Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0125 PEC3 . a LJ Project Orientation Site Visits Public Hearing Site Visits PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 1993 AGENDA at Community Development Office 1:00-1:20 PM 1:20-2:00 PM 2:00 PM 1:20 PM 1335 Westhaven Drive Two Saabs - Kristan and Jim are drivers Public Hearina 2:00 PM 1. An update on the Golden Peak House with Clark Willingham to table the 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, 273 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 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 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge TABLED TO FEBRUARY 8, 1993 Planner: Andy Knudtsen 3. A request for a work session for a major amendment to SDD #4, Cascade Village Area A, Millrace lll, 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 114, NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range St 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°3856"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 fine S81123'19"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 S1515745"E 119.10 feet; thence S40a32'1 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 49112'10" and a chord that bears S15156'05"E 64.28 feet; thence S8°40'00"W 90.27 feet; thence N38142'24"W 224.55 feet; thence S7811 0'32"W 101.44 feet to the Point of Beginning. Applicant: MECM Enterprises, Inc. represented by Michael Lauterbach Planner: Jim Curnutte 0 11 4. A request for a work session to amend Chapter 18.24 Commercial Core I and Chapter 18.26 Commercial Core II of the Town of Vail Zoning Code (relating to exterior alterations). Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Shelly Mello 5. 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 WITHDRAWN 6. Explanation of public notice by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - a request for a Section 404 permit (discharge of fill material) for the proposed nine-hole, par 3 golf course, located between 1-70 and Bald Mountain Road. Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: Mike Mollica/Buss Forrest E 7. Approval of the minutes for the January 11, 1993 PEC meeting. 8. Other business: discussion of recently passed term limitation ordinance disuussion of Cascade Village/Waterford SDD discussion update on February 8th speaker and luncheon on Sustainable Communities, Daniel Chiras: Guest Speaker. discussion of request to appoint chair and vice-chair persons for 1993. 9. A reminder to the PEC regarding the DRB representatives. PEC representatives to DRB - 1993 Schedule Jan. - March 1993 Kathy Langenwalter Diana Donovan (alternate) April - June 1993 Dalton Williams Diana Donovan (alternate) July - Sept. 1993 Jeff Bowen Diana Donovan (alternate) Oct. - Dec. 1993 Greg Amsden Diana Donovan (alternate) Chuck Crist will serve as second alternate for Diana Donovan. 11 n PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 1993 MINUTES PRESENT STAFF Diana Donovan Kristan Pritz Chuck Crist Mike Mollica Dalton Williams Shelly Mello Jeff Bowen Tim Devlin Greg Amsden Andy Knudtsen Gena Whitten K th L lt Jim Curnutte ll F R y angenwa a er usse orrest 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, 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A,B,C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc./Vail Associates, Inc./Partners, LtdJMargaritaville, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica/Tim Devlin TABLED UNTIL APRIL 12, 1993 Clark Willingham requested that this item be tabled until March or April of this year so that he could tie up loose ends concerning covenants, zoning, etc. He also stated that he wanted to wait and see what happens with the possible redevelopment of Cyrano's. A general discussion was then held concerning looking at both the Golden Peak House and the Cyrano's projects together. Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 Dalton Williams thought that this made sense, to look at the whole area and then establish general guidelines concerning property lines, setbacks. easements and variances. Chuck Crist inquired about whether it was possible to have an SDD with different owners. Kristan Pritz responded that it is possible but all the pieces must fit together (i.e. Cascade Village). She suggested that a work session regarding the Golden Peak House and Cyrano's would be wise prior to a final hearing. Clark Willingham stated that the Golden Peak House and Cyrano's need to be organized and constructed as one project with regard to Town disruption. Greg Amsden stated that he was in favor of a postponement in order to get the specifics concerning the Golden Peak House worked out. Jeff Bowen motioned to table this discussion. A unanimous vote of 7-0 tabled this request until April 12, 1993. 2. 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 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 8, 1993 Dalton Williams moved to table this request with Chuck Crist seconding the motion. A unanimous vote of 7-0 tabled this request until February 8, 1993. 3. A request for a work session 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%4, NE '14, 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 N00038'56"E 122.81 feet to the southerly ROW line of 1-70; thence departing said ROW line N66°5325"E 39.15 feet; thence departing said ROW line S81123'1 9"E 165.42 feet to a point of curve; thence 122.83 feet along the are of a 143.20 foot radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 49108'51" and a chord that bears S15157'45"E 11910 feet; thence 540°32'1 WE 3.00 feet; thence 6630 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 S78110'32"W 101.44 feet to the Point of Beginning. Applicant: MECM Enterprises, Inc. represented by Michael Lauterbach Planner: Jim Curnutte 0 Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 2 Staff made a presentation per the memo reiterating the staff's concerns pertaining to this project. Mike Lauterbach then explained to the PEC his position regarding the staff's concerns. During the last work session on December 7, 1992, there was discussion concerning GRFA credits for overlapping stairways and up to 600 sq. ft. on the garage. Mike stated that since his garages are only 500 sq. ft. he assumed he could use the additional 100 sq. ft. per unit elsewhere in the units. He would also like to stay at the site coverage that he has now. Concerning the Gore Creek riparian zone, he feels that he is within the parameters of the SDD for setbacks. Concerning the building heights, he believes that he is within the parameters of the SDD, but he would be agreeable to lowering on the roofs a few feet, so that the building height of the single family unit will be 40' and the duplex will be 41'. Mike stated that in order for the single family unit to get to 33 ft., it must shed from the east and west, and the building would end up looking like modular construction. Concerning the road setback, if the buildings are moved back from Gore Creek there will be virtually zero landscaping in front of the buildings due to sight distance requirements. Mr. Lauterbach believed the buildings will look better the farther they are from Westhaven Drive. Mr. Lauterbach was agreeable to the minor facade changes that the staff has proposed. The issue of Westhaven Drive improvements was then addressed by the PEC. Mr. Lauterbach stated that Fred Otto owns Westhaven Drive and that his share in the Cascade Village Homeowners Association is less than 3% . He does not believe that he should have any bearing on the road or that he has a legal requirement to bring it to the Town's standards. He feels that this is an issue between Fred Otto and the Town of Vail and that it has no bearing on this present hearing. Staff pointed out that one of the criteria used by the staff, PEC and Town Council when determining the appropriateness of this request was adequate and safe circulation. Diana Donovan stated that Town Council will have a meeting to discuss the road issue before the PEC meets again on February 8, 1993 to discuss this application. Kristan Pritz stated that Town Council will meet on February 2, 1993 and the Mr. Lauterbach's final hearing is scheduled for February 8, 1993 so hopefully this issue may get resolved before Mr. Lauterbach's final hearing. Chuck Crist inquired about how much GRFA Mike Lauterbach was asking for. Jim Curnutte advised him that 6,309 sq. ft. is currently shown without counting stairs (150 sq. ft. per unit) or garage areas. Jim then pointed out that the previously approved triplex, if calculated according to today's definition was 6,355 sq. ft. including stairs. So, in order to compare apples to apples we need to add back in the 150 sq. ft. per unit for stairs. Now the comparison is 6,355 for the triplex and 6,759 for Mike's project. 0 Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 3 Dalton Williams then advised that this project was 404 sq. ft. larger than the GRFA of is the previous approval. Michael Lauterbach stated that it was his belief that the GRFA for this project was always under 6,675 sq. ft. and that he did not know it was calculated over that. Diana Donovan inquired of Mr. Lauterbach what his basis was for his square footage calculations. Michael Lauterbach stated that in the old GRFA definition there were allowances ranging from 200-400 sq. ft. for stairs, closets, mechanical rooms, etc. He pointed out that he assumed a credit of 225 sq. ft. per unit which is what is used in the multi-family density zone districts for single family units. This interpretation would allow him 6,675 sq. ft. of GRFA. Kristan Pritz stated that LDFM and RC single family units get 225 sq. ft. allowances. Otherwise, multi-family developments do not get a flat out allowance per unit of 225 sq. ft. Michael Lauterbach inquired about the common area credit in the multifamily zones. Kristan stated that common areas are not included, up to a certain percentage of the GRFA. Dalton Williams inquired about what the base zoning is for this project. Kristan Pritz responded that there is no underlying zoning for Cascade Village so, when appropriate, Community Development tries to use RC zoning (i.e. Coldstream). Diana Donovan stated that she thought it would be helpful to explain how Mr. Lauterbach got his numbers. Kathy Langenwalter stated that it was her feeling that it is not the numbers that are the key concern, it is the design. This design still does not appear to be sensitive to the site. The extra 300 sq. ft. is a moot point because it does not meet SDD criteria (i.e. design compatible and sensitive to the environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties, etc.). She further stated that the exterior facade (i.e. gable roof) is not appropriate for the area and that a lower profile is needed. Dalton Williams agreed with Ms. Langenwalter concerning the 300 sq. ft. not being the issue. The issue is that the project is not sensitive to the site. He further stated that everything (Items A,B,C,D of the memorandum) excluding the corrugated metal pipe and Westhaven Drive were real problems. Greg Amsden stated that the building is very heavy on the creekside and that the structures need to be moved from the creek. He also stated that three buildings may be too many for this area and that a major building with stucco exterior is scary. He Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 4 suggested to Mike Lauterbach to move the bike path to work in his favor. He stated that this may not be a site to build economically on and made five suggestions to Mr. Lauterbach: 1.) get more creative with the design of the project; 2.) minimize setbacks along Westhaven Drive; 3.) there will be some participation required on your (Mr. Lauterbach's) part for upgrading Westhaven Drive; 4.) provide a better turnaround so that cars can head out onto Westhaven Drive facing forward; and, 5.) build as far from Gore Creek as possible. Chuck Crist agreed with all of the items that Greg Amsden suggested except for relocating the bike path. Jeff Bowen then suggested that if the dead trees on the site were removed that the smaller living trees would be allowed to grow. He stated that moving the bike path and adjusting the project to the north would place the residence very close to the road. He also stated that he has a problem with the size of the development going in on this site and that it does not seem to work well. He finished by suggesting that Mr. Lauterbach consider reducing the size of the project. Gena Whitten stated that it may need to be a smaller project, one that is more sensitive to the site. Diana Donovan stated that the northwest corner of the single family and duplex needed to be pulled away from the creek and flip flop the single family unit to create a single driveway at the north end of the single family unit. She then asked staff about the need for sidewalks. Kristan Pritz stated that none were proposed in that area. Jim Curnutte stated that Greg Hall did not say anything about them on either set of plans that he reviewed. Michael Lauterbach said that it would be difficult to move the bike path. Greg Amsden inquired about the bike path being moved to the creekside. Diana Donovan inquired of Mr. Lauterbach what questions he had to ask the PEC. Mr. Lauterbach stated that he will redraw the plan with possibly a hip roof and he will get the volume package down. Dalton Williams stated that the general design was all wrong and that Mr. Lauterbach needed to "start over". He said that nothing there works on the site. Gena Whitten concurred with Dalton Williams and added that the degree of steepness warrants less building on the site. Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 5 Mr. Lauterbach responded by saying he had done what the PEC had told him at the last meeting. Dalton Williams responded that Mr. Lauterbach needed to create a design for a small site and that the current design, in his opinion, is not sensitive to the SDD criteria. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the duplex has a flat area that can be built on and pull it out of the steep hillside and that a hip roof would lower the profile of the building. Greg Amsden inquired why the project could not be moved up 8-10' towards Westhaven Drive away from the creek area. He said what the PEC saw staked during the site visit "knocked our socks off". Michael Lauterbach responded that the first 15' of the north end of the site is for the bike path and that an entry or driveway could not be moved into that area. Greg Amsden stated that it appears that the driveway is currently blind and that the setback was more sensitive along the creek. Chuck Crist suggested putting a stone wall between the buildings and the bike path so that they can get a little closer. Kathy Langenwalter restated her feeling about working with the flat area and showed one example to PEC about how this might be accomplished. Greg Amsden stated that creek front preservation is the most important issue and that PEC will work with Mr. Lauterbach on the other sides. Jeff Bowen stated that the buildings are square and rectangular and that reshaping the buildings could possibly help the site. Michael Lauterbach stated that this would be difficult to do. Jeff Bowen responded that a different shape and smaller buildings were needed on the site. Kristan Pritz said that if Mr. Lauterbach desired to go ahead on February 8, 1993 that additional information would need to be submitted by this Friday January 29th or Monday February 1st at 9:00 a.m. at the latest. It was then determined that Mr. Lauterbach would appear again on February 8, 1993 for a final hearing on this item. 4. A request for a work session to amend Chapter 18.24 Commercial Core I and Chapter 18.26 Commercial Core II of the Town of Vail Zoning Code (relating to exterior alterations). Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 6 Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Shelly Mello Staff advised that both Chapter 18.24 and Chapter 18.26 had previously been reviewed three times in 1992 and that most issues had been discussed. Diana Donovan started the discussion by referring to Page 3, Item C of the Memorandum concerning the 60/90 day review process. She stated that this was okay and the PEC would need to have a policy, where if there ended up being a lot of items on a single agenda, as a result of this change that the PEC would just need to take a break during their meetings. Dalton Williams suggested not having more than one SDD in each PEC meeting. Kathy Langenwalter stated that PEC needed to work on shortening the length of their meetings rather than restrict the number of items. Kristan Pritz stated that the development community thinks that the development process is difficult, and that it is hard to walk the line between accommodating the public and the commission. Dalton Williams suggested limiting the items by scheduling applicants for PEC meetings. Kristan Pritz advised against this. Shelly Mello agreed, stating that picking and choosing who would go to what meetings would take more time and add to the frustration. Concerning the time issue, Kathy Langenwalter stated that each PEC commissioner had control over the length of time they spent talking on an issue. She also stated that each commissioner needed to be succinct and keep to the time schedule. Diana Donovan stated that the length of the meetings was their (PEC's) fault. Kathy Langenwalter inquired about Page 4, Item F. concerning outdoor dining decks. Her question concerned whether or not it would be a conditional use. Shelly Mello inquired whether they should use the Conditional Use Permit and Exterior Alterations. She stated that Exterior Alterations review criteria is probably more applicable to dining decks. Dalton Williams inquired about whether the PEC is losing the capability to control the noise on decks by using the Exterior Alterations item and not the Conditional Use permit process which can be revoked if problems arise with the use of decks. Shelly Mello responded that they probably would lose that capacity. 0 Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 7 Kathy Langenwalter stated that the Conditional Use item should be kept. Dalton Williams concurred with Kathy Langenwalter. Diana Donovan than inquired about classifying decks as an accessory use. She then stated that both Conditional Uses and Exterior Alterations should be left in and all the members of PEC agreed. With regard to Item 1. concerning exterior alteration expiration, Diana Donovan inquired whether that should be two years. Shelly Mello stated that there are two levels, major and minor alterations. An SDD is for three years so it made sense to make a major exterior alteration valid for the same. Dalton Williams then inquired about a shorter time frame when a project is not an SDD. A general discussion followed and Kristan Pritz concluded that it would be best to keep the expiration at two years for both minor and major levels. With regard to Item K. , Shelly Mello stated that new criteria under staff recommendations came out of Tom Braun's report. She further stated that it can be amended at the next PEC meeting if the PEC wanted to change them. Diana Donovan stated that Item 1 in the Staff Recommendation section on Page 6 did not read correctly concerning the effect of use. Kristan Pritz suggested that "the effects" might read better. Diana Donovan agreed. With regard to Section 11, Part 2, Item f, Kathy Langenwalter feels that the sun/shade equinox is an exercise in futility on most minor projects. Shelly Mello state that it is the responsibility of the applicant to show that there is no effect. Kathy Langenwalter inquired about whether a survey is always necessary for projects. Shelly Mello stated that it was necessary to confirm lot size and other existing conditions. Diana Donovan stated that Page 14, Item C concerning required submittal dates is confusing. A general discussion was held concerning this item and Shelly Mello stated that it 0 Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 8 would be fixed. 5. A request for a work session to amend Chapter 18.32 and Chapter 18.33 of the Vail Municipal Code relating to uses allowed in open space zone districts. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jim Curnutte WITHDRAWN 6. Explanation of public notice by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - a request for a Section 404 permit (discharge of fill material) for the proposed nine-hole, par 3 golf course, located between 1-70 and Bald Mountain Road. Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: Mike Mollica/Runs Forrest Russ Forrest reviewed the letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with the PEC and stated that the U.S. Corps of Engineers is now soliciting comments from the public on this project. Diana Donovan inquired as to whether the U.S. Corps of Engineers would be coming to a PEC meeting. Russ Forrest said that PEC needs to notify them by February 8, 1993 and invite them to a hearing, if that is desired. The next step will be an environmental assessment and more public hearings (i.e. an environmental impact assessment with more public input). Diana Donovan inquired why a hearing was necessary. Russ Forrest stated that a hearing would provide a public forum to identify environmental issues that need to be addressed in the Corps' environmental assessment. Kristan Pritz stated that this could come from the adjacent property owners. Kristan said that Rob Robinson had told her that he had offered to notify the adjacent property owners but the Corps would not allow this. She stated that this is a strange process. Cena Whitten inquired whether such a hearing would include safety issues. Russ Forrest stated that the Corps is requiring an individual 404 Permit because of safety concerns and cumulative impact to wetlands in the Vail Valley. Russ Forrest stated that the main issue was whether the par 3 golf course was worth the loss of 1 /2 acre of wetland and 10 acre ft. of water being taken out, potentially impacting four endangered fish species. Diana Donovan stated that wetland and cumulative effects of the project would also be a main consideration. 0 Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 9 Kristan Pritz stated that staff does not have a clear position on this issue. She also stated that even if PEC deems a public hearing appropriate, that the Corps could still say such hearing is inappropriate. Russ Forrest suggested a scoping meeting might be helpful for issues to be assessed under an environmental impact statement. Dalton Williams questioned whether such a public hearing would be economically feasible for the Federal Government and a good use of tax dollars. Diana Donovan stated that a forum would be necessary. Dalton Williams stated that a process in the Town would also be necessary. Diana Donovan stated that there was no such process. Dalton Williams stated that such a process would be inefficient and expensive. He also wondered why this issue could not be discussed at a PEC meeting. Russ Forrest stated that it was up to the public and the Corps to identify the issues. Kristan Pritz stated that Rob Robinson had offered to put an ad in the Vail Daily and the Corps did not seem to like this idea. Russ Forrest stated that the Corps has given the Town three options: 1.) submit comments by February 8, 1993; 2.) hold a closed meeting with Corps; 3.) or request a public forum. Kristan Pritz said that the rules specify that closed meetings are not allowed because the public must have access to them. Diana Donovan suggested that Town Council should recommend such a meeting. Kathy Langenwalter agreed with Diana Donovan and motioned that Town Council make a recommendation for a hearing but that PEC needs to better informed of what the golf course is doing (i.e. fill, plans). Chuck Crist seconded the motion with Dalton Williams opposing the motion because he feels such a hearing is a waste of taxpayer's money. 7. Kathy Langenwalter motioned that the minutes of the PEC meeting of January 11, 1993 be approved and Dalton Williams seconded the motion. The minutes were then approved. 8. Further discussion was held concerning the Lauterbach project. 9. A discussion was held concerning term limitations. Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 10 Kristan Pritz stated that a person who has already served eight years may reapply if there are not enough people to fill a position. 10. Jeff Bowen discussed attached memo. Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 11 k 3 PROPOSAL FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF BY-LAWS AND AN ELECTION PROCEDUFE FOR CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN 25 January 1993 Jeff Bowen In accordance with the Federal Constitution, the Town of Vail has established laws on its ordinance books. These ordinances must be adhered to as written, not as changing commissions, councils, legislatures, bureaucracies or executive branches may happen to interpret them. Courts of law or equity are the only entities which can interpret laws. If one looks at the planning process in Vail, applicants commonly request developments that are far beyond what is prescribed in our series of zoning ordinances. When such requests are filed with the staff, I believe it is their job to reject the applications on the basis that they violate the ordinances of the town. If a rejection by the staff is not acceptable, the applicant can apply, through the staff, to the PEC commission which provides a quasi judicial function. However the PEC cannot and should not approve applications which are vastly beyond what exists in the zoning ordinance. The PEC then violates the ordinances of the Town and places a liability on the Town and its citizens. Judgements by this commission must be made based on evidence received at hearings, and decisions must comply with the zoning ordinance. Because the PEC is a quasi judicial body, however, it is necessary for it to have by-laws under which it operates. These should include an annual election of a chairman and vice-chairman, a limitation of two consecutive years for a chairman, an adherence to Roberts Rules of Order, and a defined hearing procedure wherein every applicant receives equal but timely consideration. 0 It is therefore my request, as a commissioner, that a nomination and election by secret ballot, be held for a chairman and vice chairman, at the 8February 1993 meeting, and each year thereafter on that approximate date, that the staff be instructed to research by-laws for operation of the PEC and that the PEC formally adopt Roberts Rules of Order as its basis for holding hearings and meetings. Since this request is for a policy beginning now, its application should not be a "orandfathered", and I believe that our current chairman should have the same opportunity as every member to be nominated for the position of chairman or vase chairman. It is my request, however, that I not be a candidate for either position. I move that the policy discussed herein be established. E 11 273 Hanson Ranch Road One Turtle Creek age, quite 606 Vail, Colorado 81657 Dallas, Texas 75219-4471 303 476-5667 - FAX 303-476-0470 214 523-3706 * Fr-XX 214 523-3929 January 13, 1993 Ms. Kristan Pritz Director of Planning Town of Vail' 'Department of Community Planning 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Kristan: Due to several unforseen events I would request that the Town of Vail Planning Commission table our project to redevelop the Holden Peak Douse. The project is not dead - merely delayed. It has become impossible to obtain signed contracts from Vail Associates, Inc. for the needed land exchange, as well as the necessary protective covenant, easement and zoning amendments in a timely manner. Additionally, the dramatic size reductions have eliminated any financial cushion and there is insufficient time available to obtain firm cost numbers. The economic risk is simply to great to proceed with construction this spring. Delaying construction one year, however, has its positive points. In addition to obtaining the signed agreements and a better cost analysis, I hope the Cyranos project can be done at the same time. Whether it is incorporated as a part of our SDD or is simply "the project next door', the entire Village benefits from a single construction project instead of two successive summers of disruption. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort of you, your staff and the Planning Commission to date. Those efforts have not been wasted. Redevelopment of the Golden Peak (louse is of critical importance to Vail and needs to happen we need the extra time to do it right. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 25, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to Cascade Village, SDD #4, Area A, Millrace III, 1335 Westhaven Drive, Cascade Village, more specifically described as follows: A part of the SW 1/, 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 I-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 S 15°57'45 "E 119.10 feet; thence S40°32' 10"E 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 49012'10" and a chord that bears S 15°56'05 "E 64.28 feet; thence S8°40'00"W 90.27 feet; thence N38°42'24"W 224.55 feet; thence S78°10'32"W 101.44 feet to the Point of Beginning. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach Planner: Jim Curnutte 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Millrace III property is bounded by Westhaven Drive on the East, the South Frontage 0 1 Road right-of-way and the Westhaven Apartment property (the ruins) on the north, Gore Creek on the south, and the Cascade Club tennis court property on the west. The property is currently vacant with the exception of two paved parking areas, one unpaved parking area and the paved recreation path. The former owner of this property has allowed the Millrace Condominiums to maintain and use this property for parking for a number of years. However, the Association does not have any legal right to use this property. It appears the Millrace III property has been zoned SDD since the time it was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1974. Access to this property will be from Westhaven Drive, which runs along the eastern property line. The applicant is seeking approval of a major amendment to Cascade Village, SDD No. #4, Area A, Millrace III, in order to construct one duplex and one single family residence on the .819 acre (35,676 sq. ft.) Millrace III site. Each unit is approximately 2,100 sq. ft. in size and will have a two-car garage and a gas fireplace. The buildings will have a maximum building height of approximately 43 feet and a total site coverage of 3,920 sq. ft. Since this property is currently unplatted, the applicant must also receive approval of a minor subdivision prior to the issuance of any building permits related to this project. Following the construction of the residences, the applicant will file single family and duplex subdivision plats. 11. BACKGROUND In March of 1980, a development plan per the SDD was approved for this property by the DRB. Under the approved plan, development was to occur in a single triplex building. The total GRFA for the building was calculated at 5,660 sq. ft., according to the definition in effect at the time. This figure equates to 6,355 sq. ft. of GRFA if calculated using todays definition. The maximum height of this building was 36 feet and the total site coverage was approximately 3,800 sq. ft. Approval of this plan has since expired. In May of 1992, the applicant requested a work session with the PEC in order to receive feedback on his conceptual plan to place three single family dwellin's on the property. Each of these units was approximately 2,000 square feet in size with a combined site coverage of approximately 3,800 square feet. Two of the units were proposed to be three levels high with the last unit being limited to two levels. At a PEC worksession on December 7, 1992, Mr. Lauterbach presented a new scenario for developing the property. The conceptual site plan (see attached copy) showed a duplex building near the southern end of the site and a single family residence at the northern portion of the site. Each of these units was proposed to be approximately 2,225 sq. ft. in size and the combined site coverage of the project was 5,570 sq. ft. The purpose of the December 7, 1992, worksession was to receive direction from the PEC regarding a number of development parameters. Specifically, the applicant received PEC comment on the following issues: 1. Is an increase in GRFA from 6,000 sq. ft. to 6,675 at this site appropriate? 0 The applicant believed that allowing an additional 225 sq. ft. per unit (675 sq. ft. total) was appropriate because granting the additional square feet would be consistent with the Low Density Multiple Family (LDMF) Zone District and because the GRFA credits (storage, mechanical, and airlock) allowed when the development plan for the project was approved in 1980 are no longer allowed for this single family/duplex proposal. The staff pointed out that the most recent modification to SDD No. 4 occurred in November, 1991, in conjunction with the redevelopment of Millrace IV, the Cosgriff parcel. Under that review, the GRFA was calculated under the 1991 (new) GRFA definition, and the only credit granted was a 600 sq. ft. per unit per 2-car garage credit. In addition, the Cornerstone and Waterford projects used the 1991 (new) GRFA definition. Staff did not believe that it was appropriate to allow the construction of additional GRFA on the site. After considerable discussion about the appropriate amount of GRFA, and recognizing that garages are not counted so each building will actually be closer to 2,600 sq. ft. in size, the PEC agreed to allow the developer a "stair credit". Under this scenario, no stair levels above the first are counted toward the GRFA maximum of 6,000 sq. ft. 2. Should the applicant be alluvvr-d to construct a duplex and a single family residence on the site? Both the staff and the PEC felt that the single family/duplex approach would be acceptable as long as the building sizes could be consolidated to reduce site coverage and lot disturbance. Many of the commissioners suggested that the building locations of the single family and the duplex be switched. Per this recommendation, the duplex would be on the north end of the parcel and the single family would be on the soutn end of the site. All commissioners directed the applicant to significantly reduce the amount of building site coverage proposed on the lot. 3. Is an 8-foot setback from the paved recreation path acceptable? The PEC felt that a building setback from the recreation path was necessary. The conscensus of the group was to allow a 12' building setback from the path, provided that a berm and substantial landscaping be placed between the path and the nearest building. 4. Is the abandonment of the existing recreation path acceptable? All members of the PEC and staff agreed to abandon the existing easement and plot a new 15 foot easement at the location of the existing recreation path, if necessary. 0 3 S. Is it appropriate to allow a minimum of 10 feet between building foundations"? All members of the PEC felt that the two buildings could be as close as 12 feet between building foundations. 6. Is an 8-foot setback from Westhaven Drive appropriate? The PEC agreed to allow the buildings to be as close as 8 feet from the property line adjacent to Westhaven Drive. This setback distance was allowed with the understanding that the building facades would be broken up so as not to present a continuous uninteresting building line along Westhaven Drive. Mr. Lauterbach has made many revisions to the development plan as a result of the comments he received at the December 7, 1992, PEC worksession. There are, however, several issues related to this project that need additional review and clarification. Previous PEC worksessions related to this project were geared toward discussions of development parameters, with little or no review of actual plans. The applicant has now provided staff with plans of a sufficient detail to adequately assess the impacts of the proposed development. We have developed a list of discussion items for PEC review and comment. These items are found in Section V of this memo. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following are the parameters for the development of this site, which are set forth in Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, the SDD #4, Cascade Village Ordinance: Section 18.46.050 - Permitted Uses Allowed: The applicable uses permitted in Cascade Village at this location include multi- family dwellings, single family dwellings and two-family dwellings. Previous Approval: One triplex building Proposed: One duplex and one single family residence. Section 18.46.103 - Development Statistics for Area A (Millrace 111) Allowed: Three dwelling units, 6,000 sq. ft. GRFA, six on-site parking spaces. Previous Approval: Three dwelling units (triplex) 5,660 sq. ft. of GRFA (calculated according to the definition in place at the time), three on-site enclosed parking spaces. 0 4 Proposed: Three dwelling units, (1 duplex and 1 single family) 6,309 sq. ft. of GRFA, six on-site enclosed parking spaces plus room for several more cars in front of each garage door. Section 18.46.120 - Setbacks Required: The minimum required setback on the periphery of all of Area A shall be not less than 20 feet ... 50 foot stream setback from Core Creek ... Previous Approval: The triplex building appears to have complied with the required setback specifications set out in the SDD. Proposed: The proposed development will comply with the required 20-foot periphery of Area A setback and the 50-foot Core Creek stream setback. Section 18.46.140 - Height Allowed: 48 feet Previous Approval: 36 Feet Proposed: 43 feet for duplex and 42 feet for single family Section 18.46.160 - Site Coverage Allowed: 35% (12,486 sq. ft.) Previous Approval: 10.7% (3,800 sq. ft.) Proposed: 11 % (3,928 sq. ft.) Section 18.46.170 - Landscaping Allowed: 50% (17,838 sq. ft. minimum) Previous Approval: 82% (29,200 sq. ft.) Proposed: 80% (28,500 sq. ft.) Section 18.46.180 - Parking and Loading Required: 75% of all required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings, and hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscape berm. Previous Approval: 50% of all required (2 spaces per unit) were located within the main building. Proposed: 0 5 80% of all required parking (2.5 spaces per unit) is proposed to be located within the main building or buildings. Section 18.46.190 - Recreation Amenities, Tax Assessed Required: 25 cents per square foot of floor area paid in conjunction with construction but prior to the issuance of building permits. Section 18.46.280 - Conservation and Pollution Controls Required: Protective measures must be used to prevent soil erosion into Gore Greek, both during and after construction. IV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the 9 Special Development District (SDD) development standards set forth in the special development district chapter of the Zoning Code. The criteria are as follows: 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. E 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. 0 6 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. V. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A. Maximum GRFA allowed on this site. After considerable discussion about whether or not to allow more GRFA on this lot than the 6,000 sq. ft. specified in the SDD ordinance the PEC concluded that the only credits allowed would be overlapping stairways and up to 600 sq. ft. of garage area per unit. The floor plans associated with this new development exceed the maximum GRFA allowance by 309 sq. ft. Although it is true that the total GRFA of the previously approved triplex building was 6,355 sq. ft. (calculated according to today's definition for comparison purposes) staff still believes that it is not appropriate to allow the construction of so much GRFA on the site. The lot is very sensitive to development. It is heavily vegetated and 51.5% of the slopes on the lot are at 40% or greater. Staff believes that the maximum GRFA on the property should be limited to 6,000 sq. ft., excluding garage space and overlapping stairs, assuming the stairways are not excessive (i.e., exceeding 150 sq. ft.) B. Reduction of building site coverage Although the applicant has significantly reduced the amount of building site coverage from what was shown at the previous worksession, staff feels that what is currently proposed is still too much for the site. Staff would suggest that, at the very least, site coverage on this lot not exceed that previously approved for the triplex building (3,800 sq. ft.). This would mean a reduction of at least 128 sq. ft. C. Preservation of Gore Creek riparian zone. The current proposal appears to be significantly better than the one presented to the PEC on December 7, 1.992. The staff, however, still has some concerns related to the proposed building locations. Staff feels that the proposed buildings encroach too far into the Gore Creek riparian zone. Although Mr. Lauterbach requested and received approval from the PEC to locate his buildings eight feet from the front property line, the staff would suggest that we reconsider that setback requirement due to the distance of the property line from the edge of pavement for Westhaven Drive. The distance from the front property line to the Westhaven Drive concrete drainage pan ranges from 9 to 19 feet in front of the single family home and 12 to 18 feet in front of the 16 7 duplex. Staff suggests that it would be beneficial to allow both buildings to be closer than S feet from the front property line in order to reduce the impact of these buildings on the vegetation along Gore Creek. Shifting these buildings closer to Westhaven Drive can be accomplished in a number of ways. The single family home may be shifted forward in its entirety, or perhaps only the northern half of the building can be shifted forward. Likewise, it appears that the northern half of the duplex can be shifted forward significantly while the southern half of the duplex can remain in its current location, or be shifted a few feet away from the river. Section 18.54.050(B)4 (Design Guidelines) of the Vail Municipal Code states that. "if necessary, the DRB may designate allowable limits of construction activity and require physical barriers in order to preserve significant natural features and vegetation upon a site and adjacent sites during construction." Staff suggests that this requirement be a condition of PEC approval as well as DRB approval. D. Architectural elements. In response to PEC comments from the December 7, 1992 meeting concerning unbroken facades along Westhaven Drive, the applicant has added considerable interest to the appearance of the duplex building. However, staff feels that the appearance of the single family residence, as viewed from Westhaven Drive, would be improved significantly if the building massing were to be offset or incorporate some other significant architectural element to break up the building facade. Staff would suggest that the shed roof over the stairwell be changed to a gable roof. The most important architectural element affecting the visual character of these buildings is building height. Although appearing to be two story buildings from Westhaven Drive, all three levels of the building, including loft space on the third level, are visible from the Coldstream Condominiums across Gore Creek. The maximum building height currently being proposed is approximately 43 feet. This proposed building height is not in character with building heights normally allowed for single family or duplex residences, nor do these heights appear to be compatible with properties surrounding this lot. For comparison purposes, the building heights of the following surrounding projects are listed below. The Cascades - 36 ft. Millrace Condominiums - 43 ft. Coldstream Condominiums - 39 ft. Millrace III Triplex Bldg. - 36 ft. ( previous approval) E. Westhaven Drive improvements. Westhaven Drive is currently not a publicly owned and maintained road. The land on which Westhaven Drive is located is currently in private ownership. Maintenance of the road is being conducted by the Cascade Village Association, to which the Millrace III property belongs. Westhaven Drive currently does not meet the Town's minimum I road standards. The Town is currently working with the developers of the Cornerstone and Waterford projects to resolve the Westhaven Drive issue in order to bring the road up to Town standards so that it may be taken over by the town for maintenance purposes. Staff feels that Mr. Lauterbach should participate fully in the effort to provide adequate and safe public access to this property. To that end, the Town would ask Mr. Lauterbach to agree, at a minimum, to provide an as-built survey of that portion of Westhaven Drive directly in front of his property, along with at least one core boring of the road, and participation in the improvements to Westhaven Drive which will require further discussion (i.e., cash contribution to road repair fund or commitment to complete road improvements adjacent to Millrace 111.) This information will be used by the town engineer to determine what improvements will need to be made to bring the road up to town standards. Staff direction on this issue is based on recent discussions the Council is having with CVA and the developers of the Cornerstone and Waterford projects. F. Other issues. The site plan and the survey provided for this property show the location of a 24 inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) on the property. The applicant has been asked to research this pipe to determine what it is being used for. The applicant has acknowledged that the pipe does have water flowing out of it in the spring. It appears that a drainage easement will be required at the time a minor subdivision is approved for this property. Staff requests that the above issues be discussed thoroughly with the applicant so that he has specific direction upon which to proceed with his final drawings. Mr. Lauterbach has indicated that he is on a very tight construction schedule with this project and would like to present his final drawings at the next PEC meeting on February 8, 1993. c:\pec\rnemos\rnillraceD7 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission Is, FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 25, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a work session to amend Chapter 18.24 - Commercial Core I and Chapter 18.26 - Commercial Core 11, of the Town of Vail zoning code (relating to exterior alterations or modifications), and to amend the Vail Village Design Considerations (Section 1) - Sun/Shade. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Shelly Mello This request was last discussed during a series of three Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) worksessions held in 1992. At those meetings, the members of the PEC recommended that the Vail Village Design Considerations (Section 1) Sun/Shade also be modified in conjunction with the CCI and CCII zone district code changes. The Sun/Shade modifications would require applicants to submit a four-season sun/shade analysis. The Vail Village Design Considerations were originally approved on May 20, 1980 by Ordinance No, 16, Series of 1980. Therefore, changes to the Vail Village Design Considerations (Section 1) Sun-Shade must also be made by ordinance. The Community Development Department staff proposes to modify the sections of the zoning code listed above, relating to the exterior alteration procedures in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core 11. These changes are taken from recommendations made in the October, 1991 Develooment Code Revision Reoort, Phase I. Section 18.24.065 Commercial Core I Exterior Alteration or Modifications - procedure will be discussed first, followed by a discussio of the issues and the related zoning code modification recommendations for Section 18.26.045 Commercial Core 11 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure. The text modifications proposed for the CCI and CCII zone districts are identical. The following is an outline, followed by a detailed analysis of the list of issues, staff recommendations and relate d zoning code modifications for CCI and CCII: 1. Commercial Core I and II Exterior Alterations Chanaes: Exterior alteration submittal dates; Minor exterior alterations; 60190 day review process; Exterior alteration submittal requirements; Exterior alteration - owners signatures; Outdoor dining decks - review criteria; PEC/DRB review criteria; Roof line modifications; Exterior alteration expiration; Timing of the proposed changes; n 11 Conditional use permit criteria. 11. Text Modifications to Commercial Core I and 11 of the Zonina Code Ill. Modifications to method of analvsis for Sun/Shade described in the Urban Desicin Guidelines 1. COMMERCIAL CORE 1. SECTION 16.24.065 - EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS PROCEDURE A. Issue - Exterior alteration submittal dates The review procedures for development proposals are outlined in this section of the zoning code. However, the two semi-annual submittal dates do not allow for the timely review and subsequent construction of projects. Staff Recommendation Move the submittal dates for major projects up two to three months, from the fourth Monday in November and May, to the fourth Mondav in September and February respectively. The purpose of this change is to complete Town project reviews at an earlier date in the calendar year. This would allow project construction to begin in the spring immediately following the end of the ski season, and to finish up in the late fall, prior to the beginning of the ski season. B. Issue - Minor exterior alterations Applications for the alteration of an existing area which add or remove an enclosed floor area of 100 square feet or less may be submitted for review at any regularly scheduled PEC meeting. However, a single property owner is limited to one such submission in any two year period. Staff Recommendation Staff believes that limiting the review of additions of 100 square feet or less to one proposal every two years is unnecessary and does not provide any incentive to property owners who want to upgrade their properties. Staff proposes that the code be modified to allow the review of additions or redevelopment proposals of 100 square feet or less in the following manner: A single property owner who has not submitted an exterior alteration proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two years may submit a redevelopment proposal of 100 sq. ft. or less for review by the PEC, at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled monthly meetings. A single property owner who has submitted an exterior alteration proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less, within the last two years would have the opportunity to submit any additional exterior alteration proposals which remove or enclose floor area for review by the PEC on a semi-annual basis on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September. • No public hearings or work sessions before the PEC shall be scheduled regarding major exterior alterations or minor exterior alteration applications which must be submitted on a semi-annual basis, prior to the applicable semi-annual submittal date. Exterior alteration applications which call for the addition or removal of any enclosed area of 1 00 square feet or less shall be considered minor alterations. Any exterior alteration proposal which adds or removes any enclosed floor area of more than 100 square feet shall be considered a maior exterior alteration. C. Issue - 60/90 day review process The sixty or ninety day review process as outlined in this section is not consistent with the manner in which applications are actually handled. Staff Recommendation Review procedures stipulate a sixty or ninety day review period as may be determined by the PEC. In reality, the review of exterior alterations is primarily dependent on the applicant's submittal of material, and not on the review period established by the PEC. Staff recommends this section of the code be amended to state that the formal review by the PEC will be scheduled by the Director of Community Development following a worksession (if necessary) and Community Development Department receipt of all the required submittal materials. D. Issue - Exterior alteration submittal requirements The code does not set forth formal submittal requirements for exterior alterations. While the staff and the PEC ultimately determine what materials must be submitted in order for the review of the exterior alteration application to occur, minimum submission requirements should be specified in the code, so that the applicant knows what is expected. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the code be modified to include a list of submittal requirements similar to the Special Development District (SDD) submittal requirements. The Community Development Director should be allowed the flexibility to add or delete submittal requirement material as may be appropriate, depending upon the magnitude of the project. E. Issue - Exterior alteration - owners signatures The code does not specifically address who may submit an exterior alteration application. Staff Recommendation Concern over who may submit an exterior alteration application has to do with condominiumized projects. Under the SDD review process, all property owners within the project area are required to sign the SDD application, unless, the condominium by-laws give a condominium association representative (or officer) 0 3 the authority to submit an application with a majority vote of approval by its members. Staff recommends this same SDD language be incorporated into this section of the code. F. Issue - Outdoor dining decks - review criteria Any exterior alteration development proposal which acids or removes floor area is required to go through the exterior alteration review process. Site development alterations, specifically outdoor dining decks, are related to many of the design criteria, yet do not require exterior alteration review by the PEG. Staff Recommendation The addition of a new dining deck, or the modification of an existing dining deck, should be added to the list of development activities that trigger the exterior alteration process. Currently, proposals for new or expanded dining decks require PEC review as a conditional use permit. However, the exterior alteration criteria are more appropriate criteria to use to evaluate the impact of this type of development. This change will allow the PEG to consider the urban design criteria in evaluating a new dining deck or the modification of an existing dining deck. Outdoor patios will be deleted as a Conditional Use from Sections 18.24.020(C)10 - Permitted and Conditional Uses - Basement or Garden level, 18.24.030(C)7 - Permitted and Conditional Uses - First Floor or Street level, 18.24.040(6)9 - Permitted and Conditional Uses - Second level and will added as an accessory use. G. Issue - PECIDRB review roles The PEC and Design Review Board (DRB) both participate in the review of exterior alterations. However, the role and authority of each board is not clearly defined. Staff Recommendation The PEC's responsibility is to review the siting, form, massing, landscaping, circulation and other large-scale planning and urban design issues. The DRB's responsibilities are to review landscaping and detailed architectural considerations. Generally, these roles are delineated in the Urban Design Guide Plan. While there will always be some overlap, the roles of each board should be more clearly set forth in this section of the code. H. Issue - Roof line modifications Alterations to the roof line of existing buildings are not currently reviewed under the exterior alteration section of the code. Changes to roof lines can impact sun/shade analysis, views and established view corridors, street enclosure, streetscape framework, etc. Staff Recommendation Require all changes to the existing roof line of structures, located within the CCI and CCII zone districts, to be reviewed using the exterior alteration criteria. This type of request would be considered a minor exterior alteration, assuming that the added floor area does not exceed 100 sq. ft. I. Issue - Exterior alteration expiration Currently, exterior alteration approvals do not lapse or expire. They are effective indefinitely. Trying to evaluate future exterior alteration proposals on adjacent structures based on exterior alteration approvals which may or may not be constructed becomes complex. Further, all other zoning requests, such as conditional use permits and variances, have a specified time period for the approvals. Staff Recommendation Approval of any minor exterior alteration as prescribed by this Chapter shall lapse and become void one vear following the date of approval of the minor exterior alteration by the PEC unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. Any major exterior alteration would be valid for a period of three years unless prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. Staff believes that one year for a minor exterior alteration and three years for a major alteration are adequate approval periods and would also be consistent with the approval time for variances and conditional use permits. A Special Development District is valid for three years. An exterior alteration would need to be renewed after three years if the project is not constructed when it is associated with an SDD. J. Issue - Timing of the proposed changes All proposed code changes shall become effective upon approval of the changes by ordinance. To avoid scheduling problems for applicants during the spring of 1993, staff is recommending that for 1993, there be three major exterior alteration submission deadlines (May, September and November). Beginning in 1994, there will again be only two major exterior alteration submission deadlines (February and September). Staff Recommendation This approach should avoid creating scheduling problems for any applicant who is considering a project submittal for 1993 using the previous deadlines. K. Issue - Conditional Use Permit criteria There is a great deal of overlap between the existing criteria and they do not address all of the issues that should be considered when reviewing conditional use requests in CCI. The existing criteria are as follows; Effects on vehicular traffic on commercial core I district; 2. Reduction of vehicular traffic in commercial core 1 district; 3. Reduction of nonessential off-street parking; 4. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles; 5. Development of spaces for use by pedestrians; 0 5 6. Continuance of the various commercial, residential and public uses in commercial core I district so as to maintain the existing character of the area; and 7. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in commercial core I district so as to maintain the existing character of the area. Staff Recommendation Consolidate the criteria. Issues not covered by the existing criteria, but critical to the character of the Village should be addressed by adding new criteria. These issues include qualitative aspects such as streetlife, vitality, activity and mixed uses. The staff would recommend the following criteria be used for evaluating conditional use requests in the Village. The effect of vehicular traffic, off-street parking, loading and delivery and service vehicles generated by the proposed use on the pedestrianized area of CCI; 2. The ability of loading and delivery facilities to accommodate the service and delivery of the proposed use without adversely impacting the pedestrian character of the district; 3. The effect of the proposed use on streetlife, pedestrian activity, and vitality of the established mixed use character of the area; and 4. The effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the quality of life and environment on the CCI district. 11. TEXT MODIFICATIONS TO SECTION 16.24.065 - Commercial Core I The following are the proposed text modifications to Section 18.24.065, which address the Issues and Staff Recommendations set forth above: "Site development, the construction of a new building, and alterations to the exterior of an existing building in CCI shall comply with the following procedures: A. The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which modifies roof lines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the PEC as follows: Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the Director of Community Development. Any application for a 0 6 condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations; 2. An application for a major or minor exterior alteration shall include the following: a. Completed application form, filing fee and a list of all owners of property located adjacent to the subject parcel. The owners list shall include the name of all owners, their mailing address, the legal description of the property owned by each, and a general description of the property (including the name of the property, if applicable), and the name and mailing address of the condominium association's representative (if applicable). Said names and addresses shall be obtained from the current tax records of Eagle County as they appeared no more than thirty days, prior to the application submittal date; b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Village Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan (i.e., Vail Village Master Plan, Streetscape Master Plan, etc.); c. A survey, stamped by a licensed surveyor, indicating existing conditions on the property including the location of improvements, topography, and natural features; d. A current title report to verify ownership, easements and other encumbrances, including schedules A and B; e. Existing and proposed site plan at a scale of 1" 10', a vicinity plan at an appropriate scale to adequately show the project location in relationship to the surrounding area, a landscape plan at a scale of 1'"=10', a roof height plan and existing and proposed building elevations at a minimum scale of 1/3"=1'. The material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance with urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; f. Sun/shade analysis of the existing and proposed building for the spring/fall equinox (March 21/September 23) and winter solstice (December 21) at 10:OOAM and 2:OOPM. The following sun angles shall be used when preparing this analysis: Spring/Fall Equinox 10:OOAM 2:OOPM Winter Solstice 10:OOAM 2:OOPM Sun Angle 42° East of South, 50° declination 420 West of South, 50° declination 30° East of South, 20° declination 30° West of South, 200 declination g. Existing and proposed floor plans at a scale of 1/4"=1' and a square footage analysis of all existing and proposed uses; h. An architectural or massing model of the proposed development. Said model shall include buildings and major site improvements on adjacent properties. The scale of the model shall be as determined by the Director of Community Development; Photo overlays and/or other graphic material to demonstrate the spatial relationship of the proposed development to adjacent properties, public spaces, and views per Chapter 18.73 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code; Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development or the PEC. The Director or PEC may, at his or her discretion, waive certain submittal requirements if it is determined that said requirements are not relevant to the proposed development and applicable urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Villaae Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 3. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted bi-annually on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September. Submittal requirements shall include all information listed in Subparagraph No. 2 above, provided however, that the architectural or massing model may be submitted three weeks prior to the first formal public hearing of the PEC. No public hearings or work sessions shall be scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the bi- annual submittal date deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled PEC meeting following the two submittal dates listed above, the Director shall inform the PEC of all exterior alteration submittal. The Director shall commence with the review of exterior alteration proposals following this initial PEC meeting. The next step in the review process shall be a work session with the PEC, provided however, that applications made in accordance with Subparagraphs 3(b-d) of this Section may be exempt from this required work session if determined unnecessary by the Director. The Director shall schedule the work session at a regularly scheduled PEC hearing, and shall cause notice of such hearing to be sent to all adjacent 0 8 property owners in accordance with the provisions of the Administration Chapter of the Code, Section 18.66.080 - Hearing-Notice. Following this work session, and the submittal of any additional submittal material that may be required, the Director shall schedule a formal public hearing with the PEC in accordance with Section 18.66.080 - Hearing-Notice. a. A property owner may apply for a major exterior alteration (greater than one hundred square feet) in any year in which he or she shall submit an application on the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. Said application shall be termed a "major exterior alteration." b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an existing building which add or remove any enclosed floor area of not more than one hundred square feet, applications to alter the roof lines of an existing building, applications for new outdoor dining decks and applications for modifications to existing outdoor dining decks may be submitted for any regularly scheduled PEC meeting. Said applications shall be termed a "minor exterior alteration". The review procedures for a minor exterior alteration shall be as outlined in this section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this Subparagraph 3(b) shall be physically and structurally a part of an existing or new building and shall not be a free-standing structure. C. If a single property owner has not submitted an exterior alteration proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a proposal may be submitted at the required submittal date for review by the PEC at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled monthly meetings. d. If a single property owner has submitted an exterior alteration proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a minor exterior alteration application, as defined in Subparagraph 3(b), shall be submitted for review on a bi-annual basis on or before the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. 4. The public hearing before the PEC shall be held in accordance with the Administration chapter of the code, Sections 18.66.060 through 18.66.090. The PEC may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. A decision of the PEC may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section 18.60.070 - Appeal to Town Council. 0 9 5. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of evidence before the PEC that the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CCI district as specified in Section 18.24.010 - Purpose; that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan. the Town of Vail Streetscaoe Master Plan, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. Further, that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village Urban Desion Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to the following urban design considerations: pedestrianization, vehicular penetration, streetscape framework, street enclosure, street edge, building height, views, service/delivery and sun/shade analysis; 6. Approval of an exterior alteration under Subparagraph 5 above, shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements, to include siting, building setbacks, building height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping. 7. Approval of a minor exterior alteration as prescribed by this Chapter shall lapse and shall become void one year following the date of approval of the minor exterior alteration by the PEC unless, prior to the expiration of the year, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. A major exterior alteration shall lapse and become void after a period of three years unless, prior to the expiration of the year, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion.) B. All exterior alterations under subsection A above shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board (DRB) following PEG approval in accordance with Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. The DRB shall review the project to insure that the it complies with the Vail Village Design Considerations. In addition to the design review criteria, the DRB shall review the proposed exterior alteration for compliance with the Architectural/Landscape Considerations of the Vail Village Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to roofs, facades, balconies, decks and patios, accent elements, landscape elements and service. C. The modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site within CCI shall be reviewed by the DRB in accordance with the following review procedures and the review procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.54 - Design Review: 1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the Director of Community Development. Any application for a condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations; 0 10 2. The hearing before the DRB shall be held in accordance with Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. A decision of the DRB may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Chapter 18.54 - Design Review; 3. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the DRB that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the CCI district as specified in 18.24.010 - Purpose; that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village Design Considerations; and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood; 4. The DRB may approve the application as submitted; approve the application with conditions or modifications; or, if the DRB finds that the applicant failed to meet his or her burden of proof, it may deny the application; 5. The zoning administrator may approve minor modifications as provided in Section 18.54.040(C)(3) - Staff approval. A decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed (or called up) to the DRB for review. III:. COMMERCIAL CORE 11. SECTION 18.26..045 - EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS - PROCEDURE All of the issues and staff recommendations related to Commercial Core I, Section 18.24.065 - Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure, also apply to Commercial Core II, Section 18.26.045 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure. Staff recommends that all modifications to be made to the CCI Section 18.24.065 of the code occur simultaneously to the CCII Section 18.26.045. IV. TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 18.26.045 - Commercial Core 11 The following are the proposed text modifications to Section 18.26.045, which address the Issues and Staff Recommendations as more fully explained in Section I of this memo. These changes are identical to the changes proposed for CCI Section 18.24.065 with the exception of the referenced planning documents to be used in evaluating development proposals. "Site development, the construction of a new building, and alterations to the exterior of an existing building in CCII shall comply with the following procedures: A. The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which modifies roof lines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the PEC as follows: 0 11 1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the Director of Community Development. Any application for a condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations; 2. An application for an exterior alteration shall include the following: a. Completed application form, filing fee and a list of all owners of property located adjacent to the subject parcel. The owners list shall include the name of all owners, their mailing address, the legal description of the property owned by each, and a general description of the property (including the name of the property, if applicable), and the name and mailing address of the condominium association's representative (if applicable). Said names and addresses shall be obtained from the current tax records of Eagle County as they appeared no more than thirty days prior to the application submittal date; b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal complies with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; C. A survey, stamped by a licensed surveyor, indicating existing conditions on the property including the location of improvements, topography, and natural features; d. A current title report to verify ownership, easements and other encumbrances, including schedules A and E; e. Existing and proposed site plan at a scale of 1 "= 10', a vicinity plan at an appropriate scale to adequately show the project location in relationship to the surrounding area, a landscape plan at a scale of 1 "=10', a roof height plan and existing and proposed building elevations at a minimum scale of 1/8"-1'. The material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance with urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; f. Sun/shade analysis of the existing and proposed building for the spring/fall equinox (March 21/September 23) and winter solstice (December 21) at 10:OOAM and 2:OOPM. The following sun angles shall be used when preparing this analysis: 12 Spring/Fall Equinox 1 O:OOAM 2:OOPM Winter Solstice 1 O:OOAM 2:OOPM Sun Angle 420 East of South, 50° declination 42° West of South, 50° declination 30° East of South, 20° declination 30° West of South, 200 declination g. Existing and proposed floor plans at a scale of 1/4"=l' and a square footage analysis of all existing and proposed uses; h. An architectural or massing model of the proposed development. Said model shall include buildings and major site improvements on adjacent properties. The scale of the model shall be as determined by the Director of Community Development; Photo overlays and/or other graphic material to demonstrate the spatial relationship of the proposed development to adjacent properties, public spaces, and adopted views per Chapter 18.73 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code; j. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development or the PEC. The Director or the PEC may, at his or her discretion, waive certain submittal requirements if it is determined that said requirements are not relevant to the proposed development and applicable urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 3. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted bi-annually on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September. Submittal requirements shall include all information listed in Subparagraph No. 2 above, provided however, that the architectural or massing model may be submitted three weeks prior to the first formal public hearing of the PEC. No public hearings or work sessions shall be scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the bi- annual submittal date deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled PEC meeting following the two submittal dates listed above, the Director shall inform the PEC of all exterior alteration submittal. The Director shall commence with the review of exterior alteration proposals following this initial PEC meeting. The next step in the review process shall be a work session with the PEC, provided however, that applications made in accordance with Subparagraphs 3(b-d) of this Section may be exempt from this required work session if determined unnecessary by the Director. The Director shall schedule the work session at a regularly scheduled PEC hearing, and shall cause notice of such hearing to be sent to all adjacent 0 13 property owners in accordance with the provisions of the Administration Chapter of the Code, Section 18.66.080 - Hearing-Notice. Following this work session, and the submittal of any additional submittal material that may be required, the Director shall schedule a formal public hearing with the PEC in accordance with Section 18.66.080 - Hearing-Notice. a. A property owner may apply for a major exterior alteration (greater than one hundred sauare feet) in any year in which he or she shall submit an application on the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. Said application shall be termed a "major exterior alteration." b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an existing building which add or remove any enclosed floor area of not more than one hundred square feet, applications to alter the roof lines of an existing building, applications for new outdoor dining decks and applications for modifications to existing outdoor dining decks may be submitted for any regularly scheduled PEC meeting. Said applications shall be termed a "minor exterior alteration". The review procedures for a minor exterior alteration shall be as outlined in this section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this Subparagraph 3(b) shall be physically and structurally a part of an existing or new building and shall not be a free-standing structure. C. If a single property owner has not submitted an exterior alteration proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a proposal may be submitted at the required submittal date for review by the PEC at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled monthly meetings. d. If a single property owner has submitted an exterior alteration proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a minor exterior alteration application, as defined in Subparagraph 3(b), shall be submitted for review on a bi-annual basis on or before the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. 4. The public hearing before the PEC shall be held in accordance with the Administration chapter of the code, Sections 18.66.060 through 13.66.090. The PEC may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. A decision of the PEC may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section 18.60.070 - Appeal to Town Council. 14 5. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of evidence before the PEC that the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CCII district as specified in Section 18.26.010 - Purpose; that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Lionshead Urban Desian Guide Plan and the Vail Lionshead Desian Considerations, or that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood; and that the proposal substantially complies with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 6. Approval of an exterior alteration under Subparagraph 5 above, shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements, to include siting, building setbacks, building height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping. 7. Approval of a minor exterior alteration as prescribed by this Chapter shall lapse and shall become void one year following the date of approval of the minor exterior alteration by the PtC unless, prior to the expiration of the year, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. A major exterior alteration shall lapse and become void after a period of three years unless, prior to the expiration of the year, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion.) B. All exterior alterations under subsection A above shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board (DRB) following PEC approval in accordance with Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. The DRB shall review the same to insure that the same comply with the Lionshead Design Considerations. In addition to the design review criteria, the Design Review Board shall review the proposed exterior alteration for compliance with the Architectural/Landscape Considerations of the Lionshead Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to roofs, facades, balconies, decks and patios, accent elements, landscape elements and service. C. The modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site within CCII shall be reviewed by the DRB in accordance with the following review procedures and the review procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.54 - Design Review: 1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the Director of Community Development. Any application for a condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations; 15 2. The hearing before the DRB shall be held in accordance with Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. A decision of the DRB may be appealed to the SO, Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Chapter 18.54 - Design Review; 3. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the DRB that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the CCII district as specified in 18.26.010 - Purpose; that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Lionshead Design Considerations; and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood; 4. The DRB may approve the application as submitted; approve the application with conditions or modifications; or, if the Design Review Board finds that the applicant failed to meet his or her burden of proof, may deny the application; 5. The zoning administrator may approve minor modifications as provided in Section 18.54.040(C)(3) - Staff approval. A decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed (or called up) to the DRB for review. V. THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN, DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (11 SUNISHADE The Vail Village Design Considerations (1) Sun/Shade currently reads as follows: "Due to Vail's alpine climate, sun is an important comfort factor, especially in winter, fall and spring. Shade areas have ambient temperatures substantially below those of adjacent direct sunlit areas. On all but the warmest of summer days shade can easily lower temperatures below comfortable levels and thereby negatively impact uses of those areas. All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow pattern (March 21 through September 23) on adjacent properties or the pubic R.O.W. In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade considerations are not intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria. Staff recommends the text be changed as follows: "...All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring/fall equinox (March 21 /September 23) or winter solstice (December 21) shadow patterns on adjacent properties or the pubic R.O.W. 16 In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade considerations are not intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria. In order to determine the sun/shade impact of a project, applicants shall submit a sun/shade analysis for 1 O:OOAM and 2:OOPM for the spring/fall equinox and the winter solstice. The following sun angles shall be used when preparing this analysis: Spring/Pall Equinox Sun Angle 1 O:OOAM 42° East of South, 500 declination 2:OOPM 42° West of South, 50° declination Winter Solstice 1 O:OOAM 30° East of South, 20° declination 2:OOPM 30° West of South, 20° declination VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the code amendments described above. We believe that the recommended amendments will clarify and improve the CCI and CCII sections of the zoning code, as well as the Vail Village and the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Considerations. The PEC recommendation will be forwarded to Town Council in ordinance form for final approval. Staff would like to emphasize that if the proposal is recommended for approved by the PEC, certain code references and the specific language may be adjusted, due to legal considerations, when the memo is placed into ordinance form. c Apeclmemoslexta1t.125 17 , yi p is 1993 sycrown ' € .. - n .. -_¢ka Y. _rt r.Y?` ,?`?- f - f t C 1 1 ?,.?.r S. § 3 f .r.}?S.A.?? „?..I?A.. a, } i.`- ,74k.Y.?.»i. ??-F ., ?.?r ,- .,j {tr.y ,R., .,t=.A°?L`?'`<'??'fi.:,'.B DISTRICT AUD OF '? :. . 0,1W z.}s? '1111.1 STATE ii s_-4.16.,.: .:: , y ..,?::,?.Y.i t..: 1.. ..E-{., S '..?F.. .. #,?i?]Y??t? F !4„t.i". i. - oh ..S °{ ('.3 Army r34tl } kY%,. 11111c.- 0, .;t... . .:. ,t . -.-._ .. . a ..., y,t....... , t` ....,..„_- Act to »a .? i >.cI..Itt.rgo M-1 o. Vail, Y ?.,,.d..?_x.; " x 7 ., x,}f,.4}z a2 „ ,'?,"._!3.'"?.J 4`sk in the FA t,_'C.. fit. 1,iF:': (.A d?. ,. ...1 .•C.1 :.:,A ., APPLICAM: .... . Valley .. »,., .. ., G ._i;. ... - .;.x4..1'_ .. ... y 29, WOOL USMCW Vail, colcrado 316 5-7 ..C{.. ±,?. .Oi''in s%etwti-`-[.n T ;3?1_., ..?- ? a , S,q and - E';: ! :`'? . i ' 3 * "????Zta:;'Y ? : + ?? z r ai in t d"<' east=" pa . .. -, . ,_ . rt e_ ?». of the °d! ?. ,i _ A d k? A, _. ii .? r .._ , . . . . , il Cou . . . . . nty, o_.. ,C_?5. ..,?tE_ ¢.,, ? ,. DESCRIPTION: 1 n ivoit : ='i.. . . in r ... ho i-.,C.•'-? ' ??:.i i_?'"?.i f??'?'?€l;"6 t???t? Fx 11.3 ¢ C .?<?._f_' .3 .[l.L.CAcy'.a.it?. . C:Fi„}?.1? C _. ,7't.. _. on 13.7 .. `.-.. o's „ of .}'. g 'S.f xC.gA The s. - t d_».Y . ..'7.1lp;;";f"' L .7 e , .t .. „ b...•;?z,ti:•,.t?.?:?'.f ??,::`a, .y'. ,_.. _ _?f? _ ....n._ .. parking ,?. a:.¢?to, one too i`Y?x.d.? one ... ,. '`?i'jC?7 a: ¢ „F_ ',:.:.' q e;` _ f..A: . . . f of ; 0.7 -acre r.* i Y "L €t? e k 1'° r #... U10 rlr €,; 6Jni,: t,_y TAi'-.. ¢,v .. ?.5.. _..a.,,, rn ,, :.. ,-r,, to disF..`.°r... ?..:° .., total {.).."._ 1,012 cubic ltfl;_l»t. A of M! . ita,..er.friil ,g., .... ',,.f 0.28 aC':rs,,.. (12,200 squa.z.o Met) of w2tlando. The rapplicant aloo proposes to temporarily die`.,a i.sSi_'b 0.26 acre of wetlands t.yiA. rinq 't, J3 ,l c+,.''kis-L z ue^` tic: n ? ?. tha dhirily! Mis project with 6.. restoratioq of 0.26 acre of wetlands Y.::.illpt C:`....-,. .". ... dUturr.)ado l..'bd's ARE A , i.., `.>.?,:i?,? ?'_'' , » _.ti...i . '_? t ?1???: l Y`}.?3, o°:=:'?Y4t site g :° 3 ¢-1o-.?e?^?..aC?i The _ 'E?T.?aeastern e'end o the Vail Valley on the north side of ?.a .f,. Gone Creek i" at a higher ele ele ele vation a vation o vation t han the Gore ?,.e.._t:'?.?.i. S_?..(,7C.:'(.yC_t:`__%Ak .. "i??.E '3 i??..?_ { Valley is a nar row mont nmont ane ane valley at a" elevation 4.,`t._. 8,800 feet above mean E V e t WOO nz january 1, 1993 C f ' , .o' Wit W 300V twonty years. z"St 4...E .t +- } S.-f `° . , - c t, iyf,.)_3., ?.. _° '?':?,.,?a .t_`?j+C-?'1•s n,t.?`., .:`': , `_?.,`k'..P .. , ,,;° ., f.' -0.}.1' Ann" 1-0 .. -,.,?;° ..' ..,nd „ 101 ' Oro 0010001 .1 , , s-. jut....•. :.. } .+:,:. .:i. Ft .t .-' E .:.?e-. -.; ^ - 1~ , E?,. .. -., ,it i. d.i 7.1.,0. `-.-.. i..t P- ,. t.i° fiN , t. y;t',''ov; n: - _-':,;.:i. ,Ci.1„y,F x :(_.t M4- ow .x_3 ``a.'': , ., .y 1 • n"Wn"Kjan Un '011W, at. ,i , t this „- ,` :).1..z'.t_`I':,,,,.,., t, _V,..N; - lot, to on-Olin altarnaUVO!" v ° t ? ; k+-; " •. ,. ii .. f-. _E.J ?. E (:x , .., t: , . .-t e"???' c,'. ? r t, ,}S.t?;; .?_z ,^,-?. .°..P ta_°.lt:"t'.:'E;,f-; y,.$'s...", m;.r.4, .=,..z.. .,,-.l .,. V:, k.._ r. ¢.......ziy't',.,ra,... - .._.. .".L,"<_<.':: :_...-, twain - - i t.., ?.,, t,}. .. tom.... ,_. -. s:' - Vail, :. ..?i .. ,-'}• .. ?`.?`?. ?`.1 ;,. ., ?_ .. t,?<t."`•?''- "??°r. "'f, u,?c":r:,_oh .._?- c 6 , ,.h.. .. ., ... _ ,E#'?.,£..+..''.-.1' :S Tom.y',._ ," 'g ! .c,'.. _ ..}t'?`, 3i?._ i_., k ?! .. old, ?'.,i' 7P ;`, .i_C.l r".: 3.?e-... ['.-_:-.: z. Y-, :_. SJ,:t + , t ,., } ,' , i.'.t Vs.}U.: Tz7.,::r ,. m.`. *'k..t-% visas 0.3 _:<...,.. •-_'.. :-,R'%,=;., f,.5 ?. ?,?O..ti ' `r . s. to p:i.:t ,, ->3.R P:;:.;1 e'` Villa. T`fe tai riot; have , sE: e+;--.W..4.;,?C a:a?:t !Kt r t., zi ^_l. _ L`bl site .t.. of VVIL, is? ,- x x l.tlt:'_? }'.,r<',3.. , ?,:-,,c 1.tt .'.:'ien..i ,' I ha e its W the ppropnrty as " for ... .. .,. ... ,-:, k.,.° ,t . " .'t.. °„ maintenance .,. _.,.... ,°z.n; .°,Iti, ?.}';,`k,b_ng , 4. ?..t..t.-`.r +?=.:5 _j.vl''': b,:':i}.nu;.° .p _„p, :. ,.._ ed ,..,€ of Brw...d MX..,.. ?...,,%.,.^. :} Ro_.x, objected Ors` - , - - °. An, i't oa will only hav?? 24 „paiyking a • players ,. . arty .a,.., : =fir-',. <"'y`>.t "', •e., '~?.i». "'if.'°a ;3'V s; `ra ...-. , ..,, ,. ;M' `.z; "`E,', ? n$ b; o ?.3. also pr;<,°va x. xl r..A,:a...z .., a of e why ° 1.'k s. =,:. building , ,"i_.?.3 Y.' y €:A,-;c`2 9.: C'? ?'=b`` _'. f°?i?r ?:i ; .':t? .?.. t?? c.?yr'?`Lm ??. i,:$.?,?4.'?''_?.?,? the ;t.,.1}?.?. ?<;.aa ,?.'i:'`C?a ii; (:A 'x. a1*;? t, .,.. _,. - 't;t,.. „-,r .,.,. k..'.:. f,-° that Urn department U...C'?.i%,a_ v 11 E PL 1 199275078 g l january 8, 1993 1. t Us sa Q Z I at ?. r j € . t. t A "x:1'1 ons. o C: 9 -:rn PI its Mon and are 1 me s ?`. . 3 l io i d'. which This -?-n of s W uh t; we with Section 7 of the in B u t ?gg • 1'.D9 12 OBTIT T", J ., ;-. - - - f NIT _ ,.i.h? ,, ? t, t , -.. ? -.?i..,s'.- , - - _, ... --. .f7 9 .-• ,-?? t- ?. _- '.t .£, `. ,in '? z§t.?i F I t..'.- c k } .t.'-.;,-.gr..'.:^:.•., '<_?>. a... :,-;,:?,..-. ._ ... .,--._-, _ .e ,. S,b?e ?:'t a"j t_' s!- - .,?!.--.'4i' .. c. : ).. t.. .-, ..'l.. ?.C?k ?i t r; ;'fit 1••-r }f. _Y .'§i..§.?'??.a ,,:{-,;-,§.-;.., ;..I.i i.H t'..'-!. ? :. .`1. .. .., r! ..f t<,."'t 'e o('t=s n' ':,y;,y ?-?, y `? iA4.?e.i + i .. ,,r_ 3 , ra ,:,;2,;:.-; .,.1.,=?'t ,zt;, Y 5+€ >, ?c')v"g? r?• r'r':G? , J'?..?.ta. ..f, 1?.?. .1';.. .l.?``,.-..;-:rr ._. ;'Y '.'; {',` - .>r '-f:?}-,•.3 t?3«??t <,.1. ti??ia e. ?.',t'=. {, .}.. _`i:' .-, _[-?:''.?. #.;.$ 4?.{!(.?. . ..t _, ...,...,.fy .. ,. .-. - .., t?t.Ic$..L.?_€ a ?.. ., ,-,. .,v € -.Y 3 (q#•, „dn "}??#S-'"! „`„ ?i. '.t!f'•.-..; A..:fil,,._C-. _:..-,:t?:f_,:7w C... _>l:,., ...._ til' 'sz4. 7` i:' ..,`'?.)..-,?.?? 40 ?.": clc,.d .C:;c.t t„ t ., ..ii_t-._ ..! ?..S..a. __.. . €%.c:t.. . ???. '-',„'g'{.,.;c ? t:ty ,., ,. ..`'t" ?E?::? a'•' f-i .t. .':.:?#,, ,.? (_,F -. .:.?. ... ez :.?k r .;x ?_.fl 13v ?`) ?i'•','? ._: ly:]-.y.€.. .f, .S iA. ?' of - ., S.i ?F..'b ',..jt :S F § N.., ; 1„x5 ?q ,.x ?...i? ?: .t.. ¢_..} a J_ :.. n:..J x.,. .'IS .?d. a. ,Y?,. .:_, .., `!,£ L•„s _. .3.i. c'?a ? =:z... ,.?:?. u cizn >4:1„, {.'.R 4:3:r f:'o t_°•_?a.B f!.?a: {. ;'...+.? ?1.P ?.??B_,`;3 C; ?. 3'X ??.+?_$s .. ?t'?? 6"?{_1 ??1?.a 4i.C„A???{.. §.i s ,:? ?f..i. ??:x'E'?C, §. '<4? s.?, i._i i?'?a ?.?a ,.ra i?..3 s;t(,:?ti..?v d"t E?3 fib €', , .9 1 t , C :i G"L p., # } 1' o.t „°. .{ ?, x..', R €C ..± i ,.>u-`_-r I4,.1 I .,(. ago- t..::5;: r?,3 0 Pk-. (.{`3:fs.a?Z.,: °a' -a.... a, .'n .:A?.1`..?„?.t..?.elEt:wli?t,'?,:?.e ?.r.x.?e~ze :::s?.:t?.. t'.:or . c:.s.k? 4?,a1'4•rr??,-?..:?'+.;I.:-:f';i.ax,?. _?1,3a? s::<, :;Cxi?;?4`,E„`."t?.IZ?.l,.t 0 y , 1993 ter, ?. ?? a ca I) ac n rk C, 0 y 0 xa? 5 n E lr ?, A? e i Y _ _ a "r 3 „tee..-' ,_„.,...^,,, _.?..._.---°^'° - -_...,,__-..-.-.....?..v.?.........-....,.....?....?........_..._... _ w"'^'°--_..._. --_ _ _ -..'.--.".-'-.'`'///..`_-'-"°J/.ref.'., ,'`r -?i^/?,.1 ?\. ^?.="?- '?„?/='--•-•?.? ?, ..,,-\?:,???~".---'" - ??.""'-°°--y?r?? K ,.?°-..?•sr_..?---- SHP, i5+f?' ; •;??. f °? ??-°'F '? ?:- \?..:._i"?/ ___ " ? - ? - - y,?-- --_-, „?`? - v _. '?!`4 ?- ,fir'-.--=>. v' -' `'%?- - --- _ - -A?c_.,,--?,_.--`.\ `.' .._.. „t ' ' -a r 1 '? eiw. C? f J',?l '----- - --------? t rrY '1,..?11? '•? x k-n.,? tea,, 0 Ocabev '022 100' 260' WCA As Boundary Ll ti ;o • • F .?,'"k GF-,S»uty ? ?r y. vJ-'Far.-n= ??e1?Or?"' 311- r e, VA) ? ,? l ? f4 ?a ? r - ., to .ryr° ; :: z?iz*? '} J P -....,. .?'•?w{f/,,{?/,,.Y e..'r„-y \ t r, ?y x ?v Ll p ?' ; E 'P?-??, ?'4.d ?" r" •?,,, yea"-+.. *,? ? J ? ? J r t .. se y r F r /?' ?l • ? , °?l '?e..- ._._._>. ?....? __ _. ? _,-- ??`-'<' ? , - oo..:o?.-?+, ^ ? ?Yt`? E a0 a ;Q} -47 ,,.,per y 1 ?w ???max, ? `?_ _ ? ?;?. _ ,--- - ?•?......? err 4 V • ? ':Y-' ^ ?S/i/?//? •-? ?c? '•? -'" J f J ,+?tr?,?.,? ?r? f J g ; \ r° \`?,, f / J? ".--.V-, "" ?? .=,-p"?''.? _„.., _ _ , R \ Nv, u 11 • o 70' t ?. i t ? ? ; j .??? r"'---.`.,_-u'1 ?^<-? 's ,?'"?"?.F?t' ?'? ? ; / `? ?? rr . ?.? o e?zu,?.?' i v f << r _ ~)` ?' "gJ .Z? In n, ?- E w -. "' _ o !View a C .S ., s.:. ..._... y '17 - 1; u 11 I r' ORDINANCE NO. 30 SERIES 1992 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 2, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL BY THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 2.36 - LIMITATION OF TERMS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE LIMITATION OF TERMS FOR ALL MEMBERS OF PERMANENT TOWN OF VAIL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. WHEREAS, Section 2.3 of the Municipal Charter of the Town of Vail provides that Town Council members shall not serve for more than eight consecutive years; and WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that such a limitation on Town Council terries of office has been good and has resulted in the election of new Council members with different insights and fresh perspectives; and WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that it would benefit the health, safety, and welfare n of the Town of Vail to provide a similar term limitation for all members of the Town's permanent Boards and Commissions. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: 1) Title 2 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Chapter 2.36 - Limitation of Terms, to read as follows: 2.36.010 No member of any permanent Town of Vail Board or Commission shall serve for more than eight consecutive years. A Board or Commission member who has served eight (8) consecutive years may serve again after a period of one (1) year of non-service. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if there are an insufficient number of applicants for a vacant position or positions on any permanent TOV Board or Commission, a Board or Commission member who has served for more than eight (8) consecutive years shall be eligible to apply for reappointment. 2.36.020 All current members of the Town's permanent Boards or Commissions on the effective date of this ordinance shall be entitled to complete their term of office regardless of whether the completion of such term would exceed eight (8) years. 2) If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any 1 r 11 C one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 3) The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 4) The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 5) All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 16th day of December, 1992, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 5th day of January, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margret A. Osterfoss, May ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED in full this 15 day of Jan* , 19093. ?erfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk CAORD9'2.30 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development DATE: December 8, 1992 SUBJECT: Planning Commission recommendations to the Town Council to approve a minor subdivision and major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade Village to amend the Development Plan for Waterford and Cornerstone parcc]s in Area A. :::.:, :.: On December 7, 1992, the PEC recommended approval for a request to amend SDD #4 Cascade Village Area A. The vote was 5-1. Diana Donovan opposed the application based on concerns related to the following: 1. The change in the TR definition to allow for units larger than 645 sq. ft. of GRFA, 2. The proximity of the Waterford building to the creek, and 3. The 20' width of the emergency access between the Cornerstone Building and the existing Terrace Wing Building. She also stated that she was generally more comfortable with the proposed Waterford project than the proposed Cornerstone project. The PEC also approved a request for a minor subdivision to create two independent lots for the two sites in question, the Waterford and Cornerstone building sites. The following items were conditions of the Planning Commission's recommendations to the Town Council. The staff's recommendation is listed in the attached memorandum, to the PEC dated December 7, 1992. Cornerstone 1. Before the building permit is released for the project, the three proposed employee housing units shall be permanently restricted per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance as follows: a. The EHU shall include two (2) on-site parking spaces or the EHU shall include one (1) on-site parking space and the EHU shall be located "on" the Town's bus route (as determined by the Town Zoning Administrator); b. The EHU shall not be subdivided into any form of time shares, interval ownerships, or fractional fee; C. The EHU shall be leased, but only to tenants who are full-time employees who work in Eagle County. The EHU shall not be leased for a period less than thirty LI (30) consecutive days. For the purposes of this Section, a full-time employee is one who works an average of a minimum of thirty (30) hours each week; d. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of the employee housing unit shall submit two (2) copies of a report (on a form to be obtained from the Community Development Department), to the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail and the Chairperson of the Town of Vail Housing Authority, setting forth evidence establishing that each tenant whom resides within the employee housing unit is a full-time employee in Eagle County. This agreement shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 2. Transient residential units proposed on both Scenario 1 and 2 shall not be individually condominiumized at any point in the future. These units shall remain as rental units used in the same manner as hotel type units and are not intended for individual ownership. The definition of TR shall be changed to accommodate this proposal. 3. The developer agrees to complete asphalt borings and an as-built survey and to provide them to the Town of Vail for the area of the road adjacent to their property in order to determine the condition of Westhaven Drive. The Town Engineer shall determine when these drawings shall be required. 4. The proposed landscape plan between the Terrace Wing and the proposed Cornerstone building shall be revised prior to the review of the project by the DRB. For emergency services, an access lane must be provided from the western courtyard to the ski lift. In meeting this condition, the water feature on the landscape plan for this amendment may be removed or revised accordingly. The proposed landscaping in this area shall be part of the Cornerstone development and, therefore, it is the developer's responsibility to complete this portion of the project when the Cornerstone project is constructed. These plans shall be included in the building permit for the Cornerstone development at such time that it is developed. 5. The area of road in which parking is proposed under Westhaven Drive for the Cornerstone project shall be conveyed and transferred through the proposed minor subdivision to the Cornerstone property. An easement shall be granted to the Town of Vail over this area for public access. 6. In Scenario 2 of the Cornerstone project, three DUs will be condominiumized and available on the free market with no rental restrictions. In addition, two DUs that each have one AU and one lock off, shall have the rental restrictions applied per Section 17.26.075 of the Subdivision Regulations. An additional DU will be available with one lock off for condominiumization. This DU/LO unit will also have the condominium- conversion rental restrictions applied to it per Section 17.26.075 of the Subdivision Regulations. 11 Waterford 1. The two proposed employee housing units shall be restricted per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance. This agreement shall be submitted before the building permit is released for the project. This agreement shall be recorded at Eagle County Clerk and recorder's Office. Please see the specific provisions of the ordinance under item 1. Cornerstone. 2. The developer agrees to complete asphalt borings and an as-built survey to determine the condition of Westhaven Drive from the South Frontage Road to the south end of the Cul-de-sac. The applicant agrees to provide stamped, engineered construction drawings for any road revisions that are necessary to bring the road up to Town standards. These construction drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail's engineer prior to the release of a building permit. All road improvements shall be completed by the developer for the project prior to T.C.O. The road will also be dedicated to the Town prior to the release of a T.C.O. The dedication of the public access easement for the remainder of Westhaven Drive shall be conveyed at such time that the minor subdivision plat is submitted prior to a building permit being released for the project. The public access easement shall allow for parking enforcement by the Town of Vail. 3. The bike path shall be relocated and the existing easement shall be amended if possible on the minor subdivision plat to correspond to the new location. If the bike path is relocated while Waterford is being constructed, the bike path must be relocated and the easement provided to the Town for public access before a T.C.O. is released. The minor subdivision plat shall be completed and recorded prior to the release of any building permits for either project. The minor subdivision plat shall include the conveyance of property to Cornerstone for its parking located below grade, the Town's public access easement over the underground parking area in the current cul-de-sac, and the relocation of the bike path on the Waterford site, and the public access easement across Westhaven Drive. 4. The DRB will review the proposed landscaping in the areas of the retaining walls on the west and east ends of the site. The DRB will review the north elevation's architectural details. The applicant has also agreed to review the possibility of eliminating the skier access on the east end of the project. However, the PEC felt that if the applicant could significantly decrease the retaining walls necessary to build the access, the skier access could remain. Waterford/Cornerstone The general condominium plat and declarations shall be reviewed by the Town attorney and the Community Development Department. The primary concern is that the parking be made permanently available to the users of the project. This includes the permanent dedication of those spaces allocated to commercial areas as short term 11 public parking. All proposed required parking associated with the uses shall not be conveyed, used or leased separately from the uses. Public parking on the third floor of the Cornerstone project shall be made available to the public for short term parking within the building. The wording of the agreements listed above are also subject to the Town Attorney's review. These items will appear in the proposed ordinance for this amendment unless otherwise modified by the Town Attorney or the Town Council. E 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 7, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision and a major amendment to SDD #4, Cascade Village, to amend the development plans for the Waterford and Cornerstone parcels in area A. The Waterford site is generally located on the SE corner of the intersection of Westhaven Drive and the S. Frontage Road, The Cornerstone site is on Westhaven Drive south of the Cascade Village parking structure. The legal descriptions are as follows: Waterford Site That part of the SW 1/4 NE 114, Section 12, Township 5 South, Flange 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway No. 70 whence an iron pin with a plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12 bears S 33110'19" W 1447.03 feet; thence along said southerly right-of-way line two courses 1) N 52°50'29" E 229.66 feet 2) N 74138'17" E 160.70 feet; thence departing said southerly right-of-way line N 88°45'57" E 138.93 feet; thence S 4004514" W 94.32 feet; thence S 181 18'36" W 54.08 feet; thence S 01°21'36" W 205.02 feet; thence S 12007'36" W 110.25 feet; thence S 28°28'36" W 164.48 feet; thence N 40 ° 17'04" W 211.16 feet; thence N 49°42'56" E 97.80 feet; thence N 37°09'31 " W 95.59 fleet; thence S 52050'29" W 55.10 feet; thence 69.48 feet along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 65.00 feet, a central angle of 61114'42" and a chord that bears N 580 55'53" W 66.22 feet; thence N 37°09'31" W 118.50 feet To The True Point of Beginning, County of Eagle, State of Colorado; and the Cornerstone parcel described as follows: Cornerstone Site That part of the SW 114 NE 114, Section 12, Township 5 South, Flange 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the easterly line of a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress known as Westhaven Drive recorded in Book 421 at Page 651 in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder whence the center of said Section 12 bears S 38°34'43"W 1,168.27 feet; thence along said line of Westhaven Drive N 52°43'41"E 143.92 feet; thence departing said line of Westhaven Drive, 132.24 feet along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 55.00 feet, a central angle of 137045'30" and a chord that bears N 42°11'46"E 102.61 feet; thence N 52150'29"E 65.24 feet; thence S 37°09'31"E 95.59 feet; thence S 49142'56"W 97.80 feet; thence S 40117'04"E 24.12 feet; thence S 5205029"W 213.66 feet; thence N 37109'31"W 10536 feet to the point of beginning containing 0.6848 acres more or less, Applicant: MECM Enterprises, Waterford Site and Commercial Federal Savings, Cornerstone Site Planner: Shelly Mello I. INTRODUCTION In July, September, and October of 1992, the PEC reviewed a proposed amendment to the Cascade Village SDD #4, Area A, Development Plan. The initial proposal specifically addressed the Waterford site located at the southeast corner of Westhaven Drive and the South Frontage Road. It has been decided that, in order to move forward with the amendment to the Waterford site, that the Cornerstone site to the west of Waterford also needs to be amended. In October, 1992, a third work session was held which specifically addressed the Cornerstone site. The changes to the Cornerstone site are necessary because currently there is an interdependence between the two sites in respect to the provision of parking. Each site is owned by independent entities and it is their desire to eliminate any interdependence between the two sites. The goal of this effort is to approve two development glans which can be constructed independent of each other. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 4, Cascade Village Area A and more specifically, the Cornerstone and Waterford sites. A minor subdivision is also being requested to create two individual lots. The Cornerstone parcel is bound by the proposed Waterford project to the east, Gore Creek and the Westin Terrace Building to the south and Westhaven Drive to the north. The Waterford parcel is on the corner of the South Frontage Road and Westhaven Drive with Gore Creek to the south and the Waterford site to the west. The parcel was zoned SDD from the time it was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1974. There is no underlying zoning. The current approval for the Cornerstone site allows for one development scheme with two options for the commercial area. The applicant is proposing two scenarios for this amendment. Scenario I includes transient units and commercial area while Scenario 2 includes a mixture of dwelling units, transient units, and commercial area. In addition, both Scenarios include three employee units. The Cornerstone site modifications are being necessitated by the inclusion of parking which previously was located on the Waterford site. Parking has been accommodated below grade and on the second and third levels. Scenario 2 calls for 34 transient units, 6 dwelling units with 3 lockoffs, 2 accommodation units and 3 employee units in Scenario 2. Scenario 1 would allow 52 transient units and 3 employee units. Under Scenario 2, the applicant has requested that three of the dwelling units located in the east wing be free market and proposes that the remaining 3 dwelling units, the 3 corresponding lockoffs, and the 2 accommodation units would be condominiumized and restricted by the "condo conversion" requirements. The 1939 approved plan allows for 50 transient units. In both scenarios, the applicant proposes to permanently restrict the transient residential units to a lodging use, ie. the units will not be condominium ized. Please see Section IV (A) Zoning Consideration for a detailed comparison between the approved plan and the two proposed scenarios. 0 2 The Cornerstone proposal currently being reviewed does propose to locate parking below a portion of Westhaven Drive. The applicants propose to transfer ownership of a portion of the road with the proposed minor subdivision to allow for this. The 1939 approved Waterford plan allowed for two scenarios. The applicant is proposing only one development plan for this amendment. The first included 75 accommodation units and the second allowed for 30 dwelling units. Both included 3,300 square feet of commercial space and parking for both the Waterford and Cornerstone sites. The applicant is currently proposing only one scenario which allows for 27 dwelling units and 2 employee units. No increase in GRFA has been requested and the parking for the Waterford dwelling units will be provided on site. The applicant also proposes to relocate the recreation path 10' to the south. Please see Section IV (B) for specific zoning considerations. Ill. BACKGROUND The Cascade Village Development was previously owned by a single development entity. As proposed by the past developer, the project was a system of interdependent phases to be built into an integrated complex which provided commercial areas, short- term and long-term residential units and consolidated parking facilities. Since the bankruptcy of the original developer, ownership of the sites has been dispersed among different owners. This plan is now more difficult to execute, as each owner has different development objectives for their respective sites. The change in ownership effects the Cornerstone project because, as approved, all of the parking for the Cornerstone project was to be located on the Waterford site. These projects are now held by two entities who want to provide their own parking on their respective sites. 166 parking spaces were to be provided in the Waterford project for the Cornerstone development. An additional outstanding issue in the Cascade Village development is the ownership status of Westhaven Drive, from the South Frontage Road to the Gore Creek Bridge. The road is owned by the owner of the Waterford site, MECM Enterprises, and is privately maintained by a separate entity. This road has not been conveyed to the Town because it does not meet the Town's minimum road standards. 0 3 IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. Comparison of Approved and Proposed Develooment Plans for Cornerstone Approved Proposed Proposed Scenario Scenario 1 Scenario 2 1) Density (# of Units) 50 TR* 52 TR + 3 emp. 34 TR units ** 3 DU's (free market) 3 DU w/3 Lo. and 2 AU's (restricted) 3 emp. units" 2) GRFA 28,110 sq. ft. 28,110 + 1800 sq. ft. 28,110 + 1800 for emp. units sq. ft. for emp. units 3) Common Area 34,919 sq. ft. 16,817 sq. ft. 16,817 sq. ft. 4) Commercial Space 26,040 or 11,100 sq. ft. 11,100 sq. ft. 29,065 sq. ft. 5) Credits Given None per multi-family per multi- zoning family zoning 6) Height North 71' max on 71' from plaza 71' from plaza to top of ridge to top of ridge South N/A because 49 49 East buildings are 70 70 West connected 67 67 7) Setbacks North 0 0 0 South Distance between Terrace Wing and Cornerstone 45' 54 54 East 0 0 4 West 0 0 0 10 8) Site Coverage 26,533 sq. ft. 20,930 sq. ft. 20,930 sq. ft. 9) Parking 155.9 or 89 req. spaces w/75%o 84 req. 166 spaces enclosed; w/75%n enclosed in 89 proposed w/ enclosed; Waterford 100% enclosed 89 proposed Structure w/100% enclosed B. Comoarison of AoDroved and Prooosed Develooment Plans for Waterford Approved Approved Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Pro posed E 3) Common Area 14,297 sq. ft. 14,297 sq. ft. 33,913 sq. ft. 1) Density (# of Units) 75 AUs 30 DUs 27 DUs+ 2 restricted emp. units ** 2) GRFA 47,500 sq. ft. 47,500 sq. ft. 47,500 sq.ft. + 1100 sq. ft. restricted emp. units ** 4) Retail Space 3,800 sq. ft. 3,800 sq. ft. 0 5) Credits Given None None per multi-family zoning 6) Height North 48 feet 48 feet 55 ft. South 61 feet 61 feet 65 ft. East 61 feet 61 feet 65 ft. West 48 feet 48 feet 56 ft. 7) Setbacks (Building) North 8'-15'-18' North (to parking lot) NA South 20 min. East 20-91 8'-15'-18' 4-46-64 NA 2'-25' 20 min. 26 min. 20-91 10-84 5 West 8) Site Coverage 9) Parking 18 18 10 26,186 sq. ft. 26,186 sq. ft. 19,230 sq. ft. 11,100 sq. ft. surface lot 2 - 25' 72.7 spaces 87.7 spaces 58 spaces all parking all parking required; enclosed enclosed 60 proposed 43 enclosed or 75% or req., 19 surface SDD # 4 defines a transient as follows: "Transient residential dwelling unit or restricted dwelling unit" shall be defined as a dwelling unit located in a multi-family dwelling that is managed as a short term rental in which all such units are operated under a single management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities. A short term rental shall be deemed to be a rental for a period of time not to exceed 31 days. Each unit shall not exceed 645 square feet of GRFA which shall include a kitchen having a maximum of 35 square feet. The kitchen shall be designed so that it may be locked and separated from the rest of the unit in a closet. A transient dwelling unit shall be accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through another accommodation unit, dwelling unit, or a transient residential dwelling unit. Should such units be developed as condominiums, they shall be restricted as set forth in Section 17.26.075--17,26.120 governing condominium conversion. The unit shall not be used as a permanent residence. Fractional fee ownership shall not be allowed to be applied to transient dwelling units. For the purposes of determining allowable density per acre, transient residential dwelling units shall be counted as one half of a dwelling unit. The transient residential dwelling unit parking requirement shall be 0.4 space per unit plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of GRF'A with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit." C ** Permanently restricted employee units do not count towards density or GRFA per the current SDD##4 Ordinance. *** The proposed D.U.'s are restricted per the Use Restrictions in Section 17.26 Condo Conversion of the Subdivision Regulations per the developer's request. **** Lock-off Unit: A dwelling unit in a multiple-family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third of the total floor area of the dwelling. 6 The proposed projects depart from the existing definition of transient unit provided in this SDD. This definition will need to be revised to allow for the larger TR units proposed in Scenario I and II for Cornerstone. The proposed size of the lockoffs do not conform to the definition provided in the zoning code. As approved, the Cornerstone and Waterford buildings were connected below grade. In the approved plan, a large portion of the Cornerstone common area was located on what is now considered Waterford property. In the proposed plan, the two projects are completely separate and the parking structure for Waterford is located in front of the residential development. In the previous plan, Waterford residential structure was located directly above the parking. For this reason, the staff feels that it is more accurate to consider the projects together when reviewing common area and site coverage as shown below: Corn erstone/Waterford Approved Total Site Coverage 52,719 sq. ft. Total Common Area 49,216 sq. ft. V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA Cornerstone/Waterford Proposed 40,160 + 11,100 parking structure 51,160 sq. ft. 50,730 sq. ft. The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the nine Special Development District (SDD) development standards set forth in the special development district chapter of the Zoning Code. The criteria are as follows: 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. Cornerstone The mass and bulk of the proposed project is similar to that of the approved development plan. The building shell will remain the same for each proposed scenario. This building shell is similar to that of the approved plan in mass and scale, however, it is no longer connected to either the Conference Center to the west or the Waterford Building to the east. The proposed building footprint is smaller than that of the approved development plan with the proposed site coverage at 20,930 square feet and the approved site coverage at 26,533 square feet. The south elevation has 6 exposed levels. Levels 3-6 are exposed on the north elevation adjacent to Westhaven Drive, for a total of 4 exposed floors with the following uses: 0 7 1 st Level 2nd Level 3rd Level 4th Level 0th Level 6th Level Commercial (9,900 sq. ft.) Parking/Employee units (3 units) Parking/Commercial (11,200 sq. ft.) Residential Residential Residential This proposal adds an additional level to the building compared to the 1989 approval. The approved development plan has a total of 5 exposed floors on the north elevation and 3 levels on the south elevation. However, the overall height of the building has not increased. This additional level was accomplished by decreasing the floor to ceiling heights at each level and increasing the amount of usable area in the roof form. The need to add parking on this site has changed the overall program for the building. This effects the building because more floor area is needed to accomplish the development standards set forward by the SDD. This was accomplished while working with the existing building envelope, by first adding below grade parking and second by adding an additional level above grade. The amount of approved commercial space has been decreased from 29,065 square feet to 11,100 square feet. The staff recognizes that all of these changes are necessary in order to accommodate the need for on-site parking. This proposal also includes a reduction in the mass over the pedestrian access area which is a focal point for those entering Cascade Village. The decrease in the mass will allow for an increase in visibility of the mountain behind. The proposal includes the use of architectural details similar to those of the other existing buildings in Cascade Village. This includes a metal roof, protruding balconies, stucco finish and painted metal railings. In addition, arcades similar to those in the Terrace Wing have been included at both the Terrace Wing level and the Westhaven Drive pedestrian level. With the approved development plan, there was a great deal of consideration given to the public spaces on the site. These areas include, the mall area and the outdoor stair through the Cornerstone building connecting Westhaven Drive to the ski lift, the public space between the Terrace Wing and Cornerstone, as well as public areas connecting this site to the rest of the Westin Complex. This was accomplished with a series of connected plazas and other site amenities starting at Westhaven Drive leading to the ski lift/pedestrian area. Due to emergency access requirements, the applicant has proposed to include a modified plan of the approved landscape plan for the area between Cornerstone and the Terrace Wing with this amendment. It is the staff's findings that these off-site amenities are to be completed by the developer of the Cornerstone project at the time of the construction of this project. There is a severe grade change on this site from Westhaven Drive to the ski Sl 8 lift\public space level. This, along with the configuration of the site, present many practical difficulties. Due to the grade change, the visual impacts of each building elevation are different. Because each side of the building is exposed to public ways, staff believes each elevation of the building to be very important. Landscape material and berms have been incorporated into the plan in order to decrease the visual impacts of each of these elevations. The staff finds that although the proposal includes a net increase in square footage because of the additional parking level below grade that the proposal is in compliance with the intent of the Cascade Village development and is compatible with the area surrounding the project. Please note site coverage, GRFA and common area have actually been decreased. 2. Waterford This site is disturbed due to the dumping of excess fill from other projects in Cascade Village. For this reason, there are few natural characteristics remaining on the property. There is also a severe grade change on this property from the South Frontage Road to the bike path (adjacent to the Creek.) The proposed plan for the Waterford project is more of a departure from the approved plan than that proposed for Cornerstone in respect to architectural style and site planning. The architectural details are similar to those of the Westin, however, the massing incorporates a series of smaller roof forms in a series of staggered towers versus a single roof mass as seen in other Cascade Village buildings. The proposed building does exceed the maximum height on the west and south elevations. Per the SDD and the approved plans, the maximum height allowed is 48 and 61 feet respectively. The height of the proposed west elevation is 56 feet. The current proposal is to allow for a building of 65 feet from finish grade to the top of the ridge on the south side. The staff feels that due to the changes in the project and the relocation of the mass, that this is an acceptable solution. The main increase in height along the west elevation is acceptable for the same reason. As approved, the minimum distance from the building to bike path was 20 feet. As proposed, that distance would increase to 26 feet. Again, the staff feels that this also supports the ability to increase the height to 65 feet because of the increased distance between the pedestrian area and the bike path. The staff finds that the relocation of the building and the decreased height adjacent to the Frontage Road justify the increase in height on the west elevations and along the pedestrian path on the south elevation. While the approved plan proposed more mass adjacent to the Frontage Road, this proposal shifts the concentration of mass to the south. The staff finds that this is an improvement to the plan because it will provide relief along the Frontage Road. At-grade surface parking will be located between the Frontage Road and the building. There is no surface parking in the approved plan. The surface parking will be five feet below the top of the berm adjacent to the • 9 Frontage Road. This parking and landscaping will provide a buffer between the building and the Frontage Road. In addition, a 5-25 foot wide strip of landscaping is proposed between the parking and the applicant's property line. As a result of the shifting of the mass away from the Frontage Road, the mass is closer to the recreation path on the south side. While there are 2-4 stories on the north side (Frontage Road view) there will be 4-5 112 stories on the south (gore Creek side). The proposal maintains a 26 minimum setback from the bike path which is proposed to be relocated 10 feet off to the south. A landscape which includes berming between the bike path and the building helps to maintain the pedestrian scale of the area. Staff also looked at the approved building mass adjacent to Westhaven Drive, (west elevation). The staff feels that this proposal addresses the location of mass and bulk better than the approved plan as less building is proposed in this area. Originally, more building length was proposed along Westhaven Drive. Though the building's height impacts the bike path and the properties to the north and west. The staff finds that, although the proposal includes an overall increase in common area the proposal is in compliance with the intent of the Cascade Village development and is compatible with the area surrounding the project. Please note, GRFA and site coverage have not increased and a substantial amount of floor area is below grade. The staff encourages the applicant to add additional architectural detail particularly windows on the north elevation prior to DRB review. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Cornerstone The applicant is proposing two scenarios for this site. Previously, there was a single development plan which included transient units and retail uses. The proposed Scenario I provides for 52 transient units, 3 employee units, 11,100 square feet of commercial area, 2 loading berths, and 89 enclosed parking spaces. This would allow 2 additional transient units or 1 DU over the existing approval. Scenario 2 provides 34 transient units, 3 free market dwelling units, 3 dwelling units with 3 lockoffs, 2 accommodation units to be restricted per the Condo Conversion requirements, 2 employee units, 11,100 square feet of commercial area, 2 loading berths, and 89 enclosed parking spaces. The resulting residential density is under the approved density by 1 DU. Of the three restricted units, two would each be sold with an associated lock-off and an AU and the third condominium would have only one lock-off. 9 10 ADDlicant's Proposal Unrestricted Condominiums: 3 DU Restricted Condominiums: 2 DU each w/ 1 lockoff and 1 AU 1 DU with 1 lockoff Transient units: 34 Transient units Employee units: 3 units 11 Scenario 2 involves a substantial departure from the original plan for Cascade Village. The requested change involves three unrestricted dwelling units in instead of all transient units. The initial intent for Cornerstone was to provide short-term rentals which, it was believed, would subsequently increase the use of the entire Cascade facility. The staff has researched this issue and found that there is a demand for short-term rentals of this type in the Valley. Currently, the bed base is split 50/50 between condos and accommodation type units according to the Vail Resort Association. Demand for each type of unit seems to differ between season. There would appear to be a greater demand for accommodation type units during the summer for short 2-3 day stays, while during the winter, stays tend to be longer and condominiums are more desirable. For this reason, we feel that short-term rentals must be included in the proposal and if Scenario 2 is approved a minimum of 3 DU's with their lock offs should be permanently restricted per the Condo Conversion requirements. The two AU's in Scenario 2 should not be condominiumized with the adjacent condominiums as the applicant has proposed. This would keep the AU's in the rental pool. We also believe that allowing 3 large free market dwelling units is acceptable given the change in development requirements for this project such as parking. It is felt that the mixed use character of the project is still maintained. Staff's Recommendation Unrestricted condominiums: Restricted Condominiums: Rental units: Employee units: 3 DU 3 DU w/1 lockoff 34 Transient units 2 AU 3 0 11 2. Waterford As proposed, the project includes 27 free market condominiums (with 47,500 square feet of GRFA) and 2 restricted employee housing units (1100 square feet of GRFA) for a total of 48,600 square feet of GRFA. Historically, the GRFA and the units in S10D #4 dedicated to employee housing have not been counted towards the overall density of the project. The request decreases the number of approved units from 30 to 27. The density proposed is in keeping with the original development scenario and is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. Cornerstone/Waterford Emolovee Housinq, The applicant for Cornerstone is proposing 3 employee units. In reviewing the application, the staff used the suggested employee housing criteria. This study suggested that the following formula be used to determine employee housing requirements for projects that do not exceed density. Cornerstone Scenario 1: 52 TR x .75 emp. per unit = 39 11,100 sq. ft. of corn x 6.5 emp. p11000 sq. ft. - 72.15 111.15 x .15 housing multiplier 16.67 Scenario 2: 34 TR + 2 All x .75 emp per unit - 26.25 6 DU x .4 emp per unit - 2.4 11,100 sq. ft. com x 6.5 emp per 1000 sq. ft.= 72.15 100.8 x .15 housing multiplier 15.12 Waterford 27 DU x .4 emp per unit 10.8 x .15 housing multiplier 1.62 Assuming 2 employees will share each unit, 9 units would be required for Scenario 1 and 8 units would be required for Scenario 2 for Cornerstone. One unit would be required for Waterford for a maximum possible total of 10 units for both projects. 12 Because a total of 5 employee units are being provided between the Waterford and Cornerstone projects, where previously there were none proposed, and because parking must now be provided on site, the staff finds that 5 units are acceptable. The proposed Waterford project is below density as is Scenario 2 of the Cornerstone proposal. As proposed, Scenario 1 for Waterford is 2 transient units over the approved density, but there is no increase in GRFA. The staff sees the provision of employee housing as a benefit to both projects and will not require additional employee units as a result of this. Historically, in Cascade Village, GRFA and units attributed to employee units have not been counted toward density or GRFA for the project. C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined In Chapter 18.52. Cornerstone/Waterford Under Section 18.52 of the Municipal Code, each dwelling unit with less than 2,000 square feet of GRFA would have a parking requirement of 2 spaces and those with over 2,000 square feet of GRFA would require 2.5 spaces per unit. Those with less than 500 square feet require 1.5 spaces. The parking requirements for accommodation units and transient units are as follows: .4 space per accommodation unit, plus .1 space per each 100 square foot of GRFA with a maximum of 1 space per unit. Each employee unit will require 1 parking space assuming the units are one bedroom units. Each site will now satisfy its parking requirement on site. As discussed previously, this has significant implications on the program for the Cornerstone site. The staff believes that this change is very positive because it allows each site to be developed and operated independent of each other. The parking provisions are listed below: Required Parking Cornerstone Scenario 1 89 spaces with 75% enclosed Scenario 2 84 spaces with 75% enclosed Prooosed 89 spaces proposed with 100% enclosed 89 spaces proposed with 100%enclosed 13 Waterford 58 spaces with 60 spaces with 75% enclosed 43 enclosed or 75% of req. The Cornerstone project will also provide 2 loading berths along Westhaven Drive for the commercial uses. Staff believes this criterion is met. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. Cornerstone and Waterford Applicable goals and objectives form the Town's Land Use Plan for this area include: 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use. 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 3.5 Entertainment oriented businesses and cultural activities should be encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More night time businesses, on going events and sanctioned "street happenings" should be encouraged. 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 0 14 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Cornerstone When the Cascade Village development was proposed, there was a comprehensive plan developed which provided a balance of long- and short- term housing. The Goals 3.1 and 3.3 specifically address the Town's desire to maintain hotel type units. In considering each proposal, the staff considered three points: 1. What was previously approved, 2. What are the current goals and objectives of the Town at this time, 3. We recognized that the conditions of ownership of Cascade Village have changed. Both proposals allow for residential and commercial growth in a recognized core area which are discussed in goals 1.1, 1.12, 3.4, and 5.1. The provision of employee housing as addressed in goals 5.3 and 5.5 is being incorporated into each project which is a benefit to the Town. The Scenario 2 proposal involves a change to allow some dwelling units versus all short-term transient units. The staff feels that it is important to maintain units which are available for short-term use, however, we recognize the importance of providing a full range of housing types. Scenario 2 provides dwelling, accommodation, transient, and employee units. This scenario will be a positive change for this parcel if 3 of the dwelling units were restricted and the lockoffs attached were also restricted by the Condo Conversion requirements. The staff would recommend that the two accommodation units in Scenario 2 not be condominiumized and sold and therefore remain in the rental pool. The remaining three dwelling units would be free market. This area is also considered to be a mixed use commercial center for the Town, similar to Lionshead and Vail Village. The reduction of commercial square footage has been carefully considered. The staff finds that some reduction in commercial space is necessary in order to accommodate on-site parking. 2. Waterford The Waterford proposal request is for 27 free market condominiums, 2 employee units, and no commercial square footage. The staff feels that the elimination of the allowed 3,800 square feet of commercial space is warranted due to the location of the project which is more removed from the commercial areas in Cascade Village and the change to the overall design scheme for the project. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district Is proposed. Cornerstone There are no natural and/or geologic hazards on this site which would restrict its development. 0 15 2. Waterford 16 The proposed building does not encroach into the 100 year floodplain or 50' Gore Creek setback. The relocated bike path will not encroach into either the creek setback or 100 year floodplain. 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. 1. Cornerstone The at-grade building footprint of the proposed plan and the approved plan are similar however, Cornerstone is no longer connected to the Waterford building or to the Conference Building to the west. When comparing the current proposal to the approved plan, the overall setbacks are similar. An additional floor has been proposed in this project as a result of reducing the floor-to- ceiling heights at each level and using the area in the roof form more efficiently. The total height of the building has not increased. The maximum height as measured form the plaza to the highest point on the roof is 71 feet. Landscaping has been incorporated on the east elevation to screen the lower building mass. The parking will not be open to the exterior and at any level and the exterior of the structure will be detailed with inset stucco arches and painted metal railings. A landscape plan has also been included for the plaza area between the Terrace Wing and the Cornerstone project. The approved plan has been modified in order to allow for emergency access. The staff feels that this area should be constructed with the Cornerstone project. 2. Waterford The proposed building uses a series of staggered towers and broken roof forms with the parking facilities located to the north of the building. The approved building for this project was a series of lower structures and a more unified roof plan. The parking facilities were located below the facility. The building mass was similar to that of the other Cascade Village Buildings. This proposed plan concentrates the mass and bulk such that the result is a more vertical building which is setback farther from the South Frontage Road than the original approval. The site planning of the proposed project and the approved project also differ. The approved plan incorporated residential dwelling units over the parking facilities and spread out the development. The proposed plan does not overlay the building and the parking facility. Instead, they are separate entities. A 5 - 25 foot wide landscape buffer has been proposed between the at-grade parking and the property line in order to insure adequate landscaping area on the applicant's property. There is approximately 25 feet between the property line and the closest portion of the building. In addition, there is 15-20 feet of 16 landscaped CDOT right-of-way between the property line and the road. If all of the existing vegetation in this area is destroyed during excavation, it will be 10 replaced with trees of comparable size. The applicant will be responsible for documenting this existing vegetation prior to the release of any grading or building permits for the project. When comparing the current proposal, including the parkina facility, to the approved plan, the overall setbacks are similar. The biggest difference is the location of the massing. This relocation of mass is especially apparent in the area along the South Frontage Road. However on the south side, it is similar to the approved plan along Westhaven and the bike path. The staff is concerned with two elements of the site plan. The first of these is the series of retaining walls on either end of the project. The staff recognizes that these walls are necessary due to the severe grade changes on the site, however, we feel that the landscaping should be more dense for better screening. The second issue is related to the retaining walls on the east end of the property. The staff would like to see the proposed skier access into the building eliminated and the building used as a retaining wall. This will also decrease the impact of the east elevation as viewed from the bike path. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Cornerstone and Waterford The Town is interested in resolving an off-site circulation concern. This involves the dedication of a portion of Westhaven Drive to the Town. Currently, Westhaven Drive from the South Frontage Road to the Gore Creek Bridge is owned by the Waterford project applicant, MECM Enterprises. The road does not meet the Town's standards and certain improvements related to the grade, construction and building clearance beneath the pedestrian bridge will need to be addressed prior to the conveyance of the right-of-way to the Town. The staff does not feel it would be equitable to require the Waterford developers to complete all of the road improvements in conjunction with their project. Instead, we feel that the Waterford developers should be required to bring the portion of the road from the South Frontage Road to the cul-de-sac up to standards and dedicate this portion and also dedicate a public easement for the remainder of the road to the Gore Creek bridge. The applicant's for Waterford have agreed to complete this work prior to the issuance of a TCO for the project. The Cornerstone developers have also agreed to perform the necessary tests which include borings to determine base compaction and an as-built profile of the road to determine the condition of the road in front of their project as part of this amendment, however, they will not be required to complete the necessary improvements. Public Works' opinion is in that it would be impractical to have Cornerstone rebuild the portion of Westhaven Drive in front of their project because all of the road improvements from the cul-de-sac should be completed at the same time. 0 17 2. Cornerstone With the proposed minor subdivision, a portion of Westhaven Drive, where the Cornerstone parking is located under the roadway, will be conveyed to the Cornerstone property owner. The Town will then obtain an easement for public access where the Westhaven Drive will now cross private property. The Town staff finds that this is a reasonable solution. Pedestrian circulation through the Cornerstone building to the ski lift is proposed as a series of plazas with landscaping from Westhaven Drive to the ski lift pedestrian area. The staff feels that the proposed stairway is an inviting element which is pedestrian friendly. The plaza area at the bottom of the stair between the buildings includes an arcade with landscaping and will incorporate concrete unit pavers for the walking surface. The staff feels that the pedestrian area addresses the circulation needs in an aesthetic and functional fashion. The staff would like to see the concrete unit pavers used in two areas which are currently proposed as asphalt and concrete. These areas are along the sidewalk adjacent to Westhaven Drive and at the ski lift approach where it connects into the bike path. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Both sites are substantially disturbed, there are few remaining natural characteristics. With the proposed development, there would be limited remaining open space on the site. Because of this, the remaining landscaped areas become critical. Landscaping is especially important along the South Frontage Road, Westhaven Drive, and the pedestrian mall area. The applicants have proposed landscaping plans which address these areas. 1. Cornerstone The applicant has included the approved landscape plan for the public space between the Terrace wing and the Cornerstone site as previously discussed. The need for emergency access has resulted in a modification of the approved plan. The proposed landscaping for the area in between the Terrace Wing and Cornerstone includes a series of low concrete planters having irregular shapes. This landscaping is shifted towards Cornerstone to allow for the 20 feet fire lane. In respect to the landscaping sketch adjacent to the southeast corner of the building, the applicant proposed to keep the green space as is and will provide a 20 foot accessway through this area. Final design details will be provided prior to DRB review. Staff believes that a paver walkway and additional landscaping are acceptable in place of the original plan's terrace and water feature. The applicant has proposed to raise the grades along the east and west ends of the building in order to further screen these areas. The staff would request that the DRB consider the planting materials in these areas in order to provide as much screening as possible. 0 18 2. Waterford The applicant has met with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to discuss the limitations on landscaping along the Frontage Road. C©OT has indicated that all existing landscaping may remain and that additional landscaping may be added to the south of the existing vegetation. For this reason, the staff finds that the proposed distance between the parking structure and the property line is adequate. As discussed previously, any landscaping which is destroyed during the construction process will be replaced with comparable vegetation. The staff would also request that all walkways be made of concrete unit pavers versus concrete. The applicant is proposing to relocate the recreation path approximately 10 feet to the south. This is being proposed in order to increase the buffer between the recreation path and the building. The staff has reviewed the site and feels that this is appropriate for the first 225-250 feet of the path from east property line. The relocation will not displace any vegetation nor will it encroach into the flood plain or creek setback. However, we do not feel it is necessary to move the remaining portion of the path. The applicant also proposes to rebuild the existing pedestrian access form Westhaven Drive to the ski lift should the Cornerstone project not be built at the time of the construction of the Waterford project. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Cornerstone and Waterford As initially proposed, Cornerstone and Waterford were to be constructed simultaneously. This simultaneous phasing plan was necessitated by the provision of parking on the Waterford site for the Cornerstone project. Due to the subsequent change in ownership of the two sites, this becomes a difficult proposition. An interim landscape plan for the Waterford site has been proposed in the event that these projects are not constructed simultaneously. In the process of reviewing each of these requests, it has become apparent to the staff that when parking is added to the approved development plan for Cornerstone, it becomes difficult to maintain the approved development rights (ie. CRFA, number of units, and commercial space). Both proposals include a net reduction of development rights while adding employee units. The staff finds that it is absolutely critical to the approval of any amendment for either the Waterford or Cornerstone project, to resolve the parking issue in a workable solution. In the staff's opinion, the applicant's have achieved this goal. 0 19 VI. MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA The standard criteria for any minor subdivision includes lot size, the road frontage and lot configuration which are different for each zone district. Because this is an SDO and there is no underlying zoning, there are no lot size, frontage or lot configuration requirements for this minor subdivision. A minor subdivision is being completed in order to create two independent lots as well as deed a portion of the road to Cornerstone. Historically, these sites have been portioned off as the project developed. Because there are numerous owners now involved in the development of Cascade Village, the staff feels it is necessary to complete this minor subdivision. The minor subdivision completed before a building permit is released for either project. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff supports the applicants' requests to amend the development plans for the Waterford and Cornerstone sites located in SDD #4 - Cascade Village Area A. The staff finds that each proposal meets the SDD criteria as well as the goals and objectives of the Town. In considering each application, the staff worked to achieve solutions which take into account the changing conditions of Cascade Village and the most appropriate development for each parcel. In the Cornerstone project, the staff remains concerned with the applicant's request to condominiumize the proposed AUs. However, we find that the merits of this amendment are substantial and do not find that the AU issue is reason enough to recommend denial of the project. We also find that the request to allow for 6 DUs, 3 of which will be condominiumized without the condo conversion requirements to be acceptable. With the Waterford proposal, there is an increase in the proposed common area. The total increase in common area for the two projects in comparison to the original two projects is 1514 sq. ft. Given the fact that the density GRFA and site coverage are below the previous amounts for both , staff believes this average is acceptable. The same reasoning is also applicable to the height increase of four feet on the south and east elevations. In addition, staff prefers the building massing of the proposed project over the previous projects. The staff has some design concerns with the landscaping and architectural details for the Waterford site which we believe can be addressed by the DRB. The staff would like to see the skier access on the east end of the building removed and the building be used to retain a portion of the slope. We would also like to see the landscaping in both of the retaining areas increased to screen the proposed keystone walls as well as the east elevation of the Cornerstone building. This element should be reviewed by the DRB in detail. The staff would also require that the DRB review each building elevation for architectural details especially those on the north elevation. On both sites, the staff would require that all of the public walks be of concrete unit pavers. This includes the path from the recreation path to the ski lift and the public walkways adjacent to Westhaven Drive. 0 20 The staff finds that each project can now function independently of the other. We recognize the need to make certain allowances because of changes to the parking and the change in ownership and feel that each project meets the SDD criteria and Town of Vail objectives. The staff also supports the applicant's request for a minor subdivision in order to create two independent lots, one for each project and to dedicate that portion of Westhaven Drive needed to construct the underground parking in the Cornerstone project. A public easement for the portion of undedicated right-of-way will also be dedicated at this time. This must be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits for either project. The staff assumes the following conditions will be met with this amendment. Develoement Aareements Cornerstones The three proposed employee units shall be permanently restricted per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance. The agreement shall be submitted before a building permit is released for the project. This agreement shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk Recorder's Office. 2. The transient residential units proposed in both Scenario 1 and 2 shall not be condominiumized at any point in the future. These units shalt remain as rental units used in the same manner as hotel type units and are not intended for individual ownership. 3. The developer agrees to complete asphalt borings and as-built surveys and provide them to the Town to determine the condition of Westhaven Drive in the area of the road adjacent to their property. 4. The proposed landscape plan between the Terrace Wing and the proposed Cornerstone building shall be revised prior to the review of the project by DRB. A 20 foot access lane for emergency services must be provided from the Westin courtyard to the ski lift. In meeting this condition, the Water feature on the landscape plan for this amendment may be revised accordingly. Waterford All proposed employee housing units shall be restricted per the Town of Vail's Housing Ordinance. This agreement shall be submitted before a building permit is released for the project. The agreement shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 10 21 2. The developer agrees to complete borings and provide an as-built survey to determine the condition of the road from the South Frontage Road to the cul-de-sac. The applicant agrees to provide engineered drawings for any road revisions necessary for review by the Town of Vail Engineer prior to the release of a building permit All road improvements and dedications shall be completed prior to TCQ. This includes the dedication of a public easement across Westhaven Drive from the cul-de-sac to the bridge over Gore Creek. 3. The bike path shall be relocated and the existing easement shall be relocated on the minor subdivision plat. 4. The minor subdivision shall be completed prior to the release of any building permits for this project. 5. The DRB will review proposed landscaping in the areas of the retaining walls on the west and east ends of the site. The DRB will review the north elevation for architectural detail. These items are all subject to the Town Attorney's review. The staff appreciate the applicant's effort to work with the PEC and staff to develop two projects which meet the SDD criteria. The staff believes that the proposals are positive. The changes were arrived through a series of work sessions and have helped to make two well designed projects which are independent developments within Cascade Village. The staff would like to thank the PEC and the applicants for their work in developing 10 and reviewing this project. The staff believes that the proposal for each building are positive and that the changes make for a better project. :\PEC\MEMQS\CASCADE.N23 0 22 L-J To: Vail Town Council Planning and Environment Commission Design and Review Board From: Community Development Date: f anuary 22, 1993 Subject: Guest Speaker on Sustainable Development "?'?Z',?,+.y ?l ??c:•-k;Q?+;?;};ax?,r.'a;r:ra,}wx.; .y,?... _.aa?:.xati?,+: }?,•,, ?}•5:;• *: '?" v. rr > ?. x ?•>.. ?,;,'• ?. v"at.aY "x ;}r?{?3c2'.K. ??,. tY ?+f',+?xt, 4 .?,,? ?`tv??`w33 Y.i o ?.?:?.v'•k?',+''ia?t??r n•. C+'ks fits.4c4a3c,;.+?Kt3c?ds?d&?S'•?:v ? . • ?•'?`.'?''r •": •. '. You are cordially invited to a lunch with Dr. Daniel Chiras at 11:00 Monday, February 8th in the Council Chambers. Dr. Chiras is an international expert and author on sustainable development.- He will be presenting his thoughts from his recent book "Lessons From Nature" which explores creative ways to achieve compatibility between economic growth and environmental protection. Dr Chiras will present strategies on how government can apply the principles of sustainability to planning and development. This lunch will provide an opportunity for Council, PEC, DRB, and Town staff to discuss with Dr. Chiras how to achieve a balance between growth and environmental protection. Please call Russell Forrest at 479-2138 if you have any questions about this presentation. 11 About the Author 171 Dan Chiras holds a Ph.D. in biology and teaches courses on sustain- ability at the University of Denver and University of Colorado, Den- ,ver campus. A leading advocate of personal action and responsibility, Dr. Chiras cofounded Friends of Curbside Recycling, a group that helped to convince the city of Denver to begin its curbside recycling program. He also cofounded Speakers for a Sustainable Future, which operates a successful speaker's bureau in Colorado, offering slide programs on recycling and water conservation to civic groups, schools, and businesses. Dr. Chiras is president of the Colorado En- vironmental Coalition, a coalition of 40 statewide conservation/en- vironmental groups. Dr. Chiras speaks on environmental issues, especially sustainabil- ity, and is the author of numerous articles and books on the environ- ment. His college textbooks include Environmental Science: Action for a Sustainable Future, Natr.tral-Resos-rrce Conservation: An Ecological Ap- proach, and Hunxatt Biology: Health, Homeostasis, and the Enviroltment. He is also author ofBelrond the Fray: Reshapit:g Araierica's Environmen- tal Resporise, which offers numerous ideas on strengthening the envi- ronmental movement. An avid kayaker, bicyclist, organic gardener, and acluarist, the au- thor lives in a passive solar home in the Foothills of the Rocky Moun- tains with his wife and two sons where they strive to live by the prin- ciples of sustainability. D