The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-0728 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on July 28, 1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: 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, represented by Helen Fritch Planner: George Ruther/Mike Mollica A request for a site coverage variance from Section 18.13.090 and side setback variance from Section 18.13.060 of the Municipal Code, to allow for the construction of a garage addition, located at 1780 Sierra Trail/Lot 24, Vail Village West Filing No. 1. Applicant: Marc Lashovitz ?. Planner: George Ruther/Lauren Waterton A request for a minor subdivision, to amend the location of the platted building envelope, located at 1094 Riva Glen/Lot 4, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant: SBC Development, represented by Resort Design and Associates (Gordon Pierce) Planner: Dirk Mason A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 2355 Bald Mountian Road, West/ Lot 25, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing. Applicant: Orthodonics Associates, represented by Rich Brown Planner: Tammie Williamson A request to amend the existing conditional use permit for the outdoor dining deck, to allow for the outdoor operation of a batting cage, located at 143 E. Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Dave Garton Planner: Dirk Mason A request for a conditional use permit and an additional 250 sq. ft. of GRFA, to allow for the construction of a Type 11 EHU, located at 186 Forest Rd./Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Mike Flannery, represented by Russell Platt Planner: Dirk Mason The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published July 11, 1997 in the Vail Trail. n1iVN0AY?IL Agenda fast revisal 7122i07 R am • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, July 28, 1997 AGENDA Proiect Orientation: /LUNCH - Communitv Development Department 11:00 am • Lionshead Master Plan - Review of design charette results (at Dobsen Ice Arena) with Ethan Moore (DRB invited to attend) (1 hour) 1:00 - 2:00 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT John Schofield Site Visits : 12:00 pm 1. Lashovitz - 1780 Sierra Trail 2. SBC Development - 1094 Riva Glen 3. Garton's - 143 E. Meadow Drive 4. Alpine Gardens - 620 Vail Valley Drive 5. Dobsen Ice Arena - Review of design charette results. Driver: Mike NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.rn., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.rn. Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. A request for a minor subdivision, to amend the location of the platted building envelope, located at 1094 Riva Glen/Lot 4, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant: SBC Development, represented by Resort Design and Associates (Gordon Pierce) Planner: Dirk Mason 2. A request to amend the existing conditional use permit for the outdoor dining deck, to allow for the outdoor operation of a batting cage, located at 143 E. Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Dave Garton Planner: Dirk Mason 3. A request for a site coverage variance from Section 18.13.090 and side setback variance from Section 18.13.060 of the Municipal Code, to allow for the construction of a garage addition, located at 1780 Sierra Trail/Lot 24, Vail Village West Filing No. 1. Applicant: Marc Lashovitz Planner: George Ruther/Lauren Waterton TowN 06 Vt16 Agenda laa rcciwd 7122%97 V am 4. 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, represented by Helen Fritch Planner: George Ruther/Mike Mollica 5. A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 2355 Bald Mountain Road, West/ Lot 25, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing. Applicant: Orthodontics Associates, represented by Rich Brown Planner: Tammie Williamson STAFF APPROVED 6. A request for a conditional use permit and a variance from Section 18.22.140 (On-Site Required Parking), to allow for the operation of a real estate office in the Swiss Chalet, located at 62 East Meadow Drive/Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 25, 1997 7. Information Update 8. Approval of July 14, 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 479-21 14 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published July 25, 1997 in the Vail Trail. • 2 1r? u Agenda last revised 7/30/97 9 am PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, July 28, 1997 FINAL AGENDA Proiect Orientation /LUNCH - Community Development Department MEMBERS PRESENT Greg Moffet Greg Amsden Galen Aasland Gene Uselton Diane Golden Ann Bishop Site Visits : 11:00 am 12:00 pm 1. Lashovitz - 1780 Sierra Trail 2. SBC Development - 1094 Riva Glen 3. Garton's - 143 E. Meadow Drive • 4. Alpine Gardens - 620 Vail Valley Drive 5. Dobsen tee Arena - Review of design charette results. Driver: Mike • Lionshead Master Plan - Review of design charette results (at Dobsen Ice 1:00 - 2:00 Arena) with Ethan Moore (DRB invited to attend)- 1 hour (DRS members Brent Alm and Clark Brittain attended) f S 'o 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 Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a minor subdivision, to amend the location of the platted building envelope, located at 1094 Riva Glen/Lot 4, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant: SBC Development, represented by Resort Design and Associates (Gordon Pierce) Planner: Dirk Mason MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH ONE CONDITION: 1. That prior to the PEC chairperson signing the amended plat, the applicant shall submit to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development, a letter of approval to amend the building envelope on Lot 4, from the Spraddle Creek Architectural Control Committee. MEMBERS ABSENT John Schofield ir?WNUVAIL Agenda last revised 7/30/97 9 am 2. A request to amend the existing conditional use permit for the outdoor dining deck, to allow for the outdoor operation of a batting cage, located at 143 E. Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Dave Garton Planner: Dirk Mason MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 5-1 (Greg Amsden opposed) APPROVED WITH 13 CONDITIONS: (10 original conditions and 3 new conditions) 1. The approval is granted until the use is modified or discontinued; 2. The use shall comply with Town of Vail noise standards, all other standards, and shall remain compatible with other uses in the area; 3. Landscaping and general maintenance of the area shall be maintained and remain in an orderly and aesthetic condition; 4. No outside cooking due to restrictions in Vail Village; 5. Maintenance of access to the ADA lift through the deck area; 6. Loading activities for Garton's must occur at approved Crossroads loading areas only; 7. Valet parking will be provided as necessary by Garton's; 8. A curfew of 10:00 PM on all activities on the outdoor dining deck; 9. An automatic timer shall be installed to shut the music off promptly at 10:00 PM; 10.. Prohibition on any banners or signs associated with the outdoor dining deck area and activities and all other signage on site shall comply with the Town of Vail Sign Code; 11. The batting cage hours of operation shall be from no earlier than 10:00 a.m. to no later than 10:00 p.m. daily; and 12. The batting cage is to be removed during the winter months and during any one week period of non-use during the summer months. 13. Any permanent or temporary storage of the batting cage, if on-site, must be enclosed within the main structure. 0 r Agenda last revised 7/34/97 9 am 3. A request for a site coverage variance from Section 18.13.090 and side setback variance from Section 18.13.060 of the Municipal Code, to allow for the construction of a garage addition, located at 1780 Sierra Trail/Lot 24, Vail Village West Filing No. 1. Applicant: Marc Lashovitz Planner: Lauren Waterton MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH THREE CONDITIONS: That the applicant submits a Geologic Hazard Report, pursuant to Chapter 18.69, of the Vail Municipal Code. The Geologic Hazard Report shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail, prior to the applicant submitting plans for a building permit. 2. That the applicant installs a guardrail, or landscaping could be substituted subject to review and approval by the Town staff, along the top of the existing retaining wall (on their property) adjacent to Sierra Trail. The design and location of the guardrail or landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail, prior to the applicant submitting plans for a building permit. 3. That the garage addition (and stairs) not extend beyond the existing retaining wall The applicant shall submit a complete set of revised plans to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval. • 4. 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, represented by Helen Fritch Planner: Mike Mollica WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 5. A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 2355 Bald Mountain Road, West/ Lot 25, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing. Applicant: Orthodontics Associates, represented by Rich Brown Planner: Tammie Williamson STAFF APPROVED 0 6. A request for a conditional use permit and a variance from Section 18.22.140 (On-Site Required Parking), to allow for the operation of a real estate office in the Swiss Chalet, located at 62 East Meadow Drive/Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 25,1997 3 Agenda last revised 7/34/97 9 am 7. Information Update 8. Approval of July 14, 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 r • 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 28, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision, to amend the location of the platted building envelope, located at 1094 Riva Glen/Lot 4, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant: SBC Development, represented by Resort Design and Associates (Gordon Pierce) Planner: Dirk Mason 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, represented by Gordon Pierce, is requesting a minor subdivision to allow for a modification to the existing building envelope platted on Lot 4, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to modify the location of the existing building envelope boundary lines. Generally, the building envelope will shift to the west of the existing platted building envelope (see Attachment 1). The proposed change in the building envelope location is intended to facilitate access to Lot 3, from Lot 4. The size of the proposed building envelope will remain the same as the existing envelope. The existing envelope for Lot 4 is 15, 18 291 square feet. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan illustrating the location of the proposed access to Lot 3. li. 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. 111. ZONING ANALYSIS The purpose of the Zoning Analysis depicted below is to provide the PEC with an understanding of the impacts on the development standards for Lot 4, prescribed in plat notes on the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision final plat. 0 f:\everyone\pec\memos\sbc.728 1 1TIWQo?? Existing Proposed Lot Area: 85,250 sq. ft. 85,250 sq. ft. Building Envelope Size: 15,291 sq, ft. 15,292 sq. ft. GRFA allowance: 7,016 sq. ft. 7,016 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 6,166 sq. ft. 6,166 sq. ft. 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. IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA One 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 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 application are 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 4 currently meets the minimum lot area requirements set forth above and the proposed building envelope amendment will not affect the buildable area of Lot 4. B. Frontaoe The Vail Municipal Code requires that lots in the Hillside Residential Zone District have a minimum frontage of 50'. Lot 4 currently has a frontage of more than 50' and the proposed building envelope amendment will not affect the frontage of the lot. C. Site 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 4 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 4. • • f:\everyone\pec\memos\sbc.728 2 0 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 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: To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: 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 Control Committee indicating 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 4. 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. 0 f:\everyone\pec\memos\sbc.728 Staff Response: Staff believes that the proposed building envelope amendment proposed for Lot 4 will not preclude a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives. 0 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: 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 procedures. Staff Response: This is an inherent goal of the subdivision regulations that is not applicable to the proposed building envelope amendment for Lot 4. 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 land. Staff Resoonse: Staff has no objections to the proposed building envelope amendment on Lot 4. The topography of the site has been taken into consideration with the proposed envelope shift. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a minor subdivision to amend the platted building envelope on Lot 4, 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. The recommendation for approval is subject to the following condition: 1. That prior to the PEC chairperson signing the amended plat, the applicant shall submit to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development, a letter of approval to amend the building envelope on Lot 4, from the Spraddle Creek Architectural Control Committee. C fAeveryone\pec\memos\sbc.728 4 Jul,. L'Y. l?Jf 1•'iJ? 11 f\LJViC1 LLJ 1017 II ? ? ho. j?)6 P.2/2 wised Wo. t3nve)Td --same. Wt as &6+?ARQ 4 N '01' 5" a3. 4' a VIEW LINES 1 mw rurc PC1'P3 FCC \_'+ I ow-? 1 Rvo oa j r + 15UILDIwA EMyEL q.,y 1 /? µ lr- R \lt5M MR TOWN OrVAAL 49MM -NTS , MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 28, 1997 SUBJECT: A request to amend the existing conditional use permit for the outdoor dining deck operation, to allow for the outdoor operation of a batting cage, located at 143 E. Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Garton's Saloon, represented by Steve Olson Planner: Dirk Mason I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST Garton's Saloon is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) amend an existing conditional use permit to allow for the outdoor operation of a batting cage, associated with an outdoor dining deck. The dining deck is located on the top level of the parking deck at Crossroads Shopping Center. The batting cage will be constructed of 12 dark green poles and dark green netting to match, with a 1/8 inch cable running down the middle to support the netting. Please see the attachments for the exact location of the proposed batting cage. • II. BACKGROUND On June 10, 1996, the PEC approved a request for a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining deck on the top floor of the parking structure at Crossroads Shopping Center. The noise impacts on the surrounding residential and commercial areas were the major concerns addressed at that meeting and at previous meetings. The 1996 conditions of approval included the following conditions: The approval is granted until the use is modified or discontinued; 2. The use shall comply with Town of Vail noise standards, all other standards, and shall remain compatible with other uses in the area; 3. Landscaping and general maintenance of the area shall be maintained and remain in an orderly and aesthetic condition; 4. No outside cooking due to restrictions in Vail Village; 5. Maintenance of access to the ADA lift through the deck area; 6. Loading activities for Garton's must occur at approved Crossroads loading areas only; • f:\everyone\pec\memos1971gartons.728 TOWN OFV.4Td!;:" 7. Valet parking will be provided as necessary by Garton's; 8. A curfew of 10:00 PM on all activities on the outdoor dining deck; • 9. An automatic timer shall be installed to shut the music off promptly at 10:00 PM; and 10. Prohibition on any banners or signs associated with the outdoor dining deck area and activities and all other signage on site shall comply with the Town of Vail Sign Code. Currently, the conditional use permit is valid until modified or discontinued by the applicant. A conditional use permit can be called-up for review by the PEC and revoked if the use violates the existing town ordinances. III. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town of Vail Municipal Code. In addition to the Conditional Use criteria, staff has included criteria from the zoning code and the Vail Comprehensive Plan, as we believe this will help the PEC in its evaluation of the request. A. THE TOWN OF VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE The proposed use is located in the Commercial Service Center (CSC) zone district. According to Section 18.28.010 of the zoning code, the purpose of the CSC district is: "to provide sites for general shopping and commercial facilities serving the town, together • with limited multiple-family dwelling and lodge uses as may be appropriate without interfering with the basic commercial functions of the district. The commercial service center district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to permitted types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient shopping center environment for permitted commercial." Outdoor dining shall be permitted in the CSC zone district subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60. For the PEC's reference, the conditional use permit purpose statement indicates that: "in order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their affects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses 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." f:\evei yone\pec\memos\97\gartons.728 2 0 B. VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 0 Several elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan address outdoor dining areas. The relevant elements and sections are listed below: 1. Land Use Plan 4.3 The ambience of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling and environmental quality should all be maintained or enhanced. 2. Vail Village Master Plan 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activities that are compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.1 Policy: Commercial in-fill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible green spaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 0 2.4.2 Policy 3.3 Objective 3.3.2 Policy IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit request to amend the outdoor dining deck operation at Garton's Saloon located at 143 E. Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing (Crossroads Plaza), based upon the following factors: Activity that provides nightlife and evening entertainment for both the guest and the community shall be encouraged. Encourage a wide variety of activities, events and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas. Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and shall be encouraged in commercial in-fill or redevelopment projects. 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 Vail Village area. The proposed outdoor batting cage promotes and implements many of the policies of the Town, by bringing people into the Village. 0 f:\everyone\pec\memos\97\gartons.728 3 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes the proposal will have no negative impacts on any of the above criteria. 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. The proposal should have no negative impacts on these items. The plans reflect consideration for pedestrian access and maneuverability and provides for the convenience of valet parking. The proposal will not change the existing loading, delivery and parking requirements for this use. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. This proposal is in harmony with the character of the area. The outdoor dining and batting cage implements several objectives and policies of the Town by encouraging outdoor dining and bringing people to the Village with new commercial activities. The proposal does not increase the scale or bulk of the structure. This proposal includes the addition of two lights mounted on poles twelve feet in height. The proposed lighting must conform to the Town of Vail lighting standards. B. FINDINGS The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followina_ findina_s before arantina a conditional use hermit: 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. • f:\everyone\pec\memos\97\gartons.728 4 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION i The staff recommends approval of this request. Staff finds that the applicant's request complies with all of the above criteria and findings necessary for granting conditional use permit approval in the CSC zone district. The recommendation is subject to the ten conditions from the previous approval and two additional conditions, as follows: The approval is granted until the use is modified or discontinued; 2. The use shall comply with Town of Vail noise standards, all other standards, and shall remain compatible with other uses in the area; 3. Landscaping and general maintenance of the area shall be maintained and remain in an orderly and aesthetic condition; 4. No outside cooking due to restrictions in Vail Village; 5. Maintenance of access to the ADA lift through the deck area; 6. Loading activities for Garton's must occur at approved Crossroads loading areas only; 7. Valet parking will be provided as necessary by Garton's; 8. A curfew of 10:00 PM on all activities on the outdoor dining deck; 9. An automatic timer shall be installed to shut the music off promptly at 10:00 PM; 10. Prohibition on any banners or signs associated with the outdoor dining deck area and activities and all other signage on site shall comply with the Town of Vail Sign Code; 11. The batting cage hours of operation shall be from no earlier than 10:00 a.m. to no later than 10:00 p.m. daily; and 12. The batting cage is to be removed during the winter months and during extended periods of non-use (summer months) and any permanent or temporary storage of the batting cage must be enclosed within the main structure. • f:\everyone\pec\memos\97\gartons.728 5 N p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o O 0 0 p 0 0 G O C) 00 O b? O? C? O 0 0 ?p GOO GO 0 000 • • d flight light ? Q Q Token Box 1 G r 0 0 Cage Dimensions 55'long 14'wide pitching Machine rr v 0) c? c 0 U- 0 0 Bar Oooooo ©0 00 Stairs 0 0 0 • 0 0 -r •,t , . - ?,,,,T -. w" , ?. ,,? ?'? ?"`, .??., if ?; ??' ???'?' ? f - - v'?6 t? "Zt. ....?_ r ? ?? ??? ^ ?.yz ?- ?,??• 2?.s , ,..r , - t i \ ~?._ • • • a .' MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 28, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance from Section 18.13.090 and side setback variance from Section 18.13.060 of the Municipal Code, to allow for the construction of a garage addition, located at 1780 Sierra Trail/Lot 24, Vail Village West Filing No. 1. Applicant: Marc Lashovitz Planner: George Ruther/Lauren Waterton DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The applicant, Marc Lashovitz, is proposing to construct a garage addition at his residence located at 1780 Sierra Trail/Lot 24, Vail Village West Filing #1. The garage addition would be attached to the west end of an existing three-car garage on the property. The proposed garage addition would be constructed using a portion of an existing retaining wall. The concrete retaining wall would be used as the rear and side foundation walls for the new garage space. The additional garage space is approximately 16'-3" x 21'-6" in size, comprising 355 square feet of garage area. The garage would encroach into the west side yard setback approximately 10' feet. The new garage space adds 381 square feet of additional site coverage to the property. A site plan and building floor plans have been attached for reference. According to Sections 18.13.090 and 18.13.060 of the Municipal Code of theTown of Vail, " Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent of the total site area," and "the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet." The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 18.13.090 of the Municipal Code to allow the structure to exceed the allowable site coverage. The allowable site coverage for Lot 24 is 2,187 square feet (20%) and the existing site coverage on the property is 2,352 square feet (21.5%). The garage proposal adds 381 square feet of site coverage. The applicant is requesting a total of 2,733 square feet or (24.9%) of site coverage. The applicant is also requesting a variance from Section 18.13.060 of the Municipal Code to allow the garage addition to encroach up to 10 feet into the required sideyard setback. Currently, no building encroachments exist in any of the required setbacks. if. BACKGROUND The staff has researched projects where similar site coverage and/or setback variance requests were made. The results of our research are summarized below: • I TOWQF Campisi Residence. 742 Sandv Lane (September. 19961: At the Campisi Residence, the applicant requested a site coverage variance of 1.5% (261.4 sq.ft. of additional site coverage). The applicant intended to use the additional site coverage to construct a third enclosed parking space. The PEC denied the variance request finding that no physical hardship or extraordinary • circumstance existed on the property that would warrant the granting of the variance. In fact, the PEC found that granting an approval of the site coverage variance request would result in a grant of special privilege. Ricci Residence. 2576 Davos Trail ( Februarv. 1995: At the Ricci Residence, the applicant requested a site coverage variance for 4.7% (526.5 sq. ft. of additional site coverage). The applicant proposed to use the additional site coverage to create an enlarged 2-car garage, as well as add a small amount of additional GRFA to the existing residence. The PEC approved the applicant's site coverage variance request. Dean/Rousch Residence. 2942 Bellflower (July 19931: At the Dean/Rousch residence, the applicants requested a 3.56% site coverage variance (287 square feet), a setback variance (4 feet into a 20-foot setback), and a wall height variance. The request for site coverage and wall height variances were approved by the PEC, but the setback variance for GRFA was denied. It should be noted that the staff recommended denial of the variances, but the PEC approved it. The interior dimensions of the garage were 22.5 by 22.5 feet, and the area of the garage calculated for site coverage was 576 square feet. Tavlor Residence. 2409 Chamonix Road (Mav 19931: At the Taylor residence, the applicant requested and was granted a site coverage variance for 1.3% (122 square feet) in order to construct a garage and building connection on the property. The allowed site coverage on this lot was 20%. The applicant was also granted a variance to construct the garage in the front setback (the average slope on this lot did not exceed 30%). The approved interior dimensions of the two-car garage were 21 feet by 20 feet, for a total interior area of 420 square feet. The garage contributed 462 square feet toward site coverage. Mumma Residence. 1886 West Gore Creek Drive (Februarv 1993): At the Mumma residence, the applicant requested and was granted a 1% site coverage variance in order to construct a garage addition on a lot that exceeds 30% average slope. The 1% overage on site coverage amounted to approximately 99 square feet. The interior dimensions of the approved garage measure 20 feet by 20 feet, for a total interior area of 400 square feet. The garage contributed 442 square feet toward site coverage. Smail Residence. 4238 Nunaet Lane (September 1992.); At the Smail residence, the applicant requested and was granted side and front setback variances in order to construct a garage and GRFA addition. The interior dimensions of the approved garage measure 22 feet 8-inches by 22 feet 3-inches (504 square feet). A site coverage variance was not necessary as a part of this request. Testwuide Residence. 898 Red Sandstone Circle (Auaust 1992): At the Testwuide residence, the applicant requested and was granted side and front setback variances in order to construct a garage addition to the existing residence. The approved garage had interior dimensions of 21.5 feet by 24 feet, with a total interior area of 516 square feet. A site coverage variance was not necessary as part of this request. Ill. ZONING STATISTICS Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Lot Size: 10,935 square feet / 0.251 acres. Development Standards Allowed Setbacks: Front: Sides: Rear: 20' 15'/15' 15' Site Coverage: Landscaping: 20% or 2,187 sq. ft. 60% or 7,112 sq. ft. Parking: 4 spaces required 0 (2/D.U.) IV. VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Pronosed Front: 35' Sides: 15.5', 5' Rear: 15.3' 24.9% or 2,733 sq. ft. N/C 4 enclosed spaces (2/D.U.) Upon review of Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, Criteria and Findings, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested site coverage variance and a conditional approval of the requested side setback variance in accordance with the conditions stated on page 6 of this memorandum. Staff's recommendations are based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Site Coveraae: Staff believes that the proposed addition will increase the bulk and mass of the existing structure beyond that enjoyed by other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. While the additional mass and bulk associated with this proposal may not negatively impact the existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity of the applicant's property, staff does not believe there is any indication of a physical 0 hardship or extraordinary circumstance which would justify the granting of a site coverage variance. Other property owners in the vicinity of the applicant's property have been able to construct two, three and four-car garages and still comply with the site coverage requirement. In fact, . several of the adjacent properties have a site coverage restriction due the steepness of the property (15%). Staff further believes that the granting of the requested site coverage variance would result in a grant of special privilege. Setback: The staff further believes that the 10' encroachment into the side setback will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on the existing or potential uses and structures in the area. Approximately 154 square feet of garage area will be in the setback. Staff believes that the existing structure dictates a reasonable location for the garage. Staff feels the existing structure could be considered a physical hardship to development on the property. 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, Site Coverage: Staff has traditionally supported site coverage variance requests when associated with the construction of enclosed parking, where none exists. Staff believes that it is beneficial to the community to allow individuals to construct garages, as it typically improves the appearance of the site and the surrounding area as a whole. In this case, the applicant will be eliminating one exterior parking space with the construction of the new one-car garage. In the past, the staff has required that each variance request be for the minimum amount of additional site coverage necessary in order to attain the desires of the applicant. Typically, when staff has supported site coverage variances for garages, the size of each parking space has been between 200-275 square feet. The applicant is proposing that the garage addition comprise 355 square feet of floor area and an additional 381 square feet of site coverage. Staff believes that while 381 square feet is excessive for one enclosed parking space, the size of the enclosed space proposed by the applicant is more a function of the size and location of the existing retaining wall than of a desire to construct an over-sized garage. Staff would recommend that if the PEC chooses to approve the site coverage and setback variance requests, that the applicant be required to reduce the interior width of the garage to 11 feet. This reduction will decrease the amount of additional site coverage requested, reduce the amount of encroachment into the side setback, and result in a variance, which is comparable to those approved in the past. 4 Setback: • Much like the site coverage variance request, the amount of deviation requested by the applicant for the encroachment into the side setback is a function of the location of the existing retaining wall, than of a desire to construct the garage in a specific location. As mentioned previously, the applicant is proposing to use a portion of the existing concrete retaining wall as the foundation walls for the garage addition. According to the plans submitted by the applicant, approximately 154 square feet of building area is proposed in the setback. Staff believes that the applicant is requesting the minimum amount of relief necessary from the setback regulations to achieve the desired goal, though staff does recognize that the garage addition does not require the use of the existing retaining wall. A new retaining wall could be constructed in a different location, which would reduce the amount of encroachment into the setback by approximately five to six feet. By constructing a new retaining wall in a different location, the amount of building area in the setback could be reduced to as little as 37.5 square feet. 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. Site Coveraoe: Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal, if constructed, on the above-referenced criteria. Setback: Staff believes the requested side setback variance will not have any negative impacts on the above-referenced criteria. B. The Plannino and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findinas before orantina a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. • b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the site coverage variance and approval of the setback variance, (contingent upon the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of the site coverage variance). It is Staff's belief that the applicant has not met the necessary criteria and findings in order to approve the site coverage variance. Specifically, it is Staff's opinion that findings B1, 133a, Bab and 83c have not been met and that the granting of the site coverage variance will result in a grant of special privilege. In fact, staff does not believe that the applicant is being deprived of any privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the Primary/Secondary Residential Lone District. Staff feels the applicant enjoys a residence which has taken up as much site coverage as other properties in the area. Staff believes that findings 131, B2 and 133b have been met in that the granting of the setback variance will not result in a grant of special privilege, since it is the staff's opinion that a physical hardship exists. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the applicant's site coverage and setback variance requests, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: 1. That the applicant submits a Geologic Hazard Report, pursuant to Chapter 18.69, of the Vail Municipal Code. The Geologic Hazard Report shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail, prior to the applicant submitting plans for a building permit. 2. That the applicant installs a guardrail along the top of the existing retaining wall adjacent to Sierra Trail. The design and location of the guardrail shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail, prior to the applicant submitting plans for a building permit. 3. That the applicant reduces the width of the proposed garage from 16-0", to 11'-0". The applicant shall submit a complete set of revised plans to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval. 6 • 13 IGAN SPRUCE CREEK 14 '1773 1 USES TOWNHOMES 15 783 GX- 3 / 29-40 1750 793 1? 16 180 Id }" 10 28 22 21 20 19 18 17 1795 27 2 25 24 23 1835 1825 1815 113 in v 915 1905 1895 1885 1875 1865 1855 1845 WFOTF. WEST GORE CREEK DR. • 1816 34 71 45 35 46 47 43 rr 35 1806 32 356 1936 1916 48 49 50 48 47 46 B I32 1906 1896 1886 1876 1868 1858 428 41 1824 3 P 54 49 45 26 6 1837 /1827 1844 40 0 1797 391787 7 5 1897 E 9 38 1766 ?-- • 1907 15 1828 -?} I 1 8 38 16 14 1 808 1768 9 ?. 27 17 13 98 12 f 1840 26 799 I 10 177 8 A 12 1850 820 25 ?y 18 788 778 772 I 1870 872 1800 7 8B 13 4 19 178 1759 ALPINE DR. 18744 7 20 g 60 171 1783 21 23 22 • 1785 22 7,3 Sfip?O 40 ,6 iq o? TAH E DR. 17 1788 27 15 16 1880 TqN 1780 O? • 30 29 28 ?R. 18 8 1786 17P 1 31 1784 1876 1878 18 ALPINE DR. 1882 21 • 877 20 19 1879 1881 SUBJECT PROPERTY 32 1782 TI- Nd-f ,ll y " rt y t j I I ul>L r...^ .. / Itr ,f,lN rt I ' I _ / I I I I / 14\11 ? I ?G=O \ "ILL ?L'NIU' I "' N?? ??i ." •-? :.?>IAI? I I - _ I JII' 61 1 r FLA N "OT 51tL' G.^-W 10a^5 ?.uoun8 G.?.f.A 3159 :}oC:J? ,ICE •,•.`..:,u+::E _ -^ _?•'_ .. j"=IO'"7° r! \ .vrl,i • • • _ ?I`si1r?G 71ti0 R WALL HEW 5TAIA U RAHPFArt- r'f'r>f'o? (anr?C,E F'oor- 0V6RNPN(d fl?g U)Ve, 1; OwNEg `'7rOiNo, ' Fhr /wv +a MMgPlRL? • I ? ? , _ -- --- ---- ---- -- - -- ???`?? AtJP vf?iArLg to Mrrcc4? ???rr?-?C??. 7 u p t__._. HAN pauR To HA- K?O Cx?5TiN6 aTErxF'kx)Frrl(o -- - r (,ON';14jCT PAR ,Tf`uGTUF-AL 14-woe-e¢S SFr noNS. F-A ISTINCe . 113L I /wt? ?'Gc.?? ovC?- Flzuf?n5?? i LV6C. of 1iK15TIN(a ?pV`?'v MAP-A6E F LAN i M cXtSTtrjC9 i-?5(.??c i \ f 1\? i I f? c????+ li?? 1? ! l f i C OAPZjZ'tt, rb >jArCtt ?XIsTiHG p l uRg?r Gom 1 Ne-W S AiJZUAI Wl 6Y o0r4 LoD? 0 Hal 6MP-VPAiL. TO HATCH ?x?Snr?G f?- Gu?.rit Ga(? Ixlb .?oaF St?ir?G , -- - To HqTC.A ;XIST1(Nro t i I w i l F6 j? 6-X.7aPlt4&TE ETA t iz-: At4p ?TAIrItN•c :1A1,1, /?5??1K? --- 'OFD v 1Tl ot.15 . III i •, FOPoSE-D 6APAOS AMnotJ 1 ??ST ?L E? vI? 0N MEMORANDUM • TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department July 28, 1997 A request for a worksession to discuss the proposed Betty Ford Alpine Garden Education Center located at 620 Vail Valley Drive/Tract A, Block 2, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicants: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, represented by Helen Fritch Planner: George Ruther DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, represented by Helen Fritch, is requesting a worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) to discuss the proposed Betty Ford Alpine Garden Education Center. The following issues are to be discussed: 1. Parking, Loading and Delivery; 2. Site Planning; 3. Off-site Improvements; . 4. Outstanding Submittal Requirements and Code Compliance; and 5. Proposed Development Standards. The education center is proposed to be located at the west end of the Ford Park soccer field, adjacent to the parking lot. The applicant has indicated that the education center will serve as a community facility devoted to fostering an understanding of Vail's fragile environment. The building will be approximate:fy 23,141sq. ft. in size (including parking structure). The center alone is 7,639 sq. ft. The space within the center is proposed to be broken down into several different types of uses. The applicant is proposing approximately 785 sq. ft. of administrative office space, 1,387 sq. ft. of gift shop/retail space, 239 sq. ft. of botanical library space, 3,009 sq. ft. of exhibit hall and classroom space with the remaining 2,219 sq. ft. to be used as workshop/storage, restrooms, mechanical space and common area. II. BACKGROUND The land on which Gerald R. Ford Park sits was acquired by the Town of Vail in 1973. The expressed goal of the $3.3 million land acquisition was to preserve the quality of life in Vail. On January 18, 1977, the Vail Town Council unanimously passed a resolution designating the property as the Gerald R. Ford Park. This unique and highly valuable 39 acre park site represents the last remaining parcel of land central to use by all residents and visitors of the Vail community. 0 f:\everyone\pec\97\memos\betty.728 TOWN OF 11AIL??' ?C In January of 1985, the process of creating a master plan for the development of Ford Park began. In August of that same year, the Gerald R. Ford Park and Donovan Park Master Plan was completed. According to the final report prepared by the project consultant, the Master Plan . is intended to direct the future development of the park and establish guidelines for the implementation of the future improvements to the park. On May 8, 1995, the applicant appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission with a request to amend the Ford Park Master Plan. The applicant was proposing to amend the Ford Park Master Plan to allow for the construction of the proposed education center in Phase IV of the Alpine Gardens (lower bench). Upon review of the request by the Planning and Environmental Commission and by the Town Council, it was determined that the applicant's request to amend the Ford Park Master Plan should be tabled until such a time as the Town of Vail looked into updating the existing Master Plan. In July of 1995, the Town of Vail, along with the major stakeholders of Ford Park, undertook a planning process to update the existing Ford Park Master Plan. Since that time, the Town staff has met with the stakeholder groups, conducted focus group meetings and held public hearings on a proposed Ford Park Master Plan update. The results of this public planning process has been a preliminary draft of the "Ford Park Management Plan: an amendment to the Ford Park Master Plan." Contained within the Ford Park Management Plan document are illustrative maps indicating the possible location of the Betty Ford Alpine Garden Education Center. According to the preliminary draft of the Management Plan, the most appropriate place for the education center is on the west end of the soccer field, adjacent to Vail Valley Drive. A copy of the site plan indicating the proposed education center has been attached. On February 24, 1997, the applicant appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission at a worksession meeting to discuss the parking and loading/delivery requirements for the development. At that meeting, the staff was recommending that the PEC provide the • applicant with direction on how the parking and loading requirements would be assessed. A review of the minutes from the February 24 worksession meeting indicates that the Commission felt that the applicant needed to accommodate the increased parking demand resulting from the proposed development. A copy of the approved minutes has been attached for reference. On April 1, 1997, the Vail Town Council passed Resolution No. 13, Series of 1997, which formally adopted the "Ford Park Management Plan: an amendment to the Ford Park Master Plan." III. REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT PLANNING RELATED DOCUMENTS The following documents were reviewed by the staff in the preparation of this worksession memorandum: 1. Town of Vail Municipal Code/zoning Map, 2. Ford Park Management Plan, 3. Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and 4. Vail Village Master Plan. f:\everyone\pec\97\memos\betty.728 2 0 Town of Vail Municipal Code/Zonina Map According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, Ford Park is zoned General Use (GU). As stated in the Zoning Code, the purpose of the General Use Zone District is as follows: "The General Use Zone District is intended to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards described for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 18.02.020 (general provisions) and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to insure the public buildings and grounds in certain types of quasi-public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to insure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate permitted types of uses." The General Use Zone District allows for permitted uses, conditional uses, and accessory uses. In the General Use Zone District, development standards in each of the following categories shall be prescribed by the PEC: a. Lot area and site dimensions; b. Setbacks; C. Building heights; d. Density control; e. Site coverage; f. Landscaping and site development; and 110 g. Parking and loading. The development standards for the General Use Zone District shall be proposed by the applicant as part of a conditional use permit application. Site specific development standards shall then be determined by the PEC during the review of the conditional use permit request in accordance with Chapter 18.60 (Conditional Use Permits). Any additional regulations pertaining to site development standards, in the development of the land in the General Use District, are found in Chapter 18.58 (Supplemental Regulations) of the Municipal Code. Ford Park Manaaement Plan The Ford Park Management Plan is an amendment to the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan. The purpose of the plan is to guide the outcome of future development, formulate design alternatives, and recommend development guidelines for Ford Park. The location of the proposed Betty Ford Alpine Garden Education Center is in general compliance with the plan. The plan designates the proposed site as a potential site for future development within the park. 0 f:\everyone\pec\97\memoslbetty.728 3 The following goals and objectives are relevant to this proposal: Goal #4 Resolve parking shortage and South Frontage Road access problems. 4.1 Objective: Develop a Parking Management Plan to include directed parking, enhanced shuttle bus service and other incentives to reduce the parking demand. Action Stec) 4.1.4: Improve pedestrian routes to the park by improving signs, lighting and pathway design. 4.2 Objective: Improve vehicular access from the South Frontage Road and improve parking lot design to maximize the number of spaces, aesthetics, and safety, while mitigating environmental impacts. Action Step 4.2.2: Design and construct improvements to all existing parking areas that maximize the number of parking spaces with landscape buffering and treating surface stormwater run-off. Goal #5 Improve internal pedestrian circulation within Ford Park and the pedestrian connections between Ford Park and Vail Village. Policy Statement 14: Any uses added to Ford Park in the future shall be structured to encourage users or participants to walk or, ride the bus rather than drive. Policy Statement 15: Pedestrian access to the Park from Vail Village should be easy and visible. The park shall be as pedestrian-friendly as possible. 5.2 Obiective: Improve pedestrian routes to Ford Park. 5.3 Obiective: Improve internal pedestrian circulation within Ford Park. Town of Vail Streetscaoe Master Plan The purpose of the Streetscape Master Plan is to provide a comprehensive and coordinated conceptual design for streetscape improvements that are supported by the community, enrich the aesthetic appearance of the Town, and emphasize the importance of craftsmanship and creative design in order to create an excellent pedestrian experience. According to the plan, the proposed development site is located within the East Village Study Area. The East Village Study Area is defined as that part of Town generally located east of Mill Creek to the Town soccer field. The primary goals for improvements within the East Village Study Area identified in the plan are to create a safe environment for the pedestrian along Vail Valley Drive while accommodating the heavy vehicular traffic, and to direct pedestrians to key destination points, such as the Gold Peak ski base facility, the Children's Center, Ford Park, and the amphitheater. The proposed streetscape improvements for the East Village Study Area are, in part; f:\everyone\pec\97\memos\betty.728 4 Vail Valley Drive (south side, from Manor Vail's north entry to the soccer field): • - Concrete unit paver walkway, 8'-10' wide. - Retaining walls will be needed in some areas due to an inadequate right-of-way and a hillside being immediately adjacent to the roadway. There is no sidewalk proposed for the north side of the street due to the tight physical constraints along the northerly right-of-way line. Landscaping and site furnishings should be included where possible as the streetscape improvements are made. All bus stops and feature areas should provide a full compliment of site furnishings. Vail Villaae Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sector and in implementing community goals for public improvements. The plan emphasizes the critical need to balance and coordinate parking and transportation systems with future improvements. It is an underlying goal of the plan to ensure that the public spaces and pedestrian areas of Vail are not just remnants of private development, but rather dominant features in the experience of the Village. The Parking and Circulation Plan, an element of the Vail Village Master Plan, recognizes the established pattern of parking and circulation throughout the Village. A long standing goal of the plan is to improve the pedestrian experience through the development of a continuous network of paths and sidewalks. The illustrative map of the Parking and Circulation Plan indicates the need for a pedestrian way attached to the street along Vail Valley Drive, from the Children's Center to the soccer field at Ford Park. A copy of the Parking and Circulation Plan has been attached for reference. The staff identified the following goals, objectives and policies as having relevance to the proposed development: Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.3 Obiective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3. : Balk.' Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 3.1 OWectiv_e Phvsically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. • f:\everyone\pec\97\memos\betty.728 5 3. 1.1 Policv: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.1.3 Policv: Flowers, trees, water features and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.2 Policv: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. 5.1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. 5.1.1 Policv: For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core 1 Zone District, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the Zoning Code. 5.1.3 Policv: Seek locations for additional structured public and private parking. 5.1.5 Policv: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. 5.4 Obiective: Improve the streetscape of circulation corridors throughout the Village. IV. DISCUSSION ISSUES Since this is a worksession, staff has not prepared a formal recommendation concerning the proposed Betty Ford Alpine Garden Education Center. Instead, the staff has identified the following issues which we would like to discuss further with the PEC and the applicant: • f:\everyone\pec\97\memos\betty.728 6 Parkina. Loadina and Delivery As required by the Municipal Code, it shall be the applicant's responsibility to propose a parking plan which, in the opinion of the PEC, adequately addresses the parking and loading needs for the proposed development. Historically, parking has proven to be a reoccurring problem at Ford Park. The construction of an education center associated with the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens would, according to staff, no doubt increase the parking demand on Ford Park. Parkinq The staff would recommend that the parking and loading requirements prescribed in Chapter 18.52 of the Municipal Code be applied to the administrative office use and the gift shop/retail use. According to the parking and loading requirements, professional offices shall provide 1.0 parking space per each 250 sq. ft. of net floor area and gift shop/retail stores shall provide 1.0 parking spaces per each 300 sq. ft. of net floor area. Based of these figures, the proposed education center would be required to provide 3.14 parking spaces (785 sq. ft. @ 1 space/250 sq. ft.) for the office use and 4.6 parking spaces (1,387 sq. ft. @ 1 space/300 sq. ft.) for the gift shop/retail. Staff continues to recommend that a parking and loading requirement be prescribed for the exhibit hall and classroom spaces. The exhibit hall and classroom areas are designed to accommodate seating for 75 individuals. According to Chapter 18.52 of the Municipal Code, meeting rooms (auditoriums, classrooms, etc.) are required to provide 1.0 parking spaces for each eight seats. Based on this figure, the education center would be required to provide 9.4 parking spaces for the auditorium and classroom (75 seats @ 1 space/8 seats). The total parking requirement for the education center is 17.14 spaces. Loadinq The proposed education center is a conditional use in the General Use Zone District. According to Chapter 18.52 of the Municipal Code, any use listed as a conditional use shall be required to provide loading facilities based on a determination made by the Town Council. The loading facility requirement shall not be less than the comparable requirement for a similar type of use. Based on the types of uses proposed, and the size of the building, staff would recommend that the applicant be required to provide one loading berth. One berth is the minimum requirement prescribed by the Municipal Code. The applicant is proposing one berth at the front drop-off area of the building. According to the Ford Park Management Plan, the existing soccer field parking lot has the potential to accommodate 65 surface parking spaces. 57 surface spaces exist today. The applicant is proposing to remove the sUrfa.cP lot and to reconstruct 66 parking spaces as part of the development. Of the 66 parking spaces, the applicant is suggesting that 41 surface spaces be located to the south of the education center with the remaining 25 spaces enclosed in an underground parking structure. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to increase the current parking capacity by 1 parking space. Staff would like the applicant and the PEC to discuss the parking issues. More specifically, staff would request that the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant discuss the following: 0 f:\everyone\pec\97\memos\betty.728 7 How should the parking and loading requirements be assessed? Staff would recommend the PEG require the applicant to comply with the parking and loading requirements prescribed in Chapter 18.52, of the Municipal Code. How will the underground parking structure be managed and operated? It is the staff's opinion that since the applicant is not proposing to provide all the required parking, as a result of the construction of the education center, that 65 of the 66 reconstructed parking spaces remain open and available to the public at all times. Therefore, only one space could be reserved for the exclusive use of the education center. How will large vehicles be accommodated on and off the site? According to the applicant, the education center will be a resource available for use by the schools. Staff would anticipate that the students of the schools will arrive to the education center via large buses. Site Plan Staff has reviewed the proposed site plan and identified issues we believe the PEC and the applicant should discuss. Those issues are: Has the Vail Recreation District granted an approval for the education center improvements to encroach upon their lease area? On February 24, 1997, the applicant provided a written statement from Piet Pieters, Executive Director of the Vail Recreation District, granting approval for the improvements to encroach upon the VRD's lease area. Staff would recommend that the applicant provide a similar fetter based upon the revised plans. Where will plowed snow be stored on the site? Historically, the staff has required that an area 25% of the size of the plowed surface be allocated for snow storage. The proposed plowed surface area is approximately 18,285 sq. ft. in size. Based upon the 25% figure, an area 4,571 square feet in size will be needed to provide adequate snow storage. Currently, no snow storage areas are indicated on the site plan. How will on-site pedestrian circulation be accommodated? Like the applicant, the staff believes that many of the visitors to the education center will arrive on foot. Furthermore, staff believes that the vast majority of the pedestrians will be arriving to the site from the Village via Vail Valley Drive, or from the lower bench of Ford Park. Given these assumptions, staff believes it is imperative that an adequate on-site pedestrian network be provided. Staff would recommend a six- foot wide sidewalk be constructed on the site. Off-Site Improvements Should the applicant be required to construct or provide a bond for the construction of a sidewalk adjacent to the development site? As discussed previously, many of the Town's planning documents recommend that public improvements be provided by the private sector in order to mitigate any impacts their project may create. Staff concurs and believes it is reasonable and appropriate for the private sector to aid in the implementation of the suggested improvements. Specifically, the staff would suggest that the applicant construct a f:\everyone\pec\97\memos\betty.728 8 9 sidewalk in the public right-of-way, adjacent to their development site, which will provide access to the existing pedestrian ramp leading to the lower bench of Ford Park. The sidewalk will provide improved pedestrian circulation, increased safety and further enhance the aesthetics of the area. Staff would further suggest that the landscaping and site furnishings associated with the sidewalk be in compliance with the recommendations outlined in the Streetscape Master Plan. Prooosed Development Standards In the General Use Zone District, the development standards shall be proposed by the applicant as part of a conditional use permit request. The standards shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission during the review of the conditional use permit. The development standards proposed by the applicant, for the education center, are summarized in the zoning analysis below: ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: 57,137 square feet Setbacks: front: 25' sides: 158740' rear: 48' Building Height: Approximately 16' Site Coverage: 7,874 square feet C. Landscaping: N/A Parking/Loading: 66 parking spaces (25 enclosed, 41 surface) I loading/delivery berth Uses: Administrative office, retail, exhibit space Are the proposed development standards appropriate for this development? The staff world recommend that the PFG and applicant discuss the development standards proposed by the applicant and that the PF_C provide direction to the applicant on any necessary revisions. Of the proposed standards, staff generally concurs with the applicant, with the exception of the proposed parking. Staff believes the applicant should be required to provide a sufficient number of parking spaces to accommodate the increased parking demand resulting from the construction of the education center. Outstandina Submittal Reauirements and Code Compliance Issues The staff has completed a preliminary review of the proposed education center. Upon completion of our preliminary review, the staff has determined that the following items must be submitted prior to final PEC review: Please provide a signed and stamped topographic survey of the development site. The topographic survey shall also include spot elevations, at 25' intervals, along Vail Valley Drive adjacent to the development site. f:\everyone\pec\97\m emos\bett y.728 9 2. Please provide an area for streetscape furnishings (bustop bench and streetlights). The site furnishings shall be provided by the applicant. 3. A 20' inside turning radius shall be provided for the driveway and in the parking structure. 4. Please provide a detailed grading plan. The grading plan shall show existing and proposed contours and indicate adequate drainage. 5. The parking plan shall provide exterior parking spaces, 9x19 in size, with a 24' wide drive aisle. Interior landscaping shall also be provided in the parking areas. 6. The proposed retaining walls exceed the 6' height maximum. Please revise the grading to insure that the retaining walls do not exceed 6' in height. 7. Please submit a detailed landscape plan. The landscape plan shall include a legend indicating all plants species and quantities. 8. Please submit detailed building elevation drawings. The applicant is tentatively scheduled to appear before the Planning and Environmental Commission on Monday, August 11, 1997, for a final review of a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of the Betty Ford Alpine Garden Education Center. In order for the applicant to remain on the August 11 agenda, all of the outstanding submittal requirements and code compliance issues must be resolved by no later than Monday, August 4, 1997. If the applicant is unable to resolve the issues by the August 4 deadline, the final review shall be tabled until such a time as when the issues have been addressed. 9 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Since this is a work session, no formal staff recommendation will be provided at this tirne. However, staff requests that the above-listed issues be discussed so the applicant can receive specific direction on how to proceed with the proposed design and parking requirements for the Betty Ford Alpine Garden Education Center. 10 0 • UE C 0 Y ... , is A' s • 6. A request for a worksession to discuss the development standards for the proposed Alpine Gardens Education Center, to be located generally west of the Ford Park Athletic Fields, on a part of Tract A, Block 2, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Betty Ford Alpine Gardens Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo and said that the discussion today would only include the parking and loading issue, or something else that was relevant to parking and loading. He said that the inclusion of two classrooms and auditoriums required the parking to be assessed according to the various types of the uses in the building. He said the discussion needs to include the use of the auditorium and classrooms and that the applicant needed direction from the PEC. Greg Moffet asked for the applicant to comment. Helen Fritch, President of the Board, said she was accompanied by Sammye Meadows and David Kenyon of Design Workshop. She said she had moved the building to the soccer field at the request of the neighbors and the Town staff. She was pleased with the move, as there was now access to park. She explained that this was the first drawing from Fisher Architect and Galvin Design. She said that the whole building would have the capacity to open up and be a gathering space for receptions, etc., and that it would be for multi-purpose use. She said that the purpose of the auditorium was for orientation with a theater for exhibits. Helen said that the staff office space may need to be larger. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes . February 24, 1997 9 David Kenyon, Design Workshop, said that he had been working with Helen for several months. He then showed aerial drawings with the first conceptual location and described it as an orientation document. He was asked to reconfigure the existing parking and said that there were 57 striped spaces in the parking lot today. He said the Town staff said there would be 65 spaces as the base line if restriped. David explained that over 20 studies had been done regarding the building design and parking. He said they modified the building shape to maximize the surface parking spaces south of it. He said there would be retaining walls inside the berm for rock gardens and that the building was built directly into the berm with the courtyard looking at the Gore Range across the soccer field. He said that this was a compromise from the old donut- shape plan. He said that the berm came up to the top roofline, so you couldn't see the roofline as you approached from the west. He then showed the parking lot two ways. He said the drop- off area allowed for valet-type parking. He said the building was still conceptual with two parking lot alternatives. He said there had also been discussion on whether or not to add a parking structure to this site. He said Todd Oppenheimer had taken a look at it and he had added 6-8 parking spaces. He said that a parking structure would encroach into the soccer field with the access ramp cutting into the Northwoods berm and that there were off-site considerations to be considered with a structure. He said the applicant would like some feedback on how many spaces would need to be added to the baseline of 65 parking spaces. He said that stackable chairs would be used in the auditorium space which would be used as lecture space or group gatherings. George Ruther asked how often did they expect to use the center as a multi-purpose space; once a week or once a month? Helen Fritch said small presentations would be on-going throughout the year to include approximately 10 people. Sammye Meadows said 3-5 evening lectures would occur during the week. . Helen Fritch said that this was a shared parking space with Bravo and the soccer field in the summer. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. Jim Lamont, representing EVHA, said the neighborhood along Vail Valley drive would prefer to have the same principals as for Gold Peak; no net increase in parking with a management plan. He said that the management plan could mitigate a lot of the issues that came up at the meeting Susan, Lauren and I attended. He said our position has not changed from the Golden Peak situation. He felt an efficient parking structure couldn't happen on this site without complications. He said that 65 spaces should be made the maximum using a management plan for the allocation of the spaces. He stated that meetings would be episodic, but the auditorium might be showing a video all the time. He said the Rec District, Bravo and the Alpine Garden would all have episodic meetings, but the garden would have an on-going use. He said it needed a management plan. He felt it should be opened in the summer. He said for special events a special event gate would go down with an attendant to monitor it. He said a drop-off function for the elderly became a major point of concern, since people wouldn't be able to back out. He felt the width of the access road would cause looky-loo visitors and parking would be a problem in the winter. He said the intent should not be a skier parking lot which exasberbates the traffic flow Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 10 through there. He said he was supportive of this location change. He said that Northwoods was extremely nervous and if this would be a major tourist attraction, then Northwoods wanted bus access. He said the Rec District was concerned that the parking lot was into their golf area, which would be one of the major deterrents in additional parking spaces. He said that Northwoods was waiting to see the design of the building. To have the parking drive the site, when it's operating like a hotel has to be looked at, since this was a passive use facility. He said they didn't see the economics of a covered parking structure similar to Golden Peak. If this was a tourism venue, then parking should be in the north lot and if it was well managed, then there wouldn't be a parking problem. He said the neighborhood was not for any parking structures. John Schofield asked who Jim represented. Jim Lamont said from Northwoods to the Vorlauffer, but not east of that. Greg Moffet asked for any additional public comment. There was none. John Schofield said the potential would be the 114 seats would be used on a real regular basis and the existing parking areas were full. He felt the applicant would need to supply a substantial supply of parking; at least as many spaces as are already there. He felt the quantity of parking and management of parking were his 2 concerns. Helen Fritch said they were relying on the Ford Park Management Plan to increase the bus system to be on the Town shuttle bus. She said library users almost totally ride the bus. She said our summer studies show visitors came by bus. She said not to assume that everyone would go to this parking first and then go to the center. Helen felt that managing the parking was very important, as in the wintertime it was used for skier parking, with a lot of cars blocking in other cars. She said she didn't see that as a problem in the summer, as Bravo uses the parking in the summer. John Schofield said there was a fair amount of overlap and it needed to be taken care of now, so that it did not become considerable. Gene Uselton said wedding reception participants wouldn't ride the bus. Helen Fritch said the wedding party could park and allocate the guests to park elsewhere. She said if there was a Bravo concert, then Bravo should contribute to the management of the parking. She asked about the illuminated signs by the Blue Cow Chute stating parking was full. Jim Lamont said the management plan needed to be addressed by the Commission before this got approved. Gene Uselton said people preferred to drive their cars. Jim Lamont said these were issues that needed to be put in writing and addressed by Bravo and the Rec Center before this could proceed. Gene Uselton asked said what the EVHA wanted to do? Jim Lamont said the neighborhood wanted to see a managed parking plan. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes • February 24, 1997 11 George Ruther said the draft of the Ford Park Management Plan was based upon the schedule of events. He said that new development needed to accommodate its own parking on the site with no net loss of parking. Greg Moffet said if a net increase in use was perceived, then new parking was needed. George Ruther said new development should not be allowed without accommodating new parking. Jim Lamont said this was the first project to go through and we needed to manage it. He said there wasn't any proven management system. George Ruther said some management solutions would be to incentivise bus service. The bus service was not being used as articulated by the VVF and the gardens. Sammye Meadows said when people have called for directions to the gardens in the past, they were told to park in the structure and ride the bus and that had worked. Todd Oppenheimer said the master schedule for Ford Park will take care of that. Greg Moffet said there was not a management plan, so let's talk about the development standards for this project. Greg Amsden said development standards established for other zone districts need about 18 more spaces. He agreed that there needs to be a management plan in place prior to a final • decision on this project. Galen Aasland saw this as a wonderful amenity for the community and that the move had now made it a destination. He felt that the bus would not solve all the problems and there was a need for more parking spaces. He said access needs to be provided for catering, deliveries, etc. and that this was going to create a use for additional parking. Diane Golden said if you build it they will come; that it was human nature that people wanted to drive. She asked about the valet parking. David Kenyon said that alternative A in the packet showed 65 spaces with a brick surface with a roil curb to allow spaces that could be blocked in. He said this would afford an additional 10-11 cars to be parked but it pushes the surface parking lot 18'-20' into the golf course which would cause resistance from the Rec District. He said today there were 57 parking spaces and with a restriping the baseline would be 65 spaces. He asked the PEC to determine how many spaces would be needed based on code. Helen Fritch mentioned that David was trying to fit all the spaces on the surface without going to 2 levels. Jim Lamont said there was no bus service presently to this site and there had to be a commitment from the Town to provide bus service to this site. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 12 Henry Pratt said that he was pleased to move the building out of the garden and create a destination. Henry said the reaction is to apply TOV parking to this facility to accommodate the use. He felt that the parking area proposed was totally adequate. He said if it was made larger there would be a lot of golf balls into windowshields. He said to eliminate the parking lot and leave only enough for handicapped parking and staff. He suggested, in order to solve the no-net loss of parking, putting the parking on the Frontage Road or a structure at the east end over by the 8-lane highway. He advised to not increase the parking, reclaim some of the asphalt and only have a drop-off and turnaround area to get the parking out of there. He said we learned from Golden Peak, and the same standards should be applied as Gold Peak. Henry said he was not in entire agreement with the Ford Park Master Plan. He didn't want retaining walls. Todd Oppenheimer said we were talking only surface lots. Henry Pratt said a structure over there is not that far off in the future, since the Village Structure was full and it needed to be plugged into the Ford Park Master Plan Diane Golden disagreed with Henry, as no parking was unrealistic for the children's activities. She said that this Town had to be kept viable for families. Greg Moffet said ultimately a bigger solution needs to happen and we needed to see the Master plan to address the parking issues. He said this would create a stunning setting for weddings, but will result in a need for increased parking. He said there needs to be a sufficient increase in parking, but on what kind of a regular basis are the uses. He said that managed solutions do not address the times when no one was fully-staffed. He stated the concern of lower bus frequencies, as there were not enough drivers. He said he was very leery with depending too much on a managed solution. He said the PEC role was to develop standards for this use. Greg felt that there should be 25-45 net new parking spaces. ' Greg Amsden said the success of this center would be its access and to eliminate the island. David Kenyon said the elimination of the island would destroy the Gore Range view. Jim Lamont said Dave Corbin, with VA, would be interested in managing the lot if it could be used for his employees. He said that everything in Vail was managed. He said the only option was managed parking, as money was not there for a structure. Helen Fritch said a lid could be put on it in the future. Susan Connelly suggested astroturfing one of the playing fields. Jim Lamont said the visual impact from the Northwoods residents had to be considered. He said what was being dealt with now should keep the parking status quo for the use now. He felt Henry's solution was too quick. He said there was parking enough to justify that building and to proceed with a managed parking w/gate solution. Greg Moffet thought Henry's suggestion was too much to swallow at once. David Kenyon said Henry's suggestion was good as it would green up more space. He said if there was more demand at a later time, they could contribute to additional parking at the other structures in Ford Park. . Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 13 Henry Pratt said that he was pleased to move the building out of the garden and create a destination. Henry said the reaction is to apply TOV parking to this facility to accommodate the use. He felt that the parking area proposed was totally adequate. He said if it was made larger there would be a lot of golf balls into windowshields. He said to eliminate the parking lot and leave only enough for handicapped parking and staff. He suggested, in order to solve the no-net loss of parking, putting the parking on the Frontage Road or a structure at the east end over by the 8-lane highway. He advised to not increase the parking, reclaim some of the asphalt and only have a drop-off and turnaround area to get the parking out of there. He said we learned from Golden Peak, and the same standards should be applied as Gold Peak. Henry said he was not in entire agreement with the Ford Park Master Plan. He didn't want retaining walls. Todd Oppenheimer said we were talking only surface lots. Henry Pratt said a structure over there is not that far off in the future, since the Village Structure was full and it needed to be plugged into the Ford Park Master Plan Diane Golden disagreed with Henry, as no parking was unrealistic for the children's activities. She said that this Town had to be kept viable for families. Greg Moffet said ultimately a bigger solution needs to happen and we needed to see the Master plan to address the parking issues. He said this would create a stunning setting for weddings, but will result in a need for increased parking. He said there needs to be a sufficient increase in parking, but on what kind of a regular basis are the uses. He said that managed solutions do not address the times when no one was fully-staffed. He stated the concern of lower bus frequencies, as there were not enough drivers. He said he was very leery with depending too much on a managed solution. He said the PEC role was to develop standards for this use. Greg felt that there should be 25-45 net new parking spaces. Greg Amsden said the success of this center would be its access and to eliminate the island David Kenyon said the elimination of the island would destroy the Gore Range view. Jim Lamont said Dave Corbin, with VA, would be interested in managing the lot if it could be used for his employees. He said that everything in Vail was managed. He said the only option was managed parking, as money was not there for a structure. Helen Fritch said a lid could be put on it in the future. Susan Connelly suggested astroturfing one of the playing fields. Jim Lamont said the visual impact from the Northwoods residents had to be considered. He said what was being dealt with now should keep the parking status quo for the use now. He felt Henry's solution was too quick. He said there was parking enough to justify that building and to proceed with a managed parking w/gate solution. Greg Moffet thought Henry's suggestion was too much to swallow at once. David Kenyon said Henry's suggestion was good as it would green up more space. He said if there was more demand at a later time, they could contribute to additional parking at the other structures in Ford Park. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 13 • 1 F _-r?-?., - --_ J } v1 ? `?• ( POT('NTIAL PAf1 KING DENEAM f fIK\ iC?th';I?II?",PIIIIIIulllllll9l'_ ?. i a?t.'':% \ ? .' .?\ ` ?t 1 •?"? ` .•,1`` - l.;\t 1• ?\ .?r ?1,? l ? ? (t ?jY /. % ?i •' /.. !-`?_ \ - eon .° [I -- " _' ._ ? °• i jam.. - / ? ? 1 • /\ ,.?:_ ,• ?.J ---,?/, -. ^'? ? .? . _ ' - - -- - -_ -' _ . , _ :,_; , -_ l -- - 5 O'N _ f - PARKING AND Q- z-. CIRCULATION I\-- A PLAN VAIL VILLAGE PLAN =. EXISTING PUBLIC PARKIt4G • AREA LEGEND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK 0 1 1 i?w?S?i'te:7 PEDESTRIAN STREETSINp OR UNITED AVTp4 PLAZAS. 1 2 ? WALKS ALONG 6TREETSI ATTACNEO SOEWALKSI • • 3 dR.15a PEDESTRIANS SNARE STREETS WITH AUTO& 4 ss.yy}} BIKE/PEO. WAYS I REMOVEO FROM STREETSI 5 MT ~.l. i WAtKINp PATH ee FiP- --^ A t, / WIN& ?- A / e.,,M? ?L S' (r?f'i, /ti/? !' - ----- - - -- --t 'l• S'tAlf? r ??p / 6x?'?y?ox J V , Ir ?! ? / / r ?r r ? 1 -.-_ -a- ?' - 1_ '?• ?j`? r pl.??'"Ld? A• Seventh FStinq J?5`? .( 1 t / -? ! ? j`I' Vail V,Ilaga 1 f r r r ` I 4 - y !_' ; r 6?SF?PGL°? ?f • r 1?f?_'1`"ING - $1 5?? 777 , SUS G r'A} 1N? - 26 ?f?G-t`? / `1 1 11 111 ? ? ? xi y 1 } , r ? ? ?,__ , ? Y c? ?i'-P:3ir Pf?'{`1 1 ?\ Cl) i t I { ' 1 I n 1 1 1 1} 1 1 1 1 ! It 264 567,5 Op _(26• I l t 1 1 1 11 t y{ i 11 {? t 1 e `xTs 251 111 r AL L '- - ? U P -- 6236 0 • / / r ? per, ?? rJ' x 20' r ? I / - ; ' of `%,-_------ - - x \ v- j ?1•s?'-'r`"???°- / / ??N I r! 1 I/ 7 S.2 iT / j! 1 J r! r Lot A. BIOC e 2 ?t?,, •.,{ r r r J 1 1 = / Sevnth filing / .r n? I' r r r r .t ! Voii village• 1 i l f 1 r 24_6 / . ? 1 t t \ F7.T / 1 1 1` 1 1 1 ?1 , 1 1 I / \ Jl `op" C1P`?t'.11. I I I I l M 11 i i??? ? _ ' tt' I I I ` 1 ; l 1 t „a 6t5.? '27.5 I l i l y 11 +Vl I 1 ? ? 1 r t? j l l r r n ? ' !^\ ? rr rt t! r r + I 1 `?, r ` U 1 t r? r) t n \ \? \? ~\` r 1 rj .256 r r 1 DUCA TON r pRD ?LP1N? ?t ?It t ? i ' I r h-21' I ?- tNT1iY SiGNAG? {.}SIGHT- Z?7ugm?f? J t -\, \L rT T-i i ??rAlNING llAi.L - ;:X 1ST1NG ?-"? o?- ?11?GI?RM }-1 G?` ?If''f L ?-- acce55 b?-Iv? G 24' f f STAIf2GAS1; TOi^1?E?- ToTPJ- ?At?-DING - E? Sfi°G>~S Er.A1'f{G? LNG ? 25SF?G?S_ kzi' G- OUT6-twt-il . _ . - .- - uN.DE1zG??Nt? ??-Kaf?l'? ?I??M i 1 i F? • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 28, 1997 Minutes • MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Greg Amsden Galen Aasland Diane Golden Gene Uselton Ann Bishop Public Hearinq John Schofield Susan Connelly Mike Mollica Lauren Waterton Dirk Mason Judy Rodriguez 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 amend the location of the platted building envelope, located at 1094 Riva Glen/Lot 4, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant: SBC Development, represented by Resort Design and Associates (Gordon Pierce) Planner: Dirk Mason Dirk Mason gave an overview of the memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any comments. The applicant had no comments. He then asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. The Commission had no comments. Gene Uselton 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. 2. A request to amend the existing conditional use permit for the outdoor dining deck, to allow for the outdoor operation of a batting cage, located at 143 E. Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing. i 4 Applicant: Dave Garton r. Planner: Dirk Mason Dirk Mason gave an overview of the memo. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 28, 1997 1 ,i? ., Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any comments. He did not. He then asked if there were any public comments. There were no public comments. Gene Uselton had no comments. Greg Amsden stated his concern was that the deck was already crowded and the crowds would overflow into the parking area. Galen Aasland asked staff, regarding Condition #12, where the applicant could store the cage. Dirk Mason said if it was required to be stored inside, staff would not know if it was in the main structure, or off-site. Galen Aasland suggested amending Condition #12 to include off-site storage, Dirk Mason said that would be ok. Diane Golden suggested that the period of non-use should be 1 week. Steve Olsen said the cage would be put away when the conditional use expires. Greg Moffet asked how hard the cage was to take down. Steve Olsen said the pitching machine was on a pivot, which folded against the wall reducing its profile and would take 15 minutes to take down. He said that Steve Ruder had off-site storage available to use. Greg Moffet suggested amending Condition #12 to make two conditions for a total of 13 • conditions. Dirk Mason agreed separating the time of removal from the storage issue. Steve Olsen said Garton's could use wood bats to help the noise issue and that the pitching machine would be on the south end, to reduce the visual impacts and noise from the neighbors. Dirk Mason asked how the PEC viewed the storage issue, with the applicant pushing it up against the wall on Fridays, or should it be totally removed. Greg Moffet said it didn't bother him to just push it back against the wall. Diane Golden asked about the hours of operation. Dirk Mason said staff relied upon the noise ordinance and that 10 p.m. was appropriate, based on the noise ordinance. x Gene Uselton made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo. 9 Diane Golden seconded the motion. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes • July 28, 1997 2 The motion passed by a vote of 5-1, with Greg Amsden opposed, due to his concern that the • batting cage would not add to the ambiance of the Village. 3. A request for a site coverage variance from Section 18.13.090 and side setback variance from Section 18.13.060 of the Municipal Code, to allow for the construction of a garage addition, located at 1780 Sierra Trail/Lot 24, Vail Village West Filing No. 1. Applicant: Marc Lashovitz Planner: George Ruther/Lauren Waterton Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the staff memo and stated that she passed out a letter to the PEC from the Sierra Condominium Association. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any comments. Mark Lashovitz, the applicant, stated that this house was originally approved by Eagle County and annexed into the Town of Vail as an undersized lot. He said it was annexed into the Town already over in site coverage. He said that the house was constructed after the retaining walls were in place and if it was built today, he could have used the retaining wall space and stayed within the site coverage. He said he had a verbal agreement from his neighbors to the west, who were most affected by the garage, and they had no concerns. He said he would plant additional trees as a buffer between the neighbors. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. • Joe Borrell, representing the Sierra Condominium Association, located to the east of the applicant, stated it was poor planning when the house was built under Eagle County. He stated he was concerned that the garage would not be used appropriately, which would not relieve the parking problem. He said if the garage would be used for cars, then the Condo Association would be in favor of this request, as it would alleviate the present parking problems, but if the garage was used for something else, then the Condo Association would not be in favor of it. He said the applicant was a very good neighbor and if the applicant would say publicly that the garage would be used for cars, the Condo Association would be in favor of this request. Mark Lashovitz said it was his intention to park a vehicle in the garage. He said, regarding the 16' interior space, he would like the PEC to bypass the staff's recommendation. Galen Aasland asked, regarding the Campisi variance request on page 2 of the staff memo, that they created their own problems when they modified their space and that the staff memo should reflect that next time. He said the applicant's ski storage problem needed to be solved somewhere else, so Galen was not sure the applicant was entitled to 16'. He said there were some grounds for a variance, but not the full 16'. i' 4 Ann Bishop echoed Galen's comments about granting a variance, but not 16'. She said that all three garages should be used for vehicles. Diane Golden supported garages to get cars off the street, belt not 16' and she was not in favor of a walkway outside of the existing retaining wall. • Planning and Fnvironmental Comnussion Minutes July 28, 1997 3 Gene Uselton asked the applicant if he had problems with the staff conditions. Mark Lashovitz said the retaining wall was not on the property, but rather in the easement and he • didn't know what it had to do with this proposal. Gene Uselton stated when granting variances, the PEC had to ask what the TOV had to gain. Mark Lashovitz said he had a landscape plan showing the addition of more trees. He said he had a problem with the guard rail and the hazard report. Greg Moffet said the hazard report was routinely requested. Mark Lashovitz asked if it was within the rights of the Town, to request a hazard report from the duplex that was threatening his home. Greg Amsden said it was not in a Geologic Hazard Zone. Lauren Waterton said it was in an unstable soils area. Mike Mollica said if it was in a Hazard Zone, a geologic investigation would be required to insure the soils were stable. He said a portion of the retaining wall was on the applicant's property and the guard rail would be required for the portion on the applicant's property. Mark Lashovitz said there would be leaf and refuse buildup with a larger stairway, as staff was not in favor of granting 3' of stairway, which the applicant felt was more than adequate. He said it would reduce the amount of site coverage and he envisioned a concrete stairway with no disturbance outside the retaining wall. 0 Greg Amsden said we didn't have any authority to tell someone he had to use a garage for cars, as that was a property right. He said the PEC could judge only what the structure was. Galen Aasland suggested the applicant come back with an agreement between the Condo Association and himself regarding what is being parked in the garage. Greg Moff et stated that could be enforced in court. Mark Lashovitz indicated that the garage would be used for garage space. Greg Amsden said to use the existing stairwell. Joe Borrell said, if the space was used for something else and the Condo Association parking was encroached upon, we would be against this application.. Greg Moffet said he was willing to grant the variance up to the edge of the retaining wall, with no disturbance outside of the wall. He said that if it was constructed properly, it could be used for storage and that this request was distinct from the Campisi request. He said the basis for granting a variance showed that this was not a special privilege. He said it would be safer and the existing improvements and retaining wall showed that this was not a special privilege. He said the PEC needed to qualify the 2nd condition and if a landscape plan performs the same as a guardrail would, then he was in favor of landscape. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes July 28, 1997 4 171 Galen Aasland made a motion for approval and stated that the findings had been met, with the 3 conditions in accordance with the staff memo, with a modification to Condition # 2, to read that landscaping could be substituted subject to approval by the Town staff. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. Gene Uselton made a motion to rescind the previous motion. He wanted to change Condition #3 to state that all improvements stay within the confines of the existing retaining wall. There was no second to the motion. Greg Amsden said the applicant could use the garage any way he sees fit. Diane Golden said it was his garage. Greg Moffet asked how we were amending the approval. Gene Uselton explained that the addition not extend beyond the retaining wall. Galen Aasland amended his original motion, to modify Condition #3, to state that the stairs and garage must be contained within the existing retaining wall. Diane Golden seconded the amended motion. The amended motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 4. 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, represented by Helen Fritch Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica gave an overview of the memo. He stated there was a 17 parking space deficiency. He said as proposed, loading was a concern, because backing out would be a problem on Vail Valley Drive and the VRD had not yet approved an encroachment in their lease area. He said the VRD must give their approval. He explained that snow storage and landscaping would be detailed at the final review. He said that the Town staff was relying on the Vail Village Master Plan and Streetscape Master Plan, as it related to Vail Valley Drive improvements and that the pedestrian connection was imperative, in the least, to the Northwoods property adjacent to the west. Helen Fritch asked where the Town's walkway would extenflo. Mike Mollica said it would go to Gold Peak. g r Greg Hall said the only requirement Northwoods had, was for a sidewalk. . Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 28, 1997 5 Mike Mollica stated all outstanding issues needed to be addressed by August 4th, if the final PEC review would be August 11 th. • Helen Fritch said she wanted to have this be an approvable plan and the direction from Council was to use the surface parking for the public and the Center's parking under the building. She stated that the plan was expandable to add more parking in the future, if others wanted to participate in the expense. David Kenyon, from Design Workshop, said there was a lot of concern about the VRD and the encroachment. He said they used the existing surface parking lot as our baseline limit and squared the parking lot, which increased the parking by about 7 spaces. He said the parking spaces were maximized in an efficient pattern. He mentioned that from two perimeters, you would not see the building with the sod roof being built under the berm and therefore, the surface parking would also be hidden. Helen Fritch said all the parking was to be addressed under the Ford Park Management Plan and there would be no problem with the bustop, or pedestrian walkway. She said they were proposing racks of plantings that could be sold and also be an architectural form. She said this project added an amenity to the Town, as it would operate throughout 4 seasons, could be a community gathering place and was a tax opportunity for the tax revenue with the plant sales. She said it was more usable then open space. She said the parking was covered, well lit and protected and they didn't want an additional 16-17 parking spaces to encumber this plan. Todd Oppenheimer said the whole connection from the EducaLtion Center to the Alpine Garden didn't work. He also said the whole site drained into the garage, which was a mistake and would need an extra storm sewer. Larry Grafel said the Town's philosophy was no net loss of parking spaces. Helen Fritch said this was not the message we were getting from the Town Council. She said they were directed to go back to surface parking. She said that the Council said they wanted this building and if someone could tell us how to put in more parking spaces, to do so. Bob Kinney, a representative of the Alpine Garden Board, said the lot now had 57 parking spaces and the Council wanted to see 65 parking spaces. Galen Aasland asked if the underground parking could have a 2nd level. David Kenyon said cost would be a factor. Ann Bishop asked why 65 parking spaces. 1, Mike Mollica said there were 57 parking spaces there now, however, and the benchmark was 65 spaces. He said the applicant requested that the Town be a: partner in this venture. The Council declined. He said the PEC had the ability to determine if 17.:more parking spaces were required. Y David Kenyon said they had a discussion with the Town Council and thought perhaps no parking should occur here, because it was Ford Park, which led us to this design with 66 parking spaces. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes • July 28, 1997 6 Ann Bishop said there should be no net increase in parking, with parking only for people unable to walk. She said it was such a beautiful space and should be used for a plaza. Ann Bishop said to keep parking to a minimum, as it was to be used for an education center, with the money being spent on education, not on parking. Pam Brandmeyer said the same number of spaces were to be kept and it was up to the PEC to determine the appropriate number of spaces. Jim Lamont, representing the EVHA, said there should be no net loss and no net increase of parking. He asked if this was not a non-profit, would it be treated differently. He said there was general agreement that this was the project for this site and it would get mediated out as part of the management plan, because there were alot of uses for this parking. He said that all uses should share in the use of this facility. He said he had a meeting with a resident of Northwoods, who was not thrilled with the surface parking on this site, with a request that the surface parking go away. Jim said it was not common sense to add two layers of parking and also get this project accomplished and so, managed parking would have to be addressed. Diane Golden asked if handicap parking had to be designated. Mike Mollica said it would need to be provided. Bill Kinney said we would push the standards, as we want the elderly. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant talked to the VRD. David Kenyon said no, that they did not own the land and only a small area was in their lease. Helen Fritch said when parking went underground, the VRD was concerned with getting deliveries in and we have solved that. Galen Aasland said parking was a big issue and huge challenge. He thought it should be further to the east, with a loading zone to pick-up soccer kids. David Kenyon said the school bus could stop at the bustop. He said there would be a drop-off for ADA and small vehicles in front of the center. Helen Fritch said soccer pick-up could be where the bus turnaround was. David Kenyon said there would be 41 spaces accessible to the public; not 65 helter-skelter spaces. Galen Aasland said there would be more people here and tli;ere needed to be a place to pick kids up and also for loading. He said he didn't see room for a UPS truck or catering truck. He suggested the loading space could be diagonal on the corner. He asked where the applicant would store snow. R P 3 David Kenyon said on the soccer field. • Planning and Enviromnental Commission Minutes July 28, 1997 7 Galen Aasland said there should be a way for more short-term parking and suggested the applicant go to the Council to get the number of spaces. Ann Bishop said others sharing the lease, should share the parking management plan. She said, regarding elderly people and kids on bikes, she was not certain it was safe. She said having movable modules with plants was interesting, in a visual sense. Helen Fritch said the forms could be turned into a handicap space. Diane Golden was supportive of this project. She said that parking was used by many organizations and should stay that way. She said that soccer moms stay to watch their kids play and need to park here. David Kenyon said the intent of the education center was to have views and parking up to the windows would destroy that. Greg Amsden asked if there was any elevation change between the windows and the plaza. David Kenyon said would go from a $6 million project to a $14 million project, if more parking needed to go underground. Helen Fritch said there would be outdoor receptions and weddings in the summertime and we would need the plaza. Diane Golden said the applicant had made a concerted effort that this would not be parking for just the Alpine Gardens, but for other uses as well. She asked where would the school buses wait. • Helen Fritch said groups now wait at the top of the Vail Village Transportation Center. Diane Golden asked about off-site improvements. David Kenyon said there would be improvements along the road. Diane Golden said there needed to be a sidewalk. Helen Fritch said we needed to know where the sidewalk should go, as it was unresolved, but it would be nice to tie the sidewalk into the Nature Center. Gene Uselton asked if there would be a lot of activity in the winter. Helen Fritch said yes, and compared it to the Library, as a place for non-skiers. t Gene Uselton asked if a lift operator could park in the lot at 7:00 in the morning. Helen Fritch said we were looking to the Ford Park Management Plan for managing parking for large events, not being in conflict with soccer games, etc. Gene Uselton asked if the PEC was constrained by the Ford Park Management Plan. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes • • July 28, 1997 8 , f Todd Oppenheimer said no, as a lot of the parking was deleted and the PEC was to deal with it • on a case-by-case basis. Larry Grafel said the public must have an opportunity to park and that managed parking denies the public parking by limiting it. Helen Fritch said the Town may want to have underground parking in the future. Larry Grafel said we would want the applicant to provide for the future funding for the sidewalk with a commitment. He said the drainage problem was part of the site development. Gene Uselton supported the sidewalk and bustop. Ann Bishop said there needed to be a bike path with the number of kids on bikes. Larry Grafel said the plan was anticipated and agreed it was very congested. Ann Bishop said to expect a lot more traffic, if this was as wonderful as it looked, but it was very unsafe. Larry Grafel said this was no different than any other developer, with the off-site improvements. Diane Golden left at 4:20 p.m. Greg Amsden stated there needed to be a bustop on Vail Valley Drive at the expense of the applicant. He said there needed to be a parking structure and the applicant should sacrifice • some of the plaza for more parking. He said that all the parking would be absorbed by the need for skier parking. Greg Amsden said there should be some solutions for the different seasons. He said it was a historic use by ski instructors. Helen Fritch said VA declined to participate in any underground parking. Jim Lamont said the Town was not obligated to provide parking for all its employees. He said to argue "first in line," would not be consistent with a management plan that might be developed. He thought we could lease spaces for VA, to have control over these spaces. David Kenyon asked if we wanted to generate traffic on Vail Valley Drive. Greg Moffet said that 135 parking spaces went out of circulation with Gold Peak. He said that four times last season the structure was sold out, and this project would make the parking structure full more often. Larry Grafel said that 83 days in the winter both structures were full, which is triple. Jim Lamont said the Town was obligated to correct the problem if -the structure goes over a certain number of days being full. Q Larry Grafel said the overflow onto the Frontage Rd. was 20?days, up from below a 15 day threshold. • Planning and Enviromnental Commission Minutes July 28, 1997 9 Greg Moffet was concerned about taking another 65 spaces out of the pie, as it would alienate our customer base and it would also be unsafe to walk down Vail Valley Drive. • Bob Kinney said that in the winter there would be 66 spaces, with only 4 reserved for the Alpine Gardens. Jim Lamont asked about winter events that take place on a Saturday. Helen Fritch said the management plan would kick in. Greg Amsden said the management plan may not be in place for 30 years. Jim Lamont again said a condition of approval could be to have a management plan. Greg Amsden suggested considering usage of the plaza in the winter and also the east side of the plaza, which was underutilized. Pam Brandmeyer said the Town had increased bus service. She said that VA had purchased 45 parking passes to make up for the loss of parking at Golden Peak. She suggested putting together a parking recommendation for the Town Council, as this was the first test of a case-by- case review. She said there would be huge conflicts with parking with this increased use in Ford Park. Greg Moff et said a managed solution accomplished nothing. He said that because this was a GU Zone District, he would look the other way for the parking requirement on a day-to-day basis. Greg said he was in favor of this request with the caveat that no "reserved" parking space signs be in place for "Alpine Garden only." He would consider adding underground parking to the blue pass inventory to fully utilize the parking. He suggested letting the parties, Alpine Garden, VRD and the Foundation, work it out. He said that government should not work it out. Greg said a bustop was needed to work out the site planning issues with the VRD. He said there should be a sidewalk in front. He agreed with Greg Amsden, in wanting 17 more parking spaces. Helen Fritch said the skiers were cruising to locate an empty space and making the neighborhood unsafe and that VA would be interested in renting spaces. Ann Bishop suggested another worksession on the parking Jim Lamont said the users had to work it out amongst themselves. Larry Grafel said we would have 5 more sessions with VA to get a management plan for this year, but we would not have a plan until October 11 th. He said the dilemma was that there was plenty of parking in the summer and not enough in the winter, which was on a first-come, first- serve basis. He said that the developer said they couldn't pay for more parking and we can't predict what the Town Council wants. David Kenyon said all five plans have been alternatives for the parking issue. Helen Fritch again said the plan was expandable, if a need was required. Planning and Enviromnental Commission Minutes • - July 28, 1997 10 d - . . _ Ann Bishop asked how much would it cost for one underground space. • David Kenyon said about $25,000-$30,000 per space. Larry Grafel said there were 83 days that one or the other structure was filled and he said they filled a Friday night in Lionshead for the first time ever. Jim Lamont said that when we were looking at the swimming pool, none of these issues were a problem and if this wasn't a worthy amenity, then you should tell them to go away. Greg Amsden suggested putting parking (in the winter months) to the east, at the end of the soccer field. Greg Moffet asked for a summary of the parking issue. Greg Amsden wanted more parking. Galen Aasland said he was not in favor of adding parking spaces; just increased usage of the existing spaces. He said he would like to see spaces added on the south and adding parking underneath. Ann Bishop said she didn't feel the applicant needed to add more spaces. Greg Moff et said not to add spaces. . Greg Amsden suggested adding spaces during the winter. Helen Fritch said that this was a TOV lease, not VRD, and asked if it needed to be worked out with the Public Works Department. Gene Uselton agreed with Greg Amsden. Greg Moffet worried about large delivery trucks, with regards to loading and he stated that the PEC was ok with all the other issues. 5. A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 2355 Bald Mountain Road, West/ Lot 25, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing. Applicant: Orthodontics Associates, represented by Rich Brown Planner: Tammie Williamson STAFF APPROVED 6. A request for a conditional use permit and a variance:from Section 18.22.140 (On-Site Required Parking), to allow for the operation of a real estate office in the Swiss Chalet, located at 62 East Meadow Drive/Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 25,1997 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 28, 1997 11 Ann Bishop made a motion to table item #6 to August 25, 1997. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 7. Information Update 8. Approval of July 14, 1997 minutes. Galen Aasland and Diane Golden had changes to the minutes. Gene Uselton made a motion to approve the changed minutes. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0-1 (Greg Amsden abstained). Ann Bishop made a motion to adjourn. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. 0 C. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 28, 1997 12 Printed by Judy Rodriguez 7/29/97 From: Mary Caster To: Judy Rodriguez Subject: fwd: PEC MINUTES OTE====------=====7/28/97==3:53pm== se send a copy of today's (7/28) minutes to: .,Joseph Morrell 2210 E. Stuart Denver, CO 80212 Thank you. 8:38am Fwd=by:=Judy=Rodrigue=7/28/97==5:21pm== Fwd to: Mary Caster they will not be ready "draft" until corrected by all the staff maybe next wed Fwd=by:=Mary=Caster===7/29/97==8:12am== Fwd to: Judy Rodriguez Phat's fine I told him it would be a while. Fwd=by:=Judy=Rodrigue=7/29/97==8:33am== Fwd to: Mary Caster ....................................... On second thought, I think I can only send the "approved" minutes which won't be ready until after the next PEC meeting which is August 11th 0=by:=Mary=Caster===7/29/97==8:38am== Fwd to: Judy Rodriguez He'll just have to wait! I'm sure he'll call back if he needs the information sooner. Thanks for your help. SAD C () PI-1 or PPRovet Page: 1