The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-0609 PEC TH(S ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE ~ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmentai Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on June 9, 1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a warksession to discuss a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of the Alpine Garden Education Center, located at 620 Vail Valley Drive/Tract A, Vai! Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail filpine Garden Foundation Planner: George Ruther A request ior a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Front Setback) and for a residentia( addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for the construction of a dormer addition, located at 2943 Bellflower Drive/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Frank Bannister, represented by RKD Planner: Tammie Williamson A request for an interior addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to al(ow for an additional bedroom, located at 680 W. Lionshead P(ace/Lot 3, Vaii Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Phylis Darnell, represented by Rob Levine. Planner: Dirk Mason A request for a worksession to discuss a zoning code amendment, to allow for outdoor ~ commercial ski storage, as a conditional use and to allow for commercial ski storage (indoors) in all building levels, located in the CCI and CCII Zone Districts. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. represented by Joe Macy Planner: Lauren Waterton A request for an interior additian, utifizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an additional bedroom, located at 680 W. Lionshead Place, the Antlers/Lot 3, Vai! l.ionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Larry Schwimmen, represented by Rob Levine. Planner: Dirk Mason ~ A request to amend the Goiden Peak Ski Base Deveiopment Plan to allow for outdoor commercial ski storage, a parking lot attendant booth and outdoor wire ski racks, located at 458 Vai! Valley DrivelTract F, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy Planner: Lauren Waterton A request for a variance from Section 16.20.010 (Signs Permitted), to allow for two building identification signs and to allow for an increase in the size of traffic control signs, located at Golden Peak Ski Base, 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Jack Hunn P(anner: Lauren Waterton ~ A request ior an interior addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for a study, located at 1975 Placid Drive/Lot 15 Vail Village West Filing #1. Applicant: James Donaldson, represented by Gore Range Construction Planner: Dirk Mason A request for a worksession to discuss a front setback variance (Section 18.28.070), to ailow for a deck expansion at Crossroads, located at 143 East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Viilage 1 st Filing. Applicant: Haagen Daz, represented by Bill Pierce ~ Pianner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a minor subdivision and variances from lot size (Seciion 18.27.050), landscaping (Section 18.27.100) and parking (Section 18.27.110) requirements for the First Bank in West Vaif, {ocated at 2271 N. Frontage Road/Tract C, Vail Das Schone Fiiing #1. Applicant: First Bank of Vail, represented by Joseph Miller Planner: Dominic Mauriello I A request for a minor subdivision to modify ihe platted building enve(ope for Lot 9, Spraddle Creek, located at 1229 Spraddle Creek/Lot 9, Spraddle Creek. Applicant: Dr. and Mrs. Singh, represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: Tarnmie Williamson A request for a review of the Environmental Impact Report, to allow for a new single-famiiy home, located at 5111 Black Bear Lane/Lot 1, Biock 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Rolle Kjesbo Planner: Tammie Williamson A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a brew-pub and a request for a variance from . Section 18.26.040 J, to the requirement that no more than 45% of the annual production be sold for off-site consumption and a variance to the requirement for 50% ( Section 18.26.150) of the parking to be located on-site, located at 600 Lionshead Mall (Gondola Building)/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing. ~ Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by David Thorpe ~ Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a seasonal structure to be erected for the purpose of seUing seasonal plant products,located at 2154 S. Frontage Road/(Conoco), generally located at: . THAT PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 81 WES7 OF THE 6TH P.M., EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, WNICH BEGIIVS AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH- EASTERI..Y RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70, WHICH POINT OF BEGINNING LIES S86°14'22"W A DISTANCE OF 1200.64 FEET AND N48°00'57"E A DISTANCE OF 380.04 FEET OF THE SE CORNER OF SAID SECTION 11, THENCE ALONG SAIp RIGHT-OF-WAY N44°01'05"E A DISTANCE OF 190.0 FT., THENCE S45°58'55"E A DISTANCE OF 229.50 FEET, THENCE N85°36'13"W A DISTANCE OF 297.94 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TRACT CONTAINING 0.500 AC. Applicant: Jane Mack Planner: Tammie Williamson A request for a final review to establish a Special Development District #35, the Austria Haus, locatsd at 242 East Meadow Drive/Part of Tract C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Praperties, Inc. represented by Gordon Pierce Pianner: George Ruther The applicatians and inPormation 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 haur notification. Piease call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Qevelopment Department Published May 23, 1997 in the Vail Trail. . .t I I Agenda last revised 6/04/97 9 am ~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION I Monday, June 9, 1997 AGENDA Project Orientation /LUNCH - Communitv Development Department 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:00 pm 1. First Bank of Vail - 2271 N. Frontage Road 2. Singh - 1229 Spraddle Creek 3. Vail Associates, inc. - 600 Lionshead Mall (Gondola Building) 4. Haagen Daz - 143 East Meadow Drive 5. Kjesbo - 5111 Black Bear Lane Driver: Dominic ~ •~'••,.~i~ NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a minor subdivision to modify the platted building envelope for Lot 9, Spraddle Creek, (ocated at 1229 Spraddie Creek/Lot 9, Spraddle Creek. Applicant: Dr. and Mrs. Singh, represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: Tammie Williamson 2. A request for a minor subdivision and variances from lot size (Section 18.27.050), landscaping (Section 1827.100) and parking (Section 18.27.110) requirements for the First Bank in West Vail, located at 2271 N. Frontage Road/Tract C, Vail Das Schone Filing #1. Applicant: First Bank of Vail, represented by Joseph Miller Planner: Dominic Mauriello 3. A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Front Setback) and for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for the construction of a dormer addition, located at 2943 Be!lflower Drive/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Frank Bannister, represented by RKD . Planner: Tammie Williamson y1(1W 4VAIL Agenda last revised 6/04/97 9 am ' 4. A request for a review of the Environmental Impact Report, to allow for a new singie- ~ family home, located at 5111 Black Bear Lane/Lot 1, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Rolle Kjesbo Planner; Tammie Wiiliamson 5. A request for a worksession to discuss a frant setback variance (Section 18.28.070), to ailow for a deck expansion at Crossroads, located at 143 East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Fifing. Applicant: Haagen Daz, represented by Bill Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello 6. A request for a variance from Section 16.20.010 (Signs Permitted), to aNow for two building identification signs and to aliow for an increase in the size of traffic control signs, located at Golden Peak Ski Base, 458 Vai! Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail ViNage 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Jack Hunn Planner: Lauren Waterton 7. A request for a worksession to discuss a zoning code amendment, to allow for outdoor commercial ski storage, as a conditional use and to allow for commercial ski storage (indoars) in all buiiding 1evels, located in the CC{ and CCII Zone Districts. Applicant: Vail Associates, {nc. represented by Joe Macy ~ Planner: Lauren Waterton 8. A request to amend the Golden Peak Ski Base Development Plan to allow for outdoor commercial ski storage, a parking lot attendant booth and outdoor wire ski racks, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, lnc., represented by Jae Macy Planner: Lauren Waterton 9. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a brew-pub and a request for a variance from Section 18.26.040 J, to the requirement that no more than 45% of the annual production be sold for off-site consumption and a variance to the requirement for 50% of the parking to be located on-site ( Section 18.26.150), located at 600 Lionshead Mal( (Gondola Building)/Lot4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead ist Filing. Applicant: Vai! Associates, Inc., represented by David Thorpe Planner: Dominic Mauriello 10. A request for a final review to establish a Special Development District #35, the Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/Part of Tract C, Vail Viiiage 1 st Fiiing. App(icant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther • 2 . I Agenda lasi revised &04/97 9 am 11. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit, to allow for the ~ construction of the Alpine Garden Education Center, located at 620 Vail Valley Drive/Tract A, Vail Village 7th Filing. ~ Applicant: Vail Atpine Garden Foundation Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTtL JUNE 23, 1997 12. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a seasonal structure to be erected for the purpose of selling seasonal plant products, located at 2154 S. Frontage Road/(Conoco), generally iocated at: THAT PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, AANGE 81 WEST OF TNE 6TH P.M., EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, WHICH BEGlNS AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH- EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF IN7ERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70, WH(CH POfNT OF BEGINNING LIES S86°14'22"W A D15TANCE OF 1200.64 FEET AND N48"00'57"E A DISTANCE OF 380.04 FEET OF THE SE CORNER OF SAID SECTION 11, THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY N44°01105"E A DfSTANCE OF 190.0 FT., THENGE S45°58'55"E A DISTANCE OF 229.50 FEET, THENCE N85°36'13"W A DISTANCE OF 297.94 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TRACT CONTAINING 0.500 AC. Applicant: Jane Mack Planner: Tammie WiHiamson WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT ~ 13. A request for an interior addition, utilizing 150 sq. ft. of the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an additional bedroom, located at 680 W. Lionshead Place/Lot 3, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Appficant: Phylis Darnell, represented by Rob Levine. Planner: Dirk Mason ~ STAFF APPROVED 14. A request for an interior addition, utilizing 150 sq. ft. of the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an additional bedroom, located at 680 W. Lionshead Place, the Antlers/Lot 3, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Larry Schwimmen, represented by Rob Levine. Planner: Dirk Mason STAFF APPROVED 15. A request for an interior addition, utilizing 83 sq. ft. of the 250 Ordinance, to allow for a new study, located at 1975 Placid Drive/Lot 15 Vail Village West Filing #1. Applicant: James Donaldson, represented by Gore Range Construction Planner: Dirk Mason STAFF APPROVED ~ 16. Jnformation Update 17. Approval of May 19, 1997 minutes. 3 • . Agenda last revised 6/04/97 9 arn The applications and informatian 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 pevelopment Department Published June 6, 1997 in the Vail Trail. ~ i 4 . ~ Agenda last revised 6/10/97 1 pm ~ PLANNING AND ENVlRONMENTAL COMMISSION ~ Monday, June 9, 1997 FINAL AGENDA Project Orientation /LUNCH - Community DeveiQpment Department 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Moffet Gene Uselton Greg Amsden (2:15) Galen Aasland Diane Golden John Schofield . Ann Bishop Site Visits : 1:00 pm i. First Bank of Vail - 2271 N. Frontage Road 2. Singh - 1229 Spraddte Creek 3. Vail Associates, Inc. - 600 Lionshead Mall (Gondola Building) 4. Haagen Daz - 143 East Meadow Drive ~ 5. Kjesbo - 5111 B(ack Bear Lane Driver: Dominic ~ -~+;•.l~;v" 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. A request for a minor subdivision to modify the platted building envelope for Lot 9, Spraddle Creek, located at 1229 Spraddle Creek/Lot 9, Spraddle Creek. Applicant: Dr, and Mrs. Singh, represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: Tammie Williamson MOTION: Ann Bishap SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED WITH ONE CONDITION: 1. That the applicant submit to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development, a letter of approval to amend the building envelope on Lot 9, from the Spraddle Creek Architectural Control Committee. i I mwxo~~w, ~ AIW ~ I Agenda last revised 6/10/97 1 pm I 2. A request for a minor subdivision and variances from lot size (Section 18.27.050), landscaping (Section 18.27.104) and parking (Section 18.27.110) requirements for the ~ ~ First Bank in West Va+l, located at 2271 N. Frontage Road/Tract C, Vail Das Schone Filing #1. ~ , Applicant: First Bank of Vail, represented by Joseph Miller Planner: Dominic Mauriello ~ MOTION: Ann Bishop SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 6-0 ' APPROVED WITH ONE CONDITION: 1. That a note be placed on the plat stating, "this lot shall be considered an independent parcel far the purpose of zoning and development standards." 3. A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Front Setback) and for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for the construction of a dormer addition, located at 2943 Bellflower Drive/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Frank Bannister, represented by RKD Planner: Tammie Williamson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 4-2 (Ann Bishop, Greg Moffet opposed) APPROVED WITH THREE FINDINGS: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of specia( priviiege • ~ inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the imposition of the Town of Vail annexation regulations (front yard setbacks) rendered many properties in the neighborhood non-conforming. 3. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 4. A request for a review of the Environmental impact Report, to allow far a new single- family home, located at 5111 Black Bear Lane/Lot 1, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Rollie Kjesbo Planner: Tammie Williamson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH FIVE CONDRIONS: 1. That the applicant execute the mitigation measures with regular maintenance of sedimentation controls to ensure their effectiveness as outlined in the report; 2. That silt fences be located outside of ihe snow fence to delineate the limits of disturbance; 3. That the applicant be required to replant and restore wetland native species on- • site; 2 ~ ' Agenda last revised 6/10/97 ] pm . 4. That the limits of disturbance be clearly delineated on the site plan and no impacts to ground cover is allowed outside of the limits of disturbance; and 5. That no grading or buifding permits will be issued by the Community Deveiopment ' Departrnent until the project is reviewed and approved by the US Army Corps of , Engineers. 5. A request for a worksession to discuss a front setback variance (Section 18.28.670), to allow for a deck expansion at Crossroads, (ocated at 143 East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Haagen Daz, represented by Bill Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello W4RKSESSION - NO VOTE 6. A request for a variance from Sect+on 16.20.010 (Signs Permitted), to allow for two building identification signs and to allow for an increase in the size of traffic control signs, located at Golden Peak Ski Base, 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vaii Associates, Inc., represented by Jack Hunn Planner: Lauren Waterton MOTION: Ann Bishop SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6-0 ~ APPROVED 7. A request for a worksession to discuss a zoning code amendment, to allow for outdoor ' commercial ski storage, as a conditional use and to allow for cornmercial ski storage , (indoors) in a!I building levels, located in the CCI and CCII Zone Districts. ' ~ Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. represerrted by Joe Macy Planner: Lauren Waterton ' WORKSESSIUN - NO VOTE 8. A request to amend the Golden Peak Ski Base Developrnent Plan to allow for outdoor commercial ski storage, a parking lot attendant booth and outdoor wire ski racks, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Viilage 5th Filing and Tract B, Vaif Viilage 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy Planner: Lauren Waterton MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 5-0-1 (Greg Moffet recused) APPROVED WITH THREE CONDITIONS: 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 1.2 of the Sign Program, appraved 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 wall of the ski storage building. 3 ~ , Agenda last revised 6/10/97 1 pm ~ 2. That the ski racks to be used for the Children's Center be enclosed, with materiais that are consistent with the Town of Vail Design Guidelines, and approved by the • 'Design Review Board. 3. That the number and size of the wire racks at the Children's Center be as outlined in the appiication. ' 9. A request for a conditional use permit to alfow for a brew-pub and a request for a variance from Section 18.26.040 J, to the requirement that no more than 45% of the ' annual production be sold for off-site consumption and a variance to the requirement for 50°la of the parking to be 4ocated on-site ( Sect+on 18.26.150), Rocated at 600 Lionshead Mall (Gondola Building)/Lot 4, Biock 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by David Thorpe Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOT10N: John Schofield SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH FOUR CONDITIONS: 1. That the conditional use permit shall be subject to call-up and review by the PEC if it is found that the use is not operating in compliance with the conditionaf use permit. 2. That if the building is substantially reconstructed, the conditional use permit shall become void. 3. That the brew pub shall be equipped with an air filtering system to reduce • potential odors associated with the brewing process. 4. That the applicant submit a detailed loading and delivery plan which addresses all uses that utilize this loading facility to the town staff for review and approval. Prior to obtaining a TCO, the site shall be in compliance with all applicable health codes and other Town requirements. Provisions shall be made for pedestrian access and other vehicles shall only be parked in designated parking spaces on-site. 10. A request for a final review to establish a Special Development District #35, the Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow DrivelPart of Tract C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, fnc. represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 6-0 APPROVAL WITH EIGHT CONDITIONS: 1. That the applicant meet with the Tawn staff, prior ta appearing before Town Council for the first reading of an ordinanee establishing Special Development District #35, to formulate a construction phasing plan and to determine financial responsibilities for ihe off-site impravements to Slifer Square, East Meadow Drive and the revegetation of the Tpwn-awned stream tract, south of the Austria Haus. Staff will then make a recommendation to Council regarding the construction phasing and financial responsibilities of the off-site improvements. . 4 Agenda last revised 6/10/97 1 pm i• 2. That the appiicant prepare a deed restriction or covenant, subject to the Town Attorney's review and approval, thereby restricting the current and future owner(s) ~ ability to locate a restaurant, or similar food service operation on the Austria Haus property. Said deed restriction or covenant shaii be recorded with the Eagle i County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to the applicant submitting for a build+ng permit. 3. That the applicant submit the following plans to the Department of Community Devslopment, for review and approval, as a part of the building permit application for the Ausiria Haus: a. A Tree Preservation P(an; b. An Erosion Confrol and Sedimentation Plan; c. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan; d. A Stprmwater Management Plan; e. A Site Dewatering Plan; and f. A Traffic Control Plan. 4. That the applicant provide deed-restricted housing, which complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 18.57), for a minimum of 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. If the applicant transfers the deed-restriction within the project, or outside of the project, said transfer shall not result in density of housing ~ (employees/square foot) of employees greater than that proposed by the applicant in the letter dated 5/20/97 attached to the staff inemo (6/9/97). ~ 5. That the PEC approval of Special Development District #35, the approval of the conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club in the ' Public Accommodation Zone District, and the approval of a minor subdivision shall be conditioned upon the approval of this SDD establishment request by the Vail ' Town Council. 6. That this approval is conditioned upon the approval of a minor subdivision, as follows: "A minor subdivision wili amend the location of the north property line. The applicant is proposing to trade land with the Town in order to gain an additional one - two feet of property along the northerly property line. In exchange for this land, the applicant is proposing to trade a triangular piece of property, adjacent to Slifer Square, to the Town. If a minor subdivision is requested, all costs incurred to complete the subdivision and the exchange of land with ihe Town shall be the responsibility of the applicant." 7. That the following design considerations be carefully reviewed by the Design Review Board (as previously discussed in Section IV of this memorandum): A) That the mullions on the windows and doors, as depicted on the building elevations, be a required eiement of the Austria Haus project. ~ 5 i K . } I ~ Agenda last rcvised 6/10/97 1 pm i B} That partial improvemer?ts recommended for East Meadow Drive, as depicted in the approved Town of Vaii Streetscape Master Plan, be implemented as a part • ~ of the Austria Haus project. This includes a reduction in street widTh from 30 feet to 26 feet (14 foot bus lane and 12 foot attached, asphalt pedestrian walk). C) 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. I D) That the applicant prepare a comprehensive sign and exterior lighting program , for the Austria Haus. The comprehensive exterior Jighting and sign program will be reviewed by the DRB. E) That the applicant submit plans indicating the proposed design of the bus shelter in Slifer Square. The plans shall be submitted prior to DRB conceptual review. F) That the applicant submit plans indicating ihe Iocation, type, and quantity of roof top mechanical equipment prior to DRB conceptual review. G) That the applicant submit detailed building elevation plans adequately labeled to identify architectural details (railings, trim, fascia, etc.) and exterior building materials and colors prior to DRB conceptual revisw. 8. That the applicant incorporate the origina(ly contemplated design whiCh incorporates the loading and delivery fac+iity in the underground parking structure. Staff believes that trying to accommodate loading and delivery in the porte- ~ I cochere area will result in conflicts between pedestrians, vehicles accessing the parking structure, and delivery trucks. Staff understands the original design option may not be the desire of the owners of the Village Center Condominiums, yet we ' believe the impact can be mitigated with appropriate screening. 11. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit, to a(low for the canstruction of the Alpine Garden Education Center, located at 620 Vail Valley Drive/Tract A, Vail Viilage 7th Filing. Applicant: Vai! Alpine Garden Foundation Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL JUNE 23,1997 12. A request for a conditional use permit to a11ow for a seasonal structure to be erected for the purpose of selling seasonal plant products, located at 2154 S. Frontage Road/(Conoco), generally located at: THAT PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 81 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, WHICH BEGINS AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH- EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF IN7ERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70, WHICH PO(NT OF BEGiNNING LIES S86° 14'22"W A DIS7ANCE OF 1200.64 FEET AND N48°00'57"E A DISTANCE OF 380.04 FEET OF T'HE SE CORNER OF SAlD SECTION 11, THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY N44°01'05"E A DISTANCE OF 190.0 FT., THENCE S45°58'55"E A DISTANCE OF 229.50 FEET, THENCE N85°38'13"W A pISTANCE OF 297.94 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TRACT CONTAINING 0.500 AC. Appiicant: Jane Mack ~ Planner: Tammie Williamson 6 . Agenda last revised 6/10/97 1 pm ow I • WtTHDRAWN BY APPLICANT 13. A request for an interior addition, utitizing 150 sq. ft. of the 250 Ordinance, to ailaw for an additional bedroom, located at 680 W. Lionshead Piace/Lot 3, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Phylis Darnell, represented by Rob Levine. Planner: Dirk Mason STAFF APPROVED 14. A request for an interior addition, utilizing 150 sq. ft. of the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an additional bedroom, located at 680 W. Lionshead Place, the Antlers/Lot 3, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Larry Schwimmen, represented by Rob Levine. Planner: Dirk Mason STAFF APPROVED 15. A request for an interior addition, utilizing 83 sq. ft. of the 250 Ordinance, to allow for a new study, located at 1975 Placid Drive/Lot 15 Vail Village West Filing #1. Applicant: James Donaidson, represented by Gore Range Construction Pianner: Dirk Mason • STAFF APPROVED II 16. Information Update ~ I 17. Approval of May 19, 1997 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during ; regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 ' TDD for information. Community Development Department • 7 , . _IVJEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 9, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to allow for a shift in the location of the building envelope located at 1229 Spraddle Creek Drive/Lot 9, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant: Dr. and Mrs. Singh, represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: Tammie Williamson 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants, Dr. and Mrs. Singh, represented by Gordan Pierce, are requesting a minor subdivision to allow for a modification to the existing building envelope platted on Lot 9, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision (see Attachment 1). Specifically, the applicant is proposing to modify the focation of the existing envelope boundary lines and re-route an existing drainage easement. The building envelope and drainage easement will shift to the east of the existing platted building envelope (see Attachment 2). The proposed change in the building envelope location is intended to facilitate construction of a new residence currently being designed for Lot 9. The size of the building envelope will be reduced. The existing envelope for Lot 9 is 12,137 square feet and the ' • proposed envelope will be 12,104 square feet, a reduction of 33 square feet. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan illustrating the location of the proposed access to the residence. 11. BACKGROUND The Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision is zoned Hillside Residential (HR), and is generafly located northeast of the main Vail roundabout. The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved the final plat for the Spraddle Creek Estates on February 11, 1991. The final plat iltustrates the location of site specific building envelopes for the fourteen sites within the subdivision boundaries. On October 9, 1995, the PEC approved a minor subdivision request to modify the building envelope platted on Lot 3. The purpose of modifying the building envelope was to accommodate a new residence designed for Lot 3. . 1 *VAIL 1YlwI , • , Iil. ZONING ANALYSIS The purpose of the Zoning Analysis depicted below is to provide the PEC with an understanding • ot the impacts on the development standards for Lot 9, prescribed in plat notes on the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision final piat. ' Exist+na Proaosed Lot Area: 63,044 sq. ft. 63,044 sq. ft. 8uilding Envelope Size: 12,137 sq. ft. 12,104 sq. ft. GRFA allowance: 7,269 sq. R. 7,269 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 6,419 sq. ft. 6,419 sq. h. No development standard will be affected by the proposed change to the building envelope. The only change that will occur will be the reconfiguration of the envelope and the re-routing of the drainage easement. {V. M{NOR SUBDIV{SION CRITERIA C)ne basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. Although this building envelope amendment involves a minor replatting of an existing lot, there is no other process for review of such a request other than the minor subdivision process. As a resutt, this project will be reviewed under the same criteria, pursuant to Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The review criteria to be considered by the PEC for a minor subdivision application is as follows: • A. Lot Area The Town of Vail Municipal Code indicates that the minimum lot or site area for a property located within the Hillside Residential Zone District, shall be 21,780 sq. ft. (1/2 acre) of buildable area. The Municipal Code defines "buildable area" as any site, lot, parcel or any portion of it, which does not contain designated floodplain, red hazard avalanche, or areas in excess of 40% slope. The existing Lot 9 currently meets the minimum lot area requirements set forth above and the proposed building envelope amendment wiA not affect the existing Lot 9. B. Frontage The Vail Municipa! Code requires that lots in the Hitlside Residential Zone District have a minimum frontage of 50'. Lot 9 currently has a frontage of more than 50' and the proposed building envelope amendment will not affect the frontage of the lot. C. Site Dimension5 The Vail Municipai Code requires that each site be of a size and a shape capable of enclosing a square area of 80' on each side, within its boundaries. Lot 9 2 • currently meets the size and shape requirement for lots in a Hillside Residential • Zone District and the proposed building envelope amendment will not affect the size and shape of the boundaries for Lot 9. The second set of criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request, as outlined in the subdivision regulations, and is as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the applicant is in compliance with the intended purpose of Chapter 17, of the zoning ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating 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." The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals witl be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: One purpose of subdivision regulations, and any development control, is to establish basic ground rules which the staff, the PEC, applicant and the community can follow in the public review process. • Although this request does not involve the creation of a new subdivision, or a resubdivision of an existing parcel or parcels of land, it is the appropriate process to amend a platted building envelope. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent property. Staff Response: The proposed building envelope amendment does not appear to create any conflict with development on adjacent land. Staff has not yet received a letter of approval from the Spraddle Creek Estates Architectural Cantrol Committee demonstrating their approval to the applicant's proposed building envelope amendment request. Additionally, staff has not received any input from adjacent property owners to whom letters of notification were sent, as required by Section 18.66.080 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response: Staff believes that this proposal will not be detrimental to the value of land throughout Vail, nor will it be detrimental to the value of land in the immediate area of Lot 9. 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning • 3 Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. • Staff Res op nse: Staff believes that the proposed building envelope amendment proposed for Lot 9 will not preciude a harmonious, convenient and workabie relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities wil) have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: The purpose of the subdivision regulations is intended primarily to address impacts of large scale subdivisions of property, as opposed to this particular proposal to amend a building envelope. Staff does not believe that this proposal will have any negative impacts on any of the above listed public facilities. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and proeedures. Staff Response: This is an inherent goal of the subdivision regulations that is not applicable to the proposed building envelope amendment for Lot 9. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of • drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and vafue of the land. Staff Res onse: Staff has no objections to the proposed building envelope amendment on Lot 9. The landscaping which currently exists is not substantial in number, size or maturity. Staff believes that shifting the envelope will decrease the site disturbance relating to the reduction of the steepness of the driveway to achieve maximum slope permitted by code of 12%. V. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the applicanYs request for a minor subdivision to amend the platted building envelope on Lot 9, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, subject to the following finding: That the request has met the criteria and requirements of Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. • 4 • The recommendation for approval is subject to the following condition: That the applicant submit to the Town of Vail Department of Communiry Development, a letter of approvai to amend the buiiding envelope on Lot 9, from the Spraddle Creek Architectural Control Committee. I I ~ • 5 C.E$TIM.A ET OF DEDICATION AND OWNERSHIP AMENDED FINAL PLAT LOT 9 SPRADDLE CREEK ESTATES TOWN COU~IL CERTIFICATE K ~u W. ~r rasc arcuhn nua vnu+u r. [s~n. ~oeoer c[snn ~ emv« f ' "us rur uvw rto e. uK 1- - a n< io.. «.u. cawwo a. a wucs uwiio xwc sac ow.cns n ra yurE[ a+u m.r ax raovun o..'ror. w r..a .n~ na ncn, ~wo .ccaia. a uui cuwn. caw.w I ~ [D W M~o.n a..t. umc co~n. cawNw. axaxo .z ~aEo.~: E. LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 SW 1/4, SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, ~K~_.,._1 +o nu - v»i. o~~r - MpU.la. LNwr iaMOx: S~ailCl ~o I SvFIGIX[ CM[x [SIY[5. Cq11Nw10 1A0 -S. YOIIC p11Lii: I~C ~ROMSQx nul MMWN n n0 MT 00.u~[5 1~( F- p wl IW urwilw{! 01 MDWS K n u¢x vxcswn uo art. runw ~vo sumro[o mc w[ mo wrs rNO RANGE 80 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ~o+'+'co w nc nwx unti carsi~una~ a ~wro.c~urs Muo+ vwi ~..n cown~o I xxu a s~o~m w n.s rw~ rur wou nu w+c .w mu a wr r. uwac .ccamwa .m~ iw.. v.r mccrwars wro uc mm ca.n a n. iow a..a w n cxttx [n~rcs. • suepxsa~ w mc tam a w. rwu cw'n. cawwo: xo iuascwwr ncsaWa .uc[o io t xxw¢ -[rwct a u[ wrt. u.s .v'xw. oas w1 I oocs ~ucm ~can nc avasiaun'nn nc cwnnion v~cwu~rcrcc TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO cwxw~¢ - sac rnomoHZ. swswr~ aoio.. cnaro wau caau_. a nooo..c . ~no+wchn:.ro oocs xcncer awutt wn sn ~rutt .u a n[ ruwc wns cawnons v.„r im sw.~ rrcxca. wrc wa ma . and~c vnoo" w.un oin~. awxo . .ro oncR weuc xrw+cuwrs .xo nicES a s~nwx ox nc wxo~rwnnc ru~ ro nam mi x asuco. n.s uvawr n.~~« n< u«xs-.«ww r- .u ~u7.~scs ~ w.c r1 usc w . ra weuc rawevu: ~no oas wuor omrrz nas[ rmaws v wo n~pKU[wIS MqW[D Swll B( 1M P[SpWKB~li1l q w sworm~x uo w1 -11 i a vr ' w~ exoecnn .~aw .ac -ro a usavrt a mc .ocwsrm~c rw s uurcxis ra mc ruarosc sarm Kxcox: ro oas xacn aurrt na wcArt ro MSIKL ND MM11NN MC[SLJM 1IMICIV116 10 M[N1111' II[YOM9KC f01t MWOME~ h( 5[M+C[S 1M mWt tM L S[u[MS M[ [STNW[D, p~ tt[pK ' a vu1. rolm.no iwM mwcx sr.tt or ;s ~ Ssss mwi w.. caoww I C0u"T01 ~-I PLANNING AND ENVIRONdENTAL COMMISSION CERTIFICATE nrc ra[oaxo ccmrK.n a aaunon u+o o.nc~sw ns o J~• - ~I ncr,noncocco urarc uc M o+r a iTn. '~(cnct• P0"D1 / ~ / :~o._s~•w rur .snaorto m ~ ro.n w v.a nunmw .xo o«.rc..em.. cwwsscx n.s ~il c - I ~rt COwISSqM fVlll[S f I -L51: I ~ . /((ht[PtM 10' . ~ , y ~,~.;s:~ M,~~„ ~o a.- E. ~ c- r , xo.ur ruauc ~ xcxww ~ ~ \ iu.: «~.x nww~c .no ~»nxa~~mn I (F lM US[K+v K+lf wr~.i:tr ~ r, CWu m ~ 5![ `ry_,~~~IU,wrM6 (xHtpY ~]0' SItlY - I I . :p:. ~ I [Pt C [Sa[Y o.x~.: - ~ TIILECEBIIF~ATE ROB I I1u1 1K mlf 10 DOlS ~[II StAtt O! N i aurzau+~ xo' / waiw~. e.~.non ~ ~ ~ wos s.o.. u i.rs rur wve a1x ~..yx~eo uro n venm ' couxrv ar ~f r :ao m* ma toMSVCx u~ros n rIa .xo 1- a•u ucxs. ..o .s - IM[ !M[OOwO ;IIIYK~i[ OuI 0[OK4ilON 1M0 OMM[tTMR w45 LOt ) I I / ,o] ~ \ f lMf: aKno.ncaco no+c c s ~ w. or a ~ I • w n o.no _ _ w'___ 111. o..r,o,. •t rovunsrox cxrie~s o css_~ LOT 9 Do; • s M nre~ss w uwo u~o orncui uu. ~u.a. s~ i - CLERK AND RECORDER'S _CERTIFICaIE iro1u1 ru.uc n rur ..s rnco ron R~caro il iK anc~or ra cau` Am co.oa:o n ow, -oloto Krnaxcs: \ \ \ ~ \ \ I I i I^ ~I~, aa..o c~conoo F. r.c~ .o ~ ~xis~x xo sterc a 5T ~ x'.__" COVX11 01 1 t0~ ! ~ ~ 1u' VI~?r ~(~51u1N1 ~ I '.;1; ~r..I K~cI~~r.a.c c~.~rc,n oF o..uswr CERTIFICATE OF TAXCS PAIU aco nro.c ~u`oi w .rix~ wo~.srcAco. oo x~ecn aRvr uw nu cxmI w~ ii ~ ruc? o r°ni; .isi. a.~~ui s o _ u i VICINITY AP oaclncn~o.,w:.u .ur.~o.ro` 11 run[n ~ ~ • m w w. - nrxrss ur M.ho •.o orncui ' $~;;,.VEYO~S&ERTIFiCnTC GENERAL NOTES ~.j`- \ \ ~ I ~ ~ oo a ~~u~ ~ wmr~~o o swmw p.or. m . aic v:wi[1. 1/0n 4.. ~a i.. an. a cao..co. +ooe[ss: a s oai al- rom ~ : ~ ~ \ \ : ~ ~ P/ • i~v+wwi. runro. ocac.rm .xo sxo.n x~ia. suc x nu .•s wu ~ . o w m rouw N uw. i.r w cu. til ~I. ~ ' \ \ ~ y~ r~w ccuu w s~~rw a s io rwrE.n n.1 .wo vr sunmw. Na¢s sn ~s aw. ~.s• .ui~w~w w suyno su~. • a. ~ co.uau s o oc.,o. o.u.sron: a 1c ~ s. ~.s~w.w Ei . I i. N..m a uuwcs: xor~ri~ . rui K+unrw a iMt wcs{ r~a[~n . Z'- \ \ ~ i° ~ s~~«n or s.m swoinsw. •i i~ s.~c u~ si..~o ura c~ouw r suwn~w uro. wx a ~or sruoat n~tR nwo. . . . . ~f~ ? - ! ~ ~ ~ / counwmc m~ rrou~ wn~ww m1 a -'_•----,-C'7-~.~' ~ : '•u. ~ _ \ \ . . . o., ~xc sac ruNros[ a 1xis rw n io recArt um ircru~ txt wwixc o . avno.c..xo ro rau11 A. UouI i. ao• wux.cc uscnxv '.a..•''.:•c.~. i;{'Y'~' j~ y. ~ / w ..o. r. ovi~°iirc wo ic~owo w:a uxi es0cRa~s-iun~ io. .~o-° -1i` ..;•if,. ' ~ ~,Y ~ I \ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - S SxOMx AS -tOi1WI[D .1 1-1 A M IM[ OOCVY[Mi 11[C0110lY M ~'Ly.:~• ~ - na can1-1014 rw rws w1 ru aca - ixc rumo wiwxo r` caro nu~~oa ns ~~oo•~ tmtiarc nrx ua roiwvn.o iacnnoxs: o-. maweua. wn ?K *touvart~s a smTwx ~au.ow p-o. r-i, R uio q w~x[ ro•x ~ . f n rul uuWCHU coo[. M~uxwc w1LLS. suxrK[. r~~uxo um oupxo ~s wc as sc.tt~ 6ad (urroa.7 / Y, uq~Y[0[I/.~qX M[ YIMMiW4 p,ft ulllOVLL If KC[rv[O uq WNCIS Ox TWOCMYxf ~ ~ ~ 1 C -CURVE, TAB~E 3~.0~•, ~ I / ~ •u.a[ a~i. awo uin+m wcc~n ~w.rs ~t+cm uwo N~r01'~~.. r~ k' ~~K' P[[~w~1 ~ c. ~~ll~•fa" Mrt.•J,`[ 151.e1 Ioo.ao ~91.x iwss I e: ~ro u s>levu ~..u f~w eo:~ e~es C`7 K^~D~ 'MKY: ~nan.q~.chw4.~ ww: C) OrJ!• "1~iSt• io~~ .00 }p]0 iY i~ Contr T1a i:,, WT 9_ SUMMARY CNAHI o~a ~ w... ....~w tam m;vavww ea : « r .~i:~ w ~ w .«u~a.. w„. e...... n o`.+~a vr» m r . ~ . . I-... . . • • I I I I 11 i, r + \ $PfiADDLE CREEK RWO (501 1 j _ ~ ,?~,q . _ S ~ ..yt, ~t= ~ ~ g r~+w~c a t LOT 7 > - . ~ . ~ ` _ .~`Z.~-----G- . . ' ~ w• yunr.c o 45 ):t, w »o. +r Z:r.= ~ _ \ : - . ~i'~~~- - ~ - xo.c ~u.a ~ ~ . ~ . - - _ • ' _ . ` Lot e U ~L °R t; - . - - W a 1--- _ W " ~ CC o 0o N a Z ~~ec au. cw+o eu 5 uws ,[rwm ~wao N>Tp~'iJ"{y ~ ~ C1 z •n~' ~s. .•~v . uoco ».~a w.n . CJ (s~~ eo• StlEET HO. aT0 f i ~t NI~~ 5~.~0 YD.N St.N ~.,.ti ~,10' ~D~.~----• c• a~'n~ a~ ~ara~ m c w w ~W.x~ 9li] M39 MTPtIN[ 96~ ~~l.W ~l1~ SW[i.]0' or 7 •>rvoe .~e ~.aoo e.u e.~ ce a•ua ~».~~o~ _ C> 01'~ON • ~ ~ - MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department i DATE: June 9, 1997 , SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to allow for a shift in the location of the buildin9 envelope located at 1229 Spraddle Creek Drive/Lot 9, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant: Dr. and Mrs. Singh, represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: Tammie Williamson 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants, Dr. and Mrs. Singh, represented by Gordon Pierce, are requesting a minor subdivision to allow for a modification to the existing building envelope platted on Lot 9, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision (see Attachment 1). Specifically, the applicant is proposing to modify the location of the existing envelope boundary lines and re-route an existing drainage easement. The building envelope and drainage easement will shift to the east of the existing platted building envelope (see Attachment 2). The proposed change in the building envelope location is intended to facilitate construction of a new residence currently being designed for Lot 9. The size of the building envelope will be reduced. The existing envelope for Lot 9 is 12,137 square feet and the ~ proposed envelope will be 12,104 square feet, a reduction of 33 square feet. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan illustrating the location of the proposed access to the residence. II. BACKGROUND The Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision is zoned Hillside Residential (HR), and is generally located northeast of the main Vail roundabout. The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved the final plat for the Spraddle Creek Estates on February 11, 1991. The final plat illustrates the location of site specific building envelopes for the fourteen sites within the subdivision boundaries. On October 9, 1995, the PEC approved a minor subdivision request to modify the building envelope platted on Lot 3. The purpose of modifying the building envelope was to accommodate a new residence designed for Lot 3. • 1 *VAIL TOfl7V 111. ZONING ANALYS(S The purpose of the Zoning Analysis depicted below is to provide the PEC with an understanding i of the impacts on the development standards for Lot 9, prescribed in plat notes on the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision final plat. Exisiin Proaosed Lot Area: 63,044 sq. ft. 63,044 sq. ft. Building Envelope Size: 12,137 sq. ft. 12,104 sq. fl. GRFA atlowance: 7,269 sq, ft. 7,269 sq. R. Site Coverage: 6,419 sq. fl. 6,419 sq. K. No develc,pment standard will be affected by the proposed change to the building envelope. The only change that will occur will be the reconfiguration ot the envelope and the re-routing of the drainage easement. IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA One basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new Iot must be met. Although this build+ng envelope amendment involves a minor replatting of an existing lot, there is no other process for review of such a request other than the minor subdivision process. As a result, this project will be reviewed under the same criteria, pursuant to Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The review criteria to be considered by the PEC for a minor subdivision apptication is as follows: ~ i A. Lot Area The Town of Vail Municipal Code indicates that the minimum lot or site area for a property located within the Hillside Residential Zone District, shall be 21,780 sq. ft. (1/2 acre) of buildable area. The Municipal Code defines "buildable area" as any site, lot, parcel or any portion of it, which does not contain designated floodplain, red hazard avalanche, or areas in excess of 40% slope. The existing Lot 9 currently meets the minimum lot area requirements set forth above and the proposed building envelope amendment will not affect the existing Lot 9. B. Fr n,ge The Vail Municipa! Code requires that lots in the Hillsids Residential Zone District have a minimum frontage of 50'. Lot 9 currently has a frontage of more than 50' and the praposed building envelope amendment will not affect the frontage of the lot. C. $ite Dimensions The Vail Municipal Code requires that each site be of a size and a shape capable of enclosing a square area of 80' on each side, within its boundaries. Lot 9 2 • currently meets the size and shape requirement for lots in a Hillside Residential I• Zone District and the proposed building envelope amendment will not affect the ~ size and shape of the boundaries for Lot 9. ~ The second set of criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request, as outlined in the subdivision regulations, and is as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the applicant is in compliance with the intended purpose of Chapter 17, of the zoning ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and ~ other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating 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." The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be eva(uated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: One purpose of subdivision regulations, and any development control, is to establish basic ground rules which the staff, the PEC, applicant and the community can follow in the public review process. • Although this request does not involve the creation of a new subdivision, or a resubdivision of an existing parce( or parcels of land, it is the appropriate process to amend a platted building envelope. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent property. Staff Response: The proposed building envelope amendment does not appear to create any conflict with development on adjacent land. Staff has not yet received a letter of approval from the Spraddle Creek Estates Architectural Control Committee demonstrating their approval to the appficant's proposed building envelope amendment request. Additionally, staff has not received any input from adjacent property owners to whom letters of notification were sent, as required by Section 18.66.080 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response: Staff believes that this proposal will not be detrimental to the value of land throughout Vail, nor will it be detrimental to the value of land in the immediate area of Lot 9. 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compiiance with the Town Zoning • 3 f Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, warkable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. • Staff Res op nse: Staff believes that the proposed building envelope amendment proposed for Lot 9 will not preclude a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land uses consistent with munic+pal development objectives. 5. To guide pub(ic and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, p)aygrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facifities and generally to prov+de that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Resaonse: The purpose of the subdivision regulations is intended primarily to address impacts of large scale subdivisions of property, as opposed to this particular proposal to amend a building envelope. Staff does not believe that this proposal will have any negative impacts on any of the above lisced public facilities. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasanable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. Staff Response: This is an inherent goal of the subdivision regulations that is not applicable to the proposed building envelope amendment tor Lot 9. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of • drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and value of the Iand. Staff Res,ponse: Staff has no objections to the proposed building envefope amendment on Lot 9. The landscaping which currently exists is not substantial in number, size or rnaturity. Staff believes that shifting the envelope will decrease the site disturbance relating to the reduction of the steepness of the driveway to achieve maximum slope permitted by code of 12%. V. Staff Recommendation Staif recommends approval of the applicant's request for a minor subdivision to amend the platted building envelape on Lot 9, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, subject to the following finding: That the request has met the criteria and requirements of Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. • 4 ~ The recommendation for approval is subject to the following condition: That the applicant submit to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development, a letter of approvai to amend the building envelope on Lot 9, from the Spraddle Greek Architectural Control Committee. • i 5 CUI i QTE OF DEDICA710N AND OWNERSHlP AMENDED FINAL PLAT LOT 9 SPRADDLE CREEK ESTATES TOWN COUNCIL_ CERTiFiCATE naw .va .aM n m6[ wrcuxn nur tlawv r. tsrn. ~oeort c[SMCV a ewsw f ~ n«s ru1 .^ano+[o 6. enc Tam cpxx.w a nc ~o.w a v.w. caowoo n«s o.. or , 1qldMGi WYl[D &WC SOIC pM[MS N!fC SWVII Of .1LL I~Ni WL PROFGh 0..11I1 IOR hM wtM ti4 C1[~n u~D ~I[<M4[M Of t~4tt CNMiY. [pWµ~ n~w¢o w na ~o.~~ a I.., voa cau~a. ~aavm. ax+axo u.a.on: ia LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 SW 1/4, SEC710N 5, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, ~ NA ~~~+MC ro na ro.n or .w a UC wp1C 0(pGOpM1 4~Lww HMpr, Su4lb ~o ariona~ cxan u-n, cw~rwq ~.•s a~ts. - at uu: ~~x .imusa. nrr wmw.a ~ro or oww~s uc iam wa ra wmiw~.ci a ro.m K n rvrcx wrcscins wo w~. runw rro somrn~a ne sue .rtn ws uro RANGE 80 WEST OF THE 6ZH PRINCIPAI MEi21D1AN ao-wr.o 1- nc wa< w~a ca+s- a -wni ~wuw vw~ ~~.t x<~ canncu s~a~s a sra+x ox ws rwu rw wrou mc w+[ wro mtc rr ar s. a.n.out .csmawc[ ~mn ioww v vu. s-[aue m~wo ut io.~ cwxca a iK tow. ar wA rw n ~ CNCO[ LYfAtC; ~ SUBOMSqM W T1L tpM 01 Vu{, (/Iµl( NUftY. GOLpp,~q'k µp S4YSCqXNi P[SOLN~ON ~CR[D 10 IWCMi4~C ?.lCkwC[ p lx[ S~K. 1- Viiqr4 OOCf Wt ~ wu ~cncar.aYn '~c asro~sw~rc ron nrc w~~nnw~ a acwuo TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO c~+a son mwma~s. suexnv.cc aaoc,. wa»o «nu c-s. a nww.c ~tw.~ nm c.u~p.2~ns wm Ai 9a m M ~q w~ rp~i.tt ro x~wa~.i u ewia 1M si ~r~ov~r n•nn~i~i w«xsu~io.w•non.u ~ w~c M~ ' ~M[ VS[ Of M NlIJC ftl4Kk NID DO(S ~ItM MpKAI[ TqyC MNIIMf p! y1p qp.(Y(xf5 RCWRlD YWl B[ M MSP0~~59rt111 p(N( S40paC(R Arp µr~ ~Y 1 p vwl MIN IRO/[RR M~CM MC M%'.1(f0 N LaSLYD11 M MI ICCWPMMN NAT AS ' 4T[.Y[MIS fd TI[ MMMSC L1TM KIKW: IM 00[S IP[BY CMNf M RGM 10 ~n[SI: 1~i4' Q`MNCO(s IM~ MK. 1M[Es'Wf/.AZU[OM "ft, 1WW CD. RSrpRiM[ fM MIaNpMG~ ' ~MnRln~t ' • +rv ~ iam a vm. cam.ro muw. r. is~n•-' " +wncss:""^_~__,__~___ ~7 w' m~ncn surz a lis I Sss raro c~ •.x, cawv.oo C0YM10f ' z /J~9~5"E PLANNf~ AND ENVIRONMFNTA( COMMISSION CERTIFICATE txc mecaonm camun a amuuox wo o.wtnw .as o I` .Ji. . . ; Rxan[xro t[rw[ aos ~r . a. a u ' ~ r~n r...i nwr •ra .~ia.to e. TMc mm w r.x ru~+.uc uw ~r~+acwc«~u cwMSSw n.s ~ ux cowissron twRCS t ~ ls~ipi°~~ \ / •ncst ne~tsf ue wro uro ara~u sc~~ ~ o' , ~,~.•a iw~ io. cicm~ ~ S~. \ c. 1o+mn or vui caawm v ~ \ i J- V ~ xou~r ruouc a ~ vwocaccano %tt-vui n.r.wc .xo c.~wnau~xrx J a[~wc asc.rcx .c.~r . wnon ~`~.wu~w~cc c.:~~n.~ I 4~. OwNCP: ~ m I ISL[ ~ noacnl c. cum " ? I, i ~ ~ ~ l\ 1 TIILE.C_E$IIfIC9JE .owcss:__N__ ~ ' x I ~ I \ oo~s xncn ccR.n rwr nuc io .u surt a ) ti~o ~s «xr~mn.c zo / ~ uros s~w.« ~ron ~wz rui ~un nt~ [.wwco .w Es vcmo r rnuxtt ar is ~ ~ r ~wti ~miac j~ I~i ~ \ .~o iw~ urt~ i0 SVCN LLwpS H!Mt ND p Nl lL[MS. +NO [wC-[S. txc racoowo tt.iv¢.rz a awuvox .xo owrcniv •A$ T acKw.n[x[o ~[rac ~rc rws wv m II ~ uwu.ni --0. ~i~r ;,-;I .r couwssia1 csmcs l0T 9 ( 1 ~ - • ~ ^ u.a. s c I ~ mix[sx Yr wMO ua ornnu S[u. CLERK AND RECORDER'S _CERTIFIr-AIE uou~r w~uc _ 'Iq ~ iw~ rui w.s rnto ro~ ~ccaro ix nrt wtK~ a iw c.t~+ axo nco•u~ •r \ ( I ~ o'aa. ~ w. w'_"'__^. ..o is an. accaroco urs.x xaowas' \~,~r ~ ~ i I^ nc.c txc roucaho <unKarc a awurw.~.rw~.iunw.~s \ \ 1'~ ~ ~ CER7IFICATE 0F TAXCS PAIU K~MwlLDC[p P{ION ML~D. DO MRn [tM- IW! IM[ !w!Y[ ~Wta~ 0( talll5 Dvl .0 r.tntt[ 0 ~ ~ W _ Wq1 Yl IYIC[l5 O~ ~ly [SI~I{ VIC(NITY AP 2J\~ ~ i I I ( °Liio'na~a.~ u. wwns~m~ cxrwcs vunco A-- -ss ur wtrm .xn wncui 11.i. yNj~'~ {'t la3,,,, $URV YOR'S-E$itfiCATC GEN RAL NOTES carv+ nu~ i ~ irccmmm ~.~o sa.croe aceesm ww. ~m . a•rz a~uva: u~ n ~ r"~~ ' ~ Uwi uf ~M 54t( d CIXM~W, ~Wt 1M MM R UVf. Co~R[tt u0 Co+ntD ~up MOMss` itSl 31~L[ CMIN 0lOKA)tp Yq SIpVX N(I[OM. 1W.f SVCM -l w41 T[f /WM I~ ~W. I.S' uWIMW eY. ll~ : \ \ ' 0 CuMR f~Rr(r d f+w MNI~IV ~1 u[ uw urwM ~rc W~lerq~oM M01CIt1iS S[I I! MMI1. 1.5• WW~u W SttW(0 5'~). f... ~ I~ u1D CMA[Cll~ 1MOK tWt !M LOfiIqM 4iC pufMSMnS q 1M[ l0lS. 4Tl~fx~5 i. usrs a Kuwcs: xorN•n•w wf ~[unw a 1x[ wcsS ronRn ~S \ ~ A: uro s~~lns or s.ro swomswn th[ surt ut au.to urox ix[ cm+tio « ~ ~ ~1 ~-~LL::• ~ - ~ ! / / - Mm ~rru~.ac Rcaw.nous covu.wc iw swomvo. a ~.«o. urc a wr viuoat tK wnw¢i tsuns. .~,-~t,-~~~'- f . i \ ~ 1 ~ u~~~uca. i w.v~ ur «.nc •xo nu ~Nn iHI Sat[ -i[ iW q i IUt li 10 v~tt AM KMt :u M[ ~UMixC ..~J. ' i //I M . ~.0.. ~n~ O,• t•rnac, w ro raurc exo ~trw i. vo• wwucc wcvcwr. y.~<~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~w c[xnnxrc or uu~u.~ w ~ow ~~a, rix »o n c[nmrca m~ rnc wac.c~auw ro++<r ux~ ~s rnn~uuci~o. nrt inu.ro~ ~,T;•' \ \ ~~I ~ n sxorx ~s ur~ow•r~o rt awm ~ m rwc uocu~aHi ~tto~ao . ~:a.:,, = - ~m coe~si~unaw rw nn ~oi wxi oceu~ urtxx r~t rumo wwrw R~ t• • \ % eece ewc~w~ n: ~ wos~ ~ cxvaort wrx ix~ rouowxo csarnm+s: oamwan. srot_y - nur / \ ~rtn rHt e~oux~~rtHts a scena u.u.ox -o. r.i. K wo e) a iw rowx \ \ ~ 7- ~ i / a rui uuraru nuuurw ruu. su~ ~c[ ~ucaa um uuamo Rs ioxc ~s sc.ut, Wr"y.l \ ~o•x or v,m xrcn u.rcw wuo urwvu u mccnco uro rrncn pr rwoc~..rx. ~ \ uw vla[l•rax ua uwxw. ~ _QURVE TAB~E N~ .7~.0 w•, [ on,. anw w~wc ,.nctw uxcm cwao ror•t~.. c> n i p,yti ~ ~ unrts• v een:~ ~ e~.a~ i o o o o w 1 1{> b C J e. o~ cx<cR ~ oaxu s> >v1; e~x wts f~ee <s° •.w~a: .nw ~a~.wM~.~ ~w.~ o~x. su.a ' ~o~i ~».a ww »i CODtre., ~~+T«+•~+ ~ . ~ . o~» re,~' wr ~moo" . ~ w~; l07 9_ SUMMARY f.NARI w u~..w ..r.r.~...... ww~ ~Nwv~w n w.~l ,`~1~Mwww w..~~v ~ o~t F't M 1 :L ~On o0 ICf1f! i! lf Nly ' w...uu, w.w+ lnt ~ ~nw.r M ~ nr G~ l~Oi 1W ? ~hoDf ~ ~f~/ taMlOi;liu:IltHYt":l VY M1w1 \ M4 M ww~ tl+nMiwi fP' N t'lS3•1L v Ywr'.~... r•... u~ w«~: r u. n..nw~:. w....~.«: t oraH +x~~» . iti ri}ooiu i~~ u.w.. , ~snx x~va.iw .«w„~++..« v..t ~.io e '°"n. ~ ~ • • e ~ ~ ( ~a'AM ~ ~ y SPRADOLE CREEK ROAO (50') ~ \S66~9• r Y• w/ 1/ ~`~{9 ~ I"~ I 4 ~ ~ _ ~ \ \ ` ` \ ~5.1~. \ ~ r_"" p ~~i~~.1~:` - w. pn-N~11J ~{q ~~'~~~•t+F ~PKi \ l~ i~M~~ ~ [ I f ' " ~ - ~ _ _ I / - .m.u n• ~o.~ ~ ~ ~ I{ , LOT 7 o . ~ ~ . _ . ~ . - ~ ~'~-.'1_-~\~ n• w,wx wonm ~ LoT e -.Y•, „ I LOT 8 ! - N o ~ W ~ a d Y 2 Z W x ~ (11 OC ~w c~ U rc ~ _ / _ n,? _ ~ J7.p~• 1._ ~ ~2 ru~ec au. c~bac_w~ ~.ous uwM oaw N~?Ot'~~ < I ~ ci r~~ya• rw~a.. ~.~,o. a.ao n.a iu.s~ w CJ tsviu°°'t~~'[c` Q^ s C] ~T07 t7 S> 11 Jlll l1.~0 W.1t .N - ca osx~ x~r.x» ~a.n in.a m.w .a y~J 'T , J C~ NOf H M61'S~ ]0 ]O.f9 Ipp.pO ]t . ' q xa n xxrx~» x ~ ~an.on ~o~.ta s.w T o' xo' .o' w' SXEET NO. n a~xa x>raJm' im ~vsoo y.~~ u.n ~ o ar.o~ •reug ~.s~ ~.eao e.~s e.~x SCK( 1'.30' ~ 1 - • • ~ ~ • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 9, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks) and for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for the construction of a dormer addition, located at 2943 Bellflower Drive/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Frank Bannister, represented by RKD Planner: Tammie Williamson 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance #4, Series of 1985 which created Chapter 18.71 of the Vail Municipal Code, entitled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area." This chapter allows for up to 250 square feet of additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) to be added to a dwe(ling (beyond the maximum allowance), provided certain criteria are met. The purpose of the additional GRFA ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwelling . units, which have been in existence for a period of at least 5 years, by permitting up to two ! hundred and fifty (250) square feet of GRFA to be added to a dwelling unit. In August 1995, the Town Council approved Ordinance 6, Series of 1995 which amended Chapter 18.71, for the purpose of eliminating the ability to use the additional GRFA when a I dwelling unit is "derno/rebuilt." This Ordinance also requires that all requests for additional ' GRFA, that involve exterior changes to a building, be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The applicant is requesting to use 30 sq. ft. of the 250 sq. ft. of Additiona( GRFA to add a dormer to the second floor of the house. This addition is located over existing floor area and therefore, does not add additional site coverage. Additionally, the applicant is requesting that part of the additional GRFA (15 sq. ft.) be located within the front setback. The existing structure encroaches 7 feet into the required 20-foot setback and has approximately 104 square feet of GRFA located within the front setback. This structure was originally built in Eagle County, and became legal non-conforming when the Town annexed the Intermountain Subdivision. !n June 1996, staff approved a request for 23 sq. ft. of the additional GRFA (250) to remodel a portion of the interior, which was an expansion of the loft area. • f:\everyone\pec\rnemos\bannister.428 1 4VAIL TO{PN II. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: 0.2129 acre/ 9,274 sq. ft. • Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Allowed/Required Existinp Proposed Remainina GRFA: 2,743 sq. ft. 2,766 sq. ft. 2,796 sq. ft. With 250 2,993 sq. ft. 2,766 sq. ft. 2,796 sq. ft. 197 sq. ft. remaining of 250 Site Coverage: 1,854 sq. ft. 1,523 sq. ft. No change 331 sq. ft. (20%) (16%) Height: 30'/33' 30' No change Setbacks Front 20' '13' '13' Sides 15715' "12'/5' ' *12'/5' Rear 15' 41' 41' Landscaping: 5,564 sq. ft. 5,861 sq. ft. No change (60% minimum) (63%) Parking: 3 spaces 5 spaces No change * Existing non-conforming because of deck and patio encroachments 111. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Variance • Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested front setback variance. The recommendation for denial is based upon 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 structure currently encroaches 7 feet into the front setback and is 17 feet from the edge of asphalt. This proposal will create more bulk and mass. Staff believes this constitutes a negative impact on other existing structures and potential uses in the vicinity. Setbacks are intended to provide a buffer between structures and the right-of-way. A 13 foot setback does not provide the necessary relief. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of the title without grant of special privilege. While the proposal is minimal, in terms of the square footage (15'), it is . proposed to be added within the front setback. Staff believes there are f:\averyone~pecMemos\bannister.428 2 , i other opportunities on the site to place this additional square footage. . Staff is concerned with the front setback encroachment. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes the variance request will have no negative impacts on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. B. The Plannina.and Environmental Comrnission shall make the following findinas before grantinq a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation 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 and literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary t physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exemptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone district. 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. Additional GRFA Upon review of Chapter 18.71, Additional GRFA, the Communiry Development Department recommends denial of the request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Effect upon the existina topograqhv vegetation, drainage and existing structures. The proposal will have little effect upon the existing topography and • vegetation, because the addition is located above existing floor area. Staff believes the addition is generally architecturally compatible with adjacent f:~,everyone\pecMemos\bannister.428 3 t . structures. However, staff believes the proposal will negatively impact existing structures. . 2. Impact on adjacent ~ro ep rties. The addition should not adversely affect views, light, or air enjoyed by adjacent structures, however, the addition of GRFA within the front setback would increase an existing non-conformity by adding bulk and ' mass to the structure. The fact that the house was built under Eagle r9ulations does not Prohibit the applicant from makin Count e 9 Y improvements to the structure or uti lizing ot her por tions o f t he si te. Therefore, the applicant is not being denied an opportunity to make improvements to the property. 3. Compliance with the Town's zoning requirements and ap,.qlicable develonment standards. Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, requires that any dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall meet the Town of Vail Design Guidelines, as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, before any additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with Chapter 18.71, the staff shall review the maintenance and upkeep of the existing single family or two family dwelling and site, . including landscaping, to determine whether they comply with the Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. . Upon inspection of the site by staff, we find the property is not in compliance with applicable development standards listed above. The driveway on the west side of the property is not paved and there are iilegal floodlights on the south corners of the house. These items should have been addressed when the applicant received approval to utilize 23 square feet of the 250 square feet of additional GRFA in June, 1996. Staff believes that the property is adequately landscaped and no additional landscaping is required. Section 18.71.010 of the code states in part: Purpose: "This Chapter does not ensure each single-family dwelling or dwelling unit located within the Town an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet, and proposals for any additions hereunder shall be reviewed closely with respect to site planning, impact on adjacent properties, and applicable Town development standards." B. Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before ' grant+ng approval for Additional GRFA: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively • f:\everyone*cVmemos\bannister.428 4 1 affect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. • 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of this application for a front setback variance 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. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary I Residential Zone District. I 3. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. • The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of this application for I 30 sq. ft. of Additional GRFA under the 250 Ordinance, subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would negatively impact adjacent properties. ' 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. . f:\everyone\pecMemos\bannister.428 5 ~ t ' i + t 1 , . ~ 1 1 , ~ 3 '1~ y ~pGK ~ ~ ~ , ~ S,3 ~ • , ~ ~ ~,p^f 3 ~~o~ \ ~ sl~ r~2•'~ , ~ ' ~ ~ ~z) zh"n r*-~ t ~ ~ 1\ CI, ry- ~f f~ • 1 1 ~ ~ I ` ~ u• ~ ~ ~ i~t"~~ ~ ~ ~ `°'`s _ ti - / \ Pe~~?+.` ~ ~ ~cl wu" ~ ~ -t K~~CFnRtlL~ • ~ ~µ`~y{{}f~.rt+~5 / ~ ~M~l kGla~E AK"R~ ~ . ~nOV ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~3•r LAtJt~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l i XA !y ` ,rE~'o?~, ~ ' \ ~ ~ . \ . \ ~ ~ • v,,.."r"` p ~ ~ (3\t y`!t .r--e.d ` ~ ~Uf ' w oeu- - ! ~ ~ lq~~ ~ ~ Q1~ ` . . ~ 1 ~ 5 tS a~ eto. . ~ JP - r?.; " . :St ,Y,st+' ~ ~ Ab y~,11f1 ~ ,w~z • \y~i~ ~ S . i " ! i ~ o1N ~ - _ _ - - ~ - - - - - - - • ' _ . . - - - - - , , .i I -----j - - ~ i I I ~ I ~ ~ ~ • - - - - - - - u+unc ~{r _ _ . . ~ ~ ~ j i . ~ • ' Acar[D ~ur~ ~'-u"~ : . ; ftWNNC. rlRU. ~ . ~ • I . ~ iJKT A~R ~ C+ i . ~ e~btrnuc. ~ . ~ uuace~ rd~ D ~ , `l~~i1+F~Ct~M O O 0 [1b~M W 1 N11~ ~-u ~ ~ u n Sd~LL. Y~,~, P. be M W~r ~ AI. ~ • 1 • ~ ~ ~ , . _ R'-pE`,(, . \ ~ . ' - - . Y _ • , q "t' I r Q • I ~ ' 1 ny^ i"" ~~1~ (~?~`W Vk ~,bNf- 'S~ • 4 . ~ Is • ' y1,cr+~+ _ pA[ • orsts ~ w p CLC ~ uSf ~ a.a/'~' • . ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ • . v~-- . M~,i~ - - - - ~ - . ~ z ' ~ r ~ s , . rv~sru etcecw ~ - - - - ~ r N JT"l 0 ~u 0. c, . ~J o _ 0 ~ , ~ . . , - - • ADDIT(ONAI. 30 SQ. FT OF GRPA fw1 S' OP I}MDAwM Rut I I • ~3131N'f 1~ 1 Ur M nvw- 7T'- I~Op JV SQ. FT CMA 1V ~ ~ AI.S ~,DORMER ADDI'I[ON-SIDINC ?O MA?CH - Z_ ~ - ~ 11 C-Rrr ~ I i I ~ ~ • IIE - s; F - - LA - - ~ - REPLACE WOOD S(DING WITH ~ • , j /-~-J~ ~(„~}/k(~ ~ ~ , STUCCO F[NISH TO MATCH , - •a ~ S NEW RLOf . t ~IEAD Nf Gtr~.r~'N iN~iVG I p Id~IV r1~ C[yiG 'A 2R.'? ! n ~ OF E~Ohf~NG ~~:t~ll~CL. ~ - - _ - _ - _ - , CONtiNJG 442 v _ - _ - - - ,111Y wf5rwr+.~ - ~ , Z ~ ~ - - _ - i REPLACE WOOD S1D1NG WI'1'H ~ STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH . ? ; ° , OD - ~ ~ 9Fw uorr,m LLY/mQN RLTARIIN/o WOLL , _ ~ ~ ' ~ • ~ ~ 6:4 ~ ; ~d V ltil new 5rr~~~, . snus7 ~ e FIF.t.DfR1Pf ~ GkGT ~ ~ ~ L LZAr~N M-E BI `4zE cFNt ~ k=4 iJ WEf- ElEVATION y+'' V-o' PAtL~ ' • , • 0 . ! ~ • i.c~.mNV¢ 4. i2 emF t~H . i . - - 41 _ : ; ~ ! ~ 1~ ~ ill~' ~ ~I - - - _ . ~ ~ ~ f ~ aYrynu& wt4,r vi,r.L I ' ~ , ~ - - - - - - - - i + ULC'Et,NEW [2T' TO ba. buIL.'f uP iN ttr - - _ i I: I V I`Ti I I ~ I I 'Ia MA1Lt1 NLw ' ~ ADD~tic~.1. ~ n . - ~ ~ ~ - ( je;mIL~`p~ - . , - - - CONG. PoUNG i - NbW FiOrTdb 'Ct' MAtGK _ + ^ • ~X . UORMER ADDITiON--CONTINUE RObF PITCH y~~' ~-~yAT1~N j4-°• I''b~ ~ ~~~s rQd-t [xa-.. NGW t~ +nev - - hu.a vrsn wk.r ~ - - - - eh 6eE oF H. T. -7 ? • I 1 I'~ I ! I ~ ~ I ~ i ~ ~ _ - - ~ ~ ~ I i i ~IIL~INfi GVff CL)OR ~a I I ~fo CGGK - - - - - I ~ ~ , 3121/9 % c,d4G. roi.N~ gr~c. - REPLACE WOOD SIDINC WITH STUCCO FtNiSH TO MATCH toMATU} _ ~AST El,f-VATION ~ ~ ~ AD t 990D) . R[CC-C AND [CRCISEN DES?GN, I7VC. ARCI-1ITECTIYRE AND DEVELOPMEN'[' iooo Lioxxsxidge Loop #3d, Vaill, Coloradlo, 8t657 phone:(970) 476-q228 fax: (97°) 476-9023 Tammie Williamson 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Department of Community Development April 30, 1997 RE: Bannister Remodel, Lot 4, Block 6, Vaii Intermountain Subdivision-2943 Beilflower Dear Tammie: We are requesting a front setback variance for the above named property on the basis of the following: --The original plat for this property was completed in 1970 when the property was located in Eagle County. At the time the plat was issued, a 5' front setback was applied to the property. When property was finally annexed by the Town of Vail, a 20' setback was assigned to the site. This placed a small amount of GRFA of the building(as well as many other buildings on the street) in the front setback. In fact, eight(8) of the nine(9) buildings located on the north side of Bellflower have GRFA located in the front setback. Three(3) of these have been granted variances in order to make improvements. • --We are asking for reasonable interpretation of the specified regulation on the basis that the zoning history of the lot places a hardship on the Bannisters. Almost all of the other buildings located on this street are in violation of GRFA in the building setback, due to the above mentioned annexation of these properties. It does not seem reasonable to prevent all of the property owners from making improvements to the fronts of their homes. --The variance has no effect on the light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities or public safety. --The addition of the dormer is a visual improvement on the house and to the neighborhood. -The addition of the dormer does not increase the existing nonconformity of the home. The encroachment into the front setback will remain the same distance. Both Mr. Bannister and I would like to thank you for your time on this matter. In the past few years Mr. Bannister has put a great deal of money into bettering his home, and hopes that his neighborhood will continue to improve. We look forward to working closely with you on this project. Sinc'e / Jack K. Snow, Architect cc Frank Bannister • . f MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: Ociober 26, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for density and setback variances to allow an addition to an existing non-conforming structure at 2963 Bellflower/Lot 7, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Applicant: Hans and Mia Vlaar Planner: Jim Carnutte ' .SMY.+fi:4H:'HllI.L•SY3iC+FJfiN!//.~:~fl.pi::U.:li.!4W.?'f.+.f.:l::~L~:.:ti?fS'fii'1.::!y:+(.Si::~tG~i:e{;+,(~r~r•M.ry,C.~;{;K.'Y.[:n;~i:~iy,:{y/ . l...'.!:!•f.?4.trf:!+.~Y.:%:C?~f.ii.ie,ii:ti^:'!.'si'!.L!:i~^:i'J.v~~:iii:<lC?1'f.5?HfFFt.•'N.IfIIAYI/+?Y.JN.flN..:l.lL{y;tqiii:.i ~,.r. •i~f.?ii:iY:4:i" 1:::•.~: ....r. ~....:n~.::::::.:.~:.~:.::: :•::::.~::::::::x::::::::ny::::: ......v ......................:::::::.~i:i:::::•iiiiiiY:::::: iiiii*ii:~ii:niY: w::: .v,'!.?: N........ :::v~:::: :v:.~:. „ .n....::.. ...r:::•'f.•i:::.~,f~{iit.i:I4i::..: v: •.xy:.i::iiiiiii::.i: a.:::: ~:.y.:: i•>!t.:>:•::>:.,.: ::..>:::.::•S<rr:::.. r/{ r ?•i%4: *i%' i .:>:?•>:;:;<:J>:.::;;:p<;>:•>:,.:::2%5::~:ir,:;:•,,:;:.,.::::•;%:::'<~::~:~: :<!;>i::ii::~::%';.`:u,:.>}:::•::.r.::>:.>:•:r.~.;:::a:>:o:::y:.:: ;:4f!? . F~~i , . . . . . . . . . i:•Fi~+:: . , r , ~ . . . "~:i~::.;~%•r>x::~•r..>::;;;;:';~:r:::'::;;~:i%::~i>:%Y::~:;::s : ~:t~::.::::::. . 5.•:;::!~::•.. . ::r':%.:;•r::::::-::~>:;;; •;::i%~::: i:%: •::~:'t:::'•:::;::;~.:::::;>;::;::;~::.::o-::::•:::;::<.: r:•::•r>::•>:::~::::>:~:>R>,:~i:::::•:;%~;::::?.::. r.:: • :•...r n::!:;.>:::..,.::~::::•::•>:.::~>::::: . . . ~ ..:;:•::<.>.'•;:<•::•>;::•:::<.r>::•:.... . ..::.:~;•::.;.::::::.•.:a:•.»:•:::•:.:~~:::•:•::::>:::::::.::~::::~::.:.:~::>.:. ..r.o-•-:...•r.....: • ~ • .........::::::::.::~>:•:::•r::~::::•~.:;•s:~.;~:.:::::::.: : .......f.... ~{.r........~..n...~... •:rv:::::: .::::r• ~ ...:::~...:iii; r ..y:: .J w .w . . . ~~'!.'~i n:i''Iiii~.iw<%'fi''i xlir • r~ .x .iix a. ' fW ,.....':>::o.:::w:::.:..i;S.'.::::~;::r::}::::,li::•,•.'•.:;..;;::i:x.;a:;::::,:.:•:.:;:..:;•'J,i.:;~:•i'::::•rf~..'~a:i'f/+S•.'•;:-'f.Y/•1.;;.:::::::•.':%?:;: I • I. DESCRII'TION OF PROJECT AND REQUESTED VARTANCES ' The applicants, Hans and Mia Vlaar, are zequesting density and setback variances to allow for I! a proposed addition on the east side of the building located on Lot 7, Block 6, Vail ' Intermountain. The lot is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential and has an existing "over- under" duplex on it. The Vlaars own both halves of the duplex. The proposed addition to the lower unit involves enclosing approximately 90 square feet of area on the first floor, where the entrance stairs are currently located. This area will be used as a waik-in closet for the eastern most bedroom and as a storage area that is accessible from the units entryway. A new stairway will be constructed from the parking area to the lower level unit. Improvements to the upper level unit are located directly above the lower level walk in closet and storage area. These improvements include a new deck/entry and bay window adjacent to the master bedraom and a new enclosed entryway (airlock). The total square footage of the proposed improvements to this level is 79. In conjunction with the proposed building addition described above, the Vlaars are also proposing to pave their driveway and parking area, reroof the building and replace the existing retaining walls around the house and parking platform. 1 , . i . ~ • DENSITY VARIANCE Section 18.64.050 (B) of the Vail Zoning Code, states that "structures which do not conform to density controls may be enlarged, only if the total gross residential floor area of the enlarged structure dces not exceed the total gross residential floor azea of the pre-exisring, non-conforming structure." This duplex does not confornn Co density controls because the lot on which it is located is less than 15,000 square feet. Althaugh the lot has additional GRFA which could be used, the number of dwelling units on the site (2) exceed what the current ' code allows. The code only allows two units on a lot less than 15,000 square feet, if the secondary unit is restricted for employee housing. In May of 1976, Eagle County issued a building permit for the construction of this duplex. In November of 1983, the Town of Vail approved a duplex subdivision plat for this property thereby creating two separate pieces of property. The Vlaars purchased both halves of the duplex in 1990 with the intention of living in the upper level unit and renting out the lower level unit. The ownership situation is considered a legal non-conforming use. Because the applicant's do not wish to deed restrict either of the units in this duplex, a variance from the non-conforming section of the code is needed to allow for the use of ' the remaining GRFA. • SETBACK VARIANCE The PrimarylSecondary Residential Zone District requires a minimum front setback of 20 feet and a side setback of 15 feet from their respective property lines. The existing building on the site currently encroaches approximately 9 feet into the front setback area. In addition, a second story deck, a retaining wall and a stairway leading to the lower level unit also encroach into the front setback area. Eneroachments into the side setbacks include retaining walls, portions of the west side of the building and a portion of the first floor deck on the I~ east side of the lot. The applicant's proposed addition would encroach into the front setback approximately 14 feet, which would leave a 6-foot setback. A 14-foot setback variance is requested. 2 • ' r i I . II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Lot Area: 9,737 square feet Allowed/Req, Existing Proposed Total GRFA: 3,284 sq. ft 2,039 sq. ft. 169 sq. ft. 2,208 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 1,947 sq. ft. 1,112 sq. ft. 157 sq. ft. 1,269 sq. ft. Height: 33' 22' 22' 22' Parking Spaces: There is no change in the parking requirement as a result of this addition. Setbacks: Front 20 11.2 6* ~ East Side 15 6.4 6.4 West Side 15 8.6 8.6 Rear 15 60 60 * Area of requested variance III. CRYTERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variances 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 new adciition will be built on the southeast side of the exisring units. This portion of the lot is adjacent to Bellflower Drive on the south and the parking area for Lot 6 on the east. The addirion is designed to match the exisdng house and will be compatible with homes in the rest of the neighborhood. ~ 3 y , , Staff believes that landscaping should be added on the east side of the addition, ' adjacent to the parking area to offer some buffer between the unit and the • pazking. Neither the requested setback variance, or the density variance, would have any negative impacts on existing or potential uses and structures in the area. ~ 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary ta achieve compatibitity and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of speciai privitege. , Staff believes that the history of this site, including approvals to construct, and to later subdivide the property, make fhe site unique from other lots with less ' than 15,000 square feet of lot area. Because the building was constructed as a two family residence prior to the Town's regulations pertaining to lots less than 15,000 square feet, staff believes that it is reasonable to allow the structure to maintain its original development potential. The zoning established to restrict a secondary unit on a lot of less than 15,000 square feet was adopted after the structure was legally constructed and subdivided and creates a hardship for the property. Staff believes that approval of this request will not prevent the Town from requiring an employee unit restriction for other structures built after the ~ adoption af the restricted unit section of the code or for properties that cannot document building permit approvals for the number of units on a given lot. , 3. The effect of the requested variance on light anci air, distribution of population, transportation and trafric facilities, pubfic facitities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed variances will not affect any of the above referenced criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special I 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 welfaze, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4 • . ' ~ • 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • The Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed density and setback variances with one condition. Staff believes that the density variance is warranted because the building and property were subdivided into two separate fee simple ownerships prior to the adoption of , employee housing requirements for lots of less than 15,000 square feet. Because the lot has available (unused) GRFA, staff believes that it is reasonable for the applicant to use the GRFA. With regard to the setback variance request, staff believes that the applicant does indeed, have a physical hazdship given the location of the existing structure on the lot. The findings are met, in staff's opinion, as discussed below: 1. Staff believes that approval of this variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege as the Town has approved similaz variance requests for the Bighorn Townhouses in East Vail and the Shanley duplex on Lot 12, Vail Village Ninth Filing. Although the Bighorn Townhouses in East Vail are not identical to this request, they are similar in that there is available unused GRFA on the site. The Shanley duplex application, however, was very similar to this request. 2. Staff believes that approving the variances will not be a detriment to public health, safety, or welfare. • 5 • " 3(B). Staff believes that the variances aze warranted, specifically because there are extra ordinary circumstances related to this lot that are not generally true of many lots in this zone district. Specifically, the history and documentation of approvals for this site, and its present location within front and side setback areas, sets this site apart from other lots with areas less than 15,000 square feet. As a condidon of approval, staff recommends the following: ' That the applicant add landscape materials adjacent to the proposed building addition. Landscaping in this area would help break up the additional mass of the building resulting from the new construction and provide a pleasing buffer between the pazking area and the upper level unit entryway. Staff would recommend that a minimum of one 8-foot spruce be planted between the property line and parking area, five 2" caliper aspens and eight to ten 5-gallon shrubs be planted between the parking and the new addition. The aspens and shrubs should be located in a planting area with a minimum width of 3 feet. Staff would also like to point out that this proposed expansion of a pre-existing non- conforming use will necessitate compliance with Section 18.54.050 (F,4) of the Vail • Municipal Code which states: "All utility service systems shall be installed underground. Any utility system the operation of which requires above ground installation shall be located and/or screened so as not to detract from the overall site design quality." I 6 • . ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmentai Commission i FROM: Community Development Department ' DATE: June 9, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a review of the Environmental Impact Report, to a!!ow for a new single-family home, located at 5111 Black Bear Lane/Lot 1, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Rollie Kjesbo Planner: Tammie Williamson 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Rollie Kjesbo, is requesting to construct a single-family residence, with a Type I EHU, located at 5111 Black Bear Lane. Upon staff review the property was determined to be located within a wetland. Section 18.56.010, Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), allows staff the ability to require the submission of an EIR for: "any private development proposal or public project which may affect to any degree the • quality of the environment in the Town or in surrounding areas." The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) is required to review the EtR. Following review of the EIR, the Commission, in writing, shall approve, disapprove, or request changes in the project. The PEC shall approve the project, unless ihey find that either the project wiN have significant long-term adverse effects on the environment with respect to natural systems, or other factors studied. Section 18.56.050 requires that the contents of the EIR shall include a general statement, describing the proposed project. The EIR shall include a comprehensive, qualitative and quantitative analysis of any significant impact the proposed project will have on the environment. The EIR is attached. R. REVIEW CRITERIA The Code requires that the Environmental Impact Report address specific information relating to the proposed project. The six items specifically called out in Section 18.56.050 will be the review criteria for the project. The analysis portion of the EIR shall fully assess the following 6 items: 1. Adverse efiects which cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented; 2. Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the impact, including water quality, erosion control and revegetation measures; • 3. Possible alternatives to the proposed action; f:\everyonelpec\memoslkjesbo.609 1 e 111D119NOFYAIL i • .A ' . ~ ' 4. Relationships between short-term and long-term uses of the environment; I 5. Irreversible environmental changes resulting frorn implementation of the proposal; and ~ 6. Growth-inducing impacts of the project. i M. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In general staff feels that the EIR and the wetiand study is adequate. The site is a , wetland. Its water quality and habitat value is limited in that it is surrounded by residential development. However, staff believes that sites such as this have a cumulative value in the community, and every effort should be taken to reduce impacts to wetiands. The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the report. The staff finds that the report adequately addresseS all of the criteria outlined above. The staff recommends approval of the request with the foliowing conditions: 1. That the applicant execute the mitigation measures with regular maintenance of sedimentation controls to ensure their effectiveness as ouilined in the report; 2. That silt fences be located outside of the snow fence to delineate the limits of disiurbance; 3. That the applicant be required to replant and restore wetland native species on- site; 4. That the limits of disturbance be clearly delineated on the site p{an and no impacts I to ground cover is allowed outside of the limits of disturbance; and 5. That no grading or building permits will be issued by the Community Development Department until the project is reviewed and approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers. • f:\everyone\pec\memos\{cjesbo.609 2 Ak.. ~y~ t Y s~`` ` r-- j , ~r~.. ; ~ , ~ ~ ~ 114 ~ ~ y. , , , ~ ~ • ~TM~._'_ "-----~,r+.~ 4 e`, i ~ _Qj ~ Y ~ ~ i'~~ ~ ~ •`x/ p~ p~-o •F' :-~1 SS~ ~ / F~oj ( ..Ww / \ "OT ~f e ~ , ` ; ' ' • ~ , ~ <77,w, • ~ J.A lIItA11 Mrow/'a cn sH W MM / c. , ~ .o ~ ~ a• j i ~ ~ ~ 22"!-9'r_~'-'j- ~ -~r4oY 1 ' r~ 1 ~ ~ d ` - ~ 0 ~ ; + { ~tGY / ~ h • V f~d / Q ~J aJ u ~ .7 - X~ iZ3 EA2~ rA I ` .~t.:. • . • i. ~ saren wM.eww~wnn MII ` IN W NY i ~ • ~ ~ , I ~.rMNK- ~ P~asr ~ e I w ir ~ t 8 L L - i- r- r - r-- --r- ~ > < i W ~ <Z5 ~vi ? N~T A4 J.l nt.ur ~ wwnMMs rqrEW1~.W . MIM71p/ . ~ ~ ~w~°' . ? 6"` Fbaf ~ A '(a'[1~ ~1~eF40 r-~ yr 1~w . . I I I at+ n 7rnt m ~ y~ - - - - ~ - . ~ ' s•rs rt t at PAf Y+ hn+ws.~+.l•+"Ws cw Wsas+ - - ~i, ~Lwo r,Tx,oL . ~ . , . rra.-4j'd RrRSlcr- - --Iw0 vNwoL . MNIK u~Ok-Of . Mn4 up a~ ~ ~L~"f - - • _ aVS HetflR. WiN W- Pe~.laeo M+MH6 ~pR~}I ELEVATI~ ~+1111JG'~ ELE~TIa,I i._oq '1'• . .g I . . Rr -F RK~r E ac~a .N•r. re.crir) .z I: -evt a.qlM aoW1 ' a ' y~. e xe rr~ crr~ reuw~ a+u~ ~r+~MR 'Amm ! O e ~trosa. ~ v4~+.xt?+HAM ~JRe tiv+R i'IY~'• t AO W+~M . i O ~"~a~at~i c~.r - - ~ ' ~ ~ / ? i ` :.~.mriro-- \ / ~ \ i _ ~ ~ ~ e~ t n~rts7 - • (Q~ A~.ASD i•~1lH - ~p ~.o ~ ~ ~ / T(r W.RAI`. n.9[R jW» ~ v muCr). N' ae n'f (i'7 &.K RxMN YU.I WI~iMrJ, ~ F~ ~ i+V. MROCF'ePlt WN" pqMer ~i~_'~°`i`'' • , _ 'I~/ °f . • MMf+l.17 f?ACfD ~IV..~f ND 4eW P~K r !MS_ 31~W M~ ~~K 7 ~T 4wP+++o Gs. UnF'~a~r vt2wR IU ? ta1 RIi ; _ " t fazix-Ir E{.E~MC(la1'~ j Ve ~ 1'•d At A11. . ~ . • • . ~ „~»,r+? ' . K . - - . . i _ Li - - - _ - ~surrM ~-T gLc--Rcn+ - vt~ .,~-o~ • 751 ' . ' 0/ /IRM - (r_,ca~,~Se'- - ' . . . ~ ~ T°r ~t IOCx.1~ ~ • , qusea cNu~N~'f 1 :i~s'-,i+ ~ y Y ~.N.U. . < Z-x. i•~t ~ i .7 (C 11.CY1 P~{ / ~kMLTI 'M' ~ p•o' A6 ; • +,a~"`p°sf`,w.~,v"~•`-'=~'" ~ ='f L, ,~,y~ r~ Q r Hi,Y-~1°" ~1.~"1' . ~~:!.'.:1 ~ ~ •M ~3 u ` / ~ i i / Il ~ _r A' ~ . ~ ~ : y TA~t~ ,(~Od V qT6 J? ~p bVJLNE _ L so~ ~NVIRONMENTAJl.~ ~O 0)1~ tda ' r - . . - . . - . . _ . . - . . - . . - . . - . . _ . . _ A~,, , _ Ms. Tammie Williamson ' Town of Vail Environmental Planner ~ - 25 North Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 June 3, 1997 Re• T,ot 1 Block 2, Gore CrePk Subdivicion _ Dear Tammie; • In response to the letter to Mr. R. Kjesbo from the Town of Vail dated May 8, 1997, we have prepared tkie following brief responses: 1. Adverse Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided Approximately 0.2 acres of wetlands will be permanently lost in the develapment of,the residential structure proposed at 5111 Kelgar Lane in the Gore Creek Subdivision. These wetlands are predominantly willow carr dominated by S tlix clrummondiana, S. plani{olia, , monticola and Alnus tenuifolia A more detailed species list was provided in the Sitr, , Wetiand Investigation R.enort conducted by Engineering-Science, Inc: August 1991. _ In our opinion, the functional values of this small wetland,include wildlife habitat, more particularly birds, and limited stormwater retention for the surrounding residential area. ' Theses values are limited due to the proximity to residential development and adjacent ' street frontage, which borders on two sides of the wetland, area. In addition there is some - evidence of impacts on the wetlarid, site_ from pedestrian traffic and snowplow damage. While the loss of any wetland area" is detrimental; this particular wetland is isolated, . , J ~lightlp disturbed liy human impact,, and surrourided by existing residential developmerit. ~ , , - . . - - 2. Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize Impacts Construction Mirigdtion Potential impacts to water quality will be minimized'by the implementation of standard J erosion eontrol measures, which may include silt fencing or hay bales tocated in_waterways to offsite areas. The .controls witi be in operation for the duration of coxistructioti wrth,vthe - intent of prohibiting sedimentation onto offsite areas. During construction, attention will be'given to prevent in' cidental disturbance to wetland . areas outside'di the buildin g envelo pe. ..',Thes e ar e a s w i l l- b e i s o l a t e d b y a c o n' s f r u c t i n`. , TOV:doreOakSu6divisiorp.June3,,,P997 ~ - , ~ : _ ? . l `p;1 ~ . ! .-~'i - V. : - . . - . . ` - . . ~ - . - . . - . . - . . - : - . . - . . . ~ - • - ' . . - ' P.O. Pox 3611 ' VAIL, ;I~LC~RAD~~ HICJrH • Pi ioN'r / Fnx (970) 328-6158 •'Pfi~~NE / Fnx (970~ 468-04$0 . , - fence: Ariy . areas damaged during construction will be revegetated using an appropriate ' • , mixture of riative species. ` L'ong Term Mirigation , _ The site plan is designed such that tall wilidw shrubs will be maintained to provide a' permanent screen around the perimeter of the property. Revegetation of the site will , , follow completion of buildout. A mixture 'of native species will be utilized in 'the , residential landscaped area. In addition, as stated above, willow species that are incidentally damaged during construction will be replaced with nursery" stock of the same , species. The existing drainage ditch will be maintained with the existing vegetafion so to capture j sediments and water flow during stormwater runof£ , 3. Alternatives to Proposed Action ' A no acrion alterriative is the alternative identified however, this is not a desirable option J% for the landowner for apparent economic reasons. 4. Short-term and Long-term Uses of Environment , The long term use of the environment will be the conversion from an isolated wetland area to a residential structure with planned landscaping. There are no short term uses of the environment associated with a residential development, of which we are awaie: - ti • . . ; • , , ~ .5. Irreversible Environmental Changes ' There will be•a permanent loss of an i.solated shrub wetland. Development Qf the lot may be ' i expected to affec"t site hydrology as the existing wetland likely contributes to retention of - stormwater runoff from off-site properties. However according to the architect, the layout of structures were planned primarily within the limits of the Town of Vail planning regulatioris, such as setbacks, As such, the extent and size of the house footprint and attendant features were largely' ; guided by"the town building code: - 6. Growth Iriducing Impacts ~ ~ 1 ; ' - ~ ' . ' • = Since the arga: = around .1ot `is currently, single-family and multi-family ' housing it is ' ected that tlie develapment of this single-family unit would have mtriimal , impact ofi - growth in the'area. ~ If qou have any questions, or need additional information please feel free /to call me Sincerely; 4 i" Nicola Ripley; ~ ~ Officer, Montarie Environ'mental Solutioris, Ltd. TOV C3ore Creek Subdivfa'ton-Iune 3, 1 P97 • - ~ . ~ ~ 1 ~ - ~ ; ~ ~ , - , , \ ~ ~ , ( .i i f :i. i , ( ~ L :D•2 ~ ~ ~ , \ \ i " ? ; . ' . • ~ f , , ~ ~ ~ , . C (.i , . , _ . SENT BY:Ktnko's Copfes FC I ; 5- 2-97 ;11:58AM ; 303:4934496-+ 9704792452;# 2/ 8 ' . , . . AI6 e „oo srour sT. S' REGULAY01iY UNf7 #4•GRANp JUNC'ttbW gU1TE 1100 ENGINEERING-SCIENCE+ INC. DENVER. co eosN • ' Tel: (303) 825-8100 F,x: (30) eZSa122 August 6,1991 : lqq! 0106C Mr. C',sraciy McNure TJ.Sq Army Corps of Engineers Wostern Colarado Rcgulutory 4ffice 402 Itdod Avtrnie, Room 412 Junction, Colorado 81501-2563 Re: Request for Nationwide 26 Permit . Dea i Mr. McNure: IEn&eering-Science, Inc. (ES) is. pleased taAmit the following site wetland ~ investigation report on behalf of Mr. Mxlce Steimle of Beck and A?mciates. qs the cvrrent owner of the property in question, Mr. Steimle is seeking Corps approval to place fill - material iato an isolated wetland that ES bclieves is under Corps jurisdiction Authorization to placc the material is bting sought under provisions of the Nationwide 26 catcgory . • Please farward your decision regarding tbis request to Mr. Steimle, Beck and As.sociates, P.O. Box 4030, Va7, Colorado, 82658. Questions regardiag the site characterization and other aspectts of thc site imrostigation eau be directed to mt. Thank you for yuur auistance. . Vory truly yaurs, + ENGTIYEERING-SQENCE, INC. I 4 Q,..,Lr . B ~ ruce SnYder I project Manager Enclosure . xc: Kke 5teimle w/enclosure I . 33442 • • ' A YAiiSpN6 COMPYWV r . SM BY:Klnko's Copies FC I ; 5- 2-97 :11:59AM ~ 303:4934496-+ 9704792452;# 3/ 8 . . i . ~ . • . • ' . ~ . • SITE WETLAND INVES'TIGATTON REPOBT vAIL, co7r,oRAno ~ . - . . ~ , i ~ . . . - August 1991 I i . I . l'rcpared for: ~ BECK ,A?ND ASSC1CjATES, INC. ~ P.O. BOX 4030 ~ VAIL, COIARAAU 81658 I ' Prepared by: ~ Engineering•Scionce, Inc. . 1100.Stout Street, Suita 1100 Deaver, Colorado 80204 . • ~ . J . ~SEfVT BY:Kiako's Copies FC I + 5- 2-97 ;11:59AM ; 303:4934496-+ 9704792452;# 4/ 8 , . EWINEERINGSCIENCE, INC. • SITE WLTLA.IIVD INVESTIGATION REPORT vA14 CoLOxAno . ruxposE $ngincering-ScenGe, Inc. (ES) was rcqucsted by Beck and Associates, Ync. of Val CoIorado to wnduet s.site evaluation to determine its status as a jurisdictional wetlattd vnder the reguIatory pwview of the U.S. Army Corps of F..ngineers under 5tction 404 of the Qtau Water Act. The site was inspectcd by ES on Augvst Z 1991. 1'he following report summarizcs the findings and conclusions of the site insPection- 3ITE DFSCYtIPTION The site is an undevelopod lot of approxdmately 0.25 acre in siu (5teimle 1941, ' personial communtcations). It is dGSignatcd as I.ot I of Block 2(stre.ct address: • ~ 5111 Kelgar Lane) of Gore CYeck subdivision in East Vail, Colorado. Thc lot is situatcd ia s residential nexgbborhood wiih houses loc;attd immediately adjacent the lot's east and soutb sides and paved Keigar Lane lying along the north amd west sidgs af the praperty. Dcveloped lots $re located across the road to the north and we ~t (Figure 1). 716e antiapated futurc use of Lot 1 w71 be for a residential bomc. 'Ibe lot would be fitled with an estimated 50 to 100 cubic yards of clean Sll "rials obtained from a voramercial uplanci source. Materials salvaged from exc*vahng the house's fouadation wM be used as baclc611. Edsting graund water wilF be collected by a foundatioa drain system aad discharged to the existing residential draina$t system. The properiy is located upslopG and apprnximately 275 feet south of Gore GYeeY. I The lot is separated fr4m the arcek by Kclgar I:$ue aad two deweloped residential lots. An 18-inch-diametcx metal culvert is buried beneath Kelgar Lane to accept i road drainage, runvff from developed resideatial properties updrainage of Lot 1, i and seepage from Lot 5(immediately south of Lot 1). Runoff from Lots 12 and 13 (devalopad residential properties) lying to the north also enter the drainage before the water is dischargcd to Garc Creek Ditcb flow from Lot 1 ai tlnG time of the inspec4on was estimated at iess tbaa 1 cubiC faot pcr second, with most of tlois flow ; entoring from areas upslope of the lot. ~ . . . I ~ • -1- ' S~&41 - - • - • • ~ FlGtJRE 1 StTE LOCATIQAi MAP . f - - ~ , WHITE RIVER ~ t ~ ~ • NATtflt~A~. ~ST ' ° ~rD Eft . . ~ - ` . . . ~ . ,.AM,, „ wTERsTaTE 70 4 . ratl ` L . ~ ~ . 7 : = o° J_ ~ ~ ~y~~ • = FT?f s ~ _ . F~CCWWT ' +i 1 e t s" • , ~ , ~ _liyG f~1Q I ~ BfGHORN w F(t * c,~ 7a e RARK C.C>J N. r ~ ~ ~ ~B fiid .w ~ ~ O ~ s ~ ~ • • i ~ ~ft 4 E1N6W] 2 ee s ~ w we rr ~ ~ ~ ' +a~ wiet s i a~ ? o~r ar ~.e . ~ on • r oi ~ ~ ~ 11 y ~ic y~ µ '~w a~ aan+. s~ a ~ ~ • ~ SES SL~IVISia" s Cn lV ~ N I . CD , SFNT BY:Kinko's Copies FC 1 ; 5- 2-97 ;12:OOPM ~ 303:49344961 9704792452;# 6/ 8 . ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC. ' . . . • SI'I'E C:HA,RAC1'ERISTICS . vewi?tiaa The sitt was campietely veget$tcd witli a woody avcrstary dominated by a . mixture of bluo willow (Salk obcoe lca); planeleaf willow (SAIji plunffQa); mauntain willow (Uh mQnticola); and aldcr (Alpa tenuifolia). Bush hontysuckle a&ni= jpyQIla=) was a commoa understory species. Ma:dmum oversiory hcight has about IS feet, wit6 a canopy covor that was tstimated to bc &S to 90 percent, Gtound c.ovor was dominated by onrn husk lily CZcmtom tenUjv talum), , and Cow parsmp (Hcn&ltum sohon ylium). The understvey also onntained bog I oxchid (pJatpritberst b=crbn=Q and Columbia monkshood (AsoIIitum gIyMWam=). AJl these species, arc oonsidered eitber faculiativo {FAC}, I facultative wet {FACW}, ar obligative (OBL). . , Hydrny4gy . "Ihcre are no perennial or intermittcnt stream channels on or adjaccnt to the site. Site hydrology consisted of infiltration of onsite precipitation and shatlow ground watcr Xeported at less than 25 feci deep by a.recent spil and foundation report (Inter-Mountain Engineering, July 1991). I7uring of the 5llC inspectiOn, shallaw standing water was presznt in wheel ruts created by eaccavation equipment uscd to dig soil test pits. Sail test pits du$ during the ES site inspection encountered saturated soils at lcss than 10 inehes at the three loeations Gxamined- Tht site is apparentiy not in tbe 100-year Aood plain of Gore GYeeY, whickt xs about 275 feet • downgradient of Lot 1. Vcrticai elevation drop from the tawer boundary of Lot 1 to ~ the top of the Gore Creek chamel was estimated at appraaamately 50 feet Site water is collected and directEd off-site by shsllow (10 ta 12 inchcs) borrow ditcbcs on the ncuth and west sides of the property. Soifs ! Three sail test pits werc dug by ES at different site locations to a minimum depth of 18 inchcs. Soils were primarily mineral. Soil cotor was detertmned from a Munsell soil color chart. Color in the 18-inch profile remained consistently very dark reddish brown to black with cdors anging from hue 2.SYR, value 2.5, chroma 0 ta hue 73YR, value 2, chroma 0. The vory dark matrix chronna obscured potential mottliug of the samples examined. A faint odor of hyclrogcn sulfide gas was evident . in ane sample. . Two soil test pits dug to 8 feet by Inter-Mou.ntain Engineering in July 1991 revealed a dark mineral topsoil laycr of iS feet thick; averlying 4 feet of rcd silty I sand; and brown si}ty, sandy, gravel to thc bcittom of the &foot-decp test pits. Sail oolor and profile characteristics remained relatively consistent at all test sites • examined by ES aad Inter-Mauntain Engineering. WEI't.AND STAT[TS 7be grnperty is considered to satisfy thc vcgetation, so7, and hydrology criteria of . s jurisdictianal wedaad as defined by the Fedcral Interagenc.y Conttnittee for • Wetlaitd Delinoation (1989), commonty refcned to as the fedclal method. a- 53441 '•SEW BY*Kinko's Copies FC i ; 5- 2-97 ;12:OOPM ; 303~49344961 9704792452;# 7/ 8 , ENCZINEER{N(3-3CiENCE,INC. • VeQetstion of the site is dominated by more than SQ percent hydrnpbytic specaes desipated as either obligativt, facultative wet, or facultative. Site soil moisturt characteristics su$gcst saturated conditions within X8 inches of the surface for at letst one week during the growing sesson Sail matrix chroma aud other fieid characteristics satisfy bydric soil requiremcnts. , The 025-aae wedand parcel is eompleted isolated from au3? Qthcr wetland area by dcvelopcd residantial lots of appioximateh? the samt siu oa four side.s. Two developed residential properties effectively sepazate int 1 from the Gorc Creck . channel and Qood pl.ain. Kelgar Lane and its faundation form an effective I hydrologic barrier to sballow subsurface flows that may Qriginatc onsite and may ~ help force shallow ground water to the surface at the lot's downgradicnt Cnd. Tbe I site does not possess a discernible natural stream dannel, although a shallow, roadside drainage channcl was apparendy dug along the property's northern and I wcstern perimeters to acc+ommodate surface runoff from the road and frdm adjacent ~ developed proptrties. Tbe site's prirnary sources af water supply appcar to be direct precipitation and shallow ground water. The site has no fish habitat valua. Its value as wiidlife habitat is substantially limited by its small sizt and use as a play area by neighborbood children PERMITi'ING REQIAREMENT5 FiUing of jurisdictional wetlands is regRilated by the U.S. Army Coips of Enginccrs by the issuance of permits or approvals through Section 404 of the Clean + Water A;crt. Llnder the Clean Water Act, the Section 404 permit program regulates ' discharges of dredged or fiffl material into waters of the United States (which ineludes jurisdictional wetlands). It is unlawful to dischargc dredged or fill mattrial into U.S. watars without first receiving authorizatipn from the Corps. A discharge of dredged or fill material involves the physicai placement of soil, sand, gravel, dr+edged mat,crial, or othcr sucb materiais into U.S. watera, including marshes, bogs, and other similar wetlands, In most cases proposcd discharges to wetlands are processed under provisions of eitbcr the Corps' nationwide or individual pormit pragrams. Proposcd discbargts that would affed less than 1 acre qf wetlands are tyQically addressed as gart of the natiomvide permit progain, if certain wnditioaS aze met The nationwide permit is a form of gtneral permit that authorir.es a category of activicies and is designed to mix?itnize administrative detays and papenwork. . Given the wedand's smaIl size (approximately 0.25 acre); its status as an isolated rathcr than an adjacent weiland of Gore Creelc; and the absence of a discernible strcam ehanneI, it is likely tbat site alteration could be apprwed under pravisions of a Nationwide 26 permit. Under this condition, the landownex does not aetually j rcveive nformaI permit, Insteatd, the Iandowner rtceives pennission from the CorpS in the form af a Ietter that indicates the activity is already allowed by pravisions of the nationwide permit program ta place fill ar dredged matcsials into the wetland. This ES dotermin$tian must, however, be indepcndently conc,urted with by the . Corps aftcr eonsidering, among othcr things, infarmation provided by this teduimt • report. ,As part of arriving at adecision, Corps gersarn,cl may choose to make a -3- • sM"l SEM' BY:Kinko's Coples FC I : 5- 2-97 ;12:OOPM ~ 303*4934406- 9704792452;# 8/ 8 E.NGINEEFtIW49CIENCII~ tNG. • ' • ~ dewrmination based Onty on the wntents of this report, or thcy ma chovse to • Qoaduct an inde nde~ site i ~ pe nspection. Qnve the Cwps rcceives a landowner's roquest for permission to dischatge fill or dredgad -materiala inta a wetland und+ar prwisions of the natiomvide permit program; tbe !Corps eonsiders site and project cbarmerlsties, and tben provides a written response usually within 1 to 2 wc,eft of receiving the request and its SuPPortm6 infurmation. if the Co.rps ooneludes thxt the activity caa be allowed by the natianwide pro,gram, then it will farward a nationwide confirmation ietter to the landownar ftt statcs its oonclusion and permits the activity to be conducted. Htywevcr, tbe Corps may instead decide to request additional information or it may ~ elect to use its discrttioaary authority to rtquire submittal of au ittdividusl permit ~ applicauon for authorization to fili the sitt. A rcquest for a Carps determinatian of this matter should be sent to: . ; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . Western Colorado Regulatory Office 402 Rvod Avenue, Room 412' - Grand Junction, Cplorado 815Q1-2563 Attcntion: Mr. Grady McNure, putf YiFFkRENCES . Federal In ency Committee for Wetland Delineation 1989. Federal ManuaX • for ldo ' and Delineating Jurisdietionsl Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ..S. Environmental Protection Agancy,. U.S. Fisb aad W~7ilift Sen?icx, an~i U.S.DA Soil Conservation Senr~ce. Washington, D.C. Caoperative technical publication. 76 pp, plus appcndioes. . . ~ . , i . • -4- MEMORANDUM I• TO: Planning and Environmenta( Commission ~ FROM: Community Development Depariment DATE: June 9, 1897 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a front setback variance (Section 18.28.070) and a conditional use for an outdoor dining deck, to allow for a deck expansion at Crossroads, located at 143 East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Mountain Top Ice Cream (Haagen Daz), represented by Bill Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REGIUEST The applicant is requesting a variance and a conditional use permit in order to allow an outdoor dining deck to be located 1' from the front property line. The proposat provides for a 630 sq. ft. deck (approximately 35' x 18') adjacent to Haagen Daz in the Crossroads Plaza. The existing deck is proposed to be removed. The new deck is proposed to be located west of the existing ~ deck. As part of the improvement the applicant is proposing to provide two landscape planters, a location for trash bins, and a new bus stop area. New stairs will be provided up to the covered walkway. The proposed deck will only be accessible through Haagen Daz and therefore, wi(I not be a general seating area for the plaza. The Zoning Code allows decks and at grade patios to encroach 10' or Yz the required building setback into the required setback area. Therefore, in the CSC zone district, which requires a 20' front setback, the deck is allowed to encroach 10' into the setback (or located 10' from the front property line). Parking for an outdoor dining deck is not accessed. 11. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Staff and the applicant are requesting PEC discussion and direction on the following issues: 1. Setback The setback.regulation is a general regulation which does not take special circumstances into account. The variance chapter provides relief from the strict and literal interpretation of this regulation. Crossroads Plaza is located adjacent to the village and is very pedestrian in nature. Unlike the CC1 zone district, the CSC zone district requires setbacks. Ideally, for outdoor dining decks and pedestrian areas to be successful, there needs to be interaction between the deck and the street. Staff agrees with the applicant that it is advantageous to encourage this type of use in this area. • However, staff believes the request goes too far. The proposed setback, in our opinion, is not 1 the minimal necessary to achieve the goal of outdoor dining. The proposal compromises pedestrian access in the area and does not adequately provide for landscape areas adjacent to • the deck. Staff believes the dining deck should be reduced in size in order to adequately address these issues. 2. Dining Deck/Conditional Use Outdoor dining decks are required a conditional use permit due to the fact that the business is occurring outside of a structure. Several policies of the Vail Land Use Plan address issues related to outdoor dining decks. Specifically: 3.1.1 Policy: Private development objectives shall incorporaie streetscape improvements such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.3 Objective: Encourage a wide variety of activities, events and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas. 3.3.2 Policy: Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and shall be encouraged in commercial in-fill or redevefopment projects. Staff believes the concept of a dining deck in this location is good one and implements these goals. 3. Landscaping The proposal reduces the amount of landscaping in the area and provides for two landscape • planters. While staff believes formal planter areas with planter walls at a height to allow seating is an asset to the development, the amount of landscaping is being reduced. Staff believes that the proposed planter areas shou{d be expanded in depth and in over a11 size to provide adequate buffering between the pedestrian area and the adjacent development. 4. Pedestrian Circulation The proposal provides a 3' wide sidewalk adjacent to the deck area and provides a bus stop "plaza." The applicant has also indicated that the condominium association is interested in improving pedestrian access along this entire frontage of the plaza and reworking the landscape areas. Staff believes that the PEC should evaluate a larger plan with respect to the plaza and make the deck addition a phased component of the redevelopment. The proposed 3' wide sidewalk is inadequate for proper pedestrian access. The Streetscape Master Plan ca11s for an 8' - 10' wide sidewalk in this area. ' III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE 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. A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. • 2 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and (iteral interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of I population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilitiss and utifities, and public safety. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: f. 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 materiaNy 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 iiteral interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. • b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions appficable to the same site of the variance that do not apply , generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE 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. A. Consideration of factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, 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. 3 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be • located, including the scale and buik of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. B. The Pianning and Environmental Commission shaN make the followina findinas before grantina.a conditional use e~ rmit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safery, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed variance for the deck expansion at Crossroads Plaza, 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:\EVERYONEIPECWIEMOS\haagen.609 • 4 May 12. 1997 FITZLN • , . ~ ~ B R I N E R RE:SUMMARY OF VARIANCE REQUEST CROSSROADS CONDOMINIUM PATIO EXPANSION (APPLICANT: MOUNTAIN TOP ICE CREAM) A R C H I T E C T S REQUESTED VARIANCE: The Applicant would like to remove one patio and construct a new patio in the Front Setback along Meadow Drive. Paragraph 18.58.050 of the Zoning Ordinance permits a terrace to encroach 10' in a required setback but the Applicant would like to extend the terrace to the Property Line in some places. The Project wot?ld include a new Bus Stop (in conjunction with the Town of Vail) and pedestrian access improvements. Similar to terraces at the nearby Hubcap Brewery, Alpenrose, Sonnenalp, Pazzo's Pizza, La Tour restaurants, as well as terraces at cestaurants in CCI and CCII, this terrace will enrich street life and the resort experience. • The nature of Crossroads, the only property zoned CSC, has changeci from a~~chicle oriented shopping center to a pedestrian oriented facility, makina setbacl:s (and terrace encroachments therein) irrelevaiit. The essence of the hardship for this vaciance is the tailure ofthc Town to rccoonize, and respond to tile changing nature of tliis property. This request will not negatively effect light and air distribution ot population. transportation, traffic facilities, utilities, or public safety. This request complies with the following Goals of the Comprehensive Plan: 1.3. 1.4. 1.12, 3.4, 3.5, 4.2, 4.3. • 1_:\9; 17var.«-pci ('I,inninti • lichilecturc • in[crior, 1650 East Vail Valley Drive Fallrid};c G I • Vail, CO 8165' o tpharchvLcDvaiLnet * ftx (970) 476-49!it •(970) 476-6342 . i i ' ~ i i i ; i i t i i i i ~ ----i- ~ i ` OVERHANG LINE HAAGEN-DAZ ICE CREAM AND YOGURT ENTRY AREA ~LINE OF NEW AWNING ; EXIST. CURB LINES ~ ~ J ~ - - - ~ ~ i ~ A^~ ~ STEPS UP ~ < < EW DECK - 44+--- - - ~ i EXIST. CK PLANTER WALL , i ' i i ' . NEW BUS STOP AREA , ~ , El F-I ~ , TRASH BINS ' • PLANTER WALL EAST MEADOW DRIVE HAAGEN-DAZ DECK EXPANSION ~ 1/8" = 11_011 i S ~ ~ i ~ - i ~ ~ . g I - i ~ ~ i ~ ~ a••• / ~ 5 1 M ~ • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmenta! Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 9, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 16.20.010 (Signs Permitted), to allow for two building identification signs and to allow for an increase in the size of the traffic control signs, located at Golden Peak Ski Base, 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., Planner: Lauren Waterton 1. DESCRIPTiON OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 16.20.010, to allow for two building identification signs (only one is permitted) and to allow for the size of traffic control signs to be 2.25 square feet (one square foot is permitted), located at the Golden Peak Ski Base. The applicant is proposing one building identification sign on the north side of the building, facing Vail Valley Drive and the second sign on the south side, facing Chairs 6 and 12. The maximum size for a building identification sign is 20 square feet. The north facing sign is proposed to be 16 • square feet. The south facing sign is proposed to be 18 square feet. The signs would be constructed oi individual letters and mounted to the wall of the building (see attached drawing). The applicant is also proposing nine traffic control signs on this site to direct and caution auto , traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists. The number of traffic control signs permitted is subject to j design review. Each sign will be individually mounted on a pole and wifl be a maximum of six ; feet in height (see attached drawing). ' 11. BACKGROUND In July 1996, the Design Review Board approved a Master Sign Program for the Golden Peak Ski Base. All signs for the Ski Base must conform with this sign program, or the program must be amended to include new or different signage. During the 1996-97 ski season, none of the permanent signage for the Ski Base had been erected on the site. However, it is the applicant's intent to put all the permanent signage on the site during the summer and fall. The signs for which the variances are requested, if approved by the PEC, will become a part of the approved sign program. • Iti. CRiTER1A AND FINDfNGS • Upon review of Section 16.36.050, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested sign variances. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors: ~ A. Consideration of factors: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right-of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question: provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all business or enterprises. Building Identification Signs: Staff believes that special circumstances apply to this business and this site, which do not apply generally to all businesses. This building has three frontages; two along Vail Valley Drive and one facing the ski slopes. The applicant desires to have identification from the road and from the ski slopes. The applicant has requested signs on both the north and the south sides of the building. • Staff believes that by oniy providing one sign, as allowed by the code, it would be limiting and would restrict the effectiveness of this proposed sign, as it could only be seen from one side. Staff believes that, since this is the only ski base facility within the Town of Vail, it is unique and unlike other businesses and therefore, having identification from more than one side of the building is appropriate. Traffic Control ~i,gns: Staff has identified other signs around Town that control traffic, such as "No Parking" signs, and has found that most of these types of signs do not currently meet our maximum 1 sq. ft. sign requirement. Most are generally 2 sq. ft. Therefore, staff believes that the proposed signs are appropriately sized for the information provided and a srnaller sized sign would be unreadable at a distance. Staff is proposing to modify the Sign Code to allow larger traffic control signs, however, that change is not a part of this request and will be reviewed in the near future. 2 • 2. That such special c+rcumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the appiicant. ' Building Identification Signs: Although the applicant developed the site and building, the type of use and unique location make the regulation too restrictive when applied to this site. Therefore, the unique or special circumstances are not necessarily created by the app(icant, but unique to the use and location of the building. Traffic Control Srgns: Staff believes that the maximum 1 sq. ft. requirement for traffic control signs may be too small. Most signs found around Town are greater than 1 sq. ft. and staff believes that this necessary in order to have readable signs. 3. That granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of this ti#le, and will not be materially detrimental to the - persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. • Buildinp Identification S,,ipns • Staff believes the granting of the variance is in harmony with the purpose of the Chapter 16.20 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The signs are proposed on opposite sides of the building. They will not be viewed simuftaneously from any location. Staff believes that allowing a buiiding identification sign on two sides of this building is reasonable, due to its unique use and location, and that it is in harmony with the purpose of this title. , Traffic Control Sians: Staff believes that the granting of the variance is in harmony with the ~ purpose of this title. Increasing the size of the traffic control signs will aid in the readability of these signs, improving traffic flow and pedestrian safety in the area. Staff beGeves these signs will not be materially I detrimental to the persons residing or working in the area. ~ I • 3 i i ' 4. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this • title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business use. i Buildina Identification Signs.• i The variance requesting does not depart any more than necessary, to identify the applicant's business. While the applicant is requesting an additiona( sign, each building identification sign will be on opposite sides of I the building, in order to identify the building from both the north side, along Vail Valley Drive, and the south side from the ski mountain. A building identification sign is allowed to be 20 square feet. The applicant is proposing one sign at 16 square feet and the second sign at 18 square feet. Staff believes that the applicant is requesting the minimum necessary to identify the building. Traffic Control Sians: These signs do not identify the applicant's business. They are intended to provide information regarding parking and pedestrian crossings and therefore, are to aid people, rather than identify the business. Staff believes upon reviewing other signs located around Town, that the request is appropriate. If the PEC considers these signs appropriately sized, staff would propose to modify the sign code to aNow for these signs • to exceed 1 sq. ft. i B. The Planning and Environmental Commi5sion shall make the foltowing.finding's 4efore granting a variance: 1. That special circumstances or conditions apply to the land, building, topography, vegetation, sign struciures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the right-of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign. 2. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant. 3. That granting the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of this title and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materiaily injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of Chapter 16.20 more than is required to identify the applicant's business use. 4 . IV. STAFF BECOMMENDATION • The Community Development Depariment staff recommends approvai of the applicanYs request for a sign variance from Chapter 16.20, to allow for two building identification signs and an increase in the size of traffic controf signs, subject to the following findings: 1. That special circumstances or conditions app(y to the building's use, location and topography of the site, which substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign. 2. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant, but are unigue to the site and use. 3. That granting the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of this title and wi11 not be detrimental to the public health, safety or weifare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. That the variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of Chapter 16.20 more than is required to identify the applicant's business. i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f:leveryone`peclmemoslgpeak.809 5 i (Ord. 5( I 993) § I 1.) i3uilding identilicalinn sifins. ~ I A. Purposc, to idcntify thc namc of a building; 13. Si7c, no Srcatcr than twcntY squarc fcct; ~ C. Hcight, wall-mountcd buildinb ideiitification sig»s: No part of thc si6n shall cxtcnd abovc twcnty-fivc fcct from cxisting gradc or thc platc linc of a builtling, whichcvc?• is lcss; ~ Frccstanding building idcntification sigms: No part of thc sign shall cxtend abovc cight fcct from cxisting gradc; i D, Numbcr, onc sibn; E. Location, cither wall-mountcd or frccstanding, subjcct to dcsisi review; , F. Dcsign, subjcct to dcsign rcvicw; G. Spccial provisions: 1. A frccstanding building idaitification sign shatl bc govcrncd by thc provisions in this scction for 1'rccstanclinb sibn for sin6lc-busincss usc. 2. A wail-mountcd building idcntification sign shall bc govcrncd by thc provisions in this scction for wall sign far sinblc-btisincss usc. 1 -fr.2ff$25 Daily special boards. Daily spccial boarcls shall bc pcrmittcd undcr thc follawing: A. Piirposc-to display thc daily spccials for a givcn rcstmtr~+ttt cating or drinking cstablishmcnt. B. Sizc-no grcatcr than thrcc four (4) squarc fccL C. I icight-no paut of thc daily spccial board shall cxtcnd abovc six fcct from cxisting grldc. D. Numbcr shall bc as follows: I, Onc daily spccial board pcr clting or drinking cstablishmcnt resrmrtvttt shall bc pcrmittcd. • f-iowcvcr, if 1 busincss has two consumcr cntranccs on distinct, scparatc pcdcsfrian ways, a sccond d<tily srccial boarct shall bc allowcd. E. Location, aftixcd to approvcd display box ar altachcd to thc front fiicadc of ttic cstablishmctit. F---D csi_m-~,+rccrrcn-bh, t,-k-c{rtiicbo-,trci-tivitir-tivvcxfcmbardcr. FG. Lightinb, nonc. GR Landscaring-no adaicional iandscapinb shall bc rcquircd in addition to landscaping prcviously rcquircd for display boxcs. . (Ord. 39(1988) § 1.) +6:9 Display boxes. Display boxcs shall be rcgulatcd by thc following: A. Purpose, to display current mcnus, currcnt rcal cstate listings or current cntertainment; . B. Size, no greatcr than fivc syuare feet; C. Hcight, no part of thc display box shall extcnd above six feet from existing gadc; . D. Number shall be as follows: , l. Permittcd, one display sign; 2. Conditional, if a business has two consumer entrances on distinct, separate pedeshian ways, a proposal for a second display box will maq be approved. rrvietiv-b6at-~. The proposal shall conform to the other provisions of this section; E. Location, subject to design review boztr~; , F. Dcsign, glass-cnclosed display box, subject to thcapprawAi--ofthe design review board; ; ' 16 t , , . . i ' ccrtificatc of occunancy ricrmit is issticd, Thc sigit shall bc pcrtnittcd for a pcriod not to • cxccccl vf onc ycar: 2. Thc informition pcrniittcd on tcmporaiy sitc dcvclopmcnt signs for commcrcial dcvclop nicnts or multiplc family dcvclopmcnts of four (4) units or morc is limitcd to projcct namc, projcct address, thc display of pcrmits, rcal cstatc agcnts, contractors, architccts,",d dcvclopcrs, and sitc dcpiction/rcnda-inb. Thc arca of thc sign or-si-gms uscd for display of thc information othcr than thc projcct namc and address is linutcd to SO pcrccnt of thc total area of thc cach sign. Thc information pcrmittcd on othcr residcntial tcmporary sitc dcvetormcnt signs (singlc fami(y, primary/sccondary, duplcx and thrcc family typc dcvclopmcnt) is limitcd to projcct namc, projcct address, thc display ofpcrrtiits, and sitc dcpiction/reiidcriiig. (Ord. 14(1982) § ld, f, g(p1rt): Ord. 13(1976) § 3(part): Ord. 9(1973) § 14(I5).) +6r.2-9:Nfl "fraffic-control signs for privatc propcrty. TraftiF-control signs for privatc propcrty shall bc rcbulatcd as follows: A. Purposc, to rclicvc vchicular and pcdcstrian trattic conbcstion and promotc thc safc and cxpedicnt flow and parkinb oFtraftic on privatc propcrty; B. Sizc. All vchicular traftic control signs shall not cxcccd onc squarc foot exccpt for multi-purposc signs which shall not cxcccd four squarc fcct and cxccpt for privatc parking signs which shall not . cxcecd two squarc fcct. All pcdcstrian traft7c caitrol sibns shall not cxcccd onc squarc foof, cxccpt multi-purposc sibns, which shall not excecd fow' square fcet, subjcct to appravnl-of desigil review trvard. C. Ffcibht, no part of thc sibn shall cxtcnd abovc six fcct fi•oi» cxisting gradc; D. Numbcr, subjcct to 7t}7prcrvttf-vf dcsigm rcvictv btr<trd; E. C.ocation shall bc subjccl to detcrminzcl-by clcsib+i rcvicxv troard, with-,-}ettcr-af anproval froiu thc iown cribinccr for any sibi~ iflaccd adjaccnt !o a nubJic strcct or waY; • 17. Ucsibn, subjcct to apprcrv;t}-afthe dcsibn rcvicw bcr.trd; G. Libhting, indircct, atthcd'rscrctivmufthc subjcct to dcsibn rcvicw bcrnd, ! i. Laildscaping, ntthc-tlisc;rctivn-of subjcct to dcsign rcvicw iot-rd; 1. Spcckil provisions shall bc as follows: 1. May bc cithcr frcc-stall(Illlb OC \VRII-Il10Ul1tCd, Wll}1 51111C St7.C I'CqUICCI1lCIltS. 2, No individual sign will bc approvcd unlcss it conforms to an ovci-all sign program for thc cntire sitc, submittcd by thc applicant. 3. No sign shall contain any advcrtising, but may idcntify thc owncr by namc. (Ord. 36(1983) 1-2: Ord. 14 (1982) § !g (part): Ord. 9 (1973) § 14(16).) ' +6-.24-.+H Wall signs-Arcadc. Wall signs, arcadc shall bc rcgLilatcd as follows: A. Purpose, to idcntify a btisincss or organization fi•aiiting oji an arcade within a building having piiblic acccss; , , . B. Size, one sigm with a maximum area of thrce square fcet; . C. Height, to the top of the signs shall be no higher than eibht feet above existing grade; D. Number, oiie per business fronk on an arcade, as determined by the administrator, subject to rcvrevn bq-the design review }ramrd; . E. Location, parallel to the exterior wall of the business front on an, . arcade, subject ta-tfleapprovva~-af thc design revicw baard; . ' F. Desi sub'ect to thc-x ) pprav~tl-af-the design review board; G. Lighting, indirect or pan-channeled; . , - • . • 26 . UST OF SIGN TTPES ~ DESCRIPTION ME PAGE QT'! m 1112PeaASVeet I CMWren's Cmter ldmtity / peguWtory A GR 1.1 1 Bould«. Cobrado 80302 MajorWekomeDsecibnal A GH1.2 1 3031478202 Hental d Hetail IaenlM 0 GR 1.3 2 l •w~ %.~j''~. j Ski Schoa116entiry D GR 1.4 2 Them dra"'iW re lar Me sola Lilt Tickets Wmtiry D GR 1.5 t Oe ntaa myanna arvisual e not 1Z ~ MeMed lor acfual kCrtatnn GoiCen Peak LoUge: Sauth FnVy E GR 1.6 1 74er Gtill IOentity E GR 1.7 1 total y2spM50iMy for Indl¢fwcidl5gtg Wreck poom IAentiy D GR 1.8 1 ukctm, faCricatqn aiW IdenWyflegulatory A GR1.9 1 installatim. Restrooms 6lockers IAentiry D GH 1.10 1 ".l'"'~' V / ~ ~ ~,•\f' ~ y f ~~p . ~ ' CauTm? PeAestrian Nea B GR 1.11 3 28 NOrember1995 ' ~;jr GoltlenPeakLotlge:NoMEntry G GH1.72 1 ~ 'V, Pedestrian Crossin9 B GR 1.13 1 Shat Term PaAcing OMY 10 minutes 8 GR t.t< S 30 1996 Pent~ouses Rivate Parking ' H GR 1.15 7 PasspMCWGwuseParking C GH1.76 1 )OJune 1996 ' i,.~t PasspoR CWbharse Identiry Plapue J GR 1.77 1 _ u - ~r / ! ~o- ; . • _ _r~. ,.i'.. _ _j LiftTCketPrices F GH1.18 1 ~ xerisI ob s 24.r` ''Q~ ~ pIH r ~VI~G(Vb o x A w x e r : , !rC{1~T111CaJ~-~~ { ~ ~ tworseer ..71 KEY c w c c a E n e r ; f, \~~~r 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ SIGNiYPE $HEET NUMBER Stale: nd to sak s" ~y Y , . GOLDEN PEAK ~ ~ ~ . ~ v> ° ' ~ ~ ~ , = ' Pedestrian Signage ocation Map _ ~ / / • ~ \ ~ ; k ~ f L SYV ~ v V V 0 V 03 M IELI M3 LgI [bbl LM [M - ~ Tra c cz>,)iyot S J~vi~ GR 0.1 I ~ ~ ~ ~ • • • ~ ,r-o• ~ comm~~~eauo~ ~ru i~e m z rean srat eowa«. comuo ~3oz ~ w~ ae~ exoz inese Oraw'vgs xe la 1ne sok ~ SECTION Duryose d opessig vaual C Spk:112` = 1'-0' Oesgn Ndi onh~ 2nA a~e nol inteMeU lot aqual lahKation WN~eS. SMJI1 mMraCla 3oCeD~S btal re5pd~d~OCy lur maferials gele~tqn, fiditalbrt arW ~KLtIULan. ~ 18 Normdn 7995 ~i 1 eAr[ I iz•-o° } ~ ' ~ snJ.,;~.,n~s~+c l i ro.N,~e rws , TOrc11 [ul ry~in1~4 _ , ^ a~umauim kners L6 welde0 to Curved a f w i s ~ u r s ~ psnteA metat tWe (3'sauare~ KltN Inn~al cap hr~gM Is 15' o x• N M e ~ and smali caD ~e~gn1511 ~ 1la" Siqn a~ea is 20 sa. feet C N F C a[ 0 Scate: as roteC GOLDEN PF1~1K Golden Peak Lodge Souih Entry tdentity Signage Sign Type E S i ~i~ =1~ ~~.c~ Quantity: 1 IRDNT [t[V~71pN SID[ CL[YA71pN G R 7~ V ~.,w r:`- ~ n• ~V ~..,w i~~ ~ !J Communkatbn AAS Ine 1112 Peart$treel Bouiber. Cobt200 E0702 3034478202 . ' These anwngs xe la ine mk Wpose W expressn9 vsual C SECfION Oesign ntent my and are not ~~e: ~n• :x~oea f« r~m, _ putposet. Sgn conkacta aaepts blal responsdWy lor materuls ukr:hon, facricauon ana rkSIdllLW. 78 Navembei 1995 D ~ T F 30 Jarwary 19% 12' fl.' lOJune 199u ' Torth Cut paNlea -AL w e v i s ~ o r. s GaL N PEaK LoDG aluminum letters 1,12 wziAedlo wrreC ~ DainteU melal luUe ~ (3' sWare) D P A 1Y N 8 T Nitial Wp heignt 512' anC small caD heignt rs 9- Sign area k 16 sq. feet c+ E r. e o e. Scik: as rotea . GOLDEN PEAK Goiden Peak Lodge ~ North Entry Identity Signage Sign Type G Quantity: 1 i0.9NT fIfVAS10N p SIDE ELEVATIO.N _ G R 1.12 A uaie:,n• - r-o• - ° scak: trz. - • ~ • ' A~') Communkatbn Arts Ine. 1112 Poarl Street 8a,laa. Coloraro 80702 3034478202 mese aaw+qs xe In tne sde I l Pwuose ot e.presvng rm,ai I ~ 3' Oesgn nteN my ano se not ntrtleC br atluai IaGtatm pufplstS Sg0 CONta[iar DCfRD13 btai responsidwy lor materuts 5eledan. faGrratwn an0 r5t2N2tian TWU CUf P2Y1t2O meWl signlace ^ UTIO 28 November 1995 I U • t E PEDESTRIAN NI coDY 6 StitlcSCreeneO I Initial caP is 2' an0 CROSSING 5mdlltap5l-1/Z' . lOJune 19% I \ Y4' mBtal'Nil' ta(j($$j9n(y[Q R E Y 1 S 1 0 M 5 t0 SignpOk $tanQ3rA Signpole PAH wiN paintz0 Uands ~ D x• w x x r of attzmatng mbr [ x E C ~ E D Y~ ( Srak: as mtea I . GOLDEN PEAK ' Pedestrian Crossing Sign Type B FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELFYATION ~ scale: = 1'-0' ~ scale: 1' = 1'-0' Quantity: t S iTn - Z 25 GR 1.13 ~ ~ ~ ~ • • ~ . y~ Commwnkalbn AAS I~ ~ 1112 PedA $4eet Boutlzr. CobraOO &1302 303 <47 8202 -6" These Crawngs xe la iAe stle purpose of e.pressrg nwai aes9n ntent mry ana are rot 1 3 I nlenaeC bractualfaorcatm purposEi. $gn COnV]nor 3xeMs tuWI responsAiWy lar materWs 52wiOn. faDfCdhon anC visIalWlm. Tacn cvt painte0 mztal sgntace ^ 19 NovemDn 1995 0 A t E An copy s siocsaeeneA haai ap B 2' arm ( f srtupcapist•t/2' 30Jxuary1996 )O.Vne 1996 y4• metal'naii' LCk5 W3C2 P E Y i S t 0 M S to sgnpole SlanOard signpoie o ~ wiNpamtWOanCS ^ o a e W N ~ r ot anzrtwtng mwr c~ e c R c o e. ~ ~I ^ Sraka5 noteO GOLDEN PEAK Short Term Parking Only FaoxTEtFVanox Sign Type 6 ~ sioe e~vanox ' „ scale: t' = 7'-0^ ~ scale: 1• = 1•-0' Quantity: 5 Si~=Z- ZS - GR 1.14 IB mmunicalba AAS Inn t 2 Pey1 Strert ouMer.CobraAO 80702 3034478202 ~ V'6. ~ Tneu Mawngs xe 1n Ine sole purpose ot e,prassng vwai ~ 3" Gesqn nteM mry ana are nw ntenOeU blactuallaErratw WoDosCs Sgn [onVBCiaf i[ctp15 WLiIlESpon5G61y lof ma1HW5 SElBCtqn. (30nCdtm a1W rK13BdI10n. Tacn at paintxd maw signtace ~ ZB NOV2/I10H 199$ All C07Y lt SiA(Sc1P211Ed I U• i E YutWl fa0 is 2' aa0 SmaO CLp i5 5112' 30 J&uary 19516 lOhne 1996 314' metal'natl' tacks 5igntxe n c v i s~ o w s to siqrpoix StanUNC signpok ,YpH witn painlea oaMS u x. w • n, ot anematng cowr ~ C x£ C• E D• v { ~ ^ Scale. as rotrU ~ GOLDEN PEaK i: ; Caution! Pedestrian Area ~ FRONT ELEVATIDN SIDE ELEVATION scaie: r. r-o• u xa~: r= r-o• Sign Type B Quantity: 3 S[gn = Z.25 GR 1.11 ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 9, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision and variances from lot size (Section 18.27.050), landscaping (Section 18.27.100) and parking (Section 18.27.110) requirements for the First Bank in West Vail, located at 2271 N. Frontage Road/Tract C, Vail Das Schone Filing #1. Applicant: First Bank of Vail, represented by Joseph Mitler Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a minor subdivision to establish this parcel (a.k.a. Chamonix Corners) as a separate platted lot. The applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum lot size in the CC3 zone district (25,000 sq. ft.) to allow the !ot to be 21,736 sq. ft. and a parking variance. The variance for landscape area is no longer a part of this request. • This property was platted as part of Tract C, Vail Das Schone, Filing No. 1, in 1965, in Eagle County. In 1977, while still under Eagle County jurisdiction, a deed was recorded which, in essence, divided Tract C into two parcels. This was an illegal subdivision according to Eagle County regulation. Since 1977, the parcel has changed hands several times and now First Bank of Vail owns the parcel. At the direction of staff, the applicant is requesting this minor subdivision in order to make the lot "legal." The applicant is also proposing to remodel and expand the building, adding approximately 964 sq. ft. to the building, improving the exterior of the building and providing landscaping on-site. The lot is non-conforming with respect to landscape area, therefore, no landscape area may be reduced on-site. The proposed plan provides additional landscape area on-site. The applicant is also seeking a parking variance (3 parking spaces) to allow 31 parking spaces, where 34 parking spaces are required for the proposed expansion. The parking variance may not be necessary if the PEC agrees with the staff analysis of the parking requirement for a furniture store. A furniture store is currently assessed parking based on the retail requirement of 1 parking space for each 300 sq. ft. of net floor area (in this case requiring 15 parking spaces). There is no specific category for a furniture store. However, furniture stores tend to occupy large spaces due to the size and bulk of products sold, the related storage areas, and the number of customers visiting such a store. Most other communities assess parking for furniture stores at 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft., which in this case would reduce the parking requirement by 10 parking spaces (requiring 5 parking spaces). The code allows the PEC to determine parking requirements when a use does not fit into one of the categories within the regulations. Staff ~ believes that the proposed assessment is reasonable and recommends that the PEC accept the 1 *VAIL lY1W parking assessment. (f the PEC disagrees with this assessment, then the applicant is requesting a variance based on the reasons stated here+n and the fact that they have a parking and access ~ easement/agreement with the lodge next door which allows overflow parking between the sites. II. ZONING ANALYSIS ~ Zoning: CC3 Siandard Reauired/Allowed Existinq Pro o~ sed Lot Area: 25,000 sq. ft. 21,736 sq. ft. 21,736 sq. ft. ~ Site Coverage: 8,760 sq. R. (40%) 4,504 sq. ft. (21%) 5,400 sq. ft. (25%) Landscape area: 5,475 sq. ft. (25%) 3,014 sq. ft. (14%) 3,527 sq. ft. (16%) Commercial sq. ft.: no limit 8,826 sq. ft. 9,790 sq, ft. Parking: 24 spaces' 31 spaces 31 spaces "Based on parking for furniture store at 1 space/1000 sq. ft. 34 spaces are required if furniture store is assessed ai i space/300 sq. ft. III. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new Iot 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 ~ I Minor Subclivision Application is: I Lot Area - The Zoning Code requires 25,000 sq. ft. of lot area for a lot located within the CC3 Zone District. Staff Response: The proposal does noi meet this requirement. The !ot was i!legally subdivided prior to annexation to the Town of VaiL The applicant is proposing to formalize a parce/ that has been treated as a separate parce/ for ovei 20 years. The applicant is seeking a variance from this requirement. Staff believes the variance shou/d be approved due to the unique histay of the parcel and the fact that it was already divided prior to annexation to the Town of Vail. Frontaae - The Subdivision Regulations require a minimum street frontage of 30'. Sfaff Response: As proposed, this minor subdivision meets fhis requirement. • f:\everyone\pecMemos\7 stbank.609 2 • The second set of criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request, as outlined in the subdivision regulations, is 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 applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town 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." The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide infarmation as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: The review of this request has followed the regulations prescribed for minor subdivisions in fhe 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 this long standing lot. The proposal will not conflicr 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. Siaff 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 that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff Response: The proposed subdivision meets the minimum zoning requirements (except for lot area and parking spaces) for a parcel of land. The improvements thereon are conforming, with the exception of landscape area. Landscape area will continue to be freated as nonconforming. • f:\everyone\pecMemos\1 stbank.609 3 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 criferion. 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 proposa/ will create accurate lega/ description for the subdivided land. The site is currently constructed. 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 throu9hout the municiPalitY in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of land. Staff Response: Staff does not believe the proposed minor subdivision will have any negafive impacts on the above described criterion. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE REGIUESTS Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the • Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance. The recommendation for approval 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 parcel exists as a separate deeded property and has existed in that fashion upon annexation to the Town of Vail. As with other properties annexed to the Town of Vail, many exist as nonconforming lots. Staff believes the proposed subdivision with have little, if any, negative impact on existing or potential uses in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Due to the unique circumstances regarding the illegal subdivision of this land and the fact that lot was subdivided prior to annexation to the Town of Vail, staff believes that relief from the strict an literal interpretation of this regulation will help to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among annexed properties. • Staff does not believe this will be a grant of special privilege. f:\everyone\pecUnemos\i stbank.609 4 r • 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utitities, and public safety. The proposed variance wi!l have little, if any effect on these factors. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the grant+ng of the variance will not be detrimental to the pub{ic health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply • genera((y to ather properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . 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. The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed minor subdivision subject to the following condition: 1. That a note be placed on the plat stating, "this lot shall be considered an independent parcel for the purpose of zoning and development standards." The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's , variance request subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance wi!l not constitute a grant of special privilege • inconsisteni with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. fAeveryone\pecMemos\1 stbank.609 5 i 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public heatth, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • ~ 3. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the CC3 zone district. . • I • fAeveryone\pecMemos\1 stbank.609 6 VSt I.t. iIUCT 0 IMO. 03 RMN 11[!M • • I ~ BALS Oi K/MNGS : M n•}TOf! t, 193 .47 1~ . ~ ' (ND. PN ! GP ~LS. / 26626 (REO V11611C) . ~ j nE: 5 95l7'7d E 3.43 20 0 10 W 60 iM / iNO. PiN t Gw Q.• ' L.S. I 16e44 OP~ ~~,rLb~ f/ \ V INN AT WEST VAIL . ~ SR Vw k W op 45. / 26596 / / J\ MFA 12 ~ J /CC[55~L •GSWfM 1 ~ \ y Ooai 7a. nn[ w) ~ ~ ~Y/ ~~~.ae a.a s~sa•~rc - an i ~ APPnox. ala caANrm ro Har caoss ttECmic 450c. ~ kw°p i ~ Mtu N (B 175. i 931) PMCEL 'if ~ ~ ACCESS FAXMENf ~ \ 331 $0. i7. hm,I'OP / l~~ 1M. M4 pi) o-iOOOAO / / i ~ \~1U1 {tl'!I1/[ - 11.1! p.- ~IIlTw • 1P~~ - - - - - ioun0 P.K. MwL wJWI511EH ~ LOT 1 nE: s°ie~is•ss~ c s..~ ~ 0.4991I ACRCS (PER MM7EM IEGK) \ iae.u ~ 77 1-01•16'SO" R~6Q00. 100 ~134 / ~'-arar [ ~ L.0 ~T A T.67.05 LC.134.10 ' . ~ ? CB.S 4e`28'45 W / . I~pt•17'21' • \ ert w ..~c.. (sEE HoTE 10) R-'6~~ p T-67.50 io ~ e , CB-N 6'04'47' E • ~ ~ Q. (SEE NOYE 9) rarICE: /ccaJxq lo CobroAO lov you mu~l eomm~~c8 oM M9d «lio" E i `p~ ~ t~ upon ony Mtect M fAis surwy +ritAin ihrN ywn oRK Y. w L.S. 26626 discova ~h delftl. M no tvenl. may k 24. E~-v~ oiry aelan EeMd on tlats ot mon lhan Un yw~ t~ ' TIE: S ICS~'0Y E S.4E / Nlect h IAis wney W eomm~nc~d tM ee~tilkol'an Snown Mnon. .!7 ~ • ----°-`t - 4~4,0 ~ f-• ~ yae~ ~ y j' ~ t,[ • w ,J ' so -j r u J i us cNV U. ~ e ¢ '~~.e ~ ~}'tT 6S r~a'a .r. wm,a wrt ro ~..r / k- ~ = C~ ~ a•. r i.a~ ~ t0 ~ O ti) : 4 9 0 20 Qo $o s?TP L -A" 20 IOF 3 SCALE ~ 40 80 p 20 trANDSCAPE sca~E 1.. = zo' ~ ~ q, q q q C= _ ` ~ 'j I I I I I~ , . -+-----~-----}-----F-----~---a ~ _~~o~~~ ~ U w ' i Lt ~ I ~ ~ V SECOND FLOOR PLAN W ~ a*; o - --o W ? - CO-Z ' - . ; ,OZ z ; 3~LL . { I I - ' , I W ~ - - ---0 cn _ i i l I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 20F3 FIRST FLOOR PLAN W ~ LAILMLI I I I I- ~ I I e ~ ~ ~ awns.m wor ~ u ~ c.r x ~ee~m w ntr. m++. mv I i i - _ _ _ _ _ {il ~ ~ A - - - - - ' o.iac e~e ' us~r n.n..e I F ~ I ----1-1----- ~ L < .L4L < SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION ~ . ; U W a. x ¢ J-W fA : i i - i i i i - < > ~ < ~ . . _ - - - I ~ ~ W Z • ZZ W. N O N~ - ~ ~ < a. 1 I I I - ~ NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION o. r-rv 30F3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 9, 1997 RE: A request for a worksession to discuss amendments to Sections 18.24.030, 18.24.040, 18.24.050, 18.24.060, 18.26.040 of the Zoning Code to add Commercial Ski Storage as a permitted use and Outdoor Ski Storage as a conditional use in the Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II zone districts. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy Planner: Lauren Waterton 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting an amendment to the zoning code to allow for commercial ski storage. The proposed amendments include permitting commercial ski storage on all levels of the building in Commercial Core I(CCI) and Commercial Core II (CCII) and to allow outdoor commercial ski storage as a conditional use in CCI and CCII. Commercial ski storage is currently permitted in the basement level of the buitding in CCI and CCIf. Because the zoning code regulates permitted uses according to the level of building in CCI and CCII, the code must be • amended to alfow ski storage on other tevels of the building. II. BACKGROUND ;i In 1989, the zoning code was amended to allow commercial ski storage as a permitted use only in the basement and garden level of buildings in CCI and CCII. At that time, there were several existing ski storage facitities located in basements, that had been approved by the Town of Vail as an accessory use to an existing ski shop. In the recent years, there have been a number of outdoor ski storage faciliiies that have been erected, including outside of the GondoJa Building, under Chair 1 and next to Curtin-Hill Sports, all without Town of Vail approual. The existing regulations do not permit this activity. Earlier this year, staff denied a request by Vail Associates for Design Review Board approval for the ski storage in Lionshead, next to the Gondola Building. The PEC upheld the staff's decision that a previous nonconforming use had been substantially changed so that the use had lost the nonconforming status. • y III. piSCUSSION ISSUES Since this is a worksession, staff has identified the following issues for discussion: ~ A. Definition of Commerciai Ski Storaae While the code currently permits commercial ski storage in the basement (eve(s of buildings, there is no definition of this use. Staff would propose to add a definition to the "Definitions" section of the code to clarify this use. Staff recommends that some distinction be made between "commercial" ski storage and "ski racks" i (those racks that are put up for the convenience of the customer, but involve no fee). B. Is this use aopropriate on all levels of the buildina? When the code was amended in 1989 to permit ski storage in the basement level of buildings, the staff recognized the horizontal zoning controls (regulating uses by level of building) and felt it important to keep dynamic retail store fronts on the first f(oor of buildings. At that time, staff was in support oi permitting ski storage on , the second floor, as well, but that was not part of the final code amendment. Staff believes it is important to keep active retail store fronts on the first floor, as well as encouraging residential units above the second floor in order to maintain vitality in the core areas. Therefore, we believe ski storage is appropriate in the basement and the second floor, but we have concerns about ski storage on the first floor and above the second floor. The applicant has stated that commercial ski storage should be an accessory use to an existing retail store. If it were Iocated in the back of the store, it may not impact the store front, and not reduce any retail activity. Therefore, it may be an ~ appropriate use on first floor. C. 9utdoor ski storage - conditional use ermit The applicant is proposing to amend the code to allow outdoor ski storage as a conditional use. Staff believes that this may be an appropriate use and a necessary guest service. Providing ski storage allows people to use buses more easily and shop and dine with comfort knowing their skis are safely stored. The PEC should discuss this issue to determine if this is an appropriate amendment. D. Additional conditional use permit reauirements Staff would recommend that should this request be approved, that additional review criteria be added that pertain directly to outdoor commercial ski storage. Additional criteria could inc(ude, appropriate location for the use, adequate circulation around the ski storage, seasonality, and it cannot displace existing landscaping. Similarly, additional criteria have been added to the code for the conditional use for a brew pub. E. Additional Design parameters Staff believes that additional design guidelines be adopted that would relate specifically to outdoor ski storage. Staff strongly believes that any outdoor ski storage should be enclosed in some manner. These guidelines should include appropriate materials, signage, and siting issues. 2 • F. Development standards ~ By requiring that ski storage be enclosed, issues regarding site coverage, setbacks in CCII, parking requirements and minor or major exterior aiterations are raised. Staff would propose that the development standards for outdoor ski storage be addressed differently than true buildings. The Uniform Building Code defines a building as being at least 120 square feet in size. Staff would propose that any outdoor ski storage that is less than 120 square feet not have to compiy with the above development standards (parking, site coverage, setbacks, exterior atterations). Any building proposed for autdoor ski storage that is greater than 120 square feet could be assessed site coverage. A!l outdaor ski storage could be exempt from setbacks, parking requirements and the exterior alteration process. The PEC should discuss if they agree with this direction. G. Any other zone districts The applicant is proposing to amend the CCI and CCII zone districts only. The PEC should discuss if any other zone districts would be appropriate for ski storage, either as a conditional use or a permitted use. H. Accessory to an existing business Should this amendment be approved, it would permit any business in CCI or CCII to propose outdoor commercial ski storage as conditional use. Staff believes that it is appropriate that this use be accessory to an existing business and not a stand alone business. This would prevent anyone who does not operate a business to apply for this use. t. Existing nonconforming ski storaae • There are several businesses in town that currently operate outdoor ski storage. Should this amendment be approved, those businesses would not have a ~ "grandfathered" status, because any existing exterior ski storage has been illegally erected. Any illegal use cannot be grandfathered. Therefore, any business that ~ currently operates outdoor ski storage would need to apply for a conditional use ~ permit or remove the facilities. ~ J. Location of business activitv CCI and CCH currently do not permit business activity to occur outside of a building. Sections 18.24.190 and 18.26.160 would need to be amended to permit ski storage to be operated outside of a building. IV. CONFORMITY WITH THE TOWN'S RELEVANT PLANNING DOCUMENTS In considering the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code, staff relies on several relevant planning documents before making a recommendation. Specifically, staff reviews the purpose sections of the CC1 and CC2 zone districts and the goals and objectives stated in the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. Since this is a worksession, staff has not reviewed the specific criteria but has provided the relevant sections below: • 3 Purpose Section of Commercial Core t(CCI) zone district: The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to provide sites and ta 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 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 Vaif Viiiage Urban Design Guide Plan i and District considerations, prescribes site development standards that are ~ intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered ' arrangement of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways and to ensure continuation of building scale and architecture qualities that distinguish ! the Vi!lage. Purpose Section of the Commercial Core 11(CCII) zone district: The Commercial Core 2 Zone District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core 2 District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead , Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Vail Land Use Plan Goal 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders • should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more efficiently. Goal 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved (scale, alpine character, smaN town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality). Goal 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. Vail Village Master Plan Objective 2.4 Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial ac#ivity where compatible with existing land uses. Objective 5.2 Encourage the use of public transportation to minimize the use of private automobiles throughout Vail. 4 • I V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION I~ Since this is a worksession, staff is not making a recommendation at this time. However, staff will make a recommendation at the tirne of finai review. ,I ~ ~ • 5 . , ± Vail Associates, Inc. Ms. Lauren Waterton ~ Planner, Department of Community Development ~ Town of Vail ~ 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 April 25, 1997 RE: Zoning Code Amendment Dear Lauren: The purpose of this letter is to support the attached application for a zoning code ' amendment to the Town of Vail zoning code for commercial cores I and II, Chapters 18.24 and 18.26 specifically. Under the existing above referenced chapters, commercial ski storage is allowed only on the garden or in basement level of structures in these zone tlistricts (18.24.20, 18.26.020 • 62) PROPOSED CHANGES We propose the following changes to the zoning code 18.24.060.F and 18.26.0605 Owners and Operators of 1. Outdoor ski storage be added as a conditionai use at F of the sections. Vail, Beaver Creek* Resort ' andArrowheadMountain' 2. Commercial ski storage be added as a permitted use to sections 18.24.040 and 18.24.050 and 18.26.040 and 18.26.050 BACKGROUND Commercial ski storage has existed in these zone districts at least since 1968 and possibly earlier. At that time, the storage took the form of coin-operated racks. In 1987, Vail Associates, Inc. changed to wire racks for commercial storage and was permitted by the Town of Vail to do so at Golden Peak, Vail Village and Lionshead. Subsequently, at least two other properties in zone districts CCI and CCII installed wire racks outdoors. Then, in 1990 changes were made to the Town of Vail zoning code which only allowed for commercial ski 'storage on the garden or basement levels of structures. • I999 WOttD AL/IN[ Sq CNAN110NSH11f YAILII[AVEIC[[![ C 0 1 0 9 . o 0 PO Box 7• Vail, Colorado • 81658 • phone 970 476 5601 CJ r ' s D • Some of Vaii Associates' ski racks in Lionshead apparently were moved after 1987. The Planning and Environmental Commission decided on 4/18197 that the ski racks lost their i status as a pre-existing non-conforming use. So, we are now at a point where in the largest and most popular ski area in North America, outside commercial ski storage is not allowed and, in adtlition, indoor commercial ski storage is so restricted as to be unuseful. To me, this does not make sense. Attached is the application and a check for $200. Please call with any questions. Regards, G , Joe Macy • Vail Associates, Inc. ~ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 9, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to the development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base to allow for outdoor commercial ski storage, a parking lot attendant booth and outdoor wire ski racks, located at 458 Vait 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 REGIUEST The applicant is requesting to amend the development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base to allow for outdoor commercial ski storage, outdoor wire ski racks for the Children's Center and a parking fot attendant booth. 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 Iocations 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. During the 1996/1997 ski season, an 800 square foot structure that encloses the skis • was constructed on-site, without Town of Vail approval. That structure has since been removed, however, Vai! Associates plans to provide this storage area for upcoming ski seasons. Additionally, the applicant had placed an attendant booth at the entrance to the Children's Center parking lot during the 1996/1997 ski season. The attendant booth is considered accessory use to the parking lots. The applicant is now requesting that the development plan be amended to allow the attendant booth. ' On March 10, 1997, the PEC reviewed a request to amend the developmsnt plan in order to allow the existing ski storage to continue. At that time, the application was tabled in order to ' allow the applicant to address the PECs concerns related to lack of compatibility between the ~ existing structures and the proposed ski storage and the location of the proposed use. On April 14, 1997, the PEC reviewed a revised plan to address those concerns. At that meeting , the PEC failed to approve the proposal, with a vote of 3-3. The appiicant has submitted a new application for ski storage, while also addressing the attendant booth and the ski racks for the Children's Center. The applicant is proposing a building in approximately the same location as the structure erected during the ski season, however, it wiN be 265 square feet smaller than the previous building. 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 s+de, facing the main building. The building will contain an attendant booth and racks to hold approximately 420 pairs of skis. ~ 1 *Nt TOWN i A new attendant booth for the parking lot is proposed to be stucco, with log accents, and a wood shake roof. See the attached site plan for the proposed location. • 11. BACKGROUND In 1983, a new zone district, Ski Base/Recreation, was created in order to allow the Golden Peak Ski Base facility to be rezoned from Agricultural and Open Space to Ski Base/Recreation. As a part of the rezoning process, a development plan for the site was required. In late 1983, the Town Council approved a development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base. The plan has been amended several times over the years. The most recent amendment occurred on December 19, 1995, when the Town Council approved an amendment to the development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base. That amendment included a new base facility (currently under construction), new chair lifts, a new bus fane and bus shelter, new drop-off areas and other site improvements. In conjunction with the development plan approval, the Town Council approved Ordinance 24, Series of 1995, that updated the language of the Ski Base/Recreation zone district. The Golden Peak Ski Base is the only property within the Town of Vail with this zoning designation. III. ZONING ANALYSIS Staff believes that this amendment does not affect any of the zoning standards for the Ski Base/Recreation zone district. • 1V. REVIEW CRITERIA The development plan for the Ski Base Recreation zone district shall meet each of the following standards or demonstrate that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved: Development Plan Stand ards/C riteria for Evaluation 1. The developer will provide a buffer zone in areas where the Ski Base/Recreation district boundary is adjacent to a residential use district boundary. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures and must be landscaped, screened to protect it by natural features so that ' adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. This may require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, adequate light, air, air pollution, signage and other comparable potentially incompatible factors; Staff believes that the addition of the ski storage and the attendant booth wi11 not ' impact the buffer zone between this site and the neighborhood. These uses do 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 2 • ~ the surrounding neighborhood. The attendant booth is necessary in order to prevent peopie from using the parking lot who are not using the Children's Center. ~ The wire racks are proposed to be adjacent to the Children's Center and will not impact the buffer zone. 2. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, taking into consideration safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access, noise, and exhaust controf. Private internal streets may be permitted if they can be used by poiice and fire department vehicles for emergency purposes. Bicycle traffic shail be considered and provided when the site is to be used for residential purposes; Staff believes that the addition of ski storage to this site will not adversely impact the circulation system. The addition of the ski storage building to this location will not add significant congestion in the ptaza area. Staff believes that since the previous review by the PEC, the applicant has revised the plan to alleviate staff's and the PEC's concerns related to congestion. Staff believes that the proposed configuration of the ski storage will allow for queuing, without negatively impacting the pedestrian circulation. The wire racks are located away from the main activity in the area and will not interfere with the circulation of the site. Staff believes that the attendant booth is intended to improve circulation by aiding • drivers who need to use the parking lot. Furthermore, it is necessary to deter use of the parking area by people who are not using the Children's Center. Staff believes that the booth will improve circulation into, and out of, the parking area. 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 believes this criterion is not applicable. 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: safery, separatian, 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 • 3 this area. This plaza connects ihe Children's Center, main building, ski lifts and bus stop. While this proposal will reduce the plaza area, staff believes that the . , revised plan reduces the impact of the proposal by allowing people to queue for , the ski storage in an area that is out of the way of the pedestrian traffic flow. The wire racks are located outside the west entrance to the Children's Center and staff believes that these will not interfere with pedestrian traffic. Staff believes that the proposed attendant booth will not impact pedestrian traffic. As proposed, it will still permit pedestrian traffic along Vail Valley Drive and within the Golden Peak base faciliry area. 7. Building type in terms of: appropriateness to density, site relationship, and bulk; Staff believes that the ski storage building is appropriately sized for the proposed location. The applicant has shown how, it is possible to integrate the ski storage into the existing bus shelter. Staff is concerned about the amount of blank wall facing onto the bus lane and entry plaza. !n order to reduce the impact of this wall, 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 wilt add visual interest to this building. Staff believes that the wire racks should be enclosed in some way. The Town of • Vail is currently reviewing a request by Vail Associates to allow outdoor ski , storage as a conditional use in Commercial Core I and Commercia( Core II. While that request will not affect the Golden Peak Ski Base zone district, it may be appropriate to review ski storage in all zone districts with similar criteria. One of ' those criteria that staff supports is that all ski storage should be enclosed. Similarly, staff believes that the ski racks used by the Children's Center should be ! enclosed. Staff believes that the attendant booth is appropriately sized and is in the approprate location for the use. The use of the same materials and colors will add consistency to the site. 8. Landscaping of the total site in terms of: purposes, types, maintenance, suitability, and effect on the neighborhood. This amendment will not affect any existing or proposed landscaping. The ski storage building is located on an existing plaza, and the attendant booth is located within an island that is too narrow for planting. Staff believes that this proposed use does not affect this criterion. 4 • i • V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the appiicanYs request to allow for an amendment to the development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base subject to the following finding: That the proposed major amendment has met the 8 criteria for evaluation of a development plan in the Ski Base/Recreation zone district. j The recommendation for approval is subject to the foflowing conditions: 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 1.2 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 wall of the ski storage building. 2. That the ski racks to be used for the Children's Center be enclosed, with materials that are consistent with the Town of Vail Design Guidelines, and approved by the Design Review Board. i i • F:\everyone~pecMemoslgpeak.414 5 Vail Associatcs, Iiic. ' • May 8, 1997 Ms. Lauren Waterton Planner, Department of Community Development ~D Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81658 Re: Request to Amend the Golden Peak Development Code Dear Lauren: The purpose of this letter is to provide some additional supplemental information to our previous application to amend the Golden Peak Development plan for permanent ski storage. As you may recall, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted 3-3 on our previous application for permanent ski storage to be constructed at the site where the temporary facility operated during the 1996- 97 ski season. A second motion to locate the ski storage at the south end of the Bus Shelter also resulted in a 3-3 vote. Since a tie vote is a denial, our application was, in essence, rejected by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Since the last Planning and Environmental Commission meeting, I have asked TDA Colorado, Inc. to • review our preferred alternative as well as the suggested relocation of the facility to the south end of the Bus Shelter. oWne„ and oPe,ato,, of TDA Colorado, 1nc., in the attached letter dated May 6, 1997, has concurred with the Town of Vail staff as Vail, BeaverCreek Resort well as with Vail Associates, Inc. that the proposed permanent structure located at the north end of the Bus and Arrowhead Mountain Shelter is acceptable and preferable to one located at the south end of the structure. Please be aware that this application is for an amendment to the Development P(an at Golden Peak for three items: 1. Permanent ski storage at the north end of the Bus Shelter; 2. A redesigned parking attendant facility at the entrance of the Children's Center; 3. Seasonal ski storage at the southwest entrance of the Children's Center between the walk and the fence. Please call with any c{uestions. Sincerely, oe Macy JM/sll ~ Attachments: Site Plan, Application, TDA letter 5/6/97 • 19991VOAtD ALNNe SKI CHAMIIONSHIIS YAILIIfAI'FICIEFL t 0 L 0 1 l 0 6 p0 Box 7. Vail, Colorado . 81658 . phone 303 476 5601 0 05/07/1997 11:44 303-8256004 TDA COLORADO INC PAGE 02 A ~i COIORADO May 6, 1997 MINC, Jce Iyacy via FAX: (970) 479-2053 Vail Associ.ates, Inc. Transportotion PO BOX 7 Consultonts yail, CO 81658 Re: Golden Peak Sld Stozage Dear Joe, . As requested, we reviewed a plan foc constru,cting a permanent ski st,orage adtiiuon to the north end of che existing Golden Peak a'azasit shelter. T'his would reptac:e a temporary shvcture used during rhe pasc ski season. We are familiar wich vehicular arrd pedestrian traffic flow in this vicinity having conductsd the vehicul.ar eraff'~c, skier drop-off, pedestrian and parking counts during the 1995-96 season that led to the access and circulation plan for the redeveloped base faciliry. We assisted Design Workshop staff wich the geometric design of the intown shutde bus drive-thru lane and the adjacent Chiidren's Center paricing lot. Last January we observed • afternoon peak ski check-irt operations at the tEmporary modular shed. As shown on a 20-scale plan dated 4/4/97, pcepared by vail Architecture Group, the storage shed would ext,r-nd about 32 feet north fzom the existing shelter structune (taward the Day Lodgc). In the future, pavons picking up or checking skis will congregate at a north facing seicvace dooc. The temporary unit was about 55 feet long and opened out m the east, towazd the parking lot. Pedestrian flow m the bus boarding area was not hampered by skiecs queuing to check skis during our period of observation. The new scorage unit wili be 25 feet shorter than the former unit and will have two setvice counters, thus allowing two parallel queuing columns. We understand an alternative to ft location, moving it to the south side of the shelter, has been suggested. From a pedestrian flow perspective we prefer the current planned location foc the following reasons: 1. The nvcth end location fits with the normal sequence of pedestrian evenis becween cax/bus uansportation pick up/drop off skis - head to%ome off ttae slopes, and 2. The aftertwon gathering af 50 to 80 ar more intown shuttle pzarons waiting for a bus to arrive restrlotg pedestrian movement in front of the shclter. Putting ski stocage at the 1676 Lahm.r sr. south end of the sttucaue would attract added pedesncian flow tluough the congested s„Me boo ~-or. co eozoz passenget boOCding atea. (jW7,o7 05/07/1997 11:44 303-8256004 TDA CULORRDO INC pAGE 03 • Jce Macy May 6, 1997 Page 2 • 3. The Large gathering of persons waiting to board the next bus oouid cause somc skiers to step into the bus lane to get to a storage room locaced south of the bus stop. This hazatd would be preraudea by having the swrage area at the wrth end of the shelter, as plartrted. The planned north end design bas provision for about a dozen ski swrage patrons to queue back from the service oounters befor+e begiruiing to constrict pedestrian flow within che circulation ptaza. It wili be important chat VA's management of this skier service is such thac two-column, 22-petson queaes are not routincly cxceeded. We noted a mvcimum accumulation of 15 skiers during our observation. Hence, it appears the current north end design should funccion quke efftciendy. Please let me know if you have any questiors on our assessment. ii SinmrelY, TDA Colorado, lnc. c David D. I.eahy, PE Principal • • -----n 4 EXIST BU5 ~ ~j'7 NcW 5K~ • . I STOP / LiFT yADD T ; Children s Center ~ k Ski Storage , ~ i ~ r~ f \ \ . ~ I > > FLAN ~v All CI ~ i~ l V ~ CsU.4RD ~ ; a: a NOUSE i997 \ n i ~ A . 41 • ~uP•--- ~ (970) 41A703~ ~ r---------------------------------i ~ - - - - - - - n~ I n ~ nTn nTn r-n I I I I I I I' J, I I I I I I,~~ I I I I______ ~ {IIII II,I~ ~ III{{ {{~11 11f; ; i I~U L( ~ Ll -L U L1 I 1J LIJ ; - ; &IJ L ~ i eto¢v_ _ ' I I ~ EW ETOP / L D OPEW+TIdi O I ~ u ~ s ~ ~ ~•5~ ~a id~ a P, F 0.o~ 2 0< ` P11ASE . I FLOOiR fi LAN SHEM° A2.1 • ! • ` • • • A EXIST RDOF BEYOND hLW RDO'rltYi t FASGIA ~ TO MATCN EXIST t,EW APPLI=_D TIMBER - TRJ55 TO MATGN EXIST V31I ' AtC},11tLCNfC FL'W =1F5 TO MATCW EXfST. , gpup , NEW SHAK° PL=W SH,4K.F •~~~.,.d HtA ROOF F{IP ROOF NLW cIFS BAND5 TO M7q9+9-7034 W/2xt2 GEDAR W/2xl2 CEDAR MATGH EXIST. FASCIA FASGIA L.'.1'tIN.'~.TcD O'~`ERHE.CD li 94, LOG 9"41 LOG DOOR TO EMtJLAT=_ A CORCER5 GORNERS P.IR A= Stl11NG DOOR5 ElFS 3/V EIFS 1L=W S70NE ~11_'cR=D ~ ~ PIERS TO MATCW EXIST ~ . y 1~~• EIFS ly=" EIFS Z ~ BAND 6At`lD GUA}RD HOUS~ ~~~~AT(ONS n S1DE ELEVATiON , ~ EXISTING BUS STOP BIIiLDING ~ NEW SKI 570RAGt ADDITION I NEW ROOFING t PASGIA TO MATCW EXIST ap $ \NEW EIFS BAND TO MATCW ~ EXIST O ~ L~J NEW EIFS TO MATCW EXIST. ~ a a NEtl1 STONc ?-Ncc~D PIERS § TO MATCW EXIST i ~ 7 _ < 'L: 5 s v~ °c~>ar~v MUSE I FR011T ELEV,4tI011 =HEEr. A3.1 - . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 9, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a brew-pub and a request for a variance from Section 18.26.040 J, to the requirement that no more than 45% of the annual production be sold for off-site consumption and a variance to the requirement for 50% of the parking to be located on-site (Section 18.26.150), located at 600 Lionshead Mall (Gondola Building)/Lot4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by David Thorpe Planner: Dominic Mauriell,o 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit in order to locate a brew pub on the second floor (top floor) of the old gondola building. In conjunction with this request, the applicant is seeking a variance from the brew pub requirement that no more than 45% of the product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis may be sold for off-site consumption. The code limits brew pubs to an annual production of 7,500 barrels (232,500 gallons) per year as • amended last year. Therefore, according to code no more than 3,375 barrels (104,625 gallons) per year may be sold for off-site consumption. The applicant is requesting that 90% of the product manufactured on-site be allowed for sale for off-site consumption (up to 6,750 barrels or 209,250 gallons). The proposed brew pub contains a total of 12,560 sq. ft. of ftoor area. The proposed bar and dining area is 6,400 sq. ft., the proposed kitchen, bathrooms, and storage areas are 2,300 sq. ft. and the proposed brewery area is 3,860 sq. ft. The proposed seating plan contains 211 seats and the building code occupancy standards for this space is 427 people. The required parking, based on the occupancy standards, as provided for in the code, is 54 parking spaces. The applicant has indicated that they are proposing a"terrace" seating area within the building and should therefore be considered an outdoor dining area, which is not assessed for parking. However, in order for this area ta be considered "outdoor" it must have a continuous opening of at least 25% of the perimeter of the terrace area. The proposal as submitted does not comply with this requirement and is therefore assessed for parking. This building has a parking space credit of 8 parking spaces based on changes in uses over the years, and therefore the net parking requirement is 46 parking spaces. The applicant is also seeking a variance from the requirement that 50% of the required parking be located on-site within existing buildings. The applicant is requesting to pay into the pay-in-lieu fund for all of the required parking pursuant to Section 18.52.160 (Exceptions), of the off-street parking requirements. The brew pub requires 46 additional parking spaces (54 total required with 8 spaces of credit) which requires a fee of $777,653 ($16,905.5 per space). • 1 ~ TOWNOFY~tG ~ It. ZONtNG ANALYSIS Zoning: Commercial Core 2 (CC2) • Allowed/Required Pro os Parking: 46 spaces required (8 space credit) Pay-in-lisu =$777,653 Beer produced: 7,500 barrels 7,500 barrels Beer sold off-site: 45% 90% ' Floor area: N/A 12,560 sq. fi. % area for brewing: 50% (6,280 sq. ft.) 31 %(3,860 sq. ft.) III. REVIEW CRtTERtA FOR THIS REQUEST The review criteria for a re uest of this na ur re es q t e a tablished by the Town of Vaii Municipal Code. In addition to the Conditional Use criteria, staff has included purpose statements from the CC2 zoning district and the Conditional Use sections of the code: The proposed brew pub is located in the Commercial Core 2(CC2) zone district. According to Section . 18.26.010 of the zoning code, the purpose of the CC2 district is: The Commercial Core 2 Zone District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core 2 District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations ~ is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. , A brew pub shall be permitted in the CC2 zone d'+sirict 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 conditiona( 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 will 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. • 2 IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ~ Upon review of Section 18.60 of the Municipa! Code, the Community Development Department recommends tabling of the Conditional Use Permit request to allow for a brew pub based upon the following factors: A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The proposal provides for the continued economic viability of a unique use within the Lionshead area. The Land Use Plan encourages uses which increase the economic vitality of the area, provide amenities for locals and guests, and invite people to the core areas during the evening. Staff believes this use will benefit the economy of the Lionshead area. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facili#ies, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The proposaf wiff have minimal impact on these issues. The brew pub will be placed in vacant space within an existing building in Lionshead. Lionshead is served by Town of Vail bus transportation and the existing Lionshead parking structure. The facility is proposed to have air filtered on-site in order to remove odors associated with the brewing operation and should therefore have little impact on air quality in the area. ~ 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. Due to the variance requested to allow 90% of the product manufactured on-site, staff I believes that there will be additional impacts to the area. The amount of truck traffic to and ~ from the site will be increased. The applicant has indicated that the detivery of raw materials ' used in the brewing process will consist of approximately 4 truck loads of product per year. Spent grain will be picked up in volumes less than one full pick-up truck load per day. The ~ beer and ale produced will be shipped out of the facility by one small panel truck load per day. Therefore, there will be additional traffic beyond that of a restaurant which couid be permitted on the site by right without PEC review. Staff believes that due to the proposed size of vehicles (not semi's), that the additionai impacts of the brew pub in this location will be minimal as it relates to general traffic congestion in the Lionshead area. Staff is concerned, however, with the operation and maintenance of the current loading area and conflicts with pedestrians. The facility has a substantial loading dock area. However, the area is typically congested with VA vehicles and other vehicles parked in the area that are not utilizing the loading facifities. This causes the area to be congested, unsightly, and dangerous for pedestrians and employees who pass through the area. This area has become a major pedestrian route to the ski yard. The existing dumpster facilities in the area are not well screened and often disorderly. There are in excess of 7 dumpster-type containers in this area. During severat site visits, these observations were made as well as a very noticeable odor in the area. Staff believes that the area should be appropriately planned, screened, paved, striped, and signed to prevent this congestion, odor, and • disorganization and reduce conflicts with pedestrians. The proposed plan does not address these issues and is the reason staff is recommending that the item be tabled in order to 3 aliow VA to address these issues. Staff cannot support such a proposal until these issues are resofved. The applicant did not wish to table the item or go ahead with a worksession. ~ 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and buik of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. This proposal is in harmony with the character of the area. The proposal does not increase the scale or buik of the structure. However, we do not have any building elevations, so we are unsure exactly what is occurring on the south side of the building. Additionally, Section 'f 8.26.040 (J), which allows brew pubs as a conditional use reads as follows: J. Brew pubs as defined herein, subject to the following conditions: 1. The is no exterior storage of suppiies, refuse, or materials on the property upon which the brew pub is operated; and Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the applicant has adequately addressed these issues. As stated previously, no plan has been provided which explains how these issues will be addressed. 2. The operator of the brew pub shall comply with the Town's toading and delivery regulations as set forth herein; and Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the applicant has adequately addressed this issue. As stated previously, no plan has been provided which can be evaluated with regard. to use at this site. 3. Brew pubs which sell beer or ale at wholesale or which sell beer for off-site consumption are allowed so long as the total of wholesale sales and sales for off-site consumption do not exceed forry-five percent (45%) of the product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis. Staff Response: This is the regulation the applicant is seeking relief from. See Section V of the memo.. B. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findinqs beforegrantinaa conditional use ermit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the • conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 4 V. CRITERIA AND FtNDtNGS FOR VARIANCE REQUESM • Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends tabling of the requested variances. The recommendation for tabling 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 requested variance involves an issue of use. The use is somewhat unique in Lionshead, as this use does not exist in Lionshead. The proposed variance will create a use which is more manufacturing oriented than what the code had envisioned. The code, as it exists today, reflects the desires and recommendations of the owners of the Hubcap Brewery and Kitchen. The impacts of last year's code amendment which increased the brewing limits and the percentage aliowed to be sold for off-site consumption has had little, if any, negative impacts on that neighborhood. The phenomena of brew pubs and micro- breweries is still evolving. The Town has taken a very conservative approach to these uses in order to monitor the impacts. Although this proposal varies from the regulations, staff believes it is appropriate in this instance given the proposed location and travel routes. Staff believes that the regulation may be overly restrictive at this location and therefore constitutes a hardship on the operation of this type of business. The parking variance is necessary due to the fact that this additional floor area now exists within the buiiding due to the construction of the Eagle 8ahn. Our code does not currently ~ have a category which requires parking for increases in mountain skiing capacity, and therefore no parking was assessed for the Eagle Bahn. In essence what has occur is the creation of new retail floor area in Lionshead within the old Gondola Building. The code ' allows parking in ihe CC2 zone district to be provided by payment in lieu. However, the code also requires that 50% of the parking be provided on-site in the CC2 zone district. This existing site does not have ample area for providing parking on-site. Staff believes that the variance is necessary and reasonable given the existing development on-site. , 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Few other regulations in the code limit operational components of a business. Typically conditions are placed on an approval to ensure environment compatibility with other surrounding uses. They are usually performance oriented intended to mitigate for impacts of a proposed conditional use. Staff believes that in this situation the regulation is overly restrictive. The condition of off-site sales is intended to address concerns regarding loading and delivery. Staff believes that in this location and at this building, loading and delivery issues could have less affect on the neighborhood than in other locations, such as the village core and other locations within the Lionshead Mall that do not have direct access. However, given the existing conditions, operation, and maintenance of the loading area, staff believes that the proposal will compound an already existing problem. • The variance to not provide parking on-site and all provided via parking pay in iieu is not a special privi(ege since the app(icant is, in essence, complying with the code via the payment in lieu. 5 .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. Due to the variance requested to ailow 90% of the product manufactured on-site, staff believes that there will be additional impacts to the area. The amount of truck traffic to and from the site will be increased. The applicant has indicated that the delivery of raw materials used in the brewing process will consist of approximately 4 truck loads of product per year. Spent grain will be picked up in volumes less than one fuN pick-up truck load per day. The beer and ale produced will be shipped out of the facility by one small panel truck load per day. Therefore, there will be additional traffic beyond that of a restaurant which could be permitted on the site by right without PEC review. Staff believes that due to the proposed size of vehicles (not semi's), that the additional impacts of the brew pub in this location will be minimal as it relates to traffic congestion. Staff is concerned, however, with the operation and maintenance of the current loading area and conflicts with pedestrians. The facility has a substantial loading dock area. However, the area is typically congested with VA vehicles and oiher vehicles parked in the area that are not utilizing the loading facilities. This causes the area to be congested, unsightly, and ~ dangerous for pedestrians and employees who pass through the area. This area has become a major pedestrian route to the ski yard. The existing dumpster facilities in the area are not well screened and often disorderly. There are in excess of 7 dumpster type containers in this area. During several site visits, these observations were made as well as a very noticeable odor in the area. Siaff believes that the area should be appropriately planned, screened, paved, striped, and signed to prevent this congestion, odor, and disorganization and reduce conflicts with pedestrians. The proposed plan does not address these issues and is the reason staff is recommending that the item be tabled in order to allow VA to address these issues. Staff cannot support such a proposal until these issues ~ are resolved. The applicant did not wish to table the item or go ahead with a worksession. The variance from the on-site parking requirement is necessary due to the lack of available area for parking on an existing site in Lionshead. The variance requested will have minimal negative effect on these criteria. The proposal will put additional demand on the Lionshead parking structure. However, staff believes that this use will not over burden the parking structure. B. The Plannin8 and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before grantinaa variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would resu(t in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable io the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other propertie~ in the same zone. 6 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. I IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department is recommending that this item be tab(ed until such time as the applicant has provided a plan which addresses the loading and delivery area in sufficient detail. If the PEC should choose to approve the request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. That the conditional use permit shall be subject to call-up and review by the PEC if it is found that the use is not operating in compliance with the conditional use permit. 2. That if the building is substantial(y reconstructed, the conditional use permit shall become void. 3. That the applicant or property owner shall pay $777,653 into the parking fund for the 46 required parking spaces, unless reduced or modified by the Town Council by ordinance prior to a TCO being issued for the brew pub. 4. That the brew pub shall be equipped with an air fiftering system to reduce potential odors associated with the brewing process. • 5. That the applicant submit a detailed loading and delivery plan which addresses all I uses that utilize this loading facility to the town staff for review and approval. The applicant shall reduce the number of refuse containers to one, and shall store a!I other refuse containers, grease containers, and propane tanks within the buifding and in accordance with applicab(e Town codes. Provisions shall be made for pedestrian access and other vehicles shalf on(y be parked in designated parking spaces on-site, i I F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\97\VABREW.609 I •7 ~ o~ Q~ o00 ~o~0C)o , o0 Q - o O O O p ~ 0. ~ 4 ~ 0~ o 0 0 0 ~-q b~ ° ° ~ C) Oo I _y J ' ~loom .J 1 . ~ + ~ _I_ - - - _ _ ~ ' - - - - ~ ~ tC+~ ~ ~ ~ V A . i ~ , TRACT C -t - : ` - 7RACT C • l LlGMSPOIff ItGHT POL£~ ALAYTEF? t / " • O\ Sc"'NcR !AH taN 3^~ oS~ •Y;rd~Y GtE ',o U. 4.1 2 % m I f - ~ I / I Za.O 5.5~ na' Lor 2 0 ~ - , : (5UN8InG LCDGE) N I ; Z4A `i . • • LicHrFae./ I 7=1.E?nC~%E~1 ;v Af»;1NCLG 11.5 ~ UNCER?A I aaveas ~ \ f •N. a+ I 1.2 1 y " 1.7 S ~ PWNTER ~ . aces t,«, -io0r' Oeck ? Ue"R ! ~ ~7•.UTY c?iE~ ti 1 1 . ~ 3 SiGiY STEEI. ANO GONCREiE 'm ~ STRUCTURE 25.4 7.l-1 kal( . ~ ~ • 1 ~~~j ~ TRACT H BI,OCK i-~~ 1 , ! V •r .n , , L f . - ~ t ~ . . . _ - ~T~0.1• _ . . -~.T9.9 14.4 I piER Z aui~•~~n1 " `Euih)~~nq~Over~artq ~ ~ . . ' ~7Ultind . . 1 , • , . 7': •n ;o . ' • j~ f?WNYSR . . . ` . at~ :4tT. 1 ~ ' ~ z~~.88 . . ~ \ 1 . N 8S . 33 . ;TS BETIJEEN 0 O • 'AIL/LIOt:SliEAI), ~ 0it F i 1 ' ~ N O W 0) PARKtNG AREA BELOW W ° I n. (p 2nd FLOOR CONC. DEC CV . j ~ . b -•1 O , N G v. Q'°_- , rn 25 I , VEHtCtE ' • • ACCESS CONCRETE U71LI7Y SUPPORT WALL EASEMENT METAL POS7$ ----p I i TR ACT H METER VENICLE tpt~s 0. 1745 Ac. ACCESS h ~ 4~ UTII.ITY 6 DRAINAG~ r' 0 I V" p~ EASEMENT 4b ltb• A ~ Irv • h l OrZAIN +-o • GRATE TIMBER WALL \ y / LOAD?NG ~ S`\ TRASN DOCK ~ ~ ~ . . ~ COt~~ACTOR N, / , 0 Q 0 0 . j . C , ETAL POS7~ F.H. FENCE ~ LOT 4, BLOCK y ~ ~ VAIL ILIONSHEAD, FIRST FILING Vail R,esorts Deyeiopment Company • Vail • Breckenridge • Keystone • Beaver Creeks . Bachelor GulchO . Arrowhead May 12, 1997 I Mr. George Ruther Town Planner Dept. Of Community Development Town Of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd. West Vail, CO 81657 RE: Old Gondola Building Brew-Pub Application for Conditional Use & Application for Variance : Dear Mike: The purpose of this application is to request a conditional use for a brew-pub at the Old Gondola . Building in Lionshead and a variance from certain limits in Sections 18.04.035 and 18.28.040.L. (regarding brew-pubs) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The code limits the annual production of beer in a brew-pub to 7500 barrels and further requires that 55% of annual production be consumed on site. The applicants is not intending to exceed the amount of beer and ale produced. However, The applicant requests that the amount of on site sales required be reduced to 10% of the annual production seaing rne ofthe brewery. 5tandard kr wodecms: Relationship of Variance to the Existing Uses and Structures in The Vicinity: Alplne Resorts! Lionshead is zoned Commercial Core II which inctudes this use (brew-pub) as a conditional use. Degree to Which Relief From The Strict & Literal Interpretation and Enforcement of A Special Regulation is Necessary: The Old Gondola building is equipped with loading docks, truck staging area and a freight elevator system which will make deliveries and shipments feasible. In addition, a portion of the product created within the brewery will be shipped onto the ski mountain for use in on mountain food service venues. This product will be transported via the tunnel/gondola shipping system connected to the Old Gondola Building. The impact of the brew-pub's wholesale production will be reduced by each barrel shipped up the mountain. Effect of Variance on Light, Air, Etc. 1. Opening the Brew-Pub should help other businesses in Lionshead by keeping skiers in the core area and by providing a locally made product to those businesses which would like to buy the product (this would further reduce the amount of product shipped by truck). 2. The wholesale product not sold to local businesses and not shipped to on mountain food service facilities wili be shipped out of Vail by truck from the West side of the Old Gondola Building. 4~' ~ This will increase truck traffic. However, this will be coordinated to take place during lower traffic volume periods. y 137 Benchmark Road • PO Box 959 • Avon, Colorado . 81620-0959 • phone 970.845 2535 . fax 970.845 2555 t~ • 3. There should be no impact on public safety. 4. The Old Gondola Building has adequate truck loading, sewer, water, power and natural gas facilities to handle this use. 5. The production of beer that is intended to be used in this facility has no odor impacts. The waste products are not toxic and are safe for disposal in a municipal sanitary sewer system. Compliance With Town of Vait Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan emphasizes amenities and services that enhance the guest's experience. The brew-pub would provide a true Bavarian beer and ale product in line with the atmosphere of the Town and would hence provide just such a service as described above. The Hubcap Brew-pub in Vail Village is an example of this type of establishment. We would like to provide a similar experience for the Lionshead guests. Effect Upon the Character of the Area, Etc. , The brew-pub should provide an additional amenity in Lionshead for guests, and should make Lionshead a more desirable location for guests to spend their time. There is no effect on the btilk, size ' or shape of the Old Gondola Building will be located inside of the existing building (in the Old Gondola Terminal Space). Relationship and Impact on Development Objectives of The Town • This proposed use will be consistent with the development objectives of the town because it will provide an additional guest amenity. Please call with questions. Sincerely, cc: Ingrid Keiser ~ Kent Myers David E. Thorpe, Manager, Pre-Construction Ed O'Brien Design & Construction Joe Macy Jack Hunn File: Brew-pub 107.1 ~ ~ Vail Resorts Deyelopment Company • Vail • Breckenridge • Keystone • Beaver Creek6.. Bachelor Gulch@. Arrowhead May 14, 1997 Mr. Dominic Mauriello Town Planner Dept. Of Community Development Town Of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd. West Vail, CO 81657 RE: Old Gondola Building Brew-Pub Supplemental Information - Conditional Use Application Dear pominic: Thank you for calling me on May 13, 1997 to clarify items that the Town of Vail requires to complete the application for conditional use for the brew-pub project at the old gondola building. It is our understanding that the clarifications within this letter • will make our initial application complete. The following items were delivered to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development on May 14, 1997: Setfing the 5tandardfoi 1. Floor plans of the proposed brew-pub World Class AlplneResortz+ 2, New envelopes for the mailing list of adjacent property owners. In addition to the above items, you requested that we clarify the following: 1. Parking plan and needs: It is our intention to pay a fee in lieu of constructing additional parking spaces. We do not have space in which to construct additional parking at this time. If this requirzs a variance of_any sort we hereby request that variance as a part of this application process. Please notify me of any additional formal documentation that you would require relative to this need. 2. Loading and delivery plans: Enclosed for your review are photographs of the loading dock and the approach road at the West side of the old gondola building. This loading dock would be the point of transfer for raw materials (in bound), solid waste products and beer and ale products (outbound). The old gondola building is equipped with a freight elevator and warehouse space capable of handling the inputs, outputs and work in progress of this new operation. The ~ delivery of raw materials will consist of approximately four (4) truck loads of product per year. That product would be malt and hops. Spent grain would be y 137 Benchmark Road • PO Box 959 . Avon, Colorado • 81620-0959 . phone 970.845 2535 . fax 970.845 2555 t~ . ~ ~ , • picked up by a local livestock owner in volumes of less than one full pick up load per day. The beer and ale product that would be shipped out of the facility would amount to one small panel truck load of product per day. These deliveries and I shipments will be scheduled to avoid peak traffic periods season by season. We would be happy to get as specific as is practically necessary to clarify this information. 3. Clarification of duration of conditional use request: It is our hope to make the brew-pub a successful, long term venture in Lionshead. We understand that the community is currently conducting a master plan process for Lionshead. We will work with the Town of Vail Department of Community Development to respect the master planning process. We would prefer to achieve a conditional use permit without a time limit since this is an acceptable use (brew-pub) within Commercial Core Two. We realize that our request for variance and the nature of the use may make this request more complicated. We aze more than willing to discuss the appropriate approach to this issue. Thank you again for working with us to clarify this application process. We remain available to further discuss these, or any other issues that arise relative to our plans for • a brew-pub. Sincerely, cc: Mike Mollica - TOV _ Kent Myers David . Thorpe, Manager, Pre-Construction Ed O'Brien Design & Construction Ingrid Keiser ' Jack Hunn Joe Macy File: Brew-pub 107.1 • ~ r a ~c?.'4e~`~~r ;.,k : ' :t d~ , 'I' ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ y ~~y~~M : ~ I`, . -~~~5': •f ` f t » ~ ~ .y. ' . ,r.~ 'j s ~ ~t ._y~U'a y~ . ~ 4~ ; x.P~ . n+~ ~ : ~ fT. ~ .t . . . ~ 9 ,I~~i ..h' / ' j .N ~,i~':",.~ . . 4 4~ ' .'r++ , ~ '`5 ~ ~ 11 . 1~'~4 ~4 ~ ~ . <~t . . ,~Mpi ~ 'Y. i „3 t a'. (*t~it . 1 ~ ,rwi ~ . ~ „j, ~~5: • . ~R . ' T". { . f y ` . ~ . ~,~;iS~ , ~c~ ?t' - ~9, _ r~~ ,Y~: _ "y,~ I ' , •.,J~ ~ t; ~ . . . ~ " T . ~ ~ k ~ ,z+r Y . n,k t '.}i ~lY;ti ~ , • ^ ~~M1.'R I 4•~p MY•~Y I . `:+`a- I . I • . ~ ~ .r st;:r ,;R. ~ 1"~., „M k ?;'yd . ;I ~ 2 `~J .t , ~ „~~'~c4~it~x9~d c~te ~ 1~~~:~~. ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ . ' rX' f kQ~ .r~~... '~w..~ ~ `r• ~t ~ i . + { . r . ' 3 Y • . • . _ ~t ~.A, rr `Y? ~ ..wb;:..` 5 .L r _ .~^Y,~ aA~~ . ~ ..4~'..:'.r 4•.'`i. ` - ^ 9Y'1~ y.~'. . ~ .~i Y k 'MY~. li . ~r . i`g~ ~ ~ ~y ,~2 ~ } . - iyitt . . . ' . 1y`~`~.~,t •1 t t~, ~ . . . ~ ~4. Y~`` . ..ia~'`• : jrtii's'.Y"r~f . . .v~~:'i. iy . ~ y~; %r r4y ' - < `y.~t,t,,~~ t} M ~ . . '.f t . . ~ 'a'4`~ ..r ' ~ ' f~ ' ,1., , ~ \ ~I • ` y 1 '!'r..•"? s e~ . . } Y'''~ b , ~ !tS'~~~ ? 's , }``.'.~,r.+;k f'y~+y„~Y• ` 1 -0i ~ ~K , `'~u^.'k r~~~~`~•~, t. ti. `~F• ^•'~t~ µ ' t c...-. ~ s.~r' , ~•w$w;. . - . . . ' ~ , • . . w • , ' T. y~ii 4. . ' J ~~r `~i ~ f ~ r,~~`{ F f5~ , y f 4 ''Stt ~ R ( . t~ • f l ~~t ~ N },s~ ~a ~ d4 x F ~ .'s ~:y,~S ~,?tr: , v 4 .i`~~ ~ Nt ~F~!~ ~~K~~~~ ~ M w~ r ' i ~i ~1. , tk . • 1~6F " . ;t.. 'V;..} q~;. ~ (t; . ~jty~.'~ , 7~ ~ ~ ~ '~;43 ~a6 . ~ ~i ~ ''ti 1,~,~• : ' - ~c? •~~i` ,i,,.. ~ ~ ~ , }'i.' . '}.Y • y ~v ~ ' • ,~Zi:. _ , . , ,t< ' ~ _ ~ ~ ~ : I • f - ~ -«¢.i ,~~.F 1 ` I ~ t~ ~ t•` s I ' i ~ Iar,.,,'y~~'y.~~,p~Ayp•~ , , •ee? I ~ • , . ''~x~.c5; ~ _ . .'i: ' ih'A.u ~ o.. . ~ . . ~ . . .....sr.~a~ ~ v* ~ ; ~r~?. , ~ . i 1 ly 1 ILW ~ ( , ~y ,~.~t t c N • ; ` n j k. . '•G - . .~~~Z„~ ~ ~P`i 1~~' _ `.y~ . . . • • ~!~"T~y'~ rik~~ ~ • . •.rd 3r~~ ~ s 9+~J~~" j f 3r1~ . ~°F ~ f•~e~ ~.~`p~t ~ LL~y' ~ ~ C I . I ~ . MEMORANDUM ~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Depariment DATE: June 9, 1997 ~ . SUBJECT: A request for a final review for the establishment of Special Development District . . #35, Austria Haus, to allow for the redevelopment of the Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of Traet C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther 1. BACKGROUND On March 25, 1997, the Vail Town Council heid an afternoon worksession and evening public hcaring ta discuss the first rcading of Ordinance #4, Series of 1997, an ordinance providing for the establishment of Special Dcvelopment District #35, Austria Haus; adopting a developmcnt plan for Special Development District #35; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Upon ~ review of Ordinancc #4, the Town Council approved the ordinance on first reading with seven conditions. One of the conditions required that the applicant reappear before the Alanning and Environmental Commission with an amended proposal for the Cominission's review and rccommcndation. On April 14, 1997, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing to consider an'amended proposal for the estabiishment of Special Dcvelopment District (SDD) #35, Austria Haus. The amended proposal was in response to changcs requested by the Vail Town Council at . the first reading of a proposed ordinanee establishing SDD #35. Upon review of the amended , proposal, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the amended proposal for the establishment of SDD #35 to the Vail Town Council. On April 15, 1997, the applicant appeared before the Vail Town Council for the second reading of Ordinance # 4, Series of 1997. Upon consideration of the Planning and Enviranmental Commission's recomrnendation of approval and review of the amended proposal, the Town Council voted (4-3) to deny the ordinance stating that the applicant had not met the intention of the conditions of approval placed on the project at first reading. On Apri123, 1997, the Town Staff inet with the Town Council to discuss the future of the Austria Haus redevelopment and for the Couneil to provide specific direction to the Austria Haus developers. The following direction was given by the Council: ~ 1 • I~ Town Council Direction I 1. Reduce the proposed GRFA within the Austria Haus by 5,000 square feet. 2. The maximum building height for the Austria Haus shall NOT exceed 48'. 3. Remove the penthouse level to reduce the number of building stories from five to . four. • ' I , -A. No less than 10,100 square feet of accommodation unit square footag-e shall be " constructed in the Austria Haus. The 10,100 square feet shall be apportioned into i whichever number of units the developers feel are appropriate to successfully operate a hotel. 5. Two 20' foot setbacks on the property shall be maintained. Preference should be I ~ given to the west and south setbacks. 6. The proposed 4,649 square feet of commercial spaces shall be maintained as it , provides the necessary commercial link between the Village and Crossroads. 7. All parking shall be on-site and a land trade is an acceptable means of accommodating the necessary arca of thc parking structure. 8. A community room shall bc provided within the Austria Haus for meetings, ~ brcakfasts and thc likc. 9. Thc loading and dclivery plan shall bc rcdesigned to reduce the ncgative impacts on the strectscapc (pedcstrians, gucst vehiclcs, ctc.) 10. The staff will makc brief prescntations to thc Council during the normal PEC ~ reports. These prescntations will include full size plans and copies of all memoranda. 11. The proposed deadlines of Junc 22 and July 22 are extremely aggressive. The developers should rethink thc dcadlines and request extensions as necessary. 12. The staff will make a presentation to the Town Council and PEC on May 6th rcgarding the pros and cons of both SDDs and the East Village Homeowner's advocated PA-1 zone district. On May 6th, the Council will decide which . application they will review. . 13. The Town Council did not feel it was appropriate to express their preference on the architectural design. Instead, they felt the design of the building should be left to the architect. • I . 2 On May 6, 1997, at the request of the Town Council, thc Town Staffmade a presentation to the ~ Council regarding the Special Development District and rezoning processes. The purpose ofthe presentation was to inform the Council of the pros and cons of using an SDD vs rezoning in the redevelopment of the Austria Haus. Upon listening to staff's presentation, the Council unanimously (6-0) directed the Austria Haus developers to proceed with a Special Development ' District. On May 19, 1997, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to discuss the . establishment of SDD #35. The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the revised . . plans and resoived four issues with the applicant. The Pianning and Environmental Commission resolved that the 12-foot wide, concrete unit paver walkway in East Meadow Drive need not be constructed, that pedestrian access through a portion of Slifer Square as originally proposed should be constructed and a landscape planter be added west of the proposed bus shetter, that the pool deck location, as proposed is appropriate, and lastly, that the architecture of the "turret" at the northeast corner of the building is acceptable. Il. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOiJEST Thc applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, lnc., represented by Gordon Pierce, is reguesting a worksession with thc Planning and Environmcntal Commission to discuss the establishment of ' Special Development District #35, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C, Block ! ~ 5-D, Vail Villagc 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 is proposing significant improvements to the existing Austria Haus property. The Austria Haus is intcndcd to become a member-owncd resort ciub/lodge, camprising a mix of hotel accommodation units and two and three-bcdroom club units with associated club amcnities/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 18 memtier-owned club units (11 three-bedroom & 7 two-bedroom), with 25 hotel rooms and one on-site manager's residence (Type III Employee Housing Unit). The applicant is proposing 5,402 square feet of new commercia!/retail space on the main level of the Austria Haus. The Austria Haus proposai includes a front desk reception/registration area operating 24 hours a day and seven da,ys a week, a lounge, an exercise room, meeting room facilities, a food service pantry, member ski storage, an outdoor pool and other accessory facilities commonly associated with hatels and lodges. Summarv of Chanp-es The following summarizes the changes from the April 14 and May 19 SDD proposats: 1. The number of club units was reduccd from 22 to 18, the number of hotel rooms was • reduced from 28 to 25, and all lock-off units have been eliminated. 3 I I I 2. 7,697square feet of gross building area has been removed (5,205 sq. ft. of GRFAl2,492 ~ sq. ft. of other building area) from the April 14 SDD proposal, 3. The building height has been reduced to 48 feet maximum from finish grade. . 4. A meeting room, food service pantry and an outdoor pool have been added. 5. The parking requirement continues to be met on-site. i 6. The brick paver pedestrian walkway has been replaced with an asphalt walkway. , ' 7. 933 square feet of commercial square footage has been added to the April 14 SDD proposal. 8. At least 10, 100 (10,261) square feet of accommodation unit square footage has been maintained. The applicant has identified what they believe to be the public benefits which will be realized as a result of the Austria Haus redevelopment and Special Development District #35. Public Bencfits 1. An increasc in thc annual occupancy of thc Austria Haus. ~ 2. Thc addition of approximatcly 5,400 squarc fcct of rctail spacc (salcs tax gcncrating). 3. The partial implementation of thc recommcnded Strcetscape Master Plan improvements to East Meadow Drivc. 4. The compietion of the commercial loop in the Village, via-the construction of a well-lit, hcatcd pedestrian walkway. . . i 5. The removal of 25 surface parking spaces and the construction of an underground parking i structure designed to accommodate 63 vehicles. 6. Landscape improvements to Slifer Squarc, East Meadow Drive and the Gore Creek ~ strcambank. III. ZONING ANALYSIS ~ The development standards for a Special Development District shall be proposed by the applicant. Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site • 4 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 the review criteria outlincd in the following section. ' The Community Development Department staff has prepared a Zoning Analysis for the proposed Austria Haus redevelopment based on the revised plans. The Zoning Analysis compares the development standards outlined by the underlying zone district of Public Accommodation, the April 14, 1997 proposa(, the May 19, 1997 proposal and the June 9, 1997 proposal. Lot size: 24,089 sq. ft. /0.553 aeres Buildable area: 24,089 sq. ft. /0.553 acres Dcvelopment Underlying Zoning April 14, 1997 May 19, 1997 June 9, 2997 Standard of Public Accommodation SDD proposa! SDD proposal SDD proposal GRFn: 80°/a or 19,271 sq. ft. 168% or 40,429 sq. ft. 146% or 35,240 sq. ft. 146% or 35,224 sq. ft. ~ Dwclling units: 13.8 DU's 36.5 DU's (22 DU's, 31 DU's (18 DU's, 25 31 DU's (18 DU's, 25 , 28 AU's, 1 Type III EHL1) AU's 1 Type TII EtIU) AU's 1 Type II1 FHU) Silc covcragc: 55% or 13,249 sq. ft. S(% or 19,634 sq, ft. 73% or 17,525 sq. ft. 73% or 17,525 sq. ft. Sctbacks: front: 20' p' 2' 21 sides: 20' S' / 20' 4722' 4722' ~ rear: 20' 7' 19' (1-1/2' @, the pool 19' (1-l/2' @ the pool - dcck) deck) . I{cight: 48' sioping 56.5' 48' max. _ 48' (from finish grade) I 45' flat 52' 45' max. 47.4' i 60' towcr n/a Na tt/a Parking: per T.O.V. code Section 18.52 65 spaces required 61 spaces required 60 spaces required 66 spaces proposcd 63 spaces proposed 63 spaces proposed 'in thc garagc in the garage in the garage ' Landscaping: 30% or 7,227 sq, ft. 18.2 % or 4,542 sq. ft. 19% or 4,619 sq. ft. 19% or 4,619 sq. ft. Loading: per T.O.V. code Section 18.52 I berth at drop-off area 1 berth at drop-off area 1 berth at drop-off area Commercia] sq. footage: 10% or 1,927 sq. ft. 11 % or 4,469 sq. ft. 16% or 5,582 sq. ft. 15% or 5,402 sq. ft. ! ~ Common area: 35% of allowable GRFA 35% or 14,004 sq. ft. 36% or 12,810 sq. ft. 36% or 12,714 sq. ft. Gross sq. ft: n/a 74,302 sq. R. 66,897 sq. ft. 66,605 sq. ft. (includes garage) (includes garage) (includes garage) 5 , . i AUSTRIA HAUS SQUARE FOOTAGE ANALYSIS (6/9/97) ~ Floor Common Area - Commercial Area - Accommodation Dwelling Units - Parking Area - Total - Square Levets Square Footage Square Footage Units - Square Square Footage Square Footage Footage j Footage I Parking 2,712 sq. ft. - 13,265 sq. ft. 15,977 sq. ft. Level I lst Floor 4,540 sq. ft. 5,402 sq. ft. 3,034 sq. ft. 12,976 sq. ft. 2nd Floor 1,557sq. ft. 3,554 sq. ft. 8,055 sq. ft. 13,166 sq. ft. , 3rd Floor 1,645 sq. ft. 4,129 sq. ft. 7,759 sc{, ft. 13,533 sq. ft. 4th Floor 2,260 sq. ft. 2,578 sq. ft. 6,115 sq. ft. 10,953 sq. ft. TOTAL 12, 714 sq. ft. 5,402 sq. ft. 10,261 sq. ft. 24,963 sq. ft. 13,265 sq. ft. 66,605 . ft 6 ~ ~ ~ ' . IV. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT PROCESS Chapter 1$.40 of the Town of Vail Municipat Code provides for the establishmcnt of SPecial D.evelopment Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 18.40.010, the purpose of a Speciat Development District is, "To encourage tlexibility 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 economicai , 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. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and thc proposed development pian comply with cach 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 cach of the nine SDD review criteria below: , ~ A. Design compatibiGty 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. ' Staff believes the applicant has dcsigned a structure which rclates well to the site and the surrounding ncighborhood. The mass of the Austria Haus is appropriatc for the site and takcs into consideration the massing of the buildings on the adjoining properties. The . building steps down on the east and wcst cnds to insure a smooth transition between _ propertics and does not crcate an imposing "canyon" along property lines. The north side of the Austria Haus was designed with a pedestrian scale in mind. The rctail shops on the north side of the Austria Haus crcate a commercial connection along East Meadow Drive, betwcen Slifer Square and the Village Center retail shops. The commercial connection has been missing along this portion of East Meadow Drive and staff believes that the Austria Haus will enhance the character of thc Village. The extcrior 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 rnuch glass. Staff believes that the combination of building rnaterials has been well incorporated into the ~ design of the Austria Haus. The applicant has proposed that the exterior stucco color be 7 an off-white to yellowish/cream color to biend in with the exteriors of the Mountain Haus ~ and the Village Center buildings. 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 48 feet, from finish , grade. The approximate height is based on existing (1997) and proposed topography of the Austria Haus ProPerh', and not the original toPograPhY of the site (pre-1963). ~ . Original topography of the site is not available, since the Austria Haus was constructed in ' . . Vail prior to zoning (and prior ta the requirement that a topographic survey be submitted ' prior to development). Staff believes, based upon the location of the existing retaining walls and the condition of the streambank, that the site was "cut" when the Austria Haus was built. While it is difficult to know exactly how much of the site was "cut", 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 50 - 51 feet. According to the Vail Village Master Plan Conccptual Building Height Plan, the Austria Haus should be 3-4 stories in height, with a building story being approximately nine feet, cxcluding the roof. The plan furthcr indicates that one additional floor of residentiaUlodging may also be accomrnodated on the , Austria Haus sitc. ' B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable i relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Thc Austria Haus is locatcd immediately adjaccnt to the Vaii Villagc Commercial Core. Thc Austria Haus is bound on the east by Slifer Square and the Mountain Haus, on the west by the Villagc Ccntcr residential/commercial buildings and on the south by Gore Crcck, the Covcred Bridge Building, Gasthof Gramshammer and the Creekside Building. Each of these buildings are a mixed-use development incorporating commercial/retail spacc with residcntial and/or accommodation units. The applicant i's proposing a.mixed-use devclopment that is in compliance with the uses allowcd in the undcrlying zonc district. The underlying zoning of Public Accommodarion encourages the development of lodges (accommodation units) and accessory earing, drinking and retail establishments at a density of twcnty-five dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the Austria Haus at a density of 56 dwelling units per ~ acre, with 5,402 sq. ft of eommerciaUretail space on the main level of the building. Included in the density figurc are cightccn member-owned club units (fractional fee), ' twenty-five hotel rooms (accommodation units) and one on-site manager's residence ' (Type III, Employee Housing Unit). The applicant's proposal differs greatly from the existing use of the property. Currently, the Austria Haus includes thirty-six accommodation units, and one dwelling unit, equaling nineteen dwclling units, or 34 dwelling units per acre, a restaurant and a limited amount of commerciallretail space on the east end of the building. Parking at the Austria Haus is ~ . accammodated by a twenty-five spacc surface parking lot. Of the twenty-five spaces, 8 ~ fifteen are considcred legal, non-conforming parking spaces. The other tcn spaces are off- ~ site and are not considered iegal parking spaces for zoning purposes. An informal loading/delivery/trash area exists on the west end of the building. EmypIQygP Housin.g Requirements As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans, providing affordabie housing for employees is a critical issue which should be addressed . through the plarining process for Special Development District proposals. In reviewing . _ the Austria Haus proposal for employee housing needs, staff relied an the Town of Vail - Empioyee Housing Report. Staff Recommended Range Calculations: The staff believes that the Austria Haus redevelopment will create a need for additional empioyecs. Of the 39 additionai employees, at least 12 employees (30%) will need to be providcd deed-restricted housing by the developers of the Austria Haus. The staff recommended range is based on: 1, the type of retail and office use proposed in the commercial spaces within the Austria Haus; 2. the size of the Austria Haus lodging component; and ~ 3. the high-lcvel of services and amenities proposed by the developers for the guests of thc Austria Haus. a) RctaiUService Commercial = 4,622 sq. ft. @(6.5/1000 sq. ft.)=30A employees (middie of range) . b) Office: real estatc = 780 sq. ft. @(7.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 5.9 employees (middle of rangc) _ c) Lodging* 25 units @(1.25/room) =31.2 employees (top of range) d) Multi-Family (club units) = 18 units @(0.4/unit) = 7.2 employees (range does not vary) Total =74.3 employees (-36 cxisting employees) =39 employees . (X 0.30 multiplier) =12 new employees *Lodging has a particularly large variation of employees per room, depending upon factors such as size of facility and level of service/support services and amenities provided. ~ 9 Depending upon the size of the employee housing unit provided, it is possible to have up i to two employees per bedroom. For example, a two-bedroom unit in the size range of ~ i 450 - 900 square feet, is possible of accommodating three to four employees. Thesc , figures are consistent with the requirements for the Type III employee housing units outlined in the Municipal Code. , The applicant intends to comply with the employee housing requirement. The applicant , proposes to provide housing for 12 employees by deed restricting 6 existing one-bedroom units at Solar Vail. Each of the one-bedroom units is approximately 600 square feet in size, has full kitchen facilities and is conveniently located on the Town of Vail Bus Route. A letter of intent from the applicant has been attached for reference. Overall, staff believes that the density and uses proposed by the applicant for the Austria Haus do not conflict with the compatibility, efficiency or workability of the surrounding uses and/or activities. in fact, staff feels that the proposed Austria Haus redevelopment will enhance the existing uses and activities in the Village. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Parking and loading requirements for development are established in Chapter 18.52 of the Municipal Code. Thc parking and loading rcquircments arc based on the square footage of thc uses proposed within a building. Based on the square footage of the uses proposed ~ by thc applicant, 74.21 parking spaces and onc loading/delivery berth are required on-site. Thc Mumcipal Code allows "gandfathering" of the existing legal non-conforming parking spaces. Currcntly, fifteen legal, non-conforming parking spaces exist on the property. Thcrcfore, thc parking rcquirement for the proposed Austria Haus redevelopment is 59.21 new parking spaces. Thc applicant is proposing an underground parking structure , dcsigncd to accommodate 63 parking spaces, an employee loungc, mechanical space, and an cnclosed trash facility. The applicant is proposing one loading/dclivery bcrth in thc front entry drop-off area, locatcd 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 commerciallretail shops, however, we feel that thc usc of the drop-off area may be compromised by the loading and delivery of goods. In staff's opinion, thc front entry drop-off area should be used by the guests of the Austria Haus. Staff bclievcs that trying to accommodate loading and II dclivery in this area may result in conflicts between guests, vehicles accessing the parking structure, and delivery trucks. D. Conformi with the a lia 1 1 t t y p p c b e e e e n s o f t h e V a i l C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n, T o w n policies and Urban Design Plan. 10 ~ i . Vail Land Use Plan The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's palicy guidelines during the review process of establisning a new Special Development District. Staff has reviewed the Vait Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal: i 1. General Growth/Develgpment 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a contralled environment, maintaining a balance between residentiai, commerciai and recreational uses to serve both ~ thc visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality ofthe environment including air, water, and other natural resources shouid be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgrade whenever possible. 1.4 The originai theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Vil(age Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. ~ 1.12 Vail shouid accomrnodate most of the additional growth in existing developed arcas (infill). ~ 1.13 Vail recognizes its strcam tract as being a desirablc Iand feature as well as its potcntial for public usc. ~ 3, !Commercial ~ . 3.1 The hotet bcd basc should bc 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 azeas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 4. Villa..ge Core/Lionshead 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. ~ 11 i 4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing ~ character of each area is preserved through the implementation of the I Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. ' I ~ Residential i 5.1 Quality timeshare units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy . . rates up. . . Staff believes the proposed establishment of the new Special Development District (#35) is in concert with the goals and policies of the Vail Land Use Plan as outlined above. Vail Village Master Plan The Vail Viliage Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards and Town Council in analyzing futurc proposals for development in Vail Village and in -legislating effective ordinances to deal with the such development. The staff has identified the following goals, objectives and policies as being relevant to this proposal: Goai #1 Encourage high quality redeveloprnent while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. ~ .1 Ob-iective: Implcmcnt a consistent Development Review Process to reinforce the character of the Village. 1.1.1 Poliv: Development and improvement projects approved in the Village shall be consistent with the goals, objcctivcs, policies and design considerations as . outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban _ Design Guide Plan. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgading and redevelopment of residential and commerciai facilities. 1.2.1 Policx;. Additional development may be allowed as identified by the action plan as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvcments done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. ~ 12 1.3.1 PoliFy: Aublic improvements shall be developed with the ~ participation of the private sector working with the Town. I ' Goa1 #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. 2.1 Objective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-areas . throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. 23 Ob,ective: Increase the number of residenhal umts availab1e for short- term, overnight accommodations. 2.3.1 Policv: The devclopment of short-term accommodation . units is strongly encouraged. Residentiai units that are developed above existing density levels are rcquired to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short-term overnight rental. ~ 2.4 Objective: Encouragc thc development of a variety of new comrnercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.5 Objectivc: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to bctter scrve thc necds of our guests. 2.5. ] Policv: Recrcation amenities, common areas, meeting _ facilities and other amcnities shall be preserved and cnhanced as a part of any redevelopment of lodging propcrties. 2.6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.1 Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redeveloped project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking ezperience throughout the Village. ~ 13 I 1 ve• . Ph sicall im rove the xisti I ~,.Oajecti y y p e ng pedesfian ways by landscaping and other improvements. ~ 3.1.1 Policv: Private development projects shall incorporate strc _-scape improvements (such as paver treatments, lane:;caping, lighting and seating areas), alang I adjacent pedestrian ways. i i . 3.13 PolicX; Flowers, trees, water features and other landscaping . . shall be encouraged throughout the Town in - locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. 3.2 Objective: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. 3.2.1 Policx;. Vehicular traffic will be eliminated or reduced to absolutely minimal necessary levels in thc pcdestrianized areas of the Village. 3.4 ObJ.ective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and strcam access. 3.4.2 Policv: Privatc dcvelopment projects shall be required to ~ incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designatcd in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Rccrcation Traiis Master Plan. Goal #4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. 4.1 Obj'ectivc: . Improve cxisting open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the differcnt roles of cach type of open space in forming the overall ' fabric of thc Village. 4 1.4 Policx; Open space improvements, including the addition of i accessible green space as described or graphically shown in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Urban Dcsign Guide Alan, will be required in conjunction with private infill or redevelopment projects. 14 ~ I ~ Goal #5 tncrease and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circalation system thraughout the Village. 5.1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilitics. i , 5.1.1 Policv: For new deve2opment tnat is located outside of the Commercial Core 1 Zone District, on-site parking . shalt be provided (rather than gaying into the . . parking fund) to meet any additional parking . demand as required by the Zoning Code. 5.1.5 P91icv: Redcvelopment projects shalt be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually conccated parking. . Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. 4.1 ObjectivQ- Provide scrvice and delivery facilities for existing and new deveiopmcnt. ~ Vail Village Mastcr Plan and Building Hcight Plan Gencrally speaking, it is thc goal of thc Building Height Plan to maintain the concentration ~ of low-scalc buildings in the Core area, while positioning larger buildings along the ' northcrn pcriphcry. According to thc Conccptual Buiiding Height Plan containcd within ,I the Vail Viilage 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 thc roof. Vail Villaec Mastcr 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 commercial infill along the north side of the property. According to the Vail Village Master Plan, the Austria Haus property is located within mixed-use sub-area #1 -8, Sonnenalp (Austria Haus)/Slifer Syuare: "Commercial infill along East Meadow Drive to provide a stronger edge to street and commercial activity generators to reinforce the pedestrian loop throughout the Village. Focus of infill is to provide improvements to pedestrian circulation with ~ 15 separated watkway including buffer, along East Meadow Drive. Accommodating on-site parking and maintaining the bus route along East Meadow Drive are two ~ I signiftcant constraints that must be addressed. One additional floor of residentiaUlodging may also be accommodated on this site. Specific emphasis i should be placed on the 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 Design Considerations ~ The Town of Vail adopted the Vail Viliage 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 Viliage; and . ? serve as design guidelines instead of rigid rules of development; and ? help influence the form and design of buildings. Thc Vail Village Design Considerations arc divided into two catcgories (urban design considerations and architectural/landscape considerations): ~ 1. jJRBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Thcsc considcrations rclate to gencral, large-scale land usc planning issues, as well as form considcrations which affcct more than onc property or evcn whole areas. These considerations are primarily thc purvicw of thc Planning and Environmcntal Commission. A. PEDESTRIANIZATION . . A major objectivc for Vail Villagc is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of safe, plcasant 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 pcdestrian walkways throughout the Village. Sincc vehicular traffic cannot be rcmoved from certain streets (bus routes, delivery I access), a totally care-free pedestrian system is not achievable throughout the entire Village. Therefore, several levcls of pcdcstrianization have been identified. The level of pedestrianization most appropriate for the proposed Austria Haus redevelopment is the joint vehicle/pedestrian use of the roadway. 16 ~ • Staff Response: ~The staffhas concluded that the imProvements recommended for East Meadow Drive in the 1991 Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan should be implemented. This includes a reduction in street width from 30 feet to 26 feet (14 foot bus lane and 12 foot attached, ~ - paver pedestrian waik). The applicant is proposing to replace the street and reconstruct it to the desired width. The applicant is NOT proposing to eonstruct the 12-foot wide pedestrian walk out of pavers. The applicant is aiso proposing to construct a 15 - 20 foot wide, heated pedestrian walkway immediateiy adjacent to the north side of the building. Staff believes that these - improvements reinforce and significantly improve the pedestrian walkways throughout the Village by providing places for peopte to walk without forcing them into the bus lane. The creative use of concrete unit pavers emphasizes the pedestrian character and offers a clear and attractive pedestrian route. The retail space on the main level of the Austria Haus cioses the commercial loop from Slifer Square to Village Center. B. VEHICLE PENETRATION To maximize to the extent possible, all non-resident traffic shouid be routect along the Frontage Road to Vail Viliage/Lionshead Parking Structures. ~ In conjunction with pedestrianization objectives, major emphasis is focused upon reducing auto penetration into the center of thc Villagc. Vail Road and Vaii Valley Drive will continue to serve as rnajor routes for scrvice and resident access to the Vittage. Road constrictions, traffic circles, signage, and othcr measures are indicated in the Guide I Alans to visually and physicaliy discouragc alt but essential vchicle penetration upon the ' Frontage Road. Alternative acccss points and private parking relocation, where feasible, , • s}iould be considered to further reduce traffic conflicts in the Village. • Staff Rcs onse: The redevelopment of the Austria Haus will increase vehicular traffic on Viilage Center Road. According to the Environmcntal Impact Assessment-Austria Haus Redevelopment, prcpared by Design Workshop, ]nc.: "A slight increase automobile traffic is expected because of the projected increase in the number of visitors generatcd annuatly 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 thcir own car are likely to leave the car in the garage after they arrive, as the center village location of the project eliminates the need for a car. If ~ there is a potential for congestion anywhere, it is most Iikety to be in the small 17 drop-off paxking area in front of the building, wherc check-ins, deliveries and lost drivers may converge. To some extent, this can be mitigated by improved ~ roadway directional signs, speedy guest valet service, careful management of . deliveries and incentives to encourage guests to 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 m the drop-off area m the front of thc building. ' Sta.ff agrees with Design Workshop's assessment of the potential traffic impacts. While there will likely be an increase in traffic on Village Center Road, there will not be a.n increase in traffic on the pedestrian portion of East Meadow Drive. The traffic control gate located at the intersection of Village Ccnter.Road and East Meadow Drive will continue to prohibit all vehicle traffic except Town of Vail buses. Staff feels the applicant has addressed traffic issues to the extent possible. C. STREETS APE FRAMEWORK To improvc thc quality of the walking cxperience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two gcncral types of improvemcnts adjacent to the walkways are considered: i. Open space and landscaping, bcrms, grass, flowers and tree planting as a ~ soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes; and plazas and park grecnspaces as open nodcs and focal points along those routes. 2. Infill commercial storefronts, expansion of existing buildings, or new infill devclopment to creatc new commercial activity generators to give streetlife . and visual interest, as attractions at key locations along pedestrian routes. It is not intended to enclosc all Villagc strccts with buildings as in the core areas. Nor is it " desirable to leave pedestrian streets in thc open in somewhat undefined condition evident in many other areas of Vail. Rathcr, it is dcsired to have a variety of open and enclosed spaces, both built and landscaped, which create a strong framework for pedestrian walks, as well as visual interest and activity. • Staff Response: The Austria Haus redevelopment improves the streetscape framework through the creation of new commercial activity and increases visual interest along East Meadow Drivc. As stated previously, staff belicvcs the proposed redevelopment with 5,402 squaxe ~ 18 i . feet of commercial area closes the critical commercial loop in the Village and provides ~ new street life where very iittte currently exists. . D. STREET ENCLOSURE While building facade heights should not be uniform from building to building, they should provide a"comfortable" enclosure for the street. . Pcdcstrian streets are outdoor rooms, whose walls are formcd by thc buildings. The shape and fccl 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 rules, 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 cornfortable when its walls are approximately 1/2 as high as the width of the space enciosed; if the ratio fatls to 1/4 or less, the space seems unenclosed; and if thc height is greater than the width it comes to resemble a canyon". In actual appiication, facades are seidom uniform in height on both sides of the street, nor is this dcsired. Thus, some latitude is appropriate in the application of this 1/2 to 1 ratio. Using the avcrage facade height on both sides will generalty still be a guide to the ~ comfortableness of the cnclosure bEing created. In somc instances, the "canyon" effect is acceptabie and even desirabte. For example, as a short connccting linkage bctween larger spaccs, to give variety to the walking experience. For sun/shadc rcasons it is often advantageous to orient any longer segments in a north/south direction. Long canyon streets in an easUwest direction should gcnerally be discouragcd. . When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special consideration should be given _ to create a wcll-defined ground floor pedestrian etnphasis to overcome the "canyon" cffect. ' Canopies, awnings, arcades and buiiding extcnsions can all create a pedestrian focus and divert attention from the upper building heights and "canyon" effect. • Staff Ruponse: East Meadow Drive, and thc pedestrian walkway adjacent to the Austria Haus, averages approximately 43 feet in width. The Austria Haus (eaveline) adjacent to East Meadow Drive and the pedestrian walkway is approximately 29 feet in height. Given that East Meadow Drive is enclosed only on one side, and the arcade and landscaping creates an ~ 19 cmphasis 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 Village core should form a strong but irregular edge to the street. Unlike many American towns, there are no standard setback requirements for buildings in , Vail 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, slightly irregular facade lines, building jogs, and landscaped areas, give the life to the street and visual interest for pedestrian travel. Where buiidings jog to create activity pockets, other elements can be used to continue the street edgc: low planter walls, tree planting, raised sidewalks, texture changes in ground surface, arcades, raised decks. Plazas, patios, and green areas arc important focal points for gathering, resting, orienting and should be distributed throughout the Viliagc with due consideration to spacing, sun ~ access, opportunities for views and pedestrian activity. • Staff Rcsponsc: The original Austria Haus design lackcd the irrcgular street edge of other properties in Vail Village. Thc applicant, at thc request of thc staff and PEC, has attempted to introduce a more irregular strect edgc through the horizontal stepping of the building on tlic east and west ends. The east end of thc building has been stepped back from the - property linc and the northeast corner has been cutback, opening this end of building up to Slifer Square. The west-end of thc building was stepped towards the street. While it was the PEC's desire to see more stepping in the building, staff believes and recognizes the constraints in doing so. Staff believes thc irregular configuration of the landscape planters in front of the building helps to lessen thc rathcr 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 hcights along the street. ~ 20 i! . • Staff Resaonse: ~ The Austria Haus roof steps down on both ends of the building, reducing the creation of a j "canyon" along the west property line and resulting in a building that is less obtrusive (on Slifer Square) on the east end. 7fie applicant has submitted a scale model of the new structure in its Village Core context and this model will be available for use by the PEC during the hearings. . G. VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS - . ~ Vail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski siopes, creeks and other natural fcatures are reminders to our visitors of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain building features aiso provide important orientation references and visual focal points. Thc most significant view corridors in the Viltage have been adopted as part of Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipai 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 cither major pedestrian areas or pubiic spaces, and include views of the ski mountain, thc Gore Range, the Clock Tower, the RuckSack Tower and othcr important man-made and natural elements that contribute to the sense of ptace associated with Vaii. These views, which have been adopted by ordinancc, were chosen due to their sigrtificance, nat ~ only from an acsthctic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points for pedestrians. Dcvclopment in Vail Village sha11 not encroach into any adopted view corridor, unless ~ approvcd undcr Chaptcr 18.73. Adopted corridors are listed in Chapter 18.73 af the Vail ' Municipal Code. Whether affecting adoptcd view corridors or not, the impact of , proposcd dcvctopmcnt on vicws from public ways and public spaces must be identified and considcrcd whcre appropriatc. ' • Staff Res onsc: 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 stairs. Public views of the Village (roofline of structures) wi11 be blocked from these areas, however, views of Vail Mountain will remain. Overall, staff feels that the benefits of providing a comfortable enclosure to the street, and completing the pedestrian and retail connection from Crossroads to the Covered Bridge is positive. Staff fcels that the completion of this pedestrian connection is in compliance with Goal #3 of the Vail Village Master Plan: "To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Villagc." ~ 21 . H. SERVICE AND DELIVERY Any building expansion should preserve the functions of existing service alleys. The few ~ service alleys that exist in the Village arc extremely important to mimmizing vehicle congestion on pedestrian ways. The use of, and vehicular access to, those alleys should not be eliminated except where functional alternatives are not provided. I In all new and remodeled construction, delivery which avoids or reduces impacts on : pcdcstrian ways should be explored; and adopted whenever practical, for immediate or - future use. Rear access, basement and below ground delivery corridors reduce congestion. Weather protection increases delivery efficiency substantially. 1 Below grade delivery corridors are found in a few buildings in Vail Village (Sitzmark/Gore Creek Plaza, Village Center, Vail Village Inn). Consideration should be given to extending these comdors, wherc 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 Responsc: Through the course of the review of the Austria Haus redevelopment proposal, several loading and dclivery options were explored. The applicant had originally proposed to provide one loading and delivery berth in the undcrground parking structure. However, conccrns werc expressed by the Village Center Condominium owners that they would be negatively impacted by the noise generated from thc dclivery vehicles, since the access to the undcrground location was immediately adjaccnt to thcir units. Thc 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 duc 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 similar types of courier. Staff continues to believe that this location may negatively impact the pedestrian use of this area of East Meadow Drive. Staff feels the applicant has addresscd this issue to the extent possible. 1. SUN / SHADE Due to Vail's alpine climate, sun is an important comfort factor, especially in winter, fall and spring. Shade areas have ambient tempcratures substantially below those of adjacent 22 ~ direct sunlight areas. On all but the warmcst of summer days, shade can easily lower i~ temperaiures betow comfortabie lcvels and thereby, negatively impact use of those areas. All new or expanded buildings shouid not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow line (March 21 - September 23) on adjacent properties or the public right-of-way. In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shadc considerations are not intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria. • Staff Response: Atthough the praposed height of the building witl diminish the amount of sun, and likewise increase shading, along East Meadow Drive (north side of the project), the provision of heated pubiic walkways effectively mitigatcs this cantsideration, thus providing ice-free and snow-free sidewatks. Additionaliy, the "opening up" of Slifer Square will insure adequate light, air and open space ta a public gathering space. Overall, staff believes the applicant's proposal complies with the above-dcscribed considerations. 2. ARCHITECTURE/LANDSCAPE CONSIDERATIONS ~ ROOFS Wherc visible, roofs arc often one of the most dominant architectural e[ements in any buitt I environmcnt. In the Villagc, roof form, color and texturc are visibiy dominant, and generally consistent, which tends to unify the building diversity to a great degree. i Thc currcnt cxpression, and objective, for roofs in the Viliage is to form a consistently unifying , backdrop for the architecture and pedestrian streetscape, and to avoid roofs which tend to stand _ out individually or distract visually from the overall character. $oof Forms Roofs within the Village are typically gabic in form and of moderate-to-low pitch. Shed roofs are frequently used for small additions to larger buildings. Free-standing shed roofs, butterfly roofs and flat roofs, can be found in the Viilage, but they are generally considered to be out of character and inappropriate. Hip roofs likewise, arc rare and generally inconsistent with the character of the Core Area. Towers are exceptions, in both form and pitch, to the general criteria, but do have an established local vernacular-style which should be respected. • 23 I I , • Staff Response The roof form of thc Austria Haus has been revised several times from what was originally ~ . proposed. The original roof design of the Austria Haus had a significant amount of flat roof area. The majority of flat roof has now been replaced with a sloping roof leading to a. more traditional ridges. The ends of the ridges have been "clipped", resulting in a hip roof form. While a hip roof is generally considered inconsistent with the character of the Village, the applicant believes this roof form helps to reduce the mass of the building. Staff recognizes that the sloping roof form increases the perceived height of fhe building, . especially on the east and west ends. Staff believes it is critical that the roof materials on . each of the three building forms be compatible with one another. 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 Rcsponsc Thc pitch of thc proposcd Austria Haus roof is 4/12 and is in compliance with this guidclinc. Ovcrhangs Gcncrous roof ovcrhangs are also an cstablished architectural fcature in the Village - a traditional expression of shclter in alpine environments. Roof overhangs typically range from 3 to 6 feet on all edges. Spccific design consideration should be given to protection of pedestrian ways adjacent to buildings. Snow slidcs and runoff hazards can bc reduced by roof orientation, gutters, arcades, etc. - . ~ . Overhang details are treated with varying degrees of ornamentation. Structural elements such as roof bcams are expressed beneath the overhangs, simply or decoratively carved. The roof fascia is thick and wide, giving a substantial edge to the roof. . • Staff Response Staff suggests that the applicant increase the roof overhangs on the building. Currently, the overhangs vary from two feet to three feet. Staff would like to see all the roof I - overhangs at least three feet. Again, staff will review this consideration with the Design Review Board. 24 . ~ Comnositions The intricate roofscape of the Village as a whole is the result of many individual simple roof configurations. For any singte 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 visuat attention away from the streetscape and the total roofscape , tends toward "busyness" rather than a backdrop composition. • Staff Resnonse The roof form on thc Austria Haus wouid be considered a grouping of a simplc composition of roof planes. Staff believes the roof composition proposed by the applicant is consistent with the intent of this architectural considerarion. Steppcd Roofs As buildings are stepped to reftect existing grade changes, resulting roof steps should be made where the height change wilI be visually significant. Variations which are too subtle appear to be more stylistic than funetional, and out of character with the more straight-forward roof design . typical in the Village. ~ • Staff Responsc The Austria Haus site is relativcly flat (by Vail standards). White the building does not nccd to step to follow the topography, vertical and horizontal steps have been incorporatcd into the roof design. The verticai and horizontal steps provide a reduction in I thc ovcrall mass of the building and add to the architecturai and visual interest of the . , building. I N(aterials ! Wood shakes, wood shingles, and built-up tar and gravet are almost exclusively used as roof materials in the Village. For visual consistency, any other materials should have the appearance of the abovc. • Staff Res,p.cZnse Most recently, wood shakes and wood shingles are being discouraged for use as a roofing material due to fire safety concerns. At the recommendation of the Town of Vail Fire Department, the staff has been encouraging developers to use gravel, asphalt, tile, metal and other more fire-resistant roofing materials on new buitdings. • 25 The aPPlicant is ProPosing to use rcddish tiles on the roof of the Austria Haus. T'hc tiles ~ will be similar in appearance to those used on the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus. The staff ~ I believes this is an appropriate roof material to use on this projcct. Construction Common roof problems and design considerations in this climate include: - snowslides onto pedestrian walks . - gutters freezing - roof dams and water infiltration - - hcavy snow loads Careful attention to these functional details is recommended, as well as familiarity with the local building code, proven construction details, and Town ordinances. For built-up roofs, pitches of 4/12 or steeper do not hold gravel well. For shingle roofs, pitches of 4I l 2 or shallower often result in ice dams and backflow leakage under the shingles. i Cold-roof construction is strongly preferred, unless warm-roof benefits for a specific application can be demonstratcd. Cold-roofs are double-roofs which insulate and prevent snow melt from intcrnal building heat. By retaining snow on the roof, many of the problems listed can be reduced. Pcriodic snow removai will be required and should be anticipated in the design. Roof gutters tend to ice-in completely and become ineffective in the Vail climate, especially in ~ shaded north-side locations. Hcating the interior circumference with heat-tape eicmcnts or other dcviccs is gcncrally ncccssary to assurc adcquatc run-off control in colder months. • Staff RcsQ,qnse: The applicant is proposing a cold-roof construction atop the Austria Haus. Through the ~ review of a building permit, staff will cnsure 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 repetirion which unifies the streetscape. Of the above materials, stucco is the most consistently used material. Most of the buildings in the Village exhibit some stucco, and there are virtually no areas where stucco is entirely absent. It is intended to preserve the dominance of stucco by its use in portions, at least, of all new facades, • 26 , and by assuring that other materials are not used ta the exclusion of stucco in any sub-area within the ViI[age. • StaffRespgnse The exterior materials proposed by the applicant for the three building forms 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 . architeetural consideration. Color There is greater latitude in thc use of color in the Village, but still a discernible consistency within a general range of colors. For wood surfaces, trim or siding, darker color tones are preferred - browns, greys, blue-greys, dark olive, slate-greens, etc. Stucco coiors are generaily 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, btues, maroon, etc.) should be avoided for major wall planes, but can bc used cffectively (with restraint) for dccorative trim, wali graphics, and other accent elements. Generally, to avoid both "busyness," and weak visual interest, the variety of major wail calors ~ should not excced four, nor be less than two. A color/material change betwcen the ground floor and upper floors is a common and effective j reinforccrnent of the pedestrian scale of thc strect. ' i • Staff Responsc The applicant has proposed an exterior building color that is compatible with the color of ; the'existing buildings in the vicinity of thc Austria Haus. Staff would Iike to point out that tlic applicant is required to obtain Desigri Revicw Board (DRB) approval prior to - , construction and that any concerns of thc PEC on this topic will be brought to the attention of the DRB. Tran, rencv Pedestrian scale is created in many ways, but a major factor is the openness, attractiveness, and generally public character of the ground floor facadc of adjacent buildings. Transparent store fronts are "people attractors," opaque or solid walls are more private, and imply "do not approach." ~ 27 On pedestrian-oriented streets such as in the Village, ground floor commercial facades are proportionately more transparent than upper floors. Upper floors aze typically more residential, ~ private and thus less open. As a measure of transparency, the most characteristic and successful ground floor facades range I from 55% to 70% of the total length of the commercial facade. Upper floors are often the ~ ' converse, 30%-45% transparent. i : Examples of transparency (lineal feet of glass to lineal feet of facade) on ground level. , - Covered Bridge Building 58% 1 ' - Pepi's Sports 71 % - Gasthof Gramshammer 48°/a - The Lodge 66% - Golden Peak House 62% - Casino Building 30% . - Gorsuch Building 51 % • Staff Response The Austria Haus has a ground floor iransparency of approximately 50% along East Mcadow Drive. While the percentagc falls short of thc recommended minimum of 55%, staff belicvcs the intent of thc transparency requirement has becn met. Staff feels the arcadc, large panes of glass, and streetscape bcnches will all serve as "people attractors" ~ giving life and activity to the ground level of the building. Staff believes that if there is an opportunity for additional glass (transparency), it exists on the west-end of the casternmost building form. Staff would suggcst, but not rcquire, that the applicant cxplore thc possibility of increasing thc sizc of the window on the west-end of the castcrnmost building form. Windows . In addition to the general degree of transparency, window details are an important source of pedcstrian scale-giving elements. The size and shape of windows are often a response to the function of the adjaccnt street. For close-up, casual, pedestrian viewing windows are typically sized to human dimensions and characteristics of human vision. (Large glass-wall store-fronts suggest uninterrupted viewing, as from a moving car. The sense of intimate pedestrian scale is ~ diminished). Ground floor display windows are typically raised slightly 18 inches t and do not 'I cxtend much over 8 feet above the walkway level. Ground floors, which are noticeably above or below grade, are cxceptions. The articulation of the window itself is still another clement in giving pedestrian scale (human- related dimcnsions). Glass areas are usually subdivided to express individual window elements - 28 • i and are further subdivided by muliions into smali panes - which is responsible for rnuch of the old- i~ world charm of the Vitlage. Similarly, windows are most often clustered in banks, juxtaposed , with piain wall surfaces to give a pleasing rhythm. Horizontal repetition of singte window etements, especially over long distances, should be avoided. Large singic pane windows occur in the Vittage, and provide some contrast, as long as they are generally consistent in form with other windows. Long continuous glass is out of character. Bay, ' bow and box windows are common window details, which further variety and massing to facades ~ - and arc encouraged. - Reflective glass, piastic panes, and aiuminum or other metal frames are not consistent in the 1 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 mullions adds to the architectural charm and visual integrity of the Austria Haus. Staff recommends. that the use of mullions in the windows be a condirion of approvai. ~ Doors I Likc windows, doors are important to character and scalc-giving architectural elements. They shouid also be somcwhat transparent (on retail commercial faeades) and consistent in detailing with windows and othcr facade elemcnts. Doors with glass contribute to overall facade transpareney. Due to the visibility of people and rncrchandise inside, windowed doors are somewhat more effective in drawing peopie inside to ~ retail commercial facades. Although grcat variations exist, 25-30% t transparency is felt to be a ; minimum transparency objective. Private residences, lodges, restaurants, and other non-retail ~ establishments have different visibility and charactcr needs, and doors shouid be designed accordingly. Sidelight windows are alsa a mcans of introducing door-transparency as a ! complement or substitute for door windows. ! Articulated 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. ~ 29 • . taff Resnonse , Staff believes the applicant's proposal complies with the above-described criteria. ~ Trim ' Prominent wood trim is also a unifying feature in the Village. Particularly at ground floor levels, doors and windows have strong, contrasting framing elements, which tie the various elements . together in one composition. Windows and doors are treated as strong visual features. Glass- , wall detailing for either is typically avoided. ' • Staff Response: Staff believes the applicant's proposal complies 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 richcr pedestrian experience than if those streets were empty. A revicw of succcssful decks/patios in Vail reveals several common characteristics: - direct sunlight from 11:00 - 3:00 increases usc by many days/year and protects from ~ wind. - clevated to give views in the pcdcstrian walk (and not the reverse). - physical separation from pcdcstrian walk. - ovcrhang gives pedestrian scaie/sheltcr. Decks and patios shouid be sited and designed with due consideration to: - sun " - wi nd . . - views - pedestrian activity • Staff Response: , 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. 30 i BALCONIES I ~ Balconies occur on almost all buildings in the Village which have at least a second level facade wall. As strong repetitive features they: - give scaie to buildings. ' - givc life to the street (when used). - add variety to building forms. . - provide shelter to pathways below. • Staff Response . Again, the majority of the balconies on the Austria Haus are located on the south side of the buiiding. Several french baiconies have been incorporated into the design of the north side of fhe buiiding on the upper floors. . Calor They eontrast in color (dark) with thc buiiding, typically matching the trim eolors. • Staff RespQnse ~ Like the exterior color of the building, the DRB will be reviewAng this aspect of the I proposal. iz ~ They extcnd far enough from the building to cast a prominent shadow pattern. Batconies in Vail ~ are functionat as will as decorative. As such, they should be of useable size and located to encourage usc. Balconics less than six feet decp are seldom used, nor are those always in shade, I not oricnted to vicws or strect lifc. i • Staff Response Staff believes this criteria has been met. Mass They are commonly massive, yet semi-transparent, distinctive from the buiiding, yet ailowing 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 impaet which ties the Village together. • Staff Resnonse ~ The balconies on the Austria Haus are proposed to be semi-transparent in appearance. 31 , Matcrials ~ 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. . • S,taff ResRonse . The material to be used in the construction of the balconies on the Austria Haus is wood, with vertical structural members. A detail of the railing will be reviewed by the DRB. ACCENT ELEMENTS Thc life, and festive quality of the Village is givcn by judicious use of accent elements which give color, movement and contrast to the Village. Colorful accent elements consistent with existing character are encouraged, such as: Awnings and canopics - canvas, bright color or stripes of two colors. Flags, banncrs - hanging from buildings, poles, and even across streets for special occasions. Umbrcllas - ovcr tablcs on outdoor patios. ; Annual color flowcrs - in bcds or in plantcrs. Accent lighting- buildings, plazas, windows, trees (even Christmas lights all winter). Paintcd wall graphics - coats of arms, symbols, accent compositions, etc. Fountains - sculptural, with both winter and summer chaxacter. • Staff Res on nsc: Accent lighting on the building, annual flowers in containers and in thc planting beds, potted trees decorated with Christmas lights and irrigated flower boxes are proposed to provide colorful accent elements on the Austria Haus. An additional accent symbol (clock, crest, etc.) is proposed for the area above the front entry. The final design has yet to be determined. LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS Landscape considerations include, but go bcyond, thc placement of appropriate plant materials, - plant materials - paving 32 ! i j ~ - retaining walls - street furniture (benches, kiosks, trash, etc.) ~ - lighting - signagc Plant Materials Opportunities for planting are not extensive in the Village, which places a premium on the plant , • selection and design of the sites that do exist. Framework planting of trees and shrubs should . include both deciduous and evergreen species far year round contiuuity and interest. . Native plants are somewhat limited in variety, but are clearly best abie to withstand the harsh winter ciirnate, and to tie the t/illage visua(!y with its mountain setting. Trm Shrubs . Narrow-leaf cottonwood Wiliow Balsam poplar pogwood Aspcn Serviceberry Lodgepole pine Alpine currant Colorado spruce Chokechcrry Subalpinc fir Mugho pinc ~ Potentiila Buffaloberry • Staff Responsc I ~ A landscape plan has been submitted by the applicant. The tandscape plan has been devetoped with the assistance of Town staff, since a majority of the landscape I . improvements are proposed on Town propcrty. The proposed landscape design takes into 'consideration factors such as the location of the plantings (sun/shade), maintenanee, , climate, etc. Staff believes the landscape design for the Austria Haus complies with the ' above-described criteria. Pavin The freeze/thaw cycle at this aititude virtuatly eliminates common site-cast concrete as a paving surface (concrete spall). High-strength conerete may work in selected conditions. Asphalt, brick (on conerete 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 following materials for all ncw construction: • 33 - asphalt: genera.l use pedestrian streets - brick on concrete: feature areas (plazas, intersections, fountains, etc.) ~ ~ • Staff RespQnse The paving material used in the public areas around the Austria Haus will be the "Vail", i concrete unit paver, laid in the "Vail-pattern" (herringbone). These surfaces will be heated i and will include the access ramp to the parking structure, the front entry drop-off area and : • , the pedestrian walkway along the store fronts. The applicant has worked with the Town - ' staff in developing the design of improvements in the public right-of-way. Rctaining 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 well 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 cstablishcd nearby. • Staff Rcsponsc i No landscape retaining walls are proposed in the construction of the Austria Haus. The ncw landscape rctaining walls proposcd in Slifer Square will match the existing walls in tcrms of both typc of materials, and application. Li Lhtin Light standards should be coordinatcd with thosc used by the Town in the public right-of-way. • Staff Rcsnonse As part of the streetscape improvemcnts along East Meadow Drive, the applicant will be i installing four new Village light fixtures. The number and locations of the four new lights was determined through consultation with Town staff. Signaee - Refer to Town of Vail Signage Ordinance. 34 ~ I ~ • Staff ResQOnse: The staff has reauested that the applicant prepare a comprehensive sign program for the Ausfia Haus. The comgrehens2ve sign program will be reviewed by the DRB. SERVICE Trash handling is extremely sensitive in a pedestrian environment. Trash coltection is primarily . made in off-peak hours. Tt is the building owners responsibility to assure that existing trash storage problems are corrected and future ones avoided. 1. Trash, cspecialiy from food service establishments, must be earefully considered; including the following: - quantities generated - pick-up freyuency/access - container sizes - enclosure location/design - visual odor impacts . Garbage collcction boxes or dumpsters must be readily accessible for collection at all times yet ~ fully screened from pubiic view - pedestrians, as we11 as upper ]evel windows in the vicinity. Matcrials Extcrior matcrials for garbage enclosures shouid be consistent with that of adjacent buildings. Construction . I Durability of the structure and operability of doors in all weather are -prime concerns. Metal frames and posts behind the preferred cxterior materials should be considered to withstand the inevitable abuse these structures suffer. • Staff Response: The applicant has proposed to incorporate a trash dumpster into the design of the , underground parking structure. The trash dumpster will be completely enclosed and accessible from inside the parking structure. Without a restaurant, the building is not expected to generate an unusual amount of trash. The driveway is designed to accommodate trash trucks. Staff believes the applicant's proposal complies the above- described criteria. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the ~ property on which the special development district is proposed. 35 , . There are no natural and/or geologic hazards, including the Gore Creek floodplain, that effect the Austria Haus property. 0 . 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 communitv. The applicant has revised the site plan in response to comments received from the Town . Council and staff. Most importantly, the applicant has shifted the building 7' 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 properly and to maintain 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. Staffbelieves that pedcstrian circulation will be substantially improved as result of the redevelopment. Improvements include a new 14-foot wide bus lanc and a dedicated, 12-foot wide pedcstrian lane along East Meadow Drive, as well ,,,s an improved pedestrian streetscape along thc north side of thc building adjacent to the retail shops. The pedestrian strcetscapc will be heated, thus providing icc-free and snow-free sidewalks. All new pedcstrian improvements propose thc use of concretc unit pavers, with the exception of ~ the 12-foot wide walkway along East Meadow Drivc, and will connect into the existing improvements to thc east (Slifcr Square), to thc west (Village Center) and to the Vail Transportation Ccntcr to thc north. The applicant has redesigned the pedestrian acccss through Slifer Square. The original dcsign indicates improvements to Slifer Square which improve pedestrian access to and . around thc Austria Haus. Staff believes that this access will have positive effects upon the . circulation systcm on and off thc sitc. • Vehicular circulation will also be positively 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. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. 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. • 36 The streetscape improvements recommcnded in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan i will be partially implemented. The partial improvements will enhance the pedestrian cxperience along East Meadow Drive through the construction of a wider and more i . attractive heated walkway adjacent to the retail shops. The implementa.tion of the streetscape improvements, however does not include a separate pedestrian walkway from bus traffic. The applicant is no longer proposing to delineate the pedestrian areas and bus lane in East Meadow Drive through the use of different paving surfaces. . The applicant has designed improvernents to the western portion of Slifer Square. The . improvements have been developed with the help of Town staff.. The applicant's design is ' scnsitivc to the numerous mature trees existing in Slifer Square. Only those trees which • impact pedestrian circulation, effect sun cxposure to the seating areas, and woutd otherwise be damaged due to construction, are being removed. The removat of the trees will be mitigated by the planting of additional trees elsewhere in Slifer Square. Staff was concerned with the redesign of the pedesh-ian area immediately west of the new bus shelter. The applicant has reintroduced a landscape planter in this area. The planter and the 24-foot, 22-foot, and 18-foot tall spruce trees in the planter will frame the northeast corner of the building and to reduce the vastness of the paved area. The new trees will atso mitigatc the loss of several othcr mature trees existing on the site. Improvemcnts are proposed for the Gore Creek strcambank adjacent to the Austria Haus. ~ Thc improvements are intended to enhance the visual appearance of the streambank and stabilizc thc soil by reducing the grade of the slope and revegetating the bare soils. The applicant will also be implementing an crosion and sedimentation controi plan to prevent run-off from the construction site from cntering Gore Creek. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. _ P-hasing of development is not proposed. Thc appFicant is required to submit a I construction phasing and staging plan to thc Town prior to receiving a building permit. The plan will be used to ensure an efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses during the development of the Austria Haus. I At this time, the applicant is anticipating a minor subdivision to amend the location of the ~ north property line. The applicant is proposing to trade land with the Town in order to gain an additional one - two feet of land arca along the northerly property line. In exchange for this land, the applicant is proposing to trade a triangular piece of property ' adjacent to Slifer Square to the Town. Any proposal to trade land with the Town must be reviewed and approved by the Council, i ~ I 37 t • i I VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommenr that thc Planning and Environmental • Commission rccommend approval of the request to establis,: 5pecial Development District #35, Austna Haus, located at 242 East Nleadow Dnve 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 that the applicant has addressed the numerous issucs identified by the Planning and Environmental Cornmission and the Town Council. . . The staff has identified the following conditions of approval, which we recommend be included in . a PEC motion: I. That the applicant meet with the Town staff, prior to appearing before Town Council for the first reading of an ordinance establishing Special Development District #35, to formulate a construction phasing plan and to determine financial responsibilities for the off-site improvements to Slifer Square, East Ivleadow Drive and thc rcvegetation of the Town-owned stream tract, south of the Austria Haus. Staff will then make a recommendation to Council regarding the constn?ction phasing and financial responsibilities of the off-site improvements. 2. That thc applicant prepare a dced restriction or covenant, subject to the Town Attorney's review and approval, thereby restricting the current and future owner(s) ability to locate a restaurant, or similar food service operation on the Austria Haus property. Said deed ~ restriction or covenant shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Officc prior to thc applicant submitting for a building permit. 3. That the applicant submit the following plans to thc Department of Community Development, for review and approval, as a part of the building permit application for the Austria Haus: a. A Tree Preservation Plan; b. An Erosion Control and Sedimcntation Plan; c. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan; d. A Stormwater Management Plan; C. A Site Dewatering Plan; and f. A Traffic Control Plan. 4. That the applicant provide deed-restricted housing, which complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chaptcr 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. 38 S ~ 5. That the PEC approval of Special Development District #35, the approval of the . conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club in the Public ~ Accommodation Zonc District, and thc approval of a minor subdivision shall be conditioned upon the approval of this SDD establishment request by the Vail Town Council. 6. .That this approval is conditioned upon the approval of a minor subdivision, as follows: . "A minor subdivision will amend the location of the north property line. The applicant .s proposmg to trade land wrth the Town m order to gain a . . . ri additional . ~ one - two feet of property along the northerly property line. In exchange for this land, the applicant is proposing to trade a triangular piece of property, adjacent to Slifer Square, to the Town. If a minor subdivision is requested, all costs incurred to complete the subdivision and the exchange of land with the Town shail be the responsibility of the applicant." 7. That the following design considerations be carefully revicwed by the Design Review Board (as previously discussed in Section IV of this memorandum): A) That the mullions on the windows and doors, as depicted on the building elevations, be a required element of the Austria Haus project. ~ B) That partial improvements recommcnded for East Meadow Drive, as depicted in the approved Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, be implemented as a part of the Austria Haus project. This includes a rcduction in strect width from 30 feet to 26 feet (14 foot bus iane and 12 foot attachcd, asphalt pcdcstrian walk). , C) That the applicant increase thc roof ovcrhangs on the building. Currently, thc ovcrhangs vary from two feet to thrce fect. Staff would recommend that all the roof overhangs be a minimum of three feet. D) That the applicant preparc a comprchcnsivc sign and exterior lighting program for the Austria Haus. The comprehensive exterior (ighting and sign program will be reviewed by the DRB. E) That the applicant revisit the originally contemplated design which incorporates the loading and delivery facility in the underground parking structure. Staffbelieves that trying to accommodate loading and delivery in the porte-cochere area witl result in conflicts between pedestrians, vehicles accessing the parking structure, and delivery trucks. Staff understands the original design option may not be the desire of the owners of the Village Center Condominiums, yet we believe the impact can be mirigated with appropriate screening. • 39 ' I F) That the applicant submit plans indicating the proposed design of the bus shelter in , Slifer Square. The plans shall be submitted prior to DRB conceptual review. . G) That the applicant submit plans indicating the location, type, and quantity of roof top ' mechanical equipment prior to DRB conceptual review. H) That the applicant submit detailed building elevarion plans adequately labeled to , identify architectural details (railings, trim, fascia, etc.) and exterior building materials and colors prior to DRB conceptual review. • . ~ 40 ~ ~ ~ Jonnenalp Rerort . of Vail Mey zo, 1997 - Town of Vail Departnent of Commuttiry Development . ' . Vail, Colorado 81657 _ k~ - ~~15.2 Actention: George Ruther Dear George, it is my under9tatt,ding that you require a document specifying the location and naNre of employee housiiig for 12 employees to be deed tesh'icted for the purpose of the SDD proceeding of the Austria Haus projed. We are proposing to deed restrict 6 units in our So(ar Vail Complex located just east of Red Sandstone Elementary, The units ace one bedroom units of about 600 square foot each With one bathroom 8nd full kitchen. For the past several years, Sonnenalp has been using 5olar Vail fot employee housing pucposes. Solar Vail due its close-in (ocation and units make-up is an exceltent employee housing projed. ' We are proposing to deed restrict unit # 11, # l2, #t 13, #14, # 15,and # 16. . ~ ~ As a candition fot deed regtraction we require ihat Sonnenatp wili be petmitted in the futute tn transfer the speeific uctits to differenc units wichin the projeet and to units outside of the project of compdrable location and size parameters. Let me know if you need anything fwzher at rhis point in time, Sincerety, _ Y• - - ]6~n S aesslet President Sonnenalp.Properties, Inc, r . Utc>>tec/ uizd opcrnlc-d hy l.hc, HisSIE'r Fll1T]lIy ' 20 Vail lto:icl, V.iil, Coloraclo 81657 •970/•176-5656 • t-tiOO•6i4.841 ) • Fux 97n/4'7(,_1A3') j/I 'd 9LWoK . HOSH d7dKRNNOS U05:$ L661 T2 '"W ~ ' - - - _ _ . P1.K~. Aux~~rtn MiMerL 1 ~ . ~ . " ' - . - ~ I _ \ \ f i : I ~ . ~r . , r ~ ~ 4 'I ~ - ~ ' -------~;i~---------"'_. , I Yr •x .1~_-Y'\ ~x-..:.:_....~. t ' ~ . ~ `1.~~~I -~1. ~ .,~.:iry~:~~~ ~ _ l j r• ~ 31 \ - ~ o o - t./)~ ' . - ~ ;'I~ , , l • " 1~ e lf QO , . . - ; -r-- LnI~~ , ~ _ ~ Y - ~ ~ ~ . - ~ , ~ ~ ; ~ , ? ~ _ • -a- - - - . ~ :toi:r. i....." ~ 'T" . ~ . ~f 1 L~~v`_srs•2~?t~J _ r~ 4 ~ _ ~ i..k{~ s::~-.~: . _ . 1~"~~~~(;~ ` a j L._Y..,~ • ~ ' ~ . d ` I _ ~ _ = - - • ..,.~-n.__..,.... . ~ • ' - ~ j~~----- - ~ i - ~ - - - _ ' _ _ ~aa 11 I L.. _ ~ 4d- ~ V / 'il~~ ~ . + t.-r*r~.ve l_MR . J~' ? ~ ~ ~a"^' ~p1, ~ . ~ na.o r.ca ~ ~ ~ ' • ~ .-:"wncc•.iM'.ti, ~ o.eo:Eae ` . , as.,v. L\Ga•--~:~~: a~\ r - • ~ ' A 1.0 . . ~ Yrtf,~CPnou~•a~~'J~^s~t~n : ~i : ~ ~m •a a RaauRO ~ . . <v.~Kaw' : _ "'•",_Y:*) il • ~ ,I ' ' ~ ' LtnN.R 6 I ~ Aw~~rn ~ MhMaS ~ I . ' I ~ ~ _ " " " " _ " \ ` ~I . , ~ ~ - . ~ . ~ ' i ~ i - ~ , . , , , - - - - , - - , . T - - ~ ._r..~ 8 ~ i ' ' ~ ~ < , - -----~j - ~ i Q~0 \ ' 1~ ~ NII> ~ ' '_t' , _ - _ _ ' • ' ~1I ~ I ~ >F / • ~ y ` ( ~ ' - ~ - ? ~I~, ` ; 1 ~ - ~ II ' - S j' .I' ~ _ i ~ i . _ ..v_._ - . - - - . ~ - ~ - - . - - - - : ~ ~ ~ - L.:...._......................... _ r _ • ~ _ ~ ; , / / ,~1... / 1 i ~ i / _ _T.,~^ V. % " . " . . _ ` 1 ~ _ • ~/r" • ~r J M • I . ' , ' ' i '~~~~'Y Y ~ e a . ~ ~ Q(,~tl':~. o~ GN A1.1 _ 3 ~ - _ - ~ - - - - . . • ,I . . . ~ ' • • ~ ~ Sr.~..lr~,* ? ~ w.v. wn I ~ i : MAMCb ~ • I ~ ~ ~ i ' • _ ~ ~ ~wr~r ' - - ~ I ' ~i".~~lRm ~ . . ~ . •~i" c \ . ~ _ _ ,tif._ _~~w, ~ ~ ~ s Q!S ~ i ~ ~ . _ _ ~ =jo - , . ; . +v~ _ -r=- , - . ' _ _ _ _---c _ - - - n,--t - - . -i~- - - - - - - - ~ Q(~, l 1 s. r ~ . - - ~ 1 . . ! • S~\ - l ~ . ' ~ ~ : • ~ ~ f 1 . i ~ ~ ~ . ~ - - ~ ~ ..l ' : ~ ' f ~ 1 1 I / • ~ ~ . _ ' - _ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ' ` . - ~ ~ ~ - . :i i: ` 1 i ~ . _ , ~ ~ - - - ...i;~ - - _ _ • - ~ ~ / R.~ ~ _ - - . . , . - - - - - - ' ~ ` - - _ . ~ . - ` - _ i : ; : - ~ - - . - ~ ' ; ; ~ v Y-- ~ ~ , • ~ ~~~~'.,~F - a....... t ' ¢CC= °LGN A 1.2 . _ _ - _ _ . ~:u-. ~ . • \ ~ C~xi ~ ~ ' ?'N _ ' A ' e-...__........,.`"'.~~ ~ • •w,e•..._......-.-_-------s/~~' _ _ ~ - ' ' 'Y' 1 jl~ 1 ~r.. . ~ rt~:llvr---- t`---------- ------1- - - , ~ (!7. J~~ ,r t . +~J~~-~/ - - - - - t _ _ ' - _ ` .,,o» • ~ y~ ~ \ t\~ . ~ - - _ _ _ _ r.J ~'1 f l f 1 ~ ~1. l ^l 1 t r~"' - QC~ ~ 11 4 5 f ~ - - ~-v • y ~ ~ I~„°-`.. ~ O • ' ~;pAR150N a EX~`J'~T,Gy , o¢O°CS=~ ~ - ' ..s...a• . I _ - - ' • ~ ~ • ~ , ~ +.r«e...w a ,~IA . ~ I n u I I , . . ~ = - - i I i zw.~@ ? , ' . ~ _ - - _ - _ - - ~ - - - - - - - - a - - - - ~ Q~s I . ~ ' _ _Y,~ - ~Y-' - - - _ ~ QIo Q - - - ' - - J_._. . - - - ~ - - ' ~ ~ I o- ~ - - i- - _ - - - ~---~-i - - - - _ ? - ~ ! , ; - O- c. . , - - ' - _ _ ' . _ - - - ~ . ~ ' ~ t~--- _ -t- ti - L._..__..---..L._.__ ~ - P _ ~ Q- ' • ' _ _ , • - - _ - - - ~1.,~._. - - - :l_----- I I I I i I ~ I I'. I I i• ~ ' I I I I I I ! I I`.~ I I I ~ ; j . . . . I I ~ I I I f i i. I; ~ i I l I i i I I I I I I 16 --I~ I i i i I l I I I I I I c-=_ • I i f ,1 2.0 I , ~ i •fhM<b AIA I r A~~~ . 1 J 1 1l)) il U ~J yT_r 7 ; 1 4: MLM , I ! I I I I I I. I I I I pI~ li ~ fi~ I I I l I I { I I 1 I . ~ i , i i ~ - i - - i- - - - - - - - - i - i- , ~ ~ OREW i ~ ti ' - - - • y' i Q Q - ----1._.------- - - - - -~--1~- --L-=------- = o ~ ` I -I i ~ I I i QJ C~10 - unIl~ 1 I I I E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ , ~ • I d I ~ I I I I I I~ i i ' . ' • ~ - - - - - _ - - - - - ~ ' i 40... ...OV.... .....46: . . + , ~ - - - - - - - _ - - ~ ' I 1 I I I I I i~. 1• I I` . ' i ~ . . . ` . ~ ~ I l V f 1, 1 I I I I I ! i i; I I I I i I 4 I 1 I I 1 ~ ~ . ; . I t i V ~ • ` ~l~ .r.C rr 2.1 ~ 1 1 • i . , ; • . ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - v„.~.. ~...rcua+ I ~ ArthAecD " rf AIA 1 I ( { I I I I ! I 1 1 I I I I I I I I ~ I I I i I I i ~ I . I I I I ~ I I I I I I I i i I I 4 I I I I I I I ~ ~ I I I I I 1 I I i i ~ , _ ~ - ~----~I ' I I I I I I ~ o--- ~ C--~-- - ~I < ~ i ( I 1 Q Q- - - - - - - - - = g p-' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " oCii~ ' - ~ , - -~-7 _ ~ _ . t.._ - - f- - - - - - - _ - . 1•---•- I 1 ! I I 1 I ~Y~ I I"~ I I I I I I I Q-- - - -y- -r._.._._ - - - -i ~ • ~ t_._ _ ; T . ~ I ~ 1 I I I I I I I I I; i I I i ~ I ~ I ! I 1 I , Ic.i ~ I i~----_i , r.::..... - A 2.2 . ~ . - - - - - - - - - ` .wK.. ~ ' f.~ ~ ~ . . ' ' I f I 1~ i i I i I I I I I ~ 1 I I { I I 1 I I i I I ~ I I i I 1 I I 1 I I I I ~ ~ ~~l I I I I I I I I I j I I j~ ~ I 1 I • I 1 I I I I i cn~ o-- - r-- ; - - r.._. - - , - _ ------r._._ , ~ - : - ` - - - - - ~ - - ~ - , ~ _ ' ' I-. . _ . ' _ • y _ _ ~ ~.I . I J _ i ~_t=~ _L _~~~',~t~1_1 ,~lJ ~ l ~A~ ~ ~_1-~~_ ~ ~ lLr~ -=1 I i c.,,_'"•~ ~;i: ~ ~ c:F~ ~-'-^,.~I ..y ~_k,,,i ~ I ~ I Q- ~Y 4-- _ i - - f=~- - - " . ~ - - t -1 - -r - , ~ . . s _ ; . , . - I , , ~ . . , , - , • - - - . - - - _ r•T':• . - ~ 4 I I I 1 I i ! I 1--~ ~ I I `.1 I I I I ; I I I I I 1 i I ! I ! I i I I~ I I i I i i I I I I I I I i I ( I I 1 I I ~ I 1 I 1 I ' ~ I i I . I I I l ~ 2 i I I I I I I I I I I i i~ ~ ~ ~ - 2 w.. a t A 2.3 • • I ' • • • ~ . - • ~ " _ - - _ - _ ~ o,..'.. f \ I V ~ ~ • f ~ ~ y L1 U ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I r°~ nG_~._- l~~ ~~L_ . _Jt • ' ~~~i { ~ ~ I ~ I f I 1 I 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ I f I i { I i i i i I i I I I I ~ I I f i i I I i I I 1 I ~ ~ I 1 I I I I I i i I f I ~ , I~ I I i i I 1 ! i I I ~ { 1 t I I I i I 1 I l ~ ~ 1I ' ` i....,.. f~ j1 f i I• i I-- - I ! 1 f---- ' 1 ! ' - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i I tn~. . - i - ~ i I' ~fi i ~ i QI g ~ ~ ,-^j. ~ j --1 - l i..._.. ,j"•, ~~`,+-r1-~.. - ~ \ ~ - - - •-w~,~-- ~ i ~ - QilO . -~~-•-•-~-ITL- ' -•-~r=-._._..-=~---~- ~ =f`p • _a i__ ~ ~,3 con o-_ - - -.-._T . - - - ~ - - ~ - - - - = _ - i~.J - - - - _ - j_ - ~ i ~ ~ I I I - I _ I ~ I ---7-'*- 1 -I' ~ I I 1 I ,I Q- ( - - - - -I • - ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I I I { I I ~i ~ I I i I ' I 4 ! i 1 I I. ~I I I j ; j I ' I i I I I I ~ ~I ' I I I I I I I I I I ! ~ i~ j ! i f I i I l I 4 I ~ I t . l I i I I ! I~ ~ 7 j : ~0.r.1~r' yYl t - ~ A2.4 1 I rm....,~., _ . i ~ ` - ; - - - - - - - - . 1 - • - . _ - - ~ ~ S.~+f+r.s 1 1 An hwetb I ICAIA j rtiw ; 1 I I 1 ! i I { I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I f i 1 1 i 1 f I I I I i I I I I I I" I I I I { f { 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I ` I I f I i I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I l f• I ! I~ I i I I l NI I ~ _ I - - - ~ - - ~ ~ a- - I•, I ,I ~ 1-' - I; y rt~ ~ ~ ~ Qi~$ I } ~ ~ - r y~------~--- ~ - ~ ' a-I - - ~ I - I ' ~ _ ~ i - i~ _ i ; _ _ . . . _;_1 _ _ - - i- j- - i- ; ; I ~ • i I ! I I ! ! I I, ~ ' ; - - - • ~ . ~ _ _----•--•-•=-1• ~ - - ~ - ~ • _ ~ _ . - • • • I ~ ! I I I i I 1 I I I I I I ~ I ' I I I ' 1 ! 1 I ~ I 1 I I : I I I i I I I ~ ~ ~ < i~ ~ ? ~ ~ f=-- , . ~ ~ ~ ; ; ; ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ? ~ - _ a . - . . .,a.. ,..~i~ ~ e. . A 7.5 - e.w~ ` ~ . . ~ - " ~ - - . . - - . - - - - AcTr~n~ . I • . ~ ~ - - - - - - - ~ - - Y • I I I I I I I ! i I i I - ii I I I I I l I I 1 I I I j~ • I. 1 I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ j~~u~ ii ~ I I i I I I I i I t ~ 'f 1 I i - - i I I I 1 I I~ ~ ~ ii i~~ lu--~ --,1-- -=--_-,_----`-r--r--r-------- ~ tY, - ~ - ~ ------•--7-- ~ --------T--------1' - : - - - `tOFZ7u~EtEiA7I0N'_ , i'. --r- - - ~ f - - - LU ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~~i ~ ~i u~ :i~~~ i i m; I~ i ~ ~ - +6•qs.4 ' ; - - ~ - - I;- i~~~~~:i ~ i i~i ~lui ~m ~ ~ ~:-,~I~- ~ -m i ; , - ~---i-- ~ --~--~---~-------r--- i ; ' I I ! I ! I ~ i I I I ~ - ; , - 3 - - , I I I i i - i I I I I I ~ l oZ;i•..• I . ; ' I - - 9 P ~ ~ ~ I _ •l ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~~4.1.i~ _ I ~ ~ , ~ <n~ ' - x~ - - ~ i - ~ a I n -t I,~ , I I I =S ~ EUS SHELtER BUS SuELTER r¢1WE5T EI.EVA7tON ~s150lJTN ELEV4TICN .f ~2:.4v. ~ ~ - ~ - ~ ~ ELEVdTIq7N • I I ~ 1 I (~~I > _ }I i , ._C-______" ^ C p O ~ ~ I i . . - i ~---,------l-~~i- ~ EUS S"ELTER BUS!~tiELTER 5 cd$T ELE'/4'I^N NORTH [_EvtTiC,j ~ _ _ ~y` ~ • I ~ C--,G- ~m-~ f1~ _ I _ " ?~fi:.a.o . ~ • ' ' ~ ~ LJT LJ U ~ ~ i ~ - - - , IMT~ I lJ~ ~~m ' ~ ~ I • . _ . ~ _ ' "'4""'""_ """"__i."' T • _ _ I ` I ' _ _'_.i; SuEL'Ee P! :.u i I I I I I ro. - I I I I I I ~ - i (21WE5T °_LEv,'-TtCn,I ! - - ~ . ~ . • • I MEMORANDUM I~ TO: Town Council FROM: Lionshead Redeve(opment Master Plan Team DATE: June 6, 1997 RE: Update on Lionshead Redevelopment Master Pian Process On May 20, the Town Council adopted the methodology and criteria for selecting public view corridors (i.e., views from public spaces which foster civic pride and public interest, views which enhance the town's attraction, views which are commonly recognized and have in inherent qualities which make it more valuable than other more common views). Since this meeting the Master Plan Team reviewed 53 slides of potential views and applied the adopted criteria. From these 53 slides, 14 potential view corridors were identified by ihe Team as beg+nning to meet the adopted criteria. On Tuesday, June 2, a public walking tour was cvnducted to review these 14 identified possibilities. Another tour will occur on Sunday, June 8, at 2 pm, followed up by a public forum on June 15 to review and state preferences for protected view corridors. The opportunity to add a view not selected by staff is available to the public and Council as part of this process and wiH be evaluated by the application of the criteria. , • Self-guided walking tour packets are available for those unable to attend the scheduled walking tours and are available at the Lionshead activities desk, the information center, and the Department of Community Development. A web site has also been established as an additional meihod of reviewing the potential view corridors. Channel 5 taped the first walking tour and is playing it regularly this week. Also, the newsletter for Stage II( has been distributed and mailed to those on the ever growing mailing list. I The following is a schedute of upcoming events in Stage III: I 8 th~r~watl:`b~ tl~~ ~;0~o~d:of.tuuv.publrc w..aft~trig t~urs ~a.rey?~w p~i~n~i~#:vt~aw dor~!d6*rs ~ .~une ~ .1 ~t se[~.gu~~d~et`vrr~,g ~o.u~s;t~ r~y~pc~t~ntial w. ~~~r(~c~r.s; I ? June 15, a public forum will be held for the community to indicate preferences for public view corridors to be +ncluded in the Lianshead Redevelopment Master Plan. ? June 23, staff and consultant will return to the PEC to review and make a recommendation to the Town Council on preferred public view corridors. ? June 24, Council will review the proposed view corridors and the PEC recommendations. , ? Designation of public view corridors in Lionshead, if any, is proposed to occur on July 1. • File: f:\everyone\councifVnemosViorihead.610 T09Yf %VAIL ~ . ~ LIONSHEAD • MASTERPLAN TOWN OF VAIL • DESIGN WORKSHOP • JUNE 3, 1997 STAGE III VIEW CORRIDOR IDENTIFICATION SELF GUIDED WALKING ' TOUR Thank you for choosing to participate in the public view corridor public input process of the Lionshead Master Plan. It is well recognized that views have a great impact on the sense of place and identity of an area, especially when that area is in such a beautiful location as the Vail Valley. By letting us know your opinions regarding the selection of public view corridors in Lionshead, you are helping the Master Planning team and the Town of Vail decide which public views, if any, are so critical to Lionshead that they deserve legal protection by a Town of Vail ordinance. Below is a brief description of what has been done up this point regarding view corridors as part of the Lionshead Master Plan process. 1. Background On May 20`h, the Town Council approved the Master Plan team's recommended public view corridor ' selection criteria, which is based upon the existing Town of Vail view corridor ordinance. The essential criteria that qualifies a view for protection is as follows; i • A. That the proposed view corridor or boundary amendment protects and perpetuates a view or views from ' public pedestrian areas, public ways, or public spaces within the town which foster civic pride and are in the public interest for the Town of Vail; , B. That the proposed view corridor or boundary amendment protects and enhances the town's attraction to residents, guests, and property owners; ~ C. That the proposed view corridor or boundary amendment protects a view which is commonly recognized ' and has inherent qualities which make it more valuable to the town than other more common views. Due to the redevelopment focus of the Lionshead Master Plan, it is possible that there are opportunities for new view corridors where structures currently exist. If this is the case, these new view corridors would need to meet the same criteria as eacisting view corridors. U. "Critical Attributes" In addition to the criteria defined above, the Town Council approved the following "critical attributes" that should be used in judging the visual quality of a potential view corridor: A. Foreground- Elements of the view immediately in front of the view, such as the roof of a building, the closest tree line, or an open pedestrian area. B. Middleground- Elements of the view beyond the foreground, but in front of the horizon, such as the ski runs when looking towards Vail Mountain. C. Background- Tne horizon, or farthest elements in the view. A good example of background is the peaks of the Gore Range when looking east up the valley. . D. Edges- Edges are often the most important defining elements of a view, and constitute the changes between foreground/ middleground/ and background, or any other change in color or texture in the view, such as the edge between the white snow of a ski run and the green of the adjacent trees. a , I i E. Color/ Texture- The variations and types of color and texture in a view has a great impact on the quality of the view, and are also instrumental in defining edges. A view corridor that was chosen because of the ' visual quality of its color and texture could possibly be impacted by a development projects lighting, color • scheme, or location. F. Landmarks/ Specific Elements- These are specific identifiable elements in a view, either natural or built, that have special significance to the residents and guests of Lionshead. Examples could be the gondola lift ~ line, ski runs, the clock tower, or any other element that provides a sense of location, direction, or identity ~ to Lionshead. I IV. Schedule of Public Process for proposed View Corridors ~ • June 3`d and 8`h Guided Walking Tours of potential view corridors • June 4"-I S`h Self Guided Walking Tours. Packets can be obtained at the Lionshead Visitors Center, ' the Lionshead Activities Desk, the Vail Public Library, ar the Town of Vail Community Development Department. • June 16"' Open House for Public Preferences, Vail Public Library. Drop by anytime from 4-7 p.m. to express your preferences for public view corridors in Lionshead. • June 23`d Planning and Environmental Commission, 2 p.m., Town Council chambers • June 24t' Vail Town Council, 2 p.m., Town Council chambers • July 16` Public Meeting for Designation of Public View Conidors (if any), Town Council Chambers, 7:30 p.m. . IV. Your Job! • The following pages of this packet contains photographs of the potential view eorridors that have been identified by the Master Planning team based upon the criteria and critical attributes discussed above. Each numbered view also relates to the enclosed location map for your convenience. As you review these potential public view carridors, please consider and respond to the following: 1. Rank each view as "critical, consider, or do not consider". According to the above criteria, is the view absolutely critical to Lionshead, or is just worthy of consideration? 2. In the space provided next to each photograph, please comment on why you have ranked the view the way you did, and what elements of the view are the most important to preserve (keep in mind the critical attributes- background, foreground, edges, etc..) 3. Please feel free to actually draw on the photographs what you would recommend to be the boundary of the protected view corridor. Finally, if you think there is an opportunity for a view corridor that does not appear in this packet, please let us know by either describing the view and noting the view point on the enclosed locational map, or by submitting a photograph of the proposed view. Remember that any views considered as part of this process must be public views from publicly accessible view points. The Lionshead Master Plan suggestion boxes are available at the following locations for you to return you form: Lionshead Activities Desk, Lionshead Visitors Center, Vail Library and Town of Vail Community Development Department. • All suggestion forms must be returned by June 16'`. THANK YOU! • • • LIONSHEAD MASTERPLAN 8-5-97 ~ Self Guided Walking Tour Ei ~ Map for Potential View Corridors Q ~ ~7 ~ El 779 ~ D o ~ ~ o ? o NORTH Q ? 0 t~ Q Q o ~ ~ 0 1~ ~ ~ Q o O ° 14 ~ ,.a.. ~~,..o 12 ~ • 6 , ~M _ M 1 ~ 7 3 8 ...,~....o 2 4 ~ ..a 11 -~•Y r"~ .._..o.~.,,. 10 ? ° 9 O ' t ~ ' +a~ p .~ce~, Proposed View Corridor 1 , ~ ' ~ ~ ~ i 1~' ~~Fd~~'r # . . . , Critical . > . e . ~ ~ 4 . t r • Consider Do Not Consider WMM& ~ ' Image Description Looking Southwest over ri top of Library from front of Dobson Arena. Comments• i .,;i,. ~ . . . . . . . . , Proposed View Corridor 2 1 ...5 . . . . t. , , b . . Critical . Consider y ~4' ~ ~ ~ . ~~ti • ~ , iM~ ' " } • R u`, ~ ~ Do Not Consider Image Description Looking South towards ~ Alµ '4 ski slopes from first stair landing, East end of Parking structure ..4 . e . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . • . ^ Comments: ~ I Proposed View Corridor 3 ? Critical d . Consider U Do Not Consider Image Description Looking South to Gondola Iift line from grade level, West end of parking structure Comments• Proposed View Corridor 4 Critical ; •~..~~ca~ ~w: fy.~.~y .iw,~ n9~ a i . ' ~ Consider ~ ~ u Do Not Consider - Image Description Looking South to Gondola lift line from first stair landing, West end of parking structure Comments: K a.. F,. ~ , ~ t . ~ ProPosed View Conidor 5 ~SY ~ . .F 4 a " Y 'rt ~rF `r~l ~ Criticat I • Consider ~ Do Not Consider Image Description Looking South to ~ Gondola lift line from - : top deck, West end of parking structure t Comments: . ~ «L:.m.: a..,,....:~. . _ . . : . . . . . . ~ S • ti : . , • ' 1 Proposed View Corridor 6 Critical Consider • ~ ~~°:s; ` ,.,«e•'~ ~ ~ • ~ : , , , Do Not Consider Image Description Looking South to ski yard from ramp below ~ . Bart & Yeti,s Deck. , . ~ ~ Comments: ; . a ~ • Proposcd Vicw Corridor 7 ~ Critical Consider Do Not Consider ' . . Image Description - Looking South up Gondola lift line from top of steps down to ticket office. Popcorn wagon is ' to left of image. - ~ Comments: z<•. - - -.fi.--: Proposed View Corridor 8 }7.~ !w ~4v Critical ~ Consider , . • ~ i Do Not Consider ; • r Image Description ~ Looking South over top of Gondola building from ~ East end of Landmark ~ Condominiums. ~ , ' Comments: 1 ~ # ~ ~ . ~ ~ b4JVy' 'yy .w>•. . •..r..fe..-. . Proposed View Corridor 9 Critical ..r,wr: . _;t,;,,;....,.;:tr 5rr :.a- - ' • i 1 ' Consider i ; ` Do Not Consider ~Y Image Description Looking South past East end of Landmark Condominiums ~ from pedestrian path, east end of North Day parking lot. - Comments: ..r - . , ~ ' _ - . . . _ . • `Proposed View Corridor 10 ' Critical Consider ~:~j:~.;t;;;~;~;-,, , "..~,r °r , Do Not Consider , '~~n!~41 ~i~ ~ ' w s ,v : Image Description < ' Looking Southeast across ~ North Day lot towards ~ Golden Peak from ~ pedestrian path east of pedestrian bridge , - ; ± Comments: i ~ ~ , , . _ _ ~ Proposcd Vicw Corridor 11 fa~ . ~c u! Critical ~k~~ , ` ` ElConsider ~ Do Not Consider 1 Image Description Looking South down ~ West Lionshead Circle from South frontage Road, just West of pedestrian bridge. ~ Comments• ~ ! Proposed View Corridor 12 Ct;i;•3=.: , 9 . ~ Critical ~ n. Consider . , Do Not Consider . ~ Image Description ' Looking Southeast ~ towards Gondola lift line : f rom intersection of West Lionshead Circle and Lionshead Place. Marriot is to right of image. _ ~ , • 11 Comments: ,..~..,.,n. _ _ _ . _ . ~ ~ Proposed View Corridor 13 Critical Consider 0- Do Not Consider Image Description ~ Looking Southeast towards tennis courts " from Lionshead place - (regional bus stop). y.. - t Comments: , . , ~ ~~l • _ ATS" 1wNr . ' . _ . . , . . . • Proposed View Corridor 14 r.. ri. ,aya•r; K`~ . , ~r' Critical Consider <4~r ~i Do Not Consider ~ Image Description ; Looking Southeast across , ski yard towards skier bridge, from front of - ~ Gondola building (Trails ~ End restaurant). Comments: Tj ~ ~ . , L ' : V~1Y h. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 9, 1997 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Gene Useiton Mike Moliica Greg Amsden (2:15) Dominic Mauriello Galen Aasland Lauren Waterton John Schofieid George Ruther Diane Golden Tammie Williamson Ann Bishop Judy Rodriguez Public Hearing 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a minor subdivision to modify the platted building envelope for Lot 9, Spraddle Creek, located at 1229 Spraddle Creek/Lot 9, Spraddle Creek. Applicant: Dr. and Mrs. Singh, represented by Gordon Pierce ' Planner: Tammie Williamson • Tammie Williamson gave an overview of the request and said that staff was recommending , approval with 1 condition. I Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. He did not. Greg Moffet asked the Commission if they had any comments. They had no comments. , Ann Bishop made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0 (Greg Amsden was not yet present). 2. A request for a minor subdivision and variances from lot size (Section 18.27.050), landscaping (Section 18.27.100) and parking (Section 18.27.110) requirements for the .k. First Bank in West Vail, located at 2271 N. Frontage Roadfi'ract C, Vail Das Schone t. Filing #1. ~ Applicant: First Bank of Vail, represented by Joseph Miller Planner: Dominic Mauriello . Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes June 9, 1997 . 1 . s Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the memo and said that staff was recommending ' approva( with 1 condition. He explained that the parking variance and landscape variance were • no longer required. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. He did not. ; Galen Aasland asked if the use changed, would the applicant have to come back to address parking. Daminic Mauriello said the applicant woufd have to come back for a variance if a future use required more parking than was provided ior on-site, as with any building in Town. Greg Amsden arrived at 2:15 p.m. Dominic Maurisllo stated the applicant had a cross-access and parking easement with the West I Vail Lodge parcel. Ann Bishop had no comments. Diane Golden asked if parking spaces were included on the side of the building. i Dominic Mauriello said the landscape island was part of the West Vail Lodge. He stated that no parking spaces were being counted on the side of the building. Diane Golden said she hated to see parking reduced, but she was ok with it, since it was just going to be the bank, 7-1 1 and furniture store. John Schofield echoed Galen's comment, that if the use changed and generated more parking • than was provided on-site, the applicant would have to come back before the Commission. Greg Amsden had no comments. Greg Moffet had no comments. Ann Bishop made a motion for approval with 1 condition and findings, as listed in the staff memo. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. 3. A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Front Setback) and for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to aUow for the construction of a dormer addition, ,1,4 Iocated at 2943 Bellflower Dr'rve/zot 4, Block 6, Vail lntermountain. ~ Applicant: Frank Bannister, represented by RKD Planner: i a.mmis Williamson Planning and Bnvironmental Commission Minutes • June 9, 1997 2 h y • Tammie Williamson gave an overview of the memo and said staff was recommending denial, because there were other places on the site to locate additional GRFA. She then passed out a copy of the survey that showed the site plan and flood pfain delineation. Jack Snow said there were 3 variances granted in the Town of Vai1, with the most recent and comparable being the next door neighbor (Vlaar residence), having received a density setback and encroachment. Jack explained thai this application was not asking for any encroachment and that the applicant needed to be provided the same privileges as the neighbors. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were none. John Schofieid asked if there were any comments from adjacent property owners. Tammie Williamson sa+d, no. John Schofield asked about the 15 sq. ft. within the front setback and said that County records stated the house was built within the required County setback at the time. Dominic Mauriello said it didn't matter if it was lega{ or non-conforming, as it was annexed inta the Town. Greg Amsden asked it the appJicant was resurfacing the pavement. Jack Snow said, yes. ~ Ga{en Aasland said his comments were the same as Jahn's. ' Ann Bishop had no comments. Diane Golden had no comments. Greg Moffet said the biggest issue he had with this request, was that it was a grant of special privilege. Jack Snow said the neighbor had been granted approvai for a similar request. He said there was a 2nd f{oor on this building, through no fault of the owner. I Greg Moffet asked staff if they were recommending denial because of the 250. ~ Mike Mollica explained the Vlaar dens+ty variance was requested to utilize development potential ~ (GRFA) they had available. , Greg Moffet said he was having trouble seeing the distinction. Mike Mo((ica stated that the 250 was not a given for an appficant and the code gives staff specific criteria by which to review a 250 request. Dominic Mauriello said the neighbor had room in the setback and so it was not a similar request. • Planning and Environmental Commission Mimites June 9, 1997 _ 3 1 Jack Snow said he couldn't find a reason for denial in the code. Galen Aasland asked what the variances on the other finro lots were. • , Jack Snow said one was in Bighorn, but the file couldn't be found. He said the Shanley/ Broton duplex was a density variance, but the file could not be located. Tammie Williamson stated that density was different from what we were dealing with here. gr nt of John Schofield made a motion for aPProval, with the findin9 that this would not be a a rhood were 9ranted the same s ecial rivile e and that severaI of the homes in the nei9hbo P P 9 request and that this hardship existed. I~ Greg Amsden seconded the motion. ~ The motion for approval passed by a vote of 4-2, with Ann Bishop and Greg Moffet opposed. ~ 4. A request for a review of the Environmental Impact Report, to aliow for a new single- family home, located at 5111 Black Bear Lane/Lot 1, B(ock 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: RoIlie Kjesbo Planner: Tammie Williamson Tammie Williamson gave an overview of the staff inemo. Greg Moffet asked for any public or Commission comments. There were none. John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff inemo, to inc(ude the 5 • conditions. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. I~ 5. A request for a worksession to discuss a front setback variance (Section 18.28.070), to I allow for a deck expansion at Crossroads, located at 143 East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Haagen Daz, represented by Bill Pierce ' Planner: Dominic Mauriello ' Dominic Mauriello gave an overview af the request for a 1' setback from the property line for a- K~ 530 sq. ft. deck. Dominic explained that there would be no access, exGept for customers and that there were issues in this plaza that were unique. He said that staff felt the deGk could be ' pulled back a little bit and that the Town plans promoted dining decks with no parking bsing assessed. He said that staff alsa felt the landscaping could be wrapped around the deGk and a pedestrian sidewalk put in along the entire frontage. Bill Pierce explained that the owner wanted to do something and this was a starting point. , Planning and Environmenta( Commission Minutes • June 9, 1997 . 4 r , ~ • Ann Bishop said it was a great plan that encouraged street fife and was a focus point for families and kids. Bill Pierce said the low planter would double as a bench with fiowers behind it. He said the open railing would give the feel of being cioser to the street. He said the condominium association owned the area running down the west retaining wall of the building, and wanted inside walks, trees, lighting and heated walkways. He explained that at least 3-4 aspen and deciduous trees and annuals would replace the two lost trees and he would like it to step back from 3' to 5'. John Schofield encouraged the connectian to the Hubcap, with heated walkways. He stated that the bustop became congested at peak times and so, was in iavor ot whatever size was needed to help relieve the congestion. Greg Amsden mentioned that the Alpenrose extended into the street and that everyone walked in the street. Dominic Mauriello said the Streetscape Master Plan showed a separated pedestrian path going east from this property on, and was different at the Alpenrose location due to the lack of vehicular traffic. Greg Amsden said that undulating and stepping back helped. Galen Aasland asked if the bench on the east side could be for the public to use. Bill Pierce said, yes. , Ga(en Aasland said a setback could be granted. He said that since this was a bustop, he was I' comfartable with the path being stepped back 5'. He felt the whole west side was the biggest blank part of the request and suggested putting in a planter. Ann Bishop said a planter should be incorporated into the west side and more landscaping added. Diane Golden said this was a great improvement. Greg Moffet agreed with Galen for the minimum 5' for the sidewalk. He asked about the height I of ihe wall and suggested that the applicant think about lowering it. Bill Pierce stated that there could not be a step down on the deck because of ADA requirements. ~ He said, regarding Galen's comment on stone work, that there was no other stone in the shopping center. ~ e 4. Gaten Aas(and suggested boulders on the corners, similar to what the Hubcap has. , 6. A request for a variance from Section 16.20.010 (Signs Perm'rtted), to allow for two building identification signs and to allow for an increase in the size of traffic control signs, IoGated at Golden Peak Ski Base, 458 Vait Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applic:ant: Vail Associates, Inc. • Planner: Lauren Waterton Planning and Environmental Comnussion Minutes June 9, 1997 5 r Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the request and said that staff was recommending approval. She said this was unique, as it was the oniy ski base facility in the Town and that it . met all the criteria. Greg Moffet asked if ihe applicant had anything to add. Joe Macy, representing the applicant, had nothing to add Greg Moffet asked if there was any pub(ic comment. Diane MiNigan, the manager of the Ramshorn, said the Ramshorn wi11 be looking at fourteen feet of signage with the 7 signs. She asked that no lighting be allowed, as they were getting so much impact from the lighting from the building. She asked if there was going to be any intention of lighting, that it be brought back before the PEC. Tom Neyens, owner of Ski Valet in Lionshead, asked if this signage was only directionai for Go1d Peak and not for events. Greg Moffet said that there was no commercial signage included in this application. John Schofield said there would be directional for commercial, but not a part of this application. Joe Macy said this application was for 2 building identification s+gns and any signage alreaciy there had been approved. He said that conditioning this approval was not necessary, because any lighting would have to be approved anyway. John Schofield, Greg Amsden, Galen Aasland and Ann Bishop had no comments. ~ Diane Golden said bigger signs were needed on both sides. Greg Moffet said he had no problem with anything that would improve the traffic and that this application met the criteria. Ann Bishop made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. Greg Maffet said that because the sign was approved as nan-lit, the applicant would have to come back if it changes. . A~ 7. A request for a wvrksession to discuss a zaning code amendment, to apow for outdoor ~ commercial ski storage, as a canditional use and to allow for commercial ski storage (indoors) in aEf building {evels, located in the CCI and CCII zone Districts. Applicant: Vail Assaciates, Inc. represented by Joe Macy Planner: Lauren Wa#ertore Planning and I:nvironmental Commission Minutes • June 9, 1997 6 I • Greg Moffet recused himself for item 8. He explained that item 7, although the same appiicant, was quasi-judicial. He said item 8 related to a specific applicant and he did business with VA ski storage. He said that item 7 was quasi-legislative and so he will remain. He said if anyone had a problem with this decision, to come forward. Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the staff inemo. Joe Macy, representing the applicant, asked Lauren Waterton to strike the 2nd sentence in the 2nd paragraph, "under Chair 1", as this area was on Forest Service land and the Town had no jurisdiction (ski barns). He said that this was only pertinent to the needs in Lionshead. He said Lionshead was open in 1969 and beginning in 1987, VA changed their ski storage to wire racks and that when VA changed to ski barns, it became a non-conforming use. He said currently the zoning aAows for basement or garden level, which was too restrictive. He did however, believe that ski storage should not be exposed to the public on the first floor. He said that at the end of December, VA could have corrected the problem, but was restricted by the zoning. He said it made sense to have ski storage on any floor of a building, with the exception of being visible on the first floor. He said, with regard to B and C of the memo, that it was very unusual to have the largest ski area in North America and not be atlowed to have outdoor ski storage. Joe said, regarding D of the staff inemo, that the absent member of the PEC said " this was the most overregulated community he had ever seen.' Joe said ski storage should be removed in the summertime and therefore, he agreed with the seasonality. He said, regarding E of the staff memo, that VA would have to come before the DRB and he agreed that T-111 would have to be removed. Joe said with regards to G,H,I, and J of the staff inemo, either he had no interest or was ok with it. I, • Greg Moffet stated that said this request was a broader issue than just VA's Lionshead ski storage and if outdoor ski storage was wanted, what restrictions would be required. i Tom Neyens said that ski storage could be done within the existing rules right now. He said this may not be the best choice for VA, but it could be done. He said as far as changing the ordinance, it was not necessary, because a way had been found to do it that has kept ski storage out of the public eye. He said that Gold Peak had more than enough ski storage now. Tom Neyens said that he had 25 empty spaces and Chris Kempf had 25 empty spaces throughout this season and the whole iower level of the gondola building could be used. He stated to not change the ordinance, just to meet the needs of VA. Tom Friesen, co-owner of Mill Creek Sports, was worried about Forest Service Land and that VA would have con#rol over Gold Peak and Lionshead. He said he had to go through major hoops to have ski storage. He said if changed, when you walked up Bridge street, you would see storage facilities and the people who followed the rules were the ones who were going to take a beating'. He said Jimmy Mandel said the racks below Chair 1 were for VA's rental fleet and Tom didn't bu'y~ that. He said VA was full less than 50% af the time, making a quarter of million dollars and that"" Chris's Ski and Baot was losing people to the new building. He said if there were coin-ops we would be down over 50%. He said we had to get some of this stuff on the same field and that it was good to be downstairs. He mentioned that Gold Peak was not a true base facility and by chanqing the ordinance, it would be opening a big, ugly can of worms. Wayne Ward, fram Mill Creek Sports, said VA was taking too much of the pie. He said it was very limiting on what was allowed and business would iriple, if we were allowed to have storage • above ground. He said a fair chance needed to be given to everyone. Plaitning and L'nvironmental Commission Minutes June 9, 1997 7 Jack Curtin, from Curtin Hill Sports, said he was close to the VA ski storage operation. He said he had outside and inside ski locks and inside ski storage and basically, had no problem with . competition. He was however, concerned ihat this tipped the balance of fairness. He stated that when the original gondola was being renovated, there were no more than 287 outdoor ski locks aNowed in an agreement with Mrs. Hili and that she owned the alleyway between Christy Sports and ihe Hill Building and had access to the Bridge Street Lodge. He felt there should be grandfathering and would fight to keep and maintain what we have always done. He said the playing field was not fair and he could not compete with VA when they take on the base of the Mountain. He mentioned that when VA moved their operation to Pirate Ship Park, because of the ski races, our business was back to normal . Ann Bishop asked to see the agreement between Mrs. Hill and VA, that allowed only 287 ski lockers. Jack Curtin said the area was not defined in the agreement. Pepi Gramshammer said he had a couple of ski lockers in front of his bar that were not permitted. He agreed with Jack, that if VA used the Forest Service land, we should have the right to use it too. He said that if VA was allowed, then it should be allowed for everybady, as all the businesses were suffering. Ann Bishop asked, regarding Topic A in the memo, if there was a definition for commercial and ski storage racks. Mike Mollica said there was a distinction between ski racks and commercial ski storage. Diane Miiligan asked if the Town received revenue from the Forest Service ski barns. ~ Joe Macy said the ski barns were within the Town of Vai{ boundaries, but not under the Town's jurisdiction. Greg Moffet said we had Forest Service land within the Town limits. Tom Moorhead said he would have to ask the Town's Finance Department whether or not sales tax was being collected. He said there were some laws that were enforced on Forest Service land; such as deceptive use of ski facilit+es. He said the issue was whether or not the TOV Land Regulations could supersede the Forest Service land. He said Police laws were enforced, but as far as land use, it was not something we coufd prevaii on, so it may not supersede. Diane Milligan asked if the Finance Department could find out if rsvenue was co(tected on USFS land. She suggestecl VA reallpGate same of their commercia( space, if storage was such a prok~tem. Diane said Va said they would nat be in direct competition with the Town, but they -~~4 were. IW Ann Bishop asked if this could be a ballot issue voted on by the whole Town. Greg Moffet said, no. Planning and Envirorunental Commission M intttes • .Tune 9, 1997 . 8 ~i • Tom Moorhead stated that the Town Council was elected to pass ordinances and land use, if included. He said this was not the type of issue for a ballot and Council was looking for the PEC to give recommendations to them. Galen Aasland said ski storage was appropriate for this Town, as it encouraged people to stay. ~ He said small merchants and VA have the same interesk. He said he was concerned with allowing ski storage on first levels of buildings, as it could be located behind small offices. He said, regarding the ski barns in Lionshead, that when it was originally brought up, it was a good first attempt, but needed a better long term solution. He was concerned that 120' shou(d be regulated for the whole property and that previous racks should be aliowed to stay, unless the use was changed. Ann Bishop said since this was a very hot topic, she appreciated the public being here. She wanted to know mare about the agreements in 1980 regarding the 287 ski lockers and felt more public comment was needed. She said she needed more information, with time to review and research this more fully. Diane Golden asked for clarification between ski racks and ski storage. She said she really questioned why we had zoning for this in the first piace. She said she was troubled now that people had businesses in the basement and that people needed to be able to store skis on the levels they were walking. She asked why staff was recommending this be an accessory use. L.auren Waterton said the intent of outdoor ski storage as an accessory to existing businesses, was to prevent anyone from setting up shop outside. ~ Diane Golden said she was not sure about going with this yet, as it was a real hard decision. John Schofield stated there were 3 levels of ski storage; hang up for lunch, overnight and seasonal lockers and how they should be delineated would take some research. He felt a breakdown was needed, but suggested not getting overburdonsome. He felt the definitions should say what was appropriate in what location. He was nok convinced to restrict the 1st floor, but how they looked should be controlied. He mentioned that none of the bus stops had ski ~ racks. He stated that development standards should tie in with the use, location, safety and aesthetics. He asked Tom Moorhead to do some work regarding the issue under Chair 1 and to find out if we had jurisdiction. He suggested people in a non-conforming ski storage condition shou(d be informed, or notified that legislature was pending. Greg Amsden said this needed to be more specific in the types of ski storage and he echaed John's camments. He said since the types of ski storage were changing, differentiating the types would be Liseful. He said he was not apposed to first floor stQrage, as there wsre certain types that vuAUld fit on the first floar, s4 ik needed to be defined. He said the PFC would not have a sa . in the economics of USFS land being used; just control that everyone was on the same playing field. Greg Moffst said he felt we didn't have jurisdictian on USFS land and so complaints would have to go to the USFS. He feft short term and long term needed differentiation; not racks. He Said if a rnerchant concluded he cauld make more money on the 1 st floor, then he should do it. He said being in the public view should be uQry rsgulated and he agreed with staff regarding the development standards. Greg asked why the accessary to a.n existing business and if the base of the parking structure was legal, ar subterreanneai. Greg had na comment on the business • activity. Plar?ri»g ar,d Envir4rmental Coxninassion Minutes Itzne 9, 1997 9 Mike Mollica stated that this was coming back in 2 weeks for a final review. He asked the PEC what information the staff, or the applicant needed to provide. • Greg Amsden said definitions should be established with regards to item A. Ann Bishop said she would like the history of people who had existing storage and any agreements. Jack Curtin said in 1962, ihere were outside coin locks and his rack by the Sonnenalp was installed in 1980. Mike Mollica said, with regards to agreements between Mrs. Hill and VA, the Town would have no jurisdiction to enforce, or intervene. Tom Moorhead stated that there was no private agreement that the Town could be bound by, but if Jack would provide the agreement, then it would be appropriate for the PEC to disseminate. John Schofield said that 2 weeks was too short a period to notify people and that this needed more time. Ann Bishop agreed with John. John Schofield mentioned that ski storage was not a rush item at this time of year. Ann Bishop said another worksession was needed. Greg Moffet said whether this was solved in 2 weeks or 4 weeks was not a problem, so he suggested adding a worksession. • Mike Mollica said, with this application, Joe Macy had the right to request a final vote in two weeks. . Greg Moffet said to work it out with Joe. Tom Neyens said VA was trying to push this through very quickly. He requested taking time on this, as VA had all winter to keep the lockers. Greg Moffet reminded Tom that if the Commissioners were not comfortable with the application, then you couid see where this vote would go. Jack Curtin recommsnded thai the applicant have another worksession, as commercial ski storage needed to be defined. He said he would think Joe would want as much public input as possible, or in fact, VA was not as user-friendly as the company suggested. He felt a better t understanding of the issue was needed. Galen Aasland suggested that all the people who had comments work with the Town staff to give them these comments. Planning and Environmeatal Commission Minutes June 9, 1997 10 • i y , . 8. A request to amend the Golden Peak Ski Base Development Plan to allow for outdoor commerc+al ski storage, a parking lot attendant booth and outdoor wire ski racks, 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 Greg Moffet recused himself. Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the request. She said the development plan must be amended to show the location of the ski storage facilities. Joe Macy said the PEC voted 3-3 at the last meeting, which rneant a deniaf and so VA engaged a Traffic Engineer to address the circulation issues. He said there was an addition of the wire racks at the Children's Center and he was in agreement with the staff's recommendation. He said it was an allowed use and they were just amending the development plan to take care of the permanent ski storage. John Schofield asked if VA was going to put up a temporary maze. Joe Macy said pedestrian circulation was going to be different from last year. John Schofield asked if staff agreed with the size and nLamber of ski racks. Joe Macy said he and Lauren had discussed it. He said they were to be used by the kids and VA ' • didn't want kids going back and forth from the bus stop. Greg Amsden asked for any public comments. Kay Ferry asked how was it that a structure could be built and then it comes in for approval. Lauren Waterton said it happens when people don't know the regulations. Mike Mollica agreed, but said that was not the issue here with this item. Kay Ferry disagreed and stated that this was the issue and now we're addressing the issue. Greg Amsden explained that the Golden Peak project was a large multi-faceted application and many times things get overlooked by the Commission and now this was being brought into compliance. ~ Kay Ferry said we have been here an hour and two similar non-compliance issues have come- ~ forward. She said she was curious how this worked to begin with. Ann Bishop said the point of this exercise was to clean up the issues and she advised Kay that if thers was a problsm with the process, to take it to the Town Council. • Planning and Environmenta] Commission Minutes June 9, 1997 • ~ ~ Tom Moorhead explained that the Town staff was, on a daily basis, enforcing violatians or matters not in compliance with the zoning code. He said it happens that with VA, it gets a lot • more attention. He explained that there was a daily agenda and it takes a long time. Joe Macy stated that the offending structures had been removed, with no ability to put them back in. Tom Neyens asked if this area was zoned for commerciai ski storage. ~ Galen Aasland thanked Joe for the TDA study. Ann Bishop had no comments Diane Golden had no comments. John Schofield had no comments. John Schofield made a motion, in accordance with the staff inemo, with the addition of a third condition that stated that the number and size of the wire racks at the Children's Center be as outlined in the application. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0-1. (Greg Moffet recused) 9. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a brew-pub and a request for a variance from Section 18.26.040 J, to the requirement that no more than 45% of the ~ annual production be sold for off-site consumption and a variance to the requirement for 50% of the parking to be located on-site ( Section 18.26.150), located at 600 Lionshead Mall (Gondota Building)/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by David Thorpe Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. He said that staff was recommending that this item be tabled because of the inadequate loading and delivery plan. He said the area was traversed by pedestrians and parking and dumpsters did not present an aesthetic, or critical situation. He said the problem would be compounded, since 90% of sales would be off-site, compounding the problems with the loading and delivery area. Greg Moffet asked if the loading and delivery impacted the conditional use, or the variance. c - xDominic Mauriello said, both. He said that staff said the area needed to function to address ~ pedestrians and nat be an eyesore. He said the Town's approach ta Brew Pubs was very conservative when these uses first came before the Town, as with the Hubcap site. He felt that this site lent itself to being more productian oriented than the Hubcap, due to the ease of access and Icaading facilities. The laading area just needed to be maintained. He said staff would like to eva.luate the plan bsfore the final review by the PEC. He told the PEC to delete condition no. 3, as the pay-in-lieu may change, due to a modified floor plan. Uavs Thorpe, with Vaii Resorts, said the Bavarian brewing process would be the first in the U.S. and would bring iife to an empty space. He said it was a camplex project because it invalved an ~ overseas company. He said it would take 2-5 years to become financially profitable. He said, to Pianning and Environment.el Comnussion Minutes June 9, 1997 . 12 • clarify the parking-in-lieu, ihat 25% of the deck would be open and provided as an outside seating area. He felt the loading dock area should not be a burden to the tenant. He gave a delivery breakdown: solid waste (spent grain) wou(d require one pickup per day, beer and aie would require one panel truck per week and raw materials would require (5 ton panel truck) one to two trucks per month. Joe Macy said the loading dock area was controlled by a gate in the winter. He said his (VA) parking was there, so he had an opportunity to observe and suggested perhaps, scheduling the trucks when it was not busy. Greg Moffet asked for any pubfic input. There was none. Gafen Aasland said it was a good use and asked if the pay-in-lieu would count towards the new building. Mike MoUica stated, under the existing parking regulations, it would be credited to any new building. Ann Bishop applauded this use of the gondola building and said she would be of the opinion to approve the request at this meeting. Diane Golden said you can't tie the loading dock into this application and agreed with Ann. John Schofield advised moving forward, but with the condition of coming to a conclusion with the loading dock, which he felt was critical. He said the loading dock was not up to standards and • had to be fixed and with that provision, he saw no problem in moving ahead. He asked if that was sornething staff or the PEC would review. I Dominic Mauriello said with direction, staff could work it out with the applicant. He stated the issue also included aesthetics, screening and pedestrian access. Dominic MaurieHo said he had ~ observed the area for several months and that parking and too many dumpsters were on the foading dock. , Dave Thorpe stated the silver bins were used with plastic liners for garbage and with liners removed, to transport food up the mountain. Greg Amsden asked if health standards were up to snuff. Dominic Mauriello said, based on the odor, no. Ann Bishop said a Bavarian Brewery would make sure it was clean. Grsg Moffet said it was a very busy dock. He said it may not impact the tenant, but in order to ~see it mave along, there needed to be several conditions. He said that since it was a conditional use, we could add conditions such as; prior to a TCO, the applicant would have to meet all relevant codes, including health codes, appearance issues, pedestrian issues , visual screening and a control gate. Greg Amsden asked what the code stated regarding outdoor dining. • Planning and Fnvironmental Commission Minutes ' June 9, 1997 13 • . i Dominic Mauriello said the use was assessed for parking for the indoor dining area, based on the UBC oceupancy standards for the area. He said the Town had not assessed outdoor dining • I decks anywhere in Town. Ann Bishop made a motion for approvai, in accordance with the staff inemo, wiih the deletion of condrtion no. 3. i John Schofieid seconded the motion with a change of wording for condition no. 4 to read: ~ before abtaining a TCO, the site shall be in compliance with at( appiicable health codes and other Town requirements. I Ann Bishop seconded the amended motion. John seconded the amended motion. Kay Ferry said she objected to a manufacturing business and wanted a definition for "substantially reconstructed." John Schofield reminded Kay that this was a conditional use and could be called-up. Kay Ferry said that Lionshead was planned to be reconstructed to have on-site parking. Greg Moffet said the conditional use permit voids out, if the building becomes substantially reconstructed. Ann Bishop included in her motion, the findings on page 6 of the staff inemo. Greg Moffet recommended only including finding 3b and the findings on page 4 of the staff • memo. I Dominic Mauriello asked about the issue of screening. ~ Ann Bishop amended her motion to include finding 3b and the findings on page 4 of the staff I memo. I John Schofield seconded the amended motion. ~ The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. I John Schofield gave direction to the applicant to clarify the loading area with staff, prior to a CO ; being issued and that the conditions of the loading dock should be approved by staff to include ' the dumpsters, screening, compliance with appropriate codes and the pedesirian flow. s.. I 10. A request for a final review to establish a Special Development District #35, the Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/Part of Tract C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, inc. represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther Planning and L'nvirnnmental Commission Minutes . June 9, 1997 . 14 • George Ruther gave an overview of the memo and noted the direction given by the Town Council on page 2. He then gave a summary of the changes and said that staff was recommending that condition no. 7b, be created as a separate condition. Galen Aasland asked about condition no. 4. George Ruther explained that it may not be practical for 4 people in a 450 sq. ft. unit. Galen Aasland said the condition was too loose. Gordon Pierce said one of the conditions that Council wanted, had to do with the off-street loading and he stated that a 10- wheel truck could pull in. He suggested posting a sign in front of the building that said "No Deliveries." He said the swimming pool location was another issue and the pool could be moved over, but we would rather not, since it worked better with the terrace and bathrooms where it was now. Jim Lamont, representing the EVHA, said that day-to-day parking conditions could be handled, with the resolution being in front of the porte cochere. He said as long as the trash was contained in the building with its own storage room, thers wasn't a problem. Jim stated he didn't see employee housing listed as a public benefit on page 4 of the staff inemo. Gearge Ruther said the public benefits on page 4 were only 6 of the many public benefits that the applicant chose to identify. i Jim Lamont said the EVHA still advised that this property would be better included with its sister properties and ta clean up the language in the Vail Village Master Plan. He said the EVHA I • thought the pool should be moved further to the east. i John Schofield suggested not changing the design of the loading/delivery in the driveway. He ~ suggested not changing the design, but changing the management. Greg Amsden stated that the original approval was better. He said Council, in their efforts to save GRFA, have hurt the Town by reducing the number of hotel rooms eliminating a potential saurce of accomodation usage by not keeping ihe lock-offs in the development plan and only effectively lowering the building 4.5'. Galen Aasland liked this plan better and thought it an Pxcellent building, but would iike to see a deed restric,tion on the Gmits. He questianed the flat roof being 47.4' in height. George Ruther said, regarding the discrepancy in the height, that the zoning analysis was done without a roaf plan and instPad, numhers were ussd that were requested by ths Town Council. George Ruther advised using the Apri( 14th number, as they were accurate representat+ons. ~ ~ Ann Bishop read Mr. R..amont's zQning change and thought it was appropriate for the nsxt project. She said to keep the pool where it was. Diane Golden said she was disappointed that this project lost 3 AU's. • Planning and Environmentai Com.mission Minutes June 9, 1997 15 Gordon Pierce agreed that some AU's were lost, but the remaining were very luxurious in their size. • Greg Moffet thought it a splendid project with the pooi ok and with the staff conditions amended. John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff recommendations, with a modification to condition no. 4 and that 7b become a new condition no. 8. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The mation passed by a vote of 6-0. 11. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of the Alpine Garden Education Center, located at 620 Vail Valley Drive/Tract A, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTiL JUNE 23,1997 John Schofield made a motion to table item 11, until June 23, 1997. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 12. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a seasonal structure to be erected for • the purpose oi selling seasonal plant products, located at 2154 S. Frontage Road/(Conoco), generally located at: THAT PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 81 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, WHICH BEGINS AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH- EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY N0. 70, WHICH POINT OF BEGINNING LIES S86' 14'22"W A DISTANCE OF 1200.64 FEET AND N48°00'57"E A DISTANCE OF 380.04 FEET OF THE SE CORNER OF SAID SECTION 11, THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY N44°01'05"E A DISTANCE OF 190.0 FT., THENCE S45°58'55"E A DISTANCE OF 229.50 FEET, THENCE N85^36'13"W A DISTANCE OF 297.94 FEET TO TNE POINT OF BEGINNING. TRACT CONTAINING 0.500 AC. Applicant: Jane Mack Planner: Tammie Williamson WITHDRAWN BY APPLiCANT P ' 13. A request far an interior addition, utilizing 150 sq. ft. of the 250 Ordinance, to allow for ari. additional bedroam, located at 680 W. Lionshead Place/Lot 3, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Phylis Darnell, represented by Rob Levine. Planner: pirk Mason STAFF APPRAVED 14. A request for an interior addition, utilizing 150 sq. ft. of the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an Planning and Environmental Comnussion ~ Minutes June 9, 1997 16 s ~ additional bedroom, located at 680 W. Lionshead Place, the Antlers/Lot 3, Vail Lionshead ~ 3rd Filing. I Applicant: Larry Schwimmen, represented by Rob Levine. Planner: Dirk Mason I STAFF APPRAVED ' 15. A request for an tnterror addtt+on, utilizing 83 sq. tt. of the 250 Ordinance, to ailow for a new study, located at 1975 Placid Drive/Lot 15 Vail Village West Filing #1. Applicant: James Donaldson, represented by Gore Range Construction Planner: Dirk Mason STAFF APPROVED 16. Information Update Dominic Mauriello gave an update of the Lionshead Design Charet. 17. Approval of May 19, 1997 minutes. Greg Moffet had a change. John Schofield made a motion for approval, of the revised May 19, 1997 minutes. ~ Greg Amsden seconded the motion, as revised. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0-1(Diane Golden was not present at the 5/19 meeting) Diane Golden made a motion to adjourn. I Ann Bishop seconded the mation, The motion passed by a voie of 6-0. I The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. .~v Planning and Bnvironmental Commission • Minutes June 9, 1997 1_7