HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-0414 PEC
~ THIS lTEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
~ PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on April 14, 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, to allow for a deck enclosure at the A& D
Building, located at 286 Bridge StreeULots A, B, & C, Block 5A, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: 286 Bridge Street, Inc., represented by Craig Snowdon
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
A request for a variance from Section 18.54.050 J2 a,c,and e, Design Guidelines, to allow for
light fixtures at a height of 22', a luminous output which exceeds the aliowed maximum and to
allow for light fixtures without cut-off shields, located at 2211 North Frontage Road/Lot 1, Block
A, Vail das Schone 3rd Filing, a resubdivision of Vail das Schone First Filing.
Applicant: West Vail Lodge, represented by Charlotte Young/Brian Smith
Planner: Tammie Williamson .
A request for a final review of an amended proposal for the establishment of Special
Development District #35, Austria Haus, iocated at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C,
Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
~ Planner: George Ruther
A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks) to allow for a snowmelt boiler and a
snow avalanche mitigation wall in the south side setback, located at 2049 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1,
Vail Valley 4th Filing.
Appiicant: Landon and Mary HiNiard, represented by Larry Eskwith
Planner: George Ruther
A request for an appeal of a staff deniat of the outdoor ski storage, located adjacent to the
Gondola Building/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing.
Appellant: Vail Associates, represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Lauren Waterton
A request for an appeal of an administrative decision regarding Section 18.64.040 (Non-
Conforming Uses), stating that private and public unstructured off-street parking is a different
land use than private and public structured off-street vehicle parking, and therefore, an existing
iegal non-conforming use may not be continued.
Appellant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Pierce, Segerberg & Associates.
Pfanner: George Ruther
~
i
A request for a minor subdivision of the Lodge Tower parcei, located at 200 Vail Road/Lot A,
Block 5-C, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc., represented by Jay Peterson SF
P{anner: Dominic Mauriello
A joint meeting with the Design Review Board to make a recommendation to Council on the
prioritization of "Wish LisY" items for the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vai1
Planner: Susan Connelly
A request for a minor exterior alteration in CC1 and a request for a site coverage variance from
' Section 18.24.150, to a commercial storefront and an expansion to the outdoor dining deck, in
the Red Lion Building, located at 304 Bridge Street/Lots E, F, G, & H, Block 5-A, Vail Vitlage 1 st
Filing.
A licant: Landmark Commercial Development, represented by Morter Architects
Planner: Tammie Williamson
A request for an amendment to the development plan to allow for outdoor ski storage, located at
458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vai! Vi!lage 7th Filing, .
~ commonly referred to as the Golden Peak Ski Base.
i Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
Planner: Lauren Waterton
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 513, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Pierce, Segerberg, & Associates
Planner: George Ruther
' TABLED UNTIL APRIL 28,1997
I
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in
the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage
Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for information.
Community Development Department
Published March 28, 1997 in the Vail Trail.
I
I
~
..+r
Agcnda last revised 4/08/97 8 am
~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, April 14, 1997
AGENDA ,
Project Orientation / LUNCH -Communitv Develc2pment Dgpartment 11:00 am
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
,
Site Yisits : 12:00 pm
1. Hilliard - 2049 Sunburst Drive
2. Golden Peak Ski Base - 458 Vail Valley Drive
3. A& D Building - 286 Bridge Street
4. Red Lion Building - 304 Bridge Street
5. Pepi's - 231 E. Gore Creek Drive
6. Austria Haus - 242 East Meadow Drive
7. Gondola Building
Driver: George
• ,.,~e:•,..
,
~ er 2.-2.:
• ~ • ~r :
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 Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. Swearing in of new PEC member Ann Bishop and reappointed PEC members Greg
Moffet and John Schofield - Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk.
2. Election of PEC Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson for a one-year term (4/97-4/98).
3. A joint meeting with the Design Review Board to make a recommendation to Council on
the prioritization of "Wish List" items for the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Pian.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Staff: Susan Connelly
4. A request for a joint final review with the Design Review Board of an amended proposal
for the establishment of Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, located at 242
East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vaii Vil(age First Filing.
Applicant: Sannenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
~ Planner: George Ruther
1 mw4YU
Agenda last revised 4/08/97 8 am
5. A request for a major exterior alteration in CC1, to allow for a deck enclosure at the A& D ~
Building, located at 286 Bridge StreeULots A, B, & C, Block 5A, Vail Viilage 1 st Filing.
Applicant: 286 Bridge Street, lnc., represented by Craig Snowdon
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
6. A request for a minor subdivision of the Lodge Tower parcel, located at 200 Vail
Road/Lots A& C, Block 5-C, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc., represented by Jay Peterson
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
7. A re~uest for a minor exterior alteration in CC1 and a request for a site coverage variance
from Section 18.24.150, to a commercial storefront and for an expansion to the outdoor
dining deck, in the Red Lion Building, located at 304 Bridge StreeULots E, F, G, & H,
Block 5-A, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Landmark Commercia{ Development, represented by Morter Architects
Planner: Tammie Williamson
8. A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks) to allow for a snowmelt boiler
and a snow avalanche mitigation wall in the south side setback, located at 2049 Sunburst
' Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley4th Filing.
Applicant: Landon and Mary Hilliard, represented by Larry Eskwith ~
Planner: George Ruther
9. A request for an appeal of an administrative decision regarding Section 18.64.040 (Non-
Conforming Uses), stating that private and public unstructured off-street parking is a
different land use than private and public structured off-street vehicle parking, and
therefore, an existing legal non-conforming use may not be continued.
Appellant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Pierce, Segerberg & Associates.
Planner: George Ruther
10. A request for an amendment to the development plan to allow for outdoor ski storage,
located at 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th
Fifing, commonly referred to as the Golden Peak Ski Base.
A licant: Vail Associates Inc., re resented b Joe Mac
Pp , p Y Y
Pianner: Lauren Waterton
' 11. A re4uest for an aPPeal of a staff denial of the autdoor ski storage, located adjacent to
the Gondola BuifdingR'ract D, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing.
Aopeilant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy
Rlanner: Lauren Waterton
2
Agcnda last rcvised 4/08/97 8 am
12. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to ailow Type III EHUs
for seasonal housing, iocated at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/legally described as:
beginning at the Northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the
Sixth Principal Meridian thence S 89031'49" E 2333.84 feet, along the North line of said
Section 9, to a point on the northerly right-of-way fence line of interstate Highway No. 70
thence afong 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 curvature;
thance 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
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
13. 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, focated 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 I
i
~ TABLED UNTIL APRIL 28, 1997 I
llUlUllll
14. Information Update - Town Council decision on Kelton appeal - Dirk Mason
15. Appointment of PEC Representative on Open Space Committee to replace Henry Pratt.
16. Appointment oi PEC Representative at DRB for the October - December 1997 quarter.
17. Approval of March 10, 1997 and March 24, 1997 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are avaifable for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office Iocated at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interprstation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for information.
Community Development Department
Published April 11, 1997 in the Vail Trail.
3
Y~
Agenda last revised 4/15/97 10 am
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISStON
~
Monday, April 14, 1997
FINAL AGENDA
Prooect Orientation / LUNCH - Communitv Development Department 11:00 am
AIPP - 5 minute update - Diane Golden
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT DRB MEMBERS PRESENT
Greg Moffet' Ted Hingst
Greg Amsden _ Clark Brittain
Galen Aasland
Gene Uselton
Diane Goiden
John Schofieid
Ann Bishop
Site Visits : 12:00 pm
1. Hilliard - 2049 Sunburst Drive
2. Golden Peak Ski Base - 458 Vail Valley Drive
~ 3. A& D Building - 286 Bridge Street
4. Red Lion Building - 304 Bridge Street
5. Pepi's - 231 E. Gore Creek Drive
6. Austria Haus - 242 East Meadow Drive
7. Gondola Building
Driver: George
.Y%o~'.
4°~!:• ~ tl:,,
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 Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. Swearing in of new PEC member Ann Bishop and reappointed PEC members Greg
Moffet and John Schofield - Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk.
2. Election of PEC Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson for a one-year term (4/97-4/98).
MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7-0
PEC Chairperson - Greg Moffet Vice-Chairperson - Greg Amsden
•
*VML
rowx
Agenda last rcvised 4/ I 5/97 10 am
3. A joint worksession with the Design Review Board to make a recommendation to . '
Council on the "Wish List" items for the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. ~
Applicant: Town of Vail
Staff: Susan Connefiy
WORKSESSlON - NO VOTE
4. A request for a joint final review with the Design Review Board of an amended proposal
for the establishment of Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, located at 242
East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Fiiing.
App(icant: Sonnenalp Properties, fnc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 6-1 (Aasland opposed)
APPROVED WITH 5 CONDITIONS:
1. That the Design Review Board carefully review the combination of the proposed
exterior building materials and how they are applied to ensure that a high-level of
architectural quality is maintained.
2. That an approval of the amended proposal to establish SDD #35 be conditioned
upon the approval of a minor subdivision request by the PEC within sixtp n inetyjdays
from the effective date of Ordinance #4, Series of 1997 and that all costs incurred to
subdivide the property be the responsibility of the Austria Haus and not the Town of •
Vail.
3. That the applicant provide deed-restricted housing, which complies with the Town of
Vaif Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 18.57), for a minimum of 12
employees, and that said deed-restricted hous+ng be made available for occupancy,
and ihe deed restrictions recorded with the Eagls County Clerk & Recorder, prior to
requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Austria Haus.
T~at t1~e: ~p~pHcar~t.rev~ew the reli~f,;an the r?orth elevation
5.; Tha t ~fiaiia.r4of prpjeC~iton pl~n,.~rl~r to.~q~ison,..4 nd that it k~? revw.
5. A request for a major exterior alteration in CC1, to aUow for a deck enclosure at the A& D
Building, located at 286 Bridge Street/Lots A, B, & C, Block 5A, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: 286 Bridge Street, Inc., represented by Craig Snowdon
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 7-0
APPROVED WITH 1 AMENDED CONDITION:
1. Prior to obtaining a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or a Final Certificate of
Occupancy, the applicant shall, ssM~~t tQ. thte 9-: th~ stai,M'~emorartdm:;
2 •
Agenda last revised 4/15/97 10 am
• ensure that any noise emitted from the air conditioning compressor is in compliance
with Section 8.24.060 of the Municipal Code. Staff will measure the noise emitted, in
accordance with the code. If the noise exceeds the limitations found in this section,
the applicant shall modify and/or buffer the facility so that compliance is achieved.
6. A request for a minor subdivision of the Lodge Tower parcel, located at 200 Vail Road/Lots
A& C, Block 5-C, Vail Village First Filing.
I Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc., represented by Jay Peterson
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 7-0
' APPROVED SUBJECT TO 1 FINDlNG:
1. That the proposed minor subdivision plat complies with the criteria and requirements
of Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
7. A request for a minor exterior alteration in CC1 and a request for a site coverage variance
from Section 18.24.150, to a commercial storefront and for an expansion to the outdoor
dining deck, in the Red Lion Building, located at 304 Bridge Street/Lots E, F, G, & H, Block
5-A, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Landmark Commercial Development, represented by Morter Architects
Planner: Tammie Williamson
MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 7-0
~ TABLED UNTIL APRIL 28,1997
8. A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks) to aAow for a snowmelt boiler
and a snow avalanche mitigation wall in the south side setback, located at 2049 Sunburst
Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley 4th Filing.
Applicant: Landon and Mary Hilliard, represented by Larry Eskwith
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 6-1 (Schofield
opposed)
APPROVED SUBJECT TO 3 FINDINGS:
1. That the granting of the requested side setback variance is not a grant of special
privilege since snowmelt boilers have been permitted in setbacks in other areas of
Town.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to the public improvements as the snowmelt boiler wi!l
be screened from public view and that the snow avalanche mitigation wall will protect
the public from potentially impacting the boiler should they stray from the bike path.
3. That there are extraordinary circumstances applicable to the Hilliard's site which do
not apply generally ta other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone
• District or in the vicinity.
3
t `
I
I ngenda last revised 4115197 10 am
9. A request for an appeal of an administrative decision regarding Section 18.64.040 (Non-
~ Conforming Uses), stating that private and pub(ic unstructured off-street parking is a ~
different land use than private and public structured off-street vehicle parking, and
therefore, an existing fegal non-conforming use may not be continued.
~ Appellant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Pierce, Segerberg & Associates.
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION:John Schofield SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 6-1 (Bishop
opposed)
UPHOLD THE STAFF'S ADMIN(STRATIVE DECiStON STATING THAT THE REMOVA!
OF THE EXISTING LEGAL, NON-CONFORMING UNSTRUCTURED (SURFACE PARKlNG,
AND•THE SUBSE4UENT CONSTRUCTION OF AN UNDERGROUND PARKING
STRUCTURE, CONSTITUTES A CHANGE IN USE, AND THEREFORE, THE PROPERTY
MUST BE BROUGHT tNTO COMPLIANCE WlTH THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
PRESCRlBED IN THE MUNIClPAL CODE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
1. That private and public unstructured (surface) off-street vehicle Parkin9 is a different
land use than private and public structured off-street vehicle parking.
10. A request for an amendment to the development plan to allow for outdoor ski storage,
. located at 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th
Filing, common(y referred to as the Golden Peak Ski Base.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Lauren Waterton .
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Gafen Aasland VOTE: 3-3 (Moffet
recused)
MOTION FAILED WITH 2 CONDITiONS:
1. That the applicant submit an application to the Design Review Board to amend the
sign program to modify the location ot the directional sign. The sign shown on Sheet
1.2 of the Sign Program, approved by the Design Review Board on Jufy 17, 1996,
must be removed from the Sign Program in order to locate a directional sign on the
wall of the ski storage building.
Z' That th$ Qn; b~ c~ang~~ to ~e: ~outtr~asinsi.~~d ~f' :tho n~rtt~w~s:t
the ~xisting bus:fA~ility:
MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND:Diane Gofden VOTE: 3-3 (Moffet
recused)
MOTION FAILED WITH 1 CONDITION:
1. That the applicant submit an application to the Design Review Board to amend the
sign program to modify the location of the directional sign. The sign shown on Sheet
12 of the Sign Program, approved by the Design Review Board on July 17, 1996,
must be removed from the Sign Program in order to locate a directional sign on the
wafl of the ski storage building.
REQUEST DENIED DUE TO LACK OF AN APPROVED MOTION •
4
11:
Agenda last revised 4/15/97 10 am
11. A request for an appeal of the staff denial of the outdoor ski storage,located adjacent to the
Gondola BuildingrT'ract D, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing.
Appellant: Vail Associates, inc., represented by Joe Macy
P(anner: Lauren Waterton
MOTiON: John Schofield SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 5-0-2 (Moffet
recused, 8ishop abstained)
' UPHOLD THE STAFF'S DENIAL OF THE OUTDOOR SKI STORAGE AND
RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MAKE
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
1. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 18 (Zoning)
have not been met.
2. That the ski storage use has been substantia!!y altered and enlarged and is no longer
a legal nonconforming use.
3. That the installation of these structures is in violation of the zoning code.
12. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow Type I I I EHUs for
seasonal housing, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/legally described as:
• beginning at the Northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the Sixth
Principal Meridian thence S 89031'49" E 2333.84 feet, along the North line of said Section 9, to
a poini on the northerly righi-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 thence along the
northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 as follows: i
S 67041'33" 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 ot said Section 9: thence departing ,I
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
WORKSESSION - NO VOTE
13. 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 56, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Pierce, Segerberg, & Associates
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTfL APR1L 28,1997
5
~
t
,
` Agenda last revised 4/ I S/97 10 am
' 14. Information Update - Town Council decision on Kelton appeal - Dirk Mason
15. Appointment of PEC Representative (Gaien Aasland) on Open Space Committee to replace
Henry Pratt.
MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: John Schotieid VOTE: 7-0
16. Appointment of PEC Representative at DRB for the October - December 1997 quarter.
17. Approval of March 10, 1997. r
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project ptanner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Fror+tage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD
for information.
Communiiy Development Department
~
K
1
~
6
MEMORANDUM
~
TO: Planning and Environmentai Commission/Design Review Board
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 14, 1997
RE: A joint meeting with ihe Design Review Board to make a recommendation to
Council on the "Wish List" items for the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vaii
; i Staff: Community Development, Public Works, and Public Relations
1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUES7
Attached is a copy of the consuftanYs memo on Stage II and Stage III of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan. Siage II of the master plan process is the public input stage where
"wish list" items were submitted by the public. This input included 2 pubtic forums for public input,
a mail in "wish list" form, and finally an open house where the community was able to see all of ihe
"wish list" items and using "dots," was able to show their preferences to be Eonsidered in Stage III.
' Also, the public was able to show preferences through a newspaper advertisement that could be
mailed to the Town.
~ Stage III of ihe master plan process is the stage where the consultant team reviews and tests all of
the wish list items and makes a recommendation about their inclusion in the final master plan. See
the consultant memo and other attachments for a complete description of Stage II and Stage III.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The consultant team and the Town staff is requesting lhat the PEC and the DRB review the wish
list items and forward these to the Town Council for inclusion in Stage Ill of the master plan
process. Specifically, the consultant and Town staff recommend the following actions:
1. That the wish list items articulated in Attachment "B" be carried into Stage Ill of the
master plan process for detailed study by the consultant and master plan team, or a. That special consideration or priority be given to a particular wish list idea or
category of ideas.
b. That specific wish list ideas, if any, be removed from consideration in Stage
Ill of the master plan process.
~ File: f:~everyone\pecMemosVionhead.41 A
]YlW
*VAIL
y
Consultant Memorandum
~ LIONSHEAD MASTERPLAN
STAGE II
TOWN OF VAIL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WISHLIST - PROGRA.M DEVELOPMENT UPDATE
April 11, 1997
~
Design Workshop
953 S. Prontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
(970) 476-8408
•
.
'
LIONSHEAD MASTERPLAN
STAGE II PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT- WISH LIST UPDATE
Table of Contents •
1. Introduction
A. Purpose of Stage II
B. What has happened so faz?
C. Stage II Completion Process
1II. Wish List Areas of Sensitivity
III. Introduction to Stage III -
Attachments
Attachment "A"- Public Preference Response to Wish List Ideas
Attachment "B"- Stage II Wish List Responses: Policy Objective Analysis
Attachment "C"- Complete Wish List Submittals Packet
~
I
. •
7 ,
•
1. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of Stage II
• Stage II of the Lionshead Master Plan Process was intended to elicit as much public input as possible
regarding the future development and redevelopment of the Lionshead study area. This public input
process was launched at the March 4th Town Council meeting, and has included multiple opportunities for
wish list submissions as well as continuing opportunities for evaluation and review of the wish list
submissions. In all, there were 173 different ideas submitted by the public. At the wish list public forums,
. . and in the wish list newspaper advertisements, the public was encouraged to put a lot of thought into their
responses, and to consider the following questions in evaluating how their ideas would benefit and work for
the Lionshead azea:
l. Does the idea contribute to making Lionshead a warmer, more vibrant place for guests and II
residents?
2. Does it expand or add activities and amenities?
3. Does it promote improved occupancy rates or the creation of new lodging products in Lionshead?
4. Does the idea improve the flow of pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle and mass transit traffic in ~
Lionshead? ~i
5. Does it improve infrastructure and delivery of public and private services?
6. Does it include a creating financing mechanism? ~
It also needs to be stressed, as it was to the public in the different public forums, that all wish list ideas
needed to be evaluated as to how they helped accomplish the six approved Lionshead Policy Objectives.
• These policy objectives are as follows:
1. Renewal and Redevelopment
2. Vitality and Amenities
3. Stronger economic base through increase "live beds"
4. Improved access and circulation
5. Improved infrastructure _
6. Creative financing for enhanced private profits and public revenues
B. What has ha_pnened so far?
The work that has been accomplished in Stage II is as follows:
1. Wish List Input Public Forums. Two Stage II public input forums were held on March 16 and
March 18 to explain the stage II process and begin generating ideas for Lionshead. These forums,
attended by approximately 50 people, produced 78 ideas. These suggestions were recorded on
boards during the forums, and have been included in the comprehensive Stage II response list.
2. Wish List Submittals. In addition to the ideas received at the two public forums, 130 separate
wish list responses were submitted. When combined with the above mentioned forums, this
represents a total af 173 separate wish list items received from the public. These submissions have
been organized in the four categories described below, and are included in attachment "B" of this
• memo.
~
s
a. Policy. Any suggestion or idea that relates to a frametivork for redevelopment, as opposed to
a specific redevelopment idea, is classified as a policy. Examples include changes in zoning,
development of architectural guidelines, requirement for locals housing as part of any •
redeveiopment, building height restrictions, and adoption of public view corridors.
b, Facilities. This category includes all specific ideas that involves built structures, although not
necessarily site specific. For example, there are many responses related to some type of
community/ conference/ performing arts center, but not all mentioned specific sites for such a.
facility. Other examples include a centralized service/ delivery facility, new structured parking _
facilities, hotels, specific employee housing facilities, arid a new ice arena.. c. Amenities. This category includes all other "built" ideas that do not involve structures, or
architecture. These ideas include parks, increased landscaping, enhanced streetscaping (benches,
lighting, etc..), enhanced pedestrian walkways, a new skier bridge, public art, and others.
d. Comments/ Concerns. Some wish list responses articulated what the respondent did not
want, or specific concerns such as taller buildings, not wanting Lionshead to look like Beaver
Creek, protecting the open space along Gore Creek, and the timing of garbage pick-up and other
service related functions.
3. "Express Your Preferences" Public Forum. On Apri12, a forum was held for the public to
articulate individual wish list "preferences". Each participant at the forum received 10 adhesive
dots to place on their favorite ideas. The purpose of this evatuation was to identify areas of !
community intent and concern. T'hese preferences expressed aze documented in attachment "A" of •
this memorandum.
4. "Express Your Preferences" Newspaper Opportunities. The list of wish list ideas was also
published in the Vail Daily and Vait Trail, to encourage additional input from the public. As of S
p.m. on April9th, 149 newspaper responses were received. These preferences expressed are
documented in attachment "A" of this memorandum.
' C. Stase II Completion Process
i
G Stage II public input has now been received, collated, and categorized. The next step is evaluation and
~ prioritization by the masterplanning team, the PEC/DRB, and the Town Council. In doing so, the
following questions should be considered:
1. How do the proposed ideas meet the 6 Lionshead Policy Objectives? (see attachment "B"
~ for consultant evaluation)
2. What preference, or opposition, has the public voiced regarding the proposed idea? (see
~ attachment "A")
' 3. What does the PEC/DRB see as important issues to be considered? This could regard a
I specific wish list idea, or a category of ideas (for example, special attention may need to be
~ given to the issue of locals housing in general, not just one specific locals housing wish list
idea). •
~ 4. What ideas, if any, does the PEC/DRB think should not be given further consideration?
.
Regazding the above considerations, it is requested by the Lionshead Master Plan team that the PEClDIZB
take action on the following recommendations:
• 1. That the categorized wish list items articulated in attachment "B" be carried into stage III of
the master plan process for detailed study by the consultant and Master Plan team, or
a. That special consideration or priority be given to a particular wish list idea or
category of ideas.
- b. That specific wish list ideas, if any, be removed from consideration in stage
III of the master plan process. I
II. WISH LIST AREAS OF SENSITIVITY
The following wish list ideas and suggestions have been flagged due to the following factors: i
1. The amount of public response, negative or positive, relative to the issue
2. Potential conflicts with other wish list ideas 'i
3. Potential for controversy
1. Use vs. Preservation of South Side of Gore Creek/ Existing`Open Snace
The wish list responses dealing with the Gore Creek corridor varies from a desire for a park, trails arid a
streamwalk to maintaining the entire area as a riparian preserve, with no development at all. There appears ,
• to be strong views from both sides regaxding this issue. The idea for continuing the Vail Village
streamwalk to Lionshead will bring this "use vs. preservation" issue to the forefront.
2. Desianation of Public View Corridors
The designation of public view corridors is part of the stage III process of the Lionshead Master Plan. T'his
issue may conflict with the following ideas/ issues
° a. Desire to increase densityJ building height in Lionshead -
b. Desire to protect private views- this has been an issue throughout the process to this point, and
will likely continue to be one. A clear distinction must be made between public view corridors,
which this Master Plan will deal with, and private views, which the Master Plan has no control over.
c. Desire for new development that may conflict with a potential view comdor.
3. Building Height
The public response to restrict or maintain building heights is strong. This issue could conflict with other
desires to increase density, development or redevelopment of parcels, or the ability to use density as a
redevelopment incentive.
• -
.
4 Architectural Slyle/ Guidelines •
There were several wish list submissions requesting a more unified architectural theme/ strategy for
Lionshead. Several responses requested Austrian/ Alpine European, or other historic styles. In contrast
was a call for no specific architectural styles, but for guidelines dealing with materials and forms that still •
allow for architectural creativity and diversity. Development of Architecriual Guidelines are part of Stage
IV of the masterplanning process.
S..Central Loading~and deliverv
The idea of a centralized loading and deliveryl service dock is articulated in several different forms. The
two most significant differences aze a service facility for Lionshead, versus a service facility for the entire.
Town of Vail. The potentially controversial issues involved with these ideas are: a. Size and scope of facility- how big an area would it serve?
b. Could the same result be accomplished by setting up restricted service delivery times within the
Lionshead study area?
c. How would merchandise/ other goods be transported from central facility to final destination?
d. How would a central service/ delivery facility impact restaurants and other sensitive goods?
6. RecyclingLof Construction Debris
This idea received several positive responses during the "preferences" fonun, but could be controversial for '
the following reasons:
a. This policy could constitute a significant cost of business increase to contractors, which would be '
translated to development costs. 'I
b. The ability to recycle construction debris could mean a potential upgrade expense to existing !
recycling facilities. ~
c. Staging azea requirements and construction time for projects could potentially be increased. •
d. This policy could be logistically impossible to implement in Eagle County at this time.
7. Ice Rink Proposals/ Use of East end of Parking, Structure
The proposals of constructing a new ice azena or upgrading Dobson Arena received a great amount of
public support in the "preferences" portion of stage II. The Vail Recreation District has suhmitted
preliminary architectural plans for both options, and has initiated a grassroots letter campaign in favor of
this proposed use. However, the foltowing submitted uses could conflict with tlus proposal:
a. There were several proposals for using the east end of the parking structure as a conference
facility, a multi-purpose community center, and a performing arts center.
b. There was a proposal for constructing a new convention center in the current location of Dobson
Arena.
, 8 Vail Associates Core Propertv Redevelopment (Gondola building and Sunbird Lodge)
Vail Associates has submitted a proposal to redevelop these properties as a mixed use development,
including lodging, hotel rooms, fractiona) fee or interval ownership, high density multi-family, retail, food
and beverage operations, ski base operations, service functions, and parking. The concern over the
redevelopment of this property has been significant, centering on the following issues:
a. Potential increase in density on site
b. Potential increase in building heights, blocking private views
c. Potentiat economic damage to condo developments on the north side of these properties due to
blocked private views. •
;The redevelopment of this property has the potential for the greatest single impact on the Lionshead area,
and is likely to generate signif cant amounts of public input, both positive and negative. This area also has
the potential to impact, positively or negatively, pedestrian circulation patterns, vehicular circulation and
. arrival, sun/shade areas, public view corridors, and open space.
9. Use of North and West dav lots
T'he potentiai use of these two Vaii Associates owned properties was articulated in several differing wish
list responses. Vail Associates expressed a desire to rezone the North Day lot to allow for mixed use
development and a possible skier drop off at the Frontage Road, and to rezone the West Day Lot to permit
' • mixed use development, including all uses currently compatible with Commercial Core 2, parking,
. fractional fees or interval properties, high density multi-family, conference or meeting centers and lodging -
and hotel rooms. Conflicting with this is the idea expressed in several other wish list submittals to I
redevelop both of the parcels as public parking, perhaps developed in structures. I
10. Private pronerty riht~ s vs• pedestrian connections and other public uses
There were several wish list submittals requesting that current privately held properties in Lionshead be
used for pedestrian pathways and other public uses such as open space or parks. For this to occur would I~
potentially require the acquisition of either easements or property by the Town of Vail, and could cause
controversy with existing land owners. ~i
11. Pazking
The issue of parking resonated throughout almost all of the wish list submittals, with the major ideas
expressed being as follows: I
a. De-emphasize the presence of the vehicle in Lionshead
~ b. Require that all new parking be either underground or outside of the study area. This scenario
could require central parking with some sort of transit system.
c. Offer deveIopment incentives for landowners to redevelop existing surface lots into structured
parking
d. Provide new public parking on the north and west day lots
A policy of "no net loss" of parking is stated in the approved Lionshead Master Plan wark program. A
- potential issue regazding this is that other than the parking structure, the bulk of pazking in Lionshead is
privately owned, as are parcels that the public suggested to be used as additional parlcing.
12. Relocation of South Frontagte Road around Vaii Associates Shops
This idea regards re-routing the south frontage road so that it remains adjacent to the I-70 right-of-way until
is has passed the Vail Associates service yard, and would tie back into its existing location immediately
east of the Vail Professional Building. This concepi, while very lazge in scope and potentially long term,
has the potential of greatly increasing the amount of contiguous developable parcels in western Lionshead.
This would require the involvement of CDOT agencies.
~
' ` .
.
13 Potential use of Vail Associates unplatted tennis court site on south side of Gore Creek
Vail Associates submitted a wish list proposal that the unplatted tennis court site on south side of Gore
Creek be platted and zoned Commercial Core 2, permitting all uses of a revised Commercial Core 2 zoning
designation, including a fractional fee. VA suggested that an alternative use for this azea might be rezonino
to single family residential, primarylsecondary residential, residenrial cluster, low density, or medium
multi-family district. This concept is likely to generate controversy with the Forest Road property owners,
the Vail Recreation District, and any public currently using the tennis facilites.
14. Incentives for redevelopment
Many wish list responses suggested using different incentive programs for property owners to redevelop, the most popular being density trades. In response to this, several members of the public voiced concern '
that the amount of density increase necessary to fund signif cant redevelopment would be more that is
desirable for Lionshead. Overall, the question of density elicited two different responses; the first being in
favor of increased density (one person made the statement "density equals vitality"), the second being
opposed to increased density. One wish list submittal went as faz as to suggest that a population, or growth
cap should be placed on the Lionshead area.
15. Increased retail/ desire for more diversitv in retail
Several wish list submittals stated that the Lionshead azea needs more "upscale" retail outlets and fewer t-
shirt shops. While almost all of the submittals favored a stronger, more diverse economic base for
Lionshead, existing merchants could potentially be offended or threatened by this suggestion.
16. Emplovee Housing
The amount of responses regarding the need for employee or locals housing was significant, both by mail-
in submittals and at almost every public forum held thus faz. While the specific ideas regarding this issue •
varied, the following ideas were consistent:
a. Absolutely no net loss of employee/ locals housing. This could cause controversy due to the fact
the bulk of existing employee housing in the study azea is privately owned and is not deed-restricted
or required by code.
b. Provide net increase in amount of employee/ locals housing.
c. At.a minimum, provide a quantity of employee/ locals housing adequate to house all the
workforce in or based out of the Lionshead azea.
d. Provide seasonal employee housing. e. Make sure that employeeJ locals housing is quality, not a"slum".
f. Make employee/ locals housing a permitted use in the arterial business district.
g. Make regulations and policies regarding employee/ locals housing more flexible.
Several wish list responses and people at the public forums expressed that they saw the issue of employee/
locals housing as the focal issue of not only Lionshead, but the entire town of Vail.
17. I-70 Air rights
The submitted idea of some day utilizing the air rights over the I-70 corridor, or a section of this corridor, is
without question the largest scale and longest term idea submitted. However, this concept would have the
potential of completely reshaping the north side of both Lionshead and the Vail Village. Given the
potential that this idea may sometime in the future become feasible, it is important to consider what it
would mean to all the other Lionshead and Vail Valley issues if this large amount of developable real estate ~
did become available.
a~18 Use of parking.,structure for public/ nrivate purposes (development) The proposed uses for the top of the parking structure, or the land it is built upon, has perhaps generated
more contentious public input than any other issue. The bulk of the negative response to this concept has
• centered around the potential impact this might have on the views of surrounding land uses and residents.
In addition, the type of proposed use has generated many ideas, ranging from a large hotel facility to
employee/ locals housing to a conference/ convention center.
19 Conference/ Conventionf Performiniz~arts/ Communitv/ Multi-uumose Center
Many wish list responses called for the construction of some version of a Conference/ Performing artsl
Community/ Multi-purpose Center. The. primary locations suggested for these uses were the east end of the parking structure, on top of the parking structure, and the west day lot. It is important to articulate what
" each of these uses is, and how they may or may not relate to each other as a Iogical combined use. A brief
analysis of each is outlined below:
a. Multi-Purpose Community Center- This facility would be structured to cater to the local
pubiic. It could contain a variety of uses such as a gymnasium, other athletic/ exercise facilities,
gathering spaces for local meetings (family reunions, public inputs forums, etc.), a small stage/ i
theater, a community computer room, or community/ civic offices. This facility would not be
targeted for use by out of town groups, but instead would be an amenity to the local community. ~
b. Conference Center- As opposed to the community center, this faciliry would be structured to
cater to larger, out of town conferences. The primary function of this facility would be for 'I
information/ educational events. This facility would typically contain one large auditorium space
with multi-media capabilities, 1-3 smaller auditorium facilities, plus several open meeting rooms I
~ and break out spaces.
c. Performing Arts Center- The primary use of this facility would be a venue for the perfornung
arts, and would serve both the local public and tourism industry. This facility could vary greatly in
scope depending upon the amount of seating desired, the number and sizes of the venues, and the
type of events the facility would cater to.
d. Convention Center- This facility would most likely be the largest of these described facilities,
- catering to lazge scale sales and display events. Ttiis facility would likeiy need a strong connection
to a major hotel, and would be composed primarily of large, open floor, sub-dividable spaces. The
target market of this facility would be large, multiple, out of town ,groups.
e. Multi-purpose Center- In theory, a multi-purpose facility could contain combinations of any of
the above uses, although this all depends on the size, location, and scope of the different component
facilities. A large scale convention center would be the most difficult facility to combine with any
other, due to its sheer size and staffing requirements. However, a performing arts center could also
be designed to function as conference space, and a cornmunity center also could contain an
auditorium to handle smalier scale conferences or locaI performing arts events.
•
In considering these different options for a major new facility in Lionshead or the Vail Valley, it is
important to consider the following:
a. What type of facility does the market most demand?
b. Is it a primary goal of the Town to increase local services and amenities, or to provide facilities to
draw larger tourist crowds and conventions?
c. What size of facility can the local population and projected tourism base support?
d What size of facility is there physically room for within the Lionshead study azea or the Town of
Vail? -
20 Issues/ Concems outside of Lionshead Studv Area . It is important to note several wish list responses that called for a stronger connection between Lionshead
- and the Vail Village. These ideas focused on the treatment of Meadow Drive, and ranged from providing a
separated, landscaped pedestrian corridor to constructing a continuous street level retail market. The
Meadow Drive corridor also elicited responses relating to vehicular traf~'ic, specifically requesting that the
road be closed to private vehicles and redeveloped as a commerciaU pedestrian/ transit corridor. The idea
of not isolating Lionshead but instead creating one seamless village has been voiced by the public
throughout the Master Plan process.
III. INTRODUCTION TO STAGE III
Upon Town Council acceptance or modification of the Stage II Wish List Items, the consultant and Master
Plan team will take an in-depth look at each wish list item. It is in this stage that the stage I data will be put
to use, as the team evaluates each wish list idea. The criteria to be used for this evaluation will include, but •
is not limited to, the following:
1. How does the proposed idea satisfy the six Lionshead Policy Objectives?
2. How does the proposed idea help meet the urban design guidelines articulated in the
approved Master Plan work program?
3. How does the praposed idea help solve or alleviate existing problems identified during
. Stage I ?
4. How does the proposed idea relate to opportunities or constraints identified during Stage I?
5. How do the different proposed ideas relate to one another and work together? What
potential conflicts may exist between proposed ideas?
6. How does the proposed idea relate to and work with the existing urban fabric of Lionshead?
7. What impact, good or bad, would the proposed idea have on existing service, transit, and
public infrastructure?
8. What economic impact, good or bad, would the proposed idea have on the overall Lionshead
market?
9. Does the Vail market or demographic profile support the need for the proposed idea?
10. Can the proposed idea physically fit within the Lionshead study area?
11. If the proposed use does not seem feasible given the current land-use configuration and
economic market, would it be feasible in the future, and under what conditions?
~
7 T
. ?
t•
Consultant Memorandum
~ LIONSHEAD MASTERPLAN
, STAGE II
TOWN OF VAIL
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WISHLIST - PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT UPDATE
ATTACHVIENT "A"
• April 11,1997
s
Attachment "A" ~
Public Preference Response to Wish List Ideas
~
Below are listed the submitted wish list items that received preference "dots" either as part of the April 2nd
forum or from mailed in newspaper responses. Please note that this does not represent a statistically
accurate or scientifically structured polling. This is purely a representation of the opions of the people or
interest groups that went to the effort to let thier preferences be known. The items below aze listed in the ~
catergories by which they were presented to the public, and the order of appearance does not represent '
ranking. The "R" reference at the end of each item refers to the number of the complete wish list response.
These camplete responses are included as attachment "C" to this memo.
Preference PROPOSED WISH LIST IDEAS
Responses
News- Public
Paper Fonims
. : : , . ,
EMPLOYEE HOUSTNG '
18 1• Employee Housing, focusing on seasonal housing (R100) 20 2• Maintain and increase number of employee housing on outer edge of Lionshead (R104)
11 28 • Provide for significant net increase in locals housing (R144, 66)
6 29 Provision for employee housing in immediate vicinity of Lionshead for at least 100
employees.(R.149)
1 29 Employee housing should be considered a permitted use, rather than a conditional use in
the arterial commercial district, specifically for the Holy Cross parcel.(R156)
4 4• Employee housing unit designations as defined in the Vail code should be rendered moro
flexible, allowing for a broader variety of employee housing unit types. (R156)
3 4• Provide employee housing, based on demand, which would also bring more vitality and
ownership, less cyclical use of the area (R3)
1 • Improve housing types for employee housing
10 1• Employee housing integrated in the core
15 • Provide seasonal employee housing on Lionshead pazking structure (R100)
ZO1vING
2 1• Rezone north day lot to allow for mixed use development, possible skier drop-off, mass
transit connection to VA core parcels (R152)
2• Consider rezoning of parking structure, Lionshead circle, and I-70 air rights to allow for -
' wide variety of uses, both private and public (R153)
I 1 • Rezone south side of Lionshead parking structure to allow far street Ievel retail uses with
residential housing above, coupled with pedestrian enhancements (R154)
2 1• Rezone west day lot to permit mixed use development including all uses compatible
Commercial Core 2 zoning, parking, variety of residential products, conference/ meeting
centers, lodging/ hotel rooms (R155)
1 • Relocate S. Frontage road and combine west day lot with VA service center and Holy
Cross parcel. Rezone azea as Commercial Core 2(R157)
1 59 Unplatted tennis court site south of skier bridge- plat and zone as Commercial Core 2, ~
including fractional fee. Alternate uses- range of residential products. (R158)
News- Public
. Paper Forums
1+ Expand or amend the Commercial Core 2 zone to include, permit, and allow for high
density mutti-famity and SDD zaned projects (R162)
1• Allow restaurants and vendors to use more public space (R28)
3• Mixed Use redevelopment of gondola and Sunbird lodge properties, including ladging,
hotel rooms, fractional fee or interval ownership, high density multi-family, retail, faod
and beverage operations, ski base operations, service functions, pazking.(RI51)
DENSITYi DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES
6 4• Through density bonuses ar other incentives or through the power of eminent domain the
Concert Hall Plaza building should be redeveloped and a direct, open, effective pedestrian
corridor created from the Lionshead plaza directly to the west in the vicinity of the
Marriott. (R164)
2 3• The master plan and the zoning ordinances which arise from it should permit or allow for
density bonuses in consideration for property owners or developers undertaking or making
deveiopment commitments wluch benefit or serve public policies. (R163, 102)
19 Changes in density and infiil regulations to reflect redevelopment plan objectives (R20)
RETAIL/ COMMERCIAL
8 4• Increased retail presence, less t-shirt & sport shops- 30,000 s.f total (R97)
10 4• Encourage interesting/ diverse/ exciting retail enterprises (R99)
BUILDING HEIGHT/ ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
1 • More uniformity in building facades- Austrian architeciure (R103)
5 9• Establish firm building height limitations and view corridors (R104) I
5 1• More Alpine/Austrian architecture and decoration (Rl)
3 2• Improve architectural and visual quality (R45) j
1 39 Maximum height of new building same as Sundance (R67) I
2 4• Limit building height of new buildings on South side of Landmark (R68) I
3 • Select aesthetic style - mining / alpine / old west / national pazk / Colarado west i
2 1• Design guidelines should allow creativity and discourage repetition - focus on materials `
TRANSPORTATION/ CIRCULATION
3 • Add pazking to parking structure (R62, 1) -
1 • Maintain North day lot pazking with access to Landmazk as is (R67)
3 i• Efficient skier drop off (R53)
1• Limit use of Forest Road by VA (R44)
2 • Centralized deliveries (R52)
1 • Separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic (R54)
1 • Reduce vehicular presence in lionshead
LANDSCAPINGI STREETSCAPE AMEIVITIES
~ 2 2• Quality landscaping and landscape maintenance (R18)
2 • Improve design and quality of lighting (R41)
2 0 Replace deteriorated rock walls, trash receptacles, benches and pavers (R42)
. . ~ ' ,
News- Pubtic
Paper Forums
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION/ ACCESS ISSUES
2 • Require private property connectians to bike and pedestrian ways (R32)
~
1 • Better use of th.e North day lot, and its stairway (R43)
1• Proper snow melting/removal and drainage (R39)
2 • Encourage new pedestrian ways thuough private property
OTHER
2 4• Implement and encourage lots of street entertainment (R.101) 2 • Public arts funding/ program as Lionshead is redeveloped (R108)
3 2• Keep walking ixails maintained in winter for non-skiers (R134)
1• Market Vail and Lionshead as "total" experience, not separately (R142)
2 2• Strengthen sense of arrival through enhancing "gates" to Lionshead (R9)
_ 1 • Provide visual access to the mountain (R18)
' 1• Encourage more identifiable entrance to the village of Lionshead (R23)
2 9• Recycling of any tear-down (R69)
2• Redesign entry into Lionshead from pazking structure (R70)
5 6• Add sense of arrival and sense of place to Lionshead (R72)
2 2• Allow small outdoors concerts in plaza (R30)
3 • Limit population growth ,
1 • Acquisition of open space by Town of Vail
FAC4,ITY
~
COMMUNITY CENTER/ MULTI-PURPOSE FACILITY
10 • Community hall with facilities for conventions, parties, entertainment (R97)
11 3• Multi purpose Conference center (R122)
3 • Civic center with performing arts center on east end of parking structure (R128)
14 15 o New gymnastics facility/ shared space with other facility (R138)
5 • Turn east end of pazking structure into complete civic complex- community center/
conference center/ town offices and council chamber (R142)
11 19 • T'he east ena of the pazking stnzcture, currently a surface iot, should be considered as a _
potential for a second ice rink, a community center, and multi-purpose or function
performance and conference facilities. (R159)
22 30 • Provide larger youth center {R133} 17 • State of the art visitors center with short term parking (R115)
' 2 • New multi purpose town hali on oid gondola building site (R13)
~ 14 11 • Community center for sport/cultural activities, possible child care (R16)
5 • Small scale community center (750-1250 seats) instead of 2500-3500 seat operation near
Dobson arena (R75)
6 • Community center and performance azea, with 200-250 seats (R.76), near pobson arena
(R76)
PERFORMING ARTS CENTER
25 3• 300-400 seat performing arts center with gymnasium & multi purpose uses (R107, 147) .
12 2 • Indoor performance center/ performing arts center (R123, 100)
. i . News- Public
Paper Forums
i • CONFERENCE FACILITIES
7 • Conference facility on east end of parking structure (R1 09)
~
4 • Multi-media center associated with conference faciliry (R116)
5 • High-tech conference center neaz hotel (RI2)
8 6• Convention center on top of parking structwre (R56)
5 • Build new convention center instead of Dobson arena (R60)
ICE FACILITIES 23 117 • New ice hockey rink on east end of pazking structure (R114,112,136,150,166,16)
5 82 o Expand Dobson ice azena to the south and east end as well as interior improvements it
increase seating capacity (R165)
. EMPLOYEE HOUSING
17 • Reiocate TOV manicipal sLructure and use land for locals housing (R142)
33 10 • 3 to 4 story employee housing on top of existing VA service yazd, with underground
parking (R10)
HOTEL/ LODGING
12 9• New hotel on gondola and Sunbird lodge site- 100 rooms (R97)
11 7• Replace Sunbird Lodge and Gondola Building with five star ski-in/ski-out hotel, 3 to 5
stories, sepazating pedestrian and vehicuiar traffic (R8)
~ 11 2• Hotel with full conference amenities / IMAX/theater (R17)
TRANSPORTATION/ CIRCULATION
11 39 Truck delivery terminal far both Lionshead and Vail Village (R124)
5 2• If parking necessary, provide structures on west and north da.y lots, or expand existing
facility (R125)
2 1• Locate regional mass tran.sit center at pazking structure (R126) ~
5 • West day lot - provide public parking
11 • Regional transportation center at west day lot ~
OTHER
26 2* I-MAX center tn new performing arts center (R107)
10 • Grocery store like Alfalfas in core of Lionshea.d with movie theater (Rl 12) '
23 • Planetarium (R139)
18 3 • Children's museum (R139)
13 4• Wet-n-wild water park (R139)
8 • Skiing, OiI, Sports museum (R139) .
3 • SmalU high tech teievision studio in "beachfront" Iocation (RI40)
4 • Mixed use redeveIopment of Gondola building and Sunbird lodge properties (R1S 1)
9 • Vending kiosks throughout Lionshead pedestrian area (R6)
4 • Groceryiconvenience store, and pharmacy within walking distance (R14)
• 8 • Commercialloffice space on top of pazking structure (R57)
70 0 Tennis club facility
. ,
. . . , ~ .
Naws- Public 'I
Paper Focums
SKIER BRIDGE
22 4• Rebuild skier bridge with "stunning" azchitectural design (R.110, 46)
4 o Add skier bridge next to Forest Road bridge (R63)
12 1• Pedestrian winter access on skier bridge
~
RECREATION i
11 • Inline skating park, ice skating in winter- 1/4 mile track (R97)
28 5• Provide basketball court (R111) `
114 6• Separate skate boazding park (R137) '
TRANSPORTATION/ CIRCULATION
1 • Provide frequent, reliable and caurteous bus transit. (Ri04) 1 • Entry sign into parking structure (R118) '
6 0 East bound I-70 exit ramp west of Lionshead (R127) 4 • Round-a bouts at key intersections from Vail round-a-bout to west Lionshead entrance
(R127)
6 • Mizumize conflict between VA mountain service access and esta.blished residential areas
(R131)
5 • Improve circulation at existing regional bus stop- add skier drop-off (R145)
18 1o Bury vehicular traffic at west end of parking structure to eliminate conflicts (R146)
10 10 • The Fronta.ge Road should be improved through the Lionshead area including repaving,
formalization of a pedestrian path along its length, landscape improvements, the
introduction of tuming lanes and entry or other identifying signage for the Lionshead area.
(R161)
2 2• Provide designated skier drop-off azeas
PARK/PLAYGROUND
20 o Pazk1 playground on south side of Gore Creek across from Treetops (R113) _
15 2• Renovate/ replace Lionshead pazk/ playground azea (R132)
2 • Park near Lionshead children's ski school (R135)
` 3 • Open air theater, with open grassy slope and seating under roof (R13)
7 4• Green gathering space far small concerts, playgrounds, minigolf (R.5)
12 1• Children's playground (Rl 1), within walking distance af any point in Lionshead (Rl l,
.
I 18)
~ 19 2• Small amphitheater in main plaza (R26)
9 o Add more entries, seating and gathering spots to Lionshead mall (R50)
15 • Park on top of parking structure (R56)
i
OPEN SPACE
24 7• Establish wildlife and riparian hahitat naxure preserves between Lionshead and Vail
Village (R130) ~
~ '
e
r
News- Pubtic
~ Paper Forums
3 3• Riparian stream enhancement should be made to Gore Creek in the Lionshead area
including structural enhancements for fish habitat and perhaps the creation of ponds and
enhanced wetlands in or adjacent to the current stream tract owned by the town. In
I addition, in those azeas where the stream walk has been built from the library to the
, sewage treatment plant, landscaping improvements along the stream bank should be
implemented. (R160)
35 19 Gore Creek trail with access points (R18) . "
5 • Expand "beach" in front of old gondola building (R21) Y
2 3• Access to Gore Creek over whole length of Lionshead (R49)
6 I• Improved pedestrian access and vehicular circulation between Lionshead and parking
structure (R18) .
7 • Redesign Concert Hall plaza, eliminating the bus stop and improving the pedestrian
access to the pazking structure (R59)
11 • Develop azea by Lion Square Lodge as new drop off for out of town buses and cars (R61)
28 1o Adopt comprehensive signage plan to direct pedestrians more efficiently (R73)
LANDSCAPING/ STREETSCAPE AMElVITY
30 • More benches, landscaping and artwork (R103)
12 • New light fixtures (R22) I
1 • Centralized community compactor/dumpster for core area (R38) ,
• 5 • Heated bus shelter with info booth, replacing the existing info bunker (R51) I
46 • Expanded ski storage (R2)
2 • 15' high bronze Iion statue as unifying theme, with 200 fiberglass copies and lian inspired ~
decorations in and around Lionshead (R13)
14 • Small fountain/wading area to bring life, activity in front of Montaneros building, = firepit '
in winter (R7)
8 • Fountain or water feature in plaza areas (R27)
5 • Enhance the existing fountain (R47)
8 • Redesign and improvements of the landscape in the Lionshead mall (R48)
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
9 e Pedestrian bridge from parking structure to ma11 entrance (R97)
7 14 o West Meadow drive streetscape plan to improve pedestrian safery- divert non-essential -
vehicular traffic (R129)
15 4• Pedestrian, landscaped 8-10' walkway between Lionshead and Vail Village (R4)
28 4• Walkway all the way along Gore Creek from Lionshead to Vail (RIS)
3 • Bicycle route through, not around Lionshead (R31)
5 • Povide more sidewalks, pedestrian corridors
OTHER
15 4• Environmentally friendly mall like Boulders Pearl St. (R105)
• 11 • Farmers market with flower stalls/ fresh fnutl gazebo for band (R117)
1 • Provide space for quite restaurant serving three meats (R134)
~ 31 0 Consider second and third story "skywalks" between buildings (R25)
~ t
. . "
News- Public
Papcr Fonuns
1• Provide ADA compliant, accessible public restrooms with improved signage ~
:
. . . . . ; . , : , Commentst Concirns
: : i
1 • Lionshead is fine- no redevelopment needed (R98) ~
1 • Improve area with no new taxes (R98)
1 • Why is garbage pickup so early in morning? (R103) 15 • Grave concerns over height of new VA buildings (R106) -
6 • View corridors and landscaping are critical(R106) ~
2 • Increased height of VA buildings would damage economic success of Lifthouse Condos
(R120) I
6 3• Better integrate Vail and Lionshead- one village, not two (R141) ~
_ 4 • Integrate Concert Hall Plaza and west Lionshead into Lionshead core (R.141)
4 • Get rid of "tourist information bunker"- use it or lose it! (R142) '
1 • Get rid of or at least hide/ landscape RV parking lot- it is eyesore and dangerous (R143) ,
13 1• No more big hotels in Lionshead- enforce original zoning heights (R148)
7• No stream walk to east of Lionshead 17 1• Keep Vail small - do not over build
~
i
.
I - -
~
~
r
. - ~
Consultant Memorandum
~ LIONSHEAD MASTERPLAN
STAGE II
TOWN OF VAIL
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD -
WISHLIST - PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT UPDATE
ATTACHMENT "B" '
~
April 11, 1997 i
~
~
Attachment "B"
Stage II Wish List Responses: Policy Objective Analysis •
Below is the complete categorized record of the Stage II wish list responses. Each item has been evaluated
by the masterplan team for its responsiveness to the six approved Lionshead Policy Objectives, which are
outlined below.
. 1. Renewal & Redevelopment ,
2. Vitality & Amenities - '
3. Increased Live Beds
4. Access and Circulation ;
5. Improved Infrastructure
6. Enhanced Private Profits and Public Revenues
Renewal Vitality Increased Access Improved Private
' & Redevel- & Live Beds & Infra Profits &
opment Amenities Circufation swcture Pubfic
Revenues
POXItrY
EMPLOYEE HOUSING
• Employee Housing, focusing on seasonal housing
(R100)
• Maintain and increase number of employee housing
on outer edge of Lionshead (R104)
• Provide for significant net increase in locals housing
! (R144, 66)
• Provision for employee housing in immediate
I vicinity of Lionshead for at least 100
employees.(R149)
• Employee housing should be considered a permitted
use, rather than a conditional use in the arterial
I commercial district, specifically for the Holy Cross
parcel.(R156)
• Employee housing unit designations as defined in
the Vail code should be rendered more flexible,
allowing for a broader variety of employee housing
unit types. (R156)
• Provide employee housing, based on demand, which
would also bring more vitality and ownership, less
i cyclical use of the area (R3)
• Improve housing types for employee housing
• Employee housing integrated in the core
• Provide seasonal employee housing on Lionshead
parking structure (R100)
~
Renewal Vitaliry Increased Access Improved Private
& Redevel- & Live $eds & Infra- Profits &
opment Amenities Circulation suucmre Public
Revenues
• ZONING
• Rezone north day lot to allow for mixed use
development, possible skier drop-off, mass transit
connection to VA core pazcels (R152)
0 Consider rezoning of parking structure, Lionshead
, circle, and I-70 air rights ta allow for wide variety of • .
uses, both private and public (R153)
. • Rezone south side of Lionshead parking structure to
allow for street level retail uses with residential
'
housing above, coupled with pedestrian
enhancements (R154)
• Rezone west day lot to permit mixed use
development including all uses compatible I
Commercial Core 2 zoning, parking, variety of I
residential products, conference/ meeting centers, '
lodging/ hotel rooms (RI55)
• Relocate S. Frontage road and combine west day lot
with VA service center and Holy Cross parcel.
Rezone area as Commercial Core 2(R157)
• Unplatted tennis court site south of skier bridge- plat
• and zone as Commercial Core 2, including &actional
fee. Alternate uses- range of residential products.
(R158)
• Expand or amend the Commercial Core 2 zone to
inclnde, permit, and allow for high density multi-
family and SDD zoned projects (R162)
• Allciw restauran.ts and vendors to use more public
space (R28) .
• Allow and encourage redevelopment to cross
existing lot lines to improve circulation (R71)
• Test development opportunities south of Gore Creek ~
• Mixed Use redevelopment of gondola and Sunbird
lodge properties, including lodging, hotel rooms,
fractional fee or interval ownership, high density
multi-family, retail, food and beverage operations,
ski base operations, service functions,
parking.(R 151)
. •
. ~ I
Renewal Vitality Increased Access Improved Private
& Redevel- & Live Beds & Infra- Profiu &
opment Amenities Circulation swcwre Publi
Reve
DENSITYI DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES
• Through density bonuses or other incentives or
through the power of eminent domain the Concert
Hall Plaza building should be redeveloped and a ~
direct, open, effective pedestrian corridor created I
from the Lionshead plaza directly to the west in the " vicinity of the Marriott. (R164)
. • The master plan and the zoning ordinances which ~ ~ ~ ~
arise from it should permit or allow for density
bonuses in cansideration for property owners or
developers undertaking or making development
commitments which benefit or serve public policies.
(R163, 102)
• Changes in density and infill regulatians to reflect
redevelopment plan objectives (R20)
• Provide financial incentives to modify surface
parking
RETAIL/ COMMERCI.AL
• Increased retail presence, less t-shirt & sport shops-
30,000 s.f total (R97)
• Encourage interesting/ diverse/ exciting retail
enterprises (R99)
• Provide opportunities for "storefront" activity along
West Meadow drive (R142)
BUILDING HEIGHT/ ARCHITECTURAL .
GUIDELINES • More uniformity in building facades- Austrian
architecture (R103)
~ • Establish firm building height limitations and view
corridors (R104)
• More AlpinelAustrian architecture and decoration
(R1)
• Provide recommendations to redevelop West day lot
into visually more attractive space, anchoring it as
the West end of Lionshead (R24)
• Improve visual character of parking structure (R33) +
• Improve architectural quality of ski lifts, using
natural materials (R34)
0 Improve architectwral and visual quality (R45) ~ ~ ~
' Renewal Vitaliry incrcased Access lmproved Private
& Redevel- & Live Beds & [nfra- Profiu &
opment Amenities Circuiation . swcture Public
Revenues
• Maximum height of new building same as Sundance
• (R67)
• Limit building height of new buildings orr South
side of Landmazk (R68)
• Select aesthetic style - mining / alpine / old west /
national park / Colorado west
~ Design guidelines should allow creativity and
- discourage repetition - focus on materials
, I
TRA.NSPORTATION/ CIRCULATION I
• Add parking to parking structure (R62, 1)
• Maintain North day lot parking with access to
Landxnazk as is (R67) ~
• Revise town bus routing to avoid conflict with
pedestxians (R55)
• Efficient skier drop off (R53)
• Provide emergency and maintenance vehicle access
(R40)
• Limit use of Forest Road by VA (R44) ~
• Centralized deliveries (R52)
~ • Separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic (R54)
• Reduce vehicular presence in lionshead
• Limitlrestrict service delivery (time block)
LANDSCAPING/ STREETSCAPE AMENITIES
. • Quality landscaping and landscape maintenance
(R18) "
• Improve design and quality of ligHting (R41)
• Replace deteriorated rock walls, trash receptacles,
benches and pavers (R42)
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION/ ACCESS ISSUES
0 Require private property connections to bike and
pedestrian ways (R32)
• Better use of the North day lot, and its stairway
(R43)
• Snowmelt all pedestrian walkways (R65)
• Proper snow melting/removal and drainage (R39)
• Encourage new pedestrian ways through private
property
• -
.
Renewai Vitatiry Increased Access Improved Private
& Redevel- & Live Beds & • Infra- Profits & ~
opment Amenities Circutation structure Public
Reven ~
OTHER
• Implement and encourage lots of street ~
entertainment (R 101) '
• Public arts funding/ program as Lionshead is
redeveloped (R108)
Keep walking trails maintained in winter for non- . ~ ~
- ' skiers (R134) -
• Market Vail and Lionshead as "total" experience, +
' not sepazately (R142)
• Strengthen sense of arrival through enhancing
"gates" to Lionshead (R9)
• Provide visual access to the mountain (R18)
• Encourage more identifiable entrance to the village
of Lionshead (R23)
'I
• Allow main mall area of Lionshead to be open
alcohol consumption during certain times (R29)
• Use money from sale of public land encroachments
to private development for public projects (R36) i
• Provide locations and appropriate design for
newspaper boxes and trash cans (R37)
• Recycling of any teaz-down (R69)
• Redesign entry into Lionshead from parking
structure (R70)
• Add sense of arrival and sense of place to Lionshead
(R72)
• Provide activities other than ski-oriented, such as
gathering spaces, at periphery (R74) -
• Allow small outdoors concerts in plaza (R30) ~
• Strategic marketing efforts targeting Lionshead ~
• Limit population growth
• Acquisition of open space by Town of Vail ~
~
I
• .
Renewai Vitality Increased Access [mproved Private
& Redevel- & Live Beds & tnCra- Profits &
opment Amenities Circulation suucturc Public
Revenues
•
_ FACILITY
COMMUNITY CENTER/ MULTI-PURPOSE
FACILITY
• Communi.ty hall with facilities for conventions,
garties, entertainment (R97)
• • Multi purpose Conference center (R122) ~ + ~
• Civic center with performing arts center on east end
of parking structure (R128)
• New gymnastics facility/ shared space with other
facility (R138)
• Turn east end of parking structure into complete
civic complex- cominunity center/ conference
center/ town offices and council chamber (R142)
• The east end of the parkang structure, currently a
surface lot, should be considered as a potential for a
second ice rink, a community center, and multi- i
purpose or function performance and conference
facitities. (R159) - ~
• Provide larger youth center (R133) ~ • State of the art visitors center with short term
parking (Rl 15)
• New multi purpose town hall on old gondola
building site (R13)
• Community center for sport/cultural activities,
possible child care (R16)
• Small scale community center (750-1250 seats)
- instead of 2500-3500 seat operation near pobson
arena (R.75)
• Community center and performance area, with 200-
250 seats (R76), near pobson arena (R76)
PERFORMING ARTS CENTER
• 300-400 seat perfornning arts center with
gymnasium & multi purpose uses (R 107, 147)
• Indoor performance center/ performing arts center
(R123, 100)
•
i.
>
Renewal Vitality Increased Access Improved Privace
& Redevel- & Live Beds & Infra- Profiu &
opment Amenit+es Circulation sWcture Public
Reven
CONFERENCE FACILITIES
• Conference facility on east end of parking structure
(R109)
• Multi-media center associated with conference
facility (R116) i
• . • High-tech canference center near hotel (R12)
. • Convention center on top of parking structure (R56)
i
• Build new convention center instead of Dobson
arena (R60) '
ICE FACILITIES
• New ice hockey rink on east end of pazking structure
(R 114,112,136,150,166,16)
• Expand Dobson ice arena to the south and east end ~ ~ ?
as well as interior improvements it increase seating
capacity (R165)
EMPLOYEE HOUSING
• Relocate TOV municipal structure and use land for
locals housing (R142)
• 3 to 4 story employee housing on top of existing VA
service yard, with underground parking (R10)
HOTEL/ LODGING
• New hotel on gondola and Sunbird lodge site- 100
rooms (R97)
, - 0 Replace Sunbird Lodge and Gondola Building with
five star ski-in/ski-out hotel, 3 to 5 stories,
' separating pedestrian and vehiculax traffic (R8)
~ • Hotel with full conference amenities 1 IMAXJtheater
(R17)
~ Central check-in / parking with free shuttle for bags
and people
I TRANSPORTATION/ CIRCULATION
I • Truck delivery terminal for both Lionshead and Vail
~Village (R124)
! • If parking necessary, provide structures on west and
north day lots, or expand existing facility (R125)
• Locate regional mass transit center at parking
structure (R126)
i .
Renewal Vitality [ncreased Access ?mproved Privatc
& Redevel- & Live Beds & tnfra- Profits &
opment Amenities Circulation structure Pubiic
Revenues
• • West day lot - provide public parking
• Re gional trans portation center at west day lot
OTHER
• I-MAX center in new performing arts center (R107)
_ • Grocery store like Alfalfas in core of Lionshead ~ ~ .
with movie theater (R112)
. 0 Planetariwn (R139)
• Children's museum (R139)
• Wet-n-wild water park (R139)
• Skiing, Oil, Sports museum (R139)
• Small/ high tech television studio in "beachfront"
location (R140) I
• Mixed use redevelopment of Gondola building and
Sunbird lodge properties (R151)
• Vending kiosks throughout Lionshead pedestrian
area (R6)
• Grocery/convenience store, and phannacy within
I
walking distance (R14)
~ • Commercialloffice space on top of pazking structure
(R57)
• Tennis club facility
AMENITY -
SKIERBRIDGE
• , Rebuild skier bridge with "stunning" architectural
design (R110, 46) * Add skier bridge next to Forest Road bridge (R63)
• Pedestrian winter access on skier bridge
RECREATION
• Inline skating park, ice skating in winter- 1/4 mile
track (R97)
• Provide basketball court (R111)
• Separate skate boarding park (R137)
~
,
~ i
Renewal Vitality Increased Acccss Improved Private
& Redevel- & Live Beds & Infra- Profits &
opment Amenities Circulation structure Pubiic
Reven
TRANSPORTATION/ CIRCULATION
• Provide frequent, reliable and courteous bus transit.
(R104)
• Entry sign into parking structure (R118)
• East bound I-70 exit ramp west of Lionshead (R127) . Realignment of s. frontage road north and west of
VA maintenance facility (R127)
• Round-a-bouts at key intersections from Vail round-
a-bout to west Lionshead entrance (R 127)
• Minimize conflict between VA mountain service access and established residential areas (R131) ,
• Improve circulation at existing regional bus stop-
add skier drop-off (R145)
• Bury vehicular traffic at west end of pazking
structure to eliminate conflicts (R146)
• The Frontage Road should be improved through the
Lionshead azea including repaving, formalization of
a pedestrian path along its length, landscape
improvements, the introduction of turning lanes and
entry or other identifying signage for the Lionshead
area. (R161)
• Provide designated skier drop-off areas
PARK/ PLAYGROUND
• Park/ playground on south side of Gore Creek across
frorri Treetops (R113)
•Renovate/ replace Lionshead park/ playground area
~ (R132) -
~ • Park near Lionshead children's ski school (R135) ~ • Open air theater, with open grassy slope and seating
under roof (R13)
• Green gathering space for small concerts,
~ playgrounds, minigolf (RS)
~I • Children's playground (R11), within walking
i distance of any point in Lionshead (R 11, 18)
• Small amphitheater in main plaza (R26)
• Add more entries, seating and gathering spots to
Lionshead mall (R50)
• Pazk on top of parking structure (R56)
~
~ .
~
Renewal Vitality Increased Access Improved Private
. & Redeve!- & Live Beds & Infra- Profits &
opment Amenities Circutation swcture Public
. Revenues
OPEN SPACE
• Establish wildlife and riparian habitat nature ~
preserves between Lionshead and Vail Village
(R130)
• Riparian stream enhancement should be made to
Gore Creek in the Lionshead area including
' structural enhancements for ftsh habitat and perhaps _
- the creation of ponds and enhanced wetlands in or
' adjacent to the cunent stream tract owned by the '
tawn. In addition, in those areas where the stream I
walk has been built from the library to the sewage
treatment plant, landseaping improvements along I
the stream bank should be implemented. (R160)
• Gore Creek trail with access points (R18) • Expand "beach" in front of old gondola building
(R21)
• Access to Gore Creek over whole length of
Lionshead (ft49)
• Improved pedestrian access and vehicular
circulation between Lionshead and parking structure
• (R18)
• Redesign Concert Hall plaza, eliminating the bus
stop and improving the pedestrian access to the
pazking structure (R59)
• Deveiop area by Lion Square Lodge as new drop off
for out of town buses and cars (R61)
' • Adopt comgrehensive signage plan to direct
pedestrians more efficiently (R73),
LANDSCAPING/ STREETSCAPE AMENITY
• More benches, landscaping and artwork (R 103) • New light fixtures (R22)
• Centralized community compactor/dumpster for
core area (R38)
• Heated bus shelter with info booth, replacing the
existing info bunker (R51) • Expanded ski storage (R2)
• 15' high bronze lion statue as unifying theme, with
200 fiberglass copies and lion inspired decorations
in and around Lionshead (R13)
~ .
C
•
Renewal Vitaliry Increased Access Improved Private
& Redevel- & Live Beds & Infra- Profits & '
opment Amenities Circufation structure Public
Revenues
• Small fountain/wading area to bring life, activity in
front of Montaneros building, = firepit in winter
(R7)
• Fountain or water feature in plaza areas (R27)
• Enhance the existing fountain (R47)
• Redesign and improvements of the landscape in the
Lionshead mall (R48) ' - ~
• PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION ~
• Pedestrian bridge from parking structure to ma11
entrance (R97)
• West Meadow drive streetscape plan to improve ~ ~ ~
pedestrian safety- divert non-essential vehicular ,
traffic (R129)
• Pedestrian, landscaped 8-10' walkway between ~ ~ ~
Lionshead and Vail Village (R4)
• Walkway all the way along Gore Creek from
Lionshead to Vail (R15)
• Bicycle route through, not azound Lionshead (R31)
• Povide more sidewalks, pedestrian corridors
OTHER
• Environmentally friendly mall like Boulders Pearl
St. (R105)
• Farmers market with flower stalls/ fresh fruit/ ~ ~
gazebo for band (R117)
• Provide space for quite restaurant serving three
meals (R134)
• Consider second and third story "skywalks" between
buildings (R25)
~ • Provide ADA compliant, accessible public
restrooms with improved signage
~
I
I, . •
1 Renewal Vitality Increased Access Improved Private
& Redevet- & Live Beds & infra- Profits &
opment Amenities Circulation svucture Public
Revenues
i Commentsl Concerns
• Lionshead is fine- no redevelopment needed (R98)
• Improve azea with no new taxes (R98) ~
• Why is garbage pickup so early in morning? (R103)
• Grave concerns over height of new VA buildings (R106) - -
- • View corridors.and landscaping are critical (R106) ~ • Provide "Crime prevention through environmental ~
design" specialist to be part of masterplan team
(R119)
• Increased height of VA buildings would damage
economic success of Lifthouse Condos (R120)
• Creative "re-engineering" of existing structures is ~
necessary (R123)
• Better integrate Vail and Lionshead- one village, not
two (R141) '
• Integrate Concert Hall Plaza and west Lionshead
into Lionshead core (R141) ~
• Get rid of "tourist information bunker"- use it or
. lose it! (R142)
• Get rid of or at least hide/ landscape RV parking lot-
it is eyesore and dangerous (R143) '
• Lionshead is not unattractive now- some buildings
more attractive than Vail (R147)
• No more big hotels in Lionshead- enforce original
zoning heights (R148)
• No stream walk to east of Lionshead
~ Keep Vail small - do not over build
~
m h~ .
~
'
Consultant Memorandum
~ LIONSHEAD MASTER.PL AN
STAGE II
. TO WN OF" VA.IL
PLArNING AND ENVIROrtMENTAL CONIlVBSSION ~
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WISHLIST - PROGR.AM DEVELOPMENT UPDATE
ATTACHMENT "C"
April 11,1997~
~
~
Lionshead Redevelopment
Stage Two Wis6 List Respoases Resnonse 1 ~
Overview: Lionshead needs to look Alpine - like an Austrian village with gingerbread type decorations - white
buildings, daric brown trim the way the Village used to look!
Scope/Size: No room to put a major facility like a performing arts center.
Financing by: The Lionshead businesses would finance this. . .
Objective
advanced.• Lionshead needs to be more people-friendly.
Primary/secondary
uses: Car parking is a hassle, too. Skiing and eating are the only reasons to go there.
Access
requirements: Lots more pazking. Yes! to a passenger drop-off.
Architectural/Site
studies: Old Austrian style would be very nice. Lots of flowers and drawings on buildings.
Cost studies: Use azchitectural classes and intern students.
Feasibiliry ~
srudies: Try not to raise any more taxes.
Response 2
Overview: Expanded ski storage.
Response 3
Overview: Employee housing
, Scope/Size: Amount: determine the number of employees working in Lionshead (including all VA operations
based out of Lionshead) and provide housing for 75% of those individuals. Financing by: Capital generated through tax credits. Must have an economy of scale to do tax crediu. If land is
provided, developers can do the deal.
Objective
advanced.• Lionshead will be more vibrant (#1) and its vitality will increase (#2) with greater ownership by
residents, more locals using restaurants and bars in the area and a less cyclical use of the area
Primary/secondary
uses: Different types of housing. Base it on market research done by VA on other recent projects.
Sguare footage
required.• Base it on demand as determined by the existing number of employees in Lionshead.
ArchitecturaUSite
studies: Consider: town shops, Public Service site, VA shops, north day lot, west day lot, roof of parking ~
structure, south side of parking structure.
1
Resnonse 4
Overview: Better access to Lionshead from the Village down Meadow Drive. Buitding a landscaped pedestrian
walkway from Crossroads past Dobson to Lionshead. • Scope/Size.• An 8-10 foot sepazated walkway with lighting, trees and possibly rest benches.
Financing by: Public.
Objective
advanced: Aesthetics with a cohesive tying in of Lionshead to Vail Village.
. Primary/secondary '
. uses: Is there any other access to Vail Valley Medical Center other than down Meadow Drive? In order to -
decrease traffic and make walking to Lionshead easier, particularly in the winter when the bike path is
inaccessible.
Special in, frastructure
requirements: Maybe lighting and sprinkler system for trees arid landscaping.
Access ~
requirements: No extra parking.
Response 5 I
Overview: More rg een space incorporating gardens and a children's park with more pedestrian-friendly access. '
~
Scope/Siae: Maybe a children's park near creek between gondola and Lions Squaze Lodge. A play area the size of
the "pirate ship" (near the Vista Bahn) and surrounding open grass for eating or heazing music, etc. ~
~ Financing by: Preferably public/private combination of funds.
Objective
advanced: A sense of gathering space which is not concrete (like the area near Banner Sports). Improved
aesthetics.
Primary/secondary
uses: Possibly a small bandstand for concerts. Some incorporation of a mini-golf area (which used to be near the -
old gondola).
Sguare footage
required.• Something approaching the size of the park and open space currently next to the Betty Ford Alpine Garden.
Special infrastructure
requirements: Water fountains. Outdoor lights for night use.
Access
requirements: No more parking needcd. Hopefully access would be pedestrian along the bike path or from the current
parking structure. Response 6
Overview.• Allow use of "carts" similar to the Popcorn Wagon to sell everything from sweaters, gifts, cookies, coffee,
etc.
ScopelSize: Location: all through Lionshead Mall.
• Financing by: Carts would be individualiy owned with preference given to existing businesses. 2
Objective
advanced: Enhance the mall azea - more interesting to walk through.
~
Primary/secondary
uses: Retail.
Square footage
required: Roughly same size as Popcorn Wagon - maybe smaller. I
Speciat infrastructure - requirements: Carts would need to be moveable, i.e. wheels to allow for emergency vehicles to get past - or only would _ I
be allowed in more spacious areas. However, best impact would be at intervals all up and down the mall.
Rejerences: Just ahout every mall has these carts. They must be successful - would add to our sales tax revenues.
Resnonse 7
Overview: A"children's fountain" or similar idea - wading area, etc. for the west end of the Lionshead azea in front of
the Montaneros building. Make it easy for kids to get in and out of, with areas for parents to sit and relax.
Scope/Size: The fountain would need to fit in the azea that is curved and surrounded by a stone wall with the flag poles.
It would need to be inviting to people to cool their feet or for kids to splash in on hot summer days.
Financing by: Perhaps a private/public partnership - if not, then public funds. '
~
Objective
, advanced.• Objective #1. Water signifies life, movement, activity. Where there is water, things are flourishing. ~i
This would draw people to the west end af the mall area from the center of the mall. The water that is
near the Chart House steps is too far out of the way to even be noticed and it is not easy for anyone to •
play in. Make it inviting, colorful with landscaping or colorful sculptures, and active.
Primarylsecondary
uses: Primary: summer months - fountain. Secondary: winter months - fire pit for storytellers, or just a
place to warm fingers and toes.
Square footage
required: Whatever the square footage is in that semicircular area in front of Montaneros.
Specialinfrastructure
requirements: Just the water.
Access .
requirements: No special access requirements. The area +s a{ready set aside for something - although it's uncertain
what it is set aside for.
References: The intent would be similar to the use for the Children'.s Fountain.in.Vail Village or the water azea
near the Covered Bridge.
Response 8
Overview: Replace the existing Sunbird Lodge and gondola buildings with a five star hotel, ski-in/ski-out access.
Scope/Size: Possibly a 3 to 5 story structure on the scale of the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus.
Financing by: The hotel and possibly VA. ~
3
Objective
advanced: Improvement of the Lionshead core with an excellent hotel as an anchor. Move live beds. Improved
infrastructure, better amenities. Actually could meet a lot of the policy objectives.
~ Primarylsecondary
uses: Hotel rooms and restaurants. Lift ticket facilities, possibly ski school facilities, retail shops,
conference facilities.
Specialinfrastructure
requirements: State of the art communications facilities. .
Access _
requirements: Passenger drop-off and underground parking would be needed, as well as a service delivery area
(underground). Pedestrian traffic would need to be able to go azound or through it for lift access. '
Passenger drop-off / main entrance from Lionshead Place as well as the pazking entrance.
References: The Ritz Cattton in Aspen is a good example.
Y,
. 'f
~ ~ n•~~
Response 9
Overview: Create well defined and related public spaces. This could be achieved by strengthening the arrival
sequence to the village and creating a stronger destination point at the slope base, i.e. "beach front"
strengthening the anchors at each end of the pedestrian sequence wilt be a catalyst to making the
village a more dynamic place. Scope/Size: This woutd probably be done through a combination of landscaping, new buildings and rerouting the
circulation. As long as sun pockets are preserved, the village can be denser. Additional building or
additions could help define the currently fragmented public spaces. Some of the spaces are currently
too large and barren.
Financing by: Public-private partnership, most likely.
Objective
advanced: Create a better sense of arrival and create a better destination place at the ski slopes which could
achieve a clear, dynamic public environment similar to Vail Village.
Primary/secondary
uses: Could include redevelopment of existing structures or new structures - the specifics can be flexible -
the goal of improving the anchors can be achieved by many means. If the anchors of the village are
improved, the rest of the village will, in turn, be vitalized by more visitors, better retail sales, higher
. occupancy rates which can sponsor/spur re-landscaping and redevelopment.
4
' Access
requirements: The main bus drop-off should be relocated to an improved entry space at the parking garage.
ArchitecturallSite .
studies: Following is a very schematic diagram of how the anchors of the village might be developed.
fX1S~T1N&,~ND1,_ T.~
• WEAK AWN6RS
. ~ ;
. ~ ~ •
; .
~ p . ~ ? l 1~ Lr'`
~ ~ R POMT1~t~
~ ~ '
~ - - ..r-
TRaAN5SiT jED~AY~~AL P,
I
+GREATE S?RaN&ER BtACN FRONT '
p%tsa-svLut1:D~a
STUMWI{EN AWI{ORS ~
. F
1100010
'Y ,AJ I
~ ^',e~. •r,t~r^;~, _ ~
r
IMP16trVE P~v~lAtil
GRgFiTE 3TRONGER TffiNStT/
My YOK gRRIYAG SW
Response 10
Overview: No net loss of employee housing. Hopefully a net gain. Rebuild the VA service yard to put 3 to 4
stories of employee housing over the shops. Move the snow cats to an on-mountain facility.
Scope/Size: The service yard could offer at least three times the amount of employee housing than the Sunbird •
now offers. Utilize the parking to the west of the yazd.
5
Financing by: VA, possibly some public funds could be found. Objective
• advanced: A net gain in employee housing.
Primary/secondary
uses: Underground parking coutd be a part of the project, both for residents and service yard employees.
Service yard, employee housing like the current Sunbird Lodge.
Specialinfraslructure
. requirements: Underground parking.
° Access .
requirements: A bus stop moved in front of it. Better pedestrian access to Lionshead.
Response 11
Overview: Children's playground.
Scope/Size: Similar to that in Ford Park.
Financing by: Public.
Objective
advanced: Gets peopie and families out. Improves uses of open spaces. Adds activity during the summer. ~
~
Access I
requirements: Should be accessible by walking from any point in Lionshead.
~
Resoonse 12
Overview: High-tech conference center.
Scope/Size: Potential locations: [Note: To be successful, MUST be located adjacent to hotel] Parking structure,
east of parking structure (closer to hospital), north day lot, west day lot (adjacent to Mazriott). Si2e:
_ 25-75 person groups. _
"Financing by: Private - hotel or corporate sponsor.
Objective
advanced: Vitatity and amenities: wouid be a new amenity. Stronger economic base through increased "live
beds" would support (financing-wise) the development of a new hotel; would increase hotel use
during weekdays, one of our non-peak periods, would have positive spin-off effects on other ]odging
properties in terms of nightly rate increases; would positively impact restaurants and retail in
Lionshead.
Primary/secondary
uses: See notes, following.
References: See notes, following.
~
6
Response 13
Overview: A classical lion, with an aspen wreath crown, standing on mountain peaks be used as the unifying and
identifying theme and an integal part of the Lionshead reformation and master ptan. The Lion should
be all encompassing to deliver maximum charm and memorability. ~
Scope/Size: a. Courtyard azea in central Lionshead. An amorphous area that needs a focal point desperately. A
bronze lion stature approximately IS feet high placed to stand facing the mountain. A good point of
reference and photograph taking, etc. 200 or more ftberglass copies of the statue (a little larger than
life size) and offered ta famous artists and otherwise to decorate for good international publicity. The
finished lions would then be displayed along the streets of Lionshead. After a prescribed length of
_ time (2-3 months) each lion would be auctioned offto the highest bidder. Zurich, Switzerland did this .
to celebrate their anniversary and they had an enormous success. Their lions were literally works of'- .
art and very valuable. After this show, seated lions, weatherproof and to be used as benches should be
placed every 10 to 15 feet apart and placed at strategic points throughout the village.
b. In the area of the courtyard adjacent to the Chart House where the slope necessitates steps down to
the courtyard, tucked into the step area (see sketch), a miniature mountain of stone but with many
nooks and crannies can shelter rock-plants dripping water and fountain, pool and lion.
c. The existing lazge clock, which serves a very good purpose, should be embellished with lions.
d. The center of the traffic circle by the Beaver Creek bus stop can be enhanced by a large pseudo
topiary lion covered by twinkle lights. (Disney has Mickey Mouse and whale topiary bushes used to
good effect.)
e. The ice rink and library do not feel as though they are part of Lionshead. The long garage wall I
facing a variery of residentia) use buildings only add to this sense of disconnection. The answer is to ~
make this area of the road exciting, different and interesting. The garage watf could be enhanced with •
a scene of mountain peaks and the Lionshead lion, in lights that twinkle or neon and constantly in
motion. On the opposite side of the road to balance this effect a row of lions every 15' . These lions to
be glowing from inside or topiary with twinkSe lights. Thus making a lion alley which would feel a
much friendlier place.
, f. The rnain Lionshead bus stop area, and all the other major entry points into the Village should have
Entry Archways or columns incorporating lions, to give one a sense of arrival and destination.
g. Street furniture, garbage cans, lamp posts, etc. can all incorporate lion paws etc. Sign posting also.
~ h. Sidewalks, courtyazds etc. can incorporate paw prints into their surface and can aid the summer
I visitor to find his way between important points in town. In Winter colored paw prints can be placed
on the snow as a directior?al aid and for fun, maybe on the last ski sketch home over the bridge etc.
etc.
I i. A person dressed as a large Sir Lionshead lion (Mickey Mouse style) on skis in winter, walking
I around the-town in Summer for tourist information ancY for fun.
' j. A very important aspect of this plan would be wall murals. Every blank wall or unsightly facade /
building / some Vail buses / the ski-in bridge over Gore Creek can become literally works of art and
deception, turning the most ugfy into the most g(orious. A biand town in Canada did this and became
' a tourist Mecca. (See attached article showing Qossibilities and describing the process.)
~
7
- Financing by: Financial thoughts. (a) A Lionshead Lottery. (b) The copyrighted Lionshead lion, the adult design
and the children's design could generate some moneys. (c) The sale of the artist decorated lions
would generate some funds. (d) Murals which would be a lazge part of the plan could be financed by
the building owner's, who would be given tax breaks and other benefits (maybe reduced price ski lift
~ tickets for their renters), free publicity etc. etc. (e) Architecture / Engineering schools are delighted to
be given design projects for their students, they will work for free on design and construction also. In
retum for on site work they could be housed and fed free of charge by locat businesses.
Objective
advanced: Objective 1: Lionshead would benefit by being: Wazmer, vibrant, appea(ing, a memorable
experience in its own right. A sense of place and identity. By gaining a new strong prideful ,
' personality. Unified by a theme for both old construction and a base for furiire construction design. In
- summary, Lionshead would be like no other place in the world, and a lot of fun, people can feel a -
• tremendous fondness for such a symbol, e.g. the statue of the elk that used to be outside the Two Elk
Restaurant, and this is the type of place you will revisit.
Objective 2: Lionshead streetscape would be fun. The lions at the base of Nelson's column aze in
constant use they are being patted, sat on, photographed and enjoyed.
Objective 3: People will revisit a memorable unique and special place.
Objective 4: Improved signage and the paw prints will aid the flow of the pedestrian traffic.
Objective 6: See notes on financial thoughts, above. li
Primary/secondary ~
uses: Statuary and murals are not enough to ensure a successful Lionshead. The main courtyazd that I
• extends from the Chart House to the stores just past the Popcorn Wagon should be considered the ~I
heart of Lionshead. The fountain, rock garden lion pool and the giant lion statue add necessary focal
points and to a degree they create an activity. To become the hub of the village additional activities !
must be added. First the disjointed streets and variety of different levels must be sculpted as much as !
possible into a single level all leading into this hub. Next, a multi purpose town hall could be created, ~
with commercial icitchen and stage with the body of the hatl no more than 100' x 60'. Access to the
hall from the courtyard must be easy and available and visually obvious, with many targe doorways.
- Pedestrian traffic mnst have no impediments flowing in and out. Town Meetings, craft shows,
weddings, comedy and loeal theater and small conventions etc. etc., all would have a place. The -
narrow side of the hall must be the one facing the courtyard, a too large building will defeat the aim to
have a vibrant human scale town center. It may be possible to incorporate this hall into the old
Gondola building? at the same time making it more functional for existing tenants, and looking much
more inviting. Trails End could be housed and be made more accessible to the village with a greater
deck area wrapping around.
I propose an open air theater, within sight of the courtyazd, and on the edge of the mountain. Aiong
the same lines as Wolf Trap in the metropolitan azea of Washington D.C., the theater would be roofed
and open-sided with a_grassy-slope area fer those wishing to view the performance under the stars,
and the under roof seating for the others. With picnic tables neazby, this makes for a wonderful
activity. Wolf Trap is operated under the auspices of the National Pazk Service with great success.
Winter Performances would be held in the town hall, so it must be designed very carefully to
accommodate the acoustic needs of both spoken word and music.
In summary, the combination of theme, hub, heart and activity for both winter and summer are a
combination that guarantee a heatthy, iong-term success to take Lionshead into the new mitiennium.
.
8
References: See attached.
. - , WVOIN fook • UA) ~OOS 41. ~~~~IW
CbAk* Nctat~
,
' •
•,wa
~ iO • ~ / r `~~~~!~M~
~ r ~~s le ' Y ~ •
d-' g* ~4f d-y
d~ •
I ~
~ R
S{~ " ,~o~? t~ ~ d'~'"''~C .
~
Response 14 .
~ Overview: A grocery store or at least a convenience store. A pharmacy, also.
~
~ Scope/Size: Within a 5 to 10 minute walk from anywhere in Lionshead.
~
Financing by: Private.
i .
' 9
~
, . . _
Objective _
advanced: Enhancement of Lionshead services and amenities. Most guests come without a car, so grocery
shopping becomes a big problem. Also there is nowhere within Lionshead where once can quickly
run out for milk or other necessities.
~ Resnonse IS
Overview: To have the walk along Gore Creek extend all the way from Lionshead to the Village so that people
don't have to walk on the street and battle the buses, etc.
Response 16 .
• Overview.• Community center with athietic, gymnastic, culturat, educational, meeting space and conference (locai
and extemal) space. Possible child care center (locals and guests). Should be inter-generational.
Scope/Size: Located where $28 million performing arts center proposed - east end of parking structure. Possibly
include redevelopment of Dobson area to accommodate more events / activities.
Financing by: Public-private ! consider an "assessmenY' of TOV property owners over a five year period.
Objective advanced.• Vitatity and amenities for resort visitors and valiey residents. !
Primary/secondary ~
uses: An ice surface would free up Dobson for conference / meeting space as well as providing additional
ice activities. Would be used by theater / dance groups; arts council; symposium; "under 18"
activities; non-profit organization meeting place; educational seminars / film festivals; photography
workshops; athletic / workout facilities. I
~ Special infrastructure
requiremenrs: Anything new should be "state of the art"!
Resuonse 17
Overview: Something that brings life to the area - conference, hotel with ful} conference amenities or IMAX /
theater (like the Buell in Denver) or combined age group amenity that caters to all ages, i.e. 16-20
_ year olds. Encourage eye levei architecture to improve the appearance of the mall.
_ Scope/Size: Not too big as Beaver Creek now has a performing arts center.
Financing by: Private.
Response 18
Overview: There are five topics which I would tike see addressed in the master plan. These are:
Public park and playground site; Gore Creek stream access points and trail; landscape quality;
pedestrian friendiy improvements; and visual access to the mountain.
With-the rerttoval of the defunet Lionshead Totlot last year;•the Lionshead area is without a public
park and playground site.
Scope/Size: The redevelopment master plan should identify a site about 1/2 acre in size for a public park. The site
should be adjacent to the commercial / ski base area and connected to the existing recreation path
system. Park elements should include an open turf grass play azea, picnic facilities, restrooms, and a
large playground. The playground should have separate areas designed for 2- 5 year olds and 5- 12
year olds and should comply with the CPSC and ASTM playground safety standards. I would like to
.
10
try some commercial play equipment and get away from the in-house structures that we have been
using. Shade, seating, signs, and ADA access all need to be considered in the design.
,
The area north of Gore Creek and east of the skier bridge is ideal for expanded stream access. I would •
like to see a nature trail and stream access points constructed between the existing bridge and the
north side of the Library. A bridge and some stream bank improvements would be needed at the
Library end. From the main trail coute, two or three spur tra's!s terminating at observation points along
Gore Creek, would provide stream access consistent with the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan.
Nature interpretation elements (similar to VA's skicology Qrogram) could easily be incarporated into
the trail design. Boazdwalks, fencing, signs, and native plantings would keep users on the trails and
allow the existing social trails to.be re-vegetated and restored. Restoration of other areas may give the
' Town or VA some valuable wetland credits. _
The quality of the landscape plantings aze very poor. The perennials have not done well and most of
the woody plants, being over-planted at the start, aze crowding each other and the buildings. The hard
edges formed by the raised walls and concrete caps are difficult to work with. I would like to see
much softer (ines and more ground ievel beds that contrast, rather than parallel, the building forms.
Seasonal flower displays should be inctuded wherever possible.
One of the biggest problems with Lionshead Mall is the pedestrian connection with the Lionshead
Parking Structure. The current arrangement of crosswalks, bus lanes and roadway puts the pedestrian
in direct conflict with autos and busses. The loading wne and lack of a drop-off area compound the
problem. The redevelopment master plan design should sepazate vehicles and pedestrians either
spatially or by grade. Spatial separation is probably the most likely solution to succeed.l would like to
offer a concept for consideration by the design team. This concept involves six components:
Reroute East Lionshead Circle to South Frontage Road by the International; East Lionshead Circle
becomes local traffic onSy and does not cross southwest comer of the structure (emergency vehicles ~
excepted); exterid pedestrian zone from LIONSHEAD Mall to the southwest portal of the Lionshead
structure; in-town bus route, from the east, turns azound before pedestrian connection; designate a
, drop-off area within the Lionshead siructure (possibly connected with the new East Lionshead Circle);
and all loading and delivery in LIONSHEAD mall occurs from the west end of the mall.
The attached sketch should help illustrate the concept.
Finally, the Lionshead arcade would benefit greatly from a better visual connection to the mountain.
Currently, only the corridor from Bart and Yetis past the Gondola has a view of the mountain (as well
as good sun). With two major buildings potentially coming down, there is an opportunity to create
additional visuai corridors from the pazk/fountain area and from the west end of the ma(1. The
' conidors need to be wide and unobstructed rather than the "windows" through the building previously
considered. I am sure that VA will not be willing to do this on their own. The financial aspects of the
redeveiopment will require maximization of ground area. The Town and the public will have to push
the idea hard to make it happen.
~
11
~ta ~r,,,~ t.,_, I-a' , KA?.4 E.~
f
~ t
s`fYIA~'~-- ~ « .
~ sk I C'o~
- ~ t C40 .4tti 04 .
- .w
~C
Resnonse 19
Overview: Transit loop east-west through Lionshead from west day lot to Library (or to Village) (light rail, ,
trolley, electric bus (European)). ,
C1
..,:1~ . ' ,,...r
~+YY' r A`` ~
~
„
'W
a+
%
Response 20
Overview: Redevelogment poiicy allowing density and in-fill with requirement for meeting redevelopment plan
objectives, providing on-site to off-site pedestrian improvements, improved public spaces, providing
live beds, employee housing (rental or ownership), providing first floor retail, increase in office
spaces, etc. May require meeting 3 out of 4 to be provided or require some and allow choices in other
areas.
Response 21
• Overview: Create a targer space in front of the old gondofa building to provide many, hundreds, of beach type
chairs with outdoor drink service and patio restaurant area.
12
Resuonse 22 Overview: Eliminate existing light fLxtures in Lionshead and provide new fixtures in logical locations - new style
- Village fixture? ~ I
Response 23
Overview: Identify Lionshead azea by providing low level walls and entry statements along Frontage Road /
Meadow Drive - rack walls so you can point to an area and say, "that's Lionshead."
. L ~ ~ M~ R ~ ~ f + YrMr 7I
• Q` • , ~
~
.
~
b'. ~
.
w?..~-~+~rr..._. ._...i..~./!P"'"'"~ , ..rl ~ ~ .
Resnonse 24
Overview: West day lot is very visible sight as those traveling from west head directly into this site. Provide
recommendations for this site that requires it to anchor the west end of Lionshead (physically and
economically) and is of substantial azchitectural value, has no visible parking and contains active first i
floor uses. ~
Response 25
Overview: Consider second and third story pedestrian connections between buildings (sky-walk). Could be
unique for Lionshead.
Response 26
~ Overview: Provide a small amphitheater in the main plaza area that will encourage people to hang out, music
~
events to occur or a surilcen plaza with steps for sitting.
Response 27
Overview: Provide a fountain or other water feature in plaza areas.
~ Resaonse 28
II Overview: Allow merchants, restaurants to use portion of public space for seatinglservice without gates or
I fences. Allow more vendor carts. Maybe allow more in summer and less in winter.
li Response 29 Overview: Allow the main mall area of Lionshead (to be delineated) to be an open alcohol consumption area
during certain hours of the dayfnight (maybe Fridays and Saturdays only) (to be purchased from on-
' site vendors in a Lionshead cup). This will increase life and vitality of plaza and allow some freedom
~ to move about, shop, visit, taik.
Resnonse 30
' Overview: Allow weekly, very small outdoor concerts in p(aza. ~
13
Response 31
Overview: Create a bicycle route through the heart of Lionshead, not just around the perimeter.
~ ,ii ti_ • ~...i-~._,~.. ~t ~ t .
~~~`YN~IM! NW M~
~ • YW
~ • •~'+n
~,.T ~rflr
~t`~ ~T MOYYYi' ti ~ ,
~
•r i i~w
- _ . 1.r"F~ -
: • --1 Yl y~
+.~,Mwwu ~ : 1J . .
Response 32
Overview: Require private property connections to bike and pedestrian ways.
~ ' ~~yP•.-
/
~ f7~f r•- ~ 1'
r~.,~
- ~ws?~in >.-,~s • ~ .
d wM v
Response 33 - -
Overview: Soften / improve architecture of parking structure by introducing new materials, stone, wood,
landscaping, etc. Require a!l structures to be architecturaily significant and compatible with an area
theme and other structures.
Response 34
Overview: Require greater articulation of base ski lift facilities. Require facilities to meet theme and be
compatible with surrounding architecture. Require stone, wood, shake roofs. Do not allow metal
roofs.
~ .
14
Resuonse 35
Overview: Create a centralized loading and delivery zone under ground in the heart of Lionshead. This could be
provided beneath the Sunbird 1 Gondola building and service the entire area.
f + ~rt' 1 ~T ` t~~ w-.. ~
R1liI
"J
Ir~w
,rrI~r7Ml s •
.r.. ~ r~ ~ ~•-~'ti~
~
..-;i ~a
Response 36
Overview: Require that private developments purchase land from the Town for any encroachments at fair market
value. Use this money for public projects in Lionshead.
Response 3?
Overview: Provide locations for newspaper boxes and trash cans with consistent design.
Response 38
Overview: Develop a centralized community compactor / dumpsite (similaz to Breckenridge) for core area. ~
Response 39
, Overview: Snow removal - this not only includes streets and pedestrian areas but also roof drainage. As a
solution as much of the mall as possible should be snow melted and there should be proper drainage.
Response 40
' Overview: Emergency and maintenance vehicle access - make allowances for this.
Response 41 _
Overview: Lighting - replace existing lighting - it's ugly as Lionshead. There is also a need to predetermine
, which azeas are to be holiday lighted and plan them.
.
ResRonse 42
Overview: Rock wall, bench, trash receptacle and paver replacement. They aze deteriorating and need some
redesigning.
Response 43
~ Overview: The stairway from the north day lot and the 1ot itself could be better utilized.
I
Response 44
Overview: Vail Associate's maintenance facility and their use of west Forest Road dominates that side of
Lionshead and adds to Lionshead' unattractiveness.
Response 45 ~
Overview: Currently Lionshead is too "industrial" looking. There is too much concrete showing, the buildings
aze boxy and generally }ust ugly. The Town's auxiliary building on the southwest end of the parking
15
-structure is a good example of this. Anything that can be done to improve the building's facades and
roof lines would be a major improvement.
Response 46
~ Overview: The skier bridge looks like a livestock ramp and needs work to make it look better.
Response 47
Overview: The fountain is rather plain and can be enhanced.
Response 48 .
. Overview: The landscaping in the mall seems to be in small islands and is not very natural looking.
Response 49
Overview: With Gore Creek running along the whole length of Lionshead, there is a great opportunity for river
access activities, including a park, playground, and azeas for outdoor entertainment.
Response 50
Overview: Making the mall more inviting with better entries, seating and gathering azeas would help.
Resoonse 51
Overview: Redoing the bus shelter to include heat would add the possibility of providing information there. This
would allow for the removal of the small information bunker at the east end, which is another eyesore.
Response 52
Overview: Deliveries are a problem and need to be done from one or tow specified locations.
Response 53
~ Overview: Skier drop off and how to get vehicies in and out quickly needs to be addressed.
Response 54
Overview: Pedestrian access from the parking structure needs to be sepazated from vehicle contact.
Resnonse 55
Overview: Town Bus routing and stops need to be designed so there is less conflict with pedestrians and other
vehicles. Maybe its time to revive the monorail idea. .
Response 56 Overview: Covering the parking structure would make it easier to maintain (snow removal) and much more
pleasing aesthetically. There is also the opportunity for development there. Perhaps a convention
center (there is still that need) or maybe even a pazk on top.
Response 57
Overview: Instali a roof on the Lionshead structure. Add commercial / office area on top of the structure.
Response 58 Overview: Lionshead Transportation Center. Terminate the in-town bus shuttle at this location, install
centralized parking pay point, information services, and ski ticket sales.
Response 59
Overview: Eliminate Concert Hall Plaza stop. Through design, encourage pedestrian traffic from old Concert
Hall area to Lionshead parking structure.
•
16
Resaonse 60
Overview: Tear down Ice Arena and build convention center in its place.
Resaonse bl ~
Overview: Develop the azea by Lion Square Lodge as a pedestrian ! skier drop off for out of town buses and cars.
Response 62
Overview: Add parking to Lionshead structure.
Response 63
Overview.• Skier bridge to area east of Forest Road bridge. .
Response 64 Overview: Extend town shuttle to stop at gondola and proceed east to Vail Village via tunnel.
Resnonse 65
Overview: Heat all pedestrian walk ways.
Response 66
Overview: More employee housing units in larger Lionshead area, keep those that exist (Sunbird) so that there is
actually a net gain in the number of employee housing units. Do this by utilizing public works / Town
of Vail and Vail Associates property and approaching these plots also as part of Lionshead planning.
Scope/Size: "Larger Lionshead" planning should include all area mentioned above for most cohesive plan. I'
Financing by: Appropriate for partnership financing - Town of Vail could offer density waivers, should'demand Vail ~I
Associates compensate for employee additions necessary for Adventure Ridge, Game Creek Club, I
and Category III. Some developers still willing to work with Town of Vail to include employee ~
housing units in lazger units as hotels if some waiver of fees, GFRA, etc.
Objective
advanced: Lionshead now looks like a set for "Clockwork Orange" when not in high season. No people = feaz,
loathsome. More year round and seasonal including summer employees = a warmer, more vibrant
environment. More "deed restricted" units. Creative financing. Stronger economic base through
" more sales tax from locals living there.
_ Primary/secondary
uses: 1. A few deed restricted units for yeaz round employees working in Vail. 2. 200+ employee housing
units for seasonal employees working in Vail and especially for Vail Associates. More locals equals
~ a. more vibrant, vital Lionshead year round and b. more sales for Lionshead shops, eateries year
I round.
Square footage
reguired.• 1. No net loss of employee housing units in Lionshead larger area and 2. accomplish actual
I ain.
' Feasibility
studies: Researchy ig studY, Eagle CountY Housing Task Force draft Policy; RRC? Golden
n b/for: 1990 hous
Consultants' study and estimate that only 38% of employees working in Vail live in Vail.
Resnonse 67
Scope/Size: A. Sundance - location - keep maximum height of new building same as old building! •
B. Maintain north day parking lot access to Landmark as is!
17
Resnonse 68 Overview: Our main concern would be the height of any proposed buildings erected southwest to southeast
which would obstruct the Landmark view. Buildings should be held to four stories in height or not
• any higher than existing buildings which would be raised or modified.
F'inancing by: Public-private partnership financing. Resqonse 69
Overview: Policy - any tear down must be recycled. Concern - this is the fourth or fifth time Lionshead has been
planned. Can a difference be made? -
, Scope/Size: Concern - incentives are short-lived - pride is long term. Incentives aze at public expense for private
profit.
Financing by: If the Town keeps public areas nice, embarrassment will force private sector to improve.
Res ~Lonse 70
Overview: Create a new entry into Lionshead from the parking structure. This idea inciudes:
- remove loading azea
- relocate bus stops, remove bus shelter and replace with a smaller shelter closer to the bus stop
- create a new plaza in the space. Space should include a landscape buffer, a water feature or art
piece (maybe a giant lion's head!), a defined walkway that utilizes the natural path that pedestrians
cunently use (down the bus lane).
- narrow the road (East Lionshead Circle) where pedestrians cross. ,
i? ~ mw
.
^ p
. . ~ ~~MAUK..,
M'~r1,~ ~ ~y..~~,~i~~+~"..• ..r. •..~.w...!
R
1 ~
~ M I~P • NOf/Y~
i 71rr VM ?ore{
~ ~ Ir,~,7y y ~hi
~ •~ti~~~
~,~?"i INMWIl
116K
• +M~ ~1
•
18
Resvonse 71
Overview: Policy issue: 'allow and encourage redevelopment that may cross exisring lot lines. In an effort to
improve circulation through Lionshead, some buildings may be better situated in a slightly different
location. Allow buildings to cross property lines, buy or exchange Town right-of-ways to help •
improve circulation. Along with this, eliminate the 10' setback requirements. Use zero setbacks, as
in CCI. Incxease site coverage requirements to 80%.
Response 72
Overview: Lionshead needs a sense of arrivaUplace.
Scope/Size: Redesign entry closest to the parking structure, such that this becomes a central plaza area with a .
plaza-type atmosphere. Possibly locate some public art to effectively identify this area as the entrance . .
to Lionshead. It needs something similar to the covered btidge that furthers the chosen design
scheme.
Resnonse 73
Overview: Lionshead should adopt a Comprehensive Sign Program. 1'his would serve to further build upon the
design theme in Lionshead as well as serve a more. functional purpose of directing pedestrian flow
more efficiently and effectively.
Resaonse 74
Overview: There should be more types of activities that Lessen the imgact of skiing. Currently, if a person gets
off the bus near the parking structure, they follow the path of all skiers, ending up at the ticket office,
ski school, rental, etc. Provide more gathering places that direct people to the periphery.
Scope/Size: Add meeting places, pocket parks, outdoor concert areas, etc.
Response 75 .
Overview: Concerning a possible performing Arts Center / Convention Center, I do not believe that a major
convention center makes sense for Vail given that we do not have significant hotels who need the
facility. The existing lazge hotels have their own convention space and would only put people in
another convention center when they could not accommodate them within their own hotels.
Additionally, we }ust do not have enough smatl hotels to fill up a convention center. Finally, with the
uneven nature of our condominium base we just do not appeal to convention planners.
I alsn do not believe a large facility in the 2500-3500 seat operation is the right scale for the Town.
Especially important, the cost of operating it and the difficulty of getting the.right rype of events to
mesh with our communiry is just very difficult with that many seats. Accordingly I do not believe that
II I wouid be supportive of a major entertainment center.
I do believe however, that it would be very much in the best interest of the Town to develop a 750 -
1250 seat community hail located either adjacent to Dobson Arena (or in Dobson itsel fl. This facility
~I would be multi-purpose in its use. It would be able to accommodate dance, music, theater,
symposiums, education, lectures, high school graduations, etc. I would additionally see minimum
food service with the facility, just enough to handle break outs, but not major meals. Finally, I would
suggest that 4- 6 additional rooms built around the main hall would be exttemely helpful. These
would be anywhere from 50 - 125 seats. Also, I forgot to mention that the major facility should be
, able to be segregated out into different segments depending on the size af the audience.
I believe that a facility as described would do much to revitalize and energize Vail, helping it to
compete as we move into the future. I am also convinced that this type of professional facility would
generate new businesses, ideas and programs that have not yet been thought of for Vail. ~
'I 19
- Resoonse 76
Overview: Community center - meetings, gymnastics, open gym, performance area for local groups and/or a
place where you don't have to drink to hear music, craft azea, youth center, coffee house, kitchen
facility.
~ Scope/Size: 200-250 seat performance area - full gym dividable - gymnastics area because there are 340 on a
waiting list at present facility.
Financing by: Public-private consortium - additional tax or one time assessment.
Objective -
• advanced: Amenities for locals and tourists. '
, Primarylsecondary
uses: Youth socials, speakers, local groups which need a place to hold meetings (outside of hotels). A place
for youth, teen, seniors, dance troupes, small concerts, pot luck parties, special craft lessons, local
artist disptays.
Access ,
requirements: Lionshead parking structure should serve. Should be near pobson, the library - civic area. ,
~
Resnonse 77 '
Overview: Expand the pedestrian/commercial core. Increase retail, food and beverage establishments.
Scope/Size: First, pedestrianize Lionshead Place (or at least a portion of it) and create a retail loop, connecting the ~
west side of Concert Hali Plaza with the south and west sides ofthe Sunbird/Gondola buiIdings. I
Provide incentives for first-floor commercial additionslexpansions to the Marriott, Antlers, Lion I
Square Lodge (north and south) arid Monianeros. This alone could potentially double the shopping ~
~ district.
Second, provide additional retail opportunities at the south and southwest portions of the parking
structure.
How: a. Eliminate the parking pay-in-lieu fee for very specific targeted uses. This is key.
_ b. Modify some of the existing development standards; again, only for specific tazgeted uses. Such as
eliminate setbacks for GCII (curtently 10') or increase site coverage. -
Incentives: a. public transit at Lionshead Place would need to be redirected to an alternate Iocation.
Logical place would be to create a transit area at the parking structure.
b. provide underground access to the parking structures of the Antlers and Lion Square Lodge to
etiminate vehicutar traffic yet maintain access to those sites.
• .
20
/ f
g `1
> 1/
+ 7j, d1r
, ~ =~y 0~ ~•~~.,++'f
fA • .
.
.
.-.~,.~s~"'r"""~'^?~ ~ ~ ~r. ~ .
; Response 78
Overview: Provide a direct vehicular connection from Vail International to the South Frontage Road.
Scope/Size: Consider a connection with the Evergreen. This would reduce traffic and improve safety on East
Lionshead Circle. Implement the Streetscape Master Plan in the azea.
Response 79 .
Overview: Re-route the South Frontage Road north of the VA shops parcel.
Scope/Size: Utilize the I-70 right of way for the re-routed road. Comprehensively master plan the VA shops
pazcel, the west day lot, the ofd town shops, the gas station and the Holy Cross pazcel. Not sure what
to do with the Water District site? Consider seasonal employee housing, public pazking, regional
transit, etc. Relocate the VA facility (at a smaller scale) to the old town snops. Provide a new bridge
. for snow cat access to the mountain and direct the cats west. Avoid the residential areas of West
Forest. Road.
Resoonse 80
I Overview: Adopt design guidelines for energy conservation.
~ Scope/Size: A) Use compact florescent lighting and solid state electronic ballasts
B) Insulation minimum of R-19 to R-30 for ceilings and walls
C) Use day lighting techniques such as skylights to provide passive solar heat
D) Optimize passive solar heating by orienting buildings to take advantage of southern exposures
II E) Use solar panels or recover heat from building heating systems to provide heat for any exterior
heating pavers. -This is being ef€ectively done m Aspen and can have a-return on investment m 1.5
year
' F) Use solar technology to augment heating and lighting. May want to consider for one specific
building as a demonstration. Buiiding designs should allow easy installation of photovoltaic panels if
property owners choose to use this technology
G) Plant trees on east and west sides of building to reduce heating needs
H) Use state of the art heating and cooling systems
~
21
~Financing by: Energy conservation can increase up front costs but will result in net savings over a 2-5 yeaz time
frame. For example, Breckenridge Hilton saves $22,607 a yeaz after simply changing over to
florescent bu}bs.
~ Response 81
Overview.• Adogt principals for waste management
Scope/Size: A) The Eagle County Landfills life span has declined from 20 years in 1990 to only 8 years in 1996.
The major reason why the landfill capacity is lower than expected is because of demolition acrivity.
Landfilling materials from demo/rebuilds in Lionshead shoald be the last option after looking at how
to reuse materials for construction, reprocess materials for other uses, and/or shredding and
compacting material to reduce the volume of landfilled materials. Developers should be required to
first obtain the services of a demolition contractor that will reuse the materials from the site. The
Eagle County Solid Waste Supervisor has obtained the names of several contractors that wili often
charge an equivalent per ton charge to reuse the material as it would cost to dispose of the material at
the landfill.
B) Ic3entify opportunities to utilize secondary materials for construction. For example recycled plastic
can be fabricated to look like wood. Keystone Resorts has used tiiis product extensively for building ~
construction; benches, and gazbage cans. Reused aggregate can also be used for building foundarions. '
Carpeting can also be made out of recycled products.
C) Provide room for recycling collection points for each Buiiding and then a convenient location in i
Lionshead for a central pick-up area. !
D) For guest accommodation, give guests the option to use green bags to recycle materials if they
choose. This is also done in Keystone and leaves a very favorable impression on guests, even in their ~I
nicest hotels. ~
E) Provide a restaurant collection point for food waste which could be integated with the Water and . 1
Sanitation Districts composting system.
F} Provide adequate space for dish washing facilities to reduce dependency on disposable products.
, G} Pcovide outdoor recycling receptac(es.
H) Use Water and Sanitation District compost for landscaping soil amendment.
Financing by: Waste collection services charge based on the amount of waste generated(i.e. how many times a week
collection occurs. Savings can be realized by significantly reducing waste production. In addition the
public cost will be extremely high if the landfill is prematurely filled.
_ Response 82 Overview: Water Conservation
ScopelSize: A) Use drought resistant piants for tandscaping. I would suggest that the Town or VA maintain a
xeriscape landscaped area as a public demonstration.
B) Use gray water (water collected from runoff, from sinks, drinking fountains) to water landscaped
area.
C) Use low ftow faucets, shower heads, anci toilets. This can save 20% to 30% on water usage.
Financing by: Water is a-very limited resource in Vail. Flows are iaadaqt+ate in the-winter to support a healthy trout
population between the go(f course weil fie(d and the Forest Rd. water treatment ptant. Conservation
can signiftcantly improve flaws along this reach of the stream. One Denver Hotel spent $29,700 on
water conservation devices and receives every yeaz a savings of $30,000 in reduced water bills.
•
22
; Response 83 Overview: Open Space/Landscaping
ScopelSize: A} Every effort should be made to preserve and enhance the stream tract along Lionshead. However,
this azea is cut off from the Lionshead Mall area and few people see the Creek if they are shopping in
Lionshead. The Creek should have cleaz access and be an amenity to Lionshead. Landscape
promenades could lead to Gore Creek and be incorporated into the circulation pattern of the Village. I
believe that natural vegetation should be maintained directly beside the creek and then a cnore man
' made landscape, still using native vegetation, can occur directly beside the creek.
B) Somewhere in the Plan a educational opportunity could be provided to create a xeriscaped
landscaped demo project. The Alpine Gazdens might a15o want a demo plot to simply advertise for the
i Gardens. C) Trail Signs. A tasteful kiosk could be provided that shows the pedestrian'trail system both within , the Town and also on Vail Mt. and USFS lands. In addition interpretive opportunities could be provided that would show people flora and fauna they may see in Vail. To build on that idea, an
interactive "touch" screen could be provided in this Kiosk to answer general questions.
D) Provide access to Gore Creek to accommodate fishing/viewing for special populations. This is an
idea that has been discussed with Vail Associates and could be accommodated at 2-3 points along
Gore Creek in the Lionshead area with a wood (recycled plastic) boazdwalk to protect riparian
vegetation and to allow easy access.
` Financing by: Through RETT the above mentioned projects could potentially be funded. However, I think buildings
as they aze redeveloped could pay for appropriate improvements. The signs/Kiosk, although some
consider them clutter, provide needed information/direction for guests.
Resaonse 84 ' Overview: Water Quality Protection
Scope/Size: A) Protect and enhance riparian areas. This could include finally doing a much needed enhancement .
of a wetland area directly across the stream from the Born Free lift. This could be a wonderful
interpretive area to discuss wetland ecology. It also was a condition of approval for the VA Gondola
~
to some enhancement in this area.
B) Require oil & sand separators for parking areas.
C) Allow runoff to run over vegetated azeas rather than being directly discharged into Gore Creek.
" D) Install vaulted detention basins to collect runoff and allow sediment to be trapped before being
~ discharged into the creek.
_ E Desi n second containment for all sto e
) g ary rag areas for toxic Products. Utilize non-toxic
alternatives when available.
Financing by.• Protecting and enhancing water quality and ripazian vegetation is critical to maintaining the character
of Vail and preserving the Gold Meda{ Fishery in Gore Creek. Based on retail sales from fishing retail
and guide stores, each fish in our Gold Medal Fishery has a return back to the Town of over $300.
Response 85
Overview: The recommended transportataen hierarchy for-Lionsljead should. be pedesfians; buses, shuttle
services, and then cars.
ResUonse 86
Overview: Lionshead lacks unique retail qualities to attract people. A greater variety of retail should be pursued
to increase interest in the area.
~
23
' Response 87 .
Overview: A farmers market has been discussed for Vail. Lionshead might be the place for such a market. This is
a very sustainable concept for a community by providing a place to buy locally produced faod. It also
creates a much needed attraction in Lionshead to draw people into the azea.
~ Response 88 .
Overview: Vail needs an indoor performing arts complex. Cou{d this be done in conjunction with a convention
center/hotel?
Response 89
. Overview.• Lionshead needs more activity and people during the day. A hotel could provide additional activity . .
and people as well as some form of professional offices. When VA moved to the Seasons, the tunch
business went down significantly. Can we do anything through an enterprise zone to encourage
business back into Lionshead?
Response 90
Overview: Day Caze and Housing: To encourage business back into Vail and to also make Vail more of a
sustainable community we need to look for opportunities for locals housing and day caze. I am
assuming Andy will have excellent comments on how to bring housing to Lionshead. NOTE: Lenders ,
aze now considering energy efficiency in building design and allowing lower down payment for
energy efficient homes (since people won't have to pay so much money for utility bills -they can
afford a higher monthiy). '
Response 91
Overview: Save pocket park next to gondola. Maybe the city should acquire it.
~
i
Response 92 ~
. Overview: If really needed, put 5 star hotel across (south) from Gore Creek east of Chair 81ine.
Response 93
Overview: Expand bridge, include pedestrian walkway, etc.
Response 94
Overview: Reroute Frontage Road over to I-70 north where Vail maintenance shops aze presently located.
Response 95 : -
Overview: Include but do not ctuster affordable housing.
Scope: Integrate in small numbers throughout the Vil(age and Lionshead clustering almost always leads to
virtual ghettos and isolation.
Response 96
Overview: Reduce auto access.
Scope: Lionshead needs moreexterior parking with jimey access-to iodging fcontroiled golf carts and
snowmobiles). Make it a wa[king village. [t needs designated transportation stops and drop offs with
appropriate police to keep it flowing.
•
24
' Res onse 97 " I
' Overview: 1. Pedestrian bridge from pazking structure to mall. entrance (oast side)
2. Fresh retail shopping (no more t-shirt and/or sport shops)
3. An in-line skate park (like Stowe, VT)
4. Regentrification of exterior of buildings ~
5. A community hall for various gatherings (conventions, parties, entertainment, etc.)
ScoPe/Size: Turn in-line skate rink into ice skating rink in winter.
i Financing by: 1. Tax abatement of property taxes for three years and require same collected to be funneled into
infrastructure.
~ Objective ~ advanced: 1. A cohesive communi 2. entertainment for
ty. guests and residents. 3. increased sales tax revenue. ,
Primary/secondary
uses: Pedestrian bridge, in-line skate park, community hall, increased retai1 presence, new hotel (get rid of
' old gondola building and 5unbird)
Square
footage: 1. bridge = 1000' sf. 2. in-line skate park = 1/4 mile 3. community ha11= 25,000 sf 4. retail =
30,000 sf. 5. new hotel= 100 rooms.
Access
requirements: 1. leave structure where it is 2. delivery area is enlazged 3. skier drop off happens now! Find a
designated space.
Resnonse 98 •
Overview: Lionshead works better than most people think. A redevelopment of Lionshead as an entire azea is
not needed.
E
Scope/Size: All that needs to be redeveloped aze a small number of specific properties, such as the Sunbird Lodge
and Gondola Building.
Financing by: Private sector - the owners of the buildings to be redeveloped.
Objective - - advanced: Improve the azea without constantly going back to the tax payers. .
Resvonse 99
I Overview: Find a way to encourage interesting / diverse / exciting retail enterprise.
Financing by: Through whatever means, we should all participate. Both landlords and the Town may need to make
concessions initially.
Objective
advanced: Objectives 1 and 2.. Currently suffer from the lack-of stimulating retail offerings. Lionshead should
be a place people remember for the interesting shopping.
.
25
Response100
Overview.• l. Employee housing, especially seasonal is a mandatory requirement in redevelopment.
2. Performing arts center must be included. ~ ScopelSize: 1. Housing units must exceed what is presently there and should include seasonal units over the
parking structure.
2. The P.A. center should be capable of holding large performances.
Financing by.• 1. TOV and VA - VA should be leaned on heavily in the housing area as they almost single handedly
cause the problem
2. TOV ,
_ Response lOl ,
. Overview: Implement and encourage lots of street entertainment.
Scope/Size: Similar to the $15-20K spent by the TOV in the past summer entertainment in the mall, initiate a I
program 30-40 hours a week, year round. At an average of $ I 50/hour this would cost $250-300K per I
year.
Financing by: Perhaps a business improvement district. The only problem with that is the lack of participation from I
the rest of Vail. While Lionshead residents/businesses stand to benefit the most, there is also inherent
value in Lionshead's success to everyone in Vail.
Objective
advanced: This would directly advance policy objectives 1 and 2. It would indirectly help occupancies (3).
Primary/secondary
uses: Everything from one person acts like jugglers, clowns and magicians to musical trios, quartets, etc. to
i larger choirs, dance troupes, pipe bands, etc.
Square
footage: One of Lionshead's problems is all the unused square footage. This would utilize it better.
Access
e requirements: Nothing included here that we don't already do - just higher frequency. It shouldn't require any -
additional access or infrastructure.
Response 102
Overview: Recognize that individual properties will not upgrade, renovate, etc. without some incentives. If we
wait for market forces to justify the economics, it will be too late.
Scope/Size: The only real, viable incentive the Town has to offer is density. 1 think the vast majority of us don't
want "another Beaver Creek" in terms of density. So what can we live with? What is the current,
overall Lionshead density? What is Beaver Creek's? What makes sense in the middle?
Objective advanced: Way to encourage redevelopment, all of the policy objectives could ultimately be advanced this way.
Response 103
Overview: Renewal and Development - Make the facades of the buildings more uniform. Some of this was done
to the stores to the east of the gondola. Replacing wrought iron railings on balconies with something
with softer lines, curves, more of an Austrian feel might give some charm and continuity. Maybe iron
~ .
railings with snowflakes, wildflowers or hummingbirds. Additional flower beds, sculptures and
benches. Great colorful awnings.
Vitalitv and Amenities - Adding Adventure Ridge was brilliant! Concert there in the summer would .
be nice. Additional seating.would be nice and sales might recoup the cost. A family restaurant like
the Hubcap that also serves breakfast would be nice. A piano bar in the evening although Lionshead
dves not need more restaurants or night life activities.
Stronger Economic Base - The parking structure is the only place to put a hotel. What are the
occupancy rates of the Marriott and Westin? As long as there are normal vacancies then adding beds .
. makes no sense. Do not add floors to existing buildings - sunlight 'ss essential.
• Improved Infrastructure - Why does garbage pick up begin at the crack of dawn?
ResnonselU4
Overview: Establish firm building height limitations and generous public view conidors.
Frequent, reliable and courteous public bus transportation with sfict limitations on private vehicle use
of the bus route.
- Maintain or increase the number of employee housing facilities on the outer edge of the Lionshead ,
area.
Resnonse105
Overview: An environmentally friendly mall like Boulder's Peaz! Street.
Response 106 ~
Overview: An update is critical. Concerned about the height of the proposed VA buildings. Concerned about ~
view corridors which are paramount to any improvement.
Scope/Size: Landscaping is paramount - Lionshead is predominantly steel and concrete - very cold.
Financing by: Public-private.
Objective . .
advanced: Lionshead is a mess - it is a blight. Needs to be developed as part of the mountain environment
without excessive heights of buildings. Upgrades of existing buildings and a lot of open space.
Primary/secondary
uses: Primary - create an open spaced, mountain friendly village that increases conventions and winter and
j summer bookings being careful to address height and mass concerns. Secondary - improve access
west of Concert Hatl Plaza.
Response 107
Overview.• Performing arts and community center. Gymnasium, classroom type multi-purpose rooms (meetings,
' classes, lectures, etc.), performing and visual arts.
Scope/Size: Seat 350-400 people, great acoustics, foyer area for art displays. IMAX during times when no arts
' stuff - can two stages be combined?
Financing by: Have penthouses and condos on top to pay part of the use. Some public financing (grants), special tax
since this is a community thing. ~
Objective _
advanced: Brings activity to Lionshead, creation of civic type center with Doubioon, Library. Community center
will impart pride.
~ Primary/secondary
uses: Performing arts center, gym, ballet class, meeting rooms, smali kitchen, visual arts display, small
shower rooms, 2-3 penthouses condominiums.
Square
footage: This should not be a towering building. At least the bottom two floors should be below ground. _
' Infrastructure
requirements: Great acoustics, gym would need to be regulation size. ,
Access
requirements: Parking and buses right there. Delivery area.
Response 108 '
Overview.• A percent for arts programs should be included. This could be used to enhance both buildings and
streetscapes.
Scope/Size: Help reinforce the aesthetic character and build and stronger sense of place.
Financing by: Private funds to enhance the scope of the project and help build community "ownership". Through
public and private funds as well as grants and foundation support.
Objective advanced: Strengthen redevelopment. Improve infrastructure. Promotes sense of `world class' destination and
signature landmark.
~ Response 109
Overview: A conference facility.
Scope/Size: Located on east end of parking structure. Size should be based on market demand.
Financing by.• TOV and public financing. .
Objective advanced: Policy objective #2.
Resvonse 110
Overview: Redo the skier's bridge. Should be a centerpiece - what people think of when they think of
Lionshead.
Scope/Size: Stunning architectural design - perhaps stone. No wider than it is now.
Financing by: Public and VA.
Objective
advanced: Could be a symbol of the new Lionshead.
Primary/secondary
uses: 1. Skiers returning to the gondola. 2. Access to the mountain for hikers, etc.
•
Resnonse ] 11
Overview: Basketball court.
ScopelSize: Sandstone School gym. •
Financing by: No
Objective
advanced.• No.2
Primary/secondary . .
' uses: Primary - recreational basketball. _
Response 112
Overview: Grocery like Alfalfa's. Could be combined with movie theater. Objective would be to reduce overall
number of t-shirt shops.
ScopelSize: Same as Alfalfa's.
Financing by: Private.
Objective
advanced: No.2.
Primary/secondary
- uses: A piace where people can convenientiy shop for food at reasonable prices. People enjoy'going to the
movies. This would give another dimension to the Lionshead experience.
Response 113 ~
Overview: Park and playground: like the pirate ship.
ScopelSize: South side of Gore Creek opposite Three Tops condos.
Financing by: TOV and VA.
Objective,
advanced: Enhanced guest experience - No. 2. I Primarylsecondary
uses: Used by people not planning on skiing. Great for families and children.
I
Response 114
Overview: Ice hockey rink to take care of current demand.
ScopelSize: Locate at east end of parking structure. - - -
I Financing by: Public - private.
Objective
advanced.• No.2
Primary/secondary •
uses: Hockey games, professional team practice, recreational use.
Response 115
Overview: State of the art visitor center. Could offer complete reservation services- lodging, transportation,
activities, dining. Historical displays coutd be developed. Large restroom, short term parking.
~ Scope/Size: Visible from the Frontage Road and the highway. Triple the size of the existing center. .
Financing by: Public.
Objective
_ advanced.- If we entice a day visitor to stay overnight then everyone prospers. Pedestrian village makes it hard . .
for first time guests to know what is here. Primarylsecondary uses: Information, audio-visual and fax service, historical display, small meeting room, large restroom,
short term parking, storage, office space.
Resgonse 116
Overview: Multi-media meeting room with connections to other sites. Adjoining office space containing
computers, faxes, printers, phones for business travelers.
Scope/Size: Idea hinges on a convention center hotel.
Financing by: VA hotel would pay initially, ultimately becames self supporting. ~
Objective I
advanced: Vita}ity and amenities. Opening shots of each telecast would contain shots of Vaii. Satetlite meetings ~
broaden the convention market business.
Primary/secondary
uses: Convention hotel, meeting space, office space, expert employees.
Response 117
Overview: Fanners market with flower stalls, fresh produce. Gazebo for band, picnic tabies everywhere on
heated platforms.
Objective
advanced.• User friendly festive atmosphere.
Response 118
Overview: Entry sign into the parking structure.
Response 119
Overview: A consultant or a police officer trained in crime prevention through environmental design should be
retained at some point to ensure that the-final prodvct-does not provide opportunities for crime and
disorder.
Response120
Overview: Maintain existing views (from Lifthouse Condominiums). If they are not maintained it will decrease
property values, decrease rentats, impact the decks of restaurants, increase liability from ice build up
in mall.
•
.
Response 121
Overview: Finish commUnity center concept by placing the library and ice arena next to one another.
Second ice surface.
Scope/Size: Incorporate into the lower level of another project. ~
Feasibility
studies: VRD has done pro forma work on this.
Response122
Overview: Conference center - a gathering place for graduations, performances, etc. Would inject some vitality
into lodging business in shoulder seasons. , Feasibiliry .
studies: Completed in conjunction with proposal for performing arts center several years ago. Talk to
Keystone.
Response 123
Overview: 1. Indoor performance center.
2. improve access and sense of entry into village as well as streetscape and traffic throughout
3. creative re-engineering of the exteriors of existing buildings
4. optimize the retaiUrestaurant/entertainment mix
Scope/Size: 1. Large enough to permit commercially viable theater and music and handle local needs.
Feasibility
studies: i. Pro forma and program has been done and simply needs to be updated.
Response 124 •
Overview: Truck delivery terminal to provide partial or total support for both Lionshead and Village.
Response 125
Overview: If expansion of parking is required, do so in structures on the west and north of Lionshead day skier
parking lots and/or expand capacity of existing structure.
Responsel26 - Overview: Locate regional mass transit center in conjunction with a parking structure. .
Response 127
Overview: Complete South Frontage Road traffic flow improvements including eastbound I-70 off ramp west of
Lionshead, realignment of South Frontage Road north and west of VA maintenance, roundabouts at
key intersections between the main Vai1 roundabout and the west Vail entrance. Reduce the net
amount of asphalt surfacing associated with all aspects of redevelopment.
Response128
Overview: Complete civic center complex with performing arts center at east end of parking structure.
Response 129
Overview: Complete West Meadow Drive streetscape plan to improve safety for pedestrians, bikers and bladers
by establishing the street as a non-motorized route. Divert all non-essential traffic onto the Frontage
Road including non-essential bus and high speed bike traffic.
I - .
' Resaonse 130
Overview: Establish wildlife and riparian habitat nature preserves in wetland areas and on stream tracts.
Response 131
~ Overview: Provide service access to Vail Mountain for maintenance equipment and personnel on routes and in a
manner that minimize conflict with established residential areas.
Resnonse 132
Overview: Renovate Lionshead park so that it meets the health and environmental requirements.
Scope/Size: An escape for families from shops and crowds. •
_ Financing by: The Town. -
Objective ~
advanced: Provide entertainment for young people.
Primary/secondary
uses: Play ground and picnic area. I
Square I
footage: Already exists. ~
Infrastructure I
requirements: New equipment that meets health codes.
Access
~ requirements: Pedestrian only, "Hidden" aspect is enjoyed.
Response 133
Overview: Larger youth center. Cunent one needs a better space -like Adventure Ridge but in Vail where the
Town can profit from tax revenues.
Scope/Size: East end of parking structure, the area west of the Cascade Club, part of West Day Lot.
Objective -
advanced: Renewal of youth in Vail, vitality and amenities for guests, improve circulation -less kids on Bridge
Street.
Primary/secondary
uses: Youth center, family activities center, day camp.
Access
requiremenrs: No pasking needed if it is at east of parking structure.
Architectura!/Site . studies: Old Austrian style would be very nice. Lots of flowers and drawings on buildings.
Lirerature: Aspen has a nice facility with youth run cafe, exercise room, computer lab, dance area.
Responsel34
Overview: 1. Space for quite restaurant that serves three meals.
• - 2. Walking trails maintained in winter.
Response135
Overview: Park.
Scope/Size: Dead spot near Ski School, east of gondola north of creek. ~
Financing by: Public. Replaces one Town shut last year.
Objective
advanced: 1, 2 and 4.
Response 136 -
. Overview: Second Sheet of ice with dry land training rooms and weight equipment. Maybe more than one need
met - ice and convention? ice and community?
Scope/Size: East end of parking structure.
Financing by.• Public and private.
Objective
advanced: Increased revenues, more community functions.
Primary/secondary
uses: Concerts, tournaments, ice shows, more skating, conventions.
Response 137
Overview: Skate board park.
Scope/Size: Old Lionshead park area, east end of structure or part of structure. i
Financing by: The Town.
Objective
advanced: A place for youth to hang to stay off ramps and main pedestrian areas.
Primary/secondary
uses: Skate board park maybe removable in winter.
, Infrastructure
~ requirements: Insurance.
Response138
~ Overview: New gymnastics facility, maybe a shazed space.
~ Scope/Size: Tear down existing building and rebuild.
Objective
advanced: Redevelopment of a tired building.
Primary/secondary
uses: Gymnastics, wrestling, ski conditioning, ballet, community center, youth center.
•
Resnonse 139
Overview; Pianetarium, Children's Museum/hands on museum, Wet `n Wild, Museum of Skiing, Oil, Sports, etc.
Performing arts center with multi-media facility with broadcast capabilities.
~ Resaonse_140
Overview: State of the art TV8 studio.
Scope/Size: On main pedestrian thoroughfare, beachfront. Modeled on Today Show. Main offices and
production elsewhere.
Response 141
Overview: Achieve same quality and feeling as Village - not perceived as two separate entities. Concemed about
height and mass of new buildings. Maintain or create public view and access to mountain, Gore
Creek. Incorporate properties west of Concert Hall to make them part of Lionshead.
Response 142
Overview: l. Create a better connection between Lionshead and Village.
2. Civic area azound ice arena and library with a building on the RV parking - community center and
conference center, council chambers and government offices. Land at 75 S. Frontage Road could be
made into employee housing.
3. Magic carpet like DIA to get people and equipment to mountain from structure, or maybe valet
service.
4. Use tourist bunker more effectively or get rid of it.
5. Mazket Vail as a total experience instead of Vail or Lionshead.
Scope/Size: l. Improved landscaping, signage and the presence of community hosts. Create as much "storefront .
activity" as possible on north side of Meadow Drive. Perhaps storefront access on brick wall of
hospital. Important retail opportunities alongside the structure. Long term buy properties on Meadow
~ Drive to phase into retail.
Objective
advanced: Policy objectives I, 2, 3 and 4.
Response 143
Overview: Get rid of large vehicle pazking at east end of structure. Area between large vehicle parking and Vail
_ International condos is unkempt, unlandscaped and debris-laden. ScopelSize: After unloading, park busses in a commercial area somewhere else. Landscape and hide the whole
area. Patrol the area cazefuily and issue large fines for overnight pazking. No large trucks permitted.
Plantings near Vail International are needed.
Response 144
Overview: Net increase in locals' housing.
Financing by: Public and/or private.
Objective
advanced: Stronger economic base - more locals increase retail activity. Improved infrastructure - housing in
town will allow snow plow drivers to live in town.
Response 145
Overview: Improved circulation at bus stop at Lion Square Lodge.
~
Financing by: Public-private partnerships. Objective
advanced: Improved access and circulation. .
Primary/secondary
uses: Skier drop off, bus stop (lighted and sheltered).
Response 146
Overview: Bury the interchange%onflict area where pedestrians and buses, trucks, vehicles meet by west end of
parking structure, main bus stop. Have motor traffic go below grade and resurface by ice arena. Exit
' points could be created for condos. .
Financing by: Public safety issue and ought to be addressed by the Town and a private group who may redevelop
any portion of the parking structure.
Objective
advanced: Impraved access and circulation.
Response 147
Overview: A Sonnenalp in place of the Sunbird would be nice. Performing arts center perhaps tied in with
convention facilities.
Financing by.• Some of the people who benefited from the recent public offering. ~
Objective advanced: Brings more peopie to Lionshead businesses.
Primaryfsecondary ~
uses: Theater, music, convention, view corridors important, landscaping or at ieast a tree in the center of the
oval area.
Access
requirements: Shuttle buses on performance nights.
Response148 _
Overview: Increased employee housing on the outskirts. Control mass, height and density of new construction. .
Original zoning heights must be enforced.
, Response 149
' Overview: Employee housing at a reasonable cost.
Scope/Size: Hotel or hostel for employees capabfe of housing 100 at affordable rates by month or season.
Financing by: Mostly publis-with some coniributions from businesses needing the €acility. -ftesponsibility is with the
Town so should be public.
Primary/secondary
uses: Primary - housing.
Square
footage: Two or three stories to include laundry, lounges. 0
Access .
requirements: Parking.
Response150
. Overview: 1. Ice rink placed on grade at east end of parking oriented north south.
2. Ice rink simi[ar to #1 but lowered one level below grade oriented east west. ,
3. Ice rink placed on top of parking garage structure oriented east west.
Literature: See Zehren and Associates letter 5 July 1996 with attached sketches.
Resnonse 151 . . .
Overview: Mixed use redevelopment of the Gondola and Sunbird Lodge properties, Lot 4, Block 1, VaiULionshead
' First Filing and Lot 2, Block l, VaiVLionshead, Third Filing and portions of Tract C.
Scope/Size: Approximately two acres of developable foot print and constituting multiple building masses comprising
an aggregate 450-475,000 sq. # built in structures ranging from 2 to approximately 9 stories in height.
Financing by: Construction will be paid for primazily by private funds, except for any public or quasi-public
improvements which may be made in pedestrian or circulation zones or which might be incorporated into
broader public services, such as delivery and trash systems. Components of a public or quasi-public nature
might be paid for through tax increment financing or other means.
Objective i
advanced: Redevelopment of the core properties of VA would remove currently underutilized and unattractive
structures which are not the highest and best use of rea] estate. Replacement of these buildings with
mixed use facilities will increase vitality, add retail, increase bed base, enhance aesthetic character of
the architecture, improve circulation, parking.
• Primary/secondary
uses: Very broad mixed uses including lodging, hotel rooms, fractional fee or interval ownership, high
density multi-family, retail, food and beverage operations, ski base operations, service functions,
parki ng.
Square
footage: Retail-approximately 60-75,000 sq. ft.; lodging or hotel 80-120,000 sq. ft.; condominiums and/or
fractional fee 150,000 sq. ft.; slci operations and service 80-90,000 sq. ft; plus circulation and
- underground parking. Infrastructure
Reguirements: Not presently known but it is anticipated that plaza areas and pedestrian circulation might be entirely
snow melted.
Access
requirements: Access would require entry through Tract G Vail / Lionshead III Filing. Might be possible for some
purposes through the North Day Lot.
Cost studies: Very preliminary but in the range of $ 100-110 million.
Response 152
Overview: Rezone North Day lot to allow for mixed use deveiopment, possible skier drop off at the Frontage
Road, and connection thvough structure or new building mass via Tract C to the VAI core parcels.
. Scope/Size: Being studied.
Financing by: Constructiott will be paid for primarily by private funds. Public or quasi-public improvements such as
drop off and pedestrian connections miglrt be paid for with public funds or with tax increment
financing sources. •
Objective
advanced.• Redevelopment of the North Day Lot and the creation of a connection to the core would certainly
bring added vitality to Lionshead and perhaps improve access and circulation on a nvrth-south axis
from the Frontage Road or pedestrian overpass to the ski yard. Possibility of drop offor other
infrastructure improvements might enhance vehicular and as well pedestrian circulation in the area.
Development of a mixed use product in this area might be used to increase live beds or support the
- creation of additional lodging or hospitality products. Redevelopment of what is a presently an underutilized site could assist in providing additional life to Lionshead as well as open a new gate or
portai to the community and improve its aesthetic character.
Primarylsecondary
uses: Drop off, vehicular entry, parking, lodging and hospitality, fractional fee or interval uses, high density
multi- family, retail, skier services and/or operational offices, employee housing units, lodging
amenities such as meeting space, exercise and pool facilities and other currently permitted
Commercial Core 2 uses.
Access
requirements: Frontage road improvements, perhaps turning lane and curb cut improvements, new pedestrian
connections, identifiable bus drop off zone on the north side of the lot would be required.
Response 153
Overview: Vail/Lionshead first filing, block two, including the Lionshead public parking structure and Lionshead
circle, together with the air rights associated over the I-70 right of way immediately to the north of the .
Lionshead pazking structure should be considered for rezoning or new zoning permitting a wide
vaziety of uses of both private and public natures.
Financing by: Combination of private and public funding, partnerships between the private and public sectors, and
perhaps tax increment financing.
Objective advanced: " Air rights over the current parking structure and the 1-70 road right of way, together with all rights
- associated with property at the east end of the parking structure, are currently underutilized. If these
spaces were to be employed for various private and public sector uses a riew point of entry and
character could be established in Lionshead at its north eastern perimeter. New live beds could be
' created in this atea without substantial disruption to sunounding properties and the vitality and life of
this area might be enhartced with additional retail, lodging and residential uses. In the tong term,
bridging over the interstate to utilize the air rights might provide added park or green space
opportunities as well as redevelopment opportunities and make a physical and psychological
connection between Vail north of the fiighway and Vail south of the highway. On the east end of the
structure a-vaciety-of pablic usesmight be contemplated including additional ice surfaces, community
~ center facilities, performing arts, and/or convention or meeting spaces. Public uses such as these
would then be clustered next to current uses such as the library and Dobson Arena and serve as the
focal point link between Vail Village and Lionshead.
I
Primary/secondary
uses: Ice rink, community center, performing arts center, conference center, lodging and hotel, fractional
I fee or interval ownership products, multi family high density residential, low density residential, retail ~
R and commercial, transportation facilities, pazking, public parks, employee or affordable housing, and
any other uses currently contemplated in Commercial Core 2 zoning.
Feasibility
~ studies: Ice rink study - see attached.
. References: Any literature, articles, or photographs regarding similaz facilities that could be used as a reference or
would help us understand the ideas or intent of the party submitting the Wish List items. (Piease
attach.)
Response 154 . Overview: The south side of the Lionshead parking structure at street level should be rezoned to consider or I
_ aliow for street level retail uses with residential housing above, coupled with pedestrian enhancements of East Lionshead Circle. ~
Scope/Size: Along the entire front of the parking structure on the south side, buildings could be constructed and
set off of the structure to preserve its "open" air handling requirements, while still creating a
meaningfully sized retail bay along the length of the structure. One to two stories of residential
product for sale without restriction or in part restricted as employee housing might be constructed
above.
Financing by: This development would involve public-private parfiership financing.
Objective
advanced: Improvement of the East Lionshead Circle with retail and housing would bring added life and vitality
to what is presentty a dead and under utilized zone along the pazking structure. Landscaping and
streetscape enhancements coufd greatly improve the pedestrian and guest experience and connect in a
meaningful way Lionshead with the public facilities in the azea of Dobson Arena and beyond to the ,
~ Vail Village center. Pedestrian improvements in this zone might formalize the streetscape and
improve what is now a very poor pedestrian condition during the winter months.
Primary/secondary
uses: Retail, commercial, food and beverage, high and low density multi family, empioyee housing.
Access
requirements: Parking could be served within the structure itself. Improved pedestrian walks along the streetscape. Response 155
Overview: Rezone the West Day Lot to permit mixed use development including all uses currently compatible
with Commercial Core 2, parking, fractional fees or interval properties, high density multi-family,
conference or meeting centers and lodging and hotel rooms.
Financing by: Private funds and perhaps public-private partnership financing for conference or other public
facilities.
. Objective
advanced: The addition of hospitality products or the expansion of hospitality products on a site currently zoned
for and utilized only for surface parking wouid enhance the vitality and life of Lionshead.
Aesthetically and functionally, development of this west end site could create a defined entry or gate
into Lionshead from the west. Additional hotel beds tied to a conference or meeting facility might
bolster the shouider seasons.
• .
t
Primary/secondary
uses: Parking, lodging and hospitality, retail, food and beverage, meeting and conference facilities,
fractional fee or interval property, multi-family high density residences and other uses currently.
permitted by Commercial Core II zoning. ~
Infrastructure
requirements: Conference facilities located at this site might require fiber optics, external satellite dish or other
electronic access connection. Access requirements are presently unknown pending additional
programming and site study.
. Resnonse 156
Overview: Employee housing should be considered a permitted use, rather than a conditional use in the arterial -
• commercial district, specifically for the Holy Cross parcel. Further, EHU designations as defined in
the Vaii code should be rendered more flexible, allowing for a broader variety of employee housing
unit types.
ScopelSize: The Hoty Cross employee housing project could conceivably contain 40-50 employee housing units
of approximately 650 sq. ft. each in a four to four and half story building. Each employee housing
unit would contain two bedrooms with living and dining, shared kitchen and two baths. Surface
parking for 72 spaces could be made available on the site. Additional common dining of 3,200 sq.
might be included.
Financing by: Private funds would likely be utili2ed to pay for the construction of the Holy Cross employee housing
if it were a VA project alone.
Objective
advanced.• Employee housing on the VA site would advance the policy objective and ground rules by retaining
vitality from full time residents in the Lionshead azea and repiace the employee housing of the '
Sunbird Lodge. ~
Primary/secondary
; uses: Employee housing, surface pazking, and common dining, entertaining and socializing areas on the
Holy Cross site.
Infrastructure
' requirements: Sq. ft. requirements for the building wou(d be on the order of 42,00= sq. ft. Surface parking would
requite approximately 22,000 sq. ft.
Access requirements: A local bus stop would be ideal for local employees to move through the town without the need of an
automobile.
' Architectural/Site studies: See attached.
Response157
Overview: Long-range consideration m-ight be given to rezoning the Service Center and Holy Cross as
Commercial Core 2 areas, subject to revised permitted uses, including fractional fees, and assembling
the properties with the West Day Lot by relocating the Frontage Road to the north side of the Service
Center and Ho1y Cross lots.
' Scope/Size: A public/private partnership would probably be required for this concept.
Objective ~
advanced.• Lot assemblage might greatly improve vehicular circulation and increase potential bed base.
. {
Primary/secondary
uses: All uses cunently permitted in Commercial Core 2, pius additional fractional fee and services
functions.
• Response 158
Overview: The unplatted ground to the south of Gore Creek presently under lease to the Vail Rec. Districts and
utilized for tennis courts should be platted and wned Commercial Core 2 permitting all uses of a
revised Commercial Core 2 zoning designation, including a fractional fee. Alternatively this azea
might rezoned to single family residential, primary/secondary residential, residential cluster, low
density, or medium multi-family district.
Scope/Size: A hotel development on this site might likely comprise 200-250 rooms and be accessed by a vehiculaz 1
bridge built across Gore Creek at the Lionshead Piace Circle. Residential densities might range from
3.5 d.u. to 11 d.u. per acre.
Financing by: Financing or construction on this site will be made by private funding.
Objective
advanced: A hotel built on this site would increase the vitality and activity of Lionshead, increase live beds,
provide a strong link across the stream, and allow for landscaped stream and slope side enhancements
in an area that is already developed. In the alternative, if a lower density residential product were
created it would replace a poorly located athletic facility with residences more in keeping with the surrounding uses on the south side of the creek along Forest Road. ,
_ Primary/secondary
uses: Uses included would be all of those cunently allowed within Commercial Core 2 t€the property were
. zoned for that function, together with any new allowed uses such as fractional fee, etc. If a lower
residential product were permitted it would include single family residential dwellings, two family
residential dwellings and perhaps low or medium residential dwellings together with residential uses '
typically allowed in those zoning categories. ~
Infrastructure
requirements: . If a hotel were constructed on the south side of the stream a bridge for vehicular use would be
required in the vicinity of the circle at Lionshead Place. -
Architecturat/Site studies: See attached.
Resnonse 159
Overview: The east end of the parking structure, currently a surface lot, should be considered as a potential for a
second ice rink, a community center, and multi-purpose or function performance and conference
facilities.
Scope/Size: The rink would have limited seating and function prirr?arily as-a secondary or support surface to the
primary facility at Dobson. The performing arts or multi-function facility might seat anywhere from
1,000 to 2,500 people.
Financing by: Funding should be provided by public agencies, perhaps tax increment financing, and private
contribution or donation.
.
Objective '
advanced: Redevelopment of this azea with community or civic uses would create a clustered civic center
between the Vail Village and the Lionshead cores. It would serve to physically and psychologically
.link the components of the town providing a more coherent identity and sense of place for all of Vail.
~ The amenities would be particularly useful for the public, enhance offerings to the guests, and .
increase community interaction within Vail.. These facilities could likewise support and serve the
I increased bed base. Tax increment financing might be employed in a creative way to construct these
facilities without increasing generat property or saies taxes or burdening the town's general fund
I Primary/secondary uses: Primary and secondary uses might include local or community activities such as meetings, small
performance azeas, an expanded youth center, ice skating, a gymnasium, dance studios and flexible ~performing arts, and/or meeting spaces. -
Access
I requirements: Drop off for this facility should occur on its north side near the Frontage Road so that traffic would
not need to come down East Lionshead Circle. This drop off along the Frontage Road should be
integrated and not conflict with the parking structure entry or exit
Architectural/Site
studies: None, except for very preliminary ice rink studies previously incorporated with parking structure
revisions.
Resnonse 160
Overview: Riparian stream enhancement should be made to Gore Creek in the Lionshead azea including
structural enhancements for fish habitat and perhaps the creation of ponds and enhanced wetlands in
or adjacent to the current stream tract owned by the town. In addition, in those areas where the stream
walk has been built from the library to the sewage treatment plant, landscaping improvements along ~
the stream bank should be implemented.
Financing by: Public funding, perhaps with private contribution.
Objective
advanced: The stream itself and the stream tract surrounding it are significant amenities and natural resources for
the Lionshead area. Enhancement of the resources it would counter balance and compliment the
highly urban nature of Lionshead.
Primary/secondary
uses: Square footage requirements associated with the primary and secondary uses.
Responsel6l
I Overview: The Frontage Road should be improved through the Lionshead area including repaving, formalization
of a pedestrian path along its length, landscape improvements, the introduction of turning lanes and
entry or other identifying signage for the Lionshead area.
Financin b: Public funds and erha s tax increment fin
S y p p ancing might be utilized to PaY for street imProvements to
the Frontage Road.
Objective
advanced: Access into and circulation around the Lionshead neighborhood could be greatly improved with
Frontage Road enhancements. Currently there is no continuous, safe pedestrian path along the
northern erimeter of Lionshead an
d this mi ht be im roved with a formal sidewalk. The i
P g p dentity and •
~
' sense of place of Lionshead would be improved with landscaping and informational signage along its
northem perimeter. Response162
• Overview: Expand or amend the Commercial Core 2 zone to include, permit, and allow for high density multi-
family and SDD zoned projects, which are currently approved, existing and/or grandfathered in or
near the Commercial Core 2 District such as the Marriott and the Vail Spa. These areas which are
physica(ly contiguous to the Commercial Core 2 District and functionally a part of it should be
considered and planned for in a common manner. In addition to physically expanding the zone
district, its uses should be made as flexible as possible, allowing for mixed use of all sorts which
broadly touch upon lodging, hospitality, retail, food and beverage, commercial and residential and
parking.uses. Hospitality products should be broadly defined and should include fractional fee, , interval ownership or other time share or club type property types.
Objective
advanced.• An expanded, integrated, and flexible zone district is necessary to effect renewal and redevelopment
in the Lionshead azea. If the identity and aesthetics of Lionshead are to improve we must rethink
regulatory constraints so that they permit and encourage these improvements rather than frustrate
them. In addition, if our hospitality offerings are to remain strong and grow stronger new products
must be permitted and provided for in our master plan and the zoning regulations which govern our
district. Allowing fractional fee or other new hospitality products is a way to increase both the
number and variety of live beds in our community.
Response 163
Overview: The master plan and the zoning ordinances which arise from it should permit or allow for density
bonuses in consideration for property owners or developers undertaking or making development commitments which benefit or serve public policies. For example, density bonuses should be granted
• to incent redevelopment and renovation of older builder to provide for facade or exterior
enhancements which conform to new design guidelines and which improve the aesthetic chazacter of
Lionshead. In addition density bonuses should be granted for the creation of employee housing
within the Vail community and more specifically for employee housing integrated into the Lionshead
sites. In addition to the concept of density bonuses for specific redevelopment commitments, greater
density or GRFA should be granted for under developed sites in the Lionshead area. These sites
might be construed as "in fill" sites which are presently not fully utilized. Parking areas or pazking
structures might be employed as additional building sites to permit "in fill" development rather than
- sprawl in outlining azeas. Increased density and GRFA could_be accomplished in tandem with land
_ pianning princip(es and new design guidelines which were ignored or unheard of in Lionshead's
original development. Added density can be achieved while actually enhancing
Objective
advanced: An architect attending one of the Lionshead public forums made the comment that density equals life
and vitality. The very concept of a town is based on the notion that people live, work and in our case,
recreate, in close proximity to one another and enjoy the vitality and energy of human interaction.
Density can be employed to make the community more vibrant and appealing and provide physical
points to.focus human interaction and the critical mass nacessary-to support and sustain activities and
the establishments which offer them. In the case of Lionshead, density bonuses might incent the
improvement of the aesthetic character of the physical sunoundings, inerease the number of live beds
and guests and lodging in the area and allow for increased numbers of employees and locals to reside
in the Lionshead vicinity to this neighborhood while using the tools of the market place to support
these goals. Incentives of these kinds may be more useful in achieving these goals than regulatory
constraints which are counter productive given the economics of renewal, remodeling and
redevelopment.
•
Resuonse164 '
Overview: Through density bonuses or other incentives or through the power of eminent domain the Concert
Hall Plaza building should be redeveloped and a direct, open, effective pedestrian conidor created
from the Lionshead plaza directly to the west in the vicinity of the Marriott.
Scope/Size: The Concert Hall Plaza and its present retail might be rebuilt and significantly expanded by rebuilding •
to the north where the current fire lane is. This retail redevelopment might likewise be coordinated
with a possible redevelopment of the Landmark Townhomes which is being considered by one or
more members of that property association.
Financing by: A combination of public and private funds might pay for this redevelopment. If an urban renewal or
. downtown development authority or district were created, funds from tax increment financing might " .
be utilized to acquire, create or build the new pedestrian connection that would link "West Lionshead" ;
to the central plaza and with added density a combined Concert Hall Plaza and Landmark Townhome
redevelopment might be financially profitable enough to justify demolition and rebuilding.
Objective
advanced: Opening a new connection through the west end of the Plaza to the vicinity of the Marriott would
provide a pedestrian link where none exists today and effectively tie the west end of Lionshead into its
central core. The vitality and connection of the community would be greatly enhanced as would
opportunities for effective pedestrian and public transit into an through the western half of
Lionshead.
Primary/secondary
uses: All permitted Commercial Core II uses.
Response165
Overview: Expand Dobson Ice Arena to the south and east. Improve interior to increase seating capacity. •
Scope/Size: Phase I will be to increase the seating by 1,000, while Phase II is the addition of two NHL style locker
rooms, a multi purpose room and junior hockey offices. Ali additional square footage will be added
below ground level thus preserving the integrity of the immediate area.
Financing by: Through the VRD capital funds.
Objective - advanced.- Renewal and redevelopment of the Arena, increased traffic and thus vitality.and an increased
' opportunity for Vail to host conferences / concerts / special events and other tax generating events.
I; Primary/secondary
' uses: The expanded faciIity wil[ continue to host events of up to 3,500 participants but will continue to do
so on a larger scate.
Square
footage: This expansion will add 7,500 square feet to the facility.
Architectural/Site
studies: See attached floor plan.
Cost s[udies: See attached proposed budget.
Feasibiliry ~
studies: See attached potential revenue/expense statement.
I
,
Response 166
Overview: Second ice surface on the east end of the parking structure. The building would be constracted so that
any type of facility can be located on top of the ceiling of the second ice surface, which will serve as
• the foundation.
ScopelSize: The facility would be a basement type building with a reinforced roof engineered to support a
structure on top. The ice surface would be an NHL size rink (200' x 85') with seating for 500
spectators. The interior square footage of the facility will be approximately 24,000 square feet.
Financing by: The facility, w.ould be funded through either a public-private partnership or public bond revenues - ' through a public election. _
• Objective
advanced: Increased vitality, added amenities, stronger economic base.
Primarylsecondary
uses: Used exclusively for hockey, ice skating and other ice related events. The new facility would free up
Dobson for other special events, concerts, conferences and other sales tax generation events.
Square
footage: 24,000 square feet.
Infrastructure
requirements: Roof engineered to support ar?other structure.
Access
• requirements: Interlink the second ice surface with Dobson to enable participants to walk from one event to another
without exiting. Parking should be ample as it will be next to the parking structure.
Architectural/Site
studies: Drawings are currently underway with Group Naoum, and should be completed by April 15, 1997.
Cost studies: See attached proposed budget.
Feasibility
studies: See attached potential revenue / expenditure statement.
References: See attached brochure.
Responsel67
Overview: Redevelopment should have one objective - improvement of the charm, ambiance and character of
Lionshead, moving close to that of the Village. This would limit height, size (mass) and require
specific architectural design considerations.
Scope/Size: Overall architectural design and layout. Financing by: Vail Associates, as they will now.
Objective
advanced: Village has more European charm and character. Lionshead master plan should seek to improve these
qua(ities thus increasing overall appeal of Vail as preferred resort.
• .
e
Primary/secondary uses: To be determined by architectural design, height and size limitations.
Access
~ requirements: Determined by design objective. ~
References: Positive overall character of St. Anjon, Austria versus negatives of Tignes, France.
I Response 168
Overview: Make Lionshead Plaza another main point of arrival and departure.
Scope/Size: Redevelop into the main skier pick-up and drop-off area. Develop nice pedestrian access between the
gondola building and the one next to it. Financing by: VA, TOV
I Objective
advanced.• Better pedestrian access, better access to the gondola. Eliminate skier drop off by the transportation
side (parking structure side).
Primary/secondary
~ uses: Skier drop off and pick up, pedestrian access to the gondola, move Beaver Creek down valley buses
to the pazking structure facility.
Response 169
Overview: Policy that would limit buitding height, high population density per azea, congested traffic, parking
and obstruction of public view corridors. There must be appropriate delivery and customer access and
the natural landscape of the mountain environment should be preserved. Finally, continued growth in •
Vail means a need for increased employee housing.
Resnonse170
Overview: A second ice surface as part of Dobson. Additional rooms in this recreation complex such as a ballet
room, weight training room could be used by both skaters and groups in the community.
Scope/Size: Location: connected or adjacent to Dobson. Minimal seating (100 people), locker rooms, rest rooms
and w.anning azea (can be used for spectators - 10 to 50 person capacity).
Financing by: Private and public-private partnership financing.
ObI'ective
advanced: Vitality and amenities: a seconcl ice arena would increase the potential for hockey and figure skating
events, camps and tocal programs.
Primary/secondary
uses: Primary: iee surface for figare skating and hockey praetice. -Dobscx3 would still be the primary arena
for seating, concerts, etc. Secondary: a battet room, weight training room that could double as a
facility for youth activities.
Sguare
~ footage: Locker rooms and bathrooms 2,000 sf, ice surface 200' x 85' = 17,000 sf, additional rooms (Z) at
1,300 sf each for ballet and weight training.
•
.
,
•Infrastructure _
reguirements: Telephones.
Access
• requirements: Would be adjacent to parking structure. Zamboni entrance necessary.
Resnonse 171
Overview: Multi-purpose conference and performing arts center. The facility should be designed with
consideration of quality limited growth of the Vail area, multiple needs and increasing year round
business, helping to smooth the peaks and valleys of summer and winter. More stable year round
business will help employers and employees cope with instability.
_ Scope/Size: Preferred location at east end of pazking structure. This would allow equal access of guests in Vail
and Lionshead. It would be convenient to those requiring automobile transportation as it would be
linked to the existing structure.
Financing by: Private-public partnership.
Infrastructure
requirements.• In order to remain competitive in the resort and meetings community, top tine (although not ,
ostentatious) latest technology must be utilized.
~
Access
requirements: Proposed location would utilize existing (improved as necessary) bus and pedestrian access.
Automobile access would have to be investigated.
Architectural/Site
studies: Community has previously completed studies and proposed plans to reference and perhaps improve
~ upan.
Response 172
Overview: The number of large buildings has reduced the desire to walk through the area because you can't see ~
the mountains or the ski hill from many of the walkways. We need to bring the outside green areas to
the mall area to present the idea of being in the mountains to the mall since you can not see the
mountains from the mall. Reduce concrete paths in size and add grass and gazdens.
ScopeJSize: Throughout Lionshead.
Financing by: Federal funding.
Objective
advanced: Increase pedestrian enjoyment, reduce concrete which is on walks and buildings. Paths will allow an
obvious traffic flow and provide more trees and green space to break up the straight lines of al3 the
buildings.
Primary/secondary
uses: Primary: visitors, commercial owners, renters and shoppers. Secondary: benches, small retail in
summer.
Sguare
footage: Entire area of concrete paths running from bus stop to the Marriott.
~
Access ~
requirements: Ground needs to be altered for plantings.
ArchitecturaUSite ~
studies: Should be done on computer to determine the type of trees and plantings based on size and height of
current buildings.
Resnonse 173
Overview: Building exteriors remodeled to fotlow theme (adobe?)
Scope/Size: Give each building free design accessibility by chosen design team - this will encourage building
. owners to consider face lifting with consistent theme. Financing by: Use public funds - remodeling of buildings will increase tax revenue thus it will retum the investment
over a few years.
Access
requirements: Review parking for each building and try to upgrade - many original buildings have no parking as
planning was poor in those days but if building still has open land around it make sure it is designated
only for parking.
i
•
I _
~
•
. ~
MEMORANDUM
.
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
pmen
FROM: Department of Community Develo t
DATE: April 14, 1997
SUBJECT: A request.for a final review with the Design Review Board of the amended
• proposal for the establishment of Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, - located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village -
First Filing.
; Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
I. BACKGROUND
¦ On February 24, 1997, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing
to review a request for the establishment of Special Development District #35, Austria
Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First
Filing. Upon review of the applicanYs request, the Planning and Environmental
Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council (6-0-1).
~ The PEC's recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council included eight
conditions.
¦ On March 25, 1997, the Vail Town Council held a worksession and public hearing to
review the first reading of Ordinance #4, Series of 1997. Upon review of the proposed
ordinance, the Vail Town Council approved the ordinance on first reading (5-2) with seven
conditions. The conditions are as follows:
1. That all the required parking spaces be constructed on-site rather than paying into
the Town Parking Fund. The Council will consider a land trade and/or a land .
lease with the applicant to achieve the on-site parking requirement.
2. That fin?o (2) creekside dwelling units (fractional fee club units) be converted to
. accommodation units.
3. That the applicant install and operate the street heating system under East
Meadow Drive, adjacent to the Austria Haus.
4. That the applicant agrees not to remonstrate against a streamwalk, in the T.O.V.
, stream tract, adjacent to the Austria Haus should the Town choose to expand the
streamwalk.
5. That the applicant create 11 new, deed-restricted employee housing units rather
1
. ' ,
than deed-restricting 11 existtng, dweiling units.
6. That the applicant return to the Planning & Environmentai Commission prior ~
to second reading of the ordinance for consideration of the new roof ridge
line design intended to reduce the height of the building and the newly
. proposed buiiding elevations.
7. . That the applicant present an alternate loading/delivery/parking plan prior to
second reading of the ordinance.
In addition to the conditions, other issues raised bY t fi e various council members reIatin9 to the
.
' establ'ishment of Special Development District #35 included: 1. Reconsider the restriction on restaurant use in the building.
;
2. Increase the stream setback distance along the south side of the building to
provide further protection of Gore Creek.
~
3. Explore removing several lock-off units with the intent of reducing the overall
~ square footage of the building.
V 4. Remove the clock tower from the building.
5. Increase the ratio of accommodation units to fractional fee units.
Second reading of Ordinance #4 is scheduled for review by the Council on Tuesday, April
15, 1997.
11. DESCRIPTION OF THE REGIUEST •
The applicant is requesting a final review of an amended proposal for the establishment
of Special Development District #35 as required by the Town Council.
The amended proposal includes the following changes:
I 1. The underground parking structure has been redesigned to accommodate _
. all required vehicle parking on-site and to eliminate the need to pay-in-lieu
into the Town Parking Fund. The applicant has increased the on-site
parking spaces from 48 spaces to 66 spaces. This was accomplished by
extending the underground structure to the north underneath the
pedestrian walkway adjacent to the building and by adding one additional
valet parking space.
2. The applicant has reconfigured the interior layout of the Austria Haus. The
proposal now includes 22 fractional fee club units with 21 lock-off units, 28
accommodation units, 4,649 square feet of commerciat area, and 14,004
square feet of common -area. These changes include the conversion of ,
one fractional fee club unit on the creekside of the building to four
accommodation units.
_
3. The building footprint of the Austria Haus is proposed to be shifted seven
feet to the north as requested by Council. The shift in the buildin9 footPrint
- i
2
I
has increased the distance of the building from the centerline of Gore Creek and reduced the amount of impervious surface north of the building.
~ The additional seven feet is intended to provide more green space south
of the Austria Haus and provide greater protection of the Gore Creek
corridor.
4. The 68 foot-tall clock tower/front entrance has been removed. The
removal of the clock tower was in response to concerns expressed by
members of the Town Council and the community.
5. The architectural elevations have been changed significantly. To reduce
the appearance of bulk and mass, the applicant has broken the building _
mass into three building forms and redesigned the roof ridge line. The
redesign of the roof ridge line reduced the overall building height and
. ; lessened the building's impact on views to the mountain. The new
building architecture and massing is intended to replicate the building
mass and architecture along Bridge Street and the Viliage Center
Buildings. .
6. The ratio of fractional fee club units to accommodation units has been
reduced from 0.85 fractional fee club unit for every 1.0 accommodation
unit (0.85:1) to 0.78 fractional fee club unit for every 1.0 accommodation
unit (0.78:1).
7. The proposed development standards for Special Development District
#35 were amended. The changes are indicated in the analysis below: I~
• AUSTRIA HAUS
Development February 24, 1997 April 14, 1997 + I- '
Standards Proposal Proposal
Dwelling Units:- 35.5 D.U.'s (22 D.U./26 A.U. 36.5 D.U.'s (22 D.U.128 A.U. + 1 D.U.
1. EHU) 1 EHU) . (2 A.U.)
GRFA: 40,449 sq. ft. 40,554 sq. ft. + 125 sq. ft.
(D.U.) (30,329 sq. ft.) (30.354 sq. h.) 25 sq. fl.)
(A.U.) (10,100 sq. h.) (10.200 sq. fl.) 100 sq. h.)
Site Coverage: 16,371 sq. ft. 19,634 sq. ft. + 3263 sq. ft.
Parking: 64.26 spaces 66 spaces on-site + 1.74 spaces
(48 spaces on-site
16.26 spaces pay-
in-lieu)
Loading: 1 berth 1 berth . N/C
Commercial
Area: 4,440 sq. ft. 4,649 sq. ft. + 209 sq. ft.
Common
Area: 15,308 sq. ft. 14,004 sq. ft. - 1,304 sq. ft.
• 3
Tatal Building Area: 72,667 sq. ft. 74,378 sq. ft. + 1,711 sq. ft.
Employee •
Generation: 11 new employees 12 new employees + 1 new employee
IV. ZONING ANALYSIS
. The Community Developmeni Department staff has prepared a Zoning Analysis for the proposed Austria
' . Haus redevelopment. For comparative purposes only, the staff has included the development standards
outlined by the underlying zone district of Public Accommodation, the Development standards proposed.
at first reading on March 25, 1997, and the amended development standards for Special Development -
District #35 as of April 14, 1997.
Wherever thq proposed development standards deviate from the underlying zoning of Public
Accommodation, the standards are highlighted in bold type. AUSTRIA HAUS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPARISON
Lot size: 24,089 sq. ft. /0.553 acres
Buidable area: 24,089 sq. ft. /0.553 acres
. Development Underlying Zoning March 25,1997 APril 14,1997
Standard of Public Accommodation SDD Proposal SDD Proposal
GRFA: 800% or 19,271 sq. ft. 168% or 40,429 sq. ft. 168% or 40,554 sq. K.
Dwelling ,
units per acre: 13.8 DU's or 25 units/acre 35.5 DU's (22 DU's, 36 DU's (22 DU's,
. 26 AU's, 1 Type 111 EHU) 26 AU's, 1 Type III EHU)
Site coverage: 55% or 13,249 sq. ft. 689'0 or 16,371 sq. ft. _ 81 % or 19,634 sq. ft. .
Setbacks: .
front: 20' 0' 2"
sides: 20' 5' / 20' 2720"
rear: 20' 7' 7`
Height: 48' sloping 56.5' 56'
45' flat 52' 52' ,
60' tower 66' N/A
Parking: per T.O.V. code 48 spaces on-site & 66 spaces on-site
Section 18.52 16.26 spaces
pay-in-Ileu
Landscaping: 30% or 7,227 sq. ft. 19.8 % or 4,782.6 sq. ft. 18.2% or 4,542 sq. ft.'
Loading: per T.O.V. code 1 berth at drop-off area 1 berth at drop-off area
Section 18.52 ,
4 •
i
Commercial
sq. footage: 10% or 1,927 sq. ft. 119'0 or 4,440 sq. ft. 11% or 4,469 sq. ft.
i
Common area: 35% of allowable GRFA 38% or 15,308 sq. ft. 35% or 14,004 sq. ft.
or 6,745 sq. ft. .
Total Building Area: 72,667 sq. ft. 74,302 sq. ft.
` Assumes the approval of the amended lot area and lot configuration
V. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT PROCESS Chapter 18.40 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code provides for the establishment of Special
Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 18.40.010, the purpose of a
Specia! Developrnent District is,
"To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order to
promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of
the new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical
provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open
space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail
Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development
District, in conjunction with the properties underlying zone district, shall establish
- the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the
Special Development District,"
~ The Municipal Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in
evaluating the merits of the proposed Special Development District. The staff has addressed
each of the nine SDD design criteria in detail in the memorandum to the PEC dated February 24,
1997(see attachment). Staff will not be addressing each of the design criteria in detaii again.
Staff's review of the criteria is only of those issues which have changed as a result of the
amended proposal.
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood
_ and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height,
buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
The applicant has amended the architecture of the Austria Haus to reduce the
appearance of the bulk and mass. The Austria Haus has been broken down into three
separate "building" forms. Most notably, the height of the center and eastern portions of
the building have been reduced and the architectural style of the Austria Haus has been
changed to provide the appearance of three different "buildings". The architectural style
of the three "buildings" is intended to replicate that of the buildings in Vail Village.
As mentioned above, the building height of the Austria Haus has been reduced. This has
been accomplished by separating the Austria Haus into three "building" forms (east, west
& center). The height of the "west bu+tding" form has rema+ned unchanged with the
exception of the removal of the 68 foot-tall clock tower. The "west building" form has a
maximum building height of 56 feet. The height of the "center building" form has been
lowered from 56.5 feet to 48 feet. The height of the "east building" form has been
• 5 . , ,
lowered from 56.5 feet The 56-foot buiiding height is based on existing (1997) '
. topography of the Austria Haus property, and not the original topography of the site (pre-
1963). Original topography of the site is not available, since the Austria Haus was .
constructed in Vail prior to zoning (and priar to the requirement that a topographic survey
. be submitted prior to development). Staff believes, based upon the iocation of the
existing retaining walls and the condition of the streambank, that the site was "cuY' when .
the Austria Haus was bui{t. Whi{e it is difficult to know exactly how much of the site was
"cut", staff wauld conservative{y estimate that approximately 2- 3 feet of soil was ~
removed. Given this conservative consideration, staff would estimate the actuai building ~
height proposed far the Austria Haus would be 53 to 54 feet. ,
. •
, According to the Vail Village Master Plan Conceptual Building Height Plan, the Austria '
. Haus shou{d be 3-4 stories in height, with a bui{ding story being approximately nine feet, excluding the roof. The pfan further indicates that one additional floor of •
, residentialllodging may also be accommodated on the Austria Haus site.
Although the proposed height of the building will diminish the amount of sun, and likewise
increase shading, afong East Meadow Drive, the provision of heated public walkways
effectively mitigates this consideration, by providing ice-free and snow-free sidewalks.
Additionally, the "opening up" of Slifer Square will insure adequate light, air and open
space to a public gathering space.
Staff believes the applicant has redesigned a structure which continues to relate well to
the site and the surrounding area. Staff further believes that the amended propasal is
. appropriate for the site and takes into consideration the massing and scale of the
buildings in the vicinity. The new north elevation further enhances the pedestrian
experience and character of the Village. Staff would recommend that the Design Review
Baard careful{y review the proposed exterior building materials and how are applied to .
ensure that a high-fevel of architectural quality is maintained.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activiry.
The uses and activities proposed within the Austria Haus have not changed from the
proposal of February 24,1997. The densiry and commercial square footage, however,
. have changed as a result of the applicant adding accommodation units to the creekside
of the Austria Haus and the reconfiguration of the commercial area layout. The total
" increase in density is one dwelling uniVacre and 125 square feet of GRFA with a 209
square foot increase in commercial area.
As a result of the increase in the number of accommodation units and commercial area
square footage, the employee needs of the Austria Haus have increased. A revised
summary of the Employee Housing Generation Analysis using staff's recommended ranges is as follows:
EMPLOYEE HOUSING GENERATION ANALYSIS .
Staff Recommended Range Calculations:
The staff believes that the Austria Haus redevelopment will create a need for 39
additional employees. Of the 39 additional employees, at least 12 employees (300/0) will
need to be provided deed-restricted housing by the developers of the Austria Haus. The •
6
staff recommended ranges are based on:
1: the type of retail and office use proposed in the commercial space within
the Austria Haus•
•
, ,
2. the size of the Austria Haus lodging component; and
3. the high-level of services and amenities proposed by the developers for
the guests of the Austria Haus.
• , a) Retail/Service Commercial = 4,208 sq. ft. @(6.5/1000 sq. ft.)=27.4 employees . (middle of range)
b) Office: reai estate = 441 sq. ft. @(7.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 3.3 employees
(middle of range)
c) ; Lodging* = 28 units @(1.25/room) = 35 employees
(top of range)
d) Multi-Family (club units) = 22 units @(0.4/unit) = 8.8 empioyees
(range does not vary)
Total =74.5 empioyees
(-36 existing employees) =39 employees
(X 0.30 multiplier) =12 new employees
'lodging has a particulady large variation of employees per room, depending upon factors such as size of facility and level o(
~ service/support services and amenities provided.
The staff continues to believe that the density and uses proposed by the applicant for the Austria
Haus do not conflict with the compatibiliry, efficiency or workability of the surrounding uses and/or
activities. In fact, staff feels that the proposed Austria Haus redevelopment will enhance the
existing uses and activities within the Village.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52, of
the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Parking and loading requirements for development are established in Chapter 18.52 of
the Municipal Code. The parking and loading requirements are based on the square
footage of the uses proposed within a building. Based on the square footage of the uses
proposed by the applicant, 80.24 parking spaces and one loading/delivery berth are
required on-site. The Municipal Code allows "grandfathering" of ihe existing legal non-
conforming parking spaces. Currently, fifteen legal, non-conforming parking spaces exist
on the property. Therefore, the parking requirement for the proposed Austria Haus
redevelopment is 65.24 new parking spaces. In response to concerns expressed by
various Council members, the applicant is proposing an underground parking structure
designed to accommodate 66 parking 'spaces and an enclosed trash facility. The
„ applicant is no longer proposing to meet any of the parking requirement by paying into the
' Town Parking Fund.
D.~ Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town
• policies and Urban Design Plan. 7
The staff continues to believe that the proposed SDD conforms with the Vail Land Use
Plan as identified in the staff inemorandum to the PEC dated February 24, 1997, E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the •
property on which tfie special devefopment district is proposed.
There are no natural andlor geotogic hazards ihat affiect the Austria Haus property.
F. Site plan, building design and location and apen space provisions designed to
. produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features,
' vegetation and overall aesthetic quality af the community. .
The applicant has revised the site plan in response to comments received from various,
Council members and the adjoining property owners. The building footprint of the Austria
Haus has been shifted seven feet to the north to accommodate the increase in on-site
parking, to provide additional green space south of the Austria Haus and to increase the
width of the riparian corridor along Gore Creek. The shift in the buiiding does not affect
the proposed east, west or north setbacks. The shift does increase the setback of the
building from Gore Creek. The building had previously been approximately 55 feet from
the centerline of Gore Creek, it is now approximately 62 feet from the creek centerline.
Staff believes the proposed site plan and building location is sensitive to the natural
features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The shift in building
{ocation wiil permit additional protection of the critical root zone of two targe spruce trees
• and allow additiona{ regrading of the streambank to increase the success of the
revegetation.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and i
off-site traffic circulation.
As required by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council, the
applicant has revisited the loading/delivery/parking plan. The pedesirian and vehicular ,
c'rrculation system on and off the site has not changed. The applicani is continuing to
propose the laading and delivery in the front drop-off area and on the parking structure .
access ramp. The applicant has prepared a Turning Radius Plan to illustrate how loading
and delivery is to be accomplished. -
Through the course of the review of the Austria Haus redevelopment proposal, staff has
reviewed several loading and delivery options were. The applicant had originally
proposed to provide one loading and delivery berth in the underground parking structure.
However, concerns were expressed by the Village Center Condominium owners that they
would be negatively impacted by the noise generated from the delivery vehicles, since the
access to the underground location was immediately adjacent to their units.
The applicant had also explored the possibility of gaining underground access to their
structure through the Village Center garage. It was determined that delivery vehicles
could not enter through Village Center-due to height limitations in the garage.
As mentioned previously, the applicant is proposing to provide for loading/delivery in the
front entry drop-off area. The applicant anticipates that deliveries to the retaiUcommercial
shops will arrive via UPS or simifar types of courier. Staff continues to be{ieve that this
location may negatively impact the pedestrian use of this area of East Meadow Drive and
suggests the applicant continue to explore placing the loading and delivery berth in the ~
' underground structure, as originally contemplated.
8
.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
• The landscape plan has remained substantially unchanged. Minor modifications were
made to ihe regrading around the building to facilitate better surface drainage and to
increase views to the creek for the adjoining property owners. As stated previously, the
shift in the building footprint will help preserve two large spruce trees located at the top of
the streambank. The applicant is continuing to propose improvements to the Gore Creek
streambank adjacent to the Austria Haus. The improvements are intended to improve the
aesthetic quality of the streambank and stabilize the bare soils. -
1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and -
efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development
district.
The applicant is proposing a minor subdivision of the Austria Haus property. The minor
subdivision is intended to facilitate the relocation of the building and the expansion of the
underground parking structure. The proposed minor subdivision increases the total !ot
area by approximately 930 square feet. The increase in lot area is a result af ensuring a
minimum of two-foot setbacks from the property line around the building, and that all
improvements are on the Austria Haus property. Staff would recommend that an
approval of the amended proposat to establish SDD #35 be conditioned upon the
approval of a minor subdivision request within sixty days of the effective date of „
Ordinance #4, Series of 1997. Staff would further recommend that all costs incurred to
' subdivide the properry be the responsibility of the Austria Haus.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATlON
• The staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design
Review Board recommend approval of the request to amend the proposed establishment of
Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, located ai 242 East Meadow Drive to the Vail
Town Council. The staff believes that each of the SDD design criteria continue to be met, as
identified in this memorandum and the staff inemorandum dated February 24, 1997. Staff would
recommend that the approval carry with the it the following conditions:
1. That the Design Review Board carefu(ly review the combination of the proposed oxterior
building materials and how they are applied to ensure that a high-level of architectural
quality is maintained.
2. That an approval of the amended proposal to estab(ish SDD #35 be conditioned upon the
approval of a minor subdivision request by the PEC within sixty days from the effective
date of Ordinance #4, Series of 1997 and that all costs incurred to subdivide the property
be the responsibility of ihe Austria Haus and not the Town of Vail.
3. That the applicant provide deed-restricted housing, which complies with the Town of Vail
Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 18.57), for a minimum of 12 employees, and
that said deed-restricted housing be made available for occupancy, and the deed
restrictions recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to requesting a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Austria Haus.
•
f:\everyonelpeclmemos\sonnensd.414 9
AUSTRIA HAUS SQUARE FOOTAGE ANALYSIS
Floor Common Area - Commercial Area - Accommodation Dwelling Uaits - Parking Area - Tatal - Square
LeveLs Square Footage Square Faotage Units - Square Square Footage 5quare Footage Footage
, Footage `
Parking 3,019 sq. ft. 15,171 sq. ft. 18,190 sq. ft.
Level
Ist Floor 4,750 sq. ft. 4,649 sq. ft. 1,295 sq. ft. 3,024 sq. ft. 13,718 sq. ft.
2nd Floor 3,739 sq. ft. , 4,925 sq. ft. 8,224 sq. ft. 14,8$8 sq, ft.
3rd Fioor 1,849 sq. ft. 3,984 sq. ft. 9,246 sq. ft. 15,075 sq. it.
4th Floor 2,260 sq. ft. 7,994 sq. ft. 10,254 sq. fit.
Loft Level 311 sq. ft. 1,866 sq. ft. 2,177 sq. ft.
[TOTAL 13, 928 Sq. ft. 4,649 Sq. ft. 10,200 Sq. ft. 34,354 Sq. ft. 15,171 Sq. ft. 1174,302 ft
f
, F:IEVERYONEMEORGE~AUSTfiAUS.SQF .
~
1 ~
~ ~ _
• / / ~ ~ • I'
I ~ . . I
~ ~ I" ~ I
• ~"_••1 / 1 ~ ' / ~ -
. ~ ~ 9frr- ,i • -~aaa '.~--m'^a~K .
1 1 >4`
' 'Y~~~~ • • y ~ ~ . . ,
1 ~~4~t ~ •
~ i i ~ ~ I
. ``f~ta 'S~]'ri e. ~ J J' , 1 Mrnr I
- - _ - ~ %
~ ; "`"~'F~~ ~ I
' wrr~s~ aw ws~~~ ~~w MM w~~ v~w~ ~ w.~. _ J / . / / ' .
' vr~~?rw~r~w~ rwr~~sr `M/ ~ r~u
~
I
~ AUSTRIA HAUS veic,cowxm~o ~ OVERALL SITE P:,A.*1
~ SONNENALP PROPSRTIES, ING n ~
,
.
l01
_ ~
~ . - l -
. ,
' •
`
, coRF '
CREEK•--- . ---"--CENSER UNE ' - " _
• ~ V ~ f-<.~. e,.,.. _
- - - - -
•
_~~o y~vs''
~ x.rs . -
6.
. ` • ~ 't'~'...~...,.. _ _ -
3,n,D9e1~ ~ . " , + ~ ~ ' ~-`~,~---"--"--e- - 6-' _ ' I~~
~
ii='-_
~ a ' • . ~
: ::~e." . --r:-i-r-cY::1c:T'= '---v. T"~ '
.~.,i ~
vilLAC2 GENTER
1' ' ~ ~3 ~ DUKDNG 'A'
(7~~ "4~-'~~ • . ~ ; • -
~L~ ~.n,... ~ , ° ; .
~j~ ~ ' •
P ~
. ~
.
- I. :i::~:"1
'i" • . . s:
~ r_•~~r.~ ~rw:•iwi ~ '
_
- : ~ : ..i c~:,y,~~-`~_z.~..._, • '`L: :_a' ; ,
. d.l r.` .~r _ i YW-- .
•i i ~ :ii.~....r. i
i ~ f- •r . .ri.l.~i~.{, t,~'il' ~ - . . y,. ; , - • -
. . ' ; .
~~:~i•! ii~e:c'_f:.i `f• : 4i1:''. . .
. . . . _ '
~
. . ._..._r=- . ~
. ~
. . . . . r.' - -
O -
_ - O ' ? " ' ?""'II
~ .
. . . _ . - . .O_ r" 'y vilLK.e CENtEr2
• r ypre
. : .
6~. . ..5:.:
. . .
` -
~ ~
~o _ '
LEGEND
17--_= 6' DENGLE4 f171 . . ~ I +
O HOLLARD5 (If)
. O TRASN A£GEPT4CLE 4
0 LIONT FlXTURE (4) NOTH. P4 .Ote Mnp • N+d 1 kp ~hetl bs P1-ANT UST
~ 'orvn to !1v V~II tr~st ~ tTs~le. PVA 02110N NdME EIZE pTT.
NOTE i AddIUoMl 6+u0 tree. on proprly -y na.d '~p~" 3'• eel 30 L
to W rebutod ~~~CLO
Msn ~A ~se bn IF \
~ chell Mh 3 I/1P. i' cai 14
Ro.bei epv.A D getbn ~
Co+~rn JuNper D galbn 45
.
% ?Mghn~ Jwps' S g4lbn 73 . . ' .
AUSTRIA HAUS v,uL, coi,oxnno
LANDSCAPE PI,AN
SONNENALP PROPBRTIES, INC. - o t s1 o r w o R c r x o p
• ! -
. p
• / \ I . ~ ~ , , - • ~
~ / ~ \ •
„i' S
- -
~4~1=`_ ' \ J _ ~
~-1 ' - ' ~ -
' ~ " ~ _
' - • . ~go
Re R ~1NE
•.~e;tJ ~ - .-CENTE ~ .
CREEK----• '
_ _ '`-.l.'', ~``l- - -
• . ' ~ -
; ,l ,
~
t~
~
~ - - . -
. • , - -
.
, , - - _
~ . `•SS ~ - _ ~ - ~ _
i-
'
, • ~ - ~ . .
.
.ti
. '
~
~ .
e;~o
" -
-
. ; .
, . .
.,C,,.c, • 1".:::: " ' ~r "_'"r' ' :s"' 'r" c" Tre' "'r::
,
• - • - • • VILIKsC CCNiEft
DNtD~+G
I 'bL- • ~,:C~• S .
7;L • ' ~
. •
" • ~r 'L:-~-a' : ~ t , ~
' . ' 6LiER Rd.ZA
'
. . . _ . . _ _
. . . _
r
. ' '
. _ . . ? 7
6,6045
ECEN1ER
. . ~ : ' . ':~i~"'•_! 'r _ _ ' " ' I . ' u
. .n • - ~~Q.. : _ - ~ r^ 4 r0 tlT7^"esiF:."'
--~'r•-
- _ _ - !'3~_-____.t--' • . ` - . l
-;A----{._-``-Lr
~ , . f .
+--r+._~~ . :
HE U
' I ~ ~ ` i:;
. . ;i:.
AUSTRIA HAUS vuc, cor.a~?no C3RADING PI..A21
SONNENALP PROPERTIES. ING ttmo.: ~ ~
. ~ ~ _ ~ ~
~ D~\~'`~ ` ' - I
• . . " . : ' _ I
CEHtER LINE I
, ' . ` - CREEK '
,
.
• - _
, . - ___---rJ ~y~rr~ -
~ _ . ' _ ti - e.-~-°~-'_=_----"-------- ~
-
L '(I__. l
NLL4GE CEN7ER i
~ OLRlDN6'4'
a F / i ~ : ~ r. - • . ; ~ I
60l#Al:MAL'
M100-IElT AJII
'c I • -
iGVN OF VdIL
M+oul-Elt A(I iYr.
~ 601lET14LPM10U7'£LT A/2Ed• TTP
ELIF£R PLA2A
~ .
r• ~ .
vRLK,E CE-NI E't
•O M10" ~
0
.
TAIN OF VaL
M4OU!'1ELT AlI ~
T'P. Gv.e K'"'"°w'f~ ~
\
AUSTRIA HAUS vmi, coi.oxeno 5NOW MBLT ART?AS
~ SONNENALP PROPBRTIPS, INC.
- f LJ
.w..r...w..rea e~. • r w
' ^ 7
• .
~
• ~ ~ , • . ' . i ~ • 'i
c ' ` .
` oRf ~ , ' `1ER UNE
. _.EO CREEK - - - - - - - CEN i
~ •
.
. . . _ . . _
- ~ - ~ i
• ,
8760
SLIFER ~y- ~ - -
PLAZA - •
~ ~
~
41~
~aT'~
CONDO'S
OLa .
; r -
~ . . 1
/ _..i ~ ~ _ _ -
~r
• - ~ . , ' -
vLLX.! C!nTER
cc',3-.Ertax
~ - . _ - - - ' , :.o „ - - - ~"-w'•14 ' ~ - - - - b+o" r
1 . .
A `~~_.Ir • ar~maw~ :'R_ _2:'+':'. \ .
~~[Y
. ,
rw0'[et'/ Ll~i! IKV~V~ •
' d'G~aK AO'!wR IIKA 1'i4 .f
/ICP'O~CD?Rp'[1RTIl~L~ ]fdJ~M ~s.~u~w
AUSTRIA HAUS ' vuc, coLOx,wo COMPARISON OF EXISTINC3 AND P OPOSBD FOOTPRIN"I'S
rU I
SONNENALP PROPERTIFS, INC. . ow s s~O~N~•OM[_3 H O T61
, ..,..,..,....,...~.,..,.o . r . ~
i
ITIaI ArnnMkF.aWwtlwl~
TYrNqRrl4i 2 + ' ~ '-'-I
IT la~ AwaMli4 Fi~l +N
ir.l" t~ , r 7 i\ i = i I .
. y . ~ ,1 11~ ; ~ - c.' , I , ' ~
; ? .
V ~ ~ < < -----------f~ 4 .
r
~'•'f b' _ f
0
.
~ ` \ • , \ ` ~
35'-0" Sttaight Uociy Truck ° • l';/ 55'•0" Semiuailer & Tractor
Tuming Radius,
r• • Combination
\ N. ~
Tuming Radius
.
UrP_MrWo.p/ntaAq.a.~~lpr~.y
c•~~'`--~-
~
uK e w..~. aN.. ro ry~.... n..
/~r
• ~
AUSTRIA HAUS vuucoLOmw ' TURNING RADIUS PLAN
SONNBNALP PROP$RTIES, INC. ' o nsioM w o a= s e o P
~ i ~ ' • -
(
~...~~.?s
~ • ! i ~
. . _ ~ ( ,
~ - - - -
. • . ~
~
1 ~
~ 1 j ! • ! ~ i
1
~ ~ • • ? ~ O p ~ 1 COT/~L1 CQ~AG ~ ~
i ~ 1 1 I ) 1' ~ t GR~/L1 -
• - - y L^w•~r_J _1__.._.___'
fr'_
~
~ r, '
, r- - - •
-
~
~
'
~
~ • ~ ~
~`----I i,
~ L)- I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ? ? ~
~ I l~ l~ i~ • _ ' ~ l .
5
FL ~
_
~r - - - - ~ - - - _ ' ~ '
J. ' •
. _ _~Y_ ~T_ • ~ ~
. Y~. _~__."M"_ ~T _.'y~•" ~1~~.. _.X. _.w.. oROrt~YOCwaw r.T.._..~._.~ rf. I 1
. . , f ,
~ ~ ; .
. . , ~
~ I , , , . ~ ' ~ • ~ I ~
,
.
.
' :
~ { u...4
l l
i 4RACaE LEvEL FLOOR °LAN ~ I A 2•0 I
w....-
.
; -
M ~ • ~ i~ -
. ~ !
. ~ ' LR^<.e.* 6
( Aa«Kl,w
M~nrM
. , I ( i..
. ~~~•1~~
~ ~
~
~
. . . ~ ' ~
• ' ~ ' ' _ _ '
. . . . . . . ~ . - .
-
~ ~ ~ 1 ~ <
_ , 'y : • ~ ,~'~o ;
_...T._.--•-~- - ~
o. - _ _ _ _ _ - - • - - - -------7-J-•- ~~a.,- T-•.---- i ~ '
\
CdtPR
4~~ . ~ _.l,._._.L. 1_ -L. _ _
r•-
i
i-~'' ? 1 I i ~ i~^e- ~ j ~ ~ I C ,
~~-_:•s" l , I I 1 ` !'18` I .~or ~ .rse ,
I I I ' I : ~ ~ • - - ~ ~ ,r~- i ...r.
j ; t
.
. .
~ • -
. , . - - - .._._._Y.----•--= y---a ~.r- • - -i._~ - I
-1- + j ( ~ ~ I
i ~
. . . ; . . iy ~ • (
i . . . . , . . ~ . .
.
Jl
~ o
: FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN I I^ ~
s, s•..r . A z. ~ I
, .
) .
i ~ -
r~..... a
~,'h4Fry ;~e
I
• ~ :t~! ` , (iii (aJ~: ~ (ui ' i ~~'i
- - - J:7-
Z),~ j
I I
; ~ , ; ~ I
~ - - - - - -,~:.r - - - - ~ - - - - - - - _
.l ~ 4 _ L.. _ .~j.. _'t . . I
• I-- i I ~i 1 •,i
i.- - ~ - - - _ ~ _
I I ~ ~ - - - - - - ~ - ~ t • _ _ - i i
~ ; ~ • ~ . ~ 1 ~ I ( I
i i I I I I i .I ,I ~ I
I I I I 1 ~ 1 I I I I I i~"""'
; ~ I i I • I i i t i I ~
! I ~ I ! : ~ ! I I i i (
1 . •
. ; -
i • I.
• 'o~~r
i
~ ~i~SEGOND LEVEL FOOr2 PLAN I I~ ~
.
i
. (A2.2~
1 QQ,..o~
, -
i ~ i • .
- _ _ _ . - _ ~
• a?,
A
. ~
• wArr
II
i
~
~ • :l 1:~. ...._.e. .
, - ~ - -
~
1 ' ` ~ • ' I~
i . . . .
~ i . • ~ '
. i . • ~ . ~
-
~ . - - -
-
. O
W6 ~ ~ '
, i
' ; • Z
•o - - - - - - -----._--•rmra~_----- y
u ~ ~ .
, . . . .
~ ~
- - f--- -__f. - ` _
i _ ...i_ ......i ;.~7.~
~t
: ; • ~ ~
. - - - .
, . . . ~
i
1 • ' ~
i • • i _ -
~ t THIRD FLOOR PI.AN
~ .u r.r . .
~ . - .
/
j
2.3
f
\ ' ~
• tnT~..n
~ .a~A
. ~ . . . . - . . . _ - . °'.."b.r
: U il ll . .~1. n.
. ~ ' . ~ ~ . •
~ ~ _ . ' ' - _ - • . _ ~ _ ~ _ ' " .
. ~ ' . '
~ - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - _ - E" >
i ~ ! I
~ .
~ `Z
i r<
1 I i t f ! 1 ~~i i
• cr- - ~ - - - ~ ~
i
, i ~ i . • .
. , ~
. .
_ ,
. . ~
, ,_._._.._._._._.__.._.~--•-r----~- , . .
; .
I . ' . ~
• ~ ~ •
. ~ ~ (o.. . u...~
; r;
~ . ~ l FOt1RTH LEVEL FLOOR PLAN_ ~~y*
\J j
A2.4 ~
~ . ~ - -
~ -
:
~ -
. - . ii
.
` • ~ ~ SeN~'b^7{ 6 i
A.rv iun ~
MhMCq
. i ,
• ~ n+~
M Z ~
r ~ (
ti~. l~? :>~i ~~1 , _ ' I
, i I ' ! I I i j• i
I ' I 1 1 i ` ~ ~
• • - ' ' ' ~ ' -
- - . N~,,
jm~ Q;o ~
_ u~
,
, Q
• ~ i . , i _ ; i
, : . , . . . . . i I "
, , , ; , , ~ ;
:
1 I
._._1._.._ _.._._.i.__ i_ _ _ _ . _"-`_'_._.-.-.~.-._.-4 ~'_'_'i._'_'.r._._._._.__.
i i i f I t I . i ! ; i
I ! I i I 1 l ! ~ I I
I ! I ' ! I . ~ ~ ~ l--_._ • . ~ . {
I I I 1 1 ! I I I I ~ !
-~------~-------.-._;._._.4 4.•-•-._._.-.L.-•---•--.,.~.i
~ I I i I I I I I I - I 1 ~
• ' ~ ~ •
. , . . ~
• . _ . . ~ I~ . ~
i • ~ • {
~ L-----.
( -
R . ~.v.
1 . ~o..+M 4J
;
[1PENTHOUSE_LEYEL FLOOR PLAN
..-...r - ~
# . ~ A2.5
s - - -
i
,
-
-
~ i.~~•~
: , • -
1 1 1 T
i I ! I I I I ' I I ~ I
• I ! ! I ! i i ! I i , .
~ ~ ' ` ' _ .
- - - r-- - ' -
. r~ ' - ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ , ~
~ . . ~
~
.
.
~ - - - - - -
~ ~ , ~
~ - ' , • ~ , . ' r.~
, Q
- - - -
r ; ~ ~ . ~
. , . .
~ ,
' - - - ~ - - _ - I - - - - - l- ' - - ~ - -'-'---I'-•-• ~ ---.1._ - ~ ' - .
,
. .
,
:
. , , ~ :
. ~t
: ~ j ~ ; ; , ; i _ ; ' - _ . ~ - - . _ i . . . . F .
,
~
~
_ ,
, , . -
~ ' '
,`f ._.r_~.._..i. _ _
- _
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L" '"'..J
. ~ ~ , • .
I I ~ ~ • ~ i i .
~ . . . ~ . . . • ,
! . _
'
1 1 ,FOOF PL.LIN - -M`~~
~ o~ H•. r.r „ ~ p-~r
A2.6 '
.
-
~ ~ •
- - - -
- - - - - ~ acnrt
• , i sn......r, w. i
~ I
` • _ - .I ~ l , s_ ....'°":`0--~
L
`
_ - =~~1~:=-~ - ----r-t~_i. • - - g` ===a- ~ ( ~
Ip~~}~y
~ ;i '......._L~.-114
rtoerH EUvnnon I Q o i
acxc vrr-r I ~ J I
• ~ >
'
I _I(1,~ J, I~ r~ll '~4 ~I~ •f~ ~ , -~r~ r I:t - ..F~ -~~_~_,-~--L...'-'~}~ ~I i ~ ~ ~h• { ' 7
U-_.. -
71
I.t , ._'~i - ~lL a~
Fti _
~ i l;l4V -7Lt~ ~ li Ti
_ _ - - 451
0 TF~ ~-'I
1
1
' SOU7'Fi EIFVATION ~ `
y awc vs`rv
, . I A 3'0
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ '°~1 + , - ~
-.--f`-_ ~
s,n
~ Q
. t
,
[ l r-• - ' ` ' + S_ Y' ~',,j '`1 1~ ~``~r 3':-•
ES~-~
, ~
ctaT ~VAT14N 1 l~-~
~ M
~ ~,.aw x
, p 3
~
.
~
;
,
~
, +
A
7 ~
ORIGINAL
.
iR.
AU S TR.~A. H U S RED VE PMEN-T
STAFF MEMORANDUM
~
~ ,
•r
AUSTRIA HAUS REDEVELOPMENT ,
Staff IlAemorandum "
TABLE OF CONTENTS ~
. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REGtUESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Establishment of a Speclal Development Distrlct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. ConditionalUse Permit 2
It. BACKGROt1ND 2 ,
III. ZONING ANALYSIS 3 .
IV. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
(nine SDD Criteria)
A. Deslgn compatibllky and sensitivlry to the Immediate environmerrt, neighborhood and ad'acent
properties relative to architectural deslgn, scale, bulk, bullding helght, buffer zones, ident'~ty,
character, visual integrfty and oriernation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B. _ Uses, actlvity and denslty which provlde a compatible, efflclent and workable relatlonshlp wkh
suROUnding uses and activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
uloyge Housing R2quirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Employee Housing Generation Malysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
C. CompUance with parking and loading requlrements as outllned in Chapter 18.52. of the Town of Vail
MuntaipaiCode .........................................................................13
D. Conformity with the applicabie elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban
Deslgn Plan ......................••-...................................................14
VailLand Use Plan ...............................................................14
VailVillage Master Plan ...........................................................15 •
Vall Vlllaae besign Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Urban Desicn Consideratlons .....................................................18
Architect Landscape Consideretlons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
E. Identificatlon and mhlgatlon of natural and/or geolog(c hezards that affect the property on whlch the
special development district is proposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
F. Site plan, building design and locatlon and open space provislons designed to produce a functional
- development responsive and sensitive to naturai features, vegetatfon and overali aesthettc quality of
the community ..........................................................................35
G. A circulatlon system des(gned for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic
circulation ..............................................................................35
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open apace in order to optimize and preserve natural
features, recreation, vfews and functlons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain e workable, functional and efficient relationship
throughout the development of the speclai development disVict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
V. CRITERIA AND FlNDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Vi. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
AITACHMENT 1
A7TACHMENT 2
ATTACHMEW'f 3
ATTACHMENT 4 ~
,
~
r"
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: February 24, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a final review of the establishment of Special Development District .
#35, Austria Haus, and a request for a conditional use permit to aNaw for a Fractionai Fee Club, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C, Block
5-D, Vail Village First Filing. .
`Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, (nc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS
A. The Establishment of a Special Deve(oRment District
The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce, is requesting a
final review meeting with the Planning and EnvironmenTal Commission for the
establishment of Specia! Development District #35, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on
. part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing. The applicant is proposing to
establish a new Special Development District overlay to the underlying zone district
of Public Accommodation, to facilitate the redevelopment of the existing Austria
Haus.
The applicant has proposed significant improvemenis to the existing Austria Haus
property. The Austria Haus is intended to become a member-owned resort club/todge, ~
_ eomprising a mix of hotel accommodation units and two and three-bedroom club units '
with associated club amenities/facilities. The Austria Haus proposal is intended to
- provide additional hotel and "hotel-type" accommodation units in the Town of Vail.
The applicant is proposing to incorporate 22 member-owned club units (fractiona)
tee club units with 28 lock-off units), with 25 hotel rooms and one on-site manager's
residence (employee housing unit). The applicant is proposing 4,440 square feet of ,
new commercial/retail space on the main level of the Austria Haus. The Austria
Haus proposal includes a front desk reception/registration area operating 24 hours
a day and seven days a week, a lounge, an exercise room, member ski storage and '
other accessory facilities commonly associated with hotels and lodges.
The applicant has identified what they believe to be public benefits which will be realized
as a result vf the Austria Haus redevelopment. The public benefits identified by the
applicant include:
• 1
,
~r
1. An increase in the annual oecupancy of the Austria Haus by approximately four
times. ~
2. The addition of approximately 4,000 square feet of retail space (sales tax
generating). ~
. 3. The implementation of the recommended Streetscape Master Plan improvements
to East Meadow Drive.
4. The completion of the commercial loop in the Village via the construction of a
wel(-fit, heated pedestrian walkway. 5. The removal of 25 surface parking spaces and the construction of an underground
parking structure. .
. 6. Landscape improvements to Slifer Square, East Meadow Drive arid the Gore . Creek streambank. _
B. Conditional Use Permit
The applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit to aNow for the
construction of a Fractional Fee Club as part of the Austria Haus redevelopment. As
mentioned previously, the applicant is proposing to incorporate 22 fractional fee
club units into the Austria Haus. Each of the club unlts will be sold in one-ninth
shares.
On January 21, 1997, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance #22, Series of 1996, an
ordinance arnending Section 18.04, Definitions, adding "Fractional Fee Club" and
• "Fractional Fee Club UniY", amending Section 18.22.030, Conditiona( Uses, allowing
fractional fee c(ub as a conditional use in the Public Accommodation Zone District,
amending Section 18.60.060(A)(7), Conditional Use Permit Criteria-Findings. The review
of the Austria Haus proposal will be according the procedures prescribed in Chapter
18.60 of the Municipal Code. A copy of Ordinance #22, Series of 1996, has been ~
attached for reference.
11. BACKGROUND
. The Austria Haus was originally constructed in the mid-1960's as an inn to accommodate
destination skiers. In 1979, the Austria Haus was purchased by the Faessler family who planned
to redevelop the property into the Sonnenalp Hotel. -
)n 1984, Ordinance #8 was approved by the Vail Town Council establishing Special Development
District #12. Special Development District #12 adopted an approved development plan for the
redevelopment of the Austria Haus. When Ordinance # 8 was adopted, the Town Councif p(aced
an eighteen-month time timit on the approval of the SDD. The approval of SDD # 12 lapsed
eleven years ago, on October 2, 1985. The approved development plan was never implemented,
and instead, the Austria Haus underwent a remodel. Since ihe completion of the remodel, the
Austria Haus has served as an annex to the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus located at 20 Vail Road.
The Austria Haus has 37 hotel rooms (accommodation units) totaling 10,100 sq. ft. with
approximately 75 pillows" and is operated eight months each year by Sonnenalp Properties, Inc.
There is a small restaurant and bar in the Austria Haus that serves the guests and a small retai(
outlet on the east end of the building. The hotel rooms are rnarginal in size (300 sq. ft. average)
and lack certain hotel amenities, by today's standards.
2 ~
,
According to the Officiai Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the app{icanYs property is zoned Public
~ Accommodation. The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodges
and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi-pubiic facilities
and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor-oriented
uses as may be located in the same district. The Public Accomrnodation District is intended to
provide sites for lodging units with densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre. The Public
Accommodation Zone District, prior to January 21, 1997, did not permit interval ownership.
Interval ownership was only allowed as a conditional use in the High Density Mufti-Family Zone
. District pursuant to Ordinance #8, Series of 1981.
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
The developinent standards for a Special Development District shall be proposed by the
applicant. Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density
control, site coverage, landscaping and parking and loading shall be determined by the Town
Council as part of the approved development plan, with consideration of the recommendations of
. the Planning and Environmental Commission and staff. Before the Town Council approves
development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it shall be determined that
such deviations provide benefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such
deviations. This determination is to be made based upon the evaluation of the proposed Special
Development District's compliance with ihe Review Criteria outlined in the following section.
The Community Development Department staff has prepared a Zoning Analysis for the proposed
Austria Haus redeveiopment based on the revised plans submitted by the applicant on February
12, 1997. The Zoning Analysis compares the development standards outlined by the underlying
. zone disirict of Public Accommodation and Ordinance #8 (SDD #12/1984) to the proposed
Special Development District #35. For comparative purposes onfy, and at the request of the
Planning and Environmental Commission, staff has inc(uded the approved deveiopment
standards of Special Development District # 30,. (the Vail Athletic Club).
Wherever the proposed development standards deviate from the underlying zoning of Pubfic
Accommodation, the standards are highlighted in bold type.
i 3
,
R~
~ AUSTRIA HAUS ~
Lot size: 24,089 sq. ft. /0.553 acres ~
' Buidable area: 24,089 sq. ft. /0.553 acres
I Development Underlying Zontng Ordlnance #6 Proposed SDD
Standard of Public Accommodatlon (SDD #12/1984) _
' . -
GRFA: 80% or 19,271 sq, ft. 118% or 28,591 sq. ft. 1689'0 or 40,429 sq. ft.
Dwelling
I units per acre: ~ 13.8 DU's 34.5 DU's 35 DU's (22 DU's,
(2 DU's & 65 AU's) 25 AU's,1 Type III EHU)
Site coverage: 550% or 13,249 sq. ft. 71 % or 68% or 16,371 sq. ft.
17,103 sq.ft.
Setbacks:
front: 20' N/A ot
( sides: 20' N/A 5' / 20'
rear: 20' N/A 7'
Height: 48' sloping N/A 56.5'
45' flat 52-
60' tower 68'
Parking: per T.O.V. code Section 18.52 5 short-term 48 spaces in garage and
spaces on-site 16.26 spaces •
71 parking spaces pay-in-tieu ,
pay-in-lieu
Landscaping: 30% or 7,227 sq. ft. A detailed plan 19.8 % or 4,782.6 sq. ft.
was to be submitted
for DRB approval
Loading: per T.O.V. code Section 18.52 1 berth 1 berth at drop-off area
Commercial
sq. footage: 10% or 1,927 sq. ft. 36% or 11% or 4,440 sq. ft.
11,555 sq. ft.
Common area: 35% of allowable GRFA N/A 38% or 15,308 sq. ft.
or 6,745 sq. ft.
I
4 ~
R
J
~ Vail Athletic Club
•
Lot Size: 30,486 square feet/0.699 acre
Buildable: 30,486 square feet/0.699 acre
Development Underlying Zoning Speclal Development
, Standard of Public Accommodation District #30 Approval
GRFA: 80% or 24,388 sq. ft. 113% or 34,505 sq. ft.
Dwelling
units per acrs: 17.5 DU's 33 DU's (4 DU's,
55AU's, 4 Type !V EHU's)
Site coverage: 55% or 16,767 sq. ft. 70°k or
21,350 sq. ft.
Setbacks:
front: 20' 0'
sides: 20' 127112'
rear: 20' 2'
Height: 48' sloping 67'
Parking: per T.O.V. code section 16.52 29 valet spaces I,
(87 spaces)
Landscaping: 30% or 9,145 sq. ft. 32% or 9,730 sq. ft.
~ Loading: per T.O.V. code section 18.52 N/A
Commercial '
sq. footage: 10% or 3,049 sq. ft. 13% or 4,066 sq. ft.
Common area: 35% of allowable GRFA
- or 8,536 sq. ft. 44% or 15,054 sq. ft.
IV. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT PROCESS
Chapter 18.40 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code provides for the establishment of Special
Development Disiricts in the Town of Vaii. According to Section 18.40.010, the purpose of a
Special Development District is,
"To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order to
promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of
the new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical
provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open
space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail
Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development
District, in conjunction with the properties underlying zone district, shalt establish
5
~
f
t
the requirements for gu+ding development and uses of property included in the
Special Development District." r
The Municipal Code provides a framework for the estabiishment of a Special Development •
. bisirict. According to the Municipa! Code, prior to site preparation, building construction, or other .
improvements to land within a Special Development District, there shal( be an approved
development plan for the Special Development District. The approved devefopment plan
establishes requirements reguiating development, uses and activity within the Special
_ Developmeni District.
~ Upon final review of ihe proposed establishment of a Special Development District, a report from " ihe Planning and Environmental Commission stating its findings and recommendations and a
staff report shall be forwarded to the Town Council, in accordance with the provisions listed in
Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code. The Town Council's consideration of the Special
Development District shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.130 - 18.66.160
and approved by two readings of an ordinance.
An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses and
activities of the Specia4 Develapment District. The development plan shall contain all relevant
, material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the Special
, Development District shall adhere. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to,
the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and elevations, vicinity plan, parking plan,
preliminary open space/landscape plan, densities and permitted, conditional and accessory uses.
The deterrnination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the Planning
and Environmental Commission and Town Council as part of the formal review of the proposed
development plan. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed Special
Development District, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those
permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the properties underlying zone district.
The Municipal Code provides nine design criteria, which shaii be used as the principal criteria in
evaluating the merits of the proposed Special Development District. It shall be the burden of the
appficant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with
each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or
that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. The staff has
addressed each of the nine SDD review criter.ia below: -
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood
and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height,
buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
The staff believes it is helpful to summarize the architectura{ design issues ihat have
been previously identified by the statf and the PEC, and have been addressed by the
applicant over the course of the five preceding worksession meetings.
Jeff Winston of Winston & Associates, Inc., has provided consultation on the proposed
urban design elements, architecture and site planning propased by the applicant. Jeff's
comments are in response to the revisions made by the applicants after the worksession
meeting held on January 13, 1997. Jeff was at the February 10ih PEC woricsession and
discussed his comments.
~
6
- North Elevation
~ 1. The front entry to the Austria Haus was relocated to the west of the building to
accommodate guest drop-off and reduce vehicular traffic on East Meadow Drive,
east of the existing traffic control gate location. The front drop-off area was also .
reconfigured to provide better traffic circulation and reduce conflicts between
pedestrians and vehicles.
2. The northeast corner of the building was reduced in size to open this portion of
. the site to Slifer Square, and to provide additional articulation and visual interest
to the north elevation. These changes were made in response to concerns
expressed by Jeff Winston and the staff.
3. The northeast corner of the building will no longer be used for a bus shelter. The
' proposed bus shelter was determined to be too far removed from the actual
location where a bus will stop. The applicant has proposed a new location for a
bus shelter east of the Austria Haus in Slifer Square. The bus shelter has been
designed in cooperation with the Town of Vail Public Works Department.
4. The balconies on the north side of the Austria Haus have been eliminated. The
elimination is a result of the applicanYs desire to increase the square footage of
the accommodation units located on ihe second and third levels of the building.
The loss of the balconies has created more building mass along East Meadow
Drive, however, staff believes this change has been successfully mitigated by the
applicant.
South Elevation
• 1. Staff was concerned that the south elevation was too repetitive, too linear and
lacked the architectural interest of the north elevation. The applicant has
removed two of the chimney chases from the south elevation in an attempt to
eliminate the repetitive nature of the design. Staff would recommend that the
applicant further modify the south elevation as the elevation still appears too
repetitive. Staff would again recommend that the applicant explore ways of
reducing the repetitive nature of the south elevation. Staff believes these
changes are aesthetic in nature.and can be addressed at the time of Design
_ Review. 2. The original design proposed commercial retail space on the first level, on the
south side of the building. After discussions with the PEC, this space was
removed because there was a concern about pedestrian circulation, the need for
off-site improvements and potential impacts on adjacent property owners. The
commercial retail space was replaced with three, fractional fee club units.
East Elevation
1. The eastern end of the building has been reduced in width and the corner "cut
back," as recommended, to open up the Austria Haus to Slifer Square. This
change also provides a horizontal step in the alignment of the building, along East
Meadow Drive.
16 ,
7
.
2. Concerns were expressed over the use of a flat roof on a portion of the east end
, of ihe building. The flat roof portion has been eliminated and a dormer and ~
; exterior deck have been introduced. Staff believes this change results in a much
improved east elevation by providing an increase in architectural interest and ~
detail.
West E(evation
i. The west end on the Austria Haus has 6een changed substantially in response to
, . concerns raised by the staff, Jeff Winston, Village Center rnerchants and the
adjoining property owners. The applicant originally proposed a much taller west
elevation and a covered garage entry. The covered entry has been removed to
reduce building mass and eliminate building encroachments into the 20-foot side setback. The height of the west elevation has been reduced by further clipping
% the hip back, lowering the eavel+ne and dropping the ridge elevation.
2. The west end of the building was increased slightly in width. The increased width
_allows the northwest corner of the building to move closer to East Meadow Drive,
improving the streetscape.
3. Additional landscaping plantings are proposed along the western end of the
building. The additional landscaping is intended to screen the garage entrance
from the Village Center residential units and buffer the vehicle activity in this area.
- The tandscaping extends onio Village Center property. A copy of an approval
from Village Center has been attached for reference.
Staff believes the applicant has designed a structure which relates well to the site and the
surrounding neighborhood. The mass of the Austria Haus is appropriate for the site and
takes into consideration the, massing of the buildings on the adjoining properties. The •
building steps down on the east and west ends to insure a smooth transition between
properties and does not create an imposing "canyon" along property lines. The north side
of the Austria Haus was designed with a pedestrian scale in mind. The retail shops on
the north side of the Austria Haus create a commercial connection along East Meadow
Drive, between Slifer Square and the Village Center retail shops. The commercial
• conneGtion has been missing along this portion of East Meadow Drive and staff believes
that the Austria Haus will enhance the character of the Vi(lage.
The exterior building materials of the Austria Haus are a mixture of stone, stucco and
wood. The roof material is proposed to be a reddish, tile-type roof similar to the material
used on the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus. The applicant has proposed to incorporate
irrigated flower boxes into the design of the structure. The use of divided light windows
all around the building creates a European-feel and reduces the appearance of too much
glass. Staff believes that the combination of building materials has been well
incorporated into the design of the Austria Haus. The applicant has proposed that the
exterior stucco color be an off-white to yellowish/cream coior to blend in with the exteriors
of the Mountain Haus and the Village Center buildings.
The height of the Austria Haus exceeds the a!lowable building height of the Public
Accornmodation Zone District by approximately nine feet. The development standards for
the underlying zone district indicate that the maximum height for buildings with sloping
roofs shall be 48 feet. The applicant is requesting that the maximum building height for
the Austria Haus be approximately 57 feet. The 57-foot building height is based on
existing (1997) topography of the Austria Haus property, and not the original topography
of the site (pre-1963). Original topography of the site is not available, since the Austria ~
Haus was constructed in Vai( prior to zoning (and prior to the requirement that a .
8
- A
~ topographic survey be submiited prior to development). Siaff believes, based upon the
location of the existing retaining walls and the condition of the streambank, that the site'
was "cuY" when the Austria Haus was built. While it is difficult to know exactly how much
i of the site was "cuY', staff would conservatively estimate that approximately 2- 3 feet of
; soil was removed. Given this conservative consideration, staff would estimate the actual
building height proposed for the Austria Haus would be 54 - 55 feet. According to the
Vail Vi!lage Master Plan Conceptual Building Height Plan, the Austria Haus should be 3-4
stories in height, with a building story being approximately nine feet, excluding the roof.
The plan further indicates that one additional f(oor of residential/iodging may also be
. accommodated on the Austria Haus site.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable _
relationship with surraunding uses and activity.
The Austria Haus is located immediately adjacent to the Vail Village Commercial Core,
The Austria Haus is bound on the east by Slifer Square and the Mountain Haus, on the
west by the Village Center residentia!/commercial buildings and on the south by Gore
Creek, the Covered Bridge Building, Gasthof Gramshammer and the Creekside Building.
Each of these buildings are a mixed-use development incorporating commercial/retail
space with residential and/or accommodation units.
The applicant is proposing a mixed-use development that is in compliance with the uses
allowed in the underlying zone district. The underlying zoning of Public Accommodation
, encourages the development of fodges (accornrnodation units) and accessory eating,
drtnking ar+d retail establishmenis at a density of twenty-five dwelling units per acre. The
applicant is proposing to redevelopment the Austria Haus at a density of 35 dwelling units
per acre, with 4,440 sq. ft of commercial/retail space on the main level of the buiiding.
• Included in the density figure are twenty-two member-owned club units (fractional fee),
twenty-five hotel rooms (accommodation units) and one on-site manager's residence
(Type !!I, Employee Housing Unit). I
The appiicant's proposal differs greatly fro m the existing use of the property. Currently, I
the Austria Haus includes thirty-six accommodation units, and one dwelling unit, equaling ~
nineteen dwelling units per acre, a restaurant and a limited amount of commercial/retail ~
space on the east end of the building. Parking at the Austria Haus is accommodated by I
a twenty-five space surface parking lot. Of the iwenty-five spaces, fifteen are considered _ i
legal, non-conforming parking,spaces. The other ten spaces are off-site and are not
considered legal parking spaces for zoning purposes. An informal loading/delivery/trash
area exists on the west end of the building. ~
Employee Housinq Requirements ,
As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans, ~
providing affordable housing for employees is a critical issue which should be addressed '
through the planning process for Special Development District proposals. In reviewing ~
the Austria Haus proposal for employee housing needs, staff reiied on the Town of Vail . Employee Housing Report. ~
The Employee Housing Report, was prepared for the Town by the consulting firm RosaA, '
Remmen and Cares. The report provides the recommended ranges of employee housing ~
units needed based on the type of use and the amount of f(oor area dedicated to each ,
use. Utilizing the guidelines prescribed in the Employee Housing Report, the staff
~ analyzed the incremental increase of employees (square footage per use), that result ~
from the Austria Haus redevelopment. A copy of the "-Suqgested Emqloyment '
9
i '
I . ~
I I C.atgg ri nd Ranaes for Vai1 Expre sed as Em Ioxees per 1000 Square Feet" has
been attached for reference. '
The figures identified in the Housing Report are based on surveys of commerciai-use •
I employment needs of the Town of Vaif and other mountain resort communities. For
~ camparison purposes, TeAuride, Aspen and Whistler B.C. all have "employment
~ generation" ordinances requiring developers to provide affordable housing for a
percentage of the "new" empfoyees resulting from commercial development. "New"
empioyees are defined as the incremental increase in employment needs resulting from
~ commercial redevelopment. Each of the communities assesses a different percentage of affordable housing a developer must provide for the "new" employees. For example, .
Telluride requires developers to provide housing for 40% (0.40) of the "new" employees,
, Aspen requires that 60°Io (0.60) of the "new" employees are provided housing and
, Whistler requires that 100% (1.00) of the "new" emp(oyees be provided hous+ng by the
developer. In comparison, Vail has conservatively determined that developers shall
' provide housing for 15% (0.15) or 30% (0.30) of the °new" employees resuliing from
commercial development. When a project is proposed to exceed the density allowed by
, the underlying zone district, the 30% (0.30) figure is used in the calculation. If a project is
proposed at, or below, the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 15% (0.15)
' figure is used. The Austria Haus Special Deveiopment District proposal exceeds the
; density permitted by the underlying zone district, and therefore, the 30% figure shall be
used.
, According to the applicant, in 1997, Sonnenalp Properties, inc., will need to empfoy 36
individuals to operate the existing Austria Haus. This employee figure takes into account
the maximum staffing requirement for the Christmas and President's Day weeks. Of the
36 individuals, five are needed to staff the front desk, 13 are required for housekeeping
purposes, 16 are needed to operate the bar and restaurant, and the remaining two
individuals are needed to provide other facilities support functions. ~
Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. has provided proposed employment figures for the operation
of the redeveloped Austria Haus. Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. estimates a need for
approximately 32 employees, plus an unknown retail need. Excluding retail, this figure
indicates a slight reduction in the employment need. The reduction in employment need
is due to the removal of the bar and restaurant operation from the Austria Haus. After
redevelopment, the Sonnenalp will only be providing continental food service to the
guests of the Austria Haus: A copy of the "Austria Hau, S affing Roster" has been,
attached for reference.
EMPLOYEE HQUSING GENERATlQN ANALYSlS
The staff analysis below indicates the top, the middle and the bottom of the ranges
recommended by the Town of Vai1 Employee Housing Report, as well as a staff
recommended figure which was used in determining the employee housing needs of the
Austria Haus. A summary of the Employee Housing Generation Anafysis is as follows:
10
~
~
~ Bottom of Range Calculations:
a) Retaii/Service Commercial = 3,660 sq. ft. @(5/1000 sq. ft.) =18.3 employees
, b) Office: Real Estate = 780 sq. ft. @(6/1000 sq. ft.) = 4.7 empioyees
c) Lodging` = 25 units @(025/room) = 6.2 empioyees
, d) Multi-Family (club units) = 22 units @(0.4/unit) = 8.8 employees
Total =38.0 employees
(-36 existing employees) = 2 employees
(X 0.30 multiplier) =1 new employee
Middle of Rangg Calculations:
a) Retail/Service Commercial = 3,660 sq. ft. @(6.5/1000 sq. ft.)=23.8 employees
b) Office: Real Estate = 780 sq. ft. @(7.5/1,000sq. ft.) = 5.9 employees
. c) l.odging* = 25 units @(0.75/room) =18.7 employees
d) Multi-Family (club units) = 22 units @(0.4/unit) = 8:8 employees
• Total =572 employees
(-36 existing employees) =22 employees .
(X 0.30 multiplier) = 7 new employees •
Top of Range Calculations:
a) Retail/Service Commercial = 3,660 sq. ft. @(8/1000 sq. ft.) =29.3 employees
b) Office: Real Estate = 780 sq. ft. @(9/1000 sq. ft.) = 7.0 employees
c) Lodging" = 25 units @(1.25/room) =31.2 employees
d) Multi-Family (club units) = 22 units @(0.4/unit) = 8.8 employees
Total =76.3 employees
(-36 existing employees) =41 employees
(X 0.30 multiplier) =13 new employees
~
11
.
i .
; Staff Recomrr ended Range Calculations: ~
~ The staff believes thai the Austria Haus redevelopment will create a need for 34 additional ~
employees. Of the 34 additional employees, at least 11 employees (30%) will need to be
. provided deed-restricted housing by the developers ofi the Austria Haus. The staff .
recommended range is based on:
1. the type of retail and office use proposed in the commercial space within the
_ Austria Haus;
2. the size of the Austria Haus lodging component; and 3. the high-level of services and amenities proposed by the developers for the
guests of the Austria Haus.
; _ .
a) Retail/Service Commerciai = 3,660 sq. ft. @(6,5/1 000 sq. ft.)=23.8 employees
(middle af range)
b) Office: real estate = 780 sq. ft. @(7.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 5.9 employees
(middle of range)
c) Lodging` = 25 units ar (1.25/room) =31.2 employees
(top of range)
d) Multi-Family (club units) = 22 units @(0.4lunit) = 8.8 employees
(range does not vary)
<
Totaf =69.7 employees
(-36 existing employees) =34 employees
(X 0.30 multiplier) =11 new employees ~ I
'Lodging has a pahicuiarly farge variafion of empfoyees per room, depending upon factors such as size ot facility and {evel of
service/support services and amenilies provided.
. Depending upon the size of the emp{oyee housing unit provided, it is possibie ta have up
_ to two empioyees per bedroom. For eicample, a two-bedroom unit in the size range of
450 - 900 square feet, is possible of accommodating three to four employees. These
figures are consistent with the requiremenis for the Type Ilf employee housing units
outlined in the Municipal Code.
The appficant has indicated the many of the Austria Haus' operatianal and functianal
needs will be met by combining services with the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus. For example,
the following services will be shared with the Bavaria Haus:
¦ Marketing and Sales
¦ Accounting
¦ Reservations
¦ Laundry Facilities
¦ Room Service
¦ Employee Cafeteria
¦ Human Resources
¦ Purchasing
¦ Trash Remova!
12
-
While it makes sense from a operationai standpoint for the Austria Haus to share certain
operational and functional needs with the Bavaria Haus, there is some question as to
whether the Austria Haus should be required to be a stand-alone operation. Staff further
~ questions how the delivery of goods (linens, trash, food, etc.) will be accomplished and
~ whether an adequate amount of common storage space for housekeeping purposes is
being provided. The use of East Meadow Drive for the delivery of goods and services has
been increasing, resulting in pedestrian conflicts and traffic congestion, and therefore,
additional delivery vehicle traffic should be avoided. Staff would recommend that the
applicant address these issues and concerns with the PEC.
_ Overall, staff believes that the density and uses proposed by the applicant for the Austria
. Haus do not conflict with the compatibility, efficiency or workability of the surrounding
uses and/or activities. In fact, staff feels that the proposed Austria Haus redevelopment
will enhance the existing uses and activities in the Village. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. of
the Town of Vai! Municipal Code.
Parking and loading requirements for development are established '+n Chapter 18.52 of
the Municipal Code. The parking and loading requirements are based on the square
footage of the uses proposed within a building. Based on the square footage of the uses
proposed by the applicant, 79.26 parking spaces and one loading/delivery berth are
required on-site. The Municipal Code allows "grandfathering" of the existing legal non-
conforming parking spaces. Currently, fifteen legal, non-conforming parking spaces exist
` on the property. Therefore, the parking requirement for the proposed Austria Haus
redevelopment is 64.26 new parking spaces. The applicant is proposing an underground
parking structure designed to accommodate forty-eight parking spaces and an enclosed
• trash facility. This leaves 16.26 additional parking spaces required. The applicant is
proposing to meet the additional parking requirement by paying into the Town of Vail
Parking Fund. Parking spaces are currently valued at $16,333.38. The cost per parking
space will increase on January 1, 1997, as the figure is adjusted based on the Consumer
Price Index. The applicant will be required to pay-in-lieu at the designated rate, at the
tirne of building permit application. The Town of Vai! Finance Department sTates that the
1997 adjusted rate is not yet available. It is believed the adjusted rate will be available by
March 1, 1997.
The applicant is proposing one loading/delivery berth in the front entry drop-off area,
located on the north side of the building, adjacent to East Meadow Drive. Much of the
drop-off area is within Town of Vail right-of-way. Staff recognizes that this area is
conveniently located near the entrances to the front desk and the commercial/retail
shops, however, we feel that the use of the drop-off area may be compromised by the
loading and delivery of goods. In staff's opinion, the front entry drop-off area should be
used by the guests of the Austria Haus. Staff believes that trying to accommodate
loading and delivery in this area will result in conflicts between guests, vehicles accessing
the parking structure, and delivery trucks. Staff would recommend that the applicant
revisit the alternative of providing the loading and delivery facility in the underground
parking structure. Staff understands this is r,ot ihe desire of the owners of the Village
Center Condominiums, yet we believe ihe impact can be mitigated with appropriate
screening.
~
13
D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town
policies and Urban Design Plan. ~
Vai! Land Use Plan M
I The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Pian are to be used as ihe Town's policy
guidelines during the review process of establishing a new Special Development District.
Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the foliowing policies are relevant
to the review of this proposai:
I- • ' .
. 1. Generat Growth/DeveQ ment
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
, balance between residential, commerciai and recreational uses to serve
both the visitor and the permanent resident.
1.2 The quality of the environment inciuding air, water, and other natural
resources shouid be protected as the Town grows.
1.3 The quality of development shouid be maintained and upgrade whenever
possible.
1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new
development in the Viilage Core through continued impiementation of the
Urban Design Guide Pian.
1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing
devefoped areas (infill). .
1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable {and feature as weN
as its potential for public use.
. 3: Commerciat
3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. -
3.2 The Village and Lionshead are the best location for hotels to serve the
future needs of the destination skier.
3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas
to accommodate both local and visitor needs.
4. Village Core/Uonshead
4.1 Future commercial devefopment should continue to occur primarily in
existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core
areas needs to be carefuliy controlled to faci{itate access and defivery.
42 tncreased density in the Core areas is acceptabie so fong as the existing
character of each area is preserved through the implementation of the
Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Pfan.
14
Residential
~
5.1 Quaiity tirneshare units shouid be accommodated t4 help keep occupancy
rates up.
~ Staff believes the proposed establishment of the new Special Development Disirict (#35)
is in concert with the goais and policies of the Vail Land Use Plan as outlined above.
Vail Village Master Plan
. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards , and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vai! Village and in _
legislating effective ordinances to deal with the such development. The staff has
identified the following goals, objectives and-policies as being relevant to this proposal:
Goal #1 Encourage high quatity redevelopment white preserving the unique
architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of
community and identity.
1.1 Obiective: lmplement a consistent Development Review Process to
reinforce the character of the Village.
1.1.1 Policv: Development and improvernent projects approved in
• the Village shall be consistent with the goals,
objectives, policies and design considerations as
outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban
Design Guide Plan. • 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential
and commercial facilities.
1.2.1 Policv: Additional deveiopment may be aliowed as ~
identified by the action plan as is consistent with the ~
e Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide ~
" Plan.
1.3 Obje tive: Enhance new development and redevelopment through ,
pubtic improvements done by private developers working in
cooperation with the Town. '
1.3.1 Policy: Pubtic improvements shatt be developed with the ,
participation of the private sector working with the
Town.
Goal #2 To faster a strang tourist industry and promote year-round economic
health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole.
2.1 Ob.jective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-
areas throughout the Village and allow for development that
is compatible with these established land use patterns.
~ 15
2.3 Objective: increase the number of residentiai units available for shori-
termt overnight accommodations. '
2.3.1 Policy: The development of short-term accommodation ~
units is strongiy encouraged. Residential units that
are developed above existing density levels are
required to be designed or managed in a manner
that makes them avai{able for short-term overnight
. rental.
2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial
activity where compatible with existing land uses. ~
2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and
~ maintenance of existing todging and commercial facilities to
. better serve the needs of our guests.
_-2.5.1 Policv: Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting
facilities and other amenities shall be preserved and
enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of lodging
, properties.
2.6 biective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units
, through the efforts of the private sector.
2.6.1 Poliek Employee housing units may be required as part of
any new or redeveloped project requesting density
over that allawed by existir?g zoning. ~
Goat #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking • II
experience throughout the Village. ~
3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by
- landscaping and other improvements.
34.1 Policv: Private development projects shall incorporate
streetscape improvements (such as paver
treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), afong adjacent pedestrian ways.
3.1.3 Policv: Flowers, trees, water features and other
landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the
Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public
areas.
32 Objective: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the
greatest extent possible.
3.2.1 Policv: Vehicular traffic will be eliminated or reduced to
absolutely minimal necessary levels in the
pedesirianized areas of the ViUage.
16 ~
, - 2 4 Obiective: Develop addifionai sidewaiks, pedestrian-only walkways
and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks
' and stream access.
3.4.2 Policy: Private development pro1'ects shall be required to
~
incorporate new sidewalks atong streets adjacent to
the project as designated in the Vail Village Master
Plan and/or Recreatian Trails Master Plan.
Goal #4- To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space
opportunities. _
4.1 Ob.Jective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas
with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the
' different roles of each type of open space in forming the
overall fabric of the Viilage.
4.1.4 Policv: Open space improvements, inctuding the addition of
accessible green space as described or graphically
shown in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Urban
Design Guide Plan, will be required in conjunction
with private infili or redeveiopment projects.
. Goal #5 increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the
transportation and circulation system throughout the Village.
5.1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking
~ facilities.
5.1.1 Policy: For new development that is located outside of the
Commercial Core 1 Zone District, on-site parking
shall be provided (rather than paying into the
parking fund) to meet any additional parking
- demand as required by the Zoning Code.
5.1.5 Policy: Redevelopment projects shali be strongly
encauraged to provide underground or visua!!y
concealed parking.
Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements
of the Village.
6.1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new
development.
Vail Village Master Plan and Buiiding Hei hq t Plan
Generalty speaking, it is the goal of the Building Height Plan to maintain the concentration
of !ow-scale buildings in the Core area, while positioning larger buildings along the
northern periphery. According to the Conceptual Building Height Plan contained within
the Vail Village Master Plan, the Austria Haus is located within an area proposed to have
building heights of a maximum range of three to four stories. A building story is defined
~ as 9' of height, not including the roof. ,
17
M-~
Vail Viifa,ge Master Plan Action Plan
According to the Action Plan, the Austria Haus property is an area intended for
residential/lodging infill along the south side of the property and commercia( infill aiong ~
. the north side of the property.
According to the Vail Village Master Plan, the Austria Haus properry is located within
mixed-use sub-area #1-8, Sonnenafp (Austria Haus)/Slifer Square:
"Gommercial infill along East Meadow Drive to provide a stronger edge to street
and commercial activity generators to reinforce the pedestrian loop throughout the
• Village. Focus of infill is to provide improvements to pedestrian circulation with
separated walkway including buffer, along East Meadow Drive. Accommodating
on-site parking and maintaining the bus route along East Meadow Drive are two
~ signifieant constraints that must be addressed. One additional floar of
residential/lodging may also be accommodated on this site. Specific emphasis
should be placed on ihe following Vail Village Master Plan objectives: 2.3, 2.4,
2.6,3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4,4.1,5.1,6.1."
Vail Village Desian Considerations
The Town of Vail adopted the Vai1 Village Design Considerations in 1980. The Design
Considerations were revised in 1993. The Design Considerations are considered an
_ integral part of the Vail Village Urban Design Plan. The Design Considerations are
intended to:
? guide growth and change in ways that will enhance and preserve the essential
qualities of the Village; and
? serve as design guidelines instead of rigid rules of development; and ~
? help influence the form and design of buildings.
The Vail Village Design Considerations are divided into two categories (urban design
considerations and architectural/landscape considerations):
_ 1. URBAN DESIGN CONSfDERATIONS" These considerations relate to general, targe-scale land use planning issues, as weN as form
considerations which affect more than one property or even whale areas. These considerations
are primarily the purview of the Planning and Environmental Commission. -
A. PEDE.STRIANIZATION
A major objective for Vail Village is to encourage pedsstrian circulation through an
interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Many of the improvements
recognized in the Urban Design Guide Plans, and accompanying Design Considerations,
are to reinforce and expand the quality of pedestrian walkways throughout the Vi!lage.
Since vehicular traffic cannot be removed trorn certain streets (bus routes, delivery
access), a totally care-free pedesirian system is not achievabie throughout the entire
Vitlage. Therefore, several leve{s of pedestrianization have been identified. The level of
pedestrianization most appropriate for the propased Ausiria Haus redevelopment is the
joint vehicle/pedestrian use of the roadway.
18
i .
• Staff Response:
M The appiicant has met on numerous occasions with the Town staff to discuss pedestrian
improvements. The staff has conciuded that the improvements recommended for East .
Meadow Drive in the 1991 Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan should be implemented.
This inciudes a reduction in street width from 30 feet to 26 feet (14 foot bus lane and 12
foot attached, paver pedestrian walk). The applicant is further proposing to construct a
12 - 20 foot wide, heated pedestrian walkway immediately adjacent to the north side of
- the building. Staff believes that these improvements reinforce and significantiy improve ,
the pedestrian walkways throughout the Village by providing places for people to walk
without forcing them into the bus tane. The creative use of concrete unit pavers
emphasizes the pedestrian character and offers a clear and attractive pedestrian route.
The retail space on the main fevel of the Austria Haus closes the commercial loop from
Slifef Square to Viltage Center.
B. VEHiCLE PENETRATION
To maximize to the extent possible, all non-resident traffic should be routed along the
Frontage Road to Vail Village/Lionshead Parking Structures.
In conjunction with pedestrianization objectives, major emphasis is focused upon
reducing auto penetration into the center of the Village. Vail Road and Vail Valley Drive "
will continue to serve as major routes for service and resident access to the Village.
Road constrictions, iraffic circles, s+gnage, and other measures are indicated in the Guide '
Plans to visually and physically discourage a(I but essential vehicle penetration upon the
Frontage Road. Alternative access points and private parking relocation, where feasible,
i should be considered to further reduce traffic conflicts in the Village.
• Staff Respgnse:
The redevelopment of the Austria Haus will increase vehicular traffic on Village Center '
Road. According to the Environmental Impact Assessment-Austria Haus
Redevelopment, prepared by Design Workshop, Inc.:
_ "A slight increase automobile traffic is expected because of the projected increase
in the number of visitors generaied annually by the project. What is not known,
however, is how many of these additional guests will arrive by car; it is likely the
largest number of guests will continue to arrive in the winter and that most will
arrive by van from the airport. Van deliveries will increase somewhat. Those
guests that arrive in their own car are likely to leave the car in the garage after
they arrive, as the center village iocation of the project eliminates the need for a
car. If there is a potential for congestion anywhere, it is most likely to be in the
small drop-otf parking area in front of the building, where check-ins, deliveries and
iast drivers may converge. To some extent, this can be mitigated by improved
roadway directionai signs, speedy guest valet service, careful management of
deliveries and incentives to encourage guests to leave their cars at home."
Along with the increase in automobile traffic, there will be an increase in delivery vehicle
traffic due to an increase in the commercial square footage on the property. The
applicants anticipate that deliveries to the retail shops will likely arrive via UPS or similar
types of couriers. Deliveries are to be accommodated in the drop-off area in the front of
~ the building. 19
' Staff agrees with Design Workshop's assessment of the potentiai traffic impacts. Wh * ile ~
' there will likel be an increase in traffic on Viita e Center R ili y g oad, there w not be an
increase in traffic an the pedesirian portion of East Meadow Drive. The traffic control
~ gate focated at ihe intersection of Vif{age Center Road and East Meadaw Drive wil{ ~
. continue to prohibit ali vehicie traffic except Town of Vail buses. Staff feeis the appficant
has addressed traffic issues to the extent possible.
C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWQRK
i, . To improve the quallty of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ,
_ ways, as a continuous system, twa general types of improvements adjacent to the -
~ walkways are considered: _
-
1. Open space and landscaping, berms, grass, flowers and tree planting as a
; soft, colorful framework (inkage along pedestrian routes; and plazas and
park greenspaces as open nodes anci focal points along those routes.
I 2. lnfill commercial storefronts, expansion of existing buildings, or new infill
develapment to create new commercial activity generators to give
streetlife and visual interest, as attractions at key 4ocations along
pedestrian routes.
~ It is not intended ta enclose a(f Village streets with buildings as in the core areas. Nor is it
, desirab(e to feave pedestrian streets in the open in somewhat undefined condition evident
in many other areas of Vail. Rather, it is desired to have a variety ot open and enclosed
i spaces, both built and landscaAed, which create a stron9 framework for Pedestrian walks
, ,
as well as visual interest and activity.
• Staff Res onse: .
The Austria Haus redevelopment improues the streetscape framework through the
creation of new commercial activity and increases visual interest along East Meadow
Drive. As stated previously, staff believes the proposed redevelopment closes the critical
commercial loop in ihe Village and provides new street life where very little currently
exisisr
D. - STREET ENCLOSURE
While building facade heights should not be uniform from building to building, they should
provide a"comfortabte" enclosure for the street.
Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms, whose walls are formed by the buildings. The
shape and feel of these "rooms" are created by the variety of heights and massing (3-
dimensional variations), which give much of the visual interest and pedestrian scale
unique to Vail. Very general rufes, about the perception of exterior spaces have been
developed by designers, based on the characteristics of human vision. They suggest
. that: "an external enclosure is most comfortable when its walls are approxirnately 112
as high as the width of the space enclosed; if the ratio falls to 1/4 or less, the
space seems unenclosed; and if the height is greater than the width it comes to
resemble a canyon".
. ~
20
" In actual application, facades are seldom uniform in height on both sides of the streetr nor
is this desired. Thus, some latitude is appropriate in the application of this 1/2 to 1 ratio.
Using the average facade height on both sides will generally still be a guide to the
comfortableness of the enclosure being created.
In some instances, the "canyon" effect is acceptable and even desirable. For example,
as a short connecting linkage between larger spaces, to give variety to the walking
experience. For sun/shade reasons it is often advantageous to orient any longer
segments in a north/south direction. Long canyon streets in an easUwest direction should
, • generally be discouraged. When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special consideraiion should be -
given to create a well-defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome the
"canyon" effect.
Canopies, awnings, arcades and building extensions can all create a pedestrian focus
and divert attention from the upper building heights and "canyon" effect.
• Staff Response:
East Meadow Drive, and the pedestrian walkway adjacent to the Austria Haus, averages
approximately 50 feet in width. The Austria Haus (eave(ine) adjacent to East Meadow
Drive and the pedestrian walkway is approximately 30 feet in height. Given that East
. Meadow Drive is enclosed only on one side, and the arcade and landscaping creates an
emphasis on the ground level of the building, staff believes the proposed Austria Haus
creates a"comfortable" enclosure of the street and does not create a"canyon" effect.
~ E. STREET EDGE
Buildings in the ViNage core should form a strong but irregular edge to the street.
Uniike many American towns, there are no standard setback requirements for buildings in
Vail Village. Consistent with the desire for intimate pedestrian scale, placement of
portions of a building at or near the property line is allowed and encouraged to give strong
definition to the pedestrian streets.
This is not to imply continuous building frontage along the property line. A strong street
edge is important for continuity, but perfectly aligned facades over too long a distance
tends to be monotonous. With only a few exceptions in the Village, slightiy irregular
facade lines, building jogs, and landscaped areas, give the iife to the street and visual
interest for pedestrian travel.
Where buildings jog to create activity pockets, other elements can be used to continue
the street edge: low planter walls, tree planting, raised sidewalks, texture changes in
ground surface, arcades, raised decks.
. Plazas, patios, and green areas are important focal points for gathering, resting, orienting
and should be distributed throughout the Village with due consideration to spacing, sun
access, opportunities for v+ews and pedestrian activity.
~ 21
4 I
I . I
I - ~
, • . taff Response: lnitially, the Austria Haus design lacked the irregular street edge of other properties in Vai! ~
, ViNage. The applicant, at the request of the staff and PEC, has attempced to introduce a
more irregular street edge through the harizonta{ stepping of the building on the east and
west ends. The east end of the building has been stepped back 10 feet trom the property '
fine and the northeast corner has been cutback an additionaf 3-1/2 feet, opening this end '
of building up to Slifer Square. The front entry tower was moved to the west end of the
. building and the west-end of the building was stepped towards the street. While it would -
be the sraff`s desire to see more stepping in the building, staff recognizes the constraints
in doing so. Staff believes the irregular configuration of the landscape pianters in front of _
the building heips to lessen the rather long, linear and uninterrupted street edge along the
center portion of the Austria Haus.
F. ` BUILDING HEIGHT
Vail Village is perceived as a mix of two and three story facades, although there are also
four and five story buildings. The mix of building heights gives variety to the street, which
is desirable. The height criteria are intended to encourage height in massing variety and
to discourage uniform building heights along the street.
• Staff Res op nse:
As discussed previously, the Austria Haus exceeds the allowable building height
prescribed for the Public Accommodation Zone District. However, staff does not feel that
the proposed height of the Austria Haus is excessive, given the location of the building in
relation to the Village and the height of the buildings an the adjoining properties. The
Mountain Haus (to the east) has an existing roof ridge of 74' above grade. The ~
approximate height of the Village Center Condominiums (to the west) is as follows:
Building A(closest to the Austria Haus = 45'; Building B= 78'; and Building C= 56'.
The Austria Haus roof steps down on both ends of the buil.ding, reducing the creation of a
"canyon„ along the west property line and resulting in a building that is less obtrusive (on
i
Slifer Square) on the east end. The applicant has submitted a scale model of the new
structure in its Village Core context and this mode{ will be available for use by the PEC
during the final hearing. .
G. VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS
Vail's mouniain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the
mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are rerninders to our visitors of
the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation' reference points.
Certain building features also provide imrortant orientation references and visual focal
points. The most significant view corridors in the Village have been adopted as part of
Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be
considered exhausted. When evaluating a development proposal, priority should be
given to an analysis of the impacted project on public views. Views that should be
preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public spaces, and include
' views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, the Clock Tower, the Rucksack Tower and
ather important man-made and natural elements that contribute to the ser+se of place
associated with Vail. These views, which have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen
' due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation
reference points for pedestrians. Development in Vai{ Village shatl not encroach into any
adopted view corridor, unless approved under Chapter 18.73. Adopted corridors are ~
22
listed in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipai Code. Whether affecting adopted view
corridors or not, the impact of proposed development on views from public ways and
public spaces must be identified and considered where appropriate.
• Staff Res o~ nse:
Although not directly impacting one of the five adopted view corridors, as listed in Chapter
18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code, the height of the building will have impacts from the Vail
Transportation Center (transit terminal) and will also impact views from the west and
• central st-airs. Pubiic views of the Village (roofline of structures) will be blocked from
these areas, however, views of Vail Mountain will remain. Overalf, staff feels that the
benefits providing a comfortable enclosure to the street, and completing the pedestrian
and retail connection from Crossroads to the Covered Bridge is positive. Stalf feels that
the completion of this pedestrian connection is in compiiance with Goal #3 of the Vail
Village Master Plan:
"To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience
throughout the Village."
H. SEFtVICE AND DELlVERY
Any building expansion should preserve ihe functions of existing service alleys. The few
service alleys that exist in the ViNage are extremely important to minimizing vehicle
. congestion on pedestrian ways. The use of, and vehicular access to, those alleys should
not be eliminated except where functiona( alternatives are not provided.
In all new and remodeled construction, delivery which avoids or reduces impacts on
~ pedestrian ways should be explored; and adopted whenever practicaf, for immediate or
future use. Rear access, basement and below ground delivery corridors reduce
congestion. Weather protection increases delivery efficiency substantially.
Below grade delivery corridors are found in a few buildings in Vail Village (Sitzmark/Gore
Creek Plaza, Village Center, Vail Viflage !nn). Consideration should be given to extending
these corridors, where feasible, and the creation of new ones. As buildings are
constructed or remodeled, the opportunity may exist to develop segments of a future
- system. " • Staff Resa4nse:
Through the course of the review of the Austria Haus redevelopment proposal, severa(
loading and delivery options were explored.
The app(icant had originally proposed to provide one loading and delivery berth in the
underground parking structure. Hawever, concerns were expressed by the Village Center
Condominium owners that they would be negatively impacted by the noise generated
from the delivery vehicles, since the access to the underground location was immediatety
adjacent to their units.
The applicant had also explored the possibility of gaining underground access to their
structure through the Village Center garage. It was determined that delivery vehicles
could not enter through Village Center due to height limitations in the garage.
As mentioned previous(y, the applicant is proposing to provide for loading/delivery in the
~ front entry drop-off area. The applicant anticipates that deliveries to the retail/commercial
shops will arrive via UPS or similar types of courier. Staff continues to believe that this
23
; location may negatively impact the pedestrian use of this area of East Meadow Drive and
~ suggests the applicant continue to explore placing the loading and delivery berth in the -
, underground structure, as originaliy contemplated.
, i. SUN / SHADE ~
~ Due to Vail's alpine climate, sun is an important comfart factor, espec+ally in winter, fall
and spring. Shade areas have ambient temAeratures substantial{Y below those of
adjacent direct sunlight areas. On aii but the warmest of summer days, shade can easily
lower temperatures below comfortabie ieveis and thereby, negativeiy impact use of those
i areas. .
, All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring and faA
shadow line (March 21 - Sepiember 23) on adjacent properties or the public right=of-way.
!n all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall height
consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade considerations are not intended to restrict.
building height aNowances, but rather to influence the massing of bui{dings. Limited
Fieight exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria.
` • Staff Response:
Alihough the proposed height of the building wilt diminish the amount of sun, and likewise
increase shading, along East Meadow Drive (north side of the project), the provision of
heated public walkways effectively mitigates this consideration, thus providing ice-free
~ and snaw-free sidewalks. Additionally, the °apening up" of Slifer Square wi!( insure
adequate {ight, air and open space to a public gathering space. Overail, staff befieves the
applicanYs proposal complies with the above-described considerations.
2. ARCHITECTURE/LANDSCAPE CONSlDERATIONS ~
ROOFS
Where visible, roofs are often one of the most dominant architectural elements in any built
environment. In the Village, roof form, color and texture are visibly dominant, and general4y
consistent, which tends to unify the building diversity to a great degree.
The current expression, and objective, for roofs in the Village is to form a consistenily unifying
backdrop for the architecture and pedesirian streetscape, and to avoid roofs which tend to stand
out individually or disiract visually from ihe overall character.
RgQf Form,S
Roofs within the Village are typically gable in (orm and of moderate-to-iow pitch. Shed roofs are
frequently used for smafl additions to larger buiidings. Free-standing shed roofs, butterfly roofs
anci flat roofs, can be found in the Village, but they are generally considered to be out of
character and inappropriate. Hip roois likewise, are rare and generally inconsistent with the
charactsr of the Core Area. Towers are exceptions, in both form and pitch, to the general
criteria, but do have an established local vernacular-style whieh should be respected.
- 24
10
i . j.
~ , • Staff Resaonse
The roof form of the Austria Haus has been revised several times from whai was
~ originally proposed. The originai roof design of the Austria Haus had a significant amount
~
of flat roof area. The majority of ffat roof has now been replaced with a sioping roof .
leading to a more traditionai ridge. Three areas of flat roof, compromising a total of
approximately 444 square feet, remain on the building. These flat roof portions break up
the ridge line and provide locations for screened mechanical equipment (fans, vents, etc).
The addition of the sloping roof leading to a ridge increased the overall building height by
approximately three feet, since the roof pitch of 6/12 was not changed. The ends of the . .
ridge have been "clipped", resulting in a hip roof form. While a hip roof is generaliy
' considered inconsistent with the character of the Village, the applicant believes this roof
form helps to reduce the mass of the building. The applicant had at one time provided
gable ends to both the east and west ends of fhe building, but has since "clipped" the
gable ends and lowered the roof eaveline at the request of the Village Center
Condominium owners.
Staff would like to see the ridge carried to the ends of the roof creating a gable end,
rather than a hip. However, staff recognizes that this roof form does tend to increase the
perceived height of the building, especially on the east and west ends. Staff will raise this
issue with the Design Review Board.
Pi ch
Roof slopes in the Village typically range from 3/12 to 6/12, with slightly steeper pitches in limited
applications. Again, for visual consistency this general 3/12-6/12 range should be preserved.
~ • Staff Response
The pitch of the proposed Austria Haus roof is 6/12 and is in compliance with this
guideline.
Overhanas
Generous roof overhangs are also an established architectural feature in the Village - a
traditional expression of shelter in alpine environments. Roof overhangs typica(ly range from 3 to
- 6 feet on a!I edges. Specific design consideration should be given to protection of pedestrian
ways adjacent to buildings. Snow slides and runoff hazards can be reduced by roof orientation,
gutters, arcades, etc.
Overhang details are treated with varying degrees of ornamentation. Structural elements such
as roof beams are expressed beneath the overhangs, simply or decorativeiy carved. The roof
fascia is thick and wide, giving a substantial edge to the roof.
• Staff Resppnse
Staff suggests that the applicant increase the roof overhangs on the building. Currently, the overhangs vary from two feet to three feet. Staff would like to see a!I ihe roof
overhangs at least three feet. Again, staff will review this consideration with the Design
Review Board.
~
a 25
t
ComRositions r
The intricate roofscape of the Village as a whole is the result of many individual simple roof
configurations. For any single building a varied, but simple composition of roof planes is ~
. preferred to either a single or a complex arrangement of many roofs. As individual roofs become
more complex, the roof attracts visual attention away from the streetscape and the total
roofscape tends toward "busyness" rather than a bac.kdrop composition.
• Staff Res op nse
- The roof form on the Austria Haus would be considered a simple composition of roof .
planes. Staff believes the roof composition proposed by the applicant is consistent with , -
° the intent of this architectural consideration.
StepRe,d Roofs
As buildings are stepped to reflect existing grade changes, resulting roof steps should be made
where the height change will be visually significant. Variations which are too subtle appear to be
more stylistic than functional, and out of character with the more straight-forward roof design
typical in the Village.
• Staff Response
The Austria Haus site is relatively flat (by Vail standards). While the building does not
need to step to follow the topography, vertical and horizontal steps have been
incorporated into the roof design. The vertical and horizontal steps provide a reduction in
the overall mass of the building and add to the architectural and visual interest of the
buiiding.
~
Materials
Wood shakes, wood shingles, and built-up tar and gravel are almost exclusively used as roof
materiafs in the Village. For visual consistency, any other materials shoufd have the appearance
of the above.
• Staff Response Most recently, wood shakes and waod shingles are being discouraged for use as a
roofing material due to fire safety concerns. At the recommendation of the Town of Vail
i Fire Department, the staff has been encouraging developers to use gravel, asphalt, tile,
metal and other more fire-resistant roofing materials on new buildings.
The applicant is proposing to use reddish tiles on the roof of the Austria Haus. The tiles
will be similar in appearance to those used on the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus. The staff
befieves this is an appropriate roof material to use on this project.
C nst~ ruction Gommon roof problems and design considerations in this climate include:
- snowslides onto pedestrian walks
- gutters freezing
- roof dams and water infiltration
_ - heavy snow loads ~
26 i
r
/ Careful attention to these functional details is recommended, as well as familiariry with the locai
.
~ building code, proven construction details, and Town ordinances.
I •
For built-P roofs, itches of 4/12 or steePer do not hold gravel well. For shingle roofs, pitches of
u P
~ 4/12 or shallower often result in ice dams and .backflow leakage under the shingles.
Cold-roof construction is strongly preferred, unless warm-roof benefits for a specific application
can be demonstrated. Cold-roofs are double-roofs which insulate and prevent snow melt from
internal building heat. By retaining snow on the roof, many of the problems listed can be
. reduced. Periodic snow removal will be required and Should be anticipated in the design. .
Roof gutters tend to ice-in completely and become ineffective in the Vail climate, especially.in -
" shaded norih-side locations. Heating the interior circumference with heat-tape elernents or other
devices is generally necessary to assure adequate run-off control in colder months.
• Staff Res op nse:
The applicant is proposing a cold-roof construction atop the Austria Haus. Through the
review of a buifding permit, staif will ensure the roof construction complies with the
standards prescribed for the Vail climate.
FACADES
Materials
Stucco, brick, wood (and glass) are the primary building materials found in the Village. While not
wishing to restrict design freedom, existing conditions show that within this small range of
~ materials much variation and individuality are possible while preserving a basic harmony. Too
many diverse materials weaken the continuity and repetition which unifies the streetscape.
Of the above materials, stucco is the most consistently used material. Most of the buiidings in
the Village exhibit some stucco, and there are virtually no areas where stucco is entirely absent.
It is intended to preserve the dominance of stucco by its use in portions, at least, of all new
facades, and by assuring that other materials are not used to the exclusion of stucco in any sub-
= area within the ViNage.
• Staff Res op nse The exterior materials proposed by the applicant are a combination of stone, stucco and
wood. No one material is proposed to dominate the exterior of the Austria Haus. Staff
believes the applicant has complied with this particular architectural consideration.
Color
There is greater latitude in the use of color in the Vi!lage, but still a discernible consistency within
a general range of colors.
For wood surfaces, trim or siding, darker calor tones are preferred - browns, greys, blue-greys,
dark olive, slate-greens, etc. Stucco colors are generally light - white, beige, pale-gold, or other
light pastels. Other light colors could be appropriate, as considered on a case-by-case basis.
Bright colors (red, orange, blues, maroon, etc.) should be avoided for major wall planes, but can
be used effectively (with restraint) for decorative irim, wall graphics, and other accent elements.
• `
27
. ` I
General{y, to avoid both "busyness," and weak visuai interest, the variery of major wail colors shouid not exceed four, nor be less than two.
A color/rnaterial change between the ground f4oor and upper floors is a common and effective •
reinforcement of the pedestrian scale of the street.
• Staff Response
The applicant has proposed an exterior building color that is compatible with the color of - ~I
the existing buildings in the vicinity of the Austria Haus. Staff would like to point out that
the applicant is required to obtain Design Review Board (DRB) approval prior to
construction and that any concerns of the PEC on this topic will be brought to the ,
attention of the DRB.
Trans ar~cTv I
Pedestrian scale is created in many ways, but a major factor is the openness, attractiveness, and
generally public character of the ground floor facade of adjacent buildings. Transparent store
fronts are "people attractors," opaque or solid walls are more private, and imply "do not
approach."
On pedestrian-oriented streets such as in the Village, ground floor commercial facades are
proportionately more transparent than upper floors. Upper floors are typica4ly more residential,
private and thus less open.
As a measure of transparency, the most characteristic and successful ground floor facades
range from 55% to 70% of the total length of the commercial facade. Upper floors are often the
converse, 30%-45% transparent. ~
Examples of transparency (lineal feet of glass to lineal feet of facade) on ground level.
- Covered Bridge Building 58%
- Pepi's Sports 71 %
- - Gasthof Gramshammer 48%
- The l.odge 66%
- Golden Peak House 62'/0
- Casino Building 30% - Gorsuch Building 51%
k • Staff Res op nse
A measure of transparency of the Austria Haus (north and east elevations) indicates that
46% (120 lineal feet of glass exists along the 263 lineal feet of building) of the ground
floor facade is transparent. Staff recommends that a minimum of 25 lineal feet of
additional glass (55%) be added to the ground floor. This would make the Austria Haus
generally consistent with the transparency of other buildings in the Village.
in w
In addition to the general degree of transparency, window details are an important source af
pedestrian scaie-giving elements. The size and shape of windows are often a response to the
function of the adjacent street. For close-up, casual, pedestrian viewing windows are typicalty
sized to human dimensions and characteristics of human vision. (Large glass-wall store-fronts •
28
n
suggest uninterrupted viewing, as from a moving car. The sense of iniimate pedestrian scale is
' diminished). Ground floor display windows are typically raised slightly 18 inches ± and do not
• extend much over 8 feet above the walkway level. Ground floors, which are noticeably above or
below grade, are exceptions.
The articulation of the window itself is still another element in giving pedestrian scale (human-
related dimensions). Glass areas are usually subdivided to express individual window elements -
and are further subdivided by mullions into small panes - which is responsible for much of the
old-world charm of the Viflage. Similarly, windows are most often clustered in banks, juxtaposed _
with plain wall surfaces to give a pleasing rhythm. Horizontal repetition of single window
elements, especially over fong distances, should be avoided.
Large single pane windows occur in the Village, and provide some contrast, as long as they are
generally consistent in form with other windows. Long continuous glass is out of character. Bay,
bow and boz windows are common window details, which further variety and massing to facades
- and are encouraged.
Reflective glass, plastic panes, and aluminum or other metal frames are not consistent in the
Village and should be avoided. Metal-clad or plastic-clad wood frames, having the appearance
of painted wood have been used successfully and are acceptable.
• Staff Response
. The Austria Haus proposal is in compliance with the above-described design
consideration. Staff believes the use of dormers with windows, bay windows and
windows with mu!lions adds to the architectural charm and visual integrity of the Austria .
Haus. Staff recommends that the use of mullions in the windows be a condition of
~ approval.
Doors
Like windows, doors are important to character and scale-giving architectural elements. They
should also be somewhat transparent (on retail cornmercial facades) and consistent in detailing
with windows and other facade elements.
- Doors with glass contribute to overall facade iransparency. Due to the visibility of people and
merchandise inside, windowed doors are somewhat more effective in drawing peoprle inside to
retail commercial facades. Although great variations exist, 25-30% ± transparency is felt to be a
minimum transparency objective. Private residences, lodges, restaurants, and other non-retail
establishments have different visibility and character needs, and doors should be designed
accordingly. Sidelight windows are also a means of introducing door-transparency as a
complement or substitute for door windows.
Articutated doors have the decorative quality desired for Vail. Flush doors, light aluminum
frames, plastic applique elements all are considered inappropriate. As an expression of entry,
and sheltered welcome, protected entry-ways are encouraged. Doorways may be recessed,
extended, or covered.
• Staff Resqonse
Staff believes the applicanYs proposal camplies with the above-described criteria.
• 29
m Trim '
Prominent wood trim is also a unitying feature in the Village. Particularly at ground floor levels, •
doors and windows have strong, contrasting framing elements, which tie the various elements
. together in one composition. Windows and doors are treated as strong visuai features. Glass- ,
wall detailing for either is typicaily avoided. ,
• Staff Res oo nse:
. . Staff believes the applicanYs proposal compiies with the above-described criteria. . .
' DECKS AND PATIOS
Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring people_to the streets,
opportunities to look and be looked at, and generally contribute to the liveliness of a busy street-
making a richer pedestrian experience than if those streets were empty.
A review of successful decks/patios in Vail reveals several common characteristics:
- direct sunlight from 11:00 - 3:00 increases use by many days/year and protects from
wind.
- elevated to give views i= the pedestrian walk (and not the reverse).
- physical separation from pedestrian walk.
, - overhang gives pedestrian scale/shelter.
Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to:
- sun ~
- wind
- views
- pedestrian activity
• Staff Res o nse:
The majority of the decks and patios on the Austria Haus are located on the south side of
the building, facing Gore Creek. These decks and patios are for the use of the guests of
- the Austria Haus and not the general public. Staff does believe, however, that the arcade
designed along the north side of the building will provide shelter from the elements for
pedestrians using the heated wafkway.
~ BALCONIES
Balconies occur on almost all buildings in the Village which have at least a second level facade
walf. As strong repetitive features they:
- 9ive scale to buildin9s.
- give life to the street (when used).
- add variety to building forms.
- provide shelter to pathways befow.
30 , ~
I
7 .
' • Staff RespQnse
~ The majority of the balconies on the Austria Haus are located on the south side of the
building. Several french balconies have been incorporated into the design of the north
side of the building on the upper floors. Staff wouid like to discuss the design and I repetition of the balconies on the south elevation with the PEC and the applicant. Staff
would like to see iess repetition of the balconies, particularly on the south elevation.
~ Ir
They contrast in color (dark) with the building, typically matching the trim colors.
• Staff Response
Like the exterior color of the building, the DRB will be reviewing this aspect of the
proposal.
ize
They extend far enough from the building to cast a prominent shadow pattern. Balconies in Vail
,are functional as will as decorative. As such, they should be of useable size and located to
encourage use. Balconies less than six feet deep are seldom used, nor are those always in
, shade, not oriented to views or street life. I
• Staff Response ,
~ Staff believes this criteria relates to staff's concerns regarding bafconies mentioned ~
above.
Mass
They are commonly massive, yet semi-transparent, distinctive from the building, yet allowing the
building to be somewhat visible behind. Solid balconies are found occasionally, and tend to be
too dominant obscuring the building architecture. Light balconies lack the visual impact which
ties the Village together. -
• Staff Resnon$g
The balconies on the Austria Haus are proposed to be semi-transparent in appearance.
M eri Is Wood balconies are by far the most common. Vertical structural members are the most
dominant visually, often decoratively sculpted. Decorative wrought iron balconies are also
consistent visually where the vertical members are close enough to create semi-transparency.
Pipe rails, and plastic, canvas or glass panels should be avoided.
! 31
C
• Staff Response "
The material to be used in the construction of the balconies on the Austria Haus is wood, ~
with vertical structural members. A detail of the railing will be reviewed by ihe DRB.
ACCENT ELEMENTS
The life, and festive quality of the Village is given by judicious use of accent elements which give
cofor, movement and contrast to the Village.
Colorful accent elements eonsistent with existing character are encouraged, such as: _
Awnings and canopies - canvas, bright co{or or stripes of two colors.
Flags, banners - hanging from buildings, poles, and even across streets for special
' occasions.
Umbreilas - over tables on outdoor patios.
Annual color flowers - in beds or in planters.
Accentlighting- buildings, plazas, windows, trees (even Christmas lights all winter).
Painted wall graphics - coats of arms, symbols, accent compositions, etc.
Fountains - sculptural, with both winter and summer character.
• Staff Res op nse:
- Accent lighting on the building, annual flowers in containers and in the planting beds,
potted trees decorated with Christmas lights and irrigated flower boxes are proposed to
provide colorful accent elernents on the Austria Haus. An additional accent symbol
(clock, crest, etc.) is proposed for the tower at the front entry. The final design has yet to
be determined. *
LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS
Landscape considerations include, but go beyond, the placement of appropriate plant materials.
_ - plant materials
- paving
- retaining walls
- street turniture (benches, kiosks, trash, etc.)
- fighting
- signage
Plant Materials
' Opportunities for planting are not extensive in the Village, which ptaces a premium on the plant
selection and design of the sites that do exist. Framework planting of trees and shrubs should
include both deciduous and evergreen species for year round continuity and interest.
Native plants are somewhat limited in variety, but are clearly best able to withstand the harsh
winter climate, and to tie the Village visually with its mountain setting.
32
I °
~
Trees $11rubs
• Narrow-leaf cottonwood Willow
Baisam poplar pogwood
Aspen Serviceberry
Loclgepole pine Alpine currant
Colorado spruce Chokecherry
Subalpine fir Mugho pine
Potentilla
. Buffaloberry -
• Staff Response A landscape plan has been submitted by the applicant. The landscape plan has been
developed with the assistance of Town staff, since a majoriry of the landscape
improvements are proposed on Town property. The proposed landscape design takes
into consideration factors such as the locat+on of the piantings (sun/shade), maintenance,
climate, etc. Staff believes the landscape design for the Austria Haus complies with the
above-described cr.iteria.
Pavin
The freeze/thaw cycle at this altitude virtually eliminates common site-cast concrete as a paving
. surface (concrete spall). High-strength concrete may work in selected conditions. Asphalt, brick
(on concrete or on sand), and concrete block appear to be best suited to the area.
In general, paving treatments should be coordinated with that of the adjacent public right-of-way.
~ The Town uses the foliowing materials for aN new construction: I
- asphalt: general use pedestrian streets
- brick on concrete: feature areas (plazas, intersections, fountains, etc.)
• Staff Res onse
The paving material used in the public areas around the Austria Haus will be the "Vail",
concrete unit paver, laid in the "Vail-pattern° (herringbone). These surfaces will be -
heated and will incfude the access ramp to the parking structure, the front entry drop-off
area and the pedestrian walkway along the store fronts. The applicant has worked with
the Town staff in developing the design of improvements in the public right-of-way.
Retaining Walls
Retaining walls, to raise planting areas, often protects the landscape from pedestrians and
snowplows, and should provide seating opportunities:
Two types of material are already wel( established in the Village and should be utilized for
. continuity: - split-face moss rock veneer - Village Core pedestrian streets (typical).
- rounded cobble hidden mortar - in open space areas if above type not already
estalilished nearby.
33
. & •
• , taff Resp!Dnse -
No landscape retaining wails are proposed in ihe construction of the Austria Haus. The •
new landscape retaining walis proposed in Siifer Square will match the existing walls in
terms of both type of materials, and application.
Li h 'n
Light standards should be coordinated with those used by the Town in the public right-of-way. _
' • . taff ResRgnse _
As part of the streetscape improvements along East Meadow Drive, the applicant will be
installing six new Village light fixtures. The number and locations of the six new lights
was determined through consultation with Town staff.
Sianaae
Refer to Town of Vail Signage Ordinance
• %aff Re,soonse:
The staff has requested thlt the applicant prepare a cormprehensive sign program for the
Austria Haus. The camprehensive sign program wil{ be reviewed by the DRB.
SERVICE Trash hand{ing is extremely sensitive in a pedestrian environment. Trash collection is primarily
made in off-peak hours. It is the building owners responsibiliry to assure that existing trash
, storage problems are corrected and future ones avoided.
Trash, especially from food servicq establishments, must be carefully conside; ed; including the
following: t
- quantities generated
- - pick-up frequency/access "
- container sizes
- enclosure location/design
- visual odor impacts Garbage collection boxes or dumpsters must be readily accessible for collection at all times yet
fully screened from public view - pedestrians, as well as upper level windows in the vicinity.
Materials
Exterior materials for garbage enclosures should be consistent with that of adjacent buildings.
, 34 ~
i ~ .
Construction
~ Durability of the structure and operability of doors in ail weather are prime concerns. Metal
frames and posts behind the preferred exterior materiais should be considered to withstand the
inevitable abuse these structures suffer.
• Staff Resaonse:
, . The applicant has proposed to incorporate a trash dumpster into the design of the
underground parking structure. The trash dumpster will be compietely enclosed and
accessible from inside the parking structure. Without a restaurant, the building is not 1
expected to generate an unusual amount of trash. The driveway is designed to
accommodate trash trucks. Staff believes the applicant's proposal complies the above-
described criteria.
E. tdentification and mitigation of natural and/or geolagic hazards that affect the
property on which the special development district is proposed.
There are no natural and/or geologic hazards, including the Gore Creek floodplain, that
effect the Austria Haus property.
F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. µThe applicant has revised the site plan in response to comments received from the
~ Planning and Environmental Commission and staff during previaus worksession
meetings. Most importantly, the applicant has shifted the building on the site to further
buffer the surrounding properties. The applicant has designed the building to respect the
50' Gore Creek Stream setback along the south side of the property and is also
maintaining the required 20' setback along the west property line.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and
off-site traffic circulation. -
The Austria Haus redevelopment will have major positive impacts on both off-site and on-
site vehicle and pedestrian traffic systems surrounding the property. Staff believes that
pedestrian circulation will be substantially improved as result of the redevelopment.
Improvements include a new 14-foot wide bus lane and a dedicated, 12-foot wide
pedestrian lane along East Meadow Drive, as well as an improved pedestrian streetscape
along the north side of the building adjacent to the retail shops. The pedestrian
streetscape will be heated, thus providing ice-free and snow-free sidewalks. All new
pedestrian improvements propose the use of concrete unit pavers and will connect into
the existing improvements to the east (Slifer Square), to the west (Village Center) and to
the Vail Transportation Center to the north.
Vehicular circulation will also be effected by the redevelopment. The current parking
situation will be improved by removing the surface parking lot and replacing it with an
underground parking structure and a front entry drop-off area. Access to the parking
structure shall be via a heated ramp located at the west end of the project.
35
I • f
H. Functionai and aesthetic landscaping and open space m order to optimize and . i
~ preserve naturat features, recreation, views and functions. I
The proposed landscape plan will have important beneficial impacts on the quality of the
. public spaces in the vicinity of the Austria Haus, due to the improvements to East ~ Meadow Drive, Slifer Square and the Gore Creek streambank.
The streetscape improvemenis recommended in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master
Plan will be implemented. The improvements will enhance the pedestrian experience
. along East Meadow Drive through the construction of a wider and more attractive heated - •
~ walkway adjacent to the retail shops. The implementation of the streetscape I
•
improvements wi41 separate pedestrians from bus traffic by delineating the pedestrian
areas and bus lanes through the use of different paving surfaces. The 6pplicant has designed improvements to the western portion of Slifer Square. The ~
improvements have been developed with the help of Town staff. The applicant's design
is sensitive to the numerous mature trees existing in Slifer Square. Only those trees
which impact pedestrian circulation, effect sun exposure to the seating areas, and would
otherwise be damaged due to construction, are being removed. The removal of the trees
will be mitigated by the planting of additionai trees elsewhere in Slifer Square.
f Improvements are proposed for the Gore Creek streambank adjacent to the Austria Haus.
The improvements are intended to improve the visual appearance of the streambank and
, stabilize the soil by reducing the grade of the slope and revegetating the bare soils. The
applicant will also be implementing an erosion and sedimentation control plan to prevent
run-off from the construction site irom entering Gore Creek.
1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and •
efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development '
district.
Phasing of development is not proposed. The applicant is required to submit a
construction phasing and staging plan to the Town prior to receiving a building permit.
. The plan will be used to ensure an efficieni and workable relationship with surrounding
uses during the development of the Austria Haus.
- At ihis time, the applicant is anticipating a minor subdivision to amend the location of the
' north property line. The applicant is proposing to trade land with the Town in order to
gain an additional one - two feet aiong the northeriy property iine. 1n exchange for this
I' land, the applicant is proposing to trade a triangular piece of property adjacent to Slifer
~ Square to the Town. Any proposal to trade land with the Town must be reviewed and
approved by the Council.
36 , ~
i .
' V. CRITERIA AND FINDtNGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
~ Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval
of the conditionai use permit based upon the following factors:
A. Gonsideration of Factors:
Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental
_ Commission (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the
Town.
Staff believes that this review criteria has been satisfied as previously
discussed in Section iV of this memorandum.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs.
Staff believes that this review criteria has been satisfied as previously
discussed in Section IV of this memorandum. -
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive -i
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control,
access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and
~ parking areas.
Staff believes that this review criteria has been satisfied as previous(y
discussed in Section IV of ihis memorandum.
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.
_ Staff believes that this review criteria has been satisfied as previousty
discussed in Section IV of this memorandum.
5. Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for a time-share
estate, fractional fee, fractional fee club, or time-share license
proposal, the following shail be considered:
a. If the proposal for a fractional fee club is a redevelopment of
an existing facility, the fractionat fee ctub shait maintain an
equivalency of accommodation units as presently existing.
Equivalency shall be maintained either by an equal number of
units or by square footage. If the proposal is a new
development, it shall provide at least as much accommodation
unit GRFA as fractional fee club unit GRFA.
~ The Austria Haus proposal is a redevelopment of an existing
facility. The Austria Haus shall be required to maintain an
equivalency of the presently existing accommodation units. The
37
c
applicant is proposing to meet the equivalency requirement by. .
replacing an equa4 amount of accommodation unit square footage.
According to as-builts prepared by the appiicant, 10,100 square ~
feet of accommodation unit square footage exists in the Austria
Haus. Calculations of the proposed accommodation unit square
footage indicates that the applicant needs to provide an additional
, 181 square feet of accommodation unit square footage. In order to
meet this requirement, staff would recommend that the applicant
convert the lock-off for Unit # 10 to an accommodation unit. This
. would increase the total number of accommodation units to 26 and - ' - increase the equivalency square footage. • .
~I
b. Lock-off units and lock-off unit square footage shall not be
included in the calculation when determining the equivafency
of existing accommodation units or equivalency of existing
' . square footage.
Even though lock-offs cannot be counted towards meeting the
equivalency requirement, the applicant has maintained 28 lock-off
units in the Austria Haus. The staff and applicant feef these units
will be rented as short-term accommodations and thus enhance
the hotel bed base in Town.
c. The ability of the proposed project to create and maintain a
high level of occupancy.
The Austria Haus proposal is intended to provide additional hotel ~
and "hotel-type" accommodation units in the Town of Vail. The
applicant is proposing to incorporate 22 member-owned club units
(fractional fee club units with 28 lock-off units), with 25
accommodation (hotel) rooms. Although not included in the
equivalency requirement, the fractional fee cfub units have been
designed to accommodate lock-off units. Staff believes that lock-
off units provide an additional community benefit of added
- "pillows". I( a fractional fee club unit owner purchases an interest
in a multiple bedroom unit, and does not desire to utilize all the
bedrooms, they can then have the opportunity of returning the
unused bedrooms (lock-offs) to a renta{ program.
Staff feels that by providing lock-off units, and managing the
~ availability of the lock-oft units in a rental program when not in
use, a fractional fee club project can significantly increase the
i availability of accommodation units in the Town of Vail.
Through our research on the fractional fee issue, staff has
i identified some potential positive impacts of fractional fee units in
the Town of Vail:
A) Activity during the "shoulder seasons" tends to increase
due to an increase in year-round occupancy;
B) The attraction of revenue-generating tourists;
~
I 38 ~
,
,
- C) The efficient utilization of resources. This is the "warm .
beds" concept;
• D) More pride of ownership with fractional fee c(ub units
than with accommodation units;
E) Increased leveis of occupancy; and
F) Increased resort exposure due to the extensive number
of intervai owners.
d. Empioyee housing may be required as part of any new or
•
, redevelopment fractional fee club project requesting density
, over that attowed by zoning. The number of empfoyee housing units will be consistent with employee impacts that are expected as a result of the project.
" The staff included the fractional fee club units into the calculation
of the empioyee generation resulting from the estabiishment of the
Special Development District. Based strictly on the number of club
units, the development will generate a need for 8.8 "new"
employees. When the multiplier of 0.30 is factored in, 3 ot the 11
"new" employees which the developer must provide deed-restricted
housing for, are generated by the fractional fee club.
e. The applicant shall subrriit to the Town a list of all owners of
- existing units within the project or building; in written .
statements from 100% of the owners of existing units
indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed
~ fractional fee club. No written approval shall be valid if it is
signed by the owner more than 60 days prior to the date of
filing the application for a conditional use.
The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., is the sole owner of the
property. No other written approval is required.
VI. STAFF REGOMMENDATION
The staff is recommending approval of the request for the establishment of Special
Development District #35, Austria Haus, and the conditional use permit to allow for a fractional
fee club. The staff believes that all the review criteria have been met, as identified in this
memorandum. We would recommend that the approval carry with the it the following conditions:
1. That the applicant meet with the Town staff, prior to appearing before Town Council for
the first reading of an ordinance establishing Special Development District #35, to
formulate a construction phasing plan and to determine financial responsibifities for the
off-site improvements to Slifer Square, East Meadow Drive and the revegetation of the
Town-owned stream tract, south of the Fkustria Haus. Staff will then make a
recommendation to Council regarding the construction phasing and financial
responsibiiities of the off-site improvements.
~ f:\everyonelpec\memos\sonnensd.224 39
,
. ~
2. That the applicani prepare a deed restriction or covenant, subsect to the Town Attorney's -
review and approval, ihereby restricting the current and future owner(s) ability to locate a
restaurani, or similar food service operation on the Austria Haus property. Said deed ~
restriction or covenant shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's
Office prior to the applicant submitting for a building permit.
3. That the appSicant submit the following plans to the Department of. Community
Development, far review and approval, as a part of the building permit application for the
Austria Haus: -
a. A Tree Preservation Plan;
b. An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan;
c. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan;
d. A Stormwater Management Plan;
. ; e. A Site Dewatering Plan; and
f. A Traffic Conirol Plan.
4. That the applicant provide deed-restricted housing, which complies with the Town of Vail
Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 18.57), for a minimum af 11 employees, and
that said deed-restricted housing be made available for occupancy, and the deed
restrictions recorded with the Eagle County C1erk & Recorder, prior to requesting a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Austria Haus.
5. That the applicant pay into the Town of Vail Parking Fund for the required number of pay- '
• in-lieu parking spaces, as determined at the time of building permit, prior to requesting a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Austria Haus. The applicant shal{ be required ,I
to purchase the pay-in-lieu spaces at the rate in effect at the time of building permit ~
application. ~
6. That tlie applicant either remove that partion of building floor area (enclosed areas)
currently proposed on Town of Vail property (northwest portion of building/porte-cochere),
or appear before the Town Council with a request to subdivide and trade land with the
Town. Should the Council agree to a trade of land, all costs incurred ta accomp4ish the
land trade shall be paid by the applicant. At this time, the applicant is anticipating a
minor subdivision to amend the location of the narth property line. The applicant is
proposing to trade land with the Town in order to gain an additional one - two feet ofproperty along the northerty property line. In exchange fbr this land, the applicant is
proposing to trade a triangular piece of property, adjacent to Slifer Square, to the Town.
7. That the applicant revise the building floor plans to provide at {east 10,100 square feet of
accommodation unit square footage, to conform with the equivalency requirement for
fractional fee club units, prior to appearing before the Vail Town Council for the first
reading of the ordinance establishing Special Development District #35. According to
as-builts prepared by the applicant, 10,100 square feet of accommodation unit square
footage exists in the Austria Haus. Calculations of the proposed accommodation unit
square footage indicates that the applicant needs to provide an additional 181 square feet
of accommodation unit square footage. In order to meet this requirernent, staff would -
recommend that the applicant convert the lock-off for Unit # 10 to an accommodation
unit. This would increase the total number of accommodation units to 28 and increase
the equivalency square footage.
~
f:\everyonelpec\memoslsonnensd.224 40
a .
8. That the following design considerations be carefuliy reviewed by the Design Review
' Board (as previously discussed in Section !V of this memorandum):
* A) That the mullions on the windows and doors, as depicted on the building elevations,
be a required e(ement of the Austria Haus project.
B) That the appl+cant further modify the south elevation of the structure, as this elevation
continues be too architecturally repetitive.
C} That the appficant revisit the originally contempiated design which incorporates the
loading and delivery facility in the underground parking structure. Staff believes that
trying to accommodate loading and delivery in the porte-cochere area will result in
conflicts between pedestrians, vehicles accessing the parking siructure, and delivery
trucks. Statf understands the original design option may not be the desire of the owners '
of the Village Center Condominiums, yet we believe the impact can be mitigated with I
appropriate screening. ,
D) That the improvements recommended for East Meadow Drive, as depicted in the ~
approved Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, be implemented as a part of the Austria l
Haus project. This includes a reduction in street width from 30 feet to 26 feet (14 foot ~
bus lane and 12 foot attached, paver pedestrian walk). ~
E) That the roof ridge of the structure be carried to the east and west ends of the roof, ~
thereby creating gable ends, rather than a clipped hip. Staff does recognizes that the i
. gable roof form may increase the perceived height of the building, especially on the easi - i
and west ends, however, we believe that this will bring the structure more into
comptiance with the Design Considerations. ~
~ F} That the applicant increase the roof overhangs on the building. Currently, the
overhangs vary from two feet to three feet. Staff would recommend that all the roof
overhangs be a minimum of three feet.
G) That a minimum of 25 lineal feet of additional glass area (55%) be added to the
ground floor (north and east elevations) of the structure. This would make the Austria
Haus"generally consistent with the transparency of other buildings in the Village. .
- H) That the appficant review and modify the balcany configuration on the building, in order
to eliminate the repetitive nature of the existing design, particularly on the south elevation.
The majority of the balconies on the Austria Haus are located on the south side of the
building, although several french balconies have been incorporated into the design of the
north side of the building on the upper floors.
1) That the applicant prepare a comprehensive sign program for the Austria Haus. The
comprehensive sign program will be reviewed by the DRB.
~ f:\everyone\pec\memos\sonnensd.224 • 41
!
f
~
• ATT.\C}IY.G%T 1
I
, C
ORDINANCE NO. 22
SEitIES of 1996 ~ I
AN ORDINANCE Ab1GNDING SECTION 18.04, DErINITTONS, ADDING .
"rRA CTIONAL FEE CLU13" AND "rRACTIONAL rEE CLUB UNIT", AME NDING
SGCTtON 18.22.030, CONDITIONAL USCS, ALLOWINC FI2t1CTIONAL FE, E CLUB '
AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION ZONE DISTRICT,
A14IENDING SECTION 18.60.060(A)(7), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA-
FINDINCS.
NVHEREAS, an application has been submitted to amend Sections 18.22.030 and ~
' 18.40.060 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to allow Fractional fee club us a conditional use in dhe Public Accommodation Zone District and to provide criteria and findings applicable to
fractional fee club requests in Vail; and
WHEI2E-AS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the
appropriate parties; und
WHEREAS, on November 25, 1996, in accordance with Section 18.66.140 the Town of
Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held a publ3c heazing on the proposed ;
amcndments and unanimously recommended approval of the Fsmendments to the Town Council;
and '
WHEItEAS, the Vail Town Counc'sS believes that quafity fractional fee club unit are an
. appropriatc means of incrcasing occupancy rates, maintaining and enl3ancing short-term rental
availability and diversifying thc resort lodging market within the Town of Vail; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council belicves that a fractional fee club is a form ofpublic ~
accommodation; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considcrs that it is rcasonabic, appropriate, and
bcneficinl to die Town of Vail and its citizens, inhabitants and visitors to adopt Ordinance No.
22, Serics of 1996; and
WHERE-AS, thc Vail Town Council believes the proposed amcndments are consistent
with its adopted soais, objectives and policies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COWi CIL OF THE TOWN OF
- VA1L, COLORADO, THAT:
SECTION 1
f
Chapter 18.04, Definitions is hereby amended to rcad as follows:
18.04.136 Fractional Fee Club, means a fractional fee project in which each
' condominium unit, pursuant to recorded pcoject documentation as approved by the Town of Vail,
has no fewer than 6 and no more than 12 owners per unit and whosc use is establ'sshed by a
, reservation system. Each of the fractional fee club units are made available for short-term rental
, in a managed prograni when not in use by the club members. Thc project is managed on-site
with a front desk operating 24 hours a day, seven days a wcek providing reservation and
registration capabilities. The project shall include or be proximate to transportation, retail shops, .
eating and drinl:ing establishments, and recreation facilities.
18.04.136.1 Fractional Fee Club Unit - a condominium unit in a fractional fee club
described as such in the project documentation and not an accommodation unit within the . ~
fractional fee club. • •
1 o~a~ w. u.sai, ocivsa
' 18.04.430 Fractional Fce [Delcted] '
~ Sr.C11ON 2 .
Sectioa 18.22.030 - Pubtic Accommodation-Conditional Uses - of the Town of Vai!
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.22.030 Conditional uscs
. The following conditionai uses sha(1 be permitted in the Public Accommodation Zone , Distriet, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 18.60:
A. Professional and business offices;
B. Hospitals, medical and dental clinies, and medical centers; '
C. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fratemal organizations;
D. Ski lifts and tows;
E. Theaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities; '
F. , Public or commercial parking facilities or structures; I
G. Public transpoctation terminals; ,
H. Public utility and pubiic service uses;
1. Public buildings, grounds and facilities; '
J. Public or ptivate schools; ~
K. Public parks and recreational facilities; _ I
L. Churches,
• M. L-ating, drinking, recreational, or retail esiablistunents not occupying more than
10% of the total Gross Residential rloor Area of a main structure or struetures I
located on the site in a iion-conforming multi-family dwelling;
~ N. Major arcade, so long as it does not have 1ny exterior frontage on any public way,
strcet, walkway, or mall arca;
0. Bed and Breakfast as furthcr rcgulated by Section 18.58,310;
P. Type III EHU as defincd in Section 18.57.060; Q. Typc IV EHU as defincd in Section 18.57.70;
R. Fractional fee club as further regulated by Section 18.60.060(A)(7)(a-e),
SF.CTION 3
- Section 18.60.060(A)(7), Conditional Uses Permit cri.teria-fndings, of the "i'owri of Vail
Municipal Code is hcreby amended and shatt read as follows:
7. Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for a time-share estate, fractional
fee, fraciional fee club, or time-share license proposat, die following shail be
considered:
a. If the proposal for a fractional fee club is a redevelopment of an existing
faciliiy, die fractional fee club shall maintain an equivalency of
accommodation units as aze presently existing. Equivalency shall be .
maintained either by an egual number of units or by square footage. If the
proposat is a new development, it shall provide at least as much '
accommodation unit GRFA as fractional fee club unit GRI'A.
b. Lock-off units and lock-off unit square footage shall not be included in the
calcutation when determining the equivalency of existing accomunodation
units or equivalency of existing square footage.
c. The ability of the proposed project to create and maintain a high level of .
~ occupancy.
2 aa~..~.ro. u s.ae or isse
. - i
" I
d. E-mploycc housing units may be requircd as part of any new or ~
redevelopment fraclional fee club project requesting density over that
allowed by zoning. Thc number of employee housing units required will
be consistent with ecnployee impacts that are expected as a result of the
project.
C. The applicant shall submit to thc town a list of all owners of existing units
within the project or building; and written statements from one-hundred
percent of the awners of existing unils indicating their approval, without -
condition, of the proposed fractional fee club. No written approval shall .
, be valid if it was signed by the owner more than sixty days prior to the -
date of filing the application for a conditional use.
Si:C.TION 4
If any pit, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
this ordinance; and tlie Town Council liereby declares it woutd have passed this ordinance, and
each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regctrdless of the fact that any ~I
one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declazed invalid.
i
sF.CTiON S i
The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and dcclares that this ordinance is necessary ~
und ptoper for the heaith, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. ~
~ ST:CTiON 6 ;
The rcpcal or thc repeal and recnactment of any provision of thc Municipai Code of the ~
Town of Vait as provided in this ordinancc shall not affcct any right wliich has accrucd, any duty
imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective Jate hereof, any pcosecution
commcnccd, nor any othcr aciion or proccedings as commcnccd under or by virtuc of the
provision repeaicd and recnactcd. Thc repcal of any provision hcreby sliall not revive any
provision or any ordinancc prcviously rcpcaled or sugerscded unless expressly stated hetein.
Si:CT10N 7
All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are
rcpealed to the extcnt only of such inconsistcncy. This repcalcr shall not be construed to revise
any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed.
' FULL ON FIRST REA.DING this 7th day of January, 1997, and a public hearing shall be held on
p this Ordinance on the 21st day of January, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal
Building, Vail, Colorado.
,
I
i Robcrt W. Armour, Mayor
' aTTEsT: Holiy McCutchean, Tovm Clerk
3
ATTACH.'1ENT 2
a ' • ' ; ' ~ '
~
Pierce, Segerberg & Aszociaces
Memo Archicetts, P.C..A.I A.
To: Joe Treleven Ma'" of"`e
1000 S.frontage Road W. .
. Director, Viilage Center Association V„l,coa16s7
120 Wiilow Brid e Road, #SJ f~ 970 476 4608
g phone: 970 476 4433
Vail, CO 81657
From: Gordon Pierce Denver Oifice
Ref: Landscaping and Planting of Village Center Property 1617 Wazee Streec
suice C 2
Date: February 10, 1997 Denver, CO 80202
(ax: 303 623 2262
phone: 303 623 3355 i
I
As requested by the Town af Vail Planning Department, I am asking if you would sign
below on behalf of the Village Center Condominium Association in that the Austria Haus ~
may landscape on the village center property. ~
~
, A detailed plan of the area between our properties will be forthcoming for your review. I
~
Thank you for your cooperation. ~
~ Sincerely,
PTERCE, SEGERBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C., A.I.A.
ordon . Pierce, A.I.A.
Chairman GRP/jod
Approved by:
~ f:\prj\austria_house\docs\treieven feb 10, 1997.doc
. ATTACIil`iENT 3
Dtrr.OlTlEtTI' GENERATION RATES .
F-M1IUT'I' A
.
I
. SUGGESTED EAfPL01'111ENT CATEGOI2TES AIv'D TZANGES FOR VAIL ,
ExrRESSED AS EhirLOYEr•_S PEn 1000 SQUaRr, FEET ;
RRC REsEaRCK
OVERALL SUGGESTED
. AVERAGES RANGE
I3ar/Restaurant 5.7/1000 s.f. 5-811000 s.f.
Retail and Service Commercial 5.9J1000 5-8/1000 '
Retail: Groccry/Liquor/Convenience 1.8l1000 1.5-3/1040
Office: Real Estate 7.6l1000 6-9/1000
Oftice: Financial ~ 3.1/1000 2.5-411000
Office: Professional/Other . 6.6/1000 5-8/1000
Conference Center NA 1/1000 ~
Health Club NA • 1-1.511000
Lodg;ng* 1.3/room .25-1.25/room L,ocal Government 6.5/1()OQ 5-8i10Q0
Construction (Offices, Interior Storage, etc.) 10.6/1000 9-1311000
- , Multi-Family N/A 0.4/unit
Single Family NiA 0.21unit
I Ocher: To be determined through the SDD .
process, upon submission af adequate ~ .
~ documentation and a review of the ap~slication
materials. .
.
* Lodging/accommodations has particularly large variation of employees per room, depending
~ upon factors such as size of facifity and level of servicelsupport facilities and amenities provided.
The standards present a wide range of employment, but it is anticipated that a definitive report
~ will be submitted by each lodging property requesting an expansion, which would then be ; eQuated on a case-by-case basis.
. . . Multiplier based on density
. • • .'30 if exceeding density ~
' • , ' ,15 if at or below densiCy
R0S1tLL RE}iMEN CARFS , • n rr. R_
ATTACHMENT 4
~ -
.
~ Austria Staffing Itostcr
I'osition hours of opcrition 1997 cm )I 1998 cm ~I. commcnts
Managcr floating I 1
Assistant ilaating I 1
Frasst Des4c ?am to 11 pm 3 5 24 hour dcsk - ' . Dclistaff floating 1 3 parking cC sizc i
r-rotisckccn;?,g 8am to Spm G 10 siu and f{ of rms I
turndown 2 3
I3ar 31)m to midnight 1.5 1.5 ' i
Restaurant Sam to noon - I
. wait 5. 3.5
kitchen 2• 0 contincntal only ~
4pm to midnight ~
wait 4 0 ~
kitchcn 3.5 0 " I
Retail varics 5 iinknown I3uzz'2II&i3
Engincering 71m to 1 lpm I 2 .
Concicrgc ?am to 1 1 am
311111 to 7pin 0 1.5
36 31,5
Scrviccs providcd t'roiii Main 1-fotcl Complcx: I
~
Spa
Golf
/lctivitics
Mnrkcting & Salcs
/lccounting 1Zcscrvatioti 'I'clcphoii
Laundry
Unifoc?ns
Room Servicc
Conference Services
Employee Cafeteria ~ I-Iuman Rcsvurces
I'loral & Decoratian
Lnndscaping . . Bmployee Housing , Purchasing . •
I ~ ~ ~ :t ~ , , . i • • . '
I • . ...•T"t.'. . • I ~ . . : : `
. • . ' ~I
.
~ ` . .
' . , .
' ~•,C - ~ - a ~7 - c--~ T"' - - a - / ~ w2 « wIv[Y: 1/10n5
~ fAST MFMOw ORNE '~f'w' s.........
• ~z • ~ ~ ~ ~ I
' . sr- -`.?Si ~9'' • I
O, R ~ ~ ~ 1 m ~ ,
AiJS MtA NM SE
z. r • , " • .'/J i
1n.lACE CEMEA ' , . . , . _ ~ :r:ilii ~
\ ~K~ Y~-+-~~ ~ • ~ 1 '1. ^R ~ YOVNiNN WWS
eutic a~~ ~
LoT a
~
C, „eIV
it. i
au• LO( b
c. . s rr.r.r c
i:
ie "im~'.• ~
a
.
u.~ u•~nr ~ ' BIOdC 5-0
LOT e ~
• ' CREEffSiDE '
. CONDOAIINNMS ~
, •"'S: .a ra
' r-,,
E:~~c^.ir?:C:~'..;
AUSTRIA HAUS vNU, ooc.oRADo EXISTINa CONDTTIONS
SONNBNALP PROPBR7IE3, ING • . =~~I a=~„~I-~=-°=
' Mw~~~ M~rw~M~ • M
~ f Y r ~
~
` % ~ ~ ' „ ' .
, .
. . ~ ;
.
?
~ o ~ ~ .
1 E
• • . ~ • ~
~ .
\
? . . . ~ . . . .
. . . . ,
. . . . .
. i . ~ . . . . - '
• • ' ,
• ~ : . . ' .
. ' ~a , . . . .
. ~ ~ ~ .
M ej ` . 0!~E
so
•
: : - CREEK.-. CENTER UNE
~ r
• ~ '
\
,
_ _
. . . . : . . . . _ _
~ -
• B i, 8160 _ _ ~c~~
• ~ ~ ~y,~~`~ _
.
~0~~ • • I ' ` BVO
. ~ ~
. ~~,r~~~T - - -
• . - -
p
~
• • ! '
~ ~ -
~ ~ ~ -
VILLAGE CENTER
OUILDOKa •q•
k 000
I
~ 000
~
~ ~n~t on ~ .
eNOUrE~,t
• i
t
ELIFER PLAZA
i ; / ~ -
/ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ : / •
i f"...~
1 _
NSWL 8 CEMER
OPS
I
~
l~
. \
AUSTRIA HAUS v,uz, cot,oR4,no
SONNBNALP PROPBRTIPS, ING • SNOW MELT AREAS
~ . , ~ o~l"NoaIo~ ~I lJ• I.
_
_ ._.r.. . _ . _ _ _ - - - . .
. ,
S.(w!.rl 6
.r . I Mhnr~y I
1
. . ' • taan
' • j ~
Q ~ 3 9 6 1
, :
. ~ ~ , i , ,
' ~ i
~
~ f I
~
• I
I
' - - - - - -
t i
_ _
b h._._r. ~ r .ve~r~ , ~ ; ~
a~-------~ - - , - • _ ~ ~o
_
g _
O . . ~
.
: . , . f
; .
, • ~
, ~ .
: .....;..r. ! : , - `
~ . ! : ~ ~ ~ ~ =
q ' • " ' _ _ . Q
. o--_.._.-~--- ------~----------a~-.-~._:~-___{ ti-- - I i ~ 0---------~--- -----------------I- ;i~; - ~ I~
, L -7-
»
O__._.______..-- ~ ~ ~ , ~ - - -
1" , y r
- ~
r---~
. 'u~c ' , nWt I
. ~.r.
f ~p~rw t.n ~
{ ~ GARAG-E LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 4 fi•
s `!f ve••r.m• - , + It!
, ~ . .~A2.0
s - - - - - - - g
. ,
~ ~
. - ~
_ . . ~ ?Yn w.
~w1 ? '
A~rSl.r~
H/it+~rtp
I ~LA~A
. ~ r II
' tras I~
~ If
I
~
~
;
H ~l ~
Q~ ;
t
+ Ivl
v_~
~v~ ~'o n:=?~ ~'r'_• n"~=?~ n'5:~= n'~"_'~ n'~'c'i`~ ~ia x~`v ~
• .n~ ~w~ ~n) A~oi i
^ I rtooro.i noo~o+i 1
~ I
. ~ ~yk7
~ ~ ~•t
I ~ r~..~n wm woa~ ; H. ~
F . rora ~+~~+wn i iv."p~s~
y lV W'~ ~p~r
• ~ ~.r.. -
~ SEGOND LEVEL FOOR PLAN
i ~A2.2
~ . .
. • - l
s ~
~ .
ArtM.~e
~ , i rc..un
. j
~
. ~
' ~ ~ 3 4 5 `ta7 1 ~ 'L ~
~i~ I tP~am
7tto++~n 7re~+~en ~r#~1+~om 'n ~i°enf
~
-
Peo~ T ~ l! 7'
A: ".:::"P \ ! _ ? ~
. ~ ' _ - - - ~ - - - - - - - { I--~ > 'l
c~v
D;
- ~ ~ -
~
Q - - - > - '
Yll" ~a A1v1
IRAIV. 1dOfWJ ,
B ~ h
eL_ i
o- -
.
1-A-- ~
.
w.~~w~.•__ a
tTK ~
~ ~ ~NH PY ~qh ~
l
• • i~~~r .
.
i FOURTt-f LEvEI FLOOR ?L.oN •"4i t{
Af • N•. 1'.I' Or f I;'S
A2.
. . - - ~ - ~1i ~
. ~ .
• ~ 1 ~ r . ~ .
i
• ,
- - - - , .
- - - - - - - ~ . . . - - - - . - - . - ~ n~„ I
Mw l~ra
M~rce
. ~
' `I b,~
4F
. ~ T n Tl- T T T
I
1 I
1 ,
, - - ~ r~- - - - - - - ~ I , ~
- - ' 1----- f~ - - - - - ' - - Q~c~' ~
~I; E;
,
,.a
oo
#.._OlsO ~I
oeac j - ~t
.
3 - - - - ~ i
o._.____._-------- _ - - - - -
o - . ~
, ..K
l:......... ~
.
.
. ~ - - - _ - - - - ~
~ .
~ ; ' ~ .
- ~ . ,
..1 _
1 I 1~
i .
_ . _ ~ • .
i.i - ~ _ .
o-~--~-~--~--~---- ~ ~ - p
~ -•r
. ~ i>.. r
.
RODF PL-4-N lo_••y~ ~ !
~ - ~ . ~ A2 F,
I
~ ~
-
,
•.L.~1.~
sw~r
~
~ • ~
TT a ~ g
(JI .L s~s.u'io n;~~ ^ ,IjI ~~,,~'.I ;.1;1~'` '_.~v-^HS.,~,_ ~ ~ 4 •3
`
MR •j1 :II;1'~~
~ ~ - ~ -
i~fJ~.l~ ~ . .
• • ` ' ~ i
, easr EMnnor! . ' ' wESr ELEvnnoN • ;1
• ~ ~
• . • . . • . • , f~.. 4•~
. • ~ ~ • r
- . . • p
~ ' • : ' ~ . A3.1
~ ~ .
e....w.
r _
~ .
~
~ ' -
. 14A1w ,
, BALCONY
. ~Y ~ ti....:
BALGONY HALG~ I
1 \ - ~ t I
UN1T '8 ~
(95DFJ"1.)
~ .
. i
.
~ I
UNIT •4
8Df2N. f~ 13DRh7J LOGK OFF
LOC~C OFF (3 BD¢ .l ~ ~
` -
a)_JNIT •8 FLDOR PLAN
~ ~ r• ~
/ •
L-:J ~ BpRI'1.
MAI _ ~7
BDF2J'1. BDCT'7.
BALGONY , H ~
~
BALCON BALCON
NOiEL
ROOM 'I
Botz-t. eo¢^~, uNir
_ _ (_OG<0==) l_CC<,^iF:i BDI~'7. BDRM. lTTP. 3 3DQ7':./ -OCK 0=F
• ~
UNIT •4 FLOOR PLAN l1NIT -g FLOOR PLIrV
_ .:.r ~ L_~; Z7 I"?".. o_~
~ i...
• j .
FLOOR PL.eW - - -
. . ~ A10.1 I~
_ . . . . . .
. o . , y.x..i..i x
c w~~
i
~
I '
~ .
~
. ~ Q 9 .
-G` _ i O< F~ k\ -O_s _ cTi-5 •3.'0 ~ •0~-~' =_^Co 0_1,~ ~
1
~ ,
, ~ - ~
NOT=L
l200M •i ~ ~ -M '3
~ . ~ ....~r . .~~i
, . i
t
: . ~
! 5 UOT:I UtiIT '1 FLOOR PLGV '_C^4
w•.r.e[-7--
\J
_r[vw'Wt 7'.
~ ~ ~ - - ~
r - .
~ .
. . . .
~ t _ _ . . ~r-) -
, Y., . _ _ •~It~
_ r -
"'e. ,7.•'.'! /~i~ ^y~_ - ~iJ i
[ ^J ~ ! y ~J~~ • ' ~
..\.:.r s_~C~
. _ Y ~ y. - "'~i` r - ~ . -
' ~ ! , ~ --y - ^ a~~ _ 3
, ?N~ c F11~,.J ~
East Village Homeowners Associ970-827-5856 04/11/1997 12:06:30 PM P.2
+ EAST VILLAGE HUME4WNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
} Of6cers: President - E3ob Galvin Sccrctary - Gretta Parks Treasurer - Patrick Gramm
Directors - ludith QerkowiV - Dolph Bridgewater - Ellie Caulkins - Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Connie Ridder
To: Chairman and Planning Commission Membcrs
From: Jim Lamont, Executive Director
I
' I Date: April 11, 1997
~ RE: Sonnenalp Austria Haus Special Developmeni District Application
~
The Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association opposes the Sonnenalp Austria
Haus Special Development District as proposed. The Association requests the Town Council to
deny apprqval of the ordinance creating the Sonnenalp Austria Haus Special Development District
for the following reasons.
The requested amount of GRFA exceeds by approximately 91 % that ailowed by the under-
lying Public Aceommodation zone district. Further, all other zoning standards are exceeded in vary-
ing degrees sufficient to cause the bulk and mass of the building to be excessive in the extreme. As a
result the proposal does not conforcn to the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan as
specifically provided for in Vail Village Master Plan and the applicable Special Development Dis-
trict review criterion A, B, D, I' and H.
The Vail Village Master Plan provides for a building height of three to four stories. The
proposal building is five stories. The building height does not conform to zoning height limit of 48
feet for a sloping roof.
GRFAcommon area site covera e and setback deviations are s'
, , g igmficant contributors to the
excessive size and density of the proposed structure and are responsiblc for the project's incompati-
bility with the surrounding neighborhood.
'I'he excessive building size created by the deviations from the underlying Public Accom-
modation zone district creates a grant of special privilege that is denied to all other property owners.
The potential for many other property owners to claim a right to the same grant of special privilege
sets in place a de facto precedent for all properties in all zone districts, with the exception of those
where special development districts are precluded. The resulting effect of estabtishing a de facto
precedent that could pennit the doubling of densities throughout a large area of the community is
unknown and undocumented. As a result, the Vail Comprehensive Plan and other applicable plan-
ning documents do not address the negative consequences that could be spawned by the approval of
the Sonnenalp Austria Haus SDD as proposed. To advocate or promulgate a proposition that may
directly threaten economic stabiliTy and matters of quality of life are a misguided and an unwar-
ranted gamble with the community's welfare. ,
It is the purpose of zoning to provide for the fair, equal and consistent treatment among all
classes of property owners. The 5onnenalp Austria Haus Special Development District breaks all
zoning standards, as well causes the very principles and purposes of zoning to be violated in the ex-
treme. It is now evident that the Special Development District can to be used as an instrument by
Town administrators and the Planning Commission to maneuver Town Councils' to accept extreme
~ Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 ,
Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Message/FAX: (970) 827-5856
i
East Village Homeowners Associ970-827-5856 04/11/1997 12:06:30 PM P.3
EVHl1/Sonnenalp Austria lIaus Special Devclopment District Application 4/11/97
Page 2
deviations from the zoning standards. The Special Development District because of the potential
for abuse and misuse must be either severely restrained or abolished.
The Homeowners Association vigorously objects to the use of the Special Development Dis- ~
trict or any other perrnitting procedures as a method to extort financial exactions from an applicant
in exchange for zoning concessions. Exaction gives both the appearance and the perception of con-
flicts of interests resulting from private negotiation between developers and government officials.
Financial exactions in exchange for zoning concessions undermine the public's confidence in the
government's fair, equal and consistent application and enforcement of zoning standards. If streets-
cape improvements and deed restricted housing units are desirable and can be legally mandated as
an exaction, then they should be universally required in all zone districts.
The Homeowners Association strenuously objects to any condition of approvat that abridges
any applicant or property owners covenanted property right or right of legal protest against the
violation 4f a covenanted property right or any other right of protest. Specifically, the Association
objects to the inclusion of any "not to remonstrate" condition-of-approval that waives or precluded
the legal protest to any violation by the Town of Vail of a covenanted property rights associated with
the Gore Creek stream tract. The Association views any requirement by Town of Vail as an abu-
sive use of its power and authority to impose terms and conditions upon property owners through its
zone enforcement powers that are intended to absolve the Town government of its responsibility, as
a property owner of the Gore Creek stream tract, to abide by covenants restrictions attached to the
stream tract.
. The Homeowners Association respectfully requests that the application for a Special Devel-
opment District for the Sonnenalp Austria Haus be denied.
~
~
I
~
~
Y,.
~ r
~
K3~y Y
wt
~ •y+,~ r ` P . . . i
r~ R
~`•"T~~;;_C.,.,.,~'T'="-c: ~ .-ts , ~ _
.i~~r • ? ~ ~
a ~ .
^r
j
W
~
~
r '
~ .
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Pianning and Environmenta4 Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 14, 1997
RE: A request for a major exterior alteration in the CC1 zone district in order to allow a
deck enclosure 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
1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST 'The applicant is requesting a major exterior alteration in the CC1 zone district in order to add 115 ,
sq. ft. of GRFA. The proposal is to enclose an existing third floor deck on the east elevation of this
building. The addition will extend approximately 4.5' from the existing wall and will also include an 'open deck below the existing windows on this elevation. The deck will include two support beams
which will frame the existing window below on the second floor.
The proposal also adds 29 sq. ft. of site coverage to the site. An improvement survey from 1988 ~
• indicates 5,800 sq. ft. of site coverage. Since 1988, two requests have been approved which add
site coverage. On February 27, 1988, the PEC approved a minor exterior alteration which added
68 sq. ft. of site coverage for The Golden Bear and on November 13, 1995, the PEC approved a
minor exterior alteration which added 25 sq. ft. of site coverage for Lord Latigo. However, The
Golden Bear addition was not constructed and that approval has expired (Feb. 27, 1997).
Therefore, with this request, there will be 5,854 sq. ft. of site coverage. The CC1 district allows
5,870 sq. ft. for this site.
The proposal does not impact the parking requirements for this unit as this unit was previously
accessed at the maximum rate of 2.5 parking spaces (for units over 2,000 sq. ft. of GRFA).
The proposed addition will have a roof height of 30.6' from existing grade, and therefore does not
negatively impact the requirement that 60% of the building not exceed 33' in height.
Staff has received a letter from a neighboring property owner (attached) requesting that loud noise
being emitted from the air conditioning compressor at the A& D Building be carrected in
conjunction with this request. Section 8.24.060, Noise Prohibited, restricts noise emitting from a
property in a commercial zone to 65 decibels, from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., and 60 decibels from 11 p.m.
to 7 a.m. This entire building is owned by the applicant, and therefore, if a violation exists it should
be corrected prior to, or in conjunction with, any permit approval.
• ~
. *VAIL
TOWN
il. ZONING ANALYSIS
The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this CC1 major exterior alteration request: •
Zoning: CC1
Use: Residential Unit
i Lot Size: 0.1685 acres or 7,339.9 sq. ft.
Standard Allowed/Required Existinq Proposed Remaininq
GRFA: 5,872 sq. ft. 5,732 sq. ft. 5,847 sq. ft. 25 sq. ft.
Site Coverage: 5,870 sq. ft. (80%) 5,825 sq. ft. (79.4%)" 5,854 sq. ft. (79.8%) 16 sq. ft.
Landscaping: % No reduction allowed 29.6 sq. ft. - 4 planters n/c n/a
Notes: "The improvement survey dated 1988 indicates 5,800 sq. ft, of site coverage. On 11 /13/95, 25 sq. h. of site coverage was
approved for Lord Latigo bay window improvements. On 2/27/97, 68 sq. ft. of site coverage was approved for The Golden Bear
bay window improvements, however, this request expired on 2/27/97 and therefore does not count toward site coverage on the
site.
lil. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST
The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
The emphasis of this review is on the proposal's compatibility with the zoning code, the Town of
Vail Streetscape Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, the Vail Village Design
Considerations and the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
A. THE TOWN OF VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE •
The A& D Building is located in the CC1 zone district. According to Section 18.24.010 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 Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and
commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The
Commercial Core 1 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
Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to
ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of
buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public green ways, and to ensure
continuation of the building scale and architectur'al qualities that distinguish the
Village."
Sfaff Response:
The proposal meets the purpose statement of the CC1 zone district.
2
'
, .
B. VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
• Several elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan directly address maJ'or exterior
I aiterations. The relevant elements and sections are listed below :
1. Vail Land Use Plan
Goal 1.1 Vaif should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining
a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to
serve both the visitor and the permanent residence.
Goal 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded
whenever possible.
,
' Staff Response:
The proposal meets all of the goals lisied above and is consistent with the Vail Land
Use Plan.
2. Vail Village Master Plan
Some of the goals for Vail Village are summarized below. Each major goal focuses
on a particular aspect of the Village community.
Goal 1: Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique
architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain a sense of
community and identity.
• Goal 2: To foster a tourist industry and promote year-round economic health
and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole.
Staff Response:
This proposal meets all of the goals listed above (see attached applicant
statement). The scope of ihe project is limited to a third floor building modification
and remodel and has little, if any affect, on the building and the area.
3. Streetscape Master Plan
The proposal has little, or no affect, on the issues and concerns found in the
Streetscape Master Plan.
4. Vail Vi{tage Design Considerations The following is a discussion of compliance with the Urban Design Considerations
and the architectural/landscape considerations expressed in the Vail Village Design
Considerations planning document.
Urban Design Considerations ,
A. Pedestrianization:
The proposa/ will improve on-site pedestrian access due to the partial
covering of an exterior stair to the building. The proposal will have no effect
• on off-site pedestrianization.
;
3
B. Vehicular Penetration:
The proposal will not impact vehicular penetration. •
C. Streetscape Framework:
I The proposal will not adversely constrict any pedestrian way.
D. Street Enclosure:
The proposal wiil not affect facade height as it relates to sfreet enclosure as
I the proposed addition does not front on a street.
~ E. Street Edge:
' The proposal will not affect street edge considerations.
F. Building Height:
The proposal will add approximately 29 sq. ft. of roof area. The entire
addition is below 33' in height. The building will remain in compliance with
the 60140 roof height rule for ihe Vail Village.
G. Views and Focal Points:
The proposal does not impact this consideration.
H. Service and Delivery: •
The proposal will have no impact on existing loading and delivery services.
1. Sun/Shade:
~ Due to the existing height and orientation of fhe building, the addition of the
proposed building area will not extend shadows or interfere with any
i adjacent property's light.
i
;
r
,
~
•
4
N. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
• Staff recommends approval of this application for a major CC1 exterior alteration subject to the
following findings:
1. That the proposed exterior aiteration is consistent with the Zoning Code, the Vai{
Comprehensive Plan, the Urban Design Guide Plan, and the Vail Village Master
Pian.
2. That the proposed exterior alteration promotes the public health, safety, and welfare
of the community.
The recommendation for approval is also subject to the following condition:
,
1. Prior to obtaining a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or a Final Certificate of
Occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that any noise emitted from the air
conditioning compressor is in compliance with Section 8.24.060 of the Municipal
Code. Staff wi{I measure the noise emitted, in accordance with the code. if the
noise exceeds the limitations found in this section, the applicant shall modify and/or
buffer the facility so that compliance is achieved.
•
,
. Fiie: i:\everyone\pecMemos\a&dbld.414 5 ti
~
~
;
w~awr~rra~ .~~a ~ ru~ rar ~.r r +o.ro...a~eo~wr . VIIIJIClCORi
- -
vuM~waY • ww.+a~..e.awwrww.w~ O1"O~O°' - mnwrmisfI"X ouaAMaToIs
pp~pp~r wr.~~ru~wwr~~ ruro~Y~te oru~t7o I
• ~/~f~lolOOO~Owo~s~0 111100MWOOAl1dM0IlLVIO
r~erll~wta0 1SYMpMU7qM flwMf RihC[ AMu
\y • YY\l CMKM~MY Krt/TY~tl ~~t ~JYYI~'O~t17~~.
. ' WwOrii 0~~1~ YY ~I ~ • •
Yrr _magEtcomlooi?ouamrom
~oaw
suo"l" pm
wcnr.ort ~ ~oc~
covt
~ O-. . Unreao tsaal uc NuosCMtt M rurr .
. NwM .r.,ro.Mff...M..om.o
crulam"w mrs em njma~~v.y was u rn !
M
RACa 7EY11 Yl.~Rlldil
' OOIt uft"fW W- am NoJMm"
-lffwYOrOOO~OYAOmmfIM7tDi /
• o .~,1T ~MfOi42rRSmiI j( 'o • ~00?WM~Km70~[OOtlJC~0~1~~~iP
• GSi~w :j1 SCLOW MYW4RM011Oti70~v00
. ~ • AO~tba ,.f~ .
a«a to.~fw
, ~ -
or . .
,
,MO
• : : y J
t ,q
• ~ ' . ~ t i : . ~--r . . i a~`'i l _
' r - ~ ~yE .t , _ . ~ ~ w ror.ais ~.r~ • I
900cm • . _ - t ' .40
. + ~f *a uooac.r Wa
raa . eo~ w~a o uaU uvo waurc
' o~~.r~pu~~~v..m • rraot ' J T- ~
o.o ~ UML CPatw s
- ~ • RY/Ir A W~t~~~f ~IOM~ ~ ~ 1 - t .
. j
. wraso~r . c~~,~ Now~o r.~as : ~ . . .
n.AZA ,
• M~~OI~ A J~aVI! fYY I~ a01~ O LOOa ~p •
~1IV~~~O~MCORNis • ~ t • _pr' • •
. r~r nrwrs ,oos ~oas r J~ i( Y'" S.. •
i. O~~Mr1r~1 ~ ~ OwNwY {ppp[
MI11~O1 -
B ~ .,,e..,.~ ~ :
ow~ert~awa~
? Y ;QRACE ISlOUa0O0 ' ~ rram~mino~s~
= s
~-unm ..m..~ • iHVErrroaYiANALYSIs
- ~ ~»w-~ VILLAGE CORE
[3
SrnoWDAW rM
• . A~ ~ ~DI MMa' ~_+1
ME=
~ ONMNMIO ' ,
WoCYOY11i1/ • .wat ' .
~ ~
ry ; -
2
P'y
f ~`r ` '~~w~ ~ ' • ~ ~ r, ,
~~F pi{ IE PCf~H ~~~Z PI , ~p,: r I
t
• ~ • ~ ~ •
3
. ~1~ ~ ] ' • ~ • I~~
j tY~• t • { I
,4_.__ bu G?~~~` , .
. ~ •r""_...-;..-
. , ,
anv
' , o~, i; ~p. d~', ;r,~` .
vr~
5~
. - { r • . 1
Y~` s
. ~ ~.j ~~1~~ o. ?
~ ~'f?~
~ . •
:
i
I ~
~
t `
. ;
. •
.
.
Io~ l0~/2 -b
~
- 'i~ \ T ~ - . ,
,Ey'~ . ~ •~i . ~ . ; /~~j T'~ !~Y'~ •
~ ' ' ~0!''~j'~,G~ ~;,~~.'r{~, ~~/f./~^.: (~/O~ -
1-ih4
~
' ~ ~1'' ~~~LI15`~') %.~:~~~f ~ pr~~'f~
~ r`' I . ~ 'x;~,` ,~qh~*;~ ~ t,', ~
~ v , ~ .
~a" { , _ 'l y~ •\F` ~,y ~ Y~ .
.ti• 2 .
r
(1,~~t ~ oF h•~~~~ ~ ' ~ t~C~ b~~ .
J-iv
~Di 30 I : ?t~f ' ' r;:' , `
ct~;
UN
~i4.~ N8 , i~ o ~ ~ ~5'~- o Y,441
F 14 ~*1.
• ~ ~t' _ ~ . ~
• ~ ~ N - - ' ~ - ` f4
1 ~
~ - t.......J.rj ~ 14 liYf_L.. t~_~ ~-b_ hl ~L
• . -r0 }~f'~l/~"` GY~;~>'!~i'~4 •
- " 3~ ~ I x ~2 I~~~ ~It~t'~
T~t-~ I LTt~~
~
li S '
~'CtP~
, o ' . - ~ I ~v 1"~ ~b I~'!~ l t • It~'f'~b
I~'G!-~ - -.jj=f.r • -~"o h'~`r'~.N ~~~5-'f'lt~ . _ " ,
Z
3ru
4~ U I~A~( Z)
al~t~~7
Ms+~ f~~l5te
. ~
O~H
>
1oti • yi/I ~ /~1~ ~ - -
. i
_ . ~ 05.~ p. . .
. ~X •
Fi~PI~FI-u~ c.qp
~ - ~ ~ ~
f-----. . _ pt.Y MkMhP~'~Ne
~n}~~P`
- ' ;d,.~'.,E~.:~ ...y r L'~Cj°P•~`~S~ p~
lx Wa. FRSC.Ia
- jx vr-r-'f. Wo, SIptNG
i ~ - NRNDKAt4 4Ri~~FYa~ - SEE
I .
~I
~IT~~co J11?1 ?'t.ic,~. ;oU
Flo?" - ~
~
L
L. ~
~
' ~
. . i
. . - i~ANDRQI~ 4~1~6R ~
• i
~ I f-` AtUM_IfyLlM 514NA4* BpnC
- - .
• - ; .
~ar_ 7 I,a.ta .
,
. _ ~ i
' _ . . • _.....4' 3'fo(`i~ V~N~~rR ~
. - - ~ r
. {
' : i • N~.1 1"oN , WA.t6
-~E----------• ..._.._._.__.---._'j ~ISTIN~ I"aN~ W~•t-vs,
. . 4` •
~ ~ .1+? ~ p I~ ll ! 1 C~ G ~ ~/.d? ! i Gs~ . ~ 'l~'1?~~°~'~ • ~ q (~~t ?
~~0'~'
Snowdon and Hopkins • Architects
, • 201 Gore Creek Drive 970 476-2201
Vaii, Colorado 81657 FAX 476-7491
I
Mr. Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP 3/ 20 / 9 7
Town Planner Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Application for a Major Exterior Alteration on the A& D Building, 286 Bridge Street
;
Dear pominic:
In response to your 3/5/97 letter, attached is an updated package of information for PEC
review on 4/14/97.
Your request for additional height analysis is provided on the attached roof plan (1/16" _
1'0") indicating areas above (70%) and below (30%) the 30' height limits. The ridge heights were taken from a view analysis survey by Eagle Valley Surveying, Inc. (attached), and original
grade elevations shown on RLA drawings dated 7/19/85. ,
Exterior lighting is anticipated for the expansion. One new wall fixture will be added to
the east elevation as shown on the attached partial east elevation and polaroid photo(s) to match
~ existing wall fixtures. As part of the remodel, two ceiling/soffit mounted glass domes are to be
removed.
Also shown on the partial east elevation are the materials and colors for the proposed
expansion. The railing balusters and top trim, the wood siding and soffit, the fascia boards,
metal flashing and roofing membrane will all match existing materials and colors of the
buiiding. The deck trim and structurai knee braces will be painted to match the deck raiiing cap.
No new colors are proposed at this time.
As we had discussed on 2/28/97, I thought I had responded to the CCI, Vail Village
Urban Plan, Master Plan and Streetscape Plan issues in my 2/24/97 letter. I will try to be more
specific this time around. Per section 18.24.065, an exterior aiteration within CCI must comply
with the purpose (Sectian 18.24.010) of CCI. The proposal shall:
l. Maintain the unique character of the Village - The proposal does so by
providing an articulated balcony/deck, woodsiding and smaller scale bays and
windows.
2. Reinforce the pedestrian environment - The proposal does this by adding
protection to existing exterior stairs and providing improved interaction with
at gra.de activities by placing the exterior balconyJdeck out on the face of the
buiiding (rather than tucked into a recess) enctiuraging use.
3. Provide adequate light, air and open space. This is maintained by working
within the general mass of the existing building and not impacting sun/shade
on existing plazas and walkways.
.
4. The maintenance and preservation of the building fronting on pedestrian ways •
and public greenwaysfand the continuity of building scale and architectural
qualities are reinforced (as responded to below, in the Vail Village Urban
Design :guidelines) by the deck and building expansion matching existing
materials and colors.
The "Vail Village Urban Design Guideline" issues are as follows:
1. destrian lazas/walkw n
F - pe r ays • an1 near thc prorosal arc
unaffected by the expansion, and an onsite staircase from ground level to the
second floor is made more user-friendly by providing protection (with
,
' deck/building/roof overhang) from the elements.
2. Vehicle Penetration - traffic is not a factor as addition areas added do not
increase density or uses that would require increased use and/or traffic.
3. Streetscape Framework - the open space/landscape aspects of the pedestrian
. way is unaffected (all plaza.s, walkways and planter areas at grade remain); the
infill is residential in nature therefore not generating commercial activity;
however, the improved balcony location does add interest to the pedestrian
route along the stream.
4. , reet nclo ur (as noted in 2/24/971etter) is given a visual boost by
providing a third floor deck and railing facade to a fairly flat section of
building wall face; and by adding a smaller scale roof element to soften the
strong unbroken roof line of the east facade. •
5. Street Ed~e is again reinforced by breaking down the east building facade into
smaller scaled architectural elements consistent with a more pedestrian
environment.
6. Building Height proportions are maintained by providing a new, smaller scaled
roof element within the required 30' height limit percentages (60% less than
30'/40% more than 30') as shown on the attached roof plan.
, 7. Views are maintained by keeping the proposal within the general mass of the
existing building and roof line (as shown on the partial east elevation).
' 8. Service and Deliverv is maintained via the existing east side plaza and is
improved by providing some weather protection to the exterior stair (as noted
previously).
9. Sun/Shade is unaffected, as the new additionis within the existing roof mass
of the building and no increased shade areas are created on adjacent
pedestrian/vehicular ways.
"Architectural and Landscape considerations" are also improved by this proposal.
Roofs are improved by providing a smaller scaled'roof element to reduce the
image of the strong east roof line; while maintaining consistent materials,
overhangs and details of the existing building.
Facade,s, are improved by providing a new deck/balcony to the east wall, creating
shadows, deta.il, color and relief to the 3 story facade. The expanded living area
~
~ •
• pulls a window to the front face of the building instead of being in the shadow of
a recess. The wood sided facade adds contrast to the largely stucco building.
lJecks and Patios at street level are predominately used for circulation and
continue to function as such.
Balcpnies are improved upon by taking a shady recessed deck and pulling it out to
the surface and sunny facade of the building providing:
I, scale to the building
2. life to the street (when used)
3, variety to the building form
4. shelter to the pathways belaw.
,
' The sculpted balusters are open, add a contrasting color and create shadow
patterns on the back walls. Supporting structural knee braces below add detail to
the building.
Accent Elements and Landscape ~F m nts are combined by the attachment of
. flower boxes to the new deck/balcony railing providing detail and color to the
building. '
Service will continue to be managed as it presently exists (lodge managernent will
dispose of trash on a regular basis off-site). ~
The "Vait Village Master Plan" places the A& D Building into CCI Sub-Area #3 which
• responds to the Mill Creek Stream tract and Mill Creek Commercial Infill. The pedestrian ,
aspects around the A& D Building need to be reinforced by any expansion and the architectwal
character of the Village Cor.e must be maintained. This expansion does that by providing a more
inviting facade to the pedestrian plaza and stream tract to the east and creating design elements ,
(balcony, railings, facade relief, interactive use, smaller roof elements and windows) which '
reinforce the "character of the Village" as noted previously. Section 3.4 calls for special
emphasis on Qbjective 2.4 (new activities compatible with existing uses) which this proposal
does by providing a better residential property heavily used via short term rentalfvisitors (via the
Christiania Lodge) to the valley. Ob,j.ective 2.5 (continued upgrading, maintenance of existing
lodging facilities to serve our guests) is again reinforced by the creation of a more "desirable"
residential unit in the village core. Obj.ective 3.4 (develop walkways, aceessible green spaces,
pocket parks and stream access) remains unaffected as the proposed expansion is on upper levels
within the main mass of the building allowing ongoing use of the spaces below. Objective 4.1
(improve open space , over all fabric of the village) is met by improving the interaction to these
open spaces by adding visual dynamics of the improved deck/balcony to the fabric of the village,
and Objective 6.1 (provide service and deliveo is met by creating a more weather protected
covering to the existing exterior stairs.
The Streetscape Master Plan as it relates to the A& D Building was to provide improved
walkways, plazas and landscaping to Gore Creek Drive and the Iviill Creek Stream tract. The
redevelopment of the property in 1985-86 responded well to tie into the master plan concepts.
This addition reinforces the streetscape plan by maintaining the paver patios and walkways
asked for in the plan; adding potential design elements (deck, railings, support anns) capable of
• supporting flower boxes and hanging baskets; and maintaining the pedestrian scaled lighting of
~
~
~
I
the area by replacing 2 ceiling lights with a more subdued wall canopy light to match existing .
lamps on the building.
I hope this responds to your 3/5/97 concerns, and if additional information is needed,
please let me know.
Sincerely,
,
,
- Craig Snowdon, Partner
Snowdon and Hopkins Architects
•
.
.
I
~
I ~ •
'
` SENfi 6Y:GROW SURGICAL GROUP ~ 3-24-97 ;11:58AM ~ 303861093-~ 9704792452;# 1
COL.ORA[a0 CARDidVASCULAR SURGICAL, ASSOCIATES. P.G.
CARDIOVASCULAR AND THQRACIC SURGERY
• • TRANSPLANT SURGEI~Y
DwYiD H. YQl}Np~ M.D. OAPn81. L. SMtTN, m,D,
RIGHJ?RD K, PARKER, M.D. MYLES 8. C3USBR. M,D,
JAME$ A. NARROD, M.D. ROY E. CARL60N, M.D,
DAVID W. NE1..SON, M.D. RANDOLPH M. Ki88LXR, N(,p,
NORTH OF'IICE sourH oFFIc9
1601 EABT 19'i-H qVeNU6, SUrrE $300 950 E. H,1RVARD. $Urm 650
DE7VYEH, COLORAbp 8021$ DSNVER, COLORADp $0210
PHONE: (303) 801-$158 PHONE: (903) 77$•0327
FAX: (308) 861-0839 FAX (:309) 733~7288
March 22, 1997
Mr. Dominic Mauriello
Community bevelopment Department '
Town of Vail
Vail, Colarado 81657
Fax Number: (970) 479-2452
RE: Planning and Environmental Commission's Meeting of
Marah 24, 1997, 2:00 p.m.
~ Qear Mr. Mauriello: ,
I am writing to you to have a written comment regardfng the
proposed applioation presented today on the 286 Bridqe street propasal. As I 1.ive at 303 E. Gore Craek Drive, 2A and 2D, = am
quite con+cerned about this projeat.
With their last renovation, they placed their heatinq and air
oonditioning campressor on the back side of t,he buildiAg. Thfs
is vented so as to provide gsignificant noise problem for tbose
peaple at the back of the building. As soon as their la?et
projeot was completed, = happened ta be there and complaiaed
significantly about tho nofae of their air conditionirrg Compres-
sor. I filed an environmental complaint that the anviranmontal
Officer noted that this compressor exceeded the decibel amount
that is allowed under muna.cipal guidelines. However, ae thie
preject was completed, I apparently had no recourse. I
oomplained to the managor of this buildinq, and bis xesponse to
me by teleghone was most verbally abugive.
As the naise of thie compressor does nat alio~? me to hear the
Baunds of the street, the souncis of Mill Creek running by my town
h4User nor to even a].1ow me to sle+sp with my bedroom door open at
night due tv tha noiee, Y find this to be an environmental
nuisance. T, therefore, request that with this next application
for exterior alteration, eonaideratian be given to require the
owners of this buildinq to mave the compressor to the roof of the
• building where it would be vented into the upper air and not
SENT BY:GROW SURGICAL GROUP ; 3-24-97 ;11:59AM ; 303661093-t 9704782452;# 2 ~
~ Mr. Domfnic Mauriello •
RE: Planning and Environmental Commissionts Meetinq
~ MBrCh 22, 1997
Pmqe a
~ reverberate between builciinqs in tha quiet pnrt af the city. Xf
thig aas so noisy that it required them to put it at the back af
the building, why didn•t they try and put it at the front of the
building whGre it would be objectionable to their patrons. I do
not understand how it can be so abjeationabie that they wis?h to
hide it from their patrons, but they can eubject their good
I
neighbors to thig noiae.
' As a 21-year resident of the core village at Vail, I have found
this to be ona of the maet obncxioua and objectianable thinqs
that has occurred to my property. Your guidanae and thonghts on
thia matter and your repraeentation of this comment at this
meating, is qreatly appreciated. Ag I am unabZe to attend the
meetinq at the last minute due to eme'rgency scheduling, r greatly
appreciate the Planninq and Environmental Gommission's commentg
and support.
Sincerely,
~
.
~ Riahard K. Parker, M.D.
~
RKP/PTN 7537
I
~ .
~
I •
` •
.
'
.p .
MEMORANDUM
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 14, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a minor exterior alteration in the CC1 Zone District and a request for
a site coverage variance from Section 18.24.150, for a commercial storefront
modification and an expansion to the outdoor dining deck, in the Red Lion
Building, located at 304 Bridge Street/Lots E, F, G, & H, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1 st
Fiting.
;
Applicant: Landmark Commercial Development, represented by Morter Architects
Planner: Tammie Williamson
DESCRlPTION OF THE REQUESTS
The Commercial Core1(CC1) Zone District requires Planning and Environmental Commission
(PEC) approval of an exterior alteration which adds square footage to a building (ocated with the
district. This proposal includes the addition of an 8.5 square foot bay window (The Chocolate
Factory) to the south side of the Red Lion Building and a 24.75 square toot expansion to the
existing dining deck on the west side of the Red Lion Building.
• Additionally, the applicant is requesting a site coverage variance. In the CC1 Zone District , at-
grade patios and bay windows are considered site coverage and the maximum site coverage
allowed in the CC1 Zone District is 80%. The site currently has 83.1% of site coverage. The '
proposed additions totaling 33.25 sq. ft. would increase the site coverage of this site to 83.3
or an increase of 0.2%.
This proposal seeks to address issues of maintenance and upkeep as it re(ates to drainage, the
retaining wall located on Bridge Street and the landscape planters. The applicant is proposing to
correct the drainage deficiencies on-site by connecting the down spouts to existing underground
drainage facilities. The retaining wall is currently in a state of disrepair. The applicant is
proposing to replace the existing retaining wall in order to correct the noticeable bowing of the
wall. The new wall be engineered with adequate drainage facilities to prevent the roof run-off
from causing additiona( damage. The proposed wa(I is to be constructed of brick to match the
existing brick material of the building. Interchangeable ski and bike racks are proposed as part
of the building improvements around the entire building.
To provide more of an identity to the individual shops on Hanson Ranch Road, the applicant is
proposing a bay window at the Chocotate Factory in addition to other cosmetic improvements.
The remaining shops on Hanson Ranch Road, Cleaver's Deli, The Club and Charlie's Vail Gear
are receiving facade irnprovements. New side light panels and new windows are proposed for
The Chocolate Factory and The Club. All roofs are proposed to have copper flashings with a
built-up fascia. The shops wilf have new tongue and groove soffits with recessed down lights.
The base of the building will be brick and the bay windows will have a copper base. Additionally,
The Chocolate Factory and The Club will have a copper roof.
•
1
rowNO
*VAIL
, 4.
The existing landscape planters along the south elevation of this building are proposed to be
removed in their entirety. The applicant believes the existing planters impede pedestrian activity
in the general area of the-shops along Hanson Ranch Road, therefore, the proposal is to remove
the landscape planters that exist on the south side of the site. This would result in a ioss of 85.3
square feet of landscape area along this frontage. The proposal is to locate one Patmore Ash
tree at the corner of building adjacent to Cleaver's Deli in a tree grate. The applicant is also
proposing an additional landscape area on the corner of the building and to expand other
(andscape areas along Bridge Street. The applicant's request results in a 138.3 sq. ft. gain of
landscape area to the site mainly along Bridge Street, and a 85.3 sq. ft. loss in landscape area to
the site along Hanson Ranch Road. This is a net increase of 53 sq. ft. The applicant is
, proposing to provide handicap access to the Red Building adjacent to Hughe's. The two Village
Light fixtures on site will be replaced with the same type of lighting. The applicant also indicates
additional seating areas along Hanson Ranch Road. These seating areas will have to be
approved by a conditional use permit at a later date.
The applicant is also proposing to screen the gas utilities on the east portion of the building.
I!, ZONING ANALYSIS
Legal Address: Lots E, F, G, H, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1 st Filing
Lot Size: 13, 957.9 sq. ft.
Zoning: Commercial Core 1 (CC1)
' Use: Commercial/Residential upper floor
Allowed/Reauired Existinq Prooosed
Site Coverage: 11,166.32(80%) 11,596.75 (83.1 11,630.10 (83.32%) •
' Landscaping: No net loss 548.3 sq. ft. 601.3 sq. ft.
` Net Increase oi 53 sq. ft.
II1. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A MINOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION
The Town of Vail Municipal Code established the review criteria for a request of this nature. The
emphasis of this review is on the proposal's compatibility with the Zoning Code and the Vail
Comprehensive Plan, including the Vail Land Use Plan, Vail Village Master Plan, Streetscape
Master Pian, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design
Considerations.
A. THE TOWN OF VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE
The Red Lion Building is in the CC1 Zone District. According to Section 18.24.010 of the
Zoning Code, the purpose of the CC1 district is:
"The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the
unique character of the Vail Viliage Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges
and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The
2
, •
, Commerciai 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 Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are
intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightiy clustered
arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and
to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that
distinguish the ViNage."
Staff Response:
Staff believes the proposed minor exterior alteration of the 8.5 sq. ft. bay window
addition to the Chocolate Factory and the 24.75 sq. ft. outdoor dining deck
expansion is in compliance with the Purpose Section of the Commercial Core I
; Zone District as stated above. We also believe that the proposed building
additions will have a positive effect on the overall appearance of the building, as
viewed from the pedestrian level of Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road.
However, staff believes that the remodel of landscape areas along Hanson Ranch
Road is inconsistent with this purpose statement.
B. VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1. Vail Land Use Plan
The following are the goals of the Land Use Plan that are relevant to this
• proposal.
Goal 1.3 The quaiity of development should be maintained and upgraded
whenever possible.
Goal 1.4 The theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new
deveiopment in the Village Core tnrough continued implementation
of the Urban Design Guide Plan. I
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, cosmopolitan feeling,
environmental quality.)
Staff Response:
Staff believes the proposed building additions are consistent with the goals listed
above, but that the removal of landscaping will detract from the scale,
environmental quality, and natural setting of the building.
2. Vail Village Master Plan
The following are the goals and objectives of the Vail Vil(age Master Pfan which
are relevant to this proposal:
• Goal 1 Encourage high quality redevetopment while preserving the
unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its
sense of community and identity. '
3
i, L
I
1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of
residential and commercial facilities. ~
Goal 3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the waiking
experience throughout the Village.
3.1 Objective: Physica((y improve the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other improvements.
3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall
incorporate streetscape improvements (such
as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting
and seating areas), along adjacent
~ pedestrian ways.
3.1.3 Policy: Flowers, trees, water features and other
landscaping shall be encouraged throughout
the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible
from, public areas.
3.3 Objective: Encourage a wide variety of activities, events, and
street lifie along pedestrian ways and plazas.
3.3.2 Policy. Outdoor dining is an important streetscape
feature and shall be encouraged in
commercial infill or redevelopment projects. •
Goal 4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green
space opportunities.
4.1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new
plazas with green space and pocket parks.
Recognize the different roles of each type of open
space in forming the overall fabric of the Village.
4.1.2 Policv: The development of new public plazas, and
improvements to existing plazas (public art,
streetscape features, seating areas, etc.),
shall be strongly encouraged to reinforce
their roles as attractive people places.
4.1.4 PolicY: Open space improvements, including the
addition of accessible green space as
described or graphically shown in the Vail
Village Master Plan and/or Urban Design
Guide Plan, will be required in conjunction
with private infill or redevelopment projects.
Staff Response:
This proposai does not adequately address Goal 3, Objective 3.1 and Policies
3.1.1, 3.1.3, and Goa! 4, Objective 4.1. and Policy 4.1.4, of the Vail Viilage Master •
Plan. The applicant contends that the existing landscape planters on Hanson
4
Ranch Road do not funetion, and impede the pedestrian flow in this area. These
• areas do not function because they are not properly maintained by the applicant
and are aifowed to becorne eyesores +n the winter months. Staff believes
landscaping is critical along the south frontage of this building and should not be
substantially reduced. Staff suggested placing severa( large trees in tree grates
along this frontage to help mitigate the loss of the landscape areas. The applicant
+s proposing one tree on(y. The proposal as it exists is not adequate +n the way of
replacement materials on this port+on of Hanson Ranch Road.
The proposed minor exterior alteration is consistent with established zoning and
the existing uses in the area. Overall, the staff believes that the proposed building
alterations enhance the appearance of the buiiding.
3. Streetscape Master Plan
, The Sfreetscape Master Plan identifies improvements to be made in the vicinity of
the Red Lion 8uilding. The plan specifies the need for additional landscaping
along with design details to enrich and integrate the pedestrian village.
Staff Response:
This proposal falls short of ineeting the Streetscape Master Plan for this area.
4. Vail Village Design Considerations
The foNowing is a discussion of compliance with the Urban Design Considerations
• and the architectural/landscape considerations expressed in the Vail Village
Design Considerations planning document. 'i
;
Urban Design Guide Plan for Vail Villaae
" Facade improvements, eyesores removed, increased facade !
transparency, entries simplified and oriented to intersection."
" Facade improvemsnts, increased ground floor transparency." Pedestrian walkway defined (by paving, planters, lighting, benches, etc) ~
to avoid traffic conflicts and unify diverse, disconnected building facades."
Staff Response:
Staff be(ieves that the facade improvements of the bay window and the ~
expansion of the outdoor dining deck is a positive addition to the Red l.ion
Building and Vail Village. The proposal does address some of the criteria
of the Urban Design Plan for Vail Village. However, a critical component
of compGance is the pedestrian walkway's definition and enhancement by ,
the addition of planters, pavers and lighting. Staff is of the opinion that
this element of the proposal is inadequate and would only serve to lessen
the pedestrian experience within the Village.
~ 5
~
I
i
Urban Design Considerations
, The following design considerations are a critical element of the Urban •
Design Plan. They identify the key physical characteristics of the Viilage
and provide the tools to ensure that new development is consistent with
the established character. The design considerations include the
following:
A. Pedestrianization:
I
The proposed minor exterior aiteration to add a bay window and the
addition to the outdoor dining deck, in conjunction with the commercial
storefront modifications wili improve the pedestrian experience within the
Viilage, however, the removal of landscaping in this area wil) lessen the
pedestrian experience.
B. Vehicular Penetration:
Vehicular penetration and circulation will remain unchanged as a result of
this proposal.
C. Streetscape Framework:
` The proposed minor exterior alteration and the addition to the outdoor
dining deck, in conjunction with the commercial storefront modifications,
will enhance the streetscape. As a resutt of this proposal, quality building
upgrades, for the individual shops fronting on Hanson Ranch Road wili be ~i
an asset to the Village, however, the removal of landscaping along S I
Hanson Ranch Road will have a negative effect on the streetscape ~
framework.
D. Street Enclosure: Due to ihe location and the relatively small size of the proposed
improvements, it is staffs opinion that the proposal will have minimal
impact on street enclosure.
E. Street Edge:
Staff believes that an element of the proposal, which includes a new
landscape configuration on the corner of Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch
Road, will better delineate the street and building edge which will serve to
increase pedestrian activity and interest at the Red Lion Building. The
proposed facade improvements along Hanson Ranch Road provide a
strong street edge by adding individual character to each 6usiness.
However, this street edge will be reduced along Hanson Ranch Road due
to the removal of iandscape areas.
6
, •
i
' F. Buitding Height:
• Building height will be unaffected as a result of this proposai.
G. Views and Focal Points:
' The proposal does not aftect any of the Town's adopted view corridors.
i
H. Service and Delivery:
This proposal wi(l not affect current service and delivery.
1. Sun/Shade:
There wil( be no increase in the shaclow patterns as a result of this
proposal, as it is located within the existing shade patterns of the building.
Architectural/Landscape Considerations:
A. Roofs
The roof forms, roof pitch, and roof overhangs with the ornamentation of
_ exposed wood beams and copper flashings, proposed for the shops
located on Hanson Ranch Road, are consistent with the plan.
~ B • Facad-es '
The facades of the shops located on Hanson Ranch Road will consist
mainly of stucco, wood and glass. The Urban Design Plan encourages
variations of these materials and forms while preserving the basic
harmony of the Village. This proposal is consistent with this portion of the i
plan. '
C. Decks and Patios
This proposal will slightly enlarge the existing outdoor dining deck. The use
of decks and patios is strongly encouraged within the Village. 7he
proposed deck enlargement will serve as a people attractor and improve
the liveliness of Bridge Street. This enlargement will also enhance the
pedestrian experience within the Village. The minor enlargement will not
increase the rtumber ot outdoor seating places of this patio.
D. Balconies
This proposal contains no batconies.
E. Accent elements
• The applicant proposes to apply brick to the base of the entire building and
copper will be applied to the bay window bases as well the down spouts
designed to carry drainage. Copper flashings, and recessed down lights
7
are proposed for the shops on Hanson Ranch Road in conjunction with
modified window and door configurations. The lighting will be the ViUage
' Fixture lights and the Hanson Ranch Road shop (ighting wi(I be recessed
down lights located. These accent elements and materials comply with ~
I the Vail Viflage Urban Design Guide Plan.
F. Landscape elements
~ White staff supports the facade improvements of the shops (ocated on
Hanson Ranch Road, the loss of landscape area to the south side of the
building and within the Village core is a negative impact of this proposal.
Currently, this site has 548 sq. ft. of landscaping. The proposed
landscape modifications will add 53 sq. ft. to other portions of the building
, and the s+te to areas mainly along Bridge Street. The applicant is
proposing to eliminate all of the landscaping (85.3 sq. ft.) on the south
side of the building and add a single tree as mitigation for the loss of
landscaping. The lirnited opportunities for landscape area within the
Village core is a critical component of the Vaif Village Urban Design Plan.
Consideration should be given to properties that redevelop with landscape
additions. The lack of landscape areas on the south side of the buifding,
promotes an unbalanced site that is out of scale with the adjacent
landscape of Kindel Park and Vail Village Club (aka Serrano's), which is
currently under development. The majority of landscape material
` associated with this proposal is off of the subject property. It is for this
reason that the staff cannot support the request for the minor exterior
alteration or the site coverage variance for this proposal. Staff feels that
the existing landscape planters should not be lost in order to gain I
additional site coverage beyond what is permitted on this site. •
Additionally, staff is of the opinion that no landscaping loss should occur
on this portion of the site.
G. S rvice
This proposal will not affect current service in the Village.
IV. CRfTER1A_AND FINDINGS FOR A S1TE COVERAGE VARIANCE
Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the
Communiry Develapment Department recommends denial of the requested site coverage
variance. The recommendation for denial is based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The requested site coverage variance has a minimal impact in terms of
additional square footage on the site. The result of this request for a site
coverage variance will ultimately result in the ioss of both of the
landscape planters on the south side of the building. The proposal is to
mitigate this loss of landscape planter area of 85.3 square feet with a •
8
~ single tree which is off the subject property. The Red Lion Building has a
total landscape area of 548 square feet of landscape area on a 13,958
square feet lot which is 3.9% of the total lot area. The staff acknowledges
the overaii proposal would be a benefit to the Red Lion Building. However,
I the loss of the landscape planters associated with this proposal would be
a negative impact to the Vail Village and further, contradicts the goa(s,
, policies and objectives of the Vail Vilfage Master Pian and the Vail Village
Urban Design Guide Plan.
' 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement ot a specified regulatlon is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
~ The site coverage variance is a net increase of 33.25 sq. ft. The Vail
Village is an intense urban core. Buildings are genera(ly iocated on the iot
lines. Site coverage variances, in some instances, have been deemed
appropriate in the Village Core, when they do not negatively impact
landscape areas and improve the VilMage experience.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety. This proposal has no adverse impacts on any of these factors.
• B. The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the foNowina findinqs ~
before granting a variance:
1. That the grant9ng of the variance wi!{ not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in ~
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public j
health, safety or we(fare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity. ;
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: i
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified I
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. '
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary c'rrcumstances or conditions '
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation ,
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
9
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATtON
~
Minor Exterior Alteration
The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the applicant's
CC1 minor exteriar aiteration request subject to the foilowing finding:
That the proposal is not in conformance with the applicable sections of the Urban
Design Criteria and the Vail Village Master Plan Goals and Policies with respect to
landscaping and streetscape improvements.
I
i Site Coveraae Variance
The Community Deve(opment Department staft recommends denial of the applicant's site
~ coverage variance request subject to the following findings:
1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same
' district.
2. That the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vPcinity. .
3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will •
not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same district. i
I
f:leveryone\pec\memos\redlion.414
10
z ~
~
. _ - Y ..c - .
- ~
F~~.• _ V"
~rls*ar+nTc cwnr ~s+a ~ . _ O
aF Fb W
'
1 ~ ~~TV~~ ~
` erar ka- uk
cad r..1 - ~ - .
,
i
VICINITY MAP
\ / .
w,---- ~
` no scate
. , ~ .
~ • _~~,e„~,a.,,~ ~S north
~ ' \ a c... na~.r• ~
'C
i • u~
mr
. ~T'~( ~tp l.lO1J '11-1FJ GOF~WJFAA:IUF~4 { ~s:~a°+"+•~+++'.w~mr . . 0
Pv,v. 6onsc \ . . ,~y .
\ 6 ,w ua+r.w,.ft.+r
tl _ ~ ~ . ~ M~1Kt \ ' ~ , a e~+. crw. . ' i \ • eurwhr~ I~~+Y-. ~ ^ sn.+x Mr.-rN ~ ~ >
~ - f}Ha+,ep- ~tF2~.eo ~sa.x
~ % ~ - CN.1~'tsMl~c+ttY'2) ~ w
>
r ~ .
\ ~ ~ i ~ ~
~
,
~ . `t' ' n°~ -:~w+ •u~
~r+ti+ti+'Rr ~y0~'" ~ -ianer.>~.drro,wrba.eew.KO .
/
e.ltsl'1
/
. ?
\
• 74 / SITE PLAN
' StLERf G~KLL ~ .
. . _ LwM NhJ ea~0o•~~'I~W1r .
~1 inch to 10 feet ~
MfYa IM ~1•~ ~
L1 north
.
~ . w.
. ~
a
-
~ ~~'~'s"'~g~",q 3 y,n' ~a . - ~ rS5
. . . . : . ,
. . . ...Y ~ . _ . -._..e...~.._.~re,.~.._ ~ .
~ , _ -
. . . _
.
~ i
~ . i
LU U1I _
W urrea r?~~s.lus C y~J cana urrteu
TF
_ ~/i' 1 y:Yl'Wa2 ~ umi~ SeRrih CJMF46'S WL GGIA
Kf»NCqY~
YdAf 1 i
' /ww4Yf.J ~~~~elw~~~ Y~/T MN CM~ 7~ • I
vn•. nuu~uo
s+uar T
,
~ - -
- • ssi ItKt>
- uw ewrv~rv ~
. O
' 6JE9T EL~VRTION
_ vr• _ '-o" ///d~~~///
_ ~ •~(,~,y U
ar++~ Mx. ' ~ =
0`~n`! YH?' ~
I I- J ~ Yi a
,
i ~ V >
° o
RED LION
a
P95#--
e.nnuo r ~e li'a.Y..wrb
MuT~F ' .
~ a#~GeP'f =-Ifc{.e
.l z'•"~-~
.3_.
' - ----y - .
. . ~
, . . . , ~ [1 IAMV
I ..MIw* %~ea~ ~ . ,.w.wa..a'^..~ , v*wni.
ri~1 dl.r~sw _
M~- WKaE bTREEf ~2.~
FLOOFL PLFcN
iif• - i•-o•
.
~ ;~.~~,g r~ ~<'s'.~," ~ ~?e- y.cA'LC`. ~"t f` flhA -••[S. 's . _ . ,c~'
.W
. . ,
'?'3'~`;~+". ~aF,~ °;."r~'
. . , m v
~.a=a~.
_ `~~:aT.Cs..+`s.~ G... k._ a..:..-~ ~~:~...s.'m`+a.- _ .,,:5:...Lz'r .
I
~ J lth~-i'-V %N ~1[u 1lfMw{{ ~
J un~a ' ~ u/=~~R M>HU1 < 5dN1~ ~ iv+.lnu~'L~> I~,
~n~~~ ~J Go+nCau+l ~u.~Mw~S W a~k+XO NMSMn .
~ rr~! rT-
• . 1
I~.-,i • __:__~I ,r. ~ _l~ ( I r~ ~ ' ~--~I ~ ~ I i~ •
I n
~IiI I 'I wwrt~ ~ i ~ ~~'1 ~ ~ C°'~ ~ I I I
, ~ I
~
~ cwauls ~r+~ t4w rNe uera..iC^~-TO~Y~ -n.e u~e r~ r.w~.[R veu ,
xuckEs awc e~x ew
cW~N 1 Mn+T csnm.w uooxn Kaour wa~.ewrFY
T^ R+~ rW~t'S
A-W
• I
souru ELFvAr1o0 4)
v~' ~ r-o• ,C
_ O
• HUGHt > ~ u
~ a
F- - - F~~
\ ~ - j e.x.- d
: r ~+vc~~~ • , - ~ ~
u~n>. ~.~vwn. "i• \ \ / ee+m~w. ~Ti- mvw
~
_4tWUEli Wl yEiF- ~XE7i10COV.~ Y .TNC LWD: - ~THE ..en- DCIt...•
" ts~..Tr1.~i~rtw 4 nF4Litll~lhwf{' 6N,bi~ N~ ~ t.el.!I
M1ib
MLL VIIrRK ' wrns~ t1.1I6.1,
_ i--~-"J.er.+MTEa Iat.`~y f'~*~R PMkl~ KY`U . . 1.f~h~
rb~rsiu s~tTrtm n~ W7nk
wEMt OIwM~..
~ rLoac "IJ • .
. P+22
I
.
iy ~ . . ~ ~ FFr, ~R+,. - . r cY'', . , +i~~~` } e..~ s
r ~n
^a• y ' s„s ~ ~
2 x , . ~l;a~?: _ .~..iE .'fa»- ~--.r...:~•s~ - .,...:r....- -
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
' DATE: April 14, 1997
SUBJECT: An appeal of an administrative decision regarding Section 18.64.040 (Non-
Conforming Uses), stating that private and public unstructured off-street parking
is a different land use than private and public structured off-street vehicle
parking, and therefore, an existing legal non-conforming use may not be
~ continued.
Appellant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Kurt Segerberg
Planner: George Ruther
1. SUBJECT PROPERTY
Gasthof Gramshammer, located at 231 Gore Creek Drive/on a part of Lot A, Block 5-D,
Vail Village First Filing.
. II. STANDING OF APPELLANT
The staff believes the appellant has standing to file this appeal as the appellant, Pepi
Gramshammer, is the owner of the Gasthof Gramshammer and is the operator of the
existing, surface parking area.
111. BACKGROUND
On February 24, 1997, Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Kurt Segerberg of Pierce,
Segerberg & Associates Architects, submitted an application for a major exterior
alteration in Commercial Core 1 and a minor subdivision to the Community Development
Department for review. Upon preliminary review of the proposed major exterior alteration
application, it was determined by staff that the removal of the existing, legal, non- conforming, unstructured (surface), off-street parking area and subsequent construction
of a structured off-street parking area constituted a change in use, and therefore, the
property must be brought into compliance with the development regulations prescribed in
the Municipal Code.
1
0
The Gasthof Gramshammer is located in the Commercial Core 1(CC1) Zone District.
According to the parking regulations outlined in Section 18.24.180 of the CC1 Zone ~
District, in part,
"...no parking shall be provided on-site."
Instead, property owners in the CC1 Zone District shall be required to contribute to the
Town Parking Fund.
The surface parking area that currently exists at the Gasthof Gramshammer is considered
a legal, non-conforming use. According to Chapter 18.64 of the Municipal Code,
~ "The use of a site lawfully established prior to the effective date of the adoption of
- the Municipal Code which does not conform with the use regulations of the CC1
9 use shall
Zone District may be continued, provided that no such non-conformin
be enlarged to occupy a greater site area than it occupied on the effective date of
the adoption of the Code. Additionally, a reduction in site area occupied by a non-
conforming use shall be deemed a new limitation, and the use shall not thereafter
be enlarged to occupy a greater site area than the new timitation."
Furthermore, the Municipal Code identifies a distinction between private or public
unstructured off-street vehicle parking and private or public off-street vehicle parking
structures. This distinction is made in Sections 18.34.020 and 18.34.030 of the Municipal
` Code, as unstructured parking is a permitted use, and structured parking is a conditional
use in the Parking Zone District. This is similar to the way the Code identifies a
distinction between passive outdoor recreation and active outdoor recreation as a
permitted use, in the Outdoor Recreation Zone District. Each is a type of outdoor •
recreation, however, as a land use, each differs greatly.
IV. NATURE OF THE APPEAL
The appellant is appealing the administrative (staff) decision regarding the change in use
of an on-site vehicle parking area at the Gasthof Gramshammer. As discussed
previously, the appellant is proposing to remove an existing non-conforming surface
parking area in the Commercial Core 1 Zone District and replace it with a new
underground parking structure. The appellant contends that the use of the property will
not be changing with the construction of the parking structure. The appellant believes
that there is no distinction between structured and unstructured off-street parking as a
land use, and therefore, the PEC should allow the legal, non-conforming status of the
property for on-site parking to remain.
The appellant further contends that the existing legal non-conforming use will be reduced
as a result of the major exterior alteration. Currently, there are currently approximately 20
parking spaces within a 6,400 square foot area. Upon completion of the remodel, the
enclosed parking area will comprise approximately 4,232 square feet and accommodate
15 vehicles.
Staff acknowledges that the proposed change in use would most likely improve the
overall appearance of the Village by enclosing the parking area and screening the
vehicles from public view, however, aesthetics are not relevant to this appeal. What is
relevant in this appeal is whether surface parking differs as a land use from structured
parking. •
2
V. ACTION REGIUESTED
• The PEC is requested to uphold/uphold with modifications/overturn the staff's
administrative decision regarding the non-conforming parking situation, as it relates to the
Gasthof Gramshammer.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and
Environmenta! Commission uphold the staff's administrative decision stating that the
removal of the existing legal, non-conforming unstructured (surface parking, and the
subsequent construction of an underground parking structure, constitutes a change in
use, and therefore, the property must be brought into compliance with the development
regulations prescribed in the Municipal Code.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to uphold the staff's
administrative decision, the staff would recommend that the PEC make the following
findings:
1. That private and public unstructured (surface) off-street vehicle parking is a
different I n u than private and public structured off-street vehicle parking.
2. That the remova( of the existing iegal, non-conforming unstructured (surface) off-
street vehicle parking area at the Gasthof Gramshammer, and the subsequent -
• canstruction of an underground structured off-street vehicle parking area, I
constitutes a change in use, and therefore, the property must be brought into
compliance with the development regulations prescribed in the Municipal Code. ,
I
~
~ f:\everyone\pec\nemos\pepi's.414 3
~ MEMORANDUM
• TO: Pianning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 14, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to the development plan for the Golden Peak Ski
Base to allow for outdoor ski storage, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail
Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Lauren Waterton
,
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting to amend the development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base to
allow for outdoor ski storage. While indoor and outdoor ski storage is a permitted use within the
Ski Base/Recreation zone district, the development plan must be amended to show the approved
location on the plan. The existing development plan indicates that ski storage will be provided
within a portion of the existing bus shelter. However, that space is not being utilized as ski
storage. Recently, an 800 square foot structure that encloses the skis has been constructed on i~
site, without Town of Vail approval. This application is a requesi to come into compliance with
the development ptan.
• On March 10, 1997, the PEC reviewed a request to amend the development plan in order to ,I
allow the existing ski storage to continue. At that time, the application was tabled in order to
allow the applicant to address the PEC's concerns related to lack of compatibility between the
existing struetures and the proposed ski storage and the location of the proposed use.
The applicant has revised the plans to address these concerns. The proposed building will be in
approximately the same location as the existing structure, however, it will be 265 square feet
smaller than the existing structure. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing bus shelter,
continuing the stucco walls and stone pillars to allow the ski storage to be integrated into the bus
shelter. An entrance to the building will be on the north side, facing the main building. The
building will contain an attendant booth and racks to hold approximately 420 pairs of skis that are
stored overnight.
II. BACKGROUND
In 1983, a new zone district, Ski Base/Recreation, was created in order to allow the Golden Peak
Ski Base facility to be rezoned from Agricultural and Open Space to Ski Base/Recreation. As a
part of the rezoning process, a development plan for the site was required. In late 1983, the
Town Counci{ approved a development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base. The plan has been
amended several times over the years.
The most recent amendment occurred on December 19, 1995, when the Town Council approved
• 1 ,
*VAX
1UW
.
'I an amendment to the deveioPment Plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base. That amendment
included a new base facitity (currently under construction), new chair lifts, a new bus lane and
i bus shelter, new drop-off areas and other site improvements. .
~ In conjunction with the development plan approval, the Town Council approved Ordinance 24,
Series of 1995, that updated the language of the Ski Base/Recreation zone district. The Go(den
Peak Ski Base is the only property within the Town of Vail with this zoning designation.
tii. ZONiNC ANALYSI,9
Staff believes ihat this amendment does not affect any of the zoning standards for the Ski
Base/Recreation zone district.
IV. REVIEW CRITERIA
i The development pian for the Ski Base Recreation zone d+strict shall meet each of the foAowing
standards or demonstrate that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical
I solution consistent with the pubiic interest has been achieved:
Development Plan Standards/Criteria for Evaluation
. 1. The developer wilt provide a buffer zone in areas where fhe Ski
Base/Recreation district boundary is adjacent to a residentiai use district
boundary. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures and
must be landscaped, screened to protect it by natural features so that
adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. ThES may require a
buffer zone of sufficient size to adequaiely separate the proposed use from ~
the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, adequate light, '
air, air pollution, signage and other comparable potentially incompatible ~
factors; ~
Staff believes that the addition of the ski storage will not impact the buffer zone ~
between this site and the neighborhood. This use does not remove any '
landscaping or decrease the buffer area. The ski storage is located between the
bus stop and the main building and will not adversely impact the surrounding
neighborhood.
2. A circutation system designed for the type of twaffic generated, taking into
consideration safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access,
noise, and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if they
can be used by police and fire department vehicles for emergency purposes.
Bicycle traffic shall be considered and provided when the site is to be used
for residential purposes; ~
Staff believes that the addition of ski storage to this site wilf not adversely impact
the circulation system. The addition of the ski storage building to this location will
not add s+gnificant congestion in the plaza area. Staff believes that since the
2
~ .
previous review by the PEC, the appficant has revised the plan to alleviate staff's
~ and the PEC's concerns reiated to congestion. Staff believes that the proposed
configuration of the ski storage will allow for queuing, without negatively impact
the pedestrian circulation.
3. Functional open space in terms of: optimum preservation of natural features
(including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience, and
function;
The amendment does not affect the open space of this site. Staff beiieves this
criterion is not app(icable.
4. Variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and open space;
,
` This criterion is not applicable to this request to amend the development plan.
5. Privacy in terms of the needs of: individuals, families and neighbors;
Staff does not believe that the proposed amendment will affect this criterion.
6. Pedestrian traffic in terms of: safety, separation, convenience, access to
points of destination, and attractiveness;
- Staff believes that the proposed ski storage will not interfere with the internal
pedestrian circulation on-site. On the existing development plan, the area around
the bus stop was identified as a plaza, accommodating pedestrian movement in
~ this area. This plaza connects the Chitdren's Center, main building, ski fifts and
bus stop. While this proposal will reduce the plaza area, staff believes that the
revised plan reduces the impact of the proposal by aNowing people to queue for j
the ski storage in an area that is out of the way of the pedestrian traffic flow.
7. Building type in terms of: appropriateness to density, site relationship, and
bulk;
Staff believes that this building is appropriately sized for the proposed location.
The applicant has shown how it is possible to integrate it into the existing bus
she(ter. Staff is concerned about the amount of blank wall facing onto the bus
lane and entry plaza. In order to reduce the impact of this wa!!, staff would
recommend that the approved sign program for this development be amended in
order to allow a directional sign on this wall. Specifically, the sign program calls
for a directional sign to be located on the corner of the retaining wall (see
attached site plan). Staff recommends that the sign be eliminated and replaced
with a sign (of the same size) on the wall of this building. Staff believes that it is a
more appropriate location for a directory sign and wiil add visua( interest to this
building.
8. Landscaping of the totaf site in terms of: purposes, types, maintenance,
suitabiiity, and effect on the neighborhood.
This amendment will not affect any existing or proposed landscaping. The ski
i 3 1
i
I storage buiiding is lacated on an existing plaza and staff believes that this
' proposed use does not affect this criterion.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATI4N •
The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's request
to allow for an amendment to the development pian for the Golden Peak Ski Base subject to the
foliowing finding:
That the proposed major amendment has met the 8 criteria for evaluation of a
development plan in the Ski Base/Recreation zone district.
The recommendation for approval is subject to the following condition:
That the applicant submit an application to the Design Review 8oard to amend the sign
program to modify the location of the directional sign. The sign shown on Sheet 12 of
the Sign Program, approved by the Design Review Board on July 17, 1996, must be
rernoved from the Sign Program in order to locate a directional sign on the wall of the ski
storage building.
i
~
~
F:leveryone\peclmemoslgpeak.414
4 ,
, •
• •
EXIST BU5 ~ - ,i _ STOP / LIFT
- - I BUILDING x=W SKI =
• - ADDO ION ~ V811
AIC111LCCh1[C group
(M) s.9.mH
~
~ g
. ~ \
\ \
I
~
o ~
s
DS ITE fi L,4N ~
au rv•2m•-m^ N
' m~ 9 p
GuARD
HOUSE
n m• ~~lt`1(!35~t~1d't,Y%fj~'•~']~.
PH,tSE
1~ ~ t i•
~ ~ • {e~ t. ' DD
APR 81997
A1. 1
lity
• ~:-_R'~ t~'1
~
Vai! I
Ilb
r Architecture
grou
~ 1971pW470N
i.c IfMl9'~~..~r
'I aul wyOv
~
~
~
~ ~ g I
. , o v
v:
~
r-, I
- - -
nF-n n~ n-rn nT! ( I I ~
~ I I I I I I l ~ I l( I! I, 1~~ ~ ~
I U LIJ
. ~I~IJ L1 ~.i~ tJ 1. U L1
NEtU
eKi T'p 1 6TO¢~ic~ L__' ~ I
• ~ I I
~
EX1~T - ,
CU~ STOP / LpR OPERATION
p rri~~ nnr. a ~ ~ II
L
~ U
Ail ba
s
ti)
:K3
C*
~
m~~ A
~ a ~ ~a
s
/ iS~Q~3 gti
pfblSE
DD
5laF:
FLAN . A2.1
i ~ ~
•
• • •
EXIST RDOF BcYOND ; • i
. N'U1 ROOFING 4 FASCIA
TO MATGH EXIST
NEW APPLIED TiMSER - ~
~ VH2I
~1tC~I1tCCtUIC
IJEW EIFS TO MATGFa gipUp
NEW 5HAKE I~L=Ul 51-IAKE . +*e-„s-.~c.._ -
TR1155 TO MATGH EXt5@31
HIP ROOF HIP ROA= NEW EIfS BANDS TO (vio)a+e.7a~.
Wl2xi1 GEDAR Wl2z12 CEDAR MATGN EXIST.
FASGtA FASGIA
LAMINATED OVERHE9"0 L0.a 9"# LOG DOOR TO EMJLA7£ COR•LRS GORNERS PAIR OF SW
ING DOOS4" E1F5 1/4' EIFS NEU7 STOhL= VENEEI~PIERS TD MATCH EX~ 1L:" EIFS lvg• EIPS
BAND BaND
o -
~ GUARD H0USE ELEY AI lON& Z SIDE ELEY AI lON
.43J I/8"+l'-0" A31 l/8"=l'_0"
~ EXISTING BU5 STOP BUILDING ~ NHW SKI STOf2AGE ADDITION ~
NEW MAR~G' EXIST A9CIA 1:4 .
! NEW EIF9 BAND TD MA7GH S
( Ex18T ~ 0
L_J ? NEW EIFS TO MATGN EXI97 cn a
i NEW STGNE VENEERED PIERS ~
TO MATGH EXI57
~ V ~ A W U
PkVSE
ELEiAT1 OI \ SFE2T:
A3.1
RE A~-l
P •
MEMORANDUM
~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 14, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance to allow for a snowmelt boiler to encroach
11.4 feet into a sideyard setback, located at 2049 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1,
Vaii Valiey 4th filing.
Applicant: Landon and Mary M. Hilliard, represented by Larry Eskwith
Planner: George Ruther
1. BACKGROUND
On July 8, 1996, Planning and Environmental Commission granted a side setback variance
permitting the Hilliard's to place a snowmelt boiler and snow avalanche mitigation wall in the
south sideyard setback (5-1 w/Schofield in opposition). The variance approved by the PEC
allowed a snowmelt boiler and snow avalanche mitigation wall to encroach up to 5.5' in the
setback. The approval of the variance carried with it the following five conditions:
` 1. That the applicants sign and submit to the Town of Vail Office of Community
Development, a Geologic Hazard Acknowledgement Form, prior to the issuance of a
~ building permit for the relocation of the snowmelt boiler and boiler pad.
2. That the proposed landscaping designed to screen the snowmelt boiler be installed within
one month of the comptetion of the relocation of the snowmelt boiler.
3. That the new, V-shaped mitigation wall be constructed prior to the actual relocation of
the snowmelt boiler.
4. That the appficants add one additional 6'-8' taN evergreen to the landscape plan to
enhance the proposed screening. The location of the additional evergreen shall be
reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board and/or the Town of Vail staff.
5. That a Geologic Engineer design, sign and stamp the construction specifications for the
snow avalanche mitigation wall.
A copy of the Staff Memorandum to the PEC dated Juiy 8, 1996, and the minutes from the July 8,
1996, PEC meeting have been attached for reference.
11. D,ESCRIPTION OF THE REt1UEST
The applicants are proposing to move the proposed snowmelt boiler and mitigation wall an
additional 5.9' into the south sideyard setback. The proposed relocation places the snowmelt
boiler and mitigation wall approximately 11.4' into the required south sideyard setback. As _
indicated in the July 8, 1996 staff inemorandum, pursuant to Sections 18.58.020 (a) and
18.04.370 of the Town of Vaii Municipal Code, snowmelt boilers are not permitted in any required
setback without a variance from the Planning and Environmental Commission. Therefore, the
•
• `
appiicants are requesting an approval of an amended variance from Section 18.58.020 (a)
, Supplemental Regulations, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to locate the snowmeit
' boNer and mitigation wail approximatefy 11.4' into the south, sideyard setback. ~
' The request for the additionai encroachment of 5.9' into the sideyard setback is necessitated by
the review of the proposed snow avalanche mitigation wall by the Geologic Engineer. As
required by the July 8, 1996 PEC approval, the applicant has had an engineer review the
proposed plans. According to the findings of the engineer, the mitigation walf must be
~ redesigned to withstand the impact of a snow avalanche event. The mitigation wall wif) be V-
shaped and wiil be approximately 9 feet in length and 8 feet in width. The height of the wall will
be 5'-1" above grade and the exterior finish of the wall will match the existing wall. Five, 6-8 foot
tall Colorado Blue Spruce and ten, 5-gallon, Redtwig Dogwoods have been proposed to screen
the snowmelt boiler and mitigation wall from the public's view from the bike path.
111. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upan review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the
Community Deveiopment Department continues to recommend denial of the requested sideyard
' setback variance. The recommendation for denial is based on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The proposed additional encroachment into the setback of the snowmelt
boiler and mitigation wa!l will have minimal impacis on existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity of the Hil{iard's property. Placing the
boiler behind the existing snow avalanche mitigation wall will screen the
boiler from the Hilliard's view. It will however, minimally increase the
visibility of the boiler from the Town of Vail bike path, located immediately
to fhe south of the Hilliard's property.
The bike path is located approximately 20` from the proposed snowmelt
boifer. Since the boiler is already partially in view from the bike path, staff
does not feel that if the boiler were relocated to the proposed location, any
measurable negative impacts would result. Philosophically however, staff
is concerned with the proposal to reduce the property owner's view of the
boiler from their own property, while increasing the visibility of the
snowmelt boiler from public property.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enfarcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibifity and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
Staff continues to be concerned that an approval of the requested
variance will result in a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicants have not identified a
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship justifying the granting
of a variance. In staff's opinion, no physicai hardship or practical difficulty
exists prohibiting the Hilliard's from having a snowmelt boiler within the
1 9
~ .
setbacks on their property. Additionally, staff continues to believe that the
applicants have not identified exceptions or extraordinary circumstances 4r
~ conditions applicable to their property which do nat apply generally to other
properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. The
applicants have demonstrated that a snowmelt boiler and boiler pad can
be accommodated on the property through the successful construction of
the existing boiler. While this may not be the most desirable location of a
snowmelt boiler from the property owner's perspective, the existing
location conforms with all the applicable development standards.
3. The effect of the requested variance on tight and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilit+es, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
The staff believes the above-described criteria is not relevant to this
;
variance request.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the fo((owing findings
before rq antina a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
- 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
• 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: ~
a. The strict (iteral interpretation or enforcement of the specified I
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary ~
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. ~
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions i
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not a
ppIY
generally to other properties in the same zone. !
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation I
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department continues to recommend denial of the applicant's
request to relocate the snowmeit boiler and snow avalanche mitigation wall approximately 11.4'
into the required south, sideyard setback. In staff's opinion, an approval of the applicant's
request would result in a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the Municipal Code. Staff
further believes that there are no physical hardships assaciated with the Hilliard's property, nor
are there any extraordinary circumstances or practical difficulties prohibiting the Hilliards from '
constructing a snowmelt boiler within the setbacks on their property, and therefore, a variance
approval should not be granted.
~
.
Should the PEC choose to grant an approval of the requested variancet the Staff would
recommend that the PEC makes the specific findings necessary. The staff wouid recommend
the following findings:
1. That the granting of the requested side setback variance is not a grant of special privilege •
since snowmelt boilers have been permitted in setbacks in other areas of Town.
2. That the granting of the variance wiil not be detrimentai to the pubiic health, safety or
weifare, or materialiy injurious to the public improvements as the snowmelt boiler will be
~ scresned from public view and that the snow avalanche mitigation wal( wil( protect the
; public from potentially impacting the boiler shou(d they stray from the bike path.
3. That there are extraordinary circumstances applicable to the Hi!liard's site which do not
appiy generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District or
, in thq vicinity.
~
~
, ~
SURUEYUN'S STATEMENT
I haropy certify tAat 1 haw survayed tA* exltWy aualaacbe wiU and
Aaue calcuUtad tAe mathematical tles of the proposad mttlgatlon
uaN. n+eganassncwnbanoa. LOT l, UAIL UALLEY FOURTH F111NG
~o.........; ~ .
Lalana Lacnner n 'z 6 SITE PLBN FUH
~23506 PBOPOSEOBURLpNLNEMITt6RT10N(UflLIRNDBOtLERRELQCBTION
r•. ~Fepa
A~•~~.f -
~
~
~c~ rolG ?1
4TQLVT{~PR ,
V
L~rl V
~
. \
~ L'eD Twl` ~ ,
I70GV~cODS ~If/
~KISTi~If_ ~ 1 / '
'STR1Y.111R~ ~~c~ / /
V V/
ccy.e.ac,~
~
P .Q. /
~
i
. /
~
MEMORANDUM
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Deveiopment Department
DATE: April 14, 1997
SUBJECT: An appeai af a staff denial of the outdoor ski storage, located adjacent to the
Gondola Building/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1st Fi{ing.
Appellant: Vail Associates, fnc., represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Lauren Waterton
. ~
1. 9UBJECT PROPERTY
The ski storage is located outside the Gondola Building, at 600 Lionshead Mall, Traci D, Vail
Lionshead 1 st Filing.
11. STANDING OF APPELLANT
Staff believes the appellant has standing to file an appeal in this case as the appellant, Vail
Associates, is the owner of the property and operator of the ski storage.
~ lll. BACKGROUND
On February 10, 1997, Vaif Associates, lnc., submitted an application to the Town of Vail for
Design Review Board approvaf to allow outdoor ski storage near the Gondola Building in
Lionshead. Upon review of the permitted uses within Cornmercial Core II, staff determined that
outdoor ski storage is not a permitted use within this zone district. According to Section
18.06.020(8) Permitted Uses, any use IFSted is determined to be an excfusive use of that district
and any use not specifically permitted, is prohibited. ln Commercial Care II (CCll), zoning is afso
differentiated according to level of buifding. A use permitted within the first level, is prohibited in
other levels, unless specifically listed as a permitted or conditional use on other tevels.
4ndoor and outdoor ski storage is listed as a permitted use only within the Ski BaselRecreation
zone district, and commercial ski storage is listed as a permitted use within the basement level of
buildings in the CCII zone district. Staff denied the applicant's request because the outdoor ski
storage use does not comply with the CCff zone district.
IV. NATURE OF THE APPEAL
The appelfant is appealing the staff decision to deny the use of ski storage in this location. The
appeNant has indicated that he belisves the ski racks are a legal non-conforming use, and should
therefore, be allowed to cantinue. On October 7, 1987, Vai1 Associates received Design Review
Soard approval for seasonal unstructured metal ski racks at the Lianshead Gondola Building (see
attached photo). In 1989, the Tawn approved a minor modification to the ski racks. In 1996, the
• 1 ,
41t
]nlVN
metal ski racks were removed and repiaced with piywood sided wood sheds with ski racks inside
(see attached photo).
!n 1987, staff determined that the outdoor ski racks were a permitted use, and a request for ski •
storage was approved by the Design Review Board. Because these unstructured, metal racks
are not aliowed under the zoning regulations currently in place, these ski storage racks were
considered a legal nonconforming use. Section 18.64.010 (Nonconforming Sites, Uses,
Structures and Site improvements), identifies the purpose of this chapter:
~
is intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses and structures by
prohibitin9 or limitin9 their enlargement, their reestablishment after abandonment, and
,
their restoration after substantial destructian. While permitting nonconforming uses,
structures and improvements to continue, this chapter is intended to limit enlargement,
, alteration, restoration or replacement which would increase the discrepancy between
~ b this t t i le."
existing conditions and the development standards prescribed y
~
The appeflant has stated that he believes that the racks have not been substantially changed and
therefore, remains a legal, nonconforming structure/use. The original approval in 1987,
permitted a total of 10 metal ski racks near the Gondola Building (see attached photo). Currently,
there are 14 sheds containing ski storage, close to the Gondola Suilding. Staff denied the
request because it is staff's opinion that the ski storage has been substantially altered and
enlarged, resulting in the loss of its nonconforming status.
The appellant has also stated that he believes thai the ski storage, as existing, is below grade,
• because the first ievet of the Gondola Building is substantialfy be(ow grade on the north side, and
portions of the east and west sides. Furihermore, the appellant states that the ski storage racks
are within a structure, and accordingly, permitted in CCII.
Staff believes that the ski storage is clearly outside the Gondola Building, and therefore, the !
grade around the building is irrelevant. Furthermore, should this be considered a bui(ding, it is on
the first floor of the building, and ski storage is not permitted on first floor of a building in CCIt.
Also, it should be noted that these structures were all installed without the benefit of staff
approval or a building permit.
V. REQU1RED ACTION
Uphold/Overturn/Modify the staff's denial of the request for approval of outdoor ski storage.
' The Planning and Environmental Commission is required to make findings of fact in accordance
with Section 18.66.030 (5) shown below:
5. Findings. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall on all appeals
make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented
to it. These findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and
conditions imposed by the requirements of this title have or have not been met.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATtON
Staff recommends that the Ptanning and Environmental Commission uphold the staff's denial of
the outdoor ski storage and recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission
make the fo(lowing findings: •
2
i. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 18
(Zoning) have not been met.
2. That the ski storage use has been substantiaily altered and enlarged and is no
tonger a legal nonconforming use.
3. That the instaflation of these structures is in violation of the zoning code.
~:\everyone~pecMemo~,skistore.414
i
~
I
~ i
. 3
-
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Enviranmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 14, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit, to ailow twenty-
four Type Iil 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 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 intersiate Highway No. 70
thence along the northerly right-of-way fence line of lnterstate Highway No. 70 as follows:
S 67041'33" 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 (eet 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
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
~ 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REGIUEST
The purpose of this worksession is to review the building architecture, height, and location on the
site. AI{ ather issues regarding landscaping, pedestrian access, and the like will be presented at
the April 28, 1997 hearing for final review of the project.
This site is zoned General Use (GU) which allows Type III Employee Housing Units as a
conditional use. The applicant is requesting a conditiona{ use permit to aNow 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 (Pubfic Works) seasonal housing needs.
The proposal also includes 29 parking spaces, 2 of which are handicap parking spaces. One of
the handicap parking spaces is required for the Public Works Administration Building. Therefore,
28 parking spaces are available for this development. 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 availabfe in the {ower
level Public Works parking area.
The proposal also includes a dumpster which is accessible from the upper level parking area.
The building plans are attached. A view analysis of the site will be presented at the meeting.
i '
*VAIL
TOW
~
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
The development standards for the GU d'rstrict are determined by the PEC. The PEC must .
deterrnine 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: General Use (GU)
Use: 7}rpe III EHt1s
Lot Size: 740,520 sq. ft. or 17 acres (entire site without USFS addition)
Standa Allowed/Required" x stl 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 spaces required N/A 28 spaces (inciudes 1 handicap + i
for admin.)
Guest Parking: PEC N/A 4 spaces + overfiow
Intemal Parking
Landscaping: 908 sq. ft. (10%) N/A 0 sq. ft. ~ i
I
Building Height: PEC N/A 35' From finished grade (worsi case)
I
Note: "required by code for aii other zone districls I
III. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS 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. In addition to the conditional use
criteria, staff has included the purpose statement from the zoning code, as we be(ieve this will
help the PEC in its evaluation of the request.
The Public Works employee housing is located in the General Use (GU) zone district. According
to Section 18.36.010 of the zoning code, the purpose of the GU district is:
.
"to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special
characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards
prescribed by other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially
prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve
the purposes prescribed in Section 18.02.020 and to provide for the public weffare. 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
, .
2
spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses."
I• Type III Employee Housing Units may be permitted in the GU zone district subject to the
issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60. For the
PEC's reference, the conditional use permit purpose statement indicates that:
, "in order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified
uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit.
Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so
that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with
respect to their affects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this
chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between
conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as
conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and
limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the
conditional uses wi11 be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and
will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised,
to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permit 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. I
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
~ transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities,
and other public facilities needs.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas.
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 iindings are as follows:
The Plannina and Environmental Commissionshall make the following findinas 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 locacion 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.
40 ,
3
1VIP
*VAA
~ 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the appiicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
, .
~ IV. 1SSUES FOR DISCUSSION
1, Building Location/Building HeightNiew Analysis
I 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 Iogical location tor
this structure. Staff be(ieves this is the appropriate area of the site for housing as it is located
i~ farthest away from the more industrial elements of the site.
The applicant is proposing a building height of approximately 35' from finished grade. For
reference, the High Density Multiple Family zone district allows up to 48' in building height for a
sloped roof building and the Medium Density Multiple Family zone district allows up to 38' in
building height for a sloped roof building. Staff believes the proposed building height is
appropriate for this site.
The appiicant has provided a section through the property showing relationship of building height
to elevation of I-70. A view analysis was prepared by the applicant and will be presented at the
hearing. The view analysis provides 3 photographs taken from 3 different public locations along
Vail Valley Drive. The proposed structure was superimposed on the photographs at the proper
scale. It is clear from this analysis that the upper two floors of the structure will be visible from
. this area of town. It is also clear from this analysis that the parking will not be visibte on the site
from the "public" spaces across the valley. Staff believes that the structure can be further
screened with additiona( landscaping around the building and along the berm.
2. Architecture
The PEG, at iYs March 24, 1997 meeting, voiced concern over the architecture of the building.
Issues that were discussed included: a. "stepping" the building to breakup the roof elevations
and reduce the perceived mass of the building; and b. providing decks or other features on the
south elevation to provide same variety on the front of the building and to make the units more
liveable.
The applicant has reworked the roof line of the building by providing a flat section of roof in order
to break the building into what is perceived as two structures. The applicant has not provided
decks on the building. The windows on the front of the building have been staggered to provide
variety. Windows have been added to the north elevation.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed conditipnal use permit for the Public Works
housing deveiopment (24 Type III EHUs), staff will not be providing a formal recommendation at
this time. Staff will, however, provide a recommendation at the time of final PEC review.
f:\everyone\peclmemos\pubhous.47 4
4 ~
1Y11PM
*VAIL
~ ~ ~ ~ ~_'w~'" i~.,'„~ ~ ~ :~ti. - - _
. • J~J _ y~~~ M1 • ~~w~, _ _ _ - _
~ •nc~cf ' '"ti.
•'~r
A
Vu 1~p~,~,-~q, ~
M^r-`'-.___"___ ~"P~L,A"My ~~IMI. 1
' ' , . = ~ ' ~ ' ~ `
IC\~`..
' ~~~111~~~~,~'
C C
>>~~Il~r~ ~n _ ~
21tJr
I,~I(\"~/j d)~p~~y ~~,~~'1C~'~ y~ • ~ ~ ' r.,,
-'"`"cAL
1 ~
\\\\1 iI pWQ Ml'~~+ ii 4Cx
~ .
i+l~l~ CII-Aelrr RIM
R ~ • ~'M1rUry,h41 ^
r
A'
7"'C
iy."
1 ! Gl
'~r
~
I l G
~ r-- _ •w.` ~ ~ -.Y ~ ,~`r~ .."•~`-.~"~~..J I r ~1 - ~,lNl~ ~~~y ~j.
r r~ ro ?~v
~ r~ ~Raor~, o~~tAa,,r.~ ~
r N~NC~; A ~
s "~T~~ ~
N~I1~I7P1~-_~__'~ L
1~~`__-•~ `~'i~ ` --t-' 1 ~-A-. ~ ~ L~ r,_
~ ~1 / ~ Y ? 4 /
~i~\\~`~~1~1`\~ti~l~llltn t~ ~ ~ r ~ _ _ I~ !-.~1 ,1•~'l~ ..`J,.,. ~-E2T0
C+`
~ 1 S 1
~ 11 1 ~ ~i i /`r V
~ \\\~\`~`~~~^~~L---..~//~',-,
\`\\~\`'`ti~\\~`\J~1~'P~ti`r_ ~~~~r~~J 1 l y\- Wi'h vJ
,
~ ~ ~~y ~ ~~~t~ti~,/`" -_J ~ _ - , ~%,r ~'~I'~»;.`-_ _ ' _ ' _ - ~
~ C~~
~ GN
AOMTHIS a?~TI
' `iot
'Y
S3
! l - ~ / / 1 V ! l ? ~ ~ ~ ~i
G~'~~~~ r~ 4 tlOtNd'~
r / i t4d~~~!?MKtY'? ~ ~ i ~ rr
--•.~~.\~~~IY_~yz,:: *T t-'"""'~
~ ~ ~ ,._±.`a' `'~-,_____...----1 ~1;.~__ ~ L„~'~ ~ / ~J .?+t.~. \~~~'_______'"____n ' ~ ti
~ ,F / ~ ~ __-a;:~:'_`-••-..r+~Cwr.rt"~' .....R-~v'!".'~=r"i'=''7\~_,Y_ ' ^..~;=~=~_y`_~~-1~~`~ `~_~'~],\C~ ;
.~.~~~..~.r
~ ~
_
-
~
_ _ -
- J~•~ Q- ~M7
- "1
_ _ ~ ^ J~,. - _ •1i~r„w~ w " y, p
~ ~ _ _ . _ _ ° _ _ - _ `l.~_..._..~ - _
_r _
- - - - - " - - - - - -
- - _ - -
- - _ _ __~t - II
' ' - _ - --w....-~- - " ' '
- ~
_.-~.-v---'„~..'^'..'.." " " ~ -
- _ " ' Itc
^ "i Y~_ ,....--.-....--""..-r^-- ' -
- / i/ ~ _ ~ -
y ~
a
Ar.~r o
Y
1004~,,,,a,~~,,,M,
~ ~'lfL~B rx
L'AWa~ ttr~„ ~
~ R ~lo ,r~
U~'.
arxa
r°* p '~8 a ~ar~
"0 °1R47wa0
RICL MnA 1p.. rlfil ~ ~
II d.11 ~~C4 MtH MA1W
MD"OA" "14 d..i', ~ - I
~ a
enao ewooc?+ Ln46 °e`Ha°r' U
puap uN+° ~
~ LPAM ti
UYM x
4 ! ~ i I r R
uwwtc i ! wrr ioaa' 1
44tony ~ u~t ~ ~ ~ ~ wir aoer?
Wlt
Wit t01A j IO~C j ~ ~ IW ~ tNl1' ~ ~ ~
p q ~
tWT ZOIA t~l' ~ t~,t U+pT'.~0~ ~ I
, 11~1' ~yq tM ~ M~~' 1YI~IGA1. L4~Y~1. ~.D~ I~.A~ H 4
CjLy r ~ I
~ i
~jcL rani ~
a M4lN q
oopmocm
t „v,,, (3119
1NMID L~NEI. uNr b' ~ wm wir ti, (pa+r uwr) a~
LvttL ~W~IICN. AOLIh K,AL14 i1 , b!4 Of. K''Y'6 ~
• ~r ' c~i
z~
4
']i60." f Z
. ,
d.. 84151 ~
, x
/ ~tuob ~0 ~
. ~ ,
~ ~ D v
~ L"o
~ t~ y
2r
Ul1tlL traT ti, ct.~' wrii Wrt'r' c"Iala Wiv
t~1' LRh14~L ~~r - ec,ye, ur--" • ae4 er.
-02 euu, rr . ra' • $
~
--T
-
...-----°•---°--1
j . ,
'
~'~o ~
; ~ ?
~ .
,
~
, ~T ~
~ ~
j i ' j -----------i------------- ~ j i
i--
' ~ ~ -------a c_--•--------i.. ; I ~ ~ Cti
} i._..-------
, ' , , ~ i
ti
N I
~
T BI~LDIt~s 100CJ~ I°L/W ~
'y%µ,T9Amm rerxtaP-M ecN.E~ w• r-d' ~ I
~ Notv Fr6u^ ~ ~^T w
MrOomr ~
~ MOd! M. 3E
rcr run
aaeotie ur
»+a~4eva.~, - _ ~ ~
p7t~A~1 VP ~
BE
- pp72'-1 VY
laON? LML"$ - ~
OIdT-0 Af4' ~ ~ (
3E
_ !EfAlb
076D'-0 DH'
ER60'C
911 gp~TWVM
471k'PK KALIN
lNLGO NNL R'!~ 6' YqCO tR'7M6
~ SmXIA l!!J!! IE/RR NCOG IlAOlNl5l1 NI1! ~AM. FMOQM!
NG ~~y~M 1 R~ ~y~
40 JOM15 4' YCaD1RW ~M fA*IVI1
6' YpOV 1R11 tiiN ~i w - N-O'
~ U n
~ TOrPlA1t ~ 0(~' iG??LAT! 0. g„
~EOD6' f1T-0 ~ 7GpFLATro DG66tiA Vl'o
~ ~ !7M-OVP ~ N ~ w
R7P M1E ~
U
_ ~ _ n~um ~.evd$ i era-y vr ~ ~ ~
- era-,vr ~ i =
e`i+~i -'~vr ; v .
3E a~
_
'xq° i~ve.~ ' 1 z
I ~ t,ecau i,N~s eae'na a4' ~ O 3E
N
I , . ~rrt~e. ; ~ ~ruas
t__._....•-•^°-----°--°--•-^---' p7yp~•p~ i NRSTL[UB. ~ E7b0'~O' Z
~ t ~ E07E~0' C .
MICiTLNtl. , O '
Y
~ , a~8t p.~ratao~t . ~ 4 ~r E~Ev,atIort • ~
gECA6d, U8' • I'.W ~lCALls VO' • I'-p'
I ,v ec~t,k, ue'• i~.o~ t A110Ft
a
,er.e, . r.r ~ o
I • ~ saP RME U
I >
~II il7P PIA1E - ~
exba vr~ -
TWIM uNa$ - 0---+i
~ e~, _ eae+~-e aw
vr
' I upWH M"Atlt7H
eecow ~ewe+. i "eaa.a~ w ~ r.a ~uMe.
~
~ a P?aaW
tt
rimmkla a, M~anON
2~C2 M9GAED. YNLL"
11'lCGI. 1lpL laYAO 'A1P l!E OFPDO!' A001! .
MMR9GqY NNJ. - -1
qlJCI'fHii~t ~ ~ EOlO' >1
I
A"I wtR ~
ss~+~mm?r~aa i i ~ ~ ~
W rerK PAaJNS 0124e-
SPFCm
+rterw
tlOltik'R M'AlINO Etl 41Ci00 wOo
a $pU?~ (FRApNT) "YAtICN s EA6t' ELXYA1'ION
'
114' . P-0' !C4l, u4~ . P•m
~GALC= ~ - - N
M
~
77
~
~
~ ~ ~cR,aeµ eau.OM R.om E.art
ecav4- - r.a~
4 ~.~~t~
ecAu.s, iµ! • P-a ecau, v~~ • r-W 8
U bp~
W~
h
V ,
Q
O ~
l~
til
mkN Z
~ tti ror~run ~
W~6~6'~ Zt / I Y
8]17L~ VT
~
I V
~ `n'~.~,~."~' • I F-
EC/!d~ U~' ~ p,0• ~ ~LNlL'
I
I
I
t rltp,~TlyqfL~L
2A
~
lOf6~i' /1% Q~ R
~wG'tW
AC,AL.Fj YC a C-0' ~
3
i
a ~
~
Ao ~
~x
o~ w w
A
/ ~o w
wA. ~
~
~,~,e. ~ a ~
._---.^W ~
t
~ x
z
~
o~
~ N
~A5~ (Rr~ .w . Y•0' ~
G?~'~ y
g
, a
Ait~ , o ~
a
0
~
f
I ~
Np~1'N ~ v~ • r.r ~ ~
I
i
' ~
~
a
U
~
~
A
~
~
~
~
~
1s P
W ~r O W
r
v.
a
z
0
~ w
rrr A ~ ~ ~ 4
w ~ ~
~~tAir wM ~
. eo~rcau+i
p0''0
~ I
i ~
<
~
~
~
, ~ ~ _ f~ wy`l ! _ _ , ~i~ ~'h'~'..-_---~ i'" r, ul f
9 3~ . > ~ ~1 ~ /~j~/'}'~
bCJT"
I; ti
~ t/ . . ~ y~ I t'•`~.' y-~w~~'~ uL~ ` , " ~ ' . y~~ ' ' _ y~ r`~ I
~,f
1 ~ ~ =I~ , • L t ~ ~ J O ~ ~
i"cv~'"~'~+~ a ~ 1 a ' ^ ~.p I r /
~ ~ I ` , •p--i r / /
Jkl~~~'~
`
,
No
`
1.~~~ 1 ~
~
o'04 ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~,,,~~~~J ~ ~
~ kliT~"~ ~ 1 r' ' , / ~ Ccr~°~ lM~p° ~~~ci ~o.~
sgcA
_..~t7~T
L N ~'~1M ~~'yN
AN'~,l`~ c ~ s. a CApp~t~~Cd ~ip°~ Mlid~ l)ate
` iwud ! C tAd+l~ !P°t IY . aaM' 1levlslo~+
~ y
,`n~' / i' / w o r°" s~nea
r_~--
l'f
\
~ i~~C~yA~
'~1 ~qtrl ~r1r°` M d
Awo ~
~ ' ~ 1..' ! ,~'t , ~ ~ ~ s. ~ M ur• p,,+,•~rtY~1+di',~.aM ~r'" C~°ef+a
4 1 1 / • , kb11"~~Mk^~d'~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~'1 Y ,~j ~ , / 11M1aoM~r~~ ~?epWt ~N ShCCI
~'Wea.d~edeR~"~yr
dO1Wr~~ pi 1
/ t+~y"P ur~"°dl~p~a~ ?~d'd,er~
r~ • / ~ ~
, i
~ / ~ rw~k~aon 4r~ up'~ra ad`
W-Amewou
~rw~,.° ts
~ • /
/
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Pianning and Environmentat Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 14, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to the Lodge Tower parcel, located at 200 Vail
Road/Lots A& C, Block 5-C, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Lodge Properties, fnc., represented by Jay Peterson
, Planner: Dominic Mauriello
1. DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is proposing to formalize the existing Lodge Tower (The Lodge South
Condominium) parcel by subdividing the land into finro parcels which includes all existing exterior
additions (elevator addition) that currently encroach on the Lodge Properties, Inc. parcel.
The land which the Lodge Tower sits upon is owned by Lodge Properties, Inc. and has been
- leased to the Lodge Tower. The Lodge Tower site has been recognized by the Town as a
separate parcel of land since it was condominiumized in 1973 and deeded separately. The
proposed parcel is 14,490.98 sq. ft. in area.
• This building was constructed in the early 1970's. The building was constructed as part of the
Lodge at Vail property. The Lodge Tower (a.k.a. Lodge South Condominium) was divided from
the property after construction in October of 1973 when the building was condominiumized. The
subdivision of this lot incorporated only the building envelope and provided an easement for
access and parking adjacent to the building. The site is considered legal nonconforming with
respect to site coverage, GRFA, common area, landscaping, density, and parking.
In order to clearly show lot ownership and clarify the public record, the lot line between existing
Lot A and Lot C is being vacated. The result is two lots, Lot A-1 (Lodge Properties, Inc.) and Lot
A-2 (Lodge South Condominium, a.k.a., Lodge Tower).
All existing parking and access easements are being maintained.
• 1 ~
*VAIL
TOW
.
IL ZONING ANALYSIS
Zoning: CC1 •
Standard Required/Aliowed Existinp Proposed
Lot Area (Lot A-1): 5,000 sq. ft. n/a 90,909.72 sq. ft.
(Lot C and portion of Lot A)
Lot Area (Lot C): 5,000 sq. ft. 19,340.64 sq. ft. elimination (included in Lot A-1)
Lot Area (Lot A-2): 5,000 sq. ft. 14,490.98 sq. ft. n/c
(Lodge Tower)
Site Coverage: 11,643.2 sq. ft. (80%) 13,138 sq. ft. (90.3%)* N/A
Units: 8 dwelling units 42 dwelling units N/A
Parking: / per code 54 (30 enclosed)' N/A
Note: 'per variance approved on i 0/28/96.
111. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA
One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the
creation of a new lot must be met. This project will be reviewed under the Minor Subdivision
Criteria, pursuant to Chapter 17, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
The first criterion to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a
Minor Subdivision Application is:
Lot Area - The Zoning Code requires that the minimum lot or site area for a lot located ~
within the CC1 Zone District, shall be 5,000 sq. ft. of buildable area.
Sfaff Response:
As proposed, this minor subdivision meets this requirement.
Frontaae - The Subdivision Regulations require a minimum street Frontage of 30'.
Sfaff Response:
As proposed, this minor subdivision meets this requirement.
The second set of criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request, as outlined in
the subdivision regulations, are as follows:
"The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in
compliance with the intended purpose of Chapter 17, the Subdivision Regulations and
other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicabls. Due consideration shall be
given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies
consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider
its appropriateness in regard to Town policies related to subdivision control, densities
proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents,
effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with
surrounding uses."
•
f:\everyonelpecMemosUodge.414 2
• The subdivisian purpose statements are as foliows:
1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and
proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of
improvements required.
Staff Response:
The review of this request has followed the regulations prescribed for minor
subdrvisions in the Municipal Code.
2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development
on adjacent properties.
,
' Staff Response:
The proposal simply formalizes the lot ownership for this site. The proposal will
not conflict with adjacent properties.
3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of
buildings and improvements on the land.
Staff Response:
Staff does not believe that the applicant s request will negatively impact the value
of land in the Town of Vail generally, or in the immediate area specifically. There
is no change in the constructed environment as part of this minor subdivision.
• 4. To insure ihat subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance,
to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent
with municipal development objectives.
Staff Response:
The proposed subdivision meets the minimum zoning requirements for a parcel of
land. The improvements thereon are nonconforming and will continue to be
nonconforming. The Town has historically treated this development as a separate
parcel of land for zoning purposes.
5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient
transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public
requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient
capacity to serve the proposed subdivision.
Staff Response:
Staff does not believe the requested minor subdivision will have any new adverse
impacts on the above-described criterion.
6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish
reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures.
Staff Response:
The proposal will create accurate legal description for the subdivided land. The
site is currently constructed.
•
f:\everyonelpecUnemosVodge.414 3
r
7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to insure adequacy of drainage .
facilities, to safeguard the water table and encourage the wise use and management of
natural resources throughout the municipa(ity in order to preserve the integrity, stability
and beauty of the community and the value of land.
Staff Response:
Staff does not believe fhe proposed minor subdivision will have any negative
, impacts on the above described criterion.
1V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
I
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed minor
subdivision subject to the following finding:
1. That the proposed minor subdivision plat complies with the criteria and
requirements of Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
•
•
f:\everyone\pe6MemosUodge.414 4
• i •
~~.x~~. ~ ~ r„~~• FINAL PLAT
A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT A& C, BLOCK 5-C,
VAIL VILLAGE, F'IRST FILING,
TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADP-
......,.."Z'....?'7 •.•,,:,~i>:>:,s.~:. .
..~..a~a~ . .
w~.7~ra~1+~~Y~l•r~ ~~av?u~a~ra
~r1 y~ ~NV l~O4=
M~I1~ ~~M A~r~ MYrYa w'~M ~ Y ~d7 I 1i~ I~ t i~ t~L ~ r~I ~1IY Y 1~~ yY~~ v r~
r~.ri. .r.r.r~r..r Y[s~~~wR r~llrlrfw.rOrs~w~~r rrrrt~Rrrr~rrrrwa~.
~Y~V~~~gd~?I~/~Y ~~~~~r~1r~ I.~J~
W~ 1~IY~rr~llrrlrY~/r~r~ I~~I~/rYr~1 •wlwNl~~ ~..~.rr~rw~r~rrrr~~.r~~a w
~Y1~1rw~w~in~~` Y~~~Ir +r~r ~rrs Wr~~ti• u.rj r~a~rMw.w~'y~~rrw~wrr 4~rr i~slrll~rRs
~Yr ~W~i~Y~/r~~YMY~IIY~ ~I~YYY~~~~~I~~ • f~~1~IM~?~r/~\rrO~~?~W ;F~I~M~ ~~ItMtW~r~Y
~Yr ~rlr~~r~MI ~4/i~~W~1~~r~Y~YIY~~U ~~Irr(1/1~ ~L~aLLYL~I
r ~W~~r1rr~W•
b.YIY-dW• Y11M
~rbrt~r~Y~~P/rlf~
~~1 Yr.Va~a F~r r err~ ~rrwi `r,~ y,~r s rr
•~~W~Irrlrfr~fY~r~f s.
op ` tlt. ? OYY~ r~ Ir~
• :r:r..._.........._
r.c.ra ru.a rr ? r rrirs~ Y~~\frM
r r w.ra r..~a r~ r w tr~
~Wlm^lw
?..r~r~~....~.. .
r~?rr.~r~~~ w~r.~..nra~.~ ••••rarr~rr.+r.~~~r w ~f°
w~ry rt~rvrww~~.~
f110! //~1ltmm~/ q~
P~n ii n~ YO
tT~{Ir ~ t~~
r et
4{ • ~ ~ t
~ ~ O~ ~ ~ + ~Wirir~r~~^~ rr rr?~
~~~xo!t*5 < < Lhe~'~0~~'
h 't ~f lC\Y4~ 1 ~ ~'u~ • +r.r.
p ~ 1 Y
Oi ~ ~ yrr.' t r M y rwiw.~~ •
i i • ~rrr ~r~ us
W J ,1 -
Y-
? ~ LL~dye An~e~ies)'l t~
cNI~ ~
1l ~ ~ ...~.r~._..,...r...w.......
` / wROt ~a7/~ slf1l. ~ j~ j ~r?ri~~w.ti~•
/ ¦wV1f[
w ~ lohaso.n. ZELYal
~fM f {OT b! 1 ~ C+ ~ i y~ "l.
aw'
• x~am
Sam ~..~y ~ rr' ~t L~ooiat,w. Iaa
tit yir,...t
Yrr 7 V~ Mwi~
r..e. 4. ~.rwre ' ~j2~i1t1~ v eC~ ~ t~ s~rsrw wraa am. smolmio
.
r e... w ~ ~ t.
a. Rr a ~ J~ } ~ OitP= xiu rwa nf.s o~ a~i-of~
77
t [ ~ ea s-as s~~oa
~ ¦Y~IYR [ N ~ tY r ~ ~ ~ Wr ~
~ • ~ ~ 1`f~tA~ (l1tl NrfnA ~IV?r WM~rr r~
IOi s~PP%t i~ 1 y~ ~
CCH rs =/20147
~ ~O ~ ~ v l ~ 1~~1~ Y Y irti ~ ~w ~T~ .r ~X.~PSY
LLRaI r J YwYY~.1rr..~ Zl~rw~r
r r~w. r~ r~~ DXXI! .rr 1 ~ 1
FINAL PLAT ,
A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS A& C, .BLOCK 5-C,
VAIL VILLAGE, FIRST FILING,
TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORAIj.4
M xvo'eo~ r
a~
or~avn~r.n Wo
poak 271. ~ey~ ti»
LOT A-1
N 89'42'00" E 166.30'
S 89'42.00. W ~
i N 00'00'00" E S 00`f 8'00" i ~~'80~
~ 18.17' 16.00'
L
N 89'42'00` E LOT A-2 7 N o ~
Zrs 89 '52 4s" E 7•91' , TNE LODGE SOUTH CONDOMINIUM r"--- ~ o !
o iW 19.40H 00'18'00" w 0.337 a c r e s i C.
~
4.64' 14,490.984 sq.ft. '
ao1~ S 0018'00" E J m
~ 2~0 9,60' `~---.y~~S 89'42'00' W
oj S 89'42'00" W 8.00'
13.10' S 8942'00" W
2.40' j o
,vume,r,..",e t~ ~O
r~m~.hw~o/~~mh~W i -0
CT ~ ~ O
N 65*44'00" E ( s Q ~ r r ~ a
.4.2 55' $ 89'44 00 W 182.00 m
S 89'44'00" W
DETAIL
Jobmmon. Xuukal
ucwc ~ ji~0d.t". T^^
R1N14 Ur LID 1Ci~iTnR If~i'!~0 CIR mommoaq
' Lt 7IO Rw Ty ~ wo~ Oi-~a~t ~ w~i
ti ows~4 ~a! poMS r~ a-+m~ o?..sw
~~.r wr~~ ti.r.r r
Lt 1ti ¦ QtPlT. DC~Ii r ~r.r a~ ur ~r ~ `r.r ~.r
. 1~ af# Rs /fD~M
mv as ~/>7
~w~..e~~wr~r..t++~.~+ lrwl0~lLtAOl16 f t~!)
K rrrr ?~.r .+.~r
I-Mk c
~i~r ~irr~'r r~ ~ : r ~ r ~ r. r ~ 070WSt ~
D7LY1? wv 1 ? I • . •
r- ;
y u
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSp R7~y v
April 14, 1997
' Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT:
Greg Moffet Susan Connelly
Greg Amsden Mike Mollica
Galen Aasland Lauren Waterton
John Schofield George Ruther
Gene Useiton Tammie Wiiliamson
Diane Golden Dominic Mauriello
Ann Bishop _ Judy Rodriguez
DRB MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ted Hingst
Clark Brittain
Public Hearing 2:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m.
~ Greg Moffet stated for the record that all the PEC members and DRB member Ted Hingst were
present.
1. Swearing in of new PEC member Ann Bishop and reappointed PEC members Greg .
Moffet and John Schofield - Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk.
2. Election of PEC Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson for a one-year term (4/97-4/98).
Galen Aasland made a motion for Greg Moffet, Chairperson and Greg Amsden Vice-
Chairperson.
Diane Golden seconded the motion.
Gene Uselton made a motion to close the nominations.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
3. A joint meeting with the Design Review Board to make a recommendation to Council on
the "UVish LisY" items for the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vail
_ Staff: Susan Connelly
~
Planning and Environmental Conunission
Minutes
Aprill4, 1997
Dominic Maurielio gave an overview of the Wish List packet and iniroduced Ethan Moore of ~
Design Workshop, who continued with the overview.
Galen Aasland stated that the important issues to him were employee housing, arts facilities,
landscaping and view corridors. He thought there should be a connection between the parking
structure and the Lionshead Village. He stated that the streamwalk should be continued
throughout the stream corridor.
Ann Bishop stated that this project seemed to be fast-tracked and wanted to know what public
process had been determined for the Lionshead Redevelopment and by whom.
Dominic Mauriello explained that the project started a year ago and that Council, in October,
adopted the proposed process. There have been numerous public forums up to this point.
Ann Bishop was concerned with notice provisions. She liked the Community Center idea and
believed locals should be brought back to Lionshead. She liked the ideas of creating an
architectural theme and the planetarium.
Diane Golden stated that the Town had done an excellent job of notification. She said she had
concerns with the building heights and skier drop-off. She liked the idea of a multi-purpose
Community Center. She stated it was too early to take any idea off the list.
Gene Uselton said his overall comment was to be very careful about changing anything that
might affect property values. He stated his concern with several ideas. He believed the skier
bridge should be wider.
John Schofield stated that funding was of paramount importance and if it was not affordable it ~
would be an exercise. He felt that Gore Creek is second to the Mountain as an amenity and
revamping the skier bridge and the streamwalk is important. He would not like to see a heated
bus center, but more frequent service. John said sky walks would not fit in well here. He said ,
information could be distributed on the Vail web page.
Susan Connelty said we were using the Town's Home Page.
Creg Amsden asked if the FHU ordinance would be used for I_ionshead. He said he was
cancerned about the funding and if it would take 5 years or 30 years.
Susan Connelly stated that the project extends to Red Sandstone Creek on the west. She said it
would be a relativsly long time frame for some improvements to be made and not so long for
others.
T s d i n g s t th o ugh t t h e PEC c o m m e n t s w e r e 9 Y w o o d a n d tha t sk aIks would open up view
corridors and would be worth exploring. He felt the mare amphitheaters would duplicate what the
Town already has. He felt that Vail and Lionshead should be cohesive areas for t he tourist.
Greg Moffet thought ground floor retail would be killed with skywalks. He said that T-shirt shops
cauld outperform other retail on a cost-per-square foot basis and that was why there were so
many. He said the way to diversify the retail base was to increase the supply of space. He said
the existing streamwalk should continue into the Village. He said the live bed base was in
l.ionshead. He said that in order to extend the bed base or allow growth in business, we must
' allaw for greater density and building height as incentives. He commended the team working on ~
this. He said that ane of the issues Vail Tomorraw was wrestling with was the Community
Center and he encouraged more interaction with what comes out of the Vai( Tomorrow process.
Planning and Finvironmental Commission
Minutes
April 14, 1997 2
.
• David Kenyon, of Design Workshop, said part of the Stage III process would include an analysis
of ai( potential modes of iransportation; such as peopie movers or trams, etc. and that Stage ili
would test all 173 items in the packet throughout the summer. He said that all would be tested
at the end of Stage III and he would bring back all the ideas and how they tested with the pros
and cons in order to do a final master plan.
Susan Connelly said that several PEC members mentioned eliminating skywalks and if they
wanted it deleted from the Wish List to say so.
The Commission forwarded the Wish List, as is, to the Town Council.
4. A request for a joint final review with the Design Review Board of an amended proposal
for the establishment of Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, located at 242
East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
George Ruther gave an overview of the request per the Planning and Environmental Commission
memo dated April 14, 1997. He said that the PEC was being asked to make a recommendation
to Town Council to approve, to approve with modifications, or to deny.
Greg Moffet asked what the DRB's role would be.
George Ruther said the DRB would review architectural improvements.
• Galen Aasland disclosed for the record that Gordon Pierce had called him.
Gordon Pierce, representing the applicant, made a presentation. The presentation included
discussion on how the applicant had addressed each of the Council's conditions of approval. ,
Greg Moffet stated for the record that Clark Brittain arrived at 3 pm. He then asked for any public
comments.
Gordon Pierce said he would like to confine the subject to building height reduction only.
Greg Maffet said despite voting on the entire SDD, the ridge line and elevation per the Council
request were the issues.
Jim Lamont said he sent a letter from the EVHA on Friday and asked if the PEC received it?
Greg Moffet said, yes.
Ted Hingst said it was an interesting building and he liked it. He asked if it carried over to the
sou±h side.
GQrdon Pierce said the buifding had been broken up with the addition of smaller buildings and
diiferent building materials.
! Ted Hingst said it did a good job af being a Sannenalp building and was a nice gateway property
~ to Bridge St. He said he appreciated the efforts to drop the raof line. He said comments hs
heard were that it would create a canyon of buildings along the creek.
Planning and Environmentat Commission
Mintttes
April1Q, 1997 3
.
Clark Brittain complimented Gordon on the change from a huge block of building. He said the
different styles of buildings were very effective and that the various styles and rooflines were very •
pleasing to the eye.
Gordon Pierce said he walked around Town with a 28' pole to measure the eave lines around the
Village and he showed that in every case, this project was below what was on Bridge Street.
Greg Moffet rendered comments from the commission members.
Galen Aasland applauded the roof design and said he liked the reduction in the tower. He then
asked where the mechanicals were going.
Gordon Pierce said there would be a few more chimneys, but they hadn't gotten to that yet. He
said they would probably be building a small bunker, but that a few more chimneys would break
up the roof mass
Galen Aasland asked if there would be any air conditioners.
Gordon Pierce said, no.
Galen Aasland said that the north elevation bothered him, as the plans and model didn't match,
as shown on the second and third levels of the plans.
Greg Moffet said the break of 1' was not much of a break.
Gordon Pierce said looking at larger scale plans showing a lot of relief would help. •
Galen Aasland said that the light was not going to shine on the north side of the building. Two of
the main reasons he supported the building before had been adequate steps on the north
building elevations and the loggia, which were now gone. He also said that by moving the .
building 7' to the north, it was apparent that the landscaping at the building and the west end of
the parking structure was a huge missed oopportunity, as many pedestrians pass by there each
day.
Ann Bishop commended Mr. Faessler and Mr. Pierce and said her preference was the first
drawing. She said she didn't receive Mr. LamonYs letter until 1 pm today and that Mr. Lamont
raised some good concerns and that she appreciated his concerns. She said she felt if Mr.
Faessler was involved in this it would be a first class building with a standard of excetlence and
that given the fact that he intended to remain involved with this, she had no problem.
Dane Golden said the ridge line coming down was good, however the west end was a concern.
She said she was sorry to see the building move to the north, but glad to see twa more
accammQdatipn units.
Gene Uselton asked if Gordon had paid for the Town's consultant.
Gordon Pierce said, yes.
Gene Uselton said he liked the first drawing. He asked for clarification on conditian #5 of the
_ seven conditions that Gouncil imposed.
Gardan Pierce said Johannes responded to Council that he had 86 units that he was not required •
to have at all to deed restrici.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
Apri114, 1997 4
i John Schofield asked for an overview of the current proposal.
Dave Kenyon, from Design Workshop, said that the 55' turnaround design was for large trucks.
He said deliveries for shops and retaii would occur seasonaily and that all other deliveries would
be done by UPS. He said the large turnaround wou(d stiil allow ingress and egress from the
parking structure. He said there was 4" of clearance in the 7'6" high garage.
John Schofield had no problem with the roofline. He said the 7' movement to norih was ok if
there would be a streamwalk, otherwise it would be wasted. He encouraged loading in the lower
garage.
Greg Amsden was impressed with the bulk and mass of the building and asked if the height of
the chimneys were dictated by code.
Gordon Pierce explained the plans that showed the correct chimneys.
Greg Moffet said he real(y (iked the change in the roofline and was glad to see the clock tower
gone. He said he would like to request an opportunity to review the roof projections or have staff
review them and asked George how it should be done procedurally.
George Ruther said a condition could be placed on the approval to have all projections enclosed
in the building or creatively disguised.
Greg Moffet said he respected Galen's opinions, as he was an architect. He said the PEC could
• condition the approval to include the roof on the north side of the building and a covered
walkway, but other than that, he said he was comfortable with the design.
Greg Amsden said the 7' movement towards the north was not effective.
Galen Aasland said he supported the roofline and the 3 building forms, but there were a couple
of items he still had a problem with.
Greg Amsden made a motion, in accordance with the staff recommendation and the 3
conditions, and with the additional condition that the applicant review the relief on the north
e(evation.
Ann Bishop seconded the motion.
John Schofield asked Gordon if the 60 days in condition #2 was appropriate.
Mike Mollica said 90 days was more appropriate.
Greg Amsden amended condition #2 to read 90 days.
Ann Bishop seconded the amended motion.
Greg Moffet said to include relief to the north elevation and more loggia.
Ann Bishop said not to require it, but to have it be considered.
.
Planning and Envuonmental Commission
Minutes
April14, 1997 5
Greg Amsden amended the motion to request that staff receive a plan, prior to construction,
showing ali roof projections and that the plan be reviewed by the DRB. S
Ann Bishop seconded the amended motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Galen Aasland opposed.
5. A request for a major exterior alteration in CC1, to allow for a deck enciosure at the A& D
Building, located at 286 Bridge StreeULots A, B, & C, Biock 5A, Vaif Village 1 st Filing.
Appiicant: 286 Bridge Street, Inc., represented by Craig Snowdon
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the memo.
Craig Snowdon, from Snowdon Hopkins representing the applicant, said he didn't exceed the
limitations for square footage or site coverage and that the owner never received any complaints
regarding the air compressor.
Greg Moffet asked for public comments.
Jim Lamont said the EVHA had no intent to place any conditions on this proposal and had not
heard any complaints about the air compressor either.
Diane Golden had no comments.
Gene Uselton had no comments. ~
John Schofield had no comments.
Greg Amsden had no comments. Galen Aas(and had no comments.
Ann Bishop said Dr. Parker's letter should be taken seriously..
Greg Moffet agreed with Ann.
Galen Aasland made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff inemo.
Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
John Schofield amended the motion to include the two findings on page 5 af the staff memo.
Gene Uselton seconded the amended motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
6. A request for a minor subdivision of tne Lodge Tower parcel, iocated at 200 Vaii
_ Road/Lots A& C, Block 5-C, Vai( Village First Filing.
Plaiming arid Environmental Comruission •
Minutes
April 14, 1997 6
• Applicant: Lodge Properties, lnc., represented by Jay Peterson
Pianner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff inemo.
Galen Aasland had no comments.
Ann Bishop asked if you could create a non-conforming lot.
Dominic Mauriello said that it was not a problem formalizing what already exists and that it
complied with the subdivision ordinance.
Ann Bishop asked if this issue was impacted by the Judge's decision several months ago.
Dominic Mauriello said, no:
Diane Golden had no comments.
Gene Uselton had no comments.
John Schofield had no comments.
Greg Amsden had no comments.
Greg Moffet had no comments. I,
• Gene Uselton made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
7. A request for a minor exterior alteration in CC1 and a request for a site coverage variance
from Sectian 18.24.150, to a commercial storefront and for an expansion to the outdoor
dining deck, in the Red Lion Building, located at 304 Bridge StreeULots E, F, G, & H,
Block 5-A, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Landmark Commercial Development, represented by Morter Architects
Planner: Tammie Williamson
Tammie Williamson gave an overview of the staff inemo and said that staff was recommending
denial because the existing landscape planters on the south side of the building should not be
lost.
Kyle Webb, from Morter Architects, explained that they were trying to fix what is now broken. He
said all the new planters would be bench height to serve two purposes. He said they wanted to
remove the twa existing landscape planters that were arbitrary and d'rdn't relate to the building,
as they were a different material. He said the goal was quality, not quantity. He said a 25' tall
tree with a 6' rootball couldn't have tree branches below 6' because af the trash removal trucks
_ and it appeared that the landscape issue was the only problem with staff. He showed a drawing
. of where people needed to gather, picnic table locations to be approved at a later date and why
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
Apri] 14, 1997 7
there was no piace for a planter. He asked if the Town wanted plants or people there and said
that the tree that was being added was substantial. .
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments.
Galen Aasiand agreed with staff's recommendation and said the tables were a self-created
probiem. He said that staff was proper to ask for landscaping, otherwise there wouid be paving
from side to side wi#hout any landscaping.
Ann Bisho nd advised the apPlicant to look across the street and
i
p said t h e standard was set a
erha s mirror that. She said when walkin9 around the area, she noticed that it was not
p p
maintained and it would require maintenance by the owner. She said that because Seibert Circle
was getting so much attention, a higher standard was being set and she was going along with
the recommendation of staff.
Diane Golden asked staff about Finding #2; to clarify how this could be detrimental to public
health.
Mike Mollica explained that those words were harsh, but technical. He said that the staff was
generally in agreement with Kyle, but that it was a key focal point in the Village and since it was
tied in with a variance, the landscaping should be improved. He said there was too much seating
proposed with only 1' to pass around the tables. He advised the PEC that tabling this item was
an option, because staff would like to evaluate the proposal in its entirety, including the
. conditional use permit for the tables.
Diane Golden asked about the tree already growing into the building. •
Kyle Webb said a tree had to be 12' off the ground and would lean and grow into the building, per
Glen Ellison, a tree consultant.
Gene Usefton said more landscaping and less tables.
John Schofield said the applicant needed to make choices on Hanson Ranch Road. He said he
supported tabling this. He said that trees didn't fit on the south side and that Glen Ellison could
come up with shrubs.
Greg Amsden mirrored John's comments.
Greg Moffet asked staff about the variance and landscaping as it related to the findings. He Said
that this change was more in compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design
Guidelines. He said it was a judgement call with a nst increase of 53 square feet of landscaped
area in exchange for 33' of site coverage and asked if additional landscaping obviates a special
privilege.
Mike Moliica agreed with Greg and said the extent of the planting on the south side of building
was not sufficient.
Greg Moffet said to eiiminate the grant of special priviiege, more iandscaping would be needed
when requesting a variance. He advised the applicant to table this, as the vate would not be
_ going the applicant's way.
i
Planning and Enduonmenia( Commission
Minutes
April14, 1997 8
• Kyle Webb asked about guidelines, as this met all the components of the streetscape pian.
Ann Bishop suggested talking to Mr. Hill and Mrs. Curtain across the street.
Greg Moffet said the applicant had 3 picnic tables and no planters and suggested taking out 1
table to put a planter in.
Ann Bishop said "Strictly Flowers" does the Lodge.
Galen Aasland said to table this request.
Kyle Webb stated that it will push us back a year.
Mike Mollica said staff made it very clear to the applicant, prior to submittal, that landscaping
would be very important and that there are ways to provide seating and landscaping in this area.
Kyle Webb agreed to table his proposal.
Greg Amsden made a motion to table this until April 28, 1997.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
• 8. A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks) to allow for a snowmelt boiler
and a snow avalanche mitigation wall in the south side setback, located at 2049 Sunburst
Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley 4th Filing.
Applicant: Landon and Mary Hilliard, represented by Larry Eskwith .
Planner: George Ruther
George Ruther gave an overview of the request and said that staff was recommending denial;
the same denial that they recommended .July 8, 1996.
Larry Eskwith, representing the applicant, made a presentation.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment.
Gene Uselton asked if the present location of the boifer was vulnerable to avalanches.
Larry Eskwith said, no, not with the mitigation to the east side of the wall. He said in the opinion
af Nick Lampiris, it was not vulnerable to avalanches.
John Schofield said he had no comments that were different from last summer and he supported
staff.
Greg Amsden asked if the boiler was moving.
_ George Ruther said, yes, towards the bike patn.
• Galen Aasland agreed with Greg Amsden.
Planning and Envirotunental Comznission
Minutes
, April 14, 1997 9
Ann Bishop said that Mrs. Hiiliard had relied on one branch of government in the past and has •
spent a lot of money.
Larry Eskwith said the landscaping would be what the DRB wanted.
Ann Bishop said she couldn't support the denial and she thought the request should be granted.
Diane Golden said she was uncomfortable with the boiler closer to the bike path, but she thought
they had to do it.
Greg Moffet said this request hadn't changed. He said he saw no special privilege.
Greg Amsden made a motion for approval in accordance with the findings.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion.
It passed by a vote of 6-1, with John Schofield opposed.
9. A request for an appeal of an administrative decision regarding Section 18.64.040 (Non-
Conforming Uses), stating that private and public unstructured off-street parking is a
different land use than private and public structured off-street vehicle parking, and
therefore, an existing legal non-conforming use may not be continued.
- Appellant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Pierce, Segerberg & Associates.
Planner: George Ruther
George Ruther gave an overview of the appeal. •
Greg Moffet clarified the appeal by omitting finding #2.
Kurt Segerberg, representing the applicant, made a presentation.
George Ruther explained that the code provided relief for this type of change of use.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments.
Galen Aasland said he supported the staff inemo.
Ann Bishop said the request should be granted and commended, as aesthetics are always
relevant and the Gramshammers should be commended for parking underground.
Diane Golden asked why no parking was allowed on-site.
Susan Connelly said because Vaii Village was a pedestrian village.
Diane Golden said she thaught the PEC would have to uphold the staff recommendation and that
the applicant would have to go before Council.
Gsne Uselton asked if there was a time limit on non-comforming uses.
George Ruther said there was no amortization period. •
Planning and l;nvironmental Commission
Minutes
April 14, 1997 10
• Gene Uselton said in a sense, it would reduce the number of vehicles in the Village.
John Schofieid said that this was a Council issue.
Greg Amsden asked staff if underground parking conflicted with the Master Plan.
George Ruther said that code specified that no parking was to be provided on-site and that staff
didn't disagree with the aesthetics.
Greg Amsden asked if a change in the zoning would be a benefit.
Mike Moilica suggested that the applicant could appear before Council and request a change in
the non-conforming use.
Greg Amsden said he supported the staff recommendation.
Greg Moffet said that it couldn't be more clear as the PEC tivas appointed as a quasi-judicial
board and that the interpretation didn't give the PEC a lot of wiggle room. The code compelled
the PEC to uphold the staff's decision. He said for the use to be changed, the elected folks
would have to reivew the request.
John Schofield made a motion to uphold the staff recommendation with the deletion of the
second finding.
• Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Ann Bishop opposed.
10. A request for an amendment to the development plan to allow for outdoor ski storage, , located at 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th
Filing, commonly referred to as the Golden Peak Ski Base.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy ;
Planner: Lauren Waterton '
Greg Moffet recused himseif from agenda item #10 and #11.
Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the staff inemo and said that the applicant had revised the
plans making it 265 sq. ft smaller, but in the same location.
Joe Macy, representing VA, said he agreed with the staff recommendation.
Greg Amsden asked for any pubiic comments.
Tam Neyens, a ski valet, asked if the space was getting bigger,
Lauren Waterton said, no.
• TAm Neyens said the signage shauld be IoGated sl~ewhers.
•
Planning and F.nvironmental Commission
Minutes
April 14, 1997 11
Lauren Waterton said the applicant had removed the signage, since this was addressed at the
fast meeting. •
Chris Kempf, from Vail Boot and Storage, stated that what VA was doing directly reflected on his
income and that his income was down 40% over the last two years. He said VA was going into
more and more of what hurt him. He asked why it was that they could have lockers outside
above ground.
Tom Friesen, with Mili Creek Sports, said the lockers should comply with the regulations and
shouid be below grade. If we allowed lockers above grade, the whole Town would be lockers.
He said lockers had to have doors and VA had only one door.
Chris Kempf said that the original intent was to have short-term storage or a ski corral idea, as
opposed to seasonal locker-type storage.
Gene Uselton asked Lauren who operated the ski storage in the Transportation Center.
Tom Moorhead said the storage was leased in the parking structure, but he was not certain if it
was operated by the Town or leased, however, it was on TOV property.
Gene Uselton asked Joe why it couldn't be located at the other end of the bus stop.
Joe Macy advised that the lockers were used for the entire winter and had not been a problem in
this location, but that they have looked at 4-5 options. The south end of the bus shelter was their
2nd choice.
John Schofield asked Tom Moorhead for the distinction between Ski Base Recreation and CC1 •
regulations.
Tom Moorhead said that the lockers under Chair 1 were on USFS property and that there was a
distinction between that location and the Golden Peak location. "
Ann Bishop asked if anyone had seen a copy of VA's permit.
John Schofield said we didn't have jurisdiction for Chair 1.
Tom Moorhead said that Golden Peak was zoned as a ski base facility and this use was
permitted.
John Schofie(d asked Joe if the wall was originally approved. He said he disagreed that
pedestrians were a problem, but questioned the reason for popping out the front for ski storage
and also asked if the guardhouse should be addressed.
Mike Mollica said the guardhouse was within the purview of the PEC to discuss.
Jahn Schofield said there was no other place to put it, but suggested changing the curve of the
guard house, so people wouldn't run into it.
Joe Macy said that the ski storage was consistent architecturally with what was there now.
~ Galen Aasland would like it on the other side of the building and that it would not be inconvenient
for anyone. .
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
April 14, 1997 12
• Ann Bishop stated a very big point with her was she was very much in favor of the little guy who
had been in business. She stated it was not fair to negatively impact the smail business owner in
Vail who had to compete with VA. She also said she was appalled that it was constructed on the
site without TOV approval and the request should be denied.
Tom Moorhead informed the PEC that VA was put on notice and that's why they were here
today.
Ann Bishop stated that it was not attractive from the start.
Greg Amsden said homeowners put up buildings without approval, so this was not unique.
Tom Moorhead said that they didn't know when it went up, but that the TOV didn't have authority
to go on other people's properry to take something down. He said they were now coming into
compliance.
Diane Golden said it was unfair that the USFS ailowed ski storage above ground. She felt the ski
storage at Golden Peak should be located at the southeast corner on the bus shelter.
Joe Macy said that would be a greater conflict with the pedestrian traffic and he then proceeded
to explain the drawing.
Diane Golden asked who's bus stop it was.
Joe Macy said VA's.
, Diane Golden said to approach the AIPP regarding artwork.
Joe Macy said VA would go to the DRB and agreed it was a good idea to go to AIPP. I
Chris Kempf asked if this went in the back door.
Tom Moorhead said it was a permitted use for the zoning, bu# the structure was not approved.
Ann Bishop asked if it was an allowable use, although permitted.
Mike Mollica said it is an allowable use.
Lauren Waterton said they were requesting an expansion, because the existing development
plan allowed for ski storage, but this area was greater that what was shown.
Ann Bishop asked if there were private business owners in the Gold Peak Building and that VA
was the only game in Town.
Jim Mandel asked when a citizen's had an incidence of violating an ordinance and was told to
decease or fix it, if VA was being treated the same.
Ann Bishop said, "so that makes it right?"
_ Greg Amsden looked over it and said the placement was proper and that it made the bus stop an
~ alcove. He said regarding competition, that zoning dictated uses and we were looking at the
Zoning Code.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
Aprii 14, 1997 13
Mike Mollica said, regarding the exterior racks west of the Children's Ski School, that they were
not there a few weeks ago and questioned, were ihey going to remain. •
Joe Macy said the racks are there in conjunction with the Children's Ski School.
Mike Mollica said it may make sense to look at this comprehensively to see all the ski storage
facilities.
Joe Macy said it was incongruous if ski storage in a ski area was not allowed.
Jerry Parman, one of the owners of Mill Creek Sports, said he had been in business for 7 years.
He said that November 11, 1989, the Core Village decided storage should be underground and
how can VA do what they want. He felt it a privilege situation in the Ski Base Recreation Zoning.
He asked why ski storage was needed on the bus route. He said a small business economy
gave the people the convenience of skiing. He said he wanted to get VA into the entrepreneurial
spirit. He said he moved here because the mountain was here. in 1994, they expanded their
lockers and it took quite a bit of energy, over 6 weeks to get this done. He asked with all the
lockers in Town, was this a valid use.
John Schofield made a motion for approval with a change to fhe location of the lockers to the
southeast end instead of the northwest end.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion
The motion faiSed by a vote of 3-3 (Gene Uselton, Diane Golden, & Ann Bishop opposed).
Gene Uselton made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo. .
Diane Golden seconded the motion.
The motion failed by a vote of 3-3 (John Schofield, Galen Aasland & Ann Bishop opposed)
Jim Mandel said VA would accept a tie.
Greg Amsden said the motion was denied.
Torn Moorhead said VA could appeal this decision to the Town Council, amend the application,
or come back with this same application.
Ann Bishop asked about the unpermitted structure.
Tom Moorhead said it had to be removed.
11. A request for an appeal of a staff denial of the outdoor ski storage, located adjacent to
the Gondola Building/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing.
Appellant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Lauren Waterton
Ann Bishop stated she had a conversation with Jim Mandel who said she was biased against
_ Vail Assaciates. She said she was not biased against Vail Associates, but that she was
canaerned that the structure was constructed an the site without TOV approval. She said it was
not in her purview to look out for the fittle guy and she apologized to Mr. Mandel. .
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
Apri114, 1997 14
,I . Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the staff inemo.
Greg Amsden asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Jim Mandel, frorn Vai! Associates, asked why should VA be allowed to have above ground ski
storage because the USFS permits it in Gold Peak, but the CC1 doesn't. He said ski storage
should be allowed in a ski town. He said VA would support a change to the Ordinances because
the philosophy encouraged ski storage. He said iYs easier to ride the bus when skis are in Town.
He said Vail had 1400 ski storage spots, with 70% of skis stored overnight were rentals From VA.
He apologized for the Golden Peak issue, as there was pressure to get things done. He said VA
would make a structure we would alt be proud of. He said he wished there was a better place.
He said VA had the ability to appeal to Council if half of the PEC wanted it on the right and half
on the len. VA would then jump #o the next process. He said VA did not get approval for the
racks and locks in Lionshead, since people didn't think of it as a structure. He felt a temporary
type of structure should be dealt with or encouraged, as it was consistent with a ski town. He
said this was not an economic issue; that Lionshead was a legal issue; not an aesthetic issue.
He said they would like to have the request granted, to overturn staff's denial and be able to
come into compliance and remove any offending structures. He said in 1987 Lionshead and
Golden Peak got Town approval for 10 wire racks to be installed. He said in 1989 basement
storage was passed for CC2, so this was grandfathered in. He said in 1995/96, wire racks were
replaced with ski barns holding 49 skis or snowboards. Jim said it was arguable if it was still
grandfathered, since the building was changed to make it more attractive than the wire racks.
He said it held 14 ski racks less, but that staff denied it because it was a zoning issue. Jim
Mandel said VA wanted the right to go to the DRB and go back to wire racks. He said staff said
we lost our non conforming use because of the change in the structure. He felt there should be
• above ground structures and that ski storage should be considered with the Lionshead
redeveiopment. He said skis have to be within a structure and wire racks were not a structure.
He asked what was below grade and if below the main grade was below grade. He said the
storage was a levet below the Gondola Building. Jim said VA would like to go to the DRB. He
asked if below grade could be within a main structure and if we were splitting hairs on that. He
said to encourage higher retail use above grade. • ,I
Mike Mollica said the Lionshead racks were approved in a different iocation than they were in
today.
Joe Macy said this went back 10 years and it looked like half the racks were in one location and
the other half in another location, but the racks were all put in one location at some point of time.
John Schofield asked Jim if, regarding the existing units in a structure, there was a building permit issued for that structure.
Jim Mandel said, no.
Jahn Schofield asked Jim if he was familiar with the UBC.
Jim Mandel said, no.
Mike Mallica said that in 1989 the Town dealt with the proposal of ski storage in the Mill Creek
Court Building and in the CC1 and CC2 districts, but that the code was si(ent with ski storage
_ prior. He said in 1989 it was not approved. He said uses were regulated as defined in the Code.
• He said that ski storage was not an exciting use and Council designated it into the basement
(eve( only for that particular use. Mike said what was approved in 1987 might have been a
Planning and Environmental Commission
M imrtes
April 14, 1997 15
mistake on staff's part, as the code was silent in 1987. He said ski storage might have been
, ciassified as an accessory uss. He said changing the wire racks to a structure was questionable ~
as to whether the non-conforming status should remain. Mike said that staff said na, it is a
, change of use.
Jim Mandei said he was concerned with grandfathering and not going back to look at what
happened 10 years ago. He said the racks were consoiidated to one site, but that both sites
were approved with the initial application.
Galen Aasland said racks were originally in front of the Children's Ski School and Trails End and
that they were a!l by the rental shop now.
Jim Mandel said we would like to go to DRB now.
Greg Amsden asked for any public comments and to focus on the zoning.
I
Tom Neyens agreed with the 8oard, but remembered the racks being a lot smaller. He said they
were in barns now and didn't look good. He said they held 40 skis initially, not 70. He suggested
moving these lockers into the game room under the old Gondola. He said he spent a lot of
money to meet code and that Pepi Gramshammer dug out space to put the ski storage below
ground. He said if the rest of us had to put it below ground, then so should VA.
Gene Uselton asked Tom Moorhead if changing the racks invalidated the grandfathering.
; Tom Moorhead said that was what the PEC had to decide. He said staff had said this was an
expansion of a legal non conforming use. The 1987 decision didn't matter.
Greg Amsden stated if the location was changed, you lost the right for it to be grandfathered. He •
said these racks were moved and so they lost that grandfathered right. He said the use should
be abandoned.
John Schofieid asked Tom for a definition because of an expansion.
Tom Moorhead said Section 18.64 provided that greater site area shall be deemed a new
limitation.
Galen Aasland said the Town goes by the UBC and something different could not be built on the
site.
Tom Moorhead said this section addressed the discontinuance issue.
Gene Uselton asked if the slots were counted.
Lauren Waterton said the area was looked at, not the number of skis that could be stored.
Gene Uselton asked if the racks were upgraded to better racks, does it kili the grandfathering.
Tom Moorhead said that was for the PEC to determine.
_ Gene Uselton said there was a need for this, but we need to see how to do it without violating
the code.
.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
April 14, 1997 16
• Tom Moorhead said the non-conforming use section of the code said they may be maintained or
repaired with no increase in site improvement, the non conformance can't be increased or
expanded.
John Schofield said they could not be completely replaced.
Susan Connelly said the reason behind non canforming uses was that they were to be eliminated
over time.
John Schofield said that Council needed to address this issue, but that hs agreed with Jim.
He said the racks were right outside the door by the Children's Center. He said the consolidation
of the racks into one area or a compfete replacement was a substantial change in alteration and
so he would have to go along with the staff recommendation. He encouraged VA to go with
competitors to get consistency.
Galen Aasland said it was good for guests in Town, but he agreed with John. He said the UBC
and Zoning Codes were pretty c(ear. He said the location was proper, but what VA was asking
for was not allowed.
Ann Bishop abstained because she said she was not sure she understood the issue.
Diane Golden said the Lionshead Survey questionnaire said to expand storage and we need this.
She said the PEC just denied underground parking because it was a change and this was the
y same as the ski storage. She said even though it was a change for the better, we couldn't
grandfather it in.
~ Greg Amsden said he sided with the resi of the Commission. He said it conflicted with the
current code and he couldn't support it. He said this was not a grandfathered scenario and to
uphold the staff recommendation.
Gene Uselton asked about the ski racks that held the children's skis right in front of Garfinkei's '
deck that were not locked. He asked if they were part of the charge of a ski lesson and said that
they were movable racks that were moved inside.
Mike MoHica said those would be an accessory use to the ski school. ,
Jim Mandel asked if ski barns could be an accessory use.
John Schofield made a motion to uphold the staff's denial.
Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-0-2 (Ann Bishop abstained and Greg Moffet recused himself)
12. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow Type III EHUs
for seasonal housing, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/legally described as:
beginning at the Northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 Sauth, 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 lnterstate Highway No. 70
. " thence along the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 as follows:
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
April 14, 1997 17
.
S 67°41'33" W 415.82 feet; thence S78°13'02" W 1534.29 feet, to a point of curvature;
thence 456.43 faet on a curve to the right with a radius of 5580.00 feet, the chord of which •
bears S80033'38" W 456.30 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Section 9: thence
departing the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 and following
the Westeriy 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
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the memo and said that the applicant needed clarification
on some of the issues.
Andy Knudtsen said that Public Works and the Housing Division were the co-applicants and that
in two weeks we would be back to nail down the details.
Mark Donaldson, the architect, said that the roofline had been broken up. He explained that the
colors were not to draw attention, rather to make the building more interesting. He said windows
had been put in the rear of the building, as the PEC requested. He requested that this project be
approved without tandscaping in the parking lot. He said that only two rooftop penetrations wou(d
come through the roof, with the exception of the plumbing vents and the (aundry room dryer artd
all vents would come out the north watl which would conceal them from public view. He then
addressed the changes in materials, as well as the view analysis.
Greg Moffet said there was no public present at the meeting and that 908 sq. ft. of internal
' parking loi landscaping was not required in the GU district.
Galen Aasland said he would like to see a larger section of flat roof and decks, so it would not be •
so monotonous. He said he had trouble with it not looking iike an alpine environment and that it
looked like Dillon. He said he was very much in favor of landscaping in the parking lot which
would be possibie by eliminating 3 spaces in the parking lot.
Ann Bishop stated more landscaping was needed on site.
Diane Golden agreed and had no other specific comments.
Gene Uselton said the building was an improvement, but he would like the landscape islands.
John Schofield echoed Galen's and Gene's concerns and stated that plows would have to plow
around something some of the time anyway. He said his concern was that at some point in time
they will be sold; that some future Council may not want to service the debt and so they needed
to be braught in conformance with what a private developer would do. He said he saw the north
side as being a maintenance nightmare.
Mark Donaldson said with the exception of the parking lot landscaping, these were subjective
issues.
John Schofield said this project was important for public perception and that although masonry
was expensive, over 30 years it would be low maintenance and cost effective.
Mark Donaldson suggested extending the foundation wall. He explained the challenge was
1 building 24 units, a studio configuration for 18 units and 6- 1 bedroom units all requiring
individual tap fee, etc, and keeping the cost between $125 -$135 per sq. ft.
.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
April 14, 1997 $
• Diane Goiden asked for the breakdown of the types of housing.
Mark Danaidson gave the breakdown of the units.
Greg Amsden said the ridgeline was still bothering him and only a 6' differential was not enough.
He said the PEC would not atlow any other developer to do that. He felt the two upper level units
on each end should have wrap-around decks. He said to put the decks on with resa(e purposes
in mind.
Andy Knudsten said that the current Town Manager and Council wf:re committed to housing and
that there was no debt service on this project, as it was being paid for out of Capital
improvements.
Susie Hervert stated that with no children or pets allowed and the industrial nature of the site, it
really was not marketable.
Greg Amsden said that the Council had to bite the bullet and spend the money.
Andy Knudtsen said we would try, but we wanted to come in under budget.
Greg Amsden said it could be built in phases.
Andy Knudtsen said separate excavation costs would bring up the cost.
• Greg Moffet disagreed with Greg Amsden. He asked why this was oriented away from the view
of the Gore.
Susie Hervert said the project was bumped back to the north to have a distinction between
Public Works parking and the housing parking and that topography dictated the location.
Greg Moffet asked if the units could be made available to TOV empfoyees with a deed restriction.
Andy Knudtsen said seasonal TOV employees were the first priority, then permanent TOV
ernployees.
Greg Moffet agreed with Galen; to make it yodel a little.
Mark Donaldson said that this was an improvement and he failed to see why we needed a
Sonnenalp here.
Galen Aas(and said it had no heavy proportions and cvuld easily be built down in Denver.
Greg Moffet said we had a unique opportunity, given the zoning of this property.
Galen Aasland suggested changing the pitch from 4:12 to 6:12, or varying the roof pitch, bring
the stucco up with flashing against the wall.
13. A request for a worksession to discuss a major exterior alteration in CC1 and a minor
_ suladivision, to allaw for the construction of a parking garage, 9 accommodation units, i
• candominium and new retai( office space at the Gasthof Gramshammer, located at 231
E. Gore Creek Dr./Part of Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
April14, 1997 19
. . , s
' Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Pierce, Segerberg, & Associates
Planner: George Ruther .
TABLED UNTIL APRlL 28,1997
John Schofield made a motion to table item #13 until April 28, 1997.
Greg Amsden seconded the motion.
It passed by a vote of 7-0.
14. lnformation Update - Town Council decision on Kelton appeal - Dirk Mason
Greg Moffet stated that this update was received at the pre-meeting.
Diane Golden gave an update on A(PP and said that Nancy Sweeney brought back a Jesus
Morales packet.
15. Appointment of PEC Representative on Open Space Committee to replace Henry Pratt.
Gene made a motion to appoint Galen Aasland.
. John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
16. Appointment of PEC Representative at DRB for the October - December 1997 quarter. .
17. Approval of March 10, 1997.
John Schofield made a motion to table the March 10, 1997 minutes.
Gene Useiton seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. .
Greg Amsden made a motion to adjourn.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
. .
Planning and Environmental Cammission
Minutes
April 14, 1997 20