Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-0413 PEC THIS 1TEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE ~ N4TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commissian o# the Tr~wn of Vaii wi(i hold a public hearing in accordance with Sectian 12=3-6 of the Municipal Code af the Town of Vail on Apri! 13, 7998, at 2.00 P.M. in the 7own of Vail Municipaf Building, In consideration of: A request for a minor subdivision, located at 1410 Buffehr Creek Road, Lot G-1, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 2. Applicant: Eric Johnson, representing Leroy Schmidt Planner: Dflminic Mauriello A request for a side yard setback variance and a conditaonaf use permit, to allow for the addition of a car wash, located at 2154 South Frontage Road/unplatted. Applicant. Sonny Caster, GTS, Inc., d.b.a. Vail Conaco Service Planner. George Ruther A request for a building height variance, to ailow for an increase of one-foot in building height, Iocatedat 1799 Sierra Trail/Ldt 17, Vaii Vil[age West First Fifing. Applicant: Julia Watkins Planner. George Ruther A request for a site coverage variance, to allow for a residential addition, located at Unit #602, Vail 21 Condaminiums, 511 East Lionshead CirclelPart of Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing. ~ Applicant: BiN Walker Planner: Dnminic Mauriello A request for a site eoverage variance and additianal GRFA utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow #or a res3dential addition, located at 1234 Westhaven CirclelLot 32, Glen Lyon. Applicant: Marilyn Quayle, represented by Eric HiR Planner; George Ruther A request for an amendment to a previous[y approved plan for the Timber Fa]Is Development, located at 4469 Timber Fa11s Courttunplatted. Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C. Planner: Dominc Mauriello A request #or a eonditi4nal use permit, to al(ow for a temporary garden center, located at 2107 Narth Frontage Road/unplatted, Vail das 5chane. Applicant: City Market, Inc. Planner: Christie Barton The applications and infarmation about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular affice hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Gammunity Development Department, 75 South Frantage Road. ~ Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice ar 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department rawN o*VAX I'ublished March 27, 1998 in the Vail Trai1. , Updated 4/08 10 am ~ PLANNING AND EiVVtRQNMENTAL CQMMISSION Monday, April 13, 1998 AGENDA NEW MEMBER ORIENTATIt7N - Brian Doyan and Tom Weber 11:40 am Fra,iect Orientation /LUNGH - Community DeveLopment Department 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:00 pm 1. City Market - 2107 N. Frantage Raad 2. Watkins -1799 Sierra TraPl 3. Quayle - 1230 Westhaven Circie 4. RAD Five L.L.C. - 4469 Timber Falls Court Driver. Gearge ~ ~ NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends untii 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6.30 p.m. Publie Hearir~a - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. Swearing in ofi new PEC members Brian [7oyan and Tom Weber and reappointed PEC members Gaien Aasland and Diane Goiden - Lorelei Donaldson, Tawn Clerk. 2. Election of 1998 ChairlVice-Chair. 3. A request far a recommendation to Council on Stage 3 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master f'lan. Stage 3 includes the rationale and desired outeomes, which establish #he regulatory framework for height, mass and density of buildings in #he study area. Planners: Mike MollicaiDominic Mauriello Cansultants. Ethan Moore & David Kenyon (Design Workshop, Inc.) 3:00 p.m. 4. A reques# for a conditional use permit, to allow for a temporary garden center, located at 2107 North Frontage Roadlunplatted, Vail das Schone. Applicant. City Marke#, Inc. ~ Planner. Christie Bartflrr 1 Tt)}9N 41L a. Updated 4(08 10 am 5. A request for a final review of the proposed Major CC1 Exterior Alteration to the Hong ~ l4ong Gafe Building, located at 227 Wali Street/Lot B& C, Block 5C, Vail Viliage 1st Filing. Applicant: ASI Vail Land Halding, L.C.C., represented by Ka#hy Langenwalter Planner: George Rufher 6. A reques# for afinaf review of a Major CC{ Exterior Alteration and a site coverage variance, to a11aw for a remadel and expansion to the Slifer Building, located at 230 Bridge StreetlLot B, Vail Village lst Filing. Applicant: Slifer Designs, represented by Jim Buckner Planner: George Ruther 7. A request for a site coverage variance, setback variance and additianal GRF'A utilizing the 250 ordinance, to aliaw for a residential addition, located at 1230 Westhaven CirclelLo# 32, Glen Lyon. Applicant: Marilyn Quayle, represented by Eric Hill Planner: George Rufher 8. A request for a buildrng height variance, to allow fnr an increase of one-foot in building height, located a# 9799 SierraTraillLot 17, Vail Village West First Filing. Applicant: Julia Watkins ~ Planner: George Ruther 9. a request for an amendmer?t to a previausly approved plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Cour#/unpla#ted. Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C. Planner: Daminc Mauriello 10. A request for a final review of a proposed west entry remodel to the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1 st. App(icant: Mauntain Haus Condominium Association Pianner: George Ruthar 11. A request for a minor subdiuisian, located at 1410 Buffehr Creek Road, Lot G-1, Lion's Ridge Sabdirrision Filing 2. Applicant: Eric Johnson, representing Leroy Schmidt Planner; Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL APRIL 27, 1998 2 ~ . Upda#ed 4/0$ 10 am 12. A request for a site coverage variance, to allow for a residential addition, Iocated at Unit ~ #602, Vail 21 Condominiums, 511 East Lionshead CirclelF'art of Lot 3, Bfock 1, Vaii Lionshead First Filing. Rpplicant: Bill Walker Planner: Dominic Mauriella WITHDRAWN 13. A request for a side yard setback variance and a conditional use perrnit, to allow for the addition af a car wash, locafed at 2154 South Frontage Road/unplatted. Applicant: Sanny Caster, GTB, Inc., d.b.a. Vai1 Conoca Service Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 14. A request for a conditional use permit to construct four multiple-family dwelling uni#s and variances from Section 12-7E-8 (Building Height), Section 12-7E-1 1 (Landscape Area) and Section 12-7E-7 (Setbacks), to al{ow for commercial and residentia{ expansibn, loca#ed at 143 E. MeadowDrive (Crassroads East Building) ! Lot P, Block 5G1, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Crossroads Plaza, Trevina L.P., represented byBill Pierce Planner: Dominic MaurieHo ~ WITHDRAWN 15. lnfarmation Update • 1998 PEG rep. to the DRB - Jan. y Mar. - John Schofield Apr. - Jun. JuL - Sep. Oct. - Dec. • 1998 AIPP Appointment - 16. Approval of March 23, 199$ minutes. The applicatians and ir?formatian about the proposals are available for public inspectian during regular office hours in the praject planner's o#fice located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Fronfage Road. Sign language interpre#ation available upon request with 24 haur no#ification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 T"C3D for in#ormatian. Communi#y Development Department Published March 20, 1998 in the Vail Trail. ~ 3 . . Updated 4I14 9am ~ PI.ANNING AND ENVIRONMENTaL COMMISSION Manday, April 13, 1998 FINAL AGENDA NEW MEMBER ORIENTATION - Brian Doyon and 7om Weber 11:00 am Project Orientatian /LUNCH - Community_Development Department 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Moffet Ann Bishop John Schofield Galen Aasland Diane GoCden Brian Doyon Tam Weber Site Visits : 1:00 pm 1. City Market - 2107 N. Frontage Road 2. Watkins - 1799 Sierra Traif ~ 3. Quayle - 1230 Westhaven Circle 4. RAD Five L.L.C. - 4469 Timber Falls Court Driver: George Gii'l NdTE: If the PEG hearing extends until6:Ofl p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. Swearing in of new PEC members Brian Doyan and Tom Weber and reappointed F,EC members Galen Aasland and Diane Galden - Lorelei Donaldsan, Town Gerk. 2. Efection o€1998 Chair/Vice-Chair - Greg Maffet - Chair / John Schofield - Vice-Chair 3. A request fior a recommendatian ta Gouncif on Stage 3 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Stage 3 includes the rationate and desired autcomes, which establish the regulatory framewark far heigh#, mass and densi#y af buildings in the study area. Planners: Mike Mollica/Dominic Mauriello Consultants: Ethan Moore & David Kenyan (Design Workshop, Inc.) (See Attached) ~ 1 *VAIL roWvo ~ Updated 4,114 9am 4. A request for a conditional use permit, to allaw for a temporary garden csnter, located at ~ 2107 North Frontage Raad/unplatted, Vail das Schone. Applicant: City Market, Inc. Planner: Chris#ie Barton M{7TION: Diane Golden SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 5-1 (Greg Moffet opposed) APPR4VED WITH 3 CONDITI0IUS: 1. That the applicanf shali keep the hours of operation between 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. 2. The use shall be limited to ane 5 square foat sign attached to the tempocary structure. The design sha(I receive Design Review approval. 3. That this use shall discontinue after #he proposed 8 week operation {April 28, 1998 to .i-tiff-re--~9; -~-998 ~[c~Cy ! ~98) and the structure will be removed within 10 days. This approval shall be allowed to occur during this time period year after year, unless called up by the PEC. 5. A request far a#inal review of the proposed Major CC1 Exterior Alteration to the Hong Kong Cafe Building, ioca#ed at 227 Wall Street/Lot B& C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: ASI Vail Land Holding, L.L.G., represented by Kathy Langenwalter ~ Planner: George Ruther MOTIC7N: John Schofield SECOND: Tam Weber VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH 7 CONDITIC?NS: 1 . That the applicant pay inta the Tawn of Vail Parking Fund to meet the requirement of the additional parking demand resuiting from the redeveiopment proposal prior ta the issuance of a building permit. The exact dollar figure shall be de#ermined by the Town of Vail at the time of building permit appiication based upon the parking pay-in-lieu fee at the time and the configuratian of the inter'ror floor space. 2. That the applicant submit a tree preservation plan far the review and approval of the Town of Vail Landscape Architec# prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. The current plans show no mechanical equipment atop #he redevelaped building. Should mechanical equipment be praposed, a coaf-tap mechanical plan shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department far their review and approval prior to #he issuance df a building permit. 4. That the owner of the prnperty in question be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the planters and landscaping as identified on the appraved development plan dated April 13, 1998. 2 ~ . ~ e Updated 4/14 9arn ~ 5. That the applicant execute a revised lease agreement for the landscape planter on the south side of the building. 6 T : hat the:s~uth ~levati~r~ ba[c~n~ be e~tend~c# ~ut fpr~ thp 0~ter 7: T"of th~ awning be ~uCast~n~~~l i0 it~ b~ cc~~structed rn~t qth~r tha~r can~i~s. _ 6. A request for a final review of a Major CCI Exterior Alteration and a site coverage variance, to allow for a remodel and expansion to the Slifier Building, located at 230 Bridge Street/Lot B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Slifer Designs, represented by Jim Buckner Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian doyon VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH 4 CC7NDITiONS: 1. That the applicant pay into the Town of Vail Parking Fund ta meet the requirement of the additional parking demand resulting from the redeveiopment proposal, prior to the issuance of a building permi#. The exact dollar figure shall be determined by the Town of Vail at the time of building perrnit application, based upon the parking pay-in-lieu fee at the time and the configuratian of the interiar floar space. ~ 2. That the owner of the property in question be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the planters and landscaping, as identified on the approved development plan dated April 13, 1998. 3. That the Town of Vail Planning and Enviranmental Cnmmission approve the site coverage variance request of 3.2% to allow for the maximum site coverage to be 97.1 °10. 4. '~'F~a~ thq:oast af fh~.~uil€~i~c~ _e cloaned r~~.:~i~ the ~c~~t~c€~~~~i~~ci ~rt 7. A requsst for a site coverage variance, setback variance and additional GRFA utilizing the 250 ordinance, #a allow for a residentiai addition, located at 1230 Westhaven CirclelLot 32, Glen Lyon. Applicant: Marilyn Quayle, represented by Eric Hill Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Ga(en Aasland SECOND: Tom Weber VOTE; 6-0 TABL.ED UNTtL MAY 11, 1998 8. A request for a building height variance, to allow for an increase of one-faot in building height, Iocated at 1799 Sierra Trail/L.ot 17, Vail Viliage West First Fifing. Applicant: Julia Watkins ~ Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Diane Golden VC>TE: 6-0 DENIED f:\everyonelpec\rnernosi98\basemt.413 3 ~ . , . Updated 4t14 9am 9. A request for an amendmen# to a previously approved pian for the Timber Falls ~ Development, lacated at 4469 Timber Falls Courtlunpia#ted. Applicant: RRD Five L.L.C. Planner: [7ominc Mauriello 1 st MOTION: Ga(en Aasiand SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 6-0 APPRfJVED - That Building #19 is a vested right in the exact same form, size, densi#y, and configuration as Building #18 and that anything "in addition to°" or "different than" specifically that, will require a review of an amended pfan. 2nd MOTION:Galen Aasland SECOND: Tom Weber VOTE: 6-0 TABLED UNTIL MAY 11, 1998 - The request to amend a previous4y appraved Development Plan. 10. A request for a final review af a proposed west entry remodel to the Mountain Haus, lacated at 292 East Meadow C?rivelPart of Tract B, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Mountain Haus Gondominium Association Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE. 5-0-1 (Weber abstained) APPROVED WITN 1 CONDITION: Fi ~pp~tcant, Mr~~C€~i~;~ ~ Taf tl~e :Opprp~!tl ~f' Vail I~~se wtth the #he ri~ht ; Oft,r~y artcrrt~~chrr~ertC . 11. A request for a minor subdivisian, located at 1410 Buffehr Creek Road, Lot G-1, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 2. Applicant: Eric Johnson, representing Leroy Schmidt Plartner: Dominic Mauriel(o TABLEd l1NTIL APRIL 27, 199$ 12. A request far a site coverage variance, to allow for a residential addition, lacated at Unit #602, Vail 21 Condominiums, 511 East Lianshead Circle/Part of Lat 3, Block 1, Vail Lionsheac! First Filing- Applicant: Bill Walker Planner: Daminic Mauriello WlTMDRAWN fleveryane\pec\nemos\981basernt.4 i 3 4 ~ ~ ti Updated 4/14 9am ~ 13. A request for a side yard setback variance and a canditional use permit, to ailow for the addition flf a car wash, located at 2154 Sou#h Frontage Roadlunplafted. Applican#: Sonny Gaster, GTS, Inc., d.b.a. Vail Conoco Service Planner: George Ruther WITHdRAWN 14. A request for a conditional use permit to cflnstruct fdur multiple-fiami]y dwelling urtits and variances from Section 12-7E-8 (Bui(ding Height), Section 12-7E-11 (Landscape Area) and Sectian 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 Maurieifo WITHDRAWN 15. Information Update • 1998 PEC rep. to the DRS - Jan. - Mar. - John Schofield Apr. - Jun. - Ann Bishop Ju1. - Sep. • Tom Weber ~ Oct. - Dec. - Brian Doyon Jan. - Mar. `99 - Greg Moffet • 1998 AIPP Appointment - Diane Golden • 1998 Open Space Cornmit#ee - Galen Aasland 96. Apprnval of March 23, 1998 minutes. The applications and informatian about the praposals are available for public inspectian during regular of#ice hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Gommunity Development Department, 75 Sou#h Frontage Road. Sign language interpre#atian availabie upon request with 24 hour natification. Please call 479-2114 voice ar 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Departmen# ~ f \everyonelpec\txtemos\98\basemt.413 5 , MEMORANDUM ~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission F'ROM. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Team Mike MollicatDaminic Maurieflo Ethan Moore & David Kenyon (Design Workshop, Inc.) DATE: Aprii 13, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a final review and recommenda#ion ta Town Council on Stage 3 of the Lionshead Redevelopmen# Mas#er Plan. Stage 3 includes the ratianale and desired outcames, which establish the regulatory framework for height, and mass of buildings in the study area. L QVERVIEW OF PROBLEM/OPPC)RTUMTY STATEMENT POLICY OBJEGTNES AND PROCESS A. Lionshead Redeveloprnent Problem/Opportunity S#atement: * Lionshead lacks the charm, charaater, appeal and vibrancy expec#ed of a world-class resort. I# lacks a sense of arrival and sense of place. Pedes#rian flow through the mall can be confusing and disconnected. * The archi#ecture lacks a unique identity or reference to VaiPs historical antecedents or its alpme enviranment. * Many of the buildings are physiaally aging and functionally under utilizeti, resulting in negative impacts to property values, private profi#s, and public revenues. Potential hospitality, retail and recreational uses, and community amenities are unmet or unrealized. * It would be short-sighted ta ignore tHese conditians and do nothing. The opportunity exists for the public and private sectors to act collaboratively to renew and revitalize this important compnnent of our community. B. L.ionshead Fiedevelopment PolicyOb"ectives. --adopted by Councif on November 4, 1996. Qbjective 1. RENEWAL AND REDEVELOPMENT mM af vnn Lionshead can and shouid be renewed and redeveloped to become a warrner, mare vibrant enviranment fior gues#s and residertts. Lianshead 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 ta enhance guest experience and community interactinn through expanded and addifional activities and amenities such as perForming arts venues, conference facilities, ice rinks, streetscape, parks and ather recrea#innal improvements. Objective 3. STRONGER ECONOMIC BASE THROUGH tNCREASE[) "LIVE BEDS" In order to enhance the vita(ity and viability of Vail, renewal and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote imprbved accupancy rates (i.e., "°live beds" or "warm pillows") and the creation of additianal bed base through new lodging praduets. Objective 4. IMPRC3VED AGCESS AND CIRCULATIaN The flaw of pedes#rian, vehicular, bicycle and mass transit traf#ic must be improved within and through Lionshead. Objeative 5. IMPROVEt3 iNFRASTRUGTURE The infrastruc#ure ofi Lionshead, including streets, walkways, transpcrrtatian ~ systems, parking, utilities, loading and delivery sys#ems, snow removal and storage, and other public and private services must be upgraded to meet the capacities and service standards required #o support redevelopment and revitaliza#ion efforts and to meet the expec#ations of our gues#s and residents. Objective6. CREATIVE F1NANCING FOR ENMANCED PRIVATE PROFIfiS AND PUBLIC REVENUES Redevelopment in Lionshead must be undertaken in a financially creative, but feasibie, manner so that adeguate capital may be raised fram all possible sources to fund desired private and public improvements. C. Process We are currently in the 3rd stage of a 5-s#age process. * Stage I: Defined Opportunities and Constraints. * Stage II: Developed Wish List for Lionshead Redevelopment. * Stage 111: Finatizing density, height and mass standards. 2 ~ * Stage IV: Develop and Adopt Master Plan and design Guidelines - April- July, 1998. Stage V: Adopt Required Code Modifications- July-September 1998. 11. ACTiC3N vs NO ACTION A. Ski Area Trends * National skier visits, (per the Kattke Study) were down 2,8°foforthe 1996197 season, That equates to 52.5 millian skiers vs 54.0 million. Interesting commonalities of three prospectuses for the public offerings of Vail, Intrawest and American Skiing Co. (per the Harbaugh Study--Ski Area Management): - 1) The name of the game is asset utiliza#ion, given commitmenfs to invest hundreds of millions of dollars. 2) The primary customer is the baby boomer. Those who can afford ta stay for at leasf a week. 3} Competition and marketing is changing. Size and muitiple locations gives competitive synergies in marketing. This is ~ anticipated but not yet praven. 4) Coordinated development of real estate and ather mountain assets can wark to significantly increase value and cash #law af bofh. S) Cash flaw is everything! 6) Finally, a(ot can go wrong, Risk Factors--seasonaiity, capital expendf#ures, integration of acquisitians, real es#a#e development, growth limita#ions, competition, unfavorable weather conditians, ecanomic downturn and subs#antial leverage and financial risks. * Industty changes du(ng the transiticrn to maturity (per the Harbaugh Study- -Ski Area Management): 1} Slowing grawth means more competition for market share. 2) New products and applicatiQns are harder #o find. - 3) Firms are increasingly selling to expe(enced repeaf buyers, who are choosing among brands--na# whether or not to buy. 4) Campe#ition Aften shifts towards a greater emphasis on cost and ser+rice. ~ 5) There is a topping-out problem. Capacity additian must slow or over-capacity will occur. 3 6) Manufacturing, marketing, distribu#ion and selling methods are often changing. ~ 7} Interna#ional campeti#ion increases. 8) Industry prafiits fall during the transition period. Capital becomes hard to raise. *The skier/snovvboarder profile is changing. While the fotal number of "visitar days" by these groups has remained flat over #he past decade, the amount of #ime spent on snow during a#rip is falling. (t is common to see less hours skiing, and frequently visitors are taking a day or two off firom skiing during theY stay. When not out on the mountain, they are looking for more to da and retailing, restaurants and other off-mountain choices have become more importan# than ever. * The demand #ar imprcrved base facilities and services wi11 be felt in restaurants and retailing, but it is particularly in the "short term'° bed base that demands are greatest. The overall quality af Vail ladging is rated relativefy poorly when campared to other resarts and this deficiency w'rll became even more pronounced as new opportunities become available in other mauntain resorts. The new lodging and meeting facilities will be a draw in both winter artd in summer. Summer could become a particularly diffieult time for Vail because it is the season when Vail's unique moun#ain becomes less of an overall draw. * There will be increased campetition closer to home, as well. ~ Improvements in Beaver Creek, and the con#inued expansian of lodging and retaillrestaurants in Avon, Edwards, Min#urn, Cordillera and potentially at the Vail VaCley Centre all invite "leakage" o# dollars to areas outside the Town of Vail. B. What other ski resorts are doinq. Aspen Highlands - New base area planned in summer of `98. * Beaver Creek - Villar Center, ice rink, new transpartation center. * Winter Park - 3 phase redevelapment process, Phase I starting #his year is $45 millian. Has already pre-sold $46 millian in condominiums in the new village (developer-Gerald Hines), Esfimafed cosfis are $325 per square foot (vary competitive). Whistler - Continuing significant improvements on and off the moun#ain. * Telluride- Mt. Vil(age improvements contirruing, new gondola very successful. * Copper Mountain- $66 millian on mountain improvements. * Crested Butte: Grande Butte Hotel will receive a major remodel (262 roams). ~ 4 * Keystone- New hotel slated for River Run and significant new retail in ~ village. * Snowmass-working an a base mountain planning improvement pracess. * Jackson Hofe- New plan will double size of base ski viilage, significantbed base exparision, new village amenities planned, Steamboat- Warking on base area and viliage improvement plan, new resort hotel planned. * American Skiing Co.--owners of nine ski area (including Steamboat, Heavenly, Killingtan, Moun# Snow and Sugarbush) have spenf $105 million this season on capital improvements and real estate development. C. Hiahlights af Town of Vail--Retail Study--Au usq t`97 * People have less time ta shop and are increasingly iooking to vacations to catch up nn their shopping needs. * Even in resort communities, local patranage is important to financial stability and iong term success. The most successful retail businesses benefit from a communi#y with charm, appeal, history, cuiture and identity. The architectural style, design of public spaces, tenant mix, visual aceess, and building scale a1f contribute to a pleasant sense of place and, therefore, retail success. A village center is important in increasing the sense of communi#y and a place which meets visitor's expectatians. * A clear pedestrian connection that is easy, interesting and weil-signed should be created between Lionshead and the Vail Village. * The connection of Lionshead to Vail Village wauld create the critical mass which leads to success for all. The mare square feet of appealing retail, the better! Lionshead is not an is/and unto ifseff, nor is the Vail Vif/age. As Lionshead Village grows, sa graws Vafl.... Lianshead VrNage +the Vail Village = the 1/ail Resort The benchmark for destination resorts in the 21st centuryi ~ 5 . 111. L1C3NSWEAD TODAY: A. Issues and Problems: ~ * Vehicularlpedestrian circulation confiic#s and confusing circulation patterns. * Lack af vitality in pub(ic spaces and corridors. * Aesthetic issues, both architec#ural and sof#scape. * Lack of conneetion to the ski mountain and Gore Creek. B. Redevelapment potential: * Lionshead, as it is taday, will not pravide sustainable economie growth and daes not provide a high quality resort experience. * Lionshead, in today's marketplace, is not competitive industry-wide. *Lionshead is a vital component in the cantinuing status of Vail as a world class resort. tV. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTIONS ON STACE 111 On July 1, 1997, the Council designated five public view corddars within the Lion$head ~ Master Pian study area. On December 17, 1997, the Gouncil unanimausly voted to accept the direction of the 14 framework elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The 14 elements are as follaws: 1. Publia View Corridors and Natural Environment Connectidns--reminder nf the locations of the five public view corridors previously designated by the Town Council and opportunities for enhancement of natural connections. 2. Real Estate Opportunity Areas-identification of known development and redevelopment opportunities. 3. Pubtic Lands Opportunity Areas--identification of enhancement opportunities on public lands; overlaps samewhat with Natural Environment Connections. 4. Locals Hausing Opportunity Areas--identification of possible locations. 5. Land Use Framework Diagram--iden#ification of focus of redevelapment and development areas. 6. Pedestrian Circulation Framework--enhancement to Lionshead pedestrian circulation system. 7. Modified Service and Lodging Acaess--new skier drap-off and regional bus ~ stap, realignmen# of South Frontage Road, and mod'rfcations to existing vehicular circulation on East Lionshead Circie. 6 , ~ 8. Loading and Delivery Components--identificafion af locations #or Ioading and delivery func#ians that reduce or eliminate conflicts with pedestrians and other ~ vehicles. 9. Parking apportunity Areas--identification of locatidns for possible additional parking. 10. Transit Framewark Discussion-Centrai Spine long=term--a concept #o create a stronger connectian between the eas# and west ends af Lianshead either by reserving right-of-way far a cenfral corridor in fhe event that future condi#ions ar?d improved technalogy warrant impiementa#ion of the cancept, or by running a transit line parallel to the Frontage Road, or by some ather means that would accomplish the cannection. 11. Pedestrian Ga#eways--locations for creation of significant pedest(an arrival points into Lianshead. 12. Vehicular Circulation Gateways--lacations for creation of significant vehicular arrival points into Lionshead. 13. Lionshead Core Corridors, lntersections and Publie Gathering Places-- opportunities far enhanced retail and public gathe(ng spaces. 14. Improved Cannection between Lionshead and Vail Village ~ V. S7AFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is recommending that the PEC approve the remaining Stage I11 elemen#s of'the Lionshead F2edevelopment Master Plan: 1) F1oar-to-floor height of 11' 6". 2) Geographic distribution of building Meights. (See pages 3-4, of the March 9th PEC memo attached). 3) Building height and mass proposal. (See page 4, of the March 9th PEC memo attached). VL UPCOMING STACE iV OF 1`HE MASTER PLAN W1LL INCLUDE. 1) Drafting of Masfer Plan. 2) Architectural and Site Guidelines. 3) Employee Housirrg Generation Analysis. 4} Capacity Analysis. 5) Development Standards (i.e density--GRFA, site coverage, etc). ~ 6) Economic Impact Analysis F:\EVERYONEIPECIMEMOS\981UONSNEA.413 7 MEMORANDUM ~ TC}: Planning and Environmental Commission FRC7M: Community Development Department DATE: CUlarch 23, 1998 , RE: Worksessian - L.ionshead Redevelopment Master-Plan - Stage 3, Bulk and Mass _ . ' In response to PEC direction at the last worksession, staff has prepared severai analyzes of . . existing conditions in Linnshead and potential future increases in development in Lionshead. More infarmation wiil be provided on charts, sketches, and diagram at the mee#ing. 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 probiem statement and pollcy objectives for the pianning effort. The Town Council adapted problem statement and poiicy objectives have been provided in order to guide the review of Stage 3 af the master plan. Included in #his packet are: a cursory analysis of existing buiiding height; an analysisofi existing floor area and density by building; a fufure deveiopment scenario; a building orientation concept; and the warksession memo from the March 8, 1998 PEC mee#ing. , ProblemfOpportunity 91atement: ~ Lionshead lacks the charm, character, appeal and vibrancy expected o# a wor(d-class resort. It lacks a sense of arrival and sense of place. Pedestrian flow through the mail can be confusing and disconnected. The architecture lacks a unique identity flr reference to Vaii's historicai anteeedents or its aipine environment. Many o# #he buildings are physicaily aging and functionaily under-utilized, resulting in negative impacts to property values, private profit$, and pubiic revenues. Potential hospitality, retail and recreational uses, and community ameni#ies are unmet or unrealized. It would be shart-sighted to ignore these conditions and do nathing. 'rhe opportunity exists for the public and private seetors to act co(laborativety to renew and revitalfze thls important component of our community. L[fln,ihead Red_evelop-me.n#.Policy Ob' ctives: C}BdECTIVE 1. RENEWAL AND REDEVELOPMENT Lionshead can and shauld be renewed and redeveloped ta become a warmer, more vibrant environment for guests and residents. Lionshead needs an appealing and coherent identit}r, a sense of place, a persona(ity, a purpose, and an impraved aesthetic character, m ~ WvaFruc . OBJECTIVE 2. VIfiAL17Y AND AMENITtES We must seize the opportunity to enhance guest experience and community interaction ~ through expanded and additiana( activities and amenit{es such as performing arts venues, can#erence facilities, ice rinks, streetscape, parks and other recreationat impravements. OBJECTIVE 3. S7RONGER ECONOMIC BASE THROtlGH 1NCREASED "LiVE . BEDS" fn order ta enhance the vita4ity and viabili#y af Vai1, renewal and redevelopment in , , Libnshead must promote improved Qccupancy rates (i.e., "tive beds" or "warm pillaws") . " - and the creatian of addational bed base thraugh new Iodging products. {)SJECTiVE 4, IMPROVED ACCESS AND CIRCULATtON , The flow of pedestrian, vehicutar, bicycle and mass transit traffic must be improved withrn and through Lionshead, ` - OBJECTIVE S. IMPROVEp 1NFRASTRUC7URE The infrastructure of Lionshead, lncludang streets, walkways, transportatian systems, parking, utilities, toading and delivery systems, snow removal and starage, and other public and private services must be upgraded to rneet the capacities and service . standards required to support redevetopment and revitalization efforts and to mee# the expectations af our guests and residents. OBJECTIVE 6. CREATiVE FINANCING FQR ENHANCED PRtVATE PROFITS AND PUBLIC REVENUES Redevelopment in Lionshead must be uridertaken in a financialty creative, but fieasibie, manner so that adequate capitai may be raised from all possible sources to fund desired private and public improvements. i 2 Existing Building Neigh# Analysist ~ A#ield analysis was conducted of the existing buildings in Lionshead, in order to determine the number Qf building stories #ar each structure. Additionaily, at #he I'EC's request, staff has estimated #he percentage of building mass which is over the al(owabte height; for those exlsting buiidangs which exceed the building height standard. Stories were generalty counted an the sauih side of each building or where the highest stories exist. Lofts uvere coun#ed as one story and are afso indicated below. . • The CC2 zane district was adopted in 1970 (prdinance No. 8*, Series ofi 1970). 1n ifiis ordinance there was no building height timitatian established. 1n Ju{y of 1973, the CC2 zone district was modifieti to establish a building height of 45' (Ordinance NQ. Series of 1973). Toda}r, the CC2 . zane district allaws a sloping-roof building to be 48' in height. Included below in parenthesis is an indication of the when buiidings were constructed in Lionshead. • . Stories Bulldlnas 7ota1 Number of Buiidinqs Percentage of Buitdina ass OXer Alio'wable Hei t 2-storyConcert Hall Plaza (1978) 1 Q% 3-story Lion's Pride (1974) 3 0% Lionshead Arcade (1972) 0% Landmark Townhomes (1972) 0% 4-story Lodge at Lionshead {i &2} (1973) 8 0'511/o Lodge at lionshead (3) (1978) 0% Lianshead Center (1972) 0-5% Lifthouse Condos (1972) 0-5°l0 ~ Gnndola Building (1972) 0-50% M0ntatleros (1972) ' 0% Vailfalo l.odge'(1972) 0% , L?ansquare North (4, w/1csft) (1974) 0°!0 5-stnry Vail 21 (actually 5.5 stories) (1972) 3 5°f° Lionshead Inn (1972) 20% Enzian Gondos {includes garage} (1973) 0'5% 6-story Sunbird (inciuding garage) (1972) . 5 0_5"a • ' ' Vaii lnternatianal (1972) i 5`20°~° ' Vantage Point (1972) 2fl-30°la Vail Spa {1977} 5-10°ro Wesfiwind (w/ioft) (1969) 5% 7-story Treetops (wlio#t) {1971} 2 30% Marriott (1977) 30-40°l0 8-story Lionsquare {1-9} (1971) 2 10-20% An#lers (w/loft) (1972) 30°10 9-StOty Landttfi3Ck (1972) 1 40-50% ~ 3 ' T Buildinas built b~fc~~~73 heiah r as Bui{dings built aftet 1973 he~ ht ren~_ (19 buildings) (6 buitdings) ~ Antlers (1972) Concert Hai1 Plaza (1978) Enzian Gandos (1973) Lion's Pride (1974) Gandola Buiiciing (1972) Lionsquare (4) (1974) . Landmack {1972} Lodge at Lionshead (3) (1978) Landmark Townhomes (1972) Marriott (1977) Li#Chouse Condos (1972)- Vait Spa {1977} . . - Lionshead Arcade (1972) - Lionshead Genter (1872) . • . .Lionshead tnn (1972) . , . . . . Lionstiuare (1-3) (.1971) • . Lodge at Lionshead (1 &2) (1973) Montaneros (1972) Sustbird (1972) Treetops (1971) - Vaif 21 (1972) Vaii Internatianal (1972) VailGlo Ladge (1972) Van#age Point (1972) Wes#wind (1989) Lionshead Existing Conditions (GR1=A, Density, and Commercial Floar Area). The attached spreadsheet was created utiiizing several dPfferent sources of information. The GRFA information was developed from fsle research, fat size was devetaped fram fite research and surveys, and density was developed fram file research and surveys of properky owners. Cammercial f1oor area and total ffoor area were deve{nped utilizing 1998 tax assessor data, The ~ information is very generalized. Vai121, Lifthouse Condos, Lion's Pride, and the Lionshead Arcade were combined as these cievelopments occur on a single parce{. Landmark Tower and Townhomes were combined as they exist as one parcel. Of the 21 parcels analyzed, 9(4r 43°l0) are over the aifowed GRFA. Of these 9 parceis, 5 pareels exceed the a1lowable GRFA by 20°l0 or more, and 1 build?"ng {Enzian Condos} exceeds the allowable GRFA by 60%. C?f the 21 parcels analyzed, 1'3 (vr 62°l0) are aver the al4awabfe number af units. tJf these 13 parceis, 9 parcets exceed #he a{lowabSe density by 20% ar more. It shauld be noted that accommoda#ian units were counted as 1/2 a dweiling unit per the Zoning Regulations. F.tEVERYONEIPEGIMEMOS1981L{QNHEA.323 . . . ~ 4 ~ . i.tonshead Extsting Condttions -1998 ` Note: This data fs tor pianntng purpases oniy and should not be relled upan tor devetapmertt purposes. , trensrty . ltnits Denslry . Tax GRPA GRFA GRFA Totat Aftowed Exlsting Densify Extsting Assessocs Lot Slze AFiawed Exlsting Varlance % ot Resldentlat {Dwett[ng (Dwetling " % af Cammerclal 7otat Bupoln Nam+a s. tt s. ft. s, ft. s. tt. aCtawed Un1t Count UntUAcre UnittAcre a!(owed S.Ft. S. Ft. . Antlers * 52.390 41,912 48.914 8,042 119% 69.0 30.1 57.4 191°tp a 55,871 Concert Hatt F'lazs 11.283 9.026 t} 9.026 096 0.0 6.5 0.0 0°fo 16.452 16,452 EnztaR Condaminturrrs 12.866 10.293 16,450 (6.157) 160% 12.0 7.4 40.6 550% 0 19.072 , Gcttdala ButldEn 59,810 47.848 U 47,848 0% 0.0 34.3 0.0 V% 49,695 49,695 ' Llonshead Inn fLbstefto) 40.367 32,294 18.611 13,683 58°b 26.0 23.2 28.1 121% ? 30.342 I lendmark Tawer . &Townhomes 65.122 52,098 58,334 f6,2361 112% 58,0 37.4 38.8 104°. 13,511 72,948 l.ton Square 4adge Phases i-3 7$,416 62.733 73.660 (10.927) 11?°l0 ' 81.5 46.0 45.3 1f}1°fo ' 12.321 80.399 Llan Syuere North . F'hese 4 41,513 33,210 29,505 3,705 89% 27.0 23.8 28.3 i i 9°fd . 0 25.455 Ltonsheed Center 40,206 32.165 29,468 2,697 92°fo 26.0 23.1 28.2 1220% 17,445 46,869 4odge at Ltanshead . ' P118Se1 &2 59.629 47,703 57,841 (10k138) 121°fo 42.0 34.2 30.7 90°fo 1,487 45,727 4od e st Llartshead Ph$se 3 42,785 34.228 20,043 14,185 59% 12.0 19.7 12.2 6G% 0 23,840 Marttott Mountetn Resort 225.205 160,164 194.000 46,164 74% 176.0 1292 34.0 26°!0 ? 138.991 Montaneras 44,848 35.878 44,298 (8,420) 123% 42.0 251 40.8 158°fQ 3,649 51,520 SunbErd Ladqe 26.527 21 y222 17.742 3,481 84a/o 51.0 15.2 89.7 550% 10,610 40,225 Treerto s 38,690 30.852 36.794 5.842 1190p 29.0 22.2 32.7 147%b 8.525 46.676 Vatt tnternational 78,408 62,726 59,396 3,330 85% 56.0 45.0 '31.1 69% . 0 58 310 Vai! S a CondomlrtCums 152.460 121 968 85,501 36,467 70°!0 55.0 87.5 15.7 18% 2,765 86,802 Vsl! tc? Lod s 27,977 22.382 10.798 11,584 48% 17.5 16.1 27.2 1700/0 Q 15.758 VBnta a PatCtt 68.520 64,816 69,167 (14,351) 126°le 65.0 39.3 41.3 105% U 67.931 Westwtnd 36,988 29,594 36,253 (6.663) 12396 35A 21.2 41.2 1949'0 ? 37;685 Vail 21 Ltfthouse Gondos E.i4ft'3 P{`Td@ • , ' l.lcnshead Arcade 90,400 72 0O0 50.693 21,307 7096 78.0 51.7 37.8 73%' ' 31400 80,912 Notes: . , Clenstty, for the MarrTo#t ts based on 13 da's end 326 au's, tor the I.lanshead Innf 52 au's. ior the Ltonsquare todge.88 du`s and 31 au's. and tar tha Vaffgta Lcdge.'t•du and 33 aa's, Commerciat sq: footage ta based on 1998 tax assessat deta. The Marriatt Es confonmtng to 5Db #7. "fie GBFA and denslty tigures are based an the unefertylag zontng at 25 an(tslacre. . LfC1NCTQ.XLS . . • i L.ionshead 1Vlaster P1an Building Heightl Potential Density ~ Increase Analysis N4TE: The following analysis is based upon a set of basic assumptions. Due to the many factors_that influence the eveutual buiiding prograrri, and built form, of a projec#, xt. is extrerriely diffiicult ta predict with any degree of accuracy what develapment tnay happen in the fizture. Some of the different factors that may uifluence the eventual built . . farm and density of a pxoject include: . - " . . . . 1. Tvwn of Vaii regulatory factoars: • . ' a. Si#e coverage - b. GR.FA - _ c. Building height d. Parking requirements e. Densiiy limitations 2. Market issues ° ~ a. 'VVhat land uses is the market driving? (AU's, DU's, FFt1's, cnmmercial, , etc..). AlI of these uses have different irnpacts from a density, ecanomic, ' . • and an infrastructure s#andpoint. b. Financing? What is the ecnnvmic ability of agiven praperty to retrofit or redevelap their property given their ability (or inability) to get financing for the project? . 3. Physical canfiguration of the praperty. How rnuch of the property can be ~ developed from a site constrairits standpoint? Ha-W does the size and shape of the praperty influence the shape an.d size of the architecture? Aside from the Town of Vail regulatory issues, a11 of the above factors will change based upon the praperty and the cunent econamic and mazket conditions. Given these issues, how can the pofential density increases best be estimated? For the purposes ofthis analysis, the existing conditions in Lionshead have been studied to-determine the existing average site devela,pment daia. This data daes not represent any specifc project in • Lionshead, rather it is a representatian ofthe avezage of all develaped properties in Lionshead. Assum tians Used in Patential Densi Increase Anal sis . . 1. This anaiysis assumes an average floor to floor height of 1 i.5y on any new•.structure. - 2, This analysis assumes that a new structure todayi under current height restrictions, would have ft?ur stories. , . . , 3. An average site will achieve 40% site utilization for vertical architecturrail mass. The current average srte caverage in Lionshead is 41°l0. However, the percent of this . gross site coverage that translates into a vertical architectural mass of taxed, regulated sguare fvotage {based upon county tax records} is claser ta 30% existing in . ~ Lionshead today. "T'his anaiysis is assuming a more efficient use of space and an increased site coverage £or new projeets. ~ 4. The first level of a new project wiil be ail cornmercial, non residential uses. 5. All levels starting with the second flaor 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, FFU's) . 6. Densi#y 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 an the current market driven unit sizes, and is Iarger . than the average existing uni# size in Lionshead. . ' 7. This analysis assumes that an average 25% of grass residential sgace will be utilized • . as common space. 8. This analysis assumes that an average site will have SU%o af its building mass oriented east-west, and 50% oriented ncrrth-south. - 9. This analysis assutnes that the following roof heights (based an a 65' wide double laaded building) wili net the following amount of gross square faotage per flaor plate: a. 5I12 roofpitch, 14' raafallowance- 28% of floor piate available. This space most likely will be viable only as Ioft space to the lower unit. b. 9112 roof pitch, 24' roof allowance- 56°lo af floor plate availabie. c. 12/12 roof pitch, 33' roof allowance- 68% of floor plate available, 32% of flaor plate available in upper loft space. This analysis assumes the removal af GkFA as adevelapment constraint. 8. This analysis does not inciude density re$trictions. ~ 9. A11 data is averaged per acre. Potential Average Development Scenarias Existing conditions average deveiopment data 1. Acreage of existing residential developed properties. Includes site 2$ acres area of ali pr.ojects 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 af all residential unit types) 39.4 6. Existing Average Beds per aere (average of aIl residential unit types) `64 7. Existing Average Beds per Dwelling Unit 1.9 Existing Average Site Coverage per property 41 % 9. Existing Average Unit Size $25 s.f. ~ : Scenario A. Development under existing zoning, given all assumptions autiined above: « 45' flat roof height, 4$' sloped roof height ~ 1. Gross Retail Space per acre 17,424 s.f. 2. Net Residential Space per acre (25°lo common space removed) 39,204 3. Patential Units (I,500 s.f per unit average) 24.5 lacre . 4. Patential Beds (2.5 bed per unit average) 61.26 lacre . 5. Percentage Change From Existing Average Units Per Acre -33.5% ' Scenario B. Development given five story building with 14' roof allowance - . • 57.5' eve height, 71.5 ° total peak height ` . . l. Gross Retail Space per acre . 17,424 s.f. 2. Net Residential Space per acre (25°lo carnmon 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) 93.221acre 5. Percentage Change From Existing Average Units Per Acre -5.36°10 . 6. Percentage Increase From Scenario "A" Uruts Per Acre 42.67% Scenario C. Development given #ive story building with 14' roaf allowance on eastwwest bars, five story building with bonus 33' allowance vn north-south bars • 57.5' eve height, 71.5' total peak height E-W * 57.5' eve height, 94.5' total peak height N-5 ~ l. 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 (1,504 s,f. per unit average) 40.4 /acre 4. Potentiai Beds (2.5 bed per unit average) 101 lacre 5. P'ercentage Change From Existing Average Units Per Acre 2.60% . 6, Percentage Increase From Scenario "A" Units Fer Acre 54,67°10 Scenario D. Aevelopment given five story building with 24' roof allowance on east•west . . bars, five story building with banus 33' allowance on north=south bars • 57.5' eve height, 82.5' total peak height E-W o 57.5' eve height, 90.5' total peak height N-S l. Crross Retail Space per acre . 17,424 s.f. 2. Net Residential Space per acre (25% common space removed) 62,465 s.f. . 3. Potential Units (1,500 s,£ per unit average) 41.64 /acre 4. Potential Beds (2.5 bed per unit average) 1041acre 5. Percenta:ge Change From Existing Average Units Per Acre 5.69% 6. Percentage Increase From Scenario `°A'° Units Per Acre 59.33a/o ~ , ~ Scenazio E. Development given five story building with 24' roof allowance on east-west bazs, six stary building with banus 33' allawance on north-south bars * 57.5' eve height, 82,5' total peak height E-W - ~ • 69' eve height, 102' total peak heigh# N-S . . l. Csross Retail Space per acre ' 17,424 s.f. . 2. Net Residentia.i Space per acre (25% carnmon space removed) 67,692 s.f. '3. Potential Units (1,500 s.£ per unit average) 45.1 Jacre . ' - 4. Patentiai Beds (2.5 bed per unit average) ' 112 /acre . .5. Percentage Change Fram Existing Average Units Per Acre -14.54%0 f. P'ercentage Increase From Scenatio "A" Units Per Acre 72.67/0 . In xeviewing the above data, especially the "percentage increase" figures, it is important to remember the followi.ng: . 1. The "potential" scenarios use an average bed per unit ratio of 2.5, as oppased to the existing 1.9 average candition. 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 tfl - try and project a totai future density increase. These fgures represent general percentage increases an a by-acre basis. Onty properties starting with a new building would have the oppominity to appraach these numbers. , lntent of Narth-South Building Mass Recommendation ~ The current buiiding height recomrnendations provide a height banus for building mass that is ariented primarily north-south. The basic intent of this incentive is to ma.ximize the amount of sun coming into Lianshead, 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 architecturat design guideline praduetion, the general parameters are as follows: . 1. fihe north-south requirement of a building tn be eligible for bonus height shall , apply only to the portian of the building in excess of tlie "by-right" height. 2. "North-South" shall refer to the existing building anentation grid tha# exists in Lionshead. For example, a11 of the buildings within the Lionshead care azea sit at essentially the same angle. Looking at all of Lionshead, there are roughly #hree different "building orientation" zones. A"north-south" ariented building would align with the north-sou#h aacis of the existing building grid, given a slight deviation allowance to either side of the grid . 3. The average width of a north-south buiIding shall generally be limited to a standard double-loaded building width 4. The average minimum distance between two "north-south" buildings on the same praperty shall be the width of a standard doubie loaded buildings. ~ ~ MEMQRANDUM ~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commissian FR{7M: Lionshead Redevefopment Master Pian Team Mike Mo(lica/Domanic Maurielio . DATE: MarcFi 9, 1998 . . ' SUBJECT: Stage 3--Lionshead Master Pian--A work session to continue discussians regarding height, mass and density parameters. `fhe culmination of Stage 3 wil! - be the adoption of a rationale and desired outcomes which establish the regulatory #ramework for height, mass and density af buiidings in the Study Area. *The goal of this warksessian is to provide the PEC with additional background informatian wi#h regard to: a) ftoor-#o-#loor heigh#s; bj geographic distribution of building heights; c} bonus heigh#s, d) development standards; and e} density parameters. ~ The Master Plan Team is looking for direction an the abave 5 items. Any outstandtng issues and concerns shauld be articutated and the team will be prepared to direc#ly address those concerns and issues at the next worksession. . 1, STAGE 3 SCHEDULE Stage 3 of the Lionshead Master Plan has been in-pragress since May af 1997. At this - time, we are nearing completion of the third stage of the Master Plan and would propose fhe foliowing schedule: Tuesday, March 3---- Joint PEC1Couneil work session - compteted. Monday, March 9---- PEC work session. Manday, March 23---Final PEC recommendat?an on Stage 3. Tuesday, March 24--Councll afternoon work sessian. . Tuesday, Apri17------Cauncil afternoan wark session; and --Council evening meeting--DECISION an Stage 3. Please keep in mind that this praposed sehedule can be modified if additianal meetings are deemed necessary. ~ m *VAX Wv li. 9UTSTiANCSINGISSUES RELATED TQ STAGE,3 1he foliowing is an overview of the S#age 3 outsfanding issues which staff beGeves need ~ fur#her discussion and consensus: • A) Determine the appropriate floor-#o-flaar height. . Staff has contacfed the fol{awing architects abaut flaor-tatloor requiremen#s an projec#s ' they are worfcing on. All assume at least a 9' floor to-ceiling height for residentiaillodge units. The results are as follows: . Henry Pratt, Gwathmey Pratt, Vaii Sfated he is wotking on the Marriott and is frnding an average af 19' flaor-to-fioar as being tight. The Liftside project (Cascade Village) was constructed at 10.5' f(oor-to-ffoor and was very tighUnot very manageable. (Far e 5-story building his average would tie I1' f/aan#o-floor.) S#eve Isom, lsam and Associates, Eagfe Stated #ha# for a commercial6uilding, the first floor needs 10" tloar-fo-ceiling and 15" of structure resulting in 11.25' fiaor-#o-floor. For residential levels with 9' ceilings, one needs 90.25' floor-#a-floor. (For a 5-story buf/ding his average wauld be 10.45' f/oor toiflaor.) Bift Pierce, Fritzlen Pierce Briner, lfaii Stated that the first floor ccrmmercial needs to have a#loor ta-floor he9ght of 94'. He stated that 10.5' far other floors can be done but is difficult. An 11' floar-to-flaor works, ~ but 12' would be ideai. (For a 5-story building his average would b~ 11,6' fJnar-to- fioor.) Gafen Aasland (ArchitectlPEC Member), Vail Stated that a project he is working on in idaho had an average 10.9' ffoor-ta-flaor. Recommends a first floor a# 16' and 11' #or other floors. Sfated that one might need more than 9' ceiiings for quaii#y condos. (For a 5-s#ory building his average would be 92' floor- , to-floor.) Gordon Pierce, Pierce Segerberg Architects, Vail - Stated thai a 9' floor-to-fiaor is not realistic. Stated that the flrst floor commercial needs to be 12' minimum far the f#oar-to-floar. Ftecommends thaf ftte upper floars (residential) be a minimum of 10' floor-ta-floar. (For a 5-story building his average would be 10.4' f/oot-to-floor.) . Teny Willis, Utban Design Group, Denver . Terry stated that in "luxury condos", such as in 8achelor Gulch, there needs to be 15' floor-#o-#ioar for the first level re#a'r!. Then he recammends that #here be 11' floor-to-floor for #he upper residentiallevels. (For a 5-sfory building his average wau/d be 11.8' floor- #o-floor.) Cottie Graybeal Yaw (CCY) 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 94.5' floor-to-floor for the ~ lawer level cammerciai and an 11-1 1.5' floar-to-floor for the upper level residential. The 6" difference is rtue to twa different types of heating systems (farced air vs hydronic 2 baseboard). (Far a 5-story buifding his average would be 92.1`f{otrr-to f/oar.) !n summasy, the average floor to fioar height recammended by the architects ~ surveyed above is 11.3'. Examples af flcor-ta floor heights in buildings currently under construction in Vail: Aus#ria Haus:. . First floor - 10' CJ#her floors - 11.44' (average) " Average - 11.08' (based on 4 fioors) Inl:erryationat 1t11ing: First tloor - 16, - Other floors - 9.96' (average) Average - 99,97` (based an 3 ftoors) B) Ceographically identify permitted heights of flpors, pius a raot) and +estabiish the acceptable "bonus heights'° and associated perFormance criteria for achieving the bonus heigh#. The proposed building height guidelines for the Lionshead Master Plan are outiined as foiiaws: ~ 1. Maximum by-right height limi# based upon geographic lor.ation af property within #he study area. a. Area "A„ _(see map) - This area is charaaterized by existing single famiiy and duplex hames. !t is proposed that any new develapment in this area conform to this fabric and be limited tfl the existing deuelopment standards . in p(ace (maximum height af 33' for a slcping roaf}. b. Area "B» -(see map) - 7his area is currently open space, located sou#h of Gore Creek and is characterized by wetlands, steep embankments and undeveSoped flpen spaca. tt is proposed that this area be maintained as an open space resource, with no structures permitted. However, any npen, recreation-type support structures that the Town of Vaii may see as appropr'rate in fhe future shall be limited in heigh# ta 1-story, p{us a roof. c. Area "C, _(see map) - This area is characterized by the commercial core and multi-family residential uses. It is recammended that sfiructures in this area have a by-right height limit of five stories, plus a roof. Stnrc#ures in this area also are eligible for banus heights based upon their arienta#ion and conformance to per#ormance criteria. 2. Raofs. The roof height a4{awance is defined as the increase in height from #he maximum permitted eve helght, to the ridgeline of #he rc+af. ~ 3 a. Sioped raof requiremen#. Due to the desire far a consis#ent, high quaiity, ~ alpine architectural style in the Lionshead area, it is proposed that flat . roofs no longer be allowed on any new cxrnstruction, building additions or rehabilitation to existing buildings. ' b. Dy-riqht roQf, allowance. In conjunction virith the requirement for a siaping roof, it is recommended fhat every building be required ta have a minirnum . 5112 pitch roof, wi#h a maximum by-rigfirt roof heigh# af 14 feet, (this is . based on the height of a 5112 pitched roof on a#ypica165' wide, double- . ioaded building). _ 3. Bonus Heights. The prapased height banuses for Area "C" of the Lionshead study . . area are divided into two sectians - additional stories (building heigh# befiore #he roof s#arfs), and additional roof height. a. Additional stnries: Any structures #hat are predamina#ely oriented iiarth- sauth, (with average double-loaded carridor), are eligibte for a banus sbcfh s#ory, according to conformance with the performance criteria. b. Bonus roof height gil,.owances: Based on the predominartt orien#afion af fhe building and the conformance to performance criteria, it is recommended that #he fol{owing bonus roof aIlowances be created: 1. 9112 pitctt wi#h a mascimum roof height of 25' (this height is based on a 9112 roof on a typica( 65' wide doubie-loaded building). This bonus roof height would be availabie for ali buiidings in Area "C" ~ regardiess of their orientation, if #hey meet the perfdrmance criteria. This roof heighf wi!l ailow for the creation af a narrower "laft" story inside the roof. 2. 12/12 pitch with a ma7cimum roof height of 33' (#his height is based on a 12112 roof on a typica165' wide dauble-laaded buiiding). This . . bonus roof heighf would be avaiiabie for any building in Area "C" - . that is predominately oriented north-south and meets #he .perfarmance criteria This roof height wi11 a11ow far the creation of an ad.ditional story, plus a laft space inside the roof. . 4. Exciusions. The #ollowing exciusions to by-right or bonus building heights are proposed in order #a protect the character and visuat quaiity af certain spaces within the Lianshead Study Area. it is suggested that buiiding setbacks, build-to lines and architecfural step-backs wi11 be detaited in the architectural and site guidelines. a. Any build9ng adjoining the Gore Creek stream cnmdor or adjoining the ski yard shall be limited trr a 4-stary maximum permitted eve height, and must conform to the architectura{ design guidelines for buildings fronting #hese areas. However, this is not intended to prevent a building firam attaining its bonus height afiter stepping back from the restricted building face. 4 ~ b. Any part of a buifding that is south facing, north #acing, ar adjcrining the l.ianshead re#ait mall area sha{1 be iimited to a 5-story ma)cimum permitted ~ eve heigh#. This is not intended to prevent a building from attaining its bonus height after stepping back from the restricted bu9tding face. c. Ali buildings in Area "C" shall confarm #o the Lionshead architectural artd site design guidelines, which may infiuence the initial eve height and building step-back requirements. . d. Aii buifding sha11 respect the established public view comdors. • : - • 5. MaDcimum Buitding Height Synopsis. The following maximum attainable building heights under fhe above proposals are based on an assumed 19.5' ftoor-ta-f{c?or height. a. 71.5 Feet - Maximum By-Right building height, with no bonus stor~ and no banus roaf height (57.5' for five stories, pfus 14' for the rooo. b. 82.5 Feet - Building height with no banus stories and the initialbonus roof height, (57.5' for five staries, ptus 25' for the roafi). c. 90.5 Feet - Buiiding height with no bonus storiss and the maximurn bonus roof height, allowed only for north-south trrienfed buildings (57.5' for five staries, pius 33' for the rcof). d. 102 Feet - 8uiiding heigh# w(ith bonus sixth floor and maximum bonus roaf height, allowed oniy for north-south oriented buildings (69' for six s#ories, ~ plus 33' far the rooo. C) Devetopment Standards: a) GRFA--staff recammends that the existing GRFA regulation (80% o# buildable area) be eliminated #ar 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 recomrnends that the ex(isting 10-foot setback requirement ba etiminated for properties in the Lionshead eare area. It is suggested tha# building setbacks be detineated `m the architectural and site: guidelines, in canjunctian with Building and Fire Code requirements. d) Landscaping---staff recommends that fhe existing 20% minimum landscaping requirement be eliminated for praperties in the Lionshead ccyre area. d} Density (unitsiacre) standard--maintairi current standard of 25 unitslacre. AU's, EHU's and firactionai fee units (FFUs) weutd not count towards density. ~ 5 Staff has outlined some ideas an evaluating density in the Lionshead commercial core ~ area: 1 . Retain the existing ciensity provisions (CC2 - 25 unitslacre, NDMF - 25 unrts/acre, Mt3MF - 18 uni#slacre). 2. Exclude accommodation units (AUs), employee housing uni#s (ENUs), and fractionol fee units (FFUs) from the calculation of density. fihis may encourage . . the development of these unit #ypes. Dwelling uni#s (L3Us) would only be allowed • up to fhe existing density allawance (i.e. X unlWaGre). Gensrallyy, blfIIdiT1g Ile1gI1t, •architecturaf and site guidelines, and parking requirements witl determine the . . carrying capacity af the site (Le haw many units can be ac+commodated on a site). . 3. The gross square foafage added ta a s#ructure via the heigh# bonus (s`rxth flaor ' and f1oor area in the rooo must be added in the form of AU's, EMU's or FFU's. This is nat to say that these uses must be {ocated on the sixth fioor and in ihe roof area, bu# that #he addi#ionat gross square faotage must be lacated somewhere in the s#ructure. 4. AUs and EHUs shail meet minimum requlrements to ensure that quality units are construcfed. Exampfes would include: AU - 9' ceiling height. EHU - 450 sq. ft. minimum and 9' ceiling height. 5. Allow any properties which are eurrently noncon#orming with respect ta densi#y fa ~ rebuild ta existinglr.onstructed density. F.1E.VERYONEIPECIMEMOSt981UON.303 ~ 6 i ~ ~-r...,.,,.....~ ~ V j Vf" Q p ~1 ~ ~ /'I ~ o`"-- 00, ~ o Q 0 4d . o . ~ . . . , enninn ~ ~ ~~E W . f ? E3 ZONE iSt r ~~.i.^. .ti...r~~.~,ti~~ ~ . ~ • . ZONECi ~~~~~MrENDAT{ON FOR RE IL FLOOF: TO FLOOR HEIGNT. . .r r •s a . . ' .74t 1. W 1 . CS./lrCRi.. 7 S C7N MF-`tAi, L.ATN r ~ . I0" IBA1"7 fNatlLA'tiC7N , . ~ - Nt3T t G01-P WATER . • 5uPrL`z' # RE'1'URN FUR . FCf;cJEP AiR erSsgErt . ~ tOu FaRCEa AIR Puct ~~~ING UASTE PIPE FIRrz PRCaTEGT1ON - SPRINfiCLER FEW LINE i7ry T}~++~.4y?ESSE7? f~tll~{QE~lC~..7"~T L+ILit'1 1 1NG STC7NE PAVERS ~ ~ ~ 11+1 OUR EX#'MtENGE. A 12'_P.+" GE1lNC~s F#EIGHt 15 STRC?WSLY PF'Ei=ERFEL> B 7YP, RE~'Afl.t ~~~RIGtI~LINCxL,A.EM LY` A5 v{; MEE'CS MiNIMtlM Ct~J~E REQL11REh''1EN7 . C~F ,~1 t7t~tE NC~UR SEPARA`CtC~N, '~~1t9 . ~7f,4GE'7 REF'RE:sENTS ~iClEhtT SPACE E=0~' G~I~INA31C?h( t~F FIRE P ~ RO'`EGti~7N, h1~GW~4NtC,~1., E~,EC7RICAl.. ANL7 5'i~C't'Lil~~. 51'Si'SMS. iI~EALL.'°t', 'CWE C.C~t1"t~GTG~ ttiOULC? REOt.41RE 1'-3" 59LOW STEEL FC?R C0ORD{NAT'lC3N OF BWlL.DtiNC~ 5Y37EM5. NAN . . s. r i ,y ~ ' ~ . . . • i~ • i""~" i ~i`.~ C7 0 C7 O U' O i'~ O O COfiTLE RETAtL HUtLDiNS SECTtON , GRAYBEAL ~z~~~ ~t~ m.: Y~ ~ ARcMTEcxs M 5~5 `d Z69,014 0:) 1d'1113Q S121C3538 1IktA Wdw:S 8665' b2'83J R,XEGOMMENDATIGN, FOR 1''iIG7-LIEvEL GONDO FL.c7Ot2 Tc~ FLC7G~f~ NEIGFIT: ~ ~ , . • V" I.T. li1T. GONC#;aE7E - , ON MF-7AL LA`C1-1 ~ lo" BAt't lNSULATICaN ' - ' . . ~ - 1407 WATER SUPPL1' 4 RETt,lRN FOR NYORJNIG rt3A5EB+D,4RCt HEAT PG.LtMBlNG WA3Trz F'lPE r FtRS PROTEGTICN W 3pR1NK1.ER FEEd LiNIE ~ s" RECE55Et? INCA1`lDESCEENt L.(CzNTlNCs ~ TM, MdM NYDRONIG BASE ~'30ARp NEAT 5Y5"rEm - NO't'E: M CJUfe EXPERIEN ,~`.E, A V-011 GEIING ~iE1CaN7 15 TI~E t7E51REt7 MINIMUM ~t,~! • Ct7Nt?OMINIt~MS I~i TNIS MAF2l~'.ET. A_0" ~Lt'~t'~R/GEILtN~ AS~rEM~3l-Y A3 S - • " MEETS MIMIMLl~1 C..G7C7r REGi~f1t'EM~N'C t7F A CJNE NUL3R 5tf'At~ATIC~N. 7WI5 . o1AGiSAM, Nt`7t,UEV8R, MA1' REOUfFE RERouTirG, RESIZIW-3. ANta YN- REGOOROINA'tIO4+t OF aYSTEMS t?URl • .5---. ' GC7Nv`CRUG'f10N. A MORE SUFFIC1ENT •',•,-r-: ASSIz-MBLY r-G7R TWtS i1Sr: U)aUL-C> k3E A 2'-~a• INTERSTiTtAL 5PAGE, TuE'F~EFORE AL.LOWINC3 MORE SPAC8 SF-LC7W 5TEEL BEAMS. lPEAl.LY, 7`WE. CONT '~..AGTOR~, rm- WOULD REQUIRE 9" BELGXU STEEL. FdR COU'RpINATiON C.F B1ilLDINGt vYSTEhi15. ~ CUTTLE MID-GVST G4NDC) 8UlLP1NO5EG7'tON GRA'Y'HEAL ,~.YA'R 2-24-a1P~ ARCBITECTS Sk I LTO I/zr : V-On ~AC,0 910 LtYx 1llYdli 15m co 116t! 417D10-911 1(410*.W S/E'a a69 * 014 00 IdIA3a sINos38 -1rtin wd6t :s 866TW*B-3J ' RECOMrrENDAZtoN FOR ut~~~-l-EvEI.- cOcvDO FLabR ro Ft..aOR HEcGH-r: . sy ' . ~ 5" l..T. UJ'fi. C~7NGf~ E'1'E 4N ME'TAL. LATH z ~ . . • ~i _ lfa" 5,4T7 INSULATION . , . ~ WC?'f 4 Ct7Lia t11ATER . . S.tPF'i.1" t Rt'z'URN r-OR FORCLD AfR fsY5TEM lo- PaRc90 AtR DUcr ~~~ING UJAS'fiL PIPE SPRIWLER ~EW I.INrz t INGANt~ESGETtt LIGuT{i+1C~ ~ 'i'YE~. f2OCM IN OllR EXPERIliNGIEE. A 9'-0" GEttt~ C) " HEICxNT 15 7WE DESIRED MltwtlMtll""t P GONDDM1NiUM5 iN 1'N1S MARCL1', A Z'-6" FLOOR1G5ILiW.A AvSEME3L"+' AS b-CS 514C)WN MtEET5 MINlML41 CODE ~ REOWREMEfi1Tv OF A ONE HOL{R ~ • ~ SSPAR4TION. THtS C>I,dGRAM _ REMESENTS 5UFFiCiE1+1fi 9PAGE FGtR. - Gt7OR.DIritA'CIG'ml aF F1Rr: PRC7TeGT1 MF-CHANiGAL, E1.ECTR1Ci4t., AND . • ~ ~ • : ; . ' S1`RUC'ttikAL. °+'t"STrzt"i3. iDEALI.Y, TWE « . . GG71V`t'RAC7CiFv' WOULt7 REQt11R.E 1`•3" E66 MU-6- 5EL4W STEti. FOR +GOORI71NATiGN C?P BLi1L171NCCr SY5TEM5. IL GOTTLE iH ~H-G0",- T GONL70 BU1LM& S~GTf ~ 0 ~"'rRA1'BEAL PA:&: r¦os=xa. y YAW A,RCHIZ"ECTS .2-24-qe' SK ~ LTD ,c"m nVAN..Y- $S9tb1l~W31 iSp'l~CU Ildil P(i?Oj9xi-i1G! !(7t0~d6-Qt~b ~~n ~ I~~C3u ACL7 , . S/t7' d L69' ON 00 lci`t/t3Q S180538 "IIEiA WdO2.5 866Vb21163 ~ LIUNSHEAD HEIGHT & MASS PUBLIC MEETINGS SUIVIMAI2Y Presidents' Weeltend 1998 ~ Sunday, Februarv 2 5 Members of the public prescnt: 2(representing Lifthause) Opinions, comments and coneerns. • Goncemed about lass afprivate views; TC}V.should cansider condemnation of a portion ` of the VA care site to preserve views and address pedestrian eongestion. - • Concerned about conges#ion prablems in ski yazd and pedestrian areas, especially if the ~ . , si2e of the pedestrian walkways are ta be reduced. . ° ' LLt • • Concemed about accuracy of ski association study'that shows 40 percent ofthose visiting ski areas to be nan-skiers during winter and that shappin,g is the number 2 activity in resart destinations. • Widen skier pedestrian bridge and make part'ofit pedestria.n only. M. Qncla,v. FebruarY 16 Members of the public present: 15 Opinions, comments and cancems: . ~ Are you really seeking public input? It really doesn't saund like it. • This plan is just "smoke and mirrors" so VA can get its praject buil#.. • Which of the faur height concepts did the Vail Town Cauncil favar? • It upsets me tn hear about a TRC in Lionshead near the Landmark (too much naise, would devalue our praperty). ~ • I eat in Vail Village, then like to go back to my "quiet" conda in Lionshead. • What is the noise factor for all these plans? • I send my kids to the General Store and it is safe for now. We don't want any more bars in Lionshead. I want this to be a family piaee. • There has been no place for my under-i8-year-old daughters to go; nothing to da at night. • We bought in Lianshead because it was quiet; we do our shopping in Vail Village. ~ . Is there some other use fat redevelopment of'EIA's core site other tban a massive hotel? •I like the idea of low buildings; we don't want ta recreate aNew Y'ork City here.. • We bought our place because we like our view; this project stands to negatively impact our view. • Whzch side of ttze building would you measure the height from? There nught to be a fixed height. I'm afraid VA could "buy" (through the height bonus public benefrt process) a 25-story huilding. • What's the by-right height? Are there guidelines ypu need to meet just to.ga to the basic height? Go back to the public domain enhancements to drive buitding height on a site- by-site basis. • I agree with the pedestrian and retail cancepts 100 percent; I'm just concemed about height. • T'm concerned ahout a large, tall hotel blocking views and creating noise. How many more live beds are needed in Lianshea.d? There are already more live beds in Lianshead than in the Village. I have friends who can still rent condos at the last minute in Lionshead. What is the need far live beds? ~ • I'm concemed about daa-k corridors caused by tall bttildings. • You're opening up a can ofworms when you say `this building should be this high, and this building should be something else.° - ~ • Open up the Cancert Hall Plaza area; use that space as a skier drap-aff. • Concert Hall Plaza couid benefit as a redevelapment area, wauld make a nice movie ~ theatre or entertainment complex. . • Is VA talking about redevelopment of the tennis courts? • There is great difficulty in redeveloping anything in Lianshead due to condo association declarations. ' • For the most part, the plan is good; lots of hard work on behalf af the project team really . shows. . . ~ ~ xr~t3uxzZ3-vrA1 L ttJ= PRt:E 2/3 ~ LANDMARK - YAiL CONDOMINlUM /4SSOG., tNC. 640 WEST UONSHF.AD CIlttLE. YAIL, CUt.pRApO 8067 March 17,1998 . TownCouncil Towra OfV'aiX 75 -Souuth Frontage Ruad V"A CO 81657 , Dear Cauna Members, We bave previousty acpressed our support of tbe T,ionshread Redevef+agment Mwter Plannmg procAss„ and c?ur opposition to the substantiaI iacrmm iu zonmg hei~ mass. and density proposed by the consltanU and Town planaing staff: t}ur reasons for- conma. were expressed in our Ie:tter ofDecemler 12_ Our Bmd aflti membem strongly oppose the msximum builcing heights AroPosW m the West piarmHg iuc~'c>ranation we have seex These hexghtsy a.s we understaxid theam, envisirrn buildirigs offzve stoiies at appr~ei~?12 feet each, or 60 feet totat ghis an additiosW bd& aitowmnce for roafs of 14 feet, or a tota1 of 94 feet, mc>re than half ~n the hei& 0=ent}y allowed_ Asi adititional #eight o£ap to I02 fet coiatd be Vpmved rxrith cwuia `bpms' provissons m the luilding. 'I'fi%s height tivvould effectively c1ange the a#aracw oi'Uonshead from s 1aw•-densrtYa vfte-tYPe Pedesuian-orieuted atmosphem Yo ~ a lugh density, Beaver Creek type area. Ironicalty, rt seems as if much cxfwbat is , propt>sed closely resembles #lie Vaii Assocxa#es mcdel of xeplacement buildings iu the center ofthe I,ionshead area. W e aze also stron,gly opposed to the el`unination of wtback r~uireme~s, hadscapiuag rec*ements, and G"A, aud site r,overage rquirements. Ifthese stsncards are remove4 wve have Me hope of maiuuming the vpeane.ss of vxews, the pWestrim . plazas, and the landscaped rest ateas which are.so necder3 ia Uonshead. Iu f.act, la,gic vvcauld dic:We that inc.t essM se#bads and addiftonai open space shauict be requred if buiidg heigbts and masses are inareased_ Cn a reoent visit to Vak my vvi~e and TwaUmd artxmd'VaiIVillage, Uonshead, Beaver C:zeeIc, A.von, and ot.ber arm in Yal to axt+emprt to e'valxoe #he impact oftbe praposed cbm*es. We saw amd fdt the opm pedestria~encliy vMaV almosphere of . V`ail 'V"llAm we saw smdar poteutol m L`zowAad, with replacmeni afthe Sunbird Ladge anct Goradola bui[cling with sexisWe, Itrw-rise stmcftwes (similar xa=the Austria Haus, and ather nevv or newly-rebuk suuctures in the V'~:l~e)- We saw ans3 felt tbe Ioss of +apeauess, the separatian from the mountain, the vven7?rhelming mass +a£the huge new #oildings ia Beaver L`reek---------- and aslced cswselvss: "U tfris what we wamt in Lionshea.d2Y" • ~ ' • • MNf2-`~?Cd-'-.3f~ 1S_ lE:i t°k{:J1~i=llt~~-'L'1.1VN'1'IUtY 1~'~SUtc'i"5-VHiL 11)= F'AC;~ 3/:3 We cezu"have no ' ~ y oecb.an tv Beauer Creek fdr those who waat k who choose td own propety #hem who choose to stay tbcem far short periods. it has clevn.loped in acGOrdance with apre.wiously aPPmved mastert p1an, wbich everyone recog~zed would rmt m a +development similar to that wtich mow exists. In the cw of Liorshead, howma, a mc2ch different process has bew £ollawed im its nemiy 30 years of develQpment. Throughout those yews, counrlem individuaLs aucl families have purcmsW propetty in gcuod faith in Lionsktead, with a vision of a low-density `vfte, comparable td Va V"lage, wlrich is not 2rt all what the pIauuers novv eovxsxom • As we have sWed previously, we stsud eager ta suppart a redesrel`opment plan for Lioashead which buitds on the strecgths which exist now, solves the problems wuch are , critic.ai, ar,d Xays the $roundwork for soWc,n of more difficult problems in the fu.ture Clne cyf these cruucial problems not solvod by the curreat plan is the integration ofthe properties at fihe west end afLionshead with the remainder ofthe area. Pedestrian aoom throughout #he area, extending to ansi imcluding the Marriott, Vtil Spa, Ant1ers, and other pmperties is azi important key to fuhure sazccess of the entire area. This access woWd uot bo bupraved by the cutrem high-dea* Planning Pi'opasals. To the conttwy, t.he VA,, p1am wouid magz* the bamer prmnted by W e,st Lionshead Circle, by subsmriWly mcreasmg the valume of velucutar traffiic atong tWs z`oute. We greatly $FFreciate the txndet'standing aud sympathY showa by Caumcil membezs to our conceims, and those of othet's i;n Li6nshead. 'Ihis is a diffc;ulttask aed we do nat ~ wish to compound the ciifficuAties you £am im atriving at a fuW plm Etrt we will fie here to live with the resizlts o£the plau ycxx select. It is our vfte ioo....and we waut it to be the best it,can possibiy be! . Thank you for yaur patience. ''GVe rxrill continne to follow your effarts with intearest azYd concern. VoytI'tlly yOt2tS, JQS~?h IHI. I..t)O~C, Ptm Landmaz'k-V'aR Cdudoininium A5sociation cc: Planning and Envirpntnent Gamzzisszon ~ ~ Y MEMt3RANDUM ~ TC7. Planning and Lnvironmenta! Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 13, 1998 SUBJECT; A request for a conditional use permit, to allow a ternporary garden center located at 2107 North Frantage Rdad/ unplatted, Vaii das Schone {City Marke#}. Appiican#: David Hittson for City Market, Inc. Planner: Christie Bartan l. BAGKGROUND AND DESCR1P71+DN t?F THE REQUEST The app(icant is requesting a candi#ional use perrnit in order to allow a temporary garden center in the Vail Commans Shopping Center parking lot from April 28 through June 29, to occur year after year. The fabric covered structure wili be located in the western partian af the parking lot, north of the unused cof#ee house and pedestrian walk. This iocation is separated from the majority of the traffic, however it stiil provides easy access from the Vail Commons Shapping Center and the rest of the Vail Das Schane retaii areas. Water and electricity are available from the coffee house. ~ The appiicant's description of the praposal is attached. li. tSSUES FOR DISGUSSIt?N A. Vehic% Access The proposed location is separated from the majar entry points or emergency routes and will not cause congestion in case flf emergencies. Customers will be able to park near the garden center in a lesser used area of the parking lot to load their purchases. B. Pedestrian Access Pedestrian access wil{ be located along an existing walkway between parking areas. The garden cen#er will aiso be ab(e #o be accessed from the stairs leading from the Iowerievel of the Vail Das Schane area. C. aesign Review The temporary structure is a portable retail garden center and has #he appearance o# a standard greenhouse. It allows customers to enter the unit and choose plants similar to a nursery setting. The ternporary nature of the structure will not interfere with the design appearance of nearby buiidings. D. Prrtentiat Benefits The garden center will allaw Vail residents to purchase garden plants appropriate for the high elevations of our mountain environment. The praject will keep sales taxes within the commurtfty. ~ ~ rOwnVo~~An lTl. GENERAL REVIEW CR1TERlA F8R THIS REQUEST T'he review criteria for a request of this nature are estabfished by the Town of Vail Municipai ~ Cade. The Vail Commons Shopping Center is located in the Commercial Core 3(CC3) zane district. The proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in aceordance with the provisions of Title 12, Chapter 16. For the PEC's reference, the conditionai use permit purpase statement indicates that: In order to provide the filexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of thistitle, specified . uses are permi#ted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual ar special characteristics, conditional ?ses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this ti#le and with respect to their effects on surrounding praperties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibilit}r and harmonious development between conditianal uses and surrounding praperties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditionaf uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the locatian and opera#ian of the conditional uses will be in aceardarrce with the development objectives of the Tawn and wiN not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where canditions cannot be devised, #o achieve these objectives, applicatians for conditional use permits shafl be denied. A. Gonsideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the develapment objectives of the Town. The establishment of the temporary garden center will pravide a variety of ~ shopping experiences and keep tax dallars in town. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribu#ion of population, . transportation faGilities, utilities, schools, parcs and recreation fiacilities, and ather public facilities needs. The proposed temporary garden center will be temporary and will not have a negative effect on any of the criteria listed abave. 3. Effect upon traffac witn particuiar reference to coragestion, automofive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, acCess, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff believes that the prapased temporary garden center will not have a negative effect on the abave referenced criteria. 5taff believes that the shopping center is designed to deal wi#h any additional tra#fic to #he area. Parking will be adjacent to the garden center and loading of purchases will proceed out of #Fie main traffic circulation pattern and will not cause access prablems. Since this operation is occurring during the slower season, parking will not be negatively impacted. 4. Effect upan the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the propased use in relation to surrounding uses. Staff believes this use wi11 have little impact on the character of the ne'rghborhood. ~ The garden center operation is temporary and will not change the existing structure. The Vail Comrnons Gondominium Assaciation has approved the project. ~ B. Findin Th Piannin n Envir nmen al mmissi n shall m ke he foli win findin s before granting a cqnditional use.,.permit; 1. That the proposed lacatian of the use is m accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section af the zaning code and the purpose$ of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it woufd be operated ar maintained would nnt be detrimental ta the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injuriaus to praperties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the praposed use would comply with each of the appiicabie provisio ns af the conditional use permit section of the zoning cade. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Cammunity DeveCopment Department recommends approval af the conditional use permit for a temporary garden center aperation, subject to the following frndings: ~ 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accardance with the purposes of the conditianal use permit section of the zoning code and the purpases af the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed Iocation of the use and the conditions under which it wi(I be aperated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, ar welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvemen#s in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use wili compiy with each 4f the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. The recommendation of approval is also subject to the following conditiorts. 1. That the appiicant shall keep #he haurs o# operation between 8:00 A.M. to 8;00 P.M. 2. The use shall be limited to one 5 square faot sign attached to the temporary structure. The design shall reeeive Design Review approval. 3. That this use shall discontinue after the proposed 8 week operation (April 28, 1998 to June 29, 1998) and the structure will be removed within 10 days. This appravai shall be allowed to accur during this time period year after year, unless called up by the PEC. ~ ~.Ieveryonelpeclmemos198lcitymuk413 ~ CITY MAR.KET, iNC. z VAIL COMMONS SHOPPINCr CENTER ~ Tov.cow DEv. DEfq. PROPOSED T NAL USE I'ERMIT FOR A GAR.D N CENTER FACILITY City Market, Inc. is applying for a conditional use pernut ta erect a garden center facility in the Vai1 Commans Shopping Center parking lot from April 28, 1998, through June 29, 1998. The 22' X 36' fabric covered alurninum structure and the area imm,ediately around it facility will be used to merchandise flower, shkruub, tree and vegetable garden plants and related gardening supplias. Tha garden center is an extension of the supermarket's flora.I department and a seasonal enchaucement for customers during the spring planting seasan. The garden center will provide Vail customers a convenient apportunity to huy garden piants appropriate for the area properly prepared for planting in the mountain environment. Tt atso will keep the sates dallars anc3 sales taxes for such pxoducts within the community. Because #he garden center is seasonal and temporary, it will have no long term effect an develapment abjective, It will be disassembied before the major partion of the sununer tourist season occuxs. The scale of the structure is madest when compared ta the Vail Carnmons praject. The garden center will be lacated in the Ieast used portion of the pa.rking 1ot, out of the ~ traffic pattern. It will encaurage shappers to walk outside, ultimately bringing attention to the other businesses in the shoppin:g center. The green nature af the product offered shauld provide temporary colar ta the cancrete parking area and will reinforce that the i4ng winter season is ended. ~ LL,. ~ i ~ 8~,, s~ ~ ~rr ? ~ t .nr+" L ~ , , ~ e~ ,r'r•y 'ti+.. ],}I +.+a~. ,,,~y, . . ~+~,n~••.~..y~ .r••~ • ~ ~ ~ ~t ? ~w ~,~+.i...?^ ~ , . t ,,it ti }r„ ' ~ ' t wiwirr ' • . _ ~4 _4ii*~\+~: ,i~r}+ ~ ~1' ,Q.,r,;. wYy~Ma.`..- t ' ~ ` ~ • t1111 y ~ { ~ ~ ~ ~ . }~rM` .rw .r.w~w..+~ ~ , ~ tN~•~i ~ ~ ki ~ j ii 1 Y''~ ,~~j , r 1~ J T~ ,E?'+~1 j ~ ~t V j~~ yu~ ~ ~~'t^ , N"~ ~ Mr ` ~ { ~y ~ ~1~~~ p ,4 y i , ~ . . ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~4 y;....~•- ti~ ~ 1 r' ' ti ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ . , ~ t ~ ~ 'r"'~`~ : ~ • ~ ~t 1 . 1 ~ a , ~`'`J~ i . ~ r,~,,,,N ~ ~ . , ~ ~ 1 ~„~s,~?. ~ = ~ . t ~ ~ _ joft 1 - ~ r ~ . ~ ~ p~l~dr ~ ~h,M ~ f~,;DG~+ ~ t~'~ . ~~?'1'Eii 'w. ~y~~"' " .r. ' AII 1 ~ - • 15-22 ` t - * +iJJbr ! 1K '4 _ ' i 1 ~ ~ x~ . ~ ~ ~cet , •Nyr.r.1?` ~ ~ r • * 6N 1 ' ..t .~r~+"' ..i. ~ Mti.1• . ~ ' . l , ...nM ~ M... - ~ ~ ^ ti ~ tM cpok r) PORTABLE RETAIL CATtT)EN ~ENTER clesin. _ Neat: , ~y`~~ ' ~ Y h+j`• +.5=Sar p* °;.r.Fi"• •1~t~i.:' ~1 ~ S N . ~i` + i • ~ , ` Y . . a.. ~~ickt~ r~AJ ~ . ~ .•;~f ~ 411 7 r ~ r ~de x 201 8~ 30, 20. w~. •de x 3 Cl,. 40, €9.,~ r ~,?r~v~ ~ ~ • Strrrtdarr~ CalaJe Frarrre t S#aradard Grrblt, Frntiie SeIect Ti•an4tFrcci1rt IrVoven Poit~ •SeIc~rt 7"i~r~~igttrt~e~xt t~tlc~ztc~tt Poiy t~Y Vff~yl ~ ~r~• Virr~l! C~~z1~~i= tiatri Etr~~':~ ~ Cvt~er ~rird Eticis . Ftr1l Lengt17 Strip Vc°itt, Botlr S?'r1es, 9 Fiill Lertg#fr sfrip V'csitt, Btitir swes ; ~ ~?£aclr, 7'Ii x8'zi) R«ll-trl; Yrrrcl Dunri + 2 Eac;1i 7'lr xB'zv Roll-ttp Yard I7oors l ~ • 5pec ified Arrcrtoring Systenr o Specificti Ai:cJtorttig Sy4 teor Color Hip1rliII • Corur Higlrlight5 Corrrplcte L?r"4pTrkil Systew + Cnrirplete L~~.sptay Systetlt ; ALL GardenPORTs CAN BE PtJItCHASED WiTH ! WeatherPt71ZT's LONG LAS'TING CABLE TENSION VINYL COVETt ' y I ?iESari1~+IH~H11ifINif~N~ftf~~a~ry~ils~y~~y~Y~rsi~ri~s~~riry~~~~~wi~~ii~l~~~i~iiNi~i~~t~i~lM~tuW~t~~?ai~#~.~I~R .~r' ~ 'CStsttiltt LeftgHis ttl 100ftet ~ ".~'~~,r~'~ ~ • ~ 9 TM 0"WPIPW~ j ? f : . y~ ~"`~`y. • * s' ~ N . MC)DLTLAR DISFLAY SYSTLM o ProtrldeS C}ptztxlutTl Refail F'Ctotage • ~ o Attaches sirnply right ta the frnTrce of your Gardc:rtPORT. ~ * Al1 cornponc»ts slip-fit together. ' pta»# #lsAPY a»d Ctlstt1t11e1 Fdondl"yl r., MEMaRAnrauM ~ TO: Plannin9 and Enviranmental Commission FROM: Community Develapment Department ' DATE: April 13,1998 SUBJECT: A request for a Major CC1 Exterior Alteration #a the Hong Kong Ca€e Building, to allaw fior a change in use and ta permit exterior changes, lacated a# 227 Wal1 StreetiLat B& C, Biock 5C, Uail Village 1 st F`rling. Applicant: ASf Vail Land Holding, L..L.C., cio Base Mountain Sports-Brett Barnett, represented by Ka#hy Langenwalter Planner: Gearge Ruther _ i. DESCRIPTIC}N OF 7HE REQUEST The applicant, ASI Vail Land Halding, LLC., represented by Kathy Langenwalter, is requesting a Major CC1 Exterior Alteration to the Hong Kong Cafe Building. The applicant is propasing ta change the current use of#he property by eliminating the Hong Knng Cafe restaurant and bar, and subsequently creating approximately 3,952 square feet of new retail, ski storage and ski rental space. The foflowing changes are proposed ta the existing buiiding: ~ • an additional story will be added atop the existing structure to accammodate a porfion 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 Iandscape plan#er; • the Wall 5treet entrance ta Louie's and the Earl Eaton Plaza entrance to the Hong Kong Cafe will be reorien#ed and impraved; and * the various exteriar building materials wilf be removed artd upgraded. A copy of the plans have been attached for reference. fl. BACKQRdUND fln March 10, 1986, the Pfanning and Enviranmental Gammission approved a Major Exterior Alteration to the Hong Kong Cafe. (During the PEC review af the request, Hong Kong Cafe, David K. Irish representing HKC Partnership, entered into an agreement with Ed Bfeckner, Jr., representing The Fraises Corporation, owner of the L.azier-Arcade Condominium Building, Units 308 & 309, which are located to the narth of the Hong Kong Ca#e). it appears that the intent of this private agreement was to address the approval process for a conditianal use permifi and approval nf madifications to the exterior of the Hong Kang Cafe, specific to the requests at the ~ ~'OPINO~YAIG ~ time. The Town of Vai( is not a party to the agreement. Staffi believes that this issue may be braught up in relation to the current request. Staff does not believe that the Planning and ~ Environmental Commission public hearing is the appropriate venue ta discuss the previous agreemen#, nor is a discussion of the previous agreement relevant to the Major Exterior Alteration request. On March 23, 1998, the applicant's representative met with the Ptanning and Envirpnmental Commission for a worksession discussian regarding the project. During the warksession, the Planning and Environmenta! Commission expressed that they generally liked the improvements proposed. The Commission did suggest that the applicant provide addi#ional window fen+estration on both the east and west elevations. The intent of additional windows was to bring more interest to the building and to help break up the mass af the building. A copy of the draff minutes from the March 23 meeting have been attached for reference. III. ZONING ANALYSIS The fo1{owing anafysis summarizes the relevant zoning statistics for this requesf: Legal: Lot B& C, Block 5C, Vail Vil{age 1 st Filing. Zoning: Gommercial Core I (CC1) Lot Area: 0.037acre/ 9,612 square feet Buildable Area: 0A37acrel 1,612 square feet ~ Development S#andards: Allowable Existinq Proposed Site Coverage: 1,289 sq.#f., or 80°lo 1,489 sq. ft., or 92% N/C Landscaping: no net reduction 74 sq. ft. 101 sq. #t. (+27sq. ft.) in existing landscaping Building Height: 40% = 33 - 43" 0% 9.5°l0 60°l0 = 33' or less 100% 90.5% Parking: 1 space/300 sq. f't. 12,7 spaces 13.2 (+0.5) of net floor area required (retail) 2 ~ N. MAJOR EX7ERltJR ALTERATION CRITERIA ~ A. Compliance with the Urban Clesiqrr Gwide Plan for Vail Village There are no sub-area concepts which relate directly to this redevelopment proposal. B. Compliance with the Urban Design Considerations for Vail Viilage The Urban Design Considerations for Vail Viltage are intended to guide grow#h and change in ways that wiN enhance and preserve the essential qualities of Vaif Vil(age. The UrbanDesignGonsiderations are divided in#o twomajnr categocies: Urban Design Consideratians and Architecture/Landscape Considerations. Urban Desian Cansiderations The Vail Village Urban Design Considerations are primarily the purview of the Planning and Environmental Cnmmissian. 1. Pedesfrianization: The Hong Kong Cafe is lacated adjacent to two major pedesfirian areas; Wall street, which is the main northlsau#h route thraugh the area and Earl Eaton Plaza, which is the main perJestrian plaza in #he immediaEe area. The staff believes #he applicant's proposal reinforces the pedestrian use of the area and further believes tha# the reorientation af the building entrances off af Wa118treet and Earl Eaton Plaza will improve the aesthetics and s#reetscape of the area. The additional window fenestration on the east and west sides of the building ereates additional window shopping opporkunities and enhance the pedestrian experience. 2. VehicularPenetra#ron: Staff believes the applican#'s proposal will have positive impacts on the vehicular penetration into the Village. The existing res#aurant and bar use generated more vehicular #rips into the Village than will the new re#a'rl use. Deliveries to the new retail use will most likely be larger in size than deliveries to the previous restaurant and bar, though it is anticipated they wiil be less frequsnt. All laading and delive(es will be required to take place #romthe established loading and delivery zones in Vaii Viliage. 3. Stree#scape Framework: The streetscape framework criteria suggests that redevelapment improve the quality of #he walkirrg experience and provide cantinuity to the pedest(an ways in Vail Village. Two types of improvements to walkways are considered: 1) open space and landscaping, 2) expansion and infill af existing buildings. Staff believes the applicant's proposal meets these #wo CfiItP.Piay since the applicant will be restoring and impraving the Iandscaping and open immediately adjacent to the Hang Kong Building and is proposing to accommodate the additional development atop the existing ~ structure. 3 1 4. Street Enclosure; The street enclosure of Wall Sfreet is being effected by the construction of ~ an addi#ionaf story atop the existing build'mg. Sta€€ believes the additional floor level increases the "canyon effect" of the buildingsaIong Vtia(l Street on the east, and the pedestrian waikway between the Hong Kong Building and the Lodge on the west. Vlihile staff believes that increasing the "carryon effectf' is not positive, we do recognize tha# the area where the street enciosure is impacted is minimal, relative to the length of WaN Street and the pedestrian walkway. Staff further recognizes that the north/south orierttation of Wall Street helps reduce the impact of the additional story, since natural light from the south will still be able to reach down onto Wall Street and the pedestrian walkway during most ofi the year. 5. Street Edge: - The street edge will not be significan#ly altered by the applicant's proposal. The reorientation of the buifding entrances off of Wall Street and Earl Eaton Plaza will most iikely have the greatest positive impact on street edge. The removal of the existing dining deck and the restoration of the landscaping south of the building should also improve the street edge appearance. The re-oriented entrances will improve the access ta, and visibi(ity of, the in#erior retail uses. 6. Buitding Height: The proposed building height is cansistent with the existing buildings in the ~ immediate vicinity and the height limitations prescribed by the Vail Village Master F'lan. Due to the change in grade, the Wall Street facade wi11 appear as a three story building and the Earl Eaton Plaza facade wilf appear as a two-story building. The addifion of dormers and the varying eave line helps sof#en the building mass. 7. Views and Focal Points: Views from public spaces are onfy minimafly affected by the applicant's proposal. The existing Hong Kong Building, the L.azier Arcade Building, fhe Casino Building and the Plaza Lodge (imit much of the view out of the Wall Street area. 7he additional stary atop the existing Hang Kong Building wiil further limit the views to Vail Mountain to the southwest. However, as pedestrians move south along Wall Street and reach the top of the stairs, #he view from the public plaza again opens. The existing view from the third floor condominium units an locafed on the south end of the Lazier Arcade Building will be further impacted by the redevelopment of the applicant's property. Staff recognizes, however, that the Town's develapmen# regulations are nat intended to pratect private view corridors. ~ 4 ~ 8. 5ervice and Delivery; ~ As mentioned previousiy, service and deliuery #o the app(icant's pcoperty is unchanged as a resui# of this proposal. It is anticipa#ed tha# the frequency o€ deliveries to the existing building will be reduced as a resuft o# the praposed change in use from restaurantlbar ta retail/commercial. 9. Sun/Shade: Additiana# shading of Wall Street, and the pedestrian walkway to the west of the existing building will occur. The greatest impact of shading will accur during the winter months of the year when the sun is at its lowest. Any additional development of the applicant's property will resul# in additional shading impacts to the area. From the sunlshade analysis submitted by the applicant, it appears that Vendetta's deck will be effected the mast by the addi#ian of the third story. While the sunishade analysis shows onfy marginal impacts at 2:00 pm in the afternoon on the spring and fall equinox, it is from 2:00 pm until dark, during the sharter days of the year, that the greatest shading will occur. A copy af the propased sunlshade analysis is attached for reference. ArchitecturallLandscape Considerations The ArchitecturaULandscape Considerations are reviewed primarily by the Design Review Board. ~ C7n Wednesday, April 1, 9998, the applTCan#'s representative mef with the Town of Vail Design Review Board. The meeting with the Design Review Baard was a conceptual review of the applicant's proposal. The following is a summary of the Design Review Board's comments and the recammendations outlined in the Vail Village Design Cansiderations: 'i . Roofs The applicant is propasing an asphalt shingfe roo# material. The roof material is intended #o be a brownish, "presidential-type„ 40-year shingle, which is in#ended to add texture and interest to the raof. The Vail Village Design Cansidera#ions strongly recommends the use of wood shakes or #ar and gravel as roof materials in the Viilage. The Design Review Board recammended, by a narraw margin, the use of wood shakes as opposed to asphalt shingles. Due to the steepness of the proposed roof pi#ch, tar and gravel is nat a viable alternative. Additionally, the Design Reviev+r Bcrard recommended that minor changes be made #o the praposed rovf form to add more interest and appeal to the west eievation. The applicant's representative has made the recommended change ta the west elevation as requested. ~ 5 3 Overall, with the changes #hat have already been made to the roof form, and if the roof materiaf were wood shakes, the staff believes the ~ appIiCa(1t's proposai is in general compliance with the roof guidefines outimed within the design eonsidera#ians. 2. Facades The proposed building has a mixture of exterior materials. The base af the building is wrapped in a moss rock veneer, the second leve( of the building will be stucco and the third level is proposed to be vertical board and batten siding. The applicant is propasing that the stucco be painted light #an and #hat the vertica{ wnod siding be a cantrasting, darker tan. The windnws and trim are to be burgundy and the new canvas awning over the Earl Eaton Plaza en#rance is to be forest green. As requested by both the Planning and Enviranmental Commission and the Design Review 84ard, the applicant has added additional windaw fenestration to the east and west building elevations. The applicant has also amended the roof form of fhe v+rest side of the build'rng by praposing an additional roof dormer. The dormer breaks up the eave iine and adds more variety to the elevation. {7verall, the L3esign Review Baard and the staff believes that the mixture of stone, stucccs and a vertica{ board and bat#en siding is in compliance with the Design Cansiderations. 3. Balcanies ~ Similar to most other buiidings in the Village, the applicant has proposed an exterior balcony on the building. The new balcony is to be Iocated on the south side of the building. The balcany is approximately 25 square feet in size and extends from the face af the building less than one foot. Wrought iron is proposed for the railing rrraterial. While the staff believes the balcony adds visual interest to the building, we feel the balcony is not recessed enaugh into the building. As designed, the balcony appears "applied" to the facade of the building. Staff would suggest the applicant rewise the p4ans to increase the depth of the balcony and to further enhance the visual appearance of the balcony, add variety to the building finrm and to increase the shadelshadow efFec# created by the balcony recess. 4. Decks and Patios The exis#ing Hong Kong Cafe dining deck on the south side of the building will be removed. Since there will no longer be a restaurant on the property, a dining deek serves no purpose. The area eurrently oecupied by the deck will be restored to landscaping. ~ 6 } 5. Aacent Elements ~ Calortul accents on buildings are encauraged as they bring life and a festive quality to the Village. The applicant has proposed a forest green awning over the relocated entrance adjacent ta Eari Eaton Plaza: In addition, accent fighting will be instalied on the building. Ta further enhance #Ite appearance of the new building, staff would sugges# the applicant replace the proposed canuas awning with acopper awning. We believe that the use of copper wi11 greatly improve the detailing and quality of the building. The use ofcopper could besimilar to the applicatian at the Base Mountain Sports store in Lionsheaci. 6. Landscape Elements A landscape plan has been submitted by the applicant. According to the landscape plan, the applicant is prapasing #o remove twa diseased Aspen trees and to plant two, two-inch caliper Aspen tree at the southeast comer of the buifding, and one, ten-foat tal( Lodge Pole pine at the southwest camer af the building. The new raised planter to be construc#ed on the south side of thebuilding, and the existing planter on the east side of thebuilding, will be planted with perennial ffowers anda token IVlugo pine. The majority of the new landscaping will be on Town of Vail proper#y. The maintenance and upkeep o# the planters and the landscaping shali be the responsibility of the property owner. ~ Sta#f Response: Staff believes the redevelopment praposal is in compliance with the Urban Design Considerations for Vail Ullage. C. Compliance with the Vail l.and Use Plan The following gaals of the Vail Land Use Plan are applicable ta this proposed alteration: 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a cantrolled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality af development shauld be main#ained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village core showld be carried into new development in the Village core through continued implementation af the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most ofi the additianal growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). ~ 7 3.4 Commercial growth shauld be concentrated in existirrg cammerciai areas to accommodate both Incal and visitor needs, ~ Staff Resnonse: Staff believes that this propasal is consistent with the Vail Land Use Pian. D. Compliance with the Vaii Village Master Plan Goats The Vaii Village Master Plan is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and palicies for caardinating develapment by the publie and priva#e sectors in Vail Village and in implementing community goals for public improvements. Further, the Mas#er Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards and Town Council in analyzing future prnposals for development in Vail Village and in legis#ating efFective trrdinances to deal with the such development. Contained within the Vail Village Master Plan are gaa{s for development in Vail Village. The goals are summarized in six major goal statements. The goal statements are designed to establish a framework, or direc#ion, for the future graw#h of the Village. A series af objectives autlines specific s#eps toward achieving each stated goal. Po[icy statemen#s have been develaped toguide the Trswn's decision making in achieving each of the sta#ed objectives, whether it be #hrough #he review of private sector development proposais, ar in implementing capital impravement projects. Goal #1 Encourage high quality cedevelopment while preserving the ~ unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 4biective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential anc[ cornmercial faciiities. 1.3 C7b'eci tive: Enhance new develapment and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in caaperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policv: Public improvements shall be developed with the participatian of the priva#e sector working with the Tovun. Goal #2 To foster a strong taurist industry and promote year-round ecanomic heaith and viability for the Village and far the community as a whole. 2.2 Obiective: Recognize the "h'rstoric" commercia( core as the main ac#ivity center of the Village. ~ 8 2.2.1 Poligy: The designcriteria in the VailVillage Design Guide ~ P(an sha(I be the primary guiding document to preserve the existing architectural scaie and character of the core area of Vaif Village. 2.4 t3b'eci tive: Encourage the development of a variety of new carrtmereial activity where campatibie with existing land uses. 2.4.1 Poligy: Commercial infill development, cansistent with es#ablished horizantal zoning regula#ions sha11 be encouraged #o provide activity generatars, accessible green spaces, public p(azas, and streetscape improvemen#s to the pedestrian netwark throughout the Village. 2.4.2 Policv: Acfivity that provides nightlife andevening - entertainment for both the guest and community shall be encouraged. 2.5 Obiective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovatian and maintenance of existing fodging and commercial facilities #o better serve the needs af our guests. 2.5.2 Poligy: The Town wi!l use the maximum ffexibility possible in the interpretatian of building and fire codes in ~ order to facilitate building renovations without compramising life, health and safety considerations. Gaal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancemen# af the walking experience throughout the Village. 3.1 Obj.ecfive: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by Iandscaping and other improvemen#s. 3.1.1 Palicv: Private development projec#s shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, larrdscaping, iightfig and seating areas), along adjacent pedesfirian ways. 3.1.3 Policv: F'lowers, trees, water features and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in foca#ions adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. Gaal #4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunitie5. ~ 9 4.1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green spaee and pocket parks. Recognize the ~ diffieren# roles of each type of open space irr forming the averall fabric of the Village. 4.1.2 Poligv: The development of new public plazas, and irnpravements #o existing plazas (public art, streetscape features, seating areas, etc.), shall be s#rongly encauraged to reinforce their role as attractive people places. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of #he vital aperational elements of the ViNage, 6.2 Ob'eci tjV2; Provide fnr the safe and efficient functions o€ fire, police and public utili#ies within the cantext of an aesthetically pleasing resflrt se#ting. 6.2.2 Palicv: Minar improvements (landscaping, decora#ive paving, open dining decks, etc.), may be permitted on Tawn of Vai1 land or right-of way (with review and approval by the Town Cauneil and Planning and Environmental Commission when applicable) provided that Town opera#ions such? as snovv removal, street maintenance and fire departrnent aceess and operation are able to be maintained at current Ieve1s. Special design (i.e. heated ~ pavement), main#enance fees, or other considerativns may be required to offset impacts on Town services. Staff Respanse: Staff beliewes the proposed improvements help to nbtain the goals of the Vai1 Village Master Plan. E. Compliance with the purpose statement for the CC1 Zane District According to the (Jfficial Town of Vail Zoning Map, the applican#'s property is located in the Commercial Core 1 Zone District (CC1). Pursuant to Section 12- 713-1 of the Municipal Code, the purpase of the CC1 Zane District is intended to, "provide sites and #o 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 ta ensure adequate light, air, open space, and nther amenities appropria#e ta the permitted #ypes of buifdings and uses. The district regulations in accordance wifh the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Pian and Design Considerations prescribe si#e development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangemen#s of buildings fronting on ~ 10 , pedes#rian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continua#ion of the ~ buiiding scafe and architectural qualities tha# distinguish the Village." Staff Response: Staff believes that the proposed improvements are in concert with the purpnse of this z4ne district. V. {3THER ISSUES At the March 23. worksession meeting with the Planning and Enviranmental Gommissian, the staff identified several issues which we believed the applicant, staff and Planning and Environmenfal Cammission shauld address prior to a final review. One of the issues dealt with the location af the building relative to the property lines. According to the Improuement Lacation Certificate submitted by the applican#, the east edge of the existing building is built approxima#ely six #o eight inches aver the property line. The staff and the Planning and Environmental Cammission suggested the applicant either remtave the encroaching portian of the building fram the Town of Vail property, or exchange an equal amount of land with the Town fo resalve the encroachment. Neither the s#aff, nar the Planning and Environmentaf Commission believed i# was appropriate fior #he applicant to perpetuate the existing encraachment. Since the worksession meeting, the applicant has hired Peak Land Surveying to complete a boundary survey of the property. According to the surveyor, a boundary survey more ~ accurately locates the praperty's boundary lines. The recently completed boundary survey indicates that the building is in fact on the applicant's property entirely, and it is not encroaching on Town of Vail property. A copy of the boundary survey has been attached fior reference. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Communi#y Develapment Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a Majar CC1 Exterior Altera#ion to the Hong Kong Cafe Building, to allow far a change in use and ta permit exterior changes, located at 227 Wall Stree#lLot B& C, Block SC, Va'sl Village 1 st Filing. The recammendatian for approval is based upon the staff's review of the majar exterior alteration criteria outlined in Section IV of this memarandum. Shauld the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the majar exterior alteration request, staff would recommend the fol4ow'sng findings be made: 1. That there are no sub-area concepts which relate directly to this redevelopment proposal, and therefore, the redevelopment proposal is in campfiance with the Urban Design Guide Plan for Vail Village. 2. That the redevelopment proposal is irt compliance with the Urban Design Consideratians for Vail Village. ~ 11 3. That the redevelopment proposal helps to achieve the goals of the Vail Land Use Plan, and therefore, the proposal is in campliance wi#h the Vail Viliage Master ~ Plan Gaals. 4. That the redeveiopment proposai is in cnmpliance witfi the goals prescribed within #he Vail Viliage Masfer Pfan. 5. That the redevelopment proposal is irt carnpliance with the purpose sta#ement for the Cammercial Care 1 Zone District. Should #he Planning and Environmental Commission choase to grant an approval af the requested major exterior aItera#ion, staff would recommend that the Commission make the following condi#ions part of the approval: 1. That the appliaan# pay inta the Town of Vail Parking Fund #o meet the requirement of addition parking demand resulting from the redevelapment praposal prior to #he issuance of a building permit. The exact dollar figure shall be determined by the Town of Vail at the time of bui(ding permit appiica#ion based upon the parking pay- in-lieu fee a# the #ime and the configuratian of the interior floor space. 2. That the applicant submit a#ree preservation plan for the review and apptaval o# the Town of Vail Landscape Archi#ect prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. 7he current pCans show n4 mechanicai equipment a#ap the redeve{aped building. Should mechanical equipment be proposed, a roofi-top mechanical plan sha11 be submitted to the Town of Vail Community [7evelopment Department for #heir review and appraval prior to the issuance of a building permit. ~ 4. That the owner af the property in question be responsible far the upkeep and mainteriance of the planters and landscaping as identified on the approved deuelopment plan dated April 13, 1998. 5. That the applicant execute a revised lease agreement #ar the landscape planter an the south side of the building. i f:teveryune\pee~tnemos198\basemt,413 NfAL4 SPREE7' WALL 3TRE£'F' ' WAI.L STREEF BtDG. WALk. SiREET BLQii. l~~ 4t0~, 1. `t0... j i :4.i.li.~.:t~L._..=1_ J.-t- •'-i~#~•I ---"t.-- ~ ~ j ft£`liSED.Bt11LDYH6 ~t14 yl ~».o' J ^ E ~n { I ~W aao a a f : ~ ~ _.~t^^• i 'l/~.-...._.-._t ( -,f ~ _ L ` 1- ..$Sg.L ?f NwNYM*wrYr ~ . ~ Muwi.r . ~ ~ Y`•/,' ~ ~lNM~ ~Vf~M~ I t°}~. 1 l '°~zp"`---' . ~ ~ i v/ a? ~ Q - / l ti , r.'^e.~, f ~ ~ / ( t F.ATiIN PLA?A ~ EA"COk PLAIA ~ h.v ? ~~q ~ tXNDSGAP£PLAN ~-~7f°"~''0~ . ~ Date Rof-LS{Meb1 1200F PLAN "°'~v 4 t~ ~ R. xmFa oawe.e.e.~ww..»we..,w.. r~n, 4~ 199'~ paa~+~~.~w +q~~ arra+navr~wd~aveMa~.e . Eawrotov~.v~ee.w.d.a ,uwr~ww~wt.~nwma.+••aarr.w ~MI~ ea,..aw,aRar,oraew c~raan+. , mm.nonwa,b.aewtd~a+~vKSa '~ii/Tb BASE Mou14raIN sPoRY~ a.,.,~...,~ w.~....~~.: HOMOKCx3CAftsU4D~NQ ' p.09afM1 `M~~~CabWO~t ~ .aw~M~M A3 PkRiMlOTASavC.b40G%9C fsN47W16~l~ . ' .Pqkf Vk0.lnlf.fOEFWAtF1l1%6 . . . .y~ snwui;t~inss . vu4CO1.C~tCO w•~ a ~ ~~i ~ ~ --t llECN,WICAt u o.evwswt {{r~wwnwucauiw ~ ~rraaa t# f~-w,cu.meeurv+w M J flUEF110M j 3 Ky ~Low ~ $KYBTORA08 ElE6 ~ WC o . ~ . ~ pl U! Ur ~ ~ !%O'FA/b60tt1MNS MIIt MEN ~ K.XJW ~ EL.E/R70REQUIP~tEltT O O 814HENTAL3l1QP 1 4 - - nowaeo~rc¢wwoes t . 1 f ~t , { 8k5EMENF LEYEL PLAM M++w ~ ~ ~ YYAi.4 STREEt IEVHL PLAM ~ E ~ ab`~KE~ 6.149b BASE MQUNtA1hF 8PQR7S "c»+a:KOwwcsulcwo v.o.aeat2ft vy.emerxms+esa EA MTCFCott44C.Kt?GKdt v.uc.VeU4efwaFf'a WAtlSilllR kYy,Cq,pryApQ P . NO FRT1N8 BIEYAFOR 04M NOOM BLEYATOR G~t AFRIlIQ noe mow eEtow nvrrmwr up saa" PA} ~ . w # ~ # ~C #F iucwo RETAIk BAtES Fk.00R SBCQND LEYBl, RETAIL gALFg F4WR wxttxaeexgypvea ` j f ' ~ - ~ - ' uaWwicen -J._ e'Ntawo~ea`ve 9u.comr PLkMER w~u.me[~c+'ovm~ EATON Pl.AZA LEYE6 PLAN ur.ra,2 UFP£R EEVEL P4AN ~nqo- sas~ rac~utrsasx sroars r/ena~Kaawfasua.aMa v:¢ea:~nn v+r~ex~:+..msxese a.n».ae Q r~ur+MtaTatae,.xcexw :ier.am+.resscs s..uawxe-rsn . : - Wuc.vKUCerp~sr~ft~Nn ~WAeLt.OLO~ktW . . .trwn . d ~ ~ ~ ~ - -r flIWE . . ~{,nwne `YtL• tH'•3' ----3'tlICC0 D~UCfO u-~- _~_------WC)OOF.tlCIR --M~NOtlJ N lHMJP4!! PYlE0.7RY16 YlOODiklCLt - { 7 1 ; ~ - Y[iN.CLfOW1N001Y YERi1GLYA0D LpMC ' ` j --wr0aw4wbr'lSppt } peruaAavnNwoW - " [Lttrauz' 14 y~ AMMq NWOINY i i seueca *rjCM sT0kffCA" reru.iuua ~ uror~r4Ar~uve~.A~ ultptKAtA.LLYli - t' stdetM ~IL iG1'J^-~ }tG illY!llCtlt ~ ~ \~+•----Si0t1EYEN!!1t 0 VoTool- ffl4VE . ~ ~ ~ ~ VkAl1iEN ~ ~ f. F1lNii0RADE t WA4L3TREfTtfVE~.Ar_; t EL'~~`11#` ~1' -T!L'N'd1T ~ y ~ . . ! 9JtlSittl0fWN6AT101t +r L ~ ~ I ~ gASEYFNS{.E!(Et„o- k4YE~K~1/TtMI 1a'" ~ ~ ~ WEST 6LEYAFIQN v.~.r4~ , a l I SOUTN ELEYATtON rmra k t ~v5~er •1~~-wa: Fmv'<.,4-C 32'4~°S BRSE MOUNTAIN SIiOR7S o.~'°«~•.r'...,~tw ~,+,w.+F..~w WaKaiucvstiuanen+ >a.e~xm ~n+.cnoram6165e ax«x-+we }AIfTGf4CTt~fRKWKb Fde41d-~Yb+SON Fu4t4alMSI2 pq~: ~A6 YMYKt1:dCFp19TlllN4. . xnwau,s+omtr vAx.eoi,oit.co p~ _ . - /''~y IWOE ~ e7ucco-------..•-._._.__ „ ' ~wwattla wcaoFtaw ~ i = ~ t ~ _ vlllncAtMYloAtaN/q f ; [ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~ : k ~ ~ ~ " i y~ j i ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ , wcaoFUCN wu.4euuwmoow ~ r . . ~ ~ urrencetur. Y vaoonur sTUCCO r I ~~~y f WOODiNY f~E'G411lLJI6 y,, . Y10NE W I ~.~YY~A.~.~_~~_..~~~ Et70N1(A2k({~VEL~ i ~ ' YCIdMG9~UM1 L(111 i E=tINOStAmi l7oN[YE~I~4---~-i ~ ~ I t EasiNOtfNC! EplTW6FBlGL ~ ' ~ EIW211bROC%rirlt ,y~WALLITIIFET ~ ' ~ 1 , r r ~~et:.,•.,,•'~- -~-~~--------a*- nFi- +i MORTH EC.EYAT{ON iutira EAS7 EtE1lATfON vr.r.vJ, s~vtssa .~.qro FkVY.ISft. 7.bk/M 9ASEMOUNTaIN4p.s7RFS o~~u~ ~rerN.'rrtew MONO xaxacueaurt,nra P.a.eoxrxx waewa«ws"se. a»r+aw rArtoswns.aaeeoeKx r.ueaao-s~o-ssos sa»wmaun. va.v~uoerwarPauVa v~ot~a rnwusarn~r vrA,zctpltAbb a+.t d m ~ ~ Greg Moffet said rather than shrubs for landscaping, he would 1ike to see a commitmen# to ffowers, as shrubs die with people sitting on them. ~ d`t.~c,osion Issue #3 George Ruther asked if the Pec wanted ta see a color board, The PEC did not want to see a calor board. 7. A request for a worksession to discuss the proposed Major CC1 Exterior Alteration to ~ the Nong Kang Cafe Buiiding, iocated at 227 Wail ScreeULot B & C, Block 5C, Vai! V'i{lage 1 st Filing. Applicant; ASI Vail Land Holding, L.L,C,, represented by Kathy Langenwalter Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of #he s#aff inemo. Kathy Langenwalter explained the model and said the appiicant was using the same footprint that the Nong Kong used, just chariging the entrance. She said the edge of buifding was .7` over the property {ine an one side and .7' under the property line on the other side. Greg Moffet disclosed far the record that he saw no confRct, but Base Mountain Sports was a customer of his. Ga1en Aasland disclosed for the record that Wali Street was a customer af his. Rick Rosen, legal counsel for the Hong Kong, stated that during the origina( construction, the ~ surveyor missed by .7 and shifted the building aver .7' as you look towards the Lodge property. He sa'td in 1986, when it came up fior a redevelopment the Town acquiesced tv the continuation of that encroaehment and he feSt it had been approved by si{ence. John Schofield said he wau(d like to see the discrepancy aleaned up for the new owners and suggested trading some land. Greg Amsden suggested an even exchange. Rick Rosen showed the 1LC from 1986. Gaien Aas4and suggested adding more square footage over Tawn space. Diane GQlden was in favor nf cleaning up the problem. Greg Moffet strongly recommended trading .7' for X. Rick Rosen stated thai as the building stands today, there was a window apening an the west wall and an agreement that ailowed for tne openings in the event that the Lodge properties did a redevelopment. Planning and Envuonmental Commission ~ Minutes ~ ~ March 23, 1998 . a • Kathy Langenwalter said her ctient 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 shauld address the Fire Department concerns. Galen Aasiand said the building needed significant giass an the east side ar tempered ceramic. Ne did not wan# the stucco walls the way it was now on either the east or west side. He suggested landscaping or glass an the west. Rick Rosen said VA owned the property that Galen was asking to be tandscaped. He saitl there was already an agreement with the Town of Vail and Lodge Properties that stated the applicant could pull out the windaws. He said that this building was touehing the property boundaries on a(14 sides. Ga(en Aasland said the PEC wasn't driven by cost, but by guidelines. _ Rick Rosen said there was an access easement o# 20' and that VA granted and reserved the easements and maintains the rights to those easements. He said that NKC, LMT Partnership, the Town of Vail and Jerry A. Schmidt were #he 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 fiire code dictated where the apenings in the wall couid be and within 5' af property line. He said that was why the agreement came up. Diane Galden said the west wali needed landscaping. ~ John Schnfield said the two issues were the architecture and the fire code arrd with a 20' easement, the Town has agreed to opt for more giass. Greg Amsden had no camments. Ernie Feanivail, an owner, stated that it behooved us to have windows on the ground level because the type of use was retail. Greg Moffe# said ta put a window in. Ka#hy L.angenwalter explained the access. George Ruther said the applicant was required ta put up a financiai bond far Earl Eaton Plaza, as the walls and landseaping eould be ruirred and destrayed by heavy equipment and this might be an opportunity for upgrades. Kathy Langenwalter said it was not prudent to irnprove an area that was being redesigned. Greg Mdffet suggested Kathy talk to staff regarding the band. Galen Aasland said he „vanted more glass on the east side, Rick Rosen commented an the letter attached to the merno and said that the applican# had been in contact with him. ~ Planning and Envuanmental Commission Minntes March 23,1998 11. ~ ~ c~ - - ~ . . ~ 1 1 ~ 1 ~ l ~ SET 1- i /2' ALUMiN4UM CAP IN CoNCRETE t L.S. rto. 30091 1 sEr 1-1 /2" ALuMiNu ~ SjEpS ~ CAP 1N CqNCRE7 ~ ~ L.S. No. 30091 ~ -NGE (TYP.) 4 5, Q 2UE POINT d '°an 13 CAtJT. o BEGINNING 21.9 SET 1-1 j2" ALUMfNt1M ~ CAP !N G4NGREfE tv L.S. No, 30091 (BOOK 382i PAGE 942) ~ 0. 038 ACRES 36.00' 227 WALL S1'REET ~ ~ 44.00' 4 2. QC}' . OvTUNE oF $uILt~Ir~c 4. C?~' 3.° FRAME & GIASS t+ 6.00' ovFaHANc '-s 8.4 40.00' ,V~ 3.' sEr ~5 REea 1-1 1~LUh~ L.S. ~lo. 300t PATi4 i20CK WAU. (TYP.) SE? #5 REBAR W41'H ~ 1-1/2" At.uMINIUM cAP ~ L.S. No. 50091 LoT 1, A RPsUBDIT PAR T Q.F Lt1 T c, .B., . .>r: e .~r r.? ~n~ rt ~ ~ MEMORANDUM ~ TO; Planning and Enviranmentai Commission FROM: Community Development Department DR"TE: April 13, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a Major CCI Exterior Alteration and a site caverage variance, ta allow for a remodel and expansion #o the Slifer Building, located at 230 Bridge StreeULot B, Vail Village lst Filing. Applican#: Siifer Designs, represented by Jim Buckner Planner: Gearge Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The app[icant, Slifer Designs, represented by Jim Buckner, is requesting a Major CC1 Ex#eriar Aiteration and a si#e coverage variance, to allaw for a remodel and expansion to #he Slifer Building, located at 230 Bridge Street. The appGcant is prnpos'rng to add approxima#ely 960 sq. ft. o# new retail floar area to the lower 1eve1 of the existing building, ta remove a total of 9 sq. ft. af real estate office flaor area from the main level (Bridge Street) of the building, and to add 135 sq. ~ ft. of new office floor area to the upper level of the building. The praposed addi#ions increase #he total site coverage by 1 03 sq. ft. far a total of 3,129 sq. ft (97.1 There shal( be no net increase in real estate office square faotage on the main level (lst floor) of the building. The major exterior alteratian is intended ta improve the Bridge Street facade and ta improve the customer access into the building. Customer access will be impraved by eliminating the exteriar stairs and praviding an at-grade entrance ta the building. The existing exterior stairs will be internalized into the building. The applicant believes the proposed major exterior al#eration will significantly improve the building #acade and the Bridge Street streetscape, as 12.5 sq. ft. of additional fandscaping is ta be added alang the west side of the building. To further improve the appearance af the buiiding, the applicant is proposing to reptace the existing horizontal wood siding with stone veneer, stucca, rough sawn wooden beams and braces, and a 5112 s(oping roof. The Siifer Building is located in the Commeraial Core 1 Zone District. According to Section 12-78-15 af the Municipal Code, the maximum allawable si#e coverage is 80°l0. The existing building's site caverage is 93.9°/fl. According ta the applicant°s propasal, site coverage would increase to 97.1 °!o. Therefore, in order to allow for fhe construction of the additional 103 sq. ft. of site coverage, a site coverage variance of 3.2% needs to be approved by the Planning and Environmenfial Cammission. ~ 1 ~ TO}YNOFYAIL ~ Accarding to Section 12-78-7, Exterior Alterations or Madifications, of the Municipal Code, "the canstruction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or ~ removes any enclosed fioor area, the al#eratian of any existing building whPch modifiesexterior roof lirres, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or modification of an existing outdoor dining deck, shaH be subject #o review by the Planning and Environmental Commission.," According to the applicant's propasal, #he applicant wilf be altering an existing bailding by adding and removing enciosed floor area and modifying the exterior roof lines. Therefore, in order ta allow for the propased alterations, a major exterior alteratian must be approved by the Planning and Environmental Gommission. A copy of the plans have been attached far reference. II. BAGKGRC?UND Gln February 24, 1992, the Planning and Environmen#aI Commission approved a major exterior alteration and a site caverage variance request for the Slifer Building. The 1992 proposal added approximately 57 sq. ft. of sifie coverage to the Sl?fer Bui#ding, in arder to alfow for #he constructian of appraximately 53 sq. ft. of additional firs# floor retail area, and' 548 $q. ft. of new office space an the second f(oor of the building, above the retail space. The 1992 site coverage variance approval aIlowed the applicant fio increase the existing site coverage by 1.8°la, from 92.1% ta 93,9°!0. The Planning Commission approved the applicant's sits coverage variance ~ request, finding that #he proposal was in compliance with the Variance Criteria and Findings prescribed in the Municipal Code. The PEC alsa faund that the strict fiteral interpretation or enforcement of the site coverage regulation would result in a practicai difficul#y, as the site coverage regulation is inconsistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Gonsiderations. On Nfarch 4, 1998, the applicant's representative met with the Design Reuiew Board for a conceptual review of the proposed major exterior al#eratian. The design Review Board itienti#ied the following design issues, which #hey believed #he appiicant needed to reflect on the final plans: 1. Avoid a straight line piane along Bridge S#reet by intrQducing more articulafian and recess into the design. 2. The pilasters need to be removed or pulled away from the glass and stane, to avoid the appearance of simply be'rng "tacked" on to the building. 3. The use of stone, stucco and wood is attractive. 4. The curren# design appears ta "busy and cutesy." 5. A revised west building elevation needs to be provided tha# includes the existing west elevation of Russell's. ~ 2 On March 23, 9998, the applicant's representative met with the Planning and Environmental Commission fnr a worksessian to discuss the proposaL in preparation for that meeting, the staff ~ identified the foliowing issues for discussion: I . A possible sife coverage variance and building height variance. 2. The propased building facade and Bridge Street sfreetscape. 3. The completeness af the application. The Planning and Environmental Commission indicated they generaNy liked the praposed' impravements and agreed with the proposed development review process. However, the Planning and Errviranmental Cammission did recamrr?end that the applicant provide additional articulation in the design of the Bridge Street facade, particu(arly on the main level of the building. The Commission #urther recommended thaf the applicant propose improvements to the back side of the buiiding to clean up and improve the building's overall appearance. Lastiy, the Planning and Environmental Commissian recommended the applicant remove the existing trash facility behind the buiiding. Since aur last meeting, staff has researched the trash facility and discovered tha# the Town of Vail and the applicant entered into an easement agreement e$tablishing the Bridge Street Trash Facility Association. Therefore, the facility is permitted to remain. Hawever, if the Planning and Environmen#al Cflmmission believes that the maintenance and upkeep of the facility is insufficient, s#aff would recammend that the Planning and Environmental Commission require the applicant ta make all necessary improvements as ~ part af the final motion. A copy of the draf# minutes from the March 23 meeting has been attached far reference. 111. ZONING ANALYSIS The following analysis summarizes the relevant zoning statisties for this request; k.egal: Lot B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Zoning: Commercial Core I (CC1) Lot Area: 3,223 sq. ft. flr 0.074 acres Development Standards: Allowable Existm Proposed Site Coverage: 2,578 sq. fE. 3,026 sq. ft. 3,129 sq. ft. or 88% or 93.9°1o ar 97,9°to ~ 3 Landscaping: No net reduction 39 sq. ft. + 1 potted 51.5 sq. ft. piant. (softscape) (+12.5 sq. ft.) ~ Building Height: 40°fo 33' - 43' 0% 33' - 43' NIC 60°l0 33" or less 100% 33' or less Parking: per Section per 5ection +1.03 spaces 12-10-10 12-10-10 (office +0.496) (retail +0.533) IV, MAJt}R EXTERIOR ALTERATION GRITERIA A. Comaiiance with the Commercial Core i Zone District Purpose Statement Aceording to the Official TQwn of Vail Zoning Map, the applicant's praperty is focated in #he Commercial Core 1 Zone District (CC1). Pursuant to Section 12-78-1 of the Municipal Code, the purpose of the CC1 Zane District is intended to, "provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commerciat Area, with its mixture of lodges and comrnercial establishments in a predominantly pedestr'ran environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to fihe permitted types of buildings and uses. ?he district regulations in accordance with the Vail Vil(age Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site ~ development standards that are intended to ensure fihe maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangemen#s of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and archi#ectural qualities that distinguish the Village.° Staff Response: Staff beHeves thaf the proposed improvements are in eompliance with the intent of the purpose sec#'ron of the Cammercial Core I Zane district. B. Compliance with fihe Urban Design Guide Plan for Vai! Ullage Staff Res.ponse: There are no specifiic sub-area concepts in the Urban Design Guide Plan for Vail Village relevant #n this proposal. C. Compliance with the Urban Design Considerations 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 inta two major categories: Urban Design ~ 4 Cansiderations, and ArchitecturetLandscape Considerations. The following design ~ eonsiderations are criticai elements of the Vail Viliage Urban Design Guide Plan and provide the criteria to evaluate new proposals: Urban Desian Considerations The Vail Village Urban Design Considerations are primarily the purview of the Ptanning and Environmental Cammission. 9. Pedestrianization: The praposed major exterior alteratian will have no negative impact an the pedestrian circula#ian within Vail Village. The praposed addition wiA add visual irmterest ta Bridge Street and improve custamer access into the Slifer Building. - 2. Vehiauiar Penetration: Vehicular penetration and circulation will remain unchanged, as a resul# of this proposaL 3. Streetscape Framework: Streetscape framework identifies two alternatiues far improving the ~ pedestrian experience in the Village. These include the development of open space, including landscaping alang pedestrian routes, and the infill development of commercial storefronts along pedestrian rautes. Landscaping softens the building edges and provides a colorful accent, while commercial fifrll provides additional s#reet-level activity and visualinterest for pedestrians. Upon review of the applicant's propasal, staff believes that the major exterior a(teration will contribute positively to the overall pedestrian experience alang Bridge S#reet. Staff #eels the proposed facade improvements, the increase in (andscaping, the new brick pavers and the new display windaw will enhance the ouerall appearance af the ViAage. 4. Street Enclosure: The purpose of this tlesign consideration is to ensure that a comfortable relationship betwesn the width af the street, and the height ofi the building, is main#ained. The propased addition will result in a slight decrease in the width of the street at the second level of the building only, and a slight increase in the overall height o# the building's Bridge Street facade. Currently, Bridge Street is appraximately 25 feet wide in fron# of the Slifer Bui{ding. Staff believes that a comfiartabfe relationship will be maintained between the width o# the street, and the height ofi the building, upon the completion of the proposed ma}or exterior alteration. ~ 5 5. Street Edge: The design considerations encourage that a strong, ye# irregular street ~ edge be created along pedestrian streets. An irregular street edge brings variety and visual interest to the pedestrian experience. ln response to the concerns expressed by the Planning and Environmental Commissian during the worksession meeting, the applicant has made minor revisions #o the plans and introduced greater articufati4n to the 8ridge Stree# facade. The greater articulation prflvides increased opportanities for pedestrians ta stop and window shop in #ront af #he Slifer Building without impeding pedes#rian flow. Staf# beiieves the irreguiar building line of #he praposed major exterior altera#ion adds visual interest and will have no negative impacts on the Bridge Street street edge. 6. Building Height: The gable roof farm aver the re#ail space on the south end af the building will remain unchanged. However, the applicant is proposing to alter the existing rnof fnrm over the real estate office portion of the building. CurrentlY, the roof form over the real es#ate office is a shed raaf sloping to the sou#h. The applicant is proposing to construct a new gable roof with a 5/12 pitch over the real estate office. The main ridge of the gable will result in an increase in building height of approxima#ely three feet Even after the increase in building height, 100°Jo of the buildingroof areawill still be under 33 feet in height. The building height limi#ation in the ~ Commercial Core 1 Zone District permits up to 40°fo af the raof area to be 33 feet to 43 feet, and 60°/u af the roof area #o be 33 feet or less in height. Staff believes the proposed building height is appropriate fior this site and does not believe the proposal will have any negative impacts an the area. 7. Views and Focal Points: The proposed expansion does not affect any adopted ar proposed Town of Vail view corridors, nor does i# negatively impact any facal points in the Village. 8. Service and delivery: The prapased major exterior alteration will not negatively impac# current service and delivery patterns. _ ArchitecturallLandscaae Considerations The Architec#ural/Landscape Cansiderations are reviewed primarily by the Design Review Board. ~ 6 1. Raafs ~ Staff believes that the change in roof form of the Slifer Building will have positive impacts on the appearance of the Bridge Street facade. Due to the height af the rnof, the roof material is not visible fram stree#-1evei. 2. Facades Staff beiieves that the proposed changes to the Bridge Street facade wi11 enhance the visuai interest of the building anr( add variety #o #he pedestrian experience along Bridge Street. The removal of the dated vertical wood siding and the application of stone, stucco and rough sawn wood beams and braces furthers the buiiding's compiiance with the Urban Design Considerations for Vail Village. Staff furfher believes that the applicant should improve the east side (back) of the building. Currently, the east side of the building appears neglec#ed and in need of maintenance and upkeep. Potential improvements migh# include a fresh coat of paint, sidewalk repairs, an electric meter enclosure and landscaping. 3. Batcanies A smal(, 40 square faot balcony will be constructed on the second level of the building. The new balcony replaces an exis#ing 132 square foot ~ balcony. Approxima#ely 92 square feet of the existing ba(cony is being converted to in#erior affice space. Staff believes that the area of the balcony that is ta remain is large enough in size tQ pravide adequate re(ief and visual interest ta the building. 4. Decks and Patios Na decks or patios are proposed. 5. Accent Etements To provide additianal accent and visual interest to the building, the applicant is prnposing to hang flower boxes from the building. The new flower boxes will be hung from the second story balcony and below the stairway windaw, between the first and second floors. 6. Landscape Eiements There is currently very little land$caping on the applicant's property. To increase the amount of landscaping, the appiicant is propasing #o construct 12 1/2 square feet of additional landscaped area along Bridge Stree#. The new landscaped area will be accommodated in two planters ~ 7 constructed along the front of the buiiding. The landscaping in the planters will help ta add seasonal color to the streetscape. ~ StafF Res,ponse: Staff believes the proposal is in complianae with the Urban Design Considerations far Vaii Village. D. Compliance with #he Vail Land Use Plan The following goais of the Vail Land Use Plan are appFicabie to this proposed alteration: 1.9 Vai1 should continue to grow in a contrailed environmen#, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve bo#h #he visi#or and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the oid Village core should be carried into new development in the Village core through continued implementatian of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.12 Vail should accommadate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas), io 3.4 Commercial growth shou(d be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both loca1 and visitor needs, Staff Response. Stafif beHeves tha# this proposal is consistent with the Vail Land Use P4an. E. Compliance wi#h the Vail Villag,e Master Plan Gaals The Vail Village Nlaster Plan is in#ended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies far ctiordinating deve{opmertt by the public and private sectors in Vail Vil[age and in implementing community goals for public improvements. Further, the Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide ta the staff, review boards and Tawn CounciM in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances ta deal writh the such development. Cnntained within the Vail Village 1Vlaster Pfan are gvals for develnpment in Vail Village. The goals are summarized in six major goal statements. The gaaf s#atements are designed to establish a framework, or direction, far the future grow#h of the Viiiage. A series of objectives outFine specific s#eps toward achieving each stated goaL Policy statements have been developed to guide #he 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 improverrrent project$. 8 ~ Goal #'I Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserrring the unique architectural scale of the Village in arder ta sus#ain its sense of community and identi#y. 1.2 C3bjective: Encourage the upgrading and redeveloprnent of residential and commercia( facilities. 1.3 fJbjective: Enhance new deveiopment and redevelopment through public improvements done by private deveiopers working in caoperation with the Tawn. 1.3,1 Pollcv: Public improvements shail be developed wT#h the participation af the private sector working with the Town. - Goal #Z To faster a strang tourist industry and promote year-raund economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whofie. 2.1 Ob'eca tive: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub- areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is campa#ible wi#h these established land use pa#terns. 2.2 4b'ec,~ tive: F2ecognize the "historic" cammerciai core as the main ~ activity center of the Village. 2.2.1 Pfllicv: The design criteria in the Vail Village design Guide Plan shaN be the primary guiding dncurnent to preserve the existing architectural scale and charac#er of the core area of Vail Village. 2.4 Obaective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commerciai activity where compatible with existing Iand uses. 2.4.1 Policv: Commercial infill development, consistent with estabiished horiznntal zoning regulations shall be encouraged #a provide activity generators, accessible green spaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Viliage. 2.5 Objective: Encnurage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing ladging and commercial facilities to bet#er serve the needs of aur guests. io 9 2.5.2 Po(icv: The Tawn will use the maximumfilexibili#y possible in the interpretation of buiiding and fire codes in ~ order to facilitate building renovations withou# compromising life, heaith and safety considerations. Goa! #3 To recognize as atop priority the enhancement of the walking exper,ience throughout the Village. 3.1 Objective: Physical#y imprave the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policv: Private development projects shali incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, ligh#ing and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. - 3.1.3 Policv: Flawers, trees, water features and other landscaping shall be encauraged thraughout the Tawn in locations adjacent ta, or visible from, public areas. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvemen# o# the vital operationai elements of the Village. 6.2 Objective: Provide for the safe and efficient funetions of fire, police ~ and public utilities within #he context of an aestheticatly pleasing resort setting. 6,2.2 Polipv: Minor improvemen#s (landscaping, deCOrative paving, open dining decks, etc.), may be permi#ted on Town of Vailland or right-of-way (with review and approval by the Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission when applicable) provided thaf Town operatians 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 aff$et impacts on Town services. Sta Response- Staff befieves the proposal helps to obtain the goals and abjectives of the Vai1 Village Master Plan. 10 ~ ~ V. GRITERIA AND FFNDINGS FOR A VARlANCE REQUEST Upon review of Section 12-17-6, Variance Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approvai of the reguested site coverage variance. The recommendation far approval is based on #he faflflwing factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing crr potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Ta the north, sauth, east and west of the Slifer Building are restaurant, retail, eommercial, residentiai and office uses. To the wesf, dirdctly acrossBridge Street, is the Covered Bridge Building and the Gasthaf Gramshammer Ladge, which contain a mixture af retail, restaurant and Iodging uses. To the south of the Slifer Builc[ing is the Clock Tower Building, which contains the C)re House Restaurant and the Gorsuch retail space. To the north of the Slifer Building is the Gallery Building, which contains RusselPs Restaurant and Nick's. To fhe east of the Slifer Building are the Vail Row Hauses. Staff be(ieves the proposed site coverage variance request of ~ approximately 3.2°l0, in conjunction with the prvpased major exterior alteratian, wauld not negatively impact other potential or existing uses in structures in the vicinity of the Slifer Building. In fact, staff believes the variance, if approved, would create a more enjoyable pedestrian enviranment and would enhanee #he visual interest of lawer Bridge S#reet. Approximately 50°l0 of the additional 103 sq. ft. of site coverage will be added below grade in the lower level retail space. 2. The degree to which relieF from the strict and literal interpretatian and enforcement of a specified regufation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity af treatment amang sites in the vicinity or to attain the abjectives of this titte withou# grant of special privilege. Staff believes that approval of the requested site coverage variance wauld not be a grant of special privilege. Staff believes the variance o# 103 sq. ft. or 3.2°/8 is appropriafe, as the praposed addition brings the Slifer Building inta greater compliance with the Urban Design Considera#ions for Vail Vil(age'than the existing structure did, and that no nega#ive impacts are associa#ed with the propasal. Compliance with the Urban Design. Considerations is an important goal for rsdevelopment in the Village. Additionally, the previausly approved proposa! (1992), which required a site caverage variance of 1.8%, u#ilized a similar review process. For these reasons, we believe a sligh# departure from the Cornmercial Core 1 site coverage regulation is warranfied. ~ 11 3. The effect of the requested rrariance on light and air, distribution of papulation, transportatian and traffic facilities, public facili#ies and ~ utilities, and public sa#ety. The requested uariance wili have littie, ar no impact, an the above describ'ed cri#eria. B. The Pianning and Environmental Cammissiorr sha11 make the foilowina findings before grantina a variance: That the gran#ing of #he variance wi11 not constitute a grant af special privilege inconsistent wi#h the limita#ions an other properties classified in the same district. ' 2. That the granting of the variance wiil not be detrimental to the public health, safe#y or we(fare, or materially injurious to properties or improvemen#s in the vicini#y. 3. Thaf the variance is warranted for one or mare of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation vr enforcement of #he specified regulation would result in practicai difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Title. b. There are exceptians ar extraordinary circums#ances or eonditions ~ applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other proper#ies in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement af the specified regula#ion would deprive fhe applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properEies in the same district. Pursuant to Secfion 12-78-15 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, site coverage is limited in the Commercial Core 1 Zone District to 80% of the buildable area of a lot. The current site coverage is approximately 93.9% and is in accardance with a site caverage variance approved by the Planning and Environmental Cammission irr 1992. The applicant's plans indicate that there will be a proposed increase in overa(1 site caverage. In order for the applicant to increase the site coverage, a variance must be approved by the Planning and Environmental Cammission, VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community aevelapment aepartment recommends appraval of the applicant's reguest #or a major CC1 exterior alteration and a site cnverage variance to the Slifer Building, to allow fior a remodel and expansion ta the existing building, located at 230 Bridge StreetlLot B, Vail Village 12 ~ 1 st Filing. The recommendation for approval is based upon the staffi's review of the major ~ exterior alteration criteria and site coverage criteria outlined in Sections IV. and V of this memorandum. IVlajor Exteriar Aiteration Should the Planning and Environmental Commission ehoose to approve the majar ex#erior alteration request, staff wouid recomrnend the fallawing findings be made: 1. That there are rro sub-area concepts which relate directiy to this redevelopment proposal, and therefiore, the redevelapment proposat is in campliance wi#h the Urban Design Guide Plan for Vai1Viliage. 2. That the redevelopment proposa( is in compliance with the UrbanDesign Considerations for Vail Viilage. - 3, That the redevelopment proposal helps to achieve the goals of the Vail Land Use Plan, and therefare, the proposal is in compliance with the Vai1 Village Master Plan Goais. 4. Tha# the redevelopment proposa) is in compliance with the goals prescribed within the Vail Village Master Plan. 5. That the redevelopment proposal is in compliance with the purpose ~ statement for the Cammercial Core I Zone Distric#. Site Goverage Varianae Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the site coverage variance request, staff wouid recommend the following findings be made: 1. That the granting of the site coverage variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on o#her properties located in the Cammercia( Core 1 Zone District. 2. That the granting of the site coverage variance will not be detrimental fo the public health, safety ar welfiare, or materially injurious to properties or impravements in the viGinity of the Slifer Building. 3. That the s#rict literaf interpretation or enfarcement of the si#e coverage regulation would resulf in peactical difficulty inconsistent with the development objectives and goals of the Municipal Cade, the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Consideratians. ~ f \everyonelpec\nemosl98\basem#.323 13 Shouid the Planning and Environmental Cammissian choose to grant an approval of fhe requested major exterior aiteration and site coverage variance requests, staff wou)d ~ recammend #hat the Commission make the following canditions part of the approval; 1. That the applicant pay inta the Town of Vail Parking Fund to meet the requirement of the additional parking demand resulting from the redevelopment propasal, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The exact dollar figure shall be determined by #he Town of Vail at the time of building permit application, based upon the parking pay-in-lieu fee at the time and the configuration of #he interior floor space. 2. That the owner of the properky in questian be respansible for the upkeep and maintenance of the plan#ers and landscaping, as identified on the approved development plan dated Aprif 13, 1998. 3. That the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Cammissian approve the site caverage varianee request of 3.28/o to aiiaw for the maximum si#e coverage to be 97.1 °lo. ~ f:\eveiyonelpeclmemosl98\basemt413 14 ~ S1iferesii Yutruutf:~nr r.a ~oz esa ~mv, ~aruum uua , ' tnarm-emo _ ru: (amt m-am .ciun:u~ce+smx.a~ un: . ~ ~ - . ~ ~ ' - - mosrrr f I ( ~ ~ ~ f f f i I I I ( I ~ II xos~ ~ ~ C} KYI nlATML. AREN I~ :FMI` IFV M'' ~ pPRO 5Et? L.OWER LEYEL PL,+hN E)L=OaIN~R LEYEL DEMOLITIC3~i PLAi~ r,~^.,.. ~ WOR'f7i ~ A1.V1 ' mV6a ItM PUNS ~ * ~ ~ ~ 1}Cglt TYL11LLiT/44PC1 I.0.l6"2l610 ' L'NM,MaMCO~IGEp ~b"N}YM~Y46 IICIfMI@FltEY t~urt:lpCN~3Flrakax r~wR Wt N/D/~F ]~tltlCtaM Mp~!'N FR>]I6NT ttt(Stt Fb~MeTW6MlAe MP - ~ O E L4 ~ :;d _ ~?~..ic ~ mwt I ~ ~ ~ ~ . w ~ rn , t~ 0 0 0 O I ~ .b. .M.. o~ /-,NPRGPQS~i~ MAIN E.Er/EL PL~4N L~l. t7EMOLOT10t~ PLAt~ wMTH AI,Q2 Y.UN EBkEt. PtkN3 ~ E?~DC31i r.p.,a,.r/aseo ra ws~ ~rox.mwuoxtceo " , taiwoicn-eaa ' 21LLO:,IK'9l57L'61L[UY ' . . . ~kMl! MM YNYl~'pc ~ " i~/lyP~ ~0t1fi1LY ~ Wtfw LLPDIYIBYpr~,y M/Yj~ 1'tC/Ait 0lTIR ornca CI~MR~ ~ , ~ 0l11G/ OIl~'t ~ al'NJ C~ OF",r ~ OMOR I NlMC~ ~ ~ ClI~Iq CIltl ~ ~ ~ ~ 0"4= ClRiGI 'llCi ^ p . ~ 0lTlq ~y L~} O ~ q C!!K~ ~ ~ ~ ~ RJ1R. ~ con ~ 0~f.1C I CCK RlIQ r NOiER•u~ tEMpTN.EAR~A IY3Y 9w 10~--N fl~d ~ µr A^ V I~~rF UPPER LEVEL NEY't PL,4K ~U~„PP~R tEVEl. flEMOL4TfON PLAN ~ NOKrH . A1.03 URPSktEYA. PIANS ! ~ ~ ~ x aOWD X p ~ ei~aa 1 ~ ~ DCsIl ` I~iMUN6 lSP.X}?X\ ~ ~ wati ~uoonam ORIP{Jt~'. D{Sq'J'~ . ~e,~,y ea ' _ . F (PM~f10-8'~ ~x 7M sl, h '~o^. evuc:ucs.murtnwe r ~ rf~ 9TOPM rwB"0i MH.,,,,, l„ ' E176E OF ~l P`SPHALT f'!F y h'~ \ ` .y ,yu(n eaom ~ jFFtF~i ~ (ll~"-ROGP U!L ,y bl 6.0 PEAK 23 r ru/sa. E f,if 4 'S4 , r x y 8Cqt7.& ? SNt'GRN FLAS IZRdF ~ r ~~J•~~ J ` EC>-+ ,r ? F f r J E~f ~ y~ 51842 SPOT EL f ' ~t ~ ~ • ? Rl30F t ~`.D~TAD t~ ~ M ~ ROOF BREAK cn F FLAT ROOF (X! Rf70P @fLAK ~ t ~ PE~.K 61Bt.i ~~/~~y `'•.,X 181.4 ~+y 8f84.4 pt86.b R40F 6REAK V SPOT EL j ORAIN RG?OF on 07 d1.4 ~ :1814 ~ ROOF 9POT EL ~t. L7FiAlN BUILP4,~!(.+ ~ I-~-•~_ - _ _ ~ QVERt+ANC~i` f" ROOF ! - _ _ - y SPCiT EL 8184.5 it4 / . ~ _ ~f ~ ' ' ' ' f I ! f aRE House rzooF urre / e~ve oF 8182.5 A5PHALT f200F BI3EA .--Z Rt70P fNTERX 8184.6 8184.6 ORE HQUSE ROOF LtNE ~ s~am mmrt ~MxE~x,Srt«v~ rzoaF P~.Ax ~ A1.04A a ~r not eUN e~ea / x x Slifer~"Desi€ bF'36.7 raeoi~wa % . +ia. mwwno IEao 81'JM9 fmi ~-sm r t.roProFoze-ean g vMumesaumv STGRM 9F3"Hi EDGE OF ASPHALt YR MI11~114! / / 1 14a/d / a A~ ~mam ~ ai 6.0 Penw 2r3 ~ ai4aa ~ sw ar~ FLar KcooF 61BJ~bX , 61 i y 81842 SPOT L W ROOF 1`~ t rsooF erzEArc ~ erao.g a ~ ,FLAT ROQP ROOF BRE,4K pEqK 8181.1 rY '•..X IBI.4 ~ 8l84.4 I a s4a 8186b R pfiF BREAK 5P[3T EL ~ ~ 4.4 DRAIN RCtOF ~ ~ry • ~ ~ CV ~ ROOF SP6T EL 8181.4 DRAIN EBUILVIN& y - ROOF ~ OVERHANC~ W SPpF EI. 8184.5 urar ~v . ~ OFRE 6162'0 8(0 .StlUSE ROOP LINE _ - " - - f/ _ _ EpGE OR ASPHALT . ROOF F200F BREA*- ' 'oNiEwc 804.b, $184.6 ORE HOUSE ROOF LtNE i I I I ' N~RR tM'mR ~ROPQSED Raor- PLAH w A1.04B NMTH PRtlP05&D kUOP PtAN e- i P ~ ~ ~ ~ Slifer'Desig FA fl0iS3{C 'ISCtlI/Ik108tl1A20 (Yttl11R~•ITLI fAC (fA~ Oxl-R20 ~ e yua:: urn.surecmx u ROM51ktCCTtlVl4 ~t ) ~iY4 ~ i'vOR51FNN6 `~~•~'^'+.f~„"'~: . . IN~~ RDLVG r7dln Im ( iMMM uc/ut ~-i re«ie sn;ccp ~ Ex~sr~+s ww.ea ~ E..e MXISTlht6 YVEGVT ELEl,4TtG7N ' cn .9 , ~ ~ s*ucco aera~o vaiw+ ww nr+aeRS nniw~n ei.~ m.,wc ewvw~ o~ ~ ~+ernuaar~irtmiG~c, sr~;cco.ane.unca.oa ~ , " . n$.~,iE~ w. ~w5+'~~ ~5~ wrmo. stro d.ve t. a r~w ause rn•a• ~ oeMCe ~wc ~ar ~ f \ ~ o. ~unxs wvsc ~ar-x ~ t k ~ ~ ~ ~ w wWp4D~WL R ~ ~ ~ ~GHExiST~ Y ~ dP/P ~ Gd : -Rf W I x, o. wea~aon i o.e• i i \ , A - ~I l f ~ I 1 ~ Io~ ~ M/I . SSLJ:Iy. _Y, tlYmM Y r¢w Sirn+E MriitE4s M K- -,~x~ A1.05 ,§O P45ED IeST ELEV'AkTIGh! (91,2 YLCYFi16ti5 . & 6< A requesc fior a worksession to discuss a Major CG1 Exterior Afteration and a site ~ eoverage var?ance, to allow for a remodel and expanslon ta the Siifer Building, located at 230 Bridge StreetlLot B, Vai! Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Slifer Designs, represented by J1m Buckner Pianner: George Ruther George. Ruther gaue an overview of the staff memo. Discussion Issue #1 Jim Buckner, representing the applfcant, said the height variance would not be an issue, as it would offer a variety af roaf heights and would only be on the frant of the building. John Scho#ield noticed on the site visit that the c}umpster was an Town property. J1m Buckner said he was nat aware o# that. Gearge Ruther stated the back af the building was on the property line and tha# the trash enclosure and resenred parkrng were on TOV property. Ne said in the CC1 Zone District, on-site parking was prphibited and they may need to reduce this non canformity. Jahn achflfield had no problem with the applicatian. Greg Amsden had no camments regarding the height and site atihis time. He did agree that the parking was encroaching into a TOV tract. He said the handicapped access area should be . ~ labeted handicapped, instead of private. Galen Aastand said the west etevation needed significant articulation and he could not support this application until he saw more articulation. He said it was against the Tawn's objectives to have a flat wal# against Bridge Street. Diane Golden echoed the cancerns about parking. Greg Mnffet stated that in order to grant a variance, the PEC needed to know why it would not be a spedial privilege and advised the applicant to come up with a good reason. Discussiora tssue #2 Jim Buckner said the DRB gave us an understanding af where to work towards, so we just need comments fram the PEC regardEng the walking experience. Galen Aasland said he wanted to see a change in the roaf. 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. ~ Planniug and Lnviranmental Cammissinn Minutes March 23,1998 9 . ~ Greg Moffet said rather than shrubs for landscaping, he wauld like to see a commitmen# to flawers, as shrubs die with people sitting on them. Dfscussian lssue #3 ~ George Ruther asked if the Pec wanted to see a calar baard. . The PEG did not want to see a color board. . 7. A request for a worksession to.discuss the proposed Major CC1 Exterior Alteratian to the Hong Kong Cafe Building, located at 227 Wall StreeULot B& C, Block 5C, Vaal Viltage 1st Filtng. Applicant: A51 Vail Land Holding, L.L.C,, represented by Kathy Langenwalter Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave arr 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 lineon one side and .7' under the properly (ine on the other side. Greg Moffet disclosed for the record that he saw no conflict, but Base Mauntain Sports was a customer o# his. Galen Aasfand diselosed for the recard that Wall Streetwas a customer af his. ` Rick Rosen, legal counsel far the Hong Kong, stated that during the originai construction, the ~ surveyor missed by .7' and shifted the building aver.7' as you laok towards the Lodge praperty. He said in 1986, when it came up for a redevelapment fihe Town acquiesced to the continuation of that encroachrrent and he #elt it had been approved by silence. , John Schofieid said he would iike to see the discrepancy cleaned up for the new owners and sugges#ed trading same land. Greg Amsden suggested an even exchange. Rick Rosen showed the ILC frvm 1986. Galen Aastand suggested adding more square footage over Town space. Diane Golden was in favor of cleaning up the prab(em. . Greg MofFet strongly recommended trading ,7' for .7'. Rick Rosen sta#ed that as the building stands tnday, there was a windflw opening on the west wall and an agreement that a1lowed for the openings in the event that the Lodge properties did a redevelopment. Planning and Envsronmeatal Con,rnission ~ Minutes March 23;199$ 10 o t a MEMtJRANDUM ~ TC7: Planning and Environmental Cammission FRCJM: Community Development Depar#men# DATE: April 13, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance, a site coverage variance, and additidnal GRFA utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an addi#ion ta an existing residence, located at 1230 Westhaven Circle/Lot 32-A, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Marilyn Quayle, represented by Erich Hiif. Planner: George Ru#her 1. DESCRfPTiUN OF THE REQUESTS 7he applicant, Marilyn Quayle, represented by Erich Hill, is requesting a site coverage variance, a rear-yard setback variance and up ta 248 square #eet af additional GRFA (250). The variances and addifional GRFA are requested to allow the appliean# to construct a dining room and front entry addition to the residence located at 1230 Westhaven Circle. The proposed new dining room addition wauld be located on 4he south side of the property, wifhin the required, 15-foot, rear-yard setback. The addition would encroach up to 8.5 feet inta the setback and is proposed ~ to be 233 square feet in size. The total area of the dining room addition proposed in the setback is approximately 1 08 square feet. Due to the orienta#ion of the existing structure, the new dining room addition would not be visible fram Westhaven Circle, nor any other residential properties in the vicini#y of the applicant's prnperty. Addi#ionally, the applicant is proposing to canstruct a 15 square foot addition to the frant en#ry of the residence. The new entry is intended to improve the existing frant entry access. A tatal of 281 square fieet (266 sq.ft. dining raoml15 sq.ft. front entry) of new site coverage will be added as a result of this request. Las#ly, #he applicant is proposing to convert a vaulted space to GRFA utilizing the interior eonversion ordinance. The uaulted space that is to be converted to GRFA i$ located on the main level of #he residence. The to#al area to be converted #o GRFA is approxima#ely 122 square feet in size. The interior conversion will have no impacf on the setback or site coverage figures. A written description from the applicant, and a copy of the plans have been attached for reference. Since the applicant is propasing an increase of1% (16°l0) over the allowable site coverage (15°l0), a reduction in the minimum rear-yard setback (15 feet) to 6.5 feet, and an increase in GRFA utilizing the additional 250 GRFA, a site caverage variance of 1°10, a rear-yard setback vaeiance af 8.5 feet and an additional 248 square feet af GRFA must be appraved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. ~ ~ ~ TOWNOFYAIL t r a Il. ZONING STAT1STiCS Lot Size. 22,121 square feet ~ Zoning: PrimarylSecondary Residential Allowed Existin Prop,ased GRFA*: 2,375 sq. ft. (w/250)** 2,125 sq. ft 2,373 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front. 20' 24' NIC Sides: 15` 76716` NlC Rear: 15' 18` 6 1/2' Site Coverage:*** 15%, ar 3,318 sq. ft. 15%, or 3,315 sq. ft. 16%, or 3,596 sq. ft. Parking: 3 spaces required 3 N/C * Secondary uni# anly. The total allowable GRFA sq: ft. equa(s the existing sq. ft. plus 250 sq. ft. allowable by ordinance. l.imited to 15°lo due to the steepness of the site (730°l0) ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration af Factors Regarding #he Site Coverage and Setback ~ Variances: Upan review of Section 12-17-6 of the Vail Municipal Cade, Criteria and Findings, the Community Development Department recommends denial a# the requested site coverage and setback variances based on the following factnrs. 1. The relaticrrtship af the requested variance to other existing or poten#ial uses and structures in the vicinity. Setback Staff believes tha# the proposed residential addition wial be compatible with the surrounding development. The additional mass and bulk that is propased is similar #o that enjoyed by surrounding homes in the area, and will not be visible from Westhaven Circle. The applicant is praposing to construct the addition up to 8.5 feet into the required, rear-yard setback. The proposed building location wiH result in a distance ofi approximately 6.5 feet from the corner of the building ta #he rear (south) property line. The applicant's property is bardered #a the south by National Forest Serviee property. 2 ~ Site Coveraae ~ Staff beHeves that the requested site coverage variance is incansistent with the develapment objectives of the Town. The 15°lo site coverage limi#ation was adopted by the Town to minimize the negative impacts of development on steeply sloping lots {>30%}. The applican#'s praposal will further impact #he topography af'the site. In this instance, the applicant will be constructing fhe new addition in an area with a slope greater than 30°l0. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enfarcement of a specified regulation is necessary fio achieve compatibility and unifarmity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title withou# a grant af special priwilege. Site Coveraae Staff believes that an appraval of the requested site coverage variance would result in a grant of special priviiege. Staff believes there are no unique circurnstances, nor any extraordinary condit'rons which impact the app(icant's lat. The maximum site coverage allowed on the app(icant's lot has been limited ta 15°10, pursuant to Section 12-21-14 of the Municipal Code. The 15% site coverage limita#ion is intended to reduce si#e disturbance an steeply sloping 1ots, to direct develnpmen# anto the "flatter" partions of development sites, and to reduce the number of retaining walls ~ and associated cuts in the landscape. Staff does not believe slope is a physical hardship or extraordinary condition in a mountainous community. An approval of this site coverage variance request is contrary to the in#ent of the Municipal Code. Se back The requested setback variance is nat warranted. Simi{ar ta the site coverage variance, there are no unique circumstances, nor any extraordinary conditions impacting the applicant's Iot. Staff has reviewed the praposal and visited the site. Based upon our review of the praposat and our site visit, we da not beiieve there is a physical hardship which impacts the applicant's properky. Many of the lats in the vicinity of the applicant's property are slnping in nature and are of a similar size. Sloping lots in Vail, in and of themselves, are not a physical hardship. Overall, staff believes tha# there would be a granting of special privilege if the variances were approved. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, dis#ributidn of populatian, transp8rta#ion and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. ~ 3 Site Coveraae/Se#back Staff daes not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated ~ with this praposal, if consiruc#ed, on #he above-referenced criteria, B. Consideration of Factors Re ardin Granting GRFA Under the 250 C)rdinance: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission sha11 consider the foifowing factors with respect to #he proposed use: 1. EfFeat upon the existing topography, vegeta#ion, drainage and existing sfiruc#ures. . The proposal will significant4y impact the existing topography and vegetation on the site. The exterior addition requires the construction of appraximafeiy 105 linear feet af retaining walfs. The retaining waHs would be required to retain a steepiy sloping O 30%) por#ion af the applicant's tot. Staff believes that the proposed exterior additions significantly affect the existing site tapography, vegetation, drainage, and existing structures. 2. Impact an adjacent properties. The additian should not adversely affect views, light, or air enjoyed by adjacent structures. Staff believes #hat the proposed additions will not have a significant impact on adjacent properties. ~ 3. Campliance with the Town's zoning requirements and applicable development standards. Staff believes that an approval of the addifianal 248 sq, ft. af GRF'A will have significant impacts an the applicable development standards of the Town. Accarding to the applicant's representative, in order for the applicant to add the proposed 248 sq. ft. of additional GRFA to the existing property, a site coverage variance and a setback variance mus# be approved. Staff believes that, in #his instance, if the adtlitional square faotage cannot be accommodated on #he site withaut the granting of variances, the additiona1248 sq. ft. of GF2FA is compatible on the site. According #o Section 12-15-5 of the Munictpal Code, in part, "The purpose of this section (AddPtional GRFA) is to prorride an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwelling units which have been in existence within the Town for a period of at least five years by permitting the addition of up to twa, hundred-fifty feet (250) square feet of gross residential floor area to such dwelling units, provided #he criteria set forth in this section are met. This sectior? does not assure each single family or two family dwelling unit focated within the Town an additional two, hundred fifty square fee#, and proposals hereunder sha11 be reviewed closely with 4 ~ respect to site planning, impaat on adjacent properties and ~ appiicable Tawn develapment standards." Staff has closely reviewed the applicant'$ proposal and 'believes that the proposal complies with the eligibility criteria in arder for the proper#y #a apply far the additionaf GRFA. Staff believes, however, that the praposal is not in compiiance with the Town's zoning requirements and appiicabie development standards, and therefore, the request should be denied. As stated in Section 12-15-5 ofi the Municipal Cocie, not every dwelling unit is assured the additianal square footage. Staff is nat suggesting #hat the applicant cou(d never receive the additional square foo#age, but instead, . we are concerned that the praposed addition is not sensitive to the topography and the canfiguration of the existing site. Staff would suggest that the applicanfi amend the proposal and elim'rnate the requested variances. - C. The Planning and Environmental Commissian shall make the followina fndings before -ciraLiting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not cons#itute a grant of special privi(ege ineonsistent with the iimitations on other properties alassified in the same district. 2. That the granting af the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, ~ safety ar welfare, nr materially injuriaus to properties or impravements in the vicinity. 3. That the varianee is warranted for one nr 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 titte. b. There are exceptions or extraardinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that da nat app1Y generally ta o#her properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjayed by the owners of other properties in the same district. tV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Gammunity Development Department recommends denial of the requested setback variance, the site coverage variance and the additional 248 square feet o# GRFA utilizing the 250 Ordinance. Staff's recommendation of denial is based upon the review of the criteria and factors outfined in Section III of this memorandum. ~ 5 8hould the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny the applicant's requests, s#aff would recommerrd the Planning and Environmental Commission make the following ~ findings: 1. That the granting of the setback and site coverage variances constitutes a grant of sppciai privilege inconsistent with the limitatinns on nther properties classifiedin the Glen Lyon Special Development District. 2. 7hat the granting of the variance will be de#rimental to the public healfh, safety flrwelfare, or v?rill be materially injurious to praperties or impravemen#s in the vicinity of Lot 32, Glen Lyan 5ubdivision. 3. That the strict literal in#erpretatian or enforcement of the setback and site coverage regulations does not result in practical dif#iculty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the development objeetives of the Municipal Code or the Glen Lyon Special Develapment District. - 4. There are not any exceptions or extraardinary circumstances or canditions appficable to the applicant's property that do not app1Y generally to other properties in the Glen L.yon Special Development District. 5. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the setback and site coverage regulations does not deprive the applicant of development privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in fhe GCen Lyan Special Deveinpment District. 6. That the addition of 248 square feet of additional GRFA negatively effects the existing tapography, vegetation and drainage on Lot 32, Glen Lyon Subdivision. . 7. That the addi#ion of 248 square feet of additional GRF'A is no# in compliance with the Town's zaning requirements (i.e., site coverage and se#back regulations). Shauld the Planning and Environmen#ai Commission choase to grant an approval of the requested variances and addi#ianal GRFA, staff recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission make the fio8owing conditions part of the approvaL 1. That the applicant submit a Geologic Hazard Acknowledgment Form and a Geologic Hazard Report, prepared in accordance with the requirements outlined in Chapter 21, Hazard Regulations, of the Zoning Regulations, prior to Design Re~riew approval. 2. That the applicant submit a partial tapographic survey, in accordance wi#h the requirements ouflined in the T'own of Vail Design Review Applicatian, prior to Design Review approval. 3. That the applicant submit an engineer's stamped and signed set of drawings, for al1 retaining walls over four feet in height, prinr to Design Review approval. ~ 6 . PAR.ADIGM DESIGN 4tarcn 12, 199s Town of Vai I Planning and Enviranmental Commission and Community Development Staff 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colarado 81657 RE: Addition to the Quayle Residence, Lot 32-A Glen l.yon Subdivision C?ear Planning and Environrnental Commission and Staff: I am representing Marilyn and Dan Quayle, owners of Lofi 32-A Glen Lyan Subdivisjon (1230 Westhaven Circ1e). The addition is propased for the eastern unit af the primarylsecondary development. The proposed project includes an addition of 230 sf of dining space, 15 sf of expanded entry space, and 122 sf of loft space. The proposed dining additian is adjacent ta the existing kitchen. It replaces an existing eastern facing wood deck. A new exterior deck of 108 sf is proposed to the north of the dining room addition. The addition wiil be canstructed to match the materials and finishes af the existing residence. Nine aspen trees are proposed to buffer the north side af the addition. We are requesting a 254 GRFA addition, a site coverage variance, and a rear setback variance. rXPLANATION tJF THE REQUEST 250 GRFA Addition The clesign of this primaryl secondary residence was approved by the Des'rgn Review Board in July 1997. When canstructian started in the win#er of 1991I1992 the site coverage and GRFA were at the total aIlowable amount for both units. The GRFA #or the existing Quayle residence is 2125 sf. 7he 250 GRFA addition allows the owners to make a more useable kitchen/dining space {230 sfl and to improve the existing entry (15 sfl. The loft space (122 sf} involves converting existing interior space to.floor area . The laft construction is allowed under the current GRFA definition and does not contribute to the 250 GRFA addition. Site Coverage Variance We are requesting a 1% site coverage variance. The site coverage for this lat was based an the allowance for 1ots that have a 30 °la or greater slope. Thus, the site caverage was 15 °In of the tota1 lot area af 22,127 sf or 3318 sf. Laoking at the ariginal contaur elevations for the si#e, part af the site is just below 30% and part of the site is just above 30°fp. The proposed addition wauld increase the site c4verage by 2 37 sf or 1°!o. Rear Setback Variance We are requesting a rear setback variance to allow the proposed dining area to encroach into the rear setback fram 3 ft to 9 ft. The actual area af the addition in the rear setback is approximately 1(}8 sf. The result is that a setback of 12 ft to 6 ft remains after the addition. 0 ARCHlTECTIJ RE SCU LPTU RE INTE IZIC)RS 835 INCA PARKWAY BOULDER, COLORADC) 80303 3034994252 ANALYSIS C3F UUR REQUEST AND THE TOWN OF VA1L'S VARIANCE CRITER(A ~ 1. The relationship of the requesfed varianee to o#her existing or potential uses and strucfures in the vicinity, itesponse: This lot borders the National Forest on the north and east sides. The addition's design is sueh that 'rt will not be seen by the public from the north, west ar south sides of the house. The addition can be seen from the Cascade Village Chair Lift, if you turn around and {aok back down the hill to your right. As a result, the addition has na $ignificant impact on existing or potentia( uses and structures in the vic'rnity. 2. The degree to whieh relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enfarcement .of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and unifarmity of treatment among site in the vicinity, or to at#ain the abjectives of this Title withaut grant of speeial privilege. Response: Site Coverage Variance The existing primarylsecondary residence was located towards the south end of the site because the lot is narraw and sloping. This was approved by the design Review Board. At building permit, the site plan was modified to make the driveway less steep and ta reduce retaining walls. This change leaves very (ittle space an the site for a 250 GRFA addition beeause of the narrawness of the site. The propased addition would increase the site coverage by i°lo which is wel1 be[ow the allowable site ~ coverage (20%) far sites that have a slope under 30°lo and is a madest increase over the 15% allawable site coverage. Also, this site has an avera e slope of approximately 30°l0. The site is not dramatically over 30°Ia which indicates that same relief fram the strict enforcement of the 15% site eoverage variance is warranted. These circumstances justify the 1% site coverage variance. It has also come to our attentian that the Town af Vail Design Review Baard has asked the Cammunity Development Staff to study removing from the zoning code the 15 % site caverage requirement for lots having a 34 % ar greater slQpe. C3ur understanding is that the Design Review Board is questioning whether the 15°lo restriction truly results in better site design. We believe our request is a good example of why the restricfiion needs ta be revised. Our design has no significant impact on the site or on adjacent neighbors. We support the Design Review Baard's re-evaluation of the 15% site coverage limit. Setback Variance The setback variance still maintains a substantial rear setback ranging from 12 ft to 6 ft. The addition is located in a manner that minimizes site disruption and results in no significant impact on neighbars. The requested variance is warranted because the lot is narrow, logical places fior a small addition that do nat impact the mass and bulk of the structure are limited, and the area of the encraachment is adjacent to a National Farest. The purpose of a setback is to allaw far adequate light and air between structures and ta provide a buffer between adjacent uses. The proposal meets these two abjectives. ~ 3. The e#fect af the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportatian and ic facilities, public faci{ities and utilities, and public safety. kaffsponse: As stated above there are no si,gnificant impacts on neighbors. No additionai trafficor impacts on public facilities, or safety issues are created by this addition. Far these reasons, we believe the proposal should be approved. I# you have any question ar comments, please contact me. Thank you for your time and effort on this project. Sincerely, ~ Erich Nill, Architect Paradigm C}esign ~ ~ ~RTY ~ 'S~-.~-rF+nr.x W w.tr-_ r ~4%-~ ~ _ v ` - ~ ~ ~f ~R~t3 SWX ADPnV ~ l~rm - _ _ - _ _ - - 6c~~r F 7p~: - `P~14o ~ ~~U. ~ - ` - , 1- ~ _ _ " _ ` f1 f- _ k,.NI-r a ~ uurrp- ` ~ 3••-"'G~ ~.~1 ~ ' ` r i+auc • r, ~ °f/ 2,0 t ~ ~ ~ ` \ ` 1 ~ \ ~ • sw-.~:~ ~ ~ ~ "~4'7 .e , . ' "w. ~ " " ~ ~ ~Y ~ I ° ~ ~ + ^ . _ ' " t" 4~:"t ~ ~ ' . 3t1~,+-_.,,,,_,,,,~, tG-i ~ '•7gj7{y * ` --"~'Xl 'i a:• ~ _ _ : 5'. .'tr~` ' ~.Ht ~-e-- - _7~ _ +'ZcC1~~ O• G:t...t^Yt,.E: AZDfTtQt,.t j~.~l6tJ uha r-f`/4 N11~.tl~ 1..L?-.1... . ~ . ~ h~~?~-t t7~K - ~ i _ J K i r ~.li-m ~ ~ ~ i 6ZON44. Aj->~A'T'Ea _.w....._._ I . k.o+• ~a2» fti ~lo.~ L.yo~~'~. l/a 1 1,0 4 " ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ . - ~ ~ ~ l.,};' { P~-- ~ ~ , s -t;r ~pP^ 4-0 r ` ~ 1 o uJ' N~ ~~""m i ~IIN? ~-.+C uJ n. ~ t r / f { ~ ~ (~rk«+~ 1• A ,1 r-----___.._-_--~---^' t.a4 T*3 '~t~'~` ti„ ~l~cE.~--c~ ~ A F-V. r.sh+n~ ktat ( 4 ~ I ~ Rll FC..4 ~ ~ ~ I , t p ~taLw ~ 1 4 ._r.._..__...-. ~ ~ I i ~ ~„j~( • ~ • , . "AY ,4iZ:.D t'1"'1 0 t~t 14nrF'A 1L~utier~ ~ec.k, rt`~~ _ _ . ~ _ - - - r~, . ` JL?wc a'F ~t~'a-~Wi°> - 4?.5~. ,t ~ i * ~ ~ Y ? ~ f ~E ~ _ t i . . . f.~, . . . } 1 ' , ~ ' • ' !yR " } "r ; , . , , •<< . ~S r. Yt ~R ; ~ ~S u • • ` ~ . a ` . . I~~ ~ h 5'' 1 • ` 4 .Yr'.a.A:i,_-,~.n`~.~. _ ` "'"~C..,ai.•t A4. V , µ E ~ • . . , ,'~.-^I •NM~~ )^'f 1 { Ar-~ ".eF ~M1 FIWlj1 1 A ~ ~ ! ~ t ~ a e ~ t fr i~ - ~ ` . t•~ • . • ~ ~ ( . ~ ` + , Lu S • £ , . • • ~ v . ~ j i J,N ~ , 4"i~ •t''~ ~f # 'W ' n •p • , R . , ` , S~kt' . ~ y~~i~},~ ' . . , 'k.. ~t 44 • . ~ . ~ ~ .~`ey .f~, LS . . ~ ~ ry.y~~ . , ~ . c ~ r ~ ~ . ~ 4, ~ • ~.~'-~.d+ fs: . . fsr, , - q:. p. ir~ M F' ~l';fi! f~K..% x ' • • _ ,~.~,y~~y . ~ iw i~ f ~ . ' ~ ` • k~ ' ' . , ~•y~4 ' I~ ' _ ~ 7 , ' ' ` ' , • 'zd ~ . _ ~ AE,V1TtoM3 . ' , y ~ • ~ ~f' Y ~ ` y I . . Z vT'1 4C4 i ~`~u~.~tc~..t~.. ~i'`~"it~~• ~ 3~ . FA,e,at~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ '~~m.Wrarhhe,~~~•~ ~ ' "~rr , ~ . i ~ , k ~ I~i I ~ ~ I ; : , . , ~ _ _ _ . . * • . - . . _ ~ , ~.1 . . . , . ~ .t ~ ` . ` • . , . ` , ' ~ ' • ` , Y , , ~ . , t 5 /t, ` ~ • ' • ~ ' • f . ~ . ~ ` 4 S k4- , ~ • ' ` F y" ` ` , . ' ~:.y:~ . • ` . ~Y.IS"T"lt-1La ACG11 t'{£?fia ~.\'~1NGA ~i..~.•~~-nc~~? _ _ . . PAP.AO Wj"'~ DWW4 t2,~tr t+~te~t-hh~a.rr~n Guet~., Va~ . L...}' "~j~, A bilt«t t.~yan Sub. , Ltai~t- At m ~ k ~ i ~ _ . _ . , , , . , ~ r f , - . . . . ; . , - . ;t . . u ' . , _ x Cy~i. t - . ~ - ~t x tt . ~ . - ~ - - • . 1 . . . . . . : • ~ ' ~ ~ . . i~~ ~ i , _ ~..f ' - ~ • . . . , , ` ~ . . . . „ • ~ . " ~ ! , i,~j.' ~ . ` _ , . ' •~d ' , . ~ ( ~ ' 4_ . ' ~s ~ « ` , . . . . . . ~ .Z ~ ,~`'•-t . , _ . 4" ~ k . ~ - - ~ ~x ~ s•k-t n~,,.~ ~aw.,Etec( is+, ~ F---~YYi i Cltj~ ~ih+rJ . . . . . . . . UMr+ t)nr~- ! Q L t ~,+.`3Z-,~4. G~lrn ?,-~»~.m'~~.b, MEMORANDUM ~ TO. Planning and Environmental Gommission FRC3M; Gommunity Development Department DATE: Apri] 13, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a building height variance from Section 12-6d-7 of fhe Municipal Cade, to aliow for a residence, currently under construction, to exceed the 33" height limitation, lacated at 1799 Sierra TraillLot 17, Vail Village West Filing #1. Applicant: Julia Watkins Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION QF THE REQUEST 7he applicant is in the process af construcfing a residenee on Lat 17, in #he Vail Village 1Nest Filing #1 Subd'rvision. The Improvement L.ocation Certificate (I.L.C.) submitted by the applican# indicates that the center section of the main roof was constructed at a height exceeding the 33- faof height limitation, for structures constructed in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. The roof section in questian is labeled "A" on the attached drawings. According to #he ~ in#erpalated exis#ing grades provided by Intermountain Engineering (based on the original tapographic surueY), and the ridge height figures provided on the LL..C., ridge A was constnacted one-foot over (34 ft.) the 33-fioot height limitatian. The appficant is requesting a building height variance frorn Section 12-613-7 afi the Municiapl Code, to al(ow the center section of the main roaf ta remain at the exis#ing, constructed height (34 ft.). Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance of one foot (1 ft.) from the 33-foot building heigMt Fimitation. I!. BACKGROUNd The fnllawing is a chronology of the devel4pment on Lot 17: ~ May 1, 1996 - Design Review Board approved the project with ane minor condition. * Apr+! 3, 1997 - Building Permit issued * January 29, 1998 - I.L.C. denied by staff, due to building fieight overage. 111. GRiTER1A AND FfNDINGS Upan review of the Criteria and Findings for variances, contained in Seetion 12-17-6 of the Vail Municipal Cade, the Community C?evelopment Department recommends denial af the requested height variance based on the fnllowing factors: ~ T T1J{VNO *YAIL ' A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relaticrnship of the requested vaciance to other existing or ~ potential uses and structures in the vicini#y. The requested variance wili have iittle or no impact on adjacent properties and structures in the vicinity. The portian of the main raof that exceeds 33 feet is very smali. It does naf appear as though the increased roof height will block views from adjacent praperties. 2. The degree to wMich retief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary ta achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment amang sites in the vicinity or to attain the abjectives of #his ti#te withou# grant of special privilege The applicant is requesting the minimum amount of deviation from the building height limitationas necessary to achieve the desired outcorrie of completing the cortstruction. The applicant has indica#ed that the building height overage was a resuit of a change in faundation footer elevation to avaid graundwater. The increase in the faundation footer elevatian was ta be campensated by slight changes in the framing of the building. It appears #hat the slight changes in framing never occurred and therefore, the building is ane foat over on aflowable building height. Staff believes that an approval af the building height variance would be a grant of special privilege. According to the applicant, the structure could ~ have been constructed within the 33-foot height limitation and the applicant had mtended tn do so. However, the change m the foundation footer elevafion was never compensatEd far. Staff believes it is impartant to strictly enforce the 33-foat height limitation in order to maintain the integrity of the height regulation. Given the current state of the project, staff is not aware o# any physical hardship or site constraints which would warrant support and approval of the height variance. 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 requested variance will have na effect an this criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followin fq ndings before grantinq a variance: 1. That the gran#ing of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on o#ner properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimen#al to the public health, safety ar welfare, or materially injurious to properties nr improvements in the vicinity. 2 ~ 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: ~ a. The strict literal in#erpretativn or enforcement of the specified regulation wouid result in prac#ical difficuity or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the abjectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditians applicable to #he same site of the variance that do not apply generalfy to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regula#ion would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. fV. STAFF RECOMMENL)ATION - Upon review of the proposed building height variance request, staff recommends that the Planning and Environmentai Cammission deny the applieant's request. Staff believes #hat granting the height variance would not be ma#erially injurious #o other properties in the vicinity or to the public health, safety and welfare. Hawever, staff befieves that the variance would be a grant of special privilege, since #here does not appear #o be any unusual eircumstances unique to the property, or the canstruetian process, that would justify the request. Sta#f believes that the strict and literai interpretation of the height limitation is necessary to ensure that aN residential construction in this zone district is subject to fhe same height restriction. ~ The recommendation for deniafi is based upon the staff's review of the variance ariteria and findings out#ined in Sectian I11 of this memorandum. The staff believes the building height variance is not warranted for the following reasons: 'I . The granting af the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege incansistent vvith the limitations on other properties classified irt the Primary/Secandary Residen#ial Zone District. 2. The strict and fiteral interpretation of the building height regulation daes not result in a practicai difficufty and unnecessary physical hardship incansistent with #he objectives of the Zoning Code. 3. There are no exceptions or extraordinary conditions applicable to the applicanYs si#e that do not apply generally to ather properties in the PrimarylSecondary Residential Zane Distric#. ~ 3 L U104 . 1 ~`6• ~a ~ Ep`'E?~~~~ ~ ~ t N 1~ 3°x0aµ ~ ~VLI~~-- C C o sECONa sroRr woav oEcrr woaa oECK ~ . TNR~F -STQRY RA WQOQFME ~ 1 \ /3 : 44' ~ ROG'K .EXTER%GiR ROcE ELEr~ = rsz s ~ . 11 z 1 ~q Q!-^ RfDG'EELEt~ ~478 807FOM l7f.CCY. ROOF ~ ~ earro,~ oF- cocP ~cw~ / ~ J'()F ~ . L 4 T 17 Q Ga' 15.4 Q 4 7, pI.A aioce EcEU~ rs.~.~ ~ CQNCRETE WALK eorrau OF eoc D RnoF : w ve J Ca b . • Q / ~ - ! ~.~i.4k'i4GF~ - f ~ 2o. 1- ( ~ LJ a = 20~~8:20° ~ R= 214.09' N 83Z?0;S~a T = 39.63' ~ L = 78.38' ~~A . -`g,~s>• ~ ) Prc rVArc &-lb ~A~'~~ ~C'~EI /A T!!TA / haieby certify fhat thJs improwement (ocatlon cartificafewos F C'~• ~'t. ~ v~7 t E c~r v. Stuarf 9oma & the Tuwn ot Ya~7 Bu~din8 pepL. Cha! it is naf a/orr GON7ROL POINT SE7` D(Jf?/it/G TOFOGRAPHY SURt/EY BY plot or improvemenF survey p/ot, vnd thaE it is not to be relied upc ~ ~ .tnURIC(iF/ !/(/h7!/C! P,. ACCn,.,.rrr irn ,!+.s/:Iblr;Shmvnf dl f?nAa (..~7a~~, rr ~7;e. r- ~ REQUEST FOR ABUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE A.T 1799 SIERRA TRAIL, LOT 17, VAIL VILLAGE WEST, FILING No. 1 Applicant: Julia Watkins and Renaissance Building and Design, Inc., owners of the land and irnpravements at 1799 Sierra Trail cJa Renaissance Building and Design, Inc. PO Box 576 Edwarcis, CO $1632 970.926.5600 t Julia Watkins and Renaissance Building and Design, Ine., respectfully request a ' variance to the 33' height over existing grade restricrions impased by the Zoning Title, Tawn of Vaii. The height of a very small portion af the irnprovements constructed at 1799 Sierra Trail is too high by na mare than approxirnately six inches on the visible exterior cold roof peak and no more than approximately ten inches to one foot on the non-visible top ridge of sheathing. This variance request is necessary dne to the discovery of grour?d water at the time of excavation. The ground water was not revealed by the original soils report. When ground ~ water was discovered during excavatian, soils engineer Hepworth Pawlack recamrnended reducing the cut depth outlined on the ariginal foundation plan as much as possible the deeper Che cut, the more unstable the soil woald become. Pursuant to the soils engineer's recammendation, the cut was lessened by ane foot, the foundation designed was altered at great expense to the applicant, and the foundation of the hause was raised one foot. The foregaing changes were made ta promote occupant safety and to diminish the Iikelihood of subsidence or slippage. At the tirne the foundation was raised one foot, no height groblems were anticipatecl as there was at least one foot of surpius in the original plan. The ane foot suzplus in the original plan was designed ta accommodate any possible survey, framing, foundation or other building inaccuracies. As a result of the groand water discovery, however, the fnal plan aIlowed absolutely no margin for error. Although the applicant has taken the utmost care to insure no error in height, the final survey has disclosed the ridge of sheathing rnay be up to one faot over the allawable ~ Request for Height Variance Page 2 ' height, and a verY small Partion of the peak of the visible cold roof may be up to si7c inches ~ over the allawable height. T"he applicant respectfully notes that only a strict interpretation of the Zoning Title leads to the present problem. A liberal, less stringent interpretatinn would show no problem, if the recognized topographical survey errors were interpreted in the applicant's favor. The effect of inherent topographical enrors was discussed in a February 26, 1996 Departrnent of Comrnunity Development Mernorandum, which is attached. The appiicant also notes that the ariginal tapographical survey was done while there were 30" (two and one-half feet) of snow on the ground. Changing the roof to meet the stricC application of the Zoning Title would result in a less aesthetically pleasing raof-line. In addifion, it wauld entail a great amount of paintless expense, especially when considering the cost that the applicant has already incurred in altering the faundation in the interest of safety and sound constnuctian. ~ The relationship of the requested variance ta other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity: The single family residence at issue is surrounded by one home under construction to the east, a completed single farnily residence to the west, two building sites to the north (down hill), and a single family residence across the street to the south (up hill). The single family residence at issue sits below Sierra Trail. Visually, the raof peak daes nat appear at all high from adjacent areas. The degree to which relaef from the strict or literal interpretatian and enforcement of a speciried regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment amnng sites in the vicinity or to attain the abjectives of this title without grant or special priviiege: Because the building had already been built befare the discovery of the height problern, the only solurion ta the nanconfonmity outside of a variance would be ta remove the raof ar create a design solution such as a cupola over the peak of the building. The roof is constructed fram a complicated timber truss systern and skylight. Removing it would be very difficult and cauld result in smuctural problems in the resulring stcucture. While a ~ Request for Height Variance " Page 3 ~ design salution cauld be cansidered, it wauld result in an architectiatal Product which is substandard. No special privilege will be granted by allowing the requested variance. In fact, the applicant alrseady ineurred substantial excess cost in altering the foundarion fram its ariginal design. The faundation alterations were made to promote safety and to lessen the passibility of slippage or subsidence. The requested variance will pramote at least four interests deemed worthy by the Zaning Titie: 1. safety from dangerous conditions, 2. to canserve and maintain economic values, 3. ta safeguard the appearance of the Town, and, 4. to conserve and prateet wcxods, hillsides, and wildlife. The need for the variance arises fram the groundwater problerns, and the subsequent necessary mitigation efforts that the applicant undertook ta prevent slippage or subsidence in the neighbarhood. The mitigation efforts prornote the foregoing abjectives. ~ The effeet of the variance on the light and air, tiistribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities, and public safety; There is no adverse effect on any of these areas. As earlier pointed out, public safery is increasetl by the applicant's mitigation efforts. Haw the request complies with Vail's cornprehensive plan. Because the building has been filled an the south side (street side) of the property, the home is weli under the height requirements for final grade. In fact, it is a one story building nestled in the hillside and does not in any way agpear too high. It is over the requirement for existing grade, not final grade. Due to the hardship of unexpected ground water at 1799 Sierra Trail, aheight variance is requested in order to avoid a substandard home, to maintain the standards set forth by the Zoning Title and by Design Review Guidelines. ~ ~ List of Sugp;lemental Exhibits ccom a~nving B.egug5i fTr Building HCight Variance EXHIBIT "1" October 6,1993 Soils Report, Engineering I)esignworks, Inc.; EXHIBIT "2„ Apri123,199? Letter from Hepworth-Pawlack Geatechnical, Inc.; EXHIBIT "3" IVlarch 16,1998 phatographs of impravements at 1799 Sierra Trai1, and; EXHIBIT "4" February 26,1996 DepartrnenC of Community Development Memorandurn. ~ ~ • , r ENGINEER[NG DESiGNWORKS, 1NC. 30965 Moffat Avenue P.O. B,r 775719 ~ Steamboat-Springs. Co,oradc 8C.171 t3031&79-»$9Q t3035 949-4823 FAX (3(73) 879--+3.0~ O~~' vi ~ Subsoil InvestigationJFoundation Recommendations far proposed hame at, i,ot 17, Filing 1, West Vai.l Village Subdivision Vail, Colorado : aCtOber 6, 1993 Job #932151s ~ Prepared for. Jahn Perkins P.O. Box 2007 Avori, CQ 81620 ~ ' 1 } GENERAL ~ This repqrt presents the results of our geatechnical investigation conducted on the site of the proposed hame at Lot 17, Filing 1, West Vail Village Subdivision, Vail, Colorado. The investigation was performed to provide sutficient information about the supporting soil mantle to enable a suitable foundation design for the proposed home. our.investigat.ion specifically did not addzess any slope stabil.ity consit3erations. The canclusions and recomrnendations presented herein are based on the data gathered durzng our site and labo=atory investigations and our experience with similar soil conditions. This investigation was conducted in accordance wzth presentl.y accepted sails engineering procedures consistent with the proposed development and na warranty is expressed ar implied. FIELD INVESTZGATZON The subsur-_ace sail conditions were egplared on September 22, 1993, by three open test pits dug with a CAT E708 backhoe. See Figure 1 for the test pit locations. The below footing soil.s expased on site are profiled in Figure 2. Laboratory soil samples were obtained with a Hand Drive Sampler. Unconfined penetrometer and shear vane tests were performed during the digging aperatians. See Figure 2 for unconfine~ values. LABaRATORY TESTING Laboratory test-fag and analysis included swell consolidation testing performed at the Engineering Designwarks laboratory in Steamboat Springs, C0. See Figure 3 for details. PRC}PC}SED CONSTRUCTION Conventionally framed three level duplex over crawl space on a steep sloping site. RECOMMENDATIONS Laboratory tests indicate that ~the tan and brawn clays with gravels and small racks located in the narmal bearing strata approximately 4' below existing grade in test pits #2 and #3 are slightly expansive. Any conventianal foundation bearing on these soils shauild be designed for 3400 psf maximum, 100 psf mini.mum soils bearing pressures. Suggested design at-rest equivalent fluid pressure for backfill: imported gravels = 60 pcf, on-site silts and sands = 70 pcf, on-site clays ~ 80 pcf. ~ Page 2 Job #932151s 1{}/6/9; ~ Any foundatian at this site must be designed and constructed in strict confcrmance with the fo1lowing precautions: 1. Faundation grade beams should be designed and reinforced to span an unsupported distance of at least 10 feet. 2. Inspect excavation for soil uniformity and to confirm types prior ta any foundation construction. A31 loose or soft pockets of sail within the loaded depth of the footings shnuld be removed and replaced with a well compacted gravel; or the footings egtended to lower,more competent soils. 3. Compacted fi11s tn be compacted in 81, 1ifts to a minimum of 950 Modified Proetor Density with graveZs at a moisture content within 2% of optimum. Properly placed and confined washed rock may be used in lieu of compacted fills when praperly vibrated in 2411 magimum lifts. 4. Any fill cantaining rock should be carefully mixed to avoid nesting and creation of voids. No concrete or fill shall be placed on muddy or frozen ground. 5. Slab construction is not recammended, but if it is to be implemented, it shauld be constructed aver fills, as described above. The risk of slab mavement decreases with increased fill ~ depth. 1211_2411 of fi11 i.s recommended. Remove a]:1 topsoii, organics, and other objectionable materials priar to placing fi11s. Slipjoint a12 fl.oor slabs at all interfaces and provi-de for passibla slab mavement under partition walls. Slabs should not be used for bearing af structural camponents. 6. Maintain frast depth for foatings subject to frast, unless an insulated Qr other engineered shall.aw foundation is employec3. Maintain the in-situ moisture cantent and auaid weathering of t ' he bearing soi1s at aIl times before, during and after canstruction. 8. Provide an adequate dayZighting underdrain system from the ldw areas of the excavation. Test before and after backfill. Contour the finish grading to di.vert all surface drainage at Ieast 101 away from all sides of the strueture. 9. Uo not bar.kfill until supporting floor systems or adequate bracing is i.n place. All exterior backfill to be granular free draina.ng material, capped with 121' of water impermeable (eg. clay) material to divert surface flow. Geotegtil,e fabr-4--; is recflmmended below the clay layer. 1(}. Slope stability shauld be addressed by others in the design process. ~ Page 3 Job #932151s 10/6/53 4 Significant changes in the proposed structure or subsail conda.tions different than those lagged in F.igure 2 may alter these recommt=ndatio and should be brought to the attentian of this office. Sincerely, Engine, ing Designwo3~ks, Inc. . , 1 by: Peter Wiegand, Geol.ogist { reviewed: ,7eff Sharpe, P.E. • / ' t ~ ~ Page 4 Jab F"932151s 10j6/93 ~ • ~ ~ h t ~~a ~ ~ ~ . ~ r ' • ~ p~?orthPat~lak Geotech TLL.603-945-8454 Apr24 7 8:4 No.003 P.02 HEPWU127'H^P'AWLAK GCC)TLCHNTCAL, ZNC. 1%020 Ituad 254 • Gtrnwaod Springs, C;ii 8160`t Ap Fil 23, 1997 1'ax 970 945-W4 . . I't,txne 97a 945-7988 Renaissance Ruild`uzg R Uesign, lYic.. w Attn: Juiia Watkins P.O. BQx 578 . Edwards, Cnioracio 81632 Jab No. 196 459 ` Subject: Observation of Excavatioii, Propnsed Residelice, Lot 17, Vai] Village - West, Fi1iiig l, Sit:rrLi Trail,Vail, ColaTado. Dear Ms. Watkins: As requested, wc observed the excavation at the stibjece ;;ite on Aprii 17. 18, and 22, 1997 io evaluate the soils expnsed for foundation support. We previouslv rcvicwcd the geralugic c:onditions at the site and presented our i"indings iri Ietters ria#ed Septcrnber 13, 1496 and March 17, 1997, Job hTo. 196 459. . ' 'i'lle in progress cxcavation was observeci on April 17, and 1$ wtlich was initiated`in the 3 ~ snuilzwest corner and progressed downilill to the north and east. Tn the saut~iwest part of the excavation the cut clepih5 are betNveeri about 5 ta 11 feet. It'1 the Itiiliti I7Ufldli1g at`~a the cxcavaiion steps ciowii aboui 6 ieet and was cut iu#o flowitYg groundu,=ttter urlien obscrved j on April 18 and 22. As a result, the excavation bottom was relatively soft aiid the cxcavation coulci not be completed ta design cut dcpths and Iimits. Ashallow trencli was cut throtlgh the wec area I'or draina,ge to the downhill, north side ofthe excati°atioti. . Ilie soils exposed in the cxcavation are clay, sand and rock anixccl and are similar to ihvse = described in the previous exploratory pit r4port by others. 'r'he roundtiz-ater seepagc `needs to be cciklected aiid draineti frorn within and around the exc;avation. This appcars impraoiical duc to the potentially unsiable uphill cut 51bpe. As aii alternative, it was discussed to redesigtY the foundatian and raisc the bearing 1eve1 as mtich as possible scx that the £owidatioji can esseiitiatly bear at existing cttt depths. Tlle foti3ndaticm redesigra ~ waulcl inc:]ude a mat fvundatioii rather #hasY isolated foatings at the lawer levcl and ~ elitiainacion ofthe uph'rll counterforts to limit excavation into the, hi]1side, Excavation dewaLenng wtaulcl consisf of a,n uphtll periineter faundation drain and interior lateral drains tha# conziect to the undcrslab gravcl. IIl add1l1UIi, 1}te eXGc1viltlot2 &hC1Uld be +c1l1t1WeCI . i - ~ . `5 HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-965-8454 Apr 24 97 8:48 No.003 P.03 Re?7aissance Buildistg & Design, Inc. Aprii 23, 1997 I'age 2 to drain and thc groundwater level to iower. 'i'his cou1d be scveral wecks cansidc:ring t#ic tendency i't7r the 'groundwater leve1 to rise during spring runoff. We should revicw the foundation design inodificutioils and the groundwatcr cortditians in the cxcavatian px-ior ta resuinit3g the construction. ' Vw'e willlae availabte for additic}r1al ar?alysis arici review at your request. If you have any questions or if wc catl be o#`Iitrther as$istance, pIease call our of1ic:e. Sinc:erely, . ~ ~ ;a . HEPWt7RIII-PAWr.Ax GEOTLCxNIcAL, rNr.. P'j~1 r' Stevetx L. Pawlak 1 5 2 ~ t1tl Rev. by: I3EH SI,P%ro ec: KRM Cozisultailts - Attii: Kim McGhee - . . _ H-P GEoTECH ~ ~ ~ . t MEMORANCSUM ~ T4; Planning and Enviranmenta{ Cqmrnission FiOM: Department of Commuriity Develaprient DATE: February 26, 1998 SUBJECT: A worksession to discuss passib}e changes to the existing Tawn of Vail Sunrey . Policy regarding the calculation of buildsng height. . x.'.w".'.2::"„`^..,'rJn,. ;.y;. ..ti;.. ~ „~+..;t,;,,t.. ~ .,ti.. ,,;.,....,.,,,s,....... „ ,,.;;;;,w.,,, ...y.: ...~s:•x•r.....;~x..... ..~•.:.:.x•.:.:r:•:x:ax`->S:•..e:o+3?:ti\;,....:::..,..x..;;.,.:"•:A+::t:.A,...+.. »'t."'+>.r>.~' . 1ti.. +.a•,.+."`+ Y`v: >irk->:,,•:.::.,-:.: :v..•:. ...t :a A ~ , r;~a`:~"~a.'.,,'~",.,~~. a,C ,v,.'v+\4v,.'+..^t .n+'C.~... \ + ?:•.~::.v.'r';;'•.a.:..:.•::.v. y, ?i•+ . . . v'•:.,.}i,::,.•;... • xsa•• t i. :+t\•'.:'F:::~ i.'-:2:2i \1~,.1\~1 . ti \ ~ti:l~..~i:tit:lp :ti~4:~^v. nw':7i4:::::• , 'iti. { * ? :.ok:::::e..:.:.,~,v .b:::v.,...,.,. . t. . .:.ti•.:,,,•:•:.,.::: •r.,,?.. \ a~?:, ,\b., ~•x"s•:\~,,,'`.iti~ . *.,x.. . ~ ,V. , .,.a }}}}y5; t.;\::•`.:t;i•.. . ;.v.'t.. vi ~ iL . :'•ti::.{%.••;•1,~.s:vv*:'` ~ . ~.:a . \ ti 5 .i. ht:..i:4i'?:•: •.t•.vn. .\•'.ti.. .}\'4. \v. ~ .........:.z.,............ ~...r... \......,.u....,......<.. :s-:zr;:~';;...?;~ :..v.....:;: 3:~'z:;',*.:.,..: ~:,,•::........a..r..... ~~.....,~s1a......,.. \.•..3.~:3:~:s.~''.~\`C.~.'~.~~.~~~.~+32; :~3u.4s+.*;`Y f.~i,t':~ l. INTRCDUUCTION According to the existina Tawn o# Vail Survey Policy, an lrnprovement Location Certificate (1LC) indicating #he elevat3ons of all buiiding roaf ridges must be submitted to, and approved by, the Town of Vail prior #o a fram?ng inspectian. Building heaght is calcuiated using the e(evation of the ridge and the elevation of the existing grade below the ridge and the difference between these two cannot exceed the maximum building height a4lowance. The elevation of roof rtdges can be accurately measured by a registered surveyor.. However, the detetmination of the existng grade is based on_a tapographicsurvey;which has lirnitations to its accuracy. Federal mapping agenc;es nave adopted standards #o control map accuracy by specifying the maxirnum errar permitted 9n elevations shown an a map. 7hese standards s#ate ~ that no more than 10% of the elevations #ested wi11 be in errar rno re than one-haif the con#our interval.. The Town of Vail requires that topagraphic surveys have two foot contaur intervafs, therefore, 10°Ifl of the elevations on a survey rnay be in error of up to orie foot. Due to recent discussions regarding the accuracy of calculating building height, staff feit it time{Y to revisit the Survey Policy regarding height. The PEC recently amended the policy (in January 1996) to add a requirement of an ILC at the time the foundation is poured far certain prfljects. - That amendrnent did no# affect the measuring of ridge elevations. The section of the palicy regarding the calcuiation of height was last amended in Aprt11991. Before 1991, a grace of up to bne foat was allowed for a!1 ridges. For example, a ridge that was aver the buildirrg height by six inches, was approved because it was within the one ct allowance. In 1991, it was determined that there was noi a need llor a one'foot grace because surveyors could accurately measure ridge elevations. The discrepancy in the topographic survey was not discussed. f3ecause there are recognized errors in the topographic surveys, compensatjng far #hese errors by arnending the Sunrey Policy may be appropriate. Staff has identified.four options that the PEC may wish to consider. lf the FEC deterrnines that staff shnuld pursue any of the options, the Survey Palicy wi!l be amended ar;d urought back far review and approval by the PEC. ~ . . w j 11. DiSCUSSI{JN • . . Staff has identi#ied faur options that the PEG m~;; Lonsidar. ~ OP i iON #1: 7he Survey Poi;cy rernains as it is currently written reaarding the measurement of building height. A staternent would be added ta the poiicy that informs developers, contractnrs and architects that federal mapping standards permit up #o 10% of the elevations tested . on a tnpographic sLirvey to be in error ofi up to ane-half the contour interval. i, someone , . chooses to build up to the ma,<imum height allowance, it,is at their own risk. ^PTION rr2: . 7his option is similar #o the policy prior to 1991. Sui(ding height requirements remain unchanged. When the project planner reviews an iLG, and a ridge is over the maxirnum height by less than one foat, the planner would approve the ILC and authorize the scheduling of the framing inspection. For exampie, i# the planner deterrnines that a buiiding rvas 33-9", the planner would approve the iLC because it is within #he one-foot deviatian allowance. C?PTION #`"3: • When the originaf topographic survey is done for a property, the surveyor wiil be rtiGuired to increase the number of spot efevations within ine "bui(ding envelope'", thereby increasing the accuracy of the survey. The archifiect, owner andlor the surveyor would determine the building envelope, based upon the most appropriate and desirable place ta build. 1ncreasing the nurnber af spof eleva#ions wili reduce the 10% error #ac'Lor thaf exists in tflpographic surveys. Staf# acknowledges that some buildii,gs,may still be over ~ the building height and this option may need ta be combined with option #1. 4PT(QN #4: If a building has any proposed ridge within one foot of the maximum building height, a spot elevation will be required directly below that ridge to ensure accurate measurement of the ridge height. This additional spot elevation wauld need to be done when the building footprint and ridge elevations are identified and prior ta the issuanee of a Building Permit., This will require the surveyor to sunrey the propa-,fiwica: onc-n €ort gereral topograph4c and lot informa#ion, and later to measure specific points on the property to be added ta the original survey. There are pros and cans associated with each of these optians. S#aif recommends that the PEC discuss each op#ion and direct staff to amend ttre Sunrey Policy as necessarj. We have invited several surveyars to attend the meeting, in arder to help provide the PEC additionaJ information and advice. ?he PEC shauld alsa consider the timing af any change to this policy, when snould it go in#a a#ect, and how (if at all) wili it affect existing Building Permits? ~ . ~ _ . ~ N • .-y~'. ~`4:Md~i~ "~~~"M"rC" .r'_ i i'~ . .~,~e~ 1. 1 T J~ _ - ~r~? .+i/.,/~! tf `1 ~L.r~• h ~ ~ Ilt - a r _ , , y\ ~ • t'y~^~ g ~ P40 t . . _ k: ~ ~~c.• 4-' .m.. . ~ . ~ i~~ ti ~ . ~ ; ~ MEMORANDUM ~ TCI: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Deveiopment Department DATE: April 13, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for an "amendrnent to a previously appraved develapment plan" for fihe 7imber Fal[s Development, located at 4469 Timber Falis CoarUunplatted. Applicant; RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Daminic Maurieilo 1. DESCR1PTtON OF 7HE REOUEST The applicant is proposing an "amendment to a previously approved development plan" for Timber Falls. The applicant contends that plans in the Town's files firom 1976 and a building permit plan from 1982 are stiil binding and indicate ailowable development rights. This issue revolves around a six dweHing unit buifding (#19) which remains unbuilt on the property. The applicant would like to construct 4 single family residences or 2 single family residences and 1 duplex an the site. See applicant's statement attached. Staff has not seen documentation ta substantiate the position that there is a binding appraved development plan for this property. ~ The applicant has not submitted a survey of the entire Tirnber Falls development with which to determine buEldable area {site area excluding slopes in excess of 40% slope, red avalanche hazard, and areas of flood plain} and hence de#ermine density and GRFA remaining in the project. Since staff is not in possession of this survey, we, nor the PEC, can accura#ely or properly evaiuate the remaining development potential of this property based on the zoning o# the praperty (LDMF). Therefore, staff recommends tabling #his i#em until such time as an adequate survey of the entire property of Timber Fal(s has been pravided. 11. BACKGRt'?UND AND D(SGUSStON Timber Falls was annexed to the Town of Vail in 1974 (Ordinanee Na. 13, 1974 and Ordinance No. 20, 1974 attached) in accordance with Chapter 20, Annexed Areas, of #he Zoning Regulations (these annexation regulations were adopted in 1973). At that time, F'hases 1 and 2 of Tamber Falls were already constructed. The property which was annexed included what is currently called Timber Falls and Forest Glen. The plans which the applicant has submitted, and contends are the binding (vested) development pfan, also show what is now Forest Glen as a part of the Timber Falls developrnent plan. No annexation agreement was developed or apprnved with this annexation. The annexatian ordinance includes the s#a#ement that the land was annexed "without special terms or conditions" which we believe indicates that no additional develapment rights were granted to the landowner. The property was zoned in the interim by an emergency ordinance (Ordinance No. 23, 1974) and ultimately zoned Low [7ensity Multiple Famify (1.DMF) by Ordinance No, 26, 1974 (atCached). ~ ~ mwho~~nrt ~ Since na annexation agreement was estab[ished for the property annexed, it is sublect to the LDMF zoning adapted #or the property. ~ From 1975 until 1982, approvals were given by the Town of Vail for phases 3- 11. These phases were reviewed and approved by the DRB and were evaluated in accardance with the development standartis o# the LDMF zone district (i.e., GRFA, density, building height, etc.). In 1991, this same applicant applied for aSpecial Development District (SDD #27 Forest Glen). This SDD carved qut a 7.5 acre parcel from the original Timber Falls development ta create a separate and stand-alone development. This SDD was eualuated based on the underiying zoning of LDMF and on a survey for the property. The development plan which the applicant is claiming is a binding (vested) development pian on the Town af Vail was substantially modified frQm the originai plan by carving aut this 7.5 acre parcel and therefore has produced density and GRFA impiications to the Timber Falls parcel as it exists today. 5ummary of fact5: - - Timber Falls (with Forest G1en parcel) was annexed in 1974 - Annexation appraved without an special agreement as to density or development - Last Town approval of a new phase in Timber Falls 1982 (16 years a9o) - SDD #27 (Forest Glen) appraved removing 7.5 acres from Timber Falls in 1991 Please see memorandum #rom 7om Maarhead, Town Attorney, regarding vest rights legisiation. #11. FURTHER DISCUSSION~ The fflllowing arguments may be made with respect to this application: 1. Since the annexation is "silenY" on this development pian, the Town o# Vaii must accept the original Eagle Caunty approved developmen# as a vested development (vested forever). Staff respanse: Staff believes that since there is na annexation agreement, there is na "appraved deveiopment plan" with vested rights to density, beyond tha# af the LDMF zoning. Vested rights legislation did not exist in the Town of Vaif, or the State of Golorado, unti{ 1981 ar 1988, respective(y. Vail's vested rights ordinanee allaws vesting given specific conclitians far aperiod ofi 3 years. 2. The site plan and building permit dated 1982 for building #20 shows a footprint for building #19 (the unbui(t 6-unit structure). This permit, with the Tawn approval stamp, is evidence that the Tawn had aceepted the develflpment plan far Timber Falls and building #19, despite any density implications. Siaff respanse: 5taff agrees that this site plan in fact shows building #19. However, we do not believe this was an "appraved develapmen# pfan" which vested any rights to density beyond that of zoning. I#, for the sake of argument, ane accepts that this was an appraved development plan, C?RB appraval of such plans are only valid for a period of one year, and therefore would have expired 15 years aga in 1983. Additionally, if the Forest Glen land (7.5 acres) had nat been removed from the Timber Falls development in 1991, there most IEkely wouid not be a density implication for building #19 today, Farest ~ Glen substantially modi#ied the °`development plan" for Timber Falls, by removing 7.5 acres of land, and has potentially created density implications for the remainder af Timber 2 Falis. Staf# can not determine if there is a density implicatian as the applicant has not ~ provided a survey of the property with which to determine buildable area. 3. The Tawn of Vail must review any development on this site in accordance with zoning regulations in eifect at the time of annexation and has no right ta regulate existing (constructed) buildings which were constructed under Caunty regulations. Staff respanse: Staff believes that if yau accept that argument, then any changes to zoning in the Town of Vail would only have effect on undeveloped praperty. Therefore, the Tawn wouid not be abie to regulate the single-family houses and eommercial areas which were annexed into West Vail and would never be able to change or modify zoning restrictions. Staff believes this argument suggests that the application of zoning is not legal in the Town of Vai1. 4. The Town of Vail has continuausly approved the phases of Timber Falls and therefore must have accepted the "vested" development pian. - Staff respanse: The DRB did in fact apprave all phases up to this disputed phase of Timber Fa(ls. Density and GRFA standards have been applied to fhe development proposals as each phase was approved. Density and GRFA figures were based on an estimate o# buildable area in the Town files, which cannot be veri#ied without a survey. 5. According to the applieant, ail other develapment s#andards in the LDMF zone disfirict apply tfl this development (i.e.s GRFA, building height, setbacks, efc.). ~ Staff respanse: If this development plan is a vested development plan, then why wauld other LD1U1F zone distric# standards be applicable? Why then wauld the density provisions nat apply and why would GRFA have been appiicable ta all future phases of this development? Staff beiieves that al1 of the development standards of the LDMF zone district are applicable, including density. Alandowner is not able to pick and ehoose development standards as ta best suit their needs. In 1984, the applicant, in consideration o# development on the pareel of land included in Timber Falls, but hence developed as SDD #27 (Forest Glen), prepared an analysis (see attached) of development potential on the 7.5 acre parcel in accordance with #he LDMF zone district. It would appear that the applicant at that time recognized the zoning an the property as cantrolling density and development standards, but is naw con#ending that the "approved development plan„ controls #he density. A review of the Municipal Cade has revealed that #he term "development plan" is only used in the following instances: 1. In reference to the establishmen# o# CC1, CC2, CSC, and HS zane districts. When sueh a district is originally established the applicant is required to provide a general development p{an far the area. Though, this plan must show locations of buildings and uses, hawever, it does not establish density provisions or development standards. 2. An SDD requires a development plan which establishes development limitations and standards. This development plan expires after 3 years from the date of approval. ~ 3 - - 3. The vested rights chapter of the Zoning Regulations defines a development plan and vested right as: ~ S4TE SPECIFIC DEVEL.OPMENT PL.AN: Shali mean and be limited to a final major or minor subdivision plat, or a special development distriet development plan. VESTED PRqPERTY R1GHT: The right to undertake and complete the development and use of praperry under the terms and conditions of the site specific development pian, and shali be deemed established upon appraval of a site specific develapment plan. A site specific development plan under this section expires after 3 years and must contain the following language: "Approval af this plan may Create a vested property right pursuarrt to Colorado Revised Statutes title 24, article 68, as amended." This section goes on to state: "Failure to contain this statement shall invalidate the creation of the vested property right." Therefore, what the applicant has produced as a"develapment plan" has no basis in the cade. N. ZQNiN,G..ANALY515 Zoning: Low Density Multiple Fam1y ~ Ha2ards: High and Maderate Debris Finw High Severity Rockfall Snow Avalanche Area of Influence Lot area: Cannot be determined w/aut a survey Buildable area: Cannot be de#ermined w/out a survey Standar Allowed/Required Existinq Density; Ganrrot be determined wlaut a survey 116 dweliing units GRFA: Cannot be determined w/out a survey 133,241 sq. ft. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIdN The Community Development Department recommends that the PEC table this request until such time as #he applicant has provided the necessary survey and information #or the praperty to be properly evaluated by the staff and the PEC. Further, staff believes that the on{y two Tawn of Vail pracesses that allow deviations firam zoning density provisions available to the applicant are the variance pracess or the Special Development District process. F:\EVERYQNE\PEGWIEMOS\98\TIMBFALL.413 ~ 4 "The Chalets at Timber Falls" ~ Applicant's Proposai: The appliaant is propasing ta amend the previously approved development plan for Site #19 of TimberFalls Condominiums. The following amendments are proposed: 1. Reduce densii;y fi-am 6 residential units to 4 residential units. 2. Changing the residentiai structures from a candominium format to a. single-fatnily or duplex format. 3. Reduce the rernaining CrRFA available in the Timber Falls Condominiums (Site #19 is the last undeveloped parcel in this project) from appraximately 38,657 sq.ft. to 9,500 sq.ft.. The applieant has established defined building envelopes for each ofthe 4 units proposed. No stnzcture slxall be located within 10-feet of an adjacent unit in accordance with ITBC requirements for fire protectian. Exterior materials will be similar to those products used in the existing buildings at Timber Falls. Stucco base with natural woad siding, possibly some stone accents. A11 other development standards for this zoning district sha11 be adhered ta under this proposal. ~ History of Timber Falls Candaminiurns: Ovtmershin The Timber Falls project has been under the same ownership (Timber Falls Associates) since Qriginat work began to develop the property in 1972. l e County The 21.8 acre site was received Sketch Plan approval frorn the Eagle County on January 3, 1973, for Lots 1-7, Timber Falis Subdivision. The lots were zaned multi-family and each lot was to contain several condominium buildings. The breakdown is shown below: Lot 1 Future site of Glen Falls Subdivision. Lot 2 Avalanche area and reereatianal amenities. Lot 3 Buildings 17, 18, 19 and 20. Lot 4 Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, S, 6, and 7. Lat 5 Buiidings 14, 15 and 16. Lot 6 Buildings 10, 11 and 12. Lat 7 Buildings 8 and 9. The nwner performed extensive avalanche studies, which are well documented in the remaining ~ files at the Eagle County Planning 17epartment, to satisfy zoning authorities at the time: The avalanche area was required specific mitigation and only reereational amenities were a1lowed to be constructed in this area. Buildings #1$ (44 units on 2.5 acres) were approved and pernutted through Eagle County prior to annexation of the Timber Falls parcel into the Town of Vail on November 4, 1974. Town of Vail ~ The Town of Vail annexed the subject property an November 4, 1974. Annexation daeumentatian on file at the town does not reference any density or developer impravement requirements. In 1976, a development plan Town (see Exhibit "A" - Development Plan, obtained from files at the Town of Vai1) was filed with the Town of Vail outlining the overall Tirnber Fa11s site plan and showing a total of 19 building sites (there was no Building #13). Builclings #10, 11 and 12 were apprcrved, permitted and canstructed between 1976 and 1978. In 1978, the Town of Vail Planning Department requested a master plan be submitted outlining the proposed "build out" for the remaining development in the Timber Falls prc+ject. According ta the owner, this plan was submitted and approved by the Town ( See Exhibit `B" - Master Plan, obtained from files at the Town of Vail). This approved Master Plan clearly defines the remaining develapment as 7 buildings containing a total of 48 units. The breakdown is showm belaw: Building #14 7 LTnits Building #15 7 Units Buiiding #16 10 Units Building #17 6 Units ~ Building #i 8 6 Units Building #19 6 Units Building #20 6 Units Total Density 48 Units The appraved plans for each ofthese buildingsy excluding Building #19, are contained in fhe files ofthe Town of Vail. Both the approved site plans for Building #18 and Buiiding #20 {See Exhibit "C"} specifically denote the propased location and size (identical to the 5-unit canfigurations in Building # 18 and Building #20) of Building # 19. Buildings #14 through #18 and Building #20 were all constructed in accordance with the approved building and site plans on record at the Town of Vail, and the Mas#er Plan filed in 1978. After receiving inquiries and an offer far the purehase of Site #19 at Timber Fa11s, the owner approached the Town of Vail Planning Department regarding the remaining GRFA available in the project. A response letter from Tim Devlin at the Planning Department (See Exhibit "b"), dated March 3, 1993, indicated the remaining GRFA as 38,657 sq.ft.. A second letter from Tim Devlin at the Pianning Departrrient (See Exh:ibit `V"), dated 1Vlarch ~ 11, 1993, questioned the accuracy of the previously represented GRFA number and recommended using it only as a"rough estimate" until such time as a stamped survey confirms 2 the site area and net "buildable" area, Much to the surprise of the owner and contrary ta the development plan and master plan an fiie in the records af the Town of Vail, the letter goes an ~ to indicate a remaining density af 2 units for Site #19 at Timber Fa11s. The owner responded in a letter to Tim Devlin (See Exhibit "F"), dated Mareh 17, 1993, stating that the Town af Vail's analysis was flawed. If the Town's technique of using current zorsing criteria in 1993 (disregarding a11 past approvals) to analyze the remaxning density in the Timber Fa11s project, then the Town must focus their current zoning standards in 1993 to those lands annexed into the Tawn in 1974, or 10.575 acres. This approach would arrive at a remaining density of 23 units and a even higher remaining GRFA for Site #19. Na further discussians or any applications were filed at this time. Purpose of Application: The applicant, AMS I)eveiaprnent, Inc. (Greg Amsden) negotiated a contract on December 29, 1997, to purchase Site #19, Timber Falls Caridaminiums, from the 4umer. The applicant requested verification of existing density and GRFA for the subject parcel from the Town of Vai1 Planning Depattment in early January, 1998. After approxirnately 30 days of discussians involving the Town of Vail planning staff, town attorney, ovmer, applicant and applicant's attorney, the Town af Vai1 responded in a letter to the applicant (See Exhibit "G„), dated February 9, 1998. , and further stated that the decisian as to existing density for Site #19 cannot be determined by the planning staff ar the Town attorney. According to state statute, this decision must be determined by a Commission or Boa.rd seated at the Town of Vail. ~ ~ 3 Building Site #19, TimberFalls fa These phatos show different angles of the site on 1Vlarch 13, 1998. View af Building #18 View of Building #20 View laaking scruth at Buildings #16 and #17 ~ ~ , - ~ t View af Building #3 View af Building #18 View lovking east at Buildings #1 and #2 : u R e e - y"R:;;w , •~~..~~~n;a.~ .az».ti. . , . _ . ~ View looking west over Glen Falis Sabdivision ~ , Apdl't10I4 Fo~'RtVi Vt5itltN ~ $C?t t ~ /'t"~M f ~ L'~p ~4'~g(}~.~'f~``~ ~ 1 l~...tv.~'`"~{ti~~ ~t : , ~ ~`4`"..-•...,.~,,,~w,,••%'".p / t , x ~ ~ i~ ~~E ~ # ~ tf ~ ~ ~ Y. • ~ ~ t\ F-~''".,,.,.,,,,.~.. ~OF4E ~ ,~lq ' ~ .~1 ~.~.i,a, r.~.u~o r•,FS~4 t\' w v4 !'I'~ ` ~yVw~,~;E. r ! I{~t ~ ~L~'l` j. . yw~ . ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ,..M.D01r~ VR1~/c MlE~! rt S ,t - a ~k~ ` •y~ ~ t.! f~lt" ? ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ • 'i ~ ! f c i u E t . . ~ . . t ~s!' - 4 4 ~ 7~7~ ~ d~~ , {f ' }1± T patYl 9 I!` '1 t ~ . ,a ~ y ~ ~ ~ % ~ 1~~1~ - ~~~i~ea ~ ~ w ~~~/t.~y ~a~~.~..-.". ~ ``.,,,=,K-^'.•s~ ~..~r....F - / : a 1Ta F. ~~ryry AT40Kkt f~ALSt . ' / . N / 1~+~1a:~,~i,1 ~ ~ ~ . • ` ~ ~ 1 . e~,elO,~M ~ 1976 '~'I~~ ~ } a tirnber 4at1s corpartion ~ o,d . . ~o olr , *40 11JIMS ~ ~ . ~ . . . . . . . . ~ S F itt: AM51t3E , . _ . . - . . _ ~f~ , G , f ocD ~a ~ ~cREE ~ . ~ P ~ 0 pQOC. ( i ~ . LI ~ oAf,yo1V • ~ ~ ~ ~ > C7'~.~ / . ~ ~ i ~ tN~2^~ ~ ' ~ .5~~~1~1~ ~ } ~``ti, ~ _ i ; f ~ _,~T4MESER„FACLS~G~.f~ pfF1Ce ' A H (D 'r . .q~u~tUYM~ .~,'~~j7Uf2E`~~`~ ;i"~' _ y` lt,, . j ~ .:.t 4~ ~ • ~ti_ 4 ~ ~~aM «t s ` 7 t ~ 'A,~•, f ~ ~ c ` j,~' „4' ~ ~ fj r ~ ' ~ . ' f ? ~':],y~'~ { f t-,~ f I~ ~ w_{~` / l~( 1~,,~'y`d•Y ~ . ~1'~~, ,j~~~ ' fr~ w _ ,.M EAt34W QR9Y . . ~T ~ •j ~ ~ 4~ J~ f accs`~.~~ ~•.,4 "x t~ ~ d . y. ~ • 't! CdM~ON AR • r_ ~ ` 1~ y~~ ~ ~{~t ~ J~ f Yt M}~. wM'~' t4 . 0 4 C ~ EXHtBlT "G , ~ ` =.5 . E; i c~LVr.G.c~; ~cst~t:`' ~ l~tlG., ccX.oZAC)c ~ ' F ~ ~ • I 1 ~"~'4L.G'~~:\: ~~rc 2'.~~ . G f.'~o/Go o ,~?"G. Y ......~.._._..._....,.tfATE~ 4 ~tyti ~ ~u/sT~~/~(~~ ~ ~ ~ ~f ~ ~ !!r.°„""`w `A+~w+~ .~...~."~.r."~~r~..~` /,y/}//~/ / ' ..~w ~ k r . ~ •r.~y _ ~ ,~+"~..r J(~j_ L . ~ ~ ~ I! ( ` 1 ~ ~ .1• -t~t,~ t ~ ~ `n''""~-,. „ r~,.w. ~ ~ ~ S^~""° ~ w`,~„~.. "~.v...~,~ «-r+r"' r,.,..~..,,,,~,~ a ~ ~ fi ~ `"'..y-."~ `''"..~-~4„' ~ f `'`~-~.'""`"'~a'+~ `,,,,~`ri... i ' ~ ~ ~.f"""` ^~.'w~.,~,.. ~ ~ "'~o~ ' «•",.,,ti. .~.+~,..,...w.r .r.e~-•"'"' ~ . fj f~ ~ ~ l ~ • ' ~ ~ t~ r~,..~,,, ~ r„~nF.... t 27f ' ~ F \ 1` ~ ~ ~.rwn ~ . W . l~~/ri'!'e~~ \ t`~ i ~ /q' ` ~ ~ .o-...-~' ~ ~ t • : ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ` z ~ ~ ~ + ~ ' . ' . • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ ..s~' ~ ~ ~ ~ . / r / . l ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ / ~,,.i` ~ ~ ' / ~ r ~F , f ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ f~ • ~ • . . ~w` / / !t ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -''P'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ J)~ { { : J~' f/ /f( ~ . . fjj • ~ E~ ! ! ~ y~ y ~ A EXHIBIT nDir , ~t11 .y/1~1 1 Yl~` I Y Y~LL 75 Snutb Frontage Road bepartment of Community Developmerat G'uil, Colnrado 81657 303-479-21381479-213, . ~ March 3, 1993 )oOL Ot )0'~O'Vz ~ J-~W~ &YLI Nn... Mr. Ron Riley M 22$ Bridge Sfire( Vail, CO 81657 Dear Ron: /$-A~ 0$' Upan review af though the faHowing area t1ut-rtbeCS c' Totai Site Area. Ttital Buildable Area: 571,732 sq. u. AIlowable GRFA: 171,520 sq. ft. Existing GRFA (3/2/93): 132,863 sq. ft. ~ Remaining GRFA: 38,657 sq. it. Please let me know if I can answer any further questions that you may have. Best regards, Timothy N. DeVI'tn Town Planner xc: Mike Mollica ~ i ~ EXHI$IT "E" . ` t V YiY 1 Y U!' YA.lL ~ o75 Soutb Frontajze Road Department of Communzt.Y Develapment Vatl, Colarado 81657 303-479-21381479-2139 March 11, 1993 R " 44lj.y Mr. Ron Riley 228 Bridge Street Vail. GO 81657 _ Dear Ron: As a follow-up to my le#ter of March 3rd to you, and upon further review of #he Timberfalls fi{ean record with the Town ofi Vail, i hava discovered the #ollowing in regard #o the allawed density for Timberfails: 7otal Site Area: 782,157 sq. ft. Total Buildable Area: 571,732 sq. ft. ~ The allowed density in the Low Density Multiple Family (LDMF) zone district is 9 units per buildable acre. As I believe you are aware, "buiidable area" means any Iotor parcei, or ` portion thereaf, which does not contain designated fioodplain, red hazard avalanche area, or areas in excess af 40°lo siope. Since the buiidabie area shown in our files is 571,732 square feet, or 13.125 acres, this resufts in a total denslty of 118 dwelling units for Timberfalls, ; Further, our records show that 116 units have been constructed, resulting in 2 units that couid sti{I be buiCt. A1though the Town's records indicate a tatai site area and a to#al buildable area for the Timberfalls project, we are nat in possession of a stamped survey verifying those nurnbers. in order for us to accurately determine the remaining allowabfe density for Timberfalls, it will be necessarv for `?JU t0 ,'.3COVIt~P I1S Wlt~I .,,,..~^N1 d!;,,^.'!!?'°'-•~~+~•Jn I Intit a:.. s~ ..t..,.,.t.4' > ~s. ta,.i ~lui~ .,i~ :JUlr$ i Ui 1>.,. i~~ ll ~i~ Qi„sV numbers shouid only be used as a rough estimate of the avaiiable densi#y at the Timberfalls praject. lf you should have any questions, please contact me at the 4ffice of Community nevelopment, 479-2138. I look forward to hearing fram you soon. 't Best regards, ~ Timothy N. Devlin Town Planner ~ xc; Mike MoBica a W#;.'~. s ~rtr~ , ` , ~ • BO~..` ii11111811 t/L+ii 7: ~ nald:1 3~,:'~~i~ey March 17,'~F I993.~,4'A : - z:z ~ F.a. = ~ ~ • ~ ~Ma I:l *i c a e~ lin u ~3.t'y , De • ~~'i, velopment - t~ ti£f;Va i l -.Fr<inta,ge Road CO 81 & 5 7 - - • , . . ~ . .~47~ yk,.e qY" ~ . . . . ~n }TW e21:'~:P'II1G11. ' . ~ ~ V ~ .',~rt"~~:.t~~ . ~:`;c~. ~ '~•-r. . iting in response ta your 1.ette.r of 3/11/93. Your`:::arliaj.~,_ 'rK ;1awedin that the Town oP Vail zoning regulations:;*.46u1;~ d~.~able until 11/4J74 (the date the parcel was ~ annexeWI,lts"~' h ~ ;,4~fiqwr,~~;_of Vazl ) . Phases 1 & 2, camprised af 44 units~`G;V`e~ ~g. ori.~rE~ 4 A_ sk;5,5`--.acres, were completed prior to the annexati~-:-: ~ X f. , `~~aG~.h~, hajses....l 2, leaves 10.575 acres of buildable grciurzd;'`r.esu3:T!-zh;`."jK'i~ ~.M : :.,_.,~ti;,.,,:a~3::,rr;,-;•~ ~ ~t~ ota,of 95 units available to be buil ~r ~;~~~y~e~t, . t : 7 2 . un i~;t;s;^""h e_ ~ z q,:,:;~• omp}leted after a nnexation, leaving 23 uni ~ t s._l e f be. . arc e1 _ - e~? . . ~ '~~,.~s,:~ x„.,~'~he,'sa,me~,ana].ysis relative to GFRA would produce: .'J'~.: x1: ITil1!Crt~ :than identified in yaur ~'8 ~ letter of. 3J3%93':;:;K~inc~ t_ ~.=3s*'_. an ~ a sufficient GFRA, it's not necessa, k •~y ry~ ~ulations. • w~.rz.~s, ~ , ~;~;.w t''<:;;~ ~ ~-4.~. rouneed anYmare infarniation relative ta` thim,a;Ct -e - ~ . _.:~~;~u. ` .r ~ • Y,h~t'~ ' _.q~k:y+"ra~` ~ 15 ~ 4~, `.,~..',~X,s:m~. ' a ~'ial1• „ } R"y.4~'SS:' _ ~ - ~.;~.e~r : ~ •l ~ ~ ~ `~t ~ ';.•fi~n~+K~: ~ + ~•C a~+': _.7~' ~,3;7. x ~ ' i. t~r;~:? ~ : :4~ f:Cy ~ Yi.• ~Y?n'~~;x /~pv~ . 5~c' i r:."~~%~L!•;.':j:~G^-~,;:' . S~.lv~ ll.`• 1 el.Y ! ..!~.t-''aJy._.`,h'}'~...~* 5• F.I}k*:' wryl+.'.H-H'=~'S •<.a '..S ..Y4r, t=ry~ IY vel` yS'i~~~b' .`i~.d.. ' i~~S~ - • "v~e~ii~~~~ ..F' ~ ..',_C» 3..; .A..d...1, •N~~:r .~NZ; :w~°+j r,'~'''4'_' y~~~_Y.~>., iS }:~:~-:.r-»:.~ay+.. CF~ •bn~.~ti;,':f~ ~p ')~~;~'~'YV~.i'. ~:k~":.r:~~'..F,Y~~`."~ wK. 1'~7'~~~y" ',1-;'' +5~ 1~ T• qk.~t!.~. : ~i,*~G}' 'd . ~?n'. .~,~e.cs~e~e.' ,?.p ~~~•w~~ ~..~~~~j~'.`~{~ I~.~ ..,^a x~)'$~:e::~-3',~Kh}~ .:~9«~,,,Nhit _ . - ~"'~'~'~•'Tt'<srp~..i. ~•~iM:~y.'F'a'=•i.M• ~-~1n'~• Ronald H. Riley :y ' . ;;a-. , iY, •R,k~}«~ . .w,x,~.. ~ a+s w y.{ ~i`;`*' ' ` • - ~~7-RHRjchl ,~°;~:,~~;~~in~:~~; ~r~ ,,~,t ~~-~z` .1'."Rrs, ,Y,~s:. . '.~f-'1`t r.-.a, y .c,,M i•-;µ w`:?;: - - °a5T'~w~7'.~.`%^~ y.i'rni„~ ~.m w.3ri w..}~ t-- _ ; GtM,;~' r~•.;~ S"t ~v,_ ~-a1 ~=';:r..;,..•.:;~:.;»~a'~~`;r-`.:«~,..F,ti .~f - ~;'~,~-','-k.r.-~~s.~- ~''7::.•'".a:':c-::...,«:~g'c,'~i~,k.~~ :Y:sn~a.^~~;~-..i,a.y,': •~;^a;~?+a.~,ti~;^:.~%. ~ ~~~'.~,e,~~: za~s` 'ay¢,a,°,i _ _ . a,;~,d,,;,~x-...:.rr.,{~:•~.i~i2` K.' J~~~''~=' . ; a:Y ty" ':,k~~, . - ,:.S~+a~•,r~:::..rnr~,:+e`~.?',~i~'~"~'.;.'~;~.c.3+.Y~''+~,s.7 q...~.ra,.i~iy'.~ n" i~.~ry,,'ka:: +~A.i~~.ti~~i~ yy ~ 't}N~S; w`.~,~•-:?r"rN• 7&,t~`?,~'r q' ~-g; ~ +aei?~~ ' • :z~". ~'~~.~N.~.~•-~:~~~~ -~:'tr ~~r ~28.Y~rid e ~StYeet, `~ail, C`~alouado 8t657 303 -476-3 /oqI4 t 5o ,'~,f.'I u~L1~k ~ ~7y~W?~1~" - eJ~-1.r~ .~.5:~"'W'.:`»r.S~w:xV~.s+.r.,~ :V•, i~.;:,;~'~'.r";• S ,.'4. P .*;rr y :~t * " . . ,,s~17`" .Ft'' EXHIBIT nG" . ~ ~*?,~1 ij ~OWN OF rAIL ~ 1?epartrnent of Cotnmunity DevelQprrrertt 75 South Frontuge Rvad Vat tr f..'(lj0rQd0 81657 . . : • 970-479-2138 ['!1A Y 1 0-4I Y".GY5L . . . . . . . . . 7M Fl}JIUaiy 9, 199$ Greg A.tnsden - Amsden, ]3avis & Fowler 500 South Frontage Raad East, Suite 112 Vail, Colorado 81657 Re. Timberfalls Development I'otentiallBighorn 4th Unplatted I:77ear Greg, ~ At yaur request, the Town of Vai1 Community Development Uepartment, with the aid ofthe Town Attorney, has reviewed the status of the development patential for Timberfalls. Upon review of Chapter 19 of the Municipal Cade, the Colorado Revised Statutes, the Town's files and the materiats you have provided, we have not seen evidence that indicates that a1i oFthe requiretnents af the vested praperty rigbts provision ofthe Municipal Code and the Calorado Revised Statutes have been met. I have enclosed a copy of Chapter 19 for your review. The Town files are available for review at the Community Development Department. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call me. You can reach me ry telephone at 479-2145. Sincerely, George Ruther, AICP L4x*A 5enior Planner xc: R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney ob REGYCLEOI'APER Vr 12-19-1 12-19-4 CHAPTER 1 9 VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS ~ SECTION. 12-19-3; NOTICE; HEARING: No site specific development plan shaii 12-19- 1: Purpose be approved by the Tawn Cauncil or any 12-19- 2: Definitions ' Town board or cammission as applicabie, 12-19- 3: Notice; Hearing until after a public hearing proceeded by 12-19- 4: Approval Procedure written notice of such hearing, in accar- 112-19- 5: EffectPve t3ate Of Appcoval dance with Chapter 3 of fhis Title. Such 12-19- 6. Vested Property Rights; Duration notice may, at the aption of the Town, be 12-19- 7: Natice Of Approval cambined with the notice for any other 12-19- 8: Exception To Vesfing Of hearing to be held in conjunction with the Praper#y Rights hearing on the site specific development 12-19- 9: Payment Of Costs pian fcrr the subject praperty. A# such hear- 12-19-10: Other Provisions Unaffected ing, persons with an interest in the subject 12-19-11: Limitations matter a# #he hearing shall have an opportu- nity to present relevant or material evidence as determinetl by the Town Council ar . Town baard or cammission as applicable. 'S 2-19-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of this {Ord. 2(1991) § 1} , Chapter is to provide the proce- dures necessary ta implement the provi- ~ sions of Cnlorado Revised Statutes title 24, 12-19-4: APPROVAL P12OCEDURE: The article 68, as amended. (C?rd. 2(1991 ) § 1) action of the Town Council or Town baard or commission as applicable for approval of a site specific development 12-19-2: DEFINITIONS. plan sha!l be in the same form as that re- quired to approve any request being con- S1TE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN: sidered for the subject property in conjunc- Shall mean and be limited to a final major tion with the hearing on the si#e spacific or minar subdivisian plat, or a special de- development plan, such actian being either velopment district development plan. by ordinance, resolu#ion, or motion as the case may be. if any action by any board or VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT: The right ta commissian is appealed to or called up by undertake and complete the development the Town Council, approval shall be and use nfi property under the terms and deemed to occur when a final decision o# canditions of the site specific development the Tawn Counci{ is rendered approving the plan, and shall be deemed established site specific development plan. The apprav upon approval of a site specific devetap- af may include such terms anti canditions ment plan. (C?rd. 2(1991 ) § 1) as may be reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety, and we(fare, and the failure to abide by any such terms and ~ Town of Vail . i 2-19-4 12-19-8 ~ conditions may, at the aption of the Town Faifure ta contain this statement shali inval- Councit or Town btrard ar commission a$ idate the creation of the vested property applicable, and after public hearing, result right. in addition, a notice describing gener- ; in the forfeiture of ves#ed property rights, ally the type and in#ensity of use approved, (Ord. 2(1991) § 1) the specific parcel or parcels of property affected, and stating that aves#ed praperty right has been created, shall be published 12-19-5: EFFEGTIVE DATE OF AP- once, not more than fourteen (14) days PROVAL: A sifie speci#ic devei- afiter approval of tMe sife specific develop- vpment pian shaN be deerned appraved ment plan in a newspaper of general circu- upon tha effect'sve date of the approval fation wifhin the Town. (C7rd, 2(1991) §1) actian relating thereto by the Town Councif : or the Town board or commission as the case may be. (Qrd. 2(1991) § 1) 12-19-8: EXCEPTION TO VESTING t3F PRiDPERTY RIGHTS: A vested ' property right, even thaugh ance estab- 12-19-6: VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS; (ished as provided in this Chapter, pre- DURATION: A properCy right ciudes any zoning or land use action by the ' which has been vested as provided far in Tawn or pursuant #o an initiated measure Y this Chapter shall remain vested far a peri- which wauld alter, impair, prevent, diminish, oci of three (3) years. in the event amend- or atherwise delay the development or use ments to a site specific devefopment plan of the property as set fiorth in the site spe- are propaseci and approved, #he effective cific development pfan, except; - date of such amendments for purposes of ~ the duratian o# the vested property right, A. Wi#h the eonsent of the aifectecE fand-. shall be the date of the approva( of the owners; vr original site specific development plan, unfess the Town Council or applicable B. Upon the discovery of natural or man- board or commission specifically finds to made hazards on or i? the imrnediate the contrary and incorporates such finding vicinity of the subject praperty, which in its appraval of the amendment. (Ord. hazards could not reasanably have 2(1991) §'i ) been discovered at the tirne of site specific devefopment plan approval, and which hazards, if uncorrected, 12-19-7: NUTICE QF APPRt3VAL: Each woufd pose a serious threat to the map, platr 4!' S(te plan or ather pubiic health, safety, and wel#are; or document constituting a site specific devel- opment plan shall cantain the foilowing C. To the extent that the afifected land- _ language: owner receives just compensation #or _ af1 costs, expenses, and liabilities APProvaf of this plan may create incurred 6y the fandowner, inclatiing a vested property righf pursuanf but not iimited to all fees paid in con- to Coiorado Revised S#atutes sideration of financing, and all archi- ~ tifle 24, article 68, as amended. tectural, planning, marketing, legal, and other cansultan#s fees incurred after approvaf by the Town Couneif, ar ~ Town of Vait 12-19-8 12-19-11 , applicable Town baard or commissian, ment the pr+avisions of Colarado Revised together with interest thereon at the 5tatutes title 24, article 68, as amended. in ~ iegai rate unti( paid. Just compensa- the event of the repeaf of said articfe or tian shall not include any diminution in judicial determinatian that said artrcle is the va(ue a# the praperty which is invalid or uncons#itutional or does not app(y causad by such action. to home rule municipalities such as the Town of Vail, this Chapter shall he deemed D. The establishment of a vested proper- to be repealed, and the provisions hereof ty right pursuant to !aw shall not pre- no longer effective. {Ord. 2(1991 ) § 1} clude the application of ordinances or regulations which are generaf in na- ture and are applicable to afl praper- ties subject to land use regulation by the Town, incfuding but naf fimited ta, Suilding Codes, Fire, Plumbing, Elec- trical and MechanicaC Codes, Housing, and Dangeraus Building Codes, and design review guidelines. (Ord. 2('t991) § 1) 12-19-9. PAYMENT QF COSTSc In addi- tion to any and all other fees and ` charges imposed by this Code, the app4i- cant for approval of a site specific develop- .ment plan shall pay alf costs relating to ~ such approval as a result of the site specif- ic development plan review ancluding publi- cation of no#ices, public hearing, and review ' costs. At the option of the Town, these costs may be imposed as a fee of one hun- dred dolfars ($100.00). (Ord. 2(1991) § 1) 12-19-10: OTHER PROYISIC3NS i7NAF- FECTED: Approval of a site specific development plan shall not consti- tute an exemption from or v+,raiver of any provisions of this Code pertaining to the development and use of property. (Ord. 2(1991) § 1) 12-19-71: LTMITATIONS: Nothing in this Chapter is intended ta create any vested property right, but only to imple- ~ ?'own of Uail ~lt , ~t , , . . ~ - ~ TNEES 6" CAI.. AND LARC.Ek: - ~1y~ . 0 p 0 rt ~ • ~ ~4 '.tt'~°2/•~~„ . 4N11fCATL'S EXIS7ING CQNIfER ~e . ° - ~ a N O N uvnrcAMs eXIs-rIvc oeeIuunUs ° ? "`^-..~a ~ ~ ~ ~ PHA3E 4 ; , . . ~ ~ ~ • . ' ` lk ~ • . ~ ~ V { ~ , A ~ i . . . ~ r. . ~ ,i• . li i! t y , 1 , ~ ~ ~ ~f w ~r~ ~'~'rw~y ~ ~ i ~ ~ ' , . • t~ , ~ L ' . ~ . , • . , x \ . jj E%f5 INC,(5PlIARTD,RIVE , ~i ;,~y " f x ` nc ss (a ~ F, i a a LIMITEb COMM ~tYARFA . • " j a ~ , a• ~ : . ~ ~ ° Q~ . a~ ~ f b~ U~ ~ ~ Q' ~JvE. ~ 'a U t • PHASEtI EXl4fltiG BE'ttAlN(.: } ~ a ~ ~ z~ I ! ~ f' f, /f f~~ • ~ / ~ • ~ • ~ . ' < 'f~ / /FR~ ~•`.f ~ ~ , ' ~ . •nnnt w lu ~ ~ PR A 5 E E ~ / . • . , 4s^ t (,X EXISTING CONDITIONS_ " ••...t~ a snrvE[.ore M :.sou sa. Fr. : C O M M O H A R E A BNVE4QPE B: 2,sou sQ, er. r ENVE[.QPEC:` 2,256SQ.FP. ~ Ev SNVElAPE4: 2S5050.FT. ` TUTAL: 8,300 SQ. Ff. GAFA ~ oo $1: . C ~ O ~ .S.S ALLIMPKOYGM6NT&fNCLi{DiNf3 PARKING, rC ~ ~ ` ~ ~6=! 1{"t4• Zsj,14• BNT RELY WITHlN Tf £ 9UfGDtNCTEO p . ; Cl~'f ~ •L f ~ a ENV6I.UPES ~ "~y. • • 0 N 6 ~ ~ • ~ ~ . ~ . / ~ 0 4 • ~ ENVTLOPE PHASE 9 `~,y . . . • ` ,t ; J~ % . , ~ • r 100 sprtr.cRFn..Iux:. ENwELOPE.G.. 2.0` FROM O17t31D6 . J PARKI{KC SPACCS, M1itN. . PROP. tINE:tYP. ~ ~~'',y~~~_~ • ~,bv~. ~ , . / E~' ~ ! ~ ~ S,1S6 SQ P'il GRFA.n.+..•.7 ~ EXtt+T[RC BVltA71'~C 3 PARKJt~r SRACtS, ~flN~ . ~ ~ r . . . ~ i 47 t t ' r r . . , • ~ 1 ~r , . FkJ C ' a4 • ~ ~ # ~ { ~ l' ~ F:/'i7r ~t t e , ~ ~ , t , ' j ?a• , ` t , , ' . : ~ , ~ , ~ Z *NW.~~.ar~ n . . - ~ ` K1A%.~ f f i I'1 r'~ F . . I S60 SQ.FT GRPA: MIN. fX15I'18G 6SPNKI.T DRIVE I PARKtNG FPACES LtMITED COMA20NAREA • • ' ~ ~ , ~cG ~ " j ~ ~ ' ~ a ~ ' ~ PHASE t I , . ~ . : . ~ f - ~ ~ ? k F ~ a ` ENVELO~EA ra:o~nrlrc~~a~~ . • i I- , a~i~vsss~~v~i.arr~,'rtr. ( ~ ~ .sn'rxasr~ ~ ' J~ ~ z_rao-wa.€r.ckve~ .AIax. A~K , ' , . • f . . . ~ t 1 PAHXMG 3PACF:S, FUN. ~ . ' , ` • ~ , ~ ~ ~ / E%I5TfN4 Bt;(l.ht~C ~ " ' . ~ ~ . , • ~ ~ ~ . . 4' ~ • ' , ~ ~ ~ } ~ ~ . ? ~ f~ ~ , _ . ~ . . ri,,,.~~,•~.,w;~~ ` ~ PfiASEI .I.W PIlORf OUT5t46RROP. LfffE.T ' ~ . ~ vtb~ . ~ PRCtPOSEI3 DEVELOP?VIENT ' caMMarv AREa x. . , ~ . ~ . A IV ' ~~zl;u.hy xsr.2r • 46~"" p fr' ~ Q p A ~li, 0 IV ~ ' / • ~ ~ ' \ . 1 . • . , . . . , . ~ . , , . . . `r . . • . P H A 3 E. 4 `l}p • 'C i a, ! r ; 1~ ~'?;*.c ERl6'{'fNC9411L0~C ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ r ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~t ~ . ~ f f ` ~ ~ ~ . ~ 4~ 4~ ~ ~ ~ • . ~ ~ r ~ ~g~t° ~ •.i ,..,f ! ' ' . ~ z , 1 ~ 1 \ ~ ' . ~ • , ~ . ~ ~ j ~ ~ •f ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ , ' ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~F 0 Z t ? ` \ ~/I ~ . ' . ~ . ' r 1 , I i . }ri M t ~ ~ ~ v ? ~ R , i ' ~ . ~ ~ . / ~ ~ ~ ~5`'' .f . ' . , ' ! . . ~ ' J a$ C~ A t.` ~ ~ ~ ( ~ . ' f~ ~ • ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ • Mi3TSfiGASPHALTflRiVC ' t' ,~,,c f ~w \ I t ~ ' ' . . I ' . • . ~ y ~e. \ ~ ~ 1R£ ~U, Cq 5TAG•yc~ ASd ~ 6tunntrn~.t. ` : , ' ~ , ~ y~ . ~ ' QD L I,M 2 T E D C Q M M Q N ilvA ,.ctwzRLqvu.'':'ati ~ kF , ~ ~ i F~ O ~ i ~o ~ , tt F.: , • ~ . ~ ( . l ~ • V / ~ . PHASE ti 'sr° t E~ ~`v ~.,t 1.r / ` ' ' t • ~ . , ~ ` .Y~k tl i. tE .,a. +Q.y ~k ~ • ' f ! , r ~r . . ~ • / , ~ ~ ~ ' ' . YAINI.tYLt/S!!> ~ 1~.. Y.XISTING BtlH.6fY<. ~ fAweacry~t.~n ~ . ' . ' • / . ' . ~ ~r ~ ~ y ~ - ,~,~,»~-s~;~`/ ; .x , H» . . tiaf PHASE } ~ " • . ~ ' ~ EXAMPI2E UF DRIVEWAY ANIJ a~~' K-X RESIDENCE LAYC?UT ` - ~ d~.. ~ . . ~ t `~~Ir ~?''~`I~ prl'~1 aRDINANCE NO. 13 i Series of 1974 t AN {3RI3Ii3ANCF. ANNE:{IPIG A PO:2TSbI`I OI' TFiE BIGNORi3 AREA TC7 TI3E TOtIN WNEREASr at least ten per ccnt of the qual.ified eleators, who are resident in and 1andooiner:, ~ of the area proposed to be annexed, whicY: is situated in a 0.. county of less than twenty-five thousand inhabitants, tiled ~ a peti.tion for an annexation electian w.:th tlle ToEan Clerl: o,£ the Tawn of Vail, Colorador on the 22nd day of March, ~ 1974, in acccsrdance with Section 139-21-6 (2), Colorado Reviaecl Statutes 1963, as amended, requesting the municipali11-v . to aommence proceedings for the holding of an annexation election to determine the mattcr of the prtsposed anne:catynn ~ of a portian di the Bighorn area, County of Eagle, 5tate w~ of Col.orado, described in Exhibit A attached hereto anci. ~ d made a part hereo£, to the Tocon of Vail; 4y ! f WHEREAS, the mawn Council of the "'a*,m of Vail, rolorac?o, hereinafter referred to as the "Tfllvin", found th, e notif.ion gor annexation election to ne in substanl:ial complianccY . ~ . ~ ~ ;fiL-'.i tre aforesaid statute and aaopted Resolutiun No. ~ ;:cries of 1374, which is incorpoxated herein by reference az:d made a part hereof; tKtHERE-NS, or: the basis of competent evidence ~ presented 'in the public hearing on the petition "ar anr:exation election on the 4th day of June, 1974, the Town Cauncil € detexmined that the applicable provisions of The Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, as amcnded, hacl bcen sata.sfieci ~y' ~C ° ~ . _ t ~ of Colorado, entered an the 9th dap of August, 1979, the ; ~ Town o£ Vail, Colorado, hereby annexes wa.thout s texms ox cqnditions a rsortion of the Bighorn area, County of Eaqle, State of Colorado, described in Exhibit A herenf. Saction 3. Annexation costs. ~ All costs and e:cpenses conneeted with the ~ annexation, including commissi.aner fees not exceeding £ar eaah cammissionex~ $2.00 for eaah Rour of necessarx servi.ce, shall be paid 1ay the Town of Vai.1, Co2orado. 5ectian 4.. Filing o£ annexation maps. _ Within thirty days after the effective date ; hezeof the Town Clerk ot the Town of Vail, Colorado, shall file ane capy of the ann.axation mapf a copy of which is on file in the District Court in and for the County of Eagle, - State of Colorado, with the ariginal of this annexation ardinance in the xecords of the Tawn, one acspy ot said map , with the County ClerJc of the County of Eag1e, State of Colorado, and one copy of said map with the Division of , Local Government of the Department af Local Affairs, State ' ~ ~ h of Colorado. ~ Sectiari S. ?oninq of annexed Bighorn area. i ~ ~ U;ithin ninety days after the effective date hereof the 2'own of Vail, Colorado, shall impose zoning csn r ~ the annexecl Bigh4rn area in accordance with its Zoning ;y . " 4rdinance, flrdinance No. 8, ~er=es of 1973. ' Section 6. Effective date o£ annexation. ~ i The annexatian, except £or the puxpose of general taxation as pravided in Section 7 hereof, shall ta}.e e€fect upon the effective ciate of this anne.tation , j ; ordinanoE. t i • , ~i ; ~ . 3 • ~ r ~ ~Section Effective date of gencral taxation. ~ For the purpose of general taxation the annaxation ~f ~ i' shall be effective on and after the 1.:,t day of January, 1975. ~i ' Section 8. Effeetive date. 'I This ordznance shall take effect five days ~ ~ . after publication following the final passage i.ereaf. ! YNTRODUCED, READ Oi3 S'TRS'l' READYNG, APPROVED, AS AhtEPdAEDI ! Arin oRnEREn ruBLTSxEn oNCE zra FuLL; tnis 20th day of August, ; 1974, and a public hearing on this ardinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Cauncil of the Town of ~ Vail. Colorado, on tha 3rd day of September,'1974, at 7;30 , P.M., in the Municipal Building of the Town. ~ ~ . . -,or ~ i,~ ~l;r~,• ~ ~ ~ • A'I'TES7' ~ tj~ ~ . . ; To«n\~c1eirk ; ; , r , t ( I I' , ; a . , a ; , ; ; . ~ ~ E i i . ~ ` i r ppp~# . . ' , . . ' • • ' ' , . " ~ EXtilQ IT A trrnL nEscaiPrioN A patcal of land lying in tho $c,ui•h IJ2 of 5ec#~lon 2, 7ownship 5 south, rarc~a~£SI west, tho south 112 af the south 1I2 of Soctian 3, ~ fiotirnshtp 5 sbauth, rangp o1 wost, the east Il2 of thQ northeast 114 of Soc# t on ! i, 7crwnsh i{s 5 south, rango 81 west, the wes't 1/2 ~ and tho southeast 1l4 of Section 12, 1`awnshlp 5 south, rarige 81 west, thc northnast 1/4 af the riorfiheasfi Il4 af Section 13, Township 5 sou#h, rango tit wcsfi, and the nocthwesi' f/d of the northwest. ! 1/4 of fiha northwes`h i/A of Seci•ton I8, 7otrnship 5 south, rarrgo 80 ~ i-tast of the 6th princlpal mertdian, Eagle County, Colorado, and ~ tlescribed as; Beginning at the southeast corner of said 5ectton 3; . ~ #henco a}ong ttte south 1 t ne of sa 1 d Secti on N 8902313811 Wt 3678.17 ; #cecst; i`hence N 63101124" E 665.00 feet; thenca N 17"01124" E 255.00 j #ee-1-; thence Pa 58°t71' 24" E 380.00 feet; thence Pl 19c tOr t3" W ~ 126.41 feef; thenco N 70039143" E 230.00 feat; 1•hence S 6702011711 E 340.00 feei-; t}ience S 83"201I?" E300.00 fQet, thence N 8138129" W . ~ 414.45 foet ta the south ri ght-of-ivay 1 t ne at lnterstate 70; { . thence a long so1 d soutfz 1 i ne on -the fo! i nvr i nn courses : S 8915915211 E ~ 868.80 feet, N 65'110131" E 32.95 feet to the northwest carner of Vait VfPlage Eleventh Ffling; thence alona the westewnmast tine of sald Sutrdivistan on the #oi3owtng cout~sos: 5 0°'04157rr E 27.22 l~ feet; S 300461 1311 t+f 194.73 feet; S 50035114" 19 52.77 teefi;'1-hencc ~ nlang the sauthernmost line of satd 5ubdivisifln on the #atiotoing ~ eoursos; S 62007144" G 564.72 feet; S 80032100" C 225.00 feet; ' 'aI N 45028100" E 200.06 feet; N 64028'00" E; 180.00 feat; N 89">8'30" 6 ~ '410.00 teet; N 79`100100" E 220.00 feei`: S 89039100" E 270.00 feet; 0 3303410011 E 224.00 teet; A1 1405611811 E 62.67 feet ta fhe south I r1 ght-o f-way t I ne of i n-Fcrstate 70; thence N 14 05G' t£i+' [ 337.48 ~ t to thc north right-of-way ltna of tnterstate 70 and the sauthcrn- ~ -t 1 t ne of Va,P 1 V i-1 1 agn 7we ( f i~h f t{ t ng; thencc a{ c~nr~ sa t d camcnon ~a c~n fiha fai towing courses: S£37133'05" E 811.08 teet, N 8604114011 E 645.34 #cet; a curve •ho the rigl~t of trhich has a radtus af 2190.00 #t~e~t and tnterlor angle of 701112011, the long chard of whtch bears S?5°06'!i" E 27ti.59 feat, thence a{ong said north right-of-way 1 1 ni; on a curve fo the r E ght wh i ch has a rad t us of 2190.00 f'ee t ancf tnteriar angle af 1c4714711, fiha lonq chorri of whtch bears S { 70029144" E 6II.66 feot; thenc.e S 56°17106" E 425.70 feet; thence } N 89058' 3t3" E 2227.73 fee-F i-ti tho east i i ne of sa 1 d Secfton 2, i thencb along said east I tne S 00251021" E 1311.44 teet to •1•ho nar'th- i wesf corrter ot saPd Sectlon 12;thonce along the north lino ofsLfd r ! Secticrn N 89U481441' E 1325.25 feet; thence S 4022132" E 864.47 feet ta the north rtghi--of-way iine flf tnfiersta-Pe 70; -thenca along soid norfih 1lne S 39015151" E 595.60 fcet; thence N 89°56'11" E i 950.37 feet; thenco S 0020'04"~ t 513.23 feet i•o the north rtght- . of-way line of tnterstate 70, i-hence 5 0020°04" E 504.83 feet to tfie Soulh right-o#-way ilne of lnfierstate 70; thence S 0020104" E i 312.0a feet; 'thence S 89052142" E 1324.00 feet; thenco S 0003100" E i 11325.45 feet; thence N 89056113" E 1316.11 fdet; thenca S 0000100" i 1320.E35 feet tci the northirest corner of said Section I£3; 1~henca . ~ atang i•ho ncrrth t#ne of said Seci•ton Ia S t39053''1fl" E 247.70 feet; thence S 2500115911 4t 985.38 feet ta the west i i ne of sa t d Sectf on 1£3; i thence N 900{}0100" titi' 7.00 feet; thence 5 0000100" 177.00 fee-h; thence.N 9000010011 E 7.00 feet ta the east Ilne of said Sec#ton 13; ; thence S. Q11Op'00" 614.81 fect; thence td 89053124" W 1346.85 frset; thence N 0100100" 1322.68 feot to the sfluth 1 Jne of sotd 5ect(on 12; tlienca atang sa(d south tlne N II90531241" 1-1 1306."85 teet; thance t N 0413118" Y! 1312.99 feefi; i-henca td 89°'57'00" W 1123'.90 feefi; thenco N f39049'09" W 1541.45 fcet to •the west I Inc of satd Sectfion i i; , thenco aEang saicf west lfnc N 001•9100" t•! 19£33.12 fect; thence S 89050154" W 662.59 feet; therico N 0819104" ~1 660.59 foei•, thdnco ! 0 891149106" 1•1 662.59 feet; thenco Dt 0002140" E 1320.76 fieet to tha 1 . ut#i tinc+ of Saict Sec#ton 2; i-hence aiong sa1d south ffno 14 89°52142" 1325.25 foot; thc:nca t! E39043145" tt 2692,51 fect ta the truo point of beg! nn I ng, atraci- o fi 1 and which conta i ns 653.464 acres, mcrro or ~ V J.t1 ? . ' s J ~ Y • ' 1 - • ~ . ORDINANCE Nb, 20 ~ ~ i ~ Series of 1974 .I i! AN EMERGENCX pRI}ZNANCE AMENDTNG THE dRDI- . ItANCE ANNEXING A PORTION OF THE BIGIiORN , AREA Td THE TOWN BY THE XNCORPORATIt7N TITEI2EIN QI' THE CORRECT LEGAL DESCI2TPTION OE' THE ANNEXED AREA WFTEE2EAS, the Town of Vai.l, Calcsrado, herea.nafter ~ referred to as the "2own", annexed a portion af the Bighorn i j area, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, thraugh the enact- . , ment by the Tcswn Counezl of Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1974, on the 3rd day of September, 1974, the effective date of ivhich was the 11th day of 5eptembar, 1974; i WFiE12EAS, the 1ega1 description of the annexecl area, set forth in Exhibit A af said anneYation ardinance, contained ministerial errors, to-wit the erroneaus designations of , Range 80 as Range $1 and Range 79 as Itange 80; , r ~ WHEREAS, in order to aoxrect the legal description ` ~w. ~w ~of the annexed area in all documents pertaining to tihe annexa- ZJ ' tion which contain the aforesaid ministerial errors the Tocon ~ obtained from the District Court in and for the County of i i Eagle. State of Calorada, an Amended dreler Authorizing Annexa- tion which will take effect nunc pro tunc as af the filing or j' effective date af said documents; and I~ . a~ WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that it is necessary ! fnr the preservation of public property, health, welfare, i~ peace, or safety to enact this ordinance as an emergency mea- ~ , ; sure sa as to incorporate the correct legal description o£ the ' annexed area in the annexation ordinance and to preclude any ' issue as ta the efficacy of the annexation; ` NOW, THEREFQ12E, T3E TT OF.DAINED BY THE TOSVN COUPdCIL OI' TIiE 2'p4^tN OI' VAIL, COLOT2F1D0, AS FOLLOWS : . r ~ ' 41 { . t' . , ~ p 4 ff I . ~ Section 1. Tit].e. • This ordinanoe shall be known.as the "Ordinance ° Amending Bighorn Annexation Ordinance bg Tncorporaking Cor- rect Legal Description of Annexed Area". ri Seation 2. Amendments to Ordinance Annexing a , ~Portion of the Bighprn Area ta the Town. ` The fallowing sections of Ordinance No, 13, Series 'i : of 1974, csf the Town af Vail, Colorado, are hereby amended as hereinafter provs.ded: i A. Section 2 is amended to read as follows: . Section 2. Annexation of a portion of the Bighorn ~ tf area to the Town. Pursuant ta the Amended Order Authoriaing Annexatian ai of the District Court in-and for the County of Eagle, State of ,i Colorado, entered an the 25th day of OctaHer, 1574, taking effect nunc pro tunaas of the filing or efteative date of ~ a11 documents pertaining to the annexatian, a certified capy of wha.ch a.s attached hereto and made a part hereof, the 2own of Vai1., Colorado, hereby annexes without special terms or '.I conditians a portion of the Bigharn area, County of Eagle, i IMMMM~ State of Colorado, described in Amended Exhibit A Legal Des-- criptian af said order. f~ . B. Sectian 4 is amended to read as fallows: • Sectian 4. Filing of annexation plat. i j Within thirty days after the effective date hexeof : the Tawn Cierk of the Tawn of Vai1, Colorado, shall file one copy of the Amendecl Annexation Pl.at, a copy of which is an ; . ; file in the Distxict Caurt in and far the County of Eag7.e, " ' State of Colorado, with the original of this annexation ordi-- ~ ' . nance in the records of the ToVin, ane copy of said plat with ~ the County Clerk and Recorder of the County of Eagle, State , of Colorado, and one copy of said plat with the bivision of ; ;a + Local Gavernment of the Department of Zocal Affairs, State o£ Calorada.. ~ f' ; I 2 AMENDED ' EXHIBII' A LEGA L DESGRC PTION ~ A parcet of tand tying in the sauth 1/2 of Section 2, Township 5 south, range 80 west, the south 1/2 0f the sauth 1/2 oF Section 3, Township 5 south, range • 80 west, the east 1/2 of fhe northeast 1/4 of Section 11, Township 5 south, range 80 west, the west 1/2 and the scsutheast 1/4 af Section 12, Township 5 south, range 80 west, the northeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 oF Section 13, ~ Township 5 sauth, range 80 west, and the narthwest 1/4 af the northwest 9/4 ; of the northwest 1 J4 of Ssction 18, Township 8 south, range 79 west oF the ' 6th principal meridian, Eagte County, Catorado, and described as; Beginning at the southeast corner, of said Section 3; thence atong the south line aF said Section N 89°23'38" W 3678,17 feet; thence N63°01'24" E 865.00 feet; thence ' N 17°01'24" E 255.00 feetq thence lV 58°ai'24" E 380.00 fe8t; tYtence N 150 10113" W 126.41 feety thence N 70°39'43" E 230.00 feet; thence S 67°20'17" E 300.00 , feet; thence S 83°20'17"' E 300.00 feet; thence N 8°38'29" W 414.45 feet to the sputh right-af-way line af tnterstate 70; thence atong said south line on the fattawing courses: S$9°59152" E 86$.80 Peet, N 65°10'311' E 32.95 feet to the northwest corner of Vail Vittage Eteventh F[ling; thence atong the western- ! mosE tine oP said Subdivision on the fottowing courses: S 0°04'57" E 27.22 Peet; 5 3(}046+13" W'194.73 feett, S 50°35'14" W 52.77 feet; thence atting the southern- . mosC line of said Subdivision on the fottcrwing courses: S 62°07r44" E 564.72 feet;S 80°321t?0" E 225.00 fieet; N 45°28'00" E 280.00 feet; N 64°2$100" Ei 1$0.00 feet; N 89°58130" E 410.00 feet; N 74°00'00" E 220.00 feets S$9°39t00rr E 270.00 feet; N 33°30'00" E 220.00 feet; N 14°56'18" E 62.67 feet to the south right--aF-way tine oP Inkerstate 70; thence N 14°56'18" E 337.48 feet ta the north right-aP-vtray tine of Interstate 70 and the southernmast ltne of Vail VtCtage 'i"welfth fiting; thence along said common (ine on the fottowing courses; S $7°33'05" E 811.08 feet; N 86°41'4CJ" E 645.34 Feet; a curve to the right oP ~ which has a radius of 2190.00 feet and interior angle of 7°11'20", the long chor^d of whtch bears S 75°OB'11" E 274,59 feet; thence atong said north righk- of-way Line on a curve to the right which has a radius oP 2190.00 feet and inter- iar angie oP 1°47'47", the tong chord af which bears S 70°29'44" E 68.66 feet; thence S 56°i7'06" E 425„7C feet, thence N 89°58"38" E 2227.73 feet to the east tine of said Section 2; thence along said easC line S 0°25'02" E 1311.44 feet to the narthwest corner of said Sectiarr 12; thence a[ong the north line oF satd Seation N$9°46'04" E 1325.25 Feet; thence S 0°22'32" E 864.47 feet to the north right-of-way ltne of Interstate 70; thence alang said north tine S 39°15151" E 595.60 feeti thence N 89°56'11" E 960.37 feef; ther'tCe S 0°20'Q4'r E 513.23 feet to the north right-of-way line oF Interstate 70; thence S 0°20'C74" E 504.83 feet to the south right-oF way tine oP Tnterstate 70; th811CE: S 0°20tL14'rr E 312.00 feet; thence S 89°52'42" E 1329.00 Feet; thence S 0°03'UOT' E 1325.45 feet; thence N$9°56'13" E 1316.11 feet; thence S 0°t30'00" 1320.$5 feet tio the northwest corner oF said Section 18; thence atong the north line of said Section , 18 S 89°53'24" E 247.70 f0et; thence S 25°01'59" W 585.38 feet to the west [tne oF said Section 18, thence N 90°d0'00" W 7.00 feet; thence S 0°00'b0'" 177.00 feet; Ehence N 907°00'00'+ E 7.00 feet ta the east iine of said Section 13; thence S 0°00'Od" 614.81 feety thertce N 89°5$'24" W 1305.85 feet; thence N 0°00'00"' 1322.68 feet to the south line of said Section 12; thence atong said scyuth line N$9°53'241r W 1306.$5 FeBt; thence N 0°48'18" W 1312.99 feAt; therlCe N $9°57'00" W 1123.90 Peet; thertce N$9°49'09" W 1541.45 feet to the west lina . of said Section 11; thence along said west line N 0°19100" W 1883.12 feet; thence S 89°50'541' W 662.59 feet; thence N 0°19`04" W 660.59 feety thertce "N 89°49'OB" W 662.59 Peet; thence N 0°02'40" E 1320.76 Feet to the south tine af said Section 2, thence along said south line N 89°52''42" W 1325.25 feet; thence N 89°43'45" W 2692.51 feet to the true point of beginning, a tract oF land which contains 653.464 acres, more or tess. • ~ ~ . ~ TN ThiE DTSTRICT COURT IN AND FQR THE ~ CQUN"fY C3F EAGL.E 015'tRlCT G:at,rT Eagle CounYy, t,ai.frada STATE C)F COL.ORAOD Car#i(ied to be fult, trua a.:ci co,-r^:t ~ . . Ct?`tT)7 of tA$ t ' C.`1Vi1 .qGtt01'1 Nis. 2206 C}dt8 :'!~••.••y.s~..r.+~~ ` `:`l ~ Ct k ~ iN T'HE MATTER OF THE ) BY C,J ANNEXATION OF A PC.7RTION De~ruty Cterk • QF" THE BIGHORN AREA, ) ANIENC?ED ORDER t EAGLE-COUNTY, CC}LC3RADC), ) AUTHt)RIZING ANNEXATION TO THE Tt3WN OF VAIL, ) . COLORADO ) . • • . . . . ,4fEer eonsideration of the ex parte Motion Por Amended Order Authorizing Annaxatifln fited lierein pursuant ta Section 139- . tj . 2'1--1'1, Catoradts Revised Statutes 1963, as amended, and there being ~ good cause therefor, • r~ IT IS HEREBY C7RDERECI as rot[dws. • 1. The ministeriat errors in the tegal description of the annexed area contained in Exhibit A of the Petition to Hold an Annexa- ua~; { 2 ~ tion Etection, the Annexation Ptat, and various ather documents fited herein and pertaining to the annexation, ta-wit the srroneaus designa- ~ tions of Range SQ as Range 81 and Range 79 as Range 80, were technic,at, minor, ard had no appreaiabie effecE on the annexation etectian and i . 1 canstituted harmtess errors with respect to the annexation. i ' 2. The correct tegal description of the annexed area is set i Porth in Amended Exhibit A 1_egat Description which is aCtached hereto , and made cl. part hereof. 3. A[( documents fited herein and pertaining ta the annexa- , tion which contain the aPoresaid ministerial errors in the legat descrip- . t[on of the annexed area are amended by the substitutior? therein of the legal description of the annexed area set Porth in Amended Exhibit R Legal Description for fihe erronecsws tegai description. , , ~ _ . . . 4. In accardance wtth the result of the annexation etectton held on the 6th day of August, 1974, wherein there were 151 votes far ~ annexation and 68 voees against annexatiar?, a rna)prity of the votes . cast betng in Pavor of arrnexation, the Town of Vail, Cotorado, is . authorized to annex wfthout spectat terms or condittons a portion of the Bighorn area, Eagte County, Cotorado, described in Americied 0ichibit A :t'.egat Description. • S. Att costs and expenses' conrrected with the annexatian., . . trictudirtg commisstnner Pees not exceeding For each cammisstoner $2.00 for each hour of necassary service, shatt be paid by the Town aP Vait, Cotorado. 6, Petitinner witt forthwith file herein an Amended Annexa- tion i'tat which cantains the legal deseription of tha annexed area set , forth in Amended Exhibit A Legat Descripticin. 7, With respect to atl documents filed herein and pertaining to the annaxation upon the fiting hereof this order wiFl take effect nunc pro tuna as of the fiting or effective date of said documents. , dATED: Eagte, Golorada, this $5 day of October, ' 1974. . • . Charles R. Casey .3UDGE OF THE ABiJVE EA3TTTLED COt.SRT • t . . ~ { l~_. ~'~?"~"`1~'~ ~ ORDINANCE N0. 26 - Series of 1974 AN ORDINANCE IriPOSING ZQNING bTSTRrCTS ON TkTE POATION C3F TFIE $TGHORN AREA ANNEXEA TO THE T04YN AND AMENDTN'G THE, OFFICIAL ZflNrNG MAP WHEREAS, the Town of Vail, Colorado, hereinafter. . referred ta as the "Town",, annexed a pprtion of the Bighorn, area, County of Eagle, State of Calorado, effective on the llth day of September, 1974; WHEftEAS, the Zoning Ordinanee, t7rdinance-No. 8, Series of 1973, of the Tawn of Uai1, Colorado, as amended, is applicable to any area annexed to the Tawn and canta3ns pro- cedures for the imposition of zoning districts on an annexed, area, and WHEREAS, Section 139,21-14(2), Colorado Revised cc 8tatutes 1963, as amended, requires the Town to bring the v~o ti' ~ z N annexed Bighorn area under its Zoning Ordina:nce within ninety -r4 days after the effective date of the annexation; NOW, THEBEF012E, $E IT t7RDAINED $Y TIiE TOWN COUNC2L 0F TFIE TO'tVN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOi9S; l^ Section 1. Title. i This ordinance shall be knnwn as the "Ordinance Impasing Zaning Districts on Annexed Bighorn Area'". Seetian 2. Proceflures Fulfilled. The procedures for the determinatian of'the zoning districts•`ta be impased on the annexecl Bighorn area which are prescxibed in Sectian 22.300 of the Zoning Ordinanee have been fulfilled. Section S. Imposition of Zoning Districts on Annexed Bighorn Area; Addition to Official Zoning Map. ~ Pursuant to Article 22 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordi- narice No. 8, Series of 1973, of the Town of Vail,, Golorado, ~ ToWri erk, Dep y - Ord. 26, 1574 ` Page 2 as amended, the portion of the Bighorn area annexed to the Town through the enactment of qrdinance No. 13, Series of 1974, af the Town of Vail, Colarado, as amended, effective on the Ilth day of September, 1974, is hereby divided into zcining districts as shpwn on a map incarporated here3.n by refexence which amends and shall become an addition to the Official Zoning Map. . ' Section 4. Change in Official Zoning Map. The addition to the Official Zoning Map adopted by the Town Council in Section 3 hereof shal.l be entered an the Official Zonittg Map promptJ.y by the Zoning Administrator in accordance with Sectian 1.203 of the Zan3ng Ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect five days after pnblication follawing the final passage iaereof. INTRODUCED, READ t3N FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ~ ORDERED PUBLISIiET} ONCE IN FULL, this 19th day af November, 1974, and a public hear3ng an this ordinance shall be held at the regular rneeting of the Tdwn Cauncil of the Town of Vail, Colorada, nn tbe 3rd day of December, 1974, at 7:30 P.M., in the Municipal Builfling of the Town. - ayor AmTEST: ~ DepuCy;Tbwn CI rk . . C1 . ~ ly Y~1~ Office of the Town Attorney 75 South Frontage Rdad ~afl, Cotorado 81657 . . . . 970-479-2107JFrrz 970-479-2157 TM MEMC}RANDUM TO: Planning & Environmental Commission FR.4M: R. Thamas Moorhead j~ t DATE: April 7, 1998 RE: Vested Property Rights EfFective January l, 1988, Colorado adopted a statutory vested property rights scheme. ~ Pursuant to state statute, a vested property right is established upon the approval of a site specific development plan, fallowing notice and public hearing, by the local gavernment in which the property is situated. Each vested property right confers upon the land owner the right to undertake and complete the develapment and use of the property under the terms and conditions of the site specific develapment plan. The property right vested pursuant tQ this statute shali rernain vested for a period of three years. The vesting period shall not be extended by any amendments to the plan unless expressly autharized by the lacal government. A vested property right once established precludes any zoning ar Iand use action by a local government which would alter, impair, prevent, diminish or otherwise delay the development or use of the property as set forth in a site specific development pian. A"site specific development plan" pursuant to this statutory framewark means a plan whieh has been submitted to a loeal government by a land owner ar his representative describing with reasonable certainty the type and intensity of use for aspecific parcel or parcels of property. Including, but not limited to, a planned unit development plan, a subdivisian plat, a specially planned area, a planned building group, a generai submission plan, a preliminary or general develapment pian, a condition or special use p1an, a development agreement ar any other land use approval designated as may be utilized by a local government. What constitutes a site specific develapment ~ plan pursuant to this statutary framework that would trigger_ a vested progerty right shall be RECYCLED PAPER finally determined by the local government either pursuant to ordinance ar regulation and the document that triggers such a vesting shall be sa identified at the time of its approval. ~ The statutory pravision concerning vested rights applies oniy to site specific development plans approved on or after January l, 1988. In 1991, the Town of'Vail adopted a vested property rights ordinance to provide the procedures necessary to irnplement the provisions of Colorado Revised Statutes, C.R.S. Title 24, Article 68. Pursuant to that ordinance a site specific development plan shall mean and be limited to a final major or minor subdivision plat, or a special development district development plan. A property right which has been vested as pravided for in the Town of Vail ordinance shall remain vested fox a period of three years. - Additionally, each map, plat or site pian or other document constituting a site specific development plan shall contain the following language: "Approval of this plan may created a vested property right pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 24, Article 68 as amended. This Tawn of Vail ordinance does not create any vested praperty right, but anly implements the provisions af Colorado Revised Statutes." ~ RT'Mlaw C:\pec.mem ~ ....s _ _ . ....,,,......a-.,,..._....~,--., ~ Berricige Associates,lnc. Plannmg . Landscape Architecture October 18. 19134 Ron Riley Timberi"aIls Carporation 4496 East Meadow C)rive Vail, CO 51857 Dear Ran. Enclased is the completed survey frncn Intermountain Engineering which depicts the topography oP the entire TimberPatls Estates parcel. We have ihcticared the IDO year Floodplain, areas over 40% Slope and denated the totel tauildable area. Llue to the increase in the area of over 40% slope the unit criunt has changed to 58.1 4d.u.. The area of over 40/ slope which consist5 0r "man-mede" area amounts Co .09 acre which equates to Xt' unit in derisity: 1 have had discussinns with Peter Patten and he has t6td me that these areas will "probataly not" be counted as unbvi{dab{e but has nc?t made a definite deeision at this time. Should he decide that we will not tie' "pens4ized" !'or this portian of the area greater than 40%, the total number of units ettowed will be 58.95d.u.. ~ 1 will try to get a definite answer from Peter this week. Regsrding the vacatian of the Iot lines between the two Yimberfalls parcels. 1 stitl need to receive information on phases 1-3 in order to catcufate the existing CRFA. I will be out of 7own untii October_25 and wi!l calt you then. lf ynu can have the ptans carnpiled by someone in your office we can ealcutate the existing GRFA and determine the amount that couid pDtenLialiy be transfierred. iJ:p erely, . r Jarnar i ge !-~ss ciates, in , rn n enclosu re ~ 245 Vaiiejo St. . San Francrsco California 94111 • (415) 433-2357 P. 0. $ox 6364 • Denvet Coloz2dc 80206 - 1303! 863•1059 1000 So Froniaoe Rd West. Sulte 1010, - Vat; Ga4t)rado 81657 -{303E 476-0851 Berridge Associates, Inc. ~ Plannino . Landscape Architecture October 18, 1984 ZONtNG ANALY5t5 - TIMBERFALLS ESTATES introduction This Zaning Analysis af Timberfells Estates was conducted €or the pricnary purpose of establishing a unit cotsnt and allowab{e square faotage fcrr an unptatted 7.5 aCCE parcel tocated in the NE w 4f SW% OF Sf:Cti011 12. T5S, R801n/., 6th P.M., Tawn of Vaii, Eagte Caunty Calorada. fihe Analysis is based upon a rev'rew of Town of Vsil records and fites. Town af Vail Ftoodplain and Avalanche Hazard lnformatian, and a Topographical Survey completed by (ntermountain Engineering on April 6> 1982. Current Zoning The Timberfai4s Est$tes parce{ is currently zoned Lnw Density Muitipte Family ~ Zone District tLDMFI. The LOMF Zane al4ows singte family, two-farnity, anci multiple--family dweilings per buitdable acre nf iand. The L,C3MF Clistrict al4ows ntst more than tFtirty square feet af Grass Residerttial Floor Area tCRFAI for each one hundred squsre feet of buildable site area. 5ite Ana(ysislPntentia! An Analysis of the Timberfatts E`states parcei was cbnducted (copy attsched) artd reveais that a tatai of 6.46 acres of the site is considered under the Town's definitton as buitdable. "Buitdable Ares" is defined by the Tawn as that pcrrtion of the site which is not within the 100 year ftaadptain, evatar?che hazard aree. . or in excess of 40% siope. This buildable acreage was utitized to compute the infarmation in the following Teble. ~ , 245 b'ailejo 5t • San Francisco. Gahiornia 94111 .(A15)433-2357 P. 0 8ox 6364 • denver Goloracib 80206 • (303) 863-1059 1000 Sa Fran;aoe RC West. 5uite 100 - Vait. Co'oraoo 81657 - (303) 476-0851 ~ . tDUVELOPMENT POTENTtAL ~ ~ with man-made ares included in "over 40% stope" without man-macSe area inciucSed in "over 4 ~ Tatst Site Area: 7.5 acres (326.700 sq.Ft.) 7.5 acres (326.70E7 sq.Ft,) ' Su(fdable Area; B.,46 acres E281.398 sq.ft.l 8.59 acres (285,3LB sq.ftJ ' A[lowabfe #t Dwetling Units: 58.1,4 d.u:s, 58.95 d.u.'s ,59-36 Allowable GRFA: 84.419 sq«ft. 85.595 sq.ft. ~ Maximum altowablLs height: F(at rotrf - 35Pt. Flet ro4f - 35ft. ; SIoping rooF - 38Ft. Sloping rooF - 38ft. ~ I Parkirrq Requirement. 2 Speces per unit 2 spaces per unit ° Attawable Site Goverage: 114.345 sq.ft. [35%) 114.345 sq.ft. (35%) Landsceped Ares Requirement: 130.680 sq.Ft. (40%) 130.680 sq.Ft. f40%3 ~ I € , • , I . ~ f ~ a: . ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1-4e ~ ~ . ~ ~ 4~t~ ~ , AIVY`7"'u1 A' lev A P t ,-r~0,4j + Mi= ~ ~ ~40 ~ . ~ . ~ ~ v.:r z1x4 ~ ~ ~ j ~ 4 t o « 4e4 1:5 ~ io . MEMORANDUM ~ TO: Planning and Enviranmental Commission FROM: Community Develapment Department DATE: April 13, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance and a site coverage variance to allow for the cnnsfruction of a west entry remadel to the Mountain Haus, lacated a# 292 East M Meadow Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Viliage 1 st. Appiicant: Mountain Haus Condominium Association, represented by Stephanie L.ord of Fritzlen, Pierce & Briner. Planner: George Ruther , 1. C3ESCRIPTION CJF THE REQUEST The applicant, the Mountain Haus Condominium Assaciatian, represented by Stephanie Lord of Frifzlsn, Pierce, and Briner, is requesting a setback variance and site Caverage variance to allow for the construction of a west entry remadel to the Mounta'rn Haus. The remodeled west entry is intended to improve access into #hs residential and commercial spaces within the Mountain Haus, as we0 as enhance the aesthetics of the west elevation of the building. The new entry will replace an exis#ing canvas awning. ~ The remadel will result in the removal of three large evergreen trees and two aspen trees. To mifigate the loss of #he #rees, the appficant has agreed to replace the trees at a foot:foat or caliper:caliper ratio, depending upan the #ype of tree, in the vicinity of the Mountain Haus. A copy of the tree preservation report has been attached for reference. Much of the new entry additian is proposed to be constructed on Tawn of Vail property within Slifer Piaza If appraved, the applicant will be required to execute a easement agreement with the Town of Vail. According to the Official Tawn of Vail Zoning Map, the Mountain Haus is located in the Public Accommadation Zone District. Pursuant to 5ections 12-7A-6 and 12-7A-9 of the Municipal Gode, the minimum side setback shall be 20 feet and the site coverage shall not exceed 55% of the to#al site area. The existing west side setback, in the location of the new entry addi#ion, is ane foot and the existing site coverage of the Mountain Haus is approximately 76%. The new entry addition is praposed fo extend out from the building 22 112 feet and add approximately 320 of additional site cowerage. Therefore, the proposed improvements will result in a new west side setback of zero feet and the site caverage percentage wiil be increased fo 77°l0. Since the minimum side setback for the Moun#ain Maus is 20 feet and the maximum site coverage is 55°!0, and the applicant is praposing to increase #o existing non-conformity, a side setback variance of one foot and a site ccrverage variance of 1°lo are required. A copy of the plans and a letter of explanation from the applicant has been attached far reference. ~ f:leveryonelpecUnemas\nthaus.413 1 *VAIL Tb{9 . 11. BACKGROUND ~ On 7uesday, February 24, 1998, the applicant's representative met with the Town Council. The purpose of the meeting with the Town Cauncil was to seek the Town Counci('s permissian to proceed #hrough the public planning process. The Town CounciPs permission is required, as the Mauntain Haus is proposing to construct the new entry on a portion of Town of Vaii property within Slifer Plaza. Upon hearing the applicant's request, the Town Council granted its permission to proceed through the planning pracess. The Cauncil identified the foflowing three issues which need to be addressed during the review process: 1. A pub(ic benefit af allowing the applicant to use a portion of the Town property to construct the new entry. 2. A tree preservatian plan. 3. If appraved, the property canveyance options for allowing #he applicant to use Tawn property. On Monday, March 23, 1998, the applicant's representative met with the Planning and Environmental Commission fQr a worksessian to discuss the proposed west entry remodel. the purpose of the worksession was to discuss #he fallawing issues. • The appropriateness af construeting an entry addition on Town-owned praperty zoned Outdoor Recreation Distriet. • The requirement af a tree preservation plan and tree remaval associated with the ~ new entry. • The public benefit gained by a(lawing the new entry to be constructed on Town praperEy. • The completeness of the application. During the worksessian, the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant's represen#ative agreed ta a tree preservation plan. A copy of the draft minutes from the March 23 meeting have been attached for reference. 10. VARIANCE CRITERIA AN17 F1Nn1NGS Upon review of uection 12-17-6, Variance Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community C7evelopment Department recommends approval of the requested setback and site coverage variances. The recommendation for appraval is based on the following factors: f.Ievery0neWSecWemosUrtthaus.413 2 ~ A. Cansideratian of Factors: ~ 1. The relatianship of the reqwested variance to other existing or potential uses and s#ructures in the vicinitq. S#aff believes tha# the requested setback and site coverage variance will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on fhe other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity of the Moun#ain Haus. The new en#ry was designed in conjunction with the Town's proposed improvsments to Sfifer Plaza. The location of the improvements will nat hinder pedestrian circulatian in Slifer Plaza. Pedestnan safety may actually be enhanced as fhe new entr,+r will improve the access to the Mountain Haus and the cpvered stairs will prevent the build up of ice and snow. As men#ioned previously, if approved, the applicant will be required to execute a easemen# agreement with the Town of Vail. 2. The degree ta which relief fram fihe strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a speci#ied regula#ian is necessary to achieve compatibitity and uniformity of treatment amang si#es in the vicinity or to attain the objec#ives of this titie without grant of special privilege. Staff believes the applicant has requested the minimum amount of relief from the strict and literal interpratation and enforcement of the setback and site coverage regu{ations necessary to achieve compatibilify and uniformity among sites in the vicinity of the Mountain Fiaus and within the Public Accammodation Zone District. The proposed entry will anly encroach one ~ foot further inta the setback than the buifding currently eneraaches in the location of the entrance. Other areas of the building on #he wes# side encroach further into the setback, and in fact, some areas are off the applicant's property and onfo Town of Vail property. !n terms of additional site coverage, the new addifion, while more permanent and substantial nature, results in a sligh# increase in site coverage. Staff believes the additional site coverage is warranted and will nof result in a special privilege as the Mountain Haus was canstructed prior to zoning. The relationship of the existing structure #a the current develapment standards prohibit the applicant from ever constructing improvements ta the building without a variance. Staff believes this to be an extraordinary circum$tance or exceptional cor?dition. 3. The effect of the requested variance an iight and air, distrib!utian of popuiation, transporta#ion and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed variances wilf have little, if any, effect on these factocs. B. The Flanning. and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings b_efore ranting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will no# constitute a grant of special peivilege inconsistent with #he limi#ations on other propertiesclassified in the same district. ~ f:leveryone\peclmemoslrrrthaus.413 3 2. That the granting ofi the variance wil( not be detdmental to the public health, safiety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or ~ improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for ane or more of the fallowing reasons: a. The strict and literai interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would resuit in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsis#ent with the objectives of this tifle. b. There are exceptions ar extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that da nat apply generaily to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enfarcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjayed by the owners a# other properties in the same district. 111. S7AFF RECOMMENDATION The Cammunity Qevelapment Department recommends approval of the requested se#back and site coverage uariances. Staf'f's recnmmendation of approval is based upon the review of the Criteria and F'actors outlined in Section III of this memorandum. Should the Planning and Environmental choase to grant an appraval of the applicarrt's request, staff would recommend the Pianning and Environmental Commission make the ~ foilowing findings: 1. That the granting of the setback and site coverage variances do nat constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the setback and site coverage limita#ions on nther properties in the Public Accommodation ZoneC}istrict. 2. That the granting of the setback and site coverage variances wiH nat be detrimental #o the public health, safe#y or welfare, or materially injurious to proper#ies or improvements in the uicinity,of the Mountain Haus. 3. That the setback and site coverage variances are warranted since the strict interpretatian or enforcement nf the se#back and site coverage regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of o#her properties in the Public Accommodation Zane District, as the Mountain Haus is an existing bui(ding consfructed prior to Town's adoption of zaning regulations. ~ f:leveryaneyaeaUnemasUnthaus.~13 4 a t~ ~ ~ p+ i~ i n ~ e- ~ I x ~ ; h ~ ~ ~ I~ r ~ ~ ~ ? ~ . . ' ; ~ ~ , ~ o . s u,. , w . ~ a,.. •.w ~i~ ~ . ~ w ~ ~ q k ~ , . ; ~ ~ ~ w. , . , ~ ~ ~ . ~ . • ~ . ~ i ~ ~i' ~ws ~lii'!~ ~',i 7 iii ~ ~'lu , ~ ! ' ~ ~ ~ March 24,1998 , Z MUUNTAiN HAUS NEW WEST ENTRANCE P R Site Caverage and Set Back Variance ~ i R INI E R PROPERTY: 292 E. Meadow Drive Lot S Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1St Filing ZONING: Public Accammodatian District DESCRTPTIflN UF REQUEST aR c H iT E c-r s Qn the behalf of the Mountain Haus Condominiuxn Association we are requesting to canstruct a new west entry adjacent tn Slifer Plaza. There is currently a canvas canopy in this lacatian. The foatprint of the new entry structure, primarily stone and wood, would mirnic the existing canopy foatprint. The proposed West Entry extends out 20' from the west face of the existing building and is 12'-0" wide. The structure would cover a new stair leading down to the commercial basement level. Additionally, an on-grade walkway is propased on the sauth side of the new structure which wauld lead to the Mauntain Haus Residential Units (see attached plans) COIVIPATIBILIT'Y WITH ADJACENT USES> HA][2MONY MAINTAINED The new entry structure was designed in conjunction with the TOV redesign af Slifer Plaza. T'he architecture mimics the covered bridge and bus stop structures af waod timbers and gable roof pitches. Additionally, the landscaping design carries through the ~ new features in Slifer Plaza with matching stane pianter wails, flawer beds, and paving. There are several adjacent covered walkways whYCh serve the saine functions as the proposed Mountain Haus West Entrance. EFFECT C}F THE VARTANCE The distribution of population, #ransportatian, traffic facilities, and uti3ities are not impacted. The publie safety is improved by providing clearer direction, lighting, and snowmelt into the facility. The new entrance is an "open-air" structure and should not have any impact on the light and air. The landscape plan will allow more light into Slifer Plaza. COMPLIANCE'WITH VATL's GOMPREHENSTVE 1'LAN Goal 1.2 - tlpgrading buildings -Encourage the cvntinued upgYading artd enhancement o, f`existing lodgirzg and commercial, f`acil ities The Mountain Haus West Entry improves the aesthetic ofthe Mountain Haus by addzng visual inteTest, detail, a variety of waod stone and metal materials, and adding human scaie to the West Facade: Goal 1.3 - Enhance new development and redevelopment through public imprnvements ~ K:\9527 Mountain Haus\9527C\PEC-TOVApprovalsiwpd\gr0325.wpd f'lanning • Architecture • Interiors 1650 EasC Veil VaNey Drive FaUridge G1 • Vail, GO 81657 • fpb@colorado.net ? fax (970) 476-4901 t(97a) 476-6342 done byprzvate developers working in cooperatian with the Town. The Town of Vail contacted the Mountain Haus regarding the renovation of Slifer 1'laza. The design of the Mountain Haus West Entry has occurred in conjunction with the Slifer ~ Plaza design and is intended to further enhance the edges of the Slifer Plaza. The materials,landscape and foatprint all complemen# and support goals far Slifer Plaza. Goal 2.5 - Encourage the cantinued upgr°ading, renovation and maintenance of exzsting Zodging and cnmmercial f'acilitzes to bettet- set-ve the needs Qf our guests The Mountain Haus has been working on their lang term goals to improve quest comfart and safety at the Mountain Haus. Past projects include the installation of a sprinkler system and renovation of interiar cammon areas. The proposed Entry to the upper residential units and to the lower commercial areas is anather step in improving the facilities. The new entry encourage the public to the enter the lower corridor to the restaurant and provides the Mtn Haus quest with an separate elegant entry to their units. Goal 3.1 - Physically improve the exzsting pedestrzan ways by landscaping and other improvements. The design af the New West Entry is intended ta bring down the scale of the Mountain Haus and imprave the pedestrian experience for both people entering the facility and those viewing the facility from Slifer Plaza and the Covered Bridge. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES/PHYSICAL HARDSHTP RELIEF FRQM STRICT AND LITERAL INTERPRETATION ~ The facility was canstructed aimost 30 years ago when the current codes and zaning requirements were not applicable. The building should be maintained and upgracled ta meet current guest standards and to camplement the Slifer Plaza Redevelopmerit. Due to the existing non-conforming conditions and the design of the building it is difficult to minimize the appearance ofheight and mass without attaching additionai scaled-dawn elemen#s and building up to and extending out aver the property line. The Mountain Haus has a public restaurant located in the facility that is extremely difficult ta promote due to its location inside the building, restricted visibility of the existing entry, and the surrounding trees that screen the building. Per the PEC, keeping viable Restaurant space functioning in Vail is a TOV Goal. The new enhy will help promote a difficult restaurant location. Adjacent sites have pursued "°tear downlrebuilds" beca.use the existing conditions did not provide opportunity to improve without extensive variances. The 1Vlountain Haus is structurally sound and a"tear down/rebuild" would not be fiscally wise. However, improving fiunction and aesthetic to bring the facility into the next decade is sti11 a goal. Due to the existing conditions, any renovation/irnprovement that the Mountain Haus proposes will be on TOV land. This provides the TOV with an oppartunity to encourage development that rrzeets TOV objectives and needs. ~ KA9527 Mountain I-Iaus\9527C\I'EC-TOVApprovals\wpdigr0325.wpd MOUNTAIN HAUS NEW WEST ENTRANCE Site Coverage and Set Back Variance ~ PROPERTY: 292 E. Meadow Drive Lot 5 Part of Tract B, Vail Village l st Filing ZONING: Publie AccommodationDistric# SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE 12-7A-9 aud 18.22.110 Non-Conforming Existing Condition ' Required: Shall not exceed SS°lo of total site axea Existing: 17,909.20 sq ft- 82.8% Propased Addition: 13 sq ft- 82.9°l0 - SET BACK VARIANCE -12-7A-6 and 1$.22.060 Non-Conforming Existing Condition Required. Minimum frant, side, and rear setback shall be twenty feet Existing: Zexo (West Elevatidn ranges frorn 0' to 3' aff the property line) Praposed, Tnfill 1" of Property Line with new West Entrance which extends out 20' from the face of the building on to TOV owned land ~ K:19527 Mauntain Haus\9527C\PEGTOVAppravals\wpd1gr4325.wpd ~ i ~ sKe ecad r~t i~. - »JSK uu(!le liiiiiit~ulMfill w v ~ ;KGl11^s.~<h'PfF.t`:S7fi1 ~#'FtY~t k~€~ w y~ PAi~tdG 5'CRl:i YiJF:k: - - . ,~ti~•` ~~.~B~fKf w• 1`~ ,gq,„ -_x:'~xr•.,:.,..~.s rcox ~tlV~ . ~ _ ~ ~ ..'"x^~~ ~ ~wro°,~ . . ~ ',r„`•.., ~.:w I m'rw+ .",,,`^_"_,,,,,+""f~ w~ c'f ~ J . Sr'~~' w ~ w .•w ~ ~ ~1., ~ lj ~ s~sm.+~•ear~z.u. ~ ..m ~`r ~ ..................,......,.............5et ~r ~ , ~ .r'mzr°r ~ ~ Ttl4MTAN/VN ~ ~ ol ( ~~J4M1YM`Y x.Y#' ~ r~ y~, F a,r$.~ ?Y~PM> T Y.M4r wue.aaw -~A waw~rF~`w ~ \ /~y ' ~~nr~aMfi ++w+ . " ,~r..,$ri1,~ ~ ~ • a~ awn,~,++~•' t t~P#~y ~ maur x ~uur . ~ Mt I ZfJ S bMW Y t%M' )f ~ ~ti••r,\'~ , ~ fUt#w `~w. •.w4ilM1CC8Mk ~ ~ . ~ am+p~+'K,~~ ""~w ~,~ti •L ti . , w~...,. t ..r^w.. `k> t V ~y . . _T~n 77- 1 .ti , `,~w ^ ~ri "'~ammmaare:own~.,amtxwux . ~ ~w ~ ,r.aF WaPde „Y 'w.,` V~ $f ~ J \w, 2,1f ~ x "4.,.._,.~~~ a-Rtl('f4NAM k~„..aKw...mrr r„ ~ ` ~ aan.n iuuwa. / ~ e„t:M , . . . Jf . ...~,.•~L K~~ . ~ Y _ w o+na~«WU cuwrtm ~ . . , S. I?4R'f Gf' --em+mue a,.w ' 1 . t...~,.....~...,...,, r~Sv~. 8 ' 41 -Nllli UK S'XlIM ~ ? ~,r 6 •w , ~ 44S AMiIXG. .SO' MCit Sf=FYkM Y '6 `^•W~j.~w ( LMNNWMUWWMNJ s a FR(T2LEN P"( ERCE asrNaredu pp S~wup~s~iwrm~af ~ . . G7 i~ I. NEp . Il NU1'L. 3URYEY IN'ORMhT10N f'WWlDW 9Y PEAK t,ANti SIlR~fM'fiF19, ING. ARGNITLCTi . +w re r+~r w~ r+w. a va4 . wo y~r..~.r . ~ . . . Yn{ wos ~ t ,yryi I1'.+~D ~Maa&~'a~R++26t l-0~/ . ~ V ~ i 'v4~'j ~ RM.4~' ~ V.r1 //?_YVLn. ilMe" ~ CJ ~ ~~/y (Mi~~'~ip . . ~ ~Mt-YMMn. ~J 'r'CS. tNR &L4 ~yp~ • ~"'~'~'-_-~,.4 ~ ~r. ~ . x ,~t! x:rr`1,,,'., ,.ar rw W .a': c~- ~n~ ~•;1; f•, t is 'x;~4~ ~ ,y nawewrw a RfAiatlf ' .rri<+ 'S%n'+AC ef r r f.."".."." ~'"L«"`w.•~.,."^`•,-:.~.: Mlfl AMMMAM~~1BiMMW1! 1 f k S Y~~ { ~ ~µ^y tr,~~.~" f r ox aw ie~ f (Q s :smr IMLE[M. . IY . . . ' . C:~~=:~:•- { 7fC~q~M/Y ~ .1k~',. v ~'Jf' 'A(4rIYA1 ~ 4~ ~ . AAKtiI~ ~Gx+~y~~~ `;'%;iftl; ~ Q} ,;fa'~i• ~ssrara co ~ ..~..~.,.'1 ~ ia•., . rr,. 1 ft !t' Qq C { M~ MG7UNfti1H W W6 hidMfNN HNk# ~ ~•r< ~i~.= j .a ~ pE• xrexpt~" v . a~ ~ ~iiitl:, ~ - .1l&nY b n a ct ?'&T , y`~~ Ws" "A;t 6If~.4' f • ~ ~ µ s . <i WM1ym ~ . s8192Q' • ay}, . . . ~nAws ~ ceae te+ `~,,,aeexat ~yra«wrn .'"atius.r rmra ~ ` , ..~+i FRF yT ZUN PI ERCE ~ MSTINO J.ANDC`iAM M..M o MM K" LANDSEiAft M.M M MTN K4 * ~ B R ! N E tt SGAI.E lEIO SGALE 4rt0 t:::~:] ARGNItttt! r.wwrra ww~.u. wcer. .«+r.rw rr~wrr w~Fwwt ~ . :w:ir; ~~Op~aPO 0 e ~ ~ ~ p e f v~ ~ co Oa ~ W , ` - d., ~j of k .1 ~ anwx.n 4.110 t ~ ~ ` M( F C f ~`~"""r~+r "'...c,ti ~"`s• " _ ` s..~. < : FRtTZLEN P [ E R C E BRINER ~ ' E ~ ARCNSSttTi s~~ ` rswvrra tNyeer Nticewr f~w.rw iwr4Alw iMMr ECdY.L" t~1C "i22Y~'sMar,a~r~x 4^-9:7'a Zv§90aF prt k~L T ~ A1021 ~ r ~ ~ wESr coo~cioaa ' M5F•h1ENT ' F ~ ~ , EXMY „~L" :aV i, / - - - - - - - - . ~ RLT,.INIl16 4 R€!GC M4LL.L- ~ _ y ~8~~1UC.751R~~1~. ~l~7/tMliwl65 ww m. n-~a ~ • L t- ._f- - - - - - - - -L J - ~ ~ SrHRw?r ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ - _ ~ FRtTZLEN P i E RC E sTAOR, ,.E,P ( B R 1 N E R ~ `V < ~F GOR7tiLi!?R \ SoA! C"ATItl1! W 'J' ABOMM MTN Rr V'S C{NSIMM_ A14CH.iFECFf r Iw.:L+.M'~IY:. M1WI.N ~1-~ C--~ AEST ENTRY- 8A5EMC-NT PL,4N . ~ c ~ I f I . ~ ~ . ty ~ ~ ~ .rrr. ~ ~ • sD ~ } ._C~~ ~ . . l`!` •i t~-,{W~ fj ,l ~ /J . 1 ' k~ • : t ~ ~ ~f ~ ~ ZLEca '~QlE C~ ~ ~tt +1V _ ~ TO K7N ttlb ~7 ~ ~ ~ C K T, t T S7M ~ A ti OF ~5su~s or 1..R PL+b*~''d ~',0 ~-u,•.r ~ . ~ : . I . 2X.ti.~G1RG.~~6X .~rAYY'M ~ ~ - 2%[3 ROU6N'[4M FASCeIA FAFTtR- C ~ *-y2a a2w Pen araucTuRw[. i.. _ ~s-• ~ PER 5iN14iUiKL, .yj lTf1{ ktAtls l.imER1616 ^ro ae OErmrtrrW 02 er ow+se +~r, , , F2~ I ~ . . . ~ ~ ' . CXISTINb 6l"OR6C V6N RPLOLATtO4t 29t2 71ltiEhpER ~ 9G°''9a ~ s ~T- the ~err~ ttue (/p/7-q~ rwwr~a / \ ?.iD IfIIY~t Yt , t~,.(.~M 6' S?~MOSFOFL:. . - _ G/J+ - wt '-1t• 4' 5A17D5TOFIE G4P i I . Y'{2 ~ y42 ya ~i ~i° ~ - . . . FRITZLEN P I E ft C E rmrv noutoeRS- ~ Mw sraM A-ro r¢Aw r~e,~ eour~e,~ ~~w sm*e wAu.s w ~ rMI xu.ne" BR 1 N E R AFfGW'(@GT TO VEFftflY TIhBm CCLI.tRb SWDSiCNe Ghft IN l-tElD ARCt11fEf7f (::)lNEST ENTRY- L-LEVATIc7N i..rt.... wr.¦.w I Mtly Y . L4~ Os,+~C Wd IW W Ff ~YI"-0' r T,MM SeAMS. Keces!xw PaPt s„M,G,,,#tAL ~ Ud+-,S FF ~ ~ rMa T.e. wrr,eFt5- Mee ernucruw. axa nreeR rosr- 3x12 TIMeR rIM sTwfcsu¢n~ W-A°ER I 4• 'hW05tpE GAP kiKN011LAii.iti6• PM SPEf.6 W-5T ENTRY IST FLYX'3R FF .......t`.'.:; <'C . MEyf gTA195 70 1MA1N . PE.QM 12' TRLA09 TvO~. GAP YUT4i 4.l4• Ri53:Ft5 R~~F ~ YI@5T LOORIL`OFl Bf.9El9ENT IROH HAlmRA1Gf(6- PF7R sPEGS 12• „teAm MTM FR#TZLEN PSERCE B R i N E R aee ~W.a~ ~ i , ARCMiTEC7t ~ww~~.+~ ~W%ftf N/~?EST ~NT"~ i - .~~~iTION ~rKewr wa~w If,Y•t'{Y x . ~ ~ ~ ~VisiV?~ _ , . ree , ~ . - P.O. Bc~x 6flb • ucail, Cvlr~rorlo 81658 ~ (9i'l1) &4,5 8375_.~, April 3, 1998 Stephanie Lord , Fritzlen, Pieroe, Biiner Architects - 1650 B. Va'il Valley I)r.. Fallridge G-1 Vail, CO 81657 _ - - TO: Stephanie Lord FR4M: Mark Stelle, Consulting Arbarist RE. Proposal for further services Mouiitain Haus New West Entryj Usil, CO My report of April 2s 1998 concerns'rny ~initial site visits and outlines tree preservation issues. Per your . request I am submirting a proposal for further services which includes a Plan of Action and pra}ected costs. 1'LAN OF ACTION l. Review, as necessary, any subsequent changes to the 3J9I98 Pricing Set. As required, prepare and attend Design Review Board meeting. ~ 2. Recammend replacement tree species, sizes, location, etc. Consulting services would be limited to inspecting nursery stock before it is transported to the site and monitoring onsite installatian. 3. Perform removal(cut down, rernove and leave only a short stump) alI S lar;e trees. Set cost of $750.00 4. Root feed ali 7 residual trees with bio-stimuiant soil injection. 1" application in April and 2~d appiication in fall'98. The cnmbiiled cost of both applications is set at $580.00 5.` Assist Construction Pro,}ect Maiiager in Iocation of tree preservation fence. " 6. Monitor canstructio-n activities. 5, site visits anticipated, Coorclinating the first construction visit with-the time.of initiial grouud' breaking is cr-itical. ;Sappiemental watering, tempo'rarily protecting exposed xoots vvith. a covering, and design af a: roat ' - . -aeratiori sy'tems wiIl'`allbeevalua#edas needed. ~ 8. Fallovving construction campletionI propose: a) pruriing dead branclies in the lower ten feet of all'7 trees. b) training(repositioning with straps and small gauge wire) branches to help fill the vaids created , on residual trees whieh were caused;by.the remaya.l ,of clqo neighlioruig trees. T'he combiried cost is ~ setb5q.00 , . _ . ` . ~ - Itexns #3, 44, and #8 are fi~ced.tree service costs totaling......... $1,98Q.OU ` Remaining items concern Consulting Arliarist services estimated for 33 hatrrs at $'75.00/hr...... $2,475.00 _ The following parties agree to the above praposal so long as tatal cost(inclusive of initial report of Apri12, 1998) does not exceed $5,000.00. Mairk Ste11e; Presirlent, Precis`ion Tree"Woxks, Inc. Far Mountain Haus Cvndominium Association (Please signabove and print name and title below) _ ~ e.r., . m Y.Na .'f0 capt : ~ ; - As3aciated Land nlomda tbMrxin ~oTY: ° ecision ~ ree oo~~~ - P.O. 8ox 606 ~ 1/ail, Cotorado 81658 •{970) 845-8376 April 2, 1998 _ Stephanie Z,ord Fritzien, Pierce, Briner Architects , _1650 E. Vail Vailey Dr. . Fallridge C-1 ' Vaii, CO 81657 RE: Tree Freservation Program Mauntain Haus New West Entry - Vail, CO Dear Stephanie: `(3n Wednesday, March 25, 1998 we met at the Nlountaira Haus to discuss details of the proposed renovation of the west en#ry. The foIlowing report witl summarize aur discussions, docurnent my findings from tree inspections, and present recommendafions for individualIy referenr,ed trees. AIsa attached is a praposal for additional consultation. I}EFINITION OF ASSIGNMENT It is the expressed interest of both the Project .Architeets and the Mountain Haus to save every passibie tree ~ on this site by investigating tree relocatian opportunities and utilizing approved tree preservatian techniques for residual trees. F'ursaant_to this interest, I was refained by Fritzlen; Pierce, Architects, Inc. ta create an initial repart. In arder to fu'1fill this assignment within the inrtial budget, it was agreed the follawing issues wauld be addressed_ • Identify, measure, and labei 12 viable trees adjacent to the:rVlountain Haus West Entry. * Inspect each of these trees for general health. Evaluate=alternatives of ramoval or relocation for 5 of tllese l2 trees. ' . Provide cost estiinate afpreferred altertiaiive. ° Outline a'Tree;Preservation Guideiines for remaining trees adjar.ent_to new constructian, - ~Include proposal for furttier services. - , AS5L71VIPTIUN&AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ` . Fiotd inspections were per"f0iri3ed.on 3i2619$ ariti 3t30198._ Conditions noted pertain to the later date. , `Inspections ware liinitied to visual exatninatian of accessible features without excavatian, carurg, or -'clitribing. - , The,scope of tliis report does not inc2ude either determina#ion bftree ages or individual tree valuation appraisals sirice these figures were not deterinined to be an essential component of this report. Discussion regarding the L.4.I7.( litnit o,f rlisturbance) far encraachment into the root zone is assuming, the ; 3,'I9l98 Pricing Set tree locations and new hardscape lacations are accurate within'/~ Due to.uiitial budget restrictians, specific reeommendations far replacement trees species, size and lacation rr~cluded in ri~y praposal for-further services. ~There is no warranty or guarautee, expressed or irnplied that further prablems or deficiencies ofthe trees on ~ this site may not arise in the future. ~ 1 . s. ~'YI~ Z,, a ° ~ ~:acd [r»dxvpc t:nntr,eturr~ f Cnioradn . , . " ~ ° - . „ . Pabe 2 of 4, ' . - . April 2, 1998 , Mountain Haus Project _ ~`'.rENERAI.., C;C?NU3TI6N OF TREES - _ ~ - . It1 their presant cpndition, #his group of trees has outgrvwn the original landseape design. What was likely once an attractive landscap.e of well spaced and vigorousyoung trees with dense foliage at eye Ievel; _ is now a crawded group of large ront-bound trees. . Gotripetition for sunlight, water, nutrienfs, and root growing space has killed the lower branches of interior trees, suppressed Iateral branch growth, annd created conditions favorable far insect and disease attack. Irrespective of the proposed hardscape renovaticrn, my prescription for this group of trees would be a _ combutatian of removal, thinning, dead branch pnining, and root feeding to increase vigor of remaining trees. In additian ia 12 viable trc;es which this repnrt addresses specifically, this site also has b small aspen svhich v.. . are-eithix dead, or disedsed: These 6 sniall stems are iiiconsequential and'should ju'st tie removed. Ail spruce have. a minor degres of Gooley spruce gall adelgid(Adelges cooleyi) evidence, an inconsequential insect indigenous to our regian. Vatying.degrees ofaphid damage are also present on ali trees. Annuai growth of lawer branches an all spruce averages 2" to 3" per year, which is below average far spruce trees.of this size. ~ TREE STZE AND CONI7ITIC?N A total of 12 trees were measurecl, inspected, and iabeled with a nuinbered tag. For ease of reference, I have also numbered each of these trees on an enclosed copy of the FPB Pricing Set 3f9/98. # SPECfES DIAMETER iiETGHT DRII'LINE Ct3TtiDCCION . ' . (Dbhl TtADITJS ' 1 Btue spruce(I'icea pungens) 16.5 37 8' ~ Fair . 2: . Blue.spruc6 40 Fau-poor; aphid evidence and trace of pins needle scale 4' Faiz . ' 4, . Biue spruce . - 9A 46' 9' , Paos-fair, significan"t aphid damage ' 5 $iue spruce: 9:0 " 50' 9' Fair-poar, root collar is only 4.5' from building ~ 6 Aspen(Populus tremuloides) 5.5" 45' T paor, oyercrowded env'uonment and root bound on one side - 7 , : Aspen 6.0' . . 44 7' °I'oar; overetawded and roof.bound on trvo sides $•Bine spruce SS 12 : Fair paor, itiot bourid and Xmas 1iglx#s canstraining cttmliium_ : 3~~ 3tuc~~spri`~ce 12:5 ' ~ Sb 11 _=Fair, r~izt bouni~too ciose to bdilding . 'Blue spivda . 10.0 Sq 9" Fau 1o i i,;,Blue spnzce 46' 9' Fair, root hound on two sides - , , 12 Blue'spruae 47' _ 9' Fair' Fciotriotes; • Dbh(diazneter at a breast height of4.S) is roanded to the nearest'l~'. + Heights were measured with a clinometer to an accuracy greater than 90°10, • Dripline radius is the distance from the wnk to a point on the.ground irrimediately beiow the outennost branch tip. ~ Page 3 of 4 . ' . , . April.2, 1998 . ` . ~ Mauntain Haus Fraject _ REMOV'ALIRELOCATION ALTERNATIVES Viriually, any size tree(even three foot diameter trees) can be successfitlly relocated given that certain _ criteria are met. The prospeet of tree relocation on this project must consider the .following issues. a) Inadequate tree health and vigor: Much like being "admitted.to surgery", a tree.should be in a good,state of health before the expenditure of transplanting should be eansidered. if a tree - - does not meet ari acceptable Ievel ofhealth and vigor before enduring major roat loss from a ' relacation operation; the expenditure,is not justified. Tree #4 falls in tltis categary. ` li) Structural defects: T,arge trees with_ physicaUbiolagical defects such as eankers, trunk decay,~ root decap; ar a root bound candi#ion often have compromised structural integrity, parCicularlp when relocated. Trees #6 and 7 fatI in this category. . c) Digging restrictions: Obtaining an adequate root ball can be impracticable due to elose proximity to buildings, hardscapes, or large submerged rocks. Tree 45 falis in this categary. . d) . Damage to residuaI trees: The process of digging the raat ball of ane large tree whieh is nestled ainongst several closely spaced trees can cause ureparable damage to residual trees. . Tree #8 falls in this category. _ e) Budget restraints: Locally available 90" tree spades are capable af moving a root ball up to. . $S" at a costrange from $400.00 to $700.00 per tree. This size spade is capable of maving up to an $"Dbh tree comfortabiy(these siza timitations reflect Cree biology rather than macliine capability, restrictions). Trees greater than Dbh can be candidates for Telocatiaa byround . ballingJboxing. This .method starts at approximately $8000.00. The preferred alternative is to remave(saw down) trees #4, #5, #b, #7, and #8. The cost estimate to remove these five trees, leaving orily a short stn.mp, is $750.00. ~ TREE PRESERVATION GUIDELINES Every residual tree on this site will inevitably incnr same degree of root loss. The objectives are to minimize physical root loss, prevent damage to the residual roat zone, maintain tree healtti and vigor . through injection of soil bia stimulants, and monitar water requirements. The following Iist provides specific detaiIs. ' • L. 0. D. (limil af dfsturbance): - 1. . fihe 3/9/98 Pricing Set shows .the new wall edge to be 4.5 ° from the center' af tree. . #3.0quivalent,to a distance of 4' frarii the wall edgeto tlie root eatlar}: This- sis _tiiily = . acceptable if the edge of the wail is tlie actuaI L,C).D: Siiice it is likely that vsrorkers wili need at least 1' of working raom beyond the wali edge, I would prefer the wa11 - location be redesigned to accommodate an actual L.O.D. no claser than 4' from the; . root collar. , . 2 I,wauld~aIso prefer the,vuall to1li'e west aftree # l l.be:moved 3'_ fuither ta the ~vestto : _ , - mitigata raot disturbance.` : , , FencuYsz::Twa sectionsof S' tall metal of plastic mesh fences should be installed. The first wiii start at tlia west edge af tree # i and extend along the northwest dx-ipluses of trees #2 and #3, and'end flush with the building. The `second fence wiil start at the south edge of the water. - feature, extend along the saathwest driplines oftrees #11, #10, ancl #9, and end flush with the building. • Excavatinn: When remaving topsoil, ail excavation cuts shauld be rnade radially away from , the trttnk. Ttiis procedure positians.the operatar directly facing the trunk when the shovel severs roots:,;at:the L Q.D.lAll expbsed roots then nead to be roat pruned. All storage _ {even #ernporarilq) of excess i3irt W_ittrin tree driplines sbould be strictIy prohibited. Contractar ueeds io give Consuiting Arborist three days advance notice so that he can be to present to>manitor digging aperation and perform root pivning. ~ April2, 1998 ~ ' : _ , Mountain House Project GLOSSAiR''`4F TERIVIS _ Bia-stimuiants- Organically based nutrients(such as humates, liormones, vitaminsi etc.) which enhanee tree fiealth. Cambium- , - . A layer of cells between the inner bark and the wood which are responsible far generating increase . < in branch, trunk or rbot girth girth.. , Canker- , ° . . . , A necrotic lesion w'tth a definite border. The dead and sometimes flecayed tissue in the lesion can produce a weak spot, predisposing the tree to.failure. . Ciinometer- . A hand he2d insmrment which relies upon trigonametry to produce a reading af angles or heights. Dbh- Diameter.at a; breast height'of 4.5' above ground. This is a cammon -forestry terin which is used for reference to the size ofa tree. , - . Dripline radius- . ° The distance from the trunk to a point on the ground imrnediately belaw the outermast brancli. Hardscape- A manmade structure such as a wall, sidewalk; etc. Root baIl- ~ A containment of roots and surrounding soil. , Round balling/boxing- ' Methocls used,fa secure and stabilize the root ball for#ransit in.free transplanting operatians. . Althauglz this inethod can be-used ou'any size tree, in this regiozt if is usually reserved for trees - vvhich are inaccess,ible to a mecharucat: tree spade or biologicalIy-require a larger root b.all tlian the :machine: is'capable. , - , . . _ Root bound= A situatinn which exists when roots have insufficient. soil in which to radiate in a natural pattern x .~.oot colIar ~ The':point a# wluch the,trunk flares to became to start a root. ' . ,Root zone= - ` An expansive area of soil in which roots. from a sfngle tree can be faund. . Tree spade- A hydraulic machine with " banana peel" type shovels which lift the tree and root bail as one unit. 'S?iable= _ _ - , >r Sigmficant Capable. of livulg aiidproyiiting a pasitive cantribution to the landscape. - ( t ,~L. , ~ ~ \t • I ~ ` ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ , WOTi ~ VBoX~ Z~Cp8].65$ ~ . , ~ .-j 1 • t ~~1~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ` i w,.. ~ l~'t'4` r. ~ t 1 j r t` i ~ f~ f i?/ t$i. , TO~"'~'~~ ~oU "2 z.,_„-'=` y o~(' ~ ~ ~ . 1 { f~ ~j ~ r -.y,•'• ,j , ~ r.! ~ ~ ; , ..-k. w. . . . ~ . . ' ~ ~ , - . ~ ~ '*s ~ . J'~ • ' ' j ' _ . _ ` r.. "'w.... t ~ . ~ ~ _ Page 4 of 4 Apri12, 1998 Mountain Haus Project SUMMIIRY Removal(saw dbwn) is the preferred alternative for S of the 12 trees addressed in this report. Detaits af tree sizes, cbnditzon, and rational are detaiied in the text. Also in the text. are guidelines for preserving the residual trees an this site. , I loak farward fa a contiriuation of this initial assignmenk ~Should you have any questions about this report, ' don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, _ Mark Stelle, Certified Arborist Enclosures: Glossary of Terrns ' Airiended 3I9i98 Pricing Set Praposal for further services - ~ ~ 8. A request for a warksession ta discuss a praposed west entry remodel to #he Mnuntain Haus; located at 292 East Meadow Drive/Park of Tract B, Vail Viliage 1 st. ~ Appilcant: Mountain Haus Condominium AssociatEOn Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. ~ Greg Moffe# asked for any applicant input. Stephanie Lord, representing the applicant, said the west entry soiution was being worked out in conjunction with.the Town's redevetapment of Slifer Ptaza. Greg Moffe# asked far any public input. There was none. John Schofield said the Town Council woutd see this. Greg Amsden had no camments. Galen Aasland stated #hat this was a long-standing problem, but i# someone built a buiiding next , ta this we could not apprave the same request. . Diane Golden had no additionai comments Greg Mof€et agreed with Galen. ~ John Schofield asked ifi Todd t7ppenheimer had anything ta do with the tree preservation plan, Greg Barrie, a landscape arehitect w?th the Town of Vai{, said he hati been working wtth the Moun#ain Naus and was trying to pu# tagether a comprehensive design with the Slifer Plaza Master Plan and said that #he Mountain Haus improvements complirnented the master plan, S#ephanie Lord said they wanted to save the narth tree, but in reaiity can't, but would put in some ornamental trees, such as crabapple, to bring same human scafe into the entry way. t3iane Golden asked if they reaily thought out the crabappie tree idea, as it might be a mess with the children playing in #he fauntarn. Ga1en Aasland agreed with Diane Golden. Stephanie Lord said they could use another kind of arnamentai tree. John Schafield said that Clark Brittain, #rom the DRB, disagreed with the loss of the 3large trees. Greg Arnsden had no additional comments. George Ruther said the applicant shoutd have a foot-to-foot mitigation plan. Greg Amsden stated they didn"t haue the ground to da that. ~ Placrniug and Enviroamental Commission Minutes 12 March 23,1498 Y Lynn Fritrlen stated the appticanfi wanted to work in canjunc#ion with the Town. George Ruther said there was no way to piant trees on the Mountairt Haus property, but other. ~ opportunities existed. - Galen Aasland sard the 3 large aspens taken out needed a foo# per foot equitabCe arrangemen#. Qreg Maffet saitl he wanted a mitigation ptan and hated ta see large evergreen trees taken out, as it was #oo urban9zir?g. He stated he wanted to see the Iocation of the mitigation as prominent as it was now. Greg Barrie said the Town was starting constructtan an the plaza irt earty May, Lynn Fri#zlen stated they needed ta get gaing in early May, but we need to final`rze our pian when the Tawn finalizes the3r plan. - Galen Aasiand said we n+eeded a commitmen# fram you as to what was being removed. Gearge 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 Vaii property. He said we would put together an easement agreement. Lynn Fritzlen said the benefit would be to enhance the restaurant downstairs which wouid be separated from the main hoteJ. She said the new impravements would solve some mechanical prablems they had and w4uld cut dawn ori odors. Greg Moffet suggested it would be a gaod space for autdoor dining. Lynn Feitzfen said we had originally thought of a sunken piaza, but the noise might be a factor. ~ She said a benefif #o the Town wfluld be tha# the securtty problems with the apen door #o the hotel frorrt 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 afready have in this Town. Greg Moffet was in agreement with Creg Amsden. George Ruther stated that ihe applicant would need a site coverage variance and setback variance and would fike to do a PEC sfrauu pott on the praposed mitigation and design. The PEC was in favor af this request by a straw paA of 5-0. 9. A request for additional GRFA utilizing the 250 flrdinance, to aflow for a remodel, located at 1998 Sunburst DrivelLoE19, Vail Valley 3rd Fi(ing. Applicant: Nate Accardo, represented by Dale Smi#h, Fritzten, Pierce Briner Architects Planner: George Ru#her iN1TNDRAWN Planuing and Exzvizoaunental Commission Minutes ~ March 23,1998 13 - . f~,, `~.._.1 _ ~ - ~ -pn ; " . Ai.TER. EdO?'ltC P'VC TO DRM - ~ - ~ ~ • ' - . _ N~(TO.iEMi . ~ . i~iAF#HOLE ' f~R ' . , :5'YtNiMt~!?"1`t~ " : 67.90 . > , 5 ` ~ 87.50 " i~ 67.44. . ,s ~ 67.26 r3. f r~ E~.~/r N~ ~ ~~U„ . _ ~ e ~ ~ ON~ ~ ~i ~ " . ~ • ~ kr~ / . 4. 66,$3 R ~ LANDSCAPE, ~.DERS ~ ~ T4 WITCH FIAGSME PAVM l+ti ; BY t7fF~ERS ~ ~ ~ ~ • , ~ i1'11'i~"' ~ OF Rri~A~~~~ + ~ `y~ ~ t * /r . ^ r~ ~ .t i .~~.•rh ~w`' . ` ~ ~ . ~ Cx~+~CREtE g*! _ . ~ BIiND '8" . , . . : ~ I CiFWN ! fi~4;$4 ~ _ [~i~AiN ~ ~ _ ~ 64.84 ` . ~ " ~ b DRAiN ~ ~ C~AV~.~s , . G . _ . , : .rO. ~ . . Y n . t{ ' •.'64..7~ GA"~•^.v f D• ~y ~ . . . ~ : ~ t / ~ . . . _ . _ S t . . _ _ - ~ ~ y? ~C~ ~ ~ . . ' . 4 ~ " ' ' ' . - - r ~ ~ ~ 4~ ~ K ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNCNG AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 13, 199$ Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Ann Bishop Russ Forrest Gaien Aasiand Mike Mallica Diane Golden Dominic Maurielln John Schofield Christie Barton Brian doyon Gearge Ruther 7om Weber Judy Rodriguez Public Hearinq 2:00 p•m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2.00 p.m. 1. Swearing in of new PEC members Brian Dayon and Tom 1Neber and reappointed PEC members Galen Aasland and Diane Golden - Lorelei Donaldson, Town Cterk. 2. Electian of 1998 Chair/Vice-Chair. Ga1en Aasland made a motion #o elect Greg Moffe# as Chair. ~ t7iane Golden seconded the motion. The mation passed by a vote af 6-0. Diane Golden made a motion to elect John Schofield as Vice-Chair. Galen Aasland seconded the mdtion. The motion passed by a vo#e of 6-0. Greg Moffe# disclosed for the record that he had had discussions with Vail Resorts. John Schafield and Galen Aasland disclosed for the recotd that they too had had discussions with Vai! Resor#s and Tom Weber disclosed that he had discussions with Design Workshop. Bob McLaurin stated regarding the Lionshead Redevelopment, that it needed to continue tn move farward and that Vail needed to reinvest to stay competitive. He commented an the disparity between the Village and Lionshead. He said the Village had 244,000 sq. ft. of retail and Lionshead had 112,000 sq. ft. of retail, breaking dawn into a retail sales tax of $20.36 per sq. ft. for the Village and $15.15 per sq. ft, for Lionshead. He said that L.ionshead needed to be more er,onomically viable. ~ Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes Aprit 13, 199$ ~ To f9,'1' OF UAtL ~ t ~ 3. A request for a recommendation to Council on Stage 3 of the Lionshead Redeuelopment Master Plan. Stage 3 includes the rationaie and desired outcomes, which establish the ~ regulatory framewark for height, mass and density of buildings in the study area. Planners: Mike MoHica/Dominic Mauriello Cansultants: Ethan Moore & David Kenyon (Design Workshop, Inc.) Mike Mollica summarized Stage 3. Ethan Moore, a consultant from Design Workshap, addressed #he camponents of the 11 /z floor: to-floor plate, the issue of geographic distributian of building heights, which referred to the entire study area. He explained that Zone A building heights referred to the platted area along West Froest Road and the tennis cour#s and the proposai was #he same as existed there now, Zone B, had a zero building heigh# with a maximum 1 story and Zone G was the rest of the geographic area. He explained haw the context of buifding height fit in with the master pfan and tafked specifically abou# what it would take to make great pedestrian spaces. He said that building height was anly one component of the entire plan and explained why the building height proposed was appropriate with what we were trying to accomplish. He explained a new graphic about how the building height praposals fit within the context of what is there today. Ethan said that the eaveline was the perceived height of the building firom the pedestrian area. He said we would address the east/west and northlsouth contex#. He then showed a graphic with the 25 - 30' street wid#h into the matl and said that by placing parameters on the core site, we can start #o create northlsouth corridors. He explained that the intent of the northlsauth buildings was not to ge# rid of all eastlwest buildings. He explained the model had two north/sauth cannections. He said the Architectural Design Guidelines would play an important role in what a develaper could do on #he site and advised the PEC not to restrict the initial size before the guidelines are developed. He stated as the developer seeks to make up the last sq. faotage, architecture would ~ be compromised. He said with less space to work with, the quali#y of the bui(ding, such as the finishes would be compromised. He advised not setting a restric#ion on the eastlwest and incentivizing the north/south. He said the additional height would allow the architect to adhere to the guidelines creatively. He again said that the perceived height was not out of cnntext, as seen by the pedestrian. Ethan said boxed flat roofs were what existed in Lionshead today and pi#ched roofs would be more dynamic. David Kenyon demans#rated using the Lazier Arcade Building model, what potentially could happen with a larger base. Ethan Moore said #he concept of north/sauth was anfy one component and northlsauth pedestrian penetrations were occurring. David Kenyon suggested the Architectura( Design Guidelines could al1ow a certain percentage of a building to be flat. Greg Moffet asked for any pubGc comments. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes Apri113, 199$ ! x Geoff Wright, with Destination Resorts who manages the Landmark, said he didn't came #o Vai! ~ in 1975 to shop. He said guests came to Vail to ski the great mountain and came in the summer for the moun#ain connections to experience the environment. He said people were not coming for the great restaurants and great shopping and is afraid Vail is going to lase some of that mountain enviranment and become an urban environment. He felt the buildings were too high but the concepts are benefiicial with the north/south. He felt 57'l2 ft. for the eastlwest would close in the Lionshead corridor. He sta#ed that Lionshead needed to redevelop, but questioned if we needed to go to those heights. He fhought the Commission shauld think of not going higher than 60' for eastJwest. He felt one more flight allowing 71' was bearable, if it was stepped back and that the 9:12 pitch could work. Geaff said his cancem was that 1 fl2' was just too high and wou(d c[ose Lionshead in. Dave Corbin, from VA, asked what the staff recommendation meant? He said as originally presen#ed, i# was an effort to get pitched roofs and thus was a well received concept. He also said a pitched roof has minimal impact, as seen from the street. He recommended bonus heights for narthlsouth massing, as you need to see through buildings for views of the mountains and not be a vrrall in front af you. He said the pedestrian level benefit must be improved and that buildings at #he stream need ta be stepped down and identified as a benefit. He stated that VA has identified #he view corridars and designed araund them. He said there were public ways in four places. He said the Tawn can't go and change the east/west easily, as VA could. He explained, taking Ethan's mode[ of 30', was not usable space because it was too deep and would get no light. He said with buildings 65` wide and 30' deep, modules would have 'la' wide hafls and the 5t7°1o site coverage would not be worth much. He hoped deCiberations didn't turn too heavily towards eastlwes#. He said if Lionshead was required to be only north/south, you would not see much happening in L.ionshead. Dave said the by-right aHowable height was the most impor#ant concept. He suggested working within #he con#ext of what is in the plaza now. He said ~ that not all buildings in Lionshead would be 102' tall, but maybe limited ta 4-6 sites and that there wouldn't be a1OQ' skyline. He said the range of possibilities in the s#afif inemo was not an unreasonable interpretation and the staffi recommendation should be supported, the memo endorsed and send this project on its way. Jim Lamont EVHA, said he met with Design Workshop and they will have the numbers in the 4th stage. He said when the numbers are seen, then there will be a final understanding of whaf wilf be approved. He said the infrastructure sites, such as the north day-skier Int, the west day-skier Iot and the service lot may need to be parking far all the new developments and new population down valley. He said when square footage af retail is doubled, as suggested by Bnb McLaurin, you end up di(uting commerciai and it remains unren#ed. He said if the height arid mass limits were changed, to do so within the existing develflpment standards. Rob l.evine, General Manager of the Antlers, said tha# L.ionshead didn't work with traffic, pedestrian access, and the lack of empfoyee housing, etc. He said the Town has to rely on private prnperty owners. He said the community can put limits on height, but what number will encourage redevelapment and what would be the overriding criteria #o get our goals accamplished. He asked if we are willing to sacrifice some of the Lionshead beauty to=have a vibrant commercial core with people in it. He said that Staff had dane an excelfent job in iden#ifying what the number should be (height, criteria, etc.). ~ Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes ~ April 13, 1998 David Kenyon said exactly the same numbers of people go from the Transportation Center ~ through to the Vista Bahn, as in L.ionshead ta the gondala, but they spend more money in the Villags than in Lionshead. He said the "less rich" don't go to Lionshead, we just need to create an environment so people would spend the same in Lionshead, Galen Rasland said he was in favor of the 11 1/2' floor-to-floor heights. He said, regarding the geographic distributian, to break out the western most area as a separate area. He envisianed that west of the Marriatt should have mnre employee housing and the parking standards should be different there. He said he was not in favor of 12:12 raofs, as the amount af sq. faotage gained gave no public benefit. He said the new heights would affiec# the people in the Landmark Building. He wanted the 5;12 iimit on the east/west buildings and the 9:12 on narthlsauth. He said we wauld need to incentivize with office space, as we need people to work in Lionshead, especially if we get 60% af the peaple to live here. Ne said there were 4 types of buildings; new buildings, existing buildings that want to upgrade; scrape existing buildings and infiill buildings. He said scraping buildings in Lionshead doesn't work thaf well, as it is presen#ed now. Galen also disclosed far the record that he did work for Bob Lazier. John Schofie{d stated that the design guidelines in the next phase wi(ibe as, or more important, than what is done tc,day. He agreed with Galen ta have design creativity maximized. Diane Golden said she was comfortable with the 11 112' floor-to-floor height and agreed with Galen that a 4th area was needed in the west end that allowed variances for height and parking. She said we were stuck with the easfJwest corridor, but thaught we had to glve heigh# bonuses for north/south. SMe said although the PEC had received a number of letters and comments from people who were worried about height, she agreed with the height that John Schofield had recommended. Mike Mollica asked Galen if he would support additionai height if it were tied in with EHU's, or ~ wifh the proposal for the 5#h and 6th floor bonus. Galen Aasland stated regarding the eastlwest, there were 4 types of buildings and a new building should be lower than 5 stories, but the northlsouth with incen#ivizing with office space could potentially be 6 stories. Tom Weber agreed with Galen's comments. He said once we got into the Architectural Design Guidefines, we could get site specific. He approved of the elements as they stood and said they v5rould work it in with the Rrchitectural design Guidelines. Brian Doyon said he was in favor of the 11' 6" floar heights and agreed with Galen that the west end should be a differen# zane, but thought 6 staries for the northlsouth might be #oo tall. He said the east/west needed the traffic flow to be considered, as the new west zone needed to have an arientation to Lionshead. Galen Aasland said the new western portion woutd be a clean slate. He said the care would have incen#ives and a different oppartunity existed west of the Marriott. Tnm Weber asked if a larger #loar-to-#Inar height would be allowed an the retail floor. Mike Mollica said the retail heights could range from 12'-17', but that the overall average was prop4sed at 11 112'. Planning and Envirortmental Commission ~ Minutes ~ April 13,1998 Greg Moffet said we have a viable economy and need to maintain it by redeveloping Lionshead. ~ He said he remembered the Design Workshap slide show emphasizing bed base, point af entries and street width. He had na problem with the fioor-to-floor height of 11' 6" and felt it could go to 12'. He agreed with Galen to carve out a Zone D, heading down towards the Holy Cross lo# and could be inferesting mixed uses, such as high density housing and quasi-industrial uses. He said the buildirig height for the north/south was an issue raised in the slide show with regard ta the street orientation. He said we needed to keep focused on orienting the streets ta north/south, as the eastlwes# spine in the Village (Gore Creek Drive) doesn'# get the traffic that Bridge Street does. He said the core site was where this was gaing to happen. Greg said the model before us today, hits the mark with 3 north/south oriented streets. He said there was some easUwest height and there needed to be density somewhere on the site. He felt, relating to the non-core area, #hat we should let people redevelop it creatively. He said alot of buildings line up north/soufh. He said outside of the core site, we stilf want to main#ain incen#ives_ Nethought the 6th floor was ok, and he didn't have as much problem with the height on the eastlwest orientation. He said he #eft close to recommending approval to Council, with the following exception, that the east/west partions south of the existing mall be provided with s#reets that are x feet wide. He said this provided Dave Corbin with the density focus and by keeping the streets, rather than the building orientation, we focus on the objective. Jahn Schofield s#ated that the Frontage Raad alignment might be changed in the future as the Archifiectural Design Guidelines are developed. Galen Aasland said he wouid like to see the VA core sife as an additional zone. Jahn Schofield said the VA site was covered in the C1 Zone. ~ Greg Moffet said he wanted 3 unobstructed north/sou#h pedestrian streets frbm the mall ata width to be determined in the Architectural Design Guidelines phase and he wanted no skyways across the streets. Diane Golden said it would be tough not to have skywalks, due to the offices. Greg Moffet said skywalks obstruct light and air and underground walks would keep the streets vital. Dave Garbin asked if Greg's 3 streets were to be pedestrian streets. Greg Maffet said, yes. Galen Aasland said we don't care what you do under the mall. David ICenyon asked far a conceptual direction regarding the new zane. Brian Doyan said the arientation should draw people into the core. Galen Aasland saw the west area as an opportunity ta start from scra#ch and it could be cansiderably denser, but not as high. Planning and Environmental Commissian ~ Minutes 5 April 13, 1998 , Ethan Moore stated these zones dealt with the issue of height in the staff inemo and regarding height, we did not see that area distinguished from the rest af the other areas. ~ Greg Moffet suggested going taller with the right use. John Schflfield thought a mix af affices could be broken out with a subzone. Greg Moffet thought the Architectural Design Guide]ines wauld cover this in the nex# phase. John Schofield said the right uses could be incorparated into the design guidel'rnes. Galen Aasland said he was not in favor of more height, just more density in the wes# araa. Planning and Environmental Commission Recommendations for the Lionshead Master Plan Stage IIf Bulk, Mass & Height 1. Motion by JohnlSecond by Galen--Vate 6-0 *Approve 11.5' average floar-to-floor buiiding height 2. Motion by JahnlSecond by Diane--Vote 6-0 *Approve geographic Area A(Forest Rd area low density residentiai) #ar building height, per staff recommendation. i 3. Motion by John/Second by Brian--Vote 6-0 "Approve geographic Area B(wetlands, creek an undeveloped open space) far building height, per s#aff recommendation. 4. 11JIa#ion by JohnfSecand by Diane--Vote 6-0 aivide Area C into 3sub-areas: Area C-1: Commercial Core areas Area C-2: Properties with frontage along the South Frontage Road {or potential frontage given realignment of S. Frontage Road) Area C-3 : Areas west af the Marriott & Vail Spa 5. Motion by John/Second by Galen--Vote 6-0 In new area C-Z (Frontage Road): Planning and Environmental Commission Minuces 6 ~ Apr'sl 13, 1998 f k EastMiest buildings: ~ w allowed by right 5 stories to eve line, pius a roof (82.5'). 2 floors bonus to eve line (max of 7 stories), plus roof cantaining 2 floors--far EHl1's, AU's, and office space, if equal amount af floor area on-site (1055). - bui{dings must step-back after 4 stories in accordance with design guidelines (Stage 1V). - buildings must s#ep-back after the 1 st story if adjacent tn pedestrian corridor in accordance with design guidelines (Stage 1V). - limited to max. roof pitch of 9 in 12. North/South buildings: - allowed by right 6 stories to eve line, plus a roaf (94'). - 2 floars bonus to eve line (max of 8 staries), plus roof containing 2 finors--for EHU's, AU's, and office space if equal amoun# of floor area on-site (117')_ - buildings must step-back after 4 stories in accordance with design guidelines (Stage 11d). - buildings must step-back after the 1 st story if adjacent to pedestrian corridor in accordance with design guidelines (Stage IV). - limited to max. of 9 in 12 roof pitch 6. Motion by John/Second by Galen--Vote 6-0 tn new area C-1 (core area): East/Vllest buildings: allowed by right 3 stories to eve line, plus a roof (485). 'f ffoor bonus to eve line (max of 4 stories), plus roof containing 1 f(oor--for EHU's, AU's, and office space if equal amaunt of floor area on-site (60'). - buildings must step-back after the 1 st story if adjacent to pedestrian corridnr in accordance with design guidelines (Stage IV). - limited to max. roof pitch of 5 in 12. NorthlSauth buildings: - allowed by right 5 stories to eve line, plus a roof (82.5"). - 2 floors bonus to eve line (max af 7 stories), plus roof cantaining 2 floors--for EHU's, AU's, and office space if equal amount af floor area on-site (105.5'). - buildings must step-back affer 4 stories in accordance wifh design guidelines (Stage IV). - maintain staff recommendation on Gore Creek and ski yard setbacks. - buildings must step-back after the 1 st story if adjacent to pedestrian corridar in accordance with design guidelines (Stage IV). - core areas (the area generally located between the Lionshead Center Building and Montaneros, south of the existing main eastlwest pedes#rian carridor) must contain 3 unobstructed {ha(zontally and vertically} north/sauth oriented pedestrian streets, of a width determined by design guidelines (S#age IV) - limited to max. of 9 in 12 roof pifch ~ Ptanning and Environmental Cotnrnission Minutes ~ Apri1 13,1998 7. Matian by John/Second by Diane--Vote 5-1 (Galen opposed to additional height in this area) ~ In new Area C-3 (west end): Within reasonable parameters, this area shali be allowed to contain greater density and building height for the development of EHU's, AU's, and ofifice space. 8. Motion by John/Second by Galen--Vo#e 6-0 Existing development may rebuild to their current number of staries, based upon the new average flotsr-ta-floor height (1 1.5'), subject to designguidelines, Nate: In all cases a sloping roof is required with redevetopment. 4. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a temporary garden cen#er, located at 2107 North Fran#age Road/unplatted, Vail das Schone. AppGcant: City Market, Inc. Planner: Christie Barton Christie Barton gave an overview of the staff inemo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant, Dave Hitfison, had any comments. He did not. John Schofield asked if area was to be fenced. Christie Barton said there would be a chain-link fence. ~ John 5chofield refierred the applicant to the DRB for the fencing material. Diane Golden asked if the applican# would be ok with staying open ane more week. 7om Weber asked if #hera wasa reason the operation was limited to 2 monfhs, as he would be inclined to add more time. Brian Doyon also requested i# remain apen at least to the following weekend and asked about the drainage and runoff from the plants. Dave Hi#tson said the drainage would operate in the snowmelt system. Greg Mflfifet said he was not crazy abaut extending the operation until the 4th of July weekend, as the parking loads were tao heavy in the parking lot. He suggested closing on the 3rd ofi July, but said he was ac#ually comfortable wifh #he dates praposed. C3ave Hittson said he could be open 5 more days of operation, but i# would take 5 days to take i# down. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes ~ ~ April 13, 1998 Diane Galden made a motion, in accordance with the staff inemo, with a change to Condition #3, ~ to have the permit available un#il July 4th, rather than June 29#h. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-1, with Greg Moffiet opposed. 5. A request far a final review af the proposed Major CC1 Exteriar Alteration to the Hong Kong Cafe Building, located at 227 Wall Street/Lot B& C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1$t Filing. Applicant: ASI Vail Land Holding, L,L.C., represented by Kathy Langenwalter Planner. George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff inemo. He entered into the recard that the 4I9198 survey of the building showed the building was 1110th of a foot aff of the property. He said that the Tawn of Vail recqgnized survey results as being accurate up to 2I1 pths of a foot, so the building was considered on the property. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Kathy Langenwalter, representing ASI, stated that as far as the five cond'rtions in the memo, #here were no problems. She commented on the two suggestions that staff made; the first being pulling the balcony out or pulling it back in, if it works with the lease agreement, the applicant woulri (ike to pull it out in order to create an additional shadow line tofollow the curve of the planter belaw. She said that since it was over TOV property, i# wnuld need to become part of the ~ lease. Tam Weber asked how #ar out the plan#er extended. George Ruther said 3'-4'. Kathy Langenwal#er said the second sUggestion that concerned her was about the awning. She showed photos of the applicant's four locations in Lionshead and the Village and the applicant preferred to keep the calnr consisten# in order to be associated with Base Mountain Sports. Greg Moffet asked for any public commen#. John Brennan, owner of Vendetta's Restaurant, said he was never informed of the March 31 st meeting and this application would impact his deck by putting it in the shade. He said the shade anaiysis was d4ne at 2 p.m. in the afternoon. He said the third floor on the Hong Kong would put his deck in the shade for apres ski and in the summer#ime for dinner. He said it would make his deck much colder in the afternoon. He said again that he was not able to voice his cnncerns at the March 31 st meeting, because he wasn't notified and asked what the process was regarding the shade analysis done by the Town. George Ruther said the adjacent notification was serrt #o the Plaza Lodge, c/o of Ron Byrne and pursuant to #he Town Gode, it does allow notification to be sent to property management far disseminatian to properties in the building. George then gave the parameters far the sun>shade anaiysis. ~ Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes April 13,1998 9 John Brennan again said this would affect his busine$s a great dea1 and his deck was with a TtJV lease and now the TOV was putting it in the shade. He said the Town was losing another ~ deck and restauran# in the TOV with the loss of the Hong Kong and now Town was losing another deck. He said approval af #his application would not be in compliance with the goals of Vail Village Master Plan, since the goals don't encourage taking away activities from decks. He also stated this addition would decrease sales tax revenues, as well as affecting 80 employees 1'rvelihood adversely. He also added that trash removal needed to be addressed, as they have always have had trash prablems. Galen Aasland asked George to review the sunlshade analysis. George Ruther said there was no rule to preclude from shading the deck. He said he had a conversation with the applicant to change the pitch, but it is the eaveline tha# casts the shadow onta the deck. Jahn Brennan said the idea ta extend his deck came up on Wednesday. Judge Vens, the Manager of Vendetta's, said he was representing the wait staff whose income was directly affected by the deck. He said there were only 8 tables on the deck with 5 in #he sun and people wait for the 5 tables in the sun. He said the shaded deck will make a difference from daily tips of $100 to $50 in tips daily. He said restaurants were essential in the TOV for tourists coming to Town. Dave Chapin said he hated to see another building go up a level in Vail, as well as hating to see Vail lose anather entertainment venue in Town. Ne said this was anbther reason ta go to Beaver Creek or to Summit County. He asked if we needed mare retail and less entertainrnent bars and restaurants. ~ Jahn Brennan asked if the shade analysis was done on the spring and fall equinox. He said with the low snow year, Vendetta's served luneh an the deck all season. Galen Aasland stated for the record that his office was in the Vllall Street Building and said that the applicant shouldn't be penalized for being the last person an the black to redevelop. He felt the dormer on the front door should be taken off and would like the deck to go back 2', as the applicant was leasing the space fnr their planters. Kathy Langenwalter said the applicant would prefer not to, as it doesn't wnrk ta reduce the square footage by 150 sq. ft. She said the applicant went before the DRB and they were comfortable with the existing situation. She said the building was limited on space, due to the elevator and twa staircases. She said according ta the shade analysis, lunch between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. would not be affected, but it woutd affect apres ski. John Schofield said the dRB expressed cancern over the roof material. Kathy Langenwalter said they would have waod shakes. Diane Gplden said althaugh we hate to lase a deck, the 3rd floor is a right. Tom Weber asked abnut height requirements. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes ~ ~ April 13, 1998 George Ruther explained the Zoning Analysis and attachments. ~ Tom Weber said he wauld be in favor of extending the deck aut. Brian Doyon suggested that the 70V loak at alternatives for Vendetta's, Mike Mo{lica said staff would work on an expansion with Vendetta's that would be favorably received by the 7own Council. Greg Moffet stated the F'EC cannot determine what use goes where. He said this was private property wi#h a use by right of the additional filoor and the PEC was not inclined ta revoke someone's private properky. He said he would like the balcany to come out. He said he was interested in seeing the awning material other than green canvas, just something more reflective af the Village. He disclosed for the recard that Base Mountain Sports was a custamer af his, but that he saw no canflict. John Schofield made a motionr in accordance with the s#aff inemo, with the addifidn #hat the balcony be extended aut in conjunctian with the planter below and #hafi the awning be a mare substantial material. Tom Weber secanded the motion. Brett Barnett, with Base Mountain Sparts, stated he had always used green awnings. Greg Moffei said he would like it #o be a different material. ~ Brett Barnett said he didn't want this to hold up the vo#e. John Schofield asked if this was something staff could approve. George Ruther said, yes. Kathy Langenwalter said the awning lent itself to canvas and was it necessary to be done in metal. Brian Dayon said the material should be a more permanent fixture. The motivn passed by a vote of 6-0. 6. A reques# for a final review of a Major CC1 Exterior Alteration and a site coverage variance, ta allow for a remodel and expansion to the SFifer Building, located at 230 Bridge StreetlLot B, Vaii Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Slifer Designs, represented by Jim Buckner Planner. George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview nf the staff inemo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything ta add. ~ Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes Apri113, 1998 Jim Buckner said that at the last meeting, it was determined that the back side of the build`mg needed to be cleaned up. ~ Galen Aasiand said the appiicant had met the requrrements for both requests. Jahn Schofield had na comments. Diane Golden said she liked the improvements. Tom Weber had no camments. Brian Doyon had na comments. Greg Mo#fet said he was in favor af this proposal. John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff inema, with the additional condition that the ea$t side of the building be cleaned up. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote 6-0. 7. A request for a site coverage variance, setback variance and additionai GRFA utilizing the 250 ardinance, to allow for a residential addition, located at 1230 Westhaven Circle/Lot 32, Glen Lyon, Applicant: Marilyn Quayie, represented by Eric Hill ~ F'lanner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overv'rew of the staffi mema. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Erich Hill said he didn`t have any idea of #he tapography, since he firs# saw this in January or February. Ne explained that the addition would be in a non-public area, with no impac# to neighbors or to the chairtif#. He said the only way to see this would be when one turned around when si#ting on the iift. He said the concerns he had with the memo were that 42% of the addition was in the setback, when with the mass and bulk of this addition, this was the best place to put this with the least degree of impact. He said that since the site was narrow, he felt going in#o the setback was warranted. He said this was a unique circumstance, because it was #lat back there. He said he disagreed wi#h the staff for the 250 request, because of the canfigura#ion of the building on the site. He then gave examples of different residences #hat similar requesfs were approved and they in the public records. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were none. Galen Aasiand said he had no problem with the setback variance, but he did have a problem with the si#e coverage variance. Planning and Environmentat Commission Minutes ~ ~ April 13, 1998 4 J John Schofieid addressed the retaining wal{s and said the walis would be considerably less than ~ on the plan. Additionally, the slope was so close ta 30°1o that the limit of site coverage was tao restrictive. Diane Galden had no commen#s. Tom Weber said the addition makes sense and he would not be against the additian on the north side ar the east side of the building, in order to get it out of the back setback. Erich Hill said it wouidn't work on the east side. Tom Weber had no additional comments. Brian Doyon said the appGeant was grading into the natural forest land by a minimum af 4'. Galen Aasland said the grade could work, and he hasn't been shown why this wasn't a special privilege. Greg Moffe# said this was a clear-cut situation af a special privilege. He said the applican# baught it knawing it was maxed aut on site coverage and the applicant naeded to figure out how to do this using the existing site caverage. Erich Hill said he wanted to table it and have the PEC look at the pas# historical preeederrts. Galen Aasland said he wauld (ook at the infarmatian, but the applicant would have to show why this was not a special privilege. ~ Galen Aasland made a motion to table this until May 11, 1998. Tom Weber seconded the motion. The mo#ion passed by a vote of 6-0. 8. A request for a building height variance, to aNow far an increase o# one-foot in building height, located at 9799 Sierra TraillLa# 17, Vail Village West First Filing. Applicant: Julia Watkins Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff inemo. Greg Mof€et asked if the applicant had anything to add, Jeff Auxier, a lacal lawyer representing the applicant, said he thought the roaf was 8.5" too high. He explained the visibfe partion of the roof was .1 of a foot tao high and explained that the footers were raised, at a considerable expense by the applicant, by one foot done in the interest of safety. He said the applicant did not realize that, until after the survey, that it would be tao high. Planning and Environmental Commission ~ Minutes April 13,1998 13 Greg Moffet asked if there were any public camments. There were none. Gaien Aasland said there was a standard and it was n6t #he job of #he PEC to set policy, but the ~ job of the ordinance. John Schofield had no comments. Diane Galden had no comments. Tom Weber had no comments. Brian Doyfln had na comments. Greg Moffet said sta#ed #hat the PEC asked a previous applicant, Hovey, to clip his roaf and Greg said he never granted a height variance. He said this was clearly a special privilege. Jeff Auxier said when building a house, surveys are not exact with a1U°lo error. He encouraged the Town to revisit the code to reinstate a 1' leeway, and that this wa$ error was less than 2°l0. Galen Aasland made a motion for denial, in accordance with the staff inemo. Diane Golden seconded the motian. The motion passed by a vate of 6-0. 9. A request for an amendment to a previously appraved plan for the Timber Fafls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Courtlunplatted. ~ Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C. Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview af the memo and recommended tabling this itam until the survey was camplete. Greg Moffet disciased for the record that Greg Amsden was a customer of his company, but he felt there was no conflict. Dominic Mauriello said AMS Development was the applicant, no# RAD. Rick Rasen, nat represenfing the applicant as an at#orney, but as a par#ner of the development, disagreed with what L7aminic said. He said one of the suggestions was ta apply for an SDD, bu# we were tald not to. He said we have been at this for 90 days and were #old fast week ta table the request. Ron Riley, the developerlowner since 1972 with Jim Reiniche began his history. He explained how they very simply recaived a building permit in 1988. He said in 1972 and 1973 we were part ofi Eagle County and the issue of annexation came up, since the TOV was interested in taking over East Vail. Ha said since we were a low density project and were comfortable with this designa#ion, we were annexed into the Town and in 1975-1977 we enjoyed a good relationship Planning and Environmental Commissian Minutes ~ April 13, 199$ 14 * . with the Town. He said at the time, the Town Manager, building inspector, and other locals lived ~ in this project and they were not given preferential treatment. He said in 1978 it was requested by the Town to have a buiid-out plan. He then showed the plan ta the Commission which was located in the Tawn files, dated December, 1978. He said this was originally not done with a grea# deal af documentation. He asked why would the TOV have this in the file if not #o establish the build-out plan on the bluff for Timber Falls? He said Haly Cross needed to have #his plan for their transformer. He said that signage was instailed in 1982 and has the building on the sign and #herefore, there was no question of its exis#ence. He said in 1991, they bought Fores# Glen and downzoned. He said they rnade sure there was no confusion of zoning that existed for Building 19 with the Forest Gfen downzoning. He said #hey have never pushed the envelope and tha# the trail of evidence was conclusive that this was the build-ou# on the bluff. Ne said these righ#s and understandings were with the Town and now are valid. Rick Rosen stated Daminic had alluded ta two things, one being density with Forest G1en. He said an SdD was provided and 23 units were given up on that site. He said we kept hearing commen#s about vested rights, but this case was nat about vssted rights. He said it was annexed in 1974 and brought into the Town of Vail with clear property rights, yet 314 of the memo was on vested property rights. He said there were documents and plans stamped by the Town located in the file and Ran Riley has continued on his property wi#h na amendmen#s since day 1. Greg Amsden said he spoke wi#h Eagle County and reviewed a(I of the file$ and could not find an approved Development Plan. He said the vested right issue came out and we have been asking how much density was allowed. He said the letter he received fram George Ruther and Tom Moorhead said it had to go before a board and Geflrge said to look a# the development plan. He said they had no concerns that this was in the plans ta begin with. He asked as the public, what are we to da when we are #old there is no development plan, when it was written al1 aver the ~ plans in the TOV fiies. He stated that this was never deeded to the associatinn, as there was no master assnciation, only individual units. John Schofield asked if the master association had been ratified. Greg Amsden said it was not final. He said the propasal was a low density solution. Ron Riley said the master association issue was tied to condominium law and although these were originally meant to stand on their own, we referred to them as a master associatian. Dominic Mauriello said there were CJRB approval forms in the file for the later phases. Galen Aasland said he had no idea of what was ultimately allawed ta be built an this site wifhou# any numbers and the app}icant needed to sit down with staff and get the numbers together. Greg Amsden suggested filing far an SDD. He said Buildings 11 and 12 were never requested to have a$4,U00 survey, so this request was irresponsible and why was this a new thought. He reminded the PEC that an 5DD rrteant it was open game and could potentially be 38,000 sq. ft. in structures. Rick Rosen said we were not arguing with GRFA, but just the number of units. He said the TOV said two units, but we had proo# of 6 units. Planning and Environmental Commission ~ Mintrtes April 13, 1998 15 iUlel Brodie, a hameowner in the affected area, said he had a problem with the sharp overhangs ~ and that he spoke with an architect #hat was active in #his community who said you couldn't put #hese two units on that site. He said the archifect said the four units proposed woufd not be able to fit, He said he couldn't see how it would work and was also in his iine of sight to the waterfail. Galen Aasland said the PEC has no idea, withou# numbers, if they were a]lawed 1 building, or 4, ar 6. Jahn Schofield said it was time ta finish this project up and get i# right. He said a survey was appropriate. Diane Golden said you have the right to build a 6 dwelling uni# building. Tom Weber said it was obvious they could build something, but it was hardto verify #he sfiar#ing point arrd he asked if the 1978 plan was what was adopted by the Town. Rnn Riley said, yes and proceeded #n explain the bui4d-out plan. Tom Weber asked if the footprints of the other buildings had changed. Ran Ri1ey said, no, except Building 19. He said they wan#ed to al#er #he 6 stacked units into duplexes. Tom Weber said the PEC needed to star# with that plan and try to verif}r it, as the lot seemed prefity smalL ~ Brian Dayon had na comments. Tam Moorhead explained the vested rights legislation. Greg Moffet summarized the degree of dacumentation. Lynn Fritzlen said she represented ane of the owners on the Lodge at Vail and said she had relied an early documentation. She $aid that density from the early 80`s did not apply. She said the canclusion she came to, as a policy making bnard, was the originaf development in the best interest of the community. She stated that in some cases there was not a black and white answer and the governing body needed to make a decisian. Greg Moffef said this laoked like an SDD s{am-dunk. John Schofield asked haw that parcef related to its surroundings. Greg Moffet asked if it was reasonable for an applicant to rely on the document trail. He said a reasona6le person acted reasonab(y over a number af years to do somefhing on this property and he felt an SDD was right for this property. Dominic Mauriello said that even wtth an SDC3, a survey of the entire developmen# wauld be required. Plaaning and Environmental Commission ~ Minutes April 13, 1998 16 m w Greg Amsden asked why you wQUid survey private property. ~ Rick Rosen said he was nat a proponent af an SDD because it changes the use of the property and we need direc#ion on where to go with this application. He felt an SD[7 would nnt be aslam dunk. He said he believed we have the documents out of the Tvwn's files that allow approximafely 38,000 sq. f#. of GRFR. He felt once they can finalize the master association, they would give up the two units and build only the four units. Greg Moffet asked far clarification an what was being amended? F2ick Rosen said we were only amending those six units and the footprint was identical. He asked why they had to do different elevations on the same building on a building site that has been in existence for aver 26 years. He said they wanted to amend the site plan of the six s#ackable units. Jahn Schofield asked what was approved and he asked if this was ever filed in the Caunty. F2on Riley said, yes, that each phase was filed. flominic Mauriello said every phase was a separate Condo Association document. Greg Moffet accepted that the replication of Building 18 was the same as Building 19. He said that anything different would require all the $pecifics of the approved. He said the applicant had wha# they always thought they had, but if something different was dnne, then the PEC wauld have to take a fook at it, ~ Mike Mollica said if there was a question whether #here were development rights, then the PEC should make a mntion to that effect. Greg Moffe# asked since the application stated an amendment to the plan, was it apprapriate to ratify this. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval that Building #1 9 is a vested right in the exact same farm, size, density, and configuration as Building #18 and that anything "in addition ta" or "different than" specifieally that, will require a review of an amended plan. John Schofield secanded the motion. The motion passsd by a vote af 6-0. Ron Riley said Farest Glen left 7.5 acres silent and since it was totally unrela#ed to the ather side would confuse the issue. John Schofie(d said the Forest Glen site was approved as an 5DD and the legal process eliminated that portion and that we were dealing with the remaining portian. Greg Amsden said the building plan for Building$ 1-20, never included the 7.5 acre piece. ~ Planning anfl Environmental Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 17 , Dominic Maurieilo asked about a process for the amendment and if #he PEC wanted them to do an amendment for an approved devetopment plan. ~ Greg Amsden suggested tabling the application. Jahn Schofield said we were amending the development plan and how it related to it. Rick Rosen said to amend the site specific Building #19. Greg Moffet asked how much GRFA and site coverage was there on the building site fflr Building #19? Dominic Mauriella said there was 19, 600 sq. ft., according to the applicant°s survey. Galen Aasland made a mo#ion to table the request tn amend a previously approved Develapment Plan until May 11, 1988. Tom Weber secpnded the mation. The motion passed by a vote af 6-0. 10. A requesf for a final review of a propased west entry remadel to the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadaw DrivelPart of Tract B, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Mountain Naus Condominium Association Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the memo ~ Tom Weber recused himself because of a business canflict. Lynn Fritzlen, from Fritzlen, Pierce, Briner Architects, said the applicant had presen#ed a tree preservation plan, with outlines to save the remaining trees and a(andscaping plan for the west entrance. Galen Aasland said he would like to see the limit of construction be main#ained over the long term. John Schafield said this was subject to a TOV lease far the right-of-way. Diane Golden had no comments. Brian Doyon had no comments. Greg Mcrffet said the proposal had met #he criteria. John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff inemo and with the condi#ion that the approval is subject to finalization of the TOV lease agreemen# regarding the right-of-way encroachment. Planning and Environmental Commission ~ Minutes April 13,199$ 18 ~ . The motion passed by a vote of 5-0-1 (Tom Weber abstained) ~ 19. R request for a minor subdivision, located at 1410 Buffehr Creek Road, Lot G-1, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 2. Applicant: Eric Johnsan, representing Leroy Schmidt Pianner: Dominic Maurisilo TABLED UNTIL APRIL 27, 1998 John Schofield made a motifln ta table item 11 until Apri127, 1998. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. 12. A request far a site coverage variance, to allow for a residential addition, located at Unit #602, Vail 21 Condaminiums, 511 East Lionshead Circle/Part of Lat 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Firs# Filing. Applicant: Bill Walker Planner: Dominic Mauriel[o WI'THDRAWN 13. A request for a side yard setback variance and a canditional use permit, to allow for the addition of a car wash, located at 2154 Sou#h Frontage Road/unplatted. ~ Applieant: Sonny Caster, GTS, Ine., d.b.a. Vail Gonoeo Service Planner: George Ruther WiTHDRAWN 14. A request for a conditional use permi# to construct four multiple-family dwelling units and variances from Section 12-7E-8 (Building Height), Section 12-7E-11 (Landscape Acea) and 5ec#ion 12-7E-7 (Setbacks), to allow far commercia{ and residential expansian, lacated at 143 E. Meadow Drive (Crossroads East Building) / l.ot P, Black 5D, Vail Village 1 st. Applican#: Crossroads Plaza, Trevma L.P., represented by Bill Pierce Planner: Dominic Maurietlo WITHDRAWN 15. Infarmation Update- George gave an update an Golden Bear would like the Board to give direction - Staff suggests this is not minor and would warrant a re-review af this application. Go back through a major exterior alteration or not. They are over budget $150,000 and cost is not a criteria. The PEC said major enough yes • 1998 PEC rep. to the DRB - Jan. - Mar. - John Schofield Apr. - Jun. - Ann Bishop ~ JuL - Sep. - Tom Weber Planning and Environmental Cornmission Minutes April 13, 199$ 19 . Oct. - Dec. - Brian Doyon Jan - Mar.'99 - Greg Moffet ~ Jahn Schofield made a motion for the 1998 PEC appointments ta the DRB. Ga1en Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. • 1998 AIPP Appointment - Diane Golden Galen Aasland made a motion for the 1998 AIPP appointment. John Schofield secanded the motian. The motion passed by a vate of 6-0. • 1998 Open Space Appoin#ment - Galen Aasfand John Schofieid made a motion for the 1998 Upen Space appointment, wi#h the term to end one year from taday, April 13, 1999. Brian Doyon seconded the mation. The motion passed by a vo#e of 6-0. 16. Approval of March 23, 1998 minutes. ~ Galen Aasland had changes ta the March 23, 1998 minutes. John Schofield made a motion for approval nf the amended minutes. Galen Aasiand seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vate of 6-0. John Schofie{d made a motion to adjourn. Brian Doyon secanded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ~ Planning and Environrnental Commission Minates April 13, 1998 20