of Vail Road will be needed. The Town
understands that the road will never be completely
closed. In addition, the Town understands that
all deliveries to the site will occur from the
Talisman access road or Vail Road but will not
take place via Meadow Drive.
is 25
i
•
VII. LAND USE PLAN
The Land Use Plan refers to the Vail Village Master
Plan for reviewing any requests for redevelopment in
this area.
VIII. CONCLUSION
Although the project has positive aspects such as the
lodge use, underground parking, sidewalks, and a
pedestrian bridge, staff recommends denial of the
project for many reasons. Using the SDD criteria,
staff finds severe noncompliance with Criteria A:
design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate
environment. The height, at 81 feet, exceeds the 48
foot limit beyond what is compatible with the
surrounding area. The mass of the building, exceeds
the allowed accessory area and common area by 54,250
square feet. This square footage as indicated by the
height, setbacks, minimal public spaces and shadow
patters, is too much for the site.
Criteria D, conformity with applicable elements of the
Vail Comprehensive Plan, town policies and urban design
plans, has not been met. Several plans and
illustrations from the Vail Village Master
not been addressed. Specifically, the open
with plazas, the building height plan, the
shadow issues, and the streamwalk have not
addressed adequately.
Plan have
space plan
shade and
been
Criteria F, regarding the site plan, has not been
in that the concepts for the site plan results in
building layout that lacks quality public spaces.
Staff does not believe that resulting site plan,
reserving most of the open space on the site for
guests, is the best design for the community.
met
a
hotel
Criteria G, regarding a circulation system designed
for pedestrians and automobiles, has not been met,
either. A major outstanding question is whether two or
three lanes are needed in Vail Road. An additional
traffic study is needed, as well as survey information
to accurately locate the proposed improvements.
The two issues discussed first are the fundamental
problems with the project; however, there are numerous
others which must be resolved prior to approval. The
applicant has been aware of the Town's concerns, in
most cases, since the original work session. Staff
believes that until they are resolved, the project
• 26
M
s
should not be approved.
is Staff asks that the applicant to table the SDD request
and consider the staff comments. We believe the
project has merit but additional design changes are
necessary before staff could recommend approval of the
project.
0
• 27
APPROX. SCALE:
1,-100,
/4-1
O
ya
2�
Son "e-riC- tp
VIEW ANALYSIS
KEY TO PHOTOS r
coR�
14
a
Q
Q
a
1
SON
I -r0 FRONrgCE RoAb
EN
TE
4
of
or
I
," —s
FAA
• V
A - w . ItK
T,
ING. EAST. *AT.19AST -MEADOW DRIVE
4-1
h
-� .: � ;
vivo
A
{
r
_
a
r$
Af-
L l ['A Ll i Pd t.+ t K I L L 1,4 !_i — `' 1 1 _I ;
;I
:s
Leigh, Scott 8th Cleary, Inca,' '
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
& TRAFFIC EN'GJNF.ERING CONSULTAN"t'S
Offiiccs in Denver and Colorado Springs €
•
•
November 15, 1990
Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan
Pierce, Segerberg & Spaeh
1000 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 80657
Dear Ken:
t
LSC #900110
It has been brought to our at ntion! ghat recentlte- specific tra
that the traffic generation estima used in our Oct o er 4, 1990 traf
Sonnenalp expansion project are tod high. ? As you may recall,the rats
averages published by the Institute of Tr$ portation Engineers.
The proposed project is expec to suIt in a total of 124 hotel
were to generate entering traffic at a rate f half that previously arse
southbound left -turns would be lik y to 4 proximate wenty during i
previously recommended a painted eft -tarn median a ong Vail Road
other nearby left -turn traffic. The easibillty of such painted media
assumed to rest on not having to w den V it Road. T e only requires
the covering of an existing ditch an installation of cb and gutter a
Sonnenalp. It was also assumed that the � roposed th ee -lane design
within the existing Vail Road cross +ectio�i of approxi ately shirty fe4
recommend an 11 -foot northbound I�ne, A !.0 -foot sou bound lane ar
median. #
+I
It is our understanding that t ere i�
Vail Road which are less than 12 ft A. TJ
as a design standard and, as such, works:
that the 12 -foot design has been de 7elopo
as I -70. Application of this standat to 1c
standard for new construction whe a rigb
and, in our experience, unnecessa . For
lanes with 10 -foot widths or less w ich fig
virtually any other major city. Eve the i
widths on I -70 near the Eisenhowe the
addition of a third travel lane.
I
i
ome coneetn about using
12 -foot wi th is one whie
cry well. It should be reo
for high seed state highs
speed urban streets may
:1-way is s ifficient but it
;ample, there are many ir.
-tion well along major stn
dorado Highway Departm
to 11 feetiin order to ecoll
1869 York Street
Denver, Colorado 60206
(303) 333 -1105
Fax: (303) 333.1107
Expansion
i indicates
rt for the
are national
=s. If the hotel
tei, entering
peak hour. We
s ve this and
h wever, was
n specified were
ac nt to
out d be installed
e would further
a 6 -foot left -turn
ze'Widths along
ha been accepted
zi , however,
y onditions such
a � desirable
of�n unrealistic
an of travel Denver and
t �as reduced lane
nipally allow the
Transportation S }sterrx • Transit • Parking • Vehicular Access • P deslrian &. Bicycle Planning *!Traffic Operations & Sa ty • Sr nal Des ign*Traffic Impact Studies
f IN
S
I�
1
Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan 12
u
In our opinion, the recommend stri ing in the �Icinity of the
benefit traffic flow and safety, even thou the proposed hotel expan
roadway widening is required in order to ect this change, the resul
are not justified, and we would reco meri that the operation of Vail
two -lane design.
I
We trust thrt this supplementil infoi
Sonnenalp project. Please call if wE can
E
Respectfully submitted, �
LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC,
by:''�°'
Philip. Sco , III, P.E.
PNS /vb
•
ation will assist with ft
,f additio al assistance.
91
15, 1990
:ialp will
However, if
xpenditures
remain as a
nning for the
/ I
0
HEIGHT ANALYSIS
... .. ..... ..... ...
PROPOSED REDEVEL :]PMENT .
badge
Gable
Eave
eft}
{ft}
(ft}
(ft}
............... .
(ft}
eft
Tower Above. Auto.
Elevator Tower:
8;,
NIA
6 5
Tnwer;at. Garner, of East Meaia
4.5:',
NIA
21
and; Vail.'.Roar�
........:.....:.....
57 ..
ILIA '..
Ridge along East Meadow Drive::.,:..::,::
49 S
NIA
5
Tower on East. End .: .
52
NIA
30.5..':
Ridge along Vail Road:
51 5 `
NIA
35
Portio:n of Existing auPding
to
Remain:
42;
N/A
Sonnenalp
Exhibit B
R dge
Gable
Eave
(ft}
............... .
(ft}
eft
Tower::
70...
: CIA
5Q
Ridge Along Meadow:
4.5:',
NIA
21
Carne . AI Vail Road.:..
and'; Meadow:: Drive. . ,
Sonnenalp
Exhibit B
........ ..............
. . . . . .
.. ..... .
. . . . . .. r 1.. .% J.. : P SED
.. .. .. .. ...... ..
PARM N
.. .. .. ..... .. . . ..... ..
.. .. .. ...... .. . ..........
M.
eet #
.. . ..
Regular. Spaces,
Compact Spaces
;'
. .. ..
.. ... .. .. .. .. .....
............ ....... .. ........ .
. .. ... ..
.. .. ..
.. ..... ...... .. .. .
.... .......
63
1 .. ..
.. .....
........ .
..................
P1/P2
.. ..... . ..... .. ... . ..... . ..... .. .. 60:7
.. .. ..... .......... ........ ... .. ....
..... . ... . .... .. ..
............ . .. .. .. .. ..
13
.. .. ..
.. .. ..
...... .. .. .. .. .. .... ..
. .. .. ...... .. ...... . ..... .
7
LpbbY`L6V0::
.
...... ......................
...........
..... ..... .
..... .. .. ...
..... .. .. ..
Total
. ...... ..... ..
25
.. .. ..
...... .. .. . ..
Grand Total: 185
(includes 13.5% compact
and 17.8% valet)
USE
CALCULATION
:7 as
20
r, 0. 143!�d 0.965x124 Accommodation Units
.. ..... .. .. ..........
.. .. .. .. .. ..... ..
(565 sq. ft. average room size) .. .. .. ..
I. ..................
4 63 1 4163/15/8
IMstaurant/Lounae
...... .. ..
Parking Required
= 208 spaces
Mutiple Use Credit (5%)
= (35)
Non-conforming Credit
= (4)
Total
169
Sonnenalp
Exhibit A
AREA BREAKDOWN
SITE COVERAGE
= Mezzanine -
Sheet A4
= 2nd level =
Sheet A2 =
Existing hotellconference area =
Sheet A9 =
New hotel --
Sheet A00 =
Spa building/covered walkway -
Sheet Al
Total
COMMON AREA
= New building 4th level -
Sheet A2 =
Registration lobbylloading & delivery =
Sheet A3 =
Library/offices etc. _
Sheet A4 =
Corridors, stairs - 2nd level =
Sheet A5 =
Corridors, stairs - 3rd level =
Sheet A6 =
Display /restroom -
Sheet A6.1 =
Conference area/offices/laundry, etc.
Sheet A7 =
Elevatorllobby /stairs =
Sheet A8 =
New wing - corridor =
Sheet A9 =
Corridor - 2nd level =
Sheet A10 =
Corridor - 3rd level =
Sheet A11 =
Corridor - 4th level =
Sheet Al2 =
Corridor - 5th level =
Sheet A00 =
Spa building/covered walkway =
Total
PrIFA
Sheet A3
= Mezzanine -
Sheet A4
= 2nd level =
Sheet A5
= 3rd level =
Sheet A8
= New building 1st level =
Sheet A9
= New building 2nd level =
Sheet Al
= New building 3rd level =
Sheet A11
= New building 4th level -
Sheet Al2
= New building 5th level =
16,909
Total
COMMERCIAL
19,611 sq. ft.
20,194 sq. ft.
4,518 sq. ft.
44,378 sq. ft.
4,284 sq. ft.
4,367 sq. ft.
1,074 sq. ft.
1,087 sq. ft.
565 sq. ft.
31,201 sq. ft.
366 sq. ft.
2,435 sq. ft.
2,654 sq. ft.
2,642 sq. ft.
2,867 sq. ft.
1437 sq. ft.
4,518 sq. ft.
59,497 sq. ft.
5,281
sq. ft.
- 14
Rooms
6,120
sq. ft.
- 12
Rooms
6,029
sq. ft.
- 12
Rooms
4,205
sq. ft.
- 7
Rooms
16,909
sq. ft.
- 28
Rooms
16,910
sq. ft.
- 28
Rooms
11,137
sq. ft.
- 19
Rooms
3,522
sq. ft.
- 4
Rooms
70,113
sq. ft.
- 124
Rooms
Sheet A8 = 1 st Level = 5,760 sq. ft.
Total 5,760 sq. ft.
RESTAURANT /KITCHEN /LOBBY LOUNGE
Sheet A2 = Restaurant/Kitchen /Lobby Lounge - 10,106 sq. ft.
Total 10,106 sq. ft.
Onnenalp
Exhibit C
Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
& TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
Offices in Denver and Colorado Springs
October 4, 1990
Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan
Pierce, Segerbe;rg & Spaeh
1000 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 80657
Dear Ken:
i� GCi Q
1889 York Street
Denver. Colorado 80206
(303) 333 -1105
Fax: (303) 333 -1147
RE: Sonnenalp Motel Expansion
LSC * 900710
We have completed a traffic impact and access analysis for the proposed
Sonnenalp Hotel project in Vail, Colorado. The project site is located along
the east side of Vail Road between Meadow Drive and Gore Creek. The proposed
project is assumed to consist of demolition of 75 of the Hotel's 84 existing
rooms and construction of 115 new hotel units. Thus, the new Sonnenalp
facility will contain a total of 124 hotel rooms including 40 more than exist
on the site today.
Existing Conditions
Figure 1, enclosed, illustrates the location of the site with respect to the
adjacent roadway system. All access to and from the proposed facility is
planned for a pair of one -way driveways located along the east side of Vail
Road about 120 feet and 180 feet south of Meadow Drive.
Vail Road is an important access route through the central part of the Town
where it connects residential areas to the south with I -70 and the east /west
frontage road system. In the vicinity of the site, Vail Road is about 30 feet
wide and it provides for one travel lane in each direction. Four -way Stop
signs are posted at the Vail Road intersections with Meadow Drive and the
South Frontage Road.
Meadow Drive is an important two -lane, east /west route which serves the
central area of Vail. West of Vail Road, Meadow is a 1500 -foot long cul -de-
sac street which serves many important community facilities (fire station,
library, hospital, etc.). To the east, Meadow is a limited access route which
is controlled by a gate arm mounted adjacent to Vail Road.
Figure 1 also presents traffic count data for the nearby four -way Stop
intersection of Vail Road and the South I -70 Frontage Road. The data shown
presents evening peak -hour turning movement counts conducted in March, 1990,
and future projections of same by Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig. The future data
assumes build out of all proposed development in the vicinity which has
already been approved by the Town.
Systems • Transit • Parking • Vehicuiar Access • Pedestnan & Bicycle Planning • Traffic Operations & Safety • Signal Design • Traffic Impact Studies
r
Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan 2
Estimated Traffic Generation
October 4, 1990
Average weekday and evening peak -hour traffic activity expected to be
generated by the Sonnenalp hotel is shown in the following table!
ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION
SONNENALP HOTEL
40 Additional
124 Rooms Rooms Only
Average Weekday Traffic (@ 8.704 /Rm) 1080 350
Evening Peak hour Traffic
• Entering Vehicles (@ 0.359 /Rm) 45 14
• Exiting Vehicles (@ 0.305 /Rm.) 38 12
As indicated, full occupancy of the hotel can be expected to generate 540
entering and 540 exiting vehicles during an average weekday. Less than a
third of this traffic, however, is projected to be new to the area since the
net increase in hotel units is only 40. These estimates are based on Category
310 rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers as cited in
"Trip Generation ", 4th edition.
Estimated Traffic Distribution and Assignment
The directional distribution of generated vehicular traffic on the roadway
system providing access to and from the subject project is one of the most
important elements in planning specific access requirements and in determining
related traffic impacts. The major factors which influence this traffic
distribution include the Hotel's relative location within the community, the
type of proposed land use, and characteristics of the roadway system providing
access.
Figure 2 illustrates the percentage distribution of Sonnenalp traffic which is
estimated for this analysis. As indicated, the majority (93a) of the Hotel
traffic is expected to pass through the four -way intersection. Application of
these distribution estimates to the previously cited generation estimates for
the project's 40 additional rooms results in the peak -hour and average weekday
turning movement traffic assignment which is also shown on Figure 2. As
indicated, traffic to be added by the project is shown at the proposed
Sonnenalp driveways as well as at the Meadow Drive and Frontage Road
intersections with Vail toad.
Traffic Impacts
Figure 3 illustrates the combination of background and site- generated traffic
at the Vail Road /Frontage Road intersection for both existing (March, 1990)
and future evening peak -hour traffic conditions. A comparative capacity
Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan
3
October 4, 1990
analysis has been prepared for the subject intersection using procedures
presented to the Transportation Research Board during the January 1990 annual
meeting ( "Estimating the Capacity of an All -Way Stop - Controlled Intersection ",
Michael Kite). The results of these analyses (printouts are enclosed) are as
follows:
CAPACITY ANALYSIS COMPARISONS
VAIL ROAD & I -70 FRONTAGE ROAD
Volume /Capacity
Assumed Traffic Ratio
Existing 119°
Existing + Additional Site 120%
Future 140%
,Future + Additional Site 1430
As indicated, the intersection with existing controls is presently 19 percent
over capacity during the peak -hour and in the future, it is projected to be 40
percent over capacity. The additional traffic to be added by the proposed
Sonnenalp project, however, will only increase these peak -hour projections 1%
and 311", respectively.
Summary and Conclusions
Based on the foregoing analysis, the following summarizes our findings
concerning the proposed Hotel expansion.
1. At full occupancy, the proposed project can be expected to add
approximately 175 entering and 175 exiting weekday vehicle trips to the
surrounding roadway system. of these, 14 will enter and 13 will exit
during the evening peak -hour.
2. The greatest concentration of project - generated traffic is expected along
Vail Road to and from the north. Ninety -three percent of the additional
traffic will pass through the key Vail Road /I -70 Frontage Road
intersection.
3. The traffic impact of the proposed project on existing and future peak
season traffic will be minimal. At the key four- way'intersection, peak -
hour capacity will be reduced only one to three percent.
4. In conjunction with this project, consideration should be given to
installation of painted left -turn channelization on Vail Road approximately
as shown on Figure 4, enclosed. As noted, the existing ditch along the
east side of Vail Road should be covered and;or protected by the
installation of curb and gutter.
• a
Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan 4 October 4, 1990
We trust that this report will assist with further planning for the Sonnenalp
Hotel project. Please call if we can be of additional assistance.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC.
by rr�
Philip N. SC t, III, P.E.
PNS /vb
Enclosures: Figures 1 -4
Capacity Analysis (4)
s
ti vii.:• 44i.� ?:. Y�y .- a;`. <j
A :
°+
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The Sonnenalp Hotel Bavaria Haus
Vail, Colorado
November 5, 1990
Prepared For.
Sonnenalp Properties, Inc.
Prepared By:
Rosall, Itenunen and Cares, Inc.
Boulder, Colorado
(303) 419 -6558
Pierce, Segerberg and Spaeh Architects
Vail, Colorado
(303) 476.4433
Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc.
Denver, Colorado
(303) 333.1105
WeitrJCohen Construction
Denver, Colorado
(303) 8606600
ROSALL RINKEN CARES
f ■
TABLE OF CONTENTS
is
The Most Significant Impacts of the Project .......... ............................... 1
Significant Mitigation Measures Associated with the Project ............................ 2
Background.................. ............................... .............4
LandUse .................................... ............................... 6
Population and Employment Impacts .............. ............................... 7
Parking and Circulation ........................ ............................... 8
AirQuality . ............................... ............................... 13
Visualimpact ............................... ............................... 13
Drainage and Improvements Along Gore Creek ..... ............................... 15
Construction Phasing and Management ........................... I .............. 16
Fiscal Impacts ................. ............................... 18
Amendices
'Reductions of Preliminary Design Plans for The Sonnenalp Hotel" ................. A
October, 1990 - Pierce, Segerberg and Spaeh Architects
*(Note: Full scale copies of plans submitted under separate cover)
"Traffic Impact Study„ .................. .. ............................... B
October 4, 1990 - Leigh, Scott & Cleary
"Sonnenalp Transportation Study .............. ............................... C
Van Ridership, Winter /Summer 1990 - Sonnenalp Properties, Inc.
"Hotel Occupancies and Parking Lot Occupancies" .............................. D
Winter /Spring 1989 - Rosall Remmen and Cares, Inc.
"View Analysis" ........................... ..............................E
"Shadow and Shade Studies"
October 1990 - Pierce, Segerberg and Spaeh Architects
"Construction Management and Phasing" ....... ............................... F
October 9, 1990 - Weitz Cohen
•
" ■
SUMMARY
r 1
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
• Undergrounding of the parking lot will alter the present character of the
intersection of East Meadow Drive and Vail Road. This impact will be
positive, but the expanded parking facility will have some minor traffic
impacts beyond current levels.
• There will be a slight increase in bed base (40 units) and an increase in
commercial area (5,790 sq. ft.) and meeting roorns (7,155 sq. ft.) as a result of
the redevelopment. More important, the service quality will go up and the
Town of Vail will have a centrally located deluxe hotel, a resort product not
formerly offered.
+ Traffic associated with the redevelopment will increase slightly. However,
through the use of vans, and a clientele that is likely to visit Vail without
automobiles, especially during the winter, traffic impacts will be reduced
below what a similar facility might generate in other communities or
elsewhere in Vail.
+ The new hotel will have visual impact at the Vail Road /East Meadow Drive
intersection and when viewed from several off-site vantage points, especially
from the west on East Meadow Drive. The hotel will create some shadowing
of East Meadow Drive, although the shadows will not be present during
most of the year and will not significantly exceed those created by existing
landscaping on the road's edge.
• The construction process will generate impacts, both on the site and for
directly adjacent properties. These impacts are addressed in the proposal and
various measures have been proposed to mitigate anticipated problems and
concerns. For example, the Sonnenalp development will undertake erosion
control measures to minimize impacts on Gore Creek and surrounding
properties. Necessary precautions will be taken and will comply with the
rules. Scheduling and sequencing of construction is another important
concern that has been addressed.
Drainage impacts associated with the proposed improvements have been
carefully considered. The parking structure and proximity to Gore Creek
generate some special considerations, but all drainage impacts and
dewatering requirements and concerns will be addressed through the
drainage systems that will be constructed. All plans will comply with Town
of Vail requirements.
The fiscal impacts of the Sonnenalp Project have not been quantified in detail,
but the revenue potential of the project to the Town is considerable. Because
a significant number of services to occupants of the hotel will be provided
r �
LJ
privately by the Sonnenalp, rather than by the Town of Vail, the revenue
potential for the Town exceeds costs, resulting in a positive economic benefit.
SIGNIFICANT MITIGATION MEASURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT
A variety of mitigation steps are proposed by the applicants. These measures have been
considered by the Town of Vail as a part of the Sonnenalp Hotel expansion, and have been
suggested by the staff and through meetings with the Planning Commission. Discussions to
date have resulted in plan refinements and clarifications and the proposal now before the
Town represents an attempt to consider and address those impacts that are regarded as most
significant.
• The proposal is supportive of the Vail Village Master Plan, although the
Master Plan was developed in anticipation of renovating rather than
demolishing the existing hotel. In support of the Master Plan, the proposal
suggests the addition of commercial /retail space along East Meadow Drive
and the addition of short -term housing within this district.
• The main objective is to develop a Five -Star Hotel operation in the Vail
Village that will have a positive impact on guests as well as pedestrians and
the larger community alike. The hotel will attract guests, both national and
international, which will benefit the Town both economically and culturally.
• The concept of a private area for guests is an important consideration for this
type of development and is strongly addressed in this proposal.
• The design has been phased to reflect economic factors that must be
addressed to make the project feasible. Continuing to operate the existing
hotel while construction occurs presents impacts that have been addressed
and will be mitigated.
• The character reflected in the proposal is in keeping with Vail Village and is
modeled after the Sonnenalp Properties developed in Europe.
• The Sonnenalp Hotel operates two vans which reduce auto traffic to the site
and lower demands on the Vail bus system.
• Parking will be increased, and efficiency will improve as a result of not
contending with snow in the surface lots. All parking is covered, a
significant mitigation element that is of general community benefit.
• Pedestrian access will be enhanced through new heated walkways that will
be adjacent to shops. New visual interest will be created that will offset the
presence of a large new building at the corner of East Meadow Drive and
Vail Road.
0 2
• Employee housing is being provided by Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., and is
being addressed in the SDD application.
• The height and shading created by the building have been addressed by the
applicants and a series of design changes have been made to address
concerns identified in the review process.
,.
3
Ll
BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
The Sonnenalp Hotel SDD is proposed to obtain flexibility in the planning process that
would not otherwise be available in the underlying P.A. Zone District. An Environmental
Impact Report (E.I.R.) has been developed by the applicants to summarize the environmental
impacts that may be anticipated with the proposal and to summarize some of the key
mitigation measures that will be undertaken.
This E.I.R. is organized around the requirements of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, Section
18.56.040 and 18.56.050. The order of the discussion has been modified somewhat from the
outline contained in the Town Code in order to provide a more logical description of the
proposal and its impacts on the Town.
Because there is already development on the Sonnenalp site, and because it is located in a
developed area, many of the most significant impacts associated with this request are in the
areas of traffic and circulation, employment, and the altered visual character of the site as a
result of proposed new construction. Although biotic, geologic, and hydrologic impacts are
identified as considerations in the Code, they are of relatively minor concern with this
particular application and as a result greater discussion and attention is given to the areas
where impacts are felt to be greatest.
The following discussion provides an overview of the technical reports that comprise the
body of the Environmental Impact Report. The technical reports are contained in the
Appendix.
THE PROPOSAL
The Sonnenalp Hotel SDD is located along the east side of Vail Road between Meadow Drive
and Gore Creek. The proposed redevelopment of the existing Sonnenalp Hotel involves the
phased demolition of 75 of the existing hotel's 84 existing rooms, and the construction of 115
new hotel units. The RroRosed hotdwill contain a total of 124 hotel rooms, or 40 more
rooms than exist today. In addition the site wW c ontain a total of
square feet of meeting rooms, and 5,72 square feet of retail space.
The Sonnenalp Hotel Bavaria House is one of three Vail Village properties owned by
Sonnenalp Properties Inc. The other two properties, the Swiss Chalet (60 units) and the
Austria House (37 units), are managed together with the existing Bavaria House as an
integrated operation. This management practice will continue with the redevelopment of the
Bavaria House to include the addition of 40 rooms plus expanded meeting space. The
commercial space is expected to be leased private operators.
The efficiency of operations for the entire organization will be improved with the new
construction. As a result of the integrated operations of Sonnenalp Properties Inc., and
0 4
because of the improvements in overall operations, some assumptions about impacts must be
made that will carry throughout this Impact Report. A discussion of impacts based on the
three properties, rather than the Bavaria House alone, are appropriate at several points.
The context for this proposed redevelopment is established by the adjacent properties which
are either developed or permanently preserved as open space. In other words, the applicants
are proposing to redevelop an existing developed property in an area where the "edges" are
established, either by roadways, the open space corridor of Gore Creek, or the existing
buildings that make up the Vail Village inn to the north, and the Chapel and 1st Bank of Vail
to the west. (See the Site Plan in the Appendix for locations of the adjacent properties. e
proposal h en res onsive to the tannin 'delines as
estabUshed by the Vail Villaee Plan, the Acti nes and volicies.
040
a
s
s
s
s
s
s�
s
s
wi t'h..a Y !'laza awn.p
I11i /i
I Wet BOOM
J�
1
' r
THE SONNENALP HOTEL SITE CONTEXT
MWdDW
i
5
1
11
iotnw1* Hot 1
SAG chow 11 }I
GW
` � s
An additional land use component of the plan is the pedestrian circulation system that will
be created. At present, there is negligible pedestrian activity along the Sonnenalp side of Vail
Road and Gore Creek Drive. As described and illustrated further below, sidewalks will be
created as a part of this plan that will serve the pedestrian needs of not only hotel occupants,
S but the larger community.
A significant element in the current plan is the underground parking loft that is proposed. At
present, there are a total of 112 surface parking spaces on the Sonnenalp site. These spaces
will be consolidated and increased through the construction of a two floor underground
garage. A total of 188 spaces will be created, of which 34 are for valet use and 6
spaces are on t e auto court. The net change in land use for parking is an increase of 76
spaces, w a u six spaces underground.
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT IWACTS
The changes in land use at the Sonnenalp Hotel will have some impact on local population
figures, and will create a slight increase in both on -site and off -site employment. Because no
condominium units are proposed on -site there will be no permanent population impacts on
the Sonnenalp property as a result of the redevelopment. The employment impacts of the
proposal are estimated to be as follows:
Q •
During the winter months there are a total of approximatel r j s
working Sonnenalp,Propperties. These employees are spread between the
three hotels and while it is difficult to allocate a precise percentage to the
Bavarian House, an attempt to analyze employment on the subject property
is provided in the Appendix. During the summer months Sonnenalp
Properties Inc. has slightly less employees than during the winter, and they
are allocated differently with some of the winter work force moving to the
Singletree Golf Course, which is also owned by Sonnenalp.
On any given day during the peak Winter season, it is estimated that there
will be as many as 120 employees spread between the three Sonnenalp
properties. This estimate is based on the assumption that of the total
employees typically 28 percent are off (most work five day weeks), and some
employees hold multiple positions. Further, the round- the-clock and full-
time nature of a hotel operation means that the total employment force are
spread throughout a 24 hour period.
An estimate of the em ent assoc a ex nded hotel meeti g
and commercial facilities at the Sonnenalp indicates a total increase of
approximate 8 t610 em to ees. This is based on some increased f'
e iciencies that will come from the new operation resulting in the closing of
one of the three front desks (freeing two staff members) and the elimination
of a restaurant. The expected new staff include the addition of four to five
housekeeping staff to serve the 40 additional rooms, a houseman, and a
�. 7
person for the laundry, and up to four additional persons to augment the
overall staff at peak times.
Di • In addition, the new commercial space will generate some additional
employment. Based on multi liers established through the Eagle County
Employer Survey MC, 1990 the 5 s _quare eel o commercial space are
R expec ores tin approximately 16 emplovees.
The issue of housing employees is of potential concern to both Sonnenalp Properties Inc. and
local officials. This issue has been discussed as a part of the SDD review process and various
documents describing the current status of housing for employees of the corporation have
been provided under separate cover. The impact of adding new employees to an already
tight market is acknowledged. Sonnenalp Properties is rently providing housm* for a
total of 145 employees. T mbination of units owned b nann Pro rties Inc.
t units ousing em_ ployees) a_nd rented units {19 units housin 78 em to ees) the
co oration is currents in a roxirnatel 53 ercent of total em loyees. The
company's stated goal is to main#ain housing for approximately 60 #0 70 percent of total
employees. Because a number of Sonnenalp employees currently own housing, the company
is currently providing housing for a high percentage of employees in need.
PARKING AND CIRCULATION
13 The Sonnenalp Hotel will be located at one of the significant intersections in Vail, as
identified by the Vail Village Master Plan. Bus, vehicular and pedestrian circulation are all
excellent to the prQpprty. and the I d ian s o each of these modes were addressed in
� the tannin
31 PARKING
32 A significant change in parking will occur as a result of the new Sonnenalp Hotel. The
existing parking lot at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive will be placed
underground, with a net increase of 74 spaces. As summarized on the following page, the
new parking structure will consist of two floors, with four sub - levels and an auto court.
There will be impacts associated with the parking of automobiles at this location but they are
generally less than the existing situation where dust (due to winter sanding and snow
removal), the visual quality of the intersection, and surface water runoff are all negatively
32 impacted by the open parking lot that exists.
/I
.
E�]
30 S
a�
a
LAND USE
The proposed land use for the Sonnenalp Hotel is as a hotel with 124 rooms, and additional
meeting space and retail shops. The proposed land use is consistent with the Vail Village
Plan and with the a hotel rooms are proposed to be large by local
standards en over 600 scrqar fee owever, the rooms are designed for occupancies
typical of luxury , an wi strict registration requirements at the hotel, there is a
degree of control over land use at the Sonnenalp that is not found at many of the other
condominium properties in Vail. This central control is important. It has characterized the
Sonnenalp's operations in the past, and will continue in the future, making land uses
predictable and quantifiable to an extent not normally possible.
Impacts of the proposal are evaluated in relation to existing population figures and
established densities and land uses within the Town. At present, there are an estimated
7,326 dwellin own of Vail, of which 828 are accommodation units. In other
Because the Town counts each two accommodation units as a residential unit, the proposed
addition of 40 units at the Sonnenalp Hotel would add approximately 2.4 percent capacity to
the existing base of 1,656 accommodation units in the Town. At completion, this would add a
small increment to the Town's hotel room base, and while the additional units would have a
minor impact on the total accommodations inventory within Vail, they represent a land use
type that is encouraged by both the Town's Land Use Plan and the Action Plan. Further, the
luxury aspect of the proposed units and site plan represent an important complement to
existing facilities and services offered by Vail.
1181 lan fdr nnenalp Hotel also includes 7.155 new square feet of meetine-sDacer --This
will-]x-in-additiou to the existi n 2 408 uare feet on -site, re--- tin in a total t
of 9,563 s This relatively small meeting facility is designed to complement hotel
operations and to service guests of the Sonnenalp Properties as well as small groups staying
elsewhere in the community.
The plan for the Hotel also includes the construction of approximately 5,800 square feet of
new commercial space adjacent to East Meadow Drive. This retail space would be added to
the existing Town of Vail base of slightly more than 500,000 square feet, an increase of
approximately 1 percent. The proposed additional retail space would add approximately 2
percent to the total in the smaller Vail Village area. The commercial space is located in
accordance with the Vail Village Master Plan, and is designed to improve and reinforce the
road corridor in accordance with the Plan.
The Sonnenalp Hotel will result in the preservation of significant areas of open space along
Gore Creek. Setbacks along the Creek exceed the Town's 50 foot requirement in all areas, f
and the large area of grass and trees will provide benefits to hotel occupants, adjacent units
to the south (Bishop Park and others), and visible open space from pedestrian ways to the
west (Vail Road Bridge), and through the Auto Court.
SONNENAL,P HOTEL, PARKING SCHEME:
A DIAGRAM OF THE PARKWG STRUCTURE AND SUMMARY OF PARKING CAPACITY
AtITO -COURT LEVEL ; 6 Parking Spaces
* 0 Valet Spaces a 6 Parking Spaces
PARKING LEYLL 2- 1 40 Parking Spaces
+ 0 Valet Spaces = 40 Parking Spaces
PARKING LEVEL P-2 : 34 Parking Spaces
+ 7 Valet Spaces = 41 Parking Spaces
PARKING LEVI"L P -3 : 40 Parking Spaces
+1 1 Valet Spaces 51 Parking Spaces
PARKING LEVEL P-6; 34 Parking Spaces
*14 Valet Spaces = 48 Parking Spaces
TOTAL PARKING ALL LEVELS = * 186 (Including MOO
*Note: The original parking scheme showed 198 spaces. A total of 12 parking spaces were
deleted from the original plan to enhance the landscaping for the new hotel.
0
i ■
a.
An additional indicator of automobile use by Sonnenalp residents is the :inventory of the
Sonnenalp parking lot that was conducted by the Town of Vail as a part of the 1989 Parking
310 Stud ts �This study involved a series of traffic coun in a nnena p ot, con uct at
various tunes of day, on a sampling of days between December 29 and July 1. The average
parking lot utilization at the Sonnenalp lot was 55 percent , with the highest count r or3Ted
owing of they 12 existin g spaces filled, or 91 percent occupancy. (See the Appendix oz
2 a summary of the results.) The ata show a ig eve) of correlation between the occupancy
of the hotel and the use of the parking lot, but even at very low hotel occupancies the lot
® was being used by approximately 20 cars. These are typically employee vehicles that are
present at all times.
as
ra
The inventory showed rather clearly that the Sonnenalp has an excess of parking under all
conditions at the present time. This condition will become even more pronounced when the
parking lot is expanded by 76 spaces. It should be rgcogniz iAhgLt4g_ arkin at the
Sonnenalp Bavaria Ho mand from the other twQ
proper es. At present, therg are a totiLD= rid the arkin r showed no
evx ence o ein filled to ca a rkin will more than meet the
additio o be generated by the 40 unit ex anion, along
with the meeting rooms and added commerc
This finding is significant because there will be a need to trade parking impacts off against
other site planning issues. The planning process has resulted in discussions concerning the
sizing of the parking lot in relation to the real anticipated parking requirements of the
Sonnenalp properties (as opposed to the requirements based on current Town of Vail codes).
There is a community desire, as expressed thr�ueh_tlie Vail Village Master Plan, to see
of the
and East Meadow Drive, and to
var a automob'
evaluated in
at the corner of Willowbrook Road
eserift parked at grade on the corner.
have proven o e significantly less than the current town r uirements.
TRANsrr SERVICE NEEDS
of the
The expansion at the lodging base at the Sonnenalp Hotel will have some impact on the bus
system, both within the Town of Vail and valley -wide. The impacts are expected to be small
because Sonnenalp visitors frequently make use of Sonnenalp vans, and proximity to Vail
Village means that in all but the worst weather, hotel visitors walk. Nevertheless, the
addition of 40 rooms with two xrsons. d full occupancy is ex acted t ontribut�
a tional ridership of up to about 17 per day (40 rooms --x 2 persons der room x 95%
occupancy x 2 trips per person) 26 employees x 40% ridership x 2 trips per d�^ ay).
11
le
1 r
3 PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
So The site plan has addressed the need to provide for pedestrian circulation. Proposed
sidewalk improvements will result in a significant enhancement in the current pedestrian
3 flow around the Sonnenalp property.
�J
As shown on the diagram below, a walkway system is proposed around the perimeter of the
property starting at the bridge and down Meadow Drive, with some variation in sidewalk
width and cover to provide interest and variety in the pedestrian experience. Th_ a public
sidewalks around the erimeter of the property will all be finished with pavers with
SITGA::: un erneat , resulting in an upgraded pedestrian experience in all seasons.
urt er tt a addition of commercial space along East Meadow Drive will significantly
improve the overall experience of both shoppers and casual walkers.
THE SONNENALP HOTEL PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
D
wi f� v Pfaza eu�e�o
�1
EO - -`
' Ll," fbWM
inftriWCO WQ"*&f W f
HW61
33 `� t
a --
CrMk -�
3
if
a '
i
i
y � / ED wbfk Pstlwtrfan vatnway
/ 1
� e i ' �BlshoP PVk
12
i .
VEHICULAR TRIPS
ne number of vehicle trips to the property was originally estimated by a consultant using
traditional measures from similar properties. The study, commissioned by Sonnenalp
D Properties Inc., is contained in the Appendix. It shows that the expansion of the Hotel with
Its associated improvements will increase the peak hour use at the four way stop b y 1
R percent at the present time, and up to 3-nercent_in the_future- when the intersection is further
F�
Ii
li
li
..
041
as
we
so
of
ii
as
Key recommendations and findings from the study included:
At full occupancy, the proposed project can be expected to add
approximately 175 entering and 175 exiting weekday vehicle trips to the
surrounding roadway system. Of these, 14 will enter and 12 will exit during
the evening peak -hour.
• The greatest concentration of project - generated traffic is expected along Vail
Road to and from the north. Ninety -three percent of the additional traffic
will pass through the key Vail Road /I -70 Frontage Road intersection.
• The traffic impact of the proposed project on existing and future peak season
traffic will be minimal.
of paint-t —turn channeiization on R d. The existing ditch along the
east side of Vail Road should be covered and /or protected by the installation
of curb and gutter.
In response to the recommendations by the consultant, Sonnenalp Properties Inc. will make
changes within the existing right of way of Vail Road. The additional traffic that is enerated
b_y the proposal will be addressed by res ' ittg the existi paved section of Vail Road as a
three lane roadway. This would occur between East Meadow Drive and the entrance to the
SOnY_ nenalvlarkiug art.
However, it should be noted that the traffic impact estimates are felt to represent a "worst
case" for several reasons. First, the Sonnenalp has operated two vans for some time (at
present a 21 and 15 person vehicle are in operation). Experience has shown that most guests
choose to use the vans rather than private vehicles to make winter trips in and around the
Valley. Second, ext ensiv e_record&_kePt__b)L alp Properties Inc. indicate that almost half
of� all guests are visiting Vail without cars., Durin the winter mont this fi re roached
70 ercent, an x as shown signs of continued increase in recent years as pay parking,
improved van service, and the emphasis on direct flights have combined to make having an
automobile in Vail less attractive. These findings are confirmed by the summary analysis,
contained in the Appendix, which shows that Burin thghee period from Jan. 1, 1990 through
out of a total of 8,652 departures and arrivals 48.5 rcent) were by van services.
10
I D-
AIR QUALrry
There are three significant air quality considerations associated with the Sonnenalp Hotel
application. The first involves fireplaces and their treatment within the expanded
development. All units in the hotel are proposed to have gas burning fireplaces, constructed
according to current Town of Vail standar4-%c:,��emissions from these gas burning
ZD
appliances will be negligible. In addition ou . r exis wood burning fireplaces in the
S
A second important consideration is dust, both during the period of construction and upon
completion of the project, Dust suppression efforts will be undertaken during construction,
as described further below. The fact that those portions of the Sonnenalp Hotel that are
slated for demolition are precast concrete, and will therefore be removed in large pieces, is
identified as a benefit in that it will generate minimal dust. The covering of the present open
33 air parking lot on the Sonnenalp site will reduce current winter and spring dust problems
significantly.
33 The number of auto trips associated with the hotel is also an air quality consideration.
Clearly, there will be some expanded vehicular traffic at the site as a result of the added 40
rooms and the commercial/meeting expansion. However, it is again noted that the
33 combination of use of vans, the central location of the site relative to services and activities in
Vail including the bus system, and the international clientele of the hotel that is increasingly
33 coming without cars, will all serve to minimize the use of automobiles in the future.
Z)
;0 VISUAL ImpAcr
-7.1
In order to evaluate the visual impact of the proposal, a series of photographs were taken
and then related to the proposed building to indicate roof lines and view blockage that will
occur as a result of new construction. Shadow and Shade studies were also performed by the
architectural team for the project. The results of these studies are contained in the Appendix,
along with the actual photographs that identify the impact of the Sonnenalp Hotel on local
views from a number of different locations.
THE ViEw ANALYSIS
The methods used to develop the View Analysis are simple and easily understood. A total of
seven different views were considered in the analysis. As summarized in the diagram below,
they include two looking south toward Vail Mountain, three looking east, and two looking
west. Clearly, there will be visual impact and change brought about by the con ction of
s�
13
roof lines. and the
I!
r
The impacts on views at the various locations are described briefly below:
#1. iew �Loong Eas�on as t Meadow
This view is looking east from near the existing fire station. Although
pedestrians will rarely view the Sonnenalp from this perspective because foot
traffic is minimal in this area, this photo —gives an overall fePlin oLjbg ro'ed
and the roof shapes when viewed from the west. The irn act of the new
Sonnenalp will be greater at this location than at any otheK- - -significant
portion of the mountain view will be eliminated. The building height is
eceptive because it will be viewed against the sky rather than the mountain
backdrop; however, no major view corridor will be affected. One will sense
i� an entrance way into the village.
#2. View Looking South on Vail Road
This view represents a location looking south, just north of the existing Ski
Museum. This 1 11 be hi hl viewed by pedestrians and motorists
travelin a ad. Considering the existing structures and other
develo meat ossibilities the im act of the Sonnena view will e
w to moderate While some of the mountain will be blocked, there — a Vff
also be an interesting streetscape created that will enhance the pedestrian
experience along Vail Road, and will improve the level of interest and
diversity in the Village itself.
s O
T;l
#3. View Looking East at East Meadow Drive
This view is taken from the intersection of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive
looking east. The view along East Meadow Drive will not be greatly affected
by the building location or setback distances along East Meadow Drive. The
view will in fact be made more inviting and the new building will create
interest that is presently lacking at this location. The experience that
edestria will have will tin g and will s im lement the
intentions of the Va' view will improve the
streetscape along Meadow Drive, and will positively enhance o existin
and new sho ties encour n movement and
CiniWiOlL
#4. View From 4 -Way Stop Looking South.
This view will have a relatively low impact and will be consistent with the
Vail Road streetscape, that provides some diverse building facades with clear
views of the mountain. The Sonnenalp will be in scale with the mountain
:3
when viewed from this vantage point avoids overpowering the streetscape or
the mountain.
2) Is
14
s O
T;l
I
a #5,#6,#7 - All Other Views
00 All other views show little significant visual impact except for photo #5.
Clearly, the Sonnenalp will bl ck the entire view from point #5, and will
e ' Hate the exYstin vie . At the same time, the new hotel will FerWe
e view of an at -grade parking lot, and will replace it with a variety of
interesting building forms. From this vantage point, the pedestrian /from a
vehicle view of the building will extend only to eave line. The full height of
roofs will not be perceived from viewpoint #5.
1«
SHADOW AND SHADE STUDIES
The position of the sun in relation to specific geographic locations, seasons, and times of day
can be determined by several different methods. Model measurements, by means of sun
machines or shade dials are one method. Taculative and calculative methods are also
employed. The graphic projection method was used in this study because it is easily
Zi understood and can be correlated to both radiant energy and shading calculations. (For a
more complete description of the methodology used in the sun /shade calculations, see the
31 Appendix.)
33 The shadow and shading studies completed for the Sonnenalp were constructed using a 100
: JuFe"shadow mask ", meaning a summer study using sun at an o ees on
se 1st, a a winter study using a sun angle of 28 de rees on ecember. Both of
tudi es were based on the titu a or the property and represents ows cast at 8A0
a.m., 12:00 noon and at 4:00 p.m. These studies are all a t the portray the worst
:30 possible cases at the worst ossible times. ecause the sun's path of travel will be constant )
c nging, tt wi o y cast sha ows on ast Meadow Drive for a short period of time during
the winter months.
The shadow and shade study indicates that on December r 21st, and for a veri
during the winter months, then onnenal buildin will cast shadows era or a
_PPo o East Meadow Drive. During the summer months, shadowing w' a le.
in companson o e existing maturing landscaping, the icing problems on the roadway as a
result of the Sonnenalp would be similar. However, given that the new pedestrian walkway
will be largely covered, and that the impacts will only occur during a short period of the
winter on a relatively short segment of East Meadow Drive, the icing impacts are felt to be
relatively minor.
7.i DRAINAGE AND INWROVI wws ALONG GORE CREEK
23
The proposed new hotel construction will create some impacts on local drainage. Further,
there will be some minor changes and improvements in buildings along Gore Creek that
should be considered from an impact standpoint. The applicants will be developing fully
engineered drainage plans to meet local building codes. A key consideration in draining the
15
�H
__J
parking garage will be the construction of an internal drainage system that will include
explosion proof floors and grease traps with clean -outs. This system will drain to the Vail
Msanitary sewer as required by code.
All surface water will be dealt with through a series of intercept drain lines that will outfall
to Gore Creek. This system will be designed in accordance with Vail requirements and will
9h be subject to final review at the time of building permit.
The proposed hotel addition occurs near Gore Creek and as cult some special site
planning considerations apply. The creek bank itself will bo lar el disturbed, alth
the corner of the existing hotel (the soul wes iI Re
Bridge), a temporary construction road will be built that must be graded and reve elated
wi concern or t e creek Erosion and dewatering control measures will be undertaken by
the app cants in conformance with Town of Vail requirements and best available practices to
ensure that creek impacts are minimized.
CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND MANAGEMENT
A significant concern in terms of impact analysis is the construction phasing and supervision
that will apply to the Sonnenalp renovation project. Because of its central location, and the
phased scheduling of the improvements, there is a need to anticipate the potential :impacts
2� that the redevelopment will have, both for operations within the existing Sonnenalp, and off -
site for neighbors and the Town as a whole.
� Key elements in the construction scheduling and monitoring process include:
1. Phased Construction Schedule
The construction schedule is defined by Phase I, H and III parameters.
ha includes the parking structure and elevator core. Mass excavation
and shoring begins on May 1, 1991 and completes on July 15, 1991. The
concrete foundation and precast garage structure will begin June 24,1991 and
be completed September 13, 1991. The mechanical and electrical portion of
work will complete September 20, 1991. The adjacent fine grading and
preliminary landscaping will be completed by October 15, 1991. This phase
will also allow for the kitchen addition to occur between July 1, 1991 and
October 15, 1991.
Phase ' ' eludes the new hotel tower and north wing. This work will
e immediately upon completion of the parking structure. The steel
frame will be completed on the north wing by December 5,1991 and the
exterior skin will be enclosed by December 20,1991. The enclosed work will
y consist of steel studs covered with plaster board, and windows and doors.
The roof will be enclosed by December 31, 1991 for this area. With this, the
16
f ■
3 3. Construction Traffic
;0 The construction traffic will consist primarily of material deliveries for the
project. Primary traffic will be from Vail Road and from the Talisman Access
Road. Th dow Drive will not be affected. No
"w_or _" one vehicular traffic is_pianned.
4. Short -term Lane Closure
Partial and temporary lane closures will be requested and coordinated with
the Town of Vail Public Works Department. Partial closures on Vail Road for
the utility work, kitchen shoring, and some structural erection are anticipated
and will be coordinated.
5. Anticipated Effect on Public Improvements
No interruption of public services due to the project is anticipated. Both
Public Service and Holy Cross Electric are aware of the project parameters
due to initial coordination. The weights of the normal construction traffic
should cause no damage to the existing roads in the Town.
17
en
art
�r�
building will be fully enclosed. Interior work will be underway from
December 21, 1991 through August 1, 1992. Retail space will be built from
30
January 2, 1991 through April 1, 1992. The hotel suites will be ready for
occupancy on December 10, 1992.
'
Phase III cludes the Spa Building, Meeting Rooms, and remodel to the
exist ing Hotel. This work will proceed on May 1, 1992- The existing east
wing of the Hotel will be demolished and properly disposed of between May
1, 1992 and June 5, 1992. The Spa Building and addition foundations will be
complete by September 1, 1992. The exterior and interior work will be
complete December 10, 1992. The swimming pool and site amenities will be
build from August 1, 1992 through October 1, 1992. Final landscaping and
gardens will be built in the Spring of 1993.
2. Access and Egress to Site
The construction site will be accessed from the Talisman access road area,
and Vail Road through Phase I and II. Most traffic occurring through these
phases will be material delivery trucks for the structural work. Phase III will
require a 12' wide tem oraU road from the existi in dock area tot e
Courtyard /Spa Building area. This road will be ved and its final
a i men w r uire coor own of Vail to ss right-
of-way permits and future reve etation. This temporary road will be
rernow an all a es an landscaping rep c y Wmter o
3 3. Construction Traffic
;0 The construction traffic will consist primarily of material deliveries for the
project. Primary traffic will be from Vail Road and from the Talisman Access
Road. Th dow Drive will not be affected. No
"w_or _" one vehicular traffic is_pianned.
4. Short -term Lane Closure
Partial and temporary lane closures will be requested and coordinated with
the Town of Vail Public Works Department. Partial closures on Vail Road for
the utility work, kitchen shoring, and some structural erection are anticipated
and will be coordinated.
5. Anticipated Effect on Public Improvements
No interruption of public services due to the project is anticipated. Both
Public Service and Holy Cross Electric are aware of the project parameters
due to initial coordination. The weights of the normal construction traffic
should cause no damage to the existing roads in the Town.
17
en
art
�r�
4 . � i
•
30
FISCAL IMPACTS
There is no specific requirement in the Town's code that a fiscal analysis of the Sonnenalp
renovation be performed. However, it should be noted that the economic impacts to the
Town are likely to be extremely positive. The new construction will add a winter and
summer luxury hotel dimension that has not previously existed, encouraging international
visitors and "rounding out" shoulder period occupancies with meeting space and year -round
pool and spa amenities.
The hotel will pay substantial fees to the Town as a part of the building permit process, and
will also contrive to contribute through property and sales taxes. On the other hand, the
demands on Town services are expected to be relatively low because of the location of the
hotel and its lack of public streets, low law enforcement demands, lack of school children,
etc.
In conclusion, the positive economic benefits to the Town, with revenues excee the cost
of munici 1 services, will a substantial and should be noted as an impact associated with
the pro�c tom._
W-3
.I
r
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 26, 1990
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit in order to
allow a temporary parking area on the Holy Cross
parcel.
APPLICANT: VAIL ASSOCIATES
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
This conditional use permit is a companion request to a
request for a variance from the design standards
requiring all parking lots to be paved and landscaped.
The variance is discussed under a separate memo.
Vail Associates, Inc. (V.A.) proposes to lease the Holy
Cross Parcel, in order to provide long and short term
parking for Vail Associates employees who reside in
Sunbird Lodge and Timber Ridge. Timber Ridge restricts
parking to one space per dwelling unit. V.A. typically
has two to three employees in each unit. Each employee
is typically has an auto resulting in a need for off -site
storage of autos. Additionally, V.A. has committed 15
of the 101 spaces which the Holy Cross lot will contain
to The Lodge at Vail for Lodge employees who reside at
Timber Ridge.
The Holy Cross parcel is located in the Arterial
Business zone district. In this zone district, private
off- street surface parking is considered a conditional
use. Even though parking and storage for Holy Cross
Electric currently occurs on this site, a conditional
use review is required as the parking use is being
expanded.
In designing the lot the applicant will delineate short
term parking areas versus long term parking areas on
the parcel. V.A. estimates approximately 250 (25) of
the 101 autos stored will be used on a daily basis and
75% (76) of the autos will be stored on the site all
winter. A portion of the north side of the parcel
adjacent to I -70 will continue to be used by Holy Cross
Electric and it's contractors for equipment storage.
The applicant proposes to control run -off from the site
into Red Sandstone Creek, which is located west of and
0 1
r
immediately adjacent to the proposed lot, through the
. installation of hay bale silt traps. This trap system
will be installed along the western edge of the lot.
Use of hay bales to trap sediment is a standard
technique used in road construction. The bales will be
held in place by rebar driven through the bales and
into the ground.
The lot will be screened from South Frontage Road by
snow berms. Snow storage will occur on the southwest
corner of the site. The lot is already lit for safety
and security purposes.
II. BACKGROUND
The Town of Vail has a contract to purchase the Holy
Cross parcel from Holy Cross Electric after January 1,
1991. Town purchase of the property will be dependent
on the results of on -site environmental condition
testing. Future Town use of the property is not known.
The applicant has requested this conditional use permit
be effective for 1 year, however staff recommends the
permit be effective, through the 90/91 ski season,
until May 15, 1991. If the Town does close on the
parcel., V.A. will need to renegotiate with the Town for
. continued use of the parcel.
In April of 1990 the Arterial Business (AB) section of
the zoning code was amended to allow private off - street
surface parking as a conditional use in the AB zone
district.
III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development
Department recommends approval of the conditional use
permit based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development
objectives of the Town.
There are no specific objectives of the Town
that directly relate to this request. The
following Land Use Plan policy statement
indirectly relates to this request:
2.8 Day skier needs for parking and access should be
accommodated through creative solutions such as:
0 2
a)
b)
C)
pa
d)
Increase busing from out of town.
Expanded points of access to the mountain by
adding additional base portals.
Continuing to provide temporary surface
rking.
Addition of structured parking.
The temporary lot will provide parking for employees
who might possibly be using spaces that could be used
by skiers.
The staff's preference is to have residential projects
such as Timber Ridge designed to provide adequate
parking on site as opposed to creating outlying lots to
meet their parking demands.
2. The effect of the use on light and.-air
distribution of population, transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks and
recreation facilities and other public
facilities needs.
The proposed use will have no effect on these
• particular considerations.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference
to congestion, automotive and pedestrian
safety and convenience, traffic flow and
control access maneuverability and removal
of snow from the street and parking - areas_
Staff believes that the users of the parking
area will have easy auto ingress and egress
to the parking lot. The speed limit along
the Frontage Road in this area is 35 mph.
Visibility from the parking lot entry is
excellent. There are no adjacent egress and
ingress points which would create traffic
congestion. CDOH has determined that
Frontage Road improvements are not necessary.
Snow will be stored along the southern and
southeastern edges of the lot. The snow
storage along the southern edge of the lot
will create a berm which will visually screen
the lot from the South Frontage Road.
Pedestrian safety is a concern. Users of the lot who
40 reside in Timber Ridge may cross 1 -70 to access the
lot. The applicant's representative has indicated V.A.
will provide a written notice to each Timber Ridge
employee using the lot. The notice will discuss the
illegality and hazards of crossing I -70 and notifies
residents of the location of 1 -70 crossing points (see
V.A. notice attached). Staff believes Timber Ridge
residents will continue to choose to cross I -70 despite
any written notice V.A. may provide.
Other then concerns regarding pedestrian safety,
staff finds the proposal has no negative impacts
on the above listed considerations.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in
which the proposed use is to be located,
including the scale and bulk of the proposed
use in _relation_ to surrounding uses_._
Adjacent land uses are: I -70 on the north, a
gasoline station, a sewer plant and an office
building on the south; to the west is Red
Sandstone Creek and across the creek is an
office building; and to the east is V.A.'s
maintenance shop. Properties to the west are
• well screened by the vegetation which occurs
naturally on the creek banks. In order to
avoid damage to the root system of mature
evergreen trees, staff believes the applicant
should install a snow fence(s) around these
evergreens. Property to the south will be
screened by snow berms. The V.A. maintenance
shop to the east will not be impacted by the
parking lot. Staff finds the proposal has no
negative impact on the above considerations.
IV. FINDINGS
The Community Development Department recommends that
the conditional use permit be approved based on the
following findings:
That the proposed location of the use is in
accord with the purposes of this ordinance
and the purposes of the district in which the
site is located.
That the proposed location of the use and the
conditions under which it would be operated
or maintained would not be detrimental to the
• 4
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.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the temporary parking area
subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant grade and gravel the parking
lot.
2. The conditional use permit be effective until May
15, 1990 or until the Town of Vail purchases
the Holy Cross site and provides V.A. 14 day
advance written notice to vacate the parcel.
3. All of the mature evergreen trees be protected by
snow fences.
• 4. Approval of the companion parking design variance
request.
5. Pollution control as proposed by the applicant
is provided.
6. Timber Ridge residents b!Z allowed to store cars
only on a long term basis on the Holy Cross parcel.
We find that the location of the temporary parking lot
and the conditions under which it would be operated are
in accord with the conditional use criteria and the
purposes of the Arterial Business District.
5
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
40 FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 26, 1990
SUBJECT: A request for a variance from the parking design
standards which require all parking lots be paved and
landscaped in order to construct an off- street surface
parking lot on an unplatted parcel of land commonly
known as the "Holy Cross" parcel which is generally
located on the north side of the South Frontage Road
east of and immediately adjacent to Red Sandstone
Creek.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED
Vail Associates (V.A.) is requesting a conditional use
permit and variance to parking standards which require that
all parking lots be paved and landscaped. The companion
conditional use permit is discussed in a separate memo
attached.
A 101 space parking lot is proposed for the Holy Cross
parcel. The applicant proposes to grade and gravel the lot
and the parking area in order to park cars at this location
for one year. The site is currently owned by Holy Cross
Electric Association, Inc., however, the Town has a contract
to purchase the parcel and pending resolution of any site
"clean -up" issues which may arise, the Town will close on
the property after January 1, 1991.
The lease agreement to use this site for long term parking
and storage of vehicles belonging to V.A. employees who
reside at Sunbird Lodge and Timber Ridge for the 1990-
1991 ski season (ending April 15, 1990), is between
V.A. and Holy Cross Electric. The Town is not a party
to this agreement. There is no provision in the Town's
purchase contract requiring the Town to honor the lease
agreement between Holy Cross and V.A.
In addition to providing parking for V.A.'s employees,
15 spaces will be made available to Lodge at Vail
employees who reside in Timber Ridge (see attached
Lodge at Vail letter).
Given the temporary nature of the use and the unknowns
regarding the Town's use of the site, should the Town
purchase the Holy Cross parcel, the applicant is requesting
a variance from the design standards which require all
1
•
•
•
parking lots be paved and landscaped. The applicant has
requested this variance remain in place until such time as
the Town decides to use the lot for some purpose other than
parking.
There are approximately 101 parking spaces available in the
Holy Cross lot and each vehicle would be identified with a
parking pass assigned to them by V.A.'s housing manager.
Holy Cross has granted V.A. permission to use the lot (see
attached Holy Cross letter). Public access to the lot will
not be permitted. V.A. has indicated that approximately 75%
of the parking in the lot will be for long term vehicle
storage and approximately 25% of the parking will be used on
a more regular in and out basis.
Vail Associates' site plan for the Holy Cross lot takes
account snow storage, drainage control, parking and Holy
Cross equipment storage areas. Each of these aspects of
plan will be handled in the following manner:
Snow Storage and Screening
Snow will be pushed to the southwest corner
of the lot and stored there. Snow will also
be pushed to the south end of the lot to
create a berm to screen the lot from the
South Frontage Road. From the southwest
corner of the lot north to the tree line,
snow will also be pushed west and bermed
along the west side of the lot.
Drainage
Sheet drainage flows from the center of the
lot to the west and east. V.A. will install
a row of hay bales along the western edge of
the lot which will stop any sediment from
reaching the creek. From the center of the
lot east, sheet drainage will flow east and
then south until it reaches the drainage
ditch along the north edge of South Frontage
Road. Drainage will then flow west to Red
Sandstone Creek. Three hay bale silt traps
will be installed in the above drainage ditch
to trap any sediment before it reaches Red
Sandstone Creek. Use of hay bales is a
standard and proven technique used in road
construction to trap sediment.
Parking
Approximately 101 spaces would be provided in
the lot. The parking demand for the Holy
Cross lot breaks down as follows:
F
into
the
•
Sunbird: 53 spaces
Timber Ridge: 28 spaces
Lodge at Vail: 15 spaces
Vail Associates
Shop Employees: 5 spaces
Storage
Holy Cross Electric Association will continue
to use the north end of the lot for storage
of materials, etc., this area is screened by
trees and fences.
Tn response to staff concerns regarding Timber Ridge residents
crossing I -70 to get to the lot, Vail Associates will commit to
notifying each employee who rents at Timber Ridge that it is
illegal and extremely hazardous for pedestrians to cross I -70.
Further, V.A. will notify the employees that the only safe way to
cross 1 -70 is via the pedestrian overpass or by crossing under I-
70 at the West Vail or main Vail interchanges.
On November 20, 1990 the Colorado Division of Highways (CDOH)
approved V.A.'s access permit request subject to the following
two conditions:
1) V.A. modify the drainage at the access drive to
insure there will be no run off from the Holy Cross
parcel onto South Frontage Road.
2) A traffic count must be done by a registered
professional engineer during the 1990 -1991 ski
season in order for CDOH to consider renewing the
access permit in subsequent years.
CDOH has estimated that the lot will generate 52 auto trips per
day.
II. Background
With the addition of the Holy Cross parcel, V.A. will manage it's
parking facilities in the following manner:
The Sunbird
The Sunbird Lodge was originally constructed as a time share
project. Four or five years ago the project went into
Chapter 11 and sat empty until V.A. purchased the building
at foreclosure. The Sunbird Lodge is located immediately
adjacent to V.A.'s Lionshead Gondola building. Sunbird has
below grade parking. This parking is to be utilized by V.A.
employees who do not live or work in the Sunbird. V.A. runs
a 24 hour a day operation and Joe Macy, V.A.'s Manager of
3
•
0
•
Mountain Planning, has indicated the reason for not allowing
Sunbird residents to use the lot is to make it available in
the evening for V.A. night shift employees.
Parking demand generated for the Holy Cross parcel by
Sunbird residents /employees is 53 spaces.
North Day Lot
The north day lot is limited to V.A. employees who car pool.
West Day Lot
The west day lot, located west of
owned and operated for employees.
if parking spaces are remaining in
employee parking needs are met and
general public.
Landmark Building
the Marriott Mark is V.A.
At 9 :30-10:00 a.m. or so,
the lot, V.A. knows its
the lot is opened to the
V.A.'s legal and real estate development offices are located
in the Landmark Building. Approximately 10 covered spaces
within the building are available for management level
employees.
III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community
Development recommends approval of the requested variance
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to
other existing or potential uses and structures in
the vicinity.
The Holy Cross parcel has been used for parking
and storage since 1970. Land uses in the area
include parking lots, a commercial building,
maintenance yards, a service station, a waste
water treatment facility and warehouses. Each of
the above uses has parking associated with the
use. The adjacent properties would not be
negatively impacted if parking and storage
continues to occur on the Holy Cross parcel.
4
n
U
Potential future uses of the site are: an
interstate highway exchange, pocket park,
affordable housing site and of course, parking.
If the Town of Vail purchases the Holy Cross
parcel, V.A. will need to negotiate an agreement
with the Town to continue using the lot for
resident /employee long and short term parking.
2. The dearee to which relief from the strict and
literal interpretation and enforcement of a
specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among
sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives
of this title without grant of special privilege.
The future use of the site is not known. The
variance requested is temporary. V.A. proposes to
use the lot to provide long and short term parking
for their employees at this location for a period
of 1 year. Staff believes it is a hardship to
require V.A. to pave the area given the temporary
nature of the use and the fact that major changes
in the area may occur in the near future. This
type of limited and temporary variance was also
approved for the Town of Vail at Ford Park which
means this request is not a special privilege.
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.
The provision of parking for Timber Ridge and
Sunbird residents /employees at this location frees
up parking spaces at other sites to meet other
employee parking needs in Lionshead. Thereby
possibly making parking more available to guests
and improving the communities parking facilities.
The public safety issue continues
to the staff. Staff believes that
any written notification delivered
residents regarding the dangers of
Interstate to get to the lot, this
occur.
IV. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL LAND USE PLAN
to be a concern
regardless of
to Timber Ridge
crossing the
situation will
2.8 Day skier needs for parking and access should be
accommodated through creative solutions such as:
5
a) Increase busing from out of town.
b) Expanded points of access to the mountain by
adding additional base portals.
c) Continuing to provide temporary surface
parking.
d) Addition of structured parking.
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:
U
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.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval
of the temporary variance requiring this parking lot to be
paved and landscaped based on findings A, B, C(1) and C(2)
with the conditions that:
6
•
1. The lot be graded and graveled.
2. The proposed pollution measures (hay bales)
be installed.
3. The snow berms are constructed.
Graveling this lot for this winter will allow the much needed
additional spaces to be constructed while not impeding the
adoption and implementation of any development proposals for the
Holy Cross parcel.
7
r �
LJ
NOV 23 '90 11,04 VAIL ASSOC (303)476 -5601 EX 3039
November 23, 1990
Dear Timber-Ridge Resident,
.The purpose of this letter is to inform -you that it
is unsafe and illegal for pedestrians to attempt to cross
1 -70. pedestrians crossing 1-70 risk serious injury or
death.
The only safe and legal way to cross 1 -70 is via the
pedestrian bridge at LionsHead or the underpass at the
West Vail or main Vail exits.
T have read and understand the above warning.
. NAME MATE
r 1
LJ
P.2/2
3799 1111 11WAY 42
A1t1;A CUI)I:
R u. DRAwlat 2154 303
0 CI.1iN%VQOI) SPR1NC ;• COLORADO Rtb02
September 26, 1990
Mr. Ted Ryczek
Vail !Associates, Inc.
P.O. 3xo 7
Vail, CO 8IG58
Dear Ted:
This letter will reiterate our verbal agreement regarding Vail !Associates'
permitted use of Holy Cross Electric's property adjacent to the Vail
(Associates strops on the South f=rontage Road in Vail.
Holy Cross Electric, for the period of the 1990 -1991 ski season ending on
April 15, 1991, has consented to the limited use of its F=rontage Road
property by Vail Associates. This agreement will terminate before April
15, 1991 if and when holy Cross 'Electric sells or otherwise conveys th'is pro-
perty to a new owner. Such use will be limited -to the storage of materials and
equipment: belonging to Vail Associates and to the personal vehicles of -its
employees.
0 The storage of such materials, equipment and vehicles shall be accomplished
in such a IIIaIitier that it does not interfere with the storage of and access
to switch years, transformers, poles and other equipment, devices and
vehicles belonging to holy Cross Electric and its sub• - contractors.
In consideraLion of this accommodation of Vail Associates' storage needs
by holy Cross Electric, Vail Associates will be responsible for all snow
plowing at the site and will provide unobstructed access as required by
Holy Cross Electric and its sub- contractors. f=urther, Vail (Associates will
lie responsible for site security and will hold Holy Cross Electric harmless
irr the event of damage or injury to any of Vail Associates' material, equip -
ment and its employees or, their vehicles or personal property which aright
occur at the site.
94S -5491
If the town of Vail or other governing agency should require any special permits
or imposes any fees or fines as results of this, arrangement, such
1)ermits, fees or fines will be the responsibility of Vail !Associates.
Please call me -if you have any questions regarding this agreement or if
we can be of further service.
Sincerely,
11410 Y CROSS EI.EC . ZIC ASSOCIATION, INC.
arWc! o
Manager of Vail /Eagle Operations
115: lw
CC: l:cl C;rancte, (�lnntiloocl ;1)r °ir)r�s �]fficn
r
0
November 2, 1990
Mike Mollica
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S Frontage Rd.
Vaal, CO 81657
Dear Mr. Mollica:
The
t at Vail
This letter is written in order to support Vail Associates in
their effort to obtain a conditional use permit and variance
request for parking at the present Holy Cross Site.
The Town of Vail as a whole has a shortage of long term parking
for our employees that are here to help us during the ski season
months. The Lodge at Vail has a shortage of 15 parking spaces
for employees that live in the upper Vail Valley and have no
space to park their vehicles. This effort being made by Vail
Associates to assist in the town's parking problems by reducing
the possibility of illegally parked cars and ensuring that the
cars are safe is greatly appreciated.
. Any assistance you may be able to provide Vail Associates in this
matter would be greatly appreciated by the community and
supported by The Lodge at Vail.
•
Sand e�ly,,�
AM-. 5•-tY`a tt a
Managing Director
cc: Joe Macy VA
174 Fast Gore Creek Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 303 -476 -5011 Telex 45 -0375 Fax 303 - 476 -7425
•
•
•
5. Timber Ridge residents will be allowed to store cars
only on a long term basis on the Holy Cross parcel,
The vote was 6-0 in favor.
8. work session on setback, density, common area, and a
parking variance in order to construct additions to the
Christiania Lodge-356-Hanson Ranch Road Lot D Block 2
Vail Village 1st Mina.
Apt�licant•o�
Jill Kammerer explained that the applicant was requesting a work
session on the Christiania Lodge in order to get some direction
from the PEC on the following issues:
1. Density variance
2. Impact of development on view proposed corridors
3. Layout of Parking in northern parking lot
Jill indicated the Community Development Department staff thought
it was appropriate for Vail Associates and the Christiania to
formalize any agreements relating to the use of Parcel P3 and
Parcel J in the northern parking lot prior to Town issuance of
any building permits with the understanding that Vail Associates
supported the proposal, proceeding through the planning process.
The staff would obtain approval from Council to proceed through
the planning process tomorrow (11/27/90) during the PEC report,
She further indicated the changes to the plans since they were
last reviewed by the Planning Commission included:
1. In response to Commission comments two weeks ago, two
parking spaces had been removed from the northern
parking lot. One of the spaces has been replaced in
the western parking lot. This space would be a valet
space given its location in front of the dumpster. The
second space has been replaced in the drop -off area by
the porte cochere on Chateau Townhome Association owned
property.
2. Dumpster had been pulled back to the south,out of the
existing planter area,
3. The northwest corner roof line has been lowered in
response to discussions regarding the impact of the
redevelopment on the proposed view corridor.
4. There have been some modifications to the landscaping.
The applicant will commit to landscaping the northern
and southern periphery of Parcel J.
12
Kristan stated that if the lot is not graveled it will be a muddy -
mess in the spring. Tey Ryzcak indicated the lot had been
graveled 10 years ago and that there was "road base" down now.
Joe stated the lot had been in use since 1970. Dalton saw no
point in graveling the lot now. Jim would rather see a trade off
from graveling the lot. He would rather see a tree planted than
the lot graveled.
Dalton inquired as to the Town's liability if people were injured
while crossing 1 -70 to get to the lot. He also wanted to know if
the police ticketed individuals crossing 1 -70.
Discussion followed concerning the habit of the Timber Ridge
residents walking across the Interstate and Dalton asked if the
Town of Vail could enforce the violation. Kristan stated that
Mike Mollica had checked with the Vail Police Department and
found that they do ticket pedestrians who cross 1 -70 and will
continue to do so.
Ted Ryzcak of Vail Associates stated that there are other
residents at Timber Ridge who were not V.A. employees and
therefore were not under Vail Associates' control.
Kristan asked if Vail Associates would agree to reseed at the lot
at the end of the ski season if it was determined that the lot
would not continue to be used by V.A. or the Town for parking,
and Joe stated that he did not feel they should be asked to
reseed, because in this case, the lot had been used for parking
and storage for many years, and much gravel had been brought into •
the lot. Kristan then asked if he would agree to the other 6
conditions. Joe answered that he was not supportive of reseeding
or regraveling the lot and that he did not believe granting the
conditional use or variance would effect use of the lot.
Kathy Warren moved and Connie Knight seconded to approve the
conditional use permit and the variance to the parking standards
per the staff memo based on Findings A, B, C(1) and C(2) with the
following conditions:
1. The applicant will grade and gravel the parking lot.
2. The conditional use permit will be effective until May
15, 1991 or until the Town of Vail purchases the Holy
Cross site and provides Vail Associates 30 day advance
written notice to vacate the parcel.
3. All of the mature evergreen trees will be protected by
snow fences.
4. Pollution control as proposed by the applicant will be
provided.
11
5. Paul Johnston had committed to providing one employee
unit in his home.
5. The applicant had agreed to grade and gravel Parcel J
which is the VA owned and used western half of the
northern parking lot.
7. The dropoff area under the porte cochere has been
widened to better accommodate passage of an auto while
another auto is parked curbside.
8. The roofline of the porte cochere has been pulled back
so as not to encroach into the Hanson Ranch Road right-
of-way. However, a zero setback variance is still
needed at this location.
Jill stated staff would like the PEC to hear discussions
regarding the effect condominiumization of the structure would
have on short term rental unit availability.
Specifically, staff is concerned the Christiania will continue to
operate as a lodge under single management.
In addition to site plan changes, Jill stated there was an error
in the last staff report'. Under Public Accommodation (PA) zoning
the Christiania realty office should be calculated as GRFA and
not as an accessory use. Therefore, no accessory use variance
. will be required. With this correction, there will be 13,105
square feet of GRFA on the site, leaving 127 square feet of GRFA
remaining following redevelopment. Following redevelopment there
would also be 145 square feet of accessory use remaining.
Jill stated that the applicant had indicated that under the
existing lodge operation, 27 keys were available, following
redevelopment there would still be 27 keys available. The
proposed redevelopment would not impact the number of keys
available.
The Board had the following comments regarding the redesign of
the northern parking lot:
Chuck Crist and Dalton thought that the redesign of the northern
parking lot as proposed was acceptable; Diana, Jim and Connie
indicated they didn't care whether the two spaces were removed
from the northern parking lot and relocated Kathy Warren
indicated that she did not want to see a parking space provided
on the western lot in front of the dumpster or in the dropoff
area in front of the porte cochere.
Discussion by the Board regarding selection of trees to withstand
on the periphery of the lot followed. The selected trees should
have the ability to withstand snow impacts on them as when the
0 13
parking lot is cleared, snow will be pushed onto the property
where these trees would be located.
The next item to be discussed by the Commissioners was the
granting of the density variance. Jill stated the applicant had
the ability to redevelop the project without a density variance
simply by combining lodge rooms. staff felt it was in the best
interest of the community to allow the applicant to redevelop the
project by maintaining the 25 existing accommodation units and
adding two additional dwelling units. Through the combination of
accommodation.units, the applicant would still meet the
definition of a "Lodge ". Given this situation, the applicant
wanted direction from the PEC regarding their feelings towards
avoiding the density variance and having fewer but larger
accommodation units or pursuing the density variance and having
smaller but more accommodation units. When polled, Commissioners
Dalton, Connie and Kathy indicated that they didn't have strong
feelings one way or another as to whether or not the density
variance should be pursued. Kathy further indicated that she
wanted to see another lockoff unit provided in association with
the third floor dwelling units.
Discussion then turned towards Commission members' reaction to
the impact and encroachment of the redevelopment on the proposed
view corridor. Diane Donovan felt that since the view corridor
had not been adopted, the development could occur without
Planning Commission approval of the encroachment. Kathy Warren
stated she was in favor of the proposed lower northwest corner .
profile. She further stated she felt the photographs provided by
the applicant fairly and accurately represented the existing
situation. She further observed there were existing treesin
front of the Christiania which were higher than the Gore Range
ridge which would obscure the view of the ridge from the view
point regardless of whether or not the redevelopment as proposed
occurred. Because of these facts, Kathy did not feel the
proposed redevelopment would negatively impact the proposed view
corridor. Connie Knight indicated she was surprised and
concerned to find out the view corridor had not been officially
adopted by Town Council. Kristan Pritz stated that adoption of
the view corridor would occur when the Red Lion construction was
finished.
Jay Peterson, attorney for the applicant, stated that although
the view corridor was proposed, no one knew exactly where the
view point would be located or where the lines indicating points
above which encroachment could not occur would be drawn. Dalton
Williams stated he thought the developer had responded
sensitively to Planning Commission members earlier concerns
regarding encroachment into the proposed view corridor through
the lowering of the roof at the northwest corner of the building.
Jay stated the redevelopment as proposed was well below the
maximum height allowed under the PA zone district and further
14 0
that the Christiania redevelopment as proposed would not impact
any adopted view corridors. He felt Paul had worked in good
is faith responding to concerns raised by the Commissioners in
previous work sessions and that under the PA zone district, his
client had certain rights to construct the development as
proposed. Jay felt the project posed very little impact on
adjacent properties. Jack Curtin, concerned citizen and property
owner, indicated he felt good direction had been given by Council
with regard to the adoption of the view corridor and that it was
appropriate to use the proposed view corridor as a criteria in
reviewing the Christiania redevelopment proposal. Diane Donovan
stated that the proposed view corridor was not a legal view
corridor and because the view corridor had not been adopted by
Council could not be used as a basis for denying the proposed
redevelopment. She did not feel comfortable with how defensable
the PEC's position would be if the issue were to go to court.
In addition, Diana felt
the redevelopment would
responded positively by
Kathy Warren stated the
had included the additi
why the construction of
the developer had considered the impact
have on the proposed corridor and had
lowering the northwest corner roof level.
1987 Christiania redevelopment proposal
an of a third floor. She inquired as to
a third floor was an issue this time.
9. A work session for a major amendment to SDD No. 4, . commonly
referred to as Cascade village, Sections 18.46 Area D in
order to add office floor area to-the Glen Lyon Office
Buildin • 1000 South Frontage Road West.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Partners
This item was discussed on site visits. The PEC had no
concerns and felt that a worksession was not necessary at
this time. The item will be heard on December 10, 1990.
Kathy moved and Chuck seconded to table until 12/10 items 10,11,
and 12. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
Kathy moved and Jim seconded to table indefinitely items 13
through 20. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
■
0 15
that the Christiania redevelopment as proposed would not impact
any adopted view corridors. He felt Paul had worked in good
• faith responding to concerns raised by the Commissioners in
previous work sessions and that under the PA zone district, his
client had certain rights to construct the development as
proposed. Jay felt the project posed very little impact on
adjacent properties. Jack Curtin, concerned citizen and property
owner, indicated he felt good direction had been given by Council
with regard to the adoption of the view corridor and that it was
appropriate to use the proposed view corridor as a criteria in
reviewing the Christiania redevelopment proposal. Diane Donovan
stated that the proposed view corridor was not a legal view
corridor and because the view corridor had not been adopted.by
Council could not be used as a basis for denying the proposed
redevelopment. She did not feel comfortable with how defensable
the PEC's position would be if the issue were to go to court.
In addition, Diana felt
the redevelopment would
responded positively by
Kathy Warren stated the
had included the additi.
why the construction of
the developer had considered the impact
have on the proposed corridor and had
lowering the northwest corner roof level.
1987 Christiania redevelopment proposal
Dn of a third floor. She inquired as to
a third floor was an issue this time.
• 9. A work session for a major amendment to SDD No. 4. commonly
referred to as Cascade Village, Sections 18,46 Area D, in
order to add office floor area to the Glen Lyon Office
Building,--- 10 South Frontage Road West.
Applicant:
s
This item was discussed on site visits. The PEC had no
concerns and felt that a worksession was not necessary at
this time. The item will be heard on December 10, 1990.
Kathy moved and Chuck seconded to table until 12/10 items 10,11,
and 12. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
Kathy moved and Jim seconded to table indefinitely items 13
through 20. The vote was 5 -0 in favor.
..1
15
to: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 26, 1990
RE: A work session for a major amendment to SDD #4 commonly
referred to as Cascade Village, Sections 18.46 Area D, in
order to add office floor area to the Glen Lyon Office
Building; 1000 S. Frontage Rd West.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Partners
Request
The applicant's request is to amend SDD #4 - Cascade Village in
order to allow the conversion of an existing exterior deck to 400
sq. ft of interior office space at the Glen Lyon Office Building.
The proposed deck enclosure is part of the Phase I office expansion
which was approved by the PEC and The Town Council in March 1990.
Backaround
The office expansion was approved with a number of conditions.
These conditions concerned site improvements to be completed prior
to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of occupancy (TCO)
applied to any office expansion, brewery addition, east office
building construction or parking structure construction which were
approved under the approved development plan. (See attached for
specific conditions) As part of this request, the applicant has
agreed to fulfill. condition D.3. which addresses the undergrounding
of the electrical utilities along the north side from the northwest
to the northeast corner of the Glen Lyon property. The applicant
has also agreed to improve the existing landscaping after the
utility work is completed.
The 400 square foot addition will generate an additional parking
requirement. Currently the office building requires 40.6 parking
spaces. The new addition will have a parking requirement of 1.6
spaces. The new parking requirement will therefore be 42.2 or 43
parking spaces. The site currently has 53 existing parking spaces.
No additional parking spaces will need to be built.
The staff believes that it is excessive to require the applicant to
meet all of the conditions set out in the approved SDD #4 ordinance
in order to complete a 400 sq. ft. addition. We believe the
undergrounding of the utilities will not to be a hardship for the
applicant and further find that requiring the applicant to
underground the electrical utilities to be more equitable than
requiring the applicant to meet the conditions of the originally
approved plan, given the scale of the improvement proposed.
49
:7
I
3.
Pierce, Segerberg & Spaeh • Architects • P.C. • A.I.A.
September 25, 1990
Town of Vail Planning Commission
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Glen Lyon Office Building Deck Enclosure
Dear Sirs:
We are proposing to increase our office space by 400 square feet
by enclosing an existing deck that has not been used since the
construction of the building in 1980 (see attached drawings).
The additional square footage has already been approved as
included in Ordinance No. 40 Series of 1988, Special Development
District No. 4. Glen Lyon Commercial Site D. 18.46.103, F. 2
allows 2,400 square feet additional office space in the existing
. building. Currently, 10,150 square feet of existing office space
exists on Site D. Fifty -three parking spaces are currently
provided; 40.6 parking spaces are required for the existing
office space and 1.6 parking spaces are required for the
additional 400 square feet. Therefore, the currently parking lot
legally accommodates the proposed square footage.
Section 18.46.200: Controls do not apply.
Section 18.46.210, D: The conditions of approval as they relate
to a large 26,000 or 30,000 square foot development would not
seem appropriate, in their entirety, to a 400 square foot deck
enclosure. However, we would propose that Condition 3 be
executed by the summer of 1991 as arrangements are being made at
this time. We are proposing to develop sixteen percent of
18.46.100, F., 2. - which is less than one percent of the
entire S.D.D.
If an amendment to the S.D.D. ordinance is reuigred, we would
like to begin this process. However, if because of the small
scale of this project, a more streamlined approach is possible,
it would be appreciated.
is Main Office: 1000 South Frontage Road West • Vail, Colorado 81657 • 303/476 -4433
Post Office Box 2313 • Beaver Creek, Colorado 81620 • 303/949 -6049
One Tabor Center • 1200 Seventeenth Street, Suite 515 • Denver. Colorado 80202 • 303/623 -3355
12'" �,
•
0
Town of Vail Planning Commission
September 25, 1990
Page Two
If you need further information, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
- zx6w
Saundra L. Spaeh, A.I.A.
SLS /Irt
enc.
cc: Gordon Pierce, GLOB Partnership
Andrew Norris, GLOB Partnership
Ralph Wiliba, United Mortgage
•
C:
to: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 26, 1990
RE: A work session for a major amendment to SDD #4 commonly
referred to as Cascade Village, Sections 18.46 Area D, in
order to add office floor area to the Glen Lyon Office
Building; 1000 S. Frontage Rd West.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Partners
Request
The applicant's request is to amend SDD #4 - Cascade Village in
order to allow the conversion of an existing exterior deck to 400
sq. ft of interior office space at the Glen Lyon Office Building.
The proposed deck enclosure is part of the Phase I office expansion
which was approved by the PEC and The Town Council in March 1990.
Background
The office expansion was approved with a number of conditions.
These conditions concerned site improvements to be completed prior
to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO)
applied to any office expansion, brewery addition, east office
building construction or parking structure construction which were
approved under the approved development plan. (See attached for
specific conditions) As part of this request, the applicant has
agreed to fulfill condition D.3. which addresses the undergrounding
of the electrical utilities along the north side from the northwest
to the northeast corner of the Glen Lyon property. The applicant
has also agreed to improve the existing landscaping after the
utility work is completed.
The 400 square foot addition will generate an additional parking
requirement. Currently the office building requires 40.6 parking
spaces. The new addition will have a parking requirement of 1.6
spaces. The new parking requirement will therefore be 42.2 or 43
parking spaces. The site currently has 53 existing parking spaces.
No additional parking spaces will need to be built.
The staff believes that it is excessive to require the applicant to
meet all of the conditions set out in the approved SDD #4 ordinance
in order to complete a 400 sq. ft. addition. We believe the
undergrounding of the utilities will not to be a hardship for the
applicant and further find that requiring the applicant to
underground the electrical utilities to be more equitable than
requiring the applicant to meet the conditions of the originally
approved plan, given the scale of the improvement proposed.
•
•
ry
! I
'j" 7 7
0 44i
! I
'j" 7 7
! I
Pierce, Segerberg & Spaeh • Architects • P.C. • A.I.A.
September 25, 1990
Town of Vail Planning Commission
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Glen Lyon office Building Deck Enclosure
Dear Sirs:
We are proposing to increase our office space by 400 square,feet
by enclosing an existing deck that has not been used since the
construction of the building in 1980 (see attached drawings).
The additional square footage has already been approved as
included in Ordinance No. 40 Series of 1988, Special Development
District No. 4. Glen Lyon Commercial Site D. 18.46.103, F. 2
allows 2,400 square fleet additional office space in the existing
building. Currently, 10,150 square feet of existing office space
exists on Site D. Fifty -three parking spaces are currently
provided; 40.6 parking spaces are required for the existing
office space and 1.6 parking spaces are required for the
additional 400 square feet. Therefore, the currently parking lot
legally accommodates the proposed square footage.
Section 18.46.200: Controls do not apply.
Section 18.46.210, D: The conditions of approval as they relate
to a large 26,000 or 30,000 square foot development would not
seem appropriate, in their entirety, to a 400 square foot deck
enclosure. However, we would propose that Condition 3 be
executed by the summer of 1991 as arrangements are being made at
this time. We are proposing to develop sixteen percent of
18.46.100, F., 2. - which is less than one percent of the
entire S.D.D.
If an amendment to the S.D.D. ordinance is reuigred, we would
like to begin this process. However, if because of the small
scale of this project, a more streamlined approach is possible,
it would be appreciated.
Town of Vail Planning Commission
September 25, 1990
Page Two
If you need further information, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
'ag' t
'000e
Saundra L. Spaeh, A.I.A.
r i
L J
SLS /Irt
enc.
cc: Gordon Pierce, GLOB Partnership
Andrew Norris, GLOB Partnership
Ralph Wiliba, United Mortgage
•
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR AREA 'D SDD #4 **
D. Area D,Glen Lyon Com. ,:cial Site
1. The developer shall agree to construct a bus lane
per Town of Vail standards in the area of the
porte- cochere of the Micro- brewery in Area D.
The specific location for the bus lane shall be
mutually agreed to by the Area D owner and /or
developer, Colorado Division of Highways, and
Town of Vail. The bus lane shall be constructed
subsequent to the issuance of a building permit
and prior to the issuance of a temporary
certificate of occupancy for either
the brewery addition, office expansion,
east office building, or parking structure.
The developer and /or owners of area D shall
be responsible for maintaining the new bus
lane, including snow removal. If the lane is not
maintained properly or snow removal is not
adequate, the Town will not provide bus
service to the site.
2. The developer shall relocate the existing bike
path on Area D and provide a new bike path
easement across the Glen Lyon property and
CDOH property per the development plan for Area
D. The bike path shall be constructed per Town
of Vail standards. The bike path shall be
constructed subsequent to the issuance of a
building permit and prior to the issuance of a
temporary certificate of occupancy for either
the brewery addition, office expansion, east
office building, or parking structure. Such
temporary certificate of occupancies shall be
conditional upon construction of the bike path
provided for herein. The bake path easement
3. The developer hall underground the elec ical
utilities along the north side of the Glen Lyon
. property from the northwest corner of the
property to the northeast corner of the
property. This utility work shall be constructed
subsequent to the .issuance of a building permit
and prior to the issuance of a temporary
certificate of occupancy for the brewery
addition, office expansion, east office
building, or parking structure.
4. The developer shall be responsible for
relocating the 20 foot utility easement on the
western portion of Development Area D as well as
obtaining approval from the Town of Vail for the
relocated utility easement before a building
permit it is released for the micro - -brewery
addition.
5. The developer of the Glen Lyon Office property
shall not file any remonstrance or protest
against the formation of a local improvement
district of other financing mechanism approved by
the Vail Town Council which may be established
for the purpose of building road improvements for
the South Frontage Road.
6. The developer shall provide a fire hydrant per
Town of Vail Fire Department requirements on the
northwest portion of the property. The specific
,location for the fire hydrant shall be approved
0 by the Vail Fire Department. The fire hydrant
shall be provided subsequent to the issuance
of a building permit and prior to the issuance of
a temporary certificate of occupancy for the
brewery addition, office expansion, east office
7. The Developer .tall construct a decelera an lane
along South Frontage Road per the CDDH access
ipermit. The developer shall submit plans for the
South Frontage Road improvements to the Town of
Vail engineer for review and approval before a
building permit is released for either Phase 1,
11, or III construction.
B. The conditions for Area D in Sections 18.46.180
D, 18.46.200 A, B, F - K 18.46.210 D, 1 -7, and
18.46.220 shall be set forth in restrictive
covenants subject to the approval of the "Town
Attorney and once so approved shall be recorded
on the land records of Eagle County. The
developer shall be responsible for submitting the
written conditions to the Town Attorney for
. approval before a building permit shall be issued
for the Macro- brewery, office expansion, east
office building, or parking stru(;ture.
9. The minor subdivision for Area D shall be
developed per the following conditions;
a. The development of parcels A, B, C, and D,
shall be limited to the SDD 4 development
plan and governed by the SDD 4 ordinance as
approved by the Town of Vail and on file
with the Department of Community Development
or as amended and approved by the Community
Development Department, Planning and
Environmental Commission, and /or the Vail.
Town Council.
b. The minor subdivision plat shall include a
statement that development of the four
parcels shall be governed by the approved
SDD 4 development plan for area D and
c. The Comm ity Development Departmen and
Town of Vail Attorney shall have the right
•
to review and require changes in any
"Agreements of Tenants in Common ",
"Conveyance of Easement and Party wall
Agreements ", and any other easement or
.ownership agreements related to the
development of parcels A, B, C, and D to
ensure that the four parcels are developed
per the approved development plan in SDD 4
Ordinance.
d. FFhe developer shall be responsible for
replatting the 20 foot utility easement on
the western portion of development Area D as
well as obtaining approval from the Town of
Vail for the new utility easement before the
minor subdivision plat is recorded.
e. Any modifications or amendments to the minor
subdivision conditions of approval agreement
shall be reviewed as a major amendment under
the procedures outlined in Section 18.40 of
the Town of Vail Zoning Code.
f. The conditions for the minor subdivision in
Section 18.46.210 D9 A, B, C, and E, shall
be set forth in restrictive covenants
subject to the approval of the Town Attorney
and once so approved shall be recorded on
the land records of eagle county. The
developer shall be responsible for
submitting the written conditions to the
Town Attorney before the minor subdivision
is recorded on the land records of Eagle
Countv.
r 10. The entire Gl. , Lyon office Building and rewery
building shall be sprinklered and have a fire
alarm detection system. Town of Vail Fire
Department approval of the sprinkler and fire
alarm systems shall be required before a building
permit is released for Phase I or 1I.
11. The developer shall submit a set of amended plans
to the Colorado Division of highways for review
and approval. The improvements on CDOH property
proposed by the developer must receive CDOH
approval before Phase 1, II, and Il are presented
to the Town of Vail Design Review Board for final.
approval.
12. The east building including the two employee
dwelling units shall be constructed when the
• parking structure is built to ensure that the
employee units are built.
18.46.220 Emp o _yee Housin
The development of 5DD 4 will have impacts on available employee
housing within the Upper Eagle Valley area. In order to help
meet this additional employee housing need, the developer(s) of
Areas A and D shall provide employee housing on site. The
developer(s) of Area A shall build a minimum of 8 employee
dwelling units within Area A Westhaven Condominium building.
Each employee dwelling unit in Area A shall have a minimum
square footage of 648 square feet. The developer of Area D
shall. build 2 employee dwelling units in the Area D east
building per the approved plan for the East Building. In Area D
one employee dwelling unit shall have aminimum GRFA of 795
square feet and the second employee dwelling unit shall have a
minimum GRFA of 900 square feet. The GRFA and number of
employee units shall not be counted toward allowable density or
GRFA for SDD4. In Area A, the GRFA and number of employee
I!
0
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
December 10, 1990
AGENDA
11 :30 Site Visits
2:00 Public Hearing
SITE VISITS
- 1. Approval of minutes of October 29 and November 26.
- 2. Update on Vail Valley Medical Center Parking
Structure completion and request to extend the
interim parking plan on Lots F, E, 10, Vail
Village 2nd filing, 181 West Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
- 3. A request for a conditional use permit in order to
establish a bed and breakfast operation on Lot P,
Vail Village 2nd Filing, 141 West Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Joan M. Norris
3 4. A request for a minor subdivision in order to
vacate a lot line between Lots 46 and 47, Vail
Village West Filing No. 2.
Applicant: ANJA Corporation
1 5. A request for a side yard setback variance in
order to construct an addition to a single family
dwelling on Lot 16, Buffehr Creek; 1879 Meadow
Ridge Road.
Applicant: Jerry Farquar
- 6. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 41
commonly refered to as Cascade Village, Section
18.46 - Area D, in order to add office floor area
to the Glen Lyon Office Building, 1000 S. Frontage
Road West, Lot 45, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Partners
5 7. A request to establish a Special Development
District for the Sonnenalp redevelopment, located
at 20 Vail Road; A part of Lot L, Block 5 -E, Vail
Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc.
4 8. A request for a front setback variance in order to
construct a garage and a wall height variance in
order to construct retaining walls at 1448 Vail
Valley Drive; Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Valley First
Filing.
Applicant: John and Barbara Schofield
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
_ Minutes
December 10, 1990
PRESENT
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Jim Shearer
Kathy Warren
Dalton Williams
Connie Knight
was present for
Sonnenalp issue
COMMISSION
STAFF PRESENT
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Jill Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Susan Scanlan
Betsy Rosolack
ABSENT
Ludwig Kurz
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Diana Donovan,
chairperson.
1. Approval of minutes for meetings of November 26 and October
29.
Kathy Warren corrected a sentence on page 7 of the minutes of
November 26. Kathy moved to approve the minutes of both meetings,
and Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The vote was 5 -0 in favor.
2. Update on Vail Valley Medical Center Parking Structure
completion and request to extend the interim parking plan on
Lots F E 10 Vail Village 2nd Filin .
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
Kristan Pritz explained that the construction of the parking
structure was taking longer than had been anticipated. Dan Feeney,
representing the hospital, affirmed Kristan's explanation, and
stated that the structure would probably be completed by the middle
of February, depending on the weather. He added that they planned
to continue using the temporary parking arrangements until
receiving a TCO for the complete structure.
Feeney planned to obtain a TCO for the west half of the top Level
by Christmas which would provide 35 parking spaces to augment the
temporary ones being used.
Dalton was concerned about the additional construction traffic on
the Frontage Road and the appearance of the construction activity
over the Christmas holidays. He felt the site should be cleaned
up as much as possible for the time period between December 20th
0 1
•
•
and January 5th.
Dan replied that he felt the majority of the trucks would be gone
by December 21 and he was willing to clean up as much of the site
as possible. He added that he would like to work Christmas week,
otherwise the project would be delayed further into February, which
would then be getting into the high tourist season.
Dalton repeated that he felt there should be no appearance of
construction during Presidents' week, and he would encourage
shutting down.
3. A request for a conditional use permit in order to establish
a bed and breakfast operation on Lot P, Vail Village 2nd
Filing, 141 West Meadow Drive, Skall Haus.
Applicant: Joan _Norris
Betsy Rosolack reviewed the conditional use and bed and breakfast
criteria, then stated that the staff felt the criteria had been met
and recommended approval. Jim Shearer moved and Chuck Crist
seconded to approve the request for the bed and breakfast
conditional use. The vote was 5 -0.
4. A request for a minor subdivision in order to vacate a lot
line between Lots 46 and 47, Vail Village West #2.
Applicant: ANJA Corporation
Betsy Rosolack explained that the reason the applicant wanted to
vacate the lot line was so that he could construct a parking area
on Lot 46, an empty lot. Art Kleimer, representing Richard
Strauss, the applicant, asked if there were any questions. Chuck
Crist mentioned that it appeared that the parking was already dug.
Mr. Kleimer stated that he had not known this. Kristan Pritz
stressed that a Design Review Board approval was necessary before
work was commenced on a project.
Chuck moved to approve the request and. Kathy Warren seconded the
motion. The vote was 5--0 in favor.
5. A request for a side yard setback variance in order to
construct an addition to a single family dwelling on Lot 16,
Buffehr Creek Subdivision.
Applicant: Jerry Farguar
Andy informed the board that they had approved a side setback on
July 22, 1990 to allow Mr. Farquar to construct his addition 8.5
feet from the property line. However, because the side property
line is not exactly parallel to the side of the house, the further
the addition extends to the front of the property, the closer it
gets to the side property line. The front corner of the addition
2
is now 8 feet from the property line, and the applicant is
requesting an additional variance of .5 feet.
Kathy moved and Chuck seconded to approve the request per the staff
memo dated December 10, 1990,
6. A request for a malor amendment to SDD No. 4, commonly
referred to as Cascade Village, Section 18.46, Area D_, in
order to add office floor area to the Glen Lyon Office
Building, 1000 South Frontage Road, Lot 45, Block „K,,, Glen Lyon
Subdivision.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Partners
Shelly Mello explained that the request was to change an existing
exterior deck on the Glen Lyon Office Building to 400 square feet
of interior office space. The applicant wished like to amend SDD4
which included the addition of 2800 square feet of office space to
the existing Glen Lyon Office Building. A number of conditions of
approval addressing site improvements were attached to the SDD at
the time of approval. The applicant was requesting to meet only
a portion of the required conditions for the office expansion.
The applicant agreed to the undergrounding of the electrical
utilities and to the addition of more landscaping around the
existing surface parking lot. The staff recommendation was for
approval provided the applicant underground the electrical
• utilities along the north side of the Glen Lyon property. (The
applicant had agreed to complete the undergrounding as well as to
improve the site's landscaping.)
Dalton Williams moved to approve the request per the staff memo,
and Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The vote was 5 -0 in favor.
7. A request to establish a Special Development District for the
Sonnenalp redevelopment,, located at 20 Vail Road; a part of
Lot L, Block S--E, Vail Village lst Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc.
Kristan Pritz explained how the presentation would proceed. Mike
Mollica reviewed the changes highlighted in the memo. Mike pointed
out that the applicant had agreed to incorporate the 13 surface
parking spaces near the Swiss Chalet into the parking structure and
proposed a pocket park design where the surface parking had been.
Regarding a traffic study for Vail Road, Mike stated that the
applicant did not want to do another traffic study. He added that
Arnie Ullevig, Town of Vail Transportation consultant, was in
general agreement with the study, but that additional survey work
was needed. Due to the widening of Vail Road to accommodate the
Sonnenalp's additional traffic load, the staff was suggesting that
0 3
2 9. A request for front and side yard setback
variances to allow for a garage on Lot 10, Block
4, Lions Ridge Filing No. 4; 1464 Aspen Grove
Lane.
Applicant: Carrol P. Orrison
- 10. A request to amend the Town of Vail Zoning Code by
repealing and reenacting Chapter 8.28 to expand,
strengthen, and clarify code provisions relating
to Air Pollution Control.
Applicant: Town of Vail
W 11. A request to amend Chapter 18.54.050, Design
Guidelines, of the Vail Municipal Code in order to
amend Section C,6 and delete Section C,13.
Applicant: Town of Vail
12. A request for an amendment to Chapter 18.54.020
(E) of the Vail Municipal Code, Design Review
Board Organization, in order to delete "fifth"
Wednesday of each month.
Applicant: Town of Vail
13. A determination of 60 or 90 day review period for
Lionshead (CCII) and Village (CCI) exterior
alterations:
1) Lifthouse Lodge
2) Gasthof Gramshammer
3) Lodge at Vail
Tabled 14. A request for a setback, density, common area,
Inde- accessory use and parking variances in order to
finitely construct additions to the Christiana Lodge, 365
Hansen Ranch Road, Lot D, Block 2 Vail Village 1st
Filing.
Applicant: Paul R. Johnston
•
some mitigation was needed in the form of planted medians, two of
which would be near the Gateway Building to break up the view down
Vail Road and discourage additional traffic. Mike added that the
Gateway project had pulled their sidewalk back to accommodate the
medians.
According to the traffic study, the Sonnenalp is required to have
a left turn lane, and thus the staff felt a median was needed in
this area. A survey is still needed to see how the medians will
fit. Kristan pointed out that the parking at the bank needed to
remain.
Regarding Fire Department concerns, Mike stated that the applicant
had met with the Fire Department and the Fire Department had signed
off on the conceptual design. Modifications had been made to the
Talisman parking and to the northeast corner of the Sonnenalp
property which would facilitate fire truck access.
A portion of the swimming pool had been pulled back out of the rear
setback, but the staff felt that the entire pool should be
completely out of the rear setback area and that the deck should
also be pulled out of the setback. Mike then explained that a
third loading space had been provided, but that all the spaces were
4 feet narrower than the required width. The applicant felt that
these spaces were wide enough for the type of trucks used for
Sonnenalp deliveries.
9 Connie Knight arrived at this point.
Andy Knudtsen continued the description of items of staff and PEC
concern, beginning with a description of additional landscaping
being added to the intersection of Meadow Drive and Vail Road, and
also along Vail Road. The staff felt that more landscaping was
still needed.
Andy said that the applicant had not included the streamwalk in
his proposal, but the staff still felt that the streamwalk should
be incorporated into the proposed plan.
Regarding employee housing, the staff felt that a minimum of 7 of
the Sonnenalp's existing employee units should be permanently deed
restricted and at'least 4 new employee'units should be required.
This calculation did not include additional employees for the 4700
square feet of new restaurant area. (More information was needed
on this area.)
The Talisman access easement issue still had not been finalized.
Concerning the height of the building, the applicant had reduced
the height of the building by approximately 6 feet for a portion
of the building at the northwest elevation along Vail Road. Andy
showed the changes on elevation drawings which included an addition
of 2 feet to the height of the corner tower and a lowered portion
. that connects the tower to the rest of the building. Although the
tower then functioned more as a focal point, the staff continued
to have major concerns with the overall height, mass and bulk of
the proposed structure.
Andy then reviewed the Meadow Drive concerns. The staff still had
4 concerns: 1) a change in material on the large Meadow Drive
dormers, 2) the arcade design, 3) landscaping should be brought to
the front of the stone wall, and 4) more variation in the overall
elevation was needed.
Jeff Winston, Town of Vail urban design consultant, reviewed design
issues. He stressed that once a building has been constructed, it
will be there for a long time and although the process was
frustrating, it was very important to get the building right. He
felt it was a fine line to determine when a building was
appropriate for Vail, when it was too big, etc. Jeff added that
although the applicant was proposing a building of the highest
quality, and the parking would be underground, there were still
many concerns: The number of encroachments into the setbacks, the
pool and patio encroached into the stream setback, loading and
unloading on Vail Road, increase in traffic on Vail Road, employee
housing and using the stream setback for a construction road.
Jeff felt that the most important issues were: 1) what the feeling
would be like when walking down Meadow Drive, 2) the areas of flat
10 roof, and 3) public access to Gore Creek. He used a site plan to
show the encroachments. Jeff also showed that the Vail Village
Inn buildings were set at angles and had varied heights, both of
which helped the walking experience.
Jeff felt that the parking grid under the building could be moved
back from East Meadow Drive and that would allow the building to
be moved back some, which would decrease some of the shadow along
Meadow Drive.
Regarding the flat roof, 'Jeff felt that even though the pedestrian
may not notice the flat roof from the immediate area, it would be
setting a precedent. He added that flat roofs were a foreign
element in Vail. He suggested that perhaps dormers could be
carried through to vary the roof.
Kristan then summarized the staff's concerns:
1. Design Compatibility : height, sun /shade and views.
2. Site Plan: In general the form needs to be reworked so that
it does not exceed the height limits and the setbacks.
3. Vail Village Master Plan: The plan meets 2 of 5 sub --area
concepts, and the staff feels the plan should meet more than
0 5
this.
0 4. Landscaping and open space
5. Employee housing
6. Design of Vail Road
7. Resolution of Talisman access easement
8. The location of the access road for construction
Art Albplanalp, representing the Vail Religious Foundation, stated
that there were basically two types of applicants: one who follows
the rules and therefore won't face opposition, and one who tries
to do what he wishes. He added that the second type of applicant
first proposes something so out of scale that the Town then
negotiates the project down to what the applicant wanted in the
first place. Art added that the applicant purchased the property
knowing the zone district that it was in. He felt that an SDD was
being requested to build totally out of all proportion. He said
that a building 77 feet tall did not fit in that area. Art then
quoted staff concerns in the memo related to height, shade,
loading, and mass. He appreciated what Johannes had done to the
Sonnenalp, but felt the proposed building was not appropriate for
this site.
Art mentioned the problem the Chapel had with people who were going
to the Sonnenalp and used the Chapel parking area. He then said
that the Master Plan authorized a height of 27 to 36 feet on Vail
Road, and discussed the fact that the loading zone was located
directed across from the Chapel and the potential impacts upon the
Chapel from loading areas that were undersized. Art discussed the
streamwalk and the fact that the applicant felt that it "should not
be an issue."
Art felt that SDD's were not to be used to obtain wholesale
variances. He quoted from Section VIII of the ,staff memo.
Rick Rosen, representing the owners of condos at First Bank and
Villa Cortina, felt the project should follow the Master flan. He
mentioned concerns which included the height, the canyon effect
along Meadow Drive, the lack of open space along the two streets,
and the fact that�the applicant had not ;tried to design within the
existing zoning.
Diane Hagen spoke about construction on the site interfering with
weddings in the Chapel. She asked that construction be curtailed
on the weekends.
• 6
Jay Peterson, attorney representing the Sonnenalp, said the
contractor was in the audience to answer construction concerns.
He explained that the Faesslers were trying to build a quality
hotel, and that Vail was rated #11 in ski resorts with regard to
lodging. He felt that many of the encroachments were minor ones.
He added that the loading dock was a necessary evil. Three times
a week there would be liquor trucks that were 38 feet long.
Jay stated that the streamwalk was only a study area in the Master
Plan, not a requirement. He added that there would be no
fireplaces in the hotel rooms. Jay explained that the tower height
was needed for hydraulic elevators that must go 7 stories. Forty
to 50% of the common' area was below ground -- hallways, stairs,
lobby, and conference facilities which did not add to the bulk.
He would like to solve the parking problem between the Chapel and
the Sonnenalp. The mass did not change near the Bully III, but was
merely a modification of the loading area.
Regarding employee housing, Kathy Warren asked if the applicant
were willing to restrict the requested units, and Jay stated that
the applicant would comply with what the Town makes others comply
with, that they agreed to restrict the 11 existing employee units,
but not to 4 new units.
Regarding the Talisman access easement, if a new easement is
offered to the Talisman, the existing one would not be needed.
Kristan responded that the staff merely wanted to be sure that
Meadow Drive remained a pedestrian area.
Jay compared the heights of surrounding buildings, stating that
most of them were not l.to 2 story buildings. He felt that the
Town needed a hotel and bulk was inevitable with a hotel.
Gordon Pierce, architect for the project, described the
architectural changes made since the last proposal. He felt that
most of Jeff Winston's criticisms were "right on the money ". He
stated that he had met with Mike McGee, the Fire Marshal., and got
approval of the fire truck access. Regarding the flat roof, he
felt that it could not be seen except from the mountain.
The meeting was adjourned for a 15 minute recess.
Diana Donovan, Chairperson, called the meeting back to order. She
asked the board to ask questions and make comments.
Connie stated that even if the building were designed differently,
the mountain view would be lost, and she asked Jeff if any view
corridor study had been done in that area. Jeff responded that
there were concerns with the view along Meadow Drive, and that with
even a two story building, virtually all of the views would be
lost. Connie then asked if the views would be lost if the building
were constructed within the setbacks, and Jeff stated that part of
Is 7
the views would still be lost. Connie stated that aesthetically,
flat roofs were not what the Town wanted in the Village, and Jay
responded that the Vail Gateway building had partly flat roofs, and
that the first submittal for the Covered Bridge Building had a flat
roof.
Connie stated that, overall, she did not see any improvement over
the proposal from the last meeting. She felt the shading of Meadow
Drive was dreadful, that the landscaping looked better, but there
still needed to be more landscaping along the Sonnenalp. She hated
to see the pool encroach into the setback. She felt the Sonnenalp
would handle their employee housing situation well on their own.
Connie was upset about the height and felt that she could not
support the project.
Jim Shearer stated that he would like to see the applicant do more
study along Meadow Drive. He suggested a large archway on the
"Punch-outs". He liked the parking access for the Talisman, the
pocket park, and the 2 loading areas. Jim wanted a commitment to
a bridge for pedestrians and wanted the pool and patio moved out
of the setback area. He wanted to see more study regarding the
pedestrian way across to the Vail Village Inn. He felt that the
applicant must address traffic increases. He wanted the DRB to
look at the arcade area where there is only 3 feet of clearance.
He also felt that more landscaping was needed on the northwest
corner.
Jim felt that flat roofs were a bad situation and required much
maintenance. He said that he supported the project, he felt the
Town needed the au's, that redevelopment should be encouraged,
especially a well run business. He felt that the project provided
additional parking, increased the commercial base, and added a
pocket park. Jim felt that more study should be done on the
increase in traffic, on the number of variances being requested,
and public access to the public areas. He felt the DRB should
study the pedestrian ways.
Kathy asked Gordon why the Meadow Drive wing could not be pulled
to the south, and Gordon replied that this would cause some
problems. Kathy wasn't comfortable with the implication that a
building done within zoning could not be aesthetically pleasing.
Kathy read from 18.40.090 Development Standards for SDD's,
"...Before the Town Council approves development standards that
deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined
that such deviation provides benefits to the Town that outweigh the
adverse effects of such deviation."
Kathy listed the deviations the Sonnenalp was requesting, including
additional units, excess accessory use square footage, excess
common area, setback encroachments, and excess height. She
wondered what benefits the Town was receiving that outweighed the
adverse effects of the requested deviations.
•
Kathy reminded the applicant that one purpose of an SDD was to
further the goals of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, and she felt this
project had fallen short.
Chuck Crist felt that the patio should.be moved back out of the
setback, was concerned about the loa,dling docks, the sun /shade
(aside from that caused by the tower) , and suggested the crosswalk
to the VVI be heated. He felt that if medians were placed by the
4 -way, that one should also be placed by the bank. He felt that
the applicant had some responsibility to provide public open space.
He did point out that the pocket park was positive, and was not
concerned with the streamwalk. Chuck felt that the Sonnenalp did
provide for their employees with housing, and was not concerned
about the increase in height of the corner tower. He was concerned
about the regulation of the construction activity and felt it
should be limited to weekdays, and that no construction should be
allowed on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays. He supported the
project.
Steve Cohen, the probable contractor for the Sonnenalp, stated that
he planned 10 hour days, 5 days per week, with some work on
Saturdays. He stated that he had much experience constructing
buildings under difficult circumstances.
Dalton Williams had no problem with the pool, but felt that the
patio should be pulled back. Regarding employee units, he felt
that the request to restrict a certain number of units was within
reason, but did not feel additional employee units would have to
be constructed. Dalton pointed out that the First Bank was within
6 feet of its property line, and he was concerned about having the
left turn lane near the bank entry.
Dalton wondered if the Sonnenalp could validate parking tickets for
church parking. Regarding the building along Meadow Drive, he
liked the idea of bringing out the dormers, and suggested that
perhaps the retail could also be brought further out to really
provide ins and outs. He felt that the building would read as 3
stories. He was in favor of the pocket park. Regarding
construction during peak times, he felt that construction activity
should cease and look the least obtrusive as possible during
Christmas week, Presidents' week, and Easter. Dalton felt no work
should be done on Sunday, and only interior work done on Saturdays.
Concerning the construction road along the creek, he suggested
putting the utilities in the fall and leaving the road out, then
putting in the road in the spring. He felt the flat roof would
read as a sloped roof. Regarding the height, he felt that the
building could be lowered by one story at the auto court.
•
Regarding the accessory and common space, Dalton felt the
percentage for allowable accessory use and common space used by the
Town should be increased. Dalton was an favor of the increase in
au's and in favor of the project.
Diana stated that she could not support the project because it did
not meet the SDD criteria. It was not compatible with the
neighborhood, the site plan could be improved, and the open space
was a big issue. Diana felt the project needed a "front yard" to
mitigate the height and bulk. She felt the traffic study needed
to be done concerning the original circle proposed for the
intersection of Vail Road and Meadow Drive. Diana felt the Town
Council should determine who should construct the medians. She
felt the pool setback should meet existing regulations and would
like to see a letter from the Sonnenalp stating that they would not
use the fact that they would not use the impact upon the pool as
an excuse to protest the streamwalk.
Diana was in favor of the VA parcel being an informal pocket park.
She felt that the employee housing absolutely must be restricted,
and that there must be more relief and interest on the Meadow Drive
side of the building. Diana felt that the applicant was asking too
much. She also wished to restrict the au's permanently since this
was an important part of the project.
Diana felt the construction activity should be restricted,
especially during July, August and from December through Easter.
• She felt that the applicant was placing improvements on public
right -of -ways, and that the stream access was only for Sonnenalp
guests. The phasing plan must be workable. She had many problems
with a construction road along Gore Creek and felt that all
construction activity must be contained on the site.
Johannes Faessler stated that he was surprised to learn of problems
with the Vail Interfaith Chapel. He stated that Don Simonton had
come to a meeting at the Sonnenalp, and added that he would be
happy to work out problems with the church. He also mentioned that
many church goers used the Sonnenalp parking, and he had no problem
with that.
Craig Snowdon, representing the Talisman, stated that the Talisman
had no problem with the Sonnenalp proposal.
The board retired to executive session with Larry Eskwith, Town
Attorney. When they returned, Kathy Warren moved to recommend
denial of the project, and Connie Knight seconded the motion with
the following findings:
1. The project was not in compliance with Criteria A, regarding
design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate
environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties.
0 10
2. SDD Criteria C, requiring that the proposal meet the loading
standards of the Town, was not met.
3. The project failed to meet SDD Criteria D regarding conformity
with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,
Urban Design Plans, and specifically the Vail Village Master
Plan.
4. The project did not meet SDD Criteria F regarding the site
plan, in that the site plan lacked quality public open space
on the site.
5. SDD Criteria H was not met, not adequate open space on the
site.
6. SDD Criteria I was not met regarding the phasing plan, as
there may be a conflict with the construction of the project
and the weekend activities at the Vail Interfaith Chapel.
Ii, addition, the PEC summarized their specific concerns about the
project, which were:
1. The swimming pool should be moved out of the rear (south)
setback. The patio adjacent to the pool should be allowed to
encroach only 10 feet into the rear setback.
2. The building is too high.
• 3. More relief on Meadow Drive is needed.
4. Ideally, Vail Road should bend at the intersection of Meadow
Drive and Vail Road. Because the traffic generated by this
project will require widening Vail Road, there should be some
mitigation to reduce the "thoroughfare" appearance of Vail
Road. This bend in the road should be done in conjunction
with moving the Ski Museum. Sub -area concept 1 -2 of the Vail
Village Master Plan needs to be addressed.
5. The land VA owns by the Swiss Chalet should be turned into a
pocket park. The improvements to this parcel should be very
informal. The natural character of the site should be
maintained.
6. The applicant should permanently restrict 11 employee housing
units.
7. The noise and construction activity should be limited so that
it does not impact the chapel activities on Saturdays,
Sundays, or holidays.
8. All construction should occur on -site. The construction
activity should not affect Gore Creek, particularly with
0 11
erosion-or sediment disturbance because of construction.
9. The applicant should construct the proposed pedestrian bridge
across Gore Creek at the existing Vail Road Bridge. This work
should be coordinated with Public Works.
10. The applicant should ensure that the Talisman access easement
onto East Meadow Drive is vacated. This paperwork needs to
be finalized.
11. The applicant should build a planted median in the center of
Vail Road south of Meadow Drive per the traffic study.
12. The accommodation units the applicant will be building should
all be restricted permanently as lodge rooms so that no
conversions to condominiums will be allowed in the future.
13. The loading bays should be expanded in size to meet the Town's
minimum size requirement.
14. The applicant should provide public access to Gore Creek
through green space or pocket parks.
15. The required setbacks along Meadow Drive should be met.
The vote was 3 -3. Diana noted that the comments of concern were
from the entire board, but were weighted differently. They
requested that the staff pass along the individual comments to the
Town Council.
8. A request for a front setback variance in order to construct
a garage and a wall height variance in order to construct
retaining walls at 1448 Vail Valley Drive; Lot 18 Block 3
Vail Valley First Filing.
Applicants: John and Barbara Schofield
Andy Knudtsen showed a site plan and explained the request
regarding setbacks and wall heights.
Barbara Schofield stated that her family needed another garage and
described the site. She stated that they were willing to landscape
heavily. John Schofield stated that the height and slope of all
the finished grades would be equal to or less than the existing
grades. One wall was proposed to be 9 feet high and one wall would
be 11 feet high.
Kathy wondered if the garage could be placed closer to the house,
and was told the house would fall down. Kathy suggested
underpinning. John replied that the most distance to be gained
would be 3 -1/2 feet. Kathy then asked why the garage wasn't
10 12
lowered so that landscaping can be placed above the garage. She
also wondered why the garage could not be placed facing the street,
in the same way the existing garage does. John replied that then
the cars would be backing into the street.
Andy stated that some portions of the lot had a slope of 35% or
more. Kathy did not feel that she could support the project. She
felt the garage could be moved, resulting in less retainage,
minimized curb cuts, and not have a second drive. Mrs. Schofield
stated that over 50% of the homes in the neighborhood had 2 curb
cuts and over 50% of the homer, had separate garages.
Diana was against two curb cuts. She would like to see the garage
door on the existing garage replaced with a people door and
landscaping placed where there was now asphalt leading to this
door. Barbara said that she was willing to do these things.
Jim wanted to see landscaping and grass in front of the old garage
door. Kathy felt the walls needed for the second driveway would
be very obvious. Diana wanted to see a variance for the north
wall, but have the south wall be terraced with at least a couple
of good trees in place.
Jim moved and Chuck seconded to approve the front setback variance
with the following conditions:
1. Take out existing garage door and close off the existing
91 driveway with landscaping.
2. Work with the staff on a walkway and place as much landscaping
as possible around the walk and on the rest of the site.
3. Terrace the south wall.
The vote was 4 -1 with Kathy voting against the proposal.
9. A request for front and side setback variances to allow for
a garage on Lot 10, Block 4, Lionsridge Filing No. 4, 1464
_Aspen Grove Lane.
Applicant: Carrol P. Orrison
Jim moved and Chuck seconded to table this item to January 14. The
vote was 5 -0.
Items 11 and 12 were read as one item, as they were to be placed
on one ordinance. They were read before item #10.
11. A request to amend Chapter 18.54.050, Design Guidelines, of
the Vail Municipal Code in order to amend Section C,6 and
delete Section C,13.
Applicant: Town of Vail
it 13
12 . A request for an amendment to Chapter 18.54. 0.2_0_ (E_) _ of the
10 Vail Municipal Code, Design Review Board Organization, in
order to delete "fifth" Wednesdays of each month.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Kathy moved and Jim seconded to recommend approval to the Town
Council of both items 11 and 12. The ,note was 5 -0 in favor.
•
10. A request to amend the Town of Vail Zoning Code by repealing
and reenacting Chapter 8.18 to expand, strengthen, and clarify
code provisions relating to air pollution control.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Susan Scanlan explained the proposed changes and lead the
discussion on possible future changes.
Kathy moved to recommend approval to the Town Council, and Jim
seconded the motion. The vote was 5 -0 in favor.
13. A determination of 60 or 90 day review period for Lionshead
(CCII) and Village_�'CCI exterior.alterations:
1) Lifthouse Lodge
2) Gasthof Gramshammer
3) Lodge at Vail
Mike Mollica requested a 90 day review period for each item, and
the board agreed.
14. A request for a setback, density, common area, accessory use
and parking variances in order to construct additions to the
Christiania Lodge, 365 Hanson Ranch Road, Lot D, Block 2, Vail
Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Paul R. Johnston
This item was tabled indefinitely.
f, E
0 14
of
Ms. Kristen Pritz
Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Kristen:
i8l W03i MC-:Cld()W Drive, Serite 'i00
Vail, C,'ofarado 81657
(3C3) 476.2451
Due to construction delays, our new parking structure will not be completed
by December 21, 1990. After reviewing a detailed construction schedule with
our general contractor, G. E. Johnson Construction Co., we feel that a real-
istic completion date is between February 1, 1991 and February 15, 1991, de-
pending on the weather.
In the meantime, we intend to continue the temporary parking arrangements
. described in my letter of September 19, 1990, until we secure a TCO for the
entire structure. I have included a copy of the previous letter for your
convenience.
In addition, pending resolution of Code issues with the Building and Fire
Departments, we hope to secure a TCO permitting us to use the West half of
the top level of the structure by Christmas. This would provide an addition-
al 35 spaces to augment present on -site and off -site parking.
S' erely,
an
Project Ma Ng
DF /ljh
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Ray McMahan
Chief Executive Officer
Vail Valley Medical Center
Mr. Jay Peterson
0
Ray McMahan
Chiof FxecuHve Officer
voii
Ilk
December
6, 1990
Ms. Kristen Pritz
Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Kristen:
i8l W03i MC-:Cld()W Drive, Serite 'i00
Vail, C,'ofarado 81657
(3C3) 476.2451
Due to construction delays, our new parking structure will not be completed
by December 21, 1990. After reviewing a detailed construction schedule with
our general contractor, G. E. Johnson Construction Co., we feel that a real-
istic completion date is between February 1, 1991 and February 15, 1991, de-
pending on the weather.
In the meantime, we intend to continue the temporary parking arrangements
. described in my letter of September 19, 1990, until we secure a TCO for the
entire structure. I have included a copy of the previous letter for your
convenience.
In addition, pending resolution of Code issues with the Building and Fire
Departments, we hope to secure a TCO permitting us to use the West half of
the top level of the structure by Christmas. This would provide an addition-
al 35 spaces to augment present on -site and off -site parking.
S' erely,
an
Project Ma Ng
DF /ljh
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Ray McMahan
Chief Executive Officer
Vail Valley Medical Center
Mr. Jay Peterson
0
Ray McMahan
Chiof FxecuHve Officer
•
L'
. •vail valley
medical center
19 September 1990
Kristen Pritz
Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
.75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657 -
Dear Kristen:
181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476 -2451
Bob Lazier has approved our use of the the temporary parking lot immediately
west of the Sun Vail condominiums until our new parking,structure is completed
on 21 December 1990. This lot is the same one the PEC 6pproved for temporary
use last year. Availability of this lot will enable us to provide the 272
spaces required to support those portions of the hospital presently in
operation. This total does not include the 19 spaces required to support the
MRI or Learning Center, since neither of these projects will be completed
until early 1991.
The 272 spaces will be provided as follows:
Self - parking west lot
Valet parking west lot
Ambulance garage
Surface parking east of
ambulance garage
Manor Vail Lodge
Sun Vail Lot
65 spaces
107
3
7
60
30
272 spaces
We will re- vegetate the Sun Vail Lot next spring.
ncer ,
P an
DJF /bh
cc: Ray McMahan
Rich Meyer
Ray McMahan
Chief Executive Officer
. j
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
• FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 10, 1990
RE: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the
operation of a Bed and Breakfast on Lot D, Vail Village
2nd Filing, 141 West Meadow Drive, Skall Haus
Condominiums, Apartment #2.
Applicant: Joan Norris
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
In December of 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance
No. 31, Series of 1989 to allow Bed and Breakfasts in the
Town of Vail. The definition given in that ordinance
states:
"A Bed and Breakfast means a business which
accommodates guests in a dwelling unit in which the Bed
and Breakfast proprietor lives on the premises and is
in residence during the Bed and Breakfast use."
Ms. Norris has applied for a conditional use permit to allow
• her to use one bedroom in her home in a High Density Multi -
Family zone district for a Bed and Breakfast rental. The
bedroom and bath contain a total of 160 square feet. Two
guests could stay in the bedroom for a total of 2 guests.
Ms. Norris has approval of the Skall Haus Condominium
Association.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development
Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the
development objectives of the Town.
The Town Council encourages Bed and Breakfasts in
the Town of Vail as a favorable type of lodging
for tourists.
2. The effect of the use on light and air,
distribution of population, transportation
facilities utilities schools arks and
• recreation facilities, and other public facilities
needs.
The Skall Haus is on a bus stop, therefore it is
logical that the two guests might utilize the bus,
rather than drive their own vehicle. It is felt
that the impact on the use of parks and recreation
facilities and on transportation facilities would
be minimal.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to
congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and
convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the
street and parking areas.
Since this bed and breakfast is directly on the
bus route with a bus stop a few feet away, it is
likely that many of the guests would use the Town
of Vail bus system rather than drive a car. If
the guests drive their own vehicle, there could be
one additional vehicle driving to the Norris
residence. Staff feels that this would be an
insignificant impact upon traffic and parking.
Ms. Norris has the use of two parking spaces in
front of her unit and has submitted a letter
indicating approval from the condominium
• association.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the
proposed use is to be located includin_g the scale
and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
The staff feels that the character of the area
will not be negatively impacted by the addition of
a Bed and Breakfast in this area. No exterior
changes to the residence are proposed to
accommodate the Bed and Breakfast.
5. Bed and Breakfast Operations may be allowed.as___a
conditional use in those zone districts as
specified in Title 18 of the Vail Municipal__C_pd_e
for Ordinance No. 31 Series of 1989. Bed and
Breakfast operations shall be subject to the
following requirements:
a. Offstreet designated parking shall be
required as follows:
One space for the owner/proprietor plus one
space for the first bedroom rented plus 1/2
40 space for each additional bedroom rented.
U
U
IV. FINDINGS
The parking requirements for the Skall Haus
property is for two parking spaces for each
of the 6 units in Phase I (the location of
the Norris unit) and 8 parking spaces for the
1988 addition of 3 units on the east side.
The Skall Haus fulfills their parking
requirements, and thus Ms. Norris has the use
of two parking spaces, which is the required
number of parking spaces for this bed and
breakfast.
b. Enclosed trash facilities and regular garbage
removal service shall be provided.
The condominium complex has an enclosed
dumpster with regular trash pick up.
C. Removal of landscaping for the provision of
additional parking is strongly discouraged.
There will be no removal of landscaping.
d. Each Bed and Breakfast shall be allowed one
residential name plate sign as defined and
regulated by the Town of Vail Si n Code.
A name plate has not been applied for at this
time.
e. If a Bed and Breakfast oneration shall use
property or facilities owned in common or
lointly with other property owners such as
parking spaces or a driveway in duplex
subdivisions by way of example and not
limitation the written approval of the other
property owner, owners, or applicable owners'
association shall be required to be submitted
with the application for a conditional use
permit.
Enclosed is a letter of approval from the
condominium association.
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
following findings before granting a conditional use permit
for a Bed and Breakfast operation:
•
A. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with
• the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the
district in which the site is located.
B. That the proposed location of the use and the
conditions under which it would be operated or
maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the
applicable provisions of this Ordinance.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends
approval of this application for a Bed and Breakfast
operation. Staff finds that all applicable review criteria
and findings have been satisfactorily met.
•
11
RON ANDERSON 727 PENNSYLVANIA AVE
CONTRACTING HOLTON, KANSAS 66436
0
is
U
November 11, 1990
Town Council
Town of Vail
,As President of the Skaal Haus Condominium Association, T wish to inform
you that we, as an association, recocn rove
the Bed and Break -
fast operation now beinq conducted bar Joan Norris in Unit Number 2.
.Ronald Anderson
Presi,dent., Skaal Haus Condo Assoc,
(913)364 -3355
)-eu
AV4 moo, �9Pv
6
//lief, 6-6)
/ �'Clt'E ff�
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
. DATE: December 10, 1990
RE: A request for a minor subdivision in order to vacate a
lot line between Lots 46 and 47, Vail Village West
Filing No. 2.
Applicant: A.N.J.A. Corporation /Richard Strauss
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant has a residence on Lot 47 and wishes to
combine this lot with the vacant lot to the west, Lot 46.
The lots are in the Primary /Secondary zone district. The
Town of Vail zoning code permits parking only as an
accessory use to a residence in the Primary /Secondary zone
district. By combining Lot 47, which contains a single
family residence, with Lot 46, which is vacant, additional
parking can be placed on Lot 46.
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
Presently, each lot is zoned Primary /Secondary. The zoning will
not change, but the result will be a larger lot zoned
Primary /Secondary. The net result is a decrease in density, from
two Primary /Secondary residences to one Primary /Secondary
residence on the combined area of the two lots.
Lot Allowable Existing GRFA GRFA
Size Units Units Allowed Existing
Lot 46 9,931 2 0 2482 0
Lot 47 11,151 2 1 2830 2752
Combined 21,082 2 1 4358 2752
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the requested minor
subdivision. The reduction in density is positive. We
recommend the following condition of approval, as the owner
of Lot 47, A.N.J.A. Corporation, did not want to purchase
Lot 46 until the minor subdivision is approved:
1. That the plat will not be signed by the Town of Vail
until the applicant shows proof of single ownership of
both Lots 46 and 47.
Mr. Strauss has a home occupation license which allows the
owner to have one employee. Staff would also like to
emphasize that even though parking is being added, the Town
will not allow the new parking to be used for additional
. employees for the home occupation on Lot 46.
If
•
r
�s
r )970
•:listing monumenls mnrkiog the suucherly
)n!rcon
, plal la to nhaodon the pruprrl lisle
rOUND PLAIN No `5 REBAR
IS84 -36 FROM
CORNER) _O (PLATTED LOCATION,
' MONUMENT NOT SET)
r
p 0 20 461
SCALE: III =2d t
7
4J
d'
.�: 19W and 1915 Wert Gore
Creel( 11rlve
��
\5'\'
\
\�
\\
LOT 48
FOUND PLAIN
\i \
No. 5 NEBAR
\
\
{549 °DOW, 6.9
FROM CORNERI
\
\\
�ti0
\�ELILOtNG OUTLINE
d cap
\5'\'
T
LOT I
0.484 AC. \ /
Z \ �
Y\
� PROPERTY LINE
TO BE ABANDONED
4?
r K
LC}T �rti
�.F
OAP�µPG� g4.
UT PIN & CAP
L.S. N. 26598
FOUND PLAIN No -5 REBAR ,
HIGHLAND MEADOWS
FILING No. 2
�S
6a !
1 OFDUI
LS..
�FOUNU PE mNI
No. 'S NFanR'�
i
i
LOT 5
i
NOTICE: - I
Accordinq to Colorado law you must commence ally legal
in this a,urvey within three yea 8 atter ycu, Ifirst di!w"',
curry any 1--li upon any de Cent in thi r:.0 vey U�- cd
Irom the date of the certification shoaa hee eau.
0
h
til
4
r
a
w
r
z
a_ l
u
a
'a
r
Z z
v
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 10, 1990
SUBJECT: A request for a 0.5 foot side setback variance for an
addition to a single family structure located at Lot
16, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, 1879 Meadow Ridge Road.
Applicant: Jerry Farquhar
I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED
On July 23, 1990, the Planning and Environmental Commission
(PEC) approved a side setback variance for this applicant.
The variance granted allowed the applicant to construct an
addition to his single family residence within 8.5 feet of
the property line. However, one point of the construction
has been located 8.0 feet from the property line. As a
result, the applicant is requesting a second variance to
expand the original variance by half a foot.
The original concept was to build a sun room on the front of
the house which would line up with the side of the house.
(See survey.) The west side of the addition was to be
located flush with the west side of the house. The
construction has been built according to this concept.
is However, because the side property line is not exactly
parallel to the side of the house, the further the addition
extends to the front of the property, the closer it gets to
the side property line. The back corner of the house is 9.1
feet from the property line in question. The former front
corner has a 8.5 foot setback. The new front corner of the
house has a 8.0 foot setback.
The basic information of the proposal has not changed. The
sun room is 16 feet by 12 feet (194 sq. ft. GRFA). The
existing structure currently encroaches 6' -6" into the west
side yard setback. Because the house is angled toward the
side property line, the setback for the new construction
will not be exactly the same as the existing residence. As
a result, the applicant is requesting a variance to encroach
7.0 feet into the side (west) setback.
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Zoning: Primary /Secondary Residential
Lot Area: 14,854 sq. ft.
GRFA: Allowed: 3,713 sq. ft.
Existing: 1,912 sq. ft.
is Proposed: 2,106 sq. ft.
1
n
LJ
Site Coverage:
Allowed:
2,970 sq.
ft.
Existing
1,323 sq.
ft.
Proposed:
1,501 sq.
ft.
Height:
Allowed:
33.0
ft.
Existing:
22.5
ft.
Proposed:
22.5
ft.
Setbacks: Front
- Existing:
49
ft.
Proposed:
38
ft.
Rear -
Existing:
66
ft.
Proposed:
66
ft.
East -
Existing:
41
ft.
Proposed:
41
ft.
* West -
Existing:
7.5
ft.
Proposed:
8.0
ft.
*Area of setback variance request.
ITT. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community
. Development recommends approval of the requested variance
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to
other existing or potential uses and structures in
the vicinity._
Even though the existing residence encroaches into
the setback, there is adequate distance between
the Farquhar residence and adjacent home to the
west. Because the applicant's house is already
located 7.5 feet from the western property line,
the addition should not create a noticeable impact
on the surrounding area. The addition is located
where there used to be a deck, which further
diminishes the impact of the expansion in the
setback. Although the addition could have been
shifted to the east so as not to encroach into the
required 15 foot setback, staff believes that the
addition as designed is more compatible with the
existing structure. Specifically, the roof lanes
will align, instead of being offset.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and
. literal interpretation and enforcement of a
RIF
s ecified re ulation is n6c6ngary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among
sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives
of this title without rant of special privilege.
Because of the existing residence's location in
the side setback, it is reasonable to consider
this circumstance a practical difficulty
warranting the variance. Relief from the strict
interpretation in cases like these is appropriate
and has been granted to other property owners.
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.
Because this single family home is one story, the
resulting 8.0 foot setback provides more than
adequate light and air separating it from the
neighboring structure. There are no impacts on
the other considerations.
• IV. 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
3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
is specified regulation would deprive the applicant
of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same district.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. The
concept of the addition has not changed and still meets all
of the criteria and findings of the previous setback
variance request. Because the existing house is in the
setback creating a physical hardship, the owner deserves
relief from the strict setback requirement. This variance
is not a grant of special privilege as this type of
situation has justified other variances in the past. There
are no negative impacts on adjacent properties. The
variance criteria cited include Findings IV A, B, C1 &2.
C: \mo \farquh_2
•
•
4
. R60ND 14 REBAR 1 t to t AMN IA?D " REBAR
16
10
N 52 °48 42 F 103.70 4
5` UTILITY EASEMENT
!� 501
�ENTERLIN�� IRRIGATION DITCH
f O TEP DECK i LOT 16
ROCK --S-
RE TAINING
WA I- L
e
WOOD
DECK rn
�_ - -- Ju 44
RIDGE p
EL. 801353
M
FOUND r4 REMR ND PIN & CAP
BENT OVER L.S. 4974
d= 3 °1059 S 52 ° 4 '42" W
R= 175.00
A= 11.11'
MEaDOW
'LAKEV 00O.COLGBOR
Intm -Mountain 'N3
�IIeCringLbL 13M) -0'158
9018'
FOIAVD PIN, !
LS. 11204
SEE DETAIL-'
ABOVE
1119 BLDG. ADDITIONS
RECHECKED A
FOUND PIN & CAP
Z.S. 11204
16115"
`s 11204
DETAIL
,! VIKVG WALL
(50')
ASPHAL
PARKING
IMPROVEMENT LO
LOT
RESUBDI VISION
TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE
I herebA
for the
land sw
E
upon foi
lines.
on this
of the
f
describe
I
indicate
w
1�
cross rn
1
This ce-
N
to dete•
a`
easemen,
N
z
relied i
O
p'
M42,
-
co
, L=-j
(50')
ASPHAL
PARKING
IMPROVEMENT LO
LOT
RESUBDI VISION
TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE
1 2:110.61
fill 14
�M- t'147
Ar,
Ark
IN MAN a --446-
4 AiA f.
L 'v
ILTIC
le
4
Ste.
(� V
}GPD T"4(-
r �
1 �
0 94P
Nr� e,,�T�jhC.K
1�
w
M �
SITE PLAN
ION
.
*ICOHEN CONSTRUCTIONwc.
Town of Vail
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Rd,
Val 1, Colorado 61657
P.O. Box 837 / Vail, CO 81658 / 303 -827 -5739
RE: Variance for addition, Farquhar Residence, 1879 Meadow Ridge Rd.
To Whom It May Concern,
December 5, 1990
I have been a resident and owner of unit -* 1 , 1860 Meadow Ridge Rd., Buffer Creek
Condominiums, for the past eight years. My front door is located across the street and
approximately fifty yards to the east of the Farquhar residence. I feel without question that the
addition being built onto the Farquhar residence will improve the neighborhood both in a visual
and economic way. I would also like to state that since the Farquhar's have moved into their
home they have continually improved its appearance. They area credit to the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
J Wf rey tAC o hle'
0
� 0
•
•
21 November 1990
Jerry and Deb Farquhar
Owners of Lot 16, Buffer Creek
Vail, Colorado
Subject: Living Room Addition
Farquhar Residence
Vail, Colorado
Dear Jerry and Deb:
Please see our letter dated 18 June 1990, at that time
we approved the conceptual design for the addition to the
south side of your home. We understand an additional
variance of 6" is required to conform with the Town of
Vail Zoning Code. The addition has been built as
anticipated and is a fitting addition to the existing
residence and surrounding neighborhood. We strongly
recommend approval of the variance application.
Sincerely yours,
S e and Cyntla
0 .ers of Lot 7,
Vail, Colorado
ita
fer Creek
6
0
Hot Dogs And More...
TO: TOWN OF VAIL
November 23, 1990
It is my understanding that Jerry and Deborah Farquar of
1879 Meadow Ridge Road, are requesting a variance for their new
addition in their horse. As a homeowner at 1880 Meadow Ridge Road,
T ask that you grant the variance.
The Farquars" have done more to improve our neighborhood than
anyone, and their addition is a beautiful upgrade.
Thank you for your co-- operation.
P.O. Box 488 Vail, Colorado 81658
4"-x A /
DEENA M. y f
0
•
•
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: December 10, 1990
SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to SDD No.4, commonly
known as Cascade Village, Section 18.46 - Area D, in
order to add additional office floor area to the Glen
Lyon Office Building, 1000 South Frontage Road West,
Lot 45, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision
Applicant: Glen Lyon Partners
T. BACKGROUND
In March, 1990, the Town Council and Planning and
Environmental Commission (PEC) approved a major amendment to
SDD #4 which includes the Glen Lyon Office Building - Area
D, as well as Cascade Village - Area A, Coldstream
Condominiums - Area B, and the Glen Lyon duplex lots. The
approved SDD for Area D now includes the following:
A. A brewery with a total floor area of 21,435 square
feet.
B. Expansion to the existing Glen Lyon Office Building of
2800 square feet.
C. A two- -level parking structure to be constructed at the
time that the brew pub is open during the day or the
east building is constructed. The operation of the
brew pub would be allowed prior to the construction of
the parking structure provided that the brew pub would
only be open after 4:30 pm.
D. A phasing plan which included the following:
1) Phase I - 2800 square foot expansion to the Glen
Lyon Office Building, as well as the unde.rgrounding of
electric services.
2) Phase II would include construction of the brewery,
the relocation of the bike path, construction of the
deceleration lanes on the South Frontage Road and the
addition of a Town of Vail bus stop.
3) Phase III would include construction of the east
building and /or the brew pub operating during the day.
The parking structure would also be constructed during
this phase.
1
E. Two employee housing units would be constructed as a
• part of Phase III.
F. An enclosed emergency exit stair would be located on
the south side of the Glen Lyon Office Building.
G. All of the conditions associated with previous
approvals would be included in the revised plan.
II. THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to
SDD #4 in order to allow the conversion of an existing
exterior deck to 400 square feet of interior office space
without meeting all of the conditions of approval set forth
in SDD #4. The proposed deck enclosure is part of the 2800
square foot office expansion approved by the PEC and Town
Council in March 1990. As approved, any portion of the
approved office expansion triggers the condition of approval
requirement that the developer make a number of site
improvements. These conditions of approval are outlined in
the March 1990 SDD #4 Ordinance (see attached). Approval of
a major amendment to SDD #4 is necessary in order to allow
the expansion. As the applicant is requesting to meet only
a portion of the conditions applicable to the expansion of
the office building, the applicant proposes to underground
the electrical utilities along the Frontage Road and to add
• more landscaping around the existing surface parking lot.
III. COMPARISON OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO THE ARTERIAL BUSINESS
ZONE DISTRICT
A. Background on Glen Lyon Property
In 19761 SDD #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.
When the Special Development District was
originally established, the development plan
called for 10,000 square feet of office
space. The office building, with a gross
area of approximately 13,000 square feet, was
constructed in 1979 -80. In March of 1982,
the PEC and Town Council approved an
amendment to SDD #4 which allowed
approximately 3,000 square feet of existing
storage within the building to be converted
to office space.
r]
In 1983, a request was approved by the PEC and Town Council to
. allow the total gross area of the building to be increased to
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 areas such as
mechanical, lobby areas, and corridors.
The 1982 request also included a change to the front
setback. The front setback was adjusted from 20 feet
to 15 feet. This request was approved by the PEC with
two conditions. The first was "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."
In March of 1986, the developer requested an extension
to the expired approval for Development Area D. This
request was 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 therefore has not been
recorded with the County.
IV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
A. Design compatibility and to the immediate
environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties
relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, buildings
height, buffer zones identity, character, visual
integrity and orientation.
The approved office square footage (2800 s.f.) will not
be increased by this amendment. The proposed enclosure
does alter the approved architectural plans. However,
the proposed enclosure will be consistent with the
architecture, scale, bulk, and height of the existing
building and will not negatively impact any of the
other criteria listed above.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible,
0 3
efficient and workable relationship with surrounding
. uses and activity*
The proposal does not change the uses, activity or
density of the approved plan.
C. Compliance with parkins( and loading requirements_ as
outlined in Cha ter 18.52.
The site currently contains 53 surface parking spaces.
With this Phase I addition, 1.6 new parking spaces will
be required. The new parking requirement will be 42.2
or 43 parking spaces. No new spaces will be built, as
the site currently has 10 excess parking spaces.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design
Plans.
Section 1.1 of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan relates
to this proposal.
"General Growth/Development
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled
environment, maintaining a balance between
residential, commercial, and recreational uses to
serve both the visitor and the permanent
resident."
F. 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 Office
property. The site is affected by the floodplain,
however, the development is not proposed in the
floodplain 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 changes are proposed in this area.
is 4
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and
pedetrians addressing on and off -site traffic
circulation.
No changes are proposed in this area.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in
order to optimize and preserve natural_ features,
recreation views and functions.
No changes are proposed that would affect any of the
above issues. The applicant has agreed to upgrade the
existing landscaping and to underground electrical
service as a part of this proposal.
I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a
workable, functional and efficient relationship
throughout the development of the special development
district.
This amendment will change the proposed phasing plan.
Rather than the entire 2800 square feet of office
expansion being constructed in a single phase, the
applicant is requesting to split Phase I into 2 pieces.
Phase IA will include the 400 square foot deck
enclosure and the undergrounding of electrical
utilities. The remaining 2400 square feet of Phase I
will be completed at an unspecified later date. In
addition, the remaining conditions (as stipulated in
the SDD for Area D will be completed at the time of
construction of any of the elements included in Phase I
or II).
V. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
All development standards have been met.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the request provided that
the applicant underground the electrical utilities along the
north side of the Glen Lyon property. The applicant has
agreed to complete the undergrounding as well as to improve
the site's landscaping.
The staff feels it would be unreasonable to require the
applicant to meet all of the conditions set out in the
approved SDD #4 ordinance in order to complete this 400
square foot addition. We believe the undergrounding of the
utilities will not be a hardship for the applicant and
further find that given the scale of the proposed
improvements, requiring the applicant to underground the
electrical utilities will be more equitable than requiring
the applicant to meet all the conditions of the originally
approved development plan. We also support the applicant's
desire to add landscaping around the existing surface
parking lot.
• s
Pierce, Segerberg & Spaeh • Architects • P.C. • A.I.A.
September 25, 1990
Town of Vail Planning Commission
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Glen Lyon Office Building Deck Enclosure
Dear Sirs:
We are proposing to increase our office space by 400 square,feet
by enclosing an existing deck that has not been used since the
construction of the building in 1960 (see attached drawings).
The additional square footage has already been approved as
included in Ordinance No. 40 Series of 1988, Special Development
District No. 4. Glen Lyon Commercial Site D. 18.46.103, F. 2
allows 2,400 square feet additional office space in the existing
• building. Currently, 10,150 square feet of existing office space
exists on Site D. Fifty -three parking spaces are currently
provided; 40.6 parking spaces are required for the existing
office space and 1.6 parking spaces are required for the
additional 400 square feet. Therefore, the currently parking lot
legally accommodates the proposed square footage.
Section 18.46.200: Controls do not apply.
Section 16.46.210, D: The conditions of approval as they relate
to a large 26,000 or 30,000 square foot development would not
seem appropriate, in their entirety, to a 400 square foot deck
enclosure. However, we would propose that Condition 3 be
executed by the summer of 1991 as arrangements are being made at
this time. We are proposing to develop sixteen percent of
18.46.100. F., 2. which is less than one percent of the
entire S.U.D.
If an amendment to the S.D.D. ordinance is reuigred, we would
like to begin this process. However, if because of the small
scale of this project, a more streamlined approach is possible,
it would be appreciated.
Main Office: 1000 South Frontage Road West • Vail, Colorado 81657 • 303/476 -4433
Post Office Box 2313 • Beaver Creek, Colorado 81620 • 303/949 -6049 -
One Tabor Center • 1200 Seventeenth Street, Suite 515 • Denver. Colorado 80202 • 303/623 -3355
Town of Vail Planning Commission
September 25, 1990
Page Two
If you need further Information, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Saundra L. Spaeh. A.I.A.
SLS /Irt
enc.
cc: Gordon Pierce, GLOB Partnership
Andrew Norris, GLOB Partnership
Ralph Wiliba, United Mortgage
•
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR AREA D SDD #4 **
D. Area D,Glen Lyon Com zcial Site
1. The developer shall agree to construct a bus lane
.
per Town of Vail standards in the area of the
porte- cochere of the Micro- brewery in Area D.
The specific location for the bus lane shall be
mutually agreed to by the Area D owner and /or
developer, Colorado Division of Highways, and
Town of Vail. The bus lane shall be constructed
subsequent to the issuance of a building permit
and prior to the issuance of a temporary
certificate of occupancy for either
the brewery addition, office expansion,
east office building, or parking structure.
The developer and /or owners of area D shall
be responsible for maintaining the new bus
lane, including snow removal. if the lane is not
maintained properly or snow removal is not
adequate, the Town will not provide bus
service to the site.
2. The developer shall relocate the existing bike
path on Area D and provide a new bike path
easement across the Glen Lyon property and
CDOII property per the development plan for Area
D. The bike path shall be constructed per Town
of Vail standards. The bike path shall be
constructed subsequent to the issuance of a
building permit and prior to the issuance of a
temporary certificate of occupancy for either
the brewery addition, office expansion, east
.
office building, or parking structure. Such
temporary certificate of occupancies shall be
conditional upon construction of the bike path
provided for herein. The bike path easement
3. The developer hall underground the elec ical
utilities along the north side of the Glen Lyon
property from the northwest corner of the
property to the northeast corner of the
property. This utility work shall be constructed
subsequent to the issuance of a building permit
and prior to the issuance of a temporary
certificate of occupancy for the brewery
addition, office expansion, east office
building, or parking structure.
4. The developer shall be responsible for
relocating the 20 foot utility easement on the
western portion of Development Area D as well as
obtaining approval from the Town of Vail for the
relocated utility easement before a building
permit it is released for the micro - brewery
addition.
5. The developer of the Glen Lyon Office property
shall not file any remonstrance or protest
against the formation of a local improvement
district of other financing mechanism approved by
the Vail Town Council which may be established
for the purpose of building road improvements for
the South Frontage Road.
6. The developer shall provide a fire hydrant per
Town of Vail Fire Department requirements on the
northwest portion of the property. The specific
location for the fire hydrant shall be approved
by the Vail Fire Department. The fire hydrant
shall be provided subsequent to the issuance
of a building permit and prior to the issuance of
a temporary certificate of occupancy for the
brewery addition, office expansion, east office
7. The Developer .call construct a decelera on lane
along South Frontage Road per the CDOH access
permit. The developer shall submit plans for the
South Frontage Road improvements to the Town of
Vail engineer for review and approval before a
building permit is released for either Phase 1,
II, or III construction.
B. The conditions for Area D in Sections 18.46.180
D, 18.46.200 A, B, F - K 18.46.210 D, 1 -7, and
18.46.220 shall be set forth in restrictive
covenants subject to the approval of the Town
Attorney and once so approved shall be recorded
on the land records of Eagle County. The
developer shall be responsible for submitting the
written conditions to the Town Attorney for
• approval before a building permit shall be issued
for the Micro - brewery, office expansion, east
office building, or parking structure.
9. The minor subdivision for Area D shall be
developed per the following conditions:
a. The development of parcels A, B, C, and D,
shall be limited to the SDD 4 development
plan and governed by the SDD 4 ordinance as
approved by the Town of Vail and on file
with the Department of Community Development
or as amended and approved by the Community
Development Department, Planning and
Environmental Commission, and /or the Vail
Town Council.
is b. The minor subdivision plat shall include a
statement that development of the four
parcels shall be governed by the approved
SDD 4 development plan for area D and
•
•
C. The Comm ity Development Departmen and
Town of Vail Attorney shall have the right
to review and require changes in any
"Agreements of Tenants in Common ",
"Conveyance of Easement and Party wall
Agreements ", and any other easement or
ownership agreements related to the
development of parcels A, B, C, and D to
ensure that the four parcels are developed
per the approved development plan in SDD 4
ordinance.
d. The developer shall be responsible for
replatting the 20 foot utility easement on
the western portion of development Area D as
well as obtaining approval from the Town of
vail for the new utility easement before the
minor subdivision plat is recorded.
e. Any modifications or amendments to the minor
subdivision conditions of approval agreement
shall be reviewed as a major amendment under
the procedures outlined in Section 18.40 of
the Town of Vail Zoning Code.
f. The conditions for the minor subdivision in
Section 18.45.210 D9 A, B, C, and E, shall
be set forth in restrictive covenants
subject to the approval of the Town Attorney
and once so approved shall be recorded on
the land records of eagle county. The
developer shall be responsible for
submitting the written conditions to the
Town Attorney before the minor subdivision
is recorded on the land records of Eagle
County.
10. The entire GI . Lyon office Building and rewery
building shall be sprinklered and have a fire
• alarm detection system. Town of Vail Fire
Department approval of the sprinkler and fire
alarm systems shall be required before a building
permit is released for Phase I or II.
11. The developer shall submit a set of amended plans
to the Colorado Division of Highways for review
and approval. The improvements on CDOH property
proposed by the developer must receive CDOH
approval before Phase I, II, and II are presented
to the Town of Vail Design Review Board for final
approval.
12. The east building including the two employee
dwelling units shall be constructed when the
• parking structure is built to ensure that the
employee units are built.
18.46.220 Employee fiousin
The development of SDD 4 will have impacts on available employee
housing within the Upper Eagle Valley area. in order to help
meet this additional employee housing need, the developer(s) of
Areas A and D shall provide employee housing on site. The
developer(s) of Area A shall build a minimum of s employee
dwelling units within Area A Westhaven condominium building.
Each employee dwelling unit in Area A shall have a minimum
square footage of 648 square feet. The developer of Area D
shall build 2 employee dwelling units in the Area D east
building per the approved plan for the East Building. In Area D
one employee dwelling unit shall have aminimum GRFA of 795
square feet and the second employee dwelling unit shall have a
minimum GRFA of 900 square feet. The GRFA and number of
employee uri _ts shay_ not be �:ounr-ed to- iarcl 1lowable rxen�ity or
GRFA for SDD4. In Area A, the GRFA and number of employee
� ., .1
le
i
r
I *
•
4
Y
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
RE: Sonnenalp Redevelopment
DATE: December 10, 1990
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
This memorandum summarizes the Planning and
Environmental Commission's malo comments from their
November 26, 1990 public hearing on the Sonnenalp
redevelopment. Listed below are the PEC's comments,
the applicant's response to those comments, and the
staff's response. Please note that the attached staff
memorandum dated December 10, 1990, is esentially the
same as was reviewed by the PEC at their November 26,
1990 public hearing. There have been some
modifications to the development plan and those
modifications are addressed and highlighted in bold
type within the bodV of the memorandum.
SECTION II. ANALYSIS
1. MEADOW DRIVE
A. PEC Concerns -- The PEC suggested that more relief is
needed along the facade of the proposed building in the
Meadow Drive area. They suggested that additional
design work focus on the streetscape interface, and the
connection with the plazas of the Vail Village Inn to
the north. Also, additional public green space should
be included in this area. The concern expressed by the
most Commissioners regarded a need for a break in the
facade.
B. Applicant's Response - "Additional relief is indicated
and proposed along East Meadow Drive as requested.
This was accomplished in a manner similar to
suggestions by the staff. See Sheets AO, AS and A16
for this revision. Also, a connecting plaza to the VVI
is being proposed as suggested; see Sheets A0, A00 and
A8. "
C. Staff Response - In an attempt to break up the facade
0 1
of the building along East Meadow Drive, the applicant
has carried the cantilevered portion of the building
down to the ground at two Locations. To accomplish
this, it was required that additional columns be placed
approximately 6 feet further north and closer to Meadow
Drive. This change was as requested by the Planning
staff, however we feel that the applicant could have
gone even further in the redesign to break up this
facade. More relief on this elevation could be
achieved by some variation in the use of materials, the
arcade design, and landscaping. Each of these
components are described in detail in the memo.
Additional recommendations by the Planning staff
included adding dormers along the flat roof portion of
the structure. The applicant was unwilling to include
this as a part of the project.
The applicant has proposed a pedestrian connection
between their project and the VVI to the north. We do
have some concerns with regard to the design of the
paver connection between the two properties, however,
the applicant has indicated a willingness to redesign
this area, in conjunction with the on -going Village
Streetscape Improvement Project. We support the
concept for the plaza connection.
2. SWISS CHALET PARKING
A. PEC Concerns - The PEC recommended that this surface
parking area be removed and a plan to landscape and
redesign this area into a pedestrian plaza should be
developed. Reference Vail Village Master Plan Sub -area
Concepts.
B. Applicant's Response - "As suggested, the surface
parking in this area has been removed and a pocket park
is being proposed. See Sheets AO and AOO for this
conceptual revision."
C. Staff Response - We believe that it is extremely
positive that the applicant has agreed to incorporate
the 13 surface parking spaces adjacent to the Swiss
Chalet into the proposed new Sonnenalp Hotel parking
structure. The staff is very supportive of the
applicant's pocket park design, given that this is a
conceptual design at this phase of the project only.
Additional work would be needed to determine exactly
how this pocket park relates to the intersection of
East Meadow Drive and Willow Bridge Road. This area
will be studied as a portion of the on -going Village
Streetscape Improvement Plan.
i2
3. VAIL ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
A. PEC Comments - The issues regarding traffic on Vail
Road should be finalized (i.e., turn lanes, width of
lanes, sidewalks, and landscaping), with the
recommendation that the area be restudied at peak
periods (Saturdays). Additional survey information is
needed for both sides of Vail Road. In addition, a
plan to mitigate the construction traffic and parking
on Vail Road needs to be presented.
B. Applicant's Response - "As agreed to in our November
29, 1990 meeting with the staff, the Town's consulting
engineer will help arrive at a conclusion regarding
this issue. If the complexity of the issue exceeds the
time Arnie Ullevig can spend on it, additional studies
will be provided by the applicant."
C. Staff Response -- The traffic study was forwarded to the
Town's consultant, Arnie Ullevig, and Ullevig's report
is included as an attachment to this memo. Generally,
he recommended that a center left turn lane be provided
by the applicant. He firmly stated that the lanes
should not be substandard. His comments are discussed
in detail in the memo.
. As indicated in one of the Sub Area concepts of the
Vail Village Master Plan, traffic along Vail Road is to
be discouraged. Because the applicant's proposal
requires additional widening of Vail Road, we feel that
mitigation of this widening is necessary. The staff
recommends that should the PEC recommend approval of
the Sonnenalp redevelopment, that the following
condition be placed upon said approval:
- That the applicant be required to construct two
median planters on Vail Road. Said planters would
be located adjacent to the Vail Gateway Plaza
Building, up near the 4 -way stop. The intent of
locating the median planters in this area is to
discourage unnecessary vehicular traffic from
entering onto Vail Road. It should also be
required of the applicant that an additional
median planter be located immediately south of
Meadow Drive, on Vail Road. This planter median
would assist in the channelization of traffic as
it enters the left turn lane for the Sonnenalp.
4. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONCERNS
A. PEC Concerns - All concerns of the Fire Department need
to be addressed.
. 3
. B. Applicant's Response - "We feel that the revised plans,
Sheets AO and A00, have addressed this issue."
C. Staff Response - The applicant has met with members of
the Fire Department and as of the date of this
memorandum the Fire Department has signed off on the
conceptual design for the Sonnenalp. Modifications
have been made to the Talisman parking and to the
northeast corner of the Sonnenalp property which would
facilitate fire truck access.
5. SWIMMING POOL
A. PEC Concerns - The proposed swimming pool needs to be
relocated out of the rear setback area.
B. Applicant's Response - "The swimming pool has been
revised; see Sheet AOO. It has been pulled back, but
due to the swim- through location, a very small portion
of the pool still encroaches into the setback. Also,
the whirlpools have been relocated."
C. Staff Response - We believe that it is positive that
the applicant has pulled a portion of the swimming pool
out of the setback, however, we feel that the entire
pool should be completely out of the rear setback area
and that the patio should also be pulled out of the
setback. We feel that there is adequate room within
the interior courtyard /garden area to accommodate the
swimming pool and associated patio. The staff feels
that there is no justification for allowing any
encroachments into the rear setback for the pool and
patio.
6. LOADING AND DELIVERY AREA
A. PEC Concerns - This area should be restudied, as it was
determined by the PEC that the proposed loading dock
was not adequate to handle all loading for the
facility. Access from this loading dock to the Meadow
Drive commercial shops needs to be shown that it is in
fact feasible.
B. Applicant's Response - "The loading area has been
restudied; see Sheet A2. For deliveries to the
commercial spaces, see Sheets A2 and AS, indicating two
loading /delivery spaces.
C. Staff Response -- The applicant's redesign has included
an additional loading berth at the southwest corner of
the building, for a total of two loading berths in this
0 4
area. It should be pointed out that the proposed
loading berths do not meet the minimum size
requirements as outlined in the Town of Vail Municipal
Code. The Town Code requires each loading berth to be
a minimum size of 12 feet wide, by 25 feet long. The
applicant's loading berths are approximately 8 feet
wide, by 25 feet long.
one additional loading berth has also been added in the
auto court area. The intent of this loading berth is
to accommodate UPS -sized vehicles for the retail
commercial spaces located along East Meadow Drive.
7. VAIL ROAD /MEADOW DRIVE INTERSECTION
A. PEC Comments - Additional green space should be
included on the site. The creation of a possible
pocket park should also be considered.
B. Applicant's Response - "Additional green space has been
proposed as per your suggestion; see Sheets AO, A00 and
A8.
C. Staff Response -° Some additional landscaping has been
added along Meadow Drive, specifically in the area of
the Vail Road and Meadow Drive intersection. While the
. staff believes that this is a step in the right
direction, we feel strongly that additional work is
needed on the landscape plan. A more detailed
landscape plan is needed to specifically address the
issues of planting along Vail Road and Meadow Drive in
conjunction with the commercial space needed for
visibility. Screening of the transformer vent needs to
be resolved.
8. STREAMWALK
A. PEC Comments - The Sonnenalp proposal should include a
streamwalk along Gore Creek for the length of the
property.
B. Applicant's Response - "This issue, as stated many
times before, will not be a part of or included in this
proposal. Due to the location (i.e., Town property)
this should not be an issue.
C. Staff Response - As stated in our original memorandum
on this project, the staff firmly believes that a
streamwalk would be in the best interests of the Town.
Because we believe that the streamwalk could be
constructed sensitively to the hotel, the staff
strongly feels that the applicant should incorporate
40 5
0
C.
a
10.
the streamwalk into their proposed site plan.
EMPLOYEE HOUSING
A. PEC Comments - The applicant
employee housing demand and
standards as outlined in the
Housing Report" of the Town
should restudy the
should propose to meet the
recently adopted "Employee
of Vail.
B. Applicant's Response -- "This shall be addressed by
Sonnenalp Properties, Inc."
C. Staff Response -- A revised
provided by the applicant,
work at the Bavaria House.
with the same analysis done
TALISMAN ACCESS EASEMENT
employee count has been
showing that 94 employees
Staff has used this number
for the previous hearing.
A. PEC Comments - The existing access easement from the
Talisman parking lot to East Meadow Drive should be
vacated and an access agreement finalized with the
Sonnenalp /Talisman.
B. Applicant's Response - "This issue shall be addressed
by Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. and by the Talisman
Association."
C. Staff Response - To date, no additional information has
been submitted by the applicant with regard to this
issue. We believe it is in the community's best
interest of insure that Meadow Drive is preserved as a
pedestrian mall. It appears that both the Sonnenalp
and Talisman have a verbal agreement to allow the
'talisman to access their property through the new
parking structure as well as through an access point
adjacent to the traffic gate on the east end of the
mall. We recommend that this verbal agreement be
formalized and that it become a part of the proposal.
This approach would make it possible to vacate an
access easement for the Talisman that bisects the
Meadow Drive pedestrian mall. This access easement was
granted to the Talisman when the pedestrian mall was
established to insure access to the property if acess
was no longer allowed through the Sonnenalp property.
This is an opportunity to insure that Meadow Drive will
remain a pedestrian mall and resolution of this issue
is necessary.
11. BUILDING HEIGHT
A. PEC Comments - Some of the Commissioners were concerned
• 6
0
about the height of the building along Vail Road, while
others were concerned about the height of the building
along East Meadow Drive, thereby creating shade on the
pedestrian area. General height concerns were raised
by most Commissioners.
B. Applicant's Response - "The roof height along Vail Road
has been reduced per your suggestion. The exit access
corridor that was in this roof area has been relocated.
Due to this relocation, a lockoff on the fifth floor
will be eliminated and a unit on the fourth floor will
be relocated to the mezzanine level."
C. Staff Response - The applicant has been able to reduce
the height of the building by approximately 6 feet for
a portion of the building at the northwest elevation
along Vail Road. In addition to this, the applicant
has raised the height of the tower at the Vail
Road /Meadow Drive intersection by approximately 2 feet.
By raising the height of this tower and lowering the
portion of the building that connects this tower to the
main building, we believe that the tower now functions
more as a focal point than as previously submitted.
Generally, the staff continues to have major concerns
with the overall height, mass and bulk of the proposed
structure.
SONCOVMO
0 7
DEC 7 'so 15:51 PRGE.002
F E L S B U R G
MOLT &
40 U L L E V I G
❑eoember 7, 1990
Mr. Andy Xnutsen
Town of Vail.
Cams unity Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Vail. Transportation Plan
FRU Reference No. 89 -091
Dear Mr. Knutsen,
This letter is in response to your request to review the
sonnenalp site redevelopment. Specifically addressed are the
following:
❑ Review of trip generation and traffic assignments for
reasonableness.
o The need f ❑r left turn lanes along Vail Road.
. o General design characteristics of Vail Road.
These items are discussed in the subsequent sections of this
review.
TriR Ggnpx�atLongmd Traffic Asgi ent
A traffic impact analysis addressing this redevelopment spe-
cifically evaluated the number of trips generated by the site,
their distribution onto the roadway netwrir%, and the traffic
impact on the 4-way stop intersection. The analysis was done
assuuting the site would contain 40 additional hotel roams
.beyond that which currently exists, and the analytical process
-that was documented appears to be reasonable.
Specializing In Tramportaelon
and CM Ervgineerin
5299 UrC Boulevwi • Suite 400
Englewood, Colorddo 00111
k (303) 721 -1440
0
DEC 7 190 15:51
December 7, 1990
Mr. Andy Knutson
Page 2
PAGE.003
However, the Environmental Impact Report for this project,
.indicates that in addition to 40 additional hotel rooms, the
redevelopment will also contain an additional 7,155 square
Feet of meeting space and approximately 5,800 square feet of
new commercial space. If these areas are indeed expansions
and are open to general public use, it would be. advisable to
include them in the analysis.
Left Turn Lane Aloncx Vail Raad
The traffic impact study indicates 45 inbound trips during the
P.M. peak hour in which 93 percent (42 trips) would be left
turning vehicles from the north. Given the amount of south -
bQund through traffic (estimated to be 250 to 300 vehicles per
hour during the P.'m. peak), a left turn lane should be provid-
ed. in addition, if the meeting space and commercial space
art. included the projected number of left turning vehicles
into the site will be greater than that indicated, thus making
a left turn lane even more necessary. Further, the need for a
left turn lane is not solely determined by absolute volume.
The provision of an exclusive left turn lane, even for small
turning volumes, is often beneficial in terms of safety and
the elimination of traffic stoppages. Such stoppages could
create queues which might obstruct other nearby access points
. and intersections which may be critical to overall Town oircu-
lation. Under either condition, we-suggest that an exclusive
left turn lane be implemented.
Gen rat nos' n harac er.isticS
Two basic aspects of the design characteristics are discussed
here. the cross - section of mail Road, and the operating char-
acteristics of the center left turn lane. The traffic study
illustrated a three lane cross - section in which the two
through lanes were each ten and one -half feet, and the center
lane was only nine feet in width. These dimensions are less
than the standard Zane width of 12 -feet. Providing 1.2 feet
for all three: lanes would be desirable, and at a minimum,
eleven feet should be provided. It is recognized, however,
that these widths may be difficult to obtain due to existing
physical Limitations. If these physical limitations are
deemed to be critical., we agree with the conclusion that Vail
Road operations might as well remain as a twd -lane design
rather than attempt to force 3 substandard lanes into 30 feet.
•
•
r 1
U
•
DEC 7 190 15:52
December 7, 1990
Mr. Andy Knutson.
Page 3
HHUE . 004
Several center lane operation options exist which include
striping -it as a two -way left turn lane (to also serve the
bank and the chapel on the west side) and striping it to be an
exclusive left turn lane for the Sonnenalp. Left turns into
the bank and the chapel will be infrequent ,relative to left
turns into the Sonnenalp because much of their inbound traffic
Will also come from the north. As such, it would probably be
desirable to lay out a striping plan which utilizes the center
lane for left turning vehicles into the 5onnenalp, and have
left turning vehicles into the dank and chapel make their
movement from the northbound through lane. Left turn lanes
would probably not be needed at the Meadow Drive intersection.
If you have questions concerning this information, please
call. .
Sincerely,
FELSBURG BOLT A ULLLWG
Arnold J Ullevig, p, .
Principa
CF/co
Christopher Fasc fag
Transportation Engineer
Im
• - •
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
• DATE: December 10, 1990
RE: A request for a Special Development District for the
Sonnenalp redevelopment, located at 20 Vail Road; A
part of Lot L, Block 5 -E, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc.
1. INTRODUCTION
Changes to the November 26, 1990 PEC memo are indicated in
bold print.
Johannes Faessler, of Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. has filed a
request to apply a Special Development District to his
property located at 20 Vail Road. The applicant proposes a
mixed use hotel complex. The reason the applicant is
applying for an SDD is that variations from the Public
Accommodation (PA) underlying zoning are needed for:
a 26 percent density increase,
a height variance allowing 81 feet where 48 feet is the
maximum height,
setbacks (on all four sides),
" the proposed loading berths do not meet the Town's
required minimum size of 121 x 261
an increase in the amount of accessory hotel floor
area (230 of the GRFA where 10o is allowed), and
an increase in the amount of common area (850 of the
GRFA where 20% is allowed).
Section III of this memo (Zoning Analysis) has a detailed
comparison of the proposed SDD to the Public Accommodation zone
district requirements.
II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Listed below is a summary outline of the proposed
redevelopment request:
A. Bavaria Haus Hotel (immediately east of First Bank)
Establish SDD with existing, underlying Public
Accommodation zoning for the hotel redevelopment.
Increase accommodation units from 72 to 126 units.
Eliminate 10 existing dwelling units.
Maintain all units as lodge units.
• " Install gas burning fireplaces. No additional wood -
burning fireplaces are requested. There are currently
four wood- burning fireplaces in the building, one in
the lobby and three in hotel rooms at the mezzanine
level of the existing structure.
" Add 4000 square feet of conference space for a total of
7930 square feet.
• Construct
the redevelopment to the following heights:
West
side:
51
- 81 ft.
North
side:
49
59 ft.
East
side:
52
ft.
South
side:
24
ft.
B. Landscapin
Construct a pedestrian walkway, attached to the east
side of the existing Vail Road bridge, over Gore Creek.
Remove the existing surface parking and construct a
pocket park northeast of the Swiss Chalet and adjacent
to Willow Bridge Road.
" Construct a sidewalk along the east side of Vail Road,
and construct improvements such as planters and
sidewalks along E. Meadow Drive.
Install landscaping along the north and west
elevations.
C. Parking and Loading
. Construct a parking garage with 210 spaces
regular spaces: 127
compact spaces: 25
valet spaces: 56
•
" Remove the existing exterior surface parking lot.
Locate all parking underground. The primary access to
the parking structure will be from Vail Road, adjacent
to the First Bank Building.
" The primary surface loading /delivery will remain at the
southwest corner of the property, however, an
additional loading berth is proposed to be added in the
auto court.
D. Other
" Construct retail commercial space of 5,713 square feet.
" Expand the existing restaurant and lounge area for a
total of 6,657 square feet.
2
III. SONNENALP ZONING ANALYSIS -- The project's departures from
the PA zone district standards are highlighted in bold type.
•
Site Area:
Setbacks:
UNDERLYING ZONING:
PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
2.024 acres or
88,165 sq. ft.
20 feet all sides
Height: 45 ft. flat roof
48 ft. sloping roof
GRFA: 70,532 sq. ft.
Units: 25 units per acre, or
50 units for the site.
Site Coverage: 48,491 sq. ft.
or 55 %
0
Landscaping: 300 of site or
26,450 sq. ft.
king: Per Town of Vail
parking standards
Loading: Per Town of Vail
loading standards
Accessory Uses: 10% of the
commercial, constructed GRFA
Restaurant, or 7,053 sq. ft.
Lounge:
EXISTING
PROJECT
Same
N= Meadow Dr: 20 ft.
W =Vail Road: 13 ft.
S =Gore Creek: 4 ft.
E= Talisman: 0 ft.
42.0' - ridge
23.51 - eave
30,122 sq. ft.
46 units
(72 a.u. & 10 d.u.)
17,984 sq. ft.
or 20 %
0
29,926 sq. ft.
or 33.9 %
Required: 105
Provided: 101
18% or
5,396 sq. ft.
PROPOSED
SDD
Same
N = 10 ft.
W = 2 ft.
S = 0 ft.
E = 5 ft.
81.01 - ridge
(maximum)
69,989 sq. ft.
63 units
(126 a.u.)
44,378 sq. ft.
or 50.3 %
40,363 sq. ft.
or 45.8 %
Required: 194*
Proposed: 127 spaces
25 compact
58 valet
210 Total.
Required: 3 berths
Proposed: 3 berths **
230-, or
15,819 sq ft.
Common Area: 20% of Allowed GRFA 20% or 85% or
or 14,106 sq. ft. 13,862 sq. ft. 59,271 sq. ft.
Gross Floor Area: N/A 49,380 sq. ft. 145,079 sq. ft.
(does not include
structured parking)
*Required parking includes a 5% credit for multiple use parking
facilities per Town of Vail parking code, Section 18.52.120.
Also allows for non -- conforming parking credit (see exhibits for
• breakdown).
* *Does not meet the minimum size requirements per the Town code.
IV. SDD CRITERIA
In order to avoid too much repetition of Staff comments, we have
. tried to list our comments under the most appropriate criteria
heading. This is not to imply that many of the comments do not
relate to several headings or planning documents.
Upon completion of the submittal requirements, the following
review criteria will be used to assess the merits of the
Sonnenalp redevelopment:
A. Desian 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.
Height:
Staff strongly objects to the maximum height of 77 feet for
the Vail Road building elevation and 81 feet for the
elevator tower given the Vail Village context. The heights
of the surrounding buildings are 47.5 for the Vail Village
Inn (VVI) ridge, 70 for the VVI tower, and 20 for the ridge
of the chapel. Though the VVI tower is tall, it is an
architectural accent to the rest of the building. Its
slender proportions are such that it is a tower. The
"tower" above the auto court is designed with proportions
which make it appear quite massive (i.e. "a building ") and
. should not be labeled as a tower.
Staff acknowledges that a certain number of rooms must be
obtained in order to construct a project of this magnitude.
However, the Vail Village Master Plan calls out for a range
of heights between 27' and 361, plus a roof, on the southern
portion of the site. The mass above the auto court and the
elevator tower are proposed in this same area, at 45 to 50
feet above the limit recommended in the Master Plan.
The applicant did respond to the height issue by lowering
the ridge between the Vail Road corner tower and the
building above the auto court. The ridge was lowered 61 by
removing a hallway, reconfiguring the staircases and
relocating one accommodation unit to the mezzanine level.
At the request of the staff, the applicant also raised the
roof of the tower at the Vail Road intersection by 21. The
intent of this increase was to accentuate the tower. By
lowering the ridge line and raising the tower peak, the
proportions of the building work much better.
Along East Meadow Drive, the Village Plan recommends heights
of 18 -27 feet plus a roof. Proposed heights in this area
range from 49.5' to 591. The PA zone district allows for a
maximum height of 48 ft. for sloping roofs.
• Staff believes that the Sonnenalp proposal needs to come
more into compliance with these recommended heights. It is
positive that the height of the building along Vail Road has
n
been reduced from the originally proposed height of 102
feet, down to 77 feet. As mentioned in the two previous
work session memos, height should terrace down to Vail Road
and Rant Meadow Drive to respect pedestrian areas as well as
• views from public areas.
Character
In staff's analysis, a significant deviation from the
character of the Village is the formal, unbroken facade of
the building along East Meadow Drive. The arcade extends
165 feet with little relief, though there are a variety of
dormer treatments in the north facing roof. over the past
two weeks, staff has worked on the Meadow Drive problems
with the applicant, trying to break up the linear appearance
of the arcade and roof line. The Town suggested that the
applicant accentuate the existing large dormers to break up
the mass of the elevation. The applicant responded by
"grounding" these dormers; bringing the mass all the way to
the ground. As a result, the arcade bends in and out from
the building where the dormers have been brought down.
In staff's opinion there are several design changes which
the applicant should include in the facade design to further
break up the facade along Meadow Drive. staff requested
that materials, such as rock and stone be used to emphasize
the changes in the plane of the building. secondly, it was
recommended that the applicant bring landscaping up to the
base of the elements to accentuate the differences from the
• surrounding arcade and walkway. Thirdly, it was suggested
that the applicant change the shape of the first floor
archway openings. Instead of the triple radius arches used
along the entire length of the 165 foot arcade, different
openings, similar to the balconies above, were suggested.
This would have made the element tie in with the forms above
instead of the arches on either side. Although staff
realized this would add slightly to the mass and bulk, the
benefit of breaking up the long, symmetrical arcade and
creating vitality and interest along Meadow Drive would have
compensated for the increased mass.
•
The overall intent of the staff's recommended changes was to
make some visually interesting breaks in the arcade.
Plazas would also help accomplish this. The Village Master
Plan calls for two "plazas with green space" along this
section of Meadow Drive. Tying both sides of the street
together will be accomplished with a plaza area, which the
applicant has added to the plans over the past two weeks.
The design of this plaza area will be refined during the
Village streetscape Improvement Plan. The overall
architectural style generally is of high quality. However,
the mass of the building is too large in relation to the
site and surrounding properties; the building does not fit
the scale of the Village. More relief from the formal
architectural style is still needed on Meadow Drive.
E
Uses, activity and density w hich rovide p a compatible,
B.
efficient and workable relationship with surroundincLuses
and activity.
0 Density, GRFA and Uses:
•
The proposal, though all lodge rooms, will have a density
26% greater than the allowable. Staff supports the plan to
have lodge rooms only, but is concerned that the density, in
conjunction with the height, is too much for the site. The
applicant does comply with the GRFA limitation for the site;
however, the GRFA calculation only counts the residential
areas. The accessory uses exceed the allowable by 13% and
the common area exceeds the allowable by 65 %. As a result,
the mass of the project is much larger than what the zoning
code allows. (The specific breakdown of the accessory area
and common area can be found in Section III. Briefly, what
PA zoning allows is 10% of GRFA for accessory and 20% for
common. What is proposed is 23% and 85 %, respectively.) It
has been common for the staff to support increases in common
area above the allowable. In this case, the common area, in
conjunction with the accessory use increase, is causing the
building mass to become excessive. Concerning uses, the mix
of lodging, commercial and conference space is appropriate
and supports the goals of the Vail Village Master Plan.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined
in Chapter 18.52.
•
Parking:
All parking will be provided on site. 58 spaces (280) will
be valet. 25 spaces (12 %) will be compact. A positive
aspect of this proposal is that all the existing surface
parking will be placed underground. There will be no
surface parking except for five spaces in the auto court,
The Town's parking analysis indicates that the redevelopment
would provide a surplus of 16 parking spaces. The staff has
strongly recommended that the 13 existing surface parking
spaces for the Swiss Chalet (adjacent to Willow Bridge Road)
be incorporated into the new underground parking structure
and that the surface spaces be removed. The applicant has
agreed to this recommendation and the 13 surface parking
spaces have been incorporated into the parking structure. A
pocket park has been designed for this area. As this is a
specific goal of the Vail Village Master Plan, staff
provides more details on this issue in that section.
Loading:
The Zoning Code requires three berths. Staff has been
concerned that if loading spaces within the auto court were
not specifically designated for loading, the delivery trucks
would try to use Meadow Drive or the area adjacent to the
southwest corner of Crossroads for loading.
D
The applicant has modified the loading bay area and is now
proposing a total of three loading berths. Two berths would
be located at the southwest corner of the property and one
berth would be located in the auto court. However, the
is proposed loading berths do not meet the minimum size
requirements of the Town's municipal code. The code
requires a minimum size of 12' wide by 251 in length. The
proposed berths are approximately 81 wide by 251 in length.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan. Town policies and Urban Design Plans.
Because of the many different goals, policies, and
illustrative plans that pertain to this proposal, a separate
section of the memo discusses the compliance of the project
with the Vail Village Master Plan. The intention to
maintain all of the units as accommodation units fits well
with the Town policies. Any conversion of these lodge rooms
to condominium units in the future should be prohibited.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic
hazards that affect the property on which the special
development district is proposed.
The floodplain is the only hazard which could affect the
site. The applicant is not proposing any construction in
the 50 foot Gore Creek stream setback or the floodplain.
i
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.
Site plan /Setbacks
The building will encroach into all setbacks. PA zoning
requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides of the property. The
applicant has relocated the building to meet the setback
line in many cases, which is an improvement over previous
proposals but still has ten areas of encroachment. The
specific points of encroachment in each setback, starting
with the compactor area on the southwest corner of the site
are:
West
1.
The compactor area
encroaches 15' -6"
into the Vail
Road setback;
2.
The new kitchen
expansion and Bully
Pub encroach
181 -011 into the
Vail Road setback;
3.
The rooms above
the auto court entry
encroach 12'-
0" into the Vail
Road setback;
. 4.
The tower on the
Road encroaches
corner of Meadow Drive
9' -0" into the Vail
and Vail
Road setback
and 8' -0" into the
East Meadow Drive
setback;
7
North
S. The roof over the commercial arcade encroaches
into the Meadow Drive setback 10' -01+;
. 6. The tower on the east end of the project
encroaches 13' -0" into the east side setback;
East
7. The eastern most corner of the new hotel wing
encroaches 18' -0" into a setback abutting the
Talisman site;
South
8. The swimming pool /whirlpool encroaches 7' -011 into
the rear setback. The patio around the swimming
pool area encroaches 199 -011 into the setback;
9. The King Ludwig deck (above) and the conference
room area (below) encroach 4' -0" into the rear
setback; and
10. The loading /delivery area encroaches 2010" into
the rear setback, creating a zero rear setback
situation.
The encroachment which concerns staff the most is the one
required for the kitchen expansion and compactor area on the
southwest corner of the property. Staff has worked with the
applicant in reducing the mass and bulk of the building on
this corner as much as possible, but believes that it still
has the most impact of all the encroachments.
Another encroachment of major concern is the swimming
pool /patio area. The Zoning Code allows recreational
• amenities to encroach into the setback if the Design Review
Board determines that the location is not detrimental
environmentally or aesthetically. Staff believes that in
this case, the Gore Creek corridor should be maintained as
natural as possible to preserve its aesthetic appeal. Staff
does not support the pool /patio in this location and would
recommend that the pool /patio be pulled back out of the
setback.
The two tower encroachments on either end of the building
along Meadow Drive are not problems in staff's opinion.
Staff believes that undulating the building along Meadow
Drive and allowing the towers to come out closer to the
street gives more definition to the public space and is a
benefit. The Village Master Plan calls for plazas in two
locations on either side of the tower locations. Though the
appliant is providing a plaza, there is not enough
undulation and variety to the Meadow Drive facade.
Natural Features
The site is generally flat with Gore Creek running along the
south side of the property. Significant landscaping also
exists along East Meadow Drive, in the center of the parking
area, and adjacent to the Bully III deck. The applicant has
taken advantage of the beauty of Gore Creek and has located
• the spa and garden along the creek. Staff believes that
adding a streamwalk along the creek would allow more guests
in Vail to enjoy this natural feature.
N
y 'g t
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and
pedestrians addressing address on and off-site e traffic circulation.
TalismanJSonnenalp Coordination!
• Coordination between the proposed Sonnenalp SDD and the
existing Talisman Condominiums is necessary. Staff
encourages the two owners to work together on access,
landscaping, and parking for the two projects in a
comprehensive manner. The Town Fire Department has now
approved the design of the Sonnenalp redevelopment, with
specific reference to emergency vehicle access to both the
Sonnenalp and the Talisman properties.
Traffic•
This will be discussed in the section of the memo dealing
with the Environmental Impact Report.
Pedestrians:
The design of the project has provided some improvements for
pedestrians. The applicants will provide a sidewalk along
Vail road from the corner of Meadow Drive to Gore Creek. At
that point, they will construct a pedestrian bridge over the
creek so that pedestrians can continue to walk south of the
creek. Staff supports the idea of the pedestrian bridge;
however, at this time, we do not have specific design
drawings of the proposal. Along East Meadow Drive, the
design could be improved for pedestrians by providing a
stronger interface between the pedestrian street and the
store fronts. What is also missing from the project is the
streamwalk.
H. Functional and aesthetic landsca in and o en space in order
to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views
and functions.
The proposal has provided an optimal garden area in the
center and south side of the site. Though this is good
preservation of open space, it is limited to the hotel
guests. The hotel has been designed so that the building is
located close to Vail Road and Meadow Drive. By not
providing open space west or north of the building, the
public does not benefit from the open space on -site.
Staff recommends that the applicant create a plaza /planting
area across from VVI, to provide some public open space.
This has been discussed during the review process since it
is called out for in the open space plan of the Vail Village
Master Plan. Not only would it provide some open space on
the site which the public would benefit from, it would break
up the hard line of the Meadow Drive facade. It would also
allow for a concentration of landscaping, and would create a
space where the VVI, the Sonnenalp, and the pedestrian way
are brought together. The applicant has redesigned this
area and has included a pedestrian connection /plaza as
E
• R
recommended by the staff. Final details of this plaza will
be coordinated with the on -going Village Streetscape
Improvement Plan.
I.
Phasing tan or subdivision plan that will maintain a
workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout
the development of the sne,c.ial development district.
See discussion under the EIR analysis.
J. Outstanding concerns from other departments:
1. Fire Department:
The applicant has received conceptual approval of
the Fire Department, however, some landscaping
will be lost (at the northeast corner of the site)
due to the Fire Department's required access. The
proposed landscape plan must be amended to reflect
this change.
2. Public Works:
A minimum sidewalk width of 6 feet, on Vail Road,
will be required for the full length of the
• y
project.
Drainage improvements along Vail Road and East
Meadow Drive will be needed.
3. Landscape Architect:
` The stream walk should be shown on the site plan.
The applicant will need to submit a revised
landscaping plan if proposed changes to Vail Road
are approved.
Maintenance of landscaped areas and sidewalks
shall be the owner's responsibility.
The conceptual landscape plan appears to be
acceptable. A detailed planting and irrigation
plan should be submitted for review.
0 10
•
J
•
V. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
In general, the staff believes that the Sonnenalp project should
be much more responsive to the Vail Village Master Plan. The
previous two work session memos listed many areas where the
project could comply more closely with the Village Plan. In most
cases, the previous staff comments apply to the revised proposal
since the applicant has failed to address the concepts of the
plan.
Staff believes that one of the most important parts of the Master
Plan is the conceptual building height diagram. The portion of
that plan which includes the Sonnenalp project is shown below.
The corner treatment for Vail Road and Meadow Drive should be 2 -3
stories. The rest of the site is called out at 3 -4 stories. The
project severely deviates from the Master Plan as it is 4 stories
on the corner and rises up to 6 stories above the auto court.
.I 511
f
l �
r ERK
Ali
1.
i)
J
y
, �¢3 �� Y
CONCEPTUAL
. a
BUILDING
HEIGHT PLAN -
During the review, it has been mentioned that the master plan is
not applicable to a demo /rebuild such as this. The master plan,
by definition, cannot address the aspects of every construction
project. But the policies and objectives of the plan do apply to
all projects. When the plan was developed, the appropriate scale
for redevelopment was established with consideration of
surrounding properties and the overall streetscape. The
principle design concepts are relevant and applicable even if a
demo- rebuild is proposed.
The specific goals, objectives, and sub -area plans which pertain
to this project are listed below. Important points of the Master
Plan text are underlined. Staff comments are below the Master
Plan excerpts.
11
0
A. Sub -Area #1 -2 - Vail Road Intersection
Sub -Area #1 -2 states:
41 -2 Vail Road Intersection
Possible realignment of
intersection in conjunction with
relocation of the Ski Museum.
Focus of redesign should be to
establish a small park and
pedestrian entry for the west end
of the Village and to provide a
visual barrier to discourage
vehicular traffic from heading
south on Vail Road from the 4 -way
stop. Specific design of Ski
Museum site to be included in West
Meadow Drive pedestrian
improvement project. The
pedestrian connection both north
and south along Vail Road should
also be improved. Special
emphasis on 3.2, 3.4, 4.1, 5.3,
5.4.
"Possible realignment of intersection in conjunction with
relocation of the Ski Museum. Focus of redesign should be
to establish a small park and pedestrian entry for the west
end of the Village and to 'Provide a visual barrier to
discourage vehicular traffic from heading south on Vail _Road
from the 4- way stop. Specific design of Ski Museum site to
be included in West Meadow Drive pedestrian improvement
project. The pedestrian connection both north and south
. along Vail Road should also be _improved."
Staff Response:
The project does provide a six foot wide sidewalk
along the full length of the west side of the
property. The sidewalk will be made out of
pavers and will extend from the northwest corner
of the site to the pedestrian bridge that the
applicant will install over Gore Creek. These
improvements serve to implement this concept.
Because the Sonnenalp redevelopment will require
additional widening of Vail Road, we belive that
mitigation will be necessary to discourage vehicular
traffic from heading south on Vail Road. The staff is
recommending that three planted medians be installed
along Vail Road. Two medians would be located near the
Vail Road /South Frontage Road intersection (4 -way
stop), and one median would be located on Vail Road,
immediately south of Meadow Drive. Final designs would
need to allow for fire access and public works needs
for snow removal.
0 12
•
L_J
F_ 1
LJ
B. Sub -Area #1 -3 - Sonnenalp (Bavaria_Haus) Infill
KV
Sub -Area ##1 -3 states:
Commercial infill development with
second floor residential /lodging
to enclose Meadow Drive and
improve the quality of the pedes-
trian experience. Designated
walkways and plazas with
greenspace should interface with
those of the Vail Villagibl
pedestrian walkway (possibly
arcade) should be provided to
encourage pedestrian circulation
physically removed from West
Meadow Drive. Mass of building
should not create a shadow pattern
on Meadow Drive. Development will
require coordination and /or
involvement with adjacent property
owners. Existing and new parking
demand to be provided on site.
Special emphasis on 1.2, 1.3, 2.3,
2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.4, 4.11 5.11 6.1.
"Commercial infill development with second floor
residential /lodging to enclose Meadow Drive and improve the
quality of the pedestrian experience. Designated walkways
and plazas with green space should interface with those of
the Vail Village Inn. A pedestrian walkway (possibly
arcade) should be provided to encourage pedestrian
circulation physically removed from Meadow Drive. Mass of
building should not create a shadow pattern on Meadow Drive.
Development will require coordination and /or involvement
with adjacent property owners. Existing and new parking
demand to be provided on site."
Staff Response:
Meadow Drive will be completely shaded in the
winter. The ridge along Meadow Drive will cast a
shadow which will extend 67.3 feet from the north
wall of the building at noon on December 21st.
This shadow will completely cover Meadow Drive.
Even on the equinox dates (March 21 and September
21), the shadow cast will be 27.5 feet from the
northern wall of the building. Staff understands
that some shadow will be cast by any redevelopment
that occurs along Meadow Drive; however, the mass
of this proposal and the way the roof line is
designed makes the shadow impact worse than
alternative designs that were discussed in the
review process. In the EIR, the applicant claims
that the building will shade the street for only a
short period of time without specifying the
length. Staff believes that this statement is
misleading and more information is needed on this
impact. Staff is also very concerned about the
possible icing of East Meadow Drive, given the
location and height of the new building. Please
13
see comments on project design, parking,
. circulation, and landscaping under SOD criteria.
Staff recalculated the shadow lenths and drew them in
both plan and section. These drawings will be
presented at the hearing on December 10. The shadows
were calculated from several points in the roof to
determine which ridge caused the worst impact. All
shadows were calculated for both the equinox (March
21 /September 21) and the winter soltice (December 21)
C. Sub -Area #1-5-- Willow Bridge Road Walk
way
• Sub -Area #1 -5 states:
41-5 Willow Bridae Road Walkway
A decorative paver pedestrian
walkway, separated from the street
and accented by a strong
landscaped area to encourage
pedestrian circulation along
Meadow Drive. Loss of parking
will need to be relocated on site.
Special emphasis on 3.4, 5.1.
"A decorative paver pedestrian walkway, separated from the
street and accented by a strong landsca -ed area to encourage
pedestrian circulation along Meadow Drive. Loss_ of parking
will need to be relocated on site."
Staff Response_.
The diagrams in the Master Plan show the area discussed
in the paragraph above and the area along Willow Bridge
Road blending into one another. The applicant has
expressed an interest in removing the parking that
exists there now and converting the space into a
pedestrian area. The parking garage that will be built
in this proposal has 16 extra spaces. There are 13
spaces in front of the Swiss Chalet.
Because the applicant is proposing to consolidate the
front desks for these two buildings, the parking can be
located in the garage of the main building. Staff had
recommended that the applicant redesign the space and
convert it into a pedestrian area according to the
Master Plan. The applicant has now redesigned this
0 14
area and has removed the 13 surface parking spaces. A
• pocket park is now proposed for this section of the
property, as previously discussed in section IV,H of
this memo. The applicant studied the pedestrian routes
through this area and designed a combination of
planters and walkways that accomodates the existing
pedestrian traffic patterns.
D. Sub- -Area #1 -4 -- Sonnenalp East (Swiss Chalet) Infill
Sub -Area #1 -4 states:
•-�M�MAt.`
#1 -4 Sonnenaip East {Swiss chalet
Inf ill
Commercial infill of north facing
alcove of existing structure to
provide shops and pedestrian
activity. A plaza with greenspace
shall be developed in conjunction
with the adjacent plaza at the
Vail Village Inn. Fire access and
on -site parking are two issues to
be addressed in the design and
development of this project.
Special emphasis on 2.4, 2.5, 2.6,
3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2.
• "Commercial infill of north facing alcove of existing
structure to provide shops and pedestrian activity. A plaza
with greenspace shall be developed in conjunction with the
adjacent plaza at the Vail Villa e Inn. Fire access and on-
site parkincr are two issues to be addressed in the design
and development of this project."
Staff Response:
Two issues in this sub -area recommendation pertain to
the proposal. One is to develop a plaza for pedestrian
activity outside the Swiss Chalet. This area is
intended to relate to the VVI as well as Willow Bridge
Road. This improvement relates directly to the
recommendation for the willow Bridge Road walkway,
which is discussed in the paragraph above. The second
issue involves fire access. The Town's Fire Department
has given conceptual approval of the fire access to the
Sonnenalp /Talisman.
0 15
E. Sub -Area #1 -9 - Study Area: yillage_Streamwalk
. Sub -Area #1 -9 states:
Soy * ,` .1-12'
WILLOk
s
re
? WUM
'LOOM*
fi
'i 3-
#1 -9 Study Area: Village
Streamwalk
Study of a walking only path along
Gore Creek between the Covered
Bridge and Vail Road, connecting
to existing streamwalk, further
enhancing the pedestrian network
throughout the Village and
providing public access to the
creek. Specific design and
location of walkway shall be
sensitive to adjacent uses and the
creek environment. (Reference to
Vail Recreational Trails Plan for
additional information on this
trail). Special emphasis on 3.4,
4.2.
"Study of a walking onlv path along Gore Creek between the
Covered Brid e and Vail Road connecting to existing
streamwalk, further enhancing the pedestrian network
throuahout the village and providing public access to the
creek. Specific design and location of walkway shall be
sensitive to adjacent uses and the creek environment."
Staff Response:
Staff believes that a streamwalk is in the best
interests of the Town. Expanding the existing popular
. recreational amenity is worthwhile, especially since
staff believes it can be designed in a way that is
sensitive to the hotel proposal. Benching a walkway
down near the stream appears to be feasible.
Additional landscaping is another way to buffer the
walk from the hotel's garden area. Developing
pedestrian -only walkways and stream access fulfills
Objective 3.4 of the Master Plan, which reinforces the
goal of this sub -area. Because a streamwalk is an
effective way to provide a natural experience within
the Village, and because it could be built sensitively
to the hotel, staff believes the applicant should
incorporate it into the site plan.
F. Emphasized Goals & Policies
Below is a list of the specific objectives of the Master
Plan. With the exceptions of the objectives dealing with
employee housing and the streamwalk, the proposal generally
meets the list below. Staff believes that the project's
primary positive aspects include its provision of
accommodation units, the parking plan, the pedestrian bridge
and the fact that this is a good site for a mixed use
redevelopment.
0 16
1.2 Ob-i ective :
Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of
residential and commercial facilities.
1.3 Objective:
Enhance new development and redevelopment through
public improvements done by private developers
working in cooperation with the Town.
2.3 Objective:
Increase the number of residential units available
for short term overnight accommodations.
2.4 Objective•
Encourage the development of a variety of new
commercial activity where compatible with existing
land uses.
2.5 objective:
Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and
maintenance of existing lodging and commercial
facilities to better serve the needs of our
guests.
2.6 Objective•
Encourage the development of affordable housing
• units through the efforts of the private sector.
3.1 Objective:
Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other improvements.
3.4 Objective:
Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian -only
walkways and accessible green space areas,
including pocket parks and stream access.
4.1 Objective:
Improve existing open space areas and create new
plazas with green space and pocket parks.
Recognize the different roles of each type of open
space in forming the overall fabric of the
Village.
5.1 Objective:
Meet parking demands with public and private
parking facilities.
6.1 Objective:
Provide service and delivery facilities for
existing and new development.
• 17
H. Illustrative Plans.
1. Land Use Plan:
a. North side of Sonnenalp site, "Mixed Use."
This category includes the "historic" Village core
and properties near the pedestrianized streets of
the Village. Lodging, retail and a limited amount
of office use are found in this category. With
nearly 270,000 square feet of retail space and
approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use
character of these areas is a major factor in the
appeal of Vail Village.
Staff Response: Since the proposal is mixed use, it fits well
with this Master Plan illustration.
b. South side of Sonnenalp site, "Medium /High Density
Residential and Mixed Use."
Medium /High Density
The overwhelming majority of the Village's Lodge
rooms and condominium units are located in this
land use category. Approximately 1,100 units have
been developed on the 27 acres of private land in
this category. In addition, another 110 units are
approved but unbuilt. It is a goal of this Plan
to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging
oriented with retail development limited to small
amounts of "accessory retail."
Mixed Use (along Meadow Drive and Willow Road)
This category includes the "historic" Village core
and properties near the pedestrianized streets of
the Village. Lodging, retail and limited amount
of office use are found in this category. With
nearly 270,000 square feet of retail space and
approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use
character of these areas is a major factor in the
appeal of Vail Village.
Staff Response__: The project complies with the types of uses
called for in the Illustrative Land Use Plan.
An all lodge room redevelopment, with support
commercial, is a very positive land use type
for this site.
• 1a
•
0
2. Open Space Plan:
a. "Planted Buffer" is designated on north and west
side of site.
b. "Plaza with green space" is designated on north
side of property connecting to the Vail village
Inn and on eastern property adjacent to Swiss
Chalet and VVI sculpture plaza.
C. "Open Space" is designated along entire stream
corridor.
Staff Response: The proposal does not provide a "Plaza
with green space ". Though a plaza at
this location would benefit the area by:
Tying in with the VVI buildings,
reducing the shadow cast by the
structure, and
providing some public open space.
At this time, these goals
are not addressed in a
comprehensive way.
3. Parking and Circulation Plan:
a. East Meadow Drive is designated as a pedestrian
street with plazas, limited or no autos and a bus
route. The Gore Creek corridor is designated as a
study area for a walking path.
Staff Response: East Meadow will continue to be a pedestrian
corridor; however, the proposal does not
include a stream walk.
4. Building Height Plan:
a. The area along East Meadow Drive is recommended to
be a maximum of two to three stories or 18 to 27
ft. high. Three to four stories (27 ft to 36 ft.)
is designated on the southern three quarters of
the property. All heights exclude roof forms.
Staff Response: As this is one of the most important
components of the Master Plan, staff
discussed this item in the first section of
the memo on page four.
0 19
q.
. VI. EIR ANALYSIS
A. Hydrologic Conditions
The applicant will be altering the existing
drainage along Vail Road significantly. Currently
there is a rock lined ditch that conveys the water
to Gore Creek. Curb and gutter will be installed.
All drainage improvements must meet Town of Vail
standards and will be reviewed for compliance at
time of building permit. Drainage from the
parking structure will be drained to the sanitary
sewer. Details for the parking structure drainage
have not been put together at this time. Staff
recommends that the best possible pollution
control devices, including grease traps and
sediment traps, should be installed in the
drainage system.
The one area of concern that the Town has
regarding drainage is how it will be handled
during construction of the project. Dewatering
any excavation pits into Gore Creek could
negatively impact the creek unless the sediment is
removed. The Environmental Impact Report
completed by the applicant commits the applicant
to undertake erosion and dewatering control
measures according to the best available practices
to ensure that the creek impacts are minimized.
B. Atmospheric Conditions
The three ways this project will impact air
quality are through fireplaces, dust control, and
automobile trips to the site.
Concerning fireplaces, all units in the hotel are
proposed to have gas burning fireplaces. The air
emissions from these gas burning appliances will
be negligible. There are four existing wood
burning fireplaces in the hotel which will remain.
Dust is an impact that is generated from the
construction process and through the sanding of
the existing parking lot. During construction,
the applicant (in the EIR) commits to undertake
efforts to control the dust. By locating the
parking underground and eliminating the need for
sanding, air quality will be improved.
The last possible impact is from automobile trips.
With 54 additional accommodation units, Less 10
0 20
C l
• dwelling units, there will be additional trips to
the site. Staff believes that this is a
reasonable increase and that further documentation
is not needed. The hotel's minivan service
combines trips that some guests might otherwise
make individually in their own cars.
Given the benefit of gas appliance fireplaces,
eliminating the sanding in the winter from the
parking lot, the negative impact of the additional
trips is offset.
C. Geologic and Biotic Conditions
The proposal does not change the impacts relating
to geologic and biotic conditions.
D. Visual Conditions
The applicant has used seven photographs taken of
the Village to show how the proposal will relate
to surrounding structures. The building outline
has been shown in tape.
concerning the view looking east on West Meadow
Drive ( #1), the EIR consultant claims that few
people will view the Sonnenalp from this point
since foot traffic is minimal in the area. Staff
strongly disagrees with this analysis. Since
Meadow Drive is a bus and pedestrian route linking
the Village to Lionshead, staff believes this view
will be highly noticeable.
All of the views of the building from points in
the Village show that the ski slopes, the
mountain, and the sky will be blocked. (3,5,6 and
7) The view east from the First Bank and chapel
area will be completely blocked. ( #5)
The views from the four way stop ( #2 and 4) show
that the building will not exceed the highest
ridge of Vail Mountain, as it will from the
vantage points in the Village. This is because
the elevation of the four way stop is higher than
the site of the project. Staff realizes that some
view impacts are inevitable if the project is
redeveloped. However, we believe the building as
proposed has severe view impacts which are not
supportable given the scale of the surrounding
areas.
0 21
E. Land Use Conditions
The uses proposed are compatible with those around
the site. This issue has been analyzed in the SDD
and Vail Village Master Plan sections of the memo.
F. Circulation and Transportation conditions
The traffic study, done by Leigh, Scott and
Cleary, Inc., concluded that the capacity of the
surrounding road network can generally handle the
traffic generated by the project. The only street
improvement recommended was to provide three lanes
in Vail Road's existing alignment. The new lane
is for a left turn lane into the project. The
original study recommended that the three lanes be
provided with substandard lane widths so that the
street would not have to be widened. Other
significant findings from the study include:
At full occupancy, the proposed project can
be expected to add approximately 175 entering
and 175 exiting weekday vehicle trips to the
surrounding roadway system. of these, 14
will enter and 12 will exit during the
. evening peak -hour.
The greatest concentration of project -
generated traffic is expected along Vail Road
to and from the north. Ninety -three percent
of the additional traffic will pass though
the four way stop.
The traffic impact of the proposed project on
existing and future peak season traffic will
be minimal.
The first traffic study, dated October 4, 1990,
was completed based on national averages of trip
generation and staff believes does not accurately
reflect Vail traffic patterns. (See attached
report.) The applicant and the Town did
independent studies of the parking demand for the
existing hotel which showed that the supply
exceeds the demand. Because of this information
and the general agreement on this issue between
the staff and the applicant, a revised traffic
study was submitted.
The issue which needed clarification was the
requirement for a center lane to allow left turns
0 22
into the auto court. The first study, based on
national standards, determined that it was needed,
but that substandard lanes would suffice. Since
it is not reasonable for the Town to accept
substandard lanes on one of the busiest roads in
the Town, the second study dated November 15,
1990, based on local standards, was intended to
clarify the issue and determine what the new
project would require.
A major flaw of the second study is found in the
conclusion. The consultants state that "if
roadway widening is required in order to [provide
three lanes], the resultant expenditures are not
justified, and we would recommend that the
operation of Vail Road remain as a two -lane
design." Staff discussed the study with the
engineer who prepared it and found that he had no
documentation of the cost which "is not
justified." Staff does not concur that the
cost /benefit analysis referred to in the
conclusion is an appropriate means to determine
what improvements the applicant is responsible
for. This is especially true when the cost, at
the time the report was written, was unknown to
the consultants.
More importantly is the fact that a requirement to
build the middle lane must be determined by the
amount of demand generated by the new project. If
the Sonnenalp generates the demand, they must
mitigate the impact. Cost should not be a factor
in this decision. The applicant has committed to
place curb and gutter at the edge of the street
for the full length of Vail Road. The Town's
traffic engineering consultant, Arnie Ullevig,
reviewed the traffic studies and concluded that
three lanes is the better alternative because of
the high number of left turn movements at peak
demand (45 turns per hour at 4:00 P.M.) and
the potential for traffic congestion to worsen
without the left turn lane. In his review, he
also said that the left turn lane should extend
only to the auto court and that a median south of
Meadow Drive would be helpful for traffic flow.
A related issue to this is the need for accurate
survey information. Setting the edge of pavement
must be based on accurate information. The
architectural drawings submitted by the applicant
show the proposed curb eight feet from where it
should have been, according to Town records. The
0 23
applicant's solution was to merely shift all of
Vail Road approximately eight feet to the west.
This shift must be verified with survey
information showing both sides of Vail Road prior
to any improvements being approved so that staff
can verify that there are no impacts to the First
Bank Building.
G. Population Characteristics
The Sonnenalp currently employs approximately 270
employees during the winter season. The proposed
redevelopment would add approximately 26 new
employees per the EIR. Ten of these employees
will be needed for housekeeping, a houseman,
laundry service, and general hotel staffing. The
consultants preparing the EIR assumed that 16
employees are enough to staff the additional
commercial area. The applicant is assuming that
no additional employees will be needed for the
4000 square feet of new conference area or for the
4700 square feet of new restaurant area. The
applicant claims that the conference area requires
the same staffing, regardless of size. Concerning
the restaurant, the applicant has stated that he
. will use the existing Sonnenalp Austria House
restaurant staff to serve the expanded Bavaria
House area. (The Austria House is by the Covered
Bridge, the Bavaria House is the one under
consideration.) The Austria House restaurant will
shut down when the Bavaria House restaurants are
open.
The additional 26 employees will increase the
total number to 296. of the total, the applicant
states that 94 employees work at the Bavaria Haus.
The Sonnenalp currently provides housing for
approximately 145 employees. 33 units are owned
by the Sonnenalp, housing 67 employees and 20
units are rented by the Sonnenalp, housing 78
employees. This assumes that each bedroom houses
two Sonnenalp employees.
No additional employee housing is proposed by the
Sonnenalp for the redevelopment, though statements
in the EIR acknowledge that the housing goals of
the Sonnenalp are not being met. However, staff
believes that a redevelopment of this magnitude
should have some permanent employee housing. The
material in the EIR states that "housing is of
potential concern to both the Sonnenalp and the
• 24
n
Town." Staff needs to clarify this point and
state that significant resources have already been
invested by the Town to address this issue. With
the adoption of the Town of Vail Affordable
Housing Study on November 20, 1990, it is no
longer a potential concern but is an issue that
must be addressed formally. At this time, the
report has been adopted and provides guideline for
new development. At a later date, the report's
recommendations will be incorporated into the
Zoning Code. In addition, the Land Use Plan calls
for employee housing by stating:
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."
It should also be mentioned that most SDD's in the
past have provided some number of employee housing
units within the proposal.
Using the recommendations from the Affordable
Housing Study, staff determined the amount of
housing which should be deed restricted using two
calculations. For "by- right" projects, housing
for 15% of the employees should be provided. For
those projects with density increases, 16% - 30%
of the employees should have housing provided by
the employer.
For example, the redevelopment will require an
additional 26 employees. Since a density increase
is needed for the expansion, the 30% multiplier is
used:
26 employees x .30 = 7.8
Assuming that two employees will share a
dwelling unit, the 7.8 is divided by 2,
resulting a requirement for 4 dwelling units.
Or, 26 employees x .16 = 4.16 or 2 dwelling
units.
Staff believes that it is also appropriate to
review the over all demand on housing that the
project will generate. Given that the existing
operation requires 94 employees, and meets
density limits, staff believes that housing should
• 25
be provided for these employees by using the 15%
. multiplier.
94 employees x .15 = 14.1
40.5 divided by 2 equals 7.05
By combining the "by- right" demand with that
generated by the density increase, a minimum of 7
of the Sonnenalp's existing employee units should
be permanently deed restricted and at least four
new employee units should be required for the
density and retail above the allowable. This
results in a total of 11 employee restricted
units.
Staff's calculations do not include any additional
employees for the 4700 square feet of new
restaurant area. Because this does not seem
plausible, staff needs more information about
this area before an accurate housing demand can be
done.
H. Phasing
The construction will take place in three phases.
Phase I includes the parking structure and
elevator core. Mass excavation and shoring is
planned to begin May 1, 1991. The parking garage
is planned to be completed by September 13, 1991.
The kitchen addition will be completed October 15,
1991.
Phase II activity includes the new hotel tower and
the north wing with planned occupancy for December
10, 1992. Phase III work includes the spa
building, meeting rooms and the remodel to the
existing hotel which will begin May 1, 1992. The
existing east wing of the hotel will be demolished
between May 1, 1992 and June 5, 1992.
At this time, the applicant proposes to build a
paved road around the existing loading dock
(southwest corner of site) for trucks to use
during the demolition of the existing east wing.
Staff is concerned about the impacts to the creek,
and believes that another route can be found to
haul the debris away from the site.
The second concern of staff is the parking for the
construction workers. As the Town has seen with
the construction of the parking structure and
0 26
•
•
Gateway, major projects require many employees and
vehicles. We would like to see a plan explaining
where the construction workers will park.
The applicant, in the
closures of Vail Road
understands that the
closed. In addition,
all deliveries to the
Talisman access road
take place via Meadow
VII. LAND USE PLAN
EIR, has said that partial
will be needed. The Town
road will never be completely
the Town understands that
site will occur from the
or Vail Road but will not
Drive.
The Land Use Plan refers to the Vail Village Master
Plan for reviewing any requests for redevelopment in
this area.
VIII. CONCLUSION
Although the project has positive aspects such as the
lodge use, underground parking, sidewalks, and a
pedestrian bridge, staff recommends denial of the
project for many reasons. Using the SDD criteria,
staff finds severe noncompliance with Criteria A:
design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate
environment. The height, at 81 feet, exceeds the 48
foot limit beyond what is compatible with the
surrounding area. The mass of the building, exceeds
the allowed accessory area and common area by 53,931
square feet. This square footage as indicated by the
height, setbacks, minimal public spaces and shadow
patterns, is too much for the site.
Criteria D, conformity with applicable elements of the
Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design
plans, has not been met. Several plans and
illustrations from the Vail Village Master Plan have
not been addressed. Specifically, the open space plan
with plazas, the building height plan, the shade and
shadow issues, and the streamwalk have not been
addressed adequately.
Criteria F, regarding the site plan, has not been net
in that the concepts for the site plan results in a
building layout that lacks quality public spaces.
Staff does not agree that the resulting site plan,
reserving most of the open space on the site for hotel
guests, is the best design for the community.
Criteria G, regarding a circulation system designed
• 27
i ., l
for pedestrians and
either. Additional
fully address and to
improvements.
automobiles, has not been met,
survey information is needed to
accurately locate the proposed
The two issues discussed first are the fundamental
problems with the project; however, there are numerous
others which must be resolved prior to approval, as
identified in the main body of the memorandum. The
applicant has been aware of the Town's concerns, in
most cases, since the original PEC work session. Staff
believes that until all outstanding issues are
resolved, the project should not be approved.
Staff asks that the applicant address the Town's issues
more thoroughly. We believe the project has merit but
additional design changes are necessary before the
staff could support and recommend approval of the
project.
•
• 28
I t, 1
USE
Accommodation Units
(555 sq. ft. average room size)
CALCULATION
0.955x126
M.;staurantlLounge 4163/15/8 35.
Parking Required = 208 spaces
Mutiple Use Credit (5 %) = (10)
Non - conforming Credit = (4)
Total 194
Sonnenalp
Exhibit A
PRQPCSED
PAFKIN
Feet #
3egular Spaces<
mors.
Compact Spaces
Valet
P31P4'>
P1/P2
::. 59I
14
?,
Lobby: Levb[ ...
5
0
�-
Total
25
58
Grand Total:
210 (includes 12% compact and 28% valet)
USE
Accommodation Units
(555 sq. ft. average room size)
CALCULATION
0.955x126
M.;staurantlLounge 4163/15/8 35.
Parking Required = 208 spaces
Mutiple Use Credit (5 %) = (10)
Non - conforming Credit = (4)
Total 194
Sonnenalp
Exhibit A
I ,I
•
•
HEIGHT ANALYSIS
Gable
(ft)
Elevator Tower: NIA
Ridge along East Meadow Drivel 49 ... N/A
............
Ridge along Vail Road: N/A
zu::11
..........
Gable
(ft)
Ridge Alona Meadow: N/A
Sonnenalp
Exhibit B
i AREA BREAKDOWN
SITE COVERAGE
Sheet A2 = Existing hotellconference area = 19,611 sq. ft.
Sheet A9 = New hotel = 20,194 sq. ft.
Sheet A00 = Spa building /covered walkway - 4,518 sq. ft.
Total 44,378 sq. ft.
COMMON AREA
0, FA
Sheet A2
= Registration lobbylloading & delivery
= 4,244
sq. ft.
Sheet A3
= Libraryloff ices etc.
= 3,818
sq. ft.
Sheet A4
= Corridors, stairs - 2nd level
- 1,074
sq. ft.
Sheet A5
= Corridors, stairs -- 3rd level
- 1,087
sq. ft.
Sheet A6
= Display /restroom
= 565
sq. ft.
Sheet A6.1
= Conference arealoff ice sllaundry, etc.
= 31,201
sq. ft.
Sheet A7
= Elevator/ I o b bylstai rs
- 366
sq. ft.
Sheet A8
= New wing - corridor
- 2,435
sq. ft.
Sheet A9
= Corridor - 2nd level
= 2,654
sq. ft.
Sheet A10
= Corridor - 3rd level
= 2,642
sq. ft.
Sheet A11
= Corridor - 4th level
= 3,230
sq. ft.
Sheet Al2
= Corridor - 5th level
= 1437
sq. ft.
Sheet A00
= Spa building /covered walkway
- 4,518
sq. ft.
- 126
Total
59,271
sq. ft.
Sheet A3
= Mezzanine
= 5,830
sq. ft.
- 15
Rooms
Sheet A4
= 2nd level
= 6,120
sq. ft.
- 12
Rooms
Sheet A5
= 3rd level
= 6,029
sq. ft.
- 12
Rooms
Sheet A8
= New building 1st level
W 4,205
sq. ft.
- 7
Rooms
Sheet A9
= New building 2nd level
= 16,909
sq. ft.
- 28
Rooms
Sheet A10
= New building 3rd level
- 16,910
sq. ft.
- 28
Rooms
Sheet A11
= New building 4th level
- 10,774
sq. ft.
- 18
Rooms
Sheet Al2
= New building 5th level
= 3,212
sq. ft.
- 6
Rooms
Total
69,989
sq. ft.
- 126
Rooms
COMMERCIAL
Sheet A8 = 1st Level - 5,713 sq. ft.
Total 5,713 sq. ft.
RESTAURANT /KITCHEN /LOBBY LOUNGE
Sheet A2 = RestaurantlKitch en/ Lobby Lounge - 10,106 sq. ft.
Total 10,106 sq. ft.
4knenalp
Exhibit C
The Vail Religious Foundation
4 December 1990
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vaal
Department of Community Development
Vail, Colorado 81657
HAND DELIVERED
RE: Application for Special Development District Designation
of Sonnenalp Hotel
Dear Kristan:
The Vail Religious Foundation has requested that I
communicate to the Town of Vail the concern of the Foundation in
association with the Vail Interfaith Chapel, regarding the rezoning
of the Sonnenalp Hotel, The Vail Religious Foundation is strongly
opposed to the rezoning request which is before the Town of Vail
and to the redevelopment plan which is associated with that
rezoning request. The application has no relationship to present
zoning, the Town Master Plan or the guidelines which affect the
property in question. It is apparent that the owners of the
Sonnenalp Hotel purchased a property which was half the size they
wanted, but the lack of planning on the part of the property owners
serves as a justification neither for the rezoning which they
request or for the wholesale waiver of zoning limitations which is
the crux of the request now before the Town of Vail.
The Foundation begins with the premise that the zoning
which applies to the Sonnenalp Hotel and the surrounding properties
was applied for a reason. In the opinion of the Foundation, that
reason was to provide some degree of certainty regarding what would
be developed on the land, and, when redevelopment was necessary, a
reasonable degree of assurance regarding what would be developed
when existing structures became obsolete or, for any reason,
required demolition and replacement.
unfortunately, the Special Development Districts
19 Voll Rood • Vail, Colorado 81657
permitted under the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail can be used
to frustrate and to circumvent the purposes and protections created
by good zoning practice. That is exactly what is occurring in the
case of the Sonnenalp application.
The present owners of the Sonnenalp Hotel knew what they
were receiving when they purchased the property. There existed at
the time of their purchase, and there now exist, limitations on
that property which insure that its use will be, to some extent,
consistent with the surrounding properties. The purposes of
Special Development Districts are clearly listed in Section
18.40.10, and need not be repeated verbatim in this letter. It is
sufficient to note that the goals of promoting the appropriate use
of land, improving the design character and quality of new
development, facilitating the adequate and economical provision of
streets and utilities, preserving open space areas, and furthering
the overall goals of the community may all be accomplished within
the framework of the Public Accommodations Zone District in which
the Sonnenalp hotel is presently located. What cannot be
accomplished within that zone district are increases in building
height, density, and accessory and common area GRFA, and the
elimination of setbacks which are being requested by the present
owners of the Sonnenalp Hotel. The request might generously be
interpreted as an attempt to obtain blanket variances where no
basis exists to obtain any variances whatsoever.
As to the merits of the application, it is inconceivable
that an eighty -foot residential structure sticking up in the middle
of Vail could do anything to enhance the attractiveness of the Town
of Vail. The Town of Vail has been able to preserve, to some
extent, the atmosphere of an alpine village through the zoning
which is fundamental to its land use planning. It should be the
goal, if there is such a goal, to remind the visitor of Interlaken
or Garmish, not Zurich or Munich. To permit the intensity of
development which is requested by the Sonnenalp would be
inconsistent with the goals which the Vail Religious Foundation
believes to be those of the Town of Vail and the residents of the
Town. Those goals may not necessarily be those of developers who
purchase property governed by reasonable and appropriate
limitations and then attempt to create appreciation of their
investment by requesting special rights which violate the
expectations if not the rights of the residents and the guests who
are impacted by the proposed development.
With regularity, and particularly during the winter
season, the Interfaith Chapel is troubled by the use of its limited
parking facilities by the employees of the Sonnenalp Hotel and
those individuals using the Sonnenalp restaurant facilities.
Despite requests made of Sonnenalp management and the positioning
of the signage required by the Town of Vail to limit unauthorized
parking, that use continues on a daily basis. If the development
proposed by the Sonnenalp were to be permitted, that unauthorized
use of the Chapel's parking facilities would be aggravated by that
fact that the Sonnenalp parking which now is reasonably visible
i
would be less visible and less accessible, and a greater number of
41 individuals who use the Sonnenalp facilities would use the Chapel's
limited parking.
The visual impact of the Sonnenalp project on the
Interfaith Chapel and its environs would be dramatic and
undesirable. Where the Town of Vail now has a focal point which,
for many years, has been identifiable to the Town's residents and
visitors, the visibility of the Chapel would be dramatically
decreased. The Foundation suggests that the many postcards of the
Chapel indicate its importance to the image of the Town of Vail.
The Sonnenalp Hotel, currently an attractive facility consistent
with the Town's image, would be no greater asset to the Town's
image were the redevelopment plan approved. In fact, because of
the mass and impact of the proposed redevelopment, it would almost
certainly be an edifice to avoid, and a blight on the views of the
Gore Range and Vail Mountain which people identify with the Town of
Vail.
Even the existing loading dock operated by the Sonnenalp
Hotel creates problems in the operation of the Interfaith Chapel.
That facility, across Vail Road from the Chapel, is far from an
attractive feature of one of Vail's central streets, and the one
which bears the Town's name. A proposal which doubles the number
of rooms in the facility must bring with it the recognition that
the use of the loading bay(s) will increase dramatically. That use
. will further disrupt the services and functions conducted at the
Chapel and will detract from the appearance, not only of the
Chapel, but of the street as a whole. Even under present
circumstances, delivery vehicles must deal with the pedestrian and
vehicular traffic on Vail Road in a manner which is inconsistent
with safe practice. An aggravation of this problem should not be
permitted.
Beyond the deficiencies in the proposed project on its
merits, there are also operational problems with the construction
of the project. If the set -backs are to be waived, as requested,
or significantly reduced, the work on the project must be conducted
in the public right -of -way. This project is not one which would be
accomplished during a single construction season. Not only the
Chapel, but the Town as a whole would suffer for several
construction seasons with traffic disruption, noise and a scar on
the village. The functions of the Chapel, which occur on every day
of the week, would be disrupted by the noise and the construction
activity, including but not limited to vehicular traffic.
The Vail Religious Foundation appreciates the existence
and the quality of services offered by the Sonnenalp Hotel. This
letter is written only after considerable discussion regarding the
merits and demerits of the proposed redevelopment plan. it is,
however, written upon the unanimous vote and authority of the ten
members of the Vail Religious Foundation who considered the
. question. It is also written with the conviction that the approval
of the plan would be a serious problem for the Vail Interfaith
chapel, to those who use the facility, and to the thousands of
people to have seen, and expect in the future to see, an
environment in Vail which reflects some regard for the visual and
psychological experience of those who seek relief, recreation and
renewal during their visits in our community. The development of
the Town of Vail into islands of concentrated density and mass
rivaling the cities from which our visitors escape will do no more
for those visitors than to send them elsewhere, seeking the
experience which they formerly identified to be that of Vail.
Respectfully,_
VAIL R IGIOUS ND ON
President
,7
C,
MICHAEL E. RICKS, P.C.
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
MICHAEL E. RICKS, C.P.A.
December 10, 1990
Pis. Kristan Fritz
Town of Vail
Department of Community Development
Vail, CO 81657
Hand Delivered
0100 W. BEAVER CREEK BLVD.
SUITE 226
POST OFFICE Box 863
AVON, COLORADO 81 620
(303!949-5364
Re: Application for Special. Development District
Designation of Sonnenalp Hotel
Dear Kristan:
I have ,just received a copy of the letter which was written
. and delivered to you by Art Abplanalp on behalf of the Vail.
Religious Foundation. David Stith', and myself are members of
the Board of Directors of the Foundation and were two of the
ten members that were present when the Board took action to
register with the Town certain concerns that we had
regarding this impending project, Fr. Stitt and I discussed
our recollections to this meeting and he requested that I
prepare this letter to express that we do not agree that the
letter submitted by Mr. Abplanalp clearly indicates the
action taken by the Board as we understood it.
I have taken the additional action of calling several of the
other Board members who were available this morning to ask
their recollection of our discussion and action, and they
have generally concurred with my understanding which
follows.
At the December meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Vail Religious Foundation, it was brought to our attention
that the Sonnenalp project was proceeding through the
approval process and that gur Board had not previously
discussed the possible impacts of such a project on the Vail
Interfaith Chapel. A lengthy discussion followed during
which we reviewed some of the documentation from the Town of
Vail regarding this project. A number of specific concerns
were raised regarding the project as it might impact the
Chapel. These related to the size of the project in
relation to the Chapel and the distance between the two
buildings as proposed, possible aggravation of an already
I
Ms. kristan Pritz - Page 2 0
difficult parking situation for the Chapel, traffic and
noise concerns related to additional service vehicles using
loading docks opposite the Chapel, concerns regarding
restriction of the road width during construction and impact
of construction noise during the rather extended
construction period. I believe that these concerns have
been clearly expressed in the letter you previously
received.
However, Fr. Stitt and I want to make it very clear that we
believe that it was never the Board's intent to cast any
personal aspersions on the owners' of the Sonnenalp, nor
did the Board make any decisions regarding any prior
motivation that the owners' might have had as they purchased
this property. In fact, it was noted by the Board that the
owners have usually been very sensitive to the concerns to
the Vail Religious Foundation and have maintained a good
relationship with them.
Further, the Vail. Religious Foundation has always been very
careful to conduct its actions only in relation to its
Purpose, that primarily being the ownership and operation of
the Vail Interfaith Chapel. Therefore, the Board has always
been careful to never presume to take any action which might .
be interpreted as an attempt to speak on behalf of either
the member churches which relate to the Chapel or on behalf
of the community as a whole. The Board has expressed in the
past that we do not believe that this is our role.
I do realize that Mr. Abplanalp, as President of the Board,
was attempting to relate the Board's concerns as I have
discussed. Due to time constraints the Board members did
not have opportunity to review the final draft of the
letter the Mr. Abplanalp submitted. Therefore, I want to
make it clear that Mr. Abplanalp did not have the benefit
of any response from the Board members regarding the letter
in its final form, and I am sure that he did his best to
carryout his duties on behalf of the Board.
It is because of this close time constraint that I have
written this letter on behalf of Fr. Stitt and myself,
rather that seeking to have Mr. Abplanalp revise the
original letter. Both Fr. David Stitt and myself would
be happy to answer any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
Rev. Michael E. Ricks Rev. David WI Stitt
Associate Pastor Pastor, Episcopal Church
Vail Baptist Church of the Transfiguration
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
• FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 10, 1990
SUBJECT: A request for a front yard setback in order to
construct a garage and a wall height variance in order
to construct retaining walls at 1448 Vail Valley Drive;
Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing.
Applicant: John and Barbara Schofield
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCES REQUESTED
A. Front Yard Setback Variance
The applicant proposes to construct a two -car garage
located 11 feet from the front (northern) property
line. Since the front setback standard is 20 feet, the
garage would encroach 9 feet into the setback. The new
two -car garage will be located at the same grade as the
existing three -car garage. it will be attached to the
existing garage; however, the doors will face east
instead of north. There will be a second driveway and
another curb cut on the site to access the new garage.
The applicant proposes to build the two -car garage
• because one of the three spaces he has the right to use
in the existing garage is too small. The dimensions of
that space are 10 x 20. After the new garage is built
the applicant proposes to use the former parking space
as storage. it will continue to have a garage door and
could be used to park a car, but is not intended for
this. The east wall of this garage will be removed,
resulting in one large open area between the new two -
car garage and this existing space.
•
The applicant is proposing to locate the garage below
grade. Because the site is steep, the applicant
intends to tunnel into the hillside, maintaining the
existing grade generally as it is now. With the use of
walls and terracing, landscaping will extend up and
over the garage, meet the grade on the opposite side of
the garage, and continue around the house. The front
door will be accessed via stairs which begin between
the driveway and Vail Valley Drive. They will rise up
on the north side of the garage, turn to the south and
then ascend over the top of the garage to the front
door. (Please see attached drawings). The applicant
will bring a model to the hearing to further explain
the proposal.
1
B. Wall Height variance
. The second component of the variance involves wall
heights. There will be several terraces on this site
as a result of the construction of this project. The
highest wall will be 11 feet tall. The code limits
wall heights to 6 feet outside the front setback.
There are 5 areas where there will be walls on this
site. The first is a two -foot high boulder wall located
4 -5 feet south of the edge of pavement of Vail Valley
Drive. This creates the first terrace. The second
boulder wall, ranging from 2 -3 feet in height, will be
built in between the first wall and the garage.
•
The third and fourth walls will be built along both
sides of the driveway and will increase in height as
they run up to either side of the garage doors. At
their highest point, they will be 11 feet tall. At
their lowest points, the north wall will be 1 foot
tall, and the south wall will be 3 feet tall.
Therefore a wall height variance is re wired to allow
the construction of the two walls adjacent to the
driveway which exceed allowable wall height by 5' -01t.
The last area where there will be significant slope
retainage is at the northeast corner of the site. At
this location there will be approximately a dozen
boulders ranging from 4 -6 feet in diameter. The
neighbor to the east has used this kind of retainage on
this portion of his lot and these boulders will
continue this treatment.
C. Other aspects of this request are that the finished
grade between retaining walls exceeds a 2.1 slope in
some places. The existing slope of the site is 21.9%
with a portion as steep as 350. All of the allowable
site coverage will be used with this application. The
applicant has agreed to reduce the site coverage of a
proposed green house to be constructed next spring or
to reduce the size of the garage so that the site
coverage will not exceed the allowable.
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Zoning: Duplex
Site Coverage: Allowed: 4,209 sq. ft.
Proposed: 4,209 sq. ft.
Height: Allowed: 33.0 ft.
Proposed: 11 ft. for garage
2
U
•
Setbacks: Front
Allowed: 20 feet
Proposed: 11 feet
Rear
Allowed: 15 feet
Proposed: 53 feet
East Side
Allowed: 15 feet
Proposed: 17.5 feet
West Side
Allowed: 15 feet
Proposed: 28 feet
III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060
of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community
Development recommends approval of the requested
variance based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to
other existing or potential uses and structures in
the vicinity.
Staff believes that the current proposal does not
relate well to other structures in the vicinity.
Staff believes that the slopes, the walls, the
amount of cut and the location of the stairs are
significant site impacts. Since the request
involves a significant amount of change to the
site, the applicant should mitigate the proposed
site improvements. Staff believes than an
alternate approach could be used which would have
less impact on the site. (Please see staff
conclusion) .
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.
Staff is concerned that the current proposal
involves too much relief from the literal
interpretation of the Town Zoning Code. Staff
ackowledges that given the house location,the
construction of an additional garage will require
locating the garage within the setback. We
• believe that the existing location of the building
is a hardship that would justify a variance;
however, the proposal as it is now has not
mitigated the impacts it has created. Approval of
this request could be seen as a grant of special
privilege because the applicant has not provided
as much landscaping or other mitigating efforts as
are appropriate.
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 proposal has no impact on the above
referenced issues.
IV. 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.
4
. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of this request because it does not
meet the criteria or findings as well as it should to
justify a variance. Though there is a hardship on the site
(the existing house location), staff cannot support a
variance of this degree from the Town Zoning Code.
Specifically, Finding A is not met. Granting a variance for
this proposal will constitute a grant of special privilege
that is inconsistent with the way the Town has treated
similar applications. There are additional reasonable ways
to improve the relationship of the structure to the rest of
the community which have not been included at this time.
Staff supports the construction of garages. However, proper
site planning principles should be included when designing a
garage. So that the new garage is compatible with the site,
we suggest converting a portion of the existing driveway to
landscaping would provide an area for large trees to be
planted which would soften the appearance of the house to
the surrounding neighborhood.
Another way the project could be improved is through
shifting the stairs to the front door from the north side to
the south side of the driveway. The current location on the
south side of the driveway breaks the flow of landscaping
. from the street up over the roof of the garage.
A third item that could soften the impact of the garage and
walls on the site would be to terrace the rear wall, thereby
creating pockets for landscaping that would break up the
mass of what at the worst case is 11 feet tall.
SCHOFIEL.
0
5
I.
KI
I *
F
k
DOD
1 f
LL MU
1Y
}rn
i h
0
m
fl
2
i
LJ
4L,
0
r
VAk 5 t
(7FAI- pHe- orz�vE
v r -4A1,,4
Fw
,0
Wyk
r
iN � STRtic � URE
r
1 �•h
L41T
r �
1
r
1
Al.
•- -
rnou
�. ; • 1a-1 -9c T�s
f
taG.y
l0 ~ Ejris�,Ny �/Ne
X5,1 y3.a
Secffpr3 �
I�
U!,
�Ea
8s�.a
93.)7- wr
3.a
►r grade
87 f � T4 LJ
Z
`'f --87,; Toc.S
G. ice ,! 1
. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 10, 1990
SUBJECT: A request for a front yard setback variance to allow
for a detached garage on Lot 10, Block 4, Lions Ridge
Filing No. 4; 1464 Aspen Grove Lane.
Applicant: Carrol P. Orrison
I. BACKGROUND
On November 12, 1990, Carrol Orrison requested a front yard
setback variance from the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) to allow for construction of a detached
garage, southwest of the existing single - family house at
1464 Aspen Grove Lane. For the purposes of this memo, staff
will call that request Proposal A. Staff recommended
denial, finding that there were several problems with it.
The PEC expressed concerns, tabled the item, and requested
the applicant to look at alternatives. The primary concern
of the Commission was the visibility of the driveway to the
valley below and the amount of fill necessary to build the
driveway. in addition, staff concerns included the slope of
• the driveway, the slope of the fill around the driveway, and
the amount of asphalt required for paving.
For the November 26, 1990 PEC hearing, the applicant and his
representative redesigned the project by locating the garage
north of the existing residence, Proposal B. The applicant
needed front and side yard setback variances to construct
the garage at this location. Staff supported the request.
At the hearing, the applicant requested to table the item so
that he could do more research and refine Proposal A.
At this time, the applicant is requesting a front yard
setback variance to construct Proposal A. Attached to this
memo are four sections of the driveway showing where the
hillside will be cut and where fill will be required.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED
Proposal A involves constructing a detached two car garage
in the front yard setback. Though the garage would only be
one story, there would be two levels of parking -- one inside
the garage and one on the roof. The driveway accessing the
interior spaces will loop around the structure and descend
to the lower level (see site plan). The driveway will have
an eleven percent slope. Though the garage will be buried
into the slope, it is likely that it will be visible from
is the valley floor below.
1
. The variance request is for an 18 foot encroachment into the
20 foot front yard setback. The side setbacks would be 60
feet and 40 feet and the rear would be 92 feet. The slope
under the proposed garage does not exceed 300. The existing
single family residence on the site was constructed over the
past year. The Design Review Board (DRB) application for
the single family residence was submitted August 2, 1989. A
caretaker unit having one third of the allowable GRFA is
allowed but is not built. The zone district is Single
Family Residential and allows detached garages without a
specific DRB approval of the separation.
U
•
III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Zoning: Single Family Residential
Lot Area: 17,075.5 sq. ft.
Site Coverage: Allowed:
Existing
Proposed:
Height (garage only):
Allowed:
Proposed:
Setbacks (garage only):
* Front - Required:
Proposed:
Rear
- Required:
Proposed:
Side
(south)
- Required:
Proposed:
Side
(north)
- Required:
Proposed:
3415.1 sq. ft.
1786.1 sq. ft.
2362.6 sq. ft.
30.0 ft.
10.0 ft.
*Area of setback variance request.
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
20 ft.
2 ft.
15 ft.
92 ft.
15 ft.
60 ft.
15 ft.
40 ft.
(20 percent)
(10.5 percent)
(13.8 percent)
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:
2
. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other
existing or potential uses and structures in the
vicinity._
The issue about the relationship of the proposal to the
rest of the valley was a key point in the previous PEC
discussions. Staff is concerned that the cut and fill
required to build the driveway will scar the hillside.
This concern is particularly important since the lot is
highly visible. The attached sections show that all of
the upper corner of the driveway will be constructed on
fill. The resulting slope of the fill exceeds a 1:1
ratio. The DRB guidelines limit slope to a maximum of
2:1. Given the proposed slope, the possibility of
mitigating the appearance with a berm or vegetation
would be extremely difficult.
The applicant prepared drawings showing a rock
retaining wall supporting the driveway with pockets of
plantings interspersed among the boulders. There are 3
four foot high walls, separated with 18" wide planting
areas. When staff reviewed this with the Town
Engineer, he said that the probability of being able to
. engineer and construct a wall like this is low. In his
experience, rock walls at this angle can be built using
a concrete base but cannot be broken up with plantings.
Staff is concerned that the drawings may appear to
mitigate the scar but are unbuildable. Prior to any
approval of this concept, staff recommends that an
engineer design the wall, specifying the amount of
landscaping which can be planted among the boulders and
guaranteeing that the design can be built.
Secondly, the driveway slope, at eleven percent, has
not been approved by the Town Engineer. He is
unwilling to support an exception to the upper limit of
eight percent, as there is a reasonable alternative on
the site for a driveway which would not need an
exception. Any driveway exceeding 8 percent must
receive Town Engineer approval. Driveways over 10
percent must be heated and also receive approval.
Driveways over 12 percent are not allowed without a
variance to the Subdivision Regulations.
A third problem with the proposal is the amount of
asphalt. Staff believes that the siting of the garage
could be accomplished in a more sensitive manner that
would decrease the amount of asphalt on the site.
The requested variance would have minimal negative
3
. impacts on the immediate neighborhood. The neighbors
on the east end of Aspen Grove Lane would probably not
notice the structure since it would be below grade.
The applicant has been concerned about the views of the
neighbors and has sunken the garage to preserve them.
However, the visual impacts to the rest of the Town
below this development will be visible and are contrary
to the kind of site sensitivity the zoning code and DRB
guidelines call for.
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._
Staff believes that there is an alternative location
for the garage which results in a better site plan
(Proposal B). The area immediately west of the
residence has adequate room to accommodate the garage
the applicant is proposing. The applicant has plans
for the garage in this location and staff supported the
resulting requests for the side and front setback
variances.
iThe benefits of this location include the fact that the
driveway grade would be generally level and would not
need special approval from the Town Engineer.
Secondly, the garage would be pulled away from a highly
visible ridge; and thirdly, the amount of asphalt would
be reduced significantly. The current proposal results
in a large amount of asphalt in the front yard. A draw
back to this proposal is that a dozen aspen trees
would have to be cut down.
A third option for a garage location which has not been
discussed is to locate it to the east of the existing
house. Though the topography in this area would not
require the cut or fill of Proposal A, there is not
enough room to build the garage and access to it.
Staff believes that the proposal fails to meet the
above criteria. Enforcing the development standard for
setbacks is reasonable in this case since the variance
approval would not provide compatibility among sites in
the vicinity. If the applicant is seeking relief from
a strict interpretation of the code, staff believes
that relief should be granted for the option with the
least amount of impact.
S3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air,_
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
4
facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public
. safe_t_y.
•
The variance request still is shown encroaching into a
30 foot wide utility easement. Moving the proposed
structure a minimum of one foot to the east would be
necessary to remove the garage from the easement.
Staff is also concerned about the safety of this
driveway. Given its 12 foot width and the steep drop
off to the south, staff believes that a guardrail
should be installed. However, this only shows the need
to add another element to the highly structured
solution for providing a garage on the sate.
Another safety issue is the need for a rockfall study.
Nick Lampiris did a rockfall study dated September 12,
1989, for the construction of the new house. Prior to
any approval of either Proposal A or B, the applicant
must provide a site specific rockfall study of the
proposal. Staff believes that conditioning any
variance approval with this requirement is reasonable
since the previous study stated that "rockfall at this
site is possible but not likely due to the type and
orientation of the outcrops above and general
topography above the site."
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
iscircumstances or conditions applicable to the same
site of the variance that do not apply generally
5
. 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.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the request because it does not
meet the criteria for a variance. Several problems with the
proposal revolve around the issue of the relationship of the
request to the valley below and site impacts. Staff
believes that the proposal could be improved, as there is a
location for the garage which has fewer impacts (Proposal
B). The alternative proposal has been designed and shown to
be workable. The visual impacts of the garage and the
driveway in the alternative location would be negligible
since it would prevent any damage to the hillside and would
be screened from view by the existing residence. The slope
of the fill around the driveway of Proposal A, as well as
the slope of the driveway, do not meet the Town guidelines.
Staff is also recommending denial because the request does
not meet the findings. Staff recognizes that there are
hardships on the site which could justify a variance. Since
both Proposal A and B require setback variances because of
the location of the existing home on the site, the PEC must
determine which comes closer to the standards of the Code.
Though Proposal B does require two variances (side and front
setbacks), staff believes that on the whole, there are fewer
discrepancies from the code with Proposal B. But this is
not a choice between the two, this is an evaluation of
Proposal A. Given this proposal, staff has determined that
Finding A is not met as the slope is a self - imposed hardship
which can be avoided. Staff believes that the garage does
not have to constructed in this location. Finding B is not
met since staff is concerned that this proposal may be a
safety hazard as the driveway is narrow and the drop off to
the south is severe.
Finding Cl and C3 are not met by Proposal A. Staff believes
that strict enforcement of the setback standard is
reasonable in this case because there is another option
which is more consistent with the objectives of the Zoning
Code. Furthermore, not granting this variance would not
deprive the applicant from privileges enjoyed by owners of
adjacent property owners.
Staff does commend the applicant for trying to locate a
• garage on the site. We believe that safer access and an
improved site plan result from constructing the garage along
the lines of Proposal B. We encourage the applicant to
C
request the necessary variances
• B as there is justification for
fewer deviations from the Zoning
C. \mo \orric -3
•
r1
U
7
needed to construct Proposal
them and because there are
Code for that location.
R F rroA
A.4F*94?
t. s :s+'
� l.Ai. ilfi
i
sr+- lwacER
As rts�e�
ter
10
vv
• r"
Y A�
w
i
`�.y41II��TlW y
'if.7x *I�Ndc� i �CS'1'MI
�L
J
Lat 01
K /. � gvre7lPlyR � CY`fr'1d�L�
Me cy h [:NfleL)
YIS
SITE s RPIJHN
egicAfll"61 rL AP4
GCALE+ 1" =1d!
Notes WK%4&T SI mn►yu r W
IPATA P"" 4ApLE VALLEY
4AHb. kNSI,�NG, (SURVEY7ratF 74iiw�
0
wl
� 0
45470THEAs-r &Lr:,VaTicpw !w.,mw5vr cjHjLWt isLiTv crm #,Ksj
' ORRISC�N RESIAENCE _ C,t.eJ►RAGE
LOT 10, BLOCK 2, LIONS RIDGE FILINOL
f
idovD &► )AXDr -A1L- '1.O MA'TC}i
�.
.
l�.T'f1.E cF 6%is-ro"a1l4p"F t+isCKk+►1L " = -. "� r r " -.= , -'
GCfzt4WMAprfl "Pew SC
ST+(LS!W-
WLPCK W Ali.. C)UM4L7
r- MA'rcti MATri,
A-rgL -E A r tD• Cc-LO2
pi<�c15'1'iNLr!')OL10E
• -
i
�
-7 x 1-0 PtUFF -SAWN HAXC W0ARb
%'-A(elk MAM %NP< -M
4+►Rhd�tE �wa1t [LITES atTroL�t4��
MATH EXl -mm—if i+ouur zwwics
45470THEAs-r &Lr:,VaTicpw !w.,mw5vr cjHjLWt isLiTv crm #,Ksj
' ORRISC�N RESIAENCE _ C,t.eJ►RAGE
LOT 10, BLOCK 2, LIONS RIDGE FILINOL
f
tt
cvf
tA
N
ilk
f •.4 f f'
erjAr ` r
S
��..
,fez
.j
IK
FILL. St -47re
SaE
ws
\N / n 1 z.
oll
�-
S�c7)o
A
I I-
) C:p
`554�V 142 N A * =.
0 c
0
0
I Z? �4 -T3 ye"- I Lc>"
� e�:,-r I o N (f- YI& " = Igo"
F,)QS-rjt4e--j e-j?AbU
I F9wl-:-:,H e-IIZAPE
Pye; IF %x I l011
Z�tii /i' AP A e-- i E
014 SITE PLAN -1-30 -qc;S
� 0
0
z
CIA I 1
'"
iPill •
N i�E�il �►
16_
? I [E t►I
M- �T�A
t. %A
�
3 �
U
i M�
f
lei
�►
`N
M�S
W
A'[` .ifs "ems
aU .
Y
c
Ul
IA
-
r0
llA
.� w
V�
U
i M�
f
lei
�►
M�S
A'[` .ifs "ems
0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 10, 1990
SUBJECT: Air Quality /Fireplace Amendments and discussion of
additional fireplace issues.
Applicant: Town of Vail
T. BACKGROUND ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
Provided for your review is the draft of the air quality
ordinance which incorporates the findings of staff research
and your discussion on the topic. The purpose of the
ordinance is to provide more environmentally sensitive
regulations to address the ongoing issue of wood smoke
pollution in Vail. Based on the work which occurred over
the past summer, the draft ordinance now incorporates the
following items:
(1) Only one certified woodstove or fireplace is permitted
per dwelling unit.
(2) in new construction up to three fireplaces can be
constructed to be equipped with gas logs, but if more than
one gas log fireplace is constructed woodburning is no
longer allowed in the unit.
(3) Gas appliance fireplaces can be installed in any
dwelling unit, not to exceed three in number.
(4) The only exception to these points is made in
restricted units which are those secondary units in
primary /secondary, duplex or single family zone districts
where the restricted unit cannot be subdivided or sold
separately. in those restricted units, woodburning is no
longer allowed. One fireplace can be constructed for gas
logs and up to two gas appliance fireplaces can be
installed.
(5) When any number of separate units are combined to form
a larger unit and each previously contained a solid fuel
burning unit - fireplace or woodstove W all solid fuel
burners must be removed except one or they must all be
converted to gas, with a maximum of three gas logs and
three gas appliances permitted.
These are the basic points incorporated in the proposed
ordinance. The staff feels this covers the scope of
. discussion which occurred this summer and fall.
. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of these amendments to the
ordinance.
III. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON FUTURE CHANGES TO FIREPLACE
ORDINANCE:
There are three additional area which the staff feels may
require some additional consideration. They are not
included in the present draft ordinance, but rather would
be addressed in an amendment after the first of the year.
(1) Section 8.28.030(A)(2) & (3): These sections now
contain the provision whereby woodburning fireplaces are
allowed in hotel lobbies and restaurants. The topic which
the staff feels should be addressed is whether this provi-
sion should be allowed to remain or whether a requirement
for gas logs is better suited to present day?
(2) The second item relates to the number of allowable
woodburning units in multi - family construction. This item
was discussed with the rest of the changes included in the
ordinance, but a consensus was not reached.
. (3) The issue of waiving permit fees for those people who
choose to convert their woodburning units to gas was not
addressed in the ordinance. At this point the staff is
seeking legal opinion as to whether this can be addressed
as a matter of policy or whether it needs to be in the
ordinance. The issue will be resolved prior to first
reading of the ordinance and will be addressed in keeping
with legal recommendations.
(4) The discussion which the Planning Commission had on the
allowed density of woodburning fireplaces for multi - family
units which would apply to structures which contain more
than two separate dwelling units is as follows.
Allow the construction of one woodburning unit in
the lobby of the building if the lobby is over 1,000
square feet in size and if fireplaces are not allowed
in the units. If the units are 2,500 sq. ft. or
larger they would be allowed one fireplace, one wood
stove or up to three gas log fireplaces and the lobby
fireplace would not be permitted. If however the
units are less than 2,500 sq. ft. they would not be
allowed to have any woodburning units other than the
one in the lobby.
At this time the staff would recommend reconsideration of
this topic. Staff recommendation would be to keep the
above suggested format, but to decrease the sq. ft. of the
unit to 1,500 to 1,800 sq. ft. of GRFA. This is suggested
to prevent discrimination against the person who chooses to
live in a larger multi - family structure as opposed to a
single family home. The staff recommendation is in keeping
what is currently in the Breckenrdige ordinance which sets
the limits at 1,500 sq. ft.
The staff would like to reach a balance which the Planning
Commission would support and then propose an amendment to
the ordinance after the first of the year.
•
•
M M � �
U
ORDINANCE NO.
42
Series of
1990
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING
CHAPTER 8.28 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO EXPAND,
STRENGTHEN, AND CLARIFY CODE PROVISIONS
RELATING TO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL.
WHEREAS, the setting of the Town of Vail 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 thereby causing the
increased buildup of pollutants in the air caused by solid fuel
. burning devices;
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;
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that these sources of air
pollution may be minimized by existing, practical and economical
technologies;
WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that is necessary to
encourage environmentally beneficial technologies to prevent
further degradation of the air quality of the Vail Valley.
10 WHEREAS, the Town Council considers visually clean air to be an
irreplaceable asset enjoyed by guests and residents of Vail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE `'OWN OF
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 continuing trend toward
increased air degradation in the Town of Vail;
3) To provide heat sources that are efficient and
have a reduced polluting effect;
4) And to generally protect the air for the
purpose of the public's overall health, safety and
. welfare.
The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all
areas of the Town of Vail.
8.28.020 Definitions
1) Solid Fuel Burning Device: shall mean any
fireplace, stove, firebox or device intended
and /or used for the purpose of burning wood, pulp,
paper or other non - liquid or non - gaseous fuel.
2) Certified Solid Fuel Burning Device: shall mean
a solid fuel burning device which is certified by
the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado
Department of Health to meet the Emissions
Standards set forth in Section IV of Regulation
No. 4 of Volume I of Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission.
3) Fireplace: shall mean an open hearth or fire
chamber or similar prepared place in which a fire
which does not require venting through a chimney
•
fuel.
and which does permit the use of solid
5) Gas Loa: shall mean an A.G.A. and U.L. listed
artificial log unit which is approved for the
burning of natural gas and must be placed within a
fireplace as previously defined.
6) Dwelling unit: means any room or group of rooms
in a two - family or multiple- family building with
kitchen facilities designed for or used by one
family as an independent housekeeping unit.
7) Accommodation unit: means any room or group of
rooms without kitchen facilities designed for or
adapted to occupancy by guests and accessible from
•
common corridors, walks, or balconies without
passing through another accommodation unit or
dwelling unit.
8) Refuse: means all solid wastes, garbage and
rubbish, whether combustible or noncombustible,
including rubble.
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) No building permit shall be issued for or
including the installation of any solid fuel
burning device(s) or component(s) thereof unless
the number of such device or devices in each
structure is less than or equal to the following:
1) Each dwelling unit may have one solid fuel
8.28.040 Gas Fireplaces
The restrictions of Section 8.28.030 shall not
apply to a fireplace fitted with a gas log set and
fueled by natural gas, as long as said fireplace
is designed and constructed so that said fireplace
cannot be used or easily modified to burn solid
• fuels.
A) No building permit shall be issued for or
including the installation of gas log fireplaces
unless the number of such devices in each
structure is less than or equal to the following:
the restricted unit cannot be subdivided or
•
sold separately. In the case of such a
restricted unit, no solid fuel burning
devices shall be permitted.
2) A hotel, motel, inn or lodge may have one
solid fuel burning device per lobby. Solid
fuel burning devices in individual guest
rooms, accommodation units and lock -offs are
hereby prohibited.
3) A restaurant or bar may have one solid
fuel burning device per restaurant or
restaurant /bar combined.
B) 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
to the living area will be greater than that
lost through air exchange during combustion.
8.28.040 Gas Fireplaces
The restrictions of Section 8.28.030 shall not
apply to a fireplace fitted with a gas log set and
fueled by natural gas, as long as said fireplace
is designed and constructed so that said fireplace
cannot be used or easily modified to burn solid
• fuels.
A) No building permit shall be issued for or
including the installation of gas log fireplaces
unless the number of such devices in each
structure is less than or equal to the following:
to burn wood at anytime. The installation of
one gas log fireplace shall be permitted in
restricted units as described in Section
8.28.030(A)(1).
2) Accommodation units shall be allowed to
install one gas log in accordance with all
pertinent building codes of the Town of Vail.
All equipment shall be subject to a periodic
inspection by reasonable notice by the Town
of Vail Environmental Health Officer. The
owner of any commercial property containing
such equipment shall pay to the Town of Vail
the amount of thirty dollars ($30.04) per
year on the first day of the year following
•
the year in which said equipment was
installed for each 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 Environmental
Health Officer 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
0
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
8.28.050 Gas Appliances
40 The terms of this section shall apply only to
those gas appliances which are self contained
fireplace units and not to other gas appliances
such as hot water heaters, kitchen ranges and the
like. Gas applicance shall be approved for
installation in accordance with applicable Town of
Vail building codes. Gas applicance shall be
permitted for installation in addition to those
solid fuel burning devices described in Section
8.28.030(A)(1) or gas log fireplaces described in
Section 8.28.040(A)(1) in the following numbers:
1) Each dwelling unit shall be permitted to
install up to but no more than three (3) gas
• appliances.
2) Restricted units as described in Section
8.28.030(A)(1) shall install no more than two
(2) gas appliances.
3) Accommodation units shall be permitted to
install no more than one gas appliance per
unit.
8.28.060 Modification Alteration or Remodel
If any number of separate dwelling units are
combined to form one larger dwelling and each
dwelling unit previously contained some form of
woodburning fireplace or certified wood stove the
0 following shall apply:
A) All but one approved woodburning unit must be
removed and if the woodburning unit is not
approved it must be upgraded so as to operate in
if the fireboxes and dampers are modified to
. accommodate a gas appliance.
C) If units are to be considered separate for the
purposes of consideration for two (2) woodburning
fireplaces they must be completely separate and
have no interconnecting doors.
8.28.070 Coal Usage Prohibited
The burning of coal within the Town of Vail shall
remain prohibited.
8.28.080 Refuse Burning Prohibited
The burning of refuse in any solid fuel burning
device is prohibited within the Town of Vail.
8.28.090 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 of 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 ($99). 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, or
permitted by such person and shall be punished
accordingly. In addition to penalties provided in
this Section, any condition caused or permitted to
•
regarded as a new and separate offense.
Section 2.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of
this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would
have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that
any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses
or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 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 inhabitants thereof.
Section 4.
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the
Vail Municipal Code as provided in this Ordinance shall not
affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any
prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as
commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or
repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall
not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or
superseded unless expressly stated herein.
0
•
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of
, 1990, and a public hearing shall be held on this
Ordinance on the day of
1990 at 7:30 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail,
Colorado.
Ordered published in full this
0
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
day of
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
1990.
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED 1990.
PUBLISHED this day of
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
0
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
y
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
RE: Changes to DRB Guidelines
DATE: December 10, 1990
The staff and the DRB are requesting to amend the following
Sections 18.54.020.E. W Board Organization, Section
18.54.050.0.6.- Design Guidelines and Section 18.050.C.13
Design Guidelines of the DRB Guidelines. Please see the
attachments for the existing wording of the sections which are to
be changed.
Section 18.54.020.E. should read, "The Design Review Board shall
meet the first and third Wednesday of each month. At the staff's
discretion, a meeting on the 5th Wednesday may be scheduled. A
current schedule of Design Review Board meetings is available in
the Department of Community Development Office."
Section 18.543.050.0.6. should read, "...Asphalt and fiberglass
shingles shall be permitted provided they are of at least 300 lbs
. per roofing square and of a design and color to be compatible
with these guidelines."
Section 18.54.050.C.13. Delete. This SEction has been revised
under Section 18.54.050.I. (Primary /Secondary), and is
repetitive.
These changes are minor modifications to the guidelines. They
will not have any effect on GRFA, site coverage, or any other
development standard.
•
(•
DESIGN REVIEW
matters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, surface water
drainage, sound and sight buffers, the preservation of light
and air, and those aspects of design not adequately covered by
other regulations which may have substantial effects on
neighboring land uses.
(Ord. 39 (1983) § 1.)
18.54.015 Definitions and rules of construction.
Any words, terms, or phrases used in this design review guide
shall be defined and interpreted in accordance with the definitions
contained in Section 18.04 of the Vail Municipal Code, unless the .
context clearly indicates a different meaning was intended. If the
context is unclear, the matter will be referred to the design review
board for final determination.
The distinction made between those items contained within
this chapter that are mandatory and those that are discretionary is
that statements which are mandatory are prefaced by the word
shall, and the statements or guidelines which are discretionary (or
merely suggestions) are prefaced by the words should or may. In
all instances, any particular or specific controls over the general.
(Ord. 39 (I 983) § 1.)
18.54.020 Board organization.
A. There is established a design review board (DRB) of the
Town of Vail. The DRB should be composed of five
members. )~our members shall be residents of the Town
of Vail appointed by the town council and the fifth
member shall be a member of the planning and
environmental commission of the town. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, the current design review board members
as of the date of the passage of this ordinance who will
no longer be residents of the Town of Vail due to the
deannexation of the area known as West Vail from the
Town shall be permitted to complete their term on the
design review board.
B. The terms of office for the four members at large shall
be two years on an overlapping basis and shall expire
on February I of the year of termination. The term of
447 (Vail 9 -3 -85)
r
•
ZONING
office for the planning and environmental commission
member shall be three months.
C. A vacancy on the design review board shall occur
whenever a member of the board is removed by the
town council, dies, becomes incapacitated and unable to
perform his duties for a period of sixty days, resigns,
ceases to be a resident of the Town of Vail, or is
convicted of a felony. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
the current design review board members as of the date
of the passage of this ordinance who will no longer be
residents of the Town of Vail due to the deannexation
of the area known as West Vail from the town shall be
permitted to complete their term on the design review
board. In the event a vacancy occurs, the town council
shall appoint a successor to fill the vacancy and serve
the remainder of the term of the former member. The
board shall select its own chairman and vice- chairman
from among its members. The chairman, or in his
absence, the vice - chairman, shall be the presiding officer
of its meetings. In the absence of both the chairman and
the vice- chairman from a meeting, the members present
shall appoint a member to serve as acting chairman at •
the meeting. All business of the board shall be held at
the municipal building of the Town of Vail, unless
otherwise specified, with adequate notice given to all
interested parties. Three' members shall constitute a
quorum for the transaction of business, but 'in the
absence of a quorum, a lesser number shall adjourn any
meeting to a later time or date, and in the absence of all
members, any staff member shall adjourn any meeting
to a later time or date.
D. The board shall operate in accordance with its own rules of
procedure as provided for in Section 8.6 of the Home Rule
Charter. The rules shall be filed with the town clerk and
maintained in the records of the town, and shall be subject to
public inspection; provided, however, that the board shall
submit its proposed rules or any amendment thereto to the
town council which, by motion, shall approve the rules or
amendment and direct their adoption by the board or
448
(Vail 9 -3-95)
•
DESIGN REVIEW
disapprove the proposal with directions for revision and
resubmission.
E. The design review board shall meet the first, third, and fifth
Wednesdays of each month. A current schedule of design
review board meetings is available in the department of
community development office.
(Ord. 18 (1985) §§ 1, 2: Ord. 39(1983) § 1.)
18.54.030 Design approval.
A. No person shall commence removal of vegetation, site
preparation, building construction or demolition, dumping
of material upon a site, sign erection, exterior alteration or
•
448 -1
S
10
(Vail 9 -3 -85)
•j
DESIGN REVIEW
e. The applicant or his authorized representative shall
be present at the design review board meeting.
.3. Staff approval. The zoning administrator may approve
any of the following applications:
a. Any application to an existing building that does not
significantly change the existing planes of the building
and is generally consistent with the architectural
design, materials and colors of the building, including,
but not limited to windows, skylights, siding, and
other similar modifications;
b. An application for an addition to an existing building
that is consistent with the architectural design, mate-
rials and colors of the building, and approval has been
received by an authorized member of a condominium
association, if applicable.
c. An application to remove or modify the existing
vegetation or landscaping upon a site.
In the above - specified cases, the zoning admin-
istrator may review and approve the application,
approve the application with certain modifications,
or may refer any application to the design review
board for decision. All other applications shall be
referred to the design review board.
(Ord. 12(1988) § 1: Ord. 39(1983) § 1.)
18.54.050 Design guidelines.
Actions of the design review board shall be guided by the
objectives prescribed in Section 18.54.010, the Vail Village and
Vail Lionshead Urban Design Considerations and Guide Plans,
by all of the applicable ordinances of the Town of Vail, and by the
following design guidelines:
A. General.
1: , Structures #haiVbr, - compatible with existing structures,
,N .their surroundings, and with Vail's environment. It is not
to be inferred that buildings must look alike to be
compatible. Compatibility can be achieved through the
proper consideration of scale, proportions, site planning,
landscaping, materials and colors, and compliance with
the guidelines herein contained.
454c
•
(Vail 8 -2 -88)
ZONING
2. Any building site in Vail is likely to have its own unique
land forms and features. Whenever possible, these exist-
ing features should be preserved and reinforced by new
construction. The objective is to fit the buildings to their
sites in a way that leaves the natural land forms and
features intact, treating the buildings as an integral part of
the site, rather than as "isolated objects at odds with their
surroundings.
B. Site planning.
1. The location and configuration of structures and access
ways shall be responsive to the existing topography of the
site upon which they are to be located. Grading require -
Rnents `resulting from development shall be idosigned to
Wfthdinto 1heexisting or- Aatural landscape. Any cuts or
fills shall be sculptural in form and contoured to blend
with the existing natural undisturbed terrain within the
property boundary.
2. Building siting and access thereto shall be responsive to
existing features of terrain rock outcroppings, drainage
patterns, and vegetation.
3. Removal of trees, shrubs, and other native vegetation
shall be limited to removal of those essential for develop-
ment of the site or those identified as diseased.
4. All areas disturbed during construction shall be re-
vegetated. If necessary, the DRB may designate allowable
limits of construction activity and require physical bar-
riers in order to preserve significant natural features and
vegetation upon a site and adjacent sites during con-
struction.
5. All projects shall be designed so as to provide adequate
snow storage areas for snow cleared from the parking
areas and roadways within the project.
4 'fl@faf nnatenaliUd deer.
41. Building`inate falethall~be predominantly natural such
as wood siding, wood shakes, and native stone. Brick is
acceptable. Where stucco is utilized, gross textures and
surface features that appear to imitate other materials
shall be avoided.Concmte st rfaces'shall be, treated with
4ecture and color if Fused, however exposed aggregate is
more acceptable than-raw concrete. Neither aluminum
454d
(Vail 8 -2 -88)
0)
0
DESIGN REVIEW
steel, or plastic siding, nor simulated stone or brick shall
be permitted. Plywood siding shall not be permitted.
2. The same or similar building materials and colors shall be
used on main structures and any accessory structures
upon the site.
3. Exterior wall colors should be compatible with the site
and surrounding buildings. Natural colors (earth tones
found within the Vail area) should be utilized. Primary
colors or other bright colors should be used only as
accents and theta sparingly such as upon trim or railings.
All exterior wall materials must be continued down to
finished grade thereby eliminating unfinished foundation
walls. Ail exposed metal flashing, trim, flues, and roof top
mechanical equipment shall be annodized, painted or
capable of weathering so as to be non - reflective.
4. The majority of roof forms within Vail are gable roofs
with a pitch of at least four feet in twelve feet. However,
other roof forms are allowed. Consideration of environ-
mental and climatic determinants such as snow shedding,
drainage, and solar exposure should be integral to the
• roof design.
5. Roof lines should be designed so as not to deposit snow
on parking areas, trash storage areas, stairways, decks
and balconies, or entryways. Secondary roofs. snow clips,
and snow guards should be utilized to protect these areas
from roof snow shedding if necessary.
6. Roof surfacing materials shall be compatible with the site
and surrounding buildings. The predominant roof mate-
rials utilized are wood shakes and their use is strongly
encouraged. The use of metal roofs is acceptable, however
in no instance will metal roofs which reflect direct
sunlight onto an adjacent property be permitted. if metal
roofs are used they shall be surfaced with a low -gloss
finish or capable of weathering to a dull finish. Metal
roofs shall generally have a standing seam in order to
provide some relief to the roof surface and be of a heavy
gauge. Asphalt and fiberglass shingles shall not be
permitted, however, they shall be of sufficient gauge,
design, and color to be compatible with these guidelines
(sufficient gauge shall be 300 pds f sq ft of roofing
material). 454e (Vail 11- 15-83)
•
ZONING
7. Rooftop heating and air conditioning equipment, large
vent stacks, elevator penthouses and similar features
should be avoided, however, if necessary, shall be de-
signed to be compatible with the overall design of the
structure or screened from vievooftop_antennae shall
�ot,be..-permitted unless as allowed under a conditional`
fse review as specifed within the zoning code.
8. Solar collectors shall lie flat on pitched roofs, however,
when retrofitting an existing building with active solar the
Collectors should be designed and placed in a manner
compatible with the overall design of the building.
9. Deep eaves, overhangs, canopies, and other building
features that provide shelter from the elements are
encouraged.
I0. Fenestration should be suitable for the climate and for the
orientation of the particular building elevation in which
the fenestration occurs. The use of both passive and active
solar energy systems is strongly encouraged.
11. Exterior lighting shall be designed and located in a
manner to minimize impact of lighting upon living areas
within a proposed project and upon adjacent structures
and properties.
12. In no instance shall a duplex structure be so constructed
as to result in each half of the structure appearing
substantially similar or mirror image in design.
13. Duplex and primary / secondary residential dwelling units
shall be designed in a manner that contains the two
(�. dwelling units and garages within one single structure.
However, in the event that the presence of significant site
characteristics necessitate a site design which includes a
��. physical separation, of the two dwelling units and /or
garages into separate'structures, the DRB may approve
the design. Such a design may be approved only when the
1 separate structures are visually attached by means of the
i use of similar and compatible architectural design, colors,
1 ' and materials and/or physically connected with fences,
walls, decks or other similar architectural features.
D. Landscaping/ drainage/ erosion control.
I. Various natural vegetation zones exist within the Gore
Valley as a result of the form and aspects of the land itself.
(Vail 11- 13 -83) 454f