The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-0309 PEC ~ THiS ITEM MAY AFFECI' YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS NEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission nf the Town of Vail will hald a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail an March 9, 1598, at 2.04 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration 6f; A request for a setback variance, a landscape variance, and a request for additional GRFA utiiizing the 250 Ordinance, to ailow for an addition to arr existirtg residence, located at 4214 Columbine Way/Unit 5, Bighorn Terrace. App#icant: Joe and Lauraine Skolasinski, represented by Galen Aasland, Architect Planner: Reed fJnate A request far major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for a frac#ionalfe€:club,lacated at 1310 V1lesthaven Dr., Westhaven Gascade Condomir?iums! Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther A worksession ta discuss a variety of alternative$, based upan different philosophies and methodologies, which defines the ailowable building height and general massing in the Lianshead Redevelopment study area. Planners: Mike Mollica/Dominic Mauriello ~ The app{ications and information about the proposals are available far public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Tawn of Vail Community Development Department, 75 Sauth Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour no#ificatian. Please call 479- 2114 vvice ar 479-2356 TDD for infiormation. Cammunity C7evelapment Deparkment PublishedFebruary 20, 1998 in the Vai( l`rail. T(iN'*VM Updated 3104 10 am ~ PI.ANNING AND ENVIR+C)NMENTAL COMMISSIQN Monday, March 9, 1998 AG ENDA Praiect Orientation 1LUNGH -Communi4v Develapment Department 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 12:45 pm 1. Skolasinski - 4214 Columbine Way 2. Cascade ViNage - 1325 Wesfhaven Drive Driver: George ~p.~;+~.. • 'I NC?TE: if the PEC hearing extends until 6;00 p.m„ the board will break for dinner firom 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. ~ Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2.00 p.m. 1. A request for a setback uariance, a tandscape variance, and a request for additional GRFA utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow far an additian ta an existing residence, Incated a# 4214 Columbine Way/Unit 5, Bigharn Terrace, Applicant: Joe and Lauraine Skolasinski, represenfed by Ga1en Aasland, Architect Planner: Reed Onate 2. A request far a worksessian to discuss a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for a fractianal fee club, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums! Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther 3. A request for a worksession on Stage 3 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Stage 3 includes the rationale and desired outcomes, which establish #he regulatory framework for height, mass and density of buildings in the study area. Planners: Mike MollicalDominic Mauriello CQnsultants: Ethart Moore & David Kenyon (Design Wflrkshap, Irrc.) 1 %AIL ~'OW Updated 3l04 10 am 4. A request fQr addi#onai GRFA utilizing the 250 ordinance, ta allow for a remodel, located a# 1998 Sunburst Drive/Lot 19, VaT) Valley 3rd Filing. Applicant: Nate Accardo, represented by Da1e Smith, Fritzlen, Pierce Briner ~ Architects Planner. Reed Onate TABLED UNITL. MARGH 23, 1998 5. Information Update 6. Approval of February 23, 1998 minutes. The applications and information about the propasals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Deveiopment Department, 75 Soufh Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request wi#h 24 hour notification. Please ca11479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD fior information. Communiiy Development Department Published March 6, 1998 in #he Vaif Trai1. ~ ~ 2 ~ Updatcd 311 d 10 am PL.ANNING AND ENViFtONMENTAL COMMISSIC3N Monday, March 9, 1998 FINAL AGENDA Project C?rienta#ion lLUIVCH - Community Development Department 12.00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Mofifet Greg Amsden Ga1en Raslanc( Gene Uselton Diane Golden (2:10 pm - 4:40pm) John Schofield Ann Bishop (left at 4:40 pm) Site Visits : 12.45 pm 1. Skolasinski - 4214 Columbine UVay 1 Cascade Village - 1325 Westhaven Drive ~ Driver: George all NOTE: If the PEC hearing e>ttends until 8.00 p.m., the board wiil break for dinner fram 6:00 - 6:30 p.m, Public Hearing - Town Cauncil Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request far a setback variance, a landscape variance, and a request #or addi#ional GRFA utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an addition to an existing residence, located a# 4214 Columbine WaylUnit 5, Bighorn Terrace. Applican#: Joe and Lauraine Skolasinski, represented by Galen Aasland, Archi#ect Planner: Reed Onate MC3TI4N:John Schofield SEG(JND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 5-0-1 {Aasland recused} APPROVED 2. A request for a warksessian fio discuss a major amendment to SDD #4, to aIbw ftar a fractianal fee elub, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr,, Westhaven Gondominiumsl Cascade ViHage Rrea A. AppFican#; Geraid L. Wurhmann, represented by Rabby Robinson ~ Planner: George Ruther WORKSES51t)N - N0 VC?TE 1 ~ rowNOxu~ Updated 3110 10 am 3. A request for a worksession on Stage 3 afi the l.innshead Redevelopment Master Pian. Stage 3 includes fhe rationale and desired outcomes, wnich establish the regulatary ~ framewark for height, mass and density of buildings in the s#udy area. Pianners: Mike Mollica/Dominic Mauriello Cansuitants: Ethan Moore & David Kenyon (aesign Workshop, Inc.) WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 4. A reguest for additonal GRFA utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a remodel, located at 1998 Sunburst Drive/Lot 19, Vail Valiey 3rd Filing. Applicant: Nate Accardo, represented by Dale Smith, Fritzlen, Pierce Briner Architects f'lanner: Reed Onate TABLED UNITL MARCH 23, 1998 b. Informatian Update 6. Approval of February 23, 1998 minutes. The appl'rcatians and infarmation about the prapasals are available for public inspection during regular ofifice hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Fran#age F2oad. Sign language interpretatinn available upan request with 24 hour natification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 ~ TqD for information. Community C7evelopmant Depertment . ~ 2 MEMORAN[3UM ~ TO: Pianning and Envirnnmental Commissian FROM: Cammunity Develapment Department DATE; March 9, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a se#back variance, a landscape variance, and a request for additional GRFA utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to aIlaw , ' fpr an atldition ta an existing residence, iocated at 4214 Columbin& ' WaylUnit 5, Bighorn Terrace. Applicants; Joe and Lauraine Skolasinski, represenfed by GaJen Aasland. ' Planner: Reed Onate 1. DESCRMPTtt)N OF THE REQULSTS • The appfieants, Joe and Lauraine Skalasinski, are proposing toconstruct approximately'166 addi#ional square #eet of GRFR on the southwest corner of their two-story residence, located at 4214 Columbine Way. The existing house is located within the property setbacks designated for the Medium Density Multi-Family (MDMF) zone. The praposed new additian would be loca#ed within #he fron# and side yard setbacks of the property. The addition would remove a portion of ~ an existing deck and plan#er areas within the front yard. Vllhile iandscaping improvements are proposed as part of the project, the overall landscaping percentage will not meet the minimum zoning requirements. The Commission should note that the house is part of a duplex with #he adjoirring house (Lat 6) encroaching onto the Skolasinski property. The site coverage of the adjoining house's area of encroachment totais approximately 45.5 square feet. Additionaliy, the applicant is proposing t4 remove an existing non-conforming deck that eneroaches into the Bighorn Rnad public righ#-of- way. A#tachment A incluttes 8.5"x11 ° reductions gf the architectural drawings showing proposed building improvements. Attachment B includes a parcel map of the subject lot and adjacent'?ats. Atfachment B also shows the approximate location of the Skolasinski house and adjacent buildings. The applicant's representafive has aIso submitted Attachment C that includes site data, historical information, and written statements in response to variance related findings. In summary, the three discretionary approvals requested include the following: 1) additional GRFA utitizing the 250 ordinanae. 2) se#baak uariances for construation wi#hin the 20 foot side and fron# yard setbacks (proposed frcrnt yard setback = 17.5 feet, prapased side yard setback = 4.5 feet). 3) a landseape rrariance to allow for a 29°Io landscape percerttage where 30°lo is ~ required for the MDMF znne. 41L P: \EVERYONF\PBC\MEM03\98\SKOI,NSK; .G1PD 1 TOV~Va 111. BACKGRC?UND Accarding to the applicant, #he house was built in 1966 or 1967. Bighorn Terrace was annexed ~ into the Town after it was platted and does not meet many of the Town's zoning requirements, including a minimum lot size requirement nf 10,040 sq. ft. and a setback requirement of 20 feet. R 10-foot wide access and utiiity easement aiso runs within many of the boundaries of private (nts irt the subdivision, including fhe Skalasinski`s property (see Attachment B). The zoningHmits the areas in which most houses in the Bighorn Terrace Subdivision can accommodate additions. The staff has researched two projeets lacated in the Bighorn Terrace Subdivision in which similar . variance requests were made. The two projects are summarized beiow. As capied from a- _ previous s#aff inemo, Attachment D provides.some additional histarical data regarding former • variance requests and approvals. Benysh Residence 4242 East Columbme Wgy, Lot 7 Biahorn Terr.,ag,-e (April 1990): The applicant requested and was granted a side and rear yard variance request. The approved addition inc4uded the construction of a 228 sq. ft. addition on the north side af the building. Odum Residence 4254 East Columbine Way Lot 9 Bighorn Terrace(August 1982 • A modified applicant request was approved for the addition of an airlock totaling 25 square fieet in the side yard setback. Some of #he proposed building improvements presented in the original application were denied, including an additional deek and a 97 sq. ft. addition within rear and side yard setbaeks. 111, Z4NING STATISTICS ~ Lot Size: 1,374 square feet Zoning: Medium L7ensity Multi-Family (MDMF) Allbwed Existin Proaosed GRFA; 706 sq. ft. (w/o 250) 788 sq. ft. 954 sq, ft. 1038 sq, ft (w/ 250)` Setbacks: Front; 20' 19` 17.5` sideS: 20' 7'/ o' 4.57 o~ Reap: zo' <asT <0.5' Site Goverage: 450/., or 618.43 sq. ft. 39°10, or 535 44.7°/a, or 615 sq. ft. sq. ft. Landscaping: 30'%, or 412.29 sq, ft. 35%, or 485 29%, or 405 sq. ft. sq. ft. Parking: 2 spaces required No CMange No Change `The total aliawable GRFA figure of 1,038 sq. ft. equals the existing 7$8 sq. ft. plus 250 sq. ft. allowable by ardinance. ~ F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\98\SKOLNSIiI.WPD 2 IV. CRtTER1A AND FlND1NGS ~ A. C.Qnsideration of Factc?rs Regardinq the Setback@nd Landscape Variances: Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 12-17-6 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community aevelopment Department recommends approval of the requested variances based on the foliowing factors: . 1. The relationship of the requested variance to otber existing or . patential uses and structures in the vicinit#y. Staff believes that the proposed addition will be eompatible with the surraunding development tha# includes non-conforming lat sizes. The additional mass and bulk proposed is similar to #hat enjoyed by surraunding hames in the area. The applicants are proposing to locate the addition approximately 17.5 feet frqm the front praperty line and 4.5 feet from the western side yard praperty line. The proposed location will result in a distance of approximately 4 feet from the edge af the asphal# to the buiiding additions south facing elevatian. Staff would like #o point out that the applicant is alsopropdsing tv remove a non-confarming deck at the rear of the structure, which encraaches into the Bighorn Rnad public right- of-way. 2. The degree ta which relief from the strict and literal in#erpretation antl enforcement of a specified reguiation is necessary #a achieve ~ compatibility and uniformity of #reatment among sites in the rricinity or ta attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Staff believes that due to physical cuns#raints associated with the size of the lot and the encroachment of a neighboring residence anta the applicant's lot, that relief fram the strict and literal interpretation of the 1`own code is warranted. The setback variance is warranted primarily due to the Io# size and the impacts the setbacks have on the buildable partion of the lot. The landscape variance of 7.3 sq. fit. is warranted largely because of the encroachment of the neighboring residence and an aecess easement in the front yard setback. Overall, staff believes that there would not be a granting of special privilege since surrounding houses in the subdivision have been granted variances and the compatibifity of the praposed house, with the proposed addition, is similar to sites in the vieinity. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution o# population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utiiities, and public sa#ety. Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this propasal, i# construcied, on the abovereferenced criteria. ~ F:\EVERYdNE\pEC\MEMbS\98\SKOLNSkI.WPD 3 B. Qonsideration of Factars Regarding Gran#ing GRFA Under the 250 C?rdinance: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Enviranmental ~ Commission shaH cansider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: i. E#fec# upon the exis#ing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. The praposal will have na significant impacts upon existing tapography and . vegetation. The exterior addition would encroach into existing deck and . " planter area. Staff does not believe that the exterior additions would , significantiy affect existing site topography, vegeta#ion, drainage, ar existing structures. 2. Impact on adjacent praper#ies. The addition should not adversely af#ect views, light, or air enjoyed by adjacent structures. Staff believes that the proposed additions wili not have a significant impact on adjacent properties. Facade improvements would be made to the Skolasinski hause as part af the DRB applicatian. Minor ex#erior improvements are also proposed #or the adjoining duplex in an effort to make the iwo houses more compatible with ane anather. 3. Compliance with the Tovun's zoning requirements and applicable develapment standards. Section 12-15-5.8.6 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any ~ dwelling unit for which an addi#ion is propased shall be required to meet the Town af Vail Design Guidelines as set forth in Chapter 12-11-1 ofi the Uail Municipal Code. Additionaliy, before any additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with Chapter 12-15p the staff shall review the maintenance and upkeep of the existing single family or two family dwelling unit and site, including landscaping, to determine whe#her they comply with , the Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilit'?es, driveway paving and general rnaintenance of the property. While it is difficult to survey iandscaping canditions due ta snow coverage, staff believes the lot is adequately landscaped and no additional landscaping is required beyand that propased. Upon inspection o# the site by staif, we find that the praperty is in compliance with the applicable deuelopment standards listed above, with ane exceptian. As previously noted, the required landscape area requirements for the site are not met and require a variance. C. The Planning, and Environmental C,Qmmission shail make the #ollawing findin gs before ran#inq a variance• 1, That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. ~ F:\E;VERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\9$\SKOINSKT.WPD 4 2. That the granting ofi the variance will not be detrimentai to the public health, ~ safety ar welfare, or materially injuriaus to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one ar more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical dif#iculty or unnecessary physicalhardship inconsistent with the objectives of this titCe. . b. There are exceptions or extraardinary circumstances or conditions , applicable to the same site af the variance that do not apply - generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement af the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of ofiher praperties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and landscape variances and the additional GRFA under the 250 Ordinance. It is staff's belief that the applicant has met the following findings for the additional GRFA request: ~ 1. That the granting of the reques#ed Additional GRFA will not negatively effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. `I`hat thegranting of the requested Additional GRFA wi[l not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFR uvill comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. It is staff's belief that the applicant has met the faliowing findings for the variance requests: 1. That the gran#ing of the variances wi11 not constitute a grant o# special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same di5trict. 2. That the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materia(ly injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variances are warranted for the following reasons. a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified reguiation would result in practical difficulty or unneeessary physicai hardship inconsistent with the abjectives of this title. b. There are exceptians or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specifiedregulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ 3` `l/ ~j ~f"'V ~ ~ ~ ~ I>t I J, "N.~ . ~ ~ \ 7~`• r,~ + / 2. V~ ~ t T ~ C \ 1 trNiw ri~wt ~ { ~k ~ ~ /.)StTElLANOSCAPE PLAN ~ SE16ACtt PLAN ~ • ~ I H b . H . ~ j ~ i ~ i i i r ' - -,....`""`•-'t-_ i ~ L71 , - . t I . NORTH ELEV/kTEON tl: s~ ~ II . f , i. I. T t ~ 1 ~ ~ t'IIN~`?~t~~ ~ { ki°~.c , ~ _i I }7 J ~ . F j.( ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ . ~ t - -r=--r- ' 'r~ ~ 1r(~ ( !y'' t-.-l1 ~ ~ Y I ( . ~ ~ =k ' M ~ ~ _kE Y.. ~fLV_rI ~ r~{ _tl^^i ~ C~ ~ ~ '~It~- t e 4 . f ' . EASF EicEVATlON / WESF ECEYATiON ~ SOUfiEf ELEVATION ~ ~~T ~ ~ - ~ f ( WCI 4 l ~ E _7 f ~ UPPER LBYEL u CC ~ ~NTRY LEVEL ~t . T'TT - t' . 1 . a.w .tw. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I I~ 7c-, ~ . ~ E - - , l , EXISTING NpR7ti ~ ~ ! I^ ~ ~ ~T ~ . . , ~ E au*xra'iD e~ . tSTING WEST EX[STtNG SOtITH . . EXt ~ ' ~ i . t o`r_'~. r /„'1 EXI3TING UPF'ER LEVE~. r ~ f4 vil , j. . ~ . ~ 0)74 IsrIr~c Era~rn:r Levc~. . ~ ~ r.a- - - ~ .o .,..,..e . a.. .y,, . ~ ~ ~ ~ ? aTTMHRENT-~ ~ . 0 U. S:'H(GHWAY NO. 6 .:~n. t lk kOAt~ . i}. ~-r~~P LoT_k9 siGHoaN sueojvlsto~4 . ~ s53°17'0o"E, 365.3a' 3,0 09. . ~ ~ . - 3 2 .0 0 64 ~35.58 t3 . _ . _ . . . c . " • • _ a' x ` ~K'i~ G xx ~ +~f '~.r . =j~)~/ ~s . ~ „ :.~~tr . ~ " • ~ ~ Y_t J ~ • } f 4 S~Y ~ • • f f x yJ ~Nrl ~r y'F'Y ~T+MT~. Y 2 E ' ~ d f ' Sr n llN/ ~a „ :t sEr~~r~- U1~lI T 7 T A cC_~ss U/V/ ~ E'MNT T 8 `~235 z~„`'' ; -E.~ • ' ~ ~ S2 ~...:.1 , ~ ~ 3 Z669 7.7 0rz iz • . 3 f>. $ 4 23 8 5 14 3 q' ' ' ~ F 's'' 5 Y" - ~ . • ' . ' S , s'~ ~r ~ J n t t~, ~ , _y *r' r-r.... ~ ' f ~..r.r -~+.~r /y (~~J t ' ~ 4.x Y F. F-d r. ~ G. ` J s~ AR ~yKItYty " G C , rK ' i..fV +5~,;,,'~ .~.t 4~k~ +ir f•., ~i ,t, Y, Q~ r r + h, f . . . . . . • ' ' ~IY,~~ L~Rr\Fh4xj . •0 ~ E: {c,('Aiifi ~i } ' ~ .Xr r Lrr.. ~ ~ i . . • , . . . e, }1 UN/T 2¢ '•Y t? _ , _ . f0 „ ~,-~2~~" " ~ i • c. } ~Q ~ ~ ~ . th ~ vNI r 22 , -55,73 LU ~ ~ ~ : 3 a 9 ~ . . ~ s' F ~ S Y . 1 .:r ' , ' . • ~~n Q ! ~ ~ .f. r I k 3( CJ" # 2 1'+`~`~ f -'k'hlx 7. 6 Y ~ p* .t , +,.~5 J I ~t . ¢ I f ~ ~~~~Y~j ,~~'~~~t _.~C~~~`~"~~ - . _ ~ ~,~,G,_Z~s~ ~ ~i ~ ~ , ~ 4 _ Gaien A. Aaslan ATTAGHMFNT C d. Architect, P.C. Skalasinski Residence; Unit S Bighorn Terrace. Zoning; Medium Density MultiplewFamily ~ Applicants; Joe and Lauraine Skolasinski, represented by Galen Aasland, Architect, P.C. Site caverage aliowed 1374.31 x,45 = 618.43 s.f. Site coverage praposed 615 s.f. L,andscape minimum aliowed 1374.31 x.30 = 412.29 s..f. . Landscape proposed 405 s.f. . GRFA allawed (1374.31 x.35) + 225= 706 s.f. . Existing GRFA 788 stf, Proposed GRFA (using 250) 954 s.f. Amount af neighbors home on this lot 45.5 s.f. (site coverage) (note that the amount of the neighbors square faotage was not ealeulated and added to the abave GRFA) We are asking for 2 variances; a setback variance and a landscape variance. We are also asking far approval of the 250 ordinance. Joe and Lauraine Skolasinski bought this home in 1988. Their hame was built approximately 1966 Or 1967. In it's current configuration it has approximately 78$ square feet of GRFA. Jae and L.auraine live here fuli time. They have ]ived in Vail ~ since 1975 and 1973 respectively. Far 2 people living here full time, this is an extremely small residence to live in aver the years. We would like to atld space using tlle 250 ordinance to increase the residence sizee Based on the ILC done by Eagie Valley Surveying, Jae and Lauraine have approximatety 45 square feet of a neighbor's home an their lat. Part of their lot is also taken up by a common paved driveway, which serves a11 the homes in the neighbarhood. The paving cannot be removed or reconfigured due to restrictions within the homeowners association. A. Written Statement addressing #he fatlawing: 1.) The Relatianship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and strnctures in the vicinity. The Skolasinski's Home is located in a neighborhood af individually owned homes, most of which started out virtually identical to the Skolasinski Home. Many of these residences have since been enlarged and added on ta. Most if not all of the lats in the neighborhood were bought by the current owners with lot sizes far below the eurrent "I"own square footage and canfiguration requirements. In this case a whole neighborhood exists on similar size lots, grandfathered by past construction into non- ~ P.O. Bdx 3$3 Vsil CO $165$ 970-476-8181 1 Z!?11998 Galeu A. Aaslandti Architect. P.(:. w conforrriing zaning. Given the multigle ownership of the individual lots, it ish3ghly ~ unlikely that any lot will be brought inta a confarming size or canfiguration in any time frame. 2.) The degree from which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and unifdrmity af treatment among sites ia tbe vicinity or to attain the objectives af this title without grant of special privilege. Because of the similar lot size to ather lats in the neighborhood, it ean be viewed frrtm . , the Tawns' files that setback variances of this scale have been reguiarly granted in the past. The landscape variance is less than the amount that the adjacent home encroaches an to the Skolasinski's Iat. If in fact the adjacent home were not on the Skolasinski's lot {the party wall was aligned over the lot line} it is reasonable ta view the site plan in a rnanner that would aliout landscaping to be nn that 45 square feet, in which case the landscaping variance would not be necessary. The prohibition against remaving asphalt serves the common gnod in the neighborhood to provide adequate parking. The landscape variance seems minimal in concept and one could reasonabiy question, why ask for it? Our answer is that the home is sa small to begin with, that the space we are asking for is important to the homes' function. If we are nat granted a varianee it is not just a matter of ineeting the namber, but being above it. A couple of feet in this case becames 1 or 2% of the size af the home. It is also apparent from walking ~ tlirnugh the neighborhnod that many other hames adjacent to this have enjoyed the appartunity at least as much in size as this proposal asks for. 3.) The effeet of the variance an light and air, distributian of pc?p?ilation, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities, and puhlic safety. There is no significant change associated with any of these items. Joe and Lauraine plan to remain the sole inhabitants of the home. 4.) Haw yozu- reqruest complies with Vaii's Comprehedsive Plan. B. The Planaung and Environnlental Commission shafl make the followuxg ~'~nclings before granting a variance: l.) That the grantfng of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent witb the Wnitations on uther properties classified in the ~ same clistrict. P.O. Box 383 Vail CO 81658 970-476-8181 2 212i1998 Galen A. Aasiand Architect F.C. ~ ~ Based on a review of the Town's files far numerous adjacent Iots in Bighorn Terrace, ~ many of them have been granted variances. Setback variance approval appears to cammonly receive staff recommendation and Planning Cammission appraval for lots in Bighorn Terrace. The Skolisinski's lot is extremely small (1375 square feet) and is further encumbered by having approximately 45 square feee af the adjacent neighbors,' home on their lot. 2.) That the granting af the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, . , safety, or welfare, or materially injurious ta praperties or impravements in the " . • vicinity, It wi11 not. 3.) That the variance is warranted for one or more of the foilowing reasons: a.) The strict literal interpretation ar enforcement of the specified regulation wauld result in practicai difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the abjectives of this title. b,) There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same srte of the variance that do not apply generally to ~ other properties in the same zane. The current zoning standards for Medium Density Multiple-Famiiy require a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. This lot is 1375 square feet, or 13.75 % of the 1ot size currently required by the Town. This Subdivision and this lot in this instance were brought under the Towns' zaning when they were annexed by the town. At that time the subdivision most likley had a generaI resemblance to the MDMF zoning. However, 1ot size for this lot and ai$o far this subdivision is in great disparity with the current Town requirements. This d'zsparity creates a severe challenge for this lot and neighbarhood as viewed against other lots in this zone district. c.) The strict interpretatian or enforcement of the specified regulation wouid deprive the applicant af privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Many of the othen comes in the Bighorn Tertace, under similar circumstances, have been granted the ability, by the Town, to add to their homes. Mareover Bighorn Terrace is the crnly place in Vail that we are aware of that a GRFA variances hav been grarned for a single family or duplex type homes, which is quite extraordinary. ~ P.O. Box 3$3 vail Co 81658 970-476-8181 3 212ii99$ Boyle -4- 6J1~--", 5 ATTACHMENT D ~ t, T~ t `T l'~°<~t~c~ Fe r ~ ~ t~ ~ r3,1/%-~ ~~7~~`~```c ~ Th e ree to which reiief fresm the strict +ar litera lo' e r~tation and en cement of a s ecified re ulation is ne a tra achieve cam atib t and un?3.formit of treatmen mon sites in the vicinit or attain the ob"ectives of s title without rant of s ecial ri e e. A. Setback YarianC . . Staff feels that d o the existing building, it woul.d not kae a special pri ' eg a grant the variances -£or setbacks - as the setback croachm ts will not be any greater than those existin neroachments. B. GRFA Yar' ce Sta feels that it would be a grant special privilege apPrave this GRFA variance. The follo chart shows ariance reque sts in Bigharn Terrace have b aPProved: . VARIANCE REQUEST HISTORY flF BIGHORN TERRACE SUBDTVISION DATE APPLICANT TYPE OF AMQUNT OF STAFr PEC REQUES7 VfiRIANGE {2ECOiMl;-iE.NDATION ACTT(}N Mar 77 Benysh GRFA 130 sq ft Approval Approval ~ Setback 8 ft Appr-oval Approval May 78 Rowe GRFA 473 sq ft Denial Approval Setback 7.5 ft Denial Approval July 78 Alder GRFA 75 sq ft qenial Approval Setback 8 ft Denial Approval Aug 78 Turnbull Setback 7 ft Approval Approval Aug 80 Curfman GRFA 177 sq ft Denial Approval Aug 82 Odum GRFA 122 sq ft Denia1 Table Setback 18 ft Appr-oval Sep 82 Odum Setback far 18 ft Approval Approval Aar1ock Nov 83 Nauston GRFA 80 sq ft Denial Approval Setback 16 f t Denial Approval Feb 11 Sherr GRFA 50 sq ft Den7a1 Approval = 3 Setbacks 3,11, 3 ft Approval Appr-oval-___-_---- ~'i"T!!!r rt indicates that approving the setback varianc nat be a of special privilege. Hawev- oes show ~ that appraving variance a grant nf special privilege due to the af GRFA. There have been 13 re ltional GRFA. f recommended approval rr~rrrww,r~~ ~ MEIVItJRANDUM TO: Planning and Environmen#al Commission ~ FROM: Community Development Department DATE. March 9, 1998 SUBJEGT: A request far a worksession to discuss a major amendment to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, #o allow for #he canstruction of eleven fractional fee club units, four accommodation units and twenty employee housing units, to be located at 1325 Westhaven Drive, Westhaven . Condominiums/Cascade Viilage Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The appficant, Jerry Wurhman, is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Ullage) pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 9A of #he Town of VailZoning Regulations. The majnr amendment is intended tfl modify a 1995 major amendment approval for the Westhaven Condominiums, located at 1325 Wes#haven drive (the "Ruins'°). The applicant is proposing to amend the 1995 Westhaven Candominium approvai to allow for #he aperation of a fractional fee club. The new fractional fee club is ~ praposed ta include: ~ eleven, #wo-bedroom, fractional fee club units with elaven lock-offs, • faur, one-bedroom accommodation uni#s, and • twenty, one-bedraom employee housing units. 'Fhe 1995 appraval allowed for the construction of fourteen #ree-market condominiurnsand seventeen emplnyee housing units. At this time, only mindr alterations are anticipated #o the exteriar of the building and all the other development standards are proposed to remain substan#ially unchanged. The purpase of this worksession is to discuss the #allowing issues: o The proposal is in complianae with the 7own's land use regulations. • The combination and integration of the three differing types of residentiai uses. • The completeness of the major amendment application. • The relatianship of the proposed develapment with the existing improvements. ~ • The Town Council°s initialthflwghts and comments as receivedon Tuesday, March 3 regarding the applieant's request. „ ~ rowNV oF Yan 1 II. BRCKGRt7UND On April 19, 1995, the Vail Tawn Council approved a major amendment to Speciai developmen# District #4. The amended development standards approved by the Town ~ Council are compared to the originai SDD approval and the 1998 proposal, and are listed below: DEVEL.QPMENT STATISTICS Lot Area: 0.85 acres or 37,026 sq. ft. . Zoning: SDD #4 (Cascade Viilage) Developmen# Standard Oriainal SDD Approval 1995 Ap roval 1998 Prop,osal Height: 55' 55' NYC7 GRFA: Free Market: 22,500 sq. ft. 25,644 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft Accommodatian: 0 sq. ft, 0 sq. ft. 3,650 sq. ft. Fractional Fee: 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 21,672 sq. ft. EHUs: 5.400 sa. ft. 8,296sc . f#. 9.252 sg_ ft. Total; 28,900 sq. #t. (7$°Io) 33,940 sq. ft. (92°l0) 34,574 sq, ft. (93°1a) Common Area: 10,1 15 sq. ft. (35%) 3,417 sq. ft. (11.8°l0) NYD Density: Free Market: 20 du's 14 du's 0 du's Accommodation: 0 au's 0 au's 4 au's ~ Fractiona( Fee: q ffu's 0 ffu's 11 ffu's EHUs: 10 EHU's 17 EHU's 20 EHU's 30 tatal units 31 total units 35 total units (27.4 du'slac) (23.2 du'sJac) (23.2 du'sfac) Se#backs: 20' 24' NYD Site Caverage: 35°l0 (12,959 sq. ft.) 36.7°l0 (13.598 sq. ft.) NYC3 Landscaping: 50% (18,513 sq. ft.) 47.9°/s (17,767 sq. ft.) NYD Retaining Walls; 376' nane proposed NYD Parking: 75% shall be enclosed 82% shaU be NYD 44 total spaces enclased 45 tatai spaces Emplayee Housing: minimum of 8 units; 17 EHUs; similar ta 20 EHUs, similar minimum of 648 sq. ft. each; Type IV restrictions ta Type IV shou(d not count tawards restrictions density or GRFA. * for density calculation purposes, accommadation units are 0.5 du's, employee units are 0.333 du's and fractianal fee club units and free market units account are 1 du. each. NYD - Not Yet De#ermined ~ 2 A complete analysis comparing all the development standards will be provided at a later ~ date. On March 3, 1998, the staff inet with the Vail Town Cauncil to discu$s the propased development review process and to provide the Cfluncilwith an opportunity to provic(e initial feedback and direction to the applicant, staff and Planning and Environmental Commission regarding the major amendmen# request. The Council provided the following direction and feedback: 1. What is the anticipated construction timeline? If the site is not to be developed in , ` a reasonable time periad, the existing improvements needs to be removed. ' 2. The parking requirernent far the development shall be pravided on-site. 3. A de#ailed plan ou#lining the proposed fractional fee club awnership pattem and operatian shall be provide for review and consideration. 4. The proposed review process is acceptable. III. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PRC)CESS Pursuant to Section 12-9A-2 ofi the Municipal Code, in part, a majar amendment is defined as, "Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residen#ial flaor area; change the ~ number of dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any approved special deve(opment district," Since the applicant proposes to change the uses and change the number of dwelling and accommadation units, stafif has identified the applicant's request as a majar amendment. In accardance with Sectian 12-9A-4 A-C of the Municipal Code, an approved develnpment plan shall be required prior #o constructian. The approved develapment plan shall establish requirements regulating development, uses and o#her activities in the. special deveiopment district. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall conduct the inrtial review of the amendment to the special developmen# district. The review shall take place at a regularly scheduled meeting. Fo(Iowing the Planning and Environmental Commission's review, theCommunity pevelopment Department shall forward a report to the Town Council s#ating the PEC's fiindings and recommendatians an the ameradment request. The Town Council shall then review the appiicatian based upon the information submitted. An approval of the application by the Town CoUncil shall require two readings of an ordinance. IV. DISCUSIIICIN 1SSUES The Community Development Departmen# has identi#ied a number of issues which v?re believe the applicant, staff and Planning and Environmental Cammission should discuss prior ta a final review. The staff has identified the #ollowing issues: ~ 3 1. According to Section 12-2-2 af the Municipal Code, a Fractional Fee Club is defined as, ~ "A fractional fiee projec# in vuhich each condominium unit, pursuant tn recorded project documentation as approved by the Town of Vail, has no fewer than six (6) and no mare than #welve (12) owners per unit and whose use is established by a reservation system. Each of the fractional fee club units are made available for short-term rental in a managed program when not in use by the club members. The praject is managed on-site wi#h a front desk operating twenty-four.(24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week providing reservation and registration capabilities. The ' project shall include ar be proximate to transportation, retail shaps, eating and drinking establishmen#s, and recreational facilities.,° The staff believes it would be beneficial for the staff and the Planning and Enviranmental Commission to have the applicant discuss how the proposal is in compliance with the above-described definition of a fractional fee club. Where deviations may accur, the staff wouid suggest that the Planning and Environmental Commission provide directian to the applicant regarding the suitabili#y of said deviatians. 2. 1'he applicant has proposed to accommodate #hree types of residential uses (interval awnership, short-term accommodatian and employee housing) in a single structure. The staff believes it is important that the applicant and the Planning and Environmentai Commission discuss haw the prajec# will be built and operated to mitigate potential cnnflicts between the differing uses. Staff vuould further suggest that the applicant address the reasons for praviding only four acctammodafion ~ units in the mix of uses and the ra#ionaie far the building layout. 3. At this time, the applicant's submittal is incomplete. To complete the application, the applicant needs to submit the follflwing informatian: a. A written statement fully describing the nature of the project to ineiude informatian on uses, density, ownership pattems and phasing p1ans. The written statement shall a{so include a statement outlining how, where and why the develapment deviates fram the development standards. b. A stamped tapographic survey indicating existing conditions, location of imprcavements, existing contours, natural features and perimeter property lines. c. A proposed site plan showing the approxima#e Iocations and dimensions of all buildings and structures. d. Proposed building elevations, sections and floor plans in sufficien# detail to accurately determine floor area, circu(ation, locatian of uses, and the general scale and appearance of the development. e. A vicinity map showing the proposed improvements in relation ta all adjacent properties, at a scale not less than one inch equals fifty-feet. f. A massing model depicting the proposed deveiopment in relatianship to ~ deveiopment on adjacent proper#ies. 4 g. R landscape plan, at a scale nat less than one inch equal twen#y-feet, ~ showing exis#ing landscape features to be retained and removed, proposed landscaping and landscape site development such as sidewalks, patios, trails and other elements. h. A detailed statement outlining the proposed fractional fee ctub ownership pattern, management and operation. ~ Is there any additional information tha# the Planning and Environmental Commission wishes to request of the applicant prior to acting upon this major arnendment request? 4. Dwe to the lacation of the development site relative ta #he existing hotel, recreatianal and residential improvements, staff wauld sugges# that the applicant address how the proposed develnpment will be in#egrated with the existing improvements. Staff is particularly interested inseeing haw pedestriancirculation will be addressed. A possible means of providing the necessary pedestrian connections could be to construct an additianal pedestrian overpass. The overpass could be simifar in use and design as the existing averpass connecting the parking garage health club to #he theaters and coflege. 5. The Town Council expressed their dissatisfaction regarding the appearance of #he "Ruins". The CounciPs desire is to see the site either developed, or the existing improvements remaved. The stafif wnuld suggest that the applicant and the Planning and Environmental Commiss'ran have a preliminary discussion regarding the anticipated construction timeline for the site. ~ V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIaN Rs this is a warksession to begin discussion of the proposed request for a majnr amendment to Special Development District #4, staffi will not be providing a recammendation at this time. Staff will pravide a recommendation and camplete evaluation of the proposal at the time o# fiinal review. ~ 5 MEMORANDUM ~ TQ: Planning anti Environmentaf Commission FRUM: Lionshead Redevelapment Master Plan Team Mike MollicalDaminic Mauriello DATE: Marcii 9, 199$ " SUBJECT. Stage 3--Lionshead Master Plan--R work session to continue discussions ' regarding height, mass and density parameters. The culmination of Stage 3 wili be the adoption of a rationale and desired outcomes which establishthe regulatoty framework for height, mass and density afi buildings in the Study Area *The goal ofi this worksession is to provide the PEC with additional background informatianwith regard ta, a) floor-tafloor heights; b) ge0graphic distributi0n af building heights; c} bonus heights; d) development standards, and ~ e) density parameters, The Master Plan Team is iooking for direction on #he above 5 items. Any outstanding issues and concerns should be articulated and the team will be prepared to directiy address those cancerns and issues at the next worksessian. 1. STAGE a SCHEDtJLE Stage 3 of the C.ionshead Master Plan has been in-progress since May of 1997. At thTs time, we are nearing completion of the third stage of the Master Plan and would propose the fallowing schedule: Tuesday, March 3---- Joint PECfCouncil work session - compieted. Manday, March 9---- PEC wbrk session. Monday, March 23---Final PEC recommendatinn on Stage 3. Tuesday, March 24--Council afternaon work session. Tuesday, April 7------ Cauncil afternoon work session; and --Council evening meeting_-DECISION on Stage 3. Please keep in mind that this proposed schedule can be modified if additional meetings are deemed necessary. ~ 4YML row t tt, OUTSTANDING ISSUES FtELATEC} 70 STAGE 3 The following is an overview of the Stage 3 autstanding issues which staff believes need ~ #urther discussion and consensus: A) Determine the appropriate floar to floor height. , Staff has cantac#ed the following architects about floor-to-floor requirements on projects ; they are working on. All assume at least a 9' floor-to-ceiling height far residentialilodge . units. The results are as fo{lows: Nenry Pratt, Gwathmey Pratt, Vail Stated he is working on the Marrio#t and is finding an average of 11' floor-to-fioor as being tight The Liftside project (Cascade Viilage) was canstrueted at 10,5' floor-ta-flaar and was very tighUnot very manageable. (Fora 5-story building his average would he !1' flonr-to•fiaar.) Steve lsom, Isom and Associates, Eagie Stated that for a commercial building, the first floor needs 10' fioor-to-ceiling and 15" of structure resulting in 11.25' floor-to-floor, For residentia! Ieveis with 91 ceilings, one needs 10.25' floar-to-flaor. {For a 5-story building his average wau/rJ be 10.45' floor-ta-f/ocrr.} Bill Pierce, Fritzlen Pierce Briner, Vail Stated #hat the first floor cammercial needs to have a floor-to-floor heigh# of 14'. He stated that 10.5' for other flaors can be done but is difficult. An 11' floor-#a-floar works, ~ but 'I Z' wouid be ideal. (Far a 5-story buitding his average would be 11.6" flaor-to- floar.) Galen Aasiand (Architect/PEC Member), Vail Stated that a praject he is working on in Idaho had an average 10.9' flaar-to-floor. Recommends a first floor a# 16' and 19' for other floors. Stated that one might need more than 9' ceilings for quality condos. (For a 5-story builrling his average wou/d be 92' ftoor- #a-ftacr.) Gordon Pierce, Pierce Segerberg Architects, Vail Stated that a 9' flaar-to-floor is nat realistic. S#a#ed that the first floor commerciai needs to be 12' minimum for the flaor-to-floor. Recommends that the upper flnors (residential) be a minimum of 10' floor-to-floor. (Fora 5-story bur`lding his awerage wou/d be 10.4` floor-to-f/aor.) Terry Willis, Urban Design Group, Oenver Terry stated that in "{uxury condos", such as in Bacheior Guich, there needs ta be 15` floor-to-floar for the first 4eve1 retaiS. Then he recammends that there be 11' floor-ta-floor for the upper residential levels. (For a 5-sfory 6uilding his average wouJd be 11.8' floor- to-flaor.) Cattle Graybeal Yaw (CGY) Archi#ec#s, Aspen CGY has provided crass section drawings (see attached) of typical first floor retail and upper level residential units. The section drawings indicate a 14.5' floor to-floor for the fawer level commercial and an 11-11.5 floor-to-floor for the upper level residen#ial. '1"he ~ 6" difference is due to two different types of heating systems (fiorced air vs hydronic 2 : ' baseboard). (For a 5-story building his average wovld be 12.7' floor fo f/dor.) ~ In summary, the average flaor to floor height recommended by the architeats surveyed above is 11.31. Examples of floor-to-floor heights in buildings curren#ly under constructian in Vail: Austria Haus: First floor - 10' . Other floors - 11.44' (average) " Amerage - 1 i.0i3` (based on 4 f/oars) . lnterna#ional Wing: First flaor - 16' Other flonrs - 9.96' (average) Average - 11,97` (based on 3 floors) B) Geographically identify permitted heights af floors, plus a roofi) and establish the acceptable "bO1"ius heightS" and associated performance criteria for achieving the bonus height. The proposed building height guideNnes for the Lionshead Master Plan areoutlined as ftillows: ~ 1. Maximum by-right height limit based upon geagraphic lacation of property within the study area. a. Area "A" -(see map) - This area is charac#erized by existing single family and duplex homes. It is proposed that any new development in this area conform to this fabric and be limited to the exis#ing developmen# standards in place (maximum height of 33' for a sloping raofl. b. Area "B" -(see map) - This area is currently open space, lacated south of Gare Creek and is characterized by wetlands, steep embankments and undevelaped open space. It is proposed #ha# this area be mainfained as an open space resource, with no struc#ures permi##ed. However, any open, recreation-type support structures that #he Tawn of Vail rnay see as apprapriate in the future shall be limi#ed in height to 1-story, plus a roof. c. Rrea "C„ -(see map) - This area is characterized by the comrnercial care and multi-family residential uses. It is recommended that structures in this area have a by-right height limit of five stories, plus a roaf. Structures m this area aIso are eligible for banus heights based upon their orientafion and conformance to performarrce criteria. 2. Raofs. The roa# height allowance is deflned as the 'rncrease in height from the maximum permitted eve height, to the ridgeline of the roaf. ~ 3 ~ a. Slooed roof requirement. Due to the desire for a consistent, high quality, alpine architectural style in the Lianshead area, it is proposed that fiat ~ roofs no longer be aflowed on any new construction, building additions or rehabilitationto existing buiidings. b. Bwright roof allowance. In conjunction with #he requirement for a slopmg roof, it is recammended #hat every huilding be required to have a minimum 5/12 pitch roof, with a maximum by-right roof height of 14 feet, (this is _ based on the height of a 5I12 pitched roof an a#ypiaal 65' wide, double- loaded building). 3. Bonus Heights. The proposed height bonuses for Area "C" ofi the Lianshead study area are divided into two secfions - addi#ional stories (building height be#ore the roof starts), and additional roof height. a. Additional stories; Any structwres that are predominately onented north- south, (with average doubie-loaded carridor), are etigible for a bonus sixth story, accarding to conformance with the pert'armance criteria. b. Bonus roof heiaht allowances: Based on the predominant orienta#ion nf the building and the confarmance ta performance criteria, it is recomrnended that the following bonus roof allowances be created. 1. 9/12 pitch with a maximum roof height of 25" (this height is based on a 9112 roof on a typica165' wide double-loaded building). This bonus roof height would be availabie for ail buildings in Area "C„ ~ regardiess crf their orientation, if they meet the performance criteria. This roof height wi11 allow for the creation of a narrower "ioft" story inside the roaf. 2. 12t12pitch with a maximum roof hePght of 33' (#his height is based on a12/12 roof on a typical 65' wide double-loaded building). This banus roflf height would be available for any building in area "G" that is predaminately oriented north-south and meets the pertormance criteria. This roaf height will ailow for the creation of an additional story, Plus a Ioft, space inside the roof. 4. Exclusions, The folfawing exclusions to by-righ# or bonus building heights are proposed in order #o pratect the character and visual quality of certain spaces within #he Lionshead 5tudy Area. It is suggested that builrling setbacks, build-to lines and architec#ural step-backs will be detailed in the architectural and site guidelines. a. Any building adjoining the Gore Creek stream corridar or adjaining the ski yard shall be limited to a 4-story maximum permitted eve height, and must canform to the architectural design guidelines for buildings franting these areas. However, this is nnt intended #o prevent a building frnm a#taining its banus height after stepping back from the restricted building face. 4 ~ a f b. Any park of a building that is sauth facing, north facing, or adjoining the ~ Lionshead retail mail area shali be limited to a 5-story maximum permitted eve height. This is not intended to prevent a building from attaining i#s bonus height after stepping back from the restricted building face. c. AI1 buildings ir? Area "C" shail conform to the Lionshead architeetural and stte design guidelines, which may influence the ini#ia( eve heigh# and building step-back requicements. d. All building shafl respec# the established public view corridors. . 5, Maxirnum Buitding Height Synopsis. The foilo'wing maximum attainable building , heights under the above proposals are based on an asswmed 11.5' floor-to-flonr height, a. 71.5 Feet - Maximum By-Right building height, with no bonus story and no bonus roaf height (57.5" for five s#ories, plus 14' for the raof). b. 82.5 Feet - Bui4ding height with no bonus stories and the initial bonus raaf height, (57.5' far five stnries, plus 25' for the roao. c. 90.5 Feet - Building heigh# with no bonus s#aries and the maximum bonus roof height, allowed only for north-south oriented buildings (57.5' for five stories, plus 33' for the roof). ~ d. 102 Fee# -Building height wi#h bonussixfh floor and maximum bonus rocrf height, allawed only for north-sauth oriented buildings (69' far six stories, plus 33' fior the roof). C) Develapment Standards: a) GRFA--staff recammends #hat the existing GRFA regulatidn (80°1o af buildable area) be eliminated for properties in the Lionshead care area: b) Site Coverage--staff recommends that the existing 70% site coverage limitation be eliminated for praperties in the Lionshead core area. c} Setbacks--staffi recammends that the exTSting 10-fiaot setback requirement be eliminated for properties in the Liortshead core area. It is suggested tha# building setbacks be delineated in the architecturai and site guidelines, in canjunc#ion with Buifding and Fire Code requirements. d) Landscaping---staff recommends tha# the existing 20°lo minimum landscaping requirement be eliminated for properties in the Lionshead core area. D) Density (unitsfacre) s#andard--maintain current standard of 25 units/acre. AU's, EHU's a?nd fractional fee units (FFUs) wouldnot count towards density. ~ 5 i Sfaff has autiined some ideas on evalc?a#ing densi#y in the Lionshead commercial core area: ~ 1. Retain the existing tlensity provisions (CC2 - 25 unitslacrez HDMF - 25 unitslacre, MDMF - 18 unitslacre). 2. Exclude accommodatian units (RUs)x emplayee housing units (EHUs), and fractional fee units (FFUs) from the caiaulation of density. This may encourage . , the development of #hese unit types. Dwelling units (DUs) would only be allowed _ up ta the existing density allowance (i.e. X units/acre). Generally, building height, , architectural and site guidelines, and parking requirements will determine the - carrying capacity af the site (i.e how many units can be accommodated on a site). 3. The gross square foatage added fo a structure via the height bonus (sixth floar and floor area in the roof) must be added in the form of AU's, EHU's or FFU's. This is nat to say that these uses must be lacated on the si}eth floor and in the roof area, but that the additional grass square finotage must be located somewhere in the struc#ure. 4. RUs andEHUs shall meet minimum requirements to ensure that quality units are constructed. Examples would include: AU - 9' ceiling height. EHU - 450 sq. ft. mirrimum and 9' ceiling height. 5. Allnw any properties which are currently rronconfarming with respect to density to rebui{d ta existinglconstructed density. ~ F:AEVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\98\L.ION.303 6 ~ \ Q PC.) c ~ 13 'x I / ~ 00 o ~ ~ ~ I y ~ S ~ f ~ . a r q a ~ r ~ f.V{tE 'A' / ~ LaUj ZONE xB' 'Ct r ~ R5COMMSNDAT{ON FURR REE IL . FLOU12 TO FLC7OR HEfGNT: . , *S" LT. wt. coNctMrE cN MEr,ac, LArN 6l lm~l IS,nT'r INSULATICN . cv - NOf t GOLP UJA'trzR St.IPPLY i RE"CURN FG7R ~ . FORCED AIR B1'STEM . le" 1600GED AlR CtJr.t PLUMBING WAS1`E PIPrz FlfvS PROTEGTION - 3PRINKLER PEEfa LINE S" RECIE5SED ItJC,4Nt?ESCENT L#GN71'NG ~ 3" Sl"ONE PA1/ERS ~t ~ ~ iv (hl OUR EXPtRIEN+GE. A 12'-V" Ct!ilWx NEI~'iWT 15 fiTROWaLY PREFERREI7 B 71'P. RE~'A[~. F~t1Dt~1G~I~L(N~x ASvEME3L''' ~lS SWt~ MEE1'S {IINtMtrfM Ct"7UE I~QWI'REMENT aP A caNE NOuR S~pAR~?~'ivN. TwrS I711GRAM REPRESENTa S~ICIEhiT SP4C~ FC~i~' Ct~2DIN~l"fI+G~N t'~F FIRE PRO'`EGTIqN. M~GWAI~lICA1.., ELEGT'~t~AL. ANG? 5~'1~U~`C~lRAL S1'STEMS. II'~E,4LLY, 'CWE CC7N1'RAGTG~ WOLILt7 RSQUIRE 1`-3" BELOtU Si`IIEL FOtC COORdINATION 4r- BL11LGtNG 5Y3TEM6. • . , ~ • . oG~ ac3 c~C~ oc7 nO d CQTTLE ~RE't'AlL E3tJILL7IN~ SF-GTION GRAYBEAL nnta ..acCr r~o.: ~ xiTEcros 2-24-qb -31 p ~~r~~~ AiNNNY; s 3 b GP sta ~sr u~~n ~st~ ro ~?oli ~~m}~,~-~n7 t(rroyu€~o S~S ' d L69 ' ON 00 ld"iA3Q S18O538 IIti(t WdO2: S 866T' tri "MA ~ ~ ~ REGO1"'"11~'IENi7y4TION FOR ~ 1""CID-LEYEL GONDO FLflOR TC? FLOUR HE1GWT: 5" I-T. WTa GONCRE7E ON ME7,4L LA`CW . , c~ 10" BAtT 1NSULATIDN . ~ tT~ NOT U1ATER 541PPLY t RETURN FC7R N`I'taRO'NIC BA5EBC7ARC7 HEfi?T PLllMB11s WA:3TE pIPE FIRS PRG7TEGTIt7N ~ r SPRINlCLER FEEd LiNE ~ w RECp-ssr=i3 IN+GANCiESCEN'f L fGN'TING ~ 71',Le. SQC7M ~ N'Y'bRG7NIG BAS~ ~C),4t2C~ ~ i-1r,4T S1'STEt~'I NOTE: IN GUF2 EXPERIENGE. A 9'-011 CEIING ~-{E1G1WiT !S Ti-P DF51i~I7 MINIMM4~`1 ~C7 CG~NC3C7Mt1'dILIMS IN TN15 fi1AF'~I~GET. A_0'~ rLt70F21`~EILlNC~ A55EM~3L'Y A3 BON - ~ MEETS MINItr'1UM Gt~L~E REQUti~MEN1` G~F A ON~ NC.~Ul~ SEf'ARATIC~N. TWIS p1AGR,4M, NOWEvER, M,4"t' RtEQUIRr: i~EfWU'ttNt's, RE51ZiNd, ANb . , ivEGOG7RDlN1.1TION OF: 5Y5TEM5 C+LlRt GONS`i'RLIC'PION. A Mt7i'~E fi1JF-FICIENT ASSEh1L?LY r-C3R tl.l15 tJSE WClULD BE A 2'-&" INTERSTI7lAL, SP•4CE. TWEt~EFORE L1l,t,oWIN[Cs MORE SPACP [3ELOU Si'EPIL SE,aMS, aDEA1.LY, zw~ CONTranCTaR; 4l1OUL.D t'~OUlRE V E3EL.OtIJ S1'EEL. FdF2 CC)DFc#DINATICN CaF BUILD11+lG SYSTE1`ifS. Ct1TTLE M U-Gt7ST WNDO BUIL.t71h[69EGTipN GREAL o,~ YA1Y U: «x02wr ,ro.. . 2-24-qF,~ ARCHXTECTS ecnta: nw~~n+ arr: Sk I sio , unuri m1011 ~~i-laol AN}W412 1 1 IrZ" : v_0° R60 S/E' d 2,69 ' ON 00 ld'1A3Q SlHOS38 IIFi11 Wd6T: 5 8665 ' i7u 113i . k REGOMMENUAT1CyN F-C7R ~ UPPER-LEvEL cONDO FL06M TO FLOOR HEIGWT: - " • ' 5" LT. ltaT. GC3trJCRE1'E ON METAL LAT4-I 61 iZ?" £iATT 1NSLILAT1c7N ~ C14 ~ uaT +c CoLD wATEa sL1PPLY t FpiE7'uRN Ft7R FOI;ZCED A1R €t7'S1'EI"1 10" r-CaRGEp AIR Dl1GT PLur~~~NCs mR~! P1w-mrv"toN - 5F'R1NKLER PEEIa L.INrz ~ ' 8" t~C.~~S~ta 1T1GAh~lt~~SC:~frt"f l.lGWtllV(Gs 1 ~ IN t'7WR EXPER1ENGE. A 9'W0" C,EtiNCs I4SIOPT lS 7WE {7ESIREC) MINtMUM r-C7 CG3NDOMINIUMS IN TNi$ M,ARKKET. A 2' _b 11 pLOOR/GE I L IWO 4SSEME3l.'r' AS SNCUJN h1riET5 MINIMUM GODE iCEQUIREi•'tENTa flF ,4 C7NE 4-IG3t,lR 3Pt"'AIRATIC3N. TW19 d1,4GR4h1 ~ REPRESENTS SUFPlC1ENT 9F'ACE FOR GC7C3RDINATIO+1 G7lz P1RE 'PRCJ1'EGT! MEGWANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND ~ • . . • • - S1"RUG'CUfeA4, 3'1'E3TEMS. (p&ALLY, 7HE .-,j' Ct7lV'~RACTt7F~ UK7l1LD REC?~U1R~ 1`•3" 5ELOW STE51- FOR GOC3RGlNA7'tC3N OP BLtCLDING 51'S'C'EM5. COTTLE CRAYHEAL H1C~H-Ct?5T GONDC~ Hd11LUIN& 5EGTI ! 'Y'AW aatize ~~wccr so.~ A,RCHITECTS ~-~4-~'~ . 4'tD Orwxc: aa?mr are K 2 51D td5"f lltNdN ~'0 91G11 1'(1170a92.'i-910! !(9f6~6 '~,~7Q I&if = 11",011 A-GD 2 S~h ' d L65 1 ON 00 1d-U13(I 51H053N 1 Z t9A WdO2: S 866I ' t12 'gbj ~ ~ LIONSHEAI3 HEIGHT & MASS PUBLIC MEETINGS SUMMARY ~ Presidents' Weekend 1998 Sundav. F&~bruarv 15 Members di tlae public present: 2(representing Lifthouse) Opinians, comments and concerns: • Concemed about 3QSS of private views; TOV should consider candemnation of a portion , of the VA care site to preserve views and address pedestrian cangestion. « Concerned about congestion problems in ski yard and pedestrian areas, especially "rf the . . , size of the pedestrian walkways are ta be reduced. . , • Concemed about accuracy of ski association study that shows 40 percent of those visiting . ski areas ta be non-skiers during winter and that shapping is the number 2 activity in resort destinations. • Widen skier pedestrian bridge and make part of it pedestrian anly. Monda,y, Februar~y 16 Mernbers of tJze public present: 15 Upinions, comments and cancerns: ~ Are yau really seeking public input? It really dnesn't sound like it. • This plan is just "smoke and mirrors" sa VA cari get its project built. • Which of the four height concepts did the Vail fiown Cauncil favor? • It upsets me to hear abaut a TRC in Lionsheatl near the Landmark (too much noise, ~ would devalue aur property). • I eat in Vail Village, then like to go back to my "quiet" condo in Lianshead. • What is the noise factor for all these plans? • I send my kids to the General Store and it is safe for now. We don't want any mare bars in Lionshead. I want this to be a farnily place. ~ There has been no place for my under-l8-year-old daughters to go; nothing to do at night. ~ We bought in Lionshead because it was quiet; we do aur shopping in Vail Viilage. Is there same other use for redeuelopment of VA's core site other than a massive hotel? • I like the idea af low buildings; we don't ruant to recreate a Nevv Yark City here. • We bought our piace because we like our view; this project stands to negatively impact our view. • Which side of the building would you measure the height from? There ought to be a fixed height. I'm afraid VA cauld "buy" (through the height bantzs publie benefit pracess) a 25-stary building. • What's the by-right height? Are there guidelines you need ta meet just to go to the basic height? Go back to the public dorr3ain enhancements to drive building height on a site- by-site basis. • I agree vvith the pedestrian and retail concepts 100 percent; I'm just eoncerned about height. ~ I'm concerned about a large, tall hotel blocking views and creating noise. How many more live beds are needed in Lionshead? There are already more live beds in L,ionshead than in the Village. T have friends who can still rent condos at the last minute in ~ Lionshead. What is the need for live beds? • I'm concerned about dark corridors caused by tall buildings. • You're opening up a can of worms when yau say `this building should be this high, antl this building should be something e1se.' M- ~ • 4pen up the Concert Hall Plaza area; use that space as a skier drop-off. • Concert Hall Plaza cauld benefit as a redevelopment area; would make a nice movie ~ theatre or entertainment complex. ~ Is VA talking abaut redevelopment of the tennis courts? • There is great difficulty in redevelaping anything in Lionshead due to condo assaciation declarations. • Farthe mostpart, the plan is good; lots of hard work on behalf af the project team really . shows. ~ ~ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Pianning and Environmentai Gommission FROM: Gommunity Development Department DATE: March 9, 1998 RE: Llonshead,Buiiding Hefghts by Story ' - . A suruey was made of the existing buildings in Lionshead to see how many stories exist. Stories were counted an the south side of each building or where the highest stories exist. Loffs were counted as a story and are alsa indicated below. The CC2 zone district was adopted in 1970 (Ordinance No. 8, Series o# 1970). ln this ardinance there was no building height limitation established. ln July of 1978, the CC2 zone distric# was modified to establish a building height of 45' {C}rdinance No. 8, Series af 1973). Today the CC2 zone district allows a sloping-roof building to be 48' in haighi. Included below is a(so an indication nf the when buildings were construc#ed in Liotlshead, Stories Bu1ldinds Toial Number of Buildinqs 2-story Goncert Na1i Flaza (1978) 1 3-siory L.ion's Pride (1974) 3 ~ Lionshead Arcade (1872) Landmark Townhomes (1972) a-storr Loage at Ltonsnead (1 &z) (1973) 8 Lodge at Lianshead (3) (1978) Lionshead Center (1972) Lifthouse Candos (1972) Gondola Building (1972) Montaneros (1972) . Vai}Glo l.odge (1972) L'ronsquare (4, wtloft) (1974) 5-story Vail 21 (actually 5,5 stories) j1972) 3 Lionshead Inn (1972) Enzian Condos (includes garage) (1973) £-story Sunbird (including garage) (1972) 5 Vail International (1972) VanCage Point (1972) Vai! Spa (1977) Wes#wind (w/lpft) (7969) 7-story 1`reekops (w/loft) (1971) 2 Marriatt (1977) 8-sTory -Lionsquare(i-3)(1971) 2 Antlers (wlloft) (1972) 9-story Landmark (1972) 1 Total 25 ~ 1 ~`OWN 4VAIL Buildinas built before 1973 height reas Buiidings built after 1973 heiaht regs. (19 buildirtgs) (6 buiidings) ~ Antlers (1972) Concert Hall Plaza (1978) Enzian Cnndas (1973) Lion's F'ride (1974) Gondnla Building (1972) Lionsquare (4) (1974) Landmark (1972) Lodge at Lianshead (3) (1978) Landmark Townhomes (1972) Marriott (1977) Lifthouse Condos (1972) Vail Spa (1977) - Lionshead Arcade (1972) , Lionshead Center (1972) Lionshead Jnn (1972) " . Liansquare (1-3) (1971) . Ladge at Lionshead (1 &2) (1973) Montaneros (1972) Sunbird (1972) Treetops (1971) Vaii 21 (1572) Yai1 Internationa! (1972) VailGfo Lodge (1972) Vantage Point {1972} Westwind (1969) F:IE V E RYO N E\DOMUGi E M098il.lON HT.3(?6 ~ ~ 2 vc . Tc_ ,ti----- February 27, 1998 ~ Vail Town Council - 75 Frantage Rd Vail, Co 81657 Dear Town Council Members: After attending a sessian on Height and Mass Concepts and Alternatives, I hope to put a few of my concerns in writinq. First, I think it is passible that the concept af taking each plan into consideration separately may be workable. It, of course, places an added burden on the council and requires an enormous amaunt of trust from the current occupants and future developers. I still have concerns about public gathering. As I stated before there are large numbers of penple at the ticket office every morning waiting far friends. They do not simply get tickets and proceed to the slopes. Except for the bus stap, I have not noticed any other open area wi.th this kind of ~ qathering. I think yau need to assume that this use will continue and allow for space far 200 ar maybe 300 peaple to gather araund the ticket area and space for racks for them to pl.ace the.ir skis. I have seriaus doubts that snow me1.tinq walks will stay in working condition. There surel.y wi1.l be times when snow remaval equipment will have to be brought in. There has to be room enaugh for it., Corridors should not be narrowed and open areas to pile snow should_be left. Dumping snow in trucks takes even a larger area. The loaders back up ancl turn, as do the trucks, and they are large cumbersome vehicles. I am concerned that if corridnrs are narrowed there is not enough space for trash remaval vehicl.es. We cannot expect _ buildings ta take their trash long distances to be picked up. Z'd also like to ga "back to square one" fQr a minute. I was pxesent for one walk around last summer. At that time I recall that one of the major concerns was that there wasn't enough "live beds" (not unrented condos) to support the commercial businesses. "A hotel was needed." Now the idea has been changed. Because of financial concerns the new development is to be allowed ta have first floor commercial ~ and condos abave. How does this bring us closer ta our goal? m~ a~~t~.c ~ ~ . . GNv ' ~ . . Ax . ~ cj . , ~~..~..,.r..-.~- . . . . . a,vv L-~ . . ~ ~ ~ : ~ . : ~ : ~ . ,~~.,z.~.~-.. , Propased building code changes kC ;T C_ ~ Sabject: Proposed buildfng code changes I)ate: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 19:25.30 EST From: BANJC)JERI <BANJOJERI@aal.com> ~ Ta: ssilver@vail.net Vail Town Council We are aware of the proposed changes in the building code regarding height and mass restricitions of new buildings. As owners of a condominium at Vantage Point we are obviously stronqly apposed to such changes. It would not only spoil aur view of the mountain but decrease the value of our investment. This I'm sure is of no concern to Vai.l associates but we depend on yau nat to forget the "little guys." . ' Even were we not-owners of property we would be opposed to see Lionshead spoiled by big buildings. Lionshead has developed a special character over the years which we lave and allowing bigger taller buildings would change that character sev2rely. I'm sure several thousand other skiers have similar feelings. The future of Vail depends upon a great skiing experience. There are many • other areas and mountains on which to ski. Don't make the mistake of catering only to a few interested only in bigger money. Thank you for your consideration. Margie and Jerry E1lefson N9730 Caunt Road W Colfax, WI 54730 ~ ~ 1 of 1 313198 7;28 AM RE Ct1 vtk..~ FEU 2 y C`. Barry Friedman & Associates 4 , 11 The Pines C,ourt Suite A ~ St, Louis, MO 63141 ~ (314) 434-8900 ~ Fax (314) 434-7710 ~ 7 1998 Vail Town Council '75 S,VY•ontage ]td. TOR(MM. Vai'1 ~:fJ 81 G5~T ~e DF, , Ctrentlemen: I am a property owner at 105 Vantage Point in Lionsbead. I woU1d Iike #ourge yau not to increase the codes of building height on a across the board basis. r would thirik that should be done on an individual basis, just theway it is done in Vai1 Village. I know there are same buiidings in Lionshead that are taller than the present zaning law permits, but most of these buildings are on the I40 where they act as ~ sound barriers and clo not destroy the view for any of the people in Lionshead. I believe if you go ahead and raise the height to 93 feet you will destroy t$e beauty of Lionshead and make A iaothing more than anotber watled city. I can uriderstarid Vail Associates wanting fo put up more buildings but I dan't think yau want to . destroy the Lionshead part of the village. I have been coming to Vail for 25 years, and plan to cont-:inue to come for many more years, and I would ut'ge the council to go slow in making an across the board exception on building heights. SincerelJ'an ~ Barty 11~i~-LL--~ . Securities offered thrnugh BenefitsCorp Equities, fnc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Great West Life & Annuity Insurance Company 8515 E. Orctiard Road • Engtewood, CO 80111 _ 03t02/98 09.14 FAX 3033671978 RAX LAMIi I~,jQI COVER SHEET ~ Date. TO ~ 6 Fax1'Oll'ut3mtbeat' Mow g \-P. Lamb . Fax/Te1. 303-367- 19'7~ Comments: ~ 1 -0-4 '~V~4 1~0 ~ Numlber af pages, inc1uding cover sheet ~ . L#onsHead Master Plan Subject: LionsHead Master Plan Date. Sun, OI Mar 1998 18.21.33 -0500 ~ From: Stephen Montgomery <smontgam@dreamscape.corri> To: ssilver@vaiI.net I am an interval owner af the time share units at Vantage Point in Lionshead. I current7.y have a great view of the mountain from my forth floor unit. If the amenfling af the building cades were ta ga into effect I'd lase a11 the view and alot more---the whole experience of caming to Vail would change. I stronqly oppose changing the building height restrictions--please convey my sentiments to the Council. Sinceral,y Stephen Montgomery, syracuse,ny ' . . . ~ ~ t , 31219$ $:07 AM ~,.VA13:-02-98 MQN 04:33 PM DFP ASSOCIATEB, INC. 407 368 9644 . P.01 ~ ~ I,l • ~~,...r-~f" i 534 S.lNr tah Avanue . ~ E3QG* R#ton, Flnrida 33486-7002 , (5st) V6ai9W I 29= MAR 0 2 1998 Mazch 2,1998 TOV-COMM, ~~~i Vt~l YOWtI {iUt1C1C1l ' o,e 76 S. FJ t3tl ,~ge R03d ' Vall Co. 81657 . De?r Counci1 Members: As an owner 1n Vantage Polnt 1 am dismayed ta hear thatt yc>u are +tonsidering . amending the cuffettt helght restrit;tiat's of 48 fieet to a ma)rimurrt of 93,feet in Ltonshead. ' E3efore we purchaset3 our home wm emarohed the helgh4 restriction5 to ensUte Us tttat aur uiew ot'the mourttain wauld rtat Ee tmpecied. Once satisted that the hei0t, ~ restticilan was a mayJmum of 48 ieet we pucchaseti our home. • 'Beaver Cnek waas an aItemative wmlderaticxt ibr the puc`cttase oi a hame at that #ime, . The'village ofwalls" where no suntigh# c;art shlne on the }'edestrian vvafKs wds ectough of a detdment tn eliminate Beaver Creet as a vlabte aitemative. tf the 93 ibot helght vatlence is apptoved it wottld c,ertainEy create a waNeci City surtoundirgg the enftance to the mountain that would eliminate or drastir.alty teduce the ~Aews art the mountain. White ! recogniz$ that thece ls no legal protectiionn of pMte vienrs artd ro 1ega1 basls far , to" ort zaning regu{afians remaining the same 1n the iight of chailged conditions, Yptaj as e(m#ed otlatals have a. MURAI. responsibility to pmerve the viewws and . opennms of Lfonshead fcir thase who have pumhased under tho extsting zoning rP`'tTlt+tlt}tts. Ple.ase keep the cument height regtrictton of 48 feet In effect. DONT GKANGE 6T1 fZjW c. K~ a~l E. Ps~ President ~ d _ X r* ~ ti February 27, 1998 ~ Vai1 Town Council • - 75 Frontage Rd Vail,, Go 81657 Dear Town Cauncil Members: After attending a session on Height and Mass Concepts and Alternatives, I hope to put afew of my cancerns in writing, First, I think it is passihle that the concept of taking each plan into consideration separatel.y may be workable. It, of course, places an added burden on the council and requires an enarmaus amount of trust from the current occupants and future developers. I still have concerns about publ:ie gathering. As I stated before there are large numbers of peaple at the ticket offzce every morning waiti.ng far friencls. They do not simply get tickets and proceed to the slapes. Except for the bus stop, I have not noticed any other open area with this kind of ~ gatherinq. I think yau need to assume that this use will continue and allow for space far 200 or maybe 300 people to gather around the ticket area and space for racks for them to place their skis. I have serious doubts that snow melting wal.ks will stay in working condition. There surely wi11 be times when snow removal equipment will have to be brought in. There has to be room enough for it.- Cdrridors shoul.d not be narrowed and open areas to pile snow should be 1eft. Dumping snow in trucks takes even a 1.arger area. The loaders back up and turn, as do the trucks, and they are large cumbersome vehicles. I am cancerned that if cflrridors are narrowed there is not enough space for trash removal vehicles. We cannot expect buildings to take thei.r trash lang distances to be picked up. I'd also like to go "back to square one" for a minute. I was present for one walk around last summer. At that time r recall that one of the major cancerns was that there wasn't enough "live-beds" {not-unrented condos) to support the commercial businesses. ".A hotel was needed." Now the id.ea has been changed. Because of financ3al concerns the new development is to be allowed to have first floor commercial and condas above. How daes this bring us closer to our goal? ~ RECENCO 1998 ~ TRUDY J. DAY ~ 2878 Wexford drive, Saginaw, Michigan 48603 {517} 790-8131 Marah 5, 1998 Vail Town Council 75 S. Frontage Sfi. Varl, CO 81657 Dear Counci! Members: As a property owner at Vantage Point in Lionshead, we must object to the proposed change in the height and mass limits currently under consideration by the Town of Vail and Vail Associates. You must agree that one af the reasons to live, relax, vacatian and simply enjoy the Vail Valley is the breathtaking view of the mountains. Specifically, #hose af us in Lianshead cherish our own special view af the mountain and the images of skiers on the slope; it was ~ the main reason ta purchase property at Vantage Point. Any change to the building code that would allaw buildings twice as tali and of more mass would not only destroy that preciaus view, but would have a negative effect on the value of our praperty. Since we purchased our property in goad faith, I would expect no Iess from the Towrt of Vail and Vail Asspciates. It appears, however, that they aredetermirted not to foliow the rules . that were previously established, but to break the rules and create new anes simply ta fulfill their awn financial desires at the expense of the very people wha constitute their customer base. My only hape is that if they won't piay fair, the Council must step in and see that the rights af others are protected. i regret that I will be unable to attend any meetings. However, 1 trust you will take our points under consideration. Sincerely, 7rudy J. Day ~~~~~~Ffi, .M4~ . ~ - f ~ • ' (~ry~ ~L ~.~d'1~~/f • - _ ~ ~+r~'~ 'rV ~/GV+Y"7yrr'~??~G/ Gry'~'~ ~~?'_`,?'Y~?'?"_'ax"x^.,1______~'~~~!'"/~'"~Yc~iiii'_Y,.C,+/__ , ~y1~~~_"" ~ / _ _ y - "y~j Y<- ~ • ( o ~ -3/g/~~ ! V r ~ f ~ _ ~ ~ ' ~~C IE- I'V E D M A R ~e ~ Doucrlas c. Porter 5303 S. JellisOn Stw . Littletori, Co 80123 . 4 March 1998 . Vail Tcxwn Council. 75 S. Frontage Raad vaa..3., Colorado 81657 i am the awner of Ta.me Shares at Vantage Poant Condcxna.nitzns in Va.i.1 Vil]:age. I wish to notify you t:hat I strongl.y oppose any ~ increase in builda..ng heights .I am pleased 'with the presen.t arranqemnt, a.nd :L dr) not want my views of th.e,nountains jeopardized< DC7UGLAS C. PC?RTER ~ ~ w y . ~~C EEIVED MA~' h 19M ~ . t 9 j' r.r-ei,A=.C v~- X 04,Oic.l 4r. T/A/E-SMAE l.c.~ 94PMS I A.? . ~ . . 14rJ6,t7' Or- ~ . . ~ Mr Bin TT Yates „ PfJBox8149 Ruiciosa, NM $8355-8149 ~ ~ 82~~~~~~e~~UAR. 4 E1998 Albuc{uerque, NM 87109 Vaii Town Council 75 S. Fxontage Raad, • Vail, CO 81657 Gentlemen: It has come to my attention that Vail Associates is proposing to double building height restrictians in their Lionshead redevelopment plans. It is obvious that this will ruin the mountain view for hundreds of nwne.rs, especially thnse of us at Vantage Point. Vantage Point owners are there primarily for the view the 1ocation offers. To make an across the baaxd change to the current building code height and mass restrictions ~ would have a drastic effect on property values. We are totally opposed to this proposed change. Vexy truly ynurs, • G•° Richard P. Tyle`r" A1ice K. Tyler RPT/a ~ ~ Mar ch 4, 19 9 8 Members of PEC Members of Town Council Statf of Design Workshop c/o Suzann Silverthorne Town of Vail 75 Sa. Frantage Rd. Vai.1, CO 81657 Dear A11. May I attempt to c1arify the point about Lionshead master planring which I stated at Tuesday's work session so clumsily? in lookin; at the staff and Design Workshop proposals as reflect.ed orx the map showing Zones A, B, and C and applying the densities and other gtxidelines, it struck me tha-t a Vail ~ Cflmmans -type project or a seaL,ondl Pmployee one sucn as V. A.' s Ri.ver Edge mi.ght well be precl.uded in West Lionshead. Surely each has a density, tor instance, af more than 25 units per acre. If this i.s the case, I urge you to consider a Zone D far West Lianshead and to allow there h.igher densities, lower parkinglbed ratios, less expensive btiiild.ing material.s, whatever is appropriate and called for, so that att-ractive mixecl housing mi;ht be develnped on same Town and V.A. properties as envisioned and recommended by the Vail Tomorrow conferences. RespectfullY, Anne Esson ~ 41, CA-t . . ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~C.~ ' 4.../~' t~ f °-C`..~L.4,.fj~'-'~ • : ~ ~ : ~ ,.~..~.~..~..t.~...~. . , Proposed builcfing codc changes kC ; i ~:.'`9 VY ~41y'4"Yl" Subject. Proposed building code changes Date. Mon, 2 Mar 1998 l 9.25:30 EST From: BANJOJERI <BANJC)JERI@aol.corn> ~To: ssilver@vail.net Vail Town Cauncil We are aware of the proposed changes in the building code regarding height and mass restricitions af new buildings. • • As owners of a condominium at Vantaqe Point we are abviously strongly opposed to such changes. It would not only spoil aur view of t•he mountain but decrease the va2ue af our investment. This I'm sure is of no cancern to Vail associates but we ctepend on you not to forget the "little guys." ~ . ' Even were we not'owners of praperty we would be opposed to see Lionsheacl spailed by big buildings. Lionshead has developed a special character over the years which cae love and allowing bigger taller buildings woul,d change that character severely. I'm sure several thausand other skiers have similar feelings. The future of Vail depends upon a great skiing experience. There are many . other areas and mountains on cahich ta ski. Don't make the mistake of catering only ta a few interested only in bigger money. Thank you for your consideration. Margie and Jarry Ellefson N9730 Count Road W Colfax, WI 54730 ~ ~ 1of1 . 3/319$ 7:28 AM REGt-M-L? F-EB Z 1 7~86 Barry Friedman & Associates 11 The Pines Court Suite A ~ St. Louis, MO 63141 < 4`~ (314) 434-8900 • Fax (314) 434-7710 n Igge Vai1 Town Councii 75 S. Frantage Rd. Vail, C;U 81657 TOR(MM. ` V. afft Cientlemen: ' Iam a property owner• at 105 Vantage Point in Lionshead. I would like ta urge you not to increase the codes of buitding height on a across t-he baard basis. I wou1d think that should be done an an individual basis, just the way it is done in Vail Village. I lsnow there are some buildings in Lianshead that are taller than the present zoning Iaw permits, but most ot' these buildings are on the I-70 where they act as ~ sound barriers and do not destroy the view for any of the people in Lionshead. I believe if you go atiead and raise the height to 93 feet you will destroy the beauty of Lionshead and make A nathing more than another walled city. I can understand Vail Associates wanting to put up more buildings but I don't think you want ta . destroy the Lionshead part of the village. ~r have been coming to Vail for 25 years, and plan to eontinue tocome for many more years, and Z would urge the council to go slow in making an across the board exception on building heights. Sinc€rely, . ~ Barry M. Fr~ ~l an ~ 5ecurities offered through BeneHLsCorp Equities, lnc., a who(ly owned subsidiary of Great West Llfe & Annuity lnsurance Ccsmpany 8515 E. Orclwrd Road • Englewoacl, CO 80111 - . ~ . 03/02»8 09; xa FAX 303367197$ RnY z.nMB Qoi F.AX COVEF~ SHEEZ` Date. cl ~ . i To` FaxNtimber FRC)M: 12ay ~P.Lamb . Fax/T~.'l, 303-367-1978 Comments: ~ 1 V Z Nuamber of pages, in+cluding cover sheet z ~ LitansHead Mas#er Plan Subject: LiansHead Master Plan Date: Sun, Ol Mar 1998 18:21:33 -4500 From: Stephen ivXontgomery <sznontgom~7a dreamscape.cam> ~ To: ssilver@vail.net I am an intexval owner of the time share units at Vantage Point in Lionshead. S currently have a great view of the mountain from my forth floar unit. If the amending of the building codes were ta go into effect I'ci 1.ose a11 the view and alat more°-the whoie experience of caminq to Vail would change. I stronqly oppose changing the building height restrictions--please convey my sentiments to the Cauncil. . Sincerely Stephen Montgomery, syracuse,ny ~ t 3t2l9$ 8:07 E1M . MAR~~2°9B MQN 04:33 PM DFP AS50CIATES, TNG. 407 368 9644 . P.01 ~ • "1 • ~~r 1 A~~ta&i, -qw. I M s.W, ~ ~venuo . ~ EsQcq* FiotQn, Fio,ida? 33486-1002 . (561) 368-96" . ~ MAR 0 Marcn 2,1998 ~ . . Valt Towrt Cc~unci~ ~i PTF 75 S. Ft'ontage Road Va1# Co. 81657 ' Dear Ctauncil Merttbers: As an orrner in Vantage Polnt 1am crmmayei ta hear tha# you are wrieidering . amendin8 the cuRent height re,striCtions d 48 feet ta a maxirnum of 93,tbet Irt Llonshead. ° E3efcare we purchased aur hom+a v~ rewarched the height restrictions #4 ensure us that our view of the mourttalri would nqt be lmpecied. Orice satisted that the hei&t ~ restrlctton was a maxlmum af 48 teet ve pucchased our home, . 'Beaver Cneek was an altema'tiive consldera#ion fibr the purctYase ai a hocne at thak time, . The "vlllage af vvails" where no sunligh# cari shlne on the pedestrian wal~ks was enough ot a detriment to eliminate Beavet Creek as a vlabte aftematirve. tf the 93 fitxat helght variencx: is apptoved it wwld certainEy create a walled 04 surrocandirg the erttance 4o the mountain tha# woutd elimfna#e or dras#ically reduce the vtews at the mountain. , While i sewgnize that there 1s no legal ptotection of ptivste views artd co legal kasls fbr , relying ort zoning ragulations remsining the same In the light ofi changeci canditions. You; as electeci oMctals have a. MURRAL responsibliity to presenre the views and . openrm of Lfonsheac9 for those wtya have purc,hasett urtder the exMing zontng restrictions. Please keep the currrent height restrictEtart #48 feet !n effed. DONT CHANGE tTl You firu , . D~ ~ ..t~i.~p?_.~t y Kari E. Pte,ttsse . P'residertt ~ r ~ KC TC_ . U ~ Henrietta {Hally} Sirnmenroth 2t1$/98 10 Cora Lane Chester, N.J. 07930 Chmer: Lifthouse Conda #412 Lianshead Circie Vail, CO 81657 "Vai1 Town Gfluncil Tawn of Vail 75 South Frantage Raad Vai1, CO 8165 Ladies and Gentlemen, The attached letter was submitted to the Vail Town Cauncil on November 11,1997. Since then I bave attendeci a meeting on Sunday, Feb 15,1998 at the Vail Rublic Library CQmmunity Room to review the "Height and Mass Concep#s and Alternatives" as propased !zy the Study Committee hired by the Town of VaiL The narrovving af walkways through Lionshead in the name of "increasec,i commerce" is absoluiely frightening? A Survey, citing 40% of t2ie visitors to Vai1 da not ski but enjoy shopping a main activitY, was given as a rational to narrow the walkways to approximately 30 feet, Lionshe.ad has always teen the main Vai1 "Skier Drop-off' due to easy access to the gandaia and high speet quad chair. After 15 vearrs af watching the transportatian in the parlang garage unlaad in the mornirsgs and return in the ~ evenings, I can assure you, almast all of the people entering Lianshead go dixectly to the lift ticket 1aooth > purchase lift tickets, and head up t}xe mountain. Narrocving the walkways vvill not encourage them to purchase tee shirts and otlzer tourist paraphernalia. Kennys Ski 5hop is ane of the few prosperaus enterpnises in Lionshead because 'rt serves the neetis of this tr=iezat populatian. Bart &Yettes dces equallY as weil. But, for the most part, when these people return fram skiing, they heact on hame because we da not affer them a comfottable ski lodge, and enough suitable amenities to malse them want to stay in Linnshead to N7sit and shop. The "Lionshead Core Redevetopment Pragram" autlined in the letter above creates more r,angestion anti does nothing to serve thase dailyvisitors. Comman sense leacls me to the ne.Yt canclusion. If the transient populadan creates toa much congesCion and does not increase the revenue basis for the town of Vail, ihe alteznative of remaving the parking facility and building a five star hotel in that locaation would create moxe "live bor3s", and rerluce the trraffic aangestian prablem sisuultaneously. fihe current Study Committee claixns no major hotel ccancern would consider that a suitable loca8ion. i uzge you to revisit this concept and solzcit the znajor hzttel c' diractly to abtain written prapasals or letters of denial. To service day visitors, a parking garage cauld be built a the west end of Liansheead with adec;uate wallcways to the gondola, and the emsfiing Sunbird ladge and old gondaia building area could be rebuilt as a lodge to cc>ntain all skiers camfortably and provide the much needed open space area at the base of the mauntain. These are very braad concepts, and I humbly sul7mit them for your cansideration. Thank Yon for the in depth reviews you are rnaking of this prn}ect, and for readin$ my ietter. TrulyYotirs, --7 . 7 ~ HCt111etta "HOlly" S1ffiIY1eIlI0ih ~ Renrietta (Hoily) Simmenroth 1 l129197 10 Cara Lane ~ Chester, N.J. 07930 Ocvner: L,ifthause Condo #412 Lionshead Circle, Vail, CO 81657 Vail Town Council Town C1f Vaii 75 South Prontage Road Vaii. CO 81657 Ladies and Cetttlemen, This letter is in protest to the recently received prelimiuary- pians of Lionshead that Vaii Asssciciates will be presenting to the town for apprflval. The dc,cument refened to is the "LIt3N5HEA3J G(7RE PJ--DE'VELQi'MEN°I' PROGRAM 5UIviMARY" dated 9/23/97 depicting 44 CONDOS, b PENT"HOU5E CC7NDC)S, and a 127 RDOM HC?T'EL. The plans ind'rcate the build%ngs cvill be more than 6 sk4ties in height with existing corridors af traffic narrawing down tts alleys to the gondota and chair #8 at the base. Befare proceedingy T would like to introduce myself and explain my concerns as they relate to me personally. I am known as "Holly„ , am a schaol nurse aud health educator, and tiave been visiting the Vail Va11ey far more thazi 20 years on a regular basis staying at the Lifthouse Condos which are managed by.Packy Walkez. Dui-ing the first 15 years, I was able to save enough money for a dawn pavment on a condo and waaited for ane of the top floor mountain facing wnits to come up for sale: Qn August 19,1991, my dream came true. Although other units in the buildi.ng not facing the mountain were listed on the ~ market for about one half the price, I purchased unit ##4I2, a mountain view uiut &om which T can lay an the liN-ing room cauch and watch the skiers descend the slopes. I had aiways anticipated thai in my retirement, just a few years away, I would be able to spend mach more time in my Lifthouse cando enjar-ing the spectacular N7ew of the mauntain. I arn sure my story as a Lionshead cando owner is npt unique. The above captioned ptan will obscruct the view af many ather condo owners in the azea, not only stuattering our dreams af relaxing and taking un the beautiful natural environrnenc of the mountains through owr wizrdows, but also reduoing the anonetaxy value of the units in direct proportion to the lass of the,%-iew. I realize there are Town of Vail View corridars set forth i.n Chapter 18.73 of the Municipal Code, and private views not identif'xed in the code are not protected Fly Tt?V reguiatiarss. At tb:is tame of drastic change, I implore you to revisit these View Gomdars creating new, wider View Comdors in Litinshead and, as an 'table solution tn amend the Munici Ccx~e to not aliow an nectivv buildin ta be..haher than the existing stre~Gture tiviih a•oa.rianre ^teci aiter cbtair~in a rcvai af ail . 'owners wluch would be effected tabstruction of ~iew o~` the mountain or the Gore zan e. A`°Fiti e Star" hotei increasing the "Live Bed" capaciry would certainly enhance the area, but I fail to see why Lionshead needs 44 more condos and 6 penckiouse condas as the ptaprasal indicates. A few years aga when VA officials met with hotel consultants to cansider the feasibiliry of bringing either a grancl hotel, condomizLium units with retail, a miYed use boutique hotei or a boutique hotel witb candominiwms and retail into the heart of Lionshead, the study showet.i the care site was nat vrell suited physicallv to hotel _ development because of lack of size, poor access, etceteras. Tn the Six Policy C?bjectives identified by the Town Council as a faundation for the planning process, iraproved access and circuiation was identified . as ane af the major needs. Since the gan.dola was maved to the base of the mountain, next to the bridge, the skier traffic at the base has become much more cangested requiring nnore apen space in that azea, not less. The Lionshead Master Plan Stage IT - Program Development Ptiase eticited public responses in the formaL of a"Wish I..ist", obviausly appropriateiy namecl, as numerous respanses addressed the need for ~ rnore open public space not 1ess. . ~ Regarding the Redevetoprrient Project, Mr. David Cottsin, Vice Presideni af VA Rea2 Esstaate Group is repartect as saying the obvious benefits to Vail Associates vvould be the incrcased number of skiers, use of t,he ski schaol anri its retail sales. The benefits to the Tocm af Vail wotald be increaased cvllection af ski lift taxes, lodging taaces, praperty taxes and sales tax. Regarding the Lianshead Core Redevelopment Progzam. Sumnary dated 9/23J97, I wauld like ta say, the increase in revvenues to the VA and the Tt7V will be great, but if this plan goes into effect without axnelioradozt , the loss of aesthetics ta the communzty of Lianshead will be devastating. Tnaiy Yoeus, Henrietta (Holly) Siinmenrath ~ ~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 9, 1998 Minutes MEMSERS FREBENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Maffet Mike Mollica Greg Amsden Dominic Mauriello Galen Rasland Reed Onate Gene Useiton George Ruther C3iane Goiden (left at 4:45 pm) Judy Radriguez John Schofield Ann Bishop (2.1 0 pm - 4;40 pm) Pubii+c Hearinq 2.00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Mo#fet at 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a setback variance, a landscape variance, and a request for additional GRFA utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an addition to an existing residence, iocated at 4214 Columbine Way/lJnit 5, Bighorn Terrace. Appiicant: Joe and Lauraine 5kolasinski, represented by Galen Aasland, Architect Planner: Reed Onate ~ Galen Aasland recused himself. Reed Onate gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant or the public had any comments. They did not. °YGene Useltan stated that the proposai was complete and he had no comments. John Schofiield had na comments. Greg Amsden_had no prablem with the proposal. Diane Golden cammended the praposal. Greg Moffet joined in the accolades from the Gommission regarding the campiete material from the applicant. He said that given that this request met the criteria for additional GRFA and for the variances he fiound a hardship, it was nat a grant of special privilege. John Sehofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff inemo. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. ~ Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 d - The motian passed by a vote of 5-0-1, (Ga4en Aasland recused himself and Ann Bishop was not ~ present far this item). Ann Bishop arrived at 2:10 pm. 2. A request for a worksession ta discuss a major amendment to SDD #4, ta albw for a fractional fee club, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/ Cascade Viliage Area A. Applicant: Geraid L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson P(anner; George Ruther Gerry Wurhman, the managing partner ofi LLC, said there was a misinterpretation of what the appiication was about. He said the 15 AU's shouid be 15,000 sq. #t. in total GRFA, Gearge Ruther explained that there should be 15 AU's comprising approximately 12,000 sq. ft. Jerry Wurhman said that as designed, the proposed AU's are classi#ied as lock-off units by the Municipal Code, but they could remove the IQCk-aff door and access the AU's from the hallway. George Ruther said the plans could be redrawn without adjoining daors. Gerry Wurhman said the application was in conformance with the definit+on of a Fractional Fee Club since they would be having 10-12 club owners. He said that Destinatinn Hatei Resorts wauld manage the praject with 24-hr. per day on-site management. He said that since the Vai{ Cascade Hotel group would manage the property, their members could use the facilities and that ~ the application also canformed with having shops in the vicinity. aiscussion iss et~#.1_e Gene Uselton asked George about the lock-off being a tradeo#f. George Ruther said a 3-bedroom unit could be sold with a lock-aff. He said the Town Council believed that a lock-off was not that successful in the Town of Vail and so they were not willing to grant density considerations for lock-of#s in exchange far AU's. John Schofiield asked about the management arrangemen#. Gerry Wurhman explained there would be a front desk in the entryuvay with a telephone ta caH over to the Cascade Club Hotel to register. John Schofield said the intent was to have a warm body at the frant desk. Gearge Ruther said a hotel guest typically expects an on-site manager, but the proximity of the Caseade Hotel lobby to this building could constitute an nn-site manager. Jahn Schofield said to his recollection, he was not sure that the location wauld take care o# the intent as being on-site. Planning and Environmentai Commission Minutes ~ March 9, 1998 2 ~ Greg Amsden asked about the ramifications ofi an SDD amendment, when you have other residential sites in the area. George Ruther said piaces such as Coldstream cauld came in and do this same thing by applying. However, this amendment request was only applicabie to the Westhaven condominium site. Mike Malliea stated there was na undertying zaning in the Caseade Village SDC7. Greg Amsden said there was a iot af usage of the Cascade fiacility and he cnuld see more usage with more time-shares within this SDD. Gaien Aasland stated the arrangemen# with the Cascade C1ub was an acceptable cantractual agreement for the short term; but if the cnntract was up would there be a continuing arrangement so it would not be abandoned in 5 years. Ann Bishap shared Galen's, Greg's and John's comments and asked if the number of EHU"s had changed. George Ruther said, yes. He said there were 20 EHU's. Greg Amsden suggested redesigning ta house employees within the building. Ann Bishnp felt it was lmportant for an on-site manager to be in the building. ~ Greg Nloffet gave similar examples of the Wigwam and Broadmaor having long walks to the front desk, being as long as from this building to the Cascade Hotel. He said the ordinance Ieft room to have an aperating, unmanned front desk. He said as proposed, he was comfortable with the proposal. Diane Golden asked if the management agreement wouid always be there. Gerry Wurhman said if the agreement was terminafied in the future, then the obligation to have sta#f full time would have to be addressed by him. Discussion i~sue #2: Greg Moffet asked haw FFU's wauld mix with employee hflusing. George Ruther stated wi#h the Austria Haus, all AU's were overfooking the parking structure and staff was concerned that ail the RU's would be in the Ieast desirable 1ocation. Ceorge said that staff was not sugges#ing that EHU's would not be appropriate in this building, but there needed #o be a discussion of the different types of uses, as the lifestyles of someone on vacation and sameone living year-round were very different. Gerry Wurhman mentianed that there was acceptance of the mix in Aspen, but acceptance in Vaii was not successful. He said they waited until after the Austria Haus went thraugh to see that everything was put in place. He said that AU's were immediately adjacent to club units as there was a benefit of tying the two together if additional space was needed. He said there ~ Planning and Envirnnmental Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 3 would be no conflict because they would be managed by the same company and the EHU's wauld be ski- in, ski-out units commanding an upper level of rental people. He said the extra 4 ~ EHU's are accessed by their own stairways and the AU's and club units were accessed by the elevafor. Galen Aasland and Ann Bishap were satisfied by Mr. Wurhman's explanatiorr. diane Golden asked if the EHU's had parking spaces. Jerry Wurhman said, yes. Gene Uselton asked if they would be seiling the EHU's. Mike MoHica stated the whole black of employee housing could be sold. Jahn Schofield said the proposal was great in theory, but it wauld be a managemen# nightmare. He said he wauld nat want to buy a unit with the employee housing perception that exists. Jerry Wurhman said integration would not be easy. Greg Amsden was concerned about timeshares being difficult ta finance. He was concerned about realistically puCting this project together. Greg Moffet said this was coherent in the location and advised to go far employee housing. Discussian issue #3 ~ Mike Mollica asked the F'EC to prnvide any additional information to be included in the applieation sa the applicant could mave forward. Jerry Wurhman said the 1995 submittal was not being changed; only the use and interior configuration was different. Gene Uselton asked if staff had come up with the parking requirement. George Ruther said, no. Gene Uselton asked where all the cars would be parked. Jerry Wurhman stated there were 46 spaces available on the approved site plan, providing for one space for each of the 11 club units, one for each AU and one fior eaeh EHU. He said in talking with the Cascade Hotel, only 50°/b of the guests that arrive do sa in cars. George Ruther said .7 or .8 parking spaces would be needed per AU. John Schofield asked if the front desk area could be addressed. Greg Amsden said parking would be slightly higher. Planning and Enviranmental Commission Minutes ~ 1Vlarch 9, 1998 4 ~ Greg Moffet, Galen Aasland, Ann Bishop and Diane Golden agreed. Discussiart issue #4 Jerry Wurhman explained the walkway system from the buiiding towards the parking structure. Gearge Ruther asked if the PEC would like a pedestrian overpass to the Cascade Notel, The PEG said, yes, DisCUSSion issup, #5 Gene Useiton had no comments. Johrr Schofieid had no comments. (areg Amsden had no comments. Galen Aasland wauld iike the "ruins" capped over, rather than tom dawn. Ann Bishop asked about a time table and if it wouid be buift in 1998. Jerry Wurhman said, nn. Diane Gafden and Greg Moffet had na comments. ~ Mike Mollica asked if the PEC was comfiortable with the major 5DD pracess or with a conditionai use for the #ractional fee as an optian. He said sta#f was praceeding with the major SaD amendment. John Schofieid asked if a canditional use was allowed in the PA Zone District and to check with Tom Moorhead. Greg Moffet said Council had the ability to cal( it up and that the major SDD amendment was the only way to go. Jim L.amont asked if the area was allowed to have FFU's with an SDD overlay and we would prefer to make this consistent community-wide. He said tha# the Council turned dawn the Austria Haus request for the front desk located at the Bavaria Haus. He said he suspected that Council was Inoking for consistency of treatment and also i# the management contract became null and void, it should fall back to the owners as a stand-alone ladge. Galen_Rasland said this proposal needed to have a baek-up plan, if the management fell through, this could stand alone. The rest of the PEC agreed. 3. A request for a worksession on Stage 3of the Lianshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Stage 3 includes the rationale and desired outcomes, which establish the regulatory framework for he'rght, mass and density of buildings in the study area. Planners: Mike MollicafDominic MaurieNo Cansultants: Ethan Moore & David Kenyon (Design V1Corkshop, Inc:) ~ Planning and Environmental Commissifln Minutes March 9,199$ 5 Mike Moilica stated that this would be coming back in two weeks for a recommendatian to Town ~ Council. He said they were proposing to madify the floar-to-#loor height. 1 d. Galen Aasland stated for the record that he did consulting work for Bob Lazier, but he saw no con#lict and agreed with the staff's fioor-to-floor height analysis. John Schofield agrees with the 11-1 /2', but felt a couple of feet could be bumped up. Mike Mollica said the lower level commercial would bump it ap a coup{e o# feet. 1b. Geographic distribution 6# buiiding heights. Galen Aaslarrd said the height was a concern and he said Ethan distributed a memn showing the buildings over height and he wanted to know what percen#age over height it was, Ethan Moore said he didn't have the base tiata to do that. He explained with sa many multiple eaveheights, the scope o# the existing survey didn't have that information. Galen Aasiand said if 50°!p of the buildings were over height, then it was relevant and we would need more information. He said the PEC may want ane more worksessian and they needed to know what Che allowable density was, given the current zoning. He said if bonus heights were given, then we need to get a handle on density. He a{sa warrted to know abaut GRFA in the current zoning, as well as density resulting in height bonuses. Ann Bishop echoed Galen's comments and agreed this needed another worksession. ~ Diane Golden also agreed with Galen and suggesCed addressing employee housing. Gene Useltan asked about floor heights and felt that only one slaped raof was not aesthetically appealing. Mike Mollica said there would be a variety of roof pitches, but staff was recommending that a1l buildings have sloping roo#s. John Schofield echoed Galen's comments. Ethan Moore said they could da a general visual assessment survey. John Schofield said it did not need to be site-specific, but just a generalization af how buildings would affect existing views. Greg Amsden read a letter from Anne Essen for the record. He also asked far an exp(anation on how to look at the buildings on the model. Ethan Moore said the length of tne building wou(d be enEOUraged towarcis the mountain, or north/south. He said that clearly it would not have to be true northlsouth. He explained that the reason for northlsauth was it would cause less impact fram street level and allow for more light into the public spaces. Planuing and Environmental Commission ~ Mintttes March 9,1998 6 ~ Greg Amsden encouraged Ann Essen's density approach far EHU's. Ethan Maore said the west end of Lionshead was for emplnyee housing and would be mare dense. He said higher than 5-6 story buildings were not appropriate in West Lionshead. He explained the modei and said there were very few praperties in Linnshead thatfiaced northlsouth, but rather east/west. He said the maan impact was an the Vail Associates core site. Ne said benefits shauld be given to encourage north/south to incentivize devefiopment over tirne Greg Moffet stated that we had the ability ta put emplflyee housing on the west end. He said his bias was towards northlsouth, as you would see materially different heights and also suggested disincentives for any east/west development above the 2nd floor. 1 e. Mike Mollica explained 1 c, was about a 5-story building plus a raof. Dominic Mauriello explained his survey. He said the Vail Village MasCer Plan said a floor-to-floor heigh# was 9. He explained that in 1970, the CC2 Zone was adopted and in 1973 an amendment stated buiiding height was to be 45' and 48'. He said that there were 19 buildings built be#ore 1973 with no height limitatinn. Galen Aasland agreed with the north/south (ayout. He said a 4:12 roof and a 5:12 roof le#t room far a story in the ro6f. He felt the eastlwest strucCures eould be 4-story buildings, Ethan Moore gave an overview of the bonus plan far the north/south building height and said a ~ 6th story could be aNowed befnre the roaf. Greg Moffet said north/south buildings shnuld be cascadad. He felt we shouldn't do anything ta incentivize eastlwest buildings or it would just create annther Beaver Creek. He said theraneeded ta be greaterfloar-to-flaor heights and he wanted sloped roofs. Ga1en Aasland said if a developer chose an eastlwest orientatian, he shouldn't get any incentives. He said east/west should be lower than 5 stories . Greg Moffet would like to see on1y 2 stories for east/west, but taller cascading structures for north/south #o keep light coming in. He said we cauld encourage more height, by coming out on the bottom. Gene Uselton had no camments. John Schofield echoed the lowering of anything eastlwest. He felt that anything past the 4 story range would have to be stepped back. Ne said we needed to be sensitive to the moral obligatians and why people come here. Greg Moffet suggested using development incentives #o encaurage north/south. John Schofield suggested landscaping incentives. Ethan Moore asked the F'EC for their thoughts an maximum height far north/south buildings. ~ Plazining and Environmental Commissian Minutes March 9, 1998 7 John Schofieid said a pitched roof would be #illed with dormers and therefore the mass wnuld be ~ huge. He said once we went over 4-5 stories, we had to be careful. Greg Amsden said eastiwest should be only 4 stnries and north/south should have #enestration in the roof. He said he was fearful of the south side. Galen Aasland said he saw potential with what John suggested about 0 lot lines. He said that existing buiidings economics are such that Kenny's Double Diamond wi(I always have an east/west orientation, and what waufd be the threshold so that people who have space wili have the assurance of what wiil happen to their space. Ne said until he saw some density fiigures, he would not comment. He was very afraid of thO metropofis look. Ann Bishop said Galen was correct in needing more specifics regarding height ar?d density. She uras concerned with the views after reading letters from the public. Ethan Monre stated the effort was to came up with a set of architectural guidelines to meet comman goals, such as views, sunlight, etc. in Lionshead. Ann Bishop stated that this particular graup of letters was very vocal in what they expected from the Town of Vail. Mike Mollica asked Ann what specific information she wanted from staff. Ann Bishop answered the same as Galen wanted. Galen Aasland wanted to know what the current GRFA was for the care site and basically what ~ floor area was allowed on the lot under the current zoning. He would like to see a system that would address if we abandon zoning, then bonuses for roofs would allow 7 times the density or 1-112 what the density is now. He would also like to know how it would affect existing buildings and what are we doing to encourage redevelopment from them. Mike Mollica asked if they wanted gross flaor area site-by-site. He said it would be a massive project to ge# that informatian. He said it cauld be dane, but nnt in two weeks. Galen Aasland suggested just the core site, as it wauld give a way to see it and what was really allowed there today with the usage. Mike Moifica said we would not make an attempt to look at density, but we can do gross floor area. Greg Amsden suggested three columns, existing, potential and maximum potential. Greg Moffet asked for any public camment. Geoff Wright said a massive 48' structure would no# get approved on the core site. Greg Amsden said if there is no view corridar, there are no rights of views. Ann Bishop said there were legal issues involved in this. Dominic Mauriello stated the Town didn't have floor plans #or all the buildings in Lionshead. Planning and Enviraivnental Commission ~ Minutes Mareh 9, 1998 8 ~ Greg Moffe# asked if Ethan cauld eyeball the request, Ethan Moore said he had GRFA fior al1 the buiidings in Lionshead and could rnake a baiipark density guess for Lionshead. He said he couid put tagether basic information, but it would not be IegaNy defensible and aisa it was not in the scape of our contract. Galen Aasland said he would like to see a close balipark figure that Ethan suggested and wouid iike to see most of Lionshead done. Jim Lamont said the infiormation is an a disc in the County. Diane Go1den said she had no further cflmments. Gene Useltan asked about the roofs. Ethan Moore said there wi11 be a uniform distribution ofi buildings. He explained you had to Eook at haw buildings relate ta public space, rather than having those close to the creek lawer or those up against the Frantage Rd. being higher. Gene Uselton said the property owners alang the Frontage Rd. were complaining. Greg Moffei confirmed that several PEC members needed mare in#ormation. He summarized Chat the northlsouth layout was sufficient and encouraged the removal of incentives for eastlwestorientation. ~ Mike Mol4ica asked if the Commissian was comfortable with the exclusions on page 4, a and b of the stafif inema. Ethan Moore said there were height restrictions in the retaii mall area adjacent to the public spaces. Greg Moffet said it still looked like Beaver Creek, with the 4-story uninterrupted wall. There were no other camments from the other Gommissioners. Mike Mollica agreed and said we have more work to do befare we ga any furthar. Ne said there was Eagle County Assessor information on floor area and building height percentages to bring back to the PEC. Jahn Schofield said that site coverage and landscaping should be tied into incentives as acarrot to get what you want and make the redevelopment more interesting. He said incentives could be done with setbacks and landscaping. He said all the Commissioners wanted the buildings to be stepped back. Dominic IVlauriello said shop owners would be encouraged to move in aiong the corridors fihat are too wide. He said successfiul retail was decreased where there is larrdscaping in the matl. Mike Mollica said the Council was not comfortable with the FFU's being elimonated from the density ealculations and summarized that the FEC was on board with that. 0 Rnn Bishop ie#t at 4:40 pm. Planning and Envuonmental Commission Minutes Maroh 9, 1998 9 Bob Lazier said his general observations were that there was no impact firom a fanancial ~ viewpoint and a little gain for cammercial, but not fnr condominiums. He said to some degree, the Arcade Building and Lifthouse Associations are susceptible in improving Lionshead and want to change the feeling of Linnshead, but want to protect some views. He stated that this guideline was to get firom A to B with some kind ofi reasonableness. He said the bigges# site was the VA site, He said he didn't want the mall level to get darker or higher. Diane Golden left at 4.45 pm. Bob Lazier said the nor#hisouth corridar was the key issue and the grade needed ta be started where the fiaor heights were estabiished. Ne said if yau limit the VA site to a 5-story buiiding height, you wQUldn't see buiidings as they get closer to the stream. Ne said he liked the guidelines. He said the Li#thouse peopie vvere very concerned and VA would get a Itit of heat if they don't do a north/south arientation. He said with this Master Plan, new view corridors would be brought in. He asked how do we entice the Lifthouse, which was not the upper echelon nor hugely sophisticated, ta improve their facility, as #hey did want to. He suggested giving peaple some incentive to improve on a site-to-site basis. He said there should be a 5-stary limitation on east/west and there needed to be incentives for improvements. He said that the Arcade Building was pra in impraving the building. Rob Levine, General Manager of the Antlers, agreed with Bob Lazier regarding incentives. He said with the reaiity of redevelopment, with 25 on the list and 20 being Condo Associations, it was not realistic to build AU's. He said in defense af the DU's, the Tawn had to assure that fee simple units be granted. He encouraged the Council ar Tom Moorhead to figure out a way to have some site caverage withaut going higher and suggested not daing it with FFU's, buC to do it with DU's. ~ Greg Moffet summarized that proceeds from a sale would build an EHU. He said parking needed to be addressed as well as sun/shade, landseaping ete. Ne suggested allowing Assoeiations to self new units on the open market and use the proceeds to upgrade. John Sehofield asked how they wauld reeeive deed restrictions. Rob Levine said it would decrease the vaiue af the unit, but would increase the value of Lionshead. He said that assumption should be made going in. He said out of 70 units in the Antlers, 69 rent actively in the rental pooi and that is why we have been successful . Jahn Schafiield said the Commission and Cnuncil would be interested in how yau accomplished that. Rob Levine said addressing the common areas incentivizes other peopie to fix up. Bob Lazier said the design of the unit is why rental pools were success#ul. Rob Levine said we have been seeing a large demand for 3-4 bedroom unPts. Jim Lamont, EVHA, asked if there were requirements in the code to deed restrict. Mike Mollica said there was in the Subdivision Regs in the condo canversion provision, but it was very difficult to enfarce. Planning and Enviromnental Conunission ~ Minutes March 9, 1998 10 m k ~ Jim l.amonE said architects wanted a higher ceiling so with a 48' height, and no set floor to floor, it would give them flexibility. He said there was an issue wi#h flat roofs. Dominic Maurie{lo said it didn't become 48' until the mid 80's. Jim Lamont said if the Cbde was en#orced, keeping it to the minimum 8', you cauld get 6 flQOrs. Ethan Moore said the Architectural Guidelines wili state 9' so you would not be able to squeeze in a substandard unit. Jim Lamont asked if 8' was allowed in the code, why cou(dn't it be done. Ethan Moore said it would not be a high quality produc#, if at 8'. Jim Lamont said the argument would be that the goal was to maximize warm beds and was a 9' height limit in an EHU that much in demand, He said a master plan was an economic system. He said what we were dealing with here was going from a controiled growth econorny based on no competition for the last 30 years to a free market and throwing out all the regs. Ne said tocali this a service-based economy #hat provides the labor force (2 to 1) with facilities. He said we needed numbers, as we were short 1,400 beds with 62% of emplayees needing housing. He asked where we were going to put these emplayees and there may not be enaugh square footage to accomplish what we were trying to do. He said we still had to look at the bottom line numbers. He asked about the infrastructure improvements and also can we get everyone through the main Vail roundabout at 8am in the morning. He advised not dodging the issues orr the numbers. ~ Geoff Wright, #rom Destinatinn Resorts, agreed with Jim Lamont regarding the employees. He said the northlsauth ta 102' seemed monumental and massive and very similar to Keystone. He said the width of a north\sou#h building needed to be identified and haw close the next building would be needed to be addressed. He asked where fractional ownership fell inta a bonus. He was concerned about setbacks with two properties next to each other and both redevelaping. He said he has yet to see the view corridors and said we needed to define them. Etnan Moare expiained that in Stage 3 there was a preliminary location for the 5 view cflrridars and in S#age 5 they would act as a critical design constraint. _ Geoff Wright said at this poini, we should have snme idea. Mike Mol(ica suggested indicating the view corridors on the model. Geoff Wright said we don't want ta create development opportunities, just because it's allowed. Jim Lamont asked if harizontal zoning got thrown out. Mike Mollica said, no. Galen Aasland said offiice space had not been discussed, which was one of the failures of Beaver Creek and Keystone and so he would like to see that addressed. Greg Moffet said office space rnakes a marginal ~ervice viable. 0 Planning and Enuironmental Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 1 ~ ( e. s ~ r Bob Lazier said he agreed with Galen regarding office space. ~ Jim L.amont said that was why he raised the horizonCal zoning question. Gene Uselton said Vail had many voices, with some that did not have a vote. John Schofield said we were looking fior anything, not 100% accurate and not a camprehensive study. EtFran Mflore stated we were nnt trying ta dodge the numbers issue. Greg Mof#et summarized that office space was worth looking into as an ecanomic engine. Ne said the PEC had asked staff fnr more work, but that they appreciated the effort put in. 4. A request for additional GRFA utiSizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a remodel,lacated at 1998 Sunburst DrivelLat 19, Vail Valley 3rd Filing. Applicant: Nate Accarda, represented by Daie Smith, Fritzjerr, Pierce Briner Architects Planner; Fteed Onate TASLED UNTIL MARCH 23,1998 John Schafield made a motion to table item #4 until March 23, 1998. The motion was secanded by Greg Amsden. ~ it passed by a vote of 5-0, 5. Information Update 6. Approvai of February 23, 1998 minutes. Diane Goiden had changes. Greg Amsden made a motion for approval af the minutes as amended. Jahn Schafield seconded the motion. 7he motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Greg Amsden made a motion to adjoum John Schofield seconded the motian. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 5;30 pm. P1aiuling and Environmental Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 12