Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-0310 PEC ~ THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBUC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GlVEN that the Planning and Environmentai 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 March 10, 1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In ~ consideration of: ~ A request to develop a preferred alternative for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) for single- ~ famiiy, duplex and primary/secondary. Applicant: Town of V~,iil Planner: Russ Forrest A request for an interior addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located in the One Vail Place Building, 244 Wall Street/a resubdivfsion of Lot C, Block 5-C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Mr. Jared Drescher, represented by Robert Boymer Planner: Dirk Mason A request for a conditional use permit to allow Type III EHUs for seasonal housing, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/legally described as: beginning at the Northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the Sixth Principal Meridian thence S 89031'49" E 2333.84 feet, along the North line of said Section 9, to a 40 point on the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 thence along the northerly right-of-way fence line of fnterstate Highway No. 70 as follows: S 67°4i'33" W 415.82 feet; thence S78°13'02" W 1534.29 feet, to a point of curvature; thence 456.43 feet on a curve to the right with a radius of 5580.00 feet, the chord of which bears S80°33'38" W 456.30 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Section 9: thence departing the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 and fo(lowing the Westerly iina of said Section 9 N001821 "E 565.11 feet to the point of beginning. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen and Susie Hervert Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for additional GRFA to allow for an addition to the living room, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 758 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 5, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: Tony & Terry Perry, represented by Eric Johnson Planner: Lauren Waterton A request for a final plat review, located at 1502 Buffer Creek Road/Lots A1 & A2, Lions Ridge Subdivision 2nd Filing. Applicant: Harold & Barbara Brooks, represented by lsom and Associates Planner: Lauren Waterton A request for a minor subdivision to allow for an elevator addition to the Lodge Tower parcel, located at 200 Vail Road/Lot A, Block 5-L, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc., represented by Jay Peterson 0 Planner: Dominic Maurieiio i A request for an amendment to the development plan to allow for outdoor ski storage, located at 458 Vail Valley DrivelTract F, Vaii Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing, commonly referred to as the Golden Peak Ski Base. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Lauren Waterton A request for a residential addition for an expansion of the living room, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1998 Sunburst Drive/Lot 19, Vail Valley 3rd Filing. , Applicant: Nate Accardo Planner: Lauren Waterton A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II EHU, located at 392 Beaver Dam Circle/Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: Howard Koenig Planner: Tammie Williamson The applications and infiormation about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vai{ 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. ~ ~ / Agenda last revised 3/03/97 9am PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMlSSION Monday, March 10, 1997 AGENDA Pro,ject Orientation / LUNCH - Communitv_ DevelQOment Denartment 11:30 am MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 12:30 pm 1. Perry - 758 Potato Patch Drive 2. Koenig - 392 Beaver Dam Circle 3. Flannery -186 Forest Road 4. Vaii Associates - 458 Vail Valley Drive 5. Accardo - 1998 Sunburst Drive Driver: George •p*!A:~ * . I 7 , ~ w ..+i'u:~ I NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board wili break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearin,,.g - Town Counci! Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a minor subdivision to allow for two iots to be combined into one, located at 1502 Buffer Creek Road/Tracts A1 & A2, Lions Ridge Subdivision 2nd Filing. Applicant: Harold & Barbara Brooks, represented by tsom and Associates Planner: Lauren Waterton 2. A request for a site coverage variance and conditional use permit to atlow for a Type II EHU, located at 1194 Cabin Circle/Lot 3, B(ock 2 Vail Valley ist Filing. Applicant: William and Shirley Mclntyre, represented by Ned Gwathmey Planner: Dominic Maurielio 3. A request for an exterior addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an addition to the living room, located at 758 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 5, Block 2, Vai! Potato Patch. Applicant: Tony & Terry Perry, represented by Eric Johnson Planner: Lauren Waterton • 1 ~ Agenda last revised 3143/919am 4. A request for a residential addition for an expansion of the living room, utilizing the 250 ~ Ordinance, located at 1998 Sunburst Drive/Lot 19, Vail Valley 3rd Filing. ~ Applicant: Nate Accardo Pianner: Lauren Waterton ' S. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II EHU, located at 392 Beaver ! Dam Circle/!ot 4, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. ' Applicant: Howard Koenig Planner: Tammie Williamson I 6. A request to amend the Geraid 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 7. A request to develop a preferred alternative for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) for Single-Family, Duplex and Primary/Secondary Residential Zone Districts. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russ Forrest 8. A request for an amendment to the development plan to allow for outdoor ski storage, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th • Filing, cornmonly referred to as the Golden Peak Ski Base. ' Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Pianner: Lauren Waterton 9. A request for variances from Section 18.58.320 D3, to allow antennas greater than fifteen feet in height and Section 18.54.050 C7, to allow two rooftop antennas to be placed on the false stairwell tower near North Frontage Road. Applicant: KTUN Radio Planner: Tammie Williamson 10. A request for a site coverage variance and conditional use permit to allow for a Type II EHU, Ivcated at 186 Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Mike Flannery, represented by Guy Dreier Planner: George Ruther 11. A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located in the One Vail Place Building, 244 Wall StreeUa resubdivision of Lot C, Block 5-C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Mr. Jared Drescher, represented by Robert Boymer Planner: Dirk Mason STAFF APPROVED • 2 / Agenda last revised 3/03/97 9am • 12. A request for a minor subdivision to allow for an elevator addition to the Lodge Tower parcel, located at 200 Vail Road/Lot A, Biock 5-L, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc., represented by Jay Peterson Planner: Dominic Maurietlo i ~ TABLED UNTIL MARCH 24,1997 13. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow Type I!! EHUs for seasonal housing, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/legally described as: beginning at the Northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the Sixth Principal Meridian thence S 89°31'49" E 2333.84 feet, along the North line of said Section 9, to a point on the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 thence afong the northerly right-of-way fence line of lnterstate Highway No. 70 as follows: S 67°41'33" W 415.82 ieet; thence S78°13'02" W 1534.29 feet, to a point of curvature; thence 456.43 feei on a curve to the right with a radius of 5580.00 feet, the chord of which bears S80°33'38" W 456.30 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Section 9: ihence departing the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 and following the Westerly line of said Section 9, North 00°8'21"E 565.11 feet to the point of beginning. I i Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen and Susie Hervert ~ Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL MARCH 24,1997 ' 14. Approval of February 10, 1997 minutes and February 24, 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 March 10, 1997 in the Vail 7rail. s 3 . Agenda last revised 3/11/97 10am I~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, March 10, 1997 FINAl. AGENDA ' Project Orientation / lUNCH - Community Development Department 11:45 am ~ MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Moffet Greg Amsden (2:25p.m.) Henry Pratt Gaien Aasland Gene Uselton Diane Golden John Schofield Site Visits : 12:45 pm 1. Perry - 758 Potato Patch Drive 2. Vail Associates - 458 Vail Vailey Drive 3. Accardo - 1998 Sunburst Drive • Driver: George ~a.. ~ , ~~;..i o~„wsz.,-~'-s'~ :V~.i: . "~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. ,P.~blic Hearing - Town Cauncil Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a minor subdivision to allow for two lots to be combined into one, located at 1502 Buffer Creek Road/Tracts A1 & A2, Lions Ridge Subdivision 2nd Filing. Applicant: Harold & Barbara Brooks, represented by Isom and Associates Planner: Lauren Waterton MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS - 1. That should the applicant not receive Town Council approvai of second reading of Ordinance 6, Series of 1997, this appovai shall become null and void. 2. The existing driveway cut shall be shown on the finai plat as the only permitted access to the site. i 1 E Agenda last revised 3/11/97 IOam 2. A request for a site coverage variance and conditional use permit to ailow for a Type II • EHU, located at 1194 Cabin Circle/Lot 3, Biack 2 Vail Valley 1st Filing. Applicant: William and Shirley Mclntyre, represented by Ned Gwathmey Planner: Dominic Maurie(io MOTION: John Schafield SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 5-0-1(Pratt recused) APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION - 1. That one enclosed parking space be appropriately deed restricted for exciusive use by the occupant(s) of the EHU. 3. A request for an exterior addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an addition to the iiving room, located at 758 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 5, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: Tony & Terry Perry, represented by Eric Johnson Planner: Lauren Waterton MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED 4. A request for a residentiaf addition far an expansion of the living room, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1998 Sunburst Drive/Lot 19, Vail Valley 3rd Filing. Applicant: Nate Accardo ~ Planner: Lauren Waterton MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 5-1-0 (Aasland opposed) APPROVED 5. A request to amend the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan and adopt the Gerald R. Ford Park Management P1an. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer. Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 7-0 TABL.ED UNTfL MARCH 24,1997 2 . c . . I I Agenda last revised 3/11/97 1 0am 6. A request to develop a preferred alternative for Gross Residentiai Floor Area (GRFA) for Single-Family, Duplex and Primary/Secondary Residential Zone Districts. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russ Forrest ~ THREE MOTIONS: 1. APPROVED - TO PROVIDE ALTERNATIVES IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE TO TOWN COUNCIl.: MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 7-0 John Schofield - Alternative #3, #2, #1 Gene Uselton - Alternative #3 Greg Amsden - Alternative #3 Galen Aasland - Alternative #1, #2, #3, #4 Diane Golden - Alternative #3, #i and #2 together Henry Pratt - Alternative #1, #3, #4, #2 Greg Moffet - Alternative #1, #2, #3, #4 2. RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO TOWN COUNCIL OF ALTERNATIVE #3. MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 3-4 motion failed (Aas(and, Golden,Pratt, Moffet • opposed) 3. RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO TOWN COUNCIL OF ALTERNATIVE #1 AS AMENDED, TO INCLUDE EXISTING VAULTED SPACE, BASEMENT SPQCE, & FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Greg Moffet VOTE: 4-3 (Amsden, Uselton, Schofield opposed) 7. A request for an amendment to the development plan to allow for outdoor ski storage, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th Fiting, common(y referred to as the Golden Peak Ski Base. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Lauren Waterton MOTiON: John Schofield SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UNTIL APRIL 14,1997 . 3 ' . Y I Agenda last revised 3/11/97 10am ~ 8. A request for variances from Section 18.58.320 D3, to allow antennas greater than fifteen • I feet in height and Section 18.54.050 C7, to aliow two rooftop antennas to be placed on ~ the fafse stairwell tower near North Frontage Road. ~ Applicant: KTUN Radio ~ Planner: Tammie Wiliiamson MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED WITH 1 GONQlTlON- I. That the location of the two rooftop antennas and one satellite dish be approved by staff, prior to DRB. 9. A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located in the One Vail , Place Building, 244 WaII StreeVa resubdivision of Lot C, Block 5-C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Mr. Jared Drescher, represented by Robert Boymer Planner: Dirk Mason STAFF APPROVED 10. A request for a site coverage variance and conditional use permit to a(iow for a Type il EHU, located at 186 Forest RoadlLot 9, Block 7, Vaii Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Mike Flannery, represented by Guy Dreier ~ Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT 11. A request for a minor subdivision to allow for an elevator addition to the Lodge Tower parcel, located at 200 Vail Road/Lot A, B(ock 5-L, Vaii Viiiage First Filing. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc., represented by Jay Peterson Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL MARCH 24,1997 12. A request for a conditionai use permit to a11ow for a Type 11 EHU,located at 392 Beaver Dam Circle/Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Vf!lage 3rd Fi(ing. Applicant: Howard Koenig Planner: Tammie Williamson TABLED UNTIL MARCH 24,1997 • 4 . . . ~ , . . • Agenda last revised 3/11/97 10am 13. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow Type III EHUs for seasonal housing, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/legally described as: beginning at the Northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the Sixth Principal Meridian thence S 89°31'49" E 2333.84 feet, along the North line of said Section 9, to a point on the northerly right-of-way fence line of (nterstate Highway No. 70 thence along the noRherly right-of-way fence line of Intersiate Nighway No. 70 as follows: , S 67°41'33" W 415.82 feet; thence S78°13'02" W 1534.29 feet, to a point of curvature; thence 456.43 feet on a curve to the right with a radius of 5580.00 feet, the chord of which bears S80033'38" W 456.30 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Section 9: thence departing the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 and foNowing the Westerly line of said Section 9, North 0008'21 "E 565.11 feet to the point of beginning. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen and Susie Hervert Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL MARCH 24,1997 14. Approval of February 10, 1997 minutes • MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED AS AMENDED Approval of February 24, 1997 minutes. MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 6-0 (Aasland abstained) APPROVED AS AMENDED 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 ~ 5 ~ MEMORANDUM ~TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 10, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to eiimate a common lot line to allow for the creation of one lot from two, located at 1502 Buffehr Creek Road/Tracts A-1 and A-2, Parcel 2, Lions Ridge 2nd Filing (SDD #29) Applicant: Harold and Barbara Brooks, represented by Steve Isom Planner: Lauren Waterton 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a minor subdivision in order to eliminate a common lot line between Tracts A-1 and A-2, Parcel 2, Lions Ridge 2nd Filing. Tracts A-1 and A-2 are currently platted lots, each with a platted building envelope. The request would create one lot, to be known as Tract A, that will be 37,461 square feet in size. Additionally, the applicant is requesting to . eliminate the two existing building envelopes and create one new building envelope. Tracts A-1 and A-2 are part of Special Development District No. 29, known as The VaNey, Phase II. As a part of this proposal, the applicant has previously requested a major SDD amendment to change the number of lots, add duplex and primary/secondary as a permitted use for this lot, and change the size of the building envelope. On February 10, 1997, the PEC recommended approval of that major SDD amendment. On March 4, 1997, the Town Council approved first reading of Ordinance 6, Series of 1997, an ordinance approving this major SDD amendment. Second reading of Ordinance 6 is scheduled for March 25, 1997. II. BACKGROUND Special Development District #29 (The Valley, Phase II) was approved by Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993. The purpose of adopting SDD #29 was to allow greater flexibility in the development of the land than would be possible under the existing zoning of the property (Residential Cluster). This SDD varies from the underlying zoning in 4 aspects: 1. Development on slopes greater than 40%; 2. 10' front setback in the lower development, where 20' would have been required: 3. Walls 4' in height in the front setback in the upper development, where 3' would have been required; and 4. A lot in the upper development which does not meet the minimum building envelope (Tract A-1). ~ 1 In order to preserve the natura( and scenic features of this site, building envelopes and driveway • alignments have been established which designate the areas where development will occur. The public benefits, realized through the adoption of Ordinance No. 17 include: 1. One deed restricted employee housing unit on-site; and 2. The dedication of access easements for common driveways and a pedestrian access path. In conjunction with the SDD request, the applicant requested a minor subdivision of Tract A, in order to create two lots (Tracts A-1 and A-2). III. ZONING ANALYSIS The fol(owing analysis is for the upper area development of SDD #29, Tract A, showing the approved zoning standards, as well as the proposed standards. Existlna Proposed Tract A-1 Tract A-2 Tract A Lot Area: 0.485 acres 0.375 acres 0.860 acres Uses: single-family single-family single-family primary/secondary two-family ~ Type II EHU Building Envelope: 3,000 sq. ft. 2,370 sq. ft. 6,950 sq. ft. GRFA": 3,397 sq. ft. 3,046 sq. ft. 6,443 sq. ft. GRFA for EHU: 0 0 500 sq. ft. Garage Credit: 600 sq. ft. 600 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. * This includes a 225 sq. ft. credii for each aAowable unit, per Section 18.14.09, IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERtA One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. Although this proposal is not truly creating a new lot, but instead, simply combining two existing lots into one, the minimum standards still must be met. As a result, this project will be reviewed under the minor subdivision criteria, pursuant to Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The first set of review criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a minor subdivision application are as foliows: A. L Area - The Town of Vail Municipal Code defines a"Lot", in part, as a parcel of land occupied or intended to be occupied by a use, building, or structure under the • 2 • provisions of the Municipai Code and meeting the minimum requirements of the Code. The minimum lot requirements for the applicant's property are defined in Section 18.14.050, Lot Area and Site Dimensions, (Residential Cluster). Section 18.14.050, defines the minimum lot area as 15,000 square feet, with a minimum of 8,000 of buildable area. Tract A has 37,461 square feet of lot area with 8,386 square feet of buildable area. B. Frontaae - The Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that Iots in the Residential Cluster Zone District have a minimum street frontage of 30'. The frontage for Tract A will be 283 feet. C. Site Dimensions - The Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that each lot in the Residential Cluster Zone District be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area 80' x 80'. The shape of this lot is capable of enclosing an 80' x 80' square. The second set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission with a minor subdivision request are as outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, and are as follows: "The burden of proof shalf rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intended purpose of Chapter 17, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to ~ the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town poficies related to subdivision controf, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding uses." In accordance with Section 18.66.080 af the Town of Vail, notification of the pubfic hearing on the proposed minor subdivision was published in the local newspaper of record and notices were sent to the adjacent property owners. The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development 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 regulatians, as well as any development control, is to establish basic ground rules to which the staff, the PEC, the applicant and the community can follow in the public review process. Although this request does not involve the creation of a new subdivision, it is the appropriate process to amend existing platted lots. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent properties. • Staff Res nse: The applicant's lots are bounded by U.S. Forest Service property on the north, Town of Vail open space on the west, a portion of a sir?gle family lot on the east and by multifamily units on the south. Staff believes the 3 applicant's request will not conflict with the development potential of adjacent . properties. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of ' buildings and improvements on the land. i Staff Response: The minor subdivision proposed by the applicant will not have any negative impacts on the value of land throughout the Town of Vail. The applicant's property is zoned SDD with underlying zoning of Residential Cluster. ; The zoning designation will not change with the minor subdivision. ~ 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff Resonse: The minor subdivision will create a lot that will meet all of the zoning requirements ' for this SDD that is approved for this site. Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the Town's 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 Resp,onse: The purpose of subdivision regulations is intended primarily to • address impacts of large scale subdivisions of property, as opposed to this proposal for a minor subdivision. However, staff does not believe that this proposal will have any negative effects on any of the above listed public facilities. An existing utility easement along the southern boundary of the properry is proposed to be reduced from 35' to 15' wide. The Town has received letters from all the local utility companies approving the 20' reduction in the width of the easement. Staff believes that this minor subdivision will not negatively impact the above-listed facilities. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. Staff Response: The proposed minor subdivision is in conformance with the minor subdivision platting requirements of the Municipal Code. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and Ponds, to insure adequacY of draina9e i facilities, to safeguard the water table and encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integriry, stability and beauty of the community and the value of land. Staff Response: Staff believes the proposed minor subdivision will not have any negative impacts on the pollution of air, streams or ponds, and will not negatively impact the drainage or water table. The proposed building envelope will protect the natural resources on the site by requiring future development to be contained • within the building envelope and protecting the majority of the lot from development. At first reading of Ord. 6, Series of 1997, the Town Council added a condit+on that the existing driveway be the only permitted access to the site. 4 • Staff believes this wili help preserve the steep siopes on the site and reduce the visuai impact of the development. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicanYs request to allow for the minor subdivision of Tracts A-1 and A-2, Parcel 2, Lions Ridge 2nd Filing subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed minor subdivision has met the criteria for minimum lot area, street frontage and site dimension requirements. 2. The proposed minor subdivision has met the purpose of Chapter 17 (Subdivisions), Chapter 18 (Zoning) and other Town policies relating to the development objectives of the Town of Vail. The recommendation of approval carries with it the following conditions: 1. That shouid the applicant not receive Town Councii approval of second reading of Ordinance 6, Series of 1997, this appoval shaN become null and void. 2. The existing driveway cut shall be shown on the final plat as the only permitted access to the site. ~ ~ 5 FGkJND b/9" XfJAR WIA1L'M I ~ CAP C.5 1G9N (6A.iS OF R[~FiNcS) 415.05, . ' ~ . S 8879'41 " W .i' e . ~s' ura~rr ustvcH~. ~ • - op 10.84 SET 5/3-REBAR W/PCAj / • . CAP P£ R P[S 16670 0 BU/LDING £NVECA°E ' BU.'LDING ENVETOP£ y- VACA!£D BY 7H/S PLA1~ CNEAlE"O BY IH/S PL A 400 ~ `T' LOT L/NE AND ACC£SS U' p lo~ AND U7/L/TY fASEMfNT ?ACAT£D BY TN/S O[ t / A = 04 '32 OD " u` ~ ME~. i R= 611.29' ~UILO/NC £NV£(pPE EPSE 1- / T > 24.20' TRACT A VnCnIEO [tr 7ru5 P[AT ~ J7,4{) SOUAR£ FEET ~ N 'oI. ~PSEMEOt ~ CB L N 6B7B'OS" ~ I 0.860 ACR£S 140 • t~! (10 CH F 48.J5' ~ 283.62 ~ ~~~E AJ,o ~ ~ un~''r • ~ ~a•ZZ ~ PART OF ~ (fU/LD/NC £NVFLOP£ z_ ~ i • w crcn;ro ov rrns PZ nr ~ GEsS ~ pN~ • ~ I PARCEL A i°~ / o~ ~r`~ j,/ R p P 35 ~~~E55 ' 45y E LO Op) 6., II 62 EEK ~ . , FOUNO S d" RE&tR. w/PtAS. ^ CALB~lJ90/ , G O • . ~ 's ~ENR (00N ~ r gUF . . s • • ~ . ~ • MEMORANDUM I TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 10, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior addition to the living room, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 758 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 5, Block 2, Potato Patch 1 st Filing. Applicant: Tony and Terry Perry Planner: Lauren Waterton 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created Chapter (18.71) of the Vail Municipal Code, entitled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area." This Chapter allows for up to 250 square feet of additional Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to be added to a dwelling (beyond the maximum allowance), provided certain criteria are met. The purpose of the Additional GRFA Ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwellings units, which have been in existence for a period of at least five years, by permitting up to two ~ hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA to be added to a dwelling unit. In Augus t 1995, t he Town Coun ci l a p p r o v e d O r d i n a n c e 6, S e r i e s o f 1995 w h i c h a m e n d e d C h a p t e r 18.71, for the purpose of eliminating the ability to use the additional GRFA when a dwelling unit is "demo/rebuilt." This Ordinance also requires that all requests for additional GRFA involving exterior changes to a building, be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmenta( Commission. , The applicant is requesting to use 250 square feet to add an addition to the living room of the secondary unit. The addition is over existing fioor area and therefore, does not add additional site , coverage. The structure is currently over the allowable GRFA by 2,287 square feet. Much of this overage is due to a change in the zoning regulations related to the calculation of GRFA. The secondary unit has a large indoor swimming pool that, when the owners received Town of Vail approval for it, was not considered to be GRFA. Under today's regulations, the pool is considered GRFA, causing the structure to be over the allowable square footage. However, this does not affect the owner's right to apply for additional GRFA. The duplex was built in 1981 and received a temporary Certificate of Occupancy on November 12, 1981. On November 18, 1993, the Design Review Board approved an application for the primary unit to use 232 square feet of the Additional 250. Shou(d this current proposal be approved, there will be no available GRFA remaining for the secondary unit, however, 18 square feet of the Additional GRFA remains for the primary unit. . 1 ~ il. ZONING ANALYSIS • Lot Siza: 36,400 square feet Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Hazards: None Allowed/Required Existin Proposed Remaininp GRFA: 6,920 sq. ft. 8,957 sq. ft. 9,207 sq. ft. 18 sq. ft. of GRFA for (Includes two 250's) primary unit Primary: 4,017 sq. ft. 4,281 sq. ft. N/A 18 sq. ft of 250 (Includes 250) Secondary: 2,653 sq. ft. W/250: 2,903 sq. ft. 4,676 sq. ft. 4,926 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 7,280 sq, ft. 6,413 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 867 sq, ft. Height: 33' 33' 33' N/A Landscaping: 21,840 sq. ft. 28,695 sq. ft. No change N/A (60% min.) (79%) Parking: 6 spaces 6 spaces 6 spaces N/A ~ 111. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additionai GRFA, the Community Development Department recommends approvai of the request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an application for additiona! GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Effect upon the existina toaoaraphy, veaetation drainaae and existing structures. The proposal will have no effect upon existing topography and vegetation because the addition is above existing floor area. Staff believes that the addition is compatible with the existing structure. 2, tmpact on ad'iacent ~roperties. The addition should not adversely affect views, light or air enjoyed by adjacent structures. The addition will not be visible from most of the surrounding properties and the proposed roof ridge is lower than the existing • ridges. Staff believes that the proposed addition will not have a negative impact on adjacent properties. 2 • 3. Comq{iance with the Town's zoning requirements and aR li~cable velopment standards. Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, requires that any dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall meet the Town of Vail Design Guidelines as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, before any additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with Chapter 18.71, the staff shafl review the maintenance and upkeep of the existing single family or two family dwelling and site, including landscaping, to determine whether they comply with the Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. Upon inspection of the site by staff, we find that the property is generally in compliance with the applicable development standards listed above. Additionally, all exterior lights are fully cut-off and conform to the current limit on the number of fixtures allowed. The driveway is paved and all utilities are below ground. Staff believes that the property is adequately landscaped and no additional landcaping is required. B. Findinas: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before ~ granting approval for Additional GRFA: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA wou{d not negatively effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all ' Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for 250 square feet of additional GRFA under the 250 Ordinance, subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. • FAeveryone\pecVnemo4erry.310 3 ~ i ~ • yh~-~. • O GH. a19.24 N. O Z aKn~C / ! L0 ~ ~ ~ ~oT 'i ~ TR~GTG ¢ L V2. O? Gri O O O E~- i Q U0 0 u / ~~o P=o?a~i°~ G o . ~ •'~S pFIJC • a'• yOTP'fD ?~TG-4 PG 8p- I~P~G ,2 l~ G-~.°PloE ELE./ b4 33 N• j:L ~ ~ ~~•~~~:v i ~E.~ c4 a~.a ~r~ U< / 1~ !r0:~%OC I,.GV b ^..Z.B GH~ 40.8~~ ~ . g o W z o L] aco~ e~.e.i g< ii W U X~ E~[ i-aT~~•iv G~~~7I.~re . / ~ I ~ PeaT f r i..~T an.? • / ' 6~. ~ N ~ , ' M p p ~o NEl-+ fsaeF AGE~. ~ . w 1 G , a 't r 1 ' M F 4'"' p D'o 4~e a.: V1 . f. r~Tc ro~/E:I.lsC 'h 3 0~ 19 W^'~ Pp:°~ o~:~.ai~+. + C. oo • ExIST~~CO Fooc '..i.ae , ie o+-~cs ti: (:f~tiT) W F •ni ~ ~ 1 ~ 3i.~w -.F CPWP./oD) 2So•.F ~ t ~ RT • , / Z ~~i • ~7. ~~vu hU~`~B-r ~.;TCC H1h1 ~/oa5~c ...TL4 nT.4vit'l:s K sS Jy• 's ~y• o ~ I TG EXISTING SOUTH ELEUATiON 1 ` I SOUTI- ~.r-'r~1 • ~ _ _ / p - j + • ")QUARE FOGTAG_ r'RAGE ~50 . MAIN LEVEL 1170 ~ EE'DROOM LEvEL 1812)0 OFFfCE LEvEL 502 ~.o•_-~ PCOL RQOM II lr) ApDITiON _50 ~OTAL ' ~ 5`'OL al• ^FCr,~> ~ I , EatiS7iNG . DELK - ---1-1 - - u_--""-------'•, : ~ ~ ~ U vInG 8~4 I U7+L ~ C'i~ltVU RM ` I y . i ENTfiY a . ' ° GARAGE UFT70FFiCE ~ p' O0 F"'.. E ~ ~ MUD rrA ~ kG9F t A'¢ j m niiCHEN 1 'v o f tl ~ y a o FLOORPLAh! / MI ° M;\;i•d LEVc-L F' ¢ a. nf•=a -,F a=-•n iY = ` ~_G_L~ ' _ ' ` F : at~Y• I i } I ~ , ^ • ~ I ~ • ~ • ~ ~ I . , 0- vA5 FP sy • DIREGT VENT l.~l ~ I ' I ~ I. r~i PROPOSED EAST CLEUATION ~ . ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 10, 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 Planning and Environmental Commission tabled this item at its February 24, 1997 meeting and directed the applicant to develop a plan which complies with the site coverage requirements. The applicant has withdrawn the site coverage variance request and is now only requesting a conditional use permit for a Type II EHU. • The site is vacant and is zoned Two-Family Residential which has a minimum lot size requirement of 15,000 sq. ft. 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 4,744 sq. ft. of GRFA and the appiicant 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 include a parking space for the EHU. The proposed structure is up to 32' in height. , II. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Two-Family Residential Lot Size: 16,461 sq. ft. Standard Allowed Proposed Remalnlna Site Coverage: 3,292 sq. ft. (20%) 3,255 sq. ft. (19.8%) 37 sq. ft. Landscape area: 9,876.6 sq. ft. (600/o min.) 11,440 (69.5%) 5,021 sq. ft. (30.5%) GRFA: 4,746 sq. ft. 4,744 sq. ft. 2 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 64' N/A Sides: 15' 15' Rear: 15' 15' EHU GRFA: 500 sq. ft. w/cond. use 500 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. • Parking: 4 required 4+ (2 enclosed, 1 required for EHU) Garage: 1,200 sq. ft. credit 532 sq. ft. 668 sq. ft. f:\everyone\pec\rnemosMcintyre.310 1 L 40 111. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS • Upon review of Section 18.60, the Communiry Development Department recommends approvai of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Plannirig 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. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation • facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that there will be 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 scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The scale and bulk of the proposed structure is consistent with other structures in the surrounding neighborhood. • f:\everyonelpec\rnemosUncintyre.310 2 a ? ~ • tV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ~ The Community Deveiopment Department staff recommends approval of the applicanYs , request for a conditional use permit for a Type II EHU subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this Titie 18 of the Municipal Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. ~ 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of Title 18 of the Municipal Code. The recommendation for approval is also subject to the following condition: 1. That one enclosed parking space be appropriately deed restricted for exclusive use by the occupant(s) of the EHU. • ' I • f:\everyone\pecMemoslmcintyre.310 3 . Ak • ~rw +t ~ . ~ 4k . ~ ~ I ~ Hvt ~ ~T"-'_ r J i•r''r`+ ' -•~^y'' ~ / ~1 ~ rrtrr+r"5,~~}''-i~jr+r• 'w / Q L~1Q+41fH Lerr y` ' w~~ I r%~ I ~J1?u-YfL11~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ •~,y ~ ~ . , , ~ r , ~ ~ . ' . C ~ , ! i w'i`, ` 1' ` ~ e•i S ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ) ~ ; ~ 1 • i' .'i . ? ~ / 7 ~ M ? ~ ` ` ~.w ~~~11t~. ~ ~ i t ~ t / ~ 'y ~ ' ' ~ ` ,~1~ ^'y....,y, . ' ~'t ~ ~ ? t ! i ~ ~.1~ L'or 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ r` ~ •S, ~ •ti~Y. : ~ • r~ ` ~ \ ~ ~ 1 t - \ • F . ± . ~ ~ ~'q`~'~ • ytl~~ j \ ~ t ? ` ~ -~r- • ` , ~ \ ` _ + ~ : i: . . • ` .1'S~D~ ~ ~ JL ~ ~T.:R.• ~ by~~Q'L •~Aa ~ ~ ~r,~""~~ •'i. ` V~~~...r'~~^' • • M ~ , ; ! .'y ry; ~ • r ~M LoIr 14 ril"o ` ~ ` !.1•. ~7. VAu+ ~ '1+• ` ~ ~~t• • ~ ~ ~aoa' t®r : 1 , ~ i i - ~ fl ~ ~ , c~ • ~ O rJ ~ ~ I l 1 , LO1NER LEVEL PLDOR PLAN lyRl~lNfYlrr 1'IIi i~ A r /!M ~C11. (k7Y ~ R r wN i~1 P I 1 ~ ~ C3 ~ V ~ (J 1 ' ~ ~ ~ Qkµ ~ ~ • . • • x xo ~ ~ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J ' ~ I ~ I 1 f - --~yr---- - - • - ~ ' ~ ` --------1 1 ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I 1 ~ i ~ f ~ I I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I 1 ~ 1 ' r i i ~ r i ~ ~ t ~ i i i ~ i t i i ~ WDcM rnaI0+s,nyeot. iM,r roPeOM PN*es J aLYi M • Y~mr O- - mi1 ~ AMLM ~ E.i-EU. P1..OOR P1..P~At ~ ~ ~ .wr~?arrw.,o~w. *Op R!/lM~r 1 1 I I I ~ I ' I ~ t ~ {1 ~ y~--; 1 ~ • I • • I I I ~ . ~ 1 I ~ ~ I i ~ ~ I I i ~ ! 1 ~ ~ I I ! ~ I 1 I ~ ~ ~ I I _-_-_-__---T - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - i - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - 1 II I ~ 11 ! ~ II I ~ ll I n tt i~ - - - ~ F-AST ELtvATIoN , i i i ~ ~ i • ~ ~ II ~ i ~ i i ~ 1 I ~ ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ t L------------------- ~ i ----------------J R------ ~ ii r-------------- 11 1! I! II ~ 11 1 ~ I ~ ~ - ~ 1~tOFZT{-{ E1.EVATION ~ • • ~ ~i a i' ~ ? ? I I I m ! I 1 1 I ll t 1 11 11 I t ll I I ~ YVEST ELEVATION ~ I [D I 2 wESr EtEvAriotv • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmenta! Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 10, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for exterior additions to the living room and a bedroom, utitizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1998 Sunburst Drive/Lot 19, Vaii Valley 3rd Filing. Applicant: Nate Accardo Planner: Lauren Waterton 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRlPTION OF THE REQUEST In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created Chapter (18.71) of the Vail Municipal Code, entitled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area." This Chapter allows for up to 250 square feet of additional Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to be added to a dwelling (beyond the maximum allowance), provided certain criteria are met. The purpose of the Additional GRFA Ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwellings units, which have been in existence for a period of at least five years, by permitting up to two • hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA to be added to a dwelling unit. In August 1995, the Town Council approved Ordinance 6, Series of 1995 that amended Chapter 18.71, for the purpose of eliminating the ability to use the additional GRFA when a dwelling unit is "demo/rebuilt." This Ordinance also requires that all requests for additional GRFA involving exterior changes to a building, be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The applicant is requesting to use 250 square feet to add several small additions to the main level of the primary unit. Two additions will infill vaulted space within the structure and a bedroom in the rear of the house will be expanded by 50 square feet. The largest addition, 120 square feet, will be added to the fiving room. This addition will alter the east facing facade of this unit. As a part of this request, facade improvements to the other half of this duplex (secondary unit) will be done to match the new architecture. No additional GRFA is requested for the secondary unit. Facade improvements for the entire duplex include, the addition of gable roof elements to the building, stone veneer to the entry and landscape planter walls, new divided light windows and new deck rails. The duplex was built in 1980 and received a final Certificate of Occupancy in 1982. The building is nonconforming in several aspects. First, the building exceeds the maximum building height by approximately i foot. Second, the building encroaches into the front setback as well as, both side setbacks. Finally, the building is over the allowable GRFA. The Town of Vail records show that this building complied with the existing zoning requirements when it was built, and is therefore, a legal nonconforming structure. • 1 {I. ZONiNG ANALYSIS ~ Lot Size: 16,587 square feet Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Hazards: High hazard rockfall; moderate hazard debris flow; possible avalanche inf{uence zone AIlowed/Required x'stin Proposed Remaining GRFA: 4,759 sq. ft. 5,044 sq. ft. 5,209 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. Primary: 2,770 sq. ft. W/250: 3,020 sq. ft. 3,203 sq. ft. 3,453 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. Secondary:" 1,989 sq. ft. 1,841 sq. ft. No change 0 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 3,317 sq. ft. 3,079 sq. ft. 3,293 sq. ft. 24 sq. ft. Height: 33' 34' 33' NlA Landscaping: 9,952 sq. ft. 12,281 sq. ft. 12,227 N/A (60°lo min.) (740%) (73%) Parking: 5 spaces 6 spaces 6 spaces N/A * A 250 square foot addition is still available for the secondary unit. III. R{TERIA ND ND N • Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRFA, the Community Dsve4opment Department recommends approval of the request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Effect upgn the existing tonography, veaetation drainage and existina structures. The proposal will have no impacts upon existing topography and vegetation. The two exterior additions wi11 infil{ existing decks and therefore, no additional site disturbance will be necessary. Staff believes that the proposed additions will positively affect the existing structure because of the proposed facade improvements. 2. Impact on adjacent RrQ e~. The addition should not adversely affect views, light or air enjoyed by adjacent structures. Staff believes that the proposed additions will not have a significant impact on adjacent properties. The facade improvements will enhance this property and the structure will be more compatible with the • surrounding structures. 2 • 3. CQmpliance with the Town's zoning requirements and a lica ie develoament standards. Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vaii Municipal Code requires that any dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall be required to meet the Town of Vail Design Guidelines as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, before any additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with Chapter 18.71, the staff shall review the maintenance and upkeep of the existing single family or two family dwelling and site, including landscaping, to determine whether they comply with the Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. Upon inspection of the site by staff, we find that the property is in compliance with the applicable development standards listed above. Additionally, all exterior lights are fully cut-off and conform to the current limit on the number of fixtures allowed. The driveway is paved and all utilities are below ground. Staff believes that the site is adequately landscaped and no additional landscaping is required. B. Findinas: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before • granting approval for Additional GRFA: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for 250 square feet of additional GRFA (under the 250 Ordinance) subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. • F:\everyone\pec\memos\accardo.310 3 • • • ]-]1~Y TD.V /!G. • !NO ! r 04\ ~ I ~ 7 = - r \ .---a'--------------- I ~ ~ - • i ~ W I ~ ~ : - ~ ~ ~ a: .W9. ro a~,m Q > ~ . • I i~ / II ~ ~ ~swne ewatms cw1rei ro s im~.'xreo I I I ~ x~~roR~ i cf) W I ~ ,1 erx ~er Q ~ .o I'. O o sra2 ~vw~ ~ ~ I \ ~ U ¢ I ~ ~ - , - - - - - - - - - - ; -T - - - - ~ 1 / ` - _ , \ - , . . f , - • ~ - - ' rwwe~n ~.e exo ' ero ~ ~c x+vr.c ure m xm.u urc FRfiZLEN ~ A nf a_ -Adda~~)In PI ERC E BRINER SITE PLAN 1/8'~7'-0' wsrwhrro rarrc~ w~mw~o prr.r.r b17Aw01 www A100 - ---------i-----, , ~ , . ~ a ~ ~ - - - a- i ~ - I , 1 ! ~ li LLI i Yw F2 ~ - - W i' ' ' j a ~ ~ I~ ' Q ~ a ~ r• ~ I Q~~ . • ~'~,~-b• ` ' i~..~.s,m.~ a,,,,• ~ DCN-f0~ ~-1 1 ~ ~ ( t tOfla/ .Kn w /~OwiYM I PA4TIAL SE:GGhp PLGOR PLAN L ' ~ O b ~..r wrrw..w.. .~-o• ~ .a..wr... ~ I , 1 I FRffZLEN P{ERCE BRtNER ! --------------------------------1 : a MAIN LEVEL ~ ~ ,KW4r - wamww W. ~.r 1 I I ~ w~sRn ur! o b b ~02 , ~ • . _ ~ • • • ]-T~t iOV. ~tc ' I D 4 Q Q Q 6 ~a N'-0' I k'o- N'c I I Q I ( ~ ~ tMiE I I I ILTK LLAD ~tlOD nXDA'6~ I I Gf.TOI (~MCT ~WD ]rMNyL! MOGT I I .~ooo ~Oiw ~ I Kr.ounus.ea 51ETTD nOpD IAGA ~ C[.V19 RQtG I U io _ Z J ~ W 9 _ , . - ~ 10 LLi ' o _ - - - - - II- - O W g - - - - - I _ - - - Y e~. v.• ~ cr ~ ~ . m Q < - - - - - - - - GL O!'-O W' ~ V TOl. Lplll LVL. \ 1 _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 'N•4 iD. \SiOKV~mI \6UMO~WLINGAMtI - ; _ - - - _ _ - _ - - - - - nGRRS AT 4• OL. ~ Sip! vpme ---r- - ----------------------~,o..~,~. 4.b'4 IG~N.H L/.~IDSL.~'!D RNnOI FRfIZLEN PIERCE I BRINER ~D NORTH ELEVATION 1/4'.1'-0' ~wu.wwya rrwru w~mnw ye~mr.ru. seooa~In No1~n~N~ A301 I Q O O Q q vc• ~ erro• . ~r_s• . --1- ~ i ~ I ~ I I uasnr rooo s~p~. ro a vw+~+m W I I J I I I U I ~ ~ I w ~ I I ~ ~ • W C) o ~ _ I ~ a. ra•-a• ~ ~ ~ U ~m ' . . V ~ .~.,~,....~,a. - , w~~iOiGC~'PO L.M4• . ~ . ~ ~I I~ i I~ i RMV~ VA ~ ~ TDl.M1MLK J_____ i PL q~0 W ~ KfK lAJI.'1R/~S I~'1L0 O'lJC " ~ :____"""_"""__"---_4__'_""---'- nuiss~ - ----'------------'i-i--------i-~ m~ro WM~Y i~ MIGaN~Y~ - - _ - - ` _ i i rq _ ' " " , -----Y-----=----------------------- - FR~TZLEN 'i - - - aa~ PIERCE I BRINER I~2o~ - WEST ELEVATlON t/4'~t'-0' ~eos.wva.rw r.w~.w v4mnw pr,dwr.r b~blO~xNO~ O~a~nWl I~ ~ ~ 0 A302 ~ • ]-]HT TG.v. ~LL. O Q O Q Q i •~~Q~ ~ ~ v-* ea< _ ew- I I ` GaSTMC ST~EK.ML M ~CNM I M10~G AOPT1011 wsnw ~nop ym.xe noor ro ~mwx I ' ~ ~ I emnro raoo e~oiw ro m ~rr~mrm f I I I I I W J I W I I ~ Q ~ F I$ ati ~g _ _ _ O ~ go \J ` I ` I U ~ .oris.ee~w - _ _ E ¢ a ne*w. cuo ruoo www~ ~ ee~a. u*srme I ~ ~ I r~uoo am~~n anaciue ~eo.s o~t o~ *o wru tcams..~wa~oeixs : ' n•.n ri es c w I i ~eria srumuti noao ov t ' nr.v .ro• ~r . ~ ~ G..,. . rOIOOTuBI_ }1 - - - - - ---i----~ -Y-----------, FR(fZLEN ~ nr- - - - 1-------------, PIERCE BRINER EAST ELEVATION b»~ratlo~ wouc.aw A303 ISSUE i III flEVISIONS VJ ' Z ~ ~ W I ~ V Zo z UZ.yWLLm I > oa< ~ N ° C.) o r~ W ~ ~y1 y < CE ¢ JOQ X ~ ~ U D W ~ 4f J ] tn Q ~ >m < p > ~ V ~W Q os < _ _ TOP PL. ~~1 II I~ 1~ ~ EL. 101•_l• P EL. 101'-1' ~ ~ ~ W LL -T.OP UPPER lVl ~ ~~~yyy ECp 4 - EL.i 11'-4' • j~ 9 y• a 9@ W O cc EL. 8~5'-O I/1' W •~c r U Z T.O.P. LCWER IVL. rZ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ li._~. 1u•~ EL. 15'-O• • r.{ (L T.O. FOOTtR ~ W ~L W r ~ U N W . r-, _ ` U Pr Q ~ • • NORTH ELEVATION • ~~jO~ ~ie•_... • cre,l j . • • ~ss„e , nEvOors Q Q ~ Q Q . g~ ? LL I I ~ ~ ' z Z?O I R.F o ' I I ~ ~ W ~ WV'fA ¢ xW cpo ' i I x m<,o Q ~ o W' I i a I TOP PL. 1 I - - - - - - - - e~. wr-r I ~ I I T P P EL. IO-4' I . 'WMrwralM - - x ~ J < T.O ° uPPER LVl E~.r c' ~ wQ ~~j Z g SF ~ W Fi a f~ i Fi u R~Y e ^s f~e r Cnc W O ~ ~ T.O.F. I'1AIN LVL J_______ ~ ~ _ i El CS'-O VI• W I M Z , r -----~-4--------,~-, v z ~ L ____._-______________l_1__._~_~_1_J r, L i.CF. LOWER LVL. C z n 1 n ~ ~ - _ _ _ ' n _____r y _ _ _ _ _ _ - T.O.CONC Q 'S - _ _ - - - _ - _ - _ -'------------------'---~---------r - - - - - - rr-----' 3------ et. •r~i , :F4 , T.O.FDOTER Lli """_"""_Y_.,r_____1 ` _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ` _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ EL l7 O ~ m 1--------------- 1_1__-_'_-__'_' ~ H ~ U -~j LU ~ Q WEST ELEVATfON A302 SCALE: tSSUE sEv~sora is i o Q ~ Q Q ' ]l'-.~ 34-e• e'-o' I LL F' pom,, o~ W N WJLL~(~ff ~6 . ~ I I I I ~ Oz>`ozo ~ U I t?y ~ ~ I I E- U ym ' F W ~ o Ir TOr' Et.W2'-l• W T P PL E~.tOY-4• ~ ~ I I I _ ~ wr~wu~r.w u < T.O.F UPPER LVL g r ~ - ' ____-____'__7 ~~~~(((ppp n ~ El. 14'-c' t i9 F o e ~ w ' ~i Q • E~.ES'- i-----'--------'-----------' _ W i ~ ~ i - -----------4-------------'---- Z ~-1--------------'------------------------- , U Z FM7, ' T^ r LOWER IV OL. 1•'1 lL'-' T \ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - ~ --y___n_______ r.o. COp ~C. ~ r' - E _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _C_S "i^i L _S'•O' Y ~Z ~ J ' " a . C. .oo.EQ h - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i------Y-~'--------------=~ ~-1 w El. _ - - 1.1__"____'.__'_'I ~ , N/ ~ ~ U I N w ~ • _ r ~ U ~ ¢ ~ • EAST ELEVATION A303 ~ PRELIMINARY FINAL DRAFT FORD PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN . An Amendment to the - Ford Park Master Plan COMPLETED BY: THE TOWN QF VAIL, DEPARTMENTS OF ~ I PUBLIC WORKS AND TR.A?NSPORTATION ~ • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 'AND ADMINISTR,ATION _ CONSULTANTS WINSTON ASSOCIATES BOULDER, CO MARCH 1997 ~ :h ~ PRELIMINARY FINAL DRAFT FORD PAItK MANAGEMENT PLAN An Amendment to the Ford Park Master Plan Town of Vail Staff: ' Pamela Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager ~ Larry E. Grafel, Director of Public Works and Transportation George Ruther, Town Planner Todd Oppenheimer, Park Superintendent/Landscape Architect Gregg Barrie, Assistant Landscape Architect Consultant: Jeff Winston, Winston Associates ~ PRELIMINARY FINAL DRAFT ~ FORD PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN An Amendment to the Ford Park Master Plan March 1997 Introduction. - The Ford Park management Plan herein presented is to serve as an amendment to the 1985 Master Plan for Gerald R. Ford Park. The Ford Park Management Plan contains eight sections. Sections 1- 4 introduce the pian: An executive summary, a history and time line of Ford Park, a description of the management plan process, and a statement of putpose of thc management plan. Section S is the heart of the management plan: a set of six management goais with accompanying objectives, action steps, and policy statements to ' provide a framework for future management decisions. Section 6 contains itlustrative, conceptual plans and written descriptions which support the various action steps. A 5- , Year Capital Irnprovements Program for Ford Park is presented in Section 7. Section 8 is an appendix containing copies of pertinent legislative and tegal documents. Section 2: Executive Summarv. ~ The ProPerty which is today Gerald R. Ford Park was ac9uired bY the town in 1973 in response to public reaction against a high density residential devetopment proposal. The 39 acre park site represented the last remaining parcel of land central to use by atl residents and visitors of the Vail Community. The Vail Plan (1973) described the site as a major community park - cultural center that would satisfy the town's growing recreational and cultural needs. Development of the lower portion of the park was directed by the Gerald R. Ford/Donovan Park Master Plan (1985). Strong public participation led ta the establishment of guidelines for the impiementation of future improvements. Upper area improvements, softball fields, tcnnis courts, and parking areas, were constructed without the benefit of prcplanning and subsequcntly created sorne barriers to the lower bench, natural areas, and Nature Center. The Vail Village Master Plan (1990) recommended the park be considered as a site for additional skier parking to servic expansion on the eastem side of Vaii Mountain. It also recommended the construction of bikelpedestrian ways along the South Frontage Road and Vail Valley Drive. There are currently four main organizations invoived in the operation of Ford Park. The ~ 1 Town of Vail, Vail Recreation District, Alpine Garden Fouadation, and the Vail Valley ~ Foundation all play distinct roles and manage separate portions of the park. The Town of Vail is the owner of the park and manages the community park, stream tract, and parking lot areas. The other three arganizations each hold a lease or license agreement to operate their respective facilities and programs within the park. A proposal by the Alpine Garden Foundatian to construct an educational center within the . garden area was a significant impetus to the creation of this document. However, several ; other formal and informal development expansion proposals and numerous unresolved park management issues existed. This plan is intended to ereate a means to evaluate development proposals in order to protect and enhance the character of the park. This plan is a direct product of strong public participation in focus groups and public input sessions. One clear, concise message was conveyed to the town staff from the public participants: ".Your role is steward to the park; don't screw it up by over development." ' To that end, this plan, serving as an amendment to the 1985 Ford Pazk Master Plan, is intended to guide the outcome of future development and improvement proposals through the impiementation of six major goals. 1. Preservation and protection , 2. Reduction of vehicular intrusions 3. Reduction of conflicts between venues ~ 4. Resolution of parking and Frontage Road access problems 5. Improvement of pedestrian circulation 6. Delineation of financial responsibilities Designed to be a framework for future management decisions, a series of objectives, ' action steps and policy statements facilitate the implementation of each goal statement. , - II I I II I I i 2 • ~ Section 2: Background of Ford Park. History Gerald R. Ford Park has been the subject of numerous legislative and community planning ' actions over the last 24 years. The following time line ittustrates the retationship between the actions discussed in this section. The Ford Park site was acquired by the Town of Vail in April of 1973 for the stated purpose of improving the quality of life in the community. This 39 acre park site . . represented the last rernaining parcel of land central to use by all residents and visitors of . the Vail community. The existing conditions plan, which follows this section, illustrates Ford Park in its current condition. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1973, signed Apri13, 1973, (a copy of which is included in the , Appendix), authorized the purchase (by condemnation) of the property known as the Antholz Ranch. The ordinance listed a variety of possible uses for the pmperty including ' the following: ~ • for park and greenbelt purposes, ' • to preserve the natural and physicat charaeter of the azea to be condemned, ~ • for bicycle, equestrian and hiking trails, ~ • for children's playground, 'I ~ • for performing arts and civic center, ~ for a ski lift and reiated faciliries, • for picnic areas, • for recreational facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, gymnasium, ice skating rink, • for theater and assembly halls, convenrian center, pubiic schools, • for possible exchange or trade of condemned land, or a portion thereof, with other property which may exactly meet the needs of the town, - • to construct and maintain water works, transportation systems, and other public urilities rclating to public health, safety, and welfare. In August of 1973, the Vail Plan was complctcd. This plan was designed to control the growth and development of the community and contained a chapter on the town recreation system. The Antholz Ranch property was mentioned as the only site satisfying the recreation use anticipated. In the Vail Pian the uses intended for the property were further defined. The uses listed include a place far showing and ereating art, crafts, ete.; an indoor theater as well as an 800 scat outdoor amphitheater; meeting rooms and community workshops; wide outdoor terraces and natural landscapes; indoor ice arena, tennis and handball courts; children's play facilities and space for family activities; headquarters for the Annual Vail Symposium and local television; and a possible location for an ecologium (nature center). Thc property was described as a major eommunity ~ 3 park-cultural center. The plan called for 240 surface parking spaces and direct service ~ from the town bus system. Major parking needs were to be accommodated in the Vail • Transportarion Center with various trails and bikeways connecting to the park. In January of 1977, Resolution No. 1, Series of 1977, was passed naming the property commonly known as the Antholz Ranch as Gerald R. Ford Park in appreciation of President Ford's contributions to the community. Resolution No. 1, Series of 1977 is _ included in the Appendix. " • . In August of 1985 the Gerald R. Ford Park and Donovan Park Master Plan Development , Final Report was completed. The Ford Park Master Plan was adopted by Council with Resolution No. 19, Series of 1985, which is included in the Appendix. The purpose of the master plan was to guide the future development of these parks and establish guidelines for the implementation of improvements. The master planning project used a Recreation Needs Analysis Survey and involvement of the public in determining the recreation priorities of the community and the design concepts and criteria for the two park sites. The Ford Park master plan proposed a swimming pool complex, neighborhood park improvements, a skating rink on the lower bench, and the realignment of the eastern softball field. The neighborhood park open space area, playground, and access mad were ' the only portions of the master plan actually constructed. The first major structwe to be constructed in the park, the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater, , was completed m July of 1987. ThePat•kcng and Tr•ansct Studv completed tn Apri7 of 1979 , for the Amphitheater made five recommendations: The Yidlage Structure should be considered the major parking facilitv for• Ford Park, with improvements to lhe signs, sidewalks, and bus service being necessary; extend sl:u[[le bus service to the soccer fteld; di.sallow Fr•ontage Road par•king; construct a vehicle turn-around and passenger ttnloadirig area at Ford Par•k; and do not schedule concur•rent events. Resolution No. 27, Series of 1987, was passed on November 3, 1987. Resolution 27 designated the seven acres around the Nature Center as an area to be preserved as an . example of the Gore Valley's natural history. Vehicular traffic was restricted and certain ' policies and procedures for preservation and maintenance of the grounds and facilities ~ were established with the resolution. A copy of resolution No. 27, Series of 1987, is ~ included in the Appendix. I Development of the community park portion on the lower bench of Ford Park included the i restroom, playground area, open turf arca and picnic facilities, and the west access road. These improvements werc complcted in November of 1988. . In December of 1988, the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District (Now the Vail Recreation District) and the Town of Vail, rcquested an amendment to the 1985 Ford Park Master ~i Plan. The two phase amendment was adopted by Council as Resolution No. 44, Series of 4 • ~ i 1988. A copy of the resolution is included in the appendix. Phase one of the amendment ~ was to utilize the on-site tennis courts and allow the construction of four additional courts. Phase two of the amendrnent changed the proposed Iocation of the Aquatic Facility to the eastern softball field. Funding of the Aquatic Facility was rejected by voters in a special election on February 6, 1989. Vail Town Council was presented with a petition to delete all reference to an aquatics center from the Ford Park Master Plan in April of 1990. No record of Council acrion on the petition was found. While the tennis center building is not mentioned in the Master plan amendment, the VRD did receive a Conditionat Use Permit ' for the project on May 8, 1990. - ~ The Vail Village Master Ptan, adopted January 16, 1990, addresses Ford Park as a specific ~ study area. This study acknowledges the use of the park in recent years to accommodate ~ overflow skier and local parking needs. It recommends the park be studied further as a site for additional skier parking to serve expansion of the eastern side of Vail Mountain. Action Step #5 under Goal #5 states "study the feasibility of an underground (recreation fields would remain) parking structure in Ford Park." The Parking and Circulation Plan, within the Vail Village Master Plan, identifies the western portion of the upper bench for "potential parking beneath park," and calls for separated bike/pedestrian ways along the South Frontage Road and Vail Valley Drive. The vail Tr•ansportation Mastei• Plan, compleled in 1993, states> "The eristing Ford Park Par•king area (east end of park) should be considered for a possible 2-level parking ~ facilitv with the second level below existing gr•ade. " Ford Park arzd the athletic field par•kiizg al•ea are also listed as two possible sites for• over•sized vehicles if the lot east of llte Liortsliead Structure becomes developed. Current Park Management Thcre are currently four main organizations operating in Gerald R. Ford Park. The Town of Vail, Vail Recreation District, Alpine Garden Foundation, and the Vail Valley Foundation all play distinct roles and manage separate portions of the park. The Town of Vail is the owner of the entire Gerald R. Ford Park site and manages the community park, strcam tract, and parking lot arcas. The other three organizations each hold a lease or license agreement to operate their respectivc facilities and programs within the park. The Vail Recrearion District Lease of December 21, 1993, describes the premises license as including the upper bench of Ford Park, public tennis courts, athletic fields and Nature Center, although the graphic representation of the premises was not attached to the lease agreernent. The VRD offers a variety of sports leagues, camps, and toumaments to area residents and guests. The Vail Nature Center occupies the seven acres between Vail Valley Drive and Gore Creek and offers environmental education and research opportunities to residents and guests. While officially a public parking lot, Vail Associates frequently utilizes the athletic field parking lot for employees working out of the Golden peak ski base. A copy of the Vail Recreation District lease is included in the Appendix. S 5 • I The Vail Valley Foundation,(VVF), a non-profit, charitable organization, manages 'and ~ maintains the Ford A,mphitheater and immediate grounds. The terms of the agreement between the Town and the VVF, signed December 8, 1987, and extended to October 31, 2001, include an endowment for ongoing repair and maintenance of the Amphitheater. The amphitheater seats up to 2,500 people and is scheduled an average of 58 days during the summer. Hot Summer Nights concerts, Bravo! Colorado, and the Balshoi Ballet are some of the more popular programs held at the amphitheater. The Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, a Colorado non-profit corporation, manages the - - three existing phases of the Beriy Ford Alpine Garden under a Limited License Agreement signed June 8, 1994. The terms and conditions of a Lease Agreement are currently being negotiated. The original Alpine Display Garden was constructed in 1987 uader a license agreement with the Town at the entrance to the amphitheater. The site for the Alpine I Garden was established in the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan to act as a buffer between the amphitheater and active park areas. The second phase of the garden, the Perennial Garden, and third phase, the Meditation Garden, were constructed in 1989 and 1991 I respectively. A fourth and final phase, the Alpine Rock Garden, is currently being planned i for construction in 1998. A proposal by the Alpine Garden Foundation to construct an Educational Center with the final phase of the garden has been controversial. Qpposition ' to thc expanded use of the garden and the interior of park has been a significant impetus to i the creation of this master plan amendment. In response to that opposition, the Vail Alpine Garden Foundation modified the proposal to locate the Educational Center near i s the athletic feld parking lot on Vail Valley Dnve. This locahon received conceptual approval by the Council on October 15, 1996, allowing the Foundation to proceed through the design process within the Tawn. The lower bench of Ford Park, is managed by the Town of Vail Department of Public Works and Transportation and serves as a community park and open space facility with picnic, playground and open play areas. The lower bench is utilized several times a year for special events where large tents are aften erected to accommodate the activities. Access to the park from the Golden Peak ski base is by a public access easement through the Manor Vail property. A copy of the easemerit is included in the Appendix. The Town operates the upper bench parking lot as a public parking facility during the ski season. Access to the upper bench parking areas is from the State owned South Frontage Road. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is the agency responsible for reviewing and approving access permit applications from the State-owned Frontage Road. ; Currently, no access permit has bcen issued for the access by the CDOT. CDOT Frontage Road right-of-way covers a suhstantial portion of the existing gravel parking lot. 6 • Time Line of Ford Park Activities• • April 1473 Condemnation of Antholz Ranch. Ordinance 6, 1973 August 1973 Completion of Vail Plan. January 1977 Antholtz Ranch named Gerald R. Ford Park. Resolution l, 1977 August 1985 Completion of Ford/Donovan Park Master&n. Resolution 19, 1985 . July 1987 Amphitheater construction complete , I August 1987 Alpine Demonstration Garden complete. November 1987 Preservation of Nature Center. Resolution 27, 1987 Dccembcr 1987 -Vail Valley Foundation lease signed. November 1988 Lower Bench improvements complete. December 1988 Masterplan amendment by Vail Recrearion District. Resolution 44, 1988 December 1988 Service agreement with Vail Recreation District Resolution 46, 1988 ~ May 1989 Tennis Center receives Conditional Use Permit. July 1989 Alpine Perennial Garden complete. January 1990 Completion of Vail Village Masterolan. February 1994 Aquatic Center rejected by voters in special election. April 1990 Council petitioned to delete Aquatic Center from masterplan. May 1990 Tennis Center construction eomplete. June 1991 Alpine Medetation Garden complete. April 1993 Completion of Vail TransRprtation Master Plan. December 1993 Vail Recreation District agreement renewed. Junc 1994 Vail Atpine Garden Foundation license agreement signed. June 1995 Town begins Ford Park Management Plan.. October 1996 Council allows Vail Alpine Garden Foundation to proceed through process Twith Educationai Center plans at Soccer Field parking lot. . ~ I I oq ~ WAAGE ~ rtw 06 A.AGAAA~ . . . ; . . p ~I ! .~ci argmw 4 _ ~ ~ , . ~ F ' . ~i---• '~i~ ~ ~ • t~c naor I ~ I , 1 ar4 wor .M . ,r - - ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ,o..aactmals . Q [ ~ - j~ f ' I ~ 6 . o Q~ ~ _ . : _ o . _ L I ' ` ~ i~ ti - , •a ; s~ : , , ~.nwwo _f i i I _ . • / -°i::£: • ~ _ ? ~ ~ . ' ti-43' ' ~ ~ . A v. - Y ...._x a ...n:. ~M • ~ " ~~~a _ ~ . /MYIC iy - ' . ..:.:<:as ~ i . ~ . _ : : . , ~ r - . r . - o - - ~ 4 : _ - - • ' °8 _ \ .v g ~ , _.r . . . / f , / ~ / . • ~ •i- % ; va.w ,f%/~ ~ Q ~nweor . / ~i met / ~ - - - O / ~ ~ ~ "~.J ~ I FORD PARK ~ MANAGEMENT PL.AN , ~ C. ~ ~ • mrH cr eeu EXISTNQ CONDIT10M8 N°""'' ~.,,~,w N ~ ?~.e~ . • ~ ~ Section 3: DescriQtion of the nrocess of develoRing the Management Plan= The Ford Park Management Plan process was initiated in June of 1995 in response to several development proposals which had been foxmally and informally discussed and as a means to solve existing park management issues. The development proposals included an Educational Center for the Betty Ford Alpine Garden, culturaUperforrning arts center, expansion of the tennis facility, athletic field fencing, and a community parking structure. • Park management issues included parking shortage, fiontage road access, pedestrian acccss and circulation, access for the elderly and disabled, utilization ofthe lower bench, conflicts between uses within the park, conflicts with adjacent property owners, and delineation of financial responsibilities. At the time the project was authorized, Council expressed concern that a new master plan for Ford Park would result in an excessive . amount of new development. In response, staff noted the intention of the project was to create a"managernent pian" as a means to adequatly and consistently evaluate ' development proposals, thus limiting development and protecting the character of the park. , Those organizations with a financial and managerial role along, with two neighborhood , representatives, were identified as the Stakeholder Group and were invited to participate I in the process. A third pariy facilitator was retained for the project in August of 1995. ~ Staff inernbers from the Town, Vail Recreation District and Alpine Garden participated in ~ the facilitator selection process. Staff felt that a third-party facilitator would be beneficial I to the project by offering a non-biased opinion and increasing Stakeholder participation. The Stakeholder Group was assembled in a series of ineetings over the eight month period from August 1995 to April 1996. The meetings drew out issues, ideas, expansion proposals, and began formulating possibic solutions. Alternative design solutions addressing parking options, vehicular access, Frontage Road improvements, additional sports facilities and management policies, were presented to the public in an open house at the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater on June 12, 1996. Citizens - - were asked to comptete a setf-guided presentation and opinion survey form. A synopsis of the open house presentation and summary of the opinion survey are included in the Appendix. The open house presentation was a turning point in the process of developing the Management Plan. Several residcnts werc alarmed by the alternatives included in the presentation and initiated a grass-roots movement to place a referendum on any future expansion/development within the park. This strong public reaetion, combined with a lack of closure with the Stakeholders Group, prompted the Town to revise the process to include more public involvement at that time. Previously, public input was being reserved for a time when altemative plans could be presented for comment. Three Focus Group meetings with selected individuals from the community were held on September 18, 1996. Stakeholder groups were invited to submit a list of questions for inclusion in the Focus • 7 Group discussions. In round table discussion, individuals were asked to respond to a list • of prepared questions regarding uses and issues associated with Ford Park. The Focus Group questions and responses are included in the Appendix. Addirional public input sessions were held on October 2 and 3, 1996„ which validated the focus group responses and fiuther refined staff's understanding of the public perceprion and desire regarding Ford Park. . The combined results of the focus group and gublic input sessions along with a preliminary. master plan -framework, were presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission on October 14, 1996, and Town Council on October 15, 1996. Both PtC and Council directed staff to proceed with drafting the plan as an amendment to the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan based on the input received and presented. ~ . I 8 ~ Section 4: purnose of the Management Plan. This document is formatted as an amendment to the 1985 Master plan (revised) for Ford Park. While some of the physical aspects of the park have changed since the adoption of the 1985 Master plan, the essenrial character, concept, and funcrion of the park have remained consistent. The 1985 Master Plan, enhanced by this amendment, remains a valid document to be used in the future planning and decision-making process for Ford Park. As with all master plans, this docurnent will have a definite life for which it remains-a . . useful decision-making tool. The life expectancy of this plan is approximately 10 years but ' should remain in effect until replaced by an updated master plan document. The Ford Park Management Plan will take precedence over previous documents where conflicts or discrepancies occur. The intention of the combined documents is to guide the outcome of future development proposals within Ford Park by modifying the permitted uses (1973 acquisition legislation), recommending development guidelines, limiting the number of leaseholders within Ford Park, and designating buffer/protection zones within and adjacent to the park. ~i ~ The 1985 Master Plan Acknowledges some shortcomings in the overall design of the pazk, particulaxly the layout of the upper bench area and the internal pedestrian circulation system. This amendment will formulate design altematives to these specific problem azeas to correct the deficiencies that exist. This amendment will also delineate managerial, ~ operational, and financial responsibilities between the Town and the leaseholders. I • 9 Section 5: Goals. Objs:ctives. Policies and Action Steps. ~ Goals for Ford Park are summarized in six major goal statements. Each goal statement focuses on a particular aspect of Ford Park brought up during the stakeholder and public input portions of the Management Plan process. As one might anticipate, there is a certain amount of overlap between the goal statements. The issues concerning Ford Park are complicated and convoluted as are the solutions to these issues. It.is intended that the . goal statements be consistent and complementary to each other and be designed to 'provide a framework, or direction, for the future management of Ford Park. A series of . objectives following each goal statement outline specific steps that can be taken toward achieving each stated goal. Policy statements are intended to guide decision-making in achieving each of the stated objectives in reviewing development proposals and implementing capital improvement projects. Action steps are the final measure in implementing the goal statements. Illustrative plans following the Goals, Objective, and Action Steps are included to help explain the concepts represented by those statements. The illustrations are conceptual and are not to be considered as fmal design solutions. Goal #1: Preserve and protect Ford Park. 4bjectives: • 1.l : Limit future development. Action Step 1.1.1: Draft a new ordinance to exclude those uses listed in Ordinance No.6, Series of 1973, now considered to be inappropriate, and to redefine the aliowable uses within Ford Park. Poliey Statement 1: The following uses that are allowed and prohibited for Ford ~ Park shall take precedence over Section 1$.36.030 of the Municipal Code conceming the General Usc Zonc District. Allawed Uses • Park and greenbelt • Bicycle and hiking trails • Children's playground • Outdoor amphitheater • Botanical gardcns • Environmental, educational, and historical centers • Picnic areas • Recreation and athletic facilities • Waterworks, transportation systems and other public utilities ~ • Community parking • Staff offices for park activities . 10 ~ Prohibited uses • Ski lift and related facilities • Exchange or trade • Civic center, convention/conference center, public schools, gymnasium, ana assembly ha11 • Swimming pools • Equestrian trails . • Administrarive offices ' • Type III and I V employee housing Policy Statement 2: New or changed facilities or uses will not be pernutted to curtail existing public uses of facilities in the Park unless there is either a compelling public interest or adequate altemative facilities are available to its users. All funcrions in the park shall be maintained and function at a high Quality level. Action Step 1.1.2: Create and attach plan sheets which outline lease areas, referred to as Exhibit A in the Vail Recreation District lease agreement and Exhibit B in the Vail Vailey Foundation iease agreement, but which were never attached. 1 ~ Policy Statement 3: The varicty of uses and facilities in the Park will be ' preserved. The Town will not enter into a lease agreement with any party that does ~ not currently hold such an agreement, hereby maintaining current stakeholder status to: Vail Valley Foundation, Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, and Vail Recreation District, or their successors. 12 Define criteria for evaluating future development proposals. Action Step 1.2.1: Update the Design Criteria and Site Guidelines included in the 1985 Ford Park Mastcr plan by: - a) Create additional dcvelopment guidelines for underground, non-building type structures, enhanced iandscaping, and full and complete impact mitigation. b) Enforce exisring criteria and guidelines to solve andJor avoid problems associated with development projects within Ford Park. 13: Designate Preservation Zones within Ford Park to protect natural and/or functionally sensitive areas from developmental impacts. Define allowed uses within Preservation Zone areas. Action Step 1.3.1: Define criteria for designaring Preservation Zones within Ford Park. ~ 11 Action Step 1.3.2: Delineate Preservation 2ones within Ford Park. ~ Action Step 1.33: Determine uses which are allowed within Preservation Zone areas. Policy Statement 4: All proposed development projects shall be reviewed for compliance with Design Criteria and Site Guidelines, as well as other Town . regulations, and shall be additionally judged according to the recreational, . educational or social benefit they bring to the community. Policy Statement 5: Functions that do not maintain high standards of quality or that diminish the expericnce of park users, will not be permitted. Policy Statement 6: The historic qualities and natural character of the Nature Center-are to be maintained. 1.4: Enhance use and preservation of the Historic School House. Action Step 1.4.1: Negotiate a contract with the Vail Alpine Garden Foundation to open the School House for public visitation and to perform preservation activities of photographs and artifacts. Action Step 1.4.2: Make physical improvements to the school house to enhance ~ lighting, public access and viewing areas. Goal #2: Reduce vehicular intrusians in, and their impact on, the park. , Objectives: , 2.1: Reduce the demand for vehicular intrusions into the park. , Action Step 2.1.1: Provide additional an-site storage facilities within the Amphitheater, Aipine Garden and Recreation District areas to reduce and control i the frequency of delivery and service vehicle intrusions into the park. Action Step 2.1.2: Improve traffic gate operations and restrictions on both the east and west access roads to eliminate unnecessary and unauthorized vehicular intrusions into the park. Action Step 2.13: Construct a central trash collection facility, accessible from the I South Frontage Road, to be uscd by all leaseholders within the park for the disposal of trash, landscape debris, and recyclables. Poliey Statement 7: Vehicular encroachment into the park will be minimized. . 12 The only vehicular uses allowed in the park are for, maintenance; delivery of goods ~ and materials too large or heavy to be carried by non-motorized means; access for people with disabilities or limited mobilitv,- public transportation; and emergency services. . 2.2: Reduce the conflicts between vehictes and park users. Action Step 2.2.1: Coordinate delivery schedules to reduce the frequency of detivery and service vehicle intrusions inta the park during peak use time periods. Action Step 2.2.2: Improve loading dock facilities in the Amphitheater to expedite ~ the unloading and setup for performances and to reduce the need for large vehicle , parking outside of the Amphitheater area. Action Step 2.2.3: Improve the configuration of the east access road to allow use by large delivery vehicles, thus reducing the overall number of trips on the west ; access road and the need for the backing and turning of large vehicles on the lower bench of the park. Goal #3: ~ Reduce conflicts between alt Ford Park venues. Objectives: 3.1: Coordinate events on all Ford Aark venues. ~ Action Step 3.1.1: ExPand the master schedule kePt bY the Town Clerk to I include all venues within the park. Action Step 3.1.2: Hold preseason and monthly eventJactivity coordination mcetings. , Poticy Statement 8: Overiapping or simultaneous_events that exceed the available community parking or other park'infrastructure shall be discouraged. Policy Statement 9: No one evcnt or type of use will be allowed to dominate the useage of the Park. Poliey Statement 14: The Park is a Town of Vail cornmunity facility and in the case of conflicting uses, functions that best serve the interests of the community will have the highest priority. In all cases, final decisions regarding the Park rest with the Vail Town Manager. Poliey Statement 11: The day-to-day management and coordination of activities in the Park will be assigned to the Park Superintendent. The Park Superintendent wili coordinate as necessary with a representative of: • the Town of Vail • 13 ~ • the Vail Valley Foundarion • the Alpine Garden ~ • the Vail Recrearion District 3.2: Improve buffers between different use areas within the park. - Action Step 3.2.1: Enhance the buffer zone between the softball fields and the • . ~ . amphitheatre and gardens by reversing the orientation of the center and east • softball fields. Action Step 3.2.2: Enhance existing and new buffer zone areas through the addition of landscape planting. Goal #4: Resolve parking shortage and South Frontage Road access problems. Objectives: 4.1: Develop and implement a parking management plan for Ford Park. , Action Step 4.1.1: Locate a variable message sign between the main roundabout . and entrance to Village Stt•ucture for the purpose nf informing drivers that close- in parking at Ford Park is restricted, at a fee, or full, and parking ifz the VTC is ~ fr•ee and shuttle bus service is available. Action Step 4.1.2: Schedule shuttle bus service from top deck of the Village Sd•ucture to Ford Park Frontage Raad stop fnr special event/high demand davs. Extend in-town shutile btis service to Ford Purk Vail Vallev Drive stop. Acton Step 4.1.3: Designate drop-offparking on Frontage Road using 15 spaces north of bus stop. Enforce 5 minute time limit. Drop-off lane functions as a turn ` araund once lot is filXed. Schedule attendants on-site to manage drop-offspaces and assist users in loadir:g and unloading. Action Step 4.1.4: Al/ocate close-in parking on Frontage Road and Yail Valley ~ Drive through reserve ticket purchases or on a fee basis. Parking attendants on- j site to rrianage entrances and exit.r. Estabtish a ticket surcharge or parkingfee ~ price schedule which will genei•ate szifficient funds to cover attendant and shuttle bus service costs. Action Step 4.1.5: Construct Frontage Road sidewalk from the Vildage Structure ~ and improve sign sustem as necessarv to accommodate pedestrian traffic to Ford ; Park. ~ Policy Statement 12: Adequate parking for the needs of the park are to be • 14 provided in the park and at lhe Village Structure. No net loss of available . par king spaces shall result from anv improvements, modifications and/or i additions to Ford park. The ezisting baseline number of parking spaces is: 199 from tlte South Fronfage Road and 65 from Vail Vallev Drive. 4.1: Improve vehicular access from the South Frontage Road and improve parking lot design lo maximi4e the number of parking spaces, aesthetics, and safetv while mitigating environmental impacts. . ~ ' Action Step 4.2. I: Design and construct improvements to the South Frontage ~ Rnad to meet CDOT i-equirements for obtaining a state highwav access permit. i . i Action Step 4.2.2: Design and construct improvements to all existing parking ~ areas that maximize the number of parking spaces; provide landscape buffering ~i and treatmenl of storm waler run-off.' i 4.3: Limit the potential for construction of a future community parking structure at Ford I, Park. I I Action Step 4.3.1: Designate the existing east parking lot and the athletic field lot as sites in Fard Park as most appropriate for consideration as future parking structure sites. . Policy Statement 13: Ford park is to be considered as a potential location for a I community parking structure onlv after an analvsis of public and private communitv parking supplv and demand has 8een completed which indicates a shortage exists; tlie concept of a communitv parking structure has been afftrmed through public process, and a!l otl:er sites, both public and private, have been exhausted. Goal #5: tmprove internal pedestrian circulation within Ford Park and the pedestrian connections between Ford Park and Vail Village. Objectives: 5.1: lmprove directional and informational signs to and within Ford Park. Action Step 5.1.1: Develop a comprehensive sign plan to direct Ford Park visitors from central sites in the Vail Village and from each level of the Village Parking Structure to destinations within Ford Park. 5.2: Improve pedestrian routes to Ford Park. Action Step 5.2. l: Design improvements to existing pedestrian routes that will correct grading, surfacing, and lighting and will provide resting and sitting areas. • 15 A 53: Improve intemal pedestrian circulation within Ford Park. ~ Action Step 5.3.1: Design a central pedestrian path to enhance the connection , between the upper and lower bench areas of the park. Policy Statement 14: Any uses added to Ford Park in the future shall be structured to encourage users ar participants to walk or ride the bus rather than . . drive. . . Policy Statement 15: Pedestrian access to the Park from the Vail Village should ~ ~ be easy and visible. The Park shall be as pedestrian-friendly as possible. Goal #6: Delineate financial responsibilities among Ford Park leasehvlders. Objectives: 6.l : Formalize existing division of facility managemendoperation costs. ' Action Step 6.1.1: Research current lease, license and use agreernents for , delineation of financial responsibilities. Action Step 6.1.2: Clearly delineate financial responsibilities. . Action Step 6.13: Identify and correct inequities in utility billing procedures and distribution systems, current utility use, and payment relationships. Poliey Statement 16: All Ford Park leaseholdets shall be required to share in common operating costs that benefit the whole park facility. These include but are not limited to, electrical charges for pedestrian path and parking lot lighting, trash , removal charges, and regular parking lot and pedestrian path maintenance costs. 6.2: Create a cost sharing agreement for Capital Improvement costs. Action Step 6.2.1: Create a five year capital improvements program for Ford Park. ~i . i Action Step 6.2.2: Establish the benefitlcost relationship for capital projects to I determine appropriate cost sharing agreements. Policy Statement 17: Ford Park leaseholders desiring to make capital ~ improvements within their respective lease areas shall be required to provide ' funding for those improvements and for subsequent modifications to those areas outside of the lease area causcd by those improvements. Poliey Statement 18: Services, functions, and programs provided by Fard Park • 16 leaseholders, by bringing visitors to the community, generate sales tax revenues ~ which contribute General Fund funding sources. Residents of the community which participate in those programs, contribute to the Real Estate Transfer Tax funding source through real estate transactions. Both of these funding saurces can be utilized by the Town of Vail to pay for capital projects and improvements within Ford Park, reducing the need for cantributions from the leaseholders. . : III : I ~ I I • ' • 17 . Section 6: Illustrative Plan Cornno ents. ~ This section contains the maps and drawings necessary to illustrate the physical aspects and relarionships of the plan. There are 7 plan sheets at a scale of 1"= 50'. The Index sheet orients each plan sheet to the overall park layout. A 24' x 36' plan sheet at 1" = 100' is included in the back of this document. The following text for each of the 7 plan sheets offers a written description of the ~ . improvements illustrated. These drawings and descriprions are intended to illustrate the . ' concepts of the improvements only and are not considered to be final construction documents. Sheet 1: Streamwalk and West Access Road Improvements. Streamwalk. Regrade eastexn 370' of path to reduce existing slope of 15% to a maximum of 4.5%. Construct approximately 320' of 8' maximum height retaining wall. Replace existing vandal-prone path lights with a more vandal-resistaat fixture. Install benches at 150' ' intervals to provide sitting and resting places. - West Access Road. Reduce width of road entrance from South Frontage Road from the existing 50' to 10' to reduce visual significance of this entrance. Install an automated traffic control gate. ~ Control gate to be hand-held opener operated on the Frontage Road side and automatic loap operated on the park side. The gate is to function as an exit only gate in conjunction with the East Access Road. Install additional landscape plantings and directional and park entrance signs. Install benches at 150' intervals to provide sitting and resting places. South Frontage Road Walk Path. Construct 12' concrete pedestrianlbike path along south edge of roadway ftom Vail Valley Drive to the West Access Road entrance. Path will be separated from the roadway by 6" curb and gutter. Construct left-hand turn lane and right-hand tum traffic island at South , Frontage Road and Vail Valley Drive intersection. Install additional path lights as nccessary. Sheet 2: Ballfield and Circufation Route Improvements. Pedestrian Path. ~ Extend Pedestrian/bike Path beYond West Access Road as 10' detached PathwaY. Widen ~ path between softball infields and extcnd beyond the Tennis Center to the proposed main park entrance. Install additional path lights as necessary. I Softball Field and Path. I i Remove existing paved parking area and move eastem softball field approximately 30' north. Construct an 8' paved pedestrian path around the east and south sides of the • , 18 eastern softball field to connect to the existing concrete path from the playground area. Install additional path lights and benches as necessary. Install directional signs at all path ~ intersections. Install additional landscape plantings east and south of bailfieid as a landscape buffer. Sheet 3: Bus Stop / Main Entrance Impravements. South Frontage Road Improvements: - Widen South Frontage Road to provide 6' bike lanes on each side, two 12' through lanes, ' . 12' east bound right-hand turn lane, and 16' west-bound right-hand turn lane. Construct . curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway. Obtain Highway access permit form Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). ~ Bus Stop. , Construct dedicated bus stop lane, accessed by an enter only drive cut frorn the South Frontage Road. This drive will also provide access to 15 diagonal parking spaces directly i across from the Tennis Center entrance. Install additional landscape plantings to buffer ~ and screen parking areas from the roadways. During high-attendance events, the 15 ! spaces can be r•estricted for S minute dr•op-off parking onlv. ~I Main Park Entrance. I~ Construct Main Park Entrance drive with one entrance and two exit Ianes. Install main i park entrance sign and landscape ptantings at this location. Install directional signs at all ~ pedestrian paths and intersections. Install pedestrian and roadway lights as required. ~ Tennis Court Rclocation. - Remove eastem court from existing bank of 4 courts. Construct new court on the western end of the existing bank of 2 courts. Excavation of the existing bertn and relocation of water meter pits will be required. Sheet 4: Parking Area improvements. . - " Parking Lot. Construct 7 disabled accessible parking spaces alang east side of Tennis Complex. Expand area of existing gravel parking area by constructing two sets of tiered 4' retaining walls. Rcvegetatc hillside with native wildflowers and shrubs. Construct 294 space paved parking lot with curb and gutter and landscape islands. Install storm water filtration system to clean water before discharge into Gare Creek. A total number of 209 parking spaces are indicated on this plan, an increase of 10 spaces. Install landscape plantings along Frontage Road and south edge of parking lot to screen and buffer parking area from adjacent roadways and neighborhoods. Install parking lot lighting as needed. Central Trash Enclosure. A central trash enclosure is shown a the southwest corner of the parlcing lot. This is • 19 intended to be a fully enclosed building which contains a trash dumpster or compactor unit. All leaseholders will utilize the central enclosure to dispose of trash generated at ~ each facility. No trash truck traffic will be allowed into the park. Sheet 5: Manor Vail Entrance Improvements. Manor Vail Wallcway. Repair existing brick and concrete walkway as needed. Install Ford Park Entrance sigas at - intersection for walkway and Vail Valley Drive and at right-hand tum to the Manor Vail . . Bridge. The second entrance sign should be located where it is clearly visible ftom the . . waikway. Manor Vail Bridge. Increase the deck height of the Manor Vail covered bridge by approximately 4'. This is accomplished by removing the bridge from its footings intact, pouring an additional 4'of wall on the existing concrete footings, and resetting the bridge. Any structural improvements can be made to the bridge at that time. The 4' increase in elevation will allow the wallcs approaching the bridge form both directions to be reconstructed at lower grades. Replace existing pedestrian lights with vandal-proof fixtures. Install benches at . approximately 150' intervals to provide sitting and resting places. Sheet 6: East Access Road Improvements. Access Gate. • This entrance is intended to function as the primary service vehicle entrance to the Lower Bench. lnstall Automated traffic control gate at Intersection with parking lot. Gate will be hand-held opener operated on the parking lot side and roadway loop operated on the park side. This will be an enter and exit access point. Reconstruct existing access road to a 15' width at a maximum of 7.9°1o slope. Construct approximately 160' of 8' maximum height retaining wall along uphill side of the road. Install benches at approximately 100' intervals to provide sitting and resting placcs. Install additional path lights and directional signs as needed. - Amphitheater loading Dock. Construct an additional 12' x 35' loading bay on the south side of the amphitheater to accommodate performance deliveries. The additional loading bay will reduce vehicle traffic during peak park use times and reduce the need for parking outside the managed amphitheater area. Sheet 7: South Entrance jmprovements. Vail Alpine Garden Educational Centcr: The Vail Alpine Garden Foundation is proceeding through the design and approval process to construet an educational center at the site of the Athletic Field parking lot. The facility will include exhibit, office, gift shop and meeting space. The stntcture is being ~ 20 designed to be earth bermed and fully landscaped. . . Athletic Field Parking. Construct a 75 space surface parking lot south of the Educational Center site. This lot is intended to be constructed at a lower elevation than the existing lot. The berm between ' the parking lot and Northwoods Condominiums will remain. Pedestrian Connections. Construct a 12' pedestrian/bike path along the south side of Vail Valley Drive from Gold "Peak east. This path will reduce recreation path user/vehicle conflicts on Vail Valley , Drive. Construct bus stops on both sides of Vail Valley Drive to serve Ford Park and the ' Educational Center on the in-town shuttle route. Install a crosswalk east of the ' Northwoods driveway entrance. Construct 8' pedestrian path along north side of Vail Valley Drive between the crosswalk and elevator location. Install directional signs between Education Center, parking lot and Ford Park. Install a park entrance sign at the main entrance driveway and install roadway and pedestrian path lighting as needed. Improve the existing Nature Center trails and paths as needed. Elevator/Stairway Building. Construct elevator/stairway building approximately 75` east of the existing Nature Center 'I Bridge. This location takes advantage of a natural break in the hillside vegetation and offers convenient access to the lower bench area. The architecture of the structure will be designed to be compatible to the neighborhood and the park. The structure should be ~ open to provide views of Gore Creck and Betty Ford Alpine Gardens. Construct paved pedestrian path from lower level of elevator/stairway building to south end of Nature Center bridge. Install benches, lighting and directional signs as needed. ~ 21 ~,p„w~e r,r ~s•*,.snaa±~~ r.a• ~ Village u•+~•'•~ Parking -ebo Swcture wa1Tc~"" r-3 / Strsa~-.. e ~ .r ~ ~ o ---•0~ qthieticFia S ` ~ A \ I 4 ee ` `~,i_ ~ • ~ ~ 's Q ~s ' ~ s ) t Y - o'~~~ r i Fard . / " ~ e ~mphitheater . ature 0 ~ IL 1 + ~ 1 ' t-_J ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~CntM. yd~~ i , N,~ crY ~i ~ Vetfc fie{d ` Golden Peak 0 •-.,,~y ~ ~ 9 LodBe ~ yl~~ • ~ e i y~ 1 p / 'ems.0,MMORCOM ynde ~~~y M!~ TO~M Of fA11 FORD p ARKp ~y ~ p~,M,e~t e! v'~ *wtsltYS~+P'~'~1°` 'I lIAANAGEME~ _ st+"t Ind+x ~ i ~ ' . ~ ~ . I 2' concrete p ' NDike path , Curb and gutter (rypical Q rasrbOtlnd 6' bikC 13M Apollo Park 6'bikelam s p 10' pexsa;aw The Wren bift ~ C~ ~ 9j a # c~'aM (j ) ~ - ~ O nutorr,acea vartic a_ yace (3 la ma~ ~ rrtmd ~ ~ P • L Revegerate exissting dirt road ~ Ewstlng West AG[ess Road (repair st"ulders as needed? Reconstruct Streamwa6c path . \ at 4.596 maxirtxun grade. ` trusher ftne wAace Reveyetate adstlng sareamuvalk o Athletic F Ids o ~ ° aaposea itg?x +nuure Inpican ~ . ~ ^ppra"""ac° Par'`- . + 6 bericr, a, ca,crete P~7 ItYP~9 eegin streamwapt raor?mucuon DS Directlonal si9n IHP") ~ e•,~s??•~ C e e k 8' high retaining waK Nous: ~ ? ootteo unes inaKate odsoiny canadom FORD PARK MrAm w r~~ MANAGEMENT PLAN ~witlt new var" resiAa~t Ibcdxes im m~r oSiNEAIINMLK A!O WEST A~ ROAD MPROYQIIENI'S n,ret.inu Pruie r. ~ • ~ I , . . . . Remwe exisdng . ' scair~vay 6' wide bike lanes Curb and guaer itypicaq New • ~ - bu ~i inbt~o~~ - - 170~. . # # #A-J # ~t ~#~~"~tN- - -~~~'-'F1j # n • ~1 ~ ~ hillside Mpic~l OIp, 6dsting resaoom/ \ ii€ yD Dugout bench Ib'0'~c~a~ete pedemWN " . : concession ~ilding . X Roposed IigM fixnue nypiCal) . . • ` : ~ ' _ ~ . Exisoing infield Existlng inficNd Extend ifghong abng pedetriaN ana cackstop ara nackaROp eike pa», co vau vaue.y Drnve. a Inscan guardrail Exisd^9 Wied Pi^9 -v ~ m lot m be rertpved ~ ` ^ ExLon4 ~ 8'concrece pedesvianjpath 1 \ bleacherS Landsc0pe blilfer L J; - ' I • ~ _ • I , Athfietic Helds Diectional ' n ~ I , ~9 1~ I D ~ j6' bench ofi coi,Erete Pid WpkaU c~ ~ Socc~ Field ;proj,,,<,w, e • ~ ~ r_~~Y "prdposed infi4e I ~ ~ Existing 6' corxrete path ' ~ ~ Begin new path ; Fxistlng infidd and backstop oo be rdacaoed 30' [o the nath ; ' New 8' COnCrCt~ palh --------------------eC,---------------~- . ' ~C.. ----pkwdlCaChCrs New dugput DerKh # _ ~ ~ ~ : \ D ~ • i-~ s~`~ ~ ~ # ~ ~ Srn (flO #,I . _ "°ce: °°`rea''"es FORD PARK indicate existing c«,ditions MANAGEMENT PLAN lALLFELD AI~ ~IUT10N ROUIE ~AOYE~ ro•w or vuc ~ "'O~M oro.t~ e/ A'en~ r~.ts ~rianrerld'nn ' i • ~ . ~ . s ~ 1'70 Eastbound Bike lane ends landxaped median isfand Paintetl meaian Existing edge of roadway Curb and gutter 6' bike lane ' La^dscaPe buffer . 4 . Par?c enaance sign . . . . ~ 12' eastbound lane . ~ . ` _ 16' tum fane - S. ro J ` n 1-70'~- ~~:weuboiu~d ~ . lane _ _ . t _ 'Er . - > . . ..,..i.. • • # . ~ : . . ~ - ' '~4~ , ~ ~ i , - 12'wm lane ~ : 10' concrete bike/ , . • ~ ~ , pedesvian patn ' f DS r . r ' ~ ~i ~ ~ r~. ~~,a1hj..: ....W..... ~ j, r' Focd P t C 4 i . . . . . ~ . ~ • i,e`. ~nr~~ ~ i,~' ~ # ~~.c~,~ ; 5 . . S A w~ n rtc Exisa ed rkin • ~ ` ~ ' ~ . . . r~ ~ , . ~ ^9 P~Pa 9 New tenn+s enQarxe/ , lOt [o be remwed - f cart and Existing tennis ,BuS;lOp IaEie,, . . . • ~ court tenct ~ r. . ~ , - - , rence Proposed light fixture (typicall . 1 U' sidewafk ~ landscaPebuffer a+d....._~.... 4' relaininq wdU Athletic Fields ~ .~a Remove part of "sOng - , aspharc patn Dircctional sign "caq DS: ~c~ Connect existing path inDO . new 8' concrete path 6' wooden berxh on concrete pad . Cenaal aash . ' conecdon e O , ' ; DS , ~ r . . ; - ~ ' ~ ~ to Automated traRic control C} # gate (c~ttedexi 1 East Access ttoad Tennis Nore: Domed kies Center FORD PARK #So ys '00 indicaceexisony x.w r. sr conditioru MANAGEMENT PLAN ~ rorN or v~n I 8llS STOP ( MAWI ENTRANCE ~APROYEMENTS "1O"*" o.o..m,.~u .f nueuw . t- 7 0 E a S t U O U(1 .U I.anascaped median island 6' bike ~ane Curb and gutter (typtcaq PairueG median E~tisting edge of roadway b' bike lane Park entrarKe sign 17 westbound lane . . , , 16' tUm fane ' . - . ~ r ~ ~ , ' 12•'2~OtX1d IBrt~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ • acctUeradon iane . . . T,~i' ~ . 0 . . . - 4 ` , 5-i I~, , '~r $?lOW SLOC19E ~ _ . Entrarxd Curb asKS guuer 0 R. E)dt lan4scape buffer _ - _ ~ , - . ~ 9 s ~spha n filt 0w1 o ater v t ~ ~ Revegetate hiUside w! ~ 4t ProP~~ l5ht fawre I~YP~mU R a6 I' Two R) 4' boulder retaining walis ! ~ S?ww sCOra9e +6 - _ k Two (2) 4' boulder reTaining waps e ldndzcaped iSWnds and buifers . Ustin9 ed9e Of c3rarel lot • ~ _ : Central Vash , cdtection enciosure snow norage DireaionaGo~e . . t ~,n1, . Automated valk c«,~a yate (enter s exiq . / r. . ~ Existing ttmmis cam n?ote: docted unes mdicaate FORD PARK `o °e r`r'°r`b e"~"9 MANAGEMENT PLAN mrr or ru~ PARKING AREA IMPROVEk1ENTS ~t y ore~ re.ts/r~n~natwn ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ w s . • ~ - ~ X XO 0 ~ F- x 4 O ~ X 0 ~ Manor Vai1 Parking 6'°anction ~ corwecc pae X ~ KYPWA Park enaance s+gn Directionel sign (typicaq ~ . Repair dcisun9 Paved Parlc entrance ~ `D ~ 4 siqn . ~ . . _ Fo ul pS ~ , Proposed fig" flxDffe %Ocal, a ~ . Raise bridge : ' . . aP~r~matdY 4• freeboard reduce g L rade . [!Ie : Docced ng r~nes n pams cate txisti ditions ends brid9= ' o~ • ' ' ~ Q ~ Manor Vail Parking Gold Peak ~ Base Area = co - ~ FORD PARK ~ ~ MANAGEMENT PLAN ~ N torw or r~m IAAt10A VA1L EtfTRAWCE MIPROVEMENiS .1 wuK ` . : ~ w I Id I ~ Ford Amphitheater ~ ~ Tennis ~ . i ~ - , Center ` . . _ . . . _ ~ Exiscny easc _ . _ mvance - ,r ESt lkcess Road 6' bmdh an _ egyr,,m 157 wide. 7.94b conaete Pad Note: Dotted tina max 9wle /yutorraed oafk CoWa indicate 0"a^4 g ~ waN gate (ervter and exiti ~k canditl«n Froposea tg'a t,ux° tW") DkectfanN sign MfPkalI , G°re Creek w • - " . . . . . , • . . r--- Roposed 17 K35'?o~ bay Nature ~ 10' rctmning wan f EAstkV madwV a«k Center s- r- - J~- ~ ~ - - i F4RD PARK Snlr f.,. MANAGEMENT PLAN ro?~ or ~u~ EAST ACCESS ROAD MPROVEMENCS N°""' o~.~ N~ r..r~~~+.++r•~+•~~+ ~ . • ~ ` • Var D$ Improve exisang Sa~ Nanue Center trails / / Directional sign (typicaq / ~~Q~v. Pfix[ure lrypicall ¢ • / ~ a O O 0 ~ WlevaCOreantlevdy buifding 14' ConCreUe bikd ~ . D . , pe°es`na" Pedestria" pa`" F~dsting Nature ements YG'~ , I Center Bridge ark entrarxe o,o"~ . - EclucaNOn CmMsign sign ~ ( ~O Vian Athletic Field , ~ ~ ~ Pedes ~ Ir Gore nosswalk / . 6" berxh on corxrete Pad IIYPicalI rr~~-tt ` # 3cs ExiOng berm Entrance ddve wUh vag Peda)ianlbike to remain ; FouNpntlatlon den dropoff lane path ~ Educadon Center 8' sideava{k \ f2" concrete bike/ PedeSVian ~ - ~ ~ „ pagt m ~ f ` c~i. _ _ ; ' - ~ I ' - - ; ; . ~ - . e it Northw d5 ~ - ~ . m. . . . _ . ~ ~ Condo ' iums 0 ~--1 ExiO,V reWc«„ ! ~ . . Note: Dotted lines FQRD PARK ~ n~» "'°i`ate«ts°"9 conaiaons MANAGEMENT PLAN r`•'` ; . TOIN Of YA/b SOUTH EN7'RANCE IMPROVEMENTS 11 Section 7:S'a itu aI imnrove ents Plan for FQrd Park. • This section outlines a five to ten year plan for making physical improvements to the park. The final list of projects will be reviewed and cordinated with Ford Park leaseholders, and adjacent property owners and must be validated through open public participation. Ford Park projects and improvement costs are eligible for Real Estate Transfer Tax funds and grant funding through Great Outdoors Colorado. - Preliminary list of ~rojects: ' 1. Streamwallc reconstruction. 2. Streamwalk path light installation. 3. Directional sign package design and installation. 4. Additional site furnishings installarion. 5. West Access Road control gate installation and landscaping. 6. South Frontage Road pedestrian/bike path construction. 7. Vail V.alley Drive/South Frontage Road improvement construction. 8. Relocate eastern softball field. 9. Internal pedestrian path construction. 10. South Frontage Road accel/decel lane construction. l 1. Relocate tennis court. 12. Bus stop, parking lot, and main entrance improvements construction. . 13. Central trash enclosure design and construction. 14. Manor Vail walkway repair and sign installation. • 15. Manor Vaii bridge and path reconstruction. 16. East Access Road improvement construction. 17. East Access Road control gate installation. 18. Amphitheater laading dock design and construction. 19. Athletic Field parking lot improvement construction. 20. Vail Valley Drive pedestrian/bike path construction. . 21r Vail Valley Drive sidewalk to Elevator building. 22. Nature Center trail reconstruction. . . 23. Elevator(Stairway Building and pe destrian -path improvement design and construction. • 22 Section 8: Apilendix ~ This section contains copies of the following perrinent legislative and tegal documents concerning Ford Park. Legislarion: • Ordinance 6, Series of 1973. Acquisition of Antholz Ranch. • Resolution 1, Series of 1977. Property named Gerald R. Ford Park. • Resolution 19, Series of 1985. Adoption of 1985 Master plan. , . Resolution 27, Series of 1987. Preservation of Nature Center. . ~ - ~ Resolution 44, Series of 1988. Master plan amendment. • Resolution 46, Serise of 1988. Approving WRD Lease. ' Legal Documents: • Vail Recreation District Lease, 1989 • Amendment to VRD Lease, 1990 ~ • Vail Recreation District Lease, 1993 • Vail Valley Foundatian Agreement, 1987 II . • Letter extending WF Lease, 1991 I • Letter extending WF Lease, 1994 • Manor Vail Easement Agreement, 1991 • Manor Vail Easement, Eagle County record, 1991 ~ • Vail Alpine Garden Foundation License Ageement, 1994 Other pocuments: • Open house presentation information, 1996 • Focus Group questions, 1996 • Focus Group responses, 1996 • - Pubtic input session comments, 1996 ~ 23 . . • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 10, 1997 SUBJECT: Review of existing GRFA policy and alternatives Staff: Russell Forrest 1. PURPOSE: The purpose of this worksession is to review ihe analysis for three alternatives to the existing GRFA regulations for single family, duplex, and primary/secondary type structures. This memo will describe: how to implement each of these alternatives; what homes might look like under each alternative; and will identify considerations that would need to be evaluated for each alternative. On March 10th, the PEC will be asked to vote on which alternative they would like to recommend to the Vail Town Council. On March 11 th, ihe Vail Town Council will review the alternatives and the PEC's recommendation. If Council feels they have adequate information ~ and time to consider this issue, staff wiN ask for direction on which alternative to implement. If additional time is needed to consider the alternatives, staff would recommend scheduling this topic foran evening meeting on Aprillst. The next step after Council decides on a preferred alternative is to begin the implementation process. This could include additional research to answer questions relating to the preferred action and would include developing proposed code revisions. 11. PROBLEM STATEMENT & GIVENS: The Vail Town Council directed staff to evaluate the existing GRFA system and determine whether this is an effective and appropriate tool when compared to other alternatives. Three reoccurring issues have been raised by the Town Council which include: A) Is GRFA an effective tool in controlling mass and bulk; B) Is it appropriate that the Town should be reviewing interior floor space; and C) Is it an effective use of staff time (both TOV and designers/builders)? The givens for this process include: A) The Vail Town Council will make the final decision with input from the community and recommendations from the PEC and staff. B) There will be some form of regulatory control of size and mass. C) This process wi(i only address residential deve(opment (single-fami(y, duplex, and • prim ary/second ary type structures). D) "No action" (i.e. keeping the existing GRFA system) is a viable alternative. 1 • > E) Homes shauld not get significantly larger in size. ~ F) New design guidelines should not inhibit design creativity. 111. BACKGROUND • In October of 1996, Tom Braun, the planning consultant for this project, prepared a paper which addressed the foilowing : * Reoccurring concerns/issues.with the existing system, " * Objectives of having mass and bulk controls, ` Mechanisms for controfling bulk and mass, " History of GRFA in Vail, ` Analysis af how seven ather resort cammunities control buik and mass, and * Analysis of five alternatives to the Town of Vai!'s GRFA system. At the public meetings on October 30th and 31 st in 1996, Tom Braun presented the findings in the background paper. A majority of the time at the meeting was spent obtaining input from the public on the existing system, discussing pros and cons of alternatives, and identifying new alternatives. Approximately 45 people attended these meetings. The PEC reviewed this analysis on November 11, 1996. Four members felt that alternative three (el'+minating GRFA) was the best alternative with certain conditions. These members felt that if GRFA was eliminated, additional design guidelines would be needed. One commissioner ihat- supported alternative three, felt that at least two architects should sit on the Design Review . i Board. The other three members of the PEC felt that some form of GRFA is needed. One member felt strongly that GRFA does effectively control bulk and mass and eliminating the system would increase the size of structures in the Town of Vail. The other two members were interested in pursuing alternatives 2 and 4(allow interior modifications and eliminate basement space in GRFA calculations, respectively). Overall, there seemed to be a consensus on the Commission that homeowners, particularly owner occupied homes, should be able to do interior remodels without GRFA being an issue. Councii reviewed the analysis on November 26th and directed . -staff to examine the following alternatives (nat {isted by priority/preference) in more detail: ` Allow interior modifications to exceed the maximum GRFA allowance for existing structures, provided such additions do not add to the bulk and mass of the home. ` Amend the definition of GRFA to exclude basement space from calculation as GRFA. ' " Eliminate the use of GRFA for controlling mass and bulk for single family, dupfex, and prim ary/second ary type structures. I The Vail Town Council was very clear that any alternative to the existing GRFA system should not significantly increase buik and mass. The Council was also very sensitive to any recommendation that might inhibit creative design solutions. In addition, several Council members were interested in exploring how vaulted space could be better addressed in the Town's regulations. Attached is a revised analysis from Tom Braun of how each alternative could be implemented and issues that wou4d need to be considered prior to impfementation. 2 • . IV. PROCESS OVERVIEW: The process for this project is broken into three phases 1) identification of alternatives; 2) anaiysis of alternatives; and 3) legislative review of the preferred alternative. The following are specific steps in the process. Phase I Identification of Alternatives 1) Background analysis of existing GRFA system and alternatives. September & , October, 1996 2) Public meetings to review pros and cons of existing GRFA system October 30th & and alternatives. 31 st, 1996 3) Presentation to PEC and Town Council to review pros/cons and November 11 & (PEC) public input. The purpose of these public meetings was to November 26 determine if any of the alternatives could be eliminated. 1996 Phase Analyze how to implement altematives and identify the impacts of each alternative 4) Complete analysis of alternative approaches. December & January 1996/1997 5) PEC worksession to review 3 alternatives February 10, 1997 6) PEC hearing to recommend an alternative March 10, 1997 • 7) Council worksession March 11, 1997 8) Evening Council meeting to decide on alternative April 1 st, 1997 if additional time is needed from the March 11th worksession Phase III Lecislative Review of preferred alternative (assumes code modifications) 8), Staff prepares language to modify Town Code April, 1997 9) PEC: worksession to consider code revisions Following dates to be determined 10) PEC: public hearing 11) Town Council: worksession to review proposed revision io the existing GRFA regulations 12) Town Council: first reading of an ordinance 13) Town Council: second reading of an ordinance • . 3 V CURRENT IMPACT OF GRFA AND SRE COVERAGE: , • A. Overview of GRFA and Site Coveraoe Gross Residential Floor Area and site coverage are tied to !ot area through simp{e mathematical formulas. GRFA determines how much floor area can exist in a home and site coverage controls the size of the footprint of a building. Both are tools that control the size and mass of buildings, along with height restrictions and design guidelines. Very simply, the bigger the lot, the more GRFA and site coverage is allowed on the lot. . B. : GRFA . • . in reference to GRFA, there is a graduated formula for controlling floor area. For example, the calculation for primary/secondary, duplex, and single-family type homes is the foNowing: Max GRFA (Floor Area) _ .25 x lot area between 0 sq ft and 15,000 sq ft. + .10 x lot area between 15,000 sq ft. and 30,000 sq. ft. + .05 x lot area over 30,000 sq ft. Ex m I: A 35,000 square foot lot would be entitled to 3•750 sq ft of GRFA for the ist 15,000 square feet of lot area + 1.500 sq ft. of GRFA for the lot area between 15,000 and 30,004 square feet + 250 sq. ft. for the last 5,000 feet of lot area; for a total of 5,50 square feet of GRFA. Credits: Each aNowable dwelting unit on a lot also receives 425 sq. ft. of additional ~ square feet, up to 600 square feet for a garage, and potentially 500 sq. ft. for a Type 11 EHU (per lot). C. Site Coveraae Site coverage is not graduated and is simply 20% of the total lot area. Therefore, the potential building footprint for a 35,000 sq. ft. lot is 7,000 square feet. D. Lot Areas in Vail Since lot area directly affects GRFA and site coverage, staff reviewed lot sizes in Vail. Staff reviewed 611 lots in sudivisions across the Town. Lot sizes range from several thousand square feet to over a 100,000 square feet. The average lot size in Vail is approximately 21,000 square feet based on lots that were reviewed. More than half the fot sizes in this survey are between 10,000 and 25,000 square feet. Table 1 below summarizes the frequency of lot sizes in the Town of Vai1: 4 i • TABLE 1 LOT SIZES IN THE TOWN OF VAIL Lot Area (square feet) Percent Total Number in Range 0-5,000 2.93% 18 5,001-10,000 18.73% 115 10,001-15,000 2524% 155 15,001-20,000 18.40% 113 • " 20,001-25,000 12.54% 77 25,001-30,000 3.91 % 24 30,001-35,040 6.35% 39 35,001-40,000 3.26% 20 40,001 + $.14% 50 Totals: 100% 611 E. 1mpact oi GRFA and Site Coverage Staff reviewed how GRFA and site coverage work together and what would happen if one . or the other were eliminated. Staff calculated GRFA, with credits, and site coverage for lots ranging from $,000 sq ft to over 60,000 square feet. Figure 1 below displays the effect of GRFA and site coverage. The dark solid line indicates existing GRFA with credits. The "No GRFA" (ines reflect the ranae of how big a home could be if site coverage and building height were the only limiting factors. The No GRFA (low) line assumes that a developer would use 100% of the allowable site coverage for the 1 st floor and the massing above the 1 st floor would be 50% of the site coverage (i.e the massing on the first €loor). The No GRFA (high) line assumes that a developer would use 100% of the allowable site coverage for the 1 st floor and the massing above the 1 st floor would be 80% of the site coverage (i.e the massing on the first floor). Based on this review of GRFA and site coverage it appears that site coverage is the more limiting factor on lots smaller than 16,000 square feet. Once lot sizes exceed 20,000 square feet, then GRFA is clearly the controlling factor in terms of bulk and mass. If GRFA were eliminated, a significantiy larger home could be constructed on the larger Iots in Town. For example, a 40,000 square foot lot could have a 12,000 to 14,000 square foot structure without GRFA. With GRFA, a building caufd only be as large as 7,800 square feet in size (with credits). Therefore, GRFA does control massing on larger lots in the Town of Vail. • 5 Figure 1 ~ • Flaor Area CompaHslon 25,000 ..,..x...,,. ,,,,,w.,,. ....,.,w,,,..~..,,...,.,....,.,.~.,.,,., .,,V......,..,..., . . . ;:;r>: ::>;;;;:;;;:_:::.<~:;;;:;<;: :i;";ij i ;`::;;i<. ``;i>';i?;;Ei ~::;;;:;;;i;`~::'S;`ic;: ~ %`;is;i::::%;';%ii:iii~ icSi%G;:;;;•s[i:i;-i; i; X:'?i;>:~:::i~ic:i;~ici:';?i'i:v;'i?;ri;;i;::;i't':i:;i:i~; [•~i}:..>: . o::>:....:: I 20.000 . y. f ~ r ~ ~ :~i:1:~i%:%:;::i.:;:jj'::::::::::~':!::<v~:%:i:~'~:::<:•:~.i::::i::~::'.::::::::<~:i::_:::': :,:'::i:~:i:i'~::i':~::~iii':~:::;:::~i::'~'i:i:~.. :.:':M!~~:~:::::~>:;~:::~i::?:~::i::::::fi%':•~,:a:-> . :•:.a~:...,.; . 1....... . . ....y,.:<•>:~ ~c•:»:.:::::::::~:.::.: r::::. ~.:a:. ~ R:..:::•>. ;.;rl0:l~. . I::>':::::> : . , 1s.000 uPi • :>:5;:x:;~>:<;:~:~ ~i>s>ss~?' ?a??;i: ss::::;;.;,:::::: R ~ . . . ' . . , . I..: I Q :.:i:ii::ii::~::.i::'i:~ii::~: ~ :~:ii::~::.:~. 'i::i::::::~:ii:::': . ....:....:::.:'i.~:.::::.i:::;i::.::^i::::4ii:ii:..::::::ii.i::v:•i:i~::':4i:'i:': O 10,000:: >.:»>:s>:::< . . + ~ »>:<:<:>:::s>:~s>::i:r GRFA Credns . ; i i i:/5;:~i;:iG:S: ~ . . . .:o.c:::;<.;~::::: . ~ ~r. ; ::>.;::;;s: • r _ . - - • • NO GRFA (Law) i 5:>::~::<c;>:::::~;:s::::>::t::;.;;::;::::.:~x:;::;:;:<::;:r.x:v::.~:»>s>:o»:<~r.::r.::y»::>:::::::>::: ~ ,000 ";..r',. . - -NoGRFA (Fi9h) . . :v...... . . . . .Y ~ rc:::.:~.::~:: ' . , .:..A ...:::::::::::::.:::::::::::::.~::>:;:::::::::~>i:::~;<:s:~:;•::::::::;:::::.;:.>::::.~::>:o::~:~::;;:,.:.:~:>:::;:.: Qp . . . : . ~ >y.:: O O O O O O O O~y O O pO~ O O[~ O O O P O O O O O Oef ~Op oOD O oD O N^ tC a0 N N N N N f7 Mm M O d ~~V a L0 lf u~j uf UI v~ t~0 Lot Ams (xl R.) ~ VI. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES: A. Aiternative 1- KeeD GRFA and allow Interior Modifications: This alternative would keep the existing GRFA system but would aflow existing homes to exceed their maximum allowable GRFA if the proposed modification had no changes to the exterior of the home. This alternative would address one of the major issues in this analysis of allowing homeowners to modify the interior of their home and utilize existing crawl spaces or vaulted areas. The major considerations with Alternative 1 are: 1) If Alternative 1 applied to homes built in the future, home builders could build a home within the allowable GRFA, and then after receiving a Certificate of Occupancy, they could completely redo the interior and exceed their GRFA limit. In other words, people could design vaulted spaces in anticipation of creating additional ffoor area after a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Property owners could create larger vaulted areas and thus a larger building mass, while planning to fill it in at a later time. Under this I scenario, staff questions whether GRFA still has vaiue in controlling bulk and mass. If Alternative 1 is considered to be the preferred alternative, then staff strongly recommends that it only apply to homes built prior to the date of this change to the regulations. 6 • ~ 2) Staff recommends ihat a home have no remaining GRfiA before doing interior modifications. In other words, if a property had 500 square feet of GRFA remaining, they wou(d have to first build that additional fioor area (on the outside of the existing structure) and then, at a later time, do an interior remodel to maximize livable area on the inside of the existing siructure and the addition. 3) Equity is an issue with this alternative by only applying it to homes built before a certain date. Praperty owners of homes built in the future may desire to take advantage of the same opportunity to use vaulted and crawl spaces for livable area. B. Alternative 2- Do not include basement sAace a$ GRFA - This alternative would amend the GRFA definition to exclude basement space. This alternative would address one aspect ot the problem statement relating to intrusiveness and the public value of regulating the interior of a home. This alternative would allow a property owner to modify an interior basement space and exceed their GRFA allowance. Considerations related to this alternative include: 1) Many lots in Vail are steep and basements are very rarely completely underground and usually have a wafk-out. The only practical way to apply this alternative would be to develop a calculation for determining what percent of a basement is below grade and is a true basement. 2) Calculating % area that can be defined as basement space would further complicate the GRFA system by increasing staff and appticant time to process an application. See page 3 of the Braun paper for a proposed definition of basement. 3) This alternat+ve would result in bigger homes. By excluding basement space you can basically apply that GRFA above grade, which would increase the size of homes. C. A~I ernative 3-Eliminate GRFA This alternative would eliminate GRFA as a tool to controlling bulk and mass for single family, duplex, and primary/secondary homes. In its place, site coverage would need to be reduced on large lots and stronger design guidelines would be required. This alternative would address the problem statement by efiminating the need for staff to regulate the floor area in the home. GRFA does not prevent a property owner from building a"block-like" structure. Stronger design guidelines are a better tool for controlling the appearance of buildings. However, it should be noted that GRFA does control the overall mass of a home, particularly on larger lots. Specific considerations related to alternative 3 include: 1} Site coverage wouid have to be modified for lots over 19,000 square feet to prevent significantly larger homes. Figure 2 demonstrates that site coverage can be graduated just like GRFA to control building sizes. The GRFA line is plotted and is identical to the line in Figure 1 above. The No GRFA lines reflect the potential building mass without GRFA and using a site coverage allowance of: 20% for lot area between 0-19,000 square feet + • 5% for lot area between 19,000-40,000 square feet + 4% for lot area above 40,000 square feet 7 Figure 2 ~ Reduced Site Coverage 12,000 . ~ . ~ 1~ A . . ~ i0.000 ,.M..... <::::<;:::::~<>:<::«<:>:~:::::::<::;:<::;~:::>::::<:::;<::::::>;_:::: 4"~4 A.t£:rad3ts: ~<;r; 8,000 : : : : : : : . . . . : ...;.~,:t;i,F':. „n? ' oe.:r,.: a~.,a:::r::::~•:':;.>;:;o: . ~ G R FA+C redits . . Q ~.~':.::.i:::::~:iiiiiiiii•::.ii~.:~::::::::::v: :•ii:i:: 6,000 ^ - - -NO GRFA (Low) . . o - ,:;::»:<:>>::>;::::>~:>[.::>;;:>~:>:~:::::::::::::>::::~.«:::>.::<?: NO GRFA Hi h ' i 9 ) 4,000 ',1~:.:c x:.>::•>:.>:::>:.>::i:::i:;:s:;;::::::s:?::~if::::;.::;::?::': .c:.::::;:.::.::.:::::.:::;::i:fi:::::::::>:::::::::::::::;>::::::>:.:T: ' ' 2,000 0 0 0~ o 0 0~ o 0 0(p~p o0 OD N (D N N N M M V ~t N ~f1 ~ Lot Area 2) Modifying the site coverage as shown above is possible but there is a greater range for the possible size of homes by relying exc{usively on site coverage and height to control building mass. However, this can be further coniroited by stronger design guidelines. 3) New design guidelines and site coverage requirements would have to be in place • before this alternative could be implemented. This may include new height restrictions to ensure off-sets in the roof line (i.e. like the 60/40 split m the Village) 4) Parking standards are currently connected to GRFA. New parking standards would have to be created. 5) This alternative would require greater reliance on the Design Review Board. Staff would recommend that a minimum of two members of the board be architects or ~ landscape architects. - 6) Many existing subdivisions (such as Spraddle (ireek) have recorded maximum GRFA limits on the pfat. The Town would have to recognize these limits and ensure that homes did not exceed those limits or significantly reduce development rights. 7) Eliminating GRFA could also eliminate the current floor area incentive for creating an EHU. This incentive could potentially be created using site coverage (credit) or some other incentive. 8) Eliminating GRFA would help reduce the number of illegal conversions/remodefs that occur without a building permit. Q. N A i n Taking no action on this project is also an alternative. lt does not address any of the issues or concerns that have been raised in this process. It wou{d maintain the exiting ~ system of controling GRFA, site coverage, height, and design. _ 8 I i L.. . E. Summa[y of Alternatives Table 2 Summar of Aiternatives Alternative Probiem 1: Problem 2: Problem 3: Ground rule: Ground rule: Key Issues: Effectiveness Intruslveness Simplicky/ Do not increase Do not in controtling of TOV Staff & size hinder mass and regulating Appllcant design butk interior Time creativity space Aftemative GRFA does This Would ba Could increase size Staff . Aj Equity: 1- not control alternative very unless it is applied recommends Peopie wiil still Keep design but it would provide complicated if only to homes built new design want to build in GRFA bui does contro! _ Y greater applied to prior a certain date guidelines vaulted areas allow mass of homes flexibility to use new homes. and would apply that wili and crawl interior on large bts. space inside a only to homes that provide better spaces in the changes to Would see home. have maxed out crfteria for the future. exceed increase in size GRFA. DRB but does GRFA limit if this alt. is not hinder B)Should this applied to new design. be applied to homes new homes? Altemative Will increase Somewhat Would Would increase Same as Aft 1 can 2- Do not mass of addresses this increase building size by above. basicaliy count building above issue by not complexity pushing GRFA accomplish alt. basement grade. regulating since base above grade. 2 space basement ment area space would have to • be calculated Alternative Site coverage, Does address Staff may Could increase Same as This 3-No design this issue, have to building size above afternatives GRFA guidelines, and TOV would review design depending on how effectiveness height controls only regulate criteria ior site coverage is depends on could more building permit DRB. modified. It is changing site effectively _ issue inside a possible to control coverage, control exterior home. mass with site design appearance. coverage and guidelines, and design controls the DRB's effectivenes in - implementing - the guidelines. Vail is 90% buift out-is it too late to change? No Action GRFA does Would not No change to No change Same as Most people not control address this complexity or above iike the way design but it problem staff time homes look in does control Vail mass of homes on large tots. i . 9 ~ V!!. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recognizes that this is a very complex issue that involves loaking at the original problems pubiic input, Council direction, and requires trying to forecast how developers and hame builders wouid react under different aiternatives. During public meetings, the community said they generally feei good about how hames look and staff would very much agree with that in most cases. People generally feel that additionai design guidelines are needed to improve . consistency in the decision making of the DRB. In addition, people felt that something should be done to allow home owners to make reasonable modifications to the interior of iheir homes without changing the exterior. The majority of the people participating in the public meetings felt that GRFA should be eliminated and the Town should onty regulate the exterior design and massing of a home. However, there were many that felt the existing system worked effectively ' and should not be changed at this late date in Vail's development. Staff does feel that improved design guidelines as identified on pages 5 and 6 of Tom Braun's attached paper would help improve consistency and equity within the decision making process far the Design Review Board. Staff sirongly recommends that these types of changes need fo be implemented regard/ess of which alternative is chosen. Staff feels that adequate ftexibility can be provided in these types of guidelines so as to not hinder creative design, while providing better criteria for the Design Review Board. With respect to the alternatives, and which alternative most significantly addresses the problems' identified in this project, staff feels that alternative 3, eliminate GRFA, has the greatest vatue ~ (with several caveats): A) Additional work is needed to determine how to best modify site coverage to prevent homes from significantly increasing in size. Site coverage would have to be modified to ensure that homes would not significantly increase in size. 6) Improved design guidelines (which might include new height restrictions) will be needed to aiso ensure that building mass does not significantly increase. Staff would assist DRB and review projects based on these criteria. C) DRB should be compsised of at least 2 design professionals (i.e, architect, landscape architect). . ~ D) Parking requirements will have to be further examined. I E) Need to examine how to provide an incentive for creating employee housing units. II ~i Alternative 3 places an emphasis on controlling the exterior of a home, which has a public vafue, and moves the Town away from regulating the interior of a home. Alternative 1 would address ~ many of the issues raised in this project. However, it is not logical to apply alternative 1 to future projects knowing that the interior spaces could be modified once a certificate of occupancy is , issued. If alternative 1 were chosen as the preferred alternative, then staff would recommend it only apply to existing homes built before the date this regulatian would ga into effect. The major concern staff has with alternative 1 is that there is the issue of e quity with homes that would be • built in the future and owners wanting to fill in vaulted or crawl space after receiving a certificate of occupancy. E:everyone\russ\rnemoslgrfa.310 10 ~ ~RAUN AssocIATEs. INC. PL/1IJNING and COMh1UNITY DEVELOPM[NT MEMORANDUM TO: Russ Forest FROM: • Tom Braun L DATE: February 6, 1997 RE: Phase II of GRFA Analysis Attached you will find the Phase II GRFA Analysis which provides further analysis of the three potential alternatives to the current GRFA system. These three alternatives, as selected by the Town Council, include 1) the conversion of interior space in homes thlt meet or exceed allowable GRFA, 2) the exclusion of basement space from calculation as GRFA, and 3) the elimination of GRFA. The following information is provided for each of these alternatives: 1) Deserimion of Alternative , A bricf dcscription of the alternative is provided in this sectioil, i 2) Issues to be Addressecl li ~ 'I'his section highlights some of the pertinent comments an(i considerations raised by the I Council, Commisslon and public dtu•ing prcvious discussions rcgarding GRFA. i 3) Prowscd Lan uage 'I'(lis seclion outlincs liow and wlierc each altcrnative could bc incorporated into the Town's ; zoning code 1nc1 prescnts prcliminary language for implcmenting the alternative. This , shouId not be considered "final ordinance languagc". Rathcr, it is intended to provicie the ; Council, Planning Commission and community with a better undecstanding of how each a(ternalive could be impiemented and addilional issues that will need to be resolved duc•icig the implementation phase of this process. 4) Issues to Consicier Outstanding issues and implications relative to each alternative are highlighted in tttis section. As we have discussed, the purpose of this phase in the GRFA Analysis is to further understand the issues and implications relative to each potential alternative. It is important to understand that it is not the intention of this phase to resolve all potential issues related to each alternative. Rather, this report identifies outstanding issues that would need to be addressed during the third and final step in this process. This report will hopefully provide the PEC and Town Council with the information needed to identify a preferred alternative to the existing GRFA system. • Minturn Ironworks Building Phone - 970.827.5797 201 Main Street, 2nd Floor Fax - 970.827.5507 Post Office Box 776 _ Minturn, Colorado 81645 • ' ' ` " - t , Alternntive #1 - Intcrioz- Conversions ~ _ - - ~ Description of Aiternative Modify zoning regulations in order to aliow for additianal GRFA in existing homes that currently exceed allowable GRFA, provided such additions do not add to the bulk and mass of the home. Similar to the 250 Ordinance, this alternative would only apply to existing homes. There would be no change to the review process (i.e. GRFA system) for new construction. This approach is intended to allow flexibility to owners of existing homes by allowing GRFA to be created within . ' the interior space of a home (i.e. loft ldditions, conversion of crawl space, etc). Issues to be Addresseci ' • Alternative must provide assui•ances that modifications to homes do not increase building bulk and mass. Proposed Language This alternative would be implemented with the ldditioh of a new chapter in the zoning code similar in the manner in which the 250 (Jrdinance has been structured. This chapter would have the following major sections: 1) Purpose The pu?pose of this chaptec is to providc flexibility ancl latitucle in the use of interior splces wit}iin existing single-family and two-famuly struclures that meet or cxceed allowable GRrA by allowing for the convcrsion of intcrior spaces to GRFA provided certain ~ condilions and standards are met. 2) Applicability • Any existing single-family residcncc or any cxisting dwelling Luiit in a structure containing no more than two dwcllislg utiits sliall be eligible to add additional GRFA in excess of existirig or allowable GRFA pravidcci that the additional GRFA complies with the standards outlined in paragcaph 3 below. • Multi-family units are not eligible for additional GRFA permiGted by the provisions of this chapter. 3) Standards • Proposals for the utilization of additional GRFA under this provision shall not add to or inerease the building bulk and mass of the existing structure. Examples of exterior modificAtions which add to or increase building bulk and mass include, but , are not limited to any expansion of the existing exterior form of the structure, re- grading around a structure in a manner wlzich exposes additional exterior walls; the expansion of existing roofs and the addition of roof dormers. Examples of exterior i modifications which are not considered to add to or increase building bulk and mass ; ~ include, but are not limited to the addition of windows, skylights and window- ~ wells. ' • Proposals for the utilization of additional GRFA under this provision shall comply with all Town of Vail zoning standards and applicable development standards. • If the proposal involves the conversion of a garage or enclosed parking space to GRFA, such conversion shall not reduce the total number of enclosed on-site parking spaces. - - - _ . ~ _ . , ,t,: ~~~,r! . : Phase IUGRFA Analysis t • 4) Pl'OCCSS • Application madc to Departmcnt of Cotnmunity Dcvclopment to include applicable 1'ormti, fces, and cxisling flI1CI (7COpOSC({ fi00f pI£it1C. DCSIgiI I'CVIeW ZppIICat10I1 SI1c1II be requircd for all propos<tis involving modifications to exterior of buildings. • Comiliuiai[y DepaCtIT1CIlL St1ff S}11II CeVICW 1j)[)ItC1t10t1 FOI' COIIIpl1c1CiCC WICh fI71S chapler a?id al) applicaUlc zo?iing and devclopmerIt rcview regulations. ~ • Pi-oposals deemcd by tlle Commuraity Depai-tment staff to be in compliance wikh this chaptcr and all applicable zoning and developmeiit revicw rcgulations shall be approved. Proposals deemed to nol comply with this chapter and all applicable ' zoning and devclopment review regulations shall be denied. • Upon receiving approvals pursuant to this chapter, applicants shall proceed with securing building permit prior to initiating constniction of project. Issues to Considcr The "mechanics" of implementing the iiiterior co?lversion altel-native are fairly straight forward. Outstaildiilg issucs pertain primarily to when this option could be utilized by a homeowner. For example, thc langulge outlined above states that the purpose of this altcrnative is to "provide flexibilily and latitude in the use of interior spaces within exitinc sing(e-family and two-family sfructures". TIIIS bCgS f11C C]UCSll011 Of Wllefl 1S 1 IlOI17C "existing". The following summarizes implications rclative to tilc applicabilily of ttiis altcrnativc: • A1low intcrior caivci:sions for all liomcs The potential concern with allowing intcrior conversions ror all homes is lhat new homes ~ will comply witli GRFA but will bc dctiigncd to allow for thc convcrsion of spacc in the ' ~ fulure. Por exaillple, it would bc rclativcly casy to design over-sized void spaces in ! I)ilSCillCil[ lCVCIS and to dcsign addilional or lacgcr vaulted spaces on upper leveis, both of ~ WI11CI1 COLIlCI l(1CI1 I)C COI1VCCfC(I CO fI001' ilfCa II1 lt1C CUIUCC lf tlllti a1LCi'I11hVC 1S available to alt ~ homcs. Thc cnd result of this sccnario caulcl bc new homcs that i1Ce IaCgCt' th1i1 tIiCy WOUId otherwise have becn if ititcrior coiivei:sio?is wcrc not pecmilted. • Re uire new construction (homes comnleted aftec adoption of this ordinance to wait a I certain time period ncioc to utilizing ordinance If there is concern witti the scenario outlined above, an alternative would be to require a waiting pcriod (i.e. the five ycars rcquircd for the 250 ordinance) before ncw homes couid apply for iiiterior conversions. HilVlllb to wait a period of tilne could be a disicicentive for people who would otherwise design a hotne to accom?ziodate futut•e interior conversions. However, tliis scenario cloes raise a question - if an interior conversion (and the potential impact of larger homes designed speci#"ically to utilize this provision) is deemed to be acceptable after a five-year waiting period, why is it not acceptable after a one-year waiting period, or a one-month waiting period? • Limit interior conversions to homes in existence at the time ordinance is adopted This is the cleanest way to implement the alternative. Limiting interior conversions to homes in existence at the time the ordinance is adopted eliminates any potential coneern with homes being designed for future interior conversions. However, limiting interior conversions to homes in existence at the time ordinance does raise an equity question - is it fair to deny an owner who builds in the future che same opportunity available to other ~ homeowners? Phase IUGRFA Analysis - - - ,~j c Altei•nativc #2 - Basement Space ~ Description of Alternltive This alternative would amend the definition of GRFA to exclude basement space frotn calculation as GRFA. Issues to be Addressed . • Aevelop a clearly stated definition of basement space, ensure that grades cannot be ~ artificially modified to 111ow for space to be inteipreted as basement. ' Pro oseci Lan ua e I~ ~ The definition of GRFA includes paragraph 18.04.130 A. which excludes certa'sr? areas fram calculation as GRFA in buildiilgs containing two or fewer units. In order to implement this ' alCernative, this paragraph would be modified with the addition of the following: 5. The floor area of any level of a structurc that is located a minimum of six (6) feet below natural grade (or existing grlde prior to construction) at all points around the structure. Whilc this language is probably the clclnest, most straight foi•ward way to exclude basement spacc, is only excludes space that is 100% bclow gcadc. This alternative would not exclucie ~ basement space for walkout levels. An alternative for addressing walkout levels is the following: 5. The floor area of any level of a structtue that is located a minimum of six (6) feet below natui•al gradc (or exisling gradc prior to construction) at ail points around the structure. For any level wliich is partly above and pactly below grlde, a calculation of the portion of the subjccl level which is below grade shall be made in order to establish the percentage of the level wliich sliall be excluded from calculation as GRrA. This pei•centage shall bc made by determining the total percentage of lineal extcrior wall of the subject level which is located a minimum of six (6) feet below natural grade (or existing grade prior to construction) which shall then bc mulciplied by the total floor area of the subject level, and the resulting total . shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA. Issues to Consider ' • Excluding basement space from calculation as GRFA will create the opportunity for new , "above grade" GRFA for new construction and for homes with basement space that was i previously calculated as GRFA. ~ • One of the goals of this process is to simplify the GRFA system. The second alternative which addresses walkout levels would add to the complexity of the existing system. ~ Should the exclusion of basement space include walkout levels or be limited to basement ' space that is 100% below grade? . • Phase IUGRFA Analysis . , s CALCULATION Or BASI:MENT SPACE • 4D ~ .o ~ 6' ~ . r • Building Cross-section whcre bascment qevlcllltis G' below rade Stab on ~ gradc Point where basement ~ level is 6' below grade , 13ascmcnt Lcvcl 25, 1,250 sq. ft. 50' Basement Level Floor Ptan f CALCULATION 150' - LINEAR EXTERTOR WALL. AT BASEMENT LEVEL • 50' - PORTION OF EXTERIOR WALL 6OR MORE BELOW GRADE 33%- PERCENTAGE OF BASEMENT LEVEL 6' OR MORE BELOW (50'/150') 1,250 (SQ. FT. BASEMENT LEVEL) X.33 = 412 SQUARE FEET EXCLUDED . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ ~ i Alternativc #3 - E(imiiiatc GRI+A • Desct•i~.~tion of Alternative This alternative would eliminate GRTA as a taot for controlling the bulk and mass of single-family, duplex and primary/secondary buildings: In order to prevent the development of large, non- descript boxes, this alternative would also include more restrictive site coverage standards for larger loks and itew design guidelines that specifically address building bulk and mass. Existing GRFA regulations would remain in place for structures that contain more than two dwelling units. , Issues to be Addressed Based on input frozn the community, the PEC and the Town Council, the major issues to address relative to the potential implementation of this alternative are: • Assurances/controls must be established to prevent the design and construction of large, non-descript box-like structures. • The DRB must be capable of interpreting and implementing any proposed modifications to the design guidelines. • Any measures proposed to prevent large, non-descript box-like structures must not stifle dcsign creativity. ~ Pronos_ ed I~anguape This attcrnative would involve four major elements: ' 1) Tnitiate a"global search" of the zoning codc to identify a11 referenees to GRFA pertaining to singlc-fiimily, duplcx and primarylsecondary development. Examples of these references includc: ~ • the clefinition of GRrA for buildings contai?iing two ar fewer units, and • tlie refei•cnce to GRPA in ihc density scction of single family, duplex and primarylsecottditry zone dist?•icts. 2) New parking requirements for single-family, duplex and primary/secondary units: • A minimtun of thrce (3) off street parking spaces shall be provided foc each single family unit or far each (lwelling unit within a duplex or primary/secondary structurc. Parking requirements for Type II, III and IV EHU's shall be as per the EHU Ordinance. 3) New site coverage regtilations to limit the site coverage (and size) of homes on large lots: Site coverage shall not exceed the total of: ~ 1) 20% of the total site area for lots 25,000 square feet or less, plus 2) 10% of the total site area for any portion of a lot in excess of 25,000 square ' feet. , With the exception of lots that exceed 30% slope, site coverage of 20% is currently permitted on all lots regardless of size. The proposal below would introduce a graduated scale similar to the existing GRFA formula whereby allowable site coverage would decrease relative to the size of the lot. Refer to the accompanying chart for an analysis of how this new regulation varies from existing site coverage standards. y. . 4) New design guidelines for single-family, duplex and primary/secondary buildings which specifically address bulk and mass: , ` • . . . . _ . s t , . . F%2 ~ ,.y . . , . , . _ i , . •~..~t. r. r '.I y ' ' . 'Phase IUGRFA Analysis t - ~ T3uiidin I-Ieight. Buik and Mass ~ The sizc and scale of single flmily, duplex and primary/secondary homes play an important role in defining the cilaracter of neighborhoods and the overalf visual image of a community. F3uilcling hcight and sitc coverage regula[ions outlined in the Vail Zoning Code establish quantitativc stanclards which limit the overall sizc, or bulk 1nd mass of buildings. Notwithstanding these quantitative standards, site specific features such 1s vegetation and topography and architectural solutions significantly influence the pei•ceived bulk and mass of a building. An tinderlying goal for the design of singie family, duplex and primary/secondary homes in Vail is to ensure that buildings convey a human scale and are sensitive to their site. Large, rnonumental bLiildings which in the determination of the DRB dotninate lheir site aild express excessive bulk and mass are not permitted. The following guidelines are designed to accomplish these goals by e5tablishiiig parameters to ensure appropriate building bulk and mass. These guidelines apply to all single family, duplex and primary/secondary homes: Ruildin Height Buildings should convey a predominantly one or two-story building mass. Three-story massing may be approvcd by the DRB, hawever, large expanses of continuous three-story building inass is not pcrmittcd. Generally, the footprint of a third floor should not exceed SO% Or IIIC CIOOC i1fCa lIl1R1CCIl1LCly UCIOW ilI1CI I101'17.0[1C1l and/oi• vertical building off-sets shoiild be providcd to redLice the Pcrceived bulk 1nd mass of the building. ~ 13uildin rorrn Tn licu of largc, IllO11U111CIllitl I)UIICIIilg 1111SS, buildings should bc designcd as eithcr a COIIIpOSlLl011 Of SI11ilIIC1', 1111CgCilICCI j)UIIClIiIg C01711S OC 111 il f0l'ITl WI11Cj1 COCISISLS Of OIIC primary building mass in conjunction with onc or more sccondaiy building forms. Ridgelincs Changcs in the hcight and oricntation of roof lines add varicty and intcrest to buildings tvhich can rcducc building bulk and mass. Thc cxtciit of variations in the hcight and orientalion of ridgcline clevations is clepcndenl upotl the characteristics of a site and the . CICS1g11 Of CIIC bL11ICI111~,T. GGIICI'ally, the maximuiu ]ength of any continuous ridgeline should not exceed 50-70' withotit a change in the orientation of the i•idgeline or a variation of at least 34' fect in the elevation of the ridgeline. Sloping Lots Buildings on sloping lots should be designed to "step" with natural contours of the site in order to maintain a predominantly one to two-story buiIding mass. Buildin Scale A variety of architectural details can be incorporated into the design of a building to reinforce human-scale and reduce the overall bulk and mass of a building. Use of the following should be considered in the design of homes: • Dormers • Decks and balconies • Roof overhangs • Fenestration ~ Refer to the accompanying sketches for examples of how these design concepts can be more clearly expressed in graphic form. Phase II/GRFA Analysis ` i Tssues to Considcr ~ • In ordcr to not limit architects design creakivity, c}ualitative guidelines are proposed in lieu of quantitative standards. This alternative places a great deal of responsibility in tlre hands of the DRB, is the Bo1rd capable of this task? • Are design guidelines explicit enough and will they provide the DRB with the tools necessary to prevent "large, non-descript boxes"? • Is i[ necessary to reduce allowable site coverage for larger lots or will a reduction to allowable site coverage encourage tailer buildings? • Are three parking spaces per unit adequate or is some other formula (i.e, based on numbec v or bedrooms) necessary? • Ts there a need for design guidelines which address bulk and mass regardless of whether or noC changes are rnade to the GRFA system? ~ i ~ ~ I ~ . I , Phase IUGRFA Analysis . . _ . . . _ . _ . . _ - . 1~ w.`_._. . , . . _ . . t • Town c>fVail (:1tl~A Ai~~~l~~tiiti X'otcntial llesign (;uiciclincs/No (TltFn Altcrnativc I 3uil(ling XIcight I 13uildings should convey a ArcdoTilinan[ly one or two-story Milding mass. Three-story Anassing may be approved by ilc DRB, howcver, large • _ ~ t_'xpanses of con[inuous ttlree- story building mass is not permi[ted. Generally, the lootprint of a third floor shoulc] not exceeci 50% of the floor a~~ L' t ' area iinmediately below and horizontal and/or vertical - j^ r+l ~ t., } W •1~` _ ~ ,qL . huilding off-sets should be ;n-ovided to reduce the :)erceived bulk and mass of the fPt~'`'ffti~il w -_''r4u•~~~~ i~uilding. 1 i • 7Yircc ,1•lnric,ti• arc approprinte bccnuse floor area of tltird . I! • levcrl clnes iinl exr.eed 50% nf level bclotiv. ' . _ ~ - ~ J - J'~ - ~ _'77 [SJ1:777_ ?rT^ _ _ L _ ~ i ~ i • . _ i _.1 "1 1 • _ _ I _T _ ; . . " J Variation in ridge line elevations, building off.sets, use of dorriiers and decks reduce bulk and mccss, building does not "read" as threc storie.v. • . . , - , . , t:a. . . ~ . ~ i 'I'own of Vail GRFA Analysis ~ 1'otciitial Dcsigii (7uidclhies/No GRFA Altcrilativc f57 'SEE'-;~.~„I " Building Form In lieu of large, ~ monumental building f ° • - . - • ~ cnass, buildings should be designed as either a ~ , • - _ - composition of smaller, integrated building forms or in a form which • ~ ' ~ - consists of one primuy building rnass and one or more secondary building forms. - Coinposition of bccilding forrn.r reduces biri/dijig bulk and !)tC1S.S. ~ Secoridcuy foint Pri»nary fnr1n ~ .•r~ • - Q ;5::~ • : _ - ; i 1 - ' • i ~,'j _ ~ •~,y , . ~~]I II!{III4 j~ ~ ~ . ~ . ;lj • 4~•~,~=~iti•^~'ti. ~'~,T ~r. ~ . , • K~. ~ . ,%~1'?~•:!~:~ , ^ ' ~ • ~.~~~y"° ~ ' fi~ Primary form ~,u ~C[~'l~?u~ec~•~ Secondary fortn . „ Examples of primary and secondary bciilding forms. • These sketches are from design guidelines for projects outside of the Town oF Vail, it is not suggested that these exact sketches be used for GRFA related guidelines. Rather, this example illustrates how sketches could be used to reinforce the design guidelines proposed for the "no grfa" alternative. c "I'own of Vail GI2FA Aiialysis I'otciitial X)csign Guidclincs/No GRrA Altcrnativc ~ Ridgclines Changcs in thc heigtit aild , oricntation of roof lines add ' ~'7S0 --io' variety and intei~est to buildings which can reciucc building Uulk anct mass. TIie extent of variations in the height and orientation of ridgeline eSevations is depende»t upon the charaeteristics of a site ~ and the design of the building. ~Generally, the maximum length of ~ any continuous ridgeline should not exceed 50-70' withoLit a Ridgelines grcater tlian 50'-70'should be off- change in ttle orientltion of the set (it least 3'-4'. ~ I'1CIgCIl17C OC 1 V1i'11t1Oi1 Of 1t IC1Sl i 3-4' feet in thc elevation of the ridgclinc. Vnritilions iri roof rldgclitics ~ provicle variety and breaks-up building niass crcectcd by "T contirtuou,s ridgclirtc. t- . t ,~rli ~ ~ Change in ridge line elevation and orientation creates nvo distinct building forni.s arid breaks uP buildirig mass. ese sketches are from design guidelines for projects outside of the Town of Vail, it is not suggested that these exact Wches be used for GRFA related guidelines. Rather, this example iliustrates how sketches could be used to reinforce the - ; design guidelines proposed for the "no grfa" alternative. • ~ . . . . . , f • 'l'otivn of Vail GRFA Aiialysis • Pocential Dcsign GuidclincslNo GRrA Altcrnativc Sloping Lots Buildings o?i slopi«g lots sliould be dcsigned to "step" , with natural contours of the site in order to maintain a predominan[ly one to two- story building mass. ~ . ~ . ~ ~ . ~ r ~ :r•'' . ~ Buildi,:g mass should bc "bcrtc/tcd" itt1o lyic Jtillsidc. t / / u M / w ~ ~ O . . "k ` r ~ ~ • ~i ~ ,4 " , . Building steps with the nntural contours of the site to maintain one-two story massing. . , . . , , . , These sketches are from design guidelines for pro}ects outside of the Town of Vail, it is not suggested that these exact ketches be used for GRFA related guidelines. Ratller, this example illustrates how sketches could be used to reinforce,the - . _ . . . . _ . . design guidelines proposed for the "no grfa" alternative__. . t • 'I'own of Vail G12FA Analysis 1'0lcn6,11 I)csign Gtiidctijies/Nc, GXZifA Altci-n.iiivc 13tli1cling Scalc A variely of architcclural dclails can be ~ incorporaled into t}lc desigil oC a builciing to reinfoi-ce human-scale ancl reduce the y~ ovcrall bulk and mass of a building. Use of the following should be considered in the - . design of homes: u ~ . . ~ •Dor?ners •Dccks and balconics •lZoof overliangs ~o', , , . r.~ •Tcncstration . r ' -r-- h _ + - - - f' / ` . • 4 . t ~ • ~ ~ MR In m ~ ~ - - - - ' 13uildin g offsets, rooflriie and doriirer all conti•ibute to redrice the mas,s of ~ this building. ~ - ~ , ~ . Bay window and balcony reinfoi-ce hiunan-scale. , Thesc sketchcs arc froiTi design guidelines for projects outside of the Town of Vail, it is not suggested that these exact ' sketches be used far GRFA related guidelines. Rather, this exampie illustrates how skctches could be used to reinforce the ` design guidelines proposed for the "no grfa" alternative. t , v.1zrA rinaiysLSibue t;overage C;omparison ~ i I - Allowable Coverage Allowable Covera;e ; % coverage w/ ;Difference between existing Lot Size at 20% (sq. ft.) w/proposed amend. ; proposed amend. ; proposed regs (sq. ft.) 9,000 1,800 1,8001 20.00%1 p 10,000 2,000 2,000 i 20.00%1 p 11,000 . 2,200 2,200; 20.009o j o 12,000 2,400 2,4001 20.OO%j p • . 13,000 2,600 2,6001 20.00%1 0 14,000 2,800 2,8001 20.00°l0 1 0 15,000 3,O00 3,000; 20.00%1 0 ' 16,000 3,200 3,200; 20.00~7'0 1 0 17,000 3,400 3,400; 20.0090+ p I 18,000 3,600 3>600; 20.0090 1 p ' - 19,000 3,800 3,800i 20.00%1 0 ; 20,000 4,000 4;d00) 20_00%1 p ' ' - 21,000 4,200 4,2001 20.00%1 p , ' 22,000 4,400 4,400~ 20.005'o i p , ' 23,000 4,600 4,6001 20_009o1 . p 24,000 4,800 4,8001 20.00901 p ' 25,000 5>000 5,0001 20.00%; p ~ 26,000 5,200 5,1001 19_62%j -100 27,040 5,400 5,200; 19.2690 ~ -200 28,000 5,600 5,300; 18.9390' -300 - 29,000 5,800 5,4001 18.62%1 -400 -30,000 - 6,000 5,5001 18.339o1 -Spp . 31,000 6,200 5,6001 18.06°l0; -600 ' 32,000 6,400 5,7001 17.8 ] %a -700 33,000 6,600 5,8001 17.58%1 -800 34,000 - 6,800 5,900j 1735%1 -900 35,000 . 7,000 6,000 17.1490 1 -1,000 36,000 7,200 6,1001 16.94%' -1,100 ; 37,000 7,400 6,2001 16.7690; -1,200 - ' 38,000 7,600 6,3001 16.5890; -1,300 i 39,000 7,800 6,400 16.41%1 -1,400 40,000 8,000 6,500 16.25%j -1,500 41,000 ' - ' 8,200 6,6001 16.109oi -1,600 42,000 . • 8,400 6>700 15.95%1 -1,700 ~I < I • ` ~ • . . • Other Issues Relative to GRFA Amendments 1. Amcndments for FHU's and Permanent Residents Only During previous discussions comments were made to allow the provisions of these alternatives in conjLmction with the devclopmenc of EHU's or only for permanent residents of Vail. These are Town Council policy decisions. The information outlined above addresses thc technical aspects of each alternative. Limiting the applicabilily of these provisions to only EHU's and/or permanent residents could be done. This would not, however, further the original intent of this process _ wliich was to:'• Evaluate the effectiveness of GRFA as a means for controlling building size • Address the time required to ldminister the current system • Resolve the lppropriateness issue of the Town regulating interior floor space Limiting the applicability of any GRFA lmendment to either encouragc EHU's or for the benefit of permanent residents only could be incorporated into any of the three alternatives. 2. Vlultcd Spacc Onc recognized short-coming of GRrA is that it regulates floar acea and not buifding volume and • a5 a result GRFA docs not cffcctivcly control builcling buik and mass. Aspcn is thc only community that has bccn idcntified which addresses vaultcd space with floor ac•e1 regulations. Thc Aspen codc csscntially applies a nuiltiplicc to the floor area of vaulted space. For example, floor area with 10' plate heights or Iess count at a ratio of one square foot for each one square foot. ror intcrior arcas with a plate hcight which exceeds 10', lhe ratio increases by .OS feet for each foot over 10' up to a maximum ratio of two square feet for each one square foot (i.e. an interior space with 15' ccilings is calculatccl at a ratio of 1.25 squarc fcct for each one square foot of floor area). • Phase IUGRFA Analysis 13 t , • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 10, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to the development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base to allow for outdoor ski storage, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy Planner: Lauren Waterton 1. DESCRIPT{ON OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting to amend the development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base to allow for outdoor ski storage. While indoor and outdoor ski storage is a permitted use within the Ski Base/Recreation zone district, the development plan must be amended to show the approved location on the plan. The existing development plan indicates that ski storage will be provided within a portion of the existing bus shelter. However, that space is not being utilized as ski storage. Recently, an 800 square foot structure that encloses the skis has been constructed on site, without Town of Vail approval. This application is a request to come into compliance with • the development plan. The ski storage building is located between the bus shelter and the new ski base building, on the east side of the site (see attached plan). The building contains an attendant booth and racks to hold approximately 420 pairs of skis that are stored overnight. The building is constructed of plywood wrapped in vinyl tent fabric, with 5 metal garage doors that are closed at night to secure the building. II. BACKGROUND In 1983, a new zone district, Ski Base/Recreation, was created in order to allow the Golden Peak Ski Base facility to be rezoned from Agricultural and Open Space to Ski Base/Recreation. As a part of the rezoning process, a development plan for the site was required. In late 1983, the Town Council approved a development plan for the Golden Peak ski base. The plan has been amended several times over the years. The most recent amendment occurred on December 19, 1995, when the Town Council approved an amendment to the development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base. That amendment included a new base facility (currently under construction), new chair lifts, a new bus lane and bus shelter, new drop-off areas and other site improvements. In conjunction with the development plan approval, the Town Council approved Ordinance 24, Series of 1995, that updated the language of the Ski Base/Recreation zone district. The Golden Peak ski base is the only property within the Town of Vail with this zoning designation. • 1 . ~ III. ZONING ANALYSIS • Staff believes that this amendment does not affect any of the zoning standards for the Ski Base/Recreation zone district. IV. REVIEW CRITERIA ~ The development plan for the Ski Base Recreation zone district shall meet each of the following standards or demonstrate that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical i solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved: Development Plan Standards/Criteria for Evaluation i 1. The developer will provide a buffer zone in areas where the Ski Base/Recreation district boundary is adjacent to a residential use district boundary. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures and ~ must be landscaped, screened to protect it by natural features so that adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. This may require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the proposed use from ' the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, adequate light, air, air pollution, signage and other comparable potentially incompatible factors; Staff believes that the addition of the ski storage will not impact the buffer zone between this site and the neighborhood. This use does not remove any • landscaping or decrease the buffer area. The ski storage is located between the bus stop and the main building and wiN not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. 2. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, taking into consideration safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if they can be used by police and fire department vehicles for emergency purposes. Bicycle traffic shall be considered and provided when the site is to be used for residential purposes; Staff believes that the addition of ski storage to this site will adversely impact the ~ circulation system. The addition of the ski storage buildings adds congestion in the plaza area, immediately adjacent to the bus lane. The added congestion may jeopordize the safety of the pedestrians waiting in this area. On busy days, when there are numerous people waiting to put skis in storage, and people waiting for I the bus, it it likely that people will not notice buses in the bus lane. Staff acknowledges that allowing people to store their skis overnight may reduce the dwell time of the bus at the stop and improve the efficiency for the bus system. However, keeping this area as free from congestion as possible will reduce the chance of a bus/pedestrian mishap. Staff believes that the ski storage building will negatively impact this criteria. 2 • ~ • 3. Functional open space in terms of: optimum preservation of natural features (including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience, and function; The amendment does not affect the open space of this site. Staff befieves this criteria is not applicable. 4. Variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and open space; This criteria is not applicable to this request to amend the development plan. 5. Privacy in terms of the needs of: individuals, families and neighbors; Staff does not believe that the proposed amendment wi11 affect this criteria. 6. Pedestrian traffic in terms of: safety, separation, convenience, access to points of destination, and attractiveness; Staff is concerned that the proposed ski storage interferes with the internal pedestrian circulation on-site. On the existing development plan, the area around the bus stop was identified as a piaza, accommodating pedestrian movement in this area. This plaza connects the Children's Center, main building, ski lifts and bus stop. This can be a very congested area and the ski storage building occupies a large area of the plaza. Furthermore, the northeast corner of the buitding significantly constricts pedestrian flow from the mountain to the bus stop. • It forces people into a narrow area between the ski starage building and the main building. This area is further congested by numerous unauthorized freestanding signs and portable ski racks. ' Staif does not befieve that this is an efficient use of this space. it adds to the congestion of the area and does not promote convenient access to and from the , chair lifts. Staff acknowledges that the use of ski storage is a benefit to the guest and is an appropriate use within the ski base. However, staff's concerns relate to the location, size and design of the proposed ski storage building. Staff believes ihat the ski storage should be redesigned and/or relocated to reduce congestion in this area. 7. Building type in terms of: appropriateness to density, site relationship, and bulk; Staff believes that this building is not appropriately sized for the proposed location. This building does not relate well to the surrounding structures. It is not architecturally compatible with the existing structures, nor do the building materia{s meet the Town of Vail's design guide{ines. Because this buifding is located between two architecturally compatible buildings (the main building and the bus shelter) and is in a very visibie location, staff believes this structures needs to be architecturally compatible with the other structures on-site. Staff believes that this is not the proper location for a building this size. Clearly, this building was an afterthought and is not well integrated into the site. The • 3 . ~ building interferes with the circulation between the various uses on-site and staff believes that the size of the buiiding prevents a visual connection with the • mountain when arriving by bus. 8. l.andscaping of the total site in terms of: purposes, types, maintenance, suitability, and effect on the neighborhood. This amendment wi(I not affect any existing or proposed landscaping. The ski storage building is located on an existing plaza and staff believes that this proposed use does not affect this criteria. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Communiry Development Department staff recommends denial of the applicanYs request to allow for an amendment to the devefopment plan for the Goiden Peak Ski Base subject to the following finding: The proposed major amendment has not met the criteria for evaluation of a development plan in the Ski Base/Recreation zone district. Specifically, the amendment has not met criteria 2, 6 and 7. Should the PEC, however, choose to approve this request, staff believes the following conditions are appropriate: 1. That the building be reduced in size. Specifically, that the length of the building • be reduced by 20 feet on the north side, to allow for a more open circulation system. If the applicant is unwilling to reduce the size of the building, staff recommends that the building be moved to a location that does not impede or constrict pedestrian flow. 2. That the building be redesigned and be architecturally integral (including materials) to the existing bus shelter. Additionally, that metal garage doors not be permitted on this building. 3. That the signs on the ski storage building be removed immediately and the applicant submit an application for any requested sign related to the ski storage use. Additionally, that all existing freestanding signs located on the site be removed immediately. 4. That the attendant booth for the Children's Center parking lot be removed immediately. It is not on the approved development plan and has not be approved by the Town of Vail. FAeveryone\pe6rnemos~gpeak.310 4 . REp~v C~~~ • ';;mt,`F vwL s+p'"rts ` ~ L~ 51SE PIAK v,t ?tsocuTO w+..?"~r ~ ~ oc.afi ~ • I - ~J ~ n%s~~ cca+~'~~ I QF~s r~n+ ~ ~ coHa~f rrverae+i I , Im"~` coNC2En ~AY9lT~°t8 1 i ~ • , ~ ~ ~ ~ , . ~ ~ - , `1 , ..y_.Hr-a~-.r-a~--~---w-'' : i \ , ~ ~ ' . ~ ~ ~ . ? / • / . • _ _l,~- f t_...__ • " , • ) ~ 1"-~ ~ \ . 1~.•- . \ w~ wwt ~ s OF t t t ^ I _ . . s : = rr. i I ~ ~ 1I ce, » . ~ - •_'..iL".K. ~ _ . . _ . - • ^r~J . . . " . . .r ,r . ~ x:~ - ~ ' • r , a, $ a f 5 ,q~t'xffir+~r 4 f yr 1 . "es 3'~a~`y ~ _ ~t~t.~ 3 t e.+~ ~ d ~i- ~~',ti..1 • & p6•~r.,~. Jr . r•'~M:'~l~'` i4 ~c . T.S„~ y'~ ~ ~ • ~l~- --~~~•~q~l~W.vh ` . ' . ~M~~~-~1~~~.~.~"~.~? f1 ~i I ~•,,.a~^+M.~'k. Y _ i r,_..,.. ~"'^1 i ~n tn ~i~u~i 1,~., ; -1 ~ . ..,:v~>-, Itl,_' w, t~ . "r r ~ XN .i`~ r . M,~. w' . ~ . y ~~r' I ..~4i''N ? 1~- ~ - ~4'~ak,:. ~ ~i wr _ 4.~ ~L . _t~i ~ ~ ~ ~ I ` ~ I ` 1 ~ 1`: +C¦ ' - r °i;~~~=- ~ - ~ . ; _ ' ~e+, t~ ,'t;~~ - ~ ~ . t~ ~ ~ ,.YCJ ~ ~ i'\~: , , . ^~q~, ! . ~ ` ~ _ 4~~~ ' 1 c - - _ . . , , ~ _ . ~ - ~ _ , _ i:~' _ . - ~ " . F_{Y C~+.i. ' ' . . . . _ f ~%'""e~ . , s"' F,..,.y".,s~~„,.' ..~~s~ z~.~ : 1~'':fi,.•C^ trR.;`'?^?.~~ ~ i ra;;~an»ynt:~tiu~aa~l~~lfiClR , s } 4 $"3k~ti+~~xvruu.a^~ra~~~wa~+~ra'+ar~eiawx ;,r r , i ~rs~+ya ri"`'1'S'~'.~i zi~ ~ ,~~y~l,,-~ ~``t: f • . •r. ~ r ;.`~.,,sYa .n*r~,,yri~yt,~! i~~~~~~" J T t Ti :;!'`•YS l~~TliB~~i . r;.~'J`'~; i i;~:~ill,fisl".~' : , ~'k3 ~~,1~ ~ 9fi3'fX'?:F'_~i,'_~~S1~1i$S~ ' ' ' . . ~ , .~m . t , ~ _ = ~ - ~ n _.9?'s~F.° . ry~ t ~,ly : u- - ~I I ~ + : . « ' ^ H,!'~~' ' ~ _ ~ •W Ny QJ ~ MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 10, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for variances from Section 18.58.320, Sateliite Dish Antennas, D 3 and Section 18.54.050, Design Guidelines, C 7, to allow two rooftop antennas and one satellite dish on the false stairwell tower, located at 2099 N. Frontage Road WestNail Commons. Applicant: KTUN Radio Planner: Tammie Williamson t. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTS The applicant, KTUN - Radio formerly K-Lite Radio, are moving their offices from the Vail Run Building to the Vail Commons site. The proposal is to place one satellite dish and two antennas 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 applicant, 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 applicant is requesting the following two variances from Sections 18.58.320 D 3, and 18.54.050 C 7, of the code: 1. To aliow 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 allowed for any satellite dish antenna, when measured fram the top of the satellite dish antenna down to existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, shafl not exceed fifteen feet;" 2. 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 ° . 1 ~ The current equipment specifications are as follows: ~ • A SCALA PR-950 Paraflector (classified as a satellite dish by the Town of Vail Zoning Code, 18.58.320 (b) because of its size) wouid be instailed as high as possible on the false stairwell tower near the North Frontage Raad, at the edge of the parking fot. 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. The applicant has stated that locations farther back on the lot (from the North Frontage Road) are shielded by a ridge east of Down Junction that blocks the transmission path; • A SCALA HDCA - 5 Series Yagi antenna would be installed at the same location. This antenna would be used to receive the station's broadcasts for monitoring at the studio. The dimensions are 62" x 56". This antenna ensures the station has a clear signal, to make broadcasts optimal; and • A SCALA CA7 - 460 Yagi antenna would be installed 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 ANS1 standards, which specifically exernpt this type of system from the applicable environmental regulations because of the extremely low power involved. • H. BACKGROUND • In 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 located in the Vail Run Building. This request was in response to K-Lite's relocation from Eagle, to the Vail Run Buifding. Town of Vail ordinances limit the size of satellite dishes to 9 feet for single family and business uses, and 12 feet for dishes serving multi-family dwellings. The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved the variance request at their December 14, 1987 meeting. • {n February of 1989, K-Lite, requested a variance to allow for the instaflation 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 1ot as delineated on the official Town of Vail Zoning Map." The PEC approved the variance request at their February 13, 1989 meeting. 2 • ~ • • 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 I a 13 foot diameter receivin antenna for its CBS Network affiliation Emer 9 9encY Action Notification System and its music programming network. The purpose of the additional antenna was to expand their broadcast services and specialized programming. This 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 possible to receive both signals with the existing 13 foot antenna. The PEC approved the variance request at their October 23, 1989 meeting. • In February of 1997, KTUN Radio, submitted a request for five variances to allow for the installation of two satellite dish antennas to be placed adjacent to Unit F6 within the Vail Commons development. The iwo dishes were 10 feet and 13 feet in diameter. This equipment is to be depressed 30 inches +nto finished grade and placed 20 feet apart. The landscape screening consists of three Colorado Spruce north of the dishes and four aspens south of the dishes. AdditionaNy, the applicant proposed a screen fence composed of stucco masonry columns and six foot vertical boards, similar to the materials of the commercial buildings on-site. The northern-most dish encroaches approximately five feet into the 20-foot setback required by the Commercial Core 3(CC3) Zone District. At this meeting, the PEC approved the request for two satellite dishes, with two conditions, and tabled the request to locate the remaining satellite dish and two antennas at a height greater than fifteen feet on the false stairwell tower closest to the North Frontage Road. ! ` The conditions were as follows: I' 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; and ; 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; and 3. That the DRB review the revised landscaping and fencing plan. !!I. 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 request to locate one satellite dish and two antennas on the false stairweA 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 potential uses and structures in the vicinity. ~ 3 . `MMr The proposed location for the one satellite dish and two antennas is on the . false stairwell tower. The fafss stairwefl is intended to function as an architectural feature on this site. The false stairwell tower is also the highest peak within this devefopment which will great{y enhance its visibility. Staff believes that additionaf effoRs shoufd be made to preserve the function and aesthetic character of this tower. More specificaily, staff believes there are more creative ways in which to obscure the antennas from view, while achieving the required line-ofi-sight transmission to Dowd Junction. The antennas could be placed within the stairwell tower in order , to provide an appropriate screen. Solar Vail received approval from the PEC on May 20, 1992 to add four satellite dishes to their building. The proposal included the following: That the applicant add of two false chimneys on each side of the building; That the false chimney chases be painted to match existing colors of the building. Fiberglass insets were installed within the chases. 2. The degree to which refief from the strict and literat 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. While this type equipment appears to be necessary to operate a radio or television broadcasting studio, the applicant has not effectively demonstrated effective mitigation to the site views that will be impacted by • the proposed locations of the antennas. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facitities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The staff can find no significant effect on any of the above considerations as it relates to the three antennas. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission 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 ciassified 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 {iteraf interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practicai difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives ofi this title. • 4 .r/ . • b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicabfe 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 wouid 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 deniai of the request to locate three antennas on the false stairwell tower adjacent to the North Frontage Road. The staff believes that the applicant has not demonstrated a physical hardship that requires this location and that additional mitigation should be taken to reduce the view disturbance that will result if the three antenna are located on the false stairwell tower. The recommendation of denial is subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance wifl be detrimental to the public hea(th, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 2. That the granting of a variance wili constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. . • 5 • RADI O ANTEhNA P0S51 ~-3LE LOGAT10N5 ~ , ~ A\_T.O_PARAPET WALL "IF -7GqO'-O" ~ DAYGARE FLOOR ~f q 86'-D" PARKIN6 DEGK q 84'-O" ~ • ~ MEZZ. FLOOR F7~1 ' STORE FLOOR 7qb 2'-O" II SOUTH-NEST TONER ELEVATION . , VICTOR MARK DONALDSON ARCHITECTS , P.C. ARCHItECTURE . PLANNING KTUN RADIO STATION ANTENNA LOCATIONS M,. ;:;;0048 East B*av*r Crook Bivd. OESIOh ATE REVISION DATE DESIGNED BY CHECta:ED 6 8~nchmar{c Picza, Sutt• 207 P.O. Box 5300. Avon. CO 81620 1-02-97 1-20^97 J.M. A.B. 970/848-5200 FAX/949-5205 ' ~ *i? • • • ' SCALA PRrV5o PARAFLECTOR° ANTENNA PROFESSIONAL ANTENNA S`fSTEMS FOR 18 dBd altl BR0;4DCAST AND COMMUNICATIONS g 940-960 MHz (broadband) The Scala Paraflector is a high-gain half-parabolic antenna used in professionai 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 Paraflector offers gain comparable to a parabolic grid or dish yet the lower weight and surface area result in less tower loading ~ and less expensive instailation costs. The Paraf(ector is fabricated from seamless drawn aluminum pipe and tubing and heavy aluminum castings, gold anodized for corrosion protection, plus siainless steei hardware and fastening's. The result is a iighiweight but extremely rugged antenna that will provide many years of service in the most demanding environments. The foam-fiUed broadband feed assembty requires no pressurization and it can be easily replaced if necessary. 4 The PR-950 features: • High gain and high front-to-back ratio for point-to-point relay system applications, 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. Specifications: a I! • Frequency range 940-960 MHz (broadbartd) ' Gain 18 dBd 60 , impedance 50 ohms ' ~ VSWR < 1.2:1 270• - - 90• ~ Polarization Horizontal or vertical ! Front-to-back raUo >25 dB Maximum input power 100 watts s•° '70. ' H-plane beamwidth 12 degrees (half-power) k E-plane beamwidth 24 degrees (half-power) ry teO- °o Terminabon N female Weight 381b (17.2 kg) H-plane HorizoMal pattem - V-polarizatlon Dimensions 68 x 36 x 18 inches (1727 x 914 x 457 mm) Venical pattem-H-poiarization Equivaient flat plate area 4.4 W (.41 mzj iivina surviVai raUng 100 mph (160 kph) - Shipping dimensions 40 x 36 x 7 inches (1016 x 914 x 178 mm) Shipping weight 45 Ib (20.4 kg) • ;x., .r:.. Mounting Mounting kits avaiJabla for masts of 2.375 to JOO• 4.5 inches (60 to 114 mm) OD. ~ Order Information: 270. - 90• Modei Stock Code PR-950 94054-001 Replacement feed assembly (940-960 MNz) 94351-002 Note: Specify a mounting kit when ordering (sea listing on reverse). x" d I °o. ~ h ~eo• SCALA ELECTRONIC C4RPCIRATION E-plane HorizoW pattem - N-paarizanon Post Office Box 4580 Phone: (503) 779-6500 Verbcalpattem-V-pofarization Medford, OR 97501 (USA) Fax: (503) 779-3991 PARAFLECTOR is a registered crademarkot Seala Electronic Corporatbn• Scala Electronic Corporation is a member of the Kathrein Group 100S6-C - ~ ' . S GA LA CORPORAT ON ' ti~ HDCA sER~ES ~ ~ POST OFFlCE BOX d560 ~l ~ MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 H F-TV/ F M YAG I S • (503) 779-6500 ~ (S 1 N G L E C H A N N E L) ~ APPLICATIONS: • VHF-TV RECEPTION • FM RECEPTION • CAN SYSTEMS ~ ~ TRANSLATOR SYSTEMS ~ ~ . . HDCA-5 FIVE-ELEMENT YAG1 ~ HDCA-10 TEN-ELEMENT YAGI ~ 1~tE~us~ 0~5 : 2 X 5~' ELECTRfCAL SPECIFICATIONS • Frequency Range: Any speclffed VHF-TV Channe{ (2 through 13) or Any specified FM Channei (88 through 108 MHz) impedance: 75 ohms (50 ohms with optional transformer) Maximum VSWR: 1.5:1 across specified channel Polarization: Horizontal Front-to-Back Ratio: 14 db Input Power Rating: 250 Watts Termination: N, F, or UHF type female . , . ' Nomtnal gain aver 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 ga(n specifications: Scala HDCA yagis give maximum possible gain evenly distrib- 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 sacriflce of crltical signal lnformation. 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 isotroplc (db(). • Five-element yagis for FM and fow-band TV channels are available with rear (cantllever) mounting at extra cost. Five and ten-element hlgh-band yagls are available with extended booms for rear mounttng at slightly higher prices. 6-80 ELECTRONIC - SCALA COR ORATION CA7'460 I~y POST OFFICE BOX 4580 BROADBAND YAGI • MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 (503) 779-6500 APPLICATIONS: ~,k~,• a v ' 'n • COMMUNICATIONS l J S} I 1 . ~~~y " i • TELEM ETRY :l ! y f'. j 1 . ~ ' ~ . - • i j~. ~ ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS ~ Frequency Range: 450-470 MHz (Broadband) I . 406-420 MHz (Broadband) ' Note: Available 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, adjustable) Termination: Type N female (mates with UG-21IU) MECHANICAL SPECIFICATIONS Net Dimensions: 40" X 13.5" X 4" Net Weight: 6 pounds Shipping Weight: 7.5 pounds Mounting: Attaches to 2-318" maximum O.D. circular support ~ Wind Load: . 40 pounds (100 MPH with 114" ice) (Note: Dimensions & weights listed for 450-470 MHz model) 18-80 I~PR q ~ ~ ~'A~: ~ 9AAi1 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 10, 1997 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS A8SEN7: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Susan Connelly Greg Amsden (2:25 p.m.) Mike Mollica Henry Pratt Lauren Waterton Galen Aasiand Dominic Mauriello John Schofield George Ruther Gene Uselton Russ Forrest Diane Golden Tammie Wiliiamson Judy Rodriguez Pubiic Hearina 2:00 p.m. The meeting was cailed to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a minor subdivision to aiiow for two lots to be combined into one, located at 1502 Buffer Creek Road/Tracts A1 & A2, Lions Ridge Subdivision 2nd Filing. • Applicant: Harold & Barbara Brooks, represented by Isom and Associates Planner: Lauren Waterton Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the staff inemo and said that staff was recommending approval with two conditions. Greg Moffet asked for any applicant input. There was none. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were none. ~ John Schofield had no comments. Gene Uselton had no comments. 'Ga(en Aasland had no comments. I Diane Golden asked who owned the parcel to the west of this site. i Lauren Waterton said the parcel was owned by the Town. Henry Pratt asked l.auren if there was any gain in GRFA by combining these two lots. Lauren Waterton said, no. Gene Uselton made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo, • ~ Planning and Environmenta! Commission Minutes March 10, 1997 I * . I I I Henry Pratt seconded the motion. • ~ The motion passed by a vote of 6-0, with Greg Amsden not present. , 2. A request for a site coverage variance and conditional use permit to allow for a Type (l EHU, located at 1194 Cabin Circle/Lot 3, Block 2 Vail Va((ey 1st Fiiing. App(icant: William and Shirley Mclntyre, represented by Ned Gwaihmey Planner: Dominic Mauriello Henry Pratt recused himself from this item. Dominic Mauriello said the applicant had withdrawn the site coverage variance request and that this had been tabled from the last meeting. He stated that access to the garage space by the occupant of the EHU had not yet been worked out. Ned Gwathmey had no comments. Galen Aasland had no comments. Diane Golden had no comments. John Schofield asked how to deed-restrict one parking space when there was only one door. Ned Gwathmey said the access to the EHU was ou#side and there will be two doors. ~ John Schofield made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0-1. 3. A request for an exterior addit+on, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an addition to the living room, located at 758 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 5, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: Tony & Terry Perry, represented by Eric Johnson Planner: Lauren Waterton Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the staff inema. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add, or if there were any public comments. There were none. There were no comments from ths Commission. Henry Pratt asked Lauren to explain why the GRFA (2,287 sq. ft.) above the allowable did not count. Planning and Environmental Commission ~ Minutes March 10, 1997 2 • Lauren Waterton expiained that the applicant received approval for a swimming pool as a conditional use that did not count as GRFA then, but under today's standards it would have counted as GRFA. Gene Uselton made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 4. A request for a residential addition for an expansion of the living room, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1998 Sunburst Drive/Lot 19, Vail Valley 3rd Filing. Applicant: Nate Accardo Planner: Lauren Waterton Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the staff inemo and said that staff was recommending approval with no conditions. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Mike Shultz, from Fritzlen Pierce Briner, said he was avaiiable to answer questions. ' Galen Aasland asked regarding Finding No. 3, how this request complied with the zoning • standards, since the elevations don't match. Mike Shultz explained that the east and west elevations had no structural alterations. Galen Aasland stated that the east elevation was highly visible from the road, and so he had a problem with it meeting Finding No. 3. Diane Golden had no comments. Henry Pratt said he was confused because in the past, when an applicant was over in GRFA, it was deducted from the amount of 250 available for use. Mike Mollica said it was never deducted from the overage, but that all the available GRFA had to be used before using the 250. Lauren Waterton said there were a few cases with illegal constructian that appJied for a 250, but were required to deduct the illegal square footage from the 250. John Schofield had no comments. Gene Uselton had no comments. Greg Moffet and Greg Amsden said they wers camfortable voting for this and leaving the architecture to the DRB. • ` Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 10, 1997 3 - John Schofieid made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff inemo. ~ , Gene Uselton seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-1, with Galen Aasland opposed. Greg Amsden arrived at 2:25 p.m. 5. A request to amend the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan and adopt the Gerald R. Ford Park Management Plan. Appficant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer. Planner: George Ruther Todd Oppenheimer said he wanted to focus on specific concerns the PEC had brought up at the last meeting and he said that ail the input received had been taken into account in the document. Todd said the VTC would be relied upon heavily to fulfill the needs of parking and he proceeded to go over the changes to the document since the last meeting. He said that if future conflicts exist, this document will take precedence over the 1989 plan and that the intention was that the two plans would work together. He said that there was a difference between staff and administrative offices and that only staff offices were referred to and the document now made that distinctian. He also said that access with "limited mobility" was used to include the disabled, as well as senior citizens. He said Goal No. 4 had been completely rewritten. He said the signage had been changed and shuttle bus service would be provided for special events and high demand days, as well as the in-Town shuttle bus service was expanded. Todd said the drop-off area would be used as a turn-around space, with attendants managing the drop-off ~ spaces. He explained that close-in parking could be reserved through the ticket purchase or set up on a fee basis with parking attendants. He said a ticket surcharge would cover the cost of the ~ attendants and shuttle bus service or a charge of $5.00 per space. Todd said a sidewalk was proposed to be constructed from the VTC to Ford Park. He mentioned that Policy Statement No. " 12 had been rewritten. He went over Objective 4.3, saying that a parking structure would be analyzed when all other sites had been exhausted and that it would really be the last site to consider, but would need to go through a public process. Ne pointed out on page 18, that questions arose about the streamwalk; whether or not there were covenants on the property. He explained that he was still researching that and said that the intention was to keep the reconstruction within Ford Park. He pointed out that the athletic field parking would be about 300 feet from the fields. Todd said the document added snow storage sites. He said that grass paving was not compatible with snow plows and was therefore not an option. He demonstrated comparab(e walking distances within Town,'using a 2 miles per hour speed. He explained that the width of Vail VaNey Drive by the soccer field was only 30' wide and that did include the curb, where the minimum widih required was 29'. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. Ross Davis Jr., a member of ths VRp Board of Dirsctors, said they wantsd to move the administration affices to the Tennis Court Bui(ding and surrender the library offices back to the Town. He said the position of VRD remains that our ieasss are not modified in any way. He stated that the TOV had made a major change in the policy statement, using stakeholder _ language which means that the TOV had now drapped out of being assessed. Planning and Fnvironmental Commission • Minutes March 10, 1997 4 • He felt this pianning process was by arnbush, since in ali the meetings that were held, the general consensus was that no structure should be built at this location or anywhere on this site. He said the VRD had a problem with the removal of the ciay tennis court. He said that changing the language from stakeholders to leaseholders was very disturbing. He asked who was going to pay for this parking structure. He said the position of the VRD was to maintain the gotf course and oppose any encroachment into that course. Greg Moffet perceived a real problem with natification of this document. He asked if receiving it today, as the PEC and the public had, was due process. Tom Moorhead stated it was not a due process issue whether you have had adequate opportunity to review it. Larry Grafel explained that the document had responded to the concerns of the PEC and that the Town Council would see it tomorrow. Ross Davis pointed out the deletion of the TOV as a leaseholder. John Schofield received this document 2 hrs. earlier and he felt that the leaseholders were not in agreement. Gene Uselton said he tao was uncomfortable with taking any activn, just having received this document. • Greg Amsden said it would be important to hear public comments. Galen Aasland agreed. Diane Golden asked if this was written with everybody's permission. Larry Grafel said when the document was written, all the parties gave input, but he said he would ~ not necessarily be able to please everybody and their job was to present the plan as best they ' could. Henry Pratt saici he would like ta hear the public comment and the PEC could decide to vote after the public comments to see if there were any common pubfic threads. , Todd Qppsnheimer said during the caurse of the meetings, the stakeholders language was never brought up and the athletic field Iot was never talksd about, nor was putting parking on the s4ccsr fieid. !-!enry Pra±t mentianed that the term athletiG field was used ta describe both the athletic field and soccer field and it shauid be referred to as the spccer field and the softbafl field. Todd Oppenheimer said he would make that designation. Henry Pratt asked if today we cou(d agree on that terminology. Pianning and Lnvironmental Coinmission Minutcs March 10, 1997 5 Bob Lazier, owner of the Tivoli Lodge, brought attention to page 15, Objective 4-3, Ford Park . `Parking and that with Category Iil and the new lifts at Goiden, Peak #his was a iimiting - circumstance. Bob feit the primary uses shouid be to feed the east side of the mountain and that parking for the generai public and skiers accessing the eastern part of the mountain should be considered. Herman Staufer, Chairman of the VRD Board, said that the VRD was concerned about penetrating into leased property. He said they had spent many hours of negotiating and the Town needed to hold to their commitment as well. He said the public was against parking on Ford Park. He didn't want to circumvent the downtown area with parking. He also said the VRD wanted to put offices in the existing tennis structure and to free up the Library. He felt after all the meetings were done and a concept was agreed upon, we are now starting over. He said the VRD intended to stick to their lease and that Ross Davis was an attorney on the VRD Board. Galen Aasland asked about the leases. Pam Brandmeyer said the VRD lease was until 2015, the VVF was until 2001 and there was a licence agreement for the Alpine Gardens. Greg Moffet said the document stated on page 9, Section 4 that the leaseholders management would take precedence. Larry Grafel said the plan would take precedence, not the lease. Greg Moffet said we were not trying to supersede leases. • Larry Grafel said the leases are as they exist. Henry Pratt asked if the management plan took precedence over the plan. , Todd Oppenheimer said the management plan took precedence over the Ford Park Master Plan. Greg Amsden said it would be to everybodys benefit to modify the language. Joe Staufer said he had a proprietary interest since he was one of the people that saved it from having condominium projects. He asked about the reference to a public utility plant. Todd Qppenheimer said it referred to the existing utilities on-site. Joe Staufer noted regarding Policy Statement 13, the parking structure issue, that at all the public meetings the public said that there was ta be no parking structure in the park and that staff always came back with the parking structure. He asked if skier parking was so important for Golden Peak, why did they then sell their parking at Golden Peak. He said to keep Ford Park for the people and the people didn't want parking. He said the staff was talking about covered parking and we need to keep the cornmunity parking as it existed now. Helen Fritch, of the Vail Alpine Garden Foundatian, said that David Kenyon of Design Warkshop had brought with hirn his solution to the parking problem by basement parkin9 which was underground. She said it would remove the parking from the neighborhood's view : Planning and Fnvironmental Commission • Minutes March 10, 1997 6 • David Kenyon, a Consuitant for the Alpine Garden Center Design Workshop, began his presentation by saying his intent was to show the parking for the Alpine Structure. Greg Moffet asked if it was germane to the Ford Park Master Plan. Helen Fritch said it was germane to the Ford Park Master Plan. David Kenyon said it would allow additional parking with no encroachment into the Golf Course. Ken Wilson stated that he was a past Board Director of the VRD, but he was here as a resident. He stated that there was not a consensus among the users of the park on how staff has shown this plan when the users have not agreed that this was a good one and to vote on this was premature. He felt the parking lot should not enter into the Master Plan. He said the new tennis courts came about at the taxpayer's expense and now it was only 2 years later and in the plan to move the tennis courts somewhere else, again at the taxpayer's expense. He said there were safety issues putting the courts where they wanted to now. He also said to place a parking lot in the soccer field was dangerous, as the existing restroom had been hit by golf balls, as well as the soccer field. He said that this was the #1 handicap hole on the Vail Golf Course an a signature hole. He stated that this golf course was our best summertime amenity and it brought in a lot of money. Bob McLauren, TOV Manager, said the planning process generated by the Alpine Garden ' shouldn't go forward unless we revisited the Ford Park Master Plan. He stated there were well • qualified people working at the TOV and he took offense that anyone would suggest they have done something underhanded. He said in terms of the parking issue, the document wanted to keep all options open. He stated that there would come a time when CDOT would put a stop to the parking on the road. He felt with respect to moving the offices from the Library to the tennis facility, an alternate move might be to the Golf course. He advised the PEC to take as much time to make a decision as possible and if the PEC needed more time, then to take more time to make sure there was a full understanding of the document. Bob Lazier said he disagreed with any structured parking at the soccer field, but that parking under the Alpine Gardens was ak. Greq Moffet tald the public to take a Iook at the Alpine Garden parking proposal. Herman Staufer said it wa.s not the intent to bash the staff, but to only point out who told the staff ta keep the parking alive. Diana Qonovan said she had lived in the saccer fisld neighborhood for 26 years and was real concerned about a 50' wide paved surface, however, a wide surface was needed to accommodate all the activity there. She said she was in support of a parking structure, but one that was not visible and that there was a need for it there. She said the south side was not included in the Master Plan and this was one of the places where families showed up and there was not enaugh parking. She said In the winter VA emplayees park there because they get there first and that this was an opportunity to get VA involved in the financing. She noted that the traffic was already there. • y Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 10, 1997 7 Jim Lamont said staff was in a no-win situation. Ne said he thought there was a lot of forward • momentum from when this siarted a year ago, however, there will be no acceptance of a parking structure and that no amount of reassurance would be acceptable to the public. He said to put it in the Master Plan was unnecessary, as it wouldn't fly if brought up for a referendum. He liked the notion of maintaining the existing parking and that any parking had to be underground, because you would have eliminated the potential conflict and would make it more beautiful than it was today, which should be one of our goals. He said there wasn't the money to make these improvements, as ihe TOV was a lease agent. He said the TOV should be glad for the VRD, Alpine Garden and the VVF and it was the lease agent's job to keep peace among the leaseholders and the neighborhood. Jim felt the sound of the amphitheater shoutd be in this document. He felt this document should be an extension o# the Golden Peak Management Plan, or a wedding of the users and if all the players weren't at the tab(e, why then were we going through this exercise. He noted that the GU Zone District allowed you to set any standard that you wanted, but how did we know how to set these standards and that is why we needed to look at a management plan. He said if we simultaneously tracked the Alpine Gardens and the Management Plan, then we could come up with something. Greg Moffet asked for any other public comments as he wanted to confirm with Larry Grafel that it was ok to convert this to a worksession. Larry Grafel said it was ok. Galen Aasland said the underground parking was a benefit to the Alpine Gardens. Parking along the Frontage Road is important to preserve but in the future we do need an option for below ground parking. The bridge by Manor Vail should be left at the height that it is. The VRD offices should go to the Golf Course clubhouse. • Diane Golden said it was important to keep language in this document to provide for the future parking needs. She said regarding parking on the Frontage Road, that the drop-off spaces must be kept for parents to drop off children. She was concerned with attendants to guard the drop-off ' spaces, as there weren't enough employees in the Town to manage this. She felt the VRD should look at offices at the golf course. Henry Pratk said he was glad that this was now a worksession, and this was the 3rd time we have discussed this. There were many faces not seen here before with a lot of good comments. He said that the reality was that we don't know what the future holds. He too thought the VRD shou(d put their offices at the Golf Course, but if we allowed the Alpine Gardens to put in oftiees, what right did we have to tefl the VRD to not put offices in the tennis court structure. He said that putting 60' of asphalt on ihe Frontage Road worked against the goals of Ford Park. He said staff needed to negotiate with the CDOT to get the minimum asphalt for the permit. He felt a landscaped island was not the right approach when you had snow plows. He said at the last meeting he was not in favor of any parking at the Alpine Garden site, but after looking at ths David Ksnyon plan with all underground parking, he was in favor of underground parking. He noted to amend drawing #7 to not show a 75-space parking lot that encroached into the berm. HP felt parking at the east end of Ford Park would push the parking farther away fram the usss making it Iess convenient which would lead to fewer people using the park. Henry felt an a.ilowance should be mads far the possibility in the future for parking under the softball fields. He said there shauld be a requirPment for a!l parking to be buried undsrground with landscaping on tvp. He fe}t it was na# fa+r to the future to prohibit the passibility of parking. He said the parking ' problem was not a future problem, but a current problem that would qet worse with Category III. • Planning and l:nvironmenial Commission Minutes March 10, 1997 8 t • John Schofield said the staff should not take offense that there was not total agreement and he too said that it was nice to see new faces. He feit there shouid be consensus with the leaseholders. He felt cost should not be an issue, as parking now was marginal. He'agreed with Henry about the median in the Frontage Road. He didn't want to dodge the concrete and felt the plows would take the median out on a regular basis. He too felt that 50' of concrete on Vail Valley Drive was too much. He advised Council to stand up to CDOT to get what fit with the TOW and what was more appropriate, rather than what CDOT wanted. Gene Uselton asked what was the advantage, in Action Step #3, of listing things that couldn't be done in Ford Park. Larry Grafel said it was to show the things that had been denied in the past. Gene Uselton suggested minimizing the amount of legal verbiage. He said that Objective 1.3 ' was vague and he was not sure of its function. Todd Oppenheimer said the function was to address the buffer zones between the two venues and the intent was to show the natural areas served a purpose for being there. Greg Amsden agreed with the outline given by John and Henry. He said people would pull up to drop off bat bags by the softball fieids and that it was nice to have a drop-off area there. Greg Moffet asked Piet Pieters if the VRD offices moved to the tennis center, how many spaces ' would be vacated in the parking structure and how many would you need by the tennis structure. • Piet Pieters said 5 spaces. Greg Moffet advised Ross that the VRD lease had provisions for working out parking spaces with ~ the Town. He then asked how long the lease on the Golf Course was for. Piet Pieters said it ended in 2015, with an option for a 50-yr. extension. ' Greg Moffet suggested being located temporarify at the tennis court structure, then permanently out to the goif course. He asked why the TOV wanted the library space. Pam Brandmeyer said, although not the highest priority, a space crunch in the Library existed. Greg Maffet said we needed parking now and that Jpe changed his mind with his comments and that underground parking was the solution. He then asked why swimming pools were a prohibited use. Todd Oppenheimer stated that a petitian was brought forward to the Council that it be deleted. Greg Moffet asked if it ever came up in focus groups. Larry Grafel said focus groups stated na more uses in the park. Greg Moffet agreed with Henry on 3 lanes changed to 2 lanes. ."Larry Grafel suggested coming back on March 24th. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 10, 1997 9 . > John Schofield made a motion to table this item untii March 24, 1997. • Henry Pratt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. ; 6. A request to develop a preferred alternativg for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) for Single-Family, Duplex and Primary/Secondary Residential Zone Districts. Appiicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russ Forrest Susan Conneliy gave an overview of the history of the GRFA,process and said that Town Council had directed staff to review GRFA and come up with some alternatives. She said that the planners, as well as Andy Knudtsen have all been involved and that a great deal of time internally was spent on this. Russ Forrest stated that the staff analysis and recommendation would be reviewed. Tom Braun said there was a lot of time spent reviewing the alternatives at the PEC worksession in February. He summarized Alternative #1, the interior conversion, as applying to existing homes without changing the bufk and mass. He said the issues would be what homes would this apply to and he asked if it would be a problem if new homes were built with vaulted areas. He ° said that Alternative #2, the basement space, would not be counted as GRFA and he stated the issue was if larger homes could use that additional GRFA. He said that Alternative #3, the . elimination of GRFA, would rely on site coverage with new design guidelines that would address the bufk and mass. He said the issues with this alternative would be parking, site coverage and that very large lots would potentially allow very large homes. He said that he would like the PEC to make a recommendation, so this could go to Town Council tomorrow. . Russ Forrest said today we would review the analysis and he explained the givens and problem statement. Russ said that Town Council was very clear that homes should not be larger. He then went through thP process of explaining the project phases. He said that Phase I identified the alternatives; Phase II identified the impacts and Phase Ill was the legal process. He explained a table that showed the distributian of the size of the Iots in the Town of Vail. He then gave the site coverage assumptions if the home size was only relied upon. He then gave a range of how big hames could be and that on larger lots, GRFA would play a significant role in how 1arge homes could be. He said that with Alternativs #1, staff's recommendatian was that it should be limited t4 existing homes and h4mes that are maxed aut an GRFA. He said that with A(ternative #2 not Gounting bassment space, the key diffiGUity was h4w to define a basement. He stated that on page 3 of Tom Braun's paper, a definition Qf how to define basement was ' given. He said if you don't caun# mass below grade, then applicants would push it above grade. He then summarized the memo with regards ta Altsrnative #3, no GRFA. Hs said that the i QV was 90% built out, so Gonsideratian of why are we bothering to do this, must be addressed. Russ said that staff was recommending A4ternative # 3, with a revision of the design guidel+nes, increasing consistency an the DRB with two design prafessionals, a modificativn of sike coverage, attention to the parking issue and incentives for EHU's. Greg Moffet asksd for any public comment. r i Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 10, 1997 10 i • Bi11 Pierce, an architect, was concerned that people would buiid 30' high boxes. He said that chances were that their 20% site coverage was already used up or they were at the height requirements now. He fett there wouldn't be a significant increase in the size by going away from GRFA. He endorsed a strong design review process to prevent this 30' high box. Eric Larson said he was going through the process of building a house. He said that giving a total description to the Board gets expensive and he asked how you were to know what the rules were. He said that everytime you redesigned a house it was expensive and that went against all the talk of affordable housing. He stated that after a conceptual review, the applieant had to go back to the architect and so therefore, to think very carefully before giving all the discretion to a committee. He then asked why everyone was so concerned with the size of a house, when there were taller condos a!I over Town. Dave Cole, a Vail Realtor and Vail resident, said ihere needed to be a cap on how large houses could be. He said he couldn't imagine the reatistic assumption that Russ gave saying you would go to 100% site coverage and the PEC needs to think about grandiathering existing property. He said the remaining 10% was not a big deal, if the TOV was 90% built out. Sue Dugan said an EHU unit had to have a garage and a lot of garages were built for something other than cars. She said that most of the lots were 15,000 sq. ft in size. Sue said that GRFA had served its purpose and people build their homes for what they need or like, which shouldn't _ be a concern at all. - Ramsey Flower said if the bulk wasn't increased to convert interior crawlspace, she couldn't : • believe that the PEC wouldn't endorse Alternative #1 and that the government should not be involved with controlling interior floor space. Roy May, a homeowner on Ptarmigan Road, agreed with site coverage and height limits, but had , a hard time with the TOV telling him what he could or could not do inside his house and that he , had the right to change a crawlspace into whatever he wanted. ~ Eric Larson advised io do something as soon as possible. Jim Lamont asked under this new system what recourse was there. Greg Moffet said there could be an appeal of a DRB approval. Henry Pratt asked on what grounds. Greg Moffet said it could be too big. Jim Lamant, representing the EVHA, stated there had to be a full analysis on the design review process, bscause the ability of the people to protest would come up and that design standards were long overdue. Diane Golden asked who made up the EVHA that Jim Lamont represented. Jim Lamont said he did not publish his membership list. • ~ Diane Golden stated that she knew someone he represented who did not feel the way Jim said tiiey feit. Planning and Environmentai Commission Minutes ~ March 10, 1997 ~ Jim Lamont said he represented the Board of Directors and an individual was free to come in to • state their opinion. Diana Donovan said the majority of staff was new, with the exception of about three people. She felt ihe decision by the PEC Board would be profit motivated. She said the current system was working, afthough it was not working for Diane Golden. She said it would have been written correctly, if Tom had nothing to do with it. She said that staff took too much time in reviewing applications and got personally involved. She said that the rules were not a prob(em in the past and that if staff evaluated applications by the rules and not with any personal interest, then the ~ current system would work. She said it was unfortunate not to be able to go into Diane's basement and fix it. She said density will come back and bite us. She said there was not enough water ta go around for the current density and interior spaces related to reality, where square footage related to density. She said rewriting the design guidelines was not a quick fix and Vail was certainly successful, with its success having been built on rules from day one. Russ Forrest stated the intent of the design standards on page 5 of Torn 8raun's memo, produced consisiency. Jim Lamont said regarding institutional representations, that Pat Dauphinais had taEked to each one of the PEC members after the last meeting and suggested the covenants be reviewed by the PEC, as they couldn't get involved outside of the political process. Gene Uselton said he was not contacted by Pat Dauphinais. Jim Lamont said he wanted to make sure that any contact was identified. Tom Moorhead stated the criteria for a legislative decision by the PEC or Town Councif stated there was nothing wrong with contacting the PEC or the Town Council. If a decision is quasi- judicial, then it would be inappropriate to have contact by any member of community to affect that decision. • Sue Dugan asked Jim Lamont why he represented a group that wouldn'i pubfish their names. She said they are people who pay someone a salary, yet wouldn't tell who they were. Menry Pratt stated that the PEC was being asked to make a recommendation to Council and rather than voting on alternative, he asked if it made sense to take give a poll on each of the a'terna€ives. Russ Forrest said it would be helpful to Council to understand how the PEC felt on each of the alternatives. Henry Prait said there wouldn't be a consensus on any one alternative, so we wou4dn't want to pass on just one recomrnendafion. Barbara Bingham strongly supported lifting GRFA. She said it was the Town's job to control the exterior af houses and that people would be happier, resulting in more people Iiving in the Town. Diane Mi(ligan, not speaking on behalf Qf the Ramshorn but on her own, agreed with Barbara Bingham. She said the cast af construction was steep and that peaple would build' attractive ~ houses. She said that people had a right to determine how they wanted to live in their internal space. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 10, 1997 12 I ~ Greg Moffet asked for any more pubiic input. John Schofield said we all agreed there were no ideal alternatives. He said that Alternative #1 and # 2 were a step in the right direction, but not ail inclusive enough to warrant a solution and I carried with it their own problems. He said the market that Vail built 30 years ago did not exist today. He said he was a proponent of Alternative # 3 and concurred with staff's recommendations. He said he needed a little more information on how to go about gradually addressing site coverage and advocated directing attention to the design guidelines. He agreed ihat parking and the EHU's needed to be addressed. He said the unwritten enclosed parking needed to be encouraged and should be part of the design guidelines_ He also said there needed to be a strong incentive for EHU's. Gene Uselton asked Russ to explain how GRFA controlled mass and bulk Gene said he was very impressed with the staff's work and that this was an excellent memo, with the approach to calculating GRFA under the assumptions very good. He said that the word "size" should be used consistently. In some instances, it should be changed to "volume" or "mass and bulk," but in other instances to "GRFA." We need to make it clear to people exactly what is meant. He asked Tom Braun if eliminating GRFA would technically affect the mass and bulk of a home that could be built. Tom Braun replied that, technically, eliminating the GRFA limitations would affect the potential mass and bulk of homes. • Greg Amsden assumed that the site coverage issue would go through a public process. Susan Conneliy said it would not be overnight. Greg Amsden said profits would not affect his decision on this board, as he was in Real Estate. , He said that GRFA was not an easy process and he was very excited about what staff was recommending. He said he would Iove to an EHU be required for larger homes, as it would automatically give a public benefit to larger homes. He felt there should also be incentives for local people to have EHU's on lots less than 15,000 sq. ft. He said the Design Guidelines couldn't be legislative through design anel that more quantitative than qualitative would be a necessity. Greg felt a tear down was what we needed to be creative in. He felt that the Ioft would compound problems that were already being seen. He said there shauld be a requirement for enclosed parking for all residential construction. Galen Aasland echoed the comments that the staff had done a great job. He felt Alternative# 1 easy to support, as the Tawn Council wanted the assurance that houses wouldn't get bigger. He said he could support Alternative # 2. He said the basement space should be required to be sprinklersd. Galen said he couldn't support Alternative #3, as it was against what the Town Council wanted. He said that the TaV went by a 1991 UBC. He said this wauld be creating a situation where you would do a"Starwood" with teardowns in Glen Lyon. He felt that Alternative # 3 woufd shift property values. Galen agreed with what Diana said about going slaw, as soms of the things were arbitrary. He said he had a problem with the guidelines being subjective, with the potential for abuse and na strength behind them. . ' Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 10, 1997 13 ~ Diane Golden thanked staff for the time and effort and thanked the Board who have not taken it . li9htlY to solve the problems relating to GRFA. She said that people wanted to do things mside their homes and that the community was clearly not comfortable with GRFA. She said Alternative #1 addressed the problem, but was unfair to future homeowners. She felt Alternative I #2 woutdn't address loft areas and that Alternative # 3, although not the perfect solution, was the biggest step in the right direction. She liked the idea of requiring an EHU if over a certain square footage. She felt that we don't encourage people to live here. Diane felt a need to do something, since she said we have been looking at this for over a year. She said she didn't want to see another year revising the design guidelines. She said language needed to be put in ta allow people to do what they wanted inside their homes and that Alternative # 3 was hgr vote. Henry Pratt felt that the design guidelines needed to be tightened up. He said that Alternative # 2 was not appropriate, as it was overcomplicated and could also be incorporated into Alternative # 1. He said he loved Alternative # 3, as he could find a way to make his house bigger, but,it would invariably allow the larger lots to have larger homes and the smaller {ots to not have {arger hornes. He said he didn't like Alternative # 3, because the EHU incentive would be lost and if it was taken away the deed restrictions would be removed. He felt the hardest thing to do was have an architect on the DRB, as it would be hard for them to judge other architecture. He felt that most of his clients would vote for Alternative # 3, to get more house on the site. He said that Alternative #1 could have basements +ncorporated into it if the space was below grade. He said this would take care of the interior, but should apply to the new, as well as the old, but should have a 5-year time frame attached to it. Henry felt a vaufted space should count as double GRFA. He said that Alternative # 3 would make designing easier, but would not meet the Town's ' goals, so he liked Alternative # 1. Greg Moffet commended staff on being open-minded. He asked how the alternatives related to a • demo/rebuild. Tom Braun said a lot of "what if" scenarios had been looked at, but so as not to get convoluted, a , definition was needed. Greg Moffet said that design review was an art, not a science. He said that based upon surveys that the Town had done, the biggest complaint was the design review process. He didn't want to leave substantive economic issues in subjective hands, that wauld be art. Greg liked Alternative # l and # 2. He was not worried about undeveloped land, as it was not purchased with an expectation that GRFA would change. His concern with Alternative # 3 was that the appointed and elscted bodies in Town would have to make it real hard to get any variance. He said he would vote for Alternative # 1 and # 2 and he was against Alternative # 3. Greg Moffet asked for any more public comments. There was none. Diane Galden said she didn't want to wait 5 years for Alternative # 3, and Alternative #1 would address the intrusion we had on people's homes. Greg Amsden said ca4culating vaulted space would make GRFA more restrictive. John Schofield made a motion to provide the alternatives in order of preference to the Town Council. ' Henry Pratt seconded the motion. . P?anning and Environmenkal Commissinn Minutes March 10, 1997 14 I • John Schofield favored Aiternative # 3, #2 and #1. Gene Uselton favored Alternative # 3. Greg Amsden favored Aiternative # 3. Galen Aasland favored Alternative #1, #2, #3 and #4. Diane Golden favored Alternative # 3, then #1 and # 2 combined. Henry Pratt favored Alternative #1, #3, #4 and #2. Greg Moffet favored Alternative #1, #2, #3, and #4. Russ Forrest summarized that the PEC would feel comfortable with Alternative #1, but had a preference to Alternative #3. John Schofield asked if the Town Council would get these minutes. Greg Amsden asked if this was a worksession. Mike Mollica said it was published as a final review. John Schofield made a motion to recommend approval to the Town Council for Alternative # 3. . The motion was seconded by Gene Uselton. The motion failed by a vote of 3-4, with Galen Aasland, Diane Golden, Henry Pratt and Greg ' Moffet opposed. , Galen Aasland made a motion to recommend Alternative #1 to the Town Council and asked staff to incorporate vaulted space and also that staff consider incorporating portions of Alternative #2 to make basements safe spaces. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. Henry Pratt said to simplify the basement as being 100% below grade. Galen Aas(and said we should be able to control making totally underground spaces safe. Diane Galden asked about windows in basements. Galen Aasland withdrew his motion. Henry Pratt withdrew his secQnd. Galen Aasland made a motion for a recommendation to the Town Council for Alternative #1, amended ta include existing vaulted space, basement space and for new construction. Greg Moffet secanded the amended motion. Pianning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 10, 1997 15 Greg Amsden stated a vaulted room wouid cut into GRFA and this made it more restrictive for • vaulted space. Jim Lamont said Galen's proposal would keep new buildings the same, and deal with existing I buildings. Russ Forrest said with Alternative #1, you could dig out or expand the basernent area without j making it more lenient for new buildings. Mike Motlica said that Alternative #1 would include Alternative #2 and that the details could be worked out. Greg Amsden said when you legislate volume, you legislate architecture. 7. A request for an amendment to the development plan to allow for outdoor ski storage, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Vil{age 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail Vi{lage 7th Filing, commonly referred to as the Golden Peak Ski Base. Applicant: Vail Associates, 1nc. Planner: Lauren Waterton Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the staff inemo. ' Greg Moffet disclosed, for the record, that VA was a customer of his. Joe Macy showed pictures taken on the site between 3 pm and 4:15 pm regarding circulation to • and #rom the ski mountain and the inrerference with the loading of the bus. He said that the line for the ski storage did extend out to the tent across the temporary ramp. He did mention that Golden Peak was not operating the way it would when completed. He then demonstrated the , circulation upon completion and did not feel it a big problem. Diane Golden asked what operations were under the shaded area. Jack Hunn explained the illustrations. Greg Moffet asked if they were moving the maze out. Joe Macy said, no. Jim Lamont said the EVHA didn't have any objectipn. He said it needed to be allowed to finish aut the season and then be thrown into the same category as the Pavilion. Joe Macy said this was not compatible with the whole project. He concurred with the PEC, staff and Mr. Lamont that it was not up to the standards of Golden Peak. Greg Moffet asked if the PEC could sunset it until the beginning of next season. Mike Mollica said that would be difficult, as there was no provision in the code to allow for a tsmporary or seasonal facility. _ • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 10, 1997 16 • Galen Aasland asked to have it removed by Aprif 23, 1997. Joe Macy said that he would like to continue until the end of the season and come in with a new DRB application 30 to 45 days. He said the facility would not be able to be used until next season. Greg Amsden said this had some square footage ramifications. Lauren Waterton said the square footage requirements in ihis zone district are clifferent than in other districts. Ths zoning refers to the main building which has square foatage limitations. Anything outside the building does not have the same limitations. Jim Lamont, EVHA, said the applicant was conforming to the covenants and it was an allowed use in the development p{an. John Schofield agreed with staff, but he thought more room in the corner was needed to make it work. He said that based on the temporary nature of the structure, to table it until the 1 st meeting in May. Gene Uselton suggested tabling it until the ski season was over. Galen Aasland said to figure out some type of circulation system with the garage doors not in frant. He expressed concern with one corner where peopfe would be waiting to buy {ift tickets. He also suggested building a wall near Chair 6. . Diane Golden said she was surprised that this was such an afterthought. Joe Macy said his hands had been full with so many projects going on at the same time. He said he did not think of this until the first of December and would like to table it until the end of the , season. Henry Pratt said he worried about tabling this, as it could be perceived as giving the applicant _ special consideration. Greg iVloffet said he would like to see a coherent plan, since iYs a use we need. He was conGerned tha# the the app!icanr was asking for forgiveness, rather than permissiQn. 1lrike Mollica said he was GQncernQd a.bQUt tabling this until May. He suggested working with $taft an the aesthetics, materials and return to the PEC in April. Joe Macy said if it's tabled, it would give us a chance ta work on it and not start from scratch. Mike Mollica said there were numerous complaints regarding the property and the attendant boath at the entrance needed to be removed. Greg Moffet said the PEC was not playing favorites by tabling this item, because the applicant had a variety of issues to resolve. Y Joe Macy said the attendant booth by the Children's Center will be taken care of. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 10, 1997 17 John Schofield made a motion to table this item until April 14, 1997. • Gene Uselton seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 8. A request for variances from Section 18.58.320 D3, to aflow antennas greater than fifteen feet in height and Section 18.54.050 C7, to a41ow two rooftop antennas to be placed on ' the false stairwell tower near North Frontage Road. Applicant: KTUN Radio Planner: Tammie Williamson Tammie Williamson gave an overview of the memo and said that staff was recommending denial. Jon Banks, with KTUN, said he had worked hard to make the proposed instaliation more compatible with the existing faci(ities of Vail Commons. He then passed out a handout to illustrate the new location and asked how to ameliorate the appearance of the antennas. He exp(ained 5 different aptions for reducing the appearances and impacts. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were none. ' Mike Mollica said he was not comfortable with this newly submitted antenna plan that could impact the site. He recommended tabling this, as staff had not had time to review it. • Greg Moffet said typically staff needs to review the material and tabling this was customary. Galen Aasland said to table the second set of antennas after staff has had a chance to look at it. , He said the first one was extremely visible and that the applicant had not come far enough with that one. Diane Golden said that the applicant had gone to great lengths and it was not fair to table it. Henry Pratt said these antennas were a significant improvement, but he understood staff's concern about reviewing this and also the applicanYs concern about their construction schedule. He said he preferred plan A. He said if the antennas were up against the shingles, he would have no problem approving it with the final conditions to be worked out with staff. John Schofield asked how they were mounted. Jon Banks said he didn't know if it would be a flush mount. Gene Uselton said if he were the owner, he would use plan C or plan D. Greg Moffet disclosed that KTUN was a customer of his company's, but that he saw no conflict. Greg Moffet said we should keep KTUN in the Town of Vail. " Gene Uselton made a motion for approval with the condition that staff approve the location of the • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 10, 1997 18 • antenna consistent with the findings in the staff memo. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 9. A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located in the One Vail Place Building, 244 Wall StreeUa resubdivision of Lot C, Block 5-C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Mr. Jared Drescher, represented by Robert Boymer Planner: Dirk Mason STAFF APPROVED 10. 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 WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT 11. A request for a minor subdivision to allow for an elevator addition to the Lodge Tower parcef, located at 200 Vail Road/Lot A, Block 5-L, Vaif Village First Filing. • Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc., represented by Jay Peterson Planner: Dominic Maurieilo TABLED UNTIL MARCH 24, 1997 • 12. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type 11 EHU, located at 392 Beaver Dam Circle/Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: Howard Kaenig Planner: Tammie Wilfiamson TABLED UNTIL MARCH 24,1997 13. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow Type I I I EHU's for seasonal housing, located at 1309 Va+4 Valley Drive/legally described as: beginning at the Northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the Sixth Principal Meridian thence S 89031'49" E 2333.84 feet, along the North line of said Section 9, to a point on the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 thence along the northerly right-af-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 as follows: S 67°41'33" W 415.82 feet; thence S78°13'02" W 153429 feet, to a point of curvature; thence 456.43 feet on a curve to the right with a radius of 5580.00 feet, the chord of which bears S80033'38" W 456.30 feet to a point on the Westerly line • ~ of said Section 9: thence departing the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 and follawing the Westerly line of said Section 9, North 00°8'21 "E 565.11 feet to the point of beginr?ing. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes . March 10, 1997 19 ~ ~ Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen and Susie Hervert . ~ Pianner: Dominic Mauriello ~ TABLED UNTIL MARCH 24,1997 Gene Uselton made a motion to table items #11, #12, and #13 until the March 24, 1997 meeting. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 14. Approval of February 10, 1997 minutes and February 24, 1997 minutes. Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the February 24, 1997 minutes, as amended. . Henry Pratt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the February 10, 1997 minutes, as amended. John Schofieid seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Galen Aasland abstaining. • Susan Connelly gave an information update regarding the Lionshead "wish list." She said a recommendation would be made to the Town Council and she proceeded to explain the 3 phases. , Greg Moffet thanked Henry for his excellent service and the opportunity to sit next to and speak after him, as Henry was retiring and would not be at his final meeting. Henry Pratt made a motion to adjourn. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm. i ~ • Pianning and Envuonmenfat Couimission ~ Minutes March 10, 1997 20