Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-1014 PEC THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY ~ PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the P(anning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail wili hoid a pubiic hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipai Code af the Town of Vail on October 14,1996, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. in consideration ot: A request for an exterior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and adding a 3rd floor, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 802B Potato Patch/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch App(icants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toome Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for an interior remodel to add a bedroom and a bathroom of approximately 250 square feet, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1776 Sunburst Drive #9Nait Golf Course Townhomes Applicant: Anne & Peter Mounsey and Joan & Marcella Fox Planner: Lauren Waterton A request for a major subdivision of Lot P-2, located at Lot P-2, Vail Village 1 st Filing Applicant: P-2 Association, represented by Art Abplanalp Planner: George Ruther A request for a major SDD amendment to allow for a modification to building 5 of SDD #5, located at 1230 Lionsridge Loop/Savoy Villas, Phase II and III ~ Applicant: Woodstone Homes Planner: Dominic Mauriello ! A request for fivo 250's in order to contruct a Type II EHU, located at 1225 Westhaven Lane/Lot 43, Glen Lyon Subdivision , I Applicant: Sentry Construction, represented by Pam Hopkins I Pianner: George Ruther The applications and information about the proposa(s are available in the project planner's office during regular office hours for pub(ic inspection, focated at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language irtterpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published September 27, 1996 in the Vail Trail. ~ Agencia last revised 10/9/96 8am 40 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, October 14, 1996 AGENDA Project Orientation / Lunch - Communitv Development Department 12:30 pm QUORUM - (October 28, 1996) Site Visits 1:15 pm 1. Lot P-2 2. Savoy Viltas Driver: Dirk Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for two 250's, in order to contruct a Type II EHU,. located at 1225 Westhaven Lane/Lot 43, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Sentry Construction, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther/Mike Mollica ~ 2. A request for a major subdivision of Lot P-2, Block 3, Vail Village First Filing, and a vacated portion of Hanson Ranch Road. The site is generally located east of Vail Va11ey Drive between Hanson Ranch Road and Gore Creek Drive. A complete legal description is available in the Community Development Department. Applicant: P-2 Association, represented by Art Abplanalp Planner: George Ruther/Dirk Mason 3. A request for a major SDD amendment to allow for a modification to Savoy Villas, of SDD #5, located at 1230 Lionsridge Loop/Savoy Villas, Phase II and III. The site is generally iocated east of Timber Ridge Apartments, west of Simba Run, north of the North Frontage Road and south of Lionsridge Loop. A full legal description is available in the Community Development Department. Applicant: BWAB, Inc., represented by Chris Klein Planner: Dominic Mauriello/Mike Mollica 4. A request for an interior remodel to add a bedroom and a bathroom of approximately 250 square feet, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1776 Sunburst Drive #9Nail Golf Course Townhomes. Applicant: Anne & Peter Mounsey and Joan & Marcella Fox Planner: Lauren Waterton 0 STAFF APPROVED Agenda last revised ] 0/9/96 8am 5. A request for an exterior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and adding a 3rd floor, ~ utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 8026 Potato Patch/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. Applicants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toome Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 28, 1996 6. Information Update: • Ford Park Management Plan update - Larry Grafel • Geologic Hazard Report update - Dirk Mason 7. Approval of September 9, 1996 and September 23, 1999 minutes The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department ~ Published October 11, 1996 in the Vail Trail. • MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: October 14, 1996 . SUBJECT: A request for two, 250's in order to construct a Type II EHU, located at 1225 Westhaven Lane/Lot 43, Glen Lyon Subdivision Applicant: Sentry Construction, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther I S 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUE T In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created Chapter (18.71) of the Vail Municipal Code, entitled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area." 'Fhis Chapter allows for up to 250 square feet of additional Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to be added to a dwelling (beyond the maximum allowance), provided certain criteria are met. The purpose of the Additional GRFA Ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwellings units and also for the provision of employee housing units. In August 1995, the Town Council approved Ordinance 6, Series of 1995 which amended Chapter 18.71, for the purpose of eliminating the ability to use the additional GRFA when a • dwelling unit is "demo/rebuilt." This Ordinance also requires that all requests for additional GRFA, that involve exterior changes to a building, be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. According to Section 18.57.050 (13)(5) (Type II Employee Housing Unit, General Conditions), " An applicant shall be permitted to apply to the Community Development Department of the Town for additional GRFA, not to exceed five hundred (500) square feet to be used in the construction of the EHU." With this proposal, the applicant is requesting to use all 500 sq. ft. of the two 250 allowances, in the construction of a Type II Employee Housing Unit at 1225 Westhaven Lane/Lot 43, Glen Lyon Subdivision. In this proposal, the applicant wishes to construct a 526 sq. ft., Type II Employee Housing Unit, between the proposed primary and secondary dwelling units. The applicant, on September 23, 1996, received a conditional use permit approval from the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission, allowing for the construction of a Type II Employee Housing Unit. The applicant will be deed restricting the 300 sq. ft., enclosed, one-car parking space, for the use of the occupants of the Type II Employee Housing Unit. The applicanYs proposed floor plans and building elevations, illustrating the Type II Employee Housing Unit, have been attached for reference. • f:\everyonelpeclmemos\young.o14 1 II. ZONING ANALYSIS Legal Address: Lot 43, Glen Lyon Subdivision Lot Size: 24,855 sq. ft. / 0.5706 acres • Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential per Special Development District No. 4 Use: Primary/Secondary dwelling units with a Type II Empbyee Housing Unit Allowed ProQ,osed GRFA: 6,085 sq. ft." 6,025 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 6,214 sq. ft. 4,831 sq. ft. Setbadcs: front: 20' sides: 15', 15' 1 g', 47' rear: 15' 31' Landscaping: 14,913 sq. ft. 17,928 sq. ft. uired Prooosed Parking: 7 spaces (one enclosed) 7 spaces (5 enclosed) ' includes two 250's III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Chapter 18.71( Additional GRFA) and Chapter 18.57 (Employee Housing), the Community Development Department recommends approval of this request for 500 additional • square feet of GRFA to be utilized in the construction of the Type II Employee Housing Unit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1, Fffant unnn tha oYiSti1lg tQpQgrap],y. Vaet t10n. drainaye and existina structures. In the staff's opinion, the 500 additional sq. ft. of GRFA being incorporated into the Type II Employee Housing Unit, will have no negative effects upon the existing topography, vegetation, drainage or other existing structures in the area. Changes to the existing topography, proposed by the applicant, wifl result in regrading that complies with the Town's 2:1 maximum slope. Currently, grades existing on the site are in excess of the 2:1 slope standard. With regard to vegetation, the applicant is proposing to save all the existing large trees on the site. Of greatest concern, is the existing vegetation along the south bank of Gore Creek and the one, large 3' diameter spruce tree. The applicant has agreed to take tree preservation measures during the construction process and will install -a construction fence around the trees that are to be saved. This will occur prior to the • Town's issuance of a building permit. f:\everyone\pec\memos\young.ol4 2 I it is sta#'s opinion that the proposed new primary/secondary residence ~ with a Type II Employee Housing Unit, including the 500 sq. ft. of • additional GRFA, will conform architecturally with the other existing structures in the Westhaven Lane neighborhood. 2. Impact o_nadlacenL12roR4rties• In the staff's opinion, the proposed new primary/secondary residence with the Type II Employee Housing Unit and the 500 sq. ft. of additional GRFA will not have any negative impacts on adjacent properties. The applicant is proposing adequate parking, per the Municipal Code, to accommodate vehicles parking on the site. The 500 sq. ft. of additional GRFA proposed by the applicant will result in a minimal increase in bulk and mass of the structure. Staff believes however, that this minimal increase in bulk and mass will not be readily noticeable from adjacent properties. Staff would further point out that the primary/secondary residence currently constructed on Lot 41, to the east of the applicanYs lot, already has a Type II Employee Housing Unit built in the structure. According to the applicant, that unit has been occupied by an employee of Eagle County for the last three years and has had positive impacts on the community. 3. Compliance with the Town's zoning rgquirements and applicable development standards. Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vai! Municipa! Code, requires that: " Any dwelling unit that proposes to use additional GRFA shall . comply with the standards outlined in the Town of Vail Design Guidelines (18.54). These standards include landscaping, undergrounding oi utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance and upkeep of the property." Upon review of the proposed plans by staff, the new landscaping plan for the property wiA be in compliance with the landscape standards: the utility line servicing the structure will be underground; the new driveway will be paved; and it is expected that the general maintenance and upkeep of the property will meet Town of Vail standards. B. Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make ihe following findings before granting approval for Additional GRFA: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additiona! GRFA would comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. • fAeveryonelpec\memos\young.o1 4 3 . , IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's request • to utiiize 500 square feet of additional GRFA, in accordance with Chapters 18.57 and 18.71, to atlow for the construction of a new Type II Employee Housing Unit at 1225 Westhaven Lane/Lot 43, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Staff believes that the review criteria have been met as discussed in the memorandum. Regarding the Findings, staff believes that: Finding B1 is met, as the incorporation of the 500 sq. ft. of additional GRFA wiil have minimal, if any, negative impacts on I. the existing site; Finding B2 is met, as the 500 sq. ft. of additional GRFA wili not negatively impact the adjacent properties; and Finding 63 is met, as the proposed 500 sq. ft. of addifionat GRFA and the Type II Employee Housing Unit wili result in the complete compliance of the site with the Town Zoning requiremenis and appticabfe development standards. Staff would recommend that should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the requested 500 additional sq. ft. of GRFA, that the Planning and Environmental Commission make findings, similar to those outlined by staff above. I • • 4 . . t~: •W~ipE: . ~ ~1~e w , fyIT a~I:~.^' . ` ~ ' ' / ~ ' , • U' ~ i , yr"'.l`(u~~C~ / !r' ~'~1/ , ' . ' ~ ~ i~. ''t•'ri: ~ : ~rC1.'~`('~:f~'•. r„ :ji. N . t~. K : w .r% ~ ~ ' ~v, I ~ ~nlJfl ( Y • ~ \ ~•~/~"11{((( '1`.. • I t„`, ~1: ~',l •~•~r ~I. ; : r''! w/~ 1~~;1 . ] y ~{1Mfi • ,S. L07 43 • : `r' h ~ c~•. ~ : .~C ~ r•~~ ry~ h M~~•. ~ . " 51TE i: - , `~1 ~ ' ~ ~/r•~ s:,'.~- ~:<r: i . , 1 J'~ ' ¦ ~71 ~ . 1 ~ ~ . • L~ i ~ i~ ' ~ ,F• -I t , S. „ rY;~ ' ' ~ ' • ' t~t ,a . ¦r.<:~.'~' ,;l•, •v~....a ~ ~j~ ' ' " . _ r a nE: . i ~ . . ~~r' I~JA~ i•,~•.,,^ I J~ ;f. .ti ~ , f(•ct i . ' S~. r . ' / `r.~"~ , ~~£S , • ~~~~~.s ~ )c,.~i',na-r, ~ ~ ~t~~ • r~~c~ox~u • . ' . s r! ( ' ~~711A. ~ I ~ N~k~uOi~^Swte I ~N 1 • fAuM.tamarUnilt ~ Q+ ~*1 l l,•It~ .4i~P. ~ ~~,?`f~ . .;i , l.l~ . *1 • ~;'~y~: ~ , ~iP _F~ ~ r , t2 / L li ri r~•. ~l ~ r,••~ Ts fa. ~V j • pa~~' .yw~-Grc~' .,'~~`r i~ • • t~• •"•iMaR I~ f~ f y ~ ~.o~e.: R i~ (^C: ~~,,f` - ~~?•.''•a.5~~~ , ` " ,woi~r/~ ' r' `t~•i'l •::~•C~ ? V' ~ ~ .1 •St ~ ~ . . ~:~r~. ,~1 ~ ~~f~' • + ~ Le ~ ^ . . /~i;'+ `s In~i? I ;Y"~ I~i ~ r~'~{i : ' ~a.~ ~ ~ ~ :~...>.~?~'~•.,.~t': r,.' tnf .r y ~ ~ ~ • (1~ • ~F ~~.'•'nS~ ; rnrAe - 1n,17 •:,i.`~~}' ~1 ~ ' *t/.*~ ~yi~l'~,,.~ ~~PfY! ti.~A ~ /;y..u,rJ Cj ~~••,~~~/~I ~.~c 44r ~ , l : Lr~~~f-,?•,7. ,r `.o. "',c~~„a~ •;'y~.~;.• rpe r ~l ;`~~F' .,,,,~C ~ ~ ~ _ w. ;~I%r. rn ~+`~'~e • ^~f,~cM :~~f 3 tm5' T~ - la~. t i1 1 , lnl,t ,~~1-~f3. t~ • ~ r'\ '~NatwalOV`~51 ~ce : :tt~t~( t • ..j. , . ~ wa~c • ln~ so. . ~ tni ts i s . ~~~=tR~''~ j.~~~~f ~ i.~~•~;7~ rR~ Ca~!.f ar~o+~t .°r-.~ J Y~.~' ruuee.• InIJ~A ' •~~~Al' ~ . ~~'~~{j\ k.~ h~:SlM~.'t.(, ~.i~`.,;~~ ~i A; 1 ! ..L • i ]0 1~ . Fanl.w * _ . l0, ~ / . ~~lne1~,• ~~~j~r'inu~, e i ~l 4' 7: •.rq.C .t~~i ~ ~~1 `Uwewof 62 L~n0an.µmKnt ! ~Nn~C ~t• . i ~ u 1 j :'^:..;T~i~t9 i •%f'!i ~ ~ •~'•.Y,itta \ c. C, ~ : . . : ; . a¦t..unuu¦r ; . ~ _ r~: ~::..,~t. , r _,fF•... . . t~ac~A :'v ' : Gre~w+tnni++dN~A~~.~~s, ~ b:a n., "Yri:• ~ { ~ . Cnr~yfn~y~M~cYr Lol4///bW •«wic. ~.-r-"'::~ mt6•~j4~~ f•f/'~ •~d F+UeN.wAt[nf ~ s~\ ' / VP lo/~ • / i t~~ t:: ~ ~•yr~e ; .•i.= ' /hf. ~ j a I ~F.'~ L.i ql~i ~ I . ~''r' % ~ I ~ iI~ (1: 4 C~ 4~' , ~~i•~'i+ ~M~:• 7~: ' , . •o~ / N'8sri~nvE f"f" %1 " ~ n i~.~~t~ O ~7,!~~i.•~'?~'~ .i~~? ' ~ RL'~J'. ~ ~'a''' ~l -_.-RCLE ~ • «y: nC 4 • ~ . ~ n;??r~, ~~tr,'~/~? 4' : ti' , o~a~,~:•~ C: % I\~ ~ oi 7~ • y+J~1.wtw~e. -rC3~ C: loi ^6 h~/ k .1•~ ~1 1 Jt~. i ~ ' ~ia n. '~,ot ~ n J''~, I'~ ~f'f ?'~,r~.,~ ~ ~ i : .5111"~ ~;~1 tor 171 Lj~ ~ ~ '~-y ~jr +A •r : ^ _ • ~ 1 •..~y ~ ~ l~Tl~` ir ' . 7' j~ ! . ' i. i>./~7~~` '~,~yj~./ r R 1~ , ' + . R • 1W70 ~~;34MEE • 'Oy~1,'-•~•V' ~.r ,fj'"~M :.,M~~ -G• n _ / •:..e 7 •~s.~er . ? ?»\qL~ . ;lal V / ^ =U, /~..f•'~+.4 ; f~'w ` _ / . ~ 6 t' _ , ~ ~ vi:`i ~y~ 1r 3 ~ I~4~ ~.ti~'; , i.'r_ ~~1."'_~ " :i'r .Y ~ ~l~/; +.a('•' r ~ ~ ~ ~~''.'~..'N^~- / sy~ ~~1'"C~ir't ~..R SGAt[•st. lM n, ` w~ lm f~ I( T~': r r• ~%c.f~ C •I f,~~!'' •a . ~ 1.ue ...w.y J~..~ ~ • l?e 15 •f~nK' , 4{,.~.G~1"'~id~~ i'~ i~ t: r. . Y~.N~C R ' • ~ a»~~ ti m `I'~ ~f/v/ ~~j~Jf1V:~,P,r.~ ~.f. , . . ¦ v thr q ~ v~ •~y i.f~"/c•~ • F-~1'~ •~j ~ r ~ ~'r oy ^ ' ` ~ ,'?f,• ~ ~ /I' ~,~j ~I~~.,.~rt^ i ' ~~S! • r~. . ~ , ` ry ~,~l..• / ~P7• . 7 Ati J,•' ~ 3~~' ~i c k * 9.7 ~ iwwl)~} _~~J ~-~~~~y~ i:~~~~. • ~ , t\~''~~~~'~ (~':i5 ry' ~,•^•r • . I,t4A r2~ tf': ~ t' ! J ,~','.'LA ~~.i ~ . !t~'~t '~'1 i'¦ • ~`~-,rr . .r~ e n•, n! t t . ~7~ S V t ~ ' Cj'~t~~'G.'~~'~~~- ,~~ti~ . ~.~L ~h r1~' ~*Y ; ~ ; . Cf r. l;l • .i~. t ~ .~.r, j ~~'i'S`~?y~~.~ ~ -(r~`?'. • / . . ~ x~ . ,1~ ~tt'!~ ' ~ .~j.. ~,~,i9.Pr . • ~,V` y, , , Y' ~ ~ . • rl ~ f~ . ' R • • . Q,`.~!~'~' '~~~~~C~`~r~ t`~~ h~~.~ : ~ 'h C ~ ¢~i. ~J~ ;R: • A ~ ¦~l~~ k+~~~~ ~ ~ 11 Ytex ~f~~ M~~~~~ ~ti~ ~iiiw~~~r¦ ~ . ~~ti~ t sf 'r+ .~fG e:! 5~ ~t ~ '•f;' i~,~, , ~ 0.5~~r,p~Q'~... km h, r+ (,'x~fi . ~ f:~ ~ ~ E. C 4'• • ~ ~ r a1 ? u tJr ~pI : a~i ~ G• r., . ' in fl • ~ . • • TEMMf"YQOi10NCOMROL ~ w~Y~Y~+~I~wnr~~la~~tir.M~~~FPrlRpuwlwrM~.~rs~.M Q sr .~,prp..rhrwr ~.~w+~r+r ~ ~w~rMY~~rre~lr11~+#M~rn~~wiwwrvrAeYl~/~Y~ ¦EYBCBiATtON Y6I7/OU& ~ we±nrz~`~+. ~ rd.~rurrL ~ . TT~Y ~dli w~INrqw~~~+M+ \ i lwa~.O~~wIT~wMS4'r!r ~ ! TT~~YYrs~Y^r~~/Y+. l lr`r.~a ~nArvlrtid.~s.rsP~+r'~^ \ HdseNCRe4 ~ a~ ~WW~ ]R„4 \ ~ \ \ Yr0~1~~ WI~w1 M \ \ . t~ Ii o r C. C r I e C k I rv~r•u.r, a we...r...r..~.rrr.......~..~o-.~vuw..r.~,. - . .r...~...~.~......r....~rr..r.....~...~.....+.o~...~.w.. \ ~ \ , ` ' cKouNOCnvEt& va.ro /~T ' m-L Lot 44 i " yilt Fence ~ -r~~-='- - - - - . ~ ~ -27 Sewer i _ ~ . • / y-Chaidift Easemmt~ . ' . ' . Limrt ot Discurbany~. nWr. im e~ m.w rnn~f~ l - I „ n dmx4,n O , x, : - - i - w • / ~ \ii , I ~ ~I 'i, QCi c Pro osyedT_Residence i..a FFE: .r~ - ~ I bQ a / ~ ` M.~. i..a ~ sr~• ' I u~.~..d rn: xv j ~ y 1 II LiN Tuwer No. Draia lnlet Q ~ Ca~~f 7 ~ d- NC c~uden SbRA 0 2+i. ~~Sf F1. Outlet 17-0' ~•~I nni 'Qr ' i* ~ 51-0 (A ~7 Lot 43 ` ~ . ~T Hei'ee Drne y„wder wall (rvp, . .a•••~ ~ 9' ~s(E +2 n ~0.0'• cN-0'r 55 -0' 53'4' S!'0' 5:+~' ~ Y ..J10' aM'i~ n 4-~ • ~ F ~ { s~n - G. 1 =lUU ' (N Tv0 ~ a ~ e~ i ' 'ey plan e t K up., C-~ I ~ G o re ~ C r e e k I O _ \ ' I 0 ~ ' ' ~ - _ _ - ,a ~ - - ~ - _ _ . - ~ I . - ~''~z='--- - - - - o Tree ' ~ i ' ~ j,Ot 44 u a ~i. / ' . - ~ :J.. ' ~ ' " • . • / / ` i . / , /J w~"~.~ J _ {~1 ~ 'O . i.. . . pro osed Residence ~ o , ~ , ~ ,Y ~ :S , p 1 4 ~ M LiriT.~wer7+1.~.3 ~ ~ ~ ~'44,.3'~ • - ~ ~ ti - ~ \ ` - ~ ~ ` s: - , ~ ' ` . , n ~ - _ -~t ;.i.o:= _ 3~ ~'1t~ . . ~ \ ~ 4 „ , - _ - _ , , \ . • ~ - ...i' ~ :i. il. ~ ~M.i i.. . L-2 ~ . • Y - _ e ~ . = _ _ - - . .,,F~'J - ~ a i V ~ ~ ~ . . , ; _ _ .~?.e ' _ ~..R.~o...w,.. ~ . ~ i ; , . , i Lu ' - - -a.°.~~ ~ - - - - ~ ~ . . ' - - - - - - v _i---- - - ~ al Z - J - yea •~f^- '7 Y~EA - ~.1~e• V , _ . ~.,•:.r.-.. ' ' _ ~ 's°~c,,.+~ ~ S , - ~ i ~p4- c ....r';. ~ 3i a ~ ,,.--...._-r-~ ~T`f ~ i.---4. ~ .n ' ' _ _ ~ '"rs` ~.r..++i•.' %-a~- 'Sr.'- --~r--~ . ~ . ^ s __~~~.~--.r-,~ _ ~ ' '!~-C.F;~ _ - ' . !~Py__v'-_ ~ = ~ .,~_s•'~ ~ i~~' T~ ' - _ ~ ~ } i~ .'1 1,,..,.y_ 1 r r,,,~.+~'__~.~-~.~' ~ ~L,,..-~• ~ _ _ 1. -r ~ ~ " ~ • ~ r ~ • ~ J. ~'.r" ~ - l G ,:t:~ ~ i . . ~ 4 ~ MEMORANDUM , Tp: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 14, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a major subdivision of Lot P-2, Block 3, Vait Village Fifth , Filing, and a vacated portion of Hanson Ranch Road. The site is generally located east of Vail Valley Drive between Hanson Ranch Road and Gore Creek Drive. A complete legal description is available in the Community Development Department. Applicant: P-2 Association, represented by Art Abplanalp Planners: George Ruther/Dirk Mason 1. BACKGROUND On September 13, 1996, the P-2 Association, represented by Art Abplanalp, submitted an application for a major resubdivision to Lot P-2, Block 3 and a portion of vacated Hanson Ranch Road, Vail Village Fifth Filing. • Lot P-2 is generally located east of Vail Valley Drive, between Gore Creek Drive and Hanson Ranch Road. Lot P-2 is bounded on the northeast side by Gore Creek Drive, the All Seasons Condominiums, and the Vail Trail East Chalets; on the south by the Ramshom Lodge and the All Seasons Condominiums; and on the west by Vail Valley Drive. Lot P-2 is currently under multiple ownership and govemed by the P-2 Association. The totallot area of Lot P-2 is approximately 0.5494 acres/23,931.86 sq. ft. Lot P-2 was originally platted as part of the Vail Village First Filing Subdivision on August 6, 1962. On November 12, 1965, an amended subdivision and a resubdivision of parts of Vail Village First Filing was recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. The Vail Village Fifth Filing Resubdivision included Lot P-2, Block 3 of the Vail Village First Filing. Pursuant to the recordation at Book 215, Page 969, the northerly portion of the Hanson Ranch Road right-of-way east of Vail Valley Drive has been vacated. The P-2 Association is the sole owner of Lot P-2. The P-2 Association was established as a Colorado Corporation to govern the use and maintenance of the area known as Lot P-2. The P-2 Associarion is comprised of a multiple ownership. The owners include Vail Trails East Chalets, the Tivoli Lodge, the Gallatyn Lodge, the Ramshorn lodge and the Vail Trails Chalets. F:\EVERYONBPEC\IvIEMOS\p2assoc.o 14 1 • M ~ II. DESCRIPTION of the REQUEST The P-2 Association is requesting a major subdivision approval in order to divide Lot P-2 into separate parcels, each to be owned by the entity which has historically occupied each ~ part of the parcel. The use of the parcels will remain a parking facility. The Association has proposed new Declarations of Protective Covenants to govern the future use and maintenance of Lot P-2. - According to the official Town of Vail Zoning Map, Lot P-2 is designated Parking Zone District. The purpose of the Parking District is to provide sites for private or public, unstructured, off- street, vehicle parking and conditionally to pmvide for private or public, off-street vehicle parking structures and private or public parks and recreational facilities. Permitted uses within the Parking District include private or public, unstructured, off-street, vehicle parking facilities. According to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Parking District, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with Chapter 18.60: • private or public, off-street parking structures, • private or public parks and recreational facilities, • public uses, private office and commercial uses that are transportation, tourists, or Town related that are accessory to a parking structure, • major arcades, • temporary construction staging sites, and • Type III and Type IV employee housing units. • III. REVIEVV PROCESS Title 17, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code establishes the review process and criteria for a major subdivision proposed in the Town of Vail. Pursuant to Chapter 17.16, Major Subdivision, of the municipal code, the first step in the review process is for the applicant to meet with a Town Planner to discuss the preliminary plan. Staff has met with the applicant on several occasions to discuss the proposal and address submittal requirements. Staff feels the applicant has successfully complied with the initial step in the review process. The next step in the review process sha11 be a formal consideration of the preliminary plan by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Comrnission. The applicant shall make a presentation to the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. The presentation and public hearing shall be in accordance with Sections 18.66.060 through 18.66.090 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicant's appearance before the Planning and Environmental Commission on October 14, 1996, shall serve to meet the public hearing and presentation requirement. F:\EVERYONEPEC\MEMOS\p2assoc.ol4 2 , • t The burden of proof that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Zoning Code and other perti.nent regulations shall lie upon the applicant. , In reviewing the preliminary plan, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to: i 1. Subdivision Control; 2. Densities proposed; 3. Regulations; 4. Ordinances, resolutions and other applicable documents; 5. EnvironmentalIntegrity; 6. Compatibility with surrounding land uses; and 7. Effects upon the aesthetics of the Town and surrounding land uses. The PEC shalt have twenty-one days from the date of the review of the preliminary plan to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions or modifications, the major subdivision request. Within ten days of making a decision on the request, the staff shall forward the PEC's decision to the Vail Town Council. The Council may appeal the PEC's action. The appeal must be placed within seventeen days of PEC's action. If the Council appeals the PEC's action, the Council shall hear substantially the same presentation by the applicant as was heard at the PEC public hearing. The Council shall have thirry days to affirm, reverse, or affirm with modifications the PEC decision. The appeal hearing shall be held during a regularly scheduled council meeitng. The final step in the review process of a major subdivision request, after PEC preliminary plan • review, is the review of the final plat. At any time within one year after the PEC has taken action on the preliminary plan, a final plat shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The staff shall schedule a final review of the final plat. The final review shall occur at a regularly scheduled PEC public hearing. The review criteria for a final plat are the same as those used in reviewing the preliminary plan as contained in Section 17.16.110 of te Subdivision Regulations. The Town of Vail has the ability to require certain improvements when approving a major subdivision. The following improvements shall be required by the applicant unless otherwise waived by the zoning administrator, PEC, or Council: 1. Paved streets and parking lots; 2. Bicycle and pedestrian path linked with the town system and within the subdivision itself; 3. Traffic control signs, signals or devices; 4. Street lights; 5. Landscaping; 6. Water lines and fire hydrants; 7. Sanitary sewer lines; 8. Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers; F:\EVERYONENPECVMEMOS\p2assoc.o 14 3 i r I l, 9. Bridges and culverts; , 14. Electric lines; 11. Telephone lines; 12. Natural gas lines•, ~ 13. Other improvements not specifically mentioned above but found necessary by the Town Engineer due to the nature of the subdivision. IV. STAFF ANAI YSIS OF MAJOR SUBDIVISiON RFVIEW CRITERIA Section 17.16.110 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code provides the criteria by which a proposed major subdivision is to be reviewed. Staff has reviewed the proposed preliminary plan for the major resubdivision of Lot P-2, Block 3, and a portion of vacated Hansen Ranch Road, Vail Village Fifth Filing, and our analysis is listed below: 1. Subdivision Control As the applicant is not proposing development on the newly created lots, staff does not feel this criteria is applicable. 2. Densities Prolwsed Lat P-2 is currently zoned Parldng District. The only permitted use in the parking district is private or public unstructured off-street vehicle parking. All other uses are conditional uses. The conditional uses permitted subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit are listed on page 2, in section II of this memorandum. The Parking District does not I permit the development of dwelling units with the exception of Types III and IV employee • housing units. The applicant has prepared protective covenants restricting the use of the newly created lots to parking only. Staff feels the protective covenants and the existing zoning adequately restricts future development on the lots. Staff further finds that any future changes of use on any or all of the lots would require not anly a change to the covenants, but the review and approval of the Town of Vail via a conditional use pernut and/or a change in fhe zoning designation on the property. 3. Re lation Staffreviewed the regulations prescribed by the Town of Vail Municipal Code for the Parking Zone District. According to Section 18.34.0I0 of the municipal code, the purpose of the Parking District is intended to provide sites for private and public unstructured off-street vehicle parking and to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each valid use in adjacent areas. Unlike most other zone districts, the Parking District does not prescribe a minimum lot size or a minimum street frontage requirement. F:\EVERY0NBPEC1IvIEM0S\p2assoc.o14 4 . • S I The lots being proposed are substandard for all other zone districts requiring minimum lot sizes, thus limiting the potential uses of the newly created lots to anything other than . ~ parking. Staff believes the proposed major subdivision complies vcnth the applicable regulations. The applicant is proposing to continue the private off-street parking use of Lot P-2, as it has historically been used. 4. Ordinances, resolutions and other Mlicable documents In reviewing this proposal, staff relied upon the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the restrictions recorded on the plat, and the Vail Land Use Plan. The issues relating to the municipal code have been addressed previously. The preliminary plan and proposed protective convenants restrict the future use of Lot P- 2. The restrictions include limitations of the use of Lot P-2 to parking of passenger vehicles having a weight of less than 10,000 pounds, landscaping and underground utility lines; prohibition on construction above ground level except landscaping; retaining walls necessary for the support of parking; obligations of the owners to maintain and repair paving, retaining walls, irrigation, landscaping, etc; and enforcement, liability and easements. The future use of Lot P-2 is further restricted by the existing protective covenants recorded at Book 253, Page 48, by the agreement establishing the P-2 Association recorded at Book 386, Page 32, and the consent recorded at Book 392, Pages 248-250. • To further insure that development on the property is restricted, in accordance with the protective covenants proposed, staff is recommending that the applicant add the above described restrictions on the plats as plat notes. This in effect prevents the future use of Lot P-2 to change without approval from the Town of Vail. Private protective covenants can be altered without Town of Vail review and approval. Any amendment to a final plat would require the Town of Vail review and approval. The Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan contains goals which staff considers to be applicable to the major subdivision request. The applicable goals include: UAIL LAND USE PLAN: 1. General Growth / Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a conbrolled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\p2asaoc.o 14 5 ~ 1,2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. ~ ~ 11 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded - whenever possible. 12 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. VAIL VILLAGE lYLA TER PLAN: Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the en6ancement of the walking j ezperience throughout the Village. 3.1 ' iv : Physically improve the existing petiestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian only wallcways and accessible green space areas including pocket parks and stream access. ' 3.4.2 koicv; Private developement projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets aajacent to the project, as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and / • or Recreation Trails Master Plan. According to the East Village Sub-Area Plan (0), a key objective is to provide improvements in the sub-area related to pedestrian and bicycle safety. Sab-area plan component #7-3, Vail Valley Drive sidewalk, indicates that: " a sidewallc (separated from the road where possible) through the sub-area linking the Golden Peak Base facility with the Vail Transportation Center. Landscape improvements and pedestrian cross-walks to be included as required to meet demands of pedestrian braffic. Special emphasis is placed upon the goals and objectives 3.1 and 3.4." 5. Environmentat Integn~ Staffbelieves the proposed major subdivision does not adversely affect the integrity of the environment. The applicant is not proposing to increase the amount of impervious surface of the existing parking on Lot P-2. Staff believes this has a positive effect on water quality as it does not increase the surface run-off from the area. The applicant is also proposing to preserve and continue to maintain the landscaping existing on Lot P-2. Currently, numerous maturing Aspen and Spruce trees aze growing on the property. The F:\EVERYONBPEG\MEMOS\p2a.ssoc.o 14 6 , r ~ applicant has provided for future maintenance by means of protective covenants. Staff feels this too ha.s a positive effect on the natural and built environment. • 6. CQ=atibili with Surrounding Land Uses The existing use of Lot P-2 is unstructured off-street vehicle parking for five residential properties in the area (Ramshorn, Gallatyn, Vail Trail Chalets, Tivoli and Vail Trails East). This use has been in place since the early 1960's when the properiy was originally platted. The applicant is not proposing to change the existing use. Staff believes the major subdivision will not negarively impact existing or potential surrounding uses. 7. Effects J~pon the Aesthetics of the Town and Surrounding Land Uses Again, the use of the property is not changing. The only change resulting from the major subdivision is the ownership structure. Instead of Lot P-2 being owned in common by five entities, the entire lot will be divided into separate ownership. Each newly created lot will be deeded back to the user of historic record. The five parking lots have been kept in good repair and the landscaping has been well maintained. Staff does not believe the aesthethics of the area will be negatively impacted as a result of an approval of the proposed request for a major subdivision. According to the regulations goveming subdivisions in the Town of Vail, the staff, PEC and/or Council have the ability to require certain improvements when approving majar subdivisions. These improvements are listed on page 3, in section III of this rnemorandum. Staff has reviewed • the list of possible improvements and waived all improvements except bicycle and pedestrian paths linked to the Town system. Upon review of the site, a portion of sidewalk along the east side of Vail Valley Drive adjacent to the Ramshorn parking area is missing. The sidewalk was never constructed in this area since several large evergreens are growing in the right of way. The sidewalk could be constructed if the trees were removed. Staff inet with the applicanY s representative regarding the "Fown's desire to construct the missing portion of sidewalk. The staff is requesting that the applicant dedicate an eight foot wide pedestrian easement to the Town. The pedestrian easement would allow the for the construction of the missing portion of sidewalk without requiring the large evergreen trees to be removed. Staff would recommend the PEC discuss the issue of the pedestrian easement with the applicant prior to taking any action on the major subdivision request. V. STAFF RECONIMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the preliminary plan for a major subdivision of Lot P-2, Block 3, and a vacated portion of Hansen Ranch Road, Vail Village Fifth Filing. Staff finds that the applicant's proposal meets the seven review criteria for a major subdivision as outlined in section IV of this memorandum. • F:\EVERYONE\PEG\AEMOS\p2assoc.ol4 7 . Al Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the proposed major subdivision, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following . conditions: 1. Prior to scheduling a review of the final plat befare the Planning and Environmental • ' Commission, the applicant shall amend the proposed major subdivision to include an eight- foot wide pedestrian easement across a portion of proposed Lot 2 and existing Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village Fifth Filing. The location of the pedestrian easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. 2. That the applicant add the restrictions prescribed by the proposed protective covenants as plat notes to the final plat, to ensure that said restrictions can not be amended without Town norification and approval. ~ F:\EVERYONBPEC\MEMOS\p2assoc.o 14 8 , ~ Summary of Request For Resubdivision Of ' Lot P-2, Block 3, Vail Village Fifth Filing Lot P-2, Block 3, Vail Village Fifth Filing is one of those lots oriqinallv platted bv Vail Associates for the purpose of providinq parkincZ,for Vail Villaqe. The property, which now includes an abandoned portion of Hanson Ranch Road, is now owned by P-2 Association, a non-profit association comprised of the owners of two adjacent lodges and three ad-iacent condominium association. The property has, since its creation, been divided into five separate areas of use, one for each member of the Association. The proposed resubdivision is reQUested for the purpose of legally dividinQ the property in a manner establishing ownership of those five areas of use, and eliminatinq the existence of the Association which has historicallv served no purpose other than to hold title to the property as a single entity. By the proposed subdivision, each current Association member would acquire that portion of Lot P-2 which it has historically used. The parcel would be governed bv covenants which insure that it will continue to be used for parkinq purposes and also establish responsibilitv for the maintenance of the vegetation which has been ~ established and maintained on the property by the members of the Association. The use of the property will remain parking, consistent both with the zoning governing the property and with the covenants originally placed on the property by Vail Associates. The compatibility of the property with adjoining properties is established by the fact that it supports five adjoining properties - by providing parking facilities for the lodging and residences located on those properties. P2sum ~ MEMORANDUM I • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: October 14, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 (Savoy Villas/Simba RunNail Run) to allow #or modifications to the previously approved development plan for the Savoy Villas development located at 1230 Lions Ridge Loop and described as follows: That paR of the First Supplementa! Map for Simba Run Condominium, according to ihe map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: Beginning at the most southwesterly corner of said map, thence the following three courses along the westerly lines of said map; 1) N03°33'01"E 160.79 feet; 2) N12°50'33"E 144.72 feet; 3) N17°56'03" 70.60 feet; thence, departing said westerly line, S13°16'03"W 157.26 feet, thence S76°43'57"E 91.50 feet; thence N13°16'03"E 35.00 feet; thence S76°43'57"E 72.31 feet to the eastedy line of said map; thence the following two courses along the easterly and southeasterly lines of said map;1) S24°44'S7"E 52.38 feet; 2) S52°50'29"W 272.50 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.6134 acxes, more or less; and That part of Simba Run, according to the map thereof, recorded in Book 312 at Page 763 in the Office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: Beginning at the most southerly corner of said Simba Run, thence the following four courses along the southwesterly and northwesterly lines of said Simba Run; 1) N37109'31"W 233.28 feet; 2) 334.57 feei along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 1771.95 feet, a central angle of 10°49'06", and a ~ chord that bears N42° 13'20"E 334.07 feet; 3) N36°4848" E 201.36 feet; 4) 15.96 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 428.02 feet, a cerrtral angle of 02°08'12", and a chord that bears N37°52'54" E 15.96 feet to a corner on the westerly boundary of the First Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder; thence the following four courses along said westerty boundary; 1) S21 151'28"W 69.90 feet; 2) S17°56'03"VU 181.17 feet; 3) S12°50'33"W 144.72 feet; 4) S03°33'01"W 160.79 feet to the southeasterly line of said Simba Run; thence, along said southeasterly line, S52°50'29"W 113.08 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 1,560 acres, more or less. Applicant: BWAB, Inc., represented by Chris Klein Planner: Dominic Maurielto 1. PROJECT INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting a major SDD amendment to modify the approved development plan for Phases 2 and 3 of Savoy Villas, located in Phase II, Development Area B, in Special Development District #5 (Simba Run/Vail Run). The property is located at 1230. Lions Ridge Loop and is bounded by the Timber Ridge Apartments to the west, the North Frontage Road to the south, Simba Run to the east, and Lions Ridge Loop to the north. fleveryone/peclmemos/savoy.oct 1 • i II. BACKGROUND Ordinance #6, Series of 1976, originaily established SDD #5 and set the parameters for the development of the Vail Run Building. Ordinance #29, Series of 1977, amended and expanded • the SDD to include the addition of 6.3 acres immediately to the west of Vail Run and divided the SDD into what is now known as Development Area A(Vail Run) and Development Area B (Simba Run/Savoy Villas). The development standards for both areas were specificaliy stipuiated in this ordinance. SDD #5 was further modified by the passage of Ordinance #33, Series of 1978, and Ordinance #24, Series of 1986. On August 17, 1993, the Vail Town Councii approved Ordinance #16, Series of 1993. This ordinance significantty modified the approved devetopment plan for the western portion, or what is now known as Phase II, of Development Area B. The original development plan for the Phase II portion of the Simba Run development included one large building. This building was desjgned to be similar to the existing Simba Run buildings (Phase I), which are located immediately to the east. These buildings were approximately 260 feet in length and approximately 250 feet in width. The original project was designed to take access off of Lions Ridge Loop (one curb cut) and included a fairly large surface parking area, as well as one level of underground (structured) parking. The 1993 amendment included a series of six smaller buildings know as Savoy Villas (Phases 1, 2, and 3). The proposal included 4 four-plex buildings and one four unit employee housing building, all of which took access off of Lions Ridge Loop to the north. The sixth building was a tri-plex, taking access from the exisring Simba Run driveway adjacent to the North Frontage Road. The parking for the project was almost equaiiy divided beiween enciosed parking and surface parking. On the northern bench of this site, each condominium was proposed to have a one-car garage, and on the lower, or southern part of this site, each condominium would have had a two-car garage. Architecturally, the design was very similar to that of the existing Simba Run project, although smaller in scale. Upon approval of Ordinance #16, Series of 1993, the ~ remaining number of dwelling units and GRFA on the property was reduced to zero for the entire Development Area B. Also included in Ordinance #16, Series of 1993, was a requirement to construct and maintain a public pedestrian path through the property (north to south) and grant a public access easement to the Town of Vail. The 1993 amendment originally consisted of nineteen condominium units and four deed- restricted employee housing units. The application was later modified at the Town Council review in order fo allow for one additional dwelling unit and to permanen#ly deed-restrict three existing condominium units (Units 2207, 2401, and 2402) in the Simba Run development (Phase I) as Type III employee housing units. In exchange for the permanent restriction of these three units, the Council agreed to release the exisbng employee housing restrictions on three additionaI dweIling units in Simba Run (Units 1201, 1205 and 2205), which although they were required to be empioyee housing units, had deed restrictions which would soon expire, allowing them to become free-market dwelling units. fJeveryone/pec/memos/savoy.ocl 2 is i - SDD #5 was most recently amended in 1995 by Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995. That amendment provided the following changes: •Relocation of One Condominium Unit - The 1993 SDD amendment was approved by the . PEC with a total of nineteen dwelling units. However, when the project was reviewed by the Town Council, a iwentieth unit was approved. This dwelling unit was added to Building #5 of Savoy Villas (Phase 2). •Relocation of Two Deed-Restricted Em I~oyee Housina Units -The applicant agreed to . deed restrict 5 existing dwelling units as Type III EHUs in Simba Run and deed restrict two dwelling units in Building #5, Savoy Villas (Phase 2). The deed restrictions on the 5 uniis in Simba Run have now been executed and recorded. •Reduction in Office Area - The 1993 approved development plan included a 1,302 square foot office space located on the entire lower level of the employee housing building (Building #5). The applicant amended the plan in order to relocate one of the two remaining employee housing units in Building #5, thereby reducing the size of the office space to 686 square feet. •Relor.ation of Triplex Driveway - The 1993 approved development plan showed that the proposed driveway access to the three townhouse units on the lower bench of the site . was originally proposed via the existing Simba Run curb cut off of the North Frontage _ Road. The amended plan modified the development plan, providing a new curb cut adjacent to the western property line to be used solely for the three dwelling units. ~ •Reduction in Surtace Parkina S ap ces - The 1993 approved development plan showed a seven space, unenclosed, parking area between the easternmost four-plex (Building #4) and Building #5. As a result of the transfer of two employee housing units from Building ~ #5 to the Simba Run Building and the relocation of the "twentieth" condominium unit to V` the upper bench, which includes a two-car garage, there was a net reduction in the parking requirement. Three unenclosed parking spaces were eliminated on the property. •Relocation of the Pedestrian Path - The 1993 approved development plan shows that ~ the pedestrian path traverses the Phase II property from the north (between Building #5 and Building #4) to a point midway down the property to the south, at which time it then _ crosses onto the Simba Run property. The approved plan also called for the bike path adjacent to the North Frontage Road to be realigned to accommodate the proposed driveway to the triplex. The amended plan provided a pedestrian path between Building # 3 and Building #4, south to the bike path along the North Frontage Road. •ChangQs to the Architectural Character of Buildings #5 and #6 - The architectural character of the buildings were slightly modified. • fJeveryone/pechnemosisavoy.oct 3 111. DESreRIPTION OF THE REQUEST ; Currentty Buildings #1 and #2 are constructed on the site. Design Review approvai has been ' given for Building #3 and #4 and they wilt be deveioped according to the 1995 plan which remains unchanged for this portion of the site. • Building #5, under the 1995 plan and SDD ordinance, contained 3 units, 2 of which were EHUs. The plan aiso included a 686 sq. ft. office space for the condominium association and a 466 sq. ft. two-car garage for the free market unit. The proposed plan converts these spaces into living area within the same building envelope of the 1995 approval. Therefore the building envelope is unchanged. The percentage of enclosed parking in Savoy Viilas has been reduced, due to the elimination of this garage space, from 52% (24 spaces) in 1995 to 47% (22 spaces in 1996). The proposed modffication to the 1995 approved plans include an increase in the number of free market units and GRFA in Savoy Viilas by adding 896 sq. ft. of GRFA and one additional unit to Building #5 in Phase 2, for a total of 21 units for the entire project. Building #5 will now contain 2 free market units and 2 Type Iii EHUs, which have been reduced in ' size to 600 sq. ft. each. The two EHUs will contain 600 sq. ft. of GRFA each and the 2 free market units will contain at total of 2,715 sq. ft. of GRFA. Common area stairways contain 403 sq. ft. of floor area. Therefore, this structure will contain 3,915 sq. ft. of GRFA total. The parking required for these 4 units is 6 parking spaces. Two parking spaces are required for each free market unit and 1 parking space is required for each EHU (since each EHU is 600 sq. ft. or less in GRFA). The propased plan provides 6 surface spaces for Building #5 and 1 additional parking space required for Building #4. The proposal eliminates 2 enclosed parking spaces in Building #5. The pedestrian path required for the development by the previous approval has been relocated a between Buildings #2 and #3 and connects with the driveway proposed for Phase 3(Building #6). The remainder of the plan rernains unchanged from the previous approval. The 1995 ordinance has many specific requirements with respect to the phasing of the development, the recordation of the pedestrian, bike path (public access), and drainage easements, the timing of the recordation of EHU restrictions, and the final approval of the access - to the North Frontage Road by CDOT and the Town Engineer. . A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached. • fJeveryone/pec/memos/savoy.oct 4 IV. tONING ANALYSIS Listed below is the zoning analysis for Savoy Villas, located in Development Area B of Simba Run. ~ Zoning: SDD #5 (with no underfying zoning) Lot area: 1.56 acres or 67,953.6 sq. ft. Overall Savoy Vfllas , Standard 995 lan 996 P n Chan°e Units (free market): 20 units 21 units +1 unit EHUs 2 units 2 units n/c GRFA (free market): 33,449 sq. ft. 34,562 sq. ft. +1,113 sq. ft. GRFA (EHUs): 1.417 sa. ft. 1.200 sa. ft. -217 s. . GRFA (total): 34,866 sq. ft. 35,762 sq. K. +896 sq. it. Parking: 46 spaces 47 spaces +1 space Enclosed parking: 24 spaces (52%) 22 spaces (47%) -2 spaces Site Coverage: 16,921 sq. ft. (25%) 16,921 sq. ft. (25%) n/c Phase 1. Savov Vtllas (Buildinas #1 and #2 as constructed) w Standard 1995 Plan 1996 Plan Chanae Units (free market): 8 units 8 units n/c ~ EHUs 0 units 0 units n/c GRFA (free market): 13,272 sq. ft. n/c n/c Parking: 16 spaces n/c n/c Enclosed parking: 8 spaces (50%) n/c n/c Site Coverage: 6,060 sq. ft, n/c n/c ' Phase 2, Savoy Vtllas (Buildfngs M. #4, and #5) Standard 1995 Plan 1996 Plan Chanae Units (free market): 9 units 10 units +1 unit EHUs 2 units 2 units n/c GRFA (free market): 14,874 sq. ft. 15,987 sq. ft. +1,113 sq. ft. GRFA (EHUs): 1.417 sq. ft. 1.200 sa. ft. -217 sq. ft. GRFA (total): 16,291 sq. fit. 17,187 sq. ft. +896 sq. ft. Parking: 21 spaces 22 spaces +1 space Enclosed parking: 10 spaces (48%) 8 spaces (36%) -2 enclosed spaces Site Coverage: 7,550 sq. ft. n/c n/c • 5 Phase 3. Sevoy.,Villas (Buildina #6) I t n 1995 Plan 1996 Ptan Change Units (free market): 3 unfts 3 units n/c EHUs 0 units 0 units n/c • GRFA (free market): 5,303 sq. ft. n/c n/c Parking: 9 spaces n/c n!c i• Enclosed parking: 6 spaces (66,60/6) n/c n/c ' Site Coverage: 3,311 sq. ft. n/c n/c V. ANALYSIS OF THE OVERALL DENSITY FOR SDD #5 Da . Araa A(Vail Run) Dev. Area B(Slmba Run) pw. Area 8(Savov Vlllas) Total for SDD #5 Max. GRFA (Free Market Unfts): 43,000 sq. ft. 91,572 sq. ft. 34,562 sq. ft. 169,134 sq. ft. Max. GRFA (EHU Uni1s): 0 s9. ft. 3•836 sa• ft• 1,200 s. fl. 5.036 sa. ft. Total GRFA: 43,000 sq. R. 95,408 sq. it. 35,762 sq. R. 174,170 sq. ft. Mau. # of Units (Free market): 55 units 90 units 21 units 166 units Max. # of tJnAs i (EHUs): n' s 5 units 2 units 7 units ~ Tohl Unfts: 55 unks 95 unlts 23 units 173 units i 6 VI. CRrI'ERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of the special development district is to: • encourage flexibility and creativiry in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of new development within the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve #he natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with a property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district." The following are the nine special development district criteria to be utilized by the Planning and Environmental Commission when evaluating SDD amendment proposals: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The staff believes that the applicant has done a reasonable job with the overall site planning of the project to insure that the project meets this criterion. Staff believes that the proposed modifications to the approved plan are minor with respect to the overall project, with the exception of the loss of 2 enclosed parking spaces. The proposal does not change the orientation of the buildings, increase the bulk and mass of the structures, increase the height of structures, or increase the site coverage of structures on-site. The ~ proposal does increase the number of unenclosed parking spaces and therefore having a potential deleterious effect on the project as well as the neighborhood. Therefore, the overall effect of the building changes are minimal, but that the impacts due to the loss of 2 enclosed parking spaces may not meet this criterion. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. It is staff's position that the approved residential use of this site, and the proposed amendment, is compatible with the existing uses on surrounding properties. The proposed density on Savoy Villas (number of units) is being increased by one free market dwelling unit, as a result of this amendment request. The resulting density of twenty-one free-market units and two deed restricted employee housing units is compatible with the High Density Residential identification that the Town of Vail Land Use Plan has placed on this property. C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as•outlined in Chapter 18.52. The proposal for Savoy Villas provides 47 total parking spaces, 22 (47%) of which are enclosed garage spaces. Building #5 is proposed to have no enclosed parking spaces. The 1995 plan provided 46 total parking spaces for SavQy Villas, 24 (52%) of which were enclosed garage spaces. The number of parking spaces has been increased by one space even though an additional free market unit was added, due to the reduction in the size of the Type III EHUs. An EHU of 600 sq. ft. or less is only required one parking • space. The surface lot adjacent to Building #5 was increased by 3 parking spaces. 7 The original SDD ordinance required 85% of the parking on the entire site (Savoy Viilas, Simba Run and Vail Run) to be enclosed parking. The 1995 approvai ailowed a deviation to this requirement, allowing 84.4% to be enclosed parking for the entire site. The proposed amendment will reduce the overall enctosed parking to 82.87% of the total parking provided on-site. Staff believes that this amendment does not meet this criterion ~ as the proposal deviates too far from the origina! SDD approval. Staff believes the floor plan for Building #5 could be modified to provide a iwo-car garage without changing the building footprint. Staff is concerned abaut the deleterious effect this proposal will have on the neighborhood due to the increased number of surface parking spaces proposed and the fact that no additional "guesY" parking spaces are provided. Visitors to tenants in Building #5 will be forced to illegally park in the street. See the Zoning Analysis for more information. i D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vai! Comprehenslve Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. 1. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan identifies this area as High Density Residential (HDR). High Density Residential is defined in the Land Use Plan as follows: "The housing in this category would rypically consist of multi-floored structures with densities exceeding fifteen dwelling units per buildable acre. Other activities in this category would include private recreational facilities, and private parking facilities and institutional/public uses such as churches, fire stations and parks and open space facilities." The overall density of Savoy Villas is 13.5 units/acre (excluding the 2 EHUs). The overall density of SDD #5 is approximately 18.8 units/acre (exciuding the 7 EHUs). 2. The foNowing are the applicable Land Use Plan goals and policies which ~ relate to this proposal: Goal 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance belween residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and permanent resident. Goal 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (in-fill areas). Goal 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. Goal 5.3 Affordabie employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. Goal 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. • 8 Goal 5.5 The existing empioyee housing base should be • preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied • sites throughout the community. The staff believes that the proposed amendment to the approved development plan is in compliance with the Town's Land Use Plan. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Savoy Villas is located within a high severity rockfall hazard zone. The applicant's geologist, Nicholas Lampiris, has reviewed the 1993 approved development plan and has stated that the berming along Lions Ridge Loop (south side), combined with internal mitigation for the two eastern-most buildings, is sufficient to mitigate the rockfall hazard. The proposed amendment to the approved development plan should not have major effects on the previously approved rockfall mitigation plan for the property, however, an updated hazard report is required prior to the issuance of a building permit for Building #5. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Staff believes that the proposed modifications to the previously approved 1995 plan are ! not significant and should not have a negative effect on the overall quality of the plan. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing ~ on and off-site traffic circulation. Site PlanNehicular Access. The proposed access to the site remains unchanged from the 1995 approval. ' Pedestrian Access. As mentioned previously, the ordinance which approved the existing development plan includes a condition that the applicant construct and maintain a public pedestrian path through the property, in order to allow for continued pedestrian access from the Lions Ridge Loop area down to the North Frontage Road. The proposed pedestrian path is rslocated slightly by this request. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The landscaping is slightly impacted due to the additional surface parking space being provided. However, the landscaping on the balance of the site remains the same. Overall, staff believes that the landscaping plan generally provides adequate screening and green space throughout the site. 9 • I. Phasing plan or subdivision pian that will maintain a workable, functionai and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development . district. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the previously approved phasing plan for ~ the project. The construction of the buildings on the Savoy Vi!!as property will occur in ihree phases. Phase I consists of the two condominium buildings (eight dweliing units) located on the northwest corner of the site (construction completed). Phase II consists of 2 four-plex buildings (Buildings #3 and #4) which have been approved based on the 1995 plan, and Building #5 which contains 2 EHUs and 2 free market units. The final phase of the project consists of the three townhomes (Building #6) located on the fower bench of the property. Staff believes that the previous(y approved phasing plan for the Savoy Villas project is acceptable. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is recommending approval of the applicanYs request for a major modification to Special Development District No. 5, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant modify the site plan and floor plans for Building #5 to provide a two- car garage, within the proposed building envelope, in order to comply with the parking requirements of SDD #5. 2. The applicant provide an update to the hazard report for the property prior to obtaining a Building Permit for Building #5 of Savoy Villas. 3. That the approval is subject to the language and conditions found in the Draft Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1996. We believe that the proposed modifications to the previously approved plan, with the exception of ~ the parking, comply with eight of the nine Special Development District review criteria listed in this memorandum. i0 . ~.r ~.w...i w. ~~qe-i: u~...,. a. ras • • SIT C bPTA ~ .s s ?+a ~r n~ear wrws. ` , PHASE 2 IytEq ~ ~~~•Ii~ av Dr~e~t~~w 3~L7U SQ. ~'t N iR a, ps N: a bLLli• vOTi~Kii7 TI'~,7~ ~L : wsi „wi? -wwaw~t a~mir~rw a~: w: u 3%) ' Ow rita f~.ss~ oica~l~sey ~ew~ee~ s~a PARK*% RLQWRE4 - CL3PS,[6S ; ~..AmrW M 1R se~YO1JY ~~OOM6 PA70qNL SYPPUGO - 2L SP4CC~5 ' Y~ ~1. LK O M71r N~ LT pY ~O L~ 7y 1~R LJy.O°JCAPIN(i M 7f~f~Y.ON~P[Ntlt00llOi11. .~M ~M~ ~r+sw. rr ~ as ~ wou~o tti sw ' SS%} s1 11p~p ~Oe[ f]. pM. 6 tmt M~ V ~ ~ \Y ~Ct N ai ~ lmi N~Wi~TlO tbba~4 . ~ius~s~'a~are~ aa~ u ans, a sae~ rae n ue. ~n. ~ M ~IQA~ lis~s O u~r~io. _ om W Ar aMa ~n. ~ ~k? 41oa~5 iyCU...s~o,` ;e I/ 0- 6'~D' `Il~l r-P~?Y 4+fM. ~p - a / ~{~~~4 KlIL/N' wN~ 'Y~Y f u4Mt T ~ / a~ t.tr.,~,°,~~ ~ •~.~e~,~-e.. L,- ro.+.+ o rax ~~O'~ ~ \ .o ~ - . 1 • ~ ~ _ . JIP • ~ r A_. ' r. ~ ~ x, •y~ 6' ~ ~ . ~ , F ; ~ . . 1~' • N ~"•:c ~ . ~ ~ ~ f J ~ f . ~C` ~ , ~ ~ ~ ' ~ 3 j . ~ ~ + • ~ . . ~ r ~ . ~ ~T ` ~ ~ - ,~S_ ~ . ~ . ~ ew~•.' ~ w,,,,~ rum+v t~ f i r• . i' ~ K 4sv~~ , ~ µ - - - . / -~r s - ~ • . . ~ ~I i~ y 'l~~ ~ • 4r J,f` \tl+V` 'R~ ~O~ ~ • • m I . • . " ~ • 'G [7 ~ . ' ~ ~ ' gs • ~ ~ - . . . • Y J €:~c j/ / : ~ . . ` . ~ _ ~ o - O`; ~ ~ OT(k o " ~ N OD ,r.,tw . m • ~ ~ t M r~~~ ~.~.~-ti o - . o C c _ ,-~r - - /..~.y, t`~' ~ ~O ? ; .~;.:q ~-Si~ _ . µt~ ~ , ~ • ~ cY o ~ - . : . , , . . . _ . . , - - ~'T. • ":i.`: , . _ . . ~ - Q--- ~ - ~ _ vwn-w ~'.Iw"' . 't . 'J?f.~y~• AC["t3: ~ :s JY'~ ' Jy °'.$-•~?,.•r .r •U ii_'~Iy.h°`.~' . r~..~J'~•'~~K " ~ ~ ' I:'w..... •L. . • , + r~.~~/WY+[ - ,:i;. . ~ ~r. ~'1k . . r^•„ - . ~ ~ ''s :f , r - _ . w: : • • . •¢~~A6~ • • ~ _ . .''i.•:~ . ' . , m • ~.f. • ..n ~ N ~ • - . , - . . ~.~1.< . ' , . ~ ~'A ' ~ , r, '?:E-.~:• . • S'~' ` ' ~ - Y `"ry . . . . _ , . . "~t;{s' . ~t,• . - .t~:.,.. • . _ . 4 ~ • r ~ i ' ~.i ~'~y,~~~,, ~ ti ~ ' . N ~ ~ r`' ~ . / ~ . ~ . " ~ ~.,~,~«t. t u"' ~ . ' t ' ~ , ~ r`~~E ~ ~~sA`~' ~•~~~;s`-,^•~ /~':r- . ~ •U'i l / \ . . fa~~ ~ !J/•• / 'r ~ ~ f/ f ~ -„1~ ' ~i ~s~ ~ r' 1 ~ ~ 1 ^ ~ ~ i ~ ` _"~.4 r''~=.~-''• „sst'~ / • H a ~i ~ " kr' ~ • ` ~ ~H ~ _ j}~ ` ~ ~s° _ ~ / 3 ~ /i` " ,~~;_~-'"r. ~ .~j ' j " y*,~ 't ~ _ - . ~ v a . ~ 1 a~"" p f ~ ~ pac _ ' r • ' ~ U! _ ' ..i . Ip .-i-~'~,.. ~ ~ ~ ~ C7 I '~~'s~'~ ~ ~ 4' ~ ~ _ ` ` j~ ~ f" ~~"'k ~1 ~ ~ ~/I / ~ , f'`~ a ` 1 tr - : r ~ , _ _ ' ~ ti;,* . 1 ' 'r" . u ' - . ' A ~ / ~ - ~ ~ . ~ - ~ ~ .r-' - `ti_ 'ti' ' e ' I. % ` c 7?+ t~`" v j f ~ ~,S VQ • ! v f / i , 1 1 4 ^ f~ J . f - ~ -r , ~ r a f , . j . ! ' ~ ~ ~ , f ~ - . ~ ' 1 ~4 '1 , w, ~ • : ~ . ~ ~ " ` . ; J/ ~ `y, . . . . , . ~ ~ ` ' - _ - ~ w,,., . . ,`r ~ ~ ~ ,~f;/ `y' ' °r't +"N . ~ . - .^~a}h,f },~''cK rt ti'• f ~ t ~ - , r ~!l- , f ~ , ~ - . ~ fJ ` •j.i~ • ~ 1 / , ! ~ ` ~ 4~' 1. ti~...i'~ ' w~ (y'Q ~ ~f . _ / . • ' • ,a ~.s~?~ x~~-, ~ 4 ` 1.~ r J ~ . 5 ~ t ~ . ; I r ` ~~~~~'~'~1 : (~'~-^'CJj .w„ '1~~~~ F I j 'Da~'L"~%~"'~ A ~~M.:I~ f' . .M `•f~i• . , f f / ~'""4~~,~~se,~.k'+~`-y'`Nh+. ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ n ~ ~ -0' - ~ . ~ ' _ ~ ; 1 ~ F ~ 1 . ~ . - ..+~-r-; 'c ~ ~ J - ; ~ :.1' ~ r- ~ l r. ` ' . . a~ t-.? _ - . ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f° . . - ~ ~ ~ ' f~ f ~ ~ s A ` ~ "r_ ~P`~ ' . ~C 4~'~ ~ ~ l,~ ~y~' ~~r : ( I - ~/f t . . > j t-'""r.• y~" J "1 C~„pt~v ~767R~R~'1 M~ r• y r~,r.` ~y,~i,•lY~ ~ -5 f~~ ..~Rtr~ E+~` 4 . ` ~ .I - . , + f:-io- ~ ~ * , - ~ ' 'i ' s . - ~ . . . ~ f . ~ / ' , • ~ . , • ~r• ! L _ . _ .~'r~ ~ . . u .e; ~u~w x~nr • • ~r1 ~•1 7ll~! ! ~ r [47 /RT.IW ,'1eMArV i ~ . • , ~ ~ - r~P r ~..rr, ; . `M ~ • ~ ~_I! ~ • - ~47 G • L ~aY4E Q ' ['!7 ir~yrn a.+o~' _ - .,~t(r : . ' - .f.51 2'vfv. ~ -f~4c.~ ?p.Y~. . _ _ • ? - fs?r~.+rrra ra.u~+ ns• _ t ~ -[s) ['~-rts ' O '[~?lho"+~v aew+o ~~r ""~i~'~- . . Q • f11a~r's~?ix-N _ r^ ~ • o , -[a7 co.on o.~,~e~~ • c ~,R. ~,ccs . r . : ~ • t~+?~.~r . v..m~. ...r~ ~ ~ = - "O ~ ~xr~ ~ -+es~ . •ca7 n++4ws.r's yo.Y. -a O -CMR~bh.. ~`,r • -1 Y~s+ wwieo ~e~wnw-a , _ . t • / y f • ~ 'y j y„tnr- fa. • + Q - y~~+~ . . • - - r 1 • ~ y ~ ~ - fS~r.'.,l: +Twa, ~l r x ~ % M r 1 M.i - , r.is~+...~..~.•v f~ ~v, r. ~ Ce)~ i°°a ~ O~ (f?)S-iSPFat.t , t / _ # _ ' CS7 . . lt~e ly ~"4N~~~~~'112~~ ' • ~ p ~ I ~ :~>r-r.i?ri~- -M) ` x~ ~ --t~~ i } N fti y r ~i t ~ Ilv~a • ~ - . I / • I mxo JeIfK y~ ~ 1 ryJ~ ti 4 ' _ . - I l~ •s• ~ _ il~ . . d. ~ f + 1 . : tsl rar ax ! ~ --e+s~rK~. ~mr.. -rs.e ~ PlANTiNG UST ~ `y a p~~ . ~ ` 07 V..rnwwlq! K . . / ` • \ iau~~~ ~ ~R Q m ti7t~ver ' ~ ~ ~ W 04 nw+t. ' sut°w~«s.Y . . 4 N . . ( . i J f ~ltr G+rie t~?ww) . f'Q Q _ ~ ~--~h~ ra+r ~e~.~i~.`.,~ n.. 6~ - f#),a~"'...iM.;.~R ~ l~ ` - y •w' .rwci Irs+ ns.~+. e. ` Qti _ . , ' 1. o~_ o ,.~.;C: Ao - r ~ , ¦.~Y~wrrM~aq.Mr~wrr~•ww~wr~ww+ewwNw Y ~ ~riM~i~w~Y~ Irw J,~. ~ I I Q` Q tIMY«IYMNMlb bw-qpw~lyYtiWartwf ~ i~RiIMr1~'~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ fl ~ ' Q J ~?P?M~INr11~1I • • I Q _ ~ ! ~ Q ~ 9 j > irMyr4r+rier.w^ ~aV ; ~i . . yqs "A~ 0 Q ~ p. j • tMMwqwA~rriM~a~w~.wMlriw.rr~L taL . ' ~r . .~Y_.._ _ ~~~w~r~~PIWn1~iK V~~~1iY. _S.-f-?.rrr..~w..+...u~.~.r.w~+Maw+er ~ w~.w.. ~ (~j~~8~F9co J(t~tp'd slw~rs ~ ~ NYMMy~~r/1r1~1~r~wYM~r~q~lrla4~ ~ . . . . t •f• ) Y3a~w. I . ' ' ' ~ -rtbrr~+ r~?~wr~o.e r.po ' ~ .~w:..,.:.~._ . . . , ~ .x . . f l ~ . . ~ _ - _ ~7~ ' ~l - ~ ' ~ ~ i • l„I ~ ~ ~1 S ? b f i . ' tL7GGT •sa ~ ilYrJ'S ~ Ca'Or#'~T ~ n I 00 c. C.~ ? r "j ' 't p ° - a ° Qw ~ 5 _ • a-d _s~C 'p ~ z~ _ f-~: _ ~ aa ! ; ' $ • . ~ - ( ~ . I . y.. a - a- . . . . 1 f ( (v ; A _ ' - - N ~ fi; _W _ . v r••• -f - ' ,r.:l~l . ~ _o~ ~ y 3 i ~ ~ - - - - ~ 6 - ~ p V3 m I e ~ . . ~ ~ i . ~ i ~ ! . - 'Y H,.~~ 3. ~ s,!.o' i'~att'r, ~_L•."1~' ~'~b~~ ~ ~_q~ ( a~-o^ ~e-A~ ~ ~ II'.4 ' W I Go ~ • h ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ " ;fEY151DHS •I~• ApBN0. 5W.r uru..n,5 a qk~~ a rr - - ~ cQ TeetM+K~Ct' -tu~; s~ ~ n ( ~ Isatic& ASSOCIwtIs a n.«.f •w~d•.i~•va~-~~, « ~ ~ - ' • . • . ~ . ~ . . r i . _ ~ . ~ iz'''p'~~.~~~,,~9'0 ~.~k 2~- ~ ±4'O. 'r~'_, y~..__~, ~ I+F-7 . ( --r--- I i lbo - ~ • ~ ~ ~ _ • ~ . ~ oo - ' ^ S a ~ ~ s. e' • w ~ _ ` ,e.y. ~ ~ e'~ ' t31 l~f i'~ ~ Q 3 ~ • ! ~.4. ~ T ~ ( . ~ RO 15 ; ~ . ~ \ _r. _ • _ 1 - R ~ N 00 i l7 O ~ ' 1' • - - - . 0 r~b i o . , ( 0'•4~ ~ W I3 - 9" ~ 9~ t'•cS .t-or it'. d' - - ° 'L-6 ~ (A ~ N T 0 ~tWK45)t4 Arr. ~ . A.N6pFl6 . , ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ i c~.~s`~$~'C Y 1 t-a.1~~ ~t,~'JJAl~7. ~ ? ~ , OXILE t^I'•'r"'~~ ~r"} I$aM & AS.SpQiATES ~.a.ws t.~ aw~wean •Ge4a~ae?~atriemi w i .Y _o.. • '4 ~ ~ f O O •I ~ q L K . i 1~1 , a fJ+06CS - - _ } : I i ~ p . ~ ' t 6 t , ~ . ~ ~ • ~ = iT a I ' ~j 6- iF Ni ' o i> T r - ~ ; Y~ p ~ i # x T ~ ~ ~ ~ ' - _ ~ 3 I ~ - ~ { I ' ~ - - i --------i.- ~ rtr _ ~ : ~ • I ' . ~ . ~ -"l N t ! ~ 1 C! ~ . - - . m _ . - ~ . ~-.a.__..._,.._ _-I_ - r- - ~ 3 ; G,40 ~d 4''c' 11'.oy Z'-4' +G~4' -d •------7~"'-'-~ ~ _ '7~ --j Z' ~°i t 7'r D' ` • 1 " - -t-- ` I 9 - . ~`-~i`._~.~___ W W W FLQ'R M/~'~~ ll~lr" .er s D' N ' ~3 3~t+~M +~1' •'•l378.~ r~dca ~oan>. 00 ~ earaaa ~ y GvAvaY 11~~0 ~+~~r>'~5 ~ ~ Vm fiLaL Ap- p7dFx-j44wT V.Irr fM[£' LZ caawxar O ~ I~K & ~TM rAMre .r,t.aaaaa+-oN sM •fm swu d a ~ . ~ , a ~ ~ • + i ~ • • . ~ . _ - - - - - - _ _ - - ~ - ~ ~ - - . ' _ El.'--. 0' ~ . . . ~ . ~ ' I • - ' ~ ~ , _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --t ~ - - - - - - - - - - i _ N N O { ~~1 `IoRru ~N ~ a~~712t~~ 3 ~ ~ N ~ . n ' - m ~ ~ 1 i - - W - - ~ m - ~ ~ - - _ , - . Sshn ~ as4s. ~ ~ ~ l+^~iv'1rle. 'PVwr++cs tfeee~cr. ~ q, - N - ~ ~ ~ - ~ c.t Set.Ttau~gt! REN9qfS 5 Il ~ 1 P_41YIMI ~ • C C•~ I V, ~ JO] N0. ~WJKI(~ ~t ~ s W ~ a A ISOM & ASSGCIATES w~r,tanm~ui-o~W ~r.zr..wa?a~ a ~ • 8~~i«,~rra....~a.__...~ ~ . , . - , ' i~~iQ~ } , . I ' • ( • ~ ~ j . i • . { ~ Wnn ~ ( , , ' f r ~ M i y l 1 O Q ' ~ t T ~ . L ~ rR ' " +ibOq+L. bOM - , ~ . , - 1 liNir C-) -------^---_-..-r._..- ~ F ' i ; aer~r i j ( ~ ~ - -•-t-- ; . !~''a i I~r i 1 , ! i Q ~ ~ ~ ~ - ...0 ~ a UJ'. ~ t o ~ ~ . 4~ i D _ . i'i t • ~~j, ~ i WARL ~ . ~ ; i ! m ~ u~r 4• ' • Nl - ` j ~ i>.~ ' O viN+Cr r.! • ~ :N'~--afe~ - ~ - - . ~ ? i + a+nr : • i 1 C • ~ . ~ d . . ~ ~ S ~ . + @ W El ^ , u,,,o .j : D--• _ S . ti ~ 1 W ~ ED,~. „ zr• . ' _ 1 ' ~a..+6.R_ul~~C.. nOm PcDf7 p~ ~ U• ~ rr ~j . ...._D . . * x~owuoE . l't ~s~NP ~ ; . ~ ~ ? t . , ~no, y s~o ~ ~ • ~ . I 1 ' ~-Q-? y _ ' - ~ 1 . . ~ 1 e q ' t-.. . • Ull3.5~. . ~ ronr olrtir ~rMAirawcr, sLO• ~O ~ ' ~~11 ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ,yCvIS~1N.tllt-lU[iCR:i'1AR1 j . , . O' T = •q• _ _ . ~ • ~VMr •'9~ISf 7FP ~ ~ • ~ d . y~ ; . YY~at - M~rw Qfn) ~+~i~+.~l.i•~'r~:.a~ ~ - - • - . . . . . ~ , , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~Ad . f---"'"`-_'°------ -~"S? - - - a•.r r.xr s. -1+Z /11~P Olif~p! I 6. ~ ~~~i. ~ . ~w . . ~ . . . ~ - - ~ ° I i .i c ~ , ~ i ~ ' I ~ •~i .C~r iW0'• wdfl~K~40GV/ a' ~ ii I 1 ! al ~ t. ~ i ~ I 's~~' 1 j ~ ~~1: ~r ~ ' j M . . ~ i - ie., ~ , " ~ - 1 I ~ i ~ Q i ` ~coeow~o ~ ~ ao"* aw ue:Tx Cr ~ I - • _ . d- tL' t~Yl •4-1K A unZ C`5 ~ ( 1 ~ 3 ~ 4e r..r a . ~ ~ j - ra ~ + ; ; ; • I .C'! !i . y, ? - . 4.` ~ ~ ^ p « ~ ~ , - - - - - m w" ~ ~wworo c.an ,•..a.. i ......_~r~'...._ b fl ` ~i 1bLM16fJP4ra ' ~ ~ 1 1 ~4 , WLI 7 r~ -~1---~~~ . , ~ .w_..._ Q Q......,+.x ; mw• +.d ~yy ~~.1.~..~ i ,eaw+o~aev. ~ . 19 ~rrr .o-m. . u~.,• ` _ ~c~v , . • ~ - r l , W ~ _ wMeP~!r b: ' 'e'> . .wrurtaeoa+ ; b ~ OD 1"~ ~w•. fv t.di~ y' ~ Q~ JP'El E'JEL FLOOR PSAN ~ „ fl. a.-a4• ~'K2y'rJ i ~ ~ _ Il b wivm I Y' y--•C "CWY ~ MNIp~MfM~ ' ~ I J ~ S...1~• _~.v...l I_ IrJ.4.dlrw ~F~MOO~p ~ ~p, f r . LM), 'T C~ WIO 'OtL ~LL=L S sL0 4%4' ~Y_ ` ~ •a er~-' ~.4--, ~ ' 0 ,5~1°"~C L~~fLy_ RAN . •Z e~ ~ R.w r•i• _ r-r ' _4:_r. b__:__? 0z;k ~ - - - ~ _ a --+~s _ e _--WY--, . . r ~ - - - _ J - - _ • - - - " - - - - - - - ' y ~ ; _ _ - - - = - - = p' ! i - - - f_~ BUIILING STC NORTH BUILDINC; !ETX EpST c0j' xie•~ - i -_..o•• , m n n W W - - - - - ~s- - _ - • 4D ~ . - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - f-~--- - - - - - ~ 1 ~ ' ~s~_'.~' L ' ~ ' _ _ _ _ - Qt ___`i~-- - ~ ~ - ~'~"t:..-__, Q~ { . BVIiDING SLY 'WEST : SiJILDING a^IX SOUTT-] ~ ~ i . • • _ _ a . ORDINANCE N0. 18 Series of 1996 . AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 7, SERIES OF 1995; AN ~ ORDINANCE AMENDING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 AND PROVIDING FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ITS CONTENTS; PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL AND ACCESSORY USES; DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, RECREATION AMENITIES TAX, AND OTHER SPECIAL PROVISIONS; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS iN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes special development districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and WHEREAS, an application has been made for the amendment of Special Development District (SDD) Na. 5 for a certain parcel of property within the Town, legafly described in the attached Exhibit A, and commonly referred to as the Simba RunNail Run Special Development District; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental Commissian, on October 14, 1996, held a public hearing on the amended SDD, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the • appropriate parties; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficiaf to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to amend SDD No. 5; and WHEREAS, application.has been made to the Town of Vail to modify and amend certain sections of Special Development District No. 5, which relate to Development Area B, and which make certain changes in the devefopment plan for Special Development District No. 5 as they specifically relate to Development Area B; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: [Note: Text that is strieieR is being deleted and text that is sh'd~d is being added.] . SECTION 1 The Town Council finds that all the procedures set forth for Special Development Districts in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vai1 have been fu11y satisfied. • Page 1 of 13 Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1996 . ~ SECTION 2 - Purposes. Special Development District No. 5 is established to ensure comprehensive development . and use of an area in a manner that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreational amenities, and promote the objectives of the Zoning ordinance. The development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission, and there are significant aspects of the special development which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of standard zoning districts on the area. SECTION 3- Special Development District No. 5 Established. (A) Special Development District No. 5 is established for the development on a parcel of land comprising 8.84 acres in the Lions Ridge area of the Town; Specia! Development District No. 5 and said 8.84 acres may be referred to as "SDD No. 5". (B) The Vail Run building, consisting of 55 dwelling units, approximately 18,000 square feet of commercial space, a swimming pool and three tennis courts, shall be known as . Development Area A. The remainder of the property containing approximately 6.3 acres shall be described as Development Area B(Simba Run and Savoy Villas). SECTION 4- Approval of the Development Plan Required Prior to Development. (A) Before the developer commences site preparation, building construction, or other improvement of open space within SDD No. 5, there shall be an Approved Development Plan for said district. (B) The proposed development plan for SDD No. 5, in accordance with Section 4 hereof, shall be submitted by the developer to the Zoning Administrator who shall refer it to the Planning and Environmental Commission, which shall consider the plan at a regularly scheduled meeting, and a report of the Planning and Environmental Commission stating its findings and recommendations shall be transmitted #o the Town Council in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 18.66 of the Municipal Code. • (C) The Approved Deve(opment Plan shall be used as the principal guide for al( development within SDD No. 5. (D) Amendments to the Approved Development Plan shall conform with Chapter 18.40.100 of the Municipal Code. • Page 2 of 13 Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1996 (E) Each phase of the development shail require the prior approval of the Design Review Board in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 18.54 of the Municipal • Code. SECTION 5- Content of Proposed Development Plan. The Proposed Development Plan shall include, but is not limited to the following data: (A) An Environmental Impact Report, which shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator in accordance with Chapter 18.56 of the Municipal Code. (B) An open space and recreational plan sufficient to meet the demands generated by the development without undue burden on available or proposed public facilities. (C) Existing and proposed contours after grading and site development having contour intervals of not more than two (2) feet. (D) A proposed site plan, at a scale not smaller than 1 inch = 20 feet, showing the locations and dimensions of all buildings and structures, uses therein, and all principal site . development features, such as landscaped areas, recreational facilities, pedestrian p{azas and walkways, service entries, driveways, and off-street parking and loading areas. (E) A landscape plan, at a scale not smaller than 1 inch = 20 feet, showing existing landscape features to be retained or removed, and showing proposed landscaping and landscaped site development features, such as outdoor recreational facilities, bicycle paths, trails, pedestrian plazas and walkways, water features, and other elements. (F) Building elevations, sections, and floor plans, at a scale not smaller than 1/8 inch = 1 foot, in sufficient detail to determine floor area, gross residential floor area, interior circulation, locations of uses within buildings, and the general scale and appearance of the proposed development. (G) A proposed plan of parking, foading, traffic circulation, and transit facifities; and a proposed program for satisfying traffic and transportation needs generated by the development. (H) A volumetric model of the site and the proposed development, portraying the • scale and relationships of the proposed development to the site illustrating the form and mass of the proposed buildings. (I) An architectural model of each proposed building, at a scale not smaller than 1 inch = 40 feet, portraying design details. „ (J) A proposed program indicating order and timing of construction phases and phasing of recreational amenities and additional amenities. ~ Page 3 of 13 Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1996 SECTION 6- Permitted Conditional and Accessory Uses. (A) In Development Area A- Vail Run, the following uses shali be permitted: (1) Multiple family residential dwellings; • (2) Accessory retail, restaurant and service estab(ishments not occupying more than 18,000 square feet including the following: Apparel Stores Art supply stores and galleries Book stores Camera stores and photographic studios Candy stores Chinaware and glassware stores Specialty food stores Florists Gift stores Hobby stores S Jewelry stores Leather goods stores Liquor stores Newsstands and tobacco stores Professional and business offices Sporting goods stores Stationery stores Toy stores Variety stores Barber shops Beauty shops Travel and ticket agencies Delicatessens with food service • Cocktail lounges, taverns and bars Coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants Additional businesses or services determined by the zoning administrator to be • similar to permitted uses. Page 4 of 13 Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1996 (B) 1n Deveiopment Area B- Simba Run, the following uses shall be permitted: (1) Multiple family residential dwellings which may be condominiumized for • sale as interval ownership fee interests and the employee housing units required according to Section (9c), which shall be rental units. (C) In Development Areas A and B the following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the municipal code: (1) Public utility and public service uses; (2) Public buildings, grounds, and facilities; (3) Public or private schools; (4) Public park and recreation facilities; (5) Meeting rooms. (D) In Development Areas A and B the following accessory uses shall be permitted: (1) fndoor and outdoor recreational facilities, including, but not limited to, swimming pools, tennis courts, handball and squash courts and similar ~ recreational facilities. (2) Home occupations, subject to issuance of a Home Occupation Permit in accord with the provisions of Section 18.58.130 of the municipal code. (3) Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. SECTION 7 - Development Standards. The following development standards have been submiited to the Planning and Environmental Commission for its consideration and recommendations and are hereby approved by the Town Council; these standards shall be incorporated in the Approved Development Plan pertinent to each Development Area to protect the integrity of the development of SDD No. 5; the following are the minimum development standards and shall apply unless more restrictive • standards are incorporated in the Approved Development Plan. Development Area A may be modified provided that no such modification shall increase the discrepancy between the structure or site improvements and the development standards set forth in this Ordinance. (A) Lot Area - Development Area B shall cons;st of apNroximately 6.3 acres. i Page 5 of 13 Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1996 (B) Setbacks - The required setbacks shall be as indicated on the Approved Development P(an, being a minimum of 20 feet from any perimeter property line of the totai site. . (C) Distance Between Buildings - The minimum distances between all buildings on the site shall be as indicated on the Approved Development Plan. (D) Height - The maximum height of all buildings shall be 45 feet, with the exception of the buildings located in Phase II of Development Area B, which shall have a maximum height as indicated on the Approved Development Plan. , (E) Density Control - The floor area of all buildings and the number of dwelling units shall not exceed the following provisions: Bev. Be A nr A..... a T..a..l C11h AI..S rA Tr~a -43,000 126,309 169,309 4,955 4,955 . unats, pev~.Ar~.AlVri~:f~un3 ~~v..Area ~:t~mba`>F~i~~ 1?eu: Are~: Bi~av.o,~ littls~l ~'~t~~~str ::GRFA ~fe~ :M~tkst;t~t11~6~; 43,D(3Q;sq::.tt> 91.;572;sq;;~i; 34;56~;sq:;TE: 'EE9,I~?~:sq;.:i~> ~ilaX:':Gf~A . : Olf UW) 13 sa 3~6 sv h 9>:20f}s~ ft: . `Fotal ~'sEi~iA: 43,~0 sq::ft; BS,Q08 sq #t: 35S782sq:;#: Maii.::# ~f>1Jiiits Jiiwrlrei~; 55:v#iits t::lliiits . . : ~ ~:~41~ . ,ToW11~litss s5,un4#s '~3 units ~73 u~#f#$ !?~taBlty (liiclud~r~ ~Ht,~s 9 7 vrii~ aci~e s! 2~J uiiii~lacr~> 41. ~Eu#s~acr:~ :ukii?s~~a [~erasiiy:: _ {13~its perac~~aX . xGpg::~~ll~s}; 7vMsla!~s t5 11aW .~luiSfar'd~ ..fpon cQ:ns~ru~tior~ af ~h~ oy..;~ppro...~d ~es~srty .f..or Sauu~ Y..~11as: 4her~ ~halt ~o . ; : l R , # is t~r [ ee.` sin < ,.;~;<::.;::.~:...:;><~.; a~~la~~:e.:.. Ax Cse ma~at ~n ernp~ . . ..F~cu: .::...g.:ur~#a~s~ a~e~ . ~ ior.:th~;>ert... re;S....!. Page 6 of 13 Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1996 (F) Building Buik Control - Building bulk, maximum wall lengths, maximum dimensions of building groups, and requirements for wall off-sets, shall be as indicated on the Approved • Development Plan. (G) Site Coverage - Not more than 20 per cent of the Development Area B shall be covered by buildings, with the exception of Phase II of Development Area B, which shall be as designated on the Approved Development Plan. (H) Landscaping and Natural Open Space - A minimum of 60 per cent of Development Area B shall be landscaped or natural open space in accordance with the Approved Development Plan, with the exception of Phase II of Development Area B, which sha{I be as designated on the Approved Development Plan. (I) Parking and Loading - (1) Off-street parking shall be provided in accord with Chapter 18.52 of the municipal code; at least 85 per cent of the re uired parking shall be located within the • main building or buildings, or beneath accessory decks, terraces, plazas, or tennis courts and shall be completely enclosed and screened from view, with the exception of Phase II • of Development Area B, which shall be as designated on the Approved Development Plan. (2) No parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area or on the south side of any building, and no parking or loading shall be permitted at any time in areas designated for recreation or open space use on the Approved Development Plan. (3) Driveways, passenger loading areas, and parking areas not located within a building shall be permitted only as indicated on the Approved Development Plan. (4) On-site parking shall be provided for common carriers providing charter service to the development; said parking sites shall be indicated on the Approved Development Plan. (J) The Approved Development Plan for Phase II of Development Area B shall • consist of the following drawings provided by fsori~ a~it~ a55t~~iates~ lti~.: .....:...::..::;:.;;:;;;><;,<.; eet;~lo !~i '~t dateci 919C9and;revIsac~ I l1~l~~ and Ph~s4ng P~an) ~ .Io dat~~?311:3r~dind;:Pl~n~ :.:.>::;;.:::..,:<.;:<;. ;::..:.,;:<;;:::.:::::<.;:.;:.::.;,..;::;.;.....:.;:..::. $h~~t !~'s ~ ~«t~d i ~r96 (~''~or [aris~ 8u~l. ;:~i~v~t+t~t~~ f~r 8~tidrn~ #5~ .lt~s 4r1d:l~~ 3 ~at~d ;{~1Qpr g ~le~ratians Btail,i~i.n'g;:#fi;} • . fl d~t~d;~11311~6,.revis~d 1~~`/~6.ILan~sc~pe ~?I~~~ Page 7 of 13 Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1996 SECTION 8- Recreational Amenities Tax. The recreational amenities tax due to the development within SDD No. 5, shall be • assessed at a rate not to exceed $0.75 per square foot of floor area and shall be paid in conjunction with construction phases and prior to the issuance of a building permit. SECTION 9 - Special Provisions. (A) Conservation and Pollution Controls. (1) All solid fuel burning devices shall conform with the Town of Vail Fireplace Ordinance (Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1991) and as amended in the future. The basic criteria as presently identified in the Ordinance are as follows: a) Construction of open hearth wood burning fireplaces is not permitted within the Town. b) Dwelling units may contain: i) One (1) EPA Phase II certified solid fuel burning device and no more than two (2) gas appliances (B vent); • -0 R ii) Two (2) gas log fireplaces and no more than two (2) gas appliances (B vent). (2) If solid fuel burning devices are provided within the development, they must be heat efficient through the use of glass enclosures, and heat circulating devices as technology exists at the time of development. (3) The Developer's drainage plan shall include provisions for prevention of pollution from surface run-off. (4) The Developer shall include in the building construction in Development Area B energy and water conservation controls as general technology exists at the time of construction. (B) Phase II of Development Area B shalf include two (2) employee housing units, and • said housing units shall satisfy the requirements of a"Type III EHU" according to the Town's adopted housing ordinance (Ordinance 27, Series of 1992). Additionally, five (5) of the existing six employee housing units (numbers 1201, 2205, 2207, 2401, and 2402, as identified on the Simba Run Condominium Map) shall be permanently deed restricted according to the requirements of a"Type III EHU" as specified in the Town of Vail's housing ordinance (Ordinance 27, Series of 1992). The remaining employee housing unit (number 1205,) shall become a"free-• m a r k e t d w e l l i n g u n i t u p o n s u c h t i m e a s t h e a b o v e s e v e n (7) p e r m a n e n t l y r e s t r i c t e d e m p l o y e e Page 8 of 13 Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1996 housing units meet the restrictions as indicated in the Town of Vail's housing ordinance and have been issued Temporary Certificates of Occupancy. • (C) Approval of Subdivision and Interval Ownership - Interval ownership of multiple- family dwelling units, with the exception of the required employee dwelling units and the dwelling units in Phase II of Development Area B, is hereby approved. Subdivision of the multiple-family dwelling units (not designated for employee housing) permitted in Development Area B into interval ownership fee interests shall require no additional approvals from the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission or from the Town Council for the Town of Vail. (D) Recreational Amenities - The Approved Development Plan shall include the following recreational amenities: (1) A minimum of five additional tennis courts (Development Area A presently has three tennis courts with two of them covered during the winter season). Said tennis courts shall be made available to the general public on a fee basis, subject to reasonable regulation in favor of owners or guests of the development. • (2) Recreation amenities fund contribution of $10,000 to be used for general recreational improvements by the Town of Vail. (3) Bike and pedestrian path traversing property from east property line of Development Area A to west site line of Development Area B shall be provided by developer with exact location to be mutually acceptable to developer and the Town. (4) Swimming pool (in addition to the existing pool in Development Area A) of adequate size to reasonably serve the needs of the development and shall be open to the public on a fee basis sub}ect to reasonable regu{ation in favor of owners or guests of the development. (E) Additional Amenities - (1) The Developer shall provide adequate transportation services to the owners and guests of the development so as to transport them from the development to the Village Core area and the Lionshead area. • (2) The Developer shall provide in its Approved Development Plan a bus shelter of a design and location mutually agreeable to the developer and the Town Council. Said shelter to serve the Lionsridge area generally.. . . Page 9 of 13 Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1996 (F) Additional Requirements - The developer agrees with the following requirements, which are a part of this amendment to Special Development District No. 5: • (1) , 2205, 2207, '.Additiena+Fq; The Town shail not issue a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for any unit in Building #4 or Building #5 (according to the Savoy Villas phasing plan) until such time as Temporary Certificates of Occupancy and deed restrictions have been issued for both of the "Type III" EHU units in Building #5. (2) The appficant agrees to permanently restrict the seven employee housing units as "Type III" EHU's, according to the Town's adopted housing ordinance. (3) . they , • , , The applicant agrees to construct and maintain a public pedestrian path through the property (north to south) and will arrange for the grant of a public access easement to the Town of Vail prior to the Town's issuance of any TCO for any of the Phase II condominiums (according to the Savoy Villas phasing plan). (4) The applicant shall obtain a Colorado Department of Transportation access permit for the proposed triplex driveway prior to the Town's issuance of any building or grading permits for the three townhomes located on the lower bench of the development. (5) The applicant shall add additional landscape plantings subject to the review and approval of the Design Review Board. ~ • Page 10 of13 Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1996 (6) The applicant shall grant the Town of Vail a drainage easement through the property, to provide for the existing drainage flow which currently enters the site • between the proposed employee housing building and the eastern condominium building on the upper bench. The developer shall provide this easement to the Community Development Department for approval before the Town will release any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for units in the Phase II Condominiums (according to the Savoy Villas phasing plan). (7) The applicant shall provide a bike path easement for any portion of the existing bike path located upon the applicant's property. The easement shall be submitted to the Community Development Department by the deveioper and executed before ihe Town will release any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for units in the Phase II Condominiums (according to the Savoy Villas phasing plan). (8) The rockfall hazard report provided by the applicanYs geologist in conjunction with the 1993 approved development plan, must be amended to identify any additional mitigation necessary as a result of the amendments proposed in the 1995 or • 1996 plan, prior to the Town's issuance of any building permits for the project. (9) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the three townhouse units in." :;~:::~~:~~V~y;<~~1(~, the applicant will receive final approval from the Town of Vail Engineer regarding the driveway relocation plans. (10) Prior to the release of any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for units in the Phase II Condominiums (according to the Savoy Villas phasing plan) the applicant agrees to provide a 10' wide public access easement across the properCy, parallel with the southern property line. SECTION 10 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of . this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared . invalid. • SECTION 11 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary ~ and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and '+ts inhabitants thereof. Page 11 of 13 Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1996 SECTION 12 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as ~ provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provisions or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless stated herein. lNTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1995. A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the day of , 1995, in the Municipal Building of the Town. Mayor • Attest: Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED (IN FULL) (BY TITLE ONLY) THIS DAY OF 11995. Mayor Attest: Town Clerk • . • Page 12 of 13 Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1996 Exhibit "A" That part of the First Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Cierk and Recorder, described as follows: ~ Beginning at the most southwesterly corner of said map, thence the following three courses along the westerly lines of said map; 1) N03°33'01"E 160.79 feet; 2) N12°50'33"E 144.72 feet; 3) N17°56'03" 70.60 feet; thence, departing said westerly line, S13°16'03"W 157.26 feet, thence S76°43'S7"E 91.50 feet; thence N13° 16'03"E 35.00 feet; thence S76°43'57"E 72.31 feet to the eastedy line of said map; thence the foliowing two courses along the easterly and southeasterly lines of said map; 1) S24°44'57"E 52.38 feet; 2) S52°50'29"W 272.50 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.6134 acres, more or less; and That part of Simba Run, according to the map thereof, recorded in Book 312 at Page 763 in the Office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: Beginning at the most southerly corner of said Simba Run, thence the following four courses along the southwesterly and northwesterly lines of said Simba Run; 1) N37°09'31"W 233.28 feet; 2) 334.57 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 1771.95 feet, a central angle of 10°49'06", and a chord that bears N42° 13'20"E 334.07 feet; 3) N36°48'48" E 201.36 feet; 4) 15.96 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 428.02 feet, a central angle of 02°08'12", and a chord that bears N37°52'54" E 15.96 feet to a corner on the westerly boundary of the First Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder; thence the following four courses along said westerly boundary; 1) S21 °51'28"W 69.90 feet; 2) S17°56'03"W 181.17 feet; 3) S12°50'33"W 144.72 feet; 4) S03°33'01 "W 160.79 feet to the southeasterly line of said Simba Run; thence, along said southeasterly line, S52°50'29"W 113.08 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 1.560 acres, more or less. • ~ I ~ Page 13 of13 Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1996 FORD PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN • PURPOSE 'o PRO VtDE INFORMATION ~ i o SOLtCIT COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK ~ o D/SCUSS /SSUES • FORD PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN • PEC MEETING A GENDA o Review. of the Public Process - Problem Definition - Givens - Goals and Objecti ves ' - Project Timeline o Feedback - Stakeho/ders - Focus Groups o Discuss Mana9?emen t Plan Frame work ~ - Preservation - Facility Operations , N L oading & De% very ' N Access N Trash Remo val ~ Maintenance ~ Coordination & Scheduling Capital lmprovement Plan - Financia/ Responsibilities - issues ~ Parking N Al ine Garden Pro l ~ p posa FORD PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN • =PROBLEM STATEMENT Ford Park currently accommodates a wide variety af recreatronal and cultural uses within its limited 39 acre area. These uses, which take place aimost exclusively , during the 5 month period of May to September, include outdoor recreation, softbali fields, tennis courts, soccer fields, concerts and vther performances, alpine gardens, I an historical schooi house, nature center, waiking paths, picnic pavillion, playground, administrative offices, park ~ user and skier parking, special events, loading and delivery, trash removal, bicycling, fishing, and whife water sports. No eomprehens+ve decision-making framework currently exists for evaluating present or future management and park use issues, which results in an arbitrary and inconsistent management process. How will the Town of Vail manage multiple, and sometimes conflicting uses, within or improvements to Ford Park and its infrastructure in a manner consistent with ownership and stewardship responsibilities? ~ FORD PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN •PROJECT G/VENS o The Town of Vaii is the owner of Ford Park. As owner, the Town musf manage its assets responsibly. o Assuming responsibility means managing the park in a way that fulfills our morai, ethical, legal, financial, and safety obligations. Our moral obligation in vol ves good conduct and behavior; our ethical obligation involves our principles and standards; our financial obiigation involves our management of revenue, cvsts and other resources; our lega/ obligation in vol ves statutes and contractural commitments; and our safety obligation in vo/ ves freedom from risk, danger, or in jury to the ~ public and the town's empioyees. o The Vait Town Council will be responsib/e for making the fina/ decision on the Ford Park Management P/an. o There are existing legat interests affecting the use of Ford Park. Current interests are he/d by VVF, VAG, VRD, utility company easements, CDOT and other rights-of-way. , v All ideas for use and management of the park will be considered. o CDOT approval will be required for ali alternatives in vol ving frontage road access. ~ FORD PARK MANAGEMENTPLAN ! [GOALS AND OBJECTI VES o Creating a long-term vision for the park. o Determing the ncarry?ng capacity•? of the park. o Crafting solutions to specific site problems. How do I we... ...provide sutficient parking fo accommodate uses and acti vities ? ~ ...get people from the village to the park? ...allow for acceptable internal circulation of pedestrian, service, and emergency vehicles? ...resolve conflicts between users? ...meet CDOT requirements for highway access? o Defining relationships between sfake ho/ders and the general public with the TOV as tandlord, TDV as facilitator, and TOV as steward. o Developing a decision-making framework for evaluafing present and future management and park use issues. o Defining financial obligations and opportunifies. ~ FORD PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN • PROJECT PROCESS TIMELINE . . October 14, 1996 Conceptual Review by Planning & Environmentai Commission October 15, 1996 Conceptual Review by ! Vail Town Councii at evening meeting No vember 18, 1996 Finai PEC Re vie w December 17 1996 Finai Presentation , to Public and Town Council • FORD PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN • . Extract from Ordinance No. 6, Ser?es of 1973, signed April 3, 1973, defining the reasons for purchase of the park. Section 2. Public and Municiaal Puraoses. The Town Council hereby declares that the pubiic and municipa/ purposes compelling the determination to acquire the property described in Section 1 by condemnation are as follows: ~ ~ a. for park and greenbelt purposes, I b. to preserve the natural and physical character of the ~ area to be condemned, c. for bicycle, equestrian and hiking trails, d. for children's playgrounds, e for performing arts and civic center, , f. for a ski lift and related facilities, g. for picnic areas, h, for recreational facilifies such as tennis courts, swimming pools, gymnasium, ice skating rink, i. for theatre and assembly halls, convention center, public schools, j. for possible exchange or trade of condemned land, or a portion thereof, with other property which may more exactly meet the needs of the town, k. to construct and maintain water works, transportation systems, and other public utilities relating to public go health, safety, and welfare. FORD PARK MA NA GEMENT PLAN ~ What was said.... About Open Space.... -"lmprove quality of green space.., underground potential for the park and municipa/ services. " -"Are we trying to cram too much into a given area?" -"We're providing everything for everybody reduce uses and take advantage of the park's natura/ aspects." - "Fabulous asset as is. " -"Responsible stewardship. Don't screw it up!" -"Leave the park as is. Don't ruin it. Take our ~ stewardship seriously. " -"Ensure that the "whims" of a future group (s) wil/ not . erode the original intent for the park. " - -"How do we reconcile current uses with the original ' infent?" - Maintain open sPace, remain as is. Keep Centra/ Park , , theme and protection. " - "Don't loose any green space. " - "Original 1970's vision still applies, " -"Rezone currentiy undeve%ped portion which then i becomes sacrosanct. " . FORD PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN • What was said.... About access..... -"There is no real entrance, where is the front door?" -"Entrance off of the Frontage Road is hideous. " - "Must compiete the streamwa/k and advertise it. It I shou/d run from fhe park to Lionshead.." ~ No new roads in the park. More paths are ok. " ~ -"Must be accessible to everyone and to all venues." -"It is great not to have a front door, access through a variety ot ways is wonderful. " -"Access is more the issue than parking. " - "Must incentivize alternative access opportunities." - "Each entrance should be attractive." -"Explore better connections to the park. " -"There are conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. " ~ r FORD PARK ~ MA NA GEMENT PLAN ~ What was said..... i About the Education Center..... -"EC is a good addition if done right- underground, not too big. . -"i have no strong feelings about fhe EC. The garden is a show p/ace. -"No additionai surface structures- new structures /ead i ~I to expanded uses. " -"Has anyone considered using the o/d schoo/ house?" ~ -"What is the anticipated number of visitors? l'm concerned about the edifice compiex. The nature center and the EC seem like a nice tie in." ' -"Venues that are integrated should be together. ' Across the road defeats the purpose." -"What is the A/pine Garden's philosophy on..the EC? What are they trying to accompfish?" -"This is proposal number one, what's next?" -"Urtderground EG in garden is good and is the onl y 0pPor tuni tY t ha t exis ts for deve/oprn e n t i n t h e p a r k." ~ FORD PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN ~ What was said,......... About Parking... - "Parking is an ongoing issuelprobiem. " - "A structure shouid be invisibie ..underground." -"Let athletes walk and reserve parking for concert goers. " -"Existing parking !ot access is all messed up, ratty, ' don't knaw where to turn. ~ -"This group is not saying a parking structure is a must, but good access is. " - "Only surface skier parking.. is an existing use. " -"The gra vel lot is ugl y---go vertical in to the hill, " -"No idea on location, just underground parking fhat works. " -"Use of the VTC and stream walk is wiser than spending $12 million on a structure." -"ls fhe parking issue the number of spaces or proximity to the park?" ~ FORD PARK r - MANAGEMENT PLAN ~ WHAT WE HEA RD,..,. 1. ?pen and green space was wh y the park was bought and is stili an important function of the park and the town shouldn't "screw it up" by over deve/oping it. The character of the park is fine the way it is. None of the current uses should be discarded. 2. The multip/e access points and means into the park are a good thing. However, they are not as convenient, easy to use, easy to find, or attractive as they could be. Circulation within the park is , a/so inconvenient and reduces the best use of the park. Non ! -vehicu/ar means of access should be promoted such as mass transit and walk paths. - ~ 3. Consistent with the urging to "not screw it up" by over • developing the park, comments regarding the proposed A/pine Gardens education center re/ated to the impacts on the park. Many of the comments were actually questions indicating the concept was not well understood. Some thought the education center was a duplication of, or at least consistenf wifh, the function of fhe Nature Center. Most agreed if the education center is going to exist, it must be adjacent to ar within the gardens. 4. Parking is a serious problem at the park. The so/ution probabl y involves more than one aspect. Improving bus service and the wa/king connections are part of the so/ution. On-site parking, if expanded, should be underground with green space on top. The probable best location for this structure is the existing gravel lot. The town should nof be financially responsib/e for providing day skier parking while VA seiis spaces at Goiden Peak. Winter parking use should be compatib/e with winter activities within the park, and / or emp/oyee parking. ~ { FORD PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN • PLAN FRAMEWORK l. Preservation/Protection ' A. Existing zoning classification of Ford Park is General Use. Permitted, conditional, and accessory uses included in the general use classification are appropriate. Through modifying the I existing master pian, areas within Ford Park with particular aesthetic or environmenta/ significance be delineated as preservation areas where no further development may occur. The uses allowed could mirror the natural area preservation zone districts which are passive oufdoor recreation and open space. B. Revise the master p/an to include and define the following: 1. Allowab/e uses within the park. ~ 2. Design guidelines and minimum consfrucfion sfandards. 3. Set maximum sizes for project or buiidings = that could be ailowed. , ll. Facility Operations A. Loading and Delivery. Leasees operating facilities within Ford Park are required to minimize vehicu/ar intrusions into the park. All deliveries and /oading wiil be scheduled to occur between the hours of 6 am and 9 am. All vehicles must be out of the park areas by 9 am. All leasees will provide adequate space within their facility to accomodate storage requirements. B. Trash Removal. Leasees operating facilities within Ford Park are required to utilize a centralized trash/refuse col/ection and pickup tacility. No individual trash dumpsters will be allowed. A/l outdoor trash or recycling receptacles will be of an approved animal proof design. ~ FORD PARK F MA NA GEMENT PLAN • PLAN FRAMEWORK (CONTIFD) C. Maintenance. Primary access routes to all buildings, structures, and facilities are to be swept, , cieared of snow and ice, and repaired on a routine basis. . Primary access routes are fo be designated by the Director of Public Works and Transportation. All buildings, structures, and facilities are to recei ve I routine maintenance to include painting, staining, ~ s/eaning, debris removal, landscape maintenance, etc. to ensure they remain in a safe serviceab/e and useable condition. D. Coordination and scheduling. All events and activities programmed by the Town of Vail or the leasees ~ wiil be based on a master schedule prepared by the Director of Public Works and Transportation (PW/T). Overiapping events which create parking demands which exceed space and transit service capacities will not be ailowed. Requests for scheduling will be made to the Director of PW/T no /ess than one month and no more than 12 months prior to the requested date. The Town Council will establish priorities if there are conflicts. ~ ` FORD PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN • PLAN FRAMEWORK (cont"d) lll. Financial Responsibilities ~ ~ A. Stakeholders will continue to be responsib/e ~ far the financing of repair, maintenace, and improvement ta their existing facilities. ' B. T e o f Vail will continue to provide h T wn 0 existing municipa/ services to the park. ~ C. Public and priva#e partnerships wiil be formed to finance any future ?mprovements to the park that are or will be shared by multip/e users. D. For improvement re/ated projects, the initiating organization will be responsible for all costs relating to fhe construction, operations, and mitigation of the pro%ect. ~ . FORD PARK ' ~ MA NA GEMENT PLAN ISSUES ~ A. Parking 1. Mixed comments on this issue - Remove al/ parking, - Build structure under fields and i let VA pay for them, - Make the bus from the VTC the easiest way to ' get to the park. - Improve the existing surface /ot only, - Build a structure under the existing lot and use it for emp/oyee parking, 2. So/utions to the parking issue may involve more than one aspect. - Reduce demand for parking by making it . easier to use the bus, by making it easier to walk and by coordinating schedules to ~ eliminate over/apping events. - Reconfigure existing parking areas, posibly expand existing parking areas somewhat to maximize the potential number of space. , Remember that Frontage Road improvements require approval from CDOT and the /oss of some parking spaces. . 3. The primary issue becomes the number of ~ spaces to be pro vided. - VA has requested that the option of a day skier parking facility be /eft open. - Public comment was mixed as to whether day skier parking was appropriate. Several thought VA should pay for it if it is to be built. - Most agreed that if a parking structure is to be ~ built it shou/d go under the existing grave/ lot. , ~ FORD PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN • ISSUES (CONT"D) B. A/pine Gardens Education Center , 1. Mixed comments on this issue as well. , - Don't build anything more or new in the park. i - Earth covered center in the park is ok. - Put in soccer fieid parking lot and bury it. ~ - Combine with Nature center or use another existing facitity in the park. - It is important that the educafion center be ~ adjacent or connected to the existing ~ gardens. 2. A framework for decision making must be puf info pface to deai with this, as well as future develoment proposals. These run the range fram referendum s . required for ali future buiidings, structuresor facilities, to restricted zoning, to Town Council decision making as being the appropriate method(s) to protect and preserve the park. ~ r ~ FORD PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN PRELIMINARY ACTION PLAN (CONT'D) ' i PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS , o improve shuttie bus service i o Improve existing Streamwa/k by j - lighting ; - landscaping ; - grade improvement i - signage o Improve the other 4 existing entries. ' o Design and construct new centra/ access route ' into the park. Will require re-orientation of ' existing ball ffe/ds. o Desi9n and construct new wa/kway from ~ parking structure to the park a/ong the Frontage Road. o Develop new signage program. - o Design and construct centra/ trash dumpster enclosure. o Improve access of road B to facilitate deliveries. o Improve wa/k path into Nature Center. o Improve existing p/ayground to meet current safety standards. a Design and construct Streamwa/k to Lionshead o lmprove vehicular access from Frontage Road by consolidafing entries and /andscaping. o Pave and landscape existing gravel parking lot. i AP iP I? ~r, y F p~,,,- PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSlON ~ • October 14, 1996 ~ Minutes ~ MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT; Greg Moffet Diane Golden Susan Connelly Greg Arnsden Mike Mollica Henry Pratt Dirk Mason Galen Aasland Tammie Williamson John Schofield Larry Grafel Gene Uselton Todd Oppenheimer Judy Rodriguez Public Hearinq 2:00 p.m. The meeting was ca!!ed to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for two 250's, in order to construct a Type II EHU, located at 1225 Westhaven Lane/Lot 43, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Sentry Construction, represented by Pam Hopkins Pianner: George Ruther/Mike Mollica . Mike Mollica gave an overview of the staff inemo. Mike stated that staff was recommending approval with no conditions. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. I Pam Hopkins, representing Sentry Construction, had nothing to add. I Greg Moffet asked for any public input. There was none. Greg Moffet asked for the Commissioner's comments. There were no comments from the Commission. Greg Amsden made a motion for approval per the staff memo. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. 2. A request for a major subdivision of Lot P-2, Block 3, Vail Village First Filing, and a vacated portion of Hanson Ranch Road. The site is generally located east of Vail Valley Drive between Hanson Ranch Road and Gore Creek Drive. A complete legal description is available in the Community Development Department. Applicant: P-2 Association, represented by Art Abplanalp Planner: George Ruther/Dirk Mason • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 14, 1996 Z I , i ~ I Galen Aasland disciosed, for the record, that he had done work ior Bob Lazier in the past, however, he didn't see it as a problem with this request. ~ John Schofield disclosed, for the record, that he was currently working for Bob Lazier, but it had • ' nothing to do with this proposal. ~ Dirk Mason gave an overview of the request. Based on the staff analysis, staff was recommending approval with the two conditions as stated in the staff inemo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant would like to comment. ~ Art Abplanalp, representing the P-2 Association, expanded on the history of the request. He stated that the property was established in the early `70's and owned by VA. The ownership ~ boundaries now were those that were established in the 70's. The owners don't want to be liable ~ for anyone's actions. Of the two conditions presented by staff, he stated we would like to make a change on the 2nd. It needs to be changed to read, the Town of Vaii must take action on any ' proposals within 30 days. Art also stated that the sidewalk conflicts with trees, vegetation and parking. Art suggested that this was nat the place for the sidewalk, therefore, Condition No. 1 , should be removed. Diane Milligan, Manager of the Ramshorn, was in favor of the resubdivision, if only to make liabilities easier to handle. She had a problem with Condition No. 1. Less than a year ago, the ~ PEC voted unanimously by a vote of 7-0, that the sidewalk not be located on the east side of the street. There was even discussion at the November 27, 1995 PEC meeting regarding the Golden Peak Redevelopment, that the sidewalk that existed be removed. The most ihat was to be in this location was a crasswalk only. The pracess was to came before the PEC and the Council also agreed not to take out the trees. The issue was not about one or two trees, but the aesthetics of the area. Diane advised to stick to the original decision, as it was thought to be a • done deal. Diane stated that we have to say no; we don't want this sidewalk. Greg Moffet asked for any more public comment. Dirk Mason said that he spoke to Greg Hall prior to this meeting. The granting of this pedestrian easement would preserve the six 30' tall trees. Greg Moffet said the Golden Peak discussion did not include a sidewalk on that side of the road, on the east side of Vail Valley Drive. Council felt it was not the appropriate time to put a sidewalk in at that time. However, it did not become a dead issue at that time That was the Town right- of-way. Jim Lamont, Executive Director of the East Village Homeowner's Association, stated that there was not to be a sidewalk on the east side of Vail Valley Drive. We requested the main sidewalk be on the west side of the street. The decision was for the east sidewalk to be yanked out. The traffic flow was to be evaluated after this season. We want to suggest to look more seriously at the Chalet Road access. The right-of-way has been abandoned in front of the Texas Townhomes. The Town Engineer should not press an issue, when the PEC and the Town Counc+l voted no on it before. We are not in favor of easements being granted. Diane Milligan showed photos and demonstrated the traffic fiow of people in that area. The tendency of peop(e would be to noi walk around the island on the s+dewaik, rather they wouid take a stra'sght path on the road. P{anning and Environmcntal Commission ~ Minutes October 14, 1996 2 Jim Lamont stated that when the Golden Peak Redevelopment finai plan was submitted, • including all improvements, the sidewalk was back on the plan. Jim stated that at that time they registered a complaint and the sidewalk came out of the plans. John Schofield was farniliar with the area, as he drives it daily. He echoed what Jim and Diane ~ have said. He could only see people using the sidewalk in the summer. He felt that the Town should bond the life of the trees. He stated his concern, that a sidewalk with so many curbcuts , would not be safe. John stated that he couldn't support the sidewalk. Gene Usefton, having read ihe minutes of the November 27th meeting, agreed with John on the sidewalk. He didn't have any problem with the rest of the proposal. Greg Amsden said it was appropriate for staff to request easements with this type of proposal. This location was a strategic site in Town. Greg stated that the Town of Vail should sign the covenants. Art Abplanalp stated that the Town was not a party in this request. Art would like to see the condition read, that if the Town didn't react within 30 days, they would then waive their rights. Mike Mollica stated that he agreed with Art, but the Town would like some say regarding certain elements of the covenants. Art Abplanalp stated that he would like assurance that if we couldn't get the Town into action, we would like to be able to proceed. Galen Aasiand, although he agreed with the comments, said this didn't serve the Town's • interests. Galen explained that applicants can place restrictive covenants on their praperty, and that the covenants may not be in the interests of the Town. Art Abplanalp stated that the covenants were VA's and we were reinforcing them. Jim Lamont said we weren't prescribing any other use other than what was originally adopted. Henry Pratt said if there was a need for a sidewalk, it could be done when the trees died. Henry was not in favor of an easement. Henry stated that it would be taking away an opportunity to put ' something nicer in than what's there now. ~ Greg Moffet said despite the fact that the easement issue had been discussed and turned down, it was appropriate for the staff to ask. Greg said Chalet Fioad was much more appropriate for a secondary pedestrian path. Greg said that if we voted to inciude the covenants, the Town Attorney should review those covenants. Henry Pratt said that +t was his understanding we were not adding new covenants. ' Art stated that there were new covenants added that the Town had required for maintenance. They were delivered to the Community Development Department three weeks ago. The Town involvement was the only new covenant. Galen Aasland asked if the new covenants that were being created would supersede the old ones? S Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 14, 1996 3 4 I Art Abp(anaip explained that you could not supersede the o!d covenants; the new covenants were added as a response to the Town's request. Greg Amsden asked if the Commission was in agreement with Condition No. 2 on page 8 of the • staff inemo. I Greg Moffet said that this was a preliminary plat. Greg Amsden made a motion that the preliminary plat for the major subdivision requesT be I approved, per the staff inemorandum, with the deletion of Condition No. 1. ' Henry Pratt seconded the motion. I John Schofiefd amended the motion to include Art Abplanalp's comment that if the Town did not take action within 30 days, they would waive their involvement and the proposal would be approved. Henry Pratt seconded the amended motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. 3. A request for a major SDD amendment to allow for a modification to Savoy Vilias, of SDD #5, located at 1230 Lionsridge Loop/Savoy Viffas, Phase II and III. The site is generally focated east of Timber Ridge Apartments, west of Simba Run, north of the North Frontage Road and south of Lionsridge Loop. A full legal description is available in the Community Development Department. Applicant: BWAB, Inc., represented by Chris Klein • Planner: Dominic Mauriello/Mike Moltica ~ Mike Mollica gave an overview of the request. He explained the history of the SDD and said the request included the most recent modifications. He said that staff had concerns with the enclosed parking. This proposal would eliminate ihe 2-car garage. Thus, the enclosed parking of Savoy Villas would drop to 47% from the original proposal of 52%. The intent was to keep the total parking in the entire SDD to 85%. Since it has dropped to 82%, staff has concerns. Due to the reduction in the enclosed parking, some findings have not been met. Overall, though, staff is recommending approval, with the condition that a 2-car garage be added and to stay within the building footprint of the 1995 approval. Staff is recommending approval with the 3 conditions as listed on page 10 of the staff inemo. Mike also mentioned that staff had included a draft ordinance, attached to the memo, to illustrate Condition No 3. Chris Klein, representing BWAB, lnc. stated that he had challenges with this project. He stated that he took away the office area. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. Mike Mollica answered a question that came up during the site visit regarding the employee housing units being made smaller. Planning and Environmental Corrunission • Minutes October 14, 1996 4 Ga(en Aasland said the applicant would need to include enclosed parking with this request, • otherwise the applicant is not working with the Town's interest in mind. Since the applicant is making the employee housing units smaller, Galen would have to vote against this proposal. Henry Pratt stated, he felt the same as Galen. Since the Town granted additional density, the Town should be given something in return. A multiple bedroom employee hous+ng unit has been nr I presented. He s 99 taken out and so therefore, Henry is not in favor of the request a s Y u ested , to the applicant to table the request until the applicant can come back with a different solution. John Schofield echoed Henry's comments. Gene Uselton echoed Henry's comments. Greg Amsden echoed Henry's comments. He said the applicant can't factor economic reasons, just because it's cheaper to buiid. Greg is not in favor of the applicant gaining square footage for a free market unit, by taking out square footage from an employee housing unit. He also agreed with the suggestion to table this item until a better solution is found. Greg Moffet said this proposal reduced the employee housing uniYs sizes and covered parking was a problem. Greg was in favor of denial, but he said if someone moves to table this item so the applicant can come back and try again, he would agree to that. Chris Klein would like to table his request. He stated that a problem for him was to stay within , the original footprint. I Mike Mollica said to stay within the original footprint was critical, however, the applicant had a , right to propose a modification to that footprint. Mike said that he recommended the applicant • stay within the footprint. Greg Moffet stated that when the request became more in conformity with the Town's objectives, ~ the PEC would look at it again. Henry Pratt made a motion to table the request. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. Greg Moffet asked for any more discussion. Henry Pratt suggested a date to table the item to. Mike Mollica suggested tabling the item until the October 28th meeting. Henry Pratt amended the motion to include tabling the item untii the October 28th meeting. Galen Aasland seconded the amended motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. • Planning and Environntental Commission Minutes October 14, 1996 5 i ' 4. A request for an interior remodel to add a bedroom and a bathroom of approximatefy 250 i sguare #eet, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1776 Sunburst Drive #9/Vail Golf i Course Townhomes. • ~ Appficant: Anne & Peter Mounsey and Joan & Marcella Fox i Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED ~ 5. A request for an exterior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and adding a 3rd ~ floor, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 802B Potato Patch/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato I Patch. Applicants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toome ~ Planner: Dominic Mauriello ~ TABLED UNTiL OCTOBER 28, 1996 I i Henry Pratt made a motion to table item No. 5 until October 28, 1996. ~ Greg Arnsden seconded the motion. ~ lt passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. ~ IlIIIJUUI 6. Information Update: • Ford Park Management P1an update - Larry Grafel • Larry Grafel gave an overview of the Ford Park Management Plan review process and passed out a conceptual outline for putting together the plan for Ford Park. The handout included information about the public process. Larry stated that he would like to talk to the PEC about the framework. Larry said there were a wide variety of things that go on in Ford Park. He said that it was a large responsibility to know how to take care of the present issues. The public processes start out by defining the problem. The handout has outlined the givens. Larry stated that the Town must adhere to financial and safety issues and he informed the PEC that the Town Council would have the final say. Larry stated that the public was told, during these meetings, that ail ideas would be considered. The Colorado Department of Transportation had a say in fiddling with the Frontage Road. Larry said a long term vis+on of the park was needed to include the goals and objectives. There were access conflicts. Larry hoped to define relationships between the uses. The financial issue was always around. Larry explained the project timeline. He thought ii optimistic to have a final decision by December 17th. Larry explained that tamorrow an update would be given to the Town Council. Larry stated that that this would come back to the PEC in November. He pointed out that the packet included the ordinance defining the reasons f4r the purchase of that parcel, in order to give a perspective as to what the originaf intent was, including potential uses and possible uses. He explained that the next four pages in the packet were the entire range of comments that was received from the public meetings on the following issues; open space, access, the Education Center, the Alpine Garden and the parking issue. From such a variety of comments, the staff team tried to synthesize what was heard. The conclusion was that open, green space was most important. There was an analogy to Central Planning and Environmental Commission ~ Minutes October 14, 1996 6 Park and how it should be preserved. Through the conversations, people liked the idea of • multipie accesses through the park. There were many comments to make available more public transportation and paths. The Alpine Garden and Education Center produced lively discussions. In all the discussions, no one was adamantly against anything. It was agreed that the Education Center should be in a neutral location and that it should be very close to the existing Alpine Garden. Most people believed that parking was a serious problem. Comments ran the gamut from no parking to a parking structure. Some of discussions centered on who was parking there before and if we should accommodate all the needs for everyone. A preliminary framework was developed to further define this. The existing Master Pfan has stood the test of time. The Town just needed to polish it up with modifications. "Don't screw it up," was heard over and over again. It all came back to status quo. The public doesn't want to add anything rnore, but wanted to improve upon what we have. The Town needed to define the allowable uses. The Town needed to have design guidelines. Maximum heights needed to be formalized. People don't like the intrusion of loading and delivery. How then does the Town accommodate that need and still not reduce the enjoyment of people engaged in activities in the Park? Maintenance was being done very well. However, it needed to be formalized to get to a world-class level. The Town needed to get a better handle on the coordinating and scheduling of events. Larry mentioned that we thought we could cooperatively help manage those demands and conflicts that happen at certain times of the year, such as the 4th of July. The financial responsibilities would continue to be imposed on people who use the park. Users will determine what kind of demands and impacts were brought to the park. Mitigation would be picked up by the organization of the users. Larry stated that the parking issue caused mixed comments and many solutions. The Park had a 600 car need, with a 275 car capability in the summer, which was the worst season. Greg Moffet asked what the Village parking structure experienced when the park was being used? • Larry Grafel said the Village structure experienced very little impact. People would rather walk the streets, than get on a bus. Greg Moffet mentioned that the Chalet Road shortcut by Manor Vail doesn't get used at all. Larry Grafel stated that most of the right-of-way is CDOT. Larry said that he didn't have a clear definition of the parking needs. The Education Center at Ehe Afpine Garden was the catalyst for developing the park. He asked what things were needed to make our decision. The framework for making a decision still needed to be put together. Reaction had been mixed, whether iC should happen at all. There have been conversations both ways if iYs needed. Larry stated that a preliminary action plan had been put together. Signage and transportation needed to be improved. There were some short term things that the Town could do. We sti(I need to put a capital plan together. John Schofield was in favor of increased parking and more signage. He mentioned that Ford Park was heavily used on Tuesday nights. If the Village structure was not heavily used, then the Town needed to get people back and forth. John said that access from that area would be helpful with the new redevelopment of Golden Peak. He stated that the soccer field parking lot was full by 7am all winter long. He agreed that the uses were wonderful, but just needed to have the rough edges smoothed off. John asked how the financing would be done. He mentioned that it certainly would be helpful if the users would pay for it. John didn't feel the need to get into it from a zoning and use standpoint. He felt it was not a great idea for the Town to get invoived in the scheduling aspect of it. He thought perhaps the Foundation should handle that. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minuies October 14, 1996 7 Gene Uselton asked about moving the ball games down valley? Larry Grafel said the public definitely didn't want to give up the ball fields. They added color and . vibrancy to the park. It was an overwhelming "no" to change that use. I Gene Uselton said the traffic was a problem. Heten Fritch stated that planning and fundraising have been started, but we don't know where the building was going to be located. it will be designed when we know where it will be located. ~ Gene Uselton mentioned that Ford Park parking was free and well received. Larry Grafel stated that there is minimal revenue from that parking. Greg Amsden stated that this was a summer dilemma, with regard to parking. There could be a lot of creative ways to get people from the Village parking structure to Ford Park; including sidewalks, signage and bus service. He thought that public sentiment would not be strong for a structure. He felt that improving the park, by getting people to their use, was important. However, he felt there was a major concern for safety, which was very important . Galen Aasland felt multiple entries were good. There seemed to be an endless number of uses available, however we don't want the place overdeveloped. The Town has to set this up, so that uses could overlap and share. Galen stated that the Town should be the ultimate authority, as they could see the broad schedufe. Gaten feit a parking structure was not needed, as the present one was underutilized. Galen stated that how the people were brought over from the structure needed to be addressed. Henry Pratt felt by burying the interstate, a lot of these problems would go away. Henry stated ~ I that with Bravo moving to Beaver Creek and if we were to move the ball fields down valley, we ' wouldn't have any people ieft here after the Beaver Creek Performing Arts Center was done. Henry felt the Education Center was a good idea, as long as it was to be used by the public and not the Alpine Garden administration offices. Henry felt that the structure was not a good idea. Since the Town lost 150 parking spaces, due to the Golden Peak redevelopment, this ski season would be the test. Henry stated that he could never find which bus went to the concerts this past summer, so he used the streamwalk. Henry has long been an advocate of parking at Ford Park. If it was buried, landscaped and had access to Golden Peak, it would be used. The Town should also find a way to not have to charge so much at these locations. Greg Moffet asked about Donovan Park. Larry Grafel stated that Donovan Park was not going to be included in this process. Greg Moffet stated that Ford Park was a great resource. If adequate signage could be installed to show that carpooling or handicapped were the only allowed parking in that lot, with the rernaining cars directed to the structure, it would be good. Since the parking structure was generally available, the emphasis should be on transporting people over to the park. Greg felt that sooner or later, increased parking needed to be addressed. Greg stated that he was not crazy about turning green space into asphalt. Galen Aasland stated that the green space could be seen by all travelers to Vail. Anything else would be negative from a public perspective. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes October 14, 1996 8 . , Henry Pratt meniioned putting a deck on the underground parking, so one could not see it from • the road. Jim Lamont, representing the adjacent property owners, stated that the idea of moving the Education Center to the soccer field site received support from neighboring Northwoods. The Frontage Road access could be achieved through electronic signage. Jim stated that if the Blue Cow Chute didn't flow, then there existed a backup, which could be hefped with a roundabout. The neighborhood didn't want to encourage any more traffic on Vail Valley Drive. Parking on the soccer field should be by a reservation or managed system. We should make sure these systems that we have are already paid for and then we could have a performing arts center to compete with 8eaver Creek and not just another cold structure. The parking structure notion should be referred to in the plan as a long range goal. Jim stated that the uses should be limited to underground buildings. If a structure was needed, it should be brought back to the public to decide. Helen Fritch, President of Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, said a plan was put together with an underground building. She stated that handicapped access needed to be addressed, as the park now has grades that are too steep and don't tollow ADA guidelines. This new site worked in conjunction with the Nature Center, as it was on the bus route and could be used in winter and in surnmer. The purpose of the Education Center was for exhibits showing Vail as an extension of the environment, and to teach people how to mitigate. It would be a lot more than a display of flowers and would work very well with the Nature Center. The Center would be a link with the natural environment. A whole concept would be put together which would be a resource for Vail. The Alpine Garden was trying to prornote more than a pretty garden. Helen stated that more benches were needed. The distance for elderly people to walk was a more serious situation, than for handicapped people. Helen stated that the existing 57 parking spaces would be kept. • John Schofield asked about the timing of completion of the south sidewalk at Golden Peak? Larry Grafel said it would be finished in 1998. Jim tamont said he understood the purpose of the high altitude garden for flora and fauna. Having just returned from South Africa, Jim stated that Capetown had one and it was one of the major attractions, very heavily attended and very popular internationally. This facility would be extremely crowded. Jim stated that the neighborhood and community wanted to see the ball fields remain. Jim mentioned that in 1974 the community didn't want development there, when it was supposed to be another Lionshead. The passion in the community wanted to protect it as green space. Jim stated that we needed to look at Donovan Park and the east end of Lionshead for a convention center. • Geologic Hazard Report update - Dirk Mason Dirk Mason mentioned that several members of the Commission questioned why we needed an updated hazard report. The geology report viewed walls as too low in a hazard zone. Dirk told the PEC members that this was just an FYI. Henry Pratt told Dirk that when staff made a requirernent for a hazard report, staff should use common sense. Dirk Mason stated that staff used hazard maps to make that determination. • Planning and Lnvironmental Comnussion Minutes October 14, 1996 9 Mike Mol(ica gave the example that if a hazard falis below a lot, in the case of a Rockfall Hazard, we don't require a hazard report if the building envelope is above the hazard. He then asked the Commission if Chris Klein could speak again on Savoy Villas. • Chris Klein asked the Commission if he added a two-car garage and two employee housing units ; on the ground floor, with one large employee housing unit and garage on the main floor, would I this then be acceptable to the PEC? Galen Aasland thought Chris would have trouble with Federal Fair Housing guidelines. Chris Klein said he has suggested three employee housing units instead of two. Galen Aasland stated that access and housing guidelines haven't been addressed. Chris Klein said a lift would be needed, as there is no access to the lower level. There would be a common entry level and a free market unit on a new 4th floor. ~ Henry Pratt said that Chris was offering three one-bedroom units, when there was more of a need, in this town, for larger units. Chris Klein asked if the entire bottom floor had one unit with three bedrooms, the main level a one-bedroom with garage and the top a free market unit, would that work? John Schofieid thought this concept was going in right direction. Gene Uselton and Greg Amsden agreed. 7. Approval of September 9, 1996 and September 23, 1999 minutes • ' Greg Amsden made motion for approval of the 9/9/96 minutes. Galen Aasfand seconded the motion. Gene Uselton had one change, that was submitted in writing to Judy. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Greg Amsden made motion for approval of the 9/23/96 minutes. Gene Uselton abstained from the 9/23/96 vote on the minutes, as he wasn't present at that meeting. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0-1. Greg Amsden made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 4:15p.m. i Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 14, 1996 10