Loading...
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&lt -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