The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-1209 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY 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 December 9, 1996, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a worksession to discuss an amendment to the Sign Code to allow for electronic signs as a Public Information Sign. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. represented by Joe Macy Planner: Dirk Mason A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a new Special Development District, located at 1521 and 1631 Buffehr Creek Road /Lots 3 & 4, The Valley, Phase V. Applicant: Jim and Ronna Flaum Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a conditional use permit utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for a Type II EHU, located at 186 Forest Road /Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Mike Flannery Planner: Dirk Mason 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 A request for a major subdivision of Lot P -2, located on Lot P -2, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: P -2 Association, represented by Art Abplanalp Planner: George Ruther A request to amend the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan and adopt the Gerald R. Ford Park Management Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer, George Ruther. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2114 voice or 479 -2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published November 22, 1996 in the Vail Trail. • • • C-] Agenda last revised 12/3/96 am PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, December 9, 1996 AGENDA Project Orientation / Lunch - Communi1y Development Department MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits MEMBERS ABSENT 1. Flaum - 1521 and 1631 Buffehr Creek Road. 2. Austria Haus - 242 East Meadow Drive. Driver: George 12:30 pm 1:15 pm NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30p.m. 1. A request for a worksession to discuss an amendment to Section 16.20.020, and to add Section 16.04.065 to the Sign Code to allow for and define electronic signs as Public Information Signs. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. represented by Joe Macy. Planner: Dirk Mason 2. A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a new Special Development District, located at 1521 and 1631 Buffehr Creek Road /Lots 3 & 4, The Valley, Phase V. Applicant: Jim and Ronna Flaum Planner: Dominic Mauriello 3. 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 4. A request for a major subdivision of Lot P -2, located on Lot P -2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: P -2 Association, represented by Art Abplanalp Planner: George Ruther Agenda last revised 12/3/96 am 5. A request for a conditional use permit utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for a Type II EHU, located at 186 Forest Road /Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Mike Flannery Planner: Dirk Mason TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13, 1997 6. A request to amend Sections 18.27.030, 18.29.030, and 18.30.030 of the Zoning Code to allow van storage /transportation related businesses in the Commercial Core 3, Arterial Business, and Heavy Service Zone Districts as a conditional use and add Sections 18.04.415 and 18.04.385 providing definitions for vehicle storage yard and transportation business. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 16,1996 7. A request to amend the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan and adopt the Gerald R. Ford Park Management Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer, George Ruther. TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 16,1996 7. Information Update: 8. Approval of November 25, 1996 minutes The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2114 voice or 479 -2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published December 6, 1996 in the Vail Trail. • • • • • Agenda last revised 12/10/96 9am PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, December 9, 1996 FINAL AGENDA Project Orientation / Lunch - Community Development Department MEMBERS PRESENT Greg Moffet Greg Amsden Henry Pratt Galen Aasland Gene Uselton Diane Golden John Schofield MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Amsden (4:15pm - 5:15pm) Site Visits 1. Flaum - 1521 and 1631 Buffehr Creek Road. 2. Austria Haus - 242 East Meadow Drive. '' NGia Driver: George NOTE: If the PEG hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30p.m. 12:30 pm 1:15 pm Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a worksession to discuss an amendment to Section 16.20.020, and to add Section 16.04.065 to the Sign Code to allow for and define electronic signs as Public Information Signs. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. represented by Joe Macy. Planner: Dirk Mason MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 7 -0 TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13,1997 2. A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a new Special Development District, located at 1521 and 1631 Buffehr Creek Road /Lots 3 & 4, The Valley, Phase V. Applicant: Jim and Ronna Flaum Planner: Dominic Mauriello WORKSESSION - NO VOTE Agenda last revised 12/10/96 9am 3. 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 WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 4. A request for a major subdivision of Lot P -2, located on Lot P -2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: P -2 Association, represented by Art Abplanalp Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 7 -0 APPROVED WITH NO CONDITIONS 5. A request to amend Sections 18.27.030, 18.29.030, and 18.30.030 of the Zoning Code to allow van storage /transportation related businesses in the Commercial Core 3, Arterial Business, and Heavy Service Zone Districts as a conditional use and add Sections 18.04.415 and 18.04.385 providing definitions for vehicle storage yard and transportation business. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 16,1996 6. A request to amend the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan and adopt the Gerald R. Ford Park • Management Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer, George Ruther. TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 16,1996 7. A request for a conditional use permit utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow fora Type II EHU, .located at 186 Forest Road /Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Mike Flannery Planner: Dirk Mason TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13,1997 1///111//// 7. Information Update: 8. Approval of November 11, 1996 PEC minutes and November 25, 1996 PEC minutes. TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 16,1996 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. • Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2114 voice or 479 -2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 9, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss an amendment to Section 16.20.020, and to add Section 16.04.065 to the Sign Code to allow for and define electronic signs as Public Information Signs. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy Planner: Dirk Mason I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy, is requesting a worksession to discuss amending the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicant is proposing that Section 16.20.020, Sign categories and regulations for all zoning districts except CC3 and ABD of the Municipal Code be amended to allow for variable electronic message signs as a public information sign. Public information signs are used to display information which is a benefit to the public. Public information signs identify special events, community activities, public information and directional information. Public information signs do not allow the display of • private advertising. II. BACKGROUND The applicant proposes to locate variable message signs in the three base areas, the pedestrian entrances to the Village and Lionshead parking structures and at the top of Blue Cow Chute. Vail Associates hopes to achieve, through this proposal, the following goals: To continue a cooperative effort between the ski industry and the Colorado Department of Transportation along the 1 -70 corridor to improve highway status to our guests. Particularly, if the pass is closed, the signs will inform the guests of transportation situations as they are leaving the mountain, or entering the parking structures. 2. To encourage guests to remain in Vail, rather than parked along 1 -70 when the pass is closed. 3. To provide public information on special events. 4. To reduce the number of vehicles seeking parking at Golden Peak by providing a sign at Blue Cow Chute. This proposal is not the first discussion of using variable message signage within the Town of Vail. The use of variable message signage was originally discussed with the Golden Peak • development proposal as part of the Operational Management Plan. The Operational 1 Management Plan calls out electronic signage as a Tier II management strategy. The plan states, • "Based upon the impacts of traffic congestion and as transportation needs demand, the TOV will implement an electronic signage program which would display messages on the Town arterials regarding traffic conditions within the Town parking garages, drop -off zone traffic status conditions and lift maze conditions at the base portals." With the exception of the Blue Cow Chute sign, the applicant's proposal does not address the objective of the Operational Management Plan's use of electronic signage. The Town of Vail is allowed to erect and operate variable message signs as regulated by Section 16.24.010(B). Section 16.24.01 0(6) exempts, from the requirements of the Sign Code, "Official government notices and notices posted by governmental offices in the performance of their duties, governmental signs to control traffic or for other regulatory purposes, or to identify streets, or to warn of danger." Therefore, governmental signs and traffic control signs may be variable message signs. However, Vail Associates or other private sector entities are prohibited from erecting variable message sign because of Section 16.26.010(C). Currently, Section 16.26.010(C) of the Prohibited Signs chapter of the Town of Vail Municipal Code does not allow for, "Signs with lights or illuminations which flash, move, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, vary in intensity, vary in color, or use intermittent electrical pulsation." Therefore, the applicant is proposing to amend the sign code to add Section 16.04.065 a definition of variable message sign and to include variable message signs as a public information sign in Section 16.20.020, Public Information Signs. Variable message signs are proposed to be • subject to a conditional use permit. III. PROPOSED TEXT CHANGES The proposed changes are shown as-shaded below. Chapter 16.04 Definitions Secf'roi 16 Chapter 16.20 Signs Permitted, Categories and Regulations Section 16.20.020 Public Information Signs Public information signs shall be regulated as follows: A. Purpose - Display board or kiosk with the intended use of locating posters, handouts and cards identifying Community activities, special events and personal public.artd'tl�tectfortal information, inctudirtg transportation irliarrnatror r� U F B. Size - The size of the display board or kiosk shall be determined during design • review. C. Height - Subject to design review. D. Number - Subject to design review. E. Location - Subject to design review. F. Design - Subject to design review. G. Lighting - Indirect or pan channeled. H. Landscaping - Subject to design review. 1` Special Prov►siaris'sfiall;be asfollows: Display board and kiosk type of signs shall be constructed, erected and maintained by the Municipal government, or with their permission. 2. Variable message signs shall;be subject to a o4nditional use permit. 3 AI[ s'►gn regulations steall apply to variable message signs with, Me: exceptio6'.of.$66tion 16.26.0.1.0(6): • IV. METHODS OF PROPOSAL EVALUATION In considering variable message sign proposals, staff believes that Chapter 16.16, Design Review Guidelines for signs and Section 18.60.060, Criteria - Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code are appropriate. The following conditional use permit criteria effectively address the use of variable electronic message signs. • 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 streets and parking areas; 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; Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS As this is a worksession to discuss the applicant's proposal, staff has identified issues which we would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant. Each issue is described below. 3 USE OF VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGNS In discussing the amendment to the sign code, staff expressed concern regarding • the regulation of the message displayed on the sign. In particular, how does the Town control the sign from being used for advertising or from messages such as "Vail thanks the Badger Ski Club" or "Eagle's Nest is now Open "? Staff discussed the possibility of the Town of Vail operating the variable message signs to ensure the signs are used for their intended purpose rather than advertising. Staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant, how variable message signs in the Town of Vail could be regulated to ensure appropriate messages. 2. SIGN LOCATION During the Sign Code amendment discussion, staff expressed concern over the potential locations of variable message signs. In particular, the variable message sign's effect upon the character of Vail. Staff believes that the sign locations will need to be carefully evaluated during conditional use permit review. Specifically, location will be addressed when reviewing the proposal in relation to the "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." 3. MOVEMENT • As stated previously, Section 16.26.010(C) of the Prohibited Signs chapter does not allow for, "Signs with lights or illuminations which flash, move, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, vary in intensity, vary in color, or use intermittent electrical pulsation." Electronic message signs may incorporate many of the above described movements when a message is displayed. Staff is proposing that variable message signs be exempt from Section 16.26.010(C). Staff believes that the use of variable message signs as public information signs is appropriate, however, the movement should remain static or be limited to horizontal scrolling. 4. HOURS of OPERATION Staff believes the hours of operation should best be addressed via the conditional use permit. 5. SIZE REQUIREMENT Currently the size of public information signs are subject to design review. Staff believes that the size of the electronic message signs can be effectively evaluated via design review and the conditional use permit application. 4 6. EVALUATIVE METHODS is The Planning and Environmental Commission should consider if each of the issues can be effectively addressed through design review and the conditional use permit or if the issues should be reflected in the code amendment with specific requirements. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since this is a worksession discussing proposed text amendments to Section 16.20.020 of the Town of Vail 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 applicant's proposal at the time of final review. The applicant is currently scheduled to reappear before the Planning and Environmental Commission for final review on Monday, December 19, 1996. f: \everyone\pec \memos \vasign.d09 n U 5 t n LJ • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 9, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a new Special Development District, located at 1521 and 1631 Buffehr Creek Road /Lots 3 & 4, The Valley, Phase V. Applicant: Jim and Ronna Flaum Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is proposing to establish a SDD (with Residential Cluster as the underlying zoning) on the subject property in order to allow the site to be subdivided into three, single - family lots. The property is currently comprised of two duplex lots. The property is zoned Residential Cluster (RC), however, when the property was annexed to the Town of Vail, that annexation recognized the Eagle County approved development plan for the property (a Planned Unit Development (PUD)) (per Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1981). The PUD for Lots 3 and 4 is very specific. The approval allows a duplex on each lot (a total of 4 units) and requires a parking structure for all of the parking on -site. The approval allows each dwelling unit a maximum of 2,200 sq. ft. of GRFA (8,800 sq. ft. total for both lots). The applicant is requesting a deviation from the approved PUD in order to allow three single - family houses to be constructed on the property. The applicant is proposing to retain the same maximum GRFA for the site (as approved in the PUD) and dividing the GRFA equally between the three proposed lots (2,933 sq. ft. per lot). The RC zoning on the property allows a total of 5,300 sq. ft. of GRFA for the entire site. In the RC zone district, GRFA is calculated based on buildable area (areas with slopes less than 40 %). The site contains a large amount of area with slopes in excess of 40 %. In single - family and two- family zone districts (SFR, P /S, and R), GRFA is based on total site area and structures may be built on slopes in excess of 40 %. The RC zone district also requires a 20' front yard setback. The applicant is proposing a 1' setback in order to reduce site disturbance. It also appears that the PUD allowed the parking garage to be located in the front setback. II. ZONING ANALYSIS Listed below is the zoning analysis for Lots 3 & 4, The Valley, Phase V, based on the RC zone designation and the County/Town approved PUD. Bold indicates deviation from annexation plan and shading indicates a deviation from the RC zone district. Zoning: RC (subject to Eagle County approved PUD) Lot area: 1.81 acres or 79,002 sq. ft. Standard Allowed (RC Zonina) Allowed (Annexation Plan) Proposed Lot Size: 15,000 sq. ft. Lot 3: 38,768.4 sq. ft. 26,334 sq. ft. per lot Units: 10 units Density: 6 units /acre Buildable Area: 8,000 sq. ft. per lot GRFA: 5,300 sq. ft.' Building Ht.: 33' Setbacks: >1 5' Lot 4:40,075.2 sq. ft. 4 units 2.2 units /acre N/A 8,800 sq. ft. (2,200 sq. ft. /unit) Complicated calculation 3 units 1.66 units /acre t$,$ ©D 3q, ft, >(less than 8,000 sq. Ulm) 8,800 sq, ft. (2,933 sq. ft. /unit) 33' Front: 20' 25' (excluding garage) Side: 15' 15' 15' Rear: 15' 15' >1 5' Site Coverage: 19.750.5 so. ft. (25 %) 19.750.5 sa. ft. (25 %) 8.388 sci. ft. (10.6 %) Lot A: 6,583.5 sq. ft. (25 %) 25% 3,225 sq. ft. (12.2 %) Lot B: 6,583.5 sq. ft. (25 %) 25% 2,763 sq. ft. (10.5 %) Lot C: 6,583.5 sq. ft. (25 %) 25% 2,400 sq. ft. (9.1 %) Landscape Area: Lot A: 15,800.4 sq. ft. (60 %) N/A 22,309 sq. ft. (84.7 %) Lot B: 15,800.4 sq. ft. (60 %) N/A 21,694 sq. ft. (82.4 %) Lot C: 15,800.4 sq. ft. (60 %) N/A 22,477 sq. ft. (85.4 %) Parking: 9 spaces (3 spaces /unit) 10 spaces 12 spaces Enclosed parking: 3 spaces (1 space /unit) N /A" unknown Notes: 'Based on buildable area. " "All parking was required in a parking structure. It is unclear how many would have been "enclosed." I! • r 1 U • r III. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST is As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of the special development district is to: 11 ... 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 open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with a property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district." The following are the nine special development district criteria to be utilized by the Planning and Environmental Commission when evaluating SDD amendment proposals: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. • D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and /or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. 3 IV. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION 1. Number of dwelling units and GRFA The proposal will reduce the number of allowable dwelling units to three units. The RC zone district allows up to 10 dwelling units and the PUD allows 4 dwelling units. Staff believes that the reduction in the number of dwelling is appropriate for this area due to the reduced impact on Town services and traffic volumes in the area. The applicant is proposing one joint driveway for all three lots which reduces impacts to the roadway. The applicant is proposing to keep the same allowable GRFA as permitted by the County approved development plan. Staff believes that GRFA allowed by the PUD to be reasonable. 2. Employee housing Although not specifically requested by the applicant, staff believes it may be appropriate to allow each lot the ability to add an employee housing unit (EHU) as long as the GRFA for the EHU is subtracted from the total allowed for each lot. Staff recommends that a Type II EHU be allowed, however, without the allowance for additional GRFA (500 sq. ft.) under provision #5, of the Type II EHU. 3. Tree Survey Information • The survey submitted by the applicant does not show trees which are potentially impacted by the proposed building envelopes. The applicant will be providing an amended survey prior to final review. The site is heavily wooded with Aspens and therefore, the PEC may want to consider tree mitigation requirements. • 4. 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. 5. Architectural Compatibility The applicant has submitted a conceptual house plan for one of the lots. Staff believes that the architecture for each lot should be reviewed by the DRB via the typical review process. Staff does not believe there are any special circumstances warranting special review in this area. 6. 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. The applicant has indicated that the plans will be revised to address this issue prior to final review by the PEC. • 4 7. Parking • Although parking has not been assessed for each house, it is anticipated that each house will require three parking spaces. The proposed driveway configuration provides for adequate parking if a two -car garage is constructed with each structure. The County approval required a separate parking structure for all parking on -site. Staff believes that parking should be definitively addressed when plans for each house are submitted for DRB review. 8. Setbacks and Building Envelopes The proposal creates building envelopes for each lot. One building envelope is located approximately 1' from the front property line. Staff believes that the buildings should be placed as close to the front property line as possible in order to reduce site disturbance. If this were a Primary /Secondary zone district, garages would be allowed in the front setback due to the extreme slopes on the property. Staff believes the building envelopes are appropriate as designed. The site coverage of the building envelopes is far less than the 25% site coverage allowed by both the RC zone district and the PUD. 9. Geologic Hazards These lots are located in a High Severity Rock Fall Hazard. A site specific hazard study indicates that houses can be constructed on the property without increasing the hazard to adjacent properties and rights -of -way, subject to mitigation. The geologist recommends a wall or berm, 4' in height, to the rear of the homes in order to deflect the rocks from impacting the homes. This mitigation would need to be addressed for each home in • conjunction with a building permit. 10. Plat Restrictions Staff is recommending that all of the development standards and building envelopes be noted on the plat for these lots, similar to that required for Spraddle Creek subdivision. Staff believes that this will make it easy for potential buyers and staff to determine building allowances. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed SDD, staff will not be providing a formal staff recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a staff recommendation at the time of final PEC review. f:leveryone\pec\,memoslf1aum.d9 • 5 1 Nicholas Lamp(ris, Ph.D. CONSULTING OEOLoom r P.O. BOX 2 SILT, COLORADO 81W • P110na /Fax (870) 8M -5400 (24 HOURS) September 26, 1996 Jim Flaum FO BOX 3 117 Vail CO 81658 REt Lots 3 and 4, The Valley Dear Mr. F1auml I have evaluated the above referenced property with respect to tt�'e Rock Fall Hazard (medium) on the property an the Town of Vail's maps produced by me in 1984. rock falls are an infrQquent occurrencehe hazard is Present, but I t ! i s: Possible for a rock to reach your lots, where p to four The units are possible. eastern u lot has outcrappingss low on the hillside above the home asiteg, which means leas hazard hereg the other lot has outcroppings above it much higher an but with m reduced frQ uome A the hillside be prudent to mitigate for - rockfalltatithelreartofra�nyghometbuilt will on then& lots with a wall or berm about four feat high and, • Preferably, chevron - shaped to deflect rather than stop rocks. either r mind that overall likelihood of rocks reaching a home on either lot is small. came from above. There are few rocks on this hillside which Ths► sites are in described will a geologically sensitive area but d0vel opment as not increase the hazard to other property or structures, or to public rights -of -way, buildings, roads, streets, easements, of any kind. utilities or facilities or other properties If I can be of further service, hesitate to contact me. please do not Sincerely. s Nicholas Lampiriss g Consulting Geologist t' 108 100 tr5.90 c0 -11-96 r PLANNED UNIT DEVELMEE NT PLAT; • FOR THE VALLEY - PHASE V VALLEY ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Colorado limited partnership ('Declarant "), is the record and beneficial owner of all of the real property within that certain subdivision denominated The Valley - Phase V located in Eagle County, Colora o, file -• of which was recorded at Recep _ -on . ;umber at Page in Mac Case Drawer of the records in the Clerk and Recor'der's of"-ce for i Colorado. -as County, Declarant does hereby make, publish and declare that to rollowinb terms, covenants, cccitions, easements, restrictions, uses, reservations limitations and obligations s :all be deemed to run with the land, shall be a burden and a benefit to Declarant, its successors and assigns, and the County of Eagle, by and through its Board of County CO:7zissioners (t::e "Board "), and any person or entity acquiring or w, :ring an interest in the real property which is or becomes subject to tee Instru ^ent and imnrove::ents built thereon, their grantees, successors, heirs, person.::! representatives, cevlsees or assigns. 1. DEFINITIOi%S: As used herein, the following *.-:ores and terms shall have the following meanings: SUEDIVISION The Valley - Phase V. LOT A lot within The Valley - Phase V. • D�•77LLING UNIT Is a term as defined in Section. 2.02.06 Of the Zoning Resolution of Eagle County, Colorado. GROSS RESIDENTIAL Is a term as defined in Section 2.02.35 LOOR AREA ( "G.R.F.A. ") of the Zoning F,aso'_utic- of Eagle County, Colorado. DUPLEX UNIT A Lot that can be used solely for RESIDENTIAL LOT residential purposes and upon :which. not .more than one building containing not more than two dwelling units, and one building or a part -honed cc- z:aini-.- y garage spaces, maY be ccnst-,;cted. Oc _., SPACE TR':CT A tract .._thin the remain in its natural and u'ndistu'rbed state or may be landscaed c•;it gasses and plant i;,ater'_a1 _n_-' Venous to _. e 2, RZ- T._11:.y,pY PL -.a Is a term as defined in Sect4 or. 3. 11.04 1.04 of the Zoning Resolution of Eagle COUnty, Colorado. ROAD That portion of the CounrY of Eagle road known as Lion's Ridge Loot), whic: is located within Parcel A Lion's Ride Subdivision, ling idol ) Ea ^,e Cou,.t;�, Colorado. • 2. GENERAL PURPOSES: These covenants and restrictions are made for the purposes of creating and keeping the Sub- � division insofar as possible desirable, attractive, benefi- cial and suitable in architectural design, materials and appearance; and guarding against fires and unnecessary interference with the natural beauty of the Subdivision all for the mutual benefit and protection of the owners of anv land in the Subdivision, and for the benefit of the County • of Eagle, through the Board. 3. USES: All Lots and Tracts in the Subdivision shall fall within and be restricted to the following land use definitions: DEFINITION LOT DESCRIPTION Duplex Unit Lots 1 through 4, inclusive 44 Residential Lot Open Space Tract Tract A 4. APPROV.L OF CONST::UCTION PLANS: (a) No building or other structure snail be constructed, erected, or main- tained on any Lot, nor shall any addition thereto or alter- ation or change therein be made until complete plans and specifications have been submitted to the County of Eagle and by it approved in writing, as evidenced by issuance of applicable County of Eagle building permits. (b) The following specific restrictions shall govern construction or. anv Lot: (i) SITE COVER-AGE AND DENSITY: A building situated on a Duplex Unit Residential Lot and con- taining a duelling unit or dwellinb units shall not exceed 25"' lot coverage, and each dwelling unit within such building shall not contain more than 2,200 square feet of G.R.F.A. (ii) SET B-.CK REAL'•= ^E:•u:2;T_S: Minimum setbacks for • the location o= structures with relations to property lines shat) be 25 feet ro^ the Road ri;ht of way and 15 feet from all other property lines, except as spec' ficall; provided for parking structures herein - below. (iii) BUILDING HEIGHT: No structure located within the Subdivision shall exceed at any point on the structure, three stories or a maximum height that would exceed :he air mace a 30 degree acute angle :,•i t _--e base of the angle being the plane of the Road and t. ^e ape-, of the an_el being tae center line of the 7:oad as sac -...n in 1-:e : relimina_y Plan for Phase V anpreved by t he 3oard o_: :_aril 30, 1 980 (the "Plan") , is less. (iv) P ?: ' ,C ^7QUI? ".?':vTS (aa) -or �cts 1 an.. par ;ing shah_ oe providec dv construction of a nar:i in su'Jstant -ally the form Of that cer -ain Single na_:.in.� structure approved Tor sL'Ch Lots _.. (bb) For Lots 3 and 4 parking shall be provided by construction of a parking structure in substantially tale Fcr-i or . that certain sincyle Dar:Ci l° Str1C:�re approved for such Lots in :he Plan. 1 (cc) No building permit for any Lot shall be issued until such time as a building permit for the related parking structure has been issued or until • such parking structure has been constructed. (v) ACCESS VISION REOUIRE`CENTS: At the point of intersection oz ti,e access roaas to t '- :e above referenced Parking structures and the paved portico: of tine Road, there shall be an uninterrupted lime of vision from such intersection points for' o a distance of 150.0 feet of the lengtih of the Road in either d_rect_or. from Such intersection points. (vi) LA TDSCAPIi G: For each Lot landscapin; shay_ be provided as approved in the Plan including without limitation each planting area cor.tainin,- five 8 to 10 foot Aspen trees and three 5 to 8 foot Blue Spruce trees. (vii) RETAINAGE AND STO AGE: For eacin Lot, retainage walls, roc-- contour retainage areas and snow storage areas shall be provided as approved in tine Plan. 5. ISSUA`ICE OF CERTIFICATE' OF OCCUPANCY: (a) No temporary or final , certificate of occupant' shall issue zor a d..eiling unit on Lot 1 or Lot 2 until such time as a certificate of occupancy has issued covering the entire parking structure intended to service boti: of said Lots and all retainage and snow storage for both of said Lots must be coinletec prior to the issuance of a temporary or final certificate of occupancy or. either of said Lots; provided, however, that a temporary certificate of occupancy may issue conditional upon future completion of landscaping and paving required on either of said Lots. (b) No temporary or final certificate Of occupancy shall issue for a dwelling unit on Lot 3 or Lot 4 until such time as a Certificate Of Occupancy has issued covering the entire parking • structure intended to service boon of said Lots and all retaina;e and snow storage for both oz said Lots must be completed prior to the issuance of a temporary or final cert_ficate of occupancy on either of said Lots; provided, no-.-;eve--, that a temporary certifi- cate of occupancy may issue conditional upon future completion of landscaping and paving required on either of said Lots. 6. EFFECT AND DU _%TlOzd OF INSTR=Ei;iT: The conditions, restrictions, stipulations and covenants contained herein s::all be for the benefit of and binding upon each and every Part of the Subdivision, and each o�.,ner Of property tinerein, his Theirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns an- si:all co %ti hue 1:'i .`.ull force a ^.0 e' =2Ct u^ january l 'gear 2000 A.D. , and there.:_ -2r zor s�:CCeSSiC'2 per'_OCS Of 10 'Tears each; unless at le=st l year P'-'Or CO January 1, A.D., or at least 1 year prior to tiie� -ion of any such 10 -year period of ex, tender -dur_�_ ion , C7- is�- ^st_,_.. ::t is t=,Lnated as 'provided iicreiribeLo , by -ecorCedyinstru:.e nC Gir2Ct_ ? ter in2C'_On. .iOthin, contained .':erein s121 be qc tr�ec to 1_ -:it tie Board from exec _ _ - - cuC_es an aS ma" ba prOViG2�t' ^� �S _a: /. ?: E :.D: TITS: The eond'_Lions, rest _ct;ons, stiou- latiOns a ;r_ements and covenants contained _e in e re sail_ i not be abandoned, terminated, or ar.:enCed except (i) by written consent of the o%,-ners of 75% of the Lets included witihir, the b0:ncar4_e5 of t:e $ubdlvlSion and by approval of tae Board, or (il all such provisions c0ncernin.7 and rela"':I� to zonin- tterS bV independent act_On5 of Board be aS o perm_ tad b _a;. S. E:27 0RCE `;T� If any person shall violate or threaten to violate any of the provisions of this Ins-_r=-.en-_, it shall be lawful for the Board, or any person or persons owning a real property interest in the Subdivision to institute proceedings at law or in equity to enforce the provisions of this Instrument, to restrain the person violating or threatening to violate them, and to recover damages, actual and punitive, and costs together with reasonable attorney's fees, for such violations. 9. SEVER4BILITY: Invalidation of any one of the provisions of this Instrument by court order or decree shall in no way affect any of the other provisions, which shall remain in full force and effect. EXECUTED as of this ,29 day of �7� 19Q0. VALLEY ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Colorado limited partnership P. 0. Box 915 Vail, Colorado 01657 BY: v� wii i�amJJ.1; Post, P. 0. Dori 3149, Vail, Colorado 51657, as Attorney In Fact for Valley Associates, Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLOR-kDO By and through it's BOARD OF,�COU'NTLY CO2L`IISSI02NERS BY: BY: ATTEST: BY: , 2,X C erg: oy the board o:r aunty Commissione_s� / STATE OF COLOAF.DO ss. COU:.TY OF EnG' Dale F. Grant Chairman Keith Troxei, C mmissioner iams, Commissioner The forego _ n — ^de? t ::aS dcknowledged be =ore me this Z��' "' ca c` �;J 1950, by William J. Post as Attorney In Fact Z-or Valle.; Associates, Ltd., a Colorado limized par:ners'nip. Witness my hand and official seal. cc =. =ssion e: i,otary YuDi: c -4- • 0 • e3aiG:-1a -Y�N� ✓eJ.a �Y.r�l4Ep- e>4[�R- yfG110Q Ca re-r il'k. gall LOT q n.euaootiw -- - -- _�K a LOT 8 ewbo 1.01 G 1 SITE PLAN 11. 2"-e Pierce, Segerberg & Associates, Architects P.C.•AJ.A. .[cwrrc'rue[ naxnnvc u]n]]au w U z w A w YY� off„ Al • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: December 9, 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 I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST * ALL CHANGES TO THE PROPOSAL SINCE THE WORKSESSION ON NOVEMBER 11, ......................... ....(.J......�.!..�......... . 1996 ARE SHOWN IN STRIVE OUT AND St ADED! 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 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 -twe twen °three (23 ;vacation ownership units fractional fee units with P) t. ) p ( ) twenty (20) twerit. o. ... e (2j} lock -off units and twentytwenty �2#�} new hotel rooms. The redevelopment proposal includes a total of sixty is foul' 64 new dwelling and accommodation units. The applicant is also proposing approximately 10;500 =11!� sq. ft. of new commercial /retail space on the main level of the Austria Haus. The square footage has been reduced nearly 50% through the elimination of the commercial square footage on the south side of the building. 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 (approved by the PEC on November 25, 1996) 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. 1 II. BACKGROUND The applicant's request relates to the redevelopment of the Austria Haus property. The Austria r 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 establishing 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, the Town Council placed an eighteen -month time limit on the approval of the 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 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. The current proposal to redevelop the property intends to provide considerably more "pillows" over a twelve month period, as well as create approximately 5,110 square feet of new commercial space. The applicant has proposed that a percentage of the project be offered as fractional fee ownership units. The applicant has also proposed to accommodate a portion of the required parking in an underground parking structure. According to the Official 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. Interval ownership is currently allowed only in the High Density Multi - Family Zone District pursuant to Ordinance #8, Series of 1981. III. THE SPECIAL 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 flexibility 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 streets 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." • Oa . The Municipal Code provides a framework for the establishment of a Special Development District. According to the Municipal Code, prior to site preparation, building construction, or other improvements to land within a Special Development District, 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 the goals of the proposed Special Development District, the relationship of the proposal to applicable elements of the Town's Master Plan, and the review procedure that will 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 forwarded to the Town Council, in accordance with the provisions listed 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 Special Development District. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the Special Development 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 plan, 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. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed Special Development District, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the properties underlying zone district. • The Municipal Code provides nine (9) design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed Special Development District. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. Although staff will not specifically address each of the nine SDD review criteria at this time, the design criteria are listed below for reference: 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. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. 9P D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. • E. Identification and mitigation of natural and /or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The development standards for a Special Development District shall be proposed by the applicant. Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking and loading shall be determined by the Town Council as part of the approved development plan, with consideration of the recommendations of • the Planning and Environmental Commission and staff. Before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, is shall be determined that such deviations provide benefits to the 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. 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 highlighted in bold type. Legal: 242 East Meadow Drive /Part of Tract C, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Lot size: 24,089 sq. ft. /0.553 acres Buidable area: 24,089 sq. ft. /0.553 acres 4 0 Development Underlying Zoning Existing development Ordinance #8 Proposed SDD* • Standard of Public Accommodation on the property (SDD #12) as of 12/9/96 0 GRFA: 80% or 19,271 sq. ft. Dwelling units per acre: 13.8 DU's Site coverage: 55% or 13,249 sq. ft. Setbacks: front: 20' sides: 20' rear: 20' Height: 48' sloping 45' flat Parking: per T.O.V. code Section 18.52 Landscaping: 30% or 7,227 sq. ft. Loading: per T.O.V. code Section 18.52 Commercial sq. footage: 10% or 1,927 sq. ft. 49% or 11,800 sq. ft. 118% or 28,591 sq. ft. 153% or 36,813 sq. ft. 18.5 DU's (37 AU's) 35% or 8,400 sq. ft. 11' 9' / 10' 13' 36' sloping 30 spaces*" 31% or 7,518 sq. ft. 1 berth N/A Common area: 35% of allowable GRFA N/A or 6,745 sq. ft. * Numbers furnished by the applicant and not yet verified by staff "* 11 spaces are located off -site on T.O.V. ROW * ** To be determined 34.5 DU's (2 DU's & 65 AU's) 71% or 17,103 sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 short-term spaces on -site 71 parking spaces pay -in -lieu A detailed plan was to be submitted for DRB approval N/A 36% or 11,555 sq. ft. N/A 33 DU's (23 DU's and 20 AU's) 66% or 15,802 sq. ft. 0.5' 5'/ 20' 7' 48' flat TBD *** 7% or 1,652 sq. ft. 1 berth underground 14% or 5,110 sq. ft. 39% or 14,267 sq. ft. V. DISCUSSION ISSUES As this is a worksession to discuss the applicant's proposal to establish a Special Developrrient 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 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 from numerous development standards. The departures from the development standards include, among other deviations, a 153 increase of GRFA over the allowable and a 19.5' encroachment into the required 20' setback areas. 5 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 applicant has proposed a front entry drop -off area. The applicant had originally proposed the front entry drop -off area near the eastern end of the building, adjacent to East Meadow Drive. Due to the location of the originally proposed front entry, the applicant proposed to move an existing traffic control arm further to the east on East Meadow Drive. Moving the traffic control arm to the east was intended to facilitate vehicular traffic along East Meadow Drive to the front entry. Staff and the Planning and Environmental Commission were particularly concerned with the amount of additional vehicular traffic which would be brought onto the East Meadow Drive pedestrian zone by the location of the front entry to the building. In response to the concerns expressed at the November 11 worksession, the applicant has relocated the front entry drop -off area to the west end of the building. The applicant has incorporated the access ramp to the parking /loading /delivery area and the entrance to the drop -off area into one curb -cut, instead of two, as orginally proposed. The relocation of the drop -off area no longer requires the traffic control arm to be relocated on East Meadow Drive. Staff believes the redesigned entry better facilitates bus traffic and pedestrian flow on East Meadow Drive and eliminates the dead -end traffic situation resulting from the original design. Staff would like to discuss with the applicant and Planning and Environmental Commission the impacts of the redesigned front entry drop -off area. 3. The proposed parking, loading and trash facility location and design. Chapter 18.52 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code prescribes standards for parking and loading and delivery. According to the standards prescribed by Chapter 18.52, parking and loading and delivery shall not be located in the front setback area. At the November 11 worksession, the staff and the PEC proposed that the applicant explore the ability to accommodate the loading /delivery and trash facilities in the underground parking area. As originally proposed, the loading and delivery area created a significant constraint on the pedestrian /commercial flow along East Meadow Drive and was situated in the front setback. As result of the staff and PEC recommendation to accommodate the loading /delivery and trash facilities in the underground parking area, the applicant has redesigned the underground parking area. The applicant is proposing an underground loading /delivery dock on the west end of the parking structure. The dock is designed to accommodate one loading /delivery berth. The applicant has proposed the use of a freight elevator to transfer goods from the underground structure to the first level on the building. The applicant is also proposing to accommodate trash storage at the west end of the parking structure near the entrance to the structure. The trash storage area is enclosed and covered and is design to be accessed via the ramp to the parking structure. • • The staff would like to discuss with the PEC and the applicant the appropriateness of having loading /delivery and trash facilities located on the west end of building adjacent to Village Center. Staff is also requesting that the applicant submit detailed drawings of the loading /delivery and trash storage area to determine whether adequate access and traffic flow exists. 4. The implementation of the adopted Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. 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 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 only. 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 Village 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 control 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. The Plan states that 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 to fifteen -foot wide . pedestrian way. 7 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. As a result of the November 11 worksession, the applicant has shown a revised streetscape. 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. 6. The proposed massing, height and building materials. Ol The applicant has supplied a preliminary massing model of the proposed Austria Haus. At this time, staff is not prepared to respond to the massing, height, and building 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 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 responsible for reimbursing the Town of Vail Department of Community Development for any expenses associated with our Urban Design Consultant. The applicant understands this requirement. 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 existing Austria Haus does not provide such an experience. The applicant has proposed to incorporate approximately 5,110 sq. ft. of commercial /retail space on the main level of the Austria Haus, in order to improve the pedestrian experience along this section of the road. 8 0 At the November 11 worksession meeting, the staff and PEC expressed concern that the • transition area between the Village Center Building and the Austria Haus be maintained to ensure existing commercial flow along East Meadow Drive. In response to the Town's concerns, the applicant has revised the site plan eliminating the loading /delivery and trash storage area in the front setback. The revised site plan appears to have resolved the commercial flow problems created by the original design. Staff would like to review this issue with the PEC to determine if the Commission concurs. 8. Provision for employee housing. The Town 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 point out that the applicant is proposing a 690 square foot manager's unit on -site. Staff is recommending that the applicant determine the incremental increase in the number of employees generated by the Austria Haus redevelopment. Once these figures are provided by the appicant, the staff will discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant, the employee housing requirement. 9. Encroachments into required setbacks. Setbacks are intended to provide for adequate light, air and open space. As originally proposed, setbacks on the Austria Haus property were nearly non - existent. Staff recognizes that it is important that the new building be brought as close to the existing pedestrian ways as possible, however, the staff and the PEC were particularly concerned with the amount of encroachment upon the west and south setbacks. It is staff's opinion that, should any setbacks in this project be encroached upon, those setbacks 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 Creek and the impacts the building improvements will have on the Riparian Zone, and that the west setback should be maintained due to the location of the Village Center Building and the residential uses in the building. The staff is also sensitive to the "canyon effect" that will result by having the two buildings (Austria Haus/Village Center) too close together. In response to the concerns expressed at the November 11 worksession, the applicant has revised the site plan. The applicant has shifted the building to the north and east. A portion of the building now encroaches on Town of Vail right -of -way, south of East Meadow Drive. The building encroaches into the right -of -way approximately 18 feet. The applicant is proposing a 20' setback along the west property line adjacent to Village Center and has removed all portions of the building from the Town of Vail Stream Tract and the 50' Gore Creek stream setback. The building encroaches approximately 13 feet into the south setback and 15 feet into the east setback. Staff believes the changes made by the applicant are positive, but would like to discuss the building encroachment issue onto Town property with the PEC and the applicant. 10. A possible pedestrian connection from the Austria Haus to the Gore Creek Promenade. At the November 11 worksession, the PEC recommended that the applicant propose a streamwalk along Gore Creek. The applicant has not proposed a location for the streamwalk. The applicant would like to revisit the bridge over Gore Creek issue with the • PEC. Since the applicant is no longer proposing commercial space on the south side of the building, there is some question as to where the streamwalk will lead if a connection through to the International Bridge is not constructed. 4 Staff would again like to discuss the merits 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 are also concerned with additional bridges over Gore Creek. 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. Staff would like to discuss with the applicant a means for mitigating any unnecessary tree removal. Additionally, the 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 improvements will impact the riparian zone of Gore Creek. Staff would like to discuss with the 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. According to the 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 improvements in the area must take into account the large 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 Slifer 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, special consideration should be given to examining opportunities for creating a special events location. The site has the potential to be slightly adjusted to better handle 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 walls around the fountain and west of the plaza, to restore its original design and to allow access to the water. It is important that a comprehensive design analysis of Slifer Square occur before any changes are made, as it is one of Vail'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 like to discuss with the applicant and the Planning and Environmental Commission the merits of proposing improvements to Slifer Square. The staff will be meeting internally to discuss possible improvements to Slifer Square. The staff will also be discussing the public input and review process for any improvements. Once the staff has had an opportunity to meet and discuss the Slifer • Square issue, we will be meeting with the applicant to discuss the results of the staff's meeting. 10 13. Possible relocation of East Meadow Drive. • East Meadow Drive is currently constructed on the north 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. 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. At the November 11 worksession meeting, the applicant indicated he would look into the possibility of relocating the road. Since the meeting, the applicant has proposed a realignment to East Meadow Drive. The realignment moves the road up to 16' to the south. In staff's opinion, the relocation greatly improves the streetscape along East Meadow Drive and the Austria Haus. The Town of Vail Publics Works Department is currently reviewing the new alignment and will provide any comments or concerns in the near future. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed establishment of a Special Development • District to the property located at 242 East 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 applicant's proposal at the time of final review. • 11 y • • • V , Pimroa, k A�ooiatar Atahiteola P__Lit —KW- CREEK- ArCbAACtA Pf.-" I T" Im a _ ArobiLWU -- -__ _ T _ JJ ~ � _ i y - 'l -izA ` z X LINE i i 2 TA F 9 , ',{+''.1= �oac aR wx osw Laos a LDCX a• Laos cw t 3 t ti :f' loaca. p/ { E:.iZ,TTk's toot aw wow wom «om Nam am Hard wo+u wrns. «orR, war6 lawr< 3 N$ �� SS 'S�d i`.iq ✓-v l rrrs THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN E. C E Cr, C C C , Cl IN 34 �� n n Picot, k Ampociated Armtteota PG -LLL s rr.r t` t>s 1�/IIIr ttttttt� • FOURTH LEVEL FLOOR P A2,4 r' imc as ILooc orF tmc as tnac ac tl1 ➢— JFJ Its, -"_ e r' ma Picot, k Ampociated Armtteota PG -LLL s rr.r t` t>s 1�/IIIr ttttttt� • FOURTH LEVEL FLOOR P A2,4 0 0 • P14m.l k lrcbilecla PL -l1► � ROOF PLAN ' A2.5 kmm. mj <i �l mt I n.lj, iL "'17 fft:7 NORTH ELEVATION ICAU!Vr� hJ4 I Ad r hill 7. LJ Lill H f,. Lri ;E E ft i 1171, A SOUTH ELEVATION SCALA:k.W�" II pkft-6 ser"b"t A I rfm_, rT 110- 4 30,0 11 t zz EAST ELEVATION —1. ra t.C.•AJA rnwu wlrwrwp 1Nae i �, �-,t�r� 4r• ' 8 -5 `l._ WEST ELEVATION wua_vr•.v II", A 31 11 i� :... I !ml, . 1 i r i _ J ram.4 A"hft f t.•AJA. wtiwn ab s � g or 0 0 0 ORDINANCE k8 (Series of 1984) AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (KNOWN AS SOD 12) AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THEREFORE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Van Municipal Code authorizes special development districts within the Town; and WHEREAS, Sonnenalp at Vail submitted an application for special development district approval for a certain parcel of property within the Town known as part of Tract C, Block SO, Vail Village 1st Filing, to be known as Special Development District No. 12, and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SOD 12 will ensure unified and coordinated development within the Vail Village area and in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated; and WHEREAS, it is found that the proposal is consistent with and furthers the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants and visitors to establish said Special Development No. 12; NOV% THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled Planning Commission Report. The approval procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission regarding the Development Plan for SOD 12. Section 2. Special Development District 12 Special Development District 12 (SOD 12) and the Development Plan therefore, are hereby approved for the development of a part of Tract C, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing, within the Town of Vail, consisting of approximately 24,092 square feet of land. • Post-It' Fax Note 7671 Dale a, To From COMOP Co. Ftwna PhD a Fax I Fax 0 Section 3. Purpose Special Development District 12 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general character of Vail Village and to promote the upgrading and redevelopment of a key property in Vail. The development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council, and there are significant aspects of the special development district which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the standards in the Public Accommodation zone district.'.'SDD12 is compatible with the upgrading and redevelopment of Vail Village while maintaning its unique and precious character. Section 4. Development Plan A. The Development Plan for SDD 12 is approved and shall constitute the plan for development within the Special District. The Development Plan consists of the following documents: a. Site plan dated April 3, 1984. b. Schematic landscape plan dated 2/17/84 c. Typical floor plans dated 2/14/84 d. Preliminary elevations of the north, east, south and west e. Model B. The Development Plan shall adhere to the following: Setbacks • The setbacks shall be as noted on the site plan listed above. Height The height is as noted on the preliminary elevation listed above. Coverage No more than 71 percent of the site shall be covered by buildings. Landscaping The landscaped areas shown on the site plan are only tentative. A detailed landscape plan must be submitted to the Design Review Board for approval. Parking and Loading .Fiveshort term parking stalls are provided on site. For the rema.indng parking requirement, the applicant will receive a parking exception that is noted in Reso- lution #3 of the Series of 1984. Pursuant to said exception and Section 18.52.160 the applicant shall pay for 71 parking spaces. Should the square footage or use of the Special Development District change from that set forth herein prior to the issuance of a building permit, the parking spaces paid for by applicant shall be adjusted proprtionately. • Section 5. Density Accommodation units, 65 = 28,591 square feet of gross residential floor area. Dwelling units. 2 = 1,624 square feet of gross residential floor area • for a manager and an owner. Section 6. Uses Permitted, conditional and accessory uses are the same as noted in the Public Accommodation zone district except as modified below: Commercial space, 3,613 square feet Commercial storage, 2,191 square feet Restaurant kitchen, 2,700 square feet Restaurant dining, 1,881 square feet Bar 1,170 square feet Lounge 1,300 square feet :.'J ( I `• Spa 1,741 square feet Meeting room 565 square feet which is part of an accommodation unit'that can be used for meetings There are also other incidental uses accessory to a hotel in the building. Section 7, Additional Conditions of the Special Development District �A. The development cannot be condominiumized for twenty (20) years. B. There must be a specific agreement between the applicant and the Town regarding the applicant's perpetual use and maintenance of the arcade area owned by the Town of Vail C. The applicant must pay to move or reconstruct any improvements and utilities on Town of Vail property that is necessitated by the construction of the building. D. The applicant must pay applicable parking fees at the time of the issuance of the building permit. E. The improvement of the creek bank is part of this SDD. _F. The applicant will pay for street lighting in front of the project. G. All retail uses shall be conditional uses. H. A time limit of 18 months shall be placed on this approval. I. The applicant must demonstrate financial capability to complete the project before a building permit ;is issued. ;; l ,,•; •,:; Section 8.• Amendment to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may be approved by the Planning.and Environmental Commission Section 9. Limitation of Existence of Special Development District #12 The Town Council reserves the right to abrogate or modify Special Development District #12 for good cause with the enactment of an ordinance in accordance • with the procedures set forth for the amendment of zoning regulations as set forth in Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Section 10. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 11. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 12. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 6th day of March 1984, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 3rd day of April , 1984 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this 4th day of March 1984. 6 Rodney E. S ifer, Mayo EST: I Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town fierk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED in' full this 3rd day of Apri1 1984. AT "ST* Rodney E. S ifer, May Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town C erk • C] RICW-,, UFr:r,-, --1 -.71 CNIG�DS-H INEERS, lN.-C. 1971 9M W. CoN. Do—.r , CO—J. 86,7.5 rF..M, 1174171 W?,.r . , , A, tk \ -- --�� ','7 L7 V A j . ..... .......... /1/0 A part of Tract C. VAIL %'!L:-AGE. FIRST I Or C Of Colorado aescribed �,S: -j-')ty of Eagle. State' Beginning at a point :v Tract c f!-0r.1 tne Northv• bears S 37*15'30" W 79.44 thence , e.,.,t Corner of Lot b, Block $ -8 .4 6�14; , - ; . H,7-00 feel; thence S 86-1 '(" 1 �! �;L - 0�" '"' : thence S 89*17,041, W 4 1 W I : 5. 00 f e(!.-. ; thence N .3'!- on the arc of a 14.z;.77 f t rad;u, 125.69 feet to a pain If Said curve to the lef 00 . curve; thence t whose central an, Feet along the arc 72'43'48" E 108-.85 feet w Ong chord bears Joint of curve; t to it Point of tanr~L; there to a thence Ea.-ite:•Ii 38.67 feet 129.50 feet 'he right whose the a.-,; (..I' jj-, 85-0•? foot radius curve to central 1119le ;s.260fI4 :5" 111d !Ong �-.-irird 38-34 feet; thence S U s. 14*521051, W 29 35 fuct; 81*3710311 E )f beginning, thLnc�.- " 12,,i�,11611 15.9c containing 24 1 , f(--et to the point ,()92-756 square ren.j. or 0.5t: 31 �Z`es mcl-e or lest. ERTIFICATION: 1 certify that Ole br.u:id.-.,-y sul,,ey and lega; descrip,;t,ol 5 nown hereon were performed ,Y me and under my stipervis-'nrl and that. the property c:ul*(,,,•r, exist as shown. • 3t # #, i( ii c Drawn: MAA406-L MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 9, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for final review of a major subdivision of Lot P -2, Block 3, Vail Village Fifth Filing, and a vacated portion of Hanson Ranch Road. The site is generally located east of Vail Valley Drive between Hanson Ranch Road and Gore Creek Drive. A complete legal description is available in the Community Development Department. Applicant: P -2 Association, represented by Art Abplanalp Planners: George Ruther I. BACKGROUND On September 13, 1996, the P -2 Association, represented by Art Abplanalp, submitted an application for a major resubdivision to Lot P -2, Block 3 and a portion of vacated Hanson Ranch Road, Vail Village Fifth Filing. Lot P -2 is generally located east of Vail Valley Drive, between Gore Creek Drive and Hanson Ranch Road. Lot P -2 is bounded on the northeast side by Gore Creek Drive, the All Seasons Condominiums, and the Vail Trail East Chalets; on the south by the Ramshom Lodge and the All Seasons Condominiums; and on the west by Vail Valley Drive. Lot P -2 is currently under multiple ownership and governed by the P -2 Association. The total lot area of Lot P -2 is approximately 0.5494 acres/23,931.86 sq. ft. Lot P -2 was originally platted as part of the Vail Village First Filing Subdivision on August 6, 1962. On November 12, 1965, an amended subdivision and a resubdivision of parts of Vail Village First Filing was recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. The Vail Village Fifth Filing Resubdivision included Lot P -2, Block 3 of the Vail Village First Filing. Pursuant to the recordation at Book 215, Page 969, the northerly portion of the Hanson Ranch Road right -of -way east of Vail Valley Drive has been vacated. The P -2 Association was established as a Colorado Corporation to govern the use and maintenance of the area known as Lot P -2. The P -2 Association is comprised of multiple ownership. The owners include Vail Trails East Chalets, the Tivoli Lodge, the Gallatyn Lodge, the Ramshorn lodge and the Vail Trails Chalets. is F: \EVERYONE\PEC \MEMOS \p2assoc.dO9 C1 On October 14, 1996, the applicants' representative, Art Abplanalp, appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission with a request for a review of the preliminary major subdivision plan. Upon review of the preliminary plan, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved the applicants' request with two conditions. The first being that the applicants add the restrictions prescribed by the proposed protective covenants as plat notes to the final plat, to ensure that said restrictions can not be amended without Town of Vail notification and approval, and the second, that the applicants submitted a set of proposed protective covenants to the Town of Vail for review and approval. Each of the required conditions of approval have been met by the applicants, and therefore, the Planning and Environmental Commission can take action on the review of the final plat. 1I. DESCRIPTION of the REQUEST The P -2 Association is requesting a final review of a major subdivision final plat in order to divide Lot P -2 into separate parcels, each to be owned by the entity which has historically occupied each part of the parcel. The use of the parcels will remain a parking facility. The Association has proposed new Declarations of Protective Covenants to govern the future use and maintenance of Lot P -2. According to the official Town of Vail Zoning Map, Lot P -2 is designated Parking Zone District. The purpose of the Parking District is to provide sites for private or public, unstructured, off - street, vehicle parking and conditionally to provide for private or public, off - street vehicle parking structures and private or public parks and recreational facilities. Permitted uses within the Parking District include private or public, unstructured, off - street, vehicle parking facilities. According to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Parking District, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with Chapter 18.60: • private or public, off - street parking structures, • private or public parks and recreational facilities, • public uses, private office and commercial uses that are transportation, tourists, or Town related that are accessory to a parking structure, • major arcades, • temporary construction staging sites, and • Type III and Type IV employee housing units. III. REVIEW PROCESS Title 17, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code establishes the review process and criteria for a major subdivision proposed in the Town of Vail. Pursuant to Chapter 17.16, Major Subdivision, of the Municipal Code, the first step in the review process is for the applicant to meet with a Town Planner to discuss the preliminary plan. Staff has met with the F: \EVERYONE\PEC \MEMOS\p2assoc.d09 2 0 applicant on several occasions to discuss the proposal and address submittal requirements. Staff • feels the applicant has successfully complied with the initial step in the review process. The next step in the review process shall be a formal consideration of the preliminary plan by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. The applicant shall make a presentation to the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. The presentation and public hearing shall be in accordance with Sections 18.66.060 through 18.66.090 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicant's appearance before the Planning and Environmental Commission on October 14, 1996, shall serve to meet the public hearing and presentation requirement. The burden of proof that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Zoning Code and other pertinent regulations shall lie upon the applicant. In reviewing the preliminary plan, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to: 1. Subdivision Control; 2. Densities proposed; 3. Regulations; 4. Ordinances, resolutions and other applicable documents; 5. Environmental Integrity; 6. Compatibility with surrounding land uses; and 7. Effects upon the aesthetics of the Town and surrounding land uses. The PEC shall have twenty -one days from the date of the review of the preliminary plan to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions or modifications, the major subdivision request. Within ten days of making a decision on the request, the staff shall forward the PEC's decision to the Vail Town Council. The Council may appeal the PEC's action. The appeal must be placed within seventeen days of PEC's action. If the Council appeals the PEC's action, the Council shall hear substantially the same presentation by the applicant as was heard at the PEC public hearing. The Council shall have thirty days to affirm, reverse, or affirm with modifications the PEC decision. The appeal hearing shall be held during a regularly scheduled council meeting. The final step in the review process of a major subdivision request, after PEC preliminary plan review, is the review of the final plat. At any time within one year after the PEC has taken action on the preliminary plan, a final plat shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The staff shall schedule a final review of the final plat. The final review shall occur at a regularly scheduled PEC public hearing. The review criteria for a final plat are the same as those used in reviewing the preliminary plan as contained in Section 17.16.110 of the Subdivision Regulations. • F: \EVERYONE\PEC \MEMOS \p2assoc.d09 3 The Town of Vail has the ability to require certain improvements when approving a major subdivision. The following improvements shall be required by the applicant unless otherwise • waived by the zoning administrator, PEC, or Council: 1. Paved streets and parking lots; 2. Bicycle and pedestrian path linked with the town system and within the subdivision itself, 3. Traffic control signs, signals or devices; 4. Street lights; 5. Landscaping; 6. Water lines and fire hydrants; 7. Sanitary sewer lines; 8. Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers; 9. Bridges and culverts; 10. Electric lines; 11. Telephone lines; 12. Natural gas lines; 13. Other improvements not specifically mentioned above but found necessary by the Town Engineer due to the nature of the subdivision. IV. STAFF ANALYSIS OF MAJOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA Section 17.16.110 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code provides the criteria by which a proposed major subdivision is to be reviewed. Staff has reviewed the proposed preliminary plan for the major resubdivision of Lot P -2, Block 3, and a portion of vacated Hansen Ranch Road, Vail • Village Fifth Filing, and our analysis is listed below: 1. Subdivision Control As the applicant is not proposing development on the newly created lots, staff does not feel this critcria is applicable. 2. Densities Proposed Lot P -2 is currently zoned Parking District. The only permitted use in the parking district is private or public unstructured off - street vehicle parking. All other uses are conditional uses. The conditional uses permitted subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit are listed on page 2, in section II of this memorandum. The Parking District does not permit the development of dwelling units with the exception of Types III and IV employee housing units. The applicant has prepared protective covenants restricting the use of the newly created lots to parking only. Staff feels the protective covenants and the existing zoning adequately restrict future development on the lots. Staff further finds that any future F: \EVERYONE\PEC \MEMOS \p2assoc.dO9 4 • changes of use on any, or all of the lots, would require not only a change to the covenants, • but the review and approval of the Town of Vail via a conditional use permit and/or a change in the zoning designation on the property. Regulations Staff reviewed the regulations prescribed by the Town of Vail Municipal Code for the Parking Zone District. According to Section 18.34.010 of the municipal code, the purpose of the Parking District is intended to provide sites for private and public unstructured off -street vehicle parking and to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each valid use in adjacent areas. Unlike most other zone districts, the Parking District does not prescribe a minimum lot size or a minimum street frontage requirement. The lots being proposed are substandard for all other zone districts requiring minimum lot sizes, thus limiting the potential uses of the newly created lots to anything other than parking. Staff believes the proposed major subdivision complies with the applicable regulations. The applicant is proposing to continue the private off -street parking use of Lot P -2, as it has historically been used. 4. Ordinances, resolutions and other applicable documents In reviewing this proposal, staff relied upon the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the • restrictions recorded on the plat, and the Vail Land Use Plan. The issues relating to the municipal code have been addressed previously. The preliminary plan and proposed protective covenants restrict the future use of Lot P -2. The restrictions include limitations of the use of Lot P -2 to parking of passenger vehicles having a weight of less than 10,000 pounds, landscaping and underground utility lines; prohibition on construction above ground level except landscaping; retaining walls necessary for the support of parking; obligations of the owners to maintain and repair paving, retaining walls, irrigation, landscaping, etc; and enforcement, liability and easements. The future use of Lot P -2 is further restricted by the existing protective covenants recorded at Book 253, Page 48, by the agreement establishing the P -2 Association recorded at Book 386, Page 32, and the consent recorded at Book 392, Pages 248 -250. To further insure that development on the property is restricted, in accordance with the protective covenants proposed, staff is required that the applicant add the above described restrictions on the plats as plat notes. This in effect prevents the future use of Lot P -2 to change without approval from the Town of Vail. Private protective covenants can be altered without Town of Vail review and approval. Any amendment to a final plat would require the Town of Vail review and approval. • F: \EVERYONE\PEC \MEMOS \p2assoc.d09 f The Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan contains goals which staff • considers to be applicable to the major subdivision request. The applicable goals include: VAIL LAND USE PLAN: I . 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. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. LZ New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN: Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian only walkways and accessible green space areas including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.2 &I-icy: 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. According to the East Village Sub -Area Plan ( #7), a key objective is to provide improvements in the sub -area related to pedestrian and bicycle safety. Sub -area plan component #7 -3, Vail Valley Drive sidewalk, indicates that: " a sidewalk (separated from the road where possible) through the sub -area linking the Golden Peak Base facility with the Vail Transportation Center. 'Landscape improvements F: \FVERYONE\PEC \MEMOS \p2assoc.d09 6 and pedestrian cross -walks to be included as required to meet demands of pedestrian traffic. Special emphasis is placed upon the goals and objectives 3.1 and 3.4." 5. Environmentallntegrity Staff believes the proposed major subdivision does not adversely affect the integrity of the environment. The applicant is not proposing to increase the amount of impervious surface of the existing parking on Lot P -2. Staff believes this has a positive effect on water quality as it does not increase the surface run -off from the area. The applicant is also proposing to preserve and continue to maintain the landscaping existing on Lot P -2. Currently, numerous maturing Aspen and Spruce trees are growing on the property. The applicant has provided for future maintenance by means of protective covenants. Staff feels this too has a positive effect on the natural and built environment. 6. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses The existing use of Lot P -2 is unstructured off - street vehicle parking for five residential properties in the area (Ramshorn, Gallatyn, Vail Trail Chalets, Tivoli and Vail Trails East). This use has been in place since the early 1960's when the property was originally platted. The applicant is not proposing to change the existing use. Staff believes the major subdivision will not negatively impact existing or potential surrounding uses. 7. Effects i Upon the Aesthetics of the Town and SurroundinQLand Uses • Again, the use of the property is not changing. The only change resulting from the major subdivision is the owners J hip structure. Instead of Lot P -2 being owned in common by five entities, the entire lot will be divided into separate ownership. Each newly created lot will be deeded back to the user of historic record. The five parking lots have been kept in good repair and the landscaping has been well maintained. Staff does not believe the aesthetics of the area will be negatively impacted as a result of an approval of the proposed request for a major subdivision. PJ According to the regulations governing subdivisions in the Town of Vail, the staff, PEC and/or Council have the ability to require certain improvements when approving major subdivisions. These improvements are listed on page 3, in section III of this memorandum. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the final plat for a major subdivision of Lot P -2, Block 3, and a vacated portion of Hansen Ranch Road, Vail Village Fifth Filing. Staff finds that the applicant's proposal meets the seven review criteria for a major subdivision as outlined in section IV of this memorandum, and that the applicants have meet the two conditions of approval placed on the preliminary plan approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission on October 14, 1996. F: \EVERY0N"FC \MEM0S \p2assoc.d09 7 0 U MEMBERS PRESENT Greg Moffet Greg Amsden Henry Pratt Galen Aasland John Schofield Gene Uselton Diane Golden Public Hearin4 ApP . O V � DEC 1 s , PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 9, 1996 Minutes MEMBERS ABSENT: Amsden (4:15 - 5:15 pm) The meeting was called to order by Greg Moff et at 2:10 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Susan Connelly Mike Mollica George Ruther Dominic Mauriello Dirk Mason Tom Moorhead Judy Rodriguez 2:00 p.m. Greg Moffet stated that since the applicant was not here for item #1, we would proceed to item #2. 1. A request for a worksession to discuss an amendment to Section 16.20.020, and to add Section 16.04.065 to the Sign Code to allow for and define electronic signs as Public Information Signs. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. represented by Joe Macy. Planner: Dirk Mason 2. A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a new Special Development District, located at 1521 and 1631 Buffehr Creek Road /Lots 3 & 4, The Valley, Phase V. Applicant: Jim and Ronna Flaum Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. Jim Flaum introduced himself and Cookie Flaum and said he would answer any questions. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. Galen Aasland said his biggest concern was the 1' setback noted on the right side of the plan. He felt that the unit was too close to the road and that no GRFA should be allowed in the first 20'. Galen suggested that the building envelope be moved 8' back from the property line and no GRFA be allowed in the front setback. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 1 Greg Moffet advised the applicant that the PEC is pretty stiff on allowing residential floor area in the front setback. Galen Aasland asked if the site walls were only 6' high? Dominic Mauriello answered that the maximum height of the walls would be 6' high. Kurt Segerberg, the architect for the project, stated that having a larger building envelope allows flexibility. Dominic Mauriello said the applicant wanted to plat the building envelope similar to how Spraddle Creek was done. Diane Golden asked if the applicant was considering an employee housing unit, since it was an SDD? Jim Flaum said he understood that an employee housing unit would have to be within the allowed GRFA. Diane Golden said she would like to see an employee housing unit included in this application. She felt that it was not necessary to have three units, just one, since it was a nice local's area. Jim Flaum asked if having an employee housing unit would be optional. Diane Golden said she would like to have at least one unit be mandatory with this request. Henry Pratt asked Dominic why this was being done through an SDD? Dominic Mauriello explained that the applicant was trying to honor the original Eagle County PUD approval. He said that this was the cleanest way to do it. Henry Pratt said he was more comfortable with an SDD, since it was modifying the County's PUD approval. He asked, in terms of GRFA, if the applicant would also get the 425 sq. ft. credit? Dominic Mauriello said no, that you cannot take the County requirements and the Town's requirements and mix them together. He said 2,200 sq. ft was all that was allowed per unit by the PUD. Henry Pratt agreed with Galen regarding building in the front setback. John Schofield shared the Commissioner's concerns with the 1' setback and also agreed with Diane regarding employee housing. He felt staff should allow the additional 500 sq. ft. for employee housing and said it should be encouraged, but not a mandatory requirement. Jim Flaum asked if only one of the homes could have an EHU? Gene Uselton said he would like to encourage the employee housing units and would like to see 500 additional sq. ft. for each lot. He asked regarding the geologic hazards, if adjacent property owners would be in danger of the rockfall hazard? Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 2 • • • Kurt Segerberg said that could be studied further. Dominic Mauriello stated that the geology expert said that the applicant would have to build a berm, however, it would not endanger adjacent property owners. Gene Uselton asked if the applicant had addressed snow storage, or snow removal? Dominic Mauriello said things could be shifted on the plans to gain additional area for snow storage. Gene Uselton stated that this project reduced the demand on the Town's facilities. Greg Amsden thought that each of the lots should be allowed an EHU, but one lot should be required to have one. Greg asked about tree mitigation? Dominic Mauriello said to replace the same diameter tree with the same diameter tree may or may not be the case and when the applicant came back for a final review, it would be addressed then. Greg Amsden said he had no problem with the garage in the front setback and would like to see mitigation for the loss of the larger trees on the site. Greg Moffet had no problem with the SDD. He told the applicant to take a hard look at snow storage. Greg said setbacks were ok for garages, but not for any GRFA. He liked the large building envelopes and was in favor of up to 3 EHU's. Greg felt that the biggest issue would be the covered parking that is required for each EHU. He would strongly encourage at least one EHU and possibly more than 1. He told the applicant that a caretaker unit on the site was a good amenity. Kurt Segerberg asked about the covered parking requirement for an EHU. Greg Moffet stated that one covered parking space is required for each EHU. He then went on to ask for any other public comments, or if the applicant had any more questions. Jim Flaum asked if there was a time limit on building the homes. Dominic Mauriello said a DRB approval was good for one year. He informed the applicant, that for every building that was built, you would need DRB approval. Greg Moff et asked if anyone was here for item # 1 and if not, we would proceed to item # 3. 3. 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 Planning and Enviromnental Commission • Minutes December 9, 1996 3 George Ruther stated that this was the second worksession on the SDD and we could talk about • the particular project at this time. George then proceeded to give an overview of the request. He said that since the last meeting, changes have been made to the floor plans and site plan. He explained that the applicant no longer had commercial on the south side of the building. He said there had been an increase in time -share units and a decrease in AU's, so the dwelling unit numbers had changed. George reminded the PEC that the SDD criteria required them to.take a look at the deviations proposed in the SDD from the PA Zone District and to see if there was anything to be gained by the public from these deviations. George then mentioned that Public Works had not responded to moving East Meadow Drive to the south, but that they were generally in favor of such a move. He mentioned that staff was in favor of moving the street, in order to maintain the commercial flow. He said that staff had money budgeted for improvements to Slifer Square in preparation for the 1999 World Championships. Gordon Pierce, the architect representing the Sonnenalp, brought the model back and felt it was useful since the overall changes would not affect the massing of the building. Gordon said he was here in Vail before there was anything in the Valley. He reminisced on when the Mountain Haus was built and said that it prompted all the ordinances that are in place now, since there was such an outcry concerning that building. He explained that, except for the Village Center Building, the model was correct to scale and the massing was accurate on the model. Gordon said the river bank now was not accessible to the public at all. He said that the applicant had adopted it and also the streetscape on East Meadow Drive. He said they were willing to correct some of the problems on public land. He said there was now no commercial flow between the Village Center and Bridge Street. Gordon felt the building scale and mass fit quite nicely with the buildings across the creek and with the neighbors. He noted that he had accomplished less volume now, then what was approved in 1984. He felt it was much closer in character to the Sonnenalp regarding color, detail and quality. He told the PEC that from Spraddle Creek it was • astounding how many roofs were in this berg and looking down from that viewpoint, there really were a lot of buffer zones. He said that Jim Lamont had been helpful in passing on information from some of the shop owners regarding this project and that there was still some concern regarding the loading area. Gordon then handed out some plans to the Commission and went on to explain them. Gordon explained that the applicant would like a slope down to the creek, in order to make the bank look more natural. He then said that deliveries are made in large quantities only one or two times a year and then throughout the year, smaller deliveries were by UPS, which was not a concern. He mentioned that there would be a sound consideration with the trucks backing down the ramp, however, the driveway would be heated and so the trucks wouldn't get stuck. (Gordon was referencing A, from the review criteria in the staff memo). Regarding review criteria B, Gordon stated that this would be a very high -end club concept in terms of the use and that the project would extend the commercial from the jewelry shop in the Village Center to Bridge Street, as well as tie the heated sidewalk to Bridge Street. Referencing review criteria C, Gordon stated that there were 36 covered parking spaces, 8 valet spaces and the ability to have 5 spaces on the surface. He said that the parking plaza was made to look more pedestrian, but it had a double use of space and was sized so that a van could make a complete circle. Gordon went on to say that if we used the formula in the ordinance, we would need 78 spaces. He said there were 50, leaving a negative of 28 spaces. He went on to say that if the city had a pay -in -lieu fund, the applicant would be willing to contribute into that fund. Gordon mentioned that hotels in Town don't use all their required spaces. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes December 9, 1996 4 Referencing review criteria D, Gordon said the applicant was clearly in compliance with the Vail • Comprehensive Plan and Urban Design Plans, because the applicant was removing an outdated building that didn't comply with the code. Sherry Dorwood, project Landscape Architect from Design Workshop, addressed the streamside area. She explained that showing the design now was for the purpose of showing what would be possible. She said that in terms of public circulation, the potential to upgrade exists from what was now underutilized. She said that Slifer Plaza was all cut up right now and the reason that retail didn't do well was because retail was under exposed in that area. She stated that it would be wonderful to have a revamped area before the Championships. She said that she was sensitive to the trees and that terracing the bank was in the plan. She then proceeded to give an overview of the plans. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowner's Association (EVHA), advised that we were not talking time - share, but rather design aspects. He stated that, regarding the zoning issue, PA/1 makes more sense than the SDD, since it would offer shared development standards. Our preference would be to change that block (Vail Athletic Club to Austria Haus). Jim said that he would like to see figures included in the staff memo, regarding the pay -in -lieu. He mentioned that the Vail Athletic Club had more parking on that site. He warned that there needs to be consistency for pay -in -lieu and that by being consistent, you would overcome the criticism that SDD had created special privileges for the Mountain Haus and the Athletic Club. Jim said that, regarding the design on the west side between the two buildings, there now was an open space. He said with the diminishment of it by it becoming an accessway, it then was not in the public interest. He said the architectural style was of aesthetic importance. Regarding the • surrounding uses, Jim stated having an entrance plaza that turns into a parking lot, would not be advantageous. Jim thought the entry area should be designed as a plaza. He stated that it appeared to be open, but it was actually a traff ic flow through space. Jim felt that the access to the parking lot could be done on the north side of the building with the pedestrian flow over it, entering through a ramp under the pedestrian flow. Adjacent property owners needed the security of knowing that there would be management controls for the traffic and the noise issues. Jim said that the area was very busy and therefore, not compatible with pedestrian use. Jim said that the whole streamtract needed restoration. He said it could be done in phases using, as a tradeoff, allowances to the setback. He thought changing grades on the north side of the building was a possibility with the realignment of Meadow Drive. He stated that the benefit to the public needed to be demonstrable, when you were thinking of p' setbacks and considerably more GRFA. He advised the PEC to be real careful, since an SDD was for design reasons and not for use. Jim said to take a hard look at the percentage over GRFA in the applicant's zone district. Jim then asked how high the one berth was that was located underground? Gordon Pierce said that it was 14' high. • Jim Lamont said he felt Mr. Jeff Winston should give the design of the building in these worksessions before the final approval meeting, so the merits of his recommendation could be discussed. He stated that we should expect the Town consultants to be at the worksessions to hear the public comments. He said he favored the provision of employee housing as a requirement for all new buildings. He mentioned that the merchants on Bridge Street needed to be heard regarding short circuiting the shopping loop. Jim felt the funds, in the 1998 budget for the redevelopment of Slifer Square, should be focused on the north side of the building and the restoration of the streamwalk. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 5 George Ruther responded that since the plans were changing every week, it would be a waste of the applicant's, staff's and consultant's time and money for Jeff Winston to review the plans at • this point. Jim Lamont asked if the quality of the lock -off units was commensurate with the AU's? Jim Trelevin, representing the Village Center residential units, said they had spent a tremendous amount of money on redevelopment of the west and south sides of Village Center. He said that it stopped on the east side. He said that they had no control over the north side and therefore parking, delivery noise and trash was a constant turmoil. He said he would like the east side to end up the same as the south and west sides and not another delivery area. He stated another concern was pedestrian traffic being routed down through Village Center condominiums and also a concern was the noise, trash smell and the height of the building. Jan Strauch, a tenant in the Village Center Building, stated a good shopping experience for the guest needed to be encouraged. He said that he had been in his shop space for 10 years and has seen people walk by, follow the stairway and end up nowhere. He said people came out of the structure and had no invitation to go to the Covered Bridge. He felt the current design, with the ramp and loading zone, would look like an alley way. He thought creating a loading area, similar to the International Bridge, might be a solution. He felt, as it was now designed, it would interrupt the flow. He said he would like to see a design that addressed the problem when coming out of the Covered Bridge, there would be an invitation to see Buzz's Boots and Boards, since you can't see it now. He said a visual connection needs to be made. He said the lighting now is too dark after the Covered Bridge and therefore, is dangerous. Jan also mentioned that he has, in front of his shop, a 10 to 15 minute parking space and would like to have that parking continue, as it was useful to his and other shops in the area. Rod Slifer said he would like to talk about the underlying zoning and the hotel rooms. He said • that one thing that sets Vail aside from other resorts was that we had small hotels and Rod felt it important to keep the hotel rooms. He stated that the Villa Valhalla and Ramshorn hotels were lost and won't ever be replaced. Rod felt it a mistake to lose 37 hotel rooms at the Austria Haus and said that all 37 hotel rooms should be required to be replaced. Dan Telleen, a jewelry designer in the Village Center, said he agreed it was too dark by the Covered Bridge and lighting was necessary. He said people stopped in his store all the time to get directions. He felt the east end of the Village Center to the Covered Bridge was too dark and that a seamless pedestrian traffic pattern needed to be maintained. He stated that people needed to see other shops to attract them. Dan said that the design of the building was not considered from the top of the parking structure (i.e., tour buses that pull into the parking structure). He felt the west end of this development could not have trash receptacles as that would be the first thing seen when walking down the stairs of the parking structure. Also, he mentioned that when walking out of the tunnel from the parking structure from street level, the intersection of the two buildings would be a first impression. He gave, as an example, the alley between Sweet Basil and the Gore Creek Building. He said that alley could not be any worse then it was and it showed that the Town didn't care how buildings came together. Greg Amsden had to leave at 4:15pm. Dan Telleen said the worst trucks in the area were the beer trucks that serviced small restaurants and he felt the west end of this development was going to be a garbage dump with noise and smells. Planning and Environmental Conunission Minutes December 9, 1996 G • Greg Moffet asked Dan where he took his garbage? • Dan Telleen said under Eyepieces. Jim Treleven said he didn't understand the differences between hotel rooms, time - shares, etc. and their impacts. Mr. Thornberg said he would explain the differences to him, outside of the PEC hearing. Gordon Pierce said that this property was ideal for redevelopment. He suggested rather than looking at numbers, to look at the building and how it would fit into the community. He said, in response to Rod's hotel room concern, that the existing hotel rooms were being replaced with quality, rather than numbers of rooms by using a square footage approach. John Schofield asked Gordon to address how the window views from the adjacent property owners would be affected. Gene Uselton asked if the Buzz's Boots and Boards shop was included in the 5,000 sq. ft.? Gordon Pierce said that it was. Gene Uselton asked if all the sidewalks would be heated and if it would improve the access? Gordon Pierce said, yes and addressing Rod's concern, he said that it was true that we would not have the fresh faces each year, as hotel rooms would have. Galen Aasland said that the changes to the site were better now and he liked the arcade. His biggest concern was the height with a variance of 3'. Gordon Pierce said we could bring the building down to the required height, but he said that he would like it to be uniform with the surrounding areas. Galen Aasland said that from the parking structure,.the building blocks the view across the Town and therefore, he felt the height to be a negative. He felt the building was too big, as the applicant was asking for 153 %, rather than 118 %, of allowable GRFA. George Ruther explained that the applicant was asking for nearly double, requesting 191% of the allowable GRFA that was permitted by the underlying zoning. Galen Aasland thought that amount was too much. Gordon Pierce noted that what was approved 10 years ago was the mass of the building, rather than the square footage. He said it was more important to create a building that helped the whole entrance into Town. He said a smaller building wouldn't help the Town pay for all the extra things. Galen Aasland mentioned that the size of the building was driving other things (i.e., the impact on the neighbors and the view from the parking structure). Galen said he would like one loading space, not two. He was also concerned about the smell from the trash. Galen was comfortable with the commercial space. Galen didn't want to see the applicant taking any Town land for the taxable space in the porte co -chere area. But the applicant could work out an agreement for . • open space below the porte co -chere with the Town. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 7 Gordon Pierce said that towards the Covered Bridge, was a Town -owned area that they would like to trade and that the applicant would be talking to the Town Attorney regarding the trade. • Galen Aasland said the northeast corner was excellent for commercial space and parking down below was good for the Town. He then asked if the existing hotel units were 300 sq. ft.? Gordon Pierce said one of the smallest existing hotel rooms was 227 sq. ft. Galen Aasland asked what the new hotel room size would be? Gordon Pierce replied about 330 sq. ft. Galen Aasland said Johannes Faessler had said that 330 sq. ft. was way too small for a hotel room, so Galen suggested working with staff regarding the size. Galen also felt the improvements to Slifer Square were wonderful. Diane Golden asked why the applicant was reducing the commercial and increasing the club units, but not the hotel units? Gordon Pierce said they had to balance the loss of commercial and pick it up somewhere else. He said hotel rooms have no value. Diane Golden asked about any employee housing units with this application. Gordon Pierce said there was space on -site for a full time manager, or asst. manager's unit. Diane Golden asked Gordon to tweak in some more employee housing. is Henry Pratt complimented the applicant on the changes. He was concerned about the 191% allowable GRFA and he would like to see from staff how the GRFA stacked up against the Vail Athletic Club. He felt that losing three hotel rooms and picking up club units was going in the wrong direction. He asked how the lock -offs would be managed for use as hotel rooms? Gordon Pierce said the Sonnenalp would manage the lock -offs. Henry Pratt said he didn't want to see 5 parking spaces in front. He felt the drive going down, with the loading dock under cover was good. He stated that changing to one loading berth and moving the trash inside the garage should help the neighbor's concerns. He did not want the ramp to get in the way of the connection to the Covered Bridge. He felt the porte co -chere gave more space and would provide the connection to the Covered Bridge, which was a positive improvement to the Town. He asked if it would be more desirable to add a sidewalk on the north side, since the portals at the Transportation Center are on the north side on both ends and therefore, people would not have to criss -cross the street. He felt a need for additional employee units, since this project would have additional staff. He liked Sherry's plan for Slifer Square. He suggested grading the overlook area, so there would not be additional steps. Henry would like to see the streamwalk path on the north side of the stream, without the extra bridge. He felt the trash smell would not be a concern, since there was no restaurant. Greg Moffet had concerns and asked Tom, regarding a recommendation to Council to change the conditional uses in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Tom Moorhead said you still need conditional uses after the Council approves it. 9 Planning and Envirotnnental Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 Greg Moffet asked about the ratio of hotel units to club units. He said that Johannes Faessler is said 450 sq. ft. was the current deluxe hotel room size and these rooms were quite a bit smaller. Greg was concerned with the small size of the new hotel rooms. Greg wanted to quantify a benefit to the Town in the stated goals, with "real live beds." He stated to the applicant that employee housing would be looked at hard. He said he wanted to see more housing when the applicant went from 12,000 sq. ft. to 36,000 sq. ft., or tripled in size. He suggested being mindful of the Village Center folks and thought that they could solve the driveway interface. Greg felt that traffic snarls needed to be kept out of Slifer Square. Greg also, did not want any dedicated parking in the front. He said the "food service creep" was important to be aware of. Gordon Pierce asked the PEC what they thought about creating a "popcorn wagon" type food service in the Square area? Greg Moffet said the concern was the smell and garbage issue and how could we assure that 5- 10 years from now there would be no food service? Gordon Pierce suggested a deed restriction. Greg Moffet asked George Ruther about the development standards? George Ruther said he would like to dedicate the next meeting to those issues. Greg Moffet felt, as he looked at the bulk and mass from the model, that it didn't present a problem and he felt that that part of Town could handle that massive of a building. He did state that once again, when the mass was doubled, he wanted to see tangible benefits. He stated that employee units didn't have to be on -site, as long as they were in Town. • Jim Lamont said the most offensive part of a restaurant/bar was not only the smell, but the noise caused by clinking bottles. • Greg Moffet thought a food and beverage deed restriction was good. Mike Mollica suggested exploring the possibility of access totally underground between both the Village Center and the Austria Haus buildings, as grades could afford that. He said that trying to access this project alone, would be almost impossible. Gordon Pierce said he would discuss that possibility. Dan Telleen said, regarding .underground parking in conjunction with Village Center, it might be an option. Pam Hopkins asked about the quality of noise transmission in the lock -offs? She stated that noise control was important, so that guests would come back. Dirk Mason noted that Joe Macy, representing Vail Associates, Inc., or item #1, could not be present and advised the PEC that Joe suggested either proceeding with item #1 without him, or tabling the item. Greg Amsden came back at 5:15 pm. Henry Pratt made a motion to table item #1 until the next meeting. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 ks John Schofield seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7 -0. 4. A request for a major subdivision of Lot P -2, located on Lot P -2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: P -2 Association, represented by Art Abplanalp Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the request. Art Abplanalp asked what happened to the plats? Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. He then asked for comments from the Commission. There were no comments. Gene Uselton made a motion for approval. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7 -0. 5. A request to amend Sections 18.27.030, 18.29.030, and 18.30.030 of the Zoning Code to allow van storage /transportation related businesses in the Commercial Core 3, Arterial Business, and Heavy Service Zone Districts as a conditional use and add Sections 18.04.415 and 18.04.385 providing definitions for vehicle storage yard and transportation business. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 16,1996 6. A request to amend the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan and adopt the Gerald R. Ford Park Management Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer, George Ruther. TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 16,1996 7. A request for a conditional use permit utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for a Type II EHU, located at 186 Forest Road /Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Mike Flannery Planner: Dirk Mason TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13, 1997 Greg Amsden made a motion to table item #5 and item #6 until December 16, 1996 and item #7 until January 13, 1997. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 10 is • .r John Schofield seconded the motion. • It passed unanimously by a vote of 7 -0. • 111111111H 7. Information Update: There was no information update. 8. Approval of November 11, 1996 PEC minutes and November 25, 1996 PEC minutes. TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 16,1996 Greg Amsden made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7 -0. George Ruther advised the PEC that there would be a meeting next Monday, one week from today, December 16, 1996. The meeting adjourned at 5:20 pm. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 11