Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-0727 PEC TWIS ITEM MAY AFFECT 1(UUR PRC?P'EF2TY PUBLIC Nt7TICE ~ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmen#al Commission of #he Town of Vail wi11 hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 af the Municipal Gode of the Town of Vail an July 27, 1998, at 2.00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. ln considera#ion of: A request for a conditional use permit to operate a bed and breakfast, (ocated a# 765 Forest Road! Lot 8, BCock 2, Vail Viltage 6th. Applicant: Tom & Cirrdy Jacobson Planner: George Ruther A request for a conditional use permit for a proposed additfon to the Vail InterFaith Chapel, located at 19 Vail Roadl Tract J, Block 7, Vail ViNage1 st. Applicant: Vail interfaith Chapel, represented by GwathmeylPratt Architects Planner: DominicMauriello A request for a major amendment to St7D #4; to a11ow for a fractionaf fee club and a change to the approved Development P1an, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Corrdominiums/ Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmarrn, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther The applications and information about the praposals are available for public inspection during ~ regular office hours in the prflject planner's office locafied at the Town o# Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Fron#age Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request wi#h 24 hour natification. Please ca11479- 2356, Teiephone for #he Hearing impaired, fnr information. Community Developmen# Department Published July 10r 9998 in the Vail Trail. ~ - it TOWN '~~.~A~ ~ : ~ PLANNING AND ENVIFt4NMENTAC CQMNi1SS1ON Updated 7122 9am MondayYJuiy, 27, 1998 AGENDA Project t3rienta#ion / LUNCN - Gommunity Develapment Deuartment 12:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Si#e Visits ; 1;15 P.M. 1. Vail Chapel - 19 Vail Road 2. Cascade Village - 1325 V1/esthaven Drive Driver. George NQTE: If the PEC hearing extends unti16:00 p.m., the boerd will breakfar dinner from 6:00 - 6:30p:m- ~ Public Hearinp - Town Council Chambers 2.04 p.m. ~ 1. A worksession #o discuss a conditianal use perrnit for a propased addition to the Vail Interfaith Chapel, lacated at 19 Vail Roadl Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Vail lntertaith Chapef, represented by Gwathrneyll'ratt Architects Planner: Dominic IVlauriello 2. A request for a major amendment ta SDD #4, #o allow for a fractianai fee cl+ab and a change to the approved Development Plan, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/ Cascade Viliage Area A. Appiicant: Geraid L. Wurhmann, represen#ed by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther 3. A request for a conditianal use. permit to operate a bed and breakfast, located at 765 Forest Road/ Lot 8, E31ock 2, VailVillage 6th. Applicant: Tom & Cindy Jacobson Pianner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN ~ 4. Information Update - ~4 row~v o~ unt~ 1 ~ 5. Approval of July 13, 1998 minutes. Upaatea 7r22 9am The appiica#ions and information about the praposais are ava}lable fot public inspectian during regular offiice hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of !/ail Community Devefopment Department, 75 South Frontage F2oad. Sign language interpretatitin available upon requestwith 24 hour notifieation. Piease ca11479-2356, Telephone for the Hearirrg Impaired, for infiormation. Community`Devefopment Department Published July 24, 9998 in the Vail 7rail. ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ Updated 7127 4pm PL.ANNING ANLZ ENVIRONMERITAL. COMN#ISSIAN Monday, July 27, 1998 FINAL AGENDA F'roject Clcientation I L.UNCH - Communi#y Development deaartr,~.ent 12:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Moffet John Schofield Galen Aasland (2:10p.m.) Diane Golden Ann Bishop E3rian Dayon Tom Weber S3te Visits ; 1,15 p.m. 1. Vail Chape! - 19 Vail Road 2. Cascade Vi11age = 1325 Vilesthaven Drive ~ Driver: Dominic . ' ~ NOTE: 1f the PEC hearing extends un#ii 6:00 p.m., the baard wili break for dinner from 6:00 6:30 p.m. Aukalic Nearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 'I. A warksession #o discuss a canditianal use permit for a proposed addi#ion to the Vail interfaith Chapel, located at 19 Vail Raad/ Tract J, Biock 7, Vail Vrllage I st. Rpplicant: Vail Interfaith Chapel, represented by GwathmeyiPratt Architec#s Planner: C7ominic Mauriella WORKSESS1aN - Nt3 VC3TE (final hearing August 24, 1998) 2. A request for a rnajor amendment to SDD #4, to albw for a fractiana( fee club and a change ta the approved Development F'1an, located a# 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/ Cascade Viiiage Area A. Appiican#: Gerald L. Wurhrnann, represented by Robby Rabinson Pianner: George Ruther ~ i`ABL.ED (to subsequent meeting, once appiieant has resaived issues with staff}. ~ ~ ro w~voFUAr~''' 1 Updated 7127 4pm ~ 3. A request for a conditianal use permit to operate a bed and breakfast, lacated at 765 FareSt ROadI LOt 8, Block Z, Vall Vliiage 6th. Applicant: Tom & Cindy Jacobsnn Planner: George Ruther WITHdRAWN 4. (nformation Update 5. Approval of July 13, 1998 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public irtspec#iprt during regular office hours in the projeat planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community iJevelopment C?epartment, 75 Sauth Frantage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 haur no#ification. Please ca11479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, fQr information. Community Development C3epartmen# ~ ~ 2 - x ~ MEMt?FiANDUM TQ: Planning and Environmental Commission FRC7M: Cornmunity Development Department DATE: Ju1y 28, 1998 SUBJECT: A worksession to discuss a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Interfaith Ghapel; located at 19 Vail Road/ Tract J, Block 7, Vail Viilage 1 st. Applicant: Vaii Interfaith Chapel, represented by Gwathmey/Pratt Architects P1anner: Dominic Maurieffo L DESCRIPTIUN 8F THE REQUEST This site is zoned General Use (GU) which aNows churches and related facilities subject tp the review and appraval of a conditianal use permit. The applicant is requesting a canditianal use permit tn allaw the construction of a new building on the premises. The propased twa-story structure will house clergy offiees and consulCatian areas. All of the existing surface parking spaces wili remain substantially as they are today and 6additional spaces will beprovided. Theexisting Chapel will also be modified interrrally by restoring lower level meeting areas, uptla#ing building systems (such as the lighting system), enlarging windows for more natural light, ~ compliance with ADA requirements, and other modificatian5. The proposed structure wiil be constructed on an area of the lot behind the existing Ghapel and a.ppears to comply with the 50' Gore Creek centerline setback and the i QU-year floodplain, as currently mapped. Adjacent to the Chapel proper#y is a portion af the 7own-awned s#ream tract. The stream tract is dedicated for open space, recreation and aecess to the Gore Creek. The Chapel's ariginal and current proposals include impravements on the fiown's stream tract. 7he Chapel obtained permission fram the Town Cauncil an August 6, 1996 ta proceed thrflugh the review process, hawever, the Council did not give wholesale approval of the encroachmentis on 7own of Vail property. Additionally, the Cauncil directed staff to minirnize the Chapei's impacts on the Town's stream tract. Staff and the Council gave the applccant general direction to maintain a 30' building setback from the top of the stream bank on the Town owned property. A letter #rom the Town of Vaii to the applicant has been provided for your re#erence. Il. ZONIIVG ANALYSIS The development standards for the GU district are determined by the PEC. The PEC must determine what deveCopment standards are needed on a site specific basis. The proposed standards are as presented on the site plan and building p(ans #or the site, ~ 1 TOWNO *VAIL 111. REVIEW CRITERIA FUR THIS REQUEST ~ The code criteria #or review of such a request are prorrided for your information. Since #his is a worksession, staff has not addressed the specific criteria. In additian #o #he conditional use crifieria, staff has included the purpose statement firom the zoning code, as we believe this will help the PEC in its evaluation of the reques#. The Vai1 Interfaith Chapel is located in the General Use (GU) zone district. According to Section 12-9G1 af the Zoning Regulations, the purpose of the GU districfi is: to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannat be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed by other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular develflpment proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12-1-2 and to provide for the public wel#are. The General Use District is in#ended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs af residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize wifh surraunding uses, and, in cases u€ buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate ta the permitted types of uses. A church shall be permitted in the (aU zane district subject to the issuance of a conditianal use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits. For the PEC"s reference, the condi#ional use permit purpose staternent indicates that; in order to provPde the flexibility necessary to achievethe objectives of this title, specified~ uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting afi a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review sa that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their affects on starraunding properties. The review pracess prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure campatibility and'harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Tawrr at large. Uses listed as canditional uses in the various districts r`nay be permittedsubject tosuch cor?ditions andlimitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation o# the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development abjectives of #he Town and will not be detrimental ta nther uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permit shall be denied. The conditional use permit consideration o# factars are as #olfows: 1. Relatianship and impact of the use on #he development objectives of the Town. 2. The effect of the use an light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schtaols, parks artd recreationfacifities, and other public facilities needs. 3. Effect upbn traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flaw and contral, access, maneurterability, and remaval of snow fr4m the street and parking areas. ~ 2 , ~ 4. Effect upan the character of the area in which the proposed use is #o be lacated, including the scale and bulk o# the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The conditional use permit findings are as follows: The Plannin and nvironmental Commission shall make the fiallowin fiindin s before qranting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accarciance with the purposes of the conditionai use permit section af the zaning cade and the purposes af the dis#rict in which the site is located. 2. That the praposed Iocation of the use and the conditions under which it wouid be operated or maintained wauld nat be detrimental ta the public health, safety, or welfare or materially irtjurious to properties ar impravements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each af the applicable provision$ of the conditianal use permit section of the zoning code, IV. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION ~ i. Stream setbaclclTown Owned Sfrearrt Tracf fln September 18, 1996, Town staff (Dominic Mauriello and Russell Forrest) met with Ned Gwathmey nn the Chapef site to discuss the issue of construction and other impacts to the Town of Vail's stream tract. At that meeting, it was agreed by the staff and Ned that a 30' setback from the top of the strearn bank would be appropriate in order tp reduee the impaet to sensitive wetland vegetation, provide for adequate access to the Town's stream tract by the public, and still allow the Chapel same flexibility with site planning by utilizing porfions of the 7own's stream tract far development. Since this property is owned by the Town o# Vail, the Town has the right to establish an acceptable building parameter or prevent development all together. Currently the coderequires a 50' setbacK #rom thecenterline of GoreCreek #or a11development adjacent to the creek. The proposed developrnent appears to rneet the 50' stream setback. Nowever, the difference with this development is that the Town owns the intervening property adjacent to the creek and the Tawn"s intended use of this property, which is consastent with the zoning on the lartd, is far open space, recreation, and access to the creek. The Town of Vail t7pen L.ands Plan identifies this specific parcel as environmentally sensi#ive andvaluable forstream access. Therefore, the imposi#ion of a greater setback (by the Town, on fihe Town's own property) in fh'rs case, is intended to preserve the use of the stream tract and at the same time allow the Ghapel some filexibility with site design on Town ofiVail properCy. The PEC, in 1996, agreed with the proposed 30' setback. As a point of information, the Eagle River Watershed Plan, which was adopted by the Town' Council, calls for a 30' setback from the high water mark aiflng the Gore Creek. ~ 3 x 2. Survey /nfarmation ~ The survey previausly submitted for the project delineates the 100ayear floadplain based on a 1975 study. The Public Works department has indicated that more recent FEMA studies have beenperfarmed, and therefare, the most recent #loddplaininformation shali beutilized #or delineating this information on the survey. Also, the survey delineates the 50' stream cen#erline setback for Gore Creek on the southern portion of the lot. Hawever, #he stream curves to #he north adjacent to the west boundary of this site. The 50' setback line must be indicated on this portion of the survey. Staff is requiring that this inforrnation be provided prior to fiinal reuiew of the condi#ional use permit by the PEC. 3. Parking There are 20 existing surface parking spaees. The proposal extends the parking area and adds 9 new parking spaces, 3 of which are tandern. The proposed building addition provides much needed of#ices to the Chapel. The seating capacity of the main Chapel remains unchanged. Most zaning codes require parking #or churches based on the seating capacity of the church, 5chool uses, offices and ather uses are not accessed. Staff believes that while there is a need for parking at the chapel, no new parking need is created by the proposed building. The addition of parking spaces will help to alleviate the parking deficiencies of the Chapel. The Zoning Regulatians currentfy does not contain a parking requirement for churehes. The PEC is required to determine the parking requirement. Staff is concerned about the use of tandem spaces and specifically the amount afi encroachment onta the Town's stream tract. Staff believes these spaces may degrade the quality ofi the stream tract. 4. StreamlWefland Vegetafion ~ The area to the west of the existing parking area has been disturbed over the years by cars parking too elose to the stream and directly upon the stream tract. Staff recommends that this area be restored with wetland vegetation and the parking area be developed in such a way as ta prevent vehicular access to this unpaved area. 5. Limits vf Disturbance The limits of site disturbance have not been indicated on the site plan. Staff believes the applicant should provide an indication of the limits of site disturbance, giving special consideration ta areas with wetland vegetation. Additionally, the plan should accurately reflect the existirrg areas of we#land vegetation. Nntificatian to the Army Corps o# Engineers will be required for wetland impaets. Sta#f believes that the appficant should indicate the iimits of si#e disturbance on the site plan {and have the site staked accordinglY} prior ta final review by the PEC. 6. Landscaped Areas . 7he proposal reduces the amount of landscaped area on-site; There is no specific landscaping criteria far #he GU zone district, however, the PEC has the discretion fio set a standard on this. site. A iandscape plan has not been provided. Staff believes this issue should be reviewed bY both the PEC and the Design Review Board. 7. Architectural Cotnpatibilify Architectural plans and elevations for the proposed structure have not been pravided for this worksession. The siting of the proposed structure behind the existing Chapel does not change the view from the pub{ic right-of-way and therefore does not detract from the prominence of the Chapel, The PEC, in 1996, agreed that the scale and architecture were appropriate to the site. ~ 4 : ~ 8. t)rairiage Adequate drainage facilities should be provided ta prevent oil and sediment fram entering Gore Creek. Staff befieves the final plans for this devebpmen# shouid address storm water drainage; V. STAFF RECt3NtMENDATiON Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed conditianal use permit for the Vail Interfaith Chapel, staff will not be providing a formal staff recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a staff recommendation at the time of fiinai PEC review. f :\everyanelpecUnemos\chapet, n 11 ~ ~ 5 r g . . • ~ Cill'~ ' TOWN oF VArL Department of Community Deueloptrtent 75 South Frontage Raari Yail, Calorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 Th' ' i 7uly 10, 199$ Ned GwathmeY . Gwathmey Pratt Arcliitec#s, P.C. 1000 South Frontage Rd., West Vai1, CO 81657 . RE: Vail Interfaith Chapel building addition, located at 19Vail RoadlTract J, B3ock 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing Dear Mr. Gwathmey: The Cammunity Development Department has reviewed the revised plans for the above referenced project. There are several issues that still need to be addressed on the site plan. There ~ are several issues that the 1'EC wanted addressed from last year. Please address the foilowing issues: Gerreral commenls: 1. Please provide an updated preliminary title report with schedules A, & B. 2. Please provide a calculation of the land area owned by the Vail Interfaith Chapel. The current survey does not provide an indication ofthe iat area. 3. The PEC requested that the buildin~ footprints of adjacent properties be placed on the site plan. Yau may want to provide a site plan at a smaller scale to show this entire site including Vail Road and adjacent properties. The Fire Department alsa needs to view this informatian. 4. The FEMA flood insurance study far this lot shows that the 100 yr, flood elevation for the east end afthis site (first +i- 60' from Vail Road) at 8,140' -8,139'. T'he contours in this area of the site are unclear as shown on the survey and it appears that the existinb Chapel is within the 100 yr. flaod plain. 7f this is the case, mitigation should be provided to protect this structure from flaod. Please show any praposed mitigation on the site plan, if applicable. A1so, indicate the finished floor elevatinn for the existing structure. Please clearly show existing and propased contours on the site plan, ~ Page1 af 3 RE'CYCLEDPri}'ER ri _i ~ 5. The Tawn Cauncil and the PEC directed the applicant to maintain a 30" setback from the top af stream bank for the proposed building located on Tawn property. The revised plan naw encroaches on that 30' setback line. Piease rnodiFy the structure to comply with this requirement. 6. Piease provide awritten statement regardinb the propased use ~.nd its effeet on the existing ChapeL The Fire Department has stated that ifthis facility is utilized as a shelter, it may be required ta be sprinkled. - ~ Buildzng plans/elevatiatrs: 1. Please provide a calculatzon afthe floor area in the existing Chapel, 2. Pravide an indication of the proposed finished floor elevation and the elevation of alI roaf ridges, as weil as the cupoia: 3. Please provide the finished floor elevation af the existing Chapel. Pat•kzng: l. Surface parkin~ spaces are required to be 19' in depth and the drive aisle must be 24' wide. Please revise the parking lot to comply with these requirements. Lanclscaping and grading plans: ~ 1. Please indicate the proposed limit of disturbance on the site plaaa. 2. Please provide a complete landscape plan which a1so addresses any wetiand restorationlznitigation, if required. 3. Please pravide a grading plan {with existing and proposed cantours} which details all proposed grading. Please also provide a profile af any retaining walls proposed. 4. Please provide a drainage plan which details how drainage is handled fram the surface parking area, subsurface parking area, and around the buiiding. If tlrainabe flows into the _ creek, an oil and sediment separator shouid be provided. - 5, Provide spot elevatians on walkways and flow lines in order to determine proper drainage. DRB submittal irifortrtatian: 1. Please provide an exterior lightin,g plan for the entire site. Providecut sheets for all proposed light fxtures and show cauformance of the lighting fixtures with the Town's lighting reguiations. 2. Please provide color samples of a11 proposed finishes on the structure. In order for this item to be reviewed by the PEC on July 27, 1998, staff' will need to receive i Page 2 of 3 revised plans by July 14, 1998. If you are unable ta rneet this deadline, let me knaw and I wiil move the item to a subsequent meeting with the PEC. Please note that most of these issues were raised in the pzevious review ofthe proposai. We will need 3 complete sets of new plans and one set of 8.5" x 11" reduced plans.. If you havt any questions, or wish to discuss any of the items that have been brought forward in the review of'this plan, please do not hesitate to ca11 me at 479-2148. . Sincerely, ~ Domi 1c F. Mauriello, AICP Chief of Planning ~ ~ Page 3 of 3 cwAtH?,Eer ~ F" l f PCOIt C./~/ ` KC"f t t \ tVE~anrai' { ` - ~ ` ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ E-{ y c~'y5 ~ 'q if w ~~r~`~,~ r~ ~ C.Sdi I ~1 (!..F . Gl t s ~ tiF. f ~ , ~ ~ ~ 3~;-•~..,.;i ~ t-~ a MANL ~ Y.ftY V/ VV r ~ ~ f 3 r e.wr ~ . NE`H~r+tsrr~}~ ~ f CEN ER BUfIDtNf'i t f \e. ~ ~ 1 \ a.5v?.oo-sorz~( ? . . ~ E3fISTING CWAPEL f,K.rn nPeaflXtMatELr 8,500,00 sQ. Fr. rtxN~cW' ~s?7-22_1to6 ~ A ~ ~ ` se'~ ~ \ ~ fP~~' < . ~FT\ ~ \ 4 e v,~.w er Fagcr ;vrenrriur[ rro K.a r ma. ve ix . n+Ff^+u~ dj14~(~OS(a6.wCf"velr~.w~ i`r}ie fYG¢~C[fY /SlNO11-0 tXhM6i r±Y~, w••-'~_ tksiniKfb~2,vai . 9 ~ f0 SY FnC - Lxf4t- ffffJD Po~hV ~.f~• ` ~ '~~~°[Yte ~ ~"-'~:..._,T. ~ Nf(jPMA.fllk/SFU?KPRCP:CO.BYNYCR(f- . . ` .YRlAP, < A. /N :Cl9S nQrt.L Sf?E PLAN axe.r.ia~.o• w~(-}-j'n ..e. a l. 1 ~ 4663 Frvkhmey ~.r n ~.r ry 2'.Ir 0 l i - ~ f I W ~ 0 ~ I [ I I ~ ~ fi- --;~--Q. _j----_-j------__--- - y ~ c~c~ 0-4 0 i - - ~ - __-_--"~1 i ~ ~ ~ GJ j k ~ - k ~ V V ~ h lURE NIGE Q ~ ~ ^ w ~ ~ f r . x E ° ° ° ~ cR c~ c~ ~ } z k ,-Z+ 7 ~4 ~ ---f- _ d Q'i W ` i 1 ; f l~; 1 I fE 7 ~ - ~ P ( Q I cED Ic, ` I« ( oI i ( L_ - ~ - ~ --J ' [wb 7-20-1948 . . Ae• . ANif~d~ z-ilm . . . . Id'-~ Iex' . . . . . . . . j I ' Rt3E1M F`FNISH SYMBD6. f KEY Td E20E}M PINlSHES . north ENTRY LEVEI. FLO012 PLAN ~ RWlf NnN[/N41HBCs ..r vM~Citumcai . . ~ ~c 0• - T-W 2,56 m.mm rLome . aasc . .&L ccIENc:~ ~~~FcS ~ . sncet xumem A~.1 ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~Q '~''m~ ww4 K t f~ M ~hrt F~ b~~f1u 8 ~ Q w~~ . 0-4 _0 - - 0 J f~ ~ ry.... t (fl " ~ ~ Z °a - a - ~I. . . . . . . .r . . ~ 15 - a I I ( f I f 1 I ~e-~• REtE7M F]NI'SH SYMHaL KEY Tfl. RQaM FINFSNES j.OWEg. LEV,~' I''~OR P nCirtF Rt1f1N MAME/NUNBER CE~LUIfi.HF . . . . . • ~~_n• _ • v vi.il[S~kV[PS SG1[. Ifl' . i'W` y-Q~W ZX "~.T~l~~ QQ.~. FLiNNt... 6qSCV0.ECSCCICRIG. . . . . shw wo- A2.2 P ~~hmay ra oaa~~s „,}°~;'T u «'E7di~~`` nr: ~ 4 _ w c+ ~ _ ~ i~t - - M~ ' _ " ~ z ~ - - - - ~ ~ - _ f-~~ ~ _ - _ ~ ~ _ _ - - - - -yL~ _ ~C ~ I ~ 1 ROOF PfFGF4 ~ z i 'i-11 TYpIGAE ~ . . . ~ . . . _ ~ ~iro,.^sp ~4er. ~ " _ •ut~ MMTf i'I _ ~ . ~ . . . • ~•~"+re w. ' . ~ ~ . . . . patci 7-22-199e' . Rwiaed I . RO{}I'' PIAN north 0 ,.,Q, . ~sn..F.qo~aer A2.3 ~ ~ ~ w ~ P Qthmey ~ ~ ' ~ . _ _ . . . . . _ . ' C . y~ - . . . . - . . - _ _ . z ~ . as a ru*w ~ f WG W4R1 f~~~* ~ . ° bTOTDf- y Ex-~ z ~ . ~ _ _ ~ wv ~ r N(1RTEi ELEVATION W W ~ ,f.• _ ~•-a~ ~ ~ ~4 ~ Z _ R•n g~.cr~v wun " .eaw ~b P~M'EL _ ~ M da1 .•1rYT-t89e~I~, `'~-----r.---~ u... - brer , . renaunxrt ' . ~~ur a WEST ELEVATION . . ShetlNUmDee A3r 1 ~ C'tvptturr. ey Pratt ~o - - n. ~~iExY~`._'~4~r•~ .~x . . ~ . . _ - _ rsx.a• ~ . . . . . _ _ , _ . . ' ~ ~ c~ _ u--- ~.a.~ N . ~ - ~ ,~~.y~ • ~ ~ °----•---.e..._~ . [[[LLL~~~ `.V _s Y4 4 _ . p'~{ ~LL H ~ . . ;~,•.a. ~r -~..__.7 ~ ~ ~ - - - - . a ~ ~ . SOUTFi ELEVATION > Z, _ o. c~ ucr prutt flisl q~.wnn J, ~t _ , - rtaaaeo:. . . PS 6ttCGo EAST ELEVATiaN w~n,ac.r . . . . mv~.r . . . . . . . . A3.2 . ,I ~ ~ ~ E p,yp thmey Pratt . / A14IG RT71G Q ' GM ctosEt L I~` unct ~ ton.e~ ron,~r ~ -e4EwnroR 0 ~ ~ , LQf1CELlY' RORt imCft 6I41R ikKMF40l ~ V ' 1 ~RUwI~LCIOR ~ w( i 1 1 ~o 0-4 ~ 64%71EW - sraiR BASEMW wnM eASBeetr T. ~ . ELEVA7Cft /\N . / ~ f~ r~`/R/ ' ~ f ? ~.rf / * \ / i`ti% ` '~Pii t/}F^'\~\/~ ~.i`~~ t~:' ~ / f i ~\i` F-I ~~~.+r ~ ~ / ~ / / i l ~ . lf l~~,F~fi f ~f ,,~!t~/,~ f ' / .~~i ~ . . . y~+' Za.: ~ SECTION - A >1 - ~i~- . ~~_a • ~ I ~ Oate.7-72-f999 Amrsad G`~~ . . . . . ~ RFICE . NKL tqLEi f k i ~i..-'-_' . . ~ , . . . . ~ .--t • ~ . . sEcTIort - s aAurm SGaEe rFt . c_p` . . ~ rr.6t~wo<ae t~. ~ _ , : . senat wtlmbm .'.ry~ . , T / . , ~ MEMt)RANDUM TO: Planning and Environmenta! Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: Ju1y 27, 1998 SUBJEGT: A request for a majar amendment to Special Development Distr+ct #4, Cascade Village, to aliow for the cbnstruction of eleven fractional fee club units, fifteen accammadation units and twenty-cane employee housing units, to be located at 1325 Westhaven Drive, Westhaven CondominiumslCascade Village Area A. Appiicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTIC)N OE THE REQUEST The applicant, Jerry Wurhman, is requesting a major amendment to Special C7evelopment Distric# #4 (Cascade Village) pursuant to Ti#1e 12, Chapter 9A of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. The major amendment is intended to modifiy a 1995 major amendrnent approval for the Westhaven Gondaminiums, (acated a# 1325 Westhaven Drive (the ~ "Ruins"). The applicant is proposing to amend the 1995 Westhaven Condominium approval to allaw fAr #he operation af a fcactional fee club. The new fractional fee club is proposed to include: ~ eleven, two-bedroom, fractional fee club units, ~ fifteen, one-bedroom accommadation units, and • twenty-one; one-bedroom employee housing units. The proposed fractional fee club units range in size from 1,175 to 1,384 square feet. fihe aceommodation units are to be 300 square feet to 762 square feet in size with the majarity being the larger size. The employee hausing units are proposed to be Type lll units and are between 450 and 500 square feet each. The on-site manager's unit is rnore than twice the size of the other emplayee units and is 1,084 square feet in size. R1{ of the emp(oyee units are intended to be one bedroam units. The applicant is proposing to meet the anticipated parking demand on-site. To meet #his need, the applicant has proposed to utilize the existing lower level parking garage as well as provide surface parking on the nor#h side of the bu'rlding: At this #ime, #he applicant is proposing 36 enclosed garage parking spaces and 10 surtace parking spaces. Of the 46 fotal spaces, four parking spaces will be handicapped accessibie. The anticipated parking need as projec#ed by the appl6cant differs fram the parking requiremen# prescribed for the various uses sutlined within the Municipal Code. The Municipal Code requires 58 pariciag spaces #atal. ~ 1 rvwnrnxr~nr~''~ { s As #his request is for an amenc(ment ta an existing Special C?evelopment District, the ~ applicant is praposing various deviatians from the required development standards. Same of the deviatians are unchanged from the existing Special Developmen# District approval, while other are to be modified as a result of the current request. The development standards that will be modified as a result of this request are: ~ Density (dwelling uni#s/acre) • Parking ~ Site Coverage • Cammon Area All ather development standards are genera(ly the sarne. A complete analysis of the zoning statistics is provided in Section III of this rnemorandum. The 1995 approval allowed for the cons#ruction of fnurteen free-market condominiurns and seventeen employee hausing units. At this time, only minor alterations are anticipated to the exterior of the building and ail the other development standards are proposed #o remain substan#ially unchanged. Il. E3AGKGRQUND On March 2, 1976, the Vaii Town Council approved Ordinance #5, Series nf 1976 establishing Speciai Development District #4, Cascade VilEage. Special Development Disfrict #4; Cascade Viilage, is rrtade up of four development areas. Area A is made up af the Gascade Hotel, Cascade Club, CMC, Millrace F'hases I through IV, Westhaven ~ Condominiums, Lif#sidelWafierford, and Gornerstone. Area 8 «the Coldstream Condominiums. Area C is made up of the Gien Lyonresidentiai duplex Iofs. Area Dis the Glen Lynn Office Building. According to the original ordinance, development statistics are prescribed for each development area. As a result, the site coverage stipulated for Area A, which is 35%, applies to approxima#ely 18 acres. Ra#her than require fhe applicant to provide a s+te caverage analysis of approximately 18 acres, in the pas#, staff has applied the development statistics to each iot individually. This has been the practice since approximately 1990. The projects fhat have been reviewed under this rnethod include . Gornerstone, Waferford, Millrace Phase III and Miilrace Phase iV, The advantage to this method is that it allows a calculation of the development statistics on the land that is being reviewed and does not require off-site analysis. tn the previous exarnples, the propQSals complied with the development statistics when calculated for the individual Io#s and the praposed drawings clearly conformed with the maximum development allowances provided fior in the SDd. When the staff reviewed the development standards on the individual parcel for this projec#, there are four development standards which the applicant's proposal exceeds. These include density, parking, si#e coverage, and comman area. The developer agrees that the request for additianal GRFA is above what the SDD allowed. Staff continues to beGeve that it is most reasonable and appropriate to evaluate each parcef within eaeh development area individually. From a record keeping point of view, s#aff believes tha# #he development standards for each parcel should be caiculated based on the area of the land under the prnposed development site. This has been the methad ~ 2 ~ used historically. Notwithstanding the simplicity of this me#had, staff acknowledges #hat the site coverage and landscaping discrepancies identified in the memo should not be viawed as significant issues as, elsewhere within Area fi, there is excess si#e coverage and landscaping which could hypcatheticaNy be shared. in 1982, the Town oF Vail issued a building permit allowing for cons#rucfion on the then undeveloped si#e. Construction cantinued thraugh the par#ial completion af the foundation and Iower level parking garage. No new construction `has occurred since: On April 19, 1995, the Vail Tawn Council approved a major amendment tp Special Development District #4. This amendment approval granted the applicant the ability ta construct fourteen firee,marketcondominiums andseventeen emp[oyee housing units= Additional deviations granted allowed far increases in GRFA, site coverage and (andscaping. No action has been taken on this appraval. This approval shaN lapse and become void perading the outcome of the current applica#ian. On March 3, 1998, the staff ine# with the Vail Town Council ta discuss the proposed development review process and ta provide the Counci4with an opporEunity to provide initial feedback and direction to the applicant, staff and PIanning and Environmental Gommissian regarding the major amendrnent reques#. The Gouncil provided the fallowing direction and feedbaek: 1. Wha# is the anticipated canstruetion #imeline? If the site is not to be developed in a reasonable time period, the existing improvements needs to be rernaved. ~ 2. The parking requirement far the develgpment shall be provided an-site. 3. A detailed plan autlining the proposed fractional fee club ownership pattern and aperation sha11 be provide for review and consideration. 4. The proposed revievu process is acceptable. On fVlarch 8, 1998, the applicant appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission for a worksession meeting #o discuss the current propasal. The purpose af this worksession was #o discuss the following issues. ~ The praposal's compliance with the Town's land use regulations. ~ The combination and integratian of the three differing types af residential uses. ~ The completeness of the major amendment applicatian. ~ The relationship of the praposed development vyith the existing impravements. ~ The Town Council's initial thbughts and comments as received on Tuesday, Mareh 3 regarding the applicant's request. ~ 3 . During this first worksession, the Commission mernbers expressed their general ~ satisfaction with the major amendment as proposed. The Cornmission did however indicate their concerns regarding the lack of an on-site front registratian and reservation desk. The Commission requested that the applicant appear at a future meeting with detailed information indicating how the an-site front desk issue was tn be addressed. According to Section 12-2-2 of the Municipal Cnde, a Fractional Fee C)ub is defined as, "A fractionat fee project in which each cnndominium unit, pursuant to recorded project documenta#ion as approved by the Tpwn of Vai1, has no fewer than six (6) and no more #han twelve (12) owners per unit and , whose use is established by a reservation system: Each of the fractiona{ fee club uni#s are made available fflr shor#-term rental in a managed program when nat in use by the club members. The project is managed on-site with a front desk operating twenty-four (24) hnurs a day, seven (7) days a week providing reservation and registration capabilifies. The project shall include or be proximate to transporta#ion, retail shops, eating and drinking establishments, and recreational facilities.," C)n April 27, 1998, the applicant again appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission for a warksession meeting to discuss the current proposal and the on-site front desk component. At that meeting, the applicant agreed to revised the proposal'to provide an an-site front desk operation as required by Sectian 12-2-2 of the Town of Vaii Municipal Code. The arnended development standards approved by the Town Councii are compared to ~ the original SDD appraval and the 1998 propcrsa(, and are listed below: 111. ZONINCa ANAL.YSIS l DEVELOPMENT STATISTICSLot Area: 0.85 acres or 37,026 sq. ft. Zoning: SDD #4 (Cascade ViNage) Development Standard ariaina# SL9D Approval 1995 Approval 1998 Proposal Height: 55' 55' 55' GF2FA: Free Market: 22,500 sq. ft. 25;644 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft Accommodation; 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ffi. 9,550 sq, ft. Fractional Fee: 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 13,860 sq. ft. EHUs: 6,400 sq. ft. _ 8,296 sa, ft, 10.731 sg. ft. Total: 28,900 sq. ft. (78%) 33,940 sq. ft. (92°/n) 34,141 sq. ft. (92%) Comrtt4n Area: 10, 115 sq. f#. (35%) 3,417 sq. ft. (10. 1 °lo) 7,054 sq. ft. (29 °/a) ~ 4 ~ Development Standard Ori inai SDL7 Ap rp aval 1995 Approvat 1998 Prap:asal density: Free Market: 20 du's 14 du's 0 du's Accommoda#ion. 0 au's 0 au's 15 au's Fractionaf Fee: 0 ffu's 0 f#u's 11 ffu's EHUs: 10 EHU's 97 EHU's 21 EHU's 30 totai units 31 to#ai units 47 total wnits (27.4 du's/ac) (23.2 du's/ac) (25.49du'sfiac) Setbacks: 20' 24' 24' Site Coverage: 35% (12,959 sq. ft.) 36.7% (93,598 sq, fit,) 38.3% (14,173 sq. ft.) Landscaping: 50% (18,513 sq. ft.) 47.9a/o (17,767 sq. ft.) 47.9% (17,767 sq. ft.) Retaining Walls: 3'16' none proposed none proposed Parking: 75°lo shall be enciosed 82°lo shall be 78°lo shaf{ 'be enclosed enclosed 44 total spaces 45 total spaces 46 total spaces Emplayee Housing: minimum of 8 units; 17 EHUs, similar to 21 EHUs, similar minimum of 648 sq, ft, each; Type III resfrictions to Type II1should not count towards restrictians ~ density ar GRFA. * for density calculation purposes, accarnmodation units are 0.5 du's, empl4yee units are 0,333 du's and f'ractionai fee club units and free market units account are 1 du. each. Westhaven Club & Lodqe Sguare Foatage Analysis Parking Area Common Employee Accommodation Fractional fiotal Area Housing Unit Fee Unit 4th F'Ioar 603 sq, ft. 2,089 sq. ft. 3,976 sq. #t. 6,668 sq. ft. 3rd Floor 925 sq, ft. 3,609 sq. ft. 6,326 sq. ft. 10,860 sg. ft. 2nd Floor 2,019 sq. f#. 1,084 sq. ft. 3;852 sq. ft, 3,558 sq: ft. 10,513 sq. ft. 1st Floor 1,492 sq. ft, 9,647 sq. ff. 11,139 sq. ft. ' Parking 11,180 sq. ft. 2,015 sg. ft. 13, 195 sq. ft, Level Total 11,180 sq. ft. 7,054 sq. ft, 10,731 sq. f#. 9,550 sq. ft. 13,860 sq, ff. 52,375 sq, ft. F ~ 5 iV. dEvEL913MEN-r REVIEw PROcESS ~ Pursuan# ta Section 12-9A-2 of the Municipal Cade, in part, a major amendmen# is defined as, "Any propasal to change uses; increase gra$s residential flaor area; change the number of dweCling or accomrnodatian units; madify, enlarge or expand any approved special development district.,, Since the applicant proposes to change the uses and change the number of dweiling and accflmmadation units, staff has identified the appiicant's request as a major amendment. In accordance with Section 12-9A-4, A-C of the Munieipal Gode, an approved development plan shall be required prior #o construction. The approved development plan shall establish requirements regulating development, uses and other acfivities in the special development district. The Planning and Environmenta{ Commission shall canduct the initial review af the amendment #o the special development distriet. The review shall take place at a regularly scheduled meeting. Falfowing the Planning and Environmental Commission's review, the Community Development Department shall farward a report #o the Town Council stating the PEC's findings and recammendations on the amendment request. The Tawn Council shail then review the application based upon the information submitted. An approval of the apptication by the Town Council shall require two readings of an ordinance. ~ V. SPEGIAL DEVELQPMENT DISTRICT REVIEW GRITERIA l"itle12, Ghapter 9 of the Tawn of Vail Municipal Code provides for the establishment of Specia( Developmen# Qistrtcts in the Tawn af Vail. According to Section 92-9A-1, the purpose nf a Special Development District is, "To encourage flexibility and creativi#y in the development of land, in acder to promnte its most appropriate use; to imprave the design characfer and quality of the new development within the Tawn; to facilitate the adequate and econnmical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic fea#ures of. open space areas; and to further the overatl goals of the community as stated in the Vaii Comprehensiue Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development District, in conjunction with the praperties underlying zone district, shaH establish the requirernents for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development Distriat." The Municipa! Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principat criteria in evaluating #he merits of the proposed Special Deve(opment District. It shall be the burden of the applican# to demonstrate that submi#tal material and the proposed development plan eamply with each of the fo(lowing standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solu#ion consistent witn the public interest has been achieved. fihe stafif has addressed each of the nine SDD review criteria beiow: ~ 6 A. Design compatibitity and sensitivity to the imrnediate environrrrent, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative ta architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation: Staff beiieves the applicant has designed a structure which rela#es weN to the site and the surrounding neighborhoad. The mass of the Wes#haven Club & Lodge is appropriate for the site and takes into consideration the massing of the buildings on the adjoining praperties. The building could s#ep down more on the eas# and west ends to insure a smaoth transitian be#ween proper#ies and does not crea#e an imposing "canyon,, along property lines. The north side of the Westhaven Club & Lodge was designed wi#h the front entrance in mind. The porte cochere entranee provides a formal entry into #he building. The exterior buifding materials ofi the Westhaven Club & Lodga are a mixture of stucco and metal. The roof materiai is proposed to be a dark green standing seam metal roof. The applicant has shown flawer boxes on the decks and balconies on the renderirig. Sta#f would recommend that the flower baxes be a required accent element on the building. The window and door trim is proposed to be bronze metal cladding. 7`he prcrposed balconies will be constructed of inetal rails and pickets. Staff belieues that the combination of building materials has been well incorpora#ed into the design nf,#he Westhaven Club & Lodge. The applicant has proposed that the exterior stucca color be an off-white #o yellowish/cream color to blend in with the ex#eriors of the ofiher buildings and struc#ures in the area. 7"he development standards far the original SDD indicate that the maximum height for ~ buiidings with sloping roofs shall be 55 feet. The applicant is requesting that the maximum building height for the Westhaven club & Lodge be 55 feet, fram finish grade. Staff believes that the height proposed by the applicant is compatible with the development and the developmen# objec#ives of the Town. B. Uses, activity and density which prcavide a compatible, efficient and workable relatianship uvith surrsrunding uses and ac#ivity. The Westhaven C{ub & Lodge is located at #he perime#er af the Cascade Village Developmen#. The Westhaven Club & Lodge is bound on the east by the Cascade Health Club, on the west by the apens space and residential development and on #he south by the Mi!! Race Coridominiums, CMC, ~and the Cascade Hotel, The applicant is proposing a Iodging, short term accommodation and residential development that is in campliance wi#h the uses aflowed in the ariginal SDD and as amended . The applicant is proposing to develop the Westhaven Club & Lodge a# a density of 25.49 dwelling uni#s per acre. Ineluded in the density figure are the eleven member-owned club units (fractinnal fee), the fifteen hotel rooms (accornmodation units) and the twenty-one employee hausing units including the on-site manager's residence. Each of the ehu's are fo be Type III Employee Housing Units. The applicant's proposal differs greatly from the original SDD approvaF. The ariginal approval aIlowed the applican# to canstruct twenty free market candorniniums and only ten ernployee hausing units. The currently prcrpasal significantly alters the use af the property from mainly second homeowner candominiurns to a lodging and short #erm ~ accommodation use of the sife. Given the proximity of #he develnpment site to the amenities in the area, the Westhaven Glub & Lodge is ideally located and suified for the propased deveiopment. 7 . ~ {3verall, s#aff believes #hat the densify and uses propased by the applicant for the ~ Wes#havenClub &Lodge do not conflict withthe compatibili#yt efficiencyor workabi[ity of the surraunding uses andlar activities, in fact, staff feels thaf the propased Westhaven Club & Lodge wi(I enhance the existing uses and activi#ies in #he area.. C. Gompiiance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Title 12, Chapter 10, ofthe Town of Vail Municipal Code. Parking and ioading requirements for develapment are established in Seetion 12-10-1 0 of the Municipal Code. The parking and loading requirements are based on the square footage of the uses propased wi#hin a building. Based on the square fiootage of #he uses proposed by the applicant, 58 parking spaces and pne (nadingldelivery berkh are required on-site. The applicant is proposing an enclosed parking structure on #he Iowest (evei of the building designed to accommodate 36 parking spaces and 10 surfaee parking spaces on the north side of the building (46 spaces total). Cln March 3, 1998, the applicant appeared before the Vai! Town Cauncil far a conceptual review and discussion of the current proposal. The Council indicated tha# the parking requirement for the development shall be met entirely on-site. The applicant is deficien# 12 parking spaces on-site (45 spaces vs. 58 spaces). The apPlicant has indicated that amble parking will be provided to accammodate the anticipated demand. The anticipated demand is thought to be less than projected by the Municipal Cade since it is believed many guests will arrive via shuttle services and that the parking standards do nat address the fractional fee clubs as accommodation units rather than dwelling units. Given Gouncil's direction, staff would recommend that the applicant exp{ore alternatives to the proposed parking situation and prpvide all of the required parking on-site. ~ The applicant is proposing one load i ng/del ivery berth in the #ran# entry d`rop-off area; located on #he north side of the building. Staff recogrrizes that this area is conueniently located near the en#rances to the front desk. However, staff feels that the use of the drop-off area rnay be compromised by the loading and dePivery af goods. Staff believes that trying to accommodate foading and delivery in this area may result in conflicts between gues#s, vehicles accessing the parking structure, and delivery trucks. D. Con#armity wi4h the applicaiale elements af the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Tawn policies artd Llrban t3esign Plan. Vail Land Use Plan The goais cpntained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidefines during the review process of establishing or amending Special Developmen# Districts. Staff has reviewed #he Vail Land Use Plan and beiieves the fallowing poiicies are relevant to #he review of this ptaposal; 'f, Genera! Growth/C?evelopment 1.1 Vail snould continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance befiween residential, cammercial and recreational uses to serve both the visifior and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quafity of #he environment including air, water, anct Qther natural ~ resources should be protected as the Town grows. 8 ~ 1,3 The quaGty of development should be maintained and upgrade whenever possible. 1.12 VaiV shoufd accommodate most of the additional grawth in existing develaped areas (infili). 3. Commercia! 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used rnore efficientiY- 3.2 The Village and L.ionshead are the best location for hrrtels #o serve #he future needs of the des#ination skier. 3.4 Commercial grawth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both lacal and visitor needs: 5. R+esidential 5.1 Quality timeshare units should be accommodated to heip keep occupancy rates up. Staff be{ieves the propcased amendment af Special Development District #4 is in concert with the goals and policies of the Vail Land Use Plan as outlined above. ~ E. Identificatian and rraotigation of naturai andlor geoiogie hazards #hat affec# the property can which #he special development dis#rict is propased. There are na natural andlflr geologic hazards, including the Gnre Creek flaodplain, that effect the appGcant's property. F. Smte plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional develcrpment responsive and sensitive to natura6 features, vegetation and averall aesthetic quality of the aommunity. The site plan currently proposed has remained relatively unchanged from the previous 1995 rnajor amendment approva4. The applicant has a{#ered the surface parking area to camply with our recently amended developmen# standards. The alterations to the parking area resuited in minor changes to the landscape plan. The changes made to the 1'andscape plan do not effect the sou#h side of the building which was highly scrutinized during the review process in 1995. 7he charrges to the plan essentially result in better accommadations for snow storage on the site. A conditian ofi fhe 1995 approval required the applicant to remove or underground the overhead utility line adjacent to the development site and to regrade and revegetate the road cut at the northwest corner of the property. Pursuant to a general note on the site plan, the applicant has indicated a commitment to regrading the r4ad cut after Holy Cross or others bury or remave the line. Staff believes tha# raad cut and revegetatian needs #a take place at the time of construction of the Westhaven Club & Lodge. Staff would recammend that the applicant be required to either relocate the ufiility iine or ~ remove the line and compSete the grading and revege#ation. 9 The app{icant is proposing #a utilize the existing street cut and entrance on the east side ~ of the proper#y adjacent to #he Cascade Club. Curren#ly, a boulder retaining wall is constructed along the entrance driveway. Staff would recommend tha# the applicant revise the site plan, grading plan; and iandscape pian to reflec# proposed irnprovements to the retaining wali. The existing waN is in disrepair and in need of work. This is especially importan# sfnce this erttrancewill be the "front door'' to theproject. Staff would recommend that the proposed improvements to the wall be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer and the pesign Review Board. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and ped'estrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulatian. The Westhaven Club & Ladge wi11 have major impac#s on the amount of pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the area. In light of the increase in traffic, the applicant has proposed aff-site and on-site vehicle and pedestrian traffic systems surrounding the property. This includes in#ernal sidewalks on the property which enable safe and efficient traffic flow as well as a five-foot wide sidewalk from the Westhaven Club & Lodge to the entrance to the Cascade Club. Staff believes that pedestrian circulation will be subs#antially improved as resul# of tlie proposaL There is an existing portion of the Town of Vail bike path which crosses the south west eorner of the applicant's property. At this tirne there is no# an established easement fior the bike path, Stat'f would recommend that the applicant be required to provide an easement for the bike path. The exact language arrd Iocation of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Tawn Attorney and Town Engineer prior to recordatian with the Eag1e Caunty Clerk and Reaarder's office. ~ H. Functional and aesthetic tandscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve na#ural features, recreatiori, views and functions. The proposed landscape plan will have important beneficial impacts on the quality of the develapment site and the surroundirrg area. The existing site has been #ermed the "ruins„ due to the dilapidated condition of the site. Staff would recammend that the fina( landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board, Staff believes the proposed streetscape improvements will improve and enhance the aesthetic quality of the area dramatically. 1. Phasing plan or subdivisiort plan fihafi wi11 mainta6n a v+rorkable, functionat and effiaient relationship thraughaut #he development of the special development district. Phasing of developmenf is not proposed. The applicant is required ta submi# a cons.truction phasing and staging plan to the Town prior to receiving a build'mg permit. The plan will be used #o errsure an efficient and workable re(ationship with surraunding uses during the developmen# of the V1/esthaven Club &Ladge. At the time of the Town CounciPs conceptual review, the Council expressed there concern and dissatisfaction with the current condition of the site. The existing 1995 amendment approval is due to lapse and become vpid pending the outcome of the 10 ~ p ' . ~ current proposa4. The {apse af the approval is in accordance with the Municipal Code which limits SDD approvals to a maximum af three years unless the projec# is diligently pursued towards completion. Staffwould recommend that a maximum of a tine year approval be granfed for the current applica#ion. Unless wack is diligentiy pursued on fhe project, the existing "ruins" shall be removed and the site restored by Uctober 31, 1999. VL STAFF RECOMMENC7ATlON The Community Development Departmen# staff recommends that the Planning and Ertvironmenta! Commission rscornmend approval of the request fior a major arnendment to Special Uevelopment Distric# #4, CascadeVillage, (ocated at 1325 Westhaven Drive tc~theVail Tawn Ccruncil. The staff believes that each of the SDD design criteria confinue to be met, as identified in Section V of this memorandum. 5hould the Planning and Environmental Commissian choose to recommend approval of the major amendment to Special C?evelopment District #4, staff would recomrnend #hat the folfowing finding be made: The Planning and Environmental Commission has held a public hearing on the major amendmen# ta Speciai aeuefopment I3istrict #4 reqaest to aliow for a fractional fee alub and a change ta the approved Developmen# Plan, bcated at 1325 Westhaven Dr,_, Westhaven Condominiums/ Gascade Village Rrea A, pursuan# ta Section 12-9A-4 of #he Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, and #inds that the propflsed major amendrnent complies with the design criteria outlined in Sectian 12-9A-8 af the Municipal Code, rneets the definition of a fractiona( fee ~ club as defined in Section 12µ2-2 of the Municipal Gode, and furthers the development goals and objec#ives af the Town af Vail. The staff has identified the following conditians of approval, which we recomrnend be included in a Planning and Environmental Commission mo#ion. 1. That the applicant appear before the 7own of Vail Design Review Board for a conceptual review of the proposed major amendment prior to appearing befiore the Vail Town Council for final consideration of the request. Any and aIl issues iden#ified by the Design Review Board at the time of the concep#ual review shail be addressed prior to appearing before the Town Cauncil. 2. That the applicant submit a detailed can#racfor's cast estimate identifying the cos#s necessary to relocate the existing ouerhead utility line along the applicant's north property underground, and that #he appiicant establish a fiinancial bond with the Town of Vai1 in the sum of 125% of the said relocafing eosts to insure the undergraunding of the utility line. 3. That the applicant regrade and revegetate the knall located at the northwest corner o# the developmen# site at the time af the final grading af the Westhaven Club & Lodge. Due ta the expasure and aspec# of the hiilside, the knoll shafl be regrading to slapes not exceeding 3:1. The regrading shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. ~ 11 4. That the app(icant provide7ype 111 Employee Housing Unit deed•restrictions , which~ comply with the Town of Vai! Emplayee Hausing Requirements (Title 12, Chapter 13, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code) for each of the 21 employee housing units, and that said deed-restricted fiousing be made available for occupancy, and that the deed restrictions be recorded at the Office of the Eagle Caunty Clerk & Recorder, prior ta requesting a Temporary Gertificate of C7ccupancy for the Viiesthaven GIub & Lodge. 5. That the applicant submit detailed civil engineering drawings of the requ'rred offi,site improverrrents (street iights, drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, grading, e#c:) to the Town of Vail Public UVorks Deparkment for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. That the applicant recard a twenty foat (20") wide pedes#rianlbike easement for that portion of pedestrian/bike path traversing the applicant's prflperty and as identified on the Topographic Map prepared by 1ntermountain Engineering Ltd., dated 12/22194, and that said easement be recorded at the cJffice of the Eagle Coun#y Clerk & Recorder, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The exact loca#ion and language of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Tawn Attorney and Town Engineer prior #o recordation. 7. That the applicant provide written dacurnerttation from the Public Service Gompany granting approval of the construction of the Vt/esthaven Club & Lodge in the loca#ion identified on the $i#e p1an re[a#ive ta the high pressure gas line. Written appraval shall be granted prior #o the issuance of a build#ng permit. 8. That the applicant record an access easement along the east property line far that ~ pflrtion ofi the driveway and access and trash enclosure which encroaches upan the adjoining property and that said easemen# be recorded at the affiee af the Eagle Cnunty Glerk Recorder. l"he exac# loca#ion and language of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attomey and Town Engineer prior to recorda#ion: 9. That the applicant exptore aIternatives #o the proposed parking pIan and prnvide all of the required parking spaces (58) on-si#e as requested by the Vai! Town Couneil. 10. That the final landscape p1an and architectural elevations be reviewed and approveci by the Town of Vail Design Review Board. 11, That the approval of this major arnendrnent to Special Development District #4 shall become lapsed and void one year from the date of asecond reading of an ordinance amending the district, and that should the approval lapse, the applicant shall be required ta remove the "°ruins" and restore and revegetate the site by no iater than October 31, 1999. 12. That the applican# revise and submit an amended site plan, Jandscape plan, and grading p1an indicating imprauements to the existing boulder re#aining wali alang the east side of the access driveway. Each of the plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Town staff and the Design Review Board. ~ 12 ~ PLANNING AND ENVIRUNMENTAL COM11iIISSIt)N July 27, 1998 Minu#es MEMBERS PRLSENT: MEMBERS flBSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Dorninic MauraeHo Galen Aasland (arrived at 2:10 p.m.) Judy Radriguez Diane Golden John Schofiield Ann Bishop Tam UVeber Brian Doyon Public Hearinq 2.00 p:m. The meeting was caHed to order by Greg Mof#et at 2:00 p.m. 1. A worksessiQn to discuss a conditianal use permit for a propased addition to the Vail Interfaith Chape(, located at 19 Vail Road/ Tract J, Block 7, Vail Viflage 1 st. Applicant: Vail Interfaith Chapel, represented by GwathrneylPratt Architects Planner; Dominic Mauriella ~ Daminic MaurieNo gaue an overview of the memo and said staff's only concern were the 3' parking places Ioca#ed in the stream tract. Greg Moffet asked for any pubiic comments. There was nane. s Ned Gwathmey, the architect, stated the applicant would remove the 3 parking places. Ann Bishop said this was a great plan and she looked forward to it. Diane Go3den had no comments. Tom Weber had no camments. John Schofield asked about the appiicant's position regarding the strearnwalk at t'he Ghapel'. Ned Gwathmey said the streamwalk had not been discussed. Rev. Car1 Walker, President of the Vail Religious Foundation, agreed that the streamwaik had never been discussed, but they were in favor of a streamwalk. John Schofieid suggested that the fiinal landscape plan provide #or a streamwaik access, since it ient itseff ve?y welf to the streamwalk. ~ Planning and Environmental Commissian Minu#es 7uly 27,1998 ~ e „ Greg Moffet suggested puiling back the parking spaces to be fiush with the other spaces. ~ Dominic Mauriello asked if the PEC had a problem with the parking and ifi stafif addressed it we1'1 enough in the memo. John Schofield said he had na problem, uniess the lower ievel were to be #inished of#. Greg Moffet stated as presented, he didn't see a problem, unless anather use happened on the downstairs deck. Caien Aasland arrived at 2:10 p.m. 2. A request far a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for a fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development Plan, loeated at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Candorniniums/ Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther Dominic Mauriello gave an averview af the staff inemo in George's absence. Jerry Wurhmann said he was agreeable with the conditions. He said the biggest issue was the parking issue. He said they had revised #he plans af the advice of the PEC, to incorparate the front desk and office operatian. Ne said the definition af transient flaw units in Ordinance 8 stated one parking piace per unit vuas all that was required. He suggested` that the lodging units be Iaoked at as transient units and not residential units. He said with that eoncept we would ~ contorm, but if looked at as residentiafi units, we wouldn't conform. Greg Moffet asked for any pub{ic comment. There was none. I3ominic Mauriello said the transient units were treated as accammodation units. Greg Moffet asked if the parking for fractional fee units was defined in the code, or interpreted by staff. Daminic Mauriello said the PEG could interpret the definition and parking allocation. Tom Weber had no comments about the parking requirernent. He said the lobby was a big impravement. He said he was>concerned about the pedestrian entrance off the street. He said he would like to see the daorway more architecturally interesting and reviewed by the DRB. Jerry Wurhmann explained the doorway entrance. Greg Moffet asked if they wanted to create an impressipn of an entrance at that location. Tom Weber said to treat the entrance so it was iess of a hale in the wall. He said to give the door some type of imporCance and agafn directed the DRR to Iook at it. He asked if service vehicles would park at the porte cochere and to investigate relocating the service entrance away from the public entrance. Planning and Envirpnmentat Comrnission ~ Minutes July 27, 1998 2 e a ~ Jerry Wurhmann said the service would be coming in through the garage. He said he did not know what the exact head height would be, but it would not be more than 12'. Brian doyon said he had similar concerns that the parking spaces were too tight for a normal size vehicle. He said there was no way far vehicles ta turn araund in #he porCe cochere and to have all the larger vehicles back nut would be dangerous. He said there is a parking area but not a turning area and it would be a turning area only if no parking was happening there. Galen Aasland said it was an 'ieither/or " situation and #herefore fhe plan needed to address parking and the loading requirements. Brian Dayon said one of the uses couldn't happen if vans dropped off people in the winter, as it would be impossible and if UP5 and Varrs were there, at would leave r?a parking. Jerry Wurhmann said service vehicles would be there duringtneweek. Tom Weber said to investigate a service entrance that had separate uses from the public. Brian Doyon said he wants to see a turning area that does not contain parking. Jerry Wurhmann explained there would be no retail or fnod service. Dominic Mauriello summarized the Commissioner°s comments by stating trash trucks and other service vehicles needed to be accornmodated, so they eould exit the site in a forward position ~ and whiie on-site, not interfere with the parking areas. Diane Golden asked where the 4 handicapped parking spaces were. Greg Mo#fet said when guests fedex skis and baggage, there could be a#air amount af delivery. Dominic Mauriella said the PEC could flag it as a condition. Greg Moffet said we share the concern acrass the board. Brian Doyon asked if there was a seating area in the lobby. Jerry Wurhmann said, no. - - - John Schafiefd said he was mQre concerned with parking that didn't wark, as well as the sizes and quality of spaces alsa being a factor. He Said that the outside north side parking in the winter months, going uphill into a snow storage area would diminish parking in the winter months dramatically. He said loading would nat work at all and was not acceptable. He then asked the applicant about the fractional fee operational p(an. Jerry Wurhmann said they had nat decided an a format for the aperational plan, but could operate an a rotating priarity basis, as the Rustria Haus was planning. He said they would like some levels of inembershsp with preferential treatment to platinum members, as apposed to bronze members. Ne said #his was a variation to the standard way of operatican. He said the Westhaven Craup would have an an-site manager and will s'tafF the desk as needed with a full- ~ time person on the weekends. Ne said #hat the ordinance required full-time staffing. Plauning and Environmental Commissian IVlinutes July 27, 1998 3 Dominic Maurie(io said if construction was not started within one year, this woultl go back to a ~ clean sheet of paper. Galen Aasland shared concerns that the parking didn't wark, as welf as the number af spaces. He said the theater parking was using the ruins for parking now and that this project should not add to the challenges af Cascade Village, He said he would like to see a workable parking pian befare this gets approved. dominic MaurieNo said that Cauncii had directed the parking to be resolved. Galen Aasland sta#ed that when this is approved by Gouncil, the appiicant should have 1 year to put a cap on the ruins and Galen fe(t that 60 days after approval, bond aut to put a cap an it after 1 year. He thaught that should be one of the things the fiown should get out af this project. He also said he wanted annther condition that the front desk should have a deed restriction to have the Tflwn hold the condo owners to this requirement, Ann Bishop agreed with Gaien and said it was discussed with the applicant at #he last meeting to have a full-time front desk person and parking plan approved by staff. Diane Golden said she had nothing new to add, but questioned the 4 handicapped parking spaces required ay code as being excessive. Jerry Wurhmann said there wauld be a full-fiime resident liue-in rnanager. Greg Moffet felt the front desk proposal was more than adequate. Ne said the units with kitchens were configured like condos, and the transient difference was the kitchen. He said hotei room, ~ loads, rather than cando loads, should determ#ne the parking. Ne said the loading, delirrery and turning radius was horrific in front of this buiiding and he wanted to send the applicant back to the drawing board on this issue. He feit the Westhaven door should be invisible, as he did not want anyone pulling up to the curb at that entrance. He suggested, rather than pushing fnr a vote af denial, tabling this item. He said Council would reject it and by tabling this, it would save a few ` weeks in the process. Jerry Wurhmann asked for the PEC to clarify the parking issae; if there was enaugh parking with the number of spaces. , Tom Weber said he was not opposed to the transient idea, but he wauld need to review transient housing regulations. Brian doyon said he would like to see 45 parking spaces, not including the handicapped spaces, for a total of 49 spaces, with the loading and uniaading area not a part of the turning area, John Schofield' said the quality af spaces in the parking garage between the two columns in #he structure was limited tfl a compact car. He said he was concerned that e##ectively you don't have twa spaces, even thaugh you shaw #wo spaces. He said you could not access the trash. Galen Aasland agreed with Brian and John and stated #hat this needed to be a workable scheme and not an eitherlor situation. I'lanning and Envieonmental Comniission ~ Minutes ruty 27> 1998 4 ~ Ann Bishop said she agreed with the Commissioners and had nothing further to add. Diane Golden was comfartabie with 46 spaces and said history dictated that fractionai fee units didn't use al( the parking spaces assigned. Greg Moffefi said he agreed with Diane and that he was ok with the number of spaces, even' though they were tight. He summarized the Board being unanimous on the issue of having to handie the loading and delivery di#ferently and the majority of the PEC wanted more and bigger spaces. Ga(en Aasland suggested repourirtg and reducing the coiumns, Greg Moffet asked if the applicant was required to pravide parking for #he EHIJ's. Jerry UVurhmann said they wanted ta provide parking fiar Che EWIJ's and that they would work with staff to resoive these issues, Galen Aasland moved #o table this item to a subsequent meeting; ance the applicant had resolved all of the issues wi#h staff. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The mation passed by a vote of 7-0. Dominic Maurieilo suggested to Galen to think about a condition of providing a bond in 60 days. ~ 3. A request #ar a conditianal use permit ta aperate a bed and breakfast, lacated at 765 Forest Road! Lat 8, Block 2, Vail Village 6th, Applicant: Tom & Cindy Jacobson P1anner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 4. lnfcrrmation Update 5. Approval o# July 13, 1998 minutes. Tom Weber made a motion ta apprave the minutes as amendede Brian Doyon seconded the motiQn. The motion passed by a vate of 7-0. Greg Mofifet directed staff to ascertain massive fines to the 1-70 noise issue. He said the first step wouid be if there was a legal limat to draft a noise ordinance and if the #ine was high enough, enforcement would do it by itse4#. ~ 1'knniug and Environmental Commission Minutes 3n1y27, 199 8 5 . John Schofield said a camera couid be set up, with a ticket sent through the maal or stopping ~ offenders immediately and imposing the fine. Ann Bishop made a motion to adjourn. Tom Weber seconded the motian. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m. ~ Plarmiing and Envuonmentai Gonunission ~ Minutes July 27, 1998 6