The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes November - December\ r PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL. COMMISSION November 11, 1991 AGENDA 11:30PM Site Visits 1:OOPM Worksession 2:OOPM Public Hearing Site Visits Worksesslon 2. 1. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow a seasonal plant products business in the Heavy Service Zone District Applicant: Richard Dilling /Richard Matthews Planner: Jill Kammerer 3. 2. A request for a worksession for a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining patio for the Gallery Building (Russell's Restaurant), located in the Commercial Core I zone district, 228 Bridge Street/a part of Lot A, Block 5, Vail Village First t=iling. Applicant: Ron Riley /D.R.R., Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica Public Hearin 1. A request to amend Section 18.52, Off - Street Parking and Loading, of the Town's zoning ordinance to allow car rental businesses to lease parking spaces in the Commercial Core III zone district. Applicant: Peter Jacobs of Days Inn Planner: Andy Knudtsen 6. 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a well water treatment facility in the Agricultural /Open Space zone district, generally located south of the Vail Golf Course bridge on Vail Valley Drive, and more specifically described as follows: To be located within 100 -foot radius from a point on the right bank of Gore Creek whence the northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West, 6th P.M. bears North 73 degrees West, 2,080 feet. Applicant: Vail Valley Consolidated Water District Planner: Mike Mollica 1. 3. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the sale of used cars, Vail 66 Service Station, 2293 N. Frontage Road West, generally located at the northeast corner of Chamonix Road and North Frontage Road, Tract A, Collins -Wirth Subdivision. Applicant: Garrett and B.J. Smith Planner: Jill Kammerer 4. 4. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I for Vail Ski Rentals in the Hill Building, 254 Bridge Street/Part of Lot L, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Blanche C. Hill Planner: Shelly Mello 5. 5. A request for a wall height variance for the Chester Residence, Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Village 1 st Filing /395 Mill Creek Circle. Applicant: E.B. Chester Planner: Kristan Pritz 6. Review of Town of Vail Zoning Code Phase I Report. The document summarizes proposed changes, alternative solutions, and a recommended amendment. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Kristan Pritz/Tom. Braun 7. A request to amend Chapter 18.62 - Variances, and Chapter 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits of the Town of Vail zoning code relating to notification of adjacent property owners. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer TABLED TO NOVEMBER 25, 1991 8. A request to amend Chapter 18.62 - Variances, Section 18.62.080 - Permit Issuance and Effect, Chapter 18.62 - Conditional Use Permits, Section 18.60.080 - Permit Issuance and Effect in order to clarify the notification of approval procedures. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer TABLED TO NOVEMBER 25, 1991 9. Discussion of proposed Ordinance 43, Series of 1991, providing for seasonal plant products businesses in the Heavy Service zone district. Planner: Jill Kammerer 10. Reminder of presentation of Affordable Housing Business Plan at Town Council worksession, Tuesday, November 12, 1991. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 11, 1991 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Ludwig Kurz Kathy Langenwalter Jim Shearer Gena Whitten Absent Connie Knight Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Jill Kammerer Andy Knudtsen Shelly Mello Betsy Rosolack Larry Eskwith The worksession was called to order by Chairperson Diana Donovan at 1:35PM. 1. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow a seasonal p lant products business in the Heavy Service Zone District. Applicant: Richard Dilling /Richard Matthews Planner: Jill Kammerer Jill Kammerer explained the request, and asked applicant Richard Matthews to respond to the "Items for discussion" from the staff's memo. Mr. Matthews distributed a portion of the survey for the area, and indicated the trailer would be a regular 8' x 20' sales trailer which he currently owned, with the purpose being to keep the sales attendant warm. The, sales area will be secured by a 4' high snow fence. The lighting for the area would be 100' long strings of white "Christmas lights" with light bulbs every 10 feet and larger light bulbs at each tree. Mr. Matthews explained these lights are sold by Christmas tree business wholesalers. No more than 40 trees would be on the lot at any one time. The business would be open from November 25 to December 24, and the hours of operation would be 10:30AM- 7:30PM. Kathy Langenwalter asked if the lights would be turned off when the business was closed. Mr. Matthews said they might possibly leave on one string of lights for security reasons. Regarding signing for the business, the applicant proposed using a banner, which he illustrated by showing pictures to the Commissioners. Mr. Matthews estimated the size of the banner /sign was approximately 2 feet by 12 feet or 24 square feet. The wording for the banner was "Christmas Trees ". Staff informed the applicant that the maximum size the sign could be in this zone district was 20 sq. ft. and that allowable sign size was based upon the lineal frontage of the business. Chuck Crist asked if music would be played during the hours of operation. Mr. Matthews was not sure. Jim Shearer asked when the trailer would be removed from the site. Mr. Matthews replied it would be taken out the day after Christmas. Jim was concerned about storing "junk," (like saw - horses or trees, which did not get sold). On site, particularly in the area behind the trailer, Mr. Matthews repeated he would only have 40 trees on the lot. Richard indicated the trees to be sold would be attached to rebars which had been pounded into the ground. In response to a question from Chuck Crist, Richard indicated the banner would be attached to the trailer. The state requires the trailer be set back 50 feet from the North Frontage Road right of way. Based on the site plan, it appeared the sales trailer would be approximately 50 feet from the road. Gena Whitten believed it looked a little "tight." She requested the rest of the survey be presented. Kathy was concerned about knowing where the property line was, so that the Commission would know where the trailer was actually proposed to be located and to insure the business was located entirely on West Vail Texaco property and not in the state right of way or on adjacent property. Kathy also asked how the fence would be stabilized. Mr. Matthews said it would be attached to T -posts by black ties. Diana Donovan believed it was important that everything be located on Mr. Matthew's property, and that the trailer be removed as soon after Christmas as possible. Diana suggested all material be removed from the site by December 26th. Mr. Matthews stated he had no intention of leaving anything up after Christmas but he was reluctant to committing to removing everything from the site by December 26th as inclement weather could make it impossible for him to comply with this deadline. Jill reminded the PEC that based on Ordinance 43, Series of 1991 which will allow plant product businesses in the Heavy Service Zone District, the site must be cleaned with 72 hours of the date the conditional use permit expires. Kathy asked that the fence be kept in a straight, vertical position. She thought it would be nice if the trailer had a red door. 2. A request for a worksession for a conditional use permit for an outdoor dininq patio for the Gallery Building Russell's Restaurant located in the Commercial Core I zone district 228 Bridge Street/a part of Lot A Block 5 Vail Villa a First Filing. Applican lica_n Ron Riley /D.R.R., Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica is Mike Mollica presented the request. As this was a worksession, no staff recommendation was given, but staff raised several issues for discussion. Applicants Ron Riley and Mike Staughton were present for the discussion. Ron Riley pointed out that the deck would only be used for 90 days in the summer, and did not believe it would obstruct views on Bridge Street. He believed a summertime encroachment of 2'- 11'/2" was minor, stressing the fact that lower Bridge Street was "sterile," and that the dining deck would add interest to the area. He believed that, due to the popularity of outdoor dining, a restaurant was almost required to have a dining area outdoors. Mr. Riley advocated the deck since otherwise there was no visual penetration into the Gallery Building, and because of that, people could not tell there was a restaurant contained therein. Ludwig Kurz was concerned about narrowing Bridge Street, stating it was easily one of the 2 most congested areas a great deal of the time. He was not convinced this was the best use of public land. Mr. Riley reminded the Commission that this request was only for a 90 -day period each summer. He explained that, in the summer, people walk more slowly than in the winter. Jim Shearer was concerned with the use of public land. He wanted to get Pete Burnett's opinion on cleaning the streets. Mike said he had spoken with Pete, and Pete indicated that, if the deck was in place, the south end of Bridge Street would require hand sweeping. Ron Riley said the distance across Bridge Street would be 13 feet. Mike Staughton said the Town did not clean the streets every week, but only 2 -3 times per summer. Mr. Riley said he could build the deck so it could be removed for street sweeping. Jim discussed the sterility of that end of Bridge Street. He asked what the Town of Vail would gain from the proposal, and suggested Mr. Riley could do something to make the area more inviting. Chuck Crist agreed with Ron Riley regarding the sterile look, and liked the concept of a removable deck. He was concerned with the loss of two Town of Vail planters, as well as the bench between the planters. He indicated the bench had frequent use. Chuck also was in favor of narrower streets and the proposed rekord doors. Ron Riley was frustrated because no service trucks were allowed on this end of Bridge Street, and indicated the upper end of Bridge Street became much more restricted when service trucks were making deliveries than his proposal would make the area. Gena Whitten believed that this was an important entrance to the town, and Mr. Riley could achieve the transparency with a 3 -foot wide deck and rekord doors, which would have the feeling of an outdoor deck without going onto public land. She felt this was very valuable space. • Kathy agreed with Ludwig and Gena, stating that rekord doors would give better exposure to the outside and better planters could be designed. Kathy could not support the construction of a deck on public land, not wanting to further constrict the area. Ron Riley indicated the location of the restaurant's restrooms created an interior constriction, and rekord doors alone would not achieve his objectives. Diana could not support a deck on public property, but suggested pulling back the deck. Jim could also support such a revised proposal. Jim reminded the Commission that the Town was running out of Village restaurants, and believed undulation on that side of the street was important. He strongly supported retaining restaurants in the Village core areas, especially restaurants at street level. However, in this particular situation, he was concerned about potential bottlenecking. Ron Riley indicated he would investigate other possibilities to ensure he did not restrict the area and would look for a proposal which would enhance the area. He suggested a 90 -day trial basis. Chuck supported this use for public land, as it would increase the vitality of an area which was 3 . currently "ugly and dead." Mike Mollica summarized the Commission's position and stated some of the members had difficulty in supporting this use of public land. A request to amend Section 18.52, Olaf- Stre Parking and Loading, of the Town's zoning ordinance to allow car rental businesses to lease parking spaces in the Commercial Core III zone district. Applicant: Peter Jacobs of Days In Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen presented the request. Staff supported the proposed amendment. Chuck Crist asked if this amendment would allow more than one agency per property. He asked for a simplification of the wording. Diana Donovan was concerned with the wording regarding the term of the lease. She requested that section be simplified. She believed landscaping should be required. Kathy Langenwalter did not think an amendment addressing landscaping would be necessary, as it was addressed in the parking section of the code. Andy pointed out that the parking section dealt only with new parking lots. Diana believed the Town should have the ability to require additional landscaping for this type of use. Chuck Crist moved to recommend that Town Council approve the request to amend Section 18.52, Off - Street Parking and Loading, of the Town's zoning ordinance to allow car rental businesses to lease parking spaces in the Commercial Core III zone district, incorporating the Commission's concerns into the ordinance regarding the ability of the Town to require landscaping, allowing the length of lease to range from 1 -12 months, and limiting each property within CCIII to a maximum of one agency with a maximum of 15 cars. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 6 -0. 2. A re guest for a conditional use permit to allow a well water treatment facility in the Agricultural /Open Space zone district, generally located south of the Vail Golf _Course bridge on Vail Valley Drive, and more specifically described as follows: To be located within 100 -foot radius from a point on the right bank of Gore Creek whence the northwest corner of Section 9 Township 5 South Range 80 West 6th P.M. bears North 73 degrees West, 2,080 feet. Applican Kan Vail Valley Consolidated Water District Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica explained the request. Staff recommended approval of the request with the conditions listed in the memorandum. Discussion ensued regarding whether the proposed structure should become a shelter for golfers or a utility building which disappeared into the willows. Kent Rose, engineer for the project, indicated the proposed building was 14'x 24', and the size was necessary in order to • 4 properly treat the water. He indicated the willows would not be disturbed. He thought that the proposed building could eventually take the place of the existing shelter. Diana Donovan asked if the proposed building could be further hidden. Kent said the size could not be reduced, but it could be pushed further from the road into the willows without disturbing more of the site. Diana visualized a large utility building with a cart path cut into the willows. She preferred to have a square, concrete building in the willows without a cart path. Kent said the parking space could be minimized and placed to ensure no U -turn would be needed. Diana asked about trenching across the creek. Kent said a pipeline would cross the creek approximately 5 -6 feet under the stream bed. A rock drop structure could be incorporated into the design. Chuck Crist asked if the roof could be flat if no overhang were built. Kent said it could. Chuck agreed with Diana in that the current golf shelter was adequate, and he would prefer to have this structure more hidden. Gena Whitten concurred with this preference. Ludwig Kurz preferred to see rock rather than wood for siding. Jim Shearer felt it was important to minimize the pull -off area, and perhaps rather than paving, gravel or chip and seal could be used. Kent replied gravel could be used. Jim did not support the large overhangs. He suggested putting the building into the willows with a path. Diana believed, if they were careful, the willows in the front of the building could be maintained. She did not like the idea of carts coming out onto the road, and did not want to . see the building become a golf shelter. Kent said they could talk with the Vail Recreation District. He thought they might be willing to leave the current golf shelter intact. Chuck believed adding a rock drop structure in the creek would add interest. Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the request for a conditional use permit to allow a well water treatment facility in the Agricultural /Open Space zone district, generally located south of the Vail Golf Course bridge on Vail Valley Drive, and more specifically described as follows: To be located within 100 -foot radius from a point on the right bank of Gore Creek whence the northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West, 6th P.M. bears North 73 degrees West, 2,080 feet. The motion was made per staff's memo, with the following conditions of approval: 1. Change the roof to a flat roof with no overhangs; 2. The pull -off parking space be minimized insize and have a gravel surface; 3. A rock drop structure be placed in the creek; 4. The existing willows shall be maintained wherever possible; and 5. Move the building further east from the road. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was approved, 6 -0. 1* 5 3. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the sale of used cars, Vail 66 Service Station 2293N. Frontage Road West , generally located at the northeast corner of Chamonix Road and North Fronta a Road Tract A Collins -Wirth Subdivision. Applicant: Garrett and B.J. Smith Planner: Jill Kammerer Jill Kammerer presented the request. Staff recommended approval with the five conditions as listed in staff's memo. In addition, an additional sales space had been identified by staff on the east side of the property on the east side of the eastern most North Frontage Road access drive (see memo). Staff supported the use of this area to park cars which are for sale. With the identification of this space, a total of five potential for sale parking spaces have been identified. Garrett Smith, the applicant, did not understand how landscaping and screening a dumpster related to selling cars. Diana Donovan explained that those conditions would, in part, mitigate additional uses and would improve the appearance of the site. Garrett informed the Commission that the "For Sale" signs which can be purchased at any hardware store are 1 square foot in size. Garrett proposed to purchase these 1 foot square signs and place them inside the autos to advertise the sale of the automobiles and believed he should be allowed to have two signs. Kathy Langenwalter agreed with staff's position to only have 2 sq. ft. of sign area per vehicle, but did not feel uncomfortable with having two 1 square foot signs. Gena Whitten agreed, but wanted to ensure the signs would be the standard, manufactured signs and not "gaudy." The consensus of the Commission was that one for sale car could be located on the gravel area east of the eastern North Frontage Road access point. Chuck Crist had no difficulty with allowing two 1 square foot signs or the identified auto sales parking areas. Regarding landscaping, he was not as concerned with landscaping behind the building, as he was with the landscaping of the southwest corner of the site. Garrett replied he planned to do some work on the "island ", at the southwest corner of the site and at that time he would incorporate the screening of the existing dumpster. Jim Shearer agreed to allowing two 1 square foot signs per car so long as both signs were not in the same window. He asked Mr. Smith if there would be any additional means of identifying the cars for sale, such as balloons. Garrett replied he did not intend to use balloons, and did not intend to use dancing girls, either. Jim encouraged additional landscaping. Garrett stated he would pursue the option of placing an entrance statement, such as "Welcome to the Town of Vail ". He agreed to landscape the island and enclose the dumpster. Ludwig Kurz believed two signs per car was acceptable. He concurred with Jim's concerns. Diana requested the applicant install the three 6 foot evergreen trees at the northwest corner of the site as suggested in the staff's memo. She suggested staff work with the applicant to • 6 give direction for landscaping the southwest corner of the site. Kristan Pritz asked for clarification from the PEC as to what direction they thought would be appropriate. Diana believed a manicured landscaped area was appropriate. She further stated she believed any planting should be lower evergreens but these shrubs should be of sufficient height to "poke above" the snow. Garrett agreed, but suggested the berm be lowered and low shrubs which would not hide the building. Diana emphasized the need for additional landscaping in the area between the light and the dumpster. Chuck Crist moved to approve the request for a conditional use permit to allow for the sale of used cars, Vail 66 Service Station, 2293 N. Frontage Road West, generally located at the northeast corner of Chamonix Road and North Frontage Road, Tract A, Collins -Wirth Subdivision, per staff's memo, with the following changes: 1. The number of "For Sale" signs per vehicle would be two 1 square foot signs. 2. The dumpster be screened. 3. Landscaping of the southwest corner would be worked out between the applicant and staff. 4. Three 6 -foot evergreens be planted in the northwest corner. 5. An auto which is for sale could be parked in the gravel area east of the eastern North Frontage Road access point. However, the total number of cars for sale on the site at any given time shall not exceed 4. The motion was seconded by Gena Whitten. During a discussion prior to the vote, the applicant was reminded that all the vehicles must be parked on private property which he . owned, and not on the public right -of -way.. The motion was approved, 6 -0. 4. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I for Vail Ski Rentals in the Hill Building, 254 Bridge Street/Part of_LOt_L, Vail VlNage First Filing. Applicant: Blanche C. Hill Planner: Shelly Mello_ Shelly Mello explained the request. Regarding the condition of approval, the applicant's representative, Jay Peterson, indicated that there was a possibility that the requested tree could not be planted this fall. Shelly said a letter of credit could be issued for the tree if they chose to complete the infill this year. Diana Donovan asked if the ski lockers next to the door could be moved. Jay agreed to that request. Diana believed an additional condition of approval should be that the ski racks under the awning be removed. The proposed landscaping was discussed. Joe Macy of Vail Associates was concerned with the timing of the construction. Jay did not know if this project would be completed this fall, but that it would only be a one -day job. If the project were constructed this, year, it would be completed by the Thanksgiving holiday. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve the request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I for Vail Ski Rentals in the Hill Building, 254 Bridge Street/Part of Lot L, Vail Village First Filing, 0 7 • per staff's memo, with the condition that a tree be planted on the north side of the entry. If such tree could not be completed this season, a letter of credit would be provided. An additional condition was that the ski lockers be removed below the canopy. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The vote approved the motion, 6 -0. Subsequent to the vote, the issue of a car which is parked outside on the east side of the building, which encroaches into the view corridor, was discussed. Jay Peterson indicated that this issue had been discussed since the "days of Diane Toughill," a previous Community Development Department Director. He believed the issue was totally separate from the Hill application, and should be discussed at a later date. Kristan Pritz suggested a meeting between Jack Curtin, Mrs. Hill, Diana Donovan, Kristan and perhaps one other planner. That suggestion was agreed to by all parties. Kathy Langenwalter moved that the discussion of the parking area be arranged by staff. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. The 6 -0 vote unanimously approved the motion. 5. A request for a wall height variance for the Chester Residence, Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Village 1 st_Filing /395 Mill Creek Circle. Applicant: E.B. Chester Planner: Kristan Pritz Kristan Pritz reviewed the request. Diana Donovan asked the Commission it there were concerns about the walls surrounding the . parking spaces on the southwest corner. The consensus was those walls were acceptable. Mr. Chester indicated that he believed it was important that all pieces fit together. He had met with staff, and believed staff's memo was fair and, with the exception of the entry gate on the south entrance, he had no problems with the recommendations. Mr. Chester was very concerned about reducing the size of the entry gate columns, because the core of the entry columns was steel. Jay Peterson, applicant's representative, pointed out that, from the street, one post measured 6 feet, whereas, on the parking side, it measured 6' -7 ". He explained the other post was 6-10 ", but that was in order to match the height with the elevation change. Jay indicated the core of the entry columns also were constructed with steel beams. In addition, Jay indicated that the Design Review Board had required Mr. Chester to keep the posts at 6 feet. The original plans showed a height of 6' -8 ", including the cap. The final approved height did not get relayed to the field. Jay stated this was also the cause of the discrepancies in height in the back yard. When Jay surveyed the Town, he found several posts, built during the same period, which were over 6 feet tall. With respect to the Chester project, the posts were built before the final grade was completed, and that was another cause for the excess height. Jay pointed out that the walls on the east gate of the Town of Vail parking structure were 7 feet to 7' -6" tall, and asked the Commission to review this variance request from a practical point of view. He was also not sure that a variance was actually needed for the entry columns. Jay indicated Mr. Williams, the neighbor across the street, accepted the fence without any modifications. • 8 . Jay requested that the gate columns which, in staff's memorandum, were not recommended for variances, be given a 10 -inch variance. Chuck Crist indicated he could accept a 10 -inch variance. The rest of the Commissioners agreed, except Kathy Langenwalter. Diana believed it was important to note the reasons why the variance in that area was warranted. She said it was because of the nearby recreational path and grade changes. Kathy Langenwalter requested the record indicate this was not a normal variance procedure, and she believed the staff and PEC had been backed into this agreement. Jay thanked Kristan for the considerable effort put forth to work with the applicant to come to this final solution. Gena Whitten moved to approve the request for wall height variances for the Chester Residence, Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Village 1st Filing/395 Mill Creek Circle, per the staff memo, with the exception that the entrance gate columns were also granted variances to remain as they currently exist. The table at the end -of staff's memorandum would be corrected to read that the recommended variance for the wall column was 1 foot 4 inches. Ludwig seconded the motion. It was approved, 5 -1, with Kathy Langenwalter dissenting. 6. Discussion regarding a letter from Kevin McTavish, representing the Millrace Condominium Association. Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly lead a discussion regarding this letter. Item 9 of the agenda was discussed out of order. 7. Discussion of groposed Ordinance 43 Series of 1991 providing for seasonal plant products businesses in the Heavy S_ ervice zone district. Planner: Jill Kammerer Jill Kammerer requested and received recommendations from the Commission as to specific wording for the ordinance. The Commission returned to item 6 from the agenda. 8. Review of Town of Vail Zoning Code Phase I Report. The document summarizes proposed changes, alternative solutions, and a recommended am_ endment. Applicant: Town of Vail . Planner: Kristan Pritz/Tom Braun Consultant Tom Braun explained the reasoning behind the recommended changes in the zoning code. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30PM. is 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 11, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed conditional use permit to allow the operation of a seasonal plant products business in the Heavy Service Zone District, 2313 N. Frontage Road/Tract B, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 Applicant: Richard Dilling /Richard Matthews Planner: Jill Kammerer 4)' "�,aPj' �Or'�'4,r'4 4 � ��, � •;<,;. f, r �, �,�. ��.¢. �,�..,, '�:: � ' &t r ° ` ' , , r f i'�` � '�� I. BACKGROUND On October 28, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed a request to amend Chapter 18.30 - Heavy Service, Section 18.30.030 - Conditional Uses, in order to allow the seasonal plant products business as a conditional use. This request was approved by the PEC, subject to several conditions. Ordinance No. 43, Series of 1991, which included the PEC's approval in ordinance form, was reviewed by the Town Council on November 5, 1991. Because the second reading of this ordinance has not yet occurred, the Planning and Environmental Commission may not formally approve the applicant's conditional use permit request. This request is scheduled for formal review by the PEC on November 25, 1991. Il. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants. are requesting approval of a seasonal plant products business to sell Christmas trees and wreaths at the West Vail Texaco station for a period of one month, from November 26 through December 24, 1991. The applicant proposes to use an 8' x 20' enclosed trailer as an office. This trailer was previously used as the applicant's office for a Christmas tree business, which was located at the Garden Center in Eagle -Vail. Attached is a copy of the site plan which indicates the area where the applicant proposes to display the plant products and locate the trailer. As the applicant is hopeful his conditional use permit will be granted at the next PEC meeting on November 25, 1991, staff felt it would be appropriate at this time to have a worksession to discuss any planning staff or PEC member concerns regarding the proposed conditional use. III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION Appearance of the sales trailer. Staff recommends the sales trailer be a painted wood, pitched roof structure. 2. Type of fencing for the seasonal plant products business area. 3. Lighting of proposed plant products business area. 4. Signing of proposed plant products business area. Staff recommends the applicant be allowed to have a wooden sign of no larger than 5 square feet to advertise the business. cApeclmemoslplants.N 11 ro LA to -- >� h O U !v yL4 r LP 1 � r • � � � r TES E j I I I e L, N310 43 cN —_ AMoN�x RoAp i — in 0) 0 Vi 0n -G 6i y O � U, - i cs tp O v f 0 i m 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 11, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining patio for the Gallery Building (Russell's Restaurant), located in the Commercial Core I zone district, 228 Bridge Street/a part of Lot A, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Ron Riley/D.R.R., Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica f.�a••,�A.�::,r••r• �°'� wf? x'' �'' L`" p� • r kY� , " L C �fi'YF'4,4 0 %jC�'r `�6.` • .oe� r r' F ,. g 4 } . . y r b v r n�r :`4d+�`Sa;�C?%` ��f`dr "Qf 4;�i4Faii`�,}�gfi07r:?7'?i�y`A ',`'yk�y�" � fi % •a%'�` %* " S,rJ J : .4� f 4;� yFO"�y 4 h ` �'��• fi� �}p ��. ��'`'h'3N'p�{�� n�YW �`F�p�j�''f� °O'er f1 �� r�. 'Y "'N j ' �,i .P. Jam' s. ♦ ,:,° $ 4 C . -0F4�''t�' lv�f' 4ti '�bY.h �`• e �'� ;� �% �t � n f,r�'�' f 3* ��'4�' ��. �..,. .'.'' ��,,.,•fs�A..�ifr..s�_.w xJ` C+`F �i'' ��' ��,}° f• �3f3�4._ n4in�� ¢: >;:s��.i?^�4''36'r,#�r. ?o.Y. } CY S. n �ri!`J`- s`'�i �+' ? rS'�.�.Y�/.�,�lkiry rfi'''' :d'. >r ?. I fr�.4.L4?i�•� trf;: .sllf,. a ..?. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for an approximately 200 sq. ft. outdoor dining deck at Russell's Restaurant, located in the Gallery Building in Vail Village. The Gallery Building is in the Commercial Core I zone district, which requires a • conditional use permit to add an outdoor dining deck. The deck is proposed to be located along the west elevation of the Gallery Building, and would be located entirely upon public right -of -way. The applicant is proposing a "winter version" of the dining deck, as well as a "summer version." The winter dining deck would extend out 3' -9 from the existing face of the building. This is the same distance that the two existing Town planters extend out from the face of the Gallery Building. The proposal calls for a "temporary" dining deck for the summer season. The summer dining deck would extend out a total of 6' -9" from the face of the building, or an additional 2'- 11 beyond the winter deck. The summer deck would reduce the width of Bridge Street to approximately 13 feet. The summer deck would include a, removable steel railing system, as well as a removable floor system for the deck. Both versions of the deck (winter and summer) would be contained within a 3 -foot high steel railing system. The floor system of the dining deck would be located at the same elevation as the existing floor of the interior of Russell's Restaurant. As it relates to the elevation of Bridge Street, the floor system would be located approximately 2 feet above the existing asphalt. Rekord doors would be added to the west elevation of the Gallery Building to provide access to the dining deck and to create a more open, airy feeling to the interior restaurant. The applicant has also proposed to wrap the summer deck with redwood flower boxes and to place a large flower pot on the north end of the deck. • . II. BACKGROUND On October 22, 1991, the Town Council (by a vote of 6 -0) unanimously approved Ron Riley's request to proceed through the planning process for a conditional use permit. This initial approval was required because all of the proposed improvements for the outdoor dining deck for the Gallery Building would be located within the public right -of -way, and on Town of Vail property. Staff has measured some of the existing dimensions of the usable right -of -way (the distance between buildings) along Bridge Street. The results are as follows: 1. Existing width of the Covered Bridge = 10 feet 2. Existing width of Bridge Street between the Gallery Building (includes planters) and the pocket park = 16 feet 3. Existing width of Bridge Street between the Covered Bridge Building steps and the Slifer Building steps = 27 feet 4. Existing width of Bridge Street between Pepi's Bar and Restaurant entrance and the steps at the Gorsuch Building = 24 feet 5. Existing width of Bridge Street between the Gorsuch dining deck and Pepi's dining deck = 21 feet III. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN There are no specific Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan sub -area concepts which apply to this proposal. However, the Vail Village Design Considerations specifically addresses decks and patios as follows: "Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring people to the streets, opportunities to look and be looked at, and generally contribute to the liveliness of a busy street -- making a richer pedestrian experience than if those streets were empty. A review of successful decks /patios in Vail reveals several common characteristics: direct sunlight from 11 :00 -3:00 increases use by many days /year and protects from wind; elevated 2 feet to give views into the pedestrian walk (and not the reverse); • 2 n physical separation from pedestrian walk of 3-5 feet (planter better than a wall); overhang gives pedestrian scale /shelter. Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to: r� U sun wind - views pedestrian activity" •b��c��c� J r b . Merinac�a� . - br co;Or •�i1d6Ga e EylG��if __. }utter' The Vail Village Master Plan does not contain any specific sub -area concepts which directly relate to this proposal. However, the staff believes that the following goals and objectives, as stated in the Vail Village Master Plan, are relevant to this proposal: " Goal #1 - Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense,of community and identity. , 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. n LJ 3 0 Goal #2 - To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year - around economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. 2.2.1 Policy: The design criteria in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan shall be the primary guiding document to preserve the existing architectural scale and character of the core area of Vail Village. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of a new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.2 Policy: Activity that provides night life and evening entertainment for both the guest and the community shall be encouraged. Goal #3 - To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.3 Objective: Encourage a wide variety of activities, events, and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas. 3.3.2 Policy: Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and shall be encouraged in commercial infill or redevelopment projects. Goal #6 - To ensure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. 6.2.2 Policy: Minor improvements (landscaping, decorative paving, open dining decks, etc.), may be permitted on Town of Vail land or right -of -way (with review and approval by the Town Council and Planning and 0 4 • Environmental Commission when applicable) provided that Town operations such as snow removal, street maintenance and fire department access and operation are able to be maintained at current levels. Special design (i.e. heated pavement), maintenance fees, or other considerations may be required to offset impacts on Town services." IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The following are the criteria and findings which shall be utilized during the final review for this conditional use permit. Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department will recommend approval or denial of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 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. 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. 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. B. Findings The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before gr anting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • Wi 0 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Since this is a worksession, there is no formal staff recommendation at this rime. However, the staff has identified the following issues we would like to discuss further with the PEC: 1. The overall aesthetic appearance of the dining deck (during both the summer and winter seasons) and its potential for partially blocking views both up and down Bridge Street. 2. The constriction of Bridge Street. With the summer deck in place, Bridge Street would be narrowed down to a width of approximately 13 feet. Is this acceptable? Safety is an issue, given the high use of Bridge Street by pedestrians, bicyclists and rollerbladers. 3. The removal of two Town - maintained planters. and the removal of an existing wooden bench. 4. Public Works Department concerns include drainage issues and street sweeping . concerns. 5. Fire Department concerns include the possible obstruction of the Fire Department water connection currently located on the west wall of the existing planter. Additionally, the Fire Department has concerns regarding the possible impacts upon ingress and egress to Nick's. Please note that, under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval shall lapse if construction is not commenced within one year of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion, or if the use for which the permit is granted is not commenced within one year. c:\pec\'neMOATUssell.Nf 1 l • R • 04 -d a a 7 O V r� 0 I LI of • tff� 0 • r � LJ 0 • V l A A K �a. _1� 9 42 n� nn I MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 11, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to amend Section 18.52, Off- Street Parking and Loading, of the Town's zoning ordinance to allow car rental businesses to lease parking spaces in the Commercial Core III zone district. Applicant: Peter Jacobs of Days Inn Planner: Andy Knudtsen , WmE , I � � "I 11WIN 0 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE The applicants for this proposal are Peter Jacobs, the owner of the property, and Alan Lyberger, the manager of Thrifty Car Rental. On March 5, 1991, Thrifty was notified by the Town of Vail planning staff that the zoning code does not allow a commercial car rental business to be operated out of the parking lot of the Days Inn lodge. The applicant has requested that the code be amended to make his car rental business legal. The specific changes to the code involve Section 18.52.170. This is a section of the Off - Street Parking and Loading chapter of the zoning code. It speaks directly to leasing parking spaces between two private parties. The section allows a commercial use, which has excess parking spaces, to lease these spaces to another party. The lease must be approved by the zoning administrator, and must meet specific conditions listed under this section. These standards are provided below for the Planning and Environmental Commission's information. The current code does not allow leasing to occur in the CCIII zone district and excludes rental car agencies from leasing spaces in all zone districts. The code amendment proposal would modify these two limitations. In addition to these requested changes, staff is proposing to put a cap on the total amount of spaces which could be leased by rental car agencies, and is proposing to modify the length of lease allowed. There will be no change to the requirement for a lease proposal to be approved by the zoning administrator. Even if these amendments are approved, the Town could deny a proposal that caused a parking problem or was not appropriate for a given site. II. SPECIFIC CHANGES Below is the section of the code regulating the leasing of parking spaces. The text to be deleted is shown below with aveFstrike, and the text to be added is shown in 0W. Section 18.52.170 - Leasing of Parking Spaces A. No owner, occupant or building manager, or their respective agent or representative, shall lease, rent, convey or restrict the use of any parking space, spaces or area to any person other than a tenant, occupant or user of the building for which the space, spaces or area are required to be provided by the zoning ordinances or regulations of the Town, except as may be specifically provided in this section. B. A parking space, spaces or areas may be leased by the owner, occupant or building manager thereof in accordance with the following: 1. Any owner, occupant or building manager who owns, occupies or manages 10 or more private parking spaces located in Commercial Core I, Commercial Core II, 0rtCilrq High Density Multiple - :...... ...:...........:..:........:. :. Family, Public Accommodations or Special Development zone districts and provides sufficient parking for use by employees may apply to the zoning administrator of the Town for a permit to lease parking spaces. 2. Application shall be made on a form provided by the zoning administrator and upon approval of the application by the zoning administrator a leasing permit shall be issues with or without condition as determined by the zoning administrator. If said private parking spaces are located on the common area or grounds of any condominium project, written approval of the condominium association (if any) will be required on this application. 3. The zoning administrator may request that an applicant conduct a parking utilization study to determine the difference between the average capacity of the lot and the peak day utilization, and such other information as may be necessary for the proper consideration of the application. 4. Repealed by Ord. 31(1985) § 1. 5. The proposed lease agreement shall be fGF the peRed of net less than ..& °:' <ei«i °dd' <' far# °i '':' `' ': € i I ".. i f ...c.......... _..... ...a.. ......................... 6. No applicant shall be permitted to lease more than 60% of his parking spaces which are the difference between the average capacity of the lot and the peak day utilization as determined by the zoning administrator. 7. No applicant who is operating a private parking area charging an hourly fee thereof on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section shall be eligible for approval of his application. • 2 8. Parking required for any use in accordance with this title may not be satisfied by the leasing of space from another person under the provisions of this section. 9. It shall be the responsibility of the owner, occupant or building manager who has leased spaces to others to provide adequate and proper signs therefor and to see that the leased spaces are used and occupied in accordance with the lease agreement. 10. Leasing shall be permitted for short term parking only, and shall be prohibited for long term storage of vehicles by individuals or companies. agene-es. III. EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST The four issues which staff identified during our review of this proposal include: 1. Will the proposal be compatible with the Land Use Plan? 2. Would the proposed lease use be compatible with surrounding uses in CCIII? • 3. Will the visual impacts be acceptable? The Land Use Plan designates this area as Community Commercial (CC). Specifically, the Land Use Plan states that: "This area is designed to meet consumer demands from community residents. Primary uses would include supermarkets, dry cleaning establishments, hardware stores, service stations, financial institutions and medical offices. The design of these facilities would be oriented toward vehicular access and parking." Because the Land Use Plan specifically calls for CCIII to be oriented toward parking vehicular access, staff believes that the leasing of parking spaces in this zone district is reasonable. Concerning uses, staff believes that the leasing of parking spaces is a use that can be compatible in most commercial zone districts. Given that it is allowed in both CCI and CCII, staff sees no reason to prohibit it in CCIII. It is important to point out that the change in the code allows the applicant to apply to the Town for the right to lease spaces. After an application is made, the Town will review the proposal and ensure it is reasonable and does not create a parking problem. The potential for this kind of use is one that staff believes is reasonable to be located in the CCIII zone district. 3 :8, The last staff concern was the visual problem caused by parking. In general, staff believes that parking lots are the least attractive component of any site development. Along these lines, staff believes it is reasonable to put a cap of 15 cars on uses like this in an attempt to reduce the number of cars which are stored in a parking lot. Staff believes that a 15 car limit is a reasonable amount to apply to a car rental business. IV. CONCLUSION Staff supports the proposed change to the zoning code. We believe that allowing leasing to occur in the CCIII zone district is reasonable, that rental car agencies are similar to other commercial business proposing to lease car spaces, and that they should not be excluded from this section of the code. For a request like this, the Planning and Environmental Commission should make a recommendation either for approval or denial, and staff will take the recommindation to the Town Council. c.\peclrnemos\=rent.N 11 • • 4 . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 11, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow a well water treatment facility in the Agricultural/Open Space zone district, generally located south of the Vail Golf Course bridge on Vail Valley Drive, and more specifically described as follows: To be located within a 100 -foot radius from a point on the right bank of Gore Creek whence the northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West, 6th P.M. bears North 73 degrees West, 2,080 feet. Applicant: Vail Valley Consolidated Water District Planner: Mike Mollica 0 I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE The Vail Valley Consolidated Water District is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a well water treatment facility, generally located south of the Vail Golf Course Bridge on Vail Valley Drive. The treatment building would be located approximately 170 feet south of the Gore Creek bridge, and approximately 15 feet east of the existing Vail Valley Drive pavement. (Please see attached site plan.) The footprint of the treatment building would be 14' x 24'. The structure is also proposed to have 6 -foot roof overhangs, which would be located on the north and south sides of the structure only. It is intended that these overhangs would be utilized as a weather shelter for golfers during periods of rain. Included within the one -story, 336 sq. ft. structure, would be a chlorine room, a fluoridation room, and a monitor control center area. Access into the structure would be provided by two pedestrian doors, to be located on the west elevation. The Water District has worked closely with the Vail Recreation District (VRD) with regard to the design and siting of the structure (please see the attached minutes of the Vail Recreation District meeting of September 25, 1991). Contrary to the attached minutes, the VRD, at this time, does not have any intention of removing the existing weather shelter, currently located immediately south of the proposed site for this well water treatment facility. • • This proposed treatment facility would be used in conjunction with a new well that the District is proposing to drill (Well No. R -4), and this well location is described as follows: "Location: Proposed to be located within 100 -foot radius from a point on the right bank of Gore Creek whence the northwest corner of Section 9, Township S South, Range 80 West, 6th P.M. bears north 73 degrees West, 2,080 feet." According to the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District, the purpose of the proposed well is to provide an additional water supply, and to increase the reliability of the overall water system during periods of emergency mechanical failure of one of the existing wells. To prevent further depletion of existing stream flows, the proposed well will be used alternately with the three existing wells currently in the Gore Creek alluvium. Installation of a water line for the new well, No. R -4, has been permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers through a nationwide general permit, a copy of which is attached. According to Jerry Bender of the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District, the District currently holds the rights to drill approximately one -half dozen additional wells within the Golf Course area. At this time, the District has no intention of drilling any additional wells. H. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY • On November 5, 1991, the Town Council unanimously approved the second reading of Ordinance No. 37, Series of 1991. This ordinance amends Section 18.32.030 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code by adding "well water treatment facility" as a conditional use in the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District. Prior to Council approval of this ordinance, the Planning and Environmental Commission, on October 14, 1991, by a vote of 7 -0, unanimously recommended to Council that the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District's requested code change be approved. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The existing zone district at the location of the proposed well water treatment facility is the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District. As stated in the Municipal Code, the purpose of the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District is to: • 2 "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. Parks, schools, and certain types of private recreation facilities and institutions are also suitable uses in the agricultural and open space district, provided that the sites of these uses remain predominantly open. Site development standards are intended to preclude intensive urban development and to maintain the agricultural and open space characteristics of the district. (Ord. 8(1973) Section 12.100.)" It is the staff's opinion that the proposed well water treatment facility, as a conditional use, would not conflict with the purpose section of the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District, as described above. 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. It is the staff's opinion that the proposed well water treatment facility would have no negative impacts on any of the above - listed criteria. We believe that the applicant has worked closely with the staff of the Vail Recreation District, and that the proposed structure, with its large 6-foot overhangs, is viewed by the VRD as a positive addition to the golf course in this area. Again, these large overhangs would be used as a weather shelter for golfers during periods of inclimate weather. 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 applicant has indicated that the treatment facility will be "visited for inspection by a member of the Water District on an average of one visit per day throughout the year." The applicant has proposed to construct a new asphalt turnoff, just to the east of Vail Valley Drive between the existing asphalt road surface and the proposed treatment building. The staff finds that this proposed area for parking is acceptable, however, we request this asphalt parking area be kept to the minimum size requirements necessary to park a vehicle safely off the road. The staff believes, overall, that the proposed well water treatment facility will have no negative impacts upon any of the above criteria. 0 3 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. Because of the limited size and scale of the proposed well water treatment facility building, the staff believes that the character of the area will not be negatively impacted by this structure. We feel that the existing willows, which are located on the north, east and south sides of the structure, will more than adequately screen the structure from those directions. According to the applicant, Gary Davis of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has reviewed this proposal, and given the fact that none of the existing willows will be disturbed, Mr. Davis has indicated that the Corps does not have any problems with the proposed project. Although the Town of Vail has not received written verification of this, Mr. Davis has agreed to follow -up his verbal comments in written form. The staff will withhold the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the treatment facility until such time as this letter is received. The Town of Vail Design Review Board conceptually reviewed this proposal on September 4, 1991, and indicated the following concerns: 1. The structure must have a pitched roof. 2. There should only be one weather shelter located in this area. . 3. The Design Review Board was supportive of the proposal to extend the eaves 6 feet out to act as a weather shelter. 4. The Board expressed concerns over the proposed use of fluted block as an exterior surface material, and they strongly recommended the applicant consider the use of wood siding as the exterior material to be used on this building. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission approve this request, the Design Review Board will need to complete a final review and must approve of the proposal prior to its construction. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 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. 0 4 0 C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, as we believe the findings in Section IV of this memo have been met. Staff recommends the following condition of approval: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for this proposed well water treatment facility, the applicant must provide written evidence that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has approved the project. Please note that, under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval shall lapse if construction is not commenced within one year of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion, or if the use for which the permit is granted is not commenced within one year. c:\pec\rnemos \wcUwatr.N1 l • 0 5 L�l 'fie- �.��4�' _ `•r..;Ar- ` �, . -r �11'; -bq; • • Ll \ 77 \ 7R. t 5 � Ran L. t! a v k, &s I W I i I � ON \\ \ 890! Ego 2 \ 033 MH - �- A- X 1 1 'S ids � S�LA Illy — J A5P,IM1�.1 Ga�T AtH _ '"1 'S I I 1 I Da— u I i �j OYOH munNOUA H10o5 T ,z6 3 - �- Illy — u I �j OYOH munNOUA H10o5 e 4� 4 qxa t� til x, M_ I � � )§ \\ 2 R � \ \\ (§\ ! / , � (\ \\ ® (\ ( \§km » /E #$ \ \ � u \\ %§ [{ )k j }\ � \) \( . � ( k a $� \ !// & �\ � \ k j § §a F- 2 \ \ � �t! \ \ � \ tk \.¥ k j § §a F- 2 \ \ � �t! tk \.¥ %iw [%( ;! k j § §a F- 2 \ \ � 0 0 Aer" UPPER EAGLE VALLEY WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS . A46 FOREST ROAD • VAIL. COLORADO 81651 (30 3) 476 -7480 September 23, 1991 Mike Mollica COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 RE: VAIL VALLEY CONSOLIDATED - WELL R -4 PROPOSAL Dear Mr. Mollica: The Vail Valley Consolidated Water District is petitioning the Town of Vail, to amend its AGRICULTURAL /OPEN SPACE zoning to allow for construction of a water well treatment facility as a conditional use. The specific area will be a meets and bounds description describing a utility easement allowing for construction, operation, and maintenance of the water facility. To prevent further depletion of stream flows, the proposed well will be used alternately with the three (3) existing wells in the Gore Creek alluvium. The purpose of the proposed well is to provide a redundant water supply, and increase reliability of the water system during periods of emergency mechanical failure of one of the existing wells. The well water treatment structure has been designed and situated to provide shelter for golfers, minimal visual impacts, and no affect on open space area. The site will be visited for inspection an average of once per day throughout the year and will have no affect on any public facility of local traffic. Sincerely, A,, //>-� Jerry Bender Water Operations UPPER EAGLE VALLEY CONSOLIDATED SANITATION DISTRICT JB:bl PARTICIPATING DISTRICYS -- ARROWHEAD METRO WATER • AVON METRO WATER • BEAVER CREEK METRO WATER • BERRV CREEK METRO WATER CLEAN 4\\ EAGLE -VAEL METRO WATER • EDWARDS METRO WATER • LAKE CREEK MEADOWS WATER • UPPER EAGLE VALLI'V CONSOLIDATED SANITATION VAIL VALLEV CONSOLIDATED WATER • VAIL WATER AND 5ANITAYION RD ®C l 301991 MINUTES WORK MEETING VAIL PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT dba VAIL RECREATION DISTRICT September 25, 1991 MEMBERS PRESENT: Colleen McCarthy, Ken Wilson, Lew Meskiman, Hermann Staufer MEMBERS ABSENT: Gail Molloy OTHERS PRESENT: Rob Robinson, Brian Jones CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 AM PUBLIC INPUT: Kent Rose stated the Board members are doing a great job. EAGLE VALLEY WATER & SANITATION DIST: Kent Rose joins the meeting. He showed the Board a map of where the Water District wishes to drill a well and construct a pump house building on the golf course premise. The Board gave the Water District their conceptual agreement. They must work closely with Ernie Bender, Golf Course Superintendent, to coordinate the site construction and landscaping. The . Board wants the landscaping to be extra special as this is the entrance to the golf course. Meskiman made a motion to give the Water & Sanitation access to the golf course for a well and approval to build the chlorination building at a height to accommodate carts as a weather shelter and when the building is complete to remove the existing weather shelter, second by Staufer., passed unanimously. GOLD MEDALLION PROGRAM: John Garnsey joins the meeting. Robinson stated he had asked Garnsey to attend this meeting to give the Board an overview of the gold medallion program, the Foundation and the relationship between the Foundation and VRD. Garnsey gave the Board an overview of the program. He feels the Foundation and VRD can do more together in the common ground of athletics. Garnsey wants the board to determine if the Gold Eagle program is a valuable program for the community. Wilson stated that the Vail Golf Club is the only valley course which allows an open policy on the medallion usage. He instructed staff to let the Foundation market it as unlimited usage, then staff should come up with the number of free rounds vs. paid round usage. The Board and Garnsey discussed ways the two entities could help one another - Nature Center, Youth • Center, Potpourri gondola access and building rental. Robinson stated he will be approaching the Foundation DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 -2922 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF September 16, 1991 Regulatory Section (199100944) Mr. Steven C. Birdsall RBI? Engineering Consultants 2900 South College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Dear Mr. Birdsall: I am responding to your .Letter dated August 28, 1991, con- cerning the installation of a waterline for new well OR-4. This line will cross Gore Creek in Gast Vail and is located in Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West, Eagle County, Colorado. I The Corps of Engineers has issued nationwide general permit number 12 authorizing the discharge of material for backfill or bedding for utility lines, including outfall and intake structures, provided there is not any change in preconstruction bottom contours (excess material must be removed to an upland disposal area). Based upon our review of the information submitted, we have determined that this protect may proceed subject to this nationwide general. permit provided you comply with the special conditions and best management practices (copy enclosed), please ensure that your contractor(s) is aware of and complies with these special conditions and best management practices. This verification will be valid until the nationwide general permit is modified, reissued, or revolted. All of the nationwide general permits are scheduled to be modified, reissued, or revolted prior to January 13, 1992, It is incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the nationwide General permits. We issued a public notice in the Federal Register on April 10, 1991, announcing the proposes( changes. Furthermore, if you commence or are under contract to commence this activity before the date the nationwide general permit is modified or revolted, you will have twelve months from the date of the modification or revocation to complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of this nationwide general permit. J SEP 18 10 f We have assigned Number 199100944 to this project. Please refer to this number in any correspondence submitted to this office concerning your project. Your cooperation is appreciated. Should you have any questions, please contact Ms. Sue Bachini Nall at telephone (303) 243 -1199. Sin •.rely, / n v L Me at r e Chief, estern Colorado Regulatory Offi 402 Rood Avenue, Room 142 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 -2563 Enclosure Copies Furnished: Dr. Gene Reetz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 8WM -SP, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202 -2405 Mr. Dan L. Collins, Subdistrict Chief, U.S. Geological. Survey, Post office Box 2027, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 U.S. forest Service, White Fiver National Forest, Post Office Box 720, Earle, Colorado 81631 Earle County, Post Office Box 850, Earle, Colorado 81631 • 2. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 11, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the sale of used cars at the Vail 66 Service Station, 2293 N. Frontage Road West, generally located at the northeast corner of Chamonix Road and North Frontage Road, Tract A, Collins -Wirth Subdivision. Applicant: Garrett and B.J. Smith Planner: Jill Kammerer +yr �.�a�., �ific�..sy #F �r o• : :..Q�,�.�� 9 r a #� ° lA°i`'r` 2�: i�''�•�ri f ° :'�ss�"'.N ,�y��r a. ray r �r ,• �y�� y .��+'• , y. y. G�° [oqr' fiy �`-• ay "�3'• ?4 e,� �� /.a?}•g.�'.. i.� 'hr 4 ,� 3�y p� � bY:o e'•f ! fx+r �. � ` ' A ` .'7.�::�{�•,' :4<} p`f'� 2� .'�'' p.Y,I.��iJf'��J� jip�� !�' � : : � S � .# , 5 .. f : n; �.�'�°��`�n°.c��$�� E' ` ° f, {s#". , i.r� �� `F�r p -i-,, y�f*iSl4• o �. "'N$ r�•.'.�r. {'r� :M �r °d.,, ,. �sir'6.4✓MS'� ..sa -� � , , , , ...vl+:W+AF A- �•:std••.o�.s,..�s'�?i.� u�• c..: I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE The applicant proposes to sell used cars at the service station. There are currently 3 curb cuts . which allow access to the service station. One of these curb cuts is located on the west side of the lot, and allows access to the site from Chamonix Road. The other two curb cuts are located on the south side of the lot and allow access to the site from the North Frontage Road. The applicant proposes to locate 4 -6 automobiles, on the western side of the North Frontage Road access points, on his own property. Signs inside of each vehicle would serve as the only on -site notification of the sale of used cars. The property is currently zoned Heavy Service. Motor vehicle sales and services are allowed as a conditional use in this district. 11. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Section 18.30.010, the Purpose section of the Heavy Service zone district reads as follows: • "The Heavy Service zone district is intended to provide sites for automotive- oriented uses and for commercial uses which are not appropriate in other commercial districts. Because of the nature of the uses permitted and their operating characteristics, appearance and potential for generating automotive and truck traffic, all uses in the heavy service district are subject to the conditional use permit procedure. In granting a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission or the Town Council may prescribe more restrictive development standards than the standards prescribed for the district in order to protect adjoining uses from adverse influences." Section 18.30.030(J) lists "motor vehicle sales and services" as a permitted conditional use, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of the Conditional Use section of the code. The requested conditional use to allow the sale of used motor vehicles is in compliance with Sections 18.30.010 and 18.30.030(J) of the zoning code. 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 used car sales operation will not have a direct impact on the above - referenced facilities. The North Frontage Road entrance drives, where 2 of the 4 of the autos to be sold are to be located, are each approximately 35 feet in width. The Town's width requirement for an outdoor parking space is 9 feet. Even with the parking of autos to be sold along the west side of these entrance drives, a 26 -foot wide accessway will be maintained (see attached site plan). Staff believes clear and safe access will be maintained to this site. The proposal will not have any impact on the other 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. Staff believes the proposed used car sales operation will not have an impact on the above - referenced criteria. Staff recommends 2 of the 4 autos to be sold be located on the west side of the North Frontage Road entrance drives and 2 along the eastern property line south of the car wash entrance (see attached site plan). As previously stated, staff does not believe parking of these autos on 40 2 the west side of the North Frontage Road entrance ways will negatively impact traffic flow and control access or site maneuverability. The removal of snow from these areas will, of course, be impacted, but to no greater extent than the parking of autos on any other parking lot in the community. 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. As stated in the Purpose section of the zoning code, the Heavy Service district is intended to provide sites for automotive - oriented uses and commercial service uses which are not appropriate in other commercial districts. In conjunction with the application, staff believes the screening of the existing dumpster, the provision of additional landscaping in the grassy area above the retaining wall (off of the southwest corner of the building), the landscaping of the southwest corner of the site (which is a highly - visible intersection in the Town of Vail), and the limitation of signing to one, 2 square foot sign placed inside the window of the auto will improve the appearance of the service station and the used car sales operation so as to not negatively impact the character of the area. • The minimum front setback in the Heavy Service zone district is 20 feet. Under Section 18.30.140, the Parking and Loading section of the Heavy Service zone district, no required parking or loading area shall be located in a required front setback. Staff is not considering the parking of autos for sale as required parking. Under the conditional use permit review procedures, the PEC has the ability to control the locations of the cars to be sold. We believe it is acceptable to locate one vehicle on the west side of each North Frontage Road entrance drive in the front setback. Parking the vehicles behind the front setback, at the entrance points, would create vehicular circulation problems on the site. The other 2 for sale parking spaces will not be within the front setback. Staff believes the proposed use will not alter, and is in keeping with the existing character of the area. • 3 B. Findings The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before gr anting a conditional use j2 ermit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the Conditional Use Permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Conditional Use Permit section of the zoning code. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff believes the conditional use permit request meets all of the Findings for a conditional use permit. The sale of used autos is an automobile- oriented use which is listed as an . allowed use (subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit) in the Heavy Service zone district. Clear and safe access to the site can be maintained during auto sales activity. There is sufficient parking on the site to meet the zoning code parking requirements. The use will not negatively alter the character of the area and, in fact, should the applicant screen the existing dumpster and install additional plant material, staff believes the character and appearance of the site would be improved. Staff believes the proposed used auto sales operation is an appropriate conditional use. in this zone district at this location, and recommends approval of the conditional use permit application subject to the following conditions: 1. No more than 4 autos, which are for sale, may be located on the property at any given time. 2. Autos to be sold shall be parked along the western edge of the North Frontage Road entrances to the site. No more than 2 autos shall be stacked at each entrance way. 3. "For sale" signs be limited in the following manner: a. No more than 1 sign shall be allowed per auto. b. Signs shall be limited in size to 2 square feet. • 4 0 C. All signs shall be located inside the auto. 4. The existing dumpster shall be screened by a solid wood fence. S. Installation of the following plant material by the applicant: a. Three 6 -foot evergreen trees off of the, northwest corner of the building in the grassy area between the retaining wall and Chamonix Road. b. One 6 -foot and one 8 -foot evergreen at the southwest corner of the site. C. Removal of weeds and reseeding of the southwest corner of the site with native grasses and flower seeds. Please note that, under Section 18.60.050 of the Town of-Vail Zoning Code, this approval shall lapse if construction has not commenced within one year of the date of PEC of the conditional use permit approval and diligently pursued to completion, or if the use for which the conditional use permit is granted has not commenced within one year. c: �pe6memos\usedcars.N1 l is • 5 V a y 1 1 y 1 i 1 _ �$ a ` , 1 I ' Y zj ) , qq y t I w1M YYMnI ' � } j I e +! 0 i ' .I,', 1 •tt a, pomma V91 - 1 3- W - 9 r] • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 11, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I for Vail Ski Rentals in the Hill Building, 254 Bridge Street/Lot L and Part of Lot c, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Blanche C. Hill Planner: Shelly Mello I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting an exterior alteration in order to relocate the existing doorway facade, of the western entrance of Vail Ski Rentals, 9' -2" to the west of the current location. The relocation will enclose 99.2 sq. ft. of what currently serves as an exterior entrance. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this exterior alteration request: A. Zone District: Commercial Core I B. Lot Area: Lot L: 5,532.12 sq. ft. (.127 acre) Part of Lot c: 2,874.9 sq. ft. (.066 acre) TOTAL: 8,407.08 sq. ft. C. Site Coverage: No change due to existing building above D. Parking: The applicant will be required to contribute to the Town of Vail parking fund. (99.2 sq. ft./300 sq. ft. x. $8,000 per space = $2,645.33) III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I 18.24.010 Purpose: "The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and i 1 • commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village." The proposal is in compliance with the purpose section of the Commercial Core I zone district. The addition will improve the commercial vitality of the area while preserving the visual interest of the building. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE There are no concepts of the Urban Design Guide Plan which specifically relate to this area. V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE A. Pedestrianization: The addition will not impact the pedestrian flow in the area. The relocation of the entry facade will serve to strengthen the pedestrian environment by adding transparency to the commercial streetscape. The relocation of the entry facade enhances the commercial aspect of this building and we feel it will add commercial vitality to the streetscape in this area. B. Vehicular Penetration: The addition will not create a demand for more vehicular trips in the Village core area. The Hill Building contains a one -car garage on the east side of the building used as parking for the Hill Building residence. There is often a vehicle parked in front of this garage door, extending onto the public right -of -way. Staff feels that with the large amount of pedestrian traffic in this area, this exterior parking space is no longer appropriate in the center of Vail Village. This has been a long standing issue with the Town and the property owner. After researching the issue further, the staff finds no documentation which allows this use on Town land. In 1988, the staff made the removal of the space as a condition of approval for an exterior alteration request on the east side of the building. The PEC approved the exterior alteration request by a vote of 5 -2 without the condition addressing the parking space. The staff finds that, with the adoption of the Vail Village Master Plan and the pending adoption of the Streetscape Master Plan and the Master Transportation Plan, which all call for a decrease in vehicular traffic in the Core, and improved pedestrianization, that the use . of public land for personal parking is not appropriate. 2 . C. Streetscape Framework: The proposed alteration will have a 12 -inch recess from the face of the building. D. Street Enclosure: Because this request involves a relatively small infill of an existing structure, the proposed infill does not change the proportions of street enclosure for this area. E. Street Edge: The alteration will infill a current void space in the building facade. With the 12 -inch recess from the building face, visual interest will be maintained and the streetscape will be improved. F. Building Helght: There will be no change to the height of the building. G. Views and Focal Points: There will be no impact to the views of this area by this alteration. However, when a vehicle is parked in front of the garage located on the east side of the building, the vehicle would encroach into View Corridor No. 2. The staff finds that this impact is not • necessary and should be permanently eliminated. We recognize that this issue is independent of the infill project. However, in reviewing this project, we feel that it is important to consider this situation and make efforts to improve the Village core and implement existing plans and programs. H. Service and Delivery: There will be no impact on this criteria. Sun /Shade: There will be no change to the existing sun /shade patterns by this alteration. A. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN Goal #3 - To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. • 3 • 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. Staff finds that the applicant should add landscaping in the area of the addition in order to improve the existing pedestrian way. The staff recognizes and applauds the applicant's current efforts in seasonal landscaping and decoration of the Hill Building. However, we feel that with this approval, permanent landscaping areas should be added in this area. This landscaping should either be in the form of a tree with grate, as shown in the attached elevation, or a planter below the existing bay window to the north of the requested alteration, as shown on the site plan. 3.2 Objective: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. 3.2.1 Policy: Vehicular traffic will be eliminated or reduced to absolutely minimal necessary levels in the pedestrianized areas of the Village. As mentioned previously, the staff feels that with increasing pedestrian traffic . and the efforts being taken to eliminate vehicular traffic in the Village core area, . the ongoing parking on the east side of the building is not appropriate. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends approval of the request to enclose 99.2 sq. ft. of commercial space with the condition that additional landscaping, either in the form of a tree with a grate as shown on the elevation, or a planter box below the bay window, be installed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the project. Staff finds it is not appropriate to require as a condition of the approval of this request, that the ongoing parking on the west side of the building be discontinued through this review process. However, we do feel that the issue should be addressed, and that the PEC should make a formal recommendation to the Town Council regarding the use of Town land in the Village core for personal parking. The staff finds that if the landscaping condition of approval is met, that the request will meet the issues addressed in the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan, including the Vail Village Master Plan, Urban Design Guide Plan, and the pending Streetscape Master Plan and Transportation Plan. We feel that, in general, the alteration will increase the transparency of the building facade and improve the commercial vitality of the area. c .Veclmemoslvailski. N 11 • 4 i i i su U �q V' } �� - �[�S ,_ °� � � � �J fi� 1 �. � _ � "� �_ ,� _� 9L � � ' J: - z 0 �� -�� f i I v �� _� �� N � � �� .� �� i �� ; �U � - � V �+ � �1 LJ • r ; T . Fl- LOT k ve:,rs alter f,,u first } ,jrlr.I. Ia no •v,-r,[ 111.1v any Action bused Upms any defect VVV he r,nw.+cnrr.d mn.ry IhAn ten years from the date of the .'n r:k r, 1lerauu• - PLANTER [N g9.4 EASEMENT PAGE 401 - ILDING Z O C C :+!� r 'x _ {� i . ' �KC�' i,`i••y� •:•� � �.'-� BUILDING OVERHANG J. ' d 1T. - ►.PLANTER G7 V PART OF LOT c� A im _ ON�PROPE>� L NE ' I � LOT I UYINER CASE LI �� ' D.lZT as U lam— BUILDING CORNER ••nn 11 ON PROPF,RTT LINE J. U 2211 ' r 10. y i� i'L ti Z' 'q l tiT, yl PLANTER •m/ P �� Q O r X 8,1'1 �^ CALCULATED CURVE DATA, NO DIMENSIONS GIVEN ON RECORDED 1 1L W'� CANOPY PLAT. NTB oyjOD E • =�.� � < / � BUILDING OVERHANG v • � /j� X-771 t (� /�� {{ PART OF LOT C 9 ; lI q g 0.0660c. °•45 �• t�, fi GOLDEN PEAK NOU ' PEAK ELEV. IS 28.1 HIGHER + + THAN EXISTING 2ND FLOOR ELEV. NON - EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT 9.6 / PLANTER / •p N r DECK CO y / UTILITY EASEMENT (VACATED $Y MCUN 1/ a AND HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC. IN r l 'm. 140 ^' 8' 2%$jTq* 'nry 68.84' N'H. I/16 CORNER SECTION B, T5S, F iUILDING OUTLI4E 0.3' NORTH OF THE PROPERTY LINE 6m P.M. FNO. PIN /CAP L.S. 16827 U.S. FOREST SERVICE V PART OF LOT c� 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 11, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a wall height variance for the Chester Residence, Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing/395 Mill Creek Circle. Applicant: E.B. Chester Planner: Kristan Pritz I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED On September 6, 1989, the Design Review Board approved a wall/fence plan for the Chester residence. The approval was given with the following conditions: 1. The height of the fence shall not exceed 6 feet or 3 feet in the front setback (gate columns may exceed 3 feet, but not 6 feet). 2. The metal support stakes for the aspens on the east side of the property shall be located with Vail Associates' assistance, so skiers are not endangered. The Town Council also reviewed the request at their September 19, 1989 evening meeting. The Design Review Board approval of the wall plan was upheld by the Town Council. Subsequently, the Town became involved in a law suit concerning this project. One of the elements of the settlement of the law suit required that the owner of the property, Mr. E.B. Chester submit a solution to either bring the walls into conformance with the zoning code or submit an application for a variance request. The applicant has submitted a request for a variance and also has proposed changes to the walls to bring them more into compliance with the zoning code. In addition, the staff has amended the zoning code to exclude the statement in the section of the zoning code which relates to the heights of walls and fences with regard to covenants. This change has been given final approval by Council and is no longer in the zoning code. 49 . The applicant is requesting variances from the following section of the code: Section 18.58.020 - Fences, Hedges, Walls and Screening C. Fences, hedges, walls and landscaping screens, covenant or other egg � ^ °*^�� ^ *, shall not exceed three feet in height within any required front setback area and shall not exceed six feet in height on any other portion of a site, provided that higher fences, hedges, walls, or landscaping screens may be authorized by the zoning administrator where necessary to screen public utility equipment. No barbed wire or electrically charged fence shall be erected or maintained. The variances requested are listed below: Wall Columns: 6 inches to 1 foot 4 inches Gate Columns: 8 inches to 10 inches Parking Area Wall: S feet 7 inches Wooden Fence Panels: 3 inches Please see the attached chart which outlines the existing conditions on -site, the applicant's proposal, the allowed height per the code, the amount of the variance needed, and the Community Development Department staff's recommendation, as well as the site plan showing the locations of the various columns and walls. The applicant proposes modifications to the walls in order to decrease, if not remove in many cases, the need for a variance. These modifications are accomplished by either cutting down the walls and rebuilding them so that they meet the height requirements, and/or by adding fill and raising the finished grade so that a variance is not necessary. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of the Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, 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. a. Front Yard Generally, the applicant is bringing the walls into conformance with the zoning code in this area. Departures to the height standard are requested in the front setback for the two gate columns at the south • 2 entry to the site, one wall column located at the center of the wall, as well as the wall which is creating a parking area on the southwest corner of the site. Staff's opinion is that the gate columns should be addressed. We can support the one wall column variance of 1 foot 4 inches as the applicant is cutting down the column to lower it as much as possible while maintaining the design of the wall. Landscaping also exists in front of this column to minimize visual impacts. With respect to the parking wall, it is staff's opinion that this wall is generally not visible from most vantage points of adjacent properties . The additional wall height is not on the exterior of the wall, but is visible on the inside face of the wall. With additional landscaping to screen the two viewing points of the wall, staff believes that visual impacts from the 8' -7" wall are minimized. We recommend planting one new deciduous tree to match the existing trees in this area. The location is indicated on the attached staff recommended landscape plan. b. Back Yard The following variances are requested: 1) A variance of 6- inches is requested for the wall columns 2) A 3 -inch variance for the north panel of the wooden portion of the fence 3) An 8 -inch variance for the two gate columns. Staff believes that these variances will have very little impact on surrounding neighbors. We believe that the proposed fence modification will result in a better design if the wall caps remain, which creates, in most cases, the need for the 6 -inch variance. We believe it is acceptable to have a height of 6 feet 8 inches for the gate columns. We believe it is necessary to minimize the visual impacts on adjacent properties by adding landscaping in the back yard area. Five aspen and two spruce should be planted adjacent to the northeast corner of the property. On the northeast corner of the site, we believe a shrub border should be planted along the exterior of the fence. The landscaping will help to decrease the tall appearance of the wall. A shrub border with additional fill is recommended at the gate columns. In summary, staff believes that the variances requested will have minor visual impacts on adjacent properties as long as the proposed landscaping is included. The variances which staff would like to see resolved are for the two gate columns in the front yard (8 inches) and (10 inches). We acknowledge that the grade around the front entry columns changes dramatically and that an effort 3 was made to have matching heights for the columns so that the entry points would be symmetrical. 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. Front Yard With respect to the parking wall variance, staff believes it would have been difficult to create a parking space in this area without allowing for some wall height variance. This is because of the large change in grade between the driveway (finished/existing grade on the Chester lot) and the adjacent property to the south. In order to create this parking space, a wall was necessary. The wall could have been terraced; however, this terracing would have pushed the parking space out into the driveway even more than is currently existing on -site. In addition, the area of the variance is not easily viewed from adjacent properties. The wall actually appears to be approximately Meet in height when viewed directly from the east or south. Staff opinion is that the existing grade created a hardship with respect to the creation of this additional parking space. Staff can see how the driveway grade change makes it difficult to maintain a constant height around the columns, which creates somewhat of a hardship. However, we would have preferred to see the overall column heights lowered in the original design to compensate for the grade change. b. Back Yard Staff believes it is reasonable to allow a minimal amount of relief from the strict and literal interpretation of the zoning code for wall heights, given the fact that the elevation of the recreation path around the property changes elevation. In order to allow for some privacy in the back yard and a raised separation from the adjacent tennis facility and recreation path, staff believes that the 6 -inch variance for the wall columns and 3 -inch variance for the wooden fence panel are reasonable. The 8 -inch variance for the gate column actually appears as a 2 -inch height increase if six inches is allowed in order to match the other wall columns. Staff believes this 2 -inch difference can be minimized by the shrub border. Once again, the 2 -inch difference is dependent on where 0 4 the column is measured. We can support some degree of flexibility in the design of the gate columns to match the design of the other fence columns. 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. There are no major impacts on the factors listed above. 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 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. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In reviewing this proposal, the staff has taken a position that we believe to be reasonable as well as respectful of the variance criteria and adjacent property owners' concerns. We recommend approval of the variances requested with the following conditions: 0 5 1. All walls and wall caps within the 20 -foot front setback shall meet the Moot wall height, excluding the entry columns and the one wall column which will be at a height of 4 feet 4 inches. Staff recommends that the entry columns be brought into more conformance with the 6 -foot height limit. In addition, the wall height variance for the parking area is recommended for approval with the condition that one deciduous tree to match the existing trees is planted. (Please see the site plan indicating staff's recommended landscape location). 2. The wall columns in the back yard shall meet the maximum height of 6 feet, 6 inches and the gate columns shall be _at _6 feet 8 inches 3. The additional landscaping in the back yard area shall include five aspen of 2 -inch caliper, one spruce at 12 -14 feet and one spruce at 6 -8 feet adjacent to the northeast corner of the lot. The existing shrub border on the east side of the back yard fence shall be extended around the fence to the north and west, as well as in front of the two gate columns. (Please see the attached staff landscaping plan). 4. The five blue spruce shall be replanted in the same general location as currently exists on the site (south side adjacent to spa room). One of these spruce may be relocated to the northeast corner of the fence if the applicant desires to do so. S. Approval to plant additional trees on the Vail Recreation District land to the north and east must be obtained from the VRD Board. 6. The modifications to the wall and columns, grading and landscaping shall be completed by July 1, 1992. Staff finds that the variances are supportable, as granting of the variances will not constitute a grant of special privilege [B(1)]. Because of the pre- existing and finished grade elevations in the area of the parking space, it is felt that the applicant deserves privileges other property owners have received when requesting approval for wall height variances in order to create a parking space. With respect to the back yard wall, it is felt that a minor amount of relief is necessary from the wall height limitations because of the change in elevation of the recreation path on the north and east sides of the property, and the need to allow for some separation between the public recreational facilities to the east. The front yard wall column is also acceptable at the 4 foot 4 inch height because of grade changes and wall design, as long as the planting in front of the wall remains. Staff finds there are no negative impacts on public health, safety or welfare nor are the variances materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity [B(2)]. We find the variances warranted, as there are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances on the site related to privacy and the public recreation path with changing grades on the north and east sides of the property [B(3)(b) and (c)]. Relief from the height limitations is also warranted as other applicants within the Town of Vail have received some flexibility for wall • rel height limits to create parking areas. Staff acknowledges that it is very common to require terracing of walls when these types of variance requests are reviewed. In this circumstance, we find that, because of the location of the house and the need to maintain the access through the drive area, it is not reasonable to require a terrace in this wall, as long as landscaping is provided per the staff condition of approval. In addition, the wall from the adjacent property to the south appears to be 3 feet in height, and only exceeds the height limit on the interior side of the parking space and in the area of the front wall column. We believe the applicant has taken steps to try and mitigate the impact of these walls and columns to an appropriate degree. The applicant has also agreed to provide all of the requested landscaping. With the landscaping and other conditions of approval, staff believes the walls will be more compatible with the site and surrounding properties. We feel that a reasonable solution has been found for these requested variances, given the staff's conditions of approval. Please note that, under Section 18.62.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval shall lapse if construction is not commenced within one year of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion. • 0 OpecN nemoAchester.N11 7 Y • z .. a M go V U U a w t at Q M ZS �O o0 1D b �O O V C'_7 • �l 'Ar V,.. All ail 4. T ol .. � a �� Ih- es r' r s � t +� -� b s i ".'.�;.��' t ' � �.:� i� f• 'aJ,S t + � j • 'a# - 1 I � n •i+ _ '' Syr '� �� i �. �� ;h- '. V 1% IA y I T4 Z 4e . , 1 s s f d i e _+ ' r 1 "N r i' r: l fir' ' ; J1 ! aj Or lk ........... . • :f E Y ..... ..... a • tl ��i � . 1 1' t t 's . - ., r .. ' 1 Il MIA • .. ` toO . 14 �•; �' Ix i • • OIL .14 Lp kA 1 4 to IL IM h I ■ • I 4C' t � 4. �+ it + I - .' t i 1 J r'•r_ j' Y- , c i py k 00 , „ ti g 4 _� f• k J . to jr :.r j° �'.J � � � , ` �' r�yp,� s� i' -- � �� , .S r..'!!tP• � 1 •.I •,9 r � J � ty; � 1 . � t JC •t'• •. 11 d� r I �,]I �,,' +t [ � � + ir`1 }t '�� }5 "�`•J !p+r� N y9 x *. Tl r T Iti r - . . dry, ` r , ? � , � k • + = r '�. ' 1, +Y F� ,14,15 r •� � Y ak Y 4• I -J +'J - y •: r• s S Vt. , . r - � z �. _S c,l'.. , ire 1 . Il JIi • -r el +... •.. ,.., ... -J_t �.V /.5 .. r. .. ♦ =... Li .:., - .,..w. 41 -1 �!'ti r! }t.'V.sl...uwliv >�.li.3f�: L(. � �[S�y tim 11] ll� t i MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 11, 1991 SUBJECT: Follow -up to letter from Kevin McTavish on behalf of the Millrace Condominium Association submitted to the PEC on October 24, 1991 regarding the SDD No. 4 Cascade Village Mill race/C osgriff Parcel major amendment. Planer: Shelly Mello Attached is a second letter, dated October 25, 1991 from Kevin McTavish on behalf of the Millrace Condominium Association. Upon review of the initial letter submitted to the PEC, there was some confusion as to what the Millrace Condominium Association was requesting. After speaking with their representative, it was clear that the Condominium Association does not feel that this issue should be addressed as a condition of approval of the Millrace IV /Cosgriff parcel SDD amendment. i The staff believes that it is the joint responsibility of the property owners in the area to address the four corners issue. We request that the PEC remove the condition of approval requiring the Cosgriff developer to provide a landscape plan for the four corners area to DRB with the Millrace IV /Cosgriff parcel development plan. cApeclmemoslcosgdff. N 11 0 • • MILLRACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 1000 S. Frontage Road W., Suite 200 Vail, CO 81657 (303) 476 -6953 October 25, 1991 To: Jerry Mullikin, Slifer, Smith and Frampton Ned Gwathmey, Arnold /Gwathmey /Pratt Architects Shelley Mello, Community Development From: Kevin Mactavish Re: Cosgriff Development Copy: Dan Havekost, President, Millrace Board Dr. and Mrs. William Donovan, Interested Owners Douglas Cogswell, Manager, Westin Kay Saulsberry, CMC Association Board I wish to record for information and other purposes several matters which I and others at Millrace have brought up regarding the plans for developing the Cosgriff parcel. 1. Millrace owners are concerned about construction parking and access. There is no parking available at Millrace for C 3 contractors and the like. And it has been stated, and we hope it... is definite, that construction access through Millrace can be r avoided by using the CMC Building's loading dock driveway. Permission from that Association and Westin will be necessary £or'` this. 2. Utility locations on the parcel are important before heavy equipment arrives. Gas line(s) and a 440 volt electrical run across and /or around the parcel, as well as the drain line from the Westin plaza ponds. The gas and electrical service Millrace and Westin. The drain line belongs to Cascade Village Association. There may be more therel 3. Once the parcel is developed, adjacent.. property owners should get together and improve the areas where all property lines meet at the north end. 4. There is no overflow parking available at Millrace, now or anticipated. Parking patrol problems can be anticipated. 5. The Millrace access easement location and related issues should be addressed, including who is going to pay for any adjustments. 6. This developed property will be a part of Cascade Village Association. Formulae need to be worked out on its share of assessments and level of participation in that entity. Millrace is glad to see planned improvement of the parcel, and wishes every success to the developer and eventual owners. Millrace will cooperate where matters of mutual interest are concerned, now and when the property is up and operating. C� • p -�b P�� MILLRACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 1000 S. Frontage Road W., Suite 200 Vail, CO 81557 (303 ) 476 -6953 October 24, 1991 �0M)fgI To: Colorado Mountain Condominium Association Westin Hotel Slifer, Smith and Frampton, Developer --- Cosgriff Parcel Town of Vail From: Kevin Mactavish Re: Four Corners Area, Vail The soon to be famous four corners area of Vaal could use improvement and beautification, particularly in light of the development of the Cosgriff parcel (tent and volleyball area between Hotel and Millrace). The four corners I am referring to is that area where CMC Building, Westin, Millrace, and Cosgriff properties meet, approximately at the end of the CMC Building's loading dock driveway. In earlier years, this was to have featured a watercourse and pedestrian area, and the driveway was to have ended in a wall which would have visually and operationally cut commercial traffic and activity from view. Now it is an open question. Except that the development of the Cosgriff parcel provides contiguous properties the opportunity or imperative to plan for something with a better impact than unimproved dirt and weeds and gate valve boxes. The Millrace Board wishes to cooperate with the other properties and do something about this area and solve such questions as the bridge that goes to nowhere! Please advise of your interest and willingness to participate in this initiative. :7 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 25, 1991 AGENDA 11:00AM Site Visits 12:30PM Work Session 2:OOPM Public Hearing Site Visits Work Session 1. (12:30) Worksession on the Vail Housing Authority's Business Plan. Presenters: Members of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners /Jill Kammerer 4. 2. (1:30) A request for a worksession on the proposed Performing Arts /Conference Center, which is proposed to be located adjacent to the east end of the Lionshead Parking Structure. Presenters: Ron Phillips /E.B. Chester Public Hearing 7. 1. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a bed and breakfast operation at 920 Fairway Drive /Lot 8A, Vail Village 10th Filing. Applicant: Alice Cartwright Planner: Betsy Rosolack 8. 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a bed and breakfast operation on Lot 11 A, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing/2625A Bald Mountain Road. Applicant: Eugenia G. Whitten Planner: Betsy Rosolack 3. 3. Presentation of proposed Lionshead Sundial Plaza landscaping plan (Lifthouse Lodge). Presenters: Jill Kammerer /Sherry Dorward 2. 4. A request for a conditional use permit for a liquor store at the Cascade Crossing Retail Center, 1031 S. Frontage Road. Applicant: William Von Schneidau /Mike Combs Planner: Andy Knudtsen 5. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a seasonal plant products business in the Heavy Service zone district, West Vail Texaco, 2313 N. Frontage Road West/Tract B, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1. Applicant: Richard Dilling Planner: Jill Kammerer 11 6. 6. A request for the establishment of a 90 -day review period for a Commercial Core I exterior alteration request, and a request for a worksession for the establishment of a Special Development District and a request for revisions to View Corridors Nos. 1 and 2, for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road /Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium Association /Vail Associates, Inc. /GPH Partners, Ltd. /Margaritaville, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica 7. A request for final review of the completed Town of Vail Master Transportation Plan for formal recommendation to the Town Council. The Master Plan addresses loading and delivery, 1 -70, the bus system, parking and other transportation - related issues. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Kristan Pritz /Greg Hall 8. A request to amend Chapter 18.62 - Variances, and Chapter 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits of the Town of Vail zoning code relating to notification of adjacent property owners. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer 9. A request to amend Chapter 18.62 - Variances, Section 18.62.080 - Permit Issuance and Effect, Chapter 18.62 - Conditional Use Permits, Section 18.60.080 - Permit Issuance and Effect in order to clarify the notification of approval procedures. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer 5. 10. Presentation of the Art in Public Places Board (AIPP) Conceptual Proposal for the Village Transportation Center Project. Planner: Shelly Mello 11. A request for a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining patio for the Gallery Building (Russell's Restaurant), located in the Commercial Core I zone district, 228 Bridge Street/a part of Lot A, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Ron Riley /D.R.R., Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica TABLED TO DECEMBER 9, 1991 12. Discussion of dates for Christmas party! (December 15th or 19th) 13. Telluride PEC visit to Vail: Walking tour and dinner after PEC meeting on December 9th. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 25, 1991 MINUTES PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Mike Mollica Ludwig Kurz Jill Kammerer Kathy Langenwalter Betsy Rosolack Gena Whitten Connie Knight (later) Former member Jim Shearer had just been elected to the Town Council and a PEC replacement had not yet been appointed. The work session was called to order at 12:40 by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. 1. Work session on the Vail Housing Authority's Business Plan. Presenters: Members of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners /Jill Kammerer Housing Authority Board members, Jen Wright and Jim Shearer, presented the Business Plan. Mr. Wright explained that two priorities of the VHA were to preserve the existing affordable housing stock and to add to the housing stock. Mr. Wright pointed out one way to add to the existing available employee housing, would be to use public /private ventures (similar to Pitkin Creek Park), and another way could be working with developers who are constructing other types of buildings to encourage them to include affordable housing in their projects. Mr. Wright recognized the recently proposed changes in the Town of Vail zoning codes which would provide incentives for the construction of additional long term rentals. Regarding possible locations, the property behind Wendy's, the property east of Safeway, perhaps the Bell Mountain site, an area near Spraddle Creek, and part of the Public Works property were mentioned. Mr. Wright explained the main reason the Board had chosen Donovan Park as the location for one of the initial sites to be developed with affordable housing was because it was owned by the Town of Vail. Until recently, the Town had not indicated a willingness to purchase land for this purpose. A good part of the Donovan Park parcel was proposed to be left as open space. Mr. Wright was not certain whether or not the Town of Vail could legally transfer open space purchased with Real Estate Transfer Funds (RETT) to the Housing Authority, since the RETT was to be used for the purchase and redevelopment of open space. He felt that it was important to bring this issue into the open, allowing community discussion to resolve whether or not it was acceptable to the community to develop open space with affordable housing. Mr. Wright repeated the main reason for considering Donovan Park was because the site could be assembled quickly, if the Town could transfer the site to the Authority. Further discussion followed regarding the many issues that needed to be considered. Jill Kammerer stated that the Housing Authority board was considering monitoring the need for affordable housing on an annual basis by tracking unit vacancies. Jen Wright stressed that the Housing Authority did not want to manage housing, but rather be a facilitator for the establishment/development of employee housing. In order to allow employees to purchase residences in Vail, the board would look into the possibility of private parties being able to obtain 95% mortgages with reasonable interest rates. Kathy Langenwalter felt it was more important to provide housing for the year -round employee rather than seasonal worker. Jen replied the Authority was concerned with the long -term renter at present. He indicated a study of the seasonal worker was complex and it was important to work with some of the larger employers in the Town such as Vail Associates to solve the housing issue. Jill wondered if it would be beneficial to work with arts people who. might be interested in furnishing summer housing for performers and artists. These units would then be available to meet the winter seasonal employee housing demand, too. This approach was the basis of 'the Marolt development in Aspen. Mr. Wright replied the Authority would work with the long term renters. Kathy thought the Authority should focus on for -sale housing development rather than long -term rental housing. Mr. Wright preferred to see people able to buy their own unit, but that both rental and units for -sale were needed. Chuck wondered how the sales could be restricted to locals. Jen admitted that this would be difficult, but it could be accomplished. Chuck mentioned Pitkin Creek Park had had restrictions which lasted only 7 years, and these restrictions had expired several years ago. He could see why housing was important to build a stable population base. He did not feel any efforts should be spent on housing seasonal workers unless they were long term renters. Chuck also expressed the belief the housing shortage problem was regional, rather than just in the Town of Vail, and Mr. Wright agreed. Jill then stated 32% of all the Town of Vail tax bills for non - municipally owned land, 32% were mailed to local {81657, 81658} zip codes. This information indicated at least 68% of all non - municipally owned property in the Town is owned by individuals who do not live here. Diana pointed out this figure could actually be higher if the number of property tax bills mailed to property management companies were taken into account. Kathy wondered how the Housing Authority proposed to maintain the existing rental unit stock. Jen replied one example was that the Timber Ridge property agreement was about to expire, and the Town may want to offer the owners some type of incentives to ensure that the rental units will remain. He added that incentives could be problematic. The Housing Authority could refinance existing projects with bonds and at that time put restrictions on the units, and the Housing Authority would be open to hearing any ideas from the PEC. Jen stated he would like to look at Pitkin Creek Park as an example. He added that every 18 -20 residents who could be persuaded to stay in their units, was a "big deal ". Jim Shearer admitted that it was sometimes difficult for locals to produce the down payment money necessary to purchase a home. Jen repeated that the Housing Authority wanted to be A facilitator, not a developer. Kathy wondered how much of Tract H was buildable. Jen was not comfortable with stating absolutes with regard to the number of units that could be developed on Tract H at this time. Jen replied that the Authority did not have funds to make that study, therefore they would work with the Forest Service through the land ownership adjustment process and if they decide they want more information on this parcel, they would get a site specific study done. Kathy 2 felt the Town should spend the money to do such a study. Diana felt this parcel was needed in the community, and the Forest Service might add it to the lands to be transferred to the Town. Jill told the board the criteria would be developed by the Land Ownership Committee for the trade and sales of Forest Service land. Diana felt there should be some way to use creative tax breaks to preserve existing stock. As an example, she mentioned allowing a RETT break if the purchaser would permanently restrict the unit. She felt that one of the causes of the shortage of housing was second -home owners. Diana believed these second - home purchasers should somehow have a financial responsibility to bear a portion of the cost associated with providing affordable housing in the Town. Diana's position on the use of Donovan Park for housing was that it had more value as a park. Jen repeated that he would like that issue to be discussed soon at a Town Council meeting. Kathy agreed Donovan Park was a good test case, but felt that if the community would not stand behind the high density, she would like to see the Housing Authority put efforts into other projects. Jen agreed. Diana felt that public housing had little support in the community. Jen remarked it was important to continue to work on the housing issues, otherwise the community would be hurt in the long term. Chuck felt he would rather see a group of a few larger for -sale townhomes for long term use, rather than a large number of smaller rental units. Jill explained the proposed method of using the 250 ordinance to encourage employee housing contained in the Employee Housing ordinance. Jen felt that if the board were to proceed with looking into using Donovan Park, the next step would be to balance the issues. Diana wanted to know how much of Donovan Park would be used. Jen indicated the lower bench of Donovan Park was 12 acres and the Authority had discussed using 4 acres of the site for employee housing. 2. A work session on the proposed Performing Arts /Conference Center, which Is proposed to be located adjacent to the east end of the Lionshead Parking Structure. Presenters; Ron Philllps /E.B. Chester Ron Phillips distributed a summary report. Mr. Chester explained the process to date had included speaking to many groups, and the next step was to go back to the Town Council and investigate financing. The building was to house a conference center and a performing arts center. A sketch of the building was distributed, which showed that it would be slightly higher than the existing parking structure. It was hoped it could be financed with a 1% or 2% room tax. Kathy questioned how the size compared. to the past proposal of the Congress Hall, and was told that the newer proposal had a smaller conference center and a larger theater. A discussion of the details of the building followed. Public Hearing 1. A request for a conditlonal use permit to allow a bed and breakfast operation at 920 Fairway Drive /Lot 8A, Vail Village 10th Filing. 3 Applicant: Alice Cartwright . Planner: Betsy Rosolack The staff presentation was made by Betsy Rosolack, who stated that all requirements for a bed and breakfast had been filled, and the staff recommended approval. Chuck Crist moved and Ludi Kurz seconded to approve the Bed and Breakfast. The vote was 4 -0 in favor. (Lena was out of the room for this vote.) 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a bed and breakfast operation on Lot 11 A, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing /2625A Bald Mountain Road. Applicant: Eugenia G. Whitten Planner: Betsy Rosolack This was taken later in the meeting. 3. Presentation of proposed Lionshead Sundial Plaza landscaping plan (Lifthouse Lodge). Presenters: Jill Kammerer /Sherry Dorward Jill gave an introduction to the proposal, and Sherry showed slides of the site. The Lionshead merchants propose to install the proposal in the spring of 1992. Prior to that time, the design must be reviewed by the Fire Department, as they are concerned with fire access to the building under the existing design. After discussion, Kathy moved to accept the concept of the proposed design for Sundial Plaza. The motion was seconded by Chuck Crist, with a vote is of 5 -0 in favor. 4. A request for a conditional use permit for a liquor store at the Cascade Crossing Retall Center, 1031 S. Frontage Road. Applicant: William Von Schneidau /Mike Combs Planner: Andy Knudtsen Mike Mollica presented this request for Andy Knudtsen, planner on the project, who was ill. Chuck Crist moved and Ludwig Kurz seconded to approve the request for the conditional use. The vote for approval was 4-0 in favor. (Kathy was out for this vote.) 5. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a seasonal plant products business In the Heavy Service zone district, West Vail Texaco, 2313 N. Frontage Road West/Tract B, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1. Applicant: Richard Dilling Planner: Jill Kammerer This item had been presented as a work session item at the previous PEC meeting on November 11th. The staff recommended approval of the requested conditional use permit with the following conditions: • 4 1. The applicant shall provide a temporary wood booth /structure instead of the metal trailer. 2. Signing must meet the allowable signing under the code. Based on the sign code, the business was limited to one sign with a size not to exceed 20 square feet. 3. All materials (fencing, lights, structure) shall be removed from the site by December 27, 1991. The applicant, Richard Matthews, explained that the banner sign reading "Christmas Trees" would be on the trailer. Richard showed the two smaller signs that he would like to use. He did not want to build a wood building because of the time it would take to construct the building. While waiting to construct a building, the salesman at the tree lot would have no place to keep warm. The board agreed to accept the metal building. Ludwig felt the signs should be within the sign code. Chuck agreed with him. Gena felt that aesthetically, the signs were fine. Diana felt that the board should visit the site before Christmas when the business was operating in order to make a determination as to how long the conditional use. permit would be approved for. Kathy suggested the conditional use permit be reviewed in January. She further baelieved the permit should be reviewed and approved on an annual basis. Chuck felt that the conditional use should be allowed to continue until there was a problem with it. Chuck Crist moved to approve the requested conditional use with the condition that the sign conform to the sign code and all material be removed from the site by December 27th of each year. The PEC would review the conditional use permit, at the January 13th meeting, visit the site during the site visits on December 9th, and at this time there would not be a time limitation on the conditional use permit. Gena seconded the motion, and the vote was 4 -1 in favor. Kathy voted against the motion because she was not comfortable with allowing the conditional use permit for an indefinite time. 6. A request for the establishment of a 90 -day review period for a Commercial Core I exterior alteration request, and a request for a worksession for the establishment of a Special Development District and a request for revisions to View Corridors Nos. 1 and 2, for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road /Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium AssociationNail Associates, Inc. /GPH Partners, Ltd. /Margaritaville, Inc. Planner: Mike Moliica This work session was led by Mike Mollica. The project architect, Craig Snowdon, showed a massing model of the proposed structure. Mike showed a site plan and explained that four additional applications would be required: a request to amend View Corridor #1, a request to amend View Corridor #2, a request for a rezoning for a portion of Tract E, and a request for a minor subdivision to incorporate the rezoned Tract E parcel into the Golden Peak. House parcel Mike then reviewed the zoning analysis. Departures from the CCI zone district standards of the proposal would occur in height, amount of common area, number of units, amount of site E coverage, and required loading spaces. Mike than reviewed the general site improvements . which would be included. Mike explained the nine SDD review criteria, although the staff would not specifically address each of them at the work session. Next, the related policies in the Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan were discussed. Mike felt the discussion issues should include proposed modifications to View Corridors No. 1 and No. 2, the project's departures from the Commercial Core I zone district standards, and several issues concerning Tract E. Clark Willingham and Ron Riley, applicants, explained that the use would be a hotel operation. Craig Snowdon stated that he had met with the staff and felt that the project met all the necessary criteria. Craig was anxious to know what else was needed. He showed site and floor plans of the existing building and the proposed building and also photos which overlay the view corridors. Craig also stated that the Bridge Street side would be upgraded with heated pavers, per the Town's Streetscape Plan. Gena had concerns which included view infringement, extra GRFA, and expansion onto public land. Clark explained that the proposal did not encroach on public land, but the land in question belonged to Vail Associates and was zoned Agriculture and Open Space. He added that Vail Associates had basically .agreed to sell the land to him, and if this land were to be included in the calculations, all the overage numbers could be reduced. He felt that it was impractical to try to attempt to amend the Tract E protective covenants, but would prefer to first see whether or not the covenants applied. Gena was also concerned about the height and the disappearance of the view of the ski mountain. Clark felt the building itself was part of the view. Craig pointed out that the view did not change until one was in front of the Red Lion. He felt that if one saw the Riva ski run partway up Bridge Street, one did not need to continue to see it when continuing up the street. Gena felt views disappeared when the height limits were exceeded. She was curious to know what the Tract E deed said, and Gerry Arnold of Vail Associates stated that there was no deed. There'were easements for the overhangs. Kristan asked if there was any information on whether or not the improvements should be on -grade or above - grade, and Gerry did not know of any information of this type. Ron Riley stated that there could not be any permanent construction above the ground level on the easements. Clark Willingham indicated that 75% of the owners must approve any changes to the covenants. Mike stated the staff had not taken a definitive position on how to proceed with Tract E, and he listed 4 possible options. Chuck Crist wanted to see the Golden Peak House remodeled, but explained that the Town was not going to get the remodeling "free" because of the economics involved. Regarding Tract E, he felt any of the options were fine. He was against any modification to the AOS zone district. He was in favor of the restaurant/deck development in the back of the building. Chuck felt that this was the most important portal to the mountain and it was currently weak. He was not too concerned with increases to GRFA and site coverage because the building was in the center of town. He was not in favor of narrowing the entrance to the Vista Bahn, but was not concerned about the view corridor from the parking structure because the building was hard to see from that vantage point. Chuck was concerned about the view from Bridge Street and suggested perhaps leaving off the top floor of the center part of the building. He was very concerned about the height and massing, IS even though he realized that that was where the economic return would be gained. Chuck A • could visualize Cyrano's wishing to add more stories to their building. Kathy Langenwalter felt the approach was a nice change to the building. She was concerned about height, view corridor encroachments and departures from the CC[ zoning. Kathy felt the requested height was not even close to the required height, and she reminded the applicants that the Master Plan called for 3 to 4 floors. She felt that the remodeled building should not exceed the height of the old building. Kathy was not too concerned with increases in square footage. Regarding Tract E, she was opposed to changing the zoning or any modifications to the zoning. However, if the portion of Tract E were purchased, then she could approve the rezoning. Ludwig had concerns with modifications to View Corridor No. 2. He had no problems with GRFA, common areas, number of dwelling units, or the building envelope. Ludwig felt the height was a very great concern. He also felt the center section should be left open. Walking up Bridge Street, the impact of the proposed structure was that it would be massive. He agreed with Kathy regarding Tract E. Connie felt the building was overwhelming. She felt the view of the mountains was being taken away and that the view was important, even if it was not protected by ordinance. Craig responded that the center of the building could probably be infilled and no one would notice. Craig said that increasing the height was making the product viable. Jerry Valentine, a Golden Peak condo owner, felt that very little of the view of the mountain would be lost. He felt the view of the present building was horrible. Connie replied that they . were replacing the view of the mountain with a roof top. Valentine stated this was the first time the owners of the condos had agreed 100% to a plan. He felt certain modifications could be made. Clark Willingham felt the idea of pulling the center back was possible. However, he pointed out the view was lost only 6 feet farther along Bridge Street. Ron Riley felt that perhaps something could be worked out. Craig felt that, at present, the east end looked overwhelming next to Cyrano's, but that he could not see the Cyrano's building staying in that configuration for more than a few years, for the Cyrano's building would change in the near future. He added that Cyrano's lease would expire in 18 months. Diana Donovan did not feel that it was the PEC's job to make the project economically feasible. She felt something through the middle of the structure could be used to break up the feeling of a large building. She wished for a large enough trash compactor to eliminate daily garbage collection. Diana was opposed to modifying the view corridors, had a problem with height and mass. She felt the project must "give" somewhere. Craig stated he had started with a 4:12 roof pitch and Gary Murrain, the Town's Building Official, had suggested lowering the roof to 3:12, which reduced the height by 3 feet. Therefore, he felt that there were other areas that could be redesigned. Diana was concerned with loading. She stated that trucks were piling up in the core area and suggested requiring loading spaces like parking spaces. With regard to Tract E, Diana was concerned about Vail Associates selling what had been . used for open space. She felt this was precedent setting and went against the Town goals. 7 Ron Riley pointed out Tract E goes all the way behind the Tivoli. He stated that the small portion that was to be rezoned was consistent with the Master Plan and that the Master Plan called for this area to be Ski Base Recreation. Kristan Pritz explained that Ski Base Recreation was more of a use designation, uses like dining decks, ski storage, etc. and that it was not intended to include residences and hotel rooms. Diana did not want to set a precedent to allow everything next to the mountain to become commercial. Ron Rily reminded Diana that the last plan for redevelopment of the Golden Peak House had passed the PEC and had received positive reinforcement from the Town Council. He added the restaurant dining deck had been pulled back since that proposal. Diana hoped an employee unit or units could be included. George Knox, a neighboring merchant, felt the Town should try to encourage commercial use on the south side of the Golden Peak building. He stated that he received an increasing number of tourists in his shop who wanted the ability to enjoy watching others' skiing and summer use of the mountain. (The bike path use also contributed to their enjoyment.) He felt the Town needed to see if there was a way to make this project happen. George reminded the Board that this was a horrible looking building. do Diana felt there was " a little over and a little too much everywhere ". Discussion followed concerning the uses of the building. Kristan asked if the intent was to just purchase the area of the existing easements on Tract E and address the deck extension at a later time. Clark answered, "yes ". Ron Riley stated that for the patio, a zoning change was needed. He felt that Ski Base Recreation was the most suitable to accommodate the minor deck expansion. Diana felt that the rezoning must fit into the larger concept and doubted if anyone was against rezoning, but was concerned about the method. 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a bed and breakfast operation on Lot 11 A, Block 2, Vall Village 13th Filing/2625 A Bald Mountain Road. Applicant: Eugenia G. Whiten Planner: Betsy Rosolack Betsy explained that all the requirements had been met, with the exception of the parking. The staff felt that the parking was constricted and recommended that only one bedroom be approved for use for a Bed and Breakfast operation. Chuck knew the house and agreed that the parking was limited. Connie felt that the letter from the neighbors needed to be taken into consideration. Ludi and Kathy felt the parking could be a problem. Diana felt that the board should approve only one bedroom at the present time. Chuck moved and Connie seconded to approve the B &B for one bedroom only. The vote was 5 in favor, none against, with Gena abstaining. • N • 7. A request for final review of the completed Town of Vail Master Transportation Plan for formal recommendation to the Town Council. The Master Plan addresses loading and delivery, 1 -70, the bus system, parking and other transportation - related Issues. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Kristan Pritz/Greg Hall Arnie Ullevig gave a brief overview of the changes that were made to the plan. Topic areas include loading, frontage road Improvements, pedestrian trails, 1 -70, transit. Kathy Langenwaiter reviewed her comments on the plan and made corrections. The PEC expressed concern that it was too difficult to find the recommendations. It was felt that an executive summary was needed to address concerns. Arnie agreed to do this. Kathy questioned the 1 -70 east -bound ramps regarding what frontage road improvements were necessary. Greg explained left turn lanes and 6 -foot shoulder widening. Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowners Association, expressed concern about central loading at the Christiania site, as well as the short term loading solution. He had to leave for another meeting, but expressed the desire to discuss the issue with Council. Diana offered to meet with the East Village Homeowners Association to explain in more detail the thinking behind the plan. Joe Macy stated that he was uncomfortable with the plan sharing transportation solutions on private property. He felt that there should be a statement that the solutions were developed without property owner approval. 8. A request to amend Chapter 18.62 - Variances, and Chapter 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits of the Town of Vail zoning code relating to notification of adjacent property owners. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve per the staff memo and Gena Whitten seconded the motion. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 9. A request to amend Chapter 18.62 - Variances, Section 18.62.080 - Permit Issuance and Effect, Chapter 18.62 - Conditional Use Permits, Section 18.60.080 - Permit Issuance and Effect in order to clarify the notification of approval procedures. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer Motion by Chuck Crist to approve the request per the staff memo and seconded by Ludwig Kurz. The vote was 6 -0 in flavor. 10. Presentation of the Art In Public Places Board (AIPP) Conceptual Proposal for the Village Transportation Center Project. N Planner: Shelly Mello This item was tabled until December 9, 1991. 11. A request for a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining patio for the Gallery Bullding (Russell's Restaurant), located In the Commercial Core I zone district, 228 Bridge Street /a part of Lot A, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Ron Riley /D.R.R., Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica Chuck Crist moved to table this item until 1219191 and Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 12. Discussion of dates for Christmas party. (December 15th or 19th) 13. Telluride PEC visit to Vail: Walking tour and dinner after PEC meeting on December 9th. • C fit$] I PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 25, 1991 11:OOAM Site Visits 12:30PM Work Session 2:OOPM Public Hearing AGENDA Site Visits Work Session 1. (12:30) Worksession on the Vail Housing Authority's Business Plan. Presenters: Members of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners /Jill Kammerer 4. 2. (1:30) A request for a worksession on the proposed Performing Arts /Conference Center, which is proposed to be located adjacent to the east end of the Lionshead Parking Structure. Presenters: Ron Phillips /E.B. Chester Public Hearing 7. 1. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a bed and breakfast operation at 920 Fairway Drive /Lot 8A, Vail Village 10th Filing. Applicant: Alice Cartwright Planner: Betsy Rosolack 8. 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a bed and breakfast operation on Lot 11A, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing /2625A Bald Mountain Road. Applicant: Eugenia G. Whitten Planner: Betsy Rosolack 3. 3. Presentation of proposed Lionshead Sundial Plaza landscaping plan (Lifthouse Lodge). Presenters: Jill Kammerer /Sherry Dorward 2. 4. A request for a conditional use permit for a liquor store at the Cascade Crossing Retail Center, 1031 S. Frontage Road. Applicant: William Von Schneldau /Mike Combs Planner: Andy Knudtsen 1. 5. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a seasonal plant products business in the Heavy Service zone district, West Vail Texaco, 2313 N. Frontage Road West/Tract B, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1. Applicant: Richard Dilling Planner: Jill Kammerer 1 6. 6. A request for the establishment of a 90 -day review period for a Commercial Core I exterior alteration request, and a request for a worksession for the establishment of a Special Development. District and a request for revisions to View Corridors Nos. 1 and 2, for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road /Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium Assoclation/Vail Associates, Inc.IGPH Partners, Ltd. /Margaritaville, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica 7. A request for final review of the completed Town of Vail Master Transportation Plan for formal recommendation to the Town Council. The Master Plan addresses loading and delivery, 1 -70, the bus system, parking and other transportation - related issues. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Kristan Pritz /Greg Hall 8. A request to amend Chapter 18.62 - Variances, and Chapter 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits of the Town of Vail zoning code relating to notification of adjacent property owners. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer 9. A request to amend Chapter 18.62 - Variances, Section 18.62.080 - Permit Issuance and Effect, Chapter 18.62 -Conditional Use Permits, . Section 18.60.080 - Permit Issuance and Effect in order to clarify the notification of approval procedures. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer 5. 10. Presentation of the Art in Public Places Board (AIPP) Conceptual Proposal for the Village Transportation Center Project. Planner: Shelly Mello 11. A request for a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining patio for the Gallery Building (Russell's Restaurant), located in the Commercial Core I zone district, 228 Bridge Street/a part of Lot A, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Ron Riley /D.R.R., Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica TABLED TO DECEMBER 9, 1991 12. Approval of minutes from the October 28, 1991 and November 11, 1991 meetings. 13. Discussion of dates for Christmas party! (December 15th or 19th) 14. Telluride PEC visit to Vail: Walking tour and dinner after PEC meeting on December 9th. 0 GOLDEN PEAK HOUSE REMODEL VAIL, COLORADO A Proposal for Addition., Renovation and Expansion PREPARED FOR: THE TOWN OF VAIL AND THE GOLDEN PEAK HOUSE ASSOCIATION PREPARED BY: SNOWDON AND HOPKINS - ARCHITECTS 201 Gore Creek Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Vaf PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC. 108 South Frontage Road. Suite 308 Vail, Colorado 81657 AND JOHN M. PERKINS, ARCHITECT P.O. Box 266 Vail, Colorado 81658 0 November 22, 1991 . I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to present information regarding a re- development proposal for the Golden Peak House located upon Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. These parcels of land are located in the heart of Vail Village at the base of the Vail Ski Area and the intersection of Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road. This report addresses the various requirements of the Town of Vail Zoning Code and Subdivision Regulations and is divided into the following three sections: PROJECT DESCRIPTION This section of the report describes the development proposal and the existing conditions upon the site. Proposed development statistics and standards are presented in this section as well as impacts of the proposal, zoning considerations are also discussed. DESIGN REGULATIONS This section of the report describes the design intent of the proposal and addresses compliance of the proposal with the Vaal Village Urban Design Considerations and the Vail Village Master Plan. SUMMAR This section is a brief summary of the key points of the proposal. is Page 2 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Golden Peak House was constructed in 1966 and currently consists of retail shops, bars and restaurants, a barber shop, and 18 dwelling units (condominiums). virtually no major upgrade or renovation of the structure has been completed since the building's initial construction and the building is physically in need of major renovation. Coupled with the Association's need to renovate and upgrade the building physically is the overall Community need to upgrade the building design in order to fit into what has become a certain design "vocabulary" in Vail Village. The Golden Peak House is architecturally very different from all other buildings within Vail Village and was constructed with a very odd roof which is no longer, and may never have been, appropriate for the prominent site at the top of Bridge Street. A major aspect of this development proposal is to renovate the structure in a manner which results in a recognition of the distinctive design character of Vail village. These design aspects of the proposal are discussed in the next section, Design Considerations, of this report. The redevelopment proposal for the structure consists of a total renovation of the existing building which includes the major modification of the roof to gable roof forms, the addition of gft dormers, balconies, bay windows, arcades, and other architectural projections resulting in a totally.different appearance of the building. in addition, the dining deck on the south side of the building is proposed to be enlarged to accommodate additional seating (see Site Plan) with a portion of the deck having the ability to be enclosed during inclement weather. The existing elevations of the building and proposed elevations are shown. The addition of the 4/12 pitch gable roof results in the infill of the "valley" portions of the existing "butterfly" roof structure. Consequently, this results in the ability to construct a majority of the new development within the envelope of the existing building. As well as exterior changes to the structure, interior changes are proposed which will result in more efficient use of space, better circulation throughout the building, improved access, and, most importantly of all, the ability to utilize the residential units much better as guest accommodations with the addition of a functional "hotel" lobby on the second floor level. C, Page 3 A. DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS The following table indicates, numerically, the existing and proposed floor areas for the Golden Peak House. 1991 PROPOSAL EXISTING ADDITIONAL TOTAL 1 0 BASEMENT FLOOR "The Slope" 1,320 530 1,850 Ski Shop 780 495 1,275 Storage 1,118 7 1,125 "Los Amigos" 0 645 645 Common 1,044 -146 11190 4,262 1,823 6,085 GROUND FLOOR Barber Shop 154 35 189 Commercial /Retail 3,941 1,295 5,236 Common 1,309 < 561> 748 5,404 769 6,173 SECOND FLOOR Restaurant 1,260 970 2,230 Restaurant Greenhouse 0 370 370 Dwelling Units (8 existing /4 proposed) 2,960 < 312> 2,648 Common 1,604 < 300> 1,304 5,824 728 6,552 THIRD FLOOR Dwelling Units (8 existing /7 proposed) 4,220 723 4,943 Accommodation Units (0 existing /2 proposed) 0 700 700 Common 1,604 < 764> 840 5,824 659 6,483 r - 1 L-A Page 4 0 FIFTH FLOOR Dwelling Units (0 existing /1 proposed) 0 3,385 3,385 Common 0 215 215 Loft 0 300 300 0 3,900 3,900 • � 0 GRAND TOTALS: 24,120 11,289 35,486 TOTALS BY USE: Dwelling Units 9,861 1991 PROPOSAL 16,737 Accommodation Units EXISTING ADDITIONAL TOTAL FOURTH FLOOR 5,686 C 799> 4,887 Dwelling Units 4,875 1,825 6,700 (2 existing /4 proposed) 2,681 2,780 5,461 Accommodation Units 1,118 7 11125 (0 existing /4 proposed) 0 250 250 Common 125 465 590 2,806 3,495 6,301 FIFTH FLOOR Dwelling Units (0 existing /1 proposed) 0 3,385 3,385 Common 0 215 215 Loft 0 300 300 0 3,900 3,900 • � 0 GRAND TOTALS: 24,120 11,289 35,486 TOTALS BY USE: Dwelling Units 9,861 6,876 16,737 Accommodation Units 0 950 950 Common 5,686 C 799> 4,887 Retail 4,875 1,825 6,700 Restaurant 2,580 2,515 5,095 Storage 1,118 7 11125 Page 5 d o B. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The Golden Peak House is currently located within the Commercial Core One Zone District. The combined site area of the two lots which it occupies is 6,915 square feet. The Golden Peak House is currently located adjacent to the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District which is indicated upon the Town of Vail's proposed Village Master Plan and Land Use Plan as Ski Base /Recreation District. In order to provide for the re- development of the Golden Peak House it is proposed that this area be re -zoned to a Special Development District (SDD). As stated in the Vail Zoning Code, "the purpose of Special Development Districts is to encourage flexibility in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use, and to improve the design, character and quality of new development. it is believed that through a Special Development District, this parcel of land can be developed to meet both the objectives of the property owners and the overall Community and result in a high quality development which will be an asset to the Town of Vail. The base "underlying" zone district for the SDD will be CC1 (Commercial Core One) since the uses proposed generally correspond to this zone district. As in any Special Development District, the development standards, including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking are as indicated upon the Development Plans and are determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission and approved by the Town Council. The Development Standards for the proposed SDD are as follows: Lot Area The total size of the SDD will be 6,912 total square feet plus 2,065 square feet of deck easements as indicated upon the Site Plan and will include Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing and such easements, Site Di end lions The site dimensions will be as indicated upon the Site Plan. Setbacks Setbacks will be as indicated on upon the Site Plan. Building setbacks varying from less than 1 foot on the north and west and 1 foot on the east property boundaries. Existing overhang easements will be recognized on the north and west sides of the . building (which are 6 feet); and on the south side (which is 10 feet). Page 6 . Height Building height will be as indicated upon the building elevations which is 56 feet at the highest point of the gable roof located in the eastern portion of the Development and 41 feet at the highest point in the western portion of the Development. The greenhouse enclosure will not exceed 10 feet in height. Density Density will be as indicated on the Development Plans. Site Coverage Site coverage will be as indicated upon the Site Plan. Landscaping Landscaping will be as shown on the Landscape Plan and as finally approved by the Town of Vaal Design Review Board. Parking Parking will be calculated in accordance with the Town of Vail Zoning Code and additional spaces required will be provided for by contribution to the Town Parking Fund. Permitted Use Permitted uses, conditional uses, and accessory uses will be those specified with the CC1 Zone District. Other applicable zoning issues relating to CC1 are addressed in this proposal. • Page 7 C. IMPACTS The Town of Vail Department of Community Development has requested that the potential changes or impacts resulting from the proposal be evaluated according to the following identified conditions. Hydrologic Conditions The only hydrologic condition which will change as a result of the proposal is an improvement of the various surface drainage conditions both around the perimeter of the site and upon the building itself. Roof drainage will be substantially upgraded with the building renovation as well as the installation of a new surface drainage system around the building which will be designed to improve existing drainage problems. A tmospheric Conditions The renovation of the building will result in the addition of gas fireplaces which will meet Town of Vail standards and five existing wood burning fireplaces will be reused in the proposal. Geologic Conditions is There will be no impact upon land forms, slopes, soils, or potential hazards resulting from the proposal. Noise and Odor There will be no significant impact upon these environmental conditions. A potential exists that the upgrade of restaurant kitchen facilities such as exhaust fans could reduce any current odors which might exist from these facilities. Any noise which might emanate from the outdoor dining area will conform to Town of Vail standards regarding noise levels. Visual Conditions Visual changes resulting from this proposal are discussed within the next section, Design Considerations, of this report. Land Use Conditions The proposal will not result in any changes or negative impacts upon characteristics of uses, compatibility with officially approved land use and open space policies or objectives. The land uses proposed are entirely consistent . with adopted and proposed land use plans. Page 8 Circulation and Trans ortation Conditions: In terms of pedestrian circulation the proposal results in a very positive impact due to the upgrade of the major access to Vail Mountain which exists between the Golden Peak House and the Hill Building. Drainage, grades, and surface condition improvements all will enhance the pedestrian flow through this area. Delivery conditions will be altered by the removal of the existing trash dumpsters in the skier access which will result in a positive impact. C7 .7 Page 9 g III. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS As mentioned in the previous section of the report, a certain distinctive design character has evolved within Vail Village which, through the implementation of the Vail Village Urban Design Guideplan, is encouraged to be followed in the redevelopment of existing structures. The following responds to the stated Design Considerations and describes how the proposal will be consistent with the established character of Vail Village and Bridge Street and how the proposal will make positive contributions to the quality of life. Design Statement The Golden Peak House Building is the most prominent building in Vail Village. It is located at the "top" of Bridge Street and serves as visual focus for pedestrians moving up Bridge Street. The building is a contemporary mid -60's design with a curious inverted roofline that is out of context with its surrounding neighbors and the village environment. The roofline and the north facade make the building read as a sheer vertical wall cutting off the street from Vail Mountain. The building has fallen into disrepair and features cracked and peeling stucco, plywood balconies in need of repair or replacement, and other general areas of decline. It is a prime candidate for a major redesign. • In redesigning the Golden Peak House it is important to address the building's verticality and somewhat imposing vertical scale. Also, the building's cold and hard relationship with Bridge Street, i.e. its "meeting with grade ". This relationship with grade is equally important on the mountain side and west traffic corridor. The building is in great need of a renewed identity that meshes with the architecture of Vail Village. A gable roof is the most reasonable approach to blending the building into the Village. The upper floors on the Hanson Ranch Road side have been set back for the enhancement of street enclosure and sun /shade considerations. The gable roof has then been placed in such a manner as to have its highest points well back from the front edge of the building face. By creating a covered arcade -like north facade at grade with a transparent horizontal facade, the building will both meet the street in a more human scale and provide a horizontal base. The extension also breaks the overpowering verticalness of the present arrangement. It is logical that this horizontal base of windows turn the corner and continue along the west elevation, creating interest and interaction at a human scale between the building and the ski traffic moving through to the mountain. Development of this "throat" or narrow passage will need special 40 treatment and coordination between all adjoining property owners and comply with the new guidelines established by the latest Town of Vail streetscape plan. Page 10 Verticality is less of an issue at the south elevation because grade is one level higher. The roofline on the south is therefore more capable of taking large openings (windows) because its horizontal influence is less needed or required. The south elevation should present a pleasant and exciting character in equal response to the activity and excitement of the Vista Bahn. The building offers great and exciting potential for a very successful and pleasing re- design. It can be re- designed to meet the needs of the owners and to achieve congruence with the architectural context of Vail Village. Pedestrianization: Pedestrianization of upper Bridge Street and of the Vista Bahn access alley will be improved with the proposal. The building's varying front facade at grade, and the covered arcade -like canopy will draw people to the building. The skier access alleyway will be cleaned up with the removal of trash dumpsters, improved drainage, and upgraded ground surface materials. This area is a viable public art site as it will become a mini -plaza inviting the pedestrian to enter, experience, and move through. 5treetsca a Framework: The streetscape framework will be greatly improved with the addition of bay windows, and the arcade -like roof canopy. These architectural features will be more.in keeping with the Urban Design Guide Plan and other existing buildings in the Village. The bay windows will be covered with a soffit varying from 2 feet to 6 feet of overhang. The overhang soffit will give a protected intimate environment for the window viewer. The changing overhang condition (varying depth) will create an interesting space to experience as opposed to one consistent window and overhang relationship for the 110 linear feet of store front. The Streetscape Framework will have the added interest of the large gabled entry at the entry to the Golden Peak House Lodge (main entry) and secondary canopies (3) at the entries to major building tenants. Similar entry canopies have been utilized on the remodeled Plaza Building with successful results. Street Enclosure The street enclosure will be enhanced by the more human scaled bay windows, and entry canopies. The enclosure will feel somewhat lessened by the proposed stepping back of upper floors. The sheer vertical north facade will feel much less vertical. Also the gabled roof form will give a more varied, interesting upper enclosure than the present long horizontal line of the roof of the existing east mass. The enclosures stepping back will mitigate the sheer verticality of the buildings north facade. • Page 11 The skier access alley will become a semi - enclosed mini plaza . with potential placement for benches, landscaping or public art locations as developed by the latest Town of Vail Streetscape Plan. Street Edge Street edge will be greatly enhanced. Snowmelted brick pavers will meet the building edge at grade and the in and out offsets of the protected bay windows, and building entry ways will add much needed interest. The elimination of the service stair from grade down to the basement at the northeast corner of the building will greatly increase the linear footage of street edge with bay windows adding transparency. Small planters on grade and planter boxes will add color and charm to the street edge. Stone veneer work will be a featured material at the street edge at the west facade. The skier access plaza can be a feature "pocket" area and surfaces will be greatly improved and benches and landscaping can be added to tie into the latest Town of Vail Streetscape Plan. Building-Heigh and Focal Points: The proposed gable roof additions will only be 7 feet and 11 feet higher (at the Ridge Line) than the highest points of the . existing roofs on the east and west building masses. These ridge lines are well back from the street edge facade as the present roofs are. The gable roof pitches down at a 4/12 pitch to points along the current roof height. The west mass, because it is turned 90 inf ills the existing open end of the butterfly roof form. The westernmost sidewall height is unchanged. The focal point of the Riva Ridge Ski Run is maintained from Bridge Street view points, and further analysis will demonstrate that the mountain view will be enhanced by the reduction of flat building mass. The 4/12 gable roof form, as recommended by the Design Considerations is more in keeping with the architectural fabric of Vail Village and will be a major improvement to upper Bridge Street. The new roof form has been designed and placed over the existing building masses as carefully and considerately as possible. It is felt that the minimal increases are far outweighed by the advantages gained. Views from the new Vail Parking Garage and through the skier accessway demonstrate minimal encroachments into established view corridors. These encroachments are of negligible impact. • i Page 12 • Sun/Shade The proposed building design will have minimal impact on (area in shadow) the sun /shade relationship on Seibert Circle and upper Bridge Street. By stepping the upper floors back the sun angle (50 hits less of the building at the points of critical shadow impact. These studies will be further analyzed as the punning process proceeds. Service and Delivery Deliveries and trash pick -up will continue to be at the northeast, corner of the building. The existing dumpsters located in the Vista Sahn access alley will be eliminated. A trash compaction unit will be installed in the basement and the trash bales will be lifted to the main level off the new service elevator. The elevator will replace the exterior service stairway at approximately the same location. Removal of the trash dumpsters from the alley will greatly improve the high traffic, busy pedestrian area. Sub Area Concepts_ : Two Sub -Area Concepts are indicated within the Vail Village Urban Design Guideplan and Vail Village Master Plan which relate to the development proposal. The first of these concepts is #9 (3.2) . which discusses a commercial ground floor expansion in order to improve the pedestrian scale at the base of the building and to provide for greater transparency as an activity generator on Seibert Circle. The Vail Town Council has previously determined that this design concept should not be accomplished by means of the ten foot encroachment onto public right -of -way encouraged by the Guideplan. The Council indicated that they would prefer to attempt to achieve these goals through a combination of bay windows, overlays, and other architectural projections on the facade of the building. In response to this direction the current proposal has improved the pedestrian scale utilizing these Features and providing increased transparency while not encroaching on to Town property. Sub -area concept #10A (3.3) indicates an area for "mountain gateway improvements" including landscaping and a minor plaza. As mentioned previously the proposal includes these features within the identified area and the result will be a greatly improved "gateway" to Vail Mountain and tie into the Town of Vail latest streetscape plan. 40 Page 13 • IV. SUMMARY The proposal results in the accomplishment of the following major goals: 1) The redevelopment of one of Vail's most prominent locations in a manner which is consistent with the Vail Village Urban Design Guideplan and Vail Village Master Plan; 2) A substantial improvement of site and landscape conditions in an area which is the major portal to Vail Mountain. it is clear when reviewing the developmental proposal that this is truly a project in which everyone benefits. The Golden Peak House Association benefits from the major upgrade and renovation of the building in terms of bringing the building into conformation with current building codes and life safety requirements. The overall community benefits in terms of the major upgrade and enhancement of an area which is currently an eyesore. Most importantly, the Vail visitor benefits by the improvement of the Vail Village experience which will be improved both aesthetically and functionally, leaving a lasting impression of a high quality experience. • F- - I L-j OgV801O0 ' "11VA SRMWH i30owaH 3snOH Nd3d N301O0 wt 1. A"rw W a � r ss 1 t -� U t 1 i 'o , a' "��`,•� �� i.. } r s . Ns __ ,>� • • • z n d w 0 t�l z W 4 • • C1 f1� m M • • Z 4 J CL m d 4 U. 6 Z 0 0 W C� z H w • • '.J d. : 0 .J U. F- .y 1 �r • U • .z a 0 :o J ILL LL 0 Z H W • • r1 z Q. LL 0 0 z H' >C W 1 4 2 w • • • r �., ice., `✓ ,�.. EI 0 I EM � i� II �� G �f] C 0 08" Cl CFA ro E o L .{ o �J 4 • • • ® �J' O j ll I II I I �I Til i ,0 I cal E� W Iz V Imo' � I ® �J' O j ll I II I I �I Til i ,0 I cal E� W Iz V 0 • • 0 70", 0 9 g Imm" o w .0 OF �i o ui IW I I) a i� Lti • • 0 F F ill -NOW pum ��I .--I Tr m • cr) some x 4) c 0 0� au 4 ♦y -PL"o oavaoioo ' IWIA :ri psi .ft p ug uopMq� 13aow3a 3SAOH Nd3 N3cllo _ 4��n1yY • w��daH i • • ` w 1 oadaoioo ' 7Ien +uia —PW—IV o •buua 1�aoi1�� 3SnoH �1Y7d N3d1o9 -... "�z rr��:.w wiWQO' a�oswy�v • wIH Dw uA++ WB • 0 CbJ € k T �i i 1 OaV80`I03 , `!IVA �aa9er to wa wa.bP � • - � V J rL /se . -rpoa' 0 0 il4;uYs�u1M�F4PufuoA S 13aOW3a 3SnOH Ne3 N3a"i0o U • r 1 Y�•� I `\ Y O .. (R. OaVU0103 ' 7Ien car r .wawa �n a M / ra /y zoo +aaa 4aiYa -WIOH WauOP"U9 1300W3d. 3SnOH )id3d N3 G1 0 a., � �aWrwaor • x • N 1� OaVHOICyD ` IIVA u�v..uiiaw+o�.�oaMw+a igao 3u 3 9non mvu N3a mrt}+ :wgwrwgor X P i 0 0 C yp r G Y. C!' G^ C1 oadaoioo I Ilan rr.! ra /i+ ruin � '" `i�t7oW3d 3snoH �d3d tv� I�00 "g4yuv �14dOH Put WPM" . - iyl i'(. - MOUrMIlr�r' • p�nj Y O 66 0 8 N� 0 4 M I I N A. m PON Isis SIR ;A I I N A. m � �� .•. r.'a ' e,± I r� � I11 ( 1 • � + 1� 1 } , IRS , r I� 1 r me �i I 1 .S a o 4,�`� ��we I `. M* �rra■ 1 i mss• f• r T' M `rl 4` i A / WNW �trN;�t1 W� • Y�I�.+MIIA 1 li ' f� t 0 ,f it i VAM 1 0 soft I I ffi f ill # "'W* spow � t i l l 't'i !t='WAI f �R "OWN r.rww�rrr INM Mwo V AM pow • 'OOVdOIOO " Bien . ., �. VPKNW .wt , per , 13QOW3a 3SnOH )IV3d N3ai00 L��.- P r� U x a w A a x r A � O M ) ll 5 a, i N 5 W i J I C r- � f f rrr� - rr " r rt � � r • n � n • a N. I � IFE 3 • � »��5 urn � � ��Y.��, a , �..�:1��,f r f +� ri X11' `g 11 ! � i � ' 7 �7r• O fir rl i r s r. s� f Y'tk At x4 ra1 ` 3 • r l I �} .n' i �� t t- 1 4� w. a `• y kt R � fih 1 "0• f I 1� 1 r,5�!f1✓ � � S. , i �� $ 11 }' �` : �� °'�A= ' Y1y ti -- -: 7r _Rlfft� "'�`��I� M+r� }'�� Y�+L� ��f1y��" �• �.ti 4� z� r �}� �! ; �� i f, W �f,. • f.: n � �r v.: x �s 7 1 .tai i f v ' 5 M� 5 la. 'fi r. ( / 1 r ,>B;e µ• f ; ��f� {... 'r 'A O' s °, • �j' ,4 _ - 1 kt r_ 1 i �- t �- { •Y p 1 � _F '" a '+fitGfbd'f �• -.•- M •�� { I • YsZ y Mai vv I ON ja r IF 'r � a T, It +� j rtt . • ` Y r „ Yt yy'Y .,�v , y � � ~� �• •_ � � �:' i �y'11.' i y�'it � I � � III � d .. - sr. Pik �.• 1 J - t� - :� t r { t y • r .i• .r. , 4� 3'� I. r T # 5 • . 'S.�.Y Rf' ? `'x.•""�r+T'', ,r,,. +- mw - III• f t / tlI s VMS pq t � ° t r ! Y . U Yi 1�A1e 4 S • 1 [r �'.SaT yy I 1111 iftr ' its - t l Ifjjj n.s v. . s - ion }} s Y } mob ILA 3 4i c� I t lr t� t : 41 r +� 1 Wk aJ iL �F 58Q ♦ 1 � = 4�� i � { �1 � � f� i i - Y - co LL f. W LLJ a a r y r> ^1 • • s� j 1 I 1 4 a1 T a. 0 w a r �► w w.. .r .w r.r �. r.ti �..� 1 • 0 IN 0 j j 1 d f "4 • 7 -VIEW CORRIDOR 2` 0 TO: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department November 25, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for the establishment of a 94 -day review period for a Commercial Core I exterior alteration request, and a request for a worksession for the establishment of a Special Development District and a request for revisions to View Corridor Nos. 1 and 2, for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road /Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium Association/Vail Associates, Inc. /GPH Partners, Ltd.IMargaritaville, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica 11111 .r r3. "`r:;! • My r?Y.: 'wn� i4.. ' / `s . �:a�Y;'Y�lrFx9'``'��; '�:'•,if'�:&k::y� u : n� z`ir.'a`,:I�� ' ; � 4G.� ��rK ; f ? rv'Ya,�3.,� .• f.w P �� y l Y fio.:o�%' �:2Y�.✓ . e4e�e. �5. , �7�}i�`o�� ` i��. ' ' �!�., . vr� r rE �k •` �.( f,1,5 0 '� 'i � `�i . 0 vi r ff, .�.. �� $£ "hu<.x,; ., �; :L':�`,c. Cx- �'•. �' - 0 �i�.n�„t3;�.�k;' 4 .a .� jl3i,�',r}��yi�+: �? c�w��.o- - ic"' ` F� av i`A� .'s`fih��.% o ✓�o .. {�.f DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The intent of this worksession is to initiate discussions between the Planning and Environmental Commission, the staff and the applicants with regard to the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House. The staff considers this review to be very preliminary in nature and this worksession is intended to provide direction and guidance to the applicants early in the development process. It should be noted that, since this is a preliminary worksession, the specific direction provided by the Planning and Environmental Commission with regard to the proposed redevelopment plan, as well as the proposed planning process, will be very valuable to the applicant and the staff in further directing the project. The Community Development Department has received the following applications concerning the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House: 1. A request for the establishment of a Special Development District for the Golden Peak House property. 2. An exterior alteration request, for the Commercial Core I Zone District, for the Golden Peak House. In order for the PEC to review the redevelopment plan as proposed, the staff would anticipate the following additional applications: 1. A request to amend View Corridor No. 1. 2. A request to amend View Corridor No. 2. 0 3. A request for a rezoning, for a portion of Tract E (the area immediately south of . the Golden Peak House), from Agricultural and Open Space to Commercial Core I. 4. A request for a minor subdivision to incorporate the rezoned Tract E parcel into the Golden Peak House parcel. The Golden Peak House was constructed in 1966, and since that time, there have been only minor, cosmetic modifications made to the exterior of the structure. Generally, this proposed redevelopment for the Golden Peak House includes a renovation of the entire building. The architectural modifications include a sloped roof, the addition of dormers, balconies, bay windows, and other architectural projections. Such modifications include the addition of a fourth floor (on the western end of the structure) and the addition of a fifth floor (on the eastern end). The existing "butterfly" roof form would be removed, and a gable roof added. The proposed gable roof would have a 4:12 pitch with shake shingles. Modifications proposed for the exterior of the structure will also facilitate the improvement, and more efficient use, of the interior spaces. The existing center area of the building, commonly called an arcade, is not a very efficient use of the interior spaces. With the redevelopment, the applicant is proposing to remove this entire arcade area and to add a full basement beneath the structure. The common areas of the building would be better defined to allow for a more efficient pedestrian circulation system throughout the structure. Additional retail commercial space would be added to the building. Specifically, at -grade retail shops are proposed along the west elevation. There are currently 18 dwelling units (and a accommodation units) located in the building. The redevelopment proposal calls for a total of 16 dwelling units (8 with lock -off potential) and 6 accommodation units. The entire structure would be brought into compliance with the current Building and Fire codes, and the building would be sprinkled. General site improvements, around the perimeter of the Golden Peak House, would include the following: 1. A concrete unit paver walkway would be added along the northern and western sides of the structure. 2. The applicant has agreed to modify the Seibert Circle area, and to bring the circle into conformance with the recommendations of the recently adopted Streetscape Master Plan. • 2 3. The applicant is willing to discuss possible improvements to the pedestrian walkway between Seibert Circle and the Vista Bahn base area. Such improvements could include the addition of landscaping, drainage modifications and the addition of concrete unit pavers. Cooperation from adjacent property owners would be necessary. 4. The applicant is proposing to construct an outdoor dining deck on the south side of the Golden Peak House, a portion of which is located upon Tract E. Additionally, the Los Amigos Restaurant is proposing a greenhouse enclosure which would also extend partially upon Tract E. Further discussion of the issues regarding Tract E follows in Section VI of this memorandum. 5. The existing trash enclosures, currently located along the west elevation of the building, would be relocated into the basement of the Golden Peak House. A trash compactor would compress the refuse and an elevator would transport it up to the first floor when trash pick -ups are scheduled. This would occur at the northeast corner of the building. 6. It is proposed that the five existing evergreens, located along the west elevation of the building, be relocated south of the building, to Tract E. • 0 3 II. GOLDEN PEAK HOUSE ZONING ANALYSIS The project's departures from the CCI zone district standards are highlighted in bold type. UNDERLYING ZONING: EXISTING PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORE I PROJECT SDD* Site Area: 0.159 acres or Same Same 6,926 sq. ft. Setbacks: Per the Vail Village N: 0 -6 ft. N: 0 -3 ft. Urban Design Guide Plan W: 0 -7 ft. W: 0.5 ft. S: 0 -8 ft. S: 0 -6 ft. E: 0.5 -1.5 ft. E: 0.5 -1.5 ft. Height: 60 %: 33 ft. or less East: 46 ft. max. East: 56 ft. max. 40 %: 33 ft. - 43 ft. West: 36 ft. max. West: 44 ft. max. Common Area: 1,939 sq. ft or 6,570 sq. ft. or 118% 6,012 sq. ft. or 108% 35% of allowable GRFA - 1,939 sq. ft. or 35% - 1,939 sq, ft. or 35 1 / 1 . 4,631 sq. ft. added to GRFA 4,073 sq. ft. - added to GRFA GRFA: 5,541 sq. ft. or 80% 8,958 sq. ft. 17,687 sq. ft. + 4,631_ sq. ft. (excess common) + 4,073 sq. ft. (excess common area) 13,589 sq. ft. or 196% 21,760 sq. ft. or 315% lots: 25 units per acre, or 18 units 19 units 3.9 units for the site. (16 DU and 6 AU) Site Coverage: ** 5,541 sq. it. 6,351 sq. ft. 7,721 sq. ft. or 80% or 92% or 112% Landscaping: Per the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan Parking: Per Town of Vail Required: 56 Required: 76 parking standards Loading: Per Town of Vail Required: 1 Required: 2 loading standards Existing: 0 Proposed: 0 Commercial Uses: NIA 7,157 sq. ft 11,795 sq. ft. Gross Floor Area: NIA 23,241 sq. ft. 35,494 sq. ft. * All the proposed development statistics shall be verified by staff prior to final review by the PEC. *` Site Coverage calculations include areas of the building which extend beyond the boundaries of the Golden Peak House property. 0 4 is III. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of Special Development Districts is to: "The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of new development within the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with a property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district." Although the staff will not specifically address each of the nine SDD review criteria for this worksession, the criteria are listed below. 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. 0 B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined In Chapter 18.52. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or 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. 0 5 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional • and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Additionally, the nine criteria for Commercial Core I exterior alterations shall also be used to judge the merits of this project. The nine criteria are listed below and a further explanation of the criteria is found in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. A. Pedestrianization B. Vehicular Penetration C. Streetscape Framework D. Street Enclosure E. Street Edge F. Building Height G. Views and Focal Points H. Service and Delivery I. Sun /Shade IV. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN The Vail Village Master Plan specifically addresses the Golden Peak House, as indicated in Sub -Area Concepts 3 -2 and 3 -3. Said concepts read as follows: " #3 -2 Golden Peak House Due to this building's gross inconsistency with the Urban Design Guide Plan and neighboring buildings, it is identified as a primary renovation site. Relationship to greenspace on south, Seibert Circle on north, as well as to mountain entryway, are important considerations. Loading and delivery must be addressed." • 6 7 #3 -3 Seibert Circle Study Area Study area to establish a more inviting public plaza with greenspace, improved sun exposure and a focal point at the top of Bridge Street. Design and extent of new plaza to be sensitive to fire access and circulation considerations." rDOE w eL1aEf� v =: CLOCK VAIL tOw41NOUSE0 .. ko YowEq - Y 1J ICJ n 4 E \h MAISTIAII L (. 7 ILL .ti• 4 ONE VAiI O LDEN PEAK hLACE L ,..S �.� .`• 11 4 a / D� Additionally, the staff believes the following goals and objectives, as stated in the Vail Village Master Plan, are relevant to this proposal: Goal #1 - Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 0 7 rlEa LKN! PLAZA MR{g71ANIA ^ EeLaO. \ I ! YRAN r !! M HILL OLDa E VAI 0 LDEN PEAK H!y 7 #3 -3 Seibert Circle Study Area Study area to establish a more inviting public plaza with greenspace, improved sun exposure and a focal point at the top of Bridge Street. Design and extent of new plaza to be sensitive to fire access and circulation considerations." rDOE w eL1aEf� v =: CLOCK VAIL tOw41NOUSE0 .. ko YowEq - Y 1J ICJ n 4 E \h MAISTIAII L (. 7 ILL .ti• 4 ONE VAiI O LDEN PEAK hLACE L ,..S �.� .`• 11 4 a / D� Additionally, the staff believes the following goals and objectives, as stated in the Vail Village Master Plan, are relevant to this proposal: Goal #1 - Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 0 7 . 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 2.2 Objective: Recognize the "historic" commercial core as the main activity center of the Village. 2.2.1 Policy: The design criteria in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan shall be the primary guiding document to preserve the existing architectural scale and character of the core area of Vail Village. 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. 40 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of a new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.1 Policy: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.1 Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. 0 8 2.6.2 Policy: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated by the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. 4.1.3 Policy: With the exception of ski base - related facilities, existing natural open space areas at the base of Vail Mountain and throughout Vail Village shall be preserved as open space. The Vail Village Conceptual Building Height Plan has included the Golden Peak House in the 3 -4 story category. A building story is defined as 9 feet of height (no roof included). V. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan specifically addresses the Golden Peak House, as indicated in Sub -Area Concepts 9 and 14. Said concepts read as follows: Concept 9 - "Commercial expansion (ground floor) not to exceed 10 feet in depth, possible arcade. To improve pedestrian scale at base of tall building, and for greater transparency as an activity generator on Seibert Circle. Concept 10 - Seibert Circle. Feature area paving treatment. Relocate focal point (potential fountain) to north for better sun exposure (fall /spring), creates increased plaza area and are the backdrop for activities. Separated path on north sides for unimpeded pedestrian route during delivery periods." is 9 • VI. DISCUSSION ISSUES Since this is a worksession, there is no staff recommendation at this time. However, the staff has identified the following issues, in addition to the review criteria listed in Section III of this memorandum, which we would like to discuss further with the PEC: . 1. Proposed modifications to View Corridor No. 1. 2. Proposed modifications to View Corridor No. 2. 3. The project's departures from the Commercial Core I Zone District standards, which are as follows: a. Building height b. GRFA C. Common area d. Dwelling unit count e. Site coverage f. Loading berths 4. The Tract E issue. The applicant has discussed the possibility of requesting a zone change amendment for a portion of Tract E, which is currently zoned Agricultural and Open Space. The area in question would be similar in size and shape, as the existing area, which is labeled as Easement #1 and Easement #2 on the attached survey. Vail Associates is the owner of Tract E, and has granted easements to the Golden Peak House to allow for certain encroachments, such as roof overhangs and balconies, in the area of Easement Nos. 1 and 2. These encroachments are considered legal, non- conforming uses within the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District, and as 0 10 such, all legal, non - conforming uses cannot be enlarged or expanded, and if modified, they must be brought into full compliance with the zoning code. Tract E is zoned Agricultural and Open Space, and the allowable and conditional uses of that zone district do not allow for "commercial- type" uses. In order to accommodate the applicant's proposed restaurant greenhouse enclosure and outdoor dining deck, the applicant would first need to amend the zone district from Agricultural and Open Space, to a zone district which allows for such commercial uses. The Town's Land Use Plan has designated Tract E as "Vail Village Master Plan ", which esentially refers to the Vail Village Master Plan for land uses designations in this district. The Village Master Plan designation for Tract E is "Ski Base /Recreation ", which reads as follows: "Located at the base of Vail Mountain in the Golden Peak area and immediately adjacent to Vail Village, this designation is intended to provide for facilities and services inherent in the operation of a ski area: ski trails, lifts, base facilities, public restrooms and ticket sales." The applicant has also considered the option of imposing Commercial Core zoning on this portion of Tract E, as well as requesting a minor subdivision so that the rezoned portions of Tract E could be included in the Golden Peak House property. To further complicate this issue, there are existing protective covenants in place for Tract E which would conflict with the development plan the applicant is proposing. The staff would recommend that the protective covenants be modified to allow for such uses prior to the Town entertaining a request to modify the zone district. c: Ipeclmemoslgoldpeak. N25 0 11 Total square footage (gross area) = 35,494 sq. ft. 0 12 EXHIBIT "A" Golden Peak House Square Footage Analysis Existing Conditions Commercial Common GRFA Office Basement Level: 1,932 2,364 0 96 First Floor: 3,924 1,276 0 292 Second Floor: 1,301 1,332 2,466 168 Third Floor: 0 1,480 3,749 0 Fourth Floor: 0 118 2,743_ 0 Totals: 7,157 6,570 8,958 556 Total square footage {gross area} = 23,241 sq. ft. Proposed Conditions Commercial Common GRFA Basement Level: 3,770 2,315 0 First Floor: 5,425 748 0 Second Floor: 2,600 1,304 2,648 Third Floor: 0 840 5,643 Fourth Floor: 0 590 5,711 Fifth Floor: 0 215 3,685 Totals: 11,795 6,012 17,687 Total square footage (gross area) = 35,494 sq. ft. 0 12 • Existing: DU Basement Level: 0 First Floor: 0 Second Floor: 8 Third Floor: 8 Fourth Floor: 2 Totals: 18 Exhibit "B" Golden Peak House Dwelling Unit Analysis AU 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 18 DUs Proposed_: DU Basement Level 0 First Floor: 0 Second Floor: 4 Third Floor: 7 Fourth Floor: 4 Fifth Floor: 1 Totals: 16 Note: 2 AUs = 1 DU AU 0 0 0 2 4 0 612 =3 = 19 DUs is 13 • n u • EXHIBIT "C" Golden Peak House Parking /Loading Analysis Existing Conditions - Required Parking Spaces Loading Berths Retail Commercial 23.8 1 Residential 30.0 4 Office 2.2 4 TOTALS: 56.0 1 Proposed Conditions - Required Parking Spaces Loading Berths Retail Commercial 39.3 2 Residential 36.5 0 TOTALS: 75.8 2 14 M 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 21, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit for a liquor store at the Cascade Crossing Retail Center, 1031 S. Frontage Road, more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land located in Section 12, Township 5, South, Range 81 West of the P.M., County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: • Commencing at a point on the northerly ROW line of US Hwy 6, whence the northeast corner of said Section 12 bears north 38 °07' E 875.99 ft.; thence south 73 °,45' W along said northerly ROW line a distance of 75 ft. to the true point of beginning; thence north 16 °45' W to the south ROW line of I -70; thence in a southwesterly direction along the south ROW line of I -70 to the point of intersection of that ROW line with the north ROW line of US Hwy 6 and thence in an easterly direction along the north ROW of US Hwy 5 to the point of beginning, County of Eagle, State of Colorado. Applicant: William Von Schweidau/Mike Combs Planner: Andy Knudtsen .u•..:a •r- r.:�w••�rha;;.y,:co - . =f;r, �::�> > r� :' %�- i�Y��:�3^ Sri �.:majw�; •i,�" `.fa- a -r�� • r w,r - +Flt; � j. �. "2:fE:`�'%��',rr:s#,:L. w' .: -:, r�'f,:?�.- .':`o:f j3v.�:�;4��.,�� •lr-.f�� ri: «.6::S.�o. �r ��:?r � .:F � r �{� r ,.� r fg�, rffr�'��'%'? .9�F:ce. �f4.coa/ �..,s` cif. �lf; �i: � %�i.':.:.xr,�;.�rk,:�P:�.- r t�ri,..; �E. .- ^u,.,�r.S;- .�8rl.�:x-`••.`U. rd�i...r:..c..h:f�:f f�•.r �- :- ;?'xryi'<E•°�rrrs...a.:r,I f3 1�? r.�$.$�:t �r�f �i�f -7:6 k,��4 r� a:auv.. ! ^S.c;4c% �.��.x,.�, y..,.. }.,- .5}.c. ^ � %:ti "rF.:rp'• -: - y°'i'w�:. -: '�yi`.$��c:u^e::r�.i:.dJ•�C4 -: rt'r r � � .tj?s�i: g-:�; r .rj� �' i Ss � ,y� Sfe. �CG$r. �. .:� ��3 r;• �:' u, �.-: �. c} f} ��.: x:; r �'? 8' v:: 1. 4:`} x. 414 F4�4. f. �+ rtir� al�r:#} r? �ijS}, 3�: y: �- �`. i- ro-L. a• sly.�i Pi:4ofir£+W � &•:3z, .OS: ry.t}•:... : : -0:? -0�-0�i.W.$�h�$�: - �:�'':!' •J.:C::n r rir^� {.. x.: r- :. xr 4r ur ly.:. I,.: .�i..4.. - ry i : f.. fir. rrfr �4 ` }.r O�r� 4f} ��[} Fa ?ii4 r 1 4'� 7 r';fY rf 1: i. Sf: �it i${ �:}:.. x.:. �ry; t4. W. 4. t{. G.` rii.` x�r.{::. r..:: �4::.::.. n....::. r..U.?::.i:.x.:GG'Fu�ri:�l:4i5? irk`{.: 4}:}: h:. ie}:..:..:' nGu} ff4. W... 4... 4 :�G.14. }Uiri.H.i'�. ?i:'i'r.l:.. h. ?•...- ... -F.. �.&1 xG. -4. vG'l4- .�i �.x.�..x3.f)4 •.P.vb n�..ge.. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE The applicant, William Von Schweidau, is proposing to rent a tenant space for a liquor store in the Cascade Crossing commercial center. The liquor store area will be approximately 150 sq. ft. and this space will be created by dividing a larger tenant space. (Please see the attached floor plan.) The rest of the tenant space will be used by Mr. Von Schweidau to operate a gourmet food store. He expects that there will be guests who will stay in condominiums and lodges in Vail, as well as locals, who will want to purchase wine to go along with prepared gourmet food. The applicant states that, "Colorado liquor law prohibits a gourmet market from selling or serving alcohol in the same location where food is sold. Thus, a physical wall and separate door will be constructed within the current rental space." The applicant's concept, however, is that the two shops would receive business from the same customers. The applicant is also proposing to operate a delivery service for both the liquor store and the specialty food store. This would be part of a larger delivery service of the Cascade Crossing Retail Center, offering a comprehensive delivery service for video, pizza, Ship- n -Pac, SportsRents, as well as the liquor store and specialty food store. In the Arterial Business Zone District, liquor stores are allowed as a conditional use. Section 18.29.030 lists the conditional uses and states that they have been included as conditional uses, "due to their potential individual and cumulative impacts of generating traffic in the Arterial Business District." Below is the staff analysis of how the proposal relates to the conditional use criteria, with specific analysis of the traffic generation addressed under the third criteria. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. . The purpose section of the Arterial Business Zone District states that the intention is to "provide sites for... limited shopping and commercial facilities serving the Town and Upper Eagle Valley residents and guests." Staff believes the proposed liquor store, as well as the adjacent gourmet food store, will serve both guests and local residents, and that the proposed liquor store is consistent with the development objectives of the Town as shown in this section of the zoning code. 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 there will not be an impact on the above- referenced criteria. The liquor store is not in the vicinity of any schools. 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. 9 2 After reviewing the proposal, the Town Engineer believes that a 150 sq. ft. liquor store will not have a significant impact on the ' traffic patterns in this part of Vail. When the Cascade Crossing center was approved, the State Highway Department required that right and left turn lanes be installed on the South Frontage Road. These improvements have been designed and constructed to accommodate a significant amount of traffic. Staff believes that a tenant, such as a liquor store, is along the lines of those anticipated when the trip generation analysis was done and the design of the turn lanes was completed. in addition to discussing the impacts from the store itself, staff further discussed the impacts from the delivery service with the Town Engineer. His conclusion was that, again, the amount of road expansion done when the building was constructed is sufficient to accommodate the delivery service. Therefore, the traffic load is generally consistent with the expectations made during the design process. 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 only change to the building will be a minor change made to the facade to accommodate two separate entries, one to the liquor store and one to the gourmet food store. Other than that, the building will not be changed. B. Findings The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before U anting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 3 III STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the proposed liquor store. We believe the criteria have been met, as discussed above, and that the findings are also met. Specifically, staff believes that the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the zone district, that the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, and that the use complies with all applicable provisions of the zoning title. Please note that, under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval shall lapse if construction is not commenced within one year of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion, or if the use for which the permit is granted is not commenced within one year. c:\pecNrnemos\1iquor.N25 0 n v L7-1 s u k R 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 25, 1991 RE: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a Bed and Breakfast on hot 11A, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing, 2625A Bald Mountain Road. Applicant: Eugenia G. Whitten I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE In December of 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 31, Series of 19.89 to allow Bed and Breakfasts in the Town of Vail. The definition given in that ordinance states: "A Bed and Breakfast means a business which accommodates guests in a dwelling unit in which the Bed and Breakfast proprietor lives on the premises and is in residence during the Bed and Breakfast use." Ms. Whitten has applied for a allow her to use two bedrooms . Secondary zone district for a 2 bedrooms and 2 baths contain Two guests could stay in each 4 guests. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS conditional use permit to in her home in a Primary/ Bed and Breakfast rental. The a total of 363 square feet. of the bedrooms for a total of Upon review,of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The Town Council encourages Bed and Breakfasts in the Town of Vail as a favorable type of lodging for tourists. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. 1 . The addition of a maximum of four guests would have little impact on the use of parks and recreation facilities and on transportation facilities. 3. Effect upon_ traffic with particular reference to q and-pedestrian .,.,.,. congestion, automotive and - trian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. There is a bus stop approximately two blocks away. However, it is unlikely that the guests would walk to the bus, because of the steepness of the road that leads to the Whitten home. If the guests drive their own vehicles, there could be two additional vehicles driving to the Cartwright residence. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact upon traffic and parking. 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 staff feels that the character of the area will not be negatively impacted by the addition of a Bed and Breakfast in this area. No exteior changes to the residence are proposed to accommodate the Bed and Breakfast. 5. Bed and Breakfast Operations may be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified in Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code for Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1989. Bed and Breakfast Operations shall be subject to the following requirements: a. Offstreet designated parking shall be required as follows: - One space for the owner /proprietor plus one space for the first bedroom rented plus 1/2 space for each additional bedroom rented. This Bed and Breakfast requires 3 parking spaces. The Whitten home has a one -car garage and two spaces in front of the garage, making a total of 3 spaces. 40 2 . b. Enclosed trash facilities and reaular_garbaae removal service shall be provided. Trash is kept in a closed container within the garage with regular weekly trash pick up. C. Removal of landscaping for the provision of additional parkins{ is strongly discouraged. There will be no removal of landscaping. d. Each Bed and Breakfast shall be allowed one residential name plate sign, as defined and regulated by the Town of Vail Sign Code. A name plate has not been applied for at this time. e. If a Bed and Breakfast operation shall use • Property or facilities owned in common or jointly with other property owners such as parking spaces or a driveway in duplex subdivisions by way of example and not limitation, the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or applicable owners' association shall be required to be submitted with the application for a conditional use ermit. Ms. Whitten shares the entrance to her driveway and 2 parking areas to the east of the shared driveway with the owner of the other half of the duplex. Attached is a letter of approval from the owner of the other half of the duplex. IV. FINDINGS The Planninq_and_Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for a Bed and Breakfast operation: A. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. That the proposed location of the use and the 40 3 conditions under which it would be operated or 40 maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for a Bed and Breakfast operation. Staff finds that all applicable review criteria and findings have been satisfactorily met. r� U • 4 M NOV 211991 • November 17, 1991 Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Co 81657 Dear Commission Members, We are part time residents of Vail who have enjoyed the residental neighborhood of Bald Mountain road since 1978. One reason why we purchased a home in the Booth Creek area was because it is away from the resort /hotel atmosphere of the village and West Vail area. Primarily because we have enjoyed this lack of commercialism in our area, we are vio opposed to the request for a conditional use permit to operate a bed and breakfast operation on Lot 11A, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing / 2625A Bald Mout Ro ad, directly across from our property at 2610 Bald Mountain Road. Please register our vote NO at your public hearing on November 25, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. in the gown of Vail Municipal Building. Thank you. Valerie A. Gwyn Robert B.Gwyn 2610 Bald Mountain Road Mailing Address: 2917 E. 68th Street Tulsa, OK 79136 (918) 494- -0515 (14) (918) 660 -6225 (W) 0 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 25, 1991 RE: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a Bed and Breakfast on Lot 8A, Vail Village 10th Filing, 920 Fairway Drive. Applicants: William H. and Alice M. Cartwright I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE In December of 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1989 to allow Bed and Breakfasts in the Town of Vail. The definition given in that ordinance states: "A Bed and Breakfast means a business which accommodates guests in a dwelling unit in which the Bed and Breakfast proprietor lives on the premises and is in residence during the Bed and Breakfast use." Mr and Mrs. Cartwright have applied for a conditional use permit to allow them to use one bedroom in their home in a . Primary /Secondary zone district for a Bed and Breakfast rental. The bedroom and bath contain a total of 273 square feet. Two guests could stay in the bedroom. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development oblectives_of the Town. The Town Council encourages Bed and Breakfasts in the Town of Vail as a favorable type of lodging for tourists. 2. The effect of the use on light and air distribution of population, transportation__ facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The addition of two guests should have little effect upon the above factors. 3. Effect upon congestion, convenience maneuverabi street and traffic with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and traffic flow and control, access, litv, and removal of snow from the parking areas. Since this bed and breakfast is two blocks from the bus route, it is likely that many of the guests would use the Town of Vail bus system rather than drive a car. If the guests drive their own vehicle, there could be one additional vehicle driving to the Cartwright residence. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact upon traffic and parking. The Cartwrights have three parking spaces to the west of their duplex. These parking spaces are not shared with the owners of the other half of the duplex. 9. 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 staff feels that the character of the area will not be negatively impacted by the addition of a Bed and Breakfast in this area. No exterior changes to the residence are proposed to accommodate the Bed and Breakfast. 5. Bed and Breakfast Operations may be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified in Title 18 of the Vail Munici al Code for Ordinance No. 31 Series of 1989. Bed and Breakfast Operations shall be sub to the following requirements: a. Offstreet designated parking shall be required as follows: One space for the owner /proprietor plus one space for the first 1/2 space for each additional bedroom rented. The required number of parking spaces for the Cartwright Bed and Breakfast business is 2 parking spaces. The Cartwrights have a double garage plus 3 additional spaces. b. Enclosed trash facilities and regular garbage removal service shall be provided. • Trash is placed into covered containers in 0 the garage and is collected once a week. C. Removal of landscaping for the provision of additional parking is strongly discouraged. There will be no removal of landscaping. d. Each Bed and Breakfast shall be allowed one residential name plate-sign as defined and regulated by the Town of Vail Sign Code. A name plate has not been applied for at this time. e. If a Bed and Breakfast operation shall use • Property or facilities owned in common or - iointly with other property owners such as parking spaces or a driveway in duplex subdivisions by way of exam le and not limitation, the written approval of the other p roperty owner, owners or applicable owners' association shall be required to be submitted with the application for a conditional use permit. No facilities are used in common with other property owners. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followingfindings before granting a conditional use permit for a Bed and Breakfast operation: A. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance • • r� U V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for a Bed and Breakfast operation. Staff finds that all applicable review criteria and findings have been satisfactorily met. • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department, Jill E. Kammerer DATE: November 25, 1991 RE: A request to amend Chapter 18.62 - Variances, Section 18.62.080 - Permit Issuance and Effect and Chapter 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, Section 18.60.080 - Permit Issuance and Effect of the Town of Vail zoning code in order to clarify the procedure to be followed in notifying individual of the period of time conditional use permit and variance request approvals are effective. Applicant: Town of Vail In response to Town Council concerns, the Community Development Department staff proposes to notify individuals who receive approval of conditional use permit and variance requests, that these approvals are effective for a specified period of time. The Town Council discussed this item at their October 8, 1991 and November 12, 1991 worksessions. At the October 8, 1991 worksession, the Community Development Department staff had recommended the applicable sections of the zoning code be amended to include language stating approvals were effective for one year unless, prior to the expiration of one . year, certain development activity had occurred. Further, the Community Development Department staff could extend the period of approval provided no zoning revisions or revisions or amendments to any applicable planning documents, or design guidelines which would alter the conditions under which the approval were given, had occurred. Generally, members of the Town Council indicated they were not comfortable with the Community Development Department staff making such a determination regarding applicable revisions to planning documents. As a result of these Council concerns, the staff reviewed its recommendation and at the November 12, 1991 worksession recommended conditional use permit and variance approvals be effective for a period of two years. Staff recommended applicant notification would occur in the following manner: 1. Amend the sections of the code relating to the period of time after which a conditional use permit approval or variance approval will lapse, in the following manner: CONDITIONAL USE: "Section 18.60.080 - Permit Issuance and Effect. Approval of the conditional use permit as prescribed by this chapter shall lapse and shall become void two years following the date of approval of the conditional use permit by the Planning and Environmental Commission unless, prior to the expiration of the two years, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued towards completion or if the use for which the approval has been granted has commenced." } . VARIANCE: "Section 18.62.080 - Permit Issuance and Effect. Approval of the variance as prescribed by this chapter shall lapse and shall become void two years following the date of approval of the variance by the Planning and Environmental Commission unless, prior to the expiration of the two years, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion." 2. Including the above statement in all memos to the PEC regarding these requests. 3. Adding the following statement to the Variance application form: "All PEC approved variances shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of approval and diligently pursued to completion." 4. Adding the following statement to the Conditional Use Permit application form: "All PEC approved conditional use permits shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of approval and diligently pursued to completion, or if the use for which the approval is granted is not commenced within two years." Following discussion, the Town Council voted to approve the staff recommended procedures • for notifying individuals of the period to time conditional use permit and variance request approvals are effective. The Planning and Environmental Commission must now review these recommendations and make a recommendation to Council regarding modifying Chapter 18.62 - Variances, Section 18.62.080 - Permit Issuance and Effect, and Chapter 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, Section 18.60.080 - Permit Issuance and Effect of the zoning code in order to clarify the notification of approval procedures. • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 25, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow a seasonal plant products business in the Heavy Service Zone District, West Vail Texaco, 2313 N. Frontage Road West/Tract B, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 Applicant: Richard Dilling /Richard Matthews Planner: JIII Kammerer BACKGROUND On October 28, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed a request to amend Chapter 18.30 - Heavy Service, Section 18.30.030 - Conditional Uses, in order to allow seasonal plant product businesses as a conditional use in the Heavy Service Zone District. By a vote of 6 -0, the PEC recommended the Town Council approve this modification to the zoning code. • At the November 11, 1991 worksession, the PEG reviewed the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a seasonal plant products business in the Heavy Service Zone District. Ordinance No. 43, Series of 1991, amended Chapter 18.04, Definitions, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by adding Section 18.04.277, which set forth a definition for plant products; and Section 1 8.04.289, which set forth a Definition for "Seasonal Plant Product Business "; and amended Section 18.30.030, Heavy Service District Conditional Uses of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by adding Paragraph T, Seasonal Plant Product Business. This ordinance was reviewed and approved by the Town Council at second reading on November 19, 1991. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants are requesting approval of a seasonal plant products business in order to allow the sale of Christmas trees and wreaths at the West Vail Texaco station for a period of one month (November 26 through December 24, 1991). The applicant proposes to use an 8' x 20' enclosed trailer as an office. This trailer was previously used as the applicant's office for a Christmas tree business, at the Garden Center in Eagle -Vail. The applicant proposes to locate the plant products business and the trailer on the far western portion of the West Vail Texaco site. Attached is a copy of the site plan which indicates the area where the applicant proposes to display Christmas trees and wreaths and locate the trailer. Access to the site would be from the service station's existing western -most North Frontage Road curb cut. Four parking spaces would be comitted to the applicant for his businesses use. The sales area would be secured through the use of a four foot high snow fence. The applicant proposes to have a maximum of approximately forty trees on site at any given time. As trees are sold, the sales area would be restocked. The business will be open seven days a week from 10:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. The applicant proposes to install the following three signs (see attached letter from applicant): • 0 A 45 square foot (3' x 15) sign reading "Christmas Trees ", which would be secured to the side of the trailer. A 7.8 square foot (20" x 4' -8 ") sign reading "Christmas Trees" and with the graphic of 2 trees. A 7.8 square foot (20" x 4' -8 ") sign reading "Christmas Wreaths" and with a wreath graphic. Based on the sign code, this business is limited to one sign and the size should not exceed 20 square feet. The Colorado Department of Highways has indicated the trailer must be 50 feet back from the property line. The applicant has indicated he will comply with this setback requirement. The snow fence will be stabilized by T -posts and black ties. The applicant has indicated no music will be played in conjunction with the operation. The applicant proposes to string white "Christmas tree lights" on the snow fence, trailer, and across the sales area. The fights to be used are sold by Christmas tree wholesalers in sections of 100 feet with lights every ten feet. The applicant also proposes to string garland on the trailer. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS • Upon review of Section 18.50, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of f=actors: 1. Relationship and Impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Section 18.30.010, the Purpose section of the Heavy Service zone district reads as follows: "The Heavy Service zone district is intended to provide sites for automotive - oriented uses and for commercial uses which are not appropriate in other commercial districts. Because of the nature of the uses permitted and their operating characteristics, appearance and potential for generating automotive and truck traffic, all uses in the heavy service district are subject to the conditional use permit procedure. In granting a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission or the Town Council may prescribe more restrictive development standards than the standards prescribed for the district in order to protect adjoining uses from adverse influences." Section 18.30.030(T) lists "Seasonal Plant Product Business" as a permitted conditional use, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of the Conditional Use section of the code. The . requested conditional use to allow the operation of a seasonal plant product business is in compliance with sections 18.30.010 and 18.30.030(T) of the zoning code. E 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 seasonal plant product business will not have a direct impact on the above - referenced facilities. Staff believes the proposed business will provide adequate parking of autos and clear access will be maintained to the site. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff believes the proposed seasonal plant product business will not have an impact on the above - referenced criteria. 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 concerns about the appearance of the trailer and amount of signage. We believe a wood structure would be more appropriate than a metal trailer based on the DRB guidelines which prohibit metal siding on structures within the Town of Vail. In this instance, staff believes restricting the use of a metal • sided trailer is a "gray area" in the code because the trailer will be in place temporarily (1 month). The business should be limited to one sign based on the use having one frontage. The amount of square footage for the sign should not exceed 20 square feet which is the maximum amount allowed for any business unless a variance is approved. The frontage of the business will be measured on Monday when the site will be staked to determine the sign size allowable. Staff believes it would be unfair to other business owners if the proposed use is allowed to have a total of 60 square feet of signage. B. Pin. dings The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: _ 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the Conditional Use Permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • 3. That the ro osed use would comply with each f h p p p y o the applicable provisions of the Conditional Use Permit section of the zoning code. 3 IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS • Staff believes the conditional use permit request meets all of the Findings for a conditional use permit. The sale of Christmas trees and wreaths is an automobile oriented use which is listed as an allowable use (subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit) in the Heavy Service zone district. Clear and safe access to the site can be maintained during sales activity. Staff believes there is sufficient parking on the site to meet the seasonal plant products business parking requirements. These will not negatively alter the character of the area. Staff believes the proposed seasonal plant products operation is an appropriate conditional use in this zone district at this location and recommends approval of the conditional use application subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant provide a temporary wood booth /structure instead of the metal trailer. 2. Based on the sign code, this business is limited to one sign and the size should not exceed 20 square feet. (Size allowed to be determined Monday on site when frontage is staked.) 3. All materials (fencing, lights, structure) shall be removed from the site by December 27, 1991. Please note that under Section 18.60.084 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code this approval shall lapse if construction is not commenced within one year of the date of PEC of the conditional • use permit approval and diligently pursued to completion, or if the use for which the conditional use permit is granted has not commenced within one year. cApOCWQMoslplants. N25 i s 4 THE GARDEN CENTER OF EAGLE -VAIL o ��o�,� Matthews & Associates Londscaping, Inc, Landscape Archheoure Qnd ConstrucWn lac 0867 • Vail. Worodo 84438 U.S.A. • (803) 949 -3077 + (3DS) 9494077 FAX No 221991 )�� ooeI. I / f f J k I e v W / 010 W z aAww�- 1 2-- -- 5eP�~ u 7• %ar -1000 W r'" 11A 5 1.8 tr n -2,6 a • • 0 ti LU 44 qb V �" � 9 �lf J� 1 15 I- e cr) 0 'a V I 1 t'j m CU ru Lij t- o 0 - 6 [- LL. bA < VA IL Joc) ka j XI ti LU 44 qb V �" � 9 �lf J� 1 15 I- e a1 cL a a ILI o L V) Ili lu 04 C 1 7 D Al d w 2 LU Q1 N ILIL .. LLO& - 6176 (COM -99M QPDJofa:) 'poA -L9SC XOG owe U04XWSUOD puo alruDallyDjv adoxpuol ` { ':)NI '')Nld` DS(3NYI S31dIJOSSd g S/63HJ LVW • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 9, 1991 12:30PM Site Visits 1:30PM Work Session 2:OOPM Public Hearing AGENDA Site Visits Work Session 1. Joint Work session between Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss the proposed U.S. Forest Service land ownership adjustment policy. Presenters: Rich Phelps /Mike Mollica WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA 2. 2. A request for a work session to allow a change to an approved development plan, Tracts A and B, a part of Parcel A, Lions Ridge Filing No. 2, commonly referred to as The Valley, Phase II. Applicant: Crossview at Vail Properties, Inc./Steve Gensler Planner: Andy Knudtsen Public Hearing • 1. 1. A request for a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining patio for the Gallery Building (Russell's Restaurant), located in the Commercial Core zone district, 228 Bridge Streetla part of Lot A, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Ron Riley /D.R.R., Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica 2. Presentation of the Art in Public Places Board (AIPP) Conceptual Proposal for the Village Transportation Center Project. Planner: Shelly Mello 3. Discussion of a request by Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District to discuss the definition of temporary structures. 4. Appointment of PEC member to serve as liaison with Housing Authority through February 1992. 5. Reminder of Boards' Christmas Party on December 15th. 6. Approval of PEC meeting minutes from the October 25, 1991 and November 11, 1991. 7. Discussion with Telluride Planning Commission and staff concerning planning issues. 8. Walking tour of Village and Lionshead with Telluride PEC followed by Dinner. Planning and Environmental Commission December 9, 1991 PRESENT Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Kathy Langenwalter STAFF PRESENT Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Shelly Mello Betsy Rosolack ABSENT Ludwig Kurz Gena Whitten Work Session 1. A work session to allow a change to an approved development plan, Tracts A and B, a part of Parcel A, Lions Ridge Filing No. 2, commonly referred to as The Valley, Phase H. Applicant: Crossvlew at Vail Properties, Inc. /Steve Gensler Planner: Andy Knudtsen Kristan Pritz presented the proposal for Andy Knudtsen, staff planner, who was ill. Kristan to showed site plans for both the lower portion south of Buffehr Creek Road and the upper portion which is north of Buffehr Creek Road. She explained that the allowable GRFA approved by Eagle County in 1980 was 32,909 with 26 dwelling units. The remaining development potential was 15 dwellings units and 19,466.3 square feet of GRFA. A table in the memo compared zoning allowed by the County approval in 1980 with that allowed by Residential Cluster zoning and was also compared with the current proposal. The Residential Cluster zoning analysis was done by the staff using an in -house slope analysis. Another table itemized the GRFA per unit. The staff believed that it was fair to give each of the Residential Cluster units 225 square feet per the current zoning code, for the development was annexed with the assumption that credits would be added to maximum GRFA stipulated in the development plan. Those credits would have been overlapping staircases, mechanical areas, airlocks and garages. A lengthy discussion followed regarding how to count the allowable GRFA. Diana questioned whether the current proposal should have more GRFA than the County had allowed. Kathy Langenwalter asked to see how the County had arrived at the final GRFA figure. Kristan continued the review with the staff analysis of density, employee housing, access roads (with a concern about the height of retaining walls), site planning, landscaping, and other issues. 0 There was no staff recommendation at this work session. Randy Hodges, project architect, showed elevations and explained that after meeting with the staff, the applicant agreed to reduce the number of units to 11, one of which would be a caretaker unit. He also pointed out that two units were moved back from the road. He asked that the PEC give the developer the additional 500 square feet of GRFA in exchange for reducing the number of units and adding an employee housing unit. Brian Doolan, an owner of a Grouse Glen unit, stated that he represented all of the Grouse Glen owners. He was concerned about the proposal's scope of development and that the type of development would differ from Grouse Glen's. The proposal would have roadways where Brian felt walkways would be more appropriate and would have less impact upon Grouse Glen. Brian stated that there would be a roadway down the middle of the land and that most of the trees would be eliminated. However, if there were no roadway, the garages could be eliminated and the cars could park near the entrance. Brian felt the proposed design would change the character of the area for everyone. Randy Hodges reminded Brian that during a meeting in June, Brian had been concerned about building into the valley. Tom Fitch, manager of The Valley Condominiums, stated that he did not like the plan either. He felt the walkway concept should be used in the whole Valley. Tom stated he would try to get a consensus of the rest of The Valley owners. Diana suggested that Brian get back to the developers before the next PEC meeting. Randy explained that the total amount of asphalt remained the same as the original plan. Brian replied that the important point was that the original plan did not have roads going into the lot. The Board was asked for comments. Kathy had concerns about the upper two lots. She felt that the access to the first envelope was not realistic, as a 14 foot vertical grade difference existed. On the lower parcel, she did not see much difference between the building envelopes on the original proposal and the current proposal. Kathy agreed with Randy concerning the appearance of the parking lot. Regarding GRFA, she was not in favor of allowing additional GRFA, but felt the need for more information. Kathy asked for information on how the County arrived at their numbers and what GRFA would have been allowed when the property was annexed by the Town in 1980. Chuck Crist was concerned about the GRFA, especially with regard to mass and bulk (after seeing the size of the homes under construction down the road). He was also concerned about the engineering on the upper parcel regarding retaining walls and road slopes. Connie agreed with Kathy and Chuck. She questioned the need for road widths and was told they were the minimum required size. Regarding the road slopes, Randy explained that in some places, 10 feet of fill would be required. Diana wondered if perhaps the upper lot should only have two units. She was concerned with all the cut and fill on the upper property, and that ground water that would normally drain into the meadow below, not be cut off. 2 Diana also did not want the project to have the impact that the Dauphanais subdivision did, with large homes crowded together. She asked that any trees which would be lost be marked with tape. Randy did admit that there were only two places where the grade would catch up with the trees, so some trees would be lost. Kathy asked for sections of the site, including midway positions. More discussion followed concerning original and proposed grades. Bandy explained that three units would be entered at the garage level, and either step up or down. Kathy felt depending upon how the architecture was handled, the ultimate height would not be different from the original proposal. Randy stated that the height was being tied to the original contours. Diana felt the proposal would relate to the existing buildings better if trees`were left to hide some of the development. She felt the neighbors needed to get their concerns to the developers as soon as possible. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was called to order at 3:00 P.M. by the chairperson, Diana Donovan. 1. A request for a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining patio for the Gallery Building (Russell's Restaurant), located In the Commercial Core I zone district, 228 Bridge Streetla part of Lot A, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Ron Riley /D.R.R., Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica Mike mentioned the Board had made a site visit prior to the meeting. He listed the changes made to the proposal since the last work session. These were listed on page 2 of the staff memo. Mike stated that the staff could not support the request because they had concerns with criteria 3 and 4. He showed site plans and elevations and said all concerns of the Fire Department had been resolved. If the PEC approved either the request for the outdoor dining deck or the staff suggestion for a scaled back version of the dining deck, the staff recommended that two conditions be placed on the approval as follows: That the applicant agree the snow from the dining deck will not be cleared onto the adjacent Town right -of -way, and that the applicant will work out some private arrangement to have the snow hauled from the site. 2. That the applicant will install 2 to 3 aspens in the planter north of the proposed dining deck to compensate for the loss of the Town planter. Ron Riley, applicant, discussed the angle of the deck at the north end. He stressed that his architect had incorrectly drawn the site plan and that the minimum width of Bridge Street would be 15 feet, and so street width would become a non - issue. Regarding criteria No. 4, 3 Mr. Riley felt the impact on the view corridor was balanced out with the fact that there was compliance with the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations and the Vail Village Master Plan. Ron Riley felt the area was not as congested as the area at the top of the street. He felt the use of the 3'- 9 -112" "fall- back" position would look like an "after thought ". He explained that it takes at least 2'- 9" for a seating space. In answer to a question concerning whether or not the Rekord doors would be open in the winter, Ron answered that they would not because of the cold, but perhaps they would be open for a few hours on warm spring days. Ron was asked how he felt about placing an awning over the deck, and responded that he would consider this, for an awning would add color. The Board was asked for questions and comments. Connie stated that if the restaurant expansion was not successful, the Town had no assurance that the space would not be used for retail, such as a T -shirt shop. She felt that the area would be very congested, as it was already congested. Mr. Riley felt that adding 2' - 11.5" was not a major constriction. Chuck asked if lunch would be served, and Riley was not sure, but said the bar would be open for cocktails in the afternoon. Chuck was basically in favor of the expansion because that entrance to Vail was "sterile" and the expansion would be positive. He was concerned about the lack of landscaping, and felt some landscaping should be added in addition to the bench. Chuck asked how snow would be handled, and Riley replied he would not have a truck come in to haul snow away, but would leave the snow on the deck. Kathy felt she could not support the request because the addition would be entirely on public right -of -way. Kathy quoted from the Vail Village Design Considerations which stated, "Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited... ". She felt the deck was not properly sited, and the deck would not add to the liveliness of the street during the day, since lunch would not be served. Kathy said one criteria for a successful deck is the physical separation of the deck from the pedestrian, and this deck would not result in a good aesthetic experience. Ron replied the deck would be 18" off of the ground, while the Red Lion was 3' or better. Kathy felt Rekord doors and awnings would accomplish the same attention to the restaurant as the deck expansion and she could not support the request to use public right -of -way. Diana agreed with Kathy. Ron replied he would be pleased if Kathy and Diana were right. He added that, in reality, attention to the restaurant would work only if someone were actually outside. To diners inside of the restaurant, if they see some diners outside, it is as though they are partly outside, also. He added extra tables themselves were not as important as having people sitting outside. Diana mentioned according to the guidelines, decks with planters, etc. were more viable. Michael Staughton, Ron Riley's manager, stated the necessary space needed for dining tables and chairs was greater than 3' - 9 ". Discussion followed concerning different configurations of chairs and tables. Diana did not feel the proposed patio met the criteria for successful patios. She added enclosure had a lot to do with whether or not a patio was successful or not. 4 Connie felt the deck would add liveliness to the core, but that maybe liveliness could be obtained with a smaller deck. She wondered if the location of the interior bar could be changed. Connie felt public land was sacred, and could not support the proposal. Diana wanted to convey to the Town Council the feeling that only the winter deck size should be considered (per the staff recommendation), because the summer deck would not be successful. Chuck stated that if the restaurant did obtain approval for only the winter deck, the applicant could instead just build Rekord doors. Kathy wanted the Town Council to be aware of the concern of the loss of Town of Vail landscaping. Connie added that her vote against the deck would also be based on congestion in the area. Kathy moved that the request be denied because it did not meet the necessary criteria. Connie followed with a second. The vote was 3 in favor of denial, and 1 (Chuck) against. Kristan reminded the applicants that they had 10 days in which to appeal the decision to the Town Council. Item #2 was taken out of order. 3. A request by Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District to discuss the definition of temporary structures. Fred Haslee and Terry Nowlan from the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District explained that more room was needed for employees and the District proposed using a temporary building for 11 months until permanent offices could be constructed in the spring and summer. They showed photos and site plans. Kristan said the question was, was this a temporary building, and if not, would a variance to the DRIB development standards which disallow aluminum, steel or plywood siding be necessary. Terry Nowlan pointed out that the building had been changed since they had last talked with Kristan, and the siding would be wood with asphalt shingles and would also be skirted. In light of this new information, Kristan felt a variance was not necessary. Fred Haslee reminded the board and staff of the wooden temporary buildings which the Town had allowed Vail Associates to use at Golden Peak. Fred added that since the UEVW &S was a district, perhaps the Town could waive the process. it was suggested that the attorneys for the Town and for the UEVW &S get together to decide this. 5 2. Presentation of the Art in Public Places Board (AIPP) Conceptual Proposal for the Village Transportation Center. Planner; Shelly Mello Shelly Mello showed slides and answered questions concerning the conceptual proposal submitted by the selected artist, Dan Daily. 4. Appointment of PEC member to serve as liaison with the Housing Authority through February 1992. It was mentioned that Ludwig Kurz, who was not at this meeting, might be interested in this position, and so it was decided to wait until the next meeting to make a decision. 5. Reminder of Boards' Christmas Party on December 15th. This party was to be at Sherrie Dorward's from 5:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. and would be hosted by Kristan and Sherrie. 6. Approval of PEC meeting minutes from October 25, 1991 and November 11, 1991. Kathy moved and Chuck seconded to approve the minutes of both meetings with changes . made to page 5 of the October 25 minutes. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 P.M. Afterward the board and staff met with the Telluride Planning Commission and staff. 12991 • 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 9, 1991 RE: A work session to review a development plan modification for The Valley, Phase II. Tracts A & B, a part of Parcel a, Lions Ridge. Filing No. 2, commonly referred to as The Valley, Phase II. Applicant: Crossview at Vail Properties/Steve Gensler Planner: Andy Knudtsen ': r:::?r:: b::? G: �% ��:.,;:, �:? s�?; j., G .., - .; �; 4 �y?'?: �. �i:�;�i��iu�f»r:;v..:�9��c";2'• / - - }.•�. :: >:if iiii;ii..4;:::;rC::�:Y.: .:.ivi .::�'....•..: t::,'{ .:4:.�'+` :.: n r.:.St'.:r: i`Jw' :1'. r �:•'`.` : 5.;$ =:' : ::��:?s::..: x'•' .� r� . ., � #: :'�' Y• .. }.:�iY:4: {: ?;y }y Y -.. N:O}:;i:p; ��:av:;ri. �� 'vi " <`ii: i {: [' ��iY :i -: a:. .x?:. } tr �:i % {::j:•ii::5•:Jr ^::v '�:• �:v��v�ivv-�-: :. 4��1i ........... .. :.;.r..r.. .,� ?. '.:' Jry44.4j F ='3 ..J:.Y...{..:. {;4Yi rii}.Yfr v :..ry..+'r:;.i :: i:': -i �i:': {•:S:': {r - ri +j r i'S'� ...... � 4S.�h;4: r..ow';..,rrk : o. r. �r::: 2' o: �G:<:- Y: 4�• �; r.; �,:..: r. �:: S. .... :. <..,t,.:...�.5: f�dx{• � � .,,,a:.o-:r::.,::.,,,.s, f. � .[�. • b I. BACKGROUND The proposed development plan is a part of the second phase of The Valley. The various phases of The Valley were approved by Eagle County in the late 1970's and the early 1980's. Since that time, the area has been annexed into the Town of Vail. In the annexation ordinance, a cond ;lion requires that modifications to the development approvals must be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). Specifically, Section I(D) of Ordinance 13, Series of 1981 states . that: "For major changes such as a redesign of a major part of the site, changes such as use, density control, height or other development standards, a Planning and Environmental Commission review shall be required." A copy of the site plan approved by Eagle County for this portion (Phase 11) of The Valley is attached to the end of this memo as Exhibit A. On June 24th of this year, the PEC reviewed a similar proposal of Steve Gensler's during a worksession. The difference between the current proposal and the previous one is that the number of single family homes on the lower portion of the site has been reduced from nine to seven, the lower road has been shortened, and the applicant has added one permanently restricted employee unit. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE EAGLE COUNTY APPROVAL On June 3, 1980, Eagle County approved 32,909 square feet of GRFA and 26 dwelling units for The Valley, Phase 11. The attached County - approved plans show that Phase II is comprised of two tracts. The majority of the land is located south of Buffehr Creek Road, while a small portion is no: ' the road. Grouse Glen is a part of the original development approval and has been built. In addition to Grouse Glen, there were • DENSITY GRFA foundations which were poured but not built out until this past summer. The table below shows how much development potential was originally allowed for Phase 11, and where building has occurred, and what development potential remains. EAGLE FOUNDATIONS COUNTY GROUSE RECENTLY APPROVAL GLEN COMPLETED 26 DU'S 6 DU'S 5 DU'S 32,909 sq. ft. 6,233.8 sq. ft. 7,208.9 sq. ft. DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT REQUEST REMAINING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 15 DU'S 19,466.3 sq. ft. The current proposal includes development in both the upper and lower areas. The lower site is south of Buffehr Creek Road and is proposed to have seven single family dwelling units. These homes would be approximately 2,000 square feet in size. This figure does not include an approximately 500 square foot, two -car garage in each of the homes. The exact GRFA calculations for the lower development are shown In Exhibit B. Please review this table as it shows the total GRFA for each structure. The upper development area north of Buffehr Creek Road is to have two building envelopes. One will be for a primary /secondary structure with approximately 3,212.3 square feet of floor area (plus garage). Note: The size of this structure may be larger if the applicant chooses to reduce the size of other structures. In no case will it exceed 4,200 sq. ft. The other structure Is a single family with caretaker unit, having approximately 3,000 square feet of floor area (plus garage). The caretaker unit of this structure will be restricted as permanent employee housing. The primary unit may contain a maximum of 2,500 square feet of GRFA and the employee housing unit shall have 500 square feet of GRFA. As shown in Section IV of this memorandum, the amount of GRFA proposed exceeds the allowable by approximately 500 square feet. The upper and lower areas will be served by private roads. The road accessing the upper development area is 22 feet wide, has an 8% slope, and will require two, tiered, six -foot tall retaining walls. The road accessing the lower development area is 24 feet wide and has an 8% slope. It will not require any retaining walls, but will require approximately 10 feet of fill at the lowest end of the drive. The lower road design includes a fire truck turn - around. Both roads meet the standards of the Town's Fire and Public Works Departments. The applicant is proposing to plant landscaping between the proposed homes. The area between the lower development and Grouse Glen will be landscaped with sod. The portion of the site below where the homes are to be built, will be left as natural meadow and forest. The existing parking lot area that was proposed according to the Eagle County approval at the top of the site, adjacent to Buffehr Creek Road, will be removed. 2 410 410 410 • • IV. ZONING ANALYSIS ALLOWED BY COUNTY APPROVAL UNITS 15 GRFA 19,466.3 sq. ft. SETBACKS Per Development Plan SITE COVERAGE Per Development Plan PARKING (lower development area) Per Development Plan HEIGHT Per Development Plan ALLOWED BY RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER ZONING* PROPOSED 12 11 (one of which is a caretaker unit) 15,133.1 sq. ft. 19,966.3 sq. ft. FRONT 20' FRONT 21' SIDES 15' SIDES 22' AND 34' REAR 15' REAR 156' 36,861.6 sq. ft. 10,208 sq. ft. 18 spaces 32 spaces 33' 33' *The allowable numbers for RC zoning were calculated by staff. The 40% slope analysis was completed by staff and was not certified by a surveyor. V. STAFF ANALYSIS The annexation ordinance which required that development plan modifications be reviewed by the PEC did not provide any specific criteria to evaluate tire proposal. As a result, the PEC is comparing the proposed development plan to the Eagle County approval. Staff has outlined a number of topics which, we believe, are the significant issues. A. DENSITY —GRFA AND NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS The proposed development plan exceeds the County approved allowable GRFA by 500 sq. ft. Over the past several months, the applicant has reduced the amount of GRFA on the proposal, but the project still exceeds the amount allowed for this parcel. In general, staff believes that approving a slight increase in development density that includes employee housing is a reasonable approach to take. in addition to the provision of one employee unit, the applicant is reducing the number of units on site from 15 to 11 (including the employee unit). Staff believes that with fewer units, there will be less need for parking, less amount of roadway, and fewer automobile trips to the site. 0 3 B. EMPLOYEE HOUSING In projects where additional GRFA Is requested, the Town has requested that some tip employee housing units be provided. For this application, Steve Gensler Is proposing to locate one employee housing unit in the upper development area. Staff is recommending that when final approval is given, a condition be placed on the approval stating that no building permit will be issued for that building envelope, unless an employee unit has been designed into the structure. In addition, staff believes that no T.C.O.'s should be issued for any portion of the structure until the employee unit has been completed. Additionally, the employee unit shall meet the employee restrictions per Section 18.13.080 (B) of the zoning code. Staff believes that with these conditions, the employee housing proposal is satisfactory. C. ACCESS ROADS Staff's primary concern with the access road involves the drive to the upper development area. The standards of the Public Works and Fire Departments require that any road leading to more than two dwelling units be 24 feet wide. At this time, the applicant is proposing four dwelling units in this area. The current road design requires two 6 -f6ot retaining walls. Before the final hearing, staff would like to see more detailed drawings on the walls for this area. One constraint is the three foot wall height limitation for walls in the 20 -foot front yard setback. Landscaping should also be proposed to screen the walls as much as possible. The access drive to the lower development area requires no retaining walls, but does require a significant amount of fill on the lower end. The natural grade of the meadow �II1 is approximately 15 %. In order to design a roadway that does not exceed 8 %, the applicant will be raising the lower end of the road by placing approximately 10 feet of fill in this area. The slope of this fill will not exceed 2:1 and will be landscaped. Staff believes that incorporating some clusters of boulders in the slopes would allow for more variety of landscaping and would make the change from existing grade less noticeable. D. SITE PLANNING Staff's concern with the site plan is that many of the existing large trees on the heavily forested slope south of the lower development area will be removed. Staff would like to see as many of the existing large trees as possible saved, and is requesting that the applicant identify on the site, and on the site plan, which trees can be saved and which trees will be removed. There may be the potential to shift the houses somewhat and save some of the larger trees. Staff had requested that the applicant shift the road to the north so that more of the trees could be preserved. Because an existing 35 foot wide utility easement runs through the center of the property, the development plan has already been sited in such a way as to preserve as, much of the slope as possible. The site plan has good qualities in that the lower road has been aligned to follow the curves of the existing topography. Most of the houses have been designed to work as the retainage for the fill used for the road. 4 Staff believes that the footprints for lots D, E, F, and G reflect the design style of the rest of The Valley and that A, B and C could be Improved if the alignment were less rigid. Staff believes that the upper development area could be more sensitive to the existing topography. As that portion of the lot is quite steep, staff believes that the building envelopes could be reduced slightly without compromising design flexibility. They may be able to be shifted slightly to the east to further reduce the Impact to the hillside. Lastly, staff believes it is important to understand how much area of the site will be disturbed in the construction process. Staff has requested that prior to coming back to the PEC for final hearing, the applicant show on the site plan the extent of the construction activity. E. LANDSCAPING Staff believes that the intersection of the lower access road on Buffehr Creek Drive could benefit from additional landscaping. Staff believes that deleting one of the five guest parking spaces is appropriate so that a stronger landscaping statement can be made at the entrance into this part of the development and so that the remaining four parking spaces can be screened better. Staff believes that more landscaping may be needed on the perimeter of the site in an effort to extend the existing forested area around the site and screen it from Buffehr Creels Road. lastly, staff believes that walkways need to be included in the plan that tie into the sidewalks of Grouse Glen • and The Eastern Valley. F. OTHER ISSUES The Public Works and l=ire Departments reviewed the plans and had few comments. The Fire Department is not requesting any modifications. The Public Works Department is requesting a drainage easement to be created immediately above the existing culvert that runs through the site. In addition, the Public Works Department needs a drainage study to determine where the drainage patterns will be and if there is adequate capacity to accommodate the drainage. This site is in a rockfall and debris flow hazard area. Prior to the issuance of any building permits on the upper or lower development areas, a hazard report will need to be submitted to the Town addressing the potential geologic hazards. Any mitigation that is required should be handled by strengthening the actual structure as opposed to site work to create the mitigation. VI. CONCLUSION Staff does not have a formal recomm�" ` "on for the PEC at this time. Staff and the applicant would request that the PEC comments on all of the above issues and give direction to the applicant so that he can make any changes that are needed, and return to the PEC for final approval. At this time the applicant is proposing to return January 13, 1992 for final approval. In general, the staff believes that the applicant has arrived at a solution which is better than the original development plan, as long as the design concerns addressed in this memo are accommodated in the final plan. 40 5 EXHIBIT B - GRFA BREAKDOWN Upper side primary/secondary 2,987.3 450 RESIDENTIAL (3,750`) (4,200 ") Upper side CLUSTER single family plus DWELLING GRFA ALLOCATION PER TOTAL GARAGE UNIT PROPOSED UNIT fSQ.FT.) GRFA AREA A 2,105 225 2,330 505 B 2,105 225 2,330 505 C 2,105 225 2,330 505 D 1,725 .225 1,950 505 E 2,207 225 2,432 501 F 2,207 225 2,432 501 G 1,975 225 2,200 475 Upper side primary/secondary 2,987.3 450 3,437.3 1,200 (3,750`) (4,200 ") Upper side single family plus 2,550 450 3,000 1,200 caretaker TOTAL 19,966.3 2,475 22,441.3 5,897 "Size of this structure may not exceed 4200 sq. ft. Applicant may chose to reduce the size of other units in the development to allow this structure to be as large as 4200 sq. ft., but the figures shown as TOTALS will not change. iii The Table above shows the breakdown of GRFA. The third column from the left shows the 225 square feet given for Primary/Secondary development and Single Family development in the Residential Cluster zone district per the current zoning code. Each of the homes in this proposal receives the credits since the development was annexed to the Town in 1981, when credits were added to allowable GRFA figures. The Ordinance regulating GFIFA and the credits associated with GRFA that was In effect when the site was annexed was Ordinance Number 37 (Series of 1980). That ordinance excluded overlapping staircases, mechanical areas; airlocks, and garages from GRFA calculations. Staff believes that applying credits Is appropriate since the development was annexed with the assumption that credits would be added to maximum GRFA stipulated in the development plan. Staff also believes that the work done recently to streamline the GRFA calculations should apply in this case. From staff research, it was apparent that the average of the former credit areas (overlapping staircases, mechanical areas, and airlocks) was approximately 225 sq. ft. per dwelling unit in the higher density zone districts. Based on this reasoning, staff has applied the 225 sq. ft. credit to each of the dwelling units in this proposal. oil • • :7 17 I m i•G M* -ri ��s .07 Ge I I N-■ *I." Current Proposal-- Site Plan for Lower Development Area w tip i� �► , `,�L �`54r � t� � { y ;` � 1 '. t4 � •` 111 +t`'' 1` Jt � + � 1 4 i� ;�'� �1yti�'1��,,1�5,,e`, 4 , ` R � l�, r� 1 � 1 � � ,� `,1 � 1 , ��t �,• 1 � t t 1 � �. ti �� 1 � lol Ir v 401 0 4 E 44.00 C: CD CD 00 CD - 0 < 0 CD Cn 3 cn CD CD > CD i� �► , `,�L �`54r � t� � { y ;` � 1 '. t4 � •` 111 +t`'' 1` Jt � + � 1 4 i� ;�'� �1yti�'1��,,1�5,,e`, 4 , ` R � l�, r� 1 � 1 � � ,� `,1 � 1 , ��t �,• 1 � t t 1 � �. ti �� 1 � lol Ir v 401 fil 4110 A I 4 E 44.00 l b fil 4110 • • 40t"- SS VA&V� ;I.- Current Proposal-.- Typical Elevations I L L E� i fil 0L 10 0 0? S ID tO f. P 1. 1 % 1 FINAL PLAT AND RESUAD(VISION OF A4 TR C TS A AND 8 A PART OF OPANCEL A LIGNS RIDGE SUBDIVISION FILING No. 2 70WAt OF VAIL.EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO t7 I 4 WL., R OP oil Current Proposal— Survey 410 • i M \ J fy�r�i, W :� ! µ, :�.c• i • - .\ ' `"- . ��;'• "fie .. ` '� •(� ��y1'• � � � PO �.v' ti ter \J '!� (' • • t I �� ( .. �. •_ - �� ,.,, � �; �� f ic : i Exhibit A -- page one 1980 Eagle County Approval 8 1 .1 '7ir; � f''`♦- 1 it • S • � 111+ ��i i ; ti, • �,, fit;.. 1 i iii y • ytil � � 111 � n✓� • rn y . LL A so i ! ♦, 1. �j � $ ul , .� 1, ' •`S " 1 •�� v /�. � � :�'�" ��'1 ''' �li ra �^,G , 1 i � , 1 I III/ ., • --.. i ti + , lam _ . .1.. • . � � ;� 'li.f + ( .; �.• 1 , '' � ., / • r•1 � r+� /��, 1� P` `/ 41 ',. , '` � I , + � I ��• _ r , �� v .� 1 1 1 •� r•.•J f 1 1 is � i frro , �.. ♦ 1 •' � , � ' • •- �; t � �/ � i. r • 0 !� ,1�1 • fr - �'!� ! . j fir_ ''^^ —j/ . .� �tt +1'r'F '�� , /' � �•. Exhibit A-- A -- page two 1980 Eagle County Approval �,- MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 9, 1991 RE: A request by the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District to discuss the definition of temporary structures. Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District Planner: Andy Knudtsen x.cr.....:. r o c _.{ i4 <G < C Fibs <,o, - :+r Fr : ;�h� a o- °•'ta:�G {4�crOa�r�Oo ':r: �yF$v �..o. ?o�� o"f:�;�: w °' : <u. ::: }:bo,.. x..� .,r..u•,,,c..G.W. ?ayi:• ..4ir \f :r .:rzy:r: -:i f • - : 4L? • 'w.• -r �i.,143�: �A �' .�g.`r'g � �; :. v4'in n4::4;.y�+ .. %�.: �.: v i :r:4r �-:? : ?4�vA.:r •::�} •.4.. F..:.?: .A.V% {.. �f \. �. �,f 4�•�'�+S'.4v,:i i:i:4i�r iC•: 4iu.. 4.. .4: ?.'i..:4'.4..r..4i:4::!ri -�. - ! r �6 v . v y,.:�:y:� x:: :';':':.y:;..:.:V . y: :.. .��. :.%": -: yr :r= �- ,rr.•£F'�•'�`r.r %` ^;:�.rrrr.,..,r. <..,. .:.. « ...................... ,:.;.;r�. :...?:.,.:.,...?:` r..... c,.: 2F:• .,.afw { : er, �: �.. �_.,,-, rl ;�r,,`r,n.`,�r.`�'_..b�il��c' The applicant, Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District (UEVWSD), is proposing to place a 12 by 56 foot trailer on the west side of their building, at the intersection of Forest Road and South Frontage Road. The trailer would be in this location for eleven months (from approximately January 1992 to November, 1992). The applicants need to provide additional office space for new staff. Permanent offices will be constructed next spring and summer. The applicant's believe a trailer would be a good temporary solution until the permanent office space is available for occupancy. The property is located in a Public Use zone district. Offices are allowed as a conditional use and any expansion to offices must be approved by the PEG. In addition to the conditional use, staff believes that a variance may be needed. The Design Review Guidelines state that "Neither aluminum, steel or plastic siding, nor simulated stone or brick shall be permitted. Plywood siding shall not be permitted" (Section 18.54.050(C)(1)). Staff needs an interpretation from the PEC as to the applicability of this section of the Design Review Guidelines. Given that the structure which is proposed is a trailer (on axles and wheels) and will be located on the site for less than one year, would a variance be needed from the above development standards or can the structure abe considered a temporary structure? As stated in a previous memo, the code is vague on how to treat a temporary structure. Staff would like to discuss this issue with the PEC so that the applicant's review process will go smoothly so that the proper application can be made. is MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 9, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining patio for the Gallery Building (Russell's Restaurant), located in the Commercial Core I zone district, 228 Bridge Street/a part of Lot A, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Ron Riley/D.R.R., Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica r.'k��..?.�'.�f'�`'��? =�' 'f�'�'w?° o-�c`�n�'¢CG' ?, �. � ��.�i,'$:fiEr�:``�°3`�f ,� p ^. . . /�r't ' &;�1`'.'�`��`Q,�af::�f�'fi3 � a a �vr � ,�, �, p � �., . ..� �o. o .v. £.o.. �J ;,� a•.o..�.%g�t ^ u•� ot� .. � ,. �� ''°� c� /qra¢ .?y c . ��. � f '$ s ,.,Aa s? - �'��°�v:��FY�:�`�;:'O�;g��'��r . v'.'?, �e& ��r?[ � ` ?�FQ��`�•��`�!�,��` ". ° �'�;�} coq/ ��` � ?Br?c , �`°� f ¢ �So.�>�<fi�'¢��a�i¢� • ��:�'J kfo � � {v 4�.`46. C !S 4 ff0 v�tv.}f.;y OE � O v v.., . 'rr ri ycy 4 4F n ,¢. .� G f �¢ f 'f .+r4 OJ td?:. �� .O ') ¢ }$} K¢ f�•¢ i <{,r r. � �. vi�4C? F$!: S�? i �i; �. b:; f.:; F�.•.•: vs. �: 3��n{n �' : 5�`%,£ �r' �;.: �' e. ��`' , r..:; s�fo-; ��: n�', c^.• N: mrfC,: sr. f': hFk} r�: sff, �:', �. �r{ �s,' b% f,:. �: . wf�rkh..` lwr�cri :f•,$rf�rf''tiF� °.aF�.�',t�rs. ?l h:.car.�.a.r.,,`f:��"i.:'� I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for a 173 sq. ft. outdoor dining deck at Russell's Restaurant, located in the Gallery Building in Vail Village. The Gallery Building is in the Commercial Core I zone district, which requires a conditional use permit to add an outdoor dining deck. The deck is proposed to be located along the west elevation of the Gallery Building, and would be located entirely upon public right -of -way. The applicant is proposing a "winter version" of the dining deck, as well as a "summer version." The winter dining deck would be permanent and would extend out 3' -9'h" from the existing face of the building. This is the same distance that the two existing Town planters extend out from the face of the Gallery Building. The proposal calls for a "temporary" dining deck for the summer season. The summer dining deck would extend out a total of 6' -9" from the face of the building, or an additional 2 %11 beyond the winter deck. At the tightest point, the summer deck would reduce the width of Bridge Street to approximately 13' -6 ". The summer deck would include a removable steel railing system, as well as a removable floor system for the deck. Both versions of the deck (winter and summer) would be contained within a 3'h -foot high steel railing system. The floor system of the dining deck would be located at the same elevation as the existing floor of the interior of Russell's Restaurant. As it relates to the elevation of Bridge Street, the floor system would be located approximately 2 feet above the existing asphalt. Rekord doors would be added to the west elevation of the Gallery Building to provide access to the dining deck and to create a more open, airy feeling to the interior restaurant. The applicant has also proposed to wrap the summer deck with redwood flower boxes. Additionally, a free - standing bench would be added to the area at the southeast side of the covered bridge (to compensate for the removal of the bench on the west elevation of the Gallery Building). • . Since the November 11, 1991 PEC worksession, the applicant has modified the proposal in the following manner: The deck has been pulled back, from the entrance to the Gallery Building, by approximately 6 -'0 ". A portion of the existing Town planter, which includes the Gallery Building's fire department water connection, would remain. (Please see attached site plans.) The northwest corner of the deck would be angled more sharply to further reduce the decks intrusion into Bridge Street. The floor area of the proposed dining deck has been reduced from 207 square feet, to 173 square feet. IL BACKGROUND On October 22, 1991, the Town Council (by a vote of 6 -0) unanimously approved Ron Riley's request to proceed through the-planning process for a conditional use permit. This initial approval was required because all of the proposed improvements for the outdoor dining deck for the Gallery Building would be located within the public right -of -way, and on Town 10 of Vail property. Staff has measured some of the existing dimensions of the "usable right-of-way" along Bridge Street. The results are as follows: 1. Existing interior width of the Covered Bridge = 10 feet. 2. Existing width of Bridge Street between the Gallery Building (includes Town planters) and the pocket park = 16 feet. 3. Existing width of Bridge Street between the Covered Bridge Building steps and the Slifer Building steps = 27 feet. 4. Existing width of Bridge Street between Pepi's Bar and Restaurant entrance and the steps at the Gorsuch Building = 24 feet. 5. Existing width of Bridge Street between the Gorsuch dining deck and Pepi's dining deck = 21 feet. The PEC initially reviewed this request on November 11, 1991. This was a worksession and the draft minutes of the meeting are attached to this memorandum. PA • III. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN There are no specific Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan sub -area concepts which apply to this proposal. However, the Vail Village Design Considerations specifically addresses decks and patios as follows: "Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring people to the streets, opportunities to look and be looked at, and generally contribute to the liveliness of a busy street -- making a richer pedestrian experience than if those streets were empty. A review of successful decks /patios in Vail reveals several common characteristics: - direct sunlight from 11:00 -3:00 increases use by many days /year and protects from wind; - elevated 2 feet to give views into the pedestrian walk (and not the reverse); • - physical separation from pedestrian walk of 3 -5 feet (planter better than a wall); overhang gives pedestrian scale /shelter. Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to: - sun - views wind - pedestrian activity" • 3 a �,� r DUT1eY . l r In t4� . The Vail Village Master Plan does not contain any specific sub -area concepts which directly relate to this proposal. However, the staff believes that the following goals and objectives, as stated in the Vail Village Master Plan, are relevant to this proposal: " Goal #1 - Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Goal #2 - To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year - around economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. 2.2.1 Policy: The design criteria in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan shall be the primary guiding document to preserve the existing architectural scale and character of the core area of Vail Village. 2.4 Objective: is Encourage the development of a variety of a new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.2 Policy: Activity that provides night life and evening entertainment for both the guest and the community shall be encouraged. Goal #3 - To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 0 4 3.3 Objective: . Encourage a wide variety of activities, events, and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas. 3.3.2 Policy: Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and shall be encouraged in commercial infill or redevelopment projects. Goal #6 - To ensure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. 6.2.2 Policy: Minor improvements (landscaping, decorative paving, open dining decks, etc.), may be permitted on Town of Vail land or right -of -way (with review and approval by the Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission when applicable) provided that Town operations such as snow removal, street maintenance and fire department access and operation are able to be maintained at current levels. Special design (i.e. heated pavement), maintenance fees, or other considerations may be required to offset impacts on Town services." • IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends denial 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. As stated in the zoning code, the Commercial Core I (CCI) Zone District is intended to "provide sites and maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The CCI district is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail. Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to insure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangement of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to insure continuation of 0 5 the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the . Village." Generally, the staff believes that the applicant's proposal complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan as indicated in Section III of this memorandum. We believe that outdoor dining decks, associated with a restaurant, are an appropriate site development in the Village core. The applicant is proposing to add redwood flower boxes around the perimeter of the dining deck, however, one Town of Vail planter will be lost in its entirety, and another partially removed. 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. It is the staff opinion that the proposed outdoor dining deck will have no negative effects upon any of 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. It is this criteria with which staff has the most concern. With the summer deck in place, Bridge Street would be narrowed down, at the tightest point, to a width of approximately 13' -6 ". The staff is very concerned with further constricting Bridge Street and with creating a choke point at this very heavily used area of the Village. This section of Bridge Street is considered by staff to be a transition zone for pedestrians, bicyclists and rollerbladers accessing the Village core. Narrowing the width of Bridge Street is a concern and pedestrian safety is a major issue, especially given the wide variety of users in this area, and the fact that the western edge of Bridge Street drops off into the pocket park (there is no guard rail). The Public Works Department maintains that street sweeping will become more difficult with the proposed summer dining deck in place. The Fire Department concerns and issues, which were identified at the PEC worksession, have all been resolved. • 6 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 staff is still concerned with the overall aesthetic appearance of the dining deck (during the summer season) and its potential for partially blocking views both up and down Bridge Street. We are concerned with the potential for blocking views of the covered bridge (from the south). We believe that with the curve of Bridge Street and the angle of the covered bridge as it crosses Gore Creek, that the eastern portion of the bridge may be partially screened with the proposed dining deck in place. The staff believes that the addition of Rekord doors to the Gallery Building will be a very positive addition, not only to the building, but also to the Village. Rekord doors, by increasing the visiblity of dining activity, will add to the street life and visual interest. The addition of a bench, adjacent to the covered bridge, will be a positive amenity and will add to the pedestrian environment and character in the Village. 0 B. Findings The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before U anting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the ,proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. 0 7 . V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff is recommending denial of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, as we believe the request does not meet findings 3 and 4 as outlined in the above section of this memorandum. Although the staff cannot support the applicant's request as presented, the staff would be able to support a scaled back version of the proposal. We believe that a dining deck which extended out 3' -9 from the west elevation of the building (to the face of the existing Town planters), would be acceptable. This type of expansion would have no impact on the existing pedestrian flow along Bridge Street. We believe that an outdoor dining deck in this configuration would allow for approximately three to four, rectangular dining tables. We also feel that a dining deck in this configuration, with the retractable Rekord doors, would provide the outdoor dining experience that the applicant desires. The staff would also suggest the addition of an awning, on the facade above the retractable doors, to add more color to the face of the building. If the PEC approves either the applicant's request for the outdoor dining deck, or the staff's suggestion for a scaled back version of the dining deck, the staff would recommend that two conditions be placed on the approval as follows: 1) That the applicant agree that the dining deck will not be cleared of snow onto the adjacent Town right -of -way, and that the applicant work out some arrangement to have snow privately hauled from the site. 2) That the applicant install 2 -3 aspens in the planter north of the proposed dining deck. • 8 rI i,tie rlor 6M�roorr6 . his` rem n5 rxxn - i /'�i'�7u�,IC AY I4R7�� i r r `°CJ I�rse oZ- .sc�m+r rFdu"d ou�a+r VN dining lKr9 Sion bKQy r�eh gs @+ �CCr level -`. LE �} r1 �J v V v 0 Coy e rcc, 6T;d %Q F. 4 �� RfJ55�LS.: 5 �tES'rf�1FCPN7' , • • �a A a� s, M M � � V trailer, Mr. Matthews repeated he would only have 40 trees on the lot. Richard indicated the trees to be sold would be attached to rebars which had been pounded into the ground In response to a question from Chuck Crist, Richard indicated the banner would be attached to the trailer. The state requires the trailer be set back 50 feet from the North Frontage Road right of way. Based on the site plan, it appeared the sales trailer would be approximately- feet from the road. Gena Whitten believed it looked a little "tight." She requested the rest of the survey be presented. Kathy was concerned about knowing where the property line was, so that the Commission would know where the trailer was actually proposed to be located and to insure the business was located entirely on West Vail Texaco property and not in the state right of way or on adjacent property. Kathy also asked how the fence would be stabilized. Mr. Matthews said it would be attached to T -posts by black ties. Diana Donovan believed it was important that everything be located on Mr. Matthew's property, and that the trailer be removed as soon after Christmas as possible. Diana suggested all material be removed from the site by December 26th. Mr. Matthews stated he had no intention of leaving anything up after Christmas but he was reluctant to committing to removing everything from the site by December 26th as inclement weather could make it impossible for him to comply with this deadline. Jill reminded the PEC that based on Ordinance 43, Series of 1991 which will allow plant product businesses in the Heavy Service Zone District, the site must be cleaned with 72 hours of the date the conditional use permit expires. . • Kathy asked that the fence be kept in a straight, vertical position. She thought it would be nice if the trailer had a red door. 2. A request for a worksession for a conditional use permit for an outdoor_ dining_ patio for the GalleN Building Russell's Restaurant located in the Commercial Core I zone district, 228 Bridge Street/a part of Lot A, Block 5, Vail Villgge First Filing. _Applicant: Ron Riley /D.R.R., Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica presented the request. As this was a worksession, no staff recommendation was given, but staff raised several issues for discussion. Applicants Ron Riley and Mike Staughton were present for the discussion. Ron Riley pointed out that the deck would only be used for 90 days in the summer, and did not believe it would obstruct views on Bridge Street. He believed a summertime encroachment of 2'- 11' /2" was minor, stressing the fact that lower Bridge Street was "sterile," and that the dining deck would add interest to the area. He believed that, due to the popularity of outdoor dining, a restaurant was almost required to have a dining area outdoors. Mr. Riley advocated the deck since otherwise there was no visual penetration into the Gallery Building, and because of that, people could not tell there was a restaurant contained therein. Ludwig Kurz was concerned about narrowing Bridge Street, stating it was easily one of the 2 P M � � V most congested areas a great deal of the time. He was not convinced this was the best use . of public land. Mr. Riley reminded the Commission that this request was only for a 90 -day period each summer. He explained that, in the summer, people walk more slowly than in the winter. Jim Shearer was concerned with the use of public land. He wanted to get Pete Burnett's ~ opinion on cleaning the streets. Mike said he had spoken with Pete, and Pete indicated that, if the deck was in place, the south end of Bridge Street would require hand sweeping. Ron Riley said the distance across Bridge Street would be 13 feet. Mike Staughton said the Town did not clean the streets every week, but only 2 -3 times per summer. Mr. Riley said he could build the deck so it could be removed for street sweeping. Jim discussed the sterility of that end of Bridge Street. He asked what the Town of Vail would gain from the proposal, and suggested Mr. Riley could do something to make the area more inviting. Chuck Crist agreed with Ron Riley regarding the sterile look, and liked the concept of a removable deck. He was concerned with the loss of two Town of Vail planters, as well as the bench between the planters. He indicated the bench had frequent use. Chuck also was in favor of narrower streets and the proposed rekord doors. Ron Riley was frustrated because no service trucks were allowed on this end of Bridge Street, and indicated the upper end of Bridge Street became much more restricted when service trucks were making deliveries than his proposal would make the area. . Gena Whitten believed that this was an important entrance to the town, and Mr. Riley could achieve the transparency with a 3 -foot wide deck and rekord doors, which would have the feeling of an outdoor deck without going onto public land. She felt this was very valuable space. Kathy agreed with Ludwig and Gena, stating that rekord doors would give better exposure to the outside-and better planters could be designed. Kathy could not support the construction of a deck on public land, not wanting to further constrict the area. Ron Riley indicated the location of the restaurant's restrooms created an interior constriction, and rekord doors alone would not achieve his objectives. Diana could not support a deck on public property, but suggested pulling back the deck. Jim could also support such a revised proposal. Jim reminded the Commission that the Town was running out of Village restaurants, and believed undulation on that side of the street was important. He strongly supported retaining restaurants in the Village core areas, especially restaurants at street level. However, in this particular situation, he was concerned about potential bottlenecking. Ron Riley indicated he would investigate other possibilities to ensure he did not restrict the area and would look for a proposal which would enhance the area. He suggested a 90 -day trial basis. Chuck supported this use for public land, as it would increase the vitality of an area which was 0 3 BE � � V currently "ugly and dead." is Mike Mollica summarized the Commission's position and stated some of the members had difficulty in supporting this use of public land. A request to amend Section 18.52 Off- Street Parking and Loading, of the Town's zoning ordinance to allow car rental businesses to lease parking spaces in the Commercial Core III zone district. Applicant: Peter Jacobs of Days Inn Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen presented the request. Staff supported the proposed amendment. Chuck Crist asked if this amendment would allow more than one agency per property. He asked for a simplification of the wording. Diana Donovan was concerned with the wording regarding the term of the lease. She requested that section be simplified. She believed landscaping should be required: Kathy Langenwalter did not think an amendment addressing landscaping would be necessary, as it was addressed in the parking section of the code. Andy pointed out that the parking section dealt only with new parking lots. Diana believed the Town should have the ability to require additional landscaping for this type of use. Chuck Crist moved to recommend that Town Council approve the request to amend Section 18.52, Off- Street Parking and Loading, of the Town's zoning ordinance to allow car rental businesses to lease parking spaces in the Commercial Core III zone district, incorporating the Commission's concerns into the ordinance regarding the ability of the Town to require landscaping, allowing the length of lease to range from 1 -12 months, and limiting each property within CCIII to a maximum of one agency with a maximum of 15 cars. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 6 -0. 2. A request for a conditional, use permit to allow a well water treatment facility in the Agricultural /Open Space zone district, generally located south of the Vail Golf Course bridge on Vail Valley Drive, and more specifically described as follows: To be located within 100 -foot radius from a point on the right bank of Gore Creek _whence the northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West, 6th P.M. bears North 73 degrees West, 2,080 feet. Applicant: Vail Valley Consolidated Water District Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica explained the request. Staff recommended approval of the request with the conditions listed in the memorandum. Discussion ensued regarding whether the proposed structure should become a shelter for golfers, or a utility building which disappeared into the willows. Kent Rose, engineer for the project, indicated the proposed building was 14' x 24', and the size was necessary in order to 4 M PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 16, 1991 AGENDA 1:34 PM Site Visits 2:00 PM Public Hearing Site Visits PUBLIC HEARING A request for the establishment of a 60 or 90 day review period for an exterior alteration request in Commercial Core I for Rightfit Sports, 225 Wall Street/Wall Street Building /A part of Lots B & C, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Robert Lazier / Rightfit Sports Planner: Jill Kammerer 2. A request for approval of an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I for Rightfit Sports, 225 Wail Street/Wall Street Building/ A part of Lots B & C, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Robert Lazier / Rightfit Sports Planner: Jill Kammerer 3. A request for a work session to allow a change to an approved development plan, Tracts A and B, a part of Parcel A, Lions Ridge Filing No. 2, commonly referred to as The Valley, Phase 11. Applicant: Crossview at Vail Properties, Inc. /Steve Gensler Planner: Andy Knudtsen /Kristan Pritz 4. A request for the establishment of a 60 or 90 day review period for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I to the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Rod Slifer Planner: Jill Kammerer 5. A request for the establishment of a 60 or 90 day review period for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core II to the Cano Residence, Lionshead Center, 520 E. Lionshead Circle, Unit 205 /Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Victor Cano Planner: Andy Knudtsen 6. A request for the establishment of a 60 or 90 day review period for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core II for additional common service area to the Lifthouse Lodge, 555 E. Lionshead Circle /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Robert Lazier /I.R.A. of Vail, Inc. d /b /a/ Bart & Yeti's Planner: Shelly Mello Lj 7. A request for the establishment of a 60 or 90 day review period for an exterior alteration to the Lodge at Vail in Commercial Core I, Lodge Properties, Inc., 174 East Gore Creek Drive, A part of Lots A, B and C, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen /Mike Mollica 8. A request for the establishment of a 60 or 90 day review period for a Commercial Core I exterior alteration request for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road /Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium Association/Vail Associates, Inc. /GPH Partners, Ltd. /Margaritaville, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica 9. Appointment of PEC member to serve on DRB through February, 1992. 10. Approval of PEC meeting minutes for November 25, 1991 and December 9, 1991 meetings. 0 s PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 16, 1991 MINUTES PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Mike Mollica Connie Knight Jill Kammerer Kathy Langenwalter Andy Knudtsen Gena Whitten Betsy Rosolack PUBLIC HEARING The meeting was called to order at 2:15 by the chairperson, Diana Donovan. 1. A request for the establishment of a 60 or 90 day review period for an exterior alteration request in Commercial Core I for RlghtfIt Sports, 225 Wall Street/Wall Street Building /A part of Lots B & C, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Robert Lazler /RightfIt Sports Planner: Jill Kammerer Jill Kammerer stated the staff recommended a 60 day review period. Chuck Crist moved to establish a 60 day review period for Rightfit Sports, followed by a second by Connie Knight. The vote was 4 -0 (Kathy was out of the room for this vote.) 2. A request for approval of an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I for RightfIt Sports, 225 Wail Street/Wall Street Building/ A part of Lots B & C, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Robert Lazier / Rightfit Sports Planner: Jill Kammerer Jill Kammerer explained on November 11, 1991, the Design Review Board approved a modification to the exterior facade of the building. The modification reviewed and approved by the DRB did not propose relocating the front door. Therefore, an exterior alteration approval was not required. Exterior alteration approval is now required because the front door would be moved forward 5 -112 feet, so that it is flush with the eastern (front) facade of the building. In moving the door, the facade modification prpoposed now adds floor area, triggering the exterior alteration approval requirement. The interior of both floors of the retail space have been demolished and a new interior is under construction. The square footage of the entry. level will increase by ten square feet, and the square footage of the second floor will increase by five square feet. Benji Amsden, project architect, agreed to two conditions. 1) that the applicant contribute $400.00 to the Town of Vail parking fund and 2) the applicant contribute $220 to the Town of Vail for the purchase of one newspaper dispenser. Connie Knight moved to approve the exterior alteration with the two conditions. The motion 0 1 was seconded by Chuck Crist, and the vote was 5 -0 in favor. 3. Continuance of a work session for a development plan modification for The Valley, Phase II. Tracts A and B, a part of Parcel A, Lions Ridge Filing No. 2, commonly referred to as The Valley, Phase II. Applicant: Crossview at Vail Properties, Inc./Steve Gensler Planner: Andy Knudtsen /Kristan Pritz This was a work session only. Andy Knudtsen explained how the final GRFA numbers had been calculated. In .dune, 1980, Eagle County had approved a plan for the Valley Phase II, allowing 26 dwelling units with 32,909 square feet of GRFA. The County had excluded balconies, hallway, corridors, stairwells, garages, and service areas, as well as heating or mechanical equipment areas when calculating GRFA. Using the 1980 County definition of GRFA, the Vail planning staff calculated what the GRFA would be for Steve Gensler's proposed plans. These figures are shown on the top of the table on page 3 of the memo. The bottom of page 3 showed how Gensler's proposal looked using the current Town GRFA definition. The County definition would allow 700 more square feet of GRFA. In general, the staff felt the use of credits for the new proposal was reasonable because credits had been used by the County. Randy Hodges, project architect, showed an overlay which indicated where the buildings, roads and walkways had been located on the original proposal. This was laid over the current proposal: Kristan Pritz commented that the staff had new ideas which the applicant had not yet had an opportunity to respond to. Andy explained that one idea would be to move the driveway onto the easement, which would allow the applicant to move the buildings to the east and would allow more of the forestred hillside to be preserved. He also suggested clustering some of the homes. Randy replied that when the proposal was first brought before the staff, the drive had been on the easement, but someone felt that the driveway should line up with the road across the street. With regard to the upper units north of Buffehr Creek Road, Andy was concerned with the steepness of the area where the upper structure was proposed to be constructed. He suggested that the dwelling which was farthest up the property be moved closer to the lower structure and that both be closer to the entrance. Andy felt the.extent of disturbance caused by construction was more important to the staff than the exact location of the foundations. Andy expressed concern about the width of the upper road, and pointed out that the ideal situation would be to reduce the number of dwelling units in this area to 2 units, which would permit the road to be narrowed to 12 feet. Steve Gensler, applicant, told the board that a mud slide was located near the entrance to the upper units, which would not permit the lower building to be moved closer to the entrance. Kristan responded the staff wished to move the upper unit closer to the lower unit. She questioned whether or not the upper unit could be constructed due to the Fire Department requirement of a minimum distance of 100 feet from the hydrant to a dwelling unit. W, Chuck Crist wondered with the nearness of Buffehr Creek Road, if a hydrant on Buff ehr Creek Road would satisfy the Fire Department, and thus the width of the driveway could be reduced. He was told that the constraint was dictated by the number of dwelling units, rather than the distance from the fire hydrant. The board then discussed the GRFA once again. Randy pointed out that the table showed the project was 500 square feet over the original proposal, but that the total number of units had been reduced and an employee unit had been included. Connie stated that the bottom line was that there was a difference of 698 square feet between the County's total GRFA and the Town's. Tom Fitch, representing The Valley, and Brian Doolan, representing Grouse Glen were opposed to the new proposal. Brian asked if this matter could be tabled to the second meeting in January so that they would have time to have an expert study the site plan and give suggestions. Diana responded the proposal must go forward and could be heard at the first meeting in January. Brian wondered if a grandfathering applied to the original proposal, and Kristan replied that the staff would have to check the files. Tom Fitch suggested bringing the road in only far enough to satisfy the Fire Department requirements. Steve Gensler pointed out that when he bought the property, he worked with "everyone" and now needed to move forward. Brian stated he had talked with Andy several times, so the points now being raised should not be a surprise. Randy replied that he had been trying to respond to the neighbors' requests for several months. Tom asked why the Town wanted to have $500,000 homes when employee housing was needed? He felt the large homes did not fit into the neighborhood and would not be used by working class people. Tom stated the only logical housing in Grouse Glen area would be Valley -style condos, and emphasized the existing condos were in continuous use. Diana explained the Town could not make the applicant build employee housing. Steve Gensler pointed out that just because the Valley type of housing was constructed first in this area, did not necessarily make that type of housing better. Tom then added he felt the garages added to the mass. Randy pointed out the amount of asphalt without garages (on the old plan) would be greater than the amount of asphalt needed with garages (with the new plan). He added that he could make some changes, but the changes would not be significant enough to satisfy the neighbors' concerns. Steve felt a "whole lot of trees would not be touched ". The trees were valuable to the project. Diana expressed the feeling that it was difficult to look at a project that was part of another project. Andy felt it was important to have the site staked for the next site visit. Kristan felt the site should be staked well, showing outlines of units and which trees were to be removed. She added that the staff would try to work with Steve and Randy to adjust the proposal as much as possible. Kathy was not comfortable with the additional GRFA and requested the buildings and trees be staked out. She also asked for a comparison of heights between the original proposal and the • 3 current proposal. Diana felt this comparison may work to the applicant's advantage, and it may reveal the new proposal was better than the old. Andy asked the board for their feelings on the 504 square foot overage for the employee unit. Kathy was against it, but all the other board members were for it. Andy then asked for an indication of feeling concerning the method used for credits and the site plan issues. All five of the commissioners approved of staff's method of calculation, as shown on the bottom of Page 3 of the memo. Kathy repeated the need for a height comparison and staking to see what trees would be lost. Chuck agreed and added the need for the upper structures to be as unobtrusive as possible. Kathy's comments from other meetings concerning the upper lots still held - -the approach would not work because of the difference in grade. Diana felt the need for careful site planning to show less or equal impact on the neighbors than the original proposal. Andy suggested staking the parking lot proposed originally to show the fact that fills and cuts were necessary on the old plan. Randy replied the real problem in comparing the old and new was the old did not show regrading, or the disturbance caused by water service lines, etc. He could compare coverage and limits of construction to determine the impacts on trees. Kathy suggested sections through the old proposal showing the grade and height of the structures would be helpful to compare to *the new proposal. Chuck liked the reduction of number of units. However, he was concerned with heights and wanted to see a comparison of the old with the new proposal. He was interested in seeing if . the upper road could be reduced in width. Steve stated there was a fire hydrant on the road, and if the Fire Department felt they could reach the houses from the hydrant, the road width concern could be eliminated. Chuck liked getting rid of the large parking lot. Gena agreed with Chuck. She felt that if cars are parked in garages, it would be better than a large parking lot. She concurred with Chuck that, on the whole, the new plan was better than the old. 4. A request for the establishment of a 60 or 90 day review period for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I to the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street]Part of Lots B and C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Rod Slifer Planner: .fill Kammerer Connie moved and Gena seconded to use a 60 -day review period for the Slifer Building. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 5. A request for the establishment of a 60 or 90 day review period for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core II to the Cano Residence, Lionshead Center, 520 E. Lionshead Circle, Unit 205/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Victor Cano Planner: Andy Knudtsen 0 4 • Chuck moved and Gena seconded to use a 60 day review period for the Lionshead Center Building. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. S. A request for the establishment of a 60 or 90 day review period for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core II for additional common service area to the Lifthouse Lodge, 555 E. Lionshead Circle /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Robert Lazier /I.R.A. of Vail, Inc. dlblal Bart & Yeti's Planner: Shelly Mello Gena moved and Chuck seconded to use a 90 day review period for the Lifthouse Lodge. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 7. A request for the establishment of a 60 or 90 day review period for an exterior alteration to the Lodge at Vail In Commercial Core 1, Lodge Properties, Inc., 174 East Gore Creek Drive, A part of Lots A, B and C, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen /Mike Mollica Connie moved to establish a 90 day review period for the Lodge proposal and Kathy seconded the motion. The vote was 5 -0. • a. A request for the establishment of a 60 or 90 day review period for a Commercial Core I exterior alteration request for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road /Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium Association/Vall Associates, Inc. /GPH Partners, Ltd.IMargaritaville, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica Chuck moved and Connie seconded to establish a 90 day review period for the Golden Peak House. The vote was 5 -0. 9. Appointment of PEC member to serve on DRB. through February, 1992 Diana volunteered to be the DRB delegate for January, February and March. Gena volunteered to be the delegate for April, May and June. 10. Approval of PEC meeting minutes for November 25, 1991 and December 9, 1991 meetings. Chuck moved to approve the minutes of 11/25/91 with corrections. Connie seconded the motion and the vote was 5 -0 in favor. 0 5 Kathy moved to approve the minutes of 1219191 with corrections. Connie seconded the motion. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. c:1121691 • A i MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 16, 1991 RE: Continuance of a work session for a development plan modification for The Valley, Phase II. Tracts A & B, a part of Parcel A, Vons Ridge Filing No. 2, commonly referred to as The Valley, Phase 11. Applicant: Crossview at Vail Properties /Steve Gensler Planner: Andy Knudtsen ,.. ;...:.: ✓,�.... {........... . } S::r:. <....t. �:^ � , : r^+� ?! %'�: �:i <� '�;ar.CattrtJ rio ��: �io?cc :r ra`�.r`i:#�` �'.}'� JF.. ' k o I r.:4v:� n:J: { {.v ^:: ^; �Y.Jti vii.0.. i.: {nn. 4 - . :::.::F:v''.{•)�.. �� f. Y' v. L v . ?� `.:.:r` -$. y �� :. o-:..',�r.'dc'✓.c6�n.,.wn;.r��iS .�r�r ` i The purpose of continuing the work session on this proposal is to clarify how GRFA has been measured in the past for The Valley. This is relatively complicated as the project was started while under Eagle County's jurisdiction, was into the Town, then de- annexed, and is then re- annexed. Information about the way GRFA was viewed in each of these steps is provided below. On June 3, 1980, Eagle County approved a plan for The Valley Phase 11, allowing 26 dwelling units with 32,909 square feet of GRFA. Correspondence between the Eagle County Community Development Department and Morgan Construction Company, the applicant at that time, includes the term "GRFA" when referring to the size of the dwelling units. The definition of GRFA that the County used at that time excluded balconies, hallways, corridors, stairwells, garages, and service areas, as well as heating or mechanical equipment areas. Using the 1980 County definition, staff calculated what the GRFA would be for the proposed plans. These figures are shown at the end of this memo along with the figures generated using the 1991 Town of Vail definition of GRFA. It is important to point out that the 32,909 figure was determined based on a set of proposed floor plans. Staff believes these plans were reviewed and some portions were not counted, based on the County definition of GRFA. At this time, staff believes it is appropriate to apply some kind of credit to the proposed floor plans since the original amount of GRFA was determined based on a definition which excluded the "credit" areas. With the 1980 County approval, the applicant constructed the six Grouse Glen units and poured foundations for six other dwelling units. Construction on the foundations never took place until this past summer. • In 1981, the Town of Vail annexed this area and " grandfathered" all development approvals into the Town. Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1981 states specifically that, " For any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners approvals, agreements or actions, the developments in parcels of properties specified In this subsection (which includes The Valley) shall be zoned Residential Cluster (RC)." The upper limits for GRFA and density were established by that County approval with the understanding that all other development standards would be determined using Residential Cluster zoning. A few years later, the area was de- annexed. No changes were made to the development approval when It was under County jurisdiction at that time. Then, in April of 1987, the area was re- annexed into the Town. The ordinance establishing the zoning for the area is Ordinance 26, Series of 1987. Staff spoke with the two Town of Vail planners who handled the rezoning application when the project was re- annexed to find out how the Town intended to calculate GRFA. From their comments, staff understands that the Town did not want to change any development potential with the change of jurisdiction. The Town could have applied RC zoning to all of these parcels without recognizing any previous development approvals. Instead, the Town recognized the previous approvals, yet did not adopt any of the specific County regulations for the annexed parcels. Staff believes it is important to recognize that the County and Town definitions of GRFA are generally similar and achieve the same effect, but that the Town never intended to use County regulations for the calculation of GRFA. In conclusion, staff believes that the County approved development potential on the various phases of The Valley should be recognized; that the "grandfathered" development potential excludes certain parts of a house; but that the Town's definitions for all development ®I' standards, specifically GRFA, are the standards to be used. 2 • 1691 GENSLER PROPOSAL - FLOOR AREA CALCULATIU 1991 GENSLER PROPOSAL - FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS USING THE 1991 TOWN OF VAIL DEFINITION OF GRF, THE 1980 EAGLE COUNTY DEFINITION OF GRFA TOTAL UNIT FLOOR TOTAL RESULTING NUMBER AREA (MECHANICAL STAIRCASE GRFA A 2,330 -200 -170 1,960 B 2,330 -200 470 1,960 C 2,330 -200 -170 1,960 D 1,950 0 -170 1,760 E 2,432 -88 -225 2,119 F 2,432 -as -225 2.119 G 2,200 -215 -152 1 TOTALS: 16,004 -991 -1,282 13,731 Total of mechanical and. staircase: -2,273 1691 GENSLER PROPOSAL - FLOOR AREA CALCULATIU THE 1991 TOWN OF VAIL DEFINITION OF GRF, RESIDENTIAL TOTAL CLUSTER DWELLING FLOOR ALLOCATION PER R GARAGE UNIT AREA UNIT ISQ_ GRF GRFA AREA A 2.330 -225 2,105 505 B 2,330 -225 2,105 505 C 2,330 -225 2.105 505 D 1,950 425 1.725 505 E 2,432 -225 2,207 501 F 2,432 -225 2,207 501 G 2,2 00 225 1 475 SUBTOTAL: 16,004 -1,575 14,429 3,497 Upper side primary/secondary 3,437.3 -450 2,987.3 1,200 (4,200') (3,750') Upper side single family plus 3,000 450 2,550 1,200 caretaker TOTAL 22,441.3 -2,475 19,966.3 5,897 'Size of this structure may not exceed 4200 sq. ft. Applicant may chose to reduce the size of other units in the development to allow this structure to be as large as 4200 sq. ft., but the figures shown as TOTALS will not change. The Table above shows the breakdown of GRFA under the County's and Town's definitions. The Ordinance regulating GRFA and the credits associated with GRFA that was in effect when the site was annexed was Ordinance Number 37 (Series of 1984). That ordinance excluded overlapping staircases, mechanical areas, airlocks, and garages from GRFA calculations. Staff believes that applying credits is appropriate since the development was annexed with the assumption that credits would be added to maximum GRFA stipulated in the development plan. Staff also believes that the work done recently to streamline the GRFA calculations should apply in this case. From staff research, it was apparent that the average of the former credit areas (overlapping staircases, mechanical areas, and airlocks) was approximately 225 sq. ft. per dwelling unit in the higher density zone districts. Based on this reasoning, staff has applied the 225 sq. ft. credit to each of the dwelling units in this proposal. 411 al E �� •� ` \ ~ __. •` a ~�\ '.ii a,n � �-•- '.a'u�.waz fa � c '_°. i� , 1 _ _ � \\ .. sc..• - _ .: r ,.rev_ • ps..�+a�l..� Zaae n. , r • '` . -',•\ � /��Rtc ` ` .� .'d,��, \ \, I 6 aNS �' 2S'L �i., u�x xr .or nr�n xu n.'�s +` FrF'' �� \\ ` .;` y '�'i A/ !R � ... \' Op f y.• °K ALP �l �+/.. it 1, ��1 � /t ,i - \� \•.��✓.y1 ` \'' i rrO 'dr"°° e"['.."at ie w:' - /'+.'� - - k � � • f ± - :: ` �� ; _ - �� 'ti . ` �a.�a` ��' `' is s ie `!�' J. �i � ..`- \. � � ° ear» .� ,.� -�•„� + ti aw _ • S •: \L r r �- -�� !_�-y[ r �- ?' : Ji • ~ � a— •�+•�� ` � � _� �'L ��elgl�tW.Y �H«r r .�- `�` i� � :'�. a. � `.�- - - _ ' �'� � . �. � � �• �� 1�., �_ --�-\ �. �,"�_Y,�i, -� _�= _ _' .x.``1_,:``,,,`1. -- . R te. zr el ' O I ,� Current Proposal -- Site Plan or Lower Development Area 4 r CPT ti a If t CD CD 00 CD - 0 < 0 CD (1) cl ) CD =3 (D ,- D - % CD w 4 r CPT ti a If • • LI : ILI I 71 .7 - Current Proposal— Typical Elevations 410 flhAL PWAr AND OF TF- C 1 - 3 A AND B A P"r C" PARCEL A L/C; IS RICGE SLISCIVIS,'CAl FILING Nc. 2 rCW' OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY,COLCRA00 t id C f. 1 7 411 Current Proposal— Survey U 0 ........... 171 �� 6 a r Z t� � :��: �' ,,\ ,,t .f fo b '�;\; � . . 6 NNI a Al JVI'LLL Exhibit A-- .1980 Ss= page one Eagle County Approval Exhibit A-- .1980 Ss= page one Eagle County Approval \ OR S L y ik Exhibit A-- page two 1980 Eagle County Approval 410 40 � -12 OEtDI 'A; CE NO. 33 � • %� (series of ]981) 75 yY '• `V' '^ � ^ ?. AN ORDINANCE IMPOSI NG ZONING DISTRICTS ON CERTAIN DEVELOPMENTS AND PARCELS OF PROPERTY I1 THE RECENTLY ANNEXED HEST FAIL AREA; ACCEPTING PRIOR APPROVALS OF THE EAGLE COUNTS' CO.' RELATING THERETO; SPECIFYING AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SETTI::G FORTH CONDITIONS RELATING THERETO: AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL: AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO. WHEREAS the town of Fail, Colorado, recently annexed the West Sail area, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, effective on December 31, 1980; and WHEREAS Chapter 18,68 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail sets forth procedures for the imposition of zoning districts on recently annexed areas; and WELRE -AS, Section 31 -12 -115 (s) C.R.S, 1973, as amended, requires the To to bring the newly annexed 1� Vail area under its zoning ordinance '.vith•in ninety (90) days after the effective date of said annexation; and ir :_::�, bc�a•::se of certain actions taken be and approvals cf Ladle County Cc�T:issioners relating to the within specified p'rc.:erties tL•- To,%n Council is of the opinion that the zoning designation fc.• ::esc- areas should recognize said approvals and cc:..iticr. =: and :LRL:, the Planning and Environm:, -ntal Commission of the Town of Vail has cc.nsidered the zoning to be imposed on the newly annexed West Fail area at a F bearing and has made a recommendation relating thereto, to the Town Council; and 1ti11LREA , the Town Council considers that it is in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare to so zone said property; N0',',, THEPEFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE T011N COUNCIL OF TILE T0 OF VAIL, THAT: Section 1 Procedures Fulfilled The procedures for the determination of the zoning districts to be i:,.posed on the newly annexed 1'est 'Fail area ;Ls set forth in C11apter 18.;F of t'. -e Fail 1, 1: nicipal Code have been fulfilled. • '• r ` r �Oction 2 . Im 1 ositicn of unin District on Certain ParcEaS :I;,I 1 'crtions of the nessl� anrlexcd tit st Call area, Pursuant to Chapter 18,68 of the Cail l Cade, the properties described in subsections e, f, g, h F. i belcm are a portion of the West fail area annexed to the Town through the enactment of Ordinance No. 43, Series of 1980, of the Town of Fail. Colorado, effectivF on the thirty-first day of DecernLer, ID80, and hereby zones] as follu :':s' a. The developments and parcels of property specified 1 >eloss i: Subsections e, f, g, h L i shall Le dc in accordance with the prior agreement approvals and actions of the Eagle County Cor.,missicners as tile agreements, appra and actions relate to each developa,er,t or Parcel of property. b. The docUments and ir.stru ~':eats re-la'ir.s to the prior cc',;;, -v rcvals, actions and agreements are presently on file in the Department of CG^J ^:unit' Development of the To%:lr ci fail and gaffs ar,:rcvals, actions and agreer.•cnts are hereby accepted and appro�E -d by the Tovrn cf fail. C. All buildi::Fs for vh-Ich a building permit has not beE:', issued, c: EiECti \'e d:::_ cf tl.e ar.:;E:r.tio: of s! ' - Lail CC,"};;': ..�th lo Design l E'1'iU'.1 {;'1tErla C`f tl]e 1'aii Fa1 CC dc prio2 to tl;e i s.;r,.ce Oi a b'.:11U1;;r permit. - iEti ]::ay issue stuff f ;I] Site CleSicn or otl:c -1' r .]1:07' asj }efts of the 1_2ar fc'r a r,;; Of tl e sj,eCi; iEi LE Velcj ;;.eats Or }:arCC'15. These Proposed C17ar]6C5 may LEr a,:l. roved as presented, apprcvc—d Stith cditicns or dEliiEC 1: 1' tlYe Staff «ith an appeal within, 10 days of t!:E Staff decision; to the Planning and Environmental Cof.=ission, For major changes, such as a re- design of a major part of the site, changes as use, density control, height or Other development standards, a Planning and Environmental COMmission review should be required. The procedure for changes shall be in accordance with Charter 18 of the Vail Municipal Code, e. The following developments and parcels of property shall be Subject to the terr:s of this ordinance: ( 1 ) The Va, ley, Pl;ases 1 t!:r. �!. L'. (2) SPruCe Creek TownhOUSes. (3) ',leado',ti Creek Condcr:ir:iu;;: . �I, • U 0 i' (4) fail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club. (5) Briar Patch, Lots G -2, G -5 and G -6 Lionsridge Subdivision Filing \o. 2. (6) Casa Del Sol Condominiums. For any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' approvals, agreements or actions, the developments and parcels of property specii'ied in this subsection (e) shall be zoned Residential Cluster (RC). f. Lionsridge Subdivision, riling No. 4, shall be subject to the terms of this ordinance. For any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' approval, agreement or action, this parcel of property shall be zoned Single Family Zone District (SFR) with a special Pro- vision that an employee unit (as defined and restricted in Section 18.13.0' of the Vail Municipal Code) will be subject to approvals as per Section 15.13.080. T;ie secondary unit may not exceed one third of the total Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFa) allowed on the lot as per the Single FaI7.ily Zone District Density Control (Section 18.10.090 of the CeuE -) ai:cl GreenUelt & '.natural Open Space (GNOS). g. Lot G --1. L_onsri4 e Subdivision, Filing \o. 2, has been the subject of litigation in the District Court of Eagle County, and a Court order has been issued regarding the development of this property. The Tc,:n has furt:.er _:,:;Pro' Resolution =5 of 1981 in regard to a quer.t atiree:,_i:t with the o•.�ner, The Residential Cluster (RC) Zone District «ill bc- the ap;;licaL zone on this property to guide t:;e fature de•,elop':'.ent of the ;parcel, working within the bounds set by the Court Order and Resolution No. 5, Series of 1981. 11. Block 10, `'ail I , ,,termour.tain Subdivision and the Elliott Ranch Subdivision, shall be subject to the terms of this ordinance. For any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' approval, agree- ment or action, Block 10 and the Elliott Ranch, shall be zoned Primary/ Secondary District. Lots 8, 15 L 16 of Block 10, Vail Intermountain, shall be zoned Greenbelt & '.natural Open Space (GNOS). i. Fail C07Lnons, Fail Das Shone Filing :Yo. 4, shall be subject to the terms of this ordinance. For any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle Count)' Con7,lssion €rs' agreement, approval or action, Vail Commons shall be zoned Co=ercial Core III (CCIII). -:3- ATTEST: Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED 0,, SLCO:tiD READIN G AND ORDERED PCBLIS} ;ED BY TITLE ONLY March 17, 1981, ATTEST: Town Clerk � (l- I G' -4- r- Sect -- ion 3. II I` As provided in Section 1 $.08.030 of the Lail Municipal Code, the zoning administrator is hereby directed to promptly modify and amend the Official i Zoning map to indicate the zoning specified herein. —Section 4. 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, ai:d the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, sub - section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsection sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid, Section 5. The Council hereby states that this ordinance is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare, INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST RLADING, APPROVED A:;D ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE I1 FIML, this 3rd day of ',larch, 19 and a public hearing c, tl;is ®If ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the To��n of Fail, Colorado On the 17111 uay of March, 19fil, at 7:�'C, in the "Sunicipal Building of the Tovvn of Fail, ATTEST: Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED 0,, SLCO:tiD READIN G AND ORDERED PCBLIS} ;ED BY TITLE ONLY March 17, 1981, ATTEST: Town Clerk � (l- I G' -4- TC F; F E - 'JT",CH' E; ;T TO THE FOLLD'r:I+.G DDCUKERTS: FESOLUTIO'; = 10, Series 1979 - replacement of official zoning map 11, 12, 13 and 14, SEP.IES 1981 - regarding official zoning of West Vail 01FICIAL CERTIFIED COPY OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ZONING MAP tip THE FI'E SALE CM71CAL DDC3!IENTS FILE i', T: _ 0 F]CE OF T'r_ TL':,., C"LEP1, - FILED C';JER THE C= CLERK • • �r TC F; F E - 'JT",CH' E; ;T TO THE FOLLD'r:I+.G DDCUKERTS: FESOLUTIO'; = 10, Series 1979 - replacement of official zoning map 11, 12, 13 and 14, SEP.IES 1981 - regarding official zoning of West Vail 01FICIAL CERTIFIED COPY OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ZONING MAP tip THE FI'E SALE CM71CAL DDC3!IENTS FILE i', T: _ 0 F]CE OF T'r_ TL':,., C"LEP1, - FILED C';JER THE C= CLERK • • ter ' -- '� —.,.� _ - � _� ti � __ Public Notice ,. Pub!!c Notice Public Notice _... Public t4oti(,.e V , - r. ✓.. H "P'r Public 1401 :00 Public Noticc -.. �` • ° ° "" ' °•. :... .:,'Fr _ . •ti:... Public Notice E .,,= ' " r ?• •wrfy, ry „_ rL H• n.✓. � f -✓ t.. ;M: _ 1L ,r�:.l Gam. f«.� r� ., ... ,, ..:.. , Fw.. .. Public Notice .. •1 :.: .. ,.. - M., . _ �w «��- - -�. Publ;ciJOtice �.. _ - ---- :'` Public tJOtiCH ” r Notice Puh!I-. Notice Berry! C;rc"; LC) { by Qvvner i _-- . t (31 3 70 r ' v L I ,'� I �" �.\f I •`•�� ....�- wz.•..� r.wi...- r�— K' .rr�.�..± , r.l .. _,.�, _- +.r Y,a �u 410 lr `t • • k Otnclal Zoning Map For WOBt Volt Annexation saceo irE w 1r•+±1 r l ✓✓ �' v /� Area Buffer Creu% 11 n t •. ! Vail NP: ^1115 ;• - ^ .�,.. •.OS:. v !� ::':r - • Kp N".nd Nleaclowa ! Vail \': r, West t & 2 .=. .: ti' •) • • ��" I Vail C1 SCht)ne • T7. � � -•r— 1 - cam- : . - .K - • v r,.r.� ,',- � ; S 5l:rtaLE 3'f.1f.1L'i � i ok�fas tr•rJ,x: - � •eM•.�r/J.wrl'..IJ �vll'. �c' w4 r a��' Ridno - .. t ' „"�.tSr1 Or�.Ibru,CA�_r it .F; ! •!.._... l i ,' •��; V¢ II dab Eichone - - - ` - Chamonix goad Area ..':'ISM arwc �•"1D” wtw.r cvw:r.l.:rrm � -..• •l � :, .., AM i .a.,, era W- -.� •.I�I�rr•• <. ��a., u.. a i r, v 1 trrT MOLSL LD(`:; ? +,� . � !+ .. i • •rF °• J 1 rT MSS 1la- V b_w� M ' t 7 'M1 ':;.rm�i dr. '� enn rY r:n., .r ei • j uact etlaulDm,tu„ your ��. n -` ! f 1,� ^r T'C' I... v�. r r�l'.:,..7 ,•..till` � i LIS GG1„t - vI.R CVN/:k rRStx'AT ru: [•,._ . •••,.r�.. J.-n ; F L . ct � �- ` -• t. ww C 1'f u � vu Ir•Y rut Ar rotmw•t -r �r- v s { v I -, .._ c r_� -._. J n>•J x.•.. 1 4 "ST ARM DL':1SY r r,,• r- ••:.r- tC••. .','•- ` ., C [krJl ^li:•, al .. J - 1. � i r• -•se�rn a. Wlw ,R.'I_ -:r r. -. t: 2[' ' f CC- .+r -7 C7.iir i !f k Otnclal Zoning Map For WOBt Volt Annexation saceo irE w 1r•+±1 r l ✓✓ �' v /� Area Buffer Creu% 11 n t •. ! Vail NP: ^1115 ;• - ^ .�,.. •.OS:. v !� ::':r - • Kp N".nd Nleaclowa ! Vail \': r, West t & 2 .=. .: ti' •) • • ��" I Vail C1 SCht)ne • T7. � � -•r— • 1 - cam- : . - .K - • v r,.r.� ,',- � ; 3 EI!bti Ranch Ridno V¢ II dab Eichone - - - ` - Chamonix goad Area AM • j � i LIS ..:' r �' L :_.` r .ur. w . I .. . 01. •.p:.Gr Ih� r•r`•: r. l ,' 1. w1T llrt•Y x••`G..Ir , ' ll r .. `, . • f h TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE July 13, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to reapply Portions of Vail Applicant: Town of zoning on recently annexed Vail The Town of Vail has recently re- annexed two areas of the Vail Valley that were involved in the de- annexation of certain areas of west Vail. The two areas that have been recently been re- annexed and are proposed to be zoned are the area commonly known as The Valley, and the area commonly known as Intermountain. THE VALLEY This request is to reapply zoning on property known as Lots 20 and 21, Section 1, a part of the north half Section 12 Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, commonly known as Lionsridge Filing 2 and Filing 4, Ridge at Vail, and Cliffside. The .Town of Vail is proposing to reapply the same zoning that was in effect prior to the deannexation with one exception. The area known as Phase III of The Valley has applied and been approved as Special Development District No. 16, entitled Elk Meadows Subdivision. To review the zoning to be applied on specific parcels, please refer to the attached zone district map. INTERMOUNTAIN A request to reapply zoning on recently reannexed portions of Vail known as a portion of the west half of Section 14, and a portion of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, commonly known as Vail Intermountain Subdivision, blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 and Stephens Subdivision as well as certain unplatted portions. The Town of Vail is proposing to reapply the zoning that was in effect previous to the West Vail de- annexation. In order to review the zoning proposed for specific parcels, please refer to the attached zoning map. 4 1& 1P 411 � \ . D LJ f 2§?§ o % r 2 _/ g 9 9 x c x A J § r R m m= c » \ 2 0 2 % § } § o }§ § 0 § O E m _ rn •@ \ / e n c-, n 2 2 ? \.m � � / ) k k / / � / / n / K E § \ C O 2 ¥ _ � \ \ @ 2¥ \ Z w m e ¥ ¥ - � § / \ @ \ ® c-, » m� q o / r Z \ � F § k Z . . � • � � 2 } B ¥ ` 0 er;st 71D EAGLE COUNTY i r INTERS74TE 70 � s 1 � � �- � , •�.� ' 1 , � 5 ' -'� r� fC ' ' C.6� � i .`lei L .1 � r�� ,'•, _� L' r ;uyuc IUrne 1 • ;' u u n r'r„s .),)f} ei C, Cr.I } ' `•�.�� y ;,�r ry: u, , �:. ? �, t ,��T�:. ( c �` MEADOW CREEK • „ 1i , .� r t ):P.�• -� / SUBDiV15fON TED it Li ' �. '. ��. 'w.. •(, �, y )i'. ^'�. is t'r� '. I�' -'� L 'y'•' . � •, � i ---- ,._,�r�,,"�., !1':T��t�•`sOt�1l�',fi�+�l'� " � `A �r��`' ... �,: f , tip. :. • U� �r)c, I]prfOUCrU �•1 a'W t l 5 '.T ,: •.'!,' J'iC y }n^,.;,..,�).)., cl pnn. `� W - 1.- .�•:';A '• I -, )Cl `� 1h'J Cl - J ).) .;UU17Un�fUU(I000On `l\r (!, I J C) CIO 1 CL , l i lorlc 001; ; OO 01 L) � •."! a.L .,, ,c � J.)r)JJ OUr1 t�U UpO ')O(7O 01 L) ;nnp;Trf {;no0on!)or,n„unUDOUOn , .;I r.,')rJ :' )nUC)c,p ,r) I�fno DlJ [71111 :'4 .t1 „rp ., ,)•; .5: 0 :h!u l,, ,) )'JAI Jt)J00 )0 , t)C?nUU' 0 .0 VII V tip C. • I B.LM OR WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST PARCEL A LION'S RIDGE FILING NO. 2 TOWN OF VAIL BOUNDARY T 'T 0 I 0 0 L fFF 49i rr/ eel 000c�P090000000 lee oo ........ ()QQC)04>ockoov000()Gool ...... lel"ell ol'oe, oobopon000Eo�o �r - ; lee. , O o Q o o nc��C�o e I e 0. 0 01 11 e z ' 0 0 le e leoe" e e le 0 / 0.1 e e I e lee 0 0 e " 0 eo 0 lee 0, e e e, ...... .......... e " 01 ,,e . ..... l ol lee // " ell "/;" l"" , 1 , ;j; -;;- ....... e-flell Xe l eer /e we— 10 W 'o 01 0,., / , e. ll i . ................ e , ;4 R r ;6W 95= le o '00/ oeezeelfee. l . fe 0 'e'll "flee ....... e e 00 ell e0el'IATMAW A51 . . . . . 0 10 ' ell, 1, 0 0 e oe "'lee I',, ol e ell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ele, fl e 10 p000 t e 000 000 0 01 1 eo ""olee elle, lol, ...... 0 l" o"600 0000 0 o c-oc00000000 CASCADE ........... 0000pero o600000 VILLAG 00 00 000000 00 0 c"Q 0 0 0 0 0000 000 a 00 e e 11 11 l e. e 0 10 le I I f e o0w000 00 0 00000 0 - 00 *000 t ) ,voolc�0000 0 00 o q 00 000 00.0, 0 00 0 01) 0 , 00 OOQ Bryan Hobbs moved and Peggy Osterfoss seconded to approve the request with the stipulation that there not be any encroachment into the right -of -way. The vote was 4 -3 in favor of the motion With Pam, Sid and Diana voting against the motion. 5. A request for an amendment to housing restrictions for the Cornice Building located at 362 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Walter A. Huttner This proposal was tabled by the applicant. 6. A ]request to reapply zoning on recently annexed portions of Vail common. known as Lions Ridge Filing #2 and Filing #4 Rid a at Vail and Clzffside 7. A request to reapply zoning on recently annexed portions of Vail common. y known as Vail Intermountain Subdivision Blocks 1 2 3,4 and 9 and Ste hens Subdivision as well as un latted portions. Rick Pylman explained that the Town was reapplying the same zoning that had been in place before these two areas had been de- annexed. J.J. asked if the board would have an opportunity to change the zoning, and Peter replied they could, but that the staff had not looked at re- examining all of the zoning. Rick added that the Land Use Plan had had a few suggested changes, and the staff decided that changes should be made on a private sector basis. Para asked how the zoning related to the zoning the County had imposed, and was told the County had matched as closely as possible the Town zoning before the property had been de- annexed. Diana moved and Bryan seconded to approve the application of zoning to LionsRidge Filing #2 and Filing #4, Ridge at Vail and Cliffside. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. Diana moved and Bryan seconded to approve the application of zoning to Intermountain Subdivision, Blocks 1,2,3,4,5,6,8 and 9 and Stephens Subdivision as well as certain unplatted portions. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. Discussion followed concerning communication with the Highway Department. It was suggested that a PEC member be named to the Parking and Transportation Task Force. Sid Schultz was named to the Task Force. sir 411 ORDINANCE NO. 26 Series of 19137 AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING ZONING DISTRICTS ON PARCELS OF PROPERTY IN THE RECENTLY REA.NNEXED WEST VAIL AREA INCLUDING, BUT NOT Llt'4 TO, LJONSRiDGE FILING N0.2 AIJD FILING NO.A, RIDGE AT VAIL, AND CLIFFSIDE. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail, Colorado, recently re- annexed a portion of the West Vail area, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, effective on May 1, 1987, as depicted in the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, Chapter 18.68 of the Vail Municipal Code sets forth procedures for the imposition of zoning districts in recently annexed areas; and WHEREAS, Section 31 -12 -115 (S) CRS, 1973, as amended, requires the Town to bring newly annexed areas under zoning ordinance within 90 days after the effective date of annexation; and WHEREAS, an application from the owner of Phase III of The Valley has pre"JCc ly been zoned as Special Development District 16, said rezoning shill reTe, the parcel from the jurisdiction of this ordinance; and 60EREAS, the Planning and Environmental Cummission of the Town of Vail has ccnsidered the ZCning to be imposed on the re- annexed area at a public hearing nd . has made a recom- encation to the Town Council to adopt zoning as proposed in this crdirance; a,.d E ?EAS, the Tc.r CounciI corsiders it in the best interests of the public `ety and "e'.fare to so zone said property. 7HEPEFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE 104N OF VAIL, CGLOPADC THAT: Section 1, Procedures Fulfilled The procedures for the determination of the zoning districts to be imposed upon the recently re-annexed west Vail area as set forth in Chapter 18.68 of the Vail Plunicipal Code have been fulfilled. Section 2. A parcel located in the Valley known as Special Development District No.. 16, Elk 1leadows, as generally shown on the attached Exhibit B, shall.be exempt from this ordinance. THE REI1A1N`DER OF SAID AREA SHALL BE REZONED AS SET FOF;7H AS ATTACHED A'.D 1'1CORPORATED IN EXHIBIT B. 0 410 -z- Section 3. As provided in Section 18.080 of the Vail Municipal Code, the zoning administrator is hereby directed to properly modify and amend the official zoning map to indicate the zoning specified herein. Section 4. 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 5 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, aoy 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 ar,y Pl hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. ®I' I'!T•, ::' .ED, READ A',D PASSED 0'J FIPST READING THIS 215t day of Jule 1 G ", and a pudic hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 21st day of 1987 at 7:30 p.m• in the Council Cha of the Vail Piuoic1pa1 Eui {ding, Vail, Colorado. CT dered published in fuli this 21st day of Jul 1987, w r ATTEST; rent n, Rose, Mayor r Tem J;f : -'LI - '� .4 1( ) 4l1! t�)Lf'1.✓ Pamela A. Brandmeyer, To n Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READ114G AND 0 ERED PUBLISHED by title only this 4th day of Aug i't `, Z987.� Pau R. Johns on, Mayor ITT 5T: / Pa ^:ela A. Brandmeyer, Toy.n Clerk 410 -z- i Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRI?T1CN • A-11 of Lots 20 and 21, Section 1- and part of the N 112 Section 12, all :n Township 5 Scach, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Metidian, Eagle County. Colorado, described as a whole as follow: 0 is Eeg!nning at an exISting brass cap e.enur..ent Larking the N 114 Corner of said Sec- I: 12; thence h00'C1'02"u 61.32 1Cet, along the westerly line of Lot 1, Tire F, edge at 4'ai] according to the trap thereof recorded at Reception No. 202800, to the boundary of LIOn's,•F.ld ;e SvbdJvi6Son Filing No. 4 according to the map thereof retcIde'_ at ,r.ece,tIon I X:794; thence the f01Iuwing two t ar. courses along the wt•ut l'. d ncr;herly lanes of said Llun's Ridge Subdivision Ft ling No. 4: {1) 1 C2 13:'.65 feet; (2) !+57'51'42 "E 1376.39 feet, to the northeasterly Corner of asid Llec't Ridge Sut ivlsSon Flling t;o. 4; t [hence the following six courses along r,e ex ;stlr.g Tc' -� of Fail boundary: {l} SCO'G4'39 "L' lint of 1379.52 feet along the easterly said Lien's Ridge Subdivision Filing No, 4; (2) S86'17 3(,0.00 feet aior.g ;he sect'erly lire of said Licn's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 4, to the rl_ "hCasterly corner of Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2 according to the nap thereof recorded at Recepcion uo, 121119: (3) SC0'03'25 "u 4 95.18 feet along El easterly fine of said Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2; {4) departing sale easterly line and continuing 500'03'25 "u 88.62 fevc, to the southerly right- of - va, 1 77.e of Lien's Ridge 7 ].95 foot radius curve v e (5) 4 80.67 feet along said right -of- ly on the arc of a 11 to the right, having a Ccntral angle of 15'48'04 ", and having a chord that bears S51'38'04 "w' 487.12 feet; {6) 559']2'06 "u 1243.30 feet along said rlbht of -way line to the caster IF line of Lion's Ridge Subdivision Flling !;o. 3 according to the nap thereof recorded at Reception No, 187193: thence tcntlnuing along the existing Torn, of Vail boundary and along the easterly line of said Lion's Ridge Subdivision Flling ,:o, 3 1137'09'31 "u 60.41 fee[, to the norther- ly right -cf -way line of said Lion's Rtdde Loop; thence cuntlnulng along the existing Tct of 1'a 11 boundary and said nurtlicrly right -of -way line 1159'32'06 "E 880,)1 feet, to the most easterly turner of said Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. ]: thence the following nine courses along the existing Town of Vail boundary and the easterly and northerly lines of said Lion's RIJge Subdivision Filing Ro. 3: (l) N39'S4'OS "v 330.95 feet; ( 2 ) Sb9' "u 49,27 feet; (3) 255.16 fret along the arc o[ a 135.00 foot radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 108'17'40 ", and having a chord that bears t156'04,0 "w 218,84 (" t; (4) S84'55'16 "u 621.05 feet; (5) 55�'05'O3" ]]0,00 feet; (6) S6E'15'00 "u 990.00 feet: (]) 5)4'45'00 "u 430.00 radius feet; (8) S66'15'00 "w 532,96 feet; (9) 13.36 feet along the art of a 130.00 foot curve to the right, having a central angle of 05'53'11 ", and having a chord that beats 530'03'49 "u 13,)5 rout, to t1,t wcsturly IIne of said Lion's Ridgo Sub - dlvSsion Filing No. ? also being the vesttrly line of said Section 12; thence 1101' 35'59 "E 1524.16 feet along said vesterly lines, to the northwesterly corner of sold Section 12; thence ti88'19 :1 "L 2[7'),92 feet al, +ng the northerly line of said Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing Ko, 2 4J ,o being the northerly IIne of said Section 12, to the northeesterly turner of said Lot 1, The Ridge at t':rll; thence continuing along the northerly line of said Section U and tho northerly 11nv of said Lut 1, Nbe 19' 41 "E 28D.00 fett, to the point of beginning, .........\ .a. ......... - R 11 rri IZZ 0 0 z p� ,0 p ;o a ,o 1� .0 X88 �.,la, '..' • •'• "•• � r Dpc I \,• O nr O ,, C C -, c � fT1 l n.tuu -5 `..;; :: ,p lc • { �``s'. j/. .�� - , ' , , '�'. ; r-'n (,' i 'l I [ . _,� ... ,�S 5�{ • , 3' ' -� 1 1 1 1 r 1 . I r i , . , 1 � � I , ° CD D l i � •Z p '�, F yy, �' ,�� . i', I'i i ' ' • , r' u, �,::,!'�r � r l' "clutuu(ilu s �.• a:� �'',,, yti �1' �'�,�� l ill r►rrrr \ linE4 t l I r r .'•l ll� {tt {(lr(llliff (i(l�l�(I. ,�� ✓��q �: ��`. .i��:� ,,,�: Meadows, as generally shown on the attached txhiOlt b, shall be exemPt Trom this ordinance, THE REMAINDER OF SAID AREA SHALL BE REZONED AS SET FOkTH AS ATTACHED AND 114CORPORATED IN EXHIBIT B. A 410 411 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 16, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for approval of an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I for Rightfit Sports, 225 Wall Street/Wall Street Building/ a part of Lots B & C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Robert Lazier /Rightfit Sports Planner: Jill Kammerer 1 r•:u� :<g �, • �'4Y$�� ,,�„v. 1frY f ... wik: .....�"�. : �. : � f max: -s •y,,g� (¢Y�:�+ 'b,.,:v:��16 s � j ��fF J.U%�ri r� y r G iyl. i i��'� .,4 �� ,;6`�%' -'/ ��F �rp J v sy �•, •O�f U:,�, ,,.;a- Y' - 5 1 , rlt i A }NI ;"'F F' r : ;•.j, �Yj' �f� f � . :f Cf• # �r L�• !f yy � a � a yE �$- 4 ;:. <f^ o6g/°.,�"W k/4 b .y`�` 4 W� a a .d::.,r.r`�ir 3• � :. : +fi 'Y :•ti4r$h I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Approval of an exterior alteration request is required for any addition of enclosed floor area to structures in the CCI zone district. The proposal includes a 15 sq. ft. floor area expansion to the Rightfit Sports retail space, located on the east side of the Wall Street Building on Wall Street. Under the redevelopment proposal the interior of the retail space has been demolished and a new interior is under construction. The square footage of the entry level will increase by ten square feet and the square footage of the second floor will increase by five square feet. The applicant is requesting PEC approval to move the front door of the retail space forward so that it is flush with the eastern facade of the building. fl. BACKGROUND On November 6, 1991 the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed proposed exterior modifications to this retail space. Under this review the applicant requested approval of a new awning, new signage and modifications to the facade of the building. Under the exterior modification plans presented to the DRB there was no addition or reduction in floor area proposed and therefore no exterior alteration approval was required. The proposal which was submitted was approved by the DRB subject to the condition the DRB approve the colors to be used on the facade prior to Town issuance of a T.C.O. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this exterior alteration request: Zone District: CCI 2. Lot Area: 7,318 sq. ft. • 3. Site Coverage: Existing: 4,640 Proposed: 4,640* • *No change in site coverage is proposed with this request because the space to be infilled is already covered by the second floor of the building. 4. Parking: The applicant will be required to contribute $400.00 to the T.O.V. parking fund. The addition will constitute 5% of one parking space. The parking fee for 1 commercial space is $8000.00. (15 sq. ft. /300 =.05 x $8000 = $400.00) IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I 18.24.010 Purpose: "The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly . clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village." The redevelopment of the Rightfit Sports retail space is in compliance with the purpose of the CCI zone district. Under the facade modification approved by the DRB, the applicant has increased the transparency of the facade, thereby increasing ground level activity. The addition will not negatively effect the scale of the building and will improve the overall quality of the space. V. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan includes three elements that establish the review criteria for this application. The first of these is referred to as the Guide Plan which includes a number of sub -area concepts, many of which identify potential areas for future development and other improvements. Secondly, the Urban Design Considerations express the large scale, land use planning and design considerations, and finally architectural /landscape considerations which will be reviewed by the Design Review Board, establish the criteria for evaluating detailed design considerations of a proposal. The Vail Village Master Plan also addresses specific goals pertaining to the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village that must be considered in this application. . In addition to the Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan, traditional zoning considerations are also a factor in this proposal 2 Vl. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE • There are no specific sub -areas relevant to this proposal. VII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The following design considerations are a critical element of the Urban Design Guide Plan. They identify the key physical characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to assure that new development is consistent with this established character. These considerations include the following: A. Pedestrian izatio n: The proposed addition will have limited impacts on the pedestrian traffic flow because of its proposed location. The addition will add interest to this pedestrian area with the increase in window area transparency and increased visibility into the store. B. Vehicular Penetration: Vehicular penetration and circulation will remain unchanged as a result of this proposal. C. Streetscape Framework: Streetscape framework identifies two alternatives for improving the pedestrian experience in the Village. These include the development of open space, including landscaping along pedestrian routes and the development of infill commercial storefronts along pedestrian corridors. While landscaping can provide a softening of buildings and a colorful framework, commercial infill can provide activity generators and visual interest for the pedestrian. As previously mentioned, under the DRB approved facade modification, the increased transparency of the shop frontage will add visual interest to the area. The proposed addition will relocate the front door of the entrance to the shop. The addition will have no impact on the streetscape framework. D. Street Enclosure: The purpose of this consideration is to maintain a comfortable relationship between the width of streets and the height of buildings. The facade modification along the Arcade will have no affect on the street enclosure of Wall Street because it does not increase the overall height of the building. The DRB approved addition will improve the existing condition by increasing the visibility and transparency of the retail business frontage along the arcade. The proposal to relocate the door will have no impact on street enclosure. E. Street Edge: The only modification to the street edge proposed under this exterior alteration request will be moving the front door entrance to the retail space forward (five and one half feet) so that it is flush with the facade of the building. Staff believes that this modification will have no impact on the Wall Street street edge. 3 F. Building Height: Building height will be unaffected. G. Views and Focal Points: The proposed expansion does not affect any adopted view corridors. In addition, the infill will have no Impacts on the line of sight from either the top or bottom of Wall Street. H. Service and Delivery: The proposed expansion will not affect current service and delivery patterns. Sun /Shade: There will be no increase in the shadow patterns as a result of this addition as it is within the existing shade patterns of the building. Architecture /Landscape Considerations: These design considerations are typically the purview of the Design Review Board. The staff believes the architectural detailing and increased transparency resulting from the redevelopment of this retail space will have positive impacts on the appearance of this area by adding visual interest to the space. No landscaping will be removed under the proposed redevelopment. However, the applicant has agreed to contribute $220 for one newspaper dispenser to be . installed in this area. The newspaper dispenser will be the first to be installed in the Village in keeping with the Vail Streetscape Master Plan. VIII. RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN GOAL #2: TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR - AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.1 Policy: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encourage to provide activity generators, accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and street scape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. • rd The proposed infill is consistent with established zoning and the existing uses of the area. The addition will provide interest and activity to an area which currently experiences limited activity. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation is for approval of the requested exterior alteration. The review of the relevant Urban Design Criteria and the Vail Village Master Plan goals show that the proposal is in conformance with the applicable sections of these documents. The applicant will also be required to contribute $400.00 to the Town of Vail parking fund. In addition to the contribution of the parking fund, the applicant has indicated he will contribute $220.00 to the Town of Vail for the purchase of one newspaper dispenser. Staff believes the redevelopment of the Rightfit facade, which includes allowing the front door of the business to be moved forward five and one half feet, will be an additional activity generator for the Wall Street area and will improve the area's general appearance. • GAPEGIMEMOSIR IGHTFIT. D11 • 5 • r1 ENTRY LEVEL DEMO PLAN SCALE: 1/4"=f ^0" • 'TUb I.i"t. 4J/ ' �5� 1✓titro� t�o>�� lM -�IEIz st3.l tzs. d IJ KID 51riJ17�S PIWH HEM UI' ` T M&T4+4 Mv-ild IW4, Pt FoL, s Ike cUc1�3T111[.� T4GOL.. - TI�JJ►t7'ri (A4L alWs. � 12' aN� rtlU woo SILL -31 � A4kvvL V-IN. put-, I tacu� Gr.�ct �1spL�. - r FM K ro 2 J' p— L ofCpS 1 A� l.T '\ 41 �e 1 4 ' I � $ 2}- Ipit �' -3 Id 4 10� 4 11-d �+$ D 0 • I� IlLJ ULJI �7 L.L'bb C I w�� I�cvlr� T Fio p4t2 b,1��LlL�'�idF� . o;✓ 1~41. -L GOI.,'e { t jF ELEVATION SCALE: 114"-f-0" 0 r • - 9 , r"" -7U 6,e-Z) (F*L) - oPY- J OTL-, q d t �- �' n 0 EAST ELEVAT ION PRO