Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0614 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 14, 1993 Ij iscussion with Mayor Peggy Osterfoss and 11:00 - 11:30 a.rfr own Council regarding: PEC & Council Holes i the Review Process ?rolect Orientation /Lunch 11:30 - 12:15 p.m. We Visits 12:15 p.m. ,ornice Building .lonshead Center inzian :auland Seals (all Point )rivers: Andy, Tim and Shelly MoMearin — • 2:00 p.m. A determination for the review periods of the Exterior Alteration requests in the CCI and CCII zone districts: 60 day review period L'Ostello Shelly Mello 60 day review period Lionshead Center Andy Knudtsen 90 day review period Enzian Shelly Mello 90 day review period Lifthouse Lodge Jim Curnufte (Pizza, Bakery) 90 day review period Sunbird Lodge Tim Devlin 90 day review period 'Gondola Building Andy Knudtsen 90 day review period Cyrano's 'Mike Mollfca A request for a setback variance to, allow for the construction of a residence located On the north half of Lot 5, Matterhorn Village, 1711 A Geneva Drive. Applicant: Carl Fauland Planner: Tim Devlin e 3. A request for a major CCII exterior alteration and a setback variance to allow for the construction of an elevator tower located at the Enzian at Vail Condominiums, 705 West Lionshead Circle/part of Enzian Condominium Association, Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Enzian Condominium Association Planner: Shelly Mello A request for a modification to PEC conditions of approval for the revised development plan for Vail Point/1881 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge Filing No. 3. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen 5. A request for a joint worksession with the Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental Commission for the establishment of an SDD to allow the redevelopment of the Cornice Building and a request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of three Type IV employee housing units, located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specifically described as follows: A part of Tract "B" and a part of Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Vail Village, First Filing; thence North 79046'00° West along the Southerly line of U.S, Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feet to the Northeast corner of said Tract "B"; thence South 10014'00" West along the Easterly line of said Tract "B"; a distance of 198.31 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Tract "B"; thence North 79046'00" West along the Southerly line of said Tract "B" a distance of 100.00 feet to the true point of beginning thence North 09010'07" West a distance of 41.67 feet; thence South 88027'11" West a distance of 75.21 feet, thence South 27013'37" East a distance of 77.37 feet; thence North 57024'00" East a distance of 55.11 feet, more or less to the true point of beginning. Applicant: David Smith Planner: Jim Curnutte 6. A request for a joint work session with the Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental Commission for an exterior alteration for Lionshead Center to allow an addition on the southwest corner of Lionshead Center, located at Lot 5, Block 1, Lionshead 1st Filing/520 Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Oscar Tang Planner: Andy Knudtser 7. Eagle County Referral: A resubdivision of Lot 33, Highland Meadows, and Lots 34 and 35, Highland Park Filing No. 1, and a request for setback variances for two building sites. Applicant: Jack Beals Planner: Mike Mollica, PQ 8. A request to amend Section 18.58,020 of the Zoning Code to clarify the height allowed for retaining walls in setbacks. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Tim Devlin 9. Update on Sweet Basil's deck construction located at 193 Gore Creek Drive/part of Block 56, Vail Village I st Filing. Applicant: Ned Gwathmey Planner: Shelly Mello 10. Update on the Small/Connely variance located at Lot 5, Bighorn Estates/4238 Nugget Lane. Applicant: Michael and Sally Connely Planner: Shelly Mello 11. Discussion with Greg Hall regarding traffic studies for Vail Road. 12. A request for a major amendment to SD0 #5 to allow for the development of the remaining portion of the Simba Run SDD, Savoy Villas, located at 1.100 North Frontage Road, more specifically described as follows: Thai part of the First Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: Beginning at the most southwesterly corner of said map, thence the following three courses along the westerly lines of said map; 1) NO3°33'01"E 160.79 feet; 2) N12050'33"E 144.72 feet; 3) N17056'03" 70.60 feet; thence, departing said westerly line, S1 3 °10'03 "W 157.26 feet, thence S76043'57"E 91.50 feet; thence N13016'03"E 35.00 feet; thence S76043'57"E 72.31 feet to the easterly line of said map; thence the following two courses along the easterly and southeasterly lines of said map; 1) S24044'57"E 52.38 feet; 2) S52050'29"W 272.50 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.6134 acres, more or less; and That part of Simba Run, according to the map thereof, recorded in Book 312 at Page 763 in the Office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: Beginning at the most southerly corner of said Simba Run, thence the following four courses along the southwesterly and northwesterly lines of said Simba Run; 1) N37 °09'31 "W 233.28 feet, 2) 334.57 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 1771.95 feet, a central angle of 10049'06", and a chord that bears N42013'20"E 334.07 feet; 3) N3604848" E 201.36 feet; 4) 15.96 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 428.02 feet, a central angle of 02O08'12", and a chord that bears N37052'54" E 15.96 feet to a corner on the westerly boundary of the First Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder; thence the following four courses along said westerly boundary; 1) 521051'28"W 69.90 feet; 2) S17056'03"W 181.17 feet; 3) S12050'33"W 144.72 feet; 4) 503133'01"W 160.79 feet to the southeasterly line of said Simba Run; thence, along said southeasterly line, S52050'29"W 113.08 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 1.560 acres, more or less. Applicant: Simba Land Corporation/Walid Said Planner: Mike Mollica TABLED TO JUNE 28, 1993 3 13. A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 1111480 Buffer Greek Rd. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO JUNE 28, 1993 14. A request to review the Management Plan and Master Plan for the Vail Cemetery to be located in the upper bench of Donovan Park generally located west of the Glen Lyon subdivision and southeast of the Matterhorn neighborhood. 15. i ". 17. W-F Y Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO JUNE 8, 1993 Appoint PEC Chairperson. Approve minutes from May 24, 1993 PEC meeting. Council follow-up: -Kandell deck appeal - June 15, 1993, 7:30 p.m., Town Council -AIPP Terre Haute placement at Mayor's Park -Jack Varga 1-70 Underground Concept, June 17, 1993, 7:00 pm., Council Chambers. -Discussion of possible future presentation regarding the Vail Valley Performing Arts Center. June 22, 1993 - Joint worksession with PEC, Town Council, DRB discussions on: -Parking policy for exempt areas and for parking variances. -Zoning and Building Code Enforcement Policy A reminder to the PEC regarding the 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) PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 0 June 14, 1993 MINUTES PRESENT STAFF Diana Donovan Kristan Pritz Jeff Bowen Mike Mollica, Greg Amsden Shelly Mello Kathy Langenwalter Jim Curnutte Allison Lassoe Tim Devlin Bill Anderson Andy Knudtsen Dalton Williams 1. At approximately 2:10 p.m., the meeting was called to order with a request for a setback variance to allow for the construction of a residence located on the north half of Lot 5, Matterhorn Village, 1711 A Geneva Drive. Applicant: Carl Fauland Planner: Tim Devlin Tim Devlin made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that staff was recommending approval of the applicant's request for two side setback variances with the condition that the applicant plant landscaping on the north side of the encroachment consisting of three 2 inch caliper aspen trees and one 6 foot evergreen tree in addition to the landscaping proposed. Diana Donovan asked the applicant whether he had any problems or concerns about the additional landscaping being requested by staff. Carl Fauland stated that he would plant the additional landscaping. With regard to the roof overhang, staff explained to the PEC that 4 feet was allowed by the zoning code, and the applicant was proposing a 6 foot encroachment. Kathy Langenwalter inquired whether the applicants intent was to begin the prow at a width of 3 feet and reduce it by I foot, She stated that by doing this the encroachment would be lessened by 1 foot. Carl Fauland agreed to lessen the encroachment by 1 foot. Tim Devlin stated that this project would encroach 5 feet into the side setbacks instead of 6 feet. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve this request per the staff memo with the additional condition that the applicant reduce the roof overhang by 1 foot. Kathy Langenwalter seconded the motion and a 7-0 vote approved this request for two side Planning and Environmental Commission 1ow 14. 1993, - setback variances, with the condition that the applicant plant the additional landscaping recommended by staff. 2. A request for a major CCII exterior alteration and a setback variance to allow for the construction of an elevator tower located at the Enzian at Vail Condominiums, 705 West Lionshead Circle/part of Enzian Condominium Association, Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Enzian Condominium Association Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly Mello told the PEC that there were corrections to the staff memo. These changes were to the proposed common area (333 sq. ft.), total common area (1,103. sq. ft.) and site coverage (6,102 sq ft.). Shelly then made a brief presentation to the PEC per the staff memo and stated that staff was recommending approval of this request for a major CCII exterior alteration and a setback variance with the condition that landscaping be added per the memo. Kathy Langenwalter, the representative for Enzian Condominium Association, stated that they are trying to get the planter in, but they are concerned with the root systems that are exposed and freezing. She said that they would like to try aspen trees rather than evergreen trees. She said that they were considering planting two aspen -trees below and four aspen trees above. Greg Amsden inquired whether artificial shrubbery could be used in the planter. Shelly Mello responded that the Guidelines do not allow for artificial shrubbery. She requested that the applicant submit a landscape plan when this request is reviewed by the Design Review Board, Dalton Williams made a motion to approve this request per the staff memo with the addition that aspen trees be planted in the planters located north of the proposed elevator rather than evergreens. Greg Amsden seconded this motion and a unanimous 6-0-1 vote approved this request. Kathy Langenwalter abstained as she was the applicant's representative. 3. A request for a modification to PEC conditions of approval for the revised development plan for Vail Point/1881 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge Filing No. 3. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that this request consisted of two issues: 1) moving the proposed tot-lot, and 2) extending the deadline for when regrading and revegetating on Lot 27 would be completed. Steve Gensler stated that five of the ten units on thin site are pre-sold. He said that he Planning and Enimnmental Commission 0 *xw 14� IW3 2 wants to regrade and put the road in place by October 1, 1993. Dalton Williams inquired why there was a deadline for this project. Kristan Pritz stated that regrading and revegetating needed to be done in a timely fashion so that the neighbors are not impacted by the construction site. Andy Knudtsen stated that the letter of credit which covers the regrading for this project expires July 1, 1993 but would have to be extended. Kristan Pritz stated that the neighbors would probably understand an extension if it remains within reasonable limits due to the fact that the developer was proposing to build on the site. Dalton Williams made a motion per the staff memo to approve this request for modification to PEC conditions of approval for the revised development plan for Vail Point and stipulated that a grading permit for the road improvements and regrading for this project must be applied for and issued by the Town by October 1, 1993. Kathy Langenwalter seconded this motion and a unanimous 7-0 vote approved this request. Concerning the tot-lot, Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this portion of the request indefinitely with Dalton Williams seconding the motion and a unanimous 7-0 vote tabled this request. Steve Gensler said he would take another look at the itemized list of tot-lot materials and reconsider the proposal to move it, if the numbers were more similar to the Town's. 4. Eagle County Referral: A resubdivision of Lot 33, Highland Meadows, and Lots 34 and 35, Highland Park Filing No. 1, and a request for setback variances for two building sites. Applicant: Jack Beals Planner: Mike Mollica The applicant, Jack Beals, stated that Eagle County wanted him to address the amounts of pervious and impervious areas. Jack stated that two of the building sites would be accessible from Vermont Road. He stated that the duplex scenario would be in conformance with the County's zoning already in place. He said that the total impervious area would be 45% if built out to what is currently allowed. His single family proposal would be approximately 25%. Mike Mollica stated that the Town was concerned with the area of disturbance. He stated that Eagle County does not have a design review process in place and that the project would not be subjected to the degree of review of a Town of Vail project would. Mike added that the building envelopes had not yet been reduced in size and recommended that they be significantly reduced. Planning and Environmental Commission June 14, 1993 3 Jack Beals stated that Eagle County has asked him to address the building envelope size and that he plans to focus on this aspect of the project next. Mike Mollica stated that a geologist has reviewed and approved the current plan. Greg Amaden asked the applicant where the fire turnaround was located. Jack Beals stated that the "hammerhead" design allows for such a turnaround. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was concerned about the size of the building envelopes for each of the proposed lots and questioned how that relates to the County's standards for development. Jack Beals stated that Eagle County considers this a cluster resubdivision. Mike Mollica stated that the only variance the applicant is requesting from Eagle County pertains to locating the garages of two of the units in the front setback. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was also concerned about the geologic hazards and the sub-surface water on the site. She added that the driveway access to the building envelopes needs to be looked at as well as the landscape plan for the project. Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with Kathy's comments. Greg Amsden stated that the plan that the applicant was proposing "flows with what is already present in the neighborhood." He stated that he agrees with Kathy's comment concerning revegetation. He said that the applicant needs to be sensitive to the existing topography of the site. Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed with Kathy's and Bill's comments. Jeff Bowen stated that the environmental concerns and soils study pertaining to this project needed to be addressed. Dalton Williams stated that he agreed with the previous comments the PEC members had made. He added that he was particularly concerned with the sub-surface water flow if the site was excavated and that changing or diverting the water flow could affect adjacent property owners. Diana Donovan agreed with all of the previous comments. Mike then stated that he would draft a letter to Eagle County outlining the Commission's comments and concerns. 5. A request for a joint worksession with the Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss the establishment of a SDD to allow the redevelopment of the Cornice Building located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more Planning and Environmental Commission June 14, 19,93 4 specifically described as follows: A part of Tract "B" and a part of Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Vail Village, First Filing; thence North 79146'00" West along the Southerly line of U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feet to the Northeast corner of said Tract "B"; thence South 10014'00" West along the Easterly line of said Tract "B"; a distance of 198.31 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Tract "W; thence North 79046'00" West along the Southerly line of said Tract "B" a distance of 100.00 feet to the true point of beginning thence North 09010'07" West a distance of 41.67 feet; thence South 88 °27'11" West a distance of 75.21 feet, thence South 27013'37" East a distance of 77.37 feet; thence North 57024'00" East a distance of 55.11 feet, more or less to the true point of beginning. Applicant: David Smith Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a brief presentation per the staff memo. Tom Braun, the applicant's representative, stated that the Cornice Building is a difficult site to develop and that the applicant had four objectives which he wished to accomplish through the present proposal. Tom stated that it was the applicant's desire to redevelop the site, to maintain the current landscaping on the site, to offer on-site parking to the residents of the Cornice Building and to utilize the available GRFA on the lot for the free market condominium unit. He said that they would try to improve the site lines of the project. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the three employee housing units currently on the site are deed restricted for twenty years. She said that she is concerned with the proposed GRFA and the credits for density. She stated that the Employee Housing Task Force specifically contemplated a trade-off of GRFA or density and that an applicant cannot have both. Concerning the setbacks, Kathy said that she did not have a problem with the proposed setbacks. Concerning the proposed height of the Cornice Building, she stated that although it was true that the zoning allows for a 48 foot high building in this zone district, that is within the setback area and not for those portions of the building located beyond the setback lines. She added that it was her feeling that the verticality was inappropriate as well as the proposed GRFA. She stated that all of the required parking for the condo needs to be provided on-site. She also agreed with staff's suggestion that the covered walkway between the building and the garage needs to be removed. Jeff Bowen stated that he agreed with Kathy's comments. Dalton Williams stated that he agrees with Kathy's comments except with regard to parking. He stated that he felt that parking in the parking structure would minimize the site impacts of this project. Bill Anderson stated that he agrees with Kathy's comments but he disagrees with staff's comment on page 7 of the staff memo concerning GRFA and that it was his Planning and Environmental Commission June 14, 1993 5 feeling that the employee housing units should be included in the figure. Greg Amsden stated that it was his opinion that the height of the Cornice Building is not comparable with the other buildings located in the area because the other buildings have more mass. He suggested that the owner remove the top level or two of the building and that the maximum building height should be 36 to 39 feet. With regard to parking, he said that on-site parking is necessary but should be limited to two parking spaces and that the applicant could pay into the parking fund. He agrees with staff's suggestion that the applicant consider reducing the GRFA of the condominium to 2,000 square feet or less to reduce the parking requirement by one parking space. Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed with Kathy's comments, especially concerning building height. George Lamb and Bob Borne stated that they agreed with Kathy's comments. Sally Brainerd, who spoke on behalf of the Design Review Board, stated that she does not have a problem with a building height of 48 feet. She said that she likes the verticality of the building and feels that it gives the structure character. She added that she was not in favor of a flat roof for the Cornice Building and recommended that the owner consider a simpler roof form that encompasses the whole structure. She also suggested that the covered entry be removed. Diana Donovan stated that there was no parking requirement for this Site back when the building was built because the lot was immediately adjacent to a huge parking lot. She said that it was important that a sun/shade analysis be conducted, and that the building was way too high. She asked how on-site construction staging was going to be accomplished on such a small lot. She stated that it was her opinion that the locations of the garage and turnaround need to be switched and that the building needs to stay within the existing footprints. She added that she felt that this project should not be an SDD and that credit should not be given for the three employee housing units since they are already in existence. She felt that the SDD was being used in this instance solely as a mechanism to break the rules and she could not support the project the way it is currently proposed. Dalton and Kathy both agreed with Diana's comments. Tom Braun stated that the SDD concept allows for creativity in development and that it was his feeling that the Cornice Building presented a unique Situation with three employee housing units and one free-market condominium unit. He stated that without the GRFA allowance, the project is not economically viable and probably would not be redeveloped. Diana Donovan stated that there were originally eight employee units. Tom Braun added that these were originally eight apartments. Planning and Environmental Commission June 14, 1993 6 Greg Amsden agreed with Tom's comment that it was a unique site. He said that he felt a hardship did exist on the site and that it was a good location for employee housing. Bill Anderson asked the applicant whether he would be willing to extend the deed restriction past twenty years. Jeff Bowen asked whether there was a way to reorganize Unit 1 and Unit 2 of the proposal so that you would not have to walk through the kitchen to get to the bathroom. Dalton Williams stated that he does not think that this proposal should be an SDD because it is not a large enough site. He added that it was his feeling that this was an inappropriate use of the SDD concept. Tom Braun inquired about the Garden of the Gods project. Diana Donovan stated that the mass and bulk of this proposal needed to be reduced. Jeff Bowen added that he felt that the height of the proposed building was excessive. Bill Anderson stated that he was not convinced that the requested additional GRFA on the site was necessary. Dalton Williams added that he also was not in favor of the proposed GRFA 10 exceedance. Kristan Pritz asked the PEC whether they felt the proposed site coverage, setbacks and parking were okay and whether the GRFA being proposed needed to be reduced. She also inquired whether the PEC found the SDD concept to be acceptable for the Cornice Building proposal. Diana Donovan stated that she felt that a free market condominium was not appropriate on this site. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she felt the site was too small for the proposed building and added that an SDD for this proposal would not be beneficial to the community. Dalton Williams stated that he could see some benefit to the community for the Cornice Building to be redeveloped and having the employee units restricted forever. Allison Lassoe stated that she was concerned with the proposed location of the windows for the units on the bottom level because they would be covered in the wintertime with snow and would feel "cave-like". Diana Donovan stated that the mass and bulk of the building needed to be redesigned. Planning and Environmental Commission 10 June **,*993 7 Kristan Pritz stated that the public benefit with regard to this project needed to be defined. Jeff Bowen stated that the employee housing units were positive and that he felt parking on-site would be difficult with regard to getting in and out during the winter months. Greg Amsden suggested that the owner consider moving the employee housing to another lot in town. Dalton Williams said he would hate to see it moved out of the Village area. Diana Donovan stated that she did not want to see upper end housing that did not offer parking. She added that she did not feel that this was the best use for this property, maybe the best use is open space. 6. A request for a joint worksession with the Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental Commission for an exterior alteration for Lionshead Center to allow an addition on the southwest corner of Lionshead Center, located at Lot 5, Block 1, Lionshead 1st Filing/520 Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Oscar Tang Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy KnudItsen made a presentation per the staff memo and stated that there were two parts to the applicant's request, parking and the design of Alfie Packer's entryway. Andy reviewed the five points about the design made in the staff memo. There is general concurrence from the PEC members and DRB members that the proposed addition met the exterior alteration criteria. A concern raised on-site about the width of the passageway from the front to the back of the site as well as a concern about the location for locating the transition of new materials to existing materials were presented by Bill Pierce. Since the site visit, he and Ray Nielson had modified the design, creating a notch in the side of the building. This revision was supported unanimously by the staff, PEC and DRB. Concerning the parking situation, Andy summarized the research the staff had done, concluding that parking could be provided on-site in CCII, as long as the provision regarding 50% of the required parking being within the main building was met. Because of this standard, staff said that they only supported an addition of two spaces, which would be located within the interior of the main building. Bill Pierce said that was acceptable to the applicant but that he would like to revisit the issue and ask for additional spaces to be located on-site. The PEC agreed that locating the two spaces within the main building was reasonable and the fees to be paid into the parking fund could be reduced by $16,000. Planning and Environmental Commission June 14, 1993 8 Bill Pierce then proposed a now concept of changing some of the current exterior spaces by including them within a garage. He said the applicant would be willing to do this if they were able to add exterior valet spaces on-site. The PEC discussed this in general and generally liked the applicant's proposal to construct the garage, but had mixed feelings about adding exterior surface valet spaces on-site. A general discussion was held concerning valet parking and the pervious site coverage available. Bill Pierce stated that the parking spaces are currently deeded to particular condominium owners. Andy Knudtsen stated that it may be necessary that the applicant appeal the staff interpretation of the code. Andy further stated that though the garages may be attractive, and may decrease the degree of nonconformity of the parking situation on-site, that adding exterior valet spaces may require a formal appeal of the staff interpretation to the PEC. 7. A request to amend Section 18.58.020 of the Zoning Code to clarify the height allowed for retaining walls in setbacks. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Tim Devlin Tim Devlin made a presentation per the staff memo and stated that this request consisted of two parts: 1.) that the word "front" be added back into the Zoning Code because it had been inadvertently deleted, and 2.) that research conducted by staff concerning 6 foot retaining walls in the front setback on sites which exceed 30% slope. Tim reported that the Code Revision Report had found that the variance process currently in place seemed to address these situations adequately. Kathy Langenwalter commented that houses with walls exceeding 6 feet in height was a situation due to steep sloped lots. Tim Devlin stated that the PEC can attach conditions of approval to variance requests, but if wall height is only addressed by the DRB process then these conditions may not occur. Kathy Langenwalter stated that when a garage is located in the front setback in an area with a slope of 30% or greater, that a 6 foot wall should be allowed by right. She added that if the walls were part of the structure (garage), that a variance can be avoided. Dalton Williams stated that he felt that Kathy's comments made sense. Planning and Environmental Commission Jum % 1993 9 Greg Amsden stated that he felt that the PEC review process for these types of walls was worthwhile. Dalton Williams stated that the public tends to view the process as a nuisance when the Zoning Code says that they have the right. He added that he felt that the staff interpretation of wall height was sufficient. Kathy Langenwalter added that a great deal of money, time and documentation are spent on the PEC review process. Kristan Pritz asked the PEC if they wanted the wording to reflect that retaining walls may exceed 3 feet but that they will be subject to DRB approval. Diana Donovan stated that this would apply to walls that were part of a garage, on a slope of 30% or greater, but that the wall needed to be part of a structure. Dalton Williams made a motion to recommend to the Town Council that the word "front" be put back into Section 18.58.020 of the Zoning Code with Allison Lassoe seconding the motion. A 7-0 unanimous vote approved this request. It was determined that staff would work on and bring the wording concerning walls exceeding 3 feet in height back before the PEC at a later date. 8. Update on Sweet Basil's dock construction located at 193 Gore Creek Drive/part of Block 513, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Ned Gwathmey Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly Mello gave the PEC an update concerning the Sweet Basil's deck and reviewed the issues which the PEC had discussed at the site visit. These two items were: 1) the height of the deck, and 2) the concrete band at the bottom of the rock work. Ned Gwathmey stated that the applicant rebuilt the edge of the road flat rather than sloping it. Ned Gwathmey stated that he would remove a portion of the rock if necessary and reinstall rock to eliminate the concrete. He said that he had counted the steps and that the deck will be the same level as the finished floor with handicapped access. He added that the staff had objected to the black on the deck and that the owners had covered it with stucco. He said that the street had been lowered and that a curb had been installed so that snow plows would not tear up the pavers in the winter time. Diana Donovan stated that the PEC is concerned that the deck that is currently there is not what they had approved. Ned agreed to cover the lower concrete band on the base of the deck with stone to match the existing stone. Planning and Environmental Commission June 14, 1993 10 Diana Donovan stated that the architectural community needs to know that the project needs to be built according to how it was approved. 9. Update on the Small/Connely variance located at Lot 5, Bighorn Estates/4238 Nugget Lane. Applicant: Michael and Sally Connely Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly Mello updated the PEG concerning the Smail/Connely variance. She stated that it appears that there are some issues concerning the removal of a large aspen tree located on the property. Kathy Langenwalter, the applicants' architect, stated that a tree specialist had stated that the average life span for aspen trees in approximately thirty to forty years and that the tree in question is "ready to go". She added that safety is an issue due to the aspen tree's proximity to the house. Dalton Williams stated he did not believe this argument and did not want to see the tree removed. Greg Amsden and Bill Anderson stated that they agreed. Shelly Mello stated that it is important to bring these situations in front of the PEG so that they will know what the extenuating circumstances are. Kathy Langenwalter added that no conditions concerning the tree were attached to the variance approval. Dalton Williams stated that he was not in favor of cutting down the tree until it was dead or determined to be a hazard to the property. Kristan Pritz stated that this was a CURB decision, but that staff would pass on the PEC's recommendation. 10. Discussion with Greg Hall regarding traffic studies for Vail Road. Greg Hall reviewed his traffic study with the PEG. Kristan Pritz stated that Diana Donovan had voiced a concern about traffic counts when the First Bank project went through the PEG process recently. Bill Anderson stated that you could not make assumptions about traffic flow based on these numbers. Kristan Pritz added that it would be helpful to interview people in order to get a better idea of who uses Vail Road and why they are there. Planning and Environmental Commission Jur* K 1993 11. A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 to allow for the development of the remaining portion of the Simba Run SDD, Savoy Villas, located at 1100 North Frontage Road, more specifically described as follows: That part of the Rrst Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: Beginning at the most southwesterly corner of said map, thence the following three courses along the westerly lines of said map, 1) N030,33'01 "E 160.79 feet; 2) NI 2150'33"E 144.72 feet; 3) N17 °56'03" 70.60 feet; thence, departing said westerly line, S13016'03"W 157.26 feet, thence S76043'57"E 91.50 feet; thence N13016'03"E 35.00 feet; thence $76043'57"E 72.31 feet to the easterly line of said map; thence the following two courses along the easterly and southeasterly lines of said map; 1) S24044'57"S 52.38 feet; 2) 552050'29"W 272.50 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.6134 acres, more or less; and That part of Simba Run, according to the map thereof, recorded in Book 312 at Page 763 in the Office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clark and Recorder, described as follows: Beginning at the most southerly corner of said Simba Run, thence the following four courses along the southwesterly and northwesterly lines of said Simba Run; 1) N37 °09'31 "W 233.28 feet; 2) 334.57 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 1771.95 feet, a central angle of 10049'06", and a chord that bears N42,13'20"E 334.07 feet; 3) N3604848" E 201.36 feet; 4) 15.96 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 42802 feet, a central angle of 02008'12", and a chord that bears N37052'54" E 15.96 feet to a corner on the westerly boundary of the Rrst Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder; thence the following four courses along said westerly boundary; 1) S21051'28"W 69.90 feet; 2) 517056'03"W 181.17 feet; 3) S12050'33"W 144.72 feet; 4) S03033'01'W 160.79 feet to the southeasterly line of said Simba Run; thence, along said southeasterly line, S52050'29"W 113.08 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 1.560 acres, more or less. Applicant: Simba Land Corporation/Walid Said Planner: Mike Mollica TABLED TO JUNE 281,1993 Jeff Bowen made a request to table this item until June 28, 1993 with Greg Amsden seconding this request. A unanimous 7-0 vote tabled this request until June 28, 1993, 12. A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 11/1480 Buffer Creek Rd. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO JUNE 28,1993 Jeff Bowen made a request to table this item until June 28, 1993 with Greg Amsden seconding this request. A unanimous 7-0 vote tabled this request until June 28, 1993. 13. A request to review the Management Plan and Master Plan for the Vail Cemetery to be located in the upper bench of Donovan Park generally located west of the Glen Lyon subdivision and southeast of the Matterhorn neighborhood. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO JUNE 28, 1993 Planning and Environmental Commission Jum 44, 1993 12 14. 15. 16 17 Jeff Bowen made a request to table this item until June 28, 1993 with Greg Amsden seconding this request. A unanimous 7-0 vote tabled this request until June 28, 1993. A determination for the review periods of the Exterior Alteration requests in the CCI and CCII zone districts: 60 day review period 60 day review period 90 day review period 90 day review period 90 day review period 90 day review period L'Ostello Lionshead Center Lifthouse Lodge (Pizza Bakery) Sunbird Lodge Gondola Building Cyrano's Shelly Mello Andy Knudtsen Jim Curnutte Tim Devlin Andy Knudtsen Mike Modica Kathy Langenwalter made a motion to approve the review periods as listed above with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion. A 7-0 unanimous vote approved these review periods for exterior alteration requests in CCI and CCII zone districts. Approve minutes from May 24, 1993 PEC meeting. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 24, 1993 PEC meeting with Kathy Langenwalter seconding the motion. A 6-1 vote approved the minutes with Dalton Williams abstaining as he was absent from the May 24, 1993 , PEC meeting. Council follow-up: -Kandell deck appeal - June 15, 1993, 7:30 pm., Town Council -AIPP Terre Haute placement at Mayor's Park -Jack Varga 1-70 Underground Concept, June 17, 1993, 7:00 pm., Council Chambers. -Discussion of possible future presentation regarding the Vail Valley Performing Arts Center. June 22, 1993 - Joint worksession with PEC, Town Council, DRB discussions on: -Parking policy for exempt areas and for parking variances. -Zoning and Building Code Enforcement Policy Appoint PEC Chairperson. Kathy Langenwalter was appointed Chairperson of the PEC and Greg Amsden was appointed Vice Chairperson. Planning and Environmental Commission June 14, 1993 13 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department June 14, 1993 A request for a setback variance to allow for the construction of a residence located on the north half of Lot 5, Matterhorn Village/1 711 -A Geneva Drive. Applicant: Cad Fauland Planner: Tim Devlin 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOLIEST The applicant is requesting two side setback variances in order to construct a primary/ secondary residence on a lot located at 1711 -A Geneva Drive. The specific request is to encroach 2 feet into both the north and south side setbacks for a distance of 15 feet for two stories, thereby resulting in a 30 square foot encroachment into both side setbacks. The applicant is also proposing roof overhangs that would encroach 6 feet into both side setbacks; 4 feet is the maximum encroachment allowed for root overhangs. Therefore, the resulting side setbacks are proposed to be 13 feet for the structure and 9 feet for the roof overhangs. Please see the attached site/landscape plan and elevations. The 8,773 square foot lot has a width of 52.05 feet, and with 15 foot side setback requirements, the "buildable" width of the lot without a variance would be 22.05 feet. On the south side of the proposed structure, the applicant is proposing landscaping that consists of five 2 inch caliper aspen trees, and two 6 foot and one 8 foot evergreen trees. On the north side of the proposed structure, the applicant is proposing landscaping that consists of two 6 foot and one 8 foot evergreen trees. On May 19, 1993, the applicant was granted permission by the Design Review Board (DRB) to separate the garage from the main structure of the house due to the steep topography of the lot. The allowable GRFA on the site is 3,043 square feet; the applicant is proposing 2,970 square feet of GRFA that includes a Type I Employee Housing Unit. The applicant is proposing a single car garage for each unit, each to be 210 square feet. ZONING ANALYSIS Site Area: 8,773 square feet Allowed Proposed GRFA: Primary. Unit: N/A* 1,851 sq. ft. (61 %) Secondary Unit: 1,302 sq. ft. (40% max.) 1,119 sq. ft. (37%) Total GRFA: 3,043 sq. ft. 2,970 sq. ft. 1 I Setbacks: Front: 20' required 20' Side (north): 15' required 131** Side (south): 15' required 131** Rear: 15' required 41' Site Coverage: 20% 19.95% Parking: Primary Unit: 2 spaces 2 spaces Secondary Unit: 2 spaces 2 spaces Height: 33' 33' Landscaping: 60% required 75% Primary Unit area is dependent on the size of secondary unit, which can be up to 40% of the allowed GRFA. Applicant's variance request for 2 foot encroachments into both side setbacks. Ill. VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of the Criteria and Findings in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested 2 foot side setback variances for the structure, but feels that the applicant should reduce the roof overhang encroachment to the 4 feet which is allowed by the zoning code. The staffs recommendation for approval of the side setback variances being requested is based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: I The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures In the vicinity. Since the width of the lot is 52,.05 feet, and taking into consideration two 15 foot side setbacks, the applicant is left with a 22.05 foot width in which he is allowed to build without a variance. Therefore, the staff believes that a physical hardship exists given the narrow width of the lot. The staff also believes that the proposed 2 foot encroachment will have a minimal impact on the neighboring structures, and it is important to note that each of the proposed 2 foot encroachments occur for a length of only 15 feet and not for the length of the entire structure. Please see the attached site plan for the proximity of the adjacent structures to the north and south. With regard to the proposed 6 foot roof overhangs, the staff believes that the architectural design of the structure is attractive, but feels that the applicant should reduce the overhang encroachment to the 4 feet 0 that is allowed by zoning code (please see 18.58.040). The applicant is proposing to landscape on both the north and south sides of the proposed structure in order to screen the encroachments. As discussed previously in this memo, the applicant is proposing five 2 inch caliper aspen trees and two 6 foot and one 8 foot evergreen trees on the south side of the house. On the north side of the house, the applicant is proposing two 6 foot and one 8 foot evergreen trees to screen the encroachment. The staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant be required to plant additional landscaping on the north side of the encroachment consisting of three 2 Inch caliper aspens and one 6 foot evergreen tree. The staff recognizes that topographic constraints somewhat limit the developable areas of this lot. Please reference the attached south elevation drawing that, shows the garage and house placed on relatively flat portions of the site with a steep hillside between. The staff feels that 2 foot encroachments into both side setbacks would allow for a functional house to be built on this lot as proposed by the applicant. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal Interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation Is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites In the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. As discussed above, the staff feels that the 2 foot encroachment requests into each of the two side setbacks are minimal since they are only for a length of 15 feet, and feel that they are warranted because of the narrow configuration of the lot. Staff does not believe that allowed variances for these encroachments would be a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The staff does not feel that the proposed setback variances would have a substantial adverse impact on the above mentioned items. The staff does view the proposed Type I Employee Housing Unit as a positive element of the request. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1 That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 1 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public 3 health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or ' improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS For the reasons discussed in Section ill A of this memorandum, the staff is recommending approval of the request for the 2 foot side setback variances into the north and side setbacks, but recommends that the applicant reduce the roof overhang encroachment to 4 feet (from 6 feet) as allowed by the zoning code. As a condition of approval, the staff recommends that the applicant be required to plant landscaping on the north side of the encroachment consisting of three 2 Inch caliper aspen trees and one 6 foot evergreen tree In addition to the landscaping proposed by the applicant. The staff believes that the variance findings discussed in Section 111 8, 1, 2, and 3 (a c) of this memorandum have all been met. Please note that under Section 18.62.080 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the approval of a variance shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion within two years from when the approval becomes final 0 ;p cdu� --33 `tkx I MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: June 14, 1993 rk SUBJECT: A request for a major exterior alteration and a setback variance to allow for the construction of an elevator tower located at the Enzian at Vail Condominiums, 705 West Lionshead Circlelpart of Enzian Condominium Association, Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing, Applicant: Enzian Condominium Association Planner: Shelly Mello 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is proposing to expand the common area of the Enzian Condominium Association by 333 square feet. The proposed addition will house an elevator and covered entry which will serve all levels. The tower is 44 feet in height and does not extend above the existing roof ridge. The proposal requires an exterior alteration and a setback variance. The proposed setback along the north property line would be 5 feet where 10 feet is required by the Commercial Core 11 (CCII) zone district. An exterior alteration review is required as the addition to the building is larger than 100 square feet. 11. ZONING ANALYSIS Zone District: Lot Size: Common Area: Allowed: Existing: Proposed: Site Coverage: Allowed: Existing: Proposed: KITS 13 Building Height: Commercial Core 11 12,865 sq. ft. 3602 sq, ft. or 35% of the allowable GRFA 770 s% ft. 770 sq. ft. (existing) + 333 sq. ft. (proposed) - 1103 sq, ft. 9005.5 sq, ft. or 70% 5919 sq. ft. 5919 sq. ft. (existing) + 183 sq. ft. (proposed) = 6102 sq. ft. No additional GRFA will be added. GRFA is p2proximately 16,450 sq. ft. There will be no increase to building height as a result of this application, 48 b 1 feet is the allowed height. Landscaping: There will be no reduction in landscaping. Required Parking: There will be no additional parking required as the application includes only common area. Ill. RELATED POLICIES IN THE LIONSHEAD DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND GUIDE PLAN EXTERIOR ALTERATION CRITERIA DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS A. Height and Massing The application will consist of a 9 feet 9 inches by 8 feet 3 inches (exterior dimensions) elevator to be added to the north side of the building at all four levels. A covered entry will also be constructed. The elevator will not exceed the existing height of the building. Due to its location between the two existing condominium buildings, the staff finds that the application will not increase the massing of the building. The roof material will match the existing building roof. C. Facades, Walls, Structures The proposed addition will match the existing building in color and material. D. Facade Transparency Because this is an elevator, this element of the criteria is not applicable. E. Decks and Patios This criterion is not applicable. F. Accent Elements The proposal will match the existing building. G. Landscape Elements No landscaping will be removed. The staff would ask the applicant to add additional landscaping to the planter area on the east side of the building adjacent to the proposed elevator. The staff would request that the applicant add a minimum of 2 evergreens and 3 aspen along with shrub material to the area. The final landscape plan would be reviewed by the DRB. 10 2 H. Service andOelivery This element of the criteria is not applicable. GUIDE PLAN - Sub-Area Concepts There are no subarea concepts applicable to this site. IV. SETBACK VARIANCE The setback requirements for structures in Commercial Core 11 zone district are 10 feet for the front, side and rear setbacks. The addition encroaches 5 feet into the north setback. There will be a 5 foot setback from the property line. A variance is required for the 5 foot encroachment. V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1 The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The staff believes that the proposed elevator addition will not impact the potential uses and structures in the vicinity as it is located adjacent to the existing building and does not extend above the existing roof ridge. The staff would request that the applicant add landscaping adjacent to the elevator as discussed previously in this memo. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal Interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. This site was subdivided such that the Enzian Condominium sits on the parcel surrounded by the L'Ostello project. While the setbacks from the property line encompass the perimeter of the building, it has no relationship to adjacent properties except to the west. For this reason, staff feels that the existing property lines constitute a hardship in that they restrict development of this building significantly. Please see the attached site plan. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 0 3 I This application will have no impact on any of the above criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance; 1 That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties In the same district. V1. CONCLUSION The staff recommends approval of the requested exterior alteration and setback variance. Concerning the exterior alteration, the staff believes that it meets all of the criteria listed in the Urban Design Guidelines for Lionshead. In addition to the Guidelines, the staff believes that it fulfills the Sub-Area Concepts. The staff also recommends approval of the proposed variance with the condition that a minimum of 2 evergreens and 3 aspens along with shrub material be added to the planters along with the necessary irrigation to the north of the proposed elevator. We believe it meets the criteria as discussed above as well as the findings. Specifically, the staff believes that Finding 1 is met as the request is not a grant of special privilege. Concerning Finding 2, staff believes that there will be no impact to public health, safety and welfare. Finally, the staff believes that Finding 3b is met by the proposal as this site has unique circumstances due to the subdivision of the property. Both requests would need would need to be approved in order to proceed with the project. 4 00 Z) ASPHALT PARKING .................. Al Ile cl 6 f3s & ASPHALT PARKING ro 28.55- 0 ENZIAN CONDOMINIUMS_ . .-ELEVATOR ADDITION_- SITE PLAN N VAlt, P4L4ej lzaar- � -t'a t A,-rGH — , } i�I RTH ELEVATEON_. �-tu�o To �`�•-��H �xisrfr� - _: g,2vr 4 Fh-�4 1, ro W.-`6H Pnx K-rW- -4A,L v9 PLAHTrF- -kl,Wtr F,4jLIW -1 T° arc- -H G 14w f F-�kLsH4 To M,4,Tt WEST ELEVATION !' _ 2 u t:-S:ot:jTTH �-FLEVATIOR j o �a�irl? E3rLCo, I5 MEMORANDUM ITO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: June 14, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a modification to PEC conditions of approval for the revised development plan for Vail Point/1881 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge Filing No. 3. Applicant: Steve Gensler Planner: Andy Knudtsen 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Steve Gensler is requesting to amend two conditions of approval relating to the Vail Point development. These conditions were part of approvals made by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and Design Review Board (DRS) in June of 1992. The first part of the request would allow Steve Gensler to provide funds to the Town of Vail for installation of a tot lot in Buffehr Creek Park. This would be done in lieu of providing a tot lot on-site at Vail Point. The second part of the request involves a delay in a requirement for regrading and revegetating Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing No. 3. Lot 27 is to the south, directly across Lionsridge Loop from Vail Point. It has been a staging area for the development at Vail Point and has been disturbed during construction. The applicant was required to regrade and revegetate this lot; however, he has requested an extension to the deadline of this condition as he plans to develop the lot in the near future. 11. BACKGROUND Staff has provided the specific conditions of approval from the PEC and DRB hearings below. In addition, details regarding the amenities package as well as the letter of credit are discussed. The June 8, 1992 PEC approval included the following conditions: The applicant regrade and revegetate Lot 27 in conformance with the December 31, 1990 Design Review Board (DRS) approval. This regrading and revegetation work must be completed prior to the Town's release of any building permits (for Vail Point) or the developer must enter into a Development Agreement with the Town and provide funding sufficient to cover the cost of regrading and revegetating Lot 27. The developer must submit a copy of the bid to regrade and revegetate Lot 27 to the Town in order for the Town to determine the amount of funding which is sufficient to cover the cost of this work. If the Development Agreement option is utilized, the revegetation work must be completed before any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for Buildings 0 2, 4 or 5 will be released by the Town. 2. Recreation amenities package must receive a Final Certificate of Occupancy prior to the issuance of any Temporary or Final Certificates of Occupancy for any of the units associated with Buildings 2, 4 and/or 5. 3. Applicant modify landscape plan at the time of DRB review to provide seating, shade trees, and grass in association with the tot-lot; to place trees and/or shrubs south of the pool deck and the access drive; and, to place additional plant material in the area west of Building 4 and east of Building 5. On June 17, 1992, the DRB reviewed and approved the proposal, and added a condition to these. The DRB required that the applicants provide a bench in conjunction with the tot lot. The amenities package which is discussed in the conditions of approval includes the following elements: 1. A two-story clubhouse having a total square footage of 1,226 square feet. 2. A swimming pool area of approximately 1,470 square feet. 3. A swimming pool of 363 square feet. 4. A tot-lot area of 770 square feet. The tot-lot equipment includes "a fireman's center", wooden metal climbing feature and two tire swings. 5. A hot tub. Please note that the club house, the swimming pool and hot tub have been completed. The tot lot and the deck around the pool have not been done at this time. On February 26, 1993, the applicant provided a Letter of Credit for $55,000. This money covers all of the costs involved with these conditions of approval and some additional paving requirements. Because the Town secured the Letter of Credit, staff has been issuing Temporary Certificate of Occupancy's (TCO's) for some of the units in this last phase of development. We told the applicant that we would not be issuing Certificates of Occupancy for any units or TCO's for the last units in the development until these conditions had been complied with. The request to change the location of the tot lot was initiated by the homeowners association. This past winter, when snow storage was at a premium, the homeowner's association learned that the tot lot would be located in an area where they were storing snow. They do not want to see the current areas reduced in size. A letter attached to this memo from the homeowner's association documents this concern. Todd Oppenheimer, the Town's landscape architect, has reviewed the drawings for the tot lot to be installed at Vail Point. He has worked with the Town's carpenters to determine the cost of constructing the approved equipment in Buffehr Creek Park. Town staff believes that this work will cost $8,000. This is significantly higher than the bid Steve Gensler provided the staff, which was $1,200. After reviewing the Vail Point site, staff believes that the tot lot would actually cost more to build on-site than what it will cost to build at Buffehr Creek Park. The amount of site work including additional fill, retaining walls, and drainage improvements, would 0 2 all be required at Vail Point. Staff believes that the bid the applicant submitted is not inclusive of all aspects involved with the tot lot construction. The bid from Todd Oppenheimer is attached at the end of this memo and documents each component of the construction. Staff believes that this figure is more accurate and that the full amount should be required from the developer. Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that the conditions of approval from the June 8, 1992 PEC approval should be amended so that the applicant provides $9,000 to the Town for the tot lot. We believe that a tot lot located at Buffehr Creek Park will get more use as it is available to the public, not just residents of Vail Point. Though located in a public park, the tot lot is in the vicinity of the development and can be accessed by Vail Point residents. Concerning the second condition of approval, the staff believes that the applicant should be required to regrade and revegetate the lot by this fall. Staff has been reviewing plans with Steve Gensler's architect for this site and understands that a formal application will be submitted soon. Staff will require that a letter of credit be provided to insure that this work will be done. Neighbors have called Town staff in the past regarding the use of this site for staging, and staff believes that there has been a commitment relayed to the neighbors about revegetation. As a result, staff believes that this work should be completed no later than September 1, 1993 unless a building permit for one residence has been issued and construction has started. The Town staff will not be issuing any final certificates of occupancy for Vail Point until the regrading is completed or construction has started. 0 CAp0C4tI0M08\VaflP0In.61 4 0 3 � . � � �� : y� � . * : � � w I _ Certificate was prepared for that it is not a t" it is not to be relied upon %,luture improvement lines. �131 FIREMAN'S CENTER Is designed to accommodale�� ip to 14 children, ages 5 to 12. The overall dimensions Of this unit are 9'-O'x 11'-0 - and requires an area, ove described parcel on this 25.'-O'x 27'-0' for installation. Approximately 28 i=ty connections, are entirel I man-hours would be required for installation. For y material specifications refer to page 116, "a, that there are no encroach- '!�ctt any adjoining premises, ex- 3 CLIMBING RUNGS WIACTIVITY BARRIERS "idence or sign of any easement t*as noted. SLIDING POLE STEEL ARCH CLIMBER 48" 13ARRIERS LIONS RI STEERING WHEEL TIRE SWING is designed toaccommodate up to 3N!drqn, 4 to 12. The overall dimensions of the unit are 3�-O'�40 V' �' and requires an area 25'-O'x 30'-0' for installation. IF TOTLOT.XLS VAIL POINT TOTLOT COST ESTIMATE MATERIALS QUANTITY UNIT TOTAL PLAY EQUIPMENT TIRE SWING 1 378.62 378.62 ARCH CLIMBER 1 207,68 207.68 SLIDING POLE 1 185 186 STEERING WHEEL 1 133.3 133.3 RUNG CLIMBER 1 86.68 86.68 SAFETY HANDLES 10 41.99 419.9 SWING FRAME 6X6 TIMBER (LF) 60 3 180 SONOTUBE & CONCRETE L5 LS 100 HARDWARE LS LS 20 PLAY STRUCTURE 6X6 TIMBER (LF) 80 3 240 2X10 LUMBER (LF) 80 2 160 2X6 LUMBER (LF) 80 1.75 140 1X6 LUMBER (LF) 60 1 60 SONOTUBE &CONCRETE LS LS 200 HARDWARE LS LS 50 LABOR 85 20 1700 SUBTOTAL 4261.18 SITE WORK EXCAVATION (CY) 34 4 136 TIMBER EDGING (EACH) 75 14.86 1114.5 LABOR (MANHOURS) 40 20 800 FIBAR SURFACE (SF) 1225 2.2 2695 SUBTOTAL 4745.5 TOTAL 1 9006.68 Page 1 s'rk.c. 05/28/93 14:31 1 303 4761415 ROCKY NTN REPRO P.02 Builders Int, QUallly CUSTOM domes • p7ne5t 4r$J•CSmanshlp • Pdqr oriel %Addiffons May 26, 1993 Parkwood Reality, Inc. 5299 DTC Blvd. Suite 5010 Englewood, CO 80911 PROPOSAL: R J BUILDERS, INC.- proposer. to furnish la or, matarial, 1equipment and supervision as Necessary to complete the site work and installation of! "Tot -LOV' equipment I'Firemans Center, Tire Swing and Reach) as per plans except as qualified -In this Proposal. 1. Equipment* 13encht Piremaiis Center a4d Tires Swing $778.00 2. Inst.alation of above $225.00 3. Site work and gradeingl $28D.00 Total *- Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. Very Truly yours, Y R J Builders, Inc. Randy L. Johnson President a $1,283.00 2077 l'•l. Frontage Rd,, Suite 1 U's Wail, Colo'ra'do 81657 F (303)X479.9144 Work # (303)X176 -7529 Residence • * - A . :,r III I I MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 14, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a joint worksesslon with the Design Review Board and the Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss the establishment of a SDD for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building, 362 Vail Valley Drive, a part of Tract B, Vail Village First Filing, and more specifically described as follows: A part of Tract "B" and a part of Mill Crook Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Vail Village, First Filing; thence North 79'46'09' West along the Southerly line of U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feet to the Northeast corner of said Tract "B"; thence South 10014'00" West along the Easterly line of said Tract "B"; a distance of 198.31 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Tract "B"; thence North 79046'00" West along the Southerly line of said Tract "B" a distance of 100.00 feet to the true point of beginning thence North 09010'07" West a distance of 41.67 feet; thence South 88°27'11" West a distance of 75.21 feet; thence South 27013'37" East a distance of 77.37 feet; thence North 57024'00" East a distance of 55.11 feet, more or less to the true point of beginning. Applicant: David and Myra Smith Planner: Jim Curnutte .. .. . . . ....... Le I. PROJECT OVERVIEW The applicants, David and Myra Smith, are requesting review of the proposed establishment of a special development district (SDD) for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building, 362 Vail Valley Drive, a part of Tract B, Vail Village First Filing. The Cornice Building site is located in the eastern portion of Vail Village, between the Vail Athletic Club and the Tyrolean Inn. The property is currently zoned High Density Multi-Family (HDMF) and is considered to be nonconforming with regard to lot size, which is .084 of an acre (3,659 square feet) in size. The applicant has indicated that the purpose of requesting a SDD for this property is to provide a mechanism for the review of certain deviations from the existing development standards of the site's underlying zoning. In addition, the SDD process will allow for the joint review of a conditional use for three proposed Type IV Employee Housing Units. Although there are three units on the site which are restricted to employee use, they do not currently meet the requirements of Type IV Employee Housing Units. The proposed redevelopment of the Cornice Building involves deviations from the following HDMF development standards: 1. GRFA - This proposal exceeds allowable GRFA by 1,305 square feet. 2. Setbacks - Portions of the structure are proposed to encroach into the front, side and rear setbacks. In addition, the applicant is proposing to locate required parking within the front setback area which is generally prohibited in the HDMF zone district. 3. Parking ' - The required number of parking spaces for the proposed redevelopment is six spaces. The applicant is proposing to provide two parking spaces on-site (one enclosed and one exterior). The proposal will also not comply with the HDMF zone district requirement that 75% of all parking be enclosed or otherwise hidden from the view of adjacent properties. No parking is proposed for the Type IV employee housing units. The redevelopment of the Cornice Building involves the demolition of the existing building, which currently includes the following uses: 1 - 1,084 square foot open market dwelling unit 3 - restricted employee rental units (202 square feet each) 1 - 202 square feet of office space The proposed redevelopment of the Cornice Building involves the following uses: 1 - 2,702 square foot unrestricted dwelling unit 3 - restricted employee rental units (approximately 265 feet each) per Town of Vail Type IV employee housing requirements 2 - parking spaces (one enclosed and one exterior) III. BACKGROUND The Cornice Building was originally constructed in the mid 1960's and included eight small rental apartments. No on-site parking was provided for the rental apartments. With the exception of new decks and a minor building expansion in 1976, the overall form of the building has not changed since it was built. The property has been the subject of numerous development proposals over the years and due to the small size of the parcel, virtually all of the redevelopment proposals involved requests for exceptions from the zoning standards. In the mid 1970's, a conditional use permit was granted which allowed for a real estate office to operate out of the western portion of the lower level of the building. The real estate office eliminated one employee rental unit, leaving seven units on the property. In 1979, four apartments on the upper floor were converted to one dwelling unit. During the process of converting this space, the owner agreed to a Planning and Environmental Commission's condition of approval to restrict the three remaining apartments to long term employee rental units. For a variety of reasons, this restriction was not formally recorded until 1985. Since 1985, there have been approximately three proposals to redevelop this site. 0 0 I Ill. CgRNICE BUILDING ZONING ANALYSIS The project's departures from the HDMF zone district standards are highlighted in bold type. UNDERLYING ZONING: EXISTING HDMF PROJECT Site Area: 0.084 acre or 3,659 sq. ft. Same *Dwelling Units: 25 units per acre or 4 DU's 2 units for this site. GRIFA: 60% or 2,195 sq. ft. 51% or 1,892 sq. ft. PROPOSED SDQ Same 2 DU's 96% or 3,500 sq. ft. Common Area: 35% of allowable GRFA or 202 sq. ft. located in 3% or 70 sq. ft. 768 sq. ft. the basement of the bldg. "Setbacks: 20' on all sides. N: 9' N: 5' S: 2.5' S,6' E: 12.5' E: 6' W: 45 W: 8' Site Coverage: 55% or 2,012 sq. ft. 40% or 1,460 sq. ft. 41% or 1,500 sq. ft. Landscaping: 30% required or 66 % or 2,434 sq. ft. 45% or 1,635 sq. ft. 1,098 sq. ft. Building Height: 48' irregardless of roof type 23.5' 48' *"Parking: Varies according to proposed 6 spaces required 6 spaces required use of the property. 0 spaces provided 2 spaces provided *Although three of the existing dwelling units on the property are permanently restricted to employee housing, they do not comply with the requirements of the Town's recently adopted employee housing ordinance and, therefore, count as full dwelling units for the purpose of calculating density. The proposed SDD plan will comply with the requirements of Type IV employee housing units except in respect to required parking. Therefore, the density of each unit will count as one-third of a dwelling unit. "Setbacks from the south and west property lines were measured to the second floor deck projections. Second floor decks are allowed to encroach 5 feet into a required setback. If measured to the building foundation, the setbacks would be 11 feet on the south and 8 feet on the west. ***The parking requirement was calculated at 2.5 spaces for the condominium unit and one space for each of the three employee housing units. R1 IV. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of Special Development Districts is as follows: "The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to provide the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Flan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district." 1. Although the staff will not specifically address each of the nine SDD review criteria for this worksession, the criteria are listed below: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, Identity, character, visual Integrity and orientation. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined In Chapter 18.52. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. E. identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district Is proposed. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. 4 I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. 2. The review criteria for a conditional use permit are as follows: A. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. B. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. C. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. D. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. E. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable for the proposed use. 0 V. VAIL MASTER PLANS Staff has evaluated the proposal using for compliance with the applicable Town of Vail master plans including: A. Vail Land Use Plan - The goals contained in the Vail Land use Plan are to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. The Land Use Plan Goals /Policies applicable to the Cornice Building redevelopment are as follows: 1 .11 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.�2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1 .33 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) 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. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. B. Vail Village Master Plan - The proposed redevelopment of the Cornice Building has the potential to carry out many of the goals and objectives contained in the Vail Village Master Plan. Applicable goals and objectives are as follows: Goal #1 - Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. Obiective 1.2 - Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Obiective 2.1 - Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub -areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. Objective 2.6 - Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. Goal #3 - To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the village. Obiective 3.4 - Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. Goal #5 - Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency, and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. Obiective 5.2 - Encourage the use of public transportation to minimize the use of private automobiles throughout Vail. The land use element of the Vail Village Master Plan shows the Cornice Building property within the medium /high density residential category. The . Building Height element of the plan suggests that the maximum building height on the Cornice Building property should be limited to 2 stories. The plan is intended to provide general guidelines and recommends that additional study be made during specific project review relative to a buildings height impact on the streetscape and relationship to surrounding structures. The Cornice Building is located within the East Meadow Drive Sub -Area ( #5). 0 No specific reference is made to the building in the text of the sub-area action plan. C. Streetscape Master Plan - The streetscape master plan points out that traffic on Vail Valley Drive is very heavy throughout most of the year. It is especially heavy in the morning and late afternoons during the ski season, and evenings and weekends during the summer months. Pedestrian traffic is likely to increase because of the expansion of the village parking structure and the creation of a new exit portal from the parking structure at Vail Valley Drive. Specific improvements for Vail Valley Drive in the area of the Cornice Building involve the addition of a 8 foot - 10 foot wide concrete unit paver walkway on the west and south sides of Vail Valley Drive and a 5 foot- 6 foot wide concrete unit paver walkway on the east and north sides of the road. V1. DISCUSSION ISSUES Since this is a worksession, there is no formal staff recommendation at this time. However, the staff has identified the following issues which we would like to discuss further with the PEC, DRB and applicants: The project's departures from the HDMIF Zone District standards, which are specifically listed in the zoning analysis section of this memorandum and are as follows: -GRFA - The applicant has indicated that they would like to utilize all of the properties available GRFA (2,195 sq. ft.) for the free-market condominium unit. Although the current plans for the proposed condominium unit totals 2,702 sq. ft. of GRFA, the applicant has indicated that they have erred in their calculation of GRFA and do not intend to exceed the 2,195 sq. ft. maximum allowance. They do, however, request that the GRFA used for the restricted employee rental units (798 sq. ft.) not be counted toward the total allowable GRFA. In the SDD application, the applicant has stated that since the rental units have been designed on the garden level, there is little appreciable increase in the building's mass from the additional GRFA. The applicants point out that the Town of Vail has historically allowed a credit for GRFA used for most restricted employee rental units because the Town benefits from the creation of the rental units and the developer benefits by being able to utilize allowable GRFA for other purposes. Staff does agree with the applicant's contention that the restriction of three of the four units on the property to employee housing is fairly onerous. However, this was a condition agreed to by the property owner at the time in exchange for converting four rental units to one large condominium. We also believe that this location for employee housing is very good as it is adjacent to the Village and Golden Peak activity centers. -Setbacks - The HDMF zone district requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides. After taking setbacks into consideration, the remaining buildable area on the lot is approximately 20 feet by 25 feet in size. Staff agrees with the applicants' contention that it would be extremely difficult to build on this site without some 7 degree of setback encroachment. The applicants have indicated that they have attempted to minimize the setback encroachment by designing the "main" portion of the building with a similar footprint as the existing building. It is evident by looking at the plans, however, that various additions to the main form of the building (i.e. garage, covered walkway, elevator shaft, exterior storage, etc.) have caused the building footprint to be located closer to the property lines than the existing building. Staff believes that the removal of the second story deck located on the south side of the existing building, which is within 2-112 feet of the strearnwalk, is a positive aspect of the redevelopment proposal. Staff would prefer that the applicant provide as much visibility as possible to motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists traveling through "Blue Cow Chute". We would recommend that the covered entryway between the building and the garage be removed. This will not only improve visibility along Vail Valley Drive but will also reduce the building's proposed site coverage and GRFA figures. Also, staff would recommend that the entire structure be moved toward the north and east as much as possible. The distance the building could be moved to the east will be limited to walkway width and landscape buffering requirements. On the north side, snow removal and landscaping should also be considered when shifting the building. This shift in building location will have a positive effect on users of the streamwalk and improve visibility through Blue Cow Chute. Staff has asked the applicant to provide a sun/shade analysis in order to fully assess the proposal's impact on adjacent roadways. -Parking - As mentioned in the Background section of this memo, the Cornice Building was originally constructed in the mid 1960's. No on-site parking was provided. In 1979, an application was made to the PEC to add one surface parking space to the site. The PEC denied this request citing safety and traffic concerns. In 1985 and 1986, redevelopment proposals were submitted to the Town which included up to seven on-site parking spaces. Although the PEC felt that some on-site parking may be acceptable on the site, the designs being proposed were not acceptable and the projects were denied. Some members of the PEC felt that it would be reasonable for the property owner to request a parking exemption from the Town Council to allow payment into the parking fund for some or all of the required parking. The parking requirement for the proposed building in the HDMF zone district is 6 spaces, of which 75% must be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view or shall be completely hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscape berm. In addition, no parking may be located in any required setback area. The applicant is proposing to provide two on-site parking spaces, of which one will be enclosed within a garage and one will be located in front of the garage door. A portion of both parking spaces will be within the front setback area. The Town Engineer has reviewed the proposed site plan and feels that, in general, the on-site parking can work on this property, although he has asked for additional back-up space length and information on sight-lines from the driveway/Vail Valley Road intersection. The 8 applicant has stated that there are three compelling reasons for not providing required parking on-site. The first is the site's proximity to Vail Village and the bus line. Second is the adverse impact to the site caused by more than two spaces. Third is the benefit of limiting trip generation from and to the site. Staff believes that it may be reasonable to allow some on-site parking on this property. We agree with the applicant that providing all six required spaces on- site is not a desirable situation. We have recommended to the applicants that they consider reducing the size of the condominium unit to 2,000 sq ft. or less so that the parking requirement, and the requested deviation from the requirement, is reduced by one parking space. In addition, the option to pay into the parking requirement for the remaining three spaces should be considered. (Staff will provide more background information on this option at the meeting.) 2. Continuance of restricted employee housing units - As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's master plans, employee housing is a critical Town issue which should be addressed through the planning process of all development proposals. The applicants's intention to keep three employee housing units is a positive aspect of this application. Some redesign of the units will be necessary in order to comply with the common laundry requirements required for Type IV employee housing units as specified in the Town's recently adopted employee housing ordinance. 1 3. Architectural and site planning Issues: -In general, the tyrolean design of the proposed building is very compatible with the established theme of Vail Village. In staff's opinion, however, the upper story and roof of this building are out of proportion to the mass of the rest of the building and the size of the site. The staff believes that the applicant should consider lowering the building's height and consider a gable roof or possibly a terraced roof form rather than the proposed flat roof. Also, staff feels that the proposed building should be redesigned to provide more articulation and avoid the sheer vertical walls that are currently shown. -The applicant has stated that the proposed building is within the maximum 48 foot building height allowance in the HDMF Zone District and is very similar in height to other surrounding buildings in the area. The building height of the Vail Athletic Club averages approximately 46 feet, the Tyrolean Inn is 54 feet high and the Vorlaufer's building height is 40 feet. Staff believes that, due to the small size of this parcel, designing a building to the maximum 48 foot building height is not appropriate for this property. -In order to minimize paving on this property, the asphalt walkway to the employee housing entrance should be replaced with flagstone or other similar material. Staff would also point out that the streamwalk is not maintained in the winter, therefore, access to the employee housing entrance may become difficult and/or dangerous. 9 I -Staff recommends that the applicant provide a more detailed landscape plan that includes a legend which specifies plant species and sizes. Staff would encourage the applicant to provide additional plantings on the property, especially along the north and south property lines, with particular attention given to buffering the vehicle turnaround area. Landscaping around all paved areas should be sited in a manner which allows for adequate on-site snow storage and adequate sight-lines for ingress and egress. -Staff has concerns that the vehicle turnaround area is not of adequate length to function properly. However, the proposed width of the space seems excessive for its intended purpose. We are also concerned about the asphalt turnaround's visual impact on the adjacent strearnwalk. -Since it is not shown on the plans, staff assumes that trash storage will be accommodated within the building. -Staff requests that the applicant provide a drainage easement to the Town in order to provide for the maintenance of the storm drainage system located on the western edge of this property. -Staff would like to insure that the large trees on the site will survive construction. We would ask that the applicant review this concern with a landscape architect. Staff requests that the above-listed issues be discussed with the applicants, so that they have specific direction on how to proceed. The applicants have indicated that they are on a very tight construction schedule with this project and would like to present final drawings at the next PEC meeting on June 28, 1993. If this is to be possible, revised drawings would be necessary no later than June 16, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. for staff review. M , � .� � RUN \\ ` ` ^\ \` \ � 14 lu ~� 6c^LIe ` /'^/D' / ' / ' , � .� � RUN \\ ` ` ^\ \` \ � 14 lu ~� 6c^LIe ` /'^/D' 0 m 0 WX IN •, 7 caP't° 0 0 T2© r- I I ����t� ., � � � PST a Ah Ak 7� io K•G $,1 0 5jU-�\ ti 0 i- - - - -- - - - - - -- - -i . vi e15 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 14, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a joint worksession with the Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental Commission for an exterior alteration for Lionshead Center to allow an addition on the southwest comer of Lionshead Center and to discuss a parking issue related to the current commercial expansion, located at Lot 5, Block 1, Lionshead 1st Filing/520 Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Oscar Tang Planner: Andy Knudtsen 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST A. Alfie Packer's Addition Oscar Tang, the applicant, is proposing an expansion to the Alfie Packer Grill Restaurant entrance. This area is approximately 514.3 square feet. In the approval made for the Lionshead Center renovation on December 7, 1992, the area for the Alfie Packer entrance was approximately 300.2 square feet. The additional area has been designed in an effort to make the space more financially viable and in an effort to satisfy the concerns of the owner of the restaurant space. In addition to expanding the entrance to Alfie Packer's, the applicant is proposing to relocate the public restrooms for Lionshead Center. Currently, they are located on the interior of the building. With the proposed addition, new restrooms will be provided on the west end of the building and will be more accessible to the public. These restrooms are approximately 276.5 square feet which makes the total addition 790.8 square feet. The areas are shown in the table below: New Alfie Packer entrance 514.3 square feet New restroom area 276.5 square feet Total new area 790-8 square feet Former Alfie Packer entrance 300.2 square feet B. Provision of Enclosed On-Site Parking for the Current Commercial Remodel Another issue which the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) should review is a request brought to the staff by Charlie Crowley. Mr. Crowley owns a few of the tenant spaces within Lionshead Center and requested that he and Oscar Tang be able to provide parking on-site instead of paying into the parking fund. Staff has researched the issue thoroughly, consulted with Larry Eskwith, and has concluded that applicants may provide parking on-site in the CCII zone district. This is not the case in the CGI zone district. The parking regulations for the CCII zone district require that 50% of the required parking be provided within a structure. As long as the total number of spaces within the parking garage does not exceed more than 50% of the required parking, any additional parking may be provided within the interior of the building. The applicant is proposing to create two compact spaces within the garage by removing curb and sidewalk and restriping four spaces. Staff believes that this is an acceptable proposal and will reduce the total parking pay in lieu fee by two spaces or $16,000 in conjunction with the current remodel under construction. 11. ZONINC3 ANALYSIS Zone District: ccil Lot Size: 0.923 acres or 40,205 .9 square feet Proposed Addition: approximately 790.8 square feet None of these zoning statistics will change from those shown in the December 7, 1992 memo. The addition will be located above the Vail Associates Ski School operation on the existing deck of Alfie Packer's. Due to its location above existing floor area, there is no change to site coverage or landscaping. I 2 Allowed Existing Proned Building Height: 48 ft. 47 ft. 24 feet Setbacks: North 10 ft. 20 ft. 50 ft. East 10 ft. 43 ft. n/a West 10 ft. 6 ft. 10 ft. South 10 ft. 8 ft. 36 ft. Site Coverage: 28,135.7 sq. ft. 23,8277.3 sq. ft. no change or 70% or 59.3% Landscaping: 8,038.8 sq. ft. 6,432 sq. ft. soft no change or 20% minimum 1,607 sq. ft. hard (max. hard 8,039 sq. ft. total landscape is 1,607) GRFA: 32,155 27,916.1 sq. ft. no change or 80% or 69.43% Required Parking: none required as now floor area (restrooms and restaurant entrance) does not generate a parking requirement. I 2 Ill. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Staff would like to focus the PECs attention on five different issues. Though staff supports the proposal In general, and believes that the overall improvements that are currently under construction are excellent, staff is looking to the PEC for direction on some of the details regarding this addition. 1. Is a flat roof over this addition the most appropriate roof form? The applicants are proposing to use a tar and gravel roofing material which will be identical to the roofing material used on other portions of the building spot roofs. Staff believes that a flat roof of this relatively small magnitude is a reasonable design solution. 2. Should a portion of the deck be removed? Approximately 790.8 square feet of the existing Alfie Packer deck will be removed by this addition. Staff believes that the current deck is much larger than what works functionally or aesthetically. The deletion of this deck area is not a problem, in staff's opinion. 3. What is the best way to handle the transition from the front of the building with its new contemporary facade to the back of the building with the older cedar siding facade? Specific elements to focus on include the zinc facia band and the window treatments. 10 Staff reviewed this issue with Jeff Winston, and believes that blending the various elements is the best approach. The facade that has been used on the new commercial addition is designed to wrap around the new Alfie Packer entrance and then transition back into cedar siding. The facia band would continue beyond this point and wrap around to the south elevation where it would stop at the first indentation of the existing building. Staff believes that this concept works better than the alternative, which would be to change from the new to the old at a single point. 1] 4. Is the proposed awning compatible with the building? Staff is concerned about the amount of awning to be constructed around the Alfie Packer entrance. We believe that an awning that would be located closer to the building, that would be more consistent with the other awning forms on the rest of the building, would be a better design. This issue was discussed in the previous review, and was determined to be acceptable given the location of this entrance. Staff would like to revisit the issue and discuss it with the new restaurant operator and new restaurant space owner. Menu boards and display boxes are allowed for the restaurant and will help with the business identification. 5. How will the walkway from the front doors of the restaurant to the back deck function? Where are the improvements going to be located relative to the existing staircase and the edge of the deck? KC Staff would like clarification of these issues insuring that there will be adequate room for pedestrians to walk from the front of the building to the rear, without having to go Inside the restaurant. Staff would also like to understand where the changes in materials will occur. The walkway up to the restaurant will be constructed with brick pavers. Staff believes that these pavers should continue up to the deck. IV. EXTERIOR ALTERATION CRITERIA Staff will evaluate the criteria for the final hearing. A. Height and Massing. B. Rooting. C. Facade-wall/structures. D. Facade - Transparency E. Decks and Patios F. Accent Elements G. Landscape Elements H. Service and delivery. V. SUB-AREA CONCEPTS Three sub-area concepts, numbers 10, 11 and 12, pertain to this area of the Lionshead Mall. 10. "Planting islands relocated to improve store accessibility and to expand dual mail passage for peak skier crowds." This addition will not affect the pedestrian traffic. 11. "Commercial expansion (one- story) to increase pedestrian emphasis, scale of mall and improve shade-zone facades and accessibility." The proposal complies with this sub-area concept. 12. "Opportunity exists for expansion of buildings, arcades, awnings, etc. to improve scale, shelter and appearance of commercial facades." Staff believes that the awning will add color, and variety to the building. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a worksession, there is no staff recommendation. 4 F, F�� f III L� M M N F 71 FILE COPY I ,;'OWW OF T4FL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-21381479-2139 FAX 303-479-2452 May 27, 1993 Mr. Sid Fox Eagle County Department of Community Development P.O. Box 179 Eagle, CO 81631 Department of Community Development RE: File #SU-105-93-F1 (Highland Woods at Highland Meadows) Dear Sid: Thank you for allowing the Town of Vail the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned application, which as I understand, is essentially a proposal to resubdivide three existing duplex lots into five single family lots. The Town's planning staff has conducted a site visit and we have reviewed the applicant's proposed site development plan. Based on our review, we have serious reservations regarding the applicant's request. Specifically, we are concerned with the proposed access drive which would need to be constructed to provide vehicular access to Lot 35-8 and 35-C. The site development plan indicates that a significant amount of regrading will be necessary to accommodate this access and we are very concerned about the loss of mature vegetation (both evergreen and aspen trees) on this site. The site development plan also indicates that a limited amount of regrading will be necessary, on adjacent Lot 30 to the south, to accommodate the construction of the access drive. The Town of Vail is very concerned about the potential loss of vegetation with regard to the development of this project. Our rough estimates indicate that, at build out, the entire project site will lose approximately eighty to ninety percent of its existing mature vegetation. Along with our aesthetic concerns regarding this issue, we are also concerned about the potential for debris flows or hillside shifting as a result of the loss of vegetation on the steep slopes of this site. In summary, the Town of Vail would recommend that Eagle County not support the applicant's request to further subdivide the property. We believe that the approved and platted duplex lots would preserve much more of the natural vegetation in this area and would be more in keeping with the existing residential character of the immediate neighborhood. 0 mt.UEjkJED 4r' FEE: FILE No; r � �_'` /� " f � r 5 P,s l9, Y APPENDIX "A" Subdivision Summary Form 1. Name of Subdivision 2.- Type of Application Highland Woods Sketch Preliminary 3. Property Owner X Final Plat Name iKS -VR' go i- Minor . Type "A' Address 745 Barclay Circle, Sure 325 Minor - Type "E' Town Rochesr N,� i� 115 PUD Amendment State & Zip M,'ch_jgan 48302 Waiver Daytime Phone # (g13) 8„53- ._5-7nn Building Envelol Change 4. Surveyor Amended Final P7 Q 6. 7. Name Inter- Mountain Engineering Mailing Address Box 978 Daytime Phone # 949 -5072 Applicant Name Jack Beals Avon Town Colorado State Zip t Mailing Address Box 2581 Vail, Colorado 81658 Daytime Phone # 926 -3274 Name or Location of Subdivision Highland Meadows, Fill 33, 34 & 35 Highland Park, Fil 1 Lot Block Filing Subdivision Township Range Section Zone District Page 2 Subdivision Summary Form 8. Project Information Housing Type Number of Lots Number of Units Single Family 5 5 Duplex Multi- Family 9. Total Number of Dwelling Units 5 10. Total Acreage of Parcel. 1.78 Ac. 11, '�� Proposed Access to Site Vermont Road 12. Proposed Source of Water District 13. Proposed Source of Waste Disposal District 14. Contiguous Property Owners (only necessary for Sketch and Preliminary Plans) Names and Mailing Addresses NIA 15. Owners of Subsurface Mineral Rights (Only necessary for Sketch and Preliminary Plans) Names and'Mailing Addresses NIA 16. Lessees of Subsurface Mineral Interests (only necessary for Sketch and Preliminary Plans) Names and Mailing Addresses N/A If more space is needed, please attach a separate sheet. 4 n Page 3 Subdivision Summary Form' 17. Mortgage or Lienholder - Names and Mailing Addresses None 18. Twenty-two-(22) copies of Sketch and Preliminary Plans: five (5) copies of Final Plat, minor Subdivision and Waiver Applications; three (3) copies of protective covenants, declarations, party wal agreements or other restrictions placed on the subdivision must h submitted. For Final Plats and Minor subdivisions, a corrected a signed mylar and a signed copy of the protective covenants, declaration, party wall agreement or other restrictions must be received at least seven (7) days prior to the Planning Commission hearing. The above information is correct and accurate to the best of my knowled e. Signature of Property Owner Date If the applicant is not the owner, furnish evidence of owner's 10 permission to proceed with the application. 7 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: Received by Date Accepted for the Planning Commission Review meeting of Review Fee Paid Recording Fee Receipt Number. Check Number k. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 24, 1993IJune 14, 1993 (all revisions are indicated in bold italic type) SUBJECT: A request to amend Section 18.58.020 of the Zoning Code to clarify the height allowed for retaining walls in setbacks. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Tim Devlin 3 11:1'1:311 � :iS::Eu<b'.•ii; r:: .v.:..:... :..:: n.... ....:+ i.•:?::. vtivP: iti?-: i4i:: ri?: h???:: vt ...:.•.•:::...i..v:- :- iY. -:• ?: is ?i ?:w: }v.: ? } ?i "" ...i...... ...5...,,.. . ? re4v, ..:x:ii': -... ii•:3= 33x':. - .°•- :;,?°,t:Slti is �i>':��;::�: -r: i:C: -max {t s'.• � ��: � ? ^v � 4 - XL -ii;, � 3' ?. - '2 -`F: -: `ii}:�i:LLri::::::� :;:;: ;:;:;;; $::iii?'•': >:, +. ':?f� ? °.: ; ?: .:.:. v .:v +i:: :._........:.::.:,.,,:•: x: a.:.vl ?i: -;;�: �. i}?; Yi::: isv: v: x.;.....::.: x: y:•::::.;•........._ xr'::: s•,•:. v:...::: .:.. ............................... : ?:•}?::.:.:v :. +:. i. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Section 18.58.020(C) of the zoning rode reads as follows: "Fences, hedges, walls and landscaping screens shall not exceed three feet in height within any required setback area, and shall not exceed six feet in height in any other portion of the site, provided ...`" 10 On August 12, 1991, this section of the zoning code was amended to remove part of the sentence that referred to restrictive covenants as they relate to wall height (please see the attached August 12, 1991 memo). The word "front " was inadvertently removed as part of this amendment. Therefore, the staff requests that the word "front" be added back into this section of the zoning code. Il. BACKGROUND On May 24, 1993, the Planning and Environmental Commission directed the staff to investigate the possibility of allowing 6 foot high retaining walls in the front setback on lots where the slope exceeded 30 %. in response, the staff has researched this issue further, and has specifically looked at the recommendations that were made in the Development Code Revision Report that was prepared for the Torun of Vail in October of 1991, The report recognizes that there are clearly going to be sites that warrant relief from the 3 foot height limit, and that relief can be provided in two different ways. The first is through the variance process, the other is by amending this requirement in response to these unique situations. The report discusses the difficulty with amending the code for these unique situations because the code applies to all lots, and relief from this provision is warranted only in certain cases, i.e. on lots that slope dowry from a roadway and when the location of the wall is generally out of view. The report states that it would be difficult, If not impossible, to draft legislation to cover an of these circumstances. Therefore, the recommended alternative in The Development Cade Revision Report is to rely on the variance process for these situations. In addition, the staff believes that close scrutiny of a wall height variance makes sense given the impact these walls can have on the public way and adjacent nelghbors. We believe that the variance process has provided a tool for the staff and PEC to use to insure that adequate landscaping and wall materials are addressed. This process also allows the staff and PEC to try to minimize wall heights as much as possible. M. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1.) The staff requests that the word "front" be added back into the definition so that it will read as follows: "Fences, hedges, walls and landscaping screens shall not exceed three feet in height within any required front setback area, and shall not exceed six feet in height in any other portion of the site, provided... " 2) In regard to the Planning and Environmental. Commission's request of the staff to research allowing 6 foot high retaining wails in the front setback on lots greater than 30% slope, the staff recommends that the zoning code not be changed to allow these wails for the specific reasons discussed above and in the Development Code Revision Report A copy of this section of the Development Code Revision Report is attached for review. c.Apec\tov1wa11.614 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS CHAPTER 18.58 The Supplemental Regulations Chapter is a "catch -all" chapter that includes a variety of different developm t regulations. Many of these provisions establish regulations that apply "in ad;iion to the develop t regulations outlined in each zone district ". Examples of some of the development regulations ad Messed by this chapter include exceptions to development standards, home occupations, horsy razing, stream setbacks, short- term rentals and satellite dishes, "" Most of the follows amendment proposals are relatively minor clgi ications to these supplemental regulations. In most cases, these amendments address what"pes of improvements qualify for these exception There are some cases, however, wherlrt is recom mended that exceptions be repealed. �4 28.58.015 (new section' ISSUE The hazard regulations include a section (18,69.050) thi outlines special development restrictions on lots where the average slope beneath a s ucturq, nd parking area is in excess of 30%. The issue is whether these regulations should be to in the Hazard chapter or in the Supplemental Regulations chapter. ALTERNATIVES Valid arguments can be made r locating thes regulations in either of these two chapters. Because they deal vI h steep slopes, it akes sense for them to be in the Hazard chapter. On the Mier hand, these regulatio s apply "in addition to" other development standards hand for this reason could be orated in the Supplemental Regulations chapter' he key factor is to ensure that e regulations are located where one would expect to find them. It is recommended that these regulations be left in the Hazard oapter. However, in order to "irr "rove access" to these regulations, it is recommend that a section be added totes chapter that references section 18.69.050. RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS Adopt a new section, 18.58.015, to read: 18.58.015 Special restrictions on steep sloped lots Additional restrictions and requirements for development on lots where the average slope of the site beneath the proposed structure and parking area is in excess of thirty percent in the Hillside residential, Single family, Two family and Primarylsecondary zone districts are found in section 18.60.050 of this title. �l 18.58.424 Fences, hedges, wails and screening ISSUE Paragraph A. states that fences, hedges, walls, landscaping, walks driveways and terraces may be located in required setbacks. However, section 18.58.050 states that terraces can be located only SUPPLEMENTAL REDS 18.58 176 one half way into a required setback. These sections conflict with each other. ALTERNATIVES with this issue - but not both. it is one section or the other should deal w recommended that terraces be dealt with by section 18.58.050 to ensure that such improvements are not constructed up to property lines. RELATED AMENDMENT Refer to section 18.58.050 for related amendments. ISSUE from setback requirements if "their paragraph A. permits the DRB to exempt "recreation ames" ther this location is not detrimental environmentally and/or aesnitiethetically". The issue is whe provision is appropriate. ALTERNATIVE include improvements such as poollsor tennis courts. Recreational amenities could in p ct than a building, is hard to justify While these improvements may have less im a why such improvements should Lot be required to receive a variance in order to be located within a setback. ISSUE ts within the triangular portion of corner lots so as to not Paragraph B. restricts improvemen landscaping is . not included in the list of improvements that obstruct vehicular visibility. However, I are restricted from this area. ALTERNATIVES i potential as a structure or fence to obstruct Landscape materials have the same , o the improvements listed in this section. visibility. Landscaping should be added t Z� ISSUE Paragraph C. prohibits barbed wire or electrically charged fences. This provision is not Berman Ile to the primary purpose of paragraph C. - which establishes height limits on fences. ALTERNATIVE Regulation prohibiting barbed or electric fences should be expressed sep harate paragraph. These regulations should Also recognize the provision in the orse grazing section of this chapter that requires barbed fences. In Addition, the design guidelines prohibit chainlink fences. This provision should be added to this section. RELATED AMENDMENT for a related amendment See section 18-58.260 Horse grazing permit-requirement, pertaining to barbed fences. ISSUE Fences, hedges, walls and landscaped screens are limited to three fese gand six feet anywhere else. It has always been interpreted that provisions - also apply to retaining walls, but it is not specifically stated that they do. ALTERNATIVE Add retaining walls to the improvements listed in this section. SUPPLEMENTAL REGS 177 18.58 I 7 ISSUE There is one instance where the three foot limit on retaining walls may present an undue hardsh for lots that fall "away from the road". In such cases, retaining walls below the road are of required. Two three foot high walls require more room than one six foot wall - essentially forc the entire development further down the hill. This can lead to longer driveways and difficultie! meeting building height requirements. In addition, in many of these cases the wall would only visible by the property owner - because it is below the road. The issue is whether this should amended to allow, under certain circumstances, six foot high walls within the front setback. ALTERNATIVE Retaining walls are necessary when designing improvements on a site that do not fit naturally. The purpose of limiting retaining wall heights is to minimize the visual impact of the wall. There are clearly going to be sites that warrant relief from the three foot limit. Relief can be provided two different ways. One is through the variance process, the other is by amending this requirement in response to these unique situations. The difficulty with amending the code is that the code applies to all lots, and relief from this provision is warranted only in certain cases - on lots that slope down from a roadway and when the location of the wall is generally out of view. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to draft legislation to cover all these circumstances. The recommended alternative is to rely on the variance process for these situation— RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT TO 18.58.020 A. All accessory uses and structures except fences, hedges, walls, retaining walls, landscaping, or ground level site developments such as walks and driveways shall be located within the required inininium setback lines on each site. B. To ininimize traffic hazards at street intersections by improving mprov ng visibility for drivers of converging vehicles in any district where setbacks are required, no fence, structure or landscaping over three feet in height shall bepenniaed within the triangularporlion of a corner lot measured from the point of intersection of the lot lines abutting the streets a distance of thirty feet along each lot line. C. Fences, hedges, walls, and retaining walls shall not exceed three feet in height within any required front setback area and shall not exceed six feet in height on any other pot-lion of a site, provided that higher fences, hedges, walls and landscaping screens may be authorized by the Director of Community Development where necessary to screen public utility equipment or as may be necessary for recreational facilities. D. No barbed wire or electrically charged fence shall be erected or maintained, except as may be authorized in accordance with section 18.58.260. No chain link fences shall be erected or maintained unless such fence is accessory to a recreational amenity and specifically approved by the Design Review Board. SUPPLEMENTAL REGS 18.58 I MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: June 14, 1993 SUBJECT: Update on Sweet Basil's deck construction located at 193 Gore Creek Drive/part of Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Kevin Clair Planner: Shelly Mello ill ii irrY.+ The staff felt that it was important to update the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) on the status of the Sweet Basil's deck located at 193 Gore Greek Drive. As proposed, the deck was to be 2 feet above the existing street grade of Gore Creek Drive. As constructed, the deck is approximately 3 feet 4 inches above the street grade. The applicant feels that this is due to a lack of information on the street grade available to him at the time of the design and review. The staff finds that the modification is acceptable, although we would have preferred the original height of 2 feet. 1 Protect the environment. Take your used Motor Oil to an approved cell Ohm, n0st' a i. Of You - Eternal youth? In a container of motor oil? Ah, but it's no conventional motor oil. it's Mobil I' And it can actually help your engine defy the aging process. What's Mobil I's secret? Amazing synthetic diet Mobil I is an advanced-formula synthetic. And in the realm of motor oil, synthetic is superior to the real thing. In fact, Mobil I synthetic fights engine wear far better than leading conveRtianal oils. And don't worry. It's ok to switch to Mobil I after using a conventional oil. In fact, it starts protecting against engine wear immediately. 200,000 miles without aging In tests we drove an engine 200,000 miles using Mobil 1. And? Virtually no wear. The engine was still run- ning like new. The vital engine parts even looked like new. In fact, key parts met the manufacturers' specs for new parts. Any questions? You might have some questions about -Mobil I synthetic. For instance, can I use Mobil I in my new car? Absolutely. In fact, Mobil I actually exceeds the standards set by major car manufacturers. For answers to any other questions, call our toll-free number, 1-800-366-3333. Meanwhile, it's nice to know that Mobil I will help keep your engine from aging for the life of your car. Too bad it can't work for people. Mobill[F It keeps your engine running like new -Regular oil/filler changes and scheduled maintenance, C 1993 Mobil Oil Corporation By Richard 1,17olkomir An architect who takes stairways one step at a time Ever since John Templer saw his sister-in-law fall down a flight of stairs at New York City's Lincoln Center, he has been seeking the perfect staircase. "Stairs are one of the most dangerous manufactured objects," he tells me with genuine concern. But stairs can offer stunning flights of architectural fancy, too, And they are part of our collective conscious- ness, In Genesis, Jacob dreamed he saw angels going up and down a ladder to heaven. That is in our memory bank, alone with Rhett Bntler sweeping Scarlett O'Hara_ off her feet and can ying her up the stairs of their Aflanta mansion. Bedimpled Shirley Temple tap - danced down another celluloid staircase. And Hollywood also gave its two generations of tights -clad Fairbankses, swinging swords on the stairs of make-believe castles. In Victorian England, `:upstairs" and "downstairs" were social direc- tions. And jumbled in our memories with stairway nurs- ery rhymes and nonsense —like "As I was going up the stair/ I met a than who wasn't there" and the '710s pop hit "Stairway to Heaven" —are tragedies, such as fabric de- signer Laura Ashley's fall to her _death on a stairway. Nobody knows more about stairs than John Templer, an architect at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He has pondered stairs for 23 years. And he is the author of The Staircase, a recently published two - volume torte from MIT Press on the design and history of the stair- case, which lie traces back to its invention by the prehis- toric human foot. Neolithic people climbed steep slopes by bracing their feet against roots and rocks. Eventually, these footholds were worn into permanent steps. Such "land stairs" still exist in the stepped streets of old Ital- ian towns, and are used by people and donkeys. At New PRorne's celebrated Spanish Steps are a venue for urban drama, attracting throngs of tourists and vendors. Georgia Tech 's John .Templer believes that stairs reveal history and display artistry — and they'll get you if you don't watch out Templer perches on steps in Atlanta's Healey Building; curved staircases are safer than straight ones, be says. 55 Ruin near Cassino, Italy, offers example of modified "land stairs"; footpath follows contour of hillside. Towering, narrow —and daunting to tourists— pyramid steps at Chiclien I tza were a -Maya pathway to the gods. Mexico's Sky City, the Pueblo Indians carved steps down a steep rock face to a pool that supplied water, Some Storie Age Einstein took the stair a step further by cutting down a tree trunk, notching footholds into its sides and leaning it against a wall to be climbed, Tem- pler says Nk'est Africa's Dogon people still use such climbing poles, and so do Panamanian villagers. The USS Constitution, moored in Boston Harbor, has a climb- ing pole to reach its bowsprit. Climbing poles evolved into "straight- flight" staircas- es, which go up in an undeviating flow of steps. Later carne the helical stair, a springlike spiral. Later still, de- signers invented the composite stair, in which straight or helical flights end at landings, with new flights angling off in different directions. Stairs are utilitarian, for getting up or down. But they can be striking, too. Among Templer's favorites are the Spanish Steps, built in Rome in the late 1600s and early 1700s. "They flow down the hill like a waterfall, with all sorts of rivulets and ripples and changes of direction," he says. And the landings are as significant as the steps. "They are places for the street vendors, fashion models and photographers; for people to meet, to embrace, to play and to look." 56 Templer calls stairs "architectural theater." But beauty can be treacherous. In fact, it was a fall, although not his own, that first got him fired up over stairs. When lie was a graduate student at Columbia University in Manhat- tan, a worried citizen telephoned the architecture school with a question: Why did so many people leaving the Metropolitan Opera House at Lincoln Center faII down the front steps? Nobody knew. Templer looked for clues in the university's architectural library. Little; he found,_ had been written about stairs or stair safety, "All that night the idea of stairs ran through nay mind," says Templer, who is a tall inan, with a swirl of white hair and a British accent. Eventually, Ire did figure out whatwas wrong at the Met: "People would come out, sodden from hours of NVagner, walk across the plaza jammed with pretzel and popcorn vendors and theatergoers, and never see the stairs be- cause they're so shallow and wide —down they'd go." He took his wife, an artist, on a field trip to the Met, along with her sister. His sister -in -law missed a step and fell. "I decided this would be a great subject for a doctoral thesis," says Templer. He went on to explore his stairs topic, earned his PhD in architecture and soon learned how apt his choice had been. In a call to his adviser at Co- lumbia he learned that the distinguished architect hadjust fallen down a flight of subway stairs and broken his leg. Templer took up the quest for the perfect stairway with renewed dedication. "There are so many bad stairs -they vastly overwhelm the good stairs." In fact, stairway falls are epidemic_ In the United States alone, at least 4,000 people die every year from injuries suffered in stair falls. Another two million Americans are hurt badly enough in stairway falls to require a physician or at least one day's recuperation. "Perhaps stairs should carry a message from the Surgeon General, warning that they may be dangerous to health," says Templer. He has put his decades of research to work in his own Atlanta home, which he designed: the central stairway -a stunning half-circular upward curl - emulates an auto - mobile's padded dashboard. The handrail is softened with foam, covered with leather. "It's like the steering wheel on a good car -you get a strong grip, and if you fall it won't hurt you," he explains. The carpeted treads are padded with foam, too. Also, the treads are alternately 14,7zen the author travels, he occasionally runs up and down, hotel stairs as substitute for a daily six -mile jog,; he rej)orts he has never lost his footing. Stepped ramp, flanked by ornate balustrade, conducts sightseers into main entrance of Vatican Museum. colored dark and light, so that each step's edge is clear. And the proportions are optimal, direct from the lab: -ris- ers 7- inches high, treads 11 inches deep. All edges are rounded. Even the stairway's graceful curl makes it safer. "It used to be assumed that circular stairs were auto- matically more dangerous, but statistics shovw, they're ac- tually safer," Templer says. "That's because they're a lit- tle more difficult to walk on, so you're more cautious, and you also can't fall so far." One reason for the slip- and -fall epidemic is that today's stair proportions date back to 1675, when the di- rector of France's Royal Academy of Architecture, Francois Blondel, concocted a formula linking stair geometry to the human gait: 2 x riser + tread = 24 inches (25.5 in today's inches). One of the formula's drawbacks is that, for unusually high or low risers, it requires treads that are extremely narrow or extremely wide. "Walking on a stair requires skill, Iike playing with a bat and a ball," says Templer;_ "If eye - brain -arni coordina- tion is always perfect, we can slug the ball solidly every time, but we're imperfect and sometimes we fail." 0j e reason for pratfalls is that our descending and ascending gaits differ. Going down, shorter risers and deeper treads would be better because descent requires a mo- 57 ment when the body is balanced on one leg, the foot up Oil its toes, as the other foot reaches down for the tread below. It is an awkward —even dangerous -- moment. Our bodies can be ungainly contraptions. And if a high riser forces the forward foot too far down, we can lose our balance and easily topple. As Dante noted in The Divine Covzedy, the worst thing about hell is that all the steps have different dimensions. . Finding the perfect stairway, esthetically and function- ally; is for Templer "a kind of designer's philosopher's. stone." One elusive goal is a slip -proof stair. Buuilding codes generally call for nonslip or nonskid surfaces, but that is not specified in detail. Meanwhile, society has no standards at all for the slipperiness of shoe soles and heels. And when rain or spilled drinks wet a stair tread, the surface friction instantly changes. Slipperiness is not the only problem with which stair researchers are wrestling. For instance, John Templer's studies have shown how our gait on a stainN,ay is influ- enced by the riser -tread geometry. Ascending, risers from 6.3 to 8.9 inches cause fewer missteps. Lower risers mean the stair has more risers and so more opportuni- Templer's home staircase highlights safety features: precisely proportioned treads and risers, padded rail 58 ties for tripping. But descending is safer with risers that are only 4.6 to 7.2 inches high. Templer suggests a com- promise: risers about 7 inches high. Tread depth is important, too. The narrower the tread the more we twist our feet sideways as we descend, so that more of the sole will rest on the tread, giving us -a more secure base. Meanwhile, average foot length has increased since Blondel's time in the 17th century. Tem- pler calculates that a tread should be no less than 11 inches deep to accommodate the modern foot, while many building codes call for 10 inches or less. Stairs must also provide space for the body, including room to bob and Iveave as we ascend or descend. And so designers must consider traffic flow in figuring a stair- way's width. When we use a stair we require an ellipse of surrounding space, widest at our shoulders. The mini - n2um -width of a two -lane stairway should be 56 inches, while 69 inches would be more comfortable. Illumination is important, too -one study showed that 95 percent of household - stairways are too dim. And there are handrail questions, such as where they should be placed. One laboratory set up trick stairs with steps that unexpectedly collapsed, forcing hapless volunteers to grasp wildly for a handrail to keep from tumbling. After 830 science - induced trips and falls, researchers conclud- ed that the ideal railing height is around 35.6 inches. John Templer has probed how we use stairways by studying, Sherlock Holmes - style, the paths our shoes . erode into steps over centuries. It is, he says, like follow- ing the "spoor of animals." He has observed these human trails in stone steps up the side of a medieval building in Orvieto, Italy, and in Manhattan subway entrances. He found a stone stairway slanting down a waterfront em- bankment in St. Augustine, Florida, that is so narrow, thousands of walkers have had to put their feet in the same spots, creating shoe - shaped hollows in the steps. d'lailing, then tumbling like a human Slinky AVhen starting up or down a.stairway, Templer has found, we first give it a "conceptual scan," to check out its configuration and' any dangers, such asjunior's roller skates. Once we have established a "cognitive model" of the stairway, we are ready to start, on the assumption that we know what to expect. Sometimes we assume wrongly— stairs may be iia-egular —and that can trip us up. To ward off such surprises, we give the stairway a "moni- toring scan" every seven steps or so. But distractions can throw us —a view that suddenly opens up or too many martinis. Sometimes we don't see a stairway ahead and experience "unintentional use of steps." Down we go. Once we start tumbling, it's almost too late. By 190 milliseconds into the fall, we have already dropped seven inches. We are flailing, about to become a human Slinky. Every 2,222 times we use a stair, we have a note- r. Can you insure your nest egg? Definitely. Next time you buy municipal bonds, make sure they come with MBIA insurance. Whatever may happen to the city or state that issued your bonds your checks arrive right on time. Bath Moody 's and Standard & Poor's give their highest rating, Triple A, to every bona rve insure. What ,niore, MBIA- insured municipal bonds are not just safe, they're tax-free. So you keep every penny you earn. Spear with your financial advisor aboutMBIA- insured municipal bonds. When you think of it, isn't yoar nest egg just as valuabie as yourpearls? M11)Iicipni.Boruf Irra�cstors Assrrrcrncc Corporation_ I13 King Sireet, Armonk, New ) ork 1©504 M L' worthy misstep. Women fall more frequently than men, but boys under the age of 14 fall more often than girls of the same age. And you are more likely to take a tumble if you are single. -Go figure. Stairs, Templer says, "remain some of the most danger- ous artifacts in our environment." One reason is that "building safety has no official watchdog. '1,Ve have rela- tively safe cars, roads and airplanes because of the De- partment of Transportation, but no equivalent federal agency considers research in building safety as their pri- mary game." Also, building codes used in various re- gions of the country cling to the ancient riser-tread stan- dards, usually a riser of about 8.5 inches and a tread that is 9.5 inches deep. " A few years ago, "based on Templer's and 'others' re- search, one of the codes that govern construction in the Northeast was revised to the safer_ 7 -inch riser and I1- itcb -deep tread. But the National Association of Home Builders got the change reversed. "They argued that there was no proof the 7 -11 standard was safer and that it greatly increased the cost of housing," says Templer sadly, adding that he figures the new stair standard would add only 12 square feet to a house's size. Research shows that many of the great stairs of history are dangerous. Still, as architectural creations, they can be impressive, with reverberations in our unconscious. Templer traces his fascination with stairs to an old house in the English countryside, where be lived as a child. He was born in 1928 in Oxford, but until age 3 he was raised in Kenya, where his father, a British civil servant, was chief forester. Then his parents sent their children back 60 Hollywood often capitalizes on stairs to create dramatic effects. In Sunset Boulevard, Gloria Swanson, a murder suspect, descends to the police and press. Shirley Temple and Bill Robinson do fancy dance in The Little Colonel. to England for schooling. Templer lived with, his grand- mother and his grandfather, an Anglican priest at an an- cient Dorman church. He grew up in the rambling Geor- gian rectory, with input for the future architect's data banks: a "grand stairway and also a back stairway to the attic, where the servants lived. After World War II, Templer's family relocated to South Africa, and he enrolled at the University of Natal as an engineering student. He found himself wandering the city, idly studying buildings. It dawned _onhim that he should switch to architecture." After earning" an un- dergraduate degree, he went on to graduate studies at Columbia, where he became smitten with stairs. His first interest was safety. But he quickly became fas- cinated with the esthetics of stairs and their history. He discovered "that, early in their evolution, stairs and their kid brother, the ladder, were serious weapons of war. In Egyptian writing, the irnage of a ladder meant "siege." Pueblo Indians pulled up the ladders to their cliffside villages to keep out enemies. At Mesa Verde, in Col- orado, the villagers carved a permanent stair into the cliff face with an ingenious twist: unless you knew the correct foot and hand with which to start your climb, you finished hanging in space, unable to enter the village be- cause the hand you had free to reach up for the final grip was on the wrong side of your body. In medieval Eu- ropean castles, to reach the first floor you often had to climb a stairway that could easily be destroyed to keep out attackers. Or the entrance stairway was positioned so that defenders on the walls could pepper it with rocks or pour boiling oil down onto it. 4 4 i The leopard is normally solitary and generally hunts its prey at night. U '%ff "Ids of o*-"AI"zed Africa perienuce the wi %,1 11 Dine in the flickering light of a camp -fire, or by candlelight in a 5 -star restaurant. Sleep under a blanket of stars, or in a world - class hotel The baobab's thick, barrel - shaped trunk acts as a water reservoir in times of drought. Cape Town at night, with Table Mountain rising in the background to a height of 3 567 ft. d,l UUUIIVIAI For more information call 1 - 500 - 723 -7455. South African Airways — 5 flights per week. Outside Paris at the tnagnificent Chateau Vaux -le- descend. The aim, says Templer, is to force guests into Vicomte, the stairway treads deepen gradually as they an increasingly stately gait as they enter the garden. Stairs had peaceful uses, of course. Designers learned to adjust stairway dimensions to control human move - ment. Templer explains that ancient workaday stairs, like - today's, had high risers and small treads to hurry people along. Ceremonial stairs had smaller risers and deeper treads to promote a pensive gait. To get a bead on such tricks, he has scouted Europe, armed with a ruler. At Vaux -le- Vicomte (SI 1.1'11 SONIAN, August 1983), the chateau completed in 1661 outside Paris for the lord high treasurer, who immediately after- ward event to jail for embezzlement, Templer found that treads on a'stairway descending into the main garden deepen as you go down. The aim, he believes, was to force arriving dignitaries into "an increasingly stately pace," at the risk of breaking an occasional royal neck. ' Status stairs came into their own in the medieval peri- od with the helical staircase. Building circular "stairs re- quires advanced technical skills, and it was the rise of medieval crafts guilds that revved up the market. A clas- sic helical stairway, at the abbey of St. Gilles du Gard, hear Arles, had star quality: craftsmen from across Eu- rope made pilgrimages to see it. Rich people showed off by putting helical stairs in their mansion towers. In the Renaissance, many designers favored composite stairways of interconnected flights angling off from land- ings. Atfirst, these complex stairways were used to add pizzazz to the era's grand gardens._ But the designs soon invaded mansions and palaces, too. Designers experi- mented with stairs that clung to a wail on only one side, 62 and then stairs with no walls at all. For Florence's Lau- rentian Library, Michelangelo created a freestanding grand stairway, with smaller flights going up along each flank. The secondary stairways showed off the central flight's monumentality. And uniformed footmen could stand on them, holding lanterns. Stairs have served as theater seats, too and as stages for public events. In Venice, the Scala der Giganti (Stairs of the Giants) of the Doge's Palace were designed as the stage for the coronation of Leonardo Loredan. By the 1500s, a newly installed doge would sit regally at the top of the stairway to receive guests, who had to haul them selves up the flight to greet their new leader in an appro- priately breathless state. After the American and French revolutions, palaces were passe. The new hot spots were public buildings like nuiseunis or opera houses. And with ordinary Joes and Janes now thronging into government halls and other large buildings, stairs still had to be monumental —not to underscore the grandeur of kings and dukes but to han- dle the crowds. "Stair capacity became as important as location and effect," says Templer. And several I9th -cen- tury disasters —such as the 1876 fire at Brooklyn's Con- voy Theatre, in which 283 people died - -added to the im- portance of another stairway function, as fire escape. Meanwhile, stairs have always had a purely esthetic side. They give architects a chance to experiment with diagonal lines, which Templer says have "shock value." He cites the Pompidou Center in Paris, where a suspend- ed exterior escalator undulates diagonally up the build - ing's face like an anaconda (SMITHSONIAN, August 1977). Helical stairs offer curves. Renaissance architects in France and Germasty even prefigured the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA by designing stanivays in the form of a double helix. Renaissance architects were entranced with the analo- gy between steps and flowing water. They began to incor- porate fountains into garden stairways or send water gushing along a flue down a stairway's center. By the Baroque period, at the Royal Palace at Caserta, in Italy, the real stairs were dwarfed by a huge water stair run- ning down their center, the inimen.se- liquid steps reced- ing to the horizon. In a different mood, the designers of the 1600s became playful with water at Villa Torrigiani,_ near Siena. There the host could wait until his ladv guests in their satins and silks were descending the stair- way into his garden and then turn on fountains hidden in the steps. He could direct these spurts- to hound the women into flceing this way and that among the flowers. When they A eren't playing water pranks, Baroque de- signers might fiddle with the balustrades, the railings running alongside the stairs, turning them into fanciful shapes. Balustrades of the vestibule stairway at the Palaz- zo dell'Universita, built in 1623 in Genoa, end in life - size carved lions that seem to be braced against slipping down the final seven steps. At Prince Eugene's town palace in Vienna, sculptures of Atlas and Hercules strain to hold up the archways over the stairs, risking hernia- tion. , The balustrade at the Mirabell Palace in Salzburg is a frothy stone evocation of waves in which cherubs ca- vort, and where any stairway climber seeking a handhold is out of luck. By the 1800s, when Charles Garnier de- signed the Paris Opera's foyer staircase as a kind of sec- ond stage where theatergoers might pose and preen, he could announce, "the Opera is the staircase." Today we might have to say "the skyscraper is the ele- vator" or "the shopping mall is the escalator." New mate- rials like plastics and poured concrete let architects con- tinue to experiment with stairs, making flights that seem inspired by Tinkerbell. Jahn Templer points to Brasilia's palace of the Arches, where Oscar Niemeyer designed freestanding concrete stairs —free of balustrades or rail- ings —that twist upward as if levitated by helium. "Structural pyrotechnics," says Templer. For the stairstruck, the quest is neverending. At a new ,,,Harvard University art Building,, says Templer, an archi- tect has created yet another stairway in the modern no- hands mode. Or so lie has heard. He sounds wistful. "I'd love to see that!" Starkly beautiful as this staircase is, Templer spies a hazard: a large gap between the railings and stairs. X1993 bea-rzc, ,i Dividvn Of- T,nv—lhor,ar Sales. U.S.3_, Mc. Lexi,s remind, nni In itear,e