Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1993-0628 PEC
PLANNING T L COMMISSION June 239 1993 MINUTES I PRESENT ABSENT STAFF Diana Donovan Dalton Williams Kristan Pritz Jeff Bowen Mike Mollica Greg Amsden Shelly Mello Kathy Langenwalter Jim Curnutte Allison Lassoe Tire Devlin Pill Anderson Andy Knudtsen 1, This session of the PEC was called to order at approximately 2:00 pm. The PFC decided to move forward on the agenda to approve the minutes from the June 14, 1993 PFC meeting, Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes from June 14, 1993 with Diana Donovan seconding the motion. A unanimous 6-0 vote approved the June 14, 1993 P C minutes. 2. Update on the First Bank landscape improvements® Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knutsen updated the PFC concerning some changes that had been made to the landscaping plan. The changes involved the size of the aspen trees that were to be placed on the island located north of the bank parking lot. Andy explained that Todd Oppenheimer, the Town's landscape architect, felt that these changes were necessary. Concerning the construction schedule for the First Bank site, Andy said that Mark Pistow at First Bank had inquired whether construction should begin at the site after July 4, 1993 or should they postpone the work until the fall of this year. The P C discussed this issue and generally agreed that Todd Oppenheimer would make all scheduling decisions. 3. Council follow-up: - Kandell deck Kristan Pritz told the PEC that the Kandell deck had been removed and it was not known at this time whether Mr. Kandell would be building another deck in its place. Planning and Environmental Commission June 28, 1993 1 i -PEC/Council discussion Kristan Pritz asked the PEC when they could schedule time to meet with Town Council and discuss Special Development Districts. The PEC members stated that they would like to schedule the discussion before a PEC meeting, Kristan suggested that this discussion could be scheduled before either the July 12, 1993 or the July 26, 1993 PEC meetings. 4. A request 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 1 st Filing /520 Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Oscar Tang Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that the memo addresses the criteria and that the drawings attached to the memo reflect the revisions to the plans that were discussed at the June 14, 1993 PEC meeting. I Diana Donovan inquired whether the awning would be eliminated if a business other than a restaurant was located at the Alfie Packer's space. Bill Pierce, the applicant's architect, stated that he did not have a problem with this condition. i Andy Knudtsen informed the PEC that Gerri Arnold had told Town staff that Vail Associates was considering using the space. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve this request for an exterior alteration for Lionshead Center per the staff memo with Greg Amsden seconding the motion. Diana Donovan stated that she wanted the condition concerning the awning contained in the motions Jeff amended his motion to reflect that the awning would be eliminated if a business other than a restaurant was located at the Alfie Packer's site. A 5 -0 vote approved this request, with Bill Anderson abstaining due to a potential conflict of interest. . A request for an EHU -111 to be located within the former Whitehead residence, 366 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filings Applicant: John Shirley Planner: Andy Knudtsen Diana Donovan made a motion to approve this request for an EHU -ill per the staff' memo with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion. A 5-0-1 vote approved this request, with Bill Anderson abstaining due to a potential conflict of interests Planning and Environmental Commission Jana 28, 1993 6, A request for a joint worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and more specifically described as follows, A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of hail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Tract B; thence N 79 046'00° W along the Northerly line of Vail Village, First Filing, and along the Northerly line of said Tract B 622.66 feet; thence S 06 026'52° W a distance of 343.33 feet to the Southwest corner of that parcel of land described in Book 191 at Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102973 in the Eagle County Records, said corner also being the True Point of Beginning; thence S 79 004'03 " E and along the Southerly line of said parcel 200.00 feet to the Southeast corner thereof; thence N 62 152'00°° E and along the Northerly line of that parcel of land described in Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a distance of 66.73 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said parcel of land; said corner being on the Westerly right -of -way line of Core Creek Road, as platted in Vail Village, Fifth Filing; thence N 27 013'37" W a distance of 77.37 feet along said Westerly right -of -way line of Core Creek Road; thence N 39 029'22°° W a distance of 12.30 feet to the Northeasterly corner of that parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102973 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 feet along the arc of a 37.50 feet radius curve to the left having a central angle of 40 030'00'° whose chord bears N 53 140'00" W a distance of 25.96 feet to a point of tangency; thence N 73 055'00'° W and along said tangent 166.44 feet; thence N 35 °10'21" W a distance of 50.40 feet to the Northwesterly corner of the Mountain Haus Parcel; thence S 02 013'00°' W and along the easterly line of said Mountain Maus Parcel a distance of 100.00 feet to the Southeasterly corner thereof; thence S 45 013'53" E a distance of 33.70 feet to the True Point of Beginning, containing 30,436 square feet, more or less. Vail Applicant: Athletic Club Planner, Shelly Mello Shelly Mello stated that since this was a worksession, she would not make a formal presentation. Instead, she stated that she thought it would be helpful for the P C members to focus on the questions posed in Section IX on Page 11 of the staff memo. Stan Cope gave the PEC a summary of the history of the hail Athletic Club. He said that the original and current intent for the Vail Athletic Club was for it to be a first class luxury hotel. He added that thirty-four to thirty-five rooms were not enough rooms to fulfill this goal in the 1990's. He said that he felt the property needs a better floor plan and configuration. He said that he would like to create additional condominium units by taking hotel rooms and adding kitchens to thorn. He would also like to see additional and nicer meeting and board rooms created. He said that most of the racquet courts would be removed in the health club in order to provide for more weight room equipment. Kathy Langenalter inquired how many additional units were being proposed? Planning and Environmental Commission June 28, 1993 Stan Cope responded that there would be a total of fifty-eight units, including AU s, DU's and Lockoffs. Kathy Langenwalter inquired whether variances for height, units and site coverage have been granted for the Vail Athletic Club in the past. Shelly Mello responded that staff had researched this issue and had not found any variances for height, units or site coverage. Stan Cope added that there are existing building code problems at the Vail Athleti# Club which would be addressed with this renovation. Michael Barclay, the architect for this project, stated that the intention of this redevelopment proposal was to create additional hotel space as well as attempt to solve the entry access problems to the site. He stated that the porte cochere was designed to attempt to solve the entry access problems as well as create a focal point for the front door. He said that they were proposing to restructure the garage in order to accommodate the porte cochere which would be located above the parking structure. He said that by restructuring the garage, the site would gain two additional parking spaces. He said that he had spoken to Greg Hall, Acting Director of Public Works/Town Engineer, concerning this proposed redevelopment plan and that Greg had suggested that the entrance to East Meadow Drive be tightened and that the sidewalk be widened to 8 feet. Mr. Barclay said that Greg had also mentioned that the retaining wall may need to be reconfigured and that the vehicular area on Vail Valley Drive may need to be tightened to accommodate the walkways. Allison Lassoe inquired why the athletic club did not have a specific parking requirement. Shelly Mello responded by explaining that according to the Code, the PEC must set the parking requirement for recreation facilities and none had been assessed in the past for this use, except parking for the retail space associated with the club. Jim Lamont, representing adjacent property owners, stated that at the time of the original approval for the athletic club facility, no parking was required and this was a major concession. This concession was made because the athletic club facility was deemed to be very desirable. He added that the East Village Homeowners Association was concerned with the current redevelopment proposal because the project is already over its zoning standards. Jeff Bowen stated that he saw a number of issues with the redevelopment proposal. He stated that the bulk of the building was excessive, that there would be an excessive amount of shade on Vail Valley Drive due to the bulk and height of the building and that the removal of the large trees on the south side of the site was a concern. He added that should this project be allowed to be exempted from a parking requirement, that this would create a limitation of the number of spaces available for restaurant and Planning and Environmental Commission June 28, 1993 retail shop customers in the parking structure and that Village merchants may not find such a scenario acceptable. Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed with Jeff owen's comments, particularly with regard to the shade issue on Vail Valley Drive. She added that she would like to see on-site parking. Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with Allison and Jeff, that the height and massing are not acceptable. He commented that extending the roof lines out towards the street limits the view of the sky, creating too much enclosure. The existing architecture is fine. He felt you could only put so much on this site. He stated that the employee housing should remain on-site. Philosophically, he had a problem using the Town structure for lodge parking. Michael Barclay stated the Vail Athletic Club was 30 feet further back from Meadow Drive than the Mountain Haus was, so that the view angle from Meadow Drive was better for the Athletic Club. the Vail Athletic Club. She said that she would like to see the pedestrian experience at this location enhanced. She stated that dormers could be located on the north side of the site, but not on the south side. She added that it was her feeling that the porte cochere would be problematic with regards to traffic flog and access at this location. George Lamb of the Design Review Board stated that he agreed with all of the previous comments made concerning this proposal Kathy Langenwalter stated that if they consider the purpose paragraph of an SDD, that this proposal does not qualify as an SDD. She said that this project is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan with the exception of the proposed additional accommodation units. She added that she is concerned with the shading and commented that this site was in a sensitive location for the proposed additional square footage. She said that the applicant should try to work with the existing excess space under the roof and to focus on the west and south sides of the site. Minor dormer may be acceptable in this location. She staffed that she was concerned with the prospect of losing on-site employee housing and the parking. She was also concerned about common area if it negatively impacted mass and bulk. Jiro Lamont inquired of staff whether there were restrictions on the land that was deeded to conveyance for the Vail Athletic Club from the Mountain Haus. Shelly Mello stated that, at this time, staff is not sure. She said that research was being done regarding this issue. Jim Lamont stated that the proposed bulk and mass would not be popular with the public. He said that minor modifications within the envelope of the building would not be as much of a concern. Stan Cope stated that he sees a need for the project to go one way or the other. He requested that the PC and DRR give hire specific direction as to where to go with this proposal. Shelly Mello stated that while the maximum allowed GRFA has not been used, that the overages on allowed common area transfer to GRFA, thus making the project over on GRFA and/or common area depending on how you look at it. Allison Lassoe stated that the mass and bulk of the proposal needed to be reduced. She said that dormers should only be located on the south side. With regard to roof height, she stated that the height could increase only on the west side of the building as proposed. She suggested that the developer maximize interior space. The Town can not provide incentives for all redevelopment. Jeff Bowen stated that he would like to see the applicants reconfigure the inside of the building and that any additional rooms to be added should be for the accommodation Planning and Environmental Commission June 28,1993 use only. He said that dormers could be added on the south and west end of the southwesterly and northwesterly lines of said Simba Run; 1) N37009'31 "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) N36148'48" 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 02108'12", and a chord that bears WT52'54" 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) S21051'28"W 69.90 feet; 2) S17056'03"W 181.17 feet; 3) S12150'33"W 144.72 feet; 4) S03133'01"W 160.79 feet to the southeasterly line of said Simba Run; thence, along said southeasterly line, S52150'29"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 Mike Mollica made a brief presentation per the staff memo and pointed out that there were two corrections to the Zoning Analysis section of the memo on Page 4. These corrections pertained to the enclosed parking percentages. Kathy Langenwalter inquired whether the height of the proposed buildings would be higher than the buildings already in existence. She said that there are currently buildings that exceed the allowable development standard of 45 feet. Jim Morter, the architect for the project, stated that none of the proposed buildings would be higher than what is already in existence. Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see the lower access road moved so that the existing trees can be replanted immediately when they are removed for construction. Mike Mollica showed the PE C where staff would like to see additional planting on the site. He suggested the final landscaping review be conducted by the Design Review Board. Jim Morter stated that he did not want the last paragraph on Page 11 of the staff memo, to preclude future development, to be a condition of approval. Kathy Langenwalter asked staff whether the PEC could modify their recommendation for approval such that the remaining density would be "no more than one additional Type C dwelling unit consisting of 1,602 square feet (with a garage credit) to be located at the east end of the lower bench townhomes in this development plan." Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see a bike and pedestrian path constructed on the site. Jeff Bowen made a motion per the staff memo to recommend approval of this request for a major amendment to SDD #5 to allow for the development of the remaining portion of the Simba Run SDD, Savoy Villas per the staff memo with the modification Planning and Environmental Commission June 28, 1993 that "no more than one additional Type dwelling i consisting 1,602 flu M Jeff Bowen made am 2«» to table this request until July 12, 1®»:y « Greg Amsde-P, seconding this ©° A 6-0 vote tabled this item until July 12, 1993. A request 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 »»:« «y specifically ,-escribed -.s 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: f COMMERCIAL CORE 1 {1) DISTRICT the planning and environmental commission that the proposed building alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CC 1 district asspecified in 18.24.0 10; and that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations or that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character s: of the neighborhood, - o the planning and environmental commission may a - rove the application as submitted, approve the ap lica® ®. tion with conditions or modifications, or, if the planning and environmental commission finds that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, it may deny the application; 5. Applications for this subsection A shall be submitted semiannually on or before the fourth Mondayof Mayand November. The planning and environmental commission shall then hold a preliminary review session within twenty -one days of the above submittal date. A public hearing shall then be held within sixty days of the preliminary review session, For projects which are deemed by the commission to constitute a major amendment to the approved Vail Village urban design guide plan or otherwise constitute a significant impact on the town, a ninety -day study period may be requested by the planning and environmental commission, prior to a final disposi- tion of such projects. a. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an existing building which add or remove any enclosed floor area of not more than one hundred square feet may be submitted at the required time of the month for planning commission review. The review procedures shall, in all respects, be the . same as that for other applications in accordance with this section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion, or deletion pursuant to this subparagraph a® shall be physically and structurally a pant of an existing or new building and shall not be a free-standing struc� ture. A single property owner shall not be permitted more than one submission in accordance with this ` _ subparagraph a. in any two year period. A property (Vail 11-15-83) 351 f } ZONING owner may, however, apply for an expansion greater than one hundred square feet in any year in which he submits his application on °t e May and November dates set forth in paragraph A,5® B. The modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site within CCI shall be reviewed by the design review board in accordance with the following- ® Application shall be made by the owner of the building or is agent on a form the zoning administrator ® The hearing before the design reveiw board shall be held in accordance with Chapter 18.54. A decision of the design review board may be appealed to the town council in accordance with the procedure specifed in Chapter 18.5 3® It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the design review board that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the CCI district as specified in 18.24.010; that the proposal substantially complies with the Mail Village design considerations, or that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character of the neighborhood; . The design review board may approve the application as submitted-, approve the application with conditions or modifications; or, if the design review board finds that the applicant failed to meet his burden of roof, it may deny the application; 5. The zoning administrator y approve minor modifica- tions as provided in Section 18.54.060. A decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed to the design review board for review. C. All alterations under subsection A above shall be subject to =: review by the design review board following lannin and environmental commission approv in accordance with Chapter 18.54. °The design review board shall review the same _ to insure that the same comply with the Jail Village design considerations® (Ord. 41 (I 1: Ord. 25 (1982) § Id® Ord. 21 (1980) § 1(part) °) ` (V 11-15-83) 352 P V. SUB-AREA CONCEPTS 0 3 Three sub -area concepts, numbers 10, 11 and 12, pertain to this area of the Line 11. MEMORANDUM Ordinance . 27, sties ®f $ 992, lyee basin an shall be subiect to the following con i ionsn as it shall be a conditional use in the Residential Cluster o _ffe ultiple® ily, ediu ensity ultiple�Family, ensity ultipe -Fa ilys Public odati ®n, Co ercial Core l Corry ercial Core {I orra ercial Core III C® rraercial Service Center, Arterial Business istrict, aring istrictPublic Use,_and Ski Base/Recreation zone districts. The underlying zoning is Public Accommodation. b. It rr�ay e constructed on le. al non ®con ®rrnin Tots and sites as well as on lots and sites which meet the minimum lot size require en #s in the zone district in which it is l ®cats . The lot size for the Shirley residence is 7,862.6 square feet. Public Accommodation requires 10,000 square feet of buildable area to create lots. In this case, a Type -III EHU is allowed on non-conforming lots. C. It shall be counted as 0.5 eilin units or the purposes of calculating ensi . The nurraber o Ty e III HUs shall be deter ins by the Planning an nviron ental Co fission as part of the conditional use per it review rocess set forth in Chapter 1 .60.0 @Criteria ®Findings. If the Type -III EHU is approved, there will be 1. 5 dwellin units on this property. Given the Public Accommodation zoning, there is an allowed density of 4.5 dwelling units. . It shall have a GRFA of not less than four hundred fifty L4 square fee# grad not ore than nine undre 1900) s uare feet. The unit will have 758 square feet. . It shall have kitchen facilities and a bathroom as defined in apter 1 .04 - efiniti ®ns o the unici a! ode of the Town of Vail. The unit will have full kitchen and bathroom facilities. f. It shall have no more than two ) bedrooms. The unit will have one bedroom. 9. No more than i) persons fer each erborra Iodate therein shall reside in a Type III FHU. • a The applicant understands k will be a maximum occupancy of people for this unit. It shall be required to have one (1) parkina soace for each 1 the Plannin and Environmental Commission as a Dart of the condi .060. The parking requirement spaces. addition to the 2.5 parking space requirement for the primary residence, there will be a total of 4.5 spaces required. As there are five spaces that can be accommodated on this site, the parking requirement has been met. Staff believes that additional guest parking is not necessary as five spaces are provided. It shall not be entitled to additional GRFA in accordance with " applicant understands GRFA shall be determined as set forth in Section 3 f:a: pr®p riyg any mmor v ride regisirapon. a y - a s CA 4 LL'.. MINIM 9b � °, • {�'er���aa e a,e f{ a y e c � 7 pp�y.ppyy u j{.9 \f ie jI 1014 �d-4 ,o DATE- SUBJECT: A request for a joint worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and more specifically described as follows: I A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: • I standards. The applicant has indicated that the purpose of requesting a SDD for this property is to improve the appearance of the building as well as make it a more viable hotel. The proposal includes the addition of twenty accommodation units, one dwelling unit and the removal of o employee units to be relocate off -site and increases in the square footage of j the existing conference, health club and restaurant areas. The deck on the south side of the proposed terrace is to be expanded to the property line. The deviations from the allowed Public Accommodation development standards include® 1) Density- A and number of allowed units, 2) Setbacks, ) Parking, and ) Common Area. 11. BACKGROUND The Vail Athletic Club was originally developed in 1977 and included a mixed use building with condominiums and accommodation units as well as the health club facility. Twen on- site parking spaces were provided for the project and a variance was received for the remaining required spaces. The variance was granted in order to facilitate the construction of hotel rooms which were needed in the community at the time. In 1977, it was felt that it would be reasonable to grant a parking variance for the remaining required spaces for this property due to the proximity of the Town parking structure. The property has been the subject of numerous redevelopments over a number of years and subsequent parking variances. Ilya ZONING Listed below is the zoning analysis for the mail Athletic Club proposal. ALLOWED DEV. EXISTING PROPOSED STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT Site Area: 30,436 sq. ft. 36,436 sq. ft. 30,486 sq. it Setbacks: 20 feet north: -0- north: -0- south: 2'- 26' south: 2' - 26` 15° (decks) -0-(decks) east: 12 - 20' east: 12 - 20' west: 12' west: 12' Height: 45 feet 67 south; 59 north 67 south; 59 north GRFA: 24,388 sq. ft. (80%) 10,927 All + 3,122 DU 20,230 AU + 12,537 ®U 19,049 sq. ft. ® 32,317 sq. ft. + 1,312 emp units = 20,361 + 764 emp unit = 33,581 Units: 25 units per acre 23 AU + 9 ®U rt 23 DU(2 LO) 46 AU + 10 DU - 17.5 unity + 4 emp units v 27 DU(2 LO)** 34 DU (1 LO) + 2 emp units = 36 DU (1 LO)" Employee Dwelling units: -0- 4 (1,312 sq. ft.)*** 2 (764 sq. ft.) ALLOWED DEV, EXISTING PROPOSED STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT Accessory lase: 100% of existing GRFA 2,036 sq. ft. (Allowed) 3,368 sq. ft. (Allowed) Restaurant: 2,707 sq. ft. 2,766 sq. ft. Glob Retail: 4§2M. ft. 460 sq. ft. Total: 3,167 sq. ft. 3,226 sq. ft. Common Area: 3,536 sq. ft. (35 1%) HaIW ch: 19,235 sq, ft. 21,854 sq. ft. Conference: 2,342 sq. ft. 3,112 sq. ft. Total Common: 22,077 sq. ft. 24,966 sq. ft. Club Area: 22,257 sq. ft. 23,383 sq. ft. Parking Garage: 4,131 sq, ft. 5,401 sq. ft. Site Coverage, 16,767 sq. ft. 20,460 sq. ft. 21,205 sq. ft. Parking: 20 on -site due to 20 38—* approved variances. Hallsl ch: -0- -0- Club Area: -0- -0- Conference Area: 11.5 parking spaces 12.9 parking spaces Restaurant: 22.5 parking spaces 23 parking spaces Au: 21.8 parking spaces 39 parking spaces GU: 16.5 parking spaces 20 parking spaces Ernp units: 4 parking spa s 2 rking spa s Total Parking: 76.6 spaces 96.9 spaces parking parking The applicant proposes to restrict 6 CU's per the Condominium Conversion requirements. 0 ** A lockoff is an accommodation unit which is attached to a dwelling unit and is no larger than one -third of the total floor area of the dwelling unit. °* Required by the Vail Town Council in 1977. units are to remain on -site for the life of the building. The applicant has shown how an additional 13 parking spaces could be accommodated on the site, but would rather pay into the parking fund if declared an exempt property. No parking requirement has been assessed for the health club. The PEC may require parking should they feel it necessary. The parking requirement is determined by the PEC. I. EVALUATING II As stated in the Zoning ode, the purpose of ecial Development Districts is ollo : "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 evelo ment 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 Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying ne district, shall establish the requirements guiding development and uses of property included in a special development district." 3 In addition to the SDD criteria, a number of other elements of the Comprehensive Plan apply to this site. These include the Vail Village Master Plan, the Streetscape Master Plan, and the Land Use Plan. V. SPECIAL I T I CRITERIA Although the staff will not make a recommendation on this project we will address each of the nine SDD review criteria for this worsession® A. Design compatibility rt iti it the Immediate vir n t, neighborhood n adjacent properties relative rc itect r I design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, Identity, character, vi I Integrity n d orientatio The staff is especially concerned with the application in regard to this criteria. While this application does not propose to increase the maximum ride height, the proposal includes filling in the roof area up to the highest ridge. The amount of building is increased by the elimination of the sloped roof and the introduction of a series of dormers. The proposal changes the architectural design, scale and bulk of the building with the introduction of additional building area and dormers. On the north side of the building, the applicant proposes to add a three-story orte cochere area to the building in the location of the entry. Though the applicant is not proposing to increase the existing building height, the in-filled roof significantly changes the identity and character of the building. Currently, the low cave line and the landscaping of the building bring the scale of the building down to a pedestrian level, The proposal includes eliminating that low eve line and increasing the mass adjacent to East Meadow Drive by o levels. This makes the building significantly more vertical in the are adjacent to the street. The staff feels that maintaining the pedestrian character of this area is important as it is seen as a major corridor to Golden Peak and the Village from the parking structure and is also used by pedestrians to access Ford Park. i The proposed building increases the amount of shade on ast Meadow Drive by 58 feet to the north on December 21 st (See attache sun/shade analysis). The amount of shade is determined by both the angle of the sun and the height of the ridge or cave line. There is an increase in the shade pattern of 26 feet on as Meadow rive on either March 21st or September 21st. The staff feels that the increased amount of shade on East Meadow Drive is an issue an should be decreased. The mass of the building needs to terrace down towards East Meadow Drive which will decrease the amount of shade cast by the building. The applicant proposes to increase the building footprint by 715 square feet. While the change in the building footprint is limited compared to the total building footprint, and landscaped area is being removed, due to the change in the building mass, the scale of the area will be impacted. i In this proposal, the applicant shows how eighteen additional parking spaces cou! d be accommodated on the site. These are located above the existing parking structure as well as on the east side of the building below grade. The east side parking would require an additional access point. A surface parking area would be provided above the existing parking structure on the north side of the building adjacent to East Meadow Drive. The provision of surface parkin would require the elimination of the landscaping. Staff has concerns about the negative impacts this parking proposal has on the pedestrian area. While the applicant has shown how eighteen additional parking spaces could be locate on this site, it is not their desire to construct this parking. But rather, they would desire to be considered an exempted property and be allowed to pay into the rkin fund for the additional required parking. This issue will be discussed further under Item C of this section of the memo. The applicant has proposed to install required streetscape improvements discussed in section Vill of this memo. This includes a heated paver walk along Vail Road as well as a heated paver walk along the south side of East Meadow rive. However, the staff remains concerned with the overall increase in building height along East Meadow Drive and along Gore Creek. B. Uses, activity nit i provide ti i efficient and workable relationship with t tan i ctivit To applicant proposes to increase total density of the project by nine dwelling units. This includes the addition of one dwelling unit as well as twenty accommodation units and the reduction of the required employee units on -site from four to two units. Total density would then be increased by a maximum of nine units if the employee units are considered towards density® While the staff feels that the applicant's esire to increase the short term hotel units is commendable, we are concerned with the amount of square footage being added o the project to accommodate these additional units. 4,465 square feet of itional GRFA are attributable to the expansion of ellin units. 9,303 square feet of this additional GRFA will be used to increase the amount of accommodation units. While the staff may consider some increase in GRFA, at this time we do not feel that it is appropriate to increase the GRFA by the Bunt proposed, particularly the amount of u r footage proposed for dwelling units. Currently, four employee housing units are required on -site per the 1977 parking variance. The applicant wishes to remove two of these units and is willing to purchase two off-site units and permanently restrict them as employee housing. Due to the requested increases in density, the staff feels that it would be appropriate to request additional units and require that the existing four units 5 • s D. Conformity with applicable le Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies r si Plans. There are four other elements of the Comprehensive Plan which apply to this application: The Zoning Code, The Vail Village Master Plan, the Streetscape Master Plan and the Land Use Plan. The last three are addressed u her in this memo. The development standards for the Public Accommodation zone district are addressed in Section III of this memo. The proposed development exceeds the allowable zoning and the staff feels that the current proposal should be further refined to decrease the amount of overages. Many elements of the Town's Comprehensive Plan encourage the development and preservation of hotel -type units. The applicant proposes to add an additional 20 All's and 1 DU for a total of 48 AU's and 10 DU's. While this is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan's objective to increase the hotel be base, the staff is concerned with the amount of floor area needed to create the proposed units mass and bulk and parking. Please see sections VI, VII and Vlll that identify applicable plan sections of the plans. E. Identification iti i natural and/ geologic hazards that affect property the is special development district is This site is located adjacent to Gore Creek. No portion of this proposal encroaches into the 50 foot stream setback or the one hundred year flood lain. F. Site plan, building design location e e provisio designed to r u functional v I rat responsive and sensii to natural features, vegetation and over ll aesthetic quality of the community. While the changes to the site plan through this proposal are limited, the building design changes significantly. In respect to the south or Gore Creek side of the building, the applicant is proposing to change the character of the elevation with the enclosure and redesign of balconies and change to the window design, an he expansion of the common balcony adjacent to the creek. This elevation appears to be very vertical and the staff would suggest that additional study be done on this portion of the building to accomplish a more broken up elevation d therefore minimize the impact upon the stream alk. In addition, the applicant i roosin to add a terrace at the lower level on the south side of the project. This will encroach into the 20 foot setback and result in a 0 foot setback from the south property line. More buffer area between the creek and the terrace is needed. 7 As stated before, the north elevation also appears massive and vertical. More relief in the facade is needed so that the building relates to the pedestrian scale of East Meadow Drive. The porte cochere tourer should also be reduced in height to relate to pedestrian areas. G. A circulation system desi for both vehicles pedestrians addressing it traffic circulation. Due to the increased number of units on the sites the traffic to this site will be increased. The applicant does propose to install a porte cochere in order to facilitate the drop-off of guests. The installation of this area will be a benefit to the area as currently there is no off - street drop-off area for this building and the current situation provides for additional congestion along East Meadow Drive. Impacts on landscaping given the Porte cochere will need to be reviewed. The staff does not feel that it would be appropriate to add parking on this site (per the proposed Ian) at either location. Parking in either of these areas, creates negative impacts in respect to landscaping, the site plan, and pedestrian are s which are not acceptable. With this application, the staff recognizes that it would be difficult to completely restrict East Meadow Drive from vehicular traffic but would strive to limit the number of vehicles which must access East Meadow Drive. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in r r to optimize and r ry natural features, r cr ti n, views and to ci Landscaping is being removed in the area of the porte cochere. Staff needs to analyze the specific numbers on landscaping efore we can comment. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout ev l t of the special development i trict. The applicant not proposed that the Construction of this project be phased. . VAIL LAND USE PLAN The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as do to policy guidelines in the review process for new evelo ent proposals. The Land Use Plans Goals/Policies applicable to the Vail Athletic Club redevelopment are as follows® 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a, balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. i 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 3.2 The Village and Lienshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 2!!c 2.3.1 - The development of short tern accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes the available for short term overnight rental. °ective 2. - Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. P2l 2.5.1 - Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of lodging properties. biective 2.6 - Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. iective 2.6.1 - Employee housing units e require as art of any e or redevelopment project requesting ensit over that allowed by existing zoning. Goal #3 - To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throe hoot the village. iective 3.4 - Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways an accessible green space areas, including ocke# parks and stream access. Goal #5 - Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency, and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. blicy 5.1.1 - For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core ! Zone District, on -site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required the zoning de. olio 5.1.5 - Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide un or roan or visually concealed parking. i ctive 5. - Encourage the use of public transportation to minimize the use of private automobiles throughout Vail. Although this location is not addressed in any sub-area concept of the Vail Village Master Plan, it is discussed with regard to the height of uildin . The Vail Village Master Plan specifies the buildings adjacent to Gore Creek to be four stories. The existing building is four stories along East Meadow rive and would be five with this proposal. The change in building form accommodates an additional floor while maintaining the ride line. 10 �A VI 1® STREETSCAPE MASTER !. °q0 throughout most of the year. It is especially heavy in the morning and late afternoons during �A L. (VILLAGE SECTION] VI 1® STREETSCAPE MASTER !. 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 eastern exit portal from this facility at Vail Valley Drive. Specific improvements for Vail Valley Drive in the area of the Vail Athletic Club include the addition of an 8 to 10 foot wide concrete unit paver walk on the west and south sides of Vail Valley [give and a 5 to foot wide concrete unit paver walk on the east and north sides of this road. ® DISCUSSION ISSUES in The following are items which the staff feels should be addressed the discussion of this item. The applicant has included these improvements in his application. 1. Building scald and mass - What is an appropriate level of increase in the scale and mass of the building? 2. Parkin - Should parking be provided on -site? If the property is declared exempted, how many spaces should the applicant be able to pay for? . Density - AU ®s vs. DU's - Increases in GRFA for AU's vs. U's ® What is the appropriate increase in GRFA and densities? 4. Common area increase ® While there is no parking requirement for common area, it does add to the mass and bulk of the building. Should common area be increased? . Employee housing requirements ® Should the applicant be allowed to remove two required employee housing units and locate them off -site? Should additional employee housing units be required? 1 4 f hM , �� � ,��� i �J 6r�b a° ?s �V� � Lhw. v+ r r_R'cs.w s.mrv.� � „/frrj • � � O�itow•i _ VI•IL ATeltL ilu G4lb- � 'A �; � \ v\ // . � /// j _ —.__ ___- _ - --.Jj �(w.1+ �.c�.c{... fw M u.. +R �l. n+ F„r'; Am•�e_w ru.•iv� ��_�l - \\ �-n,.:L 1 j /// . - __- � LY.."{' -' {rit.,*Z E+s oroftw. M�fwnP 1' I � •\ ` / / / //r //• _.. ,[.., ,� —�� � it _. � r _ __ ;� i`� -���•. %Vj!'�,' /r/ J i _ _ . � � � _ - —' _- = � — _`�_��`:..�...,- - •' !i:. - T .,.... tea. �.,.,, ,�j /" % \ .d ="t._ G� /i - - - --' \\ � _ ..E -- �'� `__ -- _�� �� // /ter // ���� •G. =_/ r:f_6• F{r6M1 70 MRGRMP VrJ(rtr16•JO�JCSyJL - ' / " -' /' �_ \'\ j \ /`\ �� IroR: cY �On'ED : /I /fS � rpa. Avi�GrE I ` /. � I I \ Lam•. Tcf�"RV•fSiGAL N+O Yw� PN!+J /'r /�\ ! I /l ,�� /� \ wroM1.vnew ear.:eeN v� /wo _ •-/ \ � �. / \ No RL H _:. CtOl \\ \ V k � \ VAIL ATHLEPIC CLUB Site Plan . / �/ - fmrALola•Ani{at Cdaeda 7. _ '— 1017'1 — — • • • •r ' cx•e V+. n �i /KLn nn. r\ NLV r.. MLhaOV PO e 6100- rfN,WI r Lt. __ •G � `�.... � \ iLnrVRG• � vi.lt- �/r.LLe•( of , \Lwc a rho-. c.,ae \\ \• V^iL- ATALf -nc- CiLUPI / Prc PoHGV V.' N.N u+f r•R II \ \ C\rl.NV ` D / i ±V 4- Vx ( . nLLLr \ Iwo W-f �HZe �.r rc .. .-- M••+e r.fRti•.e (( / / / /L_p�\ '• r,� - \ _ �- ..: '^ ""- VLbR . e�wa rl.. L nws u.+e • `- r"'i= \ �, .. ' \ \\ t' � wo.,E�O"" i�' feat n vw nNL \ / b� \ \. \ ✓�� � , - --..` \ or rx`2�a- 1 � r �\• •_ _ ..— _ _- � � � ` �\ y row \ }� !/ )// ! � i1'i •�\ 6�� rfo.1 aoayc 1 / j.. o T� e VAIL ATHLETIC C - ----------------- r ru ININ 7..1 • ®R �-; . I �'-1 I p 't -- i 1 'Fr =•YL!' I' ' 6.1�:! ' - - - - - -- T� ley? I1 - Imo• '�i l.�rt ''� -'L � '� —� �� ��� - -' � ' " � ! I' r - — - .. - - NoRT� CLG�njiaN .; TI _ N` r - -f "`1 '-- " �J, 7ir-J!, XI Li It I� .. -- -/ ,'�f -' it �i--, ��i I -•� �/ ' i' ---� \ � 1 _y;l\���---- rt `" Ell- tA F, c L. Hcxid taro. I ` j I 1 kGL17oN AAA i Iaul 7II _ 1 \ I 'I- - - -- - � Hti wia W++• G^ta � 2 � I i �nwnr,x /FLRt MC.RfA 4N/D LNJLC 1 <.GL toN Po•6 � --- � - - •� \e ora I - -wt i xru r.R wnta �.M1 �� —�x�i r �•c y} 'I�- I-i 1�1 -1t�' � " r 4i.� 1 Nom! j1f Al L •(i VAIL AT14LEfIC - �w�rans -rat cwo.�m ALchaelBarclaY. Axhitect • Sections - I- t . ,; vs 1-0:' i Lei Cis-n k. � kid rT 07 li xLj, ra I �.r {...JTjI -� ' -;.�• biz J jt.' -�.. �-n' .:__- 1.- - --L -r ..: i JE i '� .',. �7 j-1.�� J `_•-1 I -r i.- k l , � � C-rrh ,- AN ik TiA- i% &C21 • 7 �`fa+ ESC ^�� -icfi� 2 ZONING l °52.150 Credit for multiple use loading facilities. Where a single Gaff- street loading facility serves more than one use, the number of off - street loading berths may be reduced in accordance with the following schedule: Total Requirement Detennined per Reduced Requirement Section 18.52.130 With Multiple Use 1 berth 1 berth 2 berths 1 berth 3 berths 2 berths 4 berths 2 berths 5 berths 3 berths 6 berths 3 berths 7 berths 4 berths berths 4 berths 9 or more berths 5 berths (Ord. $(1973) § 14,703,) 18.52.160 Exemptions. A. The town council by resolution may exempt certain areas from the off - street parking and loading requirements of this chapter if alternative means will meet the off - street parking and loading reeds of all uses in the area. Prior to exempting any area from the off-street parking and loading require® meats, the council shall determine the following: I. That the exemption is in the interests of the area to be exempted and in the interests of the town at large$ 2. That the exemption will not confer any special privilege or benefit upon properties or improvements in the area to be exempted, which privilege or benefit is not con- ferred on similarly situated properties elsewhere in the town ;, 3. That the exemption will not be detrimental to adjacent . properties or improvements in the vicinity of the area to be exempted; 4. That suitable and adequate means will exist for provi- sion of public, community, group or common parking facilities; for provision of adequate loading facilities and (Vail 2-81) 442 P F, 9 ZONING 5. The parking fee to be paid by any owner or applicant is hereby determined to be eight thousand dollars per space. This fee shall be automatically increased every two years by the percentage the Consumer Price Index of the City of Denver has increased over each successive two year period. 6. For additions or enlargements of any existing building or change of use that would increase the total number of parking spaces required, an additional parking fee will be required only for such addition, enlargement or change and not for the entire building or use. No refunds will be paid by the town to the applicant or owner. 7. The owner or applicant has the option of paying the total parking fee at the time of building permit or paying over a five -year period. If the latter course is taken, the first payment shall be paid on or before the date the building permit is issued. Four more annual payments will be due to the Town of Mail on the versary of the building permit. Interest of ten percent per annurn shall be paid by the applicant on the unpaid balance. If the owner or applicant does choose to pay the fee over a period of time, he or she shall be required to sign a promissory mote which describes the total fee due, the schedule of payments, and the interest due. Promissory note forms are available at the offices of community developiricnt. 8. When a fractional number of spaces results from the application of the requirements schedule (Section 18.52.100), the parking fee will be calculated using that fraction. s applies only to the calculation of the parking fee and not for on-site requirements. (Ord. 6 (1991) § Ie Ord. 30 (1982) § 1® Ord. 47 (1979) § to Ord. (1973) § 14.800°) 18.52.170 Leasing of parking spaces' A. No owner, occupant or building manager, or their respective agent or representatives shall lease, rents convey or restrict the use of any parking space, spaces or area to any person other than a tenant, occupant or user of the building for which the spare, spaces or area are required to be provided by the zoning B (Vail 4 ®7 -92) F, 2 to accomplish this, the applicant has eliminated one of the originally proposed four townhouses. Three units are now ropose in this area. - Vehicular access to the lower bench is now proposed from the existing l b u curb -cut® -For safety reasons, the existing Town bike path would be relocated to the south, to the area where the property line crosses the Simba Run vehicular curb-cut. -Additional landscaping and berming has been added throughout the site. pedestrian path has been added between Phases I and Il on the upper bench. This path will allow pedestrian access from the upper bench to the lower beach, and to the existing i a Run recreational facilities and shuttle van parking to the east. I 3 Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS Listed id is the zoning analysis for Development Area B, located in (Phase 1 includes the o existing i un buildings). Please note that SDD #5 has no underlying onin , as it was annexed into the Town in December of 1975 and the original SDD was established during arch of 1976. REMAINING D V. APPROVED DEV. PHASE I POTENTIAL AFTER PHASE II TOTAL STANDARDS D V. AREA B PHASE I CONST. DEV. AREA D V. AREA Site Area: 6.3 acres/274,423 sq. ft. 4.7 acres /204,732 sq. ft. 1.6 acres 1.6 acres /69,696 4q. ft. 6.3 acres Setbacks. 20'- all perimeter 20'- all perimeter N/A " 20'- all perimeter N/A property lines property lines prop_ ty lines Height: 45' 20- ' N/A 25 - 49' N/A RFA: 129,000 sq. ft. - DU's 90,807 sq. ft. 38,193 sq. ft. 32,282 sq. ft. 123,089 sq. ft. - DU's 10,000 sq. ft. - EHU's 4, 1 sq. ft. 5,399 sq. t _ 2,536 q. ft- 7,137 sq. ft, - EHU's 139,000 sq. ft. 95,403 sq. ft. 43,592 sq.. fl;. 34,818 sq. ft. 130,226 sq. ft. Units: 139 95 44 19 114 Employee Dwelling Units: 10 (min.) 6 4 4 10 * *Site Coverage. 54,366 sq. fL (200/®) 65,039 sq. ft. (32%®) <10,203 sq. ft.> *179646 sq. ft. (26%) 62,935 sq. ft. (30 %) * *Landscaping: 164,657 sq. ft. (0 %®) " **110,772 sq. ft. (54 %®) N/A 32,924 sq. ft. (47%) * *143,696 sq. ft. (52 %) * *Parking: 85 % enclosed 123 enclosed (95 %) N/A 22 enclosed (50%) 150 enclosed (84%) (of required parking) 6 surface 26 surface 23 surface 134 46 (44 spaces are required) 176 (1 82 spaces are proposed) Commercial Area: -0- -0- N/A m0® " Includes 1,292 square feet of Timber Ridge's eastern-most building. *` The proposed project departs from these approved development standards. *°* Includes 5,530 square feet of landscaping which would be removed from the Phase I property to accommodate the driveway to the lower bends development of Phase 11. 4 activity it is h provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship wi urr f ng uses and activity. It is the staff's position that the proposed residential use on the site is compatible with the existing uses on surrounding properties. The proposed ensit (numbers of units) is also compatible with adjacent properties and would be in conformance with the High Density Residential identification that the Town of Vail Land Use Plan has placed on this property. The proposal meets the technical definition of a multi-family project. We also believe it is positive that four employee housing units are incorporated into the development. The staff would also like to point out that with the approval and construction of this final phase of the irn a Run project, Development Area B would under the approved density (number of units) and GRFA. °The project would be under the approved density by twenty-five dwelling units, and under the maximum allowable GRFA ( 9s an `s) by 8,774 square feet. The staff feels that it is not sound planning to leave this type of remaining ensity on the books without an approved evelo en plan. For this reason, staff is recommending that should this final development proposal be approved, that the remaining number of dwelling units and GRFA be reduced to zero for the entire Development Area B. C. Compliance with the r i loading requirements as ou li Chapter The Town's parking requirements indicate that a total of 44 parking spaces are required for this Phase it site. The applicant has proposed a total of 48 parking spaces for the project. The ratio of enclosed versus surface parking spaces for this Phase is approximately a fifty-fifty split, although the overall enclosed parking percentage for the entire Development Area B is 32 %, which is less than the required 85%. Please see the Zoning Analysis on Page 3 of this memorandum for the specific numbers. Each individual phase of this project has been designed to meet the Town's parkin requirements. D. Conformity with li I elements the it Comprehensive Plan, Town policies r i Plans. 1. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan identifies this area as High Density Residential ( ). High Density Residential is defined in the Land Use Plan as follows: "The housing in this category out typically consist of multi-floored structures with densities exceeding fifteen dwelling units per buildable acre. Other activities in this category would include private recreational facilities, and private parkin facilities and institutional/ public uses such as churches, fire stations and parks and open space facilities.®' The proposed plan for the final phase of Simba Run would set the overall density for Development Area B at 19.7 dwelling units /acre. This figure includes the employee housing units, . The following are the applicable Land Use Plan goals and policies which relate to this proposal: Goal 1.1 Vail should continue t5 grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and permanent resident. Goal 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas ). Goal 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist, Goal 5. 3 Affor le employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. Goal 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the` market place demands for a full range of housing types. Goal 5.5 The existing employee housing base should preserved an upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. The staff believes the project is in compliance with the Town's Land Use Plan. 7 P. Site plan, building design and location and open space provislom 8 recommendation for both the West Vail interchange and the Main Vail interchange improvements. The underpass would be constructed immediately osie the lower bench development. To accommodate the underpass, it would be necessary to lower the North Frontage Road approximately 13 to 15 feet in this area. The applicant h submitted regrading plan which indicates the regrading ich would be necessary to accommodate the future 1 -70 underpass. It appears that the applicant's proposed design would not be in conflict with the future underpass, and the Town Engineer has approved the access and regrading plans. Pedestrian Access. The staff has requested that the applicant pursue the possibility of locating a public pedestrian path through the property so that pedestrian access can be maintained from the Lionsrid e Loop area down to the North Frontage Road. We believe that this pedestrian access would become even more critical should the proposed Simba underpass be constructed. The applicant has agreed that such a public easement through the property would make good planning sense, however, the applicant is concerned about the potential liability and maintenance issues surrounding a public pedestrian path. The applicant has agreed o consider adding a pedestrian connection through the property should the Town Attorney be able to provide them with a level of comfort regarding the liability concerns. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open apace in order to optimize and preserve natural f t r , recreation, i s and functions. At the suggestion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, the applicant has modified the proposed landscaping I n to include larger evergreen trees 12 - 15 feet in height) at the base of the upper development area. Additional landscaping has been provided throughout the site, however, the project as a whole (for the entire Development Area ) does not meet the required 60% minimum landscaped area. The staff has thoroughly reviewed the applicant's proposed landscape plan for the project, and we feel comfortable with the proposed 52% total landscaped area for the entire Development Area B. °The staff out point out that given the ensi of this site, the property could be compared it the standard HDMF zoning, which would require a minimum of % landscaped area. Overall, staff believes that the landscaping plan generally provides adequate scr enin and green space throughout the site. We would recommend, however, that the applicant consider additional screen plantings in the berm along Lion's Ridge Loo Road. For safety reasons, the existing recreation /bike path has been realigned so that it dosses the vehicular access to the lower development area at the driveway's intersection with the property line. With regard to the development standards as indicated in the Zoning Analysis section of this density memorandum, the staff does acknowledge that the project is over on site coverage and is under on the required enclosed parking percentage and minimum landscaping percentage. r7k With regard to site coverage, the Phase I development on this site (the existing Simba Run— buildings) has already exceeded the 20% maximum site coverage by 12%, or 10,203 square feet. We think that the total site coverage proposed, 30%, is reasonable given the high e„ . i " been zoned High Density Multi-Family, the maximum allowable site coverage, according to current Town of Vail zoning, would be 55%. The staff finds that the proposed 30% site coverage age " overall „y. plan design is reasonable. 9� j s lop ff ALL MCM IM 1, 1993 _✓ � .ea �'.. Q �$ -. A PL. 1�. 199 ¢ LI A .�.W WIN, R d 0 Sally Brainerd Mort r~ Architects 143 East Meadow Drive Crossroads oad at Vail Vail, CO 81657 RE: Savoy Vi 11 as � ��� � r.'ti.s l •� ` Dear Sally: I have reviewed the site plan which you have recently sent, as per our discussions, for mitigation of the rock fall hazard at the site. You have addressed my concerns very well and only some of the garage areas remain somewh t unprotected. With the berms in place as you have defined them, very few rocks can reach the units, and, because the fronts of most of those knits are in the form of garages, I am not concerned that damage can OCCUr° to living quarters. If there are still questions contact m. Sincerely, /( Nicholas La a prr°z Consulting Geologist F! 2 May to, id s ` E :,a ;Mot„d 004 El' I'Mt s1« V i i fi 4.:lU Q 1 4'-7 t5 s q �,� mot, gg �4' L.Y r A`$"; e fd e. � i , .i t ,- pit ,. n whir M YOU �r` .i . y A -For it1 : . 1 �- r i.. ;l oi`i i:i�� L. � e i_ i ;C per f.}t.�i � � ca[„i ".a .S �rtl�.. a' t I, . _ 9 � the mite. you ha vu e,e# i s ii f,ap Clt 8` s tr }J Stijl a } 3 2 ra,ii: V�`t° �.: I...�t. i...:i �, F -3 Lv rV" "s � .1t j _ ':Jli '� 5 Withthe t v i i'gcl :k "�`y a�.��°,., 6 <ef {3.�. ,_a 4-41.x, o" reach the c t " ! �+! t � and, � '.t � � s LY thosys LUIFUI away in the form of t.ia-Y ° su , I i ;t not r o 1 that . ti. r { t� ?_t, k t -.t iL� ',$ tuS .rw iir 3.. "r {t ii t1. 1ww to t , J ' 1 w _: , t 7-, ..� , �, .;a � t t i R 'i } 1 ti: a • x- .-D i« A .$_.. r11 0, �., 1,. 1 rya .t 7�Lpts a ,. ai v .'� e tt.' d e. .p jiving ti 6' c? g u ke :��P T f,.t e s � Y; tJ� s' � and t # , i LAS � a throe foot high Ham wX11 a I 6 wall. r�f� ?�..t 4 ..r:] �u .. 1�.5� i. G� 1 .. l..i. ill V `.t t, «. _. .d x axposed Portim op M1 Unit 9 nr should we <,S i`= samn stF aP ;y ish w411 , a .,;.,re:?'O which r LAM uear naim: I have reviewed the site o of the referenced p prpject a as s shown on the a accompanying map f for p purposes of Rack F Fall o or the Town o of Vail. The n northern four units are w within t the H High Rockfall Z Zone due t to the o outcropping of sandstone o on t the other side o of the Lion's R Ridge L Loop" The second t tier of u units i is not hazard zone,, ` This is in a location where the ridge, containing the source OF' potential falling rocks, is at a low level with respect 'to the sites but rocks can reach the northern ' have nignificant energy so that mitilqation ` Many unstable rocks occur above this proposed development, but the Loop road. wiIl catch some of them. The hazard increases to the west where the ridge becomes higher, thereby imparting more kinetic energy to potential falling rocks. I propose several alternatives to substantially minimize the hazard from llt k A four foot. high berm may-bo i ` constructed along |�I�rmay not �e allowed �use it may interfere with the road ` right f way. Another t which can be.takin is to i front (north side) of each of these four units to-a strunnf1i o-: ` finished ''`e' ^ ~''~" so that rocks cannot crash through them into the unit. Your ` civil engineer may suggest~oh-/snergy absorbing Facing such as logo to t t th b ittl t ` ` ` designs should be utili2ed, especially f or western two units. , ose'to .` ' .e=t `/iy/' with the same strength given above. This wall could ` large nature of the hazard and the options for mitigation, I su t —-- �-�-- ` ! ` goorec[xTucal experr> once tie pre+erreo methods have been chosen. II • Fhe construction 1 i.lct 4.oi"2 of these units-or t,,gny of 'i:°.hm pr {`3j::)t7r W t•il:l.t1 {.f ;Ytif::n will not :I. fl C:° t_)a.ae the hazard to other PrOp2rty or- S tr%_iC:t.urlss v or ... .. 'I �..t::) j_ ?4.i ..,. I. C; 1 t `' t 1° :;. sa .. °..:..= >..,.c:,.t......toc:ati , roads, f•'° i::: • " x::° 1 '. cC j. ^.w :.• c^ buildings, r Maa {:�:a y ...,�.,t'.t.2tS t....> ,p C:.a..>._ff31i n',..,.. __ y a.:.: a .. Or 01110,02S. t..) a _ $ .I . , ,,a. ,.. - 0 0 2I`...,,.:« L•: s a )' 1" a n v 1•;, :L 3 "i l:� u .�..... questions j;:) .,. ti: <: +.2i:; tiS contact Me, o, £i:....l..z t ::......1. <:7 ll ''J during 'J t:;) i.?.Y` pI''E?liill:f. dary c {::1I1 2ptUaliza'it°i:ion:i„ n c ek- Consulting Geologist. tress a Mr, Tim Devlin City of .: Property Planner of 755 So* Frontage .: Vaill Colorado Dear mr, Devlin, NO .70 - 381°°9395 Jar 29,4: :51 P.O" qT j & C Properties Jung 8, 1993 As owners of unit 2203 at Simba Run, we strongly oppose the l of Walid, and Simbaland Carps to develop the land adjacent, to Simba Run on the edge of section i and 2, Tt will severly impact '6^ mr 1 -^ -4, - 'k%r 4.lq= 'i i i n..11 i MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department DATE: June 28, 1993 .. Mak over steeply sloped areas without disturbing the ground beneath the development. Additionally, variance Process appropriate request a deviation from these sections of the existing code. We feel that modifying the Code to allow for cantilevered development extend o +' 40% sloped areas would be inappropriate. These types requests thoroughly reviewed er e PEC through the variance process. However, staff acknowledges that there may be individual cases which warrant an encroachment. In summary, .; staff would recommend that no changes be existing Code at this time. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: June 28, 1993 minimized, but also recognizes that Public errvic has the most immediate