Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1993-1011 PEC
1 Applicant: David Smith Planner: Jim Curnutte 1* 2 placed into the short-term rental pool due to agreements made by previous owners. ?t? ®© Condition 5, he said that a gravel roof would be more practical for this project. Concerning Condition 7, he said that he could not commit to this condition as the condominium units were owned by other parties. Dalton Williams inquired whether the proposed planting area at the base of the dining deck would be at-grade. Mike Mollica clarified that staff was not recommending an expansion on the first floor of the north elevation, but rather divided light windows on the store fronts to add more pedestrian interest. Kathy Langenwalter asked staff to explain in more detail their position concerning t first floor and the arcade. I Kristan Pritz stated that staff was concerned that the previous first floor of the north elevation was preferred by staff. The Design Review Board would need to look closely at this item. Mike Mollica stated that the arcade would be a positive addition for the pedestrian experience. Concerning the roof materials, he said that the Design Review Board would ?,Iso need to look at this. Diana Donovan stated that Condition 4 should be directed to the Design Review Board for review. Planning and Environmental Commission is October 11, 1993 0 Paul Johnston, representing the Christiania, stated that he felt that the Golden Peak House redevelopment would improve adjacent property owners'views. Greg Amsden stated that he supported Conditions 1 and 3. He said that Condition 2 could be left to the Design Review Board. He stated that he would like to see Conditions 5 eliminated. Concerning the deck enclosure, he did not feel that the proposed system would work and could not support the deck enclosure. Allison Lassoe stated that she was in favor of Conditions I and 7. She stated that Conditions 2, 3, and 4 were Design Review Board issues. She stated that she had no opinion about what roof materials were utilized. She stated that she would like to see the applicant contribute $10,000 into the Seibert Circle redevelopment fund up front. She was opposed to any covering of the dining deck. M El Clark Willingham stated that it was not within his power to agree to Conditions 1 and 7 at the present time. He stated that the main deviations were from the zoning standards (concerned GRFA) and the encroachment into View Corridor 1. He felt that the public benefits of the proposed Golden Peak House redevelopment outweighed these two items. • 3. That the applicant further articulate the first floor "retail windows`®, by adding divided lights. v • M Planning and Environmental Commission October 119 1993 91 • • Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the fence pulled back on the west end. Dalton Williams stated that he agreed that the fence should be pulled back on the west side. 9 Applicant, Mountain Haus Condominium Association Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly Mello made a presentation per the staff memo and stated that this request was lar to the request made by the Mountain Haus in 1989. She stated that staff was recommending denial « \? request. She stated that the dormers did not have huge impacts with regard to design, but that there was not a physical 22 ¥»2« to justify the addition of dormers. 4 A request for a worksession to discuss a minor subdivision of Lot 1, Block 4, Vail 0 Village 3rd Filing/381 Beaver Dam Circle. Planne \\C ay Ji urnutte Craig Snowdon stated that he © ©e o> <e a clarification of staff's comment that the proposed road maintenance and drainage easements would be public. Jim Curnutte explained that Greg Hall of ».T Public Works Department stated that calling the easements "public" was necessary to allow the Town to go onto them for maintenance purposes, however they» § not be open to the public walking across Mr. Payne's property. G 0 Applicant, David Smith Planner: Jim Curnutte Kristan Pritz stated that if the three employee housing units were located off-site, they would need to conform with the Town of Vail's Housing Ordinance. Dalton Williams asked what the buildable area of the lot would be if the building conformed to the setback requirements in the HDMF zone district. Torn Braun showed him how the lot would look on the drawing. Dalton Williams stated that he could find a hardship on the site. He said he was against the Cornice Building being a SDD. He stated that he would be willing to work with the applicant on setback and parking variances, if the employee housing units were rented to people who lived in the Town of !Vail but did net own ears. He said he also liked the idea of providing the employee housing units off - site. Greg Amsden stated that he would prefer to see this project addressed through the SDD process, although he did think the size of the lot was a hardship. He also suggested providing the employee housing off -site. Diana Donovan stated that she did not feel that it was an appropriate site for more development due to the size of the lot, the parking situation and the traffic at this location. She said that she felt that the SDD process was more appropriate for this site than the variance process but with no GRFA credit. She said that no parking should be allowed on this lot irrear less of how it is redeveloped. Bill Anderson inquired which process the applicant would prefer. Torn Braun stated that they would prefer the SDD process. Bill Anderson stated that he did not have a firm commitment at this point to either process. He said that he felt that the G FA should be limited on this site to 2,195 square feet. He added that he did not feel that credit should be given for the employee housing units. He also agreed that the applicant should explore purchasing employee housing units off -site. He stated that he did not think this was a good site for any kind of building due to its location (headlights in windows, noise, etc.). Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was against the SDD process in conjunction with this project. She stated that she could not see additional square footage above the 2,195 square feet allowed on such a small site. She stated that she would like to see the employee housing relocated off -site and be permanently deed restricted. She then took a straw vote of the other commission members regarding their feelings on the appropriate process. Bill Anderson and Greg Amsen stated that they felt that the SDD process was appropriate for the redevelopment of this property. The remainder of the commission members felt that variances were the way to go. Kathy then asked for a straw vote regarding the GRFA bonus for the employee housing units. v LM Dalton Williams inquired why the Housing Authority was proposing for sale units and not a mixture of for rent and for sale units. He stated that the Housing Task Force found that a mixture of for sale and for rent units seemed to work best. Duane Piper pointed out that the land was still owned by the Town of Vail and that Town Council still had some say as to the way the land was ultimately used. Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowners Association, stated t at e was concerned that this proposal was precedent setting in that Agriculture Open Space was being rezoned to a more urban use. He stated that he felt that there are sites that could sustain more density than the Mountain Bell site. Duane Piper stated that the Housing Authority has been aware from the beginning that the Learning Tree would lose part of their playground as a.result of the employee housing development and that the Housing Authority fully intended to replace what was lost on one side of the site on the other side of the site. D Planning and Environmental Commission October 11, 199 1 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission M I DATE: October 11, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for the establishment of a Special Development District, a Commercial Core I exterior alteration request, a minor subdivision request, a zone change request and a request for an encroachment into View Corridor No. 1 for the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House, located at 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A, B and C, Block 2, and Tract E, Vail Village First Filing. 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 remain. However, the restaurant's public entrance would be relocated to the northwest corner of the building and the restaurant would be expanded with the addition of a retractable enclosure over a portion of the outdoor dining deck. adjacent to Bridge Street. The roof ridge, in this area, has been reoriented so that it runs east to west. This new fourth floor area is designed to include one dwelling unit, with a GRFA of 1,834 square feet. By pulling the fourth floor back from Bridge Street, the applicant proposes to shift some of this new GRFA into the "overhang and deck" easement area (Tract E) along the south side of the building. The staff has calculated that approximately 410 square feet of GRFA would be located in this easement area. The Tract E and Lot C issues - Tract E is the large parcel of land located to the south of the Golden Peak House. The parcel includes a portion of the Mill Creek stream tract, Pirate Ship Park and the Vista Bahn ski base. Tract E is owned by Vail Associates. • 2 v Employee housing - Two off-site, permanently restricted, two-bedroom employee housing units, are proposed as a part of the redevelopment. 3 General site improvements - The proposal includes the following site modification which would be completed around the perimeter of the Golden Peak House: » ©« 1 A concrete unit paver walkway, with an integral snow melt system, wou be added along the north elevation and along a portion of the west elevation. A flagston®» alk is also proposed along the south side of t building. 1 3. Improvements to ales % :«ed *d>wl access, west of the building, would include the relocation of the existing fire hydrant (out of the pedestrian way) and the addition of a permanent planter © a large specimen evergreen. The details of «e» ««? improvements are described further in the treys cape Master Plan section of this memorandum. 4 II® GOLDEN PEAK HOUSE ZONING ANALYSIS *UNDERLYING ZONING: EXISTING PROJECT *EXISTING PROJECT COMMERCIAL CORE I (existing lot area) (expanded lot area} *PROPOSED SDD Site Area: 8,375 sq. ft. 6,926 sq. ft. 8,375 sq. ft. 8,375 sq. ft. Setbacks: Per the Vail Village N: 0 -6 ft. N: 0 -6 ft. W: 1 -13 ft. N: 0 -4 ft. W: 1 -11 ft. Urban Design Guide Plan W: 0 -7 ft. 0 ft. S: 10 -15 ft. S: 6 -15 ft. S: -8 E: 0 -2 ft. E: 0 -2 ft. E: 0 -2 ft. Height: 60 %: 33 ft. or less East: 46 ft. max. same East: 49 ft. max. West: 42 ft. max. 40 %: 33 ft. - 43 fit. West: 36 ft. max. Common Area: 2,345 sq. ft. or 35% 6,627 sq. ft. or 120% 6,627 sq. ft. or 99% 5,436 sq. ft. or 81 % of allowable GRFA 1,939 sq. ft. or 35% -2,345 sq. ft. or 35% 2,345 sq. ft. or 35% 4,688 sq. ft. added to GRFA 4,282 sq. ft. - added to GRFA 3,091 sq. ft. - added to GRFA GRFA: 6,700 sq. ft. or 80% 8,958 sq. ft. +4,688 sq. ft. (excess common area) 8,958 sq. ft. +4,282 sq. ft. (excess common area) 15,855 sq. ft. + 3,091 sq. ft. (excess common area) 13,646 sq. ft. or 246% 13,240 sq. ft. or 198% 18,946 sq. ft. or 226% Units: 25 units per acre, 18 units (all Dus) same 14 DUs + 2 AUs = 15 units (includes 3 lock -offs) 4.8 units for the site Site Coverage: 6,700 sq. ft. or 80% 6,352 sq. ft. or 92% 6,352 sq. ft. or 76% 7,874 sq. ft. or 94% Landscaping: Per the Vail Village same same same Urban Design Guide Plan Parking: Per the TOV parking standards Required: 55.09 same Required: 70.11 Loading: Per the TOV loading standards Required: 1 same Required: 1 Proposed: 0 Existing: 0 same Commercial Uses: N/A 7,196 sq. ft. same 14,031 sq. ft. Gross Floor Area: N/A 22,781 sq. ft. same 35,444 sq. ft. All development statistics, including the setbacks, have been calculated by staff and are based on the applicant's proposed new lot area of 8,375 sq. ft. This lot are assumes the incorporation of portions of Tract E and Lot G lot is 0.159 acres, or 6,926 sq. ft. The new areas (portions of Tract E and Lot G) proposed to be included into the Golden Peak House parcel consist into the Golden Peak House parcel. The existing Golden Peak House area of 1,449 sq. ft. for a total of 8,375 sq. ft. Gross floor area includes common areas, GRFA, and commercial square footages. M. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL r. As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of Special Development Districts is as follows: M, "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." 7 11 M The following are the nine special development district criteria to utilized by the Planning and Environmental Commission when evaluating SDD proposals. A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhoo and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. I The staff thought that it would be helpful to provide the PEC with a summary of the architectural design issues that have been identified and addressed by the applicants over the course of the last four or five worksessions. The following comments should be reviewed in conjunction with the proposed elevation ,frawings 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 Vail Village. The applicant has responded to many of the PEC and staff comments regarding the architectural design. 8 ' Adding the arcade, or canopy, back into the design. This element was originally proposed over the first floor retail windows on the north elevation, and has recently been eliminated. 5. The staff has concerns with the recently modified ground floor plan, which includes a curved store front at the eastern end of the building. We believe the applicant should utilize the original ground floor plan, which provides a much more pedestrian-friendly environment along the shop fronts. The addition of the arcade along the north elevation would also be an asset to the building. 1 The applicant has designed a peaked roof form that conceals the small flat roof section behind it. Architectural detailing has been added to this elevation. prIll posed to be located within the Tract E easement areas. To respond to thi issue, the applicants have proposed to mitigate the use of the Tract E easement areas by donating open space to the Town. Vail Associates has proposed to donate a portion of Tract E, to be used as permanent open spaci 4. The roofs over some of the south facing balconies have been cut back to he?-- decrease the mass and bulk of the building. I 4. Landscaping along this elevation has been addressed by the addition of the three transplanted evergreen trees and the transplanted aspen onto Tract E. The applicant has also proposed to add shrubs along the base of the Los Amigos dining deck and a flagstone walkway. GENERAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING 1 The detailing on the balcony railings-has been modified and the railings now have a more ornamental feel and reflect more of the Vail alpine character. IN 2. The window detailing, such as the bay window, on the western portion of ti-r-6 0 north elevation has been carried through to the other parts of the project. C. The proposed roofing material on the building is a tar and gravel roof. Staff believes that the originally proposed shake roof should be added back into t design of the building. We feel that shake roof would be more in keeping with ..c& y r of ».\y «* and would be more aesthetically pleasing. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding ?2±2 72¥ activity. It is the staff's position that the mixture of uses proposed for the site is compatible with the existing uses on surrounding properties. The uses proposed would meet the purpose and intent of the CCI zone district. normally required by the Town. We generally use the Condominium Conversion restriction, which is in the Subdivision Regulations, a copy of which is attached to this memorandum (Exhibit B). The Employee Housing Report, prepared for the Town of Vail by the consulting firm Rosall Remmen and Cares, indicates the recommended ranges of employee housing units based upon type of use and floor area. For the Golden Peak House analysis, the staff has utilized the MjMpoint of the suggested ranges, for employees generated. A copy of the report's summary page is attached to this memorandum (Exhibit A). Utilizing the guidelines in this report, the staff has analyzed theincrementa increase #f the numbers of employees (sq;art re footage per use), that the proposed redevelopment would create. The summary is as follows: 2) Bar/Restaurant = 878 sq. ft.(@ 6.5/1,000 sq. ft.) = 5.7 employees DIM = 1 Loom L@ 0-7_5/room -- 0.75 em Ioyees = 35.25 employees -35.25 employees x .15 housing multiplier = 5.2 employees. -35.25 employees x .30 housing multiplier = 10.5 employees. In summary, the staff estimates that the Golden Peak House redevelopment would create a need for six to eleven additional employees. This range is due to the housing multiplier that varies from 0.15 to 0.30. The 0.15 housing multiplier is suggested to be 12 1-11-1 utilized when projects do not exceed allowable density and GRFA. The 0.30 housing multiplier is recommended for use when projects are over on density. The existing a] proposed Golden Peak House is over on density. 13 .c ,�, ..,� r �., � � i � r�a� �J67sa oq�� �,�,s . m , - o .s 1 ®W Policy: 00 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 ... on 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 Plan has included the Golden Pea I in the 3-4 story category. A building story is defined as 9 feet of height (no roof included). The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan specifically addresses the Golden Peak House, as indicated in Sub-Area Concepts 9 and 10. These concepts read as follows: Concept 9 - "Commercial expansion (ground floor) not to exceed 10 feet in depth, possible arcade. To improve pedestrian scale at base of tall building, and for greater transparency as an activity generator on Seibert Circle. 0 17 bud -Area Concept 10, Seibert Circle, is discussed below, in the Streetscape Design section of the memo. 3. RELATED POLICIES IN THE STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN I Prior to the September 27, 1993 PEC worksession, the applicant and the staff met on- site and agreed to specific modifications regarding the project's landscaping and streetscaping. The applicant's redesign would now include the following: -Three of the existing four large evergreen trees, located in the skier access west of the building, would be relocated onto Tract E. These trees would be relocated north of the Pirate Ship Park area and immediately north of the Town's recreation path. The fourth evergreen is not proposed to be relocate7o, because of its poor condition. In summary, the staff believes the proposed streetscape improvements would make a positive contribution to the quality of the area and would be in compliance with the Town's adopted Streetscape Master Plan. Hattlaa 11101 ii 1 11 1 Ill , 1 1 MISEM is F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. As discussed extensively at previous PEC worksessions during late 1992 and early 1993, the staff and the PEC have expressed concerns regarding the addition of floor area located in the "overhang and deck" easement areas. # y January 1993 E. worksession, the applicant had modified the redevelopment plans to remove all above- grade floor area within the "overhang and deck" easement areas. With regard to building height, we acknowledge that the existing and proposed building heights are over the maximum allowable height for the CCI zone district. However, we feel the overall massing of the structure, and the configuration of the roof planes mitigate the overage. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize a preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. I 21 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. V. COMMERCIAL CORE I EXTERIOR ALTERATION CRITERIA The nine criteria (listed below) for Commercial Core I Exterior Alterations shall also be used to judge the merits of this project. Staff believes these issues, or criteria, have already been addressed in the SDD review criteria above, and in other parts of this memo, so we will not reiterate and address each item here. A. Pedestrian izati on - See Section IV,G, B. Vehicular Penetration - See Section IV,G. C. Streetscape Framework - See Section IV,D-3. D. Street Enclosure - See Section IVA E. Street Edge - See Section IV,A. F. Building Height - See Section IV, - 2 and IV, F. G. Views and Focal Points - See Section VIII. H. Service and Delivery - See Section IV,C. 1® Sun/ Shade - See Section IV,H. V1. ZONE DISTRICT AMENDMENT CRITERIA Again, the staff believes that due to the fact that the property is encumbered with the "overhang and deck" easements, and because the property does not currently function 22 A. Purpose of the View Corridor Ordinance The applicant has requested an Encroachment into View Corridor No 1. Because the staff believes that the original intent and purpose of 2e>: °Corridor Ordinance is very important to the Town, we have included it here for review: "The Town of Vail believes that preserving . »a ; «22 is in the interest of the Townr residents and guests. Specifically, the Town believes that: I The protection and perpetuation of certain mountain views and other signant views from various pedestrian public ways within the Town will foster civic pride and is in the public interest of the Town of Vail; It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain views for the enjoymenl and environmental enrichment of the residents and guests of the Town; The preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the Town's unique environmental heritage and attributes; The preservation of such views will enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of the Town; 1IJ I 111 111111111111 illill IIIIIIIII1111111111 111 1111111111 111111111 Jill 111111 As currently designed, «-2 2 2 Peak House redevelopment is proposing t* encroach into View Corridor No. 1 as follows: -The eastern portion of the structure would encroach approxim©a»» «» -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 13 feet. I View Corridor No. 2, the view between the Golden Peak House and the Hill Building, (skier access to Vista Bahn area) will not be impacted by the redevelopment. C. Review Criteria for the View Corridor Encroachment . ©- review criteria for the View Corridor Encroachment request are as follows: 25 redevelopment of the site, and also understanding the ownership issues related to the building, the staff believes that the strict and literal enforcement of this section of the Town's regulations would preclude a reasonable development on the site. That the development of the structure proposed by the applicant would not be such as to defeat the purposes of this Chapter. Staff believes that the project would actually open up more views, from the Seibert Circle area, of the immediate ski runs. This is primarily due to the removal of the butterfly roof form, which currently projects out in an east and west direction and blocks views of the mountain. 1101 3. 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. 4. That the development proposed by the applicant complies with the applicable elements of the Vail Land Use Plan, Town Policies, Urban Design Guide Plans, and other adopted master plans. believe that the fact that this project is specifically called out as a prim» « ±© redevelopment and our opinion that the new design brings the project into more conformance with the Village Design Guidelines serves to distinguish this proposal from other future view corridor encroachment requests. In summary, we feel that the project's relationship to the Comprehensive PI issues have been discussed in depth under the SDD review criteria listed Pbove. i 5. That the proposed structure will not diminish the integrity or quality nor compromise the original purpose of the preserved view. 19M� STAFF — LL� Ix. F RECOMMENDATION- Basement Level: 5,270 Golden Peak House 0 122 Ground Floor: Square Footage Analvsis 993 0 0 Existing Conditions 2,667 1,358 Commercial Common G 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 0 Totals: 7,196 6,627 8,958 460 Total square footage (gross area)=2,21 sq. ft. Proposed Conditions Basement Level: 5,270 1,652 0 122 Ground Floor: 6,094 993 0 0 Second Floor: 2,667 1,358 2,577 0 Third Floor: 0 765 5,272 0 Fourth Floor: 0 626 5,243 0 Fifth Floor: 0 42 2a763 0 Totals: 14,031 5,436 15,855 122 Total square footage (gross area) 35,444 sq. ft. 0 29 LIJ I S Golden Peak House ®welling Unit Anal sis ®U AU Basement Level: 0 0 Ground Floor: 0 0 Second Floor: 3 0 Third Floor: 8 0 Fourth Floor: 2 0 Totals: 18 0 = 18 DUs ®U AU Lock -off Basement Level 0 0 0 Ground Floor: 0 0 0 Second Floor: 3 0 1 Third Floor: 6 2 2 Fourth Floor: 4 0 0 Fifth Floor: 1 0 0 Totals: 14 2 3 Note: 2 Aus = 1 DU Total DUs 1 30 0 ~ LU cc LLJ w n� �n LU cc LLJ w - ' LU ul uj LIJ 0 - > A4 0 -1 ` 0 M,3 rT, 0, M Mo em Mg-I ,BASEMNT PLAN • 0 0 0 -QR-6LHNb-OLoOR OL—Ak o 05 9 j! • Effi 0 is 0 45 k> • [M-QOND-�FOOR PLAN A8 I_ -.. 0 0 9 THIRD FLOOR PLAN - 1/21" - ;,- 11 - 7-7Q -j uj I cl I 0 LU Ix ui Ol 0 0 M 0 Z 0 < 1 > 0 0 0 .. �° {4URT+EL. \A \L &¥ \ ui k } \ + } ui cc lu \ \J +( \ 0. o ( LLI \� J} �� 0 6 iRF-T,K-FLCiOR PLAN 2 \ |) db m I ROOF.PLAN. ® q /Ol - I' - ", ® m -i ui in 0 cc ui o 0 cr. 0 m 0 Z ui 0 .J -J o 0.> IM I M AtZ 0 0 0 W6RtK, tLEVAT16W 110 ---: 14 JEAST ELEVATION *EST ELEVATION .. -I *I- 1,a , X tag • • ,71 E�E ISECTIO THRU PENTHOUSE;* EST �g 1 a YYOYLrrY Ur7& �i� P2� NriC � ss ratio'. i 1L�i ._.._ _..... _ _.. , �Op s' I _ 1 shop ,, 1 [-T- uj 'SECTION THRU LOS A i S cl Lu cc uj co i" (/ PAgQt9EN7 U�c Sol' +�• Lu® 1 Lu 1 a I $04' I 1 1 .204 i 203 9 1 I I sperY Stalker_ B a» W 'Am, saki storir ®pair, aq as 'roe are" W SECTION THRU PE h8 USE-EAST SITE PLAN ® SUN I SHADE ANALYSIS 1 fi� f -.1 1 uj a I 0 2 uj uj 0 M 0, • a � X < cr- 0 -j C) z uj • < AIS 323�� �ww 4�1.1� HOA NAST ISLEMION ffi Sp q 0 0 0 • • 0 17 0- 0 0 0 � 4ff� _P*4*FAP, "z- IrT VIEW'FROM BRIDGE STREET �:;e 11 EMPLOYMENT GENERATION RATES 07 044� WA SUGGESTED EMPLOYMENT CATEGORIES ANTD RANGES FOR VAIL EXPRESSED ASE MPLOYEES PER 1000 SQUARE F`EET RRC RF-sEARCH OVERALL SUGGESTED AVERAGES RAN(3F, Bar/Restaurant 5.7/1000 s.f. 5-8/1000 -of. Retail and Service Commercial 5.9/1000 5-8/1000 Retail- Grocery /Liquor/Convenien ce 1.8/1000 1.5-3/1000 Office: Real Estate 7.6/1000 6-9/1000 Office: Financial 3.1/1000 2.5-4/1000 Off-ice: Professional/Other 6.6/1000 5-8/1000 Conference Center NA 1/1000 Health Club NA m 1-1.511000 Lodging* 1.3/room .25-1.25/room Local Goverment 6.5/1000 5-8/1000 Construction (Offices, Interior Storage, etc.) 10.6/1000 9-13/1000 Multi-Family N/A 0.4/unit Single Family N/A 0.2 /unit Other: To be determined through the SDD process, upon submission of adequate c me documentaltion and a review of the application maturials. Is. � ROSALL REMMEN CARES PAGE 6 I a a G Na' 71 (Vaal 11-15-83) 298-4 CONDOMINIUMS AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS rental market to be used as temporary accommodations available to the general public. 1. An owner's personal use of his or her unit shall be restricted to twenty eight days during the seasonal 12 2-f — Deriod of December 24th to January 1st and February 1st to March 20th. This seasonal period is hereinarier _referred to as "high season." "Owner's 2/1 personal use" shall be defined as owner's occupancy of a unit or non-paying guest of the owner or taking the unit off of the rental market during the seasonal periods referred to herein for any reason other than for necessary repairs which cannot be postponed or which may make the unit unrentable. occupancy of a unit by a lode manager or staff e rn212yq d bt he lod e, however, shall not be restricted by this sect` 2. A violation of the owner's use restriction by a unit owner shall subject the owner to a daily assessment rate by the condominium association of three times a rate considered to be a reasonable daily rental rate for the unit at the time of the violation, which assessment when paid shall be common elements of the condominiums, All sums assessed against the owner for violation of the owner's personal use restriction and unpaid shall constitute a lien for the benefit of the condominium association on that owner's unit, which lien shall be evidenced by written notice placed of record in the office of the clerk and recorder of Eagle County, Colorado, and which may be collected by foreclosure, on an owner's condominium unit by the association in like manner as a mortgage or deed of trust on real property. The condominium associa- tion's failure to enforce the owner's personal use restric- tion shall give the town the right to enforce the restriction by the assessment and the lien provided for hereunder. If the town enforces the restriction, the town shall receive the funds collected as a result of such enforcement. In the event litigation results from the enforcement of the restriction, as part of its reward to the prevailing party, the court shall award such party its court costs together with reasonable attorney's fees incurred. 298-5 (Vail 12-1-87) SUBDIVISIONS F#� DATE: October 11, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a fence height variance to allow for a fence to be constructed around a swimming pool at the May Residence located at 1119 Ptarmigan Road/Lot 6, and the east 1/2 of Lot 5, Block 5, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Paula May Planner: Shelly Mello 1 In addition to the visual impacts of the fence, the staff feels that the proposed pillars will require substantial excavation and construction which may impact the existing vegetation due to the proximity of the trees to the proposed fence line. simple installation that does not require extensive excavation or construction would be preferable. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve 40 compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity #< <# attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. FOUlciMerceBriner ARCHITECTUREDLANNIN6INTERIORS DBAN=G OR sc— ul.E m mum 630 e. Em. rim: Dv/LTRf,4 TCCR4 be•rr�+..,., purf •s,+NPSTouE: 5-^P 2x wv ahP 2- 2-1<1?- srou r, Ixlo r-.W. 51t7,J"et 5a-rfi SIDES 2-2x12 iii" ! oawv TO MAY S•Z5•�19 pKGI.111 �FIJGE t FfNGV PILL X90 Z _ Fel -1�1 Nb 3GSHT.doo - 1- Mar -93" • E • ' x o� �F 2- 'itZ18PierceBrinerPlraSr� :HITECTUR[ PLANNING INTERIORS D PNMG OR s ULE 1-2x -W eke �uLf _ I CG. K,W, 51GIUez F A O' • I �. • '' 2 -Zxlz I i �(ou6 i- DR/LTR(`�P � TRflPIR E�FF ?`u b�tOTfQTf111 r�,n vn h'I�*f �SI�EIJ�E S•Z5•�19 pKGI.111 �FIJGE t �F1G� !'ILIA _ Fel -1�1 Nb ago 1 ... RG38T dOC • g Iw V MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission Il Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance base4. upon the following factors: WE MI 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potent! uses and structures in the vicinity. i The overall height of the Mountain Haus is significantly greater than other adjacent buildings. The Vail Village Master Plan's conceptual building height plan has identified the surrounding properties and their potential heights as follows: Vail Athletic Club" 6*** Sonnenalp (Austria Has) 3-4 Covered Bridge Building = -4 Gallery Building (Russell's) = 3-4 Slifer Building 3-4 Vail Row Houses 3-4 A story is defined as 9 feet of height, no roof included. Please note the Vail Village Master Plan Building Height Profile designates this building as being four stories along Gore Creek. Denotes existing or approved buildings which do not conform to the conceptual building height plan. The staff has been unable to identify a physical hardship and subsequently has been unable to support the height variance for the Mountain Haus. We find that the building code issues identified by the applicant can be addressed without adding the dormers upon consultation with the Town's Chief Building Official. These windows do not provide egress. We believe that the grant ng o 0 this variance would be a grant of special privilege, as adjacent buildings ard significantly lower in height. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic faces, public facies and utilities, and public safety. The staff is of the opinion that the proposed dormer additions would have little, if any, impact on any of the above named considerations. The Vail Village Master Plan has identified the Mountain Haus property as a site which may be considered for a maximum building height of six stories. No specific sub-area concepts of the Village Plan apply to this parcel. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. 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. B. 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. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1 The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulati would result in I r c tical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. p a A K, E EN A'VU i , , � ''W", t The staff recommendation i»47¥+62 w» requested height variance, We believe that approval of this request would be a grant of special privilege and that ©! variance would no) be in compliance with the approved Vail Village Master Plan or variance criteria. The staff also believes that a physical hardship does not e©« and therefore the request should not be ?.pproved. We find that the applicant's issues can be addressed in other ways such as the addition of skylights which would not require a height variance. Z I P •1r P.,i aw . 9 LU - 4 t ° co CC i e CC o � o CC J la UJ e • - � ) L i • • a RMI DATE: e2?§® 11, 1993 SUBJECT: A request fora worksession to discuss a minor subdivision to create two lots <\ o 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd ?»# ?f: Beaver Dam Circle. Applicant: Leo Payne Planner: Jim Curnutte 'k :,:�� � � t�. L :� � " 4 f � M-I�i driveway for both lots. The shared access requirement was subsequently removed from the plate KI must be met. These standards typically deal with minimum lot size, lot configuration, etc. As a result, these standards establish the first set of review criteria to be considered with this application: B. Frontaqe The Vail Municipal Code requires that each lot in both the Primary/Secondary zone district and the Single Family zone district have a minimum frontage of 30 feet. Both of the proposed resubdivision scenarios are able to meet the minimum lot frontage requirement of 30 feet. C. Site Dimensions The Vail Municipal Code also requires that each site be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries. The applicant's proposed resubdivision scenarios will create lots of a size and shape which meet the 80 square foot area regulation. The second set of criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request are outlined in Section 17.16.110 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations and are as follows: 5 To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required, 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed id!'ision. 6. To provide for accurate legal descrons of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. 1.1 V. VAIL LAND USE PLAN The Vail Land Use Plan identifies the neighborhood surrounding the Payne property as appropriate for "Low Density Residential" uses. The Land Use Plan goals/policies which see applicable to the Payne resubdivision request are as follows: I 1. 1- Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balan between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitol and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality). 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur in existing primary plattOo' areas and is appropriate in areas where high hazards do not exist. The issues related to each of the proposed resubdivision scenarios will be addressed separately as follows: 0 KIZINMIZ rr� GRFA and Density Issues - While some resubdivision proposals in the past have allowed minimal increases of GRFA, these increases have been nominal and usually associated with some public benefit, ie. restricted employee rental units, decreased density, etc. Staff believes that the proposed increase of 3,296 square feet of GRFA, in addition to the increase of one dwelling unit, is unacceptable given the subdivision review criteria. Under this resubdivision scenario the existing Primary/Secondary lot would be divided into one Primary/Secondary lot and one Single Family lot. Again, staff would encourage the applicant to restrict the GRFA on the lot to a figure as close to the existing GRFA allowance as possible. The following zoning analysis is provided for the purpose of comparison with the existing development potential on the property as well as the previous resubdivision scenario. 8 Number of Maximum Maximum Garage Lot Size Dus Allowed GRFA Allowed* Site C2y2La9e Credit Existing Lot: 37,771 sq. ft. 2 units 6,489 sq. ft. 7,554 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. Lot 1 -A: 21,845 sq. ft. 2 units 5,285 sq. ft. 4,369 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. Lot 1 -D: I5,926 s9 ft. 1 unit 4,500 sq. ft. 1,185 s_q_ ft sq. ft Total: 37,771 sq- ft. 3 units 9,785 sq. ft. 7,554 sq. ft. 1,800 sq, ft. Net Increase: N.A. I unit 3,296 sq. it. -0- 600 sq. ft. KIZINMIZ rr� GRFA and Density Issues - While some resubdivision proposals in the past have allowed minimal increases of GRFA, these increases have been nominal and usually associated with some public benefit, ie. restricted employee rental units, decreased density, etc. Staff believes that the proposed increase of 3,296 square feet of GRFA, in addition to the increase of one dwelling unit, is unacceptable given the subdivision review criteria. Under this resubdivision scenario the existing Primary/Secondary lot would be divided into one Primary/Secondary lot and one Single Family lot. Again, staff would encourage the applicant to restrict the GRFA on the lot to a figure as close to the existing GRFA allowance as possible. The following zoning analysis is provided for the purpose of comparison with the existing development potential on the property as well as the previous resubdivision scenario. 8 GRFA and Density Issues - As evident by reviewing the two zoning analysis charts, the only difference between the two resubdivision scenarios is the amount of the proposed GRFA increase on the property. The GRFA allocated to lot 1-13 is decreased by 1,375 square feet and Lot 1 -A GRFA is increased by 342 square feet, for a total decrease of 1,033 square feet of GRFA. 9 Number of Maximum Maximum Garage Lot Size Dus Allowed GRFA Allowed Site Co Credit Existing Lot: 37,771 sq. ft. 2 units 6,489 sq. ft. 7,554 s% ft. 1,200 sq. ft. Lot 1 -A: 25,271 sq. ft. 2 units 5,627 sq. ft. 5,054 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. Lot 1 -B: 12,500 sq. ft. 1 unit 2j25 sq_ ft 2 222 sq_ ft. 600 sq. ft. Total: 37,771 sq. ft. 3 units 8,752 sq. ft. 7,554 sq. ft. 1.800 sq. ft. Net increase: N.A, 1 unit 2,263 sq. ft. -0- 600 sq. ft. * Includes 425 square feet credits. GRFA and Density Issues - As evident by reviewing the two zoning analysis charts, the only difference between the two resubdivision scenarios is the amount of the proposed GRFA increase on the property. The GRFA allocated to lot 1-13 is decreased by 1,375 square feet and Lot 1 -A GRFA is increased by 342 square feet, for a total decrease of 1,033 square feet of GRFA. 9 SLJBJECT J, L Y�CINITY MAP — -- — — —11 IIXIII g� ... . .... gee at 1 71 —Ty L- Esto ....... ost - - - ---------- (S ignat,ael IL- NaD RECbtDER'S Eagle -- ---------------- . ... L..ora ®o HY i;Wt; — -- ---------- --------- UNPLATTED UNPLATrED LOT to 1,9.21 �L---'OOT 'Vl 37' R-90M (30 T=23.40 LC-45.29 R-90.00 CB—N 86'48'19' W L63.51 T=-33.14 LC = 62.20 CB=S 58°24'347 W .00 CURVE DATA LOT 2 21'w Lc- M-W u LT=..... SCALE: 1'=30' 43 — -- — — —11 IIXIII g� ... . .... gee at 1 71 —Ty L- Esto ....... ost - - - ---------- (S ignat,ael IL- NaD RECbtDER'S Eagle -- ---------------- . ... L..ora ®o HY i;Wt; — -- ---------- --------- dda - 9caa¢ s• - sa° , >a ~ate �� . '` .�- �,.{_8 l/ -1 dda - 9caa¢ s• - sa° , >a ~ate �� . '` .�- �,.{_8 oo °` �: ,���p /.` v1 u. �^ � ee;J.p /T ./ .7g•4Y °a 4x9.29 .a o<sa ,Y _ is,. L• k �� � MT ,v ••• ®mJ r°""`s Sew LOS 2 m »reww rac.rew . mcma.., >. c. a. zasvga TOPOGRAPHIC .SURVEY NPROVENIEN1 LOT 1, BLOCK 4 ac�an ,.A °tiara �,,,• VAIL VILLAGE ° TNIRo FILING e - . >.®w a.,. v..•,a.r....,o, ,�..�.. �..,..a ..... w ,�•. TOWN OF VAJL • EAGLE COUNTY, COLA 1125 SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 1200, DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2027 (303) 294-9100 FAX: (303) 299-7901 Suite 201 Vail, CO 81657 Attn: Mr. Craig Snowdon Re: 381 Beaver Dam Circle Property Wetland Evaluation File: 27441-001-050 Vail, Colorado OFFICES WORLDWIDE Snowdon and Hopkins 13 September 1993 Page 2 The soils of these sites contained no' evidence of saturation, having a dark brown (7.5 YR 4/2) matrix without mottles. Thus, because of the number of upland species and lack of soil characteristics, no other jurisdictional wetlands were delineated on the property. as on dominant vegetation (willows, bog birch, sedges), wetlands occur on the Gore Creek floodplain but this area is north of the property boundary. Conclusions Riverine wetlands occur along an unnamed creek that flows across the property to Gore Creek. This stream may be relocated to make more efficient use of the property. The stream is considered by 404 regulations to be waters of the U.S., and will require a 404 permit prior to construction activities that aff ect wetlands. Approximately 0.02 acres (125 x 6 feet) of wetlands occur in conjunction with the stream. Claffey) action that would aff ect wetlands require either a Nationwide or Individual 404 Permit, depending on the amount of wetlands aff ected. In this case, since less than one acre would be affected, and the stream flow is less than 5 CFS, an individual permit would be appropriate for relocating the stream. Mitigation measures, however would need to be specified to offset relocation impacts. The most effective mitigation measures are to relocate wetland soils and associated plant material to similar environments along the new stream channel. The details of reestablishing wetlands on the site will need to be provided to the Corps in a letter report requesting clearance through the 404 process. Thus, if the subdivision is approved by the Town of Vail, a letter notifying the Corps of the activity, amount of wetland acreage impacted, and means to mitigate such impacts will be required. At that time, if mitigation is still deemed necessary, Dames & Moore would be prepared to assist you in preparing such a letter for Corps review. Please contact me if you have questions on this submittal. Sincerely, Senior MOORE RUt.Hetfl PhD Ecolo st rl--,-� • WETLAND DETERIMINAIVION OILS Mep Unit Nama Merits and Phasal: - � � D.aintgu law K;o? s✓r „drastaar� Taxonomy (Sul9roup)� onriim-a Manosd Trei Yes No t�ki`s� �e�cr:atian: Depth Ca or N?oa lip Taxturo, Concaa;3cn5. ILJteh�/�sI }ieP {,A' t -Mu n 1 e l",sa Cr- ;_r t §tr ±as@ /i -a^)an rl--,-� • WETLAND DETERIMINAIVION VEGETAT3'ON We-tiand 12 Incho-, (2 ot Poct error 12 9PChos L vvn$ L cW Sod Suevey Oace Oi-.or (Ivaplein .Mglmmn= con c , a t, eql s High Oe�,,arlfc con',3r1,t in svffave Layer in Sandy Saiis crgvk Strinking in sen�Y so;is Naflwial Hy�4,fic Soi9.s Litt in I ARM Im v DATA FORM -�,,NAINATION ROUTINE WETLAND DET k (1987 CAGE Writtlands DelilitZld-Dn Ni3r0jal) mmp�� TIMSER m j4EW ZDECK CLEARING M, • L • • was prepared For �izian BF WA�� -5 Z� —�- lJ INK NZ N, - ;kTE under the laws oft ,,--,graphic d surveY wa-S made by me and cort tt#�Ooest of my (j-,r corcoran P.L.S. OF ION was prepared For �izian BF WA�� -5 Z� —�- lJ w MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission 2 DATE: October 11, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss the establishment of a SDD for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building, 362 Vail Valley Drive, a part of Tract B, Vail Village First Filing, and more specifically described as follows: A part of Tract "B" and a part of Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Applicant, David and Myra Smith Planner: Jim Curnutte 1 ,Z) Setbacks - Portions of the structure are proposed to encroach into the front, si? °» 2 rear setbacks. I»«« »<t» the applicant is proposing to locate required parking within the front setback area which is prohibited in 2f „ #y» zone district. 11111? », 11 jr�jgqmm too W%L* ujjtmm m� Ira On June 14, 1993, a joint worksession was held with the Design Review Board (DRB) and the PEC to discuss the establishment of a SDD for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building (see d42 »®« #2 for a copy of the meeting minutes). During ?swot »?o: a number of issues were identified as being of concern to the PEC and DRB. These issues are summarized as follows: A. The appropriateness of proposing a SDD for the redevelopment of the propertm B. The project's departures from the HDMF zone district standards. The PEC discussed the possibility that the proposed »: »>>z »< § »« ©f zone district standards should be handled as variance applications as opposed to »» m: reviewed through the SDD process. U El M M UNDERLYING ZONING: EXISTING PROPOSED HDIVIF PROJECT SDD Site Area: 0.084 acre or 3,659 sq. ft. Same Same *Dwelling Units: 25 units per acre or 4 DD's 2 DU's 2 units for this site. GRFA: 60% or 2,195 sq. ft. 51% or 1,892 sq. ft. 83% or 3,035 sq. ft. Common Area: 35% of allowable GRFA or 202 sq, ft. located in 14% or 300 sq. ft. 768 sq. ft. the basement of the bldg. "Setbacks: 20 'on all sides. N: 9' N: 5' S: 2.5' S.5, E: 12.5' E. 5' W: 4.5' W: 3' Site Coverage: 55% or 2,012 sq. ft. 40% or 1,460 sq. ft. 46% or 1,700 sq. ft. M As stated in Section 18.40.010 of the Vail Municipal Code, the purpose of the Special Development District is to: The applicant has indicated that they have evaluated all potential review processes ©d concluded that the SDD process is the most appropriate zoning mechanism available in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the property. The applicant has provided the following reasons for proceeding through the SDD process, versus the variance process: 7 C A c:\pec\memos\cornice. 101 U-; • 11 Vail has requested that certain restrictions regarding three (3) ennployee units be placed on the Cornice Building, hereinafter referred to as the Subject Property® NCW, THEREFORE, for the sum. of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of Which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 18 That portion of the ground level on the subject property comprised of three (3) dwelling units, each having a sleeping area and kitchen and approximately 200 square feet (referred to as Employee Units) shall be used exclusively as employee housing its® 2. The three (3) Employee Units shall rmintain a ndninnzn square footage of 200 square feet per unit, however, the configuration of the units may be altered. 4® The restrictions contained herein shall remain in effect for a period twenty (20) years from, the date of this Agreement. 5. This Agreemen-fC, shall be a covenant running with the land and shall bind the Owner, its heirs, successors, and assigns, and all subsequent lessees and owners of the Subject Property. �falter �Huttner Owner, Cornice Building • f-' w • • Y � r_ E----)o- m El t j AR'4I o n �j`�� fa�ORA ®M x �{.. X 7 c 0 s a { 1 n m specifically described follows: ( A part of Tract *13" and a part of Mill Creek Road, Bail Village, First Filing, County of Eagle, state of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Vail village, First Filing; theme north 79046'00" Nest along the Southerly line of U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feet to the Northeast corner of said Tract "13% thence South 10014'00" , West along the Easterly line of sald Tract " distance of 198.31 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Tract "B "; thence North 79 046'00' west along the Southerly tine of said Tract 'B" a distance of 100.00 feet to the true point of beginning thence forth D901 0'07" West a distance of 41.67 feet; thence South 66 027'11" West a distance of 75.21 feet; thence South 2701X37" East a distance of 77.37 feet; thence North 57 024 °00" East a distance of 55.11 feet, more or less to the true point of beginning. Applicant: David Smith Planner: Jim urnutte Jim Curnufte made a brief presentation per the staff memo. Tom Braun, the applicant's representative, stated that the Cornice Building is a difficult site to develop and that the applicant had four objectives which he wished to accomplish through the present proposal. Tom stated that it was the applicant's desire to redevelop the site, to maintain the current landscaping on the site, to offer on-site parking to the residents of the Cornice Building and to utilize the available GRFA on the lot` or the free market condominium unit. '` He said that they would try to improve the site lines of the project® Kathy Langenwalter stated that the three employee housing units currently on the site { are dead restricted for twenty years. She said that she is concerned it proposed FIFA and the credits for density. She stated that the Employee Housing k Force specifically contemplated a trade-off .of GRFA or density and that an applicant cannot have both. Concerning the setbacks, Kathy said that she did not have a problem with the proposed setbacks. Concerning the proposed height of the Cornice Building, she stated that although it was true that the zoning allows for a 48 foot high building in this zone district, that is within the setback area and not for those portions of the building located beyond the setback lines. She added that it was her feeling that the verticality as inappropriate as well as the proposed GRFA. She stated that all of the required parking for the condo needs to ' be provided on -site. She also agreed with staff's suggestion that the covered walkway between the building and the garage needs to be removed. Jeff Bowen stated that he agreed with Kathy's ments® Dalton Williams stated that he agrees with Kathy's comments.except with regard to parking. He stated that he felt that parking in the parking structure would minimize the site impacts of this project. Bill Anderson stated that he agrees with Kathy's comments but he disagrees with staff's comment on page 7 of the staff memo concerning GRFA and that it his Planning and Environmental Commission June 14, 1 993 feeling that the employee housing units should be included in the figure. f Greg Amsden stated that it was his opinion that the height of the Cornice Building is not comparable with the other buildings located in the area because the other buildings have more mass. He suggested that the owner remove the top level or two of the building and that the maximum building height should be 36 to 39 feet. With regard to parking, he said that on -site parking is necessary but should be limited to two parking spaces and that the applicant could pay into the parking fund. He agrees with staff's suggestion that the applicant consider reducing the GRFA of the condominium to 2,000 square feet or less to reduce the parking requirement by one parking space® Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed with Kathy's comments, especially concerning building heights George Lamb and Bob Borne stated that they agreed with Kathy's comments. Sally Brainerd, who spoke on behalf of the Design Review Board, stated that she does not have a problem with a building height of 48 feet. She said that she likes the verticality of the building and feels that it gives the structure characters She added that she was not in favor of a flat roof for the Cornice Building and recommended that the owner consider a simpler roof form that encompasses the whole structure. She also suggested that the covered entry be removed. Diana Donovan stated that there was no parking requirement for this site back when the building was built because the lot was immediately adjacent to a huge parking lot. She said that it was important that a sun /shade analysis be conducted, and that the building was way too high. She asked how on -site construction staging was oin to be accomplished on such a small lot. She stated that it was her opinion that the locations of the garage and turnaround need to be switched and that the building < needs to stay within the existing footprints. She added that she felt that this roject should' not be an SDD and that credit should not be given for the three employee housing units since they are already in existence. She felt that the SDD was ire used in this instance solely as a mechanism to break the rules and she could not support the project the way it is 'currently proposed. Dalton and Kathy both agreed with Diana's comments. Tom Braun stated that the SDD concept allows for creativity in development and that it as his feeling that the Cornice Building presented a unique situation with three employee housing units and one free-market condominium unit. He stated that without the GRFA allowance, the project is not economically viable and probably would not be redeveloped. Tana Donovan stated that there ` were originally eight employee units. Tom raun added that these were originally eight apartments. Planning and Environmental Commission June 14, 1993 6 Greg rns en agreed with Tom's comment that it was a unique site. He said that he felt a hardship did exist on the site and that it was a good location for employee housing. Bill Anderson asked the applicant whether he would be willing to extend the deed restriction past twenty years. Jeff Bowen asked whether there was a way to reorganize !unit 1 and Unit 2 of the proposal so that you would not have to walk through the kitchen to get to the bathroom. Dalton Williams stated that he does not think that this proposal should an because it is not a large enough site. He added that it was his feeling that this was an inappropriate use of the SDD concept. Tom Braun inquired out the Garden of the Gods project. Diana Donovan stated that the mass and bulk of this proposal needed to be reduced. Jeff Bowen added that he felt that the height of the proposed building was excessive. Bill Anderson stated that he was not convinced that the requested additional GRFA on the site was necessary. Dalton Williams added that he also was not in favor of the proposed GRFA exceedance. Kristan Pritz asked the PEC whether they felt the proposed site coverage, setbacks and parking were okay and whether the GRFA being proposed needed to be reduced. She also inquired whether the PEC found the SDD concept to' be acceptable for the Cornice Building proposal. Diana Donovan stated that she felt that a free market condominium was not appropriate on this site. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she felt the site was too small for the proposed uildin and added that an SDD for this proposal would not be beneficial to the community, Dalton Williams stated that he could see some benefit to the community for the Cornice Building to be redeveloped and having the employee units restricted forever. Allison Lassoe stated that she was concerned with the proposed location of the windows for the units on the bottom level because they would be covered in the wintertime with snow and would feel ve- like, Diana Donovan stated that the mass and bulk of the building needed to be redesigned. Planning and nvironmental Commission i June Kristan Pritz stated that the public benefit with regard to this project needed to be defined. Jeff Bowen stated that the employee housing units were positive and that he felt parking on-site would be difficult with regard to getting in and out during the winter months. Greg Amsden suggested that the owner consider moving the employee housing to another lot in town. 6 • � MASY <TC, t3sao�r� t iL�ya_ 7 ' va [� $ ( lGj° •ag 8 f p ae ..c4 �:. v 9t I s 6M ] } { t + -FILE COPY ATTACHMENT #4 10WH of voilc� 75 south frontage road office of community development vaii, colorado 61657 (303) 479 - 213$ (303) 479 -2139 October 14, 1991 Mr. Charlie Gersbac Vail ,Associates Real Estate P.O. Pox 7 Vail, CO 6165 Re; Cornice Building Dear Charlie: Kristan Pritz, Larry Eskwith and I discussed your questions on Thursday, October 10, 1991, and the answers are listed below. To clarify your original questions, let me rephrase them® 1. Could the Cornice Building be remodeled on the interior only, and combine all of the dwelling units into a single unit without any exterior changes? . Could the Cornice Building be torn' down and reconstructed as a single family dwelling unit? Concerning the first question, the current building` has been constructed according to a variance granted in 1979. As the existing structure was allowed to be built because of a variance, all ` conditions of approval which were given as a part of the variance must be continued. One of these' conditions was the requirement to create employee housing. As a result, as long as the existing building continues to be on this site, the employee housing deed restriction must be maintained. Concerning the second question, if the structure were rebuilt without the need of any variances, the deed restriction could be taken off the property. ` This 'elimination of the restrictions would be made possible by conformance to zoning standards. If any variations from the code are needed, the housing restriction` could still be applicable. 11® ZONING ANALYSIS Listed below is the zoning analysis which provides a comparison between Agriculture Open Space zoning, LDMF zoning, and the conceptual housing development. Existing Zoning: Agriculture and Open Space Proposed Zoning: Low Density Multi-Family Buildable Area: 190,000 square feet or 4.36 acres in rezoned area Total Area of rezoning: 335,647.6 square feet or 7.71 acres Total Site Area: 25.13 acres Agriculture Conceptual Open Space Allowedp2LLDIVIF Hogain Plan Density: 1 unit if site 9 units per acre 32 units has one acre of or 39 units buildable GRFA- 2,000 sq. ft. max. 57,000 sq. ft. 28,914 sq. ft. Common Area: 0 19,950 s' . ft. 8,254 sq. ft, Wall Heights: 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet Parking: 2 parking spaces 64 parking spaces 64 parking spaces Setbacks- front: 20 feet 20 feet 50 feet* side: 15 feet 20 feet 225/200 feet rear: 15 feet 20 feet 400 feet Height: 33 feet 38 feet 38 feet Site Coverage: % or 35% or 4.6 %a or 16,792 sq. ft. 117,546 sq. ft. 16,030 sq. ft. Landscaping: /A 0% or 0% or 134,339 sq. ft. 270,017 sq. ft. variance for parking in the front setback may be requested in the future. In addition, there may also be wall height setbacks for the road and parking area. 3 private sector. The request is also consistent with the third goal listed as this is the first effort to locate employee housing on various sites throughout the community. Staff believes it is important to bring up all pertinent criteria, which includes Goal 2.7. The request is not altogether consistent with this goal. However, staff believes that taking a portion of the Town owned land next to the daycare centers and developing it is reasonable. A majority of the parcel zoned Agriculture Open Space will be left as open space and the area of the site which is to be developed already has the Mountain Bell facility and the daycare centers around it. (Please note that the Mountain Bell Building is not in the area to be rezoned.) Staff believes that exempting this area from the request made the most sense given the tinning of the project an primarily because working through the corporate structure of US West for the appropriate signatures was more complicated than originally thought. Concerning the criteria requiring a workable relationship between land uses, staff believes that there needs to be a buffer between the daycare centers and the housing project. This would include landscaping between the structures and the playground. In addition, staff believes that the future design should be consistent with the one currently shown, which provides a separate driveway to the housing site. This driveway skirts the daycare center parking lot and pick -up and drop-off area. Staff believes that it is important to provide a safe location for children to be picked up and dropped off. The new road will impact the playground on the south end of the Learning Tree and the trails on the east side will be effected by the building and new landscaping. The Housing Authority has discussed these impacts with the Directors of , the Learning Tree and ABC Schools. There will be visual impacts from this development, if the rezoning is approved. The building envelopes, as designed at this time, do not encroach into any 40% slope area. Although the parking and buildings will be visible from the four -way stop and I- 7 /Frontage Road, staff believes that landscaping and ber ing could be created on the perimeter of the project to provide screening. The mass and bulk of the project will be similar to Solar Vail The building footprint on the proposed structure is approximately 120 ft. by 55 ft The proposed zoning would allow structures to be 38 feet tall Solar ail's footprint is approximately 130 ft. by 45 Basing the measurement from Solar Vail's parking slab, the building is 38 feet tall The proposed buildings will be terraced in a way to help them blend into the site. The rear portion of each uil ing is designed to step up with the hillside to reflect the existing grade. In addition, the portion of the building closest to the daycare centers is stepped down a story so that it provides a transition. The site planning has been done in such a way as to cluster the existing and proposed buildings together in one portion of the site. Having the proposed housing located close to the other buildings ` will reduce the visual impact by using less of the site. The site disturbance will extend up the sloe behind the buildings approximately 15 feet. It will come out to the south of the buildings approximately 100 feet and will extend into the Frontage Road right-of- way approximately 15 feet; 5 ARTHUR Ia MEARS, I .E., ' INC. Natural Hazards ds ultants 222 East GoNc Ave. Gunn`s son, Colored® 81230 303 - 641-3236 November 17, 1992 Mfr. Duane Piper Piper Architects Box 5560 Avon, CO 81620 Dear Mr. Piper: The enclosed report on rockfall and debris —flaw hazard analysis at the "Mountain Bell Site," in "trail was prepared as described in your later of October 1, 1992 and incur discussions of the past few weeks. - Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, f ,Axthur I. Years, P.E. Dncl® Maas Wasting m Avalanches Avalanche Coalyd nencering 2 ROCKFALL AND DEBRIS FLOW HAZARD POTENTIAL ROCKFALL Meld observations made on October 21, 1992 indicate that rockfall hazard does not exist on either East or West Parcels. Bedrock outcroppings that could serve as rockfall source areas are not located above the East Parcel and rockfall deposits are not present above, near, or below the proposed building sites or existing buildings. Study of aerial photographs that predate the development of Vail show no evidence of rockfall therefore, no evidence exists that rockfall has been an active process in the past above the East Parcel. i Roc fall can occur on the steep stapes to the. northwest of the West Parcel, but even on these slopes rockfall events will be rare and will be stopped in the channel of the tributary drainage located on the hest end of the West Parcel before reaching the proposed building site. The building site, according to the conceptual plan, would be located south of the access road, beyond the limits of rockfall. Mitigation for rockfall is, therefore, not required on either East or West Parcels if buildings are to be located as, shown on the "Conceptual Site Plan" by Alpine International dated 3- ®1 -92. DEBRIS FLOWS Debris flows will not affect the East Parcel because this parcel is not located within the active debris— flora deposition area. Plows tend to deposit on the west side of the alluvial fan because of the general tilt of the fans gradient toward the west and because flows tend to be directed toward the west by the deeply entrenched channel above the alluvial fan. In addition, the existing "Mountain Bell" structure protects the eastern side of the alluvial` fan. Buildings located on the "East Parcel," as shown on the conceptual plan, will not need special design for debris- flow protection. Debris flows can affect the existing "Mountain Bell" building and the West Parcel. Clear evidence for previous' debris flows was found during the site inspection on October 21, 1992. This evidence includes: a. A small, steep drainage basin to the north with extensive,' steep, unstable slopes. that can produce landslides and potentially large` water discharges that can combine with landslide material in the channel to produce debris flows; and b. Extensive deposits of debris —flow origin (rocks 1- 5 feet long; unsorted sails, lobe, —shaped deposits up to 5 feet high) on the alluvial fan in the intermittent tributary drainage and extending as far east as the " ountain ell" structure. However, debris' flows are not frequent processes at this location as evidenced by soil and tree growth on the alluvial fare. Furthermore, inspection of aerial photographs of the Gore Creek valley dated 1939, 1950, 1962, 1974, and 1954 suggest that debris flows have probably not occurred during this century. 2 �•' < 'F' 4 � 1 � J i ?r p x.d S ('r� eq g 4d a °q '.� � •� .P q�..J � e n 9 J :a "� L.+ l '` 4gi• d- °'p 1 t• +f 8 T.:6 y -.J2 ° .y El, HPffi d ir,4 tF —T 1 , a