Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-0724 PECEl THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE 77517M noia a Auunc-ilearing 111 777TIuall vail 5771711 :f ?< IT Tne ivil.rucipal uuu"i V7 Town of Vail on July 2? :?\2 at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: Applicant: ?»l2 ©reaio , represented by Ernie Bender Planner- Russell Forrest 2. A request Sr a major SDD amendment, located at the Vail Athletic Club/352 East Meadow Drive and more specifically described as follows: Applicant: ANT 1987 Limited Partnership, represen ;«<m opt Planner: Mike Mollica Applicant: Gordon Pierce for Glen Lyon Partnership Planner: Randy Stouder 4. A request fo:»2® coverage variance to allow for an expansion to an existing residence located at 1816 Sunburst Dr./Lot 1, Vail Valley Third Filing. 00 FAeveryone\pec\no1ices\072495 John Stanley Randy Stouder. F.\everyone\pedlnotiees \072495 U77, 11, MIA Site Visits 1:00 P.M. 1. 1273 Vail Valley Drive - Golf Course Maintenance Facility 2. 352 F. Meadow Drive ® Vail Athletic Glut Drivers: Russ and Mike Public Hg rin . 1. Discussion with nil. unguim 70 Mery Lapin Sybil Navas Jan Stranch The meeting was called to order by Bob Armour at 2:08pm, H� Peggy, Osterfoss said that at times communication could be improved, It is not clearly delineated how the PEC and Town Council function. She then asked To Moorhead, Mike Mollica and Susan Connelly for their thoughts on the subject. Mike Mollica said variances and Conditional Use Permits are what the Planning and Envirommental Commission can review and approve. If an applicant wishes to appeal the PEC's decision, they can go before the Council. Susan Connelly explained that Mike Mollica gave the practical and useable role of the PEC. Susan then read the broader use of the PEC for the Town and the Gore Valley from the Municipal Code® The PEC acts as an advisory board to the Town Council. Tom Moorhead said both the PEC and the Town Council act mi a legislative fanction and quas judicial function while applying the zoning guidelines. The courts give greater leeway in the legislative function. The quasi-judicial function is procedural and due process needs to be meti Bob Armour asked when could the PEC use their discretion. Planning and Environmental Commissi ®n MinLnes A111VP4 14q-; N TWO longer be appropriate after that development occurs. Bob Armour said it was important for dialog to exist between the PEC and the Council. He also stated that Council has a say because they were the elected body. Bob would like to know what warrants a Council call-up. U1711 r,71-0 Cvlcw IN III 117?717r L Council decision making is a more political element and has different things to take into consideration. Mef-T I-apEt sai e I Si e Of e1!Ip1oyCC_nUUYR:�g' WaS U­XMXL U—Mir -viewpoint. The Council's viewpoint was more political. Peggy Osterfoss asked Tom Moorhead under what scenario is the Council allowed to have a different interpretation. 0 Tom Moorhead stated that Council is limited to interpret in the quasi-judicial function. However, interpretation is allowed for legislative functions as long as health, safety and moral issues are met. U ,S= manou. Nalu L-te applICZ111L NUW#'IU_WOI1L VT-17M MG I UW11 %_,ULXIQI1 Ix S is not available for the employee housing issue. Henry Pratt said it is a tough issue because the Town is still developing and questioned, "are developers required to provide employee housing, now?" Mike Mollica said the Vail Village Master Plan goals provide for housing and that staff is very comfortable requiring employee housing Tom Moorhead said both the Land Use Plan and Vail Village Master Plan mention employee housing . He mentioned that there is some criteria to look at to determine the extent of housin,� Peg" Osterfoss asked staff to 12rovide more back=und information before Council 1,2roceeds worksession. Why go through the scenario over and over again. Planning and EnvironmeniaJ Commission Minuies. July 24, 999§ I Mcry asked how the PEC would handle the VA situation. Greg Amsden said the PEC should sit down with the Council® Dalton Williams said it worked well with the VA project to have input from the Council. I Tom Moorhead said each proposal has to stand on its own merits. The VA situation is akin to the Master Planning of the to Dalton Williams said it was bothersome when the Town Council calls ®u a PEC decision after having spent a hundred hours of review, especially when the Town Council only has a few hours to review it. The Council can undo what the PEC has spent lots of time to make happen® Dalton would rather see the process change, rather than undo the hours spent® Tom Moorhead said you run into a due process situation, since applicant has to be present. Ae reminded everyone that the Council uses the benefit of those 100 hours that PEC and Staff have invested before ultimate decisions are made. It is the job of Staff to make sure the Council has the benefit of those hours. Jeff Bowen suggested how Staff could help this process . If the Council is considering a call-u perhaps Staff could prepare a memo on PEC's decision and how they arrived at it. i Greg Amsden asked about employee housing on Town owned property. Are they required to fund Ask employee housing or can they find private funding for the required housing. 01 Peggy Osterfoss said we need clarification for lands zoned General Use. It is imperative that the Town comply with the same requirements of other developers. Peggy feels the Town should be a role model and provide more housing than required. But who will decide that question. Susan Connelly mentioned that this presents an opportunity for the Town to be pro active. It is important to note that Public Works is not being sent out on their own, Bob our questioned, "are we going to get three units out of the Public Works Phase 1, or it will be turned down?" Susan Connelly said Co m Dev is working with Public Works, but they need to know what the requirements are. t'eggy Osterfoss said now is the time to know what the process 11%��111111111 PRO III WORKARANSHWAS1211,21 MISZA= I a IRWIN I iiiii'l IRWIN III MOVIE !� I � M I An Knudtsen said opportunities are generated by the bid process. 0 Planning and Environmemal Commission Minutes July 24, 1995 i llill�m=lim 2® A request for a worksession for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the remodel of the Golf Course Maintenance Facility, located at 1278 Vail Valley Drive/Parcel E, Vail Village 7th Filing® Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Ernie Bender FNanner: Russell Forrest Bob A=our stepped down because he works at the facility® 1111 11 I Rudi Fisher stated the remodel was a much needed improverne ' nt. The existing gas pumps needed to be moved and double walled to be environmentally more secure. The expansion of the storage facility -was needed to keep equipment out of the snow to ensure a longer life with less dam-age and therefore premature replacement of equipment. He wants the remodel to be heavily landscaped. The proposal intends to keep the height no higher than the current building. Ernie Bender added that if shoveling is not done immediately after a snowstorm, the building in fl" present state will collapse, so there is an urgency for the remodel. I Chris Kempf, a property owner, mentioned the landscaping would be a dual effort Planning and Environmental Commission MinLnes July 24,1995 5 Kevin Deighan said he is embarrassed with the condition of the yard right now. It is in need of a heavy: clean up. He is amazed that there is objection to employee housing, but not the mess that currently exists. 1 11 1 � III! q1,111111 � I ��Il I IF Jeff Bowen said the condition of that place is terrible and would expect a Phase I environmental audit� be done on the soil before granting approval. The EPA will require this audit. He also expressed concern regarding the proximity of a fuel tank in a snow slide area. Rud-i R-sher said the tank needs to be close to the road for convenience and efficiency. Russ Forrest said the nice thing about an above ground tank is that leaks are visible. Jeff- Bowen said as far as he is concerned there will be employee housing there® Dalton Williams said he was more concerned about the 1000 gallon fuel tank, rather than the employee housing. He is concerned about the fuel tank, the condition of the yard and the stains in the dht- He said something has leaked there and wants to see a level 1 environmental audit done on the entire site before any approval process is considered. He will not consider voting on this unless the grounds are cleaned up. He also mentioned they would not get his vote unless employee housing is included in this proposal. Dalton asked where the 12' setback is and wants to see it highlighted on the plans. He also has a problem with the 33'height request. Greg sden asked if Chris Kempf and Craig Denton were aware of the 330 height and the setback- Craig Denton said the employee housing ,as a hidden agenda. Jeff said the agenda is employee housing® Henry would like a 20' height restriction. Given the location, Henry prefers to put the tank underground. Above ground the tank can be screened with landscaping, but the tradeoff"will be the neig- bors will smell spilled fuels should there be a leak. J, RIPENER Ili 1 IN I � I Greg M-offet said it sits in a bathtub type container, so any gas standing in tub would constitute a leak. Greg Moffet said the concrete tub is sealed and non porous. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 24, 9995 6 I E Dalton Williams is not convinced concrete will keep leaks out. If the area surrounding the container is landscaped who will inspect it for leaks. MMMMCMEIS� He wants employee housing but does not have a problem with it being off site. Parking spaces would bc needed if the employee housing is on site. Ross Davis, representing the Rec District, doesn't think the EPA should be called in. Dalton Williams explained a Phase I is not an exhaustive study done by the EPA. Russ Forrest, the Town's Environmental officer would identify any potential risks, not the EPA. Russ FbTrest suggested an environmental audit sbol Id be done for the applicant a at information shared with the Town Environ e. Ross Davis said the VRD is using their cash flow f( r this proposal. To avoid taxpayers at all costs is the motive. Employee housing can't be dOLe With this cash flow. M Irrols IgIgIIIII Planning and Environmenial Commission Greg offet wants a condition of a continual monitoring on the site. The containment needs to be monitored. Russ Forrest said bunkers would not adversely affect residents. If an avalanche comes through there, the structures would be reinforced. F7" -'9= Chris Kempf, speaking as a property owner having lived in that neighborhood for 15 years, said anytime you can use trees instead of a fence it will be preferred® Dalton Williams said he doesn't want the residents to even guess what will be located there. Because it is industrial, a higher standard is necessary. Henry Pratt asked said he wanted to know if the owners were aware of the I T height of the trash container. Chris Kempf saidArith tall trees and berming the height will not be an issue. Chris is working with them on the landscaping issue. Henzy Pratt felt that Ross and . . for a* issue. housing Employee needs to .. proposal Henry felt trees i any e opening on the street was too Tim Kshoe stated that the wide opening is a fire truck requirement and the access has to be wide en Dalton Williams suggested splitting the opening into two driveways. H • 3. A request for a worksession for a major SDD amendment, located at the Vail Athletic Club/352 East Meadow Drive and more specifically described as follows: Mike Mollica asked the PEC to look at the drawings with the proposed changes. Mike reviewed the zoning analysis with the PEA and discussed the staff's identified issues. Michael Barclay, representing the Vail Athletic Club, spoke about the architectural qualities of the building and stated that the three shed dormers were only one solution to resolve the snow problems on the roof. Mike Mollica said the shade and shadow,,A,as an issue. He explained that December 21 st was the worst scenario. Bob Armour said that the 1993 approval was for 1600 sq. ft. of additional floor area and now it's 1800 sq.ft. Bob Armour asked if everyone was comfortable with the addition of two accommodation units for this building. The project also includes additional square footage (from the parking garage) for a staff locker area. Bob Armour stated that they were not changing the building envelope, just adding square footage internally. Michael Barclay said they were better off leaving the roof on and using the extra space to house mechanical systems. Planning and Environmental Commission MinLn,--q Dal-ton Williams said modifying the dormers changes the roof height. Dalton said he likes this architecture better, however, he wants to feel secure that the height is not changed from the 1993 AIL approval- W Mike Mollica suggested lowering the dormer height to the approved 1993 approved plan. Z.5 - Mike Ma lice summarized that in 1993 there were 9 parking spaces required. This new proposal reduces that number to 2 spaces. Jeff Bowen has a problem with the lack of parking. He stated, "a hotel of this substance can't reduce the number of parking spaces." Mike Mollica said the zoning code is what sets the requirement for the number of parking spacm, and that the applicant was meeting, and exceeding, the required parking. I Jeff Bowen said with an SDD, 9 spaces should still be required. Mike Mollica said the parking requirement in the zoning code was tied to the uses. Greg Amsden agrees with Staff regarding the parking. Greg Moffet had no problem with the parking proposal. Kevin Deighan agreed with Staff. M 11 III NOR Will III III III Ill ilill' I Z R Kevin Dcighan was more comfortable with the 1993 architecture, but doesn't have a problem with the revised 1995 plan. Greg MGffet said the architectural decisions were more appropriate for DRB review. Planning and Environmernal Commission Minuies 71 Greg Amsden likes the new architectural design and said that DRB will fine tune it. V RISEN I I I III I pig 1 1,111 �111 Michael Barclay said the clerestory would not be covered with snow most of the time, as skylights would- Henry Fratt likes the dormers, but prefers the 1993 fenestration. The dormers are too close together and he feels will present a leaking problem. He thinks the shed dormers detract from the design. Dalton Williams said the clerestory on the roof adds architectural interest on the roof. The 1993 cutouts in the roof didn't work very well. Dalton reminded everyone that the Town rules for a SDD required PEC. to review the architectural details. LUU 1.7 V Z)IVII, 1acV 1CL I nice. He has a problem with the second story restaurant expansion in that it doesn't seem to fit the rest of the building. It seems too massive. Bob Annour asked if there was anything else to give direction to the applicant to look at. Michael Barclay had one comment about the restaur ant ,�vindows. Most of the facade is window or wood trim. This ors what is on the south side. They wanted to introduce more wood to break up the stucco. Planning and EnvironmeniaJ Commission MinLnes • El Planning and Environmenial Commission rnim P.m ITOMWI SUBJECT-. A request for a worksession for a conditional use permit to allow for a remodel to the Vail Golf Course Maintenance Facility located at 1278 Vail Valley ■rive/ Parcel E, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russ Forrest [!W zAEr * K the buildiry ,g (See Attachment C). Additionally, a new storage building is proposed to be constructed as an addition to the existing offices. Other proposed improvements include: AY, Removing the underground fuel storage tanks and replacing them with above graund "vaulted" tanks, which would be located in the northwest corner of the maintenance area. I BY Creating a heavy equipment/vehicle wash facility in the storage building. This facility would enable the VRD to clean equipment and recycle the water used for the cleaning. 0-4 Improving hazardous materials storage by locating them in the storage facility n an area with secondary containment. D) Parking heavy vehicles inside during the winter. The VRD currently parks vehicles outside, east of the existing building. The VRD, plans to begin work on this project this fall and complete all work prior to golf season ne,.xt summer. As this prioject is currently at a worksession level of review, staff has not provided a detailed analysis of the criteria with a formal recommendation. The conditional use criteria are listed below for the PEC's information: A. The relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. B. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities. C. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pe-destrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking area. it In addition, the General Use District requires a conditional use permit applicant to propose t1he following development standards which must be approved by the Planning and Envire)nmental Commission (See-Attachment D): A- Lot area and site dimensions EL Setbacks C,-- Building height D- Density control K qualified engineer and if the mitigation of the hazard does not adversely affect any other property. Fcw background information, two members of the Town Council stated, during the rezoning process, that they did not think that this was an appropriate sitejor em, ployee housing. Staff feels that the applicant should be given an opportunity to discuss how the site may or may not be appropriate for housing. F. Environmental Issuea Staff believes that the proposed work will improve environmental quality. Existin* buTied fuel tanks will be replaced with higher quality above ground tanks. In addition, hazardous materials will be stored in an area with secondary *xntainment. The vehicle/heavy equipment wash facility will prevent oil and sediment from being washed into the storm sewer and save water by recycling it. L, r-7� W A�� • m im 1.0, 0.81 is UNPLATTED 0- r-,-,nr-c,-r (ZC'P\/Ir'.F 5 r 9mu —J SHEDS 8257.5' ME ii B260.0 ROOF EL. 8272.' M, N W� 8254 6' ELEC.. FILL SPOUT "E EDGE OF PLOwEO METER DRIVEWAY A EDGE 8256.4• OF PLOWED ROAD TIE WALL ROOF PEAK GARAGE FLOOR OELM 6273,7® ELEV. 8256.5' BUILDING M AINTENANCE BUILDING GA MP 8257.7' 8257 E VENT FILL SPOUT W A�� • m im 1.0, 0.81 is UNPLATTED 0- r-,-,nr-c,-r (ZC'P\/Ir'.F 5 r 9mu —J SHEDS 8257.5' ME ii B260.0 ROOF EL. 8272.' M, - -- 826® atA T1JNE OF t.g. Ar 66 ��� _ r 0 0•" ' D N l � CK 72 qy 1024 C ®P_ i EDGE. 6F 7REEUNE i I j I e d Ai, ID� :® A Y .•fix e} ag - ° A 6 8 + .. E...•:° °,' P . °0Off '� b® ° °lR •rb : .. . ., ` r a •a x �t s. v ® d,o .......... r es .ao t- Dd -- S 4e ° 4A°' s0 9 • ���,� OAF ed.` P 1 b° gd At 4 rbd w !� ° .�1 lt`d•..r +. as mo a x v 33f4.. { m 40 5• °a . °W �1 '°` .4) ~ s. 6r+���JIB �•%" t -✓�'y w .. 8��1+_e� °" �4�� ` � - m . >b� °'-° ZOOM, f B° y� D �" o` � g t ✓ y r ®° 5 p "-•�• :x.-c'�.^,° -�"° °ecxr..?e.. - 1 P {A�� ;^�6` ONO I WY: PT ..-r; g.` fez' J e oh: .ae _ � 4. 3 .e o� 8 ® . Y F� � a.�• �� a �� 8 e D 1 S ' . V e o 6���" _ a ✓ E. :a v a a�� • ..d " i o•°° Hg r «r x "JAW ;•ws. a -tr w eP i ° e y✓ —MAN," °i." n "a v�' q• a e v - 4 � e va � -�... � a p "y f .. � _ �. AIM a '9': ,� - 4,. 8 r";, �.�'..{a R' .� t ®> �.+a a. .� %'" 1 tes' w�ksm .. o ';° i' 't � e. + '�'°. %°P .d:.8 S `,m. .gh rs y ,;,p.,.: y -r ® --' �.`i:. A; ATv - ..,"" + r < e • ®' i C ®aw€ i q', s ® 3. a.°'• a .a -°� r sa , ' x. r [ P. a. r . t. ,.s qwo 1P .s °(. >" t Y7 i . .r' ..a e.• f ®. v•b 4 t a ' a°° � �"� . 4 q . \ � A y & .A �° t ° L .F •�,, g f., .. {�i: r.� .' t P VAXa i4 � � a4. m � $ is a " � • � - ... � ° r0.' ° - � 1p ATTACHMENT D FISHE-RARCHITECTS Golf 'Maintenance Bu Vail Golf s Vail, Colorado ® the Development Per section .36.05 o e To o a` 0 � Standards for the above referenced project shall be as follows. A. Lot Area and Site Dimensions The lot dimensions are 165.25 feet in the North-South direction. by 589.25 feet in the East-West direction, (approximately 2.2 acres). B. Setbacks The building setbacks shall be 12. 0 frone any property lire, for the given lot. C. Building eight �e approved building height for e given lot shall be 33.0 FT° D. Density Control The building density for the givens lot shall be liz gted to two bull in "as. E. Site Coverage The developed area of the site shall e liz °te to 75% of e site. F. Landscaping aid Site Development See the, attached Site Plan and the Landscape Plan. 11-7 �l I A request for a worksession to discuss a major Special Development District (SDD) amendment, located at the Vail Athletic Club, 352 East Meadow Drive, arr#.',, more specifically described as follows: At this time, the applicant is ti r amendment to the 1993 approved , f or the redevelopment f the it Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive. The proposed amendments to the 1993 approved SDD include the following: The creation of two additional accommodation units - for a total of 54 All's for the SDD. ® The expansion oft the spa lounge to the south, over an existing skylight, (approximately 190 square feet of floor area). This area does not count as additional site coverage, due to the fact that there is existing floor area beneath this space. This is the only proposed change to the general 66footprint" of the structure. The reconfiguration and simplification of the north facing, upper -level dormers. Three shed dormers are now proposed in this area. The 1993 approval included nine "articulated" dormers. The south facing dormers have been slightly modified. Additionally, the south facing inverted dormers ( "cutouts "), originally approved in the center- most area of the roof have been eliminated. Although the overall mass and bulk of the proposed structure has not changed to any significant degree, an internal reconfiguration of the spaces has occurred. The details of this reconfiguration are included as Exhibit A, which is attached to this memorandum. In summary, the applicant is proposing an additional 1,536 square feet of floor area, to be located within the general envelope of the 1993 approved plans. The above - described reconfiguration of the interiors aces has resulted in a decrease in the required number of parking spaces. The 1993 approval required nine additional parking spaces. This 1995 SDD amendment request involves the addition of only two additional parking spaces. These two spaces can be provided on -site, within the existing parking structure. All of the proposed improvements (including streetscape, landscape, etc.) associated with the 1993 SDD approval remain intact. A detailed listing of these improvements is attached to this memorandum, as Exhibit C. OPOSAL The above-described modifications are considered to be a major amendment to the previously approved SDD. As stated in the Zoning Code, a major amendment is defined as follows: "Major amendment means any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units„ modify, enlarge or expand any approved Special Development District (other than Minor amendments as defined in subsection 18.40.020B)." Due to the fact that the applicant's proposed modifications to the SDD involve changes to gross residential floor area, as well as density (number of accommodation units), the proposal is required o follow the major SDD amendment procedure. 2 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1 The quality of the environment including air, water and ether natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. j-.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 332 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers® Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 4.2 density in the care areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through implementation entation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 555 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Overall, the staff believes that the proposed SDD major amendment application meets the goals and policies of the Land Use Plan as described above. V. VAIL VILLAGE MASTERPLAN The staff believes that the 1993 approval for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club carried out many of the goals and objectives contained in the Vail Village Master Plan. Additionally, the staff believes that the current SDD major amendment pro osal also carries out the Master Plan's goals and objectives, as follows: 1 -Encourage hi h quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. iective 1. 0 Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities, 4 I® E The staff has identified the following issues and concerns which we would like to discuss with both the PEC and the licant® 1® i trill f The staff believes that the most significant proposed modification tote approved SDD involves architectural changes to the upper level of the building's north elevation, Specifically, the proposal calls for three shed dormers to be added to the structure. The length of the dormers would be as follows: ® Western dormer ® 59 feet Center dormer = 73 feet Eastern dormer = 49 feet The 1993 approved SDD included a total of nine "articulated` dormers on this same area of the structure. Staff believes that the 1993 architectural approach was very successful in that it not only brake up the large expanses of roof area, but it also allowed for a very attractive interior room layout. Additionally, the design kept the shade and shadow on East Meadow Drive to minimum and also improved the overall alpine character and general quality of the building. The staff continues to recognize that the project architect is very sensitive to the shade and shadow patterns cast from the building onto East Meadow Drive. In addition to the fact that the proposed shed dormers would cast slightly more shade and shadow on East Meadow Drive then the 1993 design, the staff believes that the original design solution for the dormers is more in keeping with the general alpine style of the building, and of pail pillage. It should be noted that the pedestrian walkways immediately adjacent to the building are proposed to include an integral snowmelt system. Staff would recommend, as an option, that perhaps the more traditional gable-type dormer be considered on the north elevation; such as is proposed for the south elevation of the building. . In neral, the staff would recommend that the project architect explore other types of dormer configurations with which to break up the large expanse of roof area on the north elevation. The staff has calculated the shade /shadow impacts (on a square footage basis) on the north side of the building, along East Meadow Drive. We have utilized the "worst case" scenario (December 1 st) 1993 proved Flan 1995 Amendment West Area: 1,251 s. ft. 1,305 s. ft. Center Area: 159 sq. ft. 229 s. ft. Est Area. sq. ft. 293 W. ft- Totals: 1,656 sq. ft. 1,627 s. ft. III illillor I 111111 11 1111111�1 I'llill I 111 1111, I'll 111111111plill lilligill I I 1�1111111111 EXHIBIT A PARKING PROPOSED APPROVED SPACES FL QQR AREA ELQQRAREA DIFFERENCE REQUIRED EHU ( A): 1,3333 Sq° Ft. 1,383 Sq. Ft.* - 49.7 Sq. Ft. 4.0 .ALT (GRFA)e 25,037.5 Sq. Ft° 24,687 Sq. Ft°* + 350.5 Sq. Ft. 46.325 DU ((3 A)o 6,427 °0 Sq. Ft, 6,252 Sq° Ft°* + 175,0 Sq. Ft. 6.5 (Includes lock -offs ) Common: 16,1153 Sq. Ft. 14,265 S ° Ft.* +1,$50.3 Sq. Ft. -0- Club: 21,554.7 Sq° Ft. 20,881 Sq. Ft. + 673.7 Sq° Ft° -0- Garage: 4,804 °7 Sq. Ft° 5,512 Sq. Ft. 707.3 Sq. Ft. Restaurant (Gross): 3,477.5 Sq. Ft. 3,285 Sq, Ft. + 192.8 Sq. Ft, 15.316 (net public areas) ee ° g/Conf 1°777.5 S ° Ft. 20727 So. Ft.* - 949.5 ° Ft. 4 50,5281 Sq.. Ft. 78,992 Sq. Ft. +1,536 °1 Sq. Ft. 79.547 -7844 (eistir� athered) 1°107 ®2 Pro o_�ed A rov * DU's — 3 (2 have lock -offs) 3 (2 with lock -offs) AU's 54 52 E II's 4 4 ('Type *Per Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993 eg_1 ON Highlights of the1993 SDD approva� or 1 Decrease the amount of GRFA allocated towards dwelling units and increase the amount of GRFA for accommodation units. 2. Decrease the number of dwelling units and increase the number of accommodation units. 3. Encroach further into the front setback with entry and second-story accommodation unit as well as an addition to the restaurant to the east of the entry. 4. Increase common area while decreasing the area allocated towards accessory uses and athletic club use. 5. Add dormers to the building on the north and south side which do not exceed the existing ridge height of the building. Insert decks into the roof structure on the south elevation. 6. Increase the amount of site coverage as a result of the new entry and restaurant addition (554 square feet). 7. Add terrace and expand dining deck on south elevation. 8. Removal of deck on the south elevation which currently encroaches onto public land. 9. The applicant is proposing to meet the incremental increase in parking requirements. There is an existing deficit of 58.44 spaces on the site. The new parking is located in the following manner: *2 spaces built underground below the entry e2 spaces added by relocating an existing ski storage area 92 spaces added by relocating the laundry room 91 space added along the south side of the parking structure spaces in central area of parkin structure 9 total 10. Change exterior materials of building. This includes stucco, wood trim, deck railings and a wood shake roof. 11. Add streetscape improvements. These include: a 6 foot heated concrete paver walk along West Meadow Drive, an 8 foot heated concrete paver walk along Vail Valley Drive extending over the Gore Creek bridge and street lamps. The pavers on the bridge will not be heated. 12. Relocation of existing trash area and removal of the existing trash facility which is encroaching onto adjacent properties. 13. The applicant proposes to provide one two-bedroom employee housing unit within the Town of Vail which will be restricted according to the Town of Vail employee housing requirements. 14. Additional landscaping on the north and south sides of the building. VAIL ATHLETIC EXHIBIT C - 4 PACES September fr 199 June 22, 1 99S revisions .f " SDQ The Vail Athletic Club (VAQ agrees as part of tatio of our SDD proposal to make the following improvements: The VAC will extend the curb sidewalk 61-0" t Meadow Drive and '- " along Vail Valley Drive to create a continuous., heated, rectangular concrete aver sidewalk err from s of the service/parking drive on Meadow rive to the Gore Creek one o-1 Valley Drive. This will be coordinated with tows engineer, We will revise the curb line at intersection of East Meadow Drive and Vail Valley Drive in accordance with "entry feature" o is put forward in the Vail Village Master Plan and as shown on the site plan, At the "entry feature" partially along Vail Valley Drive, we will lr ate the existing retaining wall to bring the landscape down tote level of the si We will reface t °stin landscape to ing walls along the garage and Vail Valley Drive with stone. We will Incorporate s � to !� vehicles that at C Meadow Drive is a "pedestrian area" open only to vehicles on "official usi ss" with the VAS and the Mountain o se We will work with the Design Review Board and AIPP to supplement the existing streetlamps along the VAC side of Vail Valleys and East Meadow Drives. We will create a. new car pull-off guest drop-off area directly in front of the new hotel/hea-lth club entry. This i area will be paved with granite pavers and heated. We will need consent from the town's authorities that S ort-te rm parking in the opposite direction will be permitted here. The creation of the new of l/ t club entry and car pull -off along st Meadow Drive should result i i disruption to the CNISting vegetation in landscaped area above the is rr g garage. All necessary steps will be taken throughout e course of construction to protect the isti ng vegetation. New drainage grates will be introduced to handle ltin runoff at East Meadow Drive. This will be coordinated with the town engineer. We will replace the transfor . r grate with a. new steel grate. ^ ` ` ` - We will work with the town to formalize an informal maintenance agreement regarding the town's property between the VAC and the pedestrian path along Gore We wilt remove the e)dsting wood sundeck that is partially ou town prop III as well as the existing wood utility shed by the hot tubs and the existing wood trash shed at the service,/garage drive. We will create a Landscaped path from the end of the existing seMce drive/firl lane through to the town property on the south side of the VAC. We will construct a new stone terrace at the existing upper health club/swimming pool level along the south side of the building as shown on the site plan. t gar � 1 The Improvements to the eat th club will of be extensive, t will focus on Increasing the spa and cardiovasculm- of the club and adding new doors and windows along the south wall of the upper level In order to try uc more natural li t into the club. Most areas of the lu staff as they are. We will be adding new floor at the r health club level above the sting racquetball court, We will be r tiro new staff locker/l locker/lounge area at the - _ r health club level. Our SDD proposal will create the for an additional 4 cars to site. AU of these additional sib t r r is - t will be creating new u l l hotel lobby which will connect to the hotel/health club entry. There will be a new open stair to a balcony abov the lobby at the o r. We will be renovating d revising the existing conference rooni on the first floor -and adding a new boardroom at the o r. We will be relocating two empl r units from the fourth floor to the t floor. The other two 1 its will be relocated to the thlird floor. These units will be i. on-site, as per a previous agreement, for the life of the structure. We will be eliminating "s i 's and adding 26 new AU's to create a new room nOx of 3 DUs 's. Tice average size of our new hotel r will be increase b 3 u r feet to 456 square feet from 424 square feet. All of the sti ng hotel rooms will be totally t All of the bathrooms will be renovated r. We will be adding Sap 720 f of new AU's (ex - 20, 92 7 sf vs. proposed 24,64 7 s )- to F1tAp ®� ®Kav¢ a =ter, reran �.,Y®td bB. w_.. � 9e0e ®s ag�Hm�• tries �n�® MPrd64� p° ®sbp• ® 0¢LWA� o I IVAIL ATHLETIC CLUB Elevations 4— M-d— DO., VA Ck�ft u .O Sdr. a 0..t S.O.: M Im $ hk Su ..k M— ON a frl�l NAIL ATHLETIC CLUB South Elevat ' dame Sam , Y� 8d3 Ewe Biiic Sm�ae, a9 � • ffa1 �8a1 �88t. ioe: .. 4�8� Qoaa� 4 VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB Sections G. �� 06--� VA 098��• ° �&ai� ® 8d 4saVSai d �e.8 ®� ®06 dPa 9aP &�9+ ✓�4 a �e�b t 0 t� Too a Po�� wgea,o s i VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB Leer tie, ° ee;eAe� Wme@o9. 4a¢4mve¢@ d ®S Hcee 848Po %saws¢. ate, t9 88� S¢ ®6®: H ®8 °. i ®ots. S. r , ®� ®s W° `VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB Second F Im I%W— VA co—ft M�N" s.ttlj. &cm — k.a.1 III I.t 11. %.—, Uk M low$ 0— M W0112, 511 :M GF. "49 011. 4 m VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB Fourth Floor ® I.% VA ti 6. t .aev d9$ $16�� 0.1Y. &®; d @$ ®da de88 ®eta: e a • FROM: Community Development Department DATE* July 24, 1995 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to the Cascade Village Special Development District (SDD) to allow for the expansion of the Glen Lyon Office Building located at 1000 South Frontage Road West/Area D, Cascade Village SDD #4. Applicants- Gordon Pierce, representing Glen Lyon Partnership Planner: any Stouder 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKQRQM e B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Staff agrees that the expansion of off ice space on this site is very desirable. Th• community's desire is to preserve office space in Town (to prevent the move of office uses to down valley areas). C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapi 18.52. The proposed parking lot design would have significant impacts to existing vegetation. The road section necessary to support the proposed addition would appear to eliminate the possibility of providing any meaningful landscape buffer *,etween «±,»y%#4:»«« the Frontage Road. If this is truly . % « :>»: then an approval of the proposed expansion would result in a project that looks very much like commercial strip development. Staff feels that a significant and meaningful landscape buffer must be provided between the parking lot area and the Frontage Road, even if this means that the proposed office expansion must be scaled back in order to reduce the road section and therefore free-up land areas that could be landscaped. Staff feels that the applicant has not adequately resolved the road sec - tion issue and has not directly communicated with the Town Engineer and CDOT to see if a compromise can be reached so that the project can go forward. The applicant proposes to encroach into the 50-foot stream setback by 2 feet in the vicinity of parking spaces 42 through 46. The applicant also proposes to place a 5-foot tall retaining wall along the edge of the parking lot, from parking space 45 to parking space 62. Although the applicant has designed the retaining wall to minimize impacts to the steep bank adjacent to Gore Creek, the retaining wall Am, (along with its construction) will have significant impacts on the steep slopes IqW adjacent to the stream. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designec", to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. 1 1113� �- H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize "o and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. UP 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. No phasing plan is proposed as a part of this development. kf