Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0111 PECr PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 1993 AGENDA • Site Visits 11:30 AM Public Hearing 2:00 PM Site Visits 11:30 AM The Valley Crossroads/Family Entertainment Mountain Haus Berkowitz Public Hearing 2:00 PM 1. A request for a work session for the establishment of a Special Development District, a CCI exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change, and an amendment to View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc./Vail Associates, Inc./Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica/Tim Devlin 2. A request for the establishment of a new zone district called Ski Base Recreation II. Applicant: Ron Riley Planner: Mike Mollica/Tim Devlin APPLICATION WITHDRAWN 3. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a major arcade (family entertainment center) to be located at the Crossroads Shopping Center, located on Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing/141 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Charlie Alexander Planner: Tim Devlin 4. A request for variances for site coverage and setbacks to allow the remodel of a residence located at 315 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Howard and Judy Berkowitz Planner: Shelly Mello 5. A request for a setback variance, at the Manor Vail Lodge to allow the construction of a trash enclosure, located on a Part of Lot 1, Block B, Vail Village Seventh Filing/595 East Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1993 6. A request for setback variances to allow the construction of two awnings to be located at the Mountain Haus/292 E. Meadow Drive/a portion of Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Preston Jump representing the Mountain Haus Condo Association Planner: Jim Curnutte 7. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4, Cascade Village Area A, Millrace III to amend the approved development plan to allow for one single family residence and `101 one duplex located at 1335 Westhaven Drive, more specifically described as follows: A part of the SW 1/a, NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at a point of the North-South centerline of said Section 12 whence an iron pin with a plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12 bears S00°38'56'"W 455.06 feet; thence along said centerline N00°38'56"E 122.81 feet to the southerly ROW line of 1-70; thence departing said ROW line N66°53'25"E 39.15 feet; thence departing said ROW line S81023'1 9"E 165.42 feet to a point of curve; thence 122.83 feet along the arc of a 143.20 foot radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 49°08'51" and a chord that bears S1 5057'45"E 119.10 feet; thence S40032'1 WE 3.00 feet; thence 66.30 feet along the arc of a 77.21 foot radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 49°12'10" and a chord that bears S15°56'05"E 64.28 feet; thence S8°40'00"W 90.27 feet; thence N38°42'24"W 224.55 feet; thence S78'1 0'32"W 101.44 feet to the Point of Beginning. Applicant: MECM Enterprises, Inc. represented by Michael Lauterbach Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1993 • b E 14. Update on Cascade Village SDD 4 Amendment 8. A request for a proposed BDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 11/1480 Buffer Creek Rd. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen 9. Review of staff policy on vending carts (ie. espresso carts). Staff: Tim Devlin 10. A request for a work session to amend Chapter 18.32 and Chapter 18.38 of the Vail Municipal Code relating to uses allowed in open space zone districts. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1993 11. Approval of December 7th and 14th PEC minutes. 12. Discussion of PEC board members terms and retreat. 13. Up-coming Eagle County Land Use Plan meeting on January 14th, Christy Lodge, 7:00 to 9:00 PM. 15. Pedestrian Bridge Meeting: Council - January 19, 1993 7:30 PM. 11 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 14, 1992 Present Diana Donovan Jeff Bowen Dalton Williams Greg Amsden Kathy Langenwalter Chuck Crist Gena Whitten (for items 4-8) Staff Present Kristan Pritz Mike Modica Andy Knudtsen Shelly Mello Tim Devlin Russ Forrest 1. The Planning and Environmental Commission was called to order at 1:00 P.M. to hold a work session to discuss a request for the establishment of a Special Development District, a CCI exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change and an amendment to View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A, B, and C, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Golden Peak House Condominium Association/Vail Associates, Inc./GPH Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica/Tim Devlin Kristan Pritz reviewed the staff's concerns and the main points for discussion during the work session as follows: 1. Pull all floor area out of overhangs and deck easements. 2. Keep deck open at Los Amigos. 3. At a minimum pull back the corner of the fifth floor (to lower front area of building below the existing roof line on Bridge Street). 4. Landscape skier access to Vista Bahn. Mike Mollica reviewed the Dreliminarv cost estimates for certain improvements adjacent to the Golden Peak House: 1. Seibert Circle Streetscape = $180,000.00 2. Skier Access Streetscape = $52,000.00 3. Correct major drainage problem from mountain run-off behind Golden Peak House = $36,500.00 at 25% of total = $9,125.00 Craig Snowdon, the project architect, introduced Clark Willingham, the applicant for the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House who reviewed the history of the project. Clark also reviewed the economics of the project stating that the 1.6 million dollars in E costs would produce very little, if any profit. Clark further explained his reason for needing the View Corridor encroachment. Clark demonstrated his economic situation by way of a humorous anecdote: A scientist decided to experiment with a frog, and while taking notes, the scientist put the frog on the ground and said "jump frog jump". The frog jumped four feet. The scientist wrote down that the frog jumped four feet. The scientist then cut off one leg and said "Jump frog jump." The three legged frog jumped three feet. The scientist then cut off another leg and said "Jump frog, jump." The two legged frog jumped two feet. After noting this, the scientist cut off one more leg and said, "Jump, frog, jump." The one legged frog jumped one foot. The scientist noted this, and cut off the frog's last leg and said, "Jump, frog, jump." "Jump, frog, jump!" The frog did not jump, so the scientist duly noted that the no legged frog was deaf. This anecdote was to represent that Clark could not respond any more for the Town and Clark stated that what was being asked was too much and that the improvements to the building for code corrections, drainage, the streetscape improvements, employee housing, etc., totalled 1.6 million dollars. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she did not want further encroachment into the View Corridor. Dalton Williams agreed with Kathy that further encroachment was not necessary and that the proposed bulk and mass of the building needed needs to be cut back to meet the criteria of the Vail Village Master Plan. The Planning and Environmental Commission asked for comments to be made on each issue as raised. The first issue discussed was the height of the building, being raised approximately 4 to 6 feet. Jim Lamont stated that he represented 40 persons (the East Village Homeowner's Association) and that they did not want the roof raised. Roslin Valentine asked about trees that grow into the view corridor and what happens to them. She was answered by the Board that nothing happens to the trees, that they are allowed to grow into the view corridor. Rod Slifer stated that he does not want further encroachment into the View Corridor. Jeff Bowen said that the building is too big for the site and violates the Vail Village Master Plan. He further stated that the issue is not just loosing the view of Riva Ridge. He summarized that the proposed fourth and fifth floors were a concern. Dalton Williams said that the view of Riva Ridge is a holy issue and that the subject is of a delicate nature with the Red Lion and other developments. He stated that it may be negotiable, however too much is being asked for. Kristan Pritz encouraged the PEC to look at all aspects of the project instead of each issue individually. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - 12-1492 2 Chuck Crist said that the encroachment into the view corridor from the Village parking structure was not an issue for him. He explained that the existing Golden Peak House ,Is funky and that tourists remember the funk of Vail and that some funk is necessary." Chuck said that the developers "are not building a Bavarian wedding cake." Diana Donovan agreed with Chuck, and Kathy Langenwalter agreed as well. The next issue discussed was the skier access. Clark stated that he is opening up the access with no trees proposed, however lots of flower boxes were to be added to the building. Dalton Williams said that tourists would prefer the proposed design with no trees, lighted windows, and flowers. Dalton referenced the other accesses being wide and open and decorative and said that the present access is dark and gloomy. Kathy Langenwalter said that she is also not concerned with the trees in the skier access but does not want the width of the access to be any narrower. Diana Donovan said that she would like some landscaping for softening of the building. Jeff Bowen said that it is important to open up the area. Dalton Williams agreed with Jeff Bowen. Chuck Crist said that he would like to see "an overdose of flower boxes." Clark felt that pavers were inappropriate for snow removal but does not have a problem with installing pavers. Clark said that he does have a problem with redesigning the entire drainage on Tract E. Ron Riley stated that he would be making an application for the creation of a new Ski Base/Recreation 11 Zone District to make the dining deck 15' wide. Jim Lamont asked to clarify the application that Ron Riley was making. Jack Curtin stated that he and Mrs. Hill were opposed to the dining deck expansion. Dalton Williams said that he was 100% opposed to the proposal beyond the property line. He further said the building is too massive and does not comply with the existing zoning. He stated that if he were to approve the proposal, he could not sleep at night. Jeff Bowen agreed with Dalton Williams. Ron Riley said Vail Associates researched the ski base run-out area and that Vail Associates was comfortable with a 35' deck. Diana Donovan said that she had a problem with Tract E. She said that she would like to see Tract E donated to the Town as permanent open space if a deck is allowed to 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - 12-14-92 3 encroach into this area. Chuck Crist said that he had no problem with the deck and added that it would be better if the building was pulled back from the west. Kathy Langenwalter said that she has no problem with the deck on property that the Golden Peak House owns but cannot support a deck beyond the Golden Peak House property boundary. Greg Amsden said that some relief is needed on the Bridge Street elevation and the building needs to be reduced in height or pulled back. He felt that the square footage translates to GRFA. Dalton Williams agreed with Greg Amsden. He said that the gable on the west side needs to be taken off, the front of the building should step back and one floor needs to be taken off. Chuck Crist agreed with Greg Amsden. Jim Lamont said he was concerned with the language of the ordinance and the covenants of Tract E. 2. The Public Hearing skipped the originally scheduled items #2 and #3 to accommodate Dr. Kandell, who needed to catch an airplane. A request for setback variances to allow construction of a deck at the Kandell residence, 4259 Nugget Lane East, Lot 2, Bighorn Estates Resubdivision of Lots 10 and 11. Applicant: Bob Kandell Planner: Tim Devlin Tim Devlin reviewed the setback requests with the PEC, explaining that the applicant was requesting relief from the side and Gore Creek setback requirements in order to allow for deck expansion with hot tub. The deck expansion and hot tub had been constructed without a building permit and without Town approval. The specific request was to encroach 15 feet and 12.5 feet into the west and east setbacks, respectively; 7.5 feet is the allowed encroachment for decks located within 5 feet (or less) above ground level. Also, the applicant was requesting to encroach 21 feet into the Gore Creek setback; 10 feet is the allowed encroachment into this setback. The staff supported the side setback variance request but recommended denial of the Gore Creek setback variance request. A recommended condition of the side setback approval was that the applicant plant five evergreen trees, 10 feet in height on the east side of the deck to screen it from view of the neighbor to the east (McCue residence). Dr. Kandell explained to the PEC that his site was uniquely constrained by both the narrow configuration of the lot and by the 50 foot setback requirement from Gore Creek. He also explained that the deck was built larger than he had anticipated, and PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - 12.14-92 4 to, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 1993 MINUTES PRESENT ABSENT STAFF Diana Donovan Chuck Crist Dalton Williams Jeff Bowen Greg Amsden Gena Whitten Kathy Langenwalter Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Shelly Mello Tim Devlin Andy Knudtsen 1. The Planning and Environmental Commission was called to order at 2:00 P.M. to discuss an update for the establishment of a Special Development District, a CCI exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change, and an amendment to View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 279 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc./Vail Associates, Inc./Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc. Planners: Mike Mollica/Tim Devlin Mike Mollica reviewed the staff memo highlighting the changes made from the December 7, 1992 staff memo. Clark Willingham and Craig Snowdon demonstrated with a new model of the project that the proposal is basically the same mass and bulk that is currently existing. This was demonstrated by adding a flat roof between the existing mansards. Mr. Berkowitz, who resides on Mill Creek Circle, opposed the request for the outdoor dining deck and felt that by approving the deck it would set a precedent on the use of open space. Erikson Shirley, a condominium owner in the Red Lion, spoke in opposition to the request for the exterior alteration and the expansion to the Golden Peak House as it Planning and Environmental Commission January 11, 1993 would be detrimental to their views of the mountain from the Red Lion. Jack Curtin, representing Mrs. Hill, was opposed to the view encroachment and the use of Tract E for an outdoor dining deck. Greg Amsden reviewed the numbers per the staff memo, and stated that he is now leaning in favor of the request. Dalton Williams said that he would rather hold off making a decision until the Ski Base Recreation 11 Zone District was in place. Gena Whitten said that she was not in favor of the Commercial Core I zoning change nor was she in favor of the greenhouse enclosure for the restaurant. She further stated that the west side of the building was to massive. Chuck Crist agreed with Greg Amsden about the numbers, however he felt that the deck should be pulled back. He also stated that the Commercial Core I zoning change was not appropriate. Jeff Bowen said that agreement with Vail Associates was critical. Jeff felt that the building revisions "looms less." Jeff felt that he had a public policy problem and said that the building is so far beyond the size and volume which is currently allowable, and that he was uncomfortable with the building extending into the view corridor, not only from the parking structure, but from the street and that the mass boxes in the end of Bridge Street. Diana Donovan stated that until Tract E from the west of Pirate Ship Park to the east is donated to the Town as open space, or otherwise permanently protected as open space, she could not support the project. She said that she was against enclosing the Los Amigos deck as it relates to the Tract E issue. 2. A request for the establishment of a new zone district called Ski Base Recreation II. Applicant: Ron Riley Planner: Mike Mollica/Tim Devlin APPLICATION WITHDRAWN 3. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a major arcade (family entertainment center) to be located at the Crossroads Shopping Center, located on Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing/141 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Charlie Alexander Planner: Tim Devlin Planning and Environmental Commission January 11, 1993 Tim Devlin reviewed the application with the PEC, and explained that the applicant was now able to provide an emergency exit from the space. This was a major point of concern of the PEC at the December 14, 1992, PEC meeting, at which the item was tabled until the applicant could provide a plan that showed a second point of egress. Charlie Alexander explained to the PEC that he had been given permission by Steve Stafford of Slifer Management Company, the firm that manages Crossroads, to use the back stairwell on the west side of the video arcade space as an emergency exit only. Therefore, Charlie was requesting that the entry on the east side of the space still be the primary entry/exit point. Jim Weir, the attorney for the Talisman Condominiums, stated that their opposition to the project was that the proposal, if approved, would add to the loitering and the other problems on East Meadow Drive. Jeff Bowen commented that his opinion had not changed, and that he still felt it would be a public nuisance. Jeff inquired about the handicap access, Jeff stated that he was opposed to the proposal. Chuck Crist inquired about smoking and the security of the loitering problem. Charlie explained that smoking would not be allowed all the way to the top of the stairs, and that they would have the authority to ask any loiterers to leave. 0 Chuck Crist stated that he was in favor of the request. Cena Whitten stated that there was a great need to get the kids off of the street. Gena further stated her concerns for the control of the stairwell. She said she would vote in favor of the request. Dalton Williams said that he was in favor of the request and that it will give the kids something to do. Greg Amsden asked if the PEC had the authority to call up a conditional use if the applicant were not "living up to his end of the bargain." Shelly Mello responded by answering yes - the PEC could call it up at any time. Charlie asked the PEC to consider allowing him to stay open past 10:00 P.M. Dalton felt that 11:00 P.M. was appropriate on weekday nights and that 12:00 midnight was appropriate on weekend nights (Friday and Saturday). Gena and Diana agreed with Dalton's proposed hours, Greg wanted to see it close by 10:00 P.M. Chuck and Greg stated that they thought 11:00 P.M. was appropriate. Chuck Crist said that it should close at 11:00 and not at 12:00. Planning and Environmental Commission January 11, 1993 Diana Donovan said that the late hours were ok and that kids needed a place to go. Dalton Williams made a motion to approve the request per the staff memo, except that the closing times be modified to 11:00 P.M. on weeknights and 12:00 midnight on weekends (Friday and Saturday). A recommendation was made to the applicant to provide a security gate to the upstairs condominiums if the homeowners wanted the gate. Gena Whitten seconded the motion and the vote was 5-1, Jeff Bowen opposed. 4. A request for variances for site coverage and setbacks to allow the remodel of a residence located at 315 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Howard and Judy Berkowitz Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly reviewed the staff memo. Craig Snowdon summarized the information on the drawings and the proposal. Mr. Berkowitz stated that he is taking two triangular bedrooms and squaring them off to make the rooms more useable and that is what is generating the change in site coverage in addition to the new garage. Mr. Berkowitz inquired about the Employee Housing Ordinance and how it affected his property. 110 Bill Pierce represented Martha Head who is an adjacent property owner. He said that she was in favor of the remodel and that it was difficult for this property to be in compliance with the site coverage requirement. Diana Donovan said that if the secondary unit is restricted, then she had no problem with the request. Dalton Williams said that the garage should be within the footprint of the building and that he is not in favor of any increase in site coverage. Greg Amsden said that he would approve the request if the unit was restricted. Gena Whitten said that she was in favor of request. She felt that the height increase in the front setback was appropriate due to the topography of the site. Chuck Crist inquired if any letters had been received by the Planning Department. Shelly Mello stated that one letter and two phone calls had been received, and that they were all in favor of the project. Chuck further stated that he agreed with Diana Donovan, and that he was in favor of the remodel. Jeff Bowen said that he agreed with Chuck Crist. Planning and Environmental Commission January 11, 1993 It was the general consensus that the Board agreed with the applicant and portions of the staff memo. Jeff Bowen motioned to approve the request per the applicant's request for additional garage space, roofline modification, and site coverage modifications with the condition that the secondary unit be restricted as employee housing, and landscaping be installed. Chuck Crist seconded the motion with a 5-1 vote. Dalton Williams opposed the request. 5. A request for a setback variance, at the Manor Vail Lodge to allow the construction of a trash enclosure, located on a Part of Lot 1, Block B, Vail Village Seventh Filing/595 East Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25,1993 Chuck Crist motioned to table the request with Gena Whitten seconding the motion. A unanimous vote of 6-0 tabled this request until January 25, 1993. 6. A request for setback variances to allow the construction of two awnings to be located at the Mountain Haus/292 E. Meadow Drive/a portion of Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Preston Jump representing the Mountain Haus Condo Association Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte reviewed the staff memo with the Planning and Environmental Commission. Preston Jump pointed out the dangerous situation over the east side entrance due to ice on the steps. Chuck asked if the ash can on the east side of the building can be relocated. Preston said no but he plans on converting the building to gas in the Fall so it would be unnecesssary at that time. Chuck moved to approve the north side awning per staff memo, with the condition that its length be limited to 9 feet from the building and that the east side awning be limited to 10 feet from the building. Dalton Williams seconded the motion with a 6-0 unanimous vote to approve the request. 7. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4, Cascade Village Area A, Millrace III to amend the approved development plan to allow for one single family residence and one duplex located at 1335 Westhaven Drive, more specifically described as follows: A part of the SW 1/a, NE 1/a, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at a point of the North-South centerline of said Section 12 whence an iron pin with a plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12 bears Planning and Environmental Commission January 11, 1993 S00°38'56"W 455.06 feet; thence along said centerline N00°38'56'"E 122.81 feet to the southerly ROW line of 1-70; thence departing said ROW line N66°53'25"E 39.15 feet; thence departing said ROW line S81 °23'19"E 165.42 feet to a point of curve; thence 122.83 feet along the arc of a 143.20 foot radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 49°08'51 " and a chord that bears S1 5057'45"E 119.10 feet; thence S40032'1 WE 3.00 feet; thence 66.30 feet along the arc of a 77.21 foot radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 49°12'10" and a chord that bears S15°56'05"E 64.28 feet; thence S8°40'00"W 90.27 feet; thence N38°42'24"W 224.55 feet; thence S7801 0'32"W 101.44 feet to the Point of Beginning. Applicant: MECM Enterprises, Inc. represented by Michael Lauterbach Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1993 Chuck Crist motioned to table the request with Dalton Williams seconding the motion and a unanimous vote of 6-0 tabled the request until January 25, 1993. 8. A request for a proposed SDD and miner subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 11/1480 Buffer Creek Rd. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen Chuck Crist abstained from this request due to a potential conflict of interest. Andy Knudtsen reviewed the request stating that there were three deviations from the code. Tom Braun, representing the applicant, gave a brief presentation. He emphasized that the applicant did not want to request additional GRFA and would be doing further research before the final hearing regarding that issue. Public Input Neighborhood input was then requested and the first speaker was Brian Doolan. He requested that the applicant look into the various Fire Department requirements and come up with an alternative design. Steve Lindstrom spoke second, discussing the differences between the County approval and the proposed plan. He specifically requested that the PEC require Mr. Gensler to reduce the amount of asphalt in his design. Planning and Environmental Commission January 11, 1993 Sally Brainerd spoke next and described the sections that she had drawn in a prepared report done by RKD, Inc. The Planning Commission discussed with her some of the details of the drawings, specifically trying to understand the amount of fill that would be located at the lower end of the proposed road. Sherry Dorward was the last neighbor to speak and she requested that the PEC require the applicant to maintain the character of the area. She described aspects of The Valley and requested that some of these characteristics be included in the new design. Upper Development Area The PEC decided to discuss the upper development area first. Greg Amsden said that interesting architecture was the key to an attractive development. He said that 3,600 square feet of GRFA was quite a bit for that lot. He said that he was concerned about the terracing that would be required with a development in the upper area. He said that it should be kept at a minimum. He said he wanted to see specific aspects of the design at this time prior to any decision on the request. These would include garage entries, the automobile turnaround area for each home, the parking area outside the garage, and the access to and from each building envelope. Dalton Williams advised the applicant to be very careful given the steepness of the slope. He said that the square footage of the structures was an issue but the major issues to him were nailing down grading, cut and fill, and design review issues for the two homes. He also said that the character of the local area should be preserved. Gena Whitten said that she was concerned about the engineering that would be required for building on a slope like this. She said she wanted to see the details of the driveway, the turnaround areas, the slope retention, as well as hazard mitigation. Jeff Bowen said that he concurred with the comments that had been stated. Diana Donovan said that design restrictions for these lots was a good idea. She also said that the two envelopes should be moved together as well as shifted to the east. Lower Development Area Concerning the lower development area, Jeff Bowen began the discussion by saying that putting garages in these homes was a good idea and that most homes in Vail need garages. He continued by saying that the mature evergreen trees should be saved. He also said that the amount of grading proposed was a problem, especially on the west end. Concerning the fact that all of the proposed homes are single family, he suggested that clustering a few as duplexes would help the site plan. Gena Whitten concurred with Jeff's comments and emphasized that the development Planning and Environmental Commission January 11, 1993 should be clustered. She said that by clustering, some asphalt could be eliminated and the amount of grading needed could be reduced. She said that saving the trees was very important. Reducing the size of the units, combining driveways, and shortening the length of the access road by clustering would all benefit the plan. Dalton Williams emphasized that he wanted to see the trees saved. He said that too much of the vegetation would be destroyed. He also said that the design should be in character with the existing area. He also requested that the applicant set the buildings into the hillside to make them look smaller. Greg Amsden said that the asphalt coverage should be decreased and that this could be done by reducing the width of the road. In his own experience with the development review process, he negotiated with the Fire Department to sprinkle the structures and in turn, was able to reduce the width of the drive significantly. He said that this may also help to save trees, which was an important issue to him. He said the square footage of the homes was not a problem but that they should be worked into the hillside. Diana Donovan referred back to page four of the staff memo. She said that the units should be clustered, that they should share common drives and yards, and that they should be designed to save the vegetation around the development. She said that the asphalt should be reduced and that the mature vegetation should be saved. In general, she believed that the units should be clustered closer together at the top of the site to preserve the rest of the site. She concluded by saying that since this is one phase of a multi phase project, the existing neighborhood should definitely be considered in the review of this project. Greg Amsden added a last point and received general concurrence from the PEC that the single family style of development was not an issue. However, he emphasized that issues such as grading, tree preservation, clustering would all have to be resolved and the design improved before the PEG could support the plan. 9. Review of staff policy on vending carts (ie. espresso carts). Staff: Tim Devlin Tim Devlin reviewed the Town's policy on vending carts per the staff memo. Diana Donovan said that she supports the staff memo. Public Comments: Susan Fritz, the Vice President of the Restaurant Association and the owner of the Uptown Grill, inquired about the possibility of having an espresso cart at her restaurant. Planning and Environmental Commission January 11, 1993 Steve Stockman, owner of Krismar, also inquired about outdoor carts. Kristan Pritz explained that the outdoor dining deck definition allowed for them as a conditional use. Kristan explained that once a conditional use for a deck was approved, the cart could be placed on the deck with DRS approval because it would be considered part of the restaurant operation. Steve Stockman and Joel Fritz both asked why their proposed espresso cart was being viewed differently than VA's walk-up window where coffees are sold. Kristan and Tim responded that VA's situation was different because the transactions are occurring inside the building and not outside. Steve, Joel, and Susan were told that they needed to apply to amend their existing conditional use permit (or get a new one) to allow for the new outdoor deck. Then an espresso cart could be placed with DRB approval. Greg Amsden supported the staff memo. Dalton Williams and Gena Whitten supported the staff memo, but felt that perhaps a change was needed in the code to allow for more outdoor vending carts. Chuck Crist was in favor of the staff memo. It was the general consensus of the PEC that they supported the staff's position as explained in the memorandum. 10. A request for a work session to amend Chapter 18.32 and Chapter 16.38 of the Vail Municipal Code relating to uses allowed in open space zone districts. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1993 Chuck Crist motioned to table this request with Dalton Williams seconding and a unanimous vote of 6-0 in favor. 11. The minutes of the meetings of December 7th and 14th PEC minutes were approved. Planning and Environmental Commission January 11, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 7, 1992 - updated on January 11, 1993 (All changes are indicated in bold type). SUBJECT: An update on the establishment of a Special Development District, a Commercial Core I exterior alteration request, a minor subdivision request, a zone change request and a request for an encroachment into View Corridor No. 1 for the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A, B and C, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium Association/Vail Associates, Inc./GPH Partners, Ltd./Margaritaviile, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica/Tim Devlin 1. PROJECT INTRODUCTION The intent of this work session is to continue discussions between the Planning and Environmental Commission, the staff and the applicants with regard to the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House. Since the previous work session (December 14, 1992), the applicants have modified the Golden Peak House redevelopment proposal and the staff has again analyzed the proposal with regard to the Town's development standards (zoning issues). Specific modifications to the project include the following: - The removal of most of the floor area in the "overhang & deck" easements; - The overall reduction of approximately 1500 square feet of floor area; - The reduction in the size of the fifth floor (from 3,222 sq. ft. of GRFA to 2,780 sq. ft.) This floor has also been reconfigured and pulled back from the north elevation (Bridge Street) approximately 9-12 feet. To summarize the requests, 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; 2. A request for a Commercial Core I exterior alteration; 3. A request to encroach into View Corridor No. 1; 11 4. A request to rezone a portion of Tract E (from Agricultural and Open Space to Commercial Core 1); and 5. A request for a minor subdivision, to incorporate the rezoned. Tract E parcel into the Golden Peak House parcel and to incorporate a portion of Lot C into the Golden Peak House parcel. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The Golden Peak House was originally 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 sloped roof forms, flat roof forms, the addition of dormers, balconies, bay windows, and other architectural projections. Such modifications include the addition of a new fourth floor (on the western end of the structure) and the addition of a new fifth floor (on the eastern end). The entire existing "butterfly" roof form would be removed, and gable roofs added. The proposed gable roof forms would have a 3:12 pitch. 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 and generally used as common area/circulation, is not a very efficient use of this interior space. With the redevelopment, the applicant is proposing to infill 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 circulation system throughout the structure. Additional retail/commercial space would be added to the building. Specifically, at- grade retail shops are proposed along the north and west elevations. Restaurant space would continue to be provided on the second floor of the western portion of the building. There are currently 18 dwelling units (and 0 accommodation units) located in the building. The redevelopment proposal calls for 16 dwelling units (2 with lock-offs) and 2 accommodation units, for a total of 17 dwelling units (2 accommodation units = 1 dwelling unit). The entire structure would be brought into compliance with all the current Building and Fire Codes, (the building would be fully sprinkled). General site improvements, around the perimeter of the Golden Peak House, would include the following: 1. A concrete unit paver walkway and covered arcade would be added along the northern side of the structure. 2. The existing trash enclosures, currently located along the west elevation of the building, would be relocated into the basement of the Golden Peak House. The redesign calls for a trash compactor to be located in the basement of the building and a small elevator would be added to transport the refuse up to the first floor when trash pick-ups are scheduled. This would occur at the northeast corner of the building. 3. The applicant has Indicated a willingness to fund some portion of the streetscape modifications to the Seibert Circle area. Such modifications could bring Seibert Circle into conformance with the recommendations of the Streetscape Master Plan. 4. The applicant has also indicated a willingness to fund some improvements to the pedestrian walkway/skier access-way located between Seibert Circle and the Vista Bahn ski base. Such improvements could include the addition of landscaping, drainage modifications and the addition of concrete unit pavers. Due to land ownership issues, cooperation from adjacent property owners would be necessary. 5. The applicant is proposing to construct an expanded outdoor dining deck, at- grade, on the south side of the Golden Peak House. This dining deck would be located upon Tract E and would require the modification of the Vail Village 5th Filing Protective Covenants to allow this use. Additionally, the Los Amigos Restaurant is proposing to enclose the existing outdoor deck area to the south of the building. This deck area is currently located upon Tract E {within the "overhang & deck" easements}, which is not zoned for such use. However, the proposal calls for this portion of Tract E to be rezoned, and through a minor subdivision, incorporated into the Golden Peak House parcel. Further discussion of the issues regarding Tract E follows in Section IX of this memorandum. 6. It is proposed that the five existing evergreens, located along the western elevation of the building, be relocated south of the building, onto Tract E. Because construction of the building would not be possible without severely damaging the existing evergreen trees, the applicant has agreed to replace these trees with large specimen trees. Ill. GOLDEN PEAK HOUSE ZONING ANALYSIS 11 The project's departures from the CCI zone district standards are highlighted in bold type. UNDERLYING ZONING: COMMERCIAL CORE i Site Area:' 8,338 sq. ft. Setbacks: Height: Common Area: GRFA: Units: 4ite Coverage: Landscaping: Parking: Loading: Commercial Uses Gross Floor Area; Per the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan 60%: 33 ft. or less 40%: 33 ft. - 43 ft. 2,334 sq. ft or 35% of allowable GRFA 6,670 sq. ft. or 80% 25 units per acre, or 4.8 units for the site. 6,670 sq. ft. or 80% Per the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan Per Town of Vail parking standards Per Town of Vail loading standards NIA N/A EXISTING PROJECT Same N: 0-6 ft. W: 3-12 ft. S: 6-14 ft. E: 0.5-1.5 ft. East: 46 ft. max. West: 36 ft. max. 6,627 sq. ft. or 99% -2,334 sq. ft. or 35% 4,293 sq, ft. added to GRFA 8,958 sq. ft. + 4,293 sq. ft. (excess common) 13,251 sq. ft. or 159% 18 units 6,345 sq. ft.'" or 76% Required: 55 Required: 1 Existing: 0 7,196 sq. ft 23,241 sq. ft. PROPOSED SDD Same N: 0-3 ft. W: 0-11 ft. S: 0-10 ft. E: 0-1.5 ft. East: 49 ft. max. West: 42 ft. max. 5,902 sq. ft. or 88% - 2,334 sq. ft. or 35% 3,568 sq. ft. - added to GRFA 16,063 sq. ft. +3,568 sq. ft. (excess common area) 19,631 sq. ft. or 235% 17 units (16 DU and 2 AU) 7,868 sq. ft.** or 94% Required: 71 Required: 1 Proposed:0 13,239 sq. ft. 35,322 sq. ft. All of the above development statistics, including the setbacks, have been calculated by staff and are based on the applicant's proposed new lot area of 8,338 square feet. This lot area assumesthe incorporation of portions of Tract E and Lot C into the Golden Peak House parcel. The existing Golden Peak House lot area is 0.159 acres, or 6,926 sq. ft. The new areas (portions of Tract E and Lot C) proposed to be included into the Golden Peak House parcel consist of 1,412 sq. ft, for a total of 8,338 sq. ft. Includes areas off-site (in the "overhang and deck" easements). ? { a IV. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY 1) November 25, 1991 - initial PEC work session. 2) January 13, 1992 - PEC update on the status of the project. 3) January 27; 1992 - PEC work session. 4) October 26, 1992 - PEC work session. 5) November 23, 1992- PEC site visit to review building staking. 6) November 24, 1992 - Council denied request to proceed through the planning process. The request included floor area (commercial and GRFA) to be constructed into the public right-of-way. 7) December 7, 1992 - PEC work session. 8) December 14, 1992 -PEC work session. V. 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." 1) 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. S. 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. 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. 2) 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: A. Pedestrian lzation E. Vehicular Penetration C. Streetscape Framework D. Street Enclosure E. Street Edge F. Building Height G. Views and Focal Points H. Service and Delivery 1. Sun/Shade • 6 3) The zone district amendment criteria (zone change) are listed below: A. Suitability of the Proposed Zoning. B. Is the amendment proposal: presenting a convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives? C. Does the rezoning proposal provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community? 4) The minor subdivision criteria are as follows: A. Lot Area - Chapter 18.24.090 of the Town's Municipal Code requires that the minimum lot or site area for a property located within the CCI zone district be 5,000 square feet of buildable area. B. Frontage - Chapter 18.24.090 of the Town's Municipal Code requires that each lot have a minimum frontage of 30 feet. 5) The review criteria for the view corridor encroachment request are as follows: No encroachment into an existing view corridor shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the encroachment meets all of the following criteria: A. That the literal enforcement of Section 18.73.030 would preclude a reasonable development of a proposed structure on the applicant's land. B. That the development of the structure proposed by the applicant would not be such as to defeat the purposes of this Chapter. C. That the development proposed by the applicant would not be detrimental to the enjoyment of public pedestrian areas, public ways, public spaces, or public views. D. That the development proposed by the applicant complies with applicable elements of the Vail Land Use Plan, Town Policies, Urban Design Guide Plans, and other adopted master plans. E. That the proposed structure will not diminish the integrity or quality nor compromise the original purpose of the preserved view. 0 7 a "43-2 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." • VI, 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: lI tLL rlaa. cI E YM '. titot« Lkcz ? dais, ..L I "#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." mat ?t+•tn7 j ! f`. ? .Qa. t: ? aads a. ty...., j -?+.,?\,._f•./. .n L.".,,y., i '+ CtOtR VAIL fe.-OVitr T TO .t 1 } ? ' wu n rtoa t t_! LJ? s . ( r?'° ? tlCVOA ` ClvFt rtDW {t tOAL rtD [i e CASNO ?t Ott Loom 'MftiStlAf s rtALt \ .' \ ?ilYf YRAWO O++E YAtt r?L6t+I r -A i0'a i ?` ? I 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. 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, 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 0 9 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. 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). VII. 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 10. Said concepts read as follows: 10 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."_ VIII. RELATED POLICIES IN THE STREETSCAPE MASTER FLAN The Streetscape Master Plan specifically addresses the Golden Peak House area as follows: "Seibert Circle is proposed to be replaced by a large planter that is surrounded by low steps for informal seating. A large "specimen" evergreen tree should be maintained in the Circle. Seibert Circle's focal point could be a fountain or an artwork feature that will be visible from much of Bridge Street. One theme currently being discussed is a public art project honoring the 10th Mountain Division. Seibert Circle's ability to be used as a performance site should also be considered." "The primary paving material for the right-of-way area of the Village Core is recommended to be rectangular concrete unit pavers, in the color mix specified in the Guidelines for Paving section of this report. The herringbone pattern, which is proposed for most areas, is edged by a double soldier course. The intent is to satisfy the need for a simple streetscape treatment without being monotonous." "Focal points - such as the Children's Fountain, the intersection of Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive and Seibert Circle - will receive special paving treatments." 0 11 IX. DISCUSSION ISSUES Since this is a work session, there is no formal staff recommendation at this time. However, the staff has identified the following issues, which we would like to discuss further with the PEC and applicants: The proposed encroachment into View Corridor No. 1. - Both the eastern and western portions of the existing Golden Peak House currently encroach into View Corridor No. 1. The eastern portion currently encroaches approximately 8 inches into the View Corridor. The extent of the western portion's encroachment into the View Corridor has not been determined at this time. View Corridor No. 1 is the view from the Vail Transportation Center south to the ski mountain. The Golden Peak House redevelopment is proposing to encroach into this View Corridor approximately 6 feet-2 inches with the eastern portion of the structure. This figure includes the current 8 inch encroachment. The encroachment is visible from the Transportation Center. The effect of the encroachment begins to become more noticeable from the intersection of Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street. As one moves from this intersection south towards the Golden Peak House, it becomes apparent that the redevelopment would impact the views towards the mountain (i.e. Riva Ridge ski run). This view from Bridge Street, although not a formally adopted view corridor, was identified by the PEC at a previous work session as being a very important view in the Village. At this time, it is the staff's understanding that the applicants have hired Eagle Valley Surveying to determine the extent of the existing encroachments, for both the western and the eastern portions of the Golden Peak House, into View Corridor No 1. This information should be available prior to the next PEC hearing on this application. 2. The project's departures from the Commercial Core I Zone District standards, which are specifically listed in the Zoning Analysis section of this memorandum and are as follows: a. Building height b. GRFA C. Common area d. Dwelling unit count e. Site coverage f. Loading berths 3. The Tract E issue. The applicant is currently negotiating with Vail Associates for the acquisition of portions of Tract E (to the south) and Lot C (to the west). The applicants (including Vail Associates, as co-applicant), have requested a zone change amendment for the portions of Tract E described above. Tract E is currently zoned Agricultural and Open Space. The portions of Tract E 12 proposed to be rezoned generally include those areas which are labeled as Easement #1 and Easement #2 on the attached survey. As the owner of Tract E, Vail Associates has previously granted easements to the Golden Peak House to allow for specific 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 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. In order to allow for building modifications in the easement areas, and to be in full compliance with the zoning code, the applicants are proposing the following. -Rezone the easement areas from Agr/Open Space to CCI. -Minor subdivision to incorporate the easement areas into the Golden Peak House parcel. The protective covenants governing Tract E will need to be modified to reflect a change in the Tract E boundary. -SDD overlay on entire Golden Peak House parcel. 4. Los Amigos Deck - Ron Riley, as one of the co-applicants, would like to include an outdoor dining deck on Tract E, which is currently zoned Agricultural and Open Space. The conceptual design for the proposed deck calls for an expansion of the deck approximately 14 feet from the southern face of the existing outdoor deck and approximately 80 feet long. This request will require a zone district amendment. The applicant is considering several possible rezoning options to allow for the deck. These include: A. Rezoning the area for the deck to Commercial Core I zoning. A deck is a conditional use in this district. B. Rezoning the area for the deck to Ski Base Recreation 11, which would involve the creation of a new zone district that has limited ski base uses. A deck would be listed as a conditional use. C. Amending the Agricultural and Open Space District to include outdoor dining decks associated with ski base areas as a conditional use. The applicants are now proposing to enclose a portion of the existing outdoor dining deck, with a "greenhouse" type enclosure. The size of the enclosed restaurant space would be approximately 8' wide, by 50' in length, for a total of 400 square feet. This enclosure would be located in the existing "overhang & deck" easement. Because of the timing of this change to the project, this enclosure has not been included in any of the development standards. Additionally, it is the staff's understanding that Ron Riley will be proposing to add an at-grade, outdoor dining deck, which would extend south from the proposed greenhouse enclosure, into Tract E. At this time no formal application for the review of this deck has been submitted to the Town. It is the staff's understanding that the applicant intends to request to rezone a portion of Tract E to the Commercial Core I zone 13 district and to include a deed restriction to insure the land Is only used for an at-grade outdoor dining deck. 5. Architectural Design Issues - The following comments should be reviewed in conjunction with the proposed elevation drawings for the Golden Peak House. The letters (A, B, C etc.) on each elevation correspond with the comments discussed below. In general, staff believes that the overall architectural style is positive and is compatible with the alpine character of the Village. The applicant has responded with revised drawings since the last work session, and the staff's comments on these revisions follow In bold type. The applicant has not yet provided staff with a revised model to analyze the design modifications. ,NORTH ELEVATION A. The proposed second floor Los Amigos restaurant expansion, on the north side of the west building, will be removed from this application, as the encroachment into the Town right-of-way was not approved by Town Council on November 24, 1992. The revised facade for this area will incorporate stucco, with windows similar to those proposed on the west elevation of the restaurant. In response, the applicant has removed the second floor restaurant expansion on the north side of the building. In addition, stucco has been incorporated into this portion of the building facade as well as windows similar to those proposed on the west elevation of the restaurant. B. The central connection between the east and west halves of the building should be cut back to the east, and roof forms should be simplified and lowered. The hot tub located on the flat roof of this central connection should be relocated to the south side of the fifth floor addition, to a less visible location. In response, the applicant has made changes to this portion of the building. However, without the use of a massing model, it is difficult to determine if the building mass has been decreased in this area. It appears as though the hot tub is no longer located on the roof of this central connection. C. Where applicable, flat roofs should be modified to pitched roofs, similar to the roof forms utilized at the Sonnenalp and Christiania. These roofs should have a truncated peak instead of the traditional ridge peak. One example of this would be to move the existing pitched roof to the east end of the building and extend a gable form perpendicular to this ridge. Other variations are also possible - the idea is to remove the flat roofs which are prominent from the Bridge Street vantage point (and from the ski mountain) and do not comply with the Urban Design Criteria for the 14 Village. It will be necessary to view the model at the work session to explain this concept further. In response, the applicant has removed all the visible flat roofs and replaced them with truncated ridge peaks, similar to those roof forms utilized at the Sonnenalp and Christiania. D. The fifth floor building mass should be pulled back to the south away from Seibert Circle as much as possible to provide relief on the north facade. In response, the applicant has pulled back the fifth floor building mass approximately 9 to 12 feet away from Seibert Circle and has reduced the size of the proposed fifth floor to 2,780 square feet of GRFA, from the previously proposed 3,222 square feet of GRFA (a reduction of 442 square feet of GRFA). In addition, the applicant has added three dormers on the north elevation of the fifth floor, to provide architectural relief for this portion of the building. E. The first floor arcade needs refinement to create more of a pedestrian area. Suggestions include: 1. Delineating the roof of the arcade to break up the height of the facade; 2. Opening up the access through the east end of the arcade; 3. Embellishing the design of the windows and doors through interesting detailing, such as smaller window panes, "grand" entry doors, etc.; 4. Lowering the roof form over the entry. In response, the applicant has opened up pedestrian access through the east end of the arcade. Items 1, 3, and 4 above appear to work better with the revised building design. EAST ELEVATION A. The peaked roof form that is built into the facade to conceal the flat roof behind it should be redesigned. Architectural detailing is essential to this elevation to break up the massing of this facade. It cannot be assumed that the Cyranos Building will redevelop and screen this elevation. In response, the applicant has redesigned the roof forms and has eliminated all visible flat roofs as discussed above. The architectural detailing of the east facade is still of concern to the staff. 15 -is WEST ELEVATION A. The third and fourth level projections (floor area) should be decreased in size to diminish the "canyon" effect through this important gateway to the ski mountain. Perhaps railings could extend in front of the projection to help break up the building mass. In response, the applicant has decreased the size and floor area of the third and fourth floor projections. A small area of floors 1 and 2 (Los Amigos Restaurant) continue to project into Lot C (on the west elevation), all other floor area has been removed from Lot C. B. The large trees (approximately 5) adjacent to the existing building should be preserved. Landscaping in this corridor is critical, as it is a transition area between the Village and the ski mountain. In response, the applicant has agreed to relocate the five evergreens onto Tract E and has agreed to replace these evergreens with several new trees in the corridor. The staff still believes that landscaping in this corridor is critical and would like to see the applicant address this issue further. C. Entry into the Vail Associates commercial space on the south side of the building (under the Los Amigos deck) needs to be more accessible and inviting. The staff's suggestion is to pull back the entry to the east to create more space in front of the door. This would take away some deck area on the floor above. In response, the applicant has pulled back the entry to the Vail Associates commercial space below the deck to create more space in front of the door. D. The first floor retail windows need smaller panes to create a more pedestrian scale. The applicant would like to maintain these windows as display windows, and therefore does not desire to modify them by adding smaller window panes. E. Landscaping, pavers, and lighting should be carried through this gateway to the mountain. The applicant has not addressed this issue at this time, although there is a willingness to participate in this improvement. 16 SOUTH ELEVATION A. The flat roof connections should be integrated into the existing pitched roof forms. The greenhouse on the east side of the fifth floor is somewhat of a "foreign" architectural element in the Village and should be made more consistent with the alpine character of Vail. In response, the flat roof connections have been integrated Into the existing pitched roof forms, and the "greenhouse" discussed above has been eliminated from the fifth floor. B. The Los Amigos outdoor dining deck is proposed to have structure located above it, which is a concern because the deck would no longer have as much sun exposure. The resolution of the additional deck request on Tract E will directly relate to this issue. In response, the floor area proposed above the existing outdoor dining deck has been pulled back and is no longer within the "overhang and deck" easement area. The commercial area below the Los Amigos outdoor dining deck is the only remaining floor area proposed to be located within the easement area (Tract E), with the exception of Ron Riley's proposed "greenhouse" enclosure of approximately 400 square feet. C. Some of the roofs over south facing balconies could be cut back to help decrease the mass and bulk of the building. In response, the applicant has cut back the roofs above these decks. D. Landscaping along this elevation needs to be addressed. With the exception of the five transplanted evergreen trees onto Tract E, from the skier access corridor, landscaping along this building elevation has not been addressed. GENERAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING A. Detailing on the balcony railings should reflect a more alpine character. In response, the applicant has agreed to utilize balcony railings that are more ornamental and reflect a more alpine character. B. Once the mass and bulk of the building is refined, the window detailing on the north elevation should be carried through to the other parts of the project, particularly the east building. 17 4 In response, the applicant has carried some of the window detailing, such as a bay window, over to the east side of the north elevation. 6. Employee Housing Issues - As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans, employee housing is a critical Town issue which should be addressed through the planning process of all development proposals. The employee housing report prepared for the Town of Vail by Rosall Remmen and Cares indicates recommended ranges of employee housing units based upon uses and floor areas. The midpoint of employees generated was used for the analysis. A copy of the report's summary page is attached to this memorandum. Upon review of this report, the staff has analyzed the incremental increase (square footage per use) that the redevelopment would create and we would recommend that the Golden Peak House include employee housing, either on- site or off-site as a part of the redevelopment: a) Bar/Restaurant = 1,081 sq. ft.(@ 6.5/1,000 sq. ft.) = 7.02 b) Retail/Service Commercial = 2,546 sq. ft.( cr 6.5/1,000 sq. ft.) = 16.5 c) Lodging = 2 AU's (P 0.75/unit) = 1.5 emplovees d) Total = 25.06 or 25 employees 25 employees x .15 housing multiplier = 3.75 or 4 employees 25 employees x .30 housing multiplier = 7.50 or 8 employees Assuming two employees per unit, 2 to 4 employee housing units are recommended. At this time no additional information has been submitted to the Town with regard to this issue. 7. Streetscape Design Issues - The Town's Streetscape Master Plan lists numerous improvements which are recommended to be installed adjacent to the Golden Peak House. These improvements generally call for the upgrading of Seibert Circle and the upgrading of the pedestrian/skier access to the Vista Bahn ski base. The applicant has indicated a desire to assist with the cost of such improvements, however, at this time only a preliminary design has been completed (in the Streetscape Plan). The PEG/DRB should recommend and discuss the improvements they would like to see the Golden Peak House developers install/construct as a part of the redevelopment of the site. Such improvements should be directly related to the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House, and should be tied to the mitigation of the project's impacts on the Town and the adjoining public spaces. 10 18 The staff believes that improvements to Seibert Circle should be incorporated into the project because the building is essentially proposed to be built up to the property line. The space in front of the building needs to be addressed in further detail. Staff is in the process of developing cost estimates for the circular plaza per the Streetscape Plan for the applicant. The Vail Village Master Plan specifically cites the relationship of this project to Seibert Circle. The sun/shade analysis should be reviewed when analyzing the Seibert Circle area. At this time no additional information has been submitted to the Town with regard to this issue. Although the applicant has expressed a willingness to participate in these projects, the degree of participation has not been determined. c Apedmemosigoldpeak.111 0 19 EXHIBIT "A" Golden Peak House Sauare Footaae Analvsis Existing Conditions Commercial Common GRFA Basement Level: 1,932 2,460 0 First Floor: 3,963 1,237 0 Second Floor: 1,301 1,332 2,466 Third Floor: 0 1,480 3,749 Fourth Floor: 0 118 2,743 Totals: 7,196 6,627 8,958 Total square footage (gro ss area) = 23,241 sq. ft. Office 0 292 168 0 0 460 10 Proposed Conditions Commercial Common GRFA Office Basement Level: 5,214 1,703 0 118 First Floor: 5,943 1,028 0 0 Second Floor: -2,082 1,595 2,517 0 Third Floor: 0 804 5,242 0 Fourth Floor: 0 729 5,524 0 Fifth Floor: 0 43 2,780 0 Totals: 13,239 5,902 16,063 118 Total square footage (gross area) a 35,322 sq. ft. *Does not include the Los Amigos deck area, which may be proposed to be enclosed at some future date. 20 Exhibit "E" Golden Peak Mouse Dwelling Unit Analvsis Existina: DU AU Basement Level: 0 0 First Floor: 0 0 Second Floor: 8 0 Third Floor: 8 0 Fourth Floor: 2 0 Totals: 18 0 = 18 DUs Proposed: DU AU Lock-off Basement Level 0 0 0 Fi t Fl rs oor: 0 0 0 Second Floor: 5 0 0 Third Floor: 6 2 2 Fourth Floor: 4 0 0 Fifth Floor: 1 0 0 Totals: 16 2 2 Note: 2 AUs = 1 DU Total DUs = 17 9 21 Retail Commercial/Restaurant Residential Office TOTALS: EXHIBIT "C" Golden Peak House Parkina/Loading Analvsis Existing Conditions - Required Parkina Spaces Loadina Berths 23.2 1 30.0 1 1.2 0 54.4 = 55 2 (minus 1 for multiple use credit)=1 berth required Proposed Conditions - Required Parkina Spaces Loadina Berths Retail Commercial/Restaurant 38.7 1 esidential 31.4 1 Office 0.5 0 TOTALS: 70.6 = 71 2 (minus 1 for multiple use credit)=1 berth required 0 22 i .?• n? t ?t•s, ..? ?. {'flit t :1 [t???l. 1! .`, '.1? ,?t ?.j'x4..+Q'?,t.. •?tX, t?"?t++' i ? i•?4? ils?4y: , -- l?? t?• }. # t,• ? .? c ,t , •t qo?,t t t }}j a •i i 4, 3` u - y •) ^+ l ?.+ j F y` t t• ? t ??` l ? .. t} -At ? ?it???• 4? Ct ?t? `• c ? ?l ? ?'. 1, 1 ? y , 'kit 1 .?---'"-'? ....?.-?---- ?- t ??.s e e _ t, ?• ?? 4`l ,t'.' t t ? ?? 5? 4, ... ?^ ^...'e:xr""?- °'°'...x ??? ? y, t; tT, r.. ?•.; a ,yr /a? .?.i.. _ ?, «-• ?e„' .. 17j,Vw._7j+ji"E ..?-{#/^`?_"?'..-/.r..." TIN E O ?- r 3 ..t . . 1 .. } i t immalk f` p 1 ly --- ---- 77 ELE)l E. Pao eo.4 1, AF-Ti, f r WEST'.: ELEV TION Pre. 11,z p poso,c • P l???i?? _? :• ??. ?__??.•? ?? it• 'lit - - .... '<ti..:?? i ?=s?? . ',?.. ? f` I I « !F '4 ' 4 •1 cxx!I j i K e f' 3 L ! Dil,. 1 6 ! 1 i '?=• t? U . 9 ?, r? r • .- pi?o iLIP i [ (1 9 ? 1-T W k ( IF F , rltl? • . • f '? , J '? , T,. •I? . ?-'f ICI 111 ? . ??i _, ? C k?? ?- ?__ __ ?•,??"-rt ?--?:?,_--_-==??_- - -____ ?.._?•. - j SOUTH ELEVATION' Are '4 Z /?,?a/??L 11 rr=? i _- ------------------------ n ' 'LYtt. SOUTH" ELEVATION WgUL JIM EASY ELEVATION tIAN. X93 ?iPoPaSAL NORTH' ELEVATION 6 ? g k r F1 q J w 0 G n w tic w to M o a o w -i a 0 Z w „ J C > r ? o o r f I I I 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 13, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for the establishment of a Special Development District, a CCI exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change, and an encroachment into View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 273 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A, B, C, Block 2 and Tract E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc./Vail Associates, Inc./GPH Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica 11. DESIGN MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THE PROJECT SINCE THE AUGUST 23, 1993 PEC WORKSESSION The purpose of this cover memorandum is to provide information to the PEC with regard to changes to the proposed Golden Peak House redevelopment that have occurred since the August 23, 1993 worksession. The applicant will have the building staked and a revised model for staff and PEC review on Monday. Due to the extent of the changes, the staff felt that a summary, or overview, of the changes would be most beneficial to the PEC. The original memorandum, which includes the staff's detailed analysis of the project, is attached to this memo for informational purposes. Please note that this original memo has not been updated to reflect the changes outlined below. The specific modifications made to the project, since the last PEC worksession, are listed below: -Fourth Floor Roof - Modifications have been made to the fourth floor of the proposed Golden Peak House. Specifically, the western portion of the structure has been pulled back from Bridge Street approximately 16 to 18 feet. In this area, the roof ridge has been reoriented so that it would now run east to west. The benefit of this change is that portions of Vail Mountain, as viewed from the upper Bridge Street area, would be more visible. The proposed fourth floor reconfiguration would reduce the additional shading in the Seibert Circle area. The proposed building shadow line at the winter solstice (December 21st) would be reduced by approximately 0-12 feet. The proposed building shadow line at the equinox (March/September 21st) would also be reduced. This is indicated on Sheet A-15, Site Plan - Sun/Shade Analysis. -Fourth Floor GRFA - By pulling the fourth floor back from Bridge Street, the applicant has proposed to shift some of this GRFA into the "overhang and deck easement area (Tract E) along the south side of the building. The staff has calculated that approximately 410 square feet of GRFA would now be located in this easement area. This is indicated on Sheet A-10, fourth floor plan. Due to the change in the fourth floor layout, the GRFA for the project has been slightly decreased. The fourth floor would now have a total of 5,243 square feet of GRFA, which would be a reduction of 321 square feet of GRFA from the previous proposal. The amount of common area on the fourth floor has also been reduced by approximately 72 square feet. With regard to density (number of units), there would still be four dwelling units located on the fourth floor. -Third Floor Architectural Details - Only minor modifications have been made to the third floor plan. On the western end of the north elevation, the applicant has proposed some minor window modifications and has also included a "false" bay window. These are the only changes proposed at this level. -Fifth Floor Central Area - There are no square footage changes proposed for the fifth floor, however, the south facing exterior deck has been reconfigured so that it no longer projects over the central portion of the structure. This change also helps to open up views to Vail Mountain from the upper Bridge Street area. This is indicated on Sheet A-11, fifth floor plan. Ili. SUMMARY As listed in the previous staff memorandum to the PEC, the following is a list the staff has identified as issues and concerns: 1. View Corridor Encroachment (View Corridor #1) 2. Sun/Shade Analysis 3. Employee Housing The staff thought it would be helpful to further define the employee housing issue regarding the Golden Peak House. As we have previously indicated in our memorandum to the PEC (dated August 23, 1993), the staff has calculated the incremental increase of the number of employees that the proposed redevelopment would create. This analysis was completed utilizing the Employee Housing Report, prepared for the Town of Vail by the firm of Rosell, Remmen and Cares as well as the Employment Generation Rates, also prepared by Rosell, Remmen and Cares (dated June, 1991, revised December 1991). In summary, the staff estimates that the Golden Peak House redevelopment would create a need for five to ten additional employees. This range is due to the housing multiplier that varies from 0.15 to 0.30. The 0.15 housing multiplier is suggested to be utilized when projects are under density. The 0.30 housing multiplier is recommended for use when projects are over on 0 2 0 density. The existing and proposed Golden Peak House is over on density. Depending upon the size of the employee housing unit to be provided, it is possible to calculate up to two employees per bedroom. For example, for a two-bedroom unit in the size range of 450 to 900 square feet, it is possible that this unit would be capable of accommodating up to four employees. A two- bedroom unit, with a size less than 450 square feet, would only be considered capable of supporting one employee per bedroom. The applicant is proposing to provide one two-bedroom condominium unit of 906 square feet in size, thereby accommodating up to four employees. The staff is of the opinion that one additional two-bedroom employee housing unit should be required to mitigate the impacts of the incremental increase in the numbers of employees that the Golden Peak House redevelopment would create. 4. Streetscape Improvements/Landscaping 5. Architectural detailing (east, north and west elevations) 6. GRFA located in the "overhang and deck" easement area As discussed extensively at previous PEC worksessions during late 1992 and early 1993, the staff has expressed concerns regarding the addition of floor area located in the "overhang and deck" easement areas. At the January 1993 PEC worksession, the applicant had modified the redevelopment plans to remove all GRFA within the "overhang and deck" easement areas. The staff and the PEC had expressed specific concerns regarding the south easement area, due to the fact that this property is currently zoned Agricultural and Open Space. The current redesign now calls for additional floor area (GRFA) to be located within this easement area, and once again the staff is uncomfortable with this change. c:Apec\memos\go1dpk.913 1* 3 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 23, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for the establishment of a Special Development District, a Commercial Core I exterior alteration request, a minor subdivision request, a zone change request and a request for an encroachment into View Corridor No. 1 for the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House, located at 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A, B and C, Block 2, and Tract E, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium Association/Vail Associates, Inc./GPH Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc. Planner: Mike Moilica ........... . t. PROJECT INTRODUCTION The intent of this work session is to continue discussions between the Planning and Environmental Commission, the staff and the applicants with regard to the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House. Since the previous work sessions last winter (December 14, 1992 and January 11, 1993), the applicants have made some modifications to the Golden Peak House redevelopment proposal and the staff revised the analysis with regard to the Town's development standards (zoning issues). Some of the specific modifications to the project include the following: - The applicant has entered into a contract with Vail Associates to purchase the "overhang & deck" easements on the south and west sides of the building. - The removal of all of the above-grade floor area (both residential and commerdsa: ' i the "overhang & deck" easements on the north and south sides of the building; As currently proposed, the west "overhang & deck" easement would continue to have approximately 71 square feet of commercial floor area located in the easement area (on the basement, ground and second floors). - The reduction in the size of the fifth floor condominium (2,763 sq. ft. of GRFA). This floor has also been reconfigured and pulled back from the north elevation (Bridge Street) approximately 9-12 feet. - Streetscape improvements have been formally proposed for Seibert Circle. - One off-site, permanently restricted employee housing unit is proposed as a part of the redevelopment. • The "greenhouse" enclosure, originally proposed for the south deck of the Los Amigos Restaurant, has been eliminated from the project. IL DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS To summarize the requests, the Community Development Department has received the following applications for the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House: 1. A request for the establishment of a Special Development District; 2. A request for a Commercial Core I exterior alteration; 3. A request to encroach into View Corridor No. 1; 4. A request to rezone a portion of Tract E (from Agricultural and Open Space to Commercial Core 1); and 5. A request for a minor subdivision, (to incorporate the rezoned Tract E parcel into the Golden Peak House parcel and to incorporate a portion of Lot C into the Golden Peak House parcel). The Golden Peak House was originally 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 sloped roof forms, flat roof forms, the addition of dormers, balconies, bay windows, and other architectural projections. Such modifications include the addition of a new fourth floor (on the western end of the structure) and the addition of a new fifth floor (on the eastern end). The entire existing "butterfly" roof form would be removed, and gable roofs added. The proposed gable roof forms would have a 3:12 pitch. 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 (which includes the ramp), is commonly referred to as an arcade. This area is generally used as common area/pedestrian circulation and is not a very efficient use of this interior space. With the redevelopment, the applicant is proposing to infill 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 circulation system throughout the structure. Additional retaillcommerciai space would be added to the building. Specifically, at-grade retail shops would continue to be located along the north elevation, and the second floor restaurant (Los Amigos) would relocate its public entrance to the northwest comer of the building. There are currently 18 dwelling units (and q accommodation units) located in the building. The redevelopment proposal calls for 14 dwelling units (4 with lock-offs) and 2 accommodation units, for a total of 15 dwelling units (2 accommodation units = 1 dwelling unit). With this redevelopment, the entire structure would be brought into compliance with all of the current Building and Fire Codes, (the building would be fully sprinkled). 2 General site improvements, around the perimeter of the Golden Peak House, would include the following. 1. A concrete unit paver walkway, with an integral snowrnelt system, world be added along the north and west elevations. A covered arcade would be added along the north side of the structure. 2. The existing trash enclosure, currently located along the west elevation of the building, would be relocated into the basement of the Golden Peak House. The redesign calls for a trash compactor to be located in the basement of the building and a small elevator would be added to transport the refuse up to the ground floor when trash pick-ups are scheduled. This would occur at the northeast corner of the building. 3. The applicant has proposed to reconstruct Seibert Circle by utilizing concrete unit pavers in the approved Streetscape design. A 5' wide, colored concrete band is also proposed. 4. The applicant has proposed to add three, 3-inch caliper deciduous trees (in metal tree grates) along the building's west elevation (in the pedestrian walkway/skier access) located between Seibert Circle and the Vista Bahn ski base. 5. The applicant is proposing to construct an expanded outdoor dining deck, generally at-grade, along the south side of the Golden Peak House. This dining deck would be located upon a portion of Tract E. This area of Tract E (within the "overhang & deck" easements), is not currently zoned for such use. However, the proposal calls for this portion of Tract E to be rezoned to CCI, and through a minor subdivision, incorporated into the Golden Peak House parcel. 6. It is proposed that the five existing evergreens, located along the western elevation of the building, be relocated south of the building, onto Tract E. Because it may not be possible to relocate these trees without severely damaging them, the applicant has agreed to replace any damaged trees with large specimen trees. The Tract E issue. The applicant has now entered into a contract with Vail Associates for the acquisition of portions of Tract E (to the south of the building) and Lot C (to the west of the building). Tract E is currently zoned Agricultural and Open Space and Lot C is zoned CCI. The applicants (including Vail Associates, as co-applicant), have requested a zone change amendment for the portions of Tract E proposed to be incorporated into the Golden Peak House parcel. In order to allow for building modifications in the easement areas, and to be in full compliance with the zoning code, the applicants are proposing the following. -Rezone the Tract E easement area from Agricultural/Open Space to CCI. 3 -Minor subdivision to incorporate all the easement areas (Tract E and Lot C) into the Golden Peak House parcel. •SDD overlay on the entire Golden Peak House parcel. The portions of Tract E proposed to be rezoned generally include those areas which are labeled as Easement #1, Easement #2 and Easement #3, on the property survey. Vail Associates, the owner of Tract E, has previously granted easements to the Golden Peak House to allow for specific encroachments, such as roof overhangs and balconies, in the area of Easement Nos. 1, 2 and 3. These encroachments are considered legal, non-conforming uses within the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District, and as 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.. Overall, the project's departures from the Commercial Gore I Zone District standards, which are specifically listed in the Zoning Analysis section of this memorandum, are as follows: a. Building height b. GRFA C. Common area d. Dwelling unit count e. Site coverage f. Loading berths E 4 111. GOLDEN PEAK HOUSE ZONING ANALYSIS The project's departures from the GCI zone district standards are highlighted in bold type. UNDERLYING ZONING: EXISTING PROPOSED COMMERCIAL GORE I PROJECT Soo Site Area:* 8,375 sq. ft. Same Same Setbacks: Per the Vail Village N: 0-6 ft. N: 0-3 ft. Urban Design Guide Plan W: 3-12 ft. W: 0-11 ft. S: 6-14 ft. S: 0-10 ft. E: 0.5-1.5 ft, E: 0-1,5 ft. Height: 60%: 33 ft. or less East: 46 ft. max. East: 49 ft. max. 40%: 33 ft. - 43 ft. West: 36 ft. Max. West: 42 ft. max. Common Area: 2,345 sq. ft or 6,627 sq. ft. or 99% 5,525 sq. ft. or 82% 35% of allowable GRFA -21345 sq. ft. or 35% - 2,345 sq. ft, or 35% 4,282 sq. ft. added to GRFA 3,180 sq. ft. - added to GRFA GRFA: 6,700 sq. ft, or 80% 8,958 sq. ft. 16,176 sq, ft. + 4,282 sq. ft. (excess common) + 3,180 sq. ft. (excess common area) 13,240 sq. ft, or 158% 19,356 sq. ft. or 231% Units: 25 units per acre, or 18 units 15 units 4.8 units for the site. (All Dus) (14 DU, 4 units have lock-offs and 2AUs) 0 Coverage: 6,700 sq. ft. 6,352 sq. ft,"* 7,991 sq. ft.** or 8O% or 76% or 95% Ascaping: Per the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan Panting: Per Town of Vail Required: 55,090 Required: 68.507 parking standards Loading: Per Town of Vail Required: 1 Required: 1 loading standards Existing: 0 Proposed: 0 Commercial Uses: N/A 7,196 sq. ft 13,545 sq, ft. Gross Floor Area:*** N/A 22,781 sq. ft. 35,246 sq. ft, * All of the above development statistics, including the setbacks, have been calculated by staff and are based on the applicant's proposed new lot area of 8,375 square feet. This lot area assumes the incorporation of portions of Tract E and Lot C into the Golden Peak House parcel. The existing Golden Peak House lot area is 0.159 acres, or 6,926 sq. ft. The new areas (portions of Tract E and Lot C) proposed to be included into the Golden Peak House parcel consist of 1,449 sq. ft, for a total of 8,375 sq, ft. ** Includes areas off-site (in the 'overhang and deck' easements). *** Includes Common Area, GRFA, and commercial square footages. IV. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY 1) November 25, 1991 - initial PEG work session. 2) January 13, 1992 - PEC update on the status of the project. 3) January 27, 1992 - PEC work session. 5 4) October 26, 1992 - PEC work session. 5) November 23, 1992 - PEC site visit to review building staking. 6) November.24, 1992 - Council denied request to proceed through the planning process. The request included floor area (commercial .; and GRFA) to be constructed into the public right-of-way (north side). 7) December 7, 1952 - PEC work session. 8) December 14, 1952 - PEC work session. 9) January 11, 1993 - PEC work session. V. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of Special Development Districts 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." 1) The following are the nine special development district criteria to utilized by the planning and Environmental Commission when evaluating SDD proposals. 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. Architectural Design Issues - The following comments should be reviewed in conjunction with the proposed elevation drawings for the Golden Peak Douse. In general, staff believes that the overall architectural style is positive and would be compatible with the alpine character of Vail Village. The applicant has responded to many of the PEC and staff comments regarding the architectural design. A summary of the comments and the applicant's response, for each building elevation, follows: NORTH ELEVATION The central connection between the east and west halves of the building should be cut back to the east, and roof forms should be simplified and lowered. The hot tub located on the flat roof of this central connection should be relocated to the south side of the fifth floor addition, to a less visible location. 6 In response, the applicant has cut back the fifth floor to the east. however, a roof deck is still proposed for this area and there w(; !d; be a strong probability that a hot tub could be added to the deck at futu re date. 2. Where applicable, flat roofs should be modified to pitched roofs, similar to the roof forms utilized at the Sonnenalp and Christiania. These roofs should have a truncated peak instead of the traditional ridge peak. One example of this would be to move the existing pitched roof to the east end of the building and extend a gable form perpendicular to this ridge. Other variations are also possible - the idea is to remove the flat roofs which are prominent from the Bridge Street vantage point (and from the ski mountain) and do not comply with the Urban Design Criteria for the Village. In response, the applicant has removed all the visible flat roofs and replaced them with truncated ridge peaks, similar to those roof forms utilized at the Sonnenalp and Christiania. 3. The fifth floor building mass should be pulled back to the south away from Seibert Circle as much as possible to provide relief on the north facade. Consideration should be given to the elimination of the fifth floor in its entirety. In response, the applicant has pulled back the fifth floor building mass approximately 9 to 12 feet away from Seibert Circle and has reduced the size of the proposed fifth floor. In addition, the applicant has added three dormers on the north elevation of the fifth floor, to provide architectural relief for this portion of the building. 4. The first floor arcade needs refinement to create more of a pedestrian area. Suggestions included: Delineating the roof of the arcade to break up the height of the facade; Embellishing the design of the windows and doors through interesting detailing, such as subdivided window panes (to express individual window elements), articulated entry doors, etc.; Lowering the roof form over the entry. In response, the applicant has opened up the pedestrian access through the east end of the arcade. The applicant has also articulated the main entry door for the Golden Peak House and has further delineated the roof over the arcade. Window detailing is still a concern. 7 EAST ELEVATION 1. The peaked roof form that is built into the facade to conceal the fiat roof behind it should be redesigned. Architectural detailing is essential to this elevation to break up the massing of this facade. It cannot be assumed that the Cyranos Building will redevelop and screen this elevation. In response, the applicant has redesigned the roof forms and has eliminated all visible flat roofs as discussed above. The lack of architectural detailing for the east facade is still of concern to the staff. WEST ELEVATION The third and fourth level projections (floor area) should be decreased in size to diminish the "canyon" effect through this important gateway to the ski mountain. Perhaps railings could extend in front of the projection to help break up the building mass. In response, the applicant has decreased the size and floor area of the third and fourth floor projections. A small area of three floors (Los Amigos Restaurant and lower level commercial space) continue to project into Lot C, all other floor area has been removed from Lot C. 2. The large trees (approximately 5) adjacent to the existing building should be preserved. Landscaping in this corridor is critical, as it is a transition area between the Village and the ski mountain. In response, the applicant has proposed to relocate the five evergreens onto Tract E and has proposed to add three, 3"-caliper deciduous trees (in tree grates) in the corridor. The staff still believes that landscaping/streetscape improvements in this corridor are critical and would like to see the applicant address this issue further. 3. Entry into the Vail Associates commercial space on the south side of the building (under the Los Amigos deck) needs to be more accessible and inviting. One recommendation was to relocate the entry to the east to create more space in front of the door. However, this would take away some dining deck area on the floor above. In response, the applicant has reconfigured the entry to the Vail Associates commercial space by orienting the entry to the north. This change provides a more accessible and inviting entry. 4. The first floor retail windows need smaller panes to add visual interest and to create a more pedestrian scale. The applicant has proposed divided light windows in this area, however, 8 many of the windows have been removed due to the expanded stair width for the second floor restaurant. Staff believes that the windows are important and should be added back to the design. SOUTH ELEVATION 1. The flat roof areas of the building should be minimized or eliminated. In response, the applicant has redesigned the roof forms and has eliminated all visible fiat roofs as discussed above. 2. The Los Amigos outdoor dining deck was proposed to have cantilevered structure (GRFA) located above it. This was a concern because the sun exposure on the outdoor dining deck would be reduced. In response, the floor area proposed above the outdoor dining deck has been pulled back and is no longer within the Tract E "overhang and deck" easement areas. The new commercial area, below the Los Amigos dining deck (below grade), would be the only remaining floor area proposed to be located within the Tract E easement area. 3. Some of the roofs over south facing balconies could be cut back to help decrease the mass and bulk of the building. In response, the applicant has cut back the roofs above these balconies. 4. Landscaping along this elevation needs to be addressed. With the exception of the five transplanted evergreen trees onto Tract E, from the skier/pedestrian access, landscaping along this building elevation has not been addressed. GENERAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING 1. Detailing on the balcony railings should reflect a more alpine character. In response, the applicant has modified the balcony railings and has proposed railings that are more ornamental and reflect a more alpine character. 2. Once the mass and bulk of the building is refined, the window detailing on the western portion of the north elevation should be carried through to the other parts of the project. In response, the applicant has carried the window detailing, such as a bay window, over to the east side of the north elevation. 9 B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. It is the staff's position that the mixture of uses proposed for the site is very compatible with the existing uses on surrounding properties. The uses proposed would meet the purpose and intent of the CCI zone district. With regard to density, although the overall square footage of the project is proposed to be increased, (commercial and residential square footage) the "actual density" is proposed to be reduced. The number of dwelling units will be reduced from 18 to 15. The number of "keys", or rentable rooms will actually increase, from 18 to 20 which is positive. Employee Mousing Issues - As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans, employee housing is a critical Town issue which should be addressed through the planning process of all development proposals. For the Golden Peak House review, the staff has analyzed the employee housing issue utilizing two methods. We have calculated the estimated employee housing demand using the Town adopted Employee Housing Report, and secondly, we have studied information provided by the applicant with regard to the individual business owners' estimates of employee generation, due to increases in the sizes of their individual commercial spaces. The Employee Housing Report, prepared for the Town of Vail by the consulting firm Rosall Remmen and Cares, indicates recommended ranges of employee housing units based upon type of use and floor area. For this analysis, the staff has utilized the midooint of the suggested ranges, for employees generated. A copy of the report's summary page is attached to this memorandum. Utilizing the guidelines in this report, the staff has analyzed the incremental increase of numbers of employees (square footage per use) that the proposed redevelopment would create. The summary is as follows: a) Bar/Restaurant - 298 sq. ft.(@ 6,511,000 sq. ft.) = 1.94 employees b) Retail/Service Commercial = 4,530 sq. ft.(@6.5/1,000 sq. ft.) = 29.44 employees c) Lodging = 2 rooms (@ 0.751room) = 1.5 employees, d) Total = 32.88 or 33 employees -33 employees x .15 housing multiplier = 4.95 or 5 employees. -33 employees x .30 housing multiplier = 9.90 or 10 employees. *.Assumino two employees Der dwelling unit, 3 to 5 employee housing units would be needed per the employee generation formula. The Employee Housing Report does not differentiate between the provision of on-site or off-site housing. Staff believes that the retail employee generation number appears to be high. 10 The applicant has provided letters from the "major tenant space owners" in the Golden Peak House to address and evaluate the employe: housing impacts of the redevelopment. Paul Johnston, representing Christiania Realty, Inc., has addressed the hotel/condominium expansion in the Golden Peak House. Paul believes that there will be no increase in the staff for the `lodging needs of the building, given this redevelopment. Michael Staughton, representing the Los Amigos Restaurant, also does not believe that there will be any need for additional employees as a result of the restaurant's renovation and expansion. Lastly, Jack Hunn, representing Vail Associates, Inc., has indicated that two new employees would need to be hired to operate the new Vail Associates space proposed to be located on the ground floor of the Golden Peak House. Overall, the applicant has estimated that a total of two additional employees would be generated as a result of the Golden Peak House expansion. To mitigate this impact, GPH Partners, Ltd. has proposed that a two-bedroom condominium unit, located in Pitkin Green Park, be permanently deed restricted as an employee housing unit. C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 15.52. The staff has estimated that the incremental increase in the required parking, due to the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House, would be 13.417 parking spaces. Because this property is located in the Commercial Core I zone district, which does not allow for the provision of on-site parking, the developer will be required to pay into the Town's parking pay-in-lieu fund. At the current rate of $3,000 per parking space, the total amount required for the pay-in-lieu fee would be $107,336. Although the existing Golden Peak House does not meet the Town's loading standard, the proposed redevelopment for the site does not increase this nonconformity. This information is indicated in Section III (Golden Peak House Zoning Analysis) of this memorandum. The Vail Village Master Plan states that loading and delivery must be addressed. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. 1. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN The Vail Village Master Plan specifically addresses the Golden Peak House, as indicated in Sub-Area Concepts 3-2 and 3-3. Said concepts read as follows; 11 11#3-2 Golden Peak House Due to this building's gross inconsistency with the Urban Design Guide Plan and neighboring buildings, it is identified as a primary renovation site. Relationship to greenspace on south, Seibert Circle on north, as well as to mountain entryway, are important considerations. Loading and delivery must be addressed." ??' rcD t>?'+ ?? ? HAISiU )rtA ' : xRa C1, ?, `li Or" Lo 6. :3 LJ. ?•..s ate! i #3-3 Seibert Circle Study Area Study area to establish a more inviting public plaza with greenspace, improved sun exposure and a-focal point at the top of Bridge Street. Design and extent of new plaza to be sensitive to fire access and circulation considerations." ea c pct .i„?„?? ? ? '` ..? ...• t ,oo. ? •?Fa. 4 r?.+. n,,.,.ovtt ?. ,flr« <, l , ? L_? u ` CtyRt 11777111. AA t? liC=$t •.? M 1CrCr ttt r . Ott L/0.1 / TA41t 4I.Y )% $ 5 a 12 0 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. 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. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of a now 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. 13 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. 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). 2. 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 10. Said concepts read as follows: 14 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." ??' ' • `may 3. RELATED POLICIES IN THE STREETSCAIPE MASTER FLAN The Streetscape Master Plan specifically addresses the Golden Peak House area as follows: "Seibert Circle is proposed to be replaced by a large planter that is surrounded by low steps for informal seating. A large "specimen" evergreen tree should be maintained in the Circle. Seibert Circle's focal point could be a fountain or an artwork feature that will be visible from much of Bridge Street. Seibert Circle's ability to be used as a performance site should also be considered." "The primary paving material for the right-of-way area of the Village Core is recommended to be rectangular concrete unit pavers, in the color mix specified in the Guidelines for Paving section of this report. The herringbone pattern, which is proposed for most areas, is edged by a double soldier course. The intent is to satisfy the need for a simple streetscape treatment without being monotonous." "Focal points - such as the Children's Fountain, the intersection of Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive and Seibert Circle - will receive special paving treatments." Streetscape Design Issues - The Town's Streetscape Master Flan lists numerous improvements which are recommended to be installed adjacent to the Golden Peak 15 House. These improvements, some of which are described above, generally call for the upgrading of Seibert Circle and the upgrading of the pedestrian/skier access to the Vista Bahn ski base. The applicant has proposed streetscape improvements as a part of the Golden Peak House redevelopment as follows: *The reconstruction of Seibert Circle (utilizing concrete unit pavers) in the approved Streetscape design, with a 5' wide, colored concrete band around the circumference of the Circle. -The applicant has proposed to add three, 3-inch caliper deciduous trees (in metal tree grates) along the building's west elevation (in the pedestrian walkway/skier access) located between Seibert Circle and the Vista Bahn ski base. The staff believes that the redesign of Seibert Circle needs to be very carefully studied and that a Landscape Architect should analyze the design for the Circle. In addition to the surface paver treatment, the staff believes that landscaping, public seating and perhaps a performance area should be provided for in the design. Drainage work around the Circle also needs to be addressed. The staff also believes that the applicant should further review the details for the design of the skier/pedestrian access to the Vista Bahn ski base. We believe that concrete unit pavers would be a much more aesthetically pleasing material than the proposed asphalt surfacing. The PEC should recommend and discuss the improvements they would like to see the Golden Peak House developers install/construct as a part of the redevelopment of the site. Such improvements should be directly related to the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House, and should be tied to the mitigation of the project's impacts on the Town and the adjoining public spaces. The staff believes that improvements to the Seibert Circle area should be incorporated into the project because the building is essentially proposed to be built right up to the property line. Additionally, the Vail Village Master Plan specifically cites the relationship of this project to Seibert Circle. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. There are no natural and/or geologic hazards, or fioodplain that effect this property. 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. Please see Sections V A, E, and H for comments relating to this criterion. 16 G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. The Golden Peak House redevelopment will not impact the vehicular circulation system surrounding this site. Pedestrian circulation has been discussed above. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Landscaping issues have been discussed above. Sun/Shade Analysis - The sun/shade analysis, which is indicated on Sheet A15 in the attached drawing set, indicates by the use of a cross-hatched pattern, the additional shading of the public spaces north of the building during the equinox (March 21/September 21). This additional shading would encroach into the Seibert Circle area as well as cast additional shadow on Hanson Ranch Road. Sheet A15 also indicates the shade and shadow line at the winter solstice (December 21). Clearly, the proposed expansion of the western portion of the Golden Peak House would increase the shade and shadow on upper Bridge Street. Because the applicant has pulled back the proposed fifth floor of the eastern portion of the expanded Golden Peak House, the winter solstice shading in this area has been reduced. However, it should be pointed out that the reduction in the amount of shading, due to the design of the eastern portion of the Golden Peak House, would actually reduce the shading on the roof of the commercial spaces in the Red Lion Building. Some positive improvements to the existing shading would occur on portions of Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road. 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a worktable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The applicant has not proposed a phasing plan for the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House, as it is their intention to complete the entire renovation in one phase. 2) The nine criteria for Commercial Core I exterior alterations shall also be used to judge the merits of this project. Many of these issues have already been addressed in the SDD criteria above, however, the nine criteria are listed below: A. Pedestrianization B. Vehicular Penetration G. Streetscape Framework D. Street Enclosure E. Street Edge F. Building Height G. Views and Focal Points H. Service and Delivery 1. Sun/Shade v 17 3) The zone district amendment criteria (zone change) are listed below: A. Suitability of the Proposed Zoning. B. Is the amendment proposal presenting a convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives? G. Does the rezoning proposal provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community? 4) The minor subdivision criteria are as follows: A. Lot Area - Chapter 18.24.090 of the Town's Municipal Code requires that the minimum lot or site area for a property located within the CCi zone district be 5,000 square feet of buildable area. As proposed, the new lot area of the Golden Peak House parcel would exceed the 5,000 square foot requirement. The new lot area would be 8,375 square feet. B. Frontage - Chapter 18.24.090 of the Town's Municipal Code requires that each lot have a minimum frontage of 30 feet. The applicant is not proposing to modify the frontage of the Golden Peak House parcel. The existing frontage is approximately 115 feet. 5) The review criteria for the View Corridor Encroachment request are as follows: "No encroachment into an existing view corridor shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the encroachment meets all of the following criteria": A. That the literal enforcement of Section 18.73.030 would preclude a reasonable development of a proposed structure on the applicant's land. B. That the development of the structure proposed by the applicant would not be such as to defeat the purposes of this Chapter. C. That the development proposed by the applicant would not be detrimental to the enjoyment of public pedestrian areas, public ways, public spaces, or public views. D. That the development proposed by the applicant complies with applicable elements of the Vail Land Use Plan, Town Policies, Urban Design Guide Plans, and other adopted master plans. E. That the proposed structure will not diminish the integrity or quality nor compromise the original purpose of the preserved view. 18 View Corridor No. 1 is the view from the Vail TranEportation Center south to the ski mountain. The existing Golden Peak Rouse currently encrea--hes into View Corridor No. 1. The extent of the existing encroachment with the ridge line and architectural design of the building. However, the general range of encroachment is as follows: -The eastern portion of the building currently encroaches approximately 1.0 to 1.1 feet into the View Corridor. -One area of the central portion of the building encroaches approximately 12.1 feet into the View Corridor. -The extent of the western portion's encroachment into the View Corridor ranges from approximately 0 to 8.1 feet (at the very western edge of the building). The Golden Peak House redevelopment is proposing to encroach further into View Corridor No. 1 as follows: -The eastern portion of the structure would encroach approximately 3 feet. *The central portion of the redeveloped building's encroachment would range, from approximately 4 to 17 feet (elevator tower). -The extent of the western portion's encroachment into the View Corridor would range from approximately 9 to 11 feet. Because the staff believes that the original intent and purpose of the View Corridor Ordinance is very important to the Town, we have copied it here for the PEC to review: "The Town of Vail believes that preserving certain vistas is in the interest of the Town's residents and guests. Specifically, the town believes that: A. The protection and perpetuation of certain mountain views and other significant views from various pedestrian public ways within the Town will foster civic pride and is in the public interest of the Town of Vail; B. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment of the residents and guests of the Town; C. The preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the Town's unique environmental heritage and attributes; D. The preservation of such views will enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of the Town; E. The preservation of such views is intended to provide for natural light to buildings and in public spaces in the vicinity of the view corridors; F. The preservation of such views will include certain focal points such as the Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower, which serve as prominent 19 landmarks within Vail Village and contribute to the community's unique sense of place." 01 After careful analysis of the review criteria for a view corridor encroachment the staff has the following comments: -We believe that the applicant has not demonstrated that criteria A can be met. We believe that reasonable development of the Golden Peak House site can occur without a view corridor encroachment. -We do not belive that the applicant has demonstrated that the find that the proposed encroachment into View Corridor No. 1' would be in compliance with the purposes of the View Corridor Chapter, as outlined above. Additionally, we are concerned about the possibility of setting a precedent by supporting the requested view corridor encroachment. -We believe that the view corridor encroachment would have a negative impact on the enjoyment and use of the public spaces, ways and plazas adjacent to the Golden Peak House. *It is the staff's position that although the view corridor encroachments would be almost imperceptible from the Village Transportation Center, or at the view point, the effect of the encroachments becomes much more noticeable from the intersection of Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street. As one moves from this intersection south towards the Golden Peak House, it becomes apparent that the redevelopment would significantly impact the views towards the ski mountain (i.e. Riva Ridge ski run). VI. SUMMARY There are many positive aspects of this project. As identified in the memo, there are also some issues which are still concerns to staff. We request that the PEC discuss each issue and provide the applicant with direction on these items in preparation for a final review on September 13, 1993. These include: 1. View Corridor Encroachment 2. Sun/Shade 3. Employee Housing 4. Loading and Delivery 5. Streetscape Improvements/Landscaping 6. Architectural detailing (east, north and west elevations) cApec\m9moslgo1dpeak.823 20 EXHIBIT "A" Golden Peak House Souare Footage Analvsis Existing Conditions Commercial Common GRFA Basement Level: 1,932 2,460 0 Ground Floor: 3,963 1,237 0 Second Floor: 1,301 1,332 2,466 Third door: 0 1,480 3,749 Fourth Floor: 0 118 2,743 Totals: 7,196 6,627 8,958 Total square footage (gro ss area) = 23,241 sq. ft. • Proposed Conditions Commercial Common GRFA Office Basement Level 5,270 1,652 0 122 Ground Floor: 6,188 1,010 0 0 Second Floor: 2,087 1,358 2,577 0 Third Floor: 0 765 5,272 0 Fourth Floor: 0 698 5,564 0 Fifth Floor: 0 42 2.763 0 Totals: 13,545 5,525 16,176 122 Total square footage (gross area) 35,368 sq. ft. Office 0 292 168 0 0 460 0 21 Exhibit "B" Golden Peak House Dwelling Unit Analvsis Existing: DU Basement Level: 0 Ground Floor: 0 Second Floor: 8 Third Floor: 8 Fourth Floor: 2 Totals: 18 Proposed: e DU Basement Level 0 Ground Floor: 0 Second Floor: 3 Third Floor: 6 Fourth Floor: 4 Fifth Floor: 1 Totals: 14 Note: 2 Aus = 1 DU AU 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Dus AU Lock-off 0 0 10 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 2 4 Total Dus = 15 22 0 EXHIBIT "C" Golden Peak House Parking/Loading Analvsis Existing Conditions e Required Parking Spaces Loading Berths Retail Commercial/Restaurant 23.25 1 Residential 30.00 1 Office 1.84 0 TOTALS: 55.09 2 (minus 1 for multiple use credit)-1 berth required Proposed Conditions - Required Parking Spaces Loading Berths mail Commercial/Restaurant 39.596 1 Residential 28.423 1 Office 0.488 0 TOTALS: 68.507 2 (minus 1 for multiple use credit)=1 berth required 0 23 EMPLOYMENT 01!4NMRATTOV RATES EXHIBIT A SUGGESTED EmmoyiviENT CATEGORIES AND RANGES FOR VAIL EXPRESSED AS EASPLOYEES PER 1000 SQUAR.B FEET RRC REsEARcx OVERALL SUGGESTED ;AVERAGES RANGE Bar/Restaurant 5.711004 s.f. 5-811000 s.f. Retail and Service Commercial 5.911000 5-8/1444 Retail: Grocery/Liquor/Convenience 1.8/1044 1.5-311444 Office: Real Estate 7.6/1044 6-9/1000 Office: Financial 3.1/1004 2.5-4/1000 Office: Professional/Other 6.611044 5-8/1444 Conference Center NA 1/1444 Health Club NA 1-1.511004 Lodging* 1.3/room .251.25/room Local Government 6.511000 5-8/1404 Construction (Offices, Interior Storage, etc.) 10.611040 9-13/1000 Multi-Family N/A 0.4/unit Single Family N/A 0.21unit Other: To be determined through the SDD process, upon submission of adequate documentation and a review of the application materials. * Lodging/accommodations has particularly large variation of employees per room, depending upon factors such as size of facility and level of service/support facilities and amenities provided. The standards present a wide range of employment, but it is anticipated that a definitive report will be submitted by each lodging property requesting an expansion, which would then be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. C E ROSALL REM MEN CARES PAGE 6 11 EMPLOYMENT GENERATION RATES EXHIBIT B ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY CALCULATIONS OF EMPLOYEE GENERATION UNITS Land Use Category Residential Tourist Accommodation/ Lodge Commercial Professional/Office Retail/Wholesale/Services Warehouse Manufacture Restaurant/Bar Utilities/Quasi Governmental Other Employees Generated See Occupancy Standards 0.2 to 0.4 employees per room 3.9 employees/1000 s.f. or 1/256 s.f. 3.5 employees/1000 s.f. or 1/285 s.f. 0.4 employees/1000 s.f. or 1/250 s.f. 1.5 to 4.0 employees/1000 s.f 5.0 to 10.0 employees/1000 s.f. 1.5 to 2.5 employees/1000 s.f. Based on review of APCHA CLARIFICATIONS FOR CITY/CouNTY GENERATION: a. The above Employee Generation calculation figures are intended to be consistent with Section 8-109, Affordable Housing, of the City Code and Section 5510 of the County Code. b. Employee generation for commercial uses shall be based on net leasable square footage (see Definitions) and shall be verified by review of the APCHA. C. Affordable housing may be provided on the same site or on an alternate site from the proposed development, provided that credit shall only be given for dwelling units located within the City of Aspen or the Aspen Metro Area, as this area is currently defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Policy Plan. Applicants proposing to provide affordable housing on an alternative site shall be required to demonstrate its feasibility through demonstrating that they have an interest in the property or dwelling units, and be specifying the size and type of units to be provided and any physical upgrades to be accomplished. d. The Aspen City Code Growth Management Section 8-106G(4)(d) refers to the Provision of Affordable Housing. This section allows for the advice of the City Council's housing designee to be used in the determination of the number of employees the proposed development is expected to generate. The standards for employee generation represent the various levels of service which reflect the types of lodge operations in existence or proposed for the City of Aspen. This section allows that the applicant be given the opportunity. ROSALL REMMEN CARES PAGE 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 11, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for setback variances and a site coverage setback to allow the remodel of a residence located at 315 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Howard and Judy Berkowitz Planner: Shelly Mello DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a series of interrelated variance requests to allow for the addition of an enclosed garage space and the remodel of an existing residence at 315 Mill Creek Circle. The first of these is a request for a site coverage variance. Currently, the residence exceeds the allowable site coverage of 20% of the lot size by 1%. The applicant is proposing an additional enclosed garage space with a roof deck which will increase this overage by 2.5%. The location of the garage will be to the west of the existing garage. The proposed garage will require front and side yard setback variances. There will be a minimum setback of 6" from the west property line at the southwest corner of the structure and 6' at the northwest corner. Currently, the property has one enclosed garage space which is in the front and side yard setbacks. The applicant is also proposing to remove a portion of the existing building (88 square feet of site coverage) and add an addition in a different location. The addition will generate a total of 87 square feet of site coverage. Although there is no net increase in site coverage for this remodel, because the building is changing and therefore, the nonconformity is being changed, a variance for site coverage is required. A setback variance is also needed for the proposed increase in height in the front setback. The following details the required variances: SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS: 1. Additional enclosed garage space located in the front and sideyard setbacks. (6 inch minimum setback or a 14'-6" setback encroachment). 2. Additional building volume in front setback due to the raising of the roof. No additional GRFA is proposed in the setback for this item. (9 feet 6 inch minimum setback or a 10 foot 6 inch setback encroachment). AREAS GENERATING ADDITIONAL SITE COVERAGE:, 1. Additional enclosed garage space. (2.5% additional site coverage.) 2. Relocation of building generating site coverage (net decrease of 1 square foot). v Ill. BACKGROUND This property received a setback variance in 1937 to allow for the construction of a single car garage in the front and side yard setbacks. A variance to allow for GRFA below the garage in the front setback was also allowed with this application. No site coverage variance was necessary because portions of the building were cantilevered and at that time, cantilevered areas were not included in the site coverage calculation. A 250 request was also approved with the 1939 approval. Due to the change in the GRFA regulations, this property now has additional GRFA available. GRFA will be relocated and or removed from the existing building to allow for a portion of the renovation. They are not eligible for another 250. Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Primary with Restricted Secondary Total Site Area: 12,114 sq. ft. Allowed Density: 1 primary unit with 1 restricted secondary employee unit Existing Density: 1 primary with 1 unrestricted employee unit Allowed Site Coverage: 2,422 sq. ft. or 20% of the Lot Size Existing Site Coverage: 2,550 or 21% sq. ft. Proposed Site Coverage: 2,353 or 23.5% sq. ft. (2.5% for garage) IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 13.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of a portion of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Garage The proposed garage is approximately 6" from the west proerty line on the southwest corner of the building. There will be a setback of 6 feet from the northwest corner of the property. There will also be a roof deck on top of the expanded garage. The garage has a height of 10 feet plus a 3 foot rail for a total height of 13 feet. The applicant has minimized the size of the proposed garage in order to maintain the maximum setback possible from the west and south property lines. Although the proposed garage is 6" from the property line, the staff feels that a minimum of five willow type shrubs and three 3 inch caliper aspen should mitigate the impact of the building on the surrounding properties. All existing vegetation will be relocated. All utility boxes will be relocated and cancealed. E 2 Height Increase The proposal also includes raising the height of the building in the front setback by 9 feet. The staff finds that the proposed increase will have negative impacts on the 40 surrounding area because this portion of the remodel is 10 feet 6 inches from the front property line. We believe the height of the vaulted space can be reduced. Because the structure is being completely renovated, the staff feels that there are other alterations which can be used to change the architectural character of the building without increasing the height to 24 feet in the front setback. Relocation of Site Goveraae The relocation of the site coverage for the remodel does not change the impact of the building on the surrounding area. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff recognizes that the siting of the existing building does constitute a physical hardship. Because of the existing location of the house it is difficult to improve the property without obtaining variances. Garage The staff feels that the addition of enclosed parking is beneficial and that the proposed location will create the least impact on the adjacent properties. The staff feels that the granting of the setback and site coverage variances will not be a grant of special privilege. Height Increase While the staff finds that there is some need for relief from the front setback variance required for this portion of the request, we feel that the current proposal could be minimized even further. Relocation of Site Coveraae When the existing garage was approved in 1987, the site coverage calculation did not include cantilevered spaces. As a result of the zoning code changes in 1991, which revised the definition of site coverage to include cantilevered spaces, the house is now non-conforming. The staff feels that the building (excluding the overage for the garage) should be brought into conformance rather than be allowed to continue the non-compliance by allowing further improvements to be made. n 3 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. Oaraae The addition of the enclosed garage will improve the existing parking problems for this property. The staff feels that additions of this type on older properties are important because they can decrease the need for on-street parking. This proposal does not impact any other criteria listed above. R. The Rlannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findinas before arantina 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. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff supports the garage portion of the request including the necessary site coverage and setback variances. We find that this portion of the request will not be a grant of special privilege and meets the criteria set out in Section IV (E)(1)(2)(3)(a)(c) of this memo. The staff would request that additional landscaping, to be determined by the DRB, be added to the north and south of the garage to mitigate the impact on the property to the west and that the existing secondary unit be restricted as an employee housing unit per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance. The staff feels that a minimum of five willow type shrubs and three 3 inch caliper aspen along with the relocated existing vegetation will adequately mitigate the impacts of the garage addition. v 4 The applicant has worked with the staff to obtain a proposed plan for this additional garage that the staff can support. In the past, the staff has supported site coverage and setback variances when they are attributed to the provision of additional enclosed garage spaces. The staff does not support the remaining portions of the request. As proposed, the renovation to the building will raise the existing roof in the front yard setback. There is no additional floor area on the second level in this area. The staff has considered the location of the existing building, and feels that there is some degree of relief warranted for this portion of the request, however, the additional volume should be minimal. The staff believes the proposed roof form should be lowered. Therefore, the staff is unable to recommend approval. In regard to the request to change the building footprint, but not increase the net site coverage, the staff feels that when a nonconforming situation exists, it is not appropriate to allow for the continuance through relocation if it is possible to bring the property more in conformance. For this reason, we do not recommend approval of this portion of the request. L` C 5 t r?,C? f' ,-w" . s ??`4?''S "?` ?..,?E ,,.yrpfry41'4?-^.?.,..!.+°??J `--....-- _ t Y, e-xll Irv, e- L? E? ytp? f'X L J H pl It -{ rt'ps?'?S ('5 ? ? ?.`r m Nir+mt ? E 4 ?1. ? ?. ?.- ?L'?'?+ -` ` lhop ??54*+Et.l/ck ? .? • ^KJ?? ,, T",-... - ?+h-"? ?L!?e3. 1? 7 ,lff ? hn**ti?4? tlS?iy t }1 ? f r It4v r '. f 6dea.-'. .p- ?.f'z!o. - Y -.. ? + -?-t' y y,t,fa fF`?}?\ ?"/(? f r--^'i" 1 i PIZ .?. ' s 7 krsK: ? E ?`---. . ?j(,?e?t„v + ?../ t p : L">li.fiD f?! st?''?t•?d? ?a ?;? ? S 1 ' ???-g-}f? ?a t '_?...._ ____.i rr? ? ? ?``, Fsa vP°cct?.? ? tr7v F'¢ ( .j ?t ._: 44s '?^y d s L-ot jj 47 ? 0 0 E 1 } B • • -Al 4 • f • v _ __ _ _ ?.T T , ,.:,. .!_?- _.. .. . ?+ .... ,., E .+ a AIM t ? ? tit ? l Sao -rid mot" 1 ? • 1• ooft \ \ V . ryye) [R? 1 1 La 5I re,u t1? cme aarGWy-? ?rac }°>1 W ? -ter NIA h t fill k??I?rT?r~IW $.v e-TTvr-i"..v- v Ll i '- ? -MAIN FLOOR PLAN`. 0 , n 11 . TIL . -77 .r j ' -^- f ?? ( - _ .. I 1 tni_ 1 n iii (Pe F i s r a r a ?- _"_ a-y [[ s f d t ? _ (j , 1 SOL a F WEST ELEVATION J MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 14, 1992 (Revised memo for January 11, 1993) Revisions are indicated in Bold Italic type. SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow a major arcade (Family Entertainment Center) to be located at Crossroads Shopping Center, located on Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing/141 E. Meadow Drive. Applicant: Charlie Alexander Planner: Tim Devlin DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a major arcade in the Crossroads Shopping Center. Specifically, the proposed location is known as space A017, Crossroads West, and was previously occupied by the Images Unlimited Photography lab space. The basement space is located directly below the Haagen Dazs ice cream shop. A major arcade is defined as "a place of business where an association (et al) maintains five or more amusement devices" (Section 18.04.252). Crossroads Shopping Center is zoned Commercial Service Center (CSC) District, and does allow for a major arcade as a conditional use (please see Section 18.28.040 H), so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area. Since the proposed location is below ground, the staff feels that it meets this criteria. The proposed space is approximately 1350 square feet in area, and would accommodate 20 to 25 video arcade games. The hours of operation would be from 10 A.M. to 10 P.M.. The Office of Community Development has received numerous letters and telephone calls from the residents of the condominiums located in Crossroads objecting to this use being allowed there. The basis for most of the objections include concerns over noise, trash, vandalism, security, property values, and quality of life. 11. BACKOROVND At the December 14, 1992 PEC meeting, this item was tabled because the Planning Commission was not comfortable that the space met all of the Building Code requirements (ie. emergency exit,(second point of egress.) On December 30, 1332, Mr. Steve Stafford of Slifer Management Company v (managing broker of the commercial space in Crossroads) submitted a letter to the Community Development Depa. ;.,gent stating that a back stairwell on the west side of the proposed video arcade space may be used as an emergency exit from the arcade. This letter, as well as floor plans showing the location of the stairwell/emergency exit are attached to the memorandum. A site visit to the space is planned for the PEC on January 11, 1992. Assuming this request for a Conditional Use Permit is granted by the PEC, the Building Department and Pere Department will inspect the space and the proposal to ensure that the applicant meets all of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code requirements. This will occur before anti permits or licenses are issued. For this reason, the staff' has removed this as a recommended condition of approval because it is a necessaru condition of approval for all projects. A copy of the December 14, 1993 PEC meeting minutes f or this item are attached for review. 111. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Community Development Department believes that character of the Crossroads Shopping Center is pedestrian and family-oriented with its ice cream shop, movie theater, retail uses, and eating establishments, and feels that the proposed arcade would be consistent with the uses in the area. 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 opinion of the staff that the proposed arcade will not adversely impact any of the above mentioned 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. 11 Since a majority of the users of the arcade are likely to be adolescents, the staff believes that the impact on congestion and automotive traffic will be minimal. Staff believes that most of the users of the arcade would either walk or arrive by bus or bicycle to the facility. Staff does not feel that snow removal will be impacted in any way. Staff would require that at least two egress points be provided from the center if approved. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use Is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use In relation to surrounding uses. The character of Crossroads is pedestrian and family-oriented, and the staff feels that the arcade would be consistent with existing uses. The scale and bulk of the proposed use would be consistent with surrounding uses. The staff certainly recognizes the concerns of the homeowners within Crossroads that have stated their objections to the proposed arcade. Therefore, staff would recommend that certain actions be taken to mitigate any potential negative impacts of the arcade: 1. Utilize sound absorbing material on the inside of the arcade to minimize the audio impact of the facility; 2. Use noise abatement material on the wooden stairs down to the space to decrease the amount of noise of foot traffic in and out of the arcade; 3. Limit the hours of operation so the facility is closed by 10 PM; 4. Provide increased security as needed. P. Findinas The Planning2nd Environmental Commission shall make the following findinas before arantina 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 • 3 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to operate a major arcade in the Crossroads Shopping Center, space A017. The staff feels that the request meets findings Ili. B (1,2 & 3) discussed above. Because the staff has some concerns regarding noise and security, we recommend approval with the following conditions: The applicant shall: 1. Utilize sound absorbing material on the inside of the arcade to minimize the audio impact of the facility; 2. Use noise abatement material on the wooden stairs down to the space to decrease the amount of noise of foot traffic in and out of the arcade; 3. Limit the hours of operation so the facility is closed by 10 PM; 4. Provide increased security as needed; Slifer Management Company Property Management & Leasing December 30, 1992 To Whom It May Concern: `RT't jft1\1 In ,. F Please be advised that the back stairwell on the west side of the proposed video arcade space may be used by the video arcade owner, employees and customers as an emergency exit from the arcade. I have enclosed a floor plan that shows the back stairwell. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Steve Stafford Managing Broker SSjsd 143 East Meadow Drive, Suite 360, Vail, Colorado 81657 Telephone: (303) 476-1063 Telefax: (303) 476-2523 Zt.t ! wa? YYi +t+> SI.L> ? a.s' a.,F "a+a' .wi n' _ ?_ au.wuA?e yT?lyfw-y r;? .. a.T .. _ ? tHYa IF = O.f< kR r e ~ h. rv. a s. re aY.a r< STOMA6[ )x.16£5 ` VERBATIM HOOKS c ECKETS 1 BEl BULL OCK'S r+RI tan UWL-TCO aY.. ._ r231 Sfr< •'+ srri, NGS tar.. >a nra.ro? a+.+ ) ``?I >.• SrAitS ^ MLRRAY+^-'r A l+? ' ? .TTA?e1 rl C f:i...fa) r f f..y.5 y. . .} fr ?af . . xA$5AGE tya• > TNfAAPY tTtl Sa.? J ] a / f ?J? / _ 11?iK?rtct",`? 4ROSSROAOS L } BOiCmkn4 r ?jt{ • • W, a ?? - T Y3.3 OVLLb E%'5 A PLACE DECXCVS ` NAµb£N ,.` 0k25 "^ti bN EXptN ,?,(5 a.Y ? JJy ? µr/3}A if. 1 ?r/Xr t J t ?? ? 4.b? }}a ?tiH I ?Y(TYP.?ws (?aWGy4X a?I,.r° P?pLi -'Y i w y4T' StC ,.. s T. p. e?I '?lya3. a sfr at. r+. 3 T Lp055AP?PS L??? yd lr, - ? l - ( LNIESI SHOP w? = 1127 3, Gr. YXIL vARKET t • r 4-e? fld CROSSROADS 2 Levti t Sherry and,, Jack responded to his questions about Vail's demographics and design issues. Chuck Crist aske bout the eligibility of outsiders to be buried here. That was discussed briefly and, staff responded that it would be taken back to the task force for more analysis. Kathy Langenwalter thoug\design. was nice and wanted lots of trees. Greg Amsden expressed te to see lots of fast growing trees for screening. Dalton Williams said that the the design. Jeff Bowen said he liked th??cision, he would rather see a different use for thesite. However, given the site selection he liked the design. Diana Donovan stated that the cemetery will be?#oo visible and that a cemetery is inappropriate land use for the site and would visib e from 1-70. She also said that rest- rooms were needed. She also stated that the nam?e,for the cemetery should include "Donovan Park". Kathy Langenwalter was concerned about tool storage aid other out buildings necessary. Chuck Crist recommended the trail not be connected to any other bike path or walking trail. The Design Review board members commented on the design. B6b Borne stating that it was excellent. N George Lamb said that it was very nice. Michael Arnette said that it was a wonderful concept. No vote was taken as this was a conceptual review of the proposal. However, there was a general consensus among all the members of the PEC and DRB that it Was an excellent design. C-4 A request for a conditional use permit to allow a major arcade {family entertainment center} to be located at the Crossroads Shopping Center, located on Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing/141 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Charlie Alexander Planner; Tim Devlin Tim Devlin presented the item to the Planning and Environmental Commission and introduced Charlie Alexander who passed out pictures of different family arcades most nearly resembling his proposal. Tim Devlin passed around letters of objection from 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - 12-14-92 6 other merchants and property owners in the Crossroads shopping center. Kathy Langenwalter asked if smoking would be permitted, and Charlie Alexander explained that smoking would be prohibited, that there would be a dress code, and that no gang types or gang clothing would be permitted. Ingress and egress was an issue with the Board members, and they stated that a second exit needed to be provided in case of an emergency. Kathy stated that in order to gain her support, a separate entrance should provided than the residential use entrance to the building. Greg Amsden expressed his concern over the confined access/egress to the space. Dalton Williams stated that the facility definitely needs a proper egress, in case of emergency. He felt that the opposition letters actually built a case for the applicant, because the Town of Vail needs more facilities for families and youngsters to enjoy besides skiing. B. Britton spoke in opposition of the proposal stating that the facility would bring in teenage groups that would loiter, vandalize, etc. Chuck Crist stated his concerns for the access and liability Diana Donovan said that she supports the proposed use and that a security gate should be provided by the applicant to keep kids from roaming upstairs. She felt that this would alleviate some of the suggested problems of the residential owners. Diana also stated her concern for the problems outlined in the staff memo, but that they could be addressed through the conditions of approval. Jeff Bowen was against the proposal because he felt the arcade would be a public nuisance. Dalton Williams stated that Vail needs a family entertainment area after dark and that Vail needs more recreation for kids. Greg Amsden stated that he felt the space is not appropriate for the proposed use. Gena Whitten said that teenagers are at the area anyway, and that it would be positive to encourage them to go inside a facility instead of hanging out. She further said that the access issue must be solved and inquired about handicap accessibility. Gena felt that the arcade would be a legitimate use, but wanted the applicant to resolve the concerns expressed by the PEC and meet all the building and fire code requirements. The general consensus of the Planning and Environmental Commission was that the item should be tabled until the access and egress issues could be resolved and plans could be provided by the applicant to Community Development. Dalton Williams motioned to table the item until January 11, 1993 with Greg Amsden 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - 12-14-92 7 seconding the motion, with a unanimous vote 6-0 to table the item. 5. A r quest for a work session for variances for site coverage and setbacks to allow the remo el of a residence located at 315 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant. Howard and Judy Berkowitz Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly Mello presented the summarized proposal. Kathy Langenwakter said that the spiral staircase in the front setback should be deleted. She had no problems with the garage and the roof garden provided that they were detailed propky. She did not support the deck enclosure on the east side. She was also sympatheti\to the need to decrease the height in the front setback, but did not feel that it was critical Chuck Crist agreed with Kathy's position. Diana Donovan agreed with Kathy Langenwalter and asked what would happen to the utility boxes. Craig Snowdon stated that they would be relocated. Jeff Bowen felt that the project was ?acceptable and did not have a problem with the deck enclosure on the east side. Dalton Williams was not in favor of the" additional garage space. He said that the garage should be put within the interior of: the space. Dalton further explained that he did not care for the spiral staircase, or the`'additional site coverage, however, the mass was alright. 1. Greg Amsden was not in favor of the circular stair or deck enclosure, however the height increase and garage were okay. Gena Whitten stated that she was not in favor of the,,stair or deck enclosure. Because Rod Slifer, representing the adjustment property owner; could not attend, Diana Donovan related his comments which were related to the impact of the proposed additions on the north side of the building proposed on the neighbor's view to the east. 6. Recommended steps for protecting community forestry re Staff: Jim Curnutte/Russell Forrest/Todd Oppenheimer Russell Forrest presented the plan to have Todd Oppenheimer as the Tree Manager. The Town staff felt that tree removal was more environmental than landscape management. 7. Review of PBS video on Dan Dailey, selected artist for the Vail Transportation Center PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - 12-14-92? 8 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 11, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for setback variances to allow for the addition of two awnings at the Mountain Haus, a portion of block 5, Vail Village First Filing, 292 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Mountain Haus Condominium Association/Preston Jump Planner: Jim Curnutte -- ----------------------- DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND REQUESTED VARIANCES Preston Jump, General Manager of the Mountain Haus Condominiums, is requesting setback variances to allow for the addition of two new awnings to be located over the north and east building entrances at the Mountain Haus Condominiums. The lot is currently zoned Public Accommodation (PA) District which has a setback requirement of 20 feet from all property lines. The existing setbacks from the Mountain Haus Condominium building vary from as close as 6 inches, to a maximum distance of approximately 30 feet. There are instances where decks, concrete pads, and an existing awning on the west side of the building actually encroach beyond the property lines. The two new awnings, if approved, will match the existing awning on the west side of the building in terms of materials and style, with the exception that the end of the proposed east awning will have a flat front instead of a bullnose. The "half-barrel" shaped awnings will be constructed of hemlock colored tweed over 1 inch square tubular steel. The bottom of the awnings will be covered with white vinyl. The awnings will be placed approximately 8 feet above the ground and will be supported by two 2 inch round steel posts. North side variance request The awning proposed to be placed over the north building entrance is 12 feet long, 6 feet-8 inches wide and 4 feet high (please see the attached drawing). The existing building setback from the north side entrance to the property line is 3 feet-9 inches therefore the proposed awning would encroach 8 feet-3 inches beyond the property line. The proposed encroachment would be located within the Gore Creek Drive right- of-way. If the proposed variance request is granted a revocable right-of-way permit will be required to allow for the construction of the awning within the public right-of-way. v East side variance request The awning proposed to be placed over the east side entrance is 10 feet long, 8 feet-2 inches wide, and 4 feet high. This awning will be placed on a portion of the building located over the stairwell which leads to the east side entrance doors. This portion of the building is currently located 5 feet from the east property line, therefore the proposed awning would encroach 5 feet beyond the property line and onto the property owned by the Vail Athletic Club. The applicant has provided a letter from the General Manager of the Vail Athletic Club supporting the variance request and allowing the awning to encroach onto Athletic Club (see attached copy). Since the setback requirement on this lot is 20 feet and awnings are only allowed to encroach into the first four feet of a required setback (Section 18.58.040 of the Vail Municipal Code), a 12 foot setback variance is requested on the north side and a 10 foot setback variance is requested on the east side. 11. BACKGROUND The Mountain Haus Condominium Building was constructed prior to the adoption of the Town's Zoning Code and is considered to be a pre-existing nonconforming use. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of the criteria and findings in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variances. Staff would recommend, however, that the north side variance be limited to 6 feet, which allows the awning to extend 2 feet-3 inches beyond the property line. The staff's recommendation for approval is 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. North side variance request The location of the proposed awning on the north side of the building has been reviewed by the Town's Fire and Public Works Departments. These departments have no technical concerns with the location of the awning as proposed. Fire protection services will by unaffected and the Public Works Department has indicated that the required revocable right-of-way permit can be rescinded if future improvements in the area become necessary. The planning staff, however, feels that allowing the awning to extend 12 feet beyond the face of the building will have a negative effect on the loading area directly in front of the building. In addition, the in-town shuttle bus and many pedestrians use this corridor. This loading area becomes very congested at times and we feel that the proposed length of the awning will only compound the problem. The applicant may wish to consider carrying the awning across the window area to better identify the building entrance. East side variance request The staff believes that the location of the proposed awning on the east side of the Mountain Haus Building will not have a detrimental effect on existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The area between the Mountain Haus Condominiums and the Vail Athletic Club is used by trash pick up vehicles as well as pedestrians. The location of the proposed awning, directly above and in front of an existing stairwell, will not hinder vehicular or pedestrian circulation. Pedestrian safety may actually be enhanced by reducing ice and snow build up in the stairwell leading to the entrance doors. As mentioned previously, the applicant has provided a letter from the general manager of the Vail Athletic Club authorizing the proposed awning encroachment onto their property. 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. North side variance request Staff believes that the length of the awning being proposed for the north side entrance to the building is excessive. We support the applicants desire to create a better sense of entry on this side of the building, however, we feel that those goals can be accomplished with a shorter awning that does not impede circulation in an already crowded loading area. East side variance request Staff believes that the extent of the requested 10 foot variance on this side of the building is warranted. The awning covers the stairs leading down to the east side entrance doors as well as the platform at the top of the stairs. To require the awning to be shorter than the requested 10 feet would compromise the purpose for which it is intended. 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. North side variance reauest As mentioned previously, the planning staff feels that the extent to which 0 3 the awning is proposed to extend beyond the face of the building is excessive. It would appear that limiting the length of the awning to five feet would accomplish the applicants desire to improve the appearance of the building entrance without a significant negative impact on the use of the area in front of the building for loading purposes. East side variance reauest Staff feels that approval of the requested variance on this side of the building will not negatively effect light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities or public facilities and utilities. It would appear that public safety may actually be enhanced be the addition of the proposed awning over the east side stairwell. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findinas before arantina 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 owner's of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed setback variance on the east side of the building as requested. The staff also recommends approval of the setback variance on the north side of the building, with the condition that the extent of the encroachment beyond the property line be limited to 2 feet-3 inches for a total awning length of 6 feet from the face of the building. 0 4 The required findings necessary for granting a variance are met, in staff's opinion, as discussed below: 1. Staff believes that granting approval of the variances, as qualified by staff concerning the north side awning, would not constitute a grant of special privilege. The PA zone district development standards on this lot were imposed after the building was constructed, virtually eliminating the ability to add an awning to the facade of the building without obtaining a variance. 2. Staff believes that approving the variances will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, provided that the length of the awning on the north side of the building be reduced from 12 feet to 6 feet. 3. Staff believes that the variances are warranted specifically because the location of the building creates an extraordinary circumstance and physical hardship which warrants some flexibility in the setback requirements for awnings. v VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB 352 EAST MEAWw DRIVE VAIL, COLOPAL&a 81657 303/476-0700 FAx 303/416.6451 December 12, 1992 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 111 So. Frontage Rd. Vail, Co. 81657 Dear Town of Vail, I am writing today in support of the efforts of the Mountain Haus Condominiums to construct a new awning on their east entrance. The Vail Athletic Club approves of this project between our buildings and hopes that its approval can be expedited to allow completion at the earliest possible date. If I can be of any further assistance please don't hesitate to call. Si , ager /eeral e Man M - i 4 • y c s s mow. _ mom..: ?..u ???..?:. ?.-_`.-°..`:?:..?`:.;" ?.., ...... _...._, ..- ~?• - ..... s E ??. 4 ?Zt Y•j?•S `? r f ..f r fir .r Y,",....._•' r ' t . s te'G> v'-f/f t : t {fi.'?? Y f' t t'z.•.? e.,"' "'.C.?J'?.__._.._,r+''u' i. (..?I... .? L'.'? ? ? L? ''Y4?'?• ? ?,,.,? "C/' [. f ? 1 ?'" t? CJ..frE _ s + -T: 7 1 • { C74 _ • ? It i i 0 t i f A ?*T 3 4I le, vA ? 1 ? E x 'fit <i 4 . __ 11 ic" Y 3 r', J Y f f +yy?p„ {3: r"'?Y 4 9 0 W61 s le, Aljo l n? GORE CREEK ROAD (40) tam _3 200.00' SHEDr.,;Tt. .3 CONC. RETAlNJNO WALL _ CONCRETE 28' h {rpECK 47 RETAINING WALL (( 4 io h 13 0',.? s ?* ^9 3?ft ?wnj DECK I r/ `6 a '? F ?- i • Q3 POOL AREA IL _ 3-4 21.0 2.2 p ti t 227 ti N DECK 0.7' Y7.3' 8.6' h 1.4' F ?{ N l -- 4.J' ?? - i'? gbh F ry p , Qp acv, t.OCtL °^ o \r-- - _ ! I IDECK ',F 4.3'6' p 1 ; ( 47 r? 72.T h ? p 8.4' 7.7' p ? - d 6 J' ' ' O ELEQ BOX 4.T CoNa ( PAD ( n O _ _, fNNDOW WELL (THE VAIL CLUB ( (p s? / 4.7 !JKE ?1AlL CLUB' _ T_ ?9f SlCt-G lt ll,Jn1?Q . WE MOUNTAIN HAUS CONDOMINIUM , ) q MUL 77 LEVEL MASONARY WOOD FRAMED 77 's o.s, b ? 5 ? 7' 4.T - ?-J- 7• } - - rr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 49 0.6'--"' lao, 09, o 8 W 4.7' - - - 21.01 '2, Jzs' ?s b ? - C, ? - - - -- . - ' - - - ' ' DECK _ vi ?r ?r w DECK ( - - - - - 0.8, 0.5 _p -- - - - - - - - ?? ..?_?? 4.4 4.4 17- 4' far a7 as N87 42'00 "W 100.00' N 0.6' r.2' - (? 7.8 - 26.8' 2.3' o p p 2 T - - 19 'a j,5 ' 1 ROCK WALL \ `°• - - DECK a 4.29 - - 4.4 4.3 w DECK - - - , s, - - - - - b -34.4' -06` ?Y (li'-- - JO2 .1G 00 W N87 42 00GY :100.00' ?`4 a' 15.00' os' - 1s' TRACT B ! hereby cerfify that this i POOL AREA MAIN ENTRANCE r H e-. 200.00 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 11, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a work session to discuss a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 1111480 Buffer Creek Rd. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen I. Proiect Overview The applicant is proposing to modify an Eagle County approved development plan located on either side of Buffer Creek Road in Phase 11 of "The Valley". The site is made up of two separate areas. The upper area, located north of Buffer Creek Road, is proposed to have two single family homes on it. The lower area, on the south side of the road, is proposed to have seven single family homes. Detailed descriptions of each area will be provided later in the memo. The reason the applicant is applying for an SDD is to allow: 1. One lot to be created (on the upper area) which does not meet the minimum buildable area for this zone district; 2. Development to be located on slopes greater than 40%; 3. Additional GRFA that exceeds the amount approved by Eagle County. In conjunction with the special development district request, the applicant has submitted a minor subdivision proposal. The minor subdivision would create lots for the two single family homes on the upper development area only. It is the intention of the applicant to use the single family subdivision process in the lower development area and sell off individual houses as they are constructed. II. Backaround The proposed development plan is part of the second phase of The Valley, The six different phases of The Valley were approved in Eagle County in the late 1970's and the early 1980's. On June 3, 1980, the County approved 32,909 square feet of GRFA and 26 dwelling units for this phase. Some of this development potential has already been used in the Grouse Glen and Buffer Creek Townhouse developments. Since the County approval, the area has been annexed into the Town of Vail. The ordinance annexing this area (Ordinance 13, Series of 1981) includes a provision recognizing the County approval. The Ordinance states that any significant changes to the previously approved plans must be reviewed by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. The Eagle County approved plans dated June 3, 1980 provide a benchmark for evaluating the proposed development statistics. Since the original approval, there has been partial development of the site. Grouse Glen has been constructed, using six dwelling units and 6,233.8 square feet of the GRFA. In 1991, Jack Snow completed construction on five existing foundations which are now called the Buffer Creek Townhomes. This development used five dwelling units and 7,208.9 square feet of GRFA. The remaining development potential includes 15 dwelling units and 19,466.3 square feet of GRFA available for Steve Gensler to use on the rest of the site. The following table summarizes this information: Eagle Grouse Buffer County Glen Creek Aogroval Townhouses 26 D U's 6 D U's 5 DU's 32,909 sq. ft. 6,233.8 sq. ft. 7,208.9 sq. ft. Remaining Development Potential 15 D U's 19,466.3 sq. ft. The character of the County approved plans is quite similar to the previous phases of The Valley, which have been built out. The plan for the lower area consisted of a centralized parking area at the top of the site, with walking paths to the dwelling units. There was no automobile access to any of the units, and as a result, there were no garages. The units were two to three stories in height (24' to 30) and ranged from 924 to 1400 square feet of GRFA. The proposed development for the upper area consisted of five dwelling units, similar in design to the rest of The Valley. There was no parking in this area, other than a "pull-out" area off the north side of Buffehr Creek Road. It is important to note that the County approved plans for the upper area located the units partially on slopes greater than 40%. On June 24, 1991, December 9, 1991, and December 16, 1991, the PEC reviewed very similar plans to the current proposal. Steve Gensler was the applicant at that time, also. During the 1991 review of this project, it was determined that the proposal involved three departures from Town of Vail zoning standards. Because of these departures, the applicant has applied for an SDD. Ill. Detailed Description of the Current Prooosal. 0 Lower development area The lower development area is proposed to have 7 single family homes. These will be located on either side of a private access road. Four of these homes will be located within the existing grove of trees on the site. Two of the homes will be located in the meadow. One will be located in the existing parking lot. The applicant has tried to design this area so that two existing stands of trees (approximately 4-5 aspen) can be preserved. We believe the design can be modified to save more trees. The proposed access road descends from Buffer Creek Road at an 8% slope. The road is intended to be 22 feet wide and will provide automobile access to garages in each home. There will be a fire truck turn around located on the bottom of the road. The lower end of the road will be constructed on approximately ten feet of fill. There will be one series of three retaining walls which are located at the lower end of the road to support the fill. The walls are three feet, three feet, and four feet in height. The seven homes in this area will have a GRFA which ranges from approximately 1,700 square feet to approximately 2,200 square feet. In addition to this square footage, each home will have a two car garage. The ridge heights for the proposed homes range from 27 feet to 33 feet in height. This area is affected by both rockfall and a debris flow hazard. A drainage study has been completed for this site and a detention pond will be provided at the lower end of the development. Upper development area The upper development area is designed at this time to include two single family homes, which each have their respective building envelopes. There would be a total of two single family homes in the upper development area. For the western site, there will be an envelope of 3600 square feet and a proposed GRFA of 3,424 square feet. The eastern envelope will be 3,100 square feet in size and is intended to have 2,775 square feet of GRFA. Access to these parcels is proposed to be from a 12-foot wide shared driveway. This area is also affected by rockfall and debris flow. Please see the reductions of the design in the attached submittal material prepared by Tom Braun, of Peter Jamar and Associates, Inc. 0 3 IV. 01no Analvsis Zoning: Reside ntial Cluster Lot Area: Upper 40,740 sq. ft. Lower 105,318 sq. ft. Total 146,058 sq. ft. June 3, 1980 Countv Approved Plan Dwelling Units 15 *GRFA 19,466 sq. ft. Site Coverage per dev. plan Setbacks per dev. plan Height Parking Landscaping Retaining Walls *Size of Buildable Area in Proposed Lots per dev. plan per dev. plan per dev. plan per dev. plan n/a • Buildable Lot Area: Upper: 8,386 sq. ft Lower: 64.623 sq. ft. Total: 73,009 s4.-ft.-- Current 1993 Countv Gensler Design Proposal 15 15,777.2 sq. ft. 6.9 % or 10,209 3' front 22' side 5' rear 30' 22 spaces*** 86% or 125,673.3*** 9 19,966 sq ft. 11.3 % or 16,489 sq. ft 20' on all sides 33' 36 spaces 77% or 113,135.3 sq. ft. 4'-6' n/a Other comparisons (please note that these are not zoning standards) Asphalt coverage per dev. plan 7.3% or 10,742.3 sgft*** Impervious surface per dev. plan 14% or 20,385.6 sgft*** *Deviates from Zoning Code standards **Measured by staff ***Assumes that only half of the full circle of parking is built 6' 0 sq. ft.** 8386 sq. ft.** 9.2% or 13,500.6 sq. ft. 22.3% or 32,624.6 sq. ft. • Residential Cluster Potential 10 18,252 sq. ft. 25 % or 36,514 sq. fit. 20' front 15' sides 33' 10 x 2.5 = 25 spaces 60% or 87,634.6 sq. ft. 6' 8,000 n/a n/a 4 V. Evaluation of Kev Issues 1. GRFA Staff sees that the request for additional GRFA is a primary issue. Previous to this specific design, Mr. Gensler had proposed to include a restricted employee dwelling unit and reduce the number of units as part of the project. The request for additional GRFA has not changed since the previous work session; however, the provision of an employee housing unit has been deleted. The two issues are tied together, in staff's opinion. We believe that without the employee unit, the additional GRFA request is not appropriate. Staff believes that the GRFA of the proposal should be reduced by 500 square feet to comply with the Eagle County approval. 2. Hazards Staff believes that the hazards affecting the site, particularly the upper development area, are important factors to consider. We request the survey and site plan be updated to reflect the extent of hazardous areas, as shown on the Town's adopted hazard maps. This is particularly important, in staff's opinion, as it affects the location of the envelopes on the upper development area. In addition, staff requests that the geologist who evaluated the hazards provide additional information. The geologist should discuss the grouting in more detail that is referred to in the report stating how often it needs to be done and who is responsible for doing it. Staff would also like to know more about the potential for mitigation. It is referred to in the report, yet not recommended. Please see the report from Nicholas Lampiris, which is at the end of the packet submitted by the applicant. 3. Lower Develooment Area Staff is concerned that the proposed design of the lower development area is not compatible with the existing natural setting. Primary areas of concern include the amount of fill which is proposed for the site, the way that the fill will disturb the site, and the amount of trees that will be lost as a result of the site disturbance. Of particular importance are several old evergreen trees. Staff believes these should be identified on the site plan and that the development should be altered to preserve them. In some cases, this will involve slightly shifting the proposed houses. In other cases, like the access road alignment, this will mean significant changes. Staff is also concerned about the style of architecture which is proposed. The forms of the homes are relatively square and are not integrated into the hillside as well as they could be, in staff's opinion. We believe that the homes could be broken up to reduce the apparent mass, could be worked into the hillside better, and could be shifted slightly to preserve significant stands of trees. Staff believes that alterations should be made to the proposed site plan. This may include a variety of ideas and staff is not recommending one alternative above another. Some of the changes that would address staff concerns include clustering the homes, shifting them down the hillside, out of the trees, reducing the amount of access road, shifting the access road to the north, or adjusting the homes around existing trees. Staff would like to emphasize some of the numbers that were listed above in the zoning analysis. When one evaluates the amount of site coverage and impervious surface, one can see that the proposed plan exceeds the County approval significantly. There would be approximately 6000 square feet of additional site coverage and approximately 12,000 square feet of additional impervious surfaces. Staff believes that modifications like these could be approved, only if the revised development was sensitively placed on the site. The key issues in the lower development area for staff are the removal of trees due to the current design and the fill of the road. We believe the applicant should rework the plans, adjusting the buildings and road so that all major evergreen trees are preserved. We understand that both development plans would have removed trees and we think that at this time, if all the evergreens can be preserved, that the development character will improve. Staff also thinks that the fill of the road will significantly alter the character of this area. We believe the fill should be minimized. 4. Uoi3er Uevelooment Area Staff feels that there has been improvement in this plan since the last work session. The applicant has decreased the number of dwelling units proposed in this area, and as a result, the applicant has been able to reduce the width of the road from 22 feet to 12 feet. This, in turn, has reduced the amount of cut and fill and the number of retaining walls. Staff believes that the new 12 foot wide road is a much better solution. Staff continues to be concerned about the size of the building envelopes and the length of road. We understand the applicant's desire to provide latitude within the building envelope to future architects who develop these envelopes. However, we are concerned about the damage that could be done to the steep hillside. We believe that the envelopes should be made smaller. We would also like to see the length of the road reduced and the envelopes shifted to the east, if possible. We understand that the hazards will affect both of these issues, and would like to see the hazard information, as discussed above before we make a final recommendation. At a minimum, the distance between the envelopes could be reduced to accomplish this goal. We believe that the applicant, in addition to making the envelope more specific, should identify a disturbance area. This would ensure that the future development of this area would not involve architectural designs that require large areas of site disturbance. We believe that the homes in these two envelopes should be "benched-in" on the hillside and that excavation to the sides and rear of the envelope should be prohibited. This is a similar condition that was applied to the Zneimer property, which is Phase VI of The Valley. Staff requests that the applicant provide cross sections of the road showing the resulting slopes on either side. At the time, we understand that no retaining walls are needed. However, we would like to verify this with the cross sections. 0 6 Another issue which needs resolution in the upper development area is the location of the property line. The surveyor has identified two front property lines: one is based on the original plat of the area and the other is based on the title information for the property. Staff researched this issue with the Public Works staff and found that at the time of platting, the road right-of-way was created with large tracts of land around it. The parcel currently under review was separated out from the larger pieces at a later date. From this preliminary information, it appears that the right-of-way line has a senior position to the boundary line shown in the title report. Staff requests that the applicant either provide information that justifies a different conclusion or modify the survey and site plan to reflect the Town's position. VII. SDD Criteria Staff will evaluate these criteria at a later date when the project is scheduled for a final review. At this time, staff recommends that the applicant focus on some of the issues listed above which relate to the criteria. 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. 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. 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. 0 7 VII. Concerns of the Fire and Public Works Deaartments The Fire and Public Works Departments have the following concerns: Fire: The lower area, as shown, needs hydrants. With the addition of hydrants, the road layout appears to meet the Fire Department standards. 2. The upper area, as shown, must be modified to provided access which conforms with the Fire Department standards. A range of options is available to the applicant including sprinkling, shortening the driveway, and/or providing pedestrian access from Buffehr Creek Road. Public Works: 1. Two portions of the lower access road include 10% and 20% slopes. These must be reduced to 8%. 2. Drainage calculations need to be reworked to look at off-site flows. Ensure that the ditch on the west property line is adequate to handle the impacts from the project. 3. Show how the retaining walls on the lower plan can handle drainage running over them. 4. Redesign all finished grade slopes in excess of 1:1 to a maximum of 2:1. VIII. Minor Subdivision Criteria The standards for creating lots in this zone district are as follows: Section 18.14.050 "The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand square feet, containing no less than eight thousand square feet of buildable area. Each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet. Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet on each site within its boundaries." Though both of the proposed lots exceed the minimum size, the west lot does not contain the minimum amount of buildable area. The requirement is for eight thousand square feet, and the proposal, as measured by staff, provides no buildable square footage for the western envelope. If the SDD is approved, this deviation from the standards may be allowed. Public Works staff' has reviewed the plat and needs to see easements added to it. These 0 8 include an access easement for the road in the lower area, pedestrian access easements for any paths which connect it to the rest of The Valley, and a drainage easement. The drainage easement should tie into a legal drainage easement created for the developments below. The PEC is the approving authority for the Minor Subdivision request. However, Town Council is the approving authority for the SDD. As a result, staff recommends that once the plat is modified to address the Town staff concerns, that the PEC make their approval contingent upon the Town Council's approval of the SDD. IV. Conclusion Staff believes that the applicant should pursue an alternative design for the lower development area. We believe that a compromise between the 1980 County approval and the current proposal is appropriate. We believe that some automobile access is reasonable, particularly for fire truck access, but that with the current design, there is too much fill, too many mature evergreens removed, and too much site disturbance. We believe that the applicant has a variety of components in the design that could be modified to improve the compatibility of the proposed development with the surrounding setting. We suggest one or more of the following: clustering the homes, shifting the homes, reducing the amount of roadway, clustering parking, reducing the amount of fill, adjusting the building footprint and architecture so that it is more sensitive to the site, or other changes which will make the proposed development more compatible with the existing terrain and conditions. 17J Please see the attached minutes from the previous PEC meeting, the submittal information prepared by Tom Braun of Peter Jamar Associates, inc., and comments prepared by the nieghbors. 0 9 raj 1'`?- 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 Rosoiack 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 4. Applicant. Crossview at Vail Properties, Inc./Steve Gensler Planner: Andy Kn'uUtsen ----- Kristan Pritz presented the proposal for Andy Knudtsen, staff planner, who was ill. Kristan 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 1994 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 1984 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. 11 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. fe 2 i? ?>-? 2 ,? t ?' to ? ? y,f %;'f y 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. Fundy 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 1-zone-district, 223 Bridge Street/a 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 eo ` r . / 2/ ..? 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 il. Tracts A and B, a part of Parcel A, Lions Midge Filing No. 2, commonly referred to as The Valley, Phase li. 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 June, 1930, 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 1960 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. 0' 1 ? 2 0-0 " a + or Chuck Crist wondered with the nearness of Buffehr Creek Road, if a hydrant on Buffehr 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 544 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 $544,444 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. Torn 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 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 500 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: Food Slifer Planner: Jill 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 11 to the Cano Residence, Lionshead Center, 520 E. Lionshead Circle, Unit 205/Lot 5, Block 9, Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Victor Cano Planner: Andy Knudtsen 4 g v MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE. January 11, 1993 SUBJECT: Review of Town of Vail policy on outdoor vending carts (ie. espresso carts) as they relate to 18.24.190 (A,B) of the Municipal Code. Planner: Tim Devlin 11 iI. BACKGROUND 1. ISSUE The Community Development Department has received several inquiries recently regarding the desire of several merchants to allow for outdoor vending carts in Vail Village and in Lionshead. They would like to have the Town consider the carts as being an outdoor display of goods as defined below. This memo is intended to brief the PEC on the current policy regarding these carts and to discuss if it should be changed to allow for the carts under the outdoor display of goods section of the code. Section 18.24.190 "Location of business activity" (Commercial Core 1 zone district) reads as follows: A. All offices, business and services permitted by Sections 18.24.020 through 18.24.050 shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted unenclosed parking or loading areas, and the outdoor disolav of goods (emphasis added by staff). B. The area to be used for outdoor display must be directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and be entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. The same wording is also found in the Commercial Core 11, Commercial Core 111, and Commercial Service Center zone districts. It is the interpretation of the planning staff that outdoor vending carts do not meet the criteria necessary to be considered an "outdoor display of goods" as discussed in Section 18.24.190 (A,B) of the Municipal Code. Currently, the Town considers the outdoor display of goods to include the display of merchandise such as books, clothing, artwork, etc. Merchants that display goods outside are required to have the customer actually come inside the store to pay 11 for the item. This requirement is based specifically on section 18.24.190 (referenced above) which states that "all business... shall be conducted entirely within a building..." The staff believes that this section of the code is not intended to include food and beverage items, and sees potential enforcement difficulties of requiring businesses and customers to conduct all monetary transactions associated with these carts inside the subject establishment. The staff believes that such an arrangement would be cumbersome for the customer, and that it is unrealistic to think that the operation will function in a way that payment will occur inside. The staff also recently spoke with the restaurant association to see if they would be interested in considering this option. Their response was that they felt that this would be unfair business competition because the owners of the vending carts would be paying little (if any) rent and would be taking business away from the legitimate food service operators. The staff recognizes that the restaurant representatives have a vested interest in this issue; however, we believe that their concerns are important to consider. It is also important to note that several years ago, staff investigated the possibility of adding some more vending cart locations in the Village and Lionshead. The idea was not pursued as there was strong opposition from some community members. The concerns were primarily that the carts would create unfair business competition with existing restaurants and that the appearance of many carts would create a carnival atmosphere. There are outdoor vending carts located in Lionshead, Golden Peak, and Vail Village (ie. popcorn wagons) that are "grandfathered" uses that have been in place since before the inception of this particular section of the Municipal Code. In addition, a vending cart is allowed at the Vail Village Inn and at the Lionshead Ski Base area. With regard to allowing outdoor carts on private outdoor restaurant dining decks, the staff believes that these carts are appropriate since they presumably serve restaurant patrons using the dining deck and are generally part of the restaurant operations. For this type of on outdoor decks, the products are not to be served/sold to people not using the restaura This type of vending cart is reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and is also subject to Des Review Board (DRB) approval. ill. CONCLUSION cart nt. ign Although vending carts have the potential to add to Vail's street-life and provide customer service, the staff believes that to interpret vending carts as an outdoor display of goods departs from a town policy which has been in effect for quite some time and appears to function reasonably well. If the PEC believes that the town should allow for vending carts, we would suggest that further research be done to determine how the carts should be handled. 11