Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1991 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes June - July
10:30 12:00 2:00 Site Visits Site Visits Worksessions Public Hearing 1. 1. 2. 2. K 4 Worksessions 12:00 - 12:45 A presentation and discussion with the U.S. Forest Service on. the Land Ownership Adjustment Analysis. Rich Phelps/Mike Mollica 12:45 - 2:00. A request for a worksession on a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive, Lot 0, Block 5-D, Vail Village list Filing. Applicant: Josef Staufer Planner: Mike Mollica Public Hearin A request for a review of a minor subdivision, Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Intermountain12684 and 2694 .Larkspur Court. Applicant: Atwell Development Company/Robin E. Hernrel'oh. Planner: Betsy Rosolack A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an 1.8-hole minlatu're golf course on property zoned Commercial Core 1.1, generally located south and west of Chair 8 (Born Free Express), Tracts C and D, Vail,. Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates/Charlie Alexander Planner: Andy Knu.dtsen Appeal of a staff decision regarding site coverage for the Stanley Residence, Lot 1, Vail Valley 3rd Filing, a Resubdivision of Part of Sunburst/ 1816 Sunburst Drive. Applicant: Jack Stanley Planner: Jill Kammerer A request for a site coverage variance for the. Stanley Residence, Lot 1, Vail Valley 3rd Filing, a Resubdivision of Part of Sunburst/ 1816 Sunburst Drive. Applicant: Jack Stanley Planner: Jill Kammerer 1., A 5. An appeal of a staff decision concerning a density variance granted to the Treetops Condominiums, Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lions.head First Filing /452 East Lionshead Circle. Appellant: Treetops Condominium Association Planner: Mike Mollica TABLED TO JULY 8, 1991 6. An appeal of a staff decision not to allow subdivision of a triplex type building.on a lot less than 15,000 sq. ft. in size, Lot 5, Vail Village West, Filing 111762 Alpine Drive. Appellant: Bill Post Owners: Howard Bass, Michele Bodner, Harris Chan and David M Sweetwood Planner: Shelly Mello 3. 7. A request for a worksession on the Municipal Complex: Discussion of Site Selection. Town Staff: Ken Hughey, Kristan Pritz, Mike Mollica' 8. A request for a worksession on air quality issues related to fireplaces. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Kristan Pritz . 9. Approval of the May 13 and May 20 minutes. 10. Reminder of upcoming meetings: June 13 - Berry. Creek Fifth Filing meeting, 7:30PM June 17 - Master Transporation Plan meeting, 6:30PM June 25 - Municipal Complex public meeting, 7:30PM All meetings will be held in the Council Chambers. 11. Planning Committee reports. • The worksessions were called to order at 12:15PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan. 1. A presentation and discussion with the U.S. Forest Service on the Land Ownershi Ad'ustment Analysis. Rich Phelps/Mike Mollica Mike Mollica explained the purpose of this meeting was to examine changing Forest Service boundaries, and introduced Rich Phelps of the U.S. Forest Service. Rich explained the goal of the process was to determine the desires of the Town and the Forest Service with respect to the boundaries. In addition, they were developing criteria to evaluate individual land ownership questions, and identifying every parcel of land to keep, dispose of, or obtain. The process for this evaluation consisted of: 1. Send letters to land owners and municipal entities to determine the scope of what should be examined. 2. Develop a strategy /criteria for evaluating land. 3. Display plan to public. 4. Amdend plan based on comments by public. The purpose for coming before the PEC now was to establish a task force, perhaps consisting of PEC members, staff, and Forest Service personnel to assist in developing criteria and a review process, and utilimately have a joint presentation with the Town Council and Forest Service to the public in order to make final revisions to the plan. Tom Steinberg asked how this evaluation differed from that done approximately 10 years 1 j PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 'June 10, 1991 Present Staff Diana Donovan Kristan Pritz . Connie Knight Mike Mollica Lathy Langenwalter Jill Kammerer Jim Shearer Andy Knudtsen Shelly Mello Betsy Rosolak Amber Blecker Absent Chuck Crist Ludwig Kurz Pena Whitten • The worksessions were called to order at 12:15PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan. 1. A presentation and discussion with the U.S. Forest Service on the Land Ownershi Ad'ustment Analysis. Rich Phelps/Mike Mollica Mike Mollica explained the purpose of this meeting was to examine changing Forest Service boundaries, and introduced Rich Phelps of the U.S. Forest Service. Rich explained the goal of the process was to determine the desires of the Town and the Forest Service with respect to the boundaries. In addition, they were developing criteria to evaluate individual land ownership questions, and identifying every parcel of land to keep, dispose of, or obtain. The process for this evaluation consisted of: 1. Send letters to land owners and municipal entities to determine the scope of what should be examined. 2. Develop a strategy /criteria for evaluating land. 3. Display plan to public. 4. Amdend plan based on comments by public. The purpose for coming before the PEC now was to establish a task force, perhaps consisting of PEC members, staff, and Forest Service personnel to assist in developing criteria and a review process, and utilimately have a joint presentation with the Town Council and Forest Service to the public in order to make final revisions to the plan. Tom Steinberg asked how this evaluation differed from that done approximately 10 years 1 prior. Rich said it was a continuing process, and this was about the same. Connie Knight questioned where the Spraddle Creek and Vail Golf Course land swaps were in the review process. Rich responded they were basically done, and were setting. the assessment values for both properties. Jim Shearer suggested also having a Town Council member sit on the Task Force as well.. Diana Donovan asked if the Forest Service were interested in having geologic features serve as boundary lines. Rich replied they preferred survey lines. After Mike elaborated on the time committments necessary for the Task Force, Kathy Langenwalter and Diana Donovan volunteered to serve on it. Tom Steinberg asked if the Forest Service had any additional land swaps in the area proposed. Rich said there were none at this time, and there was a freeze on them until a more precise process could be determined. Dr. Steinberg informed the Commission that the Colorado Association of Ski Towns had unanimously passed a resolution asking the Forest Service to allow Town input on swaps. He also mentioned Mayor Kent Rose had discussed a private/public fund to assist in obtaining land to serve as open space. 2. A request for a worksession on a major amendment to Special.Develooment District No. 6 Vail Village, Inn 100 East Meadow Drive Lot O Block 5 -D Vail Village First • Filing. Ayylicant: Josef Staufer Planner: Mike Mollica • Mike Mollica presented an overview of the project, explaining .the phases of the entire. SDD, and indicating Phases IV and V have changed. The original buildings, consisting of the .Pancake House and the Vail Village Inn, were referred to by staff as Phase IV, with Phase V being the southwest corner of the project, more specifically the "B1ano's" building. The proposal currently being evaluated would be referred to as Phase IV -A. This phase is a portion of the entire Phase IV. Mike pointed out to the Commissioners that Ordinance 14 of 1987 and Ordinance 24 of 1989 applied to this proposal. After elaborating on the zoning considerations, Mike reviewed the 9 Special Development District criteria. However, since this was a worksession, staff's memo only addressed items of concern. At the end of his presentation, Josef Staufer addressed several of staff's concerns. He indicated the changes were only intended to be a face -lift and an interim solution. He was looking at the project in terms of what was good for Vail, as well as what was good for the Village Inn. The ugly buildings hurt his business and the visitors' impressions of Vail, and he viewed the changes as a matter of pride and economics. Bill Pierce, applicant's architect, said he believed the parking was the most significant impact, 2 and pointed out that the project had 314 of the requried parking for the entire development. The proposal added all the required parking for the renovation, and only 4 of the spaces would be valet. Bill stated the current parking worked well, and during the worst weekend for parking, President's Week, not fewer than 35 spaces were available at all times. Bill said the parking needs for Phase V had been provided, with 15 deeded for residential uses. An additional 29 spaces in the west lot by the Food and Deli provided the remainder of the need for commercial, residential, Food and Deli and the liquor store. He said the letter of the law could hurt Vail in this instance, and the PEC was there to determine the needs and rules for the development. Bill discussed the differences between Accommodation Units and Dwelling Units, stating the applicant believed all the units in Phase V were Accommodation, and that the condominium documents placed restrictions on their use. Kathy Langenwalter asked how . many "keys" were in Phase V. Bill answered there were 22 separate rentals. Mike Mollica explained the difference in interpretations was based on Town code, in that if a kitchen were in a unit, it was regarded as a Dwelling Unit. Staff had not been able to find any reference that all the units were to be AU. Kristan Pritz added that she had spoken with both Tom Braun and Peter Patten and neither of them could remember all the units being AUs. Diana Donovan asked if a unit were counted as a DU, was an AU use allowed? Mike said there was no parking assessed for lock -off units. Kathy asked how large the units were, and Bill replied they were between 250 -300 sq. ft. Kristan explained there was a cap on the required parking for lodge units at one parking space per unit. Bill explained. that Mr. Staufex had wanted kitchens in the units even though they were intended for AU use. He stated there were restrictions that the units would have to remain as AUs, and that they were all above the second level. Mike clarified that there were other units around the town which were counted as DUs, but which had use restrictions placed on them. Kristan said the Garden of the Gods project was one such example, with the lock -offs counted as DUs. Joe Staufer asked that the Commission not get caught up in the question of whether the Phase V units were AUs or DUs, but look at the new areas which were addressed in his proposal. He said few of his winter guests drove to Vail - that they used the other methods of transportation. In the summer, there was excess parking, and therefore not a problem then, either. Connie Knight said the parking in the Food & Deli lot was tight after the Gateway was built. Joe said that even the 15 minute parking spaces were not enforced, unless it was obvious they were being used for full -day skiers. Connie said the spaces were all either signed as "Reserved" or for 15 minute parking. Joe clarified they were reserved for employees and owners of the adjacent stores. Kathy asked how many spaces were in the west lot at the Food and Deli. Bill answered there were 29. In addition, Mr. Staufer said the upper bench by the Gateway was to be restored to parking, under his agreement with Leo Palmer. Mike said it was the Town's understanding that area was to be landscaped. Connie said she did not believe 29 spaces at the Food & Deli were enough to accommodate 3 the Phase V need. In addition, she did not believe the proposed landscaping for the remodel was enough. She suggested the applicant work with the Colorado Department of Highways to determine how more landscaping could be accommodated in the front setback. She saw the sidewalk as being a nice amenity, but not necessary. The bottom line in her opinion was the question of whether there was enough parking. She believed the VV I's parking structure should be opened to the general public. She also would lake to see the Pancake House re- done to better fit with the design of the entire project. Due to a conflicting appointment, Connie left the meeting at 1:40PM. Kathy Langenwalter objected to two ugly buildings, and not addressing 1/2 the problem. By not doing anything to the Pancake House, Kathy belived it would be more of an eye sore. She thought the existing structures should blend with the remodel. Regarding the parking, she said it was a numbers game. She had a level of comfort with the proposal if more of the current spaces were made available to the public, either by opening the parking structure or removing the reserved spaces in the Food & Deli spot, or both. She agreed with the staff on the issue of a sidewalk and additional landscaping along Frontage Road, and asked for some resolution regarding whether the Gateway bench was to be landscaped or returned to parking use. Bill Pierce asked if she preferred parking or landscaping in that location. Kathy said that if the hotel parking requirements were taken care of, it could be left up to the applicant. Jim Shearer asked what was on the top floor of the Pancake House. Bill answered 5 AUs were located in the roof area. Jim also requested information on what restrictions were placed on owners of Phase V units regarding the number of days they were required to rent, and how often those units were rented. Joe Staufer answered that 100% of the units were rented when available in the winter, and that they had lost some potential buyers due to the restrictions, but most used their units for Christmas and in the spring, then used the rental income to offset their mortgage. Jim asked that the Pancake House be made compatible in design with. the rest of the project. Mr. Staufer said that the face -lift was a break -even project. He asked the PEC to make a. value judgement, and vote "no" if the proposal was not an improvement, but if there were too many strings attached to the development, he would not be able to proceed with it. Bill Pierce clarified that the Pancake House would be screened by the Gateway Plaza as well as the new entrance. Joe said that the building would only be seen from the front, and the economics were not in the project to renovate it at this time. Jim continued his comments by saying he would like to see the sidewalk and improved landscaping as a part of this plan. Concerning the parking, he suggested changing the ingress to the building to acquire additional parking. Mike indicated that probably would not help, as it would eliminate the three existing spaces on the east side of the building. Jim asked that staff and applicant settle the Gateway bench parking spaces, whether they be returned to parking or landscaped, even if the current proposal was not completed. Jim's preference was to have the area landscaped. Bill said the applicant would agree to the landscaping, though his agreement stated the area was to be re- asphaulted. However, they requested a parking 4 credit for the 8 spaces contained on that be -neh. i Diana Donovan asked that the final presentation show how much of the space would be commercial. She agreed with staff's memo, and asked that the roof over the elevator be re- evaluated. She firmly stated something must be done to the Pancake House. Her fear.was that this was all that would ever happen, and disagreed with staff over the interpretation of legal, non- conforming parking: At a minimum, she believed the structured parking should be opened to the public, and it should be easier to go in to park to visit the. retail stores. She also did not want parking leased to non - tenants, and refuted the parking analysis, stating it was irrelevant, since the structure was not open to the public. In addition, she asked the reserved Food & Deli spaces be opened to the public. She believed both the front landscaping and a sidewalk along the Frontage Road to be essential. Bill responded he believed the Town should be responsible for placing a sidewalk, if desired, in their streetscape plan. Mike explained it was a part of the Master Transportation Plan. Bill Pierce did: not see why the Town could not take the burden of putting in the sidewalk from the` Gateway to the Village Parking Structure, since more than just the Town approval was necessary. " Kristan answered that the approval from the Department of Highways was not that expensive. Bill reiterated he believed the Town should provide the sidewalk, not an individual developer, as it was part of the Frontage Road Improvement Plan. Kristan agreed to look at possible options before the next meeting. After a brief break, the meeting reconvened at 2:20PM. • 1. A request for a review of a minor subdivision, Lots Land 2, Block�L Intermountain/2684 and 2694 Larkspur Court Applicant: Atwell Development Company/Robin E. Hernreich Staff: Betsy Rosolack $etsy Rosolack explained this request was to vacate a lot line through a minor subdivision. There was one owner for both lots, and he wished to place a garage adjacent to his home. Staff recommended approval of the request with the condition that the utility easement be vacated. Diana Donovan asked for clarification that there would be a maximum of 2 units on the new lot. Mr. Hernreich said that was correct. Jim Shearer moved to approve the requst for a minor subdivision, Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Intermountain/2684 and 2694 Larkspur Court per the staff memo. Kathy Langenwalter seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously, 4 -0. 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an 18 -hole, miniature golf course Free Ex Tess Tracts C and D Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates/Charlie _Alexander 5 AL � � r Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen explained the request, stating staff recommended approval with the conditions listed in the memo. Applicant Charlie Alexander showed the Commissioners pictures of the proposal, indicating the structures would be easy to remove for the winter season, and pledging to re -sod the area. He said there had been some opposition from the Lions Center Condominium Association regarding the impacts, but responded to their concern by showing how the trees in .the area would screen the project. He mentioned that the Lionsquare Lodge was not opposed to the request. Joe Macy, representing Vail Associates, said that the winter capacity of the area was 2,800 people, and the development would not conflict with those uses. The course had low :impacts, and related that Lionshead needed more summer attractions. The property manager for Lions Center, Larry Barnes, said their Board of Directors was opposed to the development for aesthetic and noise reasons. He said the owners liked the summer peace and quiet of the area, and read a letter to that effect into the record. Charlie responded by also presenting letters in favor of the development to the'Commission. Joe Macy said businesses in the area were generally supportive of the plan. Charlie explained the putting surfaces would be indoor /outdoor turf and the walking links between the holes would be constructed of redwood and flagstone. Connie Knight wondered if Charlie had done this type of course before. He said he had, in Texas, and had been part of a mini golf committee. Connie asked if the parking for the course was based on national standards, would those standards apply to Vail, or would they be too high? Andy said staff would evaluate the standards if it became necessary. Kristan said it was for the PEC to determine the requirement. Joe Macy responded the intention was to have the visitors park in the parking structure, which is usually under - utilized in the summer months. Diana Donovan suggested fencing the west side of the course for better control. She also wanted to see the course kept open until dusk to allow more play time. She asked that records be kept on noise to determine if night play in early and late summer could be accommodated with small lights. She also asked that records on the occupancy of adjacent units be kept to see if there was a significant resident summer population. Jim Shearer asked how Vail Associates felt about night play on the course. Joe responded that as long as it was sensitive to the nearby owners, it was fine. Charlie said he would work to determine what light levels would be necessary. Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the request for a one - season conditional use permit to • 6 allow for an 18 -hole miniature golf course on property zoned Commercial Core II, generally located south and west of Chair 8 (Born. Free Express), Tracts C and D, Vail Lionshead First Filing per staff memo and with the condition the course remain open until dusk. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was approved 4 -0. 3. Appeal of a staff decision regarding site cove-rage for the Stanley. Residence Lot 1 Vail Valley Third Filing, a Resubdivision of_ Part _of Sunburst/1816 Sunburst Drive. Avnellant: Jack Stanley Planner: Jill Kammerer 4. A request for a site coverage variance for the Stanley Residence Lot 1 Vail Valle Third Filing, a Resubdivision of Part of Sunburst/1816 Sunburst Drive; Applicant: Jack Stanley Planner: Jill Kammerer Jill Kammerer explained the issues in both the appeal and the application. The issue. surrounding the appeal was whether the existing walkway covered by a deck counted as site coverage. Jill read the code as recently amended. Staff determined it did not count, and therefore enclosing the area would require a variance. Jack Snow, representing the applicant, asked the Commissioners to put themselves in the shoes of the applicant, who was trying to follow the rules. He stated that he believed a roofed walkway was site coverage. Kathy Langenwalter responded by saying that the deck covered the walkway, but it was not roofed. This specific issue had been discussed during the zoning code changes, and she believed staff was correct in their interpretation. Jack believed that as the code was written, it was contradictory to the intent. Kathy was in favor of upholding staff decision in this case. Jack still believed it was confusing, stating that the roof was either covered or roofed, and he was not sure what the distinction was. Kathy said that since water could come through from the above deck, it was not considered "roofed. Kristan said the code was clear how to count the area, and when they had met with the architect on the plans originally, the architect had asked that the walkway not be considered site coverage. Kathy Langenwalter moved to uphold the staff decision regarding site coverage for the Stanley Residence, Lot 1, Vail Valley Third Filing, a Resubdivision of Part of Sunburst/1 816 Sunburst Drive based on the fact the walkway was covered by a deck, not roofed, and therefore did not constitute site coverage. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was approved, 3-1, with Connie Knight voting against because she believed the code was confusing. 4. A reauest for a site coverage variance for the Stanley Residence, Lot 1, Vail. Valley Third Filing, a Resubdivision of Part of Sunburst/1$16 Sunburst Drive. Applicant: Jack Stanley 7 Planner: Jill Kammerer All Kammerer explained the request was to infill an area between the primary and secondary Units. Staff recommended approval of the request. Diana Donovan. asked what the zoning of the adjacent property was. Jill replied it was owned by the Town. Jack Snow, representing the applicant, showed the proposed design. He said there was still a drainage problem with the proposal, but it would be controllable. He felt the proposal was a reasonable solution to the problem. Connie Knight asked if there would be new stonework in the front. Jack indicated there would. Kathy Langenwalter questioned the hardship on the property. Jack indicated staff said the existing construction was the hardship, a the area was a "disaster." It was the intent of the owners to clean up the look and function of the area. Kristan Pritz further explained that there were severe site hazards on the lot and the infill was a better solution than moving the structure closer to the hazard. Kathy asked for a condition of approval that exterior changes, such as stucco for the entire building, be made. Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the request for a site coverage variance for the Stanley Residence, Lot 1, Vail Valley Third Filing, a Resubdivision of Part of Sunburst/1816 Sunburst Drive be approved per the staff memo, and the finding that unusual circumstances exist through seaparate buildings and roofs resulting in an icing condition. The infill would require the use of the 250 Ordinance as outlined in the staff memo. The conditions of approval would be as stated in staff's memo with the additional condition that the existing siding be removed and replaced with stucco. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was approved, 4 -0. After the vote, Kristan commented that this was an excellent example of the 250 Ordinance used to upgrade a property. 5. An appeal of a staff decision concerning a density variance granted to the Treetops Condominiums, Lot 6, Block 1. Vail Lionshead First Filing(452 East Lionshead Circle, Appellant: Treetops Condominium Association Planner: Mike Mollica 6. 8 1 Owners- Howard Ban, Michele Bodrier. Harris Chan and David A Sweetwood Planner: Shelly Mello Kathy LangenwAlta moved, and Jim Shearer seconded, to table the above two items to July 9, 1991. The motion was unanimously approved, 4-0. 7. A request for a worksession on the Municipal Complex: Discussion of. Site Selection. Town Staff. Ken Hughey, Kristan Pritz, Mike Mollica Police Chief Ken Hughey, Jeff Layman, Kristan Pritz, and consultants Herb Roth and Pam Hopkins, explained the process which had been used to determine the four sites which were investigated in great detail. Connie ii PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE The Write River National Forest '(including the Dillon District of the Arapaho National Forest), hereafter referred to as the "Forest; is planing vn piepar rsg a Landownership Adjustment Analysis (LAA) to implement land adjustments actions in conformance with the Forest Plan. This LAA will be place in the Forest Plan as an amendment, and will classify lands for acquisition and disposal to. achieve the following objectives: 1. Enable the Forest to implement a proactive land acquisition and disposal program. 2. Enable the Forest to achieve the legislative objectives for which it was established. 3. Enable the Forest Service to acquire lands valuable for recreation, wildlife habitat, wilderness,. and other-natural resource management purposes. 4. Enable the Forest Service to respond to .direction given by Congress, for establishment of classified areas such as Wilderness, National " Recreational Areas, :and Scenic Rivers. 5. Consolidate landownershio . to improve operating efficiency, improve efficiency for the development of private lands, And' improve opportunities for community expansion.; 6. Reduce the need for and .number of rights -of -way. to provide for public access to National Forest System land "arid private access to. inholdings. 7. Reduce the miles of private /Forest Service property line and to reduce: the miles of property boundary survey, posting, and.main.tenance. 8. Reduce special use permit administration. 9• 0. 1. 2. Dispose of lands, especially near communities,: that are encumbered with private uses.and where acquisition of.other` lands can better serve the public interest. THE FOREST LANDOWNERSHIP ADJUSTMENT ANALYSIS WILL CONSIST OF THREE SECTIONS: I. Narrative Section This section describes strategies for acquisition and dispo that will maintain or enhance achievement of Forest Plan objectives. This section will also identify specific study areas with appropriate scoping and public involvement to make the necessar classification decisions. In addition, this section incorporates recreation composite plans, or portions thereof, approved prior to the Forest Plan. 2. Graphic Section This section consists of a map displaying tracts identified for acquisition and disposal through application of strategies in t narrative section. 3. Tabular Section This-section will identify specific tracts meeting the strategi and /or general direction in the Forest Plan. Appropriate references to narrative and graphic sections, and Forest Plan a to be displayed for each tract. Forest Plan Amendment - the three sections of the Landownership Adjustment Analysis will be incorporated into the Forest Plan by amendment. . Narrative Section - Appropriate parts of the narrative section will be incorporated in the Management Direction for Landownership Adjustments (Chapter III). Graphics and Tabular Sections - These sections will be included as an appendix to the Forest Plan. -2- 4 ACTION PLAN, LANDOWNERSHIP ADJUST ME NT ANALYSIS r 2. Conduct Scoping of Issues and Concerns (Public"nvolvement necessary). . .7 a. Send notices to news media and persons "on'key contact list. b. Develop.Forest Service management concerns. c. Analyze responses and identify significant issues, d. Responsibility -.S.O. Lands Staff 3. Draft PartA of the Landownership Adjustment Analysis Narrative. a. Part.A is the explanation of.the. specific "strategies for.: "land acquisition and disposal. nk b. Responsibility - S.O.. Lands Staff 4? Review and Approve Strategies. F. lG Responsibility - Rangers, S.O. Staff, and Regional Office Lands �1 Staff. �V 5• Apply Strategies a. Identify lands for acquisition and disposal. b. Validate prior approved Recreation Composite Plans. C. Responsibility - S.O. Lands Staff and Districts; 6. - Prepare Tentative Graphics and Tabulation Section Responsibility` - S.O. Lands Staff.. 7• Review,and Approve Tentative Results . Responsibility - Rangers, S.O. Staff, and Regional Office Lands. Staff. 8. Display Results to Public and Solicit Public Comment Responsibility - S.O. Lands Staff and Districts. 9. Analyze Public Comment and Make Revisions (Public Involvement . Necessary) Responsibility - S.O. Lands Staff and Districts. 10. Review Approve Results of Revisions Generated by Public Comments Responsibility - Rangers, S.O. Staff, and Regional Office Lands Staff. 11. Prepare Final Landownership Adjustment Analysis Responsibility - S.Q. Lands Staff. 12. Approve the Final Landownership-Adjustment Analysis Responsibility - Regional Forester. 13. Draft Forest Plan Amendment and NrPA Documentation Responsibility - S.O'. Lands Staff Prepare and S.O. Planning Staff review. 14. Issue the Forest Plan Amendment (Public Involvement Necessary) Responsibility - S.Q. Planning Staff and Forest Supervisor. • PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: PLAN FOREST LANDOWNERSHIP'ADJUSTMENT ANALYSIS F Public involvement is an integral part of the land management planning process. It is detailed separately in this plan to ensure the accomplishment of the following goals: 1. Ensure that the public has adequate notice: and opportunity to comment. on : the formulation of the Landownership Adjustment.Analys :s. 2. Identify and.consider all public issues and concerns,that can be addressed at the Forest level. 3. Coordinate with other land management agencies and�publiC planning efforts. I 4. Prepare the Landownership. :Adjustment Analysis through an., integrated :. resource planning approach "involving key staff specialists and all`:'Rangers. A. General Guidelines 1. The .public will be notified and /or involved in.`items .2, 8.,. '9. and V� °,�� � of the Action Plan. 2. Dews releases, mailings, public meetings, and personal contacts will be utilized as appropriate. _ 3. Other agencies., private contracfi.Qrs,.specal interest groups, and key i individuals will ;be contacted throughout the:planning.:process to::. a. Coordinate with their planning efforts. b. Collect pertinent data and: "information. c. Obtain technical assistance. d. Solicit other viewpoints and.comments on preliminary documents.: e. Keep them informed of our progress. Each of'these contacts will be documented in writing, B. Key Contact List 1. Local, State, and Federal Agencies to.be; contacted:. " a. Bureau of Land. Management b. Bureau of Reclamation c. U.S. Fish and °Wildlife Service d. Farmers Home Administration e. National Park Service :f. Soil Conservation Service. g. Colorado'State Forest Service �b.' Colorado.State.Board of Land Commissioners• i. Colorado Division of'Wildlife J. Colorado Division, of Parks and Recreation �. k. County and city governments 1. Others ? ? ? ?? ?h'. _5„ . JLt ( a 2. Key individuals and groups to be contacted: a. U.S. Senators and Representative b. State Senators and Representatives C. Colorado Governor d. Colorado State Clearinghouse e. State Planning Boards f. Conservancy Districts g. Councils of Government h. County Commissioners (Including their respective Planning and Zoning Offices) i. Local Planning Boards J. Forest Service Permittees k. Others ? ? ? ? ? ?? 3. Private organizations to be contacted: a. National Forest Recreation Association b. The Nature Conservancy C. The Trust for Public Land d. Land Adjustment Companies (Western Land Exchange Company, Dale R Andrus Associates, etc.) e. Grazing Advisory Boards f, Colorado Trail Foundation g. Mineral Exploration Coalition h. Colorado Environmental Coalition i. Colorado Mountain Club J. Conservation Organizations (Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, Isaac Walton League, etc.) k. Wildlife Interests (Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, etc.) 1. Other ? ? ? ?? 4. Forest Plan Mailing List (For Proposed Amendment) (200 individuals and organizations) 5. News Media to be contacted a. Rocky Mountain News (Denver) b, The Denver Post (Denver) C. KSPN Radio (Aspen) d. KSNO Radio (Aspen) e. KAJX Radio (Aspen) f. Aspen Times (Aspen) g. Aspen Times Daily (Aspen) h. Aspen Daily News (Aspen) i. Aspen Magazine (Aspen) J. Grassroots Community TV (Aspen) k. Pro -Video TV (Aspen) 1. Snowmass Sun'(Snowmass Village) M. ABC, NBC, CBS TV (West Slope Correspondents from Denver) n. KREG TV Carbondale) o. Roaring Fork Valley Journal (Carbondale) p. KDNK Public Radio (Carbondale) q. High Country News (Paonia) r. Glenwood Post (Glenwood Springs) s. The Free '.Weekly (Glenwood,: Springs). . The Daily.Sentinel (Qrand.Junction)' U. KMTS /KGLN Radio �(Glenwood`Springs). 3 • v. West Valley Citizen (Rifle) ' W. Rifle Telegram (Ride) X. KKGD Radio (Rifle) y.. Meeker Herald Meeker) Z. Eagle Valley Enterprise {Eagle) aa. Avon- Beaver Creek Times (Avon) bb. KZYR Radio (Avon.). cc. Vail Community Television (Vail) dd. Vail Daily (Vail) ee Vail Trail (Vail) ff. K -LITE TV' (Vail) gg. KVMT Radio (Vail) hh. KSKI Radio (Vail) ii. Summit Sentinel (Frisco): jj. Summit County Journal (Breckenridge) kk. The Ten Mile .Times /Copper, Mountain' Cable (Frisco /Copper: Mountain) ' 11. The Quandry Times (Breckenridge) mm. Summit Daily .News (Frisco) nn. KYSL Radio (Frisco) oo. KHTH Radio (Dillon). pp. KSMT•Radio and TV (Breckenridge) qq. KJCT TV (Grand Junction)' rr. KSTR Radio (Grand Junction) ss. KIIO Radio (Grand Junction) tt. KQIL /KQIX Radio (Grand Junction.) ` uu. KEXO /KKLY Radio (Grand Junction) �...� vv. Others ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?. f Prepared By: Date Robert E. Lawton, Forester Recommended Date By: Michael J. Spencer, Acting sands Staff Recommended Date By: Gerald P. Hart,: Program Planning Staff Approved By: Thomas A. Hoots,.Forest Supervisor Date � Date Eleanor Towns, director Lands Concur: of -7- EXHIBIT 1 (DRAFT LETTER) PUBLIC NOTICE OF LAND ADJUSTMENT ANALYSIS PREPARATION PROCESS We are beginning the process of preparing a landownership adjustment analysis for the White River Forest and the Dillon District of the Arapaho National Forest. This analysis will display the desired future landownership pattern of the National Forest, and will identify specific tracts of land within the National Forest boundary for acquisition or disposal.. The results of this analysis will be incorporated into the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan by amendment. The principal purpose of the this landownership adjustment analysis is to achieve the optimum landownership pattern for the Forest. No major enlargements or reductions in the land area of the Forest are contemplated. Some land acquisitions may be justified in furtherance of national policies of preserving unique environments or to meet the resource management goals and objectives of the Forest Plan. Some land disposal actions may be justified where Forest Service administered lands are no longer suitable for National. Forest purposes due to competing private uses or urban land use influences. Some rearrangement of landownerships may be justified to enable intermingled private - State - Federal ownerships to be more efficiently administered, developed, or accessed. The preparation of land adjustment analysis is not a new activity. Throughout most of its history, the Forest Service has periodically reviewed landownership adjustment benefits and needs. This current analysis is basically an updating prompted by recent development of the Forest Plan. The processing of land adjustment actions has been a continuing activity on the Forest. The principal means available to the Forest service for acquiring lands are purchase, donation, exchange, and transfer from certain other Federal agencies. The principal means available for disposing of lands are exchange, school sites, small, tracts_ act, townsite act, and transfer to certain other Federal agencies. As an initial step, we are seeking public views relating to the preparation of the analysis. We need to know what the public wants us to consider in this analysis effort, such as the type'and location of lands that should be identified for acquisition or disposal. Public comments and ideas will be evaluated and used along with other data to formulate land selection criteria. These criteria will then be used to identify specific tracts of land. Later, the public will be given an opportunity to review and respond to the preliminary results. We request the public comments be sent in writing to: Thomas A. Hoots, Forest Supervisor, USDA Forest Service, P. 0. Sox 94$, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602. Comments will be received until 1990. Further information regarding this land adjustment analysis can be obtained by contacting Bob Lawton by telephone at 945 -2521 or by writing at the above Forest Supervisor's address. Each White River National Forest District hanger (including the Dillon District of the Arapaho National Forest) will be setting up meetings to discuss this process in detail as it relates to their particular District. Public participation is encouraged at these sessions. 10 r ` t - r ' *A' / r✓r WHITE "R VER..NATIONAL,FOREST PROPOSED LANDOWNERSHIP ADJUSTMENT ANALYSIS 3 A. Policy Each National Forest and National Grassland will :prepare.a Landownership ' Adjustment Analysis .'(LAA) ';for< incorporation into : the Forest Plan as an amendment. The LAA shall classify :lands for acquisition` or, :disposal to achieve the.following objectives: 1. Enable the Forest /Grassland to.implement a, proactive land,acqusition and disposal program: 2. Enable the Forest /Grassland to achieve the legislative objectives for which it was established; 3. Enable the Forest Service to acquare. lands valuable `'for recreation., ! wildlife habitat, wilderness, .and other. :natural resource management 3. purposes; 4. Enable the Forest Service to respond to .direction given by Congress . v for establishment of classified, areas such as wilderness, national recreation areas, and scenic rivers; Consolidate landownership to improve operating efficiency:, improve. efficiency. for the development of private lands, and improve opportunities,.for.community expansion;:,. b, Reduce the need for and number of rights -of -way to provide for public a: access to National Forest System land and. .private- access to . inholdings; 7. Reduce the miles of private /Forest. Service property line and .to " reduce the miles of property boundary' survey,: posting; and maintenance; 8. Reduce special use permit administration,...' 9. Dispose of lands, especially near communities, that are :encumbered . with. private -_ -uses and: where .acquisition.:.of otherlands' can "better serve the public interest; 10. Improve opportunities: for agency and., private :partners .,to provide recreational, wildlife, and other natural..resource services; 11. Maintain and improve 'the'ability to .acquire key parcels. through the ' L &WCF Composite Program; 12. Reconcile Recreation Composite Plans with'the Forest Plan. i 1 4E B. Chapter 3 - Management Direction has two major parts: Forest Direction and Management Area Direction. The Forest Direction Section includes broad Forest -wide direction in terms of goals and objectives for goods and services the Forest will provide. The Forest Direction Section also includes detailed management requirements describing the minimum conditions to be maintained while pursuing goals and objectives. Broad direction statements are found under Goals in the Forest Direction Section of Chapter 3 in the Forest Plan. The Goal statements are under 12 subheadings: Vegetation, Recreation - Cultural - Visual, Wilderness, Range, Wildlife, Timber, Soils - Water, Minerals, Lands, Facilities, Protection, and Human and Community Development. The goals under the Lands subheadings are: Acquire private lands within wilderness. Consolidate National Forest Ownership patterns. - Acquire necessary rights -of -way to facilitate management of the Forest including public access to National Forest System lands. - Pursue opportunities to make landownership adjustments to improve management efficiency for both National Forest System land and intermingled private lands to meet high priority resource management objectives. Goal statements under other resource headings may be served by a specific ownership adjustment. For example, acquisition of a non - Federal tract where development is likely could serve the Soils and Water Coal; "maintain or improve soils and water productivity so neither will be significantly or permanently impaired." The disposal of a developable National Forest parcel could be linked with the Human and Community Development Goal; "provide the opportunity for economic growth of industries and communities dependent upon Forest outputs." The term. "Forest outputs" is intended to include recreation. experiences as well as materials such as board feet of lumber or mineral outputs. The Objectives segment of the Forest Direction Section of Chapter 3 in the Forest Plan is in the form of Table III -1. It estimates the quantities of goods and services the Forest will provide. It includes a disclaimer, "In these projections, it is assumed funding and personnel will be available to implement the tasks necessary to achieve the objectives." The portion of Table III -1 dealing with Landownership Adjustment activities is excerpted here: 2 .. ;.,' TABLE III -i (Excerpted) Projected Average Annual Outputs Lands Activity Units 1981 1981- .,1986- 1991`- ..2001- .2011- 20211- 1985 1990 2000 2010 - 2020 2030: Purchase & Acquisitions Acres 784 150 150 300 300` 300 300 4 Exchange Acres 0 150 150 .300 300. 300 300 Right -of -Way Acquisition Cases 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 Under Management Requirements in the Forest.Direction Section,of Chapter 3 in the Forest Plan (pages 1II -62. to 63 ), six :General Direction statements ; relate to the rights -of -way and land adjustments management activities. These statements, like all Management Requirements in the section, represent minimum conditions to be maintained: while- pursuing .Forest goals and objectives. Of the six General. Direction 'statements, Statements 3 and 4 have the most direct bearing on development of .a Landownership Adjustment Analysis. The six statements are listed below: 01 - Acquire rights -of -way on existing Forest system roads and trails that { cross private land.. 02 - Insure floodplain and wetland :values are: approximately:equal.on both offered and:.selected.tracts in proposed land exchanges `or: that values are in favor of the United States. 03 - Classify lands for ..acquisition or to ac quire:i.nterests` where .lands 4 have been identified as more valuable for Nation. Forest purposes, or where current or potential use of'. private lands would 'adversely `'affect National Forest values and ;where'acqu sition would not transfer impacts, "to. another site according to the fallowing priorities: . a. In designated wilderness areas and ..other Congressionally classified areas. a� 3 3 b. Where lands or rights-of-way, to, needed to meet resource management g goals .and objectivities::, c. Lands which :,provide habitat for threatened; and endangered 3 >. species of- .animals: and plants. 4. d. Lands which include floodplain,or,wetlands. e. On lands. having outstanding_ scenic values or, critical ecos. stems, when these resources are threatened by change`of use Y or when management may be.enhanced by public ownersh "ip. 3 „ai >7 f. Lands which are National Forest in character that provide essential big game winter range and are valuable for other National Forest purposes. ' 0 04 - Classify lands for disposal according to the following priorities: a. To states, counties, cities, or other federal agencies when disposal will serve a greater public interest. b. In small parcels intermingled with mineral or homestead patents. C. Suitable for development by the private sector, if development (residential, agricultural, industrial, recreational, etc.) is in the public interest. d. When critical or unique resources (wetlands, flood plains, essential big game winter range, threatened or endangered species habitat, historical or cultural resources, critical ecosystems, etc.) only when effects are mitigated by reserving interest to protect the resource, or by exchange where other critical resources to be acquired are considered to be of equal or greater value, 05 - Effect jurisdiction transfers which achieve the following objectives: a. Reduce duplication of efforts by users and agencies in terms of time, cost, and coordination. b. Improve or maintain user access to the.administering agency. • C. Decrease travel and enhance management. d. Improve public understanding of applicable laws, regulations, policies, and procedures. e. Develop more effective and efficient work units. f. Reduce administrative cost. 06 - Allow only one access route across National Forest per subdivision or tract of private land. G. _Purpose and Need of a Landownership Adjustment Analysis This Landownership Adjustment Analysis is needed to: L Incorporate the respective purposes of laws which authorize land purchases,. donations, sales, and exchanges along with implementing regulations in 36 CFR 254, Objectives and Policies in FSM 5400, and the White River Resource Management Plan (LMP). YPl0 1a *Dispose NlostaaorFoaret losing lands heirin developed areas National Fore -� character. • 1b *No Action on non - National Forest System lands in developed areas that cannot be protected from urbanization. lc No Action on non - National Forest System lands in developed areas that are subdivided and /or developed. 1d *No Action on National Forest System lands in developed areas where important for National Forest purposes. - -- Mineralized Areas Several thousand acres of land Within the boundaries of the White River National Forest have been patented under the mineral laws. In some cases, the patented areas are relatively small and scattered. Generally, there is little current mineral activity on these lands, many of which are most suitable for residential or other recreational uses. Acquisition of many of these lands will enhance and /or protect National Forest Resource Management Programs. However, acquisition methods should ensure that the land acquired is not subject to future patenting under the mining laws. In other.cases, mining on patent claims left behind extensive mine dumps, tailings ponds, etc. The potentially high cost of reclamation or pollution abatement work makes such land undesirable for acquisition. 0 Finally, in cases such as Redstone, Marble, Aspen, and most of the southern part of Summit County, numerous patents have been issued in concentrated areas. Federal lands are intermingled with the patented lands resulting in a very complex landownership pattern. Because of the land pattern, management of the Federal lands is costly, and the public is unable to make any significant use of the National Forest System land. Federal land disposal can enhance the efficiency of non - Federal enterprise and management of National Forest System lands. 2a 2b 2c v 2d *Acquire non - National Forest System lands in mineralized areas if not subject to future mineral patent. *Dispose of National. Forest System lands in mineralized areas with complex ownership patterns. *No Action on non - National Forest System lands in mineralized areas needing major reclamation work. *No Action on non- National Forest System lands in , mineralized areas with active mining. 11 i e The primary industries in the local economy are tourism, ranching. mining, and logging. Each of these resources has a potential to support use and faces different present and future demands, and interacts with other resources differently. In general. the geography, geology, topography. and climate of the Forest limit its resources to low or moderate productivity. The exception is the Forest's recreation use, which has a high potential for development. The greatest demand on the Forest is for increased recreation opportunities. This primarily reflects the needs and desires of the growing Colorado population and visitors from outside the State. Moderate demands are also expressed for other resources. The White River National Forest provides a large undeveloped land base for tourist recreation. The Forest Plan includes the human and community development goal to "provide the opportunity for economic growth of industries and communities dependent upon Forest outputs." Growth of tourism depends in part on improving the services and facilities the private sector supplies tourists. The Forest can assist in improvement of these services through disposal of National Forest System lands suitable for such use when such disposal serves the public interest. 5a *Dispose of National Forest System lands suitable for development where the public interest is served. - -- Protect or Enhance Resource Programs A resource program is enhanced when acquisition of non National {` 41 ��,�i 6v �i� C %f Forest System lands adds significantly to the goods and services available from the National Forest. A resource program is protected through acquisition of non - National Forest System lands where conflicting uses on private land could have a negative impact on the output of goods and services from existing Federal land. Several key parcels within the White River National Forest can significantly enhance resource management programs if acquired. This is most evident in wilderness, recreation, wildlife, and wetlands programs. In some situations, these programs can be enhanced by acquisition of access rights through a parcel. However, it is often more feasible to acquire the entire parcel than to acquire a right -of -way through it. Acquisition of parcels within the National Forest to protect resource management programs is frequently desirable. Subdivision of undeveloped parcels often has adverse effects on resources and management programs on surrounding National Forest System land. The timber program is affected when landowners object to harvesting practices in or near their viewing vistas. ll 0 } The range program is affected "when'.private land: development creates ` an "obstacle to livestock- movement" or when ''stock belon in g . on pr3.,v . land trespass on the Forest. Subdivision "of a parcel locate d` in" a big game winter range or other key. wildlife ",area- often adversely: I affects" several thousand acres of National. Forest. even: 'though the subdivision may :only be a few.; hundred acres.in'size. Providing vehicular access for development of non- National Forest,5ystem':lands may cause more serious impacts to resource management programs: than actual' development of the"parcel: 6a *Acquire non - National' Forest System lands which, will add significantly to available National Forest goods aside services. *" 6b *Acquire non - National` Forest Sys!tem"lands where conflicting" uses would impact Nationale Forest land or`,land Management.:.. 6c *No Action on.`non- National Forest' System ]ands where: private uses are not ;predicted: to impact National Forest management. - -- Management Efficiency Acquisition of non- National Forest System 'lands and 'disposal of.: National. Forest System; lands can result in significant ;'savings. of . _i administrative time and expense;.,. These savings, are often,. associated" with ownership adjustment of isolated National. Forest System and /or. .non- National ForestSystem. "lands. The cost "of:_.�survey, marking:, and posting of the boundary can often exceed the "value of the land.to be. (� �Gllf surveyed. The same is .true ..of: providing access,: ::especially to isolated Federal: parcels', andQithout access... these' parcels are 'not usable by the public. It is generally undesirable :to acquire. for its traditional resource - values `_;where extensive: improvements are in. :place; "however „�': there may be significant exceptions such as "Ais.0 of acquired improvements for administrative purposes. The acquiattion.of a.'tract. with improvements where . the: value of the improvements is: significantly less than the value of the land itself, and .-,the removal of the improvements following: acquisition is feasible, may be appropriate. Acquisition of improved properties: where. the improvements ;could: effectively be converted to increase•publ=c enjoyment,. of �janx area may. ` also be desirable, such as- unique historical or' :,archaeological'. properties. *Acquire : 7a non- National Forest System lands': where, management', efficiency will be enhanced. *Acquire Forest System lands improvements' 7b non - National with suitable for .National Forest purposes.' 7c *Dispose of "isolated National Forest System lands that do not contribute significantly.to"National Forest programs. 9 to 7d *No Action on non - National Forest System lands with significant improvements unsuitable for National Forest purposes. - -- Wilderness There are seven designated wildernesses administered either wholly or partially by the White River National Forest (Please see No. E below for list.) The White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan identifies non - National Forest System Lands in designated wilderness as a high acquisition priority. Subdivision or any kind of development of a parcel located within a wilderness has serious effects on wilderness values and the experience of wilderness users. Acquisition of these parcels will enhance the public's wilderness experiences. and assist in the administration of the surrounding national forest. 8a *Acquire non - National Forest System Lands in designated Wilderness on an opportunity basis as the lands become available on the market, either through purchase with Land & Water Conservation Funds if available, or through land exchange. 8b *Acquire non - National. Forest System lands in designated Wilderness on an opportunity basis as the lands become available on the market, but established as a higher priority, due to threat of development that will effect wilderness values, over other non- National Forest System lands in designated Wilderness. 0 E. Documents Authorizing Land and Water Conservation Fund Purchase Various documents including Recreation Composite Plans, Recovery Plans for threatened and endangered species, and legislatively mandated management plans for Congressionally classified areas such as wilderness, National Recreation Areas and Wild and Scenic Rivers authorize the use of Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations to purchase non - National Forest System lands for specific purposes. Seven wilderness areas are located on the White River National Forest. Five Recreation Management Composites covering portions of the White River National 'Forest have been approved. Two Recreation Management Composites were in the pipeline to be approved when the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Services agency was disbanded in 1980. Listed below are the five approved. and two unapproved Recreation Management Composites. The non- National Forest System lands identified for acquisition in the approved composites still open, and in the two unapproved ones are incorporated into the Land Management Plan. 10 1. Closed Recreation Management .Composites "(:closed`;becjuse ali,'the 3 non- National Forest System jands ; have, :been acg4 red or _'thdy were not suitable .for" purchaser at the 'time, the: compp ites: were approved). a. Castle Creek Composite b. Keystone Composite C. Maroon Creek Composite d. Minturn Composite . 2. Open Recreation Management Composites . A.. Piney Composite - approved December 21, 1978 b. Lily Lake Recreation:Compos to .(not approved)" C.. Hunter - Independence. Composite (not approved') Listed below are the wildernesses on the White River where UWCF can be E spent for non - Federal. lands: 1. Collegiate Peaks Wilderness Area 2. Eagles Nest Wilderness Area 3. Flat Tops Wilderness Area 4. Holy Cross Wilderness Area 5. Hunter- Fryingpan Wilderness. Area 6. Maroon Sells- Snowmass Wilderness Area 7. Ragged Wilderness Area There are other non- Federal Sands that are not in current:: or proposed Recreation Composites, but would be eligible for ::Land, and .Water i Conservation Funds otherwise. This Landownership Adjustment Analysis will allow the forum to identify and authorize their purchase. using Land .and Water Conservation'Funds. The data base part `of this analysis identifies :parcels included < in a Recreation Composite and the recommended action"r6lative_to Land and Water Conservation Fund criteria. That recommended,:-action may, 'differ from the action recommended under this Landownership -Adjustment Analysis. strategy; A .parcel may be ineligible for purchase: under..the outdoor recreation emphasis of the Land and Water Conservation: Fund:.Act` of "1965. 'but be desirable for acquisition for reasons other :than recreation?. value.. In such cases both the Recreation Composite and this analysis "recommendations will stand. In some cases a"parcel. recommended for, purchase. in a" ., Recreation Composite Plan was subsequently developed and is no = longer '. desirable. In such cases the. data base part" of this" analysis ". will recommend no action. F. Nan- Conforming Proposals '- It is possible to receive proposals for landownership adjustments which. do. not conform to this analysis. but which initially :appear to be in the " public interest as well. as comply with the goals, and Airections in the LMP. Past proposals by Mid- Continent Resources and AMAX Mining Company are examples of this kind of proposal. Proposals ".not conforming with this analysis may be processed only after amendment of ,this analysis. "These amendments shall be supported" by .an analysis of the y proposal"and have written agreement by the.Regional Forester. 11 G. Specific Study Areas Areas encompassing the Roaring Fork Valley between the Towns of Aspen and Glenwood Springs, Town of Vail. and Town of Breckenridge are identified as needing more specific study before lands can be classified for acquisition, disposal, and retention. Significant development of non - National Forest System lands within these areas has occurred in past years, and National Forest System lands are subject to urban type demands and uses. The demand for urban type uses and associated encroachment is expected to increase in the future with an anticipated result that a significant amount of National Forest will lose its character. It is also expected that retention of some National Forest will be in the public interest. More specific study with appropriate scoping and public involvement is necessary to make classification decisions in these areas. Upon completion of these studies, this schedule will be amended to include classifications for lands within the study areas. H. Small Tract Act Proposals by Applications The Small Tract Act authorizes small disposals and acquisitions proposed by applications. Although many ownership adjustments authorized by this Act may coincidentally conform to the classifications in this schedule, it is impractical to anticipate most Small Tract Act applications and provide for them through the classification process. Therefore, Small Tracts Act transactions proposed by application are not subject to this schedule, and analysis of such proposals shall comply with..direction in 36 CFR 25+.30. I. Projected Average Annual Outputs Projected average annual outputs for the Lands Activities are shown in • Table III -9 of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the White River National Forest. Outputs for the Lands Activities were based on a conservative estimate based on past budgets and priorities and persons available to do the job. The table shown below was revised to show a more realistic estimate based on current information. As amended, Table III -1 is shown below: TABLE III -1, Amended Projected Average Annual Outputs Lands Activity Units 1981 1981- 1986 - 1991- 2001- 201.1- 1985 1990 '2000 2010 2020 Purchase & Acquisitions Acres 784 150 150 200 300 300 Exchange Acres 0 150 150 200 300 300 Right -of -Way Acquisition Cases 1 4 4 6 6 6 12 I J. SummaEX some factors which influence the desirability of a `particular ownership' adjustment 'are outside the :scope of this analysis Managerial decisions to pursue a particular adjustment. at a given point in time will be influenced by considerations such as the available funds`, the available ' staff, and the opportunity to achieve economies of ;scale. Ikon- National Forest System lands classified for acquisition and Nations] Forest System lands. classified for disposal in this analysis represent? the long -range goal for the landownership adjustment program on the :White River National Forest. Individual purchase, donation,. sale, and. exch ange. conforming to the classifications shown in 3e data }ease section will i _ contribute toward achievement of this long -range goal. 3 f i wrl E x . 13 i S i 2. New stone work must match existing, or existing stone work be "removed and all new stone be installed. If new stone is to be installed,. material must be presented to DRB for review and approval. The applicant also desires to infill the walkway to the front door of the primary unit. This walkway is located underneath a deck. The applicant believes that under the revised 1991 Site coverage regulations, the walkway to the primary unit which is located beneath a deck; 4hould count as site coverage. Therefore, the applicant has appealed the staff's decision regarding what constitutes site coverage under the 1991 revised site coverage definition (see Attached letter from applicant's representative, Jack Snow ). This memo will :address only the Site coverage variance request as it relates to the ,secondary unit. t1i. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS ite Area: 16,069 sq. ft. Site Coverage: Allowable: 3,214 sq. ft. (20 %) Existing: 3,404 sq. ft. (26 %) Proposed: 3,622 (32.6 %) Proposed over existing: 218 sq. ft. Proposed over allowed: 408 sq. ft. GRFA: Allowed: 4,707. sq. ft. P i Existing: 5,536 sq. ft. Proposed: 5,745 sq. ft.* This amount of proposed GRFA includes the existing GRFA plus the 250 sq. ft. minus 41 sq. ft. that is being removed from the project. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail" Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the,fequested variance" based on the following factors A. Consideration of Factors: i 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Due to the location of the areas which the applicant proposes to 'infill, staff believes approval of the variance will 'have no impact on :other existing ,or . potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The additions will riot be Highly visible as the new square footage is located primarily' between. the two units. 2 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 graint of special privilege. As currently constructed, two large roof areas drain onto the deck area between the two units. This situation presents major drainage problems for the existing structures. The 218 sq. ft. variance could possibly be avoided. by using the 250 sq. ft. if the addition were designed entirely within the. existing walls of the secondary unit. However, staff felt it was reasonable to allow for the additions to be located in the space between the two units. Staff believes the.granting of this variance request is warranted because of the unique circumstances surrounding how the structures were built and the resulting drainage problems. 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. Approval of the requested variance would have no effect on the ; above factors, with the exception of public safety. The lot is located in. a blue and red avalanche area, high severity rockfali and high hazard debris flow. All studies per the Town of Vail hazard regulations shall be completed and,, if necessary, mitigation measures incorporated into the building permit application. before a building permit will be released for the expansion. No portion of the expansion can occur in the red avalanche zone. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following. findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a.grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other propeides;,classif ed in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following "reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result In practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this. title; 3 Fy s.A- sir.fl4.�:.. ,... 3 -, c 4 .. 4 _7....s ,> �.: ..' 5_ ",.'� A° s3ii�i., v� <��>Gi.i'd.',%',ei- 33a" =,s.z .ia'si�N2�s- �`�..<».Y�:.. �5., < _ .•.5..`i>�l'.l .Sf. .�w' *° p�'U MAY,] 3'ti991 MEMORANDUM *O: Planning and Environmental Commission r PROM: Community Development Department GATE: June 10, 1991 i 3 SUBJECT: Appeal of staff interpretation regarding site coverage for the Stanley Residence, 1816 Sunburst Drive /Lot 1, Vail Valley 3rd Filing, a Resubdivision of part of ' Sunburst. Appellant: Jack Stanley Planner: Jill Kammerer ° Mr. Stanley, the owner of the residence at 1816 Sunburst Drive,. has requested to enclose the area under an existing unroofed deck which leads to the front door of the primary residence. Section 1 of Ordinance 41, Series of 1990, which addresses the defi'nition'of site coverage,: reads: j. "'Site coverage' means the ratio of the total building area on a site to.the total area of a site expressed as a percentage. For the purpose. of calculating site coverage, 'building area' shall mean the total horizontal area of any building as .measured from the exterior face of perimeter building walls or supporting columns above grade, or at ground level, whichever is greater. Building area shall include all buildings, carports, porte cocheres, arcades and covered or roofed walkwa s: In addition to the above,` building area should also include any portion of roofed overhang, eave, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered.patio that extends more than 4 feet from the exterior face of perimeter building walls or supporting cdlurnns." (Emphasis added by staff) According to this site coverage definition, there is a 4 foot "grace area" for overhangs, eaves, etc., from the face of any building. which does not count toward site coverage. this i particular instance, the deck which covers the walkway, is: not considered to be a roof per Section 18.58.060 of the Municipal Code: ".::A balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony or deck but in such case shall not be deemed a roof for the lower balcony or deck. (Ord 8(1973) Section 17.203:)" The appellant believes, as Written, that the site coverage definition should include areas underneath decks as site coverage. i Apeclmemoslstn1yapp.610 7 1 t i :. A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and Impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The development objectives. of the Town can be found in. the purpose sections of the zone district as well as the zoning title of the Municipal Code♦' . The purpose section of the Commercial Core.II Zone District calls for a. mixture'of uses. Section 18.02.020 (B) 10, the. purpose section. for the zoning title calls for the provision of recreational facilities. Staff believes that this proposal will add to the mixture of uses in the Lionshead area as well as provide an additional recreational facility to visitors and residents of Vail, 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. Staff believes that this proposal will not have any. negative impacts on the above referenced services. A positive impact is that it will provide another recreational opportunity for the public. 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. The proposal could impact bicycle and pedestrian.. safety, as there are,bicycle paths in the vicinity of the proposal. The applicant is. proposing to build split rail fences on the east and west sides :of the golf course, to create separations from the closest bicycle path and chaiirlift housing...and. equipment. Staff believes there is adequate separation between the paths and the golf 'course on the north and the south sides. Staff believes that the impact will be small, if any, on the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists in the area: 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. The character of the area immediately south of the Lionshead Mall is open and natural, and is adjacent to Gore. Creek. Staff believes that'the proposal will not alter this existing character. Because the course will, be' f lush with the ground, and because it will not have any artificial looking obstacles, staff ` believes that 2 i 1 • �� , t � ' 1 pOOQ t . 1 C - p� p S 1. G 1 k } � 00 h 1 � � 1 O 1 1 I N oPOO° p } L Op J 1 #r c y1 to Gid 1 qX J pO n Ca 91 rr__ii 1 s rr m a go • 'S .� I } k ;UN'04 '91t 15¢27 MONTCLAIR 7036706626 P 3 - June 4 Planning & Environmental Commission. Vail, Colo 81637 Dear Sir; As yawner of Unit 212 Lionshead Centre.Condominium, 524 Lionshead Mall, Vail. Colo 81657, 1 oppose the installation /operation of an I8 hole miniature golf course adjacent to our `bui ding. The conditional use permit, for Summer operation, would d�gra'cle rather improve the Lionshead Mall community. Anyway ite:.`approached, a miniature golf course is an inappropriate ides...,Por`jhe area selected. A more appropriate area.;would be, accross.the !kkier',;s bridge, and not under the.direat view cif Lionshead Centre or Lionsquare Lodge residents. Sincerely, Theron L. Sims st i a' - 3 - W i I: v";',, .,.5,,- '�4 Gx each of the questions posed in Section I of this merno, the following positions were i formulated. 3 ( #) In relation to the acceptability of specific units for installation either as a retrofit or new construction option, it was decided that if a device is deemed fo be acceptable for installation, it shall be acceptable across the board This is to ' say that units shall be deemed acceptable or unacceptable based on`thbir emissions performance, not on where. the unit is to be located: It was suggested that as part of the public education program, tile desirability of certain options for particular zone districts or types of units could be stressed. (2) On the Issue of establishing an emissions level lowe r than the: 7 grams of particulates per hour established by the EPA, the general :opinion was that it was not necessary. The feeling was that a reduction from 47.grams:of " particulates per hour for an open hearth fireplace to 7.5 grams per hour :for a certified stove would have ,a fairly significant impact and itwas not necessary to further lower the emissions level. There was considerable` discussion on this, topic based on reports that EPA Phase II certified units are. not performing to certification standards in#he field. A variety of different factors are said to contribute to this from stress failure :of units to user error. Council felt.that while user error does :represent a :potential increase in particulate pollution that few people would'be investing in :these • types of units unless they were planning to operate them exclusively based on ' expense. As a result it was not felt necessary to lower the emission aevels:6 compensate for user error. (3) Council and the Planning Commission decided that the only option to be considered for legislating acceptable units for installation would be the ernissio.n levels of the unit. They chose not to prohibit the installation of units :based ,on poor heating efficiency performance, however they did stress that this information should be emphasized in'publ c education material ;produced by the staff. (4) Based on the discussion, a consensus was reached on the following ° :changos to Ordinance 42, Series of 1991 (a) Section 8.28.020 (2) ' Change the definition of Certified Solid Fuel Burning Device to, reflect the acceptability of only E=PA Phase 11 certified devices or units which produce 7:5 a i grams of particulates per hour or less. t I 2 i } An PATE: JOB: i { FIREPLACE ISSUE REVISITED This year, the Vail Town Council has been looking hard at the air quality, challenge facing our community and Valley. According to a 1989 Air Sciences, .Inc. report, 57% of Vail's air quality picture is attributable to smoke generated from wood burning, 39% from dust generated from Interstate 70, and 2% from emissions related to restaurants. The Council has not taken these figures lightly and has sought to. address the problem ih a comprehensive, yet fair manner. An ordinance, approved February 5, 1991, which would have banned construction of new wood burning fireplaces has been the subject of ongoing discussion. A proposal Was recently put forth which would relax. this ordinance, while at the same time take steps to address the air quality concern. The ordinance will be revised to allow one EPA Phase 11 certified solid. fuel burning device or two gas log fireplaces in newly constructed dwelling units and up to two gas appliances. There will continue to be a prohibition against open hearth fireplaces for purposes of woodburning. In addition, the newly proposed ordinance will prevent fireplaces from being relocated and rebuilt during a remodel process. `Solid fuel (wood) burning devices will 'continue to be restricted or prohibited in restricted units and accommodation units. When the revised ordinance is passed, the staff will begin focusing its efforts on a public education program. The main focus of the program will be to inform the public Of the various alternatives available to reduce the amount of particulate pollution coming from existing units. The information will cover solid fuel alternatives as well' as natural gas options. The Council has set a goal of a 50% conversion of the existing fireplaces through 'a voluntary program by June of 1994. Anyone desiring information on the issue should contact the Community. Development Department at 479 -2138. 2. New stone work must match existing, or existing stone work be removed and all new stone be installed. If new stone is to be installed, material must be . presented to DRB for review and approval. The applicant also desires to infill the walkway to the front door of the primary unit. This walkway is located underneath a deck. The applicant believes that under the revised 1991 site coverage regulations, the walkway to the primary unit which is located beneath a deck, should count as site coverage. Therefore, the applicant has appealed the staff's decision regarding what constitutes site coverage under the 1991 revised site coverage definition (see attached letter from applicant's representative, Jack Snow). This memo will address only the site coverage variance request as it relates to the secondary unit. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Site Area: 16,069 sq. ft. Site Coverage: Allowable: 3,214 sq. ft. (20 %) Existing: 3,404 sq. ft. (26 %) Proposed: 3,622 (32.6 %) Proposed over existing: 218 sq. ft. Proposed over allowed: 408 sq, ft. GRFA: Allowed: 4,707 sq. ft. Existing: 5,536 sq. ft. • Proposed: 5,745 sq. ft.* * This amount of proposed GRFA includes the existing GRFA plus the 250 sq. ft. minus 41 sq. ft. that is being removed from the project. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on 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. Due to the location of the areas which the applicant proposes to infill, staff believes approval of the variance will have no impact on other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The additions will not be highly visible as the new square footage is located primarily between the two units. 2 0 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and" literal in6e00 tat on and enforcement of i specified regulation is necessary to achieve." ' compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites, in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title withput grant of special privilege. As currently constructed, two large roof areas drain onto the deck area between the two units. This situation presents. major drainage prolems' for the existing. structures. The 218 sq. ft. variance could possibly be avoided by using; the'250 sq. ft., if the addition were designed entirely within the existing ;walls of the secondary unit. However, staff felt it was reasonable to allow for the additions to be located in the space between the two units. Staff believes the granting of this variance request is warranted because of the unique circumstances surrounding how the structures were built and the resulting drainage problems. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, .0tribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Approval of the requested variance would have no effect on the above "factors, with the exception of public safety. The lot is located in .a blue and red avalanche area, high severity rockfall and high hazard debris flow ;AIL studies per the Town of Vail hazard regulations shall be completed and, if necessary, • mitigation measures incorporated into the building' permit application before a building permit will be released for the expansion. No portion of the expansion can occur in the red avalanche zone. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before -granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the: variance will not eonstitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the .limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental' to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious,to properties `or, improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for'one or more of the following reasons a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this 'title 3 { b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff believes there is a basis to support a site coverage variance request for infilling the area between the primary and secondary residences and the covered walkway to the secondary unit because of the unusual configuration of the two units on the site. Staff recommends approval of this variance request, subject to findings 1, 2, 3(A), 3(B) and 3(C). Staff supports this application subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must obtain a geologic hazard survey for the site. The applicant will be required to perform any mitigation required under the study. 2. Installation of additional landscaping in the front yard. Staff suggests this additional landscaping include 3 spruce (2 at b feet and 1 at 10 feet) and 8 • aspen. c \poc\memos\stan1ey.610 4 k MAY 131 91 RICH AND KR USEN DESIGN ARCHITECTURE AND DEVELOPMENT May 10, 1991 s Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd. `Vail Co. 81657 Re: Appeal of Planning Staff Decision and, if necessary Variance for the Stanley Duplex (1816 Sunburst Dr.). Dear Sirs: The basis of this appeal is the belief that we are proposing to reduce the violation of a nonconforming building. Currently (and with this proposal) the duplex is under on GRFA, but over on allowable site coverage. The approach was, therefore, to i.nfill areas of existing site coverage with living space and thus provide the needed floor area without increasing the existing site coverage. Our bone of contention is,. therefore, the definition of site coverage, and specifically what is existing coverage on this lot. This is a two fold issue; let's start with the easy one. We proposed to infill the existing covered walk believing that the` ,newly adopted regulations clearly address this. "Building area shall include all buildings, carports, porte cocheres, arcades, and covered or roofed walkways." Therefore, one would reason, a covered walk is in fact building area. Not so, at least according to the planning staff, they feel that the following sentence modifies this to exclude any covered walk within 4' of the face of the building "In addition to the above, building area shall also include any ,portion of roof overhang, eave, or covered stair, covered deck,,• `covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet from the exterior face of perimeter building walls or supporting column." I am fairly fluent in the English language, :but for the life of me I can not see how any sentence beginning "In , addition to the above, building area shall also include..." reduce those items considered site coverage. If the intent is to exclude all construction within 4' of the perimeter walls then in the future this regulation should be amended to state that clearly. The second area of confusion, is the narrow slot between th e buildings that: T� 1.) is a violation of several design review.guidelines: a) roofs should not drain onto decks. b) Duplexes shall be designed to appear as a single unit. 2.) presents major drainage problems for the existing x. structures. P.O. BOX 45 EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 303 -926 -2 2 8 6 r , The existing slot is ten feet across covered at ground level with decking and with a roof that overhangs from either side to provide a narrow 6' wide slot to the sky. It was our belief that the clarification sent by the planning staff that stated that "cutouts" would be counted as building area addressed this issue. While, this certainly is not as cut and dry as the previous issue this seems a reasonable interpretation of the letter. if this staff decision can not be overruled at the appeal stage this certainly seems a fair candidate for a variance. 1.)The proposed construction would in fact reduce the apparent mass and bulk of the structure by reducing the excessive overhangs. 2.) Solve the existing drainage problems. 3.)Bring the building in line with the DRB guidelines (it has been approved pending resolution of the site coverage. issue). 4.) All of this while totally out of view of the neighbors and having no impact whatsoever on light, air, transportation, population traffic, utilities or public safety. in conclusion, a great deal of time (and Mr Stanley's money) has been spent on what was felt to be reasonable interpretations of the towns guidelines. While, we understand, it is no simple task to write these guidelines, until they are properly edited it seems only reasonable that they are interpreted on what they say, not on the unexpressed intent. Thank you. • � r E �. r , l��._� -- _�-�° ,. _� l��._� -- _�-�° ,. L1w 1 �H a ti A i / � - _ �r ��~ � �- .`''_' -�'"' � � Ida► t� • • MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department June 10, 1991 A request for a worksession on a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot O, Block S-D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Josef Staufer Plnnnpr• Mil-P, Mnllir,a I INTRODUCTION Josef Staufer, owner and developer of the Vail Village Inn, has filed a request for an amendment to Special Development District No. 6, for his property located at 100 East Meadow Drive. The purpose of this SDD amendment is to allow for the redevelopment of a portion of the final phase (Phase IV) of the Vail Village Inn SDD. For clarification purposes, taff will call this redevelopment request Phase IV -A. Y The Vail Village Inn has an existing approved development plan: for the entirety o €:Phase IV. this development plan was approved through Ordinance 14, Series of 1987 (May, 1987). f i .dditionally, Ordinance 24, Series of 1989 (November, 1989); modified the density section of the 1987 ordinance by increasing the allowable GRFA. These two ordinances are .still valid for SDD No. 6, and have been included as Exhibits .A and B attached to this memorandum. The staff recommends that the PEC review these ordinances to fully understand the background and prior approvals for the Vail Village Inn before proceeding further in this tt emorandum. A brief summary of said ordinances is listed below in Section 11 of this memorandum. 11. DESCRIPTION OF. REQUEST The applicant's redevelopment proposal includes the upgrade and renovation of the building Which currently houses the hotel lobby and front desk area, a well as the Cayote.Bar. fncluded in the redevelopment would be the addition of two residential levels above the existing structure, which would be used specifically as accommodation units (lintel rooms). There would be a total of 13 additional accommodation units, comprising 5,93: sq. ft of 1 i OPSA. One additional gas burning fireplace is proposed ,in the largest accommodation unit On the top floor. An elevator is proposed to be constructed at the southwest comer, of ;,the building, which would access all four floors. Additionally, the existing meeting room which is located on the second floor, would be expanded to the south by infilling an existing deck. 'his additional square footage would consist of approximately 243 sq. ft. of floor area. I is proposed that the new portions of the building be equipped with an "automatic. sprinkler system. Site improvements called for in this redevelopment plan would include the addition of "a total df 14 surface parking spaces. Ten of these parking spaces would `be considered regular spaces, and the remaining four spaces would be classified as valet -type spaces: :'. These valet spaces would be reserved for exclusive use by employees of the Vail Village Inn, and the location of these spaces would be to the west of.the Village Inn Pancake House restaurant' } and immediately east of the Gateway Plaza Building. The proposal also calls for limited landscaping improvements, specifically on the east and west sides of the main entrance off of the South Frontage Road. III. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ' A. The following are the existing phases of the Vail Village.Inn Phase I - This consists of the buildings. located at the southeast corner of the VVI property, and includes one dwelling unit of approximately 4,000 sq, ft -in size, as well as the following commercial establishments: Alpenrose Restaurant, Ambrosia Restaurant, Village Inn Travel, Village Inn Sports, i Houston Gallery, Gold of Vail, Liquor Store, Eve's, and Total Beauty. Phase II - This phase consists of three residential ;dwelling units of approximately 3,500 sq. ft. in size, as well as the following commercial establishments: International Gallery, Unique Art; and Tezla. Phase III - Phase III is located at the northeast corner of 'the VVI property and consists of 29 residential dwelling units, with approximately 44,830 sq. ft. of GRFA, and the following commercial establishments:' Driscol Gallery, Velveteen Rabbit, Kitchenworks; Vail Antiques, Annie's and Vail Boot 'and; Shoe. Phase IV - This was the original Phase, and the oldest, of the VVI, and. consists of 62 accommodation units., with approximately 16 ;585 sq. ft. of GRFA, and also includes the Food and Deli, VVfPancake House and the 2 PPPPFP, Coyote Bar. There is also a 1,200 sq.. ft. conference /meeting space and miscellaneous and ancillary offices for the hotel. Phase V - Phase V is the building located at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive, and consists of 11 dwelling units (9 of which have lock- offs), and 3 accommodation units, with 9,972 sq. ft. of GRFA. Phase V also includes Blano's Pizza, as well as approximately 3,500 sq. ft. of "retail, commercial use. B. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1976, originally. established the Vail Village'Inn Special Development District No. 6. C. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1985 (March 5, 1985) .granted 120,600 sq. ft. of GRFA to SDD No. 6. This ordinance also required a minimum of 175 accommodation units (AUs) and 72,400 sq. ft. of GRFA, devoted entirely to AUs in Phase IV. This ordinance also listed six conditions of approval. D. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 (May, 1987), amended Phase IV of SDD No. 6. This amendment allowed Phase IV to be broken into two distinct and separate phases, which were called Phase IV and Phase V. This ordinance also set the maximum GRFA for the SDD at 120,600 sq. ft. Additionally, the ' ordinance required a minimum of 148 AUs and 67,367 sq. ft: of GRFA devoted to AUs in Phases 1V and V. The ordinance also listed eight conditions of approval. E. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989 (November, 1989) amended the density section of SDD No. 6. This ordinance modified the SDD by increasing the allowable GRFA to a total of 124,527 sq. ft. This allowed Unit No. 30 (originally Good's retail) in the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums to be converted from commercial use to residential use. This space consists of 3,927 sq. ft. of GRFA, and the conversion to residential' use has since been completed. This ordinance also maintained the previous approval for "a minimum of 148 AUs and 67,367 sq. ft. of GRFA, devoted to: AUs, in Phases IV and V of SDD No. 6." fV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following table outlines the applicant's.redevelopment proposal with reference to the underlying Public Accommodation zoning, the existing project, the previously approved Phase IV, and the current proposal. To maintain simplicity, only those development standards which are specifically applicable to this project are listed. 3 PPFP"_ Underlying Zoning Existing Pig w6isly 'Pr60,54d ` I Public Accommodation Project Approved SOD. Site Area 3.455 acres or Same Same Same 150,500 sq. ft. Setbacks 20, ft. on all sides N = Frontage ltd: 41 ft. 20 ft. to face of No change'from existing to porte cochere; 72 ft. building; 1 ft. to to face of building porte coehere building` Height 45 ft. - Flat Roof 31 ft. Varies. - with a 58 ft. to top..of ridge 48 ft. - Sloping Roof 73 ft. maximum. 61 ft. to ridge over elevator e GRFA 120,400 sq. ft. 78,806 sq. ft. 124,527 sq. ft. 84,739" Phase IV -A 124,527,"-Entire Phase IV . Units 25 dwelling units per acre 76.5 DUs 124.5 DUs 83 DUs (see below) or 86 DUs for the site (see below) Site Coverage 82,775 sq. ft. N/A Per the approved 245 sq. ft. of. additional development site coverage plan Parking Per the current Same Same Same I development standards (See Appendix A) i Existing- Existing AUs Phase I 1 0 " Phase 11 3 0 3 Phase III 29 0 t Phase IV .0 .62 Phase V 11* 3 ' Totals 44 + 65 ** = 76.5 DUs Phase IV -A is proposed to have 0 DUs and 13 AUs = 6.5 DUs r * (9 of the 11 DUs have attached lock -offs) 1 * 2 AUs = 1 DU 4 A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, ; neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Architecturally, the key issue is to maintain compatibility: and work with the character of the existing structures in the vicinity. Staff acknowledges that this is a very difficult task to perform, given the varied architectural styles of adjacent buildings. Staff believes there are several design modifications the applicant should look into, which would include reevaluating the roof fform over the elevator as well as the roof form over the central chimney cap.; Additionally, we would stress that the.'proposed siding materials on the new upper levels also be used on the first two levels of the existing structure. We also recommend wrapping the proposed stucco finish on the first floor west elevation around to the north elevation of the poste cochere.. It is the staff's opinion that, given the close proximity of the VVI Pancake House building immediately to the west, the applicant should propose improvements to this structure so that it blends architecturally with the adjoining building.. Suggested improvements would be the addition of rooftop dormers, as proposed in the remodel, modifications to the windows to match the remodeled structure, or simply upgrading the siding of the structure and painting it to ensure compatibility- B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Staff is very supportive of the applicant's redevelopment plan with regard to uses, activity and density, given the fact the proposal includes the addition of 13 accommodation (hotel) rooms and an expanded conference space. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as. outlined in Chapter 18.52. The parking requirements for the Vail Village inn . will, undoubtedly, be the more complex issue regarding this redevelopment proposal. The Vail Village Inn parking analysis, as indicated in Appendix A, shows a total parking requirement for the Vail Village Inn project, which includes Phases I, II, III, IV an the proposed IV -A; as being 243 parking spaces. The existing parking structure, located at the lower levels i of the Phase III.building, currently provides 1Q9 parking spades. Additionally, there are currently 53 surface parking spaces on -site, and the applicant is proposing to add 14 surface parking spaces as a part of this proposal. The total parking "Which would be provided would be 176 spaces, which equals 72.4% of the required parking. It is the .staff's position that the existing parking for. Phases I, II, III and IV is considered a legal, non - conforming use. In other words, the Town will not assess an additional parking requirement to bri ng the first four phases into compliance with the current parking code. This is because changes to the Town's parking standards have occurred since construction of the early phases of the VVI. However, the staff believes that the required parking for Phase V, as well as for the ..new: proposal (Phase IV -A) must be addressed. It should be noted that when the Phase V building was approved, the parking requirement was deferred until the final phase of the VVI was i constructed (the redevelopment of Phase IV). Ordinance. No. 14, Series of 1957, under Section 11, lists 8 conditions of approval for the development plan for Phases IV and V. Condition No. 8 reads as follows: "Any remodel or redevelopment of the remaining portion of SDD 6, commonly referred to as Phase V, shall include parking as required `by Ordinance 1, Series of 1985.,, i j It is the staff's opinion that this current redevelopment proposal triggers condition number 8, and that the required parking for Phase 'V must now be addressed: . According to the staff's calculations of the Phase V building; the parking .requirement for Phase V shall be as follows: (See Appendix B for the specific breakdown): 1. Retail = 11.77 spaces 2. Restaurant = 4.25 spaces 3. Residential _ 23.44 spaces 4. Total Requirement. -39.46 spaces The parking requirement for the proposed Phase IV -A is :11.13 spaces. Thie combined parking requirement for Phase IV -A and Phase V is 39.46 spaces + 11.1:3 spaces 50.59 - 5% multi -use credit = 48 parking spaces. The parking issues before the PEC today are two- fold.. First, the staff would like a p reading from the Planning Commission regarding the applicability of condition number 8, listed in Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987. If the Planning Commission' agrees with the. staff that the applicant must now provide, or address the issue of parking for Phase V, then the second issue becomes more. pronounced. The second�issue is the applicant's proposal to provide an additional 14 surface parking spaces, when a PPPPPF_ 6 requirement of 48 spaces is stipulated by the code. The applicant has presented a parking utilization study that analyzed parking during peak times of occupancy. This study is included as Appendix C. It should also be understood that the 109 space parking structure, in the. Phase III building, is currently not open and available. for use by the general public. Of the total 109 spaces in the structure, 44 of those spaces are currently deeded to condominium owners of the Vail Village Inn (15 of those 44 deeded. spaces are deeded to condominium owners within Phase V). The issue here is whether the applicant should be required to open up the structured parking and to allow the general public the use of the 65 undeeded spaces in the structure. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vain Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. This redevelopment plan was analyzed according to the recently adopted Vail Village Master Plan. The specific goals, objectives and subarea plans. of the Vail Village Master Plan which pertain to the Vail Village Inn project are listed below: 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.2.1 Policy: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action Plan and as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements. done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Po11CV Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the; private i sector working with the Town. 2.3 _ Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight i accommodations. 7 2.5 Obiective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests.. 3.1 Obiecrive• Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and. seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.1.3 Policy• Flowers, trees, water features, and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in .locations adjacent to, or visible from, public are-as. 3.4 Objectives: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian -only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to. incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. 5.1.1 Policy: For new development that is located outside of the Commercial -Core T Zone District, on -site parking shall be provided (rather than paying; into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the zoning, code. 5.1.5: Policy: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide ;underground or visually concealed parking. 5.4.2 Po_ lice: Marlinnc and right- nf_wnvc shall he: lanrlcr nned. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians as ressing on and off site traffic circulation. Vehicular Circulation: Given the. revised surface parking layout,. the general vehicular circulation system appears adequate. The Town of Vail Fire Department has reviewed this proposal, and at this time does not.take:issue with the project. The Public'Works Department also has no problems with the general vehicular circulation plan: However, they are concerned about some. existing drainage problems, it the surface parking area, which would need to be corrected and addressed through the building permit process. Due to the change in use on the site, a Colorado. Department of Highways' access permit will need to be secured; prior to the Town issuing a building permif for. the project. Pedestrian Circulation: Pedestrian circulation is a key issue the staff would like to address. It is well known that a long - standing <goal for Vail is to improve upon the pedestrian experience through the development of a continuous network of paths and walkways. Specific to the Vail Village Inn project, the Vail Village Master,plan, as well as the Town of Vail Recreation Trails Master Plan and the Master'Transportation Plan, specifically call for bicycle /pedestrian ways along both sides of;tle South Frontage Road. Through the redevelopment' process at the adjacent Gateway Plaza site, the developer was required to provide a pedestrian sidewalk. along' the entire length of the Gateway property along Vail Road and South Frontage Road. At this time, staff believes it appropriate to request that the developer` of` the Vail Village Inn extend the sidewalk where the Gateway ended it and continue the walk for .the full length of the VVI property east to the Crossroads site. Staff acknowledges that the are some grade difficulties through this area, and. also that cooperation from the Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) will be necessary. The Town staff is. willing to assist the applicant in securing the. necessary CDOH perrnits to install the pedestrian connection. The current Vail Village Inn proposal, as presented, does:not include any improvements to the pedestrian circulation system as described above: H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The proposal has provided limited additional landscaping, in the form of two planters located on the. east and west sides of the access drive off of South Frontage ;Road. Again, with cooperation from the CDOH, staff believes that additional landscaping added along the entire northern property line of the Vail Village Inn would 'be beneficial. We believe additional landscaping and screening in this area would not 10 ."1 APPENDIX 'A Vail Village Inn Parking Analysis* 1. Phase I Parking, Spaces Required A. Retail 19.12 B. Restaurants 16.50 C. Residential 2.50 3 Subtotal 38.12 = 38.12 2. Phase II A. Retail 12.99 B. Residential 4.99 Subtotal 17.98 - 17.98' 3. Phase III A. Retail 25.12 B. Residential 59.33 Subtotal 84.45 = 84.45 4. Phase IV A. Food & Deli 6.00 B. Restaurant and Bar 11.60 C. Residential 41.30 D. Conference/Meeting Area 5.07 Subtotal 63.97 = 65.97. 5. Phase V A. Retail 11.77 B. Restaurant 4.25 C. Residential 23.44 Subtotal 39.46 = 39.46 6. Phase IV -A A. Residential 11.13 = 11.13 Total; - 255.11 -5% Multiple Use Credit:. -12.75 Grand Total: ` 242.36 = 243 j Parking requirements were determined by using the Town standards din effect at the i time of construction. 12 J. Pp A1�P�N�IX B ' VVI - Phase V Parking Analysis Parldng Spaces Re uired A. Basement Level (Vail Resort Association) 0 B. Ground Level 1. Retail: 2,865 + 668 = 3533/300 11.78 2. Restaurant: 510/15/8 4.25 C. Second Level 1. Unit #1 = 402 + 398 800 2 2. Unit #2 = 343 + 461 = 804 2 3. AU = 229 0.63 4. Unit #3 = 232 + 376 = 608 2 5. Unit #4 = 475 +317 =792 2 6. Unit #5 = 445 + 279 = 724 2 7. AU = 224 0.63 r Third Level 1. Unit #6 = 396 + 224 = 620 2 2. Unit #7 = 397 +318 =715 2 3. Units #8 & #9 are combined into one unit =454 +314 +35 +712 =1515 2 4. Unit #10 = 445 + 277 = 722 2 i E. Fourth Level 1. AU = 279 0.67. 2. Unit #11 = 388 L5 3. Unit #12 (with loft) = 598 +244 +36 +273 +410 =1552 2 39.46 I , I 13 MP P E C_ ......... .... SUBMITTED 31 ........... Y Parking Analysis for the. Vail Village Inn Addition !:' A As can be seen by the ,accompanying ,document, .�---the --re 177 7,; quired number of parking spaces -forl-the entire"VV com T. plPx with, the proposed. addition -",inc-luded.-is.,238-..,—s.pac.es. provided without T- � -mUc -The- amount that can -be recirculation and creation of compact 'spaces and/or�d anon of valet parking is 177 spaces_.... That.mould ..repre. figure of 74% of the required-number of-.� ---..-:.-.-.sent -a spaces -Due, to the nature of hotel/mixed-use--:development `eve _during the peak times of the- year whefiF_.all the...r.boms. ','-ar, occupied, the parking lots in'theparking structure ari --used to about 65% of capacity. .This;,is due i ar�g� V.i ito 1 '., . - L part to the typical Vail: s r.arriving in a par -in an individual --ve, L�.�_.tation shuttle vehicle rather -than, 1hdivi'd a hicle. The proximity of the WI to the ski mount', --the village shops and. restaurants,:,.. make. -it convenient -b e ..be....: a pedestrian while -stayingsin the hotel. a: Also seen. by the chart, the retail and restaurant 'bu's ines' se'i a :require 90 total spaces. and 65.s paces. are. -immediatel, on the surface parking lots,. ---:-It should.' &Is( g noted that as a function'of- the "hotel--husi . ne . s ... s, chi restaurants and bars are typically:.fre the. ho'- quented,by -than -:5% reduction, 11 .�,_:tel-guests and may justify :a, larger : 11 biit 2 overall parking requirements. Further", a Par- sp aces as shown on. the. site plan - -and ..Lin the - strut. - -cure are full -size spaces -an , the allowance - -in -the`- �-zon= -ing f --- code is 25% the.s-paces b" Whit) jftay -compact would ntially _increase the number .= of pote --spaces L_.tha�l as�onthe-slte. 1- 'could be provided. There are, 4� spac i play 7 that could be considered -as 'valet n h er. 'these spaces. would be reserved .for.:e ees. MP y . . .. ......... _ The proposed addition and renovation would ire _,requ. spaces.and the submitted .,,parking , plan:shows,__tha.t'1_i,1i paces will be provided to o-accommpdate the now ,� coft- .".-Anew _--j �-;"struction. These additional . sjpAce's' are de rive. . ''rorl changes in :the circulation pattern:as, a result. - f tom - - thQ -the, subsequent— 1��' 'development of the Gateway parcel.-� and ' at was i .re - d J ND-EX TTEDI 1Q duction :of a-large amount' 'of'cirbii1at" ...of. -the old service station e. An Impoirtailit ;note - related to the parking issue :•:-_Xs�. the .r way ..---the 1 --ToOli o.pm en s._. -!chooses to treat existing,., noncohforiqi4g:._ d eve,1 .,"Provided the proposed: addition- meets .-the -necessary -L-.p:arking standards for the ::,- Addition, the - remaining - -O.or- with', the project- in :nonconforming. .......... 'it-ion f- ma rema + H7i' =� The parking study that follows shows the numberefreg� _ istered nests that' -sta at the 'Vail 'Villa a —1 rniv _ utilize a parking space. sampling Qf the.pec time - -of occupancy are indicated, as well as one cuff seasa - week._ Week one: Dec 26 -Jan .2.._ 1991- 30 s. aaces were usei consistantly during the week leaving at 7least 59 sps -fie`, available in.the parking structure -alone two Feb 15 -Feb 22, 1991 (President:'s Day) T " spaces : were used cons istantl.y • during the; week l avzng a ,- �.4i_ minai.mum, . _ 35 spaces. available _ in .the _ , parking : structur - , . -alone ( Worst Case Example.) Week three: Jan 20 -Jan 27, 1991 53 spaces were use consistantly during the week,. leaving_..-at. least 56, space; - -- available in the parking structure'- alone - T -- -Week four: July 3� -July 14, 1990 23 spaces were use; T ,__(on . average) during the week, .... leaving : at ...least S G' space=. - -' available in the parking structure alone - Week five: 'July 13- July 2�2, A1994 18 `spaces were' use __ - , on .a'verage). durin the week, leaving at least _91 space. -�- , %- g g � p -- available in the parking structure alone .'--Week six: Oct 17 -Oct 24 1994- 5 :- spaces were used f, 0: ...... _ - average) during the week, _leaving 104 ;spaces ava1l.abl' - -in -the s parking structure alone:.:. I As can be seen by. these numbers, .the .worst case i situaa -f - -tion leaves a surplus of 35 :spaces,- not a shortfall o arking. Thus, the existing mixed use'd eve lopment ca L-`- be demonstrated to function quite well Frith the amour ._ of parking that is currently provided With the ad=z -�_ zonal parking that w Z� ..be provided :- far the smal ... �r_;__renovaton, the project would. likely ,=unction. -as ; wel. €: -or - better than the existing - condition - - - - -- r For . clarification, . the amount.,-of deeded: parking space ;- or Phase V that are g in the --parkin -st ctezre rs 15 a. ? the. -:number that -ar-e _deeded._.to_T.Phase III zs X2-9- ,__ -• -The I :_ber .'off. .:- required employee spaces is - I.. i T ,I W. I _ :4 E EI No IME®M Ell , t - -T - E ' t � � r a e �y{ i II EI No IME®M Ell , e • ORDINANCE NO. 14 Series of 1987 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING.ORDINANCE NO. 1, SERIES OF 1985 TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6; ADOPTING AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N0. 6, "ELIMINATING CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS FOR.PHASE IV OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6; CHANGING THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6; CHANGING THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND MODIFYING THE BUILDING BULK STANDARDS FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6; PROVIDING DIFFERENT PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASE.IV AND V OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL of the Town of Vail as. follows: Section 1, Legislative Intent is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as follows: Section 1. Legislative Intent A. In 1976, the Town Council of the Town of Vail passed Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1976, establishing Special Development District No. 6 to insure the, unified and coordinated development of a critical site as a whole and in a- manner suitable for the area in which it was situated. B. Special Development District No.6 provided in Section 14 that the Town Council reserved the right to abrogate or modify Special Development District No. 6 for good cause through the enactment of an ordinance inconformity with the zoning code of the Town of Vail. C. In 1985, the Town Council of the Town of Vail passed Ordinance #1, Series of 1985, providing certain amendments to the development plan for SDD NO. 6. D. Application.has been made to the Town of Vail to modify and amend certain sections of Special Development District No. 6 which relate to Phase IV and which make certain changes in the development plan for Special Development District No. 6 as they relate to Phase IV. E. The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has reviewed the changes submitted by the applicant and has recommended that Special Development District No. 6 be so amended. F. The Town Council considers that the amendments provide an even more unified and more aesthetically pleasing development of a critical site within the Town and that such amendments are of benefit to the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail. • • • Section 2. Section 18.50.020 Purpose is hereby amended to read as follows: A Special Development District is established to assure comprehensive development and use of an area in a manner that would be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreation amenities, and promote the objectives of the Zoning'Ordinance of the Town. Ordinarily, a special development district will be created only when the development is regarded as complementary to the town by the Town Council, Planning Commission and Design Review Board, and there are significant aspects of the special development which cannot be satisfied under the existing zoning. Section 18.50.040 Development Plan -- Contents is hereby amended to read as follows; The proposed development plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following data as supplemented by exhibits provided by consultants Royston,• Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on February 12, 1976 for Phases I, II, III, and as supplemented by the exhibits of the development plan and the environmental impact report as prepared by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect, (plans dated February 19, 1987, revised April 14 and April 22, 1987), and as given final approval through passage of second reading of this ordinance by the Town Council on May 19, 1967 for Phase IV and Phase V. This approval recognizes that Phase IV maybe constructed in two phases with the first phase to be referred to as Phase IV and the final phase to be referred to as Phase V. Section 3. Section 18.50.040 E is hereby amended to read as follows: E. For Phases I, II, and III, a volumetric model as amended by consultants Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on February 12, 1976 of the site and proposed development documented by photographs at a scale of 1 inch equals 16 feet or larger, portraying the scale and relationship of those phases of the development to the site and illustrating the form and mass of structures in said.phases of the development. For Phases IV and V, a volumetric model as amended by Gordon Pierce, Architect, of the site and the proposed development at a scale of 1 inch equals 20 feet, portraying the scale and relationship of the development on Phases IV and V, to the site and illustrating the form of mass of structures in said phase. Sect_ _,ion 4_ Section 18.50.050 Permitted Uses in Special Development No. 6 is hereby repealed and re- enacted with amendments to read as follows: 18.50.050 Permitted Uses „ The permitted uses in Phases I, I1, 1II, IV and v of Special Development District 6 shall be in accordance with the approved development plans on file in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. section 5. Section 18.50.060 Conditional Uses in Special Development District No ..6 is hereby repealed and re- enacted with amendments to read as follows: 18.50.060 Conditional Uses Conditional Uses for phases 1, 1I, III, IV and V of Special Development District No. 6 shall be as found in.Section 18.22.030 of the Vail Zoning Code and as below: A. A popcorn outside vending wagon that conforms in appearance with those existing in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core 11. Except, no office uses, except those clearly accessory to a principal use will be allowed on the Plaza level of Phases 1V and V. Section 6. Section 18.50.110 Distance Between Buildings is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.50.110 Distance Between Buildings For Phases 1, 11 and III the minimum distance between buildings on adjacent sites shall be as indicated in the development plan, but in no case shall be less than 50 feet. For Phase IV AND V, the minimum distance between buildings on adjacent sites shall be as indicated in the development plan as submitted by Gordon Pierce, Architect, (dated February 19, 1987,. revised April 14 and April 17, 1987). Section 7. Section 18.50.120 Weight is-hereby amended to read as follows: A. For Phases 1, 11, and III the allowable heights shall be as found on the development plan, specifically the site plan and height plan dated 3/12/76. B. por Phases-IV and "V, the maximum building height shall, be as.setJorthAn -the approved development plan by Gordon Pierce,'Architect (dated February "19; 1987,; revised"April Wand April 17, 1987). Section 8. Section 18.50.130 Density is hereby amended to read as follows: The Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) of all districts in the Special Development District shall not exceed 120,600 square feet. There shall be :a minimum of 148 accommodation units and 67,367 square feet of GRFA devoted to accommodation units in Phase IV and V of special Develoment District 6. Sect_ ion 9• Section 18.50.130 Building Bulk is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.50.130 Building Bulk Building bulk, maximum wall lengths, maximum.dimensions.for building elements, requirements for wall offsets and vertical stepping of roof lines for Phases I, I1 and III shall be indicated on the development plan submitted by consultants . ■ Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on February 12; 1975. For Phases IV and V, building bulk, maximum wall lengths, maximum dimensions for building elements, requirements for wall offsets and vertical stepping.of roof lines shall be as indicated as per the approved development plans submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect (dated February 19, 1987, revised April 14 and April 22, 1987). Section 10. Section 18.50.180 Parking and Loading is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments as follows: 18.50.180 Parking and Loading Following the completion of Phases IV and V, there shall be not less than 12 surface parking spaces, 324 underground parking spaces, and 37 underground valet parking spaces as are existing and as provided on the development plan submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect (dated February 19, 1987). The proposed site plan dated February 19, 1987 - reflects the interim parking plans between the development of Phases IV and V. Section 11 is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as follows: Section 11. Conditions of approval for the development plan of Phases IV and V of SDD6 as submitted by Gordon Pierce (dated February 9, 1985, revised April 14 and April 22, 1987), shall be as follows: 1. That the developers and /or owners of Phases IV and V participate in and do not remonstrate against an improvement district for improvements to the . intersection of Vail Road and Meadow Drive if and when one is formed. 2. That the developers and /or owners of Phases IV and V participate in and do not remonstrate against establishing a pedestrian linkage from Phases IV and V to a future commercial expansion at the Sonnenalp Lodge site.if and when it is developed. 3. The developer receive approval from the.State Highway Department for reconfiguration of the pull -off area from the Frontage Road to the entrance to the hotel prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase V. 4. The developers and /or owners of Phase IV agree to transfer by general warranty deed to the Town of Vail free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, such condominium unit of approximately 3,986 sq. ft, in size and to be located as indicated on the plans and specifications submitted with the application. There shall be no provisions placed on the condominium unit restricting the Town of Vail's use of the unit or the subsequent subdivision and /or: sale of the unit. • .4_ - -',� �.. ;..4.. .• §, .R«e5 �:- xraz�£3i:'� �e�.:�.:i �a.,y .isY. 21 • � 0 5. No grading permit, building permit or demolition permit relating to Phases IV or V of Special Development District No. 6 shall be issued.until such time that reasonable evidence is provided the Town of Vail staff that construction financing for the improvements to be constructed as part of Phases IV or V has been obtained. 6. Restrictions on any units in Phases IV or V which would be.condominiumized shall be as outlined in Section 17.26.075 of the Vail Municipal Code and any amendments thereto.- 7. Upon the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any phase of SDD #6 subsequent to Phase IV, the developer and %or owner of said phase shall reimburse the Town of Vail for expenses incurred in facilitating the relocation of the ski museum (into Phase IV) of an amount not to exceed $75,000. 8. Any remodel or redevelopment of the remaining portion of SDD6 commonly referred to as Phase V shall include parking as required by Ordinance 1,' Series of 1985. Section 12. 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 valildity 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, subsectionsk sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 13. The repeal or the repeal and reenaction 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. a rx t Z; In INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON.FIRST READING THIS 5th day of . _ May, 1987 and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 19th day of Mav 1987 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Oroef'd pp "she — n ull t is 8th day of May 1987. Paul R., Jo 0ton,rMayor {� ST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND. READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED in full this 19th day of May 1987. . Paul R. �0 ston, Mayor ST: a _ Pamela` A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk .6 ti• • • • ORDINANCE NO. 29 series or 1989 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 8 OF ORDINANCE NO. 14 SERIES OF 1987 TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMENDMENT OF DENSITY OF THE APPROVED DEVELOPME14T PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN. OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Legislative Intent A. In 1976, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance. No. 7, Series of 1976, establishing Special Development District No. 5 to insure the unified and coordinated develpment of a :critical site as .a whole and in a manner suitable for the area in which it was situated. B. Special Development District No: 6 provided in Section 14 that the Town Council reserve the fright to abrogate or modify Special Development District No. 6 for good cause through the enactment of an ordinance in conformity with the zoning code of the Town of. Vail. C. In 1985, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No 1, Series of 1985 providing certain amendments to the development- plan for Special Development District No. 6. D. In 1987, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance;No. 14, Series of 1987 providing certain amendments to the development plan for Special Development District NO. 6. E. Application has been made to the Town of Vail to modify and amend Section 8 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 which relates to the allowed density of the development plan for Special Development District No. 6. 'F. The planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has reviewed the changes. G. The Vail Town Council considers that the amendments provide a more unified and aesthetically pleasing development of a critical site within the Town and such amendments are of benefit to the health, safety, welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail. Section 2. A. Section 18.50.130 Density is hereby amended to read as' follows: _z..` • Y The gross residential ,flour area (gRFA) af all,districts in the Special Development District shall not exceed 124,527 square feet. Where shall be a minimum of 148 accommodation units and 67,367 square feet of GRFA devoted to accommodation units in Phase IV and Phase V of Special Development District No. 6. 3,927 square feet of GRFA,shalel be allocated to unit 30 of the"Vail Village Plaza.condominiums..onlyd D. Section 11 of OrOinAnce 14, Beries of 1987 its hereby amended by the addition of subsection 9 which shall read as follows: 9. Condominium unit 30 of the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums shall be subject to the restrictions of Section 17.26.075 of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations if utilized for residential purposes'. The 'town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the 'Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 3. if any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would hay.e.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 4. The repeal or the repeal and re- enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and re- enacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 1 • • LJ INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 7th day of November , 1989, and a public hearing shall be held on th1s ordinance an the 70 day of November , 1989 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this' 7th day of November , 1989. ATTEST: R. Rose, Mayor 'T': Pamela A. Brandme� —'Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED passed by title only this 21st day of November 1989. Kent `R. Rose, M yo ATTEST• i UA . Pamela A. Brandmeye ,b Town Clerk ■ �Iwdml I' k2i 1c", . 7t JV %%R "4 " 0- M M a Ims am! ME am a imm I 1881MINUTAN E MI: ...... ............ il!! I!! 11l it11 li!llfilill(IflEll_Illiilllll #1 - - - - - - -- - - 'OEM No no- r r r III exam.swom sommotilm I 1,151"'011 Li ■■ ■■ WD a w 5 .F 4' i 2. 3. 4. 5. L Public Hearin A request for a worksession for height, parking and density (GRFAI common area) variances for the Sonnenalp, Part of Lots K & L, Block 5- E, Vail Village, 1st Filing/20 Vail Road. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties Planner: Andy Knudtsen A request for a front setback variance for the Schofield residence, Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Valley 1st Filing /1448 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: - John Schofield Planner: Andy Knudtsen A request for a side setback variance for the Heiman Residence, Lot 9, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision /5134 Grouse Lane. Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Paul Heiman Planner: Jill Kammerer A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6., Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive, Lot O, Block 5 -D, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Josef Staufer Planner: Mike Mollica A request for a worksession for the establishment of a Special Development District. An unplatted parcel located in a part of the SE 114 of the SE 114 of Section 1, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, 6th Prime Meridian, generally located north of Sandstone Drive and west` of Potato Patch Drive. Applicant: Abe L. Shapiro Planner: Mike Mollica A request for a worksession for a modification.to an approved development plan for The Valley, Phase 1111480 Buffehr Creep Road. Applicant: Steve. Gensler Planner: Andy Knudtsen lj 7. 7. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a.sndw dump on the property generally located west of the Town of Vail Shops. The property is more specifically described as follows: That part of the North 112 of Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80' i west of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, lying north of Interstate Highway No. 70 and being. more particularly described as follows: s Beginning at the NE corner of said Section 8; .thence along the northerly line of said Section 8, S89 46'27 "W a distance of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the northerly line of said Section 8, SOO 23'03 "W a distance of 529.86 ft to a point on the northerly ROW line of 1 -70; thence along the northerly ROW line of 1 -70 following two courses: 1) S75 28'18 "E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point of curvature; 2) 1327.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 5580.00 ft, a central angle of 13 38'04" and a chord which bears N89 36'34 "E 1324.70 ft distance to a point on the easterly line of said Section 8; Thence departing said ROW line of 1 -70 N00 23'03 "E along the easterly line of said Section 8, a distance of 572.10 ft to the point of beginning, containing 20.480 acres more or less. The above description is based on the Town of Vail annexation plats: for the property described and is not based on a field survey. The basis of bearing for the above parcel is the. northerly line of Section 8 being S89 46'27 "W as shown on said annexation plats. Applicants: Town of Vail /Vail Associates Planner: Andy Knudtsen 8. A request for review of the Vail Streetscape Master Plan for formal recommendation to the Town Council. The Master Plan addresses the general area from East Lionshead Circle to Ford Park, and includes West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, Willow Bridge Road, Gore. Creek Drive, Vail Valley Drive, Bridge Street, and Hanson Ranch Road. ` Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Mike Mollica TABLED TO JULY 8, 1991 9. ✓ Approval of May 13, 20, and 28, 1991 minutes. 10. ✓ Reminder of Tuesday, June 25, 1991 meeting regarding the municipal complex at 7:30PM in the Council Chambers. This is a general public i i meeting and the PEC is encouraged to attend. i. Regarding staff's stream walk recommendation, ray pointed out that it wa s a study lea �tld riot a concept specifically designated in the Land Use- Plan. He stated it was valid, however, i >'i f stream walk too ensure that the protect was not developed. m such a, way as to -:prop b t uture al development, and the proposal did not prevent. such development. Staff's recommendations had included exploring the provision of employee housing =with this proposal. Jay pointed out that the expansion was going to only add an additional 10 sleeping rooms, and there would be no staff additions necessary to accommodate the redevelopment. Jay also observed that the amount of additional parking required under the proposal was due to the size of the rooms. Although the rooms would still only accommodate 2:.people, the size was increasing the parking space per room percentage. Jim Wear, the attorney for the Talisman Condominiums, .stated the Talisman was generally in favor of the proposal, and reiterated that the stream walk should be looked at only as a study item. Kristan asked if the Talisman and Sonilenalp had solved the access easement question, and Jim replied they had, and the two generally had a good working relationship. Jim felt the, casement could be resolved. Ludwig Kurz asked if some of the outside dining area would be lost. Kristan indicated it would be partially infilled. Ken O'Brien, the Sonnenalp's architect, stated the additional space in the dining portion on the east side of King Ludwig's would make up for the loss on ` the dining deck. Kristan stated approximately 350 sq. ft, of the dining deck would be removed. Ludwig believed the amount of common/accessory space was absolutely necessary for the Project, and was important for the creation of a first class facility. He did not consider the height variance to be much of a problem, as it was a trade off for better concealing the chillers. He did question if the chillers would create a sound nuisance. Ken answered they would not, as the sound would be directed upward. Ludwig suggested that with the efficiency of parking the Sonnenalp was able to maintain dhrough strict controls, the shortfall was acceptable, especially- in light of staff's study find%ng the actual usage of the lot to be less than 100 %. He recommended additional landscaping be substituted for some of the parking. G Ludwig was hopeful the project would not neglect the possibility of a compatible future stream walk. He believed a stream walk would enhance the Sonnenalp's guests' experience. He recommended the developer continue to consider the option. Addressing the overall landscaping of 'the proposal, Ludwig believed some areas of the project Gould be improved. He specifically cited that the. railroad ties could be removed in. existing planter areas, particularly at the Meadow Drive bus stop. 2 Chuck Crist stated he had liked the previous proposal; and liked the current proposal gs well. Re stated he believed the room size accounted for the amount of parking addressed by the variance request, and the variance was reasonable. He found the, amount of co mon area necessary for this project. He did have a concern, however, with the landscaping plan, His gpecific concern was with the parking on the north side of the building. He questioned the iemoval of several large trees, and encouraged more landscaping' in that general area. Chuck did not want to see the future potential for a stream walk jeopardized, but h6 did not Mink it was necessary for the developer to build a portion at this time.. Chuck cited the developer's excellent record for providing housing for his employees, and did not f eel an additional burden should be placed on the developer to provide. employee housing. Overall, Chuck found the project to be pretty good. Ludwig added to his comment regarding his concern. with common area, stating that since 'the. site coverage was under the allowable; he did not have a further problem with the .proposal. Jim Shearer commented he would like to see the northwest corner of the lot. landsc -aped if the `own of Vail Public Works would find this option acceptable. He found the plan to "include improvements to landscaping, but encouraged even more landscaping. Jay Peterson. stated they would work with staff, but he asked if it were a question of parking or landscaping, which would be preferable? Jim believed landscaping was more important for this,;pr9ject.; Regarding the stream walk; Jim wanted allowances for a future stream walk to be. made, but did not want to require the developer to build it at this time. • . im found the height not only justifiable for a variance but an attractive addition to the J g yJ project. He stated it was a beautiful plan. He also found the request for a parking variance acceptable, given the valet and gate controls, as well as the larger sized rooms.- Jim was pleased with the mass and bulk of the building, and felt it would be :a landmark. Since the Faesslers had a history of being very concerned with housing their employees. U found no reason to require additional housing as part of this proposal, Diana Donovan supported Ludwig's comments, but questioned what the. chillers' exhaust would consist of. Ken O'Brien stated it was mostly warm air and humidity; but not ollution" per se. Diana approved of the height request, .stating it made sense in this instance to address the chillers in this manner rather than as an after thought T'he applicant proposed an up front solution. The parking also worked in this case, Diana believed, due to the controls the; Sonnenalp unposed over parking in their lots. She would, however; like to 'see addittonal;:landscaping, especially landscaping near buildings to soften the impacts. She stated the improvements proposed for the bus stop area would be positive. The Swiss Haus area by the` fire access should also be "spiffed" up. She differed from the applicants' opinion on the stream walk; stating that in her mind it was an adopted amenity in the Recreational Trails :Plan; - and would lake to see it worked into the site planning, even if it were just roughed in at this time. 3 Ac a r Diana stated the common area variance made sense, but she agreed with staff that emPIoye Housing should be addressed. While a couple units might not really fit in with` this proposal, developers tore wire the. without she did not believe it was fair to require other op q g betting guarantees from this proposal. shuck Crist asked how. the site would be accessed for construction. Ken O'Brien stated there would be a crane for a short period of time. The current parking lot would be used for a staging area. He mentioned that concrete for the parking was also being:: considered to reduce 3 the heat from asphalt. He stated the construction period would be approximately 8 months, Starting April 1, 1992. They hoped to have 100% occupancy by Christmas, 19.93 Jay Peterson thanked the Commissioners for their comments, and stated theywould:be back luiy 8 with a final proposal. 2. A request for a front setback variance for the Schofield residence, Lot 18 Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing _1.448 Vail Valley Drive. _Anblicant: John Schofield Planner: Andy Knudtsen $belly Mello presented the request for the front setback variance. The variance was requested in order to allow for a garage addition to the secondary unit. In addition, staff asked the Commission to consider the request to place a driveway across the front of the 1ot to allow for turnaround and parking. Although no variance was necessary for the driveway request, r . §taff viewed this as an element of the request. Additional landscaping was proposed for this Site. After reviewing the variance criteria, staff recommended approval of the variance for the i garage, citing findings 1, 2 and 3(b) in. support with the condition the owners gain approval of the duplex property owner to encroach into the common area. Staff did not recommend approval of the driveway plan as proposed. John Schofield explained that with the current driveway, when cars were in the driveway, there was no way out of the garage without moving at least one ,car. He believed the proposed driveway was a good solution to backing out onto the road, and would provide better access. He mentioned there were other property owners in. the area with a similar driveway design. If Vail Valley Drive were to be widened; they, too, would be negatively affected. He was willing to accept that possibility.. Mr. Schofield showed pictures 'to the Commission illustrating other owners' solutions. As he viewed his situation; the only other Solution he saw was to. widen the existing driveway to allow for; a straight shot. Additionally, he believed the Mugo pines should be removed for safety reasons. Tom Baccus, an audience member, asked where the pines were located. Mr. Schofield showed where they were .on the plans. i 4 - Ludwig Kurz asked how the proposed -new garage would help the use. Mr 9eh6f4ld stated It would eliminate one car from the driveway. Jim Shearer questioned how many of the similar driveways viewed in the photographs were also in the road easement. Mr Schofield indicated all were. Kristan Pritz said she was not sure that was correct, as the photographs showed many different options for a turnaround, and she believed they were not similar to the situation at hand Jim stated he supported the entire proposal, with the exception of the driveway. He. thought Oie additional pavement would hurt the "curb appeal" of the property, hated to. lose the landscaping, and would prefer a walk wall to the timber steps. Mrs. Schofield: answered. they had originally proposed stone, but the DRB had changed it to. timber to better lit in`. with the neighborhood. Diana Donovan also wanted to see stone. However,: the DRB had the 'final say. Diana had no problem with the garage variance, but had difficulties with the drive. John Schofield asked if she had an alternative for the drive. Diana was not sure, but she pointed out many other homes in this area have back -out driveways, She did conclude, however, that the Mugo pines should be moved to help sight access. Shelly Mello suggested cutting back the corner area to increase visibility. Diana thought that perhaps an angle to Widen. the access. She suggested working the details out with staff. Kristan agreed to work with the; applicant as well as the Town Engineer to determine: an acceptable driveway plan; Chuck Crist moved to approve the request for a front setback variance for the < Schofield i. Residence, Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Valley FirstFiling/1448 Vail Valley Drive per the staff memo, with the findings as indicated in the memo. Jim .Shearer seconded the `motion. It was r m � g unanimously approved, 4 -0. A request for a side setback variance for the Heiman Residence Lot 9 Block 1 Gore Creek Subdivision/5134 Grouse Lane. AA mlicant: Mr. and Mrs. Paul Heiman Planner: Jill Kammerer Shelly Mello gave the staff presentation of the request. She indicated there was one correction, and that was the dwelling would remain a single family residence. She explained the reason for. the requested variance was to increase. in the existing non - conformity with regard to setbacks. Staff recommended approval of the request, with the condition' that the utility easement be vacated before a building permit was issued. Sam Sterling represented applicants. He indicated there appeared to be an error in, -the GRFA numbers indicated in the memos, those discrepancies being GRFA figures and that- after further evaluation, only 7 trees would be removed. Staff noted the corrected figures .for the file. 5 LI F, 4 j �udwig Kurz suggested moving some of the trees near the utility easement instead bf `eutfii them down. Mr. Sterling said applicants would be agreeable to moving them to the southwest eorner of the lot. Diana Donovan asked that new trees be planted to help keep the building addition hidden. Mike Mollica asked that a general range of numbers for the trees Abe - indicated to give the Design Review Board a direction. Chuck Crist suggested 3 -5 evergreens. Diana expanded that suggestion to state that natural- looking trees should be used to replace the existing. Sam Sterling stated natural -grown trees would be used. ' Ludwig Kurz moved to approve the request for a side setback variance in order to expand the, 4 single family residence located within the 2 -Family Residential Zone District, Lot 9, Block 1, More Creek Subdivision/5134 Grouse Lane per the. staff memo, with the conditions stated in the memo, and an additional condition that 3 -5 lodgepole pines be planed in the southwest eorner of the lot. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. It passed unanimously; 4,0. ;After a five minute recess, the Commission reconvened. 4. A request for a maior amendment to Special Developme�nrDlstrct No. 6, Vail Village Inn 100 East Meadow Drive Lot O Block 5 Vail Village First Filin . 1 Applicant: Josef. Staufer - Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica explained the changes trade to the proposal since the previous: PEA worksession. Staff recommended approval, with the conditions listed in staff's- memo. Wo Overall, staff found positive changes and improvement in the submittal from the previous viewing. { The applicant, Josef Staufer, said he had come away from the worksession with two major issues from the Planning Commission. The first was the architectural compatibility` of the entire project, and the second was the amount of parking provided. In response to those eoncems, he had amended the proposal to change the roof of the Pancake House to blend With the east building, adding approximately .$100,000 to the price of the project. ;He:had j lso ensured that 1 parking space was added for every new unit proposed. If the Planning Commissioners wanted more parking, there were 16 spaces on the bench between the Food end Deli and the Gateway Plaza which could be converted back to parking. From the worksession, however, Mr. Staufer had gotten the opinion that staff and the PEC would prefer landscaping in that location. If landscaping were placed on that bench, W. Staufer would request a "credit" for those lost spaces. Qn the employee housing issue, Mr. Staufer stated the VVI ranges from 3016,40-employees.'. To accommodate those employees, the hotel.ran a private bus from Leadville/ked Cliff. They Also purchased bus passes for those employees living in Avon/Eagle-Vail. They have assisted With loans for down payments of homes in certain instances, and outright own, two. units focally. The VVI ensures all employees have accommodations. If they :are unable Ito find Housing for an employee, they have made rooms in the hotel available when necessary. The I 6 Motel has adwayg addregged their own houging needs, and W. Staufar did not faal,it was ffir to spend more money to permanently restrict another unit. They have a:com"mitment to providing housing to those of their employees in need, but wanted flexibility to address . their . deeds in their own way. � egarding the other conditions of approval in the staff memo,. Mr. Staufor said' there was no money left to provide the sidewalk/landscaping after the roof change to the Pancake Douse. That change added 10% to the project costs, and if additional requirements. were placed on the project, he would withdraw his application, as it would no longer be financially viable. Bill Pierce, the applicant's architect, stated they had looked at restructuring ther current parking, including removing the restricted parking at the - Food and Deli, in 'order to provide wore parking. They had decided to eliminate the restrictions. on 7 of the 9 parking spaces at the Food and Deli, their leases with two of the tenants prohibited . the removal of the other 2 restricted spots. In addition, the applicant had responded to the Planning Corntniss.ioW: s fequest to change the roof of the Pancake House. As Mr. Pierce saw it, the parking remained the most significant issue. 75% of the required parking was being provided. In addition, 14 new parking spaces were provided under this redevelopment, when only 11 were required. If this had been any other'redevolopmetit project, they would only be required to provide parldng for the new addition. The current parking was adequate for the needs, as illustrated in a survey completed by the applicant during Presidents' Week. That week is when the highest percentage of winter visitors drive their own cars. During that week, at. least 35 spaces were available at all times.. In addition, the applicant disagreed with the parking requirements for Phase V. Mr. Pierce did not believe the sidewalk along the Frontage Road would benefit the VVI, as most of the pedestrian access to the project is from Meadow Drive. The cost of such .a. sidewalk would be extremely high, and he felt the Town should . incorporate it into their streetscape plans, and not require an individual owner to provide a Town amenity. Chuck Crist asked for clarification of the parking numbers. Mike Mollica explained how the numbers were calculated. After a general discussion of the parking requirements for. the Project, Kristan Pritz summarized that. the problem was that the structured spaces were not .4vailable to the public. Bill Pierce stated they would open up ,the structure. Diana. :Donovan asked how it would be implemented? She suggested a validation system.. Joe'Staufer agreed that would be the most beneficial. Mike Mollica stated staff had no, problems with the Marking plan if the structure were opened .to the public. W Staufer joked he was ping into the parking business. Diana did not want people to be charged if they, were. genuinely shopping. Joe said he intended to have 1/2 hour free parkitig, and ..then require, validations.. Mike Mollica clarified the number of spaces to be opened. Mr. Staufer said there were 65 spaces available and owned by the Vail Village Inn. Diana wanted it to` be made clear that Phis parking would not affect the bottom, line requirement for the entire.. SDD4 when all phases . - Were completed. Joe Staufer said they° have only paid a part of their parking debt, there was 7 Still parking autgtanding. Diana clarified they were not Mi6iftg.any deals at this point to give i Credits against the total parking requirements. Mr. Staufer agreed with that assessment. shuck Crist still had concerns about the landscaping, but felt it was acceptable: Jim Shearer vaished the sidewalk could still be provided. Joe Staufer also expressed . a desire to see a sidewalk, but stated he could not do it as part of this redevelopment, and suggested the Town guild it. Jim said it was a piece -by -piece process to gain a solution to the problem. Mr. } Staufer reiterated there was no pedestrian traffic along the South Frontage Road in that location. Jim asked if staff and applicant were comfortable with the chimney design. Bill Pierce said they would work out the design with the DRB. Mike Mollica asked the..Comi issioners if the 3 agreed that the design should be changed. Diana said it needed to be changed as it looked upside -down. i Jim said that, overall, the applicants had responded to the concerns from the pre vious'PEC worksession. Ludwig Kurz stated the change to the existing buildings was positive overall s In terms of the sidewalk and landscaping, he , did not 'want to overburden the `applicant with doing too much. He saw very little pedestrian traffic in that location. It would be, nice to have, but it was not needed. Ludwig asked if there was a use survey, of the existing parking. Joe Staufer said it was under - utilized, but used more in the winter. biana Donovan commented that with "no current guarantee from.the developer to restrict an Omployee unit, she favored setting aside a unit. Joe said his record spoke for itself. If he anted to have quality employees, he had to address their housing problems.. It would be �' q Y ,gP counter productive to restrict housing that could be rented. That not only hurts him, but hurts the Town by reducing the amount of people in Town, and reducing their potential spending. Kristan Pritz clarified they were not necessarily advocating restricting a hotel room, hit it Could even be at an off-site location. The Town did not want to promote the loss of an accommodation unit. Joe said he addressed the problem each time he hired someone.. He. asked it be left up to the owner of the VVI to address the problem. Diana said the _problem Was not with him, but a general problem that units kept being sold and employee housing educed. She advocated a unit somewhere in the Town being restricted, and: sugges °ted that oven providing transportation to a site outside the Town might suffice. Joe reiterated that employee housing is an employer's problem,' and asked if the. Commissioners would agree to having him restrict the Pitken Creek Park unit he currently owned. Kristan said that was a very good solution. "Joe asked if the unit could be restricted for the length of ownership. If the VVI were to be sold without the Pitken Creek Park unit as part of the deal, one hotel room would be restricted.. Diana Donovan said that: sounded good: Tristan thought` it was very reasonable. is _ - Diana said the parking worked for now, but reiterated that no "deal" had been :made which would affect the final parking numbers. She would like to see some condition; for the 8 I allowable height only in a portion of the length, and the Avdage height would Blot 6meeed the imaximum of b feet. The cut and fill areas would be similar in character, exceeding the ' maximum 2;1 slope in some areas, but the overall average would be very close to 2: L Mr. Shapiro said the overall impacts and retaining walls would be less than those approved for the Spraddle Creek subdivision. Mr. Shapiro related that when he had originally requested. to build on this land, his variance request was denied because it was believed nothing could be built. At this, point,' he felt that all the required information had been submitted to the United States Forest Service (USFS), and was in the review process. He had been given no reason from the USES to believe the access approval would not be granted: Addressing the accessory uses he was proposing, Mr. Shapiro. said the only accessory buildings would be a greenhouse and a barn, both of which were permitted uses in the zone district. He believed his proposal was an appropriate use for his 7 acre site. He did not think the mass and bulk of the buildings should be an issue, due to their low height and siting on a plateau shelf which would prohibit view of the lower floor of the dwelling from the Valley floor. He said the lower half of the building. would not be seen by most people: He was, not planning an urban development, and in fact wanted to retain the agricultural and open space character of the parcel. 1 Nlr. Shapiro felt that 2,000 sq. ft. of GRFA was the old standard for sites with that zoning. He did not think that many, if any, people in Vail were corning through:requesting single I family dwellings of 2,000 sq. ft. or less, as less than 3,000 sq. ft. was just not feasible with current land values. In addition, even though he would be entitled to build a 1,20.0 sq. ft 4-. space garage, he was only proposing a 3- space, 900 sq. ft. garage. He was not just trying to max out" all space available to him, simply to construct to his needs. Mr. Shapiro turned his attention to addressing the employee housing proposal. He felt that if be did not build a unit for his employee needs, he would be taking an :existing structure out of the existing dwelling unit base in the Valley. He stated that would impact the housing available for a ski area employee. In other zone districts, the Town was. proposing to add 4ccessory units, and that was what he was trying to do with his,.proposal. A concern of the staff had been hazard mitigation. Mr. Shapiro said no'improvements would be placed on a 40% or greater slope. He asked to not construct .a hazard mitigation berm,' as it would scar the hillside further, and Mr. Shapiro preferred to build with reinforced concrete walls. He would prefer to reinforce the structures themselves, and intended to use the reinforced concrete: He asked for the flexibility to do so. omparing his proposal to existing development, Mr. Shapiro stated if one looked from the Valley floor up to the site, improvements east and west of his. parcel were built at even higher elevations with what he believed to be greater visual impacts. He was prepared to mitigate the potential impacts of additional fill with landscaping to negate the concerns over that fill. ! 12 i i s I'le stated the USES seemed satisfied with. his landseapiM proposals. The existing USFS I trailhead access would be maintained across his dwelling. Mr. Shapiro was proposing a combination of boulder and geo= textile retaining walls along the . driveway access to the site. His engineering report showed the drive could be built- as he was proposing, and Mr. Shapiro indicated soils tests would be performed at 'a later date;: He has Jnvested approximately $50,000 to obtain the required. tests to proceed this far, and he asked ' for approval without needing additional outlay of research funds. returning to the issue of retaining walls, Mr. Shapiro said they would be very similar to those planned in Spraddle Creek, although of a different design. He was in the process of developing a revegetation plan, and said the work would be. timed to save as much existing vegetation as possible. As the drive was excavated, the material would be taken from the site and immediately stored in order to preserve the vegetation. Through his discussions with I tifree local contractors, he was of the opinion that the driveway was possible to construct.: those contractors he spoke with were willing to perform the work. 11�Ir. Shapiro concluded his comments by saying he and his wife would like to have this home as their last home in Vail. i Jim Shearer began his comments by saying that, even if the Planning Commission approved the project, there would still be community concerns about the project. He as if W. Shapiro would be able to totally eliminate the scar the driveway; would create on the hillside. Mr. Shapiro said he would be using boulders. and native vegetation to mitigate, the impacts. Jim expressed his concern that there may be a better way to access the site. Mr. Shapiro responded he had performed a study for the USFS to show this was the only possible' access to and across their property. Regarding the mass and bulk issue, Jun suggested combining the barn and greenhouse. Mx. Shapiro indicated his willingness to try to combine those structures. Jim also` said it was a G shame the utility line could not be buried, but understood Holy Cross would not allow it. Jim. Said he believed the hazard mitigation measures should be located within the: structures to minimize their impacts. ` Jim was in favor of a restricted employee housing unit on the site, but that no additional ` subdivision of the land should be permitted.. Jim concluded by indicating the access point hear Potato Patch Drive should be a natural design concept, and it was important to keep the LJSFS trailhead access open and available to the public.. 4udwig Kurz agreed with most of Jim's concerns and suggestions. He said the building showed sensitivity to the site, and would be only somewhat visible. However'Ludwig would like the spread of the building minimized. Ludwig su gg ested er� formin g a vi w nal sis i similar to what was done for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision, as the site is very visible. Mr. i s 13 f Shapiro agreed to look into that possibility, atzd would contact J&-- Maey with Vail . Associates. Ludwig suggested investigating the trailhead access and how it will be integrated into the,; berm and landscaping. Mr. Shapiro related that the USFS requested the access to be ,similar to what was currently existed. s Chuck Crist asked why a SDD was being proposed instead of variances,. Mr. Shapiro- reiterated the reasons. Chuck believed the trail access. was important, and was.concerhed about the berm at the access road creating a dam which might injure the properties below. Chuck was more concerned about the impact of the road than he was about the house. When Chuck asked what the utility and driveway costs, along With .a construction schedule, were going to be for the site, Mr. Shapiro. estimated $250,000, and stated he would like to start in the fall of 1991. He would come back the following spring for the building permit I for his residence. Jim questioned again why this was a good project for the Town of Vail; to use the SDD procedure. Mr. Shapiro stated that, to his knowledge, this was the only property "with similar issues, and really needed to be planned through use of a SDD. Diana Donovan was not sure what her opinion was of the proposal, but she was extremely` concerned about the visibility of the road. Mr. Shapiro agreed the road would: be visible, and That he would need to make it as acceptable as possible. Diana was impressed that Mr. Shapiro had thought his way through the .project, but she wanted to be convinced the project was the best it could be. She. could not see a positive benefit to the community for granting a SDD in that location. Mr. Shapiro said he believed he was being reasonable in his requests, and would do what was necessary to convince the Commission and Council. Diana asked that the Commissioners see what had been done in Singletree regarding revegetation of steep slopes. Staff agreed to try to schedule ;a site visit. gristan Pritz asked what the Commission's consensus was regarding the propos ed employee' housing unit. Diana was undecided, saying she wanted proof there would not be negative visual impacts from its construction. Chuck said that if there would be no visual impacts with the construction of an employee unit, he was in favor of it. Ludwig stated he was in favor of an employee housing unit, and that even if there were more bulk, it was far from the 'own, and it would be difficult for an employee to get there: Jim Shearer agreed, saying he felt it was part of the job of the Planning Commission to help in the provision of employee dousing. He said if there were no significant negative visual itnpacts, he would apVroVe the accessory unit. • 14 After a discussim of fire access concerns, neighbor Tem Fitch asked ftbwt the posAility of providing common carports. The carports would still result in a walk, but it would be much Shorter. Randy replied that option was not acceptable. Jim asked the developers',be limite d. to a 2 -car garage per unit. Nancy Robbins, a neighbor,. asked how overflow parking was doing to be addressed. Randy indicated they had investigated a couple options, but no final determination had been made. Diana Donovan said she did not like houses on both sides of the street. She prderred. a Oluster off a single driveway, and strongly requested the developers not destroy the best part of the sites - -the trees. Kristan asked the Commissioners to define a direction for the developers. Tim Shearer was j favorable to the developers' intent, and said the less disturbance created, the better. Diana Donovan asked how the Commission could help the .process.. Randy asked for an endorsement in: 1) the reduction of units to seven; 2) effort to pull the units up the. hillside; concept for site plan is do -able. The consensus of the Commissioners was in agreement. Diana concluded by saying she believed the developers could come up with a Plan and show that it was the best. 'tom. Fitch concluded the worksession by saying, "save the trees ?" 7. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a snow dump on; the property generally located west of the Town of Vail Shops. The pxoperty is more. ` .svecifically described as follows: 3 That Rart of the North 1/2 of Section 8 Township 5 So t Range 80 west of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, lying north of Interstate fbkhway No. 70 i and being more particularly described as follows: inning , Be innin at the NE corner of said Section 8;_thence along the northerly line of said Section 8, S89 4627 "W a distance of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the northerly line of said Section 8, S00 23'03 "W a distance of 529.:86 ft to a point on the northerly ROW line of I -70; thence along the northerly. ROW line of 1.70 following two 3 _. courses: 1) S75 28'18 "E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point of .curvature• r ) 1327,90 ft along the arc of a curve.to the left,.hayina a radius of 558fl 00 ft a central angle of 13 38'04" and a. chord which''bears. N89 3634 "E 1324.70 ft distance to a on the easterly line of said. Section 8, Thence departing said ROW line of I -70 N00 23'03 "E along e.easterly fine of said Section 8, a distance of 572.10 ft to the point of beginning, containing 20.4.80 acres more or less, 16 That part of the North 112 of section g, Township 5 South, Range 80 +west zf the bth " " Oncipal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, lying north of Interstate Highway No 70 and. being more particularly described as follows: $eginning at the NE corner of said Section 8; thence along the northerly line of said Section 8, S89 46'27 "W a distance of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the northerly. line o said Section S00 23'03 "W a distance of 529.86 ft to a point on the northerly ROW line of I -70, thence Tong the northerly ROW line of I -70 following two courses: P 1) S75 28'18"E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point of curvature; 1327.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left; having a radius of 5580.00 ft, a central angle of 13 38'04" and a chord which bears N89 36'34"E 1324.70 ft distance to a point on the easterly line of said Section 8; Thence departing said ROW line of 1 -70 N00 23'03 "E. along the easterly line of said Section 8, a distance of 572.10 ft to the point of beginning, containing 20.480 acres more or less. The above description is based on the Town of Vail'annexation plats for the property described and is not based on a field survey. The basis of bearing for the above parcel is the northerly line of Section 8 being S89 46'27"W as shown on said annexation: plats: The motion was to approve the request per the staff memo with the followin than es" to the Pp q p g'. g conditions of approval; 1. That the lighting for the snow :dump be downlit so as not to emit glare or "hot spots. " toward I -70 or the residential properties to the south. All lights are to be extinguished when the snow dump is not in use by vehicles. 2. The existing berm shall also be repaired in the areas where it has sloughed: 3. The Town shall complete a rockfall hazard study before a grading permit is released for the project. If mitigation measures are required, these measures shall be included in the construction of the snow dump. All A-%.-: f t Ford P k n d m At,- shall be cleaned ens or orexgn matter at. a Curren ar sow u p t up and removed. 5. The note at the end of the staff memo shall be removed. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 4 -0. 1 MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department June 24, 1991 A request for height, parking and density variances for the Sonnenalp, part of Lots K and L, Block 5E, Vail Village. Ist Filing/20 Vail Road. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties Planner: Andy Knudtsen 1: DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCES REQUESTED j The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, is planning to undertake a major renovation of the Bavaria Haus. The remodel and expansion involves three wings. The existing. wing which extends from the lobby to the Talisman will be demolished; except for the foundation and concrete floor plate of each level. The exterior walls will be expanded and ,a. loft level above the 4th floor will be added, as well as a new roof. The second major component of the expansion involves extending a wing north from the existing lobby, parallel to Vail Road. The new wing will include the auto court and will be the focal point of the hotel. It will be the tallest part of the building at 56 feet, and will require a height variance. The existing Wing, housing the lobby, restaurants and kitchen, is the third component of the project, and ! will be remodeled, will have a third floor and .a new roof added.to it. All of the parking for the hotel remains in the general location where it is now, and remains surface parking. There is no commercial propposed at this time, but there will be an expansion to the restaurants, lobby, spa area and the conference rooms. i The request involves three variances from the zoning code. The applicants will need variances from the height standards, the parking standards and the standards for the: amount. of allowable common area. The table in Section Il shows the extent of the requests, A. Height Variance The building complies with the 48 foot height limit of the Public Accommodations zone district in all areas except above the auto court along Vail Road. For this portion of the building, the roof is 56 feet` high. This exceeds the standard by 8 feet, or 16.7 %. 1 .^#.: . ., s., .._.. ■ 4 B. Common Area Variance The applicant is proposing to exceed allowable amounts for common and accessory areas as shown below: ' - Common area over by 40,015.1 sq. ft., or 56.7% instead of-20% - Accessory area (eating, drinking) over by 1,651.4 sq. ft., or 23.4% instead of 10% Section 18.22.090 of the Public Accommodations section of the zoning code slates that: " Total. density for permitted uses, conditional uses and accessory uses shall not i exceed 80 sq. ft. of GRFA for each 100 sq. ft. of site area." After combining the different categories of floor area: - The structure is over the .80 cap by 47;067.6 sq. ft. or 66.7 %.* The implication of Section 18.22.090 of the zoning code ;is that the total square i footage for GRFA, accessory (restaurant/bar), common area, and accessory use's as defined in Section 18.22.040 shall not exceed 80'sq. ft. of gross floor . area for each i 100 sq. ft. of buildable .site area. Given the combination of floor areas, excess` unused GRFA can be used to compensate for the overage in accessory/restaurant square footage and meeting rooms. These calculations having been, made, the project results in a total common area of 40,015.1 sq. ft., which exceeds the allowable by 25,908.6 sq. ft., or 36.7 %. * The overage in total. square footage is. made up of the ' following areas: 3 GRFA: Approximately 60;000 ** Accessory (Restaurant/Bar): Approx. 9;000 ' Common: Approx. 46,000 Meeting Rooms: Approx. 4.000 119,000 r - 71,000 Allowed Approx. 48,000 Overage } Please note the project does not exceed allowable GRFA i 2 C. Parking Variances There are two variances needed which involve parking. The first is'a request to reduce the supply. The second is a request to allow more than 25% of the spaces to be unenclosed. The applicants are required to provide a,total of 138 spaces. Of this total, 37 are required for the addition. The existing parking lot has 101 spaces on it, which was approved in 1986. The applicants are proposing to add 7 new spaces to the supply, resulting in a total supply of 108 spaces.. Of the 108 total number of spaces provided, 12 are valet. Providing 108 spaces will require a 21.7% variance to the parking requirement. Concerning the enclosure requirement, 75% of the required spaces, or 28 spaces, are required to be enclosed per the code. The applicant proposes to locate 16 within the auto court, which requires a 57% variance to this requirement. The code requires 10% of the parking area to be landscaped; The applicant is proposing to landscape 14 %. In summary, the variances needed are for height (8 feet), common area (36.7%), parking supply (21.7 %), and enclosed parking spaces (57 %). 3 k> I. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Lot Area: 2.024 acres or 88,165.4 sq. ft. Zoning: Public Accommodation Transfer of Allowed Proposed Unused GRFA Difference AU 100 or 90 (10) DU 50 (25 du /ac) 0 N/A ORFA 70,532.4 (80 %) 58,750.3 (11,782.1) Accessory 7,053(10%) 8,704.4 - 1,651.4 0 Common* 14,106.5 (20 %) 45,817.1 - 5,8010 40,015.1 sq. ft. (56.7 %); 20 % allowed; 36.7% over Meeting Room ** -- 4,328:7 - 4,328.7 0 Parking* 138 108 (30) 21.7% under Site Coverage 48,490.9 36,033 (12,457.9) 25.7% 55% udder the allowable irleight* 48 feet 56 feet 8 over ' Categories needing variances '* Meeting rooms broken out to determine parking requirement. For floor area calculations, meeting rooms are considered accessory area, Total floor area within building: 121,890 sq. ft. 3 STANDARDS USED TO EVALUATE PROPOSAL A. Variance Criteria As this project involves variance requests for height, parking and common area, each one is discussed under each variance criteria. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or -potential uses and structures in the vicinity. a. Height One portion of the building exceeds the 48 foot height limit. The roof in this area extends up to 56 feet, which is 8 feet over the allowed height in the public accommodation zone district. The applicants have designed the roof as a modified parapet wall. The interior is flat with the exterior walls extending up to 56 feet.'. The flat area will be at a'48 foot height. Mechanical equipment will be located on the flat portion and will be surrounded with the sloping.portion of the roof.. This portion of the roof that surrounds the mechanical will be a void space and will contain no GRFA. Staff believes that the height in relation to the Village is: generally compatible. The peak of the tower at the Vail Village Inn (VVI) Phase V is 70 feet tall, and the eave is 5.0 feet. The high part of the proposed Sonnenalp structure is larger than the slender tower of VVI, but it will be 14 feet shorter. The Vail Village Master Plan .calls for structures on this portion .of the site to range from 3 to 4 stories. This part of the building falls into that range with the highest part of the tower having 4 floors. One of the benefits of locating the mechanical on the roof is that the noise and exhaust drafts caused by the. chillers will not impact adjacent properties. By locating the chillers on the.roof, the distance between` the chillers and the properties reduces the impacts on surrounding development. Other locations on the site where chillers could. be located would impact adjacent structures or public areas 'more: All of the west side of the site is adjacent to Vail Road. The north side is adjacent to Meadow Drive. The east side is adjacent to the Talisman, and the south side is adjacent to Gore Creek. If the mechanical equipment were located on the: ground; ' it would have to be screened. Staff would be concerned that a fence around the chillers would not be . easily integrated into a site plan, and that . the impacts from the mechanical would increase if located on the ground. 4 i b. Parking The amount of parking required for the addition is 36.7 or 37 spaces: The existing parking lot has 101 spaces in it. As a result, the total supply should be 138 spaces. The applicant is proposing, 108 spaces; including 12 valet, which is 21.7% less than the requirement. Variance to Supply Requirement: Staff understands that there are trade - offs between providing parking spaces and using. area within a parking lot for landscaping. Generally, additional landscaping within .the s parking lot improves the relationship to the surrounding uses and structures. Given that, staff believes the variance request to reduce the number of spaces required, and provide additional landscaping, improves the relationship to the surrounding area, especially given the _ staff's parking analysis for this property. Variance to Enclosure Requirement: Because 57% of the. parking will remain open, and because the Public Accommodation 'section of the. zoning code only allows 25% to remain open, the applicant needs a t variance. Ideally, the parking would be located underground; completely "screened." Staff has spent time in the `parking-lots of the Talisman and Sonnenalp, and has spent time discussing the landscaping issue with the architect. The proposed landscaping plan has been ` designed around the concept to 1) increase the amount of landscaping around the perimeter of the parking lot on the berm, 2) provide, to the extent possible, a band of landscaping running: through the central part of the parking lot, and 3) increase the amount of landscaping'at the base of the buildings. Staff believes this parking lot design is. a good, balance ' between supplying parking spaces and screening them with landscaping. 3 In addition to the landscaping to be located in the interior of the parking lot, the applicant will be reconstructing the . bus stop area, redesigning the area in front of the Swiss Haus entrance, and replacing G parking spaces by the loading dock with landscaping. Given these improvements, which all include landscaping, in addition to. the fact that the parking lot landscaping exceeds the code standard by 4 01b, staff believes the parking lot will be screened sufficiently from surrounding uses. Without the landscaping, staff believes the relationship of the proposal to the surrounding uses is unacceptable. r 5. 3 EE $ 2. C. Common Area Staff believes the amount of common area requested by the applicant affects the surrounding uses and structures in that. it adds somewhat to the mass and bulk of the proposed structure. Approximately half of the common area will be located in the basement levels. In general', staff believes the size of the structure is reasonable, and this variance request does not generate negative impacts. The structure has been designed so that it is 25.7% under the allowable site coverage: Given that the site coverage has not been maximized, the mass and bulk resulting from the additional common area is reasonable. Additional analysis of the mass and bulk of the structure will be provided under the Vail Village Master Plan section of this memo. a. Height The height variance is needed because the applicant is proposing to extend the roof to screen mechanical equipment. Because portions of most mechanical systems are located on the roofs of large buildings, staff believes there is not a grant of special privilege. The mechanical system for this building has been designed so that most of it is in the basement. A flue runs through the building from the basement mechanical area within the tower to this part of the roof.' Because of the locations of these parts of the mechanical system, locating the exterior portion of the mechanical system on the roof of the tower is logical. Given the design of the mechanical system, the applicants have attempted to screen the exposed part of the mechanical.by extending the roof. Staff believes this. is. a much more aesthetically pleasing solution than the typical screen wall found on other buildings. Staff did not believe that this part of the structure could be. approved without a variance, however. Though we determined. that it had to be considered as structure and not . an architectural projection, we believe it is a good design solution for an issue common to many large buildings inlown. 6 The purpose of the roof in this ' location is strictly to screen the mechanical. There is no GRFA within the structure that' exceeds the 48 1 foot height limit. Town staff believes the architect has Tanned ahead g P and incorporated the mechanical into the building. Given the comprehensive approach to the. design of this project, as well as the fact the purpose of the height variance is strictly to enclose the mechanical, staff can support this request. b. Parking Variance to Supply Rees uirement: The applicant is requesting a 21.7% variance to the parking standard; .78.3% of the requirement will be j provided. In 1989, the planning department staff did a study of parking lots within the Town. Staff determined the percentage of parking spaces utilized in many different lots during peak weekends between December 29 and July 1. The Bavaria Haus parking lot was one of those studied. Of the 21 times staff checked this parking lot, oily 2 times was it utilized more than 70 %. The applicants are proposing to supply 78.3% of the total requirement. The two times which did. exceed, this amount were December 30 between 11:00AM and 2:30PM and January 18 between 6:00PM- 7:00PM. The average utilization of this parking lot over the six month period was 55.2 %. Staff believes the proposed 78.3% will provide a reasonable number of spaces, given that there were few times when more spaces were needed. ' Staff is proposing to reduce the lodge parking requirement for the Town slightly, based on this parking analysis. The change will be proposed through the zoning code amendment process currently underway; The department feels comfortable with the reduction in parking as the property is a lodge use, and the reduction does not conflict with actual parking numbers' from the study. Providing spaces according to the study's conclusion is reasonable in this instance, and makes the general proposal compatible with actual demand for lodge parking within the 3 Town. Variance to Enclosure Requirement: Staff believes the applicant has ' included a reasonable number of landscaped island. s within the parking. lot, and has increased the amount of planting around the perimeter of the parking so that the goal of. screening it from the public has been i reasonably achieved. The fact that no spaces are. presently enclosed, and that some will be enclosed (16 spaces) is,an improvement to the appearance of the parking lot. In addition, the spaces along Vail Road by the loading dock will be removed, reducing the public's view of parking significantly. The fact that the applicant is exceeding the code 7 3. 'E standard for interior 'landscaping within -the parking lot, and thai'Ihe applicant is increasing the landscaping on the perimeter, :justify a variance to this requirement. Based on the appearance of the parking lot design, staff believes. it will be a compatible treatment with other sites in the vicinity. C. Common Area Most of the common area of the project is found in a few large. areas. These include the basement at approximately. 20;000 square feet, the spa area of approximately 10,0100 square feet, and the lobby at approximately 5,000 square. feet. The portion of the basement to be built under the auto court will be. built on two .levels and will be. able to structurally support automobiles. In the future, the applicant. inay construct underground parking garages, which will ne into these two levels. The hallways throughout the building make up tie remainder of the common area at approximately 15,000 square feet: The Town of Vail zoning code standard for common area in multi- family development has recently been increased from 20% of total GRFA to 35% of allowable GRFA; and has been defined in a new way. Though this project was submitted prior to the adoption of the new code, it is important to provide the background of the `code change for this memo. In the analysis of this code revision, staff took into account the many different kinds of multi- family development. On one end of the spectrum are residential condominium projects with very little common area, and on the other are. lodges that usually have a greater amount of common area. In order to balance. the two types of development, staff had recommended 35% for the code standard. The 35 %, however, reflects a compromise. Even during the zoning code; amendment process, staff acknowledged that some variances will still be needed for multi -use lodges, like the Sonnenalp. The effect of the Mguested variance on'light and:air, distribution of o ulation -transportation and traffic facilities ' -Olic facilities and utilities and Rublic safe!L. a. Height The one impact which the height of the building could: have on the above - referenced issues involves light and air. The shadow this building will create will be much less than what the previous proposal would have caused. :Staff,believes the 165 foot. setback from Meadow Drive to the wing parallel to Meadow Drive is adequate to protect 8 Meadow ]give from shade. The tower is closer to Meadow 'Drive than the rest of the building and may shade it for same "time. Staff believes the 56 height, the 100 foot setback, and the relatively .narrow tower" width of 40 feet, are such that the shadow impacts will be reasonable. b. Parking The proposed design. for the parking lot affects transportation and traffic facilities, specifically the circulation within the parking lot and access to the parking lots. Staff believes that, as a part of this approval, the Town should require the Sonnenalp to provide an access easement to the Talisman. Currently, the Talisman residents drive through the Sonnenalp parking lot to reach the. Talisman parking lot. Staff believes this solution works well and should be made permanent. In addition; the access easement from the Talisman parking lot to Meadow Drive should be abandoned. Staff believes this will insure the quality of the pedestrian area on Meadow Drive, insure public safety, and will maintain the functions of the existing transportation and traffic facilities in this part of Town. Staff does not believe there are any other impacts from the variance requests to the supply requirement or the enclosure requirements on the above- referenced criteria. C. Common Area The variance request for additional common area has no impact. on the above - listed issues. d. Transportation The Town's engineer has reviewed the proposal, and has. stated that any future expansion of the Sonnenalp, which may include commercial facilities, will require a left -hand turn lane to be built in Meadow Drive. As the building in the area of the auto court has been designed so that it does not encroach into the front setback, there is enough room for such a turn lane. However, some landscaping would need to be removed. At this time, a left -hand turn lane is not needed. 4. Other Factors and Criteria a. Landscaping There are six critical areas of the site where staff believes good landscaping treatment is critical. The first is the corner of Vail Road j' 3 and Meadow Drive. Currently there is an electrical switching gear station on the corner. The applicant has deleted the plan to build a wall around the switching gear to screen it. Instead, a softer treatment of landscaping will be used. The edge of the landscaping will be expanded into the street, where totems are currently located. The added landscaping will not impact .traffic flow, as pedestrians: are the only users of this part of the street. The second area of concern is the. bus stop along Meadow Drive. Currently the bus stop is situated between two railroad. tie wall planters. The concrete in the area has deteriorated. The applicant will be replacing the concrete with pavers and rebuilding the planter walls with boulders, if necessary. Additional landscaping will also be provided :in the area, which will also help to semen the parking lot. A third area of concern to the staff is the area' adjacent to the Swiss, Haus entrance. Though this area is not part of the Bavaria Haus parcel, the applicant is redesigning the fire access points in this area as 'a requirement of this "request. Fire trucks will not be able to access through the auto court. In, addition to relocating the planters to provide the correct angles for the fire trucks to get into the parkig areas, the applicant will add landscaping and pavers to the front of the Swiss Haus. A site plan will -be presented at the hearing showing details in this area. In addition, the applicant will extend the berm east along Meadow Drive to the fire access points. The fourth area of concern. to staff is located. adjacent to Vail Road by the loading dock area. The applicant will be removing six of the seven parking spaces in this area and replacing them with landscaping, In addition to the landsca in the a licant will be constructing a paver p g, pP sidewalk from the corner of Vail Road and Meadow Drive to the bridge over Gore Creek. Staff believes. these changes will be very positive. Another modification in this vicinity is an expansion of the Bully and reduction of the dining deck. The deck will be reduced by approximately 350 sq. ft. Staff believes the deck reduction is acceptable, given the landscape improvements; removal of parking,. and the fact that most of the dining deck remains Other areas of concern include landscaping on the interior of the parking lot as well as augmenting the existing landscaping on> the berm along Meadow Drive. The berm landscaping will be planted with approximately twice the number of existing bushes and trees. See discussion above relating to the parking lot interior landscaping. 10 } Staff has studied the stream tract between Willow Bridge Road and'Vail Road. We considered impacts to adjacent property owners and the stream environment, and believe that by benching the path in.-at. a lower grade from surrounding property and screening it with ;vegetation, pedestrians would have very little impact on lodge, guests: For example, the areas along the south side of the stream by River House, and. Edelweiss provide a reasonable alignment since the first floor of these structures are parking garages. Staff also believes that the kitchen, loading dock and conference facilities of the Bavaria Haus would not be impacted by a stream walk. Staff believes that .a sensitive alignment" would start by the Sonnenalp loading dock on the north side, continue east past the conference facilities, then cross over to the Edelweiss and the Summers Lodge ,properties. Staff thinks that it is important that the Sonnenalp's pool and garden area be designed to be pleasant for hotel guests as' well as to. be compatible with a stream walk. The applicant has designed the landscape plan identifying a narrow path alignment. Staff is concerned that the alignment is too narrow and that the Town land should not. be planted with vegetation that would be in conflict with the construction and location of a stream walk. Staff believes the alignment of the walk should be shown on the landscaping plan, and that an adequate buffer, 20 feet, around the path should be identified. This buffer is needed so that construction activities do not require cutting any trees down. In. addition, staff believes the sod area of the .pool area should be entirely contained on the private property of the Sonnenalp. The Town -owned stream tract should be preserved naturally, 'so that the eventual construction of the stream walk is not perceived as disrupting >a private area. We would want to see the path graded into the site with this proposal to minimize further disturbance. The applicant has agreed to remove the existing lights on Town of Vail property which illuminate the landscaping, and that no lights will be reinstalled without` Design Review Board approval. C. Employee Housing With the adoption of the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on November 20, 1990, housing is an issue that must be addressed with applications such as these. At .this time, the report has been adopted and provides guidelines for new development. The report's recommendations are currently being incorporated into the Zoning Cade. The Land Use Plan also calls for employee housing by stating: " ■ ■ t Coal 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." 3 3 Although the applicant believes no additional employees will be generated as a result of this redevelopment, staff believes a redevelopment of this magnitude should have some permanent employee housing located on site or off site. The housing analysis equates square footage to number of employees, and though conceptual as to recommendations, suggests a certain number of employees for different types of uses. The report is being prepared by Rosall; Remmen and Cares. The recommendations are based on surveys of businesses. in ' Eagle, Routt, Summit, Pitken and Blair (Sun Valley) counties. Based on the information in the study, the increased floor areas will generate a need for additional employees, as shown in the tables below: Existing Proposed 1986 1991 Difference Spa 403 9,693.1 9;290.1 Common 3,061 4,328.7 1,267.7 Accessory •5,623 8,704.4 3,081:4 Rooms 80 90 10 I Preliminary Housing Study Increase in Employer Number of Floor Area Sp: Ft. Ratio* Additional Em lo` ees Spa Area 9,290.1 1/1000 9.3 Conference Facilities 1,267.7 1/1000 1.3 Restaurant/Bar Area 3,081.4 5/1000 15.4 Ikooms 10 .25 /room 2.55 28.5 Total Employees Employees /sq. ft. There are two methods of calculating the number of restricted dwelling units to be requested. The first recommended in the affordable housing study suggests that developers house 15% of the. employees required by expansions. This first method was intended to be applied to "by.right" projects. The second, which is intended to be used for those projects 12 z requesting square footage above what the .code allows,: recommends 'the applicant deed restrict enough housing units to cover 300/,) of `the additional employees. Using the first method, 15% of the 28.5 additional employees would result in 4.2 additional employees requiring housing. Assuming that 2' employees will share a dwelling unit, the 4.2 is divided by 2 resulting in 2.1 or 2 dwelling units, t The method which is required to be used for projects involving variances would be as follows: 28.5x.30 =8.6 8.612 = 4.2 or 4 dwelling units Staff believes that, because the spa area, the conference facilities, and the restaurant/bar area contribute to the variance request; ;the , applicant must provide housing for these areas. Because the applicant is not over on GRFA or density, staff believes it would be reasonable not to require ` employees for that portion of the expansion.. By deleting the GRFA component out of the equations, the first scenario would be as follows: € 26.0 employees x .15 = 3.9 is 3.9 / 2 = 1.95 or 2 dwelling units The second method of calculation would .be as follows: 26 x .3 = 7.8 y 7.812 = 3.9 or 4 dwelling units The Sonnenalp employs approximately 270 employees during the winter season. Of these, the Sonnenalp currently provides housing for approximately 145 employees. 33 dwelling 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 2 Sonnenalp employees. Staff acknowledges that the applicant has voluntarily addressed the need for housing. However, in staff's opinion, it is not appropriate to rely on an employer's past record to solve the housing issue in our community. ' We believe that some of the housing privately held should be `deed restricted to insure its. perpetual use as employee housing, or uew housing units should be constructed on site. Staff believes that, for this request, the recommendations from the housing study.should be 3 13 i implemented. Specifically, staff recommends that for the areas requiring a variance, housing should be deed restricted for 30 %o of the employees. In other words, 3.9 (or 4.0) dwelling units should .be restricted. B. Vail Village Master Plan The portions of the Vail Village Master Plan which pertain to this pro_ ject include three subarea concepts and five illustrative plans. 1. Subarea concepts. a. Subarea .l -2 Vail -Road. Intersection. Subarea 1-2 states that: "Possible realignment of intersection in conjunction with relocation of 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 froze 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 be improved." Staff Response: Staff believes this subarea concept has been addressed, as the applicant will be .building a sidewalk from this intersection to Gore Creek along Vail Road. In addition, the landscaping to be planted in front of the transformer should ; improve the appearance of this intersection. b. Subarea 1 -3 Sonnenalo (Bavaria Haus) Infill. Subarea 1 -3 states that: "Commercial infill development with; second floor residential/lodging to enclose Meadow Drive and 4o improve the quality of 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. Klass 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." 14 atr 3 , Staff Response: ` Shading on Meadow Drive is no longer an' z k impact with this project. Because the applicant: has chosen to s renovate h existing in of the buildin there is now a 16 t ee gw g g,. foot distance between the edge of Meadow Drive and the east wing of the building. The adjacent surface parking and removal of most - of the planting island in the center of the existing parking lot' reduces the quality of the pedestrian experience along Meadow Drive. The additional landscaping to be planted in the berm along Meadow Drive helps provide some enclosure to Meadow: Drive, and screening of the parking. The ;bus stop improvements also will comply with this subarea concept. C. Subarea l -9 - Study Area: Village .Stream Walk.: "Study, of a walking only path along Gore Creek between the' Covered Bridge and Vail Road, connecting to existing stream walk, i 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. " Staff Response: Staff believes this element can be reasonably incorporated into the proposed design and site plan. We believe this amenity s in the best interests of the community and can be Y Y, added to the site plan without impacting the Sonnenalp Hotel. Appropriate creek crossings, and grading which provides for the trail to be benched in at a lower elevation than the pool, can be done in a way that is compatible with the courtyard area of the hotel, and should be shown on the site plan as discussed. above. 2. illustrative Plans a. Illustrative Plan - Land Use 1. 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 limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270,000 sq. ft. of retail space, and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of the Village." 15 t E Staff Response: The commercial `retail has been deleted from the previous proposal. As a result, the .hotel facility will not have as many uses as the Land Use Illustration. Plan calls fox. There still will be restaurant and bar use open to the. public. 2. South Side of Sonnenalp Site Medium /high density residential and mixed use. Medium/high density. "The overwhelming majority of the Village is 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.. his the goal of this plan to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging oriented, with retail development limited to small amounts of accessory retail." Mixed use. "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 sq. ft. of retail space, and approximately 320 residential units, the. in use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of the Village." Staff Response: The project complies with the designation of medium/high density, as it is nearly at the maximum allowed number of accommodation units. for the property. The fact that all of the units will be accommodation units is a positive benefit to the Village. b. Illustrative Plan - Open Space The plan calls for: 1. A planted buffer is to be created on the corner of Vail. Road and Meadow Drive. 2. Plazas with green space are to be created between the Sonnenalp and Phase V, as well as between the Talisman and VVI sculpture plaza. 3. Open space is designated along the entire stream corridor. 16 Staff Response: 1. Planted Buffer: Staff believes: that the additional landscaping on the corner of Vail Road and Meadow Drive fulfills this element. 2. Plazas: With the renovation of the bus stop and the reworking of the Swiss Haus entry, the two areas shown on' the. illustrative plan for plazas will be improved. Full scale plazas, as shown on the illustrative plan, as well as the 'Vail Streetscape Plan are not appropriate. to require from the developer at this time; as a future commercial expansion may affect the design of these areas. Staff believes the work that will be done in these two areas is in compliance with the concepts of the illustrative plan. 3. Open Space Corridor: See discussion under stream walk above. C. illustrative Plan - Parking and Circulation The plan designates: 1. East Meadow Drive. as a bus route and pedestrian street with plazas; and 2. The Gore Creek corridor as a study area for a walking path. Staff Response: East Meadow Drive will continue to function as it does now. We recommend that the access easement for the Talisman be vacated as discussed above, so that access onto Meadow Drive can be avoided, and the pedestrian nature of Meadow Drive can be preserved. Staff believes, the proposal should incorporate a stream walk. d. Illustrative Plan = Building Height The area along East Meadow Drive is. recommended to be a maximum of two to three stories. Three to four stories are designated on the southern. 3/4 of the property, Staff is pleased the current proposal complies with the height plan. A majority of the facade along Vail Road is three stories high, with the building going as high as four stories at two locations.. The center of the site. includes a wing that goes as high as four stories, which complies with the designation of the height plan. 17 t ;proposed design is a solution that integrates the screening into the building well Analysis o -parking demands in the Town suggests that the code requirements exceed the utilization demands, and that as a rule, lodges do not require as much parking as the zoning code requires. Lastly, the increase in common area is not an.uncommon occurrence. Common. areas for full service resort hotels typically exceed the amount allowed by code, as `the code t requirement pertains to several different types of multi - family development. Concerning the second finding, staff believes that none of the requested variances will be ! detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Concerning the third finding, staff believes that strict interpretation of the code regarding Height would result in a practical difficulty. Locating the mechanical equipment on the roof Y Is a reasonable solution that is commonly done. Locating it elsewhere on the site would not be as practical, and would possibly result in greater impact to adjacent properties. Staff believes a strict enforcement of the parking regulation is not necessary, based on staff research, and that enforcement of that,regulation would be an unusual and.unnecessary requirement of the Sonnenalp lodge. Concerning common area,;.staff believes; again, that a strict enforcement of the common area regulations is not in line with what many of the other lodges in town enjoy, and that a strict enforcement is not appropriates 'Wherefore, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the three variance requests for the Sonnenalp renovation, with the following conditions of approval: 1. Prior to .Design Review Board approval, the applicant shall submit a site plan showing in detail the descriptions of the following areas, as referenced on' the site plan elated July 8, 1991: a. The corner of Meadow Drive and Vail Road shall include vertical landscaping to screen the transformer, and shall be approved by the Town'Enginem b. Detailed information as to the quantity, species and size of landscaping -to be planted at the base of the building shall be provided. This landscaping should include a variety of trees, including aspen and 'spruce. C. The bus stop plans shall be drawn in detail to show seatirng, pavers, boulder. retainage (instead of ties), pedestrian access to the parking lot, as well as landscaping. i d. The berm along Meadow Drive shall be extended as far east as possible, approximately to the fire access points The amount of landscaping along the i berm: shall be approximately doubled. e. All landscaped islands within the parking lot shall include coniferous and deciduous trees. I 19 f. The fare access to be built between the Talisman and gonnenalp parking lots shall be constructed out of pavers, and shall be designed to replace the existing access between the two areas. An landsca in that is to be reinoveel shall be Any P g replaced. within the parking lots in a different location. g. A fire access turn around shall be designed in front of the Talisman to meet the standards of the Town of Vail Fire Department. Access onto Meadow Drive via the recorded easement shall not be an option to meet the Fire Department access requirements. The area in front of the Swiss Haus entrance shall be redesigned to accommodate fire.truck.access. A combination of landscaping and pavers shall be planned in this area to create ;a plaza, according to the concepts of the Streetscape plan. h. The applicant shall comply with the staff recommendations, on the stream walk. found in Section 4b of the memo. The alignment of the walk shall be indicated on the landscape plan, a 20 foot buffer be provided for construction of the walk, and preliminary grading for the path included in the landscape plan. (If the PEC does not concur with this condition, staff believes all proposed landscaping on the Town of Vail stream tract shall 'be removed from the landscape plan.) Town -owned land shall be revegetated after construction to a natural state, and shall not ;be mowed or incorporated into the pool, courtyard area. i. All landscaped lighting on Town of Vail. land shall be removed ' as part of the renovation. Any new landscape lighting to be installed shall first be approved by the Design Review Board. 2. Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the renovation, the applicant shall: a. Provide detailed engineering drawings of the curb and'. gutter and sidewalk i along Vail Road for the review and approval of the Town Engineer: b. Dedicate an access easement from Vail Road to the Talisman ,parking lot. i Additionally, the existing access easement from Meadow Drive to the Talisman. parking lot shall be vacated: C. Dedicate 4.0 employee units according to Section 18.13.080(B) of the Town of j. Vail Zoning Code. 1pectonenal ftariance.708 i I. 20 ' y i� 4 ' a PROJECT DATA A. Total Floor Areas Common Area Accessory Area GRFA Mechanical aseinent 15,651.2 4,328.7 - 3,734;6 First Floor 16,794.6 8,704.4 782.0 62.9 Second Floor 5,481.9 - 23,812.4 111.0 Third Floor 4,813.7 - 20,068.2 180.5 Fourth Floor 3,045.7 - 11,611.7 200.8 Lofts - - 2,476:0 - Totals: 50,145.8 8,704.4 58,750.3 4,289.9. Grand Total: 121,890.4 i B. Site Coverage Allowed: 88,165.4 x .55 = 48,491.0 sq. ft. Proposed: Vail Road Wing (Including conference area underneath Ludwig's Deck): 25,973 Meadow Drive Wing: +10,060.5: Total: 36,033 sq. ft. C. Parking Requirements Vail Road Wing Meadow Drive,Wing AUs/Parking Spaces AUs/Parking Spaces Pasement AUs 0/0 spaces 0/0 spaces First Floor AUs 2/1.6 spaces 0/0 Second Floor AUs 25/23 spaces 15/14.5 spaces Third Floor AUs 23121.5 spaces 10/10 spaces i Fourth Floor AUs 6/6 spaces 9/9 spaces wi Total: 85.6 parking spaces for the Accommodation Units: i Bar/Restaurant Area - 6,360.1 / 15 / 8 = 53.0 ( Meeting Room Area - 4,328.7 / 151 8 / 2 = 18.0 Accommodation Units - +85.6 Total: 156.6 spaces Total From Above: 156.6 spaces Multi -Use Credit - -2.5% _ - 3.9 spaces 152.7.spaces^ i von- Conforming Amount Approved in 1986: - 15.0 °spaces Total: 137.7 or. 138 spaces Amount Proposed: 108 spaces i Deficit: 30 spaces or 21.7% - 21 �s calculations, staff is combining the two categories, as prescribed in Section 18:22.090. Regarding parking, the applicants are required to provide a total of 138 spaces'. Of these, 37 are required for the addition. 101 spaces were provided for the 1986 approval. The applicants are proposing a total of 129. spaces, or 27 new spaces. The 129 spaces falls 6.5% short of the code requirement of 138. 75% of the required new spaces, or 28 spaces,`should be enclosed. The applicant proposed to locate 16 within the auto court, which is only 43% of the requirement. Of the 129 total number of spaces provided, 14 are valet. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS 3 Lot Area: 2.024 acres or 88,165.4 sq. ft. Zoning: Public Accommodation Allowed Proposed Difference AU 100 or 90 (10) DU 50 (25 du /ac) 0 NIA GRFA 70,532.4 (80 %) 58,750.1 (11:,782.1) Accessory 7,053(10%) 8,704.4 (12.3 %) 1,6514 over Common* 24,686.3 (35 %) 45,817.1.(56%) 25,459.5 over Common Meeting Room ** -- .4,328.7 4,328:7 r Parking *. 138 129 (9) Site Coverage 48,490.9 36,033 (12,457.9) f Height* 48 feet 56 feet 8 over * Categories needing variances Meeting rooms broken out to determine parking requirement. For floor area calculations, meeting rooms are considered common area: III. ORGANIZATION OF STAFF MEMO j i Before comparing the proposal to the standards the Town uses to evaluate development, staff will first. discuss issues related to the project. These include height,. parking, landscaping, common area and the stream walk. Next, staff will analyze the proposal using. three j. documents which pertain to this site and this request: the variance criteria, the Vail Village Master Plan, and the Streetscape Plan. At the end of the memo are tables shoWing`the detailed information of the project. IV. ISSUES A. Height One portion of the building exceeds the 48 foot height limit. The roof in this area. extends up to 56 feet as proposed at this rime. This height is 8 feet over the allowed 2 A i ' height in the public accommodation. zone district, which is 48 feet The applicants have designed the roof in this area so that the interior part is flat. The flat.area will be at a 48 foot height. The mechanical equipment will be located on the flat portion j and will be screened with the sloping portion of the roof that extends up to 56 feet. I The mechanical equipment to be located in this area includes three chillers. These' chillers are approximately 10 feet wide, 12 feet lon$ and `8 feet high. The chillers' j function is to cool the building. According to the applicant, it was not `possible to install air conditioning equipment since the floor to ceiling heights in the existing part of the building do not allow for duct work. The chillers will cool water which,, can be sent to the rooms through pipes which will take up less space than the duct work. The 'r chillers work best when exposed to the air, and "most are :situated on roofs:. The two options the applicant has for the chillers' location include the roof or the ground. Wherever they are located, staff believes they must be screened. In addition, staff understands that they make a significant amount of noise, and have a heavy exhaust. Staff believes that to reduce the impact on adjacent properties, they should be ` ,Located as far as possible from the periphery of the Sonnenalp property. The height in relation to the Village appears compatible to staff. The peak of the tower at the Vail Village Inn (VVI) Phase V is 70 feet tall, and. the eave. is' S0 feet: The high part of the proposed Sonnenalp structure is larger than the slender tower. of VVI, but it will be 14 feet shorter. The Vail. Village Master;Plan calls for structures on this portion of the site to range from 3 to .4 stories. This .part of the building falls j -' into that range with the highest part of the tower having, approximately ,4 floors. i i C B. Parking The amount of parking required for the addition is 36.7 or 37 spaces. The existing, C parking lot has 101 spaces in it. As .a result, the total supply should be 138 spaces. i The applicant is proposing 129 spaces, including 14 valet, which is 6.5% less than the ' requirement. The. code requires that 75% of the required parking, or 27 spaces, be.. ' enclosed. The applicant is proposing to enclose 16 spaces, which is 43 %." One of C staff's primary concerns with the overall proposal is the., fact. that the" surface parking will remain.. Staff understands that there are tradeoffs between providing the parking spaces, and using area within a parking lot for landscaping. In.discussions with the applicant, he concurred with the staff concerns and generated a drawing, for" discussion purposes only, which shows landscaping islands in te paking'lot and removes. the . parking along Vail Road. The plan removes 15 spaces, and would require 4.17.4 %. variance to the parking requirement. In other words, the `actual ,su l would only be p g q pp Y Y 82.6% of the requirement, or 24 spaces under, the amount required by code. In 1989, staff did an analysis of parking demand throughout the. Town'' The Sonnenalp was one of the parking lots evaluated,. , and from December, 29, 1988 to July 1, 1989, staff checked the Sonnenalp parldng lot .19 times. Only 3 of those' 19 times 3 i C. Landscaping There are five areas of the site .where staff believes the landscaping. could be augmented. The first is the corner of Vail Road and Meadow Drive. Currently there is an electrical switching gear station on the corner. The applicant proposes to build a wall around the switching gear to screen it. Staff is concerned that this maybe equally hard and believes that a softer treatment may be more appropriate. Staff sees an opportunity to work with Public Works and possibly expand the area of landscaping on this corner. The second area, as discussed in the section above, is the landscaping within the parking lot. Staff believes that it is critical to have islands within the parking lot'that break up the asphalt and screen the building. The third area of concern is the bus stop area. Currently the bus stop is situated between two railroad tie wall planters. The concrete in the area has deteriorated. Staff believes that replacing the concrete with pavers and redoing the planter walls with boulders would be a significant improvement for the hotel guest's and public. A fourth area of concern to the staff is the area adjacent ,to the Swiss Maus entrance: Though this area is not part of the Bavaria Haus parcel, the applicant is redesigning the fire access points in this area. Staff believes that in addition to .relocating the' planters to provide the correct angles for the fire trucks to get into the parking areas, the applicant should consider additional landscaping an d possibly improve the surface. by removing the asphalt and installing pavers or flagstone per the Vail Village Master. Plan. The fifth area of concern to staff is located. adjacent to Vail Road by the loading dock area. The applicant has said that he is willing to remove the seven parking spaces' in this area and replace them with landscaping. In addition to the landscaping, the applicant has said he is willing to construct a sidewalk, made from pavers. or flagstone, from the corner of Vail Road and Meadow Drive to the bridge over'Gore Creek. This change has a very positive impact on the project and public pedestrian areas Another modification in :this vicinity is an expansion: of the Bully :and reduction 'of the dining deck. The deck will be reduced by approximately 350 sq. ft..Staff° believes the deck reduction is acceptable, given the landscape improvements, removal of parking, and the fact -that most of the dining deck remains: 4 i` j. D. Common Area The Town of Vail zoning code standards for common area in multi - family development has recently been increased from 20% of total GRFA to 35% of total GRFA. In addition, common area is defined in a new way. In the analysis of this' code revision, staff took into account the many different kinds of multi - family , development. On one end of the spectrum are residential condominium projects with very little common area, and on the other are lodges that usually have a greater amount of common area. In order to balance. the two types of development; staff had recommended 35% for the code standard. Staff acknowledges that there are still ; cases, such as a lodge like the Sonnenalp, which will `need additional" common. area. Significant areas of common area in this proposal include the basement at approximately 20,000 square feet, and the spa area of approximately 10,000, square " feet, and the lobby at approximately 5,000 square feet. The "portion of ,the basement to be built under the auto court will be built on two levels and will be able to structurally support automobiles. In the future, ;the applicant may construct underground parking i garages, which will tie into these two levels. The hallways throughout the - building make up the remainder of the common area and are approximately, 15,000 square feet. E. Stream Walk Staff has studied the stream tract between Willow Bridge Road. considered impacts to adjacent property owners and the stream 'environment. By benching the path in at a lower grade from surrounding property and screening it with vegetation, f staff believes that pedestrians would have very little impact on lodge guests. Staff will present some conceptual alignments as well as conceptual sections of the stream i i walk during the work session. In general, staff believes that the areas along the south side of the stream by River House and Edelweiss provide a reasonable alignment, because the first floor of these structures are parking garages. In addition there is adequate space between` these structures and the edge of the stream. Staff also believes that the kitchen, loading dock and conference facilities of the Bavaria Haus are not impacted by a stream walk. Staff believes that starting the stream walk, by the Sonnenalp loading'dock on the north side, continuing east past" the conference facilities, then crossing over to the I Edelweiss and the Summers Lodge properties is a sensitive alignment. Staff thinks that it is important to design the Sonnenalp's pool and garden area so :that it is pleasant for hotel guests as well as compatible with a stream walks. Staff believes that a shared use of the public laud between the Sonnenalp" and the stream tract is possible. The applicant could landscape a portion of the'area for. guests, and screen it from the stream walk. At the same time, grading could be done to bench iii. the path at a lower level from the rest of the landscaping: Given the 'requested variances and I,..,rn,_.,sZF..., ... .- ..:,x... Vail Village Master plan, staff suggests that the best means to address ibis issue is ''or the applicant to contribute financially to the construction of the segment of the path from the base of Vail Road Bridge to the future bridge connection adjacent to the pool. This segment is approximately 270 linear feet. The path would have. similar characteristics as the stream walk behind the Vail Athletic Club (like. a crusher fines to surface ). F. Employee Housing The Sonnenalp currently employs approximately 270 employees duringthe winter. season. According to the applicant, the proposed redevelopment would 'not .require :the. need for any additional employees. The Sonnenalp currently provides housing for approximately 145 employees. 33 dwelling 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 2 Sonnenalp employees. 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 guidelines for new development. The report's recommendations are currently being incorporated into the Zoning Code. In addition, the Land Use Plan calls for employee housing by stating: Goal 5.3 - "Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided' by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions." Although the applicant believes no additional: employees will be. generated as a result of this redevelopment, staff believes a redevelopment of this magnitude should have some permanent employee housing located on site or off site; If the PEC agrees with the staff that the issue of employee housing needs to be fully explored with regard to this redevelopment, the staff will need more information regarding the numbers of employees at the Sonnenalp before an accurate housing demand can be completed. 4: b. Subarea 1-1 - gonnenal� Mavc�!a NauO InPi'll gubarea..1-1 states that: "Commercial infill development with second flooT residential/lodgin to enclose Meadow Drive aft&to i e the 9 mprov quality of pedestrian experience. Designated walkways and plazas with green space should interface with those of the. Vail Village Inn. Apedestrian 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: Shading on Meadow Drive is no longer an impact given this project. Because the. applicant. has chosen to renovate the existing wing of the building, there is now a 150 foot distance between the edge of Meadow Drive and the east wing of the building. The adjacent surface parking and removal of most of the planting island in the center of the existing parking lot does very little for the pedestrian experience along Meadow Drive. As a result, staff believes. additional landscaping should be planted, in the berm along Meadow Drive. C. Subarea 1-9 - Study Area: Village. Stream Walk.' "Study of a w ng only path along Gore Creek between the Covere. alki d 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. Staff Response: Staff believes this: element can be reasonably incorporatedinto the proposed design and site plan. We believe this amenity is in the best interests of the com ' u m . nity, and can be added to the site plan without impacting the Sonnenalp Hotel.. Appropriate creek crossings, and. grading which provides. fo r the trail to be benched in at a lower elevation thanthe pool, can be done in a way that is compatible, with the courtyard area of the hotel. 8 L. s i i f 'r. i t t Illustrative Plans a. Illustrative Plan - Land Use 1. 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 limited amount of office use. are found in this category. With nearly 270,000 sq. ft. of retail space,, and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed;use. character of these areas is a. major factor in the appeal of the Village." Staff Response: The commercial retail has been deleted from the previous, proposal. As a result, ,the hotel facility will not have as many uses as the Land Use Illustration Plan calls for: There still will be restaurant and bar use open to the public.., 2. South Side of Sonnenalp Site = Medium/high density residential and mixed use. Medium/high density. "The overwhelming majority of the Village is 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 the goal of this plan to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging oriented, with retail development limited to small amounts .of accessory retail." Mixed use. "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 sq.. ft. of retail space, and approximately 320 residential units,' the mixed use character'of these areas is a major factor in the appeal: of the Village." Staff Response; The project complies with the designation of medium/high density, as it is nearly at the . maximum allowed number of accommodation units for the property. The fact that all of the units will be accommodation units is a positive benefit to the Village. 9 s r I i i 3 i. G b. Illustrative Plan - Open Space The plan calls for; 1. A planted buffer is to be created on the corner of Vail Road and Meadow Drive. 2. Plazas with green space to be created between the Sonnenalp; and Phase V, as well as .between the Talisman and VVI sculpture ` plaza. 3. Open space is designated along the entire stream corridor. Staff Response: 1. Planted Buffer: Staff believes there could be additional landscaping on the corner of Vail Road and Meadow Drive. 2. Plazas on Meadow Drive: The staff believes it is premature. to require the applicant to design or construct either. the two plazas called for on Meadow Drive. The streetsc.ape plans show plazas in the same two areas. However, because all the information necessary to construct these areas is not currently, available, staff believes it would not .be wise to have any of: them built at, this time. 'Instead, staff proposes the east. bound bus stop area be improved and the area in front of the Swiss Haus be reworked with additional landscaping and pavers. 3. Open Space Corridor: See discussion under stream walk above. C. Illustrative Plan - Parking and Circulation The plan designates: 1. East Meadow Drive as a bus route and pedestrian street with plazas; and 2. The Gore Creek corridor as a study area for a. walking path. Staff Response: East Meadow Drive will continue to function as it does now. Staff believes the proposal should incorporate a stream walk. We would like to see an access easement for the Talisman finalized so that access off of Meadow Drive can be avoided for the Talisman. 10 VI. PROMCT DATA A. Total Floor Areas Common Area Accessory Area. GRFA Mechanical Basement 20,009.9 - - 3,734:6 First Floor 16,794.6 8,704.4 782.0. 62.9 Second Floor 5,481.9 - 23,812.4 111.0 Third Floor 4,813.7 - 20,068.2 180,5 Fourth Floor 3,045.7 - 11,611.3 200'8 Lofts - - 2,476.0 - Totals: 50,145.8 8,704,4 ' 58750.3 4,2899 Grand Total: 121,890.4 3 B. Site Coverage Allowed: 88,165.4 x .55 = 48,491.0 sq. ft. Proposed: Vail Road Wing (Including conference area undemeath.Ludwig's Deck): 25,973 Meadow Drive Wing: +10,060.5 Total: 36,033 sq. ft. I. (40:8 %) j i 12 3 r s C. Parking Requirements Bar/Restaurant Area - 6,360.1 115 18 = 53.0 Meeting Room Area - 4,328.7 / 15 / 8 / 2 = 18.0 Accommodation Units - +85.6 Total: 156.6 spaces ' Vail Road Wing Meadow Drive Wing AUs/Parking Soaces AUs/Parking :Spaces Basement AUs 0/0 spaces 0/0 spaces First Floor AUs 2/1.6 spaces 0/0 Second Floor AUs 25/23 spaces 15/14.5 spaces ' Third Floor AUs 23/21.5 spaces 10/10 spaces Fourth Floor AUs 6/6 spaces 9/9 spaces Total: 85.6 parking spaces.for the Accommodation Units. i Total From Above: 156.6 spaces Multi -Use Credit - -2.5% _ - 3.9 spaces 152:7 spaces Ton- Conforming Amount Approved in 1986: - 15.0 spaces. Total: 137.7 or 138 spaces Amount Proposed: 129 spaces Deficit: 9 spaces or 6.5% c: �pecksonenalpWorksess.624 r s i �. � 7 2. w/♦ T x i l r. e a� a �1 14 .i�% �J J ir s� " b 2 [� 4r T k NJ z 1 �otl a� a �1 14 1! 50 I 4e w `K . — C .i�% n+a z ir s� " b 3 ow e � � Q0 Sr 1! 50 I 4e w `K . — C .i�% n+a z ir s� " b 3 1! 50 I 4e w `K . — C i. � L � v -D� Z �3 n z V � h 1 1 Ciao h r, fA. Y i I Ise 'f 1. �' •,r� ". . - � � i a. it� #�f'i ��. iT4l� v p ivk '.�3 n ,F • M1•1• s � s .. i i� Y36*��Y F .t l S� X! I IT i t' 4• j i ' �• 0. . 5 3 S • b t {L _ j .�� .. ... . _ . , .. r _, ., , e .. "irl .., •�'' ... �i dr.. ..iii'.= ..�.Y�2%12�. s`ddJlv'"�A+R� w-^'R h ak �a �.. a. :off. �. wwrk... w..tlPMNrrMr. �Mr.pw..ARiiA... ..rwwrarrrrmerr.u. � � r:wrrrrwwasuuues.. serww ■wswwwnrrlw!■wwl, .r.lrrr1r�•rrrwtlwer!lrreerrrr.r. � .r!►�rN11R� ■AMPl�Rl9ri�le4 /swirl. r.erkrtlA \^ewwewwwsw ulwsrsrrrA.•s.ee � . rrrr. wAwe 'rrw *wrwRw�raar...A.wwrwatltllL. ..wew•1wl1f1.a` wowwww ■!1 ■ ■ ■wl ■w. i.l..lrp. ... Pa. M.w, wr.ewe.r.i....w..wrrr.....R. :urifrwslilsw }ANRiiEMPOtliiwmanM aiiiiriBiw� . r •n ww wrww wwa sw wr IN CENSURE w!!tl ON i a a! H. r w e wm A. � . w. r. Mi. r�.R.R.....+rrr.rrr.r.........r �j iiwealstirww. waewwaw/ ul l.�rwlq.miswwsaswrlesseereHrme� 1i AwRRPRtlIl. rrrrYRa�lereia /Iwrrwtltlmsenmr9.mra gmq� �iwiar.:.. eww• w .wwnnwwswMri..l............Arl. ..... ... eH���YH�aiii.WpgpywH.f es Yix�. .......w.....rp..rrr..... •' rr• rw.. w000. lRRwf wwwwww .!■wowman lselrlawaiwf.wr.peOR* . ... •,.. RwIr��Rwrrr r etM w R 6. P a\ \:!r r r e r e tl w /rs H k! �� iH � �� p w m e. !�'....A..A.rrYrwG���Y�1• �rrr..Y.... ............r .........�.aa�pq�AA +.PA.•... ............... isfww.:wiwwv.P............rr. .a.a.. wywi•++1� iwiwwirwwriwiaii Mon -P. Rieu ,..v.erwwwrrw . pMMRA. IRP .e.P.A.retltlrw.....!.........• ..RAP..:.krY.PR♦ r� • . I�` ��1 s�1 +oj4 a ®� oo0ao 6 °iii ®off °`op4' �soo�ooi +e °OOdO�°oo�► °e�id�oeotoi °e ®d � �9 .� •.w w °wiP1� dew i�a a1 l.� � Ii.I y I III V � • � 1i •:J �A c' f i 77 1 • �'G''� Y .♦ b. L i � - .. .. W .. .. _ o JJ - Z - a n w m 17.7 r �r a a u - O _ N � r +Np Its w C Q a� qY V JYr� x 9 YL 9Y�Y 11 ytlOf} y N+aaMI����� w Q VIF 3 al y, y co ��ai � • P NI •saz pal O Cp�l Q � f J W � e N N 11 11 N 11 - V a fi. 4%.1. 1 1LLL1L111% 1111Ld -1-W.... LOLL VJl1LL1L1LJ L1l.Val - - __ FROM: Community Development Department BATE: June 24, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot O, Block 5 -D, Vail. Village.First Filing. Applicant: Josef Staufer Planner: Mike Moliica I. INTRODUCTION Josef Staufer, owner and developer of the Vail Village Inn, has filed a request `for an amendment to Special Development District No. 6, for his property located at 100 East Meadow Drive. The purpose of this SDD amendment is to allow; for the redevelopment of a portion of the final phase (Phase IV) of the Vail Village Inn SDD. For clarification purposes, taff will call this redevelopment request Phase IV-A. The Vail Village Inn has an existing approved development plan'for the entirety of Phase IV. 'his development plan was approved through Ordinance 14, Series of 1987 (May,. 1:987). Additionally, Ordinance 24, Series of 1989 (November, 1989); modified the density section of the 1987 ordinance by increasing the allowable GRFA. These two ordinances are still valid for SDD No. 6, and have been. included as Exhibits 'A and B attached to this memorandum. The staff recommends that the PEC review these ordinances to fully understand the background and prior approvals for the Vail Village Inn before proceeding further in this memorandum. A brief summary of said ordinances is listed below in Section Ill of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant's redevelopment proposal includes the upgrade and renovation of the east building which currently houses the hotel lobby, front desk area, and. the Coyote Bar, as well as the adjacent Pancake House Building to the west. " Included in the redevelopment of the `!east" building would be the addition of two residential levels above the existing structure;, which would be used specifically as accommodation units (hotel room's): There would be a total of 13 additional accommodation units, comprising 5,933 sq. ft. of GRFA. One additional gas burning fireplace is proposed in the largest accommodation unit on the top i s 1 .. � �. ..> � :a .0 ..., .. _.. v..' .i .. . _. .,a.,,_. .. . r.!z-.'�5i .,3 .,.. .. _s`tk? °fir.: x , � ., _ . �:,��r.= ��'nacr a>'•.ie�': wry ,. �..�. #§+a.,�?s ;," floor. An elevator is proposed to be constructed at the southwest corner of the building, " which would access all four floors. Additionally, the existing meeting room which is located on the second floor; would be expanded to the south by infilling, an existing deck. This additional square footage would consist of approximately 243 sq. ft. of floor area. The proposed improvements to the Pancake House Building include. a new roof structure, and painting and/or staining the building to match the remodeled building to the east. It is proposed that the new portions of this building be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system. Site improvements called for in this redevelopment plan would include the addition of 14 surface parking spaces. Ten of these parking spaces would be considered regular spaces, and the remaining four spaces would be classified as valet -type spaces. These valet spaces would be reserved for exclusive use by employees of the Vail Village Inn, and the location of these spaces would be to the northwest of the Village Inn Pancake House restaurant and immediately east of the Gateway Plaza Building. The proposal also calls for limited landscaping improvements. Specifically, the applicant. is proposing one additional new planter, which would be located on the west side of the main entrance at the South Frontage Road. III. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY A. The following are the existing phases of the Vail Village Inn: 3 Phase I - This consists of the buildings located at the southeast corner of the VVI property, and includes one dwelling unit of approximately 4,000 sq. ft. in size, as well as the following commercial establishments: Alpenrose Restaurant, Ambrosia Restaurant, Village Inn Travel, Village Inn Sports; Houston Gallery, Gold of Vail, Village Inn Plaza Liquors, Eve's, and Total Beauty. Phase II - This phase consists of three residential dwelling units of approximately 3,500 sq. ft. in size, as well as the following commercial establishments: International Gallery, Unique Art, and Tezla. Phase III - Phase III is located at the northeast corner of the .VVI property. and consists of 29 residential dwelling units, with approximately 44,830 sq. ft. of GRFA, and the following commercial establishments: Driscol Gallery, Velveteen Rabbit, Kitchenworks, Vail Antiques, Annie's' and Vail Boot and Shoe. f 2 r Prase TV - This was the original Phase, and the oldest, at the VVI, and consists of 62 accommodation units, with approximately 16,585 sq. ft. of GRFA, and also includes the Food and Deli, VVI Pancake House and the Coyote Bar. There is also a 1,200 sq. ft. conference/meeting .space and miscellaneous and ancillary offices for the hotel. Phase V - Phase V is the building located at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive, and consists of 11 dwelling units ;(9 of which have lock - offs), and 3 accommodation units, with 9,972 sq, ft. of GRFA. Phase. V also 3 includes Blano's Pizza, the Vail Resort Association and approximately 3,500 sq. ft. of retail, commercial use. B. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1976, originally established the Vail .Village Inn Special Development District No. 6. C. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1985 (March 5, 1985) granted. 120,600 sq. ft. of GRFA to SDD No. 6. This ordinance also required a minimum of 175 3 accommodation units (AUs) and 72,400 sq.. ft. of GRFA, devoted entirely to AUs in Phase IV. This ordinance also listed six conditions of approval D. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 (May, 1987), amended Phase IV of SDD No. 6. This amendment allowed Phase IV to be broken into two distinct and separate phases, which were called Phase IV and Phase V. This ordinance also • set the maximum GRFA for the SDD at 120,600 sq. ft. Additionally, the ordinance required a minimum of 148 AUs and 67,367 sq. ft. of GRFA devoted to AUs in Phases IV and V. The ordinance also listed 'eight conditions } of approval. E. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989 (November, 1989) amended the density section of SDD. No. 6. This ordinance modified the SDD by increasing the allowable GRFA to a total of 1:24,527 sq. ft. This allowed Unit No. 30 (originally Good's retail) in the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums to be converted from commercial'use to residential use." This space consists of 3,927 sq. ft. of GRFA, and the conversion to residential: use has, since been completed. This ordinance also maintained .the previous approval for "a minimum of 148 AUs and 67,367 sq. ft. of GRFA, devoted to AUs; in Phases IV and V of SDD No. 6." IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following table outlines the applicant's redevelopment proposal' with reference ;to "the underlying Public Accommodation zoning, the existing project, the previously approved Phase IV, and the current proposal. To maintain simplicity, only those development. standards which are specifically applicable to this project are listed. 3 Underlying Zoning Existing Prvlbi�sly Pr�pe�rtl. Public Accommodation Pr4iect Apuro *M SIM SDD" Site Area 3.455 acres or Same Same Same 150,500 sq. ft. Setbacks 20 ft. on all sides N = Frontage Rd: 41 ft 20 ft to. face of No change from existing to porte :cochere; 72 ft. building; I ft. to to face of building ports cochere Building Height 45 ft - Flat Roof 31 ft. Varies -:.with a 58. ft to `top. of ridge 48 ft - Sloping Roof 73 ft. maximum 61 ft to ridge over elevator GRFA 120,400 sq. ft. 78,806 sq. ft. 124,527 sq. ft: <, 84,739 Phase "IV -A 124,527"Entire Phase IV Units 25 dwelling units per acre 76:5 DUs 120.5 DUs 83 "DUs. or 86 DUs for the site (see below) Site Coverage 82,775 sq. ft. N/A Per the approved 245 sq; ft. of additional development ` :; sit coverage plan Parking : per the current Same Same Same development standards (See Appendix A) Existing DUs Existing AUs Phase I 1 , 0 Phase II 3 0 Phase 111 29 0 Phase IV 0 62 Phase V 11* 3 Totals 44 + 65 ** = 76.5 DUs' Phase IV-A is proposed to have 0 DUs and 13 AUs = 6..5 DUs (9 of the 11 DUs have attached lock -offs) i 2 AUs = 1 DU I 4 1, SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA IV 9 6 CtYtB1'!a to b Used to evaluate the Vail Village inn redevelopment, Phase -A; are the ecial Development District (SDD) development standards set forth in the spectai ' velapment district cha ter: of the`Zonin Code. The criteria are as follows: P g 3 A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, ` neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, . ' 4 scale,= bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual i integrity and orientation. Architecturally, the key issue is to maintain compatibility and work with the character ' of the existing structures in the vicinity. Staff acknowledges -that this is a very difficult task to perform, given the varied architectural styles of adjacent buildings. Staff supports the design direction the applicant has proposed for the project:. We - Staff �' believe that the additional two floors and the new roof structure would be csinpatihe ' s €€ with the character of the adjacent structures. Additionally, the applicant has proposed to install all new siding materials on the existing lower levels of the structure; which would match the new upper levels. The applicant has also proposed to. install a stucco finish on the north and west elevations of the. Porte cochere {around the arched openings). Given the close proximity of the VVI Pancake House building immediately to the west, the applicant has also proposed improvements to this structure so that it blends architecturally with the adjoining east building. The proposed improvements to this structure include upgrading the entire roof area of the building, to architecturally tie it in with the proposed remodel of the structure to the east.. No GRFA would be. added to the enlarged roof area, however, the applicant would propose to install a new boiler in this attic area to service the Food and Deli Building. Additionally, the applicant has proposed to paint and/or stain the Pancake House Building to match the!'east" building and to further ensure architectural compatibility among 'the structures We 3 believe it is positive that the applicant is making an effort to, upgrade the materials ;and the style of the Pancake House Building, as well as the east building.. The staff would recommend that the applicant reevaluate- the proposed roof .form over the elevator tower, as well as the roof form over the central chimney caps., We believe that these elements should be of an architectural style which would' be more in line with the caps on the adjacent structures. 5 Al • • • workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The staff is very supportive of the applicant's redevelopment plan with regard to uses, activity and density, given the fact that the proposal includes the addition of 13 accommodation (hotel) rooms and an expanded conference space. The existing commercial square footage (gross area), which includes retail commercial and restaurant "service area" space, at the VVI is approximately 33,557 square feet. No additional commercial square footage is requested as a part of this proposal. With the adoption of the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on November 20, 1990, employee housing is no longer a potential concern, but 'it is an issue which must be addressed formally. The Affordable Housing Study has been adopted and provides guidelines for new development. Currently, the report's recommendations are being incorporated into the Zoning Code. In addition, the Land Use Plan calls for employee housing by stating: Goal 5.3 - "Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by. limited incentives, provided by the Town of 'Vail, with appropriate restrictions." Although the Vail Village Inn does provide some employee housing; both on site and off site, there is currently no permanently restricted employee units on site. No additional .employee housing is proposed by the Vail Village;Inn for this redevelopment. It should also be mentioned: that most Special Development Districts in the past have provided some number of employee housing units within the proposal. Given the scale of this project, with an approved GRFA.of 124,527 sq.; ft., the staff believes a redevelopment of this magnitude should have some permanent employee housing. Staff recommends one restricted employee dwelling unit be provided on site, either in the existing development or in the proposed redevelopment; Pliase IV�A. C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements ash outlined in Chapter 15.52. The Vail Village Inn parking analysis, as indicated in.Appendix A, shows a'total parking requirement for the Vail Village Inn project, which includes Phases I, fl, III, IV and the proposed IV -A, as being 243 parking spaces. The existing parking structure, located at the lower levels of the Phase III building, currently provides 109 parking spaces. Additionally, there are currently 45 regular surface - parking spaces (9 of which are privately reserved and are not available to the general public), and 16 RI 1 t; valet arkin spaces on -site, %r a total of 61 Parkin spaces. The a licanl is P g P P g P pp; j proposing to add 14 surface - parking spaces as a part of this proposal. The total parking which would be provided would be 184 spaces, which equals 75.7°!0 of r the required parking. The staff believes that the required parking for Phase V, as well as for the new. proposal (Phase IV -A) must be addressed. It should be noted that when the. Phase V building was approved, the parking requirement was deferred until the final phase of the VVI was constructed (the redevelopment of Phase IV), Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, under Section 11, lists 8 conditions of approval for the development plan` for. Phases IV and V. Condition No. 8 reads as follows: ".Any remodel or redevelopment of the remaining portion of SDD 6, commonly referred to as Phase V, shall include. parking as required by Ordinance 1, Series of 1985." It is the staff's opinion that this current redevelopment proposal, triggers condition number 8, and that the required parking far Phase V must now be addressed. According to the .staff's calculations of the Phase V building, the parking requirement for Phase V shall be as follows: (See Appendix B for the specific breakdown) 1. Retail = 11.77 spaces i 2. Restaurant = 4.25 spaces 3. Residential = 23.44 spaces 4. Total Requirement = 39.46 spaces The parking requirement for the proposed Phase IV -A is 11.13 spaces. The combined parking requirement for Phase IV -A and Phase V is 48 parking spaces (39.46 spaces + 11.13 spaces - 50.59 - 5% multi -use credit - 48). The parking issue is two -fold. First, the -staff is of the opinion that condition number 8, listed in Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 (as stated above) is applicable to this redevelopment proposal. The Planning Commission., at their June 10th;: public worksession, concurred with this opinion. Based upon this PEC decision, the applicant must now provide, or address the issue of parking for Phase V. The second issue is the applicant's proposal to provide an additional 14 surface parking spaces, when a requirement of 48 . spaces is stipulated by the code. The applicant has presented a parking utilization study that analyzed parking during peak times of occupancy; This study is included as Appendix C. It should be understood that the 109 space parking structure, located in the Phase III building, is currently not open and available for use by the general public. In addition; 7 9 surface parking spaces, which are adjacent to the Food and Deli Bnilding,`are currently reserved and are also not available for use by the general public. Of the total 109 parking spaces in the structure 44 of those spaces are currently deeded to A g A A Y condominium owners of the Vail Village Inn (15 of those 44 deeded spaces are deeded to condominium owners within Phase V). Since the June 10th worksession, the applicant has agreed to remove- the parking restrictions on 8 of the 9 parking spaces in front of the Food. and Deli Building. These eight spaces would be available for short-term ,parking by the . general public, in addition to the 14 new spaces on the north side of the project. The staff believes that this is a positive step towards meeting the Town's parking requirements. However, the staff maintains that the applicant should be required to open up the structured parking (in the Phase III Building) and to allow the general public the use. of the 65 undeeded spaces in the structure. If the structured parking spaces were available to the general public, the staff would be able to support the overall ' parking plan at the VVI. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. This redevelopment plan was analyzed according to the recently adopted Vail Village Master Plan. The specific goals, objectives and subarea plans of the Vail Village'. Master Plan which pertain to the Vail Village Inn project are listed below: 1.2 Obiective• Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.2.1 Policy: Additional development may be allowed as identified by= the Action Plan and as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.3 Obiective• Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policy: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private; sector working with the Town. • 8 j 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 2.3.1 Policy; The development of short term accommodation units is strongly. encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. 2.5 Obictive: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing: lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests.. 3.1 Obictive: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.1.3 Policy Flowers, trees, water features, and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. 3.4 Obey ctives: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian -only walkways and accessible green ' space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.2 Policy• Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. 5.1.1 Policy: ' For new development that is located outside of the Commercial;'Core I Zone i District, on -site parking shall be provided ..(rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the zoning code. . 5.1.5 Po la: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. i 3 9 u -- is underlying PA zone district are 20 feet from =all property1ines. This pr9posa l will certainly meet the 20 foot requirement, as the minimum distance from the porte cochere to the nearest property line would be: 41 feet. There will be no significant changes made to the. Vail Village inn open space provisions, as only 245 sq: ft. of additional area will be covered by buildings. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Vehicular Circulation: After review of the proposed surface- parking layout,:the staff believes that the general vehicular circulation: system. appears adequate. The. Town`of Vail Fire Department has reviewed this proposal, and does not take issue with the project. The Public Works Department also has no problems with the general., vehicular circulation plan. However, they are concerned about some existing drainage,, problems in the surface - parking area just north of the Pancake House; which would need to be corrected and addressed' through the building permit process: Due to the change in use on the site, a Colorado Department of Highways access permit will need to be secured, prior to the Town issuing a building permit for the project. } Pedestrian Circulation: Pedestrian circulation is a key issue the staff would like to address. It is well known that a long - standing goal for Vail is to improve upon the' pedestrian experience through the development of a continuous network of paths and walkways. Specific to the Vail Village Inn project, the Vail Village Master'Plan, as well as the Town of Vail Recreation Trails Master Plan and the Master Transportation Plan, specifically call for bicycle /pedestrian ways along both sides of the South _ Frontage Road. Through the redevelopment process at the adjacent Gateway Plaza site, the developer was required to provide a pedestrian sidewalk along Ahe entire length of the Gateway property along Vail Road and South Frontage Road. At this time staff believes it appropriate to request that the developer of :the Vail Village Inn extend the sidewalk where the Gateway ended it, and continue the walk for the full length of the VVI property east to the Crossroads site. Staff acknowledges that there are some grade difficulties through this area, and also that cooperation from the Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) will be necessary. The Town staff is willing to assist the applicant in securing the necessary CDOH permits to install the pedestrian connection. The current Vail Village Inn SDD Amendment proposal, does not include any improvements to the pedestrian circulation system as described above. 11 } H. Functional, and aesthetic landscaping and open; space in order to optimeze f and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The proposal has provided limited additional landscaping, specifically in the form. of one new planter, which would be located on the west side of the access ,drive off of South Frontage Road. The proposed landscaping includes 2 Aspen and 1 Blue' Spruce. Again, with cooperation from the CDOH, staff believes that additional. landscaping. added along the entire northern property line of the Vail Village Inn would be beneficial. We believe additional landscaping and screening in this area would not only benefit the general public, by assisting in the buffering of the structures from the. Frontage Road and I -70, but will also benefit the property owner and: guests, of the VVI in the same manner. The staff would also recommend that the applicant remove the existing asphalt area south of the Gateway Building. This area has been used; as surface parking, however, we believe that it would be a benefit to both projects (VVI and Gateway) to add landscaping in this area. The proposal will not encroach into any of the Town's adopted view corridors. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan. that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the "special development district. The applicant has proposed that the redevelopment plan (Phase IV-A) be completed at one time. No phasing plan" is proposed. It is the staff's position that the redevelopment plans for the entire .Phase IV, which are addressed in Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, are still valid.. Should the developer with to proceed with this previously approved plan. at some future; date, which would necessitate the demolition of Phase IV -A. final DRB approval will be required. If there are changes or modifications to the..plans, then a major SDD. amendment will. be required. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for the proposed major amendment to Special Development. District No. 6, the Vail Village Inn, is for approval with conditions. The staff" believes that the proposed upgrade and remodel would be a very positive 'change at the VVI: We support the project, with the following conditions of approval: 1) That the applicant be required to open up the structured' parking; in the Phase III building, for short-term parking use by the general public. With this 12 :. provision of an additional 65 parking spaces, the staff would be able to support the project's overall parking plan. 2) That the applicant remove the existing asphalt parking area immediately south of the Gateway Plaza Building, and provide landscaping in this. area. Pinar review of the landscape design shall be reviewed and approved` by the DRB` prior to installation. 3) That the applicant provide a pedestrian sidewalk, adjacent to, South Frontage Road, beginning on the west end of the VVI property (were the Gateway ; sidewalk now ends), and continue the sidewalk east to the western boundary of the Crossroads property. 4) That the applicant provide additional landscaping along the entire northern property line of the VVI. S) That the applicant reconsider the proposed design solution for the elevator and chimney caps. This issue shall be further reviewed and considered' by the Design Review Board. 6) That a CDOH access permit be secured prior to the issuance of any Town of Vail building permits for the proposal: 7) That the eight conditions of approval listed in Section 11 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, be included `in the ordinance required for this project: Said conditions are as follows, (with the staff's recommended: changes indicated by the bold type): A. That the developers and/or owners of Phases IV and V participate in, and do not remonstrate against, an improvement district for streetscape improvements to Vail Road and East and .West Meadow, Drive, if and 3 when an improvement district is formed: B. That the developers and/or owners of Phases IV and V participate in, and do not remonstrate. against`, establishing a -pedestrian; inkage - from Phases IV and V of the Vail. Village Inn, to a future commercial expansion at the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus site if, and`when it is. developed. C. That the developer receive approval from the Colorado State' Highway } Department, for any change in use on the. property, prior to the issuance of a Towni of Vail building permit: 13 APPENDIX: A Vail Village Inn Parking Analysis* Phase I Parkins Spaces Required A. Retail 19.12 B. Restaurants 16.50 C. Residential 2.50 " Subtotal 38.12 _ 38.12 2. Phase II A. Retail 12.99 B. Residential 4.99 Subtotal 17.98 17.98' 3. Phase III A. Retail 25.12 B. Residential 5.9 33 Subtotal 84.45 = 84.45. 4. Phase IV A. Food & Deli 6.00 B. Restaurant and Bar 11.60 C. Residential 41:30 D, Conference/Meeting Area 5.07 Subtotal 63.97 — 6397 5. Phase V A. Retail 11.77 B. Restaurant 4.25 C. Residential 23.44 Subtotal 39:46 W 39:46 6. Phase IV -A A. Residential 11.13 `Total::: 255.11 =5% Multiple : Use Credit:: 12:75; wc Grand Total- 242.36 =:243 * Parking requirements were determined by using the Town standards in 'effect at the time of construction. 15 APPENDIX B 3 . VVI - Phase V Parking Analysis Parking-S. -aces Required A. Basement Level (Vail Resort Association) 0 $. Ground Level 1. Retail: 2,865 + 668 = 3533/300 11.77 2. Restaurant: 510/15/8 4.25 A Second Level 1. Unit #1 = 402 + 398 = 800 2 2. Unit #2 W 343 + 461 = 804 2 i 3. AU = 229 0.63 4. Unit #3 = 232 + 376 = 608 Z 5. Unit #4 = 475 + 317 = 792. 2 6. Unit #5 = 445 + 279 = 724 2 7. AU = 224 0163 4 D. Third Level 1. Unit #6 = 396 + 224 = 620 2 2. Unit #7 = 397 + 318 = 715. 2 ' 3. Units #8 & #9 are combined into one unit = 454 +314 +35 +712= 1515 2 4. Unit #10 = 445 + 277 = 722 2 Fourth Level 1. AU = 279 0.67 2. Unit #11 = 388 3. Unit #12 (with loft) r = 598 +244 +36 +273 +41'0 =1552 2 39.46 i 16 . ORDINANCE ".NOS 14 Series of 1987 { ' AN ORDINANCE AMENDING'. ORDINANCE NO. 1, SERIES OF ;1985 " TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMENDMENT Of THE APPROVED „DEVELOPMENT:PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.:.6; ADOPTING IAN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PHASE IV:OF. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT AISTOICT NO. 6,- ELIMINATING ;CERTAIN'REQUIREMENTS RELATING'T$ THE DISTANCE BETWEEN. BUI LDINGS FOR PHASE IV'OF SPECIAL” .' DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6;.CH.ANGING THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASE IV.;OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6; CHANGING THE ALLOWABLE. DENSITY- - "ANO MOOIFYI:NG THE BUILDING- BULK STANDARDS,FOR PHASE.N.'OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6; PROVIDING DIFFERENT . ' PARKING' AND LOADING' REQUIREMENTS FOR'.PHASE.iV AND V OF SPECIAL.DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT'NO. '6, AND'SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN: COUNCIL of the Town of Vai1'as. follows: } Section 1, Legislative Intent is hereby repealed and reenacted;'with' amendments to read as follows: Section 11. Legislative Intent }" A. In 1976, the Town Council of the Town of Vail passed Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1976, establishing Special..Development District No. 6 to insure the unified and coordinated development.of a critical site a s a whole and in a manner `. suitable for the area in which it was situated.. B. Special Development District N0.6 provided in.5ectian "14 that the sown Council reserved the right to .abrogate or modify Special Development District No..6 for good cause through the enactment of an ordi.nance'.in conformity with th.e "zoning code of the Town of Vail. C. In 1985,.the Town Council of the Town.of"Vail passed .Ordinance #1 Series . of 1985, providing certain amendments to the development plan -for SDD NO. 6 "certain, D. Application. has been made to the Town of Vail to modify and amend j sections of Special Development District No. .6 which relate to,Phase IV and: which: make certain changes in the development plan for Special Development District Not 8 as they relate to Phase IV E. The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has'reviowed the changes submitted by the applicant and has recommended :that Special Development ! District No. 6 be: so amended. F. The Town Council considers that the amendments provide an :even more unified and more aesthetically.pleasing development of. a critical six 'e"witii in the Town and that such amendments are of.benefit to the "health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail. . .. .._ J 5. No grading permit, building permit or demoli,tiOn permit re'ating too Ph', or Y of Special Development District No. 6 shall be issued until such t9me that reasonable evidence is provided the Town of Vi i I s.taff.that construction financing for the improvements to be constructed as.part.of Phase' IV or V has been obtained. 6. Restrictions on any units in Phases 'IV or V which would be"condomihiumized shall be as outlined in Section 17.25.075 of the Vail Munfeipal Code and any amendments thereto'.- s 7. Upon the issuance of a building permit for 'the construction of;any phase of SDD96 subsequent to Phase IV; the developer and/or :owner of said phase =,hall reimburse.the Town of Vail f or' expenses incurred in'.faci1:4tatin.g the relocation of the ski museum .O nto'Phaso IV) :of.an'amount °not to .exceed $75,000.. ` ' 8. Any remodel or redevelopment of the remaining portion of SOW'commonly, referred to as Phase :V shall ,.include parking ,as required by Ordinance;fi, Series of 1985. Section 12. If any part, section, .subsection, . sentence, clause or phrase, of this ordinance is for any reason held to be. invalid, such decision shall n.ot'affect the valildity of.' ! the remaining portions of this ordfnance; '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 13. The repeal or the repeal and reenaction of any provisions of :.the Vall Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which`his`accrued,, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to;tha 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 ordina previously,. repealed or superseded. unless expressly stated 'herein.' •<h .. •- _rez..'.€ +4.'e.. .i.-rT ORDINANCE NO..24 Series of 1909 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 8 ' Off' ORDINANCE NO. 14 SERIES OF TO PROVIDE.' _1987 FOR THE AMENDMENT OF DENSITY. OF THE APPROVED DL:VELOPME14T PLAN :FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY.TNE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Legislative Intent A. In 1976, the Vail:Town Council passed Ordinance No. .7, Series of 1976, establishing Special Developdent'Distri.ct No..6 to ' insure the unified and coordinated.develpmenl of azcritical'site as 'a whole and in a manner suitable f or, the ::areayin which it: was situated. B. Special Development District, No. 6 provided in Section 14 that the Town council reserve the right to.abrogate or modify - special i ' Development District No.6 for good cause.through:<the enactmeit ' of an ordinance in conformity with the zoning code of the Town of Vail. C. In 1985, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance'No :1,, Series of 1985 providing certain amendments to the development plan for Special Development District. No. 6. e. D. In 1987, the Vail Town council .passed Ordinance No.`'14,- Series of 1987 providing certain amendments to the development plan 3 for Special Development. District No. 6. i E. Application has been made to the Town of'Vail to modify and, amend Section 8 of Ordinance No. 14, Series.,of 1987. which; relates to 3` i the allowed density of the development plan for Special, Development District No. 6. F. The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of = Vail has reviewed the changes. G. The Vail 'Town Council considers that the amendments provide a more unified and aesthetically pleasing development. of a. critical' : site within the Town and such.amendmetits are ';oE:b:enefit to the hearth, safety, welfare of the inhabitants of:.the'Town of Vail. Section 2. A. Section 18.50.130 Density 'is :hereby amended to read :.as follows: a - ;: t � _ .. a � k_� �° _ _ _, _ . � �,�_ _ ;± �,.�� e, <. .. <� __.. �,s �., .., s .ter ��� _,� : � =-i .. _ �._. ,ti. �� FHCyf 1 '. 1 VI M4" t� C brN Jot :M .. n,e 1,, iX:iSl ltt A,('1f 7T �ljhllal ii � R 2 C -1 rsidl. nrr -_ t uiv I- nL• uuu.ral,rs., aew�uo w _ .N. saran !•t•9JV W FS ]' ,gill it? RO ti t 1 77 �a t �a 11 r �]� ' b •. Alan Sn pr II �4y in r D i i r pray ti t 1 77 �a t �a ��77 Alan Sn pr II �4y in r D i i r pray yi�'� 'If'i.l. 6'- PIS, L �� iw fi; ;�� i� 'V 5.� � 114litf St „'�L1fi3 m INS— ti t 1 77 �a t y ��77 Alan Sn pr II �4y in r D i i r yi�'� 'If'i.l. 6'- PIS, L �� iw fi; s ] 114I�Ii! ]I }� -i f A Ilrl'” j Iq ,f tl C VI,�tp,r f III -fl i,{ l !11Air ! St h6J'yR{ M 4'V; Ia I'iI { Ip.•, I 4FI -I }I Ijtl :pj 3ri.f. ',i I I.I 11 I f 4 L r 1 l I 1I t5 i+l 1 N3I'J �n��r�jtl.L'iA• i j , 17 I 1' p � 61. ] =4 !"111 I, � EN d} .ie� y� n 5✓e�� _ 1 il: jII Itt { i'• ��t rca t I "i '� is7v -li II ;,3i, - -- am 1 I{ rl IIr.1 Mai I iII� 11i; ���64({, II I,i1.I11 IIIr �I VY C7 I 11101111,111M ®Nlll�! `;Its Mi ,N':l�h H PIS III ■■ ■■ :lii VAIL MLI AA INN Village Inn Plaza Concord mums June 21, 1991 Mr. Mike Mollica, Sr. Planner Town of Vail 75..So. Frontage Rd. W. Vail, CO. 81657 Dear Mike: Just a letter confirming that.,the Vail'Village.Inn is.:willing'to increase the short term free parking spaces by moving'most,of the reserved spaces into the structure. We do have contractual agreements with some tenants that require° us..to have reserved spaces for them near `their'leased premises. In addition, we are.willing:to, increase the 15- minute 'parking limitations to .30 minutes. I feel that this will address some of the concerns expressed . by the Planning.Commission members. However, :I would like, to,,. i point.out that if somebody plans to be in..the village for, any length of timd other than :the 30-minute; parking we are willing to provide free, it would behoove them to utilize the TowrLof,' Vail parking structure. Should we have additional call for "our '.under-utilized spaces, we will be happy to make them available'.to the general .public, 3: for a fee. Sincerely yours, VAIL -LLA E INN i Jcf a to er Pres,. ent & M n grog Director . JS:f ke 100 East Meadow Drive ` Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476 -5622 } FAX (303) 476 -4661 1 XI. BACKGROUND AND MSTORY On June 9, 1990, Mr. Abe Shapiro requested. a variance from the minimum lot size to allow for the construction of a single family residence, with a secondary caretaker unit on this parcel. Subsequent to the review of the proposal, the Planning and Environmental Commission, by a vote of 5 -0, unanimously denied the applicant's request. At the request of Jack Reutzel, attorney for Abe Shapiro, the Town attorney reviewed ordinances relating to the density section of the Agriculture and Open Space zone district. The results of this review indicated that a codification error had occurred and that the existing Town code, in the Agriculture and Open Space zone district, does allow one single" family dwelling unit having 2,000 sq. ft. of GRFA, provided that a parcel in this zone: district contains a minimum of one acre of buildable land. This information was passed on to Mr. l eutzel in a letter dated July 27, 1990, by Larry Eskwith. III. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST i The applicant is proposing to construct a single family residence with an integrated, employee restricted, secondary unit. Additional structures proposed on this site would include a 1,500 sq, ft. detached barn and a 162 sq. ft. detached greenhouse. Access to the site. is proposed via a 1,650 foot long driveway, which would begin at the first switchback, adjacent to'Red Sandstone Creek, at the bottom of Potato Patch Drive. The driveway isproposed to be 12. feet in width, and would consist of an asphalt surface, as well as an asphalt curb and gutter on the uphill side. A safety guard rail is also proposed for the entire length 'of "the driveway, and would be installed on the downhill side of the driveway. Due to the isolated location of the. applicant's property, and the fact that the property is not immediately accessible to a public road, the parcel is considered to be "landlocked ". ' I-iowever, Mr. Shapiro has applied for a Special Use Permit from the United States: Forest Service to obtain a private road easement, across the adjoining White 'River National Forest lands to the east, to obtain vehicular access to his site. This private driveway, 'if approved by the U.S. Forest Service, would cross approximately 700 lineal feet of Forest"Service property. significant amount of fill material would be required to be placed over the existing .culverts for Red Sandstone Creek. The reason for this additional fill material would be to quickly elevate the initial section of the driveway so that a maximum grade of 10 % can be.achieved. The Forest Service review of the Special Use Permit, and the Town of Vail's review of this SDD establishment, are proceeding concurrently. A final decision from:the Forest Service 'is not expected until late summer. 2 3 IV. ZONING CONSMERATIONS Mr. P Sha P iro's un latted parcel is located in the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District. As such, the permitted uses in this zone district areas follows: A. Single - family residential dwellings. B. Plant and tree nurseries, and raising of field, row and tree crops. C. Public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces. This zone district also allows for the following conditional uses; subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: A. Any use within public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces which involves assembly of more than two hundred persons together in one building or group of buildings, or in one recreation area or other public recreational facility. B. Public and private schools and colleges. C. Churches, rectories, and related structures. D. Private golf, tennis, swimming and riding clubs, and hunting and' fishing lodges. E. Semipublic and institutional uses, such as convents and religious retreats. F. Ski lifts and tows. G. Cemeteries. H. Low power subscription radio facilities. 7` Additionally, the density section of the Agricultural and Open Space Zone. District .(Section 18.32.090) reads as follows: "Not more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted for each thirty -five acres of site j area, of which one acre must be buildable. Provided, however, the one dwelling shall be allowed on a lot or parcel of less than thirty -five acres which contains one acre of buildable area. Such dwelling shall not exceed two thousand square feet of GRFA," (emphasis added by staff). 3 i A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale bulk buildin g height, buffer zones,' identity, character; visual g integrity and orientation. The architectural style of the applicant's proposed residence is "southwestern.":. The staff's concerns do not lie with the proposed architectural style or general character of the architecture, but with the mass and bulk of the structure,, given the very high visibility of the site. We appreciate the applicant's efforts to design,a low profile home for the property. However, we are very concerned with the applicant's request for additional GRFA on a property,that is located on such a prominent hillside, is very visible from many areas of the community, and is currently zoned. Agricultural and Open Space. It is the staff's opinion that the allowable uses" in the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District clearly indicate the rural nature of the district. The purpose section of the zone district (Section 18.32.010) states that: j "The Agricultural and Open Space district is intended to preserve agricultural, undeveloped, or open space lands from intensive development, while permitting agricultural pursuits and low density residential use consistent with agricultural and open space objectives. Site development standards are intended ' to preclude intensive urban development and to maintain the agricultural and open space characteristics of the district." 3 . B. Uses, activity and density which provide a, compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The staff believes that the applicant's proposed uses for the site, such as a single ' family residential dwelling, a detached greenhouse and a detached barn' are compatible uses in the district. We can appreciate the applicant's desire to assist in providing a j restricted employee housing unit within the Tow .of Vail. Again, the staff emphasis is on keeping the size of the building to a minimum, and. thereby reducing the visual - impacts from the valley floor below. ` C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter I 18.52. The applicant's proposal includes a three -car attached garage of approximately 904 sq. ` ft. in area. This garage, in conjunction with the associated surface - parking area f immediately to the west of the garage, will provide more than adequate parking for the proposed development. - - - iaJtti i - should this project be approved, and proceed to the building permit phase, the mitigation measures recommended in the study by Nicholas Lamperis be included in the overall final design of the residence. 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. It is the staff's opinion that this is undoubtedly the most important criteria, of the mine which are used to review the merits of this proposed Special Development District. Because of the location of this property on a south- facing hillside, above and to the northwest of the center of Vail, the development would be' very visible from locations within the central areas of the Town of Vail, as well as froth the ski slopes above. To quote from the environmental assessment, which was completed on May 20,. 1991, under the direction of William A. Wood and Tim Grantham, of the Holy Cross Ranger District (USES). "The project will increase the viewer's` perception of human influence which at present conveys a natural impression; at completion, ,the project; will appear an extension of low density residential development adjacent to other, developed areas; thus serving as a visual transition between the dense development of the valley floor, and the natural vistas of the upper mountainsides; Retaining walls will be extensively used, but Use of native rock materials, revegetatian, and landscaping will serve to minimize visual impacts.: Visual impacts will be minimal from the center of the Town of Vail,'where the view:of the'p .0, ct area is often obstructed .by buildings; and from the 1-70 corridor, where. -the F traffic velocity tends to shorten and obscure views of the project area. Thee' area will be most visible from Vail Mountain,, by skaers or those using the Vista Bahn lift." The staff is extremely concerned about the visual impacts that the road cut, :and the associated,development, would have upon the. community as a whole. We acknowledge the fact the applicant does have';the right to; construct a single family residence, with a maximum of 2,000 sq. ft. of GRFA on this property. We are also cognizant of the fact that access to the site is extremely difficult; given the steep topography,.,rock outcrops and the proximity of'the nearest public road. Staff;believes that even with the utmost care in constructing the project, that revegetatton will be extremely difficult, and that permanent scarring of the hillside will be visible from the Valley floor below. Jr : - G A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. i Providing vehicular access onto this property. is perhaps the most difficult aspect of: the development. The applicant is proposing to begin the private driveway at the lowest switchback of Potato Patch Drive. Within 200 feet, the driveway will cross over two existing culverts, under which Red Sandstone Creek is piped for approximately, 150' At this point, the applicant is proposing to add approximately 14 feet of additional .fill . over the creek, in order to elevate the driveway and to maintain a maximum driveway slope of 10 %. The staff is very concerned about this additional fill material `and the aesthetic impacts it will create. Additionally; the potential impacts to an existing, nearby Forest Service trailhead are being addressed by the Forest Service, through their evaluation of applicant's requested Special Use. Permit, for the driveway. The. staff believes that the retaining wall issue is a key point in the evaluation of this Special Development District proposal.. Considerable lengths of retaining walls will need to be constructed in order to maintain a maximum 10% slope on the driveway. As proposed, all the retaining walls would be constructed out of large boulders, which would be located both above (for the cut slope) and below (for the fill slope) the driveway. The heights of the exposed portions of the boulder. retaining: walls would vary from a minimum of 3.4 feet to a maximum height of 9.5 feet. Excluding the first 250 feet of the driveway, where considerable amounts . of fill would be located ,.. the boulder retaining walls would be necessary for the remaining 1200 feet of the driveway. It should be noted that at this time, the proposed rock retaining ,walls have not been fully engineered. Extensive soils testing will be necessary to determine the exact heights of the walls. The cut and fill slopes, located both above and below the proposed driveway, are another issue which the staff would like to address. The Town's development;:; standards state that the maximum allowable slope shall be 2;1. The applicant is proposing to use geo- textile fabrics, integrated into the slope, and is proposing that a maximum slope of 1.25:1 be approved. The staff acknowledges that the steeper the F slope, the narrower the area of disturbance would be. However, we are very concerned with the proposed revegetation method of these steep slopes. The applicant is proposing to revegetate these slopes with a dry land seed mix, in combination with jute netting. The applicant has verbally stated that he will personally iigate the slopes in order to establish the vegetation. The Town staff, including the Town landscape architect, have very;senous reservations about this method of revegetation. We would prefer to see a very specific revegetation plan designed by a professional 3 landscape architect. Additionally, the Town's experience in revegetating steep slopes t has been that slopes in excess of 2:1 become very. difficult, if not impossible to establish vegetation on. The Town staff would also like to see. the use,:of trees and shrubs used extensively in the revegetation plans. { 8 I } .. In summar ' submitted 1 H. Fui ant The revegc above. Th indicated c proposed t 1. 2. 3. 4. 3 Holy Gros the proper indicated t undergrou All new u' I. Ph an deg No phasin s phase... VI. STAFF R] As this PF time. The direction c A summai cNpeO nemoAshapiro.62A 9 �,.:� �`. ,� t �irlr'4',� ��.-.- ., S .,I . Inc aw ! - rn K-, Vic 627 Its r=,c. I it ORlift �,l'.{{ !r�,l:� 1',•1 � I� ((il i � ��(i ±j4il'rl��r�� ! ����1�lJrfr �r.Ir1l ,. ...., � � � �" �. �I I I( I I I rI III�� I ( 1, f lllrlllfllll( I !ir Rg 51 f� pp otCrta. • YI 4f:. L +s - 1y.; q`,�I (�Iljll111�1;�+ !Ill f III (I E s�ri�t4z��'' 114V Vy1llylll gg p ' gg - " i ! 1 r i dy }},i�� �y7� r -.,l•. � � 1j1VVV - � ����a� .I. . :,.. ...i ..� I "crixrP g '� tf 1 f tIt I I y � ti I 11i I I �[�� `ar�t�: � ��.'��� Lr, ? 1 1411 }I��`��V � .: ! .. � - I j m•zln a �� i Rix ��' y r .� s 9 r. ��� ,L� :r 1; 1 14 y y4�,111,r ,..• -". ., � . ... ..os�cPrP r 1 ti.(Y,�r tit ' 1•'i VtV '4V� 1;11 i� k'• . -i ... # wpm IS gg 4r1AC t 4 w 'A 11 "', i "• 1 i 1 . ` \\ ��� �\ � ' .rtz'zrzi �k 316 I� ouzo .- I j ib v x wUuP I ++ ll 07 r �i 'i + y Y• � ri� n r y i n r ri n N w r, i ��� � 1i � * � r' j � i • ri w r yi:i • ri r • $$$ee .v <r Inc aw ! - rn K-, Vic 627 Its r=,c. I it ORlift �,l'.{{ !r�,l:� 1',•1 � I� ((il i � ��(i ±j4il'rl��r�� ! ����1�lJrfr �r.Ir1l ,. ...., � � � �" �. �I I I( I I I rI III�� I ( 1, f lllrlllfllll( I !ir Rg 51 f� pp otCrta. • YI 4f:. L +s - 1y.; q`,�I (�Iljll111�1;�+ !Ill f III (I E s�ri�t4z��'' 114V Vy1llylll gg p ' gg - " i ! 1 r i dy }},i�� �y7� r -.,l•. � � 1j1VVV - � ����a� .I. . :,.. ...i ..� I "crixrP g '� tf 1 f tIt I I y � ti I 11i I I �[�� `ar�t�: � ��.'��� Lr, ? 1 1411 }I��`��V � .: ! .. � - I j m•zln a �� i Rix ��' y r .� s 9 r. ��� ,L� :r 1; 1 14 y y4�,111,r ,..• -". ., � . ... ..os�cPrP r 1 ti.(Y,�r tit ' 1•'i VtV '4V� 1;11 i� k'• . -i ... # wpm IS gg 4r1AC t 4 w 'A 11 "', i "• 1 i 1 . ` \\ ��� �\ � ' .rtz'zrzi �k 316 I� ouzo .- I j ib v x wUuP I ++ ll 07 ! II qa�'1 {+rryn•, 1i I':,$ 1 � ,.s � I. I - i, r. � ��k• '�� r 7. � * ���. ne�tlaA�q��tl� C [gill? I I � t ' t 1 aaaaaa�aaaad ... ....., i I.,._ h in" M,. g 1 "nv*; m 4' •' i I ,_ i s I, W �� arroavae7nn. II I � 'I q '1.' ' f��d�l1 �r•I � � . • � � � � � �� ^I t. ;+ Ill1 ' � �j ' I I�7� � `� �`,�`- z f, `.�5:1 111 � �'ll E, 11 �IiYi •I!i" i I ' ?"t +..,.' `I• "' $ j :� ti�ihr i�,. R� � � • � � (�4• � I� is l II ! I I ;I � I: "� ''.Ps `.1 �:�. r •- � '; I �II '�.IE II I I y�g �_.F¢� !1'�r S�� i `I " �� = r .. ; II ..�I• III li I� '.I� , -'I - � �$.:.5 S r ,rq� rr ryr �, J j I► 11 1 oil l ,F ' ! ;% r ��fCl��r� /r !lr I � r r lrrlrJ I I � �� I, � I I I� EI llil Ili I j II' ''• �3E p {r i'• ! fU� , r 1IJ 1 f 1 rlf I� G oz� tw��rN l IY i' !I Fi •�I III ! F I lr I II II II g • t, r; I S +fi �i,, 11� } 1' � 11 � � JJj rlk1` I � 111 I I .. '.: I ..�t 1++ '.I • " �I� �� �. *.�. + 14, l 1 ` 1� I1 .I � .t. .� I �! I� l I I'I I I �E I •I' I `� 1 �1 i ..'.. I ! Jr�. • S �1 5 1 \ .�.+I,.. t d! ul,:. i i ..I.. :+ ••i r � 1 aidsii � � I ... .,_s.�� era. -.�5. ''- F :•.- .:..:.. - .:. '. . I�i �1` ���!,:1��� � i \! ���,1 \��� �°"' 1'I I ';:�I _..�:' I! '�,I (.,.�� ��,r . :.. ,_ ,,. tl,,!LJ ,4 .�'ln °, �, �,• '. .I I a I � � t .�F z • y ! a: 4 1 ` l r * , � 1 � � I �i }Ff � - 1 t - ( •i �(7 I 115 Ll V !O rn r t .�F • y ! a: 4 1 ` l r * , � 1 � � I �i }Ff � - 1 t - ( •i �(7 I 115 V !O a 41i/ I EIRM m IMF ov, ol, 1/11 tilt / � . I I/// o I///, Wi I I.Tv fill INA ov, ol, 1/11 tilt / � . I I/// o I///, Wi I I.Tv fill e MEMORANDUM l ; TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 24, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a snow dump on the property generally located west of the Town of Vail shops. The property is more specifically described as follows: That part of the North 1/2 of Section`8, Township 5 South, Range 80 west .of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, lying north:; of Interstate Highway No. 70 and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NE corner of said Section 8; thence along the northerly line of said Section 8, S89 46'27 "W a distance of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the northerly line of said Section 8, S00 23'03 "W a distance of 529:86 ft to a point on the northerly'ROW line of 1 -70; thence along the northerly ROW 'lit;e of I- 70 following two courses: 1) S75 28'18 "E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point of curvature; 2) 1327.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, .having a radius of 5580.00 ft, a central angle of 13 38'04" and a chord which bears N89 36'34 "E 1324.70 ft distance to a point on the easterly line of said Section 8; Thence departing said ROW line of I -70 N00 23'03"E along the easterly line of said Section 8, a distance of 572.10 ft to the point of beginning, containing 20.480 acres more or less. The above description is based on the Town of Vail annexation plats for the property described and is not based on .a field survey., The basis. of bearing; for the above parcel is the northerly line of Section 8 being 589 46'27 "W as shown on said annexation plats. Applicant: Vail Associates/Town of. Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen 1 DESCRIPTION OF TIM PROPOSM VSV- he Town of Vail is proposing to construct a snow dump on th recently rezoned land (Public Use District) west of the Town Public Works Shops. The proposed'use requires a. conditional use review in the Public Use Zone District. The existing berm which screens the he berm 0ops from 1-70 and the south will be continued, at the same height,. to the west. ill be landscaped with an additional 6 spruce, 15 do glas fir, and 17 aspen trees. The w .0 ..0 snow dump will be constructed by excavating below the existing grade approximately M20 ft., in order to increase capacity for snow storage. The design includes a 151� wide loop road, located around the snow dump. The road will be built just below the top of. the berm, which will be 30 ft. above the bottom of the snow dump. With this design, truck. dri�ers: will start dumping snow in the lower level of the hole until it is full. They will then use the loop road, Oumping snow from the higher elevation onto the lower level. There. will be no retaining walls used to build the road. All slopes will be 2:1 or less, except for the slopes on the inside of the dump which do not exceed 1.5:1. Please see the attached Plans. fI. 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 development objectives of the Town, as stated in the purpose section of the zoning title call for: Section 18.02.020(B)(9): "The conservation and protection of wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides and other desirable natural, features.' In addition, the Town's Land Use, Plan states that: Policy 1.13: "Vail recognizes'its stream tract as being�a desirable land. feature as well as its potential for public use." And that: Policy 6.1: "Services should keep pace withincreased.grow.th.".. By relocating the snow dump from the banks of Gore Creek to the proposed location, staff believes that the goals of preserving the stream tract are met. In 2 1 addition, staff believes Policy 4.1, which calls for additional Town services with increased growth, will be met as the snow dump will allow for additional snow removal services. 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. Staff believes the proposed snow dump will not have a direct impact on the above- referenced facilities.. There may be an indirect benefit, in that snow removal services may improve as a result of the expanded snow dump area., 3. Effect upon traffic with p articular 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. This new snow dump will allow for a` smoother snow removal operation, By increasing the amount of snow that can be hauled; additional snow removal services can be provided. The Town shop entry off of the Frontage Road is adequate to handle the truck traffic to the snow dump. The Town sent plans for the proposal to CDOH for them to review the impacts to traffic on the frontage road. Based on recent CDOH decisions, Town staff believes that they will have no requirements of the Town for this project. 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. Staff has analyzed the potential impact of the snow dump on the surrounding character of the area in each of the following categories: a. Views from the Surrounding Area During the April .22, 1991 Planning Commission worksession, staff and the Planning Commission identified several points which represented the most sensitive areas which: the snow dump could impact. The map on the following page shows these areas around the snow dump. 1) The soccer field. Analysis done by the landscape consultants hired by the Town of Vail shows that the impact of the snow dump on areas like. the soccer: field 3 SCALE..= I_ "- 200 200 0 100 `20d " B00 F. r SiiQP 1309 OFFICE I UNPLATTED 1289 • • \4A1L' VALLEY `DRIVE TOWN OF VAIL MAWT.: SHOP. �T 9 rE 70 7 VAIL VILLAGE 8th FILING TRACT A OO F 6 4 : 1367 1397 ® I 133T 16 I Ilea 2- f29T I3a7 VAIL • +rte 5 Ufa 8 1163 ..4 a.5 10 ; • lE93 O i C S VAIL WATER 967 SANITATION BLO TRACT 103.1 10 I 2 • $ 3 a 1153 5 7 2 3 2 22 1287 1328 21. f358 20 1388 C• 1001 1045 1 M4 1007 I+ la3a 1106. SILVER TRACT 4 9 . 10 ff57 1187 E , • ,:Ey 1022 1136 12" ` 13 * 1195 1D24 1481 • 11�� © VALE -EY 2y(P� 6 IOI2 1014 1250 1278 992 VAIL 4 PARCEL E 24 GOLF; COIJRSE'MAITFT BLDG TRACT D • '220 a 994 200' 2. .170 996 I 2 3 4 6 6 2 TRACT F I 1130 7: 998 017+ I T 7 11f9 1 �. FILING. z 978 985 �• 3 ' I 2 PARCEL : D vp ' I .1RWAY � •4 990 L LL GE', IOt F! IN Io 9 %8 7 6 B. :880 890 920: 930 900 970 } 2) 3) 4) 5) (as well as points 1, and 4), are reasonable, because the amount of existing vegetation in the immediate- area would screen the new snow dump. The large evergreen trees block the views of the new berm as well as the cut areas at the rear of the snow dump. Fairway Drive/Fairway Court, This area has the highest elevation in the vicinity, and has some of the most direct views to the snow dump. The graphic section shown at the end of this packet shows the sight line from this area to the snow dump. As one can see from this section, the trees planted on the berm will work to screen both the cut slope on the back side of the >snow;dump as well as the snow. dump operation. Homestake Circle. The north end of Homestake Circle is similar to, the soccer field. in that the existing landscaping around those homes screen the snow dump. Hornsilver Circle. The north end. of Hornsilver Circle is also similar to the soccer field in that the existing landscaping around those homes screen the snow dump. Vail Golf Course. The golf course does have clear. -- views to the proposed snow dump. Though no residences in the area are impacted, users of the golf-course could be. The berm would be visible:. However, a benefit from the project is that the berm will be extended far enough to the west so that it would blend in with ahe existing hillside. This will be a`much more natural resolution of the berm, and is a significant improvement to the appearance of the current berm. Note: At the Planning Commission hearing, the landscape consultant will show colored renderings of the proposed constraction from some of these areas. The renderings. were produced from slides taken from the areas, and will show that, what the. snow dump will look like from these areas. i i b. Landscaping The landscape design concept for the berm is to make it- appear 'as natural as possible. Trees will be. planted in clusters, with a majority near the top of the berm and with others grouped in the middle and'on the lower parts. The ridge of the berm will be undulated. , so that it will not appear as a hard, horizontal line that would look unnatural. On' the back side of the snow dump, the cut slopes will be revegetated. The landscape design concept in the area has been to break up the horizontal lines with groupings of native grasses and sage. We believe the taller trees, 9 feet, 10 feet, 12 ft, should be increased. at the top of the, berm to provide as much screening as possible of the trucks. Trees along the existing berm where . the soil has sloughed, should also be removed or replanted properly. The.natural planting configuration on the new berm is positive. Two types of revegetation mix are proposed. The heartier variety will be used for the snow dump basin.. The hillside's cut and fill areas will be revegetated with native grasses as well as transplanted sage. C. Electric Lines There are two sets of transmission lines in the vicinity of the snow s • dump. One runs east -west, but is located at an elevation higher than the snow dump, and is not impacted.. The line that runs north -south will cross over the snow dump. One power pole will have to be moved to the top of the berm, from which point the lines. will clear the;snow dump completely. There will be some new services installed from the transformer on the north - south. transmission line to the Town shop. All new service lines will be located underground. Staff spoke with;a representative from Holy Cross Electric. Staff believes it is unreasonable to require the undergrounding because. Holy Cross has indicated that an extensive length of line south of 1-70 would have to be placed underground, instead of just the segment on, the. Town of Vail property. This work would also include boring under the Interstate. At - a minimum, the Town will provide a conduit under the show dump berm for the future undergrounding of the line. The Town will continue to work with Holy Cross on the undergrounding of the lines. d. Access Road 3 The width of the loop road does not affect the visual impacts. as much as the elevation of the road does. Staff would -like to >see the -berm increased in height, or the road slightly lowered {in order to minimize 5 r.. # visibility of the truck operation). The design concept ali:ows or good screening of the dump, but could be improved so that it also provides better screening of trucks on the snow dump loop road. The. snow dump will function with drivers using the road to drive to a location where there is room to drop their snow. The truck driver will "jack- knife" the vehicle so that most of the snow falls off the road into the dump. Some of it, however, will fall on the road. At the end of the day, front -end loaders will go out to move the snow around andl clear the road. Until that time, trucks must be able to continue to drive the Loop road. The 15' width will allow for clearance for the trucks to pass around the perimeter. F e. Lighting The Town is proposing to install 2. lights in the snow dump area, and 3 relocate one which will be. identical to those which currently. illuminate the Public Works Shops site. The two lights are needed to illuminate the area for occasional night dumping. The lights will. be facing north, and will be located no higher than the existing 'lights (approxiniately, 10 feet above the berm). The. current lights. which illuminate the parking lot of the site are not visible to the neighborhood. This is because they are facing north and are angled down. Staff has driven through the area at night and has noted that the lights which are visible are ones on buildings or are the lamp posts (similar to the. Town and County lights) next to the offices. The proposed lighting is needed to allow hauling and dumping at night. Though this is not on a regular basis, it will allow for this use when needed: f. Water Quality The drainage system of the proposed snow dump has been designed in such a way to ensure that the runoff from the snow dump. will not impact Gore Creek.. Soil tests done by the consulting engineer 'indicate I that the percolation rate is very high in this area. Based on the soil tests, the consulting engineer expects that all of the snow melt will percolate through the soil to Gore Creek. ' There is virtually no better method to improve water quality than to allow it to drain through sail as ground water. The engineer. has designed a drainage system, in the event that there is very, hot weather with a quick snow melt, and the. drainage demand exceeds the percolation rate of the soil.. This drainage system design provides for a 40 -hour detention; period 'so, that the water can drop any sediment before entering Gore Creek. The' 40 -hour f b } FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use hermit: A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety,. or welfare or materially injurious to properties. or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed Use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of " this Ordinance. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The planning staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit, based on the criteria and findings. Staff believes the first finding is met, as the snow dump, ,a public service facility, meets the purpose of the zone district in which it will. be located. The Public Use Zone District calls for public uses, such as this, with the condition they' be designed and used in harmony with surrounding uses. Staff believes that the visual analysis done for the snow dump, from the surrounding areas, shows that it is reasonably compatible. Furthermore, staff believes the proposal is consistent with the development objectives of t1e-Town, as defined by the Land Use Plan and the Zoning Title. Finding 2 is met, in staff's opinion, in that the snow dump will not be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare. The one impact relating to these issues is water quality', and staff believes the snow dump design provides a drainage system that will prevent poor quality water from entering Gore Creek. Concerning Finding 3, staff believes the snow dump complies with the applicable regulations of the Zoning Code. The zone district the snow dump will be ,located in allows the Planning and Environmental Commission to determine the. development standards. Typical'standards, such as height, setbacks, lot size and GRFA are not applicable with this proposal. 7 ■ i PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 8, 1991 AGENDA. Site Visits Public Hearing 1. 2. 3. Public Hearin A request for front setback and. density variances for th;e Dick Residence, Unit 2, Tract A, Bighorn Townhouses /4708 Meadow Drive, #2A. Applicant: Carol Dick Planner: Jill Kammerer A request for a density variance for the Bernardo Residence,' Unit 4, Tract B, Bighorn Townhouses/4718 Meadow Drive', #4B. Applicant: Bill Bernardo Planner: Mike Mollica A request for height, parking and density (GRFAlcommon area) variances for the Sonnenalp, Part of Lots. K & L, Block 5 -E, Vail Village First Filing /20 Vail Road. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties Planner: Andy Knudtsen 4. A request for the establishment of a Special Development District for an unplatted parcel located in a part of the SE 114 of the SE" 114 'of Section 1, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, 6th :,Prime Meridian, generally. located north of Sandstone Drive and west of Potato Patch Drive. Applicant: Abe L. Shapiro Planner: Mike Mollica 5. A request for a worksession on wall heights at the E.B. Chester Residence, Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Village list Filing/ 395 Mill Creek Circle. Applicant: E.B. Chester Planner: Kristan Pritz 6. A request for a worksession for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 2, Pinos del Norte, Building C, Northwoods Condominiems1600 Vail Valley. Drive. Applicant: Pinos del Norte Condominium Association Planner: Andy Knudtsen �.. _ ., • .... .r. �.'�Ei �.".�- J. .YFri+i'.. xi - ...��z� N�a�. S�� �.. ,. .:,':"�k x��YMZ ,t... ^.�jr.a.b= ..�'c�Le 7. A request for a worksession for a Special Development District fer Parcel F, Lionsridge t=iling #2, commonly known as. Briar Patch. Applicant: LST Properties Planner: Shelly. Mello TABLED INDEFINITELY 8. A request for a site coverage variance for the Rothbart Residence, Lot 12, Block A, Vail Das Schone First Filing /2349 Chamonix Drive. Applicant: Gary Rothbart Planner: Jill Kammerer TABLED TO JULY 22, 199'1 9. A request for a minor exterior alteration, and a site coverage variance for Super Star Studios, Gorsuch (Clock Tower) Building, Dots C, D and- E, Block 5, Vail Village .First Filing/263 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Paul Golden Planner: Jill Kammerer TABLED TO JULY 22, 1997 10. A request for review of the Vail Streetscape Master Plan for formal recommendation to the Town Council. , The Master Plan addresses the general area from East Lionshead Circle to Ford Park, and includes West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, Willow Bridge Road, Gore. Creek Drive, Vail Valley Drive, Bridge Street, and Hanson Ranch Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Mike Mollica TABLED TO JULY 22, 1991 11. An appeal of a staff decision concerning a density variance granted to Treetops Condominiums, Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First. Filing1452 East Lionshead Circle. Appellant: Treetops Condominium Association Planner: Mike Mollica TABLED TO JULY 22, 1991 Drive Willow Bridge. Road Gore Creek Drive Vail. Valley Drive Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road. AMnlicant: Town of Vail Planner: Mike Mollica 11. An Meal of a staff decision concerning a density variance granted to Treetops _Condominiums, Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing/452 East Lionshe-ad Circle. Appellant: Treetops Condominium Association Planner: Mike. Mollica s - Kathy Langenwalter moved the above items be tabled per the agenda. Gena Whitten seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 7 -0. 12. Approval of June 24, 1991 minutes. Ludwig Kurz moved, and Jun Shearer seconded, to approve the minutes of June 24 1991 as written. There was no objection, and the motion passed 7-0: After an informal discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35PM. f i Y five currents and six mugo pines. Applicant shall contribute 1/2 of the cost to screen the existing dumpster. The dumpster shall be moved to the south end of the property as much as possi' n d screening must be re and approved by the DRB. Applicant shall ble, location ate g PP pave the entire access easement between Units 2 and .4 on Tract A If possible, the paving area should be narrowed. In addition, landscaping should be placed in the area where—the paving has been removed. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was approved' 7 -0, A regueLt for a density variance for the Bernardo. Residence Unit 4 Tract B Bighorn Townhouses 4718 Meadow Drive #4B. Applicant: Bill Bernardo Planner: Mike Mollica The presentation was made by Mike Mollica. A motion was made by Kathy Langenwalter to approve the request. Findings A, B, C(1, 2 and 3) were cited per the staff memo with the. two conditions of approval as stated in the memo, with the following modifications: 's Applicant shall contribute 1/2 of the cost to screen the existing dumpster. The dumpster shall be moved to the south end of the property as much as possible; location. and screening must be reviewed and approved by the DRB. Applicant shall pave the entire access easement between Units 2 and 4 on Tract A. If possible, the paving area should be narrowed. In addition, landscaping should be placed in the area where the paving has been removed. ' Chuck Crist seconded the motion. It was. unanimously approved, 7 -0 3. A re nest for height, arking and den sity variances for the Sonnenalg, Part of Lots' K I and L, Block 5 -E, Vail Village First FihngL20 Vail Road 3 Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties Planner: Andy Knudtsen ;f E Andy Knudtsen presented the staff memo and the proposal. Questions from the Commissioners about parking; landscaping and access points were addressed with a model provided by the applicant. Ken O'Brien indicated there would be no need for fire access to the building, as an internal fire system would be installed. The Fire Department had approved this plan. Staff recommended approval of the requests, with the conditions listed in the staff memo:. After a presentation of slides by Ken O'Brien, Jay Peterson- explained the proposal further: The Sonnenalp was proposing to add 10- large rooms,, though only 2 people would be staying in each room. Most all of the other rooms would be enlarged, causing an increase in the Parking requirement. Accessory (restaurant): square footage would also be increased, though only about 20 seats would be added. Spa area was also proposed for an increase. Much of the proposed expansion to the common areas was to be located underground. Jay 2 i said that since the application had been made, the allowable 'common area had been increased to 35% from 20%. If the application were resubmitted, he believed it would be less non- nformin g than was indicated in the staff's memo. Jay asked that the parking be evaluated by need. The applicant had added landscaping since the proposal was viewed at the worksession, based on the Commission and staff recommendations. Only a small mechanical space. was causing the need for a height variance. Jay felt the bulk and mass of the building, as well as site coverage, had been wisely used. Much of the space being expanded was being located underground. The proposed roof location was the best for the chillers, as it would have the least impact on adjacent uses. He reminded the Commission that there was no GRFA located in the area for the height variance: r. ten O'Brien said it was very important the Planning Commission realize the Town of Vail Master Plan called for the redevelopment of the site. However, due to the current configuration of the project, not even 20 sq. ft. of common area could be added" without a variance request. Regarding the density on the site, Jay said that even with the addition of 10 additional i accommodation units, the project was under the allowed density. In . addition, there was still 11,000 sq. ft. of GRFA unused on the site. Turning to the issue of employee housing, Jay disagreed with staff's "computation of the number of employees generated by the expansion. He stated the redevelopment might actually result in a decrease in the number of employees necessary, as the current I configuration was extremely inefficient. He also said the Faesslers already supplied a "great amount of housing, and would continue to do so. i lay asserted the stream walk was a study area, and not an adopted part of the Master Plan. lie did not think it was fair to require the applicant to construct it at this time, .since it had. not yet been engineered. He said nothing in the current proposal would prohibit the future development of a stream walk by the .Town. Kristan Pritz responded that the staff ' tecommended that the landscaping be designed to allow the construction with as few impacts as possible. Staff was advocating the applicant complete rough grading for the path to allow the walk to be accommodated in the future without having to cut down mature vegetation: An alternative, as explained by staff, was to pull the Sonnenalp- planted' landscaping back to their property line and revegetate the Town land to .a natural state. Kristan also responded to Jay's comments regarding the number of employees staff: believed' could be generated by the redevelopment. Although the Rosall, :Remmen and Cares report had not yet been officially adopted by the Town of Vail, the report had studied similar ski. communities to determine the number of employees necessary for different types of development. Staff simply used the report as a basis for evaluation. Kristan said employee 3 Housing was a serious problem within the Town, and that the housing need should be addressed by developers of projects such as this. Dick Rosen, representing the Villa Cortina Condominium Association and the First Bank ' Condominium Association, said that overall, the Association members believed it was a good project, and did not have problems with the parking or common area variances. However, there was concern about the height variance, with some of the Association membership believing the mechanical equipment should conform to the maximum 48' height limitation.. Mr. Rosen reminded the Commissioners to consider the findings which were necessary to gent a variance, stating the applicants had not proven a practical' difficulty or physical hardship if the chillers were to be located on the ground. In addition; extraordinary 6ircumstances pertaining to this development had not been proven, nor. would there be. a r denial of privileges enjoyed by others. He said the development seemed to be backing into (lmost the SDD which had previously failed. There were also concerns regarding a potential Phase II retail development along Meadow Drive. IVir. Rosen concluded by requesting a height variance not be granted, and the chillers be located on the ground: i Jay Peterson disagreed, staring that the enclosure for the chillers was more of an architectural projection, and indicated that mechanical units can be placed above the maximum height with screening. Kristan agreed, stating there were. many instances in the area where; mechanical units had been placed on a roof at a later time, and.were not counted.as exceeding the maximum height. Jay illustrated on the renderings how -much the height would exceed 48 Feet. He explained to the Commission that the noise impacts of. the Medical Center's chillers, were bothersome, even. though they were behind a one foot concrete wall, and that. elevating the chillers to the roof would be a much better solution. Jim Wear from the Talisman said that the Talisman. Board of Directors had not yet reviewed the proposal, but had supported the previous plan, and believed this proposal had, less impact, ;hough a parking variance might prove to have some impact on the Talisman. He believed there were reasonable proposals regarding access to the Talisman, However, until a permanent access easement was given to the Talisman, they would be reluctant to vacate the current easement from Meadow Drive. Mr. Wear also said it would be unfair xo burden the $onnenalp with constructing the stream walk. At approximately 4:05, Gena Whitten left for a shorn period of time: Jim Shearer asked how fire access would be provided. Jay Peterson: said that there was no current fire access to the Talisman. He agreed to cooperate with the Talisman lo devise a better plan per the Fire Department requirement for a turnaround. Jim Wear reiterated there was a good working relationship, and the access issue could probably be worked out. 4 F 3 Chuck Crist asked for clarification on the roof color. Ken O'Brien said `it would be a GCnish patina, and would be constructed of .copper Chuck said he had no problem with, the a he said it looked as thou h the lot was never lfeight, and as far as the parking was concerned, g more than 70% full. With the increased landscaping, the parking was acceptable to him in f appearance. Chuck commented on the common area and said that the hallways alone would use up the allowable common area, and therefore had no problem with that variance. F Regarding the stream walk, Chuck did not feel it needed to be constructed by the owner. j Kathy Langenwalter asked Jay if he would be willing to go along with item H:of the conditions relating to the stream walk. Jay replied they did not want to do any grading for the path, but would leave an 8' width. Andy said that 8 feet may not be wide enough for construction, but would check with Public Works. I Kristan Pritz pointed out that part of the condition was to work with the staff on the stream walk. Jay responded they would work with staff, and would space the landscaping to adjust for a path. EChuck asked Johannes how many additional employees he was anticipating: Johannes said he " already has enough employees. Since there would only be 10 additional rooms, and a more efficient laundry, no additional employees would be needed. His statement was there "could " be a few more or a few less employees than he currently has. Chuck said he understood the otaff's recommendation for employee housing, and he appreciated Sonnenalp's . record "of providing employee housing. He added that, perhaps; they could restrict one unit for employees. - Jim Shearer had no problem with the height. He was concerned with the parking, and asked johannes if the restaurant and bar were going to be increased in size, would the parking still be sufficient. Johannes answered that there were some days,. such as the Fourth of July, when he would need more parking. On those days, he would use more bellmen and valet parking. lim suggested that, should a future project on this site expand the current plan, he would Tike to not diminish the requirements, but have them meet the parking standards in effect at that 4me. Regarding landscaping, he liked the revisions, especially on the corner of Vail Road and Meadow Drive. He felt there was enough landscaping with the berm at the Swiss Haus. Regarding the stream walk, Jim did not believe it was necessary to, ask the Soonenalp to construct it. However, he would like the landscaping pulled back so the stream walk could be .constructed at a later time. He also would like to see a commitment io not 'remonstrate. a ainst the stream walk added to the conditions. Regarding employee housing, Jim asked how many employees 4 units could hold. Andy replied staff presumed 2 to a unit, for a total of 8. Johannes discussed the employee housing problem. He said the problem with deed restrictions was that, when property value, increases, he must have the ability to find other employee housing. Jim stated he did not worry about. Johannes, but he felt it would be setting a precedent.: Johannes. had been doing a .5 night request the same privilege. Johannes suggested that perhaps there was some other answer, rather than deed restriction. He did not feel a deed restriction was the ,correct way to do it. I F Diana Donovan asked Kristan if, in the employee housing ordinance, employers could move the employee housing. Kristan replied there could be some flexibility in that regard built.into the ordinance. Johannes believed 4 units were too many because he would not have 8 new employees. Jim repeated that he thought a precedent would be set if Johannes were not ! required to have restricted units for his employees. f i Regarding common area, Jim found no problem with the request. However, he wanted to unsure the common area was reduced with the next phase. Jay reminded Jim there was no "next phase" planned at that time. Jim also wanted the Sonnenalp to come to an agreement with the Talisman regarding fire access before finalizing the plan. i Connie Knight felt the design was beautiful, but asked if it wasn't just a first phase, and if. the applicant would come back for the additional building along Meadow.; Drive. Jay Peterson. said they would not. She had no problem with the applicant's position on common area or the stream walk. Her concern was about parking. She believed the Town had to look past chat was being used today, and did not want the parking requirement reduced. Regarding the chillers, Connie requested this be studied to ensure there would be no, negative effects. Connie questioned the ratio of guests to employees. Johannes said it was about 1:1, but were Ourrently at 1.5 employees for every guest. Connie thought that since they were adding 20 more restaurant seats, more parking would. be necessary. Johannes. clarified these were bar $eats. Connie again questioned Johannes' statement he would need no more employees. She felt she could accept a reduced number of employee units. mie also wondered if there should be a sun/shade.- study. Johannes said the shade would wing into the courtyard, not into the public rights -of -way. Ken O'Brien pointed out the isman was 48 -50 tall, and were located closer to the road than this proposal. Connie did think any approval should be given until the Talisman access issues were resolved. Stan and Andy believed staff, the Fire Department, Talisman !and the Sonnenalp could >lve these issues, and it was listed as a condition of approval prior to any building permit ig issued. Jay reiterated that they were trying to work out the issuer Jim Wear stated he eved the issues could be resolved. Connie asked about fire truck access.: Ken O'Brien I all the fire trucks had to do was get to a Siamese connection which could be placed .., where along Vail Road. Ludwig Kurz said he was pleased to see the changes in the plan. since November. He. was Ead the Faesslers had decided to stay in Vail, and felt it was a credit to them and the Town. believed the proposal was a good use of a variance for the heights. He would, however e to see a clarification in the code addressing mechanical equipment, specifically stated if it is allowed above the height limit. Regarding parking, he preferred to see landscaping instead 6 a i Of the full number of parking spaces, especially considering the controls the Sonnenalp m giaintained. Ludwig also agreed with the variance request for common area, stating 20% was inadequate. Ludwig believed the developer had an obligation to develop a stream walk to improve the Overall appeal of the Town. Since he viewed the stream walk as a benefit to the Sonnenalp itself, he asked that its future development not be precluded. I concerning employee housing, - Ludwig said the Sonnenalp provided more than their share in i the past. In light of their history, he suggested restricting 2.units. r Kathy Langenwalter generally supported the project.. She was concerned, however, that the harking would continue to be provided for restaurant uses. She also agreed with Rick Rosen t4at the result of the variances was almost an SDD, but she still believed they were. reasonable. She felt strongly that employee units should be provided, if for no other reason than to ensure that if there were a change in ownership, 4 units would still be available. 1- { Gena Whitten did not support the removal of the parking, as she. saw a definite need for as . much parking as possible. She found the roof structure to be a good architectural design. She asked that the possibility for stream walk development be preserved: Johannes Faessler pointed out that his parking demands and the demands in the parking structures was almost opposite, with his highest demand in the summer, just when =the structures were at the lowest demand. Diana Donovan asked for clarification of the transfer of .GRFA. Kristan explained that permitted, accessory and conditional uses could not exceed 80 %. of buildable site ,area: She pointed out that the project exceeded . common, area and the 10% accessory limit for restaurant, retail and recreation, as well as exceeded the .80 limit. Diana also asked if the Oidewalk along ;Vail Road started at Meadow Drive. Ken O'Brien said. Public Works would determine the specific design. Diana believed it was. very important that access be clearly, from Meadow Drive. Ken said it would be difficult, but said they would work with Public Works. Johannes pointed out it was in his best interest' to make the access as visible and Accessible as possible. Elana asked for a condition of. approval that an attendant be required for parking control to nsure it was available for restaurant use. She said she did not find the height a problem, as it was a case of planning ahead. She reminded the applicant that it would be acceptahle w. the PEC to lower the height if all the height `were not needed to' accommodate :the chillers. the was in favor of definitely deed restricting employee units; stating the, Commission. needed to be consistent. She suggested language similar to what was used for the VWI. She wanted a minimum of 2 units within the Town. 7 ..... g. .. i egarding other conditions of approval, she asked that the height of the. trees along. the bezrn e maintained, that any new trees added should match that height, and that a statement be made that the parking variance made at this time would not reduce the overall requirement in the future, if an addition is built. Overall, she disagreed with staff's. opinion that the zoning bode parking requirement for accommodation units be adjusted. y Addressing the stream walk, Diana believed it was an adopted. plan, and said it would be an ! asset to guests and be a nice walk to the Village. She suggested roughing -in the walk, but retaining the natural landscape. In the alternative, she believed the Sonnenalp landscaping should be pulled back to their property line and the Town property be revegetated to a natural State. G A discussion ensued over what would be acceptable for an easement to the Talisman. Kristan Said she would have no problem with a license agreement, rather: than an access easement. Jim Wear said that without an easement, the Talisman would not be required or willing to give up their rights to the existing access easement under the Code. The Sonnenalp proposal was better than what currently existed, but not enough to give up their interest in the easement. The Talisman was concerned that the pedestrian nature of East Meadow Drive be preserved, but they insisted on legal access. Kristan suggested a license agreement which,. would provide access, but the access could be moved. Jim We asked. for an- easement with meets and bounds legal description. Jim Shearer suggested wording which 'stated an easement acceptable to the Town, Talisman and Sonnenalp be worked out. Jay agreed, but said the Talisman should not be able to dictate the .location. He committed to providing access; and tsuggested dedicating an access from either Willow Bridge or Vail Road with an irrevocable ensing agreement to the Talisman parking lot. Jim Wear agreed, stating as long as the . Talisman had access, they would not request that their easement along East Meadow Drive to be opened. Regarding the stream walk, Jay suggested language which .said the landscape plan would .not preclude the stream walk from being constructed. The plan would be designed to not necessitate removal of mature vegetation for the construction. Johannes said he would have no problem just landscaping the Sonnenalp land. Diana Donovan agreed with that suggestion. Johannes said it just did not make sense to require a rough -in of a plan which had .not yet been designed. The Commission concluded that no improvements to the stream tract, with either a roughed -in walk or any Sonnenalp landscaping, be allowed. After a discussion regarding the specific language of the conditions, Ludwig Kurz moved to Approve the request for height, parking and density variances for the Sonnenalp, part of Lots and L, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing/20 Vail Road per the staff memo with the following conditions: 1. Prior to Design Review Board approval, the applicant shall submit a site plan showing' in detail the descriptions of the following areas, as referenced on the site plan dated July S, 1991: a. The corner of Meadow Drive and Vail Road shat include vertical landscaping to screen the transformer, and shall be approved by the Town: Engineer. b. Detailed information as to the quantity, species and size of landscaping to be planted at the base of the building shall be provided. This landscaping should include a variety of trees, including aspen and spruce. C. The bus stop plans shall be drawn in detail to show seating, pavers; boulder, retainage (instead of ties), pedestrian access to the parking lot, as well as landscaping. d. The berm along Meadow Drive shall be extended as far east as.possble; approximately to the fire access points. The amount of landscaping along the berm shall be approximately doubled. 'The new landscaping shall be of equal height to the existing trees, and the Design Review Board.shall investigate the possibility of deciduous trees along the berm. e. All landscaped islands within the parking lot shall. include coniferous and deciduous trees. L The fire access to be built between the Talisman and Sonnenalp parking lots shall be constructed out of pavers, and shall be designed to replace the existing access between the two areas. Any landscaping that is to be removed shall `be replaced within the parking lots in a different location. g. A fire access turn around shall be designed in front of the Talisman to meet the standards of the Town of Vail Fire Department. Access onto. Meadow Drive via the recorded easement shall not be an option to meet the Fire Department access requirements. The. area in front of the Swiss Haus entrance shall be redesigned to accommodate fire truck access. A combination of landscaping and pavers. shall be planned in this area to create`a plaza, according to the concepts of the Streetscape plan. h. Town -owned land along Gore Creek shall be .revegetated after construction: to a natural state, and shall not be mowed .or incorporated- into the pool courtyard area. Town of Vail access across the southwest corner of the -Sonnenalp property for the construction of a stream walk shall be allowed by the owner of. the Sonnenalp. i. All landscaped lighting on Town of Vail land shall be. removed as part of the renovation. Any new landscape lighting to be installed shall first be, approved. by the Design Review Board. 9 - :4 .;.. i s J. A parking attendant shall be on duty at all times to facilitate use of the parking lot. k. The parking supply and design approved with these variances shall not be i viewed as a legal non - conforming solution which would otherwise diminish. parking requirements for future expansions or redevelopment. j Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the renovation, the applicant shall: a. Provide detailed engineering drawings of the curb and gutter and sidewalk 3 along Vail Road for the review and approval of the Town Engineer. b. Dedicate an irrevocable license agreement. providing access to,the Talisman } gr P g from either. Vail Road or Willow Bridge Road/Meadow Drive, outside the restricted pedestrian area. The goal of this requirement is the elimination of the Talisman access easement through the Meadow Drive. berm along the 4 pedestrian area. C. Permanently restrict two dwelling units, totalling 4 beds, for employee housing. The applicant may transfer the deed restriction. to. two other comp arable units within the Town of Vail. after securing written approval from the Town of Vail.. Said employee units shall meet the restrictions as follows: the employee housing units shall not be leased or rented for any period less than 30 consecutive days, and shall be rented only to tenants who are full -time all bemployees in the Upper Eagle Valley. The Upper Eagle Valley > she deemed to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman; Eagle -Vail and Avon and their surrounding areas. A full -time employee is' a person who works an average of thirty hours per week. The applicant or his successor in interest shall file a declaration of covenants and restrictions of record in the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder in a form approved by the Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town to .insure that the restrictions herein shall run with the land and shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Town of Vail. This declaration. shall be'submitted to the Town Attorney for review and approval and subsequently executed and. filed with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder prior to Town.of Vail issuance of any building permit for the Sonnenalp. l udwig Kurz stated that findings D(1), D(2), D(3)(a) and D(3)(t) of the. staff memo had been met. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 7 -0. -After a brief recess, the Commission reconvened for. consideration of the following: Ia : f 4. A request for the establishment of a Special Development District for an unplatted r parcel located in a part of the SE 114 of the SE 1/4 of Section 1. Township 5 South, Rance 81 West, 6th Prime Meridian_ enerally located north of Sandstone Drive and west of Potato Patch Drive. Applicant: Abe L. Shapiro Planner: Mike Mollica i r Mike Mollica presented the overview of the request, reviewed the staff's position and the € SDD review criteria. Staff recommended denial of the request for a Special Development District, citing the fact that staff could find no community benefit from its establishment. Staff could see some flexibility with the retaining wall height requirements,' `and the slope 4 requirements; but had concerns with the request for additional GRFA. After the completion of staff's presentation, Mr. Shapiro presented a detailed: rebuttal to staff's concerns. He read portions of two letters into the record, to illustrate his reasoning in applying for an SDD. The first was dated March 21, 1991 from the Town Engineer, and the second was from Mike Mollica, dated September 4, 1990. i Mr. Shapiro also addressed the concerns over the height of the retaining walls necessary for the construction of his driveway, stating it was not uncommon in many areas of Town.. He glso discussed the specific engineering of the driveway, including the revegeta n plans. Concerning the size of the proposed residence and employee housing units, he indicated 2;000 4q. ft. for a single family dwelling was too restrictive, and that he believed. he was doing the . i:ight thing with providing a 1,200 sq. ft: employee housing unit. Concluding his statements, Mr. Shapiro stated he believed the proposal was practical, reasonable and made sense. He thought he had responded to every request made by staff. He said 2,000 sq. ft. was more suited to a'condominium than a single family home. He declared the requests from the VVI, Sonnenalp and Spraddle Creek for similar concessions were motivated by profit, and staff had supported those requests. He simply wanted to build a home he and his wife could live in. He believed the negative affects from the by -right agricultural development of this property would be far worse than his proposal. If the PEC needed a hardship criteria to justify the SDD, he said the 2,000 sq. ft. size for: a single family home on the lot was unreasonable. Laurie Hartmeyer, representing the Potato Patch Homeowners Association, stated the Association did not object to the house, but to the driveway- -that it would hurt the natural beauty of the Sandstone area. The Association was also concerned with the possible impacts Of having boulder retaining walls if the road failed, questioning if boulders would "fly" down the mountain. Mr. Shapiro responded that the rockfall hazard area on his lot did not affect the roadway, and from the drainage report, if the culvert backed up, Sandstone Creek would flow east and down the road. However, at the high water point :approximately three weeks previously, only 25% of the culvert had -been used. Ms. Hartmeyer said that the main 'concern was the view factor and the possible failure of the boulder retaining walls. Audience member Joan Ackerman asked if a corral area was planned. 'Mr. Shapiro `said it would only be a portable outside corral. . lathy Langenwalter said she believed the issue of whether an SDD was appropriate for this project should be the focus of the discussion, rather. than the specific design. Connie Knight 4sked why an SDD was being pursued in this ,circumstance. Mike Mollica replied staff had dated to Mr. Shapiro there were two ways he could proceed with his request. He. could either pursue an SDD, or ask for density, wall height and slope variances. However, staff Gould find no hardship which would support the density request. Staff said this was a unique Situation where an SDD was being proposed for additional GRFA. Larry Eskwith elaborated Oat there was no zone district within the Town which would allow Mr. Shapiro to accomplish is goals. Mike explained that, if the parcel were rezoned to Hillside Residential, additional dwelling units and subdivision of the property would be possible, and neither the Town nor �4r. Shapiro wished to proceed that direction. Mr. Shapiro clarified it was his 'opinion the Warner SDD had been allowed for a similar purpose, namely additional GRFA. "stan Pritz explained that Spraddle Creek Subdivision had been developed under. the Hillside Residential zone district, and the landscape plan submitted with the subdivision * equest was much more extensive. With Mr. Shapiro, only a written statement of intent had �een submitted. Kristan said Mr. Shapiro's site was very sensitive; even more sensitive, perhaps, than Spraddle Creek. She felt it was not appropriate to construct a .1,200 sq. ft. employee unit on the site. Mr. Shapiro responded he believed 800 -900 sq. ft. was too small i for two people, and believed a unit of 1,200 sq. ft was the right thing to do. He believed that if employees did not have a decent place to live, they would leave Vail, Diana Donovan questioned if the zoning allows a 2,000 sq. ft. residence to . e :built; and the road could be designed without the need for any variance, would any approval from the PEC he necessary for development? Larry stated none would be needed, but. that the Town did not have an obligation to allow Mr. Shapiro to cross the Town right -of -way in order to access his property. Diana asked for a show of hands from the Commissioners on whether an SDD were appropriate for this development. After a majority indicated they did not believe it was, Diana related to the applicant the Commission had also voted against recommending the Warner SDD, but the Council had approved the development. She suggested the Commissioner's comments be given so they could be passed on :to the Council. before the Commissioners began their comments, Kristan clarified that staff.was not certain the driveway could be built without variances. Chuck Crist began the comments by asking for clarification that the site could be developed #s a vineyard or other agricultural use. Larry stated it could, as..it was a by -right use in the zone district. Chuck said he believed an SDD was inappropriate; but that Mr; :Shapiro had :done a good job trying to make it work. Chuck's main concern was with the cuts necessary 12 .a'£Ha. = v.,L,? -b: fear the construction of the driveway. He said the size of the house, in his opinion, Would i have a minimal impact. Jim Shearer asked why the GRFA in the zone district was so low. Larry explained it was 4esigned as a low density development zone district, primarily agricultural in nature.. The intent of the Council was originally to prohibit all development in the zone district but the Council had compromised by allowing minimal development. Jim also `wanted to know what 3 the maximum size of a generic employee unit was. Mike related the housing study had fecommended between 700 -800 sq. ft. The Dauphanais development had been.; permitted 500 sq. ft, with an additional 300 sq. ft. transferrable from the primary unit in certain conditions. Jim said he would support the allowable 2,000 sq. ft. for the primary unit, and` 500 sq. ft. for an employee unit, for an approximate total of 2,500 sq. ft. of GRFA on the site. He stated his support for the construction of an employee unit. Diana stated she would support an even a larger employee unit.. Gena "Whitten agreed; saying She could support between 600 -800 sq. ft. of GRFA for an employee unit. Ludwig. Saying he could also support a larger unit. i Yathy expressed she had a problem with the driveway, and was not sure she could support any development on the site for that reason. Also speaking on the issue of the driveway, Jim said he did not like the possibility of a permanent scar, but believed property owners had a reasonable right to enjoy their property. He said that if everything possible were done to limit the scarring, he would support Mr. Shapiro's development rights, though he would prefer to see the house closer to the base of the property to lessen the scar. Jim also said he would like to see the Forest Service trailhead design further. studied. Jim asked if the road Would be deeded to the Town of Vail. Kristan replied the Town would probably. not wish to Accept it. shuck said he would support an employee unit of between 500 -800 sq. ft. in addition to the allowed 2,000 sq. ft. primary residence. Mr. Shapiro asked for direction on how he should proceed. Mike indicated he could table the request and amend it to take into consideration the comments the Commissioners had made, Ask for a vote or withdraw the proposal. f3ena said she believed Mr. Shapiro had done a good job on the road. She thought: the 2,000 q. ft. allowed was outdated, and recommended to staff that be reviewed for the future. Mr. Shapiro responded he felt it was the. Commission's job to make right the problems yn the zoning code. Diana said she did not want to see large houses on agricultural zoning, and the done district was accomplishing exactly what it was meant to do: Diana's biggest concern was the road.. She said the house was set back far enough to jmini.mize its impacts, but did not believe a GRFA bonus should be.given for the primary unit... She did believe an employee unit would be acceptable, however. She had an additional - 13 mss. F. concern over the recommendation of more planting of trees, as there were few on the site at this point. Mike clarified the staff's recommendation was for planting; of "grove - like" areas, specifically near the creek. Diana recommended that if this proposal continued to Council, it be recommended 'Mr. Shapiro blend the old scar on the Town right-of-way. Diana could not support the SDD request,. as she saw no benefit to the community; only a benefit to the applicant. If the primary unit were decreased in size to the allowed 2;000 sq. ft., she could support an employee unit up to 1,000 sq. ft. in size. 4adwig. Kurz was concerned with the .scar; even with the mitigation measures Mr. Shapiro`, proposed. However, he stated if anyone could accomplish a good development on .this site, it would be Mr. Shapiro. Ludwig had no problem with the bulk and size of the structures, but that an SDD was not appropriate since he could find no community benefit. ' Lathy concurred with Ludwig, saying the SDD was inappropriate. She was uncomfortable with the cut and fill proposal, as she had found the actual construction impacts to always be worse than originally anticipated. She said there would be too much scarring for a, private i fesidence. However, if the development could be accomplished without a variance," she j believed Mr. Shapiro had the right to build his house. Regarding the employee housing, her support would be influenced by the driveway. If the driveway could be better designed, she may be able to support up to an 800 sq. ft. employee unit. ' mmendations finding no community, benefit from the Connie Knight agreed with staffs recommendations., g y F SDD. She agreed that 2,000 sq. ft. was not enough for. a single family unit, but it was the honing. She had no concerns with a smaller employee unit on the site. lVir. Shapiro asked for the consensus of the Commission if they preferred the employee unit j be attached to the primary unit. They said they would. Mr. Shapiro then asked for direction on how he could proceed. Larry Eskwith said the Planning Commission's role in .the SDD process was advisory, and they gave recommendations to Council. The options, he related. to, " Mr. Shapiro were that he could: 1) go forward with his proposal to Council,.2) withdraw his g application and bring back a new proposal, or 3) table his request and revise his proposal. If " he chose. to withdraw the current application, he would have two options for a :-new request. He could bring a new SDD request, or request variances. However, Larry stated either x.equest would be evaluated by the appropriate criteria - either the hardship criteria for the f " grant of a variance, or the 9 SDD criteria. W. Shapiro thought tabling the current SDD request was moot, as it was clear the Planning Commission did not want an SDD. He said he wanted to withdraw his application and pursue a variance request. Diana reminded Mr. Shapiro that he could still proceed to Council; With the Planning Commission recommending denial . of the request. She said it was her opinion it might be wiser to proceed to the Council, and if they denied the request, he could 14 {rF 4 proceed from there. She believed that gave him more options, as he could have more time to reflect on the course of action he wished to take, and could still ;table or withdraw his application at the Council level. Xathy added that if Mr. Shapiro ended up returning with a variance request, it was still Oossible the determination of the PEC could be called up for review by the Council: If Mr. ' hapiro proceeded with a recommendation from the Commission at this point, he could at the thinimum receive input from the Council on their opinions: 4fter Mr. Shapiro stated he would like to receive a recommendation from the Planning and Environmental Commission on the SDD, and proceed to Council, Kathy Langenwalter moved i 0 recommend denial to the Council of the request for the establishment of a Special. Development District for an unplatted parcel located in a part of the SE 1/4 of the -SE. 1/4 of $ ection 1, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, 6th Prime Meridian, generally located north of Sandstone Drive and west of Potato Patch Drive, based on the finding that. the Special Development District did not further the overall community goals of the Comprehensive Plan br the Special Development District objectives.. She further moved that the Commission's comments on the Special Development District be included with the recommendation. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. It was unanimously. approved, 7 -0. A request for a worksession_on wall heights at the E.B. Chester Residence, Lot 191 Block 1 Vail Village First Filin095 Mill Ckeek Circle. Applicant. E.B. Chester Planner; Kristan Pritz Kristan Pritz explained the reason this worksession had been called was to get the Planning and Environmental Commission's opinion on the retaining wall height exceedence. , Jay Peterson, applicant's representative, presented the applicant's position on the options available to rectify the situation. Mr. Grant Williams, a neighbor of the .Chesters, argued that the subdivision covenants did not allow for fences, and that the Town Zoning Code upheld the covenants. The issue was left undecided,. with the question to be researched by Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney. The PEC stated their desire to see the fence meet the heights required by the coder Most members felt some flexibility may be warranted concerning the height of the wall in the sparking area on the southwest corner of the property. 15 Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department July 8, 1991 A request for front setback and density variances for property located in the low density multiple family zone district/ Unit 2, Tract A, Bighorn Townhouses / 4708 Meadow Drive. Applicant: Carol Dick Planner: Jill Kammerer DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCES REQUESTED A. The applicant proposes to add; 92 sq. ft. of living area (GRFA) to the ground level of Unit 2, Tract A, Bighorn Townhouses. The deck area to be infilled is located beneath an existing ,cantilevered bedroom. on the north side of the , structure, which is adjacent to East Meadow Drive. The cantilevered area. currently encroaches 6 feet into the front (north) setback. The proposed infill addition would encroach 4 feet. into the front setback. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the construction of this addition 16 feet from the front property line. Therefore, the ap ilicanf s addition would encroach 4 feet into the required 20 foot front setback. B. This site is zoned low density multiple family (LDMF). Under LDMF zone district development standards, a maximum of 3 dwelling units are allowed. on this site. A four -plex was constructed on this site pribr to Town of Vail annexation of the property. The structure, which was lawfully established prior to Town annexation of the site does not conform to LDMF development standards regarding density. Therefore, the site development is classified as legal nonconforming. Section 18.64.50 (B) of the Vail `Municipal Code which addresses legal nonconforming structures which do not conform to density controls reads as follows: "Structures which do not conform to density controls may be enlarged; only if the total gross residential floor area of, the enlarged structure does not exceed the total gross residential floor area of the 'preexisting , nonconforming structure." i Therefore a density variance is required in order to allow for the construction L of additional liyinLy area. I. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS FOR TRACT.A A. Zoning: Low Density Multiple Family B. Site Area: 14,630.56 sq. ft. (Tract A) or 0.3359 acres C. GRFA - Tract A (30% of Buildable Site Area): Allowed: 4,389 sq. ft. F Existing: 4,296 sq. ft. Proposed: 4,388 sq. ft. j Increase: 92 sq. ft. I i Remaining: 1 sq. ft. D. Density: Allowed: 9 units /acre or 3 units ` 'Existing: 4 units Proposed: No Change E. Site Coverage (35% of site area): Allowed: 35% or 5,121 sq. ft. Existing: 2,994 sq. ft. Proposed: 3,014 sq. ft. Additional: 20 sq.. £t. F. Height: Allowed: 33 feet Proposed: No change G. Setbacks: * *Front Required: 20 ft. Existing: 14 ft. Note: Area of addition would be setback 16 feet. from the front property line H. Parking: No additional parking is required with .this proposal. * Density variance required in order to allow for the construction of additional GRFA. ** Area of requested setback variance (All other setbacks are unaffected) 2 3 . �... � f III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Findin s Section 18.62;060 of the. Vail Municipal Code, the upon review of Criteria and g , p Community Development Department recommends. approval of the requested variances based ' On 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. Front Setback Variance i The existing structure encroaches b feet into the required 20 foot setback. The area of the proposed addition will encroach 2 feet less into the required front setback than the existing structure. The proposed addition will not negatively impact the above - listed considerations. Staff is recommending the applicant add three additional aspens along Meadow Drive and pay for a portion of a dumpster enclosure and driveway paving. Density Variance There are 4 tracts of land (A, `B, C and D) and 2 separate easement areas associated with the Bighorn Townhouses plat. Tracts C and D are open space • ` which has been deeded to the Town of Vail as a art of Bighorn Park.. Tracts w p A and B are each developed with a four -plex. As previously noted, the Dick four -plex is located on Tract A. The ;other four plea is located: immediately, south of Tract A on Tract B. The four -plex on Tract B .was also constructed prior to Town of Vail annexation of the property and exceeds the allowable. density of Tract B by one dwelling unit. The property to the west is zoned Residential Cluster and is developed with the Mountain Meadow Townhomes; to the.east and north is the Town of Vail' Bighorn Park, which is zoned Agricultural and Open Space; to the south is the White River National Forest. Staff believes the requested density variance will not negatively impact existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 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. 3 Front Setback Variance � he proposed addition could be constructed elsewhere on the site and not P P encroach into the front setback. Any addition to the west would be on Unit 1- owned property. Any addition to the south would be onto a common access easement. Any addition to the east would interfere with an existing stairway to the second floor of the units and a large, 2 -story window which provides views to the Gore Range. However, for this proposal, staff believes. it is reasonable to consider the existing residence's location in .the front setback to be a practical difficulty warranting .a front setback variance. The applicant is requesting a variance to infill .'deck area which does not exceed the existing setback encroachment. This degree of relief from the strict and .literal interpretation of the code is appropriate and has been granted to other property owners with similar circumstances. Density Variance The site has sufficient GRFA to Allow the infilling of the deck area without exceeding the allowable GRFA for the site. The density variance is necessary only because the existing development exceeds the allowable unit count. For this proposal, staff believes it is reasonable to consider the fact the existing: residence was constructed under Eagle County's development standards to be a. practical difficulty warranting the requested density variance. The Bighorn Townhouse final plat was approved by Eagle County in November, 1968. The plat created four tracts: (A B, .0 and D);. a common parking easement and a common septic tank and ;leaching field easement. These easement areas are separate lots from Tracts A, B C and D. 'Tracts A and B have been developed with two'4- plexes. Tracts C and D. have been deeded to the Town of Vail for open space. Because of "the way the property was platted, the easement areas are considered separate lots and 'do not qualify as site area for GRFA or density .purposes: This method of platting is unusual . as most townhouse or condominium plats include the common areas for the purpose of calculating GRFA or density (please see copy of plat attached to this memorandum). Had the tract been subdivided in a different manner, there would be sufficient site area to allow the construction of a 4-ple'x on this site, the structure would not be considered legal non- conforming, and a den, sity variance would not be required in order to allow the construction of the addition. For these reasons, and because GRFA remains on the. site, staff believes relief from the code is warranted. 4 f;_ �j,;' � �• � Ft# 9 1' q" r 3c, i!'?y 3ay.,f'rXU4} •� JD q. d O +u'p i{ 91 to 5 ,� C I KV 1.41 FF or i r a ! r � ^/ ' ' / .,,w_ r� _ter ��r .�:��.;. iu.P +•�» �-i�k, 33�� p r ?I i atr ? ` day 1 i �vsf sY r .. • a V L in W. W co y� • a K E, -; 2- jL' Q ( J :2 •,� s Y 'i`'' by .� \ ►, `.•• 1 V) �. 7� }F w ^' �Ov ~L � � � � he � ,� i o►a: G 0 n 16 FIO[r N s�p4� � ♦ ,y c4;# a! Ck� �S,*� V3r. 2; 6 / - i f rr.T 4��ik'� y a� � � . •��- '�r �_ .+12'61 �. ' rt�. � :��`� {�>i �R� W.'; �. �y � 11 _ ♦L f ;1� � Q$ ' �� , in Er �� ' ^� ^' ': - �+►' 4YY � ! 1 N 1 -. 4 .;i �+ \�'Vp� � -. r `F } -�dF ' - �� - .. f ti ,i i�"�'� .* �� +y.. r • � . 1 � � -': -+ Jt �i� .- J! Dl,� \�� . F iY� F a �. a fi r •4 ' 'O°rr`r ' 00 OR. z � iF,O �����. - M £. / = 7.. Da. e ; .•, n �. _. i;.'.,s'�t0l.,t;� r t'�� ;. H 1hl�wasv !40 c �' _ err 'L�/�7, ✓.. -.. •.�e``- _;. A- e�$xs�.�a...� =.: Esc 's�.a �. .�'a.,.�4 �— � s - f � MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission ROM: Community Development Department 'r t t)ATE: f July 8, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a density variance for the Bernardo Residence, Unit 4 Tract B, Bighorn Townhouses /4718 Meadow Drive, #4'B. Applicant: Bill Bernardo Planner: Mike Mollica 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE RE UESTED A. The applicant is proposing to add 277 sq. ft. of living area (GRFA) to Unit 4, Tract B, Bighorn Townhouses. The area of the proposed addition is located at the southeast corner of the unit. 186, sq. ft. of GRFA is proposed for the first floor addition, and 91 sq. ft. of GRFA is proposed for the second floor addition. B. This site is zoned Low Density Multiple Family (LDMF). Under the LDMF zone district development standards, a maximum of 3 dwelling units are allowed on this site. A four -plex was constructed on. this site prior to Town of Vail annexation of the property. The structure, which was lawfully established prior to Town annexation of the site, does not conform to LDMF development standards regarding density:. Therefore, the site development isclassified as legal nonconforming. Section 18.64.050 (B) of the Vail Municipal Code which addresses legal nonconforming structures which do not conform to density controls reads as follows: "Structures which do not conform to density controls may be enlarged, only if the total gross residential floor area of the enlarged structure does not exceed the total gross residential floor area of the preexisting nonconforming structure." Therefore a density variance is re uired in order to allow for the construction of additional living area. 1 A. Zoning: Low Density Multiple Family B. Site Area: i 18,890 sq. ft. (Tract B) or 0.4336 acres C. GRFA (30% of Buildable Site Area): ' Allowed: 5,667 sq. ft. Existing: 4,300 sq. ft. i Proposed: 277; sq. ft. Remaining: 1,090 sq. ft. D. Density: Allowed: 9 units /acre or 3.9 units = 3 units *Existing: 4 units F Proposed: No Change i E. Site Coverage (35% of site area): Allowed: 6,611.5 sq. ft. Existing: 3,038 sq. ft. Proposed: 105 sq. ft. Remaining: 3,468.5 sq. ft. F. Height: Allowed: 33 feet Proposed: No change G. Setbacks: No change from existing H. Parking: No additional parking is required with this proposal. Density variance required in order to allow for the construction of additional GRFA. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Vpon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the :Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance .based on the following factors: 2 ._hi A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or } i potential uses and structures in the vicinity. There are 4 tracts of land (A, B, C and D) and 2 separate easement'areas associated with the Bighorn Townhouses plat. Tracts. C and D are open space which are owned by the Town of Vail. Tracts A and B are each developed with a four -plex. As previously noted, the Bernardo four -plex is located on Tract B. The other four plex is located on Tract A, which is immediately north of Tract B. The four -plex on Tract A was also constructed prior to Town of Vail annexation of the property and also exceeds the allowable density of Tract A by one dwelling unit. The property to the west of the Bighorn. Townhouses is zoned Residential Cluster and is developed with the Mountain Meadow Townhomes; to;th "a east and north is the Town of Vail's Bighorn Park, which is zoned Agricultural and Open Space; to the south is the White River.National Forest. Staff believes the requested density variance will not negatively impact any existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The applicant, is proposing additional landscaping as a part of this project. Please see the attached site plan. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve' compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or, to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The site has sufficient GRFA to allow this proposed expansion without exceeding the allowable GRFA for the site.. The density variance is necessary only because the existing development exceeds the allowable unit count. For this proposal, staff believes it is reasonable to consider the factthat the existing residence was constructed under Eagle County's development' standards to be a practical difficulty warranting the requested density variance. The Bighorn Townhouse final plat was approved by Eagle County in a November, 1968. The plat created .four tracts (A B, C and D) a common parking easement and a common septic tank and leaching field easement. , These easement areas are separate lots from Tracts A, % C and D. Because: of the way the property was platted, the easement areas are considered separate lots and do not qualify as site area for GRFA. or density purposes.. This method of platting. is unusual, as most townhouse . or condominium plats include such common areas for the purposes of .calculating GRFA or density (please see copy of plat attached to this memorandum). Had the property been' k 3 P" • subdivided in a different manner, there would be sufficient site area to allow the construction of a 4 -plex on this site, the structure would not be considered legal non - conforming, and a density variance would not be required` in order to allow the construction of the proposed addition. For these reasons, staff believes relief from the code is warranted. Staff believes additional'ORFA should be permitted to be added to the four -plea; provided the GRFA does not exceed the maximum allowable for Tract B. 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 proposed addition will have no impact on any of these considerations. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties. classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental = to.'the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties Pr improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:. A. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable'to the same site of the variance. that do not. apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Staff recommends approval of the requested density variance with conditions, due to the fact that the structure was constructed under Eagle County's development standards; prior to Town. Of Vail annexation of the property, therefore creating a physical hardship. The fact that there } �s GRFA remaining on the site also warrants the support of the variance request. There are ho negative impacts on adjacent properties. The variance criteria cited include findings 1, 2, 3(a, b). Staff recommends approval of the requested density variance subject to the following conditions: That the applicant pave the portion of the access easement which` is immediately i adjacent to Units 4 and 2 of Tract B. Please see the attached map which indicates the area required to be paved. 2. That the applicant contribute 1/2 of the cost to screen the. existing dumpster. } Dumpster location and screening rnust be reviewed.and approved by the DRB f r c -\pecNmemos\bemardo.708 5 ad 1 r F - t :r J .. s: - w ,€ •nE th { -. r'" r kkyi } - i sc, y`� i''tix'•.ylh 14 [S si- 's bjf� � ry Nr f � �' s �x+ : � 1�f.� � � O { irk rnw Ci.�:_ 4 � ♦ r i,�� ._ 'cif .r: `1 • ` • X n y -� id F�r cv r A t I Z. G1 wa ca. 0 � 1S h. ?:.;, rtr M�� r#� �' O -r! S,vr I a I • � !^ �r;z: o.Z. rk "::. 3.�1i _' #4i c W W �.0 IN•. I •iy .h kql *' C O 4,yS : M+,4� �♦` f 'R' ns` S L. W I � r W z w Y' W , uj OD Oio t'Cah- JI1 rr YI� ?;Sfr u "3.4- =r. ♦ F y [j•r� �� *� \ \. ' I w _• i 4 �Mr '£ �•,.:.+i.d f 'i'k Sal �i .: ir'{ *`'-kk Kr�� >�• r}`f���I +kti H.. �!'r /+: v/ _ "` �lv. � 1.� n` � _ \.' ��` -. r -: �g 1�` €�, nth - -.� ii �` ✓1�7��.^•, a•. 4` k � ��ti y,�� P J 1 � yJ� V.` � Jj\ 1�:: y s�1 �.' h ���j'.i4 �1 �,.'. i h:€ 1 i -.,i '♦ to cpt • d" -y. f- Ff r 4� m �m 1w� *Y W jL 2. �; 2a� <�` �`� JJ -S3�J4 �f� � I�y "• � �,•,a :a' i LIZ F f Qavt�a[ a` �OOrLI d' OF sOJACENT BUILOINO PARKING EASEMENT UNIT 2 MITI - R. 47. 98'�_ 7 .3 L- 17. SB' tENTE RUNE 30'SYIDE - pI - At. ROAD EASEMENT i DEC _ \ e UNIT 3 - YT.o q. TER UNIT 4 -. `i -- Id Id -COMMON WSLL - FOLLOWS PROPERTY -LINE / IMPROVEMENT / LOCATION CERT2FTCATE BRICK STEPS / / - - I` hereby certify. that this Iapzovem- £OZ -BILL BERNARpO _ .. aj. OuFLINE OFitl) ACEN7 -- j i - - / .. survey, 21&t . -or lmptoveaent survey pl' -. -upon for the e3tabli6haent - Ou0.01Ny y - IR ' tk .k OEM 1. 1 T"Aso YIILL / �i. ,y0' - _ .. Of fence,! Imes 14.l IS i pl' - 4. J u4 / PL6NrER. /. / I - 'further Ce Stify theft the k■ iovemen P tiTis data 10� exce . �i'+ l ' - - vkthia, the boundaries of the parcel,.. enCtO _hmente- Oppn.th�B deacti.bed preo uILBINe aV[RN e .. ". TRAIT C pieaiaae, axcep@ qs €ndkcated and `tri sign of any easement crosakag ct buz:f - J, as noted. TR ACT B Date: xy- 90 f / ' _ ' r Lip 1 •``b, . emLO oa SCALE " 10• AM FiML� /Z70, - / ^I* U4141 fw, i SITE PLAN � :. 10' O �t o 0 0 0 MEMORANDUM ?TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM; Community Development Department DATE: July 8, 1991 ,SUBJECT: A request for the establishment of a Special Development District located on an unplatted parcel located in a part of the SE 114 of the SE :1/4 of Section.i 1, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, 6th .Prime Meridian, `generally located north of Sandstone Drive and west of Potato Patch Drive. Applicant: Abe Shapiro Planner: Mike Mollica 1. INTRODUCTION Abe Shapiro, applicant and property owner, has filed a request for the establishment of a .,Special Development District for an unplatted parcel of land located in the. northwest section of Lionsridge Filing No. 1. This 6.8 acre, unplatted parcel is located north of Sandstone Drive and west of Potato Patch Drive. EMr. Shapiro is requesting that an SDD overlay zoning be approved for his property. Such approval would allow him to expand the. maximum allowable GRFA of 2,000-square ject , "which is currently prescribed in the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District. The «applicant is proposing that the maximum GRFA be increased to a total of 3,425 sq. ft. for the 1primary residence. Secondly, in. addition ..to the allowable single family residence on the. site, {the applicant is proposing one restricted employee dwelling unit on this site. It is proposed ;that the employee unit would be integrated into the main structure and it would consist of approximately 1,200 sq. ft. of additional GRFA. The combined GRFA proposed, for the primary and the secondary (employee) unit, is 4,625 square feet. This does not include a 900 sq. ft, attached garage, which is considered a "credit," and is not included in the calculation of GRFA. _The third variation from the underlying zoning is With regard to the maximum, height of the proposed retaining walls and the maximum slope of.cut and fill areas. Section 18:58:020(0) of the Vail Municipal Code stipulates that the maximum height of a retaining wall cannot' .exceed 6 feet, nor can it exceed 3 feet in any required front setback area. The applicant's proposal includes retaining wall heights of up to 9.5 feet. The Vail Municipal:Code (Section 1$.54.OSO,ID,7) also requires that all cut or fill slopes not exceed a maximum of 2:1. The applicant is proposing to exceed this standard with. cut and fill slopes of up to 1.25 :1. l II. BACKGROUND AND 14TSTORY On June 9, 1990, Mr. Abe Shapiro requested a variance from the :minimum lot size to allow for the construction of a single family residence, with a secondary employee unit on this parcel. Subsequent to the review of the proposal, the Planning and Environmental Commission, by a vote of 5 -0, unanimously denied the applicant's request. At the request of Jack Reutzel, attorney for Abe Shapiro, the Town attorney reviewed ordinances relating'to the density section of the Agriculture and Open Space zone district.. The results of this review indicated that a codification error had occurred in 1379 and that the existing Town code, in the Agriculture and Open Space zone district, does allow one .single family dwelling unit having 2;000 sq. ft. of GRFA, provided that a parcel in this .zone district contains a minimum of one acre of "buildable" land. This information was passed.on to Mr. 'Reutzel in a letter dated July 27, 1990, by Larry Eskwith: III. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is proposing to construct a single family residence with an integrated, permanently restricted employee unit. Additional structures proposed on this site would include a 1,500 sq. ft. detached barn and a 162 sq. ft, detached greenhouse.. Access to.. the ite is proposed via a 1,650 foot long driveway, which would begin at the first switchback, adjacent to Red Sandstone Creek, at the bottom of Potato Patch Drive. The driveway is ! proposed to be 12 feet in width, and would consist of an asphalt surface, as well as an asphalt .curb and gutter on the uphill side. A safety guard rail is also proposed for the entire length of the driveway, and the guard rail would be installed on the downhill side of :the driveway. Due to the isolated location of the applicant's property, and the :fact that the property is not immediately accessible to a public road, the parcel is considered to be ' landlocked''. Rowever, Mr. Shapiro has applied for a Special Use Permit from the United States Forest Service to obtain a private road easement, across the adjoining White River National Forest lands to the east, thereby obtaining vehicular access .to his site. This private. driveway, if approved by the U.S. Forest Service, would cross approximately 700 lineal feet of Forest Service property. A significant amount of fill material would be required to be placed over the existing two culverts for Red Sandstone Creek. The reason.for this additional filt,material would be to elevate the initial section of the driveway so that a maximum .grade of. 10% can be achieved. The Forest Service review of the Special Use Permit, and the Town of Vail's review of this SDD establishment, are proceeding concurrently. A final decision from. the Forest Service is not expected until late summer. The proposed private driveway would also cross a section of Town ,of Vail public right -of- way. This encroachment will require an approved easement from the Town, for the 'approximate 130 feet of driveway which is proposed to be located within the right =of -way, 2 for additional GRFA on a property that is located on such a prominent- hillside, is very visible from many areas of the community and is currently zoned Agricultural:; and It is the staff's opinion that the allowable uses in the Agricultural and Open Space. p Open Space Zone District clearly indicate the rural nature of the district. The purpose section of the zone district (Section 18.32.010) states that: "The Agricultural and Open Space district is intended to preserve agricultural, undeveloped, or open space lands from intensive development, while: permitting agricultural pursuits and low density residential use consistent with agricultural and open space objectives. ; Site development standards. are intended to preclude intensive urban development and to maintain the agricultural and open space characteristics of the district." The staff believes that, in order to fully meet the intent and purpose of the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District, the mass and bulk of any residential dwelling proposed in the district should be kept to a minimum. We believe the provision for up to 2,000 sq. ft. of GRFA to be very reasonable.in this zone district, and that the applicant's request for more than twice the allowable GRFA is excessive and inappropriate. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The staff believes that the applicant's proposed uses for .the site; such as a single family residential dwelling, a detached greenhouse and a detached barn are compatible uses in the district. Additionally, we can appreciate -'the applicant's desire. to assist in providing a restricted employee housing unit within the Town of Vail. However, we feel the additional mass and bulk required to construct the employee unit is not appropriate on this particular parcel. Again, the staff emphasis is on keeping the size of the building to a minimum s and thereby reducing the visual impacts from the of f would be able to support t t he m 1 o Y e e housing C on e t Valle floor be low. The st e on this site if the applicant was willing to take the GRFA for the employee' unit from the 2,000 square feet which is currently allowed. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined. in Chapter 18.52. The applicant's proposal includes a three - car attached garage of approximately, 900 sq. ft. in area. This garage, in conjunction with the associated surface - parking area immediately to the west of the garage, will provide more than adequfe parking for the proposed development. S { i v rraa traraa�.aw «aaaa v• «a ....mob•• � ..• - - _ The Town of Vail Land Use Plan shall be utilized as a guideline in any request for a Special Development District. This property has .been identified' in the Land Use Plan as "Open Space." The open space designation reads as follows: "Passive recreation areas, such as greenbelts, stream corridors and drainage ways are the types of areas in this category. Hillsides which.were classified as, undevelopable due to high hazards. and slopes over 40% are also included in this area. These hillside areas would also -allow types of development permitted by existing zoning, such as one unit per 35 acres, for areas in agricultural zoning." This SDD proposal was also analyzed according to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan Goals and Policies. The staff has identified the following goals and policies we believe to be relevant to this proposal: Goal No. 1.6 - Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis...Limited development may be. permitted for some. low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity` to the environment. Goal No. 1.12 - Vail 'should accommodate roost of the additional, `growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). Goal No. 5.1 - Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as. appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. Goal No. 5.3 - Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by' limited. incentives, provided by the. Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. Goal No. 5.5 - The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated. at varied sites throughout the community. the staff believes that, in order to comply with the Land Use Plan goals and policies; and the 'Open Space" designation on the applicant's parcel, the extent of development on this particular parcel should be kept to the maximum allowable, under the eeistirig' Agricultural and Open Space Zone District. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or, geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. The southwest section of the applicant's property is located in a high severity rockfall zone, as well as a high hazard debris flow area. A hazard. evaluation was completed by Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D., on August 15, 1990. Mr. Lampiris has identified certain mitigation measures which he believes would decrease the hazards on. he site Such mitigation measures include a 6-foot berm around the rear (north) of the home to deflect rocks or debris and/or extending and strengthening the foundation walls, above finished grade, on the north side of the structure (internal mitigation). It is the staff's position that, should this project be. approved, and proceed to the building permit phase, the direct (internal) mitigation measures recommended in the study,by Nicholas Lampiris be included. in the overall final design of the residence. It is the 'staff's understanding that the applicant is willing to do the internal mitigation: 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: It is the staff's opinion that this is undoubtedly the: most important criteria, of the nine which are used to review the merits of this proposed Special Development District: Because of the location of this property on a south - facing hillside, above and to the northwest of the center of Vail, the development would be very .visible from locations within the central areas of the Town of Wail,. as well as .from the ski slopes above: To quote from the environmental assessment, which was completed for this project on May 20, 1991, under the direction .of William A. Wood: and Tim Grantham, of the Holy Cross Ranger District (USFS): "The project will increase the viewer's perception of .human influence which at present conveys a natural impression; at completion, the projecrwill appear an extension of low density residential development: adjacent to other developed areas, thus serving as a visual transition between the dense development of the Valley floor, and the natural vistas of the upper iinountainsides Retaining walls will be extensively used; but use of native ;rock materials, revegetation, and landscaping will serve to minimize visual impacts. Visual impacts will be minimal from the center of the Town of Vail, where the view of the project area is often obstructed by buildings.; and from the I -70 corridor, .where the 7 A6, . '_ i traffic velocity tends to shorten and obscure views of the project area. The • area will be most visible from Vail Mountain, by skiers or those using the Vista Bahn lift. The Town staff is extremely concerned about the visual impacts that the road cut, and the associated development, would have upon the community as a whole. We acknowledge the fact the applicant does have the right to construct a single family residence, with a maximum of 2,000 sq. ft. of GRFA on this property. ` We are. also cognizant of the fact that access to the site is extremely difficult, given. the steep topography, rock outcrops and the proximity of the nearest public road. Staff believes that even with the utmost care in constructing the project, that revegetation swill be r extremely difficult, and that permanent scarring of the hillside will be visible from the Valley floor below. 1 G. A circulation system designed for both .vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. I I 1. Vehicular Access Providing vehicular access .onto this property is perhaps the most difficult aspect of the development.: The applicant is proposing to begin the private driveway at the lowest switchback of Potato Patch Drive. Within the first 200 } feet, the driveway will cross over two existing culverts, in which Red Sandstone Creek is piped for approximately 150'. At this point; the applicant is proposing to add approximately 14 feet of additional fill over the creek, in order to elevate the driveway and to maintain a maximum driveway slope of 10 %. The staff is very concerned about this additional'fill material and the aesthetic impacts it will create: This "wall of fill ". will be highly visible to all those in the area of Potato Patch Drive. Additionally, the potential im p acts, to an existing, nearby Forest Service trailhead are being addressed by the Forest Service, through their evaluation of applicant's requested ;Special Use Pe.rmi , for the driveway. The applicant has agreed to maintain access to the trailhead. 3 2. Retaining Walls The staff believes that the retaining wall issue is a key point in the evaluation of this Special Development District proposal. Considerable lengths of retaining walls will need to be, constructed in . order to, maintain a maximum. 10% slope on the driveway. As proposed, all the :retaining walls would :be constructed out of large boulders, which would be located both above (for the cut slope) and below (for the fill slope) the driveway. Tl e'.heights of the 3. exposed portions of the boulder retaining walls would vary from a minimum of 3.4 feet, to a maximum height of 9.5 feet. Excluding the first: 250 feet of the driveway, where considerable amounts of fill would be placed, the boulder , i �i S retaining walls would be necessary for the remaining 1 00 feet of the driveway. It should be noted that at this time, the proposed rock retaining walls have not been fully engineered. Extensive soils testing >will lie' necessary to determine the exact heights of the walls. Please see the attached letter to ' Abe Shapiro, from Greg Hall (Town Engineer) dated June 27, 1991. The staff has analyzed the proposed retaining wall heights and lengths and the approximate dimensions are as follows: Lengths of "cut wall" between 0 -6' in height: 440 lineal feet I Lengths of "cut wall" over 6' in height: 1,030 lineal feet ` Lengths of "fill wall" between ' 0 -6' in height: 890 lineal feet ' Lengths of "fill wall" over 6' in height: 130 lineal feet ' 3. Cut & Fill Slopes T The cut and fill slopes, located both above and below the. proposed driveway, are another issue which the staff would like to address. The Town's development standards state that the maximum allowable slope shall be 2:1 ' The applicant is proposing to use geo- textile fabrics, integrated into the: slope, and is proposing that a maximum slope of 1.25:1 be approved. The staff acknowledges that the steeper the slope, the narrower the area of disturbance j would be. However, we are very concerned with the proposed revegetation method of these steep slopes. The applicant is proposing to revegetate these slopes with a combination of transplanting existing vegetation: and seeding: An excelsior erosion control net would also be used. , For the specifics on the proposed revegetation plan please. see the attached plant, submitted by Marty Jones of Colorado Alpines, Inc., dated June 26, 1991: The applicant is also proposing to install a . temporary irrigation system, for one to two years, in order to help establish the vegetation.. The Town staff; including the Town Landscape Architect, have softie concerns about this method of revegetation. The staff believes that the timing of the transplanting is the critical element in the revegetation process. This period is from early April to mid or late May, and from early October, to mid November; (depending on the weather). Additionally, the Town's experience in. revege'tating steep i slopes has been that slopes in excess of 2:1 become very difficult, ;if not impossible to establish vegetation. on. The Town staff would like to see a fully detailed irrigation system plan and would also like to see the use of trees and i shrubs used extensively in the revegetation plans. 9 A 'Fill I& 2 \i \ `� All � \ � } )� �� dill ' •P ' PT '��••r �1�1. (r.wlRwyi�rw��..r+•�+�www..�r.. .+,R� .. ' ■.Z w r f: w h i J r• p• I P; � n w R w r Z n•. w n j: ern � r w• i w x w w w x w i r r r�� Ftl�E I, l Dram I ar'nn S • 1� oa'erso p 9 �tC �N l ! lit l! i1� 1111 I Ij'7 f fir illl�lll[ +II 4 1 r I! 111 � iiI l�11 Il II +li Illl i Nf I II `s:_.:•,;� ", ,' . ��� j IIII III +I II� jll ihlj jll I "II IIIIIl11�111 EIII II Ijllff `l` Ill 1I I N1 !ll III I+ Ilkl IIII IIli ! ff 1 { Ilh k� III III tf, r,, 1441 y �y 1111k!!l1�1II llyll IHlll�jlIl +:, if � Il4 I l`+l�!11,�h� IIII1li kk k�111`1 y1 I IlIIIf�III! i {r � tF� `- i. ��p i'j+4 l� ilji`'k�l�lylllp4jlllli 111 jl,•��! +Illliillllllfll •sa i r• � y 1 111111 1 1 1 1 Ilf Hll 111 Ili t II 111 ll� 141 Y yN 4 +j 1!l! �Il�'plkI flI14 III. + � `d4k 1� II 19111' V � y4y I� •� lhl,5j� �115Y��V1�3jII - �I:�nL';:j • [' �11 1hy`11j iM�l t ! .i•. 1 t s . , 1•• , {�4 1 ��f �ae 117777 , 5j4` �(ti. �� ;j r -: �� 1• �� X14 j 1`MYh .ytl a' dl {M1 Ik Ss �y h 1451 1�1Y ti�i }}'V. ti'i.t1,�. 1Y 11iY1155 : �,�VgJyV 1 . - \ Y� ���♦ w i :a sea I i I 1 a 1 j• i I Y . I. .. oa•tNi i I, l I i I 1 a 1 j• i I �I I u 4 � . 3 0 y I- Y . I. .. oa•tNi i ... .......t i. iE Dram I ar'nn S • 1� oa'erso p 9 �tC .... ca'cm �I I u 4 � . 3 0 y I- 'S oa•nc>t ��W �I3 wage i t Nu" I - "WO `■Itaa �. i. iE I ar'nn S • 1� x �tC � . ot•[ea� __ I k • w'xua 'S oa•nc>t ��W �I3 wage i t Nu" I - "WO `■Itaa �. IOU, IX F1 I AN ,i lifiiiii ! s!•' -III Hilt yJ11 I I ... ...... .. .... ...... ............ kk 444444444 .......... .. w n w• '• III` ' .... ......... ......... .. 11 jlid L t ...... 77, YA Ito 'T 117 .... ...... ... ......... .... ..... .... e - e no 8. r, - I :yA•Y ' • - W..[. a L • FT I �• .a _r �• u j �RRb o� a W W Z .. W W Q —Xo W w C� ©J I i s D 0 1T n Q. G y ut , u e e � � s •� • � t, I � ,o L I _. r I E�_ 0•,0l o'tp _... � 0,11 � ; 3i I�: lee . ' 1 ,•i ., I ' .1 vi ei ,II �yl ' TI0 Oi JC IE al i �• .a _r �• u j �RRb o� a W W Z .. W W Q —Xo W w C� ©J I i s D 0 1T n Q. G y ut , u e e � � s •� • � t, J"s,'1[V1Vl: C.ViiliilUlllly IJGVG1V�11ILGlIL LG1JGU UUGIIL DATE: July 8, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 2, Pinos del Norte, Building C, Northwoods Condominiums /600 Vail Valley Drive Applicant: Pinos del Norte .Condominium Association Planner: Andy Knudtsen 4. f �: DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Pinos del Norte Condominium Association plans to build an addition to Building C to accommodate two new uses. The first is an approximate 1,000 sq. ft.. recreation room. The second will be 16 private storage lockers, each approximately 50` sq. ft. in size; The recreation room and storage lockers will be used solely by the owners and guests of Pinos. del Norte. The addition will be built on the north side of the building. It will be adjacent to the existing underground parking garage. The east side of the addition will be visible. However, the grades on the north and west sides will be bermed up to the roof so that these two elevations will not be visible. The roof will be landscaped with sod. The applicant would also like to ` construct an approximately 10' wide sidewalk along Vail Valley Drive, connecting the Northwoods driveway entrance (on the east side) with the. bike path by the Vail Associates Childress' Center (on the west side). This request is a major amendment to the Special Development District No. 2, because the addition expands the building footprint by more than. S feet. The addition will nat increase s the allowed common area by more than 5 %. t E. Identification and metigation: of natural andlor :geologic hazards that affect ' the property on which the special development district is proposed. 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. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians .addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. ' H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. I. Phasing ,plan or subdivision. plan that will maintain a ;workable., functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. IV. STAFF CONCERNS AND ISSUES A. The one aspect of the project which staff needs to be resolved is the sidewalk proposed to be built along Vail Valley Drive. It would be constructed from the ! driveway on the east side to the bike path immediately west of the Pinos del • Norte property. The planning staff believes the sidewalk would be a positive contribution to the area. Some details as to the alignment mustbe worked out. Construction of a bike lane for this area is included in the preliminary 1992 CIP budget. At this time, the Town :has not determined whether the bike lanes will be attached to the street, or located on Forest Service land south of the homes on Vail Valley Drive. Until an alignment for the. bike path is.' established, the Town cannot give clear direction to Pinos del Norte as to the location of the proposed sidewalk. We will continue to work with the applicant to resolve those issues so that the walk can be constructed. j B. Another concern is the slope and retainage in the area of the proposed sidewalk. A detailed survey has been provided, showing the topography and existing retaining wall. However, a solution; including a new retaining wall, has not been identified at this time. C. At this time, the applicant has agreed to construct, the walk according to the standards listed in the Vail Streetscape Plan, specifically the use of "concrete unit pavers. Prior to a final hearing on the request, the planning staff, applicant, and the Town Engineer will work together to resolve. all these issues..' 4 Npec\nemo&Vinos.708 i ti 3 f PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 22, 199.1 y i AGENDA 12:30 Site Visits 2:00 Public Hearing Site Visits Public Hearin 4. 1. A request for wall height and site coverage variances for Lot 1, Block 1, ! Intermountain Subdivision /2684 Larkspur Court. i Applicant: Robin E. HernreichlAtwell Development Planner: Betsy Rosolack i 2. 2. A request for a worksession to rezone property from Primary/Secondary to Low Density Multiple Family, generally located at 2239 Chamonix Lane, more particularly, described as: Parcel A; A tract of land containing one acre, more or less, located in the South 112 of the South East 1/4 of Section 11, Township.5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: i Beginning at the NE corner of the SW 114 of the.SE 1/4 of. said Section 11; thence westerly along the northerly. line of said SW 114 of the SE 114 bearing south 86 20' W a distance of 167.80 ft. to. a point: Thence southerly along a line 167.80 ft. distant from and parallel to the ' east line of said SW 114 of the. SE 114, a distance of 200..00 ft. to a' point: Thence easterly distance of 167:80 ft along aline 2Q000 ft. distant Y from and parallel to the north line of said SW 114 of the SE 114 to a point on its east line; Thence easterly on a line parallel to the no line of the SW 114 of the SE 114 of Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to a point: Thence northerly and parallel with. the west line of the east 1/2 of the S.E 114 of said Section 11, a distance of 200.00 ft. to the point of intersection with the extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE j 1 /4 of said Section 11; 4� l Y 3 i Thence westerly on a deflective angle left of 95.21'00" along': he extension of the north line of the SW 114 of the SE. 1/4, of said Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to the NE corner of the SW 114 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, being the point: of beginning. Parcel B: Tract A, Vail Heights Filing No. 1, according to the ,recorded plat thereof. Applicant: Erich and Lily Schmetzko Planner: Andy Knudtsen 3. An appeal of a staff decision concerning a density variance granted to Treetops Condominiums, Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing /452 East Lionshead Circle. Appellant: Treetops Condominium Association Planner: Mike Mollica 3 TABLED TO AUGUST 26, 1991 5. 4. A request for a conditional use permit and :a setback variance for an outdoor patio for Gondo's Restaurant; Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing1600 Lionshead Mall: Applicant: Legends of Vail/Vail Associates Planner: Jill Kammerer 1. 5. A request for a front setback variance for the Tupy Residence; Lot 33, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision /1901 Chamonix Lane. Applicant: Leon Tupy i Planner: Andy Knudtsen j 3. 6. A request for a site coverage .variance for the Ro.thbart Residence, Lot 12, Block A, Vail Das Schone First Filing /2349 Chamonix, Drive. ' Applicant: Gary. Rothbart Planner: Jill Kammerer 7. A request for a minor exterior alteration, .and a site coverage variance for Super Star Studios, Gorsuch (Clock Tower) Building, Lots .0,:. D and E, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing /263 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Paul Golden Planner: Jill Kammerer TABLED TO AUGUST 12, 1991 8. A request for review of the Vain. Streetscap:e Master Plan' for formal recommendation to the Town Counell. The Master Planaddresses the general area from East Lionshead Circle to Ford Park, and includes West Meadow Drive,.East Meadow Drive, Willow Bridge ;.Road, Gore Creek Drive, Vail Valley Drive,. Bridge Street, and 'Hansan Ranch Road. Applicant: Town. of Vail Planner: Mike Mollica TABLED TO AUGUST 12, 199 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION j July 22, 1991 present Staff Ithuck Crist Kristan Pritz Connie Knight Mike Mollica Ludwig Kurz Jill Kammerer Kathy Langenwalter Andy Knudtsen. Jim Shearer Betsy Rosolack Gena Whitten Amber Blecker Absent Diana Donovan The public hearing was called to order at 2:00 by Vice - Chairperson Chuck Crist. 1. A request for wall height and site coverage variances for -Lot L Block 1, Intermountain Subdivision/2684 Larkspur Court. A tulip cant: Robin E. Hernreic Atwell Develo ment Staff: Betsy Rosolack i Betsy Rosolack described the request. Staff recommended approval with the condition that r • the vacation of the lot line be recorded with the Eagle Count Clerk before issuance of a g Y building permit. At the conclusion, Kristan Pritz added that staff would like an additional condition of approval that the wall be faced with rock veneer and match the rock on the structure. Mr. Atwell, the applicants' representative, stated they would agree to that condition. Jim Shearer asked for clarification of what was necessary for the previously- approved lot line ` vacation to occur. Betsy said it was ready, but was awaiting signature. Mr. Atwell clarified they were waiting for approval from U.S. West, and that approval was to have been received 3 that day. I Connie Knight said she agreed with the recommendations. Gena Whitten found the site coverage reasonable, and that the engineering requirements for the wall height made sense. Chuck Crist asked what the roof material for the garage would be, and Mr.. Atwell responded it would be sod. Chuck also questioned if the placement of the garage would worsen the debris flow conditions. Jerry Meramonte, also representing the applicant, stated the placement was designed to maintain the slope at the completion of the project. �` 1 Jim Shearer moved to approve the request for site coverage and wail height variances in order to construct an underground garage on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, intermountain Subdivision per the staff memo with the recommendations and findings in the memo, with the additional Condition of approval that the exposed portions of the retaining wall be veneered with the game stone as the building. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion.. It was unanimously approved, 6 -0. 2. A request to rezone property from Primary Secondary to Low. Density Multiple Family, generally located,at 2239 Chamonix Lane, more particuarly described as: Parcel A: A tract of land containing one acre, more or less, located in the South 1/2 of the South East 1/4 of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 114 of said Section 11; thence westerly along the northerly line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 bearing south 86 20' W a distance of 167.80 ft. to a point: Thence southerly along a line 167.80 ft. distant from and parallel to the east line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, a distance of 200.00 ft. to a point: Thence easterly a distance of 167.80 ft. along a line 200.00 ft. distant from and parallel to the north line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 to a point on its east line; Thence easterly on a line parallel to the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to a point: Thence northerly and parallel with the west line of the east 1/2 of the SE 1%4 of said Section 11, a distance of 200.00 ft. to the point of intersection with the extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11; Thence westerly on a deflective angle left of .95 21'00" along the extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11; a distance of 50.951t. to the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, being the point of beginning. Parcel B: Tract A, Vail Heights Filing No. 1, according to the recorded plat thereof. Applicant: Erich and Lily Schmetzco Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen explained that the worksession was to determine the general intentions of the Commission, and that the applicants would most likely come back at the next meeting for. mother worksession, based on the comments made at this meeting. Rick Rosen, representing �' 2 k F t the applicants, explained there was a long history with the property. When it was originally subdivided by the County, it was zoned for S 1/2 units, but was. downzoned to Prim Secon when it was annexed b the Town. Mr. Rosen indicated there were - Primary/ Secondary Y several legal questions about easements and utility lines on the property, as well as hazard mitigation improvements. In explaining the request, Mr. Rosen showed a hypothetical development plan for a development under Low Density Multi- Family zoning. He said this was most likely not what would be proposed at this time. He indicated there were a couple different ways the Applicants could proceed. The first was to rezone the property to either Low Density Multi family or Residential Cluster and build a maximum of 6. units, or the other alternative was to obtain variances and build three Primary/Secondary structures on three lots. The ,applicants .preferred the previous zoning, and believed it would.be better than developing hrough the use Of variances. Jim Shearer's opinion was he only liked Residential Cluster zoning if the units were to be permanently restricted for employee housing. He preferred to leave the zoning as it was, Y especially given the hazards. He said he believed the job of the Commission in this case was to think of safety, and he thought that hazard would be difficult to mitigate adequately in r order to develop. Connie Knight said she was not opposed to higher density development in the neighborhood, but did not think it was appropriate on this site. She preferred two units. Gena Whitten f agreed, stating that the neighborhood could accommodate additional density, but that safety was the rim consideration for advocating lower density on this site. P �'Y Kathy Langenwalter asked if there was a zoning appeal of this site at the time of annexation. Town Attorney Larry Eskwith said the Town had 90 days from the time of annexation to propose zoning, and that the determinations then went to the PE and Council. He stated input from owners and the public could have come at that time.. Kathy said she could not support higher density due to the hazards on the sites, unless a geologist could refute the hazard areas. She was not in favor even of using mitigation methods to develop higher.. density on this site. Andy asked her if she could accept .mitigation standards, which could be internal or external, which could be shown to reduce the hazards to an acceptable degree. Kathy said she would consider them only if they were not environmentally unsightly. Andy suggested perhaps using internal mitigation, such as no windows on the north side, ;etc. Kathy found that type of mitigation acceptable for the current zoning, but not for increased density. Ludwig Kurz concurred with Kathy's statements regarding the hazards. Chuck Crist wondered if there were other access points to the property which would not be in A hazard zone. Rick Rosen said they had. examined.two other possibilities, but they would require either purchasing lots or using the adjacent property's parking lot. Rick said he was 3 i` K trying to determine what plan could be implemented which would be economically feasible to the owners, and give reasonable density. Jim Shearer questioned why the property was down -zoned at annexation. Kristan replied that there was a question if the property was actually down - zoned. Kathy said that frequently, especially in West Vail, the County zoning did not dovetail with the Town's zoning. Larry Eskwith elaborated that, when the properties were annexed, those which had gone through the County review process were permitted to proceed. Kathy continued that there were a series of meetings on the rezonings, but that areas, not specific lots, were rezoned. Chuck Grist agreed with the comments of Kathy and Ludwig, citing the extreme hazards on the site as prohibiting higher density. However, he would consider the higher density if perhaps 1/2 of the units were designated for employee housing. Rick Rosen proposed to work with an engineer and geologist to see what hazard mitigation and design measures could be incorporated into a development plan and bring it back ;again for another worksession. If it was acceptable, they would follow that worksession with a final proposal. The consensus of the Commissioners was that was a good procedure, with Jim Shearer indicating he believed it was positive to request PEC input during the process. Action on item 3 was postponed to the end of the meeting. 4. A request for a conditional use permit for an outdoor patio for Gondo's Restaurant, Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filina/600 Lionshead Mall, Applicant: Legends of Vail/Vail Associates Planner: Jill Kammerer Jill Kammerer reviewed the request and staff's memo. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions listed in the memo. Bart Garton representing the applicants, said that a dining deck had been previously approved, and this location was one of only a few restaurants in Lionshead without a deck. Ludwig Kurz asked Bart if they had thought about using outdoor tables and chairs rather than picnic tables. Bart said that Vail Associates had donated the. picnic tables, and that finances were tight for this summer, but the applicants wanted to try to improve the seating.for:next summer. Ludwig also questioned if flower boxes were planned in addition to the planting pots. Bart said they were not intended to be installed at this time, but the fencing was designed to allow for later installation. The owners wanted to make the patio as nice as. possible. Kathy Langenwalter asked if the applicants would agree to staff's conditions of approval.. Bart replied they would, R ' t Am Shearer stated he would eventually like to see umbrellas at the tables and flower boxes. He believed the addition of a dining patio was good in this location. Connie Knight disa ed with Jim's recommendation of umbrellas, stating this location was shaded at this. time. Jim clarified he would like to see them more as an accent feature than as a necessity for shade. Chuck Crist asked if landscaping would be removed to construct the patio. Jill Kammerer said the existing grade and all landscaping would be preserved. Connie Knight moved to grant the request for a conditional use permit to allow an outdoor dining deck at Gondo's Restaurant in the Lionshead Gondola Building per the staff memo with the conditions listed therein. After a second by Ludwig Kurz, the Commission unanimously approved the motion, 6 -0. 5. A request for a front setback variance for the Tupy Residence, Lot 33, Buffehr Creek Resubdivisio 1901 Chamonix Lane. Applicant: Leon Tupy. Planner; Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen explained the request. Kathy Langenwalter asked for a clarification on how far the second -floor cantilevered projections extended from the foundation. E.J. Meade, the architect for the project, and representative for Mr. Tupy, stated the cantilevers.extended 16 inches. Andy clarified there was a range of encroachments into' the. front setback, but .no area extended beyond the 6 foot encroachment listed as the variance request. Staff recommended • approval of the variance with conditions. E.J. Meade showed the Commission a revised site plan with additional landscaping as had been agreed to between staff and the applicant. He said it was a beautiful site, and the structure had been designed trying to balance the pragmatic needs of the residents and the setback requirements of the Town. E.J. clarified .that no willows would be removed on the site, and that the structure would serve as a transition between the higher and lower density developments surrounding the site. The owner had agreed with Town staff, to install a curb and gutter system. Jim Shearer asked what the existing zone district allowed for density and height. E.J. said there was 4,925 sq. ft. of GRFA allowed on the site, and approximately 3,915 sq. ft. was being proposed. Kathy Langenwalter requested further clarification on the offset from the foundation at the front of the home. E.J. Meade explained the plans in detail. Cynthia Steitz, a neighbor residing at 1895 Meadow Ridge Road, read into the record a letter signed by many adjacent owners voicing their concerns about the impacts of the proposed structure on safety, about the way the front yard would be affected by proposed road 5 s improvements, and indicating that there was no hardship, as the :purchasers knew the restrictions of the site when they purchased it. Another neighbor, Marka Moser, residing at 1880 Meadow Ridge Road, was concerned about traffic safety, stating that the increased traffic along the road with the bus route, the developments at Vail Point and The Valley result. in an already dangerous situation. She believed encroachment into the front setback would be a further safety deterioration: She said she used to have a fence in her front yard, but it had been knocked out 5 times. In addition, she recalled three years where the Tupy's property had been flooded, and questioned if any building could be safe on the lot. She said the stream had been in the middle of the property since it was subdivided, and the constraints from the floodplain were known when'the Tupy's purchased the lot. Due to those facts, she did not see a hardship which. would warrant granting of a variance. She also was concerned about the size of the structure, stating the home across the street was only approximately 1,600 sq. ft. E.J. responded by stating that the Tupys were also concerned with safety, and that an engineer had studied the flood problem, and that mitigation measures were going to betaken. Another neighbor asked where-visitors to the Tupys would park. Andy replied. there were two garage spaces provided, two additional spaces in front of the garages, and one in. the driveway. These 5 spaces met the code requirements of 2 1/2 spaces per unit. Neighbor Bob Dooher, at 1994 Buffehr Creek Road, asked for a breakdown of the structure's floor area between the primary and secondary units. E.J. said the primary residence had approximately 2,324 sq. ft, of floor area, and the secondary contained approximately 1,365 sq. ft. of floor area. Mr. Dooher asked that the architect point out to the Commission. where on the model the street was located. Chuck informed Mr. Dooher the Commission had walked the site and had seen the orientation. Mr. Dooher suggested moving the primary unit toward the rear of the property. E.J. pointed out that it would then be in the stream setback. Mr. Dooher stated he had lived on the street for 10 years. He asked if the Corps of Engineers had actually looked at the site before issuing their opinion. He believed . some of the trees could actually be thinned. Kathy said the structure was still confined by the stream setback and the flood zone. Chuck asked if Mr. Dooher would prefer trading the front setback for the stream setback. Mr. Dooher replied he would, and asked when the flood zone was established. Mike Mollica said the most recent FEMA map was dated 1985. Mr. Dooher also suggested altering the floodplain or the stream bank. Mike replied the Corps of Engineers would probably not issue a permit to do that. Steve Steitz said the problem was the location of the lot. Since it was in a narrow, steep valley, there were frequent occurrences where mud slides dammed the water, then broke suddenly, resulting in a flooding situation. 0 's • Connie Knight asked what a Valley pan was. Mike explained it acted .like a swale. A neighbor asked where the pan would drain. Andy replied it would be along the right -of -way. Kristan Pritz informed the Commission that staff had erred in their parking calculations, and recommended getting the Commissioner's comments, then tabling the item to the August 12, 1991 meeting for final action. Kristan said the Town Engineer would study the drainage issues, especially how the improvements would affect the neighbors. Connie wondered if the owners were informed of the hazards when they purchased_ the lot. Mike said they were, but staff gave them no assurances of any variances being given. Connie said she liked the fact the design was not in the stream setback, and believed this design had the least impact. She did not believe the trees needed to be thinned, but said there was perhaps too much landscaping along the curb. Connie also thought the roof design, was nice. Jim Shearer was glad the item was going to be tabled so the drainage and parking questions could be addressed. He stated that if a variance were to be given, he preferred granting one in the front setback rather than in the stream setback. Kristan reiterated that the parking question was due to an oversight by staff and was not the architect's fault. Pena Whitten found the parking to be the main issue in her mind. She said there were lots of bedrooms and studys, and felt that if the size of the studys were. scaled down, there would be no need for any variance. She believed the siting of the structure was sensitive to the stream, and liked the relief on the facade. Staff responded by stating that the parking requirement was based on total GRFA, and that the number of bedrooms or studios did not affect the parking requirement. Kathy Langenwalter said that when the parking issue was resolved, the design could change, so she did not want to make specific design comments at this rime. She did find a physical hardship on the site which would warrant granting of a variance. She stated the owners were within their development rights with regard to GRFA and site coverage. She would like to see the structure extended to the rear where possible without encroaching into the stream setback. She also requested that, for the next meeting, the actual size of the building including second story cantilevers be staked, rather than simply the foundation. Ludwig Kurz concurred with Kathy, stating he found a hardship on the. site. He believed the owners showed restraint in their density, but he was uncomfortable with the front setback.. Chuck Crist also believed the applicants had a hardship on the site. He thought the house Was designed to be sensitive to the stream setback, but also would like to see the house moved back more from the street. Marka Moser asked how many bedrooms were in each unit, and: if the parking requirements Were determined by the number of bedrooms or by the square footage. E.J. Meade' replied there was a master bedroom, two smaller bedrooms and a study in each unit. Kristan 7 . ■ `r r explained the parking requirements were determined by the square footage of the structure, and that this was the maximum number of parking spaces required under the code. E.J. Meade said that it was not the applicant's intention to affect the safety of the area, but wanted the Commission and the audience to understand their desire to build a house. He requested the item be tabled to the August 12 meeting. Jim Shearer moved that the request for a front setback variance for the Tupy Residence, Lot i 33, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision/1901 Chamonix Lane be tabled until the August 12, 1991 meeting. Gena Whitten seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously, 6-0 6. A request for a site coverage variance for the Rothbart Residence, Lot 12, Block A. Vail Das Schone First Filing/2349 Chamonix Drive_ Applicant- lica_nt: Gary Rothbart Planner: Jill Kammerer Jill Kammerer explained Mr. Rothbart's request for a site coverage variance in order to allow the construction of a roof over a portion of the entrance to the proposed residence. Staff recommended denial of the application, based on the fact that the lot was less than . the minimum lot size, and other lots with the same limitations in the area had not received a variance. Staff believed granting a variance would be a grant of special privilege in this case. In addition, staff could find no physical hardship which would warrant granting the variance. being granted. • Mark Donaldson the project architect, represented the applicant. Mark believed the hardship Larose from the small lot size. In designing the structure, the approach was to allocate' the GRFA very carefully in order to have a well- proportioned building. He stated the applicant Was requesting the variance to cover the walkway for safety reasons, the variance would not affect the neighbors adversely, and there would be no monetary gain to the applicant should the variance be approved. Jim Shearer commented he liked the look of the previously- approved trellis which did require a site coverage variance, and since the steps were not going to be heated, he, preferred the trellis. He also said that since there was a house of similar design very close to the proposed Rothbart residence, he believed the differences helped. Mark replied there were 3 lots between the two houses, and that there were several. differences between the two structures, including windows, color, and the roof. Jim said he could go either way on the request, but needed an indication of some hardship. 'Mark said it was critical to look at how the site coverage was apportioned, and only a .7% relief was requested. Jim reiterated he preferred a trellis, and if the cover was for pedestrian safety reasons, he believed it was more critical to cover the stairs than the landing. i w l l onnie Knight also could not find a hardship which would warrant granting a variance. Gena Whitten thought a site coverage variance to allow a roof form versus the approved trellis covering portion of the entrance was just a technicality. She did not like a trellis, and € g over a 1?0 preferred a roof in this area. f Kathy Langenwalter said there needed to be a hardship to grant the variance., and since the stairs were not going to be covered, and the rest of the roof form would shed snow onto the stairs, she did not believe safety was an issue. Ludwig Kurz also could not find a hardship, ` and believed the trellis was a better solution. Chuck Crist concurred there was no hardship. Kathy Langenwalter moved the request for a site coverage variance fora new ,residence on tot 12, Block A, Resubdivision of Vail Das Schone First Filing/2349 Chamonix Lane be denied per the staff memo with the finding there was no hardship to justify the variance. f Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. The vote was 5 -1, with Gena Whitten dissenting. 10. Awroval of July 8. 1991 meeting minutes. After corrections were made, Ludwig Kurz moved the minutes of July 8, 1991 be approved as amended. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was approved 6 -0. 3. An appeal of a staff decision concerning a density variance panted to Treetops Condominiums, Lot 6, Block 1, Vai1'Lionshead First Filing,/452 East Lionshead Circle. Appellant: Treetops Condominium Association Planner: Mike Mollica `7. A request for a minor exterior alteration, and a site coverage variance for Super Star Studios, Gorsuch (Clock Tower) Building, Lots C. D and E. Block 5i Vail Village First Filing/263 East Gore Creek Drive. _Anulicant: Paul Golden Planner: Jill Kammerer 8. • Hanson Ranch Road. _Ay2licant: Town of Vail Planner: Mike Mollica 3 s fi The slope of the property averages 40+ percent and the property is in a' moderate debris flow area. The applicant has a primary/secondary residence and proposes to ' constmet a 3-car garage and to enclose a hot tab ' and deck. He has received permission from the Design Review Board to separate the garage from. the residence by a covered stairway. The Design Review Board cited the existing residerice and the steepness of the .slope as physical hardships which: permitted the separation of the garage from the house.. Because of. the steepness of the slope, and to disturb as little soil as possible, the proposed garage is placed in the front setback. The garage is allowed to be in the front setback because of the slope exceeding 30 %. A swale and storm drain presently.exist to the west side -of the proposed garage. The ` purpose of this swale is to :drain surface runoff and debris flow down to the storm sewer. The engineer's report concerning the debris flow hazard recommended awing �� wall at the west end of `the garage to protect the garage in case: of a large flow down the existing swale to the storm sewer. This retaining wall will be the same height- as the front wall of the garage (13 feet) and be backfilled with soil' at a maximum 2:1 slope. This wall and associated grading is required to maintain the existing :conditions at the storm _ sewer and to satisfy Mr. Lampiris' request." The engineer also feels that the design of the garage, as well as the retaining wall at the rear of tie:.garage will' increase the overall stability of the property. (Please see -attached hazard report from Nicholas Lampiris as well as the ietterfrom MY Mueller ;Company concerning the design of the wing retaining wall.) III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS I A. Lot Size: 19,822 sq ft (combination of Lots 1 & 2) B. Zone: Primary /Secondary ` C. Density Permitted: 2 du's Density Proposed: 2 du's D. GRFA Allowed: 4145 sq ft GRFA Proposed: 2359 sq ft (includes 248 sq ft in garage) Site Coverage Allowed: 2973 sq ft based on 15 %' of lot size E. Proposed Garage: 1,148 sq ft Garage Credit: - 900 M ft Included in GRFA: 248 sq. ft 2 - ., Est.. , Y ;R . . ✓ .Rixhr .s¢w@35iEYY -. 7 t �IEE4R -SiK =$ F. Site Coverage Allowed: 2973 sq ft based on 15% of lot size Site Coverage Proposed: 3105 sq ft (which is 1.32 sq ft over the allowed, or 15.7% of lot size) G. Height Allowed: 33' Height Existing: 34' (existing residence) Height Proposed: BY (garage), 23' (stairway "enclosure) H. Wall Height Allowed in Front Setback: 3 feet Wall Height Proposed in Front Setback: 13 feet sloping to 2 feet * A portion of the cul -de -sac (874 square feet) was: vacated and given to the previous owners of Lot 1 with the condition that this area not be used to calculate GRFA or density. Therefore, the allowable GRFA is based on a lot size of 19,822 square feet minus 874 square feet, .or 18,948 square feet. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 1.8.62,060 of the Vail., Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variances based on 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. a. Wall Height Variance This residence is on a steep hill, and several of the driveways in the neighborhood are also steep. To keep the driveway from becoming too steep;. and to disturb as little soil as possible, the garage is proposed in the front setback and would be buried into the hill. This results in a retaining wall being placed in the front setback. On lots of 30% slope or steeper, garages shay. be constructed within the front setback without a variance. 3 • • b. Site Coverage Variant Because the slope of the site is over 30 %.the allowable site coverage is 15 percent (rather than 20 percent) :of the total lot size of 19,822 square feet, or 2973 square feet. The applicant is requesting a 'site coverage of 15.7 percent or 132 square feet more than allowed for a total of 3105 square feet. Thus the variance requested is .7 %. 1145 square feet or 36% of the total proposed site coverage will be underground and not visible as site coverage. The total site coverage above grade will be 1;987 square feet or 64 %. The staff can see no adverse effects upon existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 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. a. Wall Height Variance Because of the steepness of the slope, the garage .is permitted to be in the front setback without 'a variance. Placing the garage near the front of the lot reduces the amount of soil that is displaced. However, this requires that a retaining wall be placed. in the front setback. The engineer considered stepping the wall, but stated that the 13 -foot wall would allow more backfill to be placed behind the wall. This will allow a higher berm to be created which would give greater protection to the property from potential debris flow to the west: The staff feels that the topography, soil conditions and debris flow hazards create a physical hardship for the applicant, and` that a wall height variance would not be a- case of special. privilege. r i i y y i Site Coverage Variance The staff feels that the request for a .7 %, variance in site; . coverage is a minimum degree of relief from the strict' and literal interpretation inasmuch :as 36% of the proposed site coverage would be underground. Staff believes that some relief from .the regulation on site coverage is warranted, given the hazards on the site and topography. The site coverage is still substantially below the standard Primary/ Secondary site coverage allowance of 20 %. 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 staff can find no adverse effects upon the above considerations. The Planning and Environmental Commission; shall .make the following findings before grariting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a. grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified . in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties .or' improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one. or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical' difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of. this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone.. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Wall Height Variance The staff recommends approval of the requested 13 -foot wall height variance. The height of the wall is dictated by the : height of the garage, the steepness of the slope; and the debris flow hazard to the west of the. garage. Both the`Lampiris report and the Mueller report dictate a wall of this height for safety, and therefore this variance i$ not one of special privilege, and Finding No. 1 would be met. Finding No. 2 is met in that the variance will be beneficial, not detrimental. to the public .health, safety and welfare inasmuch as the design "takes into account: the hazards and will probably increase the overall stability of the property'% according to the Lampiris report. Staff also believes that Finding No..3(A) is met because there. are exceptions and extraordinary circumstances applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties. Site Coverage Variance The staff recommends approval of the site coverage variance. The impact of the excess site coverage is limited due to the extent of the building located underground. Staff believes that Finding Nos. 1 and 2 are met in that site coverage variances of this nature have been granted to other applicants having. similar circumstances, and`thus would not be a grant of special privilege, nor will this variance be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The staff feels that Finding No. 3(B) is met and that approval of the site coverage variance is warranted because there are exceptions applicable to this site (amount of site coverage that is underground., as well as slope and hazards) that. do °not apply generally to other properties its the same zone: One condition of approval, is that the lot line vacation must be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's office before issuance of a' building permit. T i 3 �.. A J �s Larrypiirls, phA - O723 VALLEY Rom) . CARBONDALE, COLORADO ara?a (303} M0EOIy,(24 HOURS) WRU%ter A- twe.l1 11 Atw'ill DmvOlgpment, xric. PC) 80 :4 2033 } Vail CX 8165 RCA Gs Lzrats Flow �aluatian, Lot ss. I' ant, 22, Int.ermantairs I 3 x visited tho home and thL` abpve rarf ereho"d lot a at your re�q�te t, to eval.u&te thoa deUris flow Post:lentiaal far the pI"oposeci additior, on the w0 %t side O•f the home. 'phis Is in the fas^m of a thrprs+ car gar, age dug into a rather: t�t�r�p hill side axon the e�1+ a of a pcitaMta al dater 10 f10W, In addition, therm has& been mud "lid& activj:ty in the near; Plissstt JuJAt east of the sssubJL- t hnrr0 which did 'em Neighbns•*ing ho,96, IMy "ma0mmQf1dat 1 vn%j a f ter hAvi n di ra g u %sed your. P a ms With } you and your arigi nowr- l Mark Mijal.ler, are that thi+�'' c3�s�i gr7 trhith yotA have chs)mr -rt tatkos. into acr- O.int. the havardz 'and :wili probably ir1ct- 0,11se thsB L'iyerall stapili,try rsf the •oropeety. Th+= i MPdr�tant Fia►r°t df they d0ti on as you presented it to me 16 f or the ss urf aryfri And sz ublzLtrf aae drainage p avi si Qnta far run of f works r iftnd tho str amg r at,ti ni fob wall at the Ir i?2l! of the •gar, *gWrt bath during and &fter cafistructicm- in addition, i ammQn wa11. Et testrAh.d of the gar.&gv to E p.K"4ttar~ "t ...t11 t r��t: k��t^e i �� o�assi a► l arge f 2 "aw down thy: x z atx nc i ssaw�►ir t:� tF,�r t�tt,rrr� as war' First�ld i croach toward th'e gar�tg�, MY ndi nqu arm tts,sxt the add i t i an 1% on the side of tMa hcime which I's away f ro(st the pt-evi olts liiI i ciar and not in :the c1i 1 "sct Path of t.hc► d0bris 'flow ha: •ard as mapped for fho Trkwn of `V,41 in 1984. It is my apt nimn that the addition i'w in, a. r 900.10gical. l y Sensitive 'Area }out the .deva] rspmerfi dtact, not, i nrrreaSe the hazar-d to Other_ property or 6truGtsr:oj► . or to k public bui l dings, ri dhts- cf -way: ;roan%, etr-eats f ip,090me ntss'� 4 uti l iti os or *a►bi l i tlas br'" tither' pr operti.r-js of aeiy kind. i f tt +t�r'ta Jnr W fur Lt 4mr- qutilkt.i cia -1;a Fil wows do ric-A t)*:si tate to ,r � K . rir . .hW .1 •. psi, rtCwa~el y k PoOt -I ' brOod }ex trllr mittal mom0 M #0 pe'afe ► "�w �•'., r for the other Blocks of Vail Intermountain Development Su6div FOUND PIN a CAP L.S. No. 5447 (S 66 °.10 03" W, 0.541 FROM CORNER) O S O 0. 0 LOT 3 Q SET PIN a CAP hL.S. No. 26598 n SET 45' WITNESS CORNER \ PIN S'CAP L.S: No. 26598 UTILITY a DRAINAGE EA, QJ� ti� 10% � \\ \ (SEE NOTES) ('V SET PIN 9 CAP L.S. No. 26548\ BUILDING \� �� O' "J � / O v SET 3 WITNESS CORNER, PIN a CAP L. S. No. 26598 \ / Sao °�4,46 EASEMENT TO.BE 2900, ABANDONED BY 0 �S8o °14116,re �� SEPARATE DOCUMENT N.7 FOUND PIN 81 CAP 101.39' ` )VIL"F{ �' � PROPERTY LINES TO ��- FOUND PI li1��ii L.S. No. 5 RE ABANDONED BY THIS PLAT (s 72029'3 N O o` LOT I o R = 45.00' O� 0.454 AC. a = 62030,39" L = 49.10' a CAP CH: 46,70' �$ 26598 CH B = N 40 015'27" E 2cs\ k t Cf L 1 I �BL 'f t X y.6 UTILITY a DRAINAGE �' { EASEMENT (SEE NOTES)i; 0 LOT 11 o BLOCK 9 s� 3 r�� ir5 FOUND PIN a CAP L.S. No. 5933 I ORDINANCE .NO. 16 F Series of 1989 ' AN ORDINANCE VACATING ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST OF,T.HE t TOWN OF VAIL IN AND TO THE ROADWAY ME PARTICULARLY'SET,`FORTH AND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO AND 'MADE A PART HEREOF; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.. WHEREAS, a portion of Larkspur Court, a. public roadway within the Town of Vail . r is not utilized by the general public; and 4 WHEREAS, because of said reason, the Town believes that it would benefit the public safety and welfare to vacate said roadway and take the necessary steps to r allow title to the roadway to transfer to the owner of the adjacent property for owner parking purposes only under the terms and conditions :as set forth herein; and WHEREAS, 43 -2 -303 C.R..S., as amended, provides that a municipality may vacate. all right, title or interest in a roadway by the adoption of an ordinance vacating any roadway or part thereof within the corporate limits of.the Town; and }, WHEREAS, 43 -2 -302 C.R.S. provides.that in the event that a portion of'a roadway r is vacated, title to the vacated portion of the roadway shall vest in the owners of the abutting land, each abutting owner taking to the center of the roadway;. and WHEREAS, the abutting landowners of the pertinent. portion`,of Larkspur Court are • Larry Roush and Sally Dean. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN. COUNCIL OF THE:.TOWN.OF VAIL, r COLORADO, as follows: Section 1. The portions of Larkspur Court set .forth in Exhibit A attached;.hereto are hereby f vacated and shall be conveyed by quit claim deed to Larry Roush and Sally :Dean (owners) subject to the following conditions: A. The Owners shall be obligated to maintain the vacated roadway and to keep it in good repair. No property described herein shall be used or; occupied at any time for any purpose other than pedestrian, bicycle, and motor vehicle ingress and egress for the sole purpose of parking, and for the construction.of A' garage. B. No property described herein shall be used or considered in determining the.. gross residential floor area or density that the Owners would be' entitled to under Town of Vail laws and regulations: C. The Owner shall be required to construct a gravel turnaround within one (1) year of the effective date of the ordinance which shall be sufficient in size to accommodate Town.of Vail fire vehicles and snow removal equipment: Owner shall be T hf y 41 bx c' f L 'r. required to grade the.area, surface it With an all weather surface,.and place an adequately sized culvert under the area for proper water drainage. 'All plans for . construction of the improvements required by this paragraph shall be subject to approval by the Town of Vail prior to. construction. 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 the inhabitants thereof. Section 4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of :any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the 'effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any,other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the,prov.ision.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.. INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this ZOth day of. June'. 1989, and a public hearing shall behold on this Ordinance on the; 20th day'of June 1989, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this 20th .day of June 1989,`: Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk. f i '0: FROM: i DATE: s SUBJECT: j I i I i MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department July 22, 1991 A request for a worksession to rezone. property from Primary/Secondary to Low Density Multiple Family, generally located at 2239'Chamonix Lane, more particularly described as: Parcel A: A tract of land containing one acre, more or Less, looted in the South 112 of the South East 114 of Section. 11,. Township `5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NE corner of.the SW 1/4 of the SE 114 of said Section 11 thence westerly along the northerly line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 114'bearing south 86 20'W a distance of 167.80 ft. to a point: Thence southerly along a line 167.80 ft. distant from and pamlle "I to the. east line of said SW 114 of the SE 114, a distance: of 200.00 ft. to a.point; Thence easterly a distance of 167.80 ft. along a line 200.00 ft. distant from and parallel to the north line of said SW 114 of the SE 114 to a point`;on its east line Thence easterly on. a line parallel to the north line of the SW 1/4' of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to a point: Thence northerly and parallel with the west line of the east 112 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 200.00 ft. to the point of intersection with the extension of the north line of the SW 114 of the SE 114 of said Section 11; Thence westerly on a deflective angle left of 95 21'00" along the extension of the north line of the SW 114 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11., a :,distance of 50.95 ft. to the NE corner of the SW 1114 of. the SE 114.of Section 11, being he point of beginning. Parcel B: Tract A, Vail Heights Filing No. 1, according to the recorded plat thereof. Applicant: Planner: Erich. and Uly.SOmetzko Andy Knudtsen y MEMORANDUM f • TO: g Plannin and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department I DATE: July 22, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow an outdoor dining deck at Gondo's. Restaurant in the Lionshead Gondola Building. i Applicant: Legends of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer z W::. i Y. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow an approximately 4,100 sq. ft. outdoor dining deck at Gondo's Restaurant, located on the ground level of. the Lionshead Gondola Building. The Lionshead Gondola Building is in the Commercial ore 11 Zone District, which requires a conditional use permit to add an outdoor dining deck. The area where the deck would be located is presently pavers, and asphalt, and would accommodate up to six picnic tables. The dining area will be contained within a 3-foot high wood lattice fence. Large teracotta pots filled with flowers will be placed between sections of the fence. The proposed fencing will be very. similar to the Uptown: Grill dining area fencing, except that the applicant does not propose to incorporate flower boxes into the fence. 'The narrowest pedestrian access point between the deck and the: adjacent north - eastern 'building wall will be a minimum of 10 feet. II. BACKGROUND On June 26, 1989, the PEC approved a conditional use permit to allow a dining deck in this ;location for the Rocky Rococo restaurant. Rocky's was the previous tenant of this space. Th is outdoor dining deck was never installed. Gondo's opened in the winter of 1991. I1I. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL LIONSHEAD' URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN !There are no Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan Sub -Area Concepts which apply to this } :area. l • The Commercial Core. II Zone District is intended "to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards." The staff.feels this deck is an appropriate site development. No landscaping will be removed through this activity. In fact, the flower pots to be placed between sections of the wood lattice fence will add landscaping and color to this area. The proposal complies with the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan guidelines relating to decks and patios and accent elements: i_ i 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,' transportation facilities, utilities,. schools, parks and; recreation facilities and other p ublic facilities needs. The staff believes the proposed dining. patio will have no negative effects on the above listed criteria. 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. In the winter, snow is stored in the planting bed immediately adjacent to the Gondola Building. By restricting the operation of the outdoor patio'.area so that it is not operational during the winter season; the proposal will':not impact snow removal. There will be . adequate distance between the patio area and'. adjacent buildings to ensure pedestrian traffic flow will not be adversely impacted. Staff believes the proposal will not impact -any of the other ,the above listed criteria. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in whch'.the proposed use'is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses.. Staff believes the dining deck. will have a positive effect on ,the area. It Will enable restaurant patrons to be outside which, m turn, will add activity to an area which, historically, has not had much outside activity. V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before tin a conditional use ermit: A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. That the proposed location of the use and the .conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. 3 i I in- U pf AA ASI .:lot 11 r r 111rM MrWity031 1M AG NOW 9 &7M U f ` k ` l � k k. k Y s rt l / 60W in the front yard as shown on the submitted plan includes 5 spruce and 10 aspen. During the review, staff discussed the. need fox additional landscaping in the front yard with the applicant. Staff is :eoncerned that enough landscaping be provided in light. of the fact that the variance request induces: the size of 'the front yard. In addition to quantity of .'landscaping, staff was concerned about a gravel parking area parallel to Buffehr Creek. Road. Staff believes that all'of the area up to the existing edge of as should be landscaped' and that the gravel parking area be removed. The applicant has agreed to modify the plan by converting the parking area to landscaping and providing an- additional 4 spruce and approximately 4 aspen in. the front yard. 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 approval of this request would not be a grant: of special privilege. Because Buffehr. Creek divides this property, and leaves a' relatively small amount of the lot that is developable, the site has a physical hardship which staff believes justifies a variante from. the code. The total site area Is 18,255.9 sq. ft. and approximately 50 Q% "of the lot is in the floodpla n. The floodplain divides the property through the middle, leaving 1,245 sq.'' ft: on the west side and 7,874.2. sq. ft. on the east side for development. Of the area on the east side, only 2,473.6 sq. ft. is located out of required setbacks: Given. the relatively small size of area to develop, staff believes that encroaching into one setback, the front setback, is reasonable. 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. Development of this site should include curb and ,gutter improvements to the right -of- -way. The Town Engineer has requested that .these drainage improvements be made to the "transportation and> traffic faciliti0" abutting the property. to disturb the soil around the wetlands, a Department of the Army permit is not required. The Corps does encourage the applicant to protect thc' stream bank from erosion by leaving as many of the willow stems and root stalks as possible: The architect has said that the proposed structure will allow all but one cluster of the existing willows to remain on the site.. Staff believes that, in conjunction with the advice from the Corps of Engineers, the applicant should place a construction fence around the wetlands prior to any excavation 'n order to pre serve and protect the willows and cottonwoods. B. The .Planning and. Environmental Commission shall make the following, findings before. granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of specie r privilege inconsistent with the limitations ,on other properties classified in the same district. i j 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of ;the specified ` regulation would result in practic al: difficulty or. unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives: of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same_ site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone, C. The strict interpretation. or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request, finding it meets the variance criteria as addressed above. In addition, Findings 1, 2, and 3(b) are met,`-in. staff's opinion.. Specifically, Finding °1 is met as the granting of the variance would not constitute a grant o f. special privilege, as the physical hardship of the floodplain, 30 foot stream setback and existing willows are factors which justify a deviation from the code standard. 5 I I � i I 1 1 .Q I! i1�1 k 1 ' - �' "r 5� t t Ile w a- 'ov `� q i :.� $„� .ti>,a :� -�. ..a ,.ssfao ' ..,��� � ?.+�i%,'�,.'�rF:, dt�safs5 � � -'kr r '- • I 0 P Q y k y . - - 00YY070.]"tlVA dD NMQL 4 XIMONVH9 1061 }x) aura ?1�2L� 2i33df19 iE dA ] rF3 &mvna 09EE•tty (ED£) rr��rr����TToo�� w�vrry�-77��yy�� �7 }}���� r�7}� 7� il1t�U1�w']t�Jla71�1 Am iL �lllC z _ xz(v�av afltll€1VH ZZ aavaur •ra tid d. r —17q 0 P Q y k y 4 XINOWVH:) 1061 , O�'9if Zff£'.ZL4 (Z[S) r d - - 09££•446 (£0£) °Kf J' � ` I 1 OQVNO'30J`�I3a"fAOH MHEGUSZE AML MM xa�a vna gavaw'ra 1V6 91 ef t 1 � N � s; p� 6 �. 4` ljGi) Q17011 aV31: 1 F- i I 1 a e i I i / 1 / z 1 - 0 -z= 13 �I Ll. T / i[ 1., M C. • . - .OaYi[070,`➢YA aO NA6af. XINOIgVH:) I061 '! 3cra - 313$N.?�L33.I'fI9EE.I�•I ..+,xr9�NMYi[U - - ZEEE,ZL4'. (715) 09EE-vtt' (E%) 1:11 IM vna�ra +f'q_ b t O _ i r � -I s W Of Ilia ®® 0 m M, I M c Et K a. 31 )d 0 0 0 f vu II