The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-1111 PEC THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY I ~ PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of ~ Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on November 11, 1996, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, utilizing an additional 500 square feet of GRFA, located at 4193 Spruce Way/Lot 12, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: Steven Peters Planner: Dirk Mason A request for a front setback variance to a(low for a garage addition and a wall height variance to allow for a 8'-6" tall wall, located at 3235 Katsos Ranch Road/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Villagehl3th Filing. Applicant: Nancy and William Current, represented by Saundra Spaeh Planner: Dirk Mason A request for a minor subdivision to relocate the common property line between Lots 7 and 8, located at 666 and 696 Forest Road/Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian Planner: Lauren Waterton ~ A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II employee housing unit, located at 2642 Kinnickinnick CourULot 5, Block 2, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Sue Dugan Planner: George Ruther A request for a worksession to discuss the rezoning, from Public Accommodation to Commercial Core 2, of a part of Tract C, Black 5D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther A request for a worksession to review the existing Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) policy and to discuss alternatives. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russell Forrest 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. Sigrt 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 25, 1996 in the Vail Trail. Agcnda last rcvised 1 I/OS/96 lpm ~ PLANNlNG AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, November 11, 1996 AGENDA Project Orientation / Lunch - Community Development Department 11:30 am QUORUM - (November 25, 1996) Site Visits 12:30 pm 1. Dugan - 2642 Kinnickinnick Court 2. Vaif Chapel - 19 Vail Road 3. Austria Haus - 242 East Meadow Drive 4. Current - 3235 Katsos Ranch Road 5. Peters - 4193 Spruce Way Driver: George . NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30p.m. ~ Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 4193 Spruce Way/Lat 12, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: Steven Peters Planner: Dirk Mason 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II employee housing unit, located at 2642 Kinnickinnick Court/Lot 5, Block 2, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Sue Dugan Planner: George Ruther , 3. A request for a minor amendment to SDD # 5 and a conditional use permit to allow for the addition of conference space, located at 1100 N. Frontage Road/SDD #5, Simba Run Building. Applicant: Simba Run Condominium Assoc., represented by Lynn Fritzlen Planner: Dominic Mauriello 4. A request for a front setback variance to al(ow for a garage addition and a wall height variance to aflow for an approximate 8' tali wall, located at 3235 Katsos Ranch Road/Lot 5, Block 1, Vai) Village 13th Fiiing. Applicant: Nancy and William Current, represented by Saundra Spaeh • Planner: Dirk Mason Agenda last rcviscd I I/OS/96 lpm 5. 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 located 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 6. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the I Vail Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Vail Religious Foundation, represented by Ned Gwathmey Planner: Dominic Mauriello 7. A request for a worksession to discuss amending Section 18.22.030, Conditional Uses, of the Vai! Municipa! Code to add "Time-Share Estate Units, Fractional Fee Units and Time-Share License Units," as conditional uses in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther 8. A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a Special Development District overlay to the Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/ on part of Tract C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther 9. A request for a worksession to review the existing Gross Residentia( Floor Area (GRFA) • regulations and to discuss alternatives. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russell Forrest / Tom Braun 10. A request for a minor subdivision to relocate the common property line between Lots 7 and 8, located at 666 and 696 Forest Road/Lots 7 and 8, Bfock 1, Vai( Village 6th Fiiing. Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian Planner: Lauren Waterton . i TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 25, 1996 11. lnformation Update: 12. Approval of October 28, 1999 minutes ~ The applications and information about the proposals are available for pubiic 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 November 8, 1996 in the Vail Trail. ~ ~ Y Agenda last revised l l/12/96 I , • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, November 11, 1996 FINAL AGENDA PrQject Orientation / Lunch - Community Development Department 11:30 am Site Visits 12:30 pm 1. Dugan - 2642 Kinnickinnick Court 2. Vail Chapel - 19 Vail Road 3. Austria Haus - 242 East Meadow Drive 4. Current - 3235 Katsos Ranch Road 5. Peters - 4193 Spruce Way Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board wifi break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30p.m. • Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 4193 Spruce Way/Lot 12, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: Steven Peters Planner: Dirk Mason MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED WITH 3 CONDITIONS 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II employee housing unit, located at 2642 Kinnickinnick Court/Lot 5, Block 2, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Sue Dugan Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 6-0-1 (Amsden abstained) APPROVED WITH NO CONDITIONS • ~ , r Agencia last revised 11/12/96 3. A request for a minor amendment to SDD # 5 and a conditionai use permit to allow for the addition of conference space, located at 1100 N. Frontage Road/SDD #5, Simba Run Building. ~ Applicant: Simba Run Condominium Assoc., represented by Lynn Fritzlen Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED WITH 3 CONDITIONS 4. A request for a front setback variance to allow for a garage addition and a wall height variance to allow for an approximate 8' tall wall, located at 3235 Katsos Ranch Road/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Village 13th Filing. Applicant: Nancy and William Current, represented by Saundra Spaeh Planner: Dirk Mason MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 7-0 . APPROVED WITH 3 CONDITIONS 5. 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 located 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 Maurieilo MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED WITH 10 CONDITIONS 6. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Vail Religious Foundation, represented by Ned Gwathmey Planner: Dorninic Mauriello WORKSESSION - NO VOTE (Henry Pratt abstained) 7. A request for a worksession to discuss amending Section 18.22.030, Conditional Uses, of the Vail Municipal Code to add "Time-Share Estate Units, Fractional Fee Units and Time-Share License Units," as conditional uses in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther WORKSESSION - NO VOTE . • ~ . Agenda lastrevised 11/12/96 I 8. A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a Special Development District overlay to ` the Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/ on part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 9. A request for a worksession to review the existing Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations and to discuss alternatives. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russell Forrest / Tom Braun WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 10. A request for a minor subdivision to relocate the common property line between Lots 7 and 8, . located at 666 and 696 Forest Road/Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian Planner: Lauren Waterton ~ TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 25,1996 ' • MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Moffet Greg Amsden ' Henry Pratt Galen Aasland Diane Golden Gene Uselton John Schofield 11. Information Update: 12. Approval of October 28, 1999 minutes TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 25,1996 The applications and information about the proposals are available ior 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 November 8, 1996 in the Vail Trail. • . I i MEMORANDUM ~ TO: Planning and Environrnental Commission FROM: Community Development Department I DATE: November 11, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit, located at 4193 Spruce Way/Lot 12, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: Steven Peters, represented by isom Associates Planner: Dirk Mason 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Steven Peters, is requesting approval to convert an existing duplex residence, located at 4193 Spruce Way, into a single-family and a Type II Employee Housing Unit (EHU). The applicant is proposing to construct a new dwelling unit, which would be the third dwelling unit on the site, as an addition to the existing structure. In September and December of 1992, the Town Council passed Ordinances 9 and 27, Series of 1992, to create a new Chapter 18.57 - Empioyee Housing, for the addition of Employee Housing Units (EHUs) as permitted or conditional uses within certa+n zone districts within the Town of Vail. The definition in that ordinance states: • Section 18.04.105 (in part) I "Employee Housing Unit (EHU) shall mean a dwelling unit which shall not be leased or I rented for any period less than thirty (30) consecutive days, and shall be rented only to tenants who are full-time employees of Eagle County. EHUs shall be allowed in certain zone districts as set forth in Chapter 18 of this Code. Development standards for EHUs shall be as provided in Chapter 18.57 - Employee Housing. For the purposes of this ' Section, a full-time employee shall mean a person who works a minimum of an average of thirty (30) hours per week." Pursuant to Section 18.57.050(B) of the Vail Municipal Code, in part, a Type II Employee Housing Unit shall be a conditional use in the Two-Family Residential zone district; be permitted on lots which meet the minimum lot size requirement; be attached to, or located within, a single-family dwelling or two-family dwelling; not have more than two bedrooms; shall have one parking space per bedroom, with a 300 square foot garage credit available to help meet the enclosed parking space requirement. The Type II EHU proposed by the applicant will be an 841 square foot, one bedroom unit, located on the lower level of the existing structure. The existing structure has a one-car garage and a carport. The applicant has proposed that the carport be used by the EHU. • 1 . ~ Ii. BACKGROUND On Rlovember 6, 1996, the DRB denied the applicant a separation request, because significant • site constraints did not exist. The applicant proposed to construct a new detached single famify structure as the third dwelling unit. The proposed location was in the southwest corner of the (ot and would have required the removal of a significant amount of mature evergreens. In conjunction with the DRB denial, the Board recommended the additional unit be attached to the existing structure in the northwest corner. ' III. ZONtNG QNAl.YSfS The existing structure currently meets the Town of Vail zoning requirements. With the construction of the third dwelling unit on the lot, the Zoning Analysis will change. Staff will insure that all zoning standards are met prior to final DRB approval. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. • When the Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on November 20, 1990, it recognized the need to increase the supply of housing. The Town encourages EHUs as a means of providing quality living conditions and expanding the suppfy of employee housing for both year-round and seasonai residents. The proposed unit will have a positive impact on the Town's housing needs, by providing housing for employees. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that there will be little impact from the proposed Type II EHU on light, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools or parks. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The site is currently used as rental units, therefore, there is no additional impact associated with this EHU proposal. • 2 . 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be tocated, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. ~ The scale and bulk of the proposed structure is very similar to those in existence in the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to attach an additional dwelling unit to the existing structure, which will increase the bulk and mass associated wiih the property. The amount of GRFA in this proposal has not yet been determined, however, the total GRFA for the project will not exceed the maximum allowable per the Code. 5. Employee Housing Units may be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified by Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code for Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1992, Employee Housing and shatl be subject to the following conditions: a. It shall be a conditional use in the Single-Famity Residential, Two-Family Residentiaf and Primary/Secondary Residerrtial zone districts. The subject property is zoned Two-Family Residential. b. It shall be permitted only on lots which comply with the minimum lot size requirements of the zone district in which the lot is located. • The minimum lot size for a Type II EHU in the Two-Family Residential zone district is 15,000 square feet of buildable site area. The applicant's property has 21,000 square feet of buildable I site area. c. !t shall be located within, or attached to, a single-family dwelling or be located within, or attached to, a two-family dwelling pursuant to Section 18.54.050(1) - Design Guidelines ~ Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development. It may also be located in, or attached to, an existing garage provided the garage is not located within any setback, and further provided that no existing parking required by the Town of Vail Municipal ~ Code is reduced or eliminated. The proposed 7'ype If EHU will be located or? the lower level of a single-family structure. . ~ d. It shall not be counted as a dwelling unit for the purposes of calculating density. However, it shall contain kitchen facilities and a bathroom, as defined in Chapter 18.04 - Definitions of the Municipal Code. It shall be permitted to be a third dweNing unit , in addition to the two dwelling units which may already exist ~ on the lot. Only one Type II EHU shall be allowed per lot. • The proposed EHU will eventually be a third dwe(fing unit on the site. It will contain a full kitchen and full bathroom facilities. 3 e. It shall have a GRFA of not less than three hundred (300) square feet, nor more than nine hundred (900) square feet. An • applicant, however, shali be permitted to apply to the Community Development Department of the Town of Vaii for additional GRFA not to exceed five hundred (500) square feet to be used in the construction of the EHU. The proposed EHU is 841 square feet in size, and therefore, complies with this criteria. f. It shall have no more than two bedrooms. The proposed EHU is a one-bedroom unit and therefore complies with this criteria. g. No more than two (2) adults and one (1) child not ofder than sixteen (16) years of age shall reside in a one (1) bedroom Type li EHU. No more than two (2) adults and two (2) children not older than sixteen (16) years of age shall reside in a two (2) bedroom Type fl EHU. Since this unit will function as a one (1) bedroom, Type II EHU, the first part of the above listed regulation will be complied with. h. Each Type II EHU shall be required to have no tess than one (1) parking space for each bedroom iacated therein. However, if a • one (1) bedroom Type II EHU exceeds six hundred (600) square ' feet, it shali have two (2) parking spaces. All parking spaces required by this Code sha!l be located on the same !ot or site as the EHU. If na dwelling exists upon the property which is proposed for a Type 11 EHU at the time a building permit is issued, or if an existing dwelling is to be demolished and replaced by a new dwelling, not less than one (1) of the parking spaces required by this paragraph shall be enclosed. A 300 square feet GRFA credit shall be allowed for the construction of one enclosed parking space for the Type II EHU. The proposed EHU will be located in an existing structure, with a one-car garage and carport. The existing development requires four parking spaces, two of which are for the EHU. The parking requirements are met on this site. B. Find+nas The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for an Employee Housing Unit: 1. That the proposed location of the use in accordance with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. • 4 .r . , 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it . would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or ' improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for a conditional use permit for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purpose of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code. The recommendation for approval is also subject to the following conditions: . 1. That the applicant execute and return a Type II EHU Deed Restriction to the Town prior to the Town's issuance of a Building Permit. 2. That the one-car garage be appropriately deed restricted for exclusive use by the occupant of the EHU. 3. Staff shall perform a walk-through of ihe existing structure, prior to final DRB review to insure that the EHU meets the requirements of Chapter 18.57.050, Type II Employee housing unit, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. ~ f:\everyone\pec\memos\peters.n 11 5 WNI I L KIVtK NATIONAL FOREST ARESUBDIVIS UNPLATTED BIGHORN SUB ~ :.i5 THE FALLS UNPLATTED gIGHORN S~IBDIVISION S 4 I' AT VAIL THIRD ADDITION O 39)0 ~ OP ^1 saia aa1a a\ 3 6 2 o / 5950 4010 6 .4. 13 ~ aaM r 3850 qo'o QOyp 1 d-0 12 \ 26 \4'9906 ~ • ~ i 396 P1TK1.N_CREEK_ , MEADOWS IN7ERSTATE 70 INTERSTpTE 70 ' IH TO, I ~E~~ERuENCr EniCLE T~~E LELC.FS fUFN V +ROUND ur75 p-f 07 GHOR 3 t~ SUBDI yiJIQ~ I L_'_;.<~„ 4 ,s~s: ~ D AbDl710~.~ Y; 392i J' 9• ZCO~ 1 GlTKIN ~ 6 ~ A • _ CPEEN S .,-1 ,QiJ]~ 23 <253 P.]RN .19T~r f~Lii 4143 11 ii5] I I I} IS 16 n9!A ~ ~ J r. 7R.:C7B- / ) L rao ' - I a^~1 OIVMBU~ B 9 J ~c ~:a ~ I a3 l~' J SFIiUCE KtiY iGN(%i5 a s a_ ~OR p 4,10 <z - ~ IRaCr --~C!1E EI ~295 6 5 4 3 <~.z ~ ~ s z ~ 4315 ~,25 .--5 7vaa a"a az',a a:n 3 Z/ '~/~LL~~~'_'_- Lq'+ • ~ I 7 4 6]] 7964 3914 3997 Jtl 5 J9Ba ]99JI,o„ 3891 o, n Z (GH4RN SUBDLY_ISl4N_FC q \ i~v _ I 5 . {O alGi L1 ~ .tla 1 6 7 8 I 1 ~])I -t~' 10 It 412 ~s i)' 3 t f`{0 6DId S ws E i ( ~S JYO~ 2' ' ~ • C`~~C~ a~'G 9 sa_a aaa~ I 14 10 IA B 7 [ 0.~1 V~.^ a~21G STREAN:iDE , 3014 J3a7 ~ • r'q ~ I IG S`)~,1 1~17 3991 40.7 <0"1 \ 1.1 v~l C(~LUMElI~. DR• 5 2 S 7Jr \ 4316 9J36 I `I JG `4`~ . 0^,.~~ IS lT qIJG \ 20-A 42 4 6 I ia 4 20_1 20-5 a.a6 \ / - ' lUP1,yE DR y IJ ~ H.4 , i1~6 , awa~ 39ic a zeZt ~ zaa e~ I i BIGNORN SUBDI ISION 3 -`4 4 1 ~:~"t5\ ~ SECOND ADDiTION 395fi 3 ~ , , \44 ^c:a .:q ~ 3966 ' 2 1 9 423y ~ (2) ac+c a, Z BIGNO RN CONDOMfNiUM • 5 I 4 3 2 ~•"o~'~~~ED I ~ 416 :9 i_SNIe:G91 02'9 ~,~B 1 i BIGNORN j ; TERRACE ~~GHORN_ESTATES U"P`°TTE° RESUBbIVISfOt~(0 ~ BIGHORN ~.OTS 10 & I! ~ -SIJBDIVISION BIGHORN SUB RESUBDIVISION U"PL " 'Eo FI I RST ADDITION OF LOT 20 BIGHORN_ESTATES ~ SUBDfVfSION I s`~F 9~ I ! I ~ 7 sy ~y UNILATTED ! ~ ~ ~ - . Improvement Location Certificate l.eKal Qeccciption: ~ Lot 12, Block 9, Bighorn Subdivisinn, Third Addition Amended Plat, accordinyt to the plat recorded October a, 19b3 under Reception No. 98059, Eagle County, Colorado. I hereby ccrti(y, that this improvement Laation Ccrtifi<ate ..as prepared for First Western htortgage ~ervices Inc., its successors and/or assigns and First American f[entage Tille Co., that it is not a land survey plat or improvemenl survey plat, and thal it is not lo br relied upun Eor the establishment of fencc, building, or other future improvement lines. I Eurther certi(y that the improvements on the above described parcel on Ihis date, %tarch 30, 1996, except utilitv connections, arc entirely withm thc boundarics of ihr parcel eucpt as shown, that there are no encroachments upon the described prcnusrs b` unproacnunts un am ad}oining premtxs, e~~~~R~ iiidicaled, and that there are no apparent evidence ut any easemcnl crossing or burdening any pa~'b ~'4~J~,eacept as nuted. ~~6V;' ' l)ate Leland Lechrir f'I.S 70~ G Go ' i Fecorded in(ormation was provided by First American Hentage Title Co. Thds~~krc5~jrrftilsR~cPci•on Commitment No. ES150561396-2 that lie within the sub}ect proQerty and are describe~in"4wa};li~t allows Ihem to be drawn, are shown on the drawing below, -%ccording to F(RM Communit} -Panel No. 080054 OQO-l ft, Ihis parcel hes in Zone C(areas o( rttinimal !looding). Address : 4193 Spruce Way , 0 I NT-F_J_-s r r ~ W -Ir r____ . - - 3----- - ~ ~ I - - , 4,L n. i - I I - -i ~ ~ ' . I ~ d ~ _ I • O JI S~ \ n ~ ~ ~ \ 1 N 73•IS'~"w ~soe%:. •Not. A:ctwinq lu Colcrado taw, you must commen c any 1ep,a1 . cC~m tus«.d upen uiy defect in Lhis cerhfieate within three yean aF,cr yw knt diuover tiu.-h d. f.vt In nn evrnt mry any ac6un bacxd upon .uiy ifcf .ct m W s aTCbcate br m-mced mexe tfun ten years from the date nt cerhfication shown he'~' Leland Lechner, 30946 Co. Rd, 356, Buena Vista, Coloradu 51211, (719) 595-9160 MEMORANDUN1 • TO: Planning and Environmcntal Commission FROM: Community Dcvcloprncnt Dcpartmcnt DATE: Novcmbcr 11, 1996 SUE3JECT: A rcquest for a conditional usc pccmit to allow for a Typc II cmploycc housing unit, locatcd at 2642 Kinnickinnick Court/Lot 5, Block 2, Vail Intcrmountain. Applicant: Suc Dugan Planncr: Gcorge Ruthcr L DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Thc applicant is rcqucsting approval of a conditionai usc pcrmit to allow for thc continued usc of an cxisting, non-conforming cmploycc housing unit as a Typc II EHU, locatcd at 2642 Kinnickinnick Court/Lot 5, Block Vail Intc?mountain. An appcoval of this conditional use will lcgitimizc and crcatc a lcgal rccord for thc non-conforming cmploycc housing unit. Thc applicant }ltiS CXCCUtCd a Typc il Ef-!U Rcstrictivc Covcnant. • [n Scptcmbcr and Dcccmbcr of 1992, thc Town Council passcd Ordinanccs 9 and 27, Scrics of 1992, to crcatc a ncw Chaptcr 18.57 - Employcc Housing, tor thc addition of Employcc Housing Units (EHUs) as pcrmittcd or conditional uscs within ccrtain zonc districts within thc Town of Vail. Thc dctinition in that ordinancc statcs: Scction 18.04.105 (in part) "Employcc Housing Unit (EHU) shall mcan a dwclling unit which shall not bc lcascd or rcntcd for any pcriod lcss than thirty (30) consccutivc days, and sha11 bc rcntcd only to tenants who are full-time cmployees of Eagle County. EHUs shall be allowed in certain zonc districts as set forth in Chapter 18 of this Code. Dcvelopment standards for EHUs shall bc as provided in Chapter 18.57 - Employee Housing. For the purposes of this Scction, a full-timc employcc shall mcan a pcrson who works a minimum of an average of thirty (30) hours pcr wcck." Pursuant to Section 18.57.050(B) of the Vail Municipal Code, in part, a Type II Employee Housing Unit shati be a conditional use in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District; be permitted on lots which meet the minimum lot size requirement; be attached to, or located within, a two-family dwelling; not have more than two bedrooms; shall have one parking space per bedroom with a 300 square foot garage credit available to heip meet the enclosed parking space requirement. • 1 Thc Typc II Employcc HouSing Unit proposcd by thc applicant mccts thc rcquircmcnts abovc in that thc 450 squarc foot, onc bcdroom unit, wiii bc locatcd on thc third floor, at thc wcst cnd of • thc cxisting duplcx. Thc cncloscd parking rcquircmcnt docs not pcrtain to this application duc to thc cxisting non-canformmg naturc of thc propcrty. 11. ZONING ANALYSIS Please note that the existing residenee was constructed in Eagle County in 1976 and was anncxed into thc Town of Vail in 1987. Upon rcvicw of thc inforrnation rcccivcd from Eaglc County, it I appears that the structure was built in compiiance with Eagle County zaning. (t is staff s opinion that thc propcrty is gcnci•ally in compliance with thc dcvclopmcnt rcbulations of thc I'rimary/Sccondary Rcsidcntial Zonc District. IIL CRITERIA AND FINDINCS Upon rcvicw of Scction 18.60, the Community Dcvelopment Dcpartmcnt rccommends approval of the conditional usc permit based upon the following factors: ~ A. Considcration of Factors: Bcforc acting on a conditional usc pcnnit application, thc Planning and Environmental Commistiion (PEC) sha11 considcr thc lactors with respcct to thc proposcd usc: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the ~ Town. Whcn thc Town Council adoptcd thc Town of Vail Affordablc Housing Study on Novcmbcr 20, 1990, it ?-ccognizcd thc nccd to incrcasc the supply of housing. Thc Town cncoiuragcs EHUs ns a rncans of providing quality living conditions and cxpanciing thc supply of cmploycc housing for both ycar-round and scasonal residcnts. Thc pcoposcd unit will havc a positivc impact on thc Town's housing nccds, by providing housing for cmployees. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff belicves that therc will be little impact from the proposed Type II EHU on light, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools or parks. 3. Effect upon traftic with particular reference to congestion, autornotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic tlow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. • 2 !t is likcly that thcrc wouici bc an additional vchicic driving to and from thc • residcncc. Staft'fccls that this would bc an insigniticant impact on thc abovc-rcfcrcnccd critcria. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk oF the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Thc scalc and bulk of thc proposcd structurc is vcry similar to those in cxistcncc in thc surrounding ncighborhood. This is duc to thc fact that the lot on which thc cxisting duplcx and Typc II EHU is locatcd, is comparable in sizc to othcr lots in thc ncighborhood. No additional GRFA is proposed to bc addcd with this proposal. 5. Employee Housing Units may be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specitied by Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code for Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1992, Employee Housing and shall be subject to the f'ollowing conditions: a. It shall be a conditional use in the Single-Family Residential, Two-Family Residential and Primary/Secondary Residential zone districts. • Thc subjcct propcrty is zoncd Primary/Sccondary Rcsidcntial. b. It shall be permitted only on lots which comply with the minimuni lot size requirements of the zone district in which the lot is located. Thc minimum lot sizc for a Typc Il EHU in thc Primary/Secondary Rcsidcntial zonc district is 15,000 squarc fcct of buildablc sitc area. The applicant's propcrty has 16,944 squarc fcct of buildable site arca. c. It shall be located within, or attached to, a single-family dwelling or be located within, or attached to, a two-family dwelling pursuant to Section 18.54.050(1) - Design Guidelines Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development. It may also be located in, or attached to, an existing garage provided the garage is not located within any setback, and further provided that no existing parking required by the Town of Vail Municipal Code is reduced or eliminated. The proposed Type II EHU is located at the west end of the existing duplex, on the third floor. i 3 I d. It shall not be counted as a ciweiling unit for the purposes of calculating density. Flowever, it shall contain kitchen facilities • and a bathroom, as defined in Chapter 18.04 - Definitions of thc Municipal Code. It shall be permitted to be a third dwelling unit in addition to the two dwelling units which may already exist on the lot. Only one Type II EHU shall be allowed per lot. Thc proposcd EHU will bc a third dwclling unit on thc sitc. It will contain a full kitchcn and full bathroom facilitics. c. It shall have a GRFA of not less than three hundred (300) ' square feet, nor more than nine hundred (900) square feet. An applicant, however, shall be permitted to apply to the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail for aciditional GRFA not to exceed tive hundred (500) square feet to be useci in the construction of the EHU. Thc proposcd EHU is 450 squarc fcct in sizc, and thcrcforc complics with this critcria. f. It shall have no more than two bedrooms. Thc proposcd EHU is a onc-bcdroom unit and thcrcforc complics • with this critcria. 9. No more than two (2) adults and one (1) child not older than sixteen (16) years of age shall reside in a one (1) bedroom Type 11 CHU. No more than two (2) adults and two (2) children not older than sixteen (16) years of a;e shall reside in a two (2) bedroom Type 11 EHU. i Sincc this unit will function as a onc (1) bcdroom, Typc II EHU, thc first part of thc abovc listcd regulation will bc complicd with. h. Each Type It EHU shall be required to have no less than one (1) parking space for each bedroom located therein. However, if a one (1) bedroom Type II EHU exceeds six hundred (600) I square feet, it shall have two (2) parking spaces. All parking spaces reqvired by this Code shall be located on the same lot or site as the EHU. If no dwelling exists upon the property which is proposed for a Type 11 EHU at the time a building permit is issued, or if an existing dwelling is to be demolished and replaced by a new dwelling, not less than one (1) of the parking spaces required by this paragraph shall be enclosed. A 300 . • 4 square feet GRFA credit sha11 be aliowed for the construction • of one enclosed parking space for the Type II Et[U. Sincc thc proposcd EHU is an cxisting non-conforming situation, this criteria is not npplicablc to this particular rcqucst. B. Findings The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for an Employee Housing Unit: 1. That the proposed location of the use in accordance with the purposes of this Ordinancc and the purposes of the distiict in which the sitc is located. 2. That the proposcd location of thc usc and thc conditions undcr which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public hcalth, saFcty, or wctfarc or matcrially injurious to propcrtics or improvemcnts in thc vicinity. ! 3. That thc proposcd usc would comply with cach of thc applicablc provisions I of Titlc 18 of thc Vail Municipal Codc. ' IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • Thc CommunitY Dcvclopmcnt DcPartmcnt staff rccommcnds ap Proval of this application for a conditional usc pcrmit for a Typc [f Employcc Housing Unit. Staff bclicvcs that thc critcria havc ' bccn mct as discusscd in thc mcmo. Rcgarding thc findings, staff bclicvcs that Finding B l is mct as thc proposcd usc is in accordancc with thc purposcs of thc zoning ordinancc as wcll as thc zonc district. Finding B2 and B3 arc mct, in staffs opinion, as thc proposal complics with all of thc standardspfthc Zoning Codc. • 5 . MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: November 28, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a minor amendment to SDD # 5 and a conditional use permit to allow for the addition of conference space, located at 1100 N. Frontage , Road/SDD #5, Simba Run Building. Applicant: Simba Run Condominium Association, represented by Lynn Fritzlen Planner: Dominic Mauriello BQCKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION 4F THE REQUEST The PEC tabled this request at the October 28, 1996 meeting in order to have the applicant address the bulk and mass concerns of the proposed sky light monitor system. The applicant has redesigned the skylighUwindow system. The proposal now provides a skylight 4' above the roof of the existing racquetbaff courts (a reduction in height of 4' from previous proposa!) and a wall of windows on the face of one racquetball court. Attached is a copy of the revised plans and a photo rendering. The remainder of the proposal remains unchanged. • The Simba Run Condominium Association is proposing a minor SDD amendment to SDD #5 and a conditional use to convert two existing racquetball courts into an exercise room, sauna, and , locker room on the ground level and conference/meeting rooms (1,680 sq. ft.) on the second level. An existing linen storage area will be converted to a food preparation area. The conference rooms will have access from existing common corridors on the second level. The applicant is also providing a dumpster enclosure for the existing dumpster located along Lions Ridge Loop, which is currently unscreened and not in conformance with the Town's design guidelines. This enclosure will have 4 sides and a roof constructed with 6" wood siding to match the Simba Run buildings. The parking requirement for this conference space is 7 additional parking spaces. The applicant is providing 3 additional surface parking spaces by re-striping an area which is currently paved at the entrance to the parking structure. The applicant is proposing two options for providing the additional 4 parking spaces required. The first option is to re-stripe two rows of parking in the parking structure for compact spaces, thereby providing four additional spaces. The second option proposed is to re-stripe one row in the parking structure to provide 2 additional spaces and expand the driveway at the entrance to the Simba Run building along the North Frontage Road to provide 2 additional surface spaces. The original approval for Simba Run included 128 parking spaces within the parking structure and 6 surface parking spaces, for a total of 134 parking spaces on-site. In the review of this request and upon site inspection, it has come to our attention that 8 of these 128 structured parking spaces have been converted (without approval) for wood storage (2 spaces) and general storage (6 spaces). • 1 i . ~ . In accordance with SDD #5, conference facilities require a conditional use permit. The proposal is also considered a"minor amendmenY' due to the fact that it involves changes of less than 5°l0 of all floor area, excluding GRFA, in the Simba Run project. The proposal adds 1,680 sq. ft. of ~ common area which is a 2.3°lo increase. • ~ It. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: SDD #5 (with no underlying zoning) I Allowable/Reauired ExfstinQ Proposed I Parking: 188 spaces" 134 spaces 141 spaces Enclosed parking: 114 spaces (85%) 128 spaces 132 or 130 spaces ~ (based on option pursued) Common Area: As designated on dev. plan 31,254 sq. ft. 32,934 sq. ft. Notes: *The development plan for Simba Run was approved with 134 parking spaces. If this development was not located in an SDD, then the site would have been required to have 188 parking spaces. . 111. CRCCERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL The following are the criteria that must be considered wrhen approving a conditional use permit: A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. • The proposal provides facilities for conference space. Additional conference space is a needed use in Vail. The praposed space will complement the existing condominiums and accommodation units on this site. The proposal will increase the opportunities for bringing visitors to Vail, especially during the off-seasons. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation #acilities, and other public facilities needs. The proposal adds conference space with minimal impacts to the site. It is anticipated that the majority of users of this conference space will find accommodations at Simba Run and therefore the need for additional parking (7 parking spaces) or the generation of additional traffic will be minimal. Staff believes thai the proposal has no negative impacts on any of the above criteria. 2 . ~ Y I 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive • and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic ffow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and i parking areas. The proposal has minimal impacts on these items. The proposal will not change the existing loading and delivery requirements for this site. As stated above, the additional parking needs and traffic generated by this additional conference space is minimal and will not have a negative effect upon these criteria. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and buik of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The proposal has a minimal increase to the bulk and scale of the structure. Skylights and windows are being added which fit 'rnto the existing architecture. The perceived bulk and mass of the structure will not be greatly altered. B. FINDINGS The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findinq before _ gr ntina a conditional usepermit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and ihe purposes oi the district in which the site is located. . 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. !V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is recommending approval of the applicanYs request for a minor amendment to Special I Development District No. 5 and a conditional use permit for the conference space, subject to the foAowing findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the I conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of SDD #5. i 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be ~ operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. ~ 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the app(icable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. • 3 r The recommendation of approval is subject to the following conditions: I 1. That the 8 parking spaces in the parking structure currently being used for storage , shall be returned to parking spaces, as per the original approval for Simba Run ~ prior to the Town's issuance of a Building Permit for the construction of the ~ conference space. ~ 2. That a dumpsier enclosure shall be provided for the existing dumpster located along Lions Ridge Loop. The enclosure shall include four sides and a roof and shall be architectural4y compatible with the Simba Run buildings. I 3. That the applicant provide a restriping plan for the parking spaces in the parking garage and/or a comp(ete design and grading plan for any new paved surtace parking in conjunction with a design review application. I I f:/everyone/pec/memos/simba.nll ~ • . 4 ~ ~ - ~ • ~~~~4"'~~MI6'r~ ~IS?r-' CbN~ ~ Wl~~i.~ •fl~ }~M.WM~t- 9~cTtiM N1JE M'TL~ dlAP NRXP KiFyUs' • ZZ; . . ~,~t'.t.••V~~~ 1 K-~'i V - . ~ I I ~A~IoN~- s`nc . ~ ~y `1z w~h • ~ ~~'..-r ~VsTN~?G6- ~ i e~ WOD WPW, e4qft - i Z I ~ ~ NloiM• 1~ v ~ a ~ ~ I ~ i P~rRkIN6- sTAir1- Is- ..~`7~ ~M .G~11} ~~~~w• ~ ~1 `~1C7rJ- ( -7-L+ fla~ ~ I . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~tTON I, n; AL.' , ' aa ~•sai. . ~tis l I)~~M 'dw ~'k t t ~ +t ~4 } ? i ~ !~7 'e r S ~ I ~~7'N h3 f F F ~ 3~{ a ~I ~ ,~,~y,r ~r. „ . _ r.~• ~ . ~ ~ f~yz'' s t k4 ° rr~ i ri .r-~ lw a 1 ~i~~ ~ ~4~1 i ~.s~ n y r k!,, m e t^ t~ ~ a , . . , . . . ~ ~7- a , . . . . , - , 81R1~~ , ~ .Y. ' ~ ~j,'?s" , ~ ~ "~i ~ ~ ~ { e,s .t~,y...r .s3a~j: ' ,;~x• m , y ~+Iti d • ri. ,,,y ~i,m ~ . o~~~ ~ ! ~ uL}^ i ~ °S,. 71.. } . y ; . t . ~+'°e ,e A:'.~... • ~'7F ~`q,~ i , ~ . . . . . '"i'"r ~ ^T~;iii~';..;~•"t,5. r. „ N ~.~',t~ ~§.r; .t ~,t,+u~-,r . , ~i•~ie. 4 ' y,, _rA ~ ~ ' ~ V • G a J. `FO- • - , ti , , R , - . , . . . . ' . , . . ~ • z r. ~5~y~ ' ~i~` ~ . ~ L•'"t~ : . ..T l = 1'v ::~c _ + • •`~IR^ . 4. ~ . . ~"k ' - „i. ~ . : . ~ r ~ ~a ti ~ d ~ r , ` . ' . . , :u ` ' • . ' x~x:r. _ " . G f ' ` ar -+a I ~ • ~ A ~ t MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: November 11, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 (Savoy Villas/Simba RunNail Run) to allow for modifications to the previously approved development plan for the Savoy Villas development located at 1230 Lions Ridge Loop and described as follows: 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, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: Beginning at the most southwestedy wrner of said map, thence the following three courses along the westedy 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 westedy 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 easterly line of said map; thence the following two courses aJong the easterly and southeasterly lines of said map; i) S24°44'S7"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 comer of said Simba Run, thence the following four courses along the I southwesterly and northwestedy 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 righi, having a radius of 428.02 feet, a central angle of 02°OS'12", and a chord that bears N37°52'S4" E 15.96 feet to a corner on the westedy boundary of the First Supplemental Map for Simba ! Run Condominium, according to the map thereof recarded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder; thence the following four courses along said westedy boundary; 1) S21 °51'28"W 69.90 feet; 2) S17°56'03"W 181.17 feet; 3) S12°50'33"W 144.72 feei; 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 iess. Applicant: BWAB, Inc., represented by Chris Klein Planner: Dominic Mauriello 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 RunNail 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. I 1 • 1 ii. BACKGROUND Ordinance #6, Series of 1976, originally 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 ot 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 specifically stipulated 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 Council approved Ordinance #16, Series of 1993. This ordinance significantly modified the approved development 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 designed 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. I The original project was designed to take access off of Lions Ridge Loop (one curb cut) and included a fairly large surtace 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 existing Simba Run driveway adjacent to the North Frontage Road. The parking for the project was almost equally divided between enclosed 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 to allow for one additiona( dwelling unit and to permanently 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 existing employee housing restrictions on three additional dwelling units in Simba Run (Units 1201, 1205 and 2205), which although they were required to be employee housing units, had deed restrictions which would soon expire, allowing them to become free-market dwelling units. 2 • i ` SDD #5 was most recently amended in 1995 by Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995. That amendment provided the following changes: •Re+ocation 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 twentieth unit was approved. This dwelling unit was added to Building #5 of Savoy Villas (Phase 2). •Relocation of Two Deed-Restricted Employee Housing 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 units 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. •Relocation 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 originaliy 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 Surface Parking S,paces - 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 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. •Changes to the Architectural Character of Buildings #5 and #6 - The architectural character of the buildings was slightly modified. • 3 i , I 111. DESCRIPTfON OF THE REQUEST ~ Currently Buildings #1 and #2 are constructed on the site. Design Review approvai has been ~ given for Building #3 and #4 and they will be developed according to the 1995 plan, which i 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. i The Plan also included a 686 sq. ft office space for the condominium association and a 466 sq. ft. two-car garage for the free-market unit. ' At the October 14, 1996 PEC meeting, the PEC recommended that the applicant modify the proposed pfan to provide a three bedroom EHU and two enclosed garage spaces. The applicant ~ has provided the recommended changes. As discussed with the PEC, the proposed plan adds an additional floor to the building for a total of four stories, one of which is substantially below I grade. Additionally, the buiiding envelope is expanded slightly from the 1995 approval, with the addition of 126 sq. ft. of site coverage. The number of enclosed parking spaces now remains unchanged from the 1995 approval. However, the percentage of enclosed parking in Savoy Vil(as has been reduced, due to the increase in the surface spaces on-site, from 52% (24 spaces) in 1995 to 49% (24 spaces) in 1996. The praposed modification to the 1995 approved plans includes an increase in the number of free-market units and GRFA in Savoy Vil{as, by adding 1,308 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. One EHU will contain 600 sq. ft. of GRFA and the other EHU is a three bedroom unit containing 1,300 sq. ft. of GRFA. The 2 free-market units will contain at total of 2,427 sq. ft. of GRFA. Common area stairways contain • 414 sq. ft. of floor area (not included as GRFA). Therefore, this structure will contain 4,327 I sq. ft. of GRFA total. The parking required for these 4 units is 8 parking spaces. Two parking spaces are required far each free-market unit, 3 spaces are required for the three bedroom EHU, and 1 parking space is required for the one bedroom EHU (since this EHU is 600 sq. ft. or less in GRFA). The proposed plan provides 6 surface spaces and 2 enclosed parking spaces for Building #5. The pedestrian path required for the development by the previous approval has been relocated between Buildings #2 and #3 and connects with the driveway proposed for Phase 3(Building #6). The floor plans show a deck which extends into the 10' utility easement along ihe east property line. The applicant has indicated that they will pursue an encroachment agreement to allow the third level deck, but if they are unsuccessful at obtaining such agreements from all utility companies, and the Town of Vail, they will remove the proposed deck. The remainder of the plan remains 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 af the recardation of EHU restrictians, and the final approval of the access to the North Frontage Road by CDOT and the Town Engineer. 4 • IV. ZONING ANALYStS • Listed below is the zoning analysis for Savoy Villas, located in Development Area B of Simba Run. Zoning: SDD #5 (with no underlying zoning) I Lot area: 1.56 acres or 67,953.6 sq. ft. Overall Savoy Villas Standard 1995 Plan 1996 Plan 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. 34,274 sq. ft. +825 sq. ft. GRFA (EHUs?: 1.417 sa. ft. 1.900 sa, ft. +483 sa. ft. GRFA (total): 34,866 sq. ft. 36,174 sq. ft. +1,308 sq. ft. Parking: 46 spaces 49 spaces +3 spaces Enclosed parking: 24 spaces (52%) 24 spaces (49%) Site Coverage: 16,921 sq. ft. (25%) 17,047 sq. ft. (25%) +126 sq. ft. Phase 1 Savov Villas (Buildings #1 and #2 as constructed) Standard 1995 Plan 1996 Plan Chan e 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. Savov Vlllas (Buildings #3. A. and #5) Standard 1995 Plan 1996 Plan Chan e Units (free-market): 9 units 10 units +1 unit EHUs 2 units 2 units n/c GRFA (free-market): 14,874 sq. ft. 15,699 sq. ft. +825 sq. ft. GRFA (EHUs): 1.417 scLft. 1,900 s4. ft. +483 sq. ft. GRFA (total): 16,291 sq. ft, 17,599 sq. ft. +11,308 sq. ft. Parking: 21 spaces 24 spaces +3 spaces Enclosed parking: 10 spaces (48%) 10 spaces (420%) Site Coverage: 7,550 sq. ft. 7,676 sq. ft. +126 sq. ft. • 5 Phase 3. Savoy VillasSBuilding #61 Standard 1995 Plan 1996 Pian Chanqe Units (free-market): 3 units 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 Enclosed parking: 6 spaces (66.6%) n/c n/c I Site Coverage: 3,311 sq. ft. n/c n/c V. ANALYSIS OF THE OVERALL DENSITY FOR SDD #5 Dev. Area A(Vail Run) Dev. Area B(Simba Run) Dev. Area B(Savov Villas) Total for SDD #S Max. GRFA (tree-market tJnits): 43,000 sq. ft. 91,572 sq. ft. 34,274 sq. fl. 168,846 sq. ft. Max. GRFA (EHU Units): 0 sa. R• 3.836 s4. ft. 1.900 so. ft. 5.736 sa. ft. Total GRFA: 43,000 sq, it. 95,408 sq. ft. 36,174 sq. h. '174,582 sq. R. Max. # of Units (free-market): 55 units 90 units 21 units 166 units . ~ Max. # of Units (EHUs): 0 units 5 units units 7 units Total Units: 55 units 95 units 23 units 173 units 6 . VI. CQ:TEQ1A rn RE UcFn Iti FvoLUOTING THIS PROPOSAL • As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of the special development district is to: encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of new development within the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of I open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in PIan. An apProved develoPment Plan for a sPecial the V aiI Com rehensive P 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 ihe 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. The proposal does not change the orientation of the buildings. The plan slightly , increases the site coverage of Building #5, increases the bulk and mass of Building #5 by ~ adding an additional story to the building, and increases the height of Building #5 to 46' (an 8` increase). However, staff does not believe the increase in building height, bulk and mass, or site coverage will have a negative effect on adjacent properties. Staff does have a concern, however, with the architectural quality of the north elevation for Building #5. Specifically, the proposed bay windows on this elevation have a"tacked on" appearance which appears incompatible with the architecture of the remainder of this structure and adjacent structures within Savoy Villas. Staff believes this elevation (particularly the fenestration) needs to be redesigned to correct this issue. 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 resuiting density of twenty-one free-market units and two deed resiricted employee housing units is compatible with the High Density Residential identification that the Town of Vail Land Use Plan has placed on this property. 7 • C. Compliance with the parking and toading requirements as outlined in Chapter - I 18.52. The proposal for Savoy Villas provides 49 total parking spaces, 24 (49%) of which are • enclosed garage spaces. The 1995 plan provided 46 total parking spaces for Savoy Villas, 24 (52%) of which were enclosed garage spaces. 7he number of parking spaces has been increased by 3 spaces. I The original SDD ordinance required 85% of the parking on the entire site (Savoy Villas, Simba Run and Vail Run) to be enclosed parking. The 1995 approval allowed a deviation to this requirement, allowing 84.4% to be enclosed. This request wiil allow an overall percentage of enclosed spaces, to total required spaces, of 84.2%. Staff believes the change in enclosed parking is minimal and therefore meets this criterion. D. Conformiry with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive 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 typically consist of multi-floored structures with densities exceeding fifteen dweqing 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 approximateiy 18.8 units/acre (excluding the 7 EHUs). 2. The following 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 befinreen 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. 8 • Goai 5.4 Residential growth shouid keep pace with the market piace demands for a full range of housing I • types. Goal 5.5 The existing employee housing base shouid 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 ihe Town's Land Use Plan. ' E. ldentification 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-rnost 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 na#ural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. • 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 genera(ly provides adequate screening and green space throughout the site. 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 relocated slightly by this request. • 9 nctional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize H. Fu and preserve naturai features, recreation, views and functions. , ' Staff believes that since Building #5 is increasing in height, that the proposed landscaping • ad1'acent to this building needs to improved in order to break up the mass of the building. I Specifically, the 5 evergreens proposed to the south of the building and the 3 evergreens north of the structure (all proposed at 6' - 8') should be increased in size to 12' - 14' in height. Also, the number and size of Aspens in this area should be increased to further break up to mass of the building. 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient retationship 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 Villas property will occur in three 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 lower bench of the property. Staff believes that the previously approved phasing plan for the Savoy Villas project is acceptable. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request for a major modification to Special • Development District No. 5, subject to the following conditions indicates previous condition found in Ordmance No. 7, Series of 1995): *1. The applicant provide an update to the hazard report for the property prior to obtaining a Building Permit for Building #5 of Savoy Villas. *2. The Town shall 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. ''3. The applicant agrees to construct and maintain a public pedestrian path through the property (north to south) and wifl 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 ViUas 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 (Building #6, Phase 3, Savoy Villas) located on the iower bench of the deveiopment. 10 • - *5. The applicant shall grant to 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 Building #5 and Building #4. The developer shall provide . this easement to the Community Development Department for approval before the Town wi(I release any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for units in the Phase II Condominiums (according to the Savoy Villas phasing plan). '6. 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 executed and submitted to the Community Development Department by the developer 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. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the three townhouse units in Phase 3 of Savoy Villas, the applicant will receive final approval from the Town of Vail Engineer regarding driveway location and drainage plans in Phase 3. 8. The building elevations for Building #5 are not approved and must be approved by the Design Review Board. 9. The applicant shall increase the size of the 8 evergreens adjacent to Building #5 to 12' - 14' in height and shall add additional Aspens of 3" - 4" caliper subject to the review and approval of the Design Review Board. 10. The applicant shall provide executed encroachment agreements for all relevant utility companies and the Town of Vail for the deck encroachment in the 10' utility easement along the east property line or shall eliminate the deck encroachment, ~ prior to submitting the project for review by the Design Review Board. With the addition of the conditions above, staff believes that the proposed modifications to the previously approved plan comply with the nine Special Development District review criteria listed in this memorandum. f:\everyonelpecMemos\savoy. n 11 • 11 s nr 1~06 ~~t~~sW te ln {Ll~ pp~lry•U ~Ltu~cN 1~ uyllr-_^ 51 T E DATA w~: ai~mmpi io smAMftmelia.ro~wu u. isw j ~wa.71Y aT nplq.qma. s[asior Caouno. PHASE 2 AREA • 30,L70 SQ, F'T , CtWT7~,~p~~q Ydt b;i~~or2visoMtrH~tr rr m~oai4~tbr~ius ~COd~o ~ 3s, lfu 0 wo~ 1~7 ?t 6lp4. FDprrPRINT 71504 (L3%) rwe. is:iuo iorn.wrr.Tatkto,aaeomm-acnaa 35: ua w wx ntar nas.s». tatom~o~apaoaor ppooas[a~ am P~RCINy RLQWREO - tz SPnGES t-a. 1....S.C, s.s, I•A; =-s. ~:Q41iC~7.D, fAM ~tlflt PARCI~'~4 SUPPUEO • 22 SPqGES cncoariuA..l.oroobo ~v tst caoolDiW.ws NcoID~ I~W~! 31, i)N~ 7Y R1fT +U~p[~~o0[+~T 7o sa~or Ytuu_msp~uio~ ~ aau tns lJWDSCAPING 0.140$ (33%) f~1100Millmi av'J~Ttoi t~D ~AmOfe.,7'7e, is~tY~~c i.. II Y{ raoa ~et. wo eti ?nu! NNrlsmrf to 07~~su~ 4Yqd71A73CY l~Dm ,7Nr~ Ll. 3ssS. LI l00[ aN A7 lACS f~a. CduRT oI 7114T3. lTAti O? mLO~!{CO. I ZVttIAll4 ALL D[AIGFmIf i7i1Ri. DYQLW ODR AlT2Ol 7 10 I T T111 ODICCMIIROI ORCWJITIW awxfDO LOOOtT tI. 10f4 s• ' • l00[ G~l Xl MIGi ~01. .~~.RH..--Sacae. - . 4 v+ re.G ^ax o . - .V'u± 1isL~Tt o ~I ~G OOIJ~DLM1S / i[_nn -4,4^ice.% L. ~ 1. J 7J.V. _ ~ ! 1 SV4.S-'P-~Gtj s'M1+~...~E Li, ru>TR- 1• r.•ta.+t~-'f, i.. F' •Jr.'. •..c•fi-BLDGS r ~ ns • ,y ,i 1~. ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ / ~ rs-- 't~t u"~3,'~. -ur ALqkSV 1 it A :-~r • • avo atsa~Y ~ ~ ~ Gl4S.R~ ~ ,y~~ ~ / ~t %v / 's eYt~ . . . s ~ ~ ° S i'~ . ~sl. ' •L • ~ _ . ' . b ~ v Q I . . _•,~t~. ~ ~ 10L~ , / ~ . ~J< U / . 4'K •Q~ ~ ' O \ 1 ^ I ~j o o d~. - • d r~ ! ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ' / 0 nr.~, ~to ~M.yq`Ns?o~.t~' , 1-~~~~t~'a`•~ ' i ~ ' Q ~ 0 ~ O \ t : ; z _ `-O-_ ~~>y T . . C l \ ~ • ti~ ' \ / / ~ . ~ ' • O NN . . h:. ~ ~i./ cMY. O O 0 : » . . . . . ' ' . '`V r . • _ . ~ • ^ O O' \/~J I''f yo'.dx ~ . ~ : , . .r . • ~ . . . , . ~J ~ 4rKn ~i~["~' ' ~ • ' . ' . ' . - , ~ E r. . '~ZI ~~'r!. ~ K''^ . T ~ N i L. t~w+ ~ )~.~-~c 4 ~ ~ ~d' . . _ _ . . , . ~•h~., . b ~ , , I,f #i~ ~ ~ Ts',~~ i': . ' ' f ~t.~ 'a ' f~ro'N..T . d{~ '~y,~, i ,r y , . • , M'~~ t ~ . . ' - - r. . : .4 p • w fw : : ' ''r` - ~n ..~r.a ~ % I . • .j ~ . ' . ~ ~ ~ t.... v. ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . . , kCL~4fLT f.t~~T~N4 :~'GMP ~ ~ ~ !ki!'.TL04Rnt,q~,C • ~ -07 ~ . ' e 3• t~ " \ r y ~ ~ / ~ ~ n ~ ~ • 1,~,.% j. . ~ \ ~ ~ \ r-~' i n• / r' ~ • 1 • n ~ 'L~ ~ IL i.• ~ \ < \ ~ • V~ ~t " ~ ~ \ _ 4_ _ DRp.lt{AL El,SU'IENT ~•9' ~ ~ ~ / n ~ ~ 4 / Nul. '-vTlj I . i ;1~° p~'-~. ' i . C.• ? I / r. ~c=.TCw n+~; [~uw~c;c ~.k n~GFY.lltO' ~ , ~ - u. r,y=__:~r • ,r-, 1 . . . _ - . . • . ~ . . . . . ~ •1e ~ - Yg11 " . . w~M' . - ~ t• ~(Kp4~6 t ~LTI.II I~p . ~ ~ S • r. l ~17 t~~~~ • . in ~ ~P~"'~e l ~ • t 11 f G`'i'rrr!`-` .y ~f~ , . • {Sl ~.,ov+ r . ~c,-•( tif~Mm ~ .,~~1w•"~y%iC~+r e:~s..~(~,..~' O 1' . (.5l .td) G?.ota C.a~t^+ _ 4 ~ • ' 60 .<6-1) 4t~• O , i ~„-xT~' 'i'r~D ~trErn~~--'' Kv~'~ ' C \ r s)c 04 . . / - ' *T 4p `y~ 40 1"awr } / \ ~~x~ ~ ~ (r~{$~{ (ti~''Y~ • ..-(~~1?[ '7~ ~ (4) 4•A 5~?' ~ y-(i'~~"nt~F~~"'~ ~ I' r ( ` ~ ~r~ : . % ` , ~n;<~ r~~~•+~ ~NT,NG LISS Y P ti y°s•~ ~ t~ ' ~ (u1 W*~~ l s~ Y y, r ~ • Q O O : . : J . "r".,..a."• ~ Q (J p ~ ,r ~ r ; ~ i •h~,~~~,~,rt`v'? ~ x - O o"'n`' O O tr 13 a'~•+' Tica~n Op o 1 ~ 7 0 ~ ~~o~wy~,ncwnrrf~°' ~ . _ M4~.GN) ' tYlt~; I( .~J . pcAV~MN.1'~ ~ ~.+R"~~~ r Q O Q ~ '""p a j°Wr ~r) ,Q~ 9 iI~' U ~ ~rM,aen..rw.wy"rri°i J/ r. _.C'1~l"~~• ' a~'~'~6 +{(sl~q'•ri. r 4h+~+ri ~ ~ i • ' ~r~~ ~e~t/`~ . i . 7o'- o" - ~PE7CTY UrIC ^,..E..'TD~CX ~ . - ~ ~ ; 1~ ~ n ~ - ^ I 't C^~eaeT ' UN N ~J Q GY 'el_~ ~ • _ ~ I ~ O~ ' L''L• . , _ sR 1 _ . . . . _ . ~ . ji r,• ~v S a p ~ 1i 4 ~ ~ 10 _ a , , ~ • 4- ~ o J g °Ji4~ 7i Y[~ 2'If 'k.' II . $~•O ~ ~ / ~ h I i • ` 2 ' ~ ~ ~ - - 1 ~ ~ • , . . , . I j ' . _ ~ ~ ' • ~ . : ' ~ Ld,~ 4.'~_ ~L-~~ '~O , S`~~~.__I .3~' ~ _ 4'-O' 71j-4'-. L~-0" } i ' 70 O - ? ~ ~^if~.~/~~{ GMPI:a~/j~..i~.. Hou JIryG LJryIT PEh510NS ' JOBNO. ~ ~ SPECIAlOEVELOPMENTDIS7RICTYBL~/_ No.S 9Ut~ VAIL- ~ L RA DATf n 5ASEMENT pUAN Q SHEEr OqAwNBY isoM a. associnrEs f•trt. trr~lwi • nmi mnee • r+c vscat ~ II ~ o t~~~- ~ f ~v-~ . - - , ~ 'r•i z'•n. ti•o' ; ia, 6.' ,~._7. - - - - I L•yl - ~ -in !r-4,- - - - ---d~- - - - ~ - - •,t ~ , o~" ° ~ ` ; • m ~ I ~ ~ ~ . ` t~ ~ P. ~ i ~ 2-~ CsK.b! i F]t •nY'l.. r~pT£R a~ / j~ ~ . ~ O , Qi ' S~'~ ( I ~ , Wm, _ - - - - - - ` iz'•o' s ' a•I ~ < f iG-io ' S'! Z• z.n j~, ~ I I I E - - - , . . ~ ~ I I I I ~ 1- - - - L - ' ~ y ~ - - - - ` N ~ ? 10=E / ~ ~ . . . ' i ' I ~ . i ~ £-oi . 4'.0' i'~~._.. ii'•t ~ L-r. ~ . . ! ZO 4.. Ji• G• . i i i II RFVISIONS ~ SAV ~'oU51]'I~_ UNIT.__AND o SPECIALDEVEIOPMENTDISTRICTS/Et.pG.NO.S ~ o VAi o o ' ~ Er'1Pl,0YEE UNIT t 2 GAR C,ARA4E 6 sNeer ~piur~er ` a /p~ ISOM ~ ASSOCfATES ~ 1.1, m ~/~~~,1 ren.~•u~au..r~wi.aaarne~•ruaww w A . ~ •1d~~ #5 ~ ~ ~ . ~ ! • ~ ~ . > ~ . 43' 4" ~ - . , i " - - F7 0 I0 r I ; MASIEABEDROOM KITCF" % . . ' U-O MASTEABmR00M ti- u~ ~ ~ ~ JIL-JIL~~ ; . ; ~ jL - o. , CO KntHEN I _ _ , -1-- - uvwC ~ 00 ~ . ~ _ , ~ - ~ _ t , j I 1IVWG . . . , i ~ ~ . ~ . . ( 7'•q' 4.'_0_ , 14'-4' -o, ~ ' r.,.. . . . .ro. I I S A V'O Y V I L L AS 6 108 l~ST ~ ~T N( TS c~ SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5~• dN IVII ~7 rL,.y,rVh- ~D IL.COLOR 1-? ~ a 2.- FIQI~ FcEeh'1"gFwuT uytTs Q SNEfT nio u-a~ ~ OR11WN0Y O~ ~SOM 8. ASSOClA7ES ~ L;,.fS1II L~`~ll r.ae.~•uaaa..a~aa~•rnnn~rsr•r..,a»w a %til ,~i~ ~ ~ i ' I f - PFOP' LN ~x ~~,~-'E`- ~ ~ f I ' ? ' - - - ~ L__ ` 1 ~ - - - ~ BFDROOM BFDAOOM TOOF I { ' v!+ v_ry - ~ r. - ~ I - - . Y1Y7F i . -LFCI~'_ _ BEDROOM I BFDROOM _ _ I ~ ! . PEr K : - - i i - ~ - . . . . ...__._....__T._ . I - ~ / J , ~ ~ '`D FLDGZ Fl'.f..E-M,~ICET UNiTs ~ f' n~nswns V I L L AS gk-TjC~ Joa.o. ~~jT U N I T,~ SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5 ry~ 5 ~ p VAIL C9LORApU _ L1 ~p_~1r --'C-` ' - ~-^-~p - -~r - I ~ LL Y~ ~GV f~ l V _ /~1 smer n 10~1~ /y, ~ 4 nLa~sLr ISOM S ASSOCIATES rn.i.+~•r,m.r .n~~ioi•(mvr.na•rum.oat e~ ~,?ill: ~s . ~ • • ~ • . FF - A - : ~ -:.:=.r_:_~ ( I - - - _ ' _ ! - _ I I L - t-.- - - - - - - - - . . - - - _ ^ F..__: I ~ - - - ~ ~ _ - ~ ~ _ - - . ~ i ~ - - " n tiortru ~ xyh ! ~ ~~YST_ ~~ATbN 5cwi.~. y~ , ~e, fl• i - - . _ - r- - - _ c - = _ - - _ _ ~ - - _ _ _ _.s.:__... _ _ . _ ---r--~..... l-?¢L ew " - - - - - \v*^nu,+~v c~c.. A,wno Lo F1c. _ asr.o I aso.so - - - _ _ - - I - - ~ ~ - - ` i f ~ C"j T~ N REVISIONS S A V O Y V I L L AS RLD'G n. SPECtAL DEVEIOPMEN7 DISTRICT 5\;. 5 9i~ n o..e " ~ 9IK/:~ n EL E~'?.T I Of't5 A NAWNBY O ISOM & ASSOCIATES 5 P..~ ~ Cl~'`\ r n~+ •rne uw.e noi • ~mnrns • ru a~at e~ L, 4 . . 7 iY-IM 2WOAO *MY 141' . ! . . ~ } - ~ ~ ~ e'^"v ( t i wwa iONCE71 ax ROOM rNrtR/ ~ ~ ~,r ~ I 'T ~ • s: 9 n~ ~ ' O P.P. 7i'N1WRMiE I ~ - wnw ~ ~ • ~ . ~'NIT C-3 ° ti . -p :4 ' , N~ ~ . NR~-~-~ • 1 1 ~ . . s•u [xrRr i ~ ' . ~ • ' ~ ~ ~ T ~ N ~ ' , 3 • ~ i MowOM . ' . . _ I ~~v+n R00M /wrn 10 ; C J• ~ II "J ' ~ Q ' :-CARGARAGE ~ ~ I .----0 z - ; ,KF,CHEN; ~D104 I f NIT - - I Y4 iahd v. 4" d.r ~ ~ . [w~ ~ . i ' ~ O i WiR/ i i ~'tJ • . ~ I d ; ~ f V 1 . ~ ] I x . ~ . , k ~ ~ . ~ , uwa i : O" N~ • EYY pqyp(II ~ R.. CVI~ A . , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n.a.•ti ~oor rwmr y N ~ y~ ~y LOWE.R LP/i'eL Pt-002 P161J V •1 a~ q f' • ~r~ '~7~ *i - r~ ~.uao.n~oc ~ .F 3 n i ^ • - c W • . ~ ~ ~ ~ IM1Ib ~ 9i ~ L' qfcHfM ~ ~ . . ~ . . r • ~ i . uN T .1 -o- ; • ° LAi8 . . • ~ w .o BLD' T o s?a Ai~bcvc~Irtwi.ou~at ~ d ooa - -----------i - a , Y Y = ¢ 'Y • n ew¢ct~e~.rL•oort::vWrJ , , ' • ~'•ir.' • e4Yt~w! rod.• h'•' at~hf ~7~ . ~ .q ~ , : •y( •H ~d sY 1 : ~o,. • . w•• /~pf,\~ uoy a ~asoeurts : C-D : . . ' to•-~• is-~o• , . a r., 2e`*' ~ C ra• a'.nV uu c~o. L , - ° zo b .,wc,,ri ~ , - ~ V I ~ `''i • Q~ - _ ° .._...:P•ii'-_- b ?_i ! I i I y ~ ' i•.1 i ' ~ ~ ; ~ r: b: •~01 - K"Te11U0a0WM ' 9EDROOM n . ~ i CA aw[r ID . - ,_._...Cr ~ - ' •~i t O_ ~ w h WtiTFF a~~ O eeoaoow a O ~ ctac* ' w.tr~u um ~ - - . - . ~ - 4 7•i• t~iJd~K r,,... ~ 14a NIT - • ro~wHa~r~w5 ~ - ~ I O O Q 6NM'M.FY~. I~_"." O ~p ~ . • • I ~ . o O-• ; ~ ~ ~.s"' .i r, ~ ~ ~ IEQ900MR 4 i . ~O. i MASTER B[OROOM ~ . tN, ~ 'Q r (j LKW ~ 'Y' ••r, 1 ~ ~w M ~ S_ • E11 BEoRoa. A ~ ?w.~n ~ ` . . ...----0--• ° ~ ~ CIOSfT n^•4.• ~ar'MSrene~n+_ •.-f'W C g ftl' 4'•u'Y fa: n UNITC-2. r . ' s ~ ~ FoC wiPnYJOUS ~ ~ ~ .0:....~_. 0 url •~~J°jn'LCw.a ~ KY.x`d J IOICN TfIBEIAY) 14=0' ~ . ~ ,yfO 'f 7K ' Si~ 1 Y. ~ r . i; r 7o tEM00Y R vi•a M~67EA 9EDAOOM _ t . •"t yJ q:p.t Z .J ~ ; ~ r~ 1 r " ~ r.Y ~ Q a 1 . UPPER LEVEL FL04R PLAN . ~1-~ .•:_r 1s uti`~~i t~ n1I v~.~ ~ 1 ' 1) VO1 i4 1~aa Y'n. i c U ~ ~ _M (f.7 !__~~t~ - i. _ N .~.0_~.. REOFOOYR _.1)_' i L~ WAtTCRNTNk J._..A..... ---_.._.__-•-•-/J SAVOY VILLAS BlD'0 { Q---. O O - 1 , L G srccilL ocvtLoiutwT DuTSitt s e YAII CAlO. t 'LP 44' aLu. 7'- Q L' • --_w__... _ n IjPPER LEVELfI.GORR.W~I ~ ~ - . . , ~ ~ ~r. •~tJ~s:• A n••~v ~ . „1~ 'd'r g .a ~o.~~• w~..n 0~ IfOM i AfiOCUTlf . n?~~u.w~w.awa•~uw+ sa~y ~ - I I ~ . - , i f- o , ~ ~ '~~-y''~=----- -~-y----- HUILDING SIX NORTI- iie•, BUILDING SIX EAST - • - - . - _ - 'I - - - - - 77. - - - - - - - - . ^ - El _ - - - - - - - - - : - . _ . ~ . LJL-JL - _ _ j ~ i ~ - ! _ BUILDING SIX WEST BUILDING SIX SOUT I iie.. - 1•-0., 1~... - 1•-0•. • • ~ii 1~ ~ ` 4 _ ~ • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 11, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Interfaith Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Vail Religious Foundation, represented by Ned Gwathmey Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REGIUEST This site is zoned General Use (GU) which allows churches and related facilities subject to review and approval of a conditional use permit. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a new building on the premises. The proposed two-story structure will house clergy offices and consultation areas. All of the existing surface parking spaces will remain substantially as they are today and 17 - 20 additional spaces will be provided in a garage beneath the proposed structure. The applicant has provided two schemes for site II planning the area; Scheme "A" and Scheme "B." Scheme "A" impacts the site more so than • Scheme "B" (see attached plans). The existing Chapel will also be modified internally by restoring lower level meeting areas, updating building systems (such as the lighting system), enlarging windows for more natural light, compliance with ADA requirements, and other modifications. The proposed structure will be constructed on an area of the lot behind the existing Chapel and appears to comply with the 50' Gore Creek centerline setback and the 100-year floodplain, as currently mapped. Adjacent to the Chapel property is a portion of the Town owned stream tract. The stream tract is dedicated for open space, recreation and access to the Gore Creek. The Chapel's original and current proposal include improvements on the Town's stream tract. The Chapel obtained permission from the Town Council on August 6, 1996 to proceed through the review process, however, the Council did not give wholesale approval of the encroachments on Town of Vail property. Additionally, the Council directed staff to minimize the Chapel's impacts on the Town's stream tract. Under proposed scheme "B," approximately 1,400 sq. ft. of the Chapel site improvements will occur on the stream tract. II. ZONING ANALYSIS The development standards for the GU district are determined by the PEC. The PEC must determine what development standards are needed on a site specific basis. The proposed standards are as presented on the site plan and building plans for the site. • 1 Itl. REVlEW CRITERIA FOR THtS REGIUEST The code criteria tor review of such a request are provided for your information. Since this is a • worksession, staff has not addressed the specific criteria. In addition to the conditional use criteria, staff has included the purpose statement from the zoning code, as we believe this will help the PEC in its evaluation of the request. The Vail Interfaith Chapel is located in the General Use (GU) zone district. According to Section 18.36.010 of the zoning code, the purpose of the GU district is: "to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed by other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 18.02.020 and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to ensure ihat public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in cases of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open ; spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses." A church shall be permitted in the GU zone district subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60. For the PEC's reference, the conditional use permit purpose statement indicates that: "in order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their affects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permit shafl be denied." The conditional use permit consideration of factors are as follows: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. • 2 . , 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be . located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. I The conditional use permit findings are as follows: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findinqs before aranting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use perrnit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use woutd comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. IV. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION 1. Stream setback/Town Owned Stream Tract • On September 18, 1996, Town staff (Dominic Mauriello and Russell Forrest) met with Ned , Gwathmey on the Chapel site to discuss the issue of construction and other impacts to ihe Town ~ of Vail's stream tract. At that meeting, it was agreed by the staff and Ned that a 30' setback from the stream bank would be appropriate in order to reduce the impact to sensitive wetland vegetation, provide for adequate access to the Town's stream tract by the public, and still allow the Chapel some flexibility with site planning by utilizing portions of the Town's stream tract for development. Currently the code requires a 50' setback from the centerline of Gore Creek for all development adjacent to the creek. The proposed development appears to meet the 50' stream setback. However, the d'+fference with this development is that the Town owns the intervening property adjacent to the creek and the Town's intended use of this property, which is consistent with the zoning on the land, is for open space, recreation, and access to the creek. The Town of Vail Open Lands Plan identifies this specific parcel as environmentally sensitive and valuable for stream access. Therefore, the imposition of a greater setback (by the Town, on the Town's own property) in this case, is intended to preserve the use of the stream tract and at the same time allow the Chapel some flexibility with site design on Town of Vail property. The applicant, with Scheme "B," has done a good job of ineeting the 30' setback from the edge of the stream bank. However, a portion of the driveway into the proposed subsurface parking area encroaches into this setback. Scheme "A" encroaches further into the stream tract and has substantial impacts to wetland vegetation and use of the stream tract. The setback, developed by staff and the applicant's representative, to address the specific constraints on this site, was intended as a guideline and not a strict standard. Staff believes the proposed scheme "B" preserves the intended use of the stream tract. Scheme "A," in the staff's opinion, encroaches ~ too far into the stream tract, thereby reducing its quality as an open space/recreational amenity. 3 As a point of information, the Eagle River Watershed Plan, which was adopted by the Town Council, calls for a 30' setback from the high water mark along the Gore Creek. • 2. Survey Information The survey previously submitted for the project delineates the 100-year ftoodpiain based on a ~ 1975 study. The Public Works department has indicated that more recent FEMA studies have been performed, and therefore the most recent floodplain information should be utitized tor delineating this information on the survey. Also, the survey delineates the 50' stream centerline setback for Gore Creek on the southern portion of the lot. However, the stream curves to the north adjacent to the west boundary of this site. The 50' setback line rnust be indicated on this portion of the survey. Staff is requiring that this information be provided prior to final review of the conditional use by the PEC. 3. Parking There are 20 existing surface parking spaces. The applicant is currently working on two schemes for parking. Scheme "A" will add 20 covered parking spaces to the site. Scheme "B," which takes all of the development out of the 30' stream setback area, will reduce the surface parking to 18 parking spaces and provide 17 covered parking spaces, for a net increase of 15 parking spaces. If we calculate the parking for the new building as an office building, approximately 7 parking spaces would be required. Staff believes the proposed parking is adequate to accommodate the existing Chapel and the new building. There is a parking easement recorded on the property for joint use by the neighboring bank. The easement allows the bank access to this parking during normal business hours. Staff believes that this is a beneficial arrangement as the hours of operation of these uses do not conflict. Staff believes the parking area and landscape areas should terminated with curbing to prevent vehicular access to landscape areas and the stream tract. . 4. Stream/Wetland Vegetation The area to the west of the existing parking area has been disturbed over the years by cars , parking too close to the stream and directly upon the stream tract. Staff recommends that this ' area be restored with wetland vegetation and the parking area be developed in such a way as to prevent vehicular access to this unpaved area. 5. Limits of Disturbance The limits of site disturbance have not been indicated on the site plan. Staff believes the applicant should provide an indication of the limits of site disturbance, giving special consideration to areas with wetland vegetation. Additionally, the plan should accurately reflect the existing areas of wetland vegetat+on. Notification to the Army Corps of Engineers will be required for wetland impacts. Staff believes that the applicant should indicate the limits of site disturbance on ihe site plan (and have the site staked accordingly) prior to final review by the PEC. 6. Solid Waste Disposal The plan should address the location of the dumpster for this site and how it wifl be enclosed. Staff recommends a dumpster enclosure with four sides and a roof, per ihe design guidelines. 7. Landscaped Areas The proposal reduces the amount of landscaped area on-site. There is no specific landscaping criteria for the GU zone district, however, the PEC has the discretion to set a standard on this site. A landscape plan has not been provided. Staff believes this issue should be reviewed by both the PEC and the Design Review Board. • 4 8. Architectural Compatibility • Architectural plans and elevations for the proposed structure have not been provided for this worksession. The previous architectural plans submitted were believed by staff to be architecturally compatible with the existing Chapel and surrounding buildings. The siting of the proposed structure behind the existing Chapel does not change the view frorn the public right-of- way and therefore does not detract from the prominence of the Chapel. 9. Snow Storage The plan does not address how snow will be stored on the site. Staff believes the final plans for this development should address snow storage. Snow storage should not occur in environmentally sensitive areas of the site. 10. Drainage Adequate drainage facilities should be provided to prevent oil and sediment from entering Gore Creek. Staff believes the final plans for this development should address storm water drainage. V. STAFF RECOMMENDQTION Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed conditional use permit for the Vail Interfaith Chapel, staff will not be providing a formal staff recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a staff recommendation at the time of fina( PEC review. f.\everyone\pecimemos\chapel.n 11 ~ I ~ 5 ~ ' , C~ui~~r~~•l~~~i;i.~O~r~vt Ln~td; 1'l~iir • ~ " 1'arcel 51: I'arccl ' nerds. I Iigh priority: TOV acyuirC from thc U.S. Forest tiervice (L.OA parcel). I Iigh priority For- trail conncc- Tract !1, Viiil Village l3th Filing tion and protection of open spacc and low priority Kecentiy, a par 3golf coursc has been proposed fur I01- rmployee hOuSing. KI:TT fundti not to be used if the site. '('he site has appruximately .9 acres of wet- future uses include housing. lands on the site. Thr U.S. Army Corps of Enginecrs has not approved a Scction 404 prrmit for this pro- RECOMMENDATIONS TOK TOWN- posaL IF the VRD dc>cs not rcceivc a favorable votc OWNED PARCCLS oF the peuPIe pursuant to State of Colorado Law by T here are several parcels of land currently in Town December l, 1994 and theil receive a section 404 per- owne?ship that hare been included in this study' Illlf alllj Elllldlllg a}lprpval b)' December 1, 1995, it is hccause they have the putential tu meet some oF the this plan's recommendaticm that the property remain needs ideiitified as part of this plan. These parcels as nAtural opcn space liecause Of the Wetlands on the site. inCluiiO: Vail ('ominonti. Ncirth Frc+ntaee I:oad Wcst Unplated Mountdlll I3l'll Site I:mE)luyce housing i; a highly appropriatc use for Approximatrly half of this pruperty(7.71 acres) is this site, alc>n}; %vith commcrcial and public usO facil- iiitended fc>r arrordablc housiil}; and the rcmaindrr ities, as necded. This usc wIII I1('Il? Illl'l't IICCIiS IdCII- Ot LI1C site wIll fCllldlll 111 (lpl'll tilt,ICC. • tificd b}' 1110 Vaif 1 iOusing /luthOrity. 13ecausc this is nut ail "ope» s}-MCc Or pa•{.s" usc, I:f?TT funds wil1 ISrrry Crrik, f:~itivar~ls T n~~l bc uscil tu ~i~~~'cl~~E~ this lanil. his prc~pcrty is a Ic~~;iral I<~catic+n f~~r s~~mc of the r0cr0atiun.1l nCei1s idenlilic(1 in botli this study ai1d '_74 l;eavcr f)am RAad lhO I:agle COunly and Avon rCCrVatiOn studies. The I liis Iot is a btiildable hunie site ioned primary/sec- joint use Of this pruE)crty' lu ineel the necdti of a kti'iiiL-r miiary. With the sale of this property, the Town POpUlatiOn (including Vail retiidrnts) is an appropri- ~ ate and cost efleitix•e vva~ tc~ merl rrcreatic~n needs. ~~tl1i1 usc Ih~~ E~re~rec~~s t~~~'ard the c~E~cn lands E~re~- y , ;ram idcnlificd in Ihis plan (combinc` tti'ilh RI:TT ScI an , > > • !~e' )n lhis sitc tnids to fun-thcr achicve the open spacc gc>a1s). A ' itlc check must occUur tO ensure that prcitective l'OV Parrcl adjacenk to Vail Cha~Ql Iovenants do not preclude drvclopment an the site. 7'he north bank of the Gore Crrek adjacent to the Va Chapel prevides an excellrnt stream access area and 1497 2485 2477, and 2487 Garmish Dri has becn identified as a stream access area. Also, this ~u ~c £k- f hese tour lots are lacated adjacent to the Town area is desirablc for an informal take-out location for vlanager's house in West Vail. There is the potential kayakers. l1n additional bench or picnic table would ur a small pocket park associated with employee be desirable at this location. iousi~ig on this property which would help meet the I)ark necds of this neighborhood and help address TRAILS AND TR EADS orne of the community's housing necds. A trailhead mprovements and additions to the trail system in ' iccessing the North Trail is also possible at this loca- Iand acound Vail are an integral part of the Open ;o11, Lands Plan. There are numerous opportunities for interpretive education along these trails. The pro- ~)onovan Park posed trail system is some~vhat similar to trail sys- ~i he Town of Vail has an approved Master Plan for tems found in the Alps where interconnected trail )onovan Park that includes a number of active recre- allow hikers to move around and to mountain vil- tion program elements. Comments from the public lages. luring the course of this project suggest that the 'own should revisit that Master Plan to ensure that ~ fie program developed in1985 is relevant to today's - - MW i MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmcntal Commission FROM: Community Dcvclopmcnt Dcpartmcnt DATE: Novcmbcr 11, 1996 ' SUBJECT: A rcqucst for a front sctback variancc to allow for a garage addition and a wall hcight variancc to allow for an approximatc b' tall wall, located at 3235 Katsos Ranch Road/Lot 5, Block l, Vail Villagc 12th Filing. Applicant: Nancy and William Currcnt, rcprescntcd by Saundra Spach Planncr: Dirk Mason 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Thc sitc in qucstion is bound on thrcc sidcs by Katsos Ranch Road. Thc sitc is currcntly improvcd with a singic family structurc without a garagc. Thc cxisting drivcway slopcs down from thc north off of Katsos Ranch Road. Thc drivcway is currcntly supportccl by a timber • rctaining wall approximatcly 7' 6" to 8' 6" in hcight. Acijaccnt to thc cxisting rctaining wall is a largc stand of Aspcn which cffcctivcly scrccn thc rctaining wall. Thc appiicants, Nancy and William Currcnt, arc rcqucsting a front sctback variancc of approximatcly 4' to construct an altachcd 519 sq. tt., two-car garagc. In conjunction, thc applicant sccks a 2' wall hcight variancc (6' maximum hcight allowcd) to construct a rctaining wall of approximatcly 8' in hcight. Thc high point of thc cxisting wall will only bc reduccd by 6", howcvcr, thc avcragc hcight of thc wall will bc rcduccd by this proposal. Thc wall hcight variancc will also includc a 1.75' variancc (3' niaximum hcight allowcd in thc front sctback) to construct a wall 4.75' in hcight within thc front sctback. This sitc is currcntly improvcd with a single family structurc without a garagc. The cxisting paved drivcway on thc sitc is in thc same general acca that thc garage is proposed for. The applicants are proposing to modify the existing wall to provide access to the proposed garage. The applicant is proposing a single wall, rather than rivo ticrs of 6' tall walls, or less, to preservc thc existing structurc ana a significant amount of thc Aspens to the south. Thc site constraints include many large evcrgreens to the north of thc proposed addition and existing driveway. South of the proposed addition and rctaining wall is the existing structure and the large stand of Aspen. • 1 11. ZONING ANALYS(S Zoning: Two-family Residential i Use: Single family residence I Lot Size: 21,039 sq. ft. Standard Allowed Existin Proposed Site Coverage: 4,208 sq. ft. (20%) 1,507 sq. ft. (7%) 2,213 sq. ft. (11%) Landscape area: 12,623 sq. ft. (60%) 17, 877 sq. k. (85%) 17,476 sq. ft. (83%) Setbacks: Front: 20' 22' 16' Sides: 15' 27' (west) 150' (east) n/c (west) 140' (east) Rear: 15' 43' nlc Wall Height: Front setback: 3' tail 5'6" and less 4'9" and less Remainder of lot: 6' tail 7'6" - 8'6" 8' and less Parking: 3 spaces required 4 spaces (none enclosed) 4 spaces (2 enclosed) 111. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon rcvicw of Scction 18.62.060, Critcria and Findings, of thc Town of Vail Municipal Codc, • thc Community Dcvclopmcnt Dcpartmcnt rccommcnds approval of thc rcqucstcd front sctback vaeiancc and both wall hcight varianccs. Thc rccommcndation for approval is bascd on thc following factors: A. Considcration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Many singlc family and two family homcs in this arca wcrc constructed with garages. Staff believes that providing garages is a benefit to the ncighborhood by rcmoving cars and othcr itcros from pubtic view. Thc proposal is compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Such variances (for garages), where a physical hardship exists and there are no negative impacts to adjacent propcrtics, have been historically approved by thc PEC. Staff believcs that the proposed wall height variance will havc minimal impact, if any, on adjacent properties in the vicinity. The proposed rctaining wall will only be visible from below the lot and is effectively screcned by the cxisting stand of Aspen. The applicant has proposed to reducc thc averagc hcight of thc rctaining wall with this proposal, • 2 thcrcforc, rcducing the amount of nonconfonnity on the silc. • 2. The degree to which relief from the sirict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff bclicvcs that the layout and oricntation of t1lc cxisting structurc and vcgctation makc this sitc uniquc. Thc existing vcgctation and trccs locatcd to the north, and the cxisting structurc and trccs to the south of the proposcd addition constitutc a physical hardship warranting protcction and thcreforc prevcnt the addition from bcing rclocatcd to the south. The cxisting slopc of this sitc rcquires thc drivcway to bc supportcd by a rctaining wall. In conjunction with the cxisting vcgctation and structure, staff bclicvcs a singlc rctaining wall is warranted to protect these features by minimizing the ovcrall sitc disturbancc. Thc applicant has proposed a two-car garagc of 519 sq. ft., which staff bclicvcs to bc adcquatc for access and usc of the garagc. Staff bclicvcs the proposal is not a grant of spccial privilcgc cluc to the sitc constraints. 3, 'I'he effect of the requcsted variancc on light nnd air, distribution of • population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff bclicvcs that the rcqucstcd varianccs will not ncgativcly affcct thcsc ItiSUCS. B. Thc Planning and Environtncntal Commission shall makc the following findings bciorc granting a variancc: 1. That the granting of the variancc will not constitutc a grant of spccial privilcgc inconsistcnt with the limitations on othcr propcrtics classificd in the samc district. 2. That the granting of the variancc will not be detrimental to the public hcalth, safcty or wclfarc, or matcrially injurious to propcrtics or improvcmcnts in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for onc or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistcnt with the o6jcctivcs of this title. • 3 b. Thcrc arc cxccptions or cxtraordinary circumtitanccs or conditions applicablc to thc samc 1itc of thc variancc that do not apply • gcncrally to othcr propcrtics in thc samc zonc. c. Thc strict intcrprctation or cnforccmcnt of thc spccificd regulation would dcprivc thc applicant of privilcgcs cnjoycd by thc owncrs of othcr propcrtics in thc samc district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Thc Community Dcvclopmcnt Dcpartmcnt staff rccommcnds approval of thc applicant's front sctback variancc and both wall hcight varianccs subjcct to thc following tindings: . 1. That thc granting of thcsc varianccs wi}I not constitutc a grant of spccial privilcgc inconsistcnt with thc limitations on othcr propc?-tics classificd in thc samc clistrict. 2. Thcrc arc cxccptions or cxtraorciina?y circumstanccs or conditions applicablc to this sitc that do not apply gcncrally to othcr propcrties in thc Primary/Sccondary Rcsidcntial zonc. 3. Thc strict litcral intcrprctation or cnforccmcnt of thc spcciticd regulation woulci result in practical clifticulty or unncccssary physical hardship inconsistcnt with thc objcctivcs of this titlc. ~ Thc rccommcndation for approval is also subjcct to thc following conditions: 1. Prior to thc Dcsign Rcvicw Board (DRB) mccting, thc applicant shall providc, and havc approvcd by thc f ublic Works Dcpartmcnt, a gading plan which fully dctails thc proposcd grading of thc sitc (including rctaining walls). Additionally, thc proposcd retaining walls must bc dcsigncd and stampcd by a rcgistcrcd proticssional cnginccr in thc Statc of Colorado. 2. Thc applicant shall limit thc rcmoval of cxisting trccs to thrcc Aspcns and ~ rnificant amount of onc Sprucc (as indicatcd on thc sitc plan). Duc to thc .i~ trccs on thc sitc, staff bclicvcs mitigation is not ncccssary. • f:\everyone\pec\memos\current\n 11 4 ~ ~ • ~ v:.a[EL F I ~ t> 35 RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 2 ,_BLOCK 2 VAIL VILLAGE 12th. FILING VAIL V(LLAGE 13th. FfLfNG 5 6 '9°' 29T VAIL VILLAGE 12th. FILING TAACT C ' 2335 3 B i5 \ I ' ~ 9 8 7 6 ~ z 9_'~] 9 2960 ;fo' /JJ i' '..,J 3.,5 IaS. 2665 26T3 2685 1705 s 2 ~.29.iJ ac ~ 15 ' J RESUBDIVlSION OF LOT 7, BLOCK I p 27J52165 a 10=9= „3o, ~ l =26 "5 VAIL VILLAGE 12fh. FILING a :765 p 'n rJZB 2805 ~ 800TN CR£FK z a 10 • ~ TOwNh0U5E5 ~ 2610 2130 ~ • 292 ..ti 1 II ``iaJ Ji:J TRACT 0. :43 ~'qy Pe.'S 25uJ TiL'.CT B 3255 3.i5 ~ RO ~ Mlnn~ i.l J i2 ~ T ~~CT 9_.~ TRFCT A a ~ •:i~G~l / Tq:.CT t~ ~ 2 3 ` \ ~ I _ - _ ' - " 3:'•o I 3"u ~'s: iJ . ' RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 27; ~9' _ - ~ _ • RESUBDIVlSION__OF TRACT D BL.OCK 2 V,41L VILLAGE-' 4 rr L..`L I TERST E Q~ 131h FIUNG ~ ~L VILLAGE II th. FILING~ N 70 iRnCT E _ _ _ _ ' . _ ~ i~H'~_~~.,..» 1 i v 1 o v 1 1 r~ 1 . . ~ \ tl ~ 1 S..) ?t150 r '1~~:' `I~ ~ :UVO 'lu r I \ / ' UNPLA.TE~~~^ _ ni0 I4 15 3 '~,\1 ~ ~ \ ? 2•~0 ~ 1PA_T =r~ ~t~/,i'' ~ ~VAILVILLAGE Ilth FILING 11 - ~ - - . Uhf'L-iTi U , RESUBDIV(SION_QF T_RACT_ VAlL VlLLAGE llth. FII.ING UHaLA7TED 1 TOWN OF VAIL BOUNDARY 15 _ _ 1 ~'a~ 'wn i"=~ _ ~ :i ~ _ - - ~ O~ , - ~ 1 _ r _ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ L---'~_ - _ ~y~ :il I ~ ` ~ ~ ' , ^ ~ ~ v ~ ~ , '~4 _ - - r ` x ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ , ` ~ ~ _ - , - i ~ ~ ~ , ; i ; . ' . . s ~ ~1 ~ - _l~.__~ ~ , . . - 4,~= ~ . . n~~ 1 1~ j 4 _ - - ~ ~~,i~ " ~ ~ ~j1~ ~ ~y~ ~ ~ ~ i. ,o''=~` ? ~ r ~ ~ 1 i , - ~ ~j ~ -Y ~ ~ ` l ~t ~ - - r ~ ~ _,~~1'" A, ~ ~ ± ~ . ~ L:~ . i ~ 1` -t 1 ~ ~ j ~ ` ~l , M ~ ( t"1 ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ,w`~~_~--~'~ , 1 F - 4•F L t . .`Y J } ~ ~ ` t t 1 ~ - ..;.n,'~`'';-?-5-r~...,,,_,t.l'..1~`..~ I I ~ - . . ~ ` i ~r : ,,,,,<i ; a.~•~' 1~ ~r~ ~ ) C(~'~~ <t[±+ e w.•~L.- " ~ ~ r" ; ) t?! p~ fod '~c. . _ } • ~ I- ! i: ~ ~ ~ . . , '~-.y~ ..f~r t ~ , , . " ~.r~ 5~~~' '.a..~:^-'~ ~ ti. ~•,.±'..-0 'E . V~~ 4MY~ ",~"~[~~~L~C]~~ ti~ $H ~ v.~~ ~ ~ ~ . r:~~,•\. W f`• ` ,.f.'~' ~ ~a. ~w!~~ .~S - ' ` `-...Ti `~~.,C. ?~n+12e`~~t1 . ~SI'•• - - i " se.o-a ~~y s1.!-.. I \ , ~ / - ` w y, -L m1- , . t.~e- - ~i \ A_ ~ ~ , ~ C J ~tur ~ 's+++c~ 1 ~ ~+y"~,L°,..~. ( r`ri - ( i"..r j i _ i~=-~' : x'"' c~„~,,,. 'i ~~..t - } ~ 1 1 J ~ } ~rr_ ~ ~ ~-'~Y--~~Y--~ ~ n. ,i„~'. l r,~.-,r.... TMs+.'>t-,~~' l.i . ` ~ C t: . U C~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ; ~ ~ , ~ - - , 1 ~ FILD ~ i ~ - - ~ ~ ;z ~ - ~ 'I - ~ _ - ~ ~ ~ ~1 I : _ - - - - _ - - - = - i v ~v I I j , ~ • , I 71 - - ~ ~ .I~;~ . _ - - - - , r f ~ I - - - _ - , ! _ i I - - ~ ' ~ ~ . ' i' -.t ` - , . _ ~ . - " f ! ~ ~ ~ - l ' y _ „ _ . ..,a~w,_ I ~ • ~ v l~. \l `l ; 1 ~ _ ! C} I ~ ~ ~ i, .•-r` l ~;I 1 \i I -~_LL _-l. . ~ --~L1 ~ ~ - - ~ ' - - _ _~~_M . - , ~ ~ • ~ , - _ I , - _ - - °-z L F-U~,I- ~ • ~ i' • ~ MEMORANDUM I~ TO: Pianning and Environmentai Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: November 11, 1996 SUBJECT: A worksession to discuss a request to amend Section 1822.030, Conditional Uses, of the Vail Municipal Code to add °time-share estate units, fractional fee - units and time-share license units" as a conditional use in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Ptanner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REflUEST The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce, is requesting a worksession to discuss amending the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicant is proposing that Section 18.22.030 of the Municipal Code be amended to allow time-share estate units, fractionat fee units and time-share license units as conditional uses in the Public Accommodation Zone District. The time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units would be aAowed subjeci to the issuance of a conditional use permit, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Municipal Code. The areas of Town most affected by the ~ proposed amendment are illustrated on Attachment 1. I1. BACKGROUND The applicant's request relates to a future proposal to redevelop the Austria Haus property. The Austria Haus is located at 242 East Meadow Drive. The Austria Haus was originally constructed in the mid-1960's as an inn to accommodate destination skiers. In 1979, the Austria Haus was purchased by the Faessler family who planned to redevelop the property into the Sonnenalp Hotel. In 1984, Ordinance #8 was approved by the Vail Town Council estab(ishing Special Deveiopment District #12. Special Development District #12 adopted an approved development plan for the redevelopment of the Austria Haus. The approved development ptan was never implemented, and has since expired, but instead, the Austria Haus underv+rent a remodel. Since the completion of the remodel, the Austria Haus has served as an annex to the Sonnenatp Bavaria Haus located at 20 Vail Road. The Austria Haus has 37 hotel rooms (accommodation units) with approximately 75 pillows" and is operated approximately eight months each year by the Sonnenalp Hotel. There is a small restaurant and bar in the Austria Haus that serves its guests and a retail outlet on the east end of the building. The hotel rooms are marginal in size (300 sq. ft. average) and lack certain amenities, by today's accommodation standards. 1 • The current proposal to redevelop the property intends to provide considera.biy more "pillows" over a twelve month period, as well as create approximateiy 10,000 square feet of new commercial space. The applicant has proposed that a percentage of the project be offered as time-share interval ownership units. The applicant has also proposed to accommodate a portion • of the required parking and ioading/delivery in an underground parking structure. According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the applicanYs property is currently ' zoned Public Accommodation. The Pub{ic Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide siies for lodges and residential accomrnodations for visitors, together with such pub(ic and semi- public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as may be Iocated in the same district. The Pubiic Accommodation District ' is intended to provide sites for todging units to densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre. The Public Accommodation Zone District does not permit time-share interval units. interval ownership is currenily allowed only in the High Density Multi-Family Zone District pursuant to Ordinance #8, Series of 1981. There is no vacant property in the High Densiry Multi- ~ Family Zone District. Afl properties currendy zoned High Density Mutti-Family are developed. In order for a time-share project to be constructed in the High Density Multi-Family Zone District, a developer would either have to convert an existing condominium or hotel project, or undergo an entire redevelopment of the property. A third possible alternative for the construction of a time- share project in the Town of Vai(, wou(d be to rezone an existing parcel of property irom its current zoning to High Density Multi-Family. Chapter 18.04 of ihe municipal code provides definitions of time-share estats units, fractional fee units and time-share license units. According to Sections 18.04.420, 18.04.430 and 18.04.440, time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units are defined as follows: Time-share estateunits: Means either an interval estate or a timespan estate. A timespan ~ I estate is a combination of an undivided interest in a present estate in fee simple in a unit, the magnitude of the interest having been established by the time of the creation of the timespan estate either by the project instruments or by the deed conveying the timespan ~ estate; and an exclusive right to possession and occupancy of the unit during an annually recurring period o€ time defined and established by a recarded schedule set Earth or referred to in the desd conveying the timespan estate. Additionally, an interval estate is an estate far four years terminating on a date certain, during which years titled to a timeshare unit circulates among the interval owners in accordance with a fixed schedule, vesting in each such inierval owner in turn for a period of time established by the said schedute, with the series thus established recurring annuafly untii the arrival of the date certain. Fractional fee units: Is defined as a tenancy in common interest in improved real property, incfuding condominiums, created or held by persons, partnerships, corporations, or joint ventures or similar entities, wherein the tenants in common have formerly arranged by oral or written agreement or understanding, either recorded or unrecorded allowing for the use and occupancy of the property by one or more co-tenants to the exclusion of one or more co-tenants during any period, whether annual(y reoccurring or not which is binding upon any assignee or future owner of a fractional fee interest or if said agreement continues to be in any way binding or affective upon any co-tenant for the sale of any interest in the property. 2 • Time-share license units: Shall be defined as a contractual right to exclusive occupancy of specified premises. Provided that the occupancy of the premise is divided into five or ~ • more separate time periods extending over a term of more than two years. The premises may consist of one parcel, unit or dwelling, or any of several parcels, units or dwellings identified at the time the license is created to be identified later. No timeshare is a timeshare license if it meets the definition of interval estate, timeshare or timespan estate. 111. HISTORY OF TIME-SHARING IN VAIL The State of Colorado has adopted regulations regulating the sale of time-shares. For the most , part, the regulations adopted by the State of Colorado are concerned with financial disclosures, regulation of sales practices and disclosures, regulation of sales practices and classification of time-sharing as a subdivision of property. The regulations adopted by the State of Colorado are intended more to protect the consumer, than as regulations designed to have impacts on the community level. The State has granted the authority for local governments to adopt ordinances intended to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community, which includes time- share projects. On July 15, 1980, the Vail Town Council adopted five ordinances to regulate time-sharing projects in the Town of Vail. A summary of each of the ordinances is listed below: • Ordinance # 25, Series of 1980, an ordinance amending Chapter 17 (Subdivision Regulations) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, providing a new definition for the term subdivision; and setting forth prohibited and unlawful acts and remedies for violations of this ordinance, and amending the procedure for appealing a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission to the Town Council. In the opinion of the then Vail Town • Council, the present subdivision regutations were not sufficient to deal with the problem presented by time-sharing projects and therefore, the procedure for subdividing property associated with time-sharing projects should be amended. Ordinance #25 further went on to require that time-sharing projects go through the subdivision review process. Prior to the adoption of Ordinance #25, Series of 1980, the Town of Vail did not have any regulations requiring that time-sharing projects be reviewed through the subdivision process. • Ordinance # 26, Series of 1980, providing for the addition of new conditional uses in certain zone districts. Ordinance #26 was established to protect the balance between accommodations for visitors to the Town, Vail residents and seasonal employees from the unregulated development of time-sharing projects. It was the opinion of the then Vail Town Council that the zoning regulations in place in 1980 did not sufficiently address the problems presented by time-sharing. The ordinance amended Title 18 of the Municipal Code allowing time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units in the High Density Multi-Family, Public Accommodation, Commercial Core 1 and Commercial Core 2 Zone Districts, subject to the issuance of a conditional use perrnit. • Ordinance # 27, Series of 1980, an ordinance providing for certain disclosure requirements for time-sharing projects; providing for public offering statements and setting forth requirements for such offering statements: for the escrowing of deposits or reservations of a time-share unit; and setting forth remedies for violations of said 3 • ordinance. According to the minutes of the July 15, 1980 Vail Town Council meeting, the , Council had determined that the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail would best be served by requiring the disciosure of certain facts and information relating to time-sharing projects, and to the perspective purchasers of time-share units. • The amendment established disclosure requirements when offering time-share project sales and established a minimum amount of information that the developer must disctose in a public offering statement. • Ordinance # 28, Series of 1980, an ordinance providing for registration of time-share projects with the Department of Community Development of the Town of Vail; the requirements for applications for registration of said units; remedies for violation of this ordinance and standards for the revocation of such registration. The Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance # 28 resolving that the Council had determined that the existing ordinances and regulations of the Town were insufficient to cope with the problems presented by time-sharing and that the registratioR of time-sharing units is necessary to protect and preserve the public health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the community. • Ordinance # 29, Series of 1980, an ordinance defining time-share braker and time-share salesman: providing that any person, firm, partnership, association or corporation that engages in the business or capacity of time-share broker or time-share salesman, must obtain a license from the Town Clerk; setting forth the requirements for the application for such license; providing for the display of such license, license fees and setting forth standards and procedures for the suspension or revocation of such license. Similar to the other ordinances relating to time-sharing projects in the Town of Vail, the then Town Council found that these additional regulations were deemed necessary to protect and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail and that time-share brokers and time-share salesman be licensed by the Town of Vail. • On February 3, 1981, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance #8, Series of 1981, • amending Ordinance #26, Series of 1980, providing for the removal of time-sharing from the conditional use section of the Public Accommodation, Commercial Core 1 and Commercial Core 2 Zone Districts. It was the then Vail Town Council's opinion that permitting the conversion and development of time-sharing projects in said zone districts would upset the balance between accommodations for visitors, Vail residents and seasonal employees and that the amendment was necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the community. IV. CQNFORMITY WITH THE TOWN'S RELEVANT PLANNING DOCUMENTS In considering the proposed text amendment to the Zoning Code, to allow time-share in the Public Accommodation Zone District as a conditional use, staff reviewed several relevant . planning documents. Specifically, staff reviewed the Municipal Code, the Goals and Objectives stated in the Vail l.and Use Plan and the Vail Village Master P1an. VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE Section 18.22.010 of the Vail Municipal Code, identifies the purpose of the Public Accommodation Zone District. According to the purpose statement, ' " The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with public and semi-public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor-oriented uses as may appropriately located in the same district. ~ 4 The Public Accommodation District is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the - desirable resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site • development standards. Additional non-residential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted, are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the district. The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodging units at densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre." . According to Section 18.22.020, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the following uses shall be permitted in the Public Accommodation Zone District: a) Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than 10% of the total Gross Residential Floor Area of the main structure or structures on the site; b) Additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch or terrace. VAIL LAND USE PLAN Chapter II of the Vail Land Use Plan identifies goals and policies for land use within the Town of Vail. The goals articulated by the Vail Land Use Plan reflect the desires of the citizenry. The goals are to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. Staff has identified the following goals (listed below), as being relevant to the . applicanYs proposal: 1. General Growth / Development 1_1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1_3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1_4 The original theme of the old Village core should be carried into new development in the Village core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 2. Skier / Tourist Concerns 2_1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day skiers. 2_2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and the • Town function more efficiently. 5 2.4 The communiry should improve summer recreational and cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism. 3. Commercial . • 3.1 The hotel bedbase should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of destination skiers. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 4. Village Core / Lionshead 4_2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through the implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 5. Residential .2 Qualiiy time-share units should tre accommodaied to help keep occupancy rates up. 6. Additional goals related to other elements of the comprehensive plan. Economic Development • The Town of Vail should consider developing some type of inechanism to control tenant mix, so that a balance between tourist and convenient type of commercial uses is maintained. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN: On January 16, 1990, the Vail Town Council adopted the Vail Village Master Plan. The plan is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in the Vail Village area and in implementing community goals for public improvements. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies that will preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. Most importantly, the Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Vi{fage and in legisfating effective ordinances to deal with such developrnent. For the citizens and guests of Vail, the Master Plan provides a clearly defined set of goals and objectives outlining how the Vitlage will grow in the future. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to be consistent with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, and along with the Guide Plan it underscores the importance of the relationship between the built environment and public spaces. The Vail Village Master Plan has been adopted as an element of the Vail Comprehensive Ptan. 6 - • ! Goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. The goal statements are designed to establish a Namework, or direction, for the future growth of the Village. A series of objectives outiines specific steps that can be taken towards achieving each stated goal. Policy • statements have been developed to guide the Town's decision making in achieving each of the, stated objectives, whether it be through the review of private sector development proposals or in implementing capital improvement projects. Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.2.1 Policy: Additional development may be ailowed as identified by the aciion plan as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. 2.1 Objective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub- areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. 2.1.1 Policy: The Zoning Code and development review criteria ' . shall be consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short- ~ term, overnight accommodations. 2.3.1 Policy: The development of short-term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short-term overnight rental. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variery of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.1 Policy: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal ioning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activiry generators, accessible green spaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 7 • ! 2.4.2 Policy: Aciivity that provides nightlife and evening entertainment for both the guest and the community shall be encouraged. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and . maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guesis. 2.6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.1 Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of ' any new or redeveloped project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. ~ 2.6.2 Poficy: Empioyee housing shalf be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure iheir availability and affordability to the local work force. Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 3.1 Objective: Physicalty improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Poiicy: Private development projects shall incorporate , streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating ar n ' eas), aIo9 ad1'acent Pedestrian waYs. • 3.2 Objective: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. 3.2.1 Poiicy: Vehicular traffic will be eliminated or reduced to absolutely minimal necessary levels in the pedestrianized areas of the Vi!lage. 3.3 Objective: Encourage a wide variety of activities, events and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas. 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4,2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. 8 0 Goal #4 To preserve existing green space areas artd expand green space opportunities. • 4.1 Objeciive: improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overa(I fabric of the Viliage. 4.1.2 Policy: The development of new public plazas, and improvements to existing plazas (public art, streetscape features, seating areas, etc.), shall be , encouraged to reinforce their roles as attractive . people places. Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. 5.1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. 5.1.1 Policy: For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core t Zone District, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the Zoning Code. 5.1.5 Policy: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly • encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. . 6.1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. Sub-Area #1-8 Sonnenalp(Austria Haus)/Stifer Square Commercial infill along East Meadow Drive, to provide stronger edge to street and commercial activity generators to reinforce the pedestrian loop throughout the Village. Focus of infill is to provide improvements to pedestrian circulation with a separated walkway, including buffer, along East Meadow Drive. Accommodating on-site parking and maintaining the bus route along Meadow Drive, are two significant constraints that must be addressed. One additional floor of residential/lodging may also be accommodated on this site. • 9 V. PROPOSED TEXT CHANGES - As stated previously, the applicant is proposing to add "time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units" as conditional uses to Section 18.26.040, Conditional Uses- • Generally. These uses would be subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. The proposed changes are shown as shaded below: I Chapter 18.22 Pubtic Accommodation 18.22.030 Conditiortal uses ' The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Public Accommodation Zone issuance f nditionaI use ermit in accordance with the rovisi D~str~ct, sub~eci to o a co p p ons of Chapter 18.60: A. Professional and business offices; B. Hospitals, medical and dental clinics, and medical centers; C. Private clubs and civic, cuftural and fraternal organizations; D. Ski Iifts and tows; E. Theaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities; F. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures; G. Public transportation terminals; H. Public utility and public service uses; 1. Public buildings, grounds and facilities; J. Public or private schools; K. Public parks and recreational facilities; L. Churches; M. Eating, drinking, recreational, or retail establishments not occupying more than 10% of • the total Gross Residentia! Floor Area of a main structure or structures located on the site in a non-conforming multi-family dwelling; , N, Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area; 0. Bed and Breakfast as further regulated by Section 18.58.310; P. Type III EHU as defined in Section 18.57.060; Q. Type IV EHU as defined in Section 18.57.70; R, Time-shace . estates units.,. fractionaE #ee units acnd tirrce-shar.e. i+~se u* Mis. VI. SUMMARY of DISCUSSION lSSUES At the October 28, 1996 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting, a worksession was held to discuss the applicanYs proposal to amend the Zoning Code to allow °timeshare" as a conditional use in the Commercial Core 2 Zone District. As the discussion was a worksession, staff did not evaluate ihe proposal, nor provide a formal recommendation. Staff did, however, identify issues which were discussed with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant. Each of the issues is described below and a summary of the discussion has been provided. 1. PROPERTY MAlNTENANCE ISSUES ISSUE: The cost of maintenance may be higher on a time-share project than on wholly-owned units in a . 10 condominium building. It has been reported that furniture, carpeting, appliances and other furnishings must be replaced more often in time-share units. This is especially applicable to time-share units which are sold on shorter intervals. The implication is that a higher level of • maintenance and management services must be available on an on-going basis for time-share projects to insure a high level of quality. In addition to the additional needs for maintenance on time-share projects, there is also a need to reserve adequate time when maintenance can occur. Problems potentially occur, when time- share intervals are sold on a one week basis. By selling fifty-two (52), one week intervals during the year, there is little or no time for the proper maintenance of a time-share project. STAFF CONCERN: Staff has questioned, how time-shares in the Town of Vail could be regulated to insure adequate and proper maintenance of the project. Staff would not support a proposed time-share project which utilizes a 52-week interval approach. SUMMARY: The State of Colorado has passed legislation which, in part, regulates the maintenance and upkeep of time-share projects. The regulations were passed to protect consumers from extremely high maintenance costs of time-share projects. The state regulations require that a developer of a time-share project establish an escrow account providing a cash reserve for maintenance and upkeep of the time-share project. 2. AVAILABILITY OF LOCK-OFF UNITS IN A MANAGED RENTAL PROGRAM. ISSUE: Time-share units can be designed to accommodate lock-off units. Lock-off units provide the • community benefit of additional "pillows," and they also provide an additional return on an investment opportunity for time-share owners. If a time-share owner purchases an interest in a multiple bedroom unit, and does not desire to utilize all the bedrooms, they can then have the apportunity of returning the unused bedrooms (lock-offs) to a renta{ program. STAFF CONCERN: Staff would recommend that lock-off units be required as a part of every individual time-share unit. Additionally, staff recommends that each lock-off unit be managed through a rental program when not in use. Staff feels that by providing lock-off units, and managing the availability of the lock-off units in a rental program when not in use, a time-share project can significantly increase the availability of accommodation units in the Town of Vail. SUMMARY: Staff continues to recommend that lock-off units be required as a part of every individual time- share unit. Some of the Planning and Environmental Commission members felt that it is important to maintain a quality "bed base" in the Town to accommodate guests and visitors. Concerns were expressed by certain members that such a requirement may impede a developer's ability to construct a time-share project as each development site is different and requires different mixtures of uses to make a project successful. No consensus was reached. 3. MINIMUM NUMBER OF BEDROOMS AND SQUARE FOOTAGE REOUIREMENTS FOR ALL LOCK-OFF UNITS ASSOCIATED WITH TIME-SHARE UNITS. ISSUE: In discussing the development of time-share units, staff believes it is important that any time- • share unit proposed in the Town of Vail be a multiple bedroom unit with a minimum square footage requirement. 11 1 STAFF CONCERN: Staff's desire to see multiple bedroom time-share units with a minimum square footage requirement should increase the availability of lock-off accommodation-type units, ihus increasing the Town's bed base. SUMMARY: • Staff continues to believe it is important ihat any new time-share unit in the Town of Vail be a muftiple bedroom unit with a minimum square footage and/or bedroom requirement for lock-off units. The applicant has stated that one reason the existing Austria Haus is not as successful as it could be is because the accommodation units are under-sized and outdated. The appiicant has indicated that according to industry standards, an accommodation unit must be at least 375 - 450 square feet in size. Several Planning and Environmentai Commission members felt.that ii was important for all time-share units to be muitiple bedroom units wiih lock-off type units attached. These members believed ihat such units improve the quality of the accommodations and provide possible incentives for owners io make unused lock-off units available as overnight accommodations, thus increasing the potential °bed base". 4. RATIO OF TIME-SHARE UNITS TO ACCOMMODATION UNITS ISSUE: The availability of accommodation units has aiways been a goal of the community. The Public Accommodation Zone District encourages the construction of accommodation units. Accommodation units are allowed uses. At this time, the Zoning Code does not restrict the maximum number of time-share uniis allowed on a property. Since time-share units are considered dwe!ling units, a project with all time-share units could be a possibility. STAFF CONCERN: Staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission the merits of requiring a ratio of accommodation units IQ time-share units. Specifically, staff is recommending • that there be a ratio of accommodation units IQ time-share units established. This wouid insure that accommodation-type units would remain avaiiable to visitors of the Town of Vail and not become only time-share units. Staff believes that it is possible to draft review criteria which address the need for a mix of accommodation units and time-share units on a broad basis. SUMMARY: The Planning and Environmental Commission discussed the issue as to whether a ratio of time- share units to accommodation units should be estabtished. After a lengthy discussion on the issue, the members felt that such a requirernent is not necessary, and in fact, impedes developers from constructing the best project possible for any given site. The Commission members further fe(t that such a ratio would be difficult to establish and would be best determined when reviewed on a case-by case basis. The members felt that any standard . created must be flexible to accommodaie changing trends and needs. 5. REQUIREMENT THAT ALL TIME-SHARE UNITS BE OFFERED THROUGH A RENTAL PROGRAM WHEN NOT IN USE ISSUE: Like unused lock-off units, a community benefit can be realized through the availability of time- share units when they are not occupied by the owner. The developer or managing agent of a time-share project and the time-share unit owner, can realize additional profits through the rental of time-share units as overnight accommodations. • 12 ~ . STAFF CONCERN: Staff believes that unused time-share units should be offered and made available through a rental program. Specifically, staff would like to discuss the merits of requiring that all time-share . units, when not in use, be made available to the general public. Again, this requirement helps attain the goal of maintaining a strong bed base whenever possible. SUMMARY: Staff continues to believe that a rental program should be established to offer time-share units to the general public, when not in use. Several Planning and Environrnental Commission members expressed their desire to see the same. It was determined that in order for a rental program to be successful, the time-share building must include facilities to support the program. For instance, a front desk, reservation services and other amenities generally associated with hotel- type accommodations. 6. INTEGRATION OF TIMESHARE OWNERSHIP WiTH WHOLLY-OWNED CONDOMINIUMS THE CONVERSION OF EXISTING WHOLLY-OWNED rONDOMINIUMS TO TIMESHARE OWNERSHIP. ISSUE: As discussed above, the integration of time-share ownership with wholly-owned condominiums can result in conflicts of use. As mentioned earlier, the type of use associated with time-share units combined in close proximity with less intensively used, wholly-owned condominiums, may not be desirable and could possibly pose problems. Again, time-sharing is a vacation-type of use, whereas condominiums are usually a residentiai use, or at least, less intensive vacation- type of use. Other resort communities in the country have experienced the conversion of wholly-owned condominium projects to time-share ownership. For example, in the State of Hawaii, numerous • wholly-owned condominium projects have been converted into interval ownership. In Hawaii, as a result of the conversion of wholly-owned condominium projects into time-share ownership, local ordinances have been adopted requiring 100% of the condominium owners to approve of the proposed conversion to time-share units. This does two things. First, it insures that 100% of the condominium ownership agrees to the conversion of any or all of the condominium units to time-share units. Numerous examples of conflicts arising between wholly-owned and time-share interval ownership have been documented. Specifically, the more intensive vacationing-type of use of time-share ownership may conflict with the more residential condominium uses. Conflicts arise out of complaints concerning long hours of "partying, noise and disregard for the quality of the premises." Secondly, conflicts have arisen over the management and maintenance of the property. While time-share owners have a sense of ownership and pride in the property they purchased, they may not be as heavily tied to their investment as a condominium owner. Therefore, conflicts resulting from management and quality upkeep of property result. STAFF CONCERN: Staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant, the potential negative impacts associated with the integration of time-share ownership and wholly-owned condominiums. SUMMARY: The applicant is not proposing to integrate time-share units with wholly-owned condominiums. Staff's concern is related more to other possible projects developed in Town. The Planning and Environmental Commission felt that under certain circumstances, time-share units and condominiums could be integrated. The members believed that integration could occur if a buffer between uses were proposed. In general, integration of residential uses was not • considered to be desirable by the Commission. 13 , 7. MANAGEMENT OF TIMESHARE PROJECTS. " ISSUE: The management of a quality time-share project is closely related to the high level of maintenance required for time share. It is in the best interest of the community to insure that • time-share projects are maintained at a high level and in a professional manner. In staff's opinion, this is most easily accomplished through quality, long-term management of the entire project. A high quality management program is necessaty as the large number of interval owners involved in a single, time-share project can be extensive. Without proper management, the overwhelming number of owners of the property could resutt in future conflicts. Discussions with a branch broker of a loca( time-share project, indicate that the most common form of management of interval ownership projects is a form of Board of Directars. The Board of Directors functions very simifar to a Homeowner's Association or Condominium Association. The Board, in most instances, is a+ded by a management company to help in the maintenance and managemeni oi day-to-day operations. As with any association governed by a Board of Directors, the Directors are elected or appointed by the ownership and represent and are responsible to the ownership as a whole. The Board of Directors would be responsible for the overall maintenance and management decisions of the time-share project. STAFF CONCERN Staff recommends that in the case of the Austria Haus specifically, the applicant discuss their proposed management scheme for the project, as the developers are proposing that there would be a mixture of accommodation units and time-share units. A Board of Directors or management agency needs to be responsible for the management of both the accommodation units and the time-share units. Staff believes that conflicts arise when the management of the time-share units differ from the management of the accommodation units. SUMMARY: ~ Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. wil( be the manager of the commercial and hotel accommodation units at the Austria Haus. It is the applicanYs desire to manage the time-share element as well. The owners association will be set up initially by the developers, to be managed by Sonnenalp Properties. Inc. The owners association reserves the right to uliimately determine who rnanages the time-share element. The Planning and Environmental Commission felt that it was important that any project be maintained and operated at a high level and in a professional manner. The Commission a(so felt it is equally important that whomever manages the time-share element must also manage the accommodation units. This is especially important to ensure that unused time-share units and/or lock-off units are made available to the general public when not in use. 8. THE CONVERSION OF THE 37 EXISTING ACCOMMODATION UNITS AT THE A1ISTRIA HAUS T 20 TIME-SHARE UNITS / LOCK-OFF UNITS AND 23 A C MM DATI N UNITS. ISSUE There are currentty 37 accommodation units within the Austria Haus. At this time, the developer is proposing to redeve(op the Austria Haus to inciude 20 time-share units sold on a five-week interval basis, with 24 attached one-bedroom iodc-off units and an additional 23 hotel-type accommodation units. STAFF CONCERN: Staff would like to discuss the impacts associated with the reduction in accommodation units currently existing on the Austria Haus property. While it is possible that 43 of the units in the new . 14 e ~ Austria Haus could be utilized as accommodation units (includes lock-off units), it is very uniikely that all 20 lock-off units would be made available. The staff is concerned as to whether this results in a negative impact that should be mitigated by the developer of the time-share project. ~ SUMMARY: This issue was not discussed at great lengths. The Planning and Environmental Commission members agreed that accommodation units are an important component with regard to Vail's economic future. The Commission members reserved specific comment on this issue until a more thorough review of the proposed redevelopment project takes place. 9. POSSIBLE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF TIME SHARE OWNERSHIP IN THE TOWN OF VAIL. . Positive Impacis of Time-Sharing: • Activity during the "shoulder seasons" tends to increase due to an increase in year-round occupancy. • The attraction of revenue-generating tourists. • Efficient utilization of resources. This is the "warm beds" concept. • More pride of ownership with time-share units than with accommodation units. • Increased levets of occupancy. • Increased resort exposure due to the extensive number of interval owners. • Negative Impacts of Time-Sharing: • Some resort areas have experienced poor, distasteful sales practices of sales agents trying to sell time-share weeks. Because of the number of buyers needed to sell out a project, an intensive and costly sales program must be developed. The problems associated with sales generally comes in the area of solicitation of sales on streets, at the slii base areas, shopping malls, and the use of high-pressure sales tactics. • Possible conflicts between wholly-owned condominium owners and time-share interval owners. • Possible loss of true accommodation units. • Possible difficulty in collection of property taxes due to the extensive number of owners. Sources: Report: Results of Research on Time-Sharing Reaulations, P. Patten, Comm. Dev. Dept, 1980 The 1995 Wor/dwide Resort Time-Share Industry Time-Share Ownership Benefits: Results from a Nationwide Survey of Time-Share Owners, 1995 • . 15 VII. DISCUSSION ISSUES - ' As a result of the worksession meeting with the Planning and Environmentai Commission held on Monday, October 28, 1996, the staff has identified additional issues which we would like to i discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant. As this is a ~ worksess+on to discuss the applicanYs proposal to amended the conditional use section of the ~ Public Accommodaiion Zone District, rather than the Commercial Core 2 Zone District, staff will i not be providing a formal recommendation at this bme. Each of the newly identified issues of the applicanYs amended proposai are identified below: 1, Additional Conditional Use Factors ISSUE: Staff has considered establishing additional conditional use factors to be used in the consideration of a proposed conditional use permit request for time-share projects in the Public Accommodation Zone District. According to discussions with the applicant and Planning and Environmental Commission, it was felt that time-share projects could be compatible with the permitted, conditional and accessory uses allowed in the Public Accommodation Zone District given that certain factors are met. This approach is currently used in the Commerciat Core i Zone District. I STAFF CONCERN: Staff has evaluated the idea and would propose the following: 18.22.035 Conditional Uses - Factors applicable. In considering, in accordance with Chapter 18.60, an application for a conditional use permit for a time-share estate unit, fractional fee unit, and/or a time-share iicense unit in the Public Accommodation Zone District, the following development factors shall be • applicable: A. Effecis of the proposal on the hotel bed base in the core areas; B. Effects of the proposal on the future needs of the community as a year- round resort; C. Effects of the proposal of noise, traffic, maintenance, etc, upon adjacent praperties; D. The enhancement of the proposa( on the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community. 2. Calculation of Lock- ff Units in Terms of Densitv and Gross Residential Floor Area lSSUE: The Town of Vail Municipal Code defines a"dwelling uniY', "any room or group of rooms in a two-family or multiple-family building with kitchen facilities designed for or used by one family as an independent housekeeping unit. A dwelling unit in a multiple-family building may include one attached accommodation unit (lock-ofo no /arger than one-fhird (113) of the total floor area of the dwelling. According to this definition, the staff has interpreted that a time-share estate unit, fractional fee unit and/or time-share license unit, which includes kitchen facilities, shall be classified as a dwe!ling unii. Staff's interpretation is based upon the fact that, in the case of the Austria Haus proposal, each interval unit will be designed with kitchen facilities for use as an independent housekeeping unit. According to this interpretation, each time-share unit would be entitled to one • 16 f lock-off unit. The Town of Vail Municipal Code also provides a definition of an accommodation unit. According • to the definition section of the code, an "accommodation uniY" is defined as, "Any room or group of rooms without kiichen facilities designed for or adapted to occupancy by guests and accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing ihrough anoiher accommodation unit or dwelling unit. Each accommodation unit shall be counted as one-ha/f (112) of a dwelling unit for purposes of ca/culating "al/owable : units per acre" STAFF CONCERN: Staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant the merits of applying the existing definitions to a time-share project. Staff feels that the existing definitions and interpretations provide the necessary controls on density and square footage for development in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Staff further believes that the existing language provides density incentives for developers to incorporate lock-off units into time-share projects without impacting a developer's ability to design a project that is sensitive to the site and is flexible to the demands of each particular development. The existing definitions also allow for developers and the Town to maintain and enhance the hotel bed base within the community (a goal identified in numerous planning documents adopted by the Town of Vail). 3. Subdivision Review Process and Registration Reauirements for Time-share Projects ISSUE: At the October 28, worksession meeting, a question was raised as to the procedure for ~ establishing a time-share project in accordance with the Town's adopted regulations. - . Chapter 17.22 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code outlines the procedure for subdividing a time- share project. A time-share project is subdivided according to the Condominium and Townhouse Plat procedure. A condominium and townhouse plat is approved by the Zoning Administrator following the review by the Public Works Department. The plat shall be reviewed under two general criteria: A. The Zoning Administrator will check to make sure the buildings and other - improvements were built as per plans approved by the Design Review Board; B. The Town Engineer will review the survey data for compliance with requirements found in Section 17.16.130C (final plat requirernents/procedures). Chapters 5.01 and 5.02 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code provide regulations applicable to time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units. Chapter 5.01 establishes disclosure requirements for the public offering of time-share projects. The requirements are intended to protect the consumer from inaccurate or fraudulent representations of time-share developers. Chapter 5.02 of the Municipal Code establishes the procedures for registering a time-share project with the Town of Vail Department of Community Development. Pursuant to Ordinance # 28, Series of 1980, all time-share projects constructed and operated in the Town of Vail must be registered. The intended purpo5e of the registration requirement is to insure that any time-share project offered for sale in the Town of Vail is in compliance with the Town's adopted codes and policies. • 17 ~ 4. A1212.roximate Number of Units in the Town of Vaii Directlv Imgacted bv the Prooosed ~ Amendment. tSSUE: • At the October 28, worksession meeting a question was raised as to how many units in the Town of Vail would be directly impacted by the proposed amendment. Staff reviewed all the properties in the Town currentty zoned Public Accommodation, or was a Special Development District with Public Accommodation as the underlying zoning. According to our research, approximately 736 units could be impacied in 15 buildings. It is important to note that it is not entirely likely that all , 736 would be aPproved to be converted to time-share. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed text amendments to Section 18.22.030 of the Municipal Code, and not a request for a formal recommendation from the Planning and ~ Environmental Commission to the Town Council, staff will not be providing a recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a recommendation on the applicanYs proposal at the time of final review. Currently, the applicant is scheduled to reappear before the Planning and Environmental Commission for final review on Monday, November 25, 1996. . ~ • f:\everyone\pec\memos\cc2exta.o28 18 APPENDIX A The information in Appendix A is derived from timeshare industry materials submitted by the ` applicant to the Community Development Department. The information is intended to provide a basic understanding of the socio-economic impacts of the timeshare industry as reported by the American Resort Development Association (ARDA). Complete copies of the source materials . have been attached for reference. • A recent study which examined industry pertormance from 1980-1994 revealed that sales in 1994 reflected an increase of 870% over the $490 million in world-wide sales reported in 1980. In addition, the 560,000 vacation intervals sold in 1994, reflected a jump of 460% over the interval sales reported in 1980, which were approximately 100,000. At year end 1994, roughly 4.9 million vacation intervals had been purchased since 1980, resulting in sales volume of over $36 billion during the 15-year period. • The U.S. is the leader in the worldwide vacat+on ownership resort market, with 1,546, or 37.3%, of the resorts, 1,538,000 or 48.9%, of the "owners owning in the area," and 1,648,000, or 52.4% of the owners of the "owners residing in the area." • A recent study revealed that 75.3% of the U.S. vacation owners are satisfied with their vacation purchases, with 76.6% of study participants responding that their expectations at the time of purchase have been "matched or exceeded," and 75.4% reporting that they recommend vacation ownership to others. Of the more than 2,000 owners surveyed, 67.5% responded that vacation ownership has had a positive impact on their lives. • Most important among the motivation factors sited by the owners surveyed in their . decision to purchase vacations were the high standards of the resorts at which they own and exchange, followed by the flexibility offered through vacation exchange opportunities, and the value of vacation ownership. Of ihose surveyed, 83.1 % responded that the "certainty of quality accommodations" was a"very importanY' factor in their vacation ownership purchase. Other motivational factors included good value, location of the resort, company credibility and savings of dollars on vacation costs. • According to a February, 1995 telephone survey of 1,000 U.S. households not owning recreational property, 60.3% of the Americans believed they have a chance of purchasing recreational property of some type during the next 10 years. The survey results revealed that over 1/3 of Americans rate their chance of purchasing during the next 10 years as "about 50/50 or better," compared to 15.5% in 1990 and 25.5% in 1993. • Americans interested in purchasing recreational properry prefer the standard 2-bedroom unit, sleeping 6, over any other singte unit size, by more than a 2:1 margin (45.7%). • The average vacation owner has purchased 1.7 weeks of vacation ownership. Although nearly 2/3 (58.8%) of vacation owners own a single week of time-share, the number of weeks owned increases the longer the average respondent is involved with vacation ownership. • The vast majority of vacation owners (73.9%) initially purchase just one interval. However, more than 1/4 (26.1 of those who first purchase between 1992 and 1994, now own more than one time-share interval, indicating that many first time purchasers are purchasing more than one interval at the time of initial purchase. ~ f:\everyone\peclmemoslcc2exta.o28 19 . • While in the local resort area, the average time-share visitor party spends considerabiy more than the traditional traveler, averaging expenditures of $1,130.00 during the course of the entire stay. • According to more than 2,000 U.S. vacation owners surveyed in 1995, the largest single • category of expenditure whiie in the resort area is for food and drink consumed in , restaurants, bars and other hospitality establishments. • Vacation owners surireyed in 1995 average 6.9 nights in the resort area during their most recent time-share vacation. • Vacation owners often extend their stay in the local resort area, by spending additionai ' nights in another form of accommodation. Of those surveyed in 1995,. the average owner spends an additional 4.7 nights in the locai resort area during his/her most recent time- share vacation by staying in a hotel, with friends or relatives, or elsewhere. • U.S. owners surveyed in 1994 reported that they anticipate returning to the resort where their time-share interval is located an average of 6.4 times during the next 10 years. By contrast, those same owners responded that, had they not purchased a time-share in the resort area, they would have returned to the resort area an average of only 3.2 times. • Compared to all households in the United States, vacation owners have higher incomes, are older, and have higher leveis of formal education than those of the average American consumer. As an aggregate profile, the typical vacation owner is an upper middle- income, micldle-age, well educated couple. • A recent study revealed that the average household income of vacation owners is over $63,000, having risen dramatically from 1978 when the average income was $23,000. Over 1/2 of all vacation owners have household incomes between $15,000 and $100,000. ~ • 86.5% of all vacation owners are couples, and 13.5% are single individuals. • As of December 31, 1994, 1,648,000 U.S. households awned a vacation. The top three states in terms of total number of vacation owners are California, New York and Florida. Sources The 1995 Wor/dwid Resort Time-Share lndustrv . Time-Share Purchasers: Who They Are. Why The16 Buy, 1995 Edition. Time-Share Ownership Benefits: Results from a Nationwide Survev of Time-Share Qwners, 1995 The American Recreationa/ Property Survey: 1995 ~ f:leveryonelpeclmemoskc2exta.o28 20 MEMORANDUM • TO: Pianning and Environmental Commission FROM: Departmeni of Community Development DATE: November 11, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a Special Development District overlay to the Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/ on part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REGIUEST The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce, is requesting a worksession to discuss the establishment of a Special Development District at 242 East Meadow Drive/on part of Tract C, Vail Village First Filing. The applicant is proposing to establish a new Special Development District overlay to the underlying zone district of Public Accommodation, to facilitate the proposed redevelopment of the existing Austria Haus. The purpose of the worksession meeting is to discuss the goals of the proposed Special Development District, the relationship of the proposal to the applicable elements of the Town's • Master Plan, and the review procedure that will be followed for the application. The applicant has proposed significant improvements to the existing Austria Haus property. The Austria Haus is intended to become a member owned resort club, comprised of two and three bedroom residences with associated club facilities. The Austria Haus is intended to provide additional accommodation units in the Town of Vail. Currently, the applicant is proposing to incorporate tweniy (20) vacation ownership units (fraciional fee units) with twenty (20) lock-off units and fwenty-three (23) new hotel rooms. The redeveloped project would include a total of sixty-three (63) new dwelling and accommodation units. The applicant is also proposing approximately 10,500 sq. ft. of new commercial/retail space on the main level of the Austria Haus. The Austria Haus will include a front desk reception/registration area and other facilities, commonly associated with hotels and lodges. In order to facilitate the proposed redevelopment of the existing Austria Haus, the applicant has also proposed other applications for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Those applications include a proposed text change to the Public Accommodation Zone District to add "time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units" as conditional uses • and an application for a conditional use permit to allow for fractional fee units in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Each of these applications will be reviewed concurrently with the proposed request for the establishment of a Special Development District. A document from the applicant, entitled "Austria Haus Club Overview" has been attached. The attachment describes the resort club concept proposed by the applicant. • 1 II. BACKGROUND The applicant's request relates to a future proposal to redevelop the Austria Haus property. The Austria Haus was originally constructed in the mid-1960's as an inn to accommodate destination • skiers. !n 1979, the Austria Haus was purchased by the Faessler family who planned to redevelop the property into the Sonnenalp Hotel. In' 1984, Ordinance #8 was approved by the Vail Town Council estabiishing Special Development District #12. Special Development District #12 adopted an approved development plan for the redevelopment of the Austria Haus. When Ordinance # 8 was adopted, ihe Town Council placed an eighteen-month time limit on the approval af ihe SDD. The approval of SDD # 12 lapsed eleven years ago, on October 2, 1985. The approved development plan was never implemented, and instead, the Austria Haus underwent a remodel. Since the completion of the~remodel, the Austria Haus has served as an annex to the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus located at 20 Vail Road. The Austria Haus has 37 hotel rooms (accommodation units) with approximately 75 pilfows" and is operated approximately eight months each year by the Sonnenaip Hotel. There is a small restaurant and bar in the Austria Haus that serves its guests and a retail outlet on the east end of the building. The hotel rooms are marginal in size ( 300 sq. ft. average) and lack certain amenities, by today's accommodation standards. The current proposal to redevelop the property intends to provide considerably more "pillows" over a twelve month period, as well as create approximately 10,000 square feet of new commerciat space. The applicant has proposed that a percentage of the project be offered as fractionai fee ownership units. The appVicant has afso proposed to accommodate a portion of the required parking in an underground parking struciure. According to the Off+cial Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the applicant's property is currently zoned Public Accommodation. The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide • sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi- public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as may be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District is intended to provide sites for lodging units to densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre. The Public Accommodation Zone District does not currently permit time-share interval units. Interva( ownership is currently allowed only in the High Density Multi-Family Zone District pursuant to Ordinance #8, Series ot 1981. III. THE SPEClAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT PROCESS Chapter 18.40 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code provides for the establishment of Special Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 18.40.010, the purpose of a Special Development District is, "To encourage f(exibifity and creativity in the development of land, in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streeis and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development District, in conjunction with the properties underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District." 2 • The Municipal Code provides a framework ior the establishment of a Special Development District. According to the Municipa( Code, prior to site preparation, buiiding construction, or other ' • improvements to land within a Special Developmeni Districi, there shall be an approved development plan for the Special Development District. The approved development plan establishes requirements regulating development, uses and activity within the Special Development District. The purpose of the PEC worksession meeting is to discuss ihe goals of the proposed Special Development District, the relationship of the proposal to applicable eiements of the Town's Master Plan, and the review procedure that wi(I be followed for the application. Upon final review of the proposed establishment of a Special Development District, a report from the Planning and Environmental Commission stating its findings and recommendations and a staff report shall be €orwarded to the Town Council, in accordance with the provisions iisted in Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code. The Town Council's consideration of the Special Development District shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.130 - 18.66.160 and approved by two readings of an ordinance. An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses and activities of the Speciaf Development DistriCt. The development plan shaN contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the Special Developmeni District shall develop. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to, the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and elevations, vicinity pfan, parking plan, preliminary open space/landscape plan, densities and permitted, conditional and accessory uses. The determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council as part of the formal review of the proposed development plan. Unfess further restricted through the review of the proposed Special • Development Drstrict, permitted, conditional and accessory uses sha!l be limiied to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses +n the properties underlying zone districT. The Municipal Code provides nine (9) design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria l in evaluating the merits of the proposed Special Development District. It shall be the burden of i the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan compty with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not appiicable, i or that a practical solution consistent with the pub(ic interest has been achieved. Although staff wi(( not specificaffy address each of the nine SDD review criteria at this time, the design criteria are listed below for reterence: A. Desibn compatibility and sensitivit,y to the immediate environment, neibhborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural desibn, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual intebrity and orientation. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surroundinb uses and activity. C. Compliance with parkinb and loadinb requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. D. Conformity Nvith the applicable eiements oF the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. • 3 . . ~ E. fdenti{ication and niil+~;atio3n of natural and/or ~cologic hazards that affcct the propcrty on which thc spcci:ii devcloprnent district is proposcd. 'I F. Site plan, buildine desi~n and location and open space pro~~isions desioned to • produce a functionai development responsive and sensitive to naturai features, ve(yetation and averall aesthetic quality of the community, G. A circulation system desibned for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and ot't=site traffic circulation. I 1-I. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and ; preserve natural features, recreation, views and, funetions. 1. Phasin- plan or subdivision pl:tn that will maintain a workable, functional and efticient relationship throubhout the development of the special development district. The development standards for a Special Development District shall be proposed by the applicant. Developmeni standards incfuding 1ot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking and loading shafl be determined by the Town Council as part of the approved development pian, with considerat'ron of the recommendations of the Pianning and Environmental Commission and siaff. 8efore the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, is shall be determined that such deviations provide benefits to ihe Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviations. This determination is to be made based upon the evaluation of the proposed Special Development District's compliance with the Review Criteria outlined above. • I IV. ZONING ANALYSIS The Community Development Department staff has prepared a preliminary Zoning Analysis for the proposed Austria Haus redevelopment project. The Zoning Analysis compares the development standards outlined by the underlying zone district of Public Accommodation, to the existing conditions of the Austria Haus and the proposed Special Development District. Staff did not include the approved development standards of Special Development District # 12, since the approval lapsed in October of 1985. Wherever the development proposed through the establishment of the SDD deviates from the underlying zoning of Public Accommodation, the standards are high(ighted in bold type. Legal: 242 East Meadow Drive/Part of Tract C, Block 5D, Vail Vi!lage I st Lot size: 24,089 sq. ft. J0.553 acres 8uidabie area: 24,089 sq. ft. /0.553 acres 4 . • Development Standard Underlying Zoning Exlsting development Proposed SDD' of Public Accommodation on the property • GRFA: 80% or 19,271 sq. ft. 49% or 11,800 sq. ft. 151% or 36,506 sq. ft. Dwelling units per acre: 13.8 DU's 18.5 DU's (37 AU's) 31.5 DU's (20 DU and 23 AU's) Site coverage: 55% or 13,249 sq. ft. 35% or 8,400 sq. ft. 66% or 15,602 sq. ft. Setbacks: front: 20' 11' 0.5' sides: 20' 9' / 10' 1' / 4' rear: 20' 13' 2- Height: 48' sloping 36' sloping 48' flat 45' flat Parking: per T.O.V. code Section 18.52 30 spaces" TBD"' Landscaping: 30% or 7,227 sq. ft. 31 % or 7,518 sq. ft. 7% or 1,652 sq. ft. Loading: per T.O.V. code Section 18.52 1 berth 2 berths in front setback Commercial sq. footage: 10% or 1,927 sq. ft. N/A 26% or 10,346 sq. ft. Common area: 35°/0 of allowable GRFA N/A 26% or 10,483 sq. ft. or 6,745 sq. ft. • : Numbers furnished by the appiicant and not yet verified by staff ' 11 spaces are located off-site on T.O.V. ROW To be determined V. DISCUSSION ISSUES As this is a worksession to discuss the applicant's proposal to establish a Special Development District; staff will not evaluate the proposal at this time. Staff has, however, identified numerous issues which we would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the \ applicant. Each of these issues is briefly described below: 1. The projects proposed departures from the Public Accommodation Zone District development standards. As illustrated in the zoning analysis in Section IV of this memorandum, the applicant is proposing that the project depart firom numerous development standards. The departures from the development standards prescribed by the underlining zoning of Public Accommodation range from a 151% increase of GRFA over the allowable, to nineteen and one-half foot encroachments into the required 20-foot setback areas. Staff would like the applicant to discuss with the PEC and staff the necessity for exceeding the underlining zoning standards and the public benefit gained by said deviations. 2. The proposed front entry location and design. The applicants have proposed a front entry drop-off area on the north side of the building • adjacent to East Meadow Drive. Due to the location of the front entry, the applicant 5 . proposes to move a traffic control arm further to the east on East Meadow Drive. Moving the traffic control arm to the east is intended to faciiitate vehicular traffic along East Meadow Drive to the front entry. Additionally, the applicants have proposed that a roof overhang project seven feet over the north property line onto Town of Vail right-of-way. • Stafi would like to discuss the proposed location and implications of the front entry as proposed with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant. Staff is specifically concerned with the amount of additional vehicular traffic which will be brought onto the East Meadow Drive pedestrian zone by the location of the front entry to the building. 3. The proposed parking, loading and trash facility location and design. Chapter 18.52 of the Town of Vai! Municipal Code prescribes standards for parking and loading and delivery. The applicant is proposing an outside loading and delivery facility and an access ramp, leading down to fifty-two underground parking spaces on the northwest corner of the building. According to the standards prescribed by Chapter 18.52, parking and loading and delivery shall not be located in the front setback area. Staff would like to discuss with the PEC and the applicant the potential for redesigning the foading and deiivery and trash facilities. Specifically, staff would propose thai the applicant explore the ability to accommodaie the loading and delivery and trash facilities in the underground parking area. As proposed, the loading and delivery area creates a significant constraint on the pedestrian and commercial flow along East Meadow Drive. The staff would also like to discuss with the PEC and the applicant the appropriateness of having loading and delivery and trash facilities located within the required twenty-foot front setback area on the property and adjacent to East Meadow Drive. 4. The implementation of the adopted Town of Vail Streetscape Master Ptan. • On November 20, 1991, the Vail Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The purpose of the plan is to provide a comprehensive and coordinated conceptual design for streetscape improvements that: 1) are supported by the community; 2) , enriches the aesthetic appearance of the Town; and 3) emphasizes the importance of craftsmanship and creative design in order . to create an excellent pedestrian experience. The Streetscape Master Plan divides the Town into numerous sub-areas. According to the Streetscape Master Plan; the Austria Haus is located within the East Meadow Drive sub-area. The East Meadow Drive sub-area accounts for that portion of East Meadow Drive located between Willow Bridge Road on the west and Vail Valley Drive on the East. The character of this portion of East Meadow Drive is divided into two distinctive zones. The west zone from the intersection of Willow Bridge Road to Village Center Road is characterized by standard street/curb/sidewalk section, the presence of vehicular traffic, varied building setbacks and a wide variety of landscape treatments. The east zone from Village Center Road to Slifer Plaza is dominated by the Village Transportation Center to the north, the large grass slope south of the parking structure, the lack of sidewalks and 6 • . the Sonnenalp's Austria Haus parking next to the roadway; none of which result in a positive pedestrian experience. This portion of East Meadow Drive is restricted to Town • buses oniy. The improvements proposed for this sub-area addressed many of the problems faced in all other sub-areas of the Master Plan: separating buses from pedestrians, providing a comfortable shopping experience, controlling unnecessary vehicular traffic, maintaining vehicular access to lodge units in the area, screening parking and accommodating ~ service and delivery vehicles. The final design concept for the portion of East Meadow Drive between Viflage Center and Slifer Square proposes some significanT changes to the character of the streets. The improvements proposed for this portion of the streetscape have targeted enhancing the pedestrian environment while reducing the emphasis on vehicles. It is the intent of the Streetscape Master Plan that the portion of East Meadow Drive along the Village Transportation Center remain restricted to bus use only. The existing contro( gate and totems on East Meadow Drive, near the west portal of the parking structure, should remain in place. This eliminates a dead end situation in front of the Austria Haus. From the control gate at the west portal of the Village Transportation Center to Slifer Square there should be separate lanes for pedestrians and buses, without a grade separation. The north side of the street will be dedicated to a fourteen-foot wide bus lane and the south side would include a twelve co fifteen-foot wide pedestrian way. Should the Town decide to utilize the existing right-of-way area in the area of the Sonnenalp's Austria Haus, an additional pedestrian walkway should be proposed on the north side of the road. Approximately one-half of the East Meadow Drive sub-area is already well landscaped. • The existing, raised brick walkway that is adjacent to the Village Center commercial area is a good example of an area that is well landscaped and well appointed with site furnishings. Some of the improvements suggested in the plan include: • the berm that screens the south side of the Village Transportation Center should be heavily planted. •snow storage requirements for the structure should be accommodated. The staff would like to further discuss the implementation of the adopted Streetscape Master Plan or revisions to the existing Streetscape Master Plan that take into account the proposed redevelopment of the Sonnnenalp's Austria Haus. Many of the elements of the existing Streetscape Master Plan were designed around the existing conditions of the Austria Haus. 5. The proposed site improvements including access to the site, pedestrian flow, the bus shelter, the stream-edge, etc. The applicant has proposed numerous site improvements to be constructed in conjunction with the Austria Haus. The applicant has proposed site improvements including vehicular and pedestrian access to the site, changes to the pedestrian flow in the area, the relocation of an existing bus shelter, and improvements to the north side of the Gore Creek stream edge. ~ 7 ~ Staff would Iike to discuss the proposed site improvements with the PEC and the applicant. Staff is particularly concerned with providing ample pedestrian and vehicular ' access to the site without creating vehicular and pedestrian conflicts. Staff is also • concerned with ihe location of some of the proposed improvements along the north side of Gore Creek. 6.. The proposed massing, height and building materials. I The applicant has supplied a preliminary massing model ot the proposed Austria Haus. At this time, staff is not prepared to respond to the massing, height, and building i materials of the proposed Austria Haus. Staff would like to point out to the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant that the Town will be retaining.the services of Jeff Winston, of Winston & Associates. Jeff's role is to provide consultation on the design and architecture of the building as well as the site planning elements. Pursuant to provisions within the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the applicant shall be responsibie for reimbursing the Town of Vai1 Department of Community Development for any expenses associated with our Urban Design Consultant. 7. Maintaining and enhancing the commercial (storefront) flow along East Meadow Drive. Currently there is a strong commercial (storefront) flow along East Meadow Drive. Particularly, the commercial area associated with the Village Center provides an excellent pedestrian experience. The applicant has proposed to incorporate approximately 10,500 sq. ft. of commercial/retail space on the main level of the Austria Haus. Staff would like to discuss the transition area between the Viliage Center Buiiding and the Austria Haus to ensure that the existing commerciai flow along East Meadow Drive +s maintained and . enhanced. As proposed by the applicant, the site plan appears to include some possible improvements (loading and delivery), which will, in fact, act as a barrier to the commercial flow along East Meadow Drive. 8. Provision for employee housing. Staff will be requiring employee housing as a part of this project. The exact number of employee housing units has not yet been determined. Staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant, the employee housing requirement. 9. Encroachmenis into required setbacks. The applicants are proposing significant encroachments into the required 20' setbacks. For example, the front setback will be encroached upon by 19-1/2'. Setbacks are intended to provide for adequate light, air and open space. As proposed, setbacks on ihe Austria Haus property are near(y non-existent. While staff recognizes that it is important that the new building be brought as ciose to the existing pedestrian ways as possible, staff is particularly concerned with the amount of encroachment upon the west and south setbacks. It is staff's opinion that, should any seibacks in this project be encroached upon, those seibacks should be the north and east setback, rather than the west and south setbacks. Staff feels the south setback should be preserved because of Gore 8 ~ . Creek and the impacts the buiiding improvements will have on the Riparian Zone, and that the west setback should be mainta+ned due to the location of the Village Center • Buiiding and the residential uses in the building. The stalf is also sensitive to the "canyon effect" ihai will result by having the two buildings (Austria HausNillage Center) too close together. building improvements will haStaff would iike to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant the proposed building . footprint size and locations and its encroachments into the required 20' setbacks. 10. A possible pedestrian connection from the Austria Haus to the Gore Creek Promenade. The applicant has proposed a significant square footage of commerciai area on the main level of the building, which will increase the pedestrian flow in the area. Currently, the property has no sidewalks intended for pedestrian connections through the property. Sratf would like to discuss the meriis of creating a pedestrian connection (bridge) from the Austria Haus on the north side of Gore Creek to the Gore Creek Promenade on the south side of Gore Creek. It is staff's opinion that a pedestrian connection in this area will create a much needed pedestrian loop in the Core area, however, we ar aiso concerned with bridges over Gore Creek in such a short distance. 11. Environmental impacts. The location of the applicant's project, immediately adjacent to Gore Creek, imposes significant environmental impacts on the natural resources in the area. Currently, the applicant's property has a significant stand of mature evergreen trees adjacent to Slifer Square. According to the proposed site plan, maiure irees wi11 be removed as a result of the proposed redevefopment. • Staff would like to disCuss with the applicant a means for mitigating any unnecessary tree removal. Additionally, ihe applicant has proposed site improvements to encroach upon the 50' Gore Creek stream setback and the Town of Vail stream tract south of the property. These improvemen[s will impact the riparian zone of Gore Creek. Staff would like to discuss with ihe Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant opportunities for mitigating the environmental impacts associated with the applicant's proposal. Staff would also like to inform the PEC that the Town of Vail has required, as the applicant is already aware, that a environmental assessment is required. 12. Proposed off-site improvements to Slifer Square. I According to ihe site plan provided by the applicant, some form of improvements are proposed to Slifer Square. In conversations with Todd Oppenheimer, Parks Superintendent for the Town of Vail, any redesign or improvements associated with Slifer Square shall be required to adhere to the Park Design Guidelines, prescribed in Chapter 18.54 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, any improvernents in the area must take into account the (arge stand of mature evergreen trees. The stand of evergreen trees should remain in place and become an additional focal point in Slifer Square. The Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan proposes numerous improvements to Stifer Square. For example, according to the Streetscape Master Plan, repaving of the entire plaza, with one of the speciality paving materials is encouraged, as the existing concrete surface is wearing out. At the time of repaving, speciat consideration should be given to • examining opportunities for creating a special events location. The site has the potentiai 9 i . * ! to be slighdy adjusted to better handVe the Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony and other public events and ceremonies, without losing its attractiveness. Consideration should be given to the removal of some of the existing stone waNs around the fountain and west of the plaza, to restore its original design and to aNow access to the water. )t is important • I that a comprehensive design analysis of Sl+fer Square occur before any changes are ' made, as it is one of Vai!'s most admired public areas. Seating and lighting should also be reexamined. Opening up the square to the creek and accommodating the existing eastbound, and proposed westbound, streamwalk paths are suggested. Staff would (ike I to discuss with the applicant and the Planning and Environmental Commission the merits of proposing improvements to Slifer Square. 13. Possible re(ocation of East Meadow Drive. East Meadow Drive is currently construcTed on thenorth side of the Town of Vail right-of- way adjacent to the Austria Haus property. Due to the location of East Meadow Drive in the right-of-way, a significant portion of right-of-way remains between the south edge of ~ East Meadow Drive and the applicant's north property line. This results in a large area of separation. Staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the . applicant the possibiiity of realigning East Meadow Drive. The intended purpose for relocating East Meadow Drive is to better accommodate pedestrian flow in this area. As indicated previously, the Streetscape Master Plan encourages pedestrian flow on the vehicular-restricted portion of East Meadow Drive. It is staff's opinion that if pedestrian flow were closer to the commercial/retail area, a better streetscape environment would result. . IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • ; Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed establishment of a Special Development Distr;ct to the property located at 242 Easi Meadow Drive/part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing, and not a request for a formal recommendation from the Planning and Environmental Commission to the Town Council, staff will not be providing a recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a recommendation on the applicanYs proposal at the time of finaf review. • 10 r r AUSTRIA I-fAUS CLUB OVERVIE«' I I• I. W'hat is the Austria l-Iaus Club? The Austria Haus CiLib is a member-o«ned resort club comprised of spacious Ovo and three bedroom residences and associated club faci(ities. These Club facilities are planned to include lobby, front desk and concierae areas, library/loun`;e room, exercise and function rooms, ski equipment storage facilities, outdoor sitting area with Jacuzzi, and on-site underzround parkin-. Additionally, access to the Sonnenalp Country CiLib and Spa fZCilities «-ill be included along with other membership benetits. II. f-Iow is ownershio oFthe CiLib evidenced? Title is evidenced by a real estate deed which is recorded and is guaranteed by a title insurance policy. Each member owns an undivided interest (UDI) in one of the Club's resicience units and the associated club facilities and common areas. 111. }-Iow manv members will be allov,-ed to join? An undivided deeded intec•est to a portion of the CiLib units and a commensurate portiun ot tlie common areas ~~•ill be conveyed to approximate!}• 180 qtialitied buyers, foi- a tota( ot' nine memberships for each Club residence (dependent on the ntimber of • permittzd units). Each membership will carry with it the right to prioritV use of lodging times. In totaL 45 weeks of the year Nvill be dedicated to priority use by CiLib members; the remaining weeks Nk-ill be available for rnaintenance of the residences and for rental. Priorit~lod``in`, ni``hts not «sed b}' members will also be a%~ailable for rental to the "eneral public. ~ IV. How often can okyners use their Club? Each member will have fuil access throughout the year to ail Ciub faciiities and alI residences of their type cateoory, subject to established reservation policies. V. Hoxv does an owner reserve usaQe? Members reserve their winter vacations in the fall and their summer vacations in the spring. Short-notice stays can be resen-ed on a"space-available" basis. VI. Will an o,,vmer alwavs occuov the same unit? No. Members have equal access to all Club residences of their membership type. • Nlembers may request a specific residence unit and this request will be granted if possible, based on established reservation policies and priorities. t • r . v AUSTRIA ItAUS CLUB OVERV[EW • V[1.(-[0«- wiil the rental program work? A11 residence imits not reserved by a member wil( be made available for ni`_htly rental to the general public. This includes full rzsidence units as -well as non-utilized locl:-off portions of inember reserved residences. Vl([.How will the memberships be sold? The Club resort marketin; programs will be similar in content and chzracter to those utilized in sellino hi~=h end condominiums in Vail. [X. Is thz Aiutria Haus Club a timeshare development? \'o, resort club membership is very similar to membership in a presti-ious equity aolf country cli?b, escept members reserve lodgin, rather than tee times. Resort club membership differs markedly from traditional timeshare or interval owncrship where lar`_z numbers of prospective buyers must bz gzneratc:d to produce the s11e of specitic weeks of vacation time in specitic lodging units, or rights to use spc:citic lodgin" uni[s tor a set number ot'}•ears. • Hiah-end resort clubs represent a separate and distinct marl:et segcnent fro?n what are commonly l:nown as vacation timeshare properties. Although both represcnt a form of interval o«nership. resort clubs mer,e the benefits oF second home o%vnership with traditional membership club benefits. A limited number of inembers are invited to make a substantiall%- larRer investment in a facility that includes all the features. amenities. ser~~ices. and benefits of a resort club. They are owners in a sin,le club property in ~vhich they have a vested interest in the value, the upl:eep, and the financial 1ieaIt11 and viability. X. Are there UDI clubs at other resort areas? Yes. Club resorts are becominor an increasinaly popular form of resort hotel stnicture. ExistinQ club resorts include the highly acclaimed Deer Valley Club at Deer Valley ~ Resort, Franz Klammer Lodae in Telluride, Ships Watch in Kittyhawk, NC, The NIelrose Club near Hilton Head, SC, as well as a growina number of new properties throughout the United States. Each of these clubs is organized somewhat differently and their bylaws permit varyinc, tvpes of tuaQe. . • 2 ~ AUSTRIA YIAUS CLUB OVERVIEW • ht. Whv was the concept developed? Club resorts are one of thz few economicalty viable methads currently a-vailable to tinance, construct, and, over time, maintain a hijh-qualit"• new mountain hotel property. Ntembership club sen'ices and amenities combined «-ith first class resort accommodations are also a lot-licai product for the luxun' resort mar(:et: the blended product meets the demands of the sophisticated leisure travelerJsecond home owner and at the same Cfi11Z addresses the needs and concerns of the community in v.•hich it opera[es. The Austriz Haus Club concept is designed to: • Provide more convenience, services, and amenities than are provided by an equally luXurious condominium development . Provide an economicallv feasible means of tinancin~_ the rejuvenation and mzintenance of the `,uzst accomniodntion inventor}' on the East Nleadow Drive propc:rty: ~ ~ . tilake 1v11I1bIe siRniticantly more accommodations in the heart of Vail by replacinu 37 existin__ ;uest accommodation units %vith a ne~v total of 63; • Ensure the highest year-round occupancy by providin" room rental opportunities durinR times when owners are not making full use of the Club; • Add quality commercial property, aesthetic public space, and underground parking in the Vai1 villa`e core; • 3 AUSTRIA HAUS REDEVELOPMENT PILLOW NIGHT AND TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS ~ EXISTtNG DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SDD ACCOMMODATION UNIT PROFILE NUMBER of KEYS 37 63 NUMBER of PILLOWS 75 182 TOTAL NUMBER of PILLOW NIGHTS 10,200 44,510(1) GROSS RENTAL INCOME $1,500,000 $1,369,600 (z) COMMERCIAL SPACE PROFILE TOTAL COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 497 Sq. Ft. 10,000 Sq. Ft. GROSS RETAIL SALES REVENUE $400,000 $5,000,000 - 8,000,000 (s) TAX REVENUE GENERATION ONE-TIME TRANSFER TAX REVENUE @ 1.00%: % Sale of Austria Haus - $7,500,000 $75,000 Sale of Club Memberships - $35,363,000 $353,600 Sale of Commercial Space -$5,590,000 55 900 • TOTAL ONE-TIME TRANSFER TAX REVENUE $484,500 I ANNUAL SALES TAX REVENUE @ 4.00% ON: Gross Rental Income $60,000 $54,784 ' Gross Retail Sales Revenue 16 000 $200,000 - 320,000 TOTAL ANNUAL SALES TAX REVENUE $76,000 $254,784 -$374,784 FOOTNOTES - SDD PROJECTIONS: (1) Pillow Nights: Hotel Rooms - 23 Rooms x 2 Pillows x 365 = 16,790 Available Pillow Nights x 67% Occupancy = 11,250 Pillow Niqhts Club Suites -(12 Units x 6 Pillows) +(8 Units x 8 Pillows) = 136 Pillows x 365 = 49,640 Available Pillow NighYs x 67% Occupancy = 33,260 Pillow Niqhts (2) Gross Rental Income: Hotel Rooms - 23 Rooms x 365 = 8,395 Available Room Nights x 67% Occupancy = 5,625 Room Nights x Average Daily Rate of $200 =$1,125,000 Annual Revenue Club Suites - 20 Lockoffs x 365 = 7,300 Available Room Nights x 25% Availability = 1,825 Available Room Nights x 67% Occupancy = 1,223 Room Nights x$200 Average Daily Rate =$244,600 Annual Revenue (3) Gross Retail Sales Revenue: 10,000 Sq. Ft. x$500-800 Sales/Sq. Ft. _$5,000,000-8,000,000 Gross Retail Sales Revenue *~~~~~**.**~~~„***~**.~:.~.*~**:~~,.~:*****:**+,,.~.~*********~~«*********.*~~x.*~:*.***~~,.~****«„*~*~***.**«.~~:~:.***«*~*~*~~~~*,~***~*,~ ~ NOTE: The projections indicated above do not include the following: 1) Club Unit rental income and associated sales tax revenue 2) Guest expenditures and associated sales tax revenues 3) Property tax revenue • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development - DATE: November 11, 1996 SUBJECT: Review of existing GRFA policy and alternatives Staff: Russell Forrest 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this worksession is to review the existing gross residential floor area (GRFA) system and possible alternatives. In addition, staff will review input from two public meetings that occurred on October 30th and 31 st. Staff is requesting that the Commission consider ; whether any alternatives can be eliminated frorn the review process at this point so that further analysis of pros and cons can be focused on the most feasible alternatives. As a ground rule, ~ the Town did commit to keeping the "no action" alternative (i.e., keep the existing GRFA system) , in the analysis until a final recommendation is presented to PEC and the Town Council. i II, BACKGROUND: The Vail Town Councit directed staff to evaluate the existing GRFA system and determine whether this is an effective and appropriate tool when compared to other alternatives. Three reoccurring issues have been raised by the Town Council which include: 1) Is GRFA an effective tool in controlling mass and bulk; 2) Is it appropriate that the Town should be reviewing interior fioor space; _and 3) Is it an effective use of staff time (both TOV and design ers/build ers) ? Attached is a copy of a background paper that Tom Braun, the consultant for this project, prepared which addresses the following (See attachment 1): 1) Reoccurring concerns/issues with the existing system, 2) Objectives of having mass and bulk controls, 3) Mechanisms for controlting bulk and mass, 4) History of GRFA in Vail, 5) Analysis of how 7 other resort communities control bulk and mass, and 6) Analysis of 5 alternatives. At the public meetings on October 30th and 31 st, Tom Braun presented the findings in the background paper. A majority of the time at the meeting was spent obtaining input from the public on the existing system, discussing pros and cons of alternatives, and identifying new alternatives. Approximately 45 people attended these meetings. Many of those attending • represented real estate firms, developers, and architectural firms. There was also representation (although fewer in number) from homeowners. ilt. PROCESS OVERV{EW ~ The process for this project is described below. The basic objective is to utilize the public input process and the background analysis to identify a wide variety of alternatives and compare them to the existing GRFA system. Then utilizing the issues/concerns as criteria, the PEC and Town Council will be asked to eliminate alternatives that should not be considered further (Step 3). Then Braun Associates and staff will focus a pro%on analysis (e.g., economic impacts, potential to increase or decrease the bulk and mass of structures, equity issues, investigate needed design standards, etc.) on the remaining alternatives and develop a recommended approach for consideration by the PEC and Town Council (Step 5). StQq Descri t~ion Critical Dates Step 1: Background Analysis of existing GRFA system and alternatives. September & October Step 2: Public Meetings to review pros and cons of existing GRFA system October 30th & 31 and alternatives. Step 3: Presentation to PEC and Town Council to review pros/cons and November 11(PEC) public inpui. The purpose of these public meetings is to determine November 26 (Council) if any of the alternatives can be eliminated in order to narrow down the review process. Step 4: Complete analysis of pros & cons of alternative approaches. December • Step 5: PEC and Town Council decide on a preferred alternative January 13 (PEC) . January 14 (Counci!) Step 6: Take action to implement preferred action, if any. January Note: Depends on which alternative is chosen. IV SUMMARY FROM PUBLIC MEETINGS A complete summary of the input from the two pub(ic meeting will be presented at the November 11 meeting (See attachment 2). The following are key points people tended to agree or disagree on. Mgjor Areas of Agreement• * Some change to GRFA is needed. The appropriate level of change was debated at {ength. * One area of general agreement regarding the existing systern was that the final product . • (size, scale, appearance) usually iooks pretty good. " Better design standards for the Design Review Board are needed. However these • standards should not be so inflexible that they stifle creative design. * Staff time is not an issue. However, time requirements for applicanis to explain the I GRFA system to clients is an issue. * Many felt (not a!I) that interior changes (particularly for owner occupied homes) should only require a building permit and not count towards their GRFA allowance. Mgjor Areas of Disagreement: * There was significant disagreement on whether the GRFA al(owance shoufd be increased across the board. Some fe(t that to be competitive with down valley real estate markets we needed to increase GRFA ailowances across the board. Others thought that homes in certain areas of Vail (Rackledge and Ptarmigan) were already too big. * Some felt that relatively minor changes to the GRFA system could address their concerns, while others te)t ihat GRFA needed to be eliminated and that site coverage, height, and design controls should be used to control rnass and bulk. ~ Several people felt that GRFA does effectiveiy control bulk and mass. Many of the developers, designers, and real estate agents felt that site coverage, height, and the Design Review Board currently control bulk and mass, not GRFA. There were exceptions in that several architects felt that the GRFA system results in creative design soiutions. i • ~ I • ATTACIiMENT 1 ' TOWN OF VAIL GRFA ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY REPORT • OCTOBER 22, 1996 I. EVALUATION OF VAIL'S GRFA REGULATIONS The purpose of the GRFA Analysis is to evaluate potential alternatives to the Town's existing zoning regulations that control the bulk and mass of residential buildings, specifically Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) zoning regulations. This report has been prepared to provide -background information to the Town Council, Planning Commission and public as an initial step in the evaluation of the Town's GRFA system and the consideration of alternatives to.GRFA. This report provides a general overview of the rationale for regulating building bulk and mass and the zoning techniques commonly used to implement such regulations; summarizes the Town's current system of bulk and mass control; outlines the evolution of the Town's GRFA regulations; assesses bulk and mass regulations of other resort communities; and describes five conceptual alternatives to the existing GRFA system. Three major areas of concern identified by the Town regarding the existing GRFA system that have prompted this evaluation are: 1) GRFA as a Means for Controlling BuildingSize The size and shape of buildings (bulk and mass) are currendy controlled by GRFA, site covera(ye and building height regulations and to an extent by the design review process. It has been suggested that GRFA is the least effective mechanism for controlling the size and • shape of buildings and that site coverage and building height regulations can provide adequate control. 2) Time Required to Administer the Current System A considerable amount of staff, homeowner, architect and contractor time is spent explaininb the system, calculating GRFA of proposed buildings and monitoring the construction of new buildings. Questions have been raised as to whether the effort necessary to administer GRFA is an efficient use of staff and applicant time. 3) Regulation of Interior Floor Snace The Town has received a number of comments from the community regarding the appropriateness of the Town regulating the use of interior space within the exterior walls of a home. For example, if the size and scale of a home is appropriate, does it really matter what is done with interior floor space and does the regulation of interior floor space provide any tangible public benefit? While these three issues have prompted this analysis, one of the key steps in the public review of the existing GRFA system is to confirm, or validate, these issues with the community. In addition, it is anticipated that other issues or concerns will be identified by the community during this process. Four assumptions, or "givens" have been made relative to this Process: GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT ~ Braun Associates, Inc. 1 1) Public involvement is a key element of this process and final decisions regarding GRFA • will be made by the Vail Town Council will input from Che community, the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town staff; 2) Some mechanism for controlling building bulk and mass, or zoning regulations which control the size and shape of buildings are necessary; 3) This process will address single-family, duplex and primary/secondary residential development only; 4) The "no action" alternative, or maintaining the current GRFA system, is a viable alternative. H. BACKGROUND ON BULK AND MASS CONTROL Guidelines and regulations addressing building height, bulk, and mass play a large role in determining a community's character, liveability and sense of place. Simply stated, bulk and mass refers to the overail size, shape and scale of a building. Bulk and mass controls address many of the factors that determine the spatial and visual qualities of a community. Building bulk and mass controls also help protect property values by providing some assurances of the type and intensity of development that may occur on a site or throughout a community. These regulations establish the design parameters and framework in which architects, developers, review staff and boards can work. The importance of controliing building size and spatial relationships was recognized long ago. Early zoning regulations provided for adequate access to light and air and limited the intensity of • use. The Staiulard Zoriing Enahling Act granted local legislative bodies the authority to regulate and restrict: the height, number of stories, size, shape and placement of buildings and other structures; the percentage of the lot that may be covered by buildings; the size of yards or other open spaces; and the use of land to control population density, open space, and access to daylight and air, and to limit congestion and over crowdedness. The act places this authority under the police powers of the community used for protecting the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. OBJECTIVES OF BULK AND MASS CONTROLS Communities establish height, bulk and intensity regulations to achieve a broad range of objectives: • Ensuring adequate access to daylight and air by limiting building height and controlling the setback of buildings from street and property lines. • Limiting congestion by controlling intensity of use, traffic, population, etc.. • Creating meaningful open spaces and landscape areas on site for aesthetics and chazacter • Maintaming a balance_between building scale-and the surrounding environment • Preserving a sense of place, scale and community character • Defining the proportions and character of public spaces and streets • Defining urban form and/or rural character • Preserving solar access to adjacent structures and sites ~ GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 2 . MECHANISMS FOR CONTROLLING BULK AND MASS • Communities utilize a variety of zoning and design regulations to control building bulk and mass in order to achieve specific community objectives. The following summarizes the most commonly used regulations. Although discussed individually, these mechanisms are typically used together in' order to create a system of bulk and mass control. Vail's current zoning regulations utilize most of the examples described below. 1 . Lot Coverage Controls Lot coverage controls directly affect building bulk and mass by limiting the proportion of a site that can be buitt upon or covered by improvements. Typical lot coverage controls include: Maximum Site Coverage - Site coverage limits the amount of a lot that can be covered by buildings. Site coverage limits are usually expressed as a percentage of the lot. Site coverage typically includes all portions of a lot covered by roofed structures as measured from exterior walls of such buildings. Covered porches and car ports are sometimes included in site coverage calculations. Im- 12ervious Surface Ratio - This expanded site coverage concept establishes the maximum proportion of a lot which may be covered by surfaces which do not readily absorb water. Impervious surface typically includes all buildings, paved areas, all areas covered by roofs such as porches, decks, driveways and parking areas (paved or not), decks and patios, walkways, etc. Landscape Surface Ratio - Establishes the minimum area of a lot which is required to be • landscaped. Landscape regulations often address factors such as location of landscaping, minimum dimension of landscape areas, minimum number of trees and shrubs and size of plant material, etc. Landscape reyuirements can affect building mass by limiting building site coverage or can help limit the perceived mass of a building. Setback Requirements - Setbacks from front, side and rear lot lines establish open space between buildings and ensure all buildings have adequate access to light and air. Setbacks influence the spatial relationship between buildings, but do not directly affect the bulk and mass of individual buildings. 2. Buildina Heiaht t Building height directly controls building bulk and mass by regulating the maximum number of feet or stories of a building. Height restrictions typically vary by zoning district. While a variety of inethods are typically used to calculate building height, height is typically measured to the top of parapets or ridge lines or to the mid-point of ridge and eave lines to either existing or finished grade below. In addition to quantitative standards, design guidelines are often used to encourage varied roof planes and building heights. 3. Floor Area Controls Floor area controls influence building bulk and mass and intensity of use by limiting the amount of floor area pernutted on a site. A variety of inethodologies are used to regulate floor area of a building: I GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT • Braun Associates, Inc. 3 Maximum Floor Area Ratios - Floor area ratios (FAR) limit the maximum buildable floor . area of structures based on a ratio of floor area to lot size. Ratios typically vary by zoning district, often with greater than 1:1 ratios in high density and commercial areas and less than 1:1 in low-density residential areas. A variety of inethods are used to determine what portions of a structure are calculated as floor area. Areas commonly excluded as floor area include enclosed parking, elevator shafts, stairways, attics with head room less than 5 feet, open porches and exterior decks. In some cases multi-story spaces created by vaulted or cathedral ceilings are calculated at a higher rate than other floor area. In other cases basements spaces are not counted as floor area. Maximum Floor Area: - Maximum floor area controls establish an absolute maximum cap on - floor area. Minimum Floor Area Ratios - Sometimes used in residential areas to establish minimum floor area per structure to protect against creation of sub-standard dwelling units. Building Volume Ratio - Closely related to FAR control, Building Volume Ratios address the total interior volume of a building. The purpose of the approach is to quantify multi-story/vaulted spaces such as cathedral ceilings. While this technique represents a more accurate method of calculating the bulk and mass of a building, it is not widely used due to the cost and technology needed to implement this system. 4. Lot Size and Shane . Most zoning regulations which address building height and bulk are based on ratios or percentages related to the size of a lot. As such, lot size and shape play an important role in the overall size, bulk and orientation of stnictures. I ~ 5. Design Review Each of the four quantitative standards described above influence the bulk and mass of a building. However, even with these parameters the perceived bulk and mass of a structure depends on a number of other design considerations. The bulk and mass of a structure can be inf7uenced by the placement and relationship of building forms and voids in building facades; the setting, or context of the structure; the proportion and scale of windows, bays, , doorways, and other features; shadow patterns; building articulation and offsets; location and treatment of entryways; variations of building height and roof lines; facade details; and the use of materials, finishes and textures. Design guidelines are often used as a complement to quantitative standards to address these types of design considerations. The design review process is typically most effective in combination with character plans, guidelines or pattern books which provide a clear direction for development for various areas of the community. III. VAIL'S BULK AND MASS CONTROLS Vail's existing system of-controlling the-bulk and mass of residential buildings utilizes three zoning tools. The Town's definitions of site coverage, building height and GRFA are included at the end of this report. • GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 4 l ) Site Coverage Maximum allowable site coverage in Vail's single-family, two family and primary/secondary • districts is 20% (allowable site coverage is (imited to 15% on lots with greater than 30% slope). The amount of allowable site coverage is directly proportional to the size of a lot. For example, on a 15,000 square foot lot 3,000 square feet can be covered by buildings and other improvements and on a 10,000 square foot lot only 2,000 square feet of site coverage , is permitted.. Site coverage includes the total horizontal area of any building, carport, arcade, or covered walkway as measured from perimeter walls or columns at or above grade and any roof overhang, eave, or covered patio or stair that extends more than four feet from the building. 2) Building Height , Allowable building height in the single-family, two farraily and primary/secondary districts is 30' for buildings with flat roofs and 33' for buildings with sloping roofs. Height is measured from the top of the roof ridge to existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive. Measuring height to the most restrictive of existing or finished grade requires buildings to "step" with natural grades and in doing so reduce the mass of a building. This definition also prevents the alteration of existing grade in order to build-up or elevate a site. Allowable building heights are uniform in the single-family, duplex and primary/secondary zone districts, allowable height does not vary based on the size of a lot. 3) GRFA The Town's definition of GRFA establishes limitations on the amount of floor area only. GRFA does not regulate how interior spaces are used (i.e., GRFA does not limit the number of bedroomti) nor does GRFA limit building mass created by vaulted spaces. Maximum ~ allowable GRFA in the single-family, two family and primary/secondary districts is 25 square feet of GRFA for each 100 square feet of total lot area. For example, a 15,000 • square foot lot would be permitted 3,750 square feet of GRFA. In addition, 425 square feet of GRFA is permitted for each allowable unit and a garage credit of up to 600 square feet per . unit is altio allowed. The Town's "250 Ordinance" also allows for an additional 250 square feet GRFA per unit for structures that are at least five years old. Allowable GRFA is calculated on a graduate scale for lots over 15,000 square feet in size. The ratio of allowable GRFA decreases for larger lots. For example, only 10 square feet of GRFA are permitted for each 100 square feet of lot area over 15,000 square feet. The purpose of this graduate scale is to limit the amount of allowable GRFA on larger lots. Design Review The design review process does not specifically address building bulk and mass issues. Other than a very generic statement in the guidelines that "structures shall be compatible with existing structures, their surroundings, Compatibility can be achieved through the proper consideration of scale, proportions, site planning There are no guidelines that specifically address building bulk and mass. The zoning standards listed above are evaluated by the Planning Staff as a part of their review of proposed developments.- This evaluation occurs prior to review by the Design Review Board or Planning Commission. Final design review approval can not be obtained unless a project complies with GRFA, site coverage, building height and other zoning standards. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT • Braun Associates, Inc. 5 IV. EVOLUTION OF VAIL'S GRFA SYSTEM • The following chronology summarizes the major changes that have been made to the GRFA system over the past 27 years: Ord. 7. 1969 I This ordinance enacted the Town's first comprehensive zoning regulation. FAR, or "floor area ratio" was defined and maximum floor area ratios were established for residential development and commercial development. The single-family and duplex zone district permitted up to.33:1 FAR and also required a minimum floor area of 900 per unit. Vail's original zoning code did not include building hei2ht or site coverage limitations. Ord. 8. 1973 This was a comprehensive revision to the zoning code. A definition of Floor area, Gross Residential (GRFA) was established by this ordinance. Minor changes were made to allowable GRFA in most districts. Building height, site coverage, and "Building Bulk Control" was also added to multi-family zone district and other higher density districts. Building Bulk Control established maximum length and off-set requirements for buildings. Ord. 19. 1976 Comprehensive revision to Ord. 8 of 1973 which established height definition based on average distance of the finished grade at lowest point, mid-point and highest point of exterior wall; established minimum distances between buildings in various zone districts; established graduated scale to determine allowable GRFA; and established an absolute maximum GRFA for duplex structures of 4,000 square feet. . Ord. 30; 1977 Reduced allowable densities (allowable units) in most residential zone districts. Ord. 50. 1978 Reduced allowable building height in single-family, duplex and primary/secondary zone districts to 30'; reduced allowable density and GRFA in RC, LDMF and MDMF districts. Ord. 37. 1980 Modified "definition of GRFA by excluding crawl spaces with less than 6' 6" clearance; adding garage credit for single-family, duptex and p/s development; definition of height changed to distance between ridge and existing or finished grade, increased building height to 33' for sloping roofs in single-family, duplex and p/s districts. Ord. 41, 1982 Modified definition of GRFA by establishing definitions for crawl space and attic space, changing the 6' 6" crawl space rule to 5', counting overlapping staircases only once, and adding credits for mechanical space (50 sq. ft.), airlocks (25 sq. ft.), storage (200 sq, ft.), and solar heating rock storage areas. Ord.4.1985 - . Established the "250 ordinance" allowing for additions of up to 250 square feet of GRFA to homes that are at least five years old. • GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 6 Ord. 36. 1988 Allowing for use of 250 Ordinance in cases where the renovation of the dwelling involves the • "complete removal of the building and its foundation and the replacement thereof'. Ord. 9. 1991 Proposed ordinance to repeal the 250 ordinance was denied. Ord. 15. 1991 Modified the definition of GRFA by counting the total square footage of all levels of a building : including substantially enclosed decks; eliminating the credits for mechanical, storage, airlocks and solar rock storage; and adding an additiona1425 square feet of GRFA per allowable unit in the -single-family, duplex and primary/secondary districts. Ord. 17. 1991 Modified the definition of site coverage to include covered decks, stairways, etc, and overhangs greater than 4'. Ord. 17. 1994 Modified definition of GRFA to include bay windows and established provisions for up to 60% of allowable common area in multi-family buildings to be used as GRFA for Type III and IV EHUs. The evolution of GRFA and other bulk and mass regulations reveal a number of interesting points: • The definition of GRFA has undergone at least four major amendments in the past 27 years. • The Town's first zoning ordinance did include limits on F.A.R., however it did not include height or site coverage regulations. Height and site coverage regulations were added in • 1973. • "Building bulk" control was added in 1973 and deleted in 1976. This regulation required offsets in buildings to avoid large, unbroken wall planes. • The 1980 amendment to the definition of height (distance between ridge and existing or finished grade) was very significant in that it kept the height of buildings relative to the grade of a lot and in doing so minimized building bulk. • The amendment to site coverage in 1991 added covered decks, patios and overhangs to the definition of site coverage, effectively reduced the area of a lot that could be covered by buildings. V. SURVEY OF OTHER RESORT COMMUNITIES The following summarizes how other mountain resort communities regulate the bulk and mass of low-density residential development. This not a scientific survey, rather it is a compilation of case studies which demonstrates the variety of inethods used to regulate building bulk and mass. Town of .Breckenridge, iColorado Breckenridge utilizes a performance based development review process which places an emphasis on qualitative standards as opposed to quantitative standards. Breckenridge also has different development standards for its historic downtown area and outlining residential areas. The following analysis pertains only to the Town's outlying residential areas. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT • Braun Associates, Inc. 7 • Bulk and Mass Controls • Floor Area Limitations The Town does not limit the floor area of homes in outlying residential areas. • Site Covera2e The Town does not have formal site coverage regulations. The area of a site covered by buildings is regulated by platted building envelopes or minimum setbacks, and.minimum landscape/natural open space requirements. • Buildin Heiaht Building height is regulated by a guideline that "discourages" homes over two stories. • Design Review While not referred to as a design review process, the Town does evaluate site planning and ` architectural considerations during the review of development in outlying residential areas. Landscaping, building colors and materials, and other zoning considerations (height, driveway grades, etc.) for compliance with adopted standards and guidelines. The bulk and mass of a structure is also considered for proposals that exceed two levels. Other Considerations The Town has averaged 32 permits for new single-family and duplex units in each of the last three . years. The average size of these units has been 4,029 square feet, exclusive of garages. The Town staff indicated that from their standpoint the review process for single-family development is relatively smooth for all concerned. The review process for single-family homes involves staff ' • review and hearings with the Planning Commission and Town Council. Municipality of Whistler, British Columbia This analysis pertains to Whistler's typical single-family zone districts (RS-1 and RS-2). Whistler includes a number of developments approved by "land use contract" (i.e. a Planned Unit Development) which have site specific regulations that often allow more or unlimited floor area in single-family homes. Bulk and Mass Controls • Floor Area Limitations Floor area of single-family lots is limited to 325 square meters (3,496 square feet) or 35°Io of the lot area, whichever is less. A garage credit of 56 meters (600 square feet) is allowed and the definition of floor area includes all interior space, excluding crawl space, measured to the outside of exterior walls. • Site Coverage Site coverage is limited to 35°l0 of the lot area and includes the footprint of the building only as measured at exterior walls. • Buildin HeiQht Buildings are limited to 7.6 meters (25 feet) and is measured from grade to the mean level between the eave and the ridge. ~ GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 8 • Desi:gn Review • The Town does not have a design review process. Other Considerations Based on comments from the planning staff, the type and intensity of single-family development varies. The floor area of some, but not all, homes is "maxed" out. The staff does not perceive the lack of design review to be an issue with regard to bulk and mass or the overall aesthetics of the community. The review of floor area limitations is not an issue due to the "black and white" nature of how floor area is defined. The Town's by-laws do not allow for variance requests to density or floor area. . Town of Aspen, Colorado Aspen has experienced a pattern very similar to Vail's with regard to redevelopment within its residential neighborhoods. This analysis pertains to Aspen's Moderate Density Residential Zone district (R-15), which requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. Bulk and Mass Controls • Floor Area Limitations Floor area is limited by a graduate scale based on lot size. A 15,000 square foot lot would be permitted 4,500 square feet of floor area. Floor area includes all horizontal surfaces measured to the exterior face of exterior walls. Totally sub-grade basement spaces and up to 500 square feet for garages are excluded from calculation as floor area. In certain cases exterior decks and balconies are counted as floor area. The volume of vaulted space is also addressed by applying a multiplier to floor space that has a floor plat greater than 10'. • Site Covera2e • There are no site coverage limitations in these zone districts. Landscape requirements essentially establish a limit on site coverage. • Building Heip-ht Building height is limited to 25' and is measured from natural grade to the mean height of the eave and ridge, provided that the ridge not exceed 30'. • Design Review The Town does implement a design review process that addresses all aspects of building design and site planning. Other Considerations Two years ago the Town went through a"monster home" debate. This debate concerned the demo of small Victorian homes and construction of larger homes. The issue was primarily over the ' potential loss of neighborhood character that was resulting from these types of redevelopments. Resolution of the issue was to incorporate design guidelines specific to building bulk and mass and building scale. These.guidelines require.homes to hav-e.acomposition of additive forms which include a"primary mass" and "secondary mass" and also mandate building offsets. The purpose of these design guidelines is to avoid large, box-like structures and encourage structures that reflect a composition of smaller building forms. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT ~ Braun Associates, Inc. 9 , Deer Valley Resort, Utah • While Deer Valley is located in Park City, development is regulated by the Deer Valley PUD. The City's Residential Development District (RD) provides the underlying zoning for single-family development at Deer Valley. In many cases the development regulations for subdivisions within Deer Valley vary from the RD standards. For example, in many cases building envelopes supersede setback requirements and building heights may vary on a lot by lot basis depending upon site specific considerations. Bulk and Mass Controls • Floor Area Limitations There is no floor area limitation in the RD zone district and many of the early subdivisions in Deer Valley did not include floor area limitations. Recently the Town and developer have worked together to establish maximum floor areas for each newly platted lot. Allowable floor areas vary depending upon site conditions and range from 7,000 to 10,000 square feet. Floor area includes the area of a building enclosed by surrounding exterior walls and any portion of a covered or enclosed deck or patio. Basement space is excluded from floor area calculations. • Site Coverage Unless specified by the PUD or a specific subdivision plat within Deer Valley, there are no site coverage limitations. Most recent subdivisions in Deer Valley include building envelopes for each lot which essentially establish a maximum site coverage area. • Buiiding~Height , Unless specified otherwise by the PUD or a specific subdivision plat within Deer Valley, building height is limited to 28'. Height is measured from natural grade to a point mid-way • between the eave and ridge. • Design Review Both Deer Valley and the City implement a design review process that addresses all aspects of building design and site planning. Deer Valley design guidelines include specific reference to building bulk and mass and building scale. Other Considerations In many cases single-family development in Deer Valley does maximize allowable square footage. A representative of the developer indicated that the Deer Valley design review process effectively controls building bulk and mass, however, there have been cases where building envelopes have been too small to adequately accommodate allowable square footage which on occasion Steamboat Springs, Colorado Residential areas in Steamboat Springs include older "in-town" neighborhoods and newer large-lot subdivisions in outlying areas. The analysis below pertains to the Town's low-density residential zone districts. Bulk and Mass Controls • Floor Area Limitations There are no floor area limitations in Steamboat Spring's low density residential districts. . GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 10 • Site Coverne • - There are no site coverage limitations in any of Steamboat Spring's low density residential zone districts. • Buildin Height Building height is limited to two stories or up to three stories if additional setbacks are provided. • Design Review The Town does not have a design review process for single-family homes but many subdivisions have Private covenants that inclu a desig de n review Process. Other Considerations Steamboat Springs is about to re-write their development regulations and floor area, site coverage and design review may be considered as a part of this re-write process. However, the town planner indicated that there is no real concern in the community with the size and design of single- family homes that are currently being constructed. ' . Beaver Creek Resort, Colorado DeveloPment regulations in Beaver Creek are established by the Beav i er Creek PUD Gu de and are 'imple?nented by the Beaver Creek Design Review Board and the Eagle County Community Development Department. Bulk and Mass Controls • Floor Area Limitations • With the exception of the new Strawberry Park neighborhood, Beaver Creek does not limit the floor area of single-family homes. • Site Coveraee Site coverage limits are established by the size of platted building envelope that have been established for each lot. Building footprints and related improvements must be located within platted building envelopes. , • Building Height Buildings are limited to 35' in height, however, height is determined by averaging the distance from grade to a mid-point between the ridge and eave at various points around a building. This averaging systems has allowed for portions of buildings to exceed 35' by significant margins. Beaver Creek recently amended building regulations to limit the absolute height of a building to no more than 50'. • Design Review Beaver Creek has a very involved design review process which specifically address building bulk and -mass. - - Other Considerations Beaver Creek is certainly known for its large single-family homes and the resort's development re ulations g encourage this type of development. While the lack of floor area lirruts may be a factor GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT • Braun Associates, Inc. I 1 in the size of homes that have been built in Beaver Creek, a more direct factor is probably the way ~ building height is measured. Beaver Creek's method of averaging building height ailows for very large building mass on one or more elevations of a building. Sun Valley, Idaho Sun Valley is predominantly a second-home community with much of the local population residing in either Ketchum or Haley. Residential development trends in Sun Valley have been quite similar to Vail, Aspen and other Colorado resort communities. Bulk and Mass Controls • Floor Area Limitations There are no floor area limitations in Sun Valley's low density residential zone districts. • Site Coveraize Site coverage is limited to 2,500 square feet on lots up to 10,891 square feet and a graduate scale is used for lots greater than 10,891 square feet. A 15,000 square foot lot would be permitted 2,842 square feet of site coverage (18.9%). • Building Height Building height is limited to 30' and is measured from natural grade to the highest point of ' the roof. Building height up to 35' may be permitted if additional setbacks are provided. • Design Review The Town does implement a design review process and bulk and mass is often considered in the Town's review of single-family development. The Town's design guidelines do not • specifically address bulk and mass, however proposals have been denied due to inappropriate bulk and mass. Other Considerations According to the town planner, there is a trend toward larger homes with few below 4,000 square ' feet and 7,000 square foot homes are not uncommon. There is a concern in the Sun Valley area with "trophy homes", however this concern is primarily in areas of B(aine County located outside of Town boundaries. V I. CONCEPTUAL BULK AND MASS ALTERNATIVES Five conceptual alternatives to the Town's existing GRFA system are described below. These alternatives are assessed relative to how each responds to the three primary issues of concern with the existing GRFA system. Zoning implications with regard to the implementation of the alternative, potential pros and cons of the alternative and other issues to consider regarding the alternative are also discussed. These five conceptual alternatives are not intended-to be a finite list- of the only alternatives that may be suitable for Vail's. Rather, they represent a range of alternatives that are intended to provide a framework for discussions with the community, Planning Commission and Town Council. It is anticipated that other alternatives or variations of alternatives listed below will be identifed during this process. • GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 12 ~ Conceptual Alternative #1 - No Action • Description of Alternative This alternative would leave the existing GRFA system in place. No changes would be made to allowable GRFA or the definition of GRFA. Objective of Alternative Accept the three identified issues as "givens," and continue with the existing system. Zoning Implications This alternative would have no affect on other elements of the Town's existing zoning regulations. Response to Three Identified Issues • Does not address the issue of whether GRFA is an effective or necessary mechanism for controlling building bulk and mass. • Does not address the "appropriateness issue" of the Town regulating the use of space within the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing homes. • Does not address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing GRFA system. ~ Other Considerations • Assuming there is a general comfort level with the size of homes that are being built in Vail, this alternative would essentially maintain the status quo. • No action would be needed to implement this alternative. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT • Braun Associates, Inc. 13 Conceatual Alternative #2 -"Conversion of Interior Space" . ~ Description of Alternative Modify zoning regulations in order to allow for additional GRFA in existing homes that currently exceed allowable GRFA, provided such additions do not add to the bulk and mass of the home. Similar to the 250 Ordinance, this alternative would only apply to existing homes. There would be no change to the review process (i.e. GRFA system) for new construction. Qbjective of Alternative This approach is intended to allow flexibility to owners of existing homes by allowing GRFA to be created within the interior space of a home (i.e. loft additions, conversion of crawl space, etc). In the past the Council has had some difficulty denying variance requests for additional GRFA which do not affect the bulk and mass of a home. This alternative would allow for such additions. Zoning Implications This alternative would have no affect on other elements of the Town's existing zoning regulations. Response to Three Identified Issues . • Does not address the issue of whether GRFA is an effective or necessary mechanism for controlling building bulk and mass. i • Does begin to address the "appropriateness" issue of the Town regulating the use of space • within the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing homes. I • Does not address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing GRFA system. Other Considerations • Could prevent illega] conversions and ensure that work is done in conformance with building code standards. . • Could increase the number of building applications and the amount of staff time required to implement the GRFA system. • This alternative may result in new homes being designed such that new interior space could be converted to GRFA in the future (i.e. vaulted spaces are designed in new construction to allow for future conversion to GRFA), the end result of which would be buildings designed as if there-were no GRFA-limit at all.- • Consideration should be given to not allowing the conversion of existing garage space to GRFA. • GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 14 Conceptuai Alternative #3 - Elimination of GRFA/Addition of Design Guidelines i Description of Altemative This alternative wouid eliminate GRFA as a tool for controlling the bulk and mass of single-family, duplex and primary/secondary buildings. GRFA regulations would remain in place for structures that contain more than two units. With this amendment the bulk and mass of single-family and duplex development would be controlled by site coverage and building height only. In order to provide assurances to prevent the development of large, non-descript boxes, this alternative would also include new design guidelines that specifically address building bulk and mass issues such as building form, off-sets, scale, etc. Ob-iective of Alternative The objective of this alternative is to address each of the three issues identified with the current GRFA system. This alternative would place the burden of controlling bulk and mass on site coverage, building height and design guidelines. Zoning..Implications With the elimination of GRFA, some alternative method for calculating required parking and determining the 60°l0/40% split for primary/secondary developments would be necessary. Response to Three Identified Issues • Does address the issue of whether GRFA is an effective or necessary mechanism for • controlling building bulk and mass. • Does address the "appropriateness" issue of the Town regulating the use of space within the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing homes. • Does address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing GRFA system. Other Considerations • Elimination of GRFA limits may encourage applicants to maximize site coverage and building height, resulting in large/box-like structures. • Eliminating GRFA could allow for additional development on lots that may result in impacts on adjoining properties. • Site coverage would become the primary limiting factor for controlling building size, with the elimination of CRFA the Town could potentially see very -large homes on larger lots because such lots are permitted greater site coverage. • Elimination of GRFA may result in lazger, more livable employee housing units. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 15 • Alternative #4 - Eliminate Basement Space as GRFA ~ DescriPtion of Alternative This alternative would amend the definition of GRFA to exclude interior space located entirely below grade from calculation as GRFA. . Objective of Alternative The objective of this alternative is to not count floor area that is not seen (i.e. space below grade). Zoning Implications This alternative would not create conflicts with other sections of the zoning code. Response to Three Identified Issues • Does not address the issue of whether GRFA is an effective or necessary mechanism for controlling building bulk and mass. • Does begin to address the "appropriateness" issue of the Town regulating the use of space within the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing homes. • Does not address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing GRFA system. I ~ Other Considerations • This alternative would indirectly create additional allowable GRFA for many properties. I Basement space that was previously calculated as GRFA would no longer be considered GRFA under this alternative, thereby creating new GRFA that could be utilized above grade. • GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 16 Conceptual Alternative #5 - Volumetric Control . Description of Alternative, , In lieu of using square footage as a means of controlling bulk and mass, this system would rely on the volume of above-grade interior space expressed in cubic feet. This alternative would require all applications to be submitted in CAD (computer aided design) form. A CAD program would be utilized to calculate the volume of the building. Objective of Alternative The objective of -this alternative is to provide a more accurate method of regulating the bulk and mass of buildings. . Zoning Implications With the elimination of GRFA, some alternative method for calculating required parking and determining the 60%/40% split for primary/secondary developments would be necessary. . Response to Three Identified Issues • Does address the issue of whether GRFA is an effective or necessary mechanism for controlling building bulk and mass. • Does not to address the "appropriateness" issue of the Town regulating the use of space within the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing • homes. • Does not address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing GRFA system. Other Considerations • While this may potentially be the most direct, effective way of calculating the bulk and mass of a building, this alternative would not prevent the design of non-descript boxes. • Potentially burdensome process for applicants because it would require all proposals to be done in a CAD format. • Coutd increase the amount of staff time required to implement the system. ' • Would need to establish allowable volume of space permitted on a lot. • Have not identified-any communities which utiliae-such a system. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT • Braun Associates, Inc. 17 ' Attachment 2 Issues with Current GRFA Svstem ~ F.t'fectivene.ss of GRFA ws $ Means for ControllYng Building Size • Mixe.d opYnivns as to whether GRFA is an effective bulk and mass control • Gcncral agrccmcnt that GRFA is lcss cffcctivc than sitc coverage and building height Time Reguired to Administer Current 5, s~ tem • Little ta no concern with staff time required ta implemen.t system. ~ Some concem with time required for applicant ApDropriateness of lteUlating Interior 5Dage • Clear lack of consensus with "appropriatenefis" issue • Discussion leatl to othcr issucs, i.c. EHU's, "locals", etc. ~ Mars Issues ~ Is the sxze of homes being buiXt in Vail appropriatc, arc there issues with ali bulk and mass controls and not just GRFA?? ~ Pracess shpuld also evaluate GRFA relative to multi- family + GRFA should not be a deterrent to canstructing EHU's ~ 13esign guadelines: are they effective, can the process be more effective vcrith better standards * Relationship of GRFA to papulation, par king, other z,oning st.andartis * Address locals/keeping peaple in Vai1 vs. "trophy homes" ~ r Co t al Altern tlv #1 - No Action" • esG iiition of Alte a've • Leave the exista.ng GRFA system in place, no changes would be made to allowable GRFA or the definition of - GRFA Groun Con&en,sus ~ Very little support fox this a1Lernative, fairly strong consensus that same action is needed ~ Question is whether system need,s to be "tweaked" ta be simplified and ;rxiore "user friendly" or whether wholesale changes are necessary Po • GRk`A docs contcol bulk acid Lnass • GRFA encourages design creativity ~ Exisun.g system is predictable, aknawn cammodity ~ Praduct (size of homes) has been good • Establishes "value" af properiy , N,ggat__ ives ~ Does not control laulk and mass ~ GRFA limits design creativity • C"7R.FA daesn't accaunt far vaulted space • System is too complex, cumbersome • There rnust be a problens ar we waulda't be here ~ f Conceptual Alter~atIve #2 ~ ~ "Canversion of Interior Snace" DescriRtion af Alternative • A11aw for additianal GRFA in existing homes that cuxrently exceed a,Ilowable GRFA, provided there is no change ta bulk and rnass af horn.e. GrQup Consens~us • Fairly strang consensus t`tat alternative is positive step but . does not go far enough, probably nat a perrnanent solution us' 've , a Addresses biggest problem, a11ows flexibility with floor area while nQt changing bulk and mass of huilding • Could encourage stability in Iocal population 0 Could promotc safcty by clixninating "illegal" conversions ' System will remain camplex and cumbersame, but end result will bo wot°th troubl~ Negatives • System wi11 remai.n com,plex, cumbersame • People will design homes for ftxture canversion of space Lsmes ~ Should multi-farnily units have same apportunity? • How to deal wxth skylights, dormers, etc. • Need to address parking, other zaning issues • Possibly a11ow only far EHU's ~ Possibly allow anly far honaes in existence at rime ordinance is adaptcd ~ } Conce~tual Alte~rnative #3 - . , . «El•m•n ~r.t•on of GRFAII ~ Descrigtion . of it~.~nna-d-n • Elinuriate GrRFA, adopt new design guidelines that Speuilically a.ddress buildixig bu1k and mass issues such as building form, off-sets, scale, etc. , Group Cansensus ~ Fair arnaunt of very cautious, highly qualified suppart for further consideration of this alternative Positives • Other controls (site coverage, height) ca.n adequately control bulk and mass 0 Eliminati.ng GRFA will simplify system Negat-i-yei ~ • Nccd GRF,A as part of total package fur cvnurulling bu& and mass • Design review grocess is inconsistent, can not provide adequate 1eve1 of cantral ~ ~llesign review standards will limit creativity • Elinunating GRFA wi11 dllow forlencourage large, non- descript boxes ~ Potentia.lly adverSe impact on neighborhoods, Cbnimunity character • Will place increased responsibility, burden on l]ItB Issues • Have to study site coverage, height as part of elinninating GRFA, possibly establish graduated scales ~ . . Conceptuai Alternative #4 - "Efiminate ~ Basernent Snace., as GRFA" Descriptiom of Altern 've. • Amend the definition of GRFA tv exclude interiar space 1pt;ated entirely below gracie. froui c;alt;uldtiou as GRFA Grou.DCansensus • Fairly strong cansensus that alternative is positive step but does not go far enough, probably not a permanent solution Positives * Cou1d pramote safety by eliminating "illegal" conversions ' and providing incentive far reasonably sized mechanical . spaces • * Makes sense - why calculate/regulate floor area that xs nat ' visible ~ ~ e atives 1'otential loopholes with defining "basement" 0 DueSn' t direc:tly address bulk and mass issue • Potential for a.dditional bulk and mass abovc gradc * Could allow f.or huge subterranean home 0 Adtxunisfirative nightmare to determine what is below grade, adds to cumbersome nature of existirig system s s • Mu st have "basement" clearly defined • Need to address parking, other zoning issues ~ r Cancei)tu.al .After native #5 - - - 46VolIgme,#ric Cantrol" ~ ' De-scdpII.on_ of _ A ternative • Utilize CAD to calculate, regulate volume af interior space Group Consensas • Could be most eftective, accurate control . • Far to cutYipl~c:atea, . c~f~ic;ult, burciensume on applicant . ~ , ~ i s t)ther Alternatives r . 1) Increase GRFA ratio 2) Increaae GRFA rdtiu lur smalIer lots 3} Don't count GRFA used for EHU's 4) Simplify deflxution, i.e. elinfuiate all cYedi~s mYd intiTease ratio S) Establish bulk and mass contrpls based on site specific characteristics of Iot, i,e. lot size and shape, slope, vegetation, access, etc. and strengthen design gu.idelines b) Cuuiit vaulteci space at front end and increase GrRFA ratio ' ~ 7 • ) CombYne proposed Alt_ #2 and Alt. #4 S} Establish parldng requiremi.ent based on nwaaber of ' bedrooms . 9} Eiiminate GRFA, exparid design guidelines, height avertiging, evaluate site coverage and height lirnits, make changes available to permanent local residents vnly ~ IUIHL h'.dW ~ Yr A(' f pa Syy P'\ " PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • November 11, 1996 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Susan Connelly Greg Amsden Mike Moilica , Henry Pratt George Ruther Galen Aasland Dominic Mauriello John Schofield Dirk Mason Gene Uselton Tammie Williamson Diane Golden Tom Moorhead Judy Rodriguez Pubtic Hearing 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:10 p.m. 1. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 4193 Spruce Way/Lot 12, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: Steven Peters ! Planner: Dirk Mason ' i Dirk Mason gave an overview of the request and stated that staff recommended approval with the 3 conditions listed in the staff inemo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. ' Larry Benway, with Isom & Associates representing the applicant, had nothing to add. John Schofield questioned the staff as to the reasoning for the 2nd condition. Dirk Mason said the EHU was required to have an enclosed space, if it were to be constructed new. Larry Benway wanted to deed restrict the carport, not the garage. Dirk Mason stated that the applicant agreeing to deed restrict the carport was on page 1 of the staff inemo. Gene Uselton had the same concerns as John Schofield. Greg Amsden had no comments. Galen Aasland saw no reason to deed restrict for parking. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes November ll , 1996 1 Diane Golden asked how the third unit would be attached to the existing structure? Larry Benway explained on the west end to the south towards the road. • Diane Golden asked if the existing unit had an inside entry into the garage? Larry Benway said, yes. Diane Golden said the garage should not be deed restricted, but it was ok to deed restrict the carport. Henry Pratt asked if the carport was left open, would the applicant need to deed restrict it? Dirk Mason said, no. Tom Moorhead stated that it could be deed restricted, or made a condition of approval, if the Commission felt it was necessary. Henry Pratt questioned that if it is not heated or enclosed, why then the restriction? He also felt it was important that the garage not be tied to the EHU. Greg Moffet was in agreement with Henry and Diane and stated that the applicant shouldn't be penalized when putting in an EHU. Henry Pratt made a motion for approval and that condition no. 2 be changed to read, "That either the one-car garage or carport be appropriately deed restricted for exclusive use by the occupant of the EHU." • Diane Golden seconded the motion. it passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II employee housing unit, located at 2642 Kinnickinnick CourULot 5, Block 2, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Sue Dugan Planner: George Ruther , Greg Amsden recused himself, as he was an adjacent property owner of the applicant. George Ruther gave an overview of the request. Greg Moffet asked for any applicant or public comment. Galen Aasland thought the request consistent and fine. Diane Golden had no comment. Henry Pratt had no comment. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes • November 11, 1996 2 John Schofield had no comment. ~ Gene Uselton asked if the agreement had to be signed or was not necessary? Tom Moorhead stated that the PEC would act independently of any agreements reached. Greg Moffet had no additional comments. Gene Uselton made a motion in accordance with the staff inemo. John Schofield seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0-1. 3. A request for a minor amendment to SDD # 5 and a conditional use permit to allow for the addition of conference space, located at 1100 N. Frontage Road/SDD #5, Simba Run Building. ' Applicant: Simba Run Condominium Assoc., represented by Lynn Fritzlen Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the request. He mentioned that this item was tabled at the last meeting, in order for the applicant to redesign the skylights. Dominic mentioned that the skylights were redesigned and reduced in size. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. • Mike Schult, with Fritzlen, Pierce & Briner representing the applicant, had nothing to add. , There was no public comment. John Schofield asked staff if they were confident with the restriping plan and also if there were any guidelines for this restriping? Dominic Mauriello said that staff was confident with the applicant's ability to obtain the parking space. He stated that the Code allows 25% of parking spaces to be compact space. Gene Uselton asked the applicant since there were two options, which one would the applicant prefer. Mike Schult wanted the ability to keep both options. Dominic Mauriello stated that the front drive is a dedicated fire lane and parking spaces couldn't remain out front. Galen Aasland would like not to see parking in front and wanted the wording stronger regarding the storage space being converted back to parking. ~ Diane Golden had no comments. Planning and Enviromnental Commission ' ~ Minutes November 11, 1996 3 Henry Pratt would like to see the parking structure restriped and no parking in the front. He wanted to encourage the DRB to look at the skylights and that they be kept more in line with the slope of the existing greenhouse over the pool. ~ Greg Amsden had no comments. Greg Moffet commended the applicant, stating that he liked the solution of the skylights. Reflecting the consensus, he also wanted no parking in front. Greg was in agreement with Galen, that he too wanted very prohibitive language with regard to the storage space not being i converted back into parking. i Galen Aasland made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo including the three conditions. He added to the first recommendation that in addition to returning storage back to parking spaces, the applicant file a letter with the Town that they wouid not be able to convert those spaces back to storage without written suthorization from the Town. Galen also included in the motion to encourage the DR8 to Iook at the skylights, the restriping and not to allow any parking in the front. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 4. A request for a front setback variance to allow for a garage addition and a wall height variance to allow for an approximate 8' tall wall, located at 3235 Katsos Ranch Road/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Village 13th Filing. Applicant: Nancy and William Current, represented by Saundra Spaeh Planner: Dirk Mason i Dirk Mason gave an overview of the request and stated that staff was recvmmending approval with two conditions. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant or the public had any comments. Saundra Spaeh, representing the applicant, had nothing to add There was no public comment. Galen Aasland had no comment. . Diane Golden had no comment. Henry Pratt asked what the color of the stucco finish was. Saundra Spaeh explained the same color as the existing color on the house, or the color of dead aspen trees. . Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 11, 1996 4 ~ Henry Pratt said he didn't want such a light color stucco, because it would stand out more than a . darker color. He encouraged the DRB to look ai this color and materiai closely, because stucco is not a long-term material and within 4-5 years the stucco would deteriorate. He encouraged the applicant to look at alternatives. John Schofield agreed with Henry's comments. Gene Uselton had no problem with the application. Greg Amsden had no comments. Greg Moffet stated that this was not a grant of special privilege and he had no problems with this request. Henry Pratt made a motion in accordance with the staff inemo, with the addition of a third condition that the DRB iook closely at the color and material. John Schotield seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 5. A request for a major SDD amendment to allow for a modification to Savoy Vi(las, of SDD #5, located at 1230 Lionsridge Loop/Savoy Villas, Phase II and Ili. The site is generally located 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. i Applicant: BWAB, Inc., represented by Chris Klein Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff inemo and explained the changes from the last ~ time the PEC saw this proposal. He noted the 7 previous conditions (of Ordinance No. 7, Series ; of 1995), with the addition of 3 additional proposed conditions. i Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. I Chris Klein, representing the applicant, had nothing to add. Galen Aasland had a problem with the layout of the living room and dining room, stating they were marginal at best. He said that the north elevation needed iife. He liked the condition for large trees on that side, but thought the elevations on that side needing improvement. He stated that the layout of the units needed a Federal Fair Housing Guidelines review, specifically regarding access to the units. Diane Golden would like to see more landscaping, but stated that it was great to have employee housing. Plamung and Environmental Commission • Minutes November 11,1996 5 ti Henry Pratt agreed with Galen's comments and said that it didn't meet Code with the amount of windows. He aiso wanted to see a better layout for the three-bedroom EHU. Henry mentioned that since we were giving the applicant additional GRFA, he would like to see another shot at the ~ layout. Greg Moffet asked if we could refer the layout to staff. Henry Pratt said, yes or to the DRB. Henry saw no family spaces in the EHU unit. ~ John Schofield had no comments. ~ Gene Uselton deferred to Henry's and Galen's expertise. Greg Amsden agreed with Henry and Galen. Greg Moffet agreed with Henry and suggested moving the walls for a better layout. Galen Aasland made a motion in accordance with the staff memo incorporating an additional condition that we instruct the applicant to meet with the Town staff to revise the floor plan and to improve the north elevation of Building #5. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. Greg Moffet asked if the Type III was a for-sale unit? Dominic Mauriello said, yes. Chris Klein stated that the whole building was for rent. ~ Greg Moffet stated that if sold, it would be pursuant to deed restrictions. Dominic Maurie(lo said there would be restrictions on the rentals as well. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 6. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Vail Re(igious Foundation, represented by Ned Gwathmey Planner: Dominic Mauriello Henry Pratt recused himself from review of this item. Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of this request. He stated there were finro parking schemes, with a net increase of 15 parking spaces in one case and 20 spaces in the other. Dominic went over the discussion issues. He also clarified the issue of the survey information being outdated and needed to be made current with the 50' stream centerline delineated. He explained that parking Scheme B added 15 spaces to the site and Scheme A added 20 spaces to the site. He said that the stream and wetland vegetation would need to be mitigated, as it would be disturbed Planning and Environmenta] Commission Minutes November 11, 1996 6 • i i by parking and snow storage. Preventing vehicular access to that area needed to be addressed. ~ He wanted the applicant to give an indication of the limits of disturbance. Dominic said the applicant was going with a shared dumpster, rather than another enclosure. He mentioned that there would be a reduction of landscaping on the site, with this application. He said that the architecture was compatible with the neighborhood. A concern of staff was that there was no adequate area for snow storage on the site. If stored on the west end, oil mixed in with the snow would end up in the stream. Also, Dominic stated drainage would need to be addressed, so there would be no direct outfaN (unfiltered) into the creek. He stated that the Council had directed staff to allow the Vail Chapel to proceed through the review process, but that staff should try to reduce the improvements on Town of Vail property. In order to implement that directive and to preserve the intended use of this land, staff recommends a 30' setback on the Town owned parcel to allow adequate access to the stream. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Ned Gwathmey, representing the applicant said that history stated that VA thought they gave this parcel to the Foundation. The Title Report said that there was a portion of the property owned by the Town. He stated that Mr. Loper, Rick Halderman and Villa Cortina all met and stated that if there's money, that they would like to snowmelt this area. He stated that it would be helpful with regards to snow storage. Ned said the applicant would come back with a snow removal program. He too felt it mandatory to melt the snow or move it out. He asked for a blessing to move forward with this request. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. Galen Aasland said of the two schemes, he prefers the B Scheme, as the A Scheme was too ~ close to the river. Galen encouraged the applicant to come back with a way to address the stream area being a reflective area that would be associated with a Chapel setting. Diane Golden said she liked Scheme B and she was sorry to see the Children's area go away. Ned Gwathmey said there was a security problem with the old area. The Children's area will be moved over closer to the chapel and wi!l have the same square footage as the previous area. Diane Golden supported this application, but she too was worried about snow storage. I John Schofield thought to keep it to a maximum on the west side. He said that a Town goal for the stream tract would be an access path to encourage people to use it. He too encouraged snowmelt. John Schofield fiked the project. Gene Uselton asked the cost of the snow melt system. Ned Gwathmey said $6.50 per sq. ft. and with 1,000 sq. ft., it was not that big of a number. Greg Amsden would like to see the location of Vitla Cortina's building on the site plan for reference. He asked staff to exp(ain the parking on Scheme B. Planning and Environmentai Commission ~ Minutes November 11, 1996 7 f I Dominic Mauriello explained that there would still be parking in front with 17 sub-surface parking spaces in Scheme B. • Greg Amsden asked if parking would be adjacent to the building. Galen Aasland asked if an elevator needed to be installed. Ned Gwathmey said, no, as all the offices were on the main level. Greg Amsden said he liked Scheme 6 over Scheme A. Greg Moffet wanted to see a landscape plan and mentioned that Scheme B was the better of the two proposals. He had no problem with the proposed encroachment by a few feet into the 30' buffer zone. He asked Ned if the applicant could capture waste heat from the surrounding , buildings, in other words, capture exhaust air. reciated the Ned GwathmeY said he would take these recommendations to heart and that he app PEC's time. 7. A request for a worksession to discuss amending Section 18.22.030, Conditional Uses, of the Vail Municipal Code to add "Time-Share Estate Units, Fractional Fee Units and Time-Share License Units," as conditional uses in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther Greg Moffet noted that items 7 and 8 were very different issues and that the PEC would discuss • each item separately. George Ruther gave an overview of the request. He mentioned that at the last meeting, 10 ~ discussion items were identified with specific concerns of staff. George said that staff was now in the process of researching new legislation that regulated time-share units and staff would report their findings back to the PEC at a future date. He mentioned that new discussion issues were generated at the October 28, 1996 meeting. Greg Moffet asked, since this was such a broad draft, which issue took precedence? George Ruther explained that the PEC would need to make findings in each case. Tom Moorhead stated that each case would be fact-specific, not bound by prior decisions. He also said that each application would have factual differences that would lead to different results. George Ruther explained the i(fustrated renderings and explained the reason for outlying time- shares. George said he would like to see time-share filling in for year-round occupancy in the Town. He went on to say that if time-share increased occupancy, then the effects of increased traffic and noise would need to be looked at. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 11, 1996 8 . Greg Moffet stated that, before we go to the Commission, be mindful that we are going to keep ~ focused. Gordon Pierce, representing Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. stated that the time-share subject was a tar baby and he clarified that what he was representing was a hybrid. Greg Moffet reminded Gordon that we were not discussing the Sonnenalp item, just time-shares. Randy Burgess, Sales Director for the Deer Valley Club, stated tor the record that he had no vested interest in this application. He explained that his experience provided the ability to answer questions about maintenance and occupancy of time-shares Greg Moffet asked for any public concerns, as it related to the conditionaf use factors. Paul Tracey, Owner and Operator of Kidsports, has worked in the Valley for the last 18 years, was concerned with oil field effects and inflationary effects with this proposal. He stated that he moved here from Aspen where this type of proposal brought about escalation in costs of everything. Paul saw "Aspen" beginning to occur here. He stated that the type of people that time-sharing brought in was not in the best interest of our community, at least not in the core of the Village. He said that he didn't want to see kitchens and high-end brown-baggers. He thought we needed to attract shoppers who use our restaurants. He thought everybody had a right to make money, but the PEC's job was to watch out for the best interests of the community. Large retailers such as The Gap, begin to come in and replace the small retail, as happened in Aspen. Town becomes a high-end mall. Greg Moffet reminded everyone that we are talking about adding time-share to conditional uses. i ~ Fred Hibbard, a neighbor in the Village Center Building, stated that it was important to redevelop properties. There was a way to do this, however, what was being proposed was not the way to do this. He thought if you had a building that was primarily time-share and it should get sold out, you would lose what were being billed as hotel rooms. He suggested insuring that there would be ownership maintained in the project for the duration of the building. He also thought a strong enough interest would run the hotel as a hotei. A manager wouldn't have the same interest. Jim Lamont, represeniing the East Village Homeowner's Association (EVHA asked George if we were to assume that the PA Zone District was totally built-out? ~ George Ruther stated with the exception of Lot J. Jim Lamont asked George again if it was all built out? George Ruther stated that you could not convert an AU to a time-share, but that you could convert an AU to a DU and then a DU to a time-share. However, George said that a DU is a use by right and you would have to go through a conditional use process. Greg Moffet stated that there would be a CUP review. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes November 11, 1996 9 Jim Lamont, from page 12 of the memo, concluded that there would be no reason to mix time- share with an AU. He asked if we were trying to arrive at some sort of percentage. He said that • he interpreted it to mean there was no need to have that ratio. George Ruther responded that this would be on a case-by-case basis. George mentioned that this was discussed at the last meeting. He said based upon the discussions, it was determined every site should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Greg Moffet stated that we haven't made up our minds yet. Jim Lamont said there were a couple of concerns. He said that when introduced into a standard zone district, it becomes more political, than factual, when entering into a conditional use. Jim said that he hasn't seen how the current bed-base operates. He then went on to say that no where did he see it coming through in staff reports, what our future needs were. He said there would be effects on noise, traffic, etc. He said that time-share should be a use enjoyed by all in the zone districts that have similar uses and therefore, it would be very difficult to draw a line. He also said that to rely on conditional use was erroneous. He said a comfort factor was still not there. As far as the EVHA, the preference would be to establish a PA slash 1, 2, etc., with specific standards on a step-by-step basis, not a case-by-case basis. He said that we didn't want to create a flooded open rnarket. Randy Burgess said that for the past ten years, he has directed successful fractional ownerships. It is important to note a difference of true time-sharing vs. what is being proposed to the Austria Haus. Greg Moffet reminded everyone that what we were talking about were general issues. Randy Burgess stated fractional ownership allowed people to afford ownership. He went on to ~ say that it didn't do a city any good to have second homeowners with vacant second homes. He said that fractional ownership provides better occupancy and for highly seasonal resorts, it was uneconomical to have hotel rooms. Greg Moffet asked if the Deer Valley Club was entirely fractional? Randy Burgess said yes, that it gave the best bed-base that a resort could require. He said that maintenance was a problem in the pure time-share, where owners were buying by the week and who primarily purchased for the exchange value. He went on to say that fractional ownership was a second home, where owners took pride of ownership. The owners want maintenance fees high enough to keep the level of service that they originally bought into it for. He pointed out that the Deer Valley Club continued to remain new looking, with the types of buyers such who could easily afford a second home. Greg Moffet asked if he was suggesting that we only permit high-end as it relates to conditional use? Randy Burgess said if you looked at the demographic profile of Vail, it was similar to Deer Valley, professional people who took pride in ownership. He again stated that the motive for buying was not to trade away. Planning and Envuonmental Commission Minutes • November 11, 1996 10 Greg Moffet asked for public comment if we did permit fractional ownerships in the PA. ~ John Schofield said that staff has taken a broad stroke and wanted staff to be more specific. As a question to Randy, he would like to know resale values with the different issues, as well as information on the property values. He also wanted to know the effects managers had and how to address that down the road. Greg Moffet asked if the Deer Valley Ciub was fractional from the ground up? Randy 8urgess said yes, however the issue of resale was a point of extreme differential. He said that time-share was noi a pretty picture, as it sold at a discount from what was paid. He said that fractional use provided a profit, since it was a real estate product. He stated that fractional fee ownership followed a parallel course to the real estate value of a community. However, he did mention that when the community real estate is down, fractional fee ownership holds steady. He said that it was a very practical solution to have more people own property in Vail. He said that management could be passed to a management lodging company in Vail. John Schofield asked the time frame resale in Deer Valley was based on? Randy Burgess said withing the last couple of years. Henry Pratt asked if the Deer Valley Club had a front desk open 7 days a week? Randy Burgess said, yes. Jim Lamont inquired about the Deer Valley Club amenities packages? ~ Randy Burgess mentioned the ski slope in Deer Valley, one of the nicest health clubs, a restaurant, a game room, ski lockers and a bar. Jim Lamont asked if it had any meeting rooms? Randy Burgess said one room was equipped with 80 seats. Jim Lamont asked if the units had lock-off functions? Randy Burgess said there were no lock offs, as this property was not intended for investment purposes. Jim Lamont asked if Randy was familiar with a mixed AU? Randy Burgess said it was open to the public and therefore, not a financial burden should the restaurant be leased out. He thought, conceptually, it was a great fit. Jim Lamont asked if Randy saw a mutual exclusion? Randy Burgess said, no. • Gene Use(ton asked if other restaurants benefitted from the Deer Valley Club? Planning and Environmental Commission ~ Minutes November 11,1996 11 , Randy Burgess said, yes, as only about two nights per week are owners eating in-house. Greg Moftet asked if it was more like a country club. ~ Randy Burgess stated it was more of a lifestyle, with country club amenities. He said that owners were reselling to upgrade to a new fractional fee unit next door that was under construction and he noted that no one was reselling due to dissatisfaction. Gene Uselton asked Gordon Pierce what was being proposed? Gordon Pierce said fractional fee units. ~ Gene Uselton then asked staff why time-share needed to be included? George Ruther said this was a much bigger issue, than just the Sonnenalp. However, he did say that it was an option to remove the time-share, if it was the desire of the applicant and the PEC. Gene Uselton thQUght fractional fee units sounded like higher-end units. Randy Burgess explained that there was legal language that needed clarification. He said very few states had regulations regarding fractional fee, however, they had regulations pertaining to the definition of time-shares. He said that time-shares were prohibited in Deer Valley. He said units are either condominiums or time-shares. Fractional fees are under the time-share regulations. Randy went on to say that the Deer Valley Club was registered technically with the State as a time-share property and he suggested that we may need to include that language. Gene Uselton asked if the Deer Valley Club had a 7 day right-of-refusal? Randy Burgess said there was a 5 day right-of-refusal. , Jim Lamont asked Randy the depth of competition for the Deer Valley Club? Randy Burgess stated that the Marriott time-share in Park City was the most successful in the world. He did say that there were no other fractional properties in Deer Valley, however, they were catching on like wild fire. Jim Lamont asked if there had not been any studies on the depth of the market? Randy Burgess said the public did not understand the fractional concept; only time-share and home ownership. He said fractional did not compete with time-share, but rather with condominiums and condominium sales were up 14% from last year. Greg Amsden asked staff about the Zoning Code verbiage regarding it being changed in order to try and maintain existing AU units. He asked why we were so concerned with time-shares. Greg Moffet stated that we could change it to that. Greg Amsden stated the main goat was to keep an AU in the building and that we shouldn't legislate whether it was time-share, or fractional fee. He said the real estate market sets the Planning and Environmental Comcnission Minutes November 11, 1996 12 ~ ~ value and the PA had a higher property tax bracket. He said that this would not effect the Village • Center, which was residential. Galen Aasland was willing to consider this, because it a{{owed for the redevelopment of the building. Galen would like it published in the newspaper and would like communiry input. He said he was concerned with adjacent property owners tax values. He then said it would be up to the aPPlicant to show us why this should be changed. Diane Golden said this sounded like second home-ownership, which she does not like. Randy Burgess mentioned that most people who have second homes only use them 4-6 weeks out of the year and the more expensive the property, the less likely they would be to rent it out. These second homeowners would not feel comfortable putting it into a rental pool. He said fractional fee works, because typical people use it 5-7 weeks a year. It is a second home, but it doesn't sit vacant, making it a very desirable product. There is no rental pool to make it justifiable. Diane Golden asked how it would increase activity during the shoulder season? Randy Burgess said owners find it easier to go on vacation when they are without skis and they realize how nice it is not to have to haul equipment. He said they enjoy vacationing in the summer and half of Deer Valley members live on the east coast. Randy said the Vail Chamber of Commerce statistics show visitors to Vail are primarily from the front range, so therefore, usage would be in the off-season. He stated that Deer Valley is used 30% in June and 65% in July. • Diane Golden said she was thinking more in terms of October and May. Henry Pratt said time-share was a vehicle that would allow properties in the PA district to ' improve the Vail experience, so Henry saw time-share as an appropriate use in the PA district. He said though, we were here to prevent everyone from turning it into time-share. He felt the staff's broad brush was applicable, but we needed very specific rules for interval ownership. He said management would be a critical issue, as well as the front desk and amenities package. Henry said evaluation should be on a case-by-case basis. He said lock-offs should be encouraged, but not required. He said that it was imperative that there be no loss of AU's. He went on to say that we were now faced with undersized hotel rooms, so maybe there would be no net loss of AU's. He thought the reality was that all the properties in the Village Core were sold to higher-end people, who would sample the restaurants and use kitchens only for breakfast and lunch. He stated that in terms of criteria, we needed the broad criteria to then sit down and nail specifics. Greg Moffet thought time-share was used as a tool for property ownership. However, he said that if we permitted this use in the PA district, we have to have insurance that hotel units would be built. He said he didn't want to see us put a conditional use, as that would affect the underlying zone district. He said that it was a financial tool. Greg would like to talk sale price, construction price, and land price on a square foot basis. He thought it a viable use and likes the broad brush, but it needed to be tightened down. Greg was neutral regarding lock-offs, but he did say he liked that idea. He said it makes sense to see fractional ownership tied to a manned front desk. He asked how much fractional ownership in a lodge building would be reasonable Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes November 11, 1996 13 • { and appropriate. He said it would it be a firehose of owners with cash and he said if rezoned to PA was wanted, the bar would need to be set fairly high. • Greg Amsden questioned if we were allowed to discuss the economics? Tom Moorhead stated the appropriateness was ok, but in the broad sense. Jim Lamont said he thought it curious how many potential du's could be brought into the time- share vs. the AU's. Greg Amsden said if lock-offs set the percentage, they are attributable to AU's. Jim Lamont asked the percentage of occupancy in an AU. Greg Amsden stated that Fallridge has lock-offs, but they are not rented as hotel rooms. Gordon Pierce said the owner has first right to their lock off, but it then would go into the hotel pool. Mike Mollica asked what the percentage was of the lock-off being rented out? Gordon Pierce said the St. James is rented out frequently, and we could find out that information and bring it back to the Board. Greg Amsden stated that lock-offs should be required period, and the Board would need that information regarding the St. James lock-off percentage being rented out. ' 8. A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a Special Development District • overlay to the Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/ on part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the request. Cynthia Thornberg, representing the applicant, passed out a handout on the pillow night and tax revenue analysis showing a conservative estimate of 67% occupancy rate. She explained that the numbers were derived by talking to some of the local brokers regarding the commercial ~ space profile. She explained the accommodation unit profile and the tax revenue generated to give some idea of the benefit to the Town of Vail. . Gordon Pierce explained the other benefits to the Town, such as creating something along the river bank which the Town didn't have now. He said they would be doing away with the surface parking and the alley would be improved. He explained the financial and physical upgrades to the property. He explained the proposed front entry and how it looked nice as people came down the steps from the parking structure. He said vehicles could turnaround in front of the building. Gordon stated in terms of loading, the western corner was the only location that made sense, as Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 11, 1996 14 . there was no way to load into the basement because of lack of room. He said ihat the property • didn't permit underground loading. He went on to say that heated surfaces stay much cleaner and do away with the shade and shadow problems and that all the surfaces would be heated as they were in front of the Bavaria Haus. Gordon felt that he had taken a step in the right direction. He said regarding the implementation of the Streetscape Master Plan, this proposal had , accommodated the pedestrian far better than whaYs there now. He said the proposal added a sidewalk to encourage people to walk into the commercial area and was a vast improvement to the existing conditions. The street could be moved further to the north and add a sidewalk or other landscaping between the building and the street. Gordon said that the height was compatible with the neighbors and was lower than both the Mountain Haus and Village Center. Gordon said the massing was less and much like the original Vail buildings. He said with Jeff Winston working on the riverbank, it would be a lovely place to sit. He said he was not opposed to a bridge, but didn't think it would be necessary with the all the opposition that existed. He went on to say that the building footprint was smaller than what we could have had. Gordon stated that there was a great break in linkage between the Village Center and Bridge Street and that this was a vast improvement. He said that the employee housing would be accommodated and that the encroachments in the setbacks were less in some areas. George Ruther stated that an Environmental Assessment would be required, not an Environmental Report. Jim Lamont asked for the distinction between the two. • George Ruther stated the level of detail. Russ Forrest said an Environmental Assessment was a scoping document to assess. . Jim Lamont said that based on the findings, a report could be required later on. Gordon Pierce said there were beautiful trees that just happened to be there randomly. He said the main thing was to create a wonderful park between the Mountain Haus and the bridge, where it's just ho-hum right now. He said that the possible relocation of East Meadow Drive had pros and cons and that he would like to wait for Jeff Winston to go over that issue. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. Fred Hibbard of the Village Center had concerns with direct access from the Covered Bridge to the Village Center. He said the logical transition was to have the Village Center sidewalk continue. Gordon Pierce explained that there was a 5' sidewalk in the plan. Fred Hibbard stated that there was no hardship case and what was being asked for was quite a bit more than what was allowed. He asked the PEC to stick with the PA zoning and just modify it. He said it should be increased on a percentage basis in order to let the project proceed. He stated that the applicants were doing away with the setbacks and it was their problem to satisfy the setbacks, not the PEC's problem. He felt it should be more than 1:4' but maybe not as much as 20' and the 50' stream setback should be maintained for integrity purposes. He said that what we finally arrive at, we want to be happy with. He said that we don't need to shrink down to 7% Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes November 11, 1996 15 (andscaping just for tax revenues. Fred said he didn't think an SDD was a good idea and felt we would get in less trouble as a Town, rather than having an open season on setbacks, landscaping, etc. Fred advised the PEC to be carefui with what was given away. • Pierre McDaniel, President of the condos to the west of this development, was not opposed to the redevelopment of the Austria Haus. He said that he went to Jim LamonYs meeting. He questioned changing the Commercial Core 2 Zoning Ordinance, when we thought it was about the redevelopment of the Austria Haus. He was also opposed to the fast track of these developers, as they have stated that they would start construction in April of 1997. He advised the Commissioners the need to slow down in order to define what time-share means to Vail Village. He said that it would create a lot of changes in the Village. Fred said Village Center was I opposed to the size and density of this project and that it should be scaled back. He said that from the Village Center standpoint, this project needed adequate parking, underground trash, and off-street freight deliveries. He said that there was a problem with the streambank stability ~ and that encroaching onto it woufd require having it stabilized, as weN as the floodplain needing to be considered. Fred said that we didn't need a fourth bridge and that we oppose the streamwaik, because it would infringe upon the reason we come to Vail. Jim Lamont, of the EVHA, opposed the SDD because of the grant of special privilege. Jim said that more research information was needed on where all the PA's were located, the unit mixes and what was the development potential remaining. He said that he got nervous when big hunks of ground are ripe for development. He thought the aggregate size was as big as the CC2 in Lionshead and that we were trying to aim this more as a surgical in Lionshead. A PA slash something was what we're in favor of. He said that if you start jamming more and more parking on this s+te, you will drive more people down the hill and so you need to think of pay-in-lieu. Jim mentioned that Rod Slifer stated that the number of hotel rooms should not be reduced. He would like to see more definition of the support facilities for the hotel operation. He said there needed to be more common area. He thought we were looking at a hybrid, not pure interval • ownership. He felt that 360 degrees of commercial was driving the project. The relationship between the stream and the building keeps coming up. Jim thought it was going to be real tough to answer "why don't we get it and fhey do?" He said that development standards had been required by everybody else. He felt the amount of GRFA, uvhen you take out the common area, seerns high. He thought 151% over would cause all the other PA properties to be given the same. He said that we are not turning a fire hose of money lose and asked George if the Urban Design Guidelines applied? Mike Mollica stated not for the PA district, but for Commercial Core 1 and 2. Jim Lamont stated the traffic flow had to be a critical factor. He asked if they wanted to have traffic right up to the front door and that people would go wherever there was no gate and even where there was a gate. Jim suggested elevators that take goods off the truck to the basement as it was done in Gold Peak. He said storage should go into the building and downstairs. He felt more time could be spent on the front of the building. Jim felt that the delivery proposed was a bit overdone. Jim then asked Russ if the 50' stream setback was in the Zoning Code. Russ Forrestsaid, yes. Jim Lamont said to put a new bridge in would be tricky, as it would have to go way up in order to go over the fioodplain. Greg Moffet agreed and said not to mention the ADA requirements for the bridge. Planning and Environmental Corrunission • Minutes November 11, 1996 16 Jim Lamont said he understood the 360 degree commerciai, but he said it wouldn't work. He • said that employee housing should be required. Jim said the Vail Village property owners think the streetscape improvements were due them, but to require the improvements was not correct in his judgement. Jim said the grades at the intersection of the chute and Vail Valley Drive are not adequate to turn traffic around and that we needed a cul-de-sac, redo the grades and traffic control gates. There was a possibility of total limited access in that area. Gordon Pierce asked for the rationaIe if we don,t go for the SDD. Greg Moffet said it would require a hardship. Gordon Pierce said we needed to go that route with this type of product. Randy Burgess said the Deer Valley Club faces the same concern with parking. He offered the suggestion of having a fleet of vans to pick up guests, since this projecYs location wouldn't necessitate having a car. Randy stated the Deer Valley Club provided shuttle service and documented it. He stated that they had to do a nightly car count at 2a.m. every night for the past two winter seasons and the results were that very few people had a car. He said that one way to mitigate the parking concerns was to offer shuttle service in the winter, however, in the summertime, guests needed a car, since activities were in outlying areas. Mike Mollica stated that the SDD overlay can, in fact, pay into the parking fund and this option was availab(e if we pursue the SDD. Mike stated that 70 spaces were required on-site, or the applicant would need to pay-in-lieu. Pierre McDaniel thought that the pay-in-lieu provided money to the Town of Vail, rather than • provide extra parking spaces. Galen Aasland said he thought this to be a good quality project and that the model was interesting and provided a good scale. He felt that the SDD was appropriate, rather than asking for variances. Galen felt that it was too tall and found no compelling reason for any variances. He felt that it shouldn't compound problems as the Mountain Haus has. He stated that the flat roof doesn't fit in the core of the Village and was way too visible and couldn't support the height variance. Galen said that_the project was too close to the Village Center on the west and felt the applicant did not need the variances to the extent that they were asking. He was not in support of cutting trees. Also, Galen felt that cutting off the pedestrian access needs to be worked on. He felt that walking from Slifer Square to the stream was a good idea. He did say that the south side had no reason for a variance and a restaurant on the south side might solve the problem. Galen didn't think the project needed to push out that way. He felt the need for a front desk. He wanted to see further development of employee housing and if the applicant can't demonstrate other properties having employee housing, then the amount of GRFA requested needed to be reduced. Galen felt that the Town could work with the applicant regarding the entrance. Diane Golden said the trash needs to be tess obtrusive. She said the location of the main entrance bothered her. Diane was concerned about loss of the large trees. She liked the look of the commercial area and stated that it would enhance the street and give people something to do from the Crossroads area to Slifer Square. She was also intrigued about the bridge. Henry Pratt stated 151 % of GRFA and 8,000 sq. ft. of commercial was excessive. He felt the SDD was appropriate present, since this project presented some challenges and the SDD was • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 11, 1996 17 the best way to solve them. He stated that density should be dedicated to lock-offs. Henry had a big issue with the setbacks on the stream and the existing trees shouid be honored on the side. He felt that there could be a zero setback on the streetside in order to get the commercial as • close to the sidewalk as possible. Henry felt that 7% landscaping was too little. He thought we needed commercial in Town on the streamside, where it was sunny. He agreed with Jim that there should be hotel support on the streamside to get people on that side. He felt the front entry_ was ok and that the garage entrance was for homeowners. Greg Moffet said if someone was staying at the Austria Haus, he thought they were taken over from the Sonnenalp by golf cart. Gordon Pierce suggested having a controV at the TOV gate for vans. Henry Pratt said the main point was to eliminate the lost tourist down the Crossroads Chute. He encouraged paving. He fe(t the delivery was overdone, as it would be clean since there were no restaurant spaces. Henry said the trash should be under the building and to reduce the space devoted to loading. He felt the building could be closer to the street with a sidewalk and that a i sidewalk was needed on both sides of the street. He stated a sidewalk was more important than landscaping to create a"Village Center" experience. Henry said that Slifer Square needed ' incredible improvement and he felt that Gordon would do that incredible improvement. He felt the PEC had grappled with the ethics of employee housing, but iYs to every employer's benefit to look after their employees, whether housing be on-site or off. He did not like the proposed Gore Creek promenade stating that he was not in favor of the bridge, as it would have to be too high and that such a short cut to the shopPin9 IooP would cut some retailers out of the 1o0p. The Athletic Club to Ford Park looP should be recreated here. The creek is a direct tie back to nature in the middle of Town and is an asset that should be taken advantage of. Henry felt the trees were significant and disagreed that they were planted without thought. He stated that the side setbacks on the east end would deal with the trees. He felt on the west end, how the • commercial flow was maintained was important. George Ruther stated that 30% landscaping was required. He said that east of the Jacuzzi was counted and this was the only true green space using sod, as everything else was hardscape making up 20%. Gordon Pierce stated the applicant was trying to create a win-win situation and that was the reasoning behind the SDD. He stated the first idea was to bring an alley between the Village Center and the project, thus, not requiring setbacks. John Schofield stated that all of us needed to encourage quality, but he felt that this proposal was too much. He felt work was needed on the Gore Creek side and the PEC would be more lenient on the landscaping, if the stream was worked on. He encouraged staff and the applicant to utilize the right-of-way to everyone's advantage. He thought Slifer Square was lacking and needed work. Gene Uselton, regarding the mass, asked about any view corridors. George Ruther said the view corridor was to the east. Gene Uselton asked if the building height was within what was allowed and if the Sonnenalp had employee housing to cover this application's requirements. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes November 11, 1996 18 Gordon Pierce said the Sonnenalp owned units off-site for employees. He said that Johannes ~ had 160 units. Greg Moffet asked Gordon if Johannes was the developer. , Gordon Pierce said, no, that he would have to transfer that. Gene Uselton said the Town would be able to develop more parking spaces with the fees and asked how many units were needed to finance the project. Cynthia Thornberg said that they didn't have the right ratio of club units to hotel units at this time and smaller mernberships would have less to spread around. Gene Uselton thought if the issue was financing, then you must have the numbers. Cynthia Thornberg said the ratio was moving and that the lender looked at all of the cash flows. Gene Usel#on asked, on what assumptions regarding the sales tax revenues, are new revenues for the Town? Cynihia Thornberg made no assumptions, but stated it was additional revenue and not pulling away or displacing other sales, nor are we assuming additional room nights. Gene Use(ton thought the front entrance should have a roundabout in order to have cars drive up. ~ Greg Amsden said the percentage of lock-offs, as they equate to the AU's, should be 3:1. He wanted the original 37 maintained that are in existence right now. He agreed with the landscaping issue and also to work with the Town regarding Meadow Drive. He wants the elimination of encroachments on the stream. He felt the entry within the building would better serve people going to the Village. He stated that the trash and loading were compfex issues and the main objective shoufd be to appease the neighbors and remain out of site. Greg had concerns about the encroachments on the west and south. He too was not in favor of a bridge. He had no problem with the height of building because of the small parapet wall. Rather than on- site parking, he felt ok with the pay-in-lieu and the applicant could provide van transportation. He said the need for employee housing should be left for the staff to pursue. Greg Moffet said the SDD was a great concept, and it was clearly the mechanism and not even an issue. Greg asked who was going to own the retail spaces. Mark Thornberg said we didn't have an answer to that question. Greg Moffet said if GRFA is 150%, then 30% retail was too much. He felt a restaurant could be on the creekside. He didn't see it working to get people back to that side of the creek. He asked about the new or increased sales tax revenue. ~ Cynthia Thornberg stated with the expected 10,000 sq. ft. of commercial, they had taken a conservative average. Greg Moffet said this was not incremental gains for property tax. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 11, 1996 19 ' Cynthia Thornberg said the additional guests were an estimate. Greg Moffet thought the public benefit trade-off gave only some net benefit with some transfer • tax and as a practical matter, this was not really going to benefit the town financially. Greg was having a hard time finding the public benefit in order to say ok to the 50% . Cynthia Thornberg said the number of pillow nights were a huge improvement and with 4 times as many units, there was incremental public benefit. Greg Moffet asked if they were net new, or coming from the Landmark or somewhere else and we couldn't quantify an increase in business. Greg hated the front entry and didn't think we should drag any more autos closer to the Covered Bridge. He gave the example of congested traffic in front of the Mountain Haus. He felt a drop-off underground integrated entrance, as they do in California. Greg didn't think this project would generate a lot of cars, hence, he was not adverse to pay-in-lieu. He didn't want any more cars down the Crossroads Chute. Greg said that this was a good start. He felt any right-of-way, not used for buses, should be heated and pedestrian space. Greg said a sidewalk was a real good thing. He said the developer would need to give employee units, as the mayor was on this issue and the Council would demand employee housing. Greg agreed with Henry regarding the setbacks and he said that nobody crosses the creek line. He didn't want a bridge, but was ok with the hardscape. He felt if the landscape was mitigated off-site, that was ok. He was however looking for same size pine trees for mitigation. He agreed with Henry regarding the Slifer Square improvements. Gordon Pierce said we didn't really need to touch the trees, we just thought we could do a better job. Greg Moffet said the 50' setback needed to be maintained. George Ruther stated, regarding the sidewalk into the 50' setback, that 5' encroachment for the • sidewalk was allowed. He also stated that part of the sidewalk improvements were off-site and on TOV property. Gordon Pierce said a 20' setback needed a consensus. Greg Amsden said you could have an encroachment, but not that much. Gordon Pierce said we could turn the building. He said however, that staff thought commercial on 4 sides of the building was good. Greg Moffet stated there was no agreement regarding commercial on four sides of the building. Gordon Pierce said another tack could be to access trash between the buildings in an alley, however, a big truck would have to back out. Jim Lamont said there was a way to solve that problem. Gordon Pierce said Jim's idea was stupid. Jim Lamont said in terms of the zoning issues, what we're talking about are mixed uses including the time-share use in a base zone district that would change the development standards. He Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes November 11, 1996 20 • A said that when it came employee housing, we needed a fixed standard in order to remove the ~ confusion on how many units the applicant would be required to come up with. He said that we wanted to see this done totally right. 9. A request for a worksession to review the existing Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations and to discuss alternatives. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russell Forrest / Tom Braun Russ Forrest stated that the purpose of the worksession was to narrow down the number of alternatives that are reviewing and that we would be coming back to the PEC in January and so he was looking for a recommendation. Russ Forrest explained the slides they would show to the PEC were tools to control bulk and mass. Tom Braun stated that people were maximizing bulk and mass lirnitations. He said that how you viewed a home affected the look of the mass. He stated that if a building was off- set, it brought down the bulk and mass. Using slides, he showed different examples of homes and how their bulk and mass was perceived. Tom said that site coverage, building height, design guidelines and lot sizes all determine the size and shape of the structure. He stated that they looked at seven different communities for comparison and that about 1/2 have some form of control of GRFA. He said that Breckenridge used lot coverage with landscaping for control, while Whistler had more site coverage, but lower building height to require more long and spread out, however, there were five alternatives reviewed in the background paper. He asked if GRFA was an ~ effective way to control mass and bulk. He gave an example of a shortcoming of GRFA when you have vaulted ceilings. He also stated that the time required to administer the system was intensive. There was a fair amount of concern from the public regarding the applicant's time. Tom said these facts were based on a meeting that was held for the public, in which 45 people gave input. The public, at the second meeting, stated we were forcing people down valley, because they weren't able to build what they wanted here. He explained that if height was adjusted, then we would need to adjust all the variables. He said it would be a dis-incentive for EHU's 'rf homeowners had to give up and use their own home space. Russ Forrest asked for questions on the alternatives. Tom Braun stated that they were trying to narrow the iist a little bit and would like a consensus on what we're doing. John Schofield was in favor of #3, to eliminate GRFA, but with a control system to alleviate the box prob(em. He said that too many lawyers have made too much money on the GRFA issue. He said he had a prQblem with someone telling me what I could do within the walls of my house ! and furthermore, the market would not accept big ugly boxes as houses. Gene Uselton asked what the problem was with the trophy homes. Gene Uselton favored alternative # 3, as #2 was a bad idea. Greg Amsden was in favor of # 3, and to increase DRB review standards that apply to the design. He felt that the DRB would need to be staffed with at least finro architects. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 11, 1996 21 ; . Galen Aasland thought GRFA controlled bulk and mass. He said that most sites are at 20% site coverage, but site coverage is 25% in Glen Lyon. He liked the idea of a graduated living area. He said that converting basement space was dangerous, as windows would not be required and . • with a fire, no one could get out. Galen asked if we were creating something that would be unsafe. He felt that GRFA did have an effect on not allowing height restrictions. He encouraged keeping GRFA and exploring the concept of volumetric controls. Diane Golden didn't feel it was appropriate for the Town to tell people what they could do. She feIt that alternative # 2 had 9ood points and alternative # 3 had some merits. Diane felt that setbacks and height restrictions could control size and parking could control the number of bedrooms. She favored all 3. Henry Pratt agreed with Galen regarding GRFA mass and bulk controls. He felt the floor area ratio should remain. He said that alternative #2 and #4 should remain, but only on existing structures as an interim step. With # 3, Henry felt you would need to look at what would encourage creativity. He suggested weighted points as they do in Breckenridge, i.e., 1,000 pts. for every inch. He thought that EHU's were going into trophy homes and that locals wanted their space for their kids. Jim Lamont stated that you had to know what you were looking to create, before you break up the regulations. He said that when GRFA was set up, it was to have designers be creative and retain open space. He said that it has worked, but needs to be simplified so that it could be understood. He asked if you really wanted to jump and did you know where you were jumping to . when you are standing on this precipice? He said that if this was a skeleton and you took out the bones, the skeleton would get limpy looking. He said that if you fool around with this too much you've jumped over the edge. He said he didn't want to fool around with the stability that we have. Galen Aasland stated with only a site coverage requirement, there would not be any incentives ~ for EHU's. Diane Golden thought we didn't give people enough credit in this Town. Greg Moffet stated that the existing system encouraged people to violate the law, as well as encouraging unsafe violations. He said that alternative #1 encouraged people to leave Town. oods. He felt it was entirely appropriate for people to build big homes in appropriate neighborh Greg said that alternative #3 scared the heck out of him, since it would require someone to develop a rigorous, but subjective design guideline. Greg liked #2 and #4 and agreed with Henry on owner-occupied housing. He said that if we permit conversion space, we will spend a lot of time on defining what a demo/rebuild is. Greg said he would like to keep locals here, but not open the floodgate. Russ Forrest summarized some of the suggestions. He said that keeping GRFA, but with some tweaking was an alternative. He said to keep the basic system, but look again at the vaulted areas. He summarized keeping alternatives # 2 and #4 as a package and alternative #3 by expanding the tools for design review controls. Greg Amsden mentioned $150,000 was the cost for a typical lot and with that price tag, the owner would use an architect. He stated that when a home is overbuilt, it was hard to sell. Greg thought that people would not overbuild in a small neighborhood. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes November 11, 1996 22 ~ Y ' Russ Forrest said we could look at Aspen, as an example, to control vaulted areas. I I• HenrY Pratt asked if Aspen had a point system and if there was a way to quantify in stone. He saw #2 and #4 as a component for tweaking. Jim Lamont mentioned that the library meeting was a creative learning session for such a dry ~ issue and that there was a lot of truth in that kind of dry topic. 10. A request for a minor subdivision to relocate the cornmon property line between Lots 7 and 8, located at 666 and 696 Forest Road/Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian Planner: Lauren Waterton TABLED UNTtL NOVEMBER 25, 1996 Greg Amsden made a motion to table item 10. Diane Golden seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 11. Information Update: There was none. • 12. Approval of October 28, 1999 minutes Greg Amsden made a motion to table the October 28, 1996 minutes. The motion was seconded by Henry Pratt. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. Greg Amsden made a motion to adjourn the meeting. It was seconded by Henry Pratt. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:28 p.m. • Planning and Environmental Cotmtussion Minutes November 11, 1996 23