Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0726 PEC1 6. A request to amend the development plan for the Golden Peak Base to allow a building for public restrooms and employee locker rooms located at Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing/458 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Tim Kehoe Planner: Tim Devlin 7. A request for a ruiner exterior alteration to allow an expansion to a residential unit at the Red Linn /Lots F, F, C and H, Block 5 -A, Vail Village 1st Filing /304 Bridge Street, Applicant: Aagje Noure Planner- Jim Curnutte j` 3; A request for a worksession for a modification to the conditional use permit for the snow dump to allow an expansion of the road located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive /an unplatted parcel located west of the Town of Vail shops. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen/ ike Mollica 9. A request to amend Title 17 regarding the subdivision process and requirement for payment of property taxes. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Mike Mollica, 10. An update on the conditional use permit for an outdoor dining deck located at arton's Saloon, Lot P, Block 5 ®D, Vail Village 1 st Filing /143 Village Center Road. Applicant: Dave Carton' Planner: Tim Devlin 11. A request for a worksession for a major exterior alteration to allow for a retail expansion at the,Sunbird Lodge, located at 675 Lionshea Place /Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Tim Kehoe Planner: Tim Devlin 12a A request for a minor amendment to DD #49 Cascade Village for the Waterford parcels in area , described as follows: That part of the SW 114 NE 114, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly right -of -way line of Interstate Highway No. 70 whence an iron pin with a plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12 bears S 33 11019" W 1447.03 feet; thence along said southerly right -of -way line two courses 1) N 52'50129° E 229.66 feet 2) N 74`38'17" E 160.70 feet; thence departing said southerly right -of -way line N 88 °45'57" E 138.93 feet; thence S 40145'14" W 94.32 feet; thence S 180 18'36" W 54.08 feet; thence S 01 121'36" W 205.02 feet; thence S 12107'36" W 110.25 feet; thence S 28 °28'36" W 164.48 feet; thence N 40 °17'04" W 211.16 feet; I A part of Tract "E" and a park of MITI Creek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County of Eagle, State of PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 26, 1993 July PRESENT ABSENT STAFF Greg Amsden Rill Anderson Kristan Prig Jeff Bowen Mike Mollica, Kathy Langenwalter Shelly Mello Allison Lassoe Jim Curnutte Dalton Williams Tim Devlin Diana Donovan Torn Moorhead i 1. Update on the request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and R, The Valley, Phase 11/1430 Buffer Creek Rd. Applicant: Steve GenslerfParkwood Realty Planner: Kristan Pritz and Gary Murrain Kristan Pritx explained that Greg Rally the Town Engineer, did not feel comfortable signing off on the building wall drawings and that this was normally something Gary Murrain handless i Gary Murrain stated that he was comfortable with the design of the wall and the structure that the structural engineer for the project had come up with. He said that the wall j seemed over designed but that the calculations do make sense. The PC agreed that Gary's sign off on the drawings was acceptable. i Kathy Langehwalter stated that the PEC wanted Greg Hail to inform them about what the site disturbance would be. Kristan Prig explained that the site disturbance would be great, Jay Peterson stated that the Ordinance is not worded correctly In respect to the PEC condition to add the plat information on the walls, access road and building wall. He understood that this was a disclosure typo process and that it was his understanding that they could modify the plans without going through the variance process. Kristan Pritx agreed that the notations were to alert future buyers that plans were on file ' at Community Development so design requirements could be evaluated. Roth Jay and Kdstan agreed to change the wording of the ordinance; Planning and Environmental Commission July 26, 199 2. A request for a variance to allow a deck to encroach into a setback for a residence 4. A request for a worksession 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: Michael Barcley, the architect for the project, stated that they were proposing to drop the height of the dormers 18". He said the peak of the dormers would be about 4 feet above the ridge line, about 4 feet above the street. He said that because of the way the building sits on the site, the west section was much further from the street. He said that they were hoping that raising the existing ridge line 5 feet was reasonable. He said that the dormers would be recessed more into the roof. He said that by doing this, they would be able to eliminate one of the fifth floor bedrooms and that this would help reduce the GRFA for the proposal. He said that the final area that he focused on was the impact on the shading of Meadow Drive and that they were moving the shade line 3 feet further back on the east side of the building and two feet back towards the building towards the west and center portions of the buildings He said that the existing building casts a shadow well into Meadow Drive. Diana Donovan stated that she wanted Michael Barcley to discuss the patio on the south side of the building and its proximity to the property line. Shelly Mello stated that they could have that the deck portion of the site staked for the next site visit, parking scenario would be acceptable. Concerning employee housing, he said that he felt that additional employee housing units should be added. He felt that the building mass was acceptable in this location, Allison Lassoe stated that she disagreed with Dalton's comment about the massing and that she felt that it was excessive. She did feel that the changes in mass and bulk were a step forward. Concerning parking, she stated that she feels that parking should be required on -sited With regard to the employee housing, she stated that she would like to see additional employee housing units added. She said that she felt that this project should not use the S ®17 process. Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that the proposed bulk and mass was acceptable and he appreciated the applicant's effort to work with the PEC. He said that the applicant's work to save the large trees on the site was positive. He said he liked the idea of the porte cochere, but was also concerned about how the Porte cochere would effect pedestrianization. He said that he felt that the additional accommodation units were positive. Jeff stated that he felt that possibly one additional employee housing unit should be added on-site. He said that he felt that this project did not fit the SDD concept. Michael Barcley inquired about the SDD concept. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the SDD concept was devised basically as a zoning designation. Kristan Pritz stated that the variance process is often much stricter than an SDD, individual circumstances will dictate whether it is appropriate to request an SDD. Greg Amsden stated that the new access via the porte cochere is positive. He said that he liked the original exterior design of the building better than what was currently being proposed. Greg stated that he was in favor of the SDD, 'primarily because there would be numerous variances which would not have hardship reasons to justify variances. Diana Donovan stated that she was not in favor of an SDD for this proposed redevelopment as S's are a way to break the zoning rules. Concerning employee housing units, she stated that she would like to see additional employee housing. She said that she would like to see the bulk decreased. She said that the changes the applicant has made are positive. She said that the parking issue still needed work. She wondered whether it would be possible to actually connect the parking structure via a tunnel to the Vail Athletic Club and the Mountain Fiaus. She said that she would like to see this entire area pedestrianized. Kathy Langenalter stated that Bill Anderson is still not comfortable with the mass and bulk of the building, particularly the height. She said that she felt that this redevelopment proposal did not meet the criteria for an SDD. She said that she felt that additional employee housing was necessary for this site. She said that density was not a big Planning and Environmental Commission July 26, 199 Shelly Mello stated that the athletic club facilities were not originally counted as common area when the bail Athletic Club was designed in 1977 and that staff felt that it would be unfair to the applicant to penalize them by considering the athletic club facilities common area at this time. Jinn Lamont stated that he did not yet know where the Homeowners Association stood on this project. He felt that the SDD concept was becoming overused by developers. H stated that the public was becoming dubious about special development districts. He stated that the Town needed to further develop the SDD criteria. He said that the Homeowners Association would support an SDD that did not exceed existing zoning standards, Kristan Pritz asked Jim Lamont whether the Homeowners Association would accept an SDD as long as the underlying zoning standards were not exceeded. Jim Lamont stated that this was correct. Stan Cope stated that this project would be over the allowed standards, but that a full service hotel (i.e. The Sonnenal) did not always conform to the standard that common area be %. Dalton Williams stated that he was on a task force that discussed this issue and that they felt that their could be exceptions (i.e. a modest hotel versus a five star hotel) when Justified to increase square footage for common area. Kristan Pritz stated that the staff has struggled with this issue and that they were trying to look at it broadly and look at what type of operation the applicants were proposing with the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club. In general, requests for additional square footage for common area have been supported by staffs Allison Lassde stated that she would like to see a redevelopment proposal that would be a benefit to the Town,. Jeff Bowen stated that he sympathized with Jim Lamont's comments, but that in this instance, there is a problem that exists and that maybe this constitutes a hardship. He stated that the existing building may not have been built with a lot of foresight and that it currently does not meet the Town's needs. He said that the rules may need to be bent Planning and Environmental Commission 0 ,lily 26, 1993 Jim Lamont stated that the special circumstances of the Vail Athletic Club should be clearly stated. He stated that it needs to be clearly defined that the Vail Athletic Club has i available GRFA. Kathy Ldngenwalter stated to the applicant that there would be a significant number of variances required with the project as proposed and that these need to be looked at and minimized or eliminated wherever necessary. Stan Cope stated that he did not know what to cut back on and how much to cut back. He asked the PPC to give hire direction as to ghat they should be focusing on before the next meeting. Diana Donovan stated that the applicant was on the right trek and that Michael Barcley had done a good job in addressing the PPC's concerns. ristan Fritz summarized the P 's feelings that the variance process was being recommended over the SDD process and that at this point, approximately five variances would be necessary. She said that the SDD concept applies to undeveloped as well as developed sites. Kristan Fritz Mated there are some limitations as to what is possible to approve with the variance process given the criteria and findings. She said that the PPC and staff needed to discuss what the members thoughts were concerning special development district criteria in order for the staff to be clear upon the P C's expectations. Diana Donovan stated that the existing building does not conform to the zoning standards and that consequently any subsequent development will not be in conformance with the zoning regulations. She said that is why she feels that this project could qualify for variances., Kathy Langenwalter stated that both the P C and the DRB members like the existing architecture of the building. 5. A request for a conditional use permit to allow an expansion of the Vail Associates vehicle maintenance shop located at the NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 7 and the SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 6, Township 5 South Range 80 W of the 60th P. .Nail Associates. Applicant: Vail Associates, inc., represented by Tim Kehoe and Jack Hunn Planner: Jim Curnutte Planning and Environmental Commission July 26, 1993 owners, a request for a landscape variance was on the public notice because at the time, staff was unaware that Vail Associates intended to replace the landscaping being removed as a result of building expansion. Jim stated that a landscape variance was not being requested by the applicant in conjunction with this request for a conditional use permit. Jim made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that the applicant was requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the proposed expansion of the Vail Associates' vehicle maintenance shop. He stated that although not required, notification of this request was sent to the property owners along West Forest goad because the Town Council felt that it was appropriate to do so in this case. He said that Vail Associates felt that this proposed expansion would not result in an increased use of West Forest Road. He summarized the contents of the .staff memo and stated that the staff was recommending approval of this request for a conditional use permit with the eleven i conditions contained on pages 12 and 13 of the staff memo. Jack Hunn, of Mail Associates, Inc., stated that they would agree to condition #1 of the staff memo. Concerning condition 2, the fence is owned by CDOT and flail Associates will contact therm to discuss replacement. In the meantime, he requested that the fence be repaired and repainted as a part of Phase 1 improvements and replaced as a part of Phase II. He stated that Vail Associates would agree to conditions #3 - #6 of the staff memo, but requested that in respect to condition #6, the decibel readings be taken in the winter when the impact exists rather than prior to the issuance of a building permit as suggested by staff. Concerning condition 7, Jack stated that Mail Associates assumed that they were operating on West Forest Road with the Town's permission since the activity has been going on for as long as it has. Jack said that they would be willing is participate in discussions with the Town and the residents on West Forest Road, but that he did not want this condition to be tied to the building permit for the expansion to the vehicle /maintenance shops. Concerning condition #3, he said that Vail associates would agree to striping all parking areas as a part of Phase 1 with the exception of the gravel areas. Concerning condition 9, Jack stated that the staff's suggested phasing schedule would be acceptable with the exceptions previously mentioned. Condition #199 concerning relocating the snowcat parking areas, Jack stated that he believed that Vail Associates' proposed noise mitigation measures would take care of the problem so he would like to take a wait and see approach. He said that if, in the winter, there is still a noise problem, that Vail Associates could deal with the snowcat relocation issue then. Jack stated that condition #11 was acceptable. He stated Phase 11 was to begin in 1994. Al Hauser, the General Manager of Vail Spa Condominiums, stated that the high intensity grooming lights were never an issue with him. What he was most concerned about was the lights on the east end of the vehicle maintenance/shop building and that this lighting should not continue. He stated that he would like to be notified when this item would be heard by the Design Review Board so that he could have some input concerning the lighting on the bail Associates shop /vehicle maintenance site. Al commented that he was not sure whether simply turning off the back -up alarms will take care of the noise problem. Al stated that the Vail Spa Condominiums do not want to stop the protect. However, they Planning and Environmental commissi season to determine whether or not Vail Associates has adequately addressed their concerns. If later in the season there is still a problem with lighting or noise, he would like the ability to have the PEC call this item up for a review. Jack Hunn responded that Vail Associates had only recently become aware of the concerns of the Vail Spa Condominiums and that they would address their concerns issues but that they did not want issues concerning lighting and noise to delay their building permit. ristan Fritz commented that it may be appropriate for Vail Associates to send a letter to the `town stating their intent to resolve the road issue and a commitment stating their intent to resolve the road issue and a commitment to complete the agreement before the Phase II improvements are started. In respect to point 10, she suggested that Vail Associates and the PEC meet at their second meeting in January of 1994 to evaluate the noise and lighting situation. Bruce Chapman, representing various homeowners along West Forest Road, stated that these property owners have been bothered by snowcat traffic for many years and that the expansion of this facility concerns there because they do not want to see increased traff ic on West Forest Road, Mr. Chapman cited Caryn Deevys letter as an example of the residents' concerns. He stated the proposed expansion opens the doors to allowing Vail Associates to continue to increase their snowcat and snowmobile activities on public roads. Mr. Chapman stated that although it may be shown that this particular building expansion will not result in an increased impact on West Forest Road, he believes that it does provide a larger facility and without some sort of restriction on the number of vehicles based out of the property, the use will increase outside of any specific review by the Town. He stated that the health, safety and well being of the citizens of Vail in this location should take precedence over the other issues involved with this conditional use permit. He added that the numbers that Vail Associates had come up with concerning the West Forest Road Traffic Summary were not relevant as they were only rough estimates. He also pointed that these calculations do not refer to snowmobiles at all. He stated that Vail Associates plan to add snowcats to the fleet will more than likely increase not decrease the traffic on West Forest Road. Bruce believes that Vail Associates has reneged on previous agreements not to increase the use of West Forest Road by mountain Maintenance vehicles. It should be noted that at approximately 5:25 p.m., Allison Lassoe left the meeting. Ghana Donovan asked whether Vail Associates was planning to move their snowcat and snowmobile operations onto the mountain at some future date. Jack Hunn stated that it was Vail Associates was master planning the "Lionshead Podgy' and that they are looking for alternative sites. However, he could not promise that the` maintenance facility would be removed. Planning and Environmental Commission July 26, 1993 extended an invitation to the PEC members to come stay at his house for one night so that they would have an understanding of the noise and pollution issues that the properly owners along West Forest Road are faced with. He stated that over the years, the number and size of the snowcats have increased dramatically. Concerning condition #7 of the staff memo, he stated that Vail Associates should receive authorization from T V to use West Forest Road prior to being able to use the road. Clint Arises inquired whether Vail Associates was illegally using West Forest Road. He stated that he felt that it was significant that this issue be resolved prior to Mail Associates going forward with its plans to expand the vehicle /maintenance shops. Clint felt that this item should be tabled until the West Forest Road use issue was resolved. Bruce Chapman stated that the T V does have an ordinance in place addressing this issue and agreed with Mr. Agnes' statement that the issue concerning whether Vail Associates was authorized to use West Forest Road needed to be resolved prior to any expansion activity by Vail Associates. Dalton Williams made a motion that the PEC adjourn into an executive session with Torre Moorhead with Diana Donovan seconding this motion. A 4 ®0 vote approved this motion to adjourn to an executive session. After the executive session, the meeting resumed and Kathy Langenwalter stated that it was not within the PE 's parameters to determine the legality of VA's use of West Forest Road. She suggested that condition #7 of the staff memo be eliminated. Kathy stated that the PE 's purview in this matter related to a determination of whether or not the proposed building expansion met the conditional use permit criteria. Greg Arnsden stated that he had no additional comments concerning the building. He suggested that the total number of vehicles on the site be limited to what exists at the I present sty that traffic problems do not increase as a result of this request. I Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see additional trees and shrubs planted on the east end of the property, facing Vail Spa Condominiums. She said that she would not necessarily need to see the fence replaced if it were screened heavily with landscaping so that it was concealed from view. Roth Dalton and Greg agreed with Diana's comment. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the number of snowcats and snowmobiles based on the property should be limited to what is there now. Kathy stated that if the PEC were to choose to approve this request, a condition could be added to limit the `number of snowcats and snowmobiles on the property to what currently exists now. Bruce Chapman stated that the snowcats would still be going back and forth for maintenance and service trips. Bruce suggested that if the conditional use permit is Planning and Environmental Commission 40 July 26, 199 Bruce Forest Road decreased and that this number be determined and regulated. 1. The siding proposed for the Phase I building addition will meet the Town's standards as approved by the resign Review Board and will be painted to match the remainder of the building. The remainder of the siding on the shop /vehicle maintenance building will be brought up to Town standards in conjunction with the construction of Phase 11 improvements of the building. The felt that this condition was acceptable. 2. The existing fence located on the north and west sides of the property will be replaced with a solid wood fence of a similar height. That portion of the fence along the south property line will be removed and replaced with berming and landscaping. Fence improvements will occur at the time of Phase I improvements to the building. The PEC felt that the existing fence should be repaired are repainted as a part of Phase I improvements a be heavily screened by landscaping. The replacement of the fence was deemed unnecessary. 3. The site drainage improvements and paving of the western portion of the property will be completed in conjunction with the proposed Phase 11 improvements to the maintenance building. The PEC felt that this condition was acceptable. 4. All above ground utility service systems shall be placed underground in conjunction with the Phase 11 improvements to the building. The PEC felt that this condition was acceptable. 5. All exterior lighting on the property will be brought into compliance with the Town's lighting ordinance (Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993) in conjunction with Phase I improvements for the building. The PEC felt that this condition was acceptable. 6. Prior to the issuance of a, building permit for Phase i improvements to the maintenance building, Mail Associates shall provide evidence that the activities that take place at the service yard do not exceed the maximum allowable decibel level (measured at the property line as specified in Section 6,24.060 of the Vail Municipal Code) or have obtained a specified permit to exceed said noise level for good cause shown, as authorized by the Town Manager in the referenced section in the memo, Section IV, Page 10. The PEC felt that this condition as acceptable but agreed with i# Associates' request to perform the reading during snow season rather h prior t the issuance of uit i permit. The issue will be reviewed by the PEC at their second tiro in January 1 94. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed Phase I building improvements, Vail Associates shall have requested and received appropriate authorization from the Town of Vail concerning the continued use of West Forest Road. The PEC eliminated this condition. Manning and Environmental Commission July 26, 1993 Dalton Williams ascended this motion and a 4-0 vote approved this request. Diana Donovan made a motion to table this request for the establishment of an SDD to allow the redevelopment of the Cornice Building until August 9, 1993 with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 4-0 vote tabled this request until August 9, 1993. 2 MEMORANDUM 0 Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS Listed below is the zoning analysis for Develo ent Ares , located in SDD #5 (Phase I includes the two existing imba Run buildings). Please note that SDD #5 has no underlying zoning, as it was annexed into the Town in December of 1975 and the original SDD was established during arch of 1976. REMAINING DEV, APPROVED DEV. PHASE I POTENTIAL AFTER PHASE 11 TOTAL STANDARDS DEV. AREA B PHASE I CONST. DEV. AREA B DEV. AREA Site Area: 6.3 acres /274,428 sq. ft. 4.7 acres /204,732 sq. ft. 1.6 acres 1.6 acres/69,696 sq. ft. 6.3 acres Setbacks: 20'- all perimeter 20' - all perimeter N/A 20'- all perimeter N/A property limes property lines property lines Height: 45' 20- 60' N/A 25 - 49' N/A GRFA: 129,000 sq. ft. - DU's 90,807 sq. ft. 38,193 sq. ft, 32,262 sq. ft. 123,039 sq. ft. - DU's 10,000 sq. ft. - Ei°IU°s 4 601 s . ft. 5,399 sq. ft. 2,536 $qm ftm 7,12Z _§_q. ft. - EHU's 139,000 sq. ft. 95,408 sq. ft. 43,592 sq. ft. 34,316 sq. ft. 130,226 sq. ft. Units: 139 95 44 19 114 Employee Dwelling Units: 10 (min.) 6 4 4 10 **Site coverage: 54,886 sq. ft. (20 %) 65,069 sq. ft. (320/6) <10,203 sq. ft.> *179646 sq. ft. (26 %) *32,935 sq. ft. (30 %) *Landscaping: 164,657 sq. ft. (60 %) — 110,772 sq. ft. (54 %) N/A 32,924 sq. ft. (47° /6) "143,696 sq. ft. (52 %) * *Parking: 65 %® 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) 173 (162 spaces are proposed) Commercial Area: -0- .q- N/A -0 * 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 modate the driveway to the lower bench development of Phase II. upper bench of the eveid would exceed feet. Specifically, the three eastern-most units on the er bench would x the xi height. T e proposed heights cif range fra t to 49 feet. It should be noted that the i building ei hts were measured from existing ra e, which happens to be the more restrictive than the finsl grades. The final grades for the project, would put the ridge heights at approximately 44 feet. It h ul d also be noted that the revs usl approved building for this site a building height approximately feet at some oints, B. Uses, activity and density is r ui a a compatible, icien n workable relationship ith surrounding 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 density (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 multi- family protect. 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 Simba Run protects Development Area B would be under the approved density (number of units) and GRFA. The protect would be under the approved density by twenty-five dwelling units, and under the maximum allowable GRFA (DU and Hit's) by 8,774 square feet. The staff feels that it is not sound planning to leave this type of remaining density on the books without an approved development 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 parking and loading requirements a tlin In Chapter The Town's parking requirements indicate that a total of 44 parking spaces are required for this Phase 11 site. The applicant has proposed a total of 48 parkin spaces for the protect. The ratio of enclosed versus surface parking spaces for this Phase is approximately a fifty -fifty split, although the overall enclosed parkin percentage for the entire Development Area B is 84 %, which is less than the required 5 %. 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 applicable elements the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies rban Design Plans. ® The Town of Vail Land Use Plan identifies this area as High Density Residential (HDR). nigh Density Residential is defined in the Land Use Plan as follows: "The housing in this category would typically consist of multi - floored structures with densities exceeding fifteen dwelling wits 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. 2. The following are the applicable Land Use Plan goals and policies which relate to this proposal: Goal 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 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. I Goal 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. 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 be preserved and 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® E. Identification it ation of natural and/or geologic hazards that t the r operty on which the eci I development district Is proposed. This project site is located within a high severity rockfall hazard zone. The applicant's geologist, Nicholas Lampiris, has reviewed the proposed site plan and has agreed that the berming along Lionsride Loop Road (south side), combined with internal mitigation for the two eastern -most buildings, is sufficient to mitigate the roc fall hazard. Please see the attached letters from Nicholas Lampiris at the end of this memorandum. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space r visi s designed to r uce a functional development responsive n sensitive to aural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality oft the community. The staff believes that the applicant has been responsive to the FEC's suggestions regarding minor modifications to the site plan. We believe that the changes made to the building locations have resulted in maintaining adequate distances between the Phase II project and the existing Simba Run building. The project would continue to exceed the 20% maximum site coverage for the entire Development Area B, however, the staff believes that the overall site planning for the project is acceptable and that the proposed 0% site coverage is reasonable given the approved density. All of the building locations have been sited to take advantage of views both to the east and to the west. The site plan has also been modified to accommodate the needs of the Vail Fire Department. Since the original F C worksession, the applicant has modified the upper bench of the development and has eliminated all parking within the required -foot front setback area. One of the three proposed curb cuts off of Lionsride Loop has also been eliminated. The staff believes that all of these changes are positive changes an result in a higher quality project which will further enhance its compatibility with the immediate neighborhood. circulation system designed r both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on an -site traffic circulation® Site Plan /Vehicular Access (g2QDT! access errrtit }. Access to the lower bench of this site, to the three "townhouse- tyke " units is proposed via the existing Simba Run curb-cut off of the North Frontage Road. Access to the units on the northern or upper bench of this site is designed as series of two curb cuts off of Lionsridge Loop Road. Due to the change in use, a Colorado Department of Transportation access permit will be required before a building permit can be released for the three units that take access off the North Frontage Road. Future Simba Brad, ass: As discussed in the recently adopted Vail Transportation Master Plan, the construction of an 1 -70 underpass in the vicinity of Simba Run, is as a first priority proposed l recommendation for both the West Vail interchange and the Main Vail interchange improvements. The underpass would be constructed immediately opposite 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 has submitted a regrading plan which indicates the regrading which 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. NWIMRS- � 40 9 i SPA P.M 8 j ' O. I O a Io A gi � Q i r� f till° p June 18, 1 93 Sally Brainerd__ Morter Architects 143 East Meadow Drive Crossroads at Vail Vail, CO 81657 RE: Savoy Villas f 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 somewhat unprotected® With the berms in place as you have defined them, very fear rocks can reach the Units, and, because the fronts of most of those ,.snits are in the fora of garages, I are not concerned that damage can occur® to living quarters. If there are still questions contact me. Sincerely, Nicholas L phis Consulting Geologist thy 23 19Z 9:53 0020 . P. = i iic hY�l Lran?p;rif3, Ph. D. May Is, L99:5 Sally Orninsvi �OP�t >JL;JPaG , °d Es a_C•GftS'r e micrt z,r Ar #1it!!c_ s •� i e n d "i» ri a wra'Z w I) r' 1 Y Crr)Gr r-s::tildha ' at Y11 Vi I 1 "l f"L��gg i5n d "_ o S �°R }.i; .i'} whlcn `r°Gt�¢,ii `�f Y it a.�a °{ s:nC� Pei our ! S11:C;1..:a:f�.onu _ °tt✓r mitigation o iho rook k i all hazard Awry: x #till a c o c; S®harigays c: sasd.i�I°5:1on`3 � ^siil�Sa �at:4J'uld W-6 coup lo ., in P1 .r^..y 05 <' °i.( 1 ;i._ t. ti 1!r a.9t °)ly s rccltn i ! e'arh `Cho e 5 y +S fact- vini o and, hacnUM i.hu ii !ea c" �s Luv ni are in the form of gar ar�i";?tm , 7 LSM not co i . #$ imhmt S. f'Lt.it® E_!3 Ming #al I `° rs ?.f .gig <: i?eirn c )d no pa.$ "agQ to r r a.,w of living qu tr a: ?r ";3. s -1-'rrs.31_ _'re a i re! :cCi,,- nd a threa ra at high :Lc'-t:3 °;, -.11 gaol ;ate ?lf?S'Ls :va11 9'slkC ? n!`lcia.i'+d, i?o-'ve a aY {'a48gth Of W n1 o . N ra is _, h C nk La? . ho b mB'°::i in f ( ?M a'. 'Ot A i -: ° '. ,.i ..•off. .�.i s t mat for® .3a i�V:sm.'c: y at »t;e': s l : e m _, <;_ :.®.. a. PM b:t-2°4_ct, in {°°:ot (jar-Age ,:.ea {. uld ba s°. h a . mn .stt'�:t®sg0h w l to .,ilrM i i °sLe" r:'. B�i? `ro .I I 4�P.A�ra C. �. ?eJal!L L«1 =�7 ?:e c',c:'1. &l a. qq | Sally Brainerd placed large Morter Architects ' ^ boulders. Because of the 143 East Meadow Drive L Crossroads at Vail - ' options Vail, CO 81657 � RE: Sayoy Villas ' ` be reviewed - ` Dear Sally: engineer and me (or other _ -_ - - I have` reviewed the site of the referenced prpject as shown on the accompanying map for purposes of Rack Fall or the ` ` ` Tomn oi l. The northern four ` Rockfall Zone due to the outcropping of sandstone on the other ` side of the Lion's Ridge Loop~ The second tier of units is not in the hazard zone" This is in a location hhere the ridge, containing the source o^,� _ ` potential falling rocks, is at a low level with respect-to the ` s�tas but rocks reach the no th - ` / have �ignificant energy so that Many unstable rocks occur above this proposed development, buE ` the road will 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 tho hazard from A four foot high b way—be' constructed *lu// ` TTT3�T—�a� no� be allowed bec�u�e i� may interfere with the road' ` ^ dL ht f Another �st which b t k f t i ' _ ` front ` ^ ` ' finished so that rocks'cannot. crash through them into. the unit. Your ' � civil ` engineer may. fsnergy absorbing fKcihg such as logn to "e=^ ~' . ' i feet high with the same strength given above~ This wall could be—(:)f well placed large (3 foot) boulders. Because of the nature of the hazard and the options for mitigation, I su t that final ` plans be reviewed - by your engineer and me (or other _ -_ - - ` ` ` Beginning at the most southerly comer 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 10'49'06", 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 42U2 feet, a central angle of 02�08'12% and a chord that bears N37'52'54" E 15.96 feet to a comer on the westerly boundary of the First Supplemental Map for Simba Run Gondanl�niuln, accowing 10 lhe Inap tnefc-oi recorded ill lile oilice oi Iha Layle Gouniy, Goiuiado, Glerk and Re-corder; thence the following four courses along said westerly boundary; 1) S21151'28"W 69.90 feet; 2) SlT56'03V 181.17 feet; 3) S12c5O'33"W 144.72 feet; 4) S03c33'01"W 160.79 feet to the southeasterly line of said Simba Run; thence, along said southeasterly line, S52'50'29"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 Langenwaiter 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 PEC 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 RpprovRl such thRt the, rpmRining density would be "no morp thqn one, Pdditional 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 3 Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS Listed below is the zoning analysis for the Vail Athletic Club SDD proposal. ALLOWED DEV. EXISTING PROPOSED STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT Site Area: 30,436 sq. ft. 30,486 sq. ft. 30,486 sq. ft Setbacks: 20 feet north: -0- north; south: 2'- 26' south 2'-26' 15' (decks) decks) east: 12 - 20' east. 12 - 20' 'f west: 12' west, 12' Height: 45 feet 67 south; 59 north 67 south; 59 north CRPA: 24,388 sq. ft. (80 %) 10,927 AU + 3,122 DU 26,361 AU+ 6,002 DU = 19,049 sq. ft. = 32,363 sq. ft + 1,312 amp units = 20,361 + 1,200 amp units = 303,6 Units: 25 units per acre 23 AU + 9 DU ® 23 DU(2 LC) 52 Ai/ + 3 DU = 17.5 units + 4 amp units = 24.33 DU(2 LO)* 29 DU (3 LO) + 4 emp units = 30.33 DU (2 LC) Employee Dwelling Units: -0m 4 (1,312 sq. .) ** 4 (1,200 sq ft, 300 sq. ft each) Accessory Use: 10% of existing GRPA 2,036 sq. ft. (Allowed) 3,543 sq. ft (Allowed) Restaurant: 3,606 sq. ft. 3,324 sq. ft Club Retail: 4621g, ft. 6 sge ft Total: 3,167 sq. ft. 3,824 sq. ft Common Area: 3,536 sq. ft. (35 %) Halls/Mach: 19,235 sq. ft, 12,956 sq. ft Conference: 2,342 sq. ft. 2,555 sq. f Total Common: 22,077 sq. ft. 15,511 sq. ft. Club Area: 22,257 sq. ft. 21,386 sq. ft. Parking Garage: 4,131 sq. ft. 5,565 sq. ft Site Coverage: 16,767 s% ft. 20,554 sq, ft'. 21,196 sq. ft Parking: 20 on -site due to 20 3J (24.2% compact) I approved variances. Halls/Mach: v0- -0- Club Area: -0® -0- Retail: 1.84 parking spaces 2 parking spaces Conference Area: 11.3 parking spaces 10 6 parking spaces Restaurant: 22.5 parking spaces ' 20.6 parking spaces AU: 21.8 parking spaces 4&84 parking spaces DU: 16.5 parking spaces &5 parking spaces Emp units: 4 parking spa s 4 parkin spa s 3 area. 5 � - �• f ,. ' �. . �� +� � ... Fs�� -» .� � r - �. .� .� r. �; ! , �; ,.. „ ,� � � � rr "` : � �. ^`� .r� � f n '� ! ,. � � � ' � .� �.: .c . �.,' � 'rF �t �. ..• ��4 ,�, ,. v. � �'.. �s . � � � e- f' � , ,. �� '� �� .f �.F f • The applicant is proposing to remove six of the nine existing dwelling units proposed. There are two existing units which were free market and the applicant wishes to retain one additional unrestricted unit for sale. The applicant is not introducing any additional uses to the property. The proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding areas The staff is concerned with the design and increase in mass and bulk of the building necessary to increase the type of uses that are on the property. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. Parking has been a long standing issue on this site. In researching the history of this project, the staff found that there were a number of variances granted to '.:. this projects In December of 1977, twenty underground parking spaces were approved for this site. At that time, it was recognized that surface parking was not appropriate for this site and that these spaces would be the maximum number that could be placed on the site. Different arrangements have been made over the years for parking on Town of Vail land as well as other properties for this project to address the deficit. There is an existing deficit of 58.4 parking spaces for the project. An additional thirteen parking spaces are needed for this proposal. The applicant i ro osin an additional thirteen parking spaces hich would ' bring the total on -site spaces to thirty-three. All of the parking spaces would be valet. Because this is a hotel with on- site management, this of valet parking arrangements is acceptable. There would be a 11. 1 or 12 space parking requirement increase result of this expansion. This is based on the difference between the required parking for the proposed project and the existing development. D. Conformity with applicable elements oft the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. There are three other elements of the Comprehensive Plan which apply to this application® The Vail Village Master Plan, the Streetscape Master Plan and the Land Use Plan. Please see Sections V1, V11, and 1!111 of this memo for further descriptions of these plans. Many elements of the Town's . Comprehensive Plan encourage the development and preservation of hotel- type units. The applicant proposes to add an additional twenty-four AU's and �.- delete six D 's for a total of fift Y -two fifty All's and three DU s. While this is in keeping with the Comprehensive Man's objective to increase the hotel bed base, the staff is concealed with the amount of floor area needed to create the proposed Tanis mass and bulk and parking. Please see sections VI, VII and Vill that identify applicable plan sections of the plans. E. Identification ii tion of natural and/or geologic hazards that t the property on is special velo n i trict is ro os 7 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 floodplain. F. Site plan, building design and location and den space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural f atur s, vegetation and overall 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, and the expansion of the common balcony adjacent to the creek. The applicant has adjusted the south elevation to reek up the facade per PEC and to comments. We still believe the west1south elevation appears massive given the new floor and dormers. In addition, the applicant is proposing 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 can the applicant's r arty between the creek and the terrace is needed. BUILDING I [VILLAGE SECTION] or w e i I a vAiL ATHLEric tics • �4 ➢)� a Ywq P6P W-XTH CLeaArl -4 UP �,( PLE',Vn iro Pt I VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB July 22, 1993 Memo to: Shelly Mello, Community Development I I I I III I I r I I I III �1� �11 1 11 � �Inr I 1 311 117, 'I " M ii I I We are proposing an increase in the number of AUs from 29 to 45 and a decrease in the number of DU from 9 to 3® that the low eave lines and set back dormers maintain the quality and pedestrian character of the open ace® Et "conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, etc." With respect to zoning, we are in the Public Accomodation District. Our GRFA increase consists entirely of AU's. The number of and GRFA for DUs is decreased significantly. 2 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, 4 6 currently located in the shop/vehicle maintenance building, but will be moved to the Lionshead offices. Those employees (approximately five) who currently show up for work at the service yard would then park in the west day lot. The applicant has provided a summary chart of the number of tracked vehicle round trips made on West Forest Road in an average 24 hour period (see attached). The chart provides figures for the 1992/93 ski season versus the proposed schedule for the 1993/94 season. This chart indicates that the average number of vehicle round trips made on West Forest Road, in an average twenty -four hour period will be reduced from that which occurred during the 1992/1993 season by 6.1 trips. Although staff feels that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to show that the proposed shop /vehicle maintenance building expansion will not have an incremental detrimental effect on traffic congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability and removal of snow from street and parking areas, we are unaware of any authorizations granted by either the Vail Town Manager or the Vail Town Council authorizing the historic, and proposed continued use, of West Forest Road by snocats and skimobiles. Staff recommends that Vail Associates, Inc. formally request that the Town authorize the continued use of the street for the use of the above-mentioned equipment. If the Town Council should grant the Vail Associates, Inc. request, they may then address certain conditions that would help alleviate the concerns raised by the property owners along West Forest Road and the Town Engineer, (i.e. possible limitations on hours of usage of the road, the special imposition of speed limits specific to skimobiles, a joint maintenance agreement between Vail Associates, Inc. and the Town of Vail specific to West Forest Road, etc.). 4. Effect upon the r d r of the area in ic the r e is to be located, including I and ul of the proposed use in relation to urr ire l rovements associated with Phasing Plan The Vail Associates, Inc. service yard is surrounded on the east by vaunt lot owned by Holy Cross Electric Association, on the south by the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Water and Sanitation District Headquarters and on the north by the 1 -70 right -of -way and on the east by the Vail Spa Condominium Project. In addition to the proposed building upgrades related to the expansion of the shop /vehicle maintenance building, Vail Associates, Inc. is proposing a number of improvements to the service yard property intended to improve and soften its effect upon the character of the area. These improvements are detailed in their proposed phasing schedule, which is as follows- 6 PHASE I - Proposed landscaping Fence repair and painting -60' x 74'6'° expansion to the east including; new siding at addition, gravel roof to match existing with gravel properly adhered to roof. *Overhead deers in east addition. -Parts Room to south with a portion of the proposed dormer roofs. PHASE 11 - Remainder of building expansions to north, west and dormer on the south, -Replace and paint remainder of wood siding to match Phase 1. *Remainder of overhead doors. -Complete repair of existing roof to match Phase 1. *Striping of parking lots. PHASE III - Remove Lift Department maintenance shop building at northwest portion of site. -Complete site drainage and paving at west end of property. Stripe same paved area. Staff appreciates Vail Associates' preparation of the above phasing plan in response to the PFC's request, however, we are concerned with the timing of some of the proposed site improvements. Staff recommends that the PEC approve a phasing plan that ties all improvements on the property to the Phase I or Phase 11 improvements to the shop /vehicle maintenance building. In the recommendation section~ of this memo staff has included a new phasing plan that we recommend as a condition of this conditional use permit requests Noise At the July 12, 1993 P C worsession, the Vail Spa Condominiums were represented by Mr. Al Hauser, Project Manager, who relayed to the PEC a number of concerns he had with regard to the existing operation of the Vail Associates, Inc. service yard. Specifically, Mr. Hauser was concerned with the intensity of the lights located on the exterior of the three buildings located on the property, with specific reference to the light located on the eastern wall of the shop /vehicle maintenance building. Mr. Hauser stated that the Vail Spa has received a number of complaints from its residents and uests regarding the intensity of the light which shines directly into the west windows of the Vail Spa Condominiums and requested that Vail Associates, ' Inc. attempt to alleviate this problem. The second concert} raised by Mr. Hauser involved the noise generated by the electronic back-up alarms which sound when the snow grooming vehicles are put in reverse gear. Mr. Hauser indicated that the loud beeping sounds made by these vehicles is intensified by the fact that the snow 7 grooming employees change shifts at 3:00 a.m. According to Mr. Hauser, over the years, Vail Spa has received numerous complaints from guests demanding to be relocated to ether portions of the building or simply indicating their intention not to return in future years. Mr. Hauser suggested that the snowcat parking area should be moved from the east end of the property to the west end, behind the warehouse building. Section 3.24.060 of the Vail Municipal Code (Noise Prohibited) states that: "The making and creating of an excessive or an unusually loud noise at any location within the Town heard and measured in a manner hereinafter setforth, shall be unlawful; except when made under and in compliance with a permit issued pursuant to subsection F of this section." I Vail Associates, Inc. has responded to Vail Spa's concerns by proposing to implement the following noise /light operational policy. °Snowcats will be retrofitted with a back -up alarm kill switch, whereby the snocat operator will disable the alarm while operating within the shop yard complex. A toggle switch will be installed within all the snowcats which will allow the operators to manually turn on the back -up alarms in instances where, in the opinion of the snowcat operator, it is necessary for safety reasons." Both the Vail Spa representatives and the Town of Vail have expressed concerns with Vail Associates, Inc. proposed noise mitigation policy. However, Vail Associates, Inc. representatives have indicated that the employees working within the shop yard complex are familiar with working around heavy equipment and feel comfortable assigning the safety responsibility of engaging the back -up alarms to individual snocat operators on an "as needed" basis. hail Associates believes that the ability to manually engage the back -up alarms only when needed will alleviate the noise concerns expressed by Mr. Hauser and therefore are not proposing to relocate the snowcat parking area on the east side of the props Staff recommends that prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Phase 1 improvements to the shop/vehicle maintenance building, Vail Associates, Inca provide evidence that the activities which take place on the Vail Associates, Inca service yard do not exceed the maximum allowed decibel level, (measured at the property line, as specified in Section 8.24.0 60 of the flail Municipal Code) or obtain a specified permit to exceed said noise level, for good cause shown, as authorized by the Town Manager in the above - referenced section. Staff believes handle existing and building future (if the expansion o eq - st is approved) parking needs on The parking requirement • t in Section of Municipal Code provides the specific parking requirement for both office and warehouse uses but does not specifically list a parking requirement for shop/vehicle maintenance facilities. Section O O(C)(1 1) of the Town of Vail e states that the parking requirement any o listed in . parking e, shall be "determined by the Planning the PEC worksession of July 12, 1993, a Associates 1..d.. documentation to show that the property r' sufficient parking sp+ handle both the existing use of the property and that associated with the proposed expansion. The PEC requested that the applicant provide a chart of all uses of the property in order to help them determine the property's parking requirement. Tim Weisong, Vail Associates Flc Maintenance space provided an updated chart specifying the utilization of specific areas on the property during both the ski season and the summer season and how each attached copy of a chart indicates that winter season a minimum of fifty-seven parking spaces are necessary and the summer season up to seventy-six l parking spaces 11 Staff recommends that the following conditions be attached to the approval of this conditional use permit requests 1. The siding proposed for the Phase I building addition will meet the Town's standards as approved by the Design Review Beard and will be painted to match the remainder of the building. The remainder of the siding on the I shop /vehicle maintenance building will be brought up to Town standards in conjunction with the construction of Phase II improvements of the building. 2. The existing fence located on the north and west sides of the property will be replaced with a solid wood fence of a similar height. That portion of the fence along the south property line will be removed and replaced with berming and landscaping. Fence improvements will occur at the time of Phase I improvements to the building, . The site drainage improvements and paving of the western portion of the property will be completed in conjunction with the proposed Phase If improvements to the maintenance building. 4. All above ground utility service systems shall be placed underground in conjunction with the Phase 11 improvements to the building. 5. All exterior lighting on the property will be brought into compliance with the Town's lighting ordinance (Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993) in conjunction with Phase 1 improvements for the building. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase I improvements to the maintenance building, Vail Associates shall provide evidence that the activities that take place at the service yard do not exceed the maximum allowable decibel level (measured at the property line as specified in Section 6.24.060 of the Vail Municipal Code) or have obtained a specified permit to exceed said noise level for good cause shown, as authorized by the Town Manager in the referenced section in the memo, Section IV, Page 10. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed Phase I building improvements, Vail Associates shall have requested and received appropriate authorization from the Town of Vail concerning the continued use of West Forest Road. . The striping of all parking areas, with the exception of the gravel areas, shall be completed as a part of Phase i improvements. 9. Staff recommends that the PEC adopt the following phasing schedule in conjunction with the approval of this conditional use permit application. 1 s ` .(' l��A ,;/$ T `� - . t 4+iC4,sfr•E'a�. ♦ � i ' a �� �� � i <�4 .. �`ti ' ^ � ! .l �I 1 L } a '*� �� � -� � .,fit - .{ '1. n :. ♦. .i4!F. 1� #I �! - j s �:J �� �f�.`✓:` �.•�:. ;- +3`Qi�'sq�-.��• -• _ 4. ',t J✓ .. .y5{ ,•Y�Y����i Y ,,,I :�'.•�y.�" .'A. .' �j��, ii �� L�. ��f,ihE73�t����. }'•, t'�� s'k` '� GI' a +l`�i'+r ty`x _ • sr n'. + .. � 1'�d -.+f'. ' y's �M n s' *�.. 'ia�CT��d r •s. '� •�� r "• ��� - '�x? ;i:.' t �`��ti, a� -♦ `. } #;,r�r..�'`: ti - ;Q.'i�. r,. /. ,,' i a:'��IfK • ; a z �` Y � - .1 � -t: :;,; ..k.: � q"i ', t S. f{(� '�'�� {�'+j , �R7 }�i• {�'j!4� r' d ..�; �k + "�.yrN�y�{��'1t• f.. t 1{/,e _ - `.A r-4 n t 4": ` > ;4 �f' ♦.}t jar iNt D -�.:. �.�}"7f+,� �la�•�'ar,}•i.,j r^t_ "9^ I-7'� vA.44-� .. �--, - - l �•'� .'f.� S / /� { -. a__. 9!- f �; -1�ei, �a0� � . .1�R,J +,�6 � <. • ! rr�ff// /� � � L± 7 I +•4. . t '+Y r 'S #�'s ��: � j. 7:01. •• ,.jr. -R:,+ `Il " '{L,+'�� . Y' .. ,. � ♦r'� . � � ,�...+ ,g � a .i[f $•1 � B 4�, 7• ..�. � •� e, ���£� e't�7± ✓- •�`i14 � � ; '<..� ��j-f" K ":aprt �"[Y '1�. k - if�. �,, .i �� •i +Y F ���5. Y "' �vae ♦ }-' -' r. +`.,y„s —,~. �"'a i 'I•. 1 _ t'k�'^,.*.> �.h •,: -�+r `{t+e %yY = '.°•1'+s �(+`�k ?j7.. {� t�- �TY {h1 f� -.,•� -�( ���,: � _ i i.j -:�.�♦ r !'y" -I f?4,; �Yy y x'r.j` j :� >{y iti•3�-1�,°Iy�!F-C'.:,42, . .L�l"' 3�. 4 i '.� ` ;,r.. xt �� �'i y'ya +e t i• �'"+,,t"` ��iy.�'` .� 2 �..kjj 4 lRii r ��i•' �M 41 �ijs�r t i'.i i 4 x... �~ y FiC,3' j Iy , i a <' 3' ys 47 T ���i i.�, :i .. �. •.�i.��t.� "`r +��.,• �t� .. \ _ rt y,'. . • C 4� �� h Y. -, +� •1 .f� +. t5� Xw+ rLE-Y �19g.92 PARK/ NG ;r! j ° g�'Y - . --_ix��/.. tai: >✓�' ri - ��.� -.� � "•,tJti - )1 � + � "4''p s tt a to �::• w Z,, . , a ' { _{' -I'ctd.+ 37OFr wt / J NEW it tow 0 Tilt at box 46 Of ko bridgM r �►wlrar . + •r , > '�., fd� * - �- • a�� t `.' . tit �Y`:' ' +F =t:i at f .ate �, �• + + r- i C :.M{ " ;r�'ri�Y,,,� ���;.�� )L { l•r'. 4 :�3 �.f >•` ''J '' � Milt /O - - . -i �',.�. �'��; j�f� , �;�`, � .� ryLJ "'��Yc i��,i f �' f �;�,�'-f,. .s. �' •b ri��''' ... y :I � +x r L. . We' "`sy .'•'i �...: '- F� s � � q1 � � � � � IN'p{a�'"y1.,'f � G _ 1 1jry„'' t. ry"'���llY''�tt � � � I M . �� - � � � . L_ . _ .._ __ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _L _ _. ... _ .�. �A- trailers on the property, to June of 1982, the Town created the Arterial Business Distdct and rezoned the area west of Lionshead from HS to the AB district. 1111. ZONING ANALYSIS Allowed Exisiin fro osed Site Area: 3.246 acres or same same 141,400 sq. ft. Density: 25 DU per buildable acre -0- -0- or 81 units Building Freight: 70% of roof may not 19 ft. 19 ft. exceed 32 ft. and none may exceed 40 ft. Setbacks: north: 10 ft. 20 ft. 10 ft. west: 15 ft. max. 50 ft. 50 ft. south: 15 ft. max, 60 ft. 70 ft. Site coverage: 60% or 64, 840 sq. ft. 15% or 21,230 sq. ft. 20% or 23,950 sq. ft. Landscaping: 25% minimum or 7% or 9,665 sq. ft. 3% or 10,915 sq. ft. 35,350 sq ft. req. PFA: 60% or 84,640 sq. ft. 15% or 21,062 sq. ft. 20% or 27,967 sq. ft. Required Parking:— To be determined 65 spaces 129 spaces by the PEc See Page 5 - Discussion Issues (Parking Requirement) for a more detailed explanation of the parking requirement for this property. j V. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS I As stated in the zoning code, the Arterial Business District is intended toe "provide sites for office, public utilities, service stations, limited fight industry having no adverse environmental impacts that provide significant on-site tourist amenities and limited shopping and commercial facilities serving the Town and Upper Eagle Valley residents and guests. Multiple fatally dwellings for use a s employee housing will be appropriate under specific circumstances. Arterial business district is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to permitted and conditional types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient (limited) shopping, business, service an residential environment," Although the staff will not specifically address each of the five conditional use criteria for this orksession, the criteria are listed below 2 I sh�pNahi�le Maintahe uildinp (15,500 square feet net floor area) Office area (15 %) ® 2,325 sq. ft. 250 a 9.3 spaces Shop/vehicle maintenance area (65 %) = 13,175 sq, ft. 250 P 52.7 spaces 62 spaces req. Lift Maintenance ui� (3,146 square feet net floor area) Office area (15 %) = 472 sq. ft. 250 e 1.9 spaces Warehousing (55 %) ® 2,767 sq. ft. 1,000 = 2.7 spaces 4.6 or 5 aces rem arehausa uildin� (9,260 square feet net floor area) Office area (20 %) = 1,352 sq. ft. 250 g 7.4 spaces Warehousing (60 %) ® 7,403 sq. . � 1,000 = 7.4 spaces 14.6 or 15 aces req. 'hotel parking spaces required = 62 spaces Another way to look at the parking requirement for this property would be to examine the number of V.A. employees who report to work at the service yard. This would include both the employees who work on the property as well as those who report to work here but then work off site, ie, snow oat operators, security personnel, etc. The applicant has provided a chart to show how many people work on the property during the summer and winter months (see attached). This chart would seem to indicate that the above parking calculation based on type of use is reasonable. The applicant has indicated, however that many of their employees, especially night shift snow cat operators, car pool to work. This, along with the fact that employees are encouraged to park in the west day lot leads the applicant to believe that there is more than sufficient parking on the site. Tim Wysong, V.A. Fleet Maintenance Manager, has stated that, although not striped, there are currently 85 parking spaces on the property. Upon completion of the proposed shop/vehicle maintenance building expansion the property vVill be cleaned up and striped for 129 full size vehicle spaces and 17 implement spaces, There will be a net gain of 44 spaces. 2, Landscape m [gyg r eats - As shown in the preceding zoning analysis, this property is deficient in the amount of landscaped rea required. to has asked the applicant to not Only make up for the proposed loss of landscaped area related to the shop/vehicle maintenance building addition, but to add more landscaped area than what currently exists on the sites We also asked the applicant to replace or improve the fence which currently surrounds this property on the north, west and a portion of the south property lines. The applicant has indicated that although the proposed building addition will remove square feet of landscaping, them will actually be a net increase in landscaped area because 2,200 square feet of new landscaping will be added t0 the southwest corner of the property. In addition, the applicant is proposing to add eleven trees (five aspen and six spruce) to the northeast tip of the X Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. . 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. 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 C and the applicants; 1. arkino eouirernent - Staff would like the PEC to feel comfortable that there is sufficient parking on this site to handle the existing and future (if the building expansion request is approved) parking needs of the site. The parking requirement schedule located in Section 18.52. 100 of the Vail Municipal Code requires one parking space per each 1,000 square feet of net floor area for warehousing uses. Office uses are calculated at one parking space per each 250 square feet of net floor area. Shop /vehicle maintenance facilities are not specifically listed in the parking requirem nt schedule. Section 1 .52.100 C(11) of the Code states that the paving requirement for any use not listed in the parking schedule shall be "determined by the Planning Commission." The applicant has indicated that 15% of the shop / vehicle maintenance building and the lift maintenance building are used for office purposes. 20% of the warehouse facility is devoted to office use. The remainder of the warehouse and the lift maintenance facility are used for warehousing and the remaining 85% of the shop /vehicle maintenance facility is used for vehicle maintenance. For the purpose of discussion, staff has assigned a parking requirement of one space per each 250 square feet of shop /vehicle maintenance area, which is a fairly restrictive number and provides a worst case scenario for parking. The parking requirement for the property would en be as follo s: 110 3 property and eleven cottonwood trees north of the proposed shop /vehicle maintenance building addition. The applicant has indicated that they have contacted the Colorado Department of Transportation (C T) for permission to plant some of their landscaping on CDOT right-of-way along the north and south sides of the service yard. The small section of fence (approximately 100 feet) running along the south property line will be removed and replaced with a berm which will match the existing currently in place along the South Frontage Road. The proposal includes repair and painting of the fence as needed. 3. Possible Access Pe it Modifications - Staff has s the applicant to contact CDOT to determine whether or not an amendment to their existing highway access permit would be required as a result of the proposed building expansion. The purpose of this request was to determine what improvements, if any, CD OT would require to made to the existing access drives and/or South Frontage Road (signing, excel/ ecel lanes, etc.). The applicants have hired T A, Inc., transportation planners, to review the proposed expansion and determine possible access permit consequences. TA, Inc. has determined that no access drive or road modifications will be required by COT as a result of the proposed building expansion (see attached report). Vail Associates, Inc, has forwarded this report to CDOT for their review and will notify staff of CDOT's response. 4. Possible Impacts to West Forest Road ® Staff was concerned that the proposed shop /vehicle maintenance building expansion could result in additional traffic, noise and safety impacts to West Forest Road. There are currently 15 snow cats based at the service yard location, The applicants believe that the proposed building expansion will have no additional impacts to West Forest Road and cite the following justifications: - Although Vail Associates, Inc. will be adding four additional snow cats to its present fleet for use during the 1993/1994 ski season, they have indicated that five snowcats will be permanently stationed on the mountain, resulting in a net reduction of one snow cat being parked each day at the V.A. service yard, These cats will be assigned to the less rigorous task of transporting goods and materials throughout the mountain and will likely visit the service yard on the averse of once every three days for routines aide and to pick up warehouse supplies rather than twice daily for service and refueling like the grooming cats. - The expanded shop area will allow up to 13 snow cats to be parked indoors overnight reducing the nu 00 r of cold starts and improving maintenance efficiency n uali - The number of snow cats ant out on the morning grooming shift is being reduced from 12 to 10 thereby allowing intenance personnel to more thoroughly attend to the fleet before it leaves they rd. It is believed that the improved maintenance quality resulting from the 5 proposed shift schedule change will reduce the down -time percentage by 10 %. Down-time results in more frequent trips back to the service yard for maintenance and increased usage of West Forest Road. - Vail Associates intends to hire three additional maintenance technicians, which will also improve the maintenance quality and reduce down-time. The applicants have indicated that the additional parking demand resulting from the new maintenance technicians is more than offset by the relocation of the security personnel office , which is currently located in the shop/vehicle maintenance building but will be moved to the lionshead offices. Those employees currently showing u for work at the service yard (approximately 5) will now be parking at the west day lot. The applicant has provided a summary chart of the number of r cked vehicle round trips made on West Forest Road in an average 24 hour period (see attached). The chart provides figures for the 1992/93 season versus the proposed schedule for the 1993/94 season. 5. do Te Joint aintnartce rri rdent fir est Forest oad -the Town is interested in opening discussions with Vail Associates, Inc; regarding a long term maintenance agreement for the continued use of West Forest Road, Town ordinances currently prohibit the use of unprotected track equipment on Town streets. The Town Engineer believes that snow cats have caused increased wear to the road and would liked to have a Joint maintenance agreement in place to facilitate its continued use and maintenance. 6. rd ®sari !jj esi n and Materials - Those portions of the proposed building expansion on the north and east sides will essentially be extensions of the existing building and architecture. The proposed building expansion on the southwest side of the building will include a new gable roof to help shed snow away from bay doors. The applicant is aware that the existing plywood siding is not an approved building material in Vail and is therefore proposing cedar siding which will be painted to match the existing building. An anodized metal roof is proposed, which will match the color or the existing building roof. 6 4 , property and eleven cottonwood trees north of the proposed shop /vehicle maintenance building addition. The plic nt has indicated that they have contacted the Colorado Department of Transportation ( T) for permission to plant some of their landscaping on CDOT right-of-way along the north and south sides of the service yard. The small section of fence (approximately 140 feet) running along the south property line will be removed and replaced with a berm which will match the existing currently in place along the South Frontage Road. The proposal includes repair and painting of the fence as needed. i 3e Possible Access Permit Modifications ® Staff has asked the plicant to contact j CDOT to determine whether or not an amendment to their existing highway access permit would be required as a result of the proposed building expansion. The purpose of this request was to determine what improvements, if any, CDOT would require to be made to the existing access drives and /or II' South Frontage Road (signing, exc I /decel lanes, etc.). The applicants have hired T, Inc., transportation planners, to review the proposed expansion and determine possible access permit consequences. TDA, Inc. has determined that no access drive or road modifications will be required by CDOT as a result of the proposed building expansion (see attached report). Vail Associates, Inc. has forwarded this report to CDOT for their review and will notify staff of CDOT's response. . Possible Impacts tc est Forest pad - Staff was concerned that the proposed shop /vehicle maintenance building expansion could result in additional traffic, noise and safety impacts to West Forest Road. There are currently 15 snow cats based at the service yard location. The applicants believe that the proposed building expansion will have no additional impacts to West Forest Road and cite the following justifications- - Although Vail Associates, Inc. will be adding four additional snowcats to its present fleet for use during the 1993/1994 ski season, they have indicated that five snowcats will be perrnanently stationed on the mountain, resulting in a net reduction of one snow cat being parked each day at the V.A. service yard. These cats will be assigned to the less rigorous task of transporting goods and materials throughout the mountain and will likely visit the service yard on the average of once every three days for routine service and to pick up warehouse supplies rather than twice daily for service and refueling like the grooming cats. j - The expanded shop area will allow up to 13 snow cats to be parked indoors overnight reducing the number of "cold starts" and improving maintenance efficiency and quality. - The number of snow cats sent out on the morning grooming shift is being reduced from 12 to 10 thereby allowing maintenance personnel to more thoroughly attend to the fleet before it leaves the yard. It is believed that the improved maintenance quality resulting from the 5 I Summer 3 Winter 5 Purchasing Summer 3 Winter 3 Security Summer 2 Winter - 3 Lift Maintenance Summer 30 Winter 4 BITA, IOC gal-93 TDA MEMORANDUM 9 qp p To: Joe Macy, VA Tim ys%edn , VA From: David Leahy, Subj.: CIA Shops Expansion, Access Cons rations �'Onsultan!s t Date: July 2, 1993 As requested, v e reviewed your proposed expansion of the Vail Shops maintenance uildin for any possibie access rmit consequences. The South Frontage Road site is served by two full movement access drives - one opposite Forest $oad and a second easterly drive slightly offset from the Lionshead Circle west intersection. south Frontage Road is under the administrative jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Tr'nsp rtatio 'ific understand your project does not propose any mod tion to the existing access drives. However, as with any change in land use, site needs to b addressed tip see if access` traffic activity , improvements, per the Mats Highway Access Cci ! are called for. Code (2.10 site changes that As spelled out in the Access ®3), could increase vehicle vo y 20%, or adding new turning movements, could trigger the need for access improvements, This assessment addresses your proposal with these c nisidsrati ns in mind. Purpose of Site lmPrOvement The ruin purpose Of extending your existing main ance wilding I llvu t. 00 Z = %. Lta it i &11 to thorough preventive maintenance on your mountain provide equipment, particularly the snow cats. These iracked vehicles are fueledt serviced and parked on this sits, accessing the will mountain via Forest Road, The added maintenance sp ce t hn cians spread enable you to mpl y three more maintenance r ay work week o ore thoroughly v�r your ay °ia r ` w cats as they are rotated throuoh. Fifteen snow maintain cats are based at this od tics curr nt y® now t s deployed return mountain grooming work from pm until , on the mountain again u it refueling, n aak in returning for refueling. _ Esc , ' p4ime , site use of on, the Forest Road access drive occurs between and and noon to 1:00pm each day during z e 075 LOINW $t. §u 1* *��Vn 1 i o r flit y u anticipate r iri C080202 (363) 925.7107 fewer daily snow t crossings of tit r�Tit assigned t t, s rigorous partx u r y for v f the cats t V EXHIBIT A VAIL ASSOCIATES MAINTENANCE FACILITY Average number of personnel working per day Vehicle Maintenance Shop Summer - 8 inter ® 1 Mountain Services Summer ® 5 Winter ® 11 Warehouse Summer - 3 Winter - 5 Purchasing Summer - 3 Winter _ 3 i Security Summer - 2 Winter - 3 I Lift Maintenance Summer 30 winter - 4 a 1 ITA. DO r l-93 i i West Forest Road Traffic TDH C OLLiRR110 INC, TEL 1 7- 0 -, 15a-6 004 Jul 0- . 93 1 Ncf F , U Joe Macy Page 2 July 2, 1993 p i materials. are task of transporting goods and f made to store . These cats will likely visit rather than twice for refueling. Four now cats will be added to the fleet. t in one cat being {{ �Shops Yard. i Shop expansion will reduce r currently d for employee Displaced l oyees, including the three employees (one per shift), will park in the c ent Holy Cross Lot immediately to the west. This lot experiences a low daily Conclusion 1 li As we understand your proposed i maintenance facity, no increase in traffic vollume, or change in directional movement at either existing South Frontage access rim should result as a consequence it . Accordingly, ul not anticipate access riv' modifications being required please ll if you have u tf n our j assessment of your project or our conclusions. I i i i I N - 0 spaces® Miscellaneous: Snow storage, 6 spaces; Special Events, i.e. T.V. trailers, etc., 4 spaces; come and go spaces, 3/each building for July 20, 199 Jim Curnette 'fail Planning and Environmental Commission FAX#z 303-479-2452 vent'emen, Z represent the ownership group of 736 Forest Road, East Unit. We have recently become aware of a petition by v it associates to rg the facility for maintenance operations in the Lionshead area. This facility has a direct impact on our property since numerous pieces of machinery use West Forest Road as the access to i Mountain. The noise generated by the constant parade of mechanize vehicles? both Snow Cats and Snowmobiles, is often intolerable. The hours of operation interfere with ep patterns of residuals at our home. in d iticn to the noise and the traffic created by this equipment, there is definite ter r ti n in air quality in our neighborhood. When we rch d our home, we were cognizant of the presence of the afore mentioned f ci.iity. Increasing thA Aizo of thIs facility would tip unfair to thosp homeowners in the West Lionshead area. 1 would Poops the town of Vail and Vail Associates c u3 find an alternate facility or perhaps use are alternate routo to the mountain. 1 do bGlieve fairness ghould enter into the formula f where than facility is Placed. Sias 01y, PRA del 4;Al, F.;ast qth Avena� a ° - -Saito 1 5 ? 7 w �T A I accept MRM Please this letter i sense as a formal protest to this expansion plan, ir1a Caryn TOTAL PAGE , 02 � 10: Planning and Environmental ..n „f s, A.. a 4 .S ss A ^w%' a of the a e 5.. ''« n of III Val''! .. z Y' From: m?x .q d Rumford, - # dg b d „`..dean m and owners of 675 Forest Road. Val! Colorado e Proposed expansion v 5 the Val! Associates vehicle maintenance s n Lp m item # 10 p : b t 3 r hearing scheduled fi% 26f 3 at » 06Y m , We are opposed to the expansion of the vehicle maintenance shop. We are very S %# alarmed F y this .f ✓ e.ss to nearly double the size of the building(s). This can only mean a_anat _ as z e Val! s i area continues t o grow (super V j > etc. ) the k 3. Mt known n s West eo N e t Road � a w s l be subjected residential n more a more heavy equ running night and &, s' 'r,s a5 0 a %d w . a ter` cwr houses. The i . u _ , o a now is intolerable and this will make it worse, W request that the application be denied and that Vail Associates be requested to rethink the whole issue of access to the mountain by the - A""^.°tno ?�rR,'� machines, Lem, know mi1^✓ f n.i .v a 3a eery sa3wan other s h' area where q: a as.,: machines p night and " w through a residential area. it is out understanding S ak the machines C Mountain, f oi example, are and n in Copper stared p pen refueled on the mountain. Areas that we are familiar with in Europe also store and refuel on mountain. These mountain vehicles have not always been a part of life on West Forest a.,.,,•^:,,.a+. # s We bought . our lo t from i V a & Y. Associate, in 1965 and at that time the road deadended at a point Gore creek from the maintenance shop, No ski w ru Ei across n e . a bisected Forest Ro aa then, a s n does now, the p Free r We were t ^L n that T ta G run was # possibility i y the future and that „c re "s to our area ti »u : d b e preserved by placing a tunnel under the ski run. Instead , bridge was built across Creek, Gore mountain 5 i .x and d 't h e . ° was no reason to object, 'i'. e n though they were, and are, clearly in violation of Town ordinances. When £C t$ a ".,rV bridge w S""'ry enlarged and d t b i e size and number of achines increased several r e sid ent the he . from / om neighborhood expressed th i r concern t o Vail Associates ' time to time. Unfortunately is were not e coordinated gr 3 . and our a .gip x £ 3 we ignored. i i our hop that the planning commission, the T"i3 of Vail, Vail Associates and, develops plan w s l h will .r s S t 3 w al & reduce ^ e use of West Forest era as an access point for snowgrooming machines to Vail Mountain. JTIT,Y 26, 190 Town of Vail Attentioni jim, curnutte, Planner Planning & znvironmot commission Vail Municioal Bldg. . Vail, CO 9165 l Expanalon of Vehiqla Maintenance, iit Dead Mri tt: ' This letter is in regards to the proposed addition of five ( ) groomers and expansion of the main facilities. I am not in favor of this proposal. This addition would create a great deal of noise and congestion, and depreciate the value of my property. overall, this expansion would be a detriment to the neighborhood, and take away from the great aesthetic value of Vail. sincerely hope that you will tales these facts into consideration when deciding this matter. Yours truly, j. Morgan Smith it Addreass 586 W. Forest r':$:74.,�/� j�.��N�.�•,�J�_®.aJ.J �; •_ /,a°�1.�^ '�' } " °��_..r.�,_ (,?`9t°4...1 °.� fd.ii_,fi..r� %ai,_� T _.r �: -:•p ^ �s{s' . ®.. kl: ;�:• '? d'�._� °•t• .a, tit, f' l.fn...� a..:�fr•� g•..�_ � �, 1 AQ t"�°y � »�£ ..� j't ,t a }�.� { "! }° i... �(. { _. lq- a .r1... S_... i,: �d. ct ° %•�� -t °..?:_; {.',, l' �. ( J..'� ,. � ,�• r, { ; ` ° ft.�l(f,p { +, R,. ti1.'a'•.$„•.•, m ('{'- "{ /�m. dC �, ..✓»:i /a,%p. {_p 6' °•.•�.•{._. .• �r c`- .d,.�$...:)...: jt °,r•ad;�_ .._ f`'',�e ..� ! a,t'.. "a. - t.:4. °�•�r<}•��"• °'i. -'� .{ ° f £ ,-mss ®> d.s{!l �t °!•, .�•�;? £m •t,> ,�.•%�+ . -r°,�} . -� .E / % -.( °_ 1'! /,a• °t,�p'�'Imr`{f�..(� trlP�2_:�,� °�f� jr,: {, l/ `��'' PS° -� = ,�. _t> el, {l NOW, CIA < . (:� ;'i'�•l?��r���-l...dY� C,'b�,.: (�„ �J.rf.:1. } r, +��' °1 G` '�•. -f y',�, ate® rm r °.r.� �.2f�?�e>.{j �/�._- � °�.:�.-0 �".; °•�.� °.tom, t��• { °:�- �w�� °T� -�-� � �'._� -r�'p ����! p,�... �,.�_.t�.�;d.of:4 ✓..% d,'�':, �jjr,,i9•:!° �i °4.t' �f.�' /�'�1�,s4�'' 'Jf .�'�m�® 71 'Alt o CL­ AO_ ITT! AO_ mom a yes n. x 96• qg � ] o O 0 rr p • oc x mum IM 4a I&IL �4i3P® 67 V 'um Xwiwqjo . �. �.: _ .:< � .- -• , _., a_. _.„..., . , ,. -.. .a,....- ,m,,.a.,,..,�. .,o.. m_, ..._ .�.�,.a.�.... �.,�_ . ,..e. , ..,,t„a....P.. , �..• ,,.�, ,�, ,........,..a, -, ..�, .......<....,....... _... ®,..� ,�„� �,.- _ ®_..,� . _ ,,.� ". • ,..,,� KAN m°, m _�...,>a,w _ 4 m_. P. _.. �,..�... .® °. �_ r,..�.;�.,d,. • SUBJECT: A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow for the expansion of residential condominium unit #3 at the Red Lion Inn Condominiums/Lots E, F, G and H, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1 st Filing/304 Bridge Street. Applicant: Aagje Nourse Planner: Jim Curnuffe, 9011", V91, 0 � 4 S 4 a4 . jfj d ck tiny PW- a 4 ' Ai I ��.'' • i —r-r n 1 r � :MASTER BAT 1 ,• L apip 1 /. gill 105� ® o �]XM: MIME r �! �%M/ l 2 0 - - -- - - N/1CJ /at7�VGL �Vl�ty�1�7` \v�J�%/1 MEN i ® :i MEN �%M/ l 2 0 - - -- - - WE .1/_8 -inch 1"00 NORTH - -- ELE_V_ ATIO N._ 1 /8__ inch- to 1_f_oot i M ' milimillimillmilliffiIiiiiiiii 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 §(p 3 Packy thanked the PEC for their time.° 3e A request for a conditional use permit to expand the hours of operation and add lights to the Lionshead Miniature Golf Course located at Tract D, Lionshead First Filing, between the Lionshead Center Building and the base of the Born -ree Express Chairlifta Applicant* Charlie Alexander Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a brief presentation per the staff memo and seated that staff was recommending approval of this request to amend a conditional use permit with two conditions: 1) that the operation's hours be limited to 10 :00 p.m. at night, and ) that the applicant upgrade the temporary building, i.e. new roof, siding, etc. Jim pointed out that the temporary building and lights would be taken to the DR67 for their review. Charlie Alexander stated that light fixtures would be used on the course to provide illumination during the evening hours. He stated that the plan that the PEC was shown had forty -nine lights but that this was a rough estimate and possibly more or less lights would be needed for this course. He stated that he would like to stop allowing people onto the course at around 10:00 p.m. but is requesting permission to stay open until 10:30 p.m. to allow people to finish out their games. The lights would be shut off and the course would be cleared no later than 10 :30 p.m. Diana Donovan stated that the PEC board did not have a problem with the lights but that there was some concern about the hours of operation and that if there were have complaints about the hours of operation of the golf course, the applicant would to close the course at an earlier time in the evening, Jeff Bowen stated that it was his opinion that this was a positive recreational option for the Lionshead area. Larry Barnes, representing the Lionshead Center Condominium Association, stated that they had concerns with the noise associated with the golf course and the lighting after dark. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve this request to amend a conditional use permit for the Lionshead Miniature Golf Course per the staff memo and c >onditions. Dalton Williams seconded this motion and amended it to reflect, the closing time of 10 :30 p.m. A 7 ®0 unanimous vote approved this request, 4. A request for a conditional use permit and a parking variance to allow for an outdoor 1`, dining deck at the Carton's Saloon located at 143' East Meadow Drive /Lot Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Dave Garton Planner: Tim Devlin Planning and Environmental Commission April 26, 1993 Tim Devlin made a presentation per the staff memo summarizing the applicant's request. He said that the applicant was willing to valet park in order to meet the on- site parking requirement, therefore negating the need for a parking variance. He stated that staff was recommending approval of this request for a donditional use permit with four conditions which are addressed in the staff memo. Diana Donovan stated that she was concerned that granting a parking variance would set a precedent. She then inquired how clean the smoker was and stated that the smoker at City Market in Avon was quite "messy" Shirkie Evans, stated that the smoker that they would be using was mainly for effect. He also said that the City Market smoker uses hickory and that they would be using mesquite, which produces less smoke. Diana Donovan asked the PEC board how they felt about the parting. 4 Tim Devlin replied that twelve parking spaces vrere being removed and replaced by valet parking spaces for this proposal. Dalton Williams stated that the building has parking spaces available and that it was more of a problem during the daytime to park as opposed to the evening hours. Dave Garton stated that he would keep ten of the twelve spaces open during the day, and that he would make arrangements to provide the additional two parking spaces necessary through valet parking. Diana Donovan then asked whether the PEC could afford to be lenient with the on-site parking requirement during the summer months for this project, that she was thinking ahead to the next scenario and whether this current request would set a precedent that they would be obligated to follow in the future. i Dave Carton suggested that the conditional use permit be issued on a yearly basis and subject for renewal each spring so that the situation could be evaluated. Greg Asden inquired of the applicant whether parking could be crated off for a specific use, Dave Carton responded that this was possible` with the landlord's aermission. Dalton Williams inquired whether it was the PEC's responsibility to address the allocation of parking spaces and that it was his understanding that. all mixed uses are figured into the parking requirements. He stated that he felt this situation could set a dangerous precedent. Jeff Bowen inquired whether Crossroads designated each business a specific number of parking spaces. Planning and Environmental Commission I� I April 26, 1993 Sill Anderson stated that he disagrees that by granting this request that the PEG would be setting a precedent because a precedent situation to hire means a situation with identical circumstances. He thinks this is a positive request that makes better use of the space at Crossroads and that it is better to allow an operation like this as opposed to letting the space lust sit there unused. Jeff Bowen stated that they were looking at a time of the year when parking was generally not a problem. He also said that since they were only 'poking at granting this request for a year (June 1 - November 1) that they were not creating a hardship on other parties. Greg Amsden asked the applicant whether there would be live music outside. Dave Garton responded that live music would be inside the establishment and would not start until 9:00 - 9:30 p.m. t Greg Amsden stated that the PEC board needed confidence that valet parking would be used. Dave Garton responded that twenty -four hour valet parking was not feasible but that he would be willing to offer valet parking after 5:00 p.m. Greg Amsden inquired whether the applicant had considered to I-Iave the proposed operation going during lunch hours. Shirkie stated that it would not be cost effective to do so, Greg Amsden stated that he had no objection to approving this request for conditional use permit. Kathy I_angenwalter stated that she had no objection to the conditional use permit but parking was a concern to her. She said that valet parking would be a workable solution for the loss of parking spaces during evening hours but wondered whether the storage of equipment would effect the availability of parking spaces. Allison Lassoe suggested that the applicant be willing to begin valet parking at an earlier time during busy times such as the 4th of July. Dalton Williams stated that he would like to be convinced that this proposal will work but it is his feeling that it will still take parking spaces away that are actually used. Dave Garton reiterated out that most of the parking spaces are for Garton ®s employees. l Dalton Williams stated that he would like to see the total Crossroads parking ° requirement before he votes one way or the other on this proposal. Planning and Environmental Commission April 26, 1993 Diana Donovan stated that she supports this project and wants to see the parking accommodated on -site. She said that she would like to know what the parking requirement for Crossroads is. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she would like more information on the parking requirement. Diana Donovan stated that the P C needed to look more closely at this situation because she did not feel that a parking variance was the best route to go. Kathy Langenwalter pointed out that this was a multi -use situation. Diana Donovan stated that the situations do vary but that the underlying concept does note She said that if they make an exception to the way they vote on this proposal that it will make it more difficult to say "no" next time. Kristan Pritz stated that continuity in decisions is important but that the individual circumstances of each situation deserved to be looked at as well, Jeff Bowen stated that the first issue that the PEC is concerned with is the project and that the second issue is to devise a parking stipulation that will allow the applicant to move forward. i i Diana Donovan stated that the P C needed to keep in mind whether this request would be positive for the Town. i Kristan Fritz inquired of Diana whether valet parking for two of the parking spaces during the day would be an acceptable solution to this situation. i Dave Garton stated that it was not the most appealing solution but that he would be willing to do this: Diana Donovan stated that it was either valet parking or looking at the original requirement for Crossroads, Kathy Langenwalter made a motion to approve this request for a conditional use permit per the staff memo for the 1993 season (June 1 through November 1) with the condition that ten parking spaces on the upper level remain open during the hours of 8000 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. with an additional two valet spaces, that the tables and chairs to be used in conjunction with this project be stored elsewhere, that valet parking be available after 4;00 p.m. for twelve additional parking spaces (if necessary) and that no parking variance be required per the staff memo as parking will be provided on -site and that the other conditions in the staff memo be included in the motion. Greg Amsden seconded Kathy's motion and a 7 -0 vote approved this request. I Planning and Environmental Commission i April 26, 1993 6 �I0 • • ArrArAfm gor Axe~ Al*vrx /{btrw 5'1.0E off' ,rw4rl* p .oP#r. or �," � sSp Z 3o 40 �Afi<< 40144r o