The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-0324 PEC THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY ~ PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipai Code of the Town of Vail on March 24,1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a major exterior alteration in CC1, at the A& D Building, located at 286 Bridge StreeULots A, B, & C, Block 5A, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: 286 Bridge Street, Inc., represented by Craig Snowdon Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a major exterior alteration in CC1, at the Creekside Building, located at 229 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 56, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Michael Ditch, represented by Dave Carson Planner: Lauren Waterton A request for a minor SDD amendment to Special Development District No. 30 at the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 E. Meadow Drive/Parcels A& B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: VWT 1987 Limited Partnership, represented by John Perkins , Planner: George Ruther ' A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 778 Potato Patch ~ Drive/Lot 18, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: Fred Bartlit, represented by Bill Anderson Planner: Tammie Williamson A request for a major exterior alteration and minor subdivision at Gasthof Gramshammer, tocated at 231 E. Gore Creek Dr./Part of Lot A, Block 513, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Pierce, Segerberg, & Associates Planner: George Ruther A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow Type III EHUs for seasonal housing, located at 1309 Vaii Vafiey Drive/iegaiiy 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-of-way fence line of Inierstate Highway No. 70 as follows: S 67°41'33" W 415.82 feet; thence S78013'02" 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 foliowing the Westerly line of said Section 9 N000021 "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 two 250's to allow for a Type 11 EHU, located at 392 Beaver Dam CircleiLot 4, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: Howard Koenig ~ Planner: Tammie Williamson The app4ications and information about the proposafs 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 7, 1997 in the Vail Trail. i ~ . ~r . I Agenda last revised 3/18/97 2pm ~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMM1SS10N ~ Monday, March 24, 1997 AGENDA Project Orientation / LUNCH -Community Devetopment Department 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 12:45 pm 1. Koenig - 392 Beaver Dam Circle 2. Creekside Building - 229 Gore Creek Drive 3. Public Works - 1309 Vai! Valley Drive Driver: George ~ ±sQr ~a ~i;". °d ~ vr 1'1i. r„ ~ rI9 ~~p' I 4o NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Councii Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a joint worksession with the Design Review Board (DRB) to discuss a ~ conditional use permit, to allow iwenry-four Type III EHUs for seasonai employee housing, located at 1309 Vaif Valley Drive/legally described as (Publfc Works Facility): 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 tnterstate Highway No. 70 as follows: S 67°4t'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 S$0°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 following 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 2. 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: Tarnmie Williamson 1 Agenda last revised 3/18/97 2pm 3. A request for a major exterior alteration in CC1, at the Creekside Buiiding, to allow for the ~ expansion of the restaurant and the west side exterior residential decks, located at 229 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Michaef Ditch, represented by Dave Carson Planner; Lauren Waterton 4. A request to amend the Gerald R. Ford Park Master P1an and adopt the Gera{d R. Ford Park Management Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer. ' Planner: George Ruther 5. A request for a minor SDD amendment to Specia! Development District No. 30 at the Vail Athletic Club, to allow for modifications to the restaurant, common areas, and accommodation unit balconies, located at 352 E. Meadow Drive/Parcels A& B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: JWT 1987 Limited Partnership, represented by John Perkins Planner: George Ruther/Mike Moliica STAFF APPROVED 6. A request for an interior remodel to the primary unit, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 778 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 18, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: Fred Bartlit, represented by Bill Anderson • Planner: Tammie Wiliiamson STAFF APPROVED 7. A request for a minor subdivision of the Lodge Tower parcel, located at 200 Vail Road/Lot A, Block 5-C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Lodge Properties, lnc., represented by Jay Peterson Planner: Dominic Mauriel(o TABLED UNTIL QPRiL 14,1997 8. A request for a worksession to discuss a major exterior alteration in CC1 and a minor subdivision, to allow for the construction of a parking garage, 9 accommodation units, 1 condominium and new retail office space at the Gasthaf Gramshammer, located at 231 E. Gore Creek Dr./Part of Lot A, Block 56, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Pierce, Segerberg, & Associates Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTtL APRIL 14, 1997 ~ 2 Agcnda tast revised 3l18197 2pm • 9. A request for a major exterior alteration in CC1, at the A& D Buiiding, located at 286 Bridge StreeULots A, B, & C, Block 5A, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: 286 Bridge Street, Inc., represented by Craig Snowdon Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL APRIL 14,1997 10. lnformation Update: • Update on the Seibert Circle art project - Todd Oppenheimer 11, Approval of March 10, 1997 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign {anguage interpretation avaifable upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TOD for information. Community DeveVopment Department ~ Pubfished March 21, 1997 in the Vai1 Trail. ~ 3 ~ ! Agenda tast revised 3/25/97 9am I~ t PLANNING QND ENVtRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, March 24, 1997 FINAL AGENDA Project Orientation / LUNCH - Communitv Develoament Deqartment 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Moffet Henry Pratt Greg Amsden (until 6pm) Diane Golden Galen Aasland Gene Uselton John Schofieid DRB MEMBERS PRESENT Brent Alm Ted Hingst Clark Brittain Site Visits : 12:45 pm 1. Koenig - 392 Beaver Dam Circle 2. Creekside Building - 229 Gore Creek Drive ~ 3. Public Works - 1309 Vail Valley Drive Driver: George s r,~•: o. t.~ o~I.ss _.A. e_ NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. Information Update: 5 minute joint consideration with the DRB and PEC regarding the Seibert Circle art project - Todd Oppenheimer 2. A request for a joint worksession with the Design Review Board (DRB) to discuss a conditional use permit, to allow twenty-four Type II! EHUs for seasonal employee housing, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/legally described as (Public Works Facility): 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 along the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Nighway No. 70 as follows: S 67°41'33" W 415.$2 feet; thence S78°13'02" W 1534.29 feet, to a point of curvature; thence 456.43 feet on a curve to the right with a radius of 5580.00 feet, ihe chord of which bears S80033'38" W 456.30 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Section 9: thence ~ departing the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 and following the Westerly line of said Section 9, North 00°$'21"E 565.11 feet to the point of beginning. 1 rowiuo*VAIL i ~ ~ I ~ Agenda last reviscd 3/25/97 9am I Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen and Susie Hervert ~ Planner: Dominic Mauriello WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 3. A request for a conditionai use permit, to allow fvr a Type II EHU, located at 392 Beaver Dam Circle/Lot 4, 81ock 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. i Applicant: Howard Koenig Planner: Tammie Wiiliamson MOTION: Gene Useiton SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED WITH 5 CONDtT10NS - Y. That the one-car garage be appropriately deed restricted for exciusive use by the occupant of the EHU. 2. That any drainage or environmental issues be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department and Environmental Health Division. 3. That any road cuts for the purpose of utility location, be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. 4. That the applicant submit for review and approval by the DRB, a construction staging plan, indicating the limits of disturbance and tree ~ protection measures for the site. 5. That no demo/rebuild, building or grading permits will be issued by the Community Development Department until the Army Corp. of Engineer's has reviewed and approved the application. 4. A request for a major exterior alteration in CC1, at the Creekside Building, to allow for the expansion of the restaurant and the west side exterior residential decks, located at 229 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Michael Ditch, represented by Dave Carson Planner: Lauren Waterton MOTIOM1I: Galen Aasland SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 2-3 MOTION FOR APPROVAL WiTH 2 CONDlTlONS FAILED - 1. That additional landscape planters be added along the dining deck area. The Design Review Board shall review the final design and placement of the planters. 2 ~ Agenda last revised 3/25/97 9am 3. That the applicant work with adjacent properry owner Pepi Gramshammer to coordinate loading and delivery. MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: John Schofieid VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED WITH 3 CONDITIONS - ' 1. That additional landscape planters be added along the dining deck area. The Design Review Board shall review the final design and placement of the planters. 2. That the overhead trellis and deck rail be redesigned to comply with the Urban Design Guidelines and Considerations and that these items be re#err~d't~ st~~f:Ar~~f' ~f~~ PR...R4 r f~ria~ reu~~w '~?d ~ppraval <ratighFbaek~e 3. That the applicant work with adjacent property owner Pepi Gramshammer to coordinate loading and delivery. 5. A request to amend the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan and adopt the Gerald R. Ford , Park Management Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer. I, Pfanner: George Ruther i, • MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL WITH AMENDMENTS I 1. That the property boundaries shown on Sheet #7 with all encroachments ' into the VRD lease, be refiected and noted. 2. Delete any reference to the elevator on Sheet #7 at Vail Valiey Drive. , 3. That the wording be changed to reflect pending the Deve(opment Review Process of the Alpine Garden Foundation. 4. That the addition of items in the March 24th staff inemo be included in the Management Plan. 5. That item #27 in the March 17th staff memo be deleted. 6. That Action Step 4.1.4 be eliminated. 7. That Policy Statement #13 be amended to read "publicly owned and for public use." 8. That the existing road width of Vail Valley Drive be reflected on Sheet #7. • 3 IN Agenda last revised 3/25/97 9am 6. A request for a minor SDD amendment to Special Development District No. 30 at the Vail • ' Athletic Club, to allow for modifications to the restaurant, common areas, and accommodation unit balconies, located at 352 E. Meadow Drive/Parcels A& B, Vai( Village 1 st Filing. ~ Applicant: JWT 1987 Limited Partnership, represented by John Perkins I Planner: George Ruther/Mike Mo!lica ~ STAFF APPROVED ~ 7. A request for an interior remodel to the prirnary unit, ut4lizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 778 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 18, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: Fred Bartlit, represented by Bill Anderson Planner: Tammie WiNiamson STAFF APPROVED 8. A request for a minor subdivision of the Lodge Tower parcel, located at 200 Vail Road/Lot A, Block 5-C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Lodge Properties, lnc., represented bY JaY Peterson Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL APR1L 14, 1997 9. A request for a worksession to discuss a major exterior alteration in CC1 and a minor ~ subdivision, to allow for the construction of a parking garage, 9 accommodation units, 1 condominium and new retail office space at the Gasthof Gramshammer, located at 231 E. Gore Creek Dr./Part of Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Pierce, Segerberg, & Associates Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL APRIL 14,1997 10. A request for a major exterior alteration in CCi, at the A& D Building, located at 286 Bridge StreeULots A, B, & C, B(ock 5A, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: 286 Bridge Street, Inc., represented by Craig Snowdon Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL APRIL 14,1997 4 • ~ Agenda last revised 3/25/97 9am • 11. Approval of March 10, 1997 minutes. MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Gene Useiton VOTE: 4-0 TABLED UNTIL APRIL 14, 1997 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during ~ regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Deve(opment Department ~ ~ 5 I ~ MEMORANDUM i TO: Planning and Environmentai Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 24, 1997 ~ SUBJECT: A request for a joint worksession with the Design Review Board (DR6) to ; discuss a conditional use permit, to al{ow twenty-four Type III EHUs for seasonal employee housing, located at 1309 Vail Vailey Drive/legaliy described as (Public Works Facility): beginning at ihe Northwest corrrer oi 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 northeriy right-of-way fence (ine of Interstate Highway No. 70 thence along the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 as follows: S 67°41'33" W 415.82 feet; thence S78013'02" W 1534.29 feet, to a point of cuevature; thence 456.43 feet on a curve to the right wtth a radius of 5580.00 teet, the chord of which bears S80133'38" W 456.30 fest to a point on the Wesierly line of said Section 9: thence 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. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen and Susie Hervert Planner: Dominic Mauriello ~ I 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST This site is zoned General Use (GU) which allows Type III Employee Housing Units as a conditional use. The applicant is requesting a conditionai use permit to aHow the construction of 24 Type III Employee Housing Units at the Public Works site. The proposed dwelling units are intended to accommodate the Town's (Public Works) seasonal housing needs. The proposal ~ consists of one-bedroom dwelling units (6 units at 459 sq. ft., 12 units at 463 sq. ft., and 6 units i at 590 sq. ft.). The dweHing units are proposed in one, three-story structure. i The proposal also includes 29 parking spaces, 2 of which are handicap parking spaces. One of I the handicap parking spaces is required for the Public Works Administration Building. Therefore, 28 parking spaces are availab(e for this devetopment. The parking required for the development is 24 parking spaces (one space per unit). There are 4 guest spaces within the upper level parking area. The applicant has indicated that additional guest spaces are available in the lower level Public Works parking area. The proposal also includes a dumpster which is accessible from the upper level parking area. See the attached applicant statement for more information. . 1 ~ TOlVlVOxV~IL w Ii. ZONING ANALYSIS The development standards for the GU district are determined by the PEC. The PEC must ~ determine what development standards are needed on a site specific basis. The proposed standards are as presented on the site plan and building plans for the site. Zoning: Generai Use (GU) Use: Type Ill EHUs Lot Size: 740,520 sq. ft. or 17 acres (entire site without USFS addition) Standard Allowed/Reyulred* lstln Proposed Site Coverage: PEC 48,921 sq. ft. (6.6%) 54,071 sq. ft. (7.3%) (w/admin. addition) GRFA: PEC 0 sq. ft. 11,850 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: PEC N/A 85' Sides: PEC N/A 500' (east), 1,000' (west) Rear: PEC N/A 90' Parking: 24 spacas required N/A 28 spaces (includes 1 handicap + 1 for admin.) Guest Parking: PEC N/A 4 spaces + overflow Internal Parking Landscaping: 908 sq. ft. (10°!0) N/A 0 sq. ft. Suilding Height: PEC N/A 35' from finished grade (worst case) ~ Note: "required by code for all other zone districts III. REVlEW CRITERIA FOR THlS REQUEST The code criteria for review of such a request are provided for your information. Since this is a worksession, staff has not addressed the specific criteria. 1n addition to the conditional use criteria, staff has included the purpose statement from the zoning code, as we beiieve this wiil help the PEC in its evaluation of the request. The Public Works employee housing is located in the Genera! Use (GU) zone district. According to Section 18.36.010 of the zon+ng code, the purpose of the GU district is: "to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed by other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section i 8.02.020 and to provide for the pubfic welfare. The General Use District is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in cases of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses." • 2 TOW *ML I ~ Type III Employee Housing Units may be permitted in the GU zone district subject to the ~ issuance of a conditionai use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60. For the PEC's reference, the conditional use permit purpose statement indicates that: "in order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve fhe objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain distriets subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their affects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between , conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the locatian and operation of the conditional uses wiil be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental ta other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permit shall be denied." The conditional use permit consideration of factors are as follows: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportat+an facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. • 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, ' maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. ~ 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 conditional use permit findings are as follows: The Planning and Environmenta( Commission shall maice the foNowing finding before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and 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 materialiy injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable • provisions of #he conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 3 ~ TOYVN OF VA[6 I I IV. ISSUES FOR DlSCUJSlON , f. Building Location/Building Height/View Analysis ' The building is proposed on the east end of the Public Works property. The building is proposed ~ ~ along a natural bench area on this portion of the site and appears to be the logical location for this structure. Staff also believes this is the apprapriate area of the site for housing as it is located farthest away from the more industrial eiements of the site. The applicant is proposing a building height of approximately 35' from finished grade. The proposed building appears to be substantiallY less in hei9ht from existin9 9rade, however, the ' applicant has not indicated the proposed roof height elevation. Prior to finai review of this item by the PEC, the applicant will provide these elevations. For reference, the High Density Muitipie Family zone district allows up to 48' in building height for a sioped roof building and the Medium Density Multiple Family zone district allows up to 38' in building height for a sloped raof building. Staff believes the proposed buifding height is appropriate for this site. The app4icant will be providing a section through the property showing relationship of building height to elevation of I-70 and a view analysis prior to final review in order to understand view implications in the area. 2. Architectural Compatibiliiy The site is currently developed with industrial type buildings and administrative of#ices. Therefore, architectural compatibility with other structures on-site is not necessarily desirable. The proposed building form is a three-story structure. The building has been articulated by providing substantial off-sets and voids which help to break-up the perceived bulk and mass of the structure. A north elevation has not been provided and will be provided prior to final review ot the proposal. However, staff is less concerned about the north side of this structure since it is not visible from other properties or the public right-of-way. Staff does believe that windaws may ~ be appropriate on the north elevation for units on the second and third fioors. Windows could be provided into the kitchens and bathrooms in these units which will altow additional light and air into these dwe(ling units, thereby increasing the liveability of the units. StafF also believes that decks should be considered for the south elevation. Even small decks would increase the liveability of these units as well as providing greater architectural relief on the building. These issues should be addressed by the applicant prior to the fina{ PEC review. The applicant shauld also provide an indication of the proposed building materials for this development prior to final PEC review. A lighting plan and color samples will be required as part of the DRB review of this project. 3. Site Coverage/Landscaped Areas/Landscape Plan Site coverage on this site is quite low. The proposai wi11 increase the site coverage to 7.30!0. There is also extensive landscape area on this property. Staff be{ieves that the amount of landscape area and site coverage is appropriate for the entire site, given the uses found on-site. The applicant has not submitted a landscape plan. A landscape plan will be required prior to final review by the PEC. Staff believes substantiaf trees should be located near the front of the building to help break-up the mass of the building and to also help soften the area since it is located within an industrial complex. • 4 ~ n1WNOFY~IL i ' 4. Parking Lot Landscaping • The proposed parking lot does not coniorm with the requirements of Chapter 18.52 "Off-Street Parking and Loading." Although the PEC is the determinate of the development standards for projects in the GU zone district, staff believes that certain standards, as they apply to ali other developments in the Town, aiso apply to this development and the GU district. Staff be(ieves that aff parking requirernents found in Chapter 18.52 appiy to this development. Specificalfy, Section 18.52.080 "Parking - Standards" (F) requires that "not less than ten percent ~ of the interior surface area of unenclosed off-street parking areas containing fifteen or more parking spaces shall be devoted to landscaping." The intent here is to break up the mass of pavement by landscape areas and vegetation in order to lessen the negative impacts of surface parking areas. This standard is applied to all private developments in the Town of Vait (i.e., recent Safeway remodel) and hence, should be applied to public developments as we(L The Public Works Department contends that these landscape "islands" make snow removat tess efficient and therefore do not wish to provide these landscape areas. Again, this is a current standard being applied to all other developments in the Town of Va+l and there are no unique circumstances here which prevent this landscape application. 5. ' Snow Storage The site plan shows areas to be used for snow storage an-site. The areas identified for snow storage in front of the building appear to be somewhat inappropriate for storing snow. Storage of snow in these areas will affect visibility from the lower units as well as cause conflicts with pedestrians. Staff recommends eliminating these snow storage areas and providing snow storage elsewhere on the site. The current standard being applied an private developments is that snow storage areas shall • equal 30% of the paved area. The driveway and parking area for this development equal approximately 14,705 sq. ft. and the proposed snow storage areas equal approximately 2,505 sq. I ft. (17%). In order to be consistent with the application of this requirement, staff recommends that the site either meet this requirement on-site or provide a management solution of removing I snow from this area. ~ I 6. Retaining Walls The proposed plan wi(I contain several retaining walls. The standard appJied to developments in ' the Town (in accordance with Section 18.58.020 "Fences, hedges, watls, and screening") is a ' maximum height of 6' for retaining walls. The Town also requires an Engineer's stamp on the detail for retaining walts. The GU district (Section 18.36.060 "Additional development standards") requires compliance with this standard. However, the walls associated with the dumpster enclosure are appropriate in order to screen this facility and wit( be incorporated into a structured enclosure with a pitched roof. 7. Solid Waste Disposa! The plan provides for the location of a dumpster for this development. Staff believes a detail of a trash enclosure should be provided prior to the final review of this item by the PEC. Consideration should be given to "bear-proofing" the enclosure. 8. Open Space and Recreation The majority of the Public Works site is industrial in nature and therefore has limited opportunities for apen space or recreationa( facilities. However, there is an existing bench area to the north west of the building that has historically be used for volfeyball and other activities. The proposed site plan shows access to this area and notes the area as "open space park." Staff believes this . area should be improved, landscaped, irrigated and maintained in order to encourage use as a 5 TOWNOFYA[L passive recreation area #or residents. This area should also include picnic tables and griils for use by the residents. Consideration should aiso be given to providing griiis close to the buiiding for use by the residents. • The North Trail is planned to pass through this praperty. Staff believes that provisions should be made to provide a pedestrian connection from this residentiai buiiding to the trail. 9. Sife Access This site is accessed via the #unnel below I-70. This tunnel is a constrained roadway with a width of 20'. Ideally, this access should be wider, however, to widen this tunnel, if allowed by CDOT, it would be very costly. Staff and the applicant will be required to coordinate with CDOT in order to determine Frontage Road access requirements as the project becomes more formalized. As a general rule for this site, CDOT will require additional improvements (i.e., decel lane, accel {ane, left turn lanes, etc.) if the number of vehicle trips are increased by more than 20% an this site. . CDOT's analysis is more complicated than explained here, but this gives you a general idea of the potential requirements. The applicant has indicated that they have verbal approval from CDOT for the 24 dwelling units without additional CDOT requirements. The tunnel, as it exists today, causes access problems and is somewhat dangerous. Staff is concerned about increasing traffic through this tunnel in its current configuration. Staff believes that a better management plan can be developed which may include additional signage and warning lights to prevent mishaps in the tunnel. The existing mirrar and flashing lights do not function we41 and should be improved. Staff believes the applicant should address ihis access issue prior to fina! PEC review. 10. Pedesfrian and Bus Access As explained above, the access through this tunnel is less than perfect. By providing housing on this site, the EHU occupants must have safe pedestrian/bicycie access through this tunnel. The • roadway is 20' wide, however, there is space beyond the support columns for the bridge which appears to provide adequate room for a 5'+ wide pedestrian path on one side of the road. Staff feels strongly that some accommodation should be provided for pedestrians through this tunnel. Staff believes that a sidewalk should be provided from the intersection of the two proposed parking areas to the North Frontage Road. The persons occupying the employee housing may rely on public transit to get around Town (probably more so than the generai public). Staff has a concern with the abifity of these EHU occupants to find convenient bus access. Staff believes that consideration should be given to locating a bus stop on the Pulis Bridge. The bus currently stops on the bridge to make a turn onto the North Frontage Road. 11. Environmental Hazards A portion of the Public Works site is located in a High Severity Rockfall Hazard and Debris Flow Moderate Hazard. The proposed site for the housing is not iocated in the identified hazard area and staff has reviewed a preliminary hazard report which states that the proposed housing site is not affected by the hazard. A finaf hazard repart will be pravided prior to the issuance of a building permit. • 6 *VAIL T019N 12. Historical Resources ~ There is a remnant of an old log cabin on the site. This structure may be from the turn of the century. Staff believes the applicant should research the historical significance of this structure and, if warranted, preserve this structure on the site or perhaps in the proposed open space area. This research should occur before the final PEC review of the project and should be performed by an "expert" in historic preservation or history. Alternativeiy, if the cabin is located in an area that will not be affected by the development, then the cabin could remain as is. The applicant shali verify the focation of the cabtn and 'rnclude it on the site plan and grading plan. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed conditional use permit for the Public Works housing development (24 Type III EHUs), staff will not be providing a formal recommendation at this #ime. Staff will, however, provide a recommendation at the time of finai PEC review. f:\everyone\pecMemos\pubhous.324 • ~ ~ I • 7 ~ TOIYN OF Vi11L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ • n7J0 - I % - - - ' ` ' _ _ M11£SDEY~II_LOO:1Mnff o ~ . _ ~)fLOlnfLtaOlCllt~!'l . . . )1C-MCJ~'~CT6i.~ONKL • , ~ : ~ - f~6l0.MK~l~~LMl.DCb~lROu ? I ~ - .e:eo •~1 ' ~i ' , . " = w~vrnca • ~ . . . . ~I~~,;t ' ~ V.u y~ aU~ ~ ' • ' - ~ ,`,l J , , • - ~,.J e»o w ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ' . DW.DER REtAHe.G ul4{,l O . . . . , r .i p . ` ~ ~ . , . ~ . . ~ . . ~i . vl . . ~ . - _ - _ _ _ " ? 1 . .r _ _ . _ _ _ - ' ? _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ . • ~ . .r _ ' ' O O 14 ..\,':~.I.,~ ~ __897 ~~.x• _ - ' . o - ' - - " " - .v > , Y., H. ~ - ' ~ O m , . _ ~ . ~ . ~ • . : ~ . :a ~ ' •~'F~ , ~ , q: OALDERPETI!LN'aWALL `W4'FRL6vllr ' . ` ' ~ ' ~aOdCF3 ~F~' • ~ ~ ' ~ • ~ . , ' x+~5~~1~d+ ~ - _ - \ _ : ~ - , % ~ ; "im, - _ i • - - ~ . ~ om?~ , p vniL. vK«, cMVE ,~i,r.>>~''~ _ , ~ 's . ' ~~PGEb " . a F , P) y~'ra~+"~p¢ta~v?,`a°''" ~p,LDlR• S*bpCUr i Eri3tw"DEM~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J/f ' . , . N . ~ Z • ~ ~ ~ ~ . ' ~ 0 x z _ ~ o ~ °vGHEMATIC SITE PLAN ~ 770.4 " ~ - I " ~ a " ; - . ~ Ryt p1E ~ o BUILDttY A -39TORIE9 O WIt9 PER StOR7 > ~ 24 WITB tO10L PapCING: _ ~ . PuBUC uXJIOC9 • 95 SPdCES 4ipU9MG . 11 SP4CE5~(INCLUDES 3 GUESL I HMiDKOP . 1 9PACE9 tOTAL PARKINCa . 124 9PACE5 j Np STI3UCNRED PARYCRY i z ~ ~I • • ~ = 114 • T` 4t~ ~jj~ ~r+~,~j ~Ir j ~ r ~ ~1 :JiCr'~ !t { ~u. 1r~, r . ~ ~rf~~u:.:~; :i;~~ f ~:~i ~ij;l~i~~~•~:~f :f;~~ri ~"=:j ~ ~.Lr-`rr ~ ~'i~f~r~Jfl;: i . ;~i~+t.~r~l~.t~:f~~~1 ~ i ~ .l'~~f~~~J'it .ir ~ 71~`r;c rc.~c .r. ~a~l ~tr<,.~ • .rM ::i~~~ ~ilif~i~,~t~"' jTf . .~3 ~ . «FJ . • t r:f 3~' -Irf ~ rr.r . ,.r"tlf.t .f .;^h..~i'-.~1-. _ .n~ 7 ~ r T'', ~ r~ - - - ' ~ - - ~ U _ r ~ ~ I _ ~ ~ Q y O 0 ' fRd'iT f$O1TN! £LEVASION ~y ~ : r,°~ ~C4R. L~ . ~'.p• Tv ~ V w.l E~ p a . 4, - I _ i 5 ~ ~ 1--° 9EGGyA t~TN~RD lEV£t "4O HT MIp•WIT TYPIGAL ENO-WIT TYPIG~ IEFT HID-tAaiT TYPIGAL R1G 4r3ef ~pROO+ • see sr . PE OED~ • ~b'1 Di U~! DL'DqOay • ' ~ ~ EABT EIEYATION y~ . EP9i ElBVATION v 10 W !CK[ v1 ~'P t- = w- - z = ~ O ~ ; , _f d ` p ~.h J eeoww+ ~ eer.oo+ , g i _ °e°"oa• p z 1 i ' FIR9T LEvEL ~.e~ fIR9T LEVEI LAWDRY 120f"~ scrs. vr-•.c TYPIGAI E1JD•i~'71T tewoFCr. af et. tYP{GAL IEfT ri1D-UN17 ~Cp~~'se stlD-W4` a+E eeoaoon •»o at. SEGTION SECTiCN a+e e~~a-a+ - 4se at. ~E w•. r.esca.e, N• . r.e$ F ( ~ / c-. _i , r'eiardl~lhF'.'/ ~ f:,~V.,rlt-,, 'vKA~Nt•E.t= ~ v~i~~l / rlD.rl ,~.,i ..,,f... ~ I - ~ • r• I t, .wc cr, n.ii.^'"<.~::~ • ~I / ~ i ~ La~-'~R'~ l• ~„R:M-r wt ~'`ra++s'.Yrs.w '~.~...~c~........ ~ ' / ~ ~ - ~ L _.~l ~ ~ • Ir~w+~o wrt ~.ar I fre`, ~ ~t pero+fPibEl~yro~e~u~ m~~ou.J = . nr?e~c.s..dTW7F:R5EC110NOf 1~- ~ TMD LMKS riot ias ~aa ' ~a+nwrr.KL~)t'G.y•tf4~rrswcW ~ .../ru+n~ C. C91 ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ i°" a. .•......w~ rs.,~........r ~C~ ~i t X ~ / . ~ r ~ i . _ _ ~ ' . _~`a _ . \ ?s - _ _ - " I ~ I I. \ , . 7M'.""~ ~ - _ • ~i . _ _ ' , a~e~ O\ ~ ~ ~I o~; ~ t!~'_ ra~m wu ttv. _ - ; ~ia • ~e..~. ~..r I t + ~ ~1 - ~~~M~ ~1 _ _1` - ~ i;~, [r'. 1 ( - ~4'Y~ r~r•~ , ~ ~~i J l ~ ~ _ ~ll(( ( - ~I ~ ~ ° , , _ . ' - s , - ~ ~ r~j i ~ _ _ - - - _ _i ~ lR""' : _ ~ ~ = ~ - _ ~ L--_ • • ! ~ J i _ ~ f~~""_ ~ J - ~ _ ~ ~ ::.i'Mr~:.°~:..~ :r•~ K ~ r ~ - ~ - - - ' " tA~E '~ST i~,~,,, ~`I1,,~ . - %NZE.RS _ ,yl • b. 6tM0 ~ I t ~ J ~If~J,FID , • O~ ~+~.n•..r.. . _ K ti ' i i'.,b e ~ E / A< 70 ERSTAjE Nv ax.s u. ~?e,annwYf nt !tyr cea.r-~,. p EASN LPINL •w• ~ w~.. s.arr ea.ier ~nn~r..~ I n,mi ~ N,~AGE ROA SH£ET ~I 9%24/ - ~ w/r ~c' ~yJ.ylr~ws ~ F•~ Ir~l. +cfos~ t+<. _ ~ 1 OF 1 ENGINEERING INC. . i ot - ~ • i ~ _ Memorandum I ~ To: Dominic Mauriello, Town Planner ! From: Andy Knudtsen , Susie Hervert Subject: Conditional Use application for conceptual review Date: February 10,1997 I I. Project Description The proposed seasonal housing developrnent will be Iocated immediately east of the Public Works Administration building. The Administration building is located at 1309 Vait Valley Drive on an unplatted parcel. A survey has been included to further ctarify the Iocation of the project. The development comprises of one building, three stories high, with 24 units 18 of these will be 480 square foot studio units and 6 will be 586 one bedroom units. Ptease note that the smailer unit can be built out as an open floor plan or with a dividing wall separating the living area from the sleeping area. A parking lot will be located south of the building and witl include one parking space for each unit, an accessible space (handicap), and three guest spaces. A11 units on the lower • floor will be handicap accessible. During evening hours, additionai guest parking is available in ~ the spaces provided for Public Works operations during the day. A staircase has been included in the design to allow access to these spaces. A dumpster has been Iocated next to the stairs, which will be accessible from both the upper parking lot and the Iower parking Iot. II. Evaluation of Conditional Use Criteria ~ Relationship and irnpact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. , i The development objectives of the town, as articulated in the Land Use Plan, call for this type of ~ development. Policies 5.5, 6.1, and 63 support affordable housing of this nature, ' 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accornmodated at varied sties throughout the community. 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. • 1 i The need for additional employee housing units has been a goal of the community for many years. i The Town Council has identified three sectars within our comrnunity which should be servcd with ' housing: ! I 1-- families and individuais looking to ~,yi homes; 2-- seasonal wage earners needing locai r n 1 apartments; and 3-- year-round nre ters looking for homes witliin the Town. ~ The first two projects the Town has done (Vail Commons and Red Sandstone) address the first ~ group listed above. In an effort to meet as many needs as possible, the current project targets the ' needs of the second group. We hope to provide housing for the third group at later date. I Concerning the provision of services, this project will directly improve the Town's ability to provide basic services. The Town hires approximately 90 seasonals each year. Recently we have had difficulty filling all of these positions. For example, the bus department experienced shortages during the 95/96 ski season. Although the Town was willing to pay overtime, it still couldn't fill enough positions to maintain services and as a result had to cut back on the frequency of bus service. This year, after raising wages for bus drives, the Town is still short 3- 8 drivers from the total 59 needed each season to fully serve the community. Residents who will receive first priority for this housing wilt be the Town's seasonal workers. If other units are available, staffproposes making the units avaitable to year-round Town employecs. The third tier would be critica[ employecs working for other employers (such as CDOT plow ' drivers). This priority list is slightty different than what Counci2 has approved in the past (year- round TOV workers have been addcd.) The applicant team plans to present this to Council to verify that they concur with this modification. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of poputation, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. The project will have a beneficial effect on the faciiities listed above as they will be staffed with more employees than are currently on-board with the Town. The impact to these facitities by the 24 occupants of the project should be minimal. The plan does include an on-site park area for the residents. The bench known as Buzzard Park will be graded and planted in a way to provide some useable open space for the residents. Bar-be-ques and volleyball games are examples of the uses residents may enjoy here. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive an pedestrian safety 2 • and convenience, traffic tlow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow • from the streets and parking area. The appticant team is proposing several modifications to the site to improve traffic congestion and safety. The current level of automobile and truck traffic generated by the Public Works site could be handied in a safer way. Thus, in conjunction with the housing development, the Town Council has included funds to improve the safety of the tunnel. Traffic generated by both the housing and the existing facilities will benefit. CDOT may require safety improvements on the Frontage Roads. Staff will be having a pre- application meeting with CDOT staff on Tuesday, March 18. Depending on the requirements of CDOT, and the concurrence of the Town Engineer, accel or decel lanes will be added to the Frontage Road. The applicant team understands that the PEC will need to know the final design of the irnprovements (if any) prior to making a determination on the Conditional Use. The applicant team will work with CDOT to make their decision prior to a final PEC vote. Effect upon the character of fhe area in which the proposed use is to be located, incladiag the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to sarround uses. The applicant team believes that the key issue on which to focus is the visibility and quality of the design, as seen from the neighborhoods around the project. Early on in thc process, Council ~ approved the givens for the development, which inctuded the foilawing statement: Although the existing berm aiong I-70 screens much of the Public Works day-to-day operations, some or all of the housing may be visible above the existing berm after construction. I The staff conducted an open house on February 17, 1997 and comments from that meeting are attached for your review. Two options were presented to the public. A 24 unit options (quite similar to what is being submitted at this time) and a 42 unit option that included a cantilevered parking garage. Both options included three story buildings. Most of the comments from the public that attended the open house expressed a preference for the higher density. Several comments from TOV staff expressed a preference for the lower density. The visibility of the development was not a significant concern of the public, which could have potentially affected the height and/or density. Neighbors attending the open house said that the visibility of the buildings would not be a problem, if the architecture were nicely done and the parking were screened. Notwithstanding the interest in the higher density, the lower density plan has been selected due to constrains such as budgets and access. The architectural design incorporates variety in the roof line and the southern elevation provides relief and interest, when viewed from the neighborhoods to the south. The parking lot will be construction at elevation 8254 to 8258. The elevation of the • 3 top of the berm is 8258. The berm is planted with trees, thus there are an additional 15 to 20 feet of screening on top of the berm. The site plan desi,gner has located the housing parking lot behind a landscape island, allowing more landscape material to screen the parked cars. . ~ The applicant team believes there was some concern by the neighbors that low quality industrial type materiats would be used on the housing. As this is not the case, and due to the interesting, high quality architectural design, we believe this criteria has is met. ' III. Zone Check The site on which the developrnent will be located is zoned General Use. This zone district allows Type III Employee Housing Units as a Conditional Use. The zoning standards for this district ' are not predetermined as in most zoue districts, but are established in a case-by-case basis by the PEC. The zoning standards to be determined by the PEC for any conditional use in this zone district include lot area, setbacks, building height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and site devetopment, and parking and loading. On the other hand, the Type III EHU is defined in the Zoning Code under Section 18.57.060 (B). Each of the standards in that section are addressed below: 1- The conditional use application is enclosed. 2- The parcel on which the proposal will be constructed meets the standards of this paragraph. 3- The units witl be counted as .5 for density calculations; however, since there is no predeterrrtined density limit in this zone district, this point is mute. ~ 4- The square footage of 18 of the units is 480 square feet. The square footage of the other 6 units is 588 square feet. 5- Each dwelling unit wilt have kitchen and bathroom facilities. 6- None will have more than 2 bedrooms. Most will be studios. 7- Occupancy will not exceed two persons for each dwelling unit. We anticipate that 18 will have a single occupant and 6 are sized large enough to accommodate couples. 8- One parking space will be provided for each units. 9- 13 The development will comply with these provisions now and in the future. IV. Natural Hazards The site has been studied several times recently, as the Public Works Bus Barn and Administration Building have been slated for expansions. The Bus Barn is currently under construction and the Administration Building is scheduled for expansion during the summer of 1997. Arthur Mears conducted a comprehensive study of the entire Public Works site in December of 1994. Most of the report deals with the western portion of the site. A separate one page report, dated July 23, 4 . b 1944, was completed by Art Mears to evaluate the impacts of hazards to the Administration I• buitding, which is located on the eastern portion of the site. In that letter, Mr. Mears stipulates that: 1- The hazard does "not constitute a significant hazard to people;" however, 2- A trench berm is required for the expansion to the Administration Building. 3- Once the proposed diversion structure is constructed, it will bring the site into conformance with the Town of Vail zoning code. We believe that the improvements required for the expansion to the Administration Building will atso adequately protect the bench available for the housing development. Art Mears confirmed this understanding with a review of the proposed development, the existing maps of the Town, and surveys of the area. A letter from him is attached to this application. The Applicant team has scheduled him to conduct a site visit once the snow has melted to confirm his understanding. His updated review will be provided prior to building permit issuance. IV. Process We propose to foltow the schedule shown below. Please let us know if you believe the schedule should be planned any differentty. ~ I PEC application deadtine March 17 PEC/DRB worksession March 24 Status report to Council March 25 PEC final hearing April 14 DRB hearing April 16 Grading permit submitted Late April Grading permit issued EaI'ly May (approximately 7 days after submittal) Building permit submitted Late May I Building permit issued Eai'ly June (approximatety 21 days after submirtal) Occupancy December 1 I I I I • 5 •y _ MEMORANDUM , • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 24, 1997 ~ SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type !i EHU, located at 392 Beaver Dam Circle/Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Appiicant: Howard Koenig Pianner: Tammie Wiliiamson 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS GRFA 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 I 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 'I existing dwelling units and also for the provision of employee housing units. According to Section 18.57.050 (B)(5) (Type II Employee Housing Unit, General Conditions), ' "An applicant shall be permitted to apply to the Community Development Department of the Town for additional GRFA, not to exceed five hundred (500) square feet to be used in the construction of the EHU:" With this proposal, the applicant is requesting to use 500 sq. ft. of GRFA, in the construction of a Type II Employee Housing Unit at 392 Beaver Dam Circle/Lot 4, Biock 3, Vail Willage 3rd Filing. In this proposal, the applicant wishes to construct a 502 sq. ft., Type II Employee Housing Unit, attached to the west of the proposed primary/secondary dwelling units. The applicant's proposed fkoor plans and building elevations, illustrating the Type II Employee Housing Unit, have been attached for reference. The lot currently has a two-story wood and stucco structure on it, however, the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single family structure and rebuild a new primary/secondary residence with a one-bedroom EHU (with a 300 square foot garage) attached to the west side of the secondary structure. • f:\everyoneipec\memos\coenig.324 Z mw*YA1 i ~ ' TYPE l/ EHU Addit+onally, the applicant, Howard Koenig, is requesting approval to construct a Type II EHU to ~ be attached to the west portion of the primary/secondary residence. In September and December of 1992, the Town Council passed Ordinances 9 and 27, Series of 1992, to create a new Chapter 18.57 - Employee Housing, for the addition of Employee Housing Units (EHUs) as permitted or conditional uses within certain zone districts within the Town of Vail. The definition in that ordinance states: Seation 18.04.1 Q5 (in part) "Employee Housing Unit (EHU) shall mean a dwelling unit which shall not be leased or rented for any period less than thirty (30) consecutive days, and shall be rented only to tenants who are full-time employees of Eagle County. EHUs shafi be allowed in certain zone districts as set forth in Chapter 18 of this Code. Deve(opment standards for EHUs shali be as provided in Chapter 18.57 - Empioyee Housing. For the purpases of this Section, a fuli-time employee shatl mean a person who works a minimum of an average of thirty (30) hours per week." Pursuant to Section 18.57.050(B) of the Vail Municipal Code, in part, a Type II Employee Housing Unit shall be a conditional use in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District: "it shall be permitted on lots which meet the minimum lot size requirement; be attached to, or (ocated within, a single-family dwelling or two-family dwelling; not have more than two bedrooms; shall have one parking space per bedroom, with a 300 square foot garage credit available to help meet the enc(osed parking space requirement." 111. ZONIN ANALYSIS Legal Address: 392 Beaver Dam CirclelLot 4, Block 3 Vail Village 3rd Filing. ~ Lot Size: 25,273.5 sq. ft. / 0.5802 Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Use: Primary/secondary dwelling units with a 7ype II Employee Housing Unit Allowed Proposed GRFA, wfth an additiona) 5,847 sq. ft. 5,651 sq. ft. 500 sq. ft. of G R FA: Site Coverage: 5,055 sq. ft., or 200% 4,239 sq, n., or 17°10 Setbacks: front: 20' 20' sides: 15', 15' 16, 15' rear: 15' 15' Landscaping: 15,164 sq. ft., or 60% 16,208 sq. ft., or 64% Parking: 6.5 required spaces (1 enclosed) S proposed spaces (5 enclosed) f:\everyonelpec\memoslkoenig.324 2 • . r III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT • Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: I Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmenta! Commission (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of I 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 quatity living conditions and expanding the suppiy of employee housing for both year-round and seasonai residents. The proposed EHU will have a positive impact on the Town's housing needs, by providing housing foc employees. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation ; facilities, and other pubtic facilities needs. • Staff believes that there wi(I be (itt(e impacf from the proposed Type ii EHU I on (ight, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools or parks. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to cangestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. I The site currently has a single-family, two-story structure that the applicant ~ proposes to demolish. The proposed redevelopment is cornpatibfe with the existing deve(opment in the neighborhood, therefore, little impact will I be associated with this proposal. 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 very similar to those in existence in the surrounding neighborhood. GRFA for the project will not exceed the maxirnum atlowed per the code. 6. Findin s The Planning and Environmenta! Commission shati make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for a Type II Employee Housing Unit: • f:\everyone\peclmemosUcoenig.324 3 z . ~ 1. That the ProPosed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes I of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. . 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it ~ would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or ~ improvements in the vicinity. I 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of Title 18 of the Vail Municipa! Code. I ~ IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicanYs request i for a conditional use permit to construct a Type II EHU at 392 Beaver Dam Circle/ Lot 4 Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing subject to the fof(owing findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. I 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable ~ provisions of Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code. Staff recommends approval of the applicanYs request with the following conditions: 1. That the one-car garage be appropriately deed restricted for exclus+ve use by ihe occupant of the EHU. 2. That any drainage or environmental issues be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department and Environmental Health Division. 3. That any road cuts for the purpose of utility location, be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. 4. That the applicant submit for review and approval by the DRB, a construction staging plan, indicating the limits of disturbance and tree protection measures for the site. 5. That no demo/rebuild, building or grading permits will be issued by the Cornmunity Development Department until the Army Corp. of Engineer's has reviewed and approved the application. • 4 ; ~ ~ - * , p . .....+a.n.. ~ ..,....~«..,.•.~+-ro:.....w. IrM75VY~ H. ~ _.,....am..or~s R~60.OQ T~210f nn . • ~ue ~ .....~s Y~. ~'r r~ ~ ~Yr~ws•Y~wwr- ~ tt~.ine+rti..e- . O . . . . - ~ , _ . . ` R L IL J _ _ . . . . / S )~lr2y. .a a'b ~~''f}}~~-. ~ ` a~.+.R.o _ ..,~r • l . - s0.qp' , y . '~~j.A."e4s o ~ ~ ,>a..~.R....i ~ 0 + • h~`` ~ - - - / • lOT t P-67 M . . . ' \ s f _ 64( 1: t.JS. M 411 LOT S I • ' • - , - - - - -i - - - r°~' ~ ~ ° ,1`~ L,~, ~ ! • _ . . . ~ / ''n ~o ~ • ' ~ ' , . ~ ,.~:a,d.,a x•`~---_-.. M z:oo•av w inm sCME: 1- lo• UATE Oi SURVEY: 8/26/96 . - , . j - - - -vcroooor~ c - 2295 e~' I ' , lOT 3 i ;.QI 2 . • IMPROVEMENT LOCAiION CERTFlCATE k • ~ . . . . 70POCRAPMIC SURVEY • LOT 4 BLOqC 3 VAIL VILLACE, TH1R0 FlLING • ~ . x » TONM OF YAII. EAGLE CWNTY. COLORADO 7:19 ~ ~ w a. -r+- . ~ 1P"c«r u~.. ~ ? ~ / 2',.:r,..+ . ~ • ,^.gy . ~ i / ' ~ ~ ^ „~+~°o- W ~ ` / ~..e . ? ~ ~ rr~.ew+ cy t . j . \ ~"1~M +~`r' ~•e:x.... i \ / ~,K~ .~.+.t~• . O / - • O r ~ % j \ i~°p ~ ' `v+' ~ Q n ~ y `_yL p i / ~ { ` ~ ^ • 1!,,\ ~~'f'~ ~ ~ ~,qyfjr~ .'l Q- 1 ' t . S • . ~ ` ~ ....o..''....r ~ q ~ i . ~ ' ~ 7 / / M~~ .~~y y?~~ *,.M' ' Y ~ ~ ~„~,~~y J~ t /i/~ y ~ e e i eO ~ y}"~ ~ +ft~'~ ~ ,t ~ ` . i.' r~~~..~~ i' ~ r O ? / _ 1w~1C+ . ~,,.52 _Q..- s~se ~ r.s l~' i ' t ,,,s•,r ' _'-t// . IJ~'~_ ~ J p ~ ~ srrE ~~--~„i• . / ~ ~ ~ ~ i -v.F y.rf ~,,,._W h~f ~;wM~' ~ OW~~ ~ 1 ,.r.'r. w.+. ~•„ueM'~r ~ W'n'e~..!+i"` s~'~~ ' 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~imrr, ~ r++rr'~ # ~ f , • ~ ' t~'~~~ ~ye M yrt . ' ~ ! ' . - • ' , a~2 . Q / ~ •~e ~ . i ~ ~ ; ~ 1.t?t / . . . ' / • ~ ~ i e - ~r ' ~ • ' + ' ~ ~ ' ~ _ • C+"'~ °ws -f' ~ ~ ~ ~ • . ~ I ~ ~ Aft as' • w oo•. e' LL'-o• sP.~• e• _ _ l~ • ~ ~ i 1 I I ~ ~ i ~ I OeaK ti i . ~ U Z - - - ~ ~ I MC . p , ~ ,¦v. . ~ M 1 ~ w~-• ~OA1 Lr - My ~ • 0 r i ~ 1 ~ . ~ .m.~ " ~ I ~ i .owcr ~ ~ • I O I ? - I , Mq+.+eY I I , , • , ~ I j ~e•-•• j is' _C• j _ st I I LOWER~Ya:a.FLOOFt PLM k•. ~ ro . A2 i . ~ •.a• ~..r ~.s r.o• n.v _ ' I If'! - - - ~ , ; ~ ' ~ i -Z'--- - • ~ j ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ - - ` ~ LNw6 I F M0l,IOI~ii~~If ' . ; • I ~ CnF ~ I ~ ~ W 'F w ~ v - - ~ - - - I ~ - - ' I i Q Q ' f /_S? w~ ~ ~ , I W ' - ' - a ellwlln ~ 1 I 0~ i I Q - _}T r~ 1~ - 'I I - ~ W .r~ I ~ , ~ ~ i~ , ' ? ~A i - ~ orY ; ~ ~1 h• I ~ I~ • ' enm ~ . ~ Q • ~ ~ ~ i ~ , ~ o WICHO , 0 _ I J - _ ~ - Al, I / ! I sr •'.r.? ..i+w~ I i~' ' u'..• a~' • ~td ~s'. • --n t- ~ MAIN t~VEL FlAOR PI21A1 [A3 : • • ~ . - ~ ~ i rr~41W-~ A 4 - ~ I Q ~ ~ 1 W T•a i, . 0 ~ ,~d+m.oo. I 0 ~ i C= - - ~ i i - ~ - i- [JPPER LEVEL FI.OOR P1AN F A4 ~ - - - I - • - _ ~ - ~ ~ ' E - - - - - - - - _ - _ - - ( - - ~ - - - ~ 'N~ • ~I_ ~ - ~ _ 4 ~ ~ I ~ - - - ~ ~ - - T Ti ~ i i ; i , i i, ]iZii} iL.t' • ~ ; ~i.l ,i ~ w • t-- - - V ,L ' ' - 1 ~~'~Ur.l-- 11. a ~~I ~ ~~1 . 'll r _ . ti J EAST ELEVATtON Q a w ~M I - - - - - I ' ~ CA l _.u , ~ Y. i r . :w:. ..--s_• i • ~ - I '~A" ~ , 1 - r'` =-T'- 1 ! rT 1 - _ ' t . irj ~ I t ~ NOftTH EtEVATION ~ • ~ ' • A5 ~ • a • ~ - - - , - ; , - _ ~ , _ _ - ; , ~ 8 - ~ ; .._J - , LE-F - rlT ' L , ; t~ ~ - +:.';.~Q., ~~~~------_•F-,..T~ _ 1' , ~ ~ _ - - ! ~ ~ ~'`Y- ~.,'fi`^ =~I I' t. - ~tf~•~ f;', . r~~(~' ~ " , F ~ s~~ . LL ~ ' ~ i~f;t'i--t I, ~ ~ ~ Ww~ .~ea ~r ~ wESr REvnno:+ . ~ . ~ -o• A OC W ~ troa~ > ~ - - - _ - _ _ a~. e 7- ~ I I II '~i~~~ . I I ~ i ~:.J._ , .f. I I'I1 l~ _~1 I y ~ . ~ ~ . . . . _ , I ' ' ~-i ' - ~Arl ~ . ~ ~ 1i.L ! I! NL ~ i i.. l~~~~~ L1 Jill~h'! ~ ~ ' ~ir_T ~ ~ ' ' _ } - I_ I e 5(x17H ELEVATION vo . -e A6 MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmenta! Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 24, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a major exterior alteration in Commercial Core 1, to ailow for the enclosure of a deck area at the Creekside Building, located at 229 Gore Greek Drive/Lot A, Biock 5B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicani: Michael Diich, represented by Oz Architecture Ptanner: Lauren Waterton 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF TNE REGtUEST The app)icant is proposing a major exterior alteration to the Creekside Building in CCI in order to enclose part of an existing dining deck. The addition is proposed on the west side of the second level of the Creekside Building, in the space currently occupied by the May Palace restaurant. A new restaurant, Gore Creek Grille, will occupy this space in the spring. The proposed addition is above existing floor area, and therefore, does not add additional site coverage. • The proposat includes a 1,050 square foot, addition to the restaurant for a new entry and new ~seating area. The applicant is proposing to Jeave part of the existing deck area to allow for approximately ten tables to be iocated on the outdoor dining deck. The addition will have folding french doors, placed between stucco columns, that open onto the new dining deck. A wood and steel trellis is proposed to be located above the outdoor dining and the new entry. Above the addition, new balconies will be provided for the residential condominiums on the third level of this building. I Additiona(ly, improvements to the east side of the building include, a handicapped and delivery ~ ramp, a new trash collection room, and a new exhausi vent and chimney. Finaf(y, the enfiire ~ ~ building wilJ be repainted with a new color scheme. , Y(;(~ . j . ' 1 ~ F''~•~ _t ~ . ~ 'i~'+v-~. --...r_• "•-'l::r!~r w~~ ~Y ~ > ~g I •.11Kj t'~~'-- . ` " ; i i `i"&! -f ;wj r f - ` 1 4 , r,,..:. C7 . - r • 1 f~' _ " ~ ~ `~'r fi. • . _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~1 . r^~~ . . -.n' , ~r t. l~ . i. • . ~ •'f~ . ....,e*.........ST ~I.~ I • , •t% C •ti\ ~ ! 117 %AIL 1i7W tl. ZONING ANQLYSIS The following information summarizes the zoning statistics for this request: • Zone District: Gommercial Core 1 Lot Area: 0.234 acres or 10,139 sq. ft. Standard Allowed/Required Existin proposed ' Neight: 33' - 43' maximum height Per Code 22' . (per Vail Viltage Design Considerations) I ' Sfte Coverage 8,154 sq. ft. 7,425 sq. ft. No Change (80%) (72.6%) i Parking: 1 space per each 6 seats, Per Code 7.6 spaces" , based upon seating capacity or Bui(ding Code occupancy standards. * In order to fulfill the 7.6 parking space requirement, the applicant must pay into the parking fund. Currenily parking spaces are $16,905.05 per space. IH. REVIEW CRIIERIA FQR THIS R ~~UEST The Town of Vait Municipal Code estab{ishes the review criteria for a request of this nature. The emphasis of this review is on the proposal's compatibi{ity with the zoning code and the Vail Comprehensive Pian, including the Vail Land Use Plan, Vaii Village Master Plan, Streetscape . Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Viilage Design Considerations. A. THE TOWN OF VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE The Creekside Building is in the CC1 zone district. According to Section 18.24.410 of the zoning code, the purpose of the CC1 district is: "The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vaii Village commerc+al area writh its mixture of iodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The District regulations, in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and District considerations, prescribes site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightiy clustered arrangement of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways and to ensure continuation of building scale and architecture qualities that distinguish the Vi(lage." Staff believes that the proposed changes to the Creekside Building are in compliance with the Purpose Section as stated above. • 2 i B. VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I • Several elements of the Vaii Comprehensive Plan directly address major exterior alterations. The relevant elements and sections are listed below: ~ 1. Vail Land Use Ptan The foHowing are the goals of the Land Use Plan that are relevant to this proposal. Goal 1.3 The quality of development shouid be maintained and upgraded whenever possibie. Goal 1.4 The theme of the old Viilage Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. Goa13.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. Goal 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, . mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopalitan feeling, environmental quality.) Staff bel+eves this proposal is consistent with the goals listed above. • 2. Vail Village Master Plan The foNowing are the goals and objectives of the Vai( Village Master Plan that are relevant to this proposal. Goal 1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. Objective 1.2 Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential I and commercial facilities. I Goal 2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the ~ community as a whole. i Objective 2.4 Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial ~ activity where compatible with existing land uses. ' Siaff believes this proposal is consistent with the policies and objectives listed I above regarding the upgrading and redevelopment of property within the Village. • 3 3. Streetscape Master P1an The Streetscape Master Pian identifies improvements to be lmade in the vicinity of • the Children's Fountain. However, none of the proposed improvements pertain directly to this area of the Creekside Building. 4. Vail Viilage Design Considerations The following is a discussion af compliance with the Urban Design Considerations and the architectural/landscape considerations expressed in the Vail Viliage Design Considerations planning document. Urban Design Guide Plan for Vail Viilage There are no sub-area concepts within the Guide Plan that pertain to this area. Urba.n Design Considerations The following design considerations are critical elements of the Urban Design Guide Plan. They identify the key characteristics of the Village and provide the criteria to evaluate new proposals. A. Pedestianization Staff believes that this proposal wili have fimited impact on the pedestrian character of this area. The proposed addition is located on the second • level of the building and does not directly front on a pedestrian way. I B. Vehicle Penetration This proposal will not affect vehicular traffic. C. Streetscitpe Framework The Guidelines encourage two general types of improvements next to walkways. The first deals with increasing the open space,landscaping and planters along pedestrian routes. The second deals with the infill of commercial storefronts to create new commercia{ activity. Staff believes this addition will have positive impacts on the streetscape framework. It is currently difficu4t to see the existing restaurant from the pedestrian areas. The new addition will allow the restaurant to be more visible from the Children's Fountain and from the Gore Creek Promenade, adding visual interest to the building. The applicant is proposing new landscape planters on the third level balconies, however, no new landscaping is proposed on the second level. ~ 4 i D. Street Enclosure • Staff believes that this addition wili have a limited effect on the street enclosure. This proposai wiil further define the second level of this ~ building (street level, as perceived from the Children's Fountain), providing an enclosure to that edge of the fountain area. Street Edge E. The intent of this guideline is to have many steps within a building to add interest to the street, and to provide a definition to the street. This addition will allow the Creekside Building (on the second level) to come further out towards the edge of the street without imposing a solid wall of building. The addition steps back from the existing south facade to provide relief to the bui(ding. F. Buildirtg Heiaht The proposed addition is 22' in height. The design complies with the standard, which allows only 40% of the roof area to exceed 33'. G. View and Foca( Points The proposed additian will not affect any adopted view corridor or any prominent views, as it is located on the west side of the Creekside Building and is approximately half the height of the rest of the building. • H. Service and Delivery The applicant is proposing a new delivery location on the east side of this buiiding. A new ramp, that wiR be a joint handicap access and delivery ramp, will be located on the east side of the structure. A new trash ' collection location will also be located underneath this ramp in order to provide a central tocation for trash pick-up. Staff believes that the i applicant should work with adjacent property owner Pepi Gramshammer, to coordinate loading and delivery with the proposed addition to the ~ Gasthof Gramshammer that is currently under review by the Town of Vail. A joint service and delivery location for these two buildings would eliminate potential confiicts regarding delivery and could potentially enclose all of the Ioading and delivery and trash for these two buildings. 1. Sun/shade This addition is on the west side of the building. It does not generate a i large amount of shade to the adjacent public areas. The applicant has provided a sun/shade analysis and a smafl portion of the addition will increase the shade on the north side of this building, however, staff does not beiieve that this significantly affects any of the public spaces along the Gore Creek Promenade. • 5 Architecture/Landscane Considerations A -RQg..a • The applicant is proposing a flat-roof addition to accommodate new balconies on the third level of this building. While flat roofs are not a recommended element in the Village, staff believes that the addition of the balconies above tne addition lessens the impact of the flat roof. B. Facades The applicant is proposing to continue to utilize the existing materia(s on this building, including stucco, wood and windows. Staff believes that this addition meets this consideration. The addition will be composed primarily of folding french doors. Staff believes that the doors, separated by stucco pillars, achieve the goal of this consideration. C. Decks and Patios The applicant is proposing to leave part of the existing deck area and will provide approximately ten tables on the outdoor dining deck. This deck does not directly abut a pedestrian way, and will only be visible from the Gore Creek Promenade. The deck is proposed on the west side of the building, thereby aNowing for extended sun exposure. D. Balconies The proposed balconies on the third level of the building are proposed to • include a low solid stucco railing, divided by pillars with accent planters placed on top of the railing. Staff believes that the bafconies are appropriate in this location. Regarding the balcony for the restaurant addition, staff has concerns with the proposed glass railing. Glass railings are uncommon within Vail Village and staff is concerned about the introduction of glass as a railing material. The Urban Design Considerations specifically identify glass panels as a railing materia( that should be avoided. Staff believes that this proposal does not meet this considerat+on. Staff strongly recommends that the glass railing be eliminated. A material more in keeping with the Village, such as wood or wrought iron, should be used for the railing. E. Accent elements The applicant is proposing to add a trellis along the proposed addition, constructed of wood with supporting steel posts. Staff believes that while this accent adds interest to this elevation of the bu+lding, it adds a very contemporary look to the building that is out of character with the Village. While a trellis alone is not a negative element, the design of this trellis is very contemporary. Staff recommends that trellis be constructed entirely of wood, be more perdendicular to the building facade, the metal band be removed and the steel posts be replaced with wood posts. • 6 F. Landscape elements ' • The applicant is proposing planters on the third Ievel with the balcony addition to this project, however, the app(icant is not proposing any additional landscaping on the second levei addition of this project. Staff would propose that the applicant provide seasonal planters (at a minimum) on the deck area. G. ervic The applicant is proposing to provide a common service entry into this building on the east side. A new enclosure for the trash facility will be located here, as well a new service entrance for deliveries. Staff bel+eves that the service and delivery will be met through this prbposal. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposal based upon the following findings: 1. That the proposal meets the purpose section of the Commercial Core 1 Zone District. 2. That the proposal meets the various elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, including the Land Use Plan, Vail Village Master Plan, and the Urban Design Cons+derations. • Staff strongly believes that this approval should have the following conditions. If the PEC does , not believe that these conditions are appropriate, staff recommends denial of the request. ; 1. That additional landscape planters be added along the dining deck area. The Design Review Board should review the final design and placement of the , planters. 2. That the overhead trellis and deck rail be redesigned to comply with the Urban ~ Design Guidelines and Considerations and that these items be brought back to the PEC for final review and approval. 3. That the applicant work with adjacent property owner Pepi Gramshammer to coordinate (oading and delivery. . 7 , ~ 1 '~Y ~ t t. i -1t~ _ . ~bo ~ ~ # } ~ ~;1 ~ ~ Y ~ ~ t . • ~ ~f t ~^~:r: f . ~ • j t S ~ ax• .~-"ry _r-;• y s :„ef!r _~J `~(~~2~~~~' tl 7 _ •-a y 5 ,•w,y s ~ , X i° • ~ : ~ l r z r NI.. ~.yy'~f. ,I. ~T ~~y?~~• ~ ~ ~ FNST LpMING ~ . ~ • • ~ r ~ ~ ~ t M • ' .j~ • . ' ~ • ( • a 'c s • . j ~ • ~r •S~~ y ~ ~ • •r . ' _ . • ' C' ~t • s ^ ! \ • ' e , i.. ~ . •~5 ~ ; . ~ ~ . , • l'a _ 1,~ , a • . ~ • ~ I ry ~ E. r. - . ~ - ~ ~ s . ~ r`p, ~I . . ICFi:1~ r~Y,.er^~'~r-~'" -:e- . ~ • , . t ~ ,.A~' . ~ ~ - ~ • . , i f' f•~ LOnK1NC? \ORT11 I . . - ; t I . . - ~7l'p, ~Nb - ~ , - - G0re Creek ' • ' Aadifro , existin n°ver\~ {F----~_ Gu~ Q N ~ . ' ' crspter~ace LIUr= ~ ~ ' ! - , ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ i conao kSiae ; . e ~ ~ ' Cr _ ~ , t ~F~~•:!j,r ' - . '5-X/STINC' Al r I ? - ~ _ • D \ I ' . rt i~ 1 ; ~ _ ~ ~ / / ~ , _ ~ ' _ ,9 •''~-'t~y~~ I r1 % . Gd_3~... ~ rr~,~ -h ?JJ~- _ i , • ~.~Cr~ ~ ~^C'>''-~~~ ~ < C • • , • ' `y • ~ ~v' • , ~ . • - . ` ' • + , . ~4 , ; . . ~ ! • . • ~ ~ NEW CHIMNEX , . ; _ I~i~jf ! ~ 1~ . • ~ • . ' ~ . • ` ~ HANDICAP RAMP 8s ENTRY ~ ~ > > . SOUTH ELEVATION ' _ - - - Nr.w TErzrzncr t3ni.coNiF;s - ~ FOI2 I;XISTING CONDOS TII; ROD FOR FAE3RIC AWNING PL11NT8F2S . , ' ; i . ~ -ti~ ;~;i::ti - ~ •ifi: TRELLIS I3E-AMS t. ~ ~R CH O • ~ ~ • ~ ?N i~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ • . JE.W CUSTOM GLASS RAILWG ~ ~ i~•. . _C~' " • f, LXISTING TERR/1CE i;XISTING RF'TAIL UNDISTURI3F,D WEST ELEVATION ~ ~ ~ • ~ 4, ~ ~i I . , - ` i r . . . NEW CONDO TERRACES ! PLANTERS . . . • • o - ' • . TRELLIS BEAMS , • ; . • r p o ~ ~ • NEW CUSTOM GLASS ~ - 1 RAILING (WATER T}iF:Mi• . • ' ~ - • r~ l EXISTING RETAIL/RESTAUI2 NORfiH ELEVATI4N i l - j_; ---~~E,~ ~_,.--~'--~"`r~-----~'',._.----~ . • . • . . _ ~ _ . . ~ . . • . ~ ~ f ~ . ~ puE~ t . Coli ~ ~ . r L.`. • ~`fRY ~ z { . . . E l ^ xN1491cNp -RANip ~ _ - ?-r,~0 - r v L l ~ .y " MEMO ~ To: Planning and Environmental Corrvnission From: Pani Brandmeyer, Larry Grafet, Todd Oppenheimcr, Georgc Ruther Subjeet: Revisions to the Ford Park Management Plan Date: March 24, 1997 ~ On March 20 and 21, 1997 Town Staff inet with representatives from the Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, Vail Recreation District, Vail Valley Foundation, .and Vail Town Council regarding the , ' revisions to the Fard Park Management Plan outlined in the mcinorandum dated March 17, 1997. During those meetings, four issues were raised which warrant further revisions to the Final Draft Ford I Park Management Plan. The four issues ar'~e as follows: I ? Policy Statement 1: " Staffoffces for on-site park activities" has been deleted from the Allowcd List and repiaced with "Administrative offices." "Administrative offices" has been dcleted from the Prohibited List. ~ The Gencral Use Zone District allows public buildings as a conditional use which, through , intcrprctation by staff, includcs Aciministrative officcs. The conditional use perniit review process will provide sufficient proteetion from inappropriate uses within the park. ? Goal #4: Thc word "shortagd" has bcen dcleted as a matter of clarification. ~ Thc rcfcrcncc to a parking shortagc could bc intcrprctcd to includc a shortagc of community parking rathcr than parking for Ford Park alonc. ? Objcctivc 4.3 and Policy Statcmcnt 13 havc bccn dclcted as a mattcr of clarification. Policy Statcmcnt 13 has bccn rcpiaccd with thc following: Policy Statement 13: Any futurc incrcasc in parking use in Ford Park shall be affirmed through public proccss, publicly-owncd, subsurfacc, and shail result in an incrcasc in grecn spacc for public usc. ? Sheet 7: The following reference to the Alpine Garden Foundation's Education Center project has been added to the plan sheet and to the Sheet 7 narrative description: "Future site of the Alpine Garden foundation's Education Center pending development revicw processapproval". An 7 additional note regarding inaccuracies in the property line delineations has been added to Shect 7 as follows: "Property lines are undetermined pending further research." • ~ ~ . ~r MEMO ~ To: All Concerned Individuals I From: Pam Brandmeyer, Larry Grafel, Todd Oppenheimer, George Ruther Subject: Revisions to Ford Park Management Plan. - Date: March 17, 1997 Attached is the Final Draft of the Ford Park Management Plan, dated March 17, 1997. Several modifications and revisions have been made to the original bound Preliminary Final Draft Ford Park Management Plan, dated February 1997. This Final Draft supersedes the February 1997 and March 1997 Preliminary Final Drafts which were disseminated during previous Council and PEC work sessions. There are three methods used to reflect the changes in the attached Final Draft. • Regular type and regular bold Text unchanged from the February 1997, version. • Italic rype Text modified in the March 17, 1997, Final Draft version. , • strikeout Text deleted in the March 17, 1997 Final Draft version. i Section 8, Appendix, of the management plan has not been reproduced in the attached copy. Please refer to the February 1997 version. Copies of all existing lease and license agreements are ~ inluded therein. Following is an accounting of the modifications/revisions and written responses to questions, , comments and concerns raised dwing the preceding Council and PEC work sessions. All interested parties are requested to review the Final Draft, as well as this memorandum, and identify any areas where there are additional concems and questions. The Final Draft will be presented to the PEC on Monday, March 24, 1997, and to theTown Council on Tuesday, March 25, 1997, for approval. Please check the respective meeting agenda,s for the time of each presentation. Staff inembers from the Town of Vail will be available on Wednesday, March 19, 1997, and Thursda March 20, 1997, to di scuss concems and uestions. All inter Y, q ested parties are encouraged to call Anne Wright at 479-2106 to schedule an appointment. Revisions to the Preliminary Final Draft Ford Park Management Plan. 1. Inside Cover Sheet. The "Sta.keholders Group" has been deleted. This document has been produced by Town of Vail staff with input from many individuals and organizations. 2. Section 2. A reference to the Parking and Transit Study for the Amphitheater, 1979, has been added. i • All Concerned Individuals ~ Page 2 March 17, 1997 3. Section 2. A reference to the Vail Transportatian Master Plan, 1993, has been added. 4. Section 4. The Ford Park Management Plan will take precedence over the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan where conflicts or discrepancies occur. 5. Section 5, Policy Statement 1: the word "waterworks" has been deleted and "public , utilities" has been changed to "public utility easements." ~ 6. Section 5, Policy Statement l;. Staff offices for on-site park activities have been added to ~ the list of Allowed Uses. ~ ~ Staff acknowledges comments raised regarding the appropriateness of listing "prohibited I uses" in the management plan. In response, staff emphasizes the importance of the public I process in the creation of the management plan. Those uses listed as prohibited were I identified as inappropriate during the public process, or by previous public vote, and are consistent with the publics preference to maintain the current character of the park. 7. Section S, Policy Statement 3: The word "existing" has bee added as a matter of clarification. . 8. Section 5, Policy Statement 3: The word "stakeholder has been changed to "leaseholder" as a matter of clarification. Staff acknowledges comments made regarding the limitation of leaseholders and emphasizes, again, the importance of public comment to the process. The basis of Policy Statement 3 is the publics regard for the diversity of current uses in the park and the publics resistance to the acceptance of additional .uses. 9. Section 5, Objective 1.2: The word "define" has been changed to "refine;" and the word "Create" has been changed to "Creating;" the word "Enforce" has been changed to "Enforcing;" and the word "non-building" has been changed to "low visual impact," as a matter of clarification. Staff acknowledges comments made regarding the appropriateness of Design Guidelines and Site Criteria and offers the following response. Design Guidelines and Site Criteria are useful in establishing a minimum level of consistency when designing and evaluaring development proposals. 10. Section 5, Objective 13: Objective 1.3 has been rewritten as a matter of clarification. i i . ~ All Concerned Individuals Page 3 • , March 17, 1997 11. Section 5, Action Step 1.3.1: Action Step 1.3.1 has been rewritten to include use of preservation zones and to provide examples of possible preservation zone criteria. i 12. Section 5, Action Step 1.33: Action Step 1.3.3 has been deleted. ' 13. Section 5, Policy Statement 7. The words "or limited mobility" have been added to include those park users who may not be legally disabled, but who are unable to walk due to physical limitations from the parking areas to the various venues. 14. Section 5, Policy Statement 9: Policy Statement 9 has been rewritten as a matter of clarification. Staff aclrnowledges comments regarding off-site complaints about amplified sound and believes the coordination of venues and enforcement of the existing Amplified Sound Ordinance sufficiently addresses the concern. 15. Section 5, Objective 4.1: Objective 4.1 and Action Steps 4.1.1 to 4.1.5 have been rewritten to clarify the components of the parking management plan. 16. Section 5, Policy Statement 12: Policy Statement 12 has been rewritten as a matter of • clarification. 17. Section 5, Action Step 43.1 has been deleted. The designation and limitation of potential parking structure sites may exclude options which are desirable and beneficial to the park. 18. Section-5, Policy Statement 13: Policy Statement 13 has been rewritten to strengthen measures intended to protect the character of the park from potential negative impacts caused by construction of a parking structure. 19. Section 5, Goal #6: The words "and Town of Vail" have been added after leaseholders in Goal #6, Policy Statement 16, and Policy Statement 17 as a matter of clarification. , 20. Section 5, Action Step 6.1.2: Action Step 6.1.2 has been deleted. 21. Section 5, Action Step 6.1.3. Action Step 6.1.3 has been changed to 6.1.2 and the words "Identify and" have been deleted. 22. Section 5, Policy Statement 16: The words "and as outlined in current lease or license agreements" have been added. 23. Section 6, Sheet 2, description of Pedestrian Path: The following sentence has been added. ~ All Concerned Individuals • Page 4 March 17, 1997 Install 300 feet of highway guardrail along South Frontage Road to protect bleachers and spectator areas adjacent to softball fields. In response to questions raised regarding a potential drop-off area on South Frontage Road adjacent to the softball field, staff recommends that drop-off be prohibited in the area for roadway safety reasons. 24. Section 6, Sheet 3, description af Sauth Frontage Road improvements: The fotiowing sentences have been added. Construct raised, landscaped median islands where passible to reduce the quantity of paved surface and to delineate travel tanes. (See typical cross section of inedian island) 'The tuming and travel lanes indicated on the plan are in accordance with Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) highway access code requirements. ! Staff acknowledges comments rnade regarding the safety of the landscaped medians and I, offers the following response. The landscaped medians will be raised 2 feet above the ' roadway surface which will make them visible to maintenance vehicle operators and I ~ motorists. Staff references similar medians on Main Street in the Town of Frisco. CDOT will need to review and approve all construction plans for South Frontage Road. 25. Section 6, Sheet 3, description of Bus Stop: The words "/Drop-off' have been added to the heading. The word "diagonal" has been changed to "dedicated drop-off." 26. Section 6, Sheet 3, description of Tennis Court Relocation: Staff acknowledges the concerns raised regarding the potential expense of the tennis court relocarion and the responsibility of the Town to fund the work. Staff emphasizes the combination of benefits gained by the relocarion justify the expense. This combination of benefits includes: • an increase in safety for users entering and exiting the park; • the formalization and improved functioning of the bus/drop-off area; • an improvement to the function and aesthetics of the main park entrance, including utili2ation of the East Access Road; and • the retention and maxirnization of exisring parking spaces. 27. Section 6, Sheet 5, description of Manor Vail Bridge: Staff acknowledges comments regarding the aesthetics of being close to the creek in this location. However, staff recommends the bridge elevation be raised and the approach paths be reconstructed for the following reasons: ~ All Concerned Individuals Page 5 ~ March 17, 1997 • the Manor Vail walkway is a major access point to the park from the village and provides the best opportunity to comply with current accessibility standartls; • other opportunities exist for park users to interact with the creek, including the Nature Center bridge, creek side picnic area, and streamwalk; and • the popularity of Gore Creek for water recreation sports and the ability to correct _ the safety concem caused by the low bridge. 28. Section 6, Sheet 7, description of the Vail Alpine Garden Educational Center: The Educational Center has been deleted from the plan because the project has not yet been sufficiently defined to accwrately evaluate its relationship and impact to the park. 29. Section 6, Sheet 7, description of Soccer Field parking: The words "Athletic Field" have been changed to "Soccer Field", and the current paragraph has been deleted and replaced by the following sentence. Improve the Soccer Field parking iot driveway entrance and restripe the existing lot to maximize the number of parking spaces. 30. Section 6, Sheet 7, description of Pedestrian Connections: the current ParagraPh has been ~ deleted and replaced by the following paragraph. Construct pedestrianlbicycle lanes on each side of Vail Valley Drive from Golden Peak to the bus turnaround area. (See cross section drawiug) The roadway section consists of (2) 6 foot pedestrianlbicycle lanes (8.5 feet to back of curb) and (2) 12 foot travel lanes. These lane widths are consistent with the minimurn Town standards for collector streets with bicycle lanes. Construct bus stops on both sides of Vail Valley Drive in proximity of the Soc.cer Field parking lot and elevator/stairway building for use on the in-town shuttle route. Install directional signs and lighting as needed. Improve the existing Nature Center trails and paths as needed. Traffic volume, based on recent studies for the Golden Peak ski base on Vail Valley Drive is' S60 vehicles per hour. The Town standards for traffic volume on a collector street is 300 to 750 vehicles per hour. End of revisions. _ ~ ~ FINAL DRAFT FORD PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN An Amendment to the ~ Foxd Park Master Plan " COMPLETED BY: ~ i ~ THE TOWN OF VAIL, DEPARTMENTS OF ~ I PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION j COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT i i AND ADMINISTRATION CONSULTANTS WINSTON ASSOCIATES BOULDER, CO MARCH 17, 1997 ~ ~ FINAL DRAFT ' FORD PARK 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 ~ ~ FINAL DRAFT FORD PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN An Amendment to the Ford Park Master Plan _ March 17, 1997 . Introduetion. 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 plan: An executive summary, a history and , time line of Ford Park, a description of the management plan process, and a statement of purpose of the management plan. Section 5 is the heart of the management plan: a set of , six management goals with accompanying objectives, action steps, and policy statements , to provide a framework for future management decisions. Section 6 contains illustrative, ~ conceptual plans and written descriptions which support the various action steps. A 5- ~ Year Capitai Improvements Program for Ford Park is presented in Section 7. Section 8 is ~ an appendix containing copies of pertinent legislative and legal documents. I i I ~ Section 1: Executive SuMmary. The properiy which is today Gerald R. Fard Park was acquired by the town in 1973 in response to pubiic reaction against a high density residential development proposaL The 39 acre park site represented the last remaining parcel of Iand central to use by all residents and visitors of the Vail Community. The Vail Plan (1973) described the site as a major community park - cultural center that wauld 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 paxticipation led to the establishtnent of guidelines far the implementation of future improvements. Upper area improvements, softball fields, tennis courts, and parking areas, were constructed without the benefit of preplanning and subsequentiy created some 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 serve expansion on the eastern side of Vail Mountain. It also recommended the construction of bike/pedestrian ways along the South Frontage Road and Vail Valley Drive. i 1 There are currently four main organizations involved in the operation of 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 park and manages the community park, stream tract, and parking lot areas. The other three organizations each hold a lease or license agreement to operate their respective facilities and programs within the park. ' , A proposal by the Alpine Garden Foundation 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 create 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 Park Master Plan, is intended to guide the outcome of future development and improvement proposals through the implernentation 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 responsibiliries 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. ~ 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 illustrates the relationship 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 unproving the quality of life in the community. This 39 acre park site represented the last remaining parcel of land central to use by all residents and visitors of , the Vail community. The elcisring conditions plan, which follows this section, illustrates i Ford Park in its current condition. i Ordinance No. b, Series of 1973, signed April 3, 1973, (a copy of which is included in the I~ Appendix), authorized the purchase (by condemnation) of the pmperty knawn as the ~ Antholz Ranch. The ordinance tisted a variety of possible uses for the property including ~ the following: I, ~I • for park and greenbelt purposes, • to preserve the natural and physical character of the area to be condemned, • for bicycle, equestrian and hiking trails, • for children's playground, ~ • for performing arts and civic center, • for a ski lift and related facilities, • for picnic areas, • for recreational facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, gymnasium, ice skating rink, • for theater and assembly halls, convention center, public 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, transportatian systems, and other - public utilities relating to public heaith, safety, and welfare. In August of 1973, the Vai1 Plan was completed. 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 Plan the uses intended for the property were further defined. The uses listed include a place for showing and creating art, crafts, etc.; an indoor theater as well as an 800 seat 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 far an ecologium (nature center). The property was described as a major community ~ 3 , i I i • . park-cultural center. The plan called for 200 surface parking spaces and direct service ' from the town bus system. Major parking needs were to be accommodated in the Vail . , Transportation Center with various trails and bikeways connecring to the park. In January of 1977, Resolurion No. 1, Series of 1977, was passed naming the property I commonly known as the Antholz Ranch as Gerald R. Ford Park m appreciataon of ; President Ford's contributions to the community. Resolution No. l, 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 Cauncil 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 road were the only portions of the master plan actually constructed. The first major structure to be constructed in the park, the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater, was completed in July of 1987. The Parking and Transit Studv completed in April of ~ 1979 for the Amphitheater made five recommendations: The Village Structure should be considered the major parkingfacilitvfor Ford Park, with improvements to the signs, sidewalks, and bus service being necessary; extend shuttle bus service to the soccer field; disallow Frontage Road parking; construct a vehicle turn-around and passenger unloading area at Ford Park; and do not schedule concurrent events. Resolutian 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 preservadon 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 area and picnic facilities, and the west access road. These improvements were completed in November of 1988. In December of 1988, ttie Vail Metropolitan Recreation District (Now the Vail Recreation ~ District) and the Town of Vail, requested an amendment to the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan. The two phase amendment was adopted by Council as Resolution No. 44, 5eries of 4 ~ 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 amendment changed the proposed location 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 alZ 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 Conditional Use Permit ~ for the project on May S, 1990. • . The Vail Viilage Master Plan, 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 ~i "potential parking beneath park," and calls for separated bike/pedestrian ways along the i South Frontage Road and Vail Valley Drive. ~I The Vail Transportation Master Plan, completed in 1993, states, "The existing Ford Park Parking area (east end of park) should be considered for a possible 2-level parking ~ facilitv with the second level below existing grade. " Ford Park and the athletic field parking area are also listed as two possible sites for oversized vehicles if the lot east of the Lionshead Structure becomes developed. Current Park Management There are currently four main arganizations operating in Gerald R. Ford Park. The Town of Vail, Vail Recreation District, Alpine Garden Foundation, and the Vail Valley Foundatian 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, stream tract, and parking lot areas. The other three organizations each hold a lease or Iicense agreement to operate their respective facilities and programs within the park. The Vait Recreation 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 agreement. The VRD offers a variety of sports leagues, camps, and tournaments to area residents and guests. The Vail Nature Center occupies the seven acres between Vait 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. ~ .5 The Vail Valley Foundation,(WF), a non-profit, charitable organization, manages and maintains the Ford Amphitheater and immediate grounds. The terms of the agreement ~ between the Town and the WF, 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 ta 2,500 people and is scheduled an average of 58 days during the summer. Hot Summer Nights conaerts, Bravo! Colorado, and the Bolshoi Ballet are 'i 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 Betty 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 under a license agreement with the Town at the entrance to the amphitheater. The site for the Alpine 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 respecrively. A fourth and final phase, the Alpine Rock Garden, is currently being planned 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. Opposition to the expanded use of the garden and the interior of park has been a significant impetus to the creation of this master plan amendment. In response to that opposition, the Vail . Alpine Garden Foundarion modified the proposal to locate the Educarional Center near the athletic field parking lot on Vail Valley Drive. This location received conceptual • approval by the Council on October 15, 1996, allowing the Foundation to proceed through the design process within the Town. 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 often erected to accommodate the activities. Access to the park from the Golden Peak ski base is by a pubiic access easement through the Manor Vail properiy. A copy of the easement 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 Tr,ansportation (CDOT) is the agency responsible for reviewing and approving access permit applications from the State-owned Frontage Road. I ~ Currently, no access permrt has been issued for the access by the CDOT, CDOT Frontage ~ Road right-of-way covers a substantial portion of the existing gravel parking lot. 6 ~ Time Line of Ford Park Activities- ~ April 1973 Condemnation of Antholz Ranch. Ordinance 6, 1973 August 1973 Completion of Vail Plan. January 1977 Antholtz Ranch named Gerald R. Ford Park. Resolution 1,1977 , August 1985 Completion of Ford/Donovan Park Masterplan. Resolution 19, 1985 - July 1987 . Amphitheater construction complete ~ August 1987 Alpine Demonstration Garden complete. ' ~ November 1987 Preservation of Nature Center. Resolution 27, 1987 December 1487 Vait Valley Foundation tease signed. November 1988 Lower Bench improvements complete. December 1988 Masterplan amendment by Vail Recreation District. Resolution 44,1988 i 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 Mast=lan. February 1990 Aquatic Center rejected by voters in special election. April 1990 Council petitioned to delete Aquatic Center from masterplan. May 1990 Tennis Center construction complete. June 1991 Alpine Medetation Garden complete. April 1993 Completion of Vail Transnortation Master Pian. December 1993 Vail Recreation District agreement renewed. June 1994 Vail Alpine 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 Educational Center plans at Soccer Field parking lot. • II """ccsiwie+wE ~ ~couo ruec wxiwc ~ o ~ ~ ~ '-'o utrluu ~ ~ ~ .~s. . \ i: oo / _ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ . . . ~ ~R \ ~ ~ ~ - ~ > > . ~ _ ~ t . . ~ ~ d ~ ~ a.~a .nacrc nna co"m ' v.~x.a . . . . . . . ' ¦csnour = \ a.. ~ ~ . ps` , : ~ ~ ~ roft .MnnWAroi i ~ • . i _ - ~ . . . i. / u /CENMR 1 . :'_':i~~v:i. _ ~ MIaMG O ~ - _ / IIMOFMGOI-D ~w? ~ ~ ~ . ; . _ a o ~ , ,DCC.FIU _ . . . . . . . . . . : : . : : : . . . . . . : : ~ d-o ..ID ,.,4, o«w . / ~ ' ~'L.w~' +w~ oov s-aoy RE _ Q i ~ .i ! i i / / - g / . Q . ~i r' \\0 ~ ' FORD PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN TOI.Y Ol VA1L ~~`Sn~ ~Mm~$ Deparemenf oJ A~Atic ~ortsllhm*VertaNen s • ~ ~r , . ~ Section 3: npccription of the nrocess of developing the Management Plan The Ford Park Management Plan process was initiated in June of 1995 in response to several development proposals which had been formally 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, cultural/performing arts center, expansion of the tennis facility, athletic field fencing, and a community parking structure. Park management issues included parking shortage, frontage road access, pedestrian. access and circulation, access for the elderly and disabled, utilization of the 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"management plan" as a means to adequately 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 in the process. A third party facilitator was retained for the project in August of 1995. Staff rnembers 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 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 possible 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 Geratd R. Ford Amphitheater on 3une 12, 1996. Citizens were asked to complete a self-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 residents were 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 reaction, 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 alternative 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. Additional public input sessions were held on October 2 and 3, 1996„ which validated the focus group responses and further refined staff's understanding of the public perception and desire regarding Ford Park. The combined results of the focus group and public 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 PEC 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: Puraose of the Management Plan. This docurnent is formatted as an amendment to the 1985 Master plan (revised) for Ford Park. Wbile some of the physical aspects of the park have changed since the adoption of the 1985 Master plan, the essential character, concept, and function of the park have remained consistent. The 1985 Master Plan, enhanced by this amendment, remaius a valid document to be used in the future planning and decision-making process for Ford Park. As with all master plans, this document will have a definite life for which it rema.ins 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 the 1985 Master Plan where confl'icts or discrepancies occur. I 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. The 1985 Master Plan Acknowledges some shortcomings in the overall design of the park, particularly the layout of the upper bench area and the internal pedestrian circulation system. This amendment will formulate design alternatives to these specific problem areas to correct the deficiencies that exist. This amendment will also delineate managerial, i ~ operational, and fmancial responsibilities between the Town and the leaseholders. ~ 9 Section 5: als, Objectives. Policies and Action ten ~ 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. Objectives: ~ 1.1: Limit future development. Action Step 1. 1.l : 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 allowable uses within Ford Park. Policy Statement 1: The following uses that are allowed and prohibited for Ford Park shall take precedence over Section 1.8.36.030 of the Municipal Code. concerning the General Use Zone District. Allowed Uses • Park and greenbelt • Bicycle and hiking trails • Children's playground • Outdoor amphitheater • Botanical gardens • Environmental, educational, and historical centers • Picnic areas • Recreation and athletic facilities • Wmterarorks, transportation systems and other public utility easements • Community parking • Staff offices on-site for park activities 10 ~ Prohibited uses . ~ Ski lift and related facilities • Exchange or trade • Civic center, convention/conference center, public schools, gymnasium, ' and assembly hall • Swimming pools • Equestrian trails _ - • Administrative offices . • Type III and IV employee housing • Policy Statement 2: New or changed facilities or uses will not be permitted to curtail existing public uses of facilities in the Park unless there is either a compelling public interest or adequate alternative facilities are available to its ~ users. All functions 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 Valley Foundation lease agreement, but which were never attached. Policy Statement 3: The existing variety 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 leaseholder status to: Vail Valley Foundation, Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, and Vail Recreation District, or their successors. 1.2: Refine criteria for evaluating future development proposals. Action Step 1.2.1: Update the Design Criteria and Site Guidelines included in the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan by: a) Creating additional development guidelines for underground, low visual impact type structures, enhanced landscaping, and full and complete impact mitigation. b) Enfarcing existing crit~eria and guidelines to solve and/or avoid problems associated with development projects within Ford Park. 1.3: Designate Preservation Zones within Ford Park to protect sensitive natural areas and/or buff'er zones between venues areas from developmental impacts. Define allowed uses within Preservation Zone areas. Action Step 1.3.1: Define criteria for designating Preservation Zones and their uses within Ford Park. For example, significant native vegetation, wildlife habitat, . 11 and wetlands may be criteria for designating sensitive natural areas, while grade separations and dense landscape plantings may be criteria for designating sensitive buffer zones. • Action Step 1.3.2: Delineate Preservation Zones within Ford Park. 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 experience of park users, will not be Permitted. Policy Statement 6: The historic qualiries 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: Negoriate 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 intrusions 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 on-site storage facilities within the Amphitheater, Alpine Garden and Recreation District areas to reduce and control 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 2.1.3: Construct a central trash collection facility, accessible from the South Frontage Road, to be used by all leaseholders within the park for the 12 ~ disposal of trash, landscape debris, and recyclables. ~ Policy Statement 7: Vehicular encroachment into the park will be minimized. 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 mobility; public transportation; and emergency services. , 2.2: Reduce the conflicts between vehicles and park users. Action Step 2.2.1: Coordinate delivery schedules to reduce the frequency of ' delivery and service vehicle intrusions into 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 paxking 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 contlicts between all Ford Park venues. ~ Objectives: 3.1: Coordinate events on all Ford Park venues. Action Step 3.1.1: Expand the master schedule kept by the Town Clerk to include all venues within the park. Action Step 3.1.2: Hold preseason and monthly eventiactivity coordination meetings. Policy Statement 8: Overlapping or simultaneous events that exceed the available community parking or other park infrastructure shall be discouraged. Policy Statement 9: No one event or type of use will be allowed to dominate the usage of the Park. Policy Statement 10: The Park is a Town of Vail community facility and in the case of conflicting uses, functions that best serve the interests of the community will have the highest priority. ln all cases, final decisions regarding the Park rest with the Vail Town Manager. Policy Statement 11: The day-to-day management and coordination of activities • 13 in the Park will be assigned to the Park Superintendent. The Park Superintendent will coordinate as necessary with a representative of: ~ • the Town of Vail • the Vail Valley Foundation • the Alpine Gazden • the Vail Recreation 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 addirion 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 Structure for the purpose of informing drivers that close- in parking at Ford Park is restricted, at a fee, or full, and parking in the VTC is free and shuttle bus service is available. Action Step 4.1.2: Schedule shuttle bus servicefrom top deck of the Village - Structure to Ford Park Frontage Road stop for special event/high demand days. Extend in-town shuttle bus service to Ford Park Vail Valley Drive stop. Action Step 4.1.3: Designate drop-off parking on Frontage Road using 15 spaces north of bus stop. Enforce S minute time limit. Drop-off lane functions as a turn around once lot is filled. Schedule attendants on-site to manage drop-off spaces and assist users in loading and unloading. Action Step 4.1.4: Allocate close-in parking on Frontage Road and Vail Yalley Drive through reserve ticket purchases or on a fee basis. Parking attendants on- site to manage entrances and exits. Establish a ticket surcharge or parking fee price schedule which will generate sufficientfunds to cover attendant and shuttle bus service costs. Action Step 4.1.5: Construct Frontage Road sidewalk from the Village 5tructure and improve sign svstem as necessarv to accommodate pedestrian traffic to Ford 14 • Park. ~ Policy Statement 12: Adequate parking for the needs of the park are to be provided in the park and at the Village Structure. No net loss of available parking spaces shall result from any improvements, modifications and/or additions to Ford park. The existing baseline number of parking spaces is: 199 from the South Frontage Road and 65 from Vail Valley Drive. 4.2: Improve vehicular access from the South Frontage Road and improve parking lot design to maximize the number of parking spaces, aesthetics, and safety while mitigafing - environmental impacts. Action Step 4.2.1: Design and construct improvements to the South Frontage Road to meet CDOT requirements for obtaining a state highway access permit. Action Step 4.2.2: Design and construct improvements to a11 existing parking areas that maximize the number of parking spaces; provide landscape buffering and treatment of stortn water run-off. 4.3: Limit the potential for construction of a future community parking structure at Ford ' Park. • . Policy Statement 13: Ford park is to be considered as a potential location for a communiry parking structure anlv after: • an analvsis of public and private community parking supply and demand _ has been completed which indicates a shortage exists; ~ the concept of a community parking structure has been affirmed through public process; • and all other sites, both public and private, have been exhausted. Any future increase in communitv parking use in Ford Park shall be subsurface ad shall result in an increase in green space in the park. Goal #5: Improve internal pedestrian circulation within Ford Park and the pedestrian connections between Ford Park and Vail Village. Objectives: 5.1: Improve directional and informational signs to and within Ford Park. i 15 Action Step 5.1. l: 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 5.2.1: Design improvements to existing pedestrian routes that will correct grading, surfacing, and lighting and will provide resting and sitting areas. 53: Improve internal 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 af the park. Policy Statement 14: Any uses added to Ford Park in the future shall be structured to encourage users or 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: i, Delineate financial responsibilities amang Ford Park leaseholders and the Town of i Vail. Objectives: 6.1: Formalize existing division of facility managemendoperation costs. 'Action Step 6.1.1: Research current lease, license and use agreements for delineation of financial responsibilities. , Action Step 6.1.2: idC;ntifp-and correct inequities in utility billing procedures and distribution systems, current utility use, and payment relationships. Policy Statement 16: All Ford Park leaseholders and the Town of Yail shall be required to share in common operating costs that benefit the whole park facility and as outlined in current lease or license agreements. 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. 16 ~ Action Step 6.2.1: Create a five year capital improvements program for Ford Park. ! Action Step 6.2.2: Establish the benefit/cost relationship for capital projects to determine appropriate cost sharing agreements. Policy Statement 17: Ford Park leaseholders and the Town of Vail 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 caused by those improvements. _ Policy Statement 18: Services, functions, and programs provided by Ford Park 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 sources can be utilized by the Town of Vail to pay for capital projects and improvements within Ford Park, reducing the need for contributions from the leaseholders. I i ~ 17 Section 6: Illustrative Plan Com onents This section contains the maps and drawings necessary to illustrate the physical aspects ~ and relationships 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 descriptions 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 eastern 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-resistant 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 , loop 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 pedestrian/bike path along south edge of roadway from 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 turn traffic island at South Frontage Road and Vail Valley Drive intersection. Install additional path lights as necessary. Sheet 2: Ballfield and Circulation Route Improvements. Pedestrian Path. Extend pedestrian/bike path beyond West Access Road as 10' detached pathway. Widen path between softball infields and extend beyond the Tennis Center to the proposed main park entrance. Install 3.00 feet of highwav guardrail along South FrontaSe Road to protect bleachers and spectator•s adjacent to softball fields. Install additional path lights as necessary. Softball Field and Path. • 18 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 . eastem 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 ballfield as a landscape buffer. Sheet 3: Bus Stop / Main Entrance Improvements. 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 tum lane. Construct curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway. Construct raised, landscape median islands where possible to reduce the quantitv ofpaved surf'ace and to delineate tr-avel , lanes. (See tvpical cross section of inedian island). The turning and travel lanes indicated are in accordance with Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) I highway access code requirements. Obtain Highway access permit form Colorado Departrnent of Transportation. ~ Bus StoplDrop-off. 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 dedicated drop-off parking spaces directly across from the Tennis Center entrance. Install additional landscape ° ~ plantings to buffer and screen parking areas from the roadways. Main Park Entrance. -Construct Main Park Entrance drive with one entrance and two exit lanes. Install main 41 park entrance sign and landscape plantings at this location. Install directional signs at all pedestrian paths and intersections. Install pedestrian and roadway lights as required. Tennis Court Relocation. Remove eastern court from existing-bank of 4 courts. Construct new court on the westem " end of the existing bank of 2 courts. Excavation of the existing berm and relocatian of water meter pits will be required. Sheet 4: Parking Area improvements. Parking Lot. Construct 7 disabled accessible parking spaces along east side of Tennis Complex. Expand area of existing gravel parking area by constructing two sets of tiered 4' retaining walls. Revegetate hillside with native wildflowers and shrubs. Construct 194 space paved parking lot with curb and gutter and landscape islands. Install storm water filtration system to clean water before discharge into Gore 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 ~ 19 adjacent roadways and neighborhoods. Install parking lot lighting as needed. • Central Trash Enclosure. A central trash enclosure is shown at the southwest corner of the parking lot. This is 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 signs at intersection for walkway and Vail Valley Drive and at right-hand turn to the Manor Vail Bridge. The second entrance sign should be located where it is clearly visible from the walkway. 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 additional4' 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 walks 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., Install Automated traffic control gate at Intersection with parlcing 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% 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 places. Install additional path lights and directional signs as needed. Amphitheater loading Dock. ' Construct an addirional 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 Improvements. 20 ~ ~ , office, • Soccer Field Parking. Improve lhe Soccer Field parking lot drivewav endrance and restripe the existing lot to maximize the number of parking spaces. Pedestrian Connections. Drive. I ' , • ' I • Construct pedestrianlbicycle lanes on each side of Vail Valley Drive from Gold Peak ski base to the bus tumaround area. Construct bns stops on both sides of Vail Valley Drive in the proximity af the Soccer Field parking lot and elevatoristairway building for use on the in-town shuttle route. Install directional signs and lighting as needed. ElevatorlStairway Building. - - _ Construct elevatorlstairway building approximately 75' east of the existing Nature Center 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 shucture should be open to provide views of Gore Creek 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, Iighting and directional signs as needed. ~ 21 . yp~~,d„'rro E""~110i° ywow^~ . VFSF+a~'°~ Fuase/~'~C"iden ~~mpw'°"~"'s vsrLtd'E+d~°~ ~p Saeanmra~k Freance ~ Fd~ a"G Peaesaa^ p~Fa~M9~y~a r..~se.ne ' My,ava+Fiur~ ~ t.s~so.ea V't112$e parking :•~a StrilttU~e r.o.~.~ . ra • _ _ , ~ ~ . ` ~ ::AMmwal~'c"' 5\ ~ J A~tetic F'ie i~ s9 ? y9 9 • rL /'~I V i Fo~d / ~~ry~nrBdttK 0 ' tutE IZ) a- - _ - (j ~ , ; C ryter ~ c 1 ,y.~l o \ o cer Fietd • e i .nnl ~lden Peak ~ / / o ~ Lodge ' r. ~ ~ / ~ ~ • ~ y.,~ RI/N aP PORo QaRK EN1' P,.~•,.~„ ~ ~p~+IAGEM s~?~ ~ • ~ , ~ I ~ i . . ~ ` ~ 12' conaete p ' Nbike path Curb and guRer (typical 70 EasrboUnd 6' bike lane 6 bike Wne Apoilo Park Q +a1 10' peQestrian/ bike path The Wren ~ ° ~ ~r o y~_ . _ a (Y) , : - . Au[omdLed VaRiC - (Odt OntyJ m DC bcjdO and ~ Q peaestrw rri«ldy Revegerace edsnnq dirt roaa / ~ I 0 ~ Fx[sang wen Access tt~oaa (repair shoulders as needed) ReconSU'uQ Streartnvalk Path ~ at 4.5% masdmum grade. Ctusha firie wrface , ~ R"mgemm e'S°~ OtaMwak Ath letic F !ds o ~ 0 } o .~Ilf -oposed UgM rowe Mpicalt _ ~ + ~ Pafk b• cencn c«,creW P~ t~YP~I eegln svramwauc recoruwcaorr DS otecuana? sigs {typical) 1-1 g hig?, reWrnng w8H ' e k . e . , C F . 8' high retaining wdil ~ r / Nltn: ` Doae° "nes'rwtcac" easr"'g `°"°'cm FORD PARK • "~-i..;; - C4NCEPTUAL ONLY SaewwMk~ligta mbe rep'acw MANAC,EMENT PLAN NOT FOR Ct)NSTRUCTlC3N "w`""ariM `eMa"flx"`~ ~"AWWWAC" 111111RO?Emm Dg"um of P"* ° ~ Pairtted median (taised rnedian landscaped median . . : • r . ' Rertrove exiong _ y ; _ . stairway 6wide ~ . Curb and 9 I~l1 .....:.....-Ca.... ~r New *0 # _ b,~n in~o ~ D ~ hillsitle ~rypical) ~ Exipng restrpprty \ I 0' conQe[e petlesaiaN ; b2flCh COfKESSiOn bU11dif1CJ blkE p1'1 X DU JOUt ...'I.-. ...5'........ X R'aPosed iigM focaure Itypicaq ExtsUng irdieid Bmend . artd backs0op ~d badcstop bike ~9~V~' V ~ y~;i a~ a~~ . m iac ca be remaniea ~~------f ---11 Eximng 8' corrcreoe pedesoian-path , ~ landicape dufFer I ' Athletic Fields ; oiecti«,al g. M,~cal, , ~ ~ jb• be" ofi c-oribrete ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ` ` % ~ f~'P~~1 ~ SoCCer' Fleld ~p ~ J Ir~eN lowdon ~ ~ _ f j ~ I 1 1 C,~,~ ~ ~_____________1 GW(g 61 cQMQ~ ~Y 1•L. j i ~ 1 ~ 92yir1 riNV pIf1 i F.#5W19 iliflEld Arid baGGttOp r ' i tD b2 feIOCaOI.'d 30' CO U'1C fiOfth € i New 8' conveoe path F~------- ----Plew"eachers New dugQut bench ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,re ~ . ~ . : ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ . C-b ~ 11 W rn FORD PARK N°o~d.""~ CONCEPTUAL ONLY conditions MANAGEMENT PLAN ~ 2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ro~~?~~ w ~ ss~ n AI~ ~LLATION NOU1E ~RO'VEMENis ""O~^~ qparM,M y A ~ • . . ~ ~ I i • 1-70 Eastbound F,xisnn9ecige tanascaPe b"ffer Curb and 4UO0 Par1c maaMe sigry gike lane ends 6 tfike taM ~ we S_.._~_ronta e_R.._..' r _ . . . _ : _ . - ,bMtn lane , . _ . : _ . , . . _ _ . . ~ . . . . ......:.....:............_.1 ti4 W~~~1W^~ ~ __.._...(~,1...... _ _ _4~.. . . , , , ~rt~e' 1 ~ ~ i l... ; ~ ~ (A ?-7 5 erruan~~ _ - - - , . , . ~ . _ ; . ~ ~ n*w euotop ~ane . ~ _ - > ~ ~ Nev~r ~ ' °'1~. _ . ancy Caurt' ~e . ~ ~ wice 4 [ela~ig`K* n9 pavecl paricm9 1,~~ 8~ lot °k' ~ +d ProP~~ ligM ~f e ItYP~<< ~ d i ~ LandscaPe oufw 6 Athletic F ields +b ~ C~~ ~ , COIWdK)M ~ S ; ; Exagir+4'~r"s courc IHP'caq ; . . s, Pam ~ ~ . C vat~~ °^~t _ . ~ # ^=Mated~ . C~~n ,ooden ae+d' „m tertt~ . ~ p . . . .t 6on conaete pad gate cess Road East i `,,...r------'"' Pt - : ~ . . ~ ~r...~-~...~ • ~K " . Tennis FORD PA ~ er M~NT PLAN ~ ~ •°~~n'~'~ ~e,,~ Cent MANp'G~ ~"e C4NCS~VAL ONLY ~ ~ T F0R CONSTRUCT1aN NC) I-70 Eastbound' landxapeq metlian island 6' bike larie Curb and guaer (typKal) Painted median Paric ermrance sign ExMrk3 edge of mWway b' bike iane 12' westbound lane ~ . ~ - r 16' Mn Wne ~ _ ..._~Y ; . . eaubound lane - - , • . - - •r1 _ : r: t Y acceleratlon lane , . . # , . . . ~ . ~ . _ EnOrance/ Curb ana yutter . _ . _ LandxaPe bti1fer 0 R = ~ < . , 5 , _ . s # ; SP a p A n la ab..'......._.. 9 w 'a Revegemoe hillside w/ PraPosed Ikght lbmirB IWjcaq naWe wildflowers Two (2) 4' bouWer reraining wauc Snow scorage - Two (2) 4' boulder rebining walh ee LandscaPed Wands and buffm G ExisUn9 etl9e of gravel iot • . . ~ Ceno'al tash coltecGon erxlowre ~ Sno.w e T~rartt~ Roawcrion of F DirectiO^al Si9^ (tYPicaI) Landscaped Mledian. q~ wafftc cone,a Scale: t•= 10' 9ate fmoer & vdq _ . - ' . 7 high ~ iR G o r e ~ I-- wiMvaft --I l" .,r C4NCEPTUAL ONLY Nott aftM l"'g ;'d"a`e FORD PARK NOT FQR CONSTRUCTION ~ MANAGEMENT PLAN ~ &d. r. Sr d PARKING AREA pNPROVEMENT8 ivowrw ny nn m?er of v.u~ -T Demrftvne o1 weue ? • ~ ~ 1 . . , • ~ • ~ ~ ~ X Xp ~ ~ X ( O XO ~ (o ~ Manor Vai4 Parking 6' ~ , ~or~e~,~aa X ` (typicaq . . e Park ernrance sign Directional si9~ ItYP~I ~ Repair enisong paved ~e ~~y~ p~ °a, PaAc ernrartce ~t . o . ~ork DS .D i~M . c~/ flxaire~typical) ~ ~ ` O ~ _ . ~ , Raise bridge el . . aPPra~timarelY 4. rease freeboard L nrooe: ooaea.nr~ Rea,ua `~tCe ~ . indkare ei6sting P~~n P~S coadiuaru ~ ~ ~ ends af bAdge ^ • ~tD ~ 4~. ' ~ l • O ~ Manor Vail Parking I Gold Peak Q ~ Base Area L ' ~ \ , CONCEPTUAL ONLY MANAGEMENTP N ~ 5 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MANOR VAN. ENTRANCE IMPROVEMENi'S ~ ~ . . ` ~ Ford A mPhltheater ~j . ~ O ~ V . V Tennrs . ~ enter . ~ : . . , ` Ncft: DMW l„ft IR(~Gj1Y,• adSyn9 1. ~AOSCf1 _ . , C rnmiRCUm mo g Eft~ ~ e_ 7.996 ~ b" berrci~ on : ~ • ~ ' YYY ~ c~ ~ Pai _ = . ' - ~ g~e,14 GOC@ ~ogpx f"4m *Picm rt ) • - Rosxued r r sc ss, I.W I ~ . . . ~eta y~N ~ inin9~irg dock . ~ Nature NoT4 ~ReR'fu ,qL pNLy Center ~ CONST''RUC71QIy FORD AR M`'A - ~ CEAitE K FasrA NT Pi.AN ° ~ 4 ~ ---"..--•r„ ae ~roaa r.,w Iwm"w top ef Pwtar a 1 ~ V4' fvcture b we-Oll cceC °el~' S~ , C3 /y) C 0 W! 6 SideN~~k V e~~e * si9n ~ e4esu~~'' ~ ' ~°ng &id9e' . ? ~ cr°ssv~~ ~ ~ . ~bn9 ~ Gerrt~ , • ~osdngfavon' R~c~rsP~~e 65 Csove - ' t~ - ~n rn ~ / . , . ~ . _ ~ ....rv ~ing . . rexsr~°m J ~ V~,J~ flrive . scaw tp fN. 01 W ~ t~ Yarb~~ s iR FO? VIM; pedeOlOn Now. Dc,,Ong ~p'Np?G' - a~Wie " W,5 OtjlL.Y CE'p~'Up?~- UC,-~ ON N C~~~ ~ Go ~ST~ Section 7: Canital Improvements Plan for Ford 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 coordinated with Ford Paxk 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 projects: 1. Streamwalk reconstruction. • 2. Streamwalk path light installation. 3. Directional sign package design and installation. 4. Addirional site furnishings installation. 5. West Access Road control gate installation and landscaping. 6. South Frontage Road pedestrian/bike path construction. 7. Vail Valley Drive/South Frontage Road improvement construction. , Relocate eastem softball field. I 9. Internal pedestrian path construction. 10. South Frontage Road accel/decel lane construction. ' 11. Relocate tennis court. 12. Bus stop, parking lot, and main entrance improvements construction. 13. Central trash enclosure design and construction. 'i 14. Manor Vail walkway repair and sign installation. 15. Manor Vail bridge and path reconstruction. • 16. East Access Road improvement construction. 17. East Access Road control gate installation. 18. Amphitheater loading dock design and construction. 19. Athletic Field parking lot improvement construction. 20. Vail Valley Drive pedestrian/bike path consh-uction. 21. Vail Valley Drive sidewalk to Elevator building. 22. Nature Center trail reconstruction. 23. Elevatar/Stairway Buildirig and pedestrian path improvement design and - construction. 22 • Y ~ . Section 8: Appendix. ~ This section contains copies of the following pertinent legislative and legal docurnents conceming Ford Park. . Legislation: • Ordinance 6, Series of 1473. Acquisition of Antholx Ranch. • Resolution l, Series af 1977. Property named Gerald R. Ford Park. , • Resolution 19, Series of 1485. Adoption of 1985 Master plan. ~ Resolution 27, Series of 1987. Preservation of Nature Center. ~ Resolution 44, Series of 1988. Master plan amendment. • Resalution 46, Series of 1988. Approving VRD Lease. Legal Documents: , • Vail Recreation District Lease, 1989 • Amendment to VRD Lease, 1990 , • Vail Recreation District Lease, 1993 • Vail Valley Foundation Agreement, 1987 • Letter extending WF Lease, 1991 I~ • Letter extending WF Lease, 1994 =I • Manor Vail Easement Agreement, 1991 • Manor Vail Easement, Eagle County record, 1991 I • Vail Alpine Garden Foundation License Agreement, 1994 ~ i Other pocuments: • Open house presenta.tion informatian, 1996 • Focus Group questions, 1996 ' + Focus Group responses, 1996 • Public input session comments, 1996 ' ~ 23 . .w MEMORANDUM ~ TO: Planning and Environmentai Commission FROM: Comrnunity Development Department DATE: March 24, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a minor amendment to Speciai Development District #30, Vail Athletic Ciub to allow for modifications to the parking garage, restaurant, accommodation and dwelling unit baiconies, and common areas within the building, located at 352 East Meadow DriveJParcels A& B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: JWT 1987 Limited Partnership, represented by John Perkins Planners: Mike Moliica/George Ruther 1. pESCR(PTION OF THE REQUEST The Vail Athletic Cfub (JWT 1987 Limited Partnership), represented by John Perkins, has submitted a request for a minor amendment to Speciat Devefopment District (SDD) #30, to allow for modifications to the parking garage, restaurant, common areas, and the accommadation and dwelling unit exterior balconies. According ta the applicant, the goais of the proposed minor SOD amendment are to reconfigure certain interior spaces of the building in order to improve interior . circulation, create improved guest accommodations, and meet certain Building Code requirements. i~ The specific modifications to the interior of the Vail Athletic Club are as fo{lows: *Restaurant: Increase of 135 sq. ft. This includes the relocated "pop-out" from the north elevation ta the east elevation (no change to site ; coverage). The pubiic seating areas decreased in size and the 'kitchen was expanded in size. j *AUs: lncrease a# 165 sq. ft. *DUs: Decrease of 187 sq. ft. ~ '`EHU's: Decrease of 88 sq. ft. ~ *Common Areas: {ncrease of 499 sq. ft. The bulk of this increase is attributed to an I expansion to the laundry facility & the ski storage room. ~ *Conference: Decrease of 45 sq. ft. ; ar : Decrease of 212 sa ft ' Totat Difference: Increase of 267 sq. ft. Please see the attached devel ment statiStics cnart for a floor by floor analysis of the proposed changes. The proposed changes to the interior of the building wi11 have only minor impacts to the exteriar of the building. The exterior changes include the modification of the size of the balconies on the south elevation, a reduction in the size and a re(ocation of the "pop-out" for the restaurant, and a slight increase (44 sq. ft.) in the size of the accommadation unit located above the porte cochere, on the north elevation. Overall, the parking requirernents for this SDD do nat change as a result ~ of the amendments descr+bed abovs. TOW *WL ow 11. AMENDMENT PROCEDURE Section 18.40.100 (Amendment Procedure) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vaii stipulates • the foilowing for minor amendments to Special Development Districts: "Minor Amendments: Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in Section 18.40.020B any be approved by the Community Development Department. All modifications shall be indicated on a completely revised development plan. Approved changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by the Department of Community Develapment." ~ Develo ment De In addition, the MunicipaI Code further stip tY P ulates that the Communi partment Staff shall inform the Planning and Environmenta! Commission (PEC) of the action taken by the ~I staff on the minor SDD amendment request. I HI. STAFF QCTION ~ The Community Development Department staff believes that the applicanYs proposed modifications are consistent with the criteria outlined in Section 18.40.020B of the Municipai Code and has approved the applicant's request for a minor amendment to Special DeveloPment District #30, Vail Athletic Club. The modifications have been indicated on a completely revised development plan as required. The staff does not believe that the interior and exterior changes proposed, including the net increase in total square footage, will alter the intent of the SDD, nor wilt it have any negative irnpacts on adjaceni property owners or the community as a whole. ~ _ ~ ~ IDSDD f IIAlNOR SDD AMENDMENT VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB Lower Heafth Up er Health First Second Third Fourth Fifth Pra osed 1995 A praved Cfub Club Floor Floor Floor Floor Floor Totais Totals Difference AU GRFA: 0 0 3,766 9,715 7,176 3,966 440 25,063 24,898 165 DU GRFA: 0 0 0 0 2,932 4,381 812 8,125 8,312 -187 i I I EHUGRFA: 0 0 696 0 511 0 4 1,207 1,295 -88 Common Area: 1,777 2,427 4,950 2,743 2,009 1,423 224 15,553 15,054 499 ~ Conference: 0 0 1,500 0 0 0 0 1,500 1,545 -45 'I Restaurant: 0 0 3,403 0 0 0 0 3,403 3,268 135 II Club: 11,105 10,504 0 0 0 0 0 21,609 21,609 0 Gara e: 0 4,568 0 0 0 0 0 4,568 4,780 -212 ~ . i . . . . :.._:.:~:,:::::::;:_:::<:.;:::::::::::<:::::.:::.,..:,:.:.. , . . } ....r.. .,..s.........,-. . . r,<.:, . . . •...,:v.........x.x......~.. .~.r.~......:. . . J- .xz J . . ~ . . 1. . . . . . . r .........................a..~.~.~e~...r.:::x::::'.w:::A;., ......::v::~.~v: ""viiy:':~:: • ..i.,~ ::ti.ti:' ~ J . .3... . . a . i !•i i %Y•iii::i':: ~::•'i: ~ _ . . . . . . . . ........::::..::.r::.:. I • +.::::r::.. . ..Jn.... . r:lii.i~:::?v:i•i::i::i?};;iiiii:ii:Si( . . . ...s.... ~A. ...J. . r. . . . v. . x v .r . ..............n............ :i rux..}..... ....:....•y::::::::: ..a.... r./ .u .s .a.v ~.r~ .'...r..: f...: . v: : .r: .~..r. ~....r.... r. r. rv. .r .r....~i ~ e?r~:.iC: rv. r............ ....:r:: ""n....... u}...i..l_.v_. •..:.n...;.:v .....:.............r....:.:-..... ::~::':!t:.:•: •s~.:.: h::,.• ~:.:..••.:,r.,f... ...n.:......... . . x . . . NET, 267 . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . ..r........ . • . . . , . . ...,..r............ . . ....:.............~•::::..••.;:.:::•::,•,:..::::~•::•:r•»~~.::.,:.;:<.:~ .,.,...;;>s::~>~:::-::;.:,., :~>x;';.~%~~;'::<,.:,a:x:~:.'::>:>>>; . . . . . . . ,..r . . • ~ a..si r~. . . . ..n . .r..r ' . . f . . . . .r . . . . . . v.... . ~ ~ . . .a•::~:: •.r: ~i:::'.i:::.9:':•._+iaj , .i' . . . . ~ . I ~ . ~ . ~ . r . . . . ~ . . ...v......... . . . s.:.. . . ,Y.... 1. . ..+..•;:::::;,....e»J.. r ' ..l. l.G . x. . . . . . W . ! L. .r . . s . . { r.. v. .r...S..... ...1.1.e... ~ . . +1..;~.:... ....L.JV. .r r ?es.a . . . ~.ll... .t..s...... 1 . . . n1...~r.Jr . . . ...r.... n...J.v ..r vt :.Y~ :a~ . . . . . ,~'.,3! . . . .r . , . ....~s.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , r. ~ . :!.=.<::r..;:~:,.:~:~::~sr;~ ! .:2'e . .;~+.,'s~ . . . . . . .o . . . ....,.r. . . . . . < , I .fi~ ..C..."i'. . 1 ..~.u iv~i... }~s. ....r.i r. r~.e..rv ..~r.F... i~. n.~:..:.... rvn...l......• ......r.......ru...i............. s....~.....v..v•:vv::v.:.~.. ~:+~t..•r:~::::w:~~v.~:::•.+.v: .~Ae:•:~v::rJ4:::::n....~..i%?•:.. : .i.. . . v v r .v r.. :r. I s..,,~.;A:~iF.~YVJ':t>:5r$:~,~l~,:r{:/.:...::v~l.r,-i::.U~:?•~x•~..:xv:~}n•v•/..lx.r:::..:~i.3.r}:r.~..~...n....w...;.r.~............1......~ri~ .........................n... I IIII Page 1 ATT-,'1u~ 7.7,n APR 8 1997 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 24, 1997 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Henry Pratt Susan Connelly Greg Amsden Diane Go(den Mike Mollica Galen Aasiand Lauren Waterton John Schofield George Ruther Gene Uselton Tammie Williamson Dominic Mauriello DRB MEMBERS PRESENT: Todd Oppenheimer . Judy Rodriguez Brent A!m Ted Hingst Clark Brittain Public Hearing 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. 1. Information Update: 5 minute joint consideration with the DRB and PEC il • regarding the Seibert Circle art project - Todd Oppenheimer Nancy Sweeny, the AIPP coordinator for the Town, said the AIPP was soliciting input from the general public and she asked the PEC and DRB to voice their concerns to share with the jury, I made up of Steve Berkowitz, an art dealer in Chicago, Mabe Mcgrath, an art consultant, Tom • Hughes, a jeweler and shop owner on Seibert Circle, Calvin Seibert, a NYC artist, Kathy Langenwalter, a former PEC member, Gail Freidel, Department Director of sculpture at Anderson Ranch, and Jim Morter, a local architect. She said there were 700 inquiries, with 80 proposals ' from which 5 were selected. She said one entry dropped out and so there were 4 finalists. Clark Brittain asked what now happens to the four finalists. Nancy Sweeney said the AIPP and jury would give Council a recommendation for final approval. Clark Brittain said, regarding these subjective decisions, that the AIPP was to be commended, as the choices were wonderful. Nancy Sweeney asked the PEC and DRB to identify themselves at the bottom of the Public Input Seibert Circle Redevelopment form, as their professional opinions would be taken into account. 2. A request for a joint worksession with the Design Review Board (DRB) to discuss a conditional use permit, to allow twenty-four Type.lll EHUs for seasonal employee housing, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/legally described as (Public Warks Facility): • ~ Planning and Envuonmental Commission , Minutes March 24, 1997 1 beginning at the Northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the • Sixth Pcincipal 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 lnterstate Highway No. 70 thence along the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway 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 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 following the Westerly line of said Section 9, North 00°8'21 "E 565.11 feet to the point of beginning. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen and Susie Hervert Pianner: Dominic Maurie{lo Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff inemo and the discussion items would be addressed one by one. Andy Knudtsen, TOV Housing Division, gave some background and said that 30 people attended the open house in February. He said the public favored the higher density and Public Works staff wanted the lower density. He said 24 units had been approved by Council and CDOT. Andy said concerns were expressed about parking, but not the height of the building. He said that most people in attendance at the open house were fine with the proposed develapment, as long as the architecture was high quality, and visibility was not a problem. Mark Donaldson, the architect, said the height was slightly over 35'. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were none. • BUILDING LOCATION/HEIGHTNIEW: John Schofield said he had no problem with seeing the building and that the density was . appropriate. Gene Uselton said he had voted for the 42 units and asked if another building could be added later. Mark Donaldson said it would be more costly later, as they had made decisians based on the 24 unit scheme and the limits of geologic hazards were pushed now with this scheme. Gene Uselton asked if this was Type III housing and if they could be sold. Andy Knudtsen stated that theoretically they could be sold. Gene Uselton asked if the development would meet the Fair Housing Act. Mark Donaldson said Yhat ai1 the battom units were handicap-accessible. He said the other two leveis were required to be handicap-adaptab{e to comply with the accessibility 1aws. Greg Amsden said the visual effect was a problem with the solid roofline. He said hs would like to see stepping down to create a view to the east and break up the ridge line. He said it was visible from the 1-70 carridor and the golfcourse. Grsg also asked the applicant to provide some visual maximum on a site visit for the next site visit. • Planning and Enviranmental Commission Minutes March 24, 1997 2 ,I • Ted Hingst suggested open stairweils, as those that are fully enclosed generate noise problems. Mark Donaldson said they were covered with an opening to the south and needed to be approved by the Fire Code. He said that each stairwell served a totaf of 6 units and woutd not become storage areas. Clark Brittain said he would have preferred more units. He said he talked to people on the golf course and everyone said they had no problem with this project, as long as it was not an eyesore. He agreed with Greg Amsden that the roofline needed work. He suggested that the paint colors and choice of materials needed to make the building disappear and becorne part of the landscape. Mark Donaldson said stucco, wood and asphalt shingles in muted, blended tones would be used to work with the hiltside. He said strong uses of color were needed to articulate the various forms and not make this look like an employee housing block. Brent Alm asked to see the height section that Mark had and he asked if the tandscaping berm hid the building from view. Mark Donaldson said the berm shielded the parking and lower portion of the building from view. He further stated that the trees planed on the berm help screen the building. , Brent Alm said some screening needed to be done. Mark Donaldson said staff had requested eliminating some snow storage in front of the building • in order to provide more landscaped area. I Brent A(m agreed with Greg's comments on the roofiine; that a 1' step would be lost in the scale of the building. Mark Donaldson said they will minimize the breaks for maintenance purposes and create larger I steps. Galen Aasland encouraged big steps on the roof, as it was extremely visible and it needed as I much stepping as possible. He asked if the east units could be accessed from the lower level parking. He said he didn't want it to look Iike the Summit County-type buildings you see from I-70. Greg Moffet said he had nathing significant to add regarding the bulk and mass. ARCHITECTURAL CQMPATIBILITY: Dominic Mauriello said the site was industrial and this building was compatible with other multiple-family structures in the Town. He said staff felt windows shauld be placed on the upper floors of the north elevation in order to make the smalf units more usable. He said that decks should alsa be considered to maks the units mors liveable. Greg Maffet thaught decks would be used ta store kayaks. Mark Donaldson said the architectural approach was an intentional departure from the industrial _ nature of the buildings. He said he was being careful with the allocation of dollars and that . interior wall space was important. He asked if the PEC would entertain using iesser materials on the back side. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 24, 1997 3 I Brent Alm said that T-111 was unacceptable as a building material, based on the design • guidelines. Mark Donaldson said that decks would amplify the repetitive nature of the building with a checkerboard effect. He said decks were a quick access for storage and people wouid not want ~ to see this storage from the Interstate. He said, regarding the liveability, there were walking paths and volleyball courts. , Ted Hingst had no comments on the architectural compatibility. Clark Brittain said this was more upscale than he had anticipated and he had no problem with it. He said decks had limited use and just collected snow. Brent Alm said the approach to simplicity was good and there were light and shadow variations. He thought a balcony here and there would add to the articulation on the front. Mark Donaldson said windows were staggered at different elevations. Galen Aasland supported stucco. He also said no T-111. He disagreed with the DRB regarding the compatibility. He thinks the building should be stepped down and he didn't feel it was compatible with the alpine mountain-type architecture; just an autonomous building. John Schofield said along with Adventure Ridge, the Public Works facility gives off light. He , stated that a lighting plan was important, as light coming from other areas on-site was an issue to be addressed. He agreed with Galen that it needed some decks. He said the decks would be used, as they would have sun. • Gene Uselton said decks would be nice, but it would not be nice to watch 1-70 go by. He asked if pseudo decks were considered. Mark Donaldson said that was a good point. Greg Amsden said stucco was good and that the end units could use the decks and they could be interdispersed. He felt the condo decs would govern them not being used as storage. He felt anything appealing should be added to encourage long term rentals, as it would be an asset to the Town. He said a model of the development would be helpful. Greg Moffet said windows would sacrifice livability with wall space so he was inclined to go with walis over windows. He said no to T-111, but he would be in favor of a high durability, tow cost material for the north side of the building. He liked decks, but there would be a view question on the 2nd {evel and he asked how to prevent decks from being used for storage. Mark Donaldson said there were autdoor storage areas available with this design. Brent Alm asked if any mechanical projectians would be visible. Mark Donaldson said venting would be grouped together under a cupola on top. He said the kitchen and bathroom vents would be in the rear. . Brent Alm asked about any chimney projections. • Planning and T:nvironmental Commissian Minutes March 24, 1997 4 • Mark Donaldson said lighting in the parking lot would not overflow off-site and the stairwelis were recessed with lighting going back #o the building. He said that balcony lighting would be ~ shielded. Dominic Mauriello said staff would require commpliance with the Lighting Ordinance. Mark Donaldson said he made the parking lot available during the daytime when the tenants were gone and activities were highest on the Public Works site. I Dominic Maurielio went over the remaining issues. ' ITEMS 3-12 Mark Donaldson explained that in a commercial parking lot, snowplowers wanted to get in and out as quickly as possibly. Since this was a mixed use, they would need a variance from the 10% interior landscape requirement of the parking lot. He said they were willing to provide the amount of landscape materials for aesthetics, but he would like to keep it simple for the snowplowing efforts. He said snow storage was removed from the front of the building. Susie Hervert said there had been long discussions on the landscaping and they didn't want to get in a haui-out type situation. She sa+d snow removal in this location would be low priority and the landscape islands were not a good use of dollars. She said to focus landscape in key areas and keep the parking lots open to get in and out. She said from experience that it would take 2-3 _ days after a large snowstorm to get it cleared. % • Mark Donaldson said it became a question of convenience with maneurving the plows. I Susie Hervert said it shou(d not be made confusing for residents with signage, etc. She said a!I unit parking and guest spaces should be in one area. John Schofield was opposed to this treatment being different from a private developer. He said , landscaping in the parking lot needed to be looked at and that snow storage could be factored in. He said a large expanse of asphalt would be viewed from the golf course. ' Mark Donaldson said it could be seen when traveling westbound on I-70. Gene Usetton asked if the PEC was obligated to stick with the ordinances. Daminic Mauriei(a said yes, regarding ordinances which were applicable to this zone distr;ct, but landscaping was a standard the PEC could set in the GU Zone District. Gene Useltan said we needed to be fair to the Tawn's budget. Hs said he wauld be inclined to economize and try to build employee housing as niGely and cheaply as passible, if we had ths right to da this. Susan Gonneliy said xhat the planners were fallowing the line that all prajects should be treated the same, however, employes housing should be treated differently if they were exclusively employse housing units. She said employee housing was distinctly mentioned on the Community Survey and to make it happen as quickly as possible was desirable. ~ Planning and Enviconmental Commission Minutes March 24, 1997 5 il Mark Donaidson said this could be treated separately if it was exclusively empioyee housing and • that there were not a lot of private sector developers doing this. He said there were very few opportunities for affordable housing and he would appreciate keeping costs under control. Mike Mollica mentioned that staff was beginning the process of overhauling the Employee Housing Code. Dominic Mauriello said a stigma of employee housing still existed from the 60's, 70's and 80's. Gene Uselton said we needed to bend to make this possible. Greg Amsden said the code had not changed yet and the TOV was looking to create an asset. He said that the TOV could sell these later on, so an asset had to be created. He disagreed on I cutting back and said we nseded to look at the long term asset. He felt as long as there were no children or pets, the expense of bear-proof containers was not needed. Ted Hingst agreed with Greg Amsden that if the Town sets rules, then the TOV should follow , those rules, however, there should be some middle ground. He felt that there shauld be alternatives to the islands in the middle of the parking lot or more effective ways to landscape. Clark Brittain agreed with John and Greg Amsden by not starting a precedence in allowing the TOV to do what we don't allow private developers to do. He felt that we were not looking at the tenants point of view, just the golf course owners. He said tenants should be made to think they z were living in a nice place, therefore, he felt the extra cost to break up the space was warranted. Brent Alm agreed with Clark and Greg Amsden in that until the code was changed, we needed to • stick with the current Zoning Codes. He felt it important to get significant evergreen trees on the south elevation and east corner and the numbers of plants and caliper sizes seemed light and needed to be pumped up. Galen Aasland said there was sufficient parking, but minimal landscaping. He would like 2-3 spaces in front of ihe building to be converted to landscape areas. He also felt ihis couldn't be treated differently. Greg Moffet said a General Use (GU) District could be addressed differently and this required a unique use. He said it was fortuitous that employee housinq was being proposed in a GU district. He said to forget landscaping in the parking lot, sinGe there was a greater deal of flexibility. This zone district permitted the PEC to determine what was an appropriate, effective loophole. Dominic Mauriello stated that he thought since this housing development was ocGUrring in an industrial complex, that the challenge was greater to make ihe uses compatibie. He said mare buffering and aesthetics were important to allow residents a high quality of life. Greg Moffet said the cost needed to be kept down, sa bus drivers would be lining up for a job with low rent. He felt there would be recreation areas on-site ta sofve the problems of the parking lot. Mark Donaldson said this was a discretionary review, however, to keep in mind that the Public _ Works Department next door would be maintaining this. Susie Hervert said the landscaping befinreen the buildings was the iandscape isiand. • Planning anJ L'nviromnental Cotncnission - Minutes March 24, 1997 6 • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS Dominic Mauriello said that providing a bike path on the other side of the columns should be addressed, as well as another bus stop before final review. Andy Knudtsen asked about the level of demand that would require a bus stop. Susie Hervert said most of the people living on this site would be bus drivers and would take their buses out from ihe yard or catch a bus from there. She felt with only 24 units, the demand would not be there to warrant a bus stop. Ted Hingst had no comments. Clark Brittain had no comments. Brent Alm said a pedestrian bike path under the bridge would be good. Galen Aasland agreed with Brent, as tenants in the summer would be biking to Town. John Schofield said there was an unofficial bus stop there now for the people who work there. He said that when the new bridge was constructed, a new bus stop was to be put in and that hadn't happened. Gene Uselton agreed with John. • Andy Knudtsen said a westbound bus stop would be a challenge. ' Mark Donaldson said it would be hazardous to cross the street. Gene Uselton asked if anyone had talked to CDOT regarding an on-ramp to I-70 at this location. . Larry Grafel said CDOT loaked inta it, but not favorably, since there were no funds. He said there had been no movement on i?. Greg Amsden said it was a necessity for a pedestrian walkway. Mark Donaldson said documentation of a"Traffic Maneuvers Study" had been done and was presented to CDOT. Greg Amsden said during the off-season for bus drivers, they would need a way to get into Tawn. Susie Hervert said they were close to the 20% threshold that required improvernents to kick in. Greg Moffet felt a safe pedestrian access needed to be there, as well as a bus stop put in. 3. A request fQr a conditiQnal use permit, to allaw for a Type li EHU, iocated at 392 Beaver Dam Circle/Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: Howard Koenig Planner: Tammie Williamson • Tamm9e Williamson gave an overview of the staff inemo that included approval with 5 cQnditions. Alanning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 24, 1997 7 i - I Galen Aasland had no comments. • John Schofield had no comments. Gene Uselton had no comments. Greg Amsden had no comments. Greg Moffet stated he was in agreement with the staff recommendations. I Gene Usefton made a motion for approval in accardance with the staff's findings and the 5 ~ conditrons. John Schofieid seconded the motion. , The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 4. A request for a major exteriar alteration in CC1, at the Creekside Building, to allow for the expansion of the restaurant and the west side exterior residential decks, located at 229 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 513, Vail Village 1 st Filing. ~ Applicant: Michael Ditch, represented by Dave Carson Planner: Lauren Waterton Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the staff inemo and sasd that staff was recommending approval with 3 conditions. John Schofield asked if the existing glass panel railing for the May Palace deck was a nan- • conforming use with the design considerations. Mike Mollica said it was a legal non-conforming use. Andy Stewart, an interior designer representing Oz Architecture, said the idea of the glass railing was to mimic the feel of the river and also not to hinder the view. She said she would not like to see planters along the deck rail, as it would reduce the view from the deck. She could understand removing the steel !-beam of the trellis. She explained that the model represented was slightly wrong in regards to the steel I-beam. She said they have 3 alternatives related to the trellis: wood could be used to replace the steel I-beam, the entry trellis could be supported from the inside to eliminate the I-beam altogether, or a supporting cable could be used. Greg Moffet asked for any pub(ic comments. Herman Staufer welcomed Michael Ditch to the Village and said his comments would be directed to the Creekside Building. He said the way it was built it, was well over on GRFA. He said the enclosure of the Red Lion deck was a mistake, as it was a sharne to enclose a dining deck because it lost the feeling of outside dining in the summertime. He then cautioned the PEC about enclosing decks. Michasl Ditch, owner of Gore Cresk Grifle, said the amount of time a deck was utilized _ ihroughout the year was insignificant compared to the economic factors. He stated he will be keeping a 10' wide deck for outdoar dining. The proposed french doors for the new addition that open to the deck create the fesling of a deck, yet can be used year round. He said the view to , Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 24, 1997 8 i and from the deck could be preserved with the glass railing. He said he was trying to revitalize new energy into the Viliage with a quality restaurant and economically this was the oniy way to do it. He said he would rather have moss flower baskets hanging off the trellis, rather than planters which would impede the view. I John Schofield said he favored wood instead of the I-beam and the glass railing had to be redesigned to meet the guidelines. Andy Stewart said she could design a steel railing which would be cohesive with what was there. She said perhaps a minimal planter wouldn't detract from the view. Gene Uselton thought the railing issue could be worked out with staff. Greg Amsden said he really liked the railing and the concept, but was struggling with how it met the guidelines. Galen Aasland said he liked the glass railing with the metal integrated with it and saw a lot of merit with what the applicant proposed. He had no problem with the I-beam, or with the proposal, as a whoie. Greg Moffet agreed with Greg Amsden that he likes the design, but that we don't have the authority to approve it if it doesn't meet ihe guideNnes. , Galen Aasland made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo with conditions 1 and 3. • Gene Uselton seconded the motion. The motion failed by a vote of 2-3. ~ Greg Amsden made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo with al! 3 ~ conditions in the memo, amending condition #2 to read that the items be referred to staff and the DRB for final review and approval. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 6. A request for a minor SDD amendment ta Spscial Development District No. 30 at the Vail Athletic Club, to allow for modifications to the restaurant, common areas, and accommodation unit balconies, Iocated at 352 E. Meadow Drive/Parcels A& B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: JWT 1987 Limited Partnership, represented by John Perkins Planner: George Ruther/Mike Mollica STAFF APPRQVEQ - 7. A request for an interior remodel to the primary unit, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located • at 778 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 18, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: Fred Bartlit, represented by Bill Anderson Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 24, 1997 9 Planner: Tammie Wiliiamson • STAFF APPRUVED 8. A request tor a minor subdivision of the Lodge Tower parcel, (acated at 200 Vail Road/Lot A, Block 5-C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc., represented by Jay Peterson Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL APRIL 14,1997 9. A request for a worksession to discuss a major exterior alteration in CC1 and a minor subdivision, to allow for the construction of a parking garage, 9 accommodation units, i condominium and new retail office space at the Gasthof Gramshammer, located at 231 E. Gore Creek Dr./Part of Lot A, Block 58, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Pierce, Segerberg, & Associates Planner; George Ruther TABLED UNTIL APRIL 14,1997 10. A request for a major exterior alteration in CC1, at the A& D Building, located at 286 ~ I Bridge StreeULots A, B, & C, Bfock 5A, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: 286 Bridge Street, Inc., represented by Craig Snowdon Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL APRIL 14,1997 Gene Uselton made a motion to table items 8, 9, and 10 until the April 14, 1997 PEC meeting. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. 11. Approval of March 10, 1997 minutes. Creg Moffet thaught the March 10, 1997 minutes should be tabled, since 3 of the PEC members were not present. .John Schafield made a mot;on to table the March 10, 1997 PEC minutes until April 14, 1997. Gene Uselton secanded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. ~ Galen Aasland made a motion to adjourn. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 24, 1997 10 i . Gene Uselton seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:40 pm. ~ • • w Pianning and Enviroamental Commission M inutes March 24, 1997 ~ 1