The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-0224 PEC ~ THIS 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 February 24,1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal 8uilding. In consideration of: A request for a site coverage variance to allow for the construction of a two-car garage, located at 4532 Streamside Circle/Lot 15, Bighorn Subdivision 4th Addition. Applicant: Edward Padilla, represented by Kathy Langenwalter Planner: Lauren Waterton A request for a site coverage variance and conditional use permit to allow for a Type II EHU, located at 1194 Cabin Circle/Lot 3, Block 2 Vail Valley 1 st Filing. Applicant: William and Shirley Mclntyre, represented by Ned Gwathmey Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a site coverage variance and conditional use permit to allow for a Type II EHU, located at 186 Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applieant: Mike Flannery, represented by Guy Dreier Pianner: George Ruther ~ A request to amend a platted building envelope amendment to allow for a 489 sq. ft. increase in the building envelope size, located at Envelope B, Parcel 4, Lions Ridge Filing #2. Applicant: David & Jody Leach, represented by Bob Mach I Planner: Tammie Williamson A request to develop a preferred alternative for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) for single- famiiy, duplex and primary/secondary. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russ Forrest A request for a worksession to discuss the development standards for the proposed Alpine Gardens Education Center, to be located generally west of the Ford Park Athletic Fie(ds, on a part of Tract A, Block 2, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Betty Ford Alpine Gardens Planner: George Ruther A request for variance(s) from Section 18.58.320, Satellite Dish Antennas, D1,3,4 and 6 to allow two satellite dishes to be installed at the northwest corner of the Vail Commons property and a variance from Section 18.54.050, Design Guidelines, C 7, to a(fow two rooftop antennas on the false stairwell tower, located at 2099 North Frontage Road WesUVail Commons. # Applicant: KTUN Radio • Planner: Tammie Williarnson ~ A request for a finai review of the establishment of Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vai! ViNage 1 st Filing. ~ Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther A request for variances frorn Sections 18.22.060 (Setbacks), 18.22.140 (Parking), 18.04.130 (Common Area) and 18.22.020 (Percentage of Accessory Uses) to aNow for an entry addition at the Swiss Chalet, located at 62 East Meadow Drive/Part of Lot K, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Henry Pratt Planner: Lauren Waterton 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 af Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation availabie upon request with 24 hour notification. Please ca11479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published February 7, 1997 in the Vail Trail. ~ i ~ s s ' _ • ngcnda last rcviscd 2/ I R/97 4 pm PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION i Monday, February 24, 1997 AGENDA Project Orientation / LUNCH - Community Development Department 11:30 am , MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 12:30 pm 1. Padilla - 4532 Streamside Circle 2. Mclntyre - 1194 Cabin Circle 3. Alpine Gardens - west of the Ford Park athletic field 4. Flannery - 186 Forest Road 5. Leach - Envelope B, Parcel 4, Lions Ridge Filing #2 Driver: George • ~ B ~bs•10~t~w~::: A' NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a site coverage variance and conditional use permit to allow for a Type II EHU, located at 1194 Cabin Circle/Lot 3, Block 2 Vail Valley 1st Filing. Applicant: William and Shirley Mclntyre, represented by Ned Gwathmey Planner: Dominic Mauriello 2. A request for a site coverage variance and conditional use permit to allow for a Type II EHU, located at 186 Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Mike Flannery, represented by Guy Dreier Planner: George Ruther 3. A request for a site coverage variance to allow for the construction of a two-car garage, located at 4532 Streamside Circle/Lot 15, Bighorn Subdivision 4th Addition. Applicant: Edward Padilla, represented by Kathy Langenwalter Planner: Lauren Waterton • ~ r:.- ` Agcnda last rcviscd 2/1 K/97 4 pm ~ 4. A request for variance(s) from Section 18.58.320, Satellite Dish Antennas, D1,3,4 and 6 to allow two satellite dishes to be installed at the northwest corner of the Vail Commons property and a variance from Section 18.54.050, Design Guidelines, C 7, to allow two rooftop antennas on the false stairwell tower, located at 2099 North Frontage Road West/Vail Commons. Applicant: KTUN Radio Planner: Tammie Williamson . 5. A request to amend a platted building envelope amendment to allow for a 489 sq. ft. increase in the building envelope size, located at Envelope B, Parcel 4, Lions Ridge Filing #2. Applicant: David & Jody Leach, represented by Bob Mach Planner: Tammie Williamson 6. A request for a worksession to discuss the development standards for the proposed Alpine Gardens Education Center, to be located generally west of the Ford Park Athletic Fields, on a part of Tract A, Block 2, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Betty Ford Alpine Gardens Planner: George Ruther 7. A request for variances from Sections 1822.060 (Setbacks), 18.22.140 (Parking), • 18.04.130 (Common Area) and 18.22.020 (Percentage of Accessory Uses) to allow for an entry addition at the Swiss Chalet, located at 62 East Meadow Drive/Part of Lot K, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Henry Pratt Planner: Lauren Waterton 8. A request for a final review of the establishment of Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Sannenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther 9. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a Fractional Fee Club to be located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther 10. 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. Planner: George Ruther • TABLED UNTIL MARCH 10,1997 2 ..r . ~ Agenda last revised 2/ I R/97 4 pm 11. A request to develop a preferred aiternative for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) for single-family, duplex and primary/secondary. Applicant: Town of Vail . Planner: Russ Forrest TABLED UNTIL MARCH 10, 1997 lllllUUU / 12. Information Update: • Update on the Seibert Circle art project - Todd Oppenheimer 13. Approval of February 10, 1997 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 February 21, 1997 in the Vail Trail. ~ 3 . ~ Agenda last revised 2/25/97 10 am • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, February 24, 1997 I FINAL AGENDA Project Orientation / LUNCH - Communi Development Denartment 11:30 am ? PEC MEMBERS - Please bring Vail Viliage Urban Design Guide Plan MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 12:30 pm 1. Padilia - 4532 Streamside Circle 2. Mcintyre - 1194 Cabin Circle 3. Alpine Gardens - west of the Ford Park athletic field 4. Leach - Envelope B, Parcel 4, Lions Ridge Filing #2 Driver: George , . j „ M + . • i NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a site coverage variance and conditional use permit to allow for a Type II EHU, located at 1194 Cabin Circle/Lot 3, Block 2 Vail Valley 1 st Filing. Applicant: William and Shirley Mclntyre, represented by Ned Gwathmey Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UNTiL MARCH 10, 1997 2. A request for a site coverage variance and conditional use permit to allow for a Type 11 EHU, located at 186 Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Mike Flannery, represented by Guy Dreier Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UNTIL MARCH 10,1997 ~ 1 Agenda last revised 2/25/9710 am 3. A request for a site coverage variance to allow for the construction of a two-car garage, • located at 4532 Streamside Circle/Lot 15, Bighorn Subdivision 4th Addition. Applicant: Edward Padilla, r.epresented by Kathy Langenwalter Planner: Lauren Waterton MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Greg Arnsden VOTE: 6-1 (Schofield voted against denial) ~ DENIED 4. A request for variance(s) from Section 18.58.320, Satellite Dish Antennas, D1,3,4 and 6 to allow iwo satellite dishes to be installed at the northwest corner of the Vaii Commons property and a variance from Section 18.54.050, Design Guidelines, C 7, to allow two rooftop antennas on the false stairwell tower, located at 2099 North Frontage Road WestNail Commons. Applicant: KTUN Radio Planner: Tammie Williamson MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED VARIANCES 1, 3, &4 with 3 conditions - 1. That the landscape screening proposed by the applicant be maintained in a healthy state, so as to effectively provide a sufficient buffer to the satellite dishes at all times. r ~ 2. That the satellite dishes be of a color that sufficiently blends into the surroundings, subject to final review and approval by the Design Review Board. 3. That the DRB review the revised landscaping and fencing plan. MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 7-0 TABLED VARIANCES 2& 5- until such time that the applicant has had a chance to revisit the placement of this equipment. 5. A request to amend a platted building envelope amendment to allow for a 489 sq. ft. increase in the building envelope size, located at Envelope B, Parcel 4, Lions Ridge Filing #2. Applicant: David & Jody Leach, represented by Bob Mach Planner: Tammie Williamson MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS - 1. That the applicant demonstrate that the proper access easement, to continue the private drive to access envelope B, has been secured. 2. That the common parcel acreage be amended to reflect the acreage increase of ~ envelope B. 2 b2 Agenda last revised 2/25/97 10 am I• 6. A request for a worksession to discuss the development standards for the proposed Alpine Gardens Education Center, to be located generally west of the Ford Park Athletic Fields, on a part of Tract A, Block 2, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Betty Ford Alpine Gardens Planner: George Ruther WORKSESSiON NO VOTE 7. A request for variances from Sections 18.22.060 (Setbacks), 18.22.140 (Parking), 18.04.130 (Common Area) and 18.22.020 (Percentage of Accessory Uses) to allow for an entry addition at the Swiss Chalet, located at 62 East Meadow Drive/Part of Lot K, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Henry Pratt Planner: Lauren Waterton MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED WITH 6 CONDITIONS - 1. That the proposed handicapped parking space meet the minimum size requirements as specified in the Zoning Code. 2. That the finro new parking spaces on the south end of the parking area be staked • out and reviewed by staff. This must be done after the snow has melted to . determine if there is additional site disturbance, and whether or not mitigation will be required. 3. That the final details on architecture, site walls, landscaping, and the paving materials be submitted to staff prior to review by the Design Review Board. 4. That parking spaces 12 & 13 be considered new spaces, subject to Town Council approval, pursuant to Section 18.52.060 (Parking Off-Site and Joint Facilities). Should this property ever sell these spaces, the Town will be compensated for by the applicant paying into the parking fund. 5. That all the parking is to be considered one parking lot, and therefore, two compact spaces will be permitted (spaces #14 and #15). 6. That adjacent to parking spaces 2& 17, additional landscaping be added and reviewed and approved by the DRB. 8. A request for a final review of the establishment of Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 6-0-1 (Pratt ~ abstained) RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WITH 8 CONDITIONS - 3 ~ Agenda last revised 2/25/97 10 am 1. That the applicant meet with the Town staff, prior to appearing before Town • Council for the first reading of an ordinance establishing Special Development District #35, to formulate a construction phasing plan and to determine financial responsibilities for the o.ff-site improvements to Slifer Square, East Meadow Drive and the revegetation of the Town-owned stream tract, south of the Austria Haus. Staff will then make a recommendation to Council regarding the construction phasing and financial responsibilities of the off-site improvements. 2. That the applicant prepare a deed restriction or covenant, subject to the Town • Attorney's review and approval, whereby restricting the current and future owner(s) ability to locate a restaurant, or similar food service operation on the Austria Haus property. Said deed restriction or covenant shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to the applicant submitting for I a building permit. 3. That the applicant submit the following plans to the Department of Community Development, for review and approval, as a part of the building permit application for the Austria Haus: a. A Tree Preservation Plan; b. An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan; c. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan; d. A Stormwater Management Plan; e. A Site Dewatering Plan; and f. A Traffic Control Plan. r • 4. That the applicant provide deed-restricted housing, which complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 18.57), for a minimum of 11 employees, and that said deed-restricted housing be made available for occupancy, and the deed restrictions recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Austria Haus. 5. That the applicant pay into the Town of Vail Parking Fund for the required number of pay-in-lieu parking spaces, as determined at the time of building permit, prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Austria Haus. The applicant shall be required to purchase the pay-in-lieu spaces at the rate in effect I at the time of building permit application. 6. That the applicant either remove that portion of building floor area (enclosed areas) currently proposed on Town of Vail property (northwest portion of building/porte-cochere), or appear before the Town Council with a request to subdivide and trade land with the Town. Should the Council agree to a trade of land, all costs incurred to accomplish the land trade shall be paid by the applicant. At this time, the applicant is anticipating a minor subdivision to amend the location of the north property line. The applicant is proposing to trade land with ~ the Town in order to gain an additional one - two feet of property along the northerly property line. In exchange for this land, the applicant is proposing to trade a triangular piece of property, adjacent to Slifer Square, to the Town. • I . 4 r Agenda last revised 2/25/97 10 am • 7. That the applicant revise the building floor plans to provide at least 10,100 square feet of accommodation unit square footage, to conform with the equivalency requirement for fractional fee club units, prior to appearing before the Vail Town Council for the first reading of the ordinance establishing Special Development District #35. According to as-builts prepared by the applicant, 10,100 square feet of accommodation unit square footage exists in the Austria Haus. Calculations of the proposed accommodation unit square footage indicates that the applicant , , needs to provide an additional 181 square feet of accommodation unit square . footage. In order to meet this requirement, staff would recommend that the applicant convert the lock-off for Unit # 10 to an accommodation unit. This would increase the total number of accommodation units to 26 and increase the equivalency square footage. 8. That the following design considerations be carefully reviewed by the Design Review Board (as previously discussed in Section IV of this memorandum): A) That the mullions on the windows and doors, as depicted on the building elevations, be a required element of the Austria Haus project. B) That the appficant further modify the south elevation of the structure, as this elevation continues to be too architecturally repetitive. C) That the applicant revisit the originally contemplated design which incorporates the loading and delivery facility in the underground parking structure. Staff • befieves that trying to accommodate loading and delivery in the porte-cochere area will result in conflicts between pedestrians, vehicles accessing the parking structure, and delivery trucks. Staff understands the original design option may not be the desire of the owners of the Village Center Condominiums, yet we believe the impact can be mitigated with appropriate screening. D) That the improvements recommended for East Meadow Drive, as depicted in the approved Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, be implemented as a part of the Austria Haus project. This ineludes a reduction in street width from 30 feet to 26 feet (14 foot bus lane and 12 foot attached, paver pedestrian walk). , , • , , howevef, F) That the applicant increase the roof overhangs on the building. Currently, the overhangs vary from two feet to three feet. Staff would recommend that all the roof overhangs be a minimum of three feet. G} That a minimum of 251ineal feet of additional glass area (55%) be added to the ground floor (north and east elevations) of the structure. This would make the Austria Haus generally consistent with the transparency of other buildings in the Village. • , 5 Agenda last revised 2/25/97 ] 0 am H) That the applicant review and modify the balcony configuration on the building, • in order to eliminate the repetitive nature of the existing design, particularly on the south elevation. The majority of the balconies on the Austria Haus are located on the south side of the building, although several trench balconies have been incorporated into the design of the north side of the building on the upper floors. I) That the appiicant prepare a comprehensive sign program for the Austria Haus. , , The comprehensive sign program will be reviewed by the DRB. - 9. A'request for a conditional use permit to allow a Fractional Fee C(ub to be located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther ~ MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6-0-1(Pratt abstained) APPROVED 10. 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. Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 7-0 ; TABLED UNTIL MARCH 10,1997 • 11. A request to develop a preferred alternaiive for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) for single-family, duplex and primary/secondary. ' Applicant: Town of Vail , Planner: Russ Forrest MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UNTIL MARCH 10,1997 12. Information Update: 13. Approval of February 10, 1997 minutes. MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UNTIL MARCH 10,1997 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 I , 6 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 24, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance and conditional use permit to allow , for a Type II EHU, located at 1194 Cabin Circle/Lot 3, Block 2 Vail Valley 1 st Filing. Applicant: William and Shirley Mclntyre Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REGIUEST The applicant is requesting a site coverage variance of 841 sq. ft. (25%) and a conditional use permit for a Type II EHU, in order to construct a single-family house on the subject property. The site is vacant and is zoned Two-Family Residential which has a minimum lot size requirement of 15,000 sq. ft. and a maximum site coverage limitation of 20%. This site area is 16,461 sq. ft., which meets the minimum size requirement of this zone district. , The applicant is proposing a new single-family house with a Type II EHU. The house will contain I ~ 4,744 sq. ft. of GRFA (4,746 sq. ft. allowed) and the applicant is requesting 500 sq. ft. of additional GRFA for the EHU (up to 500 sq. ft. allowed by Section 18.57.050 (B), 5 of the Zoning Code). The garage will contain 3 parking spaces, one of which is required for the EHU. The proposed structure is up to 32' in height. ' The applicanYs justification for the site coverage variance is that the applicant wishes to be a good neighbor and build a low and flat structure to help preserve views in the neighborhood. They believe the proposed massing is consistent with the neighborhood. They also state that the lot is smaller than others in the neighborhood. They state that the variance wiii allow them to enclose the parking required for the EHU (see applicant's statement attached). A Type II EHU constructed as part of a new home reauires one enclosed parking space, and therefore is not justification for the variance requested. Staff believes that this request is similar to that of the recently reviewed Campisi request on Sandy Lane which was denied by the PEC in September of 1996. There are no physical hardships to construction on this lot, just a desire to build a certain design. The ability to redesign a structure that meets the site coverage requirements and preserves views to the lot to the west exists on this property. A review of the neighborhood reveals that most other lots conform to the site coverage requirements. Below is an analysis of lot sizes and site coverages for other lots in the neighborhood (see map attached): • 1 * i Lot L ize Site Coveraae • 1184 Cabin Circle 14,685 sq. ft. 14.7% 1193 Cabin Circle 18,378 sq. ft. 19.3% 1183 Cabin Circle 31,191 sq. ft. 11.7% 1163 Cabin Circle 13,066 sq. ft. 24%.* , 1153 Cabin Circle 18,097 sq. ft. 20% 1157 Hornsilver Circle 16,048 sq. ft. 16% 1187 Hornsilver Circle 12,824 sq. ft. 13% 1195 Hornsilver Circle 23.479 sa. ft. 15.7% Average 18,471 sq. ft. 16.8% *constructed when regulation allowed 25% site coverage II. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Two-Family Residential Lot Size: 16,461 sq. ft. • Standard Allowed Proposed Remaininn Site Coverage: 3,292 sq. ft. (20%) 4,133 sq. ft. (25%) - 841 sq. ft. (5%) Landscape area: 9,876.6 sq. ft. (60% min.) 10,446 (63%) 569 sq. ft. (3%) GRFA: 4,746 sq. ft. 4,744 sq. ft. 2 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 64' Sides: 15' 15' Rear: 15' 15' EHU GRFA: 500 sq, ft. w/cond. use 500 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. Parking: 4 required 6+ (3 enclosed, 1 required for EHU) 111. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested site coverage variance and conditional use permit for a Type II EHU. The recommendation for denial is based on the following factors: • f:\everyone\pecUnemosUncintyre.224 2 • A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The applicant contends that the proposed massing is more in concert with the other structures in the neighborhood. However, a review of the neighboring lots shows just the opposite. The neighboring lots, for the most part, are constructed within the alfowabfe site coverage and therefore , are not spread out over the lots. Most of the lots in this area contain 2 and 3 story structures. Only a portion of this proposed house is 12' below the allowable building height. The majority of the structure is 32' in height. There has been no indication of any physical hardship or extraordinary circumstances on this lot which would justify approving the requested variance. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes that the granting of this variance would be a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other lot owners in the area or in this zone district. Other sites in the area were constructed within the site coverage • requirements. The construction of an EHU is not justification for a variance as it is a"bonus" to a land owner who would not otherwise enjoy a second or third unit on the property. The applicant is not required to construct an EHU. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The applicant contends that the variance will allow the protection of views to one lot in the neighborhood. However, while this one lot might enjoy better views, other sites will experience a"walled" effect as development is spread across the lot. The Town of Vail does not specifically protect or regulate "private" view corridors. Staff believes that the requested variance may have a negative effect on the light and air of neighboring properties. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followinq findinqs before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public • health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. f:\everyone\peclmemosMcinlyre.224 3 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: • a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of ihis title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. • . c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the • Town. When the Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Affordable Housing study on November 20, 1990, it recognized the need to increase the supply of housing. The Town encourages EHUs as a means of providing quality living conditions and expanding the supply of employee housing for both year-round and seasonal local residents. The proposed unit will have a positive impact on the Town's housing needs by potentially providing housing for locals. In addition to the conditional use permit request, the applicant has applied for a site coverage variance. Staff is recommending denial of the applicanYs site coverage variance request, since we believe no special or extraordinary circumstance or physical hardship exists on the property. Staff believes the granting of the variance would result in a grant of special privilege. The applicant is suggesting there is a need for a site coverage variance in order to construct a new residence on the property. Staff does not believe that a Type II Employee Housing Unit should be permitted on the site if a site coverage variance is necessary. We are especially concerned that the applicant is suggesting the need for a variance, and is also requesting the use of 500 square feet of additional GRFA in order to construct the employee unit. • f:\everyone\pec\memos\mcintyre224 4 • 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facifities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that there wi11 be minimal impacts, if any, from the proposed Type II EHU on light, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools or parks. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive , and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. It is likely that there would be one or two additional vehicles driving to the residence, and a slightly larger parking area. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact on the above-referenced criteria. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scafe and bulk of the proposed use in refation to surrounding uses. The scale and bulk of the proposed structure is somewhat greater than that of other structures in existence in the surrounding neighborhood. This ' is due to the fact that the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a ' • new single family home and a Type II Employee Housing Unit that exceeds the maximum site coverage allowance. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the applicant's site coverage variance request and conditional use permit for a Type II, EHU subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the {imitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the Two- Family Residential zone. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Two-Family Residential district. • i:\everyone\pec\rnemosUncintyre.224 5 A,~ A.\ I'~ ~ pWamrroy ~ VAIL VILLAGE STH FILING / / • ~ / Q I~I ~ j~ / Q I IX/ j ' ` j`~ ~ / ~ 1 iu 0 ~ 'X. u v ~ i I Z ?o w I ~ ~ ' ; \ ` r--~ • ; . 7 ~ ~ ~ v v I ~ , ~~q3 . j,` ~ ~ ; ' ~ 1 ~bP2C' ~ - ~ W ~ j ~ ~y < i , ~ ~ ~ 6 tj~ o > ~ ^ li..'1 GA31N GQ ~ L ; ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ n~ ' ~ i U } ~ ~ 't ~ 3 , J ~ .X~ ' ~ tL. I ' ~ ~ \ I ~ i ~ I1B4 14 ~90 ~ ~ ~ _ , ni Z ~ ~3 ----~'------~1--------~-- ~ /'i cj i HU¢irS1LVcR GR ~ 14 TRAGT E ~ L-- ! ` ~ I \ ` , ~ ~`a I =.~.E.=ti ~ ~ a - ,2 r ~ , ~ _ - - ---s--_.__ " , -7 _ ~ ~ . i ~ ~ ~ ^ l~. ~ ` ~ ,I ` I i L~-J ,~`u , ~ YIGINfTY MAP ~ • ~ ~ / ~ ,'~J ~ i ~ / ' ~ i ~ a ~ n i ? ~ . . • • • ' • ~ o a W LJt 4 I Q/ n~•00'!" OL ~ ? "°'~w."~ ~ , I.~ ~ ~ rt asto u ~i , LG•s1~0 ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ( H ~•ss,r.v - .r~c \ o~. - " ~ ~l , y L1J \ ~ s,y~~.~'~.~ - ~ ~ p~g wr.ssr.w~n~r...w~?ruw } ,l v I LD ~1 i 1,1 = tll LOT3 / t ~ ` ~ Z t TRAGT A ~J ~ s J It r ~ 1 f VA{L VfLLaGE E1bNTH F1LAN6 O 4 J.\~~.j~/\ y~ ` " " ~ / ~s.fD-~~~s+rY~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ 1 ! 1~~y•~~ ~ ~ Ft- Lar 2 ~ ~ - - ~ - -j~~--r - a-- ~ -1 ' a , ~ ~ ~ ry •.,..~,.-w^o-; ' ' ' ~ _ ` , , ".~~1J , • e-1~2o0 „ ° • ~...,,,,,5 ~~r• rru+cr e ''P ioT VAIL VILLA6E SE~EMN FILIrY y Vs \ j , stre Pv+N C ~°Y~ 7N. • _ 4 ~ m,,, Q Q W~o~ l^, zzZi ' ~ I LU 0 + III ~ 4 0 ;Qv~i , ry w, L,---~,------v--L, , W J~ > I Y i~ 0 0 ~g. sow nw~ sllea. r a. w Icw.. ~ws~q pt..~ , F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LOWER LEVEL PLOO!2 PI.AN ~ ~ ~ ~J E~.~...~. .~.r .w.....,..~.....,. ~ ~ j A2.i i ~ ~ ~ . O~ Q f f , v ' O r • t ~ ~ ~ ~~md~~ 1 Q v v'~ i--~ ! ~J v~ Z z ,m„e.....~, a ~ L_--~----' ~ , ~ i t1F'PER f.E ry~y ~ • tr~ ~ ~ ~ 3~ = r ~:,„;....q ~ • 'x.~ x . s.w A22 ~ i ~ ! . P.0 w I D ~ } Q 4 ~ ` w 0 __r---------~ ' i W- 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o , ~r z i ~ - , ~ ~J cQ ~ , . i ~ Q v v ~as • ~5s ~ i ~ ~ + LU W ~ O ~ ~ ~4> o i ~ O O ~ Zmz f- r i ~ i i i i l ~ ' ~ rco'~ rmr,w er'eo~ i r.er m pcar+ FnaxES - - - t~ mcw w.n 1 ~T Wti~~a~ . . ~.+c ra~e.. _ • A2.4 • ~ .:r._~. ~ ! i 0 t~ ~v Z ri z 1 ~ m o~i lw~= ~ ~ o>~ ~mz, , »...'.y~'i ~ _ _ ~ - ~ ~ t 1 ~ ~ , ~i ~ 1 ~1 ~ ~ 11111 _ - ~K..•~ ~ 1 ~ l 1 y - 1 0 UTO ~ - ~ 4 p,3 , . ~ Q r ~ u - ~ v10 Z?~ ~m~ Qvo ~ - LL] 0 Q/ ~ Q ~ LU ~ ---------i 4- m VL ~ Z 0 I i. ~ r i - m Z ~ ~ ~ O 0 ! ~ ~ ~ TLEASr ELEVATION nes~ cer.. .,a-.+ ier.ws j I S9t.1L"R!t ~r..~ w.~e.. _ . ~ •J ~32' I • • ~ ; ti . 0 ~ Q a ~ ~ 0~ z z Z~ Q v v ~ ~ ~S) ~n ui ~ , LU kDl fr, , W I L--- III ' • , (V , i in ~ i i i (Y v Q ~ - - u- ' irr-- --T-------------- - - - - - - m ~ iFil Al~llll, ~ ~ - - --a E-- T1 NORTH ELEVATION re~y~ rq_ can nn~,~ ~ R..e.a i ~ rwt w.-e.. I , R3.3 i i j oMO~,rr Pratt rAM ~ o . o Q ~ . o , ~ Z:Z~z , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~j tp ~ Q~~ I ~w$--------- t ~ ; a 10 . ~ , C.~ u ~ N u =°---9----------- W ~O> ~ fNE57 fLEYATtON . . ~ ' - ~ i 2 WEST PLEVATION w..R..M.. ~ TWTSY 'av.t w+ro.• A3.4 ~ • ' • . • a - I . a 000 _ , I ~ Fax: _ 0 Proposed Residence of Bill and Shirley Mclntyre 1194 Cabin Circle Request for Site Coverage Variance Request for Type II Employee Housing Unit A written Statement of the precise nature of the variance requested and the specific regulation involved Request for Site Coverage Variance Specific Regulation Involved:18.13.090 Site Coverage. Not more than twenty percent of the total site area shall be covered by buildings. We request 26% and 0 Request for Type II Employee Housing Unit pursuant to 18.57.050 Written Statement Addressing the Following: , 1. The relationship of the proposed variance to other existina or potential uses and structures in the vicinitv. Site Coverage Variance. This site and the others in the immediate area are flat; The neighbor hood is essentially horizontal and the structures in the area are one and two story. The owners want to be good neighbors maintaining the same mass and building proportions as the adjacent residences. In proposing a more horizontal approach, the neighbor view corridors especially to the East and the Gore Range are minimally effected. Employee Housing Unit. Other Properties in the area have Employee Housing Units. This property is zoned two family and the owners plan to build a single family residence and a small employee unit. Such a unit seems desirable from the standpoint of providing housing for some full time residents and having people living in the area. 1 2. The deqree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified requlation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformitY of treatment amonq sites in the vicinitv or to attain the objectives of this title without qrant of special privilege. • Site Coverage Variance. The lot is smaller than others in the neighborhood and it has no street exposure. It is a flag lot and is clearly in the view of lots in the neighborhood. The owners want to keep the mass down, the ordinance would allow for an additiona( 12 feet of . , height over what is proposed for the west end of the lot. This would adversely impact the • neighbor particularly to the west. Granting the site coverage variance would allow bulk and mass to be horizontal. Neighboring houses predate zoning and although we have not checked their site coverage, an exam of the aerial photographs shows neighbor massing similar to what could be done by granting the variance to the Mclntyre's. Employee Housing Unit. Granting the variance for site coverage would allow for the Employee Unit Parking to be enclosed, the unit to have its own access and for the full GRFA for the . residence be utilized. 3. The effect of the variance on light and air, distribution of population transportation traffic facilities and public safety. The effect of the variance would have very little effect on the above. The density proposed is less than allowed. The proposal is for a single family residence with a small employee unit. Moving the residence to the East edge of the property and building horizontally wi11 minimize the effect on light and air and maintain views. 4. How your request complies with Vail's Comprehensive Plan. The lot is one of the few unbuilt properties in the town and the proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive plan. The Proposed Employee Housing Unit is a direct response to years of discussion on the subject. Employee Housing Units are desirable as is enclosed parking for EHUs. • • r .:,i..- a , • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 24, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance and a conditional use permit to , allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 186 Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Michael Flannery, represented by Guy Dreier Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The applicant, Michael Flannery, represented by Guy Dreier, is requesting a variance from Section 18.69.050 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code and a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a single family residence with a Type II employee housing unit, at 186 Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Section 18.69.050 of the Municipal Code requires that a lot zoned Primary/Secondary, with an average slope greater than 30%, shall have a ' • maximum allowable site coverage of 15%. Additionally, Section 18.57.050 of the Municipal Code permits the construction of a Type II employee housing unit on Primary/Secondary zoned lot if the lot is greater than 15,000 square feet in size. The applicant is proposing a new single-family house with a Type II, EHU. The house will contain 4,750 sq. ft. of GRFA and the applicant is requesting 486 square feet of additional GRFA ' for the EHU (up to 500 sq. ft. aHowed by Section 18.57.050 (B), 5 of the Code). The proposed attached garage is 1,250 square feet in size and contains 3 parking spaces. One of the three garage spaces is required for the employee housing unit and shaN be restricted for the use of the tenant of the unit. The applicanYs representative has expressed that the justification for the site coverage variance is that: "due to the nature of the site and size of the lot, the proposed increase in lot coverage is nearly negligible, and that no other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity . will be affected." A copy of a letter submitted to the Town of Vail dated January 27, 1997, indicating the applicant's comments regarding the variance request, has been attached for reference. i 1 II. BACKGROUND ~ A. Site Coverage Variance Request Site coverage requirements for lots in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District are regulated by Section 18.13.090 (SITE COVERAGE), and as may be further regulated by Section 18.69.050 (SPECIAL REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENTS ON LOTS WHERE THE AVERAGE SLOPE OF THE SITE BENEATH THE EXISTING OR PROPOSED STRUCTURE AND PARKING AREA IS IN EXCESS OF THIRTY PERCENT) of the Municipal Code. ' According to Section 18.13.090, of the Municipal Code, "Site coverage sha11 not exceed twenty percent of the total site area." Additionally, Section 18.69.050 indicates that if the average slope is in excess of thirty percent, "Not more than fifteen percent (15%) of the site area may be covered by buildings; and not more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area may be covered by driveways and surface parking areas." The reduction in allowable site coverage on lots with an average slope in excess of thirty percent from 20% to 15% is intended to reduce the overall site disturbance and limit the destruction of natural features such as mature stands of trees and other types of vegetation. When developed is proposed on steeply sloping lots, the Municipal Code • provides relief from the front setback standards, encouraging development closer to the street. The applicanYs proposal respects the 20' front setback. A review of seven other lots in the vicinity of the applicant's lot, reveals that all seven lots in the neighborhood conform to the site coverage requirements prescribed for the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. Below is an analysis of lot sizes and site coverages for other lots in the immediate neighborhood: Address/Lot Lo Size Site Coveraae % 1. 126 Forest Road / Lot 5 15,730 sq. ft. 14.9% 2. 146 Forest Road / Lot 6 15,730 sq. ft. 14.7% 3. 166 Forest Road / Lot 8 14,331 sq. ft. 15% 4. 226 Forest Road / Lot 11 22,263 sq. ft. 13.8% 5. 165 Forest Road / Lot 26 20,255 sq. ft. site coverage variance withdrawn 6. 147 Rockledge Road / Lot 9A 23,884 sq. ft. 16% * 7. 197 Rockledge Road / Lot 10 26,190 sq. ft. 13.6% 2 • 1 • • " Average siope less than 30% A vicinity map illustrating the location of the seven lots used in the analysis of lot sizes ' and site coverages has been attached for reference. B. Conditional Use Permit Request Pursuant to Section 18.57.050 of the Municipal Code, Primary/Secondary zoned lots which meet the minimum lot size requirements, shall be allowed to construct a Type II Employee Housing Unit, subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Chapter 18.60. The employee unit shall be located within, or attached to, a single-family dwefling or be (ocated within, or attached to, a two-family dwelling unit. In terms of density, it shall not be calculated for purposes of determining dwelling units per acre. It shall have a GRFA of not less than 300 square feet nor more than 900 square. An applicant, however, shall be permitted to apply to the Community Development Department for additional GRFA (250's) not to exceed 500 square to be used in the construction of the employee housing unit. Additionally, a Type II Employee Housing Unit shall not have more than two bedrooms and be occupied by more than two adults and one child 16 years of age or older, or two children less than 16 years of age. Each Type II Employee housing Unit must provide one parking space per constructed bedroom or a minirnum of two spaces for a unit greater than 600 square feet in size, regardless of bedroom number. 111. ZONING ANALYSIS • Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Lot Size: 18,165 sq, ft. /0.417 acres Standard Allowed Proposed Site Coverage': 2,725 sq. ft. (15%) 3,471 sq. ft. (19.1%) GRFA": 5,403 sq. ft. 5,236 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 24' Sides: 15715' 16.5755' Rear: 15' 31' Parking: 4 required 4(1 required enclosed space for the EHU) ' The site coverage percentage is reduced from 20% to 15% for lots with an average slope of 30% or greater. " The GRFA figure includes two, 425 square foot credits and 486 sq. ft. of the two, 250's to be used in the consiruction of an employee housing unit. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR THE SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested site coverage ~ 3 . ? variance. The recommendation for denial is based on the foNawing factors: ~ A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The retationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. There has been no indication of any physical hardship or extraordinary circumstance on this particular lot which woutd justify approving the . requested site coverage variance. Staff believes the grant of this variance ' . would be a grant of special privilege. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of speciaf privifege. Staff does not believe that it is necessary to receive relief from the site coverage regulation to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment of the applicant's lot and the other lots in the vicinity, nor to attain the objectives of the Zoning Code. Instead, staff believes that the granting of the requested variance would be a grant of special privilege as it would result in treatment not enjoyed by other property owners in the area, and in the Primary/Secondary Zone District in general. The 15% site coverage regulation has been imposed/required on other lots in the vicinity without resulting in adverse impacts on the property owners. . 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe any of the above-described criteria is applicable to this request. B. The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the followin fiq ndings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary 01 4 ~ . ~ • physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends deniat of the conditional use permit based upon the failowing factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. , When the Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Affordable Housing ! . study on November 20, 1990, it recognized the need to increase the supply of housing. The Town encourages EHUs as a means of providing quality living conditions and expanding the supply of employee housing for both year-round and seasonal local residents. The proposed EHU will ! have a positive impact on the Town's housing needs by potentially providing housing for up to finro adults and one children. In addition to the conditional use permit request, the applicant has applied for a site coverage variance. Staff is recommending denial of the applicanYs site coverage variance request, since we believe no special or extraordinary circumstance or physical hardship exists on the property. In fact, staff believes the granting of the variance would result in a grant of special privilege. The applicant is suggesting there is a need for a site coverage variance in order to construct a new residence on the property. Staff does not believe that a Type !I Employee Housing Unit should be permitted on the site if a site coverage variance is necessary. We are especially concerned that the applicant is suggesting the need for a variance, and is also requesting the use of 486 square feet of additional GRFA in order to construct the employee unit. The Type II Employee Housing Unit was intended as additional development on lots capable of accommodating the iracreased development without the need for variances or special requests. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, • transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation 5 facilities, and other public facilities needs. • Staff beiieves that there wi{i be fittle impact from the proposed Type 11 EHU on light, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools or parks. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic ftow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. . It is likely that there would be one or two additional vehicles driving to the ~ residence, and a slightly larger parking area. Staff feels that this would be ~ an insignificant impact on the above-referenced criteria. , 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in ' relation to surrounding uses. The scale and bulk of the proposed structure is somewhat greater than ' that of other structures in existence in ihe surrounding neighborhood. This is due to the fact that the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a new single family home and a Type II Employee Housing Unit that exceeds the maximum site coverage aflowance. ~ 5. Employee Housing Units may be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified by Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code for • Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1992, Employee Housing and shail be subject to the following conditions: a. It shall be a conditional use in the Single-Family Residential, Two-Famiiy Residential and Primary/Secondary Residential zone districts. The subject property is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. b. It shall be permitted only on lots which comply with the minimum lot size requirements of the zone district in which the lot is located. The minimum lot size for a Type I{ EHU in the Two-Family Residential zone district is 15,000 square feet of buildable site area. The applicant's property has 18,165 square feet of buildable site area. Because the applicant's lot has an average slope in I excess of thirty percent, allowable site coverage is reduced from ~ 20% to 15%. Staff can not support the applicanYs requested site coverage variance. ' c. It shall be focated within, or attached to, a single-family dwelling or be located within, or attached to, a two-family dwelling pursuant to Section 18:54.050(1) - Design Guidelines • Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development. It may also be I located in, or attached to, an existmg garage provided the garage is not located within any setback, and further provided ~ 6 • that no existing parking required by the Town of Vail Municipal Code is reduced or eliminated. The proposed Type fl Employee Housing Unit would be lacated I within the building above the garage. d. It shall not be counted as a dwelling unit for the purposes of calculating density. However, it shall contain kitchen facilities and a bathroom, as defined in Chapter 18.04 - Definitions of the - Municipal Code. It shall be permitted to be a third dwelling unit " in addition to the two dwelling units which may already exist on the lot. Only one Type 11 EHU shall be allowed per lot. The proposed employee housing unit would be the second dwelling unit on the site. It would contain a full kitchen and full bathroom facilities. e. it shatl have a GRFA of not less than three hundred (300) square feet, nor more than nine hundred (900) square feet. An applicant, however, shall be permitted to apply to the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail for additional GRFA not to exceed five hundred (500) square feet to be used in the construction of the EHU. I • The applicant is proposing a 443 square foot employee housing ~ unit. The applicant is requesting the use of 443 square feet of the allowable 500 square to construct the employee unit. The remaining 57 square feet is NOT available for use in the primary I unit. I f. It shall have no more than two bedrooms. 'The proposed employee housing unit is a 443 square foot, one- bedroom unit, and therefore, complies with this criteria. g. No more than two (2) adults and one (1) child not older than sixteen (16) years of age shall reside in a one (1) bedroom Type II EHU. No more than two (2) adults and two (2) children not older than sixteen (16) years of age shall reside in a two (2) bedroom Type II EHU. Since this unit will function as a one-bedroom Type II Employee Housing Unit, the first part of the above-listed regulation will be complied with. h. Each Type 11 EHU shall be required to have no less than one (1) parking space for each bedroom located therein. However, if a one (1) bedroom Type II EHU exceeds six hundred (600) square • 7 feet, it shall have two (2) parking spaces. All parking spaces • required by this Code shall be located on the same lot or site as the EHU. If no dwelling exists upon the property which is proposed for a Type II EHU at the time a building permit is issued, or if an existing dwelling is to be demolished and replacedby a new dwelling, not less than one (1) of the parking spaces required by this paragraph shatl be enclosed. A 300 square feet GRFA credit shall be aliowed for the construction of one enclosed parking space for the Type 11 EHU. . The proposed employee unit would have one (1) enciosed parking space in the three-car garage. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of both the applicant's site coverage variance request and conditional use permit request for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit subject to the foliowing findings: 1. That the granting of the site coverage variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Prim ary/Second ary Residential Zone District. 2. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions ~ applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. 3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. 4. That the relationship and impacts of the proposed Type II Employee Housing Unit on the development objectives of the Town are negative and inconsistent with Town policy. . 8 ~.5~ p, At~vI • 300 LETREE t25 i` itV'•:~ aNSH~ OFF CE t 5 nd F ILtNG 'PO !CE & EAST L10tJSHEAD C( CLE iCE ARENA ~ .f0 0~'FiCES TRt~C F 321 2 C 75 450 7 4 ~ p (co„rnercial) TRACT A VAlL 6 LODGE AT L1 N HEAD LiBRAR E NAl"L 8A K s A~~ J 6 292 F 2 g~`DG. 452 - ` 28f VAIL VALLEY ipg SCOR l0 121 REETOPS H4Lt0AY iNN ME[}{CA CENTER D 1 13 ANDAR EAD 5 ~ 11 SKAAL S7A. HOUSE ALPHORN c 28 ER GORE 9 141 121 ' A ~ 272 WEST NEqppW pR. pLlDAY I $ HOUSE , i U1~PLATTED 8 252 232 AI V1L AG ~,2n 122 2 , g B; ~ ~ 4 212 182 162 $ Z 44 Z A1L 15 I~ , FIRE T B , MEADOti''l DEPT. ~ vaIL 42 381aA2 3b5 V~~, TRAGT B p` Vli.LA G 1 s3 FOREST R~~ ~ 4 3e 6 COR71N BANK NEAD ~ tLL G 330 41 40 ~ 37 36 , 22 I.OT 2 s ~7 401 ~ ~L G 363 1 275 ~2 193 153 123 333 255 7RbCT J ttDGE 3 2 343 CNAPEL 383 19 O 24 27 443 42t 3 ~Pl2~ g [Q t9 2J A 23 r~ 184 154 28~4 31 - 64 5 ~14F'¢ 8 4 354 344 324 ~4 25 26 ~ 32 463 7 21 22 22 195 165 30 6 394 2 20 245 115 95 3~ 34 434 2 ~ 18 285 ~ FORE T 45 _ 15' 3 i 49~ 4 375 $~'j 355 325 • 226 1 6 1$ 454 42 327 17B 212 6 11 ~ ~ 146 5126 3 2 l7 97 • ~ 307' 26 14C 227 9 A. _ g q 7 4 10 87 i3 i47 127 107 ~ 486 ~ 6 5 4 3 2 366 l38 16 } 2 D 217 197 167 • i~ ~ 446 `~2~` 416 248 78 O~ LC ~ ~ Attachment A - -r- INDEX AS- 1- SITE PLAN &FQOTPRINT PLAN AS-2 - ROOF PLAN A-1 - FLOOR PLANS A-2 - ELEVATIONS A3-1 - BUILDING SECTION & WALL SECTIONS • D-1 - DETIALS PERMITTED BUILDING AREA ACTUAL BUILDING AREA LOT AREA .417 ACRES 18,7165 S.F. GRFA PERMITTED: .25 OF 1500=3,750 .100F3165=317 EMPLOYEE HOUSING 486 Sq. Ft. TOTAL BASIC GRFA PERMITTED: 4,067 Sq. Ft. MAIN FLOOR AREA: 2,261 Sq. Ft. CREDITS: 2 UNITS AT 425 S.F. ea 850 Sq. Ft. SECOND FLOOR AREA: 1,425 Sq. Ft. *TYPE TWO EMPLOYEE HOUSING 500 Sq.Ft. THIRD FLOOR AREA: 1,064 Sq.Ft. TOTAL GRFA PERMITTED: 5,417 Sq. Ft. TOTAL: 5,236 Sq. Ft. GARAGE AREA PERMITTED: (2) UNITS AT 600 Sq.Ft. 1,200 Sq. Ft. PLUS (1) UNlT AT 300 Sq. Ft. 300 Sq. Ft. TOTAL GARAGE AREA 1,500 Sq. Ft. TOTAL GARAGE AREA 1,250 Sq. Ft. 74105 MOCKINGBIRD TRAIL DATE: INDIAN WELLS CA, 92210 REMSEO: Telephone 619_568_3670 PROJECT # AS-] 801-272-9065 DRAWN BY: • • s • ~ z I 0 ~ b I I N -----_.__,-__-Jc' ; f I s2~•e ~ ,,,s~° ~ t~~ ; ,=~~C~ NTS SAC% - %1~- 20A0 " I ~ ; ~ ' { ~ .a\ ,1- % 1\ 1 5'-0" S1DE S£T6ACK 15 ~yy~~+,`~~~\ ' 'o I ~ t 15•_~" Aoe Xt ~o u ~ A ~ TPRINT PL.aN I ~ 0() "oT I \ / ti ~tIOSPR~NT AR~ = I 2725 54- Ft FL ti&165 ° ~ 1 15" ,CtUAL FOQTPRINi SiZE ~ 3471 SG• / ~ 1 645 54 f~- OvER ~ i _ r ~ ,I ~ A~Z _ FIOfX1RpP p S A~S ' ~ , C R00F BELOW STO OPEN TO BELOW DN. OPEN OPEN ELEV. T V. FIRE CLOSET 8292 F.F. ELEV. I MASTER i I I i I BEDROOM STONE P ATI 0 % SATH H 0 " i ~f i • ~3'- 0" . SHELF ~ i GUEST 'B TH BEDROOM ~ ~ ~8282 OPEN TO F.F. ELEV. BELOW GUEST BEDROOM DN. UP BATH ELEv t4, EFFO [RH l, 46Ca . ' GUEST BEDROOM B T Q Q • i .i i i' i ,i i / i / / .i i , ~ . ~ , i i . r ~ i / / / / / / ~ / " i • ~ i i i i i. / i.i .i i r i i.~ i DfNiNG KfTCHEN ~ F.P. uP LoW E.H. UNIT CABINET (42") , / UP GREAT 8272 8 F.F. ELEV. ROOM DN UP ~ BATH BI-FOLD GLASS ~ ~x" DOORS OPEN BRIpGE • / / / / "X ` S ptw Z ~~'U`Zb~ S• BATH GL'EST 0 - ~ ! J ~ `,rJ I f/l ~ _ ~ • ~ , i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i i ~ i ~ i I 8257 F.F. ELEV. I GARAGE ELEV. THIS AREA IS ADDED TO THE , SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE FIRST FLOOR BASEMENT P LAN 1,200 S.F. SCALE I\ ~ ' r ~ ~ 02 ~2 ~ i i 100 r ~ I ~ ~ ~ , i ' ~ I ~ EXISTING SLOPE EAST ELEVATION ~ I ~ SCALE 1/8"=1'-0 . • ~ . . • ~ • • , ooo ~ . . . . . . ~ . ----1--~--~--1---- ~ ' \B ELEV. ?AL SYSTEAP' CWPER SMINGLES tN ANTiQUE BROMZE FlNISk, "KIVA DESIGN". 8274 F.F. E1EV. -HJ L4 I 7x6 T8G SIDINC ON DOORS ~E H~~p DR~`~`xA G''R'4`E 5LA13 E'„ SOUTH ELEVATtON ~ scA,,e ll (~n'a I ` 74105 MOCKWGBIRD TfiAIL ~ ~ ~ , . ~ • , NORTH ELEVATION , SCALE I . r • MEMORANDUM I TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Developrnent Department DATE: February 24, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for variances from Section 18.58.320, Satellite Dish Antennas, D1,3, 4, 6, to allow two satellite dishes to be installed at the northwest corner of the Vail ° Commons property and a variance from Section 18.54.050, Design Guidelines, C 7, to a11ow two rooftop antennas on the faise stairwell tower, located at 2099 N. Frontage Road WesbVail Commons. Applicant: KTUN Radio Planner: Tarnmie Williamson 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE VQRIANCE REGIUESTS The applicant, KTUN - Radio formerly K-Lite Radio, are moving their offices from the Vail Run Building to ihe Vail Commons site. They are requesting to locate two satellite dishes and three antennas on the Vail Commons site. The applicant is requesting to place two satellite dishes in ~ the northwestern portion of the Vail Commons development adjacent to Unit F6. The proposal is to depress the two satellite dishes approximately 30 inches into finished grade and the dishes will be placed approximately 20 feet apart. The southern-most dish (10 feet in diameter) is proposed to have a maximum height of 11 feet above grade. The northern-most dish (13 feet in diameter) is proposed to have a maximum height of 12 feet above grade. Both dishes are white and i composed of sofid fiberglass. The proposed landscape screening includes three Colorado ' Spruce (two north of the two dishes and one south of the dishes) and four Aspens south of the ! two dishes. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a fence composed of stucco masonry columns and six foot vertical boards, similar to the materials af the commercial buildings on-site. The northern-most satellite dish encroaches approximately five feet into the 20-foot setback required by the Commercial Core 3(CC3) Zone District. The remaining one satellite dish and two antennas are to be located on the false stairwell tower near the North Frontage Road. The applicant is proposing three alternatives for the location of this equipment on the false stairwell tower. Location A is on the west face of the tower below the eave, approximately 18 feet in height. Location B is on the west face of the tower above the eave, approximately 29 feet in height. Location C is on the north side of the tower above the eave, approximately 35 feet in height. According to the app4icant, the antennas must be placed at a height to transmit and receive signals without interference, to Dowd Junction. The attachments provide illustrations of the proposed locations. The appticant is requesting the following five variances from Sections 18.58.320 D 1, 3, 4, 6 and Section 18.54.050 C 7, of the code: 1. To a!!ow two dishes; ~ Section 18.58.320 D 1 1 c r~ i "No more than one sateilite dish antenna shall be allowed on any lot as delineated on the Official Town zoning map;" • 2. To allow antennas greater than fifteen feet in height to be placed on the false stairwell tower on near North Frontage Road; Section 18.58.320 D 3 , "The maximum height altowed for any satellite dish antenna, when ~ measured from the top of the satellite dish antenna down to existing or , finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall not exceed fifteen feet;" - I 3. To allow the dishes to be greater than nine feet in diameter; Section 18.58.320 D 4 "The maximum size of any satellite dish antenna installed for use by a single residence or business shall be limited to nine feet in diameter. 'Satellite dish antennas serving multi-family dwellings shall be limited to a maximum of twelve feet in diameter , 4. To allow the northern-most dish to encroach approximately five feet into the required 20-foot setback in the Commercial Core (CC3) Zone District; Section 18.58.320 D 6 "Satellite dish antennas shall comply with the existing setback requirements of the zone district in which the satellite dish antenna is j installed. Sateiiite dish antennas shall be prohibited in easements and public rights-of-way. No portion oi a satellite dish antenna or its supporting structure shall encroach into the vertical plane as drawn from an existing easement or setback line." 5. To allow two rooftop antennas to be placed on the false stairwell tower near North Frontage Road; Section 18.54.050 C 7 "Rooftop antennas shall not be permitted unless as allowed under a conditional use review as specified within the zoning code." The current equipment specifications are as follows: • A 3.8 meter (13 foot diameter) satellite dish to be installed 12 feet above grade at the northwest corner of the development, next to unit F6. This dish wou(d receive radio programming from satellite Satcom 5, which carries feeds from ABC, CBS, CNN, N8C and other sources. This is the most common satellite used by radio stations. The National Emergency Alert System depends on these networks to distribute information in a National crisis; • A 3.0 meter (10 foot diameter) satellite dish to be installed 11 feet above grade, in the ~ same location as the above mentioned. Some radio programs of special interest to Vail listeners are transmitted on Satellite Galaxy 4, and require a separate antenna. While i 2 i• KTUN does not presently carry the Denver Broncos, Rockies, Colorado Avalanche, CU football or basketball, or CSU football, they would like to be abie to offer such programs if warranted by listener demand. This dish is nscessary to receive those programs; • A SCALA PR-950 Paraflector (classified as a satellite dish by the Town of Vai! Zoning Code, 18.58.320 (b) because of its size) would be installed as high as possible on the , false stairwell tower near the North Frontage Road, at the edge of the parking lot. The dimensions are 68" x 36" x 18". This antenna would be used to transmit the station's programs from the studio to a relay point atop Dowd Junction, and then on to the transmitter at Castle Peak in Eagle. A line of sight path is necessary for this transmission. Locations farther back on the iot (from the North Frontage Road) are , shielded by a ridge east of Down Junction that biocks the transmission path; • A SCALA HDCA - 5 Series Yagi antenna would be installed at the same iocation. This antenna would be used to receive ihe station's broadcasts for monitoring at the studio. The dimensions are 62" x 56". This antenna ensures the station has a ctear signal, to make broadcasts optimal; and ~ A SCALA CA7 - 460 Yagi antenna would be instal(ed at the same location. This antenna would be used to receive data sent via a special radio link from the transmitter back to the studio. The dimensions are 40" x 13.5" x 4". The FCC requires that the radio station be able to monitor transmitter power and other parameters. All of these antennas are receive-only antennas, except the Paraflector. The link transmitter used with that antenna operates at only 10 watts. At that power, radio energy exposure to the public is minimal. Currently, the FCC follows 1982 ANSI standards, which specifica((y exempt this • type of system from the applicable environmental regulatipns because of the extreme(y low power involved. I li. BACKGROUND I • !n December of 1987, K-Lite, now known as KTUN Radio, requested a variance to allow ~ for a satellite dish (13 feet in diameter) to service the radio station (ocated in the Vail Run ~ Building. This request was in response to K-Lite's relocation from Eagle, to the Vail Run i Building. Town of Vail ordinances limit the size of satellite dishes to 9 feet for sing(e ~ family and business uses, and 12 feet for dishes serving multi-farnily dweilings. The ~ P(anning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved the variance request at their December 14, 1987 meeting. ~ • In February of 1989, K-Lite, requested a variance to allow for the installation of a second satellite dish at the Vail Run Building. This dish belonged to K-Lite Radio which was a commercial tenant within the building. Section 18.58.320, D1 of the Vail Zoning Code states: "No more than one satellite dish antenna shall be allowed on any lot as defineated on the official Town of Vail Zoning Map." The PEC approved the variance request at their February 13, 1989 meeting. • In October of 1989, K-Lite Radio, submitted a request for a variance to allow for the installation of a third satellite dish at the Vail Run Building. At that time, K-Lite was using . a 13 foot diameter receiving antenna for its CBS Network affiliation Emergency Action Notification System and its music programming network. The purpose of the additional antenna was to expand their broadcast services and specialized programming. This 3 ~ 1,7 , antenna was to be 10 feet in diameter. Due to the difference in the locations of the fixed- , orbit satellites (139 degrees and 74 degrees), it was not possib(e to receive both signals • with the existing 13 foot antenna. The PEC approved the variance request at their October 23, 1989 meeting. , 111111. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS ' Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the ~ Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance to (ocate . ~ two sateHite, tlishes at a diameter greater than nine feet, with the northern-most dish encroaching approximateiy five feet into the required 20 setback. Additionally, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the request to locate three antennas on the ialse stairwell ' tower on North Frontage Road. The recommendation is based on the following factors: ; A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potentiat uses and structures in the vicinity. Satellite Dishes Limitations on the permitted number of satellite dishes per lot or property were established because af the potential aesthetic impact of several dishes located on one property. In evaluating the potential impacts of this request, consideration of the proposed location is an important factor. ~ As it relates to this request, the applicant is proposing landscape screening with three Coforado Spruce, two spruce north of the two dishes and four Aspens south of the two dishes. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to straighten the sidewalk adjacent to Unit F6 and erect a fence composed of stucco masonry columns and six foot vertical boards similar to those in color to the commercial buildings in Vail Commons. Antennas The proposed (ocation for the three antennas is on the false stairwell tower. The false stairwell is intended to function as an architectural feature on this site. The false stairwell tower is also the highest peak within this development which will great4y enhance its visibility. Staff believes that additiona{ efforts should be made to preserve the function and aesthetic character of this tower. More specifically, staff believes there are more creative ways in which to obscure the antennas from view, while achieving the required line-of-sight transmission to Dowd Junction. The antennas could be placed within the stairwell tower in order to provide an appropriate screen. Salar Vail received approval from the PEC on May 20, 1992 to add four satellite dishes to their building. The criterion of the proposal included the following: of the appiicant add of two false chimneys on each side of the building; That the false chimney chases were constructed and • painted to match existing colors of the building. Fiberglass insets were installed within the chases. 4 F • 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Satellite Dishes Radio and television broadcasting studios are a permitted use within the Commercial Core 3(CC3) Zone Disirict. This permitted use is likely to require antennas and/or satellite dishes in order to effectively operate this ' type of business. The radio station is relocating equipment already in ' existence at another Ipcation. This use has no history of harmful/negative impacts to properties within its vicinity. The applicant has demonstrated that in order to effectively operate their business, two satellite dishes are necessary. Due to the location of the iixed-orbit satellites, it is not possible for KTUN Radio to utilize only one satellite dish. Staff believes that granting approval of this variance would not be a grant of special privifege. Antennas While this type equipment appears to be necessary to operate a radio or television broadcasting studio, the applicant has not effectively demonstrated eifective mitigation to the site views thai will be impacted by ~ the proposed )ocations of the antennas. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of ~ population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facitities and utilities, and public safety. The staff can find no significant effect on any of the above considerations I as it relates to the satellite dishes or the three antennas. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findinas befare ranting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious ta properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary • physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply 5 F ~ generally to other properties in the same zone. ~ . c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the appiicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of I other prvperties in the same district. ~ tV. STAFF RECOMMENDATlON The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's • I variance as requested for the two sateliite dishes. The parameters estabfished by the ' Satellite Dish Ordinance were intended to provide a general limitation in the size, number, location and screening of dishes proposed. It is apparent that certain types of businesses have unique needs in regard to their transmission faciiities. The applicant has satisfactorily shown that the use of only one satellite dish for their particular business would constitute a hardship. The recommendation of approval is subject to the following findings: i 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. The size and nature of satellite dishes is such that placement and screening may involve exceptions and/or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject site, that do not apply generally to other properties in the Commercial Core 3(CC3) Zone District. • 3. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. The recommendation of approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. That the fence be a maximum of 3 feet in height within the 20 foot setback on this property. Therefore, the fence can be a maximum of 3 feet closest to Chamonix Lane. 2. That the landscape screening proposed by the applicant be maintained in a healthy state, so as to effectively provide a sufficient buffer to the satellite dishes at all times. 3. That the satellite dishes be of a color that sufficiently blends into the surroundings, subject to final review and approval by the Design Review Board. 4. That the satellite dishes be of a material (such as mesh) as to minimize their impact on adjacent properties, subject to final review and approval by the Design Review Board. Additionally, the Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the request to locate three antennas on the false stairwell tower on North Frontage Road. • The staff believes that the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that requires this location and that additional mitigation should be taken to reduce the view disturbance ihat 6 i will result if the three antenna are located on the false stairwell tower. The recommendation of denial is subject to the following finding: ~ 1. That the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public health, i safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in ~ the vicinity. , • ~ I i i i ~ 7 i . il . RAD I O ANTEhINA ' P055i BLE . , LOGATIONS ~ G^ T.D. PARAPET NALL ' Br ~9G0'-O" I ~ A—, DAYGARE_FLOOR , Iq0b'-0" ~P~ARKING DEGK j s, T-IF -7qg4'-0 ~ - • I ~ ~ MEZX _FL0012 ' F-I STORE FLODR I SOUTH-NEST TONER ELEVATION ~ . ~ ~ I VIGTOR MARK DONALDSON ARCHITECTS , P.C. , ARCHITECTURE . PLANNING KTUN RADIO STATION ANTENNA LOCATIONS 0048 East Beaver Crook Blvd. DESIGN OATE REVISION DATE DESIONED BY CHEGlCED B 8~nchmark Plaza, Sufts 207 P.O. Box 5300, von, CO 61620 1-02-87 1-20-97 J.M. A.B. A 970/949-5200 FAX/949-5205 4 ~ i~ ~ - - - - - r -----1- , . . ( ! . ~ • ~ :''-1 POL. S GE $P 5P , I , = L-- - - - - - - - SETBAGK _ - - - ~ o ' i ' ~ A A GOL SPRUGE ~ RC7PERTY LIN I 1'0'-1" -o° 201011 io~-o~~ ~ YAI L DAS SGHONE ' REAR PARKiN6 LOT ~ 62 60 856 54 52 ~ • - ---------------------J ~ i j PARTiAL 51TE PLAN 10'-0" DIAMETER DISH D15H LOGATION 13'-0" DIAMETER D15H I' ~ . , ~ , , _ f ~ - - - - - . _ BUfLDING BEYDND T.O GONG ~iq62 -0~ ~V~miili ' II ll I III I!II II im' ~ , ~~~1!l~l~~?I~lllli ' i 20' ' i~ SEGTION A-A `I SGALE: 1/16" _ 1'-0" SATELLfTE DI5HE5 RRE DEPRE55ED i 30" (MAX) IN70 FIN. 6F2ADE TOR MARK DONALDSON ARCHITECTS , P.C. lTEC7URE . PLtNNING KTUN RADIO STATION DISHES LOCATfON ,:3?:::::`:~~"~~ 0048 East 8oaver Crook Bivd. DESIGN OATE REVISION DATE DESIGNED BY CHECKEU 6 B-nchmar{c Ptaza. Sult. 207 . A.B. P.O. Box 5300, Avon, CO 81620 1-02-97 - 1.-.- 970/948-5200 FAXf949-5205 ~ . r ffSC/Q~.Q CELECTRONIC OR ORATION CA7"460 POST OFFICE BOX 4580 BROADBAND YAG1 j MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 ~ ' (503) 779-6500 APPLICATIONS: • COMMUNICATIONS T• y i'& t - i, • TELEM ETRY ..........;~;~.'~~3~9:~ Jt~ ` . " . . f '5.~. . . f,>>. f ELECTRiCAL SPECIFICATIONS ~ Frequency Range: 450-470 MHz (Broadband) 406-420 MHz (Broadband) ~ Note: Avaifable for other portions of 200-500 MHz spectrum. (Bandwidth Fc ±2% Impedance: 50 ohms Gain (over dipole): 10.0 db Maximum VSWR: 1.35:1 over specified bandwidth Front-to-back Ratio: 14 db Input power rating: 100 watts Polarization: H or V(rear-mount, adjustabie) Termination: Type N female (mates with UG-21/U) ' MECHANICAL SPECIFICATIONS Net Dimensions: 40" X 13.5" X 4" Net Weight: 6 pounds Shipping Weight: 7.5 pounds Mounting: Attaches to 2-3/8" maximum O.D. circular support Wind Load: . 40 pounds (100 MPH with 1l4" ice) • (Note: Dimensions & weights listed for 450-470 MHz modei) 18•80 t w f ~ SCALA PR-950 - PARAFLECTORO ANTENNA i • PROFESSIONAL ANTENNA SYSTEMS FOR 18 dBd alll BROP,DCAST AND COMMUNICATIONS ~ ' 940-960 MHz (broadband) The Scala Paraflector is a high-gain half-parabolic antenna used in professional broadcast and communications systems around the world. The unique design combines high performance and long- term reliability with low cost and very convenient transportation. The Paraffector offers gain comparable to a parabotic grid or dish yet the lower weight and surface area result in less tower loading and less expensive installaiion costs. ~ The Paraflecior is fabricated from seamless drawn aluminum pipe and tubing and heavy aluminum casUngs, gold anodized for corrosion protection, pius stainless steel hardware and fastening"s. The result is a lightweight but extremely rugged antenna that will provide many years of service in the most demanding environments. The < foam-fil{ed broadband feed assembly requires no pressurization ' and it can be easily replaced if necessary. ~ i The PR-950 features: • High gain and high front-to-back ratio for point-to-point relay system applicafions, including broadcast aural STL links. • Compact packaging for quick and economical shipment via UPS or Federal Express. (Shown verticaily polarized) • Meets Categories A and B(FCC 94.75) and SRSP 300.89 and 300.956 (Canada) when vertically polarized. 4 O• SPecifications: 0, • Frequency range 940-960 MHz (broadband) yo' Gain 18 dBd Impedance 50 ohms VSWR < 1.2:1 „o. -da-- - oo• Polarization Horizontal or vertical Front-to-back ratio >25 d8 Maximum input power 100 watts H-plane beamwidth 12 degrees (haif-power) k E-plane beamwidth 24 degrees (half-power) ti 1eO• Termination N female Weight 38 Ib (17.2 kg) H-plane Horizontal pattem - V-polarization Dimensions 68 x 36 x 18 inches (1727 x 914 x 457 mm) Vertical pattem-H-polarization Equivalent flat plate area 4.4 ftz (.41 m2) 'viiina surviVai rating 100 mph (160 kph) -Shipping dimensions 40 x 36 x 7 inches (9016 x 914 x 178 mm) ~o, Shipping weight 45 Ib (20.4 kg) Mounting Mounting kits availabls for masts of 2.375 to 4.5 inches (60 to 114 mm) OD. n.~ Order Information: 9O• Model Stock Code PR-950 94054-001 Replacement feed assembly (940-960 MHz) 94351-002 s"° ''o• Note: Specify a mounting kit when ordering (see listing on reverse). o I 'oo. • ry leo• SCALA ELECTRONIC CORPORATION E-plane Horizontal Pattem - H-polarization Post OffiCe BoX 45$0 Phone: (503) 779-6500 Verticcalpattem-V-potarization Medford, OR 97501 (USA) Fax: (503) 779-3991 PARAFLECTOR is a registeted trademark ot Scala Electronk Corporation. ~ Sca/a Electronic Corporation is a member of the Kathrein Group 10056-C . I. SCALA CELECTRONIC ORPO ATION ~ HDCA sERiEs , POST OFFICE 80X 4580 ~ II `MEOFORD, OREGON 97501 ~ V H F-TV/FM YAG IS ~ ~ (503) 779•6500 ~ (SI N G LE CHAN N EL) , - . . ~ APPLICATIONS: • VHF-TV RECEPTION • FM RECEPTION ' ' • CATV SYSTEMS ~ • TRANSLATOR SYSTEMS.. . : . . ~ T...:. : . _ ~ ' HDCA-5 FIVE-ELEMENT YAGI HDCA-10 TEN-ELEMENT YAGI D1 ME,N$wJS : 62 x 56 ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS • Frequency Range: Any specified VHF-TV Channel (2 through 13) or Any specified FM Channei (88 through 108 MHz) lmpedance: 75 ohms (50 ohms with optional transformer) Maximum VSWR: 1.5:1 across specified channei Polarization: Horizontal Front-to-Back Ratio: 14 db Input Power Ratin9: 250 Watts Termination: N, F, or UHF type female . . . . Nominal gain over dipole: HDCA•5 'HDCA•10 Channels 2 and 3 6.75 dh 8.75 db Channels 4, 5, 6 7.50 db 9.50 db FM Channels (88-108) 7.50 db 9.50 db - Channels 7 through 13 8.0 db . 10.0 db . About antenna gain speclficat(ons: Scala HDCA yagis give maximum possible gain evenly dlstrib- uted across the specified TV channel. This flat response is critical for good color television performance. There are no peaks that look good on a field strength meter at the sacrifice of critical , signal information. Keep this in mind when comparing gain specifications with other antennas. The nominal gain figures listed above are over dipole. Add 2.14 db to determine gain over Isotropic (dbi). • Five-element yagis for FM and low-band TV channels are available with rear (cantllever) mounting at , extra cost. Five and ten-element hlgh•band yagis are available wlth extended booms for rear mounting at slightly higher prices. ~ s-so . ti C. sfe_ ~''`.7~ `T . ,,t • H S. . JNA~`a i , ~ ~ `y ~ ~ t .a ~ ~ - i 1 , ' u la e ~ , eD - ' ~ ~ ~ r`k)~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . S Q~ . ~7~e,• L ~ ~t "I - QoI lt-2- L 40 ' • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmentai Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 24, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance to allow for a garage and GRFA / addition, located at 4532 Streamside Circle Eastl Lot 15, Bighorn 4th Addition. Applicant: Ed and Susan Padilla, represented by Kathy Langenwalter Planner: Lauren Waterton BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REGIUEST The applicant is requesting a site coverage variance of 127 square feet, or 20.8% site coverage in order to construct a garage and second level addition to the east unit. The site is zoned Two- Family Residential which has a minimum lot size requirement of 15,000 sq. ft. and a maximum • site coverage limitation of 20%. This site area is 15,067 sq. ft., which meets the minimum size requirement of this zone district. This site is currently improved with a duplex structure without a garage. The duplex was constructed in 1973 and the area was under Eagle County jurisdiction at that time. As constructed, the duplex encroaches 10' into the required 15' west side setback and therefore, is a pre-existing nonconforming structure. On January 27, 1997 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a side setback variance to allow for the construction of a two-car garage for the west unit. That approval involved no additional Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA). The applicant is proposing a new two-car garage with a second level guest suite on the east side of the duplex. In order to provide access to the garage and guest suite, a connection between the addition and the existing structure will be provided that includes a new laundry room and a new interior stairway. In association with this addition, new landscaping will be added and the driveway will be relocated further to the east along Streamside Circle. The applicant's justification for the site coverage variance is that the architecture of the existing building and the limitations of the existing foor layout prevent access to the new GRFA (on the second level) from the existing interior stairway. Therefore, a new stairway to the second level must be provided. • ~ 11. ZONING ANALYSIS I Zonin9: 7wo FamilY Residential • Use: Duplex residence I - I Lot Size, . 15,067 sq. ft. Standard Alfowed Existina* Proposed GRFA: 4,607 sq. ft. 3,360 sq. ft. 4,024 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 3,013 sq. ft. (20%) 2,543 (17%) 3,140 sq. ft. (20.8%) I Landscape area: 9,040 sq. ft. (60%) 11,381 sq. ft. (75%) 10,147 sq. ft. (67%) Setbacks; Front: 20' 30' 23.5' Sides: East 15' 47' 15' West 15' S' n/c Rear: 15' 59' n/c Parking: 5 spaces required 6 spaces (two enclosed) 8 spaces (4 enclosed) " Existing numbers representing the current conditions plus the PEC and DRB approved plans for a new garage for the west unit. III. CRITERIA AND FINDlNGS • Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial ot the requested site eoverage , variance. The recommendation for denial is based on the following factors: ' A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. i Staff believes that the request will not impact other uses or structures in the vicinity. The proposed addition is located on the northeast corner of the building, adjacent to Streamside Circle East and Meadow Drive. There ~ is no adjacent neighbor that will be directly affected by this addition. The addition of a garage will remove cars from sight within the neighborhood. 2. The degree to which relief from #he strict and literal interpretation and I enforcement of a specified regulation is necessaty to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites m the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. I The applicant is requesting to allow for 20.8% site coverage, or 127 ~ 2 • ~ 410 square feet above the maximum allowance. The footprint of the proposed • garage is only 10 square feet above the maximum permitted site coverage. The site coverage variance is needed primarily because the applicant is adding GRFA above the garage. According to the applicant, the only way to access the new GRFA is to create a new stairway to the second story. The new stairway, plus a new laundry room is additional site coverage that is unrelated to the garage addition. Staff believes that a garage could be added without the need for a site coverage variance. The lot area for Lot 15 is 15,067 square feet, exceeding the minimum lot size far this zone district (15,000 square feet). Because this {ot meets the minimum lot size requirement, there are na special circumstances that relate to this {ot that do not relate to other lots in the vicinity or zone district. The purpose section of the Variance Chapter (18.62) of the Vail Municipal Code (18.62.010) identifies that a"practical or unnecessary physical hardship may result frorn the size, shape, or dimensions of a site, or the location of existing structures thereon." Staff believes that the architecture of the building and the interior floor layout are not considered to be practical difficulties. Moreover, a variance cannot be granted because of inconvenience or cost to the applicant. In this case, staff believes that the variance request is due, not to specific difficulties related to this site, but rather to the inconvenience to the applicant. It is passible to add GRFA to this unit without creating additional site coverage. • 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of popuiation, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff betieves that the new driveway location may potentially affect the traffic flow in this area. Specifically, the proposed driveway is 10' further to the east, closer to the intersection of Streamside Circle and Meadow Drive. This may create site distance problems for cars trying to exit the driveway. Staff recommends that should this variance get approved, the Town Engineer and the Design Review Board review the location of ihe praposed driveway. B. The Pfanninq and Environmental Commission shall make the folfowing findings beforeyranting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: . 3 R I a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regu(ation would result in practical difficuity or unnecessary • physical hardship inconsistent with ihe objectives of this title. I~ b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generaliy to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation , would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the applicant's site i coverage variance request subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two- Family residential zone district. 2. That there are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the Two-Family Residential zone. 3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation • does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Two-Family Zone District. I , I 4 • c r? , peel/langenwalter architects, I.I.c. david mark peel, a.i.a. kathy (angenwalter, a.i.a. • 2588 arosa drive p.o. box 1202 vail, co 81658 970-476-4506 970-476-4572 fax PADILLA SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE , (Town of Vail Zoning Regulation 18.12.110) LOT 15, EAST SIDE BIGHORN SUBDIVISION FOURTH ADDITION 45342 STREAMSIDE CIRCLE The applicants, Ed and Susan Padilla, are proposing to add a two car garage with living area above, to their existing duplex unit. The garage will be located on the east side of their unit and will be connected to the residence. The connection will include the laundry which is being relocated to allow access to the unit and a necessary stairway to access the new living area above the garage. A variance is required because the addition exceeds the site coverage allowance in the two family residential district by 125 square feet. In addition to the garage, the applicants are proposing extensive site and landscaping . improvements to mitigate the affect of the garage addition as well as to upgrade their property. The site is situated on Gore Creek with mature lodge pole pines between the creek and the residence. The remainder of the Padilla's property is lawn with no additional plantings. Tn conjunction with the garage addition, the Padillas will install a landscaped berm along Gore Drive, 7 spruce and a number of shrubs along the base of the building. The lot area is 15,065 square feet with 3,350 square feet of existing GRFA and 2,077 square feet of existing site coverage. The allowable GRFA is 4,606 square feet and the allowable site coverage is 3,013 square feet. Therefore the available GRFA is 1,256 square feet and the available site coverage is 936 square feet. The Padillas are proposing to add 622 square feet of GRFA and 597 square feet of site coverage. Their neighbors, Bill and Lillian Bresnahan, are also proposing to add a two car garage requiring 464 square feet of site coverage. With the addition of the two projects comprising 1,058 square feet of building footprint, the site coverage for the entire property will be 3,138 square feet or 20.8% of the site area. A physical hardship exists on this property because of the axchitecture of the building and the limitations of the existing layout. The east side of the existing structure which adjoins the proposed upper level consists of two bedrooms and two baths which separate the addition from the existing stairway. Therefore, access to the proposed upper level from the existing stairway is not possible making it necessary to incorporate stairs in the new • construction. ~ ~ • The architect and applicant understand and have taken into account that the Town of Vail , staff can only support a site coverage variance for a garage and connection when the amount of variance needed is minimized. The proposed garage is 20' wide by 24' deep with 19' x 23' ' (437 square feet) interior dimensions. This is far smaller than the 600 square feet allowed ~ for a two car garage. Also, the five foot wide laundry, three foot wide hallway and 7 3/4" high stairwary risers comprise the minimum possible area for these uses. In the Two Family Residential District and in this neighborhood, residences generally have I garages. The addition of a garage to this unit will be consistent with other structures in the , vicinity. It is beneficial to the community and in the best interest of the Town of Vail to allow individuals to construct garages. Because of the configuration of the existing structure, it's location on the site, and the spatial requirements of two double garages, the property has physical limitations not typical in this zone district. This minimal relief, less than 1%, frozn a strict interpretation and enforcement from the site coverage regulation is reasonable as the Town has consistently approved these types of requests in the past. This project will have no effect on light and air, distribution of population, traffic facilities, utilities, and public safety. It will, however, enhance the neighborhood by enclosing parking • and introducing significant landscaping. i I• R I • • • N 36oq3*pp" E 1732d' - 8' SPRUCE PROFERTY LINE SHFkUBS 4,~ Fij~s•. ~I4,f' 7$i~ i r`~ f ~ - ty ~ 1 Z I . . i }~f' ! ~ ~ a . ~ tt g''~-.~;~~ 'Q'I• 15' SIDE S BACK ~ ;~~.S~IAHAN_UNIT l . •f. 4' P F _ i . , W 151.58' 1~ r SPRO INE I g~ ~ ~ ! ~~r ~ ~ ~ • g'-10' SPR ~7YP. ~ UNIT /P7~ ~ ~ { ~ I • ~ ~ ( ~ \ I t ~ / ' oV . ? a. PAV.~MENT CO ~ UNE OF EXISTING ~ I ' ' • ~ ~S -o MATURE EVERGREENS o ~ Q x-, m CO Z r 2 ~ , ~ m < m ,20' FRONT S CK SHRUBS. TYP. ~ .a 35 HIGH LANDSCAPED fiERM r 10324' - - ~ ; ~ O.; ; I ~ ~ Do 0 C~ ~ C-3 ~ . -r-~- uP I . . . ' LAUNDRY _ \ I i:Ci•:::~~:.,;~~• • i~:.\:::r_::.;..~ .~.i¢..viji::::..;.. ' _~~_'~f~ II ll ~ ..'P.ii`i:J::i::':i'•':"~'~: "~'1~ 1 ~ ~ I ~ • / ~ p '~I \ I ~I ~ - - . ~ ~ 11 I ~ :)N UP TWO CAR GARAGE - ~ - ~ r, - . -----SHADING INDICATES NEW ; Y CONSTRUCTION, TYPICAL >3 :r. ~ - - Y-""_"_'_'"""' • , ! ' y ~ ' ` ~ l p ' , • - i ~ • ~ ~ _ . , ~ , 0 ~ ~ Do { ' ~ Qo ~ 0 ' ~ - ; ~ ~ \ I= , ~ - f:: lr - ~ ~ - ; ~ CJ ~ DN ~ ' Y > ~ I DECK , i GUEST SUITE DN ~ . . r " _ , ' . - j : I . ~ DECK •v : . y>•;.>;:;:<:;:::«~::.::«:••:>::::::..~. ~ , . . . - - ~ ~ . ' \ + - ' I - - - - - - - , ii NEI - - - - . ~ EAST ELEVATION ----------vs,~-1~..-0~~ , S ` ~ r ~ ~ - ' t-# a - • - ~ _ - - r- - Oll , - - - ~ - - ~ - - - - - - _ - - - _ 1 .~j.~...-------a - - - ` - - r---=~_ f ~ ; , ; - ' - - - ~ i _ ~ i ~ - - - - - ~ - ~ _ - ---f ! ~ . C 3 NORTH ELEVATION ~~8~~=~~-o" • ~ rrFz__ - - - - - ' Ell - { - ~ - - - li ~ - - Fill - - - - - - - y - ~ ' _ s II ~4y~,. I . ~{~I ~ . ~1' ~I~ I ( 1 . 'i•I~ _ . ~ _ . SlDING. =SUUTH ELE1fATION RAILIN( • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmentai Commission I FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 24, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to increase the size of platted envelope B from 3,572 sq. ft. to 4,061 sq. ft., at The Residences at Briar Patch, A . Resubdivsion of The Briar Patch Condominiums, located at 1390 Buffehr Creek Road. Applicant: David and Jody Leach, represented by Bob Mach Planner: Tammie Williamson 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants are requesting approval of a minor subdivision in order to increase the square footage of platted envelope B from 3,572 square feet to 4,061 square feet, a total of 489 square feet, located at The Residences at Briar Patch property. The Residences at Briar Patch Subdivision is zoned Residential Cluster (RC), and is generally located north of Lions Ridge Loop and south of Buffehr Creek Road (see attachment #1, vicinity map). Three of the building . envelopes (A, B, and C), as well as the existing triplex, are accessed off of Buffehr Creek Road. The lower two building envelopes (building envelopes D and E) share a common driveway, which takes access off of the cul-de-sac located at the western end of Sandstone Drive. The appticant is proposing to build a sing(e family home on envelope B. The design of the house is such that the northeast portion of the house, which is the garage, extends approximately seven feet beyond the existing platted buiiding envelope. Addit+onally, a roof overhang extends approximately 2 feet beyond the platted building envetope. The applicant would like to expand the envelope to accommodate the design of the new house and a future hot tub. This proposal would also increase the allowable site coverage for envelope B a total of 489 sq. ft. Per the approved development plan for the subdivision, all building related improvements must be located entirely within the building envelopes, including roof overhangs and above-grade decks. Improvements which may be located no more than five feet outside the building envelopes include at-grade decks (those located within five feet of finished grade). The applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to the approved plat for the purpose of enlarging building envelope B in order to accommodate the property owner's desire for a proposed single-family residence. The applicant proposes to increase the size of envetope B a total of 489 square feet. II. BACKGROUND The original plan for the Briar Patch property was approved as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) by Eagle County and was annexed into the Town of Vail by Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1981. The annexation agreement applied RC zoning to the property and allowed for the • construction of fourteen townhomes, in the form of one fourpiex, two triplexes and two duplexes. 1 ~ The total approved GRFA was 21,640 square feet, plus credits. After one of the triplexes was • constructed, the project was abandoned. A provision in the annexation ordinance required that j any major modifications to the Eagle County approved plan would require review and approval by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). Under the ordinance, all standards not addressed by the Eagle County approved plan must comply with RC zoning. On September 13, 1993 the Briar Patch Condominium Association received Town of Vail PEC approval, with conditions, for a major change to the approved development plan; a minor subdivision to create five building envelopes on the property; a wal{ height variance; a variance to park in the fr.ont setback; and a variance to build on slopes greater than 40%. The approved - density on the property includes the existing triptex plus five single family residences. I Additionally, an employee housing unit (EHU) is required to be provided on building envelope C, with the ability to apply for a conditional use permit to allow for an EHU on each of the other four ~ building envelopes. The total GRFA approved is exactly the same as the previously approved plan, at 21,640 square feet, plus credits. In conjunction with the approval of the minor subdivision plat, the applicant agreed to dedicate pedestrian and drainage easements to the public as well as enter into a subdivision improvement agreement with the Town to ensure that certain improvements be completed as required by the PEC (undergrounding the overhead power lines on the property, landscaping improvements, drainage improvements, curbing along Sandstone Drive, the addition of a fire hydrant). During the time that the easements and the subdivision improvement agreement were being drawn up, the planning staff allowed the owners of three of the five building envelopes (C, D and E) to proceed through the Design Review Board (DRB) review process. The residences on building envelopes D and E received final DRB approval on March 20, 1994 • and the residence, with an employee housing unit, on building envelope C received final DRB approval on June 1, 1994. In September of 1994, the minor subdivision plat was submitted to the Community Development Department for staff review. During the review of the plat it was discovered that the building envelopes did not exactly match the size and shape of the envelopes shown on the amended development plan that was approved by the PEC on September 13, 1993. After several revisions to the proposed plat, staff approved it for signature by all necessary parties, including the Chairperson of the PEC. On October 5, 1994 the Subdividers Agreement and the Minor Subdivision Plat were signed by the Town. On November 7, 1994 building permits were issued for the two residences on building envelopes D and E. Upon completion of the foundation work, it was discovered that the location of the ~ building envelope lines shown on the building permit plans did not match those shown on the recorded final plat. I On April 10, 1995 the residences of envelopes D and E received Town of Vail PEC review and approval for a minor subdivision to relocate a fifteen foot wide drainage easement and to modify building envelopes D and E. The proposed amendment added 48 square feet to building envelope D, while shifting envelope E northeast. The only condition of approval was that the new piat be reviewed by staff before signature by the chairman of the PEC. 2 • ~ ~ . ' • III. ZONING ANALYSIS I Ailowed per Per this the approved Building amended ~ Development Plan Envelo,pe B Plat ' Bldg. Env. Size: Five different 3,572 sq.ft. 4,061 sq.ft. f sizes approved , GRFA ANowance": Different for each 3,470sq.ft. 3,470 sq. ft. / building envelope Site Coverage: Different for each 3,572 sq.ft. 4,061 sq. ft. building envelope * Not including a 225 square foot credit for each unit. IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that minimum standards for a new lot must be met. Although this building envelope amendment essentially involves a replatting of an existing lot, there is no other process for review of such a request other than the minor subdivision process. As a result, this project will be reviewed under the same criteria used for all • minor subdivision requests. The first set of review criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision application is as follows: A. Lot Area The Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that the minimum lot or site area for a property located within the Residentiai Cluster zone district be 15,000 square feet, containing no less than 8,000 square feet of buildable area. The Municipal Code defines "buildable area" as any site, lot, parcel or any portion thereof, which does not contain designated floodplain, red hazard avalanche, or areas in excess of 40% slope. The existing site currently exceeds the minimum lot area requirements set forth above and the proposed building envelope amendments will have no effect on the existing size of the property. B. Fr n a e The Vail Municipal Code requires that lots in the Residential Cluster zone district have a minimum frontage of 30 feet. The applicant proposes to extend the private drive indicated on the plat, after securing the proper easements. C. Site Dimensions The Vail Municipal Code requires that each site be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries. The site currently • 3 R 1 I , meets the size and shape requirement for lots in the Residential Cluster Zone District and • the proposed buiiding envelope amendment, while increasing the envelope square footage, wili have no adverse affect on the size and shape of the lot's boundaries. ~ The second set of criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request is outlined in Section 17.16.110 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations, and is as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and Qther pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility I companies and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivisian control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other appl+cabls documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding uses." , The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which deveiopment and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: One of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations, as well as any development • control, is to establish basic ground rules with which the staff, the PEC, applicants, and the community know will be followed in the public review process. Although this request does not involve the creation of a new subdivision or a resubdivision of an existing parcel of land, it is fhe appropriate process to amend a platted building envelope. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. Staff Response: The proposed building envelope amendment would not appear to create any conflict with development on adjacent land. Notification of this request was provided to all property owners adjacent to the Briar Patch property. To date no responses have been received. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response: , Staff believes that this proposal will not be detrimental to the value of land throughout the Town, nor in the immediate area. 4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent 4 • ~ • with municipal development objectives. Statf Res o,~ f1S@: Staff believes that the proposed building envelope amendment will not preclude a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public - requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: This purpose of this section of the subdivision regulations is intended primarily to address large scale subdivisions as opposed to this particular proposal under consideration. We do not believe that this proposal will impact any of the above facilities. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to estab(ish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. Staff Response: This is an inherent goal of the subdivision regulations and legal descriptions will be I! • provided on the plat for all of the proposed changes. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage I facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of the land. Staff Response: Staff supports the applicant's proposed building envelope amendment. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is recommending approval of the applicanYs request for a minor subdivision to amend the platted building envelope B at The Residences at Briar Patch. We believe that the applicant has met the review criteria as outlined in Section IV of this memorandum. The staff recommendation for approval carries with it the following conditions: 1. That the applicant demonstrate that the proper access easement, to continue the private drive to access envelope B, has been secured. 2. That the common parcel acreage be amended to reflect the acreage increase of envelope B. • 5 ~ . ! ATTACHMENT #1 ua~~ wocc , ~ ~ - I~ FLY7G !A 4 ~ • ~ ~ . SUl3JECT SITE- . 16CE f L4X. 1A 2 '[pWN OF VAIL BWVOARY ~ ~ . YnIl PoJI? I SILO" .t~ • wY~ ~ • F~~ vAtu ~ av+ ~ N suoorns,ow M ' tJdh ItOGE FRJNC 1~ ~ ~ ttt Q ? nc.,.o..w. a w zu ~.U. ~ • r.+u a e.1wl noct ruc e ~ NO SCALE , - ' . a~ k . . ~ . , M r_.w~P h VICIlVI! r IIYIJ'11P . • - ~ ~ • ~ • . AMENDED PLAfi ~ SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE RESIDENCES AT BRIAR PATCH TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO ' ~ M~t Nti ~ y ~ ~ . surt Ir~•.'_~ _ o~wu. ce~ ~iL. .-~y..,~ x..a-.~~. r ' . 7 Z V ! wR4 rir wa a.~ c . Z..~~r • a~e.r ~~.~w ~.w~~~ry .r > a~..~.i f..~.P~:r r a~t ? .r ts..r,. «~.m~ m.. r, .w'.....__~._.._~ ~r w t ~ ' h•""""....._."'_"_"" . . ~ b~?t-fi • ~ y . <~~t~1~._ Sl.tt 6""_- """"~I IMyr~~W l CaWr I~c ~ • • In YI~~~ . 1~[ . • I ~aYM~ttvl>~~~w41 ` lrT.y ~~tsuwt ~Y Wwa~~pM wls~ w pis ~I• b~r ht[n Csb~~n~. •fl[ft~ Ir~r'-_.~~._.~.___..~...-. • M~~._._.~_. M._ ~a ~~~wf~ lwcn. ax~~t~a Ir ~nw~. -r'.______'__..____-.'_'_..._. Wy~~•._~__.__.__~__."___. ll~~.r._."' " WY 1R[ AlWY I~~~tr.~ IX Cs~s~s. 0M~ V_.___-._.._'_I~, rrr~~,........'...._."'._._____.. I w1~ 1M _ uH ~ ~.en m Liob. ~11a vrw. w.. W y: ~ a!!!o ~~.ao... ~iM ~ b wa , s4.~. h""""'"'"""'""""'"""" I IMi~ l ~ IN) 1/1 ~r~yIr~ 11f1 F/Iw Ww ~M tw~n~~. rn~M. t1~R ..'._..__._'1 r-- [ ~.DN f~npl~ M.s 1174 WY~w Yiw J. lw[w •~N.t~ i lw~• f ).OO [w~s 0?~r~ . Mav~~...._ a~~aa @M t O Iet?Y c ure-•.____ IN fa.pe~.p ~.~vret rrwiMFa Mlsr w a.a " w _""""'•o. m_.•. . Q_"" . a ru<~ i"::::: :.i a w>a s«.u o..~... swa ~ o-a u•~....r-~..tu: wv[.n•s mnnutt ..rw.._.. .r...•"_'_""_' wr~. v"__"""'_'i w.......,..-..-r... r~ n.o....... ~ c.w.,. r ~ ~ MM cMilf tl~t 1 ~n ~ rK~~twN W~ i?wf~' I~sww ~ N ~ ~ ~~M ,r~O~v~w SW~ • * [~w.n~w ew~hs• rM W~~a M mr SwG N C~~wb. Me q~i ~I~t rv. •.t.~~t M~r.~ ~n~ v~i ry..n. w~ rw~rM N w~. ~t~a4.. ~wrr •v:~.~ ~ ~n.w w~i w~a..:r w',~"`.:: M:.w~r w..-`..:~~ w s.`~«:~;'.: ~ w :e:::i ~s.a,> w a,..ua. r w ~•w. «.....a. w..~.... a . v'_"_'_ w^a~~u~~ ~i~n y~~~cul~ ^W~~t•wf Vn~r+~y W wMir~~iw it~~~ O_~. SI.R D_"_.__._" l i~ ~~4r~~ unrW ~ Mn ar~ q w~ w w~l hi~ • v~n.~ . 1~ O ~ •.s.. m.. w TM cw . w+. w . x. • ~I 4.~ . ~4~ ~r~s~ M I~rp~~y ~y. ~i~.a ~ ~•rn w~ rrr.~ . . f1 M • 0. ~w1~a~~ e/ f~.su.+ p[e~swo _ M L~r tittl~ l w • Ca~sW Iff_. ?.u • •I tw~a~.a rr~~ ~ N' tww~t~~s M~m• ~y~M. nweu q w.~ w va...___.'-._. G~rN~e RS itSt~ vi Wp~.~ ~y w wi W ' . . fr.u 0. bMe~ M1Yi.t. . ~rr~~ ~M'vr•._.'._" ~ . n. ~ Q.IIfI[.R R I[ot"TIW W OM[RSxIl >T. O•-------'-~~~--~ RrMIW WY [wY1qNMlK (pMISSIP Y~tU I~~~1 mi.11 v ~ w. •i~ a w.. r•~«v r.~ r~.. ww ~.~.c... n. r ~ n...,a,~y ~..r~...~ ..i ~i».~~ a',~.~i ~is... u.. r,,.i e~.~ w?.....~ ~r i~ a.,~ ~ . r ~.o .w y ~..r~.... «r..~.~.~ ..~s. - . r I . ' 41vw I~nitw 41~~~re+~a4i` Mw~~~~~w ~~s . pn t~e. MNNr ~ e~w~~ q W~ w wi . ~IY'4 t~vd ~M~I tMYr. A~~I J. LwG u~.~_ ~~al Y~r hW+t>iwui.w ~Ywr.-.~-a.~ Fw '»,Y ~11[T! 4~arM J. SY~4. Ov~w~ Ia~4. Y~u a. TwN WJ.Gtlw!N I J. te~M. w~n0 y~r ewK fw s.T~~. N~11 W~ mt Wl~ry Rsi~ y~~ twwq. G~w.s. ~r Crw . ' Y~MtY - rn lew~[i~.~- - ~rw~~wl fella~• Y~wu ~I M~ w w1 to.. eI n.l. Ce1wb Iwn oe r~~f a~un.np rI forw~~~.w " ..~.v....... ~ .r.... a-lurz v seIc..iw ra uiursc a ea1 rc na+ -c. ~ Si.R K_"'~__,_._"i ~ wY•~~..~ ~~eo.~. 1.~ .~po.~~. i...~~ M~M wM rrrw+~~ ~~N wt t .~rr w CMn R...__~~~__>u G w~R~~ p iw ~nr~ Iw N w.~ [W~r twetr. m. ~ww~~p..i. s~M cr~irr w w,~v ra.~ r~n.w i~ 1 , W~~~~e ~n~ ~a~~~ N'SwM M`.x~ ~e M 4~i~~~ p t~r M1~an•. ~ p.t~i~ N.Hi ~~tstr w~n~~ a~1n~~ i.:.~ e~~~-rr y~ ~ rI N ~~v~ II ..w~.,.~.~ w...w^.. i~p rr ~ nm w.w... r.~ au.,~.. a?.~ w.m. ~w,.o u r.u M~~~ W r~ b~ M W~M~Hia N w a~~l r~w~? ~w M ~w t+r [~f•r Iwn~~. «1 k.. .wI...n . . o . n. , 4.. r....~~. c `«~ur w~a. « e.,o..,..,«~ M. w K~.w.~.~ n~.. r..., . ~ . . ~ w . • s.~«. M~M...~..~..w..«......, - - ' «w.»a w r..« w» ra M.«r w~ w . i: n~.~. a.~.. n r~. nk. .~w:~ e....... or ~ ~ r.,.. . a.~>... .~y,a w~.•wn w,.~...,..snws .v..o.n w v...n~p su+[ v_..__~~__~ _ w~...~ w,~. ~w~. ca..•.. ce~..a~ nMe+~~~lr Ir Yw~~~ip W~~~« er M~Q 11` n~~+1~ ~w~n W b~ w ew I r W~~wY. COM~~ Q y~~t~~4>w• a vy ~c<a^Or~r~o O~~t CILfi ~x0 RNLY'S -is141[ W w~f N r~~~ ww M~qt~w N Yw I~t ~rr.r~ M~ bs I`rw~ p~n Y M~t I~m1 a~ W tN (~r4 - IM__ ~M Ip~~y ~~s~vw~ w~ ~nuw~wp~ Mw w a~s ~.1~aw u w'e+~~>~w ~ttuP~v~•y V~~i w+~4 !s u~~ 4<rwr ~ u.~~'"""" wr M.._..__ar r~r, 1W ..~.o w r: we. «w.~.... ew~.w. •.e.. Iw_.. >wh ,u ~ ~ _ ~ jL ~ ' SNER t OF 3 [cwiwwncm or lERT6KAIL5 Jv Sn((1 2 ~.r 3 JOB Ho 1732 7 AMENDED PLAT SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE RESIDENCES AT BRIAR PATCH ,.~...~„a a.;,,~:,...., r_,~ . • . , . ~i~.,°w~r~~~ ia~.~.~~ ~;.~r..~w~r ~w .°~..~r.eiro++e W..~ ~w. u~iM°%~•::; y. r~.s.~ SGLE 1 = 10' ~i.~in. e~.a : i iu: n~u'w eu..~ u.r~ w~....~ r.... r',`...~°i.,..~ ':~.4^ o..a. • avw . e~. i ~~,an~.+~oi'N°'•'uwo...: n t.~i. <..y u owo~ , .~o.;~~<.:~a. ~..w, ~ • r«~ .a .ere... no~w« r...a • • PARCEI a . i u..w. ~w. • I~u+ip ~N G.ira.nul i...~a. ~ ~ c r .....vr ~a,. ~ c n. co~.~..~a..~.~...~ . . ~E M ~tr...«w woM.•,~~-vy,m. rv uc~ar« ~o.~y i W~t~w M W~ ~~y V P~n~i) r~4~. ~ tlll[ WIII14tf . . \ _ l15 . I ~~n~ l~tl~ 4~rut uCSw+I sn M wa~ M i n1~t,M~ w~ r c.,.«. w ~ , . ~ . ~I siY `4 Punf~i~t~lic ,t~,~ wiu n SrwW 1~tr~w 1~M w~l~w N~~i i wi We - .a • w.~ w c.. w,.« r: na,,,.~ ~~i. _...•-'-•-----'-'-"'--'...."••-"_--_'-'-'_...-'-T-' ~ - - t+14ot w~~~4aW~iM~iP - [.nr Mw ~1 M ~I•~~an~~~ r.~r hkn .~il w u~~Pn w 0.tw n~~ w~ . 1»___ ~na e~N nsr M~~ W lrn N v~~~ fs b~~p Mr~~~ Yprp.~i V~~' µranr~~G • ' 7 : f..rirv+~ a NNt «M ] IN M ~~.p wv~wl~e~ a rw M~N~~M1~ r~~e ~ ~ • • ' f r. y~w•~~ ~~~j' ~~p s w h.~ww N liwW ~~~w ~e Yel YM r~i y w.r ro~~ • ; Pa~. w W~~ ro~ ' w.~.u...o a..~a. M rm..l. ~~.n a~. w.~.».:r~~ti~i;`°.~^i.~,:M~i P4RCEt s..o~. i...~~ p .u~.~. C S..p~~ fr.~~ l t)! Ia.+~N N~~ 2s.•4 bs.~~ra CY= Y•p~-3vwf M~p ~ oa~ Ka~ I t•.yulra.<~ i 3M [~[w~wn~ i~ t~Y,~ ri4~~y ~~rrw t... • n e ~ t ~ ~~......~~..~.o~ . . ~ i ~ ~ , f.~Ir~ iM.~~ ).~i0 p ~i~ Iti w tn~~ ? N i ? liUIWW(, 1 C NvE LOPC Ci ~ « M.....- ' m. o'orneo•i~`~M ~:a: ~ i ef, ~ ~ r nv lp~.wi. .~s...ana . " 1 ~ • f-^ ye. ~ w Nu+ ...iu.r ..w.. ~iEi i iMr ~l a• 1 r ° IiM ..:w~ e.:o . .<~.aa i.'..`.•':.:.~ m~ir fi. a . ~ ~ p,r: ~ ~ ~r~ 4 > ~ . w ~ w...+. I:t'c~.i d~ E i i H~~i.p ~.w f~tr Ce.w.w r ~~r Kit-~ a wwra~Ma~~ ~r 4wi . :P";... i a'f ~ 1 I i s..c~. rwp .ai ~a . r? tu .~in ~.wr,~»~ v ~ ~ f~.p~r fw~~~~ 2.1M N. I [ K~ii b,w[.~~r wl.[~~WtW-r~ Mr~+.t ~~N u ~ t..~~ip~. . ~ M~~r t.M1 N. ~.i a. a~ we.~ w / 4wi~~Ht w ~[~ynt,U~it~ i2.`I~. I N• q . K M 1~ ~ ~ra~ 1 r N~~~ ? bMx~iw w iriN L ~rw N w~""~w~~ iW~ ~b 2 ~1 Xl _ ? IMtMf s tw ~ r~` twM~. 4 ~ , rr:Pt~M-wr w W~i. f4w t.~~Mn w~~a O a ro« a w. e~ x~~w.ae• ~~.«w. a« ~.~'a n . w w~y pr ^iM[ n~P 1~ M`4Yawr~~ ww. wwl+( r wlKt u ~I 4w~ , r.u.~ ~ . •~a m. : wr. in . rw ~°~•ie.~:a ri :;w... ~~f _ , DETAiI B I.L nuo ~~n rr .~o. w.• v. ~s e.... .s F: FNfl'PL - MU= Wa^v~ w ' i[, t~a af":NFL• G~ . <~l~ rs iw~.y vwus ~ ~rneti a~ In~ rf'i f.•. ~ VAULY- SLWAFVWW-om- bw~r~ w..~aw++~~~.+w.n r..c. w w rwt E?]. ~:1 ~~w..,..o~~... ~ SNEEi 2 OF3 +dM~ ~18 No ' ISZ 7 ~ • • • ~ e A1[BNDED PLAT SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE RESIDENCES AT BRIAR PATCH UNE 7'~t LOT G-i DEf/aL OF • w~ ~ tION'S RIDGE SUBDMSlON untts i, z 111 3 FlLING No. 2 , , w,~. r . m ? au,rt 1 , s• ` i y '.bs TRACT B 110N'S RIDGE SU80MSION FILING No. 4 ~MT~z C~ .!ro r ~ ~ ~ "s ~ • • ~ " ~ ~ ~•a ~ ~ 1~1lPfD'K luurt~n s[~~~[ rmve oocuunl . r.v » • UNtT~} • ^ ^ \~.~-,r,r. ie ~au ~ • ~ '»a i ;sa T. _ ~ ~ CFN tMf9f E a B '.Olft•~P ~ O/~ r ~rJ . `~r • iM• • ~ • S~ ` \v' Y ~rH i • ~om - ' ~ L~ N. »W I»i \ 1~>:m4m z";.rM, ' \ , i a. " • / % Y~•~' i , ~ ~ . t•~.3' ' / • • ~ ~-¢T!1'!!/' Q VNIT 1 u.urr .t > LO7 G-3 ~~'wO1 1...'m' ..1'~..°i • I i,,, LJON'S RIDGE SU80MSION w ~ra'y [ aral•~er c - xm yy ~ ' 'i ~.w FILING No. 2 FNAIOPE A ~ .s >.u .P .1•.. / +^V~/ 7N'' ~ \ / f, PakCEi I v I ~ 9U4pNG Hlrn DiNG ; i7C- ..~j'ENVEIOPE B I vE ~ . ~ / / 1 ~ • ~R~ vnrtc'ti ! ..""~DStpH`5p•) pARCEL E ~ , . . vv `.:io: ao UON'S RIDGE SUBDIYISION ~ PARCEL F p qy, 1 " FIUNC No. 2 g' (COUwOV P~AfEi) su on.t eLSCn ~ ,,A,.T '°°°'f ~ I .eo am / vE on.w o a~ v~cn ~ + t ~ wr.rc - ~~,v t ~ W! _ t` , Lor c-. ` ll0k'S RIDGE SUBDNISION FIUNC No. 2 ""'°r • - ax.o~ - ~ ~L ~ 1 UON'g RIDGE LOOa zuL[. r = .oe ~ (>0•) \ oDroY .u~t Y. e +~w EA61~ VALLM SIN11f'!R~'.. MC. i-~iiei .s < »u • ~ . - W 3~sn a SMEFI ] OF J .wfvx~.... ~.~`.~.T..w CMS SII4'3f Y JnB 11)7 ) • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community DeveVapment Department DATE: February 24, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss the development standards for parking ' ' and loading in the General Use Zone District for the proposed Betty Ford Alpine Garden Education Center located at 620 Vail Valley Drive/Tract A, Block 2, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicants: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, represented by Helen Fritch Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, represented by Helen Fritch, is requesting a worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) to discuss the , parking and loading development standards for the proposed Betty Ford Alpine Garden ' • Education Center. I The education center is proposed to be located at the west end of the Ford Park soccer fields., , adjacent to the parking lot. The applicant has indicated that the education center will serve as a , community facility devoted to fostering an understanding of Vail's fragile environment. The ! center will be approximately 7,185 sq. ft. in size. The space within the center is proposed to be i broken down into several different types of uses. The applicant is proposing approximately 760 , sq. ft. of administrative office space, 460 sq. ft. of gift shop/retail space, 460 sq. ft. of botanical library space, 3,262 sq. ft. of exhibit hall space, and the remaining 2,243 sq. ft. to be used as workshop/storage, restrooms, mechanical space and common area. 11. BACKGROUND The land on which Gerald R. Ford Park sits was acquired by the Town of Vail in 1973. The expressed goal of the $3.3 million land acquisition was to preserve the quality of life in Vail. On January 18, 1977, the Vail Town Council unanimously passed a resolution designating the property as the Gerald R. Ford Park. This unique and highly valuable 39 acre park site represents the last remaining parcel of land central to use by all residents and visitors of the Vail community. In January of 1985, the process of creating a master plan for the development of Ford Park began. In August of that same year, the Gerald R. Ford Park and Donovan Park Master Plan was completed. According to the final report prepared by the project consultant, the Master Plan is intended to direct the future development of the park and establish guidelines for the implementation of the future improvements to the park. • f:\everyonelpec\memos\betty.224 f • On May 8, 1995, the applicant appeared before ihe Planning and Environmental Commission with a request to amend the Ford Park Master Plan. The applicant was proposing to amend the Ford Park Master Plan to allow for the construction of the proposed education center in Phase IV of the Alpine Gardens (lower bench). Upon review of the request by the Planning and Environmental Commission and by the Town Council, it was determined that the applicants request to amend the Ford Park Master Plan should be tabled until such a time as the Town of Vail looked into updating the existing Master Plan. In July of 1995, the Town of Vail, along with the major stakeholders of Ford Park, undertook a / planning process to update the existing Ford Park Master Plan. Since that time, the Town staff has met with the stakeholder groups, conducted focus group meetings and held public hearings on a proposed Ford Park Master Plan update. The results of this public planning process has ' been a preliminary draft of the "Ford Park Manaqement Plan: an amendment to the Ford Park Master Plan." Contained within the Ford Park Management Plan document are illustrative maps indicating the possible location of the Betty Ford Alpine Garden Education Center. According to the preliminary draft of the Management Plan, the most appropriate place for the education center is on the west end of the soccer field, adjacent to Vail Valley Drive. A copy of the site plan indicating the proposed education center has been attached. tli. REVIEW OF THE RELEVQNT PLANNING RELATED DOCUMENTS According to the Town of Vail Zoning map, Ford Park is zoned General Use (GU). As stated in the Zoning Code, the purpose of the General Use Zone District is as follows: • "The General Use Zone District is intended to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards described for other zoning districts, and for which deve(opment standards especiaNy prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 18.02.020 (general provisions) and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to insure the public buildings and grounds in certain types of quasi-public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to insure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate permitted types of uses." The General Use Zone District allows for permitted uses, conditional uses, and accessory uses. In the general the use district, development standards in each of the following categories shall be prescribed by the PEC: ~ a. Lot area and site dimensions; b. Setbacks; c. Buitding heights; d. Density control; e. Site coverage; f. Landscaping and site development; and g. Parking and loading. • f:\everyone\pec\memos\betty.224 2 ~ • • The development standards for the General Use Zone District shall be proposed by the applicant as part of a conditional use permit application. Site specific development standards shall then be determined by the PEC during the review of the conditional use permit request in accordance with Chapter 18.60 (Conditional Use Permits). Any additional regulations pertaining to site development standards, in the development of the land in the General Use District, are found in Chapter 18.58 (Supplemental Regulatians) of the Municipal Code. Since this is a worksession, with the purpose of discussing the parking and loading development standards only, for the Betty Ford Alpine Garden Education Center, staff has not prepared a formal recommendation concerning the proposed Betty Ford Alpine Garden ~ Education Center. Instead, the staff has identified the following issues relating to parking and loading, which we would like to discuss further with the PEC and the applicant: 1. Parkin As previously stated, the parking and loading requirement shall be determined by the PEC. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to propose a parking plan which, in the opinion of the PEC, adequately addresses the parking and loading needs for the proposed development. Histarically, parking has proven to be a reoccurring problem at Ford Park. The construction of an education center associated with the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens would no doubt increase the parking demand on Ford Park. The staff would recommend that the parking and loading requirements prescribed in • Chapter 18.52 of the Municipal Code be applied to the administrative office use and the aift shop/retail use. According to the parking and loading requirements, professional ' offices shall provide 1.0 Earking space per each 250_sq. ft. of net floor area and Aift sho /retail stores shall rovide 1.0 parkin s aces er eac s. ft. of net floor area. Based of these fiaures 1he pronose education center would be required to provide 3.04 parkinq spaces (760 sq ft 1 space/250 sq ft ) for the office use and 1.53 par_ k_inq spaces (460 sq. ft. @ 1 space/300 sq. ft.) for the gift shop/retail, ~ Staff would further recommend that a parking and loadinp requirement be prescribed for the exhibit halt space. The applicant is proposing an auditorium and classroom as part of the exhibit hall s ace in the education center. The auditorium an c as dP desi ned to accommodate seatin for 114 individuals. Accor ing o ap er . o the unicipal Code, meeting rooms auditoriums, classrooms, e c. provi e . par in s aces for each ei ht seats. Based on this fi ure, t e e uca ion center would be required to provide 14 25 parking spaces for the auditorium an c assroom (114 seats 1 space/8 seats). The proposed education center would be a conditional use in the General Use Zone District. According to Chapter 18.52 of the Municipal Code, any use listed as a conditional use shall be required to provide loading facilities based on a determination made by the Town Council. The loading facility requirement shall not be less than the comparable requirement for a similar type of use. Based on the type of uses, and the size of the building, staff would recommend that the applicant be required to provide one loading berth. One berth is the minimum requirement prescribed by the Municipal Code. • f:\everyor~e\pec\memos\betty224 3 ~ Staff would also suggest that the PEC consider whether it is more appropriate to base • parking needs on the number of employees required to successfully operate the proposed education center and on a use square footage basis. This method would insure that adequate parking was provided for all employees and visitors to the center. At this time, it is anticipated that seven employees will be required to staff the education center. An employee roster summary provided by the Alpine Gardens has been attached for reference. At this time, staff would like the applicant and the PEC to discuss the parking issue. More sPecificallY, staff would request that the Plannin9 and Environmental Commission ~ provide the applicant with direction on how the parking and loading requirements will be assessed based upon the proposed uses of the Betty Ford Alpine Garden Education Center. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Since this is a work session, no formal staff recommendation will be provided at this time. However, staff requests that the above-listed issue be discussed so the applicant can receive specific direction on how to proceed with the proposed design and parking requirements for the Betty Ford Alpine Garden Education Center. I . . . . • I • f:\everyone\pec\memos\betty.224 4 ~ i ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ °~a`~? / ~ c se{d 0 sq^ , c. ~ F~tTa~+oe drt~e P~1t~? ~ ` ~ ~ r ~ t.__.•~ iy,yy~ bt" CtOM s bd,ct, a~ "°"awe s~ W004 MOM / • . ? • Q ' ' ' ~ ~ I ~ i ~ PARK ~ ~ , ootMd i ~ troet ~ / i ~ / / Y Ww~d AAO i iMOAI@e % .a~ ~ ~ i s„*% ~ • ' ' y ' { : - / Bbe~ 2 I let A. %to vaow S-041, rsr.q ' ~ ~ ira Moa vwegr. SaW~ i~"0 I + ` ~ ~ ' i t ~ ~ ~i~ • ~ - - ' - % % ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ; - ' y . O N CcP''U AL ~ t'' t p L1~,N ~ EDUCA''ION tl R C T 2/~1g~ - 1~GT~~/A~-rlt/~ o r~ ~ ~c~y ~ORD ALPINC GARDeNs ~ • . v ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ • / / ' / / / / ~ . i ~ t~~ ~ , - , , ~ _ ~ r ~ ~ ~ / i1~~j~iiii i ~ ~ ? ~ / / / ~ i ~ ~ j { S 1 '111 , ' i ' ~ i !!i~ ~~.t7~ • - ~~ef7e9 ~ ~ i t'~j~i : ? ~ Vd e ~ ~ ~ t y~ ' ; ~ ? C I ri j f J ~ 1'~ " 4 . i i - ~^^1_.._~^- _ Y _ I • ~ ` ~ I' r / I ~ I p U,~L pLAN ~a N CC ~ . U Cp?T I ON . D l ~ y ~ORD ~LP1N~ C~ ~ ~ p . Ll>*c. ;-r V' ' AittT ~64'.l' ~ ~ . - o ~ ~ c ; _ ~ r • . ~ ~ . / ~xr+'=~~ - =--~~rA~ ~ ir---- v~r_~ . ~ , L . il ~ I r t?1~1 T . ~i~-cuT~ /MEG • ~ r,l~, fi~. ~ u~a55Z. ~ C:L'L`T:`T; ; ~ IT7 , - + ; rrr.-Lur-,r T t ~ ...1 . . - --1. : ~ ~ (~i L•T/hf~:'. 'I~~~Y _L~~.:,Y.r'~ ~ ` I . 7p . ..__L, . -.~._.__-.r..~_ ' - - _ _ ~iS~S~L ~=G11''~ L ~r~~'fl ~I•i: - . _ . •.FL F e: n f = r....,.r• : ~.•s,.vr~- - . . ~ ~s ; , .-r ~ 1135 N . ~ ~ l-'1~ _ • • ~ ~ .-.y» . . Vail #*eGiine n ~ Foundation MEMO TO: George Ruther - Town of Vail FROM: Sammye Meadows, Helen Fritch - Vail Alpine Garden Foundation RE: Information you requested for PEC work session on 2/24/97 . DATE: 2/17/97 , Attached is the information you requested by phone last week for the 2 f 24/97 PEC ~ work session: ~ 81/2" x 11" reduction of site plan for Education Center j ~ 81/2" x 11" reduction of building footprint for Education Center uirements Our staff for the present and the foreseeable future includes: Executive Director Full-time Monday-Friday Development Officer Fuil-time Monday-Friday Executive Assistant Full-time Monday-Friday Education Officer Half-time Various hours, Monday-Friday We have not yet determined the days and hours of operation for the Museum Shop, which will be staffed by volunteers. • . "Our flotuers in the summer are as glorious as our snow in the tuinter. " 183 GOR6 CREEK DRIYE • VAIL, COLORADO 81657 • 970.476.0103 k . ~ Pnnled on RecYded Pape , I • MEMORANDUM i I TO:, Planning and Environmentai Commission ' FROM: Department af Community Development DATE: , February 24, 1997 , SUBJECT: A request for variances from Sections 1822.060 (Setbacks), 18.22.140 (Parking), and 18.22.020 (Percentage of Accessory Uses) to allow for an entry addition at the Swiss Chalet, located at 62 East Meadow Drive/Part of Lot K, Biock 5-E, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Henry Pratt Pianner: Lauren Waterton 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REGlUESTS The applicant is proposing to add 876 sq. ft. of floor area, in the form of two additions to the main level of the Swiss Chalet. The additions will reconfigure the main (evei of the building in order to i • separate the entry of the hotel from the entry of the restaurant and bar area. A conversion of common area to a lounge/bar will provide a waiting area for the restaurant. An elevator shaft will also be installed to provide accessibility to all levels of the building. , In order to facilitate these additions, the following variances are requested; setbacks, parking and percentage of accessory uses. The applicant originatly requested a common area variance. However, because there is available GRFA, any common area beyond the maximum of 35% of ' the GRFA must be counted as GRFA. Therefore, part of this addition will be considered additional GRFA (although there is no expansion to any of the existing hotel rooms, nor are any additional hotel rooms proposed). In conjunction with this addition, a new one-way circular drive will be added accessing from East Meadow Drive. This new drive will allow for one valet parking space to be located in front of the hotel and will modify the existing fire lane. New access gates will replace the existing bollards that designate the fire lane. The proposal will allow for a more formalized bus stop for the Town's in-town shuttle, with the addition of a heated sidewalk, and a designated seating area to provide guests a place to wait for the bus. A new landscape planter will be added to create an island in the new driveway and provide a focal point for the new entry into the hotel. The existing wood retaining walls wilf be replaced with a landscaped berm and stone veneered walls and a new heated walk will be provided around the building. As a result of this addition and interior remodel (conversion of common area to an accessory use), there is an additional parking requirement of 4.64 spaces. The applicant is proposing to redesign the parking area, however, the redesign will not increase the number of parking spaces. • 1 c r The applicant is requesting the following three variances from Sections 18.22.060, 18.22.140, • and 1822.020 of the Vaii Municipal Code. 1. To ailow for an encroachment of approximately 12' into the required ZO' front setback of the Public Accommodation Zone District. Section 18.22.060 - "In the PA District, the minimum front setback shall be 20'. The minimum side setback shaN be 20' and the minimum rear setback shal4 be 20'." 2., To reduce the amount of required parking to be provided on-site; to a11ow for parking to be located in the front setback; and for less than 75% of the parking be located within the main building. Section 18.22.140 - "Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52. At least 75% of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view. No parking or loading areas shall be located in any required front setback area." Section 18.52.100 "Off -street parking requirements shall be determined in accordance with • the following schedule: Eating and drinking establishments: One space per 8 seats, based on seating capacity or building code occupancy standards, whichever is more restrictive." 3. To allow for accessory uses in the structure to exceed 10% of the totat Gross Residential Floor Area. S.ection 18.22.020 - "The following uses shall be permitted in the PA Zone District: a. Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments Iocated within the principal use and , not occupying more than 10% of the total Gross Residential Floor Area of the main structure or structures on th'rs site." . 2 ~ • 11. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: 34,325.3 square feet Zoning: Public Accommodation , Standard Aiiowed Existina Proposed Difference Density: , 19.7 units 25 No Change ~ GRFA - DU's: 3,098.7 sq. ft. No Change GRFA - AU's: 15,783.4 sq. ft. No Change Excess Common Area 1.086.0 sq_ft. 1.364.9 sq. ft. + 279.0 sg. ft. Total GRFA: 27,460 sq, ft. 19,968.1 sq. ft. 20,247.0 sq. ft, + 279.0 sq. ft. Restaurant 2,422.6 sq. ft. 2,392.6 sq. ft. - 30.0 sq. ft. Retail: 1,891.7 sq. ft. 1,388.7 sq. ft. - 503.0 sq. ft. Recreation rooms 3,760.5 sq. ft. 3,760.5 sq. !t. 0.0 sq. ft. 8ar/Lounge 0.0 sq. ft. 1.130.0 sp. ft, + 1130.0 sq. ft. Accessory Uses*: 2,746 sq. ft. 8,074.8 sq. ft. 8,671.8 sq. ft. + 597.0 sq. ft. (10°k of total GRFA) (40.4%) (43.1%) Common Area'*: 9,611.1 sq. ft. 10,697 sq. ft. 10,976.0 sq. ft. + 279.0 sq. ft. (35% of GRFA) (38.9%) (39.9%) ' Site Coverage: 18,878.9 12,754.0 13,295.0 + 541.0 sq. ft. • (55% of site area) (37%) (39%) Setbacks: Front: 20' 0' (below grade) No Change 19' (above grade) 8' (above grade) Sides: 20' 0' west No Change 21' east No Change Rear: 20' 9' No Change Landscaping: 10,297.6 sq. ft. 12,183 sq. h. 12,870 sq. ft. + 687 sq. ft. (30% of site area) (35%) (37%) Parking: Per Code 14 spaces existing 18.64 spaces required 14 soaces proposed 4.64 spaces deficient ` Accessory Uses are defined as eating, drinking, recreational or retail estabiishments Common Area includes common hallways, stairs, elevators, airlocks, lobby areas, mechanical areas and meeting facilities. All excess in common area (above 350/6), in accordance with Section 18.04.130, shall count as Gross Residential Floor Area. • 3 ~ ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS . Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variances. The recommendation for approval is based on the foliowing factors: A. c:nncideration of Factors: , 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or - potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Setbacks - This property is located within a pedestrian environment in Vail Village. Although cars and buses drive through this area, it has a pedestrian feel. The surrounding shops at the Vail Village Inn and Village Center are close to the street, with a minimal setback. Bringing this corner of the building closer to the street will pull this building into the pedestrian environment, and begin to complete the pedestrian feel of the street on the south side. This addition will upgrade the east facing facade of the building, and thereby improving the overall character of the building. Staff believes this addition wil{ be compatible with the existing uses and structures in the vicinity. P rkin - A total of 14 spaces currently exist on-site, all in the front setback. With the reconfiguration of the driveway, four spaces wi11 be removed. The applicant is proposing to redesign the parking area to allow • for a total of 14 spaces, 12 of which will be in the front setback. The applicant is actually reducing the nonconformity by eliminating two spaces in the front setback. The applicant is proposing to berm and landscape the parking area in order to reduce the visual impact of the parking. Two new spaces are proposed on the south side of the parking area that may potentially impact an existing landscape area. Staff has some concerns about increasing parking in this area. Because of the current depth of the snow, it is difficult to determine the impact. Staff believes that this area should be reviewed after the snow melts in order to determine if mitigation may be required. Staff acknowledges that it is preferred to have enclosed parking, however, this is an old hotel (with an existing nonconforming situation) and staff believes the applicant is mitigating the location of the parking by increasing the landscaping and improving the streetscape elements around the hotel. Because this site is already developed, the applicant is restricted as far as providing additional parking on-site. Staff believes that not providing all required spaces on-site will not impact any uses in the vicinity. As required by Section 18.52.180 (Parking and Loading - Variances), the applicant will pay into the Parking Fund for all required spaces (4.64) not provided on-site. Percentage of Acce ssory Uses - This site is surrounded by properties that have a large amount of commercial activity (the Vail Village Inn, • Crossroads, and Village Center). The Swiss Chalet is one more element of that commercial area which provides shopping and dining opportunities 4 ~ ~ for guests. Staff believes that the uses within the hotel are consistent with i the surrounding uses. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and ~ enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. , Setbacks - Because this property is located within the boundary area of ~ the Vail Village Master Plan (VVMP), the proposed development should be reviewed in light of its compliance with the VVMP. Specifically, one of the stated purposes of the VVMP is to guide staff, review boards and Town Council in analyzing future development proposals. Action 1-4 of the Vail Village Master Plan identifies this corner of the Swiss Chalet as a commerciai infill area, as shown below. Each action item within the VVMP indicates potential development that would be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the VVMP. The applicable goals of the VVMP are below. ~ C:::D ` - - MEADOW #1-4 Sonnenalp East (Swiss Chalet) znfill - Commercial infill of north facing alcove of existing structure to provide shops and pedestrian • activity. A plaza wzth greenspace T shall be developed in conjunction AIISMAN ~ F~ ~ with the adjacent plaza at the SQNNFNALP. Vail Village Inn. Fire access and P~ on-site parking are two issues to be addressed in the design and • a development of this project. ~ -1 2,• Special emphasis on 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1; 6.2. : : - 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.2 Objective: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. 4.1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with greenspace and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall • fabric of the Village. 5 ~ „ 5.1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking ~ facilities. 6.1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. 6.2 Objective: Provide for the safe and efficient functions of fire, police and public utilities within the context of an aesthetically , pleasing resort setting. , - Accordin9 ta the VVMP, "it is a lon9 term goal to strengthen the connection between this area (E. Meadow Drive) and the Village Core area by reinforcing the established pedestrian linkages. Pedestrianization in this area may benefit from the development of retail infiil with associated pedestrian improvements along E. Meadow Drive." Because this is in the Village Core, many surrounding properties do not have any setbacks (CC1 Zoning). The granting of this setback variance will achieve Action 1-4 of the Vail Village Master Plan. Staff believes the applicant is requesting the minimum relief necessary to carry out the objectives of this VVMP action. P-arkin - Given the small lot, the applicant is providing as many spaces on-site as possible. The remaining requirement of 4.64 spaces will be paid for by paying into the Parking Fund. Most of the available space for additional parking is located in the front • setback. The applicant is actually reducing the number of spaces located in the front setback, but is creating new spaces that will not be enclosed. Staff believes that given the small lot, the existing structure and the existing parking, it would be very difficult for ihe applicant to provide any enclosed parking on-site. Percentage of Accessory Uses - According to the applicant, this addition is needed to provide a new entry for the hotel and a new waiting founge for the restaurant. This addition and remodel will provide the needed space for this hotel to improve the quality of the visit for the hotel guest and for the restaurant patron. Again, the Vail Village Master Plan identifies this area as a potential commercial infill area. This request can help to achieve this action identified in the VVMP. Staff believes this use is compatible with surrounding structures, including the Vail Village Inn, Crossroads and Village Center. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Setbacks - The bulk of the addition is only one story. Staff believes that ~ this request will not impact this criteria. Being located in the front setback does bring the building closer to the road, but staff believes it will not impede traffic or create any additional shade on the pub{ic areas. Parking - The improved circulation of the new entry will improve the overall • traffic ftow in this area. There will be no net increase in the number of parking spaces located on-site. The applicant has stated that the increase 6 ~ • in the bar area will not increase the traffic into the hotel. Rather, it is necessary to provide guests a piace to wait. Therefore, staff believes that not providing the required spaces on-site, enclosed and out of the front setback will not affect these issues. Percentage of Accessorx Uses - Staff believes that this request will have no impact on this factor. While there will be an increase in the amount of commercial square footage, staff believes that it will not impact traffic or , transportation issues. Because this site is located on the in-town shutCle , route and is close to the Village parking structure and the Village core, staff does not anticipate an increase on the transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities or public safety. B. The Planning and Environmental Gommission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. , • 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance requests for setbacks, parking and percentage of accessory uses, subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variances will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the • vicinity. 7 ~ 3. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would . result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. ~ The recommendation of approval is also subject to the following conditions: , 1. That the proposed handicapped parking space meet the minimum size requirements as specified in the Zoning Code. , , 2. That the two new parking spaces on the south end of the parking area be staked out and reviewed by staff. This must be done after the snow has melted to determine if there is additional site disturbance, and whether or not mitigation will be required. 3. That the final details on architecture, site walls, landscaping, and the paving materials be submitted to staff prior to review by the Design Review Board. i . I . 8 i EAsT M5;kvow nP-N~ pj: Sn~h To~ ~-,-~"f,,~-'E--• ~ - . b T 4 ~-=+NmH ' . ~3__. _ .=~1~: _ /,~1A/~•~', " ~ • yy t .r~r \ ~ ~lT~j/ tsalEn_n~'i~: / ~/~j ~ - ~!'o ~ ' ~ / / ' t~wa•~+t'n AT I'' { 7 ~1¢'(G ~ 10 .ri. RE•R~.17' ~ 4 \ i~ ~ a\ ~ q p, ~`1 cx slN+b -rm> .t tp" . - ~,,.,m~ 1 °~c a .,.w~ ~ T csc T'~iO~ • 6kr^6~ ~a n Ape, CpW210W~ i ~ . L-i . , - - - - , ern c ~ ~ vaeer fIN~ wau J Q a ~ ~`r. I...~ i Q I I I 00 ~ ioivwrwe souv. Hsr ~ ~ O } i~sv. , ~ ~ ~ W U I ^ } } ' ~ i ~ T ~ xunru GMILo L~{Nf?R m Z ~ ; N{. fllftRlOR GpRR1001[ I _ ~ ! i ~ ! I W O O j ~ j • J w ~x~sr~ru w.u. O ~ ~ - ~ - - ; r--- t ~ : ---;J W ~ eto. ? ~ 1 I 0 f~1~~w~MR • NfN T > W {LfGM L4L Mft y I ~01 ~ ero~cnss ( ~ ~ ~ z L~ ~ .xu.. n w ew~.. . ; I N~~ W N p ~ ~~W N~i+ws rn I ~ ( 1.OGRHC6 ~OLR{RO i ZV) R. o3p i ~ ~ i ( ~ cn cn I S{CON/IWR10 WsTINi RDOM I ~ I i ~ ~aeel ~r~s R~rcmw ~ xu~iwc srwir ~ ' ~ ~ ~ I awwMSS`o raiwr ~ ; I I {XI~fINO \ I I • • ~ ' ~ fsLSlNpif ROOY R'~S~ 1L -----A - - ----n I I I ! I ~ i I I I I I LOWER LEVEL . DRAWlNG I.EGEIVD ~I ~ ~ ;~OR PLAN ~ aM1~ R t~aAtl YW~~ • M. A1~~1 IYnO~ . a~MMi W1.o~IRG Mlt TqM ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . • . ~ ~ . 16 I MhiN L{V{L { IOi~Ni LOOi~ i ' i i 'i r I r~=~H• sa~er - ' - - i_. - - - - - I ~ LLUAi i II I srA 19 NfY ~ ' ~I I ~ {Il1~fINi ~ . OtwIR H~r / II I [~efwURAHf i ~ •I.~V. LOOOY ~ Y,~ ~ O o s ~F Ot M1 ~ 00 J W O ~I ~ .e.~,...... I I m o ~ ~ ; o 0 ~.f~r wu. ur ~ I ~ u.:~iw ~ ~ w~t1.OGK ~ fNYRY ' ryl j ii ww~ rn~6w u.a~. efSV i Gf ~ W ' ""__..J~_--L--_' --------~-N-- - - ---a~ =w Nsw _ sXlLi. J e., O a a~ > ZNo er=`e ~ L o30 TrrF I i ..e. .~.w~. r. i.Y I ~ sa~ sr. ~ ? A ee..s I 2 1 ~ rr . I I ; ~ n s r w w ~ r i r u w u H C S h s r e w u r u s , ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ i~ ~:r ~ I) ~ I s w~iwck 'y ~ I ' ' ' ' ~ . DeM 12-4-% I ~a~ernu. ~ I covs~so~ ~wuc i ~ ? ' ~ i U r„ ~ ENTRY LEVEL FDRAWING LEGEIVD ~ ~OOR . PLAN K. K. YNM 7M~IMwOK Y$°s f ti ..r^ T'i$. N . j r:^£,y _J t F Y 1 ~ • . ,~^~k'~., al..aiY'1'iS~j~'.~ Tl.«:~ •a,~ js ~ L~ T •'I t S ~ `-S+ . . . y ~ ' , * ~ a• ~ ~~t ~ ~ ~ j ' _ tn.r~ x ` Y~'' k ,~e^~ _ •h'~' " :..`~,~~~f'~`^- ~ _ f ~,Y ~ X I=.",. ~ :s ~E .t. 7T ~ i ~ t t ,~,,;r 1 i I ~ l I •r ~ 4~ µ ~ f I. ~ ~ ~ . . . . ' ~ I ~ ; -4 • _ 6_ . - ~ , . a_. • - - . ~ • • . : 2 ` .'nS~lt`~~:_ - t ~ Xy* k 4,r.'t' , T r n: \ xl r • ~ ~ ~ ~ II ' _ ' . c. . • Y $ , ~ r ~ l~ ~ . . _ ~.Zf y ~ +i~ . . . . . ~ ' . i , I _ qi ~ ' 1 k SL~.~jCCC ~ T r ` ~r y ~ :~Yc': iiCJlSi a~ E~v~! lG.W SIU~ 1 • n ti Projccc ~ -SbiVwETlALP Scale - 1~~ ;,t • ; SwiSS f fovS~: na« f 2 6 ` - ..r...~....~.._... . . . . ...L...,,...,....~_.a... , ~ ~ I 1'~ FF ~~'~Q s~r ~ ~ • t. s AUSTRIA HAUS REDEVELOPMENT Staff Memorandum ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. Establishment of a Special Development District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 B. ConditionalUse Permit 2 II. BACKGROUND 2 , . I III. ZONING ANALYSIS 3 IV. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DlSTRICT ESTABLISHMENT PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 (nine SDD Criteria) A. Design compatibility and senskivity to the immediate environment, neig hborhood and ad'acent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building helght, 6uffer zones, ident~y, character, visual integrity and orientatlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficierrt and workable relationship wlth surrounding uses and activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Etnployee Housing RRquirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 EmQlovee Housing Generation Malysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 C. CompIlance with parking and loading requlrements as outlined In Chapter 18.52. of the Town of Vail Mun(cipalCode .........................................................................13 D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vall Comprehensive Plen, Town pollcies and Urban Design Plan ............................................................................14 VaIlLand Use Plan 14 ~ VailViilage Master Plan ...........................................................15 Vail Village Desian Conslderatlons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Urban Desiqn Considerations .....................................................18 Architect Landscape Conslderatlons ...............................................24 I E. Identificatlon and mltlgation of natural and/or geologlc hazerds that affect the property on which the , speclal development district is proposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 F. Site plan, building design and locatlon and open space provlslons designed to produce a functlonal development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overail aesthetic quality of the community ..........................................................................35 G. A circulatlon system designed for both vehlcles and pedestrians addressing on and off-sfte traffic ................................35 circulation ~ H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 1. Phasing plan or subdivialon plan that wfll maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 V. CRITERIA AND FlNDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 AITACHMENT 1 AITACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 3 . ATTACHMEWT 4 ; • MEMORANDUM TO: Pianning and Environmentai Commission FROM: Department of Community Development I DATE: February 24, 1997 , SUBJECT:, A request for a final review of the estabiishment of Special Development District . #35, Austria Haus, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Fractional Fee Club, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vai! Village First Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTlON OF THE REQUESTS A. The Establishment of a Sqecial Development District The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, lnc., represented by Gordon Pierce, is requesting a final review meeting with the Planning and Environmental Commission for the ~ establishment of Special Development District #35, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing. The applicant is proposing to estabtish a new Special Development District overlay to the underlying zone district of Public Accommodation, to facilitate the redevelopment of the existing Austria ' Haus. The app(icant has proposed significant improvements to the existing Austria Haus property. The Austria Haus is intended to become a member-owned resort club/lodge, comprising a mix of hotel accommodation units and two and three-bedroom club units with associated club amenities/facilities. The Austria Haus proposal is intended to provide additional hotel and "hotel-type" accommodation units in the Town of Vail. The applicant is proposing to incorporate 22 member-owned club units (fractional fee club units with 28 lock-off units), with 25 hotel rooms and one on-site manager's residence (employee housing unit). The applicant is proposing 4,440 square feet of new commercial/retail space on the main level of the Austria Haus. The Austria Haus proposal includes a front desk reception/registration area operating 24 hours a day and seven days a week, a lounge, an exercise room, member ski storage and other accessory facilities commonly associated with hotels and lodges. The applicant has identified what they believe to be public benefits which will be realized as a result of the Austria Haus redevelopment. The public benefits identified by the applicant include: . 1 1. An increase in the annual occupancy of the Austria Haus by approximately four times. • 2. The addition of approximately 4,000 square feet of retail space (sales tax generating). 3. The implementation of the recommended Streetscape Master Plan improvements to East Meadow Drive. . 4. The completion of the commercial loop in the Village via the construction of a well-lit, heated pedestrian walkway. 5. The removal of 25 surface parking spaces and the construction of an underground ti , parking structure. ~ 6. Landscape improvements to Slifer Square, East Meadow Drive and the Gore Creek streambank. B. Conditional Use Permi t The applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a Fractional Fee Club as part of the Austria Haus redevelopment. As mentioned previously, the applicant is proposing to incorporate 22 fractional fee club units into the Austria Haus. Each of the club units wiU be sold in one-ninth shares. On January 21, 1997, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance #22, Series of 1996, an ordinance amending Section 18.04, Definitions, adding "Fractional Fee Club" and "Fractional Fee Club Unit", amendin9 Section 18.22.030, Conditiona{ Uses, af{owing fractional fee club as a conditional use in the Public Accommodation Zone District, amending Section 18.60.060(A)(7), Conditional Use Permit Criteria-Findings. The review ~ of the Austria Haus proposal will be according the procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.60 of the Municipal Code. A copy of Ordinance #22, Series of 1996, has been attached for reference. 11. BACKGROUND The Austria Haus was original{y 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) totaling 10,100 sq. ft. with approximately "75 pillows" and is operated eight months each year by Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. There is a small restaurant and bar in the Austria Haus that serves the guests and a small retail outlet on the east end of the building. The hotel rooms are marginal in size (300 sq. ft. average) and lack certain hotel amenities, by today's standards. . 2 ~ I• According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the applicanYs property is zoned Public ' Accommodation. The Public Accornmodation 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 with densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre. The Public i Accommodation Zone District, prior to January 21, 1997, did not permit interval ownership. Interval ownership was only allowed as a conditional use in the High Density Multi-Family Zone District pursuant to Ordinance #8, Series of 1981. ~ III. ZONING ANALYSIS 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 devefopment standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it shaii be determined that such deviations provide benefits to the Town that oufin?eigh the adverse effects of such deviations. This determination is to be made based upon the evatuation of the proposed Special Development DistricYs compliance with the Review Criteria outlined in the following section. The Community Development Department staff has prepared a Zoning Analysis for the proposed ~ Austria Haus redevelopment based on the revised plans submitted by the applicant on February 12, 1997. The Zoning Analysis compares the development standards outlined by the underlying i zone district of Public Accommodation and Ordinance #8 (SDD #12/1984) ta the proposed Special Development District #35. For comparative purposes only, and at the request of the Planning and Environmental Commission, staif has included the approved developmer?t standards of Special Development District # 30, (the Vail Athletic Club). Wherever the proposed development standards deviate from the underlying zoning of Public Accommodation, the standards are highlighted in bold type. • 3 : AUSTRIA HAUS ~ Loi size: 24,089 sq. ft. /0.553 acres Buidable area: 24,089 sq. ft. /0.553 acres Development Underlying 2oning Ordinance #S Proposed SDD , Standard of Public Accommodation (SDD #12/1984) . GRFA: 80% or 19,271 sq. ft. 118% or 28,591 sq. ft. 168% or 40,429 sq. ft. Dwelling ' units per acre: 13.8 DU's 34.5 DU's 35 DU's (22 DU's, (2 DU's & 65 AU's) 25 AU's,1 Type 111 EHU) I Site coverage: 550/o or 13,249 sq. ft. 71 % or 68% or 16,371 sq. ft. 17,103 sq.ft. Setbacks: , front: 20' N/A 0' sides: 20' N/A 5' / 20' rear: 20' N/A 7' Height: 48' sloping N/A 56.5' 45' flat 52' 60' tower 68' Parking: per T.O.V. code Section 18.52 5 short-term 48 spaces in garage and ~ spaces on-site 16.26 spaces 71 parking spaces pay-in-Ileu pay-in-lieu Landscaping: 30% or 7,227 sq. ft. A detailed plan 19.8 % or 4,782.6 sq. ft. was to be submitted for DRB approval Loading: per T.O.V. code Section 18.52 1 berth 1 berth at drop-off area Commercial sq. footage: 10% or 1,927 sq. ft. 36% or 11% or 4,440 sq. ft. 11,555 sq. ft. Common area: 350/. of allowable GRFA N/A 3896 or 15,308 sq. ft. or 6,745 sq. ft. I • 4 ; I I ~ Vail Athtetic Ctub Lot Size: 30,486 square feet/0.699 acre Suildable: 30,486 square fesU0.699 acre Development Underiying Zoning Speclal Development ' Standard of Public Accommodatlon District #30 Approval . GRFA: 80% or 24,388 sq. ft. 113% or 34,505 sq. ft. Dwelling units per acre: 17.5 DU's 33 DU's (4 DU's, 55AU's, 4 Type IV EHU's) Site coverage: 55% or 16,767 sq, ft. 709'0 or 21,350 sq. ft. Setbacks: front: 20' 0' sides: 20' 12'/12' rear: 20' 2' Height: 48' sloping 67' Parking: per T.O.V. code section 18.52 29 valet spaces (87 spaces) • Landscaping: 30% or 9,145 sq. ft. 32% or 9,730 sq. ft. Loading: per T.O.V. code section 18.52 N/A Commerciaf sq. footage: 10% or 3,049 sq. ft. 139'0 or 4,066 sq. ft. Common area: 35% of allowable GRFA or 8,536 sq, ft. 449'0 or 15,054 sq. ft. IV. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DfSTRICT 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 mast appropriate use; to improve the design character and qualiiy 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 5 ' the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the ~ Special Development District." The Municipai Code provides a framework for the estabiishment of a Special Development District. According to the Municipal Code, prior to site preparation, building construction, or other improvemen#s to land within a Speciai 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. Upon final review of the proposed establishment of a Special Development District, a report from ' the Planning and Environmentai 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. 'i An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses and activities of the Special Development District. The development pJan sha!l contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the Special Development District shall adhere. 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 Environmenta! Commission and Town Council as part of the formal review of the proposed development plan. Unless further resiricted 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 design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed Special Development District. It shalt be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with I 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. The staff has addressed each of the nine SDD review criteria below: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood I and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The staff believes it is helpful to summarize the architectural design issues that have been previously identified by the staff and the PEC, and have been addressed by the aPPlicant over the course of the five Precedin9 worksession meetin9s. I Jeff Winston of Winston & Associates, Inc., has provided consultation on the proposed ' urban design elements, architecture and site planning proposed by the applicant. Jeff's comments are in response to the revisions made by the applicants after the worksession meeting held on January 13, 1997. Jeff was at the February 10th PEC worksession and discussed his comments. ~ 6 ~ . North Elevation 1. The front entry to the Austria Haus was relocated to the west of the building to accommodate guest drop-off and reduce vehicular traffic on East Meadow Drive, east of the existing traffic control gate location. The front drop-off area was aiso reconfigured to provide better traffic circulation and reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. 2. The northeast corner of the building was reduced in size to open this portion of . , the site to Slifer Square, and to provide additional articulation and visual interest . to the north elevation. These changes were made in response to concerns expressed by Jeff Winston and the staff. 3. The northeast corner of the building will no longer be used for a bus shelter. The praposed bus shelter was determined to be too far removed from the actual location where a bus will stop. The applicant has proposed a new location for a bus shelter east of the Austria Haus in Slifer Square. The bus shelter has been designed in cooperation with the Town of Vail Public Works Department. 4. The balconies on the north side of the Austria Haus have been eliminated. The elimination is a result of the applicant's desire to increase the square footage of the accommodation units located on the second and third levels of the building. The loss of the balconies has created more building mass along East Meadow Drive, however, staff believes this change has been successful{y mitigated by the applicant. + South Elevation 1. Staff was concerned that the south elevation was too repet+tive, too linear and lacked the architectural interest of the north elevation. The applicant has removed two of the chimney chases from the south elevation in an attempt to eiiminate the repetitive nature of the design. Staff would recommend that the applicant further modify the south elevation as the elevation still appears too repetitive. Staff would again recornmend that the applicant explore ways of reducing the repetitive nature of the south elevation. Staff believes these changes are aesthetic in nature and can be addressed at the time of Design Review. 2. The original design proposed commercial retail space on the first level, on the south side of the building. After discussions with the PEC, this space was removed because there was a concern about pedestrian circulation, the need for off-site improvements and potential impacts on adjacent property owners. The commercial retail space was replaced with three, fractional fee club units. East Elevation 1. The eastern end of the building has been reduced in width and the corner "cut back," as recommended, to open up the Austria Haus to Slifer Square. This change also provides a horizontal step in the alignment of the building, along East Meadow Drive. ~ k • 2. Concerns were expressed over the use of a flat roof on a portion of the east end • of the building. The fiat roof portion has been e(iminated and a dormer and exterior deck have been introduced. Staff believes this change results in a much improved east elevation by providing an increase in architectural interest and detai(. ' West Eievation ' 1. The west end on the Austria Haus has been changed substantially in response to , concerns raised by the staff, Jeff Winston, Village Center merchants and the . adjoining property owners. The applicant originally proposed a much taller west elevation and a covered garage entry. The covered entry has been removed to reduce building mass and eliminate building encroachments into the 20-foot side setback. The height of the west elevation has been reduced by further clipping ~ the hip back, lowering the eaveline and dropping the ridge elevation. 2. The west end of the building was increased slightly in width. The increased width allows the northwest corner of the building to move closer to East Meadow Drive, improving the streetscape. 3. Additional landscaping plantings are proposed along the western end of the building. The additional landscaping is intended to screen the garage entrance from the Village Center residential units and buffer the vehicle activity in this area. The landscaping extends onto Village Center property. A copy of an approval from Village Center has been attached for reference. Staff believes the applicant has designed a structure which relates well to the site and the . surrounding neighborhood. The mass of the Austria Haus is appropriate for the site and takes into consideration the massing of the buildings on the adjoining properties. The building steps down on the east and west ends to insure a smooth transition between properties and does not create an imposing "canyon" along property lines. The north side of the Austria Haus was designed with a pedestrian scale in mind. The retail shops on the north side of the Austria Haus create a commercial connection along East Meadow Drive, between Slifer Square and the Village Center retail shops. The commercial connection has been missing along this portion of East Meadow Drive and staff believes that the Austria Haus will enhance the character of the Village. The exterior building materials of the Austria Haus are a mixture of stone, stucco and wood. The roof material is proposed to be a reddish, tile-type roof similar to the material used on the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus. The applicant has proposed to incorporate irrigated flower boxes into the design of the structure. The use of divided light windows all around the building creates a European-feel and reduces the appearance of too much glass. Staff believes that the combination of building materials has been well incorporated into the design of the Austria Haus. The applicant has proposed that the exterior stucco color be an off-white to yellowish/cream color to blend in with the exteriors of the Mountain Haus and the Village Center buildings. The height of the Austria Haus exceeds the allowable building height of the Public Accommodation Zone District by approximately nine feet. The development standards for the underlying zone district indicate that the maximum height for buildings with sloping roofs shall be 48 feet. The applicant is requesting that the maximum building height for the Austria Haus be approximately 57 feet. The 57-foot building height is based on • existing (1997) topography of the Austria Haus property, and not the original topography of the site (pre-1963). Original topography of the site is not available, since the Austria Haus was constructed in Vail prior to zoning (and prior to the requirement that a ; 8 • topographic survey be submitted prior to development). Staff believes, based upon the location of the existing retaining walls and the condition of the streambank, that the site was "cuY" when the Austria Haus was built. While it is difficult to know exactly how much of the site was "cuY", staff would conservatively estimate that approximately 2- 3 feet of soil was removed. Given this conservative consideration, staff would estimate the actual building height proposed for the•Austria Haus would be 54 - 55 feet. According to the Vail Village Master Plan Conceptual Building Height Plan, the Austria Haus should be 3-4 ' stories in height, with a building story being approximately nine feet, excluding the roof. The plan further indicates that one additional floor of residential/lodging may also be accommodated on the Austria Haus site. ~ B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The Austria Haus is located immediately adjacent to the Vail Village Commercial Core. The Austria Haus is bound on the east by Slifer Square and the Mountain Haus, on the west by the Village Center residential/commercial buildings and on the south by Gore Creek, the Covered Bridge Building, Gasthof Gramshammer and the Creekside Building. Each of these buildings are a mixed-use development incorporating commercial/retail space with residential and/or accommodation units. The applicant is proposing a mixed-use development that is in compliance with the uses allowed in the underlying zone district. The underlying zoning of Public Accommodation , encourages the devefopment of lodges (accommodation units) and accessory eating, drinking and retail establishments at a density of twenty-five dwelling units per acre. The ~ applicant is proposing to redevelopment the Austria Haus at a density of 35 dwelling units per acre, with 4,440 sq. ft of commercial/retail space on the main level of the building. Included in the density figure are twenty-two member-owned club units (fractional fee), twenty-five hotel rooms (accommodation units) and one on-site manager's residence (Type III, Employee Housing Unit). The applicant's proposal differs greatly from the existing use of the property. Currently, the Austria Haus includes thirty-six accommodation units, and one dwelling unit, equaling nineteen dwelling units per acre, a restaurant and a limited amount of commercial/retail space on the east end of the building. Parking at the Austria Haus is accommodated by a twenty-five space surface parking lot. Of the twenty-five spaces, fifteen are considered legal, non-conforming parking spaces. The other ten spaces are off-site and are not considered legal parking spaces for zoning purposes. An informal load ing/del ivery/trash area exists on the west end of the building. Emplovee Housing Rgquirements As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans, providing affordable housing for employees is a critical issue which should be addressed through the planning process for Special Development District proposals. In reviewing the Austria Haus proposal for employee housing needs, staff relied on the Town of Vail Employee Housing Report. The Employee Housing Report, was prepared for the Town by the consulting firm Rosall, Remmen and Cares. The report provides the recommended ranges of employee housing • units needed based on the type of use and the amount of floor area dedicated to each use. Utilizing the guidelines prescribed in the Employee Housing Report, the staff analyzed the incremental increase of employees (square footage per use), that result from the Austria Haus redevelopment. A copy of the " Suqgested Emnloyment 9 ~ . Cateaories and Ranges for Vail Exqressed as EmRloyees aer 1000 Sauare Feet" has . been attached for reference. The figures identified in the Housing Report are based on surveys of commercial-use employment needs of the Town of Vail and other mountain resort communities. For comparison purposes, Tellurider Aspen and Whistler B.C. all have "employment generation" ordinances requiring developers to provide affordable housing for a percentage of the "new" employees resulting from commerciai development. "New" employees are defined as the incremental increase in employment needs resulting from commercial redevelopment. Each of the communities assesses a different percentage of . affordable housing a developer must provide for the "new" employees. For example, Telluride requires developers to provide housing for 40% (0.40) of the "new" employees, Aspen requires that 60% (0.60) of the "new" employees are provided housing and Whistler requires that 100% (1.00) of the "new" employees be provided housing by the developer. In comparison, Vail has conservatively determined that developers shall provide housing for 15% (0.15) or 30% (0.30) of the "new" employees resulting from commercial development. When a project is proposed to exceed the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 30% (0.30) figure is used in the calculation. If a project is proposed at, or below, the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 15% (0.15) figure is used. The Austria Haus Special Development District proposal exceeds the density permitted by the underlying zone district, and therefore, the 30% figure shall be used. According to the applicant, in 1997, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., will need to employ 36 individuals to operate the existing Austria Haus. This employee figure takes into account the maximum staffing requirement for the Christmas and President's Day weeks. Of the 36 individuals, five are needed to staff the front desk, 13 are required for housekeeping • purposes, 16 are needed to operate the bar and restaurant, and the remaining two individuals are needed to provide other facilities support functions. Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. has provided proposed employrnent figures for the operation of the redeveloped Austria Haus. Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. estimates a need for approximately 32 employees, plus an unknown retail need. Excluding retail, this figure indicates a slight reduction in the employment need. The reduction in employment need is due to the removal of the bar and restaurant operation from the Austria Haus. After redevelopment, the Sonnenalp will only be providing continental food service to the guests of the Austria Haus. A copy of the "Austria Haus Staffing Roster" has been attached for reference. EMPLOYEE HOUSING GENERATION ANALYSIS The staff analysis below indicates the top, the middle and the bottom of the ranges recommended by the Town of Vail Employee Housing Report, as well as a staff recommended figure which was used in determining the employee housing needs of the Austria Haus. A summary of the Employee Housing Generation Analysis is as follows: 10 • ; • Bottom of Range Calculations: a) Retail/Service Commercial = 3,660 sq. ft. @(5/1000 sq. ft.) =18.3 employees b) Office: Real Estate = 780 sq. ft. @(6/1000 sq. ft.) = 4.7 employees ~ c) Lodging" = 25 units 9(0.25/room) = 6.2 employees d) Multi-Family (club units) = 22 units Qa (0.4/unit) = 8.8 employees ~ Totai =38.0 employees (-36 existing employees) = 2 employees (X 0.30 multiplier) =1 new employee Middle of Range Calculations: aJ Retail/Service Commercial = 3,660 sq. ft. @(6.5/1000 sq. ft.)=23.8 employees b) Office: Real Estate = 780 sq. ft. @(7.5/1,000sq. ft.) = 5.9 employees ' c) Lodging` = 25 units @(0.75/room) =18.7 employees d) Multi-Family (club units) = 22 units @(0.4/unit) = 8.8 employees ~ Totaf =57.2 employees (-36 existing employees) =22 employees (X 0.30 multiplier) = 7 new employees To ot~ f Range Calculations: a) Retail/Service Commercial = 3,660 sq. ft. @(8/1000 sq. ft.) =29.3 employees b) Office: Real Estate = 780 sq. ft. @(9/1000 sq. ft.) = 7.0 employees c) Lodging* = 25 units @(1.25/room) =31.2 employees d) Multi-Family (club units) = 22 units @(0.4/unit) = 8.8 employees Total =76.3 employees (-36 existing employees) =41 employees (X 0.30 multiplier) =13 new employees • 11 Staff Recommended Range Calculations: ~ The staff believes that the Austria Haus redevelopment wili create a need for 34 additional employees. Of the 34 additional employees, at least 11 employees (30%) will need to be provided deed-restricted housing by the developers of the Austria Haus. The staff recommended range is based on: 1. the type of retail and office use proposed in the commercial space within the Austria Haus; 2. the size of the Austria Haus lodging component; and , 3. the high-level of services and amenities proposed by the developers for the guests of the Austria Haus. a) Retail/Service Commercial = 3,660 sq. ft. @(6.5/1000 sq. ft.)=23.8 employees (middle of range) b) Office: real estate = 780 sq. ft. @(7.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 5.9 employees (middle of range) c) Lodging* = 25 units @(1.25/room) =31.2 employees (top of range) d) Multi-Family (club units) = 22 units @(0.4/unit) = 8.8 employees (range does not vary) Total =69.7 employees (-36 existing employees) =34 employees . (X 0.30 multiplier) =11 new employees "Lodging has a particularly large variation of employees per room, depending upon tactors such as size of facility and level of service/support services and amenities provided. ' Depending upon the size of the employee housing unit provided, it is possible to have up to two employees per bedroom. For example, a iwo-bedroom unit in the size range of 450 - 900 square feet, is possible of accommodating three to four employees. These figures are consistent with the requirements for the Type III employee housing units outlined in the Municipal Code. The applicant has indicated the many of the Austria Haus' operational and functional needs will be met by combining services with the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus. For example, the following services will be shared with the Bavaria Haus: ¦ Marketing and Sales ¦ Accounting ¦ Reservations ¦ Laundry Facilities ¦ Room Service ¦ Employee Cafeteria ¦ Human Resources • ¦ Purchasing ¦ Trash Removal 12 k While it makes sense from a operational standpoint for the Austria Haus to share certain I~ operational and functional needs with the Bavaria Haus, there is some question as to whether the Austria Haus should be required to be a stand-alone operation. Staff further I questions how the delivery of goods (linens, trash, food, etc.) will be accamplished and whether an adequate amount of common storage space for housekeeping purposes is being provided. The use of East Meadow Drive for the delivery of goods and services has ~ been increasing, resulting in pedestrian conflicts and traffic congestion, and therefore, additional delivery vehicle traffic should be avoided. Staff would recommend that the applicant address these issues and concerns with the PEC. , Overall, staff believes that the density and uses proposed by the applicant for the Austria Haus do not conflict with the compatibility, efficiency or workability of the surrounding uses and/or activities. In fact, staff feels that the proposed Austria Haus redevelopment will enhance the existing uses and activities in the Village. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Parking and loading requirements for development are established in Chapter 18.52 of the Municipal Code. The parking and loading requirements are based on the square footage of the uses proposed within a building. Based on the square footage of the uses proposed by the applicant, 7926 parking spaces and one loading/delivery berth are required on-site. The Municipal Code allows "grandfathering" of the existing legal non- conforming parking spaces. Current(y, fifteen legal, non-conforming parking spaces exist on the property. Therefore, the parking requirement for the proposed Austria Haus redevelopment is 64.26 new parking spaces. The applicant is proposing an underground • parking structure designed to accommodate forty-eight parking spaces and an enclosed trash facility. This leaves 16.26 additional parking spaces required. The applicant is proposing to meet the additional parking requirement by paying into the Town of Vail Parking Fund. Parking spaces are currently valued at $16,333.38. The cost per parking space will increase on January 1, 1997, as the figure is adjusted based on the Consumer Price Index. The applicant will be required to pay-in-lieu at the designated rate, at the time of building permit application. The Town of Vail Finance Department states that the 1997 adjusted rate is not yet available. It is believed the adjusted rate will be available by March 1, 1997. The applicant is proposing one loading/delivery berth in the front entry drop-off area, located on the north side of the building, adjacent to East Meadow Drive. Much of the drop-off area is within Town of Vail right-of-way. Staff recognizes that this area is conveniently located near the entrances to the front desk and the commercial/retail shops, however, we feel that the use of the drop-off area may be compromised by the loading and delivery of goods. In staff's opinion, the front entry drop-off area should be used by the guests of the Austria Haus. Staff believes that trying to accommodate loading and delivery in this area will result in conflicts between guests, vehicles accessing the parking structure, and delivery trucks. Staff wou(d recommend that the applicant revisit the alternative of providing the loading and delivery faciliry in the underground parking structure. Staff understands this is not the des+re of the owners of the Village Center Condominiums, yet we believe the impact can be mitigated with appropriate screening. . 13 ~ D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town ~ policies and Urban Design Plan. Vail Land Use Plan The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process of establishing a new Specia! Development District. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal: , 1. General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, mainta+ning a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The qualiry of the environment including air, water, and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgrade whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing , developed areas (infill). 1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use. 3. Commercial 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skier. , 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. I 4. Village Core/Lionshead 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through the implementation of the ~ Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 14 Residential 5.1 Quality timeshare units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. Staff believes the proposed establishment of the new Special Development District (#35) is in concert with the goals and policies of the Vail Land Use Plan as outlined above. Vail Village Master Plan , The Vail Viliage Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with the such development. The staff has identified the following goals, objectives and policies as being relevant to this proposal: Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.1 Objective: Implement a consistent Development Review Process to reinforce the character of the Village. 1.1.1 Policv: Development and irnprovement projects approved in the Village shall be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and design considerations as • outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 12 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.2.1 Policy: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the action plan as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new developrnent and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Polick Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. 2.1 Objective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub- areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. • 15 ~ 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short- term, overnight accommodations. ~ 2.3.1 Policv: The development of short-term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that • are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short-term overnight rental. , , 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commerciai activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.5.1 Policv: Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of lodging properties. 2.6 Obiective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.1 Polick Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redeveloped project requesting density . over that allowed by existing zoning. Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policv: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating ~ areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.1.3 Policy: Flowers, trees, water features and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. 32 Objective: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. 3.2.1 Po(ick Vehicuiar traffic will be eliminated or reduced to absolutely minimal necessary levels in the pedestrianized areas of the Village. • 16 c i DeveiP additionaI sidewaIks, p ede strian-oniY walkwaYs 3.4 Object e: ivo • and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks I and stream access. 3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to . incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. Goal-#4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space z opportunities. 4.1 Objective: Improve exis#ing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each rype of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 41.4 Policv: Open space irnprovements, including the addition of accessible green space as described or graphically shown in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Urban Design Guide Plan, will be required in conjunction with private infill or redevelopment projects. Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. j . 5.1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. i 5.1.1 Polick For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core 1 Zone District, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additiona( parking demand as required by the Zoning Code. 5.1.5 Polick Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. 6.1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. Vail Villaae Master Plan and Building Hei h~ t Plan Generally speaking, it is the goal of the Building Height Plan to maintain the concentration of low-scale buildings in the Core area, while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery. According to the Conceptual Building Height Plan contained within • the Vail Village Master Plan, the Austria Haus is located within an area proposed to have building heights of a maximum range of three to four stories. A building story is defined as 9' of height, not including the roof. 17 ~ Vail Viliage Master Plan Action Plan According to the Action Plan, the Austria Haus property is an area intended for ~ reside ntial/lodg ing infill along the south side of the property and commercial infill along the north side of the property. I According to the Vail Village Master Plan, the Austria Haus property is located within mixed-use sub-area #1-8, Sonnenalp (Austria Haus)/Slifer Square: -"Commercial infill along East Meadow Drive to provide a stronger edge to street ~ and commercial activity generators to reinforce the pedestrian loop throughout the Village. Focus of infill is to provide improvements to pedestrian circulation with separated walkway including buffer, along East Meadow Drive. Accommodating on-site parking and maintaining the bus route along East Meadow Drive are two significant constraints that must be addressed. One additional floor of residential/lodging may also be accommodated on this site. Specific emphasis should be placed on the following Vail Village Master Plan objectives: 2.3, 2.4, 2.6,3.1,32,3.3,3.4,4.1,5.1,6.1." V il Village D i n Considerallons The Town of Vail adopted the Vail Village Design Considerations in 1980. The Design Considerations were revised in 1993. The Design Considerations are considered an integral part of the Vail Village Urban Design Plan. The Design Considerations are intended to: ? guide growth and change in ways that will enhance and preserve the essential . qualities of the Village; and ? serve as design guidelines instead of rigid rufes of development; and ? help influence the form and design of buildings. The Vail Village Design Considerations are divided into two categories (urban design considerations and architectural/landscape considerations): 1. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS , These considerations relate to general, large-scale land use planning issues, as well as form considerations which affect more than one property or even whole areas. These considerations , are primarily the purview of the Planning and Environmental Commission. A. PEDESTRIANIZATION A major objective for Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Many of the improvements recognized in the Urban Design Guide Plans, and accompanying Design Considerations, are to reinforce and expand the quality of pedestrian walkways throughout the Village. Since vehicular traffic cannot be removed from certain streets (bus routes, delivery access), a totally care-free pedestrian system is not achievable throughout the entire Village. Therefore, several levels of pedestrianization have been identified. The level of ~ pedestrianization most appropriate for the proposed Austria Haus redevelopment is the joint vehiclelpedestrian use of the roadway. 18 ; ~ • Staff Res op nse; The applicant has met on numerous occasions with the Town staff to discuss pedestrian improvements. The staff has conciuded that the improvements recommended for East Meadow Drive in the 1991 Town of Vaii Streetscape Master Plan should be impiemented. This includes a reduction in street width from 30 feet to 26 feet (14 foot bus lane and 12 foot attached, paver pedestrian walk). The applicant is further proposing to construct a 12 - 20 foot wide, heated pedestrian walkway immediately adjacent to the north side of the building. Staff believes that these improvements reinforce and significantiy improve - the pedestrian walkways throughout the Viiiage by providing places for people to walk without forcing them into the bus lane. The creative use of concrete unit pavers emphasizes the pedestrian character and offers a clear and attractive pedestrian route. The retaif space on the main level of the Austria Haus closes the commercial loop from Slifer Square to Village Center. B. VEHICLE PENETRATION To maximize to the extent possible, all non-resident traffic should be routed along the Frontage Road to Vail Village/Lionshead Parking Structures. In conjunction with pedestrianization objectives, major emphasis is focused upon reducing auto penetration into the center of the Village. Vail Road and Vail Valley Drive will continue to serve as major routes for service and resident access to the Village. ~ Road constrictions, traffic circles, signage, and other measures are indicated in the Guide ' Plans to visually and physically discourage all but essential vehicle penetration upon the Frontage Road. Alternative access points and private parking relocation, where feasible, should be considered to further reduce traffic conflicts in the Village. , • Staff Response_ ~ The redevelopment of the Austria Haus wili increase vehicular traffic on Village Center Road. According to the Environmental Impact Assessment-Austria Haus Redevelopment, prepared by Design Workshop, Inc.: "A slight increase automobile traffic is expected because of the projected increase in the number of visitors generated annually by the project. What is not known, however, is how many of these additional guests will arrive by car; it is likely the largest number of guests will continue to arrive in the winter and that most will arrive by van from the airport. Van de(iveries will increase somewhat. Those guests that arrive in their own car are likely to leave the car in the garage after they arrive, as the center village location of the project eliminates the need for a car. If there is a potential for congestion anywhere, it is most likely to be in the small drop-off parking area in front of the building, where check-ins, deliveries and lost drivers may converge. To some extent, this can be mitigated by improved roadway directional signs, speedy guest valet service, careful management of deliveries and incentives to encourage guests to ieave their cars at home." Along with the increase in automobile traific, there will be an increase in delivery vehicle traffic due to an increase in the commercial square footage on the property. The • applicants anticipate that deliveries to the retail shops will likely arrive via UPS or similar types of couriers. Deliveries are to be accommodated in the drop-off area in the front of the building. 19 ; Staff agrees with Design Workshop's assessment of the potential traffic impacts. While there wiil likely be an increase in traffic on Viilage Center Road, there wili not be an . increase in traffic on the pedestrian portion of East Meadow Drive. The traffic control gate {ocated at the intersection of Vi{fage Center Road and East Meadow Drive will continue to prohibit aA vehicle traffic except Town of Vail buses. Staff feels the applicant has addressed traffic issues to the extent possible. C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK To improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian - ways, as a continuous system, two general types of improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered: 1. Open space and landscaping, berms, grass, flowers and tree planting as a soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes; and plazas and park greenspaces as open nodes and focal points along those routes. 2. Infill commercial storefronts, expansion of existing buildings, or new infill development to create new commercial activity generators to give streetlife and visual interest, as attractions at key locations along pedestrian routes. It is not intended to enclose all Village streets with buildings as in the core areas. Nor is it desirable to feave pedestrian streets in the open in somewhat undefined condition evident in many other areas of Vail. Rather, it is desired to have a variety of open and enclosed spaces, both built and landscaped, which create a strong framework for pedestrian walks, as well as visual interest and activity. ~ • Staff Response: The Austria Haus redevelopment improves the streetscape framework through the creation of new commercial activity and increases visual interest alang East Meadow Drive. As stated previously, staff believes the proposed redevelopment closes the critical commercial loop in the Village and provides new street life where very little currently exists. D. STREET ENCLOSURE While building facade heights should not be uniform from building to building, they should provide a"comfortable" enclosure for the street. Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms, whose walls are formed by the buildings. The shape and feel of these "rooms" are created by the variety of heights and massing (3- dimensional variations), which give much of the visual interest and pedestrian scale unique to Vaif. Very general rufes, about the perception of exterior spaces have been developed by designers, based on the characteristics of human vision. They suggest that: "an external enclosure is most comfortable when its walls are approximately 1/2 as high as the width of the space encfosed; if the ratio falls to 1/4 or less, the space seems unenclosed; and if the height is greater than the width it comes to resemble a canyon". ~ 20 h • In actual appiication, facades are seldom uniform in height on both sides of the street, nor is this desired. Thus, some latitude is appropriate in the application of this 1/2 to 1 ratio. Using the average facade height on both sides will generally still be a guide to the comfortableness of the enclosure being created. In some instances, the "canyon". effect is acceptable and even desirable. For example, as a short connecting linkage between larger spaces, to give variety to the walking experience. For sun/shade reasons it is often advantageous to orient any longer segments in a north/south direction. Long canyon streets in an east/west direction should generally be discouraged. When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special consideration should be given to create a well-defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome the "canyon" effect. Canopies, awnings, arcades and building extensions can all create a pedestrian focus and divert attention from the upper building heights and "canyon" effect. • Staff Res o~nse: East Meadow Drive, and the pedestrian walkway adjacent to the Austria Haus, averages ' approximately 50 feet in width. The Austria Haus (eaveline) adjacent to East Meadow Drive and the pedestrian walkway is approximately 30 feet in height. Given that East Meadow Drive is enclosed only on one side, and the arcade and landscaping creates an ' emphasis on the ground level of the building, staff believes the proposed Austria Haus i creates a"comfortable" enclosure of the street and does not create a"canyon" effect. ~ E. STREET EDGE ' Buildings in the Village core should form a strong but irregular edge to the street. Unlike many American towns, there are no standard setback requirements for buildings in Vail V'rllage. Consistent with the desire for intimate pedestrian scale, placement of portions of a building at or near the property line is allowed and encouraged to give strong definition to the pedestrian streets. This is not to imply continuous building frontage along the property line. A strong street edge is important for continuity, but perfectly aligned facades over too long a distance tends to be monotonous. With only a few exceptions in the Village, slightly irregular facade lines, building jogs, and landscaped areas, give the life to the street and visual interest for pedestrian travel. Where buildings jog to create activity pockets, other elements can be used to continue the street edge: low planter walls, tree planting, raised sidewalks, texture changes in ground surface, arcades, raised decks. Plazas, patios, and green areas are important focal points for gathering, resting, orienting and should be distributed throughout the Village with due consideration to spacing, sun access, opportunities for views and pedestrian activity. ~ 21 ~ • Staff Res o~nse: Initially, the Austria Haus design lacked the irregular street edge of other properties in Vail ~ Village. The applicant, at the request of the staff and PEC, has attempted to introduce a more irregular street edge through the horizontal stepping of the building on the east and west ends. The east end of the•building has been stepped back 10 feet from the property line and the northeast corner has been cutback an additional 3-1/2 feet, opening this end of building up to Slifer Square. The front entry tower was moved to the west end of the building and the west-end of the building was stepped towards the street. While it would be the staff's desire to see more stepping in the building, staff recognizes the constraints ~ , in doing so. Staff believes the irregular configuration of the landscape planters in front of the building helps to lessen the rather long, linear and uninterrupted street edge along the center portion of the Austria Haus. F. BUILDING HEIGHT Vail Village is perceived as a mix of two and three story facades, although there are also four and five story buildings. The mix of building heights gives variety to the street, which is desirable. The height criteria are intended to encourage height in massing variety and to discourage uniform building heights along the street. • Staff Res o~nse: As discussed previously, the Austria Haus exceeds the allowable building height prescribed for the Public Accommodation Zone District. However, staff does not feel that the proposed height of the Austria Haus is excessive, given the location of the building in relation to the Village and the height of the buildings on the adjoining properties. The ~ Mountain Haus (to the east) has an existing roof ridge of 74' above grade. The approximate height of the Village Center Condominiums (to the west) is as follows: Building A(closest to the Austria Haus = 45'; Building B= 78'; and Building C= 56'. The Austria Haus roof steps down on both ends of the building, reducing the creation of a "canyon" along the west property line and resulting in a building that is less obtrusive (on Slifer Square) on the east end. The applicant has submitted a scale model of the new structure in its Village Core context and this model will be available for use by the PEC during the final hearing. G. VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS Vail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are reminders to our visitors of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain building features also provide important orientation references and visual focal points. The most significant view corridors in the Village have been adopted as part of Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be considered exhausted. When evaIuatin9 a development proPosal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impacted project on public views. Views that should be preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public spaces, and include views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, the Clock Tower, the Rucksack Tower and other important man-made and natural elements that contribute to the sense of place associated with Vail. These views, which have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation • reference points for pedestrians. Development in Vail Village shall not encroach into any adopted view corridor, unless approved under Chapter 18.73. Adopted corridors are 22 ~ listed in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. Whether affecting adopted view ~ corridors or not, the impact of proposed development on views from public ways and public spaces must be identified and considered where appropriate. • Staff Res op nse: Although not directfy impacting one of the five adopted view corridors, as listed in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code, the height of the building will have irnpacts from the Vail Transportation Center (iransit terminal) and will also impact views from the west and central stairs. Public views of the Village (roofline of structures) will be blocked from , these areas, however, views of Vail Mountain will remain. Overall, staff feels that the benefits providing a comfortable enclosure to the street, and completing the pedestrian and retail connection from Crossroads to the Covered Bridge is positive. Staff feels that the completion of this pedestrian connection is in compliance with Goal #3 of the Vail Village Master Plan: "To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village." H. SERVICE AND DELIVERY Any building expansion should preserve the functions of existing service a(leys. The few service alleys that exist in the Village are extremely important to minimizing vehicle congestion on pedestrian ways. The use of, and vehicular access to, those alleys should not be eliminated except where functional alternatives are not provided. , In all new and remodeled construction, delivery which avoids or reduces impacts on pedestrian ways should be explored; and adopted whenever practical, for immediate or future use. Rear access, basement and below ground delivery corridors reduce congestion. Weather protection increases delivery efficiency substantially. Below grade delivery corridors are found in a few buildings in Vail Village (SitzmarWGore Creek Plaza, Village Center, Vail Village Inn). Consideration should be given to extending these corridors, where feasible, and the creation of new ones. As buildings are constructed or remodeled, the opportunity may exist to develop segments of a future system. • Staff Res op nse: Through the course of the review of the Austria Haus redevelopment proposal, several loading and delivery options were explored. The applicant had originally proposed to provide one loading and delivery berth in the underground parking structure. However, concerns were expressed by the Village Center Condominium owners that they would be negatively impacted by the noise generated from the delivery vehicles, since the access to the underground location was immediately adjacent to their units. The applicant had also explored the possibility of gaining underground access to their structure through the Village Center garage. It was determined that delivery vehicles could not enter through Village Center due to height iimitations in the garage. • As mentioned previousiy, the applicant is proposing to provide for loading/delivery in the front entry drop-off area. The applicant anticipates that deliveries to the retail/commercial shops will arrive via UPS or similar types of courier. Staff continues to believe that this ; 23 location may negatively impact the pedestrian use of this area of East Meadow Drive and ~ suggests the applicant continue to explore placing the loading and delivery berth in the underground structure, as originaily contempiated. 1. SUN/SHADE Due to Vail's alpine climate, sun is an important comfort factor, especially in winter, fall and spring. Shade areas have ambient temperatures substantially below those of adjacent direct sunlight areas. On all but the warmest of summer days, shade can easily . lower temperatures below comfortable levels and thereby, negatively impact use of those ~ areas. All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow line (March 21 - September 23) on adjacent properties or the public right-of-way. In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade considerations are not intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria. • Staff Resaonse: Although the proposed height of the building will diminish the amount of sun, and likewise increase shading, along East Meadow Drive (north side of the project), the provision of heated public walkways effectively mitigates this consideration, thus providing ice-free ' and snow-free sidewalks. Additionally, the "opening up" of Slifer Square will insure • adequate light, air and open space to a public gathering space. Overall, staff believes the applicant's proposal compiies with the above-described considerations. 2. ARCHITECTURE/LANDSCAPE CONSIDERATI4NS ROOFS Where visible, roofs are often one of the most dominant architectural elements in any built environment. In the Village, roof form, color and texture are visibly dominant, and generally consistent, which tends to unify the building diversity to a great degree. The current expression, and objective, for roofs in the Village is to form a consistently unifying backdrop for the architecture and pedestrian streetscape, and to avoid roofs which tend to stand out individually or distract visually from the overall character. Roof Forms I Roofs within the Village are typically gable in form and of moderate-to-low pitch. Shed roofs are frequently used for small additions to larger buildings. Free-standing shed roofs, butterfly roofs and flat roofs, can be found in the Village, but they are generally considered to be out of character and inappropriate. Hip roofs likewise, are rare and generally inconsistent with the character of the Core Area. Towers are exceptions, in both form and pitch, to the general criteria, but do have an established local vernacular-style which should be respected. 24 . • Staff Re,saonse ~ The roof form of the Austria Haus has been revised several times from what was originally proposed. The original roof design of the Austria Haus had a significant amount of flat roof area. The majority of flat roof has now been repiaced with a sloping roof 'I leading to a more traditional ridge. Three areas of flat roof, compromising a total of approximately 444 square feet, remain on the building. These flat roof portions break up the ridge line and provide locations for screened mechanical equipment (fans, vents, etc). The addition of the sloping roof leading to a ridge increased the overall building height by approximately three feet, since the roof pitch of 6/12 was not changed. The ends of the ~ ridge have been "clipped", resulting in a hip roof form. While a hip roof is generally considered inconsistent with the character of the Village, the applicant believes this roof form helps to reduce the mass of the building. The applicant had at one time provided gable ends to both the east and west ends of the building, but has since "clipped" the gable ends and lowered the roof eaveline at the request of the Village Center Condominium owners. Staff would like to see the ridge carried to the ends of the roof creating a gable end, rather than a hip. However, staff recognizes that this roof form does tend to increase the perceived height of the building, especially on the east and west ends. Staff will raise this issue with the Design Review Board. Pi ch Roof slopes in the Village typically range from 3/12 to 6/12, with slightly steeper pitches in limited • applications. Again, for visual consistency this general 3/12-6/12 range should be preserved. • Staff Response The pitch of the proposed Austria Haus roof is 6/12 and is in compliance with this guideline. Overhang Generous roof overhangs are also an established architectural feature in the Village - a traditional expression of shelter in alpine environments. Roof overhangs typically range from 3 to 6 feet on all edges. Specific design consideration should be given to protection of pedestrian ways adjacent to buildings. Snow slides and runoff hazards can be reduced by roof orientation, gutters, arcades, etc. Overhang details are treated with varying degrees of ornamentation. Structural elements such as roof beams are expressed beneath the overhangs, simply or decoratively carved. The roof fascia is thick and wide, giving a substantial edge to the roof. • Staff Res op nse Staff suggests that the applicant increase the roof overhangs on the building. Currently, the overhangs vary from two feet to three feet. Staff would like to see all the roof overhangs at least three feet. Again, staff will review this consideration with the Design Review Board. ~ 25 ~ Com os~ itions ~ The intricate roofscape of the Village as a whole is the result of many individual simple roof configurations. For any single buiiding a varied, but simple composition of roof planes is preferred to either a single or a complex arrangement of many roofs. As individual roofs become more complex, the roof attracts visual attention away from the streetscape and the total roofscape tends toward "busyness" rather than a backdrop composition. • Staff Response , The roof form on the Austria Haus would be considered a simple composition of roof ' planes. Staff believes the roof composition proposed by the applicant is consistent with the intent of this architectural consideration. SteQped Roofs As buildings are stepped to reflect existing grade changes, resulting roof steps should be made where the height change will be visually significant. Variations which are too subtle appear to be more stylistic than functional, and out of character with the more straight-forward roof design typical in the Village. • Staff Res op nse The Austria Haus site is relatively flat (by Vail standards). While the building does not need to step to follow the topography, vertical and horizontal steps have been incorporated into the roof design. The vertical and horizontal steps provide a reduction in the overall mass of the building and add to the architectural and visual interest of the • building. Materials Wood shakes, wood shingles, and built-up tar and gravel are almost exclusively used as roof materials in the Village. For visual consistency, any other materials should have the appearance of the above. • S,taff Res oQ nse Most recently, wood shakes and wood shingles are being discouraged for use as a roofing material due to fire safety concerns. At the recommendation of the Town of Vail Fire Department, the staff has been encouraging developers to use gravel, asphalt, tile, metal and other more fire-resistant roofing materials on new buildings. The applicant is proposing to use reddish tiles on the roof of the Austria Haus. The tiles will be similar in appearance to those used on the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus. The staff believes this is an appropriate roof material to use on this project. Construction Common roof problems and design considerations in this climate include: - snowslides onto pedestrian walks - gutters freezing - roof dams and water infiltration ~ - heavy snow loads 26 ~ Careful attention to these functional details is recommended, as weii as familiarity with the local building code, proven construction details, and Town ordinances. For built-up roofs, pitches of 4/12 or steeper do not hold gravel well. For shingle roofs, pitches of 4/12 or shalfower often result in ice dams and backflow leakage under the shingles. Cold-roof construction is strongly preferred, unless warm-roof benefits for a specific application can be demonstrated. Cold-roofs are double-roofs which insulate and prevent snow melt from internal building heat. By retaining snow on the roof, many of the problems listed can be reduced. Periodic snow removal will be required and should be anticipated in the design. Roof gutters tend to ice-in completely and become ineffective in the Vail climate, especially in shaded north-side locations. Heating the interior circumference with heat-tape elements or other devices is generally necessary to assure adequate run-off control in colder months. • Staff Res o}nse: The applicant is proposing a cold-roof construction atop the Austria Haus. Through the review of a building permit, staff will ensufe the roof construction complies with the standards prescribed for the Vail climate. FACADES M ri I Stucco, brick, wood (and glass) are the primary building materials found in the Village. While not I • wishing to restrict design freedom, existing conditions show that within this small range of materials much variation and individuality are possible while preserving a basic harmony. Too ' many diverse materials weaken the continuity and repetition which unifies the streetscape. Of the above materials, stucco is the most consistently used material. Most of the buildings in , the Village exhibit some stucco, and there are virtually no areas where stucco is entirely absent. It is intended to preserve the dominance of stucco by its use in portions, at least, of all new facades, and by assuring that other materials are not used to the exclusion of stucco in any sub- area within the Village. • Staff Response The exterior materials proposed by the applicant are a combination of stone, stucco and wood. No one material is proposed to dominate the exterior of the Austria Haus. Staff believes the applicant has comp{ied with this particular architectural consideration. Color There is greater latitude in the use of color in the Village, but still a discernible consistency within a general range of colors. For wood surfaces, trim or siding, darker color tones are preferred - browns, greys, blue-greys, dark olive, slate-greens, etc. Stucco colors are generally light - white, beige, pale-gold, or other light pastels. Other fight colors could be appropriate, as considered on a case-by-case basis. Bright colors (red, orange, blues, maroon, etc.) should be avoided for major wall planes, but can • be used effectively (with restraint) for decorative trim, wall graphics, and other accent elements. 27 c Generaliy, to avoid both "busyness," and weak visual interest, the variety of major wall colors ~ should not exceed four, nor be less than two. A color/material change between the ground fioor and upper floors is a common and effective reinforcement of the pedestrian scale of the street. • Staff Resp9nse The applicant has proposed an exterior building color that is compatible with the color of i the existing buildings in the vicinity of the Austria Haus. Staff would like to point out that ~ the applicant is required to obtain Design Review Board (DRB) approval prior to construction and that any concerns of the PEC on this topic will be brought to the ' attention of the DRB. Trans arR encv Pedestrian scale is created in many ways, but a major factor is the openness, attractiveness, and generally public character of the ground floor facade of adjacent buildings. Transparent store fronts are "people attractors," opaque or solid walls are more private, and imply "do not approach." On pedestrian-oriented streets such as in the Village, ground floor commercial facades are proportionately more transparent than upper floors. Upper floors are typically more residential, private and thus less open. As a measure of transparency, the most characteristic and successfui ground floor facades range from 55% to 70% of the total length of the commercial facade. Upper floors are often the ' converse, 30%-45% transparent. Examples of transparency (lineal feet of glass to lineal feet of facade) on ground level. - Covered Bridge Building 58% - Pepi's Sports 71 % - Gasthof Gramshammer 48% - The Lodge 66% - Golden Peak House 62% - Casino Building 30% ' - Gorsuch Building 51 % i • Staff Response A measure of transparency of the Austria Haus (north and east elevations) indicates that 46% (120 lineal feet of glass exists along the 263 lineal feet of building) of the ground floor facade is trans arent. Staff recommends that a minimum of 25 lineal feet of i additional glass (55 p) be added to the ground floor. This would make the Austria Haus enerally consistent with the transparency of other buildings in the Village. 9 i Win w In addition to the general degree of transparency, window details are an important source of pedestrian scale-giving elements. The size and shape of windows are often a response to the function of the adjacent street. For close-up, casual, pedestrian viewing windows are typically • sized to human dimensions and characteristics of human vision. (Large glass-wall store-fronts 28 ; suggest uninterrupted viewing, as from a moving car. The sense of intimate pedestrian scale is • diminished). Ground floor display windows are typically raised slightly 18 inches ± and do not extend much over 8 feet above the walkway level. Ground floors, which are noticeably above or below grade, are exceptions. The articufation of the window itself is stifl another element in giving pedestrian scale (human- related dimensions). Glass areas are usually subdivided to express individual window elements - and are further subdivided by mullions into small panes - which is responsible for much of the old-world charm of the Village. Similarly, windows are most often clustered in banks, juxtaposed with plain wall surfaces to give a pleasing rhythm. Horizontal repetition of single window ~ elements, especially over long distances, should be avoided. Large single pane windows occur in the Village, and provide some contrast, as long as they are generally consistent in form with other windows. Long continuous glass is out of character. Bay, bow and box windows are common window details, which further variety and massing to facades - and are encouraged. Reflective glass, plastic panes, and aluminum or other metal frames are not consistent in the Village and should be avoided. Metal-clad or plastic-clad wood frames, having the appearance of painted wood have been used successfully and are acceptable. • Staff Response , The Austria Haus proposal is in compliance with the above-described design , consideration. Staff believes the use of dormers with windows, bay windows and 'i ~ windows with mullions adds to the architectural charm and visual integrity of the Austria Haus. Staff recommends that the use of mullions in the windows be a condition of approvaL Doors Like windows, doors are important to character and scale-giving architectural elements. They should also be somewhat transparent (on retail commercial facades) and consistent in detailing with windows and other facade elements. Doors with glass contribute to overall facade transparency. Due to the visibility of people and merchandise inside, windowed doors are somewhat more effective in drawing people inside to retail commercial facades. Although great variations exist, 25-30% ± transparency is felt to be a minimum transparency objective. Private residences, lodges, restaurants, and other non-retail establishments have different visibility and character needs, and doors should be designed accordingly. Sidelight windows are also a means of introducing door-transparency as a complement or substitute far door windows. Articulated doors have the decorative quality desired for Vail. Flush doors, light aluminum frames, plastic applique eiements a11 are cansidered inappropriate. As an expression of entry, and sheltered welcome, protected entry-ways are encouraged. Doorways may be recessed, extended, or covered. • Staff Res onse • Staff believes the applicant's proposal complies with the above-described criteria. 29 ; Trim ~ Prominent wood trim is also a unifying feature in the Village. Particularly at ground floor levels, doors and windows have strong, contrasting framing elements, which tie the various elements together in one composition. Windows and doors are treated as strong visual features. Glass- wall detailing for either is typically avoided. • Staff Res oR nse: I Staff believes the applicanYs proposal complies with the above-described criieria. - DECKS AND PATIOS I Dining decks and patios, when properiy designed and sited, bring people to the streets, niti to look and be looked at and enerall contribute to the liveIiness of a bus opportu es , g y Y street- , making a richer pedestrian experience than if those streets were empty. A review of successful decks/ atios in Vail reveals several common characteristics: P - direct sunlight from 11:00 - 3:00 increases use by many days/year and protects from wind. - elevated to give views k= the pedestrian walk (and not the reverse). - physical separation from pedestrian walk. - overhang gives pedestrian scale/shelter. Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to: ~ - sun - wind - views - pedestrian activity • Staff Res onse: The majority of the decks and patios on the Austria Haus are located on the south side of the building, facing Gore Creek. These decks and patios are for the use of the guests of the Austria Haus and not the generai public. Staff does believe, however, that the arcade desi9ned alon9 the north side of the buildin9 will Provide shelter from the elements for pedestrians using the heated walkway. BALCONIES Balconies occur on almost all buildings in the Village which have at least a second level facade wall. As strong repetitive features they: - give scale to buildings. I - give life to the street (when used). - add variety to building forms. - provide shelter to pathways below. • 30 I ; I • • Staff ResRonse The majoriry of the balconies on the Austria Haus are located on the south side of the building. Several french balconies have been incorporated into the design of the north side of the buiiding on the upper fioors. Staff wouid like to discuss the design and repetition of the baiconies on the south elevation with the PEC and the applicant. Staff would like to see less repetition of the balconies, particularly on the south elevation. Color They contrast in color (dark) with the building, typically matching the trim colors. • Staff Response Like the exterior color of the building, the DRB will be reviewing this aspect of the proposal. iz They extend far enough from the building to cast a prominent shadow pattern. Balconies in Vail are functional as will as decorative. As such, they should be of useable size and located to encourage use. Bafconies less than six feet deep are seldom used, nor are those always in shade, not oriented to views or street life. • • Staff Response Staff believes this criteria relates to staff's concerns regarding balconies mentioned above. Mass They are commonly massive, yet semi-transparent, distinctive from the building, yet allowing the building to be somewhat visible behind. Solid balconies are found occasionally, and tend to be too dominant obscuring the building architecture. Light balconies lack the visual impact which ties the Village together. • Staff Res onse The balconies on the Austria Haus are proposed to be semi-transparent in appearance. M ri I Wood balconies are by far the most common. Vertical structural members are the most dominant visually, often decoratively sculpted. Decorative wrought iron balconies are also consistent visually where the vertical members are close enough to create semi-transparency. Pipe rails, and plastic, canvas or glass panels should be avoided. • 31 ~ i • Staff Response I ~ The material to be used in the construction of the balconies on the Austria Haus is wood, , with vertical structural members. A detail of the railing will be reviewed by the DRB. I ACCENT ELEMENTS , The life, and festive quality of the Village is given by judicious use of accent elements which give color, movement and contrast to the Viliage. , Colorful accent elements consistent with existing character are encouraged, such as: ~ Awnings and canopies - canvas, bright color or stripes of two colors. han in from buildin s oles, and even across streets for s Fla s - 9, banners 9 9 9~P Pecial occasions. Umbrellas - over tables on outdoor patios. Annual color flowers - in beds or in planters. Accent lighting- buildings, plazas, windows, trees (even Christmas lights all winter). Painted wall graphics - coats of arms, symbols, accent compositions, etc. Fountains - sculptural, with both winter and summer character. • Staff Response: Accent lighting on the building, annual flowers in containers and in the planting beds, potted trees decorated with Christmas lights and irrigated flower boxes are proposed to provide colorful accent elements on the Austria Haus. An additional accent symbol ~ (clock, crest, etc.) is proposed for the tower at the front entry. The final design has yet to be determined. LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS Landscape considerations include, but go beyond, the placement of appropriate plant materials. - plant materials - paving - retaining walls - street furniture (benches, kiosks, trash, etc.) - lighting - signage i Plant Materials Opportunities for planting are not extensive in the Village, which places a premium on the plant ~ selection and design of the sites that do exist. Framework planting of trees and shrubs should include both deciduous and evergreen species for year round continuity and interest. Native plants are somewhat limited in variety, but are clearly best able to withstand the harsh winter climate, and to tie the Village visually with its mountain setting. • 32 ~ : . Trees Shrubs Narrow-leaf cottonwood Willow Balsam poplar pogwood Aspen Serviceberry Lodgepole pine Alpine currant Colorado spruce Chokecherry Subalpine fir Mugho pine Potentilia . Buffaloberry • Staff ResRonse A landscape plan has been submitted by the appiicant. The landscape plan has been ' developed with the assistance of Town staff, since a majority of the landscape improvements are proposed on Town properry. The proposed landscape design takes into consideration factors such as the location of the plantings (sun/shade), maintenance, climate, etc. Staff believes the landscape design for the Austria Haus complies with the above-described criteria. P vin The freeze/thaw cycle at this altitude virtual{y eliminates cammon site-cast concrete as a paving surface (concrete spall). High-strength concrete may work in selected conditions. Asphalt, brick (on concrete or on sand), and concrete block appear to be best suited to the area. j ~ In general, paving treatments should be coordinated with that of the adjacent public right-of-way. The Town uses the following materials for aU new construction: ~ - asphalt: general use pedestrian streets - brick on concrete: feature areas (plazas, intersections, fountains, etc.) • Staff Resp9nse _ The paving material used in the public areas around the Austria Haus will be the "Vail", concrete unit paver, faid in the "Vail-pattern" (her(ngbone). These surfaces will be heated and will include the access ramp to the parking structure, the front entry drop-off area and the pedestrian walkway along the store fronts. The applicant has worked with the Town staff in developing the design of improvements in the public right-of-way. Retaining Wa11s Retaining walls, to raise planting areas, often protects the landscape from pedestrians and snowplows, and should provide seating opportunities: Two types of material are already well established in the Village and should be utilized for cont'rnuity: - split-face moss rock veneer - Village Core pedestrian streets (typical). - rounded cobble hidden mortar - in open space areas if above type not already • established nearby. 33 ~ • Staff Response • No landscape retaining waAs are proposed in the construction of the Austria Haus. The new landscape retaining walls proposed in Slifer Square wili match the existing walls in terms of both type of materials, and application. Li h in ~ Light standards should be coordinated with those used by the Town in the public right-of-way. , • Staff Response ~ As part of the streetscape improvements along East Meadow Drive, the applicant wiil be installing six new Village light fixtures. The number and locations of the six new lights was determined through consultation with Town staff. Sianage Refer to Town of Vail Signage Ordinance • Staff Response: The staff has requested that the applicant prepare a comprehensive sign program for the Austria Haus. The comprehensive sign program will be reviewed by the DRB. SERVICE ~ Trash handling is extremefy sensitive in a pedestrian environment. Trash coilection is primarily made in off-peak hours. It is the building owners responsibility to assure that existing trash storage problems are corrected and future ones avoided. Trash, especially from food service estabiishments, must be carefully considered; including the following: - quantities generated - pick-up frequency/access - container sizes - enclosure location/design - visual odor impacts Garbage collection boxes or dumpsters must be readily accessible for collection at all times yet ~ fully screened from public view - pedestrians, as well as upper level windows in the vicinity. ~ M ri I ~ Exterior materials for garbage enclosures should be consistent with that of adjacent buildings. 34 • ; ~ Qonstruction Durability of the structure and operability of doors in all weather are prime concerns. Metal frames and posts behind the preferred exterior materiais should be considered to withstand the inevitable abuse these structures suffer. • Staff Res op nse; The applicant has proposed to incorporate a trash dumpster into the design of the - underground parking structure. The trash dumpster will be completely enclosed and ' accessible from inside the parking structure. Without a restaurant, the building is not expected to generate an unusual amount of trash. The driveway is designed to accommodate trash trucks. Staff believes the applicanYs proposal complies the above- described criteria. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. There are no natural and/or geologic hazards, including the Gore Creek floodplain, that effect the Austria Haus property. 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. ~ The applicant has revised the site plan in response to comments received from the Planning and Environmental Commission and staff during previous worksession meetings. Most importantly, the applicant has shifted the building on the site to further buffer the surrounding properties. The applicant has designed the building to respect the 50' Gore Creek Stream setback along the south side of the property and is also maintaining the required 20' setback along the west property line. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. The Austria Haus redevelopment will have major positive impacts on both off-site and on- site vehicle and pedestrian traffic systems surrounding the property. Staff believes that pedestrian circulation will be substantially improved as result of the redevelopment. Improvements include a new 14-foot wide bus lane and a dedicated, 12-foot wide pedestrian lane along East Meadow Drive, as well as an improved pedestrian streetscape along the north side of the building adjacent to the retail shops. The pedestrian streetscape will be heated, thus providing ice-free and snow-free sidewalks. All new pedestrian improvements propose the use of concrete unit pavers and witl connect into the existing improvements to the east (Slifer Square), to the west (Village Center) and to the Vail Transportation Center to the north. Vehicular circulation will also be effected by the redevelopment. The current parking situation will be improved by removing the surface parking lot and replacing it with an underground parking structure and a front entry drop-off area. Access to the parking • structure shall be via a heated ramp located at the west end of the project. 35 ~ H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optlmize and rreserve naturai features, recreation, views and functions. ~ The proposed landscape plan will have important beneficiai impacts on the quality of the public spaces in the vicinity of the Austria Haus, due to the improvements to East Meadow Drive, Slifer Square and the Gore Creek streambank. The streetscape improvements recommended in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan will be impiemented. The improvements will enhance the pedestrian experience . along East Meadow Drive through the construction of a wider and more attractive heated walkway adjacent to the retail shops. The implementation of the streetscape improvements will separate pedestrians from bus traffic by delineating the pedestrian areas and bus lanes through the use of different paving surfaces. The applicant has designed improvements to the western portion of Slifer Square. The ~ improvements have been developed with the help of Town staff. The applicant,s design is sensitive to the numerous mature trees existing in Slifer Square. On(y those trees which impact pedestrian circulation, effect sun exposure to the seating areas, and would otherwise be damaged due to construction, are being removed. The removal of the trees will be mitigated by the planting of additional trees elsewhere in Slifer Square. Improvements are proposed for the Gore Creek streambank adjacent to the Austria Haus. ~ The improvements are intended to improve the visual appearance of the streambank and Y 9 9 P 9etatin9 the bare soils. The stabilize the soil b reducin the rade of the sloe and reve applicant will also be implementing an erosion and sedimentation control plan to prevent run-off from the construction site from entering Gore Creek. ~ 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that wlll maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Phasing of development is not proposed. The applicant is required to submit a construction phasing and staging plan to the Town prior to receiving a building permit. The plan will be used to ensure an efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses during the development of the Austria Haus. I At this time, the applicant is anticipating a minor subdivision to amend the location of the north property line. The applicant is proposing to trade land with the Town in order to gain an additional one - two feet along the northerly property line. In exchange for this land, the applicant is proposing to trade a triangular piece of property adjacent to Slifer Square to the Town. AnY proPosal to trade land with the Town must be reviewed and approved by the Council. 36 • c V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDRIONAL USE PERMIT Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: , Before acting on a conditionai use permit app{ication, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: , 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Staff believes that this review criteria has been satisfied as previousiy discussed in Section IV of this memarandum. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that this review criteria has been satisfied as previously discussed in Section IV of this memorandum. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, ~ access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff believes that this review criteria has been satisfied as previously discussed in Section IV of this memorandum. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and butk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Staff befieves that this review criteria has been satisfied as previously discussed in Section IV of this memorandum. 5. Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for a time-share estate, fractional fee, fractional fee club, or time-share license proposal, the following shall be considered: a. If the proposal for a fractional fee club is a redevelopment of an existing facility, the fractionaf fee cfub shafl maintain an equivalency of accommodation units as presently existing. Equivalency shall be maintained either by an equal number of units or by square footage. If the proposal is a new development, it shall provide at least as much accommodation unit GRFA as fractional fee club unit GRFA. • The Austria Haus proposal is a redevelopment of an existing facility. The Austria Haus shall be required to maintain an equivalency of the presently existing accommodation units. The ~ 37 appiicant is proposing to meet the equivalency requirement by • replacing an equal amount of accommodation unit square footage. According to as-builts prepared by the applicant, 10,100 square feet of accommodation unit square footage exists in the Austria Haus. Calcu(ations of the proposed accommodation unit square footage indicates that the applicant needs to provide an additional 181 square feet of accommodation unit square footage. in order to meet this requirement, staff would recommend that the applicant convert the lock-off for Unit # 10 to an accommodation unit. This , wouid increase the total number of accommodation units to 26 and ~ mcrease the equivalency square footage. b. Lock-off units and lock-off unit square footage shall not be inciuded in the calculation when determining the equivalency of existing accommodation units or equivalency of existing square footage. Even though lock-offs cannot be counted towards meeting the equivalency requirement, the applicant has maintained 28 lock-off units in the Austria Haus. The staff and applicant feel these units will be rented as short-term accommodations and thus enhance the hotel bed base in Town. c. The ability of the proposed project to create and maintain a high level of occupancy. The Austria Haus proposal is intended to provide additional hotel ~ and "hotel-type" accommodation units in the Town of Vail. The applicant is proposing to incorporate 22 member-owned club units (fractional fee club units with 28 lock-off units), with 25 accommodation (hotel) rooms. Although not included in the equivalency requirement, the fractional fee club units have been designed to accommodate lock-off units. Staff believes that lock- off units provide an additional community benefit of added "pillows". If a fractional fee club unit owner purchases an interest in a multiple bedroom unit, and does not desire to utilize all the bedrooms, they can then have the opportunity of returning the unused bedrooms (lock-offs) to a rental program. Staff feels that by providing lock-off units, and managing the availability of the lock-off units in a rental program when not in use, a fractional fee club project can significantly increase the , availability of accommodation units in the Town of Vail. Through our research on the fractional fee issue, staff has ~ identified some potential pos+tive impacts of fractional fee units in the Town of Vail: A) Activity during the "shoulder seasons" tends to increase ~ due to an increase in year-round occupancy; B) The attraction of revenue-generating tourists; . i 38 I k C) The efficient utilization of resources. This is the "warm beds" concept; D) More pride of ownership with fractional fee club units than with accommodation units; E) Increased levels of occupancy; and F) lncreased resort exposure due to the extensive number of interval owners. d. Employee housing may be required as part of any new or ' redevelopment fractional fee club project requesting density over that allowed by zoning. The number of employee housing units will be consistent with employee impacts that are expected as a result of the project. The staff included the fractional fee club units into the calculation of the employee generation resulting from the establishment of the Special Development District. Based strictly on the number of club units, the development will generate a need for 8.8 "new" employees. When the multiplier of 0.30 is factored in, 3 of the 11 "new" employees which the developer must provide deed-restricted housing for, are generated by the fractional fee club. e. The applicant shall submit to the Town a list of all owners of existing units within the proJect or building; in written ~ statements from 100% of the owners of existing units indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed fractional fee club. No written approval shall be valid if it is signed by the owner more than 60 days prior to the date of filing the application for a conditional use. The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, 1nc., is the sole owner of the property. No other written approval is required. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is recommending approval of the request for the estab{ishment of Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, and the conditional use permit to allow for a fractional fee club. The staff believes that all the review criteria have been met, as identified in this memorandum. We would recommend that the approva4 carry with the it the followir?g conditions: 1. That the applicant meet with the Town staff, prior to appearing before Town Council for the first reading of an ordinance establishing Special Development District #35, to formulate a construction phasing plan and to determine financial responsibilities for the off-site improvements to Slifer Square, East Meadow Drive and the revegetation of the Town-owned stream tract, south of the Austria Haus. Staff will then make a recommendation to Council regarding the construction phasing and financial responsibilities of the off-site improvements. • f:\everyone\pec\memos\sonnensd.224 39 i 2. That the applicant prepare a deed restriction or covenant, subject to the Town Attorney's • review and approval, thereby restricting the current and future owner(s) ability to locate a restaurant, or similar food service operation on the Austria Haus property. Said deed restriction or covenant shail be recorded with the Eagie County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to the applicant submitting for a building permit. 3. That the applicant submit the following plans to the Department of Community Development, for review and approval, as a part of the building permit application for the Austria Haus: , a. A Tree Preservation Pian; b. An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan; c. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan; d. A Stormwater Management Plan; e. A Site Dewatering Plan; and f. A Traffic Contro( Plan. 4. That the applicant provide deed-restricted housing, which complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 18.57), for a minimum of 11 employees, and that said deed-restricted housing be made available for occupancy, and the deed restrictions recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Austria Haus. 5. That the applicant pay into the Town of Vail Parking Fund for the required number of pay- in-lieu parking spaces, as determined at the time of building permit, prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Austria Haus. The applicant shall be required ~ to purchase the pay-in-lieu spaces at the rate in effect at the time of building permit application. 6. That the applicant either remove that portion of building floor area (enclosed areas) currently proposed on Town of Vail property (northwest portion of build i ng/porte-cochere), or appear before the Town Council with a request to subdivide and trade land with the Town. Should the Council agree to a trade of land, all costs incurred to accomplish the land trade shall be paid by the applicant. At this time, the applicant is anticipating a minor subdivision to amend the location of the north property line. The applicant is proposing to trade land with the Town in order to gain an additional one - two feet of property along the northerly property line. In exchange for this land, the applicant is proposing to trade a triangular piece of property, adjacent to Slifer Square, to the Town. ' 7. That the applicant revise the building floor plans to provide at least 10,100 square feet of accommodation unit square footage, to conform with the equivalency requirement for i fractional fee club units, prior to appearing before the Vail Town Council for the first reading of the ordinance establishing Special Development District #35. According to ~ as-builts prepared by the applicant, 10,100 square feet of accommodation unit square footage exists in the Austria Haus. Calculations of the proposed accommodation unit square foota9e indicates that the apPlicant needs to provide an additionaI 181 square feet ~ of accommodation unit square footage. In order to meet this requirement, staff would recommend that the applicant convert the lock-off for Unit # 10 to an accommodation unit. This would increase the total number of accommodation units to 26 and increase the equivalency square footage. • f:\everyone\pecUnemoslsonnensd.224 Q ~ • 8. That the following design considerations be carefuliy reviewed by the Design Review Board (as previously discussed in Section IV of this memorandum): A) That the mullions on the windows and doors, as depicted on the building elevations, be a required element of the Austria Haus project. B) That the applicant further modify the south elevation of the structure, as this elevation continues be too architecturally repetitive. C) That the applicant revisit the originally contemplated design which incorporates the ~ loading and delivery facility in the underground parking structure. Staff believes that trying to accommodate loading and delivery in the porte-cochere area will result in conflicts between pedestrians, vehicles accessing the parking structure, and delivery trucks. Staff understands the original design option may not be the desire of the owners of the Village Center Condominiums, yet we believe the impact can be mitigated with appropriate screening. D) That the improvements recommended for East Meadow Drive, as depicted in the approved Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, be implemented as a part of the Austria Haus project. This includes a reduction in street width from 30 feet to 26 feet (14 foot bus lane and 12 foot attached, paver pedestrian walk). E) That the roof ridge of the structure be carried to the east and west ends of the roof, thereby creating gable ends, rather than a clipped hip. Staff does recognizes that the gable roof form may increase the perceived height of the building, especially on the east ~ and west ends, however, we believe that this will bring the structure more into compliance with the Design Considerations. F} That the applicant increase the roof overhangs on the building. Current{y, the ' overhangs vary from two feet to three feet. Staff would recommend that all the roof overhangs be a minimum of three feet. G) That a minimum of 25 lineal feet of additional glass area (55%) be added to the ground floor (north and east elevations) of the structure. This would make the Austria Haus generally consistent with the transparency of other buildings in the Village. H) That the applicant review and modify the balcony configuration on the building, in order to eliminate the repetitive nature of the existing design, particularly on the south elevation. The majority of the balconies on the Austria Haus are located on the south side of the building, although several french balconies have been incorporated into the design of the north side of the building on the upper floors. I) That the applicant prepare a comprehensive sign program for the Austria Haus. The comprehensive sign program will be reviewed by the DRB. • f:\everyone\pec\rnemos\sonnensd.224 41 i • ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. 22 . SERIES of 1996 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.04, DEi'INITIONS, A,DDING "FRACTIONAL rEE CLUB" AND "rRACTIONAL P'EE CLUB UNIT", AMENDING SECTION 18.22.030, CONDITIONAL USES, AI.LOWING I'RACTIONAL FEE CLUB AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN TAE PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION ZONE DISTRICT, AMENDING SECTION 18.60.060(A)(7), CONDITIONAL USE PETt1vIIT CRITERIA- FINDINGS. v WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to amend Sections 18.22.030 and 18.60.060 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to allow fractional fee club as a conditional use in the Pubtic Accommodation Zone District and to provide criteria and findings applicable to fractional fee club requests in Vail; and WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the appropriate parties; and WHEREAS, on November 25, 1996, in accordance with Section 18.66.140 the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held a public heazing on the proposed amendments and unanimously recommended approval of the amendments to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council believes that quality fractional fee club unit aze an I appropriate means of increasing occupancy rates, maintaining and enliancing short-term rental availability and diversifying the resort [odging market within the Town of Vail; and ~ WHEFtEAS, the Vail Town Council believes that a fractional fee club is a form of public accommodation; and WHEItEAS, the Vail Town Council considers that it is rcasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town of Vail and its citizens, inhabitants and visitors to adopt Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996; and WHEI2EAS, the Vail Town Council believes the proposed amendments aze consistent . with its adopted goals, objectives and policies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: SrCTION t Chapter 18.04, Definitions is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.04.136 Fractional Fee Club, means a fractional fee project in which each condominium unit, pursuant to recorded project documentation as approved by the Town of Vail, has no fewer than 6 and no more than 12 owners per unit and whose use is established by a reservation system. Each of the fractional fee club units are made available for short-term rental i in a managed program when not in use by the club members. The project is managed on-site with a front desk operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week providing reservation and registration capabilities. The pro,ject shall include or be proximate to transportation, retail shops, . , eating and drinking establishments, and recreation facilities. 18.04.136.1 Fractional Fee Club Unit - a condominium unit in a fractionai fee club . ' described as such in the project documentation and not an accommodation unit within the fractional fee club. • ' 1 Ordin~ Na 72, Suin of 1996 : ~ 18.04.430 Fractional Fee [Deleted] • Si:CTiON 2 Section 18.22.030 - Public Accommodation-Conditional Uses - of the Town of Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as folloyvs: 18.22.030 Conditional uscs The foliowing conditional uses shall be permitted in the Puhlic Accommodation Zone ' District, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: I A. Professianal and business offices; B. Hospitals, medical and dental clinics, and medical centers; C. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fratemal organizations; D. Ski lifts and tows; ' E. Theaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities; I F. , Public or commercial parking facilities or structures; G. Public transportation terminals; H. Public utility and public service uses; 1. Public buildings, grounds and facilities; ~ J. Public or private schools; K. Public parks and recreational facilities; L. Churches; M. Eating, drinking, recreationa(, or retail establislu»ents not occupying more than ~ 10% of the total Gross Residential Ploor Area of a main structure or structures ~ located on, the site in a non-conforming multi-family dwelling; I N. Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mali area; 0. Bed and Breakfast as further regulated by Section 18.58310; P. Type III EHU as defined in Section 18.57.060; Q. Typc IV EHU as defined in Section 18.57.70; R. Fractional fee club as further regulated by Section 18.60.060(A)(7)(a-e). SECTION 3 Section 18.60.060(A)(7), Conditional Uses Permit criteria-findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended and shall read as follows: 7. Prior to the approval of a conditional use perniit for a time-share estate, fractional fee, fractional fee club, or time-share license proposal, the following shall be considered: a. If the proposal for a fractional fee club is a redevelopment oFan existing facility, the fractional fee club shall maintain an equivalency of accommodation units as are presently existing. Equivalency shall be maintained either by an equal number of units ar by square footage. If the proposal is a new development, it shall provide at least as much • accommodation unit GRFA as fractional fee club unit GRFA. b. Lock-off units and lock-off unit square footage shall not be included in the calculation when determining the equivalency of existing accommodation units or equivalency af existing square footage. • c. The ability of the proposed project to create and maintain a high level of occupancy. 2 Ordi~ No. 22, Saio of 1996 R d. Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or • redevelopment fractional fee club project requesting density over that allowed by zoning. The number of employee housing units required will be consistent with employee impacts that aze expected as a result of the project. e. The applicant shall submit to the town a list of all owners of existing units within the project or buiiding; and written statements from one-hundred percent of the owners of existing units indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed fractional fee club. No written approval shall ~ ' be valid if it was signed by the owner more than sixty days prior to the date of filing the application for a conditional use. SECTION 4 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, nnd each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regazdless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. ST;CTION S 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. Si;CTTON 6 ~ The repeal or the repeai and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall nok affect any right wliich has aecrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision 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. SI;CTION 7 All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsisiency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. FULL ON FIRST READING this 7th day of January, 1997, and a public hearing shall be held on ' this Ordinance on the 21st day of January, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Robert W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk • , 3 ATTACHMENT 2 . . . ~ . ~ . • Pierce,Segerberg & Associates • Memo Architects, P.C.,A.I.A. To: Joe Treleven Main Office 1000 S. Frontage Road W. Director, Village Center Association Vail, CO 81657 ~ 120 Willow Bridge Road, #SJ fox: 970 476 4608 Vail, CO 81657 phone: 970 476 4433 From: Gordon Pieree Denver Office Ref: Landsca in and Plantin of Villa e Center Propert1617Wazee Streec P g g g Y suite ez Date: February 10, 1997 Denver, CO 80202 (ax: 303 623 2262 phone: 303 623 3355 As requested by the Town of Vail Planning Department, I am asking if you would sign below on behalf of the Village Center Condominium Association in that the Austria Haus may landscape on the village center property. A detailed plan of the area between our properties will be forthcoming for your review. ~ Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, PIERCE, SEGERBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C., A.I.A. ordon . Pierce, A.I.A. Chairman GRP/jod Approved by: . f:\prj\austria_house\docs\treleven feb 10, 1997.doc . ATTACHMENT 3 EMPLOlTfEKT' GENERATION RATFS • E XITII3TT A I ' SUGGES7ED E TII'LOITIEN'i' CAT'EGORIES Ah'D R.ANGES FOR VAIL - ExrREssED As EnTz.oYErs PER 1000 SQuARe F-EEr " RRC RESEaRCx OVERALL SUGGESTED AVERAGES RANGE Bar/Restaurant 5.7/1000 s.f. 5-811000 s.f. Retail and Service Commercial 5.9/1000 5-8/1000 ' Retail: Grocery/Liquor/Convenience 1.8/1000 1.5-3/1000 Office: Real Estate 7.6/1000 6-9/1000 ~ Office: Financial ~ 3.1/1000 2.5-4/1000 Office: Professional/Other . 6.6/1000 5-8/1000 Conference Center NA 1/1000 ~ Health Club NA • 1-1.511000 Lodging* 1.3/room .25-1.25/room Local Government 6.5/1000 5-8/1000 Construction (Offices, Interior Storage, etc.) 10.6/1000 9-13/1040 , Multi-Family N/A 0.4lunit Single Family ' N/A 0.2/unit Other: To be determined through the SDD . . ' , process, upon submission of adequate documentation and a review of the ap ~plication materials. . * Lodging/accommodations has particularly large variation of employees per room; depending upon factors such as size of facility and level of servicelsupport facilities and amenities provided. The standards present a wide range of employment, but it is anticipated th'at a definitive report will be submitted by each lodging property requesting an expansion, which would then be ; evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Multiplier based on density • • . • ' .'30 if exceeding density • , . ` .15 if at or below density ROSALL RFa-QrtEN CARFS , , . PAGE 6.: ATTACHMENT 4 . Austria Staffing Rostcr Position hours of orcration 199m1 1998 cmT-l. commcncs Managcr (loating I 1 Assistant floating I I Front Dcsk 7am to I lpm 3 5 24 hour dcsk Bcllstaff floating 1 3 parking & sizc ~ I-Iousekeeping ~ 8am to Spm G 10 size 1nd # of rms . turndown 2 3 I3ar 31)m to midnight 1.5 1.5 ' Restaurant Sam to noon _ tvait 5. 3.5 kitdien 2• 0 continental only 4pm to midniglit wait q 0 kitchen 3.5 0 - Retail varics S tinknown T3uzz'z B&B Engincering 7am to 1 1 pm I 2 _ Conciergc 7am to 1 lam 3pm to 7pm 0 1.5 .36 31.5 . ~ Scrviccs providcd from Main I-Iotcl Complcx: Spa Golf Activitics Markcting cC Salcs - /lccounting Rcscrvation 'I'clcphon Llundry Uniforms - Room Servicc Conference Services Employee Cafeteria ' Human Resources i ~ Floral & Decoration Llndscaping , . Employee Housing Purchasing . ; ~ . . ' , . .~t~ • ' • , . , • ...•r~•: . ' • ' , , . % ~1~.. SCALE: I• . zW dITE OF S1WEY: 3/20/95 EAST MEADOW DRNE ~ M'~ 1~ m wMOa wamy .b iwr ~ rl~t rl ~ AMKa yA M~w r~1 AIY~ ' ~ M~ Yr:Y MYY ~ 5.75y~ N 2l 94 un = g17 ~ wr~ ~"r ~ \!M S 1 S• rr~ • uw 9'p 0 ~1 ~ \ u+~ ~ u M ¦w AUSTRU HOUSE p uu ~aa u . te t Wo+ arR rw ~ ~ M / Ru~ yy Lf ~ I" ~ I ~ ' ~ . u ~ r/11w . ! il VILUGE CENIER " ..e. ° ~ I ~ rrrr / . \ • y v,V V I~I ¦ MOUNTUN HAUS , ~ ~ ~ ~2~! r 8160 , e1 60 I ~ ~ • / I CURVE a1TA e - +rso~4s1 ' a • 145.77' LOT o / cl L • >>1.ss, ~ Lc . ~oe.m' , ce . s nu'+e• c LOT b ; p . 2e04'15• ' / / \ R • 85.00' 'C! L • 3E.6Y a: s ei sror e ' BLOCK S-B ~ I LOT c i ' CREEKSIDE . ~ CONDOMINIUMS i raam aaa.nx , I . . ix.iue.x`"`ir%mLnin~w~xwav~aumrwtmaaaaara i nearr' ~M M~ r m~ im wc~riell ~i'~~ i • Yq'If~iO 1 1~A1111'p~j~~i~ T~OIK~~N I 14J1 ~ ~ I i,I ~ i ' • I AUSTRIA HAUS vmu, cowuo EXISTINa CONDITION3 SONNBNALP PROPBRTIE3, INC. . oRi iOr Wo,tc i e o r~ ` ~'ft'~" "'r I L~ I 1 _ MAim1M1 tl~Y~ple uem e ~w .r w ' / ~ ~ L'".1--._.- tar i, 'w:~:;::.::'•: , ° , . . ~ ` . i ~ `~.:i:.r:~: • r ~:,~,t:.: r. ~:.::.i:•.. ti ~ •.i c.:~:. '.::'.::i,:`:~:>.,~ ~ , • ~ ~ • 4.1..~....~.....~..~:..::~::..~ i.~ ..........~n ~ r ~..r,'................,........... . • \ i.......................... ~ ~ . . . ~ . . ~ ' , ~ ,~.....r i ~ ~ . / ...................w.............................. . ..................n . . , + ~ 5.. \ . . . ~ . . , , , ~ , ~ . : ..y. ~ f .:i:: / . . . ...............~......~,:T ~ I ~ ~ . d ..~.~.~....i.~:'.. P DW/M .....:....~~:•~•...........................,..................,.....,....r...>~..::;.•:::~..~::.. • . f CDI~ ..................................5 . . . . . , . . . ~MDl1 A : . . A~ ~ . . . . ~ • ~ ...................................:Sp.....::::..... . ......,.,.................,........,,~..r........,.....,.,................,,....,.... . ; . , U~E. ~ . . . . . . . Y~,... s . o , , ~ ~ ; , CREEK . . . , I.............................,,.... , . . ~ . . ~ . . . . . ~::s::= : r, ~ ~ ~ SLIFER t . 99 8160 PLAZA • s . . ; R ~ ~ , e ?'~rwwi+rtN ._...3 ' ~ ' • 1 _a,~.. . 8170 J -:..-.r= ~a' . ; ~ .1..__._r --r~ ' ' ~ I (PA = ~~rrsr- " ' =r-- " ' ` - : - - - " ' ' - ' - - - - - = - - ' f1 ;ammm a / • ' I ~ k----,~ ~ i/ • ' i , fl , sxwm,,.. 10 ~ r,' ' ~ co?~ao~s ' ~ • 3, 1 I el.oG. a i wnnwwu / ~ roenwnaoa~ewwmuwr oa+wroaru . ~ ~ ~ ' y • ~ roanwrseww rrnwwwr ~ roar~~ansao raw"MOt 44% beHM~YMat~t ~1 CCMMM~CII~dLLYM1IR ~ • e "-_s.li aon+wrownaao ra+ewwu? aaN of%wr . I i SOLLO II , 11~~. Y Aw 11 II VILLASE CENTE'R / ~~la II II C~ERCIAL 340P5 aaass:a:ra4a pp~IwlA~ryp~y~~ y7 tra~ ° ? $ oanwRMiMWW ~ ~ ~ a$ MAf10Mlp\ ~ i~=~i ~ ~ aWO oi.s ° ft. s w-,-- OM OP WiwvK,r ~amars,~,e~~,~x:sas~aareaaa~as$~a i+ SwrwMMiw I !4mm aMft ' • ~ &k' ~ . AUSTRIA HAUS vut, cowmwo ~ COMPARISON OF EXISTINa AND PROpOSED FOOTPRINTS ' $ONNBHALP PROPBRTIB$, INC. , e ra s ~e N N o t c a a o r~ n n ~ w w e~r u« wm r w~ew~ rr ; ~ LJ I ~ wisuw ~rmao wnw o 1 +r sr L.._---' .r-~ , i.~;~~ ..w.~ / .r.......... / ..,!~~i~ ::.:.~rr.:: e.r,.r~:... rrr.:.i~.•rt ir.: rr.~ •r; r :::..y .,~,M^ ^..n.~ t 'D a~• / . ~ r ~ i ~ c. `:i: , I a:' ~ ...•r;,' • \ . . ~ ..T. l' ..5.' , • . •,'.•:.::.:::~::c::::::.:::::: . / . . . . ......i„~.,................. . i • . ~ ' ~ ~ . . . „ ..........rr.. . .:r^. y..,r . ~ ~ : :Y::::.::::.~:. ~ ? . . .7•....y._ . . .......................................,............................................~.n'(.....,.'.~.':.:':.::.:.::.:.'.':.'::.'... ~ . : / . / ; : • .l'.' ~ .~~'.C.~::::;:::::::' ~ :7::::;:::::::::. y ....................................:•w. ,~r................... . ~ . , . \ Q ,~•.,.;y, ~ . . . . . . . . . . ~ : . . . ~ 81sa : . , EN'[ER: C1ME.;::::::.::~:..:..~ : . ....r_.. CREEK, r; .C..... . , ~ , r . . ~ • . ~ ss ~ 8160 . . ~ 9 ' i "'-_•-.....l~~ 8170 ~ ~Q~~~ ~ 11 _ - _y~ I -~-r"._' - " Q ' - i - LIMIi OF SNOUMELt r - - :_=:r _ _ _ - - - - - ~ ~ ~ _ = - - - - = ~ - - - - - , ~ • ~ ~ • u ` vILLAGE CENTER 68 ewLnINS NaN i i . 4 000 000 ~ i ~ • ~ LIMI? OF 0 SNOUMELI • 1 • 'i I - - - - LL~J i , I BI.IFER PLAZA i i i I VIg~AS CENIER , . ~ owoe,vE , ~ . , i . ~ AUSTRIA HAUS vmucoLoxAno SNOW MELT AREAS SONNBNALP PROPERTIE3, INC. ~ o Ns iOMWo R c s x o r n V79 IMM.IMNM. N~14.NMM«. I LJ I ~11~ / • ~ ' ~ • ~~r..~. ~~i ~ • ~~i"~rr~rwr~~~ ~r~r~~~~~ • ~ ~ ..~..v.~~~~~ ~ _ _ ~..~..r..~...~...~..~..~~..~ti..~~..~..~.~r~r~~.r~r.~.., • ~......~.ti..~..~«~..~.~..~..~.r..~..~..~..~•.~ "~..~-.`..~..~.ti«~..~.~..~.-...~...~..~~.~..~..~.~..r~~ ~ oC o o ~ , 4 f~ , \ ~ ~ \ MAXIMUM SNADOW BASED ON ZONINCs-"48' BUILDING NEIGHT MAXIMUM °v4~lAD0ISl 6ASED ON ZONING-~48' SUILDIhKs NEif34lt MAXIMUM 3EIADUW 6A5ED ON IONING- 48. BUILDING I~E(GH'f Sf'RING/ FALL EG2UlNOX-IO.0D am. (40' eaet of eouth, 50 decllnatlon) SFRING/ PAl.L EQUINOX- 2:00 (42 weat of eoulh, 50 declinatfon) WlNTER SOLBTICE- 10:00 am. (30 eaet of eouih, 20' declinatlon) _ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ' • -~-~--~-----~---....~---Y- . , ~ ' , 0 ~ ~ ~ aoanuw~are ~ ~ ~y~antm~ai { iaaN am~a~o ~o~ar aawmf rw 11DrM~tWIW~M- IIOaN IwIN ~q.NUwinFM IOlIN . ~ . ` . . . . . , . • ~ J* ~ rP ~ Ir I ~ ~ 9uAq0U/ OF PROP09ED STRUGTURE SNADOIU OP PRQP09ED 97RUCTtlRE SNADOW OF PROPOSED BTRUC7URE SPRING/ FALL EGIUINOX-10:00 am. (40' eeet of eoutK 50' decllnatlon) SPRING/ FALL EQUINOX- Z:mO pm. (42' waet of eouth, 50' dacllnetlon) WIN7ER 501,STICE• 10:00 em. l30' eaet oP eouth, 20' decllnatlonJ ~ - - , ~ r.._.._. ~ • - ~ T 0 p i* I M1. f SWADOIU OF PROPOSEq 5?RUGIURE MAXIMUM 9NADOUI BA°,ED ON TONING- A9' BUILDING NEICzN U1INTER SOLS?IGE- 2,00 pm. (30' weet of eouth,l0' dacllrutlon) WINTER SOLS?ICE- 2:00 pm. (30' weet of aouth, 20' decllnAtion) AUSTRIA HAUS m, cor.omno SHADE/ SHADOW STUDIES ~ SONNENAI.P PROPERTIES, INC, , o5*i4N A o x L s x o r~ n~ riwaMwuWnnn vwtaw~oorn ~ ~ I ~ ww~+~ro~w renoio~t~+~r~r pk"I SqwberS & . p ANII~' . , IIM~ MY ti i 1 ` ~ I . . ~._._._._.1_._._._._.~__N t°•°' r°... ~ L_._._._ i 0-._._ _ _._.-1--.-- , r- e i i . . . _ I - 1 ~ ~ 1: '3 ro 2" 21 F u tV/~ ' u I , ~ ~W'iPdG' CO`7'.1CtIC0l'IPA~TGP'T+1Gt0_ ~ / 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - , , ~ , : , ' . , ..1' . . • , ' ' , ' - - - 4~-._._._.----------- -._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.~.~}._.__._._._._._._.__._._._.-.--i- Ii . ~ _ _ _ _ _ - _ { - , , _.1.-._._..i._._._ . . _ - ~ _ _ _ _ ~ I I , ` 23 ~ 74 75 76 7'I :D 1 3t 31 31 33 i~ 34 I 3! ~ !b . 3'' . 3E '3! 40 i I ~I £LEV.L066Y I ~I . I i~ i 1 I ~ l YrYla~ , ' • T . ~ . r I .oIC~B~iF h1EfJ1 / ETO. `L / 10 • .JI~ ~ ~ ~ ` I I I I I ~ I i 1 ( I I ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ I I I i a ti~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 oft c - M"f. ~ thdd6r: KAA. ~ ~ U-11--~GARAGE 1.EVEL FLOOR PI.AN a ~ 1/8':I •0 A 2.0 COMKIM ~ - - Se"ba ~ ARhNetb r.c.Au . . A%= Mn.oa I n1 n 5 6 ~ ~ i Y Y Y ( 4°'t , I I {'4 i ';1~-.._.,_ . ..4 . i ! ~ I ¢ ! ¢ I I r • ~ i I r_ ~I• , ~ ! : I I ~atl~R ~xurn i f i' I i , . . - 1 ' I I I ~ *I _ _ .L_._._.-------._ . - . I ~.I . ~ATIO PATIO F-A110 i + CLI+~*At10 ( _'_'_--'-'-'~.j'._._. N i ~ , ._._._._._.t._.__.¢ _._.__i._._._._._._._._._._._ _._-._-F-.-•-.--•-.-.-•-•-~- - i wi~, j y~Ir~ w~~ i ~ v ~ 7 DOR'I. iOGC OIF LOQC OrF 1 ODR1 ~ LOCXAF LQlGE ~ ~ ~ I ~ 1a Abl1 ~ 1et AIDA ft At~a ( I _._.__.,I~aaDtwL f.__._._.-- .r._~._._._.__.~._._. _.T._._.._._._._. ~ IR11CIp! 4 1 I 4x-c _ OC 7-1 U b----------------- ; . ' ¢ ~ O ~ ~ I ~ yaoee~•n OEXTS, ~ _ < rG~ .-.---•-•--•t.-•+-- - v i \ uop e~r ! r ~ ~ ~ l~ l5LH1 ~ -i -4 - ~ i • -•-I . + i + ~o- -0 + + a , A ~ --•-•-•-•-•----•-•-•--~--._._.~.._....,,~,:,,:,~~.=;=iwa~ _7Z..i.. ..~.~2.._.._.._..- - --Y- + + i I ~ ~ I ~ 1 I ! ~ ~ ; l ~ i i ! I ~ , i ; , pIt u1.1rw ~ MJatNix tl0~1~0 li F ~I awnk «wW~ sa Fr. c.ucu.anone I cl.d.la: K~.G I im w11 t 9 60! /elA I 7 uit ar4 ~ q to1Al 4o0s *qn t F!RST LEYEL FLOOR PLAN q caHrE+ecla 4!'6qh A!1 w•r.e• A 2. 1 ~ COr4"OH AI1E?S 41V &q.ft ~ - ' - - - - ' - ~ PIMOe, Upm6m8 & Araklies ' ARfAbtn tx.raA "'°41scr," Mwaa ~ ""~°~'C"j'' r~.r r.rM MEv yy~~ 3 O r~ 6 , lJ : car CONY ~ I DALGONY 6AL~P1~' DdL eu d 0a~ a~.~ B~ _ ~ U I/~ ~I IW~'S < O ± WIT L W~'~ ~ Wtt K ~ LOCX Olf f] E^J-ITW LOGx OR o ov~ov IM. ) 601Q7.) ' ~ A IOA ~a AI01 I+1 ~ ~ ogva$ ~ `IttAVI, 1m - Iq 0lL1L1 ~ Z o- ~ ~ ~ > ~e ?m., ~ I I ~J b e~ < D G ~ TEL^ ~ N07 L ~70 Lµ TE4 IGL- ~ A1G) ~ As tl AID.1~~! N~/ OlOILs 60L ~'~P R70r1 ~I fIOCXOR) (LOGKOR) F,.~ CUL..I"- ~ wrte -A efop h. woteLwcM -1 ~eI p.n. . I h I 0 wht 4 I'~.Q q nf. qn ti i+ee pn. db ~w 6 9 HM K4R ti !~1 p.R rorrL euI Oqn 4D 11 Wn. OMe ~ ' cp"CN .?AEa6 Un W R v 1~ - ~ a rmaL uro*a« & awn br. M.S.W. Ms ad.aer. V-6 a °s ~ em a ~ t SEGOND LEYEL FOOR PLAN i A 2.2 . ~ . . . 8 - a _ _ Pho I ~ nna,~a ?.c,Au. ~ ~ . . ! ~ I ~ ' ~ 3 Q~ Q 6 Q I ~ . ' ~ • . - i ' i . , . ..i.. . ..4...~.~..~....~.~~.r~.~..~.~~..r. ~--..--.-..-..--.-......-.--.,-..-..--.--.-..-..1. I ~ I ~ ~ I I i i _ r. ~ r ' eucorrr . i , _}}~it_g_ - • D.4CONY - 6dLCA1T eucar W ~ ~ Q J LN.ER LEYEL Ed1 fl DDR7J ~ SAL IT (7 ODPo'1.1 ~ ~1.._._. u aO-._._._.....~_._._~ ._T._._._._ r~ ' ~ 1t AIO.i1, f.0.j ARAQN~L._._._._._. . ._._._._._._._._.r._._. i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ I - F , ~ 4 ~.._._._._.~_._.-._'1 ~ ~~Ntl11A 9 ~ I f0~OL01b - a-._._._._._._._._.__- . _ _ - - ~ - - - ; ; ~ . . - ! eo~ti Goac ca . . . ' i n ' ~ ~gL~3 ~ ~o .~;eL71 I . ~ ' ~7 Ab.y M1K! i ~ /nl_._._._._._._._._._._._._._i_._._._.~, , ...L ..~.,_.._.._.._.._,._.._.._.._.._,._.._.._.._...i. - \J ~ , ~ i i i ~ f i ( $a R. caLoa..now~ wne em =p.n ~ uohL ana+ µ ~o 1 ~ ~s »e ~n. I ~ j u~~ ~~q.n. ~ r~ pn ~ om uL*" -tt su pn ~ ~w ~ h*ar~ tfm7~o TOiN. 9DN 6qh. 20 pn h e ~i' M~a am"k w," o4 »e ~'~a 14 ~ R - 4e ~ OMdd11•, KAA "CM eoa+ u mo Oq.n. ' . 1 f~lON AIiEA6 iHJ p.K lMlt d ta ; i tNIRq PLOOR PLAN A 2.3 iA•. r.a ~ I ! - - ~ - - - - 9 pkroe~ ~ Seembe(g . AnddOecb P.GaUA r~o+nrnK ~ . I 1. 3 4 5 6 ~ °~i~ ~ ti I . i, ~ I~ I I ~ ~ FF~ ro~ xnw ~T ' .L LoCc as Laac aP Lax a+ i.a+c a* 0 ~ u DEpC ~ ~ ~ AIO.;fA , w ~ ' 1@ AW1 DEdC Ab D Q N.A LOCX ar Lorx om ~et AI~ ~ ~oa a~ p g IoR o~ua1 ' i ~ I K ~ i ea .w.aza-[- ' wiro +t 3e3 sq. 11 v ~se q ~a »se.q. 7o e °w , ~t iw n. roraL W1 6q ' , MANdGQR'6 WIi bl~ ~ R COH'ION NPEAS CI3 ~ft ~ p{ LlalM1 1~ ~ ~*aNe N017.OD , d~M116~: M1J~ ~ - M' ~Id~dyt KAO R i FOURTN LEVEL FLOOR ?LAN ~ a ~ ~ N~ ue•. r~a I ~ A2.4 ; oopw"a 'i - . s .r"~.v..`6 ~,,d{,O.P,v,, . at Aiaociefes • /IfCh1bCb /.C.4UA - A009~cn~a • ~iwan i ~ i j j ~ ~ I , ~ ~ j I r••-. I ! I I ( ~ ~ / ; i I.._ i._.._.,_.._.._.,_,._.._,._„_.._.._.._.._,._.1_.._.._....._._.._.,_,._.._..1.._.._.._.._.._.._.. .,r ~ T.. . I _._._._._._.i._._.,;:_ _ - - ' I , OWl J ~ I I r._.__ _ _ _ - - - • w qoc DeOf pOC O ~ ~ Z > F ~ . ~ ~ euIR Mrw a+n+ eTaR a~ae eAtW eArw erAnt (E~- _ _ - - + . a_.-.--.----------- ; ~ ~ ~ ? ; ' ~ ~ i , . . i ~ Y G --•-j - - -•-~--•--•-i-- ~ . . ; i - -.-.-.-.r ~ _ . . ~ . . _ _ ` ~ - - . . - ~ , , ~ O_ i - _",~.-,~.;~r_._ - - - - ' - - - - ~ ' - - - ' - - ' - _ _ I . i -,..~..~.._.._.._,._..~..~.,_.._,....~.._,._.._,..~....._.,....,._.._.,_....._.._....,_,....._.._..r.._,.~..~,.~..~,._,.~„~..~,._,....~.._..~..~, - ~ ~ I . ~ . , . ~ ~ . : I I I, ~ ; i i i i i f ~~1•• i i i i i ; ~ ~ i i , i i ' ~ i I i f ! ` or ~ ~ . R /~1Ne 1f011A0 9 O~rnby+ Ms.M ~ ayWyr. LAa • ? 1 FIFTN LEvEL FLODR PLAN 01 ~ u5 ue•• r.~ 3 /12•S ' ~ - - - - - - _ " 4 , ~ ~ _ - Archliecb ?,t,~u~1 wnmrn~t . Mwor • r~~w, ~ , Q Q 4 Q Q , - , I L Q lf / J/, - f - / ~ ~ ~ a._._._.__.._._.-•-•-•-- i t r ~ - _ ' ~ _ _ j: .t._ . ~.1-. - - _ - - - - - oe ~ i ~ i 1 Z i I-- ~•-I , - i _ ~ \ ~ > 5 r4wle r4otw r..~odo . Q ! J_ a _ . _ - - , . - - - , - . . , _ ..J / M._._..... - . f-_.-r _ ~ - -AIA a , ' . ' ' . ' ` ~ . ~ I I ! ~ i j 7R W'~°"" ! . ~ , ~ ~ ~ 1 I ~ . ~ e • • M ~k KAO E t ROOF PLAN ~ a f ~i ~ .r•o ~ A2.6 ~ . . ; 8"oba k y~h • Areilfeeh t.C-AI.A. utwntnm runm . erto~on IIMYr11r1wW qll YY,N~IMfi IMIOMYI Ow01b • ~ ITbO~r.?Yftl 110 IM R ~ A~.01b1UIW ~ W01p1 . ~ . . , ' ~ ' ~ ~ -1s+-t 1lVR-~ - ~ , I 'n ~ • lIIIY' . L1 I ~ . i~ . . . • V/ I I ~ i. I ^1 ' 1 ~ ~ . . ~ lM~O IP6 H 1 "1. ~ ' i d Li' C;'-: • ~.~ryV~ ~ i.ru~a~„ ~Q ~ ~ . NORTH ELEVATION • ' ~w,:uwrr . ~ ~ u~rn I j~ - " I . I~ r , • ~ I C'_1. ~ _ ' • a.nr{ ~jF~~ ~j --j, ~(;r~l ~'C~ :...Ii..: _ • ` , ~awa~, n ' I , - ---~`-9~ T- -,n A~ ~ ~ ;r ~r, PTff VIM . ArE . ~r? . . unr , ~ • hy~ti e: I . . ~ I D.. M ~ ~ t----------.-~--------^-----------'-~-~~ ' ~ `wr~wyT Md~IM . . ' sww a . sovrtt Ei.~vnnok . , ~ ~ . . n a.o . _ ~ 0?Y ~ , _ ---r- - - - - - ! , !.G•AJ.A. AAnmeuu ~ nAPPwa Mobu ~ mw.oo. x~a+n...~rrr ~im.+.iwn 1tl1an-W Y_04. Iti.P.r.M1N BIIIMR ObIw.P~107 . ~YYHM1 I TT x ~ - ~ ~ ' • ' ~ ~ ~t • ~ ~ ~ d~ ~ ' ~ ~ 1whNM TTT= . I i iulttlNte , .I _ . W~a1Waw . . . 4- . Easr ELEva?nom wESr El"AnoN . . ~ , . , ~ . . • . ~ , . • pnn p: u ~ ~ • . s1 a . ' ~ ' . ' ~ . ~ A3.1 ~ i ` ~ c eorruuit ~ ! _ P~ Se~+bad & . . Ndi~Near ?,C.ruA A004RVRM ~as w~ ~ PATIO I I UNIT "2 BDRM. BDRI'1. 3 BDRM. LOCK DFF I i ~ . s UNIt 02 FLOOR PLAN ~ w.r•o~ I . . . r- PATIO PATIO ~ . , t i UNIT BDRI'1. UNIT 03 HDRM, 2 SDRM. BDRM. LOCK OFF 3 BDRM. gpp~, LCGKO;:F ~ s' ` J x - p ~br. KLw. . ~ 7 ~ I ~ 3 Ut~IT "3 FLOOR PLAN i UNIT'1 FI.ODR PLAN A10.~ ' ~ w.rm• w•.r.o• ~ - - - - -~'~1_ , ~ , . _ . - ~ , - /~woc~i~ea . Archl6ecb r,c,.uw ~ ~ HALCONY ~N ~ BALCONY 6ALCONY I . UNIT •8 , l3 6DRP'{J ~ UNIT "4 BpRM• (3 5DRI'1.) 0 I.OCK OFF LOCK DFF UNIT "9 ~ l3 BDRM.) ~ Q o lJ ~l n o 2 JNIT •8 FLOOR PLAN D U Q uv.r•o~ _ r ' l BDRM. 8Fa; f, . MAI BDRM. 5DR"1. ~ BALCONY ~ BALCON BALCON NOTEL ROCNM "I E) BDRM. BDRM. UNIT 'S l_OG<O==) I:.OC~COF~~ ~D~, gD~, tTYP. 3 5DR-1'1J ..OGK 0=F . UNI? *4 FI.DOR PLAN 3 : . L1NIT '9 FLOOR PLAN ~ ~ x o..y: iwa. ~ ~k tta , F DUNIT '5 FLODR PLAN A101 . y ! ! - - , ~ I I d S BALCONY g I rUchkcrn ~ UNIT "II LOIUER LEV=L BALCON (3 Bp,+LpFTJ ""1tl01tl ' ~mi. MMI~WI ~RO~YM BDR+"I, BDRM. i ~ ~ i , o BqRM. UNI1' "16 c i ~ l3 BDRM.+LO, t) ~ . ' • ~ ~ k~v ~ j ~:f • Xx` ~ i 7a , ; , a 'J'~iT "11 FLOOR PLAN lw/loFt) Va•. I'-0' ~ ~ ~g LocK o== ; F-;>: Q BDRM. ~ z UNIT '16 FLOOR PLAN (ailoft) ~ ; ? Y ~ , ' GN I 7 '10 (2 BDRMJ LOCK OFF ; • - _ / ~ I R~ • i , i , NO'EL ~'J7E_ I 400M '74 ROOM "25 ~ ~ . i~~ R a ~C'h,o-ckWbr. ~--a~ , 3 uN; 7 •im FLacR ~L~,h 114•. 1'•0 ' ~ Mza z5 rLooR PLAv , ~ ~y p.p• . A10.2 ~ ~ COR'ItlG11 I ~ . . . _ - - - I 'pwm, ' . ~ ~ Archk" I ~ r.caiA : nw.MC i I ttmgmm ~ oftoo. Y ! ~ ( ~ i ,1 i T~li \ Wi W- ' I i ~ i , ? i/ ! ' - 0 ~ Q 0 ~ -G C~ v~1~ ~.^i^?K /U\ ~ a.. U\I 5 M3• /I~ ! MiL_l' ~C.~'i? ° d~ ce~,~j ~ .i 1 + ~ i~ ~1 I ~ . , I y ~ NOT=L ROOM "I - - ~ i ' i Re~nNa t+oir,oo; t - - ~ r Qwwibp: MSNJ. - i. e j ; iClYdrdb( KAQ; s 5 NOTEL UNIT "I FLOOR PLAti ,;~~-a f :i C^..2 _ 1'• E'•' _CCr a -'i • ' ~ A10.3 ~ t . ~ rMree, ~ A~~la Aebkteb ~ ?.C.-A.IA. ,utwtectu~t 8 . rLAIWIM wrar. wan-r«.?w vra.r.iwn •v~wa irwai..tr.~n twima ~ , ~ • D-d?tieri MIYIdp1 ' O ~ \ ~ O . . E:~\ . . . ~ . . o . . . . . ~a.: ~ . . . , . . r Do. • ~ ~ . ~ ~ 0 . n . . ~ 0 ~ . ' 'Q ' • n/1n ' . O' ~ o O i I C31 ~ WI, w/D f UNITS ~`17-20 FLOOR PLANS W/LOFf~ ~ # 6,7,12,13,14,15, FLOOR PI.ANS I sCuE; u+•t~o' sc~: v~~~~a ~ w"" 1 o . . I i El um~ D . ~ I a~?d er. , LOFf a 9CJUE• U4`' 1''W ~ A10.4 s I ~ , ~ Pktu, I' • 91 . . / \ / \ = ~ ~ I A":hMKi7 i~ - 1 ' +7yl:ti AACHRVCnM ~ I I.w~v~r ~ ~ ~ \ R ' . - e.'wpr. .r' ~ : •s _v ~7 ~..v ~ ~ ~ '~x / I ^S~ •.~e. ~ ' ~ _ ~ ~ I _?..K. ~ / , ..C'?: ~ , ~ - \ L...i.I . ~v~ , - ~ ~ I \ I JL . Fl - ~ Q o =_^C= ~ :...i.t •~r.c ' rJ I ~ I ~ I P4 •,J~ • i ' ~ ,?J ,'i ~ - ~ - ~ 1 L ' 1 u I •'i , „ • ~ !M. -.i.1•../" _ _ ?J ~A r} Y . _ _ , - _ I \ I ~ . , ~ - - - _7.- noMnra ,+mzao • om- M KaI/a. . . q: icAA : ~ S ~ a u\'" A10.5 ' Jtco""" . , AP:~ AppROTEDMAR 1 0 1997 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 24, 1997 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Susan Connelly Greg Amsden (2:30p.m.) Lauren Waterton Henry Pratt Dominic Maurieilo Galen Aasland George Ruther John Schofieid Tammie Williamson Gene Uselton Judy Rodriguez Diane Golden Public Hearina 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a site coverage variance and conditional use permit to allow for a Type II EHU, located at 1194 Cabin Circle/Lot 3, Block 2 Vail Valley 1st Filing. Applicant: William and Shirley Mclnryre, represented by Ned Gwathmey Planner: Dominic Mauriello . Greg Moffet said that Henry Pratt recused himself from this item and Greg Amsden was not present now, but would arrive late. Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the request according to the staff memo and said that staff was recommending denial, subject to the findings found in the memo on page 5. He noted that he passed out a letter from Ned Gwathmey. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Ned Gwathmey, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant could build a house 15' taller with 1/3 of the site covered with parking. He said the EHU triggered additional site coverage issues, with the enclosed parking for the EHU requirement. He said that an EHU was desirable and that this request was for the EHU. Greg Moffet asked if we should separate the two requests. Ned Gwathmey said he would like a straw vote from the PEC on the variance and possibly iable this to come up with something that works for the PEC. He asked if an EHU was appropriate for the neighborhood and if any additional site coverage was allowed. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 1 a * David Gorsuch, an adjacent property owner at 1193 Cabin Circle, said that he objected to the ~ size of the house. He mentioned that one plane along the north elevation was a solid wall. He said these iwo assues were objectionable. He asked for a the rules regarding fencing. Greg Moffet said that the DRB does fencing and the PEC does bulk and mass. Galen Aasland asked if David Gorsuch's house was to the north of this property. David Gorsuch said, yes and the proposal would affect his patio and family room, however, it would not block their views of the Gore Range. Ned Gwathmey said he was not asking for any additional GRFA and stated that the whole house had been lowered and the applicant agreed to plant heavily on the solid wall side. Dominic Mauriello said the finished roof elevation would be 32' and that the requests couldn't be separate, as an enclosed garage was needed for the EHU and the two requests were closely tied together. He said GRFA was an issue. Greg Moffet asked for a straw poll for the whole application. Galen Aasland said he had no problem with the EHU. Diane Golden said the EHU was ok, but the site coverage was a grant of special privilege. John Schofield said the EHU was good, but he agreed with Diane regarding the site coverage. Gene Uselton said with interpreting the code, he wouldn't be able to vote in favor of this request. ~ Greg Moffet said he saw no way for the site coverage variance, as it was a special privilege. Galen Aasland said his concerns were that the plans d'sdn't reflect the argument being made. He said the large wall would not benefit the neighbors and the bulk was being maxed out at 32', which worked against the request for a site coverage variance. Dominic Mauriello recommended not tabling either request, as there was no hardship and tabling would serve no purpose. Ned Gwathmey asked if an alternative might be to reduce the garage to a 2- car garage with one dedicated to the EHU. He said it would then be 400 sq. ft. over. He asked the PEC if they would consider any site coverage variance at all. Greg Moffet said it would be a big concession. Dominic Mauriello said the applicant was using both 425 sq. ft. credits for a single-family home. Ned Gwathmey said the applicant was asking for 22% site coverage with the revised plan. Greg Moffet said this could be converted to a worksession. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes ~ February 24, 1997 2 { • Dominic Mauriello said it could be treated as a worksession and continued at the next meeting. Ned Gwathmey asked if the PEC would approve t his request wit hout a variance. Greg Moffet said ciearly, yes. Galen Aasland said the appiicant wanted the PEC to look at this in an open way because of the EHU. He stated that the prob(em was self-created with no particular advantage to the Town. Greg Amsden arrived at 2:30. ' John Schofield said he strongly supported the EHU. He encouraged the applicant to be creative and find the 2% overage somewhere on the lot. Gene Uselton explained that the code drew the line. Greg Amsden had no further comments. Greg Moffet said the EHU was good, but he was not comfortable with giving any additional site coverage. John Schofield made a motion to table this item until March 10, 1997. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. • Dominic Mauriello asked what part of this request was being tabled. Greg Moffet stated both parts and the request would come back as a conditional use. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0-1. 2. A request for a site coverage variance and conditional use permit to allow for a Type II EHU, located at 186 Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Mike Flannery, represented by Guy Dreier Planner: George Ruther Greg Moffet noted for the record that Henry Pratt was back for this item. John Schofield made a motion to table this item until March 10, 1997. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 3. A request for a site coverage variance to allow for the construction of a two-car garage, located at 4532 Streamside Circle/Lot 15, Bighorn Subdivision 4th Addition. Applicant: Edward Padilla, represented by Kathy Langenwalter P(anner: Lauren Waterton • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 3 i 4 Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the staff inemo and said that staff was recommending • deniai according to the findings in the staff inemo. Ed Padilla, the applicant, said that he bought the property 3 months ago with the idea to come out to live full time. He would like to put a home office over the garage. He said he understands the Zoning Code looks at this property as one piece of property. He said he could build less than 50% of total site coverage, since the Bresnahan's limited the amount of coverage he could use with their garage addition. He said that he advised Kathy Langenwalter to design the addition with lots of landscaping on the berm. F Kathy Langenwalter said one of the criteria regarding this properry states that the size or shape of the site or existing structures would allow relief from a grant of special privilege and so therefore, the only location to locate a garage would be on the east. She said there was quite a bit of GRFA remaining on the site, with 600 sq. ft left over after the garage. She said that this had all the available lot area on the east side and garages were not put in initially, causing an unusual circumstance on this site. She said that this was a case where both sides of the duplex were adding garages simultaneously. She felt, regarding site coverage variances for garages in the past, that it was very common to allow the transition space between the building. She stated that she documented similar requests befinreen 1989 and 1995. She said the Stanleys had an infill between two buildings to allow them to use the 250, as well as the Heimrick's garage. She said that the Perot variance allowed a 3-car garage of 1,005 sq. ft. and that the 480 sq. ft. garage that the applicant was asking for was small. Greg Amsden explained that the Perot's had a hardship on the lot and there were topography restraints on the Heimrick's lot. • Kathy Langenwalter said the Aasland variance was for a living area. Lauren Waterton said that with regard to the Perot variance, the lot had a slope greater that 30°l0, and allowed garages to be located in the front setback. However, it didn't allow GRFA in the setback. Galen Aasland said that the Town changed the rules on how site coverage was calculated when those plans came in for the Aasland variance. Dominic Mauriello said the Stantey house was in a high hazard avalanche zone. He further pointed out to Kathy Langenwalter that the variance had expired and it was never constructed. Lauren Waterton said all the cases Kathy had mentioned each had special circumstances related to the site and that the PEC should focus on the criteria re{ated to this site. Kathy Langenwalter said there was a physical constraint on this property and the PEC should allow a medium-size garage. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There was none. Galen Aasland agreed that the east side was the only place on the lot to put a garage. He questioned the new kitchen. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes • February 24, 1997 4 r , . Kathy Langenwalter explained that this was not new space; just a reconfiguration for access purposes. Galen Aas(and said this was somewhat seif-created, in that a staircase already weRt up to the 2nd levei. He said the bathroom could be removed on the 2nd level and put in the guest roorn. i He said he couidn't support the variance request. Diane Golden had a hard time with .8 of 1%. Mr Padilla said if this was not an exception to the rule, then there would be no variance. He said there were 3 alternatives; 127 sq. ft., requesting 20.8% site coverage, the second was less, but more than code allowed and the third was getting a garage but needing to figure out a way to connect without a variance. He said he was willing to look architecturally at this problem and suggested the possibility of a spiral staircase. He did not want to pop out a bathroom and wanted feedback on what the PEC could recommend. He then mentioned that at the 1/27/97 PEC meeting, ihe attorney stated what the PEC did with the Bresnahan property would affect the Padilla property. He then asked the PEC to look at the uniqueness of this variance request. Henry Pratt said he was not comfortable with this being a hardship because of the internal partitioning of the house. He said if the applicant eliminated the need for a second stair, that would eliminate the need for the variance. John Schofield telt he could justify a hardship based on the existing structure. If the attached structure were deleted, he said a 10 square foot variance would still be needed. He said based ' on that and that he was in favor of garages, he could see a very small variance. • Mr. Padilla thought the driveway could use the existing entrance. Gene Uselton said he thought along the same lines as John and that a garage was a good thing. Dominic Mauriello said, for the record, ihat this lot was treated as a single lot. Gene Uselton said that some people had parry-walf agreements. Dominic Mauriello said a party-wall agreement was not a Town action, but an agreement beiween the parties. He said this was one lot with two owners. Gene Uselton said he was in favor of supporting this, as he felt it not to be a grant of special privilege. Greg Amsden said the Board could not be a party to a party-wall agreement. He said to incorporate the bathroom into the guest room space. He said if 10' came off the garage, there would be no variance and that the variance was needed due to architectural design. Greg Moffet said the PEC was not a policy making body, but had to enforce the rules. He disagreed with everyone as 10' was still 10'. He said the applicant could accomplish the objective without a site coverage variance. He asked the applicant, based upon the staking, if the road was on his property? • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 5 ? 5 Mr. Padilla said, yes. He said one alternative was to reduce the laundry upstairs and add a spiral staircase. He said this wouid require a variance of 75 sq. tt. and he asked it the Board would . agree to that. Greg Moffet stated that John and Gene would be ok for a little variance. John Schofield said a 20' garage was very smail and he would be sympathetic to this request. Mr Padilfa said there was a conflict of gaais, since there was a need to get cars oft the street. Dominic MaurieNo said he discouraged tabling this item just to satisfy a mentai pause. Mr. Padilla asked if he was willing to modify this to 1/2 of 1%, would the PEC consider the variance. Dominic Mauriello reminded the PEC that they just gave Ned Gwathmey some specific direction on a similar request, that no amount of site coverage variance was acceptable. Kathy Langenwalter said that that was an unconsiructed site. Gene Uselton asked if there were any practical difficulties on the site. Greg Moffet reminded the PEC that they were still handstrung on the grant of special priviiege. Kathy Langenwaiter asked how. Greg Moffet stated that it could be construeted another way and that it was on a flat site. ~ Galen Aasland made a motion for denial based on it being a grant of special privilege. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Schofield opposed. 4. A request for variance(s) from Section 18.58.320, Satellite Dish Antennas, D1,3,4 and 6 to allow two satellite dishes to be installed at the northwest corner of the Vail Commons property and a variance from Section 18.54.050, Design Guidelines, C 7, to allow two rooftop antennas on the false stairwell tower, located at 2099 North Frontage Road WesWail Commons. Applicant: KTUN Radio Planner: Tamrnie WiUfamson Tammie Williamson gave an overview of the staff inemo and said that staff was recommending approval regarding the location of the two satellite dishes, but denial of the antennae on the false stairwell. She stated that for the record, there was one letter received that opposed the request. Planning and Environmental Commission MinUtas ~ February 24, 1997 6 Jon Banks, of KTUN Radio, said he needed direction regarding the back fence. He said he I • understood staff's concern with regards to the antenna, but he said it was necessary for the Dowd Junction line-of-relay sight and that there were very few choices. He said that there were 3 locations in the proposal. He spoke with the architects about the stairwell structure who found it difficult to hide it inside the structure. Greg Moffet disclosed, for the record, that KTUN was a customer of his, as they buy bus advertisement, but he did not see this as a confilict. Greg then asked for any public comment. Chris Connelly, a property owner on Chamonix, said he had no problem with the dishes. Jon Banks explained that a 4'X 6' antenna would be mounted on the false stairwell. Greg Moffet asked which way the faFse stairwell would face. If it faced the Frontage Rd., it would not be visible from Chamonix. Chris Connelly said, regarding the 35' high antenna, that he didn't like antennas on buildings, as he couldn't have an antenna for his personal use. He said his objection was a visual thing. Diane Golden asked Chris if he was comfortable with the dishes. Chris Connelly said he had no problem with the dishes. Greg Moffet asked for any other public comments. There was none. ~ John Schofietd asked if the antennas could not be put inside the false stairwe(( tower because of the metal structure for the antenna. He asked if they could be put in the wooden roof structures. Dominic Mauriello said the wooden roof structures could work, since the roof had not yet been constructed on Vail Commons. John Schofield suggested exploring the possibility. He then asked about the texture and color of the dishes. Jon Banks said that black, white and dark green were the available colors. He said this was an aesthetic issue and would stand ready if a color was requested. John Schofield asked if this would go to the DRB. Dominic Mauriello said that was listed in the conditions of approval in the staff inemo. Jon Banks said they were proposing a solid white color with a colored cover. John Schofield said he would like more landscaping and he then could support the dishes. He said to put the antennas inside if at all possible. Jon Banks said he was concerned with locating them in an attic, where there would be high heat and access problems. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 7 . Greg Moffet said at this point of construction a fake chimney could be built. Dominic Maurielio said they cauld modify the material, as the same architect was working on Vail Commons and it could be incorporated into their design. Gene Uselton agreed with John and said to get to it be#ore construction. Greg Amsden had no further camments. Galen Aasland said this was a better solution to hiding the antennas. He said to add landscaping on the west side and to modify shape to get in more landscaping. ' Diane Golden said she was concerned about the fences for safety reasons. , Greg Moffet said KTUN would need to request another variance for the fence height changing from 3' to 6'. Henry Pratt agreed with the other board members to make the antennas work. He asked if the 10' and 13' dishes could be reversed to reduce the impact on Chamonix. Jon Banks said he would have to look at the plans. Henry Pratt said if it would move down the hill, he would be in support of a higher fence variance. He suggested putting a DRB approved cover on it and also to paint the backside of the dish. Jon Banks said there would be no cover, as the whole dish would be painted. ~ Henry Pratt said additional {andscaping was needed on the west side to hide the fence. Greg Moffet summarized the variances that #1 - to allow both dishes; #2 - that the PEC would need to see more drawings to enclose the antennas; #3 - to ground base the antennas and the PEC was ok with #4 and #5. He advised the applicant to include a fence variance when they came back. Henry Pratt made a motion to approve variances #1 #3 #4, as described in the staff memo including the staff conditions. The motion was seconded by Greg Amsden. Galen Aas{and asked about additional landscaping to hide the fence. Henry Pratt amended his motion to include that the DRB review the revised landscaping and fencing plan. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. Henry Pratt made a motion to table variances 2& 5 until the applicant had a chance to revisit the placement of this equipment. ' Planning and Envuonmental Commission Minutes • February 24, 1997 8 The motion was seconded bY Gene Uselton. • The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 5. A request to amend a platted building envelope amendment to aliow for a 489 sq. ft. increase in the building envelope size, located at Envelope B, Parcei 4, Lions Ridge Fiiing I #2. Applicant: David & Jody Leach, represented by Bob Mach Planner: Tammie Williamson Tammie Wiltiamson gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Bob Mach, the appticant, had nothing to add. Greg Moffet asked if the Board had any comments. There were no comments from the Board. Gene Uselton made a motion for approval with the 2 conditions listed in the staff memo. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. ~ . 6. A request for a worksession to discuss the development standards for the proposed , Alpine Gardens Education Center, to be located generally west of the Ford Park Athletic Fields, on a part of Tract A, Block 2, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Betty Ford Alpine Gardens ' Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff inemo and said that the discussion today would only include the parking and loading issue, or something else that was relevant to parking and loading. He said that the inclusion of two classrooms and auditoriums required the parking to be assessed according to the various types of the uses in the building. He said the discussion needs to include the use of the auditorium and classrooms and that the applicant needed direction from the PEC. Greg Moffet asked for the applicant to comment. Helen Fritch, President of the Board, said she was accompanied by Sammye Meadows and David Kenyon of Design Workshop. She said she had moved the building to the soccer field at the request of the neighbors and the Town staff. She was pleased with the move, as there was now access to park. She explained that this was the first drawing from Fisher Architect and Galvin Design. She said that the whoie building would have the capacity to open up and be a gathering space for receptions, etc., and that it would be for multi-purpose use. She said that the purpose of the auditorium was for orientation with a theater for exhibits. Helen said that the staff office space may need to be larger. • Ptanning and Environmental Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 9 , . , I David Kenyon, Design Workshop, said fhat he had been working with Helen for several months. He then showed aerial drawings with the first conceptual location and described it as an orientation document. He was asked to reconfigure the existing parking and said that there were 57 striped spaces in the parking lot today. He said the Town staff said there would be 65 spaces as the base line if restriped. David expfained that over 20 studies had been done regarding the building design and parking. He said they modified the building shape to maximize the surface parking spaces south of it. He said there wouid be retaining walls inside the berm for rock gardens and that the building was built directly into the berm with the courtyard looking at the , Gore Range across the soccer field. He said that this was a compromise from the old donut- shape plan. He said that the berm came up to the top roofline, so you couldn't see the roofline , as you approached from the west. He then showed the parking lot two ways. He said the drop- off area allowed for valet-type parking. He said the building was still conceptual with two parking lot alternatives. He said there had also been discussion on whether or not to add a parking structure to this site. He said Todd Oppenheimer had taken a laok at it and he had added 6-8 parking spaces. He said that a parking structure would encroach into the soccer field with the access ramp cutting into the Northwoods berm and that there were off-site considerations to be considered with a structure. He said the applicant would like some feedback on how many spaces would need to be added to the baseline of 65 parking spaces. He said that stackable chairs would be used in the auditorium space which would be used as lecture space or group , gatherings. George Ruther asked how often did they expect to use the center as a multi-purpose space; once a week or once a month? ' Helen Fritch said small presentations wouid be on-going throughout the year to include approximately 10 people. Sammye Meadows said 3-5 evening lectures would occur during the week. Helen Fritch said that this was a shared parking space with Bravo and the soccer field in the summer. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. Jim Lamont, representing EVHA, said the neighborhood along Vail Valley drive would prefer to with a mana ement plan. have t h e same p p k, • no net increase in parkin9 9 rinci als as for Gold Pea He said that the management plan could mitigate a lot of the issues that came up at the meeting Susan, Lauren and I attended. He said our position has not changed from the Golden Peak situation. He felt an efficient parking structure couldn't happen on this site without complications. He said that 65 spaces should be made the maximum using a management plan for the allocation of the spaces. He stated that meetings would be episodic, but the auditorium might be showing a video all the time. He said the Rec District, Bravo and the Alpine Garden would all have episodic meetings, but the garden would have an on-going use. He said it needed a management plan. He felt it should be opened in the summer. He said for special events a special event gate would go down with an attendant to monitor it. He said a drop-off function for the elderly became a major point of concern, since people wouldn't be able to back out. He felt the width of the access road would cause looky-loo visitors and parking would be a problem in , the winter. He said the intent should not be a skier parking !ot which exasberbates the traffic flow Planning and Environmental Commission ~ Minutes February 24, 1997 10 • through there. He said he was supportive of this location change. He said that Northwoods was extremely nervous and if this would be a major tourist attraction, then Northwoods wanted bus access. He said the Rec District was concerned that the parking lot was into their golf area, which would be one of the major deterrents in additional parking spaces. He said that Northwoods was waiting to see the design of the building. To have the parking drive the site, when it's operating like a hotel has to be looked at, since this was a passive use facility. He said they didn't see the economics of a covered parking structure similar to Golden Peak. If this was a tourism venue, then parking should be in the north lot and if it was well managed, then there wouldn't be a parking problem. He said the neighborhood was not for any parking structures. John Schofield asked who Jim represented. Jim Lamont said from Northwoods to the Vor)auffer, but not east of that. Greg Moffet asked for any additional public comment. There was none. John Schofield said the potential would be the 114 seats would be used on a real regular basis and the existing parking areas were full. He felt the applicant would need to supply a substantial supply of parking; at least as many spaces as are already there. He felt the quantity of parking and management of parking were his 2 concerns. Helen Fritch said they were relying on the Ford Park Management Plan to increase the bus system to be on the Town shuttle bus. She said library users almost totally ride the bus. She said our summer studies show visitors came by bus. She said not to assume that everyone would go to this parking first and then go to the center. Helen felt that managing the parking was very important, as in the wintertime it was used for skier parking, with a lot of cars blocking in • other cars. She said she didn't see that as a problem in the summer, as Bravo uses the parking in the summer. John Schofield said there was a fair amount of overlap and it needed to be taken care of now, so that it did not become considerable. Gene Uselton said wedding reception participants woufdn't ride the bus. Helen Fritch said the wedding party could park and allocate the guests to park elsewhere. She said if there was a Bravo concert, then Bravo should contribute to the management of the parking. She asked about the illuminated signs by the Blue Cow Chute stating parking was ful(. Jim Lamont said the management plan needed to be addressed by the Commission before this got approved. Gene Uselton said people preferred to drive their cars. Jim Lamont said these were issues that needed to be put in writing and addressed by Bravo and the Rec Center before this could proceed. Gene Uselton asked said what the EVHA wanted to do? Jim Lamont said the neighborhood wanted to see a managed parking plan. • Planning and Envuonmental Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 11 . George Ruther said the draft of the Ford Park Management P{an was based upon the schedule of events. He said that new development needed to accommodate its own parking on the site with no net loss of parking. Greg Moffet said if a net increase in use was perceived, then new parking was needed. George Ruther said new development shouid not be allowed without accommodating new parking. Jim Lamont said this was the first project to go through and we needed to manage it. He said there wasn't any proven management system. George Ruther said some management solutions would be to incentivise bus service. The bus service was not being used as articulated by the VVF and the gardens. Sammye Meadows said when people have called for directions to the gardens in the past, they were told to park in the structure and ride the bus and that had worked. Todd Oppenheimer said the master schedule for Ford Park will take care of that. Greg Moffet said there was not a management plan, so IeYs talk about the development standards for this project. Greg Amsden said development standards established for other zone districts need about 18 • more spaces. He agreed that there needs to be a management plan in place prior to a final decision on this project. Galen Aasland saw this as a wonderful amenity for the community and that the move had now made it a destination. He felt that the bus would not solve all the problems and there was a need for more parking spaces. He said access needs to be provided for catering, deliveries, etc. and that this was going to create a use for additional parking. Diane Golden said if you build it they will come; that it was human nature that people wanted to drive. She asked about the valet parking. David Kenyon said that alternative A in the packet showed 65 spaces with a brick surface with a roll curb to allow spaces that could be blocked in. He said this would afford an additional 10-11 cars to be parked but it pushes the surface parking lot 18'-20' into the golf course which would cause resistance from the Rec District. He said today there were 57 parking spaces and with a restriping the baseline would be 65 spaces. He asked the PEC to determine how many spaces would be needed based on code. ' Helen Fritch mentioned that David was trying to fit all the spaces on the surface without going to 2 levels. Jim Lamont said there was no bus service presently to this site and there had to be a commitment from the Town to provide bus service to this site. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes February 24, 1997 12 I ~ Henry Pratt said that he was pleased to move the building out of the garden and create a destination. Henry said the reaction is to apply TOV parking to this facility to accommodate the use. He felt that the parking area proposed was totally adequate. He said if it was made larger there would be a Iot of golf balls into windowshields. He said to eliminate the parking lot and i leave only enough for handicapped parking and staff. He suggested, in order to solve the no-net loss of parking, putting the parking on the Frontage Road or a structure at the east end over by the 8-lane highway. He advised to not increase the parking, reclaim some of the asphalt and only have a drop-off and turnaround area to get the parking out of there. He said we learned from Golden Peak, and the same standards should be applied as Gold Peak. Henry said he was not in entire agreement with the Ford Park Master Plan. He didn't want retaining walls. Todd Oppenheimer said we were talking only surface lots. Henry Pratt said a structure over there is not that far off in the future, since the Village Structure was full and it needed to be plugged into the Ford Park Master Plan Diane Golden disagreed with Henry, as no parking was unrealistic for the children's activities. She said that this Town had to be kept viable for families. Greg Moffet said ultimately a bigger solution needs to happen and we needed to see the Master plan to address the parking issues. He said this would create a stunning setting for weddings, but will result in a need for increased parking. He said there needs to be a sufficient increase in parking, but on what kind of a regular basis are ihe uses. He said that managed solutions do not address the times when no one was fully-staffed. He stated the concern of lower bus frequencies, as there were not enough drivers. He said he was very leery with depending too , ~ much on a managed solution. He said the PEC role was to develop standards for this use. Greg felt that there should be 25-45 net new parking spaces. Greg Amsden said the success of this center would be its access and to eliminate the island. , David Kenyon said the elimination of the island would destroy the Gore Range view. Jim Larnont said Dave Corbin, with VA, would be interested in managing the lot if it could be used for his employees. He said that everything in Vail was managed. He said the only option was managed parking, as money was not there for a structure. Helen Fritch said a lid could be put on it in the future. Susan Connelly suggested astroturfing one of the playing fields. Jim Lamont said the visual impact from the Northwoods residents had to be considered. He said what was being dealt with now should keep the parking status quo for the use now. He felt Henry's solution was too quick. He said there was parking enough to justify that building and to proceed with a managed parking w/gate solution. Greg Moffet thought Henry's suggestion was too much to swallow at once. David Kenyon said Henry's suggestion was good as it would green up more space. He said if there was more demand at a later time, they could contribute to additional parking at the other structures in Ford Park. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 13 7. A request for variances from Sections 18.22.060 (Setbacks), 18.22.140 (Parking), ~ 18.04.130 (Common Area) and 18.22.020 (Percentage of Accessory Uses) to allow for an entry addition at the Swiss Chalet, located at 62 East Meadow Drive/Part of Lot K, Block ' S-E, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Henry Pratt Planner: Lauren Waterton Henry Pratt recused himself from this item. Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the request and said that staff was recommending approval with the three conditions in the staff memo and one additional condition: that the 4.6 I parking spaces be paid into the parking fund. Henry Pratt, the architect for the project, said that he was confident that they could get the two spaces on the south side in without damage to the landscaping, but a retaining wall may have to be put in. He said what was shown on the drawing was what was required. Johannes Faessler said staff had done a good job. He said he wanted to discuss with the PEC with parking spots #12, # 13 and #14 on the northwest corner of the building, as they were not on I this property. He said should this parce{ sell in the future, then it could be put in the agreement for the Town to get those two parking spaces. He said since he was heating part of Town property (#14), he should be allowed to park and allowing these spaces would require paying 1.6 parking spaces into the parking fund. Lauren Waterton said according to Section 18.52.050, Parking Standards, that spaces shall be • entirely within lot lines and shall not encroach in any public right-of-way. Johannes Faessler said this project would be hard to justify with such a large parking payment and he would like to be given the benefit of the doubt with a foot here or there. Greg Moffet asked if the parking spaces were required because the lobby was a bar. Henry Pratt said because it was a bar. Galen Aasland said, regarding #12 and #13, since he owned both properties, couldn't he resubdivide the property line. Johannes Faessler said Lauren would come back with the pay-in-lieu for the Bavaria Haus. He said that the land was owned by VA and that he owned the master lease. Greg Moffet said it could be accomplished with a deed restriction. Greg Amsden suggested signing an agreement with the TOV. Henry Pratt suggested that if this parcel was sold then two spaces could be paid for in the parking fund. John Schofield said he had no problem with an agreement regarding the two spaces, # 12 and #13. He had a problem with #14. He asked about the landscaping on the island befinreen #2 7. and #1 ~ Planning and Environmental Comxnission Minutes February 24, 1997 14 • Henry Pratt said the existing landscaping would not be there because of the pedestrian flow, however he had no problem with landscaping to hide the cars. Gene Useiton said concerning the parking horsetrading, that he didn't know how flexible the code was and asked if it was possible for the PEC to be flexible. He said if the PEC hands were tied, then we can't do this. He was in agreement if the applicant sold the property to pay into the fund I regarding parking spaces #12 and #13. Dominic Mauriello suggested recommending to the Town Council to approve off-site parking. He said that staff didn't feel it that big of an issue, however space #4 violated the code as it stuck out into the street which and diminished the pedestrian feel. Greg Amsden asked staff about compact spaces for this lot. Dominic Mauriello said that 25% of the spaces could be compact. Lauren Waterton said that a parking lot had to have more than 15 spaces in order for there to be any compact spaces. Henry Pratt said #14 and #15 could then become compact spaces. Greg Amsden asked how the code defines a parking lot. ' Galen Aasland said he would like to see landscaping around #2 and #17 which could be dealt with by the DRB. He felt there was a need to talk to Tom Moorhead regarding # 12 and #13. He said a definition for parking lot was needed to deal with #14. He said he would like the motion to I, . include staff negotiating it out, but to be consistent. Diane Golden said she would like to see #14 and #15 work. I Greg Moffet said he agreed with the Board regarding #14 and #15, but it was hard not to consider this a parking lot. He said as it related the findings, that No. 1 and No. 2 are met in , Criteria 1 in the Vail Village Master Plan and they could rely on 3b to be applicable to this site. , Galen Aasland made a motion with the 3 conditions in the staff inemo and 3 additional conditions that: 1. That parking spaces 12 & 13 be considered new spaces. 2. That all the parking is to be considered one parking lot, and therefore, two compact spaces will be permitted (spaces #14 and #15). 3. That adjacent to parking spaces 2& 17, additional landscaping be added and reviewed and approved by the DRB. Greg Amsden needed clarification regarding the parking requirement we were asking for and who makes the determination, the attorney or planning staff, regarding those spaces. Galen Aasland said to demonstrate to the Town staff . Dominic Maurielio said that the PEC needed to make their interpretation very clear regarding the identification of this as one parking lot and needed to state in the motion to recommend to Town Council that they approve iwo spaces off-site. Galen Aasland modified his motion that #12 and #13 would be off-site parking spaces subject to • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 15 Council approval and that this was considered one parking lot, therefore, allowing compact spaces. • Henry Pratt asked if pay-in-lieu recognized off-site spaces. Dominic Mauriello stated whatever legal instrument the Town and Council determine. Henry Pratt said the applicant had proposed to pay-in-lieu in the future. Galen Aasland said it had to be consistent with how other properties were being treated. Greg Moffet summarized the approved variances based upon the findings with the conditions on page 8 of the staff inemo plus the three additional conditions. John Schofieid seconded the motion. Greg Amsden said as shown on the legal property, we don't have the authority to say on-site. Lauren Waterton said we had always treated the Bavaria Haus and Swiss Chalet as two separate lots and can't combine them just for this issue. Henry Pratt said they were two separate lots, but under one lease from the same person. Lauren Waterton said Town Council may permit a joint facility, according to Section 18.52.060. Henry Pratt said that the Bavaria Haus was owned by Johannes and the rest was under a lease. . Greg Moffet said according to a provision of the code, that #12 and #13 would go to Council in terms of joint. Galen Aasland amended the motion to include the provision relating to Section 18.52.060 of the Code for #12 and #13 to go to Council. The motion was seconded by John Schofield amended. It passed by a vote of 6-0-1(Pratt recused). 8. A request for a final review of the establishment of Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, tocated at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther Greg Moffet said that George would address the issues that the PEC hadn't addressed before, but he said in no way should it constrain any comments from the PEC about other issues. George Ruther gave an overview of the staff inemo. He indicated that the PEC was in a decision-making role with regard to the conditional use permit request for a fractional fee club and the PEC in an advisory role with regard to the SDD since they would be making a Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes February 24, 1997 16 . , . recommendation to Council. He said that staff was recommending approval of the conditional use permit request and for the establishment of SDD No. 35, with the 8 conditions as listed in the staff inemo. I Gordon Pierce said he started the development review process for the Austria Haus over 8 months ago. He said that just 6 weeks ago other issues that came up with the PEC and staff provided a letter identifying 53 issues that had to be addressed. Gordon said he had addressed each of the Town's issues and could work with staff on all 8 conditions with the exception of 8E. He indicated that he would be able to reconfigure the roof form as requested in condition 8E as requested by staff. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. Jim Lamont, representing the EVHA, raised the SDD issue. He said regarding the zoning that the SDD should have standards applicable in all circumstances. He asked staff if they clearly defined that this project was in a location that alfow it to have these deviations and still be in conformance with the immediate neighbors. He would stitl like staff to provide all projects in the PA Zone District that have received an SDD by the time this goes to Council, in order to track the amount of deviation. He said that The Athletic Club had 50% deviation. He felt if given to the other side of the creek, it would be out of character. He said that this needed a directive that this was for this particular site only and to make sure that this project was using the same standards as a(I other projects, i.e., employee housing and off-site improvements. He said that the employee housing formula, as provided in the staff inemo, was a quantum step forward. He also said there were extensive streetscape improvements connected with this project. He wanted to assure that this project was the benchmark for a!l other SDD properties and that any projects • coming in the door would have to attain this same level of landscaping for similar increases in GRFA. He said the buildings adjacent to this site did share the same characteristics regarding height and density, which treated this in the area of its peers. He felt that the lock-off units did not add any benefits. He said that the language should be modified to provide equivalency. He felt regarding the conditions, that the clipped roofs were ok, as it brought about a better relationship with the ViUage Center. He felt that truck loading could take place under the building regarding condition 8C, and the fact that if it could serve adjacent buildings with a tunnel, it should be considered a public benefit. George Ruther said that staff believed the proposal was in compliance with the SDD criteria, as stated in the staff inemo and that the off-site improvements were directly related to the proposal presented by the applicant. He stated that SDD are like variances and not precedence setting. Gordon Pierce said 100% of the landscaping around the property could be put that into a formula quantified by the staff down the road. Greg Moffet asked for any other public comments. There was none. Galen Aasland said he was not here for the last meeting and that he liked the north elevation better and asked about accessing the balconies. Gordon Pierce said there were no balconies so access was not an issue. . Planning and Envuonmental Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 17 , . Galen Aasiand said he liked the wider dormers on the north side of the raof and supported the • hips on the roof as it reduced the bulk and mass of the buiiding. He said the roof form was much improved and more interesting with the steppin9. He said the floor to floor heights were not excessive and asked if that was a flat roof over the sales office. Gordon Pierce said there was no flat roof on the east side, it was a pitched roof. Galen Aasland said he supported buildings that were unpretentious and fit well with the neighborhood. He asked if there was access to the lofts on the top floor. Gordon Pierce said attic space was needed in the building for the mechanical equipment for the air conditioning system. He stated he did not want any mechanical equipment to be exposed on the roof. GaIen Aasland was concerned with the roof slope. He felt it could be reduced since a hallway may not be needed on the loft level. He said it could possibly remove 4.5' off the height of the building which would be a significant advantage to the Town. He said to reconsider the clock on the north side of the tower. He said the Iock-offs function well and he would like to see the loading dock go into the underground parking area. Diane Golden said the streetscape was a great benefit to the Town as it was helping with the implementation of the Master Plan. She supported this project as presented. Henry Pratt said the building fits the site well, but the clip hip gable was an issue. He was against not having condition 8E and he agreed with Galen regarding the height. John Schofield agreed with staff's recommendation and conditions in the staff inemo. He . agreed with staffs's concerns regarding the location of the loading and delivery. He urged the applicant to go underground with the loading and delivery, as he hated to see trucks mixed in with pedestrians. He urged the applicant to resolve the streamwalk issue before it goes to Council as it needed to be resolved. He felt the landscaping was adequate. He strongly recommended to Council that there be monetary compensation of landscape improvements off- site. He said that the DRB should closely review the landscaping as it was an important issue. Gene Uselton said he agreed with Galen that the south elevation was not too repetitive as ' redesigned. He asked about the traffic issue on East Meadow Drive between the Bavaria Haus and Austria Haus. Johannes Faessler said hotel services will be provided from the Bavaria Haus to the Austria Haus and that was the traffic back and forth with room service, laundry service, and trash. He said the traffic will be electric carts. ~ Gene Uselton asked the applicant to explain the loading and delivery. Gordon Pierce said boutique owners would have small deliveries by UPS. He said after the initial stocking up in the fall, deliveries would be infrequent. He said that larger deliveries could back down teh parking structure access ramp and cars would still be able to get past. He felt it disproportionate to have underground deliveries for the few small commercial shops. Planning and Envuonmental Commission • Minutes February 24, 1997 18 r ' . • Gene Uselton asked if the 11 additional employees that staff had calculated was acceptable to the appiicant. Gordon Pierce said, yes. George Ruther explained that the combination of retail/commercial, lodging and affice uses I generated the need to provide housing for at least 11 employees. Gene Uselton asked the applicant if, on page 40 of the staff memo, condition 6 had been worked , out with staff. Gordon Pierce said he worked it out with George that the developers would be requesting to trade some property with the Town of Vail. George Ruther stated that the determination of whether a trade or exchange was acceptable would be the Counci('s decision. Gene Uselton asked if condition 7 was agreed upon with George. Gordon Pierce said, yes. Greg Moffet asked Gene if he agreed with Galen regarding the clock and roof. Gene Uselton said he agreed. • Greg Amsden asked if not occupied by the owner, could the lock-offs be rent. George Ruther said that the PEC made a recommendation to Council that lock-offs be considered in the equivalency requirement and that the lock-offs when not in use by the owners, a be placed in a rental program. He stated teh Council removed that language during their review of the fractional fee ordinance. Gordon Pierce said that he felt the Councii took a conservative stance. Greg Amsden asked why would you have lock-offs then and why did the Council take them out. George Ruther said that the lock-offs would be rented at the owner's discretion. He said Council chose not to incentivise lock-off units. Jim Lamont asked if the Council would to make it a condition of approval for an SDD. Gordon Pierce said for us not to want to rent the lock-offs when not in use would be stupid. Greg Amsden said it would be something for the Town to pursue. Jim Lamont said the issue could be re-raised with Council when there was track record illustrating the occupancy rate of the lock-off units. Dan Telleen, owner of Karats, said you could not consider the lock-offs as hotel rooms, as they wouldn't be available on short-term notice. • Planning and Envuonmental Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 19 , . ' Greg Amsden said the Counci4 should incentivize and encourage lock-off units in hotels. ' George Ruther said the Council had made their decision on the issue in the fractional fee • ordinance and felt that if it made economic sense, the private market would do it. Greg Amsden said we review the deve{opment standards each development site in an SDD on a case-by-case basis, therefore, you couidn't quantify standards and off-site improvements across the board. He said he would rather leave it up to the applicant regarding the need for mechanica( space since he did not want to see mechanical equipment on the roof. i Greg Moffet said on pages 15-18, the provisions of the Master Plan, showed this project fell well within the perimeters set out in those two plans and he was comfortable voting in favor of this. He said he was concerned about the overall size, but the site could suppart it. He agreed with ~ Galen that there should be oniy one clock tower in Town, so the applicant should remove the clock from the tower. Greg stated that every SDD appiication by necessity would be a site-by- I site issue. He said the PEC was quasi-judicial, not quasi-legislative. He said this was a great project. Gordon Pierce stated that getting financing for hotel projects was extremely difficult, but it made sense to get the highest quality because in two years they would work better than most of the ' hotel rooms. Greg Moffet asked how long the management contract with the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus was. Jahannes Faessler said the individual owners could get new management, but we owned all the hotel rooms. Greg Moffet asked for a motion. ~ George Ruther said there would need to be two motions; first for the establishment of the SDD, followed by a second for the conditional use permit request for the fractional fee club. Henry Pratt said in fight of Johannes Faessler's newly disclosed on-going ownership of the hotel room, he had to recuse himself, as he was working on another project for Johannes. Greg Moffet said he didn't catch the consensus on 8C regarding the delivery, but he summarized that the PEC felt that condition 8E should be stricken, the roof slope should be reduced and the clock taken off the tower. Galen Aasland said that this wouid set a precedent and that this was the appropriate venue to set it as it applies to this issue. George Ruther reminded the PEC that SDD's are not precedent setting since they are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Greg Moffet brought up the streamwalk. Diane Golden said that it had nothing to do with this building and she asked if it was fair to tie it together. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes February 24, 1997 20 . George Ruiher said it shouid be part of the Austria Haus. John Schofield said at a minimum, landscaping and revegetation should be done on the stream tract. I Jim Lamont said revegetation and landscaping should take place at the same time as construction. Jim said the money had been set aside for restoration and landscaping. John Schofield quoted condition 1 and said it was covered in that condition. , Gordon Pierce stated that Jeff Winston (Urban Design Consultant) said if we started to flatten out the roof it distorted the features. He said rather than nailing us to an exact pitch, which is tough for you to legislate, he would be willing to Iook at reducing the roof height. Galen Aasland said the applicant was asked to look at lowering the roof in November and it wasn't done. Gordon Pierce said that they had looked at lowering the roof height and that the expert consultant hired by the TOV, Jeff Winston, told us it was ok and so we followed his instructians. Greg Amsden said if the roof line was flattened, the dormers would be flattened and the roof form would be distorted. Jim Lamont asked if the conditions would go to Council. George Ruther said the PECs recommendation with any conditions are put into the draft • ordinance and forwarded to Council. Gene Uselton made a motion for a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for the SDD subject to the conditions in the staff inemo with the deletion of condition 8E. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. Greg Moffet asked to revisit the roof in a condition. Gene Uselton said, no. Greg Amsden said he put a lot of faith in Jeff Winston. Greg Moffet asked George if the ventilation stacks had been addressed. George Ruther said the fan vents had been addressed as illustrate on the roof plan. Gordon Pierce said a false chimney could be built to hide the mechanicals. Galen Aasland asked Gene to revise the motion to request the applicant change the roof pitch to a 4.5:12. He said that would give the PEC an opportunity to look at the roof when the applicant came back in 2 weeks. He would like to hold the applicant to the highest standard. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 21 , ~Gene Uselton said he was inciined to leave the motion as it was and not make the roof pitch ' mandatory. • John Schofield said this request still had to go io Council and the DRB and we need to move it along. Gordon Pierce agreed to revisit the roof pitch issue. i The motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Henry Pratt abstaining. 9. A request for a cond+tional use permit to allow a Fractional Fee Club to be located at 242 East Meadow Drive%n a part of Tract C, Block 5-13, Vail Viliage First Filing. Appiicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther Gene Uselton made a motion for approval of the conditional use permit to aliow a fractional fee club, subject to Councif's approval of the SDD. The motion was seconded by Diane Golden. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Henry Pratt abstaining. 10. A request to amend the Gerald R. Ford Par(c Master Plan and adopt the Gerald R. Ford Park Management Pian. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer. . Pianner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL MARCH 10,1997 11. A request to develop a preferred alternative for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) for single-family, duplex and primary/secondary. Applicant: Town of Vai1 Planner: Russ Forrest TABLED UNTIL MARCH 10,1997 John Schofield made a motion to table items #10, #11 and #13 until March 10, 1997. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 12. Information Update: Susan Connelly informed the PEC that the Lionshead redevelopment would be presented to Council next Tuesday regarding stage 1 and stage 2, the program development and wish list. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutas February 24, 1997 22 . . • Greg Moffet asked for an update on Vaii Tomorrow. Susan Conneliy said all the teams were meeting and the conference tentative date was set for April 18, 1997. Susan aiso said the Public Works EHU would go before Council next week and that the public favored the higher density alternative with 42 units, while Community Development staff and Public Works staff favored the lower density of 21 - 24 units. I 13. Approval of February 10, 1997 minutes. 5 TABLED UNTIL MARCH 10,1997 Henry Pratt made a motion to adjourn. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. I • . Planning and Envuonmental Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 23