Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0823 PECPoint of Beginning, containing 30,466 square feet, more or less, t l Applicant: Vail Athletic C ub Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 13,1993 9. A request for variances for wall heights, construction in an area with slopes in excess of % and parking in the front setback and an amendment to the approved development plan for the Briar Patch Condominiums, located at 1393 I3uffehr Creek Road /Lot F, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 2. Applicant: Briar Patch Condominiums Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 13,1993 10. Approve the corrected minutes from July 26, 1993 and the minutes from the August 9, 1993 PC meeting. 11; Council / Update; -rate Creek - DRB review of retaining walls on September 1, 1993. -The Valley, SDD -Simba Run, SDD 12e Request for Carnie road easement. 3 Clark Willingham stated that the majority of this proposal would be imperceptible from the Vail Transportation Center. He stated that the only square footage generated from this proposal would occur from the addition of the fourth and fifth floors. He stated that he felt that this proposal would make this area "more user friendly ". Pedestrian areas are improved. He noted that Public Works did not want to see pavers in the "ski corridor" in between the Golden Peak House and the Hill Building. He said that this proposal would improve the ski base facility. He felt that this proposal did meet all of the criteria outlined on Pages 1 - 20 of the staff memorandum. Concerning sun /shade, he felt that this proposal did not negatively impact sun /shade. With regard to employee housing, he stated that Vail Associates was planning for an additional two employees as a result of this proposal but that no other new employees were being proposed in conjunction with this development. In respect to the view corridor encroachment, he hoped that the PEC would set a precedent so that people will be able to redevelop and improve the Village. Clark stated that slivers of view would be removed on the east building because of existing encroachments. He mentioned that the architectural detailing will be similar to the Bell Tower Building. Craig Snowdon showed the PEC members a number of drawings showing various aspects of the Golden Peak House proposal Allison Lassoe inquired what would happen to the rest of Tract E. Clark Willingham stated that it would remain Tract E which is zoned Agricultural Open Space and that he was unable to purchase the entire Tract E from Vail Associates. i Dalton Williams inquired of staff whether any of this project was outside their property line. i ristan Pritz responded that there was 71 square feet in the easement area but that the applicant will purchase this area from Vail Associates and make it part of the Golden Peak property. She stated that the P C and staff had previously been concerned with projects that purchase property merely to build more area into the easement but that this was not the case with this request except for the 71 square feet, Bill Anderson inquired whether any alternatives had been proposed where the proposed elevator would be located (i.e. center of the building) in order to maintain the view of Riva Ridge ski run. Clark gave the background on how this area had been reduced, Diana Donovan inquired whether there are any other substantial chimneys or mechanical vents being proposed that are not shown on the drawings presented to the PEC. Craig Snowdon stated that there would be a restaurant fan for Los Amigos which is shown on the elevation, Bill Whiteford, on behalf of the owner of Cyrano "s, inquired how the east end of the Golden Peak House would be changed as a result of this proposal. Planning and Environmental Commission August 23, 1993 4 Craig Snowdon explained how the existing deck at that location was proposed to be altered, Jim Lamont, East Vail Homeowners Association, Mated that he was concerned that the approval of this request by the PEC would be precedent setting in respect to the minor subdivision and also expressed concern about the covenants. Kristan Pritz stated that staff looked at these type of proposals on a case by case basis and that they felt there were some distinctions with this proposal, such as the roof overhang easement and existing encroachments which made it acceptable to allow for the subdivision. She said that per the Town Attorney, staff is not responsible for enforcing covenants in which the Town of Vail is not a party to and that staff had encouraged the applicant to address any covenant issues before the project was finalized: Jim Lamont stated that the response from the East Village Homeowners Association has not been favorable towards the project. He said that they were opposed to any SDD that exceeded what the zoning provided fore He said that this was a key view corridor and that he did not want to see only slivers of this view corridor remain. He said that the Golden Peak House was already over its height limit and that it should not be allowed to increase any higher. He said that commercial square footage is also a concern. Jim said that these trade -offs of GRFA to get employee housing were not really adding anything. He said that the streetscape improvements were not sufficient. He said that there was a lot of private interest to improve Seibert Circle® Greg msden inquired whether there have been past proposals to encroach into View Corridor #1, Kristan Pritz stated that the Red Lion Building had previously had an encroachment or in this case an amendment to the view corridor but that this was prior to the current ordinance being in place. Greg msden commented that he does not have any problems with the east half of the building. He said that he was concerned with the view corridor encroachment on the western end of the building. He said that he would like to see the ride line on the west end of the building minimized. He stated that as it was presently proposed, that it still seemed massive. Diana Donovan stated that the view corridor encroachment as it relates to the western portion of the Golden Peak House was still a concern. The view up Bridge Street is also a concern. She stated that the view corridor is not just a point but also a view corridor that is seen from ifferent public areas. She might be able to support the eastern encroachment given the criteria. She was concerned that when the Crano's site is built out that people will not be able to see the mountain at all. She felt Tract E was still a concern as she believed this land should be dedicated as Open Space. Planning and Environmental Commission August 23, 1993 Bill Anderson stated that he was impressed with the applicant's ability to redesign this building. He stated that the view corridor encroachment was a significant issue and that he was wondering whether there was a way to preserve the notch in the center of the building to allow for the Riva view. Dalton Williams stated that he is not prepared to approve this project as it is proposed unless major changes are made. He stated that this proposal is worsening a nonconforming situation with regard to height. He stated that he could see no benefit to the Town except that the building would be attractive. He stated that he felt that this proposal was removing the view of sensitive natural features of the Town. He said that he does not feel that this proposal has significant public benefit that outweighs the requested deviations to the zoning code. He also felt the architect and developer had both worked hard to address the many concerns with the project. Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed with the other members' comments concerning the view corridor. She stated that if there is not a view corridor at this location, it would be the same as a dead end. She commented that although the present building is not aesthetically or architecturally pleasing, it is sensitive to the view of the mountain. Jeff Bowen stated that the existing design of the building was specifically done in 1 to maintain the view of the mountain. He stated that the present design will create more shade on Bridge Street as well as wipe out the view of the mountain. Jeff stated that another component of the SDD criteria is that the proposed SDD must comply with the underlying zoning and that he felt that the building going from 42 feet to 49 feet is toe much of a departure from zoning. He added that the proposed GRFA and site coverage were also excessive. He stated that he felt that the proposed employee housing at Pitkin Greek was not adding any additional employee housing for the Town of Vail. In summary, he said that this building was too big. He said that he felt that the existing two-building approach was better. He did not feel that given these concerns he could support this project, Kathy Langen alter stated that she agreed with Jeff's and alton's comments concerning the SDD criteria. She added that if you consider the view corridor encroachment criteria, she felt that this proposal did not meet any of the criteria. She said that the Master Plan proposed that this building be three to four stories high and that the proposal was at four to five floors. Craig Snowdon stated that he had a hard time seeing this building as a three to four story building at present with its mansard roofer Kathy L ngenwalter asked Torn Moorhead how the P C should interpret the five view I corridor criteria. Tom Moorhead stated that the PEC needed to be consistent with the implications of the i view corridor criteria: Planning and Environmental Co mission August 23, 1993 6 Jim Curnutte stated that staff had decided that, rather than proposing ski base operations as a conditional use in an open space zone district, it would be better to rezone the property to Ski Base Recreation Zone District but that the Town would not be proposing the rezoning. Kristen Fritz explained that the current zoning (CN S) does not allow lifts so there really was no impact on Vail Associates from the proposed changes. Art Ablanalp stated that he was concerned that the text amendments would occur too soon. He suggested that the changes be made one step at a time. He felt that two new zone districts should be created first and that the Town then rezone properties to the new zone districts. Jinn Curnutte stated that staff had addressed Art's comment from the May 24, 1993 PEC worksession concerning public notification and that staff had notified all adjacent property owners of today's worksession. Joe Macy stated that V.A. was concerned about the future development rights of Vail Ski Resort because he could not foresee what the next ski innovation would be nor how any potential rezoning would effect the potential future land uses. Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that creating two separate and distinct open space zone districts was positive. He also felt that people who own land in these districts be allowed to retain the rights that were there when they bought their property. It should be noted that Dalton Williams left the meeting at approximately 5.20 p.m. Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see equestrian uses removed from this zone district. She stated that she did not feel that horses were compatible with pedestrians /hikers and cyclists. She also suggested that the purpose statement be changed to include "reclaimed areas ". Jim Curnutte stated that equestrian uses are allowed on National Forest land and that access to these National Forest trails are often taken via trails that are zoned Greenbelt and Natural Open Space or Agricultural/Open Space. He stated that staff had listed equestrian uses as a conditional use so that there would be way of regulating equestrian activities. Diana Donovan suggested that the wording be changed to add "only to access USFS lands ". She stated that she would like to see the Town of Vail have three separate open spade zone districts. She feels that having only two open space zone districts will allow for excessive overlap in uses that will be difficult to control. Jim Curnutte stated that they had taken this suggestion to the Town Council but they I wanted to see two distinctly separate open space districts. Planning and Environmental Commission August 2, 1993 9 Kathy Langenwalter stated that she would like to move the accessory uses to the list of conditional uses in order to regulate the activities within the Natural Area Preservation Zone District. Kathy suggested that we say "fish habitat" rather than "trout habitat" in the purpose statement. Jeff Bowen suggested that we list "paved" trails in the list of conditional uses. Joe Macy stated that he was concerned with how the preexisting nonconforming uses would be grandfathered into the zoning code. He asked about the use of snowcats and snowmobiles in this district. AGRICULTURAL l i l Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that "single family residential dwellings" was an inappropriate use for the proposed Recreation and Open Space Zone District. Jim Curnutte stated that staff also does not believe that "single family residential dwellings" is an appropriate use in the Recreation and Open Space Zone District. However, he needed to have further discussions with Tom Moorhead concerning the legality of removing "single family residential dwellings" completely from the list of permitted uses. Joe Macy inquired about how skiing and mountain biking tied into the definitions for active outdoor recreation and passive outdoor recreation. He suggested that ski area activities be added to the definition of active outdoor recreation. Art Alanalp stated that he felt that the name of the zone district should be changed from Recreation and Open Space Zone District to Recreational Open Space Zone District for clarification. He stated that a main concern of his clients was that they did not want to see high impact recreation in this zone district. Diana Donovan inquired whether "open space objectives' have been defined. ritan Pritz responded that the phrase is currently used in the zone district and is not new addition. However, the phrase is not defined. Jeff Bowen stated that the wording concerning density was mutually exclusive and confusing. Jeff suggested that wording be added to preclude buildings with flat roofs. He also suggested that equestrian facilities be removed, risen Pritz stated that staff was currently looking into how to clarify the wording I concerning density. Diana Donovan mentioned that in some instances flat roofs have less visual impact than sloped roofs. It should be noted that Jeff Bowen left the meeting at approximately 5:50 porn. Planning and Environmental Commission III Asst 23, 1993 1 INO-M M��� ............ SCALE 9° 20° DATE of SURVEY ®9 ' a/91 AATE x E ro510 ' gaf • % IK t'7 �✓�" $j 9 A B9 -7d �eai u�a vux uim eu<.ry +wrsme+aw a:mwgCR,�.x� m >3g•O® �"`� —___ ui/ :9� '<ro %��ae¢Rszsym. ri. a° s°°"9QO �i tar LOT 2 FINAL PLAT, A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE - THIRD FILING TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHTE _VICINITY MAP , ri— Pk— A R--;— ,f L11 1. If ------------------------------- siv P�- '14 STATE ------------------- aYneG;�arenalt vtng Tr' sit ---------- ----------- ------------------------------- "I y -------- ---- Colo dPC P',.S 2554k ----------------------- —t, t"; 5 I'y ai ---------------------- A D ----------------------- UNPLATITED UNPLATTED Cl, al IA 04-50 R=90.00 L-45.78 T=23.40 LC=45.29 IrD AZr LOT is R-90.00 CB=N 86'48'19' W W r I L=63.51 W —1) T=33.14 LC-62.20 4, CB-S 58*24'34 W ob LOT 2 2.X SCALE. 1-=30' , ri— Pk— A R--;— ,f L11 1. If ------------------------------- siv P�- '14 STATE ------------------- aYneG;�arenalt vtng Tr' sit ---------- ----------- ------------------------------- "I y -------- ---- Colo dPC P',.S 2554k ----------------------- —t, t"; 5 I'y ai ---------------------- A D ----------------------- MEMORANDUM 111. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this request- A. Zone District, Two-Family Residential D. Lot area. .3979 acres 17,332.5 square feet C. Density, No change proposed D. GRFA, Allowable GRFA, 4,333.25 square feet Existing GRFA: 4,303.6 square feet Additional GRFA proposed, 256 square feet Total GRFA (with addition), 4,559.6 square feet Remaining GRFA after this proposal, 273.6 square feet E. Site Coverage, Allowable site coverage, 3,467 square feet (20 %) Existing site coverage: 3,646.3 square feet (21®/x) Additional site coverage, 175 square feet Total site coverage after this addition, 3,321.3 square feet (22%) F. Parking: No additional parking is required for this proposed expansion. 1® CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 13.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested variance based on the following factors, A. Consideration of Factors, 1. The relationship of the requested variance t r existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The surrounding properties adjacent to the site are also duplexes or primary /secondary developments. The proposed addition is architecturally compatible with the existing duplex and would fit in with the neighborhood well', in staff's opinion. The proposal would have little negative impact on the relationship between this structure and the surrounding sites in the vicinity except for removing the one to three aspen trees. The applicant is not proposing to provide any landscaping at this time. 2 FOVNIO P*V 49 "CAF S X9 ®23 °41`,F 101.13 LOO 2.9. 4.' Moon DECK } 9 ! '' PUILIS RANCH , Y sG a Unit 23.7 are .°� 3 I21s8a 69'83 ®41 `E 47.89 0800 1 ASPHAir I her 38.60 LO for I D4CK land upon lines + � � ! on V % f tI 9 HILL; LANE , -° '� % a _ — . ; desci e H ! 34 indii 15.E — .8 hide Cl) eased rel ii I N 89'23'41 "N .113® ding to Colorado law you must comence an based upon any, •defect`, in this survey L�I�� 3�4PI/i1C I7TS7�,�GE ears after you .first discover s lc defect® ay any action based upon any defect in 1 N 5 ®23 ®43 "Y 21.37 tommenced more than ten.years from 1547 rtification:showa hereon., IMPROVEMENT C AT 1420 VANCE! STREET (3031232-0158 VA14 VALL E Y, . SM TO N..OF, VAIL, ; E' GL.E-,a 111® GOLDEN The project's departures from the M zone district standards are highlighted in bold type. UNDERLYING ZONING: EXISTING PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORE i PROJECT Soo Site Area" 8,375 sq. ft. Same Same Setbacks: Per the flail Village N: 0 -6 ft. N: 0 -3 ft. Urban Design Guide Plan W: 3 -12 ft. W: 0 -11 ft. S: 6 -14 ft. S: 0-10 ft. E: 0.5-1.5 ft. E: 0 -1.5 ft. Height: 60 %: 33 ft, or less East: 46 ft. max. East: 49 ft. max. 40 %: 33 ft. - 43 % West: 36 ft. max. West. 42 ft. max Common Area- 2,345 sq. ft or 6,627 sq. ft, or 99% 5,525 sq. ft. or 82% 35% of allowable GRFA -2,345 sq. ft. or 35% 2,345 sq. ft. or 35% 4,282 sq. ft, added to GRFA ill—so sq. ft. - added to GRFA FA: 6,700 s% ft. or 80% 8,958 sq. ft. 16,176 sq. ft: + 4,282 sq. ft. (excess common) 413,180 sq. ft, (excess common area) 13,240 sq, ft. or 158% 19,356 sq. ft. or 231% Units. 25 units per acre, or 18 units I 15 units 4.8 units for the site. (All Dus) (14 DU, 4 units have lock-offs and 2AUs) Site Coverage: 6,700 sq. ft. 6,352 sq. ft.** 7,991 sq. ft.** or 80% or 76% or ®/® dsoaping: Per the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan i Parking: Per Town of Vail Required: 55.090 Required: 68.507 parking standards Loading: Per Town of Vail required: 1 Required: 1 loading standards Existing: 0 Proposed: 0' Commercial Uses: N/A 7,196 sq. ft 13,545 sq. ft. Gross Floor Area: *** N/A 22,781 sq. ft. 35,246 sq. ft. All of the above development statistics, including the setbacks, have been calculated by staff and are based on the applicant's proposed new lot area of 8,375 square feet. This lot area assumes the incorporation of portions of Tract E and Lot C into the Golden Peak House parcel. The existing Golden Peak House lot area is 0.159 acres, or 6,926 sq. ft. The new areas (portions of Tract E and Lot C) proposed to be included into the Golden Peak House parcel consist of 1,449 sq. ft, for a total of 8,375 sq. ft. " Includes areas off -site (in the "overhang and deck" easements). Includes Common Area, GRFA, and commercial square footages: IV. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY 1) November 25, 1991 - initial PEC work session. 2) January 13, 1992 - PEC update on the status of the project. ) January 279 1992 - PEC work session. I I I 5 in response, the applicant has cut back the fifth floor to the east; however, a roof deck is still proposed for this area and there weld be a strong probability that a hot tub cold be added to the deck at some future date. 2. Where applicable, flat roofs should be modified to pitched roofs, similar to the roof forams utilized at the Sonnenalp and Christiania. These roofs should have a truncated peak instead of the traditional ridge peak. One example of this would be to move the existing pitched roof to the east end of the building and extend a gable foram perpendicular to this ridge. Other variations are also possible ® the idea is to remove the flat roofs which are prominent from the Bridge Street vantage point (and from the ski mountain) and do not comply with the Urban Design Criteria for the Village. In response, the applicant has removed all the visible fiat roofs and replaced them with truncated ridge peaks, similar to those roof forms utilized at the Sonnenalp and Christiania. . The fifth floor building mass should be pulled back to the south away from Seibert Circle as much as possible to provide relief on the north facade. Consideration should be given to the elimination of the fifth floor in its entirety. In response, the applicant has pulled back the fifth floor building mass approximately 9 to 12 feet away from Seibert Circle and has reduced the size of the proposed fifth floor. In addition, the applicant has added three dormers on the north elevation of the fifth floor, to provide architectural relief for this portion of the buildings 4. The first floor arcade needs refinement to create more of a pedestrian area. Suggestions included Delineating the roof of the arcade to break up the height of the facade, Embellishing the design of the windows and doors through interesting detailing, such as subdivided window panes (to express individual window elements), articulated entry doors, etc., Lowering the roof form over the entry. In response, the applicant has opened up the pedestrian access through the east end of the arcade. The applicant has also articulated the main entry door for the Golden Peak House and has further delineated the roof over the arcadem Window detailing is still a concern, 7 EAST ELEVATION 1 . The peaked roof form that is built into the facade to conceal the flat roof behind it should be redesigned. Architectural detailing is essential to this elevation to break up the massing of this facade. it cannot be assumed that the Cyranos wilding will redevelop and screen this elevation. In responses the applicant has redesigned the roof forms and has eliminated all visible flat roofs as discussed above. The lack of architectural detailing for the east facade is still of concern to the staff. WEST ELEVATION I. The third and fourth level projections (floor area) should be decreased in size to diminish the "canyon" effect through this important gateway to the ski mountain. Perhaps railings could extend in front of the projection to help break up the building mass. In response, the applicant has decreased the size and floor area of the third and fourth floor projections. A small area of three floors (Los Amigos Restaurant and lower level commercial space) continue to project into Lot Q all other floor area has been removed from Lot C. 2. The large trees (approximately ) adjacent to the existing building should be preserved. Landscaping in this corridor is critical, as it is a transition area between the Village and the ski mountain. In response, the applicant has proposed to relocate the five evergreens onto Tract E and has proposed to add three, 3"-caliper deciduous trees (in tree grates) in the corridor. The staff still believes that landscaping /streetscae improvements in this corridor are critical and would like to see the applicant address this issue furthers 3. Entry into the flail Associates commercial space on the south side of the building (under the Los Amigos deck) needs to be more accessible and inviting. One recommendation was to relocate the entry to the east to create more space in front of the door. However, this would take away some dining deck area on the floor above. In response, the applicant has reconfigured the entry to the flail Associates commercial space by orienting the entry to the north. This change provides a more accessible and inviting entry. 4. The first floor retail windows need smaller panes to add visual interest and to create a more pedestrian scale. The applicant has proposed divided light windows in this area, however, 8 many of the windows have been removed due to the expanded stair width for the second floor restaurants Staff believes that the windows are important and should be added back to the design. SOUTH ELEVATION 1. The flat roof areas of the building should be minimized or eliminated. In response, the applicant has redesigned the roof forms and has eliminated all visible flat roofs as discussed above. . The Los Amigos outdoor dining deck was proposed to have cantilevered structure ( FA) located above it. This was a concern because the sun exposure on the outdoor dining deck would be reduced. In response, the floor area proposed above the outdoor dining deck has been pulled back and is no longer within the Tract E "overhang and deck" easement areas. The new commercial area, below the Los Amigos dining deck (below grade), would be the only remaining floor area proposed to be located within the Tract E easement area. 3. Some of the roofs over south facing balconies could be cut back to help decrease the mass and bulk of the building. In response, the applicant has cut back the roofs above these balconies. 4. Landscaping along this elevation needs to be addressed. With the exception of the five transplanted evergreen trees onto Tract from the skier /pedestrian access, landscaping along this building elevation has not been addressed. GENERAL ARCHITECTURAL D T ILI 1. Detailing on the balcony railings should reflect a more alpine character. In response, the applicant has modified the balcony railings and has proposed railings that are more ornamental and reflect a more alpine character. 2. Once the mass and bulk of the building is refined, the window detailing on the western portion of the north elevation should be carried through to the other parts of the project. In response, the applicant has carried the window detailing, such as a bay window, over to the east side of the north elevation, 9 B. Uses, activity and density is rovi compatible, efficient and workable relationship wi rr n ire and ctivi It is the staff's position that the mixture of uses proposed for the site is very compatible with the existing uses on surrounding properties. The uses proposed would meet the purpose and intent of the CCI zone district. With regard to density, although the overall square footage of the project is proposed to be increased, (commercial and residential square footage) the "actual density" is proposed to be reduced. The number of dwelling units will be reduced from 16 to 15. The number of "keys ", or rentable rooms will actually increase, from 16 to 20 which is positive. Employee Housing Issues - As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans, employee housing is a critical Town issue which should be addressed through the planning process of all development proposals. For the Golden Peak House review, the staff has analyzed the employee housing issue utilizing two methods. We have calculated the estimated employee housing demand using the Town adopted Employee Housing Report, and secondly, we have studied information provided by the applicant with regard to the individual business owners' estimates of employee generation, due to increases in the sizes of their individual commercial spaces. The Employee Housing Report, prepared for the Town of Vail by the consulting firm Rosall Remmen and Cares, indicates recommended ranges of employee housing units based upon type of use and floor area. For this analysis, the staff has utilized the midpoint of the suggested ranges, for employees generated, A copy of the report's summary page is attached to this memorandum. Utilizing the guidelines in this report, the staff has analyzed the incremental increase of numbers of employees (square footage per use) that the proposed redevelopment would create. The summary is as follows- a) Bar/Restaurant = 296 sq. ft.( 6.5/1,000 sq. ft.) = 1.94 employees b) Retail /Service Commercial = 4,530 sq. ft.( @6.5/1,000 sq. ft.) = 29.44 employees c) Lodging = 2 rooms ( 0.75 /room) = 1. emloees d) Total _ 32.88 or 33 . , ®33 employees x .15 housing multiplier = 4.95 or 5 employees. -3 employees x .30 housing multiplier - 9.90 or 10 employees: ®Assdmig twq employees per dwelling unit, 3 to 5 employee housing units vvot�fd be needed per the employee generation formula. The Employee Housing Deport does not differentiate between the provision of on -site or off -site housing. Staff believes that the retail employee generation number appears to be high. 10 The applicant has provided letters from the "major tenant space owners" in the Golden Peak House to address and evaluate the employee housing impacts of the redevelopment. Paul Johnston, representing Christiania Realty, Inc., has addressed the hotel/condominium expansion in the Golden Peak House. Paul believes that there will be no increase in the staff for the lodging needs of the building, given this redevelopment. Michael Staughton, representing the Los Amigos Restaurant, also does not believe that there will be any need for additional employees as a result of the restaurant's renovation and expansion. Lastly, Jack Hunn, representing Vail Associates, Inc., has indicated that two new employees would need to be hired to operate the new hail Associates space proposed to be located on the ground floor of the Golden Peak Houseo Overall, the applicant has estimated that a total of two additional employees would be generated as a result of the Golden Peak House expansion. To mitigate this impact, GPH Partners, Ltd. has proposed two-bedroom condomi iu nit, located in Pitkin Creek Park, be permanently restricted l housing unit. C. Compliance with the r in loading requirements as outlin in Chapter The staff has estimated that the incremental increase in the required parking, due to the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House, would be 13.417 parking spaces. Because this property is located in the Commercial Core I zone district, which does not allow for the provision of on -site parking, the developer will be required to pay into the Town's parking pay-in-lieu fund. At the current rate of $8,000 per parking space, the total amount required for the pay -In -lieu fee would be $107,336. Although the existing Golden Peak House does not meet the Town's loading standard, the proposed redevelopment for the site does not increase this nonconformity. This information is indicated in Section III (Golden Peak House Zoning Analysis) of this memorandum. The Vail Village Master Plan states that loading and delivery must be addressed. D. Conformity with applicable elements of it Comprehensive Plan, Town policies Urban Design Plans. 1. RELATED POLICIES ILL VILLAGE The Vail Village Master Plan specifically addresses the Golden Peak House, as indicated in Sub -Area Concepts 3-2 and 3-3. Said concepts read as follows. 11 Additionally, the staff believes the following goals and objectives, as stated in the Vail Village Master Plan, are relevant to this proposals Goal #1 ® Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 2.2 Objective: Recognize the "historic" commercial core as the main activity center of the Village. 2. 2.1 lip The design criteria in the flail Village Urban Design Guide Plan shall be the primary guiding document to preserve the existing architectural scale and character of the core area of Vail Village. 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. ..1 Policy: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short terra overnight rentalm Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of a new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses: 2. 4.1 Policy: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and streetsca e improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 1 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2. 6.1 Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. 2. 6.2 licy® Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. ®1 Objective Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. ®1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetcape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. Policy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated by the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. 4.1.3 Policy: With the exception of ski base - related facilities, existing natural open space areas at the base of Vail Mountain and throughout Vail !tillage shall be preserved as open space, The Vail Village Conceptual Building Height Plan has included the Golden Peak House in the -4 story category. A building story is defined as 9 feet of height (no roof included). 2. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL t I GUIDE The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan specifically addresses the Golden Peak House, as indicated in Sub -Area Concepts 9 and 10. Said concepts read as follows: 1 a • View Corridor No. 1 is the view from the Vail Transportation Center south to the ski mountain. The existing en Peak House currently n s into i Corridor . 1. The extent of the existing encroachment varies with the ridge line and architectural design of the building. However, the general range of encroachment is as follows: .The eastern portion of the building currently encroaches approximately 1.0 to 1.1 feet into the View Corridor. -One area of the central portion of the building encroaches approximately 12.1 feet into the View Corridor. -The extent of the western portion's encroachment into the View Corridor ranges from approximately 0 to 3.1 feet (at the very western edge of the I building). The Golden Freak House redevelopment is proposing to encroach further into Vie Corridor No. 1 as follows: -The eastern portion of the structure would encroach approximately 3 feet. -The central portion of the redeveloped building's encroachment would range from approximately 4 to 17 feet (elevator tower). *The extent of the western portion's encroachment into the View Corridor would range from approximately 9 to 11 feet. Because the staff believes that the original intent and purpose of the View Corridor Ordinance is very important to the Town, we have copied it here for the PEC to review: "The Town of Vail believes that preserving certain vistas is in the interest of the Town's residents and guests. Specifically, the town believes that. A. The protection and perpetuation of certain mountain views and other significant views from various pedestrian public ways within the Town will foster civic pride and is in the public interest of the Town of Vail; B. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment of the residents and guests of the Town; C. The preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the Town's unique environmental heritage and attributes; D. The preservation of such views will enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of the Town, E. The preservation of such views is intended to provide for natural light to buildings and in public spaces in the vicinity of the view corridors; F. The preservation of such views will include certain focal points such as the Clock `tower and Rucksack Tower, which serve as prominent 19 EXHIBIT "A" Golden Freak House Square Footage Analysis Existing n iti Commercial Common GRFA Office Basement Level: 1,932 2,460 0 0 Ground Floor: 3,963 1,237 0 292 Second Floor: 1,301 1,332 2,466 163 Third Floor: 0 1,430 3,749 0 Fourth Floor: 0 113 2,743 0 Totals: 7,196 6,627 8,958 460 Total square footage (gross area) = 23,241 sq. ft® Proposed n ition Commercial Common GRFA Office Basement Level: 5,270 1,652 0 122 Ground Floor: 6,166 1,010 0 0 Second Floor: 2,037 1,353 2,577 0 Third Floor: 0 765 5,272 0 Fourth Floor: 0 693 5,564 0 Fifth Floor: 0 42 2,763 Totals: 13,545 5,525 16,176 122 Total square f (gross re) = 35,368 sq. ft. 1 2x!9 n DU AU Basement Level: 0 0 Ground Floor: 0 0 Second Floor: 3 0 Third Floor: 8 0 Furth Floor: 2 _ 0 Totals, 13 0 ` 18 Dus rdposed: DU AU Lock-off Basement Level 0 0 0 Ground Floor: 0 0 0 Second Floor: 3 0 1 Third Floor: 6 2 Fourth Floor: 4 0 1 Fifth Floor: 1 0 0 Totals: 14 2 Note: 2 Aus = 1 DU , l Dus = 1 2 e EXHIBIT "C" Golden Peak House Parkin /Loadin Anal sis Existing Conditions - Required Parkinq paces Loinq erks Retail Comm ercial /Restaurant 23.25 1 I Residential 30.00 1 Office 1.84 TOTALS: 55°09 2 (minus 1 for multiple use credit) =1 berth required Proposed Conditions - Required Parkinq S aces Loair�_ Berths 0-1tail Commercial /Restaurant 39,596 1 Residential 28.423 1 Office 0.488 TOTALS- 680507 2 (minus I for multiple use credit) ®1 berth require 23 PP4? Pf� 04 r g9 wJ I S . IT . E PLAA P TIPH • XI TIN BASEMtNT PLAN UJ 0 X LU (n 0 Cc < o LLJ -i 0 z ui 0 tkfsyIhG stCOND FLOOR PLAN 0 Ell ^ ~ '1 � � � � ' ` � � � 6 - Fj M I g I M P-11=71"I'll Illllml 11;; �aullrl 11i 1u ,llilil Ll QFG El 110 Moll -j gm 0 0 0 0 U10 ELT �111111 in OM Eno Q Li L w Ll Li m uj U) North Eleva-tion existing C) 0 6 - Fj M I g I M P-11=71"I'll Illllml 11;; �aullrl 11i 1u ,llilil Ll QFG El 110 Moll -j uj in Q w m uj U) M C) 0 > Cl) M 0 CC ai 0 CL z LU • is 11 \ Fir \! ! }} } � f � cl LU cr- { f \ / � j �.. \} / } i\ 9 mad 403' w4 4o4 f dA� iFdURTH: FLo6R. PLA:N I/,". t I ! §\ k\ � � j � � ] I I \! \ m � } a LLI o LU A1% 1�� 7m fit soLri-H EOE*kTldlii EAST'ELEVATIOW .7--T 19, ZQ . Mi'll, FEEEF L— 4 NQRTH ELF-VATIOM WEST. kavknm� oil- LLI o LU A1% P1 I AV m AGE10. JIHHI Ito Wor4 Sara O Tfl-;"e- T, iJ alb 6 0 ! \ >y \yw ,� � � .�< SOWN ELLrVATIMt t/gs NoRrtt, ��YATid_ttf I }� �� � • FROM: DATE: August 23, 1993 A request for a worksession for proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District, and Chapter 18.32 Agricultural and Open Space District, of the Vail Municipal Code. Applicant, Town of Vail Planners, Jim Curnutte and Russ Forrest The Community Development Department is proposing a number of text amendments to the two "open space" zone districts within the Town of Vail; Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District (GNOS) and Agricultural and Open Space District (A). The need for the proposed text amendments was first identified during the "Development Code Reon Project", initiated by the Vail Town Council in May of 1990. In October of 1991, the Development Code Revision Rep P hase �1, was adopted by the Vail Town Council. This report deals exclusively with proposed amendments to the zoning code. The design guidelines and sign code will be adR ressed in phases two and three. On May 24, 1993, a worksession was held with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) in order to discuss the proposed text amendments (See Attachment 1 - PEC memo and Attachment 2 - P from the May 24, 1993 meeting). At the May 24, 1993 meeting the public, PEC and staff discussed the proposed text of each section of the two zone districts and identified a number of changes that should be made to the first draft. The staff has incorporated the comments made at May 24, 1993 meeting into this second draft of proposed text revons. I :WU PH L The proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District, will be discussed first followed by the proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.32, Agricultural and Open Space District. As each section of the above- refe ren ced chapters is discussed, staff will first refer to the issue associated with the proposed change (reason for proposing a change to the section), the second portion will identify comments made at the May 24, 1993 PEC worksession, the third portion will include staff's comments and recommendations. The recommended text changes to each section are shown in bold. Attachments 3 and 4 show the existing text of each zone district with proposed deletions crossed out and proposed additions in bold. Please refer to these allachments frequently as each section is discussed. A. Greenbelt and t I d i trig# 1® Issue - Change the name the zone district The Development Code Revision Report indicates that the GNOS zone district is intended for environmentally sensitive sites that "should be protected from encroachment by any man made structures...." The report also points out that the term "open space" is used in two of Vail's zone districts and has created some confusion with regard to the distinction between them. Despite this, the report goes on to recommend that the district be renamed to "Natural Open Space Preservation District ". Comments made at the May 24,1993 PEC worksession Staff recommended that the name of this zone district be changed to Natural Area Preservation District. Everyone in attendance at the worsession felt that the proposed name change was appropriate and better reflected the purpose of the district Staff ti Staff recommends that the Greenbelt Natural Open Space Zone District be renamed to Natural Area Preservation District. 2. I Rewrite the ur rat of the i trice The Development Code Revision Report suggests that the following wording be used as the new purpose statement: "The natural open space preservation district is designed to provide areas which, because of their environmentally sensitive nature or natural beauty, should be protected from encroachment by any manmade structure or improvements other than those listed in Section 18.02.020 (Permitted Uses). The natural open space preservation district is intended to ensure that designated lands remain in their natural, undisturbed state by protecting such areas from development and preserving open space in its natural state. The intent should not preclude improvement of the natural environment by the removal of weeds, dead fall or similar compatible improvements." Comments made at e May 24,1993 r esi It was suggested that a number of revisions be made to the purpose statement so that the intention of this district was made clear. Also, it was suggested that some additional wording be added describing why the preservation of land is important to the Town of Vail: Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the purpose statement be changed to read as follows: i 2 � 18.38.010 - Pur e. "The natural area preservation district is i ne to provide areas icbecause of their environmentally sensitive nature or natural beauty, shall be protected from encroachment by any building r other improvement of r than those listed in Section 18.38.020 (Permitted ). The natural area preservation district is intended to n re that designated lands remain in their natural tat , by protecting such r as from development and preserving space. Protecting siive natural areas is important for maintaining ater quality and trout i tat, preservi wildlife habitat, flood control, protecting view corridors, minimizing the risk from az r areas, and protecting the natural c ract r of it which is vital to the n's tourist economy. The natural area preservation district includes lands avi valuable wit li it exceptional aesthetic or flood control value, tl , riparian areas areas i th significant environmental constraints. The intent should r cl e improvement the t r I environment by e removal of noxious ll where necessary to protect lic safety or similar compatible improvements." 3. I Amendments to the list of dr itte uses Although no revisions are suggested in the Development Code Revision Report, staff feels that revisions to the list of permitted uses are warranted and necessary in order to carry out the intent of the district as specified in the new purpose statement. Comments the ,1 993 PEC worksession The group discussed the need for adequately defining interpretive nature walks and nature preserves. Also, there was discussion regarding allowed uses on bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways (i.e. Would roller blades be allowed ?). Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the list of permitted uses be changed to the following: 18.38.020 - Per itt uses. A. Nature r ry f B. Bicycle paths and pedestrian C. Interpretive natur walks; Staff also recommends that the definition section of the Torn of Vail Zoning Code be amended to define nature preserve and interpretive' 3 nature walks as follows: 0 4 Staff Recommendation Staff has discussed the comments made at the May 24, 1993 meeting with regard to equestrian trails and the provision of parking areas and felt that both would be appropriate to list as conditional uses within the Recreation and Open Space District. Staff disagrees with the idea of adding "underground ski base facilities" in the Natural Area Preservation District. Staff believes that even if these facilities are located underground, there would be considerable impact to the natural state of the open space area that existed prior to the undergrounding of structures associated with "underground ski base facilities ". In addition, the ski base facility use is incompatible with the purpose statement of the district. Staff recommends that the list of conditional uses and accessory uses be changed to the following: 1 ® Conditional u . A. Equestrian trails, excluding le , corrals and similar ri n facilities or buildings; B. Parking, when used in conjunction with a permitted or conditional e. 1 Accessory uses. A. Picnic tables a informal seating areas; B. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory permitted r conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof, i s tin of buildings. B. Aaricultural and Open Space District 1. Issue nge the name of the n district The name of this district is somewhat of a misnomer. Recreation plays a much more prominent role in this district than agriculture, and the terra "recreation" should be reflected in the name. Staff suggested that the name of the district be changed to "Recreation and Open Space ". Comments made at the May 24,1993 meeting It was agreed that renaming the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District to Recreation and Open Space was appropriate. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the name of the Agricultural and Open Spade Zone District be changed to Recreation and Open Space. 2. Issue ® Rewrite the purpose statement As with the Natural Area Preservation District, staff recommends that the purpose statement of the newly entitled Recreation and Open Space District be rewritten to reflect the new name and better define the 5 intention of the district. Comments t the May 24,1993 PEC meeting There were comments regarding the reed to better define or come up with better wording for active and passive recreation. Everyone felt that it was acceptable to remove all wording in the previous purpose statement that referred to agricultural pursuits as well as the last paragraph which was proposed to be stricken in the May 24, 1993 memo (see attachment 1). Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the purpose statement for the newly entitled Recreational and Open Space District be changed to read as follows; 18.32.010 ® Purpose. "The Recreation and Open Space district is intended preserve undeveloped or open space lands r intensive development it r itti recreation nsi teat with open space objectives. This land is intended to provide opportunities for active and passive outdoor recreation." Staff also recommends that the definitions section of the Zoning Code be amended to define active and passive recreation as follows® Active u o r Recreation ® Active outdoor recreation includes outdoor recreational ctiviti is involve organized or structured recreation t is associated it recreational f cilitii s® Active outdoor recreation o I include: soccer, rugby, athletic fields, playgrounds, basketball and tennis courts; swimming pools, fitness trails i exercise stations, tc® Passive Outdoor Recreation ® Passive outdoor recreation includes outdoor recreational activities which involve unstructured recreation which does not require ciliti or special grounds. Passive ut r recreation wou1 include: picnicking, fishing, walking, hiking, ir I playing fields, etc. 3. to e list of permitted The Development Code Revision Report suggests that the list of permitted uses be changed to add bike and recreation trails to the list and to remove the phrase "... and the raising of field, row and tree crops" from Paragraph B in the existing listen Comments made at May 24,1993 r ' rt The PEC discussed the idea of removing "single family residential dwellings " from the list of permitted uses, however, due to a concern 6 With regard to the issue of allowing "single - family residential dwellings" as a permitted use in the Recreation and Open Space Zone District, staff has discussed this issue with Tom Moorhead, flail Town Attorney, and although Tort feels comfortable with the legality of moving "single- family residential dwellings" to the list of conditional uses, he suggested that additional research should be conducted into this issue before we propose this change. Therefore, as indicated on the following pages, staff is proposing to keep single-family residential dwellings in the list on permitted uses, however we will move it to the bottom of the list as suggested by the PFC. Staff recommends that the list of permitted uses be changed to the followings Permitted uses. A. Passive outdoor recreation areas and open spaces. i.e. picnic tables, infer 1 playing fields, etc.; B. Nature r ry C. Bicycle paths and pedestrian al y D. Interpretive natsar I F. Single family residential dwellings, 4. Issue ® Amendments to the list of conditional uses The Development Code Revision Report points out that, as currently written, paragraph A requires a conditional use permit for any use on public land that involves the assembly of more than two hundred people. There have been numerous events on public land that involve two hundred or more people (ie. Gerry Ford Golf Tournament, ski races, fireworks, etc.). These events have been reviewed through the "special event permit" process rather than as a conditional use. The report suggests, and staff agrees, that since these types of events are usually limited to a duration of one or two days, the special event permit is probably the most appropriate tool for reviewing this type of use. Also listed as a concern in the report is the fact that paragraph D allows riyate golf, tennis, swimming and riding clubs and hunting and fishing lodges but does not include similar public facilities. The report recommends that the list of conditional uses be amended to include similar p.Ublic facilities. Comments y 24,1993 PEC meeting As mentioned previously, the P C felt that public parks and outdoor recreation areas be moved to the list of conditional uses. The PEC also felt that "public and private schools and colleges" and "churches, rectories, convents, religious retreats and related structures" should be deleted from the list. The PFC directed the staff to determine whether or not churches are allowed in other zone districts and that it would not be a legal problem deleting them from the list of conditional uses in the Recreation and Open Space Zone District. The PEC felt that "hunting and fishing lodges" should be deleted from the list of conditional uses but felt that the phrase "public and private golf, tennis, swimming and equestrian facilities" could remain on the list. The PEC felt that the phrase "enclosed public recreation uses other than those described in Sections 13.32.020 (Permitted Uses) and 13.32.040 (Accessory Uses)" should be deleted. The P C again discussed the issue of whether "plant and tree nurseries and the raising of field, row and tree crops" should be deleted from the list of conditional uses and suggested that it either be deleted or reworded to remove the word "retail" from the sentence that was proposed at the May 24, 1993 meeting. Joe Macy stated that he would like to see wording added to the conditional use section to allow for underground ski base facilities. The PC recommended that underground ski base facilities should be a continuation of the existing wording "ski lifts and tows ", so that the new phrase read "ski lifts, tows and runs, and related underground ski base facilities • 9 Staff agrees with the P Cgs recommendation to remove "hunting and fishing lodges ". We would recommend however, that "enclosed public recreation uses" be retained in the list of conditional uses. Staff shares the PC's concern that certain oases may be made to justify allowing enclosed recreation buildings that are not compatible with the purpose of this zone district. Staff is proposing to amend the definition section of the Zoning Code to define pUblic so that only public recreation facilities may be allowed in this zone district (i.e. recreation center, swimming pool building, etc.). With regard to underground ski base facilities, staff felt that the provision of underground ski base facilities (i.e. locker rooms, offices, storage areas, etc.) were not the types of uses which should be listed in the Recreation and Open Space Zone District. Rather, areas that involve these types of uses should most likely be considered for rezoning to the Ski Base Recreation Zone District. The Ski Rase Recreation Zone District requires the submittal and review of a development plan and would allow the staff, P C and Town Council, as well as the public, to review and provide input on all issues related to the master planning of areas associated with ski base development. With regard to the PC's prior comments regarding listing plant and tree nurseries as a conditional use in this zone district, staff agrees that this would be an acceptable use provided retail sales were excluded. Staff believes that "ski runs1B are a good addition to the list of conditional uses as suggested at the May 2, 1993 meeting. Staff recommends that the list of conditional uses be changed to the following® Conditional uses. A. Public and private schools and colleges, B. Churches, rectories, and related structures; C. Public and private golf, tennis, swimming and equestrian facilities; D. Enclosed public recreation usesA E. Plant and tree r ri s, and associated structures, excluding I of trees or other nursery r c, grown, produced, or made on the premises; F. Ski lifts, tows and runs; G. Cemeteries; H. Well water treatment facility: 5. Issue ® Amendments to the lit of accessory uses Although no revisions to the list of access. ry uses were suggested in the Development Code Revision Report, staff feels that some revisions are warranted in order to be consistent with the new list of permitted and 10 conditional uses specified above. Comments made at the May 24,1993 ti There was some discussion concerning the possible removal of the word "customarily" in the phrase "private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios or recreational facilities customarily incidental to single family residential uses ", however, it was decided that the word "customarily" may remain in since it is the standard wording used in all of our zone districts. However, the entire phrase should be moved to the bottom of the accessory use list. With regard to item C in the accessory use list, which says "accessory buildings and uses customarily incidental to permitted recreational uses including restroos, drinking fountains, bleachers, concessions, storage buildings and similar uses" the PEC suggested that we add the phrase "and conditional" after the word "permitted" or delete the items entirely since it is used again under item E in the list of accessory uses. Concerning item, D in the list of accessory uses, the PEC wondered whether or not a discussion of "horse grazing" was really necessary because we already have a supplement regulation dealing with horse grazing in the supplemental regulations of the Zoning Code. Staff Recommendation Staff has discussed the issues brought up at the May 24, 1993 PEC and believes that the suggested changes made by the PEC are good ones and has incorporated there into the new draft° With regard to the issue of horse grazing, staff has left this section in the code as well as the reference to home occupations as we believe that it is goad to provide a cross reference with regard to other sections of the code that may be applicable and there may be some sites that can meet the horsegrazing standards. Staff recommends that the list of accessory uses in the Recreation and Open Space Zone District be changed to the following: 1 8.32.040 - Accessor A. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 13.58.130 through 18.58.190; B. Morse grazing, subject to the issuance of a horse grazing permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.58; C. Other building and uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof, including restrooms, drinking fountains, bleachers, concessions, storage buildings, 11 and similar uses, D. Private greenhouses, tbolsheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single- family residential uses; . Issue ® Lot area and site dimensions No changes to this section of the code were recommended in the Development Code Revision Report. At the May 24, 1993 PEC worksession, staff did propose to change the minimum lot size in this zone district to 5,000 square feet. The concern was that, as currently written, we could not rezone properties to Recreation and Open Space without obtaining a lot size variance, because the parcel would not meet the minimum lot size of thirty-five acres and have at least one acre of buildable. Staff felt that the thirty -five acre lot size requirement with one acre of buildable should still be required for single - family dwelling sites. Comments made at the May 24,1993 PEC meeting The PEC asked staff to review the list of permitted and conditional uses to determine if it is realistic to have these uses on lots that are 5,000 square feet in size. Staff pointed out to the PEC that the minimum lot size requirement generally only comes into play when there is discussion of creating new properties to be rezoned to that zone district or when discussing the rezoning of existing properties to the Recreation and Open Space Zone District and, at that time, the PEC would determine whether or not a lot is of an adequate size to accommodate possible permitted and conditional uses within the zone district. Staff informed the PEC that prior to the worksession, staff would complete a map that would show graphically the location of all Agricultural, Greenbelt, and Public Use zoned properties throughout the Town. Staff indicated that the map would correspond to a property owner list, which would include the size of each lot. Staff will present the map at the meeting. Staff ec do After further review of this issue, staff would recommend that no changes be made to this section of the code and that the minimum lot size remain at thirty-five acres with a minimum of one acre of buildable. Sta ff was c on ce rned th at properties may be subdivided into small lots and then later be proposed to be rezoned to one of the residential zone districts. Staff recommends that the lot area and site dimensions section of the Recreation and Open Space zone district remain as currently worded. 18. 32.050 -Lt area and site i ni ray "The minimum lot or site area shall be thirty-five acres with a minimum of one acre of buildable area." 12 suggested in the report, with some minor revisions, and that the following sentence be added: "The Natural Area Preservation district includes lands having valuable wildlife habitat, exceptional aesthetic or flood control value, wetlands, riparian areas and areas with significant environmental constraints ". The resulting wording of the purpose statement would be as follows; 1 ..1 ® Purpose. "The natural rea preservation district is i n to rovi areas which, because of their environmentally sensitive nature or natural beauty, should be protected from encroachment by any manmade structure or improvement other than those listed in Section 1 (Permitted uses). The natural area preservation district i intended to ensure that designated lands remain in eir natural, undisturbed state r tectin such r s from v 1 t and preserving . The natural re re v ion district includes lands vi valuable wit li i t, exceptional aesthetic or flood control v lea , wetlands, riparian areas areas i th significant environmental constraints. intent should not r cl e improvement of the natural nvir n e t by the removal , dead fall or similar compatible improvements." 3. Issue - Amendments to list of permitted uses Although no revisions are suggested in the report, staff feels that revisions to the list of permitted uses are warranted in order to carry out the intent of the district as specified in the new purpose statement. Staff c tie Staff recommends that the list of permitted uses be changed to the following: 1 Permitted uses. A. Nature preserve; B. Bicycle paths and pedestrian C. Interpretive nature walks; 4. Issue - Amendments to the list of n iti l and accessory The three conditional uses currently listed in this zone district are public parks and playgrounds, golf courses and equestrian trails. The report suggests that, with the exception of equestrian trails, each of these uses would require site improvements far beyond those recognized in the chapter's purpose statement. The report suggests that public parks and playgrounds and golf courses are more appropriate in the A zone district, which leaves only equestrian trails in the list of conditional uses. 3 6A preserve vel or ` open space lands from intensive development it permitting or recreation consistent with open space objectives. This land is intended to provide opportunities for active and live outdoor recreation." 3. Issue - Amendments to the list of permitted uses The report suggests that the list of permitted uses be changed to add bike and recreation trails to the list and to remove the phrase " —and the raising of field, row and tree crops from paragraph B in the existing list. Staff agrees with the proposed changes but recommends a more extensive amendment to the existing list of permitted uses. The most significant recommended change is to relocate "single family residence" from the list of permitted uses to the list of conditional uses. The proposed list of permitted uses is described below. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the list of permitted uses be changed to the following: - Permitted A. Single family residential dwellings; B. Public parks, outdoor recreation areas, and open spaces. : tennis ce t I tie fields, etc. C. Nature preserves; D. Interpretive natr walks; E. Bicycle paths or a tri n walkways; 4. I ssue - Amendments to the list conditional The report points out that, as currently written, paragraph A requires a conditional use permit for any use on public land that involves the assembly of more than two hundred people. There have been numerous events on public land that involve two hundred or more people (ie. Gerry Ford Golf Tournament, ski races, fireworks, etc.). These events have been reviewed through the "special event permit" process rather than as a conditional use. The report suggests, and staff agrees, that since these types of events are usually limited to a duration of one or two days, the special event permit is probably the most appropriate tool for reviewing this type of use. Also listed as a concern in the report is the fact that paragraph D allow riyate golf, tennis, swimming and riding clubs and hunting and fishing lodges but does not include similar public facilities. The list of conditional uses should be amended to include similar public facilities. In addition to the two changes recommended in the report staff recommends that additional changes be made to the list of conditional uses in the newly entitled Recreation and Open Space zone district. These changes are outlined below. 5 Staff cc i rt Staff recommends that the list of conditional uses be changed to the following: 18.32.030 - Conditional uses. A. Public and private schools and colleges; B. Churches, rectories, convents, religious retreats and related structures; C. Public and private golf, tennis, swimming and equestrian facilities; D. Hunting and fishing lodges, E. Enclosed public recreation uses other than those described in cti s (Permitted uses) and 18.32.040 (Accessory uses); Plant F. tree nurseries n s ci to structures) and e raising i I, row and tree crops, along with e retail sale of plants, trees or other nursery products n, produced or made on the premises; G. Ski lifts and togs; H. Cemeteries; 1. Low power subscription radio facilities; J. Well water treatment facility. 5. Issue - Amendments to the list of cce r Although no revisions to the list of accessory uses are suggested in the report, staff feels that some revisions are warranted in order to be consistent with the new list of permitted and conditional uses specified above. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the list of accessory uses in the Recreation and Open Space district be amended to read as follows: 18.32.040 - Accessory uses. A. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single-family residential uses; B. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 13.5 .130 through 18.58.190; C. Accessory buildings and uses customarily incidental to permitted recreational uses, including restrooms, drinking fountains, b! er , concessions, storage buildings, and similar uses; 6 D. Horse grazing, subject to the issuance of a horse grazing permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.58; Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 6. Issue ®L t area and site i ensions Although no changes to this section of the code are recommended in the report staff feels that this section should be reworded . The concern is that as currently written we could not rezone property to Recreation and Open Space because it most likely will not be at least thirty-five acres in size and have at least one acre of buildable area. The thirty- five acre lot size requirement, with one acre of buildable area, should be required for possible single family dwelling sites and not "newly" zoned or rezoned Recreation and Open Space properties. By not having such a restrictive minimum lot size requirement the Town will be able to rezone properties that are not thirty-five acres in size but would make excellent additions to the Town's supply of Recreation and Open Space zoned lands. Staff arrived at the 5,000 square foot site area by looking at parcels we currently own. This site seems to provide adequate flexibili Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the lot area and site dimensions section of the Recreation and Open Space zone district be amended to read as follows- 18.32.050 m Lot area and it e dimension The minimum lot or site area shall be 5,000 sq. ft., however for single ily dwellings the minimum lot or site area shall be thirty-five acres with a minimum of one acre of buildable areas" 7. Issue Minor t to Section 18.32.060 (Setbacks) The abbreviation for the Recreation and Open Space zone district would be ROS, therefore the A should be changed to ROS. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the A in the first sentence be changed to . Issue w Landscaping and sit l nt The report points out that although the current wording states "not applicable in this district" there may be cases where landscape standards may be necessary. The report suggests, and staff agrees, that the following language should replace the existing wording in the landscaping and site development section: is 7 Greenbelt and Natural Open Space and Agricultural and Open Space. There are 19 parcels -Concerning parking, access to the Permitted Uses and National Forest tail heads may need to be addressed. -Joe Macy stated that he would like to see wording added to the Conditional Use i section to allow for "underground ski base facilities ". Accesso Uses - Concerning item P, either remove the word "customarily" or rewrite it to preclude buildings. ATTACHMENT AC iCULTtJPAL RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ( ) DISTRICT XX Pggos ®A better definition or different wording for "active and passive recreation. - Delete everything that is stricken beyond "recreation", i.e. parks, schools, etc. Permitted Use -Concerning single family residences, move to bottom of Permitted Use list. -Concerning plant and tree nurseries, the PC does not want to move this item down to Conditional Uses, they would just like this item removed entirely. -The PC inquired about possibly having ski runs added to the list. -Art Abplanalp commented that we should add "non- commercial" in front of the words recreation areas - what about Town owned recreation areas that charge a fee? -Concerning B1public parks" and "outdoor recreation areas", the P C would like to see recreation areas moved under the category of Conditional Uses but that open space could remain under Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses -The PEC felt that "buildings and structuresBO should be a Conditional Use: -The P C felt that "public and private schools and college" should be deleted. -The P C felt that "churches" should be deleted ® Larry Eskwith will need to be asked about this item. -The PC felt that "hunting and fishing lodges" should be deleted. Planning and Environmental Commission May 24,1993 1 I6.33.01 0 - Purpose. The natural area preservation district is designed to provide areas which, because of their environmentally sensitive nature or natural beauty, shall be protected from encroachment by any building or improvement other than those listed in section 18.32.020 (Permitted uses) Seefien4-8. . The natural area preservation district is intended to ensure that designated lands remain in their natural state by protecting such areas from development and preserving open space. The natural area preservation district includes lands having valuable wildlife habitat, exceptional aesthetic or flood control value, wetlands, riparian areas and areas with significant environmental constraints. Protecting sensitive natural areas is important for maintaining water quality and trout habitat, preserving wildlife habitat, flood control, protecting view corridors, minimizing the risk from hazard areas, and protecting the natural character of it is is so vital to the Town's tourist economy. The intent shall not preclude improvement of the natural environment by the removal of noxious weeds, deadfall where necessary to protect public safety or similar compatible improvements. (Ord. 19(1976) § 7(part): Ord.8(1973) § 26.100.) 18.38.020 ® Permitted uses. The following shall be permitted uses in the GNGS NAP district: A. Nature preserve; B. Bicycle paths and pedestrian paths walkways; C. Interpretive nature walks. (Ord. 19(1976) § 17(part): Ord.8(1973) § 26.200.) 18.38.030 ® Conditional uses. The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the GNOS district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60- . Equestrian trails, excluding stables, corrals and similar equestrian facilities; B. Parking, when used in conjunction with a permitted or conditional use. (Ord. 19(1976) § 17( part): Ord. 8(1973) § 26.300.) 1 1 3,33.040 - Accessory uses° A. Picnic tables and informal seating areas; B. Other uses customarily inci nal and accessory to r itt or conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof, with exception of uil in a (Ord 19(1976) § 17( part): Ord. 3(1973) § 26.400.) 13.33.050 - Development standards. Not applicable in the GNOS district. (Ord 19(1976) 17( art): Ord. 3(1973) § 26,500.) 13.33.060 - Parking and loading. Not applicable in the GNOS district. (Ord. 19(1976) § 17 (part): Ord. 3(1973) § 26.600.) i I i i i i I 2 ( rd.37 (1991) § 1: Ord. 30 (1933) § 1; Ord. 1 (1935) § 1: Ord. 1 (1976) 1(a) (part): Ord. 1 (1975) § 3: Ord. 3 (1973) § 12.300.) 13.32.040 - Accessory uses. The following accessory uses shalt be permitted in the A district: A. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single- family residential uses; B. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.56.130 through 13.56.190; incidental to permitted Accessory buildings uses customarily . ccess � J � recreational uses, including afn ®lo re troy s, drinking fountains, bleachers, concessions, storage buildings and similar uses; D. 9 3 5 Horse zin subject to the issuance of a horse grazing permit in accordance wi# the r visi ns of Chapter 18.58; E. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof; . 9 (Ord. 16 (1976) § 1(a) (part); Ord. 3 (1973) § 12.400.} I 13.32.050 - Lot area and site dimensions. The minimum lot or site area shall be thirty-five acres with a minimum of one acre of buildable area. (Ord. 34(1979) § 1 (part).) 13,32.060® Setbacks. In the A ROS district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet, the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet, and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet. (Ord. 50 (1973) § 2 (pad).) 13.32.030 - Height; For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall net exceed thirty fleet. For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty-three feet. (Ord. 37(1930) § 2 (part).} 13.32.090 - Density. Not more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted for each thirty-five acres of site area, of which one acre must be buildable. Provided, however, that one dwelling shall be allowed on a lot or parcel of less than thirty-five acres which contains one acre of buildable area. Such dwelling shall not exceed two thousand square feet of GRA. (Ord. 34 (1979) § 1 (part).) 13.32.110 - Site coverage. 2 ATTACHMENT #4 AGPAG !! T@ iRAi RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT W ( ) 13.32.010 - Purpose. The ag4eoftwal recreation and open space district is intended to preserve undeveloped or open space lands from intensive development while permitting outdoor recreation consistent with open space objectives. This land is intended to provide opportunities for active and passive outdoor recreation. P.fk seboeI^ 9 9 9 the-dist6et-. rd. 3 (1973) § 12.100.) 1 8.32.020 - Permitted uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the A ROS district: 8�ers rvir_f a-n r�,li.a reet®rune aa$•sa- isa��llf�.ar�c= 9 . 9 ➢ ® Passive outdoor recreation areas and open spaces; B. Nature preserves; C. Bicycle and e tri n walkways; D. Interpretive nature i E. Single-family r i e ti l in ( rd.3(1973) § 12.200.) 13,32.030 - Conditional uses. The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: 9 ➢ . Public and private schools and colleges G-. B. Churches, rectories, and related structures; Iii and private golf, tennis, swimming and A , , equestrian facilities, D. Enclosed public recreation uses, E. Plant and tree nurseries, and associated structures, el in the le of trees r nursery products r r uce or made on the premises; P. Ski lifts, and tows and runs; G. Cemeteries; 9 Well water treatment facility. i Site coverage shall not exceed five percent of the total site area. Greenbelt # Parcels Acres TOV 8 209 VA 0 0 USFS 4 40 Corp. 5 41 Individuals 0 0 CDOT 1 186 Total Total 18 292.86 ATTACHMENT" # 5 Ag & Open Space # Parcels Acres TOV 36 5013 VA 16 47.2 CDOT 1 1.22 USFS 1 27 Corp. 16 39.4 Individuals 6 51.24 Total 76 667.76 • Ex Alk Community Development Department I "The Agricultural and Open Space District is intended to preserve undeveloped, or open space lands from intensive agricultural, development while permitting agricultural pursuits and low density residential use consistent with agricultural and open space objectives. Parks, schools, and certain types of private recreation facilities and institutions are also suitable uses in the agricultural and open space district, provided that the sites of these uses remain predominantly open. Site development standards are intended to preclude intensive urban development and to maintain the agricultural and open space characteristics of the district. (Ord. $(1973) Section 12.100.)" It is the staffs opinion that the proposed well water treatment facility, as a conditional use, would not conflict with the purpose section of the Agricultural d Open Space Zone District, as described above® 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. It is the staff's opinion that the proposed well water treatment facility would have no negative impacts on any of the above - listed criteria. We believe that the applicant has worked closely with the staff of the Nail Recreation District, its large 6-foot is viewed by and that the proposed structure, with overhangs, the VRD as a positive addition to the golf course in this area. Again, these large overhangs would be used as a weather shelter for golfers during periods of inch ate weather. 3° Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas® The applicant has indicated that the treatment facility will be "visited for inspection by a member of the Water District on an average of one visit per day throughout the year." The applicant has proposed to construct a new asphalt turnoff, just to the east of Mail Valley Drive between the existing' asphalt road surface and the proposed treatment building® The staff finds that this proposed area for parking is acceptable, however, we request this asphalt parking area be kept to the minimum size requirements necessary to park a vehicle safely off the road. The staff believes, overall, that the proposed well water treatment facility will have no negative impacts upon any of the above criteria® 3 4. Effect upon the character of the area in whis h the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding es® Because of the limited size and scale of the proposed well water treatment facility building, the staff believes that the character of the area will not be negatively impacted by this structure. We feel that the existing willows, which e located on the north, east and south sides of the structure, will more than adequately screen the structure from those directions. According to the applicant, Gary Davis of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has reviewed this proposal, and given the fact that none of the existing willows will be disturbed, Mr. Davis has indicated that the Corps does not have any problems with the proposed project. Although the Town of Vail has not received written verification of this, Mr. Davis has agreed to follow-up his verbal comments in written form. The staff will withhold the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the treatment facility until such time as this letter is received. The Town of Vail Design Review Board conceptually reviewed this proposal 1 win concerns: r 4 1 1 and indicated the following on September 99 1. The structure must have a pitched roof. 2° There should only be one weather shelter located in this area. 3. The Design Review Board was supportive of the proposal to extend the eaves 6 feet out to act as a weather shelter. 4. The Board expressed concerns over the proposed use of fluted block as an exterior surface material, and they strongly recommended the applicant consider the use of wood siding as the exterior material to be used on this building. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission approve this request, the Design Review Board will need to complete a final review and must approve of the proposal prior to its construction. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followin findings before grantIn a conditional usee ite A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4 is ow-111-M • ! �'1 Goliftpltl3LklAeLk f I man uoa=gu crsv m I ( � j 1 � - ( r I aao�� W nia xPW °'� ` c�k t, wJ 3 i / ✓; ! 7 � 9 � . 'W Ada .ouo � (I OO annaY Q�AIU.✓9 P 'MI PVPf.. ` \ S I t 'Fill, f CT � ( •I � t� r \ msrvn0 �ffi / ✓, ✓Jp, // P ,. 6i y.i ze LZ Tt spa . s"' a•e1T :. 4 wc 41 O ,✓ � I ® I f ® I � � . � � X � �'vrti �� r� I .r ... ~ .. _ � \ `Si Po. �^�a: a •ay. ��. `;,� °� ,C: acr:J i��kn� �` i / Jam, ---� y ; Ia \ ` eT f,• „, y \ `•�",_ -1 "" � o�Ta.,are PANT . / ezlsm+a coNTPxan ^�vN7 y�i� ✓✓ / Cl /�" m \ 1 / (� w { la l \ / / Ply✓ v v� ✓✓ mcc Ure i II Y I ,'tJ1 � "'��� h ✓ EM MOW MA=T III J ( � . .. �� � � � V � _ -�' --! ���. avtUr aYrvu ie ✓✓ / ` �DSt0g0 waTEftliNL '7 I Iii iT t eJN�iea rEe .A 1 .ire r..! -^- PffL €neUNt . � s — I �_✓ ca> i +y ( & % °a r r°"^ ,n,a ®� 9. U1+USCaYip APEA kwLL BY BsW4M,na0vgp ev rye- �.a4 -.`0�_ - - .�- +�^^- --. »_ =a- --4a -- �� 1 J�� ®-- ®- _J °�^'"lf Y., ✓'• tAND4CAnP»p'OPOOng1 ®06 GONOte,DN OP WHTT¢ltre C-' � a /� i� /� I // \4`�[. - e - • ®.... -..•® vcQ\I .... -d ZZ 4UT»OaON 4TkKN OETAM1 YOq GONS4TVGTOON PR w.» f aSwsn6f bat \ iC°' u t a w ® i � ( •a \ J r "au 0�.. •a9j i r , e TES40p£O: rtfvEC. &T &iEp TO VaHVroU4 f0 »O,nOw PoEW aSYtea6 ..88 � paaaef.E PO Ex�3n »D v$O$TAPiON w�Lk &t RtFY t0 BtP�w WaTK \4 ea /t P aN ABSOLUTE M�N�MUW, `A v 1 properly treat the water. He indicated the willows would not be disturbed. He thought that the v proposed building could eventually take the place of the existing shelter. Diana Donovan asked if the proposed building could be f :rr h r hidden. Kent said the size could not be reduced, but it could be pushed further dad into the willows without disturbing more of the site. liana visualized A larc ae :ding with a cart path cut into the willows. She preferred to have a square, concrete d;.: ; ;;i the willows without a cart path. Kent said the parking space could be minimized and placed to ensure no U -turn would be needed. Diana asked about trenching across the creek. Kent said a pipeline `could cross the creek approximately 5 -6 feet under the stream bed. A rock drop structure could be incorporated into the design. Chuck Crist asked if the roof could be flat if no overhang were built. Kent said it could. Chuck agreed with Diana in that the current golf shelter was adequate, and he would prefer to have this structure more hidden. Gena Whitten concurred with this preference. III ° Ludwig Kurz preferred to see rock rather than wood for siding® Jinn Shearer felt it was Important to minimize the pull -off area, and perhaps rather than paving, gravel or chip and seal could be used. Kent replied gravel could be used. Jim did not support the large overhangs. He suggested putting the building into the willows with a path. Diana believed, if they were careful, the willows in the front of the building could be maintained. She did not like the idea of carts coming out onto the road, and did not want to see the building become a golf shelter. Kent said they could talk-with the Vail Recreation District. He thought they might be willing to leave the current golf shelter intact. Chuck believed adding a rock drop structure in the creek would add interest. Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the request for a conditional use permit to allow a well water treatment facility in the Agricultural /Open Space zone district, generally located south of the Vail Golf Course bridge on Vail 'Valley Drive, and more specifically described as follows: To be located within 100 -foot radius from a point on the right bank of Gore Creek whence the northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West, 6th P.M. bears North 73 degrees West, 2,060 feet. The motion was made per staff's memo, with the following conditions of approval: 1. Change the roof to a flat roof with no overhangs; 2. The pull -off parking space be minimized Insize and have a gravel surface; 3. A rock drop structure be placed in the creek; 4. The existing willows shall be maintained wherever possible; and . Move the building further east from the roads Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was approved, 6 -0. Item 6® k new requirement of the Colorado Department of Transportation or which no one was aware, cost is appropriate. Item 7® Spools were not shown on the drawings. Flange bolt patterns were not compatible as supplied without these Spools, cost is appropriate® Item 8® A required correction to an omission in the electrical drawings, cost is appropriate. DECREASES: items 1: Pump and motor were downsazed from the original specification in answer to the projected well production being less that what was anticipated (800 gpm vs 2000 gpm) . Cost is appropriate. Item 2: In response to the pump /motor downsizing, cost is appropriate. S vC,pvR Item 3m The fish habitat was a suggestion of the Design Review Board of the Town of tail and was, :therefor, shown on the drawings. It later carne to our attention that a special permit would have to be appl l ie d for � for its construction and the value of such a structure at that location was questioned by Mr. Alan Czenkusch, an aquatic habitat biologist, for the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Mr. Czenkusch also noted k. that there ldc�l. llere ha Ve been some problems with erosion of the golf course at a similar installation. The decision was made by engineer to delete the item. Cost is appropriate. I recommend an adjustment to the contract price of $6715.12, accepting all items as proposed with the exception -_ ire 5 _� U 1. item C' sTE J under increases. Please contact die if you have any questions or :-reed any additional information® Very truly yours, RDD, !Talc Cent R. Rose, P.E. Project Manager enc: copy® Hauglund Bender 034061.215 :30.'3694:3B31 I33viF2 22 I RUG 041 X33 16:32 Damai, ' $ mC- ® A Add & AT LAW SC174 4 JAcr & nurzM TO &, TOCC-WICIL OM: C L, ATTORNEY FOR JACK C � RE: REQUEST FOR DATE.' A.UGTiST 3j, 1993 &u=aU of Jack Carnie is the owner in fee of approximately 1. 3 acres of property zoned Residential Cluster Disti ° g t, located in the Town of Vail, Colorado (see attached map) The �roperty currently has no access to a public or private street alt ugh immediately adjacent to the Potato Patch Club development. Adjacent to the property on the south and east is property owned day the Town 01! Vaal We respectfully request e Town grant an ear ent for access purposes to mr. carnielg land over its property. fir® Carnie is property was once part of a larger tract of land owned by Mr. John McAllister. In 1966, Xr. mcCormick deeded approximately l ® 3 eras to Jack Ca is and at the time, granted him a right to access property through the remainder of his property now as potato Patch Club. The right of access was to be formalized at the tize of development of the Rotate Patch Club-project. Such formalizatlon never occurred and until recently there has not been the desire to identify some parmansiit access to the site Discussions with the Potato Patch cl b homeowners association regarding the fornalization of the ease-mant. promised . carnie have been success l to date and - Ca:E7nia now wishes to explore his othex options to qaAn access to his Pa y® Accsgz frolic 'tbe west and extreme north is s i l due to the severe slope of the surrounding property. Access from potato patch Club is clearly the best, most efficient and most deeirable, b t adequate access might be achieved through the city owned ground to the east by extending a pzivate road from the frontage 3:oacl over the city property to the Carnie property. The current zoning of city property allows for uses each as roads and it is well established that Colorado la requires reasonable access to all real property.