Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-0214 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 14, 1994 AGENDA Project Orientation/Lunch 10:30 A.M. Site Visits 11:30 A.M. Lionshead Center Tyler Covered Bridge Building Slifer Designs % Cornice Building Kempf Drivers: Mike, Andy and Jim Public Hearino 2:00 P.M. A request for a conditional use to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit to be located at 1358 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 21, Block 3, Vail Valley 1 st Filing. Applicant: Chris Kempf Planner: Randy Stouder 2. A request for a worksession to discuss proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District; Chapter 18.32, Agricultural and Open Space District; and Chapter 18.36, Public Use District of the Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jim Curnutte 3. A request for a joint worksession with the PEC and DRB for a major CCI exterior alteration to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building located at 227 Bridge Street/Lots C and D and a part of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and East West Partners Planner: Mike Mollica 4. A request for a joint worksession with the PEC and DRB for a major CCII exterior alteration and setback variance to the Lionshead Center Building to allow for the expansion of the Vail Associates offices located at 520 Lionshead Mail/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen 5. A request for a joint worksession with the PEC and DRB for a major CCII exterior alteration and setback variance to allow for the expansion of dwelling units at the Lionshead Center Building located at 520 Lionshead Mall, Units 208, 209, 308 and 309/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Victor Cano Faro, Transcon Investments,, Inc., and Jose Luis Chain Planner: Andy Knudtsen 6. A request for a minor subdivision located at 363 Beaver Dam Road and 383 Beaver Dam Circle/Lots 2 & 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: John Tyler/John Tyler, Jr./Robert Tyler Planner: Mike Mollica 7. A request for a minor exterior alteration and a site coverage variance to allow for an enclosed trash and grease dumpster at the southwest corner of the Gore Creek Plaza Building, specifically located at 193 Gore Creek Drive/Part of Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Charles Rosenquist, represented by Kevin Clair and Tom Armstrong Planners: Randy Stouder 8. A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved exterior alteration proposal for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and C, Block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: Kristan Pritz 9. A request to adopt the Open Lands Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russ Forrest E 10. A request for a worksession for a minor subdivision located at 4316 Streamside Circle West/Lots 2 and 3, Block 4, Bighorn 4th Addition. Applicant: Walter Kirsch Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED TO FEBRUARY 28, 1994 11. A request for a minor subdivision and to rezone a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi-Family, located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road/more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: 2 Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a witness corner for the West Quarter of said Section 14, bears (North 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073.08 feel Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds West, 915.96 feet Measured); Thence North 74 degrees 05 minutes 19 seconds East, 10.76 feet; Thence 183.62 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 181.76 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds East, 62.77 feet; Thence 147.43 feet along the arc of a curve to the left which arc subtends a chord bearing North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, 406.55 feet; Thence 54.10 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which arc subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds East, 44.20 feet; Thence South 14 degrees 25 minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet; Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 feet; Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West, 50.00 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West, 160.18 feet; Thence South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet; Thence North 87 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West, 337.72 feet; Thence (North 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds East, 130.00 feet Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minutes 31 seconds East, 129.75 feet Measured) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Bearing from G.L.O. record for South half of Section line between Sections 14-15. (G.L.O, record South 01 degrees 30.2 minutes East) (South 01 degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Measured) Applicant: Juanita 1. Pedotto Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO FEBRUARY 28, 1994 12. A request for an SDD to allow for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building and a conditional use for the off-site relocation of three existing employee housing units, located at 362 Vail Valley Drive 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: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Vail Village, First Filing; thence North 79046'00" West along the Southerly line of U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feet to the Northeast corner of said Tract "B"; thence South 10014'00" West along the Easterly line of said Tract "B"; a distance of 198.31 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Tract "B"; thence North 79°46'00" West along the Southerly line of said Tract "B" a distance of 100.00 feet to the true point of beginning thence north 09110'07" West a distance of 41.67 feet; thence South 88°27'11" West a distance of 75.21 feet; thence South 27°13'37" East of distance of 77.37 feet; thence North 57124'00" East a distance of 55.11 feet, more or less to the true point of beginning. Applicant: David Smith Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 28, 1994 13. A request for preliminary plat approval of a major subdivision (Trappers Run) on Lots 16, 19 and 21, Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, generally located north of 1-70 and west of the Vail Ridge Subdivision. Applicant: John Ulbrich, represented by Gateway Development Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED UNTIL MARCH 14, 1994 14. A request to relocate the helipad to the east end of the Ford Park parking lot located at 580 S. Frontage Road East/an unplatted parcel located between Vail Village 7th Filing and Vail Village 8th Filing and a portion of the 1-70 right-of-way. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED INDEFINITELY 15. Selection of a representative to the West Vail Master Plan (Vail Commons) Task Force. E 3 6 16. Approve minutes from January 24, 1994 PEC meeting. 17. Council update: -Public Works Master Plan 19. Review of new ordinances for PEC reference books. 19. Pick date for celebration for Diana Donovan, Planning Consultant. 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 14, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit to be located at 1358 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 21, Block 3, Vail Valley 1st Filing. Applicant: Chris Kempf Planner: Randy Stouder ............. .............::.::::................ 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing duplex and construct a new duplex on the subject property. Within Unit A of the new duplex, a Type II employee housing unit (EHU) of 300 square feet is proposed. The employee unit is located on the lower level adjacent to the garage. It will have a separate entry and a dedicated employee parking space within the proposed garage. The employee unit is designed as one bedroom efficiency unit with its own bathroom and kitchen facilities. II. ZONING ANALYSIS Allowed/Reouired Proposed Height: 33 feet 33 feet GRFA: 5,901 sq. ft. 6,011 sq. ft.* Site Coverage: 4,603 sq. ft. or 20% 4,748 sq. ft. or 20.6%* Landscaping: 13,809 sq. ft. or 60% 14,913 sq. ft. or 65% Parking: 6 spaces/1 enclosed 10 spaces/5 enclosed Setbacks: Front: 20' 20' Side: 15' 24' Side: 15' 17' Rear: 15' 17' * Please note that the GRFA figure contained in this zoning analysis is a grand total for the lot and includes two 250 square foot additions. The proposed GRFA and site coverage will need to be modified prior to final DRB review since the current floor plans exceed the limits for these two zoning parameters. The final plans will meet all zoning requirements. n III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. When the Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on November 20, 1990, it recognized the need to increase the supply of housing. The Town encourages EHU's as a means of providing quality living conditions and expanding the supply of employee housing for both year round and seasonal local residents. The proposed unit will have a positive impact on the Town's housing needs. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,. transportation facilities. utilities. schools. parks and recreation facilities. and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that there will be little impact from the proposed Type it EHU on light, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools or parks. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability. and removal of snow from the street and parkina areas. The employee unit maximum allowed occupancy is two persons plus a child not older than sixteen years. Staff believes that the amount of traffic generated by one to three residents would be insignificant relative to the amount of automobile traffic that currently utilizes Vail Valley Drive. The site currently has two driveway cuts onto Vail Valley Drive. Both of the driveway cuts are proposed to remain. No additional access points are proposed. The applicant proposes ten parking spaces on the property, one of which is an enclosed parking space dedicated for the employee housing unit. Thus, all parking should be easily accommodated on the lot. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the orooosed use is to be located. includina the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surroundina uses. The scale and bulk of the proposed structure is somewhat larger than those homes that are currently built around this lot. Although the proposed house 0 2 would be slightly larger than the existing surrounding units, it would not be out of character with what could be expected to develop under the current zoning requirements in this neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to build the maximum allowable GRFA for the site. This proposal also includes an application for approval of two additional 250 square foot residential additions. Staff believes that the applicant's desire to construct a Type II EHU is a good use of the square footage available on this site. The applicant is working with the Design Review Board (DRB) to reduce the impacts associated with the scale and bulk of the buildings, using various architectural and landscaping techniques. 5. Emnlovee Housing Units m?he ?Ilowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as soecified by Title 18 of the Vail Municioal Code for Ordinance No. 27. Series of 1992. Emolovee Housina and shall be subiect to the followina conditions: a. It shall be a conditional use in the Sinole-Familv Residential.. Two-Familv Residential and Primarv/Secondary Residential zone districts. The subject property is located in the Two Family Residential zone district. b. It shall be oermitted only on lots which comply with minimum lot size reauirements of the zone district in which the lot is located. The minimum lot size for a Type 11 EHU in this zone district is 15,000 square feet. The applicant's property is 20,013 square feet. C. It shall be located within. or attached to, a sinale-familv dwelling or be located within. or attached to. a two-familv dwelling oursuant to Section 18.54.050(1) - Desian Guidelines Duolex and Primarv/Secondarv Develooment. It may also be located in. or attached to, an existina aaraae orovided the aaraae is not located within anv setback, and further provided that no existina oarkina reauired by the Town of Vail Municioal Code is reduced or eliminated. The proposed EHU will be constructed on the lower level of Unit A of the duplex. The applicant proposes to provide a covered parking space in the three car garage for the employee unit. No parking will be eliminated as a result of this proposal. 10 3 d. It shall not be counted as a dwellina unit for the Durooses of calculating densitv. However. it shall contain kitchen facilities and a bathroom. as defined in Chapter 18.04 - Definitions of the Municipal Code. It shall be permitted to be a third dwellinq unit in addition to the two dwellina units which may alreadv exist on the lot. Only one TVDe II EHU shall be allowed per lot. The proposed EHU will be the third dwelling unit on this site. It contains full kitchen and bathroom facilities. e. It shall have a GRFA not less than three hundred (300) sauare feet, nor more than nine hundred (900) square feet. An applicant, however. shall be permitted to aoply to the Communitv Development Department of the Town of Vail for additional GRFA not to exceed five hundred (500) square feet to be used in the construction of the EHU. The applicant shall submit an application for the additional GRFA on a form provided by the Communitv Development Department. Approval or denial of the reauest shall be made by the Desian Review Board in accordance with Section 18.54.040. If an applicant obtains Desian Review Board approval for 500 square feet of additional GRFA for the EHU, he or she shall not be entitled to receive additional GRFA pursuant to Chaoter 18.71 - Additional Gross Residential Floor Area of this Code.for either unit on the lot. If an applicant obtains Desian Review Board approval for not more than 250 sauare feet of additional GRFA for the EHU, he or she shall be entitled to receive additional GRFA pursuant to Chapter 18.71 - Additional Gross Residential Floor Area of this code for one dwellina unit on the lot. The applicant has applied for an additional 500 square feet of GRFA (2 x 250's), a portion of which is to be used for the construction of the EHU. Approximately 300 of the 500 square feet will be used to construct the EHU. The additional 200 square feet of GRFA will be used in the construction of the duplex units. Thus, the applicant is proposing construction which utilizes all the available GRFA on the site including the two 250's additional GRFA allowances which are available for development. The Design Review Board (DRB) approval is required for the use of the two 250's. PEC approval is required for the conditional use (Type II EHU). Staff is thus recommending that the conditional use be contingent upon DRB approval of the two 250 applications. f. It shall have no more than two bedrooms. The proposed EHU will have one bedroom. 0 4 g. No more than two (2) adults and one (1) child not older than sixteen (16) vears of aae shall reside in a one (1) bedroom Tvpe 11 EHU. No more than two (2) adults and two (2) children not older than sixteen (16) vears of aae shall reside in a two (2) bedroom TVDe II EHU. The proposed Type II EHU is one bedroom, thus, no more than two adults and one child not older than sixteen years of age shall reside in this unit. Each Tvpe II EHU shall be reauired to have no less than one (1) parkina space for each bedroom located therein. However. if a one (1) bedroom Tvpe II EHU exceeds six hundred (600) sauare feet. it shall have two (2) Darkina spaces. All parkina spaces required by this Code shall be located on the same lot or site as the EHU. If no dwellina exists upon the property which is proposed for a Tvpe II EHU at the time a buildina permit is issued. or if an existina dwellina is to be demolished and replaced by a new dwelfina. not less than one (1) of the Darkina spaces reauired by this Daraaraoh shall be enclosed. A 300 sauare feet GRFA credit shall be allowed for the construction of one enclosed oarkina space for the Tvpe 11 EHU. The Type 11 EHU residents will have access to one enclosed parking space per the ordinance. Additional surface parking is also available. B. Findinas: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for an Employee Housing Unit: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance 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. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code. 111111. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for an Employee Housing Unit. Staff believes that the criteria have been met as discussed in the memo. Regarding the findings, staff believes that finding B1 is met as the proposed use is in is 5 accordance with the purposes of the zoning ordinance as well as the zone district. Finding B2 10 is met, in staff's opinion, as the proposed use is not detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. Finding B3 is met, in staff's opinion, as the proposal complies with all of the standards of the zoning code. Staff recommends approval of the request with two conditions: 1) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed construction of a duplex, the applicant shall sign deed restrictions using the appropriate forms provided by the Town of Vail to be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. The deeds shall set forth that the employee housing unit is to be permanently restricted for employee housing. 2) This conditional use permit shall become effective only after the Design Review Board has approved the development and approved the use of the two "250's" for the Type II EHU. Please note that under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the approval of a conditional use permit shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion, or the use for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two years from when the approval becomes final. c:\pec\m em Wke m pf.214 n 0 6 0 0 VAIL VALLEY DRIVE r i ?4i[ A Y 4= -?_r .'_ LjkWrQ,CAPE PLAN " seAt?: r ? ro? ? s R;O-111-) •a ? ---- W4 Q ? F ?+y a W U A? Q W IMF N T T? S 4 ---"' NORTH c102 1 ?- 1 AT i BATk ? - BEDROa!'f i EbtTRY Raa ? 'r_ PLAMTER li -_--------- / i - "' OYNE APTRY i G.+RAr,E 1 Z? GARAGE` I P'rtfA ! awry °r`?cr ? ? 4 i .w ?4E 1 l ?"?.L llll? „a UWr A ! UN/! B LOWER LEVEL SCALE: lfd=l'-O" qw yx W tLL 4 at ev? CIL } 1. SECOND irL40R T 1 .r ritzieni ierceisr1nerw, ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS Kwrr gro54 f2G - --- - PECK ? H. BEDROOM E ]l ( ` 11 =_ ? ? ? Ix Bar G? =q 1? csdser I 1 .?.. k I ; w I T CL If. 8--11 ( Imo- ' ; KrrCHEM BEDROOM ttYlMG/L31M1NG RfX7lI! am poor t KITCHEM -f # ?_------a. _---- --------_I LlvN /D!MIMG ROOM [?'? VrP.?# O O t® tr O xc+r 7ue MAIN LEVEL PLAN SCALE. l/B°!,_Om UNIT B NORTH 1 i i E LOFT VAIL COLORADO 81650 303 476 5342 TEL 303476 4601 FAX irhnE E?u?ERC[ 6nINEn 2--1 '-1 w `! 84 ? ' _ ?' C 6AACCo f t °- i r - - - -?-- -- -- - - - - _ -- /? 61 IKe =fir ?r t t- a I{ t T f ?.' TIT 1 # , l I, ( t '1[rl t ,• ,I 1 I -T 7? ,OAIMAIZY UNlT SE-GOMOARY U!?fT C r`?ORlH F! F4 AT/aN FrltzlenPierceB river ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS POST OFFICE BOX ST 1004 LMNSgDOE COOP VAR COLORADO 61686 303 478 6342 TEL 383 476 4601 FAX } ppk 5 t _ assen> - } 1 a f 1 66 L -- -? _ ...._ + c --- _. ?I. SEG?NL?RYGWI]" PR/NVARY 1.WlT - + + 1 +y + r ? it t + t ;t y y 1 - -C*-_ -r 1149 5OUTH E4?,-VA OA POST OFFICE SOX bT { ? /? y B it Pi l F l S 2 OOP 0 VAIL COLORADO 816W ¦ ( / erce r ner en r z 3 47 4 3 aoa 4TS :14s rtEL SR34T6 4901 FAX ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS °^??. i ? ar . m . i'/ _ _ ? JJ i •, ,?,? `.. ?? f f ! i i f f ? C i I I ,_? ?`7 ?,4sT E?1.?TloN-PRlNlARY UN/T pets: CFFm Box" FritzlenPiereeBrin 3034 er 7 - 3034764 gel FAX ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS vemvr- ve4irx-L Iee- a Q _,a . z, e, E? Ij j - -71 CvARA6a 4 t 1 E,q ST L f.4TfvAl-SECZ71vz Ry Ur ?7` POST GFFlGE BOX 67 i Y009 iXf LOOP SIM A 42 ? ? ner ritzlenPlerceBr 8 TEL 303{7 6 6 4084764901 FAX ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS K # ' I Ppf4 m . qw ILL. -17 F-Tq? . "1 11 i #F?r I f f I 1! -, - - - ---? 4 --------- -r yv?sT E??A?oN- 5£->roN?-33q+?' -ifsA' - PM7 aFFrc &O X 7 4 Ew U y{?.+?¦ ¦¦ ¦y¦ ?y ¦?f¦ rA Piey¦ !ceBry¦ • F tz e ner C DOdt 4 30 i i i i i i : 93 EL 7 3 - 4 367 476 1901 FAX ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS a I.+r-KAr,?-- 0-zIrr7e1 w I I I E l { l: prmr?}.unft. LF, I I C I I I I I iT-L ?, i } C , ?I € f ,` I ? I ?- -. ! C- _ 1-- , _ I _l_ - VOfT CFFI£E 90X 67 B * Pl l l ?651,42s L 3/ ner ri erce en tz i r 033.47 TE _ 303476 {40t FAX ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS - v_wrr 9-41-14 I r MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 14, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District, Chapter 18.32 Agricultural and (Open Space District, and Chapter 18.36, Public Use District, of the Vail Municipal Code, Applicant: Town of Vail Planners: Jim Curnutte and Russ Forrest h+:•M 4.i M.. 5?..?;:i?¢.. .?'\?:?:: ?i{?*ti •:•?iii ??.h}::??i:':?`n'i?{v:}',i•+.ii;:??{ .. .. '; . •. 4 .;rv ....... .... \...{?...,..::+hiti?.{. . .... ..............n...: 1vii:?:iT:•i:i^:•:? ?ti:\ 1. INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS The Community Development Department is proposing a number of text amendments to the two "open space" zone districts within the Town of Vail, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District (GNOS) and Agricultural and Open Space District (A), In addition, we are also proposing text amendments to the Public Use District (PUD). The need for the proposed text amendments was first identified during the "Development Code Revision Project", initiated by the Vail Town Council in May of 1990. In October of 1991, the Develooment Code Revision Reoort. Phase 1, was adopted by the Vail Town Council. This report deals exclusively with proposed amendments to the zoning code. The design guidelines and sign code will be addressed in phases two and three. On May 24, 1993, a worksession was held with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) in order to discuss proposed text amendments to the GNOS and A zone districts (see attachment #1 e PEC minutes from the May-24, 1993, meeting), During the worksession the public, PEC and staff discussed the proposed text of each section of the two zone districts and identified a number of changes that should be made to the first draft. Proposed changes to the PUD zone district were not discussed at the May 24, 1993, worksession. On August 23, 1983, a second worksession was held with the PEC (see attachment #2 - PEC minutes from the August 23, 1993, meeting). At this worksession the PEC again discussed the proposed text changes and suggested a number of revisions. The PEC was very concerned about allowing buildings to be constructed in the Recreational Open Space zone district. The PEC suggested the deletion of uses that necessitated the construction of.a building(s) (i.e. single family residential dwellings, churches, rectories, schools, colleges, convents, etc): The PEC considered the idea of creating three open space zone districts, in which only one would allow for the construction of buildings. However, after much discussion, it was determined that staff would explore other options including amending the permitted and conditional uses in the Public Use District in order to accomplish the PEC's goals. ll. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS The proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District, will be discussed first followed by the proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.32, Agricultural and Open Space District and Chapter 18.36, Public Use District. As each section of the above-referenced chapters is discussed, staff will first refer to the issue associated with the proposed change (reason for proposing a change to the section), the second portion will identify comments made at the two previous PEC worksessions, the third portion will include staff's comments and recommendations. The recommended text changes to each section are shown in bold. Attachments 3, 4 and 5 show the existing text of each zone district with proposed deletions crossed out and proposed additions in bold. Please refer to these attachments frequently as each section is discussed in this memo. A. Greenbelt and Natural Open Soace District 1. issue - Change the name of the zone district The Development Code Revision Report indicates that the GNOS zone district is intended for environmentally sensitive sites that "should be protected from encroachment by any man made structures...... The report also points out that the term "open space" is used in two of Vail's zone districts and has created some confusion with regard to the distinction between them. Despite this, the report goes on to recommend that the district be renamed to "Natural Open Space Preservation District". Comments made at previous PEC worksessions Staff recommended that the name of this zone district be changed to Natural Area Preservation District. Everyone agreed that the proposed name change was appropriate and better reflected the purpose of the district. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zone district be renamed to Natural Area Preservation District. 2. Issue - Rewrite the purpose statement of the district The Development Code Revision Report suggests that the following wording be used as the new purpose statement: "The natural open space preservation district is designed to provide areas which, because of their environmentally sensitive nature or natural beauty, should be protected from encroachment by any manmade structure or improvements other than those listed in Section 18.02.020 (Permitted Uses). The natural open space preservation district is intended to ensure that designated lands remain in their natural, undisturbed state by protecting such areas from development and preserving open space in its natural state. The intent should not preclude improvement of the 2 0 natural environment by the removal of weeds, dead fall or similar compatible improvements." Comments made at previous .PEC worksessions - It was suggested that a number of revisions be made to the purpose statement so that the intention of this district was made clear. Also, it was suggested that some additional wording be added describing why the preservation of land is important to the Town of Vail. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the purpose statement be changed to read as follows; 18.38.010 - Purpose. "The natural area preservation district is designed to provide areas which, because of their environmentally sensitive nature or natural beauty, shall be protected from encroachment by any building or other improvement, other than those listed in Section 18.38.020 (Permitted Uses). The natural area preservation district is intended to ensure that designated lands remain in their natural state, including reclaimed areas, by protecting such areas from development and preserving open space. The natural area preservation district includes lands having valuable wildlife habitat, exceptional aesthetic or flood control value, wetlands, riparian areas and areas with significant environmental constraints. Protecting sensitive natural areas is important for maintaining water quality and aquatic habitat, preserving wildlife habitat, flood control, protecting view corridors, minimizing the risk from hazard areas, and protecting the natural character of Vail which is so vital to the Town's tourist economy. The intent shall not preclude improvement of the natural environment by the removal of noxious weeds, deadfall where necessary to protect public safety or similar compatible improvements." 3. Issue - Amendments to the list of permitted uses Although no revisions are suggested in the Development Code Revision Report, staff feels that revisions to the list of permitted uses are warranted and necessary in order to carry out the intent of the district as specified in the new purpose statement. Comments made at previous PEC worksessions The group discussed the need to adequately define "interpretive nature walks" and "nature preserves". Also, there was discussion regarding allowed uses on bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways (i.e. roller blades, snowmobiles, etc.). It was suggested that motorized equipment 0 3 .be precluded in this zone district and that only unpaved paths and walkways should be allowed "by right". Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the list of permitted uses be changed to the following: 18.38.020 o Permitted uses. A. Nature preserve; B. Unpaved, non-motorized, bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways; C. Interpretive nature walks. Staff also recommends that Chapter 18.04 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code (definitions) be amended to define nature preserve and interpretive nature walks as follows: Nature preserve - An area of land and/or water that is managed primarily to safeguard the flora, fauna and physical features it contains. Interpretive nature walks a Unpaved pedestrian trails with either fixed signs or marked points which are used to explain the natural flora, fauna, geology, geography, or history in the immediate area. 4. Issue - Amendments to the list of conditional uses The three conditional uses currently listed in this zone district are public parks and playgrounds, golf courses and equestrian trails. The Development Code Revision Report suggests that, with the exception of equestrian trails, each of these uses would require site improvements far beyond those recognized in the chapter's purpose statement. The report suggests that public parks and playgrounds and golf courses are more appropriate in the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District, which leaves only equestrian trails in the list of conditional uses. Comments made at previous PEC worksessions The PEC discussed the appropriateness of allowing for parking areas as a conditional use permit in this district, in order to provide access to the .permitted and conditional uses as well as National Forest trailheads. The PEC also considered removing "equestrian trails" from the list of conditional uses. The PEC's concern was that someone may propose to develop equestrian facilities on HAP District property, stating that they were accessory to the equestrian trails (i.e. stables, corrals, etc.). After further discussion it was agreed that equestrian trails, used only for the purpose of accessing National Forest system lands, was acceptable. Joe Macy, Vail Associates, Inc., suggested that the PEC consider adding "underground ski base facilities" to the list of conditional uses. 4 0 Staff Recommendation Staff has discussed the comments made at the previous PEC worksessions with regard to equestrian trails and the provision of parking areas and felt that both would be appropriate to list as conditional uses, as amended to address PEC concerns. Staff disagrees with the idea of adding "underground ski base facilities" in the Natural Area Preservation District. Staff believes that even if these facilities are located underground, there would be considerable impact to the natural state of the open spade area that existed prior to the undergrounding of structures associated'with "underground ski base facilities". In addition, the ski base facility use is incompatible with the purpose statement of the district. Staff recommends that the list of conditional uses be changed to the following: 18.38.030 - Conditional uses. A. Equestrian trails, used only to access National Forest system lands; B. Paved, non-motorized, bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways; C. Picnic tables and informal seating areas; D. Parking, when used in conjunction with a permitted or conditional use. 5. Issue - Amendments to the list of accessory uses Although accessory uses are not currently permitted in this zone district, the Development Code Revision Report suggests that some accessory uses are appropriate and recommends that the following wording be used: "picnic tables and informal seating areas and other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof." Comments made at previous PEC worksessions There was concern that the portion of the proposed wording which allows for "picnic tables and informal seating areas" may not be conducive to the Natural Area Preservation District. However, after further discussion it was determined that there may be instances where such uses may be acceptable. It was suggested that picnic tables and informal seating areas be moved to the list of conditional uses. Also, it was suggested that the remaining wording be revised to preclude buildings as an accessory use. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the list of accessory uses be changed to the following: 18.38.040 - Accessory uses. A. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings. 6. Issue - Addition of new section entitled "Additional development standards" The report points out that the Supplemental Regulations chapter of the zoning code includes development standards and exceptions to development standards. These regulations are applicable to each zone district, but are not specifically listed in each zone district. Because these regulations are located in a separate chapter, people are often not aware of them. The report suggests, and staff agrees, that a new section should be added to the zone district stating that there are additional development standards found in the Supplementary Regulations chapter. Eventually, this section would be added to all zone districts. Comments made at previous PEC worksessions The PEC had no comments with regard to this proposed change. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that a new section be added to the zone district which reads as follows: 18.38.070 - Additional development standards. "Additional regulations pertaining to site development standards and the development of land in the Recreation and Open Space district are found in chapter 18.58, Supplemental Regulations." B. Aaricultural and Open Space District Issue - Change the name of the zone district The Development Code Revision Report points out that the name of this district is somewhat of a misnomer. Recreational activities play a much more prominent role in this district than agriculture, and the term "recreation" should be reflected in the name. Comments made at previous PEG worksessions It was agreed that renaming the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District to the Recreational Open Space Zone District was appropriate. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the name of the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District be changed to Recreational Open Space. 6 • 2. Issue - Rewrite the purpose statement As with the Natural Area Preservation District, staff recommends that the purpose statement of the newly entitled Recreational Open Space District be rewritten to reflect the new name and better define the intention of the district. Comments made at previous PEC worksessions There were comments made at the first worksession regarding the need to define "active and passive recreation", since it was mentioned in the purpose statement. The PEC felt that this zone district should not include large recreational buildings (ie. recreation center, tennis stadium., swimming complex, etc.) and suggested that "buildings be excluded from the definition of active outdoor recreation. The PEC felt that it was acceptable to remove all wording in the previous purpose statement that referred to agricultural pursuits as well as the last paragraph which referred to "parks, schools and certain types of private recreational facilities and institutions ...". Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the purpose statement for the newly entitled Recreational Open Space District be changed to read as follows: 18.32.010 - Purpose. "The Recreational Open Space district is intended to preserve undeveloped or open space lands from intensive development while permitting outdoor recreational activities consistent with open space objectives. This land is intended to provide opportunities for active and passive outdoor recreation." Staff also recommends that the definitions section of the Zoning Code be amended to define active and passive recreation as follows: Active outdoor recreation - Active outdoor recreation includes outdoor recreational activities which involve organized or structured recreation that is associated with recreational facilities, excluding buildings. For example, active outdoor recreation would include: soccer, rugby, athletic fields, playgrounds, outdoor basketball and tennis courts; outdoor swimming pools, sledding and skiing areas, fitness trails with exercise stations, etc. Passive outdoor recreation - Passive outdoor recreation includes outdoor recreational activities which involve unstructured recreation which does not require facilities or special grounds. Passive outdoor recreation would include: picnicking, fishing, walking, hiking, cross country skiing, informal playing fields, etc. J 7 3. Issue - Amendments to the list of permitted uses The Development Code Revision Report suggests that the list of permitted uses be changed to add bike and recreation trails to the list and to remove the phrase "... and the raising of field, row and tree crops from Paragraph B in the existing list. Staff agrees with the proposed amendments suggested in the report, however we feel that additional amendments to the list of Permitted uses are necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this zone district. Comments made at previous PEC worksessions The PEC discussed the idea of removing "single family residential dwellings" from the list of permitted uses. Additionally, since a number of permitted and conditional uses were proposed to be removed from this zoned district, the PEC asked staff to consult with the Town Attorney regarding the legality of the recommended deletions. The PEC suggested that the ordinance which will be written to adopt these zoning code changes include a clause which allows existing property owners to retain all development rights that exist in each zone district as currently written. The staff and Town Attorney have discussed this issue and feel confident proceeding as directed by the PEC. The PEC felt that it was appropriate to strike the phrase "plant and tree nurseries and raising of field, row and tree crops" from the list of permitted uses. Rather than moving this phrase down to the list of conditional uses, as suggested by staff, there was some discussion about the possibility of removing it completely from the zone district. The PEC, however, discussed this issue again during their review of the proposed list of conditional uses and decided that it would be acceptable to leave "plant and tree nurseries" in as a conditional use, provided all reference to retail sales was deleted from the original wording provided by staff. There was discussion of adding "ski runs" to the list of permitted uses, however, it was decided that "ski runs" would be added to the list of conditional uses. Art Abplanalp commented that we should add the word "noncommercial" recreation areas before the existing wording of "recreation areas". The PEC was concerned with how this would effect Town, Vail Recreation District, or V.A. owned recreation areas that charged a fee. It was suggested that it might be more appropriate to change the proposed wording from "public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces" to "Passive outdoor recreation areas and open spaces" and list " Public parks and active outdoor recreation areas, excluding buildings" to the list of conditional uses. 8 0 Staff Recommendation Staff has incorporated the comments made at the previous PEC worksessions. Although we feel that "public parks and outdoor recreation areas" are appropriate uses in the Recreational Open Space Zone District, we agree that in some instances it would be helpful to allow the PEC the ability to review a newly proposed public park or outdoor recreation area with regard to compliance with the conditional use permit criteria. We also believe it is important to notify adjacent property owners about a proposed park. This notification would be required through the conditional use process. The phrase "passive outdoor recreation areas and open spaces" has been retained in the list of permitted uses. "Passive outdoor recreation" has been defined in a way that would only allow for certain low impact recreational uses as a use by right (i.e. open fields conducive to playing frisbee, picnicking, etc.). Staff recommends that the list of permitted uses be changed to the following: 18.32.020 e Permitted uses. A. Passive outdoor recreation areas and open spaces. i.e. picnic tables, informal playing fields, etc.; B. Nature preserves; C. Bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways; D. Interpretive nature walks. 4. Issue - Amendments to the list of conditional uses The Development Code Revision Report points out that, as currently written, paragraph A requires a conditional use permit for any use on public land that involves the assembly of more than two hundred people. There have been numerous events on public land that involve two hundred or more people (le. Gerry Ford Golf Tournament, ski races, fireworks, etc.). These events have been reviewed through the "special event permit" process rather than as a conditional use. The report suggests, and staff agrees, that since these types of events are usually limited to a duration of one or two days, the special event permit is probably the most appropriate tool for reviewing this type of use. Also listed as a concern in the report is the fact that paragraph D allows private golf, tennis, swimming and riding clubs and hunting and fishing lodges but does not include similar public facilities. The report recommends that the list of conditional uses be amended to include similar public facilities. 0 9 Comments at previous PEC worksessions The PEC agreed that the use involving the assembly of more than two hundred persons should be removed from the list of conditional uses.- The PEC also felt that "public and private schools and colleges", "churches, rectories, and related structures", "private golf, tennis, swimming and riding clubs, and hunting and fishing lodges", "semipublic and institutional uses, such as convents, religious retreats" and "low power subscription radio facilities" should be deleted from the list. As mentioned previously, the PEC felt that "public parks and active outdoor recreation areas" should be moved to the list of conditional uses. The PEC felt that the phrase "enclosed public recreation uses other than those described in Sections 18.32.020 (Permitted Uses) and 18.32.040 (Accessory Uses)", as proposed by staff in the second draft, should be deleted. Joe Macy recommended that wording be added to the conditional use section to allow for ski runs and underground ski base facilities. The He suggested that it be a continuation of the existing wording "ski lifts and tows", so that the new phrase read "ski lifts, tows and runs, and related underground ski base facilities". Both the staff and the PEC felt that the addition of "ski runs" was a good addition to the list of conditional uses. However, with regard to underground ski base facilities, everyone felt that the provision of underground ski base facilities (i.e. locker rooms, offices, storage areas, etc.) were not the types of uses which should be listed in the Recreational Open Space Zone District. Rather, areas that involve these types of uses should most likely be considered for rezoning to the Ski Base Recreation Zone District. The Ski Base Recreation Zone District requires the submittal and review of a development plan and would allow the staff, PEC and Town Council, as well as the public, to review and provide input on all issues related to the master planning of areas associated with ski base development. Staff Recommendation Staff has made a number of revisions to the proposed list of conditional uses in response to the comments made at the two previous PEC worksessions. Staff agrees that moving "public parks and active outdoor recreation areas" to the list of conditional uses would allow adequate public notice and review of proposed parks or active recreation areas. "ski runs" has been added to the existing wording "ski lifts and tows" in the list if conditional uses. With regard to the PEC's prior comments regarding listing plant and tree nurseries as a conditional use in this zone district, staff agrees that this 10 a would be an acceptable use provided retail sales were excluded. Staff recommends that the list of conditional uses be changed to the following: 18.32.030 - Conditional uses. A. Public parks and active outdoor recreation areas and uses, excluding buildings; B. Equestrian trails, used only to access National Forest system lands; C. Plant and tree nurseries, and associated structures, excluding the sale of trees or other nursery products, grown, produced, or made on the premises; D. Ski lifts, tows and runs; E. Cemeteries; F. Well water treatment facility; G. Accessory buildings and uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional outdoor recreational uses, and necessary for the operation thereof, including restrooms, drinking fountains, bleachers, concessions, storage buildings, and similar uses. 5. Issue - Amendments to the list of accessory uses Although no revisions to the list of accessory uses were suggested in the Development Code Revision Report, staff feels that some revisions are warranted in order to be consistent with the new list of permitted and conditional uses specified above. Comments made at previous PEC worksessions Since "single family residential dwellings" is proposed to be removed from this zone district the PEC recommended the removal of the phrase "private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios or recreational facilities customarily incidental to single family residential uses". The PEC also found the phrase "home occupations subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.58.130 through 18.58.150" unnecessary and recommended that it be deleted. With regard to item C in the accessory use list, which says "accessory buildings and uses customarily incidental to permitted recreational uses including restrooms, drinking fountains, bleachers, concessions, storage buildings and similar uses" the PEC suggested that we add the phrase "and conditional" after the word "permitted" and the word "outdoor" in front of the word "recreational" and move the entire sentence to the list of conditional uses. a 11 would be an acceptable use provided retail sales were excluded. Staff recommends that the list of conditional uses be changed to the following: 18.32.030 - Conditional uses. A. Public parks and active outdoor recreation areas and uses, excluding buildings; B. Equestrian trails, used only to access National s=orest system lands; C. Plant and tree nurseries, and associated structures, excluding the sale of trees or other nursery products, grown, produced, or made on the premises; D. Ski lifts, tows and runs; E. Cemeteries; F. Well water treatment facility; G. Accessory buildings and uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional outdoor recreational uses, and necessary for the operation thereof, including restrooms, drinking fountains, bleachers, concessions, storage buildings, and similar uses. 5. Issue - Amendments to the list of accessory uses Although no revisions to the list of accessory uses were suggested in the Development Code Revision Report, staff feels that some revisions are warranted in order to be consistent with the new list of permitted and conditional uses specified above. Comments made at previous PEC worksessions Since "single family residential dwellings" is proposed to be removed from this zone district the PEC recommended the removal of the phrase "private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios or recreational facilities customarily incidental to single family residential uses". The PEC also found the phrase "home occupations subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.58.130 through 18.58.190" unnecessary and recommended that it be deleted. With regard to item C in the accessory use list, which says "accessory buildings and uses customarily incidental to permitted recreational uses including restrooms, drinking fountains, bleachers,, concessions, storage buildings and similar uses" the PEC suggested that we add the phrase .and conditional" after the word "permitted" and the word "outdoor" in front of the word "recreational" and move the entire sentence to the list of conditional uses. 11 7. Issue - Changes to setback requirements The abbreviation for the Recreational Open Space zone district would be ROS, therefore the A should be changed to ROS. Additiorially, since accessory building may be allowed in this zone district (with an approved conditional use permit) staff recommends that the fifteen foot side and rear setback requirement be changed to twenty feet. Comments made at previous PEC worksesslons The PEC has not previously reviewed the proposed side and rear setback changes. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the setback requirement in the Recreational Open Space Zone District be changed to the following: 13.32.060 - Setbacks. In the ROS district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet, the minimum side setback shall bd twenty feet, and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet. 3. Issue - Deletion of density section In light of the fact that single family residential dwellings are no longer proposed to be listed as a permitted or conditional use in the Recreational Open Space zone district, it is no longer necessary to control density on properties within the Recreational Open Space zone district. Comments made at previous PEC worksessions The PEC felt that the existing density wording in the code was confusing and recommended that if staff research indicated that the removal of single family residential dwellings was acceptable, than this section should be deleted. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the density section be amended to read as follows: 13.32.090 - Density. Not applicable in the ROS zone district. 9. Issue - Landscaping and site development The report points out that although the current wording states "not applicable in this district" there may be cases where landscape standards may be necessary. The report suggests, and staff agrees, that the following language should replace the existing wording in the landscaping and site development section: 13 "Landscape requirements shall be determined by the Design Review Board in accordance with chapter 18.54.° Comments made at previous PEC worksessions The PEC had no comments with regard to this proposed change. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the landscaping and site development section be amended to read as follows: 18.32.130 - Landscaping and site development. ., Landscape requirements shall be determined by the Design Review Board in accordance with chapter 18.54. 10. Issue - Addition of new section entitled "Additional development standards" The report points out that the Supplemental Regulations chapter of the zoning code includes development standards and exceptions to development standards. These regulations are applicable to each zone district, but are not specifically listed in each zone district. Because these regulations are located in a separate chapter, people are often not aware of them. The report suggests, and staff agrees, that a new section should be added to the zone district stating that there are additional development standards found in the Supplementary Regulations chapter. Eventually, this section would be added to all zone districts. Comments made at previous PEG worksessions The PEC had no comments with regard to this proposed change. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that a new section be added to the zone district which reads as follows: 18.32.150 - Additional development standards. "Additional regulations pertaining to site development standards and the development of land in the Recreational Open Space district are found in chapter 18.58, Supplemental Regulations." C: Public Use District 1. Issue - Change the name of the zone district The Development Code Revision Report points out that the commonly used abbreviation for the Public Use District is PUD. This has created some confusion because PUD is a widely used planning term that refers 14 0 to a "planned unit development". A "planned unit development" is synonymous with Vail's Special Development District. The most direct way to eliminate confusion is to rename-the Public Use District to "Public Service District". This would eliminate the confusion with PUD's, and also express the underlying purpose of the district, which is to provide a zone district for public and quasi-public uses. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the name of the Public Use Zone District be changed to Public Service District. 2. Issue - Purpose statement The Development Code Revision Report does not suggest any changes to the purpose statement of the Public Service District nor does staff feel that the minor amendments we are proposing to make to this zone district call for any revisions to the purpose statement as currently written, with the exception of the previously mentioned district name change. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the purpose statement of the newly entitled Public Service District be left as currently written, with the exception that the first two sentences be amended to reflect to recommended district name change. The resulting wording of the purpose statement would be as follows: The public service district is intended to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot appropriately be regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 18.02.020 and to provide for the public welfare. The public service district is intended to insure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses permitted in the district are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the pernitted types of uses. 3. Issue - Amendments to the list of permitted uses The Development Code Revision Report points out that "seasonal structures" is currently listed as a permitted use in the Public Service District. The definition of seasonal structure, found in Chapter 18.04, states that a seasonal structure shall require a conditional use permit. The report suggests that the most direct way to resolve this situation is 0 15 to move "seasonal structure" to the list of conditional uses. Staff Recommendation a Staff recommends that the list of permitted uses in the Public Service District be changed to the following. 18.36.020 - Permitted uses. A. Public parks, playgrounds and open space; D. Pedestrian and bike paths. 4. Issue - Amendments to the list of conditional uses The Development Code Revision Report suggests that some of the uses currently listed in the conditional use section of the Public Service District be changed. Although Paragraph B allows for public parking facilities and structures, there is a need for limited accessory commercial uses related to parking structures. The report suggests the addition of a limited number of uses deemed to be accessory to a parking structure. The report suggests that Paragraph M (Hospitals) should be expanded to include a more comprehensive list of medical related facilities that are appropriate in the district and suggests the wording "medical and dental facilities, clinics, and rehabilitation centers". The report points out that Paragraph O (Office and tourist related uses) is not clearly defined. The report goes on to state that "office" and "tourists" are two different uses and should probably be listed separately. Secondly, examples of tourist related uses should be provided in order to better understand what these uses really are. As currently written, it is unclear whether this means a visitor information booth or a ski shop. Additionally, during the review of the list of permitted and conditional uses in the Recreational Open Space zone district, the PEC was concerned that some of the uses that they were proposing to delete may not be found in other zone districts in town. An example would be "church". Although "church" is proposed to be deleted from the Recreational. Open Space zone district, it is, and always has been allowed in the Public Use District. "Rectories, convents, religious retreats and related structures", however, are not found in any other zone district other than the Recreational Open Space zone district and, therefore, its suggested deletion from that zone district would preclude those uses from being located anywhere in the Town of Vail. Staff has compared the suggested deletions from the Natural Area Preservation and Recreational Open Space zone districts to determine whether or not they can be found in any other zone district and their compatibility with 16 0 the uses in the Public Use District. In instances where such uses are not currently located in any other zone district and are appropriate to add to the Public Use District list of permitted or conditional uses, staff has recommended additions. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the list of conditional uses be changed to the following: 18.38.030 - Conditional uses. A. Public theaters, meeting rooms and convention facilities; S. Public parking facilities and structures and associated uses, such as offices and restaurants. C. Public transportation terminals; D. Public utilities installations including transmission lines and appurtenant equipment; E. Water and sewage treatment plants; F. Public service facilities; G. Public buildings and grounds; H. Public and private schools and educational institutions; 1. Public and private recreation facilities other than those prescribed in Section 18.36.020; J. Golf courses; K. Ski lifts, tows and runs; L. Churches, rectories, convents, religious retreats and related structures; M. Hospitals, medical and dental facilities, clinics, and rehabilitation centers; N. Equestrian trails; 0. Public tourisVguest service related facilities; P. Visitor/information centers; 0. Major Arcade; R. Helipad for emergency and/or community use; S. Hand gun ranges; T. Type III EHU as defined in Section 18.57.060; U. Type IV EHU as defined in Section 18.57.070; V. Seasonal structures or uses to accommodate educational, recreational or cultural activities; W. The following conditional uses shall be permitted in accordance with the issuance of a conditional use permit, provided such use is accessory to a parking structure: -rental car office -transit/shuttle service -sundries shop •coffeelsandwich shop. C 17 5. • Issue - Amendments to the list of accessory uses Although the Development Code Revision Report does not suggest any revisions to the list of accessory uses in the Public Service District, staff would recommend that the phrase "other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof" be given the paragraph letter B and be listed in a manner similar to other zone districts. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the list of accessory uses in the Public Service District be amended to read as follows: 18.38.040 - Accessory uses. A. Minor arcade; B. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings. Issue - Changes to the development standards The Development Code Revision Report points out that there are no predetermined development standards in the Public Service District. Proposals in the Public Service District have essentially been handled like a Special Development District whereby standards are established by the PEC's approval of the conditional use. The Report points out that the problem with the existing wording "prior to acting on an application for a conditional use... is that the statement implies that the PEC prescribes development standards prior to the review of a conditional use request. The Development Code Revision Report suggests wording changes intended to clarify how development standards are established in the Public Service District. The Development Code Revision Report also points out that parking and loading requirements for projects in the Public Service district are currently established by the PEC and Town Council. This raises three issues; Why is the Town Council involved in the decision if the PEC sets all other development standards ?; Why isn't the parking schedule in Chapter 18.52 referenced as a basis for parking requirements ?; and Should this development standard be included in Section 18.36.050 ? It is not clear why the parking and loading requirement for a particular use needs to be jointly established by the PEC and Town Council. Staff does not see the need to have the council involved in establishing the parking and loading requirement for everv development plan submitted for review in the Public Service district, and since the Council has the ability to "calf up" any application for further review , it would not be 18 a detrimental to remove "and Town Council" from this section of the code. It is possible that the reason the parking schedule in Chapter 18.52 is not referenced is that it does not include a parking requirement for many of the uses listed in the Public Service District. However, a provision in the parking schedule states that the PEC shall determine parking requirements for any use not listed. in the parking schedule. Staff believes that although referencing the parking chapter would adequately address the issue, there may be instances where the PEC finds that deviations from the existing parking schedule are necessary. The greatest amount of flexibility, with regard to determining adequate parking and loading, will be given to the PEC by adding "Parking and Loading" to the existing list of development standards found in Section 18.36.050. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the development standards section be amended to read as follows: Section. 18.36.050 - Development Standards. In the Public Service District, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission: B B. B. C. D. E. F. G. Lot area and site dimensions; Setbacks;. Building height; Density control; Site coverage; Landscaping and site development; Parking and Loading. Development standards shall be proposed by the applicant as a part of a conditional use permit application. Site specific development standards shall then be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission during the review of the conditional use request in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60. 7. Issue - Deletion of the Parking and Loading Section Since Parking and Loading has been included in Section 18.36.050 - - Development Standards, Section 18.36.060 (Parking and Loading) may be deleted from this zone district. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Section 18.36.060 (Parking and Loading) be deleted from the Public Service District. 1) 19 detrimental to remove "and Tow It is possible that the reason the not referenced is that it does no of the uses listed in the Public S the parking schedule states that Greg Amsden made a motio requirements for any use not list Langenwalter seconding the believes that although referencir 14, 1993. address the issue, there may be deviations from the existing park 10. A request for a work sesslo greatest amount of flexibility, wit Greenbelt and Natural Open parking and loading, will be give Space District, of the Vail Mr. Loading" to the existing list of dE 18.36.050. - Applicant: Town c Planners: Jim Cu Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the deve a =r Jim Curnutte made a brief pry to read as follows: of the work session was to re text amendments. Jim pointe Section. 18.36.050 - Developmer already recommended in the that his presentation would fo In the Public Service District, following categories shall be r Larry Eskwith and Art Abplam Environmental Commission: amendments. A. Lot area and site dimens B. Setbacks; Below are the proposed ce C. Building height; GREENBELT AND;; NA D. Density control; NATURAL E. Site coverage; F. Landscaping and site de, Purpose G. Parking and Loading. Change "should" to "shall" in. Development standards shall part of a conditional use perry -Change "structure" to "buildin development standards shall !. and Environmental Commissir -Diana Donovan wanted a qua conditional use request in acc previously disturbed land. (Shc Chapter 18.60. -Add "noxious" between "of" ai 7. Issue - Deletion of the Parkinc Since Parking and Loading has -In the last sentence, "deadfall Development Standards, Sectioi be deleted from this zone distric Permitted Uses Staff Recommendation -Concerning roller blades, are 1 Staff recommends that Section deleted from the Public Service -The words "interpretive nature 19 Plenne more appropriately rezoned to the new Recreational Open Space District or the Public Service District and vice versa. Additionally, there are a number of properties throughout the Town that should be rezoned to one of the two open space zone districts or the Public Service District. Immediately following the approval of the above described zoning code text amendments staff will finalize a list of suggested property rezonings for presentation to the PEG. In addition to the standard notification used for all PEC meetings, staff has notified each owner of GNOS, AOS and PUD zoned property, as well as all property owners adjacent to those three zone districts, of the proposed text amendments and has invited them to the February 14, 1994 PEC worksession. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the PEC review and discuss the proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District, Chapter 18.32, Agricultural and Open Space District, and Chapter 18.36, Public Use District, of the Vail Municipal Code, at the February 14, 1994 PEC meeting. Suggested revisions will be incorporated into the memorandum and brought back to the PEC for a formal review and recommendation. c:\pec\memoslgnosaos.214 n n 21 ATTACHMENT #1 Mav 24, 1993 -PEC Meeting Minutes 0 Greg Amsden made a motion to table this item until June 14, 1993 with Kathy Langenwalter seconding the motion. A 6-0 unanimous vote tabled this item until June 14, 1993. 10. A request for a work session on proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District, and Chapter 18.32 Agricultural and Open Space District, of the Vail Municipal Code, Applicant: Town of Vail Planners: Jim Curnutte and Russ Forrest y - Jim Curnutte made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that the purpose of the work session was to receive input from the public and the PEC on the proposed text amendments. Jim pointed out that most of the changes being proposed were already recommended in the 1991 Development Code Revision Report. Jim stated that his presentation would focus on Attachments No. 3 and No. 4 to the staff memo. Larry Eskwith and Art Abplanalp discussed the merits of the proposed text amendments. Below are the proposed changes: GREENBELTAND'NATURAL CFEN. SPACE (ONOSY DISTRICT NATURAL AREA PRESERVATION (NAP) Purpose -Change "should" to "shall" in. the first sentence. -Change "structure" to "building" in the first sentence. -Diana Donovan wanted a qualifier added to the purpose statement addressing previously disturbed land. (She suggested possibly deleting the word "undisturbed"). -Add "noxious" between "of" and "weeds" in the last sentence. -in the last sentence, "deadfall", possibly remove this word from the last sentence. Permitted Uses -Concerning roller blades, are they allowed? -The words "interpretive nature walk" and "nature preserve" need to be defined. Planning and Environmental Commission May 24, 1993 1 Conditional Uses .?Concerning "equestrian trails", should this use be deleted? -Concerning parking, access to the Permitted Uses and National Forest trail heads may need to be addressed. -Joe Macy stated that he would like to see wording added to the Conditional Use section to allow for "underground ski base facilities". Accessorv Uses -Concerning item B, either remove the word "customarily" or rewrite it to preclude buildings. AGRICULTURAL RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE (A) (ROS) DISTRICT Purpose ?A better definition or different wording for "active and passive recreation". -Delete everything that is stricken beyond "recreation", i.e. parks, schools, etc. Permitted Use -Concerning single family residences, move to bottom of Permitted Use list. -Concerning plant and tree nurseries, the PEC does not want to move this item down to Conditional Uses, they would just like this item removed entirely. -The PEG inquired about possibly having ski runs added to the list. -Art Abplanalp commented that we should add "non-commercial" in front of the words recreation areas - what about Town owned recreation areas that charge a fee? -Concerning "public parks" and "outdoor recreation areas", the PEC would like to see recreation areas moved under the category of Conditional Uses but that open space could remain under Permitted Uses. Conditional Uses -The PEC felt that "buildings and structures" should be a Conditional Use. -The PEC felt that "public and private schools and college" should be deleted. -The PEC felt that "churches" should be deleted - Larry Eskwith will need to be asked about this item. -The PEC felt that "hunting and fishing lodges" should be deleted. _ 2 -The PEC felt that it would be okay to leave "public and private golf, tennis, etc." as a Conditional Use. -The PEC felt that "enclosed recreation" should be deleted. -The PEC felt that "plant and tree nurseries" should either be deleted or reworded to remove the word "retail". -With regard to "ski lifts and tows...", the PEC felt that the wording "and related underground ski base facilities and "ski runs" could be added here. -Joe Macy stated that he would like to see wording added to the Conditional Use section to allow for "underground ski base facilities". Accessorv Uses -Concerning Item A, Jeff Bowen mentioned that we should consider removing the word "customarily" or leave it in because that is a standard statement but it should be moved to the bottom of this section. -Concerning Item C, the PEC would like to see the word "conditional" added or this item deleted entirely because Item E says the same thing. -Concerning Item D, the PEC wondered if "horse grazing" was really needed because it is addressed in supplemental regulations. Lot Area -Jeff Bowen wanted Town staff to review the list of Permitted and Conditional Uses to determine if it is realistic to have these uses on lots that are 5,000 square feet in size. -The PEC felt that this section did not address the concept of "lot size creation". Jim Curnutte stated that prior to the next work session with the PEC, staff would complete a map showing what the effected properties are currently zoned, including those that are currently zoned Public Use. He said that this map would include numbers that correspond to the property owner list, which will include the size of each lot. 3 ATTACHMENT #2 Auqust 23, 1993 PEC Meetina Minutes Kristan Pritz stated that the criteria guide to the PEC's decision-making and that the PEC must use the criteria when deciding whether to approve or deny the view corridor encroachment. Greg Amsden asked for clarification on each PEC member's opinion on the view corridor encroachment. He stated that he can accept an encroachment into the view corridor but that he would like to see it minimized as much as possible. He stated that he feels that the view encroachment on the west side needs to be reduced and that the east side is acceptable as proposed. Diana Donovan stated that the eastern end meets the criteria. She stated that the middle portion of the building needs to be completely out of the view corridor and that the west end of the building needs to be minimized and that some compromise may be possible in this area. Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with Diana's comments and that he was mainly concerned with the view corridor encroachment in the west end of the building and the middle of the building. Dalton Williams stated that he was not in favor of putting an extra floor on the buildings. He said that he would like to see gable roofs. He said that he would like to see this proposal get out of the view corridor. He feels that the proposal as it currently stands, is increasing a nonconforming situation. He advocated no encroachments in the notch and would consider the east side view. However, as proposed, the west half of the building is unacceptable. Allison Lassoe stated that she would like to see the west portion of the building lowered. She agreed with Dalton's comments concerning the roof and the extra floor. Jeff felt that there was no hardship and the view corridor request did not meet the criteria. Diana Donovan stated that she would have a hard time approving any view corridor encroachment on the west side of the building. She stated that she understood that it would be difficult to reduce the west end to the degree necessary for her to support the project given the developer's goals. She stated that she appreciated the applicant's efforts and hard work on this project. The PEC concurred that Craig and Clark had worked hard to address all off the planning issues. They thanked the applicants for their efforts. ID Planning and Envlronmenta! Conimisslon August 23, 1993 ATTACHMENT #2 August 23, 1993 PEG Meeting Minutes 0 Kristan Pritz stated that the criteria guide to the PEG's decision-making and that the PEG must use the criteria when deciding whether to approve or deny the view corridor encroachment. Greg Amsden asked for clarification on each PEG member's opinion on the view corridor encroachment. He stated that he can accept an encroachment into the view corridor but that he would like to see it minimized as much as possible. He stated that he feels that the view encroachment on the west side needs to be reduced and that the east side is acceptable as proposed. Diana Donovan stated that the eastern end meets the criteria. She stated that the middle portion of the building needs to be completely out of the view corridor and that the west end of the building needs to be minimized and that some compromise may be possible in this area. Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with Diana's comments and that he was mainly concerned with the view corridor encroachment in the west end of the building and the middle of the building. Dalton Williams stated that he was not in favor of putting an extra floor on the buildings. He said that he would like to see gable roofs. He said that he would like to see this proposal get out of the view corridor. He feels that the proposal as it currently stands, is increasing a nonconforming situation. He advocated no encroachments in the notch and would consider the east side view. However, as proposed, the west half of the building is unacceptable. Allison Lassoe stated that she would like to see the west portion of the building lowered. She agreed with Dalton's comments concerning the roof and the extra floor. Jeff felt that there was no hardship and the view corridor request did not meet the criteria. Diana Donovan stated that she would have a hard time approving any view corridor encroachment on the west side of the building. She stated that she understood that it would be difficult to reduce the west end to the degree necessary for her to support the project given the developer's goals. She stated that she appreciated the applicant's efforts and hard work on this project. The PEG concurred that Craig and Clark had worked hard to address all off the planning issues. They thanked the applicants for their efforts. Planning and Environmental Commission August 23, 1993 0 Jim Curnutte stated that the text changes that staff was proposing did not effect what Joe 10 Macy was talking about and that any ski base operations or ski runs in this area were probably preexisting, nonconforming conditions. Joe Macy stated that he did not know if Vail Associates would agree to rezone their land that was currently Greenbelt and Natural Open Space to something that did not provide for ski base operations. Jim Curnutte stated that staff had decided that, rather than proposing ski base operations as a conditional use in an open space zone district, it would be better to rezone the property to Ski Base Recreation Zone District but that the Town would not be proposing the rezoning. Kristan Pritz explained that the current zoning (GNOS) does not allow lifts so there really was no impact on Vail Associates from the proposed changes. Art Abplanalp stated that he was concerned that the text amendments would occur too soon. He suggested that the changes be made one step at a time. He felt that two new zone districts should be created first and that the Town then rezone properties to the new zone districts. Jim Curnutte stated that staff had addressed Art's comment from the May 24, 1993 PEC worksession concerning public notification and that staff had notified all adjacent property owners of today's worksession. Joe Macy stated that V.A. was concerned about the future development rights of Vail Ski Resort because he could not foresee what the next ski innovation would be nor how any potential rezoning would effect the potential future land uses. Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that creating two separate and distinct open space zone districts was positive. He also felt that people who own land in these districts be allowed to retain the rights that were there when they bought their property. It should be noted that Dalton Williams left the meeting at approximately 5.20 p.m. Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see equestrian uses removed from this zone district. She stated that she did not feel that horses were compatible with pedestrians/hikers and cyclists. She also suggested that the purpose statement be changed to include "reclaimed areas". Jim Curnutte stated that equestrian uses are allowed on National Forest land and that access to these National Forest trails are often taken via trails that are zoned Greenbelt and Natural Open Space or Agricultural/Open Space. He stated that staff had listed equestrian uses as a conditional use so that there would be way of regulating equestrian activities. so Planning and Environmental Commission August 23, 1993 3 Diana Donovan suggested that the wording be changed to add "only to access USFS lands". She stated that she would like to see the Town of Vail have three separate open space zone districts. She feels that having only two open space zone districts will allow for excessive overlap in uses that will be difficult to control. Jim Curnutte stated that they had taken this suggestion to the Town Council but they wanted to see two distinctly separate open space districts. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she would like to move the accessory uses to the list of conditional uses in order to regulate the activities within the Natural Area Preservation Zone District. Kathy suggested that we say "fish habitat" rather than "trout habitat" in the purpose statement. Jeff Bowen suggested that we list "paved" trails in the list of conditional uses. Joe Macy stated that he was concerned with how the preexisting nonconforming uses would be grandfathered into the zoning code. He asked about the use of snowcats and snowmobiles in this district. AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE ZONE DISTRICT Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that "single family residential dwellings" was an inappropriate use for the proposed Recreation and Open Space Zone District. Jim Curnutte stated that staff also does not believe that "single family residential dwellings" is an appropriate use in the Recreation and Open Space Zone District. However, he needed to have further discussions with Tom Moorhead concerning the legality of removing "single family residential dwellings" completely from the list of permitted uses. Joe Macy inquired about how skiing and mountain biking tied into the definitions for active outdoor recreation and passive outdoor recreation. He suggested that ski area activities be added to the definition of active outdoor recreation. Art Ablanalp stated that he felt that the name of the zone district should be changed from Recreation and Open Space Zone District to Recreational Open Space Zone District for clarification. He stated that a main concern of his clients was that they did not want to see high impact recreation in this zone district. Diana Donovan inquired whether "open space objectives' have been defined. Kristan Pritz responded that the phrase is currently used in the zone district and is not a new addition. However, the phrase is not defined. Jeff Bowen stated that the wording concerning density was mutually exclusive and confusing. Jeff suggested that wording be added to preclude buildings with flat roofs. He also suggested that equestrian facilities be removed. Planning and Environmental Commission August 23, 1993 Kristan Pritz stated that staff was currently looking into how to clarify the wording concerning density. Diana Donovan mentioned that in some instances flat roofs have less visual impact than sloped roofs. It should be noted that Jeff Bowen left the meeting at approximately 5.50 p.m. Concerning conditional uses, Russ Forrest stated that "churches, rectories, and related structures" would remain as a conditional use until such time as the Vail Interfaith Chapel and Vail Mountain School can be rezoned to Public Use Zone District. Jim Lamont inquired whether the SDD process could be used for these properties. Jim also recommended that the difference between conditional uses and accessory uses should be based on the permanency of the use. Evie Knott stated that she would like to see the conditional uses in the Recreation and Open Space zone district be limited to noncommercial issues. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the conditional uses in the list are all commercial in nature and the permitted uses in the list are all noncommercial. Jim Lamont suggested that "enclosed public recreation uses" should be listed under the Public Use Zone District instead of this zone district. 10 Art Abplanalp stated that items C (public and private golf, tennis, swimming and equestrian facilities) and D (enclosed public recreation uses) should be removed from the list of conditional uses. Kathy Langenwalter asked the PEC members how they felt about the list of conditional uses for the Recreation and Open Space zone district. Greg Amsden stated that he felt that some of the items in the list should be in the Public Use zone district. Diana Donovan stated that she was concerned about Conditional Use, Item E, "and associated structures" because the size of plant nurseries can be large. She stated that most of the items in the list of conditional uses were rather intensive uses. She suggested creating three districts. Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with Diana and her reasoning concerning how to divide the land into the three proposed zone districts. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the two zone districts need to be looked at closely and that the staff remain open to the possibility of creating a third zone district. 10 Planning and Environmental Commission August 23, 1993 Russ Forrest stated that the feeling that he was getting from the PEG was that they were fairly comfortable with the permitted uses but that there were some concerns about the conditional uses. Kathy stated that this was an accurate perception of where the PEG stood. Diana Donovan stated that an active recreation zone district, a passive recreation district and a "walk-on-only" zone district were necessary. Art Abplanalp stated that with regard to the list of conditional uses, it did not sound like there were issues concerning Item F (ski lifts, tows and runs) and G (cemeteries). He said that he did not want to see the logical conditional uses for the Recreation and Open ,p. Space Zone District removed. Kathy stated that it sounded like the three categories needed to address 1) preservation, 2) passive recreation and 3) active recreation. 4r Kristan Pritz inquired whether the PEG wanted the Recreation and Open Space zone district to be mainly oriented toward passive recreational activities. Kathy stated that this was correct. Russ Forrest suggested that staff would focus on moving active recreational uses to the Public Use District. Further discussions were necessary with staff and Tom Moorhead to investigate this alternative. Planning and Environmental commission August 23, 1993 41 6 ATTACHMENT #3 r_o??niQ?i T AND 1'4eT -L-0' -N SFIA, f 00) DISTRICT NATURAL AREA PRESERVATION (NAP) 18.38.010 - Purpose. The m"t and . ?3tara! cp94-Gpase natural area preservation district is designed to provide areas which, because of their environmentally sensitive nature or natural beauty, shall be protected from encroachment by any building or other improvement, other than those listed in section 18.32.020 (Permitted uses) etheF than p1cii PPIS _-d e t"a-p;;,rEEes pnEscrit9d-4 :irn . The greenbc!; and natural crrn spasa natural area preservation district is intended to ensure that designated lands remain in their natural state, including reclaimed areas, by protecting such areas from development and preserving open space. The natural area preservation district includes lands having valuable wildlife habitat, exceptional aesthetic or flood control value, wetlands, riparian areas and areas with significant environmental constraints. Protecting sensitive natural areas is important for maintaining water quality and aquatic habitat, preserving wildlife habitat, flood control, protecting view corridors, minimizing the risk from hazard areas, and protecting the natural character of Vail which is so vital to the Town's tourist economy. The intent shall not preclude improvement of the natural environment by the removal of noxious weeds, deadfall where necessary to protect public safety or similar compatible improvements. =,t. The pr vated-#c r,ansit4e-azrat r. cpa +tc natural s'.ate- (Ord. 19(1976) § 7(part): Ord.8(1973) § 26.100.) 18.38.020 - Permitted uses. The following shall be permitted uses in the GPJGS NAP district: 7^.. .?..~a£nb&!1: and ?. a.. .,}.. ¢..?; A. Nature preserve; B. Unpaved, non-motorized bicycle paths and pedestrian {paths walkways; C. interpretive nature walks. (Ord. 19(1976) § 17(part): Ord.8(1973) § 26.200.) 18.38.030 - Conditional uses. The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the GNOS district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: ,?. Ru`:!,c pond ;.la} g v ds; g, Visas; 4a.-A. Equestrian trails, used only to access National Forest system lands; B. Paved, non-motorized, bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways; C. Picnic tables and informal seating areas; D. Parking, when used in conjunction with a permitted or conditional use. (Ord. 19(1976) § 17(part): Ord. 8(1973) § 26.300.) 18.38.040 - Accessory uses. . Nat applieatI94P 4z CNQS-4st?- • A. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings. (Ord 19(1976) § 17(part): Ord. 8(1973) § 26.400.) 18.38.050 - Development standards. Not applicable in the GNOS district. (Ord 19(1976) 17(part): Ord. 8(1973) § 26.500.) 18.38.060 - Parking and loading. 1. Not applicable in the GNOS district. (Ord. 19(1976) § 17 (part): Ord. 8(1973) § 26.600.) - 18.38.070 - Additional development standards. Additional regulations pertaining to site development standards and the development of land in the Natural Area Preservation District are found in Chapter 18.58; Supplemental Regulations. 0 2 46 0 ATTACHMENT #4 A CU T'4R-AI.,"1l^- RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE {* (ROS) DISTRICT 18.32.010 - Purpose. The agf!GWturaI and. recreational open space district is intended to preserve a0vi!turai undeveloped or open space lands from intensive development while permitting a+s ±?; al pursue ar outdoor recreational activities consistent with a0 u'turµl and open space objectives. This land is, intended to provide opportunities for active and passive outdoor recreation. Parks, nIs, ?.n hr? cf p;:va#$-?'?cre# n+enal . nd institutions also ,,,#,??ad-5....,??crta;n .,- fa ss and aFS 6:.'r.tabis L{'..'96 i^ the 'grim Itt?ra! Ep ease-'d-,strict, pravided that the sites of thev°v?uses smair: pFedGmiRanVy p3.n. Cite de ? "ia?}daFd_ ara Int"^'" preG4uds lr?t?&nvive urban epment and tc -aintair. the ltural aq--epen cease GhaFaGteFir.t`-^-- of the dls . (Ord. 8 (1973) § 12.100.) 18.32.020 - Permitted uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the A ROS district: A. S?, . G:A. c p :rl.a Passive outdoor recreation areas and open spaces, i.e. picnic tables, informal playing fields, etc.; B. Nature preserves; C. Bicycle-paths and pedestrian walkways; D. Interpretive nature walks. (Ord.8(1973) § 12.200.) 18.32.030 - Conditional uses. The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: A. A public palkr, r ,, a.r:d--swsn spas'--u ?vvhish involves assembly; of FneF9 hu together in 9R9 bUildiRg 9F gFeup gs, sr r:--ee ' a i atea-er-oth c. p'.&,'' 2. Pub :3 and p; i is a-nJ-Go4e@e- . Gs, ractcries, an ; D Priiva?rya gclf, t , g and-Fi?bc; and hunt?ng fishiRg -ledg ; ger,\p; Iic and in fVl,fal uses, n11nh as 99n l ntE and - , A. Public parks and active outdoor recreation areas and uses, excluding buildings; B. Equestrian trails, used only to access National Forest system lands; C. Plant and tree nurseries, and associated structures, excluding the sale of trees or other nursery products grown, produced or made on the premises; D. Ski lifts, aAd tows and runs;. QE. Cemeteries; 44- I=ew s, :,adssF'pticn radig f ^'''t'^r' -:F. Well water treatment facility. G. Accessory buildings and uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional outdoor. recreational uses, and necessary for the , operation thereof, including restrooms, drinking fountains, bleachers, concessions, storage buildings, and similar uses. (Ord.37 (1991) § 1: Ord. 30 (1988) § 1: Ord. 16 (1985) § 1: Ord. 16 (1976) § 1(a) (part): Ord. 14 (1975) § 3: Ord. 8 (1973) § 12.300.) 18.32.040 - Accessory uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the A ROS district: ".. Private rates; taelsheds, playhouses, earp_-" tE, s? rnirrg {ase?w, P996, OF fasilitiesGust emXil)' 'IRGidental milt *.ial usss; Feside -e. eepationc, sutj e :seua^ upa4e,9 r9fP*-4 4 aGGOrdaRGe with the prgvlaiere cf testier ?. 3.130 thre,agh 19.52.199-, ^. AGGcsET:y byMiRgs and uses eieterra4Iy-iz rnt_-? f -eoeultural us-as, irGrding "a:-r.s, s;lrs, sh v, eerrals;-Penp- anel °xr ila; yes; D. The-rstail sale-4f p"ante, trees, r,. c., wryYIYTGAural its gF9WR, PFGdUG9d e-r made cr44s prem;sre; ?: 9t4$r G-3oc su64cma;ily insidental cad-aeeesscty te -pewAitt -er z yes, armies er th F%f; €-A. Horse grazing, subject to the issuance of a horse grazing permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.58. (Ord. 16 (1976) § 1(a) (part); Ord. 8 (1973) § 12.400.) 18.32.050 - Lot area and site dimensions. TP.e miniruR Net c,' s4e-area shall' v th:rrbt five s- a rani.. aGFe-4f tu'xldabls, arm- Not applicable in the ROS district. (Ord. 34(1979) § 1 (part).) 18.32.060 - Setbacks. In the ,4 ROS district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet, the minimum side setback shall be fifteeR twenty feet, and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen twenty feet. (Ord. 50 (1978) § 2 (part).) 18.32.080 - Height. For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet. For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty-three feet. (Ord. 37(1980) § 2 (part).) 18.32.090 - Density. Not err d i-0';ny unit chap v sc of e-?4 area, e r:iuct "o wu ! fe. Prsvrded, hsweysr, !ha#-ene-dwslling shall be al!Gwed 3r1 a Ist-rr para4 -'than ; COG WhiGh eltains ane a f f' 9et of GRPA of v'?„,??iablc _,:-ma. ?,:?w .h.;?,1k Pet - ens w theuca+?d - square f . (Ord. 34 (1979) § 1 (part).) Not applicable in the ROS district. 2 0 18.32.110 - Site coverage. Site coverage shall not exceed five percent of the total site area. (Ord. 17 (1991) § 14: Ord. 8 (1973) § 12.507.) 18.32.130 - Landscaping and site development. Net applisable in th^ ^ Landscape requirements shall be determined by the Design Review Board in accordance with chapter 18.54. (Ord. 8 (1973) § 12.509.) 1832.140 - Parking. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52. No required parking shall be located in required setback area, except as may be specifically authorized in accordance with Chapter 18.62. (Ord. 8 (1973) § 12.510.) 18.32.150 - Additional development standards. Additional regulations pertaining to site development standards and the development of land in the Recreational Open Space district are found in Chapter 18.58, Supplemental Regulations. 11 0 3 ATTACHMENT #5 PUBLIC 4S€ SERVICE (PUS) (PSD) DISTRICT 18.36.010 Purpose. The public use service district is intended to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 18.02.020 and to provide for the public welfare. The public 4se service district is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses permitted in the district are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. (Ord. 19(1976) § 16 (part): Ord. § (1973) § 25/100.) 18.36.020 Permitted uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the #4€3 PSD district: A. Public parks, playgrounds and open space; B. Pedestrian and bike paths. -C. EsaGeRal & 3r user t anal af-- wtura; aetivities. 4 18.36.030 Conditional uses- Generally. The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the PSD district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: A. Public theaters, meeting rooms and convention facilities; B. Public parking facilities and structures and associated uses, such as offices and restaurants. C. Public transportation terminals; D. Public utilities installations exe-ludiRg including transmission lines and appurtenant equipment; E. Water and sewage treatment plants; F. Public service facilities; G. Public buildings and grounds; H. Public and private schools and educational institutions; L Public and private recreation facilities other than those prescribed in Section 18.36.020; J. Golf courses; K. Ski lifts, aRd ski tows and runs; L. Churches rectories, convents, religious retreats and related structures; M. Hospitals, medical and dental facilities, clinics, and rehabilitation centers; N. Equestrian trails; 0. 8#iew an?'e el=zd b;s9s; Public tourist/guest service related facilities; transit/shuttle service; -sundries shop; -coffee/sandwich shop. (Ord. 8(1992) §§ 27, 28: Ord. 6(1984) § 1: Ord. 27(1982) § 1: Ord. 6(1982) § 7a: Ord. 33(1981) § 2: Ord. 19(1976) § 16 (part): Ord. 8(1973) § 25.300.) P. Peesep?; Visitor/information centers; Q. Major Arcade; R. Helipad for emergency and/or community use; S. Hand gun ranges; T. Type III EHU as defined in Section 18.57.060; U. Type IV EHU as defined in Section 18.57.070; V. Seasonal structures or uses to accommodate educational, recreational or cultural activities; W. The following conditional uses shall be permitted in accordance with the issuance of a conditional use permit, provided such use is accessory to a parking structure: -rental car office; 18.36.040 Accessory uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the PUD, PSD district: GtheF user, Gusto arily ia;;:don.c.l 'snal u~£s, a'qd rsrary !,on 1, gFeef. A. Minor arcade. B. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings. (Ord. 6(1982) § 7b: Ord. 19(1976) § 16 (part): Ord. 8(1973) § 25.400.) 18.36.050 Development standards. -Prier F en an appka4zn ',Gr a cer}oiti:: ,n 3r and. nal usq& PFeseF;b:d in sE:?;ac 13.33.030, the y,mn;ng-ccm.-r,i.3sieJ; 3hal.-W,-?3rriba-deVelepm944 c. cav" ant pPGpesakr p° eategeriee, In the Public Service District, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission: A. Lot area and site dimensions; B. Setbacks; D. Height; E. Density control; F. Reserved. G. Site Coverage; H. Landscaping and site development; G. Parking and Loading Development standards shall be proposed by the applicant as a part of a conditional use permit application. Site specific development standards shall then be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission during the review of the conditional 0 2 use request in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60. (Ord. 8(1979) § (part); Ord. 50(1978) § 1 (part); Ord. 19(1976) § 16 (part): Ord. 8(1973) § 25.500.) 18.36.060 Parkina and Loadina. t pcrl; tW :half ba cEb4ir#ed-by P!a; aRd-tee-SE6IGi42, Sash . (Ord. 19(1976) § 16 (part): Ord. 8(1973) § 25.600.) 18.36.060 Additional development standards. Additional regulations pertaining to site development standards and the development of land in the Public Service District are found in Chapter 18.58, Supplemental Regulations. 3 1 0 n Greenbelt TO V VA USFS Corp. Individuals CDOT ITotai W ATTACHMENT # 6 Ownership of Zoned Open Lands in Vail # Parcels Acres Ag & Open Space # Parcels Acres 8 210 TOV 36 501.7 0 0 VA 17 57.17 5 71.87 CDOT 0 0 6 40.83 USES 0 0 0 0 Corp. 16 39.4 2 4.07 Individuals 10 53.2 21 326.771 11utal 791 651,471 Number of Greenbelt Parcels Number of AOS Pa rcels 40 30 20 Cj 4 10 2 0. r / . > O U ? 4 / / ° TOV VA USFS Corp. . Individuals CDOT °O ,S Greenbelt Acres 1 AOS Acres 250 / 200 ISO 100 So TOV VA USFS Corp. Individuals CDOT 600 500 400 300 200 too TOV VA CDOT USFS Corp. Individuals I J 4 ATTACHMENT # 7 Ownership of Public Use District Lands in Vail Public Use It Parcels Acres TOV 15 103 VA 1 20AS School Dist 1 535 USFS 2 30 Corp- 5 9.7' Individuals 0 0 Lrotai 241 169.531 PU Parcels 14- 12 10- a s- s 4- TOV VA School Dist USFS Corp. Individuals 1 a 120- ? f 100- 80- 60 40- 20- 0. TOV VA School Dist USFS Carp. Individual: Is PU Acres AM f NAG"D I EB 9 LAW OFFICES DUNN, ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JOHN W. DUNN ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING . ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN SUITE 300 DIANE L, HERMAN 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST ROHN K. ROgBINS VAIL, COLORADO 81657 SPECIAL COUNSEL: JERRY W. HANNAH 9 February 1994 Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail CO HAND DELIVERED Department of Community Development of the Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail CO HAND DELIVERED Ladies and Gentlemen: 199' TELEPHONE: (303) 476-0300 TELECOPIER: (303) 476-4765 This Firm represents Mr. and Mrs. David Ransburg, property owners and part-time residents of Vail, who own and enjoy a residence on Beaver Dam Road. We have been requested by our clients to express their concern, which is a concern shared by many of their neighbors, related to the proposal before the Town of Vail which might effect both a zoning text change and a Zone District Map amendment permitting, by conditional use permit, extensive commercial recreational activities and facilities in what is now the Agricultural and Open Space zone district, particularly that portion of the zone district on the south side of Gore Creek, east of the Lionshead skier bridge. In late 1992, the Town of Vail had before it a similar proposal, which would have simply added commercial sledding as a conditional use to the Agricultural and Open Space zone district. The Town of Vail received a'significant and virtually unanimous response from the community in opposition to that proposal, as a result of which the proposed amendment was not incorporated into the zoning code. Now, the Town itself is proposing a much broader commercialization of the Agricultural and Open Space zone district, in apparent disregard of the opposition voiced by the community only a little more than one year ago. Some of those prior letters of opposition of the community are attached to.this letter. Like the 1992 proposal, the proposal which is now before the Town of Vail affects all locations in Vail which are in the Agricultural and Open Space zone district, and would effectively E permit, by conditional use permit, a wide range of commercial uses which are not now allowed, some of,. which were the subject of objections during, prior considerations by the Town of Wail. Where the affected neighboring property owners, resident or absentee, share a common concern regarding the commercialization of the valley floor neighboring Gore Creek, it is difficult to believe that virtually the same proposal as that previously rejected would once again surface in a broader and more threatening form. The problem with the present proposal, like the 1992 proposal, is the intensity of use which could result from the proposed change. The greatest problem which we have identified with the current proposal is the plan to include what are termed "active recreation uses" as conditional uses within what is now the Agricultural and Open Space zone district, proposed to be called the Recreational Open Space zone district. These possible uses are discussed on page 11 of the Memorandum of the Town of Vail Department of Community Development, but the reference is relatively innocuous at that point, as the only critical change is the addition of.a conditional use identified as "active recreation areas and uses The actual explanation of this term is found on page 7, where "active recreation areas and uses" is defined as: Active outdoor recreation - Active outdoor recreation includes outdoor recreational activities which involve organized or structured recreation that is associated with recreational facilities, excluding buildings. For example, active outdoor recreation would include: soccer, rugby, athletic fields, plavgrounds, outdoor basketball and tennis courts; outdoor swimming pools, sledding and skiinq areas, fitness trails with exercise stations, etc. (Emphasis added) We have been surprised that the Town of Vail has incorporated these proposed intensive uses into what is now the Agricultural and Open Space zone district. During the work session which occurred last year, the members of the community who appeared and expressed concern voiced strong objections to high-profile activities other than skiing, including activities such as those listed as examples in the definition of "active outdoor recreation." There is little doubt that many of the proposed activities would seriously impact adjoining properties which have long relied on the "open space" rather than the "agricultural" or "recreational" nature of the Agricultural and Open Space zone district. The area which abuts Gore Creek is, in the view of most residents who have voiced their opinion, one which should be preserved in its natural state. In the view of our clients, the addition of the proposed "active recreational areas and uses" would permit an intensity of development and activity inconsistent with past activities, present experiences, and expectations for the future. The experience of those persons neighboring and/or affected by the recent attempt at commercialization of the Lionshead tennis courts is apparently an example of the impact which can be created by such activities. That experience is also an illustration of the inability of Vail residents and property owners to rely on the argument that the proposed change would result "only in a conditional use" which could be granted "only after extensive public hearings and public input." (the quotes being close to the arguments made by the Town staff during previous hearings). As a technical matter, we must also observe that the proposal before the Town of Vail is not simply a text amendment. The proposal calls for an amendment to the Zone District Map. Those individuals abutting the Agricultural and Open Space zone district will soon be neighbors to a Recreational Open Space zone district with uses 'which are. significantly different and more intensive. Those individuals abutting the Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zone district will soon be neighbors to a Natural Area Preservation zone district with uses which are different and of varying intensities. The Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, at Section 16-66-08O.B., requires that notice be given to each property owner of any proposed zone district change. A notice of a text change, such as that which has been directed in association with the current proposal, does not satisfy that notice requirement and cannot be relied upon to support a change in the zone district map. Each property owner must be notified of the change with which they are confronted, such as a change from the Agricultural and Open Space zone district to the Recreational Open Space zone district. Absent such notification, any action on the part of the Town of Vail amending the Zone District Map would, almost certainly, be vulnerable to challenge. The concerns which we have expressed on behalf of our clients in this letter are not intended to suggest that our clients' response to the Town of Vail's proposal is entirely negative. While the proposed chancre could be devastatinct to the character of the valley floor under the present proposal, the present status of . that area could be significantly improved by a change in the zone district not from Agricultural and Open Space zone district to Recreational Open Space zone district, but to Natural Area preservation zone district. The protection afforded lands in that zone district are significant. For this reason, on behalf of our clients4 we must reoister their obiection to the proposed zone change to the present Agricultural and open Space zone district unless the Core Creek vallev floor in the Lionshead area is changed, not from the Agricultural and Open Space zone district to the Recreational Oven Space zone district, but to the Natural Area Preservation zone district. It seems appropriate that an evaluation be done of each tract designated as Agricultural and Open Space (and proposed for change to Recreational Open Space), in order to determine whether its characteristics, like the Gore Creek valley floor at Lionshead, are more suitable for the Natural Preservation zone district. on behalf of our clients, we thank you for your consideration of the opinion of the community in this matter Verv tru lv Wour: r A. Abplai AAA Enclosures CI HELD CONTAINER COMPANY, L.P. Lary Field Chiuf Exurtilive Officer May 21, 1993 Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road West Vail CO 61657 Gentlemen: am contacting you 3?ecause I vehemently oppose the. proposed change in zoning which would turn they area along more Creek near my residence from Agricultural and open Space zone district to a Recreation and open space zone district. „1 Y know that this change would allow "active and passive" recreational uses in this area. The passage 1 of this change would open the door for activities on the land such as softball t j Ids tennis Courts, and .sledding areas. dbviously, all of these" ctk-ti? s ofadlighted" for evening use. As a taxpayer and concerned homeowner, T cannot emphasize enough my opposition to this proposed change. I would like my voice heard at the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission meeting on Ma;y 24th. Vary truly yours, Larry Field 586 W. Forest Road Vail, Colorado 1500 Nicholas iinule.vaid Telephurvt: 708,456.3326 Glk Grove Village, Illinois 60007 Felsll?Illu 708.956.3249 January 5, 1993 TO: Town of Vail Attn: Kristen Pritz/ Dir. Community Development Re: V.A. Text Amendment Proposal which would permit a commercial sledding and tobaggon park. On behalf of all the citizens of Vail, as well as our valued visitors, we would like to express our sincere regret that Vail Aseociates and the Town of Vail would even consider any change to the exieting zoning. This amendment if passed will permit further distruction of the precious little open space along Gore Creek. for a commercial venture that is highly suspect and of questionable value. As longtime residents of Vail (1970), and property owners adjacent to the open space in question, we urge you to deny this request, as well. as any further requests which will deminish in any way the beauty, size and condition of any remaining open space. cc A. Abplanalp ?a. 4 3 ;S . 36 Steele 8t. #330 Denver, co. 80306 January #, 1993 Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear sSir/Madarnt I am the owner of the house located At 616 West Forest lRoad. At this time, z am opposed to the proposed commercial sledding operation located adjacent to the Lionshead skier bridge. My decision is based upon the following reasons. i. Lights- My house looXa directly at the Lionshead bridge. .1 understand this will be a night time activity with lights marking the sledding/access trails, including lights on the bridge. My concern its that ray view of Lionshead village will be obstructed by the glare of lights from this commercial operation. to be addressed r m f ccono concern hough hat traffic i wil to Forest thearoad has yet parking at 1 or as a drop off point for s people ers. As I'm sure you're aware, this is a very busy road. The winter use by snow cats, snow mobiles, residential traffic, pedestrian traffic (skiers), VA orsonnal (snow making facility), and even horse drawn carriages , s aliost unbearable. By adding additional commercial sledding traffic to this mix, you will be making a the situation worse and possibly danSeroue. 3. Land use- As I understand, itf this Area is zoned open 1 space. Mow is this massive commercial operation compatible with the current residential areas 1've been told there are plans for restrooms, lighted trails, covered sledding runs, snack bars or a shop. This is not compatible with a secluded quiet neighborhood .? area, abbe reI acted ?hr t,wit,hg h? Aet on+s er at the any nm ore proposal s year spending an outr i y my bon spoke opposing the stadium tennis,,Win. An operation that turned out to be a failure and whose promoter criticized the Town of Vail. 1 ask that you give the residents of this area a break. GRCtdJr ao - Arthur A. Abplanalp CHARU5 XING Vail, Colorado January S, 1993 Mil. Kristan Prig Town of Vail Voile Colorado Dear Ms. Fitz: Y am the owner of a r48140ACb located on Lot t, Block 21 Va l .Villag* dth Filing. 1 ,recent,ly learned of are application which has boon Submitted by Vail, Associate to change the zoning of the land north of my home to permit a cbmitircial sledding araa which would operate through the winter into the night-time hears. My lot adjoins this proposed site. I understaz%d that my n4ighbors, who also would ba directly im acted by this att.ivity, are objecting to this proposals and 1 join them in their opposition. The substantially ineraas44 activity which is proposed, particularly during- the eveningd6, at the time of yaar wh n we and our neighbor. 'expgtt to enjoy out, residences bhoul o not te ,pOrmitted. The flood lighting which to plarmod will, ill%=inate the entire valley and will destroy the Undeveloped effect which I uridarstand that the Town in trying to protect. Although x understand thAt.the proposal now before the Town e for a text a t;endment 'to the zorling code, and the specific proposal will follow latet, I urge the Town of Vail to reject even this tent amendment. When a proposed use is so clearly inappropriata, there is no reason to authorize a Chagnge in order k4 create the he opportunity for conversion of an appropriate use to such an 1n topr1&tg uw Vary truly yours. Charles Ying /' C Thomas C. Lund 443 Beaver Dam Read Vail, CD 81657 January 4, 1993 Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen I have just been learned that Vail Associates is petitioning the City of Vail to amend the Vail Zoning Code to put a commercial tobogganing and sled runt in the green belt property behind my house at 443 Beaver Dam Road. My reaction is nothing short of shock and amazement.. The proposed plant to build a public sled run totally contradicts the goals established for this property as I understood them. I've always relied upon my understanding that the town of Vail, wanted to maintain balance between a commercial resort and the serenity of a knowled mou : e. tarn y retreat. I based any toro e he Zront invest rne Zoning .. k' h th3? 8 also understood that g Committee wanted to keep this side of the n-coimtnercial. I was also lead to believe that Vail Associates wanted to maintain the image of a family resort. In fact, we were told by Vail Associates a Town of Vail that there were no further level p nt plans for the area behind our borne -Tt?iough I've had many experiences with the city of Van's decisions, I want to site one as an example. When my neighbors wanted to install bright lights around their houses, their request was defeated by the city because it would "destroy the serenity of the area". It is unthinkable that the "serenity of the area" would be preserved by a commercial sled run used by thousands during the day and night. In addition to lowering my property value, I have several reasons for personally opposing the public sled run under any circumstances. First, the flood lights planned for the sled run will be so powerful that they will not only affect our view of the might sky but all of Vail as well. As you know there are a number of bars on the Lion's Head side of the creek which become very active after skiing. Several play music on the outside of the establishments and we hear it at our house, This brings me to my second point. A sled runt, open at night would attract bar patrons from the other side of the creek. That means adults (who've consumed alcohol) will be mixing with families and their children. The area would probably become unwholesome for I can further imagine that since they left a party atmosphere they would want to bring the party atmosphere with them in noise, language and music. I would even speculate that some of these partiers would use the darkened woods and not the public restroom. Thirdly, traffic wfll greatly increase on Beaver Dam Road. Those sledding will want to park like the skiers do during the daytime. The difference is that the skiers are sober. With this much added public traffic, I'm sure it will affect the quality of life for everyone on this side of Gore Creek. My family has been coming to Vail for twenty years and we've been impressed with the Town's ability to manage the delicate balance between ski resort and nature. We can't imagine the Town of Vail tarnishing its good reputation by doing something so commercial and in bad taste. T'CUsrc r nui V`' 11 v'-r 1+J ' ..'? 1 L' • L..1'il'4: l..!\I PIFi•++Ji+V FIELD CONTAINER COMPANY, L.P. n February 11, 1994 Town of Vail Department of Community Development and Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road West Valk, CO 81657 Gentlemen.- Larry Held Chief Ewrutive Officer I understand there is a hearing scheduled for Monday, February 14th, relating to the Agricultural Open Space Zone district between Beaver Dam and Forest Road, on the south, and Lionshead, on the north. In the past I have objected to high-profile activities, other than skiing, in the Open Space Zone. The new proposal includes the term active residential uses", as conditional uses within what is now the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District, soon to be called the Recreational Open Space Zone District. The critical point is the addition of a conditional use identified as "active recreation areas and uses" defined as: "active outdoor recreation" Including soccer, rugby, athletic fields, playgrounds, outdoor basketball and tennis courts; outdoor swimming pals, etc., also accessory buildings nary for the operation thereof. I'm surprised that the Town of Vail has incorporated these proposed intensive uses into the Recreational Open Space Zone District; which would significantly change the appearance of the valley floor. The status of that area could be significantly improved by a change to the Natural Area Preservation zone district and not to the Recreational Open Space ?arse district, which is proposed. Very truly yours, /pan iSOL? Nicfu,(as $ou4CVasti ielephunf- 748.4956,3226 Elk Grovo Village, Illinois 60007 Facsimiles Nm.?)56,927)() LAW OFFICES RAYMOND FITZGERALD BUTLER, FITZGER.ALD 8 PUTTER. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 315 PARK AVENUE SOUTH TELEPHONE 212 / 473-1200 TELECOPIER 212 / 473-6993 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10010 February 10, 1994 11, BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Department of Community Development of the Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Sirs and Mesdames: We represent John J. Jordan, Il who owns a residence on Deaver Dam Road. Mr. Jordan is concerned that a proposal currently before the Town of Vail might effect both a zoning text change and a Zone District Map amendment permitting, by conditional use permit, extensive commercial recreational activities and facilities in what is now the Agricultural and Open Space zone district, particularly that portion of the zone district on the south side of Gore Creek, east of the Lionshead skier bridge. In 1992, a similar, but less broad, proposal had been made to the Town of Vail. The 1992 proposal would have added commercial sledding as a conditional use to the Agricultural and Open Space zone district. The unanimous community response to the 1992 proposal was a resounding "No!". As a result, the 1992 proposal was not incorporated into the zoning code. This latest proposal, rather than trying to address the concerns expressed in opposition to the 1992 proposal, not only has ignored those concerns but, in fact, presents a much broader proposed commercialization of the Agricultural and Open Space zone district. This is in direct contravention of the unanimous community rejection of the same, but much more limited, attempts at unwarranted commercialization embodied in the 1992 proposal. Specifically, Mr. Jordan is concerned that the plan A includes "active recreation uses" as conditional uses within what ® is now the Agricultural and Open Space zone district, proposed to be called the Recreational Open Space zone district. The actual explanation of this term is found on page 7 of the Memorandum of the Town of Gail, Department of Community Development, where "active recreation areas and uses" is defined as: Active outdoor recreation - Active outdoor recreation includes outdoor recreational activities which involve organized or structured recreation that is associated with recreational facilities, excluding buildings. For example, active outdoor recreation would include: soccer, rugby, athletic fields, playgrounds, outdoor basketball and tennis courts, outdoor swimming pools, sledding and skiing areas, fitness trails with exercise stations... Many of such proposed activities would seriously impact adjoining properties, such as Mr. Jordan's, which have long relied on the "open space", rather than the "agricultural" or "recreational", nature of the Agricultural and Open Space zone district. The addition of the proposed "active recreational areas and uses" would permit an intensity of development and activity inconsistent with past activities, present experiences, and expectations for the future. We respectfully request that the Town of Vail act in accordance with the will of the majority, and not the limited special interests of any one person or entity, and resoundingly reject this proposal as was done with respect to the 1992 proposal. V ruly s, Raymond Fit RF:dmd 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 14, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a joint worksession with the PEC and DRB for a major CCI exterior alteration to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building located at 227 Bridge Street/Lots C and D and a part of Lot B, Block 5-8, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and East West Partners Planner: Mike Mollica 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants are proposing a major redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building located at 227 Bridge Street. The project would be considered a "demo/rebuild" which would involve the demolition and removal of the existing structure and the construction of the proposed building on this site. The proposal calls for major design modifications to the front entrance (east elevation) of the existing commercial spaces, the creation of lower level commercial spaces which would be directly accessible from stairs directly on Bridge Street, the infill of the northwest section of the property, the addition of an elevator at the west end of the building, is and the addition of two upper level floors to accommodate one condominium. The Bridge Street (east) elevation of the structure has been shifted approximately 3 feet back from its current location. As a part of this redevelopment, the applicants have also proposed to upgrade and improve the Town's adjacent pocket park to the north. The design for the pocket park was completed by Winston and Associates and has been approved by Todd Oppenheimer, the Town's landscape architect. Final Design Review Board approval of the pocket park design shall be necessary. Also included in the redevelopment, the entire structure would be brought into compliance with all of the current building and fire codes, (the building would be fully sprinkled). Due to this project's location within the Commercial Core I zone district, approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) of a major CCI exterior alteration is required. The staff has reviewed the applicant's submittal, and agrees that the proposal as designed would comply with all of the Town's development standards for the Commercial Core I zone district. No variances or view corridor amendments are requested as a part of this application. v 111. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY On August 27, 1990, the PEC approved a major CCI exterior alteration for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building. On August 29, 1990, the Town's Design Review Board (DRB) granted final design approval for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building. Although there is no time limit or expiration for the previously approved major exterior alteration, the final DRB approval for the redevelopment has expired. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following is a summary of the development standards for the proposed redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building: COMMERCIAL CORE I EXISTING PROPOSED ZONING PROJECT PROJECT Site Area: N/A 4,675 sq. ft. 4,675 sq. ft. Buildable Area: N/A 4,518 sq. ft. 4,518 sq. ft. Setbacks: Per the Vail Village Urban N: 0' N: 1' Design Guide Plan S: 1' S: 0' E: 7' E: 9`-6" W: 0' W: 5'-6" Height: 60%: 33' or less 43' to ridge 60.1%: 33 ft, or less 40%: 33 ft. - 43 ft. 39.9%: 33 ft_ - 43 ft. Common Area: 1,265 sq, ft., 762 sq. ft. 1,265 sq. ft. or 35% of allowable GRFA GRFA: 3,614 sq. ft. or 80% 0 sq. ft. 3,614 sq. ft., or 80% Units: 25 units per acre, 0 units 1 unit 2 units for this property Site Coverage: 3,740 sq. ft., or 80% 3,650 s% ft., or 78% 3,726 sq. ft., or 79.70/a Landscaping: Per the Vail Village Urban Same Same Design Guide Plan Parking: Per the Town of Vail Required: 22.1 spaces Required: 28.2 spaces Parking Standards Loading: Per the Town of Vail Required: 1 Required: 1 Loading Standards Existing: 0 Existing: 0 Commercial Uses: N/A 8,867 sq. ft. 7,703 sq, ft. Gross Floor Area: N/A 9,629 sq. ft. 12,582 sq. ft. 2 IV. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL The nine criteria for Commercial Core I exterior alterations shall be used to judge the merits of this project. In addition, the PEC shall also utilize the Vail Village Master Plan, the Urban Design Guide Plan, the Streetscape Master Plan and the purpose section of the Commercial Core I zone district. As stated in Section 18.24.010 of the Town's Municipal Code, the purpose section of the Commercial Core I zone district is as follows: "The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities and appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village." V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN Although not specifically categorized as a sub-area, the Covered Bridge Building is specifically identified in the Vail Village Master Plan as follows: "Although it is a goal to maintain design continuity in the Village core, there will be change in the core areas built environment. This is mostly due to the number of properties that have not exercised their full development rights. The most notable among these properties are the Red Lion Building, the Cyrano's Building, the Lodge at Vail and the Covered Bridge Building. If each of these and other properties developed to their full potential, there will undoubtedly be a significant increase in the level of development in the Village core." There are many goals, objectives, and policies which are identified in the Vail Village Master Plan that are applicable to the development of the Covered Bridge Building. The staff feels that the following specifically address this project: 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. 1.3.1 Poljcv: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. Goal #2: To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.1 Poljcv: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation, and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. Goal #3: To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Poljcv: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.4 Objectives: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.1 Policv: Physical improvements to property adjacent to stream tracts shall not further restrict public access. Goal #4: To preserve existing open space areas and expand greenspace opportunities. 4.1 Obiective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with greenspace and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 4.1.2 Policv: The development of new public plazas, and improvements to existing plazas (public art, streetscape features, seating areas, etc.), shall be strongly encouraged to reinforce their roles as attractive people places. VI. COMPLIANCE WITH THE STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN The Streetscape Master Plan concepts identified for the Covered Bridge area include the following: "Stairs connecting Bridge Street to the pocket park and Gore Creek on the north side of the Covered Bridge Building are needed. The pocket park should be improved so that it could function as a picnic area or performance site in the Village." The Streetscape Master Plan addresses paving treatments in the Village as follows: "The demarcation between the public right-of-way and private land may be appropriate to dissolve or emphasize, depending on the individual project site. The result will be to create a varied street color and texture that allows private property owners creativity, but also establishes a comprehensive design context to work within. The primary paving material for the right-of-way area of the Village core is recommended to be the rectangular concrete unit pavers. The herring bone pattern, which is proposed for most areas, is edged by a double soldier course. The intent is to satisfy the need for a simple streetscape treatment without being monotonous. The double soldier course also creates a point for starting and stopping pavers proposed by private developers that will be compatible with the overall phased paving design." VII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE The Urban Design Guide Plan Sub-Area concepts identified for the Covered Bridge area include a pocket park to the north of the site (with benches and planters). A "feature area" with specialty pavers is also identified for a small area immediately southwest of the Covered Bridge. The staff believes that the applicant's proposed modifications to the Town's pocket park, including the viewing platform adjacent to the Covered Bridge and a new entry stair into the park, would be in conformance with the Urban Design Guide Plan Sub-Area concept and are a positive public improvement. 0 5 VIII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The following are the nine Commercial Core I exterior alteration design criteria as listed in the ID Urban Design Guide Plan. A. Pedestrian ization B. Vehicular Penetration C. Streetscape Framework D. Street Enclosure E. Street Edge F. Building Height G. Views and Focal Points H. Service and Delivery 1. Sun/Shade !x. DISCUSSION Because this a joint worksession with the DRB and the PEC, the staff will not specifically address each of the exterior alteration criteria listed above. The staff would propose however, that the PEC and the DRB focus their discussions regarding this redevelopment on the following issues: A. Building Height and Massing: The Vail Village Master Plan has identified this property as having an acceptable range of building heights in the three to four story category. A building height is defined as 9 feet of height and no roof is included. There is an 8-foot difference in height between Bridge Street and the pocket park area north of the property. During the review of the 1990 proposal, the applicant had requested that staff analyze and interpret where building height base elevations would be calculated from. In 1990, the staff made the following building height interpretations, and these interpretations were subsequently upheld by the PEC: That the Covered Bridge Building site be divided equally, beginning at the northeast corner of the property with a line running diagonal to the southwest corner of the property. The staff and the PEC believe that this analysis provided for a fair and equitable review of building height because it allows for the Bridge Street elevation of the structure to be based upon the grades on Bridge Street. It also allowed for the elevations of the building which front north to the pocket park, and west to Pepi's parking lot, to be based upon existing grades in the park area. 2. That the base elevation of Bridge Street (8,161 feet) will be used to determine heights for areas of the building which fall into the southeastern 50% of the divided property. 3. That the base elevation at the northwest corner of the Covered Bridge property (3,153 feet) will be used to determine building heights for the northwest 50% of the structure. During the PEC's 1990 review of the Covered Bridge Building redevelopment, the drawings were submitted, and were certified, showing that the proposed design could be built within the parameters of the height interpretation, and that the building would not encroach into any Town adopted view corridor. It was in late 1993 that the staff learned that the 1990 approved drawings were not accurate and that the structure could not be constructed without a height variance and a view corridor encroachment. Although the staff continues to believe that the above interpretation is an equitable solution to a difficult problem, (given the unique topography surrounding this structure), the staff does acknowledge that this interpretation has driven a design solution for the site which does not appear to be compatible with the design standards for the Village. From a design perspective, and from a practical point of view, staff believes that a majority of this building's upper level mass should be located towards the rear or western portion of the site. However, the above building height interpretation forces a design solution with a majority of the building mass centered on the property. This is necessary in order to meet the 60-40 roof area percentages. The staff has recently discussed with the applicant the possibility of modifying the building height interpretation in order to achieve a design which is more compatible with the Town's design guidelines, and which would not negatively impact adjacent properties. Staff has suggested modifying the 1990 height interpretation so that the "building height line" would divide the property east and west through the site. Given the design considerations, the staff would like further direction from the PEC regarding the 1990 height interpretation. B. View Corridor #1 View Corridor #1 is the view corridor from the steps of the Vail Village Transportation Center extending over the Village towards Vail Mountain. This view corridor was intended to provide unobstructed views of Vail Mountain and key architectural features such as the Clock Tower and the Rucksack Tower. As proposed, the highest point of the Covered Bridge Building's redesign would not encroach into any of the Town's adopted view corridors. However, it should be noted that a fairly significant portion of the fifth floor is designed with a fiat roof. The applicant maintains that the flat roof design is necessary so that the structure would not encroach into View Corridor #1, while stilt providing for a fifth floor. The applicants have presented an optional sloped roof for the fifth floor, which will be presented with the scale model at the PEC meeting. This sloped roof option does however, involve a view corridor encroachment of approximately 4-6 feet. The applicants have stated that architecturally, they prefer the sloped roof design, and that given support by the PEC for a view corridor encroachment, they would file an application to encroach into View Corridor #1. 10 C. Architectural Considerations In order to provide a visual connection between the lower level retail commercial shops and Bridge Street, the applicant has proposed to shift the east elevation of the structure approximately 3 feet back from its current location. This not only provides for a visual connection but it also allows for landscaping to be located in front of the building. With regard to the architectural considerations, the staff has reviewed the project with the Town's design consultant Jeff Winston (Winston and Associates). As previously stated, staff believes that the majority of this structure's mass and bulk should be concentrated on the western half of the property. Additionally, we feel that the building should step down as it approaches the eastern portion of the property (Bridge Street), and that the building should also step down as it approaches the pocket park to the north. Further, we feel that the overall roof design should be simplified and that the proposed fifth floor should be further architecturally integrated into the rest of the structure. Staff has also expressed concern regarding the relationship of the proposed fourth and fifth floors to the existing Gasthof Gramshammer lodge rooms (and exterior decks) to the south. The current design creates a solid wall which would extend out (east) approximately 8' from the edge of the Gramshammer fourth floor deck. Staff feels that the Covered Bridge Building's fourth and fifth floors should be pulled back, to the west, so that the impact to the Gasthof Gramshammer would be lessened, or eliminated, and so that the relationship of the Covered Bridge Building, to Bridge Street, would also be improved. Other architectural considerations, as listed in the Urban Design Considerations, include: -Roofs - pitch, overhang and materials. -Facades - transparency, windows, doors, trim, materials, color. -Balconies/Decks - size, mass, color and materials. -Accent Elements - signs, awnings, flags, accent lighting, painted wall graphics, flower boxes, etc. D. Landscape Considerations As previously mentioned, as a part of this redevelopment, the applicants have proposed to upgrade and improve the Town's adjacent pocket park to the north, as well as the building's frontage on Bridge Street. Two new planters would be located on Bridge Street. The applicant is investigating the possibility of eliminating the railing along Bridge Street and providing a two tiered planter that could function as an attractive planter barrier. The design for the pocket park calls for the creation of a viewing platform/seating area adjacent to the Covered Bridge. The Streetscape Master Plan recommended benches, lighting and pavers would be utilized. A new entry stair into the park would be constructed at the southeast corner of the park, which would provide pedestrian access to the park and to the lower level commercial spaces in the building. In order to accommodate the redevelopment, the applicants have proposed to remove the two existing evergreen trees which are located adjacent to the north elevation of the building. These trees are very close to the building and have grown "one-sided". The Town's Landscape Architect, Todd Oppenheimer, believes the two trees could not be relocated successfully. Because construction staging for the Covered Bridge site is very confined, the staff has requested a staging plan at this level of the planning review. As a part of the construction staging plan, which includes the Town's pocket park, the applicant has requested that they be allowed to relocate one large evergreen tree to another location in the pocket park. The evergreen in question is approximately 40-45' tall. The intent of the tree relocation is to provide a pad for the construction crane. Although the staging site is very restricted, for construction purposes, the staff is opposed to allowing the applicant to attempt to relocate the evergreen. Other landscape considerations, as listed in the Urban Design Considerations, include: -Plant Materials - trees, shrubs and annual flowering plants. -Paving - concrete unit pavers (streetscape design) vs. asphalt. -Retaining Walls - height, materials. E. Sun/Shade Analysis The applicant has provided a sun/shade analysis for the winter solstice (December 21st), and for the spring and fall equinox (March 21st and September 21st). The analysis was conducted for the existing building and the proposed structure, and revealed shading patterns for 10:00 AM, 12:00 noon and 2:00 PM. The proposed structure will cast increased shade patterns on the adjacent pocket park site to the north and northwest. The staff believes that this additional shade will have minimal impacts. The area of the additional shading is mainly to the northwest of the building and is heavily landscaped with large, mature evergreen trees. There will be some additional shade cast along Bridge Street in the area of the proposed viewing platform/seating area. F. Service and Delivery Per the Town Code, an additional loading space is not required. No loading area exists for this site. The proposal includes a trash room to be located at the rear, or west, side of the building. Trash pickup would be via Bridge Street, as this property has no legal access through the rear, or Children's Fountain area. It is suggested that the applicant discuss with Pepi Gramshammer, owner of the property to the west, the possibility of allowing for service access through his site. Pepi Gramshammer is currently considering developing his property (currently a surface parking lot), by ? 9 adding an enclosed parking garage with lodging rooms and several condominiums above the garage. 0 G. A®A Compliance The project architect has designed the building so that it would meet all the current A®A requirements for disabled access. A "lift" would be located at the southeast corner of the property, which would provide access to the lowest level of the structure. From this point, it is possible to access the main elevator at the rear of the property. All levels of the building, with the exception of the fifth floor, would be accessible from this elevator. A cut sheet of the "lift" is attached to this memorandum. Staff has suggested that the design of the "lift" be modified to better reflect the character of the Village. The applicant has agreed to look into this. cApe6memos%ridg e.214 n 10 Eli WCAM 0 Im L3 ?A C4 ?v 0 0 COVERED BRIDGE I? LOT C, LOT D & PART OF LOT B SITE PLAN BLOCK 5-B VAIL VILLAGE FIRST FILING S?c?iultz s n.?a a. C9 z J_ ® LaJ 0 LLJ ° c> E2 fL' ? MM* Cl r- - Ld c"I m CN - W 0 - C) sew war M wratrrY? -o? Y ras+aae?aer asst ?t NwiWr - A-11 p?pvf ?4.m?? 1 F-] _ .? _ 'may IN/ t a a -j M ag f II p (D VI) I ? _ G3 Cw7 ? - 11 L °v I k 4 S m M; - S ? L f` ? I Ip -, . t. i ? > 04 1 11 I I Lj 04 - _ __ ------ I? -----p - 4 ---- C3 Li f I , I O i 1 1 f i I .. ........ r I I t S Rte: p 1 rm.=T I I I Dul. p ?f , I -wgzr I It , , ------------- -LL - -------- I I i I N ,..,, 1 1 2629 S0. FT. REfA1L _ _ f It f f i LEVEL ONE 1 E p R 1 a d f t Shwa l8um0ar VFW- a- X517 A`2.1 C-?j MACE E-4 Mir aw w t t t { { k k ? ! k o t i , { { k t E +' k { } 4 k k k ?°?rs°}nw { t k k 1 t k {t--- - 4t k tr = ?{ {r=?t z w _q ,J ? ?. - - - ? V 3341 SG. fT, HEfXN. ro vx r bm } LEVEL TWO _ ? PpmlAa olt ? ? - b1 ?m{C.4M 1/i'+1'-P J t \ 0 z 5L5 cn uj fl LJ owo 000, o? 03 Lj 04 mC14 LJ 9 El 9aN . Lg-22 a?_`(Y d W ?d U 7 C'?1 i 1 r I _---'-1 L? CD o ss CD 7 0!C Li LEVSL FOUR ?J t- s Lwwoow? 0 0?o tj 0 0o U CD 413 a 1?3 N 0 C) ?V? LVIEI? L-j 1 1 P ! ! q e f1 P { bf'-S-ttt' ? _ DECK 0 81'-8-1/2" t DECK ®91'-7° 1 t i Y 1 ? • I 1 ?? TOP OF ! P ROOF 0 911-7" k i i q k TOP OF I co 1 ROOF 0 400'- 7"t w i ! I Ir ----- IL ? i DECK 0 91°J7" DECK ® 81'- 8-1/2" I I 1 YI - - - - - - --- -f- - - _ - - -? - ._ ) k ? f I o i f 1 -- -p--? -------}----- G -`- ! w P t i ROOF PLAN I 4 I y = cnti9tx rat an-tta (s 4TFflt2 0 z - ?I m LJ ?LLJ X20 ® J M 04 CSI LJ = ® - -cam ?rr?eweAr ?" -S . ..... A-12.A C71 al . 0 G ? rtq =Zl troy i MW -trod ? rot 000 ra 1 ? i I _L _L o ?Txa -. ?Gl- ei4T. w LAS UYYM4HF1 ..? I E !LiI 01 q3 n terms of normal day-to-day mobility, stairways can present a significant problem to the physically = challenged. Inclinator Co, of America, for 74 years one of the leading t manufacturers of residential elevators _ and stair lifts, has a cost-effective solution to the accessibility problems faced by people with physical +f limitations. Our LIFTette is a durable, top-quality, superior designed vertical platform lift capable of lifting a wheel- chair, its occupant and an attendant, r? up to twelve feet. tM a Whether it's gaining access to a _- ` building or moving from floor to floor, the LIFTette can be adapted for both y indoor and outdoor usage, making it perfect for schools, churches, meeting halls, office buildings, and residences. Every LIFTette is constructed in _ accordance with the Inclinator _ Company's well-known guidelines for = quality assurance. _-- Breakthrough engineering, which has become the hallmark of Inclinator over the years, has allowed us to - create a specially designed, quietly operating model. In addition, it's easy to install and service. As with all Inclinator products, the LIFT-ette can Inclinator's LIFT-ette can be installed outside, providing access from the street, parking lot be expected to deliver years of or sidewalk, and inside to remove barriers in multi-level buildings. dependable service. For further information, visit your nearest Inclinator dealer or contact us directly. WINN "I JAI LIFT-ette's control station ` features a key-switch, an up/down paddle switch, emergency stop control and an alarm. INCLIN VOR we? C O M P A N Y O F A M E R I C A © ELEVATOR CO W 2200 Paxton Street 725 South Broadway P 0 Box 1557 Denver, CO 80209 Harrisburg; PA 17105-1557 (303) 730-1818 W F hone 717-234-8065 ax 717-234-0941 OO 1992 Inclinator Company of America. P.O. Box 1557, Harrisburg, PA 17105 All Rights Reserved Z071 PERATION FEATURES Most of the LIFT-ette's mechanics are different from other units currently available. The lifting mechanism, a 'double row ball screw, is secured at the bottom via a flexible mount bear- ing, and at the top by a self-centering high quality bearing, which also sup- ports the driven pulley. The motor, brake, solenoid and controller are all located at the top of the tower to make servicing the unit easier. Access is gained through a removable access panel located toward the top of the tower front panel. The guiding system is one of the more important innovations. Support for the tower and guiding is accom- plished through four, round vertical members, two per side. There are no rolling members. The typical guide wheels have been replaced with four slide blocks per side. The side plates house the dual bro- ken screw safety. This safety is unique to lifts of this type. If there should be a failure of the screw, nut, or other part of the lifting mechanism which would cause a decrease in ten- sion on a sensing plate, the safety dogs will engage the vertical supports, Dold the platform, and disconnect power to the motor. All LIFT-ettes feature removable tower base legs. With the legs in place, the tower is approximately 40" wide. When removed, the tower is only 24" wide, which allows the unit to pass through a normal doorway. In addition to strut supports, eight-, ten-, and twelve-foot units have brackets for attaching the tower to a structure. INCLINATQR C O M PAN Y OF A M E R I C A 0 2200 Paxton Street P.O. Box 1557 Harrisburg, PA 17105-1557 IV hone 717-234-8065 ax 717-2340941 SPECIFICATIONS: STANDARD EQUIPMENT DESIGN: Is designed to meet or exceed the requirements of ANSI A17.1 CAPACITY: 750 lbs. SPEED: 10 FPM TRAVEL DISTANCE: Up to 12 ft.; up to 4 stops MOTOR: 3/4 HP, 1725 RPM, 120 VAC, 60 HZ, 10 AMPS, single phase, time delay reversing. Conveniently located at the top of the tower. 20 AMP designated service. DRIVE: Recirculating ball screw self- centering driven pulley, three V-Belts with broken belt safety switch. Manual raise and lowering. BRAKE: Spring applied, electrically released brake is mounted directly to the top of the drive screw and prevents coasting upon application. OVERSPEED SAFETY: The speed sensor/governor, if activated, keeps the unit within the designed operating speed. Resets automatically. DUAL SAFETY DOGS: Secures the plat- form to the guiding rails if there should be a failure of the lifting means. LIMIT SWITCHES: Up and down limit switches with a final limit to disconnect main power in the event of an overrun. CONTROLS: Up/Down paddle switch on platform and at landings. Keyswitch, alarm, and emergency stop switch on units for pub- lic installations. 24 VAC. TOWER: 16 ga. auto steel with weather resistant coating. Removable base legs make handling and installation easier. Upper service panel removable for quick access to motor, controller and brake. Spliced tower skirt on 10 ft. and 12 ft. models. PLATFORM: 12 sq. ft. (15 sq. ft. optional). 42" high sides. Handrail on each long side. Platform floor and ramp have non-skid sur- faces. PLATFORM SAFETY DIAPHRAGM: Suspended from bottom of platform. Stops downward motion of the unit if an obstruction is encountered. SHIPPING: Unit is shipped partially assembled and pre-wired. TESTING: All units are inspected and run with capacity load before leaving the factory. WARRANTY: Has a limited warranty. Please contact Inclinator Co. for complete information. OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT ALTERNATE POWER: 12 volt DC PLATFORM GATE: 42" high with interlock LANDING GATE: 42" high with interlock AUTO FOLD RAMP: On platform which locks in the up position to act as a guard. STATIONARY RAMP: To be used at the lower landing if no pit is provided. NINETY DEGREE EXITS: Platform can have entry from one, two, or three sides. CUSTOM SIZES: Platform size can be custom ordered for special applications (max. "D" dimension is 36"; max.°W" dimen- sion is 60"). SPECIFICATIONS OF EQUIPMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. Inclinator's LIFT-ette is readily installed in the home, with the capacity to lift a wheelchair and passenger up to twelve feet. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 14, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a joint worksession with the PEC and DRB for a major CCII exterior alteration and setback variance to the Lionshead Center Building to allow for the expansion of the Vail Associates skier services located at 520 Lionshead Mall/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Vail Associates owns the commercial space in the lowest level of the Lionshead Center Building, facing south. They are proposing to expand the space approximately 12 feet to the west and 11.5 feet to the south. This addition will project out from under the existing Garfinkle's deck. There will be an increase in commercial floor area of 1,751 square feet. The proposal requires an exterior alteration and a setback variance. The proposed setback along the west and north property lines would be .5 feet where 10 feet is required by the CCII zone district. There are two wing walls in the area of the commercial addition that currently encroach into the setback 2 feet. The main portion of the building, however, currently conforms to setback requirements with a setback of 12 feet. As designed at this time, the requested variance is for 9.5 feet. The applicant is proposing to use materials that are intended to compliment the addition that was built recently on the north side of the building for the commercial expansion. There will be a sandstone base that will run the entire length of the addition. The roof of the addition will be cedar shakes to match the rest of the building. The mullions are designed to be painted a maple color in an effort to match the maple mullions used on the north side of the building. The architect is concerned that using maple will not withstand the sun exposure or the water damage due to snowmelt on this side of the building. The use of materials and the design of the facade will be discussed in greater detail below. The applicants are proposing site modifications on the southwest corner of the site. The two staircases currently in this location will be combined into one. The staircase that provides access to the Garfinkle's deck will be removed. The existing public staircase will be replaced with a new staircase that will be angled to the west. The new location will eliminate a portion of the landscaping island immediately to the west (approximately 200 square feet). No trees will be cut down according to the applicant. On the other side of the staircase, there will be a new tree planted in an expanded planter of approximately 20 square feet. The new staircase will also include a short section which will connect to the Garfinkle's deck. Staff believes that E spot elevations need to be added to the drawings for all staircase landings and planter grades. One tree is proposed to be planted on the west side of the building near the base of the staircase on the Lionshead Center property in a tree grate. There will be eleven aspen trees planted to the south of the addition. The eleven trees will be located off-site on Vail Associates property. U. ZONING STATISTICS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this exterior alteration request: 1. Zone District: Commercial Core li 2. Lot Area: 0.923 acres or 40,205.9 square feet 3. Proposed Addition: 2,007.5 square feet Allowed Height Setbacks North East West South Site Coverage 48' 10' 10' 10' 10' 28,135.7 sq.ft. or 70% Landscaping GRFA Parking 8,038.8 sq.ft or 20% minimum (maximum hard landscape is 1,607 sq.ft.) 32,155 sq.ft. or 80% Existina Commercial Residential Addition Addition 47' 12' 46' 20' 74' 43' 165' 5' 0' 8' 0' 23,827.3 sq.ft. or 1,751 sq.ft. 59.3% 6,432 sq.ft. soft 1,607 sa.ft. hard 8,039 sq.ft. total no change (landscaping will be removed from adjacent V.A. land) 27,916.1 sq.ft. or 69.4% no change 11' 192' 23' 22' 183 sq.ft. no change 2,007.5 sq.ft. to be determined reduction of by the P2C 1.5 spaces Total 25, 761.3 sq.ft. or 64.1 % no change 29, 923.6 sq.ft. or 74.4% In the chart above, staff has noted that the parking requirement for this commercial addition is to be determined by the PEC. Vail Associates is in the process of relocating a majority of their office staff. This is a result of their recent purchase and remodel of the Peregrine Building in Avon. Many of the staff in the Gondola Building will be moved to that new location. Some of the staff currently located in the Lionshead Center space will be shifted to 2 the Gondola Building space. As a result, though there will be an increase in floor area, there ID may be a decrease in the number of employees at this location. At this time, the architect has not programmed this space in detail with Vail Associates. Prior to the final hearing on this request, staff will review a thorough programming analysis of the space, both existing and proposed, and give a recommendation regarding the parking fee. Vail Associates understands that the parking fee requirement will have to be fulfilled by paying into the parking fund. The current fee for each parking space is $8,594.40. Please note this fee may increase by the time the applicant obtains a building permit. Staff is viewing the use of this expansion as skier services. Staff understands from Vail Associates that it is for their ski school participants, which range from children to adults. It is not considered office space. III. EXTERIOR ALTERATION CRITERIA A. Height and Massing: At one story, the height and massing is consistent with the architectural guidelines for Lionshead. The addition is also good, in staff's opinion, in that it helps to add visual interest on the first floor and breaks up the building. B. Roofings The architectural form of the roof is consistent with the diagrams and statements within ID the architectural guidelines. Under this section, the guidelines do state that: "it is important to integrate expansions with existing buildings so as to avoid a patchwork, "tacked on" quality for Lionshead. It is hoped that all expansions will appear to have been part of the original design of each building." We believe the roof form is generally consistent with the guidelines. C. Facades - Walls/Structures: The materials are proposed to include Colorado buff sandstone at the base of the building. Windows, set with maple colored mullions, will run the length of the addition. The roof over this addition will be cedar shakes. There will be a 10 inch wide wooden fascia band at the top of the shake roof, connecting that element to the Garfinkle's deck. There are two entries which will be flanked on each side with Colorado buff sandstone. Each entry will have an awning extending out over the doors. The height of each entry is 14 feet not including the glass skylight above. Staff believes that the primary use of glass within the facade has been quite successful in the commercial expansion on the north side of the building. Part of the succes of it however, is that it is broken up in an interesting way with the mullions. Staff believes that it is important that this elevation also have variety in the treatment of the window 0 - 3 mullions. Staff believes that the repetition of windows should be altered so that there is more interest. The east end of the addition, in particular, needs to be redesigned with better proportions of windows and sandstone. D. Facades - Transparency: One of the criteria from this section states that: "glass should be grouped into banks of windows united by common trim and mullions. Create broad glass/wall patterns, avoiding the impressions as windows as regular spaced "holes" in the walls." Staff believes that the glass on the proposed addition should be grouped into banks of windows better than it currently is. The commercial windows on the north side of the building, though at first glance may appear a bit random, are actually a carefully designed series of windows. Staff believes that the windows with this addition do not have to be identical, but should be based on the same concept. The guidelines also call for "clear or tinted glass", and state that that is acceptable. The glass will be clear. E. Decks and Patios: The plaza area between the base of the revised staircase and the entrance will become slightly larger. Staff believes that Vail Associates should, as part of these modifications, make improvements to this area. Staff recommends heating the staircase with a snow melt system. We also recommend that the applicant study the asphalt area to determine where pavers could be set and where edges to the plaza should be created, as well as landscaping. F. Accent Elements. The accent elements for this addition will be the awnings located at each entrance. There will be one on the southwest comer, as well as one on the east side. These awnings are designed to match the awnings on the commercial addition, which staff believes meet the criteria of the Urban Design Guidelines. Staff believes that the buildings should be setback far enough from the property line so that accent elements such as the awnings will be located on the Lionshead Center parcel. G. Landscape Elements; The applicant is proposing approximately eleven aspen trees in a planted area 4 feet from the edge of the addition. We believe that this will be a very attractive addition to the building, but think that this building elevation, 105 feet in length, needs more than eleven trees to help break up the facade. Another concern is the lack of variety in landscape materials. Staff recommends a variety of tree species and a variety of sizes of material to be located in clusters. The two existing aspens in this area should be preserved in staff's opinion. 0 4 Staff is concerned about reducing the size of the existing planting bed immediately to the west of the staircase. We recommend that the plan be changed to preserve the landscaping or additional planters should be installed on the other side of the staircase. This could also be done with tree grates. Another option would be to locate a planter in between the building and the staircase. This may provide a higher quality area of landscaping than the tree grates. Staff is open to the applicant's suggestions and would recommend that these options be studied. H. Service and Delivery; Service and delivery will not change for this building as additional square footage of this use does not trigger additional loading docks. IV. SUB-AREA CONCEPTS There is one sub-area concept identified on the plan pertaining to this area of the building for Lionshead Center. It calls for an expansion of the building/arcade/awning/etc. in the area of Garfinkle's deck to improve scale, shelter and appearance of commercial facades. As it is located in the area of the Garfinkle's deck, it does not exactly pertain to the first floor expansion beyond the deck. V. SETBACK VARIANCE The setback variance criteria and findings are listed below. Staff will prepare a thorough analysis of these for the final hearing. There are some issues which staff would like the 10 Planning and Environmental Commission (PEG) to consider during the worksession. The Urban Design Guide Plan does not call for an expansion of this area. The Plan did call for the commercial expansion on the north side of the building, and staff was able to support the setback variance for that project. The Design Considerations do call for one story additions; however, this portion of the building currently is one story and the proposal does not significantly modify the appearance of the mass and bulk of the building. Another issue to consider is that the property to the south of this land is zoned CCIt. It is not Agricultural Open Space and may be developed in the future. It is owned by Vail Associates, who also owns the condominium space associated with the current proposal. It is not guaranteed that Vail Associates will own the condominium space or the adjacent lot in the future. Staff believes that the proposed setback of 6 inches should be increased. We believe a 12 to 16 inch buffer is needed to ensure that there is some distance between this building and any future development on the adjacent site. It is also needed to ensure that all improvements, including the foundation footer and awning, will be on this property and not extend over the property line. One of the criteria listed below requires an evaluation of the proposed setback variance to surrounding properties. Given that the building is proposed to be located close to the property line, staff believes that it is important to ensure adequate pedestrian access around this building. We would recommend that Vail Associates dedicate a public access easement on Tract C, 20 feet in width, for the length of this addition. On the north side of the building, the commercial expansion was brought out to the property line. Staff understands that there is a 0 5 public pedestrian easement through Lionshead Mall that ensures access. We believe that a similar guarantee for public access should be provided for this side of the building if it is to encroach into the setback to this degree. Staff would like the PEC to review these issues in light of the criteria listed below. A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. I The affect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of poPUation, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety, S. The Plannino and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findincLs before arantina an 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 sams, 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. I That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. Tiia 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 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 owners of ether properties in the same district. 0 6 VI. RELATED ISSUES. The Fire Department and Public Works Department have provided their comments for this addition. Fire Department: 1. Provide interior basement floor plan for new addition. 2. Fire sprinklers must be extended into new area and allowable area computed per UBC 506 for entire building. 3. Fire hose cabinets will be required retroactively throughout basement. Public Works: 1. Show proposed grading. 2. Provide survey with site elevations. VII. STAFF ANALYSIS As this is a worksession, there is no formal recommendation from staff. We believe, in general, that the addition will be an improvement in appearance to this elevation of the Lionshead Center Building. We believe that the elevation needs to be reworked and redesigned so that it reflects more, of the design qualities of the commercial addition. Specific issues for discussion, are: 1. Window design and layout. 2. Landscaping quantity and location. 3. Discussion of the hardship criteria for the setback variance requested. c:\pec\memos\Icbva.214 0 7 ? w 111 _Wr,2 f f ?t f f ?f `2313 aV3HSNon '3 OZS S383V £z6'0 ad3HSNOn / -11dn ?Ll D a ? 1.1 'tD -_?p Wii. MAPLE DOORS COLORADO Bw SANDSTONE W/-,,r.% ACCENTS AUM" OUSE r 1sr-4- I -`? ,14=T` /` x,• 94 ?t'•1 V ?` .: '11,41A SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE- 1/eti..i._a, - - - -o I&I Ask _* 13Z -V 123-8" 1 ? t t .- K Fa. Ft:: ?'?c ..s i t WEST ELEVATION SCALE: tit'-Gr t00=0 1J2" t t '- it W-0 COLORADO BUFF SANDSTONE W/ -,r ACCENTS ALUMINUM GREENHOUSE VN i L. ` A,r , -T-ti c-. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 14, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a joint worksession with the PEC and DRB for a major CCII exterior alteration to allow for the expansion of dwelling units at the Lionshead Center Building located at 520 Lionshead Mall, Units 208, 209, 308 and 309/1-ot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Victor Cano Faro, Transcon Investments, Inc., and Jose Luis Chain Planner: Andy Knudtsen .....; ..;\.....;.;.; ...... .:..:..: .:.»..;.;ti ..»... ;;........... .... n......... .......... .......;...; .; \;......;...; .;...»;....;; ..;;»..» ..... . ... yi}i\i .n ri.?i-... ... ;?::: :.:.;?.;•::.;isii:i?::?:::.;::;.i?i}-..?.:.::•:.; :., ;. .................; .... \\...... n.......,....... ..;..t.;........... ....... ;.. ......:::: •.;•:::: ••::: is ?:.: ?:.;.,:.;? :•:.; ;.....; ... ...... ;: e............,....... 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST There are four dwelling units on the west end of the Lionshead Center Building which make up this exterior alteration request. The owners of the units have tried to coordinate their expansions and are all coapplicants of this exterior alteration. Units 208 and 209 are owned by the same individual and are proposed to be combined. Both the north balcony (88 square feet) and south balcony (84 square feet) will be enclosed and a new expansion over the roof (850.5 square feet) of Garfinkle's and the Younger Generation will connect the two units. The total GRFA proposed for Units 208 and 209 is 1,022.5 square feet. Units 308 and 309 will also be expanded; however, they are separately owned and will not be connected. These units each have two levels and are located on the third and fourth floors. The balcony on the north elevation for Unit 309 will be enclosed (88 square feet). The loft on the fourth floor for Unit 308 will be expanded to the west (138 square feet). The main living level of Unit 309 on the third floor will be expanded by 339 square feet. The main living level of Unit 308 on the third floor will be expanded by 420 square feet. The GRFA to be added to these units is proposed to be 985 square feet. In total, there will be an additional 2,007.5 square feet of GRFA. A portion of the addition, as currently designed, extends 1.5 feet over the commercial addition for the Younger Generation built during the summer of 1993. No setback variances are required. The architect has proposed to use vertical cedar siding to match the existing building. Windows will be clad with white to match most of the residential windows in the building. v II. ZONING STATISTICS Th f ll i i th i i i i l i e ow o ng summar zes e zon ng stat or a terat on request: stics for th s exter 1. Zone District: Commercial Core 11 2. Lot Area: 0.923 acres or 40,205.9 square feet 3. Proposed Addition: 2,007.5 square feet Allowed Existing Commercial Residential Total Addition" Addition Weight 48' 47' 12' 46' - Setbacks North 10' 20' 74' 11' -- East 10' 43' 165' 192' -- West 10' 5' 0' 23' -- South 10' 8' 0' 22' -- Site 28,135.7 sq.ft. 23,827.3 sq.ft. or 1,751 sq.ft. 183 sq.ft. 25,761.3 Coverage or 70% 59.3% sq.ft. or 64.1 % Landscaping 8,038.8 sq.ft. 6,432 sq.ft. soft no change no change no change or 20% 1.607 sca.ft. hard minimum (maximum hard 8,039 sq.ft. total landscape is 1,607 sq.ft.) GRFA 32,155 sq.ft. 27,916.1 sq.ft. no change 2,007.5 sq.ft. 29,923.6 or 80% or 69.4% sq.ft. or 74.4% Parking -- - to be determined reduction of -- by the PEC 1.5 spaces to total required parking" *Please see the other memo on Lionshead Center that addresses the Vail Associates (V.A.) expansion. This chart also indicates the statistics related to the V.A. request so the PEC and DRB can review the total effect on zoning for both projects. "Because units are being combined, there is a reduction in required parking even though GRFA is being added. This is because parking for residential uses is based on the number of units as well as square footage. 0 2 Ill. EXTERIOR ALTERATION CRITERIA 0 A. Height and Massing: The guidelines for height and massing state that: "building expansions shall generally be limited to one story and two stories as indicated on the guideplan, or as can be demonstrated to have a positive visual and functional impact." Staff believes that the one to two story additions referred to in this statement can benefit the public spaces of Lionshead. Examples of these types of additions are the Banner Sports expansion at the Lifthouse Lodge as well as the commercial expansion for the Lionshead Center Building. The one story elements can help define the pedestrian areas and at the same time break up the mass and bulk of the buildings. Staff believes that this proposal does not meet this criteria at this time. We are concerned that the mass on the upper floors makes this building appear larger without benefitting the public spaces of Lionshead. Of particular concern is the fact that the proposed addition cantilevers out over the commercial expansion built in the summer of 1993 thereby reducing the architectural relief provided by this one story commercial addition. Staff believes that the western elevation should be broken up, but not by extending out beyond the existing first floor. Moving the building out approximately 4 feet on the second floor only, which is similar to the existing clerestory may be acceptable. The decks on the south side that are proposed to be enclosed are different from the other deck enclosures on the south. Though they are different, staff does not believe they- are a problem. The decks on the west elevation are more of a concern to staff. We believe they could be redesigned so that they are more integrated into the elevation. B. Roofing: The guidelines state that: "most existing building roofs are high enough to be unseen. Where main building roof planes are highly visible from the ground, expansions should match that pitch." Another guideline states that: "tit is important to integrate expansions with existing buildings so as to avoid a patchwork, "tacked on" quality for Lionshead. It is hoped that all expansions will appear to have been part of the original design for each building." In addition, it states that "roof line variations add variety when used with restraint. 0 3 Staff believes that the roof and deck lines proposed in the area over Garfinkle's entry do not benefit the building's architecture as the addition and roof look "tacked on". There is a combination of pitched and flat roofs that will be visible that reflect too much variety given the design of the existing building. Staff would recommend simplifying the roof forms so that they are more compatible with the building. C. Facades - Walls/Structures: Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the standards, as the structure will be faced with the vertical cedar siding. This is not only listed in the Town's Design Review Guidelines as an acceptable material, but it is consistent with the rest of the building. D. Facades - Transparency: The guidelines states that: "second stories are typically more residential, private and thus less open." In general staff believes that the design of the windows needs more study to meet this guideline and be compatible with the existing building. E. Decks and Patios: The guidelines speak primarily to commercial decks and patios at the ground level for restaurants. The enclosure of the residential decks is discussed under IIIA. F. Accent Elements: No accent elements are proposed. G. Landscape Elements: No landscaping is proposed with this addition and the architect believes that the addition will not impact existing trees located west of the building. Staff looked at the location of the trees in relation to the cantilevered portion and is concerned that the building would require cutting the branches of the trees. Staff believes the addition has to be scaled back so that the trees are adequately protected. H. Service and Delivery: Service and delivery for the building will not change to a degree that a new loading area is required per the Town's zoning code. IV. SUB-AREA CONCEPTS There are no sub-area concepts which pertain to this type of request. Three concepts pertained to the one story commercial addition that was built last summer. V. RELATED ISSUES The Fire Department and Public Works Department have provided their comments relating to this addition. Public Works- 1 . Provide roof drainage plan. Fire Department: 1. May need to expand scope of fire sprinklers to 100% of existing building, including all interior condominiums, corridors and commercial space. 2. Disclose future expansion plans. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS As this is a worksession, staff does not have a formal recommendation to the PEC. However, staff is concerned that the proposal does not meet the guidelines. Specific areas to focus on, in staff's opinion, are: 1. the height; 2. the mass on second, third and fourth stories; 3. the cantilever and its impacts on landscaping; 4. the roof form and decks on the western elevation; and, 5. the architectural design of the addition. cApec\memos\Icb.214 D 5 w IW Qr;l {{ j r J € € i - MrM s6w+ r 6 9 ? 1? - ri a t d: f 1 f ! - LE3 t 4 f J } ---? _L- °--- - ---- ------ --- - - -- --- ----- - L_ ----- - -- ---- ---------- -* 1321-4` * W-71 100-0 1fz. 'NEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16=1'-O" s vigil < J d lu mr NOM HEN EKIERIOR MA"IMAS TO MAIM E7tlS MM NEW EXMTNG ri .-..-.-.-.-.. ----_..? 123'-2° _t - - - - - - - - - - - - a= n. M . . : r taro t/r ti NEW E MWG 86=8" SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16=1'-O" Hill ? a m w ?r ? J rr MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 14, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision located at 363 Beaver Dam Road and 383 Beaver Dam Circle/Lots 2 & 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: John Tyler/John Tyler, Jr./Robert Tyler Planner: Mike Mollica ......... ........ ati........ .. .. .......... .. ? ,, ..•.•?: ?. ? .• ? ......, A... ", :•+, •.,..:,. ,.,., „•,. ? aka, ?. , DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants are proposing a minor subdivision in order to relocate a common property line between Lots 2 and 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. The applicants propose to relocate the property line 30 feet to the east, thereby reducing the size of Lot 2 and increasing the size of Lot 3. Both Lots 2 and 3 are zoned Primary/Secondary Residential, which requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet of buildable area. By shifting the common property line 30 feet to the east, Lot 2 would be decreased by approximately 3,979 square feet. Currently, Lot 2 consists of 21,767 square feet. With this minor subdivision, Lot 2 would be reduced to 17,788 square feet. Conversely, Lot 3 currently consists of 19,894 square feet. This minor subdivision would increase the size of Lot 3 to a total of 23,873 square feet. In order to accomplish the proposed minor subdivision, the applicants have located the proposed lot line in such a manner that each new lot would meet the minimum lot size requirements in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district (15,000 square feet of buildable lot area). Additionally, the proposed minor subdivision would not create a nonconforming situation, with regard to building setback requirements, site coverage, GRFA or numbers of units, for the existing development on each lot, The net result of this minor subdivision is that there would be a reduction of 397 square feet of GRFA for Lot 2, and an increase of 397 square feet of GRFA available to Lot 3. No additional units are requested. II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The subdivision plat creating Lots 2 and 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing was approved by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners in 1965. The Beaver Dam, Forest Road, and Rockledge Road neighborhood was part of the original "Town of Vail" when incorporated in 1966 and was zoned "Residential" when the Town established its first comprehensive zoning regulations in 1969. The allowed uses within the Residential zone district included single family dwellings and two family dwellings. It was not until 1977, that the Town v amended the zoning regulations to create the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district. It was at this time that all of the lots along Beaver Dam Road, Beaver Dam Circle, Forest Road and Rockledge Road were zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. III. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot 2 Allowed Existina Proposed *Difference Units: 2 1 2 0 GRFA: 5,277 sq. ft. 2,597 sq. ft. 4,880 sq. ft. -397 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 4,353 sq. ft. 1,393 sq. ft. 3,558 sq. ft. -795 sq. ft. Lot 3 Allowed Existina Prooosed, *Difference Units: 2 1 2 0 GRFA: 5,090 sq. ft. 1,725 sq. ft. 5,487 sq. ft. +397 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 3,979 sq. ft. 1,183 sq. ft. 4,774 sq. ft. +795 sq. ft. * Difference = Proposed - Allowed IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that minimum standards for a new lot 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: A. Lot Area The Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that the minimum lot or site area for a property located within the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district be 15,000 square feet of buildable area. The Municipal Code defines "buildable area" as any site, lot, parcel or any portion thereof, which does not contain designated floodplain, red hazard avalanche, or areas in excess of 40%p slope. Both proposed Lots 2 and 3 meet the minimum lot size requirements and will be verified by the applicant's surveyor before the minor subdivision plat is signed by the Town. 0 2 B. Frontage ID The Vail Municipal Code requires that any lot, in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district, have a minimum frontage of 30 feet. Both of the proposed Lots 2 and 3 would be able to meet the minimum lot frontage requirement of 30 feet. C. Site Dimensions The Vail Municipal Code 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 will create lots of a size and shape which meet the 80 square foot 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: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding uses." Some of the key aspects of the above statement refer to "compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter..., ... environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding land uses," etc. The applicant has addressed the environmental integrity issues in a wetlands analysis, completed by Dames and Moore (January 21, 1994). Overall, the purpose section is intended to insure that a subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community. The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: 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. Staff Response: One of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations, as well as any development control, is to establish basic ground rules with which the staff, the PEC, applicants, and the community know will be followed in the public review process. During the staff's analysis of the applicant's proposed minor subdivision, the staff identified a potential wetlands area that straddles the common boundary between Lots 2 and 3. Because of this factor, the staff requested that the applicant complete a wetlands analysis which would specifically identify and map the wetlands area. This wetlands analysis is attached to this memorandum for the PEC's information. 3 The recommendations section of the wetlands analysis states that "such development should, however, leave a buffer of vegetation between the wetlands and disturbed areas to protect the wetlands from degradation that could be caused from excavation or increased erosion from adjacent areas." Further discussions with Loren Hettinger, Senior Ecologist with Dames and Moore, revealed that the wetlands assessment was conducted in a very conservative manner, given the snow depth on the property at the time the analysis was completed. Mr. Hettinger felt that his "conservative assessment" has produced a mapped wetlands which is most likely a larger area then would be identified for this site without snow cover. Additionally, Mr. Hettinger indicated that this "buffer of vegetation" should be approximately 10 feet on either side of the mapped wetlands area. The staff and the applicant both agree that an additional wetlands analysis should be conducted in the late spring or early summer, when there is no snow on the ground. The applicant also agrees that they would not have the final plat signed and recorded until such time as this additional environmental study can be completed. Once completed, the applicant agrees to designate a "no build" area on the final plat to further ensure that no development would occur in the wetlands and wetlands buffer areas of the site. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. Staff Response: While Lots 2 and 3 were originally platted in 1965, prior to incorporation into the Town of Vail, Town zoning has guided development in this area for the past twenty years. The proposal's compliance with the current development standards implies consistency with the Town's overall development objectives. The proposed "no build" locations create buffers which will limit impacts on the site's identified wetlands. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Resoonse: The value of a lot, and to a greater extent the value of a neighborhood, is in large part dependent on the level and type of development within it. Staff believes that this proposal's compliance with the current development standards, as well as the "no build" restrictions for building locations, demonstrate that this proposal will not be detrimental to the value of land throughout the Town, nor in the immediate neighborhood. 0 4 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. Staff does not believe that platted building envelopes are necessary on these lots, as we feel that the existing setback regulations, the required review of future development by the Design Review Board, and the "no build" wetland area, provide ample environmental protection. Staff Response: Moth of the proposed lots comply with the Town's zoning ordinance and are additionally restricted in such a manner ("no build" areas) that subsequent development will achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff does not believe that platted building envelopes are necessary on these lots, as we feel that the existing setback regulations, coupled with the "no build" wetland area, provides ample environmental protection. 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 subdivision. Staff Response: This purpose of the subdivision regulations is intended primarily to address large scale subdivisions as opposed to this particular proposal under consideration. We do not believe that this proposal will impact any of the above facilities. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. Staff Response: This is an inherent goal of the subdivision regulations that has little specific reference to this particular application. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of the land. Staff Response: The staff feels comfortable with the applicant's proposal to review the wetlands areas of the site, once the property is free from snow. The identified wetland area would then be protected by the use of a "no build" area which would be designated on the final plat. This "no build" area would also include the 10-foot buffer on both the east and west sides of the wetland boundary. The staff believes that these development 0 5 limitations would adequately mitigate the initial concerns that staff raised regarding the wetlands on the property. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request for a minor subdivision. We believe that the applicant has met the review criteria as outlined in Section III of this memorandum. The staff recommendation for approval carries with it the following conditions: 1. That prior to the Town's signature on the final plat, that the minimum lot size requirements for both Lots 2 and 3 be verified by a registered surveyor. 2. That prior to the Town's signature on the final plat, that an updated environmental assessment be conducted and that said assessment shall occur on the site when it is free of snow, and that the "no build" area identified on the plat reflect that of the wetlands area and the 10-foot buffer on both the east and west sides of the wetland boundary. If the wetlands area is greater than indicated on the current Dames and Moore map, the project would be required to return to the PEC for reconsideration. cApec\memos\ty1er.214 0 6 - DAMES & MOORE 1125 SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 1200, DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2027 (303) 294-9100 FAX: (303) 299-7901 January 21, 1994 Community Development Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Attn: Ms. Shelley Mellow Re: Wetland Analysis - Tyler-Minor Properties, Lot 2 and Lot 3 363 Beaver Dam Road and 383 Beaver Dam Circle Vail Village Dear Ms. Mellow: File: 02442-050 The above-referenced property was inspected on January 19, 1994, to determine whether wetlands occur on the site. This inspection was conducted with David Peel of Peel and Langenwalter. This analysis must be considered preliminary because of snow, which covered most understory vegetation. Therefore, shrubs were used to indicate potential wetland areas on the properties. The results of the field inspection are provided in the attached letter report. Please contact me at 1-299-7836 if you have questions on the information provided herein Sincerely, DAM)?.S & MOORS 'i '.. Senior Ecolda- st , a, y 11Y Enclosure cc: J. L. Tyler D. Peel LRH:mem pavsill1yI,,,\trh01 OFFICES WORLDWIDE - - DAMES & MOOR.E PRELIMINARY WETLAND ASSESSMENT TYLER-MINOR PROPERTIES Field Inspection Results The Tyler-Minor properties that are adjacent to Beaver Dam Road in Vail, Colorado, were inspected on January 19, 1994, to determine if wetlands occur on the sites, and to indicate the approximate extent of wetlands. Because of extensive snow cover, exact locations of wetland boundaries could not be determined. However, the presence of wetlands were indicated by plant species that were evident, and usually occur in wet areas. It appears that water crosses the property from south to north in conjunction with drainage from Beaver Dam Road. This area is marked by a stand of willows (Salix spp.) that vary in width from 15 to 30 feet. Several redosier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) and alder (Alnus ten:u ffolia) shrubs occur near the road, and along with tall larkspur (Delphinium barbeyi) also indicate wetland conditions in this area of the property. Blue spruce (Picea pu.ngens) are scattered between the two properties, as well as near the homes, and vary in diameter at breast height (DBH) from approximately 6 to 18 inches. Recommendations The location of the willow-dominated wetland is shown on the attached map and occurs on the property line between the two lots. Moving the property line to the east would not affect the wetlands, and a different setback-development plan could be developed on both properties if so desired without affecting the wetlands. Such development should, however, leave a buffer of vegetation between the wetlands and disturbed areas to protect the wetlands from degradation that could be caused from excavation or increased erosion from adjacent areas. ?J F -r 5-?l0 ?t irti ?Ji 1 Plate 1. Looking east across willow-dominated area along property line. Plate 2. Looking south along property line. Although scattered near the blue spruce tree, the willows primarily occur along the property line. !. 2j ? 1 a O 9 T9 85 N6i•0900 'J 61-0 60 ' o o ?.. Ka?aa waP••aa,• p•a a` `II e R \ i ?;?cua `\ ffr ``\ as.•aatx•NaeO aal ® ?? ? 1 rc s a,a. LOT 3 a !f ??,? ? W ? - - - 9.O6T k. ? r \ _00 d' w 25.00 o \ ti 7 J YQ? O'o99Y 40 /toa, I -231 4 / is db 1 _ ?- I ? / yes • ? \ aka p Yava RS?a-..- _-. ,F Ti 61` - I aIS ' a.,.?I,4 a.tusrlRl ! ??,.,.??--'-. •...??- -`N iT"OD•PO E °?-_ jr ?? ?.' _" -..--•'1` ` "F Yi1L14Y E83ENEN4 1". 00 .E 6160 so Jr ff - it ? ? ?4 '+a? ® tw?a:YS a.a.•Ya. }Ia ?? f_ / u h ate. c"- p... 0 f .71C L_ C _, oaa a LOT 3 ? t 4 ? II.• ? OITp ?4 ` y -? ® ?' ` Oa \ .? J ?•••- 11n IIlO.Ti' •.;T. 1. lOi 88' .l' ? ta.aw' 1 E MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 14, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a minor exterior alteration and a site coverage variance to allow for an enclosed trash and grease dumpster at the southwest corner of the Gore Creek Plaza Building, specifically located at 193 Gore Creek Drive/Part of Block 5-6, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Charles Rosenquist, represented by Kevin Clair and Tom Armstrong Planners: Randy Stouder At the January 10, 1994 Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) meeting, the issue that raised a significant concern with the PEC members was staff recommendation #1 that addressed transplanting the existing tree to a planter on the right side of the John Gault's entrance. The PEC felt that transplanting the tree was not appropriate mitigation for the loss of a planter and bench. Most members felt that a new planter should be required in the general vicinity of the proposed grease container housing. A discussion ensued over exactly what type of planter the PEC was looking for. Tom Armstrong asked if a masonry planter or stone planter was required and expressed concern over the expense related to such an item. Diana Donovan said that a large pot or tree grate should be investigated. This approach seemed acceptable to a majority of the PEC members and Diana Donovan made a motion to table the item with Bill Anderson seconding. A vote of 7-0 tabled the item. On January 31, 1994, staff received a memorandum from Erich Hill, the applicants' architect and agent. The applicants propose to transplant the existing tree to a movable pot. The pot would be either wood or ceramic material and would be placed as shown on the attached site plan. Staff requests that the applicant warranty the survival of the tree for two full growing seasons. If the tree dies during that two growing season period, the applicant would replace the tree with a like tree. Staff is recommending approval of the requested exterior alteration and site coverage variance with Conditions 2 and 3 from the original memo and with the modified Condition 1 as stated below. (Please note the wording changes are indicated in bold type.) 1. The applicants shall transplant (or replace) the ornamental tree to a new "movable" pot as shown on the revised site plan. Installing the pot and transplanting the tree shall be completed during the construction process for the grease container enclosure. 2. A minimum 43" clear width shall be maintained between the existing and proposed dumpster housings to allow pedestrian access to the parking garage below. 3. A regular maintenance program shall be set-up for the new grease container housing. Areas in front of the housing shall be included in the maintenance program. The maintenance program shall be devised by the Town of Vail's Environmental Health Officer in cooperation with the applicants. The program shall include, but not be limited to, steam cleaning the housing at a minimum of once every six months. Waste and runoff generated during the cleaning process shall be collected, shall not be allowed to move off-site into the public right-of-way, and shall be handled and disposed of as sewage. The grease containers shall be removed for cleaning by the service company at a frequency not less than once every six months. The Environmental Health Officer will enforce these maintenance provisions during routine inspections of the restaurant facilities involved. c9pec\memos\gcplaza.214 .J a * 2 v I ONO* ?. ,PG 0 0 Randy Stouder Community Development Dept. Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Blu's and Sweet Basil Addition Dear Randy: We are proposing that the transplanted tree be placed in a movable pot. The pot material will be either wood or a ceramic material to be reviewed by the Design Review Board. It will be placed within the property as shown on the site plan. A tree grate would be difficult because of the parking structure located below this area. The small amount of water from watering the tree would drain on to the right of way, as all precipitation does because of the nature of the sloping paver surface. This miminal amount of water will not create a drainage problem for the Gore Creek Drive area. We still feel that the best solution is to transplant the tree to the existing planter near the door of Sweet Basil. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me. Thank you for your assistance. PARADIGM DESIGN 1-31-94 Sincerely, p Erich Hill, Architect ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS P.O. POX 731 VAIL, COLORADO 81658 303-476-6397 MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning and Environment Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: February 14, 1994 SUBJECT: Request for Adoption of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan ........t...........:....v..., .............:: ?::??::ti•+:?.?: ,... ;::';• :,. ;..?...... ,:?., .:.?:, ;.?•:::. Y:i-?ti•:;:•?• ::,,.:.::?.,: :, :: ti•::?:?:::v. ::U??:S:i•ir?+`:$j;:,:i:-? 1. PURPOSE The purpose of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan is to identify what additional open lands are needed to protect sensitive natural areas, improve parks and outdoor recreation, improve trail connections, provide adequate open space at a neighborhood level, and provide a land reserve. The town is approaching build out and protection of remaining open space is critical in maintaining the open character of Vail. IL BACKGROUND The Open Lands Committee began work on a Comprehensive. Open Lands Plan in June of 1993. The Committee developed an outline for the plan which was intended to develop an open lands "system" that addressed trails, protected environmentally sensitive properties, improved recreational opportunities, provided a land reserve for public uses, and addressed the Land Ownership Adjustment (LOA) process. The Committee defined the general scope of the plan and the public identified the priorities for open lands protection. Four public meetings have been held where the public has identified open space needs. In the last two public meetings, citizens have provided strong positive feedback on the major concepts of the plan. At the last public meeting on January 19th. the public expressed strong support for the plan and the desire to start implementing it as soon as possible. Priorities for open space acquisition/protection identified by the public include: 1) Protection of sensitive natural areas 2) Improved trail connections 3) Improved recreational opportunities The development of this plan was a cooperative effort between the citizens at large, Vail Associates, U.S. Forest Service, Open Land Committee, staff and the consultant (Design Workshop). The plan provides a comprehensive framework to identify the needs stated above which were articulated by the general public. This plan will help protect all large remaining pieces of sensitive natural area; significantly improve pedestrian, cross country, and cycling opportunities through a network of new and existing trails; significantly provide additional open space in both east and west Vail; and improve the quality of use of existing Town parks. .p ,. b A four year implementation plan and six year payment plan are proposed on page 27 of the plan. This action plan describes how open lands needs can be met with the resources the Town has through the Heal Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) fund. The costs of the plan will greatly depend on the skills of a land negotiator who will be integral in the implementation of the plan. Also specific next steps are outlined beginning on page 28 that are important to successful implementation of the plan. Several of these next steps include: 1) Obtain the services of a land negotiator. 2) Conduct a thorough review of the RETT fund by the Town Council. 3) Create a "protected" open lands systems that requires a vote of the people before designated open land can be changed. 4) Implement a neighborhood planning process to better utilize existing parks and to protect open space at a neighborhood level. 11 111111. STAFF RECOMMENDATION At a joint Town Council and PEC worksession On February 1, 1994 staff discussed the major comments on the Plan and how they would be addressed. Staff has addressed these comments in this final document. The large Action Plan Map (pg. 19) is currently being produced. When this map is completed a bound copy of the Plan will be delivered to the PEC. All other comments and corrections have been addressed in this document. Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. cApec\memos\opn Inds.214 9 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Community Development Staff PROM: Kristan DATE: February 7, 1994 SUBJECT: Review of planning staff services to the Planning and Environmental Commission Planning and Environmental Commission Below are the answers to the questions that i discussed with the PEC on January 24, 1994 relating to planning services, 1. Do you like the revised format for staff presentations i.e., the staff presentations are very brief? The PEC likes the brief staff presentations. They encouraged each planner to continue with a quick summary and the recommendation. 2. Do you like the project orientation format before the meeting? Yes. 3. Do you like using two cars as opposed to the mini-bus for site visits? The mini-bus is not really necessary. However, they would like to have the cars cleaned and ready to go for site visits. 4. How can we improve our memos, presentations, etc.? The staff is too involved with design issues and landscaping. It is preferable to avoid "tit-for-tat" mitigation. Staff should carefully review the wording for conditions of approval. Sometimes the conditions appeared to be too mandated as opposed to being recommendations to the PEC. The staff does not need to give the PEC minutes and memos on items that have been previously approved. • 5. Other comments. -Staff needs to explain why they are asking for certain additional submittal requirements. Staff should not answer questions that they do not know the answers to. -The word demand should not be used in respect to conditions of approval. Staff needs to continually work on getting back to applicants quickly. It was difficult for me to determine if every planning commissioner agreed with all of the comments above. However, the comments were mentioned by at least one planning commissioner. We should try and keep these points in mind when working with our customers. My opinion from the discussion is that the PBC thinks the staff is doing a fantastic job. However, there is always room for improvement. My impression from the discussion was that they appreciate very much what all of you do. Design Review Board Below are the answers to the questions that I discussed with the DRB on February 2, 1994 relating to planning services. 1. Does the L RB like the meeting format, i.e. lunch/project orientation, site visits? Members felt that the project orientation before the meeting actually worked better than using the mini-bus. The separation of the DRB into two vehicles was not felt to be a major problem although members said it was nice to have everyone together in the mini-bus. 2. Application completeness. The staff is doing a fine job preparing the applications for the DRB meeting, though a few applications are weak. In this instance, George suggested that the staff contact him or Kristan if a staff member was having problems getting accurate and thorough information from an applicant. Planners may want to encourage applicants to improve landscape plans as the board felt many of the recent plans were meager. 3. Advice from staff. The DRB likes keeping the process informal. They believe that Tom Moorhead's approach is very good. He is informal and supportive. Tom has been terrific in briefing the DRB on projects which were hotly contested or complicated. 0 2 4. Other comments. The DRB requested that PEC memos and minutes be provided for projects that required PEC approval before going to the DRB. They would also like to continue attending PEC worksessions on large projects and CCI and CCII exterior alterations. Once again, the board indicated that the staff is doing a wonderful job working with them. All members encouraged the planning staff to continue communication with the board on any issues that may arise. Good job! xco Bob McLaurin Tom Moorhead 11 10 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 14, 1994 MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Greg Amsden Bill Anderson Jeff Bowen Diana Donovan Kathy Langewalter Allison Lassoe Dalton Williams Kristan Pritz Tom Moorhead Mike Mollica Andy Knudtsen Jim Cumutte Randy Stouder Russ Forrest 1. A request for a conditional use to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit to be located at 1356 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 21, Block 3, Vail Valley 1 st Filing. Applicant: Chris Kempf Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the requested conditional use permit to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit with the two conditions stated in the staff memo. Diana Donovan stated that she would like the Design Review Board (DRB) to carefully review the proposed architecture for the project since it is somewhat unusual and different from what is present in the neighborhood. Dalton Williams agreed with Diana's comment. Dalton Williams made a motion to approve this request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit per the staff memo and the two conditions contained on Page 6 of the staff memo with a directive to the DRB to carefully review the architecture of this project to ensure that it is harmonious with the character of the Town of Vail. Jeff Bowen seconded the motion. A 7-0 vote approved this request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type Il Employee Housing Unit. 2. A request for a worksession to discuss proposed text amendments to Chapter 16.36, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District; Chapter 16.32, Agricultural and Open Space District; and Chapter 16.36, Public Use District of the Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jim Curnutte 0 Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo. Jim gave an overview of what the proposed changes to the Greenbelt and Natural Open Space, Agricultural and Open Space and Public Use zone districts were. Jim also explained that the text changes were the first part of a two step process for cleaning up our open space zone districts. After the proposed text changes are approved, staff will then evaluate properties throughout town to determine the appropriateness of their current zoning, and if necessary, recommend their rezoning to an appropriate zone district. Kristan Pritz stated that several letters have been received from the public. She stated that there seems to be some confusion concerning what the permitted conditional and accessory uses for the Agricultural and Open Space district currently are and what we are proposing to change them to. She reviewed what the proposed changes were for the AOS zone district. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the idea was to come up with zone districts that would actually fit what the uses of the land are. Bill Anderson stated that he had no comment at this time. Greg Amsden asked staff what would happen to properties once the proposed text amendment changes were approved. Jim Curnutte stated that their intention was to not take away existing property rights from landowners. Jeff Bowen stated that he had no comment at this time. Allison Lassoe stated that she did not feel that handgun ranges were an appropriate use in the Public Use zone district. Dalton Williams agreed with Allison's comment and said that he had no further comment at this time. Kathy asked if any members of the public wished to comment. Marlene Jump, representing the Vail Religious Foundation, read a letter to the PEC stating their concerns about the proposed zoning changes. Tom Moorhead stated that the use of the Vail Interfaith Chapel would be grandfathered and that it was staff's intention to propose to rezone the property to Public Use District which allowed churches. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the ordinance should be worded in a way that would ensure that current property owners retain their rights. 0 Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 2 Dalton Williams stated that when the PEC originally discussed this issue with Larry Eskwith it was determined that public discussion was needed to determine what the permitted, conditional and accessory uses should be for each zone district and then we would rezone the properties, taking into consideration what current property owner's rights are. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the Town needed to assure the public that their property rights would not be lost. She said that verbiage needed to be more fully thought out and explained at the next PEC meeting. Art Abplanalp, representing David Ransburg of Beaver Dam Road, stated that the problem with the proposed conditional uses and accessory uses in the Recreation Open Space zone district is that there is generally a lack of confidence that the conditional use review process is a sufficient process for protecting open space. He added that concession stands and bleachers were not uses that were compatible with open space. He said that the problem is that the Town is proposing text amendments at the same time as changing the zoning of properties. He felt that the new zone districts should be created prior to rezoning any properties throughout the Town. He said that his clients do not object to the proposed text amendments but the process in which the Town is proposing to do it. He said that the public notice for this item was inadequate to tell the adjacent property owners what this request was actually proposing to do. Kristan Pritz stated that Art's suggestion concerning the creation of the new zone districts prior to the rezoning was a good one and that staff would look into using this process. She stated that she still did not understand which uses Art was objecting to because they were already contained in the zone districts. She stated that staff may need to have further discussions with Art and his clients so that everyone is clear what the current accessory and conditional uses are in the Agricultural Open Space zone district and what is proposed. Jim Lamont stated that he was concerned with the process involved with the proposed removal of single family residences in the proposed text amendments. He said that he felt that the property right should be continued on even if the property changes hands. He suggested that staff look carefully at how the proposed uses would effect residential areas. Don Byers stated that he does not understand what the proposed text amendments are. He wanted to know how Tract A (where the tennis courts were approved previously) would be affected by the proposed text amendments. Kristan Pritz stated that the text amendments would not change the use of this property and that a conditional use permit could still be granted for that type of use. Rob Robinson of the Vail Recreation District stated that he felt that staff had done a good job with the proposed text amendments. He asked the staff to clarify the accessory and conditional uses for the proposed Public Service District. He asked 0 Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 3 staff why golf courses would be a conditional use permit and tennis courts were a permitted use. He asked how events such as Ride the Rockies or the World Cup would be handled. Kristan Pritz stated that these would be handled through the special event license, which is how we would deal with them now. Herman Staufer asked where, when and how certain parcels fit into the rezoning. He asked the PEC and the Town to keep in mind that the Town of Vail stands for recreation and that he did not want to see Town of Vail land "shackled" to a particular zoning designation. Dalton Williams stated he had no additional comments. He asked if it is considered to be a taking if someone's right to build a single family residence was removed at the time the property was sold. Tom Moorhead stated that the grandfather language would be very specific and that staff was also concerned that property rights not be taken away from property owners as a result of the proposed text amendments. Tom said that he believes that there is case law indicating that it is possible to do what is proposed. Dalton Williams stated that the proposed text amendments were a first step and that future steps could be taken in the future so that effected properties are placed into the most appropriate zoning. Allison Lassoe suggested that staff explore the idea of creating the new districts first and then see how and where the effected properties will fall. Jeff Bowen suggested that the Natural Area Preservation District "constraints" in the Purpose be further defined. He felt that equestrian trails should not be a conditional use. He stated that "equestrian access" should replace the wording "equestrian trails". He said that "athletic fields" should replace the wording "soccer and rugby fields". He said that the name of the Public Service District should be changed to the Public Activity District or something similar. He said that churches as a conditional use in the Public Service District was okay, but rectories, convents, religious retreats and related structures should be deleted. He said that a separate zone district for hospitals should be created. Greg Amsden stated that he was in favor of the proposed text amendments and the rezone occurring at the same time in order to save time. He said that this process will bring the parcels more in line with the intent of the zone district. Diana Donovan stated that the issue concerning single family dwellings should be handled in whatever legal manner is necessary and that if it is a grandfathered use, there should be a time limit placed on the grandfather clause. She said that plant and tree nurseries should be removed from the list of conditional uses in the proposed Recreational Open Space district. She stated that public parks and playgrounds should D Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 4 be a conditional use instead of a permitted use in the proposed Public Service District in order to set standards. She agreed that handgun ranges should be removed from the list of conditional uses. Bill Anderson stated that he generally agreed with the other PEC member's comments. He said that the process needed to be looked at. He stated that he was in favor of removing handgun ranges from the list of uses in the Public Service District. Kathy Langenwalter said she feels comfortable with the definition of active recreation as it is. She agreed with Diana that plant nurseries should be removed from the proposed Recreational Open Space zone district. She stated that she felt that hospitals should remain as a conditional use for Public Service District. Diana Donovan stated that her thinking on the passive versus active recreation issue is that there are no standards for the active recreational uses and that concerned her. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she felt active recreation should remain as written. Dalton Williams stated that he felt that active recreation should require a conditional use permit. He said that staff should develop wording to address how current properties would go through the rezoning process. Allison Lassoe agreed with Diana concerning active recreation. Jeff Bowen stated that he was concerned that there were no development standards for the proposed Public Service District. He said that he felt that public parks should remain a permitted use in the Public Service District. Diana and Bill did not have any further comments. Herman Staufer stated that he was concerned about public parks and playgrounds being a conditional use in the Public Service District and that he would like the PEC to leave these as a permitted use. Kathy Langenwalter stated that Diana's concern with regard to development standards for public parks was valid. Dalton Williams inquired whether there was a way to bring public parks through the process if it was a permitted use in the Public Service District. The PEC felt that Public Activity District was a preferable name, instead of Public Service District. 0 Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 5 3. A request for a joint worksession with the PEC and DRB for a major CCI exterior alteration to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building located at 227 Bridge Street/Lots C and D and a part of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant. Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and East West Partners Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that this proposed redevelopment involves no variances at this time. He summarized Section IX, Discussion, of the staff memo. Ned Gwathmey, the architect for this project, stated that they have been "wrestling with this site" since 1990. He said that the applicant has spent a great deal of time studying the feasibility of this project. Bill Anderson stated that the view corridor line should be adjusted to accommodate a sloped roof for the Covered Bridge Building. He also supported moving the building 5 feet to the west property line. Saundra Spaeh, architect representing Pepi Gramshammer, stated that Pepi was concerned with the fifth floor. Greg Amsden stated that he was concerned with the proposed staging area in the pocket park. Mike Mollica explained the staging plan to the PEC. Ned Gwathmey stated that they had approached Pepi about doing the Covered Bridge Building construction at the same time as Pepi's building is under construction. Saundra Spaeh stated that Pepi is adamant about not using the area behind his building as the staging area for this project. Greg Amsden inquired whether moving the building height interpretation line was an option. Mike Mollica stated that staff was open to amending the line and discussed the staff's reasons. Peter Dan, of East West Partners, stated that the applicants were open to shifting the fourth and fifth floors to the west. Allison Lassoe inquired whether the building height interpretation line could be moved horizontally. Ned Gwathmey stated that such a change to the project would delay construction for at least one year. Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 6 Dalton Williams asked the applicant that if the project was approved, could they be flexible on which roof form they used, depending on whether an encroachment into View Corridor #1 is approved. Ross Bowker stated that this would be okay with them. Bob Borne, DRB representative, asked whether the building would be out of the view corridor if the building was shifted back 5 feet to the west. Mike Mollica stated that the building would still be located in the view corridor. Jeff Winston, the Town's design consultant, stated that he felt moving the building back 5 feet would help this project. He questioned whether the whole building would have to be moved back. Ned Gwathmey stated that they could not do this and still satisfy the ADA requirements for disabled access. Jeff Winston stated that a small portion of flat roof may be acceptable but that it must not appear to be flat. He said that another concern that he had was that the building did not appear to be one piece of architecture and he suggested that the applicant tie the roofs together in some way so that the different sections of the building do not look so segmented. He stated that the Town did not intend for the line of View Corridor #1 to effect this site in the way that it has. He would like to see the upper portion of the building be reworked in order to avoid the flat roof as well as tie it to the rest of the building. He said that the proposed design of the building resembles the Gateway Building and that the architectural design needed to relate better to the Village core. Jeff suggested a more unified approach to the building. He added that he also supported the applicant pursuing an encroachment into View Corridor #1. Dalton Williams supported changing the building height interpretation line, or eliminating it entirely. Mike Modica stated that the PEC and staff have some flexibility to modify the line. He stated that the 60%-40% for roofs was a hard and fast standard that had to be followed. A variance would be required if the roof departed from this standard. Sally Brainerd, DRS representative, stated that her concerns are mainly with the storefront. She is concerned with the split-level retail. She stated that the building design is not in keeping with Vail's guidelines. She stated that she did not feel the separateness of the upper levels was ideal. She agreed with Dalton's comments about the building height. L.,. . Bob Borne agreed with Dalton's comments. He added that he was concerned about the construction activity occurring during the summer. ID Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 7 Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with the previous comments concerning the roof height line. He said that he would like to see the building go back to the west at least 5 feet. He added that the staging for this site would be difficult. He added that he understood Ned's concerns about proceeding through the variance process. Bill said he would be willing to approve the project if Ned brought the roof issue back to the PEG for a view corridor encroachment assuming the top portions of the building were shifted to the west. Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see the building height interpretation line moved. She said the building needs to be moved back and that this will help widen Bridge Street in this area. She felt the criteria for view corridor encroachment could be met but not if the view corridor line became the height limit. She stated that an alternate location would need to be determined for trash removal and that it should not be via Bridge Street. Greg Amsden stated that he did not want to see the building height interpretation line set at this stage of the game. He was in favor of shifting the building back. He added that he would like to see the staging area located to the west of the Covered Bridge Building. Jeff Bowen stated that the view corridor has been considered from the Transportation Center and that the view from upper Bridge Street is also affected. He said that he would like to see a different roof form. He added that he would like to see the building dropped down from the north so that the building will appear less massive. Allison Lassoe said she would like to see the building pulled back 5 feet and that this would help the building appear less massive. She stated that she felt that Dalton's previous suggestion could help the roofs for this project. Dalton Williams inquired whether there was a way to internalize the trash removal on the Bridge Street. He said that he likes the way the front of the building looks pushed back but that he is concerned what that would do to the Bridge Street shopping experience. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she agreed with the other Board members comments. She added that more integration of the roof forms is needed. She is concerned about how the roof form will look. She said that shifting the building back 5 feet is positive. She stated that trash removal will be difficult because this site is "land locked". She added that the staging for this project will be difficult and she did not feel that it would be acceptable to lose a mature tree due to construction staging. She said that she felt that there was a way to do this project without a height variance. She stated that the diagonal line could be stepped. Ned Gwathmey stated that he did not want to advise his clients to go forward with this variance. He said that it would be helpful for them to have an interpretation of the ordinances from the PEC. He said that this site is very tight. ID Planning and Environmental Commission February 14,1994 8 Dalton Williams suggested that they eliminate the diagonal line and go off of Bridge Street with the 60%-40% and a view corridor encroachment. All the members of the PEC agreed that this was acceptable. Ned stated that this would not necessarily help them get this project going. Kristan Pritz stated that staff had sat down with the architects for this project previously and it was deemed by the Town Attorney that a modification to the 60%-40% rule is not possible without a variance. Peter Dan stated that he would like to shift the building back and go off of Bridge Street to determine heights. He added that they would like to connect the roofs on the fourth and fifth floors together. Bob Borne summarized that the applicant wants to get this project going and that the main issue seems to be the roof and that the PEC seemed to be generally in favor of the design of the building and that some caveat be made regarding the roof. Jeff Bowen stated that the Covered Bridge Building is the entrance to Bridge Street and the Village and that he would like to see the building mass lessened, the building shifted back, and the roof element changed. Jeff Winston stated that the building design was a result of the diagonal line and that if the line were to be eliminated, then the roof forms could be integrated. Kathy Langenwalter inquired about the transition of siding to stucco. Dalton Williams made a motion that the PEC has reviewed the prior PEC determination regarding the building height interpretations and that after careful review, and that since View Corridor No. 1 determines the Covered Bridge Building maximum height, the building is restrained by the view corridor. Due to this, the height calculation can be taken from Bridge Street with the understanding that the mass will be pushed to the west and that the building be stepped back. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. Kathy Langenwalter restated Dalton Williams motion. A 7-0 vote approved the height determination from Bridge Street as stated above. Kathy Langenwalter stated that there were still issues and details that had not been discussed at this worksession which would need to be discussed in two weeks. Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 9 4. A request for a joint worksession with the PEC and DRB for a major CCII exterior alteration and setback variance to the Lionshead Center Building to allow for the expansion of the Vail Associates offices located at 520 Lionshead Mall/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen It should be noted that Allison Lassoe abstained from this item. Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo. Bill Pierce explained to the PEC how the staircase would function on this site. He stated that a small planting area would be added in addition to the proposed planter. He said a ski school entrance would be located under the open grate stair. He said that there are seven steps to Garfinkle's. Andy Knudtsen stated that staff was requesting spot elevations and that they hoped to receive this information prior to the final hearing on this project so that they can determine how this design will work. He said that this project will require a variance and that the parking fee will be determined at time of building permit. Andy stated that staff was concerned with the facade on the south elevation. He said that staff also had concerns with the east elevation as well. 10 Bill Pierce stated that he did not want to waste time going over items that staff and the applicant agreed upon. He stated that this is not a storefront area and that the purpose of the windows was to let light in. Concerning the setback, the applicants feel that they can keep all materials located within the 6-inch setback. He said the awnings are 4 feet deep and they will protrude out into Tract C. He said that the 6-inch setback was not a major issue as the adjacent property is open space owned by Vail Associates. Joe Macy, of Vail Associates, stated that their intent was to expand the ski school facility out of Lionshead. He said that they were still researching the parking for this project, he said that the existing indoor facilities are completely inadequate for the needs of the ski school at this time. Tim Kehoe, of Vail Associates, stated that Tract C was required for a pedestrian easement per the covenants for the filing. Joe Macy stated that it did not make sense to expand the ski school and not provide access. Diana Donovan stated that she was concerned with the pedestrian easement. She said that landscaping was important on this site. She said that the window design and layout should be attractive even if it is not commercial space. She said that she did not want to see a stop gap project. She stated that she did not feel that there was a 10 Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 10 hardship on this site and that a self imposed hardship would not count. She added that the relief of the building was important. Bill Anderson stated that the window lines needed to be improved. The materials do not need to be the same as on the north side but the design should be improved. He said that he liked the new stairs on the west side and he liked the way it bridged over to Garfinkle's deck. He said that finding a hardship for the setback variance would be difficult on this site. He added that architecturally, he liked the addition. Dalton Williams stated that he did not have anything to add except that he did not see anyway a case for a hardship could be made for this site. He added that the proposed building modifications were positive. Jeff Bowen stated that the purpose of Mail is to provide a service to guests and that the hardship he sees for this site is that the existing facilities do not have the ability to meet the guests needs. He stated that he liked the proposed stair design but that the windows needed to be modified and that additional landscaping should be added. Greg Amsden stated that he liked the stairs and that additional landscaping should be added to this site. He said he did not feel that a hardship exists on this site. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she did not feel that there is a hardship on this site and that the only way she could see this being allowable, was in order to provide better services to the guest. She was not particularly concerned with the windows. She said 10 she was concerned with the encroachments on awnings over the property line. She felt these should remain within the property line. Joe Macy stated that they could work with the awnings. He said that last year the building was allowed to come out to the property line on the north side and that he could not understand why this could not also happen on the south side. He said that there really was no other area to expand the Children's Ski School. He said that they were open to other ideas. He said that initially they wanted to improve the building but they have the money right now to expand the ski school. Andy Knudtsen stated that the Urban Design Guide Plan specifically referenced the building expansion on the north. Kristan Pritz stated that staff feels the expansion is generally good. She suggested that the applicant focus on the Urban Design Guidelines and its considerations in terms of finding grounds to justify the requested setback. Diana Donovan agreed that the applicant should focus on the design considerations for grounds to justify the variance. Bob Borne stated that Sally Brainerd and he were generally pleased with the proposed design and that they agreed with staff's concerns contained in the memo. III Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 11 Dalton Williams inquired whether the applicant had considered elevating the walk to improve safety for pedestrians. Tim Kehoe inquired when they could come back to the PEC. Bill Pierce stated that he would get with staff and see what would work. 5. A request for a joint worlksession with the PEC and DRB for a major CCII exterior alteration and setback variance to allow for the expansion of dwelling units at the Lionshead Center Building located at 520 Lionshead Mall, Units 203, 209, 303 and 309/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Victor Cano Faro, Transcon Investments, Inc., and Jose Luis Chain Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen made a brief presentation per the staff memo. He went through the exterior alteration criteria with the PEC and explained what staff's concerns with this project are. Bill Pierce stated that this building has GRFA available in order to expand and that they are not requesting a variance in order to expand. He said that the owners of the building feel that they have the right to expand and that is the basis of this application. He stated that they are proposing an expansion without encroaching upon any of the Town's regulations. He stated that they were proposing useable deck area over Garfin kl e's. Diana Donovan stated that she agreed with staff's comments concerning the mass and bulk of this building. She stated that she did not like the cantilever at the end but that an addition with similar mass and bulk to the other stories would be acceptable. Bill Pierce stated that there are a number of recessed deck elements on this elevation already. Greg Amsden stated that the proposed design does seem to break up the consistency of the existing building. He stated that he did not have a problem with the use of additional GRFA. Bill Anderson stated that he did not have a problem with the cantilever. He said that he was concerned how the cantilever will effect the commercial space below. He stated that he liked the decks stacking over Garfinkle's so that that area is not so flat. The addition on the north roof line does not bother him. He felt that the decks would give some life to the Garfinkle's area. Jeff Bowen stated that he had nothing to add. He said he had a problem with the lack of symmetry and that it was his opinion that this proposed addition was not in the master plan. Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 12 Beth stated that Deane Knox did not have a problem switching the sculpture at a later date when a more suitable piece came in. She stated that it was a difficult place to site a piece because the space was so narrow. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the reason they had decided on an art piece was because the PEC felt that it was important to make up for the loss of the planter. She stated that the PEC wanted to see something that would work with the space. She stated that she would like to see something added to this area that would add some life to this site such as a banner. Beth stated that she would love to do a vertical banner and that she would come back to the PEC with some proposed designs and planting at the March 14th PEC meeting as she will be out of town of February 23, 1994. Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item to the March 14, 1994 PEC meeting with Dalton Williams seconding this item. A 7-0 vote tabled this item until March 14, 1994. Beth Slifer requested to be at the beginning of the agenda if possible. 9. A request to adopt the Open Lands Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russ Forrest Evie Nott stated that she supported the Open Lands Plan and that it was very necessary and insightful. The PEC then discussed the Par 3 Golf Course issues. Russ Forrest stated that they are trying to find the date of the VRD statement where this qualifier was made. Kristan Pritz stated that it was appropriate for the statement to be in the document because the Town Council plans to give VRD the option to use that piece of land for recreation purposes. She stated that the Council has already given the VRD that authority and that a date just needs to be inserted. Dalton Williams stated that he wanted to thank all of the people involved with this project. Allison Lassoe had no further comment. Jeff Bowen stated that he supported the Open Lands Plan. Diana Donovan stated that the qualifier should be removed if the VRD cannot locate the letter. Dalton Williams stated that anything would be better than the weed patch the CDOT Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 15 built that is there today. Jeff Bowen stated July 1, 1994 and then open space. Diana Donovan and Bill Anderson stated that this property should remain as open space. Kathy Langenwalter stated that there seemed to be a consensus that the qualifier should be removed from the document and if the qualifier stays in the Open Lands Plan there needs to be a date. Diana Donovan made a recommendation to the Town Council the PEC's strongest support the adoption of the Open Lands Plan and that the qualifier does not need to be in the document. Jeff Bowen seconded the motion and a 7-0 vote approved this request. 10. A request for a worksession for a minor subdivision located at 4316 Streamside Circle West/Lots 2 and 3, Block 4, Bighorn 4th Addition. Applicant: Walter Kirsch Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED TO FEBRUARY 28, 1994 Bill Anderson made a motion to table this request to February 28, 1994 with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote tabled this item until February 28, 1994, 1 11. A request for a minor subdivision and to rezone a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi-Family, located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road/more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 61h Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a witness corner for the West Quarter of said Section 14, bears (North 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073.08 feet Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds West, 915.96 feet Measured); Thence North 74 degrees 05 minutes 19 Seconds East, 10.76 feet; Thence 18162 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 181.76 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds East, 62.77 feet; Thence 147.43 feet along the are of a curve to the left which arc subtends a chord bearing North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, 406.55 feet; Thence 54.10 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which arc subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds East, 44.20 feet; Thence South 14 degrees 25 minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet; Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 feet; Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West, 50.00 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West, 160.18 feet; Thence South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet; Thence North 87 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West, 337.72 feet; Thence (North 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds least, 130.00 feet Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minutes 31 seconds East, 129.75 feet Measured) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Bearing from G.L.O. record for South half of Section line between Sections 14-15. (G.L,O. record South 01 degrees 30.2 minutes East) (South 01 degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Measured) Applicant: Juanita 1. Pedotto Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO FEBRUARY 28, 1994 Bill Anderson made a motion to table this request to February 28, 1994 with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote tabled this item until February 28, 1994. D Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 16 12. A request for an SDD to allow for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building and a conditional use for the off-site relocation of three existing employee housing units, located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specifically described as follows: A part of Tract "B" and a part of Mill Greek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows, Commencing at the Northeast corner of Vail Village, First Filing; thence North 79°46'00" West along the Southerly line of U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feet to the Northeast corner of said Tract "U% thence South 10014'00" West along the Easterly line of said Tract "B"; a distance of 198.31 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Tract "B"; thence North 79°46'00" West along the Southerly line of said Tract "B" a distance of 100.00 feet to the true point of beginning thence north 09°10'07" West a distance of 41.67 feet; thence South 88°27'11" West a distance of 75.21 feet; thence South 27013'37" East of distance of 77.37 feet; thence North 57°24'00" East a distance of 55.11 feet, more or less to the true point of beginning. Applicant. David Smith Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 28, 1994 Bill Anderson made a motion to table this request to February 28, 1994 with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote tabled this item until February 28, 1994. 13. A request for preliminary plat approval of a major subdivision (Trappers Run) on Lots 16, 19 and 21, Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, generally located north of 1-70 and west of the Vail Ridge Subdivision. Applicant: John Ulbrich, represented by Gateway Development Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED UNTIL MARCH 14, 1994 Bill Anderson made a motion to table this request to March 14, 1994 with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote tabled this item until March 14, 1994. 14. A request to relocate the helipad to the east end of the Ford Park parking lot located at 580 S. Frontage Road East/an unplatted parcel located between Vail Village 7th Filing and Vail Village 8th Filing and a portion of the 1-70 right-of-way. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center . Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED INDEFINITELY Bill Anderson made a motion to table this request indefinitely with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote tabled this item indefinitely. 15. Selection of a representative to the West Vail Master Plan (Vail Commons) Task Force. 16. Approve minutes from January 24, 1994 PEC meeting. Diana Donovan made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 24, 1994 Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 17 PEC meeting with Greg Amsden seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote approved the minutes from the January 24, 1994 PEG meeting. 17. Council update: -Public Works Master Plan 18. Review of new ordinances for PEC reference books. 19. Pick date for celebration for Diana Donovan, Planning Consultant. April 8, 1994 was selected as the date for a ski lunch on the mountain for Diana. Diana was thanked by the PEC and staff for her many hours of hard work for the community. A famous Columbine Fruit Torte was shared with the PEC, staff and audience. Planning and Environmental Commission February 14,1994 18