The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-0323 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on March 23, 1998, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a variance, to allow for a heating boiler to be placed in the sideyard setback, located at 22 West Meadow Drivell -ots G and H, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Villa Cortina Condominium Association, represented by Rick Halterman Planner: Christie Barton A request for Major CCI Exterior Alteration, to allow for a remodel and expansion to the Slifer Building, located at 230 Bridge Street/Lot B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Slifer Designs, represented by Jim Buckner Planner: George Ruther A request for a Conditional Use Permit, a Minor CC1 Exterior Alteration, a height variance and a site coverage variance, to allow for a bay window addition and to eliminate a dwelling unit, located at 193 Gore Creek Drive /Lot A, Block 5 -13, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Rodney & Beth Slifer, represented by Jim Buckner Planner: George Ruther A request for a Major CC2 Exterior Alteration, to allow for the addition of a spa maintenance building, located at 641 West Lionshead Circle /Part of Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: The Montaneros Condo. Assoc., represented by Michael Hazard Assoc. Planner: George Ruther A request for a front setback variance, to allow for a 3 -foot encroachment into the front setback for a residential addition, located at 3035 Booth Falls Road /Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 13th Filing, Applicant: John & Kathy Adair Planner: Christie Barton A request for a worksession to discuss the proposed Major CC1 Exterior Alteration to the Hong Fong Cafe Building, located at 227 Wall Street /Lot B & C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: ASI Vail Land Holding, L.L.C., represented by Kathy Lengenwalter Planner: George Ruther The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontag R oad. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2114 voice or 479 -2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department 10 Published March 6, 1998 in the Vail Trail. THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on March 23, 1998, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed west entry remodel to the Mountain Haus, located at 292 east Meadow Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Mountain Haus Condominium Association Planner: George Ruther The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published March 13, 1998 in the Vail Trail. E E Updated 3117 2pm , PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, March 23, 1598 AGENDA Project Orientation /LUNCH - Community Development Department 11:30 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 12 :30 p.m. 1. Montaneros - 641 West Lionshead Circle 2. Villa Cortina - 22 West Meadow Drive 3. Mountain Haus - 292 East Meadow Drive 4. Slifer Building - 230 Bridge Street 5. Slifer Residence - 193 Gore Creek Drive 6. Hong Kong Cafe Building - 227 Wall Street 7. Adair - 3035 Booth Falls Road Driver: George NOTE: if the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6 :00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a worksession on Stage 3 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Stage 3 includes the rationale and desired outcomes, which establish the regulatory framework for height, mass and density of buildings in the study area. Planners: Mike Moilica /Dominic Mauriello Consultants: Ethan Moore & David Kenyon (Design Workshop, Inc.) 2:00pm -3:30 pm 2. A request for a Major CC2 Exterior Alteration, to allow for the addition of a spa maintenance building, located at 641 West Lionshead Circle /Part of Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: The Montaneros Condo. Assoc., represented by Michael Hazard Assoc. Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1 WWNO*VAIL Updated 3/17 2pm 3. A request for a variance, to allow for a heating boiler to be placed in the sideyard setback, located at 22 West Meadow Drive/Lots G and H, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Villa Cortina Condominium Association, represented by Rick Halterman Planner: Christie Barton 4. A request for a front setback variance, to allow for a 3-foot encroachment into the front setback for a residential addition, located at 3035 Booth Falls Road/Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 13th Filing. Applicant: John & Kathy Adair Planner: Christie Barton 5. A request for a Conditional Use Permit, a Minor CC1 Exterior Alteration, a building height variance and a site coverage variance, to allow for a bay addition and to eliminate a dwelling unit, located at 193 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Rodney & Beth Slifer, represented by Jim Buckner Planner: George Ruther 6. A request for a worksession to discuss a Major CCI Exterior Alteration and a site coverage variance, to allow for a remodel and expansion to the Slifer Building, located at 230 Bridge Street/Lot B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Slifer Designs, represented by Jim Buckner Planner: George Ruther 7. A request for a worksession to discuss the proposed Major CC1 Exterior Alteration to the Hong Kong Cafe Building, located at 227 Wall Street/Lot B & C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: ASI Vail Land Holding, L.L.C., represented by Kathy Langenwalter Planner: George Ruther 8. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed west entry remodel to the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Mountain Haus Condominium Association Planner: George Ruther 9. A request for additonal GRFA utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a remodel, located at 1998 Sunburst Drive/Lot 19, Vail Valley 3rd Filing. Applicant: Nate Accardo, represented by Dale Smith, Fritzlen, Pierce Briner Architects Planner: George Ruther 1 7 11 29 Jet TTIATI", - 2 0 Updated 3/17 2prn 10. A request for a conditional use permit to construct four multiple - family dwelling units and variances from Section 12 -7E -8 (Building Height), Section 12-7E-1 1 (Landscape Area) and Section 12 -7E -7 (Setbacks), to allow for commercial and residential expansion, located at 143 E. Meadow Drive (Crossroads East Building) / Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 St. Applicant: Crossroads Plaza, Trevina L.P.; represented by Bill Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL APRIL 13,199$ 11, Information Update 1998 PEC rep. to the DRB - Jan. - Mar. - John Schofield Apr. - Jun. Jul. -Sep. Oct. - Dec. 12. Approval of March 9, 1998 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage, Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2114 voice or 479 -2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published March 20, 1998 in the Vail frail. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, March 23, 1998 FINAL AGENDA Proiect Origntation /LUNCH - Co[nmunity Deyglopment Department Updated 3/24 16 am 11 :30 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Moffet Gene Uselton Greg Amsden Ann Bishop Galen Aasland Diane Golden John Schofield Site Visits : 12 :30 p.m 1. Montaneros - 641 West Lionshead Circle 2. Villa Cortina - 22 West Meadow Drive 3. Mountain Haus - 292 East Meadow Drive 4. Slifer Building - 230 Bridge Street 5. Slifer Residence - 193 Gore Creek Drive 6. Hong Kong Cafe Building - 227 Wall Street 7. Adair - 3035 Booth Falls Road Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6 :30 p.m. ` Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2 :00 p.m. 1. A request for a worksession on Stage 3 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Stage 3 includes the rationale and desired outcomes, which establish the regulatory framework for height, mass and density of buildings in the study area. Planners: Mike Mollica/Dominic Mauriello Consultants: Ethan Moore & David Kenyon (Design Workshop, Inc.) 2 :00 pm - 3 :30 pm (4:25 p.m.) WORKSESSION - NA VOTE 1 TOWNO`VA FL Updated 3/24 10 am 2. A request for a Major CC2 Exterior Alteration, to allow for the addition of a spa maintenance building, located at 641 West Lionshead Circle/Part of Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: The Montaneros Condo. Assoc., represented by Michael Hazard Assoc. Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That the final fence design be approved by staff or the DRB. 3. A request for a variance, to allow for a heating boiler to be placed in the sideyard setback, located at 22 West Meadow Drive/Lots G and H, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Villa Cortina Condominium Association, represented by Rick Halterman Planner: Christie Barton MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 5-0 1 That landscaping (2-3 trees) be approved by staff to screen the boiler from the west end. 4. A request for a front setback variance, to allow for a 3-foot encroachment into the front setback for a residential addition, located at 3035 Booth Falls Road/Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 13th Filing. Applicant: John & Kathy Adair Planner: Christie Barton MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 5-0 5. A request for a Conditional Use Permit, a Minor CC 1 Exterior Alteration, a building height variance and a site coverage variance, to allow for a bay addition and to eliminate a dwelling unit, located at 193 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Rodney & Beth Slifer, represented by Jim Buckner Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED - Conditional Use Permit (the Minor CC1 Exterior Alteration, the building height variance and the site coverage variance have been withdrawn by the applicant). 2 �' ' I • Updated 3/24 10 am 6. A request for a worksession to discuss a Major CCI Exterior Alteration and a site coverage variance, to allow for a remodel and expansion to the Slifer Building, located at 230 Bridge Street/Lot B, Vail Village I st Filing. Applicant: Slifer Designs, represented by Jim Buckner Planner: George Ruther WORKSESSION - NO VOTE A request for a worksession to discuss the proposed Major CC1 Exterior Alteration to the Hong Kong Cafe Building, located at 227 Wall Street/Lot B & C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: A81 Vail Land Holding, L.L.C., represented by Kathy Langenwalter Planner: George Ruther 7. E-0 • • ION - NO VOTE A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed west entry remodel to the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow, Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Mountain Haus Condominium Association Planner: George Ruther WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 9. A request for additonal GRFA utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a remodel, located at 1998 Sunburst Drive/Lot 19, Vail Valley 3rd Filing. Applicant: Nate Accardo, represented by Dale Smith, Fritzlen, Pierce Briner Architects Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 10. A request for a conditional use permit to construct four multiple-family dwelling units And variances from Section 12-7E-8 (Building Height), Section 12- 7E-11 (Landscape Area) and Section I 2-7E-7 (Setbacks), to allow for commercial and residential expansion, located at 143 E. Meadow Drive (Crossroads East Building) / Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 St. Applicant: Crossroads Plaza, Trevina L.P., represented by Bill Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello • 3 Updated 3/24 IO am 11. Information Update 1998 PEC rep. to the DRB - Jan. - Mar. - John Schofield Apr. - Jun. Jul. -Sep. Oct. - Dec. 12. Approval of March 9, 1998 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2114 voice or 479 -2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department 4 0 z z r t r z > r z z t It as PR S ea 2 Otis the ? 3 sa Infl� i � sd ,1 }" for { S z c ooin),aili t a sf tst? @, I r z sc za } z T #eta -� e 11 b "1r t .3., �z 3 wA v l O 40 ,� a z�x a aA { fk r7i_ I P It's an aggressive timeline for a public involvement process, but the Vail Town * Council believes it has to move fast to begin to address the pressing housing needs. To keep the process on track, the Town Council has established parameters — or process "ground rules" --- that will serve as a framework for community discussion, a.$ :a z i s f or ")lt l .. %'q.. Uw za p .'. ah"llic Ulf' Fill out your 1998 Town of Vail Community Survey and promptly return it in the envelope provided. Surveys hit the streets at the end of March and will be used as a baseline for discussions on community priorities, If you receive mail within the Town of Gail, or own property in Vail, a survey will be sent to your household. For more information about the survey, or to request addi- tional copies for your household, please call (970) 479 -2111 ® Take the opportunity to express your views and hear others' ideas by mark- ing your calendars now to attend these on -site Public Workshops in April and ,June: Visit the Common Ground Internet web site at vail.net/tov; then record your suggestions and preferences to be forwarded to the April and ,Tune public workshops. The web site will be activated. April 1. Dial the Common Ground telephone response line at (970) 479 ®2451 and record your suggestions and preferences to be forwarded to the April and ,June public workshops. The response line will be activated April I . * Order a video tape of the April public workshop series or the ,June public workshop series by calling (970) 479 - 2115 The tapes are available for loan or purchase. * Check your mailbox for timely updates from the Town of Vail, * Watch for coverage of Common Ground and related announcements in the local newspapers, and on television. and radio. The people who participate in the Common Ground planning process will guide the immediate and long - term future direction of this community. ,5houldn't you be one of them? Its a tradition worth keeping. This planning process is one of 40 Vail Tomorrow actions endorsed by the Town of Vail. Mappinc - the Course for ` ail's, Future m. s together. S 3: etsMiaLlon, the tip v lokil "_ A PLAN FOR r Housing noble Action he Vail Town Council has identified the creation of more affordable housing within Vail' boundaries as a top priority, and is asking the community to work together to make some tough choices. The Town of Vail can't responsibly resolve our hosing problem without knowing what other land use priorities exist. To find out what those priorities are, the Town is asking people to help it Ofie velop a comprehensive, coordinated plan which will identify community's public facility and open space needs. Over the next three months, from April through June, the Common Ground process will involve both full and part -time Vail residents and Vail business owners who will all be asked to identify. 1) which community uses in addition to housing are most important local businesses, but Vatl's basic econornic health. And without a sound economy, the community will slowly decline, becoming less and less able to serve its own citizens and visitors alike. The Vail Town Council believes affordable housing is a critical part of our public infrastructure, and that it would be irresponsi- ble as a public body not to act promptly to address our commu- nity's housing needs. Using the target established through the recent Vail Tomorrow community-wide strategic planning process, Council wants to have 62 percent of Vail's employees living within the Town of Vail by the year 2010. But before that can happen, community decisions must be made about where to site housing and how to pay for it. Over the years, people have cited the lack of community gathering places as a major obstacle to community and family life in Vail. Past discussions have centered not only on the need for housing, but other public uses such as parks and open space, a community /performing, arts center, and other community facilities. The Vail Town Council will then use that plan to make budget and policy decisions about how Town property and other resources will be used. V 0 ail Faces a t hasn't been that long since Peter �d out their common vision for `, , in valley. ace was F, y p � MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 23, 1998 RE: Worksession - Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan - Stage 3, Bulk a n d -Mass In response to PEG direction at the last worksession, staff has prepared several analyzes of existing conditions in Lionshead and potential future increases in development in Lionshead. More information will be provided on charts, sketches, and diagram at the meeting. The meeting is a worksession, and therefore, no decisions are required of the PEC at this meeting. Please also keep in mind when reviewing this information, the original problem statement and policy objectives for the planning effort. The Town Council adopted problem statement and policy objectives have been provided in order to guide the review of Stage 3 of the master plan. included in this packet are: a cursory analysis of existing building height; an analysis of existing floor area and density by building; a future development scenario; a building orientation concept; and the worksession memo from the March 9, 1998 PEC meeting. Problem /0pportunity Statement Lionshead lacks the charm, character, appeal and vibrancy expected of a world - class. resort. It lacks a sense of arrival and sense of place. Pedestrian flow through the mall can be confusing and disconnected. The architecture lacks a unique identity or reference to Vail's historical antecedents or its alpine environment. Many of the buildings are physically aging and functionally under - utilized, resulting in negative impacts to property values, private profits, and public revenues. Potential hospitality, retail and recreational uses, and community amenities are unmet or unrealized. It would be short - sighted to ignore these conditions and do nothing. The opportunity exists for the public and private sectors to act collaboratively to renew and revitalize this important component of our community. OBJECTIVE 1. RENEWAL AND REDEVELOPMENT Lionshead can and should be renewed and redeveloped to become a warmer, more vibrant environment for guests and residents. Lionshead needs an appealing and coherent identity, a sense of place, a personality, a purpose, and an improved aesthetic character. OBJECTIVE 2. VITALITY AND AMENITIES We must seize the opportunity to enhance guest experience and community interaction through expanded and additional activities and amenities such as performing arts venues, conference facilities, ice rinks, streetscape, parks and other recreational improvements. OBJECTIVE 3. STRONGER ECONOMIC BASE THROUGH INCREASED "LIVE BEDS" In order to enhance the vitality and viability of Vail, renewal and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improved occupancy rates (i.e., "live beds" or "warm pillows") and the creation of additional bed base through new lodging products. OBJECTIVE 4. IMPROVED ACCESS AND CIRCULATION The flow of pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle and mass transit traffic must be improved within and through Lionshead. OBJECTIVE 5. IMPROVED INFRASTRUCTURE The infrastructure of Lionshead, including streets, walkways, transportation systems, parking, utilities, loading and delivery systems, snow removal and storage, and other public and private services must be upgraded to meet the capacities and service standards required to support redevelopment and revitalization efforts and to meet the expectations of our guests and residents. OBJECTIVE 6. CREATIVE FINANCING FOR ENHANCED PRIVATE PROFITS AND PUBLIC REVENUES Redevelopment in Lionshead must be undertaken in a financially creative, but feasible, manner so that adequate capital may be raised from all possible sources to fund desired private and public improvements. • [7 4 Existing Building Height Analysis: A field analysis was conducted of the existing buildings in Lionshead, in order to determine the number of building stories for each structure. Additionally, at the PEG's request, staff has estimated the percentage of building mass which is over the allowable height, for those existing buildings which exceed the building height standard. Stories were generally counted on the south side of each building or where the highest stories exist. Lofts were counted as one story and are also indicated below, The CC2 zone district was adopted in 1970 (Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1970). In this ordinance there was no building height limitation established. in July of 1973, the CC2 zone district was modified to establish a building height of 45' (Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973). Today;.the _CC_2 . zone district allows a sloping -roof building to be 48' in height. Included °below in parenthesis is an indication of the when buildings were constructed in Lionshead, Stories Buildings Total Number of Buildings - Percentage of Syllding Mass Over Allowable Height 2 -story Concert Hall Plaza (1979) 1 0% 3 -story Lion's Pride (1974) 3 0 %, Lionshead Arcade (1972) 0% Landmark 7ownhomes (1972) 0 °ld 4 -story Lodge at Lionshead (1 &2) (1973) 8 0 -5% Lodge at Lionshead (3) (1978) 0% Lionshead Center (1972) 0 -501 Lifthouse Condos (1972) 0 -5 % Gondola Building (1972) 0 -5% Montaneros (1972) 0% VailGlo Lodge (1972) 0% Lionsquare North (4, wfloft) (1974) 0% . 5 -story Vail 21 (actually 5.5 stories) (1972) 3 5% Lionshead inn (1972) 20% .. Enzian Condos (includes garage) (1973) 0 -5% 6 -story Sunbird (including garage) (1972_) 5 0 -5% Vail International (1972) - 15 -20% Vantage Point (1972) 20 -30% Vail Spa (1977) 5 -10 °Ja Westwind (w/loft) (1969) 5 % 7 -story Treetops (w /loft) (1971) 2 30% Marriott (1977) 30 -40 % 8 -story Lionsquare (1 -3) (1971) 2 10 -20 °lam Antlers (w /loft) (1972) 30% 9 -story Landmark (1972) 1 40 - -50% Buildings built before 1973 height regs Buildings built after 1973 height,regs. (19 buildings) (6 buildings) Antlers (1972) Concert Wall Plaza (1978) Enzian Condos (1973) Lion's Pride (1974) Gondola Building (1972) Lionsquare (4) (1974) Landmark (1972) Lodge at Lionshead (3) (1978) 3 1 Landmark Townhomes (1972) Marriott (1977) Lifthouse Condos (1972)- Vail Spa. (1977) Lionshead Arcade (1972) Lionshead Center (1972) Lionshead Inn (1972) Lionsquare (1 -3) (1971) Lodge at Lionshead (1 &2) (1973) Montaneros (1972) Sunbird (1972) Treetops (1971) Vail 21 (1972) Vail International (1972) VailGlo Lodge (1972) Vantage Point (1972) Westwind (1969) Lionshead Existing Conditions (GRFA, Density, and Commercial Floor Area). The attached spreadsheet was created utilizing several different sources of information. The GRFA information was developed from file research, lot size was developed from file research and surveys, and density was developed from file research and surveys of property owners. Commercial floor area and total floor area were developed utilizing 1988 tax assessor data. The information is very generalized. Vail 21, Lifthouse Condos, Lion's Pride, and the Lionshead Arcade were combined as these developments occur on a single parcel. Landmark Tower and Townhomes were combined as they exist as one parcel. Of the 21 parcels analyzed, 9 (or 43 %) are over the allowed GRFA. Of these 9 parcels, 5 parcels exceed the allowable GRFA by 20% or more, and 1 building (Enzian Condos) exceeds the allowable GRFA by 60 %. Of the 21 parcels analyzed, 1 (or 62%) are over the allowable number of units. Of these 13 parcels, 9 parcels exceed the allowable density by 20% or more. It should be noted that accommodation units were counted as 1l2 a dwelling unit per the Zoning Regulations. F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\98\LIONHEA.323 4 v Lionshead Existing Conditions - 1998 Note: This data Is for planning purposes only and should not be relied upon for development purposes uensity Units Density Tax GRFA GRFA GRFA Total Allowed Existing Density Existing Assessors Lot Size Allowed Existing Variance % of Residential (Dwelling (Dwelling % of Commercial Total Building Name (sq. ft.) -(sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) (sq ft.) allowed Unit Count Unit/Acre) Unit/Acre) allowed Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Antlers 52,390 41,912 49,914 (8,002) 119% 69.0 30.1 57.4 191% 0 55,871 Concert Hall Plaza 11,283 9,026 0 9,026 0% 0.0 6.5 0.0 0% 16,452 16,452 Enzian Condominiums 12,866 10 293 16,450 (6,157) 160% 12.0 7.4 40.6 550% 0 19,072 Gondola Building 59,810 47,848 0 47,848 0% 0.0 34.3 0.0 0% 49,695 49,695 Lionshead Inn (L'ostello) 40,367 32,294 18,611 13,683 58% 26.0 23.2 28.1 121% ? 30,342 Landmark Tower & Townhomes 65,122 52,098 58,334 (6,236) 112% 58.0 37.4 38.8 104% 72,948 Lion Square Lodge -- Phases 1 -3 78,416 62,733 73,660 (10,927) 117% 81.5 45.0 45.3 101% 12,321 90,399 Lion Square North Phasait 41,513 33,210 29,505 3,705 89% 27.0 23.8 28.3 119% 0 25,455 Lionshead Center 40,206 32,165 29,468 2,697 92% 26.0 23.1 28.2 122% 17,405 46,869 Lodge at Lionshead Phasel &2 59,629 47,703 57,841 (10,138) 121% 42.0 34.2 30.7 90% 1,487 45,727 Lodge at Lionshead Phase 3 42,785 34,228 20,043 14,185 59% 12.0 19 7 12.2 62% 0 23,840 Marriott Mountain Resort 225,205 180,164 134,000 46,164 74% 176.0 129.2 34.0 26% ? 138,991 Montaneros 44,848 35,878 44,298 (8,420) 123% 42,0 25.7 40.8 158% 3,649 51,520 Sunbird Lodge 26,527 21,222 17,741 3,481 84% 51.0 15.2 83.7 550% 10,610 40,225 Treetops 38,690 30,952 36,794 (5,842) 119% 29.0 22.2 32.7 147% 8,525 46,676 Vail International 78,408 62,726 59,396 3,330 95% 56.0 45.0 '31.1 69% 0 58,310 Vail Spa Condominiums 152,460 121,968 85,501 36,467 70% 55.0 87.5 15.7 18% 2,765 96,802 Vallglo, Lodge 27,977 '22,382 10,798 11,584 48% 17.5 16.1 27.2 170% 0 15,768 Vantage Point 68,520 54,816 69,1657 (14,351 ' ) 126% 65.0 39.3 41.3 105% 0 67,931 Westwind 36,988 29,590 36,253 (6,663) 123% 35 O 21.2 41.2 194% ? 37,685 Vail Z1 Lifthouse Condos Lion's Pride Lionshead Arcade 90,000 72,000 50,693 21,307 70% 78.0 51.7 37.8 73 0 /6 31,400 80,912 Notes: Density for the Marriott Is based on 13 du's and 326 au's, for the Lionshead Inn, 52 au's, for the Lionsquare Lodge, 66 du 's and 31 au's, and for the Vallgio Lodge, I'du and 33 au's. Commercial sq. footage Is based on 1998 tax assessor data. The Marriott Is conforming to SDD #7. The GRFA and density figures are based on the underlying zoning at 25 units/acre. LIONCTD.XLS Lionshead Master Plan. Building Height/ Potential Density Increase Analysis NOTE: The following analysis is based upon a set of basic assumptions. Due to the many factors that influence the eventual building program, and built form, of aproject, it is extremely difficult to predict with any degree of accuracy what development may happen in the future. Some of the different factors that may influence the eventual built form and density of project include: 1. 1 Town of Vail regulatory factors a. Site coverage b. GRFA c. Building height d. Parking requirements e. Density limitations 2. Market issues a. What land uses is the market driving? (AU's, DU's, FFU's, commercial, etc..). All of these uses have different impacts from a density, economic, and an infrastructure standpoint. b. Financing? What is the economic ability of a given property to retrofit or redevelop their property given their ability (or inability) to get financing for the project? 3. Physical configuration of the property. How much of the property can be developed from a site constraints standpoint? How does the size and shape of the property influence the shape and size of the architecture? Aside from the Town of Vail regulatory issues, all of the above factors will change based upon the property and the current economic and market conditions. Given these issues, how can the potential density increases best be estimated? For the purposes of this analysis, the existing conditions in Lionshead have been studied to determine the existing average site development data. This data does not represent any specific project in Lionshead, rather it is a representation of the average of all developed properties in Lionshead. Assumptions Used in Potential Density Increase Analysis 1. This analysis assumes an average floor to floor height of 11.5' on any new structure. 2. This analysis assumes that a new structure today, under current height restrictions, would have four stories, 3. An average site will achieve 40% site utilization for vertical architectural mass: The current average site coverage in Lionshead is 41 %. However, the percent of this gross site coverage that translates into a vertical architectural mass of taxed, regulated square footage (based upon county tax records) is closer to 30 % existing in rt Lionshead today. This analysis is assuming a more efficient use of space and an increased site coverage for new projects. 4. The first level of a new project will be all commercial, non-residential uses. 5. All levels starting with the second floor will be residential (no distinction is made regarding type of residential use- i.e.; no distinction is made between DU's, AU's, EHU's, F"liU's) 6. Density projections are based upon an average unit size of 1,500 square feet (averaged across all residential product types and unit sizes), and an average 2.5 beds per unit. This average is based on the current market driven unit sizes, and is larger` than the average existing unit size in Lionshead. 7. This analysis assumes that an average 25% of gross residential space will be utilized as common space. 8. This analysis assumes that an average site will have 50 % of its building mass oriented east -west, and 50 %n oriented north- south. 9. This analysis assumes that the following roof heights (based on a 65' wide double loaded building) will net the following amount of gross square footage per floor plate:` a. 5/12 roof pitch, 14' roof allowance- 28% of floor plate available. This space most likely will be viable only as loft space to the lower unit. b. 9/12 roof pitch, 24' roof allowance- 56% of floor plate available. e. 12/12 roof pitch, 33' roof allowance- 68 % of floor plate available, 32 %° of floor plate available in upper loft space. 7. This analysis assumes the removal of GRF'A as a development constraint. 8. This analysis does not include density restrictions. 9. All data is averaged per acre. Potential Average Development Scenarios Existing conditions average development data 1. Acreage of existing residential developed properties. Includes site 28 acres area of all projects with any residential development within Lionshead 2. Total Existing Unit Count (includes all residential unit types) 1,103 3. Existing Average Gross Retail Space per acre (from county tax 11,882 s.f. records, includes AU's as commercial space) 4. Existing Net Residential Space per acre (from county tax records, 27,567 s.f. excludes AU's as residential space) 5. Existing Average Units per acre (average of all residential unit types) 39.4 6. Existing Average Beds per acre (average of all residential unit types) 64 7. Existing Average Beds per Dwelling Unit 1.9 8. Existing Average Site Coverage per property 41% 9. Existing Average Unit Size 825 s.f. 4 t Scenario A. Development under existing zoning, given all assumptions outlined above: • 45' flat roof height, 48' sloped roof height • 1. Gross Retail Space per acre 17,424 s.f. 2. Net Residential Space per acre (25% common space removed) 39,204 s.f. 3. Potential Units (1,500 s.f per unit average) 24.5 /acre 4. Potential Beds (2.5 bed per unit average) 61.26 /acre 5. Percentage Change From Existing Average Units Per Acre -33.6 % Scenario B. Development given five story building with 14' roof allowance • 57.5' eve height, 71.5' total peak height 1. Gross Retail Space per acre 17,424 s.f. 2. Net Residential Space per acre (25 %o common space removed) 55,931 s.f. 3. Potential Units (1,500 s.f. per unit average) 37.3 /acre 4. Potential Beds (2.5 bed per unit average) 93.22 /acre 5. Percentage Change From Existing Average Units Per Acre - 5.36 % _. 6. Percentage Increase From Scenario "A" Units Per Acre 42.67 % Scenario C. Development given five story building with 14' roof allowance on east -west bars, five story building with bonus 33' allowance on north - south bars • 57.5' eve height, 71.5' total peak height E -W 57.5' eve height, 90.5' total peak height N -S 1. Gross Retail Space per acre 17,424 s.f. 2. Net Residential Space per acre (25% common space removed) 60,635 s.f 3. Potential Units (1,500 s.f. per unit average) 40.4 /acre 4. Potential Beds (2.5 bed per unit average) 101 /acre 5. Percentage Change From Existing Average Units Per Acre 2.60% 6. Percentage Increase From Scenario "A" Units Per Acre 54.67 % Scenario D. Development given five story building with 24' roof allowance on east -west bars, five story building with bonus 33' allowance on north =south bars • 57.5' eve height, 82.5' total peak height E -W • 57.5' eve height, 90.5' total peak height N -S 1. Gross Retail Space per acre 2. Net Residential Space per acre (25% common space removed) 3. Potential Units (1,500 s.f per unit average) 4. Potential Beds (2.5 bed per unit average) 5. Percentage Change From Existing Average Units Per Acre 6. Percentage Increase From Scenario "A" Units Per Acre 17,424 s.f. 62,465 s.f. 41.64 /acre 104 /acre 5.69% 59.33% C • Scenario E. Development given five story building with 24' roof allowance on east-west bars, six story building with bonus 3' allowance on north -south bars + 57.5' eve height, $2.5' total peak height E -W • 69' eve height, 102' total peak height N -S 1. Gross Retail Space per acre 17,424 s.f. 2. Net Residential Space per acre (25 % common space removed) 67,692 s.f 3. Potential Units (1 s.f. per unit average) 45.1 /acre 4. Potential Beds (2.5 bed per unit average) 112 /acre 5. Percentage Change From Existing Average Units Per Acre 14.54% 6. Percentage Increase From Scenario "A" Units Per Acre 72.67% In reviewing the above data, especially the "percentage increase" figures, it is important to remember the following. 1. The "potential" scenarios use an average bed per unit ratio of 2.5, as opposed to the existing 1.9 average condition. This accounts for the increase in the number of beds being greater than the increase in the number of units. 2. The above data should not be applied across the total acreage in Lionshead to try and project a total future density increase. These figures represent general percentage increases on a by -acre basis. Only properties starting with a new building would have the opportunity to approach these numbers. Intent of North- South Building Mass Recommendation The current building height recommendations provide a height bonus for building mass that is oriented primarily north - south. The basic intent of this incentive is to maximize the amount of sun coming into Lionshead, and create and preserve views in and out of Lionshead. While the exact details of this guideline will be worked out during the stage 4 architectural design guideline production, the general parameters are as follows: I . The north -south requirement of a building to be eligible for bonus height shall apply only to the portion of the building in excess of the "by- right" height. 2. "North- South" shall refer to the existing building orientation grid that exists it Lionshead. For example, all of the buildings within the Lionshead core area sit at essentially the same angle. Looking at all of Lionshead, there are roughly three different "building orientation" zones. A "north- south" oriented building would align with the north -south axis of the existing building grid, given a slight deviation allowance to either side of the grid 3. The average width of a north -south building shall generally be limited to a standard double - loaded building width 4. The average minimum distance between two "north- south" buildings on the same property shall be the width of a standard double loaded buildings. MEM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Team Mike Mollica/Dominic Mauriello DATE: March 9, 1998 SUBJECT: Stage 3-- Lionshead Master Plan - -A work session to continue discussions regarding height, mass and density parameters. The culmination of Stage 3 will be the adoption of a rationale and desired outcomes which establish the regulatory framework for height, mass and density of buildings in the Study Area. *The goal of this worksession is to provide the PEG with additional background Information yr with regard to: a) floor -to -floor heights; b) geographic distribution of building heights; c) bonus heights; d) development standards; and e) density parameters. The Master. Plan Team is looking for direction on the above 5 items. Any outstanding . issues and concerns should be articulated and the team will be prepared to directly address those concerns and issues at the next worksession. 1. STAGE 3 SCHEDULE Stage 3 of the Lionshead Master Plan has been in- progress since May of 1997. At this time, we are nearing completion of the third stage of the Master Plan and would propose the following schedule: Tuesday, March 3 ---- Joint PECICouncil work session - completed. Monday, March 9 ---- PEC work session. Monday, March 23 -- -Final PEC recommendation on Stage 3. Tuesday, March 24 -- Council afternoon work session. Tuesday, April 7 - - - - -- Council 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. s a v !1. QUTSTANDING ISSUES RELATED TO STAGE 3 The following is an overview of the Stage 3 outstanding issues which staff believes need further discussion and consensus: A) Determine the appropriate floor -to -floor height. Staff has contacted the following architects about floor -to -floor requirements, on projects they are working on. All assume at least a floor -to- coiling heitghtfor residentiaf/lodge units. The results are as follows: Henry Pratt, Gwathmey Pratt, Vail Stated he is working on the Marriott and is finding an average of 11' floor -to -floor as being tight. The Liftside project (Cascade Village) was constructed at 10.5' flour -to -floor and was very tight/not very manageable. (For a 5 -story building his average would bell' floor -to- floor.) Steve Isom, Isom and Associates, Eagle Stated that for a commercial building, the first floor needs 1 0' floor -to- ceiling and 15 of structure resulting in 11.25' floor -to- floor. For residential levels with 9' ceilings, one needs 10.25' floor -to- floor. (For a 5 -story building his average would be 10.45' floor -to- floor.) Bill Pierce, Fritzlen Pierce Briner, Vail Stated that the first floor commercial needs to have a floor -to -floor height of 14'. He stated that 10.5' for other floors can be done but is difficult. An 11' floor -to -floor works, but 12' would be ideal. (For a 5 -story building his average would be 11.6' floor to- floor.) Galen Aasland (Architect/PEC Member), Vail Stated that a project he is working on in Idaho had an average 10.9' floor -to- floor: Recommends a first floor at 16' and 1.1' for other floors. Stated that one might need more than 9' ceilings for quality condos. (For a 5 -story building his average would be 12' floor- to-floor.) Gordon Pierce, Pierce Segerberg Architects, Vail Stated that a 9' floor -to -floor is not realistic. Stated that the first floor commercial needs to be 12' minimum for the floor -to- floor. Recommends that the upper floors (residential) be a minimum of 10' floor -to - floor. (For a 5 -story building his average would be f0.4' floor -to- floor.) Terry Willis, Urban Design Croup, Denver - Terry stated that in luxury condos ", such as in Bachelor Gulch, there needs to be 15' floor -to -floor for the first level retail. Then he recommends that there be 11' floor -to -floor for the upper residential levels. (For a 5 -story building his average would be 11.8' floor- to-floor.) Cottle Graybeal Yaw (CGY) Architects, Aspen CGY has provided cross 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 is lower level commercial and an 1 1 - 11.5' floor -to -floor for the upper level residential. The 6" difference is due to two different types of heating systems (forced air vs hydronic 2 baseboard). (For a 5 -story building his average would be 12.1 ` floor -to floor.) In summary, the average floor -to -floor height recommended by the architects surveyed above is 11.3. Examples of floor -to -floor heights in buildings currently under construction in Vail: Austria Haus; . First floor - 10' Other floors - 11.44` (average) Average - 11.08' (based on 4 floors) International Wing: First floor - 16' Other floors - 9.96' (average) Average - 71.97" (#used on 3 floors) B) Geographically identify permitted heights (# of floors, plus a roof) and establish the acceptable "bonus heights" and associated performance criteria for achieving the bonus height, The proposed building height guidelines for the Uonshead Master Plan are outlined as follows. 1, Maximum by -right height limit based upon geographic location of property within the study area. a. Area "A" - (see map) - This area is characterized 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 existing development standards in place (maximum height of 33' for a sloping roof). b. Area "B - (see map) - This area is currently open space, located south of Gore Creek and is characterized by wetlands, steep embankments and undeveloped open space. It is proposed that this area be maintained as an open space resource, with no structures permitted. However, any open, recreation -type support structures that the Town of Vail may see as appropriate in the future shall be limited in height to 1 =story, plus a roof. C. Area "C " - (see map) - This area is characterized by the commercial core and multi - family residential uses. It is recommended that structures in this area have a by -right height limit of five stories, plus a roof. Structures in this area also are eligible for bonus heights based upon their orientation and conformance to performance criteria. 2. Roofs. The roof height allowance is defined as the increase in height from the maximum permitted eve height, to the ridgeline of the roof. 3 a. w Ci a. Sloped roof requirement [due to the desire for a consistent, high quality, alpine architectural style in the Lionshead area, it is proposed that fiat roofs no longer be allowed on any new construction, building additions or rehabilitation to existing buildings. b. right roof allowance In conjunction with the requirement for a sloping roof, it is recommended that every building 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 5/1.2 pitched roof on a typical 65' wide, double - loaded building). 3. Bonus Heights. The proposed height bonuses for Area "'C' of the Lionshead; study area are divided into two sections - additional stories (building height before the roof starts), and additional roof height. a. Additional stories Any structures that are predominately oriented north- South, (with average double - loaded corridor), are eligible for a bonus sixth story, according to conformance with the performance criteria. b. Bonus roof hei ha t allowances Based on the predominant orientation of the building and the conformance to performance; criteria, it is recommended that the following bonus roof allowances be created: 1. 8/12 pitch with a maximum roof height of 25' (this height is based on a 9/12 roof on a typical 65' wide double - loaded building). This bonus roof height would be available for all buildings in Area "C" regardless of their orientation, if they meet the performance criteria. This roof height will allow for the creation of a narrower "loft" story inside the roof. 2. 12 /12'pitch with a maximum roof height of 33' (this height is based on a 12/12 roof on a typical 65' wide double - loaded building.). This bonus roof height would be available for any building in Area "C" that is predominately oriented north -south and meets the performance criteria. This roof height will allow_ for the creation of an additional story, plus a loft space inside the roof. 4. Exclusions.- The following exclusions to by -right or bonus building-heights are proposed in order to protect the character and visual quality of certain spaces within the Lionshead Study Area. it is suggested that building setbacks, build -to lines and architectural step -backs will be detailed in the architectural and site guidelines. a. Any building adjoining the Core Creek stream corridor or adjoining the ski yard shall be limited to a 4 -story maximum permitted eve height, and must conform to the architectural design guidelines for buildings fronting these areas. However, this is not intended to prevent a building from attaining its bonus height after stepping back from the restricted building face. 0 4 b. Any part of a building that is south facing, north facing, or adjoining the Lionshead retail mail area shall be limited to a 5- story maximum permitted eve height. This is not intended to prevent a building from attaining its bonus height after stepping back from the restricted building face. C. All buildings in Area "C" shall conform to the Lionshead architectural and site design guidelines, which may influence the initial eve height and building step -back requirements. d. All building shall respect the established public view corridors. 5. Maximum Building Height Synopsis. The following maximum attainable building heights under the above proposals are based on an assumed 11:5' floor -to -floor height. a. 71.5 Feet - Maximum By -Right building height, with no bonus story and no bonus roof height (575 for five stories, plus 14' for the roof). b. 82.5 Feet - Building height with no bonus stories and the initial bonus roof height, (575 for five stories, plus 25' for the roof). C. 90.5 Feet - Building height with no bonus stories and the maximum bonus roof height, allowed only for north -south oriented buildings (575 for five stories, plus 33' for the roof), d. 102 Feet - Building height with bonus sixth floor and maximum bonus roof height, allowed only for north -south oriented buildings (69' for six stories, plus 33' for the roof). C) Development Standards: a) CRFA- -staff recommends that the existing GRFA regulation (80 °lam of buildable area) be eliminated for properties in the Lionshead core area. b) Site Coverage - -staff recommends that the existing 70% site coverage limitation be eliminated for properties in the Lionshead core area. c) Setbacks- -staff recommends that the existing 10 -foot setback requirement be eliminated for properties in the Lionshead core area. It is suggested that building setbacks be delineated in the architectural and site guidelines, in conjunction with Building and Fire Code requirements, d) Landscaping -- -staff recommends that the existing 20% minimum landscaping requirement be eliminated for properties in the Lionshead core area. D) Density ( units /acre) standard -- maintain current standard of 25 units /acre, AU "s, EHU's and fractional fee units (FFUs) would not count towards density. 5 v Staff has outlined some ideas on evaluating density in the Lionshead commercial core area: 1. Retain the existing density provisions (CC2 - 25 units /acre, HDMF - 25 units /acre,` MDMF -18 units /acre). 2. Exclude accommodation units (AUs), employee housing units (EHUs), and fractional fee units (FFUs) from the calculation of density. This may encourage the development of these unit types. Dwelling units (DUs) would only be allowed up to the existing density allowance (i.e. X units /ecre)..Generally, building height; architectural and site guidelines, and parking requirements will determine the carrying capacity of the site (i.e how many units can be accommodated on a site). 3. The gross square footage added to a structure via the height bonus (sixth floor and floor area in the roof) must be added in the form of AUs, EHUs or FFU's. This is not to say that these uses must be located on the sixth floor and in the roof area, but that the additional gross square footage must be located somewhere in the structure. 4. AUs and EHUs shall meet minimum requirements to ensure that quality units are constructed. Examples would include: AU - 9' ceiling height. EHU - 450 sq. ft. minimum and 9' ceiling height. 5. Allow any properties which are currently nonconforming with respect to density to rebuild to existing /constructed density. RE M-R TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 23, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a Major CC2 Exterior Alteration, to allow for the addition of a spa maintenance building, located at 641 West Lionshead Circle/Part of Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: The Montaneros Condo. Assoc., represented by Michael Hazard Assoc. Planner: Dominic Mauriello DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST 11 0 The applicant is requesting a major exterior alteration in order to redevelop the entire pool area and related facilities. The proposal will remove the existing 66 sq. ft. sauna building, a 117 sq. ft. pool building, a 150 sq. ft. pool shed, the existing pool and decks, and the existing fences. The proposal will provide a new 7' tall wire mesh fence, a 180 sq. ft. sauna and mechanical building, a new pool and hot tubs, and revised walks, decks and lighting. Extensive landscaping is also proposed. The proposal also includes replacing the elevator with a new ADA elevator, repainting the building, and heating the existing driveway to the underground parking lot. According to Section 18.24.065(3)(a), of the Zoning Code, applications for building alterations which add or remove more than 100 sq. ft. of floor area are considered major exterior alterations and must be reviewed by the PEG to ensure compliance with relevant planning documents. The proposal reduces the amount of common area on-site by 153 sq. ft. See applicant's statement attached. II. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: C ' ommercial Core 2 (CC2) Lot Size: 44,847 sq. ft. Standard Allowed/ftuired Common Area: 12,557.16 sq. ft. (35%) Existing P=osed 6,676 sq. ft. (18.6%) 6,523 sq. ft. (18.1 %) TOWN OF 4VVL —REVIEW CRITERIA A. Compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan for LjonShead This location is not identified in any of the sub-area concepts specified in the Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead. However, staff believes the proposed improvements are consistent with the design guidelines and compatible with the existing architecture of the building and other improvements on-site. The proposal complies with the development standards of the Zoning Code. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan process and implementation. B. Compliance with the Urban Design Considerations for Lionshead and (;CII Exterior Alteration Criteria This location is not identified in any of the sub-area concepts specified in the Urban Design Considerations for Lionshead. Again, staff believes the proposed improvements are consistent with the design guidelines and compatible with the existing architecture of the building. The proposal complies with the development standards of the Zoning Code. C. Compliance with the Vail Land Use Plan The following goals of the Vail Land Use Plan are applicable to this proposed alteration: 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the Vail Land Use Plan. D. Compliance with the purpose statement for the QQ2 Nng district According to Section 18.26.010 of the Zoning Code, the purpose of the CC2 district states: The Commercial Core 2 zone district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core 2 District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district 2 9 by establishing appropriate site development standards. Staff believes the proposed improvements to this site, by redeveloping the outdoor portions of the site and by making the building more accessible to visitors, provides a valuable amenity to the property and the Lionshead area. The proposed changes will improve the overall quality of the building. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed major exterior alteration subject to the following finding: 1. That the proposal is consistent with purpose of the CC2 zone district, the Vail Land Use Plan, and the development standards in the Town's Zoning Regulations. F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\971MONTANER.323 !I 3 Uicbael P.O. Box 1068 Hazard Vail, Colorado Associates 81658 Architecture 303-9 Planning Fax 303.9 February 22, 1998 Planning & Environmental Commission The Town of Vail 111 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Re.: DM MONTANEROS REMODEL 641 West Lionshead Circle Vail, CO 81657 Dear Commissioners, The Montaneros Condominium Association has engaged my firm to both study the current Lionshead Master Plan process and design an interim remodel to keep the property up to the expected standards of the Owners and their guests. The proposed remodeling project will include the following: • Repainting the entire existing exterior of the building • Replacement of the elevator with a new, ADA compliant model • Total replacement of the pool, spa, sauna and the corresponding hard and softscape including a new enclosure, walks and seating areas. • New entry lighting and paving at the garage In response to the CCII District objectives, as specified in Section 18.26.010, the proposed work will act to upgrade the overall appearance of the property and lend a fresher appearance. As for the work's compliance to The Vail/Lionshead urban Design Guide Plan: A. Height & massing- the proposed Pool Mechanical/Sauna addition is a single story and does not substantially impact adjacent properties as it is located close to the existing building. B. Roofs - the new roofs of the Pool Mechanical /Sauna addition are in keeping with the flat roofs of the existing building and thus compatible C. Facades - wall/structure - The use of stucco is in keeping with the surrounding finishes and an upgrade form the existing building] D. Facades - transparency - The building is actually two small (100 S.F. & 80 S.F.) structures connected by a translucent gable structure presenting a very open appearance. 11 M 11 Planning & Environmental Commission February 22, 1998 Page 2 E. Decks & Patios - The proposed hardscape consists of a combination of colored concrete and "Colorado Rose" sandstone flagstone. Two open trellis structures will lend shade and interest. F. Accent Elements - Segments of Porcelain tile, Shaded brass light fixtures and well detailed fence sections will add a level of detail to the property. G. Landscape elements - New conifers and deciduous trees and shrubs, along with a variety of ground covers will enhance the landscape palette of the pool area. H. Sun Shade analysis - As the proposed Pool Mechanical /Sauna addition is a single story and the original building is not altered a shading analysis was not performed. 3. The proposed enhancements improve the apparent quality of the property and improve the compatibility with the neighborhood. 4. The proposed work is fully in compliance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your efforts in reviewing the enclosed proposal. l ichael A. zar AIA MICHAEL HAZARD ASS CIATES C fq ., a� % F ; � � —__ _ -. '�""- klll LLLk I i kt! I �CLi�L13 �Cl��t F ��1d1.�k�� .Ll[� �� ( ��Ltll.11 � �_��.:U 1111 ��.Lf �tll, i�1�- r 1111.1. FIN, gtk fFffj9 • • . _ El REAW D. M GnuE Ewa - -PidfE CON u st'Hrnc CAPS .... Sa11SffU t bwa .. .. ._ .. .. .... dx35.p .. . a EW`-d` .. ... f6FfR TO PARK €DADCR ...: .. ... .. Ra € MOR 0' Usm. MAN; To a RE&VMm. � cw�sxcvr ava a s98 -m 1 s^ PWn Scole ; 1�kC' . F' -p' - At CAW 4jAJl Pact NEC. ( wmkk A'Y' capSv3, pFAiED RRWAIAVA'2 ff)NCRETE RAR VIEW W -M -RW E a : 1Et14-0 COAL TE SOE W s .. - . E15 E V8 PANTED A EFS OH 6Y ENBAVS SLAB PAMiFD NEW En 0. GMU PANTED GAL-M s,EEF METAL Cova Sipe AM us 'Y 8" 3' -S }" T -S' Ft 6t- 'R t, ' F • 5 -Y - 54 'YST. Sx +• 5 5• -x _ {.. 5•F y .. EN4ilG CRSREfi a "4 : M . .. _ sFWNR aaar� ___". I ( C k� � `~ - rC6RC � (�,��,,� �,�,m qty , �tK� . A 6 � �141tl.Alli ��UWI(I�§F�'eFU �vuuw� W am . . .. ..NE'M EffS TOWN s A T R I d I/ CORNER R : T /u.0 - - i fLTFJt lflRl a ♦fD - .. t ,. VW3I WY wr tl� /'kJf Bt3Sp .- +tOtr•.�;4• {-'..'��(m VV CAYYfRCNL 1E141 F 5&-FQ F< ( `; Y . °r . P1' "Ile 4 5 -5`, It 5%5" C B'a( /` ' 4$ -y' Vtll•Cdnim .. &174.6. ow_ap' Me ra•.r 61P- . - a' -x gx i T ..__ 1 ; ,. is '. MIE FF ( 7 F g y {f { {{ kp t ...1 416NA4AR% 1 F {{ i is } F l E 1 :\ DID w f TTTffffffffFm i s ati ti -Q PRE 5 EL ,. LSYI�i��14l . " a sfae -a'Q` .. tl47E ENTfAIOR pF IXSru G 9NtdNC FD BE flE"'ANR.. / ♦ � j 3. L 1 1 raw US - - WJWMU AT WCE CO340 �■� tuns �. � � &V eft MVEI t1Y @': m��i� , _ i� �.� i� iii �a �.� ��wAIR1A III �AI� _ _ Fes` a C OMOA M .. 4 � � YA,CmMo _ � � � �`� � vt-o` � -3sr �.�r.t� � � � -m t , r�u' � 9ra_ � a+a^. ; s -� �Kr � 7-m y .. r7.rt �_ . asar' �- z7 �. � . x I ._.. Fa a. F71 i iF - P FEI {E :.ate.. _ iatMrx RWB f ( „ Fl +I$ -fi WaMa �_ E PNA WB � tttz o• � I T L .5 : �$' ,g n o , x< y4 R Y ' ,s. €` '&" NIX. HUT Tli GVWL [6YEk. _ 4 —€ — `_ I .} -'-_ -E E• - _ NEk f1'tltk G+51'3r -R+�E y taNC9EiE CMuI1k5 rt1N E t - - -_.. _ __- .i F _____- (- -_-_ _ -) f U V,_ ELOt -0 � � -P � J —_ -- PpE w t/z sP aB bas ( TM aw excu ert EL +Se -4P t t �' W11E [ S` po SiFIl Mt€RUFD44iE P(t41S ms . ms B TEsue c W4'Bi w .. .. .. NEW P—m 111M 101, Eu`n4iG .. .. ... AIL EAEwR V rxwwG "ma Toot PFPww ... ... . raw US - - WJWMU AT WCE CO340 �■� tuns �. � � &V eft MVEI t1Y @': m��i� , _ i� �.� i� iii �a �.� ��wAIR1A III �AI� _ _ Fes` a raw US - - WJWMU AT WCE CO340 - &V eft MVEI t1Y @': M ONUM MS Fes` a C OMOA M .. 4 � � YA,CmMo _ � � � �`� � vt-o` � -3sr �.�r.t� � � � -m t , r�u' � 9ra_ � a+a^. ; s -� �Kr � 7-m y .. r7.rt �_ . asar' �- z7 �. � . x :. .. -.r .. ._.. i iF - P Fl +I$ -fi WaMa NIX. HUT Tli mo _ s€Eam E€caB a..vrT:F:w.at�t Ei +zre P GAME . _,.z ..., .. M. ;.' .. _ _ . . . . . ....... '. c<BN:£ erei. t . - P F1 QT lR1Mt liiFSli +ffw�wu . .. - T/iN -ram ,_...._ .,.,. .�; _ >. ..,_ .- -._ - - - .. . - .. .: .. • . - -. hEw SF «�SK.1P%JGk$YF UkR EM6NiG L 1�lYylYS .: - - ES OPFl4NGS Wmr e' Euu. EPCYf (i ➢awFS VW'M@ Bd1iFk A�1' m rolm awl ¢ stPa -6 . t!�.�°ltJlti P/l4llLllNlt wu wfFs dx�IS ra O.C. - . Fe Of EYISlLVP 6tAFIPFIG !d t£ PEP4'NiFD. = Y 3. TO: FROM: DATE: E MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department March 23, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a variance, to allow for a heating boiler to be placed in the side setback, located at 22 West Meadow Drive/Lots G and H, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Villa Cortina Condominium Association, represented by Rick Haltermann Planner: Christie Barton 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Villa Cortina Condominium Association, represented by Rick Haltermann, Managing Agent, is requesting a variance from Title 12, Chapter 14-2A. Villa Cortina Condominium Association is proposing to install a heating. system for its parking lot and to resurface the area with stamped concrete. A boiler is proposed to be installed in the side yard setback, on the north edge of the building, between the Villa Cortina building and the main Vail Fire Station. The proposed boiler is 5' x 7' x 4' and will be hidden from view by the buildings on either side. A surface parking area exists to the northwest of the site. The parking area is located at a higher elevation and the boiler will be out of the direct line of sight. The applicant is willing to screen the unit if the PEC or the DRB requests additional landscaping. There will be no change to the parking lot size or to the number of parking spaces. The zoning on the property is High Density Multiple Family District (HDMF)which requires 20' setbacks on all lot lines. The proposed boilers will encroach a maximum of 13' into the setback. The north edge of the Villa Cortina Building already extends into the sideyard setback. 11. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST Upon review of Section 12-17-6, Variance Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested side setback variance. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1 The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed encroachment into the setback for the snowmelt boiler will have minimal impacts on existing or potential uses and structures in the area. Placing the boiler between the two buildings will screen the boiler from the publics' view. fAeveryone\pec\memos\villa.323 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The Villa Cortina Condominiums currently loses 4-5 parking spaces in the winter due to the pileup of snow during snow plowing. No other reasonable location for the boiler exists on site. The proposed location is well hidden by the buildings. The impacts are minimal as the project is not visible to pedestrians or adjacent property owners. Placing the boiler between buildings achieves other objectives of the Zoning Regulations by providing screening and restricting the boiler to an unobtrusive site. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The location of the boiler will have no effect on any of these criteria. B. The Planning and Envir!2nmental Commission shall, make 1he following fi,Lidings befor!a granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Title. b: There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. f.\everyone\pec\meinos\villa.323 2 0 LI _ . AFF REC()MMENnATI N Upon review of Title 12, Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal. Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed variance, subject to the following findings; 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity:. 3. That there are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 4. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. f \everyone\pec\mmos`vilia.323 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 23, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance, to allow for a 3-foot encroachment into the front setback for a residential addition, located at 3035 Booth Falls Road/Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 13th Filing. Applicant: John and Kathy Adair Planner: Christie Barton 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants, John and Kathy Adair, are requesting a variance from Title 12, Chapter 6C-6 in order to construct a new front entry and a connection between the house and garage. The property has extensive wetlands including a pond which provides flood storage, a number of drainage swales and utility easements. The house was originally located on the east edge of the lot due to these environmental constraints. Two sideyard setback variances have been granted in the past due to the site constraints. A driveway reconfiguration plan was recently approved by the Design Review Board on January 21, 1998. III. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Two Family Residential District Lot Size: 19,035.72 sq. ft. Standard Allowed /Required Existing Proposed GRFA: 5,003.6 sq. ft. 4,182 sq. ft. 185 sq. ft. Building Height: 31' no change Setbacks: 20' (front) 20' (front) 17' (front) Site Coverage: 3,807 sq. ft. (20%) 2,475 sq, ft. (13%) 2,704 sq. ft. (14.5%) Landscaping: 11,421 sq. ft. (60%) 15,720 sq. ft. (82%) 15,081 sq. ft. (79%) Parking: no change Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE REQVEST Upon review of Section 12-17-6, Variance Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested front yard setback variance. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors: 0 f.\everyone\pe4Ainemos\adair.323 I TOWN OF *VAIL A. QQnsideralion of Factors: 1 The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed encroachment into the setback of the front entryway will have minimal impacts on existing or potential uses and structures in the area. The house is located at the end of the street and is the last house before the Forest Service land. The project will not impact adjacent property owners and a multi-family project is located across the street. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Due to the existing ponds, drainage swales and easements on the property, staff believes that this proposal will not be a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposal will have little or no effect on these issues. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings befom granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. f.-\everyone\pec\memos\adair.323 2 0 IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of Title 12, Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed variance, subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That there are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 4. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. • f \everyone \pec\rnemos\adair.323 3 w I qar- it a l MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 23, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use Permit, a Minor CC1 Exterior Alteration, a building height variance and a site coverage variance, to allow for a bay addition *to the penthouse unit and to eliminate a dwelling unit, located at 193 Core Creek Drive /Lot A, Block 5 -B Vail Village 1 st` Filing. Applicant: Rodney & Beth Slifer, represented by Jim Buckner Planner: George Ruther DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS 9 The applicants, Rodney and Beth Slifer, represented by Jim Buckner of Slifer Designs are requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the elimination of a dwelling unit located in the Gore Creek Plaza Building at 193 Gore Creek Drive. The applicants are proposing to eliminate Unit #2 in the Gore Creek Plaza Condominiums. The elimination will be accomplished by connecting Unit #2 with the penthouse unit above~ The proposed connection will be accommodated by constructing an ulterior stairway connecting the two units. Pursuant to Section 12 -7b -5b (Permitted and conditional uses; above 2nd floor): the following . uses shall be permitted on any floor above the 2nd floor above grade subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. "Any permitted or conditional use which eliminates any existing dwelling or accommodation unit, or any portion thereof, shall require a conditional use permit." The applicants had originally proposed a minor CC1 exterior alteration, a building height variance and a site coverage variance to allow for the construction of a bay addition onto the western side of the penthouse unit. However, upon staff's review of the Town's files, it was determined that no GRFA remains available for this property. Since no GRFA ,remains available; the applicants have withdrawn their requests for the minor CC1 exterior alteration, the height and the site coverage variance at this time. Therefore, the staff will not be reviewing the minor exterior alteration or either of the variances as part of this request. II. BACKGROUND In reviewing this conditional use permit request, staff relied upon the goals, policies and objectives outlined in the various Town of Vail planning documents. The following is a summary of staff's review of the Town's planning documents: 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old. Village. Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban design Guide Plan. 1`.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). EN 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist, 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. Vail Vill Master Plan Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Obiective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Ill. CONDITIONAL LASE PERM J COUSID- EMI -ION CRIJERIA AM EI In accordance with Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code, an application for a conditional use permit Within Commercial Core 1 the following development factors shall be applicable: A 2 �l Municipal. Code According to Section 12 -76 -1, the purpose of the Commerci C 1 Zone District is intended to: "provide sites and to maintain a unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominately pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core 1 district is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. `The- district regulations, in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribed site development standards that are intended to insure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to insure the continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village." Vail. Land Use Plan 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential; commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old. Village. Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban design Guide Plan. 1`.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). EN 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist, 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. Vail Vill Master Plan Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Obiective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Ill. CONDITIONAL LASE PERM J COUSID- EMI -ION CRIJERIA AM EI In accordance with Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code, an application for a conditional use permit Within Commercial Core 1 the following development factors shall be applicable: A 2 e t • 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Staff believes the applicant's request to eliminate a dwelling unit in the Gore Creek Plaza Building will have minimal negative impacts on the development objectives of the Town. Staff does recognize however, that one of the primary objectives of the Commercial Core 1 Zone , District is to provide an ample bedbase to support the commercial uses located in Vail Village. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities( needs. Staff believes the proposed elimination of the dwelling unit will have minimal negative impacts on the above described criteria. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. Staff believes the proposed elimination of the dwelling unit will have no negative impacts on the above described criteria. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. No exterior changes are proposed with this request. Therefore, staff believes there will be no negative impacts on the above described criteria. 5. Affects of vehicular traffic on the Commercial Core 1 Zone District. The elimination of one dwelling unit could potentially reduce the numbers of vehicle trips into Commercial Core 1 and the Parking Structure beneath the Gore Creek Plaza Building. Therefore, the affects of the request upon vehicular traffic in Commercial Core 1 are positive. 6. Reduction of vehicular traffic in the Commercial Core 1 Zone District. Similar to the previously described criteria, staff believes the elimination of one dwelling unit could have a positive impact upon the reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core 1. Staff, however, recognizes that the reduction would most likely be negligible. • 7. Reduction of non - essential off - street parking. Staff believes the proposed elimination of one dwelling unit will have no negative impacts on the above described criteria. 3 8. Control of delivery, pick-up, and service vehicles. Staff believes the proposed request will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on � � the above described criteria. 9. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians. Staff believes the proposed request will have no negative impacts on the above described criteria. 10. Continuance of the various commercial, residential and public uses in the Commercial Core I Zone District, so as to maintain the existing character of the area. Staff believes the proposed request will have minimal negative impacts on the above described criteria. 11. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in Commercial Core I Zone District, so as to maintain the existing character of the area. Staff believes the proposed request will have no negative impacts on the above described criteria. 12. Affects of noise, odor, dust, smoke and other factors on the environment of the Commercial Core I Zone District. Staff believes the proposed request will have no negative impacts on the above described criteria. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall ma the folloLying findings before gLanting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this Title and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Title. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the elimination and subsequent connection of two dwelling units within the Gore Creek Plaza Building, located at 193 Gore Creek Drive. Staffs recommendation of approval is based upon our review of the criteria outlined in Section III of this memorandum. Staff recommends that should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of this request, that the following findings be made: 4 JF I . That the proposed elimination of the dwelling unit is in accordance with the purpose section of the Commercial Core 1 Zone district. 2. That the proposed location of the dwelling unit to be eliminated will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the Gore Creek Plaza Building'. 3. That the proposed elimination of the dwelling unit complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. 5 • • • LI r] MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 23, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a Major CCI Exterior Alteration and a site coverage variance to allow for a remodel and expansion to the Slifer Building, located at 230 Bridge Street/Lot B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Slifer Designs, represented by Jim Buckner Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION O1` THE REQUEST The applicant, Slifer Designs, represented by Jim Buckner, is requesting a Major CC1 Exterior Alteration, to allow for a remodel and expansion to the Slifer Building, located at 230 Bridge Street. The applicant is proposing to add approximately 300 sq. ft. of floor area to the existing building. The additional floor area will be added on throe levels of the building arid] will be constructed as part of the overall remodel. The major exterior alteration is intended to improve the Bridge Street facade and improve the customer access. _Customer access will be improved by eliminating the exterior stairs and providing an at -grade entrance to the building. The existing exterior stairs will be internalized into the building. The applicant believes the proposed exterior alteration will significantly improve the building facade and the Bridge Street streetscapo. A copy of the plans have been attached for reference. The purpose of the worksession is to discuss the following issues: 1. A possible site coverage variance and building height variance. 2. The proposed building facade and Bridge Street streetscape. 3. The completeness of the application. 11. BACKQROUND On March 4, 1998, the applicant's representative met with the Design Review Board fora, conceptual review of the proposed major exterior alteration. The Design Review Board identified the following design issues, which they believed the applicant needed to reflect on the final plans 1 TOWNO M 1. Avoid a straight line plane along Bridge Street by introducing more articulation and recess into the design. 2. The pilasters need to be removed or pulled away from the glass and stone, to avoid the appearance of ,simply being "tacked" on to the building. 3. The use of stone, stucco and wood is attractive. 4. The current design appears to "busy and cutesy." 5. A revised west building elevation needs to be provided that includes the existing west elevation of Russell's. 111. ZONING ANALYSIS The following analysis summarizes the relevant zoning statistics for this request; Legal: Lot B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Zoning: Commercial Core I {CC1} Lot Area: 3,223 sq. ft. or 0.074 acres Development Standards: Allowable Exi tin Pr00se�l Site Coverage: 2,578 sq. ft. or 80% 3,094 sq. ft. or 96% NYD* Landscaping: No net reduction 39 sq. ft. + 1 potted NYD* plant. (softscape) Building Height: 40% 33'- 43' 0% 33'- 43' NYD* 60% 33' or less 100% 33' or less * NYD - Not yet determined IV. MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION -CRITERIA * Note: We will not be addressing all of the criteria at this time A. Com li nce with the C rnmercial Cor 1 Zone Dis Pur ose at meat According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the applicant's property is located in the Commercial Core 1 Zone District (CC1). Pursuant to Section 12 -78 -1 of the Municipal Code, the purpose of the CC1 Zone District is intended to, "provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail , Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village." Staff Resoonsg• Staff believes that the proposed improvements are in concert with the purpose of this zone district. S. Compliance with the Urban Design Quid_Plan for Vail Village Staff Response: C. m liar with th Urban Qesi n Con i rati ns for Vail Village and Exterior Alteration Criteria The Urban Design Considerations for Vail Village are intended to guide growth and change in ways that will enhance and preserve the essential qualities of Vail Village. The Urban Design Considerations are divided into two mayor categories: Urban Design Considerations, and Architecture /Landscape Considerations. The following design considerations are critical elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and provide the criteria to evaluate new proposals: Urban Desion Considerations The Vail Village Urban. Design Considerations are primarily the purview of the Planning and Environmental Commission. 1. Pedestrianixation: 2. Vehicular Penetration: 3. Streetscape Framework: 4. Street Enclosure: 5. Street Edge: 6. Building Height: 7. Views and Focal Points: Rrchitegtural /Landscape Considerations The Architectural /Landscape Considerations are reviewed primarily by the Design Review Board. 1. Roofs 2. Facades 3. Balconies 4. Decks and Patios 5. Accent Elements 6. Landscape Elements 7. Service Staff Res oa nse: D. Compliance with the Vail Land Use Plan The following goals of the Vail Land Use Plan are applicable to this proposed alteration: 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village core should be carried into new development in the Village core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas, 4 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. St iff. Response: Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the Vail Land Use Plan: E. Compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan Goals The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laves and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in Vail Village and in implementing community goals for public improvements. Further, the Master Pian . is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with the such development. Contained within the Vail Village Master Plan are goals for development in Vail Village. The goals are summarized in six major goal statements. The goal statements are designed to establish a framework, or direction, for the future growth of the Village. A series of objective outline specific steps toward achieving each stated goal. Policy statements have been developed to guide the Town's decision making in achieving each of the stated objectives, whether it be through the review of private sector development proposals, or in implementing capital improvement projects. Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Wective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.3 Ob%�ctive: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3 .1 Policy: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year -round ecoinomie health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whale. 2.1 objective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. 2.2 Objective: PJOAI 2.4 Objective: Recognize the "historic" commercial core as the main activity center of the Village. • The design criteria in the Vail Village Design Guide Plan shall be the primary guiding document to preserve the existing architectural scale and character of the core area of Vail Village. Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.1 Policy: Commercial infill development, consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible green spaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 2. 5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.5.2 Policy: The Town will use the maximum flexibility possible in the interpretation of building and fire codes in order to facilitate building renovations without compromising life, health and safety considerations.. Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 3.1 Qbjective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 11 .1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.1.a Policy: Flowers, trees., water features and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. 6.2, Q `ective: Provide for the safe and efficient functions of fire, police and public utilities within the context of an aesthetically pleasing resort setting. 2 fi 6.2.2 Policy. Minor improvements (landscaping, decorative paving, open dining decks, etc.), may be permitted on Town of Vail land or right-of-way (with review and approval by the Town. Council and Planning and Environmental Commission when applicable) provided that Town operations such as snow removal, street maintenance and fire department access and operation are able to be maintained at current levels. Special design (i.e. heated- pavement), maintenance fees, or other considerations may be required to offset impacts on Town services. V. QlSCU5514N ISSUES The Community Development Department has completed a preliminary, review of the proposed Major CC1 Exterior Alteration. Upon completion of our preliminary review, we have identified several issues we believe the applicant, staff and Planning and Environmental Commission should address prior to a final review. 1. A possible site coverage variance and building height variance. Pursuant to Section 12 -78 -15 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, site coverage is limited in the Commercial Care 1 Zone District to 80% of the buildable area of a lot. The current site coverage is approximately 96% and is in accordance with a site coverage variance approved in 1992. The applicant's plans indicate that there will be a proposed increase in overall site coverage. In order for the applicant to increase the site coverage, a variance must be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Planning and Environmental Commission will review a site coverage variance request on April 13th. Building height in the Commercial Core 1 Zone District is prescribed in the Vail Village Master Plan. According to the Vail Village Master Plan, 60% of the overall building height is permitted up to 33' in height and the remaining 40% of the building height may be between 33' and 43' in height. Staff has requested that the applicant submit a completed roof plan, showing the proposed roof configuration and the roof elevations. Once a completed roof plan is submitted to staff, we will determine whether or not a building height variance is necessary. Like the site coverage variance, if a building height variance is necessary, the Planningg and Environmental Commission will have an opportunity to review the request at the April 13th Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. Staff would suggest, based upon the limited information provided, that the Planning and Environmental Commission provide direction to the applicant, with regard to both the site coverage and building height variances. 2. The proposed building facade and Bridge Street streetscape. The applicant has expressed that the goal of the proposed major exterior alteration is to improve and update the existing Slifer Building facade and Bridge Street streetscape. In keeping with the goal of the major exterior alteration, the applicant has proposed significant improvements to the existing building and the streetscape. The improvements include: 1. A change in roof pitch. 2. The addition of stone siding. 3. The elimination of horizontal wood siding. 4. The removal of the external stairs. 5. The introduction of pilasters, pilansters and braces. 6. The rearrangement of windows. A copy of the plans has been attached for reference. Similar to the Design Review Board's conceptual review of the applicant's request, staff would suggest that the Planning and Environmental Commission provide direction to the applicant on the proposed improvements. Specifically, staff would suggest that the PEC address the proposed architecture of the revised building facade and the Bridge Street streetscape improvements. 1n keeping with the goals outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan, staff would further suggest that the Planning and Environmental Commission provide direction to the applicant, as it relates to Goal #3 of the Vail Village Master Plan, "To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village." An objective of Goal #3 is to physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. The Town's policy on improving existing pedestrian ways is to require that private development projects incorporate streetscape improvements such as, paver treatments, landscaping, lighting, and seating areas adjacent to the pedestrian ways, as well as encouraging the planting of trees and flowers adjacent to public areas. Staff would recommend the Planning Commission provide direction to the applicant on any requirements the PEC may have for improving and enhancing the streetscape adjacent to the Slifer Building. 3. The completeness of the application. On March 6th, a letter was sent to the applicant's representative addressing a number of outstanding information that is necessary in order for staff to complete the final review. (See attached letter). E • In addition to the items listed in the letter to the applicant of March 6, 1998, the 0 following additional items shall be submitted to the Community Development Department: 1. A fee of $250 for the proposed variance requests, 2. A written statement of the precise nature of the variances requested in the specific regulations involved. 3. A written statement addressing: • the relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, the degree to which the relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulations is necessary to achieve compatibility amongst sites in the vicinity of the project, or to obtain the objectives of the . zoning code without a grant of special privilege, the effect of the variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities and public safety, and • how the request complies with Vail's Comprehensive Plan. In order for the applicant to remain on the agenda for the Planning and Environmental Commission on Monday, April 13th, the above- listed items roust be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development by no later than noon, Monday, March 30th. VI. STA FF_ RECOMMENDATION As this is only a worksession and not a final review, the Community Development Department will not be making a recommendation at this time. The Community Development Department will provide a recommendation to the Planning and Environmental Commission at the time of the final review. A final review is tentatively scheduled for Monday, April 13. f:\ everyone \pec\memos\98 \slifblfl.323 I I • • • eTX!pgTIN6 WEST ELEVATION i t r LEASE SPACE � LEASE SPACE - A l I TOR W OF VAILY Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970 -479 -2138 FAX 970- 479 -2452 March 6, 1998 FILE COPY: FAM n 7M Jim Buckner Slifer Designs P.D. Box 1409 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Re: Slifer Building Major Exterior Alteration/Lots B & C, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing Dear Jim, I have completed a preliminary review of your request for a major exterior alteration to the Slifer Building, located at 230 Bridge Street. Upon completion of my review, I have determined that additional information is necessary. Please submit the following information: I . A complete roof plan including proposed ridge elevations, location of mechanical equipment, and calculations of the 60 %/40% building height limitations as prescribed in the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations. Based on existing conditions and your proposed plans, I believe a building height variance is necessary, I have enclosed a copy of the variance application for your convenience. 2. A landscape plan indicating the existing conditions and proposed improvements. Staff would suggest that a narrow landscape planter be proposed beneath the display window on Bridge Street to add color and variety to the streetscape. 3. A revised west building elevation that includes the existing west elevation of Russell's. 4. Label the proposed building materials on the elevation drawings and submit an exterior color board identifying the proposed colors. 5. Indicate on the elevation drawings the proposed building; edge of the Slifer Building and the existing building edge of the Covered Bridge Building on the west- side of Bridge Street. 6, The Design Review Board identified the following design issues which need to be reflected on the respective plans: RECYCLED PAPER 0 x.i • avoi8 a straight-line plane along Bridge Street by introducing more articulation and recess into the design. • the pilasters need to be removed or pulled away from the glass and stone to avoid the appearance of simply being tacked on to the building, • the use of stone, stucco and wood is attractive. • the current design appears too busy and "cute ". 7. In the Commercial Core l zone district, site coverage is limited to 80 %. According to my calculations, the proposed building is over on site coverage (96 %). In order to proceed forward with this proposal, a site coverage variance application is necessary. I have enclosed a copy of the variance application for your convenience. 8. In order to allow for the proposed relocation of the legal non - conforming real estate office square footage, an equal amount of square footage must be removed from the office use on the first floor. Staff suggests that you convert approximately 93 square feet of office space in the rear of the building; to storage. The converted storage area will need to be designed so that it is only accessible from the exterior of the building or from the retail space on the lowest level, If you have any questions or concerns with regard to the information addressed in this letter, please do not hesitate to call. You can reach me by telephone at 479 -2145. Sincerely, George Ruther, AICP Senior Planner COLORADO CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL ASSOCIATES, P.C. CARDIOVASCULAR AND THORACIC SURGERY TRANSPLANT SURGERY DAVID H. YOUNG, M.D. RICHARD K. PARKER, M.D. JAMES A. NARROD, M.D. DAVID W. NELSON, M.D. NORTH OFFICE 1601 EAST 19TH AVENUE, SUITE 6300 DENVER, COLORADO 80P18 PHONE: (303) 861-8158 FAX: (303) 8610939 March 15, 1998 George Ruther, Planning office Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Ruther: As a resident at 303 Score Creek Drive 2A and 2D, I have received a notice of the March 23, 1998 meeting on the application for exterior alterations by Slideford Designs at 230 Bridge Street. As adjacent neighbor whose front door looks over the back door of the Slideford Building and other adjacent buildings, I do pause to ask if in the process of making alterations to this building, if proper attention has been paid to the back of the building. As you will notice, I have landscaped my side of the creek and placed trees along this to help screen out the back of their. building. If it is appropriate at the time of this alteration, would like to request that attention be placed for similar landscaping along the creek and perhaps planting of trees or greenery to help improve the facade that is our view from our front doors. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact me. sincerely, Richard K. Parker, M.D. 19 Cl RKP/PTN 8762 0 " " "1111 • r 1 LJ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 23, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss the proposed -Major CC1 Exterior Alteration to the Hong Kong Cafe Building, located at 227 Wall Street/L.ot B & C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: ASI Vail Land Holding, L.L:C., c/o Base Mountain Sports -Brett Barnett, represented by Kathy Langenwalter Planner: George Ruther I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, ASI Vail Land Holding, LLC., represented by Kathy Langenwalter, is requesting a worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) to discuss a request for a Major CC1 Exterior Alteration to the Hong Kong Cafe Building. The applicant is proposing to eliminate the existing Hong Kong Cafe restaurant and bar, and subsequently create approximately 3,952 square feet of new retail, ski storage and ski rental space. The following changes are proposed to the existing building: • an additional story will be added atop the existing structure to accommodate a portion of the new retail area square footage; • the existing dining deck on the south side of the building will be removed and replaced with a landscape planter; • the entrances to Louie's and the Hong Kong will be relocated; and • the various exterior building materials will be removed and upgraded. A copy of the plans have been attached for reference. The purpose of the worksession is to discuss the following issues: • The building location relative to the property boundaries. • The fenestration on the proposed west elevation of the building. • The proposed retail uses on the various levels of the building. • The construction phasing and scheduling. BACKGROUND On March 10, 1986, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a Major Exterior Alteration to the Hong Kong Cafe. During the review of the request, then Hong Kong Cafe owner David K. Irish, representing HKC Partnership, entered into an agreement with Ed Bleckner, Jr., representing The Fraises Corporation, owner of the Lazier-Arcade Condominium Building, Units 308 & 309 which are located to the north of the Hong Kong Cafe. It appears that the intent of this private agreement was to address the approval process for a conditional use permit and approval of modifications to the exterior of the Hong Kong Cafe, specific to the requests at the time., The Town of Vail is not a party to the agreement. Staff believes that this issue may be brought up in relation to the current request. Staff does not believe that the Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing is the appropriate venue to discuss the previous agreement, nor is a discussion of the previous agreement relevant to the Major Exterior Alteration request. Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS The following analysis summarizes the relevant zoning statistics for this request: Legal: Lot B & C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Zoning: Commercial Core I (CC1) Lot Area: 0.037acre/ 1,612 square feet Buildable Area: 0.037acre/ 1,612 square feet Development at_andards. Allowable ExisfiLiq Proposed Site Coverage 1,289 sq.ft., or 80% 1,489 sq. ft., or 92% N/C no net reduction 74 sq. ft. • 101 sq. ft. (+27sq. ft.) in existing landscaping 7 1 Building Height: 40% = 33'- 43' 0% 9.5% 60% = 33' or less 100% 90.5% Parking: 1 space/300 sq. ft. 12.7 spaces 13.2(+0.5) of net floor area required (retail) W IV. MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION CRITERIA * Note: We will not be addressing each of the criteria at this time. A. !Compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan for Vail Village B. Com lg iance with the Urban Design Considerations for Vail Village The Urban Design Considerations for Vail Village are intended to guide growth and change in ways that will enhance and preserve the essential qualities of Vail Village. The Urban Design Considerations are divided into two major categories: Urban Design Considerations and Architecture /Landscape Considerations. Urban Design Considerations The Vail Village Urban Design Considerations are primarily the purview of the Planning and Environmental Commission. 1. Pedestrianization. 2. Vehicular Penetration: 3. Streetscape Framework: 4. Street Enclosure: 5. Street Edge. 6. Building Height: 7. Views and Focal Points: Architectural /Landscape Considerations The Architectural/Landscape Considerations are reviewed primarily by the Design Review Board. 1. Roofs 2. Facades 3. Balconies 4. Decks and Patios 5. Accent Elements 6. Landscape Elements 7. Service n 3 C. Compliance with the Vail Land Use Plan The following goals of the Mail Land Use Plan are applicable to this proposed alteration: 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve_ both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village core should be carried into new development in the Village core through continued implementation of the Urban Design. Guide Plan. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. Staff Response: Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the Vail Land Use Plan. D. Compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan Goals The Vail Village Master Plan is Intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in Vail Village and in implementing community goals for public improvements. Further, the Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development, in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to - deal with the such development. Contained within the Vail Village Master Plan are goals for development in Vail Village. The goals are summarized in six major goal statements. The goal statements are'designed to establish a framework, or direction, for the future growth of the Village. A series of objectives outlines specific steps toward achieving each stated goal. Policy statements have been developed to guide the Town's decision making in achieving each of the stated objectives, whether it be through the review of private sector development proposals, or in implementing capital improvement projects. Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2_ Qbiective. Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 4 1* 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policy: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year -round economic health and viability for the - Village and for the community as'a�whole. 2.2 Objective: Recognize the "historic" commercial core as the main activity center of the Village, 2.2.1 Policy: The design criteria in the Vail Village Design , Guide Plan shall be the primary guiding document to preserve the existing architectural scale and character of the core area of Vail Village. 2.4 b"ectiye: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2,4.1 Policy: Commercial infill development, consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible green spaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 2.4.2 Policy: Activity that provides nightlife and evening entertainment for both the guest and community shall be encouraged. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.5.2 Policy: The Town will use the maximum flexibility possible in the interpretation of building and fire codes in order to facilitate building renovations without compromising life, health and safety considerations. Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 5 3.1.3 Policy: Flowers, trees, water features and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. Goat #4 To preserve existing open apace areas and expand green apace opportunities. 4.1 Obiecl live: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. 'Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village, 4.1.2 Policy: The development of new public plazas, and improvements to existing plazas (public art, streetscape features, seating areas, etc.), shall be strongly encouraged to reinforce their role as attractive people places. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. 6.2 Gbiective: Provide for the safe and efficient functions of fire, police and public utilities within the context of an aesthetically pleasing resort setting. 6.2.2 Policy: Minor improvements (landscaping, decorative paving, open dining decks, etc.), may be permitted on Town of Vail land or right -of -way (with review and approval by the Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission when applicable) provided that Town operations such as snow removal, street maintenance and fire department access and operation are able to be maintained at current levels. Special design (i.e. heated pavement), maintenance fees, or other considerations may be required to offset impacts on Town services. E. Compliance with the purpose statement for the QC1 Zone District According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the applicant's property is located in the Commercial Core 1 Zone District (CC1). Pursuant to Section 12 -7'13-1 of the Municipal Code, the purpose of the CC1 Zone District is intended to, "provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on 6 A pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village." Staff Response: Staff believes that the proposed improvements are in concert with the purpose of this zone district. V. DISCUSSION ISSUES The Community Development Department has completed a preliminary review of the proposed Major CC1 Exterior Alteration. Upon completion of our preliminary review, we have identified several issues we believe the applicant, staff and Planning and Environmental Commission should address prior to a final review. The staff has identified the following issues for discussion: 1. The building location relative to the property boundaries The east edge of the existing building is built approximately six to eight inches over the property line. The applicant is proposing to construct a new third level of the building atop the existing structure. The staff would suggest that the applicant and the Planning and Environmental Commission discuss the appropriateness of perpetuating the existing encroachment or whether given the extensive remodel, the building improvements should be brought into compliance with the location of the property line. 2. The fenestration on the proposed west elevation of the building The Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code prohibit openings along zero lot lines. The intent of this prohibition is to reduce the chances of a fire spreading from one building to another. According to these Codes, openings may be permitted subject to the installation of appropriate mitigation. Staff believes that additional window fenestration should be required on the west elevation of the proposed building. As designed, a large expanse of wall and mass is visible. The wall and mass is most noticeable from the properties immediately to the west of the applicant's property. Staff would suggest that the applicant and Planning and Environmental Commission discuss the general appearance of the west elevation and that the Planning and Environmental Commission provide direction to the applicant regarding the west elevation fenestration. 3. The proposed retail uses on the various levels of the building Pursuant to Sections 12-78 -2, 12-7B-3, 12-7B-4 of the Municipal Code, in part, the following uses are permitted on the various floors of buildings in the Commercial Core 1 Zone District, "Retail shops and establishments including sporting goods stores and commercial ski storage-basement level only." • 7 Staff has made the interpretation that the proposed retail space in the existing restaurant area and the newly added floor is a permitted use as these areas are considered the first and second floors of the building, as accessed from Earl Eaton Plaza. The Wall Street access is not considered the primary access to the new retail spaces. Instead, the staff has classified the Wall Street access as the primary access to the ski storage and the ski rental areas and a secondary access to the retail spaces above. Staff would suggest that the Planning and Environmental Commission either affirm or modify staff s interpretation as it relates to the floor level classifications. 4. The construction phasing and scheduling d There are significant constraints to construction in the vicinity of the Hong Kong Cafe that make it difficult to remodel the building. Given the difficulty of construction, staff believes it is important that the applicant discuss in conceptual terms how they might go about constructing the proposed improvements. Of greatest interest would how deliveries might be brought to the construction site, where materials will be stored, where construction equipment will be staged and the anticipated duration of construction. Staff realizes that these issues are not part of the review criteria and recommends that they not be used by the Planning and Environmental Commission in the decision- making process, however; staff feels that it is timely to begin addressing the difficult construction issues. V1 51APF RECCIMMEMDAjlOLq As this is only a worksession and not a final review, the Community Development Department will not be making a recommendation at this time. The Community Development Department will provide a recommendation to the Planning and Environmental Commission at the time of the final review. A final review is tentatively scheduled for Monday, April 13. fl\ everyone \pec\memo8\98 \basemt.323 NORTM f,fkjl)GE votf gS DECK PORT I t axse S Pv e Ca I-Ot'a'a AT VAST- px"o Loj)Ge THE "t-DfLOYIER DECK EATON PLAZA PAV N0 V) c, 6,111 WLL WALL STREET WALL STREET WALL STREET BLDG. L ------ Yt RMSED'SUILDOM a cid" Tow lqt.o lolo EFYI CS tot 0 11 r" EATON PLAZA PROPOSED SITE PLAN t�en.v �I N BASE MOUNTAIN SPORTS HONG KONG CAfE STALDINj PART OFIM 0 & C, 91,00K IC �gt ML-tll-trwh. A2 22T w1lu &MEFT VAIL, COLOMW WALL STREET BLDG. 'N "As 94A 7 - a-- 701 0— P.O. 8 Tow,w.o 00. W47 Iwo DOW 40116 'wo— EATON PLAZA EXISTING SITE PLAN W-V� WALL STREET WALL STREET BLDG. L ------ Yt RMSED'SUILDOM a cid" Tow lqt.o lolo EFYI CS tot 0 11 r" EATON PLAZA PROPOSED SITE PLAN t�en.v �I N BASE MOUNTAIN SPORTS HONG KONG CAfE STALDINj PART OFIM 0 & C, 91,00K IC �gt ML-tll-trwh. A2 22T w1lu &MEFT VAIL, COLOMW to L � WALL, STREET s WALL STREET BLDG. WALL STREET WALL STREET BLDG. �i I 7 l. f`t -i I OUILDING � � i ' f ( + j ( - - EATON PLAZA LANDSCAPE BASE MOUNTAIN � NTAIN SPORTS . HOHO KOROOAFEVUlLU1H0 PART OF LOTS ea C SLOCK6C .r,o.io. sot .v.40=1 -ao s+esa ml. rlw9a Te(e97"764F606 FU�T0�76i67T �— ' VARV LAOerl"Ii1LIHO pi*d - _ �� - 227WALLITR[ST tan YAn. eocoHAOO °- WALL, STREET s WALL STREET BLDG. WALL TO BE REMOYEO BASEMENT LEVEL PLAM 2 1 m il STREET LEVEL PLAN .. .. - "o No Kon M IT , sum qo : n o, B.. x oz k V. C loaaa #1654 a'.«" PART OF LOTS e O: BLOCK SC Tefe 9104764 , 506 f.r 4F0- ftdi5ll YML V—GA FIRST FILINO �� p ,- STREET 221 YAI4COLOWkOO .Mel d .. " UPPER LEVEL PLAN BASE MOUNTAIN SPORTS @�e ��aa�m�9uec9d tc cte.lLC, MONO NUNO CAE.. -DIN. ¢G, —f3C2 vo, cm.a.. X100!" >ate 9.I9.g0 �— I*ANT OF Lois. a C, flLml(.0 .TO, 07G 104000 FN 970416402 ,a$ p VAIL VILLAOEVAST FILING I l_S l " TO WALL MEET daveE VAN, COLOXAOO *1uDDE NMI it. ImIr WOOD FA }GL{ xNEAUEx" -- -INMIOLEi WOOD PA". ' VERTICAL WOOD }ENNG 1 f ( k { 1 ( r : ^ —..—" TENSER TRUxa METAL bunwuNooW METALCLADWINOGW _ WOGb NINDOW TAW VERTICAL WOOD US". LEVEL $SANG `Y EL;T/i.ow I { 1 � ! ul"RLEVEL WVODT" a_HIY.4wr xTUGCO _ _...� _ - - AWNING " . }iONE CAp t' ETGGCO L. _A EATON pIASA LEVEL --. METAL"UNG _ _ GTON pthZA LEVFI, _ ' - STONE VENEER - IL: 02'-0^ EXISTING— }TONE CFP SINCE .!TONE VENEEn . I. PLANTER . _, WALL OTREETLEVEt, .. ... e{ FIN"I"AADE . _ YY'' cLaYatb� ` . WALL STREET IEVEi ...... EL: H•J W" f t EEI }TINA POUNDATNIN !(f'k - ..___.E%IaTWO /IXIrvOATroN ( RASEMENF LEVEL y y ,L -:, «� �Levatiatt — _west . 30UTH EIEVATfON __ -_ Tc . e.v , De °nw°0p6a g t E e. t I xx BASE MOUNTAIN SPORTS NONO PE, gax 3102 Vaa,OEmMe atom :E +k �r #9 Pti __ ` VART OELOTx9i C,ELOCN aG L C, SLG 3T NGNO I'M Y7D- {xEJSQE FIx aTQ{TE -tsT2 1 . ' - - - - - - SIT in WA STREE Eeyrvin . 1FIl, CObRtDO , COLLORAW _ . .._., 6tINTAlN SPORTS ... .. ..E 16 ELatY.r f S TUCC O CRfs EVNAIfHI 2-1WPQ SNWOLES C � W006 fASC1A REET lxwn !' i ADO. Hacl ta i�lt t t c WOOD TRW 8m 0 F W MR, • .3. EAT9N FLAIR LEVEL ,. ''VV ....... EL: fmr-0 tE E%ISTH 0 STAIRS ' . A� WALL ETREF . St Y`[W 'y Ti3` t +-_4 k E%FSTINO FOUNDATidi � 4 1 �{�. iASEYENT lEYE4 1 _ .. NORTH ELEVATtOtE� ® @ iRr _ . .._., 6tINTAlN SPORTS ... .. ..E 16 ELatY.r f CRfs EVNAIfHI 2-1WPQ C � REET lxwn !' i ADO. Hacl ta I WO90 FASCU . 1 f - � : F { jfff t � � f • — ' — �6a YANDOW TAIY � _ � � � � � � � ! VERTICALWWO SHWW AViNVISS + UP�ERLEVEL STUCCO " WOAD MIX METAL AAAJkO STONE CAF .. ..... _. £.ATON PLAIA LEY£L,S,_ IL, lorN Rt 1CIASMPb7R tPPD STORE KNEGA 1�1 E .W#D It— . E%ISiWa FENCE kk� t .. - -A __ _ _ t%SaTWO ROCK WALL ♦ E%ISFINO STAIRS .�._____. -- EL fa fl E %ISPNO fOUMDAPON t T EASEMENT LEVEL .. "J. 2 I - EAST ELEVATION 1u• -ra f + 6tINTAlN SPORTS CRfs EVNAIfHI 2-1WPQ K SC FSSPT S S S C, SLOD TetR PZO- tiai50a O-7 Y¢ST �A fIRSTFILINO F+Wk! �3 [B:,AS 7 REET lxwn !' i ADO. Hacl d 03'18/88 10 :43 EDWARD BLECKNER, JR. 002 THE PRAISES CORPORATION March 18, 1998 SUBMI'IrTED BY FAX Mr, George Reuther Community Development Department Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West 'flail, CO 81857 Dear Mc Reuther: In regard to the various actions of 1151 Vall Land Holding for changes to their property at 227 Wall St. I am the owner of 2 condominiums dl_ reM adjacent to the subject property, Units 308 and 309, Wall Street Bldg. (Lazier Arcade). At the prior public (variance) hearing last month to which my attorney attended. ASi - represented that they were working with adjacent neighbors. This just isn't so. Neither ASI nor any representative of them have contacted me in any way regarding the previous request for variance nor the upcoming work session, not by mail, by FAX, by phone nor in person. I have learned through of these events only third parties. Isn't this a bit unusual? Further, I am the property owner of direct negative impact. The impact of an additional floor to the subject property will reduce the light to my residential unit about 80% and reduce available air substantially, I have requested Sally Brainard of RKD architects to attend the upcoming work session on my behalf: At this time I object to this project for negative effects on my property independent of my objection based upon a recorded agreement binding upon successors_ Sincerely, EDWARD BLECKNER, JR. PRESIDENT copies: Sadly Brainard, RKD James Kurtz - Phelan, Berenbaum, Weinshienk & Eason 1641 S.E. 7 TN STREET • FT. LAUDERDALE, FIL + 33316 PHONE: (854 ) 763 -1498 •FAX: {864) 7831298 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 23, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed west entry remodel to the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow DnvetPart of Tract B, Vail Village 1 St. Applicant: Mountain Haus Condominium Association, represented by Stephanie Lord of Fritzlen, Pierce & Briner. Planner: George Ruther I. DESCRIPTIO OF THE REQUEST The applicant, the Mountain Haus Condominium Association, represented by Stephanie Lord of Fritzlen, Pierce, and Briner, is requesting a worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss a proposed west entry remodel to the Mountain Haus. The remodeled west entry is intended to improve access into the residential and commercial spaces within the Mountain Haus, as well as enhance the aesthetics of the west elevation of the building. Much of the new entry addition is proposed to be constructed on Town of Vail property within Slifer Plaza, The new addition is proposed to extend out to the west, the approximate distance that the existing canvas canopy currently extends. The purpose of the worksession is to discuss the following issues: • The appropriateness of constructing an entry addition on Town-owned property zoned Outdoor Recreation District. • The requirement of a tree preservation plan and tree removal associated with the new entry. • The public benefit gained by allowing the new entry to be constructed on Town property. The completeness of the application. • II. BACKGROUND On Tuesday, February 24th, the applicant's representative met with the Town Council. The purpose of the meeting with the Town Council was to seek the Town Council's permission to proceed through the public planning process. The Town Council's permission is required, as the t\everyone\pec\memos\mthaus.323 I TOWN OF *VAIL I I W Mountain Haus is proposing to construct the new entry on a portion of Town of Vail property within Slifer Plaza. Upon hearing the applicant's request, the Town Council granted their permission to proceed through the planning process. The Council identified the following three issues which need to be addressed during the review process: 1. A public benefit of allowing the applicant to use a portion of the Town property to construct the new entry. 2. A tree preservation plan. 3. If approved, the property conveyance options for allowing the applicant to- use Town property. DISCUSSION ISSUES The Community Development Department has completed a preliminary review of the proposed west entry remodel. Upon completion of our review, staff has identified several issues we believe the applicant, staff and Planning and Environmental Commission should address prior to a final review. Staff has identified the following issues for discussion: The appropriateness of constructing an entry addition on property zoned Outdoor Recreation. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the Mountain Haus' property is zoned Public Accommodation, and the area immediately adjacent (Slifer Plaza) is zoned Outdoor Recreation. Only a very small portion of the proposed west entry remodel is on the Mountain Haus' property. Most of the entry will be constructed on Town of Vail property in Slifer Plaza. According to Section 12-813-1 of the Municipal Code, the purpose of the Outdoor Recreation Zone District is, "to preserve undeveloped or open space lands from intensive development while permitting outdoor recreational activities that provide opportunities for active and passive recreation areas, facilities and uses." In keeping with the purpose of the Outdoor Recreation Zone District, the permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the zone district are limited to recreational-types of uses (i.e., bicycle paths, pedestrian walkways, nature walks, public parks, ski lifts, etc.). Accessory buildings, both temporary and permanent, customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional outdoor recreation uses, and necessary for the operation thereof, are allowed. Examples of allowable accessory buildings include restrooms, bleachers, and storage buildings. Staff believes the proposed improvements are in compliance with the Outdoor Recreation Zone District. The proposed improvements are pedestrian walkways intended to provide access from the Mountain Haus to Slifer Plaza and the surrounding area. Improved f.*\everyone\pec\memos\mthaus.323 2 9 pedestrian walkways have been constructed in the Outdoor Recreation and Natural Area Preservation Zone Districts in other areas of Town. These areas include the Covered Bridge, the steps leading down to the pocket park adjacent to the Covered Bridge Building and the steps and walkways constructed as part of the Vail Village Club. Staff would recommend that the Planning and Environmental Commission again affirm the staff's interpretation allowing pedestrian walkways to be constructed in the Outdoor Recreation Zone District. • The requirement of a tree preservation plan and tree removal associated with the new entry. During the Town Council's initial review of the applicant's request to proceed through the public planning process, the Town Council identified the preservation of the existing trees as a major concern. At the time, the applicant anticipated that approximately 2 -3 of the existing, large evergreen trees would need to be removed as a result of the proposed new entry improvements. The applicant indicated that their design was sensitive to the existing vegetation, and therefore, resulted in the minimum amount of tree removal. The staff would suggest that the applicant and the Planning and Environmental Commission discuss the proposed tree removal, as well as identify minimum requirements for a:tree preservation plan. Staff would suggest that the tree preservation plan be developed in cooperation with a licensed arborist. • The public benefit gained by allowing the new entry to be constructed on Town property. A second issue raised by the Town Council during their initial review of the applicant's request to proceed through the public planning process was the public benefits to be gained by the Town of Vail for allowing the Mountain Haus to construct a portion of their access on Town property. It was believed by the Town Council, that in order to permit the applicant to use Town property, a public benefit must be realized. Staff has identified the following potential public benefits: • All tree removal will be mitigated with additional tree planting by the applicant. • The proposed entrywill be constructed in conjunction with the Slifer Plaza improvements. • The improved entry will enhance the viability of the lower Level commercial spaces. • The proposed entry will aesthethically improve the appearance of the existing building. Staff would suggest that the applicant address and discuss the potential public benefits to be realized to the Town of Vail for allowing the Mountain Haus to construct their improvements on Town of Vail property. • The completeness of the application. At this time, the applicant's submittal is incomplete. To complete the application, the 1101 applicant needs to submit the following information relevant to a setback variance and a site coverage variance: f:teveryonelpec\memos\ mthaus.323 3 I I . a. 03 M A fee of $250 must be paid at the time of submittal Stamped, addressed envelopes and a list of names and mailing addresses of all property owners adjacent to the subject property, including properties behind and across streets. The applicant is responsible for correct names and mailing addresses. This information is available from the Eagle County Assessor's Office. A written statement and precise nature of the variances requested and the specific regulations involved. d. A written statement addressing the following: - The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. - The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to obtain the objectives of the Zoning Code without a granting of special privilege, - The effect of the variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities and public safety. - How the request complies with Vail's Comprehensive Plan. e. A topographic and/or improvement survey at a scale of at least 1 20' stamped by a Colorado licensed surveyor, including locations of all existing improvements, including grades and elevations. Other elements which must be shown are parking and loading areas, ingress and egress, landscape areas and utility and drainage features. f. A site plan at a scale of at least 1 20' showing existing and proposed buildings. 9- Building elevations and floor plans sufficient to indicate the dimensions, general appearance, scale and use of all buildings and spaces existing and proposed. h. A tree preservation plan. i. Any additional information deemed necessary by the Community Development Department and/or the Planning and Environmental Commission, in order to complete the review of the proposed request. 11 • Is there any additional information that the Planning and Environmental Commission wishes to request of the applicant, prior to acting upon the site coverage and setback variance requests? IV. STAFF R R ECOLAMENDATION • f 4 4b_- �.. € € 7 c .... p.. v a ...R A PANT OF " • • c TRACT 0 AppWL W CW" 5Ei9rat... .... .. .. . FRITZLEN P IERCE {Y4 /II�EYI1t BRINER taortF �xvcr tHraQra,AnCa �awc� -n ®r ' r+E�tc � SiiRVeroas, �wc. " .. .. A CM,t T t C T r, €TE PLAN � I ,- to MOUNTAIN HAUS MOUNTAIN RAUS ol 2 a �i ............. FRITZLEN ..................... PIERCE BRINER NRC.MILEC7f" / y � 7' � . - 10V SLIDER PLAZA Vr=S5N A40 LINE OF �� /� � EWrItY ABOVE WON NAISriiN - Z� - - - -- ----- - ---------- - If ---------- - L J --- v - - - - - -- L STAM LEAD TO SAWKNT 60MOM -5' ABOVE W R&IS SA WEST ENTRY- BASE =NT PLAN • E 9 PETAIL 01 2 I PAM I FRITZLEN PIERCE FIRINER ARCHITECTS U) 2 . R� FRITZLEN PIERCE BRINER ARCHITECTS .. . rr wR w..r`y. ct Ko�w 4M.W+wr FI�XIQ a" �. 70. pMtAGKL"tD f _ ,1� TYi.. . l1• -4• — al 1 >R� I FRITZLEN PIERCE BRINER -AL GNIT ECTI . tK 0. . MIwIwAI Iwlww 0 f l WEST ENTR`( -- ELEVATION V]`fi' -O' FF -24 TIMOM FtR fTl%4TURAL - �x SPOT L16HTS Fr 2qL6• tti C SEE STF44TUWAL OX& Time" POST- 2XI2 TRIER PM STRUrTUKAL lHWeE-ArOXMK SANMTOW KANOKAILINS- PER srtrs 'R, I YeST ENTRY' 1ST FLOOR. T CAP AZ :±! FLOOR. STAIRS TO MAIN "LOO 12' pp .1,40* X-M li�CiJA1PE }y WEST Coowpm BASEMENT PER 3FEGS 12' TRWAOMS MTrW,4 PLA6STOPPE LAPS FRITZLEN PIERCE WA**X&- SEE I )e Hi OPUNER OFT" ARCHITECTS r'\ WEST ENTW'e- SECTION LANDMARK - VAIL CONDOMINIUM ASSOC., INC. 610 WEST LIONSHEAD CIRCLE., VAIL, COLORADO 81657 March 17, 1998 Town Council Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Council Members: We have previously expressed our support of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Planning process, and our opposition to the substantial increases in zoning height, mass, and density proposed by the consultants and Town planning staff. Our reasons for concern were expressed in our letter of December 12. E Our Board and members strongly oppose the maximum building heights proposed in the latest planning information we have seen. These heights, as we understand them, envision buildings of five stories at approximately 12 feet each, or 60 feet total, plus an additional height allowance for roofs of 14 feet, or a total of 74 feet, more than half again the height currently allowed. An additional height of up to 102 feet could be approved with certain 'bonus' provisions in the budding. This height would effectively change the character of Lionshead from a low-density, village-type pedestrian-oriented atmosphere to a high density, Beaver Creek-type area. Ironically, it seems as if much of what is proposed closely resembles the Vail Associates model of replacement buildings in the center of the Lionshead area. We are also strongly opposed to the elimination of setback requirements, landscaping requirements,, and GRFA and site coverage requirements. If these standards are removed, we have little hope of maintaining the openness of views, the pedestrian plazas, and the landscaped rest areas which are so needed in Lionshead. In fact, logic would dictate that increased setbacks and additional open space should be required if building heights and masses are increased. Ll On a recent visit to Vail, my wife and I walked around Vail Village, Lionshead, Beaver Creek, Avon, and other areas in Vail to attempt to evaluate the impact of the proposed changes. We saw and felt the open, pedestrian-friendly village atmosphere, of Vail Village; we saw similar potential in Lionshead, with replacement of the Sunbird Lodge and Gondola building with sensitive, low-rise structures (similar to the Austria Haus, and other new or newly-rebuilt structures in the Village). We saw and felt the loss of openness, the separation from the mountain, the overwhelming mass of the huge new buildings in Beaver Creek .......... and asked ourselves: "Is this what we want in Lionshead?" We certainly have no objection to Beaver Creels for those who want it, who choose to own property there, who choose to stay there for short periods. It has developed in accordance with a previously approved master plan, which everyone recognized would result in a development similar to that which now exists. In the case of Lionshead, however, a much different process has been followed in its nearly 30 years of development. Throughout those years, countless individuals and families have purchased property in good faith in Lionshead, with a vision of low- density `village'; comparable to Vail Village, which is not at all what the planners now envision. As we have stated previously, we stand eager to support a redevelopment plan for Lionshead which builds on the strengths which exist now, solves the problems which are critical, and lays the groundwork for solution of more difficult problems in the future. One of these crucial problems not solved by the current plan is the integration ofthe properties at the west end of Lionshead with the remainder of the area. Pedestrian access throughout the area, extending to and including the Marriott, Vail Spa, Antlers, and other properties is an important key to future success of the entire area. This access would not be improved " by the current high- density planning proposals. To the contrary, the VA plans would magnify the barrier presented by West Lionshead Circle, by substantially increasing the volume of vehicular traffic along this route. We greatly appreciate the understanding and sympathy shown by Council members to our concerns, and those of others in Lionshead. This is a difficult task, and we do not wish to compound the difficulties you face in arriving at a final plan. But we will be here to live with the results of the plan you select. It is our village too....and we want it to be the best it can possibly be! Thank you for your patience. We will continue to follow your efforts with interest and concern. Very truly yours, J Joseph H. Looper, Pres ent Landmark -Vail Condominium Association cc. Planning and Environment Commission A 4_1 d 19 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 23, 1998 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: Greg Moffet Greg Amsden Galen Aasland Diane Golden John Schofield MEMBERS ABSENT: Gene Uselton Ann Bishop STAFF PRESENT: Mike Mollica Andy Knudtsen Dominic Mauriello Christie Barton George Ruther Judy Rodriguez 1:U11-10; The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m 2�� .� A request for a worksession on Stage 3 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Stage 3 includes the rationale and desired outcomes, which establish the regulatory framework for height, mass and density of buildings in the study area. Planners: Mike Mollica/Dominic Mauriello Consultants: Ethan Moore & David Kenyon (Design Workshop, Inc.) Mayor Rob Ford stated his opinion on the Lionshead redevelopment process and encouraged the PEC to not lose sight of the basics and the reason for the plan. He said the effort should be focused on the mission statement to bring Lionshead back to a lively functioning part of Vail. He said there will be more density in Lionshead to make it work. He stated that height, density and mass were only a part of trying to create a vibrant village core that worked. He said that in speaking to everyone about Vail, all love the ski mt., but criticize the villages. Rob said this process would allow us to be competitive with other village cores. He stated it was a disappointment to have lost facilities like the convention center and par 3 that went to Beaver Creek and Eagle-Vail. He advised the PEC not to lose sight of the overall picture. Mike Mollica gave an overview of the staff memo and asked for any questions. Galen Aasland asked about the building height analysis. He stated for the record that the PEC did not ask for exact numbers, only ballpark numbers. Dominic Mauriello went over the graphic on page 5 of the staff memo. He said the accuracy of the numbers should not be relied upon for development purposes, as the numbers were general and since the information came from different sources. He explained the allowed GRFA was according to the zoning requirements and the reason he lumped the 4 buildings together at the bottom of the chart was because the Town had survey information on them as one site. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 Ethan Moore said he put the view corridors on the model. He said there were 5 preliminary view corridors; 1.) The east end of the parking structure looking up the mountain; 2). From the ground level of the parking structure at the west portal, looking through towards the gondola line and up the mountain; 3). In front of the Bart & Yetis deck looking up the mountain, with the wide expanse gone and becoming a true corridor; 4). From the central Lionshead plaza through the VA core site, allowing a person walking to the center of Lionshead to have a visual connection to the ski yar d; and 5). From the north day lot before going down the stairs. This would require the building mass to step down allowing more light into the plaza. He defined a view corridor as generally being the view towards the mountain. Diane Golden asked Dave Corbin if VA was ok with the view corridors. Dave Corbin said, yes. He said that the popcorn wagon view was on private property, but they would honor it on principle. Ethan Moore said the height of the building in a view corridor might be restricted, depending on the base point of the view. He said with 5-stories built to the south of it, the Landmark Townhomes would have all views blocked and he then explained which buildings would have blocked views, Galen Aasland asked about the existing setbacks. Ethan Moore said they would conform to the setbacks. He said a 48' tall building which would be allowed to be built today, would block all but a small mountain view on the top floor of the Lifthouse and a 5-story building would block it totally and the two lower levels of the Vantage Point would be blocked. 0 Dave Corbin said he was not clear on the Landmark site. Ethan Moore explained that with 5-stories and a 24' roof on the east and west and with eye level to the top of the mountain, the 1 st and 2nd stories would lose their view under this proposal. He said the 1 st floor was pool level and also a residential level. Geoff Wright said the Sunbird was 45' tall and if the building was dropped, we could see the views from the 1 st floor. He said he was not in favor of going into the setback. Ethan Moore said the location of the Sunbird far exceeds the regulatory setback. He then explained that Lionshead was broken down into 5 different zones. He said from a conceptual standpoint, they didn't want to force architects not to be creative. John Schofield agreed with the north/south building orientation theory in the proposal, but questioned how many lots actually complied with that and didn't think there were even 4 or 5 lots that qualified. Ethan Moore said there were only a few places in Lionshead, such as the VA core site and the Lazier building having enough depth. He said if lots had enough depth, they could incentivize north/south. John Schofield reiterated that less than half a dozen lots qualify. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes 2 March 23, 1998 Greg Moffet said a desirable outcome would be putting streets in for retail and trading right -of- way with private property owners. Ethan Moore said we had defined where the streets would be as an integral piece before Stage 3, with north/south corridors. Greg Moffet asked Ethan if he consulted with VA for the public rights-of-way. Ethan Moore said, given the main plan of the master plan parameters, VA would have to take that into account and he had not made the recommendation regarding the Town taking possession of those rights-of-way. Ethan Moore explained how building height translated into density counts. He said they only used a basic point of reference. He said trying to forecast future densities, market size and shapes of lots, whether developers could get financing, were all outside this study. He then went over the assumptions and scenarios from the memo. Galen Aasland said this started out with 41 % site coverage and now we were looking at buildings with 55% site coverage. Ethan Moore explained that they used Lionshead today as a point of beginning and upped it. Dominic Mauriello said we were looking at the percentage of change. Ethan Moore said roof area adds some incentive, but it didn't add a lot. He then went over the most likely properties that would redevelop. He said there were 5 properties and based upon the zoning would increase from 315 units to 370 units with the north/south bonus. He said that they were looking at projects that in reality have a shot at redeveloping. He said if you added in the undeveloped properties, such as the VA west-day lot and north day lot, the range would be from ranging from the mid 500's to the mid 700's at the high end, with the total being the potential unit count. He said it all varied, depending on the number of EHUs, AUs and DU's. He said that this was general and was the averaged data, for a good point of reference only. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. Dave Corbin, from VA, said Ethan Moore had given them an enormous amount of information. He said regarding Scenario E in the memo, that when you first looked at the increases, they looked fairly substantial; but once you made the story increases, they became small. He said he would like to emphasize if this proposal goes forward, don't think with these studies that you won't see the increase as that much. He said one factor that led us here was the Corchevall study He said the question was how to make these existing buildings more appealing. He noted that VA had a single ownership on a large site, but to scrape away a building in order to rebuild, it would cost over $8 million just to clear it away. He asked what a valuable incentive would be to have these other properties redo to keep competitive properties. He said the space under a pitched roof wouldn't net too much or little to no incentive. He said to encourage remodeling, you would need a full floor plate above the 5th floor. He said the life of the buildings are 50 years and he would hope that the PEC could recommend a 5th floor. He again said inventing with only a pitched roof would not be enough incentive. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes 3 March 23,1998 Galen Aasland asked David what kind of floor arrangement would be needed for a viable project. David Corbin said they had a proforma. He said including live beds, a for-sale project, and retail, VA ended up with 450,000 sq. ft., which included the underground parking. He said this included a 170 -room hotel, with 44 FFU's, 6 penthouses and retail and 70,000 sq. ft. of ski area components. He said after all revenues were used, it would leave a $400,000 per key for the hotel, therefore, making the cost of creating hospitality too high. He said VA needed to redo the proforma when we know where the Town was going. He offered to share this project information with whoever was interested. He then said that other owners have asked if VA would want to buy their condo associations. He said in order to make it work financially, they would have to triple the density, Jim Lamont, representing the EVHA, said it was tough to digest all the numbers and asked Ethan which sites were the scrape-down sites. Ethan Moore said the Concert Hall and VA core site. Jim Lamont asked how many people were allotted per 1,500 sq. ft or how many people per bed. Dave Corbin said some of the confusion was using an 825 sq. ft. 1- bedroom unit. He said a 1- bedroom unit would have a 4 person occupancy, with 2 per bedroom and 2 on a pullout in a living room. He said a 1,500 sq. ft., or 2-bedrooms, would be 6 pillows. He said if you do that all the way through it would increase the number of occupants, but the percentage adjustment was not that big of a change. Jim Lamont said based on a free-market system, this did not provide sufficient incentives. He said there were two issues; beds for guests and a similar percentage for workers with EHU's. Ethan Moore said he had made no assumptions towards the splits of AU's, DU's and EHU's. Jim Lamont said the EVHA was concerned with the 600 AU's at the entrance to Town. He said the body count needed to be served. He asked for the ratio between RU's DU's, FFU's and EHU's and stated that the EHU criteria was woefully inadequate. He said they needed the ratio of AU's to EHUs. He said that since the population would show an increase of 4,000 guest beds, he asked Ethan to address the social equity issue. Larry Holden, the President of the Lionsquare Lodge Board, stated that with no economic incentive to change, properties wouldn't change. He questioned any economic incentive to benefit both Lionsquare and Lionshead and said it would be the first thing our association would consider. He asked if VA had an economic incentive to benefit the community. He asked if we had the infrastructure to support this, or would it be available and put in place when the master plan was decided upon, such as water, sewage, parking, and employee housing. He said there was a legal distinction between private view corridors and public view corridors. John Schofield asked Larry Holden asked what incentives would be necessary to bring his condo association around. Larry Holden said he would like to be able to redevelop the north building, but needed to have sufficient density to not cost the present homeowners any money. He said the building currently had 27 units and they would need to go to 54 units. He said they would need to work with the Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes 4 March 23, 1998 Town regarding access and parking. He said a land swap with the Town improving their access, with double density could get the homeowners to be in favor of redevelopment. Hugh Menomin, a visitor coming to Vail for 30 years and property owner for 5 years, stated that being away from big cities was why they came to Vail. He said Lionshead's big open square was an attraction. He said he was fully in support of redevelopment, but to keep the open feeling. Michael Hazard, an architect representing Montaneros, said they needed the same density parameters that VA was using, He said he was in favor of pursuing the kind of density required to not have any expense passed on to the present owners. He said the present owners didn't want to lose views and quality. Greg Moffet asked if his homeowners association would own the retail and lease it or would the association use the for-sale units for renovations. Michael Hazard said there was a unanimous vote to not develop as a homeowner's group, but they needed to renovate to command the rental market value. He suggested allowing the flat area above Charlies T-shirts to be developed, adding 3 new units, or I million dollars net and this would create the incentive. Greg Moffet asked Ethan where in the process was the slide show that the PEC saw. Ethan Moore said the slide show was the first thing we did and it was seen 2 years ago. John Schofield said Ethan was on target with the floor-to-floor height, but the big question was whether to allow 4 or 5 stories. He said that views lost didn't change a lot from what we had today. Greg Moffet advised the PEC that the next meeting would be a recommendation to Council on the height and mass issues. John Schofield said he did not need more worksessions, just time to mull it over. He said the north/south orientation and the bonuses we could give were not much, except on the VA core site. Greg Amsden was not uncomfortable with the proposal. He was not in favor of setting public policy percentages on employee housing, as we should have been concerned with employee housing 20 years ago. He stated they couldn't publicly legislate to fix the employee housing situation. He stated it would be a tough job for the existing buildings, and would take time. Galen Aasland said he received a number of letters that he took seriously. He said that Vantage Point didn't support this and wanted the no action option. He said there would be scraped lots, buildings that wanted to redevelop and others that wanted to just put a new roof on. He said the economics didn't support taking down buildings and the real difficulty was giving incentives. He said site coverage was a concern. He said regarding the height study, that four buildings were over height and so about 2/3 of the buildings were not height challenged. He said he was not convinced of roof incentives and they needed to increase floor-to-floor heights. Diane Golden asked about the west end of Lionshead being a different height? Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 5 Ethan Moore said that Ann Essen suggested not limiting the opportunities for EHUs in the west end and we could go 7-8 stories, but we are not recommending that height. Diane Golden said this was a real opportunity for people to live in Town and this also offered potential to bring retail closer to the street. Greg,Moffet was in agreement with Galen's comments and that the no action option was not an alternative. He explained the reason he asked about the slide show was because of the north/ south orientation failing in the light and air objective. He said he objected to height over that which is allowed for east/west development, as it would create additional shade zones 360 days per year. He said we needed to revisit the north/south orientations. He said 57' high buildings should not be permitted or without a second setback and we needed to be flexible on density. He said in order not to create dead end walls and the passage of light and air, he wouldn't have a problem with density. He said he couldn't vote for this, as we would not be true to the objectives we set out with. Galen Aasland suggested inventing office space in Lionshead. Andy Knudtsen gave an overview on the abbreviated public process on the Common Ground. 2. A request for a Major CC2 Exterior Alteration, to allow for the addition of a spa maintenance building, located at 641 West Lionshead Circle/Part of Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: The Montaneros Condo. Assoc., represented by Michael Hazard Assoc. Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Galen Aasland asked Michael Hazard what kind of flue was on the boiler. Michael Hazard, representing the applicant, said they were compressing all the mechanical in a 6X6X8' room with venting laterally and no flue coming through. Dominic Mauriello said the application for DRB would be a staff approval. Diane Golden had no comments. John Schofield asked about the metal fence. Michael Hazard said the pool enclosure fencing met the code but not by the Town. He described it as a tight mesh, with a clean grid and upright concrete supports. He said it was a refined fence with a solid element and spacing on the supports were 18'. He said the details had been submitted to the Town and were nicer than what was presented here. Greg Amsden had no comments. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 6 11 Greg Moffet stated that the proposal was consistent with the CC2 Zone District. John Schofield made a motion in accordance with the staff memo, with the condition that the final fence design be approved by staff or the DRB. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 3. A request for a variance, to allow for a heating boiler to be placed in the sideyard setback, located at 22 West Meadow Drive/Lots G and H, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Villa Cortina Condominium Association, represented by Rick Halterman Planner: Christie Barton E E Christie Barton gave an overview of the staff memo Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Bill Loper, the President of the Condo Association, said there were no visual impacts, but they were planning on planting a tree on the west end and it was their intention to make it better. Galen Aasland asked for more than one tree. Diane Golden said it was great to add 3 more parking spaces for Cortina. Bill Loper explained that there would be 1.5 parking places per unit and they had a total of 21 units. John Schofield agreed with Galen regarding adding more trees for screening. Greg Amsden had no additional comments. Greg Moffet said that the site was extremely constrained and therefore, showed a hardship which met the criteria for a variance. John Schofield made a motion for approval with the condition that the landscaping (2-3 trees) be approved by staff to screen the boiler from the west end. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 4. A request for a front setback variance, to allow for a 3-foot encroachment into the front setback for a residential addition, located at 3035 Booth Falls Road/Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 13th Filing. Applicant: John & Kathy Adair Planner: Christie Barton Christie Barton gave an overview of the memo Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 23,1998 7 Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. They did not. John Schofield disclosed that he had a business relationship with the owner, but that it wouldn't influence him. Greg Amsden had no comments. Galen Aasland stated the unique nature of this lot constituted a hardship. Diane Golden had no comments. Greg Moffet agreed with Galen's comments. Greg Amsden made a motion for approval. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 5. A request for a Conditional Use Permit, a Minor CCI Exterior Alteration, a building height variance and a site coverage variance, to allow for a bay addition and to eliminate a dwelling unit, located at 193 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Rodney & Beth Slifer, represented by Jim Buckner Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Galen Aasland stated the request was in accordance with the current zoning. John Schofield had no comments. Greg Amsden had no comments. Greg Moffet agreed that it was in accordance with the current zoning. John Schofield made a motion for approval for the conditional use permit only, as the applicant had withdrawn the minor CC1 exterior alteration, the building height variance and the site coverage variance. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 23,1998 []I I" I 6. A request for a worksession to discuss a Major CCI Exterior Alteration and a site coverage variance, to allow for a remodel and expansion to the Slifer Building, located at 230 Bridge Street/Lot B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Slifer Designs, represented by Jim Buckner Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Discussion Issue #1 Jim Buckner, representing the applicant, said the height variance would not be an issue, as it would offer a variety of roof heights and would only be on the front of the building. John Schofield noticed on the site visit that the dumpster was on Town property Jim Buckner said he was not aware of that. George Ruther stated the back of the building was on the property line and that the trash enclosure and reserved parking were on TOV property. He said in the CC1 Zone District, on-site parking was prohibited and they may need to reduce this non conformity. John Schofield had no problem with the application. Greg Amsden had no comments regarding the height and site at this time. He did agree that the parking was encroaching into a TOV tract. He said the handicapped access area should be labeled handicapped, instead of private. Galen Aasland said the west elevation needed significant articulation and he could not support this application until he saw more articulation. He said it was against the Town's objectives to have a flat wall against Bridge Street. Diane Golden echoed the concerns about parking. Greg Moffet stated that in order to grant a variance, the PEC needed to know why it would not be a special privilege and advised the applicant to come up with a good reason. Discussion Issue #2 Jim Buckner said the DRB gave us an understanding of whereto work towards, so we just need comments from the PEC regarding the walking experience. Galen Aasland said he wanted to see a change in the roof. Diane Golden supported the change in the roof pitch and the change from external stairs. John Schofield said he heard the DRB comments. Greg Amsden had no comments. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 23,1998" 9 Greg Moffet said rather than shrubs for landscaping, he would like to see a commitment to flowers, as shrubs die with people sitting on them. Discussion Issue #3 George Ruther asked if the Pec wanted to see a color board, The PEC did not want to see a color board, 7. A request for a worksession to discuss the proposed Major CC1 Exterior Alteration to the Hong Kong Cafe Building, located at 227 Wall Street/Lot B & C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: ASI Vail Land Holding, L.L.C., represented by Kathy Langenwalter Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Kathy Langenwalter explained the model and said the applicant was using the same footprint that the Hong Kong used, just changing the entrance. She said the edge of building was .7' over the property line on one side and .7' under the property line on the other side. Greg Moffet disclosed for the record that he saw no conflict, but Base Mountain Sports was a customer of his. Galen Aasland disclosed for the record that his office was in the Wall Street Building and one of his clients owned the owned the commercial space. Rick Rosen, legal counsel for the Hong Kong, stated that during the original construction, the surveyor missed by .7' and shifted the building over .7'as you look towards the Lodge property. He said in 1986, when it came up for a redevelopment the Town acquiesced to the continuation of that encroachment and he felt it had been approved by silence. John Schofield said he would like to see the discrepancy cleaned up for the new owners and suggested trading some land. Greg Amsden suggested an even exchange. Rick Rosen showed the ILC from 1986. Galen Aasland suggested adding no square footage over Town space. Diane Golden was in favor of cleaning up the problem. Greg Moffet strongly recommended trading 7 for .7'. Rick Rosen stated that as the building stands today, there was a window opening on the west wall and an agreement that allowed for the openings in the event that the Lodge properties did a redevelopment. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 23,1998 10 Kathy Langenwalter said her client was not required to sprinkler the building and agreed with staff to have the windows added. She said the Fire Department was not happy with the new windows. She said that if the windows remained, the stairway right outside would not work and they were not increasing the windows, just relocating them. She said the previous agreement should address the Fire Department concerns. Galen Aasland said the building needed significant glass on the east side. He did not want the stucco walls the way it was now on either the east or west side. He suggested landscaping or tempered ceramic on the west. Rick Rosen said VA owned the property that Galen was asking to be landscaped. He said there was already an agreement with the Town of Vail and Lodge Properties that stated the applicant could pull out the windows. He said that this building was touching the property boundaries on all 4 sides. Galen Aasland said the PEC wasn't driven by cost, but by guidelines. Rick Rosen said there was an access easement of 20' and that VA granted and reserved the easements and maintains the rights to those easements. He said that HKC, LMT Partnership, the Town of Vail and Jerry A. Schmidt were the parties in the agreement. He said after the windows were put in the Town could turn around and say board it up. He said that if the Lodge redeveloped their building the fire code dictated where the openings in the wall could be and within 5' of property line. He said that was why the agreement came up. Diane Golden said the west wall needed landscaping. John Schofield said the two issues were the architecture and the fire code and with a 20 0 easement, the Town has agreed to opt for more glass. Greg Amsden had no comments. Ernie Fearwall, an owner, stated that it behooved us to have windows on the ground level because the type of use was retail. Greg Moffet said to put a window in. Kathy Langenwalter explained the access. George Ruther said the applicant was required to put up a financial bond for Earl Eaton Plaza, as the walls and landscaping could be ruined and destroyed by heavy equipment and this might be an opportunity for upgrades. Kathy Langenwalter said it was not prudent to improve an area that was being redesigned. Greg Moffet suggested Kathy talk to staff regarding the bond. Galen Aasland said he wanted more glass on the east side. Rick Rosen commented on the letter attached to the memo and said that the applicant had been in contact with him. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 23,1998 8. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed west entry remodel to the Mountain Haus, located at 292, East Meadow Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Village I st. Applicant: Mountain Haus Condominium Association Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked for any applicant input. Stephanie Lord, representing the applicant, said the west entry solution was being worked out in conjunction with the Town's redevelopment of Slifer Plaza. Greg Moffet asked for any public input. There was none. John Schofield said the Town Council would see this. Greg Amsden had no comments. Galen Aasland stated that this was a long-standing problem, but if someone built a new building next to this we could not approve the same request. Diane Golden had no additional comments Greg Moffet agreed with Galen. John Schofield asked if Todd Oppenheimer had anything to do with the tree preservation plan. Greg Barrie, a landscape architect with the Town of Vail, said he had been working with the Mountain Haus and was trying to put together a comprehensive design with the Slifer Plaza Master Plan and said that the Mountain Haus improvements complimented the master plan. Stephanie Lord said they wanted to save the north tree, but in reality can't, but would put in some ornamental trees, such as crabapple, to bring some human scale into the entry way. Diane Golden asked if they really thought out the crabapple tree idea, as it might be a mess with the children playing in the fountain. Galen Aasland agreed with Diane Golden. Stephanie Lord said they could use another kind of ornamental tree. John Schofield said that Clark Brittain, from the DRB, disagreed with the loss of the 3 large trees. Greg Amsden had no additional comments. George Ruther said the applicant should have a foot-to-foot mitigation plan. Greg Amsden stated they didn't have the ground to do that. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 WN 11 Lynn Fritzlen stated the applicant wanted to work in conjunction with the Town. George Ruther said there was no way to plant trees on the Mountain Haus property, but other opportunities existed. Galen Aasland said the 3 large aspens taken out needed a foot per foot equitable arrangement . Greg Moffet said he wanted a mitigation plan and hated to see large evergreen trees taken out, as it was too urbanizing. He stated he wanted to see the location of the mitigation as prominent as it was now. Greg Barrie said the Town was starting construction on the plaza in early May. Lynn Fritzlen stated they needed to get going in early May, but we need to finalize our plan when the Town finalizes their plan. Galen Aasland said we needed a commitment from you as to what was being removed. George Ruther said it was important to the Town Council to understand what the benefits to the Town would be, since the entry was on Town of Vail property. He said we would put together an easement agreement. Lynn Fritzlen said the benefit would be to enhance the restaurant downstairs which would be separated from the main hotel. She said the new improvements would solve some mechanical problems they had and would cut down on odors. Greg Moffet suggested it would be a good space for outdoor dining Lynn Fritzlen said we had originally thought of a sunken plaza, but the noise might be a factor. She said a benefit to the Town would be that the security problems with the open door to the hotel from the past would no longer be a problem and therefore, the police would be there less. Greg Amsden said we needed to preserve the restaurant space we already have in this Town. Greg Moffet was in agreement with Greg Amsden. George Ruther stated that the applicant would need a site coverage variance and setback variance and would like to do a PEC straw poll on the proposed mitigation and design. The PEC was in favor of this request by a straw poll of 5-0. 9. A request for additional GRFA utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a remodel, located at 1998 Sunburst Drive/Lot 19, Vail Valley 3rd Filing. Applicant. Nate Accardo, represented by Dale Smith, Fritzlen, Pierce Briner Architects Planner: George Ruther LIV 11.9 IN f = Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 13 10. A request for a conditional use permit to construct four multiple-family dwelling units and variances from Section 12-7E-8 (Building Height), Section 12 -7E -11 (Landscape Area) and Section 12-7E-7 (Setbacks), to allow for commercial and residential expansion, located at 143 E. Meadow Drive (Crossroads East Building) / Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 St. Applicant: Crossroads Plaza, Trevina L.P., represented by Bill Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL APRIL 13, 1998 Greg Amsden made a motion to table item 10 until April 13, 1998, John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 11. Information Update 1998 PEC rep. to the DRB - Jan. - Mar. - John Schofield Apr. - Jun. - John Schofield for the April 1st meeting only. Jul. -Sep. Oct. - Dec. Greg Moffet stated that the PEC reps for the DRB would be appointed at the April PEC meeting. Mike Mollica said yes, to answer Galen's question whether the DRB felt it important to have a PEC rep on their Board. 12. Approval of March 9, 1998 minutes. Greg Moffet had a change. John Schofield made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Diane Golden made a motion to adjourn. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. 0 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 14