The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-0927 PECPLANNING AND L COMMISSION 3: A request for setback and site coverage variances to allow for a new residence on Lot 18, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing /325 Forest Road. ` Applicant.- Timothy Drisko Planner: Andy Knu tsen TABLED TO OCTOBER 11, 1 9. A request fora density variance and a setback variance to allow for an expansion to a residence located at Lot 19B, Block 9, Vail Intermountain /2354 Snowberry Drive. Applicant: Millie Hamner, Chris and Mary Ball Planner; Jim Curnutte TABLED TO OCTOBER 25,1993 1. A review of a request to lift a deed restriction for the Toger Anderson residence located at Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lionsrie 4th Filing /1775 Sandstone Drive. Applicant- Todger Anderson, represented by Tom Braun, Peter Jamar Associates Planner: Andy Knuten TABLED INDEFINITELY 11. A request to amend the Golden Peak Ski Base development plan to allow for a new alignment of the bus turn around for Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing /453 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Andy Knu tsen TABLED INDEFINITELY 12. A request for an amendment to S ® #, Area D, to allow an expansion to the Glen Lyon Office Building located at 1000 South Frontage Road West/Lot 4, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Paul M. DeBoer, representing Calumet Federal Savings an Loan Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED INDEFINITELY 13. A request for a density variance and a setback variance to allow for an addition to Unit , Tract B, Bighorn ono es/4713 Meadow Drive. Applicant: Jerald and Mary Lou Kocak and John and Julie Mork Tanner: Jim Curnutte TABLED INDEFINITELY 1 '. Approve minutes from September 1, 1993 P C meeting. 3 P'17 15. A reminder to the PEC regarding the representatives to DRB - 1993 Schedule. ` Jan. - March 1993 Kathy Langenwalter Tana Donovan (alternate) April - June 1993 Dalton Williams Diana Donovan (alternate) July - Sept. 1993 Jeff Bowen Diana Donovan (alternate) Oct. - Dec. 1993 Greg Amsden Diana Donovan (alternate) 4 alternative to limiting access and vehicular traffic on East Meadow Drive would be to narrow the entrance to the street so that people driving on Blue Cow Chute would be deterred from driving down the street. He suggested a planter on the north corner of Meadow Drive and Blue Cow Chute inhibit traffic. Stan Cope stated that he felt that valet parking could work on this site as long as guests and employees maintain communication. He said that they had looked at the East Meadow Drive intersection at length with staff. He said that he was willing to continue to work with staff to find an adequate solution to the traffic concerns of Blue Cow Chute and the Vail Athletic Club's drive but was not committing financially to solving the problem. Shelly Mello stated that at this point, the applicants had not committed to complete the streetscae improvements on the north side of East Meadow Drive. Kristan Pritz stated that the Town has not come up with a solution that will help ease traffic congestion in this area. She said that the Town would continue to work on this problem until a viable solution was found. Allison Lassoe stated that she did not feel that this proposal would impede any work that the Town would be doing on the Blue Cow Chute. This project would be a good start for improvements for Meadow Drive. She stated that she would rather see this proposal go through the variance process than the Special Development District process. Jeff Bowen stated that he agreed with Dalton's comments and that he had no further comments at this time. Concerning the East Meadow Drive issue, Greg Ams en stated that a sign or stone pillar could be placed at the entryway to denote that the drive was private. Diana Donovan stated that she felt that it was important that the parking concerns get worked out prior to this item going to Town Council. She wanted to see a design for the north corner of Meadow Drive. She also suggested paying for some parking spaces (pay -in -lieu program) and using the two surface spaces by the parking entry for loading and delivery. Dalton Williams inquired whether the at grade parking area would work as a loading zone. Tana Donovan stated that she would like to see the landscaping by the strew walk go back to a more natural state. Stan Cope stated that he did not have a problem with this request. Planning and Environmental Commission September 27, 1993 Bill Anderson stated that the stucco wall needed to be reduced. He stated that the operation of the retractable deck was a concern to him due to snow loads and the freeze /thaw problems. Bill stated that he was not in favor of enclosing the diming deck as currently designed; Jeff Bowen stated that the nature of the proposed buildings do not fit the look of Vail. He said that they are too massive and tremendously visible. He added that parking in a front setback requires showing a hardship. He stated that it would be difficult to show a hardship for a project that does not yet even exist. Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed with the other PEC members previous comments. Dalton Williams stated that he agreed with Greg's comments. He said that he is not in favor of the site selection due to the amount of vegetation presently located there. He stated that he would like to see the mitigation required to be tree for tree for what is removed. He said that he is concerned with the public response for this type of project. He added that he is pro employee housing. He stated that the Town of Aspen did a public/private project and that the Housing Authority Task Force had submitted a report concerning this. Jen Wright stated that this proposal is not necessarily the right or wrong solution, but that it is a solution. Greg Amsden stated that he felt that it was important that this is made a desirable living situation. He stated that the two main issues with this proposal was the massing and the design. Jen Wright inquired what specific comments the PEC had concerning size. Greg Amsden stated that he considered a three-story high by six unit wide building to be excessive. Diana Donovan stated that she did not have a problem with the site but that she would like to see the project and the parking adequately screened. She added that she would like to see the building designed to "look like Vail". Kathy Langenwalter asked the PEC members whether they had any suggestions to give the Housing Authority. 6. A request for approval of the Cemetery Master Plait and Report, for the Town of Vail Cemetery to be constructed in the upper bench of Donovan Park. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO OCTOBER 1, 1 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request until October 11, 1993 with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 6 -0 vote tabled this item until October 11, 1993. 7. A request for a minor subdivision for Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing /331 Beaver Dam Circle. Applicant: Leo Payne Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO OCTOBER 1, Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request until October 11, 1993 with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 6 -0 vote tabled this item until October 11, 1993. 3. A request for setback and site coverage variances to allow for a new residence on Lot 13, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing /325 Forest Road: Applicant: Timothy Drisko Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO OCTOBER 11, 1 Jeff Bowen 'made a motion to table this request until October 1.1, 1993 with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 6 -0 vote tabled this item until October 11, 1993. . A request for a density variance and a setback variance to allow for an expansion to a residence located at Lot 19B, Block 9, Vail Intermountain /2354 Snowberry Drive. Applicant: Millie Hamner, Chris and Mary Ball Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED , 1 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request until October 11, 1993 with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A -0 vote tabled this item until October 11, 1993. 10. A review of a request to lift a deed restriction for the To ger Anderson residence located at Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lionsrid e 4th Filing /1775 Sandstone Drive. Applicant: To g r Anderson, represented by Tom Braun, Peter Jamar Associates Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED INDEFINITELY Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request indefinitely with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote tabled this item indefinitely. Planning, and Environmental Co mission September 27, 1993 17' setbacks will be infilled. This includes an area on the northwest corner as well as ticks along the rear of the building. The dormers will also be increasing the amount of building in the setbacks. The applicant has proposed to do the following with the application. 1. Decrease the amount of G FA allocated towards dwelling units and increase the amount of GRFA for accommodation units. 2. Decrease the number of dwelling units and increase the number of accommodation units. 3. Encroach further into the front setback with entry and second -story accommodation unit as well as an addition to the restaurant to the east of the entry. 4. Increase common area while decreasing the area allocated towards accessory uses and athletic club use: . Add dormers to the building on the north and south side which do not exceed the existing ridge height of the building. Insert decks into the roof structure on the south elevation: . Increase the amount of site coverage as a result of the new entry and restaurant addition (554 square feet).' 7. Add `terrace and expand dining deck on south elevation. 8. Removal of deck on the south elevation which currently encroaches onto public land. . The applicant is proposing to meet the incremental increase in parking requirements. There is an existing deficit of 58.44 spaces on the site. The new parking is located in the following manner: •2 spaces built underground below the entry ®2 spaces added by relocating an existing ski storage area •2 spaces added by relocating the laundry room ®1 space added along the south side of the parking structure ®2 spaces in central area of Parking structure` 9`'total 10. Change exterior materials of building. This includes stucco, wood trim, deck railings' and a wood shake roof. 3 southwest corner and that no additional development should be proposed on the north side of M. ZONING ANALYSIS Listed below is the zoning analysis for the Vail Athletic Club SDD proposal ALLOWED DEV. EXISTING PROPOSED STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT Site Area: 30,486 sq. ft. 30,486 sq. ft, 30,486 sq. ft Setbacks: 20 feet north: -0- north: -0 south: 2' - 26' south: 2' - 26' 0' (decks) -0- (decks) east: 12 - 20' east: 12 - 20' west: 12' west: 12' Height: 45 feet 67 south; 59 north 67 south; 59 north Site Coverage: 16,767 sq. ft. 20,796 sq. ft. 16,300 sq. ft. + 5,050 sq. ft. = 21,350 sq. ft. includes garage and below grade service area on east side. Landscaping: 9,145 sq. ft, 9,071 sq. ft. 9,730 sq. ft. (including at -grade decks) Units: 25 Units per acre 28 AU + 9 DU = 23 DU(2 LO)*"*' 52 AU + 3 DU = 17.5 units + 4 emp units** = 24.33 DU(2 LO)* 29 DU (2 LO) + 4 emp units = 30.33 DU (2 LO) G : 24,388 sq. ft. (80 %) 10,927 AU + 8,122 DU 24,647 AU + 6,252 DU> = 19,049 sq. ft. = 30,899 sq. ft. + 1,383 + 1,312 emp units = 20,361 emp units = 32,282 + 8,456 + 13,541 common = 33,902 common overage = 40,738 Accessory Use: 10% of existing GRFA 2,036 sq. ft. (Allowed) 3,228 sq. ft. (Allowed) Restaurant: 3,606 sq. ft. 3,285 sq. ft. Club Retail: 4§2_M f 141 sq. ft. Total 4,066 sq. ft: 3,426 sq. ft. Common Area: 8,536 sq. ft. (35 %) Halls/Mech: 19,235 sq.; ft. 14,265 sq. ft. Conference: 2,842 sq ft.' 2,727 sq. ft. Total Common: 22,077 sq. ft: 16,992 sq. ft. (13,541 sq'. ft. overage) - 8,456 sq. ft. overage) Club Area: 22,257 sq. ft. 20,881' sq. ft. Parking Garage: 4,131 sq. ft. 5,512 sq. ft. Total Building Square Footage : * ** 72,892 sq. ff. 79,093 sq. ft 6 V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - CRITERIA The following nine criteria should be used to review the project. A. Design compatibility sensitivity immediate envir t, neighborhood j t properties relative to ar i t r 1 design, scale, 1 building i, buffer zones, identity, r t r, visual integrity and ori i • ! "` • " f r : f f .: f r f t f , " ` M' ` ♦', • •' ! • 8 The greatest impact in shade is seen on the west wing of the building. On December 21st, the r building ill cast shadow onto the i 1 On September 21 st, the increase in shade in this area will be 11 feet and does not cast shadow onto the sidewalk. It should be noted that the existing building casts shadow beyond the sidewalk into the street in the center of the building and east wing. In the center and east wing, the additional shade cast will be feet 6 inches cc r i l as a result of the dormers. The applicant proposes to heat the paver sidewalk which will make this area safer for the pedestrian. The staff feels that the increases in shade have been minimized to a point that is acceptable. -- .•- • 9 11 1 1=4 III !I IRWIN! IIVIRIIIMIMII!Ilil��R stated above, the staff would like to sea one more employee unit provided in order to lift the use restriction on the proposed dwelling unit. C. Compliance with parking loading requirements li in t r 18.52. Parkin 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 project. 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. Variances have been granted for a total of twenty spaces over the life of the project. Using today's standards, there is an existing deficit of 58.4 parking spaces for the project. There would be a nine space parking requirement increase as a result of this expansion. This is based on the difference between the required parking for the proposed project and the existing development. The applicant is proposing an additional nine on -site parking spaces which would bring the total on -site spaces to twenty-nine. All of the parking spaces would be valeta Currently, the applicant valet parks eighteen parking spaces in the existing structure. The parking structure will be expanded which will accommodate the nine additional spaces. Due to the type of use of this facility, valet parking is appropriate and has been approved for other projects of this nature. With the full -time concierge and valet, this type of parking solution is feasible. In addition, after reviewing the function of the existing facility, it appears that the proposed plan is reasonable and, the additional nine parking spaces can e accommodated. The two existing exterior spaces will remain adjacent to the entrance to the parking structure on the west side: No additional square footage has been added to the health club and therefore the staff does not feel that it is appropriate to assess a` parking requirement for this facility. Parking ' for a health club is determined by the PEC. There is no parking standard for this type of use. No parking requirement has been assessed in the past and the staff is not assessing any additional parking nor do we recommend to the PEC that a parking' requirement be set as no club square footage is being proposed. 11 Loading and Deliver The applicant is providing a loading facility with a pull-out from East Meadow Drive. This will accommodate the short -term parking needs of the project. Loading and Delivery will also be accommodated in this fall -off area. The applicant will no longer be allowed to unload deliveries along Vail Valley Drive adjacent to the restaurant entrance. This is a very unsafe practice which the Town does not encourage and will not allow to continue. In addition, the applicant proposes to remove the existing trash facility on the west side of the project. This enclosure encroaches both onto Town of Vail land as well as Mountain Haus property, The applicant would propose to include the trash facility inside the building in this same area. D. Conformity with applicable I t of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies r i Plans. Thera are three other elements of the Comprehensive Plan which apply to this application: The Vail Village Master Plan, the Streetscae Master Plan and the Land Use Plan. Please see Sections VI, V11, and Vill 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 's for a total of fifty -two AU's and three DU's. This is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan's objective to increase the hotel bed base. Please see Sections VI, VII and Vlll that identify the applicable goals and objectives of the plans. E. Identification and mii ti f natural and/or geologic hazards that t the property is special development district is r 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 floc lain. P. it 1, iii i location c provisions ,, , functional e I t responsive sensitive i r to r I features, vegetation ` and overall aesthetic qualltyof the community. Buildina Design Currently, the applicant proposes to maintain all of the existing ridge lines' and not increase the ridge in any area of the building. The staff feels that this is very positive. 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 2 foot setback a the tightest point from the south property line. On the north elevation, the applicant proposes to infill an area on the east wing adjacent to the restaurant and add an entry. In addition, balconies will be added to units on the east wing. Dormers will be added in all three areas on this elevation. This will allow for the additional accommodation units on the upper level. These additions will cast additional shade onto East Meadow Drive. Landscaping has been proposed along the retaining wall adjacent to the sidewalk on the north side of the buildings This will increase the landscape buffer between the building and the public area. The staff feels that this additional landscaping is very important to the project as it will screen the building and mitigate both the existing and proposed impacts of the building. Building's impact on open space veaetation The application impacts the existing landscaping on the north side of the building. Approximately two to four large evergreen trees ` will be lost as a result of this proposal. The applicant is proposing to landscape along the new stone retaining gall adjacent to the west wing in order to better screen the building in areas where landscaping does not currently exist. The staff feels that while it is unfortunate that these evergreen trees will possibly be lost, the addition of landscaping which includes evergreen and aspen trees along the sidewalk, will mitigate the impact of the loss of these two to fear trees. The applicant will attempt to save these trees. However, in the event that they cannot be saved as a result of this construction, the applicant does agree to replace the trees. The applicant has also added a 3 foot planting step to the east of the existing at- grade parking on the west end of the building in order to help screen the parking. The step will also reduce the height of the wall in this area. On the south side of the building, the a lica t will be removing an existing deck which is currently located on Town of Vail land. The applicant proposes to add' additional landscaping in this area which includes' shrubs and aspen trees. This will buffer the building the public area. Due to the amount of land and landscaping between the streamwalk and the building, adequate buffer areas are provided. The proposed landscaping adjacent to the building will be positive and will not hinder the use of this open space area on the south side of the building. The applicant has also agreed to provide a maintenance agreement to the Town for this o' en space. 1 G. circulation system desi r both vehicles pedestrians addressing off-site traffic circulation. The applicant proposes toad nine Underground parking spaces. By adding additional on -site parking, the vehicular traffic on East Meadow Drive will be increased. While it is an objective of the Streetscape Plan to make this area more pedestrianized, it is also an objective of the Vail Village Master Plan to have properties in this area provide on -site parking. The staff feels that the provision of on -site parking to meet the additional requirement is important given the constraints on parking our community most deal with. The applicant does propose to install an entry and pull -off in order to facilitate the drop -off of guests and Loading and delivery. The installation of a drop -off area will be a benefit to the area as currently there is no off - street drop -off area for this building and the existing situation creates congestion along East Meadow Drive as guests and trucks park in the bus lane on Meadow Drive. The Town Engineer has signed off on this solution, With this application, the staff recognizes that it would be difficult to completely restrict East Meadow Drive from vehicular traffic, but would strive to limit the number of vehicles which must access East Meadow Drive. We also believe that by providing safe well designed sidewalks, pedestrian circulation can also be accommodated. The applicant's proposal improves both pedestrian and vehicular circulation in an area that currently must provide for both uses. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in r to i i and preserve t r l features, recreation, i i ®tae to the installation of the pull -off and entry and relocation of the retaining wall in this area, two to four evergreen trees could possibly be lost. The applicant has agreed to attempt to save these trees, however, it would appear that this may not be possible. The applicant does agree to replace these trees in addition to increasing the landscaping along East Meadow Drive between the building and the roadway adjacent to the sidewalk. Trees in the 30 foot range will be required to replace the trees that may not be able to be relocated. The new landscaping in front of the building includes v r r t` t range in size r` 10 to feet and aspens having minimum f a 3 inch li r® To the east of the plain entry to the building, the applicant is proposing to redesign the sidewalk as well as the landscape area. This will involve cutting back the existing utility grate and bringing the landscape down to the same grade as the sidewalk. This is accomplished` by moving the sidewalk an corbline' to the south from the existing location. Landscaping will also beaded on the south elevation in the area where the existing deck is being removed.' Aspen trees and shrubs will be added to this area and the grades will be redone to match the existing topographic conditions: 1 ttP as �� t' fflVF u B IL 0�1 k � 'flea I d ET aw 6` t I y s° ma sas Fl�.m+T ��,gvs�.TcoAd �as,B Gd:eorafacs�.. VAIL ATHLErIC CLUB Elevations ® EN18i Fks Yad NY JdBRt fl /p'o$' -OP ,aea ses asa Dm ` 11Y Y� - ®/$ i 9a0 .leP •. �°'}i a® -6aa6 4es*Mw Slm Q Mena- ? �B mm0® m.ao. ( bsL g B �BtBo-re+ mama i 1 � 1 oasro.¢® d _ aASSaa.asas ..has- ° '° z ._... a,pe.6iv+e Po•Ar acsg seat R6 m m f baasommr° �- ®9. •w?. aa. �. _mesa. _doe. mass.. as ML oar. T mo ®•ea. m mw $ . .. .: •+aa. .' ®ee. i# y. , 9pg emac Sd 8 E:E:] 4 �' ®m6. hmmgiay a°•L _. '�ae<1 +�N P•o a $ «.� 6 b .was v`Sg$. . s._a E9s uyAbYmk NX l6�s :tea xeM��aea m® � ® � R 6 '� °e0 99 g9 °i& F rp° �y,?'�''si• a VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB September , 1, The Vail Athletic Club (VAC) agrees as part of the le ° of our SDD proposal to e the o° ng improvemen The VAC will extend the r sidewalk 6'-0" along st Meadow Drive '° " along Vail y Drive to create continuous, heated, rectangular , cr to u paver sidewalk xte west end of the VAC service/parking East Meadow Drive to the Gore Creek V Valley 's will be coordinated with town engineer. Wewill revise curb t rs do East Meadow Drive Vail Valley Drive in ccor c with e "entry feature" concepts put forward Vail Village Master Plan and as on site plan. At the "entry feature" and partially along Vail Valley Drive, we will ° ate the existing retaining wall to bring the landscape own tat the level of the sidewalk. We will reface the existing landscape retaining walls along the garage and Vail Valley Drive with stone. We will co orate signage to inform vehicles that East Meadow Drive is "pedestrian 44 open only to vehicles on "official s' ess" with the VAC and the Mountain osee We will °ork with the Design Review Board and to supplement the existing _ streetlamps along VAC side of Vail Valley East Meadow ow ®ves. We will create ` c r -off guest drop-off area directly in o t of the new hotel/health club entry. This area will e paved with °te pavers and heated. We will need consent from the town's authorities that s ort -t r in the opposite ` ec ° will be permitted ere® The creation f the new hotel/ health club cart East Meadow Drive should result minimal disruption to e existing vegetation in the lands area ov e the existing garage. All necessary steps will be taken throughout the course of construction to r tct the ®s ® vegetation. New drainage rtes will introduced to l melting o at East Meadow Drive. This will be coordinated : with town engineer. We will replace the exwood transformer grate with a new ste el grate. r extensive, The improvements to the health club will not be they will focus on increasing the spa and cardiovascular capacity of the club and adding new doors and windows along the south wall of the upper level natural light ® into dub. We will be adding new floors at the upper health club level above the weight room racquetball and the existing ` We will be creating a new staff locker/lounge locker/lounge area at the lower health club level. create Our SDD proposal will to it We will be relocating a portion of the existing laundry facility to additional t r create room for an additional remaining 4 cars. The cc t ed withi through t t We will be creating double-high hotel lobby °c connect to c � t® to balcony above lobby t the second floor. We will be renovating vis° existing conference room on the first floor, adding a new boardroom at the second r and creating along the south side the first floor of-the building. We will be relocating l®e e units from r to the first The other two employee units will be relocated to the third floor. These units will be maintained on-site, as per a previous agreement, for the life of the structure. We will be eliminating 6 existing DU's and adding 24 new ' to room mix of 3 DUs and 52 AU's. The average size of our new hotel t . ° increase 478 square from 424 square feet. existing All of the t s will be totally renovated. be renovated r® request. The ske staff to . ss on to Council that they supported uncil's efforts to permanently restrict the six existing employee housing units. 4. A request for a worksession for the st lisp en of a Special Development District to allow the expansion of the it Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land in 'bract ' , Vail Village, First palings Town of frail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Tract ; thence N 79046'00" along the Northerly line of Vaal Village, First piling, and along the Northerly line of said 'tract B 622.86 feet; thence S 06026'52 W a distance of 348.83 feet to the Southwest confer of that parcel of land described in Book 191 at page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records, said comer also being the True point of Beginning; thence s 79,104'08" E and along the Southerly line of said parcel 200.00 feet to the Southeast corner thereof; thence N 82 052'00" E and along the Northerly line of that parcel of land described in Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a distance of 66.78 feat to the Northeasterly comer of said parcel of land; said corner being on the Westerly right-of-way line of Gore Creek Road, as platted in Vail Village, Fifth Filing; thence N 27013'37" w a distance of 77.37 feet along said Westerly right-of-way line of Gore Creek Road; thence N 89 029'22" W a distance of 12.60 feet to the Northeasterly corner of that parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No, 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 feet along the arc of a 37.50 feet radius curve to the left having a central angle of 40130'00" whose chord bears N 53°40 °00" W d distance of 25.96 feet to a point of tangency; thence N 73 °55'00" w and along said tangent 166. 44 feet; thence N 85 °10'21" w a distance of 50.40 feet to the Northwesterly corner of the Mountain Haus parcel; thence E 02 018'00" w and along the easterly line of said Mountain Haus parcel a distance of 100.00 feet to the Southeasterly corner thereof; thence S 451113'53" E a distance of 38.70 feet to the `true Point of Beginning, containing 30,486 square feet, more or less. Applicant. Vail Athletic Club Planner- Shelly Mello Shelly Mello made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that her presentation would focus on the changes that had een made to the proposed Vail Athletic Club expansion since the worksession with the PEC and DRB on June 28,1993. Stan Cop e stated that they were trying to crests a hotel He said that the proposed fifth floor would consist of loft bedrooms. He stated that he would like to see this property become a small hotel concentrating on suites. He said that they have decreased the welling units in order to increase the combination accommodation units. He stated that their goal was to have forty-nine accommodation units. He stated that the modifications that they had made were an attempt to address the conce s that the PEC members had from the June 28, 1993 wor session. Kathy Langenwalter stated to the PEC members that she would like e to comment on whether the SDD process was appropriate for the project. Planning and Environmental Commission July 26, 1993 Michael arcly, the architect for the project, ; stated that they were proposing to drop the height of the > o ". said the k of the e would out 4 feet above the ridge line, about 46 feet above the root. He said t because of the way the building its on the site, the est section was much further from street. He said that they were hoping that raising the existing ride line 5 feet was reasonable. e 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 feat further back on the east side of e building and two feet back towards the building towards the west and center portions of the building. He said that the existing building casts a shadow ell 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. Jeff Bowen stated that it was a shame that the athletic facilities had to be reduced in order to accommodate the parking. He inquired whether° there would be a way to reduce the new parking requirement to five or six additional parking spaces so that the athletic facilities would not be reduced: Stan Cope stated that in his discussions with the Town Council concerning the parking ay -in -lieu program, that Jim Gibson had said that some of the parking spaces should be provided on -site® Dalton Williams stated that he ' as trying to look ten to fifteen years into the future, and see how the different boards would be able to pedestrianize Vail. He inquired whether the applicants would be willing to pay into the parking fund for all their parking in order to 'reduce reclaim Meadow Drive as a pedestrian area. He said that this would help traffic congestion in the area and that on -site parking could be restricted to loading only. Shelly Mello stated that there are already fifty-six parking spaces that have not been provided on -site and that Town ouncil was concerned bout increasing the number of parking spaces to be located off -site in the a in t ctur . Stan Cope stated that they have spent time trying to devise a workable solution to the parking ' issue. He said that he realizes that the conflict of people and vehicles in this area needs to be addressed. He added that he felt that the more pedestrianized that this part of East Meadow rive becomes, that this will be better for all parties involved. Planning and Environmental Commission July 26, 1993 'Dalton Williams stated that he felt that this was the only site in Town where this type of parking scenario would be acceptable. Concerning employee housing, he said that he felt that additional employee housing units should felt that the ail in s was acceptable in this location. Allison ' Lassoe stated t she i r e d with Dalton's comment about the massing an that she felt that it was excessive. She did el that the changes in mass and bulk were step forward. one in parking, she stated that she feels that parking should be required on-site. With regard to the employee housing, she stated that she would like to see additional employee housing unity added. She said that she felt that this project `should not use the SDD process. Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that the proposed bulk and c t le and appreciated the Sic nt's effort to work with the PEC. He said that the fie nt's work b save tlarge trdes on h site s positive. said like t idea of the o d docere, but was lso concerned out how the cochere would effect edestrianization. He said t 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 Langenalter stated that the concept was devised basically as a zoning designation. ristan Fritz stated that the variance process is often much stricter than an SDD, individual circumstances will dictate whether, it is appropriate to request an Greg sded stated that the new ccess 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, primadly 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 n SDD for this proposed redevelopment as 's are a way to break the zoning rules. Concerning employee housing ` units, she stated that she would like to see additional employee housin . e 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 o . She wondered whether it would be possible to actually connect the a in structure via tunnel to the flail Athletic Club and the Mountain Haus. She said that she would like to see this entire area pedestrianized. Kathy Langenwalter stated that Bill Anderson is still not comfortable with the mass an bulk of the building, particularly the height. he 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 necessary for this site. She said that density was not a big Planning and Environmental Commission July 26® 1993 concern to her, but that GRFA was still an issue. Kathy stated that parking was still a significant issue. She stated t the mass and bulk was getting better, but that the est side still needed to be decreased. Jim Lamont, a representative from the East Village Homeowners Association, stated that he had attended the Town Council meeting and that the overall Ton policy concerning parking s discussed. He said that the Council was concerned it grants of special privilege. Shelly Mello stated that the athletic club facilities were not originally counted as common area when the Vail Athletic Club was designed in 1977 and that staff felt that it ouI be unfair to the li nt to n lize them by considering the thletic club facilities common area at this time. Jim 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 evelo rs. He stated that the public was becoming ubious about special development districts. He stated that the Town needed to further develop the criteria. He said that the Homeowners Association would support n SDD that did not exceed existing zoning standards® Kristan Pritz asked Jim Lamont whether the Homeowners Association would accept an DD 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 onn nal) did not always conform to the standard that common area be 35 %. 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 versos a five star hotel) when justified to increase square footage for common area. Knstan 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 co' on area have been supported by staff. Allison Lassoe 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 an that it currently does not meet the n °s needs. He said that the rules may need to be bent Planning and Environmental Commission July 2, 1993 in this instance c u it is in the Town's best interests for this site to redevelop. itshould noted that Jeff Bowen left the meeting at approximately 4:00 Greg s en stated it would be helpful to have the numbers in a format that lent themselves more easily for comparison purposes. Diana onov' `n inquired t the ` of udead on the site, 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 it Athletic Club has available Kathy n en alter stated to the applicant that there ' would significant number of variances required ith the project as proposed and that these need to e 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 PEC to give him direction as to what they should e focusing on before the next meeting. Tana Donovan stated that the applicant was on the right track and that Michael Barcley had done a good job in addressing the PEC's concerns. ristan Pritz summarized the PECs 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 Pritz stated there are some limitations as to ' what is possible to approve with the variance process given the criteria and findings, She said that the PEC 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 Cgs 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 Lan en alter stated that both the PEC 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 o located t the NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 7 ` and the 1/ 1/4 Section 6, Township 5 South Range 80 W of the 60th P.M.Nail Associates. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented Tim Kehoe and Jack unn Planner: Jim umu Planning and nvir nme t l Commission July 26, 1993 MEMORANDUM 0 -Three xiti four large evergreen trees, l ct in it access west of t ii , would be relocated t E. These trees I relocated rt of the it t e Ship Park area and immediately the recreation t fourth evergreen is t proposed to relocated c f its poor condition. -The existing located at t he southwest c f the Golden Peak House would also be relocated ont t E. Due to the tree's close r i i to uil i ng and the configuration of the tree's _ root system, i_ may not be possible `relocate_t this without significant damage to the tree. The condition roots will not be known until excavation of the root ball has begun. However, if the r cannot be relocated, t the lic t has agreed install two new 3-inch caliper r t E. -A permanent stone-faced l r would be added in the it access immediately c the sr elevation the iti . # f rti I r I tc the stone is in l c in t i r# Circle planter, as well as the existing l r s along upper Bridge Street. The planter wall would be approximately ®4" in i , with a stone cap, so it ul used r seating. A 25 to tall specimen blue be added to this I r. flagstone r brick paver walkway south side of the Los Amigos c r vi for pedestrian access 1 the t h side of the it i -The existing fire hydrant, which is located immediately the southwest r r of the il' i, l relocated i the new planter above. i would remove t r t from the pedestrian area. -The applicant has agreed to i i t contribution _ , the redesign ` f Seibert Circle. The exact dollar amount has not yet been indicated. 5; Architectural detailing (east, north and west elevations) The applicant r to incorporate many of the ar i l changes to the building that th f at the previous ' worksession. These changes included vi i to r oof (eliminati the south-facing ` vertical `' element on the r i rt of the building), adding "retail r "t the t elevation (along the i further articulating the first fl` r "retail windows" by adding divided lights. 6. GRFA located in the "overhang and deck" easement area As discussed extensively at previous PEC worksessions during late 1992 and early 1993, the staff has expressed concerns regarding the addition of floor area located in the "overhang and deck" easement areas. At the January 1993 PEC worksession, the applicant had modified the redevelopment plans to remove all GRFA within the "overhang and deck" easement areas. The staff and the PEC had expressed specific concerns regarding the south easement area, due to the fact that this property is currently zoned Agricultural and Open Space. The current redesign now calls for additional floor area (C A) to be located within this easement area; At the i ous PEC worksession, the i i comfortable it the ii 1 GRFA proposed located within , with # r i that the li t would work with it Associates regarding the i ti (f at least an equal t) of open space to the Town. It was suggested that the ill Creek stream tract or the Pirate Ship Park area Tract is ated as permanent open space. Amigos 7. Los completion f the last PEC worksession, Ron Riley, one of the co-applicants in the redevelopment, i i t to f would that he like the to i t a partial enclosure over the Los Amigos t r dining deck, on the i de of the building. The staff understands that the request would include l , plexi-glass or canvas covering v r the c, and that the v ri ng would be at least partially retractable. Ron and Craig will provide the details of the proposed cl ur at the PEC meeting 8. Development/Zoning Sti tic ) The redevelopment r j t would further exceed the CCI development statistics and the ii ti conditions, i following categories: -Building i t` -Density -Site r ' b) The redevelopment r`j c l brought more into compliance, than the i ti building, in II i zoning `categories: Area -Density - Number of Units 5 0 L.1 ®ti I N IT I= m -4--- sir #o 11 i Wn4o- wm '--Al • • • • 'Al 04 69 SITE PLAN • • • • 'Al 0 0 0 /k\CfN b FLoOR OA _� ,, ■ LU 0 Lu 'Lu 0 i 0 cr. 0 CL 0 Z U W 0 < 0 > 0 0 0 I ,SECOND FLOOR PLAN -j w cl 0 2 - w 1= • w C/) =) 0 < ui CL z uj 0 Ell ui • 2 uj cc U.1 Cn M 0 0. 0 Z C) uj 1 - • —j > Iwo all AS� m LU • 1 0 m uj m ui (1) M 0 • • • 0 Z LLJ 0 All 4r AoOF PLAN • • • • �a� »�� r -,� -t �_ �� r f !- • • • � • rr: • m HILL *U I Diej 1 'ZI 'diTE PLAN SUN I SHADE ANALYSIS 7i U.1 a I • uj a; i LU C), • cr. 0 0 Z L) ui • , • ;R 0 > 0 0 11 II I I At, FI B llmi'll, I t.: f' g, to The "greenhouse" enclosure, originally proposed for the south deck of the Los Amigos Restaurant, has been eliminated from the project. 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS To summarize the requests, the Community Development Department has received the following applications for the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House: 1. A request for the establishment of a Special Development District, 2. A request for a Commercial Gore I exterior alteration; 3. A request to encroach into View Corridor Rio. 19 4. A request to rezone a portion of Tract E (from Agricultural and Open Space to Commercial Core 1)9 and . A request for a minor subdivision, (to incorporate the rezoned Tract F parcel into the Golden Peak House parcel and to incorporate a portion of Lot C into the Golden Peak House parcel). The Golden Peak House was originally constructed in 1966, and since that time there have been only minor, cosmetic modifications made to the exterior of the structure. Generally, this proposed redevelopment for the Golden Beak House includes a renovation of the entire building. The architectural modifications include sloped roof forms, flat roof forms, the addition of dormers, balconies, bay windows, and other architectural projections.. Such modifications include the addition of a new fourth floor (on the western end of the structure) and the addition of a new fifth floor (on the eastern end). The entire existing "butterfly" roof form would be removed, and gable roofs added. The proposed gable roof forms would have a 3:12 pitch. Modifications proposed for the exterior of the structure will also facilitate the improvement, and more efficient use, of the interior spaces. The existing center area of the building (which includes the ramp), is commonly referred to as an arcade. This area is generally used as common area/pedestrian circulation and is not a very efficient use of this interior space. With the redevelopment, the applicant is proposing to infill this entire arcade area and to add a full basement beneath the structure. The common areas of the building would be better defined to allow for a more efficient circulation system throughout the structure. Additional retail /commercial space would be added to the building. Specifically, at -grade retail shops would continue to be located along the north elevation, and the second floor restaurant (Los Amigos) would relocate its public entrance to the northwest corner of the building. There are currently 13 dwelling units (and 0 accommodation units) located in the building. The redevelopment proposal calf for 14 dwelling units (4 with lock-offs) and 2 accommodation units, for a total of 15 dwelling units (2 accommodation omits ® 1 dwelling unit)® With this redevelopment, the entire structure would be brought into compliance with all of the current Building and Fire Codes, (the building would be fully sprinkled). 2 *Minor subdivision to incorporate all the easement areas (Tract E and Lot C) into the Golden Leak House parcel. overlay on the entire Golden Peak House parcel, The portions of Tract E proposed to be rezoned generally include those areas which are labeled as Easement #1, Easement #2 and Easement 3, on the property survey. 'Jail Associates, the owner of Tract E, has previously granted easements to the Golden Peak House to allow for specific encroachments, such as roof overhangs and balconies, in the area of Easement Nos. 1, 2 and 3. These encroachments are considered legal, non - conforming uses within the Agricultural and Open Space Zane District, and as such, all legal, non - conforming uses cannot be enlarged or expanded, and if modified, they must be brought into full compliance with the zoning codex Overall, the project's departures from the Commercial Core I Zone District standards, which are specifically listed In the Zoning Analysis section of this memorandum, are as follows- a. Building height b. GRFA C. Common area d4 Dwelling unit count e. Site coverage fa Loading berths Ill. L L 1 highlighted in bold The project's departures from the CC[ zone district standards are type. UNDERLYING ZONING: EXISTING PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORE l PROJECT SDD Site Area:* 8,375 sq. ft. Same Same Setbacks: Per the Vail 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 ft. West: 36 ft. max. West: 42 ft. relax. 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 3,180 sq. ft. - added to GRFA GRFA: 6,700 sq. ft. or 80% 8,958 sq. ft. 16,176 sq. ft. +4 sq. ft. (excess common) t 3,180 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 15 units 4.8 units for the site. (All Dus) (14 DU, 4 units have lock -offs and 2A Us) Site Coverage: 6,700 sq. ft. 6,352 sq. ft. ** 7,991 sq. ft. ** or 80% or 76 °!° or °/® dscaping: Per the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan 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. HISTORY 1) November 25, 1991 - initial PEC work session. 2)`'January 13, 1992`- PEC update On the status of the project. 3) January 27, 1992 - PEC work session. is 5 4) October 26, 1992 - PEC work session. ) November 23, 1992 - PEC site visit to review building staking. 6) November 24, 1992 - Council denied request to proceed through the planning process. The request included floor area (commercial and GPFA) to be constructed into the public right -of -way (north side). 7) December 7, 1992 - PEC work session. 3) December 14, 1992 - PEC work session. 9) January 11, 1993 - PEC work session. V. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of Special Development Districts is to- "... encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of new development within the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with a property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district." 1) The following are the nine s ecial development district criteria to utilized by the Planning and Environmental Commission when evaluating proposals. A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent ro erties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation® Architectural Design Issues - The following comments should be reviewed in conjunction with the proposed elevation drawings for the Golden Peak House. in general, staff believes that the overall architectural style is positive and would be compatible with the alpine character of flail Village. The applicant has responded to many of the PEC and staff comments regarding the architectural design. A summary of the comments and the applicant's response, for each building elevation, follows: NORTH ELEVATION 1. The central connection between the east and west halves of the building should be cut back to the east, and roof forms should be simplified and lowered. The hot tub located on the flat roof of this central connection should be relocated to the south side of the fifth floor addition, to a less visible location. 6 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 would be a strong probability that a hot tub could be added to the deck at some future date, 2. Where applicable, flat roofs should be modified to pitched roofs, similar to the roof forms 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 form 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 flat roofs and replaced them with truncated ridge peaks, similar to those roof forms utilized at the Sonnenalp and Christiania. 3. 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 polled 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 building. 4. The first floor arcade needs refinement to create more of a pedestrian urea. 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, g 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 arcade. 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 response, 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, 1. 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 , all other floor area has been removed from Lot C. 2. The large trees (approximately 5) 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 /streetscape improvements in this corridor are critical and would like to see the applicant address this issue further. 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 Vail 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, many of the windows have been removed due to the expanded stair width for the second floor restaurant: Staff believes that the windows are important and should be added back to the design.° ELEVATION SOUTH 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; 2. The Los Amigos outdoor dining deck was proposed to have cantilevered structure (GF) located above it. This was a concern because the sure 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 buildings 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 E, from the skier/pedestrian access, landscaping along this building elevation has not been addressed. GENERAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING 1. Detailing on the balcony railings should reflect a more alpine character. In responses 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 protect. In response, the applicant has carried the window detailing, such as a bay window, over to the east side of the north elevation; 9 10 The applicant has provided letters from the "major tenant space owners" in the Golden Peak douse 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 Vail Associates space proposed to be located on the ground floor of the Golden Peak House. 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 that a two-bedroom condominium unit, locate in Pitkin Creek ark, be permanently deed restricted as an employee housin unit® C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. 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 $3,000 per parking space, the total amount required for the pay-in-lieu fee would be $107,3360 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 it applicable ele ent of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. . RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL 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 proposal: 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. .2.1 Policy: The design criteria in the Vail 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 Villages 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 rental. Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of a new commercial' activity where compatible with existing land 'uses. ..1 olio.' s Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible'greenspaces, public plazas, and streescape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 13 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. jetive® Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector® 2..1 Policy: Employed housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. Policy: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3. .2 olipy® 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 Village shall be preserved as open space. The Vail Village Conceptual Building Height flan 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 IL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN 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: 14 House. These improvements, some of which are described above, generally call for the upgrading of Seibert Circle and the upgrading of the pedestrian /skier access to the Vista Sahn ski base. The applicant has proposed streetscape improvements as a part of the Golden Peak Meuse redevelopment as follows: -The reconstruction of Seibert Circle (utilizing concrete unit pavers) in the approved Streetscape design, with a 6' wide, colored concrete band around the circumference of the Circle. -The applicant has proposed to add three, 3 -inch caliper deciduous trees (in metal tree grates) along the building's west elevation (in the pedestrian walkway /skier access) located between Seibert Circle and the Vista Rahn ski base. The staff believes that the redesign of Seibert Circle needs to be very carefully studied and that a landscape Architect should analyze the design for the Circle. In addition to the surface paver treatment, the staff believes that landscaping, public seating and perhaps a performance area should be provided for in the design. Drainage work around the Circle also needs to be addressed. The staff also ;believes that the applicant should further review the details for the design of the skier /pedestrian access to the Vista Rahn ski base. We believe that concrete unit pavers would be a much more aesthetically pleasing material than the proposed asphalt surfacing. The PC should recommend and discuss the improvements they would like to see the Gulden leak douse developers install /construct as a part of the redevelopment of the site. Such improvements should be directly related to the redevelopment of the Golden Peak douse, and should be tied to the mitigation of the project's impacts on the Town and the adjoining public spaces. The staff believes that improvements to the Seibert Circle area should be incorporated into the project because the building is essentially proposed to be built right up to the property line. Additionally, the flail Village Master Plan specifically cites the relationship of this project to Seibert Circle. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. There are no natural and /or geologic hazards, or floodplain that effect this property. F. Site plan, building design and location and open s ace provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Please see Sections V A, E, and H for comments relating to this criterion. 16 G. A circulation system esi ne for of vehicles and pedestrians addressing on ) The zone district amendment criteria (zone change) are listed below: A. Suitability of the Proposed Zoning. B. is the amendment proposal presenting a convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives? C. Does the rezoning proposal provide for the ro h of an orderly an viable community? ) The minor subdivision criteria are as follows: A. Lot Area ® Chapter 13.24.090 of the Town's Municipal Code requires that the minimum lot or site area for a property located within the CCI zone district be 5,000 squire feet of buildable area. As proposed, the new lot area of the Golden Peak House parcel would exceed the 5,000 square foot requirement. The new lot area would be 8,375 square feet. B. Frontage ® Chapter 13,24.090 of the Town's Municipal Code requires that each lot have a minimum frontage of 30 feet. The applicant is not proposing to modify the frontage of the Golden Peak House parcel. The existing frontage is approximately 115 feet. ) The review criteria for the View Corridor Encroachment request are as follows: "No encroachment into an existing view corridor shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the encroachment meets all of the following criteria ". A. That the literal enforcement of Section 13,73.030 would preclude a reasonable development of a proposed structure on the applicant's land. B. That the development of the structure proposed by the applicant would not be such as to defeat the purposes of this Chapter. C. That the development proposed by the applicant would not be detrimental to the enjoyment of public pedestrian areas, public ways, public spaces, or public views. D. That the development proposed by the applicant complies with applicable dements of the hail Land Use Plan, Town Policies, urban Design wide Plans, and other adopted master plans. E. That the proposed structure will not diminish the integrity or quality nor compromise the original purpose of the preserved view. 1 View Corridor Igo. I is the view from the Vail Transportation Center south to the ski mountain. The existing of erg Peak House currently encroaches into View Corridor No. 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 building). The Golden Peak House redevelopment is proposing to encroach further into View 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 PC 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 landmarks within Vail Village and contribute to the community's unique sense of place." After careful analysis of the review criteria for a view corridor encroachment the staff has the following comments: e believe that the applicant has not demonstrated that criteria A can be met. We believe that reasonable development of the Golden Peak House site can occur without a view corridor encroachment. e do not belive that the applicant has demonstrated that the find that the proposed encroachment into View Corridor Rio. 1 would be in compliance with the purposes of the View Corridor Chapter, as outlined above. Additionally, we are concerned about the possibility of setting a precedent by supporting the requested view corridor encroachment. -We believe that the view corridor encroachment would have a negative impact on the enjoyment and use of the public spaces, ways and plazas adjacent to the Golden Freak House. -it is the staff's position that although the view corridor encroachments would be almost imperceptible from the Village Transportation Center, or at the view point, the effect of the encroachments becomes much more noticeable from the intersection of Gore Greek Drive and Bridge Street. As one moves from this intersection south towards the Golden Peak House, it becomes apparent that the redevelopment would significantly impact the views towards the ski mountain (i.e. Riva Ridge ski run). t® SUMMARY There are many positive aspects of this project. As identified in the memo, there are also some issues which are still concerns to staff. We request that the P C discuss each issue and provide the applicant with direction on these items in preparation for a final review on September 13, 1993. These include- 1 . View Corridor Encroachment 2. Sun /Shade 3. Employee Housing 4. Loading and Delivery . Streetscape Improvements/Landscaping 6. Architectural detailing (east, north and west elevations) c.lpec\memoslgo1dpeak.823 20 EXHIBIT. "A " 0 Teak 1 Golden House Square Foots e Analysis Existing Conditions Commercial ` Common GRF,4 Office Basement Level 1,932 2,460 0 0 Ground Floor: 3,963 1,237 0 292 Second Floor: 1,301 1,332 2,466 168 Third Floor: 0 1,480 3,749 0 Fourth Floor: 0 118 2,743 Totals: 7,196 6,627 8,958 460 Total square footage rosy area) = 23,241 sq. ft. Proposed on itl n Commercial Common GFA Office Basement Level: 5,270 1,652 0 122 Ground Floor: 6,183 1,010 0 0 Second Floor: 2,087 1,358 2,577 0 Third Floor: 0 ` 765 5,272 0 Fourth Floor: 0 698 5,564 0 Fifth Floor: 0 42 2,763 0 Totals: 13,545 5,525 16,176 122 Total square footage ( ros area) 5,3 s® ft. 21 Exhibit "B" Golden Peak House Dwellinq Unit Analysis Fistin . U AU Basement Level: 0 0 Ground Floor: 0 0 Second Floor: 0 0 Third Floor: 3 0 Fourth Floor: 2 0 Totals: 16 0 = 18 Dus Proposed: DU AU Lock -oft Basement Level 0 0 Ground Floor: 0 0 0 Second Floor: 3 0 1 Third Floor: 6 2 2 Fourth Floor: 4 0 1 Fifth Floor: 1 0 0 Totals: 14 2 4 Mote: 2 Aus = 1 DU Total Dus ® 1 22 EXHIBIT "C" Golden Leak House Parking /Loading Analysis Existing Conditions ® Required Parkinq Spaces Loadinq Berth Retail Commercial /Restaurant 23.25 1 Residential 30.00 1 Office 1.34 0 TOTALS: 55.09 2 (minus 1 for multiple use credit) =1 berth required Proposed Conditions - Required ,tail Co mercial Parking ces Loading Berths 39.596 1 /Restaurant Residential 28.423 1 Office 0.433" 0 TOTALS: 63.507 2 (minus 1 for multiple use credit) =1 berth required 2 EMPLOYMENT GENERATION RATES �ATEGoRiEs AND RANGEs FoR VAIL )YEES PER 1000 SQuARE ET RRC RCPT OVERALL U D AVERAGES E 5.7/1000 s.. 5-8/1000 .. 5.9/1 000 5-8/1 1.8/1000 1.5 -3/1 7.6/1000 -9/1 3.161 .5 -/1 6.6/1000 5-8/1000 NA 1/1000 . 1 -1.5/ 1.3/r .5- 1.25 1r ` 6.5/1 5-8/1000 10.6/1000 -13/1 /A . /unit /A .2 /unit k bn Tourist Accommodation/ 0.2 to 0.4 employees per room Lodge Commercial Professional/ Office 3.9 employees /1 s.f. or 1/256 s.f. Detail [Wholesale/Services 3.5 employees /1000 s.. or 1/285 s.f. Warehouse 0.4 employees /10 s.f. or 1/250 s.f. Manufacture 1.5 to 4.0 employees/1000 s.f Restaurant/Bar 5.0 to 10.0 employees /1000 s.f. Utilities /Quasi Governmental 1.5 to 2.5 employees/1000 s.f. Other Based on review of APCHA CLARIFICATION'S FIC ATION'S FOR CITY/CouNTY GENERATION: a. The above Employee Generation calculation figures are intended to be consistent with Section 5 -149, Affordable Housing, of the City Code and Section 5 -510 of the County Code. b. Employee generation for commercial uses shall be based on net leasable square footage (see Definitions) and shall be verified by review of the APB A. C. Affordable housing may be ! provided on the same site or on an alternate site from the proposed development, provided that credit shall only be given for dwelling units located within the City of Aspen or the Aspen Metro Area, as this area is currently defined by the Aspen /Pit in County Growth Management Policy Plan. Applicants proposing to provide ' affordable housing on an alternative site shall be required' to demonstrate its feasibility through demonstrating' that they have an interest in the property or dwelling units, and be specifying the size and type of units to be prodded and any physical upgrades to be accomplished. d. The Aspen City Code Growth Management Section 5- 0 G(4)(d) refers to the Provision of Affordably Housing. This section allows for the advice of the City Council's housing designee to be used in the determination of the number of employees the proposed development is expected to generate, The standards for employee generation represent the various levels of service which reflect the types of lodge operations in existence or proposed for the City of Aspen. This section allows that the applicant be given the !opportunity. oSA L REMMEN CARES PAGE 7 0 IV. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Eindin a The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the folio ng findings afore rantin a conditional use per it: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. 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. `. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. B. Varianc Findings The Manning and Environmental Commission shall make the following fin Inds before arantina a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, . That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons; a The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary' physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions alica le to the same site of the variance that d' not apply generally to other 'properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 6 V1. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and the variance based on the criteria discussed above. In addition, staff believes that it complies with the findings of both conditional use and a variance. Concerning conditional use Criteria 1, staff believes that the proposed use is consistent with the purposes of this zone district, since the site will remain as open space and the areas used for burial and memorials take up a small part of the site. Concerning Criteria 2, staff believes that the proposed use will not have detrimental impacts to public health, safety or welfare. Staff has reviewed this with the State Health Department to confirm this. Finally, staff believes that Criteria 3 is met as the use will be in compliance with the zoning code. Staff believes the proposal also meets the variance findings. Finding 1 is met, in staff's opinion, in that the request is not inconsistent with types of uses that could be constructed in the Agricultural Open Space zone district. Finding 2 is met, in staff's opinion, as there will be no impact to public health, safety or welfare. Finding 3b is met, as staff believes that there are extraordinary circumstances applicable to this variance request as this use is unique and will probably not be proposed for any other site in town, and warrants a solution which maintains the natural character of this site. Staff recommends approval of the two requests with the condition that the cemetery be constructed and operated in accordance with the Cemetery Master Plan and ana ement Report. c:\pec\memos\ceme1ery.927 7 23 r � g ® v4 n1ropaw co ` i U �+ ronite h® V Fig. 16 burg! 2 � �Nlld we ®� ,lent ® � meralzi W4 - 1 W C18� g v \ t� W Ir MrIAC cz 0 \� o\ \ ® If)p {YtC Y r Fig. 17 VAIL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN • ,;• t tom; •;'. ,. � #, # ! i � '! ! ` �r t :` « ,• t �' •#f ""# !, # t t !: # ', ! ! , f it t f r ; r 1, -• #• it` f,; - • ` `, !- � i!t -a # r- ` # �t f r • , r # # # `f .lsi ii # ! ! t�1r • # � t !• - t# •, ! r • i a '! fir` 1. - 1® ZONING ANALYSIS" New Fast Lot: Existing Zoning: Agriculture and Open Space Proposed Zoning: Love Density Multi-Family Buildable Lot Area: 190,000 square feet Total Lot Area: 509,621.5 square feet Allowed Proposed Density: 9 units per acre 32 units or 39 units FA: 57,000 square feet 23,914 square feet Common Area: 19,950 square feet 8,254 square feet Wall Heights: 6 feet 6 feet Parking: 64 parking spaces 64 parking spaces Setbacks: front: 20 feet 50 feet side: 20 feet 225/200 feet rear: 20 feet 400 feet Height: 38 feet 38 feet Site Coverage: 178,367 square feet 14,000 square feet Landscaping: 203,848.6 square feet 474,621.5 square feet Lot Area; Buildable: 10,000 square feet 129,243 square feet Frontage: 30 feet 1,100 feet Shape: - 0 feet x 80 feet acceptable' Final calculations will be confirmed prior to final hearing. Please note these calculations assume the minor subdivision and rezonings occur. Ill® EVALUATION A. Is the Existing Zoning Suitable? B. Is the Amendment Preventing a Convenient, Workable Relationship with Land Uses Consistent With Municipal Objectives? C. Does the Rezonina Provide for the Growth of an Orderiv, oViable Co `unity? 4 b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone: C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owner's of other properties in the same district. V. PUBLIC WORKS/FIRE i CONCERNS Public Works.- t. Public Works needs CDOT access permits: 2 Drainage will have to be provided. 3. Coordinate the pedestrian access with improvements to be made on the Frontage Road. At this time the Frontage Road is designed to accommodate a 10 foot shoulder on the North side to allow for bikes and pedestrians. Fire Department: 1. Both buildings will need to have a fire alarm' and fire sprinkler system. 2. Fire hydrants will be required per Fire Department standards. 3. Type 5 construction will be required for these buildings. . Buildings must be able to be accessed by 150 feet from a single staging area. I® ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1® Does the li rezoning i variance are rift? 2. Architecture would Staff like r comments on the rc it t r. Although the building is in li i t y design stage, comments on massing requested. 3. Lanscapin/arking Staff believes that the landscape plan should include berming if possible to thoroughly screen the parking. Staff believes the concept of the outlying parking lot is a good idea but would like to know what impacts to the area would result in converting the current road alignment into a parking area. 4. CDOT Access Staff understands that the requirement for acceleration and deceleration lanes must be fulfilled; however, we would like to understand at this time what kinds of design impacts this will have on the new entrance to this area. iL, f�,, .. a.v'tPC�c�o-